Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

I've read some of the comments on the Goddess with interest...I was
wondering if I might offer the following observations and I apologize
in advance if anyone is offended...

Religions, even revelation religions, don't spring out of nothing.
They are formed from and evolve from previous theologies.  Ancient
Israelite religion was henotheistic in nature and incorporated
much of the surrounding Canaanite religion, including Astarte --
the Canaanite embodiment of the Great Mother.  It wasn't until
after the Babylonian conquest that the notion of Yahweh being
supreme over otehr gods arose. Technically, when Babylon destroyed
Jerusalem, Marduk should have been considered to have killed
Yahweh, but somehow, in exile, the notion arose that Yahweh had
used Marduk to punish Israel for abandoning the Convenant. 

Even then, Astarte's influence was felt all the way until the
destruction of the 2nd Temple in varying degrees.  Today's Judaism
has little resemblance to it's Temple-based ancestor, but the
influences of the Goddess are very prevelant.  The marriage of
the Sabbath Bride to the congregation parallels the union of
the Great Mother to the Horned God, and the three Prigriamage
Holidays directly correspond to Canaanite fertility celebrations.
Also, the wintertime Festival of lights (Channukah) is borrowed
from Canaanite solstice celebrations -- again, taken from the
tradition of the Goddess.

In a similar fashion, early Christianity drew from sources around
it as it developed: Pharaseic Judaism, Essenanic Judaism, Gnosticism,
etc.  As Paul travelled through Asia Minor, he encountered a world
of synchretized religions that were formed by Alexander the Great
centuries previously.  Alexander didn't just bring people together --
he deliberately fused traditions together (ie: the Hebrew "Adon"
became the Greek "Adonis")  So there was a wide tradition and
variety of traditions that were drawn into early Christianity...
among those would have been some Goddess influences as well (at
the very least, slant-wise via the Jewish sources)

Certainly, the figure of Mary fulfills *some* of the functions
of the archetypal Great Mother.  She is a creative force.  She
is revered for her role as a mother.  Of course, modern
Christianity bears marginal resemblance to the formative
years of the Church, but certainly some of those formative
influences shaped the modern Church and its offspring
into their present day images.

If looked at through historical perspectives, is it an insulting
observation?

with repsect,

Daniel
             

    Interesting stuff, Daniel.  Thanks for sharing that with us.
    
    -- Mike

    RE: .614  Daniel,
    
    			Yes, I had studied the information you shared but
    from what I have gathered from those who use the term "Goddess" is that
    they believe that God is androgynous and not a worship of the mother of
    Jesus.  
    
    
    Dave

    RE: .614
    
    Thanks for the info. Can you expand some? I am totally ignorant on the
    early history of the Hebrews.
    
    Marc H.

    Daniel,
    
    I am reading with great interest.  Some of the information you've
    mentioned I've seen in Merlin Stone's work _When God was a woman_.
    Are there other books you can recommend for people to research these
    early religions from an historical perspective?  
    
    Thanks very much and Welcome! to C-P,
    
    Karen

    .3
    
    Dave -- I understand.  What I meant was to show how the Goddess based
    religions most likely had formative influence over Christianity as they
    did on Judaism.
    
    .4
    
    Marc -- I'll bring in some notes tomorrow! 8-)
    
    .5
    
    Karen -- Rosemary Radford Ruether has two excellent books "Sexism and
    God Talk" and "WomanGuides"  The second book especially explores
    sources for female spiritual resources and examines the treatment of
    women in Biblical texts with pre-Judaic texts as comparison.  SHe shows
    an evolutionary move from Pre-Judaic theologies to Christianity.
    
    Daniel
    

     Pre-Christian religions ? Do you mean religions that simply predate
 Christianity or religions that are some sort of predecessor to it ?

     I recently read a book on prehistoric Britain that devoted considerable
 space to analyzing the existence of a "Goddess" religion in prehistoric
 Britain. The author pointed out that there was a tendency to assume this
 based on the discovery of many "Mother-Goddess" figures in prehistoric
 archaeological sites. The author pointed out that in many cultures, the
 Innuit and in Peru for instance such fetish objects are used during
 medicine ceremonies during childbirth to draw away pain and confuse
 evil spirits. 

    The author pointed out that in Britain and the Middle East prehistoric
 cultures were polytheistic and that the objects of worship were male, female
 and the majority of them were non-human. This also true of the pre-Columbian
 culture of Central and South America as well as Asia and Africa.

    I am inclined to agree with the author that "Goddess" cults did exist and
 continue to exist in many cultures. There is little evidence that they 
 represent the dominant religious influence in these cultures. In the case of  
 prehistoric cultures there is simply not enough information to draw any far 
 conclusions one way or the other. 

    
                                                               Mike

    Daniel .6,
    
    Thanks for the pointer to Ruether's work.  I've heard she is
    well-respected in her field, and I'll look for her books next
    time I'm out at the bookstore.
    
    Mike .7,
    
    So good to see *you* again!
    
    > Do you mean religions that simply predate Christianity or religions
    > that are some sort of predecessor to it?
    
    What I was thinking of when I started this topic are those religions
    in which some of the roots of Christianity can be traced, and so can be
    considered as predecessors.  
    
    In the book you read on prehistoric Britain, did they happen to talk at
    all about the relationship between the Goddess-based religion there and
    its relationship to the Celtic religious traditions?  I'm wondering
    what aspects of the pre-Christian religions there may have been
    eventually incorporated into Christianity when that area of the world 
    was "Christianized." 
    
    As a side note:  From the thesis work I've done on shamanism, scholars
    and researchers agree according to the archaeological evidence available 
    thus far, (dating back to approx 30,000 years B.C.) that it is the 
    predecessor of all of the major spiritual-religious traditions, including 
    the Goddess-based ones.  Subsequently, shamanism holds a preeminent 
    position in the family tree of Christianity as well.
    
    Karen           

"The spiritual sense of our place in nature predates Native American 
cultures; increasingly it can be traced to the origins of human 
civilization. A growing number of anthropologists and archaeo-mythologists, 
such as Marija Gimbutas and Riane Eisler, argue that the prevailing 
ideology of belief in prehistoric Europe and much of the world was based 
on the worship of a single earth goddess, who was assumed to be the fount 
of all life and who radiated harmony among all living things. Much of the 
evidence for the existence of this primitive [sic] religion comes from the 
many thousands of artifacts uncovered in ceremonial sites. These sites are 
so widespread that they seem to confirm the notion that a goddess religion 
was ubiquitous throughout much of the world until the antecedents of 
today's religions -- most of which still have a distinctly masculine 
orientation -- swept out of India and the Near East, almost obliterating 
belief in the goddess. The last vestige of organized goddess worship was 
eliminated by Christianity as late as the fifteenth century in Lithuania."

	-- from Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, by 
	Senator Al Gore. Quoted in the "Goddessing Network Newsletter," 
	ed. Willow LaMonte, cycle one, #1, cronetime '92.
    

    Re: .10
    
    Interesting.......Although I'm not an Al Gore Fan.
    
    Marc H.

Okay,  Marc asked a while back if I had any information on ancient
Israelite religion.  Yes, indeed, I do and it's taken me a while to
find the time to enter some of it...this will be coming in installations
since life is busy here in the law department.  8-)  Look for more to
follow in the coming weeks...

