49 replies to this topic

[Yogigizmo]

Paranoid Android, on 08 February 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

Do you have any links to share about the editing and reworking of the Hebrew Bible by the scribes?  I'd like to look into it further.


I don't see an implication of multiple Elohim - "The LORD (Yahweh), the God (Elohim) of your fathers, the God (Elohim) of Abraham.... has sent me to you".  It would be like thinking there were more Paranoid Android's if I said "Paranoid Android, the teacher of Year 7, the teacher of Year 8, the teacher of Year 9, the teacher of Year 10, the teacher of Year 11, the teacher of Year 12".  I can teach all these grades but that doesn't mean there are six Paranoid Android's teaching.

Ok, ummm, looking through my notes, (desk looks like a paper mache factory hit by a bomb) I will get back with you.

Understand your viewpoint. thanks

[Dying Seraph]

eight bits, on 08 February 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

DS
The problem with "the mountain one" is not translation, but of poetic interpretation. Is the intent to say "god, the highest," "god of the mountains," "god living in the mountains," "god whom we worship by visiting the mountains," ... or ...?

Greetings Eight Bits.
I certainly don't think it's translation either (although some interesting suggestions regarding the name El-Shaddai have been represented (ie. 'who suffices,' and 'of the field' to name a few). Poetic interpretation...that's quite likely. The thing that I don't understand is why the authors of the Bible would make so many appropriations of Gods and then try to distance themselves the next. At least that is the impression I am under. upon reading the Bible and being able to read reliable translations of cuniform texts and so forth. There seems to be no qualm embracing the positive attributes of certain Gods then distances themselves the next. Such as embracing El but rejecting Asherah and adding her to Baal in an attempt to make her guilty by association even though in the older texts outside the Bible she is very much a consort of El. Even if this was not the case with El, we see it with Baal for example that he rode on the clouds and that he was a fertility God capable of storms. The loving Benevolent El was none of these. If Yahweh is El, then why would he have so many Baal attributions? I read some where that pre-Exodus, the Jews readily embraced and worshipped Baal and others and that after the Exodus, (I suppose due to the name being revealed to Moses) that AFTER the exile is when the literature in the Bible takes a turn in demeaning these Gods. Is there any merit to that do you think or mere speculation?

Quote

Compare Athena. She is the "Shaddai" of the Greeks. There is a reason why the Parthenon is above Athens, not in it. So, why is she the "Goddess of high places?" Because she is a fire goddess. Flames rise. You can see that this interpretation of titles business is very tricky.

This may seem like a juvenile question but, if this were the case, then wouldn't Baal be the more important God as he was the fertility god and Baal was considered the bringer of rain and lightening? That would make him quite significant to worship wouldn't it if Baal was the provider of rain and crops? Would this be why the Bible insults Baal so much? Because he was Yahweh's biggest threat as far as worship goes?

Quote

So, yeah. The god, the mountain one. Piece of cake . I think what Exodus 6 is saying is that the Patriarchs had singled out El as "the Almighty," but not given him a distinctive "Hebrew identity." Time has passed, so  now we're going to the next level. Naming is a sacred act. Once upon a time, some human gave El a name, worshipped him, gave him a title, then worshipped him above all, and eventually worshipped him alone. Now comes El as YHWH, and YHWH names himself. Big magic. A new age.

Now that makes sense. A sort of Hebrew identity and I imagine it would be something they sorely needed given it's around the time of the Exodus most importantly I'd imagine.

Quote

I meant as in figure of speech, a turn of phrase. It appears in Job, which some people believe is the oldest composed story in the canonical Bible, at least the beginning and the end of the book. The phrase is at the very beginning, at 1: 6.

No, all the others before him, like in Job. To have sons is a curious attainment for someone who supposedly didn't have partners. It could be "just figurative," but it's still legitimate to question why that figure so very particularly.

The typical current interpretation of Job is that those sons of God are supposed to be angels. It is unclear that the Jewish concept of angel derives from recycling the neighbor's gods. There are also competing interpretations for Jewish angels, not least of which is that gods simply aren't the only kinds of eternal beings found in world religious systems.

It was my impression that the Book of Job was not original but came from quite a few pre-Hebraic sources one being quite possibly Canaanite (Keret Myth).
In Ugaritic texts the 'sons of El' are themselves Gods. The book of Job presents these beings as angels. Which makes sense that these Gods would get demoted to angels to help make Yahweh stand out more as sole God, sole supremacy. As in the case with Asherah I'm at the moment under the impression that since in Ugaritic texts she was El consort, and that authors of the Bible put her next to Baal (which in Canaanite texts his consort is Anat) was an attempt to make her guilty by association and make Yahweh the sole God. I could very well be wrong that's just the impression I am under.  

Quote

ETA - Remember Serpent from Genesis? He's not a god, but he's outside of time and space. Many Christians think of him as a (decidedly unJewish) angel, or the avatar of one. "Angel" maybe provides a pigeonhole to stash lots of eternal concepts. Anyway, there're lots of possibilities besides recycling.

Sects of both Gnostics and Satanists would argue against the serpent not being a God but that's another matter for another topic. I understand what the Christian thought behind the serpent is, but what did the Jews think the serpent was? What then was the serpents relationship with God according to Jewish thought?
Among the Canaanites snakes were revered? Was this the same with the Israelites or did they look at such a creature with contempt or...? Why a snake in the first place? Were the authors using the serpent as a wisdom deity or a bringer of such or was the serpent as a creature always held in contempt of the Jews?
Thank you for responding Eight.

Paranoid Android, on 08 February 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:

The Jews often worshipped other gods.  If I gave the impression that they did not, then I apologise.  

I appear to have mis-understood you, PA. Thank you for clarifying.  

Quote

In the Hebrew beliefs, El is a generic name for God, and can refer to false gods or the Hebrew God (the plural of El, of course being Elohim).  Therefore even though Yahweh is referred to as "El" it is not the same God as the Canaanite El.  The Hebrews probably adopted the name of God from them, but as words have a tendency to do the meaning of the term changed to not just mean that one specific deity but all gods -

Is this a case of fact or opinion? Just for clarification. If it's fact was this always the case wouldyou presume? Why then for the Jews that worshipped Baal, did they not call him, El-Baal? Or is there such a referance? I understand it's a generic term but this doesn't seem to have always been the case at least from Canaanite texts that's my impression. I could be wrong.  
Why then are there so many appropriations of the Canaanite god El thus given to Yahweh then? Yahweh as wise, as an aged God, El's dwelling place on the side of a mountain, the 'sons of El' are all originally in Canaanite texts. So how are they different? And why so many other appropriations?
As it stands I am inclined to take the stance of S.M. Olyan who argued that the pairing of Baal and Asherah was a polemical move done by Deuteronomists to discredit her (After all she was El's consort not Baals. He had Anat). This would appear that the authors were attempting to make Asherah less significant or guilty by association.
  

