spin

Not much. It was far from Egypt. It was brought under the aegis of Egypt and remained there until it was taken away by the Hittites. That was political control, which would have had almost no cultural impact at the extreme edge of Egyptian power.

I don't understand the question, but the references to the Shasu found in Egyptian lists are perhaps as early as the 15th c. BCE.

At the height of Ebla's power (before the time of Naram-Sin of Akkad) it ruled central Syria. It was never functionally under Egyptian control.

Ugarit as I've said was under Egyptian political control for a time before the Hittite Shuppiluliuma gained control of it. If you read the Amarna letters, you'll find that Egypt's policies with its holdings in the Levant was to let them stew by themselves unless something was needed from them. Egypt begrudgingly placed garrisons in a few places. But you can read various kinglets whinging about each other and the Egyptians archived it all, doing very little about it. Their main control after initial conquest was through a few visiting ambassadors to whom the kinglets kowtowed. There is no scenario here for the sort of presence necessary for a long-lasting cultural impact leading to heavy religious influence of the Egyptians on the religion of Ugarit.


spin

Sheshbazzar

Well spin, seeing as I am now "de-converted", and am now endeavoring to give my best to finding truth, I'll refrain from any further "but's".
Other than that I do think that on this, I'll need a lot more convincing.

spin

There's nothing wrong with buts, as I'm sure you're aware. If a subject doesn't have any buts I'd be suspicious. Knowledge is always imperfect.

I wouldn't believe me if I were you. I'd go out and check out the matter from the most stringently scholarly sources I could find. That means university libraries.

The Amarna letters give you a good view on Egyptian relations with its possessions in the Levant. William L. Moran translated them all. Relations between Egypt and Canaan have been dealt with by Donald Redford in "Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times". And you'll get ideas of where to go from there. Ugarit is not so easily entered into, though there is an SBL collection, "Ugaritic Narrative Poetry", edited by Simon B. Parker. I don't know if there has been a decent analysis on Ugarit in its cultural context. Mark Smith has been cited as providing historico-philological analyses on the Canaanite and hence Hebrew religious undergrowth, "The Early History of God" and "The Origins of Biblical Monotheism". If there's any place for convincing you might find it somewhere in this material.


spin

Sheshbazzar

Thanks for cutting me some slack spin.

Foreseeing that you might chime in and belay me was why I posted;


ETA. Obviously I have proven to be in error about a good many things in the past And try now not to take my opinions to seriously, actually I find that they taste a lot better taken with a grain of salt.

Sheshbazzar

Have sat in the corner eating my humble pie, and thinking it over.

It was mg01's rather dense prose about the Ya of the Egyptians in post #14 that brought about my statement in post #16.

Can't help but wonder what the odds would be of Urgarit, in Northern Syria having a god named Ya, and the Egyptians also having a god identically named Ya, and there being absolutely no connection at all between them? even with the countries engaged in hundreds of years of political relations.

And then there is the fact that Urgrit was right next door to Israel, and that the so-called "Hebrews" did engage in and intermingle with the worship of the Cannaite "El" and "Asherah" long before the composition of the Torah. (and apart from the claims of their religious legends, the evidence all indicates that they were in fact, indignious Cannanites)
Certainly then, it should not be considered much of a stretch, that while they were so engaged in whooping it up with the Cannanite's El and Ashera, in the North, that they also encountered, and gave more than just a passing nod to the god Ya.

Also, it is alleged by many sources that;
"Ugarit passed into the sphere of influence of Egypt, which deeply influenced its art." (this quote is from Wiki), which would seem very much at odds with;
"That was political control, which would have had almost no cultural impact at the extreme edge of Egyptian power."
If there was almost no cultural impact, HOW could Egypt have deeply influenced Ugarit's art? In the ancient world most major "art" tended to be religious in nature, making it unlikely that "art" would, or even could be "deeply influenced" absent of any religious influence.

Perhaps spin is right, that Egypt didn't much give a hoot about what their far off conquests were doing as long as they paid their tribute.
That however would not preclude the subjugated from developing a taste for aquiring the ideas and trappings of the powerful and fabulous Egyptian empire. As has happened over and over in history.

spin

I just thought I'd say it's not a matter of cutting you some slack. I think we're in a different relationship. You are not here now trying selling anything and at the same time there is an underground community here which supports people who have taken the difficult step of losing their religion.

