Conversations on Canaanite and Biblical Themes: Creation, Chaos and Monotheism, 2022
is therefore more interested in the usageofterms in their context than in etymology" (myemphasis)... more is therefore more interested in the usageofterms in their context than in etymology" (myemphasis), Ithink he overstates my view, or rather emphasises one aspect against the other,where Ihavetried to maintain ab alance. It suggests that Ia mn ot reallyi nterested in philological exactitude, preferring "the usageo ft erms in their context",t hat is, the contextual and abovea ll intertextual aspects, and implicitlyi nvolving paronomasia. It hink that Ih avet aken good account of the serious philological issuesi nvolved(I have insisted that they are not to be ignored, or overridden by theological imperatives),and we should remember that theories are seldom universallyaccepted. The precise sense of the keywords of Genesis 1, for example, is ahotlycontested issue, as can be seen by the various views Ihavesummarised in my initial paper, and David'sown discussion. WhatIwastrying to do, while taking full account of philological and etymological issues, wast os how that the ancient writers (who would have had little knowledge of philological principles) playedw ith words, and in particular theirs ounds (as described in connection with the mutually evocative words, bārā' , bǝrē'šît, bǝrît, bǝrešet²)a nd wrung meanings out of their supposedr elationships.I tm ay be described as af orm of punning,o r free association. It is typical of the pesher mode of exegesis which typifies DSS and rabbinic treatment of ancient texts.A sm odernr eaders,w ew ould often find the associations forced or implausible: to ancientm inds, God had put clues to intertextuality in the shapes the words usedi natext,f or those with ears to hear.Anice inner-biblicale xample occurs in Jeremiah 1:11-2. Even God plays with words! Davidc oncedes this in part,b ut continues, "It hink each text should first be interpreted in its owni mmediate context,with ar igorous philological, literary and rhetoricalunderstanding,taking note of all the linguistic aspects, before widening one'sp erspective and digging deeper".³ Ithink he introduces afalse dichotomyhere, because Iagree with everything he writes, and yetn ote that the term "rhetorical",n ot to be separatedf rom the othere lements in analysis,i sp reciselyt he technical term which serves as umbrella for the further discussion of individual passages which Ih aveu ndertaken. To
Conversations on Canaanite and Biblical Themes: Creation, Chaos and Monotheism, 2022
Ih aveafeeling of inevitability about the paper submitted by DavidT sumura. I suspect thathehas t... more Ih aveafeeling of inevitability about the paper submitted by DavidT sumura. I suspect thathehas the same feelingwith regard to mine. Ialso have asuspicion that the polarity of which Iamwriting will typifymost of the opposed pairingsof contributions to this book-and perhaps the readership-particularlys ince it is intended preciselyt oj uxtapose conflictinga ssessments of as election of problems. The feelingIhave is that as cholar, he or I, or anyo ther,s hapes his or her arguments preciselyt oe nd up in ap redeterminedp osition. He-David-is determined to maintain two positions: the reality (the truth) of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo,a nd the inappropriateness of seeing in Genesis 1e venahint of the idea of chaos. Ia me quallyd etermined, it would appear,t om aintain the opposite position on both points. Can this impasse be resolved, or should we shake hands and agree to differ?¹ So far as Iamconcerned, Imust make aplea in my own defence. This is that, when Ib egin to write on agiven topic, Ioften have no idea wherem yn ose will lead me. At times Isurprise myself and end up along wayfrom whereIexpected to be. The samei strue in the present instance.I nm yearlier work Ih avea dmittedlyargued along the familiar lines, as those who know my work will agree. But as Iremarked to Rebecca Watson as Ibegan to read Tsumura2005a as astarting point for my discussion above, it seemed that he and Iagreed rather more thanI expected. But when Iput finger to keyboard, thingsloosened up considerably. As opponents of my views might argue, my old prejudices kicked in. My main problem is the precision, thatis, the over-precision, of some of David'sa rguments. He argues thata ,b ut not b, can be the case: that is, aa nd b (representing anyt wo alternatives) are mutuallye xclusive.A tt he most elementary level, it is aquestion of the precise meaning,and even etymology, of words. Who can disagree with this in principle? Youcannot seriouslybuild an argument One dimension in which this discussion could progress is the theological. Iu nderstand David'ss tartingp oint to be that of evangelical Christianity.M ine is an on-theistic, humanistic stance, but reasonablyt olerant of alternative religious assessments,a nd indeed benignlyd isposed towards religion. Theology is often at the root of academic disagreements,a nd often unacknowledged. We sawinmypaperabovethat some "academic" arguments were actuallybased on theological premises, as with vonR ad and Waltke.
