Canaanite pantheon and Israel's Polytheistic roots

[showmeproof]

You haven't proven the bolded conclusion. I've already made it clear that I disagree with your reading of Deuteronomy 32. Yes, I think it makes more sense to say that God (EL) wanted Jacob's descendants as his chosen people. That's pretty well backed by much of what transpires in the OT. Of course, any other interpretation is simply 'covering up' done by priests, etc.

Yes you disagree with it, but your disagreement neither adds nor takes away the fact that Yahweh was a minimal son of EL and later supplanted him in the Israelite tradition. Google Ugaritic texts and read about the Canaanite pantheon. Read the bible which indicates him as sitting on the council of el, as being a son of el, as originally revealing himself as El Shaddai. These texts do not make sense until you look at the religious background of the Levant.

I don't have links to the books, but it is handled decently by:
http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(deity)
http://courses.cit.cornell.edu/nes27...al_Themes.html

Why do we find inscriptions as late as 850-750 B.C.E at Kuntillet 'Arjud references to Asherah belonging to Yahweh...when in fact Asherah was a consort of EL
"I bless you through Yahweh of Samaria, and through his Asherah!"
OR as in the inscriptions at 'El Qom
"Uriyahu, the king has written this. Blessed be Uriyahu through Yahweh, and his enemies have been conquered through Yahweh's Asherah"
OR from Ugarit itself
"The name of the son of God, Yahweh"



Disagree, but please do so on historicity claims. Where do you have Yahweh being prior to EL? If you look at the texts available EL preceded Yahweh, and Yahweh took on some aspects of EL and some of Baal. Tell me why you disagree, not that you do.

[showmeproof]

Maybe it will help you to read Deuteronomy 32:7-9 in the NSRV translation.

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.
8When the Most High* apportioned the nations,
when he divided humankind,
he fixed the boundaries of the peoples
according to the number of the gods;*
9the Lord’s own portion was his people,
Jacob his allotted share.

Yahweh is clearly one of many gods in this, and he is alloted his inheritance by the Most High (El Eloyn)

[Tassman]

And the Book of Enoch? Or Lucifer?




You haven't proven the bolded conclusion. I've already made it clear that I disagree with your reading of Deuteronomy 32. Yes, I think it makes more sense to say that God (EL) wanted Jacob's descendants as his chosen people. That's pretty well backed by much of what transpires in the OT. Of course, any other interpretation is simply 'covering up' done by priests, etc.

The book of Enoch is non-canonical and considered pseudepigraphical by virtually al scholars. Why not include the Ascension of Isaiah while you are at it and Isaiah’s mystical journey through the seven heavens? There is no ending to what you can prove by a selective use of pseudepigraphical writings and straight-out forgeries. As for Lucifer, given that the suffix EL denotes loyalty to the Creator god EL, I presume that it was no longer suitable for a fallen angel.

Re your point to SMP, it is quite evident that there are remnants of several traditions combined rather messily in the Torah as shown in the Wellhausen hypothesis which is still generally held as the best explanation for the differences in the Torah…inerrancists excepted of course.

[Carrikature]

The book of Enoch is non-canonical and considered pseudepigraphical by virtually al scholars. Why not include the Ascension of Isaiah while you are at it and Isaiah’s mystical journey through the seven heavens? There is no ending to what you can prove by a selective use of pseudepigraphical writings and straight-out forgeries. As for Lucifer, given that the suffix EL denotes loyalty to the Creator god EL, I presume that it was no longer suitable for a fallen angel.

Re your point to SMP, it is quite evident that there are remnants of several traditions combined rather messily in the Torah as shown in the Wellhausen hypothesis which is still generally held as the best explanation for the differences in the Torah…inerrancists excepted of course.

Dude, you brought up apocrypha first, not I. Lambasting me for using them as a counter-example is a bit hypocritical.

I've never once claimed that remnants of other traditions never show up in the OT. I have said that the claim "religion has evolved because of similarities in Canaanite pantheon and the OT" has yet to be sufficiently supported.

[Carrikature]

Yes you disagree with it, but your disagreement neither adds nor takes away the fact that Yahweh was a minimal son of EL and later supplanted him in the Israelite tradition. Google Ugaritic texts and read about the Canaanite pantheon. Read the bible which indicates him as sitting on the council of el, as being a son of el, as originally revealing himself as El Shaddai. These texts do not make sense until you look at the religious background of the Levant.

I don't have links to the books, but it is handled decently by:
http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(deity)
http://courses.cit.cornell.edu/nes27...al_Themes.html

Why do we find inscriptions as late as 850-750 B.C.E at Kuntillet 'Arjud references to Asherah belonging to Yahweh...when in fact Asherah was a consort of EL
"I bless you through Yahweh of Samaria, and through his Asherah!"
OR as in the inscriptions at 'El Qom
"Uriyahu, the king has written this. Blessed be Uriyahu through Yahweh, and his enemies have been conquered through Yahweh's Asherah"
OR from Ugarit itself
"The name of the son of God, Yahweh"



Disagree, but please do so on historicity claims. Where do you have Yahweh being prior to EL? If you look at the texts available EL preceded Yahweh, and Yahweh took on some aspects of EL and some of Baal. Tell me why you disagree, not that you do.

