Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, you are doing far more scholarly job than I am. I'm just blabbering on far simpler level working on little sleep. I'm probably not making a lick of sense.
You're making plenty of sense, and on many levels I agree with you - or, at least, I am working on finding more evidence for some of your statements. The whole subject is fascinating - how did the gods become God? When did the various 'gods of the fathers' become lost (well, narratively - in Exodus, but in reality when)? When did the patriarchal tribes cease being tribes and became individuals in the narratives?
A good place to start for many people is in the stories and myths of Ugarit - it might not make any sense at first, but one soon realizes that Ugarit seems to hold the closest relationship to Israel in many, many ways. It gives us one of our best views into 'Canaanite' practice, and how it's almost identical to Israelite practice, in many fundamental ways.
You're making plenty of sense, and on many levels I agree with you - or, at least, I am working on finding more evidence for some of your statements. The whole subject is fascinating - how did the gods become God? When did the various 'gods of the fathers' become lost (well, narratively - in Exodus, but in reality when)? When did the patriarchal tribes cease being tribes and became individuals in the narratives?
A good place to start for many people is in the stories and myths of Ugarit - it might not make any sense at first, but one soon realizes that Ugarit seems to hold the closest relationship to Israel in many, many ways. It gives us one of our best views into 'Canaanite' practice, and how it's almost identical to Israelite practice, in many fundamental ways.
To me there seems to be two themes in the Old Testament woven together or two themes conflicting with each other. On one hand, it appears that someone(s) wanted to show that Yahweh was always the head honcho while on the other hand, another group had no problem showing Yahweh ascending from tribal deity of an insignificant people to supreme deity with NO equal. There appears to be this amalgamation that takes place where Yahweh assumes the identity of El in much the same way that Baal supposedly does the same thing. The religious wars during the days of Elijah and Elisha details the religious struggle that went on to see which of those two gods would assume the role of El. Since we still have the Jews today, their story endured with them. I wonder what would have happened if the Canaanites and their adored deity had won out instead?
I wish I could tie all the disparate stories of Yahweh together to get one consistent narrative. I would like to know all the stories related to Yahweh as 1 of 70 sons of el, whether they come from the bible or Canaanite traditions. How he became tied to the land, how he had power in his land but not as much in others, how people carried the ark into battle to help them fight the power of other gods, etc.
This would naturally include many of the other canaanite gods.
That would make a great movie if we could find a consistent narrative out of it.
(If some thought he eventually beat out all the other gods to become el, that would be awesome too.)
Well, I've given several good places to start in another thread - among them W.F. Albright's Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, F.M. Cross' Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (DDD), etc.
If you want a good first step, I highly reccomend Herman Gunkel's fantastic introduction to his commentary on Genesis, which has frequently been released separately. Google Books offers, for free, a translation of it entitled The Legends of Genesis and you can find it here: The legends of Genesis - Hermann Gunkel - Google Books and you can download it in various formats, or read it on a Google Books app. It's not a very long book (since it is, after all, an introduction) and you should finish it in no time at all. It will give you a good starting point to embark on.
If you want something quicker, and more entertaining, try this series from the BBC - it's pretty short, but very good: BBC - BBC Two Programmes - Bible's Buried Secrets, Did God Have a Wife?
It's called Bible's Buried Secrets (not THE Bible's Buried Secrets - different show) and done by a fairly competent scholar who tackles the intriguing question of "Did God Have a Wife" in which she discusses Ugarit, 'El and Baal at length. It might not be available to stream from BBC (they got a LOT of complaints about the short series, not sure if those had anything to do with it's unavailability) - but you can definately find it on Demonoid.com - a torrent site. If you want a link, let me know. It's a good show. I don't agree with all of her conclusions, but the majority of them hold water, I think.
I still think Cross' book is the best introduction to the subject AND thorough study, if you can deal with the scholarly lingo he uses - he is not for the faint of heart. Here's a listing of some of the chapters and their contents:
I The Religion of Canaan and the God of Israel 1 The God of the Fathers (which I spoke of and referenced in the Abram thread) 2 'El and the God of the Fathers
'El in the Ugaritic Pantheon
The Epithets of 'El
'El in the Canaanite Myth
'El and Baʿl Ḥamōn
The Abode of "el
'El the Divine Patriarch 3 Yahweh and 'El
'El in the Bible
'El epithets in Patriarchal Narratives
The Name Yahweh
That's the first chapter - pages 1-60 - and as you can probably guess, it has a wealth of information.
InsaneMembran - when you mention that you wonder what would have happened if the Canaanites would have won - it makes me think of the scholarly opinion that the Israelites WERE Canaanites heh heh! This isn't always realized, because of the very vitriolic anti-Canaanite stance found in the Hebrew Bible. But, we can always be a little embarassed about where we came from, right?
Finklestein's book The Bible Unearthed discusses the question from an archeaological approach, claiming that the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah arose separately - not together as the Bible claims - and probably from gradual separation from other Canaanites.
Boxcar - you could start by picking up The Bible: With Sources Revealed, which highlights the separate sources (technically, the book contains only the Torah). Start with the Yahwist to see how he represents Yahweh throughout the Torah.
I personally think the best place to being research is in Ugarit - that's why I'm learning Ugaritic (which has required learning Akkadian first). My neighbor likes to make clay pottery for the plants he sells, so he has access to a kiln and clay. From this, I am able to practice what it would have been like being an ancient scribe in Ugarit (or Akkad or Babylon), pressing the cuneiform symbols into clay, having them fired, etc. It's a lot of fun - and a neat hands-on way of learning the language. Thankfully, Ugaritic uses an alphabet - not a syllabry.