Conversations on Canaanite and Biblical Themes: Creation, Chaos and Monotheism, 2022
Inever could accept the first step of the Genesis story: "In the beginning the earth was without ... more Inever could accept the first step of the Genesis story: "In the beginning the earth was without form and void".T hat primary tabula rasa would have set af ormidable problem in thermodynamics for the next billion years.
A number of currents of thought gradually coalesced into the Judaeo-Christian conception of "hell... more A number of currents of thought gradually coalesced into the Judaeo-Christian conception of "hell." Th is article attempts to relate them. Th e earliest traceable ideas involve a disembodied, subterranean existence of the common dead, or in exceptional cases total annihilation. Deceased kings were deifi ed and continued to be involved in the aff airs of the living, as in the Ugaritic funeral and kispum text KTU 1.161. Th is was parodied in Isaiah 14, which also indicates that such a belief was current, if criticised, in Israel-Judah. Th e theme of cosmic rebellion, wrongly traced to text KTU 1.6 i 43-67, actually emerged in such passages as Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28 and post-biblical derivative texts. Th e arrogant royal fi gure of such passages merged with the developing fi gure of Satan. Th e tradition of child sacrifi ce in Israel-Judah, performed at the tophet in the Valley of Hinnom, also contributed to the geography of hell in its Greek form Gehenna.
A paper on the theme of the History of Religions and Ugaritic myth could lead in a number of dire... more A paper on the theme of the History of Religions and Ugaritic myth could lead in a number of directions. Those that are entirely theoretical, in the sense that they would deal with problems in the theoretical approach to the discipline, are to my mind not terribly helpful, since grand theory always has to give way to awkward fact. The problem I shall treat is no less theoretical, of course, but at least it is testable, and seeks to answer a specific, and ultimately historical, problem, rather than simply indulging in airy speculation, or more dangerously, in the promotion of an ideological stance. The 'History of Religions' indeed raises a problem of reference: the English expression is fairly neutral, simply denoting the study of religions within a historical framework, considering historical developments and so forth, while as I understand it the German term Religionsgeschichte can have a more restricted sense, denoting this approach applied to Israelite and Judahite religion in historical context, so that it merges with Comparative Religion and the History of Tradition (Überlieferungsgeschichte). It can then take on a significant polemical role, which I do not see it as my brief to defend 1 .
In a 1998 paper (published in 2001 in SJOT 15:3-56) I suggested that myth is not a (literary) gen... more In a 1998 paper (published in 2001 in SJOT 15:3-56) I suggested that myth is not a (literary) genre, being altogether too polymorphous to fit any such formal definition, but rather a mind-set. The opposition often discerned by biblical scholars between myth and history had led to extravagant claims concerning the non-mythic nature of Old Testament narratives, on the ground that their basis often lay in "historical fact." On the other hand, the status of history in the Old Testament has become almost as contentious in some recent scholarship. This paper raises some fundamental problems, and examines some current tendencies in both areas, and will ask whether it is possible to reach some modus vivendi, in which scholars of diverse persuasions may find some common ground, instead of continuing to talk past each other.
