Canaanite pantheon and Israel's Polytheistic roots

[showmeproof]

I know its been awhile since I've been on TWEB but I have been industrious with my time. Some of that includes reading more books on this subject.

God in Translation - Mark S. Smith
A Reassessment of the Biblical Elohim - Joel Burnett
Origins of the West Semitic Alphabet in Egyptian Scripts-Gordon J Hamilton

Wish List: Cuneiform in Canaan

I hope to include some of the info here in the near future.

[showmeproof]

Regarding my reference to Michael Heiser's Introduction to the Divine Council: This is an introduction addressing the issue that also incorporates much of the current scholarship...even where Heiser dissents he is informed. I was actually quite surprised to see Mark S. Smith also point to Heiser's page in God in Translation (pg 135 and 140) in regards to questioning whether El and Elyon are to be distinguished as two separate deities in Psalm 82 or not. Of the availability of sites on the internet regarding this information Heiser is the most versed in the complexities. Many other sites are prone to oversimplification.

[showmeproof]

First up: God in Translation: Deities in Cross Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World by Mark S. Smith.

A while back on page 16 I asked a question regarding the 'trickle down' of scholarly information down to the level of individuals (implicitly through the medium of a teacher/priest/rabbi). Dr. Richard Hess answered in correspondence, which was shared in post 229, highlighting the divide between historians and theologians and how he subsequently divides his classes at the Denver Seminary. In a later post (237) I shared a correspondence with Dr. Ziony Zevit who answered graciously to the same rather muddy question and highlighted the importance of living-theologies; that is the theologies are still subject to change. I really wish I had spent more time formulating the questions I asked these two scholars; such is life.

In God in Translation I read a book length answer by Mark S Smith to a more focused and nuanced question; How is the concept of divinity translated, and to what extent, across cultures both geographically and temporally? Smith clarifies between geographic/horizontal and temporal/vertical translation. While both are involved in any in-depth discussion, each can be looked at separately.

Smith's book is a response to Jan Assman's 'Mosaic distinction' which he (Assman) asserts led to the untranslatability of god. Smith lauds Assman for calling attention to the subject, but attempts to add nuance to when and where this monotheistic intolerance takes place by highlighting both forms of translatability in biblical texts. He focuses on the modus operandi for translatability during the Bronze, Iron, and Greco-Roman ages as carried out by scribes. Nuance is needed when addressing translatability between inter-empire discourse and politics Egypt/Hatti/Mesopotamia in the form of treaties and correspondances or between the empires and their vassals in the bronze, and nation-state politics in the Iron.

For a combination of horizontal and vertical translatability Smith looks at Deuteronomy 32:8. We have already discussed this poem here and as a quick review there are alternate readings to the ending of this verse 1) Sons of Israel (Masoretic, Samaritan Pentateuch, Targum, Pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta and Vulgate); 2) Sons of God (Dead Sea Scrolls and some Septuagint manuscripts; and 3) Angels of God (Most Septuagint manuscripts). Modern scholars think #2 is the original reading for a variety of reasons. This is a parade example of the horizontal translatability that initiated me to start this thread. Yahweh receives and inheritance of a nation and each of the other nations are given to other gods. The horizontal or borrowing is identified in the figure of Elyon (Most High). What is new to this discussion for me is 1 Samuel 26:18-29
"...Why does my lord pursue is servant? For what have I done? What guilt is on my hands? Now therefore let my lord the king hear the words of his servant. If it is the Lord (YHWH) who has stirred you up against me, may he accept an offering; but if it is mortals, may they be cursed before the Lord, for they have driven me out today from my share in the heritage (inheritance) of the Lord, saying, 'Go, serve other gods'.
The writer of this verse presupposes the circumstance in which each nation is given to a god as an inheritance.

