The adoption of Monotheism from Polytheism

[ShamashUruk]

I expect that there will be disagreement's with my posting, please feel free to comment and respond as necessary.

Polytheism is the belief in multiple Gods, the recognition of a Supreme God over other Gods is Henotheism, and Monotheism is the worship of one God.

Actually in Sumer (which is the land, people, language encompassed within Mesopotamia) they would have had city-states and worshiped their respective male or female God(s) according to their city-state. So their Male or Female God was respective to the area, but also people in their homes would have worshiped their personal God both male and female as well. Also in each culture there is a supreme deity above all the Gods.

Polytheism renders anthropmorophology as well theophany, but we also see theophany in Biblical myths with appearance of the Biblical hero Jesus.

Also adaptation of polytheism in each pantheon for the cultures were only adoption of the idea not the Male or Female God itself. Best way to compare this, USA has a president, Mexico has a president. The example is that Mexico adopts the idea of a president, while USA may have originally had the idea of a president. So both countries have a president, but the president may not do exactly what the other president does. That is a reflection on the cultures; we even see this in Canaanite Polytheism and Israelite Polytheism. For example the Biblical hymn of Psalm 148:7 calls on the cosmic sea creature Tannin to join in praising Yahweh. Tannin being a Canaanite deity is given recognition in Biblical texts, and called to praise Yahweh in this passage. Mesopotamian culture, too, regarded monstrous creatures as subservient to deities, so the kindly attitude toward cosmic monsters is not an Israelite innovation.

The comparison of Christian to Polytheistic religions is interesting, as the Bible unlike the literature of Sumer is not written in Cuneiform. Cuneiform is a post deluge writing that predates the Biblical literature itself. Cuneiform at least in Sumer, is written in the language of Sumer a pre Semitic aggulagnative language, while the Biblical literature is Semitic based tongue, so the even the linguistics dictate that the writing of Sumer is much older. Meaning if the people of Sumer were polytheistic, and the language of the bible is monotheistic, we see themes of polytheism being much older than themes of monotheism.

Benevolent deities are often rendered anthropomorphically, whereas destructive divinities appear as monstrous in character. Moreover, theriomorphic representations reflect the dichotomy between deities and cosmic enemies. Whereas cosmic enemies are monstrous or undomesticated, the animals associated with benevolent deities (“attribute animals”) lie within the orbit of cultural domestication.

Here is a Biblical example, El often bears the title, “Bull” (CAT 1.1 III 26, IV 12, V 22; 1.2 I 16, 33, 36, III 16, 17, 19, 21; 1.3 IV 54, V 10, 35; 1.4 I 4, II 10, III 31, IV 39, 47; 1.6 IV 10, VI 26, 26; cf. 1.128.7). In this connection, the personal name ’iltr, “El is Bull,” may be noted (4.607.32).37 Baal is presented as a bull-calf (1.5 V 17–21; 1.10 II–III, esp. III 33–37; cf. 1.11; see more later), and here we may note P. The characterization of the bull as the storm-god’s “attribute animal” in Syrian glyptic.

In this connection, the bull or bull-calf mentioned in the Bible may reflect the iconography associated with El and Baal. El’s iconographic representation may underlie the image of the divine as having horns “like the horns of the wild ox” in Numbers 24:8, for this passage shows other marks of language associated with El. Many scholars are inclined to see El’s rather than Baal’s iconography behind the famous “golden calf” of Exodus 32 and the bull images erected by Jeroboam I at Bethel and Dan (1 Kings 12), but this iconography has been traced back to Baal as well. Here we might include not only the depiction of Baal in the Ugaritic texts but also the “fierce young bull” (symbol) of the storm-god, Adad. Nonetheless, the tradition in ancient Israel favors Bethel originally as an old cult-site of the god El (secondarily overlaid—if not identified—with the cult of Yahweh), perhaps as the place-name Bethel (literally, “house of El”) would suggest (Genesis 28:10–22).

Monotheism appears clearly in biblical texts dating to the sixth century, and it is possible to push back this date by a century depending on how the point is argued; in either case, monotheism seems to represent an inner-Israelite development over hundreds of years, not a feature known from Israel’s inception. While Polytheism, in contrast, is represented by many different bodies of texts from ancient Mesopotamian cities such as Assur and Babylon; many sites in Syria including the Bronze Age cities of Ebla, Ugarit, Mari, and Emar; and finally, early Israel itself as well as its Iron Age neighbors. The timing of the emergence of Israelite monotheism in the late Iron Age fits what has been called the “Axial Age” by the philosopher Karl Jaspers and his followers, a period in world history (ca. 800–200) that “witnessed the emergence of revolutionary new understandings of human understanding,” including the awareness of “the separation between transcendent and mundane spheres of reality.” This periodization of intellectual and spiritual horizons represents a broad generalization, but it illustrates how the religious worldview of early, pre-monotheistic Israel (ca. 1200–800) shares as much, if not more, with the religious outlook expressed in the texts from Ugarit (ca. 1350–1150) than with later Israel (ca. 800–200) and the monotheistic faith it eventually produced.

What is an ilu? The Akkadian term for God, in order to state comparisons between Christianity and Paganism (Polytheism), you'd have to structure a divinity between the two belief systems. A basic approach to this question would be to take an inventory of figures called “divine” (Akkadian ilu, Ugaritic ’il, BH ’e ̄l). Such a list in different Semitic languages would turn up not only major deities but also a wide variety of other phenomena: monstrous cosmic enemies; demons; some living kings; dead kings or the dead more generally; deities’ images and standards as well as standing stones; and other cultic items and places. In addition to words for “divine,” Akkadian uses a special sign (called a “determinative”) to mark divinity. The special sign for divinity applies not only to deities but also to many other phenomena such as demons, stars, the images of monstrous creatures, the determined order (sˇimtu), and legendary human heroes of old, such as Gilgamesh and Enkidu. On the whole, such an inventory suggests that divinity was attributed not only to major and minor deities but to a whole host of associated phenomena. It is further evident that distinctions were recognized among the figures and phenomena called “divine.”

In this inventory one feature stands out: apart from cult objects and places, divinity seemed to betoken status or being significantly greater than that of human beings. In general, to be divine is not to be human. So the Mesopotamian god Erra is accused of behavior inappropriate to his assigned status: “You changed your divine nature and made yourself like a mortal.” Yahweh reminds Hosea’s audience (Hosea 11:9): “For I am a god and not a man” (kıˆ ’e ̄l ’a ̄no ̄kıˆ weˇlo ̄’-’ıˆsˇ; cf. 1 Samuel 15:29; Isaiah 31:3, Ezekiel 28:2, 9, Job 9:32). Deities and people generally constitute two different divisions within reality (Akkadian ilu ̄/ila ̄ni u amelu ̄tu; Ugaritic 36 ’ilm wnsˇm, CAT 1.4 VII 51; BH ’eˇlo ̄hıˆm wa’aˇna ̄sˇıˆm, Judges 9:9, 13; Qumran Hebrew ’lym w’nsˇym, The War Scroll, 1QM 1:11). That humanity and divinity fall in two generally incommensurate categories37 represents only a beginning point for understanding either one. In one sense we are never too far from this point in discussing divinity in the ancient Middle East. We often see how divinity and humanity are distinguished and yet treated as analogous. In itself, this approach will take us, however, only a certain distance in the discussion of divinity.

The problem of discussing Christianity as its own origin is that it is not essentially, it is an adaptation (rightfully so) of older stories.

There is a story of a tower called Babel meant to reach Heaven in Biblical Mythology, wherein the Biblical God destroys the tower and splits or divides the languages. There is a much older story called Enki confusing the languages, Enki a God of Sumer, confuses the languages, the interpretation was done by Samual Noah Kramer, kind of an interesting read. And, so many other stories in Biblical literature echo those older stories. Such as Noah being an adoption of the epic of Ziusudra who is faced with a flood, the parallels in both stories are similar. One interesting fact about the Biblical story of Noah is the use of the word Tēvāh.

The biblical word Tēvāh, which is used for the arks of Noah and Moses, occurs nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible. The flood and baby episodes are thus deliberately associated and linked in Hebrew just as the Atrahasis and Sargon Arks are linked associatively in Babylonia. Now for something extraordinary: no one knows what language tēvāh is or what it means. The word for the wood, gopher, is likewise used nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible and no one knows what language or what kind of wood it is. This is a peculiar state of affairs for one of the most famous and influential paragraphs in all of the world’s writing!

