Canaanite pantheon and Israel's Polytheistic roots

[Bill the Cat]

That is correct. Their exploits in polytheism were not a perversion of an original monotheistic faith, but rather the original state.

I believe I recall another accepted approach in academia is the assimilation view - where the Israelites assimilated the names of the Canaanite gods into their monotheistic belief. It was only when the Israeiltes went outside of their religious framework of monotheism that they worshipped the gods of the other nations by the name that they had originally assimilated.

[showmeproof]

I believe I recall another accepted approach in academia is the assimilation view - where the Israelites assimilated the names of the Canaanite gods into their monotheistic belief. It was only when the Israeiltes went outside of their religious framework of monotheism that they worshipped the gods of the other nations by the name that they had originally assimilated.

That is an interesting thought and worthy of discussion. Follow it through though. If, as we are led to assume by the Bible, the worship of other gods was condemned prior to this assimilation would the assimilation have happened? In other words, only things that are acceptably compatible between two cultures are assimilated. Assimilation no doubt played a role in the evolution of ANE religions, including Judaism. Now ask yourself what we should expect if something that was once acceptable and therefore was originally assimilated but later became unacceptable. I would argue that we would find exactly what we find in the bible. Early worship of other gods and later condemnation by prophets and religious reforms akin to Hezikiah and Josiah's. The question becomes when did these assimilated practices become unacceptable and why? Well take a look at what was happening when the prophets were speaking out and when both religious reforms were undertaken. These were times of national crises when greater nations were asserting control over Israel. In fact the punishment that the prophets are warning against is complete subjugation to these nations...which was inevitable or rather already a fact of life in their time.

Also as a thought experiment consider the following: Would you or anyone you know acceptably call your God by the Muslim name for God, Allah? I would wager that this is not something that would catch on and be assimilated into the religious repertoire of Christianity.

Another thing to consider is the religious framework. It appears that YHWH was placed upon a polytheistic foundation rather than polytheism placed upon a monotheistic foundation. Consider the examples of the divine council used in the Hebrew Bible. Or consider the struggle between YHWH and the Sea or tannit or leviathon. These struggles are connected with primeval choas.

Deuteronomy 32:7-8 is a beautiful example of the first. "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 Hight (EL Elyon) apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods (sons of El); the Lord's portion was his people, Jacob his alloted inheritance."

Here Yahweh is placed as a son of the Most High, El Elyon, and receives an inheritance from him. Now these verses have gone through emmendations in the Masoretic Text and instead of "sons of god" it reads "sons of Israel" so as to give an impression that YHWH is EL and he apportioned the nations according to the tribes of Israel. Problem is the earliest versions in both the Septuagint and the Qumran Scrolls attest to the formulation I provided. Why would it have been changed? Because it can be read as polytheism from the beginning and that YHWH was not EL Elyon but rather a recipient of an inheritance. Even in modern translations such as the NRSV the word "own" is added to read the Lord's own portion in attempt to equate Yahweh with El Elyon. At least this emmendation is in the footnotes to let you know where the deviation occurs. This was the days of old, the years long past back when the nations were first divided. This is a testament to a different, and polytheistic foundation, where Yahweh is not the only god.

Other things to consider are the forms of devotion, worship, communication etc. between God and the patriarchs in the bible. They are practices found in Bronze Age Canaanite religion.

[seanD]

You are mistaken. I am well aware that different titles can be used for the same character such as the ones you provided for Jesus. However, the specific names used for God in the old Testament were a different God in the Bronze Age. If you think the bible accurately portrays the faith of the patriarchs then you must be aware of whom El was in Canaan during the Bronze Age. El was not a title of Yahweh at this point. El was a specific god, with specific attributes that were later associated with Yahweh, and the head of a pantheon of gods which he presided over in a divine assembly. The patriarchs worshiped a different god than Yahweh. It wasn't merely a matter of knowing the same god by another name.

