Canaanite pantheon and Israel's Polytheistic roots

[guacamole]

For more on Asherah, and the use of the words Asherah and Asherim used in the Bible please consult John Day's The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah, or Yahweh and the gods and goddesses of Canaan.

From the later book on page 60 we find:
"Secondly, as we have seen, the Asherah cult object was clearly regarded as a symbol of the goddess Asherah. Not only the identical name, but the fact that 'Asherah' and 'the Asherah' in the same cultic context in the Old Testament indicates the close relationship between them. Accordingly, we may clearly speak of a close relationship between not only Yahweh and the Asherah cult object but between Yahweh and the goddess Asherah."

Thanks, it was an interesting read and good evidence of your cherry picking habit. If you had continued further you'd have read the section in which the writer determines that the reason that El, Baal, and Yhaweh all had Ashera and asherim (which the writer doesn't despute refers specifically to the pole or stylized tree, btw--I invite everyone to read your "evidence"), was that the it was a geo-political decision, perhaps by a redactor, to stain Asherah worship with Baal worship--which is insipid, considering that associating Asherah worship with any foreign god would have been repelent. Rather, he rejects, without much apparent comment that I could find, that rather than being a whore of a goddess who wandered between gods, that an Asherah was a generalized type of figure. Secondly, you've also neglected to post the section on the etymology of Asherah, which imo, doesn't support the writers position--let's post that bit, shall we?:

On page 61, we find the following:

"A more palusible explanation [for the etymology as Asherah]...conects the name with the semitic root [for] 'place', which came to denote 'holy place, sanctuary', and in this meaning is attested for in Akkadian..., Phoenecian..., Aramaic..., and Ugaritic...Sanctuaries are elsewhere personified amongst the Semites."

Yay. Looks like guacamole wasn't smokin' the wacky tabbacky after all. As for any text which tries to reconstruct primitive unlabled stick figures as specific deities--well if you buy that then turn in the label of skeptic.

cheers,
guaca.

[showmeproof]

Thanks, it was an interesting read and good evidence of your cherry picking habit. If you had continued further you'd have read the section in which the writer determines that the reason that El, Baal, and Yhaweh all had Ashera and asherim (which the writer doesn't despute refers specifically to the pole or stylized tree, btw--I invite everyone to read your "evidence"), was that the it was a geo-political decision, perhaps by a redactor, to stain Asherah worship with Baal worship--which is insipid, considering that associating Asherah worship with any foreign god would have been repelent. Rather, he rejects, without much apparent comment that I could find, that rather than being a whore of a goddess who wandered between gods, that an Asherah was a generalized type of figure. Secondly, you've also neglected to post the section on the etymology of Asherah, which imo, doesn't support the writers position--let's post that bit, shall we?:

On page 61, we find the following:

"A more palusible explanation [for the etymology as Asherah]...conects the name with the semitic root [for] 'place', which came to denote 'holy place, sanctuary', and in this meaning is attested for in Akkadian..., Phoenecian..., Aramaic..., and Ugaritic...Sanctuaries are elsewhere personified amongst the Semites."

Yay. Looks like guacamole wasn't smokin' the wacky tabbacky after all. As for any text which tries to reconstruct primitive unlabled stick figures as specific deities--well if you buy that then turn in the label of skeptic.

cheers,
guaca.

Please read and take a bit of time to understand the source. Day was arguing against Albrights rendering of the a common Ugartic phrase rbt. 'trt. .ym as signifying the original epithet as the longer 'trt as opposed to the shorter Semetic root 'tr. Day argues 'tr is the original form of Asherah which means place and came to be associated with a holy place due to Asherah also being called Qudshu which means holy.

This is the same as saying that the Ugaritic god Yamm means sea. Or that my name Matt means gift of god. Here is actually the etymological history of my name. This doesn't change the fact that my name is Matt and I'm a person. Likewise the fact that Ashera's name means holy place doesn't take away from the fact that Asherah is a name referring to a specific goddess found in the Levant area.

To illustrate you error further, please use a concordance for Asherah and then replace Asherah with place or holy place and see if it makes a lick of sense.

[guacamole]

Please read and take a bit of time to understand the source. Day was arguing against Albrights rendering of the a common Ugartic phrase rbt. 'trt. .ym as signifying the original epithet as the longer 'trt as opposed to the shorter Semetic root 'tr. Day argues 'tr is the original form of Asherah which means place and came to be associated with a holy place due to Asherah also being called Qudshu which means holy.

