Poll: The best argument against God, capital G.

[syo]

What are your thoughts on Ziusudra, hero of the much earlier Sumerian "Bilgamesh" myth?

What about him?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

At that point in the story he, Noah, was the solution to the world-wide corruption of everything that moved.

The. Solution. To. What? He built a boat. No evidence any thought was there to include anyone other than himself and his family. He gets drunk and curses one of the only people currently alive, when blessing the genetic bottleneck should have been a priority.

 

[dybmh]

The. Solution. To. What? He built a boat. No evidence any thought was there to include anyone other than himself and his family. He gets drunk and curses one of the only people currently alive, when blessing the genetic bottleneck should have been a priority.

The story operates on more than one level. There are some things happening in the text which indicate he took the spirit of everyone and everything that moved and put it in the spiritual ark that he made. The secondary story doesn't replace the first. It adds and explains.

I rarely consider the "genetic bottleneck" issue; it's not important to me. However, I wonder if this additional spiritual layer explains that too.

 

[dybmh]

The earliest written example of Hebrew was around 1000 BCE, but Akkadian dates back to at least 3000 BCE, almost 2,000 years earlier. That was well before Hebrew even existed as a coherent speech community. The reign of Ramses II dates the Moses story, and that was roughly around 1200 BCE. The Bible was likely compiled in its earliest form at a later date, during the height of the Jewish Empire. The Ugaritic texts were written closer, if not earlier, than the time of Ramses II, and Ugarit likely had no contact with the Hebrew tribes. Ugarit itself was destroyed in the 8th year of the reign of Ramses III (i.e. in 1178 BCE) and lost until modern times. It is located about six miles north of the Syrian port of Latakia, but they still spoke a Canaanite language, like the Hebrews.

So, you are heavily weighting the evidence of a written language on the determination of which story came first. I don't think that's a strong indicator. Myths of that era originated as stories passed down verbally. Most people couldn't read or write. Also, the Moses-figure, and the contigent that were slaves came from somewhere. They had stories and myths. And it would be highly unlikely that these slaves were the only ones of their kind, just a subsection. I think they were probably Shasu. Which is just a type of nomad who did circulate within the range of Ugarit. Then these people scattered even more during times of chaos and upheaval.

Regarding the compilation of the Hebrew bible, those dates are describing literally stitching together the stories and making them well known.

When it comes to the Ugaritic texts, again, the Hebrew bible is being used as the cipher. I don't think that should be ignored. But we're not talking about them. The Shasu were in and around Sumeria, it seems like the Shasu are good candidates for who could be indentified as ancient Hebrews. Right place, right time, right god. The Akkadians didn't have a flood myth originally, then added one. And all of these stories seem to have been written around the same time. A time when mixing of myths had motive.

The original myth was Sumerian, and the Akkadians came later. They assimilated much from the Sumerian culture, including their religion, so the evidence suggests that the Flood myth spread further south into the Levant from there. The Akkadian Empire was at its height in 2400 and 2200 BCE. Again, roughly a thousand years before the earliest recorded Canaanite language records. Languages and cultures shift around a lot over time periods like that.

I hear you. You're weighting the written language, and you don't seem to be considering an older word of mouth myth. And, you are saying that the Akkadians were known for borrowing and assimilating. That's what I was saying too. So when there appears a flood myth around 1100BCE-ish with matching elements to the Hebrew myth where there previously wasn't one, all things being equal, it could be either one borrowing from the other, or a blended myth.

And again, Shasu could be the original source in Sumeria. An Abraham-type figure and his household could have been Shasu. A chunk of Abraham's decendents end up in Egypt, while another group of Shasu continue to roam and eventually settle in Canaan. These are the earliest Israelites. The ones that are described in the Egyptian hieroglyphics. But there's also a delegation in Egypt. From this the story unfolds. The early Israelites intermarried and mixed and assimilated in culture and beliefs. While the egyptian delegation had a totally different experience. The beliefs and stories from the "house of Abraham" split, took different twists and turns then rejoined. And they were formalized and compiled when there was motive and benefit to do so.

I don't really believe that we know a lot about what the Jews were like in ancient times, because our modern perspective has been filtered through centuries of changing perspectives. As you say, there really isn't any "track record" to base reasonable speculation on, but it does seem pretty unlikely that the centuries of distance between the Akkadian and Canaanite eras preclude any borrowing from the newer culture to the older one that preceded it according to historical records. The oldest Semitic speaking culture in historical record was the Akkadians, who existed many centuries before the Canaanites appear in the historical record.

But how did the akkadian culture establish itself? I'm saying that borrowing and including other cultures myths and gods into their own was working for them. It was effective, so they did it and kept doing it. That's the track record of the akkadians. And it sounds like we agree on that. And, in principle this is polytheism of that era. But monotheism, by nature, is not going to want any of that.

 

[Copernicus]

But how did the akkadian culture establish itself? I'm saying that borrowing and including other cultures myths and gods into their own was working for them. It was effective, so they did it and kept doing it. That's the track record of the akkadians. And it sounds like we agree on that. And, in principle this is polytheism of that era. But monotheism, by nature, is not going to want any of that.

I have no real expertise in the history and am relying on books, articles, and discussions I've had regarding linguistic and cultural issues in those times. So I don't know enough about the Shasu to have an opinion, but I have read that the earliest mention of them goes back only to 1500 BCE, but the Sumerian/Akkadian Gilgamesh epic existed more than a millennium before that time. You must realize that a lot of changes can take place during that time period, but the Cuneiform records have survived in their original form without going through an error-prone oral or scribal copying tradition. The Gilgamesh epic itself underwent changes and elaboration over the centuries, but the core elements seem pretty consistent. One of the many versions of it showed up in Ugarit, but not in the Hebrew Judaic tradition. Still, some stories and thematic elements of it made it into Hebrew scripture--the Garden of Eden, the Flood, etc.

