Canaanite pantheon and Israel's Polytheistic roots

[maklelan]

I should clarify that the God in Psalm 82 is noted El and not Yahweh. It may very well be that Yahweh and El are equated here, and if so Yahweh is at the head of the pantheon in this Psalm. However, I'm not sure if El and YHWH are to be equated in this Psalm.

Yhwh is called elohim in the psalm, but the word El only appears in edat-el in verse 1. Psalm 82 is one of the psalms of Asaph, who prefers the title elohim over Yhwh almost 10 to 1. The exhortation in the final verse to "Rise up, O God . . ." is repeated in several other psalms, but the only two times it refers to God in the vocative instead of Yhwh are the two times it appears in Asaph's psalms (Ps 50, 73-83). Many early scholars concluded elohim is a textual corruption where Yhwh was original. Now most scholars are sure whoever wrote them just preferred the generic elohim. Irrespective, a close reading of the psalm shows elohim is placed in the subordinate role according to the conventions of the type-scene, with El/Elyon in the presiding role.

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
I've added your qoute from a later post because it should be answered the same as portions of your older post.

The assertion that old traditions of polythiesm were integrated into the latter framework of monothiestic theology can be made, but they are impossible to prove to a non-debatable position. Precisely because of their integration into the culture.

I disagree with this. First, there is no integration of older theology. All new theology bases itself in some capacity on old theology, especially where sacred texts are involved, since they solidify that older theology within the newer tradition's heritage. It must be made to fit within the old theology. The new is incorporated into the old, not the other way around. Since we can plot with a good degree of accuracy how and when monotheism developed, and since there's no evidence of it prior to that trajectory, there is no need to prove any kind of integration of polytheism. The onus is actually on the person to show that monotheism exists where the evidence doesn't recognize it.

My response was based against an assertion by Showmeproof from an earlier post, not myself making such an assertion. Before I can respond to anything within your post I need to be certian that you didn't base your response against a premise that wasn't my own. I'm not trying to be evasive but I expect in discussing these things with you that such things will be necessary for me to keep up with you.

Mr. Anderson

In your last post you seem to have intended to address the denunciations in Jeremiah about the mlk sacrifice but you left off an explanation. Do you care to revisit this?

Maklelan noticed my attempt to address the issue and responded to it himself. Did you miss his response as well?

[showmeproof]

Yhwh is called elohim in the psalm, but the word El only appears in edat-el in verse 1. Psalm 82 is one of the psalms of Asaph, who prefers the title elohim over Yhwh almost 10 to 1. The exhortation in the final verse to "Rise up, O God . . ." is repeated in several other psalms, but the only two times it refers to God in the vocative instead of Yhwh are the two times it appears in Asaph's psalms (Ps 50, 73-83). Many early scholars concluded elohim is a textual corruption where Yhwh was original. Now most scholars are sure whoever wrote them just preferred the generic elohim. Irrespective, a close reading of the psalm shows elohim is placed in the subordinate role according to the conventions of the type-scene, with El/Elyon in the presiding role.

Thanks for the clarification. I did indeed miss that the head god sits whereas the subordinates are standing in his presence.

Would the elohim identify the the deity standing in judgement as one amongst the elohim. In other words, elohim is plural and even though there is only one deity standing in judgement does the plural form identify him as belonging to the group?

Or can elohim be used singularly?

[maklelan]

Thanks for the clarification. I did indeed miss that the head god sits whereas the subordinates are standing in his presence.

Would the elohim identify the the deity standing in judgement as one amongst the elohim. In other words, elohim is plural and even though there is only one deity standing in judgement does the plural form identify him as belonging to the group?

Or can elohim be used singularly?

Elohim can be used with a singular referent. The best book on the term is Joel Burnett, A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim. He shows that the plural elohim and its cognates have been in use in reference to singular subjects throughout Semitic cultures. This use is explained as the concretization of an abstract plural. Literally, the word elohim means "divinity," or "deity," as in the abstractions. There are a lot of plurals that are used this way. abot is the plural of "father," but it is often used to mean "fatherhood." adonim is the plural of "lord," but it is often used to mean "lordship." In Israel and several other cultures the term was used so frequently in reference to a particular deity that it became concretized as a reference specifically to that deity. It was still used abstractly, but could also be understood as a proper noun. In places where the Hebrew uses the definite article (ha-elohim) this is especially clear. A very tight translation would render the word elohim "divinty," or "deity," unless it was clearly being used in the concrete and proper sense.

