Ugarit and pre-Babylonian origins of the Old Testiment

[DanHopkins]

I don’t think your thoughts on the Brahmanic origins of Buddhism are totally off topic; Buddhism is indebted to Brahmaism as Christianity is to Judaism; as a stepping stone to a fundamental reformation we have them take the middle path between the two views of ‘level the church and rebuild because we can’t carve new laws on rotten wood’, and ‘just give the church, or the established religion, a facelift’.


You wrote, “I do believe Buddhism has Brahmanic origins”, do you mean to say “some origins in Bramanism”, or do you hold that there is nothing substantially different between the two? Same with the Ugarit/OT? Regarding the evolution of most of the OT legends and beliefs being founded in Ugarit, yes, but what anti-Ugarit changes were made to these legends and beliefs are also important developments. The affinity between proper names and locations, motifs, etc.. arise naturally in the same language family and this is why Buddhism –from- Brahmanism is relevant. When the Buddha borrows a Brahmanic word, such as Brahmin, he changed the etymology to suit his needs. Same with the word Samana which originally has the Sanskrit meaning (to toil), the Buddha changes to “one who puts sins to rest (sam)”. I think this tactic is as old as language itself, Christians tell me that Jesus "death" was "impermanent" and even today we are told we have “free speech”, which originally meant ‘unbridled speech’, but now means ‘free expression to a reasonable degree’ as the legal definition was worked out later by our benevolent aristocracy which theorized people yelling fire in a crowded theater. If someone were to say that our free speech today “originated” within the battle spirit of 1776’, I don’t think this would be completely accurate.


Pilgrim stated that the lines on the silver “scrolls” correspond “word for word” with later writings. I have not seen this and phrases like “make his face shine on you” must have been a common expression before it was applied to a God and almost the same saying is found in totally unrelated traditions.

[Mr. Anderson]

First, there is no such thing as proof in historical academics. Proof is for math and logic. You should know better. What we have to deal with is simply archaelogical evidence, and you have provided nothing.

Problem, there are no surviving, or there never were, Hebrew texts older than the Dead Sea scrolls, except for the two silver scrolls dated in the 7th century BC. All of what you said above has no meaning unless you can come up with some sort of evidence from the Hebrew tribes to support that hey have any such scripture prior to the exile. There are no fragmentations of texts other than the silver scrolls before the Dead Sea Scrolls.

You take yourself down with your own argument as well. When relegating the archeaological evidence into a static pool. Examples of math and logic are a childish attempt to block a poorly constructed line of reasoning. Both fields are capable of advancing beyond their present positions. Not that anything new is added to them. Like archeaology we merely discover more truth over time. Except in archeaology, the proof doesn't have to follow after laws contained within it's pre-existing field. Math can be said to originate in a vacume, archeaology cannot. You're coarse of argument, as weak logically as it is, would decimate over 70% of Show Me The Proofs Canaanite Origen thread posts. Did you willingly allow him to make post after post while you so intently followed the thread while believing he should know better as well? No, you allowed him to continue while clapping happily his academic proof.
You have also allowed your argument for Buddhist texts to fall to your weak line of logic. Are you willing to submit it to the same static pool of evidence as you do for Hebrew textual evidence? You haven't done so in this thread so far. You've allowed it a great potential of leeway to have been whatever you propose it to be.

I've bolded a portion of your post that bears special note that you are so biased in your position that you've become one of those people Loa Tsu said wasn't worth refuting. Pick up your game if you plan to rise above that level. I'm about to walk away laughing.

Proof of historical academics: Found in the works of Tov and other textual critics. Portions contained within the later redaction reveal they originated from earlier sources predating the divided monarchy. Evidenced by localities, cultural norms and historical markers not known to later generations. We could start from there if you want to use academically accepted evidential proof. Of course you can always say I need to produce a difinitive earlier text but you will only be hiding behind such as a last line of defense for a weak argument.