Regarding monotheism in ancient Israel and Judah, it is widely held that those kingdoms were largely polytheistic (and possibly henotheistic) and did not transition to monotheism until the Achaemenid (Persian) period.

See, for example,

The transition from polytheism to monotheism in ancient Israel and Judah​

Abstract​

It is widely accepted that ancient Israelites were predominantly polytheistic during most or all of the monarchic period. Yahwistic monotheism appears to develop only in the neo-Babylonian period and does not become the dominant religious expression until the Persian period. While there is substantial agreement among scholars about the dominance of polytheism in the earlier periods and monotheism in the later periods, there is little agreement about the processes that led to this radical religious transformation. This paper proposes to explain the transition from polytheism to monotheism as a multifaceted process that occurred from the 9th to 6th centuries BCE. The first impetus in the process was the struggle for supremacy over the Israelite pantheon between the supporters of Baal and Yahweh in Omride Israel. The significance of this struggle is transformed at the end of the 8th century, when Yahweh’s anger over the issue becomes the theological explanation for the fall of Samaria. This theological interpretation of the fall of Samaria then becomes the source of a Yahweh-only movement in Judah during the following century. The cult reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah are expressions of this new Yahweh-only perspective, but the failure of these reforms is also indicative of the resilience of the traditional polytheistic beliefs. Only with the fall of Jerusalem and the explanation of the event in terms of Yahweh’s anger over the worship of other deities does the monolatrous Yahweh-only theology develop into Yahwistic monotheism.

Now, I realize that this claim about the late development of monotheism can be extremely controversial, especially with religious traditionalists, but it seems to me to fit the historical pattern and archaeological evidence. Canaanites were, generally speaking, polytheistic, and the Bible contains references to Yahweh's anger over worship of other gods. My view is that the Akkadians set the historical pattern for Semitic religions for centuries after their civilization faded. The Achaemenid (Persian) Empire essentially spread the seeds of monotheism in the regions that they ruled over. Their Zoroastrian god, Ahura Mazda, was basically the model for other versions of monotheism in the region.

 

[Ella S.]

I chose "The Bible is unrealistic/fake" but I think the "unrealistic" part is an understatement. The Bible portrays events that we know didn't happen, including events that are outright physically impossible.

As for fake, I think it's simple to demonstrate how the Bible could have plausibly come about in the absence of supernatural forces and I think these explanations are not only more likely but they often give deeper insight into the texts due to the strength of the historical-critical method.

I think the Bible provides good reasons to believe that God not only doesn't exist but can't exist.

 

[dybmh]

I have no real expertise in the history and am relying on books, articles, and discussions I've had regarding linguistic and cultural issues in those times. So I don't know enough about the Shasu to have an opinion, but I have read that the earliest mention of them goes back only to 1500 BCE, but the Sumerian/Akkadian Gilgamesh epic existed more than a millennium before that time. You must realize that a lot of changes can take place during that time period, but the Cuneiform records have survived in their original form without going through an error-prone oral or scribal copying tradition. The Gilgamesh epic itself underwent changes and elaboration over the centuries, but the core elements seem pretty consistent. One of the many versions of it showed up in Ugarit, but not in the Hebrew Judaic tradition. Still, some stories and thematic elements of it made it into Hebrew scripture--the Garden of Eden, the Flood, etc.

Regarding monotheism in ancient Israel and Judah, it is widely held that those kingdoms were largely polytheistic (and possibly henotheistic) and did not transition to monotheism until the Achaemenid (Persian) period.

See, for example,

The transition from polytheism to monotheism in ancient Israel and Judah​

Now, I realize that this claim about the late development of monotheism can be extremely controversial, especially with religious traditionalists, but it seems to me to fit the historical pattern and archaeological evidence. Canaanites were, generally speaking, polytheistic, and the Bible contains references to Yahweh's anger over worship of other gods. My view is that the Akkadians set the historical pattern for Semitic religions for centuries after their civilization faded. The Achaemenid (Persian) Empire essentially spread the seeds of monotheism in the regions that they ruled over. Their Zoroastrian god, Ahura Mazda, was basically the model for other versions of monotheism in the region.

1) "Sumerian/Akkadian Gilgamesh epic existed more than a millennium before that time." The Sumerian version was written, best guess by historians, 1700BCE. It could be older, of course, much older. But it is sparse. "It rained for a whole week, one of the gods directed a person to build a boat collect some animals ad save himself. While on th boat an offering was brought to the gods." That's pretty much it. The Akkadian flood myth is 1100BCE, best guess of historians, and it cannot be older than 2100BCE, but probably much younger than that. Splitting the difference, again everything is narrowing into 1500BCEish. And that puts the Shasu in the right time, the right place, and with the right god. The Sumerian verion could easily be Shasu, or anyone's. It's just a simple story about a flood probably spreading via word-of-mouth. Most people couldn't read or write.

2) "Regarding monotheism in ancient Israel and Judah, it is widely held that those kingdoms were largely polytheistic." Yes, the common people, the ones who couldn't read and write were certainly polytheists. I hope I wrote that in my reply. The post was getting long and I chopped a bunch out. But the leaders were not polytheists. The scribes were not polytheists. The egyptian delegation, big or small, were not polytheists. And that's where Judaism comes from. That's where the Torah comes from. The Scribes who wrote the Torah would not copy from other religions on principle. Their motive was completely opposed to that. And if you think about a slave's mindset who escaped or was freed, their worldview is going to be isolation, anti-assimilation, "we have to stick together, people; the indigenous folk could enslave us again."

 

[dybmh]

I chose "The Bible is unrealistic/fake" but I think the "unrealistic" part is an understatement. The Bible portrays events that we know didn't happen, including events that are outright physically impossible.