[OneSizeFit]

Elohim can be used with a singular referent. The best book on the term is Joel Burnett, A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim. He shows that the plural elohim and its cognates have been in use in reference to singular subjects throughout Semitic cultures. This use is explained as the concretization of an abstract plural. Literally, the word elohim means "divinity," or "deity," as in the abstractions. There are a lot of plurals that are used this way. abot is the plural of "father," but it is often used to mean "fatherhood." adonim is the plural of "lord," but it is often used to mean "lordship." In Israel and several other cultures the term was used so frequently in reference to a particular deity that it became concretized as a reference specifically to that deity. It was still used abstractly, but could also be understood as a proper noun. In places where the Hebrew uses the definite article (ha-elohim) this is especially clear. A very tight translation would render the word elohim "divinty," or "deity," unless it was clearly being used in the concrete and proper sense.

The JPS Tanakh is pretty honest in translating many instances of elohim as "divine beings"

[showmeproof]

As I read Deuteronomy 32:7-9 Yahweh is considered a son of El from whom YHWH receives an inheritance. This is the position of many scholars.

However, what I have not had the opportunity to read about at length is a possible reference to Yahweh at Ugarit. In KTU 1.1 IV 14 we have sm. bny. yw. ilt. I would love to get a hold of a copy of The Ugaritic Baal Cycle from Smith, but it is a very expensive book (with two volumes). I understand that the particular context is a conversation between El and Athrait about Yam. Further, as far as I understand the text even though we have 'the name of my son is Yaw O' Goddess' it goes on to say he will not be called by that name, but by Yam.

Many scholars are quick to point out that the text is clearly about Yam and so diminish the importance of the Yw. I think this may be a quick dismissal, not completely unwarranted, but there is a conversation and disagreement amongst the head god and his consort about the name...surely there is a reason for both initially calling him Yw and further for the settlement upon Yam. Now, Yahweh is depicted as conquering Yam and his sea monsters in the Hebrew Bible and there is no correlation between the two that I am aware other than perhaps that Yam was El's favored son (and thus the not unwarranted bit). Again, this is a very rudimentary understanding that I have been able to glimpse in very limited commentaries, is there any light on this you can shed?

An update on KTU 1.1 IV 14 sm . bny . yw . ilt

This belongs in context with 13-20 in a discussion between El and Athrait (asherah) about putting Yam as head of the divine council. The yw in this text has been proposed by a few scholars to identify Yahweh as a title of Yam (cf DeMoore). In personal correspondence with Mark S. Smith, he simply states that this connection is unsupported. The meaning of yw in this text remains "unkown". He declined to offer a suggestion as to what it could mean.

It does appear that it is a name or title of one of El's sons (bny=my son). This is the one and only occurrence of yw in the Ugaritic texts and nowhere else is Yahweh identified with Yam, nor with his characteristics; thus the unsupported. In fact, Yahweh is spoken as having Baal's characteristics including his foremost rival (Yam). However, Yahweh is identified as one of EL's sons in the Hebrew Bible (cf Deuteronomy 32:7-9). What other son's of El were named yw? So basically no attestations of yw being linked with ym besides KTU 1.1 IV 14, but we do have attestation of Yahweh being one of El's sons. What is also important to note is that the earliest anthroponyms in Israel with the Yahweh theophoric uses the yw formulation.

I understand the caution used in keeping yw 'unknown', but yw being identified with Yahweh is the only plausible connection that we currently have. yw could indeed be another one of El's sons....but whom?

[showmeproof]

I have included three photos.

1) The Arch of Titus (ca. 70 AD)
2) The Taanach Cult Stand (ca. 1000 BCE)
3) The Lachish Ewer (ca. 1300 BCE)



The instructions for the construction of the menorah is given in Exodus 25:31-40. In Exodus, the menorah is clearly a symbol of Yahweh. Not an image of Yahweh, but a cultic symbol used to remember the 'burning bush' and it is to be housed in the tabernacle and later the Temple. The term used to describe its features include branches, blossoms, almond, knobs or calyx (depending upon your translation), and petals. In short, it is a tree in blossom, as far as we know from the description an almond tree. We've all seen a menorah but lets put it in a historical context.

Look at the commemoration of the destruction of Jerusalem on the Arch of Titus. The menorah here is depicted as described in Exodus and is being carried out of the Temple. Three branches on either side of a central trunk.

Now lets go back in time by about 1,000 years and look at the Taanach Cult Stand. On the third register we have a tree flanked by two goats or ibexes. This symbol is used to signify Asherah, as is the Goddess on the bottom stand flanked by two lions. On the top register is a young bull or calf with a flying sun, a denotation of divinity in the ANE, this calf can be posited by inscriptional and iconographical evidence to be El, Baal, or YHWH. Both the top and second tier have sphinxes and are by virtue linked together just as the bottom and third tiers are linked together. It has been proposed that both the calf on the top and the empty fenestration on the second tier are aniconic representations of YWHW. Other places where Baal or El are depicted with a bull they are standing on its back. This combination of deities standing on the back of animals is widely attested throughout the ANE. The fact that a deity is absent from the back of the divine calf and the empty fenestration on the second tier is an argument from absence, a possible indication of aniconography. It does remain possible that either EL or Baal were intended. What I really want to draw attention to is the tree which will make sense with the Lachish Ewer.