Once you get your foot in the door at Ugarit - you notice all the Hittite, Hurrian, Akkadian influences that culminate in the area. Finally, the Ugaritic gods and goddesses have a unique and intimate relationship of the later gods and goddesses of the Hebrew Bible, as does the language. You could almost (though this would be a bit inaccurate) calle Ugaritic a middle-language between Akkadian and Hebrew.
Cross writes (under the section in the Bible) " 'Ēl is rarely if ever used in the Bible as the proper name of a non-Israelite, Canaanite deity in the full consciousness of a distinction between 'Ēl and Yahweh, god of Israel. This is a most extraordinary datum." (p. 44) I'm not sure if I've quoted this before, but this is how he opens the section, and it's food for thought. He goes on:
In Ezekiel, 28:2, the prophet's famous oracle against Tyre, he describes 'Ēl in excessively mythological terms, suggesting that he knew that he sang of the Canaanite deity: "Because your heart was proud you (Tyre) said, 'I am 'Ēl, in the seat of 'Elōhīm I am enthroned in the midst of the seas'." The abode of 'Ēl is described precisely in Canaanite language. Yet there are problems. Exekiel uses 'Elōhīm in parallel to 'Ēl here, and later in vv. 14 and 16 speaks of 'Ēl's mountain as har 'elōhīm, and in v. 2 uses 'Ēl in it's fairly frequent generic sense. I am inclined to believe that the prophet was aware of the background of the language he used. In the phrase, "you are human and not divine / 'Ēl," it appears that he plays on the double possibility in meanings of 'ēl: "a divinity" / "the divinity 'Ēl". Similarly in using the expressions gan 'elōhīm and har 'elōhīm he may have been aware that 'elōhīm could be used with a double meaning: the "plural of cult manifestations" of a proper name (like Bĕʿālīm = Baʿl), as well as a simple plural: "gods". Still problems remain and the evidence is not wholly clear.
(Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, p. 44)
Now - that pargraph might benefit from some slow reading, but it is a great beginning to the concept of "Yahweh = 'Ēl". This is just the tip of the iceberg, however. The beginning of the search starts with determining how 'Ēl is used in the Hebrew Bible, and this is where Cross begins. Of course - without the preceeding chapters, one might be a little lost - especially when it comes to the aspects and character of 'Ēl of Ugarit, or even why we should consider equating 'Ēl with Yahweh. It's truly a book that requires study, but will lead one to many other places.
I wouldn't be opposed to starting a thread dealing with a specific issue of research. The problem is when we start throwing our net too far afield and making hasty generalizations without actually seeing if the theory holds water.
By the way, here's the Ugaritic Alphabet - easy, huh?
Well, I've given several good places to start in another thread - among them W.F. Albright's Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, F.M. Cross' Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (DDD), etc.
Those are dated, but I it's a good start, and I think it also shows the evolution of criticism and of archaeology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
InsaneMembran - when you mention that you wonder what would have happened if the Canaanites would have won - it makes me think of the scholarly opinion that the Israelites WERE Canaanites heh heh! This isn't always realized, because of the very vitriolic anti-Canaanite stance found in the Hebrew Bible. But, we can always be a little embarassed about where we came from, right?
There is no cultural distinction archaeologically between the Hebrews and Canaanites. If I took you to a Canaanite city and a Hebrew city, you'd have to study those site for years to find enough discernible differences to tell which was which, and even then you wouldn't be certain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
Finklestein's book The Bible Unearthed discusses the question from an archeaological approach, claiming that the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah arose separately - not together as the Bible claims - and probably from gradual separation from other Canaanites.
That's called the Gradual Emergence Theory. I discuss it on another thread.
I don't buy it.
Abrahm was from Akkad and followed Akkadian customs for birth-right as did Isaac and Jacob (that's why Jacob cheated Esau out of his birth-right).
Frank is the first-born son, and Larry is the second-born son. Who gets the inheritance?
Larry does.
Why? Because Frank’s mother is a concubine, but Larry’s mother is a wife.
Now, Elvis becomes the third-born son. Who gets the inheritance? Elvis does. Why? Because his mother is a wife. But so is Larry’s. True, but Elvis’ mother is the preferred wife.
Alfred becomes the fourth-born son, and he gets the birth-right. Why? Because his mother is a half-sister. That’s how Akkadian custom works.
Ishmael is first-born, but Isaac gets the birth-right. Why? Because Ishmael's mother was only a hand-maiden, while Isaac's mother (Serai) was Abrahm's half-sister.
The birth order of Jacob’s sons was:
Reuben (Leah – a wife)
Simeon (Leah – a wife)
Levi (Leah – a wife)
Judah (Leah – a wife)
Dan (Billah – a concubine)
Naphtali (Billah – a concubine)
Gad (Zilpah – a concubine)
Asher (Zilpah – a concubine)
Issachar (Leah – a wife)
Zebulun (Leah – a wife)
Joseph (Rachel – the preferred wife)
Benjamin (Rachel – the preferred wife)
Because Joseph was the first-born son of the preferred wife (Rachel), Joseph got the birth-right, the biggest portion of the inheritance, and not Reuben.
However, Joseph chose to stay in Egypt and forfeited his birth-right in favor of his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim. Even so, Jacob still gave Joseph a small tract of land in the mountains, which he claimed he took from the Amorites with his own bow.