Quote

For the record, crosses will not be found in every believer's home (I haven't got one and am almost definitely never going to have one).  Nor do all churches have crosses.  Most do, but some few ones do not (especially if their place of meeting is in a community centre or pub - yes, there are pub churches, our church started a new one at a nearby pub just last Sunday).

Brother, you are truly the first Christian I have met to openly admit to not having a cross. Perhaps it's a regional thing as I recently heard Australia was attempting to take out the BC and AD in the years. I speculate this is a regional thing then because out here every church has a cross either in the front of the building, top or near the alter. As far as pub churches...yeah this is definitely a regional thing then. Has to be. LMAO

Thank you for you time PA.

SINcerely,

[Dying Seraph]

I have just a couple more queries. Who is reffered to in the Bible as 'Queen of Heaven?' In Jeremiah it says 'host of heaven' however scholars agree that the word was deliberately distorted and indeed is in reference to a 'Queen of heaven' not a 'host.' WHo is this queen? Anat?

I read recently that there is speculation that Anat was also a possibility of being a consort to Yahweh. This appears to be coming from a reference to a deity named Anat-Yahu dated around the 5th century BCE in Elephantine texts. Baal and Anat are always equated as partners in Canaanite texts, and Yahu certainly appears to be Yahweh, so is this evidence that many early Hebrews accepted Yahweh as having a consort? And the other question rises why Anat? If Yahweh is equated to El then why not Asherah as the consort? This seems to indicate to me that early Jews also compared Yahweh to Baal. What do you think?
I have read a few scenarios presented by John Day in regards to this subject. He suggests it seems almost "indubitable that the goddess Anat, in the form of Anat-Yahu, did function as Yahweh's wife amongst the Jews at Elephantine in the 5th century BCE." However he also presents the problem of trying to determine the origin and antiquity of this concept of Anat as Yahweh's wife as attested at Elephantine. John Day suggests the following:

1. It could reflect pre-722 BCE syncretism in the Northern Kingdom of Israel.
2. It could reflect pre-586 BCE syncretism in the Southern Kingdom of Judah.
3. It could reflect syncretism arising in Egypt itself.
4. It could reflect syncretism after 722 BCE in the area of the former Northern Kingdom following the exile of Syrians (amongst other people) to that refion (2 Kgs. 17.24-28).

Day goes on to suggest that the first choice appears the most feasible.

Thoughts? Thank you in advance.

SINcerely,

[Ron Jeremy]

I am no expert but I read a few books about the origin of the OT. Seems like Yahweh worship was a later phenomenon.

Christians seem to ignore the fact that Israel was located smack dab in the middle of a trade route. (well, I did, too.) So many different cultures could influence Hebrew culture and religion. And many seem to ignore the fact that the OT was written over many centuries. Or they just don't put that into account. Many changes can happen in such span of time and meanings and contexts of the words and phrases could drastically change over time.

Sometimes I think it's a miracle to be able to TRANSLATE the OT.

[Dying Seraph]

Many scholars agree (at least through whom I've come across) with what you said regarding the trade route. Many also ignore that the early Israelites and Canaanites were neighbors that appear to have actually gotten along. At least this is the impression I'm under. Another issue many ignore is that like the Persians for example, while they dominated the Jews we get the impression that they appear to have parted in good terms (for example the Jews were allowed back into their land/s).

As far as Yahweh worship being later...this is another issue. Among the Hebrews I am inclined to agree with you. But Yahweh having origins outside of Israel, and likely being a Midianite God (at least this is the general consensus), we don't exactly know how old Yahweh worship is do we? One thing to consider, is in some regions like Persia writing was banned for some time. So a lot of recordings are lost and in some cases if it's true that writing was banned, then it would appear that for some time, depending on the region, no records were kept at all, except through oral tradition. Would something like this aply to the land of Midian or the Arabian region? I truly do not know.

SINcerely,

Edited by Dying Seraph, 10 February 2012 - 06:20 AM.

[eight bits]

DS

(Thank you for the kind message!)

Quote

The thing that I don't understand is why the authors of the Bible would make so many appropriations of Gods and then try to distance themselves the next.

I think the give-away is that authors is plural. A usual Protestant idea is that the Old Testament is a revelation of God, so ultimately there is a "single author" whose views are being expressed. The people whose Bible it is are more apt to see it as an on-going, intergenerational discussion of a national, collective revelation... OK, we have a God, and he intervened in history here and then again here... so what does that mean, and what are we supposed to do about that?

God talking to people versus People talking to people about God having spoken to everybody in their group is a big difference in interpretation.

Quote

If Yahweh is El, then why would he have so many Baal attributions?

Partly because Baal is a title, as well as a name. Plus, I think it is an earthly title as well, like Lord or Highness.

Quote

  Is there any merit to that do you think or mere speculation?

I think there's lots of merit. We're looking at a nation and its religion over a span of many, many centuries. It's amazing that post-exilic people, who put the book together that we know, had so much empathy with the concerns of the judges, for example, and sense of continuity with them. It's asking too much, I think, that they would have just the same ideas about ultimate things. Too much had happened to the Hebrew people for that to be plausible.

Quote

This may seem like a juvenile question ...

No, I think that's the genius of the Hebrew system. Instead of a "bottom up" divine governance, a god of this and a god of that, quareling among themselves "My THIS is more important than your measely THAT," the Hebrews go "top down." Their God dictates terms to all of nature, and all of culture, too.

And when you're fleshing out that God, you can pack him with anything you've admired in any other god ("Yeah, thunder and lightning, that's cool." "Not very practical, though, we need our sheep to have more lambs." "No problem, he's fertility, too."). If God transcends categories, then you don't have to worry whether the attributes fit together, or which attributes are most important.

Compare Shiva. Although he's not a sole god, he is versatile (creator, sustainer and destroyer). He is outrightly a god of paradox, with incompatible qualities. Handy feature to have, being beyond pairs of opposites, mastering them rather than being bound by them.

And just as sorting out YHWH from El and Baal is a mess, try finding any independent story line that definitively separates Shiva from Vishnu. They flatly become each other in some stories. And why? Because each of them had their own neighboring communities of devotees, and each community absorbed the other's ideas.