No, 'tr is not the original form of Asherah. It's a cognate root that is theorized to mean holy place or sacred local. The name contains the cognate root indicating some sort of derivation. Asherah, in as much as it came, at some point to means some kind of Goddess, could have gotten the name by association with a holy place rather than the other way around. At that dim period in history, or unless you have better evidence, anything that amounts to a more solid pronunciation is speculation.

This is the same as saying that the Ugaritic god Yamm means sea. Or that my name Matt means gift of god. Here is actually the etymological history of my name. This doesn't change the fact that my name is Matt and I'm a person. Likewise the fact that Ashera's name means holy place doesn't take away from the fact that Asherah is a name referring to a specific goddess found in the Levant area.

Please stop being daft. You get it that it's just as possible the goddesses got their cognate names from association with a holy place than vice versa, especially if they are originally holy consorts.

To illustrate you error further, please use a concordance for Asherah and then replace Asherah with place or holy place and see if it makes a lick of sense.

Yup. That's sound. How about this. Begin examining how the use of the phrase "Holy Place" alters the understanding of phrases found on ostrakon.

fwiw,
guaca.

[Mr. Anderson]

The emendation that was referred to was the Masoretes changing SONS of GOD (EL) to Sons of ISRAEL. The earliest sources available show sons of God as in EL. We also know that the Masoretes worked in a period in which Jewish monotheism was already firmly established. It is their monotheistic bias that led them towards emending sons of El to Sons of Israel. The change back to Sons of El, as evidenced in the earliest sources, and through the use of Ugaritic texts is a FIX of an emendation, not an emendation.

I can agree with you to a point. Which involves the meaning intended by the writer to the reader. Whereas the original writer and recipient knew the intended meaning of sons of El and needed no distinction to convey the intended concept. This is why I told you that even though you may use the Ugaretic texts to determine that the original Hebrew was worded sons of El you cant take it farther than that and claim that the intended meaning was the same for the Hebrews. That would be pure conjecture with no proof.
One needn't go to the Massoritic text to see the change to a form that even though may be taken as an incorrect emendation of Isreal over El. May in fact be closer to the intended meaning of the saying sons of El. In the Gospel of John (10:33-36) we have Christ's words relating to the subject in the 1st centuray AD. Knowing that monothiesm has been firmly entrenched by the time of Christ we still cant rule out that the earlier texts in contention with monothiesm had to mean what a person who lived in Ugaret 400 years prior to Moses took them to mean.


Exerpts used from Albright's "From Stone Age to Christianity" Chpt.#5 pg 213
The fact that there were many cultic forms of a national diety led to a certain movement in the direction of theological unversalism. As a result of this phenomenon we find in Canaanite an increasing tendancy to employ the plural in the clear sense of "totality of manisfestations of a diety. Illustrated by the honorific greeting of Pharaoh in the Amarna letters as "my gods my sun-god," addressing Pharoah as the writers whole pantheon. Exerpts end.

This type of finding, because there are several other similar to it, are enough to show that the possibility of the sons of El meaning something different than the woodenly literal interpretation you give it is just as possible as what you are preposing from your perspective. That this example existing prior to and after the establishment of Isreal in Canaan lets us know that how you interpret it today, as having to have been taken from a polythieastic mindset may be incorrect.

[Mr. Anderson]

He is under the impression that David and Solomon although kings, had a much smaller kingdom than described in the bible.

This depends on what type of kingdom you are describing. Was Finkelstien looking for displaced people groups with new Isrealite expansion, or subjagated vassel states that retained a sense of independance? One is easy to find, the other is easy to miss. Isreal was subjagated on several occasions that if they hadn't been mentioned in the biblical record we would never have looked or found the evidence for them. I'm nbot saying that Finkelstien is mistaken, just that some things in history due to discrepancies like I've mentioned make statements like this easy to assert but harder to prove.

So who were the Hyksos? Beyond Mantheo, we have no connection to the Hyksos and Israel. In fact internal biblical evidence puts the Exodus during the reign of Raamses. The Merneptah stele is the first reference to Israel, and Merneptah whom declares “Israel’s seed is not!” happens to be Raamses II son. The Exodus therefore, it is commonly argued must have occurred in the 13th century B.C.E. In support of this, fourteenth century cuneiform letters from Tell el-Amarna detailing the social structure of Canaan doesn’t include the Israelites[

.

