Canaanite pantheon and Israel's Polytheistic roots

[seanD]

1) you are welcome to believe anything you want

However, Polytheism came prior to monotheism. What do you use to support the claim that monotheism was the 'original' state? You neglect the fact of convergence; religions popped up all over the world not only in the Levant area. Animism and ancestor worship are the earliest we have evidence of, then anthropomorphised polytheism and the last guy on the scene is monotheism. The first monotheism was a monotheism by fiat from Ahkenaten...at least the first recorded monotheism.

Religion is often structured just as the culture in which it originates. The tribes of the Levant area had assemblies made up of patriarchs, and we see assemblies of god in that area. Later YHWH is viewed as a King ruling over all. The transition from wandering nomads to settled city states to borderline empires with kings is visible in the literature from the Bible. Likewise the political strife and warfare of a culture is often combined with a cosmic battle between the opponents gods. This is also evident in the literature of the Bible. Interestingly the times in which monotheism is rallied for in Israelite history it is by fiat from a king such as Hezekiah and Josiah.

Isn't it amazing that religions "popped up" all over the world. This doesn't work quite well in the human scheme of natural evolution, does it? By the time human/apes developed communication, they were pretty much scattered abroad on different continents. However, it does works well within the a biblical scheme, where you have a cosmopolitan religion that broke up into different streams as mankind separated, as indicated in the bible. You would think we would find some non-theistic civilizations that were perhaps atheistic or more pantheistic. And if you notice, even in the most polytheistic civilizations -- Sumeria, Babylonian, Hebrew, even Egyptian (to a degree, but not as prominent as the others) -- there was always a primary deity in a hierarchy of deities.

As for your claim about there being a original Christianity, you may be right...it was a sect of Jews who thought Jesus fulfilled the return of an anointed one of YHWH from the line of David, however thought that the kingdom he would rule over would be not of this world. Christianity came out of Judaism; cultural evolution in action. The first Christians probably resisted being called Christians as they were really Jews; Jews on the fringe of Judaism.

Sorry, but a sudden movement that rose out of Judaism -- of all religions -- during the second temple era within a couple decades is not "evolution" in action. The sudden explosion of the Christian movement among Jews in such a hostile environment signifies exactly what would happen if a Jewish man who claimed he was the son of David resurrected from the dead. And you have it in reverse. The Jews, including Jesus' followers, initially were not expecting the Messiah to be crucified and were expecting a king that WOULD in fact rule over Israel in the physical world.

[robertb]

As for your claim about there being a original Christianity, you may be right...it was a sect of Jews who thought Jesus fulfilled the return of an anointed one of YHWH from the line of David, however thought that the kingdom he would rule over would be not of this world. Christianity came out of Judaism; cultural evolution in action. The first Christians probably resisted being called Christians as they were really Jews; Jews on the fringe of Judaism.

I kind of disagree.

[showmeproof]

I kind of disagree.

I'd be interested in knowing what exactly you disagree about.

[showmeproof]

Isn't it amazing that religions "popped up" all over the world. This doesn't work quite well in the human scheme of natural evolution, does it? By the time human/apes developed communication, they were pretty much scattered abroad on different continents. However, it does works well within the a biblical scheme, where you have a cosmopolitan religion that broke up into different streams as mankind separated, as indicated in the bible. You would think we would find some non-theistic civilizations that were perhaps atheistic or more pantheistic. And if you notice, even in the most polytheistic civilizations -- Sumeria, Babylonian, Hebrew, even Egyptian (to a degree, but not as prominent as the others) -- there was always a primary deity in a hierarchy of deities.



Sorry, but a sudden movement that rose out of Judaism -- of all religions -- during the second temple era within a couple decades is not "evolution" in action. The sudden explosion of the Christian movement among Jews in such a hostile environment signifies exactly what would happen if a Jewish man who claimed he was the son of David resurrected from the dead. And you have it in reverse. The Jews, including Jesus' followers, initially were not expecting the Messiah to be crucified and were expecting a king that WOULD in fact rule over Israel in the physical world.

Sean do a quick inventory of religions and study up on what Aztecs believed, or the Mayans, the Incans, the Aborigines of Australia, the Coi San of Africa (sp?). Now tell me how they came out of Judaism? It is quite simple...they didn't.

