Canaanite pantheon and Israel's Polytheistic roots

[Mr. Anderson]

[QUOTE=showmeproof;3234731]

I think you are wrong in stating that Israelite religion is what they did in spite of their belief. Israelite religion is what they believed. They believed other gods could protect and bless them and they set up massebot on the bamah and conducted rituals there in hope of achieving the protection and blessing. Their actions speak of their beliefs being broader than the narrow monotheism contemporary people would like to retroject upon them. Using your modern example one could make definitive statements on the general belief systems of the group. Some of the individuals might be unorthodox, or unlike the rest, but it is not the individual mind we are trying to pervade, but rather the belief system of the group. Now if you go back to the topic which we are discussing we have more than just texts, we have inscriptions, seal amulets, ritual pottery, massebah, altars and a great deal of corroborating evidence. Multiple convergence on the same conclusion is a powerful explanatory tool.

When I refer to Isrealite Religions, or religion in general, I'm speaking of practice not belief. Form isn't theology or belief, form is only how belief is expressed. You are correct however, the general populace worship as a whole is indicitive of a polythiestic culture. For me to say otherwise, I have discovered, is speaking contrary to the biblical and archaeological record. So I'll put forth a question to you with the same criteria you place on me for a monothiestic text. Is their any polythiestic text stating theological positions for the polythiestic worship found within Isreal during the time frame of the judges and kings that can be said to be from the ethnic group of Isreal? Not a parrallectic text of a neighbor. Something that could actually define their polythiestic worship from a truly Isrealite source. It's a given that they have similarities, but if empirical proof is required for one it should as well be required of the other. Otherwise we dont really know what they truly believed, only that it was polythiestic in nature. That may be enough for you but not for me as I'm very familiar with pluralism within a society, even ancient ones. What I'm saying is that despite a popular trend towards polythiesm within the culture a monaltrious or even monothiestic form of worship within an elitest or priestly group can't be completely ruled out. This is why the argument is ongoing, a biblicist doesn't need a majority to keep his ideology in play so to speak. And their is enough archeaological and textual evidence to support this position.

[QUOTE=showmeproof;3234731]

Regarding Hess, he divides his classroom into two sections and does not integrate the material, he stresses between the should have believed; i.e. theology, and the actually did believe i.e. religion. He believes it is possible and he personally does it by subscribing to divine revelation. Once you go onto the crutch of divine revelation you have put your lot in with any other person who claims divine revelation for their favored text. The should have then trumps the actually did. Once again this is fine for a living theology, but it is a poor way to navigate history.

As inferred above form isn't theology. Hess' statement was incorporate, integrate is a differing word. If you want Hess or any OT theologian to integrate what has been discovered of Isrealite religions into theology there would only remain Isrealite religions/practice. Theology isn't the study of practiced forms but of God, through theology. Hess defines them as two distinct disciplines that although have been inter related aren't dependant on each other. They can be incorporated but not integrated. Archaeologist dont like this concept because it leaves them operating the back end of the horse so to speak. Yes, many of them show discontented opinions in their writings. One should always remember there is competition and bais between differing fields of academia, just like any ideological group. The Christians, Jews, and Catholics within archaeology all have to proclaim revelation at some point, these are the same people who's evidence you are using to build your position. Hess isn't alone. Take revelation out of the picture and their isn't anything relavent within this argument for them. It falls to mere trivial pursuit infromation. I think the works of Smith , Zevit, Hess, and so many others is a fine attempt to navigate history, despite their professed faiths, which all decry divine revelation in some form.

[QUOTE=showmeproof;3234731]

Reality is reality. One may wish otherwise, but what good will that do them. You are correct in stating that not everything in history is empirically provable, but you'd be amiss if you discard information that leads credence to the plausibility of what actually happened. Divine revelation is a trump card that allows one to dismiss anything that doesn't fit.

Reality can't be truly known, even with empiracle means. You yourself here state you only have the plausibility of what happened, that's a far cry from reality of actual truth. Remember the topic at hand here, we're both both using only empiracle evidence. I'm throwing no revelation trump card as evidence for you, neither did Hess. I must claim it for myself in any communication or risk dishonest presentation of my views. Possibly he has done the same.


That should wrap up what I'd intended for the moment. Thank you for the curtious treatment.

[showmeproof]

So I'll put forth a question to you with the same criteria you place on me for a monothiestic text. Is their any polythiestic text stating theological positions for the polythiestic worship found within Isreal during the time frame of the judges and kings that can be said to be from the ethnic group of Isreal? Not a parrallectic text of a neighbor. Something that could actually define their polythiestic worship from a truly Isrealite source. What I'm saying is that despite a popular trend towards polythiesm within the culture a monaltrious or even monothiestic form of worship within an elitest or priestly group can't be completely ruled out. This is why the argument is ongoing, a biblicist doesn't need a majority to keep his ideology in play so to speak. And their is enough archeaological and textual evidence to support this position.

