Yahweh in Ebla...

[WiccanWade]

Hey guys... I origionally quoted the following from a book oigionally published in 1989, whom also quoted an earlier book, "In Hebrew legends the all-powerful Yahweh was originally the Goddess Iahu-'Anat, a name that was 'stolen from that of the Summerian Goddess.' The name Yahweh has also been related to the Canaanite moon deity, Yareah, who was possibly androgynous or bisexual."

Then, an "elder"-member of a Christo-Pagan group told me the following (which I was unaware of), "Actually, these theories are in a process of collapse. The ongoing dig at Ebla has proved that the cultus of El/Jahweh is at least as old as the Summerian cults .... it seems more likely that these cults may have had a common influence or source some thousands of years before ..."

So, I asked her (although, I think it's really a him- I just assumed otherwise due to his UserName) to point me intop soe directions to further, and scholarly, research this. He tried. By posting a sourceless article he had found, without stating which journal they were from... I think the sources from which these articles came from were lost. And, she meantioned that there were some ven better (non-Christian) articles he'd had from one British Journal, but was unable to locate that one, as well, which was also lost from his Files. The reason I'd asked for further info. was because I always like to be aware of the current historical and archeological findings and evidence, for the best accuracy! So...I was wondering if my fellow researchers here (whom have never failed me, yet) might be able to give me some guidance, and find some sources pour moi. This is just such an overwhelming subject! Oh, and...nit that I wish to cast asspersions, but...is "cultus" even a word, and was it even used correctly in this instance?

[bananabrain]

a lot of neo-pagans are very fond of parroting the line that the Divine as perceived by monotheists is just basically a canaanite male tribal thunder/sky god, who has got too big for his beard. this is basically a big fat inferiority complex in action, whereby you advance your own belief system by attempting to discredit that of others. it also embeds a theology of victimhood, which in the long term does nobody any good and just turns everyone into a bunch of whining imbeciles, who have no sooner removed the Big Beard In The Sky than they replace it with the equally infantile Big Tits In The Earth.

of course, more advanced thinkers realise that the Divine Is Infinite and cannot be so easily circumscribed - moreover, that because "i am right" it does not necessarily mean therefore that "you are wrong", which is the basis for all dialogue. there's plenty of room for approaching the Divine in our own diverse ways. in other words, we're all basically on the same side, so why are we trying to diss each other, eh? pheuuwwww.

annyway, "cultus" is a word. it usually refers to a particular methodology of worship, for example the jewish sacrificial system.

btw: just for the future, i consider it somewhat impolite to spell out the Divine Name beginning with Y used above, quite apart from the fact that we don't actually know the correct pronunciation.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[I, Brian]

Personally speaking, I'm more than a little suspicious of direct correlations being "discovered", let alone "propounded", which make implicit connections between deities.

At the heart of the matter is that every culture defines deity in its own specific manner. Certain commonalities of thought can be traced, and the development of singular ideas be spotted - but the road is often sporadic and sketchy.

There's a particularly bad habit I've seen before now, of some people making direct comparisons of deities on the grounds of their English spelling - which is just a little in the realms of speculation when dealing with concepts having origins beyond the English language itself.

As for the origins of YHVH (is the Tetragrammaton impolite??) being directly connected with Sumer - well, the history of Abraham seems to trace from Mesopotamia, but I'm personally not convinced that he took from there any particularly popular deity and merely reshaped it.

[WiccanWade]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

a lot of neo-pagans are very fond of parroting the line that the Divine as perceived by monotheists is just basically a canaanite male tribal thunder/sky god, who has got too big for his beard. this is basically a big fat inferiority complex in action, whereby you advance your own belief system by attempting to discredit that of others. it also embeds a theology of victimhood, which in the long term does nobody any good and just turns everyone into a bunch of whining imbeciles, who have no sooner removed the Big Beard In The Sky than they replace it with the equally infantile Big Tits In The Earth.

Whoah, there! Please, I kindly ask you to exercise a little decorrum with regards to your language, please. First of all, it is a study of comparative religion, not to meantion a history of the monotheistic deity, whom did origionate from tribal sky/war gods. In fact, it is prewtty clear that the English term, as it is applied in The Bible, is most often an umbrella term, concealing a multitude of deities, such as Jehova, Elohim and YHVH, et al. What many percieve as "God" has gone through an evolution.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

...so why are we trying to diss each other, eh?

Who's trying to dis whom? Certainly not I. Nor, was it intended.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

annyway, "cultus" is a word. it usually refers to a particular methodology of worship, for example the jewish sacrificial system.