When you look at a map, the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim together had the largest chunk of land. That was Joseph’s birth-right divided between the two of them.
The next largest portion of the inheritance goes to Judah. Why? Because Reuben forfeited his birth-right when he slept with his father’s concubine, and Simeon and Levi forfeited their birth-right when they attacked the men of Schekem. That makes Judah next in line, and he got the second largest portion of the inheritance.
Although the Genesis doesn't say so, I suspect Benjamin forfeited his birth to stay in Egypt with Joseph, and not having any sons, got not land.
Also if you read Genesis, it says they left Egypt to bury Jacob, but nowhere does it say they went back. And why would they go back? The whole reason they went to Egypt was to buy grain because there was a drought and Egypt had grain. Droughts are temporary, every one knows that. You don't give up all of your land when there's drought, especially when you can trade for grain.
I would suggest the 9 Canaanite tribes remained in Canaan, while the tribes of Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Benjamin stayed in Egypt. Reuben, Simeon and Levi lost their birth-right, so on the death of Jacob, they have no land. It makes sense for them to stay in Egypt where Joseph can help them.
It makes even more sense if they to separate groups engage in a very profitable trade, which is probably how they got wealthy. But, constant conflicts and wars made travel very dangerous, mercenaries hired to protect the caravans got real expensive (and probably looted the caravans as well), and eventually the two separate groups stop trading and lose contact with each other.
As a result, each group evolves with separate cultures. For whatever reason, the 4 clans in Egypt (Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Benjamin) decide to leave and go live amongst their relatives in Canaan.
Again, looking at a map, if the 9 Canaanite tribes were always there, then where does Reuben go? The only place he possibly can go, up in the mountains, and there is archaeological evidence of about 20,000 to 30,000 new residents (but only if you take the early date for the "Exodus").
Where does Simeon go? They only other place possible to expand, south of Judah toward the desert. Benjamin is a small clan and absorbed by Judah, and the Levites have evolved into a priestly function and have no land.
That would also explain why only those persons from the tribes of Reuben, Simeon, Levin and Benjamin have exclusively Egyptian names (like Dathan and Korah etc) and why those from the Canaanite tribes have exclusively Canaanite names.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
I personally think the best place to being research is in Ugarit
The Hebrews copied a lot from Ugaritic culture:
Ugaritic tnn with the Hebrew tnn (tannin) i.e. sea monster
Ugaritic ’qltn with the Hebrew ’qltn (’agallaton) “squirming”
Ugaritic brh with the Hebrew brh (bariakh) usually translated “fast-moving”
That’s from the Ugaritic Leviathan Myth, which shows that not only was the Hebrew language influenced by Ugarit, so were Hebrew myths and religious thought.
Again, that is possible, if and only if, Hebrews were living in Canaan during the time they were supposed to be in Egypt. If all of the tribes of Hebrews had lived in Egypt, then there is no way Hebrew would have an affinity with Ugaritic Canaanite. As a point of fact, the Hebrew/Aramaic lexicons have fallen into disuse, and the preferred lexicon is Hebrew/Ugaritic. For example “A survey of the first 100 Phoenician words in the dictionary shows that 82 percent have the same meaning in Hebrew. Between Ugaritic and Hebrew the figure is about 79 percent” (Ugaritic by D. Pardee 1997).
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane
To me there seems to be two themes in the Old Testament woven together or two themes conflicting with each other. On one hand, it appears that someone(s) wanted to show that Yahweh was always the head honcho while on the other hand, another group had no problem showing Yahweh ascending from tribal deity of an insignificant people to supreme deity with NO equal. There appears to be this amalgamation that takes place where Yahweh assumes the identity of El in much the same way that Baal supposedly does the same thing. The religious wars during the days of Elijah and Elisha details the religious struggle that went on to see which of those two gods would assume the role of El. Since we still have the Jews today, their story endured with them. I wonder what would have happened if the Canaanites and their adored deity had won out instead?
That would be the "J" and "E" traditions which were merged after the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel. As Finklestein points out, if the Kingdom of Israel is not destroyed, then the Old Testament you are reading now never exists.
There's absolutely no doubt that the "J" writer paints Judah and the Tribe of Judah in the most shimmering beautiful light possible, while "E" tells it exactly as it is.
A good example is how did Joseph get to Egypt?
The "E" writer says Joseph's brothers were going to kill him, but Reuben had pity and suggested they sell Joseph to a passing caravan.
The "J" writer says Joseph's brothers were going to kill him, but Judah had pity and suggested that Joseph be thrown into a well. Joseph's brothers leave and then a passing caravan hears Joseph's pleas for help and rescues him from the well, only to sell him as a slave in Egypt.
Obviously, those are two very different stories that conflict greatly.
Also, it would appear that god doesn't even know how Joseph got to Egypt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
The only way this theory could possibly work is if Israelite Monotheism actually, historically arose with Moses - and this is only believed by fundamentalists or orthodox believers. Going further from that, these same believers would never accept the theory that Moses borrowed the idea from Egypt - they would insist on the primacy of the account told in Genesis.
In summation - it's just an idea, one that has been shown to be false by later research (both linguistically and archaeologically) .
In addition - using a term from another culture does not automatically result in the conclusion that the borrowing culture was entirely influenced in all of it's ways by that previous culture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane
In this farewell address by Moses, he exhorts new generation to consult their elders. He tells them that the elders would tell them that there was a time when the "Most High" (El Elyon) divided the nations according to the "sons of god" (as stated in the DSS), the LORD's (Yahweh) portion (inheritance) was Jacob (Israel). Upon careful observation based on the DSS's reading, you realize that the Most High (El Elyon) and the LORD (Yahweh) are two different beings distinguished from one another. Yahweh appears to be within the number of sons who receives a nation (Israel) for himself.