Are there polytheistic texts within the Hebrew Bible? Yes. I have beaten Deuteronomy 32:7-9 to death here and will be happy to do so again if you like. However, lets keep it simple. One of the earliest texts, ~1100 B.C.E. in the Hebrew Bible is Judges 5. Within this text I would like to point out a few things; 1) In the days of Shagmar son of Anath (bn 'nt). Shagmar is elsewhere identified as a minor judge of Israel. This is a Canaanite name and the bn 'nt is a reference to Anat the Canaanite goddess. We have bronze spears from this time with various personal names followed by bn 'nt and it is thought that this means warrior/soldier as Anat is known as a brutal war goddess (she is depicted on one relief in anthropomorphic form flanked by horses with skulls under her feet). Even this title, bn 'nt a transparent reference to the goddess bearing her precise characteristics, is deemed acceptable for a judge of Israel in its developing stages. 2) Verse 8 refers to this time as a time "When new gods were chosen then war was at the gates....the stars fought from heaven..." Yahweh is included as the God of Israel, but he is definitely not alone in this format.


Most of the surviving examples, as the texts have passed through monotheistic redactioners, occur in titles attributed to other gods being used for Yahweh, the structure and constituents of the divine council (literally the sons of god) and Yahweh's participation in this council, Yahweh in Battle with the Sea (Yam) and Leviathan or Lotan (which are mythic choas narratives in Canaanite lore) and the various polemics against the practices of the Israelites.

From the time of the Kings you find many references of them doing what was evil in the sight of the lord, meaning they allowed worship of other gods, most notable is 2 Kings 23 where it is stated that Josiah takes out all the gods from the Temple and finally destroys the worship places Solomon had made for other gods (Solomon you will recall is the 2nd king of Israel and the one who traditionally built the Temple). The worship of other gods was officially allowed in the Temple was acceptable up to Josiah's reform; Josiah himself up to that point participated in a Temple which had many gods with priests...many gods received offerings at the Temple . Josiah is said to be the first king to celebrate the passover. This is all initiated by a book found by the high priest Hilkiah 'the book of the law". In response to reading this book Josiah tears his clothes and weeps...he and his ancestors had been ignorant of its contents. For all they knew they were worshiping the 'right' gods 'correctly'. Now did this book actually exist from the Mount Sinai forward? I find that hard to believe. Especially since the tradition revealed in Exodus 6:2 finds it necessary to equate Yahweh with El and state that although the patriarchs did not know his name as Yahweh that is how he will be known henceforth.

I know we have gone over that before, but I think it very important to point out. Israel as a nation was polytheistic from the start up to Josiah's days, with some constriction occurring during his grandfather's reign. The very gods that are taken out of the Temple are the very gods who were present in that area since the Middle Bronze Age. If you want to take Moses as a historical person and the Exodus as a historical event take this for consideration: Ramses II celebrated the 400th year of Seth (Baal). The Semitic gods known in Egypt since the 17th century B.C.E. include Baal, Anat, Asherah, and Resheph. Everywhere we find Semites, which includes Israelites, from the middle Bronze Age through the Iron Age, including Israel itself, we find these gods. The Semites that became Israel would have known these gods and it would not have been merely a corruption of an originally pure Yahwism. The Bible, as we have it now, asserts that this is the case. You state that there is archeological evidence to support the case of an original Yahwism...what is this evidence?

As inferred above form isn't theology. Hess' statement was incorporate, integrate is a differing word. If you want Hess or any OT theologian to integrate what has been discovered of Isrealite religions into theology there would only remain Isrealite religions/practice. Theology isn't the study of practiced forms but of God, through theology. Hess defines them as two distinct disciplines that although have been inter related aren't dependant on each other. They can be incorporated but not integrated. Archaeologist dont like this concept because it leaves them operating the back end of the horse so to speak. Yes, many of them show discontented opinions in their writings. One should always remember there is competition and bais between differing fields of academia, just like any ideological group. The Christians, Jews, and Catholics within archaeology all have to proclaim revelation at some point, these are the same people who's evidence you are using to build your position. Hess isn't alone. Take revelation out of the picture and their isn't anything relavent within this argument for them. It falls to mere trivial pursuit infromation. I think the works of Smith , Zevit, Hess, and so many others is a fine attempt to navigate history, despite their professed faiths, which all decry divine revelation in some form.

