interesting.. here is the first thing i've found on the subject, though i haven't read much of it yet.. http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/05-deuteronomy/text/articles/heiser-deut32-bs.htm.
pseudo.
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.
interesting.. here is the first thing i've found on the subject, though i haven't read much of it yet.. http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/05-deuteronomy/text/articles/heiser-deut32-bs.htm.
pseudo.
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.
interesting.. here is the first thing i've found on the subject, though i haven't read much of it yet.. http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/05-deuteronomy/text/articles/heiser-deut32-bs.htm.
pseudo.
The bible is clear that the Israelites were polytheists throughout. The theology is built around their castigation for their polytheism. Theology aside for a moment lets take a look at the main 'castigations'. The punishments of Israel were handed out in the form of being subjugated to other foreign powers whether the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, or the Romans. On a smaller scale the punishments are metted out in battle losses to Canaanites. Does it take divine punishment for a larger more powerful nation such as Assyria, Babylon, Persia, or Rome to subdue a smaller less powerful nation such as Israel...or is that just the natural order of things? To me this socio-political fact doesn't need explanation by divine punishment. However, their attitude towards their losses is by no means unique.
In the Mesha Stelle, Mesha king of Moab tells of his forays against Israel. He boasts of his victories even to the point of taking plunder from the Temple of YHWH and displaying it before Chemosh/Kemosh. He then discusses his nation's oppression under Israel being due to Kemosh's anger against Moab.
interesting.. here is the first thing i've found on the subject, though i haven't read much of it yet.. http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/05-deuteronomy/text/articles/heiser-deut32-bs.htm.
pseudo.
Another point of interest are the names of Saul, Jonathan, and David's sons; Eshbaal, Meribaal, and Beeliada (cf. 1 Chronicles 8:33, 1 Chronicles 8:34, and 1 Chronicles 14:7) respectively. Chronicles is indeed the later text than earlier attestations of Saul, Jonathan, and David's sons known respectivley as Ishbosheth, Mephiboseth, and Eliada (cf. 1 Samuel 14:49, 2 Samuel 4:4, and 2 Samuel 5:16)
Here we must be clear that Baal can generically mean 'master', just as El can generically mean 'god'. Why would we posit that the baal is not merely a generic term, but rather a theophoric? The names found in Samuel include the Hebrew term for shame; boset. In David's son's case the baal theophoric is just dropped. If these names were not viewed as containing a theophoric from a 'foreign', i.e. non Yahwistic, god why would they include the Hebrew term for shame? More positively, why would a later Yahwist than the author of Samuel preserve the baal theophoric?
Another example of this is Jerubaal=Jerubbesheth=Gideon (cf. Judges 6:32, 2 Samuel 11:21, and Judges 7:1). It appears that Baal was worshipped alongside YHWH even by David himself. David even names one of his sites of victory against the Philistines as Baal Peor which is often translated as lord of bursting forth. Why would David name a site in honour of Baal? Well it appears he didn't. He conflated Baal with YHWH.
This is a very important point. As much as El is amaglamated with YHWH in epithets and most possibly consort, YHWH's characteristics are much more align with Baal's. They are both storm gods; even sharing the same enemy in Yam or Sea. There are indeed differences between the two, but not enough to be objectionable early on.
A challenge I put forth as a thought experiment for those who object to the previous argumentation is to query the Golden Calves made at the foot of Mount Sinai. They are seen as objectionable, but whom do they represent? Apparently the derision of their enemies. Egypt or Canaan? The ironic thing is Baal was represented in both Egypt, as Seth, and in Canaan. If the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt the most prominent Semitic god during that time period was the Egyptian hypostatic of Baal. Baal was not a foriegn intrusion. For this reason, amongst others, it is reasonable to conclude that the other gods present within the pantheon that included Baal were also known from the earliest times of Israel's ancestors.
interesting.. here is the first thing i've found on the subject, though i haven't read much of it yet.. http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/05-deuteronomy/text/articles/heiser-deut32-bs.htm.
pseudo.