Since, as an "evangelical Christian," I believe Genesis 10-11 is true history, it would make sense that God made himself known to these earlier people as El, and that there were certain truths that God shared with these people, which was a common truth. As these people separated into different tribes, civilizations, and cultures, the religion retained a core truth but became greatly distorted and diverse. Perhaps some of the earlier names God used even became separate deities, which became a doctrinal error. Abraham and his tribe retained the purist form of this truth, which is why God picked him and his descendants to steer him back on course and reveal himself in even different ways. As an evangelical Christian this is not a problem for me, is my point. I don't need to accept your conclusion for this, because I think your conclusion in bold is but an assumption, and I don't really believe you can prove your assumption. Since I know from scripture that God changed his names and used different tittles, and even allowed his own people to identify him with different names and titles, this gives me even more of a belief that your assumption is incorrect.

[showmeproof]

Since, as an "evangelical Christian," I believe Genesis 10-11 is true history, it would make sense that God made himself known to these earlier people as El, and that there were certain truths that God shared with these people, which was a common truth. As these people separated into different tribes, civilizations, and cultures, the religion retained a core truth but became greatly distorted and diverse. Perhaps some of the earlier names God used even became separate deities, which became a doctrinal error. Abraham and his tribe retained the purist form of this truth, which is why God picked him and his descendants to steer him back on course and reveal himself in even different ways. As an evangelical Christian this is not a problem for me, is my point. I don't need to accept your conclusion for this, because I think your conclusion in bold is but an assumption, and I don't really believe you can prove your assumption. Since I know from scripture that God changed his names and used different tittles, and even allowed his own people to identify him with different names and titles, this gives me even more of a belief that your assumption is incorrect.

The Evangelical scholar, Dr. Hess, on page 179 of his book Israelite Religions gives a summary of the names found in the genealogies.
"The names that are useful for analysis in terms of their etymology suggest that these genealogies, at least in part, are connected with earliest Israel's traditions. In general, the lists are best analyzed as originating in the Bronze Age of the second millennium BC in a West Semetic context...If so then these lists remember a time when people worshiped various deities, including those of the underworld.''

Interesting how an evangelical scholar suggests that the common truth, as you have worded it, included various deities, and not just El prior to their branching into different tribes and civilizations.

You obviously disagree with another evangelical Christian in this matter. Now as an evangelical who has a different point of view than this scholar, and since your propose that this is 'true history' then what time frame are you proposing for these events?

[seanD]

The Evangelical scholar, Dr. Hess, on page 179 of his book Israelite Religions gives a summary of the names found in the genealogies.
"The names that are useful for analysis in terms of their etymology suggest that these genealogies, at least in part, are connected with earliest Israel's traditions. In general, the lists are best analyzed as originating in the Bronze Age of the second millennium BC in a West Semetic context...If so then these lists remember a time when people worshiped various deities, including those of the underworld.''

Interesting how an evangelical scholar suggests that the common truth, as you have worded it, included various deities, and not just El prior to their branching into different tribes and civilizations.

You obviously disagree with another evangelical Christian in this matter. Now as an evangelical who has a different point of view than this scholar, and since your propose that this is 'true history' then what time frame are you proposing for these events?

I would imagine, just an educated guess, that Dr. Hess, whom you state is an "evangelical Christian," rejects much of Genesis 10-11 as mythology, especially the biblical story of Noah and Nimrod (if I'm wrong then forgive me). I would imagine he flatly rejects that this is the true origin of man. Indeed, I would agree that those who reject Genesis 10-11 as history have a major problem to solve. But if Genesis 10-11 is true history, which I believe it is and which is the mark of "evangelical fundamentalist Christianity," then the scenario would be obvious, and you can no more disprove my assumption than you can prove your assumption. Noah retained the common truth which worshipped and honored the one true God, who was identified as El. He most likely used different names or variations of that name (i.e. El Shaddai) such as he did later on in Hebrew culture or allowed his people to identify him with different titles in different circumstances, as we clearly see demonstrated from scripture (examples: Genesis 16:13-14, Exodus 15:26). Nimrod undoubtedly introduced a false doctrine that intermingled which consisted of polytheism. Whether this is true or not, once the people scattered from that central truth into different tribes, civilizations, and cultures, the central truth undoubtedly became distorted and diverse, where polytheism became the norm. The tribe of Abraham retained the purist form of that truth, and though they may have continued to identify El as God, they clearly used variations of that name (Genesis 22:11-14). Thus you are unable to prove that Abraham and his descendants worshipped these as different deities. Or perhaps Abraham did fall into polytheism, but God showed grace and mercy on him and corrected him as he steered him back on the true path. Either scenario works

My point is that an evangelical Christian has no problem with this as you implied in post #238, nor is there a problem for them to accept this fact and find continuity with their theology of both the OT and NT.