The griffin is commonly understood to be an eagle-headed winged lion. I argue here that the Egypt... more The griffin is commonly understood to be an eagle-headed winged lion. I argue here that the Egyptian version has a falcon head, identifying it as a form of Horus; as an allomorph of the sphinx (seen most clearly on the axe-head of Ahmose), it represents the ka of the king. A digression into Judeo-Christian iconography argues that the bird among the evangelical symbols, derived from Ezekiel’s vision of the divine chariot, is not an eagle, but a falcon, the four forms being all derived from Egyptian images of the king (as lion, bull, man, and falcon). The iconography of cherubs (commonly supposed to be of Mesopotamian inspiration) is perhaps more directly linked with griffins, since the Hebrew kerub is claimed to be the source of Greek γρυψ (“griffin”) by J. P. Brown. The other symbolic beast of the Israelite repertoire is usually understood to be serpentine: here I argue that the Hebrew śārāp, “seraph,” is better explained as derived from Egyptian srf/sfr, “griffin,” having the same...
The bull may.. . serve as a symbol for the spread of most of what the modern world regards as civ... more The bull may.. . serve as a symbol for the spread of most of what the modern world regards as civilization, to be recognized as the archetype of its very origins. Michael Rice, The Power of the Bull. .. Une espèce animale ne peut être intêgrée dans le bestiaire symbolique d'une culture qu'autant que celle-ci.. . s'y reconnaît et que se projette en elle quelque dimension subliminale du psychisme collectif. Jacques Cauvin, Naissance des divinités, naissance de l'agriculture We do not have to explain everything in order to explain something.. .Proof is a concept that should be restricted to closed systems, such as mathematics.
Conversations on Canaanite and Biblical Themes: Creation, Chaos and Monotheism, 2022
is therefore more interested in the usageofterms in their context than in etymology" (myemphasis)... more is therefore more interested in the usageofterms in their context than in etymology" (myemphasis), Ithink he overstates my view, or rather emphasises one aspect against the other,where Ihavetried to maintain ab alance. It suggests that Ia mn ot reallyi nterested in philological exactitude, preferring "the usageo ft erms in their context",t hat is, the contextual and abovea ll intertextual aspects, and implicitlyi nvolving paronomasia. It hink that Ih avet aken good account of the serious philological issuesi nvolved(I have insisted that they are not to be ignored, or overridden by theological imperatives),and we should remember that theories are seldom universallyaccepted. The precise sense of the keywords of Genesis 1, for example, is ahotlycontested issue, as can be seen by the various views Ihavesummarised in my initial paper, and David'sown discussion. WhatIwastrying to do, while taking full account of philological and etymological issues, wast os how that the ancient writers (who would have had little knowledge of philological principles) playedw ith words, and in particular theirs ounds (as described in connection with the mutually evocative words, bārā' , bǝrē'šît, bǝrît, bǝrešet²)a nd wrung meanings out of their supposedr elationships.I tm ay be described as af orm of punning,o r free association. It is typical of the pesher mode of exegesis which typifies DSS and rabbinic treatment of ancient texts.A sm odernr eaders,w ew ould often find the associations forced or implausible: to ancientm inds, God had put clues to intertextuality in the shapes the words usedi natext,f or those with ears to hear.Anice inner-biblicale xample occurs in Jeremiah 1:11-2. Even God plays with words! Davidc oncedes this in part,b ut continues, "It hink each text should first be interpreted in its owni mmediate context,with ar igorous philological, literary and rhetoricalunderstanding,taking note of all the linguistic aspects, before widening one'sp erspective and digging deeper".³ Ithink he introduces afalse dichotomyhere, because Iagree with everything he writes, and yetn ote that the term "rhetorical",n ot to be separatedf rom the othere lements in analysis,i sp reciselyt he technical term which serves as umbrella for the further discussion of individual passages which Ih aveu ndertaken. To
Conversations on Canaanite and Biblical Themes: Creation, Chaos and Monotheism, 2022
