You have no idea how you are over simplifying. Have you ever sat under someone who can teach exegetically with competence? It appears you have not.
I remember not long ago learning a passage in the Hebrew concerning someone dwelling in a city. The stems and syntax had at least five different meanings.... One was to dwell in a place while depressed., And, another to dwell in prosperity. And, to dwell and quickly move on... etc. using root words as proof can be misleading.
"He gave it a run for the money." Did that mean he got paid to run a mile?
Would you like me to run that by you again? (just look up the root word)
Considering that I am student of Assyriology I consider exegesis which I have viewed by Christian, Judeo, and other Assyriological studies I consider exegesis a favorite subject of mine.
Keep in mind that Hebrew is originally Canaanite language, that is who the Israelite’s are.
You are vis-à-vis making my arguments for me.
Does then “sin” mean something entirely different than “wicked”? Not according to you, per your statement. If the “stems” (by the way you use syntax improperly) show that in your example one word can mean a variety of different things, then you are argument ipso facto fails prima facie. Because, then by your definition sin can have a variety of meanings and interpretations and will not exclude words such as:
Wicked, crime, evil, malicious, etc…
However, the Concordance is solid from my earlier posting; that sin is related to the word wicked.
He is applauding you. He likes your kind of thinking.
This is preaching, and it really vitiates the conversation.
Let's lay this out with critique of the Bible and let's really examine Christianity at its core.
1)
The origins of "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). This highest evil being can also be referred to as ho poneros ('the evil one', cf. Matt 13: 19) and 110 peira:.on ('the tempter' - cf. Malt 4:3: I Thess 3:5). [C.B.l] Although the noun satan has no cognates in texts that are prior to or contemporary with the biblical texts in which it occurs, there are in Akkadian three legal terms meaning 'accuser' that can have both terrestrial and celestial referents. These terms are bel dababi, bel dini and akil karsi. Each can refer either to a human legal opponent or to a deity acting as an accuser in a legal context,and thus each term functionally parallels the noun satan even though there is no etymological relationship. For example, the deities Nanay and Mar-Biti are charged to guarantee an agreement sworn in their names. Should anyone attempt to alter the agreement, these deities were to assume the role of legal adversaries (EN.MES d;-n;-su [VAS I 36 iiiA». Standing behind this notion of deities playing legal roles with respect to earthly happenings is the wellknown idea of the divine -'council, acting as a judiciary body. The noun satan is used of a divine being in four contexts in the Hebrew Bible. In Numbers 22:22-35 Balaam, a non-Israelite seer, sets out on a journey, an act that incurs God's wrath. God responds by dispatching his celestial messenger, the malak YHWH, described as a satan, who stations himself on the road upon which Balaam is travelling. Balaam is ignorant of the swordwielding messenger but his donkey sees the danger and twice avoids the messenger, for which Balaam beats the animal. The messenger then moves to a place in the road where circumvention is impossible. The donkey lays down, and is again beaten. At this point Yahweh gives the donkey the ability to speak, and she asks why Balaam has beaten her. A conversation ensues and then Yahweh uncovers Balaam's eyes so that he can see the sword-wielding messenger, and Balaam falls down to the ground. The messenger asks why Balaam struck his donkey and then asserts that he has come forth as a satan because Balaam undertook his journey hastily. The messenger states that, had the donkey not seen him and avoided him, he would have killed Balaam. Balaam then admits his guilt, saying that he did not know that the messenger was standing on the road, and offers to tum back if the messenger judges the journey to be wrong. The messenger gives Balaam pennission to continue, but adjures him to speak only as instructed. Prior to the work of GROSS (1974) most scholars attributed the above passage to the J source, which would have made it the earliest context in which the noun satan is applied to a celestial being. However, since Gross' study the tendency has been to date the passage to the sixth century BC or later. With the exception of the above story, which obviously ridicules Balaam, he is characterized in an extremely positive way in Num 22-24. Outside those chapters, the first clear indications that he is being viewed negatively are attributable to the P source (Num 31: 16) and Dtr 2 (Josh 13:22), both of which are typically dated to the sixth century. Thus the available evidence suggests that Balaam was viewed positively in earlier, epic tradition, but negatively in later sources. Given that the story under discussion views Balaam negatively, the story most likely stems from a later source. As can be readily seen, the heavenly being who acts as a satan in Numbers 22 has very little in common with later conceptualizations of Satan. He (satan) is Yahweh's messenger, not his archenemy, and he acts in accordance with Yahweh's will rather than opposing it. Indeed, Yahweh's messenger here, as elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, is basically an hypostatization of the deity. Hence, as KLUGER (1967:75) has remarked, the 'real' satan/adversary in Numbers 22 is none other than Yahweh himself. The opening chapter of the book of Job describes a gathering of the -"sons of God', i.e. a meeting of the divine -'council. Present at this gathering is a being called "Hassatan": this is the common noun satan preceded by the definite nrticle. The definite article makes it virtually certain that satan is not a proper name (contra B. WALTKE & M. O'CONNOR, An Intooduction to Biblical Hebrcw Syntax [Winona Lake 1990] 249). Most scholars translate "hassatan" as 'the Accuser', which they understand to be a title that describes a specific role or office. However, it should be noted that no annlogous office has been convincingly identified in the legal system of ancient Israel, nor do the divine councils of the surrounding cultures include a deity whose specific assignment is to be an accuser.
