- Jul 19, 2017
- 563
- 71
- 43
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Private
The concern of this posting is to examine a few things about the Old Testament, firstly when reading the Old Testament one must consider preexilic periods. I will provide three examples of cross pollination within Old Testament and ANE (Ancient Near East) theologies.
EXAMPLE 1) The "word of God" as Mesopotamian in origin:
For example, 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."
EXAMPLE 2) Prophecy and divination as shown in Mesopotamian origin:
Another example is looking at and assessing the way of knowing the design and will of the gods was through prophecy, which was distinguished from divination and oracular science by its non-technical and ecstatic character. Particularly well-known are the ecstatic prophets in Mari, as well as in Canaanite and among the Hebrew. Nor were they unknown among the Assyrians. Ruptured by the prophetic frenzy they predicted the future and warned the kings and authorities by order of the gods. In Mesopotamia the term majju meant "frenetic", in a state of "ecstasy" (maju: "to be outside of itself " ); Is also called eshshebu, "he who jumps"; Zabbu, "to be in trance"; Raggimtu "crying": the proclamation of an oracle. The latter is the parallel of the Hellenic pythoness. The majju receives a "blow" from the god who resembles the murmur of the wind. Thus, without going to the divinatory mechanical technique (hepatoscopy), he communicates warnings that he considers to be directly from the gods. More than a magician, he was a mystic, although the formulas have an underlying magical air. Thus, when Asurbanipafl prayed to the god Nabu, a zaqiqu "blow" from the god responded by encouraging him. Also the old Canaanite religion manifested a strong magical component, perfectly integrated in the official system of the cult. His most striking expression, which we know best by the texts of Ugarit, is divination, that is, the pretension to know and dominate the future from the knowledge and dominion of the divinity. There is no evidence of "prophets" or "seers" receiving such knowledge by revelation or mystical way, but all divinatory manifestations appear to be induced by ritual practices. In Ugarit, a distinction can be drawn between "regal" or institutional divination (royal necromancy as "evocation" for consultation) and the professional ("liver" and "lung" models found in the house of a magician priest ) That was carried out on the occasion of the sacrifices offered in a situation of public calamity, as an enemy attack, or private, before various signs of danger - as an eclipse of Sun - or in case of express search of a magic portent to face the most Various family matters (Olmo Lete, 1992).
EXAMPLE 3) Expiation rites first conducted in early Mesopotamia:
In Leviticus a showing of Hattat rituals concerns Aaron. In its operations the sins of the Israelite's are sent to Azazel via goat, however. The purities that are being cleansed are that sexual impurities polluting the sanctuary if prescriptions are not observed (Leviticus 15:31), corpse contamination pollutes the Lord's tabernacle (Numbers 19:13, 20), offering children to Molcech pollutes the sanctuary (Leviticus 20:3), and other sins, showing that the Judeo-Christian God doesn't punish sin but requires expiation of sin. Then we see the rest of the ritual performed, lots are cast one for YHWH and one for Azazel, the goat departs. Azazel is either a God or a Demon as God(s) and Demon(s) have differing roles in Israel and in ancient Mesopotamia. In the P source he is a Demon, in Leviticus 17:7 the Israelites are warned against sacrificing goats to Demons, but this goat is sent out to Azazel regardless, this is not seen as a sacrifice however, but as a means of "getting rid of the sins" as the goat is sent to the wilderness. A bovine is slaughtered as well and Aaron smears the blood on the doors of the altar, however, bovine worship is seen (for example the Golden Calf) as forbidden in Biblical literature, certainly this is an issue among those Israelite culture's as they constantly refer back to their Polytheistic roots. The same thing happens in the New Testament with Jesus, he is seen as the sacrificial lamb as goats are forbidden to be sacrificed. Also, Jesus is equated as the lamb that sins are placed upon to be sacrificed. Yet in an epic of Balaam, YHWH is seen as Satan. Hence, we see a modern sacrifice (Jesus) with polytheistic themes and motifs. Cross pollination being a central theme, in ancient Mesopotamia we see the Utukki Lemnuti as a disposal rite. Wherein, Enki (Sumerian) or EA (Akkadian, Babylonian) instructs Marduk (Babylonian) how to purify a patient who is beset by Demons. It is the same ritual seen in later Israel cultic activities in Leviticus.
Yet it is beyond me as to why Christians constantly insist that the Old Testament is an "original" undefiled document inspired by "God".
The claim is faulty at best prima facie. The language of the Israelite's is originally Canaanite language, the Canaanite's clearly worship a wide variety of Gods long before the Israelite's feebly attempt to become disparate from Canaan.
The Israelite El and Yahweh (El Elyon, and Elohim) are all Gods that belong originally to the Canaanite pantheon, El and Yahweh are only introduced to the Israelite's and then they are adopted, the noun "God" is a generalization as that noun cannot be applied to any one singular religious tradition. The noun "God" is used much earlier in Sumerian culture, and is not even a concept with the Israelite's as they DID NOT EXIST at the time.
