Book: The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God

by ikthuce4u 15 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • JCanon
    JCanon

    I must say, I love the research level of these threads, it is all quite fascinating.

    My only "observation" here with some of the comments of connecting between the Jewish concepts and that of pagans, not dismissing the influence, is that it seems to be a bit "loose" in that the identities of the entities is specific. In other words, where we might say speculate about the "son of man" and "Yahweh" based upon their general relationship and interaction and compare that to similar identities in pagan cultures, the Bible is specific about precisely who they are. For instance, the Bible does describe and establish what ANGELS are, heavenly beings created in god's form as a spirit, individuals who are free moral agents, some of whom rebel against god. They are called God's sons.

    Same with Michael, the archangel who later became Jesus. This is a very well established doctrine among witnesses who recognize the archangel Michael as Jesus Christ, himself.

    So drawing comparisons is fine, I do a lot of speculating like that myself on occasion, but you can't just ignore a direct statement and THEN claim a similarity. You can't say: "Oh I recognized this beloved son as the same God as Yahweh, they are really the same god" as in pagan culture when the Jews specifically define him otherwise. Even if the Jews got their original concepts elsewhere and adapted their own version, you can't just ignore specifics and then make a contradictory assessment.

    In the meantime, as found in the book by Alexander Hyslop, "The Two Babylons" which I think is available on the net, not sure...(I know some chapters are quoted by some Christian links), much of what is stated in the Bible is linked to real events that later became myths. I don't think it's hard, for instance, to note that the Greek mythology of gods coming down to the earth and marrying women who then give birth to half-god/half-man superheros like Hercules is not often related to the story in Genesis of the angels of God who rebelled and came down to earth and married women who then gave birth to the "nephillim" who were apparently men of great physical prowess, etc.

    Other myths are similarly connected with Eden, for instance, the imagery of the contellation of VIRGO. The very Virgo we still use today. Did you ever wonder why she is holding a "branch"? As Hyslop explains, the branch represents her lineage, her offspring. That's the significance of the branch. This became specific as Athena holding an ear of corn as well, which represented the same thing, her "seed". Thus the concept of this "virgin" with a seed from ancient Sumer, which is the people who created the zodiac originally which was then passed onto the Greeks and then to us, was of this virgin "woman and her seed", a reference to the original "woman" in the Garden of Eden who was called a "woman". Thus the "woman and her seed" is a reference to Satan, not generally considered a woman, but he/she is here.

    Of interesting note in this regard, the JEWISH concept of Eden in their pagan references is the goddess LILITH who is a woman with a snakes body who is in the tree of knowledge giving the fruit to Eve. So the concept that the Devil was a woman is a concept the Jews have always understood. The "woman and her seed" Satan and his angels, fights against Michael and his seed in the final battle in heaven.

    So again, you have the basic themes given by Noah about what happened early on being told and expanded on in all these various cultures, sometimes with a spliter of basic truth in them.

    If you want more information on this, again, I suggest you read (not necessarily accept it all) Alexander Hyslop's "The Two Babylons" a book approved of by the witness organization since they usesd to distrubte it. It develops the idea/theory that many actual events when told, became folklore and myth, the chief of which was the assasination of Nimrod, a black man, who became the "dying king" myth in later cultures, particularly associated with Osirus who became a counterpart to Nimrod. Some people don't agree with his views, but he's a good study and provides a lot of rare research.

    Another book you might consider is Zechariah Sitchin and some of his theories; again, a lot of speculation, but a lot of rare research you won't find any place else. "The 12th Planet" was one of his books. That's where I got the woodcut of the original VIRGO, the woman holding the branch, a concept of the "woman and her seed" that was understood concisely way back in ancient Sumer; of course, that was closer to Noah, right? Interesting the Jews understand Satan to be Lilith, a female goddess/angel which is consistent with scripture, which shows Satan was once the wife of Michael, the archangel, until she rebelled.

    JC

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia
    So drawing comparisons is fine, I do a lot of speculating like that myself on occasion, but you can't just ignore a direct statement and THEN claim a similarity. You can't say: "Oh I recognized this beloved son as the same God as Yahweh, they are really the same god" as in pagan culture when the Jews specifically define him otherwise. Even if the Jews got their original concepts elsewhere and adapted their own version, you can't just ignore specifics and then make a contradictory assessment.