Jews were indeed initially expecting an anointed one (not the modern version of Messiah, but rather a King) to rule over the physical Israel. Even in the stories of the resurrection his disciples are grieve stricken over his death. That is why the sign that read King of the Jews was placed over his head in a mocking manner.

Christianity didn't explode in a few decades it had small bands of followers albeit in diverse areas of the Mediterranean area, it exploded nearly 300 years later. Judaism is a branch from Christianity.

[robertb]

I'd be interested in knowing what exactly you disagree about.

The idea that Christianity was first developed within Judaism.

Seems to me that Christianity, though owing it's back story to Judaism through the LXX, could just have likely originated in Hellenic circles, as not.

[guacamole]

There are indeed cases were you can distinguish where El is a proper noun.

No doubt. That's why my original statement is limited.

The bible spends a great deal of time rebuking polytheism...why would this need to have been done if polytheism wasn't a problem?

I never said polytheism wasn't a problem. I'm actually quite baffled how you could get such a wildly general statement from anything I wrote here.

Show me scholars which find Israelite polytheism to be controversial. Your assertion needs backing up.

You have a serious issue reading extra things into what I say:

Here's what I actually said, with the bolded part being what you've misinterpreted:

"Whatever anyone has to say about it, theories on Israelite polytheism are not uniform or non-controversial. "

Israelite polytheism, in some sense, is accepted--even by the Bible which decries it. So it would be stupid to say that Israelite polytheism itself isn't controversial. However--THEORIES on Israelite polythism are NOT UNIFORM or NON-CONTROVERSIAL. That is, there is a lot of discussion that is on-going. There is no consensus that Israelite monotheism evolved out of a general Canaanite polytheism. It is possible for the general idea to have acceptance, but for theories to be in scholarly process. That's why I said, "Don't get tied up in one theory bud."

You are quite right that we are not sure if Kuntillet 'Arjud is representative or not, but we are sure that there are many references to Yahweh of Samaria, or Yahweh of _________ (insert biblical Tel here). This shows that it was common place to localize gods. Even if Kuntillet 'Arjud is on the fringe, the whole point is to show the cultural evolution of religion (which includes the fringe). Is there one form of Christianity today, or are there many denominations...are some on the fringe, do any of them necessarily reflect the Christianity of 2000 years ago?

If it's on the finge then it isn't representative of general trends in Isrealite religion. Any one denomination maybe representative of evolution as a whole, but to generate a description of American Christianity only from one locality, or one cultic set at one locality, would be a gross mistake--because an archaeologist in the far future who discovers the remains of an Episcopal Church would be very much mistaken to determine from that one cultic site what "general" American Christianity was like.

Just to quote from the Harvard link on Kuntillet 'Arjud:
" Several shallow wells dug at the foot of the hill provided one of the only permanent water sources in this arid region."

So?

" [Kuntillet 'Arjud is] a kind of a wayside shrine that, due to its location, was related to the royal journeys to Elath and Ezion-Geber, and perhaps also to pilgrimages to southern Sinai."

And the documentary evidence to support this on shattered ostrakon with cryptic and fragmentary inscriptions? And you don't see the weakness in this?

The very meaning of Asherah is up for debate?? Please expound upon this.

An asserah could have meant, by the time of the bronze age Israelite dominance, simply a pole or tree on a high place that was a ritual center. That is an inscription that reads "by Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah" might simply mean something like "by Yahweh of Samaria and his holy place".

fwiw,
guaca.

[seanD]

Sean do a quick inventory of religions and study up on what Aztecs believed, or the Mayans, the Incans, the Aborigines of Australia, the Coi San of Africa (sp?). Now tell me how they came out of Judaism? It is quite simple...they didn't.

Where did I say religions came out of Judaism?

I said the evidence best fits a scheme where the religious essence came from a cosmopolitan religion (when mankind was centralized and homogeneous), evident by there structures and similarities (usually always with a chief deity or creator -- sky god or god in the heavenly realm -- Incas, Khoisan, Hopi, they all had one), which became polluted over time as the many streams began to separate. The closer these streams were in the Mediterranean, where it all began, the closer they resemble each other. This is explained better within a biblical context than a natural evolution of humans in different areas of the world. Hundreds of years later, God then interacts with Abraham and his descendants, just one of these streams, and steers them back on course, and thus the Hebrew religion is born. The Hebrews then rebel, fall into polytheism, different streams break off once again, and punishment ensues. God then interacts with Moses, and once again, monotheism is reborn. This happens over and over again up to the second temple monotheistic cult, thus the Jewish religion went through stages of monotheism and polytheism. So it's natural that archeology will show the Jews engaging in heathen religious practice. No matter how you want to explain it, these inconsistencies don't fit a natural course of evolution, it fits right into the scheme of the bible's history of the Jews and how God dealt with them over and over again.