Some scholars have argued that professional informers/accusers existed in the early Persian period, and that the satan in Job 1 and 2 is modelled on these informers. The evidence for this is inconclusive. Given the uncertainty of the existence of adducible legal parallels, another possibility would be to understand the force of the definite article differently. For example, in Gen 14:13 a certain person who has escaped from a battle is referred to as happalit. The precise identity of the character is not important to the story. What is important for the narrative is the character's current and temporary status of escapee. The force of the definite article is to deemphasize precise identity and focus on the status of the character as it is relevant to the narrative plot (cf. Ezek 24:26; 33:21 and P. JOOON, Grammaire de I'Hibreu biblique [Rome 1923] 137n). Attributing this force to the definite article of "hassatan" in Job 1:6 would lead us to understand that a certain divine being whose precise identity is unimportant and who has the current and temporary status of accuser is being introduced into the narrative. The advantage of this interpretation is that it is consistent with known Israelite (and Mesopotamian) legal practice in that 'accuser' was a legal status that various people temporarily acquired in the appropriate circumstances, and not a post or office.
When Yahweh asks the satan whether he has given any thought to the exemplary and indeed perfect piety of Job, the satan links Job's piety with the prosperity he enjoys as a result. If the pious inevitably prosper, how do we know that their piety is not motivated by sheer greed? Given that God is responsible for the creation and maintainance of a world order in which the righteous reap reward, what the satan is in fact challenging is God's blueprint for divine-human relations.
In other words, the satan is questioning the validity of a moral order in which the pious unfailingly prosper. The test of true righteousness would be worship without the promise of reward. Yahweh accepts the satan's challenge: he permits the satan to sever the link between righteousness and reward. Although Job is blameless, he is made to suffer, losing first his wealth and his children, and eventually his own good health. In the end a suffering and impoverished Job nevertheless bends his knee to a god whose world order is devoid of retributive justice, thus proving the satan wrong. In Job, the Satan seems clearly to be a divine being, although most scholars would agree that satan is not a proper name.
Though he challenges God at a very profound level, he is nonetheless subject to God's power and, like Yahweh's messenger in Num 22, acts on Yahweh's instructions. He is certainly not an independent, inimical force. The book of Job does not contain references to historical events and hence dating it is problematic. Most modern scholars read it as a response to theological problems raised by the Babylonian exile and consequently date it to the latter half of the sixth century BCE.
My own personal thought is the book of Job is related to the Babylonian books of wisdom, but this would need much more proper research.
In a vision of the prophet Zechariah (Zech 3), the high priest Joshua is portrayed as standing in the divine council, which is functioning as a tribunal. He stands in front of Yahweh's messenger, with "hassatan" on his right-hand side to accuse him. The messenger rebukes the Satan, and orders that Joshua's filthy garments be removed and replaced with clean clothing. In the name of Yahweh the messenger promises Joshua continuing access to the divine council in return for obedience. As in Job 1 and 2, the noun Satan appears with the definite article, and hence is not a proper name. The presence of the definite article also raises the same question as to whether it denotes an office of Accuser in the divine council. See the above section on Job 1 and 2 for a discussion of this problem.
In order to understand Zechariah's vision and the satan's role in it, it's necessary to address the historical context of the vision. While the vision cannot be dated exactly, the general context of Zechariah's prophecy was the Jerusalem community after the return from exile around the time of the rebuilding of the temple (ca. 520 BCE). Those scholars who see this community as basically unified view Joshua as a symbol of the community and interpret his change of clothes as symbolizing a change in the community's status from impure to pure, or sinful to forgiven, in the eyes of Yahweh. In this interpretation, the satan is understood as objecting to the change in the community's status: Yahweh wishes to pardon his people and the satan is opposed. However. This interpretation overlooks evidence that the restoration community was deeply divided over cultic issues. including the issue of the priesthood (HANSON 1979:32-279). When this fact is taken into account it becomes unlikely that Joshua should be understood as a cypher for the whole community. Rather, the vision reflects a rift in the community over the issue of whether Joshua should become the high priest. Zechariah's vision supports Joshua. and implicitly claims that the matter has been decided in Joshua's favour in the divine council itself. with Yahweh taking Joshua's side. In this interpretation, the satan can be described as a projection into the celestial realm of the objections raised by the losing side. If this interpretation is the correct one. then the noun satan is here associated with a division that is internal to the community in question. This interpretation would add support to PAGELS' (1991) theory that the notion of Satan developed among Jews who wished to denounce other Jews whose opinions they did not share. As in Num 22 and Job 1 and 2, salan in Zech 3 is not a proper name. In Zech 3 the satan is clearly not Yahweh's messenger; indeed, the satan and Yahweh's messenger are on opposing sides of the issue of whether Joshua should become the high priest. Hence Num 22 and Zech 3 use the noun satan to describe different divine beings. It is unclear whether the satan of Job 1 and 2 is the same celestial being as the satan of Zech 3. If "hassatan" should be translated 'the Accuser' with the understanding that there is a post or office of Accuser in the divine council. then it is most likely that the same divine being is envisaged in both contexts. However. if the definite article carries the connotations outlined above. then it is quite possible that Job 1 and 2 and Zech 3 do not have the same divine being in view.