If India had been much smaller, and one group conquered the other, or some outsider conquered all of it, and only one version of the story needed to be maintained... well, the Levant is small, and the religious view that survives as continuously living literature does come from one community.

If the planet Jupiter is a star that never "lit," then Shiva is a YHWH who never got a local monopoly among aggressive and tenacious devotees.

Quote

It was my impression that the Book of Job was not original but came from quite a few pre-Hebraic sources one being quite possibly Canaanite (Keret Myth).

The cut I like is that the beginning and end is one pre-Hebrew story, more or less intact, and the middle chapters, Job and his friends talking about what's up, are "recent" additions, and distinctively Hebrew.

You're right about the snake business being another topic. The thing about Snake is that he's found all over the world, not just the Levant. What Jews thought about it is complicated, too. The Genesis snake has an honorific title, "shrewdest of animals," just like a god would. Moses makes what anybody else would call an idol in Exodus, Snake-alone-affixed-to-a-vertical-stick. I'm guessing Moses picked that up in Egypt. It is a particular motif in Snake... well, fascination. Even today, that image is understood in secular circles as an emblem of healing. You see it in Christian art, too, except the stick has a crossbeam in their iconography.

My only point for this thread was the diversity of beings who crop up in religions. Snake isn't a god, but he hangs out with gods. Just about everywhere, too. Pinch yourself - a strident atheist modern physician might have Snake-on-a-stick on her letterhead. He's not a god, but he is something eternal, personal and autonomous.
-

Edited by eight bits, 10 February 2012 - 10:44 AM.

[Leonardo]

Dying Seraph, on 05 February 2012 - 05:49 PM, said:

Greetings.

Three questions:

1.Do you believe Yahweh and El to be one in the same, or two seperate entities/deities/Gods that became equated?

2. Why do you believe one way or the other?

3.IF* you believe them to be the same, wouldn't that mean Yahweh had a consort as El did?    

4. Do you believe Yahweh to be a creator God?

Note: *applies to those that believe Yahweh and El to be one in the same.

My interpretation is that El was the deity worshipped by Abraham, who imported this worship from "Ur of the Chaldees" into the Levant. It is possible that, at this time, YHWH was already being worshipped [in or near the Levant] but, regardless, upon the rising of the Hebrews/Israelites to be the dominant faction, and over the time between Abraham's arrival and this happening, El and YHWH were merged into one deity.

This would not imply YHWH had a consort, as YHWH was essentially a deity distinct from the El of Ur.

YHWH may not have been a creator god before Abraham brought the worship of El to the Levant but, over time as El and YHWH were combined, both assumed each other's providence.

Edited by Leonardo, 10 February 2012 - 11:03 AM.

[mklsgl]

From: The Jewish  Encyclopedia

—Biblical Data:  Like other Hebrew proper names, the name of God is more than a mere  distinguishing title. It represents the Hebrew conception of the divine  nature or character and of the relation of God to His people. It  represents the Deity as He is known to His worshipers, and stands for  all those attributes which He bears in relation to them and which are  revealed to them through His activity on their behalf. A new  manifestation of His interest or care may give rise to a new name. So,  also, an old name may acquire new content and significance through new  and varied experience of these sacred relations.

It can readily be  understood, therefore, how the divine name is often spoken of as  equivalent to the divine presence or power or glory. In Ex. xxiii. 20-23  it is promised that Yhwh's angel will lead and give victory to  His people, who must yield reverent obedience, for, the Lord says, "my  name is in him." The devout Israelite will not take the name of a false  god upon his lips (Ex. xxiii. 13; Josh. xxiii. 7; Hosea ii. 16-17; Ps.  xvi. 4). To make mention of Yhwh's name is to assert confidence  in His strength and present and efficient aid. The name excites  emotions of love, joy, and praise (Ps. v. 11; vii. 17; ix. 2; xx. 1, 7).  That name is, therefore, especially connected with the altar or  sanctuary, the place where God records His name (Ex. xx. 24), or "the  place which the Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put  His name there" (Deut. xii. 5; comp. I Kings viii. 16, 29; ix. 3; Jer.  vii. 12). The Temple is "the place of the name of the Lord of hosts, the  mount Zion" (Isa. xviii. 7). In one or two comparatively late passages  "the Name" () is used absolutely, doubtless as an equivalent for "the name of Yhwh" (Lev. xxiv. 11, 16; comp. Deut. xxviii. 58).

YHWH. Of the names of God in the Old Testament, that which occurs most frequently (6,823 times) is the so-called Tetragrammaton, Yhwh (),  the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel. This name is  commonly represented in modern translations by the form "Jehovah,"  which, however, is a philological impossibility (see Jehovah). This form has arisen through attempting to pronounce the consonants of the name with the vowels of Adonai (  = "Lord"), which the Masorites have inserted in the text, indicating  thereby that Adonai was to be read (as a "ḳeri perpetuum") instead of Yhwh. When the name Adonai itself precedes, to avoid repetition of this name, Yhwh is written by the Masorites with the vowels of Elohim, in which case Elohim is read instead of Yhwh.  In consequence of this Masoretic reading the authorized and revised  English versions (though not the American edition of the revised  version) render Yhwh by the word "Lord" in the great majority of cases.

This  name, according to the narrative in Ex. iii. (E), was made known to  Moses in a vision at Horeb. In another, parallel narrative (Ex. vi. 2,  3, P) it is stated that the name was not known to the Patriarchs. It is  used by one of the documentary sources of Genesis (J), but scarcely if  at all by the others. Its use is avoided by some later writers also. It  does not occur in Ecclesiastes, and in Daniel is found only in ch. ix.  The writer of Chronicles shows a preference for the form Elohim, and in  Ps. xlii.-lxxxiii. Elohim occurs much more frequently than Yhwh, probably having been substituted in some places for the latter name, as in Ps. liii. (comp. Ps. xiv.).

In appearance, Yhwh () is the third person singular imperfect "ḳal" of the verb   ("to be"), meaning, therefore, "He is," or "He will be," or, perhaps,  "He lives," the root idea of the word being,probably, "to blow," "to  breathe," and hence, "to live." With this explanation agrees the meaning  of the name given in Ex. iii. 14, where God is represented as speaking,  and hence as using the first person—"I am" (, from , the later equivalent of the archaic stem ).  The meaning would, therefore, be "He who is self-existing,  self-sufficient," or, more concretely, "He who lives," the abstract  conception of pure existence being foreign to Hebrew thought. There is  no doubt that the idea of life was intimately connected with the name Yhwh  from early times. He is the living God, as contrasted with the lifeless  gods of the heathen, and He is the source and author of life (comp. I  Kings xviii.; Isa. xli. 26-29, xliv. 6-20; Jer. x. 10, 14; Gen. ii. 7;  etc.). So familiar is this conception of God to the Hebrew mind that it  appears in the common formula of an oath, "ḥai Yhwh" (= "as Yhwh lives"; Ruth iii. 13; I Sam. xiv. 45; etc.).