MrFreeze,
The video was well produced. The information is not 100% accurate, especially regarding the Tanaach cult stand (see above). The maker of that video was getting his information from the book A History of God by Karen Armstrong. This book, while informative, is meant as a popularized account for the public and thus leaves many generalites. That being said, the video is a decent introduction that should at the least get interest for individuals to find out more; including the nuances. The more you read on the subject more nuance is required. The most conservative viewpoint I have read regarding this information is Richard Hess' Israelite Religions. Hess admits that the majority of Old Testament Scholars have come to the consensus that Yahwistic monotheism was a later feature derived from Canaanite foundations. He states that although this consensus has been reached that it doesn't rule out the possibilty that a monotheistic movement wasn't already established in pre-exilic times. Note two things about this statement from a conservative evangelical scholar, he is reaching for a possibility where once there was certitude amongst the scholars and knows he is on the edge and secondly he states pre-exilic. Well what time of Israel are we talking about here are we talking about the patriarchs of the Bronze Age...no. Hess explicity states in his opening chapters that he is only referencing back to Iron I which starts approximatley 1200 B.C.E. In the Hebrew bible Yahweh is transposed upon a Canaanite divine beaurocratic system known as the adat el or the divine council where he is but one of many gods; but the only god for Israel.
interesting.. here is the first thing i've found on the subject, though i haven't read much of it yet.. http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/05-deuteronomy/text/articles/heiser-deut32-bs.htm.
pseudo.
WontLeave,
The information regarding this is very limited on the web. If you are interested you would be best served by looking at the literature produced by the experts in Semitic languages and the history and archaeology of the Ancient Near East.
interesting.. here is the first thing i've found on the subject, though i haven't read much of it yet.. http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/05-deuteronomy/text/articles/heiser-deut32-bs.htm.
pseudo.
WontLeave,
You seem to forget that I'm not the one putting this forward. In fact, it is not atheists that are putting this forward. The foremost scholars that deal with this are Christian and Jewish. I'm glad you found a website. Realize that your website is dealing with Hebrew...specifically for Christians. Now I point this out for a few reasons. Nowhere does this website address why we have good reason to think that Yahweh became equated with El over time. Nowhere does this website deal with extrabiblical data such as toponyms, anthroponyms, or inscriptions, nonetheless artifacts or Ugaritic. The last is very important.
Why does YHWH not only recieve, in your view, the generic title El, but also specific epithets of EL. I have also asked and will repeat the question here, if Baal and Asherah are specifically listed as being worshipped by the Israelites and they belong to the pantheon that originally included El at its most prominent spot then why do you so readily discount the idea that the use of EL in the bible can be specific rather than merely generic? Furthermore, as I stated already, if as the bible says that the patriarchs who lived in Canaan during the Mid Bronze Age knew God as El do we have evidence of El being a specific god in that socio-historical context...yes we do.
I'll also point you to anthroponyms found at Mari from the 16th century B.C.E., as described in Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts, such as Yahwi-ki-Addu, Yahwi-ki-An, Yawi-Addu, Yawi-Dagan, Yawi-Ya. I'm sure each of the first terms in the name looks familiar to you; that is because it is the same root as Yahweh. Now what of the latter half of those names? Addu is the Mesopotamian hypostatic of Baal Hadad, An the Mesopotamian hypostatic of El, Dagan is the same Dagan as known in both Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible. Yahweh appears to have been equated with the very gods you are attempting to avoid his connection with from a very early time period.
In short, your website leaves out a lot of relevant information. The information, as its name suggests, is Hebrew for Christians; i.e. Hebrew for a specific theological context that was not part of the mileu from which Hebrew Bible was written.
interesting.. here is the first thing i've found on the subject, though i haven't read much of it yet.. http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/05-deuteronomy/text/articles/heiser-deut32-bs.htm.
pseudo.
I noticed quite a few people marking the thread. Leolia got us off to a great start, two years ago, I would like to see some questions from those marking the thread. What would you like to know about this topic?Meanwhile I'll put forth a bit to chew on using a few artifacts already mentioned by Leolia.
The instructions for the construction of the menorah is given in Exodus 25:31-40. In Exodus, the menorah is clearly a symbol of Yahweh. Not an image of Yahweh, but a cultic symbol used in the tabernacle and later the Temple. The term used to describe its features include branches, blossoms, almond, knobs or calyx (depending upon your translation), and petals. In short, it is a tree in blossom, as far as we know from the description an almond tree. We've all seen a menorah but lets put it in a historical context.