Going back yet further in time another 300 years we see the Lachish Ewer. Here there is also a tree flanked by two male ibexes or rams. Above the tree is the title of the goddess Asherah 'lt, the feminine form of EL meaning lady. Does the tree, the representation of the goddess Asherah, look familiar? Does it look like a menorah?

Is the menorah an Asherah?

Now it is important to understand the usage of Asherah in the bible. She is depicted as a goddess with phrophets in the story of Elijah. The asherah is also described as a stylized tree whether carved from a tree or a living tree for Asherah the goddess. Lastly the Asherah is described as being a stylized or carved symbol for any deity. From the varied use of Asherah in the bible alone we can determine that Asherah was a goddess, a symbol denoting the goddess, and lastly a symbol detached from the goddess.

It appears that the Jews, to present day, utilize an Asherah albeit removed from its earliest context.

Not only is this a wonderful example of cultural evolution in action, but it shows that we can look at later derived features and find from whence they came.

[showmeproof]

LPOT has repeatedly asserted that any perceived borrowing or assimilation is due to the Israelites stealing the glory from other gods to bestow it upon Yahweh. She has repeatedly asked me why her explanation isn't right, or rather how it is wrong. I have been long winded in my answers to her. I have posted this in another thread, but it really belongs here so here is the concise answer to your repeated question:

Your answer fails to account for the polytheism of the Israelites. The bible itself makes the claim that the Israelites took Yahweh's glory, worship, sacrifices etc. and bestowed them upon other 'foreign' gods. The Deutronomistic law forbids all foreign gods. Any borrowing would thus have been contra Yahweh's repeated consternation. The borrowing of both EL and Baal's characteristics in Yahweh's attributes, not to mention other Canaanite gods and their council, must have been made when the Israelites thought it acceptable. If this borrowing were late these characteristics would have been rejected as non-Yahwistic by the priest and prophets. Instead what we see is retained features imbued in Yahweh that originate in Canaanite gods and goddesses.

[showmeproof]

Here is a cool 15 minute video. This clip is very well produced and does a decent job summarizing Yahwism arising from the Canaanite religion. What I think most helpful in this clip is the graphic showing the redactors in different colors. This shows how we came to interpret the bible as always portraying monotheism...because we are looking through the lens of later authors looking back on earlier traditions inserting theological views which are socio-historically inconsistent with the time they are said to portray. This is a good introduction and is fairly accurate. I do have a problem how he is portraying the Tanaach Cult Stand at about minute eight. He is depicting each tier as belonging to a separate deity with El on the bottom then Yahweh then Asherah and then Baal. Most scholars I have read interpret it as the bottom and third tier being reference to Asherah and the second and top tiers being in reference to Yahweh. All in all though the information is pretty good. I have not watched any of this posters other videos and I am only putting forward this 15 minute clip as a good introduction. His reference seems to be Karen Armstrong's A History of God which is a popularized account.

[The Pixie]

Very interesting video, thanks.

[showmeproof]

At minute 12:23 in the above video you will find a depiction of the altar at the Temple Complex. Notice the four horns. The Tabernacle altar is described in Exodus 27:1-2
"You shall make the altar of acacia wood, five cubits long and five cubits wide; the altar shall be square, and it shall be three cubits high. You shall make horns for it on its four corners; its horns shall be of one piece with it, and you shall overlay it in bronze." Why might the four horns detail be important? Because we have many examples of four-horned altars.

The altar at Dan


The altar at Beersheba


The altar at Tell Rehov


The altars from Ekron


The altar from Meggido

[showmeproof]

Ugarit and the Syrian city of Mari had political and trade relations in the 16th century B.C.E. Mari, under the rule of Zimri Lim was destroyed by the famous Babylonian ruler Hammurabi. The reason that I bring this up is that Ugarit had Egyptian, Hittite, and Mesopotamian influences. My main sources of information in the following post will rely heavily upon Abraham Malamat's Mari and the Early Israelite Experience and also the Bible. A layout of Zimri Lim's palace is provided by Malamat and a unique tour is given based upon the archaeological evidence provided by each room.



What I am going to focus on are rooms 65,64 and courtyard 106. This series of rooms are known as the royal ceremonial complex. Courtyard 106 is quite possibly the Court of the Palm referred to in contemporaneous texts from Mari itself. Here on the wall just to the right of the entrance to room 64 is the mural known as 'The Investiture of Zimri Lim'. Room 64 had a statue of a goddess (the same from the bottom register of the Investiture of Zimri Lim) and a podium either for the statue or for a throne and room 65 was the official throne room.