Read the rest of the entry here.

[Paranoid Android]

Dying Seraph, on 10 February 2012 - 04:11 AM, said:

Is this a case of fact or opinion? Just for clarification. If it's fact was this always the case wouldyou presume? Why then for the Jews that worshipped Baal, did they not call him, El-Baal? Or is there such a referance? I understand it's a generic term but this doesn't seem to have always been the case at least from Canaanite texts that's my impression. I could be wrong.  
Why then are there so many appropriations of the Canaanite god El thus given to Yahweh then? Yahweh as wise, as an aged God, El's dwelling place on the side of a mountain, the 'sons of El' are all originally in Canaanite texts. So how are they different? And why so many other appropriations?
As it stands I am inclined to take the stance of S.M. Olyan who argued that the pairing of Baal and Asherah was a polemical move done by Deuteronomists to discredit her (After all she was El's consort not Baals. He had Anat). This would appear that the authors were attempting to make Asherah less significant or guilty by association.

It is an opinion I believe to be backed up by the facts.  Consider Exodus 34:14 - you shall not worship any other El.  El is a generic term for god, and refers to false gods as well as the Hebrew God.  I'm not sure where you get the idea of Yahweh as an "aged" God.  God is spirit, no form.  God is wise - he's the creator, would a religion rise up calling the one and only creator a stupid God?  Is Yahweh's dwelling place on the side of a mountain?  Calling people "sons of God" is obvious in a culture that reverse God as a "heavenly father".  

I get what you're trying to say but I think there's less to this than you seem to be making out as "appropriations".  That's just my opinion, though
  

Dying Seraph, on 10 February 2012 - 04:11 AM, said:

Brother, you are truly the first Christian I have met to openly admit to not having a cross. Perhaps it's a regional thing as I recently heard Australia was attempting to take out the BC and AD in the years. I speculate this is a regional thing then because out here every church has a cross either in the front of the building, top or near the alter. As far as pub churches...yeah this is definitely a regional thing then. Has to be. LMAO

Thank you for you time PA.

SINcerely,

Most churches have crosses on them, but there are a couple (especially those churches not meeting up in specifically religious buildings, such as a pub, but there are a couple of actual church buildings sans crosses).  For me personally, I just never saw the need for one.  And while it has never been such an issue that I ever really bothered asking any of my Christian friends if they had crosses in their house, I know I've been in several houses and not all of them had crosses.  

Meh, different culture out here, I think.

Dying Seraph, on 10 February 2012 - 04:15 AM, said:

I have just a couple more queries. Who is reffered to in the Bible as 'Queen of Heaven?' In Jeremiah it says 'host of heaven' however scholars agree that the word was deliberately distorted and indeed is in reference to a 'Queen of heaven' not a 'host.' WHo is this queen? Anat?

Which translation are you using that says "host of heaven"?  There are several references to the "host of heaven", but they mean exactly what they are supposed to.  There are several references to the "queen of heaven" also - they are not translated differently that I am aware of.

As to who the Queen of Heaven is, I actually don't know.  Jeremiah 7:18 simply makes it clear that this worship is angering Yahweh.  It could be Asherah, it could be Anat. Some have even suggested Ishtar.  I'm not an expert on this matter, and Jeremiah is a book I am less familiar with than most (actually, I might make Jeremiah my next book to target in my Quiet Time).  I'll quote my Bible Dictionary's entry on "Queen of Heaven", hope it helps

Quote

QUEEN OF HEAVEN.  Cakes, possibly in the shape of figurines or crescent moons, were made for the meleket of the heavens by the inhabitants of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 7:18) and incense burnt as to a deity (Jeremiah 44:17-19, 25).  The unusual word is rendered as "queen" (malkat), and may be Phoenician, a title of Astarte, Assyrian Ishtar.  It may refer to Ashtaroth or to the Canaanite Anat (so Egyptian 19th Century Bethshean); cf the female personal name (Ham)moleket (1 Chronicles 7:18).  Alternatively, this may be a rare writing of mele'ket, "heavenly handiwork" (ie, stars), also denoting an idolatrous practice.

~ New Bible Dictionary, 21st Century Edition, pg 993

PA note - a version of this quote can be found in the website I'm about to link, but I found that just through google and cannot vouch for the quality of research on this site - the quote in particular can be found on page 126 of that document

www.upstreamca.org/Apos.Intercession___Warfare.A.Buys.pdf
edit:  the link for some reason doesn't want to automatically click - just copy-paste it into your web browser, that should do the trick

Edited by Paranoid Android, 11 February 2012 - 06:59 AM.

[Jor-el]

It is interesting that the Queen of Heaven is associated to the Host of Heaven, these are the angelic host, who are also called the "Sons of God", the fact that God himself has always warned us of worshipping this Host of Heaven is indicative that, this is a clear reference to the polytheistic religions of the time.

There is clear reference to other types of beings considered to be gods and that 70 "bene elohim" were given to the pagan nations to worship.

The Gods of the pagan nations were created by Yahweh himself. They are not an illusion and they cannot be dismissed because they appear frequently in the bible. They are part of Gods divine council, but they are corrupt beings, who fight among themselves for power and supremacy here on earth, by using the nations as their tools. Their names may have changed over time, their identities forgotten in some instances, but they are nevertheless the Gods of the pagan nations. Nations to which gods were assigned. 70 Nations, 70 Gods or as the biblical term goes, Sons of God.

Deuteronomy 32:8-9

8 When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.

9 For the LORD's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance.

To confirm the above we have another.

Deuteronomy 4:19

19 And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars—all the heavenly host—do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven.

Since the "Host of heaven" refers to these "sons of God". They are essentially the same. Not all sons of God are corrupt but some of them are.

The Torah recognizes the existence of multiple gods who are real enough, because they not only tempt us, but arouse the jealously and wrath of God (Ex 20:3, 20:13, Lev 19:4, Deut 5:7, 6:14, 7:4, 8:19, 11:16, 11:28, 13:3, 13:7, 13:14, 17:3, 18:20, 28:14, 28:36, 28:64, 29:25, 30:17, 31: 16, 31:18, 31:20). Yahweh rules over the other gods (Ex 18:11, Deut 7:10) which is also recognized in the other terms used to identify Him, such as El Elyon.