Who even brought up the word "cultus", I don't recall having writrten it.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

btw: just for the future, i consider it somewhat impolite to spell out the Divine Name beginning with Y used above, quite apart from the fact that we don't actually know the correct pronunciation.

True as that may be, I believe it stems from the way in which each letter is spells, or whatever. It is always how I have always seen it spelled in a number of sources (non-pagan).

In service of The Goddess,
Wade MacMorrighan

[bananabrain]

sorry if my language is a little pungent - it's not aimed at you, but at insecure idiots who feel they need to attack other religions to make their own seem more robust. it is important to convey the strength of my feelings in this respect - it is difficult to be politely scathing. i am just trying to make my point with a little humour (being a brit, i know americans can have difficulty with this ) - the point being that i think theology should not be dumbed down to suit the anodyne conventions of political correctness. i don't respect those who think that ["the jewish"] G!D Is a BBITS, especially if they worship the BTITE. neither POV is fit for an adult, thinking person, however much it may suit some people to assume that all traditional POVs are infantile. this is very far from being the case.

First of all, it is a study of comparative religion, not to mention a history of the monotheistic deity, whom did originate from tribal sky/war gods.

this is a pretty big assumption that you're taking for granted - and it's precisely this assumption that i'm questioning, because from a jewish PoV abraham did not alter or syncretise pre-existing gods to make up a new one - what he did was to conclude as a result of philosophical/ mystical speculation that there must be something beyond the tribal beliefs that sustained the unjust social system of the time, in other words the Infinite Divine. as a consequence, he realised that the things everyone worshipped in ur had to be false (there's a midrashic story about how he smashed up his father's idol workshop when he realised this) and prevented the creation of a just society. as a result of this realisation ("is it possible that such a beautiful palace has no King?") he received a message from G!D telling him to leave ur and set up on his own as a worshipper of the Universal Divine. if you want to call this "going tribal", fair enough, but it's very different from modifying or converting existing deities - it's a revolutionary new realisation about the Universality of the Divine - that All Is One and the One Is All. the fact that there were deities around at the time who included "high", "great" or "master" as part of their names by no means constitutes conclusive proof that the Divine posited (or discovered, if you like) by abraham evolved from them.

In fact, it is pretty clear that the English term, as it is applied in The Bible, is most often an umbrella term, concealing a multitude of deities, such as Jehova, Elohim and Y-H-V-H, et al.

that's an assumption that scholars have chosen to make which totally contradicts the basic assumption that we jews have been making for 3000+ years. i mean, the defining, revolutionary thing about judaism was always its monotheism. it's absolutely axiomatic and fundamental. look, i have a first name and a middle name and a surname, i am someone's brother, someone's son, someone's boyfriend and someone's uncle. does it therefore follow that i am seven different people? obviously not. with G!D, it is about *roles* - when G!D Acts in a particular way, the relevant name is applied. for example, when Acting in a stern, judgemental way, the E-name might be used, or when Acting in a forgiving way, the Y-name might be used. and from which Name is used in whatever context we learn new things - about the universe, the Divine and ourselves. it's very different from what scholars do going through a piece of text and cutting it to bits like some kind of post-mortem.

What many perceive as "God" has gone through an evolution.

now *this* is certainly the case - but this is a case of humans discovering new things about the ways in which the Divine Functions, can be perceived or understood, *not* a change in G!D. the way we understand the Divine is in terms of Eternity, Containing Everything, Beyond human comprehension. if *other people* choose to ignore that, that is hardly our mistake. as we have evolved as a people through thousands of years we have begun to realise new dimensions of the Divine in terms of mysticism, philosophy, rationalism, mathematics, physics, metaphysics, poetics, symbolism and much, much more as we have lived through the development of civilisations. but we never make the mistake of thinking we are doing more than uncovering more knowledge about the tip of the Rock that protrudes through the soil, when we would need to understand the soil itself. can you define the universe, time or even human genetics? yet G!D Is More than all of these.

