Darklighter

I just finished reading Celsus' summation of archaeological evidence regarding 'Biblical History' and actual history. Needless to say I was amazed. Especially as a recent deconvert, since I had never known there was even a dispute! I mean, I knew there were people who doubted the miraculous aspects of the story, but I never knew the basic narritives themselves were in serious doubt! And not untill the 6th (+/-) century do events even BEGIN to bear a resembalence to reality. While I realize this is "proof" of nothing, such controversy is never even HINTED at in fundamentalist circles. But to me, I found very compelling the theory that the early books of the OT were intended to give a declining people a sense of pride and to attempt to unite them under "monotheism."

It was particularly interesting reading about the possible origins of the Jewish monotheistic religion (HERE), and the connections between Yahweh and the god El, And how that connection made crystal clear a particular vs in scripture thats always sounded odd to me (Exodus 6:2, 3 - and yes, for those of you who might 'preach' to me, I already KNOW the "generally accepted" explanation, please offer something other than "towing the party line"). It's about these issues I would like to hear from you on. I'm hoping someone can expand on these topics, since I'd enjoy reading your comments. Plus that'd be great if you could post some links for further on-line reading. I figure that'll hold me over untill I can read a few books on the topic.

Thanks in advance!

Dark

Malachi151

I find this website of interest, though I can't say that take it all to heart:

http://www.bibleorigins.net/UrukNake...ngHarvest.html

I don't think that there is any singular explanation for the development of all religion. What we call "religion" is a quite varied set of ideas.

I think that a core of Mesopotamian religion had is roots in the worship of human rulers. That's not to say that any specific named god is based on any specific person, but I think that the "law giving" religious traditions descend from the worship of human leaders.

There is a lot of evidence for this in the Sumerian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Jewish religions. I wouldn't say that that accounts for all aspects of those religions, only that it is a component.

But, consider this:

In the earliest Mesopotamian religious texts that we have the "gods" are credited with building the cities, possessing knowledge, and with not wanting to work. The gods then, because they don't want to work, make naked people, who they get to do their work for them. The naked people eventually rebel, and become "like the gods", "possessing knowledge".

This all seems to be a mythologized story recalling the beginnings of civilization, when some people came together a developed small settlements, clothing, and farming, then went out and acquired slaves, who were still quite uncivilized and did the bidding of the clothed "gods", whom they paid tribute to.

Eventually, these people became civilized themselves and began being subject to the law, wearing clothes, and integrating into the cities.

So, I think that the core origin of Mesopotamian god worship originated with the worship of rulers.

spin

The topic is difficult and complex, given that our knowledge of the history of Hebrew theology comes to us through the cracks in a text that was in a state of flux for several centuries. For example we learn in Deut. 32:8-9 that when Elyon divided the peoples into nations, Yahweh's portion was Israel. This is fairly obscure, especially when the text has been changed, for the number of nations was according to the number of sons of Israel per the Massoretic Text, but earlier the text read "the number of sons of El" (from the Dead Sea Scrolls). The text starts to become a little clearer here: Yahweh is a son of El. Elyon [(LYWN -- the most high] is a reference to El [)L] (and the terms are not related morphologically). Yahweh is a son of El and participates in an organization of gods, a divine council, which can be seen behind the sometimes questionably translated Ps. 82, in which Elohim stands up in the assembly of El to speak. This is rather similar to the situation in Ugarit in the 13th c. BCE, although the figure there we see equivalent to Yahweh is called by the title Baal, "lord", but whose name was probably Hadad. This Baal was the "cloud rider" and defeats the sea, Yamm, before returning to be enthroned on Mt Zaphon (which the Hebrews equate with Zion).

By the time Daniel 7 was written early in the 2nd c. BCE the sons of El have been demoted to local angels and Yahweh has been promoted from the son of El responsible for Israel to be head of the council, the ancient of days, and in Yahweh's place regarding Israel is one like a son of man. The unruly sea, Yamm, has put forth four beasts and, after their mystical overthrown, this one like a son of man returns to heaven on the clouds to be enthroned.

What we see is recycling of ideas while the story of Yahweh evolves. We don't get glimpses of any beginning and there is no clear understanding of when henotheism is replaced by monotheism.

I think Joel Ng (Celsus) has covered most of the bases of the available material. It won't be easy to get too far beyond what he's presented succinctly.


spin

mg01

With connection to "Baal" as a term for Lord in Syria-Palistine I've seen reference that even that title may have come from Mesopotamia where "Bel" was the term (Akkadian?) for lord there as in (Bel-Marduk etc...) where as eventually we have a deity as simply Bel. Consider of cource the psudo-canonical story of "Bel and the Dragon" found in non-Protestant versions of Daniel.

The tradition itself goes back even further where in Sumeria we see the title "En" prefixing deities. En-ki is "Lord Earth, En-lil is "Lord Wind/Air", etc...

Darklighter

Wow, good stuff. I find this topic fascinating.

Ok, I have a question. Does the name yhwh (or an explicit variation) appear in much older mythologies outside of the Torah? For example, spin, you state that Yahweh is a son of El (as did Joel Ng). Is this actually shown in other mythologies, or is this a theory based on evidence?

spin

No, with the exception of two inscriptions, one at Kuntillet Ajrud and the other at el-Qom (interesting because they show that Yahweh had a consort in the 8th c. BCE), Yahweh only makes himself known through the Hebrew bible. Some have attempted to find reference to Yahweh elsewhere and earlier, but never convincingly.