As for fake, I think it's simple to demonstrate how the Bible could have plausibly come about in the absence of supernatural forces and I think these explanations are not only more likely but they often give deeper insight into the texts due to the strength of the historical-critical method.

I think the Bible provides good reasons to believe that God not only doesn't exist but can't exist.

Thank you for voting

 

[Copernicus]

1) "Sumerian/Akkadian Gilgamesh epic existed more than a millennium before that time." The Sumerian version was written, best guess by historians, 1700BCE. It could be older, of course, much older. But it is sparse. "It rained for a whole week, one of the gods directed a person to build a boat collect some animals ad save himself. While on th boat an offering was brought to the gods." That's pretty much it. The Akkadian flood myth is 1100BCE, best guess of historians, and it cannot be older than 2100BCE, but probably much younger than that. Splitting the difference, again everything is narrowing into 1500BCEish. And that puts the Shasu in the right time, the right place, and with the right god. The Sumerian verion could easily be Shasu, or anyone's. It's just a simple story about a flood probably spreading via word-of-mouth. Most people couldn't read or write.

I'm not sure where you are getting this information, but my information comes primarily from sources like the article written by Samuel Noah Kramer and published in the Penn Museum Expedition Magazine:

REFLECTIONS ON THE MESOPOTAMIAN FLOOD​

According to Kramer, the legend involving Ziusudra, which would be part of the Sumerian Bilgamesh epic, dates to around 2000 BCE in its best known form. He claims that one copy of parts of it even dates to 2500 BCE, but ultimately concludes that the flood event triggering Ziusudra's story took place around 3000 BCE. Again, the evidence suggests that flood story predates the arrival of the Akkadians, who ultimately conquered and succeeded the Sumerians. The best examples of the flood story that we have are Akkadian and almost certainly inspired parts of many flood myths that extended even into India. They were also a part of the Zoroastrian religion. I don't think all of those cultures were borrowing from the Hebrew myth.

2) "Regarding monotheism in ancient Israel and Judah, it is widely held that those kingdoms were largely polytheistic." Yes, the common people, the ones who couldn't read and write were certainly polytheists. I hope I wrote that in my reply. The post was getting long and I chopped a bunch out. But the leaders were not polytheists. The scribes were not polytheists. The egyptian delegation, big or small, were not polytheists. And that's where Judaism comes from. That's where the Torah comes from. The Scribes who wrote the Torah would not copy from other religions on principle. Their motive was completely opposed to that. And if you think about a slave's mindset who escaped or was freed, their worldview is going to be isolation, anti-assimilation, "we have to stick together, people; the indigenous folk could enslave us again."

The Egyptians certainly had a brief dalliance with Monotheism under Akhenatan's rule, but I still keep reading that most scholars see the Archimedean influence from Zoroastrianism as the progenitor of Judaic monotheism. However, I admit to being a total dilettante when it comes to such matters, and I don't have the expertise needed to evaluate all of the conflicting opinions on these matters that I've looked at. I'm not even sure that the Exodus was much as depicted in Jewish tradition. Rather than the plagues described in that tradition, the event that triggered them to flee Egypt may have been invasions from "Sea People", who were likely Hellenic marauders that plagued the Mediterranean regions of the Levant and Egypt.

 

[dybmh]

I'm not sure where you are getting this information, but my information comes primarily from sources like the article written by Samuel Noah Kramer and published in the Penn Museum Expedition Magazine:

REFLECTIONS ON THE MESOPOTAMIAN FLOOD​

According to Kramer, the legend involving Ziusudra, which would be part of the Sumerian Bilgamesh epic, dates to around 2000 BCE in its best known form. He claims that one copy of parts of it even dates to 2500 BCE, but ultimately concludes that the flood event triggering Ziusudra's story took place around 3000 BCE. Again, the evidence suggests that flood story predates the arrival of the Akkadians, who ultimately conquered and succeeded the Sumerians. The best examples of the flood story that we have are Akkadian and almost certainly inspired parts of many flood myths that extended even into India. They were also a part of the Zoroastrian religion.

I'm getting it from the wikipages on the Atra-hasis, and on the wikipage for the Epic of Gilgamesh. In the original link you brought, the source for the info on the plot of the flood ( what little there was ) came from a a book titled "atra-hasis". I recall the "Atra-Hasis" as the source for the Epic of Gilgamesh of Akkadia. I think we're talking about the same thing. But I don't know. I'll try to read up on what is being called the "Bilgamesh" epic to see if we are indeed talking about the same story. And it will be good to see what actual details are in there that match the Hebrew bible's version.

Here's the info on the Akkadian Epic. That's the only one, that I know of that has real strong comparisons to the Hebrew bible that would indicate a copy/borrowing. If you take a look. the flood narrative exists in the most recent "Standard version" tablet 11, but is missing in the older versions.

"The older Old Babylonian tablets and later Akkadian version are important..."​

​

"The most recent Akkadian version, also referred to as the Standard Babylonian version, consists of twelve tablets and was edited by Sîn-lēqi-unninni, who is thought to have lived sometime between 1300 BC and 1000 BC."​

​

Epic of Gilgamesh - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I don't think all of those cultures were borrowing from the Hebrew myth.

I don't either. It's just a common story spread via word of mouth. And that's kind of what your source says. There was an actual flood event. The thing people point to is the Akkadian version because that's the one that has real similarities in it that would indicate the Hebrew bible was borrowing, but no one considers the actual date of the Akkadian myth. All the stories get smooshed together, then the earliest date for any of the various flood myths are considered regardless of whether they are a good match. The early version, as far as I can tell, doesn't indicate any borrowing, just a common event and/or exposure to a very common sounding myth with a few common features. It's a story easily told on any dark and stormy night. "Don't worry, one time, It rained for a whole week straight, and the whole world flooded. A god warned a person and told them to build a boat. And they brought animals with them and that's how humanity survived. We'll be fine." "But, we don't have a boat!" "If it's raining like this in two days, then I'll build us a boat. Try to get some sleep."