El Elyon would be Enlil. That would be Peleg, when Earth was divided. That comes from the original Sumerian story where An (Akkadian Anu and Egyptian On) comes down from Nibiru and draws lots with his two sons Enlil and Enki (who are half-brothers).
An gets Nibiru, Enlil and his clan get Eurasia and Enki and his clan get Africa and the Americas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane
The King James Version (which uses the later Masoretic Text as its basis for translation) confuses the matter by changing "sons of god" (Bene elohim) to "children of Israel."
Bene-elohim is Sumerian. Catholic bibles often translate it as the "sons of heaven" which is so far out of whack as to not even be funny.
The phrase bene-’elohim (sons of gods) appears only 5 times in the Old Testament: twice in Genesis 6 (the Deluge account – demonstrating that it is based on the original account written by the Sumerians) and three times in Job.
The Akkadian phrase El Shaddai appears 31 times in Job, more than any other book and more than all other books of the Old Testament combined. That, plus the fact that Job is a difficult book to translate and study, due to the extraordinary number of foreign loan words and phrases attests to the origin of Job as proto-Semitic and NOT Hebrew.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
From these two points onward - the use of the name Yahweh is no longer an easy way to distinguish the different sources from each other. Each source will now use Yahweh in both narration AND on the mouths of his followers.
That could be revisionism.
If they didn't like something, they simply struck it out. Moses is a great example, because Moses is not a name, it is only part of name. Moses is rendered in Egyptian as ms-s and means "from emanated."
There is no doubt whatsoever that "Moses" was prefixed with the name of a deity, like Ptahmoses, Tutmoses, Ramoses etc.
Later, some Hebrew scribe found the name of the deity "offensive" and struck it from the texts, leaving only ms-s.
That's classic revisionism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
Thanks. I didn't know there was a word for that when I posted, but someone else has sense pointed that out to me. Learn something new everyday, especially in threads like these.
Edit: Wait, you are saying that Jews believe other gods exist? Can you tell me more about them? I'm going googling right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Greenspan
Simply not true.
It is true. Again, if you intend to study the Old Testament, you MUST use the BHS.
No Exceptions.
Judges 11:24 Chemosh ’elohim (Moabite)
Samuel I 5:7 Dagon ’elohim (Philistine)
Kings I 11:33 Astarte ’elohim (Canannite goddess), Milcom ’elohim (Ammonite), Chemosh ’elohim (Moabite)
Kings II 19:37 Nisroch ’elohim (Assyrian)
The King Joke Vision might be wonderful prose, but it is the worst translation ever produced.
You can't claim that Jews didn't believe other gods didn't exist, because they surely did. The proof is in the Old Testament itself.
Psalm 48:2 is another stellar example. It's Zaphon, not Zion.
Those are dated, but I it's a good start, and I think it also shows the evolution of criticism and of archaeology.
There is no cultural distinction archaeologically between the Hebrews and Canaanites. If I took you to a Canaanite city and a Hebrew city, you'd have to study those site for years to find enough discernible differences to tell which was which, and even then you wouldn't be certain.
That's called the Gradual Emergence Theory. I discuss it on another thread.
I don't buy it.
Abrahm was from Akkad and followed Akkadian customs for birth-right as did Isaac and Jacob (that's why Jacob cheated Esau out of his birth-right).
Frank is the first-born son, and Larry is the second-born son. Who gets the inheritance?
Larry does.
Why? Because Frank’s mother is a concubine, but Larry’s mother is a wife.
Now, Elvis becomes the third-born son. Who gets the inheritance? Elvis does. Why? Because his mother is a wife. But so is Larry’s. True, but Elvis’ mother is the preferred wife.
Alfred becomes the fourth-born son, and he gets the birth-right. Why? Because his mother is a half-sister. That’s how Akkadian custom works.
Ishmael is first-born, but Isaac gets the birth-right. Why? Because Ishmael's mother was only a hand-maiden, while Isaac's mother (Serai) was Abrahm's half-sister.
The birth order of Jacob’s sons was:
Reuben (Leah – a wife)
Simeon (Leah – a wife)
Levi (Leah – a wife)
Judah (Leah – a wife)
Dan (Billah – a concubine)
Naphtali (Billah – a concubine)
Gad (Zilpah – a concubine)
Asher (Zilpah – a concubine)
Issachar (Leah – a wife)
Zebulun (Leah – a wife)
Joseph (Rachel – the preferred wife)
Benjamin (Rachel – the preferred wife)
Because Joseph was the first-born son of the preferred wife (Rachel), Joseph got the birth-right, the biggest portion of the inheritance, and not Reuben.
However, Joseph chose to stay in Egypt and forfeited his birth-right in favor of his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim. Even so, Jacob still gave Joseph a small tract of land in the mountains, which he claimed he took from the Amorites with his own bow.
When you look at a map, the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim together had the largest chunk of land. That was Joseph’s birth-right divided between the two of them.
The next largest portion of the inheritance goes to Judah. Why? Because Reuben forfeited his birth-right when he slept with his father’s concubine, and Simeon and Levi forfeited their birth-right when they attacked the men of Schekem. That makes Judah next in line, and he got the second largest portion of the inheritance.