Look at the commemoration of the destruction of Jerusalem on the Arch of Titus. The menorah here is depicted as described in Exodus and is being carried out of the Temple. Three branches on either side of a central trunk.
Pithos A from Kuntillet Arjud ca. 8th century has already been mentioned as referring to both Yahweh and Asherah. What I would like to draw attention to is the reverse side of Pithos A.
Here we have two ibex on either side of a tree. It is difficult to count but there are three branches one either side, assuming symmetry, of a central trunk. The top has a curling leaf on either side that extends to the mouth of either ibex which can be mistaken as a fourth branch.
Now lets go back in time by about 1,000 years and look at the Taanach Cult Stand. On the third register we have a tree flanked by two goats or ibexes. This symbol is used to signify Asherah, as is the Goddess on the bottom stand flanked by two lions. This image with two ibex on either side of the tree is important. This tree has, like the menorah and the reverse side of Pithos A from Kuntillet Arjud, three branches on either side of the central trunk. On the top register is a young bull or calf with a flying sun, a denotation of divinity in the ANE, this calf can be posited by inscriptional and iconographical evidence to be El, Baal, or YHWH. Both the top and second tier have sphinxes and are by virtue linked together just as the bottom and third tiers are linked together. It has been proposed that both the calf on the top and the empty fenestration on the second tier are aniconic representations of YWHW (cf. the cheribum flanking the mercy seat in the Tabernacle and presumably the Temple). Other places where Baal or El are depicted with a bull they are standing on its back. This combination of deities standing on the back of animals is widely attested throughout the ANE. The fact that a deity is absent from the back of the divine calf and the empty fenestration on the second tier is an argument from absence, a possible indication of aniconography. It does remain possible that either EL or Baal were intended.
Going back yet further in time another 300 years we see the Lachish Ewer. Here there is also a tree flanked by two male ibexes or rams. Above the tree is the title of the goddess Asherah 'lt, the feminine form of EL meaning lady. Does the tree, the representation of the goddess Asherah, look familiar? Does it look like a menorah?
Is the menorah an Asherah? Look closer at at drawing of the image of import.
Yep, it still appears to be three branches on either side of a central trunk.
Now it is important to understand the usage of Asherah in the bible. She is depicted as a goddess with phrophets in the story of Elijah. The asherah is also described as a stylized tree whether carved from a tree or a living tree for Asherah the goddess. Lastly the Asherah is described as being a stylized or carved symbol for any deity. From the varied use of Asherah in the bible alone we can determine that Asherah was a goddess, a symbol denoting the goddess, and lastly a symbol detached from the goddess.
In 1 Kings 7:49 we learn that there were five on the north side and five on the south side in front of the inner sanctuary. It is also important to note that they weren't in the holy of holies. However, let us do the math of three branches on either side of a central trunk 3+3+1=7 or the seven lamps described in Exodus 25:37. But there are ten of them in the temple so 7 * 10=70. Leolia had mentioned earlier that Asherah is noted for creating 70 sons with El and Genesis 10, the Table of Nations has 70 Nations, and Deuteronmy has El ELoyn distributing amongst his sons a nation as an inheritance; Yahweh's portion being Israel. Much of this is conjecture, but not baseless conjecture. What I think important to note is that Solomon is internally known within the Hebrew Bible as a polytheist. Why would anyone assume that a polytheist built a temple for only one god? Especially in light of 2 Kings 23 which explicitly states that many of the monuments that Solomon had built in and around Israel were still standing and then destroyed in the reign of Josiah.
interesting.. here is the first thing i've found on the subject, though i haven't read much of it yet.. http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/05-deuteronomy/text/articles/heiser-deut32-bs.htm.
pseudo.
WontLeave,
I think you are giving this a quick dismissal, too quick. Firstly, if the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, were actually living breathing human beings living in the Levant during the mid to late Bronze Age 'El' was most assuredly not 'just' a generic name for 'God'. El was a specific god at this time and place. You are correct that even in Ugaritic texts where we learn of 'El' the specific god 'el' is also used generically.