The Israelite's come out of Canaan with the departure of "Abraham" (if he did exist it is not known), generally it is agreed that Yahwehist who are thought to leave Canaan pen the parchment and collection of first Biblical writings.
What is postulated is that the oldest of Biblical literature we find is about 1213 BC, and the clue here should be that the Israelite's spoke a Semitic based tongue, whereas the Sumerian's spoke a Sumerian, Non Semitic, Pre Semitic tongue; the Sumerian's write on Cuneiform a Pre Parchment writing system. Even today the Hebrew is a Canaanite language in origin developed through the Phoenician.
A huge issue that Christians tend to deny and only focus on the language aspect, instead of recognizing that the cultures (Sumerian, Babylonian, Canaanite's) are all Polytheistic.
Provided that a distant Monotheistic group from the Egyptians the Akhenaten exodus from Egypt, as these are Monotheists, which I purport could have had some influence on Israelite Monotheism, but it is more appropriate that the Israelite’s adopt Monotheism from Henotheism while in Babylonian captivity, hence the inferences to the Babylonian Talmud.
Concerning Abraham and whether he did or did not exist: 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.
Another denial of Christians is that they will attempt to construe an argument that "parallelism" is just arbitrary and needless. That is a fallacious argument at best and does not really address the issue.
The Israelite's are neighbors of the people of Ugarit, Canaan, Babylon, etc... we see each preceding culture have an impact on future cultural endeavors, which is aptly cross pollination. Not direct parallelism that is being seen between the cultures. The difference is that in parallelism the same God will have the same characteristics, we only see this with a few of the Gods concerning parallelism, here Yahweh is shown to Baal and Baal shown to be Yahweh, this is due to the fact that both Gods are worshiped in Canaan and Israeli pantheons:
BAAL AS A WARRIOR AND STORM GOD (BAAL AS YAHWEH)
Baal’s theophany in the storm (KTU 1.4 V 6-9, 1.6 III 6f., 12f., 1.19 I 42-46) or his role as warrior (KTU 1.2 IV, 1.5 I 1-5, 1.119.26-29, 34-36; RS 16.144.9 334). These two dimensions of Baal are explicitly linked in KTU 1.4 VII 29-35, 1.101.1-4, and EA 147.13-15 as well as some iconography. F. M. Cross treats different descriptions of Baal as a single Gattung with four elements, which appear in these passages in varying degrees. The four components are: (a) the march of the divine warrior, (b) the convulsing of nature as the divine warrior manifests his power, (c) the return of the divine warrior to his holy mountain to assume divine kingship, and (d) the utterance of the divine warrior’s “voice” (i.e., thunder) from his palace, providing rains that fertilize the earth.
YAHWEH AS A WARRIOR AND STORM GOD (YAHWEH AS BAAL)
Biblical descriptions of Yahweh as storm-god (1 Sam. 12:18; Psalm 29; Job 38:25-27, 34-38) and divine warrior (Pss. 50:1-3; 97:1-6; 98:1-2; 104:1-4; Deut. 33:2; Judges 4-5; Job 26:11-13; Isa. 42:10-15, etc.) exhibit this underlying unity and pattern explicitly in Psalm 18 (= 2 Sam. 22):6-19, 68:7-10, and 86:9-19.337 Psalm 29, 1 Kings 19, and 2 Esdras 13:1-4 dramatize the meteorological progression underlying the imagery of Yahweh as warrior.
Whereas distinctions can be made between other Gods such as Dimme (the Sumerian and later Akkadian Lamashtu and much later the Hispanic Santa Muerte) and for example the Archangel Michael (who has his origins in Mesopotamian Akkadian as Mikel). Both differ in origin, both differ in context perspective to their cultural adaptations, both differ in function to their perspective roles. There is obviously no parallelism between the both, but there is cross pollination between the both in origin as Dimme originates from Sumerian to Akkadian and finally to a death promoting evil spirit in Hispanic folklore as well the Archangel Michael who originates in Akkadian, his name is traced to around at least 1600 BCE, over a thousand years before he is ever mentioned in Judaism. He appears to have found his way into Hebrew via the Babylonian Exile in the fifth century BCE, and through neighboring West Semitic cultures where he was a prominent chthonic martial deity called Mikal. Mikal was an epithet of Reshef, as an archaic deity of Cyprus. On the mainland Reshef in turn may have been an epithet of Nergal, who is often invoked in Mesopotamian magic in similar roles to that discussed above.
In sum it appears that Yahweh worshipers who transcribed the Biblical texts originally attempted to blur the classifications of Gods, Demons and Deities in Biblical literature and compounded them in order to deter any distinctions made between Monotheistic and Polytheistic culture's in order to suppress proper evaluation. Whereas each "being" has a role and function perspective in its own right accordingly to its own societal adaptations.