So far we have covered that in older cultural traditions such as the Akkadians does indicate where we first see the ideologies of deities acting as accusers. Meaning that "satan" or "Satan" is not an Israelite invention, as the Akkadian's predate the Israelite's. Also, the Bible references so far differing "Satan" or "satan" between Zecharia and the book of Job. Furthermore we see Yahweh as acting as "Satan", "satan" or Yahweh is actually "Satan", "satan" per the story of Balaam.
In 1 Chr 21: 1 the noun satan appears without the definite article. The majority of scholars therefore understand satan to be the proper name Satan. though some maintain that the noun refers to a human adversary and others argue that it refers to an unnamed celestial adversary or accuser. I Chr 21: 1-22: 1 is paralleled in the Deuteronomistic History by 2 Sam 24. Both passages tell the story of a census taken during the reign of David, an ensuing plague and an altar built on the threshing floor of AraunahlOrnan (-Varuna). In 2 Sam 24 the story begins. "and the anger of Yahweh again burned against Israel. and he provoked David against them. saying 'Go number Israel and Judah•... The corresponding verse in Chr reads. "And a satan/Satan stood up against Israel and he provoked David to number Israel." In both versions the act of taking a census is adjudged sinful. Given that the Chronicler used the Deuteronomistic History as a source text. it is clear that the Chronicler has altered his source in such a way as to take the burden of responsibility for the sinful census away from Yahweh. Some scholars interpret this to mean that the Chronicler was striving to distance Yahweh from any causal relationship to sin or to rid Yahweh of malevolent behaviour in general. However, this explanation cannot account for passages such as 2 Chr 10:15 and 18:18-22, where Yahweh is clearly portrayed as sanctioning lies and instigating behaviour that was designed to cause harm. All other explanation notes that, in comparison to the Deuteronomistic History, the Chronicler presents an idealized portrait of David's reign. In general, the Chronicler deletes accounts that cast David in a dubious light. Contrary to this general tendency, the Chronicler was obliged to retain the story of the census plague because it culminated in the erection of what the Chronicler understood to be the altar of the Solomonic Temple, and David's relationship to the Jerusalem Temple is another theme of crucial concern to the Chronicler. Given that the incident could not, therefore, be deleted, the Chronicler modified his source text so that the incident no longer compromised Yahweh's relationship with David, the ideal king. The Chronicler also shifts blame for the sinfulness of the census from David to Joab by stating that the census was not sinful per se, but was sinful because Joab did not take a complete census (I Chr 21 :6-7; 27:24).
2)
Lucifer: Lucifer does not exist until the stroke of a pen in 382 CE. The genealogy is straightforward to plot. First, the apparent name given in Isaiah 14:12 is not Lucifer, but Hêlēl Ben Šaḥar; this is transformed in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, into
Ἑωσφόρος (Heōsphóros): dawn bringer. This is the specific Greek term for the god of the planet Venus when it rises. There is no ambiguity in its astral identification as the morning star. In Greek mythology, Heōsphóros was twinned with Hesperos; they are
respectively morning and evening star. Even in identifying these as gods of the star, the planet Venus herself remained that of the love
goddess Aphrodite, a distinction which needs to be made. The Septuagint, with its rendition of Heōsphóros, was not, however, used as the basis for the Latin Vulgate, which replaced the earlier translations in circulation, collectively known as the Vetus Latina. The Latin Vulgate was the work of St Jerome in a project which commenced in 382 CE, and became the standard text in the Western Catholic Church for the next 1000 years. Instead of using the Greek Septuagint, Jerome went to the Hebrew texts themselves, and thence made the fatal translation ‘Lucifer.’ This is derived from the Latin lucem ferre, light bearer. Clearly this differs from the Greek, ‘dawn bringer,’ although it has the same basic meaning, that of Venus, the morning star. It is only when the Latin Lucifer is translated back into Greek that it becomes Φωσφόρος (Phōsphóros). Evidently, dawn-bringer is not a term that can be used interchangeably with phosphoros, which has the more general meaning of ‘light-bringing,’ and is applied to many gods and goddesses, such as torch-bearing Hecate. It does not identify the source or the character of the light. Though phosphoros can be applied as an epithet to Lucifer, it would be more accurate to
specify heosphoros. The mystery of Lucifer is explicitly concerned with the light of dawn, and its attendant qualities – the reddening
of the sky and the magical properties of the dew, an oft forgotten elixir.
3)
Problems with divine image and creation: Divine image and representation as the creation of human life is an exception to the rule of creation by divine fiat, as signaled by the replacement of the simple ... Hebrew command (the jussive) with a personal, strongly expressed resolve, the cohortative. Whereas the earlier jussives expressed God’s will with a third person, nonagentive verb form, the cohortative is both first person and agentive. Unlike the jussives, too, the cohortative doesn’t itself create but prepares or introduces the creative act. With justification, then:
The man and the woman in Gen. I ... are ... created ... by God’s own personal decision (v. 26)—a decision unique in the Priestly document’s whole creation account.
Similarly, God participates more intimately and intensively in this than in the earlier works of creation. As the cohortative form suggests, P’s God anticipates a more active role, greater control, and stronger personal involvement in the human creation than in his previous seven creative acts. God’s involvement also runs deeper. As P tells the story, this last creative act coincides with an extraordinary divine event. When God initiates human creation, God takes the opportunity to identify himself, for the first time, in the self-referential first person. At the same time, God’s identity is invested in this human creature and is represented by two characteristics: a divine image and a divine likeness. Humanity resembles divinity through two inherent yet divine features. Of all God’s creations, only humanity is envisioned as comparable to divinity.