The fact that Yahweh was a minimal son in the Canaanite pantheon doesn't automatically make him so. He does not show up prior to EL in the Israelite tradition, but that's to be expected (as we already discussed the Exodus passage).

You haven't seemd to figure out yet that I'm not questioning the presence of the Canaanite pantheon in some aspects of early Israelite history. However, there are sufficient people existing prior to that time who already have a concept of God as EL. It's already explained that EL did not reveal himself as Yahweh. It does not surprise me to see Isrealites as henotheistic, but that doesn't mean they got it all right. Quite obviously, they didn't.

Part of the problem is that you have yet to support your extrapolation that the deuterocanonical texts were altered in the Josiah/Hezekiah time frames. Support that first and then we can start to get somewhere. Until then, you're working from a starting point that neatly erases any opposition to your interpretation (which renders further discussion ultimately pointless).

[showmeproof]

Dude, you brought up apocrypha first, not I. Lambasting me for using them as a counter-example is a bit hypocritical.

I've never once claimed that remnants of other traditions never show up in the OT. I have said that the claim "religion has evolved because of similarities in Canaanite pantheon and the OT" has yet to be sufficiently supported.

Surely the cultural evolution of the Israelite religion from the Levant pantheon has been supported.

Obviously you are in disagreement, so I will ask you directly; Did the Israelite religion go through cultural evolution, or was the initial theology that of monotheism and then perverted into polytheism? Or what is it that you are arguing for, as you seem to want to argue against the cultural evolution of Israelite religion? What do you think is the correct historical account, and why?

[technomage]

Surely the cultural evolution of the Israelite religion from the Levant pantheon has been supported.

Supported--yes. Accepted? No. Many Christians and Jews still accept the Exodus account for the origin of the Hebrews, even though all available evidence squarely points to the Hebrews being a branch of the Canaanites.

[showmeproof]

The fact that Yahweh was a minimal son in the Canaanite pantheon doesn't automatically make him so. He does not show up prior to EL in the Israelite tradition, but that's to be expected (as we already discussed the Exodus passage).

You haven't seemd to figure out yet that I'm not questioning the presence of the Canaanite pantheon in some aspects of early Israelite history. However, there are sufficient people existing prior to that time who already have a concept of God as EL. It's already explained that EL did not reveal himself as Yahweh. It does not surprise me to see Isrealites as henotheistic, but that doesn't mean they got it all right. Quite obviously, they didn't.

Part of the problem is that you have yet to support your extrapolation that the deuterocanonical texts were altered in the Josiah/Hezekiah time frames. Support that first and then we can start to get somewhere. Until then, you're working from a starting point that neatly erases any opposition to your interpretation (which renders further discussion ultimately pointless).

Sure. Do you want a list of sources that ties the Deuterocanonical texts to Josiah? That is in abundance and it is not only the consensus of most OT scholars, but it is even dealt with in 2 Kings in the bible itself. So I can provide lists if you want, but the literature is extensive. What would it take to convince you I'm not blowing smoke? Have you even studied the Deuterocanonical history? I'm not trying to be mean here, I am just wondering how you would have walked away from a study of the Deuterocanonical history being anything other than from Josiah's time. Do remember Josiah's politcal environment and his goal to centralize Yahweh worship in Jerusalem as part of this environment. Actually it could be argued either way 1) that the Yahweh centralization occurred as a by product of his political goals, or 2) That his political goals were shaped by his theological bent towards Yahweh. But it is during Hezikiah's regin that the stage is starting to build and in Josiah's reign that much is done towards the centralization of the Yahweh alone movement. So I can provide plenty of sources if you'd like but if you request it directly I don't want to be accused of bombarding you with sources as a smokescreen.

[showmeproof]

I would like to clarify that the final edits of Deuteronomy are made by the 'Deuteronomistic Historian' denoted as DtrH after the events that led to the Babylonian exile.

[Tassman]

Dude, you brought up apocrypha first, not I. Lambasting me for using them as a counter-example is a bit hypocritical.

You are confusing the Deuterocanonical Books of the bible known as the Apocrypha, which is what I was referring to, with the Pseudepigraphical literature which does not form part of the bible.

I've never once claimed that remnants of other traditions never show up in the OT. I have said that the claim "religion has evolved because of similarities in Canaanite pantheon and the OT" has yet to be sufficiently supported.

Well it has been supported, unlike the traditional notion of the Hebrews emerging from Egypt, as SMP has made clear.