Ih aveafeeling of inevitability about the paper submitted by DavidT sumura. I suspect thathehas t... more Ih aveafeeling of inevitability about the paper submitted by DavidT sumura. I suspect thathehas the same feelingwith regard to mine. Ialso have asuspicion that the polarity of which Iamwriting will typifymost of the opposed pairingsof contributions to this book-and perhaps the readership-particularlys ince it is intended preciselyt oj uxtapose conflictinga ssessments of as election of problems. The feelingIhave is that as cholar, he or I, or anyo ther,s hapes his or her arguments preciselyt oe nd up in ap redeterminedp osition. He-David-is determined to maintain two positions: the reality (the truth) of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo,a nd the inappropriateness of seeing in Genesis 1e venahint of the idea of chaos. Ia me quallyd etermined, it would appear,t om aintain the opposite position on both points. Can this impasse be resolved, or should we shake hands and agree to differ?¹ So far as Iamconcerned, Imust make aplea in my own defence. This is that, when Ib egin to write on agiven topic, Ioften have no idea wherem yn ose will lead me. At times Isurprise myself and end up along wayfrom whereIexpected to be. The samei strue in the present instance.I nm yearlier work Ih avea dmittedlyargued along the familiar lines, as those who know my work will agree. But as Iremarked to Rebecca Watson as Ibegan to read Tsumura2005a as astarting point for my discussion above, it seemed that he and Iagreed rather more thanI expected. But when Iput finger to keyboard, thingsloosened up considerably. As opponents of my views might argue, my old prejudices kicked in. My main problem is the precision, thatis, the over-precision, of some of David'sa rguments. He argues thata ,b ut not b, can be the case: that is, aa nd b (representing anyt wo alternatives) are mutuallye xclusive.A tt he most elementary level, it is aquestion of the precise meaning,and even etymology, of words. Who can disagree with this in principle? Youcannot seriouslybuild an argument One dimension in which this discussion could progress is the theological. Iu nderstand David'ss tartingp oint to be that of evangelical Christianity.M ine is an on-theistic, humanistic stance, but reasonablyt olerant of alternative religious assessments,a nd indeed benignlyd isposed towards religion. Theology is often at the root of academic disagreements,a nd often unacknowledged. We sawinmypaperabovethat some "academic" arguments were actuallybased on theological premises, as with vonR ad and Waltke.
Conversations on Canaanite and Biblical Themes: Creation, Chaos and Monotheism, 2022
Inever could accept the first step of the Genesis story: "In the beginning the earth was without ... more Inever could accept the first step of the Genesis story: "In the beginning the earth was without form and void".T hat primary tabula rasa would have set af ormidable problem in thermodynamics for the next billion years.
A number of currents of thought gradually coalesced into the Judaeo-Christian conception of "hell... more A number of currents of thought gradually coalesced into the Judaeo-Christian conception of "hell." Th is article attempts to relate them. Th e earliest traceable ideas involve a disembodied, subterranean existence of the common dead, or in exceptional cases total annihilation. Deceased kings were deifi ed and continued to be involved in the aff airs of the living, as in the Ugaritic funeral and kispum text KTU 1.161. Th is was parodied in Isaiah 14, which also indicates that such a belief was current, if criticised, in Israel-Judah. Th e theme of cosmic rebellion, wrongly traced to text KTU 1.6 i 43-67, actually emerged in such passages as Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28 and post-biblical derivative texts. Th e arrogant royal fi gure of such passages merged with the developing fi gure of Satan. Th e tradition of child sacrifi ce in Israel-Judah, performed at the tophet in the Valley of Hinnom, also contributed to the geography of hell in its Greek form Gehenna.
A paper on the theme of the History of Religions and Ugaritic myth could lead in a number of dire... more A paper on the theme of the History of Religions and Ugaritic myth could lead in a number of directions. Those that are entirely theoretical, in the sense that they would deal with problems in the theoretical approach to the discipline, are to my mind not terribly helpful, since grand theory always has to give way to awkward fact. The problem I shall treat is no less theoretical, of course, but at least it is testable, and seeks to answer a specific, and ultimately historical, problem, rather than simply indulging in airy speculation, or more dangerously, in the promotion of an ideological stance. The 'History of Religions' indeed raises a problem of reference: the English expression is fairly neutral, simply denoting the study of religions within a historical framework, considering historical developments and so forth, while as I understand it the German term Religionsgeschichte can have a more restricted sense, denoting this approach applied to Israelite and Judahite religion in historical context, so that it merges with Comparative Religion and the History of Tradition (Überlieferungsgeschichte). It can then take on a significant polemical role, which I do not see it as my brief to defend 1 .