EXAMPLE 1) The "word of God" as Mesopotamian in origin:
For example, 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."
EXAMPLE 2) Prophecy and divination as shown in Mesopotamian origin:
Another example is looking at and assessing the way of knowing the design and will of the gods was through prophecy, which was distinguished from divination and oracular science by its non-technical and ecstatic character. Particularly well-known are the ecstatic prophets in Mari, as well as in Canaanite and among the Hebrew. Nor were they unknown among the Assyrians. Ruptured by the prophetic frenzy they predicted the future and warned the kings and authorities by order of the gods. In Mesopotamia the term majju meant "frenetic", in a state of "ecstasy" (maju: "to be outside of itself " ); Is also called eshshebu, "he who jumps"; Zabbu, "to be in trance"; Raggimtu "crying": the proclamation of an oracle. The latter is the parallel of the Hellenic pythoness. The majju receives a "blow" from the god who resembles the murmur of the wind. Thus, without going to the divinatory mechanical technique (hepatoscopy), he communicates warnings that he considers to be directly from the gods. More than a magician, he was a mystic, although the formulas have an underlying magical air. Thus, when Asurbanipafl prayed to the god Nabu, a zaqiqu "blow" from the god responded by encouraging him. Also the old Canaanite religion manifested a strong magical component, perfectly integrated in the official system of the cult. His most striking expression, which we know best by the texts of Ugarit, is divination, that is, the pretension to know and dominate the future from the knowledge and dominion of the divinity. There is no evidence of "prophets" or "seers" receiving such knowledge by revelation or mystical way, but all divinatory manifestations appear to be induced by ritual practices. In Ugarit, a distinction can be drawn between "regal" or institutional divination (royal necromancy as "evocation" for consultation) and the professional ("liver" and "lung" models found in the house of a magician priest ) That was carried out on the occasion of the sacrifices offered in a situation of public calamity, as an enemy attack, or private, before various signs of danger - as an eclipse of Sun - or in case of express search of a magic portent to face the most Various family matters (Olmo Lete, 1992).
EXAMPLE 3) Expiation rites first conducted in early Mesopotamia:
In Leviticus a showing of Hattat rituals concerns Aaron. In its operations the sins of the Israelite's are sent to Azazel via goat, however. The purities that are being cleansed are that sexual impurities polluting the sanctuary if prescriptions are not observed (Leviticus 15:31), corpse contamination pollutes the Lord's tabernacle (Numbers 19:13, 20), offering children to Molcech pollutes the sanctuary (Leviticus 20:3), and other sins, showing that the Judeo-Christian God doesn't punish sin but requires expiation of sin. Then we see the rest of the ritual performed, lots are cast one for YHWH and one for Azazel, the goat departs. Azazel is either a God or a Demon as God(s) and Demon(s) have differing roles in Israel and in ancient Mesopotamia. In the P source he is a Demon, in Leviticus 17:7 the Israelites are warned against sacrificing goats to Demons, but this goat is sent out to Azazel regardless, this is not seen as a sacrifice however, but as a means of "getting rid of the sins" as the goat is sent to the wilderness. A bovine is slaughtered as well and Aaron smears the blood on the doors of the altar, however, bovine worship is seen (for example the Golden Calf) as forbidden in Biblical literature, certainly this is an issue among those Israelite culture's as they constantly refer back to their Polytheistic roots. The same thing happens in the New Testament with Jesus, he is seen as the sacrificial lamb as goats are forbidden to be sacrificed. Also, Jesus is equated as the lamb that sins are placed upon to be sacrificed. Yet in an epic of Balaam, YHWH is seen as Satan. Hence, we see a modern sacrifice (Jesus) with polytheistic themes and motifs. Cross pollination being a central theme, in ancient Mesopotamia we see the Utukki Lemnuti as a disposal rite. Wherein, Enki (Sumerian) or EA (Akkadian, Babylonian) instructs Marduk (Babylonian) how to purify a patient who is beset by Demons. It is the same ritual seen in later Israel cultic activities in Leviticus.
Yet it is beyond me as to why Christians constantly insist that the Old Testament is an "original" undefiled document inspired by "God".
The claim is faulty at best prima facie. The language of the Israelite's is originally Canaanite language, the Canaanite's clearly worship a wide variety of Gods long before the Israelite's feebly attempt to become disparate from Canaan.
The Israelite El and Yahweh (El Elyon, and Elohim) are all Gods that belong originally to the Canaanite pantheon, El and Yahweh are only introduced to the Israelite's and then they are adopted, the noun "God" is a generalization as that noun cannot be applied to any one singular religious tradition. The noun "God" is used much earlier in Sumerian culture, and is not even a concept with the Israelite's as they DID NOT EXIST at the time.