The good thing about scientific method is that you can learn from your mistakes. You can know that you got it wrong -- it's hard to know when you are wrong when you have the Truth^TM -- and you can improve on it.


spin

Sheshbazzar

The Truth has set me free! free indeed.
And now................what shall I do???
Nothing? say no more? do no more? make no further effort to know or accomplish anything? like a leaf withered in the wind, that crumbles in your hand?
That just doesn't seem right,.....just doesn't seem ethical.
Yet if I submit to supporting what is objectively and scientifically true, by my words and deeds, then I am again in servitude. Oh the existential angst.

Sheshbazzar

Returning to the OP subject;
This post becomes all the more interesting when read in relation to the thread on "First Temple seal found in Jerusalem " bearing the "pagan" moon symbol of Sin (or the horns of the Bull) and that Ya or Yamm was identified as the Canaanite El's son, the bull.
(yhwh being one of the sons of El, sitting in the counsel of El)
This seal seems to provide some concrete iconic evidence tying these diverse elements together, that is that the priests of yhwh in the First Temple period evidently did employ imagery and ideas culled from the El, Sin, and Ya (Yamm) of Canaanite mythology.

spin

The question of what should you do is naturally not something I'm in the position of answering. You know yourself best. But there is so much to know about and understand. What you've been through: it's not something to repudiate, but to understand. What has the possibility of stimulating your interest. What requires of you responsibility. What makes you feel useful to yourself and to others.

If the notion of ethics does mean something to you, and it's good that it does, then surely you will always find the ethical problems in the choices in what's available to you.

If you are thinking about ethics as in some overarching guiding rules the world is run by, you can forget it. The world is totally impassive. You will find ethics only in and through the living. It is what you share.

(The more damaged the person -- usually through their upbringing -- the less opportunity they have of being ethical in their approach to others.)

Every individual has responsibilities. Science is a means of explaining the world, its structure and how it works. We use scientific methods in order to make more objective statements to others, so that there can be agreement if all parties accept the premises. But dealing with people requires compassion. We need it, therefore we should give it.

You are indeed in servitude for no human being is free. That was a bit of renaissance hubris. From the first words someone puts in our mouths we gain and lose freedom. We gain the power to confront the world and lose individuality in that they are not our words. We don't get to choose them. We develop like our parents, despite the fact we might hate them: they are our role models until something flashier comes along. We are determined by our social environments and the accidents, good and bad, that happen in our lives. The more accidents the more individual we seem. But I think individuality is overrated. We are social by nature. You wouldn't talk to people if you weren't. You, we, want stimulation, understanding and appreciation, so we are less individual and more "corporate". The more you are with people -- directly or indirectly, even talking over internet -- the more you participate in living.

Existence is angst-ridden only when we waste time thinking about it and not doing what we like and need. We give ourselves purpose, just as the society gives it to us. When we find something we consider worthwhile then we do it and fuck existential crises. You waste your living time. Existence is about being -- rocks exist --; living is about doing.

Sorry, I'm rambling, looking for something meaningful to say, something that will make sense to you about some of my views on a common predicament for a thinking person. I hope something here make sense.

There are many forums here where you can share ideas, many people who may be in, or have been in, similar situations to you, some who are in trouble and need help. I'm a strong one for the notion of mutual aid. It is by participating with others that at least the social world will have some sense.


spin

spin

Yamm is the sea against whom Baal fought and is the Ugaritic equivalent of Tiamat against whom Marduk fought and prevailed and tehom, the deep that Elohim conquered.

I don't really know where you are getting this form "Ya" from. The Hebrew has YHWH and YHW (Jewish soldiers at Elephantine to refer to god, and it is the form used in many theophoric names). The only thing YHWH and YM have in common is the first letter. How do you imagine this "Ya" was written in whatever ancient language it came from, remembering that they almost only wrote down consonants?

As Baal was symbolized by a bull (in fact a bull was a common symbol), I see no need for recourse in a deity that was not Canaanite to have been represented. There was some syncretism between Baal and Yahweh. (Baal is only a title, and probably referred to the god Hadad.)

As to YHWH and El, there has obviously been a strong syncretism between them.


spin