ANCIENT ISRAELITE RELIGION AND THE HELLENIZED WORLD AS THE FOUNDATIONS
OF THE EARLY CHURCH

adapted from lectures by Dr. Susan Ackerman, Ph.D. presented at
Dartmouth College, January 1991.

Part I  From the Foundations of the Nation of Israel to the Babylonian
        Exile

The Nation of Israel emerges historically around the year 1200 BCE (Before
the Common Era) in what was formerly known as the land of Canaan.  The 
organizational structure was based upon 12 individual tribal units as 
illustrated in the Hebrew Biblical tradition.  Essentially, these units
were autonomous in legal, government and territory.

Around the year 1025 BCE, a united political entity emerged under the rule 
of King Saul who was suceeded by King David and then by King Solomon. After 
Solomon's death (circa 932 BCE) there was a political rift in the kingdom.  
Solomon had been appreciated in the southern tribes of Judah and Benjamin 
but was less appreciated in the north.  Following his death, the rift 
resulted in two separate kingdoms: Israel, comprised of the northern 10 
tribes and Judah in the south.

In 722 BCE, the north was attacked and defeated by the Assyrian Empire.  
The ten tribes were scattered into greater Assyria and that's the last 
history has ever heard of them.

Judah continued on its own until 597 BCE when it was conquered for the 
first time by the Babylonian Empire.  The consequence of this defeat was 
the loss of political autonomy but not the actual destruction of the nation 
or the ancient Israelite religion.  King Jehoiakin was taken to Babylon in 
exile and a puppet government under Zedakiah was established.

All would have continued as normal for a Babylonian subsidiary state if 
Zedakiah had remained faithful to his Babylonian masters....he didn't.  
Most signifigantly he allowed himself to be influenced by Egypt, Babylon's 
largest enemy, who promised monetary aid for alliance against Babylon.

Zedakiah began an open revolt in 589 BCE -- a really, really stupid idea.

Babylon marches under its leader King Nebuchadnezzar (they just don't make 
names like that anymore, do they?) and Jerusalem lays under siege for 18 
months, finally falling in C. 587 BCE when Zedakiah was captured, blinded 
and taken away.  Jerusalem itself was burned to the ground, including the 
Temple of Solomon.  The remaining nobility was exiled and the kingdom 
destroyed.


What is interesting to note at this point in the story is that, according 
to the standards of the time, there should never have been a religion that 
we now call Judaism.  Ancient Israelite religion was, contrary to popular 
mythology, henotheistic in nature.  This philosophy, which was standard for 
hte Near East at the time, basically stated that "There are many gods -- 
this one is ours."  Hence when the covenant of Yahweh says "You will have 
no other gods BEFORE me"  the statement means precisely that.  Hebrews did 
not deny the existence of othe gods, they just lay claim to Yahweh as their 
personal deity.

But according to the thinking of the age, when Babylon destroyed Judah, 
Marduk, the patron god on Babylon, was thought to have defeated and killed 
Yahweh.  With Jerusalem burned and Yahweh dead, there was no basis for the 
religion.  Prior ot hte Babylonian exile, ancient Israelite religion was 
land based, tied to the nation state of Judah.  The belief of worship was 
realted to a place -- the Temple and the land (An example of thiswas Naaman
, a Syrian who came to Israel as was reportedly cured of leprosy -- he 
devoted himself to Yahweh and took a clump of dirt to his house in Syria so 
he could worship Yahweh properly).

As we know, the religion did not die -- it transformed into what we call 
today Judaism.  Israelite theologians drew on the theology of covenant 
after 587 to argue that Yahweh had allowed Babylon to destroy Jerusalem as 
punishment for failing to keep the covenant.  From henotheism, the 
theologians devised a system where Yahweh used other gods to do his bidding
, effectively becoming a universal deity.

Some basic examples of post Babylonian religious practice attest to this 
shift in focus to a home based theology.

1) Sabbath -- prior to exile it was of minor importance and the major 
holidays focused on pilgrimages to Jerusalem.  With the Temple gone, the 
Sabbath, which could be observed in the home, became central.

2) Circumcision -- prior to the exile it was not stressed as central to the 
faith but after 587 it was a mark of allegience.

3) Laws of Kashrut -- takes on a new meaning and primacy after the exile.

All of these practices were possible in the homes and small communities and 
became central to religious practice when the land based symbology had been 
destroyed.

NEXT -- THE FALL OF BABYLON, SECOND DYNASTY, EZRA and ALEXANDER THE GREAT

Re:  554.12

  >This philosophy, which was standard for hte Near East at the time,
  >basically stated that "There are many gods -- this one is ours."  Hence
  >when the covenant of Yahweh says "You will have no other gods BEFORE me" 
  >the statement means precisely that.  Hebrews did not deny the existence of
  >othe gods, they just lay claim to Yahweh as their personal deity.

This is not the claim of the Bible.  The scholarship behind this loses
a lot of credibility with me when it so distorts the Bible's clear
teaching that there is *one* and only one God.  How many Old Testament
references need to be cited where it says that there is only one
God before someone will accept that this is what the Bible teaches?

Indeed, the people of Israel (just like people today) refused to
accept much of what was written by the prophets for many and
various reasons.  The Bible itself makes that crystal clear.  However
when the author gets into re-interpreting the Bible with a foolish
and easily disproved claim such as this, I must object.

Collis

    Collis,
    
    This was written from an archeological and historical perspective, not
    a theological perspective.  I'm hoping to lay some ground work for
    discussion of the framework from which the early Church arose.
    
    If you believe the Bible is word for word literal truth, obviously this
    won't wash.  I have no archeological or historical evidence that
    Genesis or Exodus are more than origin mythologies.  At the point in
    history about which I wrote, the Hebrew Bible hadn't even been written
    on paper (parchment) yet.  The historical and textual evidence supports
    henotheistic religion up until the Babylonian exile. The Biblical texts
    which you say contradict this were set to written words after the
    C. 587 BCE, so obviously, the movement to Yahweh as the universal deity
    would be represented in those texts, but evidence of henotheism remains
    even in the ten commandments.  
    
    
    I'm sorry if this conflicts with your or anyone else's perspective...I
    did apologize in advance in this topic if I stepped on anyone's toes.
    
    regards,
    
    Daniel

    It's easy to spot the agenda. "BCE" is a pseudo-scholarly label for
    what the rest of us call "BC".

    History and archaeology books debate the Patriarchs (ie whether Noah
    through Joseph were historical), the Exodus is accepted as historical.

    One book _critical_ of Christian tradition has

    "...any great historical event on the order of the Exodus from Egypt
    strongly suggest the presence of a great historical leader.  This
    certainly has been the case in later, better-documented historical
    periods, why should the Exodus be an exception."

    Other books point to archaeological evidence supporting the Bible.
    Twentieth century archaeology actually confirms elements of the Bible
    that were ridiculed as late as the 19th century.  For example, there is
    a bush found in Sinai that produces a flammable resin, and the walls of
    Jericho fell in some sort of cataclysmic event, they were not
    dismantled, and so forth.

Note 554.15

>    It's easy to spot the agenda.

Yes, it is.  And regardless of whose agenda it is, too.

Richard

    Daniel,
    
    I appreciate the time and energy you're taking to enter this
    information.  Please do continue.
    
    Thanks,
    Karen

    .15
    
    Patrick, there is no agenda here.  Before the Common Era is the
    notation I learned in HEBREW school, growing up as a Jew for whom the
    notations "Before Christ" and "Year of Our Lord" are contradictory to
    our theology.
    