There is more that I will discuss regarding this book, but all posts must end somewhere and I'm tired. One thing that I will add as interesting Smith draws a distinction between an ancient scribe and the modern scholar; "The ancient scribes attempted to generate a coherent worldview out of the multiple worldviews that they inherited in the texts that they transmitted; they were concerned with the issue of truth. In contrast, we modern critical biblical scholars cannot reconcile (much less, harmonize) our own religious and textual histories"

[showmeproof]

How does the Canaanite roots of Judaism affect the New Testament?
Some cases include Jesus, or the disciples quoting scripture (OT). One example is found in John 10:31-34. The Pharisees threaten to stone Jesus because he makes himself God. Jesus replies, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’”? The person who wrote this text, and perhaps Jesus, took this scripture to refer to something other than its original intended meaning. To make his point he refers to Psalm 82. “God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment…I say, ‘You are gods, children of the Most High (Elyon) all of you..” This backdrop is not just people to whom the word of god has come to like the explanation given in John, but rather as Psalm 82 points out the divine council. This is one example.
Other examples include the eschatological battles between Yahweh and Leviathon the seven headed dragon. This beast is firmly rooted in Canaanite literature. I realize that people take this metaphorical, but the origin of the imagery is important. At the time of the writing, Canaanite religion, especially Baal had ceased being a part of Israel’s religious repertoire. Judaism had been monotheistic for quite awhile.

Another example revolves around the idea of resurrection of the dead. The main verses used to support a resurrection in the OT are Isaiah 26:19, Ezekiel 37, and Daniel 12:2. Isaiah 26-27 are dependent upon/influenced by Hosea 13-14. Between these two sets there is a series of 8 parallels repeated in order. 1) Israel knows no lords/gods but Yahweh (Hos. 13:4/Isaiah 26:13); 2) Imagery of birthpangs, but child refuses to be born. (Hos. 13:13/Isaiah 26:17-18); 3) Deliverance from Sheol. (Hos. 13:14/Isaiah 26:19); 4) Imagery of the destructive east wind (Babylonian exile). (Hos. 13:15/Isaiah 27:8); 5) Imagery of life-giving dew (Hos. 14:6/Isaiah 26:19*this one is not in order); 6) Israel blossoming like a vineyard (Hos. 14:6-8/Isaiah 27:2-6); 7) Condemnation of idolatry, specifically Asherim (Hos. 14:9/Isaiah 27:9); and 8) The importance of discernment and judgment for the wicked (Hos. 14:10/Isaiah 27:11). Hosea is clearly riffing off of Canaanite, specifically Baal, religion.
While both Isaiah 26 and Ezekiel 37 are referring to the national restoration (Israel will be resurrected), Daniel is clearly referring to individual resurrection. Daniel 12, John Day argues, is dependent upon multiple verses in Isaiah. The most important for our understanding is Daniel 12:2/Isaiah 26:19. Both verses include the imagery of those in the dust being awakened.
Everywhere you read shades, it is rephaim who are known also known as the dead in Canaanite literature.
Baal was of course a dying and rising god associated with fertility and grain. In referring to resurrection Paul says, “Fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And as for what you sow, you do not sow the body that is to be, but a seed, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain (1 Corinthians 15:36-37). In the book of John Jesus states, “Very truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.” Here I am not arguing that they are referring to Baal, but rather that the imagery is so ingrained into the Ancient Near Eastern cultures that it comes forth demythologized from its original setting.

I'll post more references as I come across them.

[shunyadragon]

How does the Canaanite roots of Judaism affect the New Testament?
Some cases include Jesus, or the disciples quoting scripture (OT). One example is found in John 10:31-34. The Pharisees threaten to stone Jesus because he makes himself God. Jesus replies, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’”? The person who wrote this text, and perhaps Jesus, took this scripture to refer to something other than its original intended meaning. To make his point he refers to Psalm 82. “God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment…I say, ‘You are gods, children of the Most High (Elyon) all of you..” This backdrop is not just people to whom the word of god has come to like the explanation given in John, but rather as Psalm 82 points out the divine council. This is one example.
Other examples include the eschatological battles between Yahweh and Leviathon the seven headed dragon. This beast is firmly rooted in Canaanite literature. I realize that people take this metaphorical, but the origin of the imagery is important. At the time of the writing, Canaanite religion, especially Baal had ceased being a part of Israel’s religious repertoire. Judaism had been monotheistic for quite awhile.