The associated words kopher, ‘bitumen’, and kāphar, ‘to smear on’, are also to be found nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible, but, significantly, they came from Babylonia with the narrative itself, deriving from Akkadian kupru, ‘bitumen’, and kapāru, ‘to smear on’. In view of this it is logical to expect that tēvāh and gopher are similarly loanwords from Babylonian Akkadian into Hebrew, but there has been no convincing candidate for either word. Suggestions have been made for gopher-wood, but the identification, or the non-Hebrew word that lies behind it, remains open. Ideas have also been put forward over the centuries concerning the word tēvāh, some linking it – because Moses was in Egypt – with the ancient Egyptian word thebet, meaning ‘box’ or ‘coffin’, but these have ended nowhere. The most likely explanation is that tēvāh, like other ark words, reflects a Babylonian word.

A cuneiform tablet dealing with boats from around 500 BC, now in the British Museum, mentions a kind of boat called a ṭubbû which is found at a river crossing, apparently as part of a vessel swap among boatmen:

“… a boat (eleppu) which is six cubits wide at the beam, a ṭubbû which is at the crossing, and a boat (eleppu) five and a half (cubits) wide at the beam which is at the bridge, they exchanged for (?) one boat which is five cubits wide at the beam.”

In conclusion you cannot necessarily have original Christian ideas without Polytheistic influence, and if those older cultures were polytheistic, this means the Monotheistic ideals come from Polytheism.

Sources:

• A DICTIONARY OF ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN MYTHOLOGY GWENDOLYN LEICK

• ANCIENT ISRAELITE LITERATURE IN ITS CULTURAL CONTEXT JOHN H WALTON

• THE ARK BEFORE NOAH IRVING FINKEL

• YAHWEH AND GODS AND GODDESSES OF CANAAN JOHN DAY

• THE ORIGINS OF BIBLICAL MONOTHEISM ISRAEL’S POLYTHEISTIC BACKGROUND AND THE UGARITIC TEXTS MARK S. SMITH

• INVENTING GOD’S LAW HOW THE COVENANT CODE OF THE BIBLE USED AND REVISED THE LAWS OF HAMMURABI DAVID P. WRIGHT

• THE EARLY HISTORY OF GOD YAHWEH AND OTHER DEITIES IN ANCIENT ISRAEL MARK S. SMITH

• GODS DEMONS AND SYMBOLS OF ANCIENT MESOPOTAMIA GREEN AND BLACK

• THE ANTEDILUVIAN ORIGIN OF EVIL IN THE MESOPOTAMIAN AND JEWISH TRADITIONS A COMPARATIVE STUDY

• HISTORY OF BIBLICAL ISRAEL MAJOR PROBLEMS AND MINOR ISSUES ABRAHAM MALAMAT

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

This is a false premise, so nothing that follows(in this post or future posts, unless and until YHWH permits repentance)
from such a false premise can be true or helpful.

The problem of discussing Christianity as its own origin is that it is not essentially, it is an adaptation (rightfully so) of older stories.

 

[ShamashUruk]

Well I think you are replying to "The problem of discussing Christianity as its own origin is that it is not essentially, it is an adaptation (rightfully so) of older stories."

First I'd like to know how it is a false premise? Please provide how it is a false premise.

To further my contention, we can take the story of Adam and Eve and its Sumerian references, Adam and Eve live in an idyllic garden, and Eve presents Adam with a fruit that he is not supposed to eat. In the earlier Sumerian version, Enki is presented with fruits that he should not eat by his minister Isimud.

The garden itself is interesting for its parallels in Sumerian, and later Babylonian cultures. The gods were said to like plants and growing things. For this reason Temples had farms and gardens. Ziggurats were given gardens that made the long ascent up to the most holy of places at their tops more pleasant.

Even the word Eden comes from Sumer. It is derived from Edin meaning steppe plain or grazing land. The Sumerian word implied that it was between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers as that would be the logical place for such a land.

In one of the Gilgamesh writings Inanna had a garden of her own. In that garden she had a tree. At the base of this tree was a snake. In Genesis 3:1 there was also a tree and a snake. Rather than being a threat, this snake was more of a tempter.

In Genesis 4:15 Cain is banished to the land of Nod, a place east of Edin. If we take the garden as being the fertile crescent that is made lush between the Tigris and the Euphrates, then the land of Nod would be the Island of Dilmun.

The land of Dilmun itself is closely associated with gardens. The myth of Enki and the Garden is set in Dilmun. Utu, the sun god, was even said to bring fresh water up from the ground to water Dilmun.

On their own each of these things is little more than an interesting coincidence. Together these coincidences paint a picture of the sort of background that inspired the first parts of Genesis.

 

[PhantomGaze]

In conclusion you cannot necessarily have original Christian ideas without Polytheistic influence, and if those older cultures were polytheistic, this means the Monotheistic ideals come from Polytheism.

Well, it's certainly true that contemporary Christian ideas are influenced by the culture it is responding to. Similarly, there are definitely parts of the Bible that were responses to literature and cultures of the time. I don't see why this is really any kind of issue. I figured it was just a given. That said, I think you make a bit of a leap in your conclusion "this means the monotheistic ideals come from polytheism". It is one thing to discuss cultural influence, this has a lot to do with content in terms of issues to be engaged, metaphors, and terminology, but I would say it is something entirely different to claim that Monotheism necessarily "came from" polytheism. In the story of Abraham, Abraham has a direct experience with God. Now he may have been henotheist, but as Jewish Monotheism may have developed as a logical extension of Abraham's Henotheism, it would be more accurate to say that Monotheism was a result of direct experience with God.

 

[ShamashUruk]

Well, it's certainly true that contemporary Christian ideas are influenced by the culture it is responding to. Similarly, there are definitely parts of the Bible that were responses to literature and cultures of the time. I don't see why this is really any kind of issue. I figured it was just a given. That said, I think you make a bit of a leap in your conclusion "this means the monotheistic ideals come from polytheism". It is one thing to discuss cultural influence, this has a lot to do with content in terms of issues to be engaged, metaphors, and terminology, but I would say it is something entirely different to claim that Monotheism necessarily "came from" polytheism. In the story of Abraham, Abraham has a direct experience with God. Now he may have been henotheist, but as Jewish Monotheism may have developed as a logical extension of Abraham's Henotheism, it would be more accurate to say that Monotheism was a result of direct experience with God.

I have a few questions before I begin:


1) Exactly what parts of the Bible were responses to literature and cultures of the time? Please explain and please further explain how those culture's and literature worked.


2) Please explain how cultural influence worked. One example I provide is the word Tevah and how it does not equate to gopher wood in the Noahinc epic of the deluge. Also, considering that Cuneiform is a post deluge writing. By post deluge I mean the much earlier epic of Ziusudra.


I would contend that you really cannot have Christian ideas without Judaic ideas, and before that the ideas would have been of the ancient Israelite's. Adaptation goes from culture to culture and if you read what I posted above I make a comparison of the US having a president and Mexico having a president and how one adapts from the other.


I am not under any impression that I am making any kind of a leap in my conclusion. There are a few reasons why, the people of Sumer would have spoke a Non Semitic aggulagnative language, the people of Sumer are polytheistic. While much later on when Akkad conquers Sumer they invent the first Semitic tongue, of course linguistics doesn't say much to the languages, with the exception that the people of Sumer are polytheistic and speak a Pre Semitic tongue. The Israelite's would obviously have spoken a Semitic based tongue, and in 1258 BC there is a peace treaty between Egypt and the Hittite's, who the Hittite's spoke an Indo-Euro tongue.


(History Begins at Sumer)

by author: Samual Noah Kramer


Also a little on El, El often bears the title, “Bull” (CAT 1.1 III 26, IV 12, V 22; 1.2 I 16, 33, 36, III 16, 17, 19, 21; 1.3 IV 54, V 10, 35; 1.4 I 4, II 10, III 31, IV 39, 47; 1.6 IV 10, VI 26, 26; cf. 1.128.7). In this connection, the personal name ’iltr, “El is Bull,” may be noted (4.607.32).37 Baal is presented as a bull-calf (1.5 V 17–21; 1.10 II–III, esp. III 33–37; cf. 1.11; see more later), and here we may note P. The characterization of the bull as the storm-god’s “attribute animal” in Syrian glyptic.


In this connection, the bull or bull-calf mentioned in the Bible may reflect the iconography associated with El and Baal. El’s iconographic representation may underlie the image of the divine as having horns “like the horns of the wild ox” in Numbers 24:8, for this passage shows other marks of language associated with El. Many scholars are inclined to see El’s rather than Baal’s iconography behind the famous “golden calf” of Exodus 32 and the bull images erected by Jeroboam I at Bethel and Dan (1 Kings 12), but this iconography has been traced back to Baal as well. Here we might include not only the depiction of Baal in the Ugaritic texts but also the “fierce young bull” (symbol) of the storm-god, Adad. Nonetheless, the tradition in ancient Israel favors Bethel originally as an old cult-site of the god El (secondarily overlaid—if not identified—with the cult of Yahweh), perhaps as the place-name Bethel (literally, “house of El”) would suggest (Genesis 28:10–22).