    Scholars often use those labels because they are objective on the
    theological stance.
    
    I see no agenda here other than to look at the history, archeology and
    textual evidence without theology.  I am sorry if that is in conflict
    with your outlook, but I cannot help it.
    
    The bottom line seeme to be if you take the Bible as literal truth,
    this line of discussion will not work for you.  As I said before, that
    is entirely your perogative, but they seem to me to be irreconcilable
    with the perspective that I have on the Biblical texts.  Would it
    possibly be best for us to agree to disagree on the fundamental premise
    of this discussion so we can avoid insulting each other either
    unintentially or deliberately?
    
    Thanks....
    
    Karen,
    
    Thank you very much...there will be more posted before the weekend is
    over!
    
    regards,
    
    Daniel

ANCIENT ISRALEITE RELIGION AND THE HELLENIZED WORLD AS THE FOUNDATIONS OF 
THE EARLY CHURCH

based upon lectures given by Dr. Susan Ackerman, Ph.D. at Dartmouth College 
January, 1991

Part 2,  The Fall of Babylon, the Second Temple and Alexander the Great

In part 1, we saw how Anceient Israelite Religion was given the choice to 
die or to adapt following the exile of 587 B.C.E.  Based largely upon the 
already existing theology of the Covenant, the religion began to evolve 
from a perspective where Yahweh was Israel's patron god among the many gods
of the surrounding nations to a perspective where Yahweh was the universal 
deity who even used otehr nations to punish his own people.

This evolution took place in Babylon among the exiled people and 
descendents of the nation of Judah until the year 539 B.C.E. when, as such 
empires often did, Baylon fell to the Persians led by Cyrus the Great.  
This conquest brought with it a fundamental shift in political philosophy 
that would have a profound effect among the exiled Israelites.

Babylon maintained its empire under the general philosophy of "keep 'em 
scared."  Any resistence to the authority of the Empire was dealt with 
swiftly, drastically and permanently.  Persia, however, was a larger entity 
that would have required a larger military force to maintain that kind of 
foreign policy, so Cyrus the Great decided that vassal states needed to be 
content.  Further,  Persia needed a buffer zone between Egypt and the rest 
of the empire.  All of those factors meant Judah needed to remain loyal.

Shortly after 539, Cyrus permitted the exiles to return and reestablish 
bother the state and the Temple of Yahweh, providing funds to accomplish 
those goals.  The first return was led by Sheshbazzar, a purported 
descendent of David, in 537.  This resettlement was a failure, however, as 
there had been no significant recovery by the remaining population from the 
devestation of 587.  Sheshbazzar led his group to find no cities, no arable 
farmland, no livestock and generally, no luck.

In 520 B.C.E., Zerubbabel, another descendent of David, leds another return 
with the prophets Haggai and Zacharia to create a stable political entity.  
By 515, a new Temple had been built and dedicated in Jerusalem, and a new 
state arose which greatly resembled the old one but also remained post-
exile in many ways:

1) Not all the exiles returned with Sheshbazzar
2) Many preferred to remain in Babylon where their families had lived for 
several generations
3) The Diaspora meant that there were thriving Jewish "colonies" scattered 
throughout the Near Eastern World -- one even as far away as Elephantine in 
Egypt.  The new theology of  Yahweh as universal meant that it was no 
longer necessary to live in Judah to be a Jew.

The down side of this was that the new Temple failed to truly cement to 
community together and tie in to Jerusalem.

Possibly losing patience with their Judah "experiment," the Persians, under 
the rule of Antaxerxes I, sent a third emmisary in Circa 458 B.C.E. named 
EZRA as a priest with ties to the older, ancient religion.  However, Ezra's 
family, not having chosen to return with Sheshbazzar was 4th or 5th 
generation in Babylon.  Ezra was also sent as a scribe with the TORAH, 
which had been set into a written compilation during the exile under the 
guidance of families like Ezra's.  Once in Jerusalem, Ezra translated the 
book for the people into Aramaic -- "This is our constitution" where the *
book* is actually central to the religion.  Under Ezra, ther beginnings of 
what will become modern Judaism come of age.

Persia sent a 4th and final emissary in 445 B.C.E. under Nehemiah to cement 
the work accomplished by Ezra.  A stable state emerged but there is no 
recorded history for nearly 100 years under the arrival of Alexander the 
Great of Macedonia upon history's scene.


Alexander the Great was born in Macedonia in the year 356 B.C.E. into the 
governing family of a monarchy that was unlike the traditional city states 
of the time.  King Philip, Alexander's father, was tied culturally to 
Greece, and young Alexander was brought up in a thoroughly Hellenized 
household and tutored by Aristotle.  His affinity for Greece also led 
Philip to despise all things Persian, largely because of the Peloponessian 
Wars which were fought from 431-404 B.C.E. and resulted in the defeat of 
Athens.  

In 338, Philip forged an alliance with Athens, Sparta and Thebes to fight 
Persia.  His alliance was formed by force, however, and was not exactly 
popular.  Philip was assasinated in 337, and Alexander ascended the throne. 
Anyone who thought that the death of Philip would lead to some peace and 
quiet was mistaken:  by 334 B.C.E. Alexander took his army and marched 
east to rout the Persians from Asia Minor.  Moving rapidly, Alexander 
captured Tyre on the Levantine coast (Levant = modern Lebanon, Israel & 
Syria) and effectively controlled the rest of Levant.

Jerusalem, perhaps still remembering the lessons on 587, opened its gates 
to Alexander on 332 B.C.E.  One year later, Emperor Darius III died during 
the the capture of Persepolis and the Persian Empire fell.  Normally, that 
would be quite an accomplishment for a young king during his first war, but 
Alexander continued to march, establishing a Greek presence as far away as 
northern India before returning to Babylon in the year 323 B.C.E.

Alexander the Great died at the age of 32, master of the known world, and 
leaving behind an enormous, Hellenized empire for his succesors to manage, 
split apart and eventually lose.

NEXT: THE HELLENIZED WORLD, AND THE BREAKUP OF ALEXANDER'S EMPIRE

    RE: .18
    
    Daniel,
     Thanks for the information. Please continue. Pat S.....why do you
    continue? Listen and filter out what you don't like...I am interested
    in the information, and so are others. If you don't like it, hit
    key pad ",". 
    
    Marc H.

    part 2, reply 19 deals with historical events that you should be able
    to look up in any history of the period.  It doesn't introduce
    speculation regarding the nature of God or deny the historical
    existence of Moses and a distinct Hebrew nation for which there is
    abundant archaeological evidence.

    re: 'If you don't like it, hit key pad ",".'

    Such intimidation.  Why do you to suppress dialog in CP, Marc?

    Daniel,
    
    Thank you for taking the time to enter this information.  For me
    archeology and critical analysis is the only way to look at history. 
    Theology, Science, and history only conflict if one must force Science
    and History to comply with a false theology.
    
    A true understanding of any of the religions of the world can ony be
    appreciated within the realm of historic and scientific knowledge.
    A true Faith will not be weakened by scientific and historic knowledge.
    
    I have no objection to anyone maintaining a literal interpretation of
    the bible as their personal faith.  I have lots of objection to those
    who would prevent me from examining historic and scientific evidence.
    
    Patricia
    
    

    RE: .21
    
    I don't and YOU know it..Pat. YOU surpress the dialog by coming into
    a note, and starting with the usual "agenda". You sure did hit my
    "hot" button!
    