V. 27 will corroborate and will execute this vision. Its first clause names the creator, the human creature, and the divine image that God invests in human beings (v. 27aα ). Overlapping with the first, the second clause identifies the divine possessor of the image (v. 27aâ ). The third clause deletes reference to the image yet describes the human creature as a constituent pair (v. 27b). V. 27 therefore will reiterate the unique relationship between God and humanity, explains the relationship, and tracks it from its source to its individual heirs. So, the interpretive details of Gen :26–27 are unclear at best. To be sure, the characteristics uniquely shared by creator and creature assert “the incomparable nature of human beings and their special relationship to God.”
But when its two nominal components—‘image’and ‘likeness’—are queried, the assertion of incomparability is quickly qualified. For example, what does the ‘image’ of God signify, and how does the human race reflect it? Or, what is a divine ‘likeness’, how does it compare to the divine ‘image’, and how is the ‘likeness’ reflected in humankind? The responses are often unsatisfying. Very little distinction can be made between the two words. The two terms are used interchangeably and indiscriminately and one has to conclude that “image” and “likeness” are, like “prototype” and “original,” essentially equivalent expressions. They do not seek to describe two different sorts of relationship, but only a single one; the second member of the word-pair does not seek to do more than in some sense to define the first more closely and to reinforce it. That is to say, it seeks so to limit and to fix the likeness and accord between God and man that, in all circumstances, the uniqueness of God will be guarded. These statements, then, testify to the problem. The ‘image’ is problematic in its own right. For in most of its occurrences, íìö ‘image’ is a concrete noun. And as such, it refers to a representation of form, figure, or physical appearance.
Thus if the human race is created in the ‘image of God’, there is an unavoidable logical implication: God must also be material, physical, corporeal, and, to a certain degree, humanoid. Problematic, too, is the intertextual implication of a concrete, human ‘image’. Indeed, the very existence of such an ‘image’ seems to violate the second commandment, which forbids idols and idolatry (Ex 20: – ; Dt : –10; see also Dt :15–19, and, within the Priestly tradition, Lev 19: , 26:
4)
YAHWEH IS BAAL: Various West Semitic descriptions emphasize 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.336 Biblical material deriding other deities reserves power over the storm for Yahweh (Jer. 10:11-16; 14:22; Amos 4:7; 5:8; 9:6). 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. All three passages presuppose the image of the storm moving eastward from the Mediterranean Sea to the coast. In 1 Kings 19 and 2 Esdras 13:1-4 this force is portrayed with human imagery. The procession of the divine warrior is accompanied by a contingent of lesser divine beings (Deut. 32:34; 33:2; Hab. 3:5; KTU 1.5 V 6-9; cf. Judg. 5:20). The Ugaritic antecedent to Resheph in Yahweh’s entourage in Habakkuk 3:5 may be KTU 1. 82.1-3, which perhaps includes Resheph as a warrior with Baal against tnn, related to biblical tannînîm.338 Though the power of other Near Eastern warrior-gods was manifest in the storm (e.g., Amun, Ningirsu/Ninurta, Marduk, and Addu/Adad),339 the proximity of terminology and imagery between the Ugaritic and biblical evidence points to an indigenous cultural influence on meteorological descriptions of Yahweh. Israelite tradition modified its Canaanite heritage by molding the march of the divine warrior specifically to the element of Yahweh’s southern sanctuary, variously called Sinai (Deut. 33:2; cf. Judg. 5:5; Ps. 68:9), Paran (Deut. 33:2; Hab. 3:3), Edom (Judg. 5:4), and Teiman (Hab. 3:3 340 and in the Kuntillet ‘Ajrûd inscriptions; cf. Amos 1:12; Ezek. 25:13). This modification may underlie the difference between Baal’s epithet rkb ‘rpt, “cloud-rider” (e.g., CTA 2.4[KTU 1.2 IV].8), and Yahweh’s title, rokeb bāa‘ărābôt, “rider over the steppes,” in Psalm 68:5 (cf. Deut. 33:26; Ps. 104:3),341 although a shared background for this feature is evident from other descriptions of Baal and Yahweh. The notion of Baal riding on a winged war chariot is implicit in
mdl, one element in Baal’s meteorological entourage in KTU 1.5 V 6-11.342 Psalm 77:19 refers to the wheels in Yahweh’s storm theophany, which presumes a divine war chariot. Psalm 18 (2 Sam. 22):11 presents Yahweh riding on the wind surrounded by storm clouds. This image forms the basis for the description of the divine chariot in Ezekiel 1 and 10. Psalm 65:12 (E 11) likewise presupposes the storm-chariot image: “You crown your bounteous year, and your tracks drip with fatness.” Similarly, Yahweh’s storm chariot is the image presumed by Habakkuk 3:8 and 15:
Was your wrath against the rivers, O Yahweh?
Was your anger against the rivers,
or your indignation against the sea,
when you rode upon your horses,
upon your chariot of victory?
You trampled the sea with your horses,
the surging of the mighty waters.