On Abraham, the 'original' name of the patriarch 'abram belongs to the common stock of West Semitic names known since the beginning of the second millennium BCE. It is a contracted form of 'iibiram (HALAT 9; DE VAUX 1968:11; I Kgs 16:32; Num 16:1; 26:9; Ps 106:17), written abrn in Ugarit (KTU 4.352:2,4 =IA-bi-ra-mul;; PRU 3,20; 5,85:10: 107:8, cf. also Mari, H. B. HUFFMO AbraJuim is an extended form of 'abram. The extension is rather due to reverence and distinction than dialectic variance. In historical times, tradition-enfirmed by folkloristic etymology (Gen 17:5; Neh 9:7)-knew the patriach only by his name 'abraJuim (Mic 7:20; Ps 47:10 etc.). At one time the patriarchs were interpreted as local Canaanite deities, or in terms of a~tral myth, particularly Abrnham. since he was; associated with centres of the Mesopotamian -moon cult (Ur and -Haran).-Sarah was equated with the moon-goddess and Abraham's father -Terah with the moon (= Yerah). Though in biblical tradition, there are allusions to the ancient cults of Abraham's place of origin (Josh 24:2), Tracing the origins of Abraham within the complicated traditions of the Pentateuch is extremely difficult. Pentateuch traditions picture him as the founder of a number of cult-places Abraham has an important place as far as gender law is considered in the ancient Hebraic sense, as the wife has limited jurisdiction and Sarah has to get authority from Abraham to chastise Hagar. Abraham is presented in the Bible as having come from Mesopotamia. The descendants of Abraham spent centuries in Egypt and then came to dwell in the midst of a Canaanite civilization. The language spoken by the Israelite's is historically related to the languages of the Semitic world around them. Copies of ancient Near Eastern literature have been discovered in the excavations of Israelite cities.


(Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible)

by authors: Karel van der Toom, Bob Becking, Pieter W. van der Horst


Please explain further based on my postings and based on my aforementioned postings.

 

[ShamashUruk]

I have a few questions before I begin:


1) Exactly what parts of the Bible were responses to literature and cultures of the time? Please explain and please further explain how those culture's and literature worked.


2) Please explain how cultural influence worked. One example I provide is the word Tevah and how it does not equate to gopher wood in the Noahinc epic of the deluge. Also, considering that Cuneiform is a post deluge writing. By post deluge I mean the much earlier epic of Ziusudra.

3) I have posted below on El bearing the title Bull, it is in bold can you please explain.

I would contend that you really cannot have Christian ideas without Judaic ideas, and before that the ideas would have been of the ancient Israelite's. Adaptation goes from culture to culture and if you read what I posted above I make a comparison of the US having a president and Mexico having a president and how one adapts from the other.

I am not under any impression that I am making any kind of a leap in my conclusion. There are a few reasons why, the people of Sumer would have spoke a Non Semitic aggulagnative language, the people of Sumer are polytheistic. While much later on when Akkad conquers Sumer they invent the first Semitic tongue, of course linguistics doesn't say much to the languages, with the exception that the people of Sumer are polytheistic and speak a Pre Semitic tongue. The Israelite's would obviously have spoken a Semitic based tongue, and in 1258 BC there is a peace treaty between Egypt and the Hittite's, who the Hittite's spoke an Indo-Euro tongue.


(History Begins at Sumer)

by author: Samual Noah Kramer


Also a little on El, El often bears the title, “Bull” (CAT 1.1 III 26, IV 12, V 22; 1.2 I 16, 33, 36, III 16, 17, 19, 21; 1.3 IV 54, V 10, 35; 1.4 I 4, II 10, III 31, IV 39, 47; 1.6 IV 10, VI 26, 26; cf. 1.128.7). In this connection, the personal name ’iltr, “El is Bull,” may be noted (4.607.32).37 Baal is presented as a bull-calf (1.5 V 17–21; 1.10 II–III, esp. III 33–37; cf. 1.11; see more later), and here we may note P. The characterization of the bull as the storm-god’s “attribute animal” in Syrian glyptic.


In this connection, the bull or bull-calf mentioned in the Bible may reflect the iconography associated with El and Baal. El’s iconographic representation may underlie the image of the divine as having horns “like the horns of the wild ox” in Numbers 24:8, for this passage shows other marks of language associated with El. Many scholars are inclined to see El’s rather than Baal’s iconography behind the famous “golden calf” of Exodus 32 and the bull images erected by Jeroboam I at Bethel and Dan (1 Kings 12), but this iconography has been traced back to Baal as well. Here we might include not only the depiction of Baal in the Ugaritic texts but also the “fierce young bull” (symbol) of the storm-god, Adad. Nonetheless, the tradition in ancient Israel favors Bethel originally as an old cult-site of the god El (secondarily overlaid—if not identified—with the cult of Yahweh), perhaps as the place-name Bethel (literally, “house of El”) would suggest (Genesis 28:10–22).


On Abraham, the 'original' name of the patriarch 'abram belongs to the common stock of West Semitic names known since the beginning of the second millennium BCE. It is a contracted form of 'iibiram (HALAT 9; DE VAUX 1968:11; I Kgs 16:32; Num 16:1; 26:9; Ps 106:17), written abrn in Ugarit (KTU 4.352:2,4 =IA-bi-ra-mul;; PRU 3,20; 5,85:10: 107:8, cf. also Mari, H. B. HUFFMO AbraJuim is an extended form of 'abram. The extension is rather due to reverence and distinction than dialectic variance. In historical times, tradition-enfirmed by folkloristic etymology (Gen 17:5; Neh 9:7)-knew the patriach only by his name 'abraJuim (Mic 7:20; Ps 47:10 etc.). At one time the patriarchs were interpreted as local Canaanite deities, or in terms of a~tral myth, particularly Abrnham. since he was; associated with centres of the Mesopotamian -moon cult (Ur and -Haran).-Sarah was equated with the moon-goddess and Abraham's father -Terah with the moon (= Yerah). Though in biblical tradition, there are allusions to the ancient cults of Abraham's place of origin (Josh 24:2), Tracing the origins of Abraham within the complicated traditions of the Pentateuch is extremely difficult. Pentateuch traditions picture him as the founder of a number of cult-places Abraham has an important place as far as gender law is considered in the ancient Hebraic sense, as the wife has limited jurisdiction and Sarah has to get authority from Abraham to chastise Hagar. Abraham is presented in the Bible as having come from Mesopotamia. The descendants of Abraham spent centuries in Egypt and then came to dwell in the midst of a Canaanite civilization. The language spoken by the Israelite's is historically related to the languages of the Semitic world around them. Copies of ancient Near Eastern literature have been discovered in the excavations of Israelite cities.


(Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible)

by authors: Karel van der Toom, Bob Becking, Pieter W. van der Horst


Please explain further based on my postings and based on my aforementioned postings.

 

[PhantomGaze]

You've given me quite a bit to respond to here, so I'll have to get to it after work, but for now, do you remember what I said about language?
In ancient Hebrew, El became a generic term for god.

 

[ShamashUruk]

I am looking at your previous postings, and I do not see anything in it about Ancient Hebrew and El becoming a term for God. No matter, the language of the Hebrew a Semitic based language, develops from Canaanite language (Canaanite languages). Hence the ancient Israelite's languages was that of Canaan. Concerning El as a generic term for God. In the Old Testament Yahweh is frequently called El. The question is raised whether Yahweh was a form of the god El from the beginning or whether they were separate deities who only became equated later. The Old Testament itself indicates some sense of discontinuity as well as continuity, in that both the E and P sources imply that the patriarchs did not know the name Yahweh and that this was first revealed to Moses (Exod. 3.13-15, E; 6.2-3, P), in contrast to the J source, where the name Yahweh was already known in primaeval times (Gen. 4.26). The P
source specifically states that the patriarchs had previously known God
under the name El-Shaddai (Exod. 6.3).

In the nineteenth century J. Wellhausen believed Yahweh to be the same as El, and more recently this has been particularly argued by P.M. Cross and J.C. de Moor. However, the following arguments may be brought against this. First, in the Ugaritic texts the god El is revealed to be wholly benevolent in nature, whereas Yahweh has a fierce as well as a kind side.