I agree that that a theologian, either Christian or Jew, could not integrate this material into a living theology. I'm not asking Christians and Jews to start worshiping these gods along with their current theology. I just want to know how one can understand the origins of these beliefs and maintain that an 'original monotheism' existed amongst the Israelites and that their current living theology is a continuation of this 'pure monotheism.' My wife thinks she is worshiping the same god as Abraham....that just isn't the case. Historians can study a history of theology without adopting the theology.

[showmeproof]

Hess isn't the only scholar pushing for earlier dates of the JEPD sources, some well known from outside the field of Biblical scholarship. By sources I don't mean the finished redacted works, but the source traces found within the finished redacted versions. No one that I know of could empiracally date texts that can't be produced. The best that can be done is to conjecture dates that are to their earliest empiracally possible compilation. That is all that is necessary, of course you have to meet certian anthropological and archaeological criteria. Devers does this in the Iron 1 highland villages of the 12th-11th centurys BC, along with the distinctions that seperated this people group from their neighbors, location 1476-87 from book reader. Distintives of note are few cult sites, some continuities with, butincreasing diversions fro LB Caananite culture.This is the area that reconstructionists say consisted of a few thousand agrigarian villagers, misqouting Finkelsteins 2200 villagers in the few villages around Jerusalem. Finklestein, Zertal, Ophir, Shiloh, Dever and others have shown the population of the area in the late 13th century was12 to 15 thousand. 50 thousand ind the 12th century. 80 thousand in the 11th century. 100 thousand by the 10th century. Location 1504-4 has Finkelstein elsewhere qouted as 65 thousand people in this heartland area during the period of the supposed United Monarchy, in verbal communication with Devers Finkelstein agreed with Devers that 100 thousand isn't to high a figure for all Isreal and Judah in the 10th century. Personally I'm not familiar enough with the Documentary Hypothesis to determine wich portions arrived first or when, typically I'm skeptical of anyone making specific claims. Yet I feel it safe to claim that portions of the Pentetuach could have entered into the area as this people group moved in. If they had been totally indiginous to the outlying areas and were fleeing to safety in the hills there wouldn't have been notable distinctions between them and the Caananites that surrounded the area. As their population grew they could have easily reattached themselves to the Caananites in the lower areas for security purposes alone.
Old Canaanite script or the term Proto-Caananite was found in the area, as well as an Abecedary, personal names that appeared in latter Hebrew. Moses was more than likely multilingual, yes I believe he existed. The language of the people he led is what was important. Many would have been multilingual as well. Proto-Caananite would be my majority choice. They never appeared to integrate with the Egyptians. Yes I believe that an Exodus of some sort occurred. Devres denies this yet provides periphial evidence of it at location 2294-97with Egyptian heiratic signs for numbers found in many 8th-7th century inscriptions on Shekal weights by Nadav Na'aman. This Egyptian system of numerals was prefeerred and used throughout Isreal and Judah. Na'aman recently suggested that this system must have been adopted from Egypt by the 10th century because it was out of use in Egypt by the 8th and 7th centuries and none of Isreals Semitic neighbors used it.

I'm out of time and would like to respond to your post in full before any discussion on my part about what I've written here. But feel free to blast it apart if you can't control your self.

First, I appreciate you using Proto-Canaanite as opposed to Proto-Sinaitic. Secondly, we are talking script and not language. The language is of a northwest Semitic family and Hebrew's closest cognate is Ugaritic. I find it very interesting that this family of languages became expressed in two different alphabetic scripts while the languages from which the scripts originate Akkadian and Egyptian are not alphabetic (just a side note); Ugaritic cunieform is probably the earliest alphabet. One thing to keep in mind is the scope of international trade during the Bronze Age. Greece, Egypt, Cyprus, Ugarit, Hatti, Mittani, Syria, and Babylon all participated in trade.
. Egypt, Hatti, and Syria traded through Ugarit to get goods from Cyprus which came from Greece. The big players in the Levant during the end of the Bronze Age were Hatti and Egypt. Egypt controlled the Levant almost all the way up to the Orontes River though Hatti probably had more influence there. Ugarit had alliance with Hatti, but traded with Egypt. The important thing to note is that during the supposed time of the conquest Egypt had control over the entire Levant, excepting possibly Hazor. It is no surprise that Israel and their predecessors had contact and influence from Egypt. At the time of an Exodus the Israelites would have fled from Egypt proper into Egyptian territory. The Egyptians were oppressive taking what they would as tribute from its vassals. For this reason it is also not a surprise that as Egypt lost control over this area that those left, bore ill-will towards the oppressive tributes.