The description of Yahweh’s horses fits into the larger context of the storm theophany directed against the cosmic enemies, Sea and River. (The horses in this verse are unrelated to the horses dedicated to the sun in 2 Kings 23:11, unless there was a coalescence of the chariot imagery of the storm and the sun ) The motif of chariot-riding storm-god with his divine entourage extends in Israelite tradition to the divine armies of Yahweh riding on chariots with horses (2 Kings 2:11; 6:17). Other features originally attributed to Baal also accrued to Yahweh. Albright and other scholars 344 have argued the epithet ‘ly, “the Most High,” belonging to Baal in the Ugaritic texts (KTU 1.16 III 6, 8; cf. RS 18.22.4’), appears as a title of Yahweh in 1 Samuel 2:10, 2 Samuel 23:1, Psalms 18 (2 Sam. 22):14 and 68:6, 30, 35 (cf. Dan. 3:26, 32; 4:14, 21, 22, 29, 31; 5:18, 21; 7:25), in the biblical hypocoristicon ‘ē/î, the name of the priest of Shiloh,345 and in Hebrew inscriptional personal names yhw‘ly, “Yahu is Most High,” yw‘ly, “Yaw is Most High,” ̔lyhw, “Most High is Yahu,” and ‘lyw, “Most High is Yaw.”346 The bull iconography that Jeroboam I sponsored in Dan and Bethel (1 Kings 12:28-31) has been attributed to the influence of Baal in the northern kingdom. This imagery represented an old northern tradition of divine iconography for Yahweh used probably as a rival symbol to the traditional royal iconography of the cherubim of the Jerusalem temple.347 The old northern tradition of bull iconography for Yahweh is reflected in the name ‘glyw, which may be translated, “Young bull is Yaw,” in Samaria ostracon 41:1.348 The ca. twelfth-century bull figurine discovered at a site in the hill country of Ephraim and the young bull depicted on the tenth-century Taanach stand likewise involve the iconography of a god, either Yahweh or Baal. 349 Newer discoveries have yielded iconography of a deity on a bull on a ninth-century plaque from Dan and an eighth-century stele from Bethsaida.
Indeed, evidence for Yahweh as bull appears in Amherst Papyrus 63 (column XI): “Horus-Yaho, our bull is with us. May the lord of Bethel answer us on the morrow.”351 Despite later syncretism with Horus, the text apparently preserves a prayer to Yahweh in his emblem-animal as a bull invoked as the patron-god of Bethel. The further question is whether these depictions were specific to either El or Baal (or both) in the Iron Age. The language has been thought also to derive from El, frequently called “bull” (tr) in the Ugaritic texts. There is some evidence pointing to the application of this iconography to El in the IronAge.
The title, ‘ăbîr ya‘ăqōb, “bull of Jacob” (Gen. 49:24; Ps. 132:2, 4), derived from the bovine imagery of El. The image of Yahweh having horns “like the horns of the wild ox” (kĕtô ̔ăpōt rĕ’ēm) in Numbers 24:8 also belongs to this background. Other Late Bronze and Iron I iconographic evidence might favor a connection with Baal.352 The reference to kissing Baal in 1 Kings 19:18 and the allusion to kissing calves in Hosea 13:2 353 would seem to bolster the Baalistic background to the bull iconography in the northern kingdom. However, the mention of kissing bulls in the apparent context of the Bethel cult in Papyrus Amherst 63 (column V) would point to the Yahwistic background of this practice.354 It is also possible that a number of major gods could be regarded as “the divine bull,”355 as this title applies also to Ashim-Bethel in Papyrus Amherst 63 (column XV).356 The polemics against the calf in Samaria in Hosea 8:5 and 10:5 may reflect indignation at the Yahwistic symbol that was associated also with Baal. Similarly, Tobit 1:5 (LXX Vaticanus and Alexandrinus) mentions the worship of “the Baal the calf” ( te Baal tē damalei) in the northern kingdom. Despite the evidence for the attribution of “bull” to Baal in the first millennium, a genetic solution tracing the imagery specifically to either El or Baal may not be applicable. B. Vawter argues that “bull” means no more than chief “male,”357 a point perhaps supported by the secular use of this term in KTU 1.15 IV 6, 8, 17, 19 and 4.360.3.358 The anti-Baalistic polemic of Hosea 13:2 and Tobit 1:5 may also constitute a secondary rejection of this Yahwistic symbol, because bull iconography may have represented both gods in the larger environment of Phoenicia and the northern kingdom.