    Marc H.

    Patricia,

    I reject the implication that I am one of "those who would prevent me
    from examining historic and scientific evidence".

    As I indicated in my reply, the overwhelming archaeological discovery
    and scholarship of the 20th century refutes the "scientific claims" of
    the 19th that deny the existence of Moses or a distinct nation that
    left Egypt to settle in Israel and continues to affirm the accuracy of
    the Bible.

    I agree that true Faith will not be weakened by scientific and
    historical knowledge nor will it be weakened by a focus here on
    marginal writers wrapped in archaeological language engaged in
    speculation.

    PAt,
    
    That intrigues me...it has been my understanding that 20th century
    scholarship has not been able to discover any evidence of a mass slave
    exodus in any archeological records of Egypt...considering that Egypt
    was very good at recording its own history, this has always struck me
    as odd.  Could you cite your sources, pelase?
    
    From what I've been taught, there *is* plenty of evidence supporting a
    number of migrations from the Trans-Jordon region of nomadic tribes
    into the then land of Canaan...which led to the emergence of Israel by
    around 1200 B.C.E.  -- but I've never seen a record indicating that it
    happened in a single migration.
    
    regards,
    
    Daniel

    p.s.
    
    What exactly do you mean by "marginal writers" Pat?
    
    A lot of what I'm writing is also based upon the work of Dr. Robert
    Oden, author of "The Bible Without Theology."  You'd be very hard
    pressed to find anyone capable of denouncing his credentials on the
    Bible.  The same goes with Dr. Ackerman.
    
    Just because someone approaches the text without a theological
    perspective does not make him "marginal."
    
    regards,
    
    Daniel

Re:  .25

You bring up a good point about the lack of Egyptian
references to an Exodus.  The commonly accepted explanation
of this (for those who prefer the Bible's explicit claims
over the Egyptian lack of claims) is that it is known that
history was often recorded only in a positive light by
the recorders.  Defeats are oftentimes not mentioned or
changed into victories.  For those who wish to see a modern
day example, take note of Saddam Hussein's claims before,
during and even after the war.

Collis

    RE:  .27
    
    Good point, Collis.  
    
    :-)
    
    L
    

    .27
    
    Collis,
    
    Certainly a valid point to make, but I am not certain that it is
    consistent with what I've learned about ancient Egypt.  It is my
    understanding that we have very good records left behind from that
    period, even of those parts of Egypts history that are less than
    flattering to the Powers that Were...certainly, a mass slave exodus
    would have been noteworthy for people who recorded so well.
    
    Also, I believe the archeological evidence from ancient Israel suggests
    several migrations from the Trans-Jordan region leading to the
    emergence of Israel by C. 1200 B.C.E.  The Biblical rendition indicates
    a single migration.
    
    I's like to repeat my request from Pat for the sources to which he
    referred that support the Biblical exodus story...I'd be very curious
    to know what evidence was used.
    
    regards,
    
    Daniel

ANCIENT ISRAELITE RELIGION AND THE HELLENIZED WORLD AS PRECURSORS TO THE 
EARLY CHURCH.

based upon lectures given by Dr. Susan Ackerman, Ph.D. at Dartmouth College
, January, 1991.

Part 3  THE HELLENIZED WORLD AND THE BREAKUP OF ALEXANDER'S EMPIRE

By the age of 32, Alexander the Great died as ruler of the known world.  
Not bad for the king of a small province north of Greece all things 
considered.  However, despite his obvious talents as a general, Alexander 
faced the same problem previous emperors in the world had faced.  Namely: 
now that I've got it, what do I *DO* with it?  The vast cultural 
differences of the ancient near east made conquering the place seem a lot 
simpler than governing it.

Previous empires employed their own methodologies with mixed results.  
Babylon liked to keep vassal states scared and met any resistance to their 
authority with swift and extreme punishment: simple, effective, but rough 
on the farmland.  Persia preferred to keep vassal states content and 
reasonably autonomopus.  This brought about stronger loyalties than the 
Babylonian method, but it did still present the possibilities of nationalist 
rebellions.

Alexander's method was unique: to minimalize tensions between various parts 
of his empire, he worked to eliminate boundaries between people in order to 
bring about a single, unified world culture: the OIKOUMENE (Oyk-ewe-maynay) 
Not surprisingly, considering his background, Alexander chose the Greek 
culture and began the process known as Hellenization throughout his empire. 
For example: Susa was conquered by Alexander in the year 331 B.C.E. and 
shortly after that, Alexander married 10,000 of his Macedonian soldiers to 
Persian women, tying his people to the newly conquered provinces and 
weaving Greek cultural influences into the Persian society.  Also, the 
armies of the new provinces were incorporated into Alexander's existing 
army, expanding it and broadening its cultural base.

Alexander not only bound people to Greek culture, he founded centers of 
Hellenistic culture throughout his empire, Metropoleis, as centers for the 
new provinces.  Perhaps the most famous one is Alexandria in Egypt, but 
outposts of the Hellenized world can be found as far as the northern 
regions of India.

However, Alexander realized that assimilation goes in two directions.  He 
did not simply march in a wipe out the local cultures in favor of Greece.  
Rather, his plan also accomodated the local cultures especially in the 
religious sphere.  To speed the process of syncretization, the 
incorporation of two distinct beliefs (or more) into a unified whole, 
Alexander himself participated in ceremonies for local gods throughout the 
empire.  For example:  The Babylonian god Melqart was incorporated into 
Greek religion as Herekles Melqart, the Egyptian god Ammon was identified 
with Zeus in Alexander's world, and the Yahwist Adon was translated into 
the Greek Adonis.

It is important to note that although Alexander offered sacrifices to 
Yahweh, Jerusalem was not a priority city for the program of Hellenization 
and was mostly left alone for nearly 150 years after Alexander's death.

The importance, both historically and religiously, of Alexander's 
accomplishments is evident.  A wide and varied set of ideas were brought 
together from throughout the known world and were incorporated into the 
Oikoumene.  Greek culture dominated the world, but was also influenced by 
the rest of known world.  Over 350 years later, the early Church would 
begin to move into a world that was still largely influenced by the period 
of Hellenization.  The philosophies, teachings and beliefs of this world 
helped to shape the formation of the Church and the path it would take as 
it moved thorugh the peoples and cities of Asia minor, Greece and, 
eventually, Rome.  The unified culture not only influenced the 
philosophical underpinnings of Christianity, but it also assisted the 
spread of Christianity.

When Alexander died, he left behind no clear ruler for his empire.  His 
infant son was put out of the way and his half-brother was unsuited for 
rule.  After 323 B.C.E., Alexander's generals carved up the empire into 
three basic units centered around Macedonia and Greece, Egypt, and the old 
Persian Empire respectively.

The most powerful general, Ptolomy, set up in Egypt, taking Alexander's 
body with him for burial in Memphis to legitimize his claim.  By 320 B.C.E. 
Ptolomy invaded Palestine and proclaimed it as part of his kingdom.  By 301
, his claim was settled and he controlled Egypt and Judah formly.  Seleucis
, another general, was in control in Persia, Babylon and parts of Asia 
Minor while Antigonus controled Greece and the remaining parts of the 
empire.