[Bill the Cat]

In other threads there is current vogue of challenging the existence of the Pre-Christian Buddhist texts that appear similar to parts of the NT. The logical conclusion of this claim is that because there is limited or no evidence of pre-Christian Buddhist texts, than Buddhists borrowed the texts for Christian texts.

I would like to present a parallel argument and discussion as to the origin much of the OT.

Based on our present archeological knowledge the oldest writings that the OT texts can be traced to are Ugarit and other pre-Babylonian cuniform texts. We have no sources of ancient Hebrew texts before this, nor even close to these dates. This even goes further to the origins of the Hebrew calender, and possibly other aspects of the religion and culture of Jews.

Assimilation of various Ugaritic names and even similar constructs of poetry has long been studied in academia. Opinions range from "there is no strong connection between Israelite tradition and Ugaritic-Canaanite tradition" (Studies in Hebrew and Ugaritic Psalms, Avishur, 1994) to "Baalism did indeed form the basis for an important strand of Old Testament religion, that Yahweh functioned as an "Israelite Baal" in his conflict with the sea (Yam)." (Yahweh's Combat with the Sea, Kloos, 1997). The problems arise when a rigid dependence is claimed, because of the wildly contrasting natures of the subjects compared, such as the nature of 'el of Ugarit and 'el of the Hebrews.

But, by all means, please continue to draw the parallels...

[shunyadragon]

Assimilation of various Ugaritic names and even similar constructs of poetry has long been studied in academia. Opinions range from "there is no strong connection between Israelite tradition and Ugaritic-Canaanite tradition" (Studies in Hebrew and Ugaritic Psalms, Avishur, 1994) to "Baalism did indeed form the basis for an important strand of Old Testament religion, that Yahweh functioned as an "Israelite Baal" in his conflict with the sea (Yam)." (Yahweh's Combat with the Sea, Kloos, 1997). The problems arise when a rigid dependence is claimed, because of the wildly contrasting natures of the subjects compared, such as the nature of 'el of Ugarit and 'el of the Hebrews.

But, by all means, please continue to draw the parallels...

I did not say there are not problems, because the evidence is incomplete, and, in part, there will be differences between Ugarit and Hebrew beliefs particularly as the cultures diverged, Ugarit culture faded, and Hebrews developed their own monotheistic belief system after the exile.

Careful, I did not say 'rigid dependence,' but the sources that are based on the evidence for the evolution of text and beliefs indicate a shared dependence with Ugarit dominance. What is lacking here is any independent evidence of significant Hebrew scriptures prior to the exile. The evidence shows a dependence on pre-Babylonian to Ugarit dependence of the evolution of the sources of the text, calendar and language.

There is another interesting social anthropology concept of the evolution of languages. Those cultures that are dominant trade cultures tend to evolve sophisticated languages, like the Chinese, Vedic cultures, pre-Babylonian to Ugarit cultures, Phoenician, and Egyptians. Other surrounding cultures, like the Hebrew tribes, tend to have languages that evolve from languages of these dominant trading cultures. The Hebrew language is a Semitic language with pre-Babylonian to Ugarit sources, and Egyptian sources reflection those cultures that dominated, before the rise of the Hebrew tribes after the exile.

[shunyadragon]

The one thing that separates these two languages is the script. Ugaritic is a cuneiform alphabet whereas Hebrew's alphabetic script was adopted from Hieroglyphs.

I did not pick this up previously, and I would like clarification. All these languages evolved from Hieroglyphs, but the Egyptian written language had only limited influence. I believe written and spoken Ugarit and Hebrew languages are more closely related. Ugarit writting is older being a cuniform form of written alphabet language. Hebrew represents a later evolved form of written language based on Ugarit. The order of the written language is - (1) Older simpler pictograph cuniform writing first based on trade. (2) evolution of the written cuniform to a more complex alphabet cuniform. (3) Written Hebrew language.