and, brian, nothing wrong with using the phrase "the Tetragrammaton", or indeed the individual letters, as long as they are separated or slightly altered (e.g. "yod-kei-vav-kei" where "kei" is used instead of "hei"). it's just that we are not supposed to pronounce this Name, ever, because that's like sticking your finger in the spiritual equivalent of a power socket, or indeed a nuclear reactor. plus we have to take extra care of paper (if printed) with a Divine Name on it, not throwing it in the rubbish, or taking it into a toilet, or tearing it. it's one of the meanings of "taking My Name in vain", which is why people write "G-D", although i prefer to refer to "G!D" (the exclamation mark signifying, in heschel's phrase, "radical amazement") so as to make the distinction between something that can be signified (and by extension circumscribed) by a human language like english and the Divine, which cannot. it's complicated, i know.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[WiccanWade]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

sorry if my language is a little pungent - it's not aimed at you, but at insecure idiots who feel they need to attack other religions to make their own seem more robust. it is important to convey the strength of my feelings in this respect - it is difficult to be politely scathing. i am just trying to make my point with a little humour (being a brit, i know americans can have difficulty with this ) - the point being that i think theology should not be dumbed down to suit the anodyne conventions of political correctness. i don't respect those who think that ["the jewish"] G!D Is a BBITS, especially if they worship the BTITE. neither POV is fit for an adult, thinking person, however much it may suit some people to assume that all traditional POVs are infantile. this is very far from being the case.

Oh, please...try not to be "scathing". It only brings a body down. After all, there's a quote I'm desperately trying to relocate (so, I'd appreciate anyone's help, if they know where to find it), that religion (or God, or whatever) should inspire the best in people, as is humanly possible. Although, I think there was sometyhing in that quote abouyt religion being used, also, to inspire the worst. So, if anyone can find it, I'd like to know! Incidentally, I've come across a reference that the word "scathing" may have come to us from the Dark Irish Goddess (connected to the Hawthorn) Scathach. I always thought that was interesting...

Originally Posted by bananabrain

that's an assumption that scholars have chosen to make which totally contradicts the basic assumption that we jews have been making for 3000+ years.

As true as that may be from your perspective- and I am not faulting you for it in any way- I have always been onbe to accept a scholar with more weight, personally. Even though, I have more than one Jewish friend (you included) whom whgole heartedly disagrees. WHich is wonderful, as far as I'm concerned, because the world would be a dreadful place if everyone agreed- how boring!

Oh, I woul have touched on a lot more, with regards to how you responded, but I'm just so darned tire this morning- a little lathargic, I think.

In service of The Goddess,
Wade MacMorrighan

[I, Brian]

The first sentences of bananabrain's original post had sent alarm bells off for myself - however, by the end of the first paragraph I could discern a very particular humour - I'm sure it's more than just the signature lifted from Billy Connolly. Glad to see no offence sustained in the audience, though.

And thanks as well for the comments, bananabrain - subjects relating to Judaism are perhaps most easy to make spurious pronouncements on, yet likely also least understood. You are bringing an interesting perspective on Judaism that I was quite unaware of (hey, I'm not omniscient! ).

[bananabrain]

subjects relating to Judaism are perhaps most easy to make spurious pronouncements on, yet likely also least understood.

amen to that. unfortunately, these are extremely likely to occur when people quote bits of the Torah or other stuff in the OT without any awareness of their function or interpretation within their source culture of judaism. to be honest, i think the demystification of the various ways we use our source texts is crucial to interfaith dialogue; i mean, i have not so far encountered a problem that someone has had with a piece of our text that cannot be reframed or resolved by applying traditional jewish exegetical methods. the point is that for us, getting upset because of something that, in an english translation divorced from commentary or religious context, seems scientifically incorrect, overtly prescriptive, prejudiced or severe, is like someone getting upset because they've spilt wine on the carpet, when they didn't know that wine was to be drunk and that they needed a glass to put it in. it certainly ignores the essential nature of wine itself. i'm sorry if this seems pretentious, but metaphor is really the only way i can convey the problematique.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Mus Zibii]

To put it simply, its a shame its not that simple, WiccanWade. Monotheism wasn't a new idea to Judaism--which sprang from Egypt, of course--, and the influence of the more strict observances of the latter Yahwehists have left a corrupting mark on the Torah. Much like the concept of a historical Jesus, any scientific certainty has been lost to the ages.

[bananabrain]

the influence of the more strict observances of the latter Yahwehists have left a corrupting mark on the Torah.

i'm sorry, but i take exception to the idea that the strictness of the prophets was a "corruption" of the Torah. perhaps you would prefer it if the canaanite influences on the biblical israelites had prevailed and we were therefore still being made to spend time every year at temples prostituting themselves to fill the coffers of the priests and burning our children alive as sacrifices? if that's "corruption" for you, then i prefer it to your "purity". in fact, if you read the text with any attention, you'll see that these idolatrous practices were picked up from the locals *after* we arrived in canaan and were in themselves a wholesale abandonment of the laws of the Torah as expounded by moses. periodically the prophets and the occasional righteous king were able to purge them, but generally the people were the corrupt ones, which is the overall theme of the prophetic writings.