As seems to be the case with ancient Israel, the territory was in dispute, 
and between 301 and 198 B.C.E. 8 wars were fought between the Seleucids and 
the Ptolomies for control, resulting finally in Seleucid control of the 
region under the reign of Antiochus III.

next: The Seleucid Dynasty, the Hasmonean Revolution and the Coming of ROME

There isn't any need for a single, massive, exodus by all of the Hebrew
people from Egypt in order for the Truth of the Exodus story to be relevant
to Judaism and Christianity.

An exodus by a charismatic leader coupled with other migrations resulting
from those who stayed behind hearing about the group that had already left
is still consistent with the biblical story.

The Truth in the bible does not have to be literal to be True.

/john

>The Truth in the bible does not have to be literal to be True.

    I am curious: how does this mesh with the Fundamentalist perspective?
    I'm not sure because I've often heard people use the Bible as an
    accurate *hostorical* text as well as an instructional text...
    
    It is actually a very interesting point to make because I've long
    thought that the creation story of Genesis often mirrors the theory of
    evolution...lower forms of life to higher forms, etc.
    
    I suppose my question is how do delineate what you consider literal and
    what is allegorical or non-historical?
    
    Daniel

re Note 554.32 by POWDML::THAMER:

>     I am curious: how does this mesh with the Fundamentalist perspective?
  
        Well, you'll just have to take this to the
        Fundamentalist-perspective notes conference! :-)

Thanks for your response, Daniel.

Indeed, it is hard for me to fathom why people would give
the Bible very little credence as a reliable historical
document (particularly in the area that it is much
concerned with - God), particularly when one notes the
tremendous amount of energy and methodology that went
into preserving the manuscripts written by the prophets.

It is well-documented in the Bible (as well as in
archeology) that the Jews as a nation fell away time
and time again from God's revelation.  What differentiates
the Jews from other nations (even from a secular standpoint)
was the strong monotheistic core.  To this day, many Jews
do not believe that God wrote the Old Testament through the
prophets - yet there continues to be a minority, even a
strong minority, that accepts the claims at face value.

The main problem I had with what you presented was the lack
of credence given to what the Bible had to say without any
supporting documentation that this is a reasonable position
when, on the face of it, it is an unreasonable position.
Perhaps some have gotten so used to discounting the accuracy
of the Bible that it is not seriously considered even when
archeology confirms it.

Collis

Re:  626.23

From the beginning of 554.1

  >It wasn't until after the Babylonian conquest that the notion of Yahweh being
  >supreme over other gods arose. 

from 626.23

  >The lectures to which I refered in that string most certainly did
  >*not* make a claim about what Jews believe about their past.  

Perhaps the quote from 554.1 will cause you to rethink your claim in
626.23.  It is precisely because it does make a claim not only about the
accuracy and reliability of the Bible, but a rather far-fetched claim, and
then goes on to *base* the discussion on this claim that I wrote what
I did.

Why do I say this claim is far-fetched?  There are a thousand and one
reasons which would take a long time to deliniate (and are very well
delianated in any of a number of books).  But this claim essentially
proposes that:

God as outlined in the Bible is a figment of the imagination.

Essentially none of the books of the Bible were written
until after 586 B.C.  The implications of this is then the
historical and religious information presented in the Bible
is essentially fantasy.  Of course, none of the prophets that
the Bible talks about before this time were real people believing
in a real monotheistic God.  How could they?  The notion of
Yahweh being supreme over other gods (much less that there are
no other Gods) wasn't even a credible concept at the time.
In other words, the Bible has NO credibility whatsoever.  Logic
demands this conclusion if we are to postulate that the claim
given to us is true.

The implications of this claim are staggering; I have mentioned just
a few.  Take this claim away from the discussion and replace it with
a claim that the Bible is accurate (historically and religiously)
and what do we have?  We have a theory that is totally contradictory.

I stand by my statement.  This claim is foolish and easily disproved.
And, as a corollary, because the paper is based on this claim (if it
is wrong about how or when Yahweh's claim came into being and its
significance, then its reliability about when other beliefs came into
being, particularly when some of those beliefs stem from the first
wrong belief, is more than questionable), it too is foolish.

Collis

Hi, Collis...

I'll be 100% honest with you.  I do not have the time or energy to get into
this in great depth or detail at this time.  If you had broached this
discussion last November, I would have, but my intention in bringing up this
string in note 626 was to illustrate a point.

Nevertheless, you have gone to some effort, so in fairness I'll try to
respond to your points.  After that, I respectfully suggest we agree to
disagree.


>Note 554.34          
>TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON 


>The main problem I had with what you presented was the lack
>of credence given to what the Bible had to say without any
>supporting documentation that this is a reasonable position
>when, on the face of it, it is an unreasonable position.
>Perhaps some have gotten so used to discounting the accuracy
>of the Bible that it is not seriously considered even when
>archeology confirms it.

Collis, I *did* reference my source of information in the notes. Now
as to why I do not view the Bible as a strongly historical source, there
are several reasons which come to mind:

1) As a history text, the main source of confirmation of its accuracy is,
in fact, itself.  To me, that is not a strongly credible source without
outside, replicated confirmation.  You say archeology confirms the origin
stories of the Torah, but I've never seen that evidence, so I do remain
skeptical.

2) You seem to dispute this in your following note, but I trust the
information about the editing of the books of Moses happening after the
Babylonian exile.  Those books were brought reportedly from Babylon by
Ezra the scribe.  Ezra was one of a number of men sent by the Persians
in an attempt to stabilize government in the newly re-formed state of
Israel.  The first public reading in the Temple of the Five Books of
Moses is supposed to be relatively well documented.  Prior to this, Torah
was part of the oral tradition and Oral Torah remained a part of Judaic
heritage until the Diaspora..in fact, differences on the role of Oral Torah
were major dividing points between the Sadduccees, Pharisees and Essenes.

3) The source of this information is from the class I took with Dr. Ackerman.
Simply put: I trust her credentials as a scholar.  I apologize, but I do not
have the course bibliography readily at hand, and it would require substantial
digging to find it.  I do recommend Dr. Robert Oden's "The Bible Without
Theology" however.

Note 554.35     
TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON 

>Perhaps the quote from 554.1 will cause you to rethink your claim in
>626.23.  It is precisely because it does make a claim not only about the
>accuracy and reliability of the Bible, but a rather far-fetched claim, and
>then goes on to *base* the discussion on this claim that I wrote what
>I did.

Collis, in string 626, you made an accusation that I entered notes about
what the Jews *believed* at the time (not actually specifying what time
that was).  That, to me, is not the equivalent to making a claim about
what the Bible says about *itself*

Also, in my introductory note and other notes at that time, I tried to be
very clear how I saw the biblical texts, so I had assumed that *my* premise
fro discussion was understood.

>Essentially none of the books of the Bible were written
>until after 586 B.C.  

Not set down to paper, editted and collected as a reasonably coherant
set of books.  The tradition of Oral Torah mentioned above was present
prior to Ezra.

>no other Gods) wasn't even a credible concept at the time.
>In other words, the Bible has NO credibility whatsoever.  Logic
>demands this conclusion if we are to postulate that the claim
>given to us is true.

The Bible as a recording of what people believed, how a society
regulated itself, as a collection of morality lessons, and as record
of the point of views of several prophets who influenced its development
has *plenty* of credibility.  It is something to be studied and understood.
It provides a lot of insight into the development of what we now call the
Western World.  And the stories within clearly speak with great power
to many people or it wouldn't have survived for so long.