There is no provable connection between the Hyksos and Isreal outside of imigration from Canaan to Egypt. Isreal at the time of imigrating to Egypt supposedly consisted of 70+ people. No national Identity neede to be given to such a small group of people, even a clan name would have had no significance to Egypt that would give merit to a historical mention. As to the Isrealites not being included in the social structure of the Armana letters It's because the weren't a part of that community. The Armana community were a collection of vassel states and cities to Egypt. Seeking protection from invaders who were overtaking their lands. Isreal hadn't existed in Canaan for several hundred years and wouldn't have been remembered by the current inhabitants. They would be given a genaric name to match people groups that they were familiar with in the Armana letters.

Furthermore, Egyptian documents are found from the 13th century which indicates scrupulous tabs placed on immigrants arriving and leaving through fortified gates (possibly due to a negative experience with the Hyksos). But what of the Israelites? Why no mention of them, except in a reference to an already existing nation which was conquered by Merneptah?

I've seen those fortified gates used to give reason why God took the Isrealites on a southern route out of Egypt. That and so they wouldn't easily turn back as they got discouraged. Returning slaves are always welcome, escaping slaves would have to fight to get out. When looking at historical records from the era you will find they rarely report of embarrising happenings in their kingdoms. As well as from Pharoah to Pharoah history was redacted to give better light to Egypt. Many embarrising portions of Egypts past were eradicated by the following Pharoahs. Why not the Exodus? Which would have discredited the power of their God's as well as the nation.

So lets say the Egyptians keep mum on the flight of the Israelites. Of the 40 years wandering the desert, 38 years are spent at Kadesh Barnea. Kadesh Barnea has been identified as modern day Ein el-Qudeirat in eastern Sinai. The digs there have revealed Late Iron Age occupation (700’s B.C.E.), but nothing from the Late Bronze age. Now if we are to hold the Biblical account of the exodus as reliable then we are to say that some 600,000 men not including women, children, and livestock lived (not wandered) at Kadesh Barnea for 38 years without leaving a trace during the Late Bronze Age.

No buildings or permanant structures. No industrial efforts, no farming, no food production.
All the markers that could be recognized by Archeologists were missing because of the lifestye they lived. The nomadic lifestyle has been the hardest to trace in antiquity. If we are to hold the biblical account reliable, traces of their habitation wont reveal any trace of permanant habitation.

Many of the references to the peoples confronted during the Exodus by the Israelites do not have centralized governments in the form of Kingship until the 800’s B.C.E., such as Arad, Heshbaon, Edom, and Ammon. So while, the places identified in the Exodus literature describe historical places, they describe a later time. What we seem to have is a rich national tradition put into literature, which signifies not only kernels of possible truth (the Hyksos possibly), but also the time in which much of the literature was written as evidenced by the peoples encountered.

Centralized govt. no. Citystates with individual kings yes. Just because they weren't centralized doesnt mean that a particular geniological related group of people with seperate kings in differing cities wouldn't be referred to as a whole like Edom was. You were the one who brought up the later Isrealite redactions. One blatent error of the redactions was to describe Goliath as a greek warrior instead of what we now know of a Philistine warrior. Just because errors of this kind occur doesn't take away from the event itself. We should expect discrepancies of this kind.

[showmeproof]

I can agree with you to a point. Which involves the meaning intended by the writer to the reader. Whereas the original writer and recipient knew the intended meaning of sons of El and needed no distinction to convey the intended concept. This is why I told you that even though you may use the Ugaretic texts to determine that the original Hebrew was worded sons of El you cant take it farther than that and claim that the intended meaning was the same for the Hebrews. That would be pure conjecture with no proof.
One needn't go to the Massoritic text to see the change to a form that even though may be taken as an incorrect emendation of Isreal over El. May in fact be closer to the intended meaning of the saying sons of El. In the Gospel of John (10:33-36) we have Christ's words relating to the subject in the 1st centuray AD. Knowing that monothiesm has been firmly entrenched by the time of Christ we still cant rule out that the earlier texts in contention with monothiesm had to mean what a person who lived in Ugaret 400 years prior to Moses took them to mean.