The whole Pentateuch of course was not written in Ugarit, but based on the evidence the foundation of the Pentateuch, and likely the beginnings of Proverbs, and Psalms were in Ugarit. If you follow the dots of the archaeological and linguistic evidence this argument holds true.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/22_alphabet.html

The above Ugarit inscription is an Alphabet Chart showing all of the Ugarit letters in order (Ugarit is read from left to right). Not only is this helpful in knowing the actual Ugarit alphabet but also shows that the modern order of the Hebrew alphabet has not changed. There are eight additional letters in the Ugarit alphabet that are not in the Hebrew alphabet, two of which are vowels. It may be possible that these were originally in the Hebrew alphabet but were later dropped (not an uncommon occurence in the evolution of alphabets around the world). The tablet is missing three letters, the 13th, 14th and 25th letters, and may be broken off the right end of the tablet.

When comparing the pictographic Hebrew script with the Ugarit cuneiform, we find that several of them are virtually identical supporting the idea that this cuneiform was derived out of the older pictographic script. Below are a some examples of the similarities.

© source where applicable

[Bill the Cat]

I did not say there are not problems, because the evidence is incomplete, and, in part, there will be differences between Ugarit and Hebrew beliefs particularly as the cultures diverged, Ugarit culture faded, and Hebrews developed their own monotheistic belief system after the exile.

This is a recent assumption based on the lack of evidence you claim above. Monotheism was established rather early. Pottery evidence from the 10th century BC showed that the Hebrews were only to worship the Lord

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0107183037.htm

Careful, I did not say 'rigid dependence,' but the sources that are based on the evidence for the evolution of text and beliefs indicate a shared dependence with Ugarit dominance. What is lacking here is any independent evidence of significant Hebrew scriptures prior to the exile. The evidence shows a dependence on pre-Babylonian to Ugarit dependence of the evolution of the sources of the text, calendar and language.

Highly developed social commandments were in place by the time of King David's reign that were contrary to the neighboring cultures. This, along with the existence of scribes in the outlying areas shows that the Hebrew nation was well established by this time. What it does not show is a dependence on Ugaritic sources for the origin of the religious texts. The only "dependence" that can be shown is the Hebrews assimilating some of the names of the subjects of certain Ugaritic myths. As far as the calendar goes, the lunisolar calendar was in use very early, and most nations used it, so claiming a "dependence" on Ugarit specifically for the Hebrew calendar is sloppy at best. The Hebrews again assimilated the Babylonian names into their calendar during the exile, as evidenced by the naming in Exodus of the later-named Nisan as Aviv (Exodus 13:4).

There is another interesting social anthropology concept of the evolution of languages. Those cultures that are dominant trade cultures tend to evolve sophisticated languages, like the Chinese, Vedic cultures, pre-Babylonian to Ugarit cultures, Phoenician, and Egyptians. Other surrounding cultures, like the Hebrew tribes, tend to have languages that evolve from languages of these dominant trading cultures. The Hebrew language is a Semitic language with pre-Babylonian to Ugarit sources, and Egyptian sources reflection those cultures that dominated, before the rise of the Hebrew tribes after the exile.

Are you suggesting here that the Hebrew tribes didn't have a distinct culture until after the exile? I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. If you are suggesting that the Hebrew language had its origins in proto-canaanite and the language of Ur, I'd have no argument with that. If you are going further than that and claiming that the Hebrew Bible is composed of myths collected from those societies, then I'd have to disagree due to the current evidence.

[shunyadragon]

This is a recent assumption based on the lack of evidence you claim above. Monotheism was established rather early. Pottery evidence from the 10th century BC showed that the Hebrews were only to worship the Lord

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0107183037.htm

I am familiar with this, and do not agree with the assumption of monotheism, because the text is truncated and the word [Lord] is assumed following worship . . .