Jews were indeed initially expecting an anointed one (not the modern version of Messiah, but rather a King) to rule over the physical Israel. Even in the stories of the resurrection his disciples are grieve stricken over his death. That is why the sign that read King of the Jews was placed over his head in a mocking manner.

Christianity didn't explode in a few decades it had small bands of followers albeit in diverse areas of the Mediterranean area, it exploded nearly 300 years later. Judaism is a branch from Christianity.

Then why did you say: "it was a sect of Jews who thought Jesus fulfilled the return of an anointed one of YHWH from the line of David, however thought that the kingdom he would rule over would be not of this world."

Christianity was already established at Rome and Jerusalem well before Paul came on the scene about a decade later. Within two decades, Christianity was well established in some of the major metropolises like Corinth, Ephesus, and Galatia.

[saladfingers]

The Egyptian Empire went on a monotheistic streak during the rule of [let's see if I can spell this] Annakanotan.

Someone suggested once that Joseph was in Egypt during this time, and brought with him this monotheistic influence.

[showmeproof]

[QUOTE=guacamole;2969544]

asserah could have meant, by the time of the bronze age Israelite dominance, simply a pole or tree on a high place that was a ritual center. That is an inscription that reads "by Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah" might simply mean something like "by Yahweh of Samaria and his holy place".

fwiw,
guaca.

Asherah is referred to in Jeremiah 44, as the Queen of Heaven during the exile. The people who worshiped asherah were upset, because after the squelching of their freedom of public practice during Josiah's reign, they were defeated and carried off. Their argument is that while they were faithful to her they didn't have want or need that wasn't met, but since they had stopped everything went downhill.

Asherah poles are not mere trees or poles, they were idols representative of Asherah and used by the cults of Asherah as evidenced by Josiah's mandate to tear them down and remove them from the temple. See 2 Kings 23, and Deuteronomy 7, Deuteronomy 12, and Exodus 34, and 1 Kings 18. Or look up a concordance for Asherah, or Asherim.

[showmeproof]

The Egyptian Empire went on a monotheistic streak during the rule of [let's see if I can spell this] Annakanotan.

Someone suggested once that Joseph was in Egypt during this time, and brought with him this monotheistic influence.

Ahkenaten. One could posit this as a possibility, but then you could posit the reverse that Abraham got his monotheistic streak from Egypt. Neither of these scenarios seem to fit the historical evidence though.

[guacamole]

Asherah is referred to in Jeremiah 44, as the Queen of Heaven during the exile. The people who worshiped asherah were upset, because after the squelching of their freedom of public practice during Josiah's reign, they were defeated and carried off. Their argument is that while they were faithful to her they didn't have want or need that wasn't met, but since they had stopped everything went downhill.

True, some goddess in mentioned in Jer. 44. The problem, for you, in using Biblical passages as evidence, is that according to the Biblical narratives, Goddess worship comes after, not before the worship of YHWH.

Asherah poles are not mere trees or poles, they were idols representative of Asherah and used by the cults of Asherah as evidenced by Josiah's mandate to tear them down and remove them from the temple. See 2 Kings 23, and Deuteronomy 7, Deuteronomy 12, and Exodus 34, and 1 Kings 18. Or look up a concordance for Asherah, or Asherim.

Sheesh. So now I have to do the research for you too?