[Dying Seraph]

Greetings everyone and thank you for your responses. I'll do my best to get back to everyone as soon as I can. In the meantime...

Jor-el, on 09 February 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:

Hi DS,

1. I believe that El and Yahweh are the same being, that have always been the same being although to different populations they had different names. Much in the same way that Zeus and Jupiter are known to be the same being.

Greetings Jor-el.  
That seems very feasible if God exists as a sole creator. I must admit in this case it'sa matter of faith. However that doesn't detract from a querry presented in reading this. It would appear the Romans had practically no imagination at all and incorporated practically everything from other regions, be it Zeus (Jupiter), or Orcus or etc. Not to say that the Jews had no imagination, quite the contrary, but by the same token I am under the impression that the Israelites were as heavily influenced by El as the Canaanites were. And with all the attributes associated to Yahweh, since the deciphering of Ugaritic texts it would seem that the authors incorporated El and Baal attributes and gave them to Yahweh.

Quote

2. I believe that over the millenia we humans lost our personal knowledge of God and mixed what knowledge we did have with mythical stories and adventures that seperated and remixed different aspects of God. Thus El and Yahweh were born in the minds of the people as different deities, but over time the similarity was so great that they fused into a single being again, we have multiple examples of this happening over the ages with different gods in many pantheons.

If that is the case why does Yahweh come much later? It appears that Yahweh comes from Midian or that region correct? Yet are there any Midianite texts in existance, or any papyrus in the region or clay or tablets with such a refference that can be predated of Moses time? Or is Yahweh a creation of Moses as I get the impression the Bible attempts to do by saying that the name was revealed to Moses? It would be natural for the authors to take El and appropriate him to a newer younger much more angry God. If Yahweh was revealed does it really say much of anything?

Quote

When God did reveal himself again to mankind, to Abraham and later to the nation of Israel, he did not use any of the commonly used names of Deities of that time, but those aspects that were most clearly defined in Gods nature did affix names that we already knew well, like El and Yahweh. But in truth these remain epithets, they are not his real name. As a matter of fact, I don't believe we could ever define and say his real name. We can only call him by the only name he gave himself. "I AM".

The name itself is 'I am.' Kind of as generic as saying El in my opinion. The name isn't, 'I who creates' or 'creator of all' which would certainly make it more believable as a divine name as opposed to a generic term IMO.

Quote

3. Yahweh and El are not male or female, they are not human thus they have no need for consorts although there are many myths that give them consorts, which is just mankinds attempt to make them understandable and give them actual human elements that we can relate to.

That's sensible enough.
The Ugaritic texts portray El as Father and Asherah as the Mother of heaven. The book "Myths and Legends of the Ancient Near East," suggests that very early on the people possibly worshiped Yahweh as a son of El and that Yahweh was responsible for the land of Israel.

Quote

4. I believe that Yhaweh or El as we know him, was the creator God, or at least we can call him the prime mover of creation, he did not create the universe directly by his own hand. He used his Logos, his Memra, His Living and personified Word, as the agent of creation.

If I may ask, why do you call God him? If God is not understandable and yet you (not jsut you but beleivers in general) call God 'him'or "father" and so forth...if God encompasses all and is everything wouldn'd that make God a hermaphrodite? Why call God "him." Is that part of that myth and trying to udnerstand God you mentioned?  

eight bits, on 10 February 2012 - 10:37 AM, said:

DS

(Thank you for the kind message!)  


I think the give-away is that authors is plural. A usual Protestant idea is that the Old Testament is a revelation of God, so ultimately there is a "single author" whose views are being expressed. The people whose Bible it is are more apt to see it as an on-going, intergenerational discussion of a national, collective revelation... OK, we have a God, and he intervened in history here and then again here... so what does that mean, and what are we supposed to do about that?

God talking to people versus People talking to people about God having spoken to everybody in their group is a big difference in interpretation.

I see what you mean. Quite right. And I would imagine every path of/to religion has such issues to be confronted, as it's mankind who interprets these supposed "divine words." And we are a screwy lot.  

Quote

No, I think that's the genius of the Hebrew system. Instead of a "bottom up" divine governance, a god of this and a god of that, quareling among themselves "My THIS is more important than your measely THAT," the Hebrews go "top down." Their God dictates terms to all of nature, and all of culture, too.  

And when you're fleshing out that God, you can pack him with anything you've admired in any other god ("Yeah, thunder and lightning, that's cool." "Not very practical, though, we need our sheep to have more lambs." "No problem, he's fertility, too."). If God transcends categories, then you don't have to worry whether the attributes fit together, or which attributes are most important.

I can see how it would be favorable to that particular nation that participates in such a creation of a sole God or deity. But look at what the Bible does in doing so. Every other nation and their God becomes inferior or cast aside as nonsense or evil. The Gods of the past become the Satans and demons of Yahweh now. At least the inferior ones, those favorable Gods will have attributes taken from em of course.
In regards to the bold that would most definitely put a nice tidy bow around it all and make it very conventient.

Quote

Compare Shiva. Although he's not a sole god, he is versatile (creator, sustainer and destroyer). He is outrightly a god of paradox, with incompatible qualities. Handy feature to have, being beyond pairs of opposites, mastering them rather than being bound by them.

And just as sorting out YHWH from El and Baal is a mess, try finding any independent story line that definitively separates Shiva from Vishnu. They flatly become each other in some stories. And why? Because each of them had their own neighboring communities of devotees, and each community absorbed the other's ideas.

That appears to be the case among the Canaanites and Istraelites at least from what I gather. That communities absorbed and embraced other ideas, that is until the name Yahweh comes about in the Bible. Then those neighbors become enemies once this notion of a "one to rule them all" effect takes place.

Quote

The cut I like is that the beginning and end is one pre-Hebrew story, more or less intact, and the middle chapters, Job and his friends talking about what's up, are "recent" additions, and distinctively Hebrew.

This seems debatable. But I am inclined to agree with you that the beginning and end seem to be influenced by the Mesopotamian text "Man and his God"(aka"Sumerian Job"). The middle appears to certainly be distinctively Hebrew but possibly brought or influenced from an Egyptian text. That being "The Protests of the Eloquent Peasant", a document dated 21st century BC. But I am digressing again. Sorry. Blame it on the ADD.    

