Questions of the Old Testament.

[ShamashUruk]

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.

 

[Sanoy]

There is a lot here that I'm just not going to have time to get too. I'll hit the ones that readily stand out while I have the time to do so.

1. The word of God in the OT is the Memra, not the Shekinah. Ishtar was also hermaphroditic.

2. Azazel was a fallen Angel ( 1 enoch ,"to him ascribe all sin). Utukki Lemnuti rituals are similar to all ritual exorcism because all ritual is symbologic of intent. Water and fine smells are universally symbolic to the intent of excorsim.

There are all sorts of similarities between OT and ANE texts, like the stones of fire and the elmesu stone. That A is found in both B and in C is not theologically problematic. If God and angels exist it's not surprising that we should hear of similar stories in other cultures. Just as we would expect the flood to have been written about throughout the ANE we should expect God and the angels and other events in the OT to be differently and polemically attested throughout the ANE. Additionally it must be recalled that the Patriarchs (Adam-Noah) were the recipients of the events in Genesis, as well as many other spiritual and astrological teachings which Josephus relates were passed down. Noah had 3 sons that disseminated those things throughout the world and thus we have good reason for the existence of similarities between Jewish and ANE beliefs.

Also the OT is quite explicit about declaring the existence of a multitude of Elohim. Even the deceased Samuel is an Elohim. It is entirely unrestrained in that declaration. However to view the word Elohim as the English word God is to allow anachronism. Elohim means Elohim, not God in the modern sense.

 

[ShamashUruk]

There is a lot here that I'm just not going to have time to get too. I'll hit the ones that readily stand out while I have the time to do so.

1. The word of God in the OT is the Memra, not the Shekinah. Ishtar was also hermaphroditic.

2. Azazel was a fallen Angel ( 1 enoch ,"to him ascribe all sin). Utukki Lemnuti rituals are similar to all ritual exorcism because all ritual is symbologic of intent. Water and fine smells are universally symbolic to the intent of excorsim.

There are all sorts of similarities between OT and ANE texts, like the stones of fire and the elmesu stone. That A is found in both B and in C is not theologically problematic. If God and angels exist it's not surprising that we should hear the similar stories in other cultures. Just as we would expect the flood to have been writing about throughout the ANE we should expect God and the angels and other events in the OT to be differently and polemically qttested throughout the ANE.

Shekinah means "he caused to dwell”, in Christian mythology Shekinah is divine visitation of the presence or dwelling of the Lord God on earth. The Shekinah was first evident when the Israelites set out from Succoth in their escape from Egypt. This differs from the New Testament, which the myth hero Jesus is dwelling as God on earth and see Colossians 2:9 in Christian literature.

The memra is Aramaic, however, the targumic passages and concerns the Old Testament in Memra, Shekinah, or Yeqara occur as God's agent or manifestation. I don't really see what your point is.

Ishtar is the Akkadian couterpart to the West Semitic goddess Astarte (who plays a different function in her West Semite role).

Ishtar is Inanna in Sumerian literature Sumerian Female God of love, beauty, sex, desire, fertility, war, combat, justice, and political power, but not hermaphroditic, the role of having children does not conclude hermaphroditic or even androdygenistic elements. However, that being said, in the virgin births epics we do see hermaphroditic and even androdgynesitic elements. This theme runs in Christian texts as well concerning "Virginity," ER, vol. 15, pp. 179-281.) This is not an altogether new idea. Wayne A. Meeks, "The Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity," History of Religions 13 (1974) 165-208.

Ishtar is associated with hermaphroditic literature, however, it seems you are referring to Leick 1994, pp. 157–158 stating that "androgynous and hermaphroditic men were heavily involved in the cult of Inanna-Ishtar".

The characteristics of Inanna are not androgynous or hermaphroditic in Sumer, it is shown this in Akkad, thus the cult of Inanna-Ishtar. Maybe you can find Cuneiform that refers to those practices in Sumer, I don't have any I am aware of. But, it still wouldn't change the relationship of birth cycles and asexual procreation concerning religious texts.

I think in my OP I conclude that Azazel is a demon, but I am not sure if you are making a differentiation between "demon" and "fallen angel", then again the term "fallen angel" is a coined term. But, the Sumerian's will not have a term 'angel' regardless, it is either a "protective spirit" or an "evil spirit". The term "angel" will not come until possibly later stemming from Malak or messenger. However, per my posting YHWH in the epic of Balaam is seen as 'satan'.

The noun Satan comes from an Anglicization of the Hebrew common noun שָׂטָן and the noun has been related etymologically to a variety of geminate, third weak and hollow verbs in Hebrew and in the cognate languages. These proposals include verbs meaning 'to stray' (AI ~IT, Heb ~THtEth ~TY, Akk ,SG!U I and Syr ST ), 'to revolt/fall away' (Aram swr, Mandaean sWTand Heb swr), 'to be unjust' (Ar ~TI), 'to bum' (Syr swr and Ar ~YT) and 'to seduce' (Eth ~TY and Reb ~TH). These proposals require discounting the nun of the noun satan as part of the root, and attributing it to an *-an suffix which has been appended to a nominal base. There are two reasons why it is unlikely that the nun should be attributed to an *-tin suffix. Firstly, the *-an suffix when appended to a nominal base nonnally results in an abstract noun, an adjective or a diminutive. The noun 'satan' fits none of these categories. Secondly, in Hebrew *-an is typically realized as -on. There are exceptions, but among the standard conditions proposed to explain the atypical retention of *-an, none apply to the noun satan. Therefore it is preferable to regard the nun as part of the root and analyze satan as a noun of the common qatal pattern. The fact that the geminate, third weak and hollow verbs listed above have meanings that are arguably appropriate to Satan should be viewed as resulting from interaction between popular etymological speculation and developing traditions about Satan. The root *STN is not evidenced in any of the cognate languages in texts that are prior to or contemporary with its occurrences in the Hebrew Bible. KJ3 (918) incorrectly cites an alleged Akk satanu, but the fonns to which KB refers are St lexical participles of etemuJetenu (AHW, 260). Thus the meaning of the noun satan must be detennined solely on the basis of its occurrences in the Hebrew Bible, where it occurs in nine contexts. In five it refers to human beings and in four it refers to celestial beings. When it is used of human beings it is not a proper name, but rather a common noun meaning 'adversary' in either a political or military sense, or 'accuser' when it is used in a legal context. In the celestial realm there is only one context in which. Satan might be a proper name. In the other three contexts it is a common noun, meaning 'adversary' or 'accuser'. [P.L.D.] Σαταν and Σατανᾶς are transliterations of the Hebrew satan (cf. 3 Kgdms 11:14.23; Sir 21 :27) or Aram satana and mean 'adversary'. In such instances 8HevXIIgr and the• LXX translate the Hebrew "expression with Diabolos ~Devil, meaning 'the Slanderer'. Ho Sataniis (rarely used without article) thus designates the opponent of ~God. In the NT Satanas and Diabolos can refer to the same supernatural being (cf. Rev 20:2) and can thus be interchanged (cf. Mark 1:13 and Luke 4:2).