Although the Genesis doesn't say so, I suspect Benjamin forfeited his birth to stay in Egypt with Joseph, and not having any sons, got not land.
Also if you read Genesis, it says they left Egypt to bury Jacob, but nowhere does it say they went back. And why would they go back? The whole reason they went to Egypt was to buy grain because there was a drought and Egypt had grain. Droughts are temporary, every one knows that. You don't give up all of your land when there's drought, especially when you can trade for grain.
I would suggest the 9 Canaanite tribes remained in Canaan, while the tribes of Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Benjamin stayed in Egypt. Reuben, Simeon and Levi lost their birth-right, so on the death of Jacob, they have no land. It makes sense for them to stay in Egypt where Joseph can help them.
It makes even more sense if they to separate groups engage in a very profitable trade, which is probably how they got wealthy. But, constant conflicts and wars made travel very dangerous, mercenaries hired to protect the caravans got real expensive (and probably looted the caravans as well), and eventually the two separate groups stop trading and lose contact with each other.
As a result, each group evolves with separate cultures. For whatever reason, the 4 clans in Egypt (Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Benjamin) decide to leave and go live amongst their relatives in Canaan.
Again, looking at a map, if the 9 Canaanite tribes were always there, then where does Reuben go? The only place he possibly can go, up in the mountains, and there is archaeological evidence of about 20,000 to 30,000 new residents (but only if you take the early date for the "Exodus").
Where does Simeon go? They only other place possible to expand, south of Judah toward the desert. Benjamin is a small clan and absorbed by Judah, and the Levites have evolved into a priestly function and have no land.
That would also explain why only those persons from the tribes of Reuben, Simeon, Levin and Benjamin have exclusively Egyptian names (like Dathan and Korah etc) and why those from the Canaanite tribes have exclusively Canaanite names.
The Hebrews copied a lot from Ugaritic culture:
Ugaritic tnn with the Hebrew tnn (tannin) i.e. sea monster
Ugaritic ’qltn with the Hebrew ’qltn (’agallaton) “squirming”
Ugaritic brh with the Hebrew brh (bariakh) usually translated “fast-moving”
That’s from the Ugaritic Leviathan Myth, which shows that not only was the Hebrew language influenced by Ugarit, so were Hebrew myths and religious thought.
Again, that is possible, if and only if, Hebrews were living in Canaan during the time they were supposed to be in Egypt. If all of the tribes of Hebrews had lived in Egypt, then there is no way Hebrew would have an affinity with Ugaritic Canaanite. As a point of fact, the Hebrew/Aramaic lexicons have fallen into disuse, and the preferred lexicon is Hebrew/Ugaritic. For example “A survey of the first 100 Phoenician words in the dictionary shows that 82 percent have the same meaning in Hebrew. Between Ugaritic and Hebrew the figure is about 79 percent” (Ugaritic by D. Pardee 1997).
That would be the "J" and "E" traditions which were merged after the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel. As Finklestein points out, if the Kingdom of Israel is not destroyed, then the Old Testament you are reading now never exists.
There's absolutely no doubt that the "J" writer paints Judah and the Tribe of Judah in the most shimmering beautiful light possible, while "E" tells it exactly as it is.
A good example is how did Joseph get to Egypt?
The "E" writer says Joseph's brothers were going to kill him, but Reuben had pity and suggested they sell Joseph to a passing caravan.
The "J" writer says Joseph's brothers were going to kill him, but Judah had pity and suggested that Joseph be thrown into a well. Joseph's brothers leave and then a passing caravan hears Joseph's pleas for help and rescues him from the well, only to sell him as a slave in Egypt.
Obviously, those are two very different stories that conflict greatly.
Also, it would appear that god doesn't even know how Joseph got to Egypt.
El Elyon would be Enlil. That would be Peleg, when Earth was divided. That comes from the original Sumerian story where An (Akkadian Anu and Egyptian On) comes down from Nibiru and draws lots with his two sons Enlil and Enki (who are half-brothers).
An gets Nibiru, Enlil and his clan get Eurasia and Enki and his clan get Africa and the Americas.
Bene-elohim is Sumerian. Catholic bibles often translate it as the "sons of heaven" which is so far out of whack as to not even be funny.
The phrase bene-’elohim (sons of gods) appears only 5 times in the Old Testament: twice in Genesis 6 (the Deluge account – demonstrating that it is based on the original account written by the Sumerians) and three times in Job.
The Akkadian phrase El Shaddai appears 31 times in Job, more than any other book and more than all other books of the Old Testament combined. That, plus the fact that Job is a difficult book to translate and study, due to the extraordinary number of foreign loan words and phrases attests to the origin of Job as proto-Semitic and NOT Hebrew.
That could be revisionism.
If they didn't like something, they simply struck it out. Moses is a great example, because Moses is not a name, it is only part of name. Moses is rendered in Egyptian as ms-s and means "from emanated."
There is no doubt whatsoever that "Moses" was prefixed with the name of a deity, like Ptahmoses, Tutmoses, Ramoses etc.
Later, some Hebrew scribe found the name of the deity "offensive" and struck it from the texts, leaving only ms-s.
That's classic revisionism.
It is true. Again, if you intend to study the Old Testament, you MUST use the BHS.
No Exceptions.
Judges 11:24 Chemosh ’elohim (Moabite)
Samuel I 5:7 Dagon ’elohim (Philistine)
Kings I 11:33 Astarte ’elohim (Canannite goddess), Milcom ’elohim (Ammonite), Chemosh ’elohim (Moabite)
Kings II 19:37 Nisroch ’elohim (Assyrian)
The King Joke Vision might be wonderful prose, but it is the worst translation ever produced.