Secondly, as T.N.D. Mettinger has rightly emphasized,the earliest evidence, such as that found in Judg. 5.4-5, associates Yahweh with the storm, which was not something with which El was connected at all. Rather, this is reminiscent of Baal. Thirdly, as for P.M. Cross's view that Yahweh was originally a part of El's cultic title, 'El who creates hosts' ('il duyahwl saba'dt), this is pure speculation. The formula in question is nowhere attested, whether inside or outside the Bible. Cross's reasons for thinking that yhwh sb't cannot simply mean 'Lord of hosts', namely, that a proper name should not appear in the construct, is incorrect.

Further, hyh (hwh) is not attested in Hebrew in the hiphil ('cause to be', 'create'), though this is the case in Aramaic and Syriac. Yahweh in any case more likely means 'he is' (qal) rather than 'he causes to be/creates' (hiphil): to suppose otherwise requires emendation of the Hebrew text in Exod. 3.14 ('ehyeh, 'I am'), which explains the name Yahweh. I conclude, therefore, that El and Yahweh were originally distinct deities that became amalgamated. This view
was held as long ago as F.K. Movers, and has been argued since by scholars such as O. Eissfeldt and T.N.D. Mettinger.

It is interesting that the Old Testament has no qualms in equating Yahweh with El, something which stands in marked contrast to its vehement opposition to Baal, let alone the equation of Yahweh with Baal (cf. Hos. 2.18 [ET 16]). This must reflect a favourable judgment on El's characteristic attributes: as supreme deity, creator god and one possessed of wisdom, El was deemed wholly fit to be equated with Yahweh. Baal, on the other hand, was not only subordinate to the chief god El,but was also considered to be dead in the underworld for half the year, something hardly compatible with Yahweh, who 'will neither slumber nor sleep' (Ps. 121.4).


Since Yahweh and El were originally separate deities, the question is raised where Yahweh originated. Yahweh himself does not appear to have been a Canaanite god in origin: for example, he does not appear in the Ugaritic pantheon lists. Most scholars who have written on the subject during recent decades support the idea that Yahweh had his origins outside the land of Israel to the south, in the area of Midian (cf. Judg. 5.4-5; Deut. 33.2; Hab. 3.3, 7) and there has been an increasing tendency to locate Mt Sinai and Kadesh in N.W. Arabia rather than the
Sinai peninsula itself.

The former view, long held by German scholars, has been supported by evidence of a civilization in the Hejaz area in N. W. Arabia (Midian) in the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age, in contrast to the general lack of this in this period in the Sinai peninsula. Also, the epithet 'Yahweh of Teman' in one of the Kuntillet 'Ajrud inscriptions fits in with this. References to the Shasu Yahweh in Egyptian texts alongside the Shasu Seir may also be cited in support. Though M.C. Astour has questioned this, claiming that the reference was not to Seir in Edom but to Sarara in Syria, on balance, however, the Egyptian Scrr still seems more likely to be a slip for S 'r (Seir) than the name Sarara.

A plausible case can be made that several of the El epithets referred to in Genesis in connection with patriarchal religion do indeed derive from the worship of the Canaanite god El (El-Shaddai, El-Olam, El-Bethel, and possibly El-Elyon). As Eissfeldt and others have also noted, the promises of progeny to the patriarchs bear comparison with the promise of progeny by the god El to Keret and Aqhat in the Ugaritic texts. Although no one can today maintain that the patriarchal narratives are historical accounts, there are grounds for believing that their depiction of an El religion does at least in part reflect something of pre-monarchical religion, however much it has been overlaid by later accretions. In favour of a pre-monarchic El religion amongst the Hebrews one may first of all
note the very name Israel, meaning probably 'El will rule', a name already attested in the late thirteenth century BCE on the stele of the Egyptian pharaoh Merneptah. It is surely an indication of El's early importance that the very name of the people incorporates the name of the god El. Secondly, as various scholars have noted, prior to the rise of the monarchy theophoric personal names including the name 'el are very common, whereas explicitly Yahwistic personal names are very rare (apart from Joshua only five from the Judges period).

Granted that El and Yahweh were originally separate deities who became equated, the question now arises what was the nature of El's influence on the depiction of Yahweh. Here several points emerge which will be discussed under the following headings.

Yaweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan by author: John Day

Also, Bible paints Abraham engaged in ceremonies with Melchizedek who is a Canaanite priest, hence polytheistic. Unless you think otherwise about Melchizedek.

 

[PhantomGaze]

The question is raised whether Yahweh was a form of the god El from the beginning or whether they were separate deities who only became equated later.

No that wasn't what I was saying. I was saying El was a generic name for any god, this could be Yahweh, baal, molech, etc.

I am looking at your previous postings, and I do not see anything in it about Ancient Hebrew and El becoming a term for God.

Hebrew was influenced by Canaanites, in their language, hence "El" as a generic term for God.

Don't have time to respond to as much as I thought, larger response will come later.

 

[ShamashUruk]

While I understand you assert that the Israelite's associated El as a generic term for Yahweh, Ba'al, not necessarily Moloch and in a way Moloch as at one time Moloch is associated in Canaan, however much earlier Moloch is Malku in Akkadian (Pre-Canaan) and simply is a "king, prince". And even Strong's concordance interprets Malku as royalty, reign, kingdom. Furthermore which period in Canaan adopts El as a general term? For this would be like assuming that Canaan only has one period in history when it has more than that. The Israelite's are a mix of races of people from the land of Canaan (in Bible mythology Abraham enters into Canaan, so this indicates the beginning of the Israelite's, hence a mix of races from Canaan), so their influence is directly their own. It would be like stating the Egyptians were influenced by the Egyptians, when this is not true they were influenced by the nomads of the Sahara, little cool fact the Pyramids are not influenced by the Ziggaurats of Sumer, more on that later. El isn't a Monotheistic term either, it comes from the Polytheistic culture of Canaan, even Abraham becomes a Patriarch in Canaan and this is a Polytheistic term not a Monotheistic term.

a little on Molech/Moloch from, prince/king:

dictionary of deities and demons in the bible by authors: Karel van der Toom, Bob Becking, Pieter W. van der Horst

The text is way too long to post, but I recommend you check out that reference material, see pages 539-542 (http://www.friendsofsabbath.org/Fur...ionary-of-Deities-and-Demons-in-the-Bible.pdf)

A little on Abraham:

The 'original' name of the patriarch 'abram belongs to the common stock of West Semitic names known since the beginning of the second millennium BCE. It is a contracted form of 'iibiram (HALAT 9; DE VAUX 1968:11; I Kgs 16:32; Num 16:1; 26:9; Ps 106:17), written abrn in Ugarit (KTU 4.352:2,4 =IA-bi-ra-mul;; PRU 3,20; 5,85:10: 107:8, cf. also Mari, H. B. HUFFMO AbraJuim is an extended form of 'abram. The extension is rather due to reverence and distinction than dialectic variance. In historical times, tradition-enfirmed by folkloristic etymology (Gen 17:5; Neh 9:7)-knew the patriach only by his name 'abraJuim (Mic 7:20; Ps 47:10 etc.). At one time the patriarchs were interpreted as local Canaanite deities, or in terms of astral myth, particularly Abrnham. since he was; associated with centres of the Mesopotamian -moon cult (Ur and -Haran).-Sarah was equated with the moon-goddess and Abraham's father -Terah with the moon (= Yerah). Though in biblical tradition, there are allusions to the ancient cults of Abraham's place of origin (Josh 24:2), Tracing the origins of Abraham within the complicated traditions of the Pentateuch is extremely difficult. Pentateuch traditions picture him as the founder of a number of cult-places Abraham has an important place as far as gender law is considered in the ancient Hebraic sense, as the wife has limited jurisdiction and Sarah has to get authority from Abraham to chastise Hagar. Abraham is presented in the Bible as having come from Mesopotamia. The descendants of Abraham spent centuries in Egypt and then came to dwell in the midst of a Canaanite civilization. The language spoken by the Israelite's is historically related to the languages of the Semitic world around them. Copies of ancient Near Eastern literature have been discovered in the excavations of Israelite cities.

dictionary of deities and demons in the bible by authors: Karel van der Toom, Bob Becking, Pieter W. van der Horst

Sorry if I posted in the wrong section, I am new to this, but yes so far an interesting discussion we are having. The problem is that Christianity shamefully denies its pagan history, the Bible even references Polytheism in its own right. For example Psalms calls in Tannin to rejoice in praise of Yahweh and Tannin is a Canaanite sea monster in Canaan, Phoenician, and Hebrew mythology used as a symbol of chaos and evil.