The Egyptians certainly had a brief dalliance with Monotheism under Akhenatan's rule, but I still keep reading that most scholars see the Archimedean influence from Zoroastrianism as the progenitor of Judaic monotheism. However, I admit to be a total dilettante when it comes to such matters, and I don't have the expertise needed to evaluate all of the conflicting opinions on these matters that I've looked at. I'm not even sure that the Exodus was much as depicted in Jewish tradition. Rather than the plagues described in that tradition, the event that triggered them to flee Egypt may have been invasions from "Sea People", who were likely Hellenic marauders that plagued the Mediterranean regions of the Levant and Egypt.

Yes, monotheism existed in other cultures. The Midianites and Edomites people talk of as well. Yes the Egyptians too. And all of this matches what the Hebrew bible says. I've spent some time reading the Zoroastasian scriptures. It's been awhile. And they too adapted over time. But how they adapted is interesting. They picked up an armageddon event. Guess when? Around 1000BCE. Guess what else they picked up, a Messiah. Same basic time. Previously they had multiple saviors, then they all morphed into one. This can be seen by comparing the Gathas and the Avestas and looking at the dates of the books. Things got much more exteme in their writing during that period. 1000BCE. And that makes sense considering what the author's were experiencing at that time.

But comparing the theology, Honestly, it's not strictly monotheistic, they had a trinity of sorts, if I recall. And the crossover with Judaism is more about comparing passages in the Prophets that speak about an armageddon event, the end of the world and a new world created. But these are really circumstantial and not theological. The didn't pick up any new myths, they just got more intense. The strongest similarities are actually between Zoroastarianism and Christianity, not Judaism. There's a trinity, there's a supreme evil known as the great lie. There's a savior ( although originally there were several, and they all morphed into one super-dude ). And if I recall there's a few others in the mix.

But again, all of this mixing and sharing and writing down myths, it's all happening at the same basic time. Even if one considers the Zoroastarians as strictly monotheistic, that kind of supports my point, because they did not adopt the myths of the others. There was a circumstantial shift in the eschatology, but not in their god beliefs or mythology. They stayed somewhat seperate and distinct. So, monotheism does seem to naturally avoid assimilation with the others.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm getting it from the wikipages on the Atra-hasis, and on the wikipage for the Epic of Gilgamesh. In the original link you brought, the source for the info on the plot of the flood ( what little there was ) came from a a book titled "atra-hasis". I recall the "Atra-Hasis" as the source for the Epic of Gilgamesh of Akkadia. I think we're talking about the same thing. But I don't know. I'll try to read up on what is being called the "Bilgamesh" epic to see if we are indeed talking about the same story. And it will be good to see what actual details are in there that match the Hebrew bible's version.

Here's the info on the Akkadian Epic. That's the only one, that I know of that has real strong comparisons to the Hebrew bible that would indicate a copy/borrowing. If you take a look. the flood narrative exists in the most recent "Standard version" tablet 11, but is missing in the older versions.

"The older Old Babylonian tablets and later Akkadian version are important..."​

​

"The most recent Akkadian version, also referred to as the Standard Babylonian version, consists of twelve tablets and was edited by Sîn-lēqi-unninni, who is thought to have lived sometime between 1300 BC and 1000 BC."​

​

Epic of Gilgamesh - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I don't either. It's just a common story spread via word of mouth. And that's kind of what your source says. There was an actual flood event. The thing people point to is the Akkadian version because that's the one that has real similarities in it that would indicate the Hebrew bible was borrowing, but no one considers the actual date of the Akkadian myth. All the stories get smooshed together, then the earliest date for any of the various flood myths are considered regardless of whether they are a good match. The early version, as far as I can tell, doesn't indicate any borrowing, just a common event and/or exposure to a very common sounding myth with a few common features. It's a story easily told on any dark and stormy night. "Don't worry, one time, It rained for a whole week straight, and the whole world flooded. A god warned a person and told them to build a boat. And they brought animals with them and that's how humanity survived. We'll be fine." "But, we don't have a boat!" "If it's raining like this in two days, then I'll build us a boat. Try to get some sleep."



Yes, monotheism existed in other cultures. The Midianites and Edomites people talk of as well. Yes, the Egyptians too. And all of this matches what the Hebrew bible says. I've spent some time reading the Zoroastrian scriptures. It's been a while. And they too adapted over time. But how they adapted is interesting. They picked up an armageddon event. Guess when? Around 1000BCE. Guess what else they picked up, a Messiah. Same basic time. Previously they had multiple saviors, then they all morphed into one. This can be seen by comparing the Gathas and the Avestas and looking at the dates of the books. Things got much more extreme in their writing during that period. 1000BCE. And that makes sense considering what the authors were experiencing at that time.

But comparing the theology, Honestly, it's not strictly monotheistic, they had a trinity of sorts, if I recall. And the crossover with Judaism is more about comparing passages in the Prophets that speak about an armageddon event, the end of the world, and a new world created. But these are really circumstantial and not theological. They didn't pick up any new myths, they just got more intense. The strongest similarities are actually between Zoroastrianism and Christianity, not Judaism. There's a trinity, there's a supreme evil known as the great lie. There's a savior ( although originally there were several, and they all morphed into one super-dude ). And if I recall there's a few others in the mix.

But again, all of this mixing and sharing and writing down myths, it's all happening at the same basic time. Even if one considers the Zoroastrians as strictly monotheistic, that kind of supports my point, because they did not adopt the myths of the others. There was a circumstantial shift in the eschatology, but not in their god beliefs or mythology. They stayed somewhat seperate and distinct. So, monotheism does seem to naturally avoid assimilation with the others.