The word asherah also referred to a sacred tree or pole that stood near shrines to honor the mother-goddess Asherah,[10] pluralized as a masculine noun when it has that meaning. In the Book of Judges, the Israelite judge Gideon orders an Asherah pole next to an altar to Baal to be cut down, and the wood used for a burnt offering. Among the Hebrews' Phoenician neighbors, tall standing stone pillars signified the numinous presence of a deity, and the wooden asherahs may have been a rustic reflection of these. Or asherah may mean a living tree or grove of trees and therefore in some contexts mean a shrine. These uses have confused Biblical translators. Many older translations render Asherah as 'grove'. There is still disagreement among scholars as to the extent to which Asherah (or various goddesses classed as Asherahs) was/were worshipped in Israel and Judah and the extent to which such a goddess or class of goddesses is identical to the etymologically connected goddess Athirat/Ashratu.
Tilde Binger notes in her study, Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament (1997, p. 141), that there is warrant for seeing an Asherah as, variously, "a wooden-aniconic-stela or column of some kind; a living tree; or a more regular statue." A rudely carved wooden statue planted on the ground of the house was Asherah's symbol, and sometimes a clay statue without legs. Her cult images— "idols"— were found also in forests, carved on living trees, or in the form of poles beside altars that were placed at the side of some roads. Asherah poles are mentioned in the books of Exodus, Deuteronomy, Judges, the Books of Kings, the second Book of Chronicles, and the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Micah. The term often appears as merely אשרה, Asherah; this is translated as "groves" in the King James Version and "poles" in the New Revised Standard Version, although no word that may be translated as "poles" appears in the text. Scholars have indicated, however, that the plural use of the term Asherahs, as Asherim or Asherot, provides ample evidence that reference is being made to objects of worship rather than a transcendent figure.[11]

You can follow the Wikipedia article to useful notes, sources, and articles. I told you not to get married to one theory espoused by internet crackpots, didn't I?

fwiw,
guaca.

[showmeproof]

True, some goddess in mentioned in Jer. 44. The problem, for you, in using Biblical passages as evidence, is that according to the Biblical narratives, Goddess worship comes after, not before the worship of YHWH.




Sheesh. So now I have to do the research for you too?



You can follow the Wikipedia article to useful notes, sources, and articles. I told you not to get married to one theory espoused by internet crackpots, didn't I?

fwiw,
guaca.

I am merely using all evidence on hand, the biblical literature included. Asherah was a goddess in the Levant area that went by many aliases, and predates YHWH worship especially the YHWH of monotheism.

wikipedia eh Thanks for the extensive research you did there. Asherah poles, and Asherims are idols which are held sacred by those who worship Asherah. The wikipedia reference doesn't change that.

[guacamole]

I am merely using all evidence on hand, the biblical literature included.

No. You're not. There's an immense body of literature to be read. I doubt there is anyone posting here who is even close to an expert.

Asherah was a goddess in the Levant area that went by many aliases,

No one is doubting that. The question, if you bothered to read the article, was that, like "El", there is some question as to whether or not the term always was a proper noun or if there were non-specific uses of it. I realize, that would upset the neat and tidy apple-cart of your pet theories but, oh well. At least don't pretened that you're using "all the evidence on hand."

and predates YHWH worship especially the YHWH of monotheism.

No if you're going by all the evidence on hand, including the "Biblical Literature". Repeat assertions are not evidence of fact.

wikipedia eh Thanks for the extensive research you did there.

Because your act of linking to a discussion board on another website is stellar research? Sheer bit of genius there. In any case it was a quick discussion of the alternate possible use of "asherah". Again, not quite getting "all the evidence" out there, now are you?

Asherah poles, and Asherims are idols which are held sacred by those who worship Asherah. The wikipedia reference doesn't change that.

The scholarlship cited in the reference would be the place to go if you wanted more independent verification. But then, we've already seen that your pretension to using "all the evidence" is fiction anyway.

fwiw,
guaca.

[showmeproof]

For more on Asherah, and the use of the words Asherah and Asherim used in the Bible please consult John Day's The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah, or Yahweh and the gods and goddesses of Canaan.

From the later book on page 60 we find:
"Secondly, as we have seen, the Asherah cult object was clearly regarded as a symbol of the goddess Asherah. Not only the identical name, but the fact that 'Asherah' and 'the Asherah' in the same cultic context in the Old Testament indicates the close relationship between them. Accordingly, we may clearly speak of a close relationship between not only Yahweh and the Asherah cult object but between Yahweh and the goddess Asherah."