You can't claim that Jews didn't believe other gods didn't exist, because they surely did. The proof is in the Old Testament itself.
Psalm 48:2 is another stellar example. It's Zaphon, not Zion.
Some great information here to digest, but I just wanted to add that Benjamin did get a portion of land (north of Judah) but it was later absorbed into Judah.
Well, well, well... this concept is definitely out of contact with the Idea. nevertheless, you are claiming that besides responsibility there my be means for justification of that responsibility.
I know it as the difference between animation and definition of circular constructive determination.
My text appears in Bold, because I didn't know how to properly quote this post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Those are dated, but I it's a good start, and I think it also shows the evolution of criticism and of archaeology.
Of course, Albright is dated and has been superceded by Cross. Cross is slightly dated, but is still one of the best places to go for information on the subject: FEW have surpassed his erudtion. DDD is not dated - except in some minor points.
There is no cultural distinction archaeologically between the Hebrews and Canaanites. If I took you to a Canaanite city and a Hebrew city, you'd have to study those site for years to find enough discernible differences to tell which was which, and even then you wouldn't be certain.
You're correct - and if you accept this, then the "Gradual Emergence Theory" should pose no barrier to you, even though you reject it.
That's called the Gradual Emergence Theory. I discuss it on another thread.
I don't buy it.
As above - if you accept the one, it is fairly natural to accept the other. They had to come from somewhere.
Abrahm was from Akkad and followed Akkadian customs for birth-right as did Isaac and Jacob (that's why Jacob cheated Esau out of his birth-right).
Frank is the first-born son, and Larry is the second-born son. Who gets the inheritance?
Larry does.
Why? Because Frank’s mother is a concubine, but Larry’s mother is a wife.
Now, Elvis becomes the third-born son. Who gets the inheritance? Elvis does. Why? Because his mother is a wife. But so is Larry’s. True, but Elvis’ mother is the preferred wife.
Alfred becomes the fourth-born son, and he gets the birth-right. Why? Because his mother is a half-sister. That’s how Akkadian custom works.
1- You're assuming that Abraham was an actual living individual, and not a tribe later romanticized as an individual (see Gunkel). 2- You're also assuming that Abraham lived during the period of the Akkadian Empire - which ended in 2154 BC. This would place Abraham, as an individual per your statement, far before the traditional view of when he lived, and if you're claiming that Abraham was an invidual it is because you're accepting the traditional view that he was an individual, and not a tribe. 3- Because of above, and biblical references- Abraham was not a native of Akkad. From biblical references (they are our only sources for his birth) we get two birthplaces: a) Ur-Kašdim (Ur of the North) or Ur of the Chaldees according to one of the biblical sources, or b) Ḥarran from another of the sources. Take your pick - choose your source. Akkad is not one of them. 4- If one assumes that Abraham was an individual, or even a tribe, it's very hard to posit that the political customs of a city had any influence on the non-political nature of a nomadic patriarch (Westermann, Introduction to Commentary on Genesis). While influences did, of course, occure - political influences were far less likely to occur. The once famous theory of Hurrian influence on the wife/sister motif and the inheriting servant of Damascus has been shown to be doubtful on these very grounds. Anyways, if anything influenced Abrahamic customs - it would have come from the North - if we accept that such customs are even capable of influence.
Ishmael is first-born, but Isaac gets the birth-right. Why? Because Ishmael's mother was only a hand-maiden, while Isaac's mother (Serai) was Abrahm's half-sister.
If the current scholarly view that the individuals of the Patriarchal Narratives are actually tribes, then the story of Isaac's dominance over Ishmael is shown to be a etiological story about the tribes. Gunkel notes "We may certainly regard as personifications of tribes those figures whose names are known to us in other connexions as names of tribes; such are, notably: Ishmael, Ammon, Moab, the twelve tribes and their divisions. Sometimes it is perfectly evident from the narratives themselves that we have to do with tribes, as in the case of Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, Ham and Japhet. Accordingly, many of the narratives treating such ancestors are originally the experiences of races or tribes." (The Legends of Genesis, p. 20, Eng. Trans.) Gunkel may be dated in some things, but not in this.
The birth order of Jacob’s sons was:
Reuben (Leah – a wife)
Simeon (Leah – a wife)
Levi (Leah – a wife)
Judah (Leah – a wife)
Dan (Billah – a concubine)
Naphtali (Billah – a concubine)
Gad (Zilpah – a concubine)
Asher (Zilpah – a concubine)
Issachar (Leah – a wife)
Zebulun (Leah – a wife)
Joseph (Rachel – the preferred wife)
Benjamin (Rachel – the preferred wife)
Because Joseph was the first-born son of the preferred wife (Rachel), Joseph got the birth-right, the biggest portion of the inheritance, and not Reuben.
However, Joseph chose to stay in Egypt and forfeited his birth-right in favor of his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim. Even so, Jacob still gave Joseph a small tract of land in the mountains, which he claimed he took from the Amorites with his own bow.
When you look at a map, the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim together had the largest chunk of land. That was Joseph’s birth-right divided between the two of them.
The next largest portion of the inheritance goes to Judah. Why? Because Reuben forfeited his birth-right when he slept with his father’s concubine, and Simeon and Levi forfeited their birth-right when they attacked the men of Schekem. That makes Judah next in line, and he got the second largest portion of the inheritance.
