YHWH a minor pagan god: Ugaritic Texts and the Sons of El

by DoomVoyager 129 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Heaven

  Bumping this as I see designs was on not long ago and hoping he can comment.
• 

  Heaven

  I agree, like God speaks about other Gods not as false gods but real

  Something that confuses me is the contradiction with Genesis 1:26 where Yahweh invites the other gods to make humans in their image along with him and then later on says you can't worship any other gods but him. This just doesn't make sense to me. Why would I worship Yahweh if he wasn't my creator? And I don't feel he is because I am not ashamed of my nakedness.

  edited to add: Well, that and the fact that I think he is just a myth.
• 

  satinka

  Heaven wrote:

  satinka, ever since my teen years I have always wondered why the Goddess was eliminated by the ancients.

  I love your comment, Heaven. I'm glad to see other women feel the same way. My feeling is that many entities wanted to be worshipped like gods and so consequently created patriarchal religions. By eliminating the Goddess and dissing women, they were able to accomplish their unbalanced goal of being worshipped and elevating men into something superior to women. Again, I feel it is out of balance.

  I think Jehovah is only one of such entities.

  Think of the fear that Jehovah desires from his worshippers. There are even scriptures in the Bible that refer to him as a "fear-inspiring" god. Sounds like he wants to be feared, rather than loved. I have heard from the platform that Jehovah is the "Great Patriarch." Abraham is another patriarch who is claimed to represent Jehovah.

  For anyone to gobble up the Bible as being the only sacred book around...I feel the Bible was written with a view to selecting ONLY the books that support a patriarchal view --- and dismissing anything that included mentioning goddesses or women, unless these women supported the patriarchy and were subservient...like Esther. The JWs dismiss gnosticism for that reason. They also dismiss many good books of the apocrypha.

  satinka
• 

  satinka

  @ 3Mozzies: I watched two of your videos and they are awesome. They ask good questions and offer a reasonable explanation about how religion has evolved and how history has been written and re-written.

  Thanks for sharing!

  satinka
• 

  Leolaia

  The Gnostic Gospel in the "Wisdom of Solomon," Hokmah was equated with the Egyptian Goddess and called the all-powerful Mother.

  The book that is called the Wisdom of Solomon is NOT gnostic nor does it contain a gospel. There is also not an explicit equation of wisdom and Isis in this text. Rather the language is thought to reflect concepts and motifs derived from the Egyptian Isis cult.
• 

  showmeproof

  Sorry I haven't checked back in a while. Currently I am reading Gods, Godesses and Images of God in Ancient Israel by Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger. In an earlier post I emphasized the numerical numbers of branches coming off of the asherah and its continuity between a few artifacts. While the image is still an important and a clear, or 'transparent', connection to Asherah the numerical aspect is not as important. In the Bronze Age the image of the godess was envogue however in the transition to the Iron Age there was a move towards aniconism and the symbol came to the forefront. Keel and Uehlinger's work details seals, amulets, scarabs and some inscriptions, however spends very little time working with known literature of the time such as found at Ugarit. Thus when these artifacts bear the symbol of the tree flanked by caprids (hooved bovides) they refer to it as the "Mistress of the Animals". The naked anthropomorphic images found in earlier works are the "Naked Godess". Sometimes they refer to both as the "Branch Goddess." At times they offer possibilities of which goddess is intended, but their focues is on the motif.

  This motif occurs in several seal amulets and the number of branches can vary. The overiding principle of the sacred tree flanked by caprids (specifically ibex) is what is important and it can be tied to Asherah the goddess. Keel and Uehlinger argue that it can also be just a blessing symbol and attributed to any god or goddess and that is why it can be found in conjunction with Yahweh in the texts at Khirbet el-Qom and Kuntillet Arjud. However, this 'blessing symbol' is clearly tied to Asherah the goddess...in other words this is not a symbol devoid of meaning or association that can be placed with any god it is as they say, a transparent reference to the "Mistress of the Animals." I am quite confused as to why they choose the terminology they do as we have much corrobrating evidence as to which gods/goddesses had which traits. I have seen many other scholars use this book as reference and not one of them adopts their vague terminology.

  This is a really good book as it provides 600+ illustrations from artifacts found in Israel during different time periods beginning from the time of the Hyksos to Iron Age III. It is really cool to see blends of Egytian/Canaanite, Syrio/Canaanite influences and clear examples from each Egypt, Canaan, and Syria.

  Another cool thing that was brought to my attention is that in the early to Mid Bronze Age the anthropomorphic goddess works were done in expensive metals like bronze and gold and then in the transition to the Iron age they were made in terra cotta. At the time of this transition the expensive metals became used to make images of gods in battle posture or dominance.
• 

  showmeproof

  Heaven,

  You said you were surprised that the goddess disappeared. This is much the case. However, Wisdom personified is a woman and a tree in the book of Proverbs. The Jewish book Ben Sira 1:20, pertinent to know how Jews continued the theology of Wisdom, does the same "To fear the Lord is the root of wisdom, and her branches are long life" It appears she became an attribute, that can still be spoken of in anthropmorophic and aboreal terms, when monotheism took root.
• 

  showmeproof

  I have had email correspondance with both Ziony Zevit and Richard Hess recently regarding this topic. My initial email was specified to each individual, but generally asked 'Why has this knowledge, debated at length and accepted as part of the religions of Israel (specifically early Israel) by academic scholars, failed to trickle down and effect theology. Ziony Zevit a Jewish man and Richard Hess a Evangelical Christian had differing answers.