The biblical hymn of Psalm 148:7 calls on the cosmic sea creature Tannin to join in praising Yahweh. Mesopotamian culture, too, regarded monstrous creatures as subservient to deities, so the kindly attitude toward cosmic monsters may not be an Israelite innovation.

If Tannin is not an Israelite invention, and also belongs to the older cultures of the Phoenician and Canaanite's then Psalm 148:7 is doing more than recognizing one cosmic force over another, it is acknowledging the existance of those cosmic forces within the other culture's while attempting to place Yahwey a cosmic deity over Tannin another cosmic deity, just showing one deity controlling another. Yet the idea originally is born out of Mesopotamia (land of Canaan), so you cannot state that when Israel adopts these concepts they are their own, or Monotheistic in origin.

 

[PhantomGaze]

Ok, let's roll with your ideas (which according to a google search seem suspiciously word for word from other text walls I've seen around the internet) and say that Abraham is a symbolic figure that is just very meaningful in Israel's Narrative history.

It doesn't imply God didn't personally reveal himself to man in our first encounter with him, only that it wasn't Abraham that he revealed himself to. Trying to argue that God "evolved" out of some amalgamation of polytheistic deities and syncretism is still assuming a lot. Of course technically this can be true in a place where God identifies as one of the already present Gods, but I find this less likely.

more recently this has been particularly argued by P.M. Cross and J.C. de Moor. However, the following arguments may be brought against this.

And what would Cross and Moor say about these arguments you've brought up?

 

[ShamashUruk]

Before we go on I am posting in Ethics & Morality, I have another post there which I may use here as well. But, this blog or post is meant to begin a debate, not actually have one, so I have moved to that side of the forum.

Some of the postings are actually mine, I also go by Enki or Enkiofmesopotamia (some of my postings are on debating christianity), but so much of the information is from my digital reference material, which critiques Judaic, Christian, and Islamic texts as well.

Sure I don't disagree that Abraham (the common stock West Semitic name) is a symbolic hero and patriarch for the Israelite's (who are originally a mix of races from Canaan), but keep in mind Abraham would come from Ur originally, which is later Ur of Chaldeas.

Dictionary of Demons and Deities in the Bible

The implication is that Abraham comes from Polytheistic Ur or Uruk in Sumer, and enters into Polytheistic Canaan, and if in Canaan Abraham engages in ceremonies with Melchizedek that is not an indication of Monotheism at all. So the revealing of a "One God" to Abraham would have been Abraham's personal God. I see little indication that there is a separation of El being a Monotheistic deity, and if Yahweh is head of their Pantheon among other Yahwehistic cults, this is indication of Polytheism, not Monotheism. I do have references on that, would you like me to post? Keep in mind I do name my sources.

Concerning God "evolving" from Polytheism, we see parallels in the creation epic of Genesis in earlier creation epics such as Eridu-Genesis, Atum, Enki and Ninmah, even the Babylonian creation epics such as the Enuma Elis. These creation epics of course vary from culture to cultures, so what makes the Biblical creation epic so much more believeable than the others? I will use from my other post.


Biblical monotheism places its beginning with a creation epic of 7 days, 7 being a holy number in Sumer, Sumerian's being polytheist. But more so there is also emphasis on a story of Adam and Eve, however, Adam and Eve weren't penned until St. Moses (at least most scholars agree) would have penned that particular story and around 1700 BC. The garden itself is interesting for its parallels in Sumerian, and later Babylonian cultures. The gods were said to like plants and growing things. For this reason Temples had farms and gardens. Ziggurats were given gardens that made the long ascent up to the most holy of places at their tops more pleasant.

Even the word Eden comes from Sumer. It is derived from Edin meaning steppe plain or grazing land. The Sumerian word implied that it was between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers as that would be the logical place for such a land.

In one of the Gilgamesh writings Inanna had a garden of her own. In that garden she had a tree. At the base of this tree was a snake. In Genesis 3:1 there was also a tree and a snake. Rather than being a threat, this snake was more of a tempter.

In Genesis 4:15 Cain is banished to the land of Nod, a place east of Edin. If we take the garden as being the fertile crescent that is made lush between the Tigris and the Euphrates, then the land of Nod would be the Island of Dilmun.

The land of Dilmun itself is closely associated with gardens. The myth of Enki and the Garden is set in Dilmun. Utu, the sun god, was even said to bring fresh water up from the ground to water Dilmun.

On their own each of these things is little more than an interesting coincidence. Together these coincidences paint a picture of the sort of background that inspired the first parts of Genesis.

We can also look into linguistics, and see that the first languages come out of Sumer, not Isreal, and the people of Sumer are not Monotheistic. So they wouldn't have had an idea of Monotheism, let alone know what a "One God" was, in their own city-states they would have worshiped a God of the city-state and in their homes their own personal God.

P.M. Cross and J.C. de Moor. only assert that " Yahweh to be the same as El", however in the Ugaritic texts the god El is revealed to be wholly benevolent in nature, whereas Yahweh has a fierce as well as a kind side. So it can be debated that El and Yahweh are not the same deities in the Israelite Pantheon.

I saw something earlier in one of the postings concerning the Sabbath "How to answer a Seven Day Adventist in regards to the true Sabbath", and here is a quick view of the text "Sabbath ordinances were tied to temple worship. The Sabbath was designated on a day of the week. The Lord of the Sabbath came on Pentecost. Jesus said, no longer will true worshippers worship God outwardly, within the context of temple worship, rather they will worship God inwardly, within the Spiritual Temple of the body, where the Holy Ghost resides." For the most part I don't disagree with the article, however that isn't the earliest "Sabbath" mention. A group called he Melammu project a group of researchers and scholars(The Melammu Project) also provide on the Sabbath, or šapattu which for Mesopotamian's is the fifteenth day of the month when the moon was full, ‘the day of peace of heart’. This was the moon’s least dangerous phase between rising up from the Underworld, which was inhabited by potentially vindictive ghosts, and descending back into it, I will link it here(The Melammu Project).

A little on the Holy Trinity:

Was the Holy Trinity originally viewed as Father, _Mother_ and son? Interesting quote from Lapinkivi.

-The Holy Spirit as a female divinity.-
"The portrayal of the Word of God as a female entity in Judaism (Shekhinah) has a parallel in Mesopotamia: Ištar as the Word of God. In the Assyrian oracles, called the “words of Ištar,” the goddess speaks as the mother aspect of the supreme god, but can also be viewed as god’s “spirit” or “breath,” which resides in the heart of the prophet, inspires him or her, and speaks through his or her lips, thus being the functional equivalent of the Biblical “Spirit of God” (the “Holy Spirit”).
It should be noted that the Biblical Holy Spirit was likewise originally female, and the masculine gender of the Christian Holy Spirit (the third Person of the Trinity) is only the result of a relatively late (4th century) development. Thus, in both cases, the word of God is viewed as a female entity that unites with a human: with the prophet in Assyria, and with the Zaddiq in Jewish mysticism. The Christian Holy Spirit has been equated with the Old Testament prophetic Spirit since the early second century and made explicit in the formulation of the Nicene Creed (4th century): “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who … has spoken through the prophets.”

Lapinkivi 2004, 228 Lapinkivi, Pirjo. The Sumerian Sacred Marriage in the Light of Comparative Evidence. State Archives of Assyria Studies 15. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Coprus Project 2004.

 

[PhantomGaze]

Unfortunately, I just wrote out a long post... and it took over an hour, but it was deleted when I tried to post. I'll get back to this later.

 

[PhantomGaze]

.

 

[PhantomGaze]

So this is my remake of the longer response I was writing, I know it has been a while in coming, but details take time. I ignored a lot of the things I considered irrelevant. Feel free to bring something up if you think I missed something important.

Before we go on I am posting in Ethics & Morality, I have another post there which I may use here as well. But, this blog or post is meant to begin a debate, not actually have one, so I have moved to that side of the forum.

I don't think this is the most conducive environment for the kind of discussion you want to have. If you're really hoping to start a wider debate, you would be better off publishing your arguments in academic literature, and defending them in the ensuing discussion.

The implication is that Abraham comes from Polytheistic Ur or Uruk in Sumer, and enters into Polytheistic Canaan, and if in Canaan Abraham engages in ceremonies with Melchizedek that is not an indication of Monotheism at all. So the revealing of a "One God" to Abraham would have been Abraham's personal God. I see little indication that there is a separation of El being a Monotheistic deity, and if Yahweh is head of their Pantheon among other Yahwehistic cults, this is indication of Polytheism, not Monotheism. I do have references on that, would you like me to post? Keep in mind I do name my sources.