Much like the concept of a historical Jesus, any scientific certainty has been lost to the ages.

in other words, this certainty is as corrupt as you claim the Torah to be. and, "of course", abraham, isaac and jacob came not from egypt, but from mesopotamia.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Mus Zibii]

I disagreed with you on a similiar point in the Christian/Egyptian thread, and I got to respectfully disagree again here. The Torah (not just the Torah) is full of what I confidently see as interpolation, addendum, borrowing, rivalry, and so forth. Its not a specific criticism or dislike of Judaism or Abrahamic religion, just a differing school of thought.

You mentioned the prostitution and sacrifices of the Ca'anites. The Christians had a similiar enemy with Jews and the gnostic Christians that Epiphanius ascribed all sorts of horrible traditions to. Oddly enough, only one side of the story gets told in these situations, always by the party that claims God sanctioned the destruction of these rivals. History is written by the victorious.

[spiritman51]

Ebla was a bronze Age city state in what is now Syria on the Orantes River. It was excavated in the 60's by a team from the University of Rome. About 15,000 fragments of cuniform tablets were found, Or about 2,500 intact ones. The initial field translations were electric. It seemed to confirm the names of cities found in the Bible and also personal names and some divinity names. Plus the mound was about 140 miles from Haran on the Euphrates famous as the home of Abraham's father, which was also exciting. A more scholarly translation proved the earlier translations were flawed. Ebla proved to be just another sophisticted Cannanite city with it's own Cannanite language and culture. However, this does not stop overzealous people from quoting and using the earlier field translations. The whole state of Biblical Archaeology is a minefield. From the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Temple Mount...it involves a lot of passion.

[bananabrain]

The Torah (not just the Torah) is full of what I confidently see as interpolation, addendum, borrowing, rivalry, and so forth. Its not a specific criticism or dislike of Judaism or Abrahamic religion, just a differing school of thought.

you may well confidently see it as that, but that doesn't make it any more the case. as far as all other jewish texts apart from the Torah (specifically the pentateuch) are concerned, i am perfectly happy to concede a certain amount of interpolation and addendum. and as far as the Torah itself is concerned, "borrowing" is very much in the eye of the beholder.

our tradition does not say that all non-Torah sources are necessarily evil, or wrong, or whatever. because the Torah, like the code of hammurabi, also forbids murder is not evidence that the Torah is passing off as exclusively its own the idea that murder is bad. the nations, too, have their wisdom and their laws. however, when both the Torah and something else mention something, i don't see why it is automatically presumed that it is the Torah that is at fault and it is that presumption that offends me.

now, when it comes to rivalry, absolutely! Torah has always been in a competitive field, but i take issue with the idea that it won through and still exists today merely because of victor's justice. the fact remains that Torah was and is sustainable and other belief systems of a similar antiquity aren't. Torah still speaks, whilst idol worship has deservedly died out. it is, to my mind, snide and churlish to suggest that the means by which Torah has survived and prospered must have been underhand or somehow unrelated to the intrinsic qualities of Torah itself. i think it's just grudging and disrespectful, although i know you don't mean it as such.

You mentioned the prostitution and sacrifices of the Ca'anites. The Christians had a similiar enemy with Jews and the gnostic Christians that Epiphanius ascribed all sorts of horrible traditions to. Oddly enough, only one side of the story gets told in these situations, always by the party that claims God sanctioned the destruction of these rivals. History is written by the victorious.

so, basically, you're suggesting that because the christians lied about us, it therefore follows that the Torah is lying about the canaanites? why on earth should that prove anything? unless the point that you are trying to make is that we're all equally awful. listen, if history was really written by the victors to the extent you suggest then Torah and the rest of the Tanakh would whitewash jewish history and suggest that we were this perfect bunch of saints - except it doesn't. at the FOOT OF MOUNT SINAI, JUST AFTER HEARING THE REVELATION, WE BUILT A CALF. how bad is that? look in any page of the book of kings or the prophets and you'll see what a bunch of utter tossers the biblical israelites were. victor's history? hardly. if anything we are far more honest about our failings than any other group that i can think of. in fact, i challenge you to find me a religion that washes so much of its dirty linen in public.

b'shalom

bananabrain