I think the closest thing to the Exodus would be the dispulsion of the Hyksos from Avaris and Egypt chasing them across the Sinai and holding siege to their one of their cities for three years. The theology doesn't hold up to the reason why semites were chased across the desert, but such an event did occur. I think it probable that various theologies are built around historical kernels. I would agree that if Moses existed he would have written in proto-Canaanite. Another thing of note is that we have the names of Canaanite gods written in this script. El, Baal, and ba'lt (baal's lady either Asherah or Anat) are all present. El, or god appears as a Bulls head with a Shepard's crook/staff. And you wonder why the tradition has the Israelites making Golden Bulls at the foot of Mount Sinai....the very name of God has a bull in it.

The most important reason of all in this analysis is to see what happened to the Great Nations of the Late Bronze Age. There are many factors that are included in the fall of the Bronze Age, everything from an economic collapse, diseases, famine, etc. are all hypothesized. One thing for certain is the arrival of the Sea Peoples. They destroyed Cyprus, Ugarit, Hatti, they brought war upon Egypt though Ramses III eventually held them off, but after his death Egypt's dynastys fall into utter disarray and Egypt looses its hold over the Levant.

[showmeproof]

Just a quick rejoinder. The Hebrew Bible doesn't speak of the Philistines arriving, excepting Gen 10. which speaks of them coming from Kaphtor (Crete), but rather having been in the land since at least the time of Abraham. We know when the Sea People, whom the Philistines are a contingent, arrived. This happened at the fall of the Bronze Age. Ramses III boasts in Papyrus Harris I "I extended all the frontiers of Egypt and overthrew those who attacked them from their lands. I slew the Denyen in their islands, while the Tjeker and the Philistines were made ashes. The Sherden and the Weshesh of the Sea were made non-existent, captured all together and brought in captivity to Egypt like the sands of the shore. I settled them in strongholds, bound in my name. Their military classes were as numerous as hundred-thousands. I assigned portions for them all with clothing and provisions from the treasuries and granaries every year". This of course is an empty boast because the land that was occupied by the Philistines controlled the trade route from Egypt to Canaan. Ramses III succeeded in keeping the Philistines and the other Sea Peoples from taking Egypt, but his tale of complete victory over them is much overstated.

This evidence tells me that the people who wrote about the patriarchs and the Exodus did so after 1100 B.C.E. In fact it suggests that it comes from a generation that only knew the Philistines as having been in the land.

[Mr. Anderson]

Are there polytheistic texts within the Hebrew Bible? Yes. I have beaten Deuteronomy 32:7-9 to death here and will be happy to do so again if you like. However, lets keep it simple. One of the earliest texts, ~1100 B.C.E. in the Hebrew Bible is Judges 5. Within this text I would like to point out a few things; 1) In the days of Shagmar son of Anath (bn 'nt). Shagmar is elsewhere identified as a minor judge of Israel. This is a Canaanite name and the bn 'nt is a reference to Anat the Canaanite goddess. We have bronze spears from this time with various personal names followed by bn 'nt and it is thought that this means warrior/soldier as Anat is known as a brutal war goddess (she is depicted on one relief in anthropomorphic form flanked by horses with skulls under her feet). Even this title, bn 'nt a transparent reference to the goddess bearing her precise characteristics, is deemed acceptable for a judge of Israel in its developing stages. 2) Verse 8 refers to this time as a time "When new gods were chosen then war was at the gates....the stars fought from heaven..." Yahweh is included as the God of Israel, but he is definitely not alone in this format.


Most of the surviving examples, as the texts have passed through monotheistic redactioners, occur in titles attributed to other gods being used for Yahweh, the structure and constituents of the divine council (literally the sons of god) and Yahweh's participation in this council, Yahweh in Battle with the Sea (Yam) and Leviathan or Lotan (which are mythic choas narratives in Canaanite lore) and the various polemics against the practices of the Israelites.

From the time of the Kings you find many references of them doing what was evil in the sight of the lord, meaning they allowed worship of other gods, most notable is 2 Kings 23 where it is stated that Josiah takes out all the gods from the Temple and finally destroys the worship places Solomon had made for other gods (Solomon you will recall is the 2nd king of Israel and the one who traditionally built the Temple). The worship of other gods was officially allowed in the Temple was acceptable up to Josiah's reform; Josiah himself up to that point participated in a Temple which had many gods with priests...many gods received offerings at the Temple . Josiah is said to be the first king to celebrate the passover. This is all initiated by a book found by the high priest Hilkiah 'the book of the law". In response to reading this book Josiah tears his clothes and weeps...he and his ancestors had been ignorant of its contents. For all they knew they were worshiping the 'right' gods 'correctly'. Now did this book actually exist from the Mount Sinai forward? I find that hard to believe. Especially since the tradition revealed in Exodus 6:2 finds it necessary to equate Yahweh with El and state that although the patriarchs did not know his name as Yahweh that is how he will be known henceforth.