Melchizedek is said to be a Priest of El Elyon, (God Most High), it is important to note that El is never used in the Bible to mean a personal Caananite deity in the Bible, it is only ever used as a generic term for God,* So Elyon is the only possibility for a personal name of a deity in this case, but there is no such deity outside the Bible** and "most high" is never attributed to El in the Ugaritic texts***

*Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic; Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973.

**Dr. Richard Hess, Earl S. Kalland Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages at Denver Seminary
Jewish Beliefs About God | Reasonable Faith
***Korpel, Marjo Christina Annette. Theologische. A Rift in the Clouds : Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine. Munster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1990.

Concerning God "evolving" from Polytheism, we see parallels in the creation epic of Genesis in earlier creation epics such as Eridu-Genesis, Atum, Enki and Ninmah, even the Babylonian creation epics such as the Enuma Elis. These creation epics of course vary from culture to cultures, so what makes the Biblical creation epic so much more believeable than the others? I will use from my other post.

It's not an issue of being believable, it's an issue of having a distinct theology. Sure, symbols and motifs might be the same, as Genesis was written in large part as a response to other creation narratives, but more as a rebuttal or an alternative with a distinct theology for Israel as opposed to a syncretism, or adoption. (iow "Marduk didn't create the world, Yahweh did" human nature isn't like that, it's like this… etc )

Biblical monotheism places its beginning with a creation epic of 7 days, 7 being a holy number in Sumer, Sumerian's being polytheist. But more so there is also emphasis on a story of Adam and Eve, however, Adam and Eve weren't penned until St. Moses (at least most scholars agree) would have penned that particular story and around 1700 BC. The garden itself is interesting for its parallels in Sumerian, and later Babylonian cultures. The gods were said to like plants and growing things. For this reason Temples had farms and gardens. Ziggurats were given gardens that made the long ascent up to the most holy of places at their tops more pleasant.

Gardens, snakes, trees, these are all motifs, they're details yes, but they're not really any evidence of theological adaption, the similarities are about communicating to their culture. As I've noted, they teach a distinctive theology. If I were a literalist though, I might argue that these things are merely evidence of people making mistakes about the real story.

Even the word Eden comes from Sumer. It is derived from Edin meaning steppe plain or grazing land. The Sumerian word implied that it was between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers as that would be the logical place for such a land.

Which is fine, because Genesis even describes the garden in that location.

On their own each of these things is little more than an interesting coincidence. Together these coincidences paint a picture of the sort of background that inspired the first parts of Genesis.

Similar inspiration would imply similar philosophical/theological constructs/propositions from the narratives. We don't see that. Quite the opposite in fact.

We can also look into linguistics, and see that the first languages come out of Sumer, not Isreal, and the people of Sumer are not Monotheistic. So they wouldn't have had an idea of Monotheism, let alone know what a "One God" was, in their own city-states they would have worshiped a God of the city-state and in their homes their own personal God.

Deductive fallacy, your premise doesn't imply your conclusion. There's no reason one couldn't understand monotheism conceptually just because polytheists had more social cache in the first languages we're aware of.

P.M. Cross and J.C. de Moor. only assert that " Yahweh to be the same as El", however in the Ugaritic texts the god El is revealed to be wholly benevolent in nature, whereas Yahweh has a fierce as well as a kind side. So it can be debated that El and Yahweh are not the same deities in the Israelite Pantheon.

I'm seeing technical arguments as I search them. Even if you didn't accept their technical arguments, they're not merely asserting.

Also, regarding the claim that El and Yahweh have different behaviors in the Bible, that is apparently very debatable.

http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1143&context=masters&sei-redir=1&referer=http://www.google.com/search?q=JC+De+moor+Yahweh+el&safe=active&hl=en&gbv=2&prmd=ivns&ei=qf91WYHaPOXajwSwo5mYBw&start=10&sa=N#search="JC De moor Yahweh el"

Daniel Porter, God Among Gods: An Analysis of the Function of Yahweh in the Divine Council of Deut. 32 and Psalm 82 Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, Lynchburg VA, 2010

Jewish Beliefs About God | Reasonable Faith

1) Exactly what parts of the Bible were responses to literature and cultures of the time? Please explain and please further explain how those culture's and literature worked.

How about rather than demanding I explain the entirety the possible cultural influences on the Bible, you pick a particular topic that you think supports your point and we can discuss it.

2) Please explain how cultural influence worked. One example I provide is the word Tevah and how it does not equate to gopher wood in the Noahinc epic of the deluge. Also, considering that Cuneiform is a post deluge writing. By post deluge I mean the much earlier epic of Ziusudra.

Is this the example you want to use? It seems irrelevant to your grand argument.


Anyway, like I said earlier in my response, I don't think this particular format is the most conducive to the discussion you want to have, it doesn't look like a lot of people bothered responding.

 

[ShamashUruk]

So this is my remake of the longer response I was writing, I know it has been a while in coming, but details take time. I ignored a lot of the things I considered irrelevant. Feel free to bring something up if you think I missed something important.



I don't think this is the most conducive environment for the kind of discussion you want to have. If you're really hoping to start a wider debate, you would be better off publishing your arguments in academic literature, and defending them in the ensuing discussion.



Melchizedek is said to be a Priest of El Elyon, (God Most High), it is important to note that El is never used in the Bible to mean a personal Caananite deity in the Bible, it is only ever used as a generic term for God,* So Elyon is the only possibility for a personal name of a deity in this case, but there is no such deity outside the Bible** and "most high" is never attributed to El in the Ugaritic texts***

*Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic; Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973.

**Dr. Richard Hess, Earl S. Kalland Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages at Denver Seminary
Jewish Beliefs About God | Reasonable Faith
***Korpel, Marjo Christina Annette. Theologische. A Rift in the Clouds : Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine. Munster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1990.



It's not an issue of being believable, it's an issue of having a distinct theology. Sure, symbols and motifs might be the same, as Genesis was written in large part as a response to other creation narratives, but more as a rebuttal or an alternative with a distinct theology for Israel as opposed to a syncretism, or adoption. (iow "Marduk didn't create the world, Yahweh did" human nature isn't like that, it's like this… etc )



Gardens, snakes, trees, these are all motifs, they're details yes, but they're not really any evidence of theological adaption, the similarities are about communicating to their culture. As I've noted, they teach a distinctive theology. If I were a literalist though, I might argue that these things are merely evidence of people making mistakes about the real story.



Which is fine, because Genesis even describes the garden in that location.



Similar inspiration would imply similar philosophical/theological constructs/propositions from the narratives. We don't see that. Quite the opposite in fact.


Deductive fallacy, your premise doesn't imply your conclusion. There's no reason one couldn't understand monotheism conceptually just because polytheists had more social cache in the first languages we're aware of.



I'm seeing technical arguments as I search them. Even if you didn't accept their technical arguments, they're not merely asserting.

Also, regarding the claim that El and Yahweh have different behaviors in the Bible, that is apparently very debatable.

http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1143&context=masters&sei-redir=1&referer=http://www.google.com/search?q=JC+De+moor+Yahweh+el&safe=active&hl=en&gbv=2&prmd=ivns&ei=qf91WYHaPOXajwSwo5mYBw&start=10&sa=N#search="JC De moor Yahweh el"

Daniel Porter, God Among Gods: An Analysis of the Function of Yahweh in the Divine Council of Deut. 32 and Psalm 82 Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, Lynchburg VA, 2010

Jewish Beliefs About God | Reasonable Faith



How about rather than demanding I explain the entirety the possible cultural influences on the Bible, you pick a particular topic that you think supports your point and we can discuss it.



Is this the example you want to use? It seems irrelevant to your grand argument.


Anyway, like I said earlier in my response, I don't think this particular format is the most conducive to the discussion you want to have, it doesn't look like a lot of people bothered responding.

Okay so keep in mind that my assertion is that monotheism develops from polytheism, whether directly or indirectly. Also, polytheism develops from polytheism as well, and henotheism develops from polytheism. It is an adoption, not an exact copy that occurs, the creation epic in Genesis is not an exact copy of the Enuma Elis in Babylon, or even the Epic of Atum, but we can see similarities and conceptualizations, most people ignore this and assume that exact parallels are what is attempting to be shown, this is not the case.


As far as posting, didn’t think you were going to respond so I posted elsewhere. Don’t know why you think it isn’t beneficial? People not responding to the post is kind of an expectation.


Also, pre Semitic language is Sumerian language, and the Sumerian’s are polytheistic. So you’d have dispute that Sumer didn’t have a Pre Semitic language and you’d have to dispute that the Israelite’s were pre Sumer in order to have a foundation that there was no cultural diffusion whether directly or indirectly. We see the same thing with Akkad whose supreme God is An while in Sumer their supreme God is Anu who handed his throne to Enlil. So we even see diffusion between cultures like Akkad and Sumer, and even Akkad and Babylon, and much later with Canaan and the Israelite’s.