In any case, the Canaanite tradition of the bull iconography ultimately provides the background for this rendering of Yahweh. Common to both Yahweh and Baal was also a constellation of motifs surrounding their martial and meteorological natures. The best-known and oldest of these motifs is perhaps the defeat of cosmic foes who are variously termed Leviathan, ‘qltn, tnn,
The seven-headed beast, Yamm, and Mot. A second-millennium seal from Mari depicts a god thrusting a spear into waters, apparently representing the conflict of the West Semitic war-god with the cosmic waters (cf. the piercing, *hll, of the serpent in Job 26:13 and of tannîn in Isa. 51:9).359 This conflict corresponds at Ugarit with Baal’s struggle with Yamm in KTU 1.2 IV, although Yamm appears as Anat’s adversary in KTU 1.3 III 43. Yamm appears as a destructive force in the Ugaritic texts (KTU 1.14 I 19-20; cf. 1.2 IV 3-4) and a proud antagonist to the divine warrior in the biblical record (Job 38:11; Ps. 89:10 [E 9]). Baal’s victory over Yamm in KTU 1.2 IV 27-34 presents the possibility of Yamm’s annihilation (*kly; cf. KTU 1.3 III 38-39, 46) and then proclaims his death, an image that appears rarely in biblical material (Rev. 21:1; cf. Testament of Moses 10:6). 360 Various biblical texts depict the divine defeat of Yamm with other images: the stilling (*sbhl *rg’) of Yamm (Pss. 65:8 [E 7]; 89:10 [E 9]; Job 26:11); the crushing 361 (*prr) of Yamm (Ps. 74:13; cf. the crushing, *dk’, of Rahab in Ps. 89:11 [E 10]); the drying up (*hrb) of Yamm (Isa. 51:10); the establishment of a boundary (gĕbûl) for Yamm (Ps. 104:9; Jer. 5:22; cf. Prov. 8:29); the placement of a guard (mišmār) over Yamm (Job 7:12); and the closing of Yamm behind doors (Job 38:8, 10); compare the hacking of Rahab into pieces (*hsb; Isa. 51:9); and the scattering (*pzr) of cosmic enemies (Ps. 89:11 [E 10]).
A seal from Tel Asmar (ca. 2200) depicts a god battling a seven-headed dragon, a foe identified as Baal’s enemy in CTA 5.1 (KTU 1.5 I).3 (and reconstructed in 30) and Yahweh’s adversary in Psalm 74:13 and Revelation 13:1.362 A shell plaque of unknown provenance depicts a god kneeling before a fiery seven-headed dragon.363 Leviathan, Baal’s enemy mentioned in CTA 5.1 (KTU 1.5 I).1 (and reconstructed in 28), appears as Yahweh’s opponent and creature in Isaiah 27:1, Job 3:8, 26:13, 40:25 (E 41:1), Psalm 104:26, and 2 Esdras 6:49, 52.364 In Psalm 74:13-14 (cf. Ezek. 32:2), both Leviathan and the tannînîm have multiple heads, the latter known as Anat’s enemy in 1.83.9-10 and in a list of cosmic foes in CTA 3.3(D).35-39 (= KTU 1.3 III 38-42). This Ugaritic list includes “Sea,” Yamm//“River,” Nahar, Baal’s great enemy in CTA 2.4 (KTU 1.2 IV). In Isaiah 11:15 the traditions of Sea//River and the seven-headed dragon appear in conflated form:
And the Yahweh will utterly destroy the tongue of the sea of Egypt, and will wave his hand over the River with his scorching wind, and smite it into seven channels that men may cross dry-shod. Here the destruction of Egypt combines both mythic motifs with the ancient tradition of crossing the Red Sea in Egypt. The seven-headed figure is attested in other biblical passages. In Psalm 89:10 the seven-headed figure is Rahab, mentioned in Isaiah 51:9-11 in the company of tannîn and Yamm. The seven-headed enemy also appears in Revelation 12:3, 13:1, 17:3 and in extrabiblical material, including Qiddushin 29b, Odes of Solomon 22:5, and Pistis Sophia 66.365 Yamm appears in late apocalyptic writing as the source of the destructive beasts symbolizing successive empires (Dan. 7:3). J. Day has suggested that this imagery developed from the symbolization of political states hostile to Israel as beasts.366 For example, Rahab stands for Egypt (Isa. 30:7; Ps. 87:4), the River for Assyria (Isa. 8:5-8; cf. 17:12-14), tannîn for Babylon (jer. 51:34).367 This type of equation is at work in a less explicit way in Psalm 18 (2 Sam. 22):4-18. In this composition, monarchic victory over political enemies (w. 4, 18) is described in terms of a storm theophany over cosmic waters (w. 8-17). Because of the political use of the cosmic enemies, Day suspects that a political allusion lies behind the figure of Leviathan in Isaiah 27:1.368 Finally, the figure of Mot, “Death,” is attested in KTU 1.4 VIII-1.6 and 2.10 and in several biblical passages, including Isaiah 25:8, 28:15 and 18, Jeremiah 9:20, Hosea 13:14, Habakkuk 2:5, Psalm 18(2 Sam. 22):5-6, Revelation 21:4 (cf. Odes of Solomon 15:9; 29:4).369 Biblical Mot is personified as a demon, in the manner of Ugaritic Mot in KTU 1.127 and Mesopotamian mütu. As J. Tigay has observed, this background would explain the description of Mot in Jeremiah 9:20 better than either U. Cassuto’s recourse to the episode of the window in Baal’s palace (KTU 1.4 V-VII) or S. Paul’s comparison with the Mesopotamian demon Lamashtu.370 Biblical descriptions of the east wind as an instrument of divine destruction may have derived from the imagery of Mot in Canaanite tradition, although mythological dependency is not necessarily indicated in this instance. The juxtaposition of the east wind and personified Death in Hosea 13:14-15 may presuppose the mythological background of Mot as manifest in the sirocco.
