Canaanite pantheon and Israel's Polytheistic roots

[showmeproof]

I believe the word that you are looking for is "Deuteronomic" or "Deuteronomistic". The first has to do specifically with the ideas and concepts within the Book of Deuteronomy, as well as theories regarding its origin, development and impact on Old Testament literature and beyond. The second pertains to the "Deuteronomistic history"—that is the running narrative from roughly 1 Samuel—II Kings which developed in consort with what is preserved in Deuteronomy, and which attest to the aggressive political / religious campaigns of Josiah to firmly establish exclusive Yahwism as a national cult, and in particualr, to centralize worship to only the Jerusalem Temple.

"Deuterocanonical" is used with reference to the Jewish Apocrypha; these are post-exilic (mostly 3rd-2nd cent.) writings that were regarded scripture within many different Jewish religious groups during the Second Temple period. They were adopted into the Roman Catholic as well as the Orthodox canons when they were established beginning in the 4th cent. C.E.

Thanks for the correction.

[Tassman]

Just a minor point. If 'Moroni' is supposed to be a Hebrew name, then it might be a short version of 'Moroniel', which would mean 'Moron is my god', or, if 'moron' ius a common name, 'God is my moron'. Alternatively it might be a short version of 'Moronyahu', which would mean 'moron of Yahweh' ('Yahu' being an alternate form of 'Yahweh').

Not that any of this is of any importance, but just if you wanted to know


- FreezBee

Thanks! I think you may be on to something here.

[showmeproof]

I'm currently reading Mark C Smith's The Origins of Biblical Monotheism. I just wanted to add a few more tidbits from this work as I'm going through it.

El is depicted in both texts and iconography as a bearded elderly figure. Some epithets attributed to him include
'ab note the similarity to Abba or Father.
'ab 'adm or Father of Humanity...notice adm and Adam
bny bnwt or creator of creatures.

A site in Anatolia has El portrayed under the name Elkunirsa 'il qny 'ars or El creator of the earth...an epithet that continues in this form in Gen 14:19.

In Shechem we find the local god as 'el berit or El of the covenant. This formulation is used as a late Bronze age reference to El in the form of 'ilbrtt .

Interesting stuff.

[showmeproof]

Mark S Smith...sorry about that.

This is a wonderful book. You can read the introduction on google books.

pages 157-163 deal with some interesting insights into the literary relationship between Yaweh's annointed (king) and himself, and how the Davidic line is granted divine powers in Psalm 89.
"I will set his hand on Sea and his right hand on Rivers"
Sea and River are antagonists in the Baal Cycle.

A great mythological breakdown of Habakkuk 3 occurs on page 158 where Yahweh's (depicted as a storm god much like Baal) retinue includes Sun, Moon, and Resheph (pestilence) going against River and Yamm.

[Adam]

The body of water between Migdol and Baal-zephon would be the Bitter Lake, a strong east wind would create dry land at the narrows between the Great and Little lakes

Ex:14:2:
Speak unto the children of Israel,
that they turn and encamp before Pi-hahiroth,
between Migdol and the sea,
over against Baal-zephon:
before it shall ye encamp by the sea.

http://bibleatlas.org/full/baal-zephon.htm

This was not overlooked by Dr. Lennart Moeller. From The Exodus Case, p. 177:

Migdol is Hebrew and means tower. It could have been a watch tower up on one of the mountains... Migdol is referred to as a fortress on Egypt's north-eastern border [which would be the eastern shore of Sinai].
Hahiroth...depends on where one believes that the crossing through the Red Sea lay.
Baalzephon would lie opposite the place of encampment, which can be assumed to mean on the other side of the Red Sea, about 14 km away, on the eastern side of the Gulf of Aqaba.

And he presents evidence that Zephon lay in Edom, as Zephon was Esau's grandson.

[Mr. Anderson]

That is a theological perspective ... and as such, is certainly understandable, within a theological context. SMP's account is the historical account, and as the discussion deals with history (rather than theology), is the more relevant account.

SMP's account is conjecture pullled from an historical record and used as an assumption for overwriting another historical record of less illumination. Unprovable and no more relevant than a theological perspective. Like saying that Mexicans are next door to Americans so if you are uncleare as to how to interpret anything from there culture just overwrite it with what you know from the American culture. Actually SMP's account sounds less relevant than a theological perspective.

[Mr. Anderson]

I would also like to add Emanuel Tov to my list of sources. For those whom are unaware Tov is the preeminent textual critic of the Hebrew bible.

From page 363 of Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible
"The philological approach is instigated by the recognition that our knowledge of the state of affairs is liable to distort a balanced approach to textual problems, one should probably first turn to cognate languages before suggesting emendations."

Among the cognate languages regarding the Hebrew Bible, both Ugaritic and Phoenician are of great import in this textual approach.