I know we have gone over that before, but I think it very important to point out. Israel as a nation was polytheistic from the start up to Josiah's days, with some constriction occurring during his grandfather's reign. The very gods that are taken out of the Temple are the very gods who were present in that area since the Middle Bronze Age. If you want to take Moses as a historical person and the Exodus as a historical event take this for consideration: Ramses II celebrated the 400th year of Seth (Baal). The Semitic gods known in Egypt since the 17th century B.C.E. include Baal, Anat, Asherah, and Resheph. Everywhere we find Semites, which includes Israelites, from the middle Bronze Age through the Iron Age, including Israel itself, we find these gods. The Semites that became Israel would have known these gods and it would not have been merely a corruption of an originally pure Yahwism. The Bible, as we have it now, asserts that this is the case. You state that there is archeological evidence to support the case of an original Yahwism...what is this evidence?

An excellent presentation and one I must concede is recorded within the text of the Bible. Three points of concern. 1.) Your response, though taking me off guard, doesn't answer my question about a theological polythiestic position. We only read that a form was practiced and names of god's involved. This isn't theology, it's discriptive form religion, and even if you remove the redactive influence it seems to remain in a negative context. Meaning that it is presented as religious form out of order. This is why the parralectic texts have to be overlaid on the Hebrew texts to postulate a polythiestic theology. Because it's not found within the Hebrew text. 2.) The sections of texts you've posted aren't presented as prescriptive within the texts, they are merely descriptive. A recording of what had occurred outside of the theological base of what was prescribed. From that you propose, with alot of scholarly backing,That if you found evidence of polythiestic influence in the text, and on the ground, that the texts as recieved are incorrect and edited to show something not empirically provable. I don't even need to use the faith card to reject that notion. I'm rejecting a merely argumentative position, not a difinitie empirical fact. 3.) As stated before a majority position of polythiesm within Isreal only reflects their popular religious form . It doesn't negate the remnent that is recorded that retains and protects the theological base. This is what has been recieved into living theology as you put it.

I agree that that a theologian, either Christian or Jew, could not integrate this material into a living theology. I'm not asking Christians and Jews to start worshiping these gods along with their current theology. I just want to know how one can understand the origins of these beliefs and maintain that an 'original monotheism' existed amongst the Israelites and that their current living theology is a continuation of this 'pure monotheism.' My wife thinks she is worshiping the same god as Abraham....that just isn't the case. Historians can study a history of theology without adopting the theology.

Until you present a polythiestic OT theology or even an extrabiblical Hebrew source from within ancient Isreal, actual theology not descriptive form, there is nothing to study. You've presented great walls for Christians to surmount in regards to archaelogical and historical evidences. Ones that can be explained through the text and have been incorporated into OT theological seminary courses by the likes of Hess and others.Shouldn't you be expected to do more than present plausable accusation of happenings? Shouldnt you be expected to present your position in such a way as to go beyond plausable?

I have to finish this at a later time

[showmeproof]

An excellent presentation and one I must concede is recorded within the text of the Bible. Three points of concern. 1.) Your response, though taking me off guard, doesn't answer my question about a theological polythiestic position. We only read that a form was practiced and names of god's involved. This isn't theology, it's discriptive form religion, and even if you remove the redactive influence it seems to remain in a negative context. Meaning that it is presented as religious form out of order. This is why the parralectic texts have to be overlaid on the Hebrew texts to postulate a polythiestic theology. Because it's not found within the Hebrew text. 2.) The sections of texts you've posted aren't presented as prescriptive within the texts, they are merely descriptive. A recording of what had occurred outside of the theological base of what was prescribed. From that you propose, with alot of scholarly backing,That if you found evidence of polythiestic influence in the text, and on the ground, that the texts as recieved are incorrect and edited to show something not empirically provable. I don't even need to use the faith card to reject that notion. I'm rejecting a merely argumentative position, not a difinitie empirical fact. 3.) As stated before a majority position of polythiesm within Isreal only reflects their popular religious form . It doesn't negate the remnent that is recorded that retains and protects the theological base. This is what has been recieved into living theology as you put it.