    Many of us are engaged in (or have an interest in) critical analysis, the most fundamental principle of which is to never take texts at face value as the "last word" but to assess the broader context of the text. You seem to be confusing (1) assessing what a reference in a particular text means in exactly its textual setting, e.g. exegesis, and (2) using the texts as pieces of evidence to reconstruct the pre-textual history of the mentioned notion, motif, personage, etc., e.g. higher criticism (in part). Many of us are engaged in the latter, and it is entirely feasible to both accept what the direct statement means in its own local context within the text, as well as look beyond the text and recognize that polemic, ideology, oral tradition, and many other factors affect how a notion is realized in a given text and how it relates to similar notions appear in other texts. So, for instance, a text may claim that Jesus is the Son of Man and the one who "walks on the clouds of heaven," and we can discern what meaning the notion has within that text, but then we are also entitled look at earlier versions of this Son of Man idea and assess what differences there were in these earlier sources, plus assess how the later Son of Man christology recycles older motifs that were used in characterizing other deities. Of course, this will "contradict" the later use of the notion, but again we must recognize that each text has its own point of view, which in its own way captures only a small piece of the overall stream of tradition. And since we are reconstructing pre-textual histories of these notions, it is by its nature speculative (and we are, after all, amateurs and not professionals at this). But it's all about accounting for similarities between different pieces of evidence and coming up with the most parsimonious, simplest, and elegant explanation, and each text is taken on its own terms, and a multiplicity of interrelated textual and oral traditions is recognized, with continuity between earlier notions in the same society and later notions. Thus, to make up an example, it goes against this methology to take a reference in Genesis and use a text from Revelation to interpret what the Genesis tradition was originally about, and then use an astrological notion from quite a different source to interpret both (even though no direct link has been established between the two to show that the imported notion is relevant). Such an arbitrary methodology is typical of Hislop and Stichen.

  • JCanon
    JCanon
    Thus, to make up an example, it goes against this methology to take a reference in Genesis and use a text from Revelation to interpret what the Genesis tradition was originally about, and then use an astrological notion from quite a different source to interpret both (even though no direct link has been established between the two to show that the imported notion is relevant). Such an arbitrary methodology is typical of Hislop and Stichen.

    I was going to mention the methodology of Hislop as I read your comment, actually. And I understand what you're saying.

    But what I'm talking about is, for instance, the Passover ritual and your reference that it adopted some worship concepts of the god Reshep and the newborn season. The Jews have their own concept of Reshep and it's not associated with Passover. They have only one focal god, Yahweh, and he has a specific identity with them. So I'm wondering if the "match" is all that good.

    A very good syncretic comparison would be Akhenaton and the Jews. Now Ahkenaton is said to have fostered some of the Jewish concepts of monotheism among the Jews. I believe it was the other way around, but Akhenaton dismissed all the gods of Egypt from Osiris and Ra to Isis as fakes and "worthless" and identified one creator god, who was not have an image made of him as Aten whom he associated with sunlight. Now that's a comparison worth looking at, but Reshep is nowhere to be found in a monotheistic theology, except as dismissed. So if Akhenaton can invent and define his own dieties and dismiss others, why can't the Jews?

    I would surmise that if you focussed on relating Akhenaton with the Jews there are more similarities since both are monotheistic. Why not start there? I don't see Reshep coming into the picture anytime soon...

    JC

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    I mentioned Resheph in association with Passover because other scholars (such as Callahan) have mentioned this before. The first thing to recognize is that the linkage between Pesach and an exodus from Egypt is a rather late reinterpretation of a much older practice that originally had nothing or little to do with an Egypt story. The works I cited in my earlier message discuss the evidence for this, such as how pastoral Arabs have a similar practice marking the birthing of livestock and other evidence of it being an older Canaanite practice. There was a recent article in JBL on the exodus which also mentioned how Pesach evolved from a local sacrificial feast into a Yahwistic commemorative festival. The derivation from psch "to pass over" would reasonably relate to a nightly "passing over" of a demon who could claim the lives of the young; a sacrifice of the firstborn, or something like that, would have been thought to appease the demon (compare Deuteronomy 32:17; Psalm 106:37). And indeed there is copious evidence from Canaanite and Phoenician sources on such sacrifices at the human level, of Molek child sacrifice, and of kings sacrificing their firstborn, in order to appease some chthonic deity that is bringing death upon the people, and the Law of the Firstborn in Exodus 13 (compare with Ezekiel 20:26, 31, where it is alluded in a reference to the chthonic Molek sacrifice) also applies to both human firstborn and livestock firstborn. Now when we look at the Exodus narrative, we see that it tries to integrate the Pesach tradition with the exodus traditions, and we see the Pesach situation dramatized, with a mysterious "destroyer" (mschyt) of Exodus 12:23 (cf. Hebrews 11:28) who kills the firstborn of those homes which did not display a sacrifice to him, "both men and livestock alike" (Exodus 12:12, 29). The "destroyer" is reminiscent of the "destroying angels" of Psalm 78:49 and the chthonic bringers of death in Job 33:22. Resheph has been suggested for several reasons, including: (1) In Syrian and Canaanite material, Resheph and Molek are equated with Akkadian Nergal. Since the Pesach traditions in Exodus 12-13 relate the anti-Molek Law of the Firstborn to the Passover practice, this suggests Resheph/Molek as the deity of death involved; (2) Resheph is named as one of Yahweh's partners in divine war in Habakkuk as John Day, Mark Smith, and the Dictionary of Deities and Demons discuss; (3) As a god of pestilence, the plague on livestock in Exodus 9:1-7 is exactly the sort of thing that would be attributed to Resheph (cf. also Deuteronomy 32:24; Job 5:7 where the "sons of Resheph are likely carrion birds); (4) Psalm 78:48, in referring to the plagues in Egypt, says that God gave "their flocks to arrows (rspym, or "Reshephs"), which is commonly believed to allude to Resheph (cf. Albright, John Day, the DDD, etc.), and the plague of hail and lightning also resulted in a loss of livestock (Exodus 9:22-25). There is also the "east wind" that Yahweh uses against the Sea (= Yamm in Canaanite myth), as well as bringing in other plagues, also appears in Canaanite myth as a form of Mot. It is unclear from the Canaanite material whether Mot and Resheph, both being lords of the underworld, were identified with each other. So there are reasons for considering a chthonic deity being involved in the original Pesach tradition. The laws against sacrificing livestock to demons and sacrificing the firstborn to anyone other than Yahweh would logically reflect a time when monolatrous Yahwism was in competition with the older non-Yahwistic traditions. Since the conflation of Pesach with the Egypt exodus traditions was supposedly a later development (one which completely co-opted the Pesach tradition under monolatrous/monotheistic Yahwism), it makes little sense to look to how Resheph was regarded in 18th-19th Dynasty Egypt. You are right that syncretism in Egypt likely did alter the conception of Resheph within Egypt. But if Pesach was a native Canaanite practice with no origin in Egypt, then Egypt is just less relevant than how Resheph was regarded in Canaan as well as in Israel and Judah.