Like the motif of the divine foes, the biblical motif of the divine mountainous abode derives primarily from the Northwest Semitic tradition of divinely inhabited mountains, especially the Baal’s mountainous home of Sapan (ṣpn), modern Jebel el-Aqra‘. This dependency on language connected with Sapan in Ugaritic tradition is especially manifest in the identification of Mount Zion as yarkĕtê sāpôn, “the recesses of the north,” in Psalm 48:3 (cf. Isa. 14:13) and the MT’s apparent substitution of Zion for spn in the Aramaic version of Psalm 20:3 written in Demotic.372 According to Josephus (Antiquities 7.174), Belsephon was a city in the territory of Ephraim.373 Saphon is the site of conflict between Baal and his cosmic enemies, Yamm (KTU 1.1 V 5, 18) and Mot (KTU 1.6 VI 12). The same mountain, modern Jebel el-Aqra‛, Mount Hazzi in Hittite tradition, occurs in the narrative of conflict between the storm-god and Ullikumi.374 In classical tradition, the same peak, Mons Cassius, was one site of conflict between Zeus and Typhon (Apollodorus, The Library 1.6.3; Strabo, Geography 16.2.7).375 Herodotus (History 3.5) records that Typhon was buried by the Sirbonian Sea, which was adjacent to the Egyptian Mount Saphon.376 Similarly, Zion is the place where Yahweh will take up battle (Joel 3:9-17, 19-21; Zech. 14:4; 2 Esdras 13:35; cf. Isa. 66:18-21; Ezekiel 38-39). The descriptions of Yahweh’s taking his stand as warrior on top of Mount Zion (Isa. 31:4; Zech. 14:4; 2 Esdras 13:35) also echo depictions of the Hittite and Syrian storm-gods standing with each foot on a mountain.377 Saphon and Zion share a number of epithets. For example, KTU 1.3 III 13-31 (cf. IV 7-20), cited in full in the previous section, applies qdš, “holy place,” n‛m, “pleasant place,” and nḥlt, “inheritance,” to Baal’s mountain. Similarly, Psalms 46:5 and 48:2 describe Zion as *qōdeš (cf. Exod. 15:13; Pss. 87:1; 93:5; KAI 17:1, 78:5 [?]), while Psalm 27:4 calls Yahweh’s mountain nõ‛am (cf. Ps. 16:6).378 As Greenfield has observed, nō‛am in Psalm 27:4 is followed in the next verse by wordplay or paronomasia on the root *ṣpn.379 Yahweh’s mountain is called a naḥălāh, “portion” (Ps. 79:1; Jer. 12:7; cf. Exod. 15:17; Ps. 16:6). The epithets for Zion and the way they are listed together in Psalm 48:2-3 likewise recall the titles for Sapan in KTU 1.3 III 29-31.380 The mountainous temple home from which Baal utters his voice and rains lavishly upon the earth (KTU 1.4 V-VII) appears not only in descriptions of Yahweh roaring from Zion (Joel 3:16; Amos 1:2) or giving forth rains (Isa. 30:19; Jer. 3:3; 5:24; 10:13;
14:4; 51:16; Amos 4:7) but also in postexilic discussions of the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem. The tradition of the temple home that guarantees the life-giving rains underlies the relationship between tithe and temple in Malachi 3:10. This passage reflects the notion that payment of the tithe to the temple would induce Yahweh to open the windows of heaven and pour down crop-producing rains. Similarly, Haggai 1:7-11 attributes drought and scarcity to the failure to rebuild the temple.381 Yahweh’s role as the divine source of rain appears elsewhere in postexilic prophecy (Zech. 10:1). Joel 4 (E 3) presents various aspects of the mountain tradition. It is the divine home (4:17 [E 3:17]), the location of Yahweh’s roar (4:16 [E 3:16]), the site of divine battle (4:9-15 [E 3:9-15]) with heavenly hosts (4:11-13 [E 3:11-13]; cf. 2:1-11), and the origin of the divine rains issuing in terrestrial fertility (4:18 [E 3:18]).
In sum, the motifs associated with Baal in Canaanite literature are widely manifest in Israelite religion. The Baal cycle (KTU 1.1-6) presents the sequence of defeating the enemy, Sea, followed by the building of the divine palace for the divine warrior, and concluding with the vanquishing of the enemy, Death. This pattern of features appears in a wide variety of biblical texts describing divine presence and action. Rabbinic aggadah and Christian literature continue these motifs. Indeed, the defeat of Sea, the building of the heavenly palace, and the destruction of death belong to the future divine transformation of the world in Revelation 21:1-4. These motifs are of further importance for the long life that some of them enjoyed; for example, the motif of Leviathan is attested in religious documents into the modern period.
5)
Expiation rituals in Leviticus: In Leviticus there are Hattat rituals with Aaron being involved. The sins of the Israelite's are sent to Azazel via goat, however, Azazel is not explained in the Biblical texts. 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. 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, strange because in Leviticus 17:7 the Israelites are warned against sacrificing goats to Demons, but this goat is sent out to Azazel.
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 the lamb that is full of sins to be sacrificed, by the time the name of God, G-d, YHWH, El is adopted differently, yet in a Old Testament YHWH is seen as the supreme being in the Israelite pantheon. Yet in an epic of Balaam, YHWH is seen as Satan. Hence, we see a modern sacrifice with polytheistic themes and motifs concerning Jesus.
Lastly, talk about cross pollination, in ancient Mesopotamia we see the Utukki Lemnuti as a disposal rite. Wherein, Enki/EA instructs Marduk how to purify a patient who is beset by Demons. It is the same ritual seen in later Israel cultic activities in Leviticus.