To begin with Canaan predates the Israelite’s, and their language (which predates Israel) is now a modified Canaanite language.


Melchizedek, we know from Genesis 14, was the Jebusite (a tribe of Canaan) priest of El-Elyon, and it seems natural to hold that the royal priesthood after the order of Melchizedek reflects a fusion of the Israelite and Jebusite royal ideologies affected soon after the conquest of the city.

In that case the mythical sounding reference to the dawn in Ps. 110.3 could well derive from the same source.


Thirdly, what further bares this out is the very name of the city of Jerusalem. It is generally accepted that in origin this denoted 'the foundation of [the god] Shalem', Shalem being the god of dusk (cf. Jeruel, 'foundation of El' in 2 Chron. 20.16). It is interesting that Shahar (dawn) and Shalem (dusk) are brothers in Ugaritic mythology, as they were begotten at the same time by the god El (KTU2 1.2.3). If the god Shalem ('dusk') was prominent in Jebusite Jerusalem mythology, it is only natural that his brother Shahar, 'dawn', would appear there as well.


· Yahweh and Gods and Goddess of Canaan author: John Day


So I’d beg to differ on the viewing of polytheistic cultures not having influence on monotheistic cultures later on as noted above.


In Biblical literature “El is never used in the Bible to mean a personal Canaanite deity in the Bible, it is only ever used as a generic term for God,” I don’t know if I totally agree with this and here is why.

The issue of 'El' in the Old Testament as a Reflection of Canaanite El and eventually, of course, the name El simply became a general word for 'God' in the Old Testament, and so it is found many times. For example, there is the well-known phrase about Yahweh's being 'a jealous God' ('el qannd'), which clearly reflects the unique distinctiveness of Yahwism rather than anything to do with the Canaanite god El. Also, in many other instances throughout the Old Testament there is no doubt that 'el is simply a general name for God without any reflection of the Canaanite background. This has rightly been noted by R. Rendtorff.


However, there are several instances where the use of the word 'el does seem to reflect the Canaanite background. Where a strong case can be made for this is in those instances in which the Old Testament employs the word 'el in a context that is particularly suggestive of the Canaanite El, especially if such a usage occurs more than once. Thus, for example, just as El was the leader of the divine assembly (the sons of El), so the name 'el is twice found in this context. In Ps. 82.1 we read that 'God has taken his place in the divine council' ('elohim nissdb ba'a dat-'el; cf. Ugaritic (dt. 'ilm, 'assembly of the gods', in KTU2 1.15.II.7, 11). This divine council consists of the 'sons of the Most High' in v. 6, who are here sentenced to death, having previously had jurisdiction over the nations of the earth (v. 8), and in Jewish thought they were numbered as seventy. There can be detected here a connection with the seventy sons of God in Deut. 32.8, deriving from the seventy sons of El, discussed above.


The divine assembly is also referred to in Isa. 14.13 by means of a word from the same root as in Ps. 82.1, where the Shining One, son of the dawn boasts, 'I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God ('el) I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly (har mo'ed)'.


It will be recalled that at Ugarit El's assembly of the gods did indeed meet on a mountain. It is also interesting that the name of 'el (God) is mentioned in the phrase 'stars of God', and that the stars and the sons of God are sometimes equated (Job 38.7; cf. KTU2 1.10.1.3-4).


Ezekiel 28.2, 9 should also be recalled, since God is there three times referred to as 'el (a term used elsewhere in Ezekiel only in Ezek. 10.5), part of a passage that has multiple allusions characteristic of Ugaritic El: the emphasis on the divine wisdom (vv. 2-6), the watery nature of the dwelling (v. 2), and the expression moSab >elohim 'seat of God (or gods)' (v. 2). Another distinctively El characteristic that is twice referred to in the Old Testament in the context of the name 'el is the allusion to Yahweh's years (Ps. 102.25, 28 [ET 24, 27]; Job 36.26). The passage in the psalm also speaks of God as creator, another point characteristic of El (Ps. 102.26-27 [ET 25-26]).


It may, therefore also be significant that the first half of Psalm 19, which highlights God's role as creator, specifically refers to him as 'el (v. 2, ET 1). Another possible instance of influence from El comes in the references to Yahweh as 'el hannun we rahum (Jon. 4.2; Neh. 9.31), 'el rahum we hannun (Exod. 34.6; Ps. 103.8) or 'el rahum (Deut. 4.31), that is, 'a God gracious and merciful', 'a God merciful and gracious', or 'a merciful God'. In Ugaritic El is noted for these qualities and is frequently referred to as Itpn 'il dp'id, 'the kindly one, El, the compassionate', and these precise terms have survived in the epithets used of Allah in Arabic, latif 'kind' and dufu'ad, 'merciful'. One may also recall the frequent introductory allusions to Allah in the Koran: bismilldhi r-rahmdni r-rahimi, 'In the name of Allah, the compassionate and merciful'. It is possible that the Old Testament terminology is derived from El as, for example, H. Spieckermann has argued, though R. Rendtorff doubts it, as the words in the Old Testament, unlike those used in Arabic, are not identical to those in Ugaritic. Since Hebrew lacks forms corresponding precisely to those in Ugaritic, however, Rendtorff’s objection is not a decisive argument.


In addition to the above points, it may be noted that throughout this chapter indications are given that various occurrences of the name El in the patriarchal narratives are a reflection of Canaanite El religion.


· Yahweh and Gods and Goddess of Canaan author: John Day


Concerning the Ugaritic texts, El’s iconographic representation may underlie the image of the divine as having horns “like the horns of the wild ox” in Numbers 24:8, for this passage shows other marks of language associated with El. Many scholars are inclined to see El’s rather than Baal’s iconography behind the famous “golden calf” of Exodus 32 and the bull images erected by Jeroboam I at Bethel and Dan (1 Kings 12), but this iconography has been traced back to Baal as well. Here we might include not only the depiction of Baal in the Ugaritic texts but also the “fierce young bull” (symbol) of the storm-god, Adad. Nonetheless, the tradition in ancient Israel favors Bethel originally as an old cult-site of the god El (secondarily overlaid—if not identified—with the cult of Yahweh), perhaps as the place-name Bethel (literally, “house of El”) would suggest (Genesis 28:10–22). In this case I depict Ba’al in Ugaritic texts, Ba’al is equated with El in iconography.


· Yahweh and Gods and Goddess of Canaan author: John Day


That is fine, but keep in mind Genesis would have to adopt a Garden in order to have one in its legend, as it is already a concept that is passed around orally. Genesis is written around 1700 bc or so, also if you are making the claim that Genesis is not an exact copy of other culture’s writings and it must be unique, if that is what you are attempting it is a bad claim. None of those culture’s writings directly reflect each other, hence my stance on polytheism influencing polytheism.


We don’t have previous copies of the Bible beyond 1200 bc or so. I don’t see how the Genesis is any more of rebuttal than Enumal Elish is to Eridu Genesis, what is your point here?


Regardless of theology there still is an adoption of subject matters, motifs, spiritual and political inspiration is being accepted between the cultures. Theology develops over time, so I can see theology being important. But a little more on theology, biblical scholars have used the label “Israelite ‘myth’” for Israelite material paralleled by the Ugaritic myths, and virtually equate “Israel’s religious "myth” with its “theology.” “Theology,” a label often restricted to texts sacred to modern religious tradition, has been applied more recently to ancient Near Eastern texts besides the Bible. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle has been said to reflect a “theology,” and the authors of the great conflict-myth, Enuma Elish, have been called “Babylonian theologians.” Similarly, biblical studies for at least two decades have recognized that history and myth do not constitute two separate categories in either biblical or extra-biblical texts. In the words of J. D. Levenson, the two “reinforce each other: history concretizes cosmology, and cosmology lifts history above the level of the mundane.” Yet I have wondered if we now regard polytheism appropriately. Views of ancient polytheism seem to labor still under simplistic notions, such as the idea that polytheism was a system of division of powers corresponding to different deities.


In this view, each deity has a prime characteristic or profile (e.g., Baal as a storm-god) and these characteristics, or at least the positives ones, cumulatively equal the total that monotheism claims for its single deity. In other words, polytheism is simply monotheism multiplied by number of divinities and their functions.


Monotheism apparently continues to affect the way we think about polytheism. This book is my initial attempt to appreciate the particular polytheism known from ancient Ugarit and the coherent understanding of reality it provided.