Exerpts used from Albright's "From Stone Age to Christianity" Chpt.#5 pg 213
The fact that there were many cultic forms of a national diety led to a certain movement in the direction of theological unversalism. As a result of this phenomenon we find in Canaanite an increasing tendancy to employ the plural in the clear sense of "totality of manisfestations of a diety. Illustrated by the honorific greeting of Pharaoh in the Amarna letters as "my gods my sun-god," addressing Pharoah as the writers whole pantheon. Exerpts end.

This type of finding, because there are several other similar to it, are enough to show that the possibility of the sons of El meaning something different than the woodenly literal interpretation you give it is just as possible as what you are preposing from your perspective. That this example existing prior to and after the establishment of Isreal in Canaan lets us know that how you interpret it today, as having to have been taken from a polythieastic mindset may be incorrect.

I'm not intending to be woodenly literal. The fact that Baal, Asherah, Yamm, Resheph, and Dagon make appearances in the bible in a context of being gods or part of a retinue of another god and are most often spoken of in negative light (due to the fact that many Israelites worshiped them...particularly Baal and Asherah) indicates that whether or not the Baal or Asherah or El are the very same as those found in Ugarit they are clearly part of the social evolution of the area. The fact that El is depicted as the head god of a council amongst the sons of god or holy ones or heavenly host etc. and the bible mentions El or el in that status, whether or not the Israelites really intended YHWH (which is doubtable due to Exodus 6:3 and Deuteronomy 32:7-9). Although Exodus equivocates the two as being the same, the need to do so illustrates that there was a time and or places where they were separately distinguished. I don't know If I've directly asked you this question, but how do you propose Deuteronomy 32:7-9 indicates YHWH throughout? Why and how could YHWH's inheritance be Jacob's people. Furthermore as the nations are distributed according to the sons of el (even in a general sense) this indicates that the other city-states of the area had head gods whose inheritance was them and indeed we find each city state with separate gods.

[Mr. Anderson]

The fact that Baal, Asherah, Yamm, Resheph, and Dagon make appearances in the bible in a context of being gods or part of a retinue of another god and are most often spoken of in negative light (due to the fact that many Israelites worshiped them...particularly Baal and Asherah) indicates that whether or not the Baal or Asherah or El are the very same as those found in Ugarit they are clearly part of the social evolution of the area.

Correct, though how and in what sense remains unclearly defined unless you go from a Biblical perspective, or an adoption of all the regional traditions as you have proposed. Neither can be specifically proven from the remaining evidence and must be conjectured. A most likely scenario that can be applied to most theroetical issues won't suffice on this issue. From either perspective.

The fact that El is depicted as the head god of a council amongst the sons of god or holy ones or heavenly host etc. and the bible mentions El or el in that status, whether or not the Israelites really intended YHWH (which is doubtable due to Exodus 6:3 and Deuteronomy 32:7-9). Although Exodus equivocates the two as being the same, the need to do so illustrates that there was a time and or places where they were separately distinguished.

It wouldn't have been to big an issue to interchange them. From what has been left to us we can see that one group preferred El and another YHWH. You see them as representative of 2 seperate entities. Biblically they are presented as differing names for One God. From the NLT study Bible: In Hebrew, a persons name has a broader significance than it does in English. People's names were intended to reflect their nature and character, not just serve as a label.
(see, e.g., Ps 8:1,9:148:13) Here reveal is a Hebrew word often translated "to know," which implies intimate knowledge and experience. In this case, the patriarchs knew God's name, but they didn't know and experience His nature fully as He revealed Himself in the Exodus.
El meaning "God almighty." YHWH meaning "I AM Who I Am", or "I Will Be What I Will Be"
In this context one could say that they were seperately used but not seperately distinguished. Isreal must be taken as a seperate case apart from the peoples around them. Despite their falling into this idol worship we cant infer that it was the origen of their belief system showing its overlapping edges. Or even that those worsipping the Canaanite pantheon were the norm.

I don't know If I've directly asked you this question, but how do you propose Deuteronomy 32:7-9 indicates YHWH throughout? Why and how could YHWH's inheritance be Jacob's people. Furthermore as the nations are distributed according to the sons of el (even in a general sense) this indicates that the other city-states of the area had head gods whose inheritance was them and indeed we find each city state with separate gods.