Here is the Investiture of Zimri Lim

That can be pretty hard to make out so here is an artists rendition of what the mural would have looked like in full glory.
• Edited by a Moderator •

What we see here is reminiscent of the garden of Eden. On either side of the central panel you see two trees. The outer tree on either side have a person climbing to the top to access its fruits. The inner tree to either side is guarded by Cherubim (cf. Genesis 3:24). On the bottom register of the central panel you see a goddess to either side holding a jar from which four streams flow from a single source (cf. Genesis 2:4)

Moderated By: Littlejoe

This mural is copyrighted material and is not for free publication

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[showmeproof]

Now to the Cult of the Dead and parallels between Mari, Ugarit, and Israel. Wait a minute, you might say, the Israelites didn't have a cult of the dead. Let's start with the Festival of the New Moon celebrated by Saul and Jonathan and David's absence in 1 Samuel 20. "If your father misses me at all, then say, 'David earnestly asked leave of me to run to Bethlehem his city; for there is a yearly sacrifice (zebah hayyamim) there for all the family (mispahah)." Here David gives an excuse for Jonathan to tell Saul. This excuse tells us a bit about what occurred during this time. David was returning to his ancestral home where they would make a sacrifice for all the family. To this day in Jewish tradition the Blessing of the New Moon contains various prayers one of which includes the thrice repetition of "David, King of Israel is alive and well (or flourishes)". On the other holidays including Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles, Atonement, and Remembrance the souls of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, David, Rebeccah, Sarah, Rachel and Leah are to be invited to the feasts. Saul as we all know is rebuffed for calling forth the shade of Samuel. Here Samuel's shade is literally called an elohim. In some translations it is a ghostly figure (NIV), others a spirit (KJV), and the NRSV is divine being. In all versions the word that is translated is elohim or god; i.e. the deified dead. In Isaiah 14:9 we read "Sheol beneath is stirred up to meet you when you come; it rouses the shades (rephaim) to greet you, all who were leaders of the earth; it raises from their thrones all who were kings of the nations." (Isaiah 14 has many Canaanite motifs to rebuff the Babylonian king!)

The inhabitants of Sheol are also referred to as the Rephaim translated as shades (Job 26:5, Psalm 88:11, Proverbs 2:18, 9:18, 21:16, Isaiah 14:9, 26:14,19). Genesis 14:5 refers to the Rephaim as an ethnic group that dwells in Ashteroth-karnaim. Now how can the Rephaim boh be an ethnic group (of Giants) and the deceased in Sheol? Well, KTU 1.108.1-3 Rp'u 'the king of eternity' is a god who dwells at Ashtaroth and Edrei'

At Mari, the time for the worship of the deceased was also the time of the New Moon. Here the sacrifice was the kispum and although it was performed regularly, once a year near our February they held a special kispum for the long dead kings. On the more personal familial level we find texts of the kispum which state "Release them in order to let them eat his bread and drink his water." Sin, the moon god is commanded to release the dead, and the sacrifices go to Samas and they eat a meal with the dead. At Mari, Ugarit, and Israel sacrifices were feasts eaten in communion with God(s).

Consider a moment the attestation in the negative in the OT Deuteronomy 26:14 "I have not eaten of it [tithe of produce] while in mourning; I have not removed any of it while I was unclean; and I have not offered any of it to the dead."

Now we turn more specifically to Ugarit. The Funerary Text at Ugarit is performed by Ammurapi on behalf of the newly deceased Niqmaddu III. Ammurapi calls on the rpum (this is the same root as the biblical Rephraim) of old, the long dead kings and lists them and beseeches them to bless his rule ending with "Peace to Ammurapi, and peace to his sons, peace to his kinsmen". At Ugarit the cult of the dead is not tied to the new moon, but Shapsu the sun god equivalent to Samas is said to escort them down to the underworld just as the sun sets each day Shapsu resides in the underworld at night. In other Ugaritic texts the dead are referred to as gods and are said to feast with the gods.

[The Pixie]

At Ugarit the cult of the dead is not tied to the new moon, but Shapsu the sun god equivalent to Samas is said to escort them down to the underworld just as the sun sets each day Shapsu resides in the underworld at night.

The Jews had a tradition that the dead must be buried by sunset (hence Joseph of Arimathea had Jesus' body brought down from the cross and quickly bried). Could that be linked to this idea that the dead are taken to the underworld at that time?

[showmeproof]

The Jews had a tradition that the dead must be buried by sunset (hence Joseph of Arimathea had Jesus' body brought down from the cross and quickly bried). Could that be linked to this idea that the dead are taken to the underworld at that time?

To be honest I have no idea.