Highly developed social commandments were in place by the time of King David's reign that were contrary to the neighboring cultures. This, along with the existence of scribes in the outlying areas shows that the Hebrew nation was well established by this time. What it does not show is a dependence on Ugaritic sources for the origin of the religious texts. The only "dependence" that can be shown is the Hebrews assimilating some of the names of the subjects of certain Ugaritic myths. As far as the calendar goes, the lunisolar calendar was in use very early, and most nations used it, so claiming a "dependence" on Ugarit specifically for the Hebrew calendar is sloppy at best. The Hebrews again assimilated the Babylonian names into their calendar during the exile, as evidenced by the naming in Exodus of the later-named Nisan as Aviv (Exodus 13:4).

What is your evidence of Highly developed social commandments in place at the time of King David, and for that matter the existence of scribes writing in Hebrew?

The evidence is we only have Ugarit texts, no early Hebrew texts.

The calendar is recognized as the Babylonian calendar with Hebrew names of the months derived from Babylonian. We have no records of a Hebrew calendar predating the Babylonian calendar.

Are you suggesting here that the Hebrew tribes didn't have a distinct culture until after the exile? I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. If you are suggesting that the Hebrew language had its origins in proto-canaanite and the language of Ur, I'd have no argument with that. If you are going further than that and claiming that the Hebrew Bible is composed of myths collected from those societies, then I'd have to disagree due to the current evidence.

Please cite Hebrew sources in Hebrew that you would consider current evidence to support this?

[shunyadragon]

Proof of historical academics: Found in the works of Tov and other textual critics. Portions contained within the later redaction reveal they originated from earlier sources predating the divided monarchy. Evidenced by localities, cultural norms and historical markers not known to later generations. We could start from there if you want to use academically accepted evidential proof. Of course you can always say I need to produce a difinitive earlier text but you will only be hiding behind such as a last line of defense for a weak argument.

I see desperation rhetoric here . . .

There is no such thing as 'academically accepted evidential proof outside of math and logic. You can present your case from you sources, but it is not accepted universally.

You have presented nothing to support the existence of older than the Dead Sea scrolls, except very circular arguments based on interpretations of later known texts.

I am still waiting for evidence . . . and not biased analysis from the believer's perspective.

showmeproof gave an excellent argument for the dominance of early polytheism in pre-exile Hebrew tribes. The absolute total lack of early archaeological evidence of Hebrew texts, and the strong argument for the evolution of the Hebrew language from Ugarit supports showmeproof's argument.

I will always say you need to produce evidence, because after the fact, ad hoc interpretive arguments are always weak, and weaker still when the known evidence does not support it.

[Bill the Cat]

I am familiar with this, and do not agree with the assumption of monotheism, because the text is truncated and the word [Lord] is assumed following worship . . .

Just posting what the scientists who studied it thought.

What is your evidence of Highly developed social commandments in place at the time of King David, and for that matter the existence of scribes writing in Hebrew?

The ostracon under discussion.

The evidence is we only have Ugarit texts, no early Hebrew texts.

What do you consider "early"?

The calendar is recognized as the Babylonian calendar with Hebrew names of the months derived from Babylonian.

Then explain the change in Exodus, if you can...

We have no records of a Hebrew calendar predating the Babylonian calendar.

Are you saying that there is no evidence that the Hebrews used a 12 month calendar before the exile to Babylon, or that the current names of the months in the Jewish calendar didn't exist before the exile?

[shunyadragon]

Just posting what the scientists who studied it thought.

The ostracon under discussion.

The article nor the 'researcher' who did the translating did not indicate the conclusion that the interpretation would lead to the conclusion that it referred to a monotheistic [Lord] in the truncated message. There are no other ostracons to cross reference any sort of conclusion of the meaning of this one.

What do you consider "early"?

Pre-exile

Then explain the change in Exodus, if you can...

No problem, Exodus was written post exile, and does not reflect the archaeological evidence of the settlement of Hebrews in Palestine.

Most scholars consider Exodus to written about 5th century BC, containing oral tradition. Some sort of Exodus likely took place involving a much smaller number of people called Hyksos and some Hebrews.

