Canaanite pantheon and Israel's Polytheistic roots

[showmeproof]

"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.

Heylel...translated as morning star which is Venus.

[Mr. Anderson]

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?

God possessed these attributes already and had no need to aquire them. That in an attempt to convey to people who were familiar with polythiesm He used these things to ascribe credit to Himself alone is part of the process of bringing said people to a realization of Himself. Had the language of the peoples used the names of differing gods the same scenario would have occured.

What you call cultural evolution I call being led by the hand of divinity. What you claim as a minor diety being used through cultural evolution to achieve an Almighty God status I call a process of enlightenment of an Almighty God using the comprehendable material at hand to bring a people bent on polythiesm to Himself. That conjectured history would come to your conclusions is only the end result of a culturally evolved bias against any form of supernaturalism. When conjecture is the only means of making assertions dodging is the easiest thing available. When battling against conjecture you dont have to prove anything, just give more conjecture in return.


At the time of the last redactions from exile, if we were to see God as you have proposed, stuck in the middle of an unfinished evolution into Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, before the arrival of the NT. Then I would have no reason to produce opposing historical conjecture. Your assertions would be self evident. But I see every detail of God's current supposed culturally evolved stage contained within the OT. I can only assume that since it is possible to see the end from the middle, and even from that which survived from the beginning, that I dont need to concern myself as seriously as you suppose with redactions covering what was recieved from the earliest times with a glossed over monothiesm.

[Adam]

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.

But there is also lots of evidence that the Exodus actually occurred--though unfortunately some of the best accounts conflict with one another. David Rohl's Pharaohs and Kings uses an altered time-frame and Lennart Moller's The Exodus Case uses the Gulf of Aqaba in place of either the Red Sea or the Reed Sea.
On the other hand, I am tender-minded enough to prefer to believe that Elijah's slaughter of the priests of Baal was as the protagonist of Asherah, not Yahweh.
I'm a leading Christian apologist here on TW, but my case is built not on the Bible's Church, but on the Church's Bible. All the liturgical denominations highlight the gospels (by reading every Sunday and by standing while listening) and (until recently) largely disregarding the Old Testament. My thesis is that the Bible can be fit into scientific and historical facts when we focus on what the Church actually has historically read from the OT.

[technomage]

God possessed these attributes already and had no need to aquire them.

That is a theological perspective ... and as such, is certainly understandable, within a theological context. SMP's account is the historical account, and as the discussion deals with history (rather than theology), is the more relevant account.

[MegaHertz]

But there is also lots of evidence that the Exodus actually occurred--though unfortunately some of the best accounts conflict with one another. David Rohl's Pharaohs and Kings uses an altered time-frame and Lennart Moller's The Exodus Case uses the Gulf of Aqaba in place of either the Red Sea or the Reed Sea.

The body of water between Migdol and Baal-zephon would bethe Bittern Lake, a strong east wind would create dry land at the narrows between the Great and Little lakes

Ex:14:2:
Speak unto the children of Israel,
that they turn and encamp before Pi-hahiroth,
between Migdol and the sea,
over against Baal-zephon:
before it shall ye encamp by the sea.

http://bibleatlas.org/full/baal-zephon.htm

[showmeproof]

But there is also lots of evidence that the Exodus actually occurred--though unfortunately some of the best accounts conflict with one another. David Rohl's Pharaohs and Kings uses an altered time-frame and Lennart Moller's The Exodus Case uses the Gulf of Aqaba in place of either the Red Sea or the Reed Sea.
On the other hand, I am tender-minded enough to prefer to believe that Elijah's slaughter of the priests of Baal was as the protagonist of Asherah, not Yahweh.
I'm a leading Christian apologist here on TW, but my case is built not on the Bible's Church, but on the Church's Bible. All the liturgical denominations highlight the gospels (by reading every Sunday and by standing while listening) and (until recently) largely disregarding the Old Testament. My thesis is that the Bible can be fit into scientific and historical facts when we focus on what the Church actually has historically read from the OT.

Adam, I suggest you research the sources. Whom is David Rohl, whom is Lennart Moeller? Quick google searches will reveal much about their 'research'.

[showmeproof]

I would also like to add Emanuel Tov to my list of sources. For those whom are unaware Tov is the preeminent textual critic of the Hebrew bible.

From page 363 of Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible
"The philological approach is instigated by the recognition that our knowledge of the state of affairs is liable to distort a balanced approach to textual problems, one should probably first turn to cognate languages before suggesting emendations."

Among the cognate languages regarding the Hebrew Bible, both Ugaritic and Phoenician are of great import in this textual approach.

One of the examples that Tov uses to illustrate this point is Psalm 29:1

Traditionally from the Masoretic text this is translated "Ascribe to the Lord, O divine beings (literally O sons of gods), ascribe to the Lord, glory and strength."