· The Origins of Biblical Monotheism Author: Mark S Smith


For your deductive fallacy, you’d have to show that the people of Sumer were monotheist, which they were not. In order to have a one God prevailing over mankind and creating humans, and everything else, he’d have to be a singular God. But, with the people of Sumer we don’t see that and prior to Sumer we don’t see monotheistic civilizations in existence. So I have no clue what you are getting at?



Right and I assert that El and Yahweh have different characteristics, this can be debated. Your thoughts, thou it doesn’t really mean much either in scope of monotheism and polytheism and developments pertaining thereto.


I left that open to you to choose the influence on Biblical literature. No, but Ziusudra and Noah are an interesting topic. Ziusudra means “man of long life” essentially and it is said that Noah lives an extraordinarily long life. We can discuss further if you’d like.

 

[Waggles]

In conclusion you cannot necessarily have original Christian ideas without Polytheistic influence, and if those older cultures were polytheistic, this means the Monotheistic ideals come from Polytheism.

A great deal of assumptions in all of this.
When Jesus created the people of the first creation (Genesis chapter 1) all the original hunter gatherer
societies would have known of a Supreme Creator and of spiritual beings.
Over some 40,000 years this religious truth is corrupted and mythologized.
I wonder what part Lucifer and angels who trespassed over their boundaries played in all of this.
Jesus describes Satan as a liar and a murderer from the beginning.
False religion, false gods, witchcraft, astrology and occult, human sacrifice, idol worship -
the list of offences against the truth is pretty long.

And so we still have this problem today - lies and deceit versus truth and scripture.
People prefer all manner of myths, stories, fables, other gods, science fiction, new age religion,
crystals, meditation to a higher plane, cold showers and raw food, worshipping little old men
walking around in white robes.
Anything but the truth.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me.
John 14:6 Not much wriggle room here.

Religion is not a social construct of the imagination but rather a product of revelation and experience with the spiritual world.
Religious rites and doctrines can be constructed to uphold inequality and power over groups in societies. Usually arising out of the corruption of religion away from the truth.
The truth is not an invention of mankind. For the truth is about genuine love and equality for
each other. Responsibilities to do good. To uphold the highest moral standards.
To love our neighbour as ourselves. To do unto others as you would have them do to you.

History shows us that humankind cannot live up to the requirements of the Law nor even the Spirit
filled Christian life. And thus aided and abetted by Satan and co. people give up on the truth and
seek more easier ways to be religious and to be "good" in the eyes of others.
People invent new religions as they lower their standards to accommodate their weaknesses.

 

[ShamashUruk]

A great deal of assumptions in all of this.
When Jesus created the people of the first creation (Genesis chapter 1) all the original hunter gatherer
societies would have known of a Supreme Creator and of spiritual beings.
Over some 40,000 years this religious truth is corrupted and mythologized.
I wonder what part Lucifer and angels who trespassed over their boundaries played in all of this.
Jesus describes Satan as a liar and a murderer from the beginning.
False religion, false gods, witchcraft, astrology and occult, human sacrifice, idol worship -
the list of offences against the truth is pretty long.

And so we still have this problem today - lies and deceit versus truth and scripture.
People prefer all manner of myths, stories, fables, other gods, science fiction, new age religion,
crystals, meditation to a higher plane, cold showers and raw food, worshipping little old men
walking around in white robes.
Anything but the truth.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me.
John 14:6 Not much wriggle room here.

Religion is not a social construct of the imagination but rather a product of revelation and experience with the spiritual world.
Religious rites and doctrines can be constructed to uphold inequality and power over groups in societies. Usually arising out of the corruption of religion away from the truth.
The truth is not an invention of mankind. For the truth is about genuine love and equality for
each other. Responsibilities to do good. To uphold the highest moral standards.
To love our neighbour as ourselves. To do unto others as you would have them do to you.

History shows us that humankind cannot live up to the requirements of the Law nor even the Spirit
filled Christian life. And thus aided and abetted by Satan and co. people give up on the truth and
seek more easier ways to be religious and to be "good" in the eyes of others.
People invent new religions as they lower their standards to accommodate their weaknesses.

Please note the specific assumptions, and please reveal how these assumptions do not pertain to the commingling of two distinct cultures or even other soceities.

I am not aware of any hunter gathering societies acknowleding a Supreme Creator, please elaborate. The people of Sumer were polytheistic, so they would have not seen a Supreme Deity in singularity without that Deities cohorts. You do realize that the term "Lucifer" is not on paper until 382 AD and that it is a mistranslation.

I am unaware of how neo-paganism has anything to do with interpolation among socities in Sumerian and early Semitic civilizations.

Jesus (Hebrew title) comes much later in New Testament mythology, aside from that New Testament doesn't exist at the time during the presence of the early Israelite's.

Religion not being a social construct of the imagination, hard to say because so many belief systems classify themselves as a religion, but to go further than that, the ancient Israelite's worship of Yahweh who is equated with Ba'al weren't imagining they were worshiping, they were actually worshiping, similar to the Babylonian's who worshiped their supreme deity. Please explain in further detail if you could. If an Akkadian believes his or her God to be a truth, to come later in from say a Judaic standpoint (which is a much later development) and call that wrong, when Judaism adopts concepts from Babylon, Akkad, and other cultures is contradictorary.

You make the claim that essentially these pre monotheistic religions are "man made" and sit on the crux of Christianity. First issue is that Christianity develops from Judaism and Judaism develops from it's Israelite days. So you'd have to then conclude that the ancient Israelite's religions was "man made", yet we see cultural diffusion between Israel and Canaan. It's a point that doesn't meet its conclusion, as "hunter gatherers" aren't in recognition of one deity, nor are they monotheistic.

 

[Waggles]

The history of religion in anthropology is that over some 40,000 years the original truth concerning
the Creation has been corrupted and lost.
However, Jesus the Creator of our living planet and us humans, put into action a rescue plan
to bring again knowledge and experience of the truth.
He formed a man named Adam, separated him from the rest of humankind, and from him would
come the lineage and generations to the Messiah, Jesus the Christ, who would -
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them
that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of
the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
John 1:
and because of Jesus' atoning death for our sins and alienation from God, his burial, and his resurrection from death, Jesus gave to his disciples the Kingdom of God and the promise of life eternal.
Furthermore, because Jesus returned back to his Father in victory true worshippers are now able to
worship God (the Father and the Son) in spirit and in truth.
Disciples of the full gospel of salvation are able to be baptized with the indwelling Holy Spirit, the
Spirit of truth.
By this connection and interaction with the living God of creation, the God of Israel, we are able to
discern spiritual truth.

Satan and his hordes have done much to corrupt religion and the spiritual during human history.
One can study the work and influence of satanic false religion from Mesopotamia to China to the Americas. He is after all a liar and a murderer from the beginning.
Fortunately for all of us Jesus came to earth to put things right.
And now we have access to the truth about God, salvation and how to enter the Kingdom of God.

 

[ShamashUruk]

The history of religion in anthropology is that over some 40,000 years the original truth concerning
the Creation has been corrupted and lost.
However, Jesus the Creator of our living planet and us humans, put into action a rescue plan
to bring again knowledge and experience of the truth.
He formed a man named Adam, separated him from the rest of humankind, and from him would
come the lineage and generations to the Messiah, Jesus the Christ, who would -
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them
that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of
the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
John 1:
and because of Jesus' atoning death for our sins and alienation from God, his burial, and his resurrection from death, Jesus gave to his disciples the Kingdom of God and the promise of life eternal.
Furthermore, because Jesus returned back to his Father in victory true worshippers are now able to
worship God (the Father and the Son) in spirit and in truth.
Disciples of the full gospel of salvation are able to be baptized with the indwelling Holy Spirit, the
Spirit of truth.
By this connection and interaction with the living God of creation, the God of Israel, we are able to
discern spiritual truth.

Satan and his hordes have done much to corrupt religion and the spiritual during human history.
One can study the work and influence of satanic false religion from Mesopotamia to China to the Americas. He is after all a liar and a murderer from the beginning.
Fortunately for all of us Jesus came to earth to put things right.
And now we have access to the truth about God, salvation and how to enter the Kingdom of God.

Civilizations first appear in Iraq about 9000-7000 bc, and the earliest Cuneiform anyone has on creation is from a creation epic of Enki and Ninmah.

The story of Adam and Eve contain parts of Atum, Eridu Genesis and other historic creation epics, it is commingling of those creation epics. Any well researched Biblical scholar or Assyriologist would know this.

Salvation is also an early concept among saviors in those polytheistic cultures, Jesus is a much later adopted savior in Bible myths.

Not sure what you mean, as Mesopotamia refers more to a land than to a specific people. Early Assyrian cultures didn't have an adversarial system per se, or as later called an adversary.