Problem is Sumerian ANE is Pre Israelite, you bring up the flood epic for example, but we find issues with this in Biblical literature:

Genesis 6:14–16
Make yourself an ark (tēvāh) of gopher wood [came the instruction]; make rooms (qinnīm) in the ark, and cover it (kāpar) inside and out with pitch (kopher). This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. Make a roof for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above; and put the door of the ark in its side; make it with lower, second, and third decks.

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.

So in this you mean to tell me the mistranslation of the word tēvāh used for the Ark specifically of Noah is not lacking, though it doesn't mean "ark" is coincidental?

Then we have another issue the earlier epics in Ziusudra (Sumerian) and in Atrahasis (Akkadian) as well Utnapisht (Babylonian) are written long before (and in Cuneiform) the Israelite's decidely penned their epic of Noah (Israelite) on parchment, shows that these epics were already preexisting and that the Israelite's perforce those earlier epics to produce a new one.

The term "God" is broad and vague, the usage of the language angel indicates "lil spirits" or agents of Enlil.

 

[Sanoy]

Shekinah means "he caused to dwell”, in Christian mythology Shekinah is divine visitation of the presence or dwelling of the Lord God on earth. The Shekinah was first evident when the Israelites set out from Succoth in their escape from Egypt. This differs from the New Testament, which the myth hero Jesus is dwelling as God on earth and see Colossians 2:9 in Christian literature.

The memra is Aramaic, however, the targumic passages and concerns the Old Testament in Memra, Shekinah, or Yeqara occur as God's agent or manifestation. I don't really see what your point is.

Ishtar is the Akkadian couterpart to the West Semitic goddess Astarte (who plays a different function in her West Semite role).

Ishtar is Inanna in Sumerian literature Sumerian Female God of love, beauty, sex, desire, fertility, war, combat, justice, and political power, but not hermaphroditic, the role of having children does not conclude hermaphroditic or even androdygenistic elements. However, that being said, in the virgin births epics we do see hermaphroditic and even androdgynesitic elements. This theme runs in Christian texts as well concerning "Virginity," ER, vol. 15, pp. 179-281.) This is not an altogether new idea. Wayne A. Meeks, "The Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity," History of Religions 13 (1974) 165-208.

Ishtar is associated with hermaphroditic literature, however, it seems you are referring to Leick 1994, pp. 157–158 stating that "androgynous and hermaphroditic men were heavily involved in the cult of Inanna-Ishtar".

The characteristics of Inanna are not androgynous or hermaphroditic in Sumer, it is shown this in Akkad, thus the cult of Inanna-Ishtar. Maybe you can find Cuneiform that refers to those practices in Sumer, I don't have any I am aware of. But, it still wouldn't change the relationship of birth cycles and asexual procreation concerning religious texts.

I think in my OP I conclude that Azazel is a demon, but I am not sure if you are making a differentiation between "demon" and "fallen angel", then again the term "fallen angel" is a coined term. But, the Sumerian's will not have a term 'angel' regardless, it is either a "protective spirit" or an "evil spirit". The term "angel" will not come until possibly later stemming from Malak or messenger. However, per my posting YHWH in the epic of Balaam is seen as 'satan'.

The noun Satan comes from an Anglicization of the Hebrew common noun שָׂטָן and the noun has been related etymologically to a variety of geminate, third weak and hollow verbs in Hebrew and in the cognate languages. These proposals include verbs meaning 'to stray' (AI ~IT, Heb ~THtEth ~TY, Akk ,SG!U I and Syr ST ), 'to revolt/fall away' (Aram swr, Mandaean sWTand Heb swr), 'to be unjust' (Ar ~TI), 'to bum' (Syr swr and Ar ~YT) and 'to seduce' (Eth ~TY and Reb ~TH). These proposals require discounting the nun of the noun satan as part of the root, and attributing it to an *-an suffix which has been appended to a nominal base. There are two reasons why it is unlikely that the nun should be attributed to an *-tin suffix. Firstly, the *-an suffix when appended to a nominal base nonnally results in an abstract noun, an adjective or a diminutive. The noun 'satan' fits none of these categories. Secondly, in Hebrew *-an is typically realized as -on. There are exceptions, but among the standard conditions proposed to explain the atypical retention of *-an, none apply to the noun satan. Therefore it is preferable to regard the nun as part of the root and analyze satan as a noun of the common qatal pattern. The fact that the geminate, third weak and hollow verbs listed above have meanings that are arguably appropriate to Satan should be viewed as resulting from interaction between popular etymological speculation and developing traditions about Satan. The root *STN is not evidenced in any of the cognate languages in texts that are prior to or contemporary with its occurrences in the Hebrew Bible. KJ3 (918) incorrectly cites an alleged Akk satanu, but the fonns to which KB refers are St lexical participles of etemuJetenu (AHW, 260). Thus the meaning of the noun satan must be detennined solely on the basis of its occurrences in the Hebrew Bible, where it occurs in nine contexts. In five it refers to human beings and in four it refers to celestial beings. When it is used of human beings it is not a proper name, but rather a common noun meaning 'adversary' in either a political or military sense, or 'accuser' when it is used in a legal context. In the celestial realm there is only one context in which. Satan might be a proper name. In the other three contexts it is a common noun, meaning 'adversary' or 'accuser'. [P.L.D.] Σαταν and Σατανᾶς are transliterations of the Hebrew satan (cf. 3 Kgdms 11:14.23; Sir 21 :27) or Aram satana and mean 'adversary'. In such instances 8HevXIIgr and the• LXX translate the Hebrew "expression with Diabolos ~Devil, meaning 'the Slanderer'. Ho Sataniis (rarely used without article) thus designates the opponent of ~God. In the NT Satanas and Diabolos can refer to the same supernatural being (cf. Rev 20:2) and can thus be interchanged (cf. Mark 1:13 and Luke 4:2).

Problem is Sumerian ANE is Pre Israelite, you bring up the flood epic for example, but we find issues with this in Biblical literature:

Genesis 6:14–16
Make yourself an ark (tēvāh) of gopher wood [came the instruction]; make rooms (qinnīm) in the ark, and cover it (kāpar) inside and out with pitch (kopher). This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. Make a roof for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above; and put the door of the ark in its side; make it with lower, second, and third decks.

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.