    Anyway, that's what I know from what little I've read on this specific subject. I'm sure there is a lot more that discuss it in greater detail.

  • JCanon
    JCanon

    Hi Leoliaia: Interesting information about what people are saying about the origins of Passover as connected with original pagan origins.

    The problem NOW though is that the KTU1.78 text which refers to an eclipse that can be dated to near year 12 of Akhenaton dates to 1375BCE which makes his first year fall in 1386BCE. According to "jubilee" reckoning for major "freedom" dates falling on jubilees (i.e. 1947 is the 50th jubilee from 455BCE, return of the Jews from Babylon) the Exodus occurs 19 jubilees from 455BCE which is 1386BCE, thus the death of Amenhotep III (Ake's father) and the Exodus are the same.

    When you then look at the background evidence of Akhenaton in the context of the ten plagues then later following the Jews into the wilderness (per some tradition) it completely explains why Akhenaton became a monotheist, called all other gods "worthless" and outlawed him, besides insisting that no image be made of Aten. That is way too Jewish to ignore, it's too specific.

    Thus, getting back to Akhenaton and the Jews, Akhenaton's focus on an invisible monothestic god at the same time the Jews left adds new credibility to the reality of the Jews not only being in Egypt but especially the ten plagues actually happening. Thus the Jewish concepts of Passover being related to an angel of death sent to kill the firstborn of Egypt, man and beast, and the later rituals established for the Jews relating to the unleavened bread representing their Messiah are more relevant to a "new religion" shared by both Jews and Akhenaton from this god who was able to visibly demonstrate his powers. I doubt any anthropologist or psychologist who question that Akhenaton's focus on monotheism so strongly with the dismissal of other gods would not have been related to some personal experience he had, either literal or a vision or whatever; something happened! That might have been a question before the chronology was corrected. But now that we know he's the king that succeeded the Exodus and was able to break traditional references to ancient god's, I don't see why the Jews could not have done the same. Their religion and god was totally new to them in the full sense, now defined thy clear lithurgical rules and regulations. If you were arguing they were following traditions of Akhenaton, then maybe I could buy some of this, but otherwise, I just don't see it.

    Thanks again for the research. I didn't realize there was such profoundly diverse concepts of these traditions though they could simply be anti-Semitic propaganda. Enough archaeologists and historians I believe accept the reality of the Jews in Egypt and the Exodus as an actual event, though everything in ancient history comes up for debate at some point.

    Again, thanks for your research.

    JC

  • ikthuce4u
    ikthuce4u

    It came. The book was at my door-step this past Tuesday. I haven't had a chance to look at it much at all. (If you'll please pardon my formating, I can't quite get IE to "work").____So I'll make paragraphs with the line deal (>>>).____( so far. Needless to say, I know about "being on-topic" when posting on the web ... and have been involved in an "upper level" level as far as how things go around "Bnet" (as we abbrev. it). "Bnet Community, Policies & Issues" and stuff that, well, it's detailed; we've been discussing and debating how to be "on-topic" (hey, nevermind; I'm off-topic!!!).____(right now, right here @ JWD)____The Great Angel: I read the table of contents, scanned the index, and did a random you-open-the book (to any page) and read it. What this random-method provided was a "You could quote that senstence @ the JWD board, rick" ... except I haven't had time and have commitments @ Bnet that actually had to be attended to; have y'all heard of the term, "bashing?" (of course you have). And of things like "agreeing to abide by the rules" on any given message board? (yep, or you wouldn't be here).____Tell you what. When I get things back in my "study mode" and read some of Margaret Barker's book (thread topic); I'll be back.____And, I must say that I'm quite "impressed" with the level of discussions I've seen @ JWD and can't wait to get back! PS, Leolaia; if you ever write a book, tell us. I wanna have a copy!____Till I can get things re-aligned re: my Bnet commitments, rick....>

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit