Toto

Check the sticky at the top of this forum for a good summary - Dean Anderson on the Documentary Hypothesis

Sheshbazzar

I don't know if everyone is willing to accept it as an "explicit variation" but the form Ya certainly appears have been employed as a theophonic element in names appearing in the Ebla inscriptions of 2500-2200 B.C.

From the END NOTES on "Hebrew Henotheism";
This seems to dovetail somewhat with spin's statement that;
I tend to believe that the forms Yh, Yhw and Yhwh simply represent a "borrowing", "carry-over", or a continuation of the primitive Ya, as adapted to the Hebrew usages and imbued by them with a further developed mythology/theology.
This is only being tendered here as an opinion based on what I've been able to glean, further information or discoveries may significantly alter my perception.

(Here is hoping that I've managed to CMA)

Darklighter

Thanks for the link Malachi151, lot's of interesting stuff on that site (I don't take it all to heart either, though. I try to sift the accepted 'facts' from the conjecture). But I learned from another article on there that Abraham could NOT have had any dealings with the Philistines prior to around 1200 B.C., therefore Abraham could not have existed before that, which was suprisingly AFTER the Israelites had supposedly conquered the promised land! And it's all easily verified by historians, archaeologists, and encyclopedias!

Yes, I'm a n00b to all of this. I'm sure it's old news to all of you... But it's shocking to a fresh deconvert like me. It's absolutely incredible how deep the lie goes (I almost wish it wasn't so deep cuz I need to get some work done!). I think I've passed the point of no return. :wave: Bye bye religion.

mg01

It tends to be generally accepted that YH is an older form of YHWH. Some take the position that YHWH itself is actually an epithet derived from the verb "to be". The idea being "YH who is" or "the existing one" or something along those lines. The same idea is reflected in the "I am who I am" verse to Moses. YH is found in some of the older poetry, in Psalms, and in Isaiah there is a short verse of praise to YHWH that reads YH YHWH almost in affirmation of YHWH as an epithet to YH.

The question of course is whence came YH. There are theories abound that try to connect YH to some deity or another, but in connection to the yh shift at Mari you mentioned, a while back I'd also run across mention of a possible connection between YH and the Egyptian moon-god Ya/Ah/La (depending on who translates). Egyptian Ya (as opposed to the more popular Thoth) is connected more to the Asiatic Hyksos and some Egyptian names of the time and after bear the name, Ah-hotep (the moon is pleased), Ah-mose (born of the moon), Sati-Ah (daughter of the moon), Tasheriteni-Ah (little one of the moon). This runs right along with mention in Egyptian texts of "Yh of the Shasu", other Asiatic desert nomads in and around the same area some connect with Midion where Moses met YHWH. Some connect Egyptian Yh with Yarikh, the Canaanite moon god (Hebrew word for moon, same thing with the sun, Shemesh, Akkadian god of the Sun) after which Jerico gets it's name. Both would have also been associated with Sin, the Akkadian version of the moon god Nanna. Sinia, the sacred mountian of YH/YHWH is thought to be named after the Arabian version the moon god Sin. In all cases the moon gods were also associated with wisdom, law, order, and considered "eternal" deities that had no parentage. Both Ur and Harran, waypoints as it were of Abrahams journey into Cannan were known for cult centers of Sin. Some of Sin's epithets from Ur were "chief of the gods", "father of the gods", similar to the role played by El. The bull is commonly associated with the moon, same as El. The bull is also used as symbols for YHWH, alters with bull horns are described in the Bible and found though archeology have imply a lunar context. The OT is replete mentions of bull sacrifice at the new moon, (a ritual where the fire [sun] consumes the bull [moon]), mentions of magical things happening after three days, festivals on the 15th day (full moon), and other lunar related happenings (see 1 Samuel 20). Also consider the "psudo-epithets" used by Biblical authors where YHWH is refered to as "the living god", "the eternal god", "the enduring god", "the rock" etc... all which can be interpreted in the idea of what's happening with the moon which can't be killed, thanks to the priciple behind it.

If you consider what all of these symbols represent rather than the symbols themselves, you can see they are all the same thing, which is exactly what happens with the traditions in the Bible. YHWH is connected to El, and later to Baal (who is not a lunar figure, but as a dying/rising fertility figure he is a more tangible personification of the same idea, hence his eventual overthrow of El). It's not that you can say that YH, Yarikh, El, Sin, Thoth are all the same god, but they do all represent the same thing, which is the underling power of life-over-death (symbolized by the moon) which implies a force beyond the life we experience. The idea of this force is what's represented, and while the force itself is more commonly symbolized by the sun, the expression of it's power is represented by the moon.

It all sounds like a stretch, but as far as theories origins for YHWH go it seems to make as much sense as any other I've seen.

mg01

It doesn't take much to see how the old roots of the religions of today have their beginnings in even older myths. It's a universal phenomenon that has resulted from man trying to understand the world and his place in it.

In the first chapter of Joseph Campbell's "Thou Are That (or via: amazon.co.uk)", he tells the story of an encounter with a radio jock during an interview that led him to the revelation that:

"...half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies."

His point being that in understanding what is represented by the metaphors it's possible to view religion for what it is rather that fall into one of two camps of a false dichotomy.

"Thou Art That" is a good intro to Campbell as is "Myths to Live By". Both are fairly short, no more than around 120 pages each. For the whole story check out the "Masks of God" series. You could also go rent the DVDs of PBS's "Power of Myth" interview series with Bill Moyers. He'll seem pretty "out there" at first, but once you catch on to what he's saying it's obvious.

Sheshbazzar

Thus it appears that the ya and il theophonic elements present in the Ebla inscriptions were imported to Northern Syria from Egypt.
Makes sense to me.
I could not also help but note that Ebla's most powerful king was named Ebrium, or Ibrium, sounding very similar to the well known Hebrew Ibram, Abram, <> Abraham.
It appears quite possible that the Pentateuch's compositors "borrowed" both Yah and El, along with quite a few other religious ideas, legends, and motifs from the preceding and surrounding cultures to fashion the "Hebrew" creation mythology, and their national "history" out of.
The small changes in spelling are what would naturally be expected if the legends had been transmitted orally before finally being committed to writing by the Pentateuch writers employing a latter alphabet.

Darklighter

Hm. I think I see what your saying and maybe it's not so much the "ancient texts" that I should be pointing the finger at, but rather the institutions built around them. The problem is, without the "absolute truth" promoted by those institutions one can attribute whatever meaning they want to such metaphores. If you don't mind my asking (I hope I'm allowed to go off topic in my own thread), what is the 'middle ground' that you speak of? I fail to see the value (other than anthropological, historical, and sheer curiosness), of the texts. I certainly see no reason why OUR LIVES should be centered on them. But I look at them now, not as lies per se (I shouldn't have used that word), but as an ancient peoples "best guess" at explaining their history, god, and world.

I will admit though, that I've become somewhat of a materialist since 'losing' my faith. But, I am curious as to what you think about all this.

spin

Neither from Egypt. The former was safely Canaanite as seen at Ugarit. The latter, concerning Ya and Ebla, is speculative work by Giovanni Pettinato, which has been repudiated by the officially endorsed Ebla philological scholars Pelio Fronzaroli and Alfonso Archi (and anyone else who has worked on the Ebla texts over the last 30 years).

It was in fact this name that contained the major example of Pettinato's claimed Ya radical -- I think he used Ya-brium. And you should do away the empty argument by appearances to link the Eblaite king with Abraham, especially the problematical Ibram, an apparent back formation from the later Arabic version of the name.

All the suggestions we have is that Yahweh came from the south. One inscription from Kuntillet Ajrud mentions Yahweh of Teman. If the Egyptian reference to "Yhw of the Shasu" is correct and not a toponym, then it would indicate a southern (though not Egyptian) origin for Yahweh. The Shasu were a group of nomadic people part of whose territory was Seir in Edom.


spin

Traditio

Something being possible isn't the same thing as something being actual. There are many "possible" explanations of the origins of Judaism. I am sure that there are many "possible" explanations of the verse in question. However, the fact that they are possible is not a fact that they are actual.

Sheshbazzar

Then it is your opinion that there was little or no Egyptian influence on Ugarit?
There certainly appears to be a lot of information available stating otherwise, for example;
I believe this would be prior to when you belive the composition of the Torah took place?

This is in reference to those forms yhwh and yhw as found in the much latter Hebrew compositions?
Not trying to provoke you spin, just trying to figure out why you would exclude any possibility of influence from Egypt via Ugarit/Ebla?