[showmeproof]

I would imagine, just an educated guess, that Dr. Hess, whom you state is an "evangelical Christian," rejects much of Genesis 10-11 as mythology, especially the biblical story of Noah and Nimrod (if I'm wrong then forgive me). I would imagine he flatly rejects that this is the true origin of man. Indeed, I would agree that those who reject Genesis 10-11 as history have a major problem to solve. But if Genesis 10-11 is true history, which I believe it is and which is the mark of "evangelical fundamentalist Christianity," then the scenario would be obvious, and you can no more disprove my assumption than you can prove your assumption. Noah retained the common truth which worshipped and honored the one true God, who was identified as El. He most likely used different names or variations of that name (i.e. El Shaddai) such as he did later on in Hebrew culture or allowed his people to identify him with different titles in different circumstances, as we clearly see demonstrated from scripture (examples: Genesis 16:13-14, Exodus 15:26). Nimrod undoubtedly introduced a false doctrine that intermingled which consisted of polytheism. Whether this is true or not, once the people scattered from that central truth into different tribes, civilizations, and cultures, the central truth undoubtedly became distorted and diverse, where polytheism became the norm. The tribe of Abraham retained the purist form of that truth, and though they may have continued to identify El as God, they clearly used variations of that name (Genesis 22:11-14). Thus you are unable to prove that Abraham and his descendants worshipped these as different deities. Or perhaps Abraham did fall into polytheism, but God showed grace and mercy on him and corrected him as he steered him back on the true path. Either scenario works

My point is that an evangelical Christian has no problem with this as you implied in post #238, nor is there a problem for them to accept this fact and find continuity with their theology of both the OT and NT.

I have labeled Dr. Hess as an Evangelical because that is how he defines himself. So basically what you are saying is that you are right no matter what? I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Unfortunately, for a literalist such as yourself Genesis can be refuted as being a literal history. Let's keep it basic and just address an anachronism in the presence of the Philistines in stories of Abraham and Isaac or Moses. We know when the Philistines arrived and it wasn't during any of their lifetimes. Besides that we have both evolution and a very very old earth. The goose is cooked on a literalist approach.

[seanD]

I have labeled Dr. Hess as an Evangelical because that is how he defines himself. So basically what you are saying is that you are right no matter what? I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Unfortunately, for a literalist such as yourself Genesis can be refuted as being a literal history. Let's keep it basic and just address an anachronism in the presence of the Philistines in stories of Abraham and Isaac or Moses. We know when the Philistines arrived and it wasn't during any of their lifetimes. Besides that we have both evolution and a very very old earth. The goose is cooked on a literalist approach.

This is merely the divide between secularism and religion, that’s all. Nothing new. It’s the same divide between the acceptance of the resurrection and the rejection thereof. There is scientific reason to reject the resurrection as well. Just because there are those who accept the resurrection as historic fact doesn’t disqualify their historical assessment of that time period, anymore than your bias against God disqualifies your assessment of the history of that time period. For either of us to assume it does is just reflection of our own bias position. Evangelical Christianity accepts Genesis as true history and this is still the conventional way we categorize "evangelical" fundamentalism. No point in changing the goalposts here and making this a boring debate about the evolution of man. This was not your statement about evangelical Christianity of which I was responding to in post #238.

[showmeproof]

This is merely the divide between secularism and religion, that’s all. Nothing new. It’s the same divide between the acceptance of the resurrection and the rejection thereof. There is scientific reason to reject the resurrection as well. Just because there are those who accept the resurrection as historic fact doesn’t disqualify their historical assessment of that time period, anymore than your bias against God disqualifies your assessment of the history of that time period. For either of us to assume it does is just reflection of our own bias position. Evangelical Christianity accepts Genesis as true history and this is still the conventional way we categorize "evangelical" fundamentalism. No point in changing the goalposts here and making this a boring debate about the evolution of man. This was not your statement about evangelical Christianity of which I was responding to in post #238.