Whether it indicates El or YHWH is insignificant to me. It still infers that whatever the party being addressed, One is over all. To me, if the Bible was inferring the Canaanite pantheon as inheriting the Gentile nations we would have had something recorded later associating a nation to one of these gods. Not just statements of nations who worshipped these gods and actually worshipped most of them within one small country, the city states of a region. So much for their regional inheritance. Looks as if many from the pantheon were worshipped side by side. Without a lot of conflict as we see in Isreal where there is a consistant effort to pull it's people away from such worship. Not only during the time of the monarchs but from the very start. In Daniel I think we see nations under influence of angelic beings referred to only as, "the Prince of Persia," who hald the nation under his influence and was able to resist even a messenger angel of God Himself. This would be the only biblical inferance that was explained in any sense that can bring light to your verse from Deuteronomy.

Isreal as God's inheritance was made by covenent between them. The Bibles illustrates the making of this covenent as God initiated. Whereas we see men doing the initiation by selection of their favorite diety of their pantheon in the cities of Canaan. Of which they could tire of one or send him packing if he proved impotent or unpopular.Even work one against another.
In several places in the OT we see God referring to Isreal as His son, evidencing His adoption by covenant to them. The reason behind this adoption and inheritance was not to divide mankind but channel a messianic figure into mankind to bring the entirety of mankind back together in Him. As a guarentee of tracing His ongoing revelation of Himself to mankind.

[Kia ora]

No buildings or permanant structures. No industrial efforts, no farming, no food production.
All the markers that could be recognized by Archeologists were missing because of the lifestye they lived. The nomadic lifestyle has been the hardest to trace in antiquity. If we are to hold the biblical account reliable, traces of their habitation wont reveal any trace of permanant habitation.

We're able to find traces of nomadic lifestyle in the Palaeolithic, far predating that of the Israelites and with far fewer people. Yet we don't find anything from this Exodus, which supposedly occurred in one of the most excavated stretches of land in the world and involved hundreds of thousands of people.

Even nomads use pottery. Not one potshard. Even nomads have animals. Not one animal bone.

[showmeproof]

[QUOTE=Mr. Anderson;2979059] A most likely scenario that can be applied to most theroetical issues won't suffice on this issue. From either perspective.
We have a great deal of evidence showing that the Deuteronomistic History is largely written in the 7th century B.C.E. The internal evidence to this is the founding of the texts by Hezikiah during the reign of Josiah. However many details are put forward in the DH that are anachronistic for the time period in which it is purporting to write about, and have a proper context only in the 7th century B.C.E.. We know that the purpose of the DH is to combat polytheism and establish the monarchy as a begrudged gift of god to the people. We know from archaeological evidence that polytheism was the rule and not the exception of the Levant and that many of the cultures were henotheistic and the gods were recycled reused and adapted from neighboring areas. Even the son of the great King David, Solomon, was a polytheist yet remembered as the wisest king of Israel...he is upbraided for it and is largely blamed for the splitting of the kingdom, yet this finger is pointed by the scribe of the 7th century B.C.E. in a very unique political backdrop. This cannot be dismissed. A most likely scenario is indeed enough to rule out less likely scenarios. The most likely scenario is that the Israelites were polytheists and then under the monarchy of particularly Josiah and the marches on Israel by the Judahite king with the subsequent centralization of the religion in Jerusalem and the destruction of other temples was the origination of biblical monotheism. What would you propose as evidence for monotheism being established first? It has long been known that religious structure is a reflection of the social structure from which it originates. If Israel started as a loose coalition of tribes which were often quite antagonistic towards one another and then coalescing into chiefdoms, then citystates, and finally a monarchy, would one expect all these tribes to have been monotheistic?

Isreal as God's inheritance was made by covenent between them. The Bibles illustrates the making of this covenent as God initiated. Whereas we see men doing the initiation by selection of their favorite diety of their pantheon in the cities of Canaan. Of which they could tire of one or send him packing if he proved impotent or unpopular.Even work one against another.
In several places in the OT we see God referring to Isreal as His son, evidencing His adoption by covenant to them. The reason behind this adoption and inheritance was not to divide mankind but channel a messianic figure into mankind to bring the entirety of mankind back together in Him. As a guarentee of tracing His ongoing revelation of Himself to mankind.