One of the examples that Tov uses to illustrate this point is Psalm 29:1

Traditionally from the Masoretic text this is translated "Ascribe to the Lord, O divine beings (literally O sons of gods), ascribe to the Lord, glory and strength."

With the textual approach utilizing Ugaritic it is now understood as
sons of El and he then groups this with Ps 89:7 and Deuteronomy 32:8

That should clear up a bit on 'my reading' of Deuteronomy 32:8 for those who were challenging it.

Tov's book is an interesting reference to have, but very pricey.

I have that book in my toolbox at work to read on breaks. Something about what you may not have meantioned seems missing to me. I'll get back to you as the week starts. I do remember reading over that section though.

[technomage]

SMP's account is conjecture

No, Mr. Anderson: "conjecture" is a guess with no evidence. There is a considerable amount of evidence supporting the account SMP is referencing.

pullled from an historical record and used as an assumption for overwriting another historical record of less illumination.

Excuse me, but this is precisely the same procedure used to analyze any other ancient near-eastern document. This is identical to the procedure that allows us to, for instance, trace the deluge myth from the "Enkidu Genesis" tablets, through the tale of Atrahasis, to the account of Utnapistam in the Gilgamesh epic. it is successful, accurate, and verifiable for all other documents--is there any particular reason you think your particular preferred document should be exempted from critical analysis, using this procedure?

[showmeproof]

SMP's account is conjecture pullled from an historical record and used as an assumption for overwriting another historical record of less illumination. Unprovable and no more relevant than a theological perspective. Like saying that Mexicans are next door to Americans so if you are uncleare as to how to interpret anything from there culture just overwrite it with what you know from the American culture. Actually SMP's account sounds less relevant than a theological perspective.

Conjecture?? Please feel free to use as many OT scholars, archaeologists, linguists etc. to support your view as you can find.

A preexisting historical record of a polytheistic Israel 'overwritten' by much later historical record of a monotheistic bent is what the evidence points to. All I'm saying, with the sources I have provided, is that the preexisting historical record played a part in the cultural evolution of Israelite theology. What you appear to be attempting is to completely write it off....which you're welcome to, but take a personal inventory for your reasons for doing so.

You're Mexian next door neighbor analogy is very very far off and is unworthy of a detailed response.

[showmeproof]

I have that book in my toolbox at work to read on breaks. Something about what you may not have meantioned seems missing to me. I'll get back to you as the week starts. I do remember reading over that section though.

It could be that Tov was referencing other scholars on the matter and he made clear to state that it was in their view...nonetheless he included it and did not make a counter explanation from his view. However, Tov was very clear in recommending the use of cognate languages over later emendations .

We could drop him an email if you'd like. No guaranteeing a response, but you never know until you try.

[Mr. Anderson]

No, Mr. Anderson: "conjecture" is a guess with no evidence. There is a considerable amount of evidence supporting the account SMP is referencing.



Excuse me, but this is precisely the same procedure used to analyze any other ancient near-eastern document. This is identical to the procedure that allows us to, for instance, trace the deluge myth from the "Enkidu Genesis" tablets, through the tale of Atrahasis, to the account of Utnapistam in the Gilgamesh epic. it is successful, accurate, and verifiable for all other documents--is there any particular reason you think your particular preferred document should be exempted from critical analysis, using this procedure?

Conjecture is also extending the evidence to cover things the evidence doesn't elaborate on. That the Isrealites took from the Ugaret system isn't detailed in the evidence and only conjecture can take it there. The evidence only exists as fact for Ugaret itself .

Use all the critical analysis you care to. What I'm saying is that to be honest your findings should be subjected to the same critical analysis before you make conjectured assertions from them. Your analysis fails to do so by not recognizing it's own presuppositions or blatent errors.

[Mr. Anderson]

Conjecture?? Please feel free to use as many OT scholars, archaeologists, linguists etc. to support your view as you can find.

A preexisting historical record of a polytheistic Israel 'overwritten' by much later historical record of a monotheistic bent is what the evidence points to. All I'm saying, with the sources I have provided, is that the preexisting historical record played a part in the cultural evolution of Israelite theology. What you appear to be attempting is to completely write it off....which you're welcome to, but take a personal inventory for your reasons for doing so.

You're Mexian next door neighbor analogy is very very far off and is unworthy of a detailed response.

Bolded the portion that makes it conjecture. These points are assertable, even possible, but not provable. You have presented excellent sources that will stand the test of time, I have no problem reading them or using them for reference. I'm in no way trying to do a write off. Just calling attention to where a line should be drawn between conjecture that should be detailed as such and historical fact that cant be proven. I'm applying the same criticisms that are used against truth assertions by Christians and cant be proven. It's called being intelectually honest.
To do so I dont need any scholarly sources or a concensus of any academic body. I like to call it critical thinking on my own without the need of a babysitter. These same scholars who teach us so much have more regard for someone who can think logically for themselves, even if they are in dissagreement , than an insecure person who will only qoute authorities.