  Dear Mr. LEAVING BLANK,
  
  You ask a most interesting question, one that has interested me for a number of years.
  Part of the answer to your question (and my own) is that living theology emerges from within communities--even though an individual formulates it--and few viable religious communities view themselves as Ancient Israel. Moreover, Catholics, Jews, and many conservative Protestant churches comprehend Scriptures and the past through the lenses of traditions that have a considerable influence on what may be the subject of theologizing and on what is considered an acceptable expression of theology. The traditions set parameters within which questions may be asked and within which answers must be evaluated.
  
  Liberal religious movements, in contrast, those that view themselves as unencumbered by such traditions in particular, are more open to theologizing on the bases of historical investigations, but often they tend not to define themselves theologically with any specficity and are comfortable changing views as the consensus of scholarship shifts under the weight of accumulated research. As an example you might consider the Biblical Theology Movement in the USA and in Great Britain after WW II or any of the theological writings of George Ernest Wright mentioned in my book.
  
  Most scholars that I know are content to describe how ancients conceived of religious reality as an historical reallity (or phenomenon). They find it interesting and think that their discoveries or insights may of interest to (some) contemporary believers but not as one that must be incorporated into living theology. Concern for weighing the theological implications of historical discoveries and insights into ancient Israelite religion or early Judaism and Christianity ranks much lower than a concern for incorporating established scientific insights such as the etiology of diseases, the nature of the physical universe, and the neurological basis of consciousness into theological awareness.
  
  There is some of what you describe as "trickle down," but to find it, it is necessary to read theological journals and books such as should be available in any seminary library that subscribes to a wide variety of journals. See for example Interpretation and Journal of Theological Studies or any book written by Walter Breugeman. It is difficult, however, for me to evaluate how much of what you find in journals and specialized books on biblical theologuy trickles down from the theologians and readers of these sources to the people in the pews.
  
  I hope that these remarks respond to your questions.
  
  Cordially,
  Z. Zevit

  Thanks for your note. If you have read all the writers you mention, and read their books, then you have indeed read widely! You should be aware that for a number of years before my book appeared, Bill Dever was fond of saying that no Evangelical would ever write a book on Israelite religion because they would need to abandon their faith to do so. While I did not write the book in order to prove him wrong, the work represents something that your questions have identified. It is simply true that relatively few Evangelical scholars work in the field of Israelite religion; and yet this field has largely replaced Old Testament theology on the academic horizon. OT theology came in for hard times in the latter part of the 20th century as scholars began to argue that the Bible contains competing and often contradictory theologies. So there was not as much interest in the field except to demonstrate how it fails to achieve its goal of a comprehensive and unified interpretation of the Old Testament. Those who still write in Old Testament either believe that it is useful for teaching how the Old Testament theologians thought about the world (in all their diversity) or that it serves the purpose of deconstructing any consistent Old Testament theology. Those who still do much Old Testament theology tend to be Evangelicals who believe there is a unified teaching to the Bible, or those (such as Brueggemann and Goldingay) who are admittedly postmodernist and do not try for a consistency in the teaching of the Word of God.
  
  There is one other point that I make in my book and is germane to this discussion. Old Testament theology studies what ancient Israel should have believed about the Bible. Israelite religion(s) studies what ancient Israel actually did believe. While these are related, they are two different areas of study. So, while you may see some interaction of Israelite religion theories by some theologians (e.g., ch. 2 of Routledge's OT Theology), the assessment of the data often moves the two areas of study in different directions.
  
  I teach a course in Old Testament Theology and Israelite Religion, where we divide the time into two halves: one half deals with each topic. I think the point of my book is just the answer to your last question. I do find it possible to incorporate the findings of archaeology and ancient texts into a picture of orthodox theology. I do this by assessing all the available evidence as best I can, and then by seeking to interpret it in a manner consistent with the contexts in which that evidence is found; but also in a manner that does not ignore the biblical revelation as part of the whole picture. I believe that it is very difficult to prove statements in the Bible to be false. It is also very difficult to prove them to be true, using classic historical procedures. This is true of most ancient writing so the Bible is not exceptional here. However, it is relatively easy to bring various sources together and either pit them against each other to argue that they contradict or harmonize them into a consistent picture. I often choose the latter for the Bible and for all ancient Near Eastern literature. I would rather give the authors the benefit of the doubt than pretend I know more than they did.
  
  Best wishes,
  Rick Hess
• 

  showmeproof

  Band on the Run,

  If you look to 18th century B.C.E. Egypt you will find that the Hyksos had ruled Lower Egypt from the captiol of Avaris. There we find the typical Canaanite gods, Baal being the most prominent. In Egypt he becomes known as Seth. Ramses II has a daughter by the name of Bintanath (daugher of Anat) he relocates his capitol of Ramses which is built right next to the ruins of Avaris, and in a tomb inscription is said to celebrate the 400th year of Seth. If the Israelites were ever in Egypt, as many Asiatics were in many different time periods, they would have been already well aware of the Canaanite gods and the use of the bull iconography. Furthermore, the patriarchs are said to have lived in Canaan where they would have known of these gods. If you want to trace it back to Abraham, according to the bible he came from Ur and the Canaanite gods are hypostates of Mesopotamian gods. It is a fools errand accepting that an original monotheism became polluted only after a reintroduction into Canaan. You will recall in Exodus 6:2 Yahweh tells Moses that he didn't reveal himself by the name of Yahweh but rather El Shaddai.
• 

  satinka

  Wow! It has been awhile since I checked this thread, but here is some great information!

  Thanks, showmeproof, much appreciated!

  satinka