I believe the Creation myths, flood, and polytheistic references in OT do indicate mixing and sharing in the time before the known written versions of Genesis, Exodus, and the Pentateuch as a whole, which is quite late.

I do not believe that the Zoroastrian scriptures picked up anything from the Hebrew beliefs, which are later compilations from mixed sources, after the exile.

The earliest Hebrew writing and texts have origins in Ugarite, and Canaanite writings they to a degree evolved from including polytheistic references. Also, style and sections of the Psalms have distinct origins in earlier Ugarit/Canaanite writings.

Ugaritic and Biblical Literature

"Ugaritic and Biblical Literature" published on by Oxford University Press.

oxfordre.com

The Ugaritic texts offer innumerable literary and religious parallels to biblical literature. The parallels are so rich and in some cases so specific that it is evident that the Ugaritic texts do not merely provide parallels, but belong to a shared or overlapping cultural matrix with the Hebrew Bible. Ugaritic literature may not predate the earliest biblical sources by much more than a few decades, but the bulk of biblical literature dates to centuries later. Moreover, unlike the coastal, cosmopolitan center of Ugarit, ancient Israel’s heartland lay in the rural inland hill-country considerably to the south in what is today Israel and occupied Palestinian territory. Despite these important differences, Ugaritic and biblical literature are not to be understood as representing entirely different cultures, but overlapping ones.

Note: Genesis 2 Creation is likely an earlier version than the Genesis 1 version

 

[shunyadragon]

More on the origin of Psalms partly from earlier Ugarit/ Canaanite texts.

1. Introduction.

The ancient Canaanite city-state of Ugarit is of utmost importance for those who study the Old Testament. The literature of the city and the theology contained therein go a very long way in helping us to understand the meaning of various Biblical passages as well as aiding us in deciphering difficult Hebrew words. Ugarit was at its political, religious and economic height around the 12th century BCE and thus its period of greatness corresponds with the entry of Israel into Canaan.

Why should people interested in the Old Testament want to know about this city and its inhabitants? Simply because when we listen to their voices we hear echoes of the Old Testament itself. Several of the Psalms were simply adapted from Ugaritic sources; the story of the flood has a near mirror image in Ugaritic literature; and the language of the Bible is greatly illuminated by the language of Ugarit. For instance, look at M. Dahood s brilliant commentary on the Psalms in the Anchor Bible series for the necessity of Ugaritic for accurate Biblical exegesis. (N.B., for a more thorough discussion of the language of Ugarit, the student is advised to take the course titled Ugaritic Grammar offered by this institution).

In short, when one has well in hand the literature and theology of Ugarit, one is well on the way to being able to comprehend some of the most important ideas contained in the Old Testament. For this reason it is worthwhile that we pursue this topic.

. . .

All of the tablets found at Ugarit were written in the last period of its life (around 1300- 1200 BCE). The kings of this last and greatest period were:

​

1349	Ammittamru I
1325	Niqmaddu II
1315	Arhalba
1291	Niqmepa 2
1236	Ammitt
1193	Niqmaddu III
1185	Ammurapi

In the period 1200 - 1180 the city steeply declined and then mysteriously came to an end.

The texts which were discovered at Ugarit aroused interest because of their international flavor. That is, the texts were written in one of four languages; Sumerian, Akkadian, Hurritic and Ugaritic. The tablets were found in the royal palace, the house of the High Priest, and some private houses of evidently leading citizens.

These texts, as mentioned above, are very important for Old Testament study. The Ugaritic literature demonstrates that Israel and Ugarit shared a common literary heritage and a common linguistic lineage. They are, in short, related languages and literatures. We can thus learn very much about the one from the other. Our knowledge of the religion of Ancient Syria-Palestine and Canaan has been greatly increased by the Ugaritic materials and their significance cannot be overlooked. We have here, as it were, an open window on the culture and religion of Israel in its earliest period.

3. From the Literature of Ugarit to the Literature of the Bible.

The style of writing discovered at Ugarit is known as alphabetic cuneiform. This is a unique blending of an alphabetic script (like Hebrew) and cuneiform (like Akkadian); thus it is a unique blending of two styles of writing. Most likely it came into being as cuneiform was passing from the scene and alphabetic scripts were making their rise. Ugaritic is thus a bridge from one to the other and very important in itself for the development of both.

One of the most, if perhaps not the most, important aspect of Ugaritic studies is the assistance it gives in correctly translating difficult Hebrew words and passages in the Old Testament. As a language develops the meaning of words changes or their meaning is lost altogether. This is also true of the Biblical text. But after the discovery of the Ugaritic texts we gained new information concerning the meaning of archaic words in the Hebrew text.

One example of this is found in Proverbs 26:23. In the Hebrew text כֶּ֣סֶף סִ֭יגִים "silver lips" is divided just as it is here. This has caused commentators quite a bit of confusion over the centuries, for what does "silver lips" mean? The discovery of the Ugaritic texts has helped us to understand that the word was divided incorrectly by the Hebrew scribe (who was as unfamiliar as we are with what the words were supposed to mean). Instead of the two words above, the Ugaritic texts lead us to divide the two words as כספסיגים which means "like silver". This makes eminently more sense in context than the word mistakenly divided by the Hebrew scribe who was unfamiliar with the second word; so he divided into two words which he did know even though it made no sense.

Another example occurs in Ps 89:20. Here the word עָזַר is usually translated "help" but the Ugaritic word gzr means "young man" and if Psalm 89:20 is translated this way it is clearly more meaningful.