With the textual approach utilizing Ugaritic it is now understood as
sons of El and he then groups this with Ps 89:7 and Deuteronomy 32:8

That should clear up a bit on 'my reading' of Deuteronomy 32:8 for those who were challenging it.

Tov's book is an interesting reference to have, but very pricey.

[showmeproof]

Sorry that was slightly misquoted. Too late to edit.

Correct quote:

"The philological approach is instigated by the recognition that our knowledge of the ancient Hebrew language is very meager. Because this state of affairs is liable to distort a balanced approach to textual problems, one should probably first turn to cognate languages before suggesting emendations."

My eyes are a bit tired. Kind of ironic when quoting a book on textual criticism : )

[technomage]

My eyes are a bit tired.

Call it scribal fatigue--that sounds classier.

[Tassman]

But there is also lots of evidence that the Exodus actually occurred--though unfortunately some of the best accounts conflict with one another. David Rohl's Pharaohs and Kings uses an altered time-frame and Lennart Moller's The Exodus Case uses the Gulf of Aqaba in place of either the Red Sea or the Reed Sea.
On the other hand, I am tender-minded enough to prefer to believe that Elijah's slaughter of the priests of Baal was as the protagonist of Asherah, not Yahweh.
I'm a leading Christian apologist here on TW, but my case is built not on the Bible's Church, but on the Church's Bible. All the liturgical denominations highlight the gospels (by reading every Sunday and by standing while listening) and (until recently) largely disregarding the Old Testament. My thesis is that the Bible can be fit into scientific and historical facts when we focus on what the Church actually has historically read from the OT.

Adam, are you aware that Lennart Moller's work is based on that of amateur archaeologist Ron Wyatt who is recognised, even by that bastion of literalism AiG, to be an out-and-out fraud? And that David Rohl's work is fanciful in the extreme claiming to have located the Garden of Eden and the Tower of Babal and several other OT places of interest? And that most archaeologists and ancient historians are not at all convinced by Rohl's findings or by his radical redatings and this includes Professor Kenneth Kitchen, one of the world's leading experts on Biblical History. The fact remains that there is no evidence of the use of Israelite slaves in Egypt or of the Exodus outside of the biblical account.

[showmeproof]

Not too far back there was a thread Books on the Exodus which dealt with both Rohl and Moeller. It also showed that there is very very little to go on, and as such there is very little written about it (from a non theological prospective).

[Agnostotheist]

Adam, are you aware that Lennart Moller's work is based on that of amateur archaeologist Ron Wyatt who is recognised, even by that bastion of literalism AiG, to be an out-and-out fraud? And that David Rohl's work is fanciful in the extreme claiming to have located the Garden of Eden and the Tower of Babal and several other OT places of interest? And that most archaeologists and ancient historians are not at all convinced by Rohl's findings or by his radical redatings and this includes Professor Kenneth Kitchen, one of the world's leading experts on Biblical History. The fact remains that there is no evidence of the use of Israelite slaves in Egypt or of the Exodus outside of the biblical account.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. Kitchen is a renowned and very respectable Egyptologist, but his forays into biblical studies have not met with positive responses at all.

[Carrikature]

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.

I wouldn't accuse you of creating a smokescreen.

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.

Thanks.

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?

Don't think I ever claimed that Israel wasn't polytheistic originally.


You don't need to provide me more information. I'll be off to do more studying on my own.

[Agnostotheist]

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.

I believe the word that you are looking for is "Deuteronomic" or "Deuteronomistic". The first has to do specifically with the ideas and concepts within the Book of Deuteronomy, as well as theories regarding its origin, development and impact on Old Testament literature and beyond. The second pertains to the "Deuteronomistic history"—that is the running narrative from roughly 1 Samuel—II Kings which developed in consort with what is preserved in Deuteronomy, and which attest to the aggressive political / religious campaigns of Josiah to firmly establish exclusive Yahwism as a national cult, and in particualr, to centralize worship to only the Jerusalem Temple.

"Deuterocanonical" is used with reference to the Jewish Apocrypha; these are post-exilic (mostly 3rd-2nd cent.) writings that were regarded scripture within many different Jewish religious groups during the Second Temple period. They were adopted into the Roman Catholic as well as the Orthodox canons when they were established beginning in the 4th cent. C.E.

[FreezBee]

BTW: I understand that the angels’ names all end with ‘el’ (i.e. Gabriel, Michael, and Raphael etc) because of their earlier association with the creator god El. Can someone confirm this? If so, the Mormons sure got it wrong with Moroni.

Just a minor point. If 'Moroni' is supposed to be a Hebrew name, then it might be a short version of 'Moroniel', which would mean 'Moron is my god', or, if 'moron' ius a common name, 'God is my moron'. Alternatively it might be a short version of 'Moronyahu', which would mean 'moron of Yahweh' ('Yahu' being an alternate form of 'Yahweh').

Not that any of this is of any importance, but just if you wanted to know


- FreezBee