That is fair enough. That divide is one we will be unable to agree upon. I can say that there is absolutely no evidence of El being alone as a true god. The earliest evidence we have of him is in a polytheistic context. This predates any of the biblical texts. Your assumption is resting on baseless assertion in hope to preserve continuity in the Old Testament. Wishing things true does not make them so.

[seanD]

Your assumption is resting on baseless assertion in hope to preserve continuity in the Old Testament. Wishing things true does not make them so.

You've made the exact same arguments about the resurrection. Same story, another day

As a Christian, my assertion is based on what I read in scripture and my theology of the fall of man, which quite nicely fits in with the causes and reasons for early polytheism (or possibly what you assume is polytheism), and that the assumptions you use as conclusions to refute that you simply cannot prove.

[showmeproof]

You've made the exact same arguments about the resurrection. Same story, another day

As a Christian, my assertion is based on what I read in scripture and my theology of the fall of man, which quite nicely fits in with the causes and reasons for early polytheism (or possibly what you assume is polytheism), and that the assumptions you use as conclusions to refute that you simply cannot prove.

I can prove that polytheism occurs in the historical record as preserved in archaeology prior to monotheism. It is funny that your signature states "Just the Historical Facts" when you seem to avoid them to suit your purposes.

[seanD]

I can prove that polytheism occurs in the historical record as preserved in archaeology prior to monotheism. It is funny that your signature states "Just the Historical Facts" when you seem to avoid them to suit your purposes.

I don't reject most of these facts, I reject your conclusions of those facts, which are assumptions. There is evidence of other Hebraic concepts such as the practice of sacrificing bulls and lambs to appease the gods in earlier records that also predate the Hebrew scriptures. This is not a problem for me based on my belief of Genesis, like I've repeated several times. It stands to reason that if all of mankind came from one source, there would be commonalities and diversities among their religious practices as they scattered across the continents. You reject Genesis as history, which is fine, but that's your assumption. And I can prove from scripture where God changed his name and title, or allowed his followers to change his name and title many times. You have zero proof that these were multiple deities, is all I'm saying.

[Mr. Anderson]

I disagree with this. First, there is no integration of older theology. All new theology bases itself in some capacity on old theology, especially where sacred texts are involved, since they solidify that older theology within the newer tradition's heritage. It must be made to fit within the old theology. The new is incorporated into the old, not the other way around. Since we can plot with a good degree of accuracy how and when monotheism developed, and since there's no evidence of it prior to that trajectory, there is no need to prove any kind of integration of polytheism. The onus is actually on the person to show that monotheism exists where the evidence doesn't recognize it.

I see I have made an error in post #205 by using the word latter in front of monothiestic. Giving the impression that polythiestic influences didn't occur until a latter stage of monothiestic development. My intent was merely that polythiestic Caananite worship preceded the monaltrous/monothiestic Isrealite worship. This takes away my confusion as to what you were getting at with your response to it. However in that light you have provided such a fine example of integration, bolded, I can say youv'e answered your own challenge of onus, to the limits of conjectured assertments that draw a line in front of actual facts by all parties, with your own statements.

But this presupposes that a pristine Israelite religion existed prior to the incorporation of any Canaanite ideology. Archaeological and textual data unambiguously shows that Israel was Canaanite from its very inception, and only much later decoupled itself from that heritage. Israel is based on Canaanite religion, it did not incorporate it. Next, when language is used to confront culture, it is explicit in its rejection of the traditional use of that language. It does not use language that may undermine the message. This is why Genesis 1 is very careful to de-deify the elements of creation that it is borrowing from Babylonian cosmogony. Tehom, the word translated "depths," or "deep" in Gen 1:2 is cognate with the Babylonian Tiamat, the chaos monster from the Enuma Elish who was killed by Marduk and torn in two to create the heavens above and the earth below. The Hebrew Bible appropriates the imagery but depersonifies it and treats the chaos monster as an inanimate object upon which God may impose his will without opposition. This principle is even more clear in Deutero-Isaiah, where the divine council imagery is being altered. In Isa 40:12-14 God directly confronts the aspects of divine council imagery which he opposes. He rhetorically asks who has been his counsellor, or has provided counsel or instruction. The message is that there has been none. Yhwh does not need instruction or counsel from anyone. This was written when Israel was in Babylon and was daily confronted with the notion that many deities come together in council to determine plans of action. This is what happens when Israel appropriates terminology with which it does not agree. We know that earlier texts actually did agree with Babylon's idea of the divine council, since in 1 Kgs 22:19-22 we hear Micaiah describe a divine council scene where Yhwh asks who will go forth (just as the council asked in the Enuma Elish). A spirit came forth to provide his services, producing, at God's request, his own plan for how to fool Ahab.