If you mean the Bible as inerrant and historically accurate in all
respects (and mind you, I believe this applies more to the Origin
Stories of the Torah than to the other books), then I suppose that I
do not accept that as credible. The events in Kings, for example,
would seem to be more immediately credible as history because they were
events a)closer in time to the editing of the texts and b)documents of
state and related records were more likely to be detailed than the
collective stories of origins from nearly a millenia in the unspecified
past.

However, even then, I would look at more "modern" example for what can
happen to a history.  The history of King Henry V of England.  The 
history text of time is the Chronicles by Raphael Holinshed, written
within a century of King Henry's death.  Holinshed wrote that at the
Battle of Agincourt, roughly 7000 French died and 500 English died.  When
Shakespeare wrote his play, however, he raked about for additional sources
and took the highest estimate of French dead and the lowest of English .
The result was a chronicle of Henry's campaign that became popular
knowledge in Shakespeare's day of 8000 French dead to 30 English dead...at
    5 to 1 odds. At the time of the play's production, that became popular
    "knowledge"
    

For me, unless I accept the single author dictated or directly written by
God theory, I have to open myself to these possibilities. And the archeology
and history that *I* am aware of speaks more clearly to me of this. 


>I stand by my statement.  This claim is foolish and easily disproved.
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>And, as a corollary, because the paper is based on this claim (if it
>is wrong about how or when Yahweh's claim came into being and its
>significance, then its reliability about when other beliefs came into
>being, particularly when some of those beliefs stem from the first
>wrong belief, is more than questionable), it too is foolish.

First off, saying it is "easily disproved" does not make it so.  All of
what you have said in this note does not disproved a thing...it remarks
upon the implications of the perspective I entered on the biblical
texts and expresses incredulity.  Apparently based upon the *ASSUMPTION*
the *PREMISE* that what the Bible says about itself is true.  Now
as I said in string 626, you are entirely entitled to that, but many,
many origin stories in the world claim to be true. There is archeological
evidence of a war at Troy...does this mean Odysseus really *was* 
seduced by Circe?

Second, Collis, I;ve said before that I hope to try to understand from
you are coming even if we do not agree.  I hope this can be done
respectfully, but if you wish to dismiss what I or what others say
by brushing it off as "foolish" then that will be very difficult.  It
is not too hard, In my opinion, to say "I disagree" or "I do not see
it that way" without resprting to being dismissive. I would appreciate it
if you would state disagreements with that in mind.

regards,

Daniel
    

Collis,

You might be interested in checking out note 547 in GRIM::RELIGION, which
touches on some of what you are talking about, e.g. who wrote the Bible,
polytheistic beliefs of the early Israelites, etc.

				-- Bob

Thanks, Bob, for that reference

Re:  .36

Thanks for sharing all that, Daniel.  I think it's
unfortunate that we don't have the time to pursue
this because I really am incredulous about what some
people think is reasonable (logical) to believe.  This
is not an issue of innerancy that I'm raising, not 
in the least.  It is the issue of choosing to believe
(if I understand the claim correctly - the implications 
all fall out of the claim) that there was no monotheistic
movement in Judiasm before the 6th century b.c.  This is
an incredible claim and one I find to be contradicted by
such massive evidence that I willingly label it to be
foolish (inerrancy aside).

Perhaps another time this issue will be taken up and the
tremendous ramifications of this belief will be explored.
It's easy to make claims; it's hard to explain all the
ramifications of the claims (in this case, it's literally
impossible).

Collis

BTW, I don't know as I've ever made any claims about
archeology and the origin stories of the Torah; most
likely because I still am somewhat uninformed.  I know
that I have made claims about archeological finds
confirming numerous pieces of Biblical data.

From what I heard while in Seminary from my advisor
(who has a Doctorate in archeology from Harvard of
all places!), the Bible is considered the *most* reliable
document from ancient times in regards to details about
places, dates, rules, etc.  That's worth chewing over
(particularly in the light of those who claim that it
wasn't written until hundreds of years after the fact -
and that many of the events and people couldn't have
happened/existed as recorded since the Jews weren't
like that).

Collis

    Hi Collis,
    
    It's morning...I've got a few minutes...I'll try to be brief (no,
    really! ;-} )
    
    I hope that my notes didn't imply that there wasn't a strong Yahwist
    contingent in ancient Israel.  I think there most certainly was and
    there was a clear emphasis on Yahweh worship as the proper worship for
    the nation.  After all, in the henotheistic systems common in the
    ancient Near East, your nation's patron god *was* your god. 
    Worshipping others would be courting disfavor.
    
    But the concept of Yahweh as the universal "Overgod" using the
    Babylonians to punish Judah didn't evolve as central until after the
    Babylonian exile.  It was necessary for the nation to survive a
    transition from Temple-based/land-based to a religion that could
    survive in exile.  In fact, that's proabably what happened to the
    northern ten tribes who vanished after the Assyrian invasion: they
    *didn't* develop that theology and were assimilated into the
    surrounding cultures.
    
    The process of changing Ancient Israelite religion into Judaism
    continued with the collection and editting of the Torah by the
    Babylonian exile community and further continued by the development of
    Talmud, also by the Babylonian exile community (it's no surprise that
    Babylon continued to be the *intellectual* center of Judaism even after
    Israel was reformed.)
    
    regards,
    
    Daniel

Re:  554.41
    
  >I hope that my notes didn't imply that there wasn't a strong Yahwist
  >contingent in ancient Israel.  

Indeed the quote you supplied did more than imply this.  However, I
fully recognize that quotes taken out of context can be misleading
(although I did read the context and so no reason to change my
initial impression of what the quote said).

  >I think there most certainly was and there was a clear emphasis on 
  >Yahweh worship as the proper worship for the nation.  

In definate agreement.

  >After all, in the henotheistic systems common in the ancient Near East, 
  >your nation's patron god *was* your god.  Worshipping others would be 
  >courting disfavor.

But was this Yahweh worship a *monotheistic* movement?  A movement which
claimed that there was NO OTHER GOD?  Or is the claim that history
was rewritten after the exile?  

  >But the concept of Yahweh as the universal "Overgod" using the
  >Babylonians to punish Judah didn't evolve as central until after the
  >Babylonian exile.

This claims such a rewriting of history - and duping of people down
through the ages - that I find this claim far-fetched.  What
evidence is there of this?

Since I have heard claims similar to this a number of times and have
done some reading about them, I'll tell you what evidence I've been
able to find of it - I have found people that don't believe that the
God of the Bible as presented in Scriptures could exist.  That's it.

This entire fantasy is not based on external evidence, but rather on
a presupposition that the Bible is inaccurate and that there must be
another explanation.  If you can find any *facts* different than this
to support this claim, please share them with me.  

I can (and do) agree with you that theology developed after the
exile.  To conjecture that the theology took a major change and
that the entire Old Testament was rewritten to support this change -
***without any evidence (hard facts) that this did indeed occur***
seens on the face of it to be absurd.  As a simple man :-), that
is indeed my opinion.

Collis

    Hello again, Collis!
    
    Two thoughts:
    
    1) I'm pretty certain that the scholarship involved is based upon more
    than textual evidence, that archeological and historical records
    independent of Biblical texts support the henotheistic model of Ancient
    Israelite religion..Unfortunately, between moving from Hanover, NH to
    Baltimore and back to Boston, the course bibliography has gone AWOL on
    me.
    