Another example revolves around the idea of resurrection of the dead. The main verses used to support a resurrection in the OT are Isaiah 26:19, Ezekiel 37, and Daniel 12:2. Isaiah 26-27 are dependent upon/influenced by Hosea 13-14. Between these two sets there is a series of 8 parallels repeated in order. 1) Israel knows no lords/gods but Yahweh (Hos. 13:4/Isaiah 26:13); 2) Imagery of birthpangs, but child refuses to be born. (Hos. 13:13/Isaiah 26:17-18); 3) Deliverance from Sheol. (Hos. 13:14/Isaiah 26:19); 4) Imagery of the destructive east wind (Babylonian exile). (Hos. 13:15/Isaiah 27:8); 5) Imagery of life-giving dew (Hos. 14:6/Isaiah 26:19*this one is not in order); 6) Israel blossoming like a vineyard (Hos. 14:6-8/Isaiah 27:2-6); 7) Condemnation of idolatry, specifically Asherim (Hos. 14:9/Isaiah 27:9); and 8) The importance of discernment and judgment for the wicked (Hos. 14:10/Isaiah 27:11). Hosea is clearly riffing off of Canaanite, specifically Baal, religion.
While both Isaiah 26 and Ezekiel 37 are referring to the national restoration (Israel will be resurrected), Daniel is clearly referring to individual resurrection. Daniel 12, John Day argues, is dependent upon multiple verses in Isaiah. The most important for our understanding is Daniel 12:2/Isaiah 26:19. Both verses include the imagery of those in the dust being awakened.
Everywhere you read shades, it is rephaim who are known also known as the dead in Canaanite literature.
Baal was of course a dying and rising god associated with fertility and grain. In referring to resurrection Paul says, “Fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And as for what you sow, you do not sow the body that is to be, but a seed, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain (1 Corinthians 15:36-37). In the book of John Jesus states, “Very truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.” Here I am not arguing that they are referring to Baal, but rather that the imagery is so ingrained into the Ancient Near Eastern cultures that it comes forth demythologized from its original setting.

I'll post more references as I come across them.

I am still here, reading and getting the reference you cite that I have not read through inter-library loan. I have been developing a compilation file on my computer covering this and the different sides of the discussion.

[showmeproof]

Mid February I'll be receiving Dennis Pardee's The Origin of West Semitic Literature and then once I get through that I'll try to incorporate Gordon Hamilton's The Origins of the West Semitic Alphabet in Egyptian Script.

[showmeproof]

Barnes and Noble couldn't fulfill my order for Dennis Pardee's new book...I guess I'll try Amazon.

In the meantime, something I just came across and found hysterical is Michael Heiser's book Facade. If you recall, Heiser has been mentioned in this thread as having one of the better web resources on the Canaanite material, specifically regarding the Divine Council. Facade is a sci fy novel where an Ancient Semitic historian is the hero (presumably his alter-ego?). I may check it out for giggles.

To be clear I do not suggest Heiser as an authority in the field. Trained, but fairly obscure. Mark S. Smith refers to him a few times in God in Translation (specifically his website).

[showmeproof]

Speaking of Mark S. Smith,

I came across an email exchange I had with him regarding KTU 1.1 IV 14 sm . bny. yw . ilt I discussed his conclusion earlier, but I want to post my question to him and his answer.

ME: Professor Smith,
I have read your scholarly opinion that yw in this text does not refer to YHWH. The primary reason as I understand it, is that the text in question is clearly in reference to Yam.
My question: Even if the text is in reference to Yam and this particular context is to demonstrate that Yam's name is NOT yw, why was such a clarification needed? Doesn't the written clarification signify some importance to both yw (whomever this may refer to) and ym?

Mark S Smith:

Hi,

I clarified the point because it had been proposed by a scholar or two to identify yw as Yahweh and as a title of yamm. The former identification is unsupported and what it is remains unknown. (I am not the only one who holds this view.) The purpose of calling ym yw remains unknown.

best,
mark smith

The scholar he was specifically referring to was J.C. deMoore (not sure about the 'or two' scholar). So the contention was yw being used as a title of ym. The usage remains unclear, i.e. debatable, but still includes yw.

[showmeproof]

How does the Ugaritic material influence the New Testament? To the core. When Jesus stands before the Sanhedrin (Matthew 26:64) he answers Caiaphas' query by quoting Daniel 7.