Pristine no, and not necessary for my statement. A fully developed theology is more of an endgame than an origination. I've put no cart before the horse.
Unambiguously, yes and no, evidence can be pointed both ways. Mark Smith, in his books preface describes the textual evidence as vague and ambiguous. Bothe the language itself and the lack of textual evidence in quantity. In reading a book review of Hess on Zevit, Zevit is said to give credance to skepticism of his position while making his assertions from the evidence at hand. I think you can legitimately go no further than to saythat "Isrealite worship", not "Isreal itself", incorporated forms of Caananite worship and expression.
Your example of language to confront culture is illogical against my original statement in post #205. An example of my premise could be found in the opposition against modern interpretation of Biblical theology. When attempting to correct it back to a traditional interpretation the traditional languages are expounded for originality. To reject the earlier is to forfiet the attempt of correction. My example fits against both cultural and theological confrontation.
De-deification-Gen. 1:2. This is one argument that has caught my attention for years. It is logical and makes sense, being bulit up as a trap from which nothing can be brought up against it. My problem with it is that no matter the wordage used to describe the creative work, once you mention an element you fall into the trap. So i see no need to approach the argument.Perhaps you could give some example of what the wordage whould have to look like without mentioning an element that coul have been understood to the peoples of antiquity.
Again your example of Isreal appropriating language sounds illogical to me. It looks more like armchair quarterbacking the day after the game to build an argument. You can be right and you could be wrong. And no amount of scholarly support really adds actuality to the arguments. It depends more on what our opinions were before gameday, or how it relates to ourselves which conclusions you come to.

Why would you require such specific congruences? I can't think of any exegetical principle that requires this level of reflection in order for a specific interpretation to be considered valid.

On the contrary, it cannot refer to anything but deities, and all of mainstream scholarship is in agreement on this point.

With regards to Ps. 82- Why make such specific congruences? -- To be thorough in an exegetical practice do you focus on a keyphrase or content?
In reading lately I have to concur that scholarship says that this text refers to dieties in the concepts of the Canaanites and even to a degree a monaltrus Isreal. This is an admitted concession on my part though I still have reservations as to a complete application of it in any instance. The term monaltrus itself implies such an interpretation. So I can agree with your definition and disagree with your implications. Yes a religious person can be persuaded to alter an opinion! It's never a smooth transition though.
I read through your blog links and see that you've addressed the subject of human condemnation for injustice to man. Yet you haven't connected the dots to divinity.



(1) It is a clear allusion to Deut 32:8-9, which is manifestly referring to members of the divine council; (2) it uses technical terminology that is only used in reference to the divine council (most clearly, the phrase "Council of El"); (3) it contrasts the ontological nature of the gods with the notion that they would be condemned to death; (4) in every subsequent allusion to the myth until the New Testament, the gods are understood as ontological deities and not humans; (5) there is no reason to interpret it as anything other than a reference to deities. I discuss this psalm in much more detail here.



But monotheism didn't exist before a specific and datable point, and the word "ba'al" did. Now, the word simply means "master," and was often used generically to refer to Yhwh, but we cannot appeal to monotheistic contexts centuries before they came into existence.[/QUOTE]

[showmeproof]

I see I have made an error in post #205 by using the word latter in front of monothiestic. Giving the impression that polythiestic influences didn't occur until a latter stage of monothiestic development. My intent was merely that polythiestic Caananite worship preceded the monaltrous/monothiestic Isrealite worship. This takes away my confusion as to what you were getting at with your response to it. However in that light you have provided such a fine example of integration, bolded, I can say youv'e answered your own challenge of onus, to the limits of conjectured assertments that draw a line in front of actual facts by all parties, with your own statements.