The Israelite's come out of Canaan with the departure of "Abraham" (if he did exist it is not known), generally it is agreed that Yahwehist who are thought to leave Canaan pen the parchment and collection of first Biblical writings.
What is postulated is that the oldest of Biblical literature we find is about 1213 BC, and the clue here should be that the Israelite's spoke a Semitic based tongue, whereas the Sumerian's spoke a Sumerian, Non Semitic, Pre Semitic tongue; the Sumerian's write on Cuneiform a Pre Parchment writing system. Even today the Hebrew is a Canaanite language in origin developed through the Phoenician.
A huge issue that Christians tend to deny and only focus on the language aspect, instead of recognizing that the cultures (Sumerian, Babylonian, Canaanite's) are all Polytheistic.
Provided that a distant Monotheistic group from the Egyptians the Akhenaten exodus from Egypt, as these are Monotheists, which I purport could have had some influence on Israelite Monotheism, but it is more appropriate that the Israelite’s adopt Monotheism from Henotheism while in Babylonian captivity, hence the inferences to the Babylonian Talmud.
Concerning Abraham and whether he did or did not exist: 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.
Another denial of Christians is that they will attempt to construe an argument that "parallelism" is just arbitrary and needless. That is a fallacious argument at best and does not really address the issue.
The Israelite's are neighbors of the people of Ugarit, Canaan, Babylon, etc... we see each preceding culture have an impact on future cultural endeavors, which is aptly cross pollination. Not direct parallelism that is being seen between the cultures. The difference is that in parallelism the same God will have the same characteristics, we only see this with a few of the Gods concerning parallelism, here Yahweh is shown to Baal and Baal shown to be Yahweh, this is due to the fact that both Gods are worshiped in Canaan and Israeli pantheons:
BAAL AS A WARRIOR AND STORM GOD (BAAL AS YAHWEH)
Baal’s theophany in the storm (KTU 1.4 V 6-9, 1.6 III 6f., 12f., 1.19 I 42-46) or his role as warrior (KTU 1.2 IV, 1.5 I 1-5, 1.119.26-29, 34-36; RS 16.144.9 334). These two dimensions of Baal are explicitly linked in KTU 1.4 VII 29-35, 1.101.1-4, and EA 147.13-15 as well as some iconography. F. M. Cross treats different descriptions of Baal as a single Gattung with four elements, which appear in these passages in varying degrees. The four components are: (a) the march of the divine warrior, (b) the convulsing of nature as the divine warrior manifests his power, (c) the return of the divine warrior to his holy mountain to assume divine kingship, and (d) the utterance of the divine warrior’s “voice” (i.e., thunder) from his palace, providing rains that fertilize the earth.
YAHWEH AS A WARRIOR AND STORM GOD (YAHWEH AS BAAL)
Biblical descriptions of Yahweh as storm-god (1 Sam. 12:18; Psalm 29; Job 38:25-27, 34-38) and divine warrior (Pss. 50:1-3; 97:1-6; 98:1-2; 104:1-4; Deut. 33:2; Judges 4-5; Job 26:11-13; Isa. 42:10-15, etc.) exhibit this underlying unity and pattern explicitly in Psalm 18 (= 2 Sam. 22):6-19, 68:7-10, and 86:9-19.337 Psalm 29, 1 Kings 19, and 2 Esdras 13:1-4 dramatize the meteorological progression underlying the imagery of Yahweh as warrior.
Whereas distinctions can be made between other Gods such as Dimme (the Sumerian and later Akkadian Lamashtu and much later the Hispanic Santa Muerte) and for example the Archangel Michael (who has his origins in Mesopotamian Akkadian as Mikel). Both differ in origin, both differ in context perspective to their cultural adaptations, both differ in function to their perspective roles. There is obviously no parallelism between the both, but there is cross pollination between the both in origin as Dimme originates from Sumerian to Akkadian and finally to a death promoting evil spirit in Hispanic folklore as well the Archangel Michael who originates in Akkadian, his name is traced to around at least 1600 BCE, over a thousand years before he is ever mentioned in Judaism. He appears to have found his way into Hebrew via the Babylonian Exile in the fifth century BCE, and through neighboring West Semitic cultures where he was a prominent chthonic martial deity called Mikal. Mikal was an epithet of Reshef, as an archaic deity of Cyprus. On the mainland Reshef in turn may have been an epithet of Nergal, who is often invoked in Mesopotamian magic in similar roles to that discussed above.
In sum it appears that Yahweh worshipers who transcribed the Biblical texts originally attempted to blur the classifications of Gods, Demons and Deities in Biblical literature and compounded them in order to deter any distinctions made between Monotheistic and Polytheistic culture's in order to suppress proper evaluation. Whereas each "being" has a role and function perspective in its own right accordingly to its own societal adaptations.