In a 1998 paper (published in 2001 in SJOT 15:3-56) I suggested that myth is not a (literary) gen... more In a 1998 paper (published in 2001 in SJOT 15:3-56) I suggested that myth is not a (literary) genre, being altogether too polymorphous to fit any such formal definition, but rather a mind-set. The opposition often discerned by biblical scholars between myth and history had led to extravagant claims concerning the non-mythic nature of Old Testament narratives, on the ground that their basis often lay in "historical fact." On the other hand, the status of history in the Old Testament has become almost as contentious in some recent scholarship. This paper raises some fundamental problems, and examines some current tendencies in both areas, and will ask whether it is possible to reach some modus vivendi, in which scholars of diverse persuasions may find some common ground, instead of continuing to talk past each other.
The griffin is commonly understood to be an eagle-headed winged lion. I argue here that the Egypt... more The griffin is commonly understood to be an eagle-headed winged lion. I argue here that the Egyptian version has a falcon head, identifying it as a form of Horus; as an allomorph of the sphinx (seen most clearly on the axe-head of Ahmose), it represents the ka of the king. A digression into Judeo-Christian iconography argues that the bird among the evangelical symbols, derived from Ezekiel’s vision of the divine chariot, is not an eagle, but a falcon, the four forms being all derived from Egyptian images of the king (as lion, bull, man, and falcon). The iconography of cherubs (commonly supposed to be of Mesopotamian inspiration) is perhaps more directly linked with griffins, since the Hebrew kerub is claimed to be the source of Greek γρυψ (“griffin”) by J. P. Brown. The other symbolic beast of the Israelite repertoire is usually understood to be serpentine: here I argue that the Hebrew śārāp, “seraph,” is better explained as derived from Egyptian srf/sfr, “griffin,” having the same...
The bull may.. . serve as a symbol for the spread of most of what the modern world regards as civ... more The bull may.. . serve as a symbol for the spread of most of what the modern world regards as civilization, to be recognized as the archetype of its very origins. Michael Rice, The Power of the Bull. .. Une espèce animale ne peut être intêgrée dans le bestiaire symbolique d'une culture qu'autant que celle-ci.. . s'y reconnaît et que se projette en elle quelque dimension subliminale du psychisme collectif. Jacques Cauvin, Naissance des divinités, naissance de l'agriculture We do not have to explain everything in order to explain something.. .Proof is a concept that should be restricted to closed systems, such as mathematics.