Pristine no, and not necessary for my statement. A fully developed theology is more of an endgame than an origination. I've put no cart before the horse.
Unambiguously, yes and no, evidence can be pointed both ways. Mark Smith, in his books preface describes the textual evidence as vague and ambiguous. Bothe the language itself and the lack of textual evidence in quantity. In reading a book review of Hess on Zevit, Zevit is said to give credance to skepticism of his position while making his assertions from the evidence at hand. I think you can legitimately go no further than to saythat "Isrealite worship", not "Isreal itself", incorporated forms of Caananite worship and expression.
Your example of language to confront culture is illogical against my original statement in post #205. An example of my premise could be found in the opposition against modern interpretation of Biblical theology. When attempting to correct it back to a traditional interpretation the traditional languages are expounded for originality. To reject the earlier is to forfiet the attempt of correction. My example fits against both cultural and theological confrontation.
De-deification-Gen. 1:2. This is one argument that has caught my attention for years. It is logical and makes sense, being bulit up as a trap from which nothing can be brought up against it. My problem with it is that no matter the wordage used to describe the creative work, once you mention an element you fall into the trap. So i see no need to approach the argument.Perhaps you could give some example of what the wordage whould have to look like without mentioning an element that coul have been understood to the peoples of antiquity.
Again your example of Isreal appropriating language sounds illogical to me. It looks more like armchair quarterbacking the day after the game to build an argument. You can be right and you could be wrong. And no amount of scholarly support really adds actuality to the arguments. It depends more on what our opinions were before gameday, or how it relates to ourselves which conclusions you come to.



With regards to Ps. 82- Why make such specific congruences? -- To be thorough in an exegetical practice do you focus on a keyphrase or content?
In reading lately I have to concur that scholarship says that this text refers to dieties in the concepts of the Canaanites and even to a degree a monaltrus Isreal. This is an admitted concession on my part though I still have reservations as to a complete application of it in any instance. The term monaltrus itself implies such an interpretation. So I can agree with your definition and disagree with your implications. Yes a religious person can be persuaded to alter an opinion! It's never a smooth transition though.
I read through your blog links and see that you've addressed the subject of human condemnation for injustice to man. Yet you haven't connected the dots to divinity.



(1) It is a clear allusion to Deut 32:8-9, which is manifestly referring to members of the divine council; (2) it uses technical terminology that is only used in reference to the divine council (most clearly, the phrase "Council of El"); (3) it contrasts the ontological nature of the gods with the notion that they would be condemned to death; (4) in every subsequent allusion to the myth until the New Testament, the gods are understood as ontological deities and not humans; (5) there is no reason to interpret it as anything other than a reference to deities. I discuss this psalm in much more detail here.



But monotheism didn't exist before a specific and datable point, and the word "ba'al" did. Now, the word simply means "master," and was often used generically to refer to Yhwh, but we cannot appeal to monotheistic contexts centuries before they came into existence.

Welcome back Mr. Anderson! Unfortunately maklelan doesn't post here anymore. I'll give your post a good read through to see if there are some issues to discuss.

[Mr. Anderson]

Thats to bad. He was probably the most knowledable person who would post here on this subject. It's been many months since I posted in this thread. Mainly because his posts had shown me that I needed to research the subject more fully than to argue from ignorance. It takes me about a month to read a book like Hess's with my other obligations. I've gone through works of Day's, and Dever's as well.

The last 2 paragraphs in post #268 are statements that I didn't get time to respond to of maklelen's and not my own. Sorry about that, in my earliest posts here I informed you that my time is severly limited, and it still is. Any way I thought I should try to dig myself out of the hole I'd already dug for myself with maklelan before I attempted to address anything from more current posts.

[showmeproof]

Thats to bad. He was probably the most knowledable person who would post here on this subject. It's been many months since I posted in this thread. Mainly because his posts had shown me that I needed to research the subject more fully than to argue from ignorance. It takes me about a month to read a book like Hess's with my other obligations. I've gone through works of Day's, and Dever's as well.

The last 2 paragraphs in post #268 are statements that I didn't get time to respond to of maklelen's and not my own. Sorry about that, in my earliest posts here I informed you that my time is severly limited, and it still is. Any way I thought I should try to dig myself out of the hole I'd already dug for myself with maklelan before I attempted to address anything from more current posts.

Really interesting topic to study. I have not read anything from Dever. How was his book? I don't know if you saw it, but I had an email correspondance with Dr. Richard Hess and posted his reply in post #229. Dr. Ziony Zevit also weighed in on the same question.