Are you saying that there is no evidence that the Hebrews used a 12 month calendar before the exile to Babylon, or that the current names of the months in the Jewish calendar didn't exist before the exile?

Yes

[Bill the Cat]

The article nor the 'researcher' who did the translating did not indicate the conclusion that the interpretation would lead to the conclusion that it referred to a monotheistic [Lord] in truncated message.

The main complaint was that most of the third line and the center of the fifth line of the ostracon are illegible. There is no disagreement that I can find on the syntax of the first line.

Pre-exile

So, to summarize, you believe we have no earlier Hebrew texts than the exile?

No problem, Exodus was written post exile, and does not reflect the archaeological evidence of the settlement of Hebrews in Palestine.

So, you first claim that the Hebrews borrowed the names of the months from the Babylonians, then you claim that a document written after this time used a separate word for one of the months that linguistically corresponds to the calendar used in the 10th Century BC?? And you don't see the inconsistency in those statements?

Most scholars consider Exodus to written about 5th century BC, containing oral tradition. Some sort of Exodus possibly took place involving a much smaller number of people.

And it "possibly" could have happened just as it was recorded.

Yes

For your viewing pleasure...



The earliest datable source for the Hebrew calendar is the Gezer calendar, written probably in the age of Solomon, in the late 10th century bce. The inscription indicates the length of main agricultural tasks within the cycle of 12 lunations.

So, care to recalculate your response?

[shunyadragon]

The main complaint was that most of the third line and the center of the fifth line of the ostracon are illegible. There is no disagreement that I can find on the syntax of the first line.

So, to summarize, you believe we have no earlier Hebrew texts than the exile?

I listed two silver scrolls of one sentence. I know of no others as pre-exile texts.






So, you first claim that the Hebrews borrowed the names of the months from the Babylonians, then you claim that a document written after this time used a separate word for one of the months that linguistically corresponds to the calendar used in the 10th Century BC?? And you don't see the inconsistency in those statements? [/quote]

It is the conclusion that are problematic based on the limited text of one ostracon.

And it "possibly" could have happened just as it was recorded.

I admit many possibilities, but primarily stick to the best interpretation of the evidence that is available.







For your viewing pleasure...

The earliest datable source for the Hebrew calendar is the Gezer calendar, written probably in the age of Solomon, in the late 10th century bce. The inscription indicates the length of main agricultural tasks within the cycle of 12 lunations.

So, care to recalculate your response?

Actually no. The following letter is self explanatory'

http://www.talkreason.org/forum.cfm?MESSAGEID=632

Dear Sir/Madam--

You are correct that the translation of "kl" as "feasting" is problematic, and "measuring" may be involved. Still, the Gezer Calendar has no observable link with the Torah's cycle of holidays. All it mentions are seasons of agricultural works. Now, it is true that agricultural works, being as they were the basis of ancient economy, are mentioned in the Bible (e.g., in Ruth 1:22). Moreover, some passages in the Torah present the cycle of holidays as dependent on the cycle of agricultural works (e.g., Exodus 23:14-16). Yet, the Gezer Calendar shows no awareness of the cycle of holidays.

Regards,

N.Z. (Zeligman, Naftali)

© source where applicable

[Bill the Cat]

You should clean up your posts some...

I listed two silver scrolls of one sentence. I know of no others as pre-exile texts.

You mean BIBLICAL texts, right?

I admit many possibilities, but primarily stick to the best interpretation of the evidence that is available.

And who gets to determine what the "best interpretation" is? I see several evidences that lend credence to the Exodus here:

http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

Actually no. The following letter is self explanatory'

http://www.talkreason.org/forum.cfm?MESSAGEID=632

Dear Sir/Madam--

You are correct that the translation of "kl" as "feasting" is problematic, and "measuring" may be involved. Still, the Gezer Calendar has no observable link with the Torah's cycle of holidays. All it mentions are seasons of agricultural works. Now, it is true that agricultural works, being as they were the basis of ancient economy, are mentioned in the Bible (e.g., in Ruth 1:22). Moreover, some passages in the Torah present the cycle of holidays as dependent on the cycle of agricultural works (e.g., Exodus 23:14-16). Yet, the Gezer Calendar shows no awareness of the cycle of holidays.