Although the Genesis doesn't say so, I suspect Benjamin forfeited his birth to stay in Egypt with Joseph, and not having any sons, got not land.
See above - Gunkel, and the fact that Abraham did not come from Akkad.
Also if you read Genesis, it says they left Egypt to bury Jacob, but nowhere does it say they went back. And why would they go back? The whole reason they went to Egypt was to buy grain because there was a drought and Egypt had grain. Droughts are temporary, every one knows that. You don't give up all of your land when there's drought, especially when you can trade for grain.
I would suggest the 9 Canaanite tribes remained in Canaan, while the tribes of Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Benjamin stayed in Egypt. Reuben, Simeon and Levi lost their birth-right, so on the death of Jacob, they have no land. It makes sense for them to stay in Egypt where Joseph can help them.
You're mixing ideas of patriarchal and tribal individuality with biblical accounts and coming up with a strange synthetic outcome. If our only traditions we have dealing with them point to their entry into Egypt, then it's a likely bet that the various writers of the tradition meant what they said. We can reject it on lack of archaeological evidence and the idea that none of these people were factual (Van Seder), but it's risky to mix ideas in such a haphazard fashion.
It makes even more sense if they to separate groups engage in a very profitable trade, which is probably how they got wealthy. But, constant conflicts and wars made travel very dangerous, mercenaries hired to protect the caravans got real expensive (and probably looted the caravans as well), and eventually the two separate groups stop trading and lose contact with each other.
As a result, each group evolves with separate cultures. For whatever reason, the 4 clans in Egypt (Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Benjamin) decide to leave and go live amongst their relatives in Canaan.
Again, looking at a map, if the 9 Canaanite tribes were always there, then where does Reuben go? The only place he possibly can go, up in the mountains, and there is archaeological evidence of about 20,000 to 30,000 new residents (but only if you take the early date for the "Exodus").
Where does Simeon go? They only other place possible to expand, south of Judah toward the desert. Benjamin is a small clan and absorbed by Judah, and the Levites have evolved into a priestly function and have no land.
That would also explain why only those persons from the tribes of Reuben, Simeon, Levin and Benjamin have exclusively Egyptian names (like Dathan and Korah etc) and why those from the Canaanite tribes have exclusively Canaanite names.
The Hebrews copied a lot from Ugaritic culture:
Ugaritic tnn with the Hebrew tnn (tannin) i.e. sea monster
Ugaritic ’qltn with the Hebrew ’qltn (’agallaton) “squirming”
Ugaritic brh with the Hebrew brh (bariakh) usually translated “fast-moving”
That’s from the Ugaritic Leviathan Myth, which shows that not only was the Hebrew language influenced by Ugarit, so were Hebrew myths and religious thought.
Again, that is possible, if and only if, Hebrews were living in Canaan during the time they were supposed to be in Egypt. If all of the tribes of Hebrews had lived in Egypt, then there is no way Hebrew would have an affinity with Ugaritic Canaanite. As a point of fact, the Hebrew/Aramaic lexicons have fallen into disuse, and the preferred lexicon is Hebrew/Ugaritic. For example “A survey of the first 100 Phoenician words in the dictionary shows that 82 percent have the same meaning in Hebrew. Between Ugaritic and Hebrew the figure is about 79 percent” (Ugaritic by D. Pardee 1997).
I agree with most of what you say here, save the comment on Egypt. No scholars are suggesting direct Ugaritic influence on the Israelites. We have not yet found the channels through which this happened - but if Canaan was generally influenced by Ugarit, then that would be enough to also influence the Israelites while they were Canaanites. One needs not assume that the Israelites needed direct exposure to Ugarit - of which there is no evidence anywhere in the vast of Ugaritic corpus of writings. They mention dealings with many peoples, but not with Israelites, or Hebrews. Canaan, as a whole, was most likely influenced by Ugarit both during Ugarit's reign, and after it's fall to the Sea Peoples (as far as we know). Scholars posit a secondary older brother to Ugarit which they received much linguistic influence from. Also - Egypt had dealings with Ugarit frequently - so one COULD posit an Ugaritic influence on Israelites living in Egypt (if one accepts the biblical account), or even influences from the Hyksos, who would also have had exposure to Ugarit presumably.
That would be the "J" and "E" traditions which were merged after the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel. As Finklestein points out, if the Kingdom of Israel is not destroyed, then the Old Testament you are reading now never exists.
There's absolutely no doubt that the "J" writer paints Judah and the Tribe of Judah in the most shimmering beautiful light possible, while "E" tells it exactly as it is.
I agree that J paints a pretty picture, but I don't think it's wise to assume that E tells it like it is. E had his own motivations, and could be said to be more Northernly in it's outlook, but also influenced by a desire to reinstate a certain priesthood. E starts with Abraham and ignores the Primeval History, and seems concerned with assigning prophetic roles to the Patriarchs and Moses, focuses on the Covenant in Exodus, etc. Positing that E told it exactly as it was is not based on firm scholarship, or even a cursory glance at the facts: it assumes the existence of patriarchs, again, an actual exodus, Moses, etc - all things you previously stated the archeaological record preclude. I DO think that E was a better source, and more accurately represented some of the older tribal and oral traditions that later coalesced into the biblical account - but not that is was factual beyond various tribal names and divine epithets and appellatives.
A good example is how did Joseph get to Egypt?
The "E" writer says Joseph's brothers were going to kill him, but Reuben had pity and suggested they sell Joseph to a passing caravan.