    2) The perspective isn't that the Old Testament was "rewritten" but
    that the stories and records were not gathered in written form until
    after the exile.  There is that old adage about who gets to write the
    history books... ;-)
    
    regards,
    
    Daniel

An indication that the early Israelites might have been polytheistic is
the fact that Elohim (the word translated as "God" in Genesis 1:1) is
plural, and passages such as this:

	Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us,
	knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and
	take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever"--
					Genesis 3:22 (RSV)

What did the LORD God mean by "one of us" in this passage; who are the
others?  Angels?  Other gods?  Who knows?  Or maybe God was using the
royal "we", but in that case why did God refer to himself as "I" in other
parts of the Bible?

Another indication is that most or all other cultures of that time were
polytheistic. If the Israelite culture grew out of those other cultures it
might have also started out as polytheistic.

As for why many biblical scholars think that parts of the Pentateuch were
written after the Babylonian exile, that might be because they see
Babylonian influences which need to be explained.  But I haven't
studied this much so I don't have a strong opinion about it.

				-- Bob

    Bob,
    
    There is also a structural linguistics argument.
    
    Suppose you have a story in the Torah chronologically divided into
    parts A,B and C.
    
    Structural linguistics can get a reasonable date for each of these
    sections depending upon the idiom used.  If sections A and C are
    written in an idiom circa 700 B.C.E. and section B is written in an
    idiom from circa 400 B.C.E. it is a very credible argument for the
    redaction model.
    
    Daniel

Re:  554.43
    
  >1) I'm pretty certain that the scholarship involved is based upon more
  >than textual evidence, that archeological and historical records
  >independent of Biblical texts support the henotheistic model of Ancient
  >Israelite religion

There is no question that Israel as a nation kept falling away from
God.  In fact, in the writing of the history of Israel, it is
specifically claimed that the writings (which, of course, weren't
written at the time according to these scholars) had been so long
neglected that many of the observances commanded by God had been
forgotten.  Perhaps it is just as well - that way the writers
after the exile didn't have to worry about the facts when it came
time to record history (no oral tradition to rely on...)
    
  >2) The perspective isn't that the Old Testament was "rewritten" but
  >that the stories and records were not gathered in written form until
  >after the exile.  There is that old adage about who gets to write the
  >history books... ;-)

Thanks.  That's different from what I first heard and more reasonable
(although I still think it is a very anti-evidence position...)

Collis

Re:  554.44

  >An indication that the early Israelites might have been polytheistic is
  >the fact that Elohim (the word translated as "God" in Genesis 1:1) is
  >plural, and passages such as this:

  >	Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us,
  >	knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and
  >	take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever"--
  >					Genesis 3:22 (RSV)

It's hard to accept this as convincing evidence for this viewpoint as it
can be well-explained in two seperate ways (royal we as you included as
will as a multiple-person one God Trinity belief) and there are numerous
explicit and implicit claims that there is one and only one God.

  >Another indication is that most or all other cultures of that time were
  >polytheistic. If the Israelite culture grew out of those other cultures 
  >it might have also started out as polytheistic.

This is why it is believed that Israel was polytheistic - because other
cultures around them were polytheistic and Israel was constantly tempted
by this.  This and a refusal to believe the claims in the Bible.

Collis

    Those following/participating in this discussion in the Boston area may
    want to tune into WBUR 90.9 FM for tomorrow's Talk of the Nation.  The
    Passover edition will discuss Biblical archeology and evidence for and
    against the Exodus story.
    
    Daniel

    oh, oops...that's tomorrow from 2-4pm EST

Re: .47  Collis

>It's hard to accept this as convincing evidence for this viewpoint as it
>can be well-explained in two seperate ways (royal we as you included as
>will as a multiple-person one God Trinity belief)

In either case (royal we or Trinity), why is this form used in only a few
verses?  Why does God refer to himself elsewhere as "I"?

>and there are numerous
>explicit and implicit claims that there is one and only one God.

The numerous places that refer to there being only one God may have been
written later than the verses that imply polytheism.

				-- Bob

re .47

Collis,


How can the plural of the word for God, be interpretted as the plural form of 
person? I can understand the royal "We", having been brought up on British
history especially with Queen Victoria in mind (We are not amused). However, 
there was only one Queen Victoria as there is only one true God. As
Hewbrews 9:24 NWT reads "For Christ entered, not into a holy place made
with hands, which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, now to
appear before the person of God for us." Paul here indicates that Jesus
made an appearance before a person, that is the Universal Sovereign.

Phil.

Re:  .50


  >In either case (royal we or Trinity), why is this form used in only a few
  >verses?  Why does God refer to himself elsewhere as "I"?

How many verses in the Bible relate God talking to Himself?

Off the top of my head, I can only think of this one.  That would
make some sense, since after humans were created, God spends His
time talking to us (but are we listening??) 

As far as why God refers to Himself as "I", that is because He
*is* an I (I am who I am :-) ).

Collis

Re:  .51

  >How can the plural of the word for God, be interpretted as the plural form of 
  >person?

My English translation (NIV) reads

  Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness,
  and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the
  air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the
  creatures that move along the ground."

I don't know much Hebrew and only have the English, anyway.  However,
it was my belief that the plural was in the words translated "us"
and "our".  So, what is being pluralized is not the word for God,
but a pronoun and two possessives which, in English anyway, makes
perfect sense with a 3 person in 1 God belief.  Perhaps this is an
invalid argument from the Hebrew perspective.  My Hebrew teacher
did not believe this to be the case (I did take one semester and,
surprise!, we translated Genesis 1-3) but perhaps you have other
references.

Collis

RE. 53

Collis,

Obviously I misunderstood you, I thought you were discussing the royal
"We" as regards "Elohim" the Hewbrew word for God. Some have construed
that because "Elohim" is in the plural form that it shows that God 
is made up of multiple persons, but if one made application of making 
this plural that it would mean "gods" rather than "persons". 

From what I can remember "Elohim" (when used in regard with the only true God) 
being in plural denotes "majesty" or "excellence" rather than meaning God is 
many gods.

Regarding "Let us make man in our image", that is something else and can no
doubt be interpretted in many ways, one being Our Creator Jehovah God talking 
to his "master worker" , Proverbs 8:30.

Phil.

    harkening back to the base note and remembering that ancient Israelite
    Religion is not the *only* Pre-Christian religion...
    
    I have a number of excerpts from various sources that I'll try to enter
    over the next few weeks during my copious free time (re: lunch hour)
    
    "The Making of Man by the Mother Goddess," in "Religions of the Ancient
    Near-East: Sumero-Akkadian Religious Texts and Ugaritic Epics" ed. by
    Isaac Mendelsohn (New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1955), 116-118.
    
    NOTE: The Old Babylonian text is fragmentary and has been combined here
    with the Assyrian version.
    