Until you present a polythiestic OT theology or even an extrabiblical Hebrew source from within ancient Isreal, actual theology not descriptive form, there is nothing to study. You've presented great walls for Christians to surmount in regards to archaelogical and historical evidences. Ones that can be explained through the text and have been incorporated into OT theological seminary courses by the likes of Hess and others.Shouldn't you be expected to do more than present plausable accusation of happenings? Shouldnt you be expected to present your position in such a way as to go beyond plausable?

I have to finish this at a later time

Why would you expect to find prescriptive polytheistic theology in the Hebrew Bible? It is plainly obvious that Jews were strict monotheists since the return of the exile. The theology as it is presented is monotheistic. However, polytheistic remnants still occur throughout the bible. Here I will go through Deuteronomy 32:7-9 again and then list references to the divine council.

"Remember the days of old, consider the years long past; ask your father, and he will inform you; your elders, and they will tell you. When the Most High (El Elyon) apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods. The Lord's portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share."

This is remembering a theology in which Yahweh received an inheritance in the form of a nation, the other nations in this theological format were alloted to other gods.
The sons of god comes from 4QDeut, a Qumran scroll, and the Septuagint. The Masoretic text changed this to Sons of Israel. Yet again in Deuteronomy 32:43 we see redactors at work.

The Masoretic text reads
O nations, rejoice his people. For he'll avenge the blood of this servants and wreak vengeance on his foes and will cleanse his people's land.

4QDeut reads
O heavens rejoice with him, bow to him, all divinities (gods). For he'll avenge the blood of his sons and wreak vengeance on his foes and will cleanse his people's land.

LXX (septuagint) reads
O heavens rejoice with him, bow to him, all the sons of the divine. O nations rejoice with his people and let all the angels of the divine strengthen themselves in him. For he'll avenge the blood of his sons be vengeful and wreak vengeance and recompense justice on his foes. Requite those who reject him, and the Lord will cleanse his people's land.

Psalm 82 also has Yahweh among the divine council as well as a great many other texts. In all cases, the divine council is an accepted part of the theology. However, in many cases the theology is that Yahweh is rising up to take control of the council and the other gods are rebuked. Notice that these other gods are considered gods in Psalm 82:6 Yahweh states "I say, 'You are gods', children of the Most High all of you. Here Yahweh is affirming their divine status, and he is not saying that they are his sons, but rather sons of El Elyon.

In Psalm 82 Yahweh becomes the sole god left anticipating the death of the other gods. This is very much what I am arguing. If Yahweh was always the only One why is he a participant in the divine council in multiple places in the OT?

[Mr. Anderson]

Just a quick rejoinder. The Hebrew Bible doesn't speak of the Philistines arriving, excepting Gen 10. which speaks of them coming from Kaphtor (Crete), but rather having been in the land since at least the time of Abraham. We know when the Sea People, whom the Philistines are a contingent, arrived. This happened at the fall of the Bronze Age. Ramses III boasts in Papyrus Harris I "I extended all the frontiers of Egypt and overthrew those who attacked them from their lands. I slew the Denyen in their islands, while the Tjeker and the Philistines were made ashes. The Sherden and the Weshesh of the Sea were made non-existent, captured all together and brought in captivity to Egypt like the sands of the shore. I settled them in strongholds, bound in my name. Their military classes were as numerous as hundred-thousands. I assigned portions for them all with clothing and provisions from the treasuries and granaries every year". This of course is an empty boast because the land that was occupied by the Philistines controlled the trade route from Egypt to Canaan. Ramses III succeeded in keeping the Philistines and the other Sea Peoples from taking Egypt, but his tale of complete victory over them is much overstated.

This evidence tells me that the people who wrote about the patriarchs and the Exodus did so after 1100 B.C.E. In fact it suggests that it comes from a generation that only knew the Philistines as having been in the land.

Jeremiah 47:4--those colonists from the island of Crete
Amos 9:7--I brought Isreal out of Egypt, but I also brought the Philistines from Crete,literaly from Caphtor
Genesis 10:14-- and the Caphtorites, from whom the Philistines came.-----Is this describing a geneological order or an actual current occupation in Patriarch time? Is there a verse that describes them with Abraham. You've lost me here.

Whats the problem with a later generation writing their history? I read history written by latter generations all the time. Matter of fact thats how most history is recorded in the forms we recieve it. Perhaps your bothered they didn't insert footnotes. I'm thinking a good historian will take trace elements of history mixed with other evidences, write a history from that, feeling he did a good job. Unless it's the Bible of course.