So in this you mean to tell me the mistranslation of the word tēvāh used for the Ark specifically of Noah is not lacking, though it doesn't mean "ark" is coincidental?

Then we have another issue the earlier epics in Ziusudra (Sumerian) and in Atrahasis (Akkadian) as well Utnapisht (Babylonian) are written long before (and in Cuneiform) the Israelite's decidely penned their epic of Noah (Israelite) on parchment, shows that these epics were already preexisting and that the Israelite's perforce those earlier epics to produce a new one.

The term "God" is broad and vague, the usage of the language angel indicates "lil spirits" or agents of Enlil.

Could you refine your reply to the relevant essentials. This is quite a lot and only a little bit is actually relevant.

Demon is a broad word but typically it refers to a deceased spirit. I suppose angel isn't any better when you get down to the literal meaning. You could define Azazel as an Elohim, a Watcher, an Igigi ...well Anunnaki at this point, or an Apkallu.

 

[ShamashUruk]

Could you refine your reply to the relevant essentials. This is quite a lot and only a little bit is actually relevant.

I can try, but quick and short misses a lot.

The word of God in the OT is the Memra, not the Shekinah.

Per my aforementioned posting: Targumic passages and concerns the Old Testament in Memra, Shekinah, or Yeqara occur as God's agent or manifestation, they are essentially related.

Ishtar was also hermaphroditic.

Per my aforementioned posting: The cult of Ishtar is referenced vaguely as hermaphroditic and even androgynous, however, I am unable to locate any Cuneiform addressing Ishtar as a hermaphrodite. This doesn't preclude that the Ishtar is not related to the Biblical OT. There is also Biblical references to androgyny. In the virgin births epics we do see hermaphroditic and even androgygnistic elements. This theme runs in Christian texts as well concerning "Virginity," ER, vol. 15, pp. 179-281.) This is not an altogether new idea. Wayne A. Meeks, "The Image of the Androgyny: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity," History of Religions 13 (1974) 165-208.

Azazel was a fallen Angel ( 1 enoch ,"to him ascribe all sin).

Per my aforementioned posting: I did state that Azazel is a "demon" in Israelite literature (see my OP) however, the goat is sent to the wilderness as goat sacrifice is forbidden. However a bovine is sacrificed, yet the Israelite's are punished for worshiping a golden calf image. However, the golden calf image may not have been a bovine (since you don't like long postings I can't go into it).

Utukki Lemnuti rituals are similar to all ritual exorcism because all ritual is symbologic of intent. Water and fine smells are universally symbolic to the intent of excorsim.

Per my aforementioned posting: I am aware of this, I have the following material on exorcisms in Sumer and Babylon:

https://www.amazon.com/Incantations-Professor-Hilprecht-Collection-Texte-Materialien/dp/3447047070

https://www.amazon.com/Forerunners-Udug-Hul-exorcistic-incantations-altorientalische/dp/3515044035

https://www.amazon.com/Deliver-Evil-Mesopotamian-Incantations-2500-1500/dp/8876536086

https://www.amazon.com/Healing-Demons-Babylonisch-assyrische-Medizin-Untersuchungen/dp/1614515328

There are all sorts of similarities between OT and ANE texts, like the stones of fire and the elmesu stone. That A is found in both B and in C is not theologically problematic. If God and angels exist it's not surprising that we should hear of similar stories in other cultures. Just as we would expect the flood to have been written about throughout the ANE we should expect God and the angels and other events in the OT to be differently and polemically attested throughout the ANE. Additionally it must be recalled that the Patriarchs (Adam-Noah) were the recipients of the events in Genesis, as well as many other spiritual and astrological teachings which Josephus relates were passed down. Noah had 3 sons that disseminated those things throughout the world and thus we have good reason for the existence of similarities between Jewish and ANE beliefs.

Per my aforementioned posting:
Problem is Sumerian ANE is Pre Israelite, you bring up the flood epic for example, but we find issues with this in Biblical literature,

"Genesis 6:14–16
Make yourself an ark (tēvāh) of gopher wood [came the instruction]; make rooms (qinnīm) in the ark, and cover it (kāpar) inside and out with pitch (kopher). This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. Make a roof for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above; and put the door of the ark in its side; make it with lower, second, and third decks."

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.

Problematic is the the mistranslation of the word tēvāh used for the Ark specifically of Noah and is lacking, the word doesn't mean "ark".

Also the OT is quite explicit about declaring the existence of a multitude of Elohim. Even the deceased Samuel is an Elohim. It is entirely unrestrained in that declaration. However to view the word Elohim as the English word God is allow anachronism. Elohim means Elohim, not God in the modern sense.

Elohim is originally in the Canaanite Pantheon and is worshiped long before the Israelite's arrive, in fact Elohim, El Elyon, Yahweh, El are all adopted into the Israelite belief system, essentially I don't know the point you are making?

 

[Sanoy]

I can try, but quick and short misses a lot.


Per my aforementioned posting: Targumic passages and concerns the Old Testament in Memra, Shekinah, or Yeqara occur as God's agent or manifestation, they are essentially related.

Per my aforementioned posting: The cult of Ishtar is referenced vaguely as hermaphroditic and even androgynous, however, I am unable to locate any Cuneiform addressing Ishtar as a hermaphrodite. This doesn't preclude that the Ishtar is not related to the Biblical OT. There is also Biblical references to androgyny. In the virgin births epics we do see hermaphroditic and even androgygnistic elements. This theme runs in Christian texts as well concerning "Virginity," ER, vol. 15, pp. 179-281.) This is not an altogether new idea. Wayne A. Meeks, "The Image of the Androgyny: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity," History of Religions 13 (1974) 165-208.



Per my aforementioned posting: I did state that Azazel is a "demon" in Israelite literature (see my OP) however, the goat is sent to the wilderness as goat sacrifice is forbidden. However a bovine is sacrificed, yet the Israelite's are punished for worshiping a golden calf image. However, the golden calf image may not have been a bovine (since you don't like long postings I can't go into it).


Per my aforementioned posting: I am aware of this, I have the following material on exorcisms in Sumer and Babylon:

https://www.amazon.com/Incantations-Professor-Hilprecht-Collection-Texte-Materialien/dp/3447047070

https://www.amazon.com/Forerunners-Udug-Hul-exorcistic-incantations-altorientalische/dp/3515044035

https://www.amazon.com/Deliver-Evil-Mesopotamian-Incantations-2500-1500/dp/8876536086

https://www.amazon.com/Healing-Demons-Babylonisch-assyrische-Medizin-Untersuchungen/dp/1614515328








Per my aforementioned posting:
Problem is Sumerian ANE is Pre Israelite, you bring up the flood epic for example, but we find issues with this in Biblical literature,

"Genesis 6:14–16
Make yourself an ark (tēvāh) of gopher wood [came the instruction]; make rooms (qinnīm) in the ark, and cover it (kāpar) inside and out with pitch (kopher). This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. Make a roof for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above; and put the door of the ark in its side; make it with lower, second, and third decks."