First Matt 26:64 - "You have said so. But I tell you, From now on you will see the son of man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of Heaven."
(c.f. Daniel 7:1-14)
"I, Daniel, saw in my vision by night the four winds of heaven stirring up the great sea...As I watched, thrones were set in place, and an Ancient One took his throne, his clothing was white as snow and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, and its wheels were burning fire. A stream of fire issued and flowed out from his presence. A thousand thousands served him, and ten thousand time ten thousand stood attending him. The court sat in judgement...As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being (son of man) coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him.To him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed."

The bolded parts in the Daniel text have precedence and in the same connection in Canaanite literature. First, some caution; in this rather late text, The Ancient One is most certainly Yahweh and the one like a son of man (depending upon Jewish/Christian theology can be Michael, Gabriel, or Jesus). Here I will not argue that Jews (from the time of the writing) or Christians adhere to the founding myth from which this ultimately derives, but rather recycled mythic material with a new theological spin; Jesus inadvertently tied himself to Baal as we shall see below .

Alright, now to present the precedence. In UgariticTexts El is called the Father of Years (i.e. Ancient); The Hebrew used in Daniel is 'attiq yomin/yomayya' and it is traditionally rendered Ancient of Days, but more literally means 'advanced in days'. El sits in judgement in the Council of Gods and his grey and hoary beard instructs him (wise). He grants dominion and kingship to Baal the Rider of the Clouds (alternately Rider on the Clouds, Who mounts the Clouds etc.) who defeats Yam (the Sea).

In both cases the Ancient of Days and the Rider of the Clouds are distinguished and it is from the power of the former that the latter is granted dominion. Jesus chose to self-identify as the one like a son of man coming on the clouds of heaven. Elsewhere within the Hebrew Bible Yahweh is depicted as the Rider of the Clouds in battle (c.f. Deuteronomy 33:26, Isaiah 19:1, Psalms 68:33; 104:3). Yahweh and Baal were conflated as Storm Gods (c.f. The Elijah Mount Carmel showdown) and both were under the Most High El Elyon (c.f. Deuteronomy 32:7-9).

So in the founding myth El is the high god and Baal is granted overlordship upon the gods and men through his blessing. The unique thing in Judaism is that Yahweh and El are positively equated (c.f. Exodus 6:2-3 and a bunch of other texts), but he is juxtaposed to Baal, although with many of the same attributes.

[Otter]

The unique thing in Judaism is that Yahweh and El are positively equated (c.f. Exodus 6:2-3 and a bunch of other texts), but he is juxtaposed to Baal, although with many of the same attributes.

Just curious: do you reject the idea that a "Man of El" is sometimes at variance with the centralized worship of YHWH in, for instance, 1 Kings 13?

I've no brief for that division, but it's seemed to me a good bet that the story encodes an uneasy equivalence between El and YHWH.

[showmeproof]

Just curious: do you reject the idea that a "Man of El" is sometimes at variance with the centralized worship of YHWH in, for instance, 1 Kings 13?

I've no brief for that division, but it's seemed to me a good bet that the story encodes an uneasy equivalence between El and YHWH.

As 1 Kings 13 points out, and later 2 Kings 23, it is Josiah who centralizes the worship of Yahweh in Jerusalem. Not before. The place where this oracle occurs is non-coincidentally Bethel (House of El).

Here I argue that the man of El is merely the man of God (whom is evidently Yahweh in this text). The bible readily makes the equivalence between Yahweh and EL with no reservations (c.f. Genesis 14). Though there are many reasons to argue that the preference for the name El has the older and northern tradition and Yahweh the later and southern favorite name.

[showmeproof]

Although proto-Canaanite may date back to the 19th century B.C.E., so far as we are aware, it was not used to write compositions until much later; The Khirbet Queiyafa being a popular 'new' exemplar dating to around 1000 B.C.E. One cannot exclude the possibility of texts as new archaeological data may become available, but the early proto-canaanite examples are anything but the product of scribes. This makes sense due to the location of the inscriptions (caves and mines). A very good overview, with pictures,can be found on the internet. At the very bottom of the page there is even a good overview of Ugaritic. Though most of my forthcoming information will be derived from The Origins of the West Semitic Alphabet in Egyptian Scripts by Gordon Hamilton, The Ugaritic Texts and the Origins of West-Semitic Literary Composition by Dennis Pardee, and some information from The Religions of Ancient Israel by Ziony Zevit might be referenced.