[Mr. Anderson]

Egypt, Hatti, and Syria traded through Ugarit to get goods from Cyprus which came from Greece. The big players in the Levant during the end of the Bronze Age were Hatti and Egypt. Egypt controlled the Levant almost all the way up to the Orontes River though Hatti probably had more influence there. Ugarit had alliance with Hatti, but traded with Egypt. The important thing to note is that during the supposed time of the conquest Egypt had control over the entire Levant, excepting possibly Hazor. It is no surprise that Israel and their predecessors had contact and influence from Egypt. At the time of an Exodus the Israelites would have fled from Egypt proper into Egyptian territory. The Egyptians were oppressive taking what they would as tribute from its vassals. For this reason it is also not a surprise that as Egypt lost control over this area that those left, bore ill-will towards the oppressive tributes.

I think the closest thing to the Exodus would be the dispulsion of the Hyksos from Avaris and Egypt chasing them across the Sinai and holding siege to their one of their cities for three years. The theology doesn't hold up to the reason why semites were chased across the desert, but such an event did occur. I think it probable that various theologies are built around historical kernels. I would agree that if Moses existed he would have written in proto-Canaanite. Another thing of note is that we have the names of Canaanite gods written in this script. El, Baal, and ba'lt (baal's lady either Asherah or Anat) are all present. El, or god appears as a Bulls head with a Shepard's crook/staff. And you wonder why the tradition has the Israelites making Golden Bulls at the foot of Mount Sinai....the very name of God has a bull in it.

The most important reason of all in this analysis is to see what happened to the Great Nations of the Late Bronze Age. There are many factors that are included in the fall of the Bronze Age, everything from an economic collapse, diseases, famine, etc. are all hypothesized. One thing for certain is the arrival of the Sea Peoples. They destroyed Cyprus, Ugarit, Hatti, they brought war upon Egypt though Ramses III eventually held them off, but after his death Egypt's dynastys fall into utter disarray and Egypt looses its hold over the Levant.

I seem to remember from the Armana letters that Egypt had been losing control of the Levant for some time before the Exodus. If there was an Exodus it would have occurred during a power vacume, how convenient. This was an embarressing time for Egypt that kept them from any real influence for over 100 years or more, I think.

[nightbringer]

I accept that the original Israelites were polytheists. This doesn't trouble me. What troubles me is how to understand what is entailed by the Biblical text's use of concepts like the divine council.

[showmeproof]

Jeremiah 47:4--those colonists from the island of Crete
Amos 9:7--I brought Isreal out of Egypt, but I also brought the Philistines from Crete,literaly from Caphtor
Genesis 10:14-- and the Caphtorites, from whom the Philistines came.-----Is this describing a geneological order or an actual current occupation in Patriarch time? Is there a verse that describes them with Abraham. You've lost me here.

Whats the problem with a later generation writing their history? I read history written by latter generations all the time. Matter of fact thats how most history is recorded in the forms we recieve it. Perhaps your bothered they didn't insert footnotes. I'm thinking a good historian will take trace elements of history mixed with other evidences, write a history from that, feeling he did a good job. Unless it's the Bible of course.

I definitely missed those verses (excepting Gen. 10). Thank you for pointing them out to me.

Nothing is wrong with a later generation writing a history of their ancestors. However, the Bible does more than write a history, it writes history through a very specific theological lens which is inconsistent with what we know about the late bronze age and early Iron Age ANE. One just needs to keep in mind what historical purview is presented.

Regarding the patriarchs and the Philistines
Genesis 21:32, 26:1,8,14,15,18

Regarding Philistines during the age of the Exodus
Exodus 13:17, 23:31

There is also mention of the Philistines during the time of the Judges (towards the end of the Judge period is when the historical Philistines arrive in the land known by the Israelites)
Philistines are named 31 times in the book of Judges, and they are very prominent in the book of 1 Samuel.

Although there are spots, like you provided and Gen 10, that acknowledge the Philistines were from Caphtorim or Crete there is absolutely no discussion of their arrival.

Contrast that with the King of Alashiya (Cyprus), that of King Amurapi of Ugarit, of Ramses II, Merneptah, or Ramses III of Egypt, or of Suppiluliumus II of Hatti.

The king of Alashiya writes: "Beware! Twenty enemy ships were here, but now are gone, where we do not know! Enemy ships are sighted off the Syrian coast? Enclose your cities with fortifications, and take your troops and chariots inside! Watch out for the enemy and be strong!"

King Amurappi writes: "Now the ships of the enemy have come, and they have burned my cities in fire and have committed atrocities in my land. My father (in reference and deference to the King of Alashiya)! Do you not know that all my troops are in Khatte and all my ships are in Lycia."