Besides single words being illuminated by the Ugaritic texts, entire ideas or complexes of ideas have parallels in the literature. For example, in Proverbs 9:1-18 wisdom and folly are personified as women. This means that when the Hebrew wisdom teacher instructed his students on these matters, he was drawing on material that was commonly known in the Canaanite environment (for Ugarit was Canaanite). In point of fact, KTU 1,7 VI 2-45 is nearly identical to Proverbs 9:1ff. (The abbreviation KTU stands for Keilalphabetische Texte aus Ugarit , the standard collection of this material. The numbers are what we might call the chapter and verse). KTU 1.114:2-4 says:



hklh. sh. lqs. ilm. tlhmn
ilm w tstn. tstnyn d sb
trt. d. skr. y .db .yrh

Eat, o Gods, and drink,
drink wine till you are sated,

Which is very similar to Proverbs 9:5;


Come, eat of my food and drink wine that I have mixed .

Ugaritic poetry is very similar to Biblical poetry and is therefore very useful in interpreting difficult poetic texts. In fact, Ugaritic literature (besides lists and the like) is composed completely in poetic metre. Biblical poetry follows Ugaritc poetry in form and function. There is parallelism, qinah metre, bi and tri colas, and all of the poetic tools found in the Bible are found at Ugarit. In short the Ugaritic materials have a great deal to contribute to our understanding of the Biblical materials; especially since they predate any of the Biblical texts.

More to follow concerning early polytheism of the Hebrews . . .

 

[timothy1027]

I would love to see the results of this poll published!
I hope you include all relevant scientific facts (sample size, dates, etc.).
This could be added to the collection of knowledge on History of Religion.

 

[shunyadragon]

Early Hebrew polytheism found in OT text rooted in the Ugarate pantheon

Part I

4. The Ugaritic Pantheon.

The prophets of the Old Testament rail against Baal, Asherah and various other gods on nearly every page. The reason for this is simple to understand; the people of Israel worshipped these gods along with, and sometimes instead of, Yahweh, the God of Israel. This Biblical denunciation of these Canaanite gods received a fresh face when the Ugaritic texts were discovered, for at Ugarit these were the very gods that were worshipped.

El was the chief god at Ugarit. Yet El is also the name of God used in many of the Psalms for Yahweh; or at least that has been the presupposition among pious Christians. Yet when one reads these Psalms and the Ugaritic texts one sees that the very attributes for which Yahweh is acclaimed are the same for which El is acclaimed. In fact, these Psalms were most likely originally Ugaritic or Canaanite hymns to El which were simply adopted by Israel, much like the American National Anthem was set to a beer hall tune by Francis Scott Key. El is called the father of men, creator, and creator of the creation. These attributes are also granted Yahweh by the Old Testament.

For instances, read KTU 1. 2 I 13-32 and compare it to many of the Psalms. Also, read Ps 82:1, 89:6-8!).

In 1 Kings 22:19-22 we read of Yahweh meeting with his heavenly council. This is the very description of heaven which one finds in the Ugaritic texts. For in those texts the sons of god are the sons of El.

Other deities worshipped at Ugarit were El Shaddai, El Elyon, and El Berith. All of these names are applied to Yahweh by the writers of the Old Testament. What this means is that the Hebrew theologians adopted the titles of the Canaanite gods and attributed them to Yahweh in an effort to eliminate them. If Yahweh is all of these there is no need for the Canaanite gods to exist! This process is known as assimilation.

Besides the chief god at Ugarit there were also lesser gods, demons, and goddesses. The most important of these lesser gods were Baal (familiar to all readers of the Bible), Asherah (also familiar to readers of the Bible), Yam (the god of the sea) and Mot (the god of death). What is of great interest here is that Yam is the Hebrew word for sea and Mot is the Hebrew word for death! Is this because the Hebrews also adopted these Canaanite ideas as well? Most likely they did.

One of the most interesting of these lesser deities, Asherah, plays a very important role in the Old Testament. There she is called the wife of Baal; but she is also known as the consort of Yahweh! That is, among some Yahwists, Ahserah is Yahweh s female counterpart! Inscriptions found at Kuntillet Ajrud (dated between 850 and 750 BCE) say:

I bless you through Yahweh of Samaria,
and through his Asherah!

And at El Qom (from the same period) this inscription:


Uriyahu, the king, has written this.
Blessed be Uriyahu through Yahweh,
and his enemies have been conquered
through Yahweh's Asherah.

That Yahwists worshipped Asherah until the 3rd century before Christ is well known from the Elephantine Papyri. Thus, for many in ancient Israel, Yahweh, like Baal, had a consort. Although condemned by the prophets, this aspect of the popular religion of Israel was difficult to overcome and indeed among many was never overcome.

As had already been mentioned, one of the more important lesser deities at Ugarit was Baal. Baal is described as the rider on the clouds in KTU 1.3 II 40. Interestingly enough, this description is also used of Yahweh in Psalm 68:5.

In the Old Testament Baal is named 58 times in the singular and 18 times in the plural. The prophets protested constantly against the love affair the Israelites had with Baal (cf. Hosea 2:19, for example). The reason Israel was so attracted to Baal was that, first of all, some Israelites viewed Yahweh as a God of the desert and so when they arrived in Canaan they thought it only proper to adopt Baal, the god of fertility. As the old saying goes, whose land, his god. For these Israelites Yahweh was useful in the desert but not much help in the land.

To be continued . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

Part II Origin of Text and Polytheism in the OT

There is one Ugaritic text which seems to indicate that among the inhabitants of Ugarit, Yahweh was viewed as another son of El. KTU 1.1 IV 14 says:

sm . bny . yw . ilt
The name of the son of god, Yahweh.

This text seems to show that Yahweh was known at Ugarit, though not as the Lord but as one of the many sons of El.

Among the other gods worshipped at Ugarit there are Dagon, Tirosch, Horon, Nahar, Resheph, Kotar Hosis, Shachar (who is the equivalent of Satan), and Shalem. The folks at Ugarit were also plagued by a host of demons and lesser gods. The people at Ugarit saw the desert as the place which was most inhabited by demons (and they were like the Israelites in this belief). KTU 1.102:15-28 is a list of these demons.