When one becomes acquainted with the mythological material from Ugarit and its later echoes in the Hebrew Bible some very pertinent questions arise. One of the most obvious differences that comes to mind are the alphabetic scripts. Both Ugaritic and Hebrew are close West Semitic languages with many cognates, but Ugaritic is a cuneiform alphabet (13th century B.C.E.) formed by pressing a stylus onto wet clay and then firing the tablet, while Hebrew's pre-cursor is proto-Canaanite which is ultimately derived from a combination of Hieroglyphs and Hieratic forms and is either inscribed on rock surface or with ink on pottery (G. Hamilton 2006).

Thus we have two Origins that are interesting, even stripped of their theological connections; 1) the origin of the alphabet (Proto-Canaanite from Hieroglyps/Hierartic) and 2) Alphabetic Literary Composition (Ugaritic from Cuneiform). Both were products of Canaanites, insofar as Ugarit's influence, but more precisely Semites.

I'll try to break up posts so as not to put up block of text. What interests you about the origin of the alphabet or alphabetic literary composition?

[shunyadragon]

What interests you about the origin of the alphabet or alphabetic literary composition?

Nothing in particular, just the nature of evolved language and text, which you have given some helpful information and sources. I am more familiar with Chinese, because I lived there 8 to 9 years and studied the evolution of that language in particular, which is different, because it never evolved into an alphabet language.

[showmeproof]

Nothing in particular, just the nature of evolved language and text, which you have given some helpful information and sources. I am more familiar with Chinese, because I lived there 8 to 9 years and studied the evolution of that language in particular, which is different, because it never evolved into an alphabet language.

Sadly, I've not read much about Eastern texts or religions. I've been focusing on the traditions more closely related to my personal sphere. For a larger picture could you give a quick overview on the eastern traditions and texts dating from the mid to late bronze age and the transition into the iron age ~1600 B.C.E. to 900 B.C.E.? That time period would be pertinent to this thread in a larger frame of reference.

[showmeproof]

Some interesting thoughts arise when understanding the two drastically different forms of alphabets (cuneiform vs proto-Canaanite derived from hieroglyps and hieratic). "...the primary function of the new writing system was to represent a West Semitic language [local to Ugarit]...Because of general similarities of form, it is also often admitted that the cuneiform script is an adaptation of the linear script, that is, of the West Semitic alphabet as represented by lines, not by incised wedges...This alphabet was in all likelihood inspired by Egyptian."

Ugaritic was adapted from Proto-Canaanite. Though trained scribes were used in the former, whereas the later is much more primitive. Pardee links the Ugarians to the Amorites calling attention to the trade and correspondence between Ugarit and Mari in the eighteenth century (texts from Mari, as Ugaritic is attested only in the 13th century) and the thousands of Akkadian documents found at Ugarit. Lastly he notes the Amorite origin of the names of the Ugaritic kings.

So we have important linguistic ties to Canaanite, but cultural ties to Amorite. Pardee suggest that both Ugaritic and Canaanite are quite possibly, "descended from closely related dialects of western Amorite."

Pardee does not make the following connection, but I find it interesting when ruminating on The Amorite Connection and the mythology found in the Levant: First the "veritable garden of Eden" (Malamaat) depicted in Zimri-Lim's palace known as the Investiture and also the Amorite names found in Mari containing Yahwi-ki-Addu, Yawi-Dagan, Yahwi-ki-An. Plus the Amorite tribe Ben Yamina who were identified as Apiru. One cannot be conclusive in connecting all of these data, but it remains highly suggestive that both the mythology and the people (Israel included) originate here. According to the Bible , The kings of Israel were from the tribe of Benjamin (cf. Mari tribe Ben Yamina), Abraham is said to be from Ur, and the Garden of Eden played a large role in the theology and architecture (cf. the decorations in the Temple).