So what arguments are brought forth to indicate that we are dealing not merely with a generic term, but rather a proper noun in the Hebrew Bible? Quite a few. Here I'll be short to see if you have interest in going further.
1) Exodus 6:2,3 (NRSV) explicitly states "...I am the Lord (YHWH). I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty (El Shaddai) but by my name the Lord (YHWH) I did not make myself known to them."
a. Shaddai, most probably 'Mountain One' is known in 7th Century inscripitions at Dier 'Alla. Here the context is not specifically El, but rather the shaddayin (plural) who are meeting in the divine assembly/council on the mountain
2) The other gods in the pantheon which included El as its head god also appear in the bible as a) gods, 2) toponyms, 3) anthroponyms
a. If the other gods are no doubt from this pantheon and the bible surely attests to Israelites worshipping them why exlude El from this framework?
3) El-Elohe-Israel in Genesis 33:20. You can posit it "Generic god the god of Israel" or El the god of Israel. Remember he is naming an altar.
4) Deuteronomy 32:7-8 which explicity states, in both the Qumran and Septuagint, that Yahweh one of the sons of god recieves an inheritance from El Elyon.
5) Shared epithets or titles of El and Yahweh such as God of the Covenant, Father of man (ab adm), Creator of Creatures, El Olam, and El the Bull (cf. The Mighty One (abir=bull) of Jacob)
I'd love to get more specific if you are interested.
interesting.. here is the first thing i've found on the subject, though i haven't read much of it yet.. http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/05-deuteronomy/text/articles/heiser-deut32-bs.htm.
pseudo.
Leolaia,
I am building quite a library regarding the evolution of Israel's religion and its Canaanite roots. While searching for information on the web I found quite a few of your posts. First I would like to commend you for presenting the information in a balanced approach and secondly for presenting the information accurately. I joined this thread specifically to discuss some of these issues with you. As you are no doubt aware, few people have the faintest hint of what is involved and even fewer are conversant in the required information. I hope we can have some pointed discussions and provide some further interest to others on this board; I am quite encouraged that a handful of posters have recently expressed interest as well.
My library includes:
The New Oxford Annotated Bible 3rd augmented ed. w/ Apocrypha NRSV, ed. Michael D. Coogan; 2007
The Early History of God 2nd rev. ed., Mark S. Smith; 2002
The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, Mark S. Smith; 2001
Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, John Day; 2000,2002
Ritual and Cult at Ugarit, Dennis Pardee; 2002
Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible 2nd rev. ed., ed. Karel van der Toorn; 1999
The Rise of Yahwism 2nd ed., J.C. de Moor; 1997
Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, Donald B. Redford; 1992
Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible 2nd rev. ed., Emanuel Tov; 1991, 2001
The Bible Unearthed, Israel Finklestein and Silberman; 2001
The Bible With Sources Revealed, Richard Elliot Friedman; 2003
Israelite Religions, Richard Hess; 2007
The Religions of Ancient Israel, Ziony Zevit; 2001
You Shall Have No Other Gods, Jeffery Tigay; 1986
Mari and the Early Israelite Experience, Abraham Malamat; 1989
The Oxford History of the Biblical World, ed. Michael D. Coogan; 1998
And adding a few installments monthly
The book that first got me going is The Evolution of God, Robert Wright; 2009. My intent in disclosing my personal collection is three fold 1) To show you sources that might be of interest to you that you are not familiar or are familiar with but do not have in hand, 2) To show where my own collection is lacking and where you might be able to fill in with suggestions or information, and 3) To peak your interest in, I hope, intelligent discussion. Please be patient with me while I learn the rules of the board. I would also like to disclose my own biases; To many peoples dismay and disdain I am an atheist. I will not insult, belittle or berate anyone's faith, but I will challenge people's understanding of ANE history. I must also confess that I am fairly ignorant concerning the Jehovas-Witness faith. If I inquire about how certain data are interpreted in LDS specific theological contexts it is in interest. Lastly, this subject is not my training nor vocation. My training is in biology and environmental sciences; ironically I am currently chemistry analyst.