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.

Problematic is the the mistranslation of the word tēvāh used for the Ark specifically of Noah and is lacking, the word doesn't mean "ark".


Elohim is originally in the Canaanite Pantheon and is worshiped long before the Israelite's arrive, in fact Elohim, El Elyon, Yahweh, El are all adopted into the Israelite belief system, essentially I don't know the point you are making?

1. The Memra is referred to as the word of God in the Targums. It is primarily derived from 1 Samuel. The word of God is not the Shekinah.

2. On Ishtar. I don't remember the actual tablet, but there is one where she appears as a bearded man in a tavern. IIRC she is also iconographically depicted as hermaphroditic. She appears as a man when she represents her war side and as a woman when she represents her feminine sides. When it comes to the gods Gender is not seen in the physically restrictive sense. Gods were known to appear as anything they wished, even animals. Gender as a whole was actually very different back then, there were actually 3 different genders. The additional one referring to your ability to procreate.

3. There is a whole list of things that are forbidden to offer. There is nothing particularly noteworthy about goats in that respect. It is seen by some historians, like Milik (976: 313) that Azazel was actually half goat half man, which fully represents the Apkallu motif and may explain in part why a goat is used here. I really don't see the issue with being able to sacrifice a bovine and not being able to worship them.

5. Some of the ANE is pre Israelite. The Israelites kept an oral tradition and wrote on paper, while the ANE wrote on clay tablets. To say that the Israelites appropriated that material from their contemporaries because of their extant dates would be fallacious. Baked clay lasts a lot longer than paper, and the Israelite material was contained in the priesthood, while much of the ANE material was for public consumption. Not to mention no comprehensive explanation has ever been given for how or why such minute amounts of details are appropriated from larger documents while the rest is left untouched to form a single religious body appropriated from the minute and displaced borrowings of a multitude of texts.

6.The Israelites used the same language as the Canaanites. It is unsurprising that they would have the same words. That does not entail that they have the same precise meaning. That there is a supreme God in Mesopotamian belief, either by El, or Anu that in some ways coincides with Israelite belief is unsurprising given the fact that all Mesopotamians came from the same patriarchs as the Israelites.

 

[ShamashUruk]

The Memra is referred to as the word of God in the Targums. It is primarily derived from 1 Samuel. The word of God is not the Shekinah.

Shekinah the dwelling a manifestation of the Judeo-Christian God which has descended to "dwell" among men. Like Memra (= "word"; "logos") and "Yeḳara" (i.e., "Kabod" = "glory"), the term was used by the Rabbis in place of "God" where the anthropomorphic expressions of the Bible were no longer regarded as proper. The word itself is taken from such passages as speak of God dwelling either in the Tabernacle or among the people of Israel (see Ex. xxv. 8, xxix. 45-46; Num. v. 3, xxxv. 34; I Kings vi. 13; Ezek. xliii. 9; Zech. ii. 14 [A. V. 10]). Occasionally the name of God is spoken of as descending (Deut. xii. 11; xiv. 23; xvi. 6, 11; xxvi. 2; Neh. i. 9). It is especially said that God dwells in Jerusalem (Zech. viii. 3; Ps. cxxxv. 21; I Chron. xxiii. 25), on Mount Zion (Isa. viii. 18; Joel iv. [A. V. iii.] 17, 21; Ps. xv. 1, lxxiv. 2), and in the Temple itself (Ezek. xliii. 7). Allusion is made also to "him that dwelt in the bush" (Deut. xxxiii. 16, ); and it is said that "the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai" (Ex. xxiv. 16). The term "Shekinah," which is Hebrew, whereas "Memra" and "Yeḳara" are Aramaic, took the place of the latter two in Talmudand Midrash, and thus absorbed the meaning which they have in the Targum, where they almost exclusively occur.

On Ishtar. I don't remember the actual tablet, but there is one where she appears as a bearded man in a tavern. IIRC she is also iconographically depicted as hermaphroditic. She appears as a man when she represents her war side and as a woman when she represents her feminine sides. When it comes to the gods Gender is not seen in the physically restrictive sense. Gods were known to appear as anything they wished, even animals. Gender as a whole was actually very different back then, there were actually 3 different genders. The additional one referring to your ability to procreate.

Some of Ishtar's worshipers were transvestites (I am aware of this) and transvestites would attend her ceremonies, but this doesn't lead the conclusion that Ishtar is a hermaphrodite. Transvestism is not an indication of physical hermaphroditism, and it is not androgyny. It's a displacement of the normative sex. The readings of these terms as the same collapsion of several non-normative sexualities into one "other" non-heterosexual behavior, and these are figured as male homosexual activities. Drag, cross-dressing, and transvestism are not interchangeable, either with each other or with hermaphroditism. Her cult is associated with all forms of sexuality in Akka, and her worshipers celebrated at rituals feasts in her honor. There is an instability of male and female in Ishtar's cult, but it is not prima facie bisexuality or hermaphorditism.

Regardless, it is more closely related to the Old Testament than we think, as the nomenclature of male prostitute or sodomite is banned from early Israelite's temples, yet women are afforded to pay for their vows with sex.

There is a whole list of things that are forbidden to offer. There is nothing particularly noteworthy about goats in that respect. It is seen by some historians, like Milik (976: 313) that Azazel was actually half goat half man, which fully represents the Apkallu motif and may explain in part why a goat is used here. I really don't see the issue with being able to sacrifice a bovine and not being able to worship them.

The Apkallu are also half man half fish, half man half eagle, and are represented as exorcists. If you look at the Apkallu depictions you will see them with cone and bucket, used for incense during exorcisms. The operative is exorcisms, dispatching demons to the wilderness. Hence, the Azazel does not represent the Apkallu, Azazel is seen in Biblical myths as an evil spirit, Apkallu are exorcists in Assyriology, there is a huge difference.

See Apkallu carrying cone and bucket for incense.


Sacrifice in Babylon was that the oxen for example would be killed, blood will be spilled on the altar and the animal is eaten to become part of the worshiper.

Some of the ANE is pre Israelite. The Israelites kept an oral tradition and wrote on paper, while the ANE wrote on clay tablets. To say that the Israelites appropriated that material from their contemporaries because of their extant dates would be fallacious. Baked clay lasts a lot longer than paper, and the Israelite material was contained in the priesthood, while much of the ANE material was for public consumption. Not to mention no comprehensive explanation has ever been given for how or why such minute amounts of details are appropriated from larger documents while the rest is left untouched to form a single religious body appropriated from the minute and displaced borrowings of a multitude of texts.

Sumerian's, Babylonian's, Akkadian's, Canaanite's are all Pre Israelite. You would have to conclude that the Israelite's did not know of ANE Cuneiform, which if they were neighbors of the people of Ugarit and they dwelt in Canaan they would be readily familiar.

Also, ANE Cueniform is still being discovered.

I wouldn't call it fallacious at all, the Israelite's attempt to use for example the word Tevah to describe the Ark of Noah, yet we know that word doesn't mean Ark at all.

I wouldn't assume that the priestly traditions were trust worthy.

Details in a text do not really mean much. The Bible's cross pollinated associations in Assyria are striking for example:

'Pul', the Assyrian king who received tribute from Menahem of Israel in 2 Kgs 15.19-20, posed no special difficulty prior to the decipherment of the royal Assyrian annals. The name also appears in Berossos, Josephus, and the Ptolemaic canon—how could such venerable authorities possibly be mistaken? Among biblical commentators and historians of the ancient world writing prior to 1850, Pul was universally recognized as the first Assyrian conqueror to trouble Israel, followed immediately by Tiglath-Pileser.

Hincks's reading in 1852 of'Menahem of Samaria' as tributary to the king whose sculptures had been reused in the Southwest Palace of Nimrud permitted Layard a year later to publish an engraving of an Assyrian king on his chariot with the caption 'Basrelief, representing Pul, or Tiglath-Pileser'.

The identification, made before the cuneiform name of the king could actually be read, proved to be correct, a striking instance of 'biblical Assyria' opening the threshold to 'historical Assyria'. While the events enumerated in the translations of the badly mutilated inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser (III) seemed to corroborate the military history of'biblical Assyria', 'King Pul' proved too entrenched in the scholarly imagination for the first assyriologists not to find him in the 'monuments'. For example, through a false reading of the royal name Adad-narari (III) as 'Phal-lukha', and by equating this with biblical Pul (Rawlinson 1854a), Rawlinson one month later in 1854 was able to link the name Semiramis of Greek legend with Israelite history, a wonderful if evanescent example of'biblical' and 'classical' Assyria stealing a march on 'historical Assyria'.

The Israelites used the same language as the Canaanites. It is unsurprising that they would have the same words. That does not entail that they have the same precise meaning. That there is a supreme God in Mesopotamian belief, either by El, or Anu that in some ways coincides with Israelite belief is unsurprising given the fact that all Mesopotamians came from the same patriarchs as the Israelites.

Israelite language is Canaanite language, but you already know this.

Israelite's rise out of Canaan, they wouldn't have known who Yahweh, El, El Elyon, Elohim were unless they came across the Canaanite's.

Patriarch is originally a Canaanite theme and relates to their cultic practices.

 

[Sanoy]

Shekinah the dwelling a manifestation of the Judeo-Christian God which has descended to "dwell" among men. Like Memra (= "word"; "logos") and "Yeḳara" (i.e., "Kabod" = "glory"), the term was used by the Rabbis in place of "God" where the anthropomorphic expressions of the Bible were no longer regarded as proper. The word itself is taken from such passages as speak of God dwelling either in the Tabernacle or among the people of Israel (see Ex. xxv. 8, xxix. 45-46; Num. v. 3, xxxv. 34; I Kings vi. 13; Ezek. xliii. 9; Zech. ii. 14 [A. V. 10]). Occasionally the name of God is spoken of as descending (Deut. xii. 11; xiv. 23; xvi. 6, 11; xxvi. 2; Neh. i. 9). It is especially said that God dwells in Jerusalem (Zech. viii. 3; Ps. cxxxv. 21; I Chron. xxiii. 25), on Mount Zion (Isa. viii. 18; Joel iv. [A. V. iii.] 17, 21; Ps. xv. 1, lxxiv. 2), and in the Temple itself (Ezek. xliii. 7). Allusion is made also to "him that dwelt in the bush" (Deut. xxxiii. 16, ); and it is said that "the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai" (Ex. xxiv. 16). The term "Shekinah," which is Hebrew, whereas "Memra" and "Yeḳara" are Aramaic, took the place of the latter two in Talmudand Midrash, and thus absorbed the meaning which they have in the Targum, where they almost exclusively occur.





Some of Ishtar's worshipers were transvestites (I am aware of this) and transvestites would attend her ceremonies, but this doesn't lead the conclusion that Ishtar is a hermaphrodite. Transvestism is not an indication of physical hermaphroditism, and it is not androgyny. It's a displacement of the normative sex. The readings of these terms as the same collapsion of several non-normative sexualities into one "other" non-heterosexual behavior, and these are figured as male homosexual activities. Drag, cross-dressing, and transvestism are not interchangeable, either with each other or with hermaphroditism. Her cult is associated with all forms of sexuality in Akka, and her worshipers celebrated at rituals feasts in her honor. There is an instability of male and female in Ishtar's cult, but it is not prima facie bisexuality or hermaphorditism.

Regardless, it is more closely related to the Old Testament than we think, as the nomenclature of male prostitute or sodomite is banned from early Israelite's temples, yet women are afforded to pay for their vows with sex.





The Apkallu are also half man half fish, half man half eagle, and are represented as exorcists. If you look at the Apkallu depictions you will see them with cone and bucket, used for incense during exorcisms. The operative is exorcisms, dispatching demons to the wilderness. Hence, the Azazel does not represent the Apkallu, Azazel is seen in Biblical myths as an evil spirit, Apkallu are exorcists in Assyriology, there is a huge difference.

See Apkallu carrying cone and bucket for incense.


Sacrifice in Babylon was that the oxen for example would be killed, blood will be spilled on the altar and the animal is eaten to become part of the worshiper.






Sumerian's, Babylonian's, Akkadian's, Canaanite's are all Pre Israelite. You would have to conclude that the Israelite's did not know of ANE Cuneiform, which if they were neighbors of the people of Ugarit and they dwelt in Canaan they would be readily familiar.

Also, ANE Cueniform is still being discovered.

I wouldn't call it fallacious at all, the Israelite's attempt to use for example the word Tevah to describe the Ark of Noah, yet we know that word doesn't mean Ark at all.

I wouldn't assume that the priestly traditions were trust worthy.

Details in a text do not really mean much. The Bible's cross pollinated associations in Assyria are striking for example:

'Pul', the Assyrian king who received tribute from Menahem of Israel in 2 Kgs 15.19-20, posed no special difficulty prior to the decipherment of the royal Assyrian annals. The name also appears in Berossos, Josephus, and the Ptolemaic canon—how could such venerable authorities possibly be mistaken? Among biblical commentators and historians of the ancient world writing prior to 1850, Pul was universally recognized as the first Assyrian conqueror to trouble Israel, followed immediately by Tiglath-Pileser.