One of the most famous of the lesser deities at Ugarit was a chap named Dan il. There is little doubt that this figure corresponds to the Biblical Daniel; while predating him by several centuries. This has led many Old Testament scholars to suppose that the Canonical prophet was modeled on him. His story is found in KTU 1.17 - 1.19.

Another creature which has ties to the Old Testament is Leviathan. Isaiah 27:1 and KTU 1.5 I 1-2 describe this beast. Also see Ps 74:13-14 and 104:26.

5. Worship at Ugarit and in Ancient Israel

In Ugarit, as in Israel, the cult played a central role in the lives of the people. One of the central Ugaritic myths was the story of Baal s enthronement as king. In the story, Baal is killed by Mot (in the Fall of the year) and he remains dead until the Spring of the year. His victory over death was celebrated as his enthronement over the other gods (cf. KTU 1.2 IV 10)

The Old Testament also celebrates the enthronement of Yahweh (cf. Ps 47:9, 93:1, 96:10, 97:1 and 99:1). As in the Ugaritic myth, the purpose of Yahweh s enthronement is to re-enact creation. That is, Yahweh overcomes death by his recurring creative acts.

The major difference between the Ugaritic myth and the Biblical hymns is that Yahweh s kingship is eternal and uninterrupted while Baal s is interrupted every year by his death (in the Fall). Since Baal is the god of fertility the meaning of this myth is quite easy to understand. As he dies, so the vegetation dies; and when he is reborn so is the world. Not so with Yahweh; for since he is always alive he is always powerful (Cf. Ps 29:10).

Another of the more interesting aspects of Ugaritic religion which has a parallel in Hebrew religion was the practice of weeping for the dead . KTU 1.116 I 2-5, and KTU 1.5 VI 11-22 describe the worshippers weeping over the departed in the hopes that their grief will move the gods to send them back and that they will therefore live again. The Israelites also participated in this activity; though the prophets condemned them for doing so (cf. Is 22:12, Eze 7:16, Mi 1:16, Jer 16:6, and Jer 41:5). Of particular interest in this connection is what Joel 1:8-13 has to say, so I quote it in full:

Lament like a virgin dressed in sackcloth for the husband of her youth. The grain offering and the drink offering are cut off from the house of the Lord. The priests mourn, the ministers of the Lord. The fields are devastated, the ground mourns; for the grain is destroyed, the wine dries up, the oil fails. Be dismayed, you farmers, wail, you vinedressers, over the wheat and the barley; for the crops of the field are ruined. The vine withers, the fig tree droops. Pomegranate, palm, and apple tree -- all the trees of the field are dried up; surely, joy withers away among the people.

Yet another interesting parallel between Israel and Ugarit is the yearly ritual known as the sending out of the scapegoats ; one for god and one for a demon. The Biblical text which relates this procedure is Leviticus 16:1-34. In this text a goat is sent into the wilderness for Azazel (a demon) and one is sent into the wilderness for Yahweh. This rite is known as a eliminatory rite; that is, a contagion (in this case communal sin) is placed on the head of the goat and it is sent away. In this way it was believed that (magically) the sinful material was removed from the community.

KTU 1.127 relates the same procedure at Ugarit; with one notable difference -- at Ugarit a woman priest was involved in the rite as well.

The rituals performed in Ugaritic worship involved a great deal of alcohol and sexual promiscuity. Worship at Ugarit was essentially a drunken orgy in which priests and worshippers indulged in excessive drinking and excessive sexuality. This because the worshippers were attempting to convince Baal to send rain on their crops. Since rain and semen were seen in the ancient world as the same thing (as both produced fruit), it simply makes sense that participants in fertility religion behaved this way. Perhaps this is why in Hebrew religion the priests were forbidden to partake of wine while performing any rituals and also why females were barred from the precincts!! (cf. Hos 4:11-14, Is 28:7-8, and Lev 10:8-11).

6. The Cult of the Dead at Ugarit

In Ugarit two stela (stone monuments) have been discovered which demonstrate that the people there worshipped their dead ancestors. (Cf. KTU 6.13 and 6.14). The Prophets of the Old Testament likewise protested against this behavior when it occured among the Israelites. Ezekiel denounces such behavior as godless and pagan (in 43:7-9).

Yet the Israelites sometimes participated in these pagan practices, as 1 Sam 28:1-25 clearly shows.

These dead ancestors were known among both the Canaanites and Israelites as Rephaim . As Isaiah notes, (14:9ff),

Sheol beneath is stirred up
to meet you when you come;
it rouses the Rephaim to greet you,
all who were leaders of the earth; it raises from their thrones
all who were kings of the nations.
All of them will speak
and say to you:
You too have become as weak as we!
You have become like us!
Your pomp is brought down to Sheol,
and the sound of your harps;
maggots are the bed beneath you,
and worms are your covering.

KTU 1.161 likewise describes the Rephaim as the dead. When one goes to the grave of an ancestor, one prays to them; feeds them; and brings them an offering (like flowers); all in hopes of securing the prayers of the dead.

The prophets despised this behavior; they saw it as a lack of trust in Yahweh, who is God of the living and not god of the dead. So, instead of honoring dead ancestors, Israel honored their live ancestors (as we clearly see in Ex 20:12, Deut 5:16, and Lev 19:3).

One of the more interesting aspects of this ancestor worship at Ugarit was the festive meal that the worshipper shared with the depearted, called the marzeach (cf. Jer 16:5// with KTU 1.17 I 26-28 and KTU 1.20-22). This was, to the dwellers of Ugarit, what the Passover was to Israel and the Lord s Supper to the Church.