Quote

My only point for this thread was the diversity of beings who crop up in religions. Snake isn't a god, but he hangs out with gods. Just about everywhere, too. Pinch yourself - a strident atheist modern physician might have Snake-on-a-stick on her letterhead. He's not a god, but he is something eternal, personal and autonomous.
-

Ahh diversity, which there certainly is a lack of none. I'd agree with you that the snake isn't a God. I've had that debate with many fellow Satanists who insist so, and I convey that it's only based on a dualism notion that they are attemptint to bring into the Bible. The authors of the OT make it clear Satan is never out of Gods jurisdiction. Whereas Christians have made the serpent (depending on whom I ask) Satan or an agent of Satan and...well it becomes an ugly mess.
LMAO Well a modern physician likely has two serpents on a stick as it's the seal of symbolism of Hermes is it not? A God of medicine.
  

Leonardo, on 10 February 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

My interpretation is that El was the deity worshipped by Abraham, who imported this worship from "Ur of the Chaldees" into the Levant. It is possible that, at this time, YHWH was already being worshipped [in or near the Levant] but, regardless, upon the rising of the Hebrews/Israelites to be the dominant faction, and over the time between Abraham's arrival and this happening, El and YHWH were merged into one deity.

There is a dilemma with this. Abrahams lineage were more than likely Moon worhshippers as pertaining to the region of Abrahams Father. So was El in that region or was El adopted by Abraham do you think?

Quote

This would not imply YHWH had a consort, as YHWH was essentially a deity distinct from the El of Ur.

YHWH may not have been a creator god before Abraham brought the worship of El to the Levant but, over time as El and YHWH were combined, both assumed each other's providence.

I must confess I am in very much allignment with these sentiments. However, I can see that how in regions where Yahweh and El became amalgomated or equated that many would embrace Goddess worship and incorporate it into Yahwism (ie. Anat-Yahu, Elephantine).

SINcerely,

Edited by Dying Seraph, 12 February 2012 - 08:29 PM.

[Jor-el]

Dying Seraph, on 12 February 2012 - 08:26 PM, said:

Greetings Jor-el.  
That seems very feasible if God exists as a sole creator. I must admit in this case it'sa matter of faith. However that doesn't detract from a querry presented in reading this. It would appear the Romans had practically no imagination at all and incorporated practically everything from other regions, be it Zeus (Jupiter), or Orcus or etc. Not to say that the Jews had no imagination, quite the contrary, but by the same token I am under the impression that the Israelites were as heavily influenced by El as the Canaanites were. And with all the attributes associated to Yahweh, since the deciphering of Ugaritic texts it would seem that the authors incorporated El and Baal attributes and gave them to Yahweh.

Well, historically speaking, the Israelites came from Sumerian stock who also were the genetic stock for most of the inhabitants of the Middle East. Many of the earliest Hebrew stories have the very same underlying social and historical strata from which both Israel and Sumeria arose, although it can be clearly seen that they are in opposition to one another.

The Ugaritic Texts provide us with alot of the missing context of El, but again we have to rememebr that just because El was the common name of the deity, it doesn't mean they had similar viewpoints. The El of the bible is never shown to have a consort, among a number of other significant differences. El just means "deity" or "God" and was usually followed by the descriptive title of that deity. Such as El Elyon, "God the most high".

So while they are similar, they are also very different. Almost as if the same story is told by two opposing viewpoints with the same characters involved, but with significant details turned around. Thus the common idea that the early Israelites were heavily influenced by outside sources. What is more likely is that the whole region had a common cosmology, but the Israelites did not share in the same assumptions that the others did.

We cannot find any clear origin to the name Yahweh, except as the revealed God of the Israelites, who at once state that this is El, but with a personally revealed name to the people of Israel. Thus El, the creator God, is Yahweh, the revealed God of the Israelites. It is clear, that El gave the Israelites something unique, a revelation that nobody else shared.

We can actually take this one step further. I believe that Yahweh is not Gods personal name, even if many believe otherwise. It is just one more epithet. Originally it was "El-Yahweh", like "El-Shaddai" and "El-Elyon". And just like others, it eventually became contracted to Yahweh.

It is interesting that the only Baal attribute accorded to God was used in Isaiah 19:1; Deuteronomy 33:26; Psalm 68:33; 104:3 and then again in Daniel 7:13. The imagery is well known to us as the "the Rider on the Clouds."  Most striking of all is that Jesus uses this imagery when speaking of himself, again demonstrating that even though the cosmology was the same, their understanding of it was very different.

See: “The Cloud Rider”

Quote

If that is the case why does Yahweh come much later? It appears that Yahweh comes from Midian or that region correct? Yet are there any Midianite texts in existance, or any papyrus in the region or clay or tablets with such a refference that can be predated of Moses time? Or is Yahweh a creation of Moses as I get the impression the Bible attempts to do by saying that the name was revealed to Moses? It would be natural for the authors to take El and appropriate him to a newer younger much more angry God. If Yahweh was revealed does it really say much of anything?

The bible used the common cosmology of the time to demonstrate its points, it draws on common imagery but twists it to its own purpose so that people could understand the difference between the God of Israel and the other gods of the middle eastern pantheons. It stands to reason that this uniqueness also comes from having a new revelation and thus also a new name for an old deity that had become cluttered with preconceptions. You could say that El reinvented himself, and thus also gave himself a new name that accompanied a new revelation of himself, to humanity.

This is the God that reveals himself...

"El who shows himself". The author of Exodus 3:14–15 gives a similar explanation: God, asked by Moses for his name, provides three names: "I Am That I Am", followed by "I Am", and finally "YHWH":

"I AM THAT I AM [...] Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you [...] YHWH God of your fathers, [...] this is my name for ever".

Quote

The name itself is 'I am.' Kind of as generic as saying El in my opinion. The name isn't, 'I who creates' or 'creator of all' which would certainly make it more believable as a divine name as opposed to a generic term IMO.

It is more than a generic name it is the ultimate name. The God who reveals himself, the God who is, who was and forever will be, God Eternal, God ever present.

Quote

That's sensible enough.
The Ugaritic texts portray El as Father and Asherah as the Mother of heaven. The book "Myths and Legends of the Ancient Near East," suggests that very early on the people possibly worshiped Yahweh as a son of El and that Yahweh was responsible for the land of Israel.

It might suggest that, but as you know that is an interpretation that does not connect El to Yahweh as the same being. In that light, Yahweh could be seen as a son of El that was responsible for the "Land of Israel". Except that this land had no god by that name prior to the arrival of the Israelites. A number of gods ruled there, who were in fact "sons of El". Baal being one of them, but no mention of Yahweh anywhere. There is only one reference to Yahweh outside of the bible and that is on the Mesha Stele, but even then it is uniquely referring to the God of Israel.