. How does YHWH have an inheritance? Whom is he inheriting Israel from? Himself? It doesn't make sense in that manner. Sorry but the Deuteronomy verse directly contradicts your statement. The division of mankind is explicitly explained through the allotments given out by El Eloyn.

[Mr. Anderson]

We're able to find traces of nomadic lifestyle in the Palaeolithic, far predating that of the Israelites and with far fewer people. Yet we don't find anything from this Exodus, which supposedly occurred in one of the most excavated stretches of land in the world and involved hundreds of thousands of people.

Even nomads use pottery. Not one potshard. Even nomads have animals. Not one animal bone.

Notice I didn't say that nomadic traces couldn't be found, only that they are hard to find. Even from larger populations. Even historians who give no credit or merit to the Exodus, Swint for one, claim that nomadic groups from this region pushing into Canaan were responsible for pushing out the inhabitants mentioned in the Bible. They were overwhelmed in their opinions from untraceable desert area nomads as you put it.
Can you list any of these nomadsfound in the Palaeolithic that weren't hunter trader types living in more habital areas than a desert. Those who you can probably lived in such areas for hundreds to thousands of years traveling in set patterns making the same encampments at various times of the year.
For the Isrealites to be included in these groups they would have to maintained similar practices. They didn't .
One of the largest migrations of modern history involving millions of people has left no archeological evidence. They took their food livestock and anything they could carry and left no trace except their descendants who have survived to this day. This occured in one years time though in Germany at the end of the war. Where they stopped and began life anew there is trace, of their passing there is nothing.
Many of the migrations of the barbarions against Rome are untracable by physical evidence left behind. Just a recorded record that they had showed up and tried to move in, and cultural changes that occurred by their arrival. We know where they came from and where they went. And even though the process took years there is no trace of their passing between. Notice I said many and not most or all. There is precidence though for such untracable migrations, these precidents are accepted because these people had to go from point A to point B. Isreal shouldn't be excluded from these precedents because no trace of their migration can be found. They also had to travel from point A to point B to leave there recorded trace within the Levant area. To say that they already existed within the Levant community and gained the upper hand over their neighbors is also an untraceable effort. The Armana letters themselves discredit such a notion. Nomadic immigration was their downfall.

[Mr. Anderson]

[QUOTE=showmeproof;2979667]

A most likely scenario that can be applied to most theroetical issues won't suffice on this issue. From either perspective.
We have a great deal of evidence showing that the Deuteronomistic History is largely written in the 7th century B.C.E. The internal evidence to this is the founding of the texts by Hezikiah during the reign of Josiah. However many details are put forward in the DH that are anachronistic for the time period in which it is purporting to write about, and have a proper context only in the 7th century B.C.E.. We know that the purpose of the DH is to combat polytheism and establish the monarchy as a begrudged gift of god to the people. We know from archaeological evidence that polytheism was the rule and not the exception of the Levant and that many of the cultures were henotheistic and the gods were recycled reused and adapted from neighboring areas. Even the son of the great King David, Solomon, was a polytheist yet remembered as the wisest king of Israel...he is upbraided for it and is largely blamed for the splitting of the kingdom, yet this finger is pointed by the scribe of the 7th century B.C.E. in a very unique political backdrop. This cannot be dismissed. A most likely scenario is indeed enough to rule out less likely scenarios. The most likely scenario is that the Israelites were polytheists and then under the monarchy of particularly Josiah and the marches on Israel by the Judahite king with the subsequent centralization of the religion in Jerusalem and the destruction of other temples was the origination of biblical monotheism. What would you propose as evidence for monotheism being established first? It has long been known that religious structure is a reflection of the social structure from which it originates. If Israel started as a loose coalition of tribes which were often quite antagonistic towards one another and then coalescing into chiefdoms, then citystates, and finally a monarchy, would one expect all these tribes to have been monotheistic?


. How does YHWH have an inheritance? Whom is he inheriting Israel from? Himself? It doesn't make sense in that manner. Sorry but the Deuteronomy verse directly contradicts your statement. The division of mankind is explicitly explained through the allotments given out by El Eloyn.

If you can edit the portion of your post that gives me credit for what you wrote please do so for clarity.