The "J" writer says Joseph's brothers were going to kill him, but Judah had pity and suggested that Joseph be thrown into a well. Joseph's brothers leave and then a passing caravan hears Joseph's pleas for help and rescues him from the well, only to sell him as a slave in Egypt.
Obviously, those are two very different stories that conflict greatly.
Also, it would appear that god doesn't even know how Joseph got to Egypt.
Yes, heh heh - if one assumes inerrancy of scripture, you have multiple people who took Joseph to Egypt - the Midianites, the Ishmaelites, the Medanites (who are different from the Midianites, but usally translated as the latter in the beginning of the chapter after the Judah/Tamar story) and probably another people who I don't feel like looking up. This is just another example of differing traditions not patched up correctly in the redactional process.
El Elyon would be Enlil. That would be Peleg, when Earth was divided. That comes from the original Sumerian story where An (Akkadian Anu and Egyptian On) comes down from Nibiru and draws lots with his two sons Enlil and Enki (who are half-brothers).
An gets Nibiru, Enlil and his clan get Eurasia and Enki and his clan get Africa and the Americas.
For someone who claims Cross and Albright are obsolete - you would do well to consult them, or even the DDD, on these divine names. Sumer plays no role in them.
Bene-elohim is Sumerian. Catholic bibles often translate it as the "sons of heaven" which is so far out of whack as to not even be funny.
Definately not Sumerian. The linguistic history of the word 'il for god (the progenitor of 'el and the Hebrew plural 'elohim) is not derived from Sumerian, where the word for 'god' is DINGIR. The Akkadian writing system usese the logogram DINGIR to represent their Akkadian word 'ilum, but the logogram DINGIR could be used to represent the word "god" in any language. 'il is a Semitic word, as is ben for "son". You are correct that it does not mean "sons of heaven" - it means "sons of the gods" or "sons of God" and it is technically bene ha-'elohim: don't forget the definate article.
The phrase bene-’elohim (sons of gods) appears only 5 times in the Old Testament: twice in Genesis 6 (the Deluge account – demonstrating that it is based on the original account written by the Sumerians) and three times in Job.
This doesn't show reliance on the Sumerian Deluge Story at all. The "sons of the gods" or "divine council" appears in a variety of Near Eastern mythologies - not just Sumerian. Sumerian ideas would have been far removed from the grasp of the writers of the Bible at the time they wrote it, anyways. Why this obsession with Sumer this and Sumer that?
The Akkadian phrase El Shaddai appears 31 times in Job, more than any other book and more than all other books of the Old Testament combined. That, plus the fact that Job is a difficult book to translate and study, due to the extraordinary number of foreign loan words and phrases attests to the origin of Job as proto-Semitic and NOT Hebrew.
El Shaddai is not Akkadian. It's use in Job is deliberate archaizing to further give the story an aura of being from the age of the Patriarchs. Job is more likely an Edomite work, originally, and not proto-Semitic. Most of the foreign loan words are Aramaic - thus far, far after the time of proto-Semitic. The folk-tale might be old, but the poetry (in which El Shaddai appears) is not. Consult any well-written introduction to Job for more details.
That could be revisionism.
If they didn't like something, they simply struck it out. Moses is a great example, because Moses is not a name, it is only part of name. Moses is rendered in Egyptian as ms-s and means "from emanated."
There is no doubt whatsoever that "Moses" was prefixed with the name of a deity, like Ptahmoses, Tutmoses, Ramoses etc.
Later, some Hebrew scribe found the name of the deity "offensive" and struck it from the texts, leaving only ms-s.
That's surmise, not factual. It might be possible, but unlikely - unless you believe that the Exodus actually happened and Moses was an actual historical figure: do you?
That's classic revisionism.
It is true. Again, if you intend to study the Old Testament, you MUST use the BHS.
No Exceptions.
There are exceptions, and they include the LXX, Targumim, Pe****ta, etc. Relying on the Masoretic Text alone is NOT advised. I don't know of any reputable scholars who limit themselves to the BHS.
Judges 11:24 Chemosh ’elohim (Moabite)
Samuel I 5:7 Dagon ’elohim (Philistine)
Kings I 11:33 Astarte ’elohim (Canannite goddess), Milcom ’elohim (Ammonite), Chemosh ’elohim (Moabite)
Kings II 19:37 Nisroch ’elohim (Assyrian)
Dagan was not limited to the Philistines. One of the two major temples in Ugarit was dedicated to him, and this predates any Philistine invasion.
The King Joke Vision might be wonderful prose, but it is the worst translation ever produced.
You can't claim that Jews didn't believe other gods didn't exist, because they surely did. The proof is in the Old Testament itself.
Psalm 48:2 is another stellar example. It's Zaphon, not Zion.
I agree with you that the Israelites (not the jews - which is a term only operable AFTER the Exile) worshipped other gods at one time. But later Judaism, working on principles laid down by the prophets, and the idea that the only way to accept their exile was to posit that there was ONE God and that he had allowed the Exile to happen, and he was God of the whole world. Funny how that worked out.
Psalms is an excellent source for our topic. Especially reccomended is Dahood's commentary and translation..
Well, well, well... this concept is definitely out of contact with the Idea. nevertheless, you are claiming that besides responsibility there my be means for justification of that responsibility.
I know it as the difference between animation and definition of circular constructive determination.
People would possibly benefit from your posts if you worded them in non-'crazy' talk. Not everyone has the time or willpower to delve through your wall of metaphysical jargon. They just read it, and pass it on by.
Is that your intention? Because I think it works.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm probably not making a lick of sense.