Hincks's reading in 1852 of'Menahem of Samaria' as tributary to the king whose sculptures had been reused in the Southwest Palace of Nimrud permitted Layard a year later to publish an engraving of an Assyrian king on his chariot with the caption 'Basrelief, representing Pul, or Tiglath-Pileser'.

The identification, made before the cuneiform name of the king could actually be read, proved to be correct, a striking instance of 'biblical Assyria' opening the threshold to 'historical Assyria'. While the events enumerated in the translations of the badly mutilated inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser (III) seemed to corroborate the military history of'biblical Assyria', 'King Pul' proved too entrenched in the scholarly imagination for the first assyriologists not to find him in the 'monuments'. For example, through a false reading of the royal name Adad-narari (III) as 'Phal-lukha', and by equating this with biblical Pul (Rawlinson 1854a), Rawlinson one month later in 1854 was able to link the name Semiramis of Greek legend with Israelite history, a wonderful if evanescent example of'biblical' and 'classical' Assyria stealing a march on 'historical Assyria'.









Israelite language is Canaanite language, but you already know this.

Israelite's rise out of Canaan, they wouldn't have known who Yahweh, El, El Elyon, Elohim were unless they came across the Canaanite's.

Patriarch is originally a Canaanite theme and relates to their cultic practices.

I'd like to again request that you keep your replies refined to their essentials. It is not necessary to list fact after fact after fact that is not relevant to the exchange. It makes this very tedious when it shouldn't be.

1. Memra/Gender I don't get it. I continue to tell you that Memra is the word of God, not the Shekinah and you continue to post facts about the Shekinah. The word Shekinah isn't even in the OT so why it is even in this thread is beyond me.

You are going to have to qualify this statement. "yet women are afforded to pay for their vows with sex." Even though it has nothing to do with your original point about genders. Shekinah isn't even in the OT so the whole point is moot anyway. Not to mention the Shekinah language is condemned by Rabbis as idolatry.

2. Azazel. It is the fish Apkallu that are represented as assisting with exorcisms in iconography. You do get the other apkallus depicted in excorcisms but they are either in the underworld as a particular lion Apkallu below the exorcists, or as a bird or other apkallu above the exorcists supposedly in heaven (example). The cone that the bird Apkallu use is believed to be for purification, however the word for it Mullilu does not have a direct translation. If you look for it in an Akkadian lexicon you will not find a direct translation for the compound word. The word you will find for purify does not fit into Mullilu. The definition is assumed based on iconography. You just don't understand enough about Apkallu to make that objection. There are many many types and they have very different operational behavior.

Still not sure what the point is about Israel in regards to the sacrifice of a bull.

3. Israelites copied their beliefs. The Babylonians were not pre-Isrealites, that is why I said some are not. If you are thinking of the city Nimrod founded that would be Eridu which was later renamed as the capitol of Babylon. Israel, through Abraham, has been around since the third dynasty of UR. The only tablets we should imagine that they could read due to porximity is Ugarit. But being able to read Ugarit cuneiform in no way means you can read Sumerian/Akkadian Cuneiform. They are vastly different languages. That is not to say no one could read it, but that it will be a rarity. Just because they are able to read a text doesn't mean they copied it. That these texts exist in similarity is the furthest any scholar has been able to make as far as positing a theory of how they would so vastly glean minute points from such a variety of texts. You won't do any better than those scholars in that pursuit. At this point you just list facts and I can't tell what your point is.

I'd also like to point out that this idea that the Isrealites could not have derived their own beliefs is simply antisemitism. Unless there is a valid and coherent explanation for "how" they did this I think it is just motivated by antisemitism, or anti Judaism/Christianity. That they were neighbors has very little explanatory scope.

4. Common Ancestor. Israelites rose out of the third dynasty of UR via Abraham, they passed through Egypt and settled in Canaan. Abraham's ancestors were the same as everyone else in Mesopotamia. So he did not need to copy from where he went or settled. If I go into two distant cities and tell a story for them to pass down. When I go back to the cities 500 years later they will have vastly different stories. That doesn't mean that one city copied another. It means they share the same common ancestor...me. And no Patriarch is not an original Canaanite theme. We see the same people on the Sumerian King list.

Please keep the replies to the relevant facts and points. These fact-streams are not helpful, I know you look at this stuff, you don't have to prove it to me.

 

[ShamashUruk]

I'd It is not necessary to list fact after fact after fact that is not relevant to the exchange. It makes this very tedious when it shouldn't be.

This is why I include fact after fact after fact, otherwise this is like the Bible where facts do not matter and any assumption relating to “God” in general is fine.

I'd like to again request that you keep your replies refined to their essentials .

It seems there is some discord going on here or some points that need to be clarified, I obviously cannot make an assumption of how well studied you are and you cannot do the same with me. Hence, the need for explanation, and even references which I'll happily include. But, since it seems we are only doing refutation claims to keep it short and simple I can do that as well. Also, I have an issue with the usage of the term Anunnaki, that is improper translation, the term is Anuna for the collection of Gods as children of An. Ki denotes earth, the Gods of An (Sumerian) or children of An (Sumerian) are not all necessarily on earth or come from the earth, some from the Apzu. I don’t know why people make this fatal translation error?

1. Memra/Gender I don't get it. I continue to tell you that Memra is the word of God, not the Shekinah and you continue to post facts about the Shekinah. The word Shekinah isn't even in the OT so why it is even in this thread is beyond me.

Memra is Aramaic, Shekinah is Hebrew. I believe the Bible is translated firstly in Hebrew and does contain some Aramaic. Shekinah being a Hebrew word and not Aramaic like Memra, and while I don’t disagree that Memra is used for “word of God”, whereare Shekinah is “he caused to dwell, you somehow equate this to idolatry, which may have been the case. But, I wouldn’t place “idolatry” in Jewish literature anymore than I would in Christian literature, I could even see the cross of Jesus as “idolatry”. I wouldn’t however, place Shekinah as any more or any less important than Memra in Old Testament literature, literally the Israelite’s attributed symbolism to many different objects, such as tents to show where Yahweh dwelled while waiting for the temple to be built. Either way this is not a good point for you to bring up, in attempting to separate Ishtar with the “word of God”, which if you really want to attribute to Memra either way it still stands that Ishtar is related.

You equate Ishtar as a hermaphrodite, being that Ishtar in Akkadian is the Goddess of sexuality she will have a wide variety of worshipers, including hermaphrodite’s, androgynous’, etc…to reference her purely as a hermaphrodite is misleading. A sexuality God or Goddess generally is (female in nature) related to birth cycles in terms of New Year and seasonal worship ceremonies that arise in Sumer and other ancient near eastern culture’s. I don’t see what your point is here.

It seems you are inferring that Ishtar is a hermaphrodite, maybe and maybe not, I do not know. I can see why hermaphroditic worshipers may have inscribed Cuneiform to her in Akkad, we won’t see this in Sumer however with Inanna as she is not hermaphroditic.

You are going to have to qualify this statement. "yet women are afforded to pay for their vows with sex." Even though it has nothing to do with your original point about genders. Shekinah isn't even in the OT so the whole point is moot anyway. Not to mention the Shekinah language is condemned by Rabbis as idolatry.

I wouldn't state Ishtar as being purely a hermaphrodite and I think you are trying to make the point that since Ishtar is a hermaphrodite "she/he" is then not related to the "word of God", but there is a lot going on concerning sex in early Israel which doesn't make your assertion any better, for example, there were an abundance of male prostitutes as homosexual and they are designated by distinct nomenclature, but in ancient Israel there is also a profile fitting female prostitute. It appears to have been a minor phenomenon in ancient Israel, in keeping with a general abhorrence of male-male intercourse exhibited in a variety of texts (Bird 2000, 146–62; Nissinen 1998). The sole reference (if correctly interpreted) is found in a prohibition in


Deuteronomy 23:18 [Heb. 23:19]: “You [m. singular] shall not bring the hire of a prostitute [etnan zonah] or the wages of a dog [mechir keleb] into the house of the LORD [in payment] for any vow.”


It is generally accepted that “dog” in this passage refers to a male prostitute.


If this is in fact the case, the order in this gender-paired reference further emphasizes the secondary character of the male class; in contrast to the normal male-female order, the term for the female practitioner is the leading and defining term. Of further note in this prohibition is the fact that it does not prohibit prostitution, but rather the dedication of income from prostitution as payment for religious vows. It has been suggested that women, who generally had no independent income, might engage in prostitution in order to obtain the money needed to pay their vows (Van der Toorn 1989)—perhaps with the active encouragement of temple personnel (the prohibition is formulated in the masculine, which, though conventional in the legal formulations of the HB, may suggest here that the law is targeting male instigators). The prohibition has more commonly been associated with some form of “sacred prostitution.” Both interpretations have serious problems. An association of prostitutes with the sanctuary is also found in Hosea 4:13–14, where worshippers (and/or priests) at the hilltop sanctuaries of the Northern Kingdom are accused of conducting their “worship” with prostitutes and “consecrated women.” In this prophetic judgment oracle, men’s cultic activity is aligned with women’s sexual misconduct—and in a striking reversal of the usual norms, judgment is not passed on the promiscuous females but rather the males. The oracle focuses on the men’s activity at the local shrines, sketched with heavy sexual innuendo (vv. 12–13a), and the female players are revealed only in the concluding verse. But while prostitutes/fornicators Prostitution in Ancient Israel appear only in the final lines, the language of fornication pervades the passage.


(12) My people [‘ammi, m. collective noun] consults his “stick” [‘etso], And his “rod” [maqlo] gives him oracles! For a “spirit of fornication” [ruach zenunim] has led [him/them] astray, And they have “fornicated from under” [wayyiznu mittachat] their God.

(13) They [m. plural] “sacrifice” on the tops of mountains, and “make offerings”18 upon the hills, under oak and poplar and terebinth—because their shade is good. That is why your daughters fornicate [tiznenah]

and your daughters-in-law (kallotekem)19 commit adultery.

(14) I will not punish your daughters when they fornicate (tiznenah) or your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery [tena’apnah], for they [the men] themselves “divide”20 with the fornicators [hazzonot]

and “sacrifice” with the “consecrated women” [haqqedeshot].


As we learn male prostitution is the focal point of these earlier books which are vague, however the target is not prostitution, because whoredom is not done away with.


Here, for the first time in the HB, the language of prostitution/fornication is used in a metaphorical sense—in combination (only here) with a literal use (the reference to prostitutes, v. 14b, if not also the daughters’ activity, v. 14a) (Bird 1997, 219–36)

2. Azazel. It is the fish Apkallu that are represented as assisting with exorcisms in iconography. You do get the other apkallus depicted in excorcisms but they are either in the underworld as a particular lion Apkallu below the exorcists, or as a bird or other apkallu above the exorcists supposedly in heaven (example). The cone that the bird Apkallu use is believed to be for purification, however the word for it Mullilu does not have a direct translation. If you look for it in an Akkadian lexicon you will not find a direct translation for the compound word. The word you will find for purify does not fit into Mullilu. The definition is assumed based on iconography. You just don't understand enough about Apkallu to make that objection. There are many many types and they have very different operational behavior.

You are trying to equate and make a connection between Azazel in Israelite folklore and Apkallu, this makes no sense at all. What we don’t see is Azazel assisting in exorcisms; in fact he is a “demon” in Israelite folklore and a goat with sins is sent to Azazel, the Israelite’s cleverly find a way to not sacrifice a goat (as it is forbidden) to Azazel but send a goat with sins to Azazel. Apkallu are generally sages, we see this with Adapa in Babylon. Mullilu in Neo-Assyria for example is a purifier; it is generally a ‘bucket and cone’ that the Adapa and later Apkallu in Neo-Assyria will carry. That being said, Apkallu are earlier seen in Sumer as Abgal as they are one of seven of Enki’s sages (Note: The terms enkum and ninkum are also the names of temple dignitaries at Eridu, purificatory priests on the temple staff. Similarly abgal is also the name of a temple official among the clergy of Eridu). All this relates to Sumer, not Akkad as you so aptly put.

The “underworld” or “afterlife” does not have negative connotation, as humans do not go to “heaven” in Sumerian theology.

Also, in Sumer we don’t find the term “angel” at all as it doesn’t exist, we do find however, lil spirits or giddim or even gala to represent good and evil spirits. Demon does not always note a negative connotation in Sumer. There are example of when the term “demon” is used for example in the Epic of Bilgamesh the demon Huwawa guards the forest of Enlil and is killed by Bilgamesh and his sidekick. Huwawa does not however denote a negative connotation; he is only a guardian and is treated as such. Whereas Azazel is seen as the recipient of Israelite sins, such as sacrificing children to Moloch, the sins of the sacrifice of children to Moloch are dispatched on the goat to Azazel.

In sum I have no clue what your point is?

Still not sure what the point is about Israel in regards to the sacrifice of a bull.