[MegaHertz]

And the Book of Enoch? Or Lucifer?

I would think that a producer/director could use the book of Enoch as a script for a digital copy in I-Max format and not have to pay royalties to anybody. I am not sure if that would apply to the Devil's book (I was actually surprised to learn that one even existed). Codex Gigas - Devil's Bible - The largest medieval manuscript in the world exhibited in Prague

[technomage]

Lucifer?

"Lucifer" is Latin--the original Hebrew was Helel, which resembles the "-el" ending in English, but does not actually share the same root. However, in the actual text, Helel is not Satan--it is an appelation of one of the (earthly) kings of Babylon.

[Mr. Anderson]

Surely the cultural evolution of the Israelite religion from the Levant pantheon has been supported.

Obviously you are in disagreement, so I will ask you directly; Did the Israelite religion go through cultural evolution, or was the initial theology that of monotheism and then perverted into polytheism? Or what is it that you are arguing for, as you seem to want to argue against the cultural evolution of Israelite religion? What do you think is the correct historical account, and why?

Every belief system goes through cultural evolution. What has been supported is that worship of the Levant Pantheon existed at the same time as the development of the nation of Isreal, that many from their community became involved in this worship. And that it became as closely attached to Isreals monothiesm as Ghnosticism did to early Christianity. In either case both ran side by side, and the assertion can be made that monothiesm or orthodox Christianity was still practiced in it's pure form during the same time frames. What can't be supported is that Isreal was entirely monothiestic or entirely polythiestic.
Many of the questions you have asked of Biblical supporters were answered in two of the sites you linked that I could getr to. The wiki one just brought up another search. Right along with the inscriptions you mentioned as well as in various descriptions of the panthiestic dieties. I'm suprised you asked questions about things that had already been answered in items you have linked. My answers would be very similar to theirs yet since theirs is in greater detail they would have a better chance of getting through to you. But, you did miss them in your first reading. Start with the word assimilation and try to not veiw it as a stealing of Canainite dieties, but as a means of eradicating them from the mindsets of misled Isrealites into a monothiestic mindset. A correction through incorporation like Paul on Mars Hill.

[technomage]

Yahweh was a minimal son of EL in the pantheon prior to Israelites making Yahweh their national god this is a matter of historical accuracy

You haven't proven the bolded conclusion.

Try the following sources:
* Robert K. Gnuse, No Other Gods:Emergent Monotheism in Israel, Sheffield Academic Press (1997) pp. 75-77
* Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts, Oxford University Press (2001) pp. 149-163
* Othmar Keel, Christoph Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel, Fortress Press (1998) pp. 1-6
* Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts, Oxford University Press (2001) pp. 1-14

The assertion that Yahweh was originally a Canaanite God, son of the Canaanite God El, is completely uncontroversial as far as the historical and archaeological evidence.

[showmeproof]

Every belief system goes through cultural evolution. What has been supported is that worship of the Levant Pantheon existed at the same time as the development of the nation of Isreal, that many from their community became involved in this worship. And that it became as closely attached to Isreals monothiesm as Ghnosticism did to early Christianity. In either case both ran side by side, and the assertion can be made that monothiesm or orthodox Christianity was still practiced in it's pure form during the same time frames. What can't be supported is that Isreal was entirely monothiestic or entirely polythiestic.
Many of the questions you have asked of Biblical supporters were answered in two of the sites you linked that I could getr to. The wiki one just brought up another search. Right along with the inscriptions you mentioned as well as in various descriptions of the panthiestic dieties. I'm suprised you asked questions about things that had already been answered in items you have linked. My answers would be very similar to theirs yet since theirs is in greater detail they would have a better chance of getting through to you. But, you did miss them in your first reading. Start with the word assimilation and try to not veiw it as a stealing of Canainite dieties, but as a means of eradicating them from the mindsets of misled Isrealites into a monothiestic mindset. A correction through incorporation like Paul on Mars Hill.

The whole point is that all religions not only go through cultural evolution but are products of cultural evolution itself. Another point being, and there is no dodging this, is that the monotheistic god celebrated by later Jewish history, was first a foremost a minor contributor to a pantheon of the Levant whom over time took on more and more aspects of both El and Baal. It isn't a matter of stealing deities it is a matter of assimilation and borrowing traditions from neighbors. However, the notion that Israel was first monotheistic is historically inaccurate. Israel does not become truly monotheistic until after the exile, though pushes towards it from both Hezikiah and Josiah occurred. Furthermore the questions I asked were not for my gain in knowledge, but rather to challenge people to look for themselves...to use their minds. The claim that there is one god whom is all good and is personified in Yahweh the father, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus the son required a great great deal of cultural evolution (not divine revelation) one which started as Yahweh as a minor deity.

Explain to me how it is more plausible that Yahweh is the one and true God and how he happened to need the attributes of both El and Baal to get there. Why is this more plausible than Poseidon?