6)
Deities in the ancient near east and the Bible: We begin with the Bronze Age translatability. Smith begins with accounts of two well-known Egyptologist, John Wilson and Jan Assmann, so decades ago Wilson made the following observations:
In earlier history the Egyptians had identified foreign gods with their own deities, so that the goddess of Byblos was a Hat–Hor to them in various Asiatic gods which were Seth to them. There were also two cosmopolitan forces that work: a worship of Asiatic gods as to the shrines in Asia and the domestication of Asiatic gods in Egypt.
Wilson annotates identifications of Egyptian and Western Semitic deities that resulted from the Egyptian counter with religious culture of Western Asia. Wilson also indicates such identifications were based on a perception of function and gender shared by the deities in question. Another thing that Wilson does acknowledge to attendant conditions, which signal at this early point in the study the fact that translatability, was oft related to larger culture and religious factors.
Here's an example of translatability from Wilson's perspective, the substitution of divine names in the poem describing ramsesses II battle of Kadesh known from the Luxor text. The Egyptian king brags "I was like seth in his time". The same poem as recorded at Abydos, has the name of the God Montu instead of Seth; and a third copy known from a papyri has baal. The substitutions show the names of three warrior gods, to them Egyptian, Seth and Montu, and third Baal who would have been a West semetic import. Just as I have seen other texts the function of each God relates to the culture of each God, but more so each is a figure of divine might. Since Wilson's observations many other near East researchers have discussed cross-cultural recognition of deities. The other researcher Jan Assmann addresses the subject of what he calls "intercultural translation", of deities. The characterization or quality of intercultural translation is that the conviction that God or the Gods are international was characteristic of polytheistic religions of the ancient near East.
Concerning this the deities of these polytheistic cultures are clearly differentiated and personalized by name, shape, and function. The great achievement of polytheism is an articulation of a common semantic universe. The gods are given a semantic dimension, by means of mythical narratives and Theo-cosmological speculations. Because tribal religions are ethnocentric, the powers worshiped by one tribe are different from the powers worshiped by another tribe; in contrast the highly differentiated members of polytheistic pantheons lend themselves easily to cross-cultural translation. For example, the end interpretatio Latina of Greek divinities and the interpretatio Graeca of Egyptian ones. Translation functions because the names have not only a reference, but also a meaning. The meaning of a deity is his or her specific character as it is in hymns, myths, rites, and so on.
We can see this with isker and later on hadad and then Baal, all three are storm gods.
7)
The original Bible and issues It is impossible to find copies of the Old Testament from 1213 BC or earlier the Dead Sea Scrolls. The oldest known script used for the Bible is Phoenician and occurs in The Tetragrammaton in the Bible in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It's possible there were older written copies in other, maybe older scripts. The tradition is that most of it was written down by St. Moses, maybe contemporary with Ramesses II, who supposedly died 1213 BC. The earliest alphabet was made for Semitic languages, maybe Hebrew, impossible to know, and it's from 1900 to 1800 BC. Search for the Wadi El-Hol Script. If there are digs in Israel it's possible we could find the Old Testament in Hebrew using the Ugaritic alphabet. The Ugaritic writings (from some hill's ruins north of Israel) sound like they're imitations of the Bible and are all from about 1300s to 1180 BC. So we have older copies of a few Ugaritic Bible than we do of the Bible. A copy of the original bible, no one has that
8)
Who was “Abraham”? No one really knows: The 'original' name of the patriarch 'abram belongs to the common stock of West Semitic names known since the beginning of the second millennium BCE. It is a contracted form of 'iibiram (HALAT 9; DE VAUX 1968:11; I Kgs 16:32; Num 16:1; 26:9; Ps 106:17), written abrn in Ugarit (KTU 4.352:2,4 =IA-bi-ra-mul;; PRU 3,20; 5,85:10: 107:8, cf. also Mari, H. B. HUFFMO AbraJuim is an extended form of 'abram. The extension is rather due to reverence and distinction than dialectic variance. In historical times, tradition-enfirmed by folkloristic etymology (Gen 17:5; Neh 9:7)-knew the patriach only by his name 'abraJuim (Mic 7:20; Ps 47:10 etc.). At one time the patriarchs were interpreted as local Canaanite deities, or in terms of a~tral myth, particularly Abrnham. since he was; associated with centres of the Mesopotamian -moon cult (Ur and -Haran).-Sarah was equated with the moon-goddess and Abraham's father -Terah with the moon (= Yerah). Though in biblical tradition, there are allusions to the ancient cults of Abraham's place of origin (Josh 24:2), Tracing the origins of Abraham within the complicated traditions of the Pentateuch is extremely difficult. Pentateuch traditions picture him as the founder of a number of cult-places Abraham has an important place as far as gender law is considered in the ancient Hebraic sense, as the wife has limited jurisdiction and Sarah has to get authority from Abraham to chastise Hagar. Abraham is presented in the Bible as having come from Mesopotamia. The descendants of Abraham spent centuries in Egypt and then came to dwell in the midst of a Canaanite civilization. The language spoken by the Israelite's is historically related to the languages of the Semitic world around them. Copies of ancient Near Eastern literature have been discovered in the excavations of Israelite cities.
9)
“sodomites” "Sodomite" in ancient times, in Strong's Concordance we find the term arsenokoités for the term Sodomite, is basically a homosexual. However, in those times there was 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)
The specialized usage that is inaugurated here and the question concerning the nature of the activity denounced by the prophet have generated much speculation and require a separate study.