. I think you were originally trying to assert that there is nothing noteworthy about goats and that Azazel is seen as ½ man ½ goat in some regards. The Israelite’s are not to sacrifice goats, yet El is equated as a bull in Ugarit and in the Levant, when Aaron smears bovine blood on the temple doors he does not smear goats blood, but bovine blood. Yet the Israelite’s are punished for worshiping a bovine in the Old Testament, this is equated to the golden calf. This may have been the replacement of Yahweh over El concerning their Canaanite origins. That is why it is not dismissive as you stated and even to the contrary, it shows a break away from El to Yahweh, though the both are equated in Israelite folklore.

3. Israelites copied their beliefs. The Babylonians were not pre-Isrealites, that is why I said some are not. If you are thinking of the city Nimrod founded that would be Eridu which was later renamed as the capitol of Babylon. Israel, through Abraham, has been around since the third dynasty of UR. The only tablets we should imagine that they could read due to porximity is Ugarit. But being able to read Ugarit cuneiform in no way means you can read Sumerian/Akkadian Cuneiform. They are vastly different languages. That is not to say no one could read it, but that it will be a rarity. Just because they are able to read a text doesn't mean they copied it. That these texts exist in similarity is the furthest any scholar has been able to make as far as positing a theory of how they would so vastly glean minute points from such a variety of texts. You won't do any better than those scholars in that pursuit. At this point you just list facts and I can't tell what your point is. I'd also like to point out that this idea that the Isrealites could not have derived their own beliefs is simply antisemitism. Unless there is a valid and coherent explanation for "how" they did this I think it is just motivated by antisemitism, or anti Judaism/Christianity. That they were neighbors has very little explanatory scope.

Babylonian’s are pre Israelite’, in fact Sumer in its origins extends into the Babylonian period about 2350 BC which will predate the 3rd dynasty of Ur, this is when the first code of laws by Urukagina, king of Lagash will arise. This clearly predates the Israelite’s by a long stretch, and predates the 3rd dynasty of Ur.

No, I would never equate Nimrod with Eridu, Eridu is associated with Alulim yet Nimrod in some aspects is associated with Etana. However, one issue that arises Kingly names and Geographical locations are often used simultaneously. This is inconclusive to state that Nimrod is exclusively a founder of Eridu, wherein Alulim is shown on the kings list.

Ugaritic cuneiform has been translated per your statement, however, the Nippur tablet with the flood epic has also been translated and will predate Ugaritic cuneiform.

Sumerian is seen as a holy language, while Akkadian and other Semitic languages are developed from Sumerian, but are not seen as “holy”, by historical aforethought.

I'd also like to point out that this idea that the Isrealites could not have derived their own beliefs is simply antisemitism.

Generally, Israelite’s come out of Canaan (their language indicates so), by this I could generally state that the Akkadian’s are Semitic as well (since they speak a Semitic tongue) and that since the Akkadian’s derived their language from Sumer that is anti-Semitic. To exclusively hold the Israelite’s as Semitic while other groups and earlier groups are clearly Semitic is misstating a point.

Unless there is a valid and coherent explanation for "how" they did this I think it is just motivated by antisemitism, or anti Judaism/Christianity. That they were neighbors has very little explanatory scope.

You are placing Semitism directly with the Israelite’s, ignoring that Akkadian’s are also Semitic, as the Babylonian’s are due mainly to their language and geographical location. However, the more appropriate contention is that Monotheism arises out of Polytheism. Most likely the Israelite’s are Monotheistic after their captivity in Babylon, which they adopted from Babylonian henotheism (of course you could argue that the Babylonian’s are largely polytheistic).

Asking “how” the Israelite’s came up with their belief is no different than asking how the Sumerians’ came up with their belief. It was developed most likely from preceding and neighboring communities, the Sumerians’ for example may have been developed from Proto-Sumerians from Gobekli Tepe.

This isn’t anti anything, it’s just I think you have a prejudice towards the Israelite’s as if they are exclusive, when clearly they adopt their Gods such as El, Yahweh into their pantheon similar to how the earlier Semitic Akkadian’s adopt Anu from Sumer as An.

4. Common Ancestor. Israelites rose out of the third dynasty of UR via Abraham, they passed through Egypt and settled in Canaan. Abraham's ancestors were the same as everyone else in Mesopotamia. So he did not need to copy from where he went or settled. If I go into two distant cities and tell a story for them to pass down. When I go back to the cities 500 years later they will have vastly different stories. That doesn't mean that one city copied another. It means they share the same common ancestor...me. And no Patriarch is not an original Canaanite theme. We see the same people on the Sumerian King list. Please keep the replies to the relevant facts and points. These fact-streams are not helpful, I know you look at this stuff, you don't have to prove it to me.

Abraham may have not existed at all and it is improper to assume the 3rd dynasty of Ur at this juncture the 3rd dynasty of Ur is 2112 BC – c. 2004 BC which arises after the fall of Akkad; however, patriarchs are equated in Canaan cultic activities. Abraham is in Biblical folklore said to have come from Ur a Sumerian city. It will originate from Sumer, not from Canaan or from Israel. The Sumerian kings list is noted by some researchers as part God part Man as they rule in Sars, these are hence not patriarchs but demi-gods and shown as kings, this is conflated I believe later with the Jesus epics. Israelite’s do not go from Ur with Abraham to Canaan, you are thus making an assumption that Abraham is a Hebrew name, it is most likely an Akkadian name, not Hebrew and I have been corrected on this before I have brought up that Abraham is Sumerian, but most likely he is Akkadian as Akkad conquered Sumer, but an issue we will both have is that Ur-Nammu is not well documented, exception of the laws or Ur-Nammu which I believe later on Hammurabi will adopt and then is shown as casuistic and apoditic laws in exodus, to caveat to this the 10 commandments are cuneiform, indicating a polytheistic theme since most polytheistic themes are Cuneiform.

 

[Sanoy]

I asked for refinement but the response has instead trippled in size. I must excuse myself as I don't have the time to properly keep up with such an expanding dialogue. I also see no point in conversing over OT conflicts when what is considered reliable in the OT is cherry picked.

We have exchanged before and I had to leave because of prolix responses. I enjoy talking about this stuff but it has become larger than my interest in partcipation.

 

[ShamashUruk]

I asked for refinement but the response has instead trippled in size. I must excuse myself as I don't have the time to properly keep up with such an expanding dialogue. I also see no point in conversing over OT conflicts when what is considered reliable in the OT is cherry picked.

We have exchanged before and I had to leave because of prolix responses. I enjoy talking about this stuff but it has become larger than my interest in partcipation.

Problem is we are discussing a very old history and numerous issues will be present, this is why I state originally that monotheism develops from polytheism in short.

But I do understand the need to not address issues that encompass the whole of this part of history, it is long and dry and boring, but informative nonetheless.