"You believe in a magical sky daddy and a Jewish Zombie"

[robrecht]

According to the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament 3rd edition it's missing in the following manuscripts: p75, א*, A, B, T, 1071

Note also that these verses are only included within double brackets, which indicates "early insertions in the textual tradition", and this decision to enclose within brackets is given a C level of confidence.

Bruce Metzger in his Textual Commentary, speaking on behalf of the eitorial committee (also Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, [later Cardinal] Carlo Martini, Allen Wikgren) explains their reasoning:

"The absence of these verses in such ancient and widely diversified witnesses as [see above +] p69vid W syr.a cop.sa.bo arm.mss geo Marcion Clement Origin al, as well as their being marked with asterisks or obeli (signifying spuriousness) in other witnesses ... and their transferral to Matthew's gospel (after 26.39) by family 13 and several lectionaries ... strongly suggests that they are no part of the original text of Luke. Their presence in many manusripts, some ancient, as well as their citation by Justin, Irenaeus, etc, ..., is proof of the antiquity of the account. On grounds of transcriptional probability it is less likely that the verses were deleted in several different areas of the church by those who felt that the account of Jesus overwhelmed with human weakness was inconpatible with his sharing the divine omnipotence of the Father, than that they would be added from an early source, than that they were added from an early source, oral or written, of extra-canonical traitions concerning the life and passion of Jesus. Nevertheless, while acknowledging that the passage is a later addition to the text, in view of its evident antiquity and its importance in the textual tradition, a majority of the Committee decided to retain the words in the text but to enclose them within double square brackets."

[showmeproof]

I don't know anyone who focuses on their religions. Instead, the focus is on their overall culture, with religion relegated to a supporting role, and in this, Samuel Noah Kramer is without equal. He was the pre-eminent Sumerologist of the past century, personally responsible for a larger body of transcription, translation and exposition than any other scholar in the field. He died at 93 in 1990. If I were to recommend one book to get you started, it would be his The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character, originally published in 1963. You'll find sufficient references in this work to expand your studies, along with interesting insights into the history of Sumerology itself. A quick search, and I find it's available as a google book preview. As you'll note, this is for the popular press. If you're interested in the fine details, there's no escaping the need to comb the journals. A working knowledge of French and German is essential.

This is a much slower moving field, with the bulk of \the original material excavated between the mid 19th and mid 20th centuries, typically in fragmentary clay tablets or tablets partially eroded (though fortunately often multiply attested), meaning a great deal still awaits reconstruction and translation. There are a many parallels with biblical motifs, but you should not hope to be able to follow El or any cognate back to Sumer, and certainly not in the detail available from sources such as the Baal Cycle or the letters from Mari. Keep in mind that writing was still in its infancy during this period while scribal education was still being formalized, a process that extended over a period of centuries.

As ever, Jesse

Just to clarify, I am not looking to follow El or cognates back to Babylon, but I am interested in following the roles and structures of the ANE myth repertoire back. For instance, and directly pertaining to this discussion, I just acquired The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat Myth by Neil Forsyth which details the various adaptations of the combat theme from Sumer through Babylon, Ugarit and the Bible. Fabulous book (currently about 200 pages in). I'd rate this as an essential right after The Origins of Biblical Monotheism by Mark S. Smith.

[showmeproof]

Though this thread is dead, I have come across a very succinct description of Yawheh as the typical ANE storm god in an essay from F.W. Dobbs-Allsopp on page 36 of David and Zion: Biblical Studies in Honor of J.J. Roberts.

"That is, as a typical ancient Near Eastern storm god, the literary depiction of Yahweh's theophany customarily involves the dark clouds associated with thunderstorms (Exod 3:22; 13:21-22; 14:14; 19:9; 40:38; Lev 9:15,16; 14:14; Deut 1:33; 4:11; 5:4,5,22;1 Kgs 8:10, 11; Isa 4:5; Ps 78:14; 105:39). And as a warrior deity, Yahweh is frequently imagined as wrapped in clouds (2 Sam 22:12, 13; Ps 97:2; Lam 3:44) or riding upon them through the skies (2 Sam 22:11; Isa 19:1; Ps 68:5, 33; 104:3) or as otherwise associated with them (Judges 5:4). Indeed, the stunning vision that opens the book of Ezekiel portrays Yahweh's war chariot (which is en route to do battle against Jerusalem) as enshrouded with "a great storm cloud." Fittingly, then, Joel (2:2) and Zephaniah (1:15) refer to the Day of Yahweh as "a day of densest cloud (cf. Ezekiel 30:2), and Ezekiel (30:18) envisions it as a time when "the city shall be covered by a cloud." Thus, the image of Yahweh "beclouding" Jerusalem [in Lam 2] is especially well suited to the context. Not only are the clouds the harbinger of impending doom, but also they are the visible manifestation of the Divine Warrior's menacing presence."

The bible is the source for the storm imagery which in mocking has been equated to 'sky daddy' per the OP.