Regards,

N.Z. (Zeligman, Naftali)

© source where applicable

So, shifting the goal post is now your game? I said "Are you saying that there is no evidence that the Hebrews used a 12 month calendar before the exile to Babylon" and you responded "yes". The Gezer Calendar was used by the Hebrews and consisted of 12 months, delineated by the agricultural works. So, your answer was wrong. The Gezer Calendar, as agreed by Mr. Zeligman, was used by the Hebrews before the exile to Babylon. The supposed lack of awareness of the holidays is a red herring to the question I asked.

[shunyadragon]

You mean BIBLICAL texts, right?

Yes, as found in Ugarit texts.

And who gets to determine what the "best interpretation" is? I see several evidences that lend credence to the Exodus here:

http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

I do not rely on any specific 'who,' but rely on the larger picture of how academic scholars view the evidence as the site you refered to. Actually I refer to this site aa lot and the references it refers to. Yes, I acknowledged several scenarios as to how and what happened concerning Exodus. Actually this site supports my view far more than the Biblical scenario, and acknowledges the problems with the Biblical Exodus.

I do not dispute that something like exodus took place, and the book is not set very roughly around historical events and places in the region. I serious question the accuracy of Exodus, and support the consensus view that it was written about 5th century BCE, after the exile.

So, shifting the goal post is now your game? I said "Are you saying that there is no evidence that the Hebrews used a 12 month calendar before the exile to Babylon" and you responded "yes". The Gezer Calendar was used by the Hebrews and consisted of 12 months, delineated by the agricultural works. So, your answer was wrong. The Gezer Calendar, as agreed by Mr. Zeligman, was used by the Hebrews before the exile to Babylon. The supposed lack of awareness of the holidays is a red herring to the question I asked.

No shifting of the goal posts, I do not believe Zeligman reaches the same conclusions you do concerning the naming of the calendar months by Hebrews.

[shunyadragon]

This is an example where Hebrew Biblical text came from Ugarit is the following. The reality of parallelism is that it indicates the Hebrew text came from the older Ugarit.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/22_bible.html

ותאמר שויתי עזר על גבור הרימותי בחור מעם
The passage above is Psalm 89:20 (19 in Christian Bibles) in Hebrew. This verse is literally translated as: "I placed help over the mighty, I lifted up the chosen one from the people". This verse is classic Hebrew poetry. This form of poetry is parellelism where one idea is expressed in two different ways. This style of poetry is found throughout the book of Psalms and Proverbs. In this verse the first half is paralleled with the second half as demonstrated below;

I placed = I lifted
help = chosen one
over the mighty = from the people

To see more of these parallels, read this chapter from the beginning and notice the parallels in each verse such as in verse 14 (13) where the following parallels are found; you have a mighty arm, strong is your hand, high is your right hand. The only problem with Psalm 89:20 is that the word "help" is not a parellel with "chosen one". The Hebrew word for "help" is עזר (ezer, underlined in red above). The first letter in this word is an "ayin". In modern Hebrew this letter is silent but the ancient pronunciation was a soft "g" (gh) as in the word "ring". This word would have been pronounced "ghezer". The Ugarit word (gezer) means "young man" and is spelled the same as ghezer except for the first letter which is a "gimel". As Ugarit is a Semitic language related to Hebrew, this word was probably used in the ancient Hebrew language as well even though it is not found in the Biblical text. The scribe copying the Psalm 89 text most likely exchanged the gimel for an ayin, both of similar sounds. With the Hebrew word גזר (gezer), we now have a more likely parallelism for this verse;

I placed = I lifted
young man = chosen one
over the mighty = from the people

© source where applicable