7. International Relations and Seamanship in Ugarit

International diplomacy certainly was a central activity among the inhabitants of Ugarit; for they were a sea-going people (like their Phoenecian neighbors). Akkadian was the language used in international diplomacy at that time and there are a number of documents from Ugarit in this language.

The King was the chief diplomat and he was completely in charge of international relationships (cf KTU 3.2:1-18, KTU 1.6 II 9-11). Compare this with Israel (at I Sam 15:27) and you will see that they were very similar in this respect. But, it must be said, the Israelites were not interested in the Sea and were not boat builders or sailors in any sense of the word.

The Ugaritic god of the sea, Baal Zaphon, was the patron of sailors. Before a journey Ugaritic sailors made offerings and prayed to Baal Zaphon in hopes of a safe and profitable journey (cf. KTU 2.38, and KTU 2.40). Psalm 107 was borrowed from Northern Canaan and reflects this attitude towards sailing and trade. When Solomon needed sailors and ships he turned to his northern neighbors for them. Cf. I Kings 9:26-28 and 10:22.

8. Art in Canaan and Israel

In many of the Ugaritic texts El was described as a bull, as well as a human form.

The Israelites borrowed art, architecture, and music from their Canaanite neighbors. But they refused to extend their art to images af Yahweh (cf. Ex 20:4-5). God commanded the people to make no image of himself; and did not forbid every kind of artistic expression. In fact, when Solomon constructed the temple he had it engraved with a great number of artistic forms. That there was a bronze serpent in the temple as well is well known.

The Israelites did not leave as many artistic pieces behind as did their Canaanite neighbors. And what they did leave behind show traces of being heavily influenced by these Canaanites.

9. Conclusion

Since the discovery of the Ugaritic texts, the study of the Old Testament has never been the same. We now have a much clearer picture of Canaanite religion than we ever had before. We also understand the Biblical literature itself much better as we are now able to clarify difficult words due to their Ugaritic cognates.

Student who is interested in the earliest, and therefore the formative, period of Israel s history are heartily encouraged to read Niels Lemche s Early Israel.

 

[dybmh]

I believe the Creation myths, flood, and polytheistic references in OT do indicate mixing and sharing in the time before the known written versions of Genesis, Exodus, and the Pentateuch as a whole, which is quite late.

I appreciate all the info you posted, but let's start here. Are you aware of the concept of TAQ in biblical archeology and dating? And did you consider the differences between creation of a story, writing a story, and compiling those stories when you made this statement?

 

[shunyadragon]

I appreciate all the info you posted, but let's start here. Are you aware of the concept of TAQ in biblical archeology and dating? And did you consider the differences between creation of a story, writing a story, and compiling those stories when you made this statement?

Yes, I considered this, and yes based on TAQ the writings of the Ugarite/ Canaanite texts are older than any Hebrew writing, and they originally evolved from these texts and oral traditional stories. but the point I made is Hebrews were originally polytheistic believers of a version of the Ugarit/Canaanite pantheon. They originally did not have writing of their own, and their scriptures were edited compilations of earlier Ugarit/Canaanite/Sumerian texts that were incorporated into the Hebrew culture. It was not just the common people that were polytheists, but the Hebrews as a whole originally. The Hebrews did not fully embrace monotheism until after the exile. The Hebrews were likely influenced by the Zoroastrians, not the other way around.

By the way, the Hebrew written language is a late-evolved version of the Ugarit/Canaanite written language. All the original languages from Crete, Greece, Phoenicians, Ugarite/Canaanite, and Sumerian languages evolved through trade. Clay tablets were found from different cultures in ancient Ugarit/Canaanite libraries. During this time Hebrews were a Pastoral tribe in the hills of Judah.

 

[dybmh]

I considered this, and yes based on TAQ the writings of the Ugarite/ Canaanite texts are older than any Hebrew writing, and they originally evolved from these texts and oral traditional stories

Why are you only applying TAQ and an oral tradition to the Ugarit / Canaanite myths but not the Hebrew myths?

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

No evidence. As said, it's not an argument against God's existence though.

Such a thing is impossible to define, let alone argue against as it is unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiable claims, by definition, are absent of any evidence or way to prove for or against. Circular reasoning will always refute your best argument.

Something that claims the following:
"I am alpha and omega, I was before time began and I will be all the remains at times end"
Cannot be tested or proven:

It is both in the control group and experimental group simultaneously.​

It has no half-life.​

It has no initial phase.​

It cannot be separated into individual parts.​

It has no final state.​

THEN when we include the superpowers also attributed to it. Basically, can you remember playing as a child?

"I'm bulletproof you can't shoot me!"​

"I'm invisible, you can't see me!"​

"I'm metaphysical you can't touch me!"​

"I'm supernatural you can't test me!"​

"I'm rubber, you're glue!"​

So on and so forth.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why are you only applying TAQ and an oral tradition to the Ugarit / Canaanite myths but not the Hebrew myths?

. . . I did not neglect the TAQ? for the Hebrews. I acknowledged that the Hebrew compilation contains Hebrew myths and traditional beliefs, the documented evidence is that the TAQ origin of foundation beliefs is from earlier Ugarit/ Canaanite texts incorporated as the foundation of Hebrew texts. If we go back to archaeology we find the Ugarit/Canaanite idols in the early Hebrew settlements in the Hills of Judah. The evidence is clear the Hebrews evolved as a subculture if the dominant Ugarit/Canaanite Kingdom. The evidence indicates that the Hebrews were originally polytheistic, and developed a monotheistic belief over time. I believe that polytheism with lesser Gods still haunts the Jewish/Christian theology in the text of the OT and the belief in the Tritheism Trinity and the lesser god the Devil.

The argument for the existence of a truly Monotheistic God from a Christian perspective is severely crippled by ah ancient tribal mythology.