The Mexican next door analogy is a leap to the extream. since the language is the question you have detailed as the similarity. But if you want a philogical comparison you coud use any English varient within a 200 to 400 year time span and the analogy has merit.

[Mr. Anderson]

It could be that Tov was referencing other scholars on the matter and he made clear to state that it was in their view...nonetheless he included it and did not make a counter explanation from his view. However, Tov was very clear in recommending the use of cognate languages over later emendations .

We could drop him an email if you'd like. No guaranteeing a response, but you never know until you try.

Thank you for the clarification. But not for the continued bolded portion that allows you to stretch any assertion you want that wasn't intended in his statement. Tov is specificic in the where and when of overwriting emendations and didn't recomend giving it a blank check application for a rewrite.

[technomage]

Conjecture is also extending the evidence to cover things the evidence doesn't elaborate on.

Mr. Anderson, I see that you have asserted that the evidence does not cover the findings that SMP's source states that it does--do you have any evidence for such an assertion, or do you simply reject it because it violates your theological beliefs?

The method of analysis used in Tov's book is precisely the same method used, as I mentioned before, to examine how Babylonian cultural tales descended from Sumerian tales. Incidentally, it is also the same method of analysis used to track the history of other mythic tales--examples range from

That the Isrealites took from the Ugaret system isn't detailed in the evidence and only conjecture can take it there. The evidence only exists as fact for Ugaret itself .

The only way in which your above statement can be considered accurate is if you are looking at Tov's arguments in isolation, with no awareness of the larger body of evidence and knowledge in which those arguments are made.
* We already know that the Hebrew language descends from Canaanite, with Ugarit and Hebrew being related in much the same manner as Spanish and Portugese.
* We already know that the material culture (pottery, architecture, writing, literary works) of the Hebrews descended from the Canaanites.
* We already know trade of goods, and trade of ideas, was common in the ANE--including trade of goods, and of ideas, both from and to the Hebrews.
* We already know (though I am aware that you reject) that there are other accounts of Hebrew literature and mythology that were adapted from other cultures.

We use precisely the same excavation and research techniques, analytical tools, linguistic tools, comparisons of material culture, on all other investigations. Because of similar knowledge specific to the appropriate sub-region, we know (for instance) that the Greek civilization descended from the Mycenaean; we know that the Mayan civilization had a pervasive influence throughout the American southwest. Indeed, we use precisely the same disciplines to reject the assertions of the Book of Mormon.

There remains one question that I have asked, and that you have so far declined to answer: we use these tools on all other cultures. Why should your preferred culture be immune to analysis from these tools?

Use all the critical analysis you care to. What I'm saying is that to be honest your findings should be subjected to the same critical analysis before you make conjectured assertions from them.

You fail to understand (or refuse to believe) that the findings are subject to rigorous critical analysis. I cannot make you believe something that you choose to refuse to believe, but your objection here is misplaced.

Your analysis fails to do so by not recognizing it's own presuppositions or blatent errors.

Precisely what presuppositions are made, and why should these presuppositions be considered false (especially as they are precisely the same "presuppositions" we use for all other cultures)?

Precisely what "blatent [sic] errors" are made? If you cannot provide evidence that there are errors, much less "blatent" errors, then I regard the above statement as the moral equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "La-la-la I can't hear you."

Science and history advance by study--not by pitching temper tantrums.

[showmeproof]

Thank you for the clarification. But not for the continued bolded portion that allows you to stretch any assertion you want that wasn't intended in his statement. Tov is specificic in the where and when of overwriting emendations and didn't recomend giving it a blank check application for a rewrite.

Tov was clear that the emendation to Israel was in error, and that using cognate languages the better translation is Sons of El. Tov did not make a personal statement on it, as he was not the one to recommend the use of the cognate language over a later Hebrew emendation that was preserved in the Masoretic Text due to an apparent theological emendation.

You're right in stating that the overlap between Ugarit & and other Levant cultures with that of Israelite culture does not prove anything. Sure it is possible that Israel came up with all that completely on its own. You are wrong in stating that it is conjecture and mere assertions. What I have done in using Smith's work is provided historical reconstruction utilizing pertinent historical background in an interpreted context. This interpreted context may be conjecture to you, but it is not built off of assertions.

So what we have on the table:
Israel was polytheistic and then later monotheistic as attested to the earliest sources vs later sources and examination of the bible itself. We have other groups in the area whom were also polytheistic and remained so, but paid tribute to a national god (such as Baal) above the others. We have mythic imagery in the bible that attributes the Israelite's god, Yahweh, with textual parallels to specific texts of the other predated religions along with the gods mentioned in their texts. How do you connect the dots? Do you argue that the dots should not be connected at all? Why in your opinion is historical background conjecture?

What do you do with the available evidence?