[showmeproof]

As a historical aside Lets examine the Exodus as history in the Levant in order to illuminate some of the historical underpinnings of the Israelites and the dates attributed to much of their literature. This should help us put into perspective much of the Pentateuch in order to separate out the facts on the ground which influenced the transition from polytheism to monotheism and the polytheistic diatribes attributed to Moses. This is largely paraphrased from Israel Finkelstein's The Bible Unearthed. While a minimalist, Finkelstein is held in high regard among Archaeologists. His most controversial stances are on the dating of the 10th Century B.C.E. during David and Solomon's reign. He seems to think it permissible to slide the dating up to the 9th Century for many of the famed sites such as Meggido based upon pottery (he is scrutinized for neglecting of overlapping pottery styles and differing spatiotemporal transitions from site to site) . He is under the impression that David and Solomon although kings, had a much smaller kingdom than described in the bible. Just thought I'd give a bit of background on the guy before we jump backwards into the 15th and 13th century.
Dating to the 3rd century B.C.E., an Egyptian historian by the name of Manetho records a tale consisting of legends from sacred books of a brutal group of settlers at Avaris dubbed the Hyksos. The Hyksos the story goes, took over control of Egypt and ruled through brute force for 500 years. Flash forward to modern times, and we have evidence of the Hyksos dating to the 15th dynasty in Egypt (1600 B.C.E.). The Hyksos it turns out were Western Semites, or Canaanites. Archaeological evidence shows a gradual influx of Canaanite immigrants seeking shelter from the harsh desert during times of famine in the wet and fertile Eastern Nile River delta. Tell ed-Daba, now identified as Avaris shows the earliest evidence of Canaanites in 1800’s B.C.E. and then by 150 years later, they come to dominate the area. Our historian writing 1500 years later, Manetho, it seems was writing of the Hyksos with fresher insight from the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians whom had all attempted to besiege Egypt in the nearer past dating to around 300 years prior our scribe. Manetho continues in his story that an Egyptian pharaoh conquered the Hyksos forcing them out of the area and into Syria. The Hyksos, accordingly to Manetho go on to found Jerusalem. A much more contemporaneous source to the Hyksos, is an Egyptian source dating to the 16th century B.C.E. which tells of success of Pharaoh Ahmose (18th dynasty) who ransacked Avaris .
So who were the Hyksos? Beyond Mantheo, we have no connection to the Hyksos and Israel. In fact internal biblical evidence puts the Exodus during the reign of Raamses. The Merneptah stele is the first reference to Israel, and Merneptah whom declares “Israel’s seed is not!” happens to be Raamses II son. The Exodus therefore, it is commonly argued must have occurred in the 13th century B.C.E. In support of this, fourteenth century cuneiform letters from Tell el-Amarna detailing the social structure of Canaan doesn’t include the Israelites. Furthermore, Egyptian documents are found from the 13th century which indicates scrupulous tabs placed on immigrants arriving and leaving through fortified gates (possibly due to a negative experience with the Hyksos). But what of the Israelites? Why no mention of them, except in a reference to an already existing nation which was conquered by Merneptah?
So lets say the Egyptians keep mum on the flight of the Israelites. Of the 40 years wandering the desert, 38 years are spent at Kadesh Barnea. Kadesh Barnea has been identified as modern day Ein el-Qudeirat in eastern Sinai. The digs there have revealed Late Iron Age occupation (700’s B.C.E.), but nothing from the Late Bronze age. Now if we are to hold the Biblical account of the exodus as reliable then we are to say that some 600,000 men not including women, children, and livestock lived (not wandered) at Kadesh Barnea for 38 years without leaving a trace during the Late Bronze Age.
In summation, immigration to Egypt by Canaanite nomads during the Middle Bronze Age is very consistent with Archaeology. Even a Western Semitic group the Hyksos, seemed to have had a strong influence until the 16th Century B.C.E. when they were forced out and their settlement Avaris was abandoned. Although a 13th Century B.C.E. reference to Israel exists it is not consistent with a 13th century B.C.E. Exodus. Many of the references to the peoples confronted during the Exodus by the Israelites do not have centralized governments in the form of Kingship until the 800’s B.C.E., such as Arad, Heshbaon, Edom, and Ammon. So while, the places identified in the Exodus literature describe historical places, they describe a later time. What we seem to have is a rich national tradition put into literature, which signifies not only kernels of possible truth (the Hyksos possibly), but also the time in which much of the literature was written as evidenced by the peoples encountered.