Yes the evidence shows the redaction dates as you presented them. Yet that is all the evidence shows. The evidence doesn't show a rewriting of a previous text to show it in a new previously unknown form. The anachronistic portions are to be expected and would show up if modern Americans tried to rewrite the history of the revolutionary war without the historic record that was attached to it. We could relate the event, yet would ultimately make many anachronistic mistakes. This wouldn't mean that the event didn't occur or that the reasons behind the event would have to be transformed to meet any modern agenda. I would say that if any attempt was made at that time to do as you say occured we wouldn't be having this conversation about polythiestic traces in the Bible from Isreals past. It would have been removed entirely and it wasn't. Most likely scenarios dont cut it in the historical arena, you can have concensus science but not concensus history, there is only the known and the unknown.
Speculations are made but no one makes any brownie points with theoretical history.
The evidence does show polythiesm being practiced within Isreal right up to the exile and even in the period shortly after. As a matter of fact their remained some through the Greek and Roman conquests but you dont usually hear of them because they are externally applied instead of generating from within the community. The Bible is very up front about the continuing recurrance of polythiestic practice being a part of the history of it's people. You dont have to look to the redactions to see this. Textual criticism shows that it was an occurance even in those portions that can be stated as still in the original form despite the redactions. This can also be evidenced by shrines and artifacts found throught Isreal from this time period. I make no argument against these things.
The Biblical record shows a polythoestic mindset people of tribes and clans being brought together as one to make covenant promises with One God. followed by their dispertion into the lands assigned to them with subsequent laspes back into polythiesm. Then in crises rising in monothiesm. Then back again. All the clans tribes and peoples. Side by side with this is an example of a remnant that remains faithful in the midst of the chaos. Never a majority of monothiestic people even in the eras you mentioned those who were in monothiesm were externally compelled to do so. Yet we can't seperate the monothiest into oblivian because they weren't a majority. A question I would ask you is what evidence should we expect to unearth of the Isrealite monothiests? We know what remains of the polythiests. But what artifacts should remain of those who actually practised the monothiestic faith supposedly passed on by Moses in the Law? If we can rely on the Biblical texts I would say that outside of scattered alters and memorial markers there should be none to verify their practice of monothiesm. It's not that none can be found so it is unlikey it existed but none should be found that proves it to me. If I could find artifacts that proved the existance of Mosiac monothiestic practice outside of tabenacle atrifacts, scattered alters and such I would in fact be proving that the pracice as biblically preposed was never practiced.



As to the inheritance of YWHW you will have to go back to the historical context of the period and leave behind any modern itnerpretation of the word. As such it can be rendered to that which I choose to take to myself to fullfil my purpose. that is my inheritance. It didn't have to be given by another. You can find this in the history of pioneer expansion within the United States itself. There is precedence.
The distribution of El was an actual event that is still in contention to this day as to it's true meaning. No side has advanced it's proposition to the point where the other claims can be considered secondary. Leaving us to pick as we choose, which is what we both have done. But neither of us and the scholars who back our positions can actually say with finality that our interpretation rules out the others. So it falls down to preferance of world view, and not most likely scenario.

[showmeproof]

Ugaritic texts, KTU 4:623:3 includes the name ysr'l (Israel) as a name of a charioteer, but is not thought to be connected to the OT Israel. I just thought it interesting that ysr'l shows up in Ugaritic texts, albeit not in the Biblical context. Here it is a person with a theophorous element to his name.

Not entirely unrelated though is the etymology of the Biblical name Israel, it is often argued as a combined verb with a theophorous element, the latter of which is EL. He who struggles/fights/ with God (Elohim).

It is not uncommon for both people and places throughout the OT to have theophorus elements to their names. For this very reason, it is argued that EL and those belonging to his divine council are the originations of many of the theophorus elements in placenames and personal names in early biblical texts such as El, Elohe Israel, El-Berith etc.

Likewise later on, Yahweh is associated with a great majority of thoephorus names in Israel.

[showmeproof]

Insert theophoric for theophorus and you'll get a better idea of what I meant.

[Mr. Anderson]

Ugaritic texts, KTU 4:623:3 includes the name ysr'l (Israel) as a name of a charioteer, but is not thought to be connected to the OT Israel. I just thought it interesting that ysr'l shows up in Ugaritic texts, albeit not in the Biblical context. Here it is a person with a theophorous element to his name.