    
    "That which is slight shall grow to abundance;
    The *burden* of creation man shall bear!"
    The goddess they called, [...], [the mot]her,
    The most helpful of the gods, the wise Mami:
    "Thou art the mother-womb,
    The one who creates mankind.
    Create, then, Lullu and let him bear the yoke!
    The yokem he shall bear,...[...];
    The *burden* of creation man shall bear!"
    .[.].opened her mouth,
    Saying to the great gods:
    "With me is the *doing* of all that is suitable;
    With his...let Lullu appear!
    He who shall be [...] of all [...],
    Let him *be formed* out of clay, be *animated* with blood!"
    Enki opened his mouth,
    Saying to the great gods:
    "on the...and [...] of the month
    The purification of the land...!
    Let him slay one god,
    And let the gods be purified in the *judgement*
    With his flesh and his blood
    Let Ninhursag mix clay.
    God and man
    Shall [...] therein,...in the clay!
    Unto eternity [...] we shall hear."
    [...they kis]sed her feet,
    [Saying: "The creatures of mankind] we call thee;
    [The mistr]ess of all the gods be they name!"
    [They went] to the House of Fate,
    [Nin]igiku-Ea (and) the wise Mama.
    [Fourteen mother]-wombs were assembled
    To tread upon the [c]lay before her.
    [...] Ea says, as he recites the incantation.
    Sitting before her, Ea causes her to recite the incantation.
    [Mama reci]ted the incantation; when she completed [her]
    	incantation,
    [...] she drew upon her clay.
    [Fourteen pie]ces she pinched off; seven pieces she places on the
    	right,
    [Seven pie]ces she placed on the left; between them she placed a
    	brick
    [E]a was kneeling on the *matting*; he opened its navel;
    [...he c]alled the wise wives.
    (Of the) [seven] and seven mother-wombs, seven brought forth
    	males,
    [Seven] brought forth females.
    The Mother-Womb, the creatures of destiny,
    In pairs she completed them,
    In pairs she completed before her.
    The forms of the people Mami forms.
    In the house of the bearing wiman in travail,
    	Seven days shall the brick lie.
    	...from the house of Mah, the wise Mami.
    The vexed shall rejoice in the house of the one in travail.
    As the Bearing One gives birth,
    May the mother of the child bring forth by [her]self.

Re:  .54

Hi Phil,

I agree with you that Elohim is best understood to be
plural because of the "royal we".

Collis

    
    .55
    
    Thanks for entering that!
    
    Dorian

    NPR's Talk of the Nation is discussing the likelihood of the Exodus
    story right now.
    
    WBUR is 90.9 in the Boston area

    a few early mornin' thoughts on .55
    
    * I find it very interesting that the creative power in the
    Babylonian/Sumerian texts was centered in feminine principals where it
    is in actual human procreative processes.
    
    * It is also interesting that humanity is created in pairs, male *and*
    female at the same time.  This reflects upon the chapter one rendition
    of the creation of humanity in Genesis -- man and woman created at the
    same time as opposed to woman being derived from male anatomy.
    
    * The number 7 has apparent signifigance in Babylonian/Sumerian
    society.  It is also a recurring number in Jewish and Christian
    apocalyptic texts that appeared later.
    
    Daniel

    
.59
    
>    * I find it very interesting that the creative power in the
>    Babylonian/Sumerian texts was centered in feminine principals where it
>    is in actual human procreative processes.
 
The creative power was conceived as feminine for thousands and thousands
of years before the advent of patriarchal religions along about the end of 
the Neolithic period. As for the creative power being feminine in "actual
human procreative processes," Joseph Campbell put it this way: 

"The human woman gives birth just as the earth gives birth to the plants. 
She gives nourishment, as the plants do. So woman magic and earth magic are 
the same. They are related. And the personification of the energy that 
gives birth to forms and nourishes forms is properly female." (The Power of 
Myth)

   
>    * It is also interesting that humanity is created in pairs, male *and*
>    female at the same time.  This reflects upon the chapter one rendition
>    of the creation of humanity in Genesis -- man and woman created at the
>    same time as opposed to woman being derived from male anatomy.
    
Whatever happened to that version of the creation of humanity in Genesis? 


>    * The number 7 has apparent signifigance in Babylonian/Sumerian
>    society.  It is also a recurring number in Jewish and Christian
>    apocalyptic texts that appeared later.
    
Maybe because 7 is the sum of two other significant numbers, 4 + 3 ? -- 4
symbolizing the 4 elements, also the 4 ways of disposing of the dead
(earth, air, water, fire); and 3 being, of course, the 3 stages of the
triple Goddess -- maiden, mother, crone. 

Dorian

                              

Re: .52 Collis

>  >In either case (royal we or Trinity), why is this form used in only a few
>  >verses?  Why does God refer to himself elsewhere as "I"?
>
>How many verses in the Bible relate God talking to Himself?
>
>Off the top of my head, I can only think of this one.

There is also Genesis 11:7 "Come, let us go down, and there confuse their
language".  Of course two verses isn't much compared to the rest of the
Bible, but they are interesting as possible remnants of earlier
polytheistic beliefs.

Re: .53 Collis

>I don't know much Hebrew and only have the English, anyway.  However,
>it was my belief that the plural was in the words translated "us"
>and "our".  So, what is being pluralized is not the word for God,

I believe that Elohim is a plural noun in Hebrew, just as sepaphim is the
plural for seraph and cherubim is the plural for cherub.

				-- Bob

    
    	RE: .60, .61
    
    	It is well known that the word "Elohim" is both masculine, feminine
    	and plural.  There are, according to the Hebrew Zohar, seven of
    	the Elohim, the second of whom is called Jehovah.  The word which
    	is translated as "God" in the verse of Genesis is "Elohim", as
    	taken from the the Hebrew text. 
    
    				Juan

	Why is the word "Elohim" masculine, feminine and plural ?.  

	The word "Elohim" is a compound word; "El" signifies deity in
	the Hebrew tongue, "oh" is the feminine ending and "im" is
	masculine plural.  Thus we have a word which signifies a deity
	which is not only masculine and feminine or androgynous, but is
	a plurality.

	In the Hebrew tongue there are three numbers, singular, dual and 
	plural -plural being three or more- so the word "Elohim" indicates
	a trinity at least, if not more.  Further research, however, shows
	that the ancient Hebrews included seven beings in this Elohim, whom
	they named Ildabaoth, Jehovah, Sabaoth, Adonai, Eloeus, Oreus and
	Astanphaios.

	Thus the act of creation was performed by the seven Gods or forces
	of the Absolute.  These septenary creative forces are also mentioned
	in most of the other sacred scriptures.  We find them in the Babylonian
	accounts, the Persian, the Hindu, the Egyptian and many others. In that
	very ancient writing, the Stanzas of Dzyan, where the sixth Shloka of
	the first Stanza begins: "The Seven Sublime Lords and Seven Truths
	had ceased to be * * * ".

	This seven-fold Creative Hierarchy (Elohim) is referred again and
	again in the Book of Revelations as "The Seven Spirits before the
	throne", "The Seven Lamps which are the Seven Spirits", "The Seven
	Stars are the Angels of the Seven Churches", etc.  And there is a
	significant verse (Isaiah 30:26): "And the light of the Sun shall be
	sevenfold".

	[Source: "In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth"
	[   a lecture by L. E. Gardner


			Juan

Re:  554.61

  >There is also Genesis 11:7 "Come, let us go down, and there confuse their
  >language".  Of course two verses isn't much compared to the rest of the
  >Bible, but they are interesting as possible remnants of earlier
  >polytheistic beliefs.

Thanks, Bob, for this verse.  I find it particularly interesting that God
is talking to Himself in this verse as well.  Are their other examples in the
Bible where God talks to Himself?  Again, I can't think of any off the top
of my head.  

Collis

Those were the two verses that Isaac Asimov mentioned in his book.  Like
you, I can't think of any others.

				-- Bob