Quote

If I may ask, why do you call God him? If God is not understandable and yet you (not just you but beleivers in general) call God 'him'or "father" and so forth...if God encompasses all and is everything wouldn'd that make God a hermaphrodite? Why call God "him." Is that part of that myth and trying to udnerstand God you mentioned?

No we could not call God a hermaphrodite, God has always deigned to show himself as male. The Memra of God, is male. He appears as male to people. God the Spirit on the other hand is neither male nor female, and thus we can call God an "it" although by common consent we call him father.

But it is merely a convention, not a rule.

As you may see, there is a clear distinction between these two aspects of God, God the Spirit being, the prime mover and God the Word / Memra, who has a physical appearance of a man. Interestingly enough it is the physical Memra of God who appeared to Abraham and Moses, it is he who is the visible aspect of God.

The jewish outlook would explain this away as personification, but I would add that it is a very real personification.

[Dying Seraph]

Paranoid Android, on 11 February 2012 - 06:58 AM, said:

It is an opinion I believe to be backed up by the facts.  Consider Exodus 34:14 - you shall not worship any other El.  El is a generic term for god, and refers to false gods as well as the Hebrew God.  I'm not sure where you get the idea of Yahweh as an "aged" God.  God is spirit, no form.  God is wise - he's the creator, would a religion rise up calling the one and only creator a stupid God?  Is Yahweh's dwelling place on the side of a mountain?  Calling people "sons of God" is obvious in a culture that reverse God as a "heavenly father".

Greetings PA.
I have considered Exodus a few times. However as it stands it makes my point I think. El as presented in Canaanite texts is wholly benevolent while Yahweh has a kind and a fierce side. I think this makes my point, they are different entities. Or at least that the Israelites saw El as something fierce whereas he was wholly benevolent in Canaanite texts. Yahweh is a jealous God, whereas El is presented as wholly benevolent. Quite a stark contrast if you ask me. Are we to suddenly forget all the vile acts Yahweh encouraged or partook in of the OT? Let us consider in 2 Samuel David is encouraged by Yahweh himself to take a census. But when this same story is told in 1 Chronicles written later it is Satan. This shows the authors further attempt to dissociate evil from God. However there appears to be a poor job of editing going on in the Bible. Either Yahweh is an angry God, or the concepts of the Hebrews of an angry God is associated with their form of El and Yahweh because no where else except in the Bible (that included Ugaritic, Kuntillet and other texts) is El an Angry God except when the Jews are using it as a generic term.

I must genuinely ask, are you serious about Yahweh being an "aged" God? Or dwelling on a mountain? ::facepalms:: Okay PA I'll do my best to clarify my stance Let's look at the evidence shall we:
In the OT there are just 3 (at least that I have found) places where Yahweh's years are alluded to, and it is particularly striking that in two of these passages he is specifically called El. Job. 36.26, Ps. 102.25 (ET*), and Job 10.5 are the only mentions...IN THE BIBLE!!!  E.J. Emerson points out that another is a possibility, Dan. 7.9, appears to have the same thing in mind. 'Ancient of Days' a term very reminiscent to 'Father of Years' as is the epithet of Canaanite El. Or we can examine the term El-Olam (God, the eternal one). Those seems to be glimpses into age to me.    
As for Yahweh's dwelling place being on the side of a mountain...are you asking or telling me? I am stating that IF one can equate El to Yahweh or even Baal to Yahweh then Yahweh dwelled on a mountain. Baal's mountain was Mt. Zaphon. El held assembly with the sons of El on a mountain. Simple as association if one believes them to be the same. El in Canaanite texts dwells on a mountain with the "sons of El (God)" also known as the divine assembly of El.

Quote

Which translation are you using that says "host of heaven"?  There are several references to the "host of heaven", but they mean exactly what they are supposed to.  There are several references to the "queen of heaven" also - they are not translated differently that I am aware of.

Ahh PA, I apologize, this is my discrepancy. I erred in my prior response and will attempt to clarify here.
I believe I screwed up in giving you the impression that the English Translation makes this issue. I was referring to the Masoretic Texts.
As has been noted by John Day: "It is generally accepted that the word for "Queen of" (malkat) has been deliberately distorted by a scribe to (meleket), which is found in every instance of the word here (Jer. 7.18, 44. 17, 18, 19, 25). A number of Hebrew manuscripts actually read mele'ket 'host' in each instance, and it is widely agreed that this was an apologetic alteration to avoid the suggestion that the people of Judah worshipped a 'Queen of Heaven.'"  

On a side note: Check out R.P. Gordon's 'Aleph Apologeticum' (who offers another example of this phenominon with 2 Sam. 11.1)

Quote

As to who the Queen of Heaven is, I actually don't know.  Jeremiah 7:18 simply makes it clear that this worship is angering Yahweh.  It could be Asherah, it could be Anat. Some have even suggested Ishtar.  I'm not an expert on this matter, and Jeremiah is a book I am less familiar with than most (actually, I might make Jeremiah my next book to target in my Quiet Time).  I'll quote my Bible Dictionary's entry on "Queen of Heaven", hope it helps

Okay so there is no general consensus then as to whom the "Queen of Heaven" is Gotcha.  Thank you PA. I'll peruse the link you offered in more depth when the oppurtunity arises.

Jor-el, on 11 February 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

It is interesting that the Queen of Heaven is associated to the Host of Heaven, these are the angelic host, who are also called the "Sons of God", the fact that God himself has always warned us of worshipping this Host of Heaven is indicative that, this is a clear reference to the polytheistic religions of the time.

Greetings Jor-el,
Just as an earthly King has escorts or a body of courtiers, so Yahweh has a heavenly court. It is my belief that these were originally seen as Gods, but as monotheism became absolute, these Gods became demoted to the status of being an "angel."

Quote

There is clear reference to other types of beings considered to be gods and that 70 "bene elohim" were given to the pagan nations to worship.

Indeed in Canaanite texts (more specifically Ugaritic Baal Myth) the 70 sons of Asherah (Athirat)-(sb'm. bn. 'atrt). And since Asherah was El's consort (at least in Canaanite mythology or belief system), this would imply that the 70 "bene elohim" are El's as well as he is Father of the Gods.