Yahweh as a son of El is only from the passage in Deuteronomy I cited. It parallels the position of Baal in Ugaritic texts. A few of the descendants of Saul had Baal names, Ishbaal and Meribbaal, suggesting that he was actually worshiped in Israel. The names have been tampered with in Kings but preserved in Chronicles. It is probable that Yahweh took on characteristics of Baal before Baal became anathema. The relationship between Baal and El in Ugarit was the same as that between Yahweh and El in Deuteronomy.

The desire to find strong Mesopotamian links with Hebrew literature is misplaced. The Hebrew traditions are Canaanite and belong with Phoenicia, Ugarit, and Ammon, as the language does. The Canaanite branch of the Semitic family had just as long a tradition as the Mesopotamian branch. Ugarit went well back into the earlier part of the second millennium BCE, as did Alalakh, and Ebla, which was more related to the Canaanite branch, goes back into the third millennium BCE.


spin

Darklighter

So, the arguement could be made that this is not an 'evolution' of the Yahweh figure, but that these other cultures were adopting certain traits of "true worship" (that have always existed from creaton on...) into their own religions, as apparently the Samaritans of Jesus' day did. Even though the statements of Exodus 6, Deuteronomy 32, and Psalm 82, would be counter to that line of reasoning. Is that right?

It's funny, even when I had NO CLUE about all this and was an staunch beliver, there was a definate, obvious split in God's personality between the earliest books and the rest of the OT (the books thought to have been written around the time of captivity), AND then throw in the NT to boot... :huh: The personality portrayed in the NT (the one most commonly attributed to god) just doesn't sync with the personality in the OT. I jumped through various mental hoops to get around those schisms, but they were definately there. Given their historical context, they make near-perfect (albeit, admittedly theoretical) sense now.

mg01

If you pick apart the early parts of the Hebrew Bible, along the lines of the Documentary Hypothesis, the schizophrenic nature of YHWH makes even more sense. The text we have today representative of different views held at different times by different groups, all tied together (either truely or ideally conceived so by later authors) by devotion to their patron deity. The different groups had their own struggles to deal with as far as the local competition went.

Most of the basic ideas we are associate with the Israelites are concretized within the portions attributed to J. E tends to have a more archaic flair wherin we see much of the El/YHWH convergence. (If I'm not mistaken most of the verses spin listed are all embeded within material attributed to E. I'd even suggest Numbers 23 and the Oracles of Baalam where YHWH is seen as somewhat of an agent of El) The basic motif of E tries to reconcile the ancient worship of El and the other gods of the Elohim with YHWH. E's hero is Moses who tradition at least attributed to the introduction of YHWH to the Isralietes. The author of E begins the tradition of claiming that the older deity, the "Elohim of the fathers, (El) and YHWH are really one and the same. J takes the process one step further and moves YHWH all the way back to the beginning. All through Genessis J has his characters wandering around building alters to YHWH at what was essentially sacred Cannanite centers in order to claim ancient precedence of YHWH at these locations.

The theology found in the Deuteronmic history starts pushing things further, in more contemporary terms, with regards to what forms of worship of YHWH were acceptible and what were not. It essentially becomes a power game to a degree and related to centralization around the Temple and strong condemnation of Canaanite practices (many of which you'll find the heros of Genessis participating in.) Though the message is interpreted as montheistic, it's really not, as there are repeated statements along the lines of "who is like YHWH the Elohim of Israel among the Elohim". Other Elohim are recognized, but their Elohim is superior.

P is rather amazing in and of itself as it's focus is entirely in the affairs fo the Temple itself. As far as the stories in Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers, the account of P is extremely terse and omits the majority of the "folk-tale" nature of E and J, and adds tons and tons of rules and regulations.

The one thing I think we can give the Israelites credit for was the idea of their "invisible God". I tend to see the proabition against idolotry as a way of emphasising that the object of their worship was something beyond what could be rendered. It was as if it was used in a way to prevent the people from becomming fixated on the image itself instead of the "power/force/energy" represented. It's a central theme that can be found in the earliest stages and was amplified all along the way by "locking away" YHWH's resting place within a publicly inaccessable three roomed temple. The idea was compatible with the modifications that had to be made to the scope of YHWH's power with regards to the exile, to the point where the archaic nature of YHWH himself, the anthropomorphisms, personal interation, and such, had to later be played down. I tend to think this is the thing about the Hebrew religion that later caught the attention of the Greeks, that the Hebrews worshiped an idea of God, not a statue. Of course the ironic thing about that idea is that later interpretations begin again to see things as fact rather than what it represented.

Darklighter

Really interesting. Thanks for the input.

Is there a place where I can get the 'Documentary Hypothesis' broken down? Specifically, what vs. are attributed to whom?

It seem really obvious to me now that the torah was stiched together from various other stories and edited in an attempt to form a coherent picture of God and the Israelites history.

Mageth

I believe the following book covers the Documentary Hypothesis pretty well:

Who Wrote the Bible? (or via: amazon.co.uk)