Ramses III writes: "The foreign lands made a convocation in their islands, bursting forth and scattering in the strife of the lands at one time; no land could stand before their arms, beginning with Khatte (hatti), then Qode, Carchemish, Arzawa, and Alashiya - all cut off [at one stroke]. A camp [was established] at one spot within Amurru, and they ruind his people and his land like something that had never existed. On they came, with fire prepared at their front, faces toward Egypt. Their main protection was the Peleset (Philistines), the Tjekru, the Shekelesh, the Da'anu, the Washosh, and the lands all united. They laid their hands on countries as far as the circuit of the earth, their hearts trusting and confident: "Our plans will succeed!"

King Suppiluliumus II writes: "Against me the ships of Cyprus drew up in line three times for battle, in the midst of the sea I set them on fire...the enemy in multitudes came against me from Cyprus"

Now look what happened at this time to each place. Alashiya is overrun, Ugarit is destroyed (the letter that I provided was still in the furnace to be fired prior to sending it back to Alashiya), Suppiluliumus II was the last king of Khatte, and Ramses III is termed "The Last Great Pharaoh" although Egypt carries on. The Sea People wreaked havoc and brought the end to many of the superpowers of the Late Bronze Age. Yet in the Bible they are there, never arriving, and they are one of the reasons given in 1 Samuel towards Israel naming a King and becoming a nation.

[showmeproof]

I seem to remember from the Armana letters that Egypt had been losing control of the Levant for some time before the Exodus. If there was an Exodus it would have occurred during a power vacume, how convenient. This was an embarressing time for Egypt that kept them from any real influence for over 100 years or more, I think.

The letters from Amarna are written by Egyptian appointed 'governors' who are placed in control of areas throughout the Levant. These governors specifically Lab'ayu and Abdi-Hepa (or Heba) the governor of Urusulim (Jerusalem) take turns accusing one another of giving aid to the Hapiru or Apiru who are marauding and attacking various cities. In essence they spend their time calling each other traitors and at the same time assure the king it is not they who are the traitor, but the other. The assistance that Abdi Heba writes to Ahkenaten for is a contingent of 50 archers.

After Ahkenaten dies Tutankhamen reigns and then a few insubstantial pharaohs and the the great Ramesides start ruling within 30 years. Some of Egypts power over the Levant might have waned for a brief period, but they still had Egyptian garrisons in the Levant. Under the Rameside rule the Egyptian power in the area becomes stronger until the Sea People arrive in force and take the land that holds the main trade route through the Levant.

[showmeproof]

I accept that the original Israelites were polytheists. This doesn't trouble me. What troubles me is how to understand what is entailed by the Biblical text's use of concepts like the divine council.

One resource that may help you is the divine council website maintained by Dr. Michael Heiser. His is one way of viewing the material that attempts to show the differences between Israel's concept of the divine council with that of its neighbors. I would also recommend reading scholars that underscore the similarities as well. There is definitely convergence and divergence. My concern is when the divergence occurred.

[Mr. Anderson]

Why would you expect to find prescriptive polytheistic theology in the Hebrew Bible? It is plainly obvious that Jews were strict monotheists since the return of the exile. The theology as it is presented is monotheistic. However, polytheistic remnants still occur throughout the bible. Here I will go through Deuteronomy 32:7-9 again and then list references to the divine council.

For the same reason you've declared polythiest religious form within the text. If what you claim is true as implied, the theology around it would be prescriptive of it, with an edited tone from as you've implied, post exile. Would'nt you have expected the scholars to have unraveled this theology as they have made cliams for everything else Biblical?

Location2983-86 of Devers book What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know it---One cannot force all the biblical texts down into the Persian much less the Hellenistic period. Revisionists have presented no actual proof of this period as the only literary setting. They have neither internal evidence, in the form of allusions in the text to actual conditions of that era in Babylon or Palestine (or "anachronisms"), which even the most ingenious "forger" could not have avoided, nor external evidence in other texts of the period.
Slightly condensed by myself for space.


Noted from earlier posts by Mckllen in this thread, polythiesm was rampant through this period as well. Post exile.


I still must admit that I haven't found a reply that meets my satisfaction on the textual portions you've represented.

[shunyadragon]

One resource that may help you is the divine council website maintained by Dr. Michael Heiser. His is one way of viewing the material that attempts to show the differences between Israel's concept of the divine council with that of its neighbors. I would also recommend reading scholars that underscore the similarities as well. There is definitely convergence and divergence. My concern is when the divergence occurred.

I have watching this thread with great interest and my education. On occasion I check up on sources and follow up, great researchand organization!!!

[showmeproof]

I have finished reading Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel by Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger and hope to post something in the next week or so regarding this book. Currently I am reading People of the Sea the Search for the Philistines by Trude and Moshe Dothan.