Quote

The Gods of the pagan nations were created by Yahweh himself. They are not an illusion and they cannot be dismissed because they appear frequently in the bible. They are part of Gods divine council, but they are corrupt beings, who fight among themselves for power and supremacy here on earth, by using the nations as their tools. Their names may have changed over time, their identities forgotten in some instances, but they are nevertheless the Gods of the pagan nations. Nations to which gods were assigned. 70 Nations, 70 Gods or as the biblical term goes, Sons of God.

Interestingly enough, Israel certainly did believe there to be 70 nations on earth, so the sons of God were accordingly 70 as well. (ie. Gen. 10).    

Quote

Deuteronomy 32:8-9

8 When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.

9 For the LORD's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance.

To confirm the above we have another.

Deuteronomy 4:19

19 And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars—all the heavenly host—do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven.

Since the "Host of heaven" refers to these "sons of God". They are essentially the same. Not all sons of God are corrupt but some of them are.

The Torah recognizes the existence of multiple gods who are real enough, because they not only tempt us, but arouse the jealously and wrath of God (Ex 20:3, 20:13, Lev 19:4, Deut 5:7, 6:14, 7:4, 8:19, 11:16, 11:28, 13:3, 13:7, 13:14, 17:3, 18:20, 28:14, 28:36, 28:64, 29:25, 30:17, 31: 16, 31:18, 31:20). Yahweh rules over the other gods (Ex 18:11, Deut 7:10) which is also recognized in the other terms used to identify Him, such as El Elyon.

SINCerely,

[Paranoid Android]

Dying Seraph, on 13 February 2012 - 01:53 AM, said:

Greetings PA.
I have considered Exodus a few times. However as it stands it makes my point I think. El as presented in Canaanite texts is wholly benevolent while Yahweh has a kind and a fierce side. I think this makes my point, they are different entities.

I think you're overlooking my point - the word "El" in Hebrew is not a name, but a generic term for "god", not just the God of the Hebrews but a name for all false gods as well.  So when you ask the question as to whether El and Yahweh are the same, you are thinking of the Hebrew Yahweh and the Canaanite El whereas I am thinking of the Hebrew Yahweh and the Hebrew El.  In this sense I would say that the Hebrew Yahweh and the Canaanite El are not the same deity.    

Dying Seraph, on 13 February 2012 - 01:53 AM, said:

I must genuinely ask, are you serious about Yahweh being an "aged" God? Or dwelling on a mountain? ::facepalms:: Okay PA I'll do my best to clarify my stance Let's look at the evidence shall we:
In the OT there are just 3 (at least that I have found) places where Yahweh's years are alluded to, and it is particularly striking that in two of these passages he is specifically called El. Job. 36.26, Ps. 102.25 (ET*), and Job 10.5 are the only mentions...IN THE BIBLE!!!  E.J. Emerson points out that another is a possibility, Dan. 7.9, appears to have the same thing in mind. 'Ancient of Days' a term very reminiscent to 'Father of Years' as is the epithet of Canaanite El. Or we can examine the term El-Olam (God, the eternal one). Those seems to be glimpses into age to me.    
As for Yahweh's dwelling place being on the side of a mountain...are you asking or telling me? I am stating that IF one can equate El to Yahweh or even Baal to Yahweh then Yahweh dwelled on a mountain. Baal's mountain was Mt. Zaphon. El held assembly with the sons of El on a mountain. Simple as association if one believes them to be the same. El in Canaanite texts dwells on a mountain with the "sons of El (God)" also known as the divine assembly of El.

Ok, so we've got him as the "Ancient of Days" - this is a reference to Yahweh being eternal.  How many days have been in existence since Time began?  However many there were God existed before then.  I would argue the imagery is thus of an eternal deity, not an "aged" deity.  

As for mountains, I think this goes back to my last comment about Hebrew Yahweh and Hebrew El.  Though God did meet Moses on Mt Sinai, and there is a prophecy about God's return cleaving Mt Zion in two.  But I think that is a long way from implying that God "dwells on a mountain".  During the time of the Ancient Hebrews God's dwelling place was said to be first in the Ark of the Covenant and then in the Most Holy Place in the Temple at Jerusalem.  In the post-Jesus era God is said to dwell within the hearts of his followers.  Nowhere is God said to dwell on a mountain.    

Dying Seraph, on 13 February 2012 - 01:53 AM, said:

Ahh PA, I apologize, this is my discrepancy. I erred in my prior response and will attempt to clarify here.
I believe I screwed up in giving you the impression that the English Translation makes this issue. I was referring to the Masoretic Texts.
As has been noted by John Day: "It is generally accepted that the word for "Queen of" (malkat) has been deliberately distorted by a scribe to (meleket), which is found in every instance of the word here (Jer. 7.18, 44. 17, 18, 19, 25). A number of Hebrew manuscripts actually read mele'ket 'host' in each instance, and it is widely agreed that this was an apologetic alteration to avoid the suggestion that the people of Judah worshipped a 'Queen of Heaven.'"  

On a side note: Check out R.P. Gordon's 'Aleph Apologeticum' (who offers another example of this phenominon with 2 Sam. 11.1)


Okay so there is no general consensus then as to whom the "Queen of Heaven" is Gotcha.  Thank you PA. I'll peruse the link you offered in more depth when the oppurtunity arises.

Thanks for the info on the Masoretic texts.  I guess it's good that scholars who translate the Bible for us who cannot read Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek take several texts into account to decide what the best translation for us in English is.  

Good luck with the link, as I said I haven't actually gone through it, and for all I know it holds no theological depth whatsoever.  I just linked it because the book I quoted it from is not available online.  

~ PA

[Leonardo]

Dying Seraph, on 12 February 2012 - 08:26 PM, said:

There is a dilemma with this. Abrahams lineage were more than likely Moon worhshippers as pertaining to the region of Abrahams Father. So was El in that region or was El adopted by Abraham do you think?

The name 'El' is undoubtedly Ugaritic, and was probably not the original name of the deity Abraham imported from Mesopotamia (Ur). Whether Abraham worshipped Anu, or another of the Mesopotamian deities is not entirely relevant, however, compared to his importation of monotheistic worship of that deity into the Levant.

Abraham's deity became identified with El, and then later also with YHWH.

While Ur is reckoned to hold a moon-deity (Nanna) as their 'patron' and pre-eminent deity, that is also not entirely relevant to the religion imported into the Levant by Abraham.

Bear in mind, I only use the name 'Abraham' out of convenience for identification of the origin of monotheistic worship in the Levant. Whether this worship was brought into the region by a single individual, or by a group, or even over many, many years through 'cultural contamination' is immaterial.