Not entirely unrelated though is the etymology of the Biblical name Israel, it is often argued as a combined verb with a theophorous element, the latter of which is EL. He who struggles/fights/ with God (Elohim).

It is not uncommon for both people and places throughout the OT to have theophorus elements to their names. For this very reason, it is argued that EL and those belonging to his divine council are the originations of many of the theophorus elements in placenames and personal names in early biblical texts such as El, Elohe Israel, El-Berith etc.

A little clarification of your positioin here whould be helpful. Are you now saying that the polithiestic influence you brought forward in your OP wasn't what you said it was, but is now overwhelmingly monothiestic in origen? Or are you saying only that Isreal through the age of the judges and kings was overwhelmingly monothiestic with little influence from polythiestic influence?

If you are making the assertion of the latter from the evidence you presented you are working in murkyness and not clarity. In your etyomology of the word ysr'l you dont differenciate if you are arguing from the Isrealite tradition of Jacob or if you can pull the same meaning from the Ugaretic/Canaanite tradition. If you cant you dont have a related name by meaning but just a similar name. It could have just as well meant anything else of El in Ugaret. However it may have meant something very similar. That this charioteer worshipped El alone is also not necessary. In most Polythiestic nations it was very common for theophoric names to include the high god of their pantheon with the person having multiple allegience to several god's within the pantheon. In Isreal this is what I speak of as idol worship and polythiesm. If this is false we will have to review polythiesm as it has been defined and reconsider other similar cultures in light of your assertions.
However I dont know if I'm writing about the same subject your addressing, so I should wait for you to enlighten me before going further.

[showmeproof]

A little clarification of your positioin here whould be helpful. Are you now saying that the polithiestic influence you brought forward in your OP wasn't what you said it was, but is now overwhelmingly monothiestic in origen? Or are you saying only that Isreal through the age of the judges and kings was overwhelmingly monothiestic with little influence from polythiestic influence?

If you are making the assertion of the latter from the evidence you presented you are working in murkyness and not clarity. In your etyomology of the word ysr'l you dont differenciate if you are arguing from the Isrealite tradition of Jacob or if you can pull the same meaning from the Ugaretic/Canaanite tradition. If you cant you dont have a related name by meaning but just a similar name. It could have just as well meant anything else of El in Ugaret. However it may have meant something very similar. That this charioteer worshipped El alone is also not necessary. In most Polythiestic nations it was very common for theophoric names to include the high god of their pantheon with the person having multiple allegience to several god's within the pantheon. In Isreal this is what I speak of as idol worship and polythiesm. If this is false we will have to review polythiesm as it has been defined and reconsider other similar cultures in light of your assertions.
However I dont know if I'm writing about the same subject your addressing, so I should wait for you to enlighten me before going further.

I have maintained throughout, or have attempted to, the position that the religion of the Israelites grew out of a polytheism which borrowed from surrounding cultures rather than polytheism being a distortion of an original monotheism. Later in the stages of writing of the OT texts, it is evident that much of the polytheistic origins had been polemically denounced as foreign notably in the DtrH and in the later prophets. By time the books had been canonized somewhere around 200 BCE the recipients of the message had only known monotheism. Israel went through stages of polytheism to henotheism to monotheism.

In mentioning Ysr'l l I specifically mentioned that in Ugarit it was not used in the same context as a tradition of Jacob. I wasn't trying to make a connection, but rather found it interesting that y'srl (in that form) is found at Ugarit. I then went down a second train of thought in the etymology of Israel in the Jacob tradition (He who fights/struggles with God).

I did not mean to imply that the charioteer only worshiped EL, only that the theophanic part of his name is associated with EL. Likewise the IsraEL theophanic portion can be hypothesized to be associated with EL. Exodus 6:2 may be an early witness to this that survived through redactions, or possibly a clarification by a redactor equivocating EL and Yahweh as one in the same god.

EL was a common Bronze Age God that headed a pantheon, Yahweh is an Iron Age God that heads a divine council (in much the same way as EL) and in instances such as Deuteronomy 32:8-9 Yahweh can be shown to be one of the sons of God the Most High. No less important is that Yahweh's main antagonists in the OT is El's consort Asherah (which Yahweh can be linked to via inscriptions) and one of El's sons (indirectly really) Baal.