DRAFT It is probably true to say that all human cultures have entertained some kind of belief in ... more DRAFT It is probably true to say that all human cultures have entertained some kind of belief in an " afterlife " —from the Palaeolithic or earlier (and possibly even our kin the Neanderthals 1) to the present, with views, however primitive and inchoate their conception, on the continuance, beyond the point of biological death, of the life of individual humans—and have treated their engagement with it in ritual fashion. That is, they have not believed that life was simply extinguished at death, but that in some manner, a part of the individual was carried over into a post-mortem existence. In the ancient Near East, this further state might be a generally dreary persistence in the underworld, as expressed in poignant lines in the Gilgamesh epic 2 , though the widespread observance of kispum rites shows that provided the correct ritual procedures were observed, the dead lived in a state of relative tranquillity, in continuing solidarity with their surviving kin 3. In Egypt a process of apotheosis by identification with Osiris was eventually adopted widely throughout the population, by the adoption of a hope limited originally to the king, then by his entourage, with a gradual percolation of belief down to the general population, and a variety of other destinies, from identification with various deities, to astral ascent and bodily resurrection, were also available, in a kaleidoscope of beliefs 4. This ritualisation of death means that some meaning and purpose has probably been felt to be present—or has been invested in it—and that its negative quality can somehow be tempered. Ritual confers meaning. A belief in some kind of survival of an element of individual identity seems to have been universal (perhaps due to encountering dead relatives in dreams). The idea of total annihilation (" the second death "), whenever mentioned in ancient texts, came to be understood from early times to be a terrible punishment for unforgivable sins 5 , or for failure to observe the appropriate rites, with survival as otherwise normative. If we turn to the West Semitic peoples, a variety of belief-systems was probably observed, reflected in the different local means for the disposal of the dead. Archaeology has had an important part to play in advancing a modern understanding of ancient beliefs, which has enabled recent scholarship to offer important correctives to older perceptions, particularly with regard to Israel and Judah. The conventional histories of 1 Some of the Neanderthal remains found in a cemetery at Shanidar have been interpreted as ritualised burials, with chert fragments deliberately arranged in association, and flowers strewn over body 4 (an interpretation now in doubt: see Fiacconi—Hunt 2015).
Cattle have played a significant part in human economies since Upper Palaeolithic times 2. With d... more Cattle have played a significant part in human economies since Upper Palaeolithic times 2. With domestication and selective breeding, but continued hunting of the wild species, the original wild form of cattle, the aurochs, which originally ranged across Eurasia from India to the Atlantic, including the Arabian peninsula and North Africa, finally became extinct 3. A recent study by Alain Testart has taken scholars to task for failing to distinguish between the various functions of such representations as the archaeological record has preserved, from hunting trophies to feasting memorials, without even due account of the sex of the animals involved 4. While the interpretation of ancient art before the advent of writing must always remain provisional, the materials considered here fall firmly within the well-documented fields of Late Bronze and Iron Age ideology and religion, and can thus to some extent at least be checked against the written record, however tendentious this may be from an objective viewpoint. The degree of metaphoricity of ancient beliefs will always remain a fairly closed book to us, but it probably had as wide a scope as modern belief-systems, ranging from the naïve to the sophisticated. But the position I adopt in analysing the material below is to see a blend of these two extremes at work, where the subtlety is often subliminal and subconscious, and we have to accept the " surface naïvety " at face-value, so that when an Iron-Age people spoke of a bull-god, they meant just that, and not simply a lively figure, a " mere metaphor " , to convey the sense of Vuure 2005: 53–54 concluded that the " aurochs may be considered to have disappeared from the individual countries of the Middle East and North Africa roughly in the course of the first millennium BC ". The last known female was killed in Poland ca 1620: van Vuure 2005: 83, 98; Wyatt—Wyatt 2013: 418 n. 4. 4 Testart 2010. I think he was too scathing of Hodder, and had too narrow a definition of religion. For a recent account of religion, giving a balanced account of the significance of aurochs trophies, see now Hodder 2016: 93-104. And when Testart further asserted (2010: 72) that " dans aucune religion connue, il n'existe pas de dieu-taureau. Il n'en existe pas plus dans les religions du Proche-Orient ancien… " , in the light of the materials discussed previously and in this paper, he was simply wrong. He seems to have contradicted himself in writing of the horned caps (" tiares ") of winged bull statues that " celles-ci ne sont que les attributs des dieux " , as though the very fact disqualifies them from divine status (!), while his view of the golden calf as a caricature (both observations, 2010: 73) by writers not understanding (or not caring to understand) the religious views of their opponents is belied by the evidence for the biblical cu!t. The writers were only too well informed, but were writing from a changing, iconoclastic, perspective. Testart's comparison of the Çatal Höyük bucrania with Assamese and Indonesian trophy displays is fine as far as it goes, but distinguishes too sharply and indeed artificially (à l'européenne!) between religion and general culture. A seamless web is a better figure.
Uploads
Papers by Nick Wyatt