From: owner-ane@ (ANE Digest) To: ane-digest Subject: ANE Digest V2001 #179 Reply-To: Sender: owner-ane@ Errors-To: owner-ane@ Precedence: bulk ANE Digest Sunday, July 8 2001 Volume 2001 : Number 179 Re: ane re: Kana'an Re: ane re: Kana'an Re: ane re: Kana'an Re: ane re: Kana'an ane To: biblical-studies@yahoogroups.com ane Eden's Trees Re: ane Eden's Trees ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 13:33:53 +0200 From: "Ariel L. Szczupak" Subject: Re: ane re: Kana'an At 1240 06/07/01 -0500, you wrote: > I apologize for my delay in response, but I've been away for a week. Just a few > quick notes ... No need to apologize. It could even be argued that delays in an ANE discussion are constructive - whatever happened in the ANE will not change, and there's a chance of something being discovered during the delay, something that will throw new light on whatever is discussed . > [Noll] Ok, you assert that the ten commandments are monolatrous. But they are > not monotheistic, so my earlier point remains. Since I don't have at home reference books that deal specifically with religious terms, I checked the Encyclopaedia Britannica - and got confused between monolatry, henotheism and kathenotheism ( So lets see if I got it right: Monolatry is the worship of one deity. Other deities are in a "don't care" state (maybe they exist, maybe not), as long as they are not worshipped. Focus is on the worship, not on the question of existence. Monotheism is the belief in the existence of one deity, excluding all others. Focus is on the question of existence, with the worship question having a trivial answer (there are no other deities to worship). If the definitions are correct - What is the difference, the observable difference? The "devout" monolatrous believer and the "devout" monotheistic believer will behave exactly the same (assumption). The only observable difference I can think of, is that a monloatrous YHWHist will say (and hopefully will write it too for us to find) "I do not worship Ba'al", while a monotheistic one will say "there is no Ba'al". The theoretical difference seems to be that in monotheism belief and reality are equated - other gods are false gods. That sounds very much like the law of the excluded middle (a proposition is either true, or not - there is no 3rd, or middle, option), which in turn leads me to strict dualism (true/false, good/bad, real/imaginary, etc). If the difference between monolatry and monotheism is the application of strict dualism, then the question about the possibility of a monotheistic formulation becomes significant. The period we're dealing with (concerning YHWHism vs. other regional religions) is roughly late 2nd millenium BC to early 1st - it's not certain that strict dualism was part of the conceptual "toolbox" at that time. Without going into a wild trip from Akhenaton to Zoroaster, and from Greece to India, the common conceptual approach is pluralistic instead of strictly dualistic. I agree that both the archeological evidence and the straight forward reading of the OT point at monolatry rather than monotheism. But was YHWHism "not monotheistic" because it chose not to be (i.e. montheism was a possible concept), or was monotheism simply not an option? How much of the monolatry/monotheistic question is an attempt to force modern concepts on an ancient, different way of thinking? The test is, of course, if these modern concepts provide better understanding, if they turn some seemingly random collection of events into a rational progression (the equivalent of deductive predictions in the experimental sciences). That's what so "titillating" about Jacobs' suggestion. When I asked if people could function with multiple belief systems that include exclusions and contradictions between systems, I applied modern concepts and assumptions. What Jacobs' suggests is a "don't care" option concerning these contradictions, re-inserting the excluded middle and excluding dualism. Fascinating. > [Noll] Ah, but the YHWH belief system, as you call it, does not exclude other > belief systems. Your example of the ten commandments demonstrates only a > monolatry, not a different belief system. The god of the ten commandments remains > a very typical Iron Age patron god ... Probably a terminology difference. I'm using "belief system" in a personal, probably psychological sense - the personal, subjective belief systems which provide a (seemingly?) rational context to what we do. You seem to talk about "belief system" in a more theoretical way. There are probably very few theoretical differences between "patron god" belief systems, but personal belief systems that clash, internally, are supposed to cause psychological problems. > ... same belief system as Mesha's Kemosh or ... I think there's very little local evidence concerning Kemosh, Milcom and (can't recall the name of the Edomite deity). There's the OT, I think there's stuff from Ugarit and I seem to recall also something from Ebla - but wouldn't all these tend to interpret whatever happened in across the Jordan in the terms of their own "patron gods"? Are there Egyptian references to the cis-Jordanian deities? > ... As Durkheim insists, belief system is imposed by the culture, and ... Yep - we were talking about different "belief systems". See above. Both types of "belief systems" are problematic. The one I talked about involves trying to figure out what goes on in people's mind. Since I can't do that, I'm left with analyzing observable facts and making second-hand assumptions. Theoretical belief systems may be easier to analyse and understand, but their applicability is questionable. Determining the theoretical components of an ANE religion doesn't tell you much on how it affected people. Most people don't have fully fleshed personal "belief systems", religious or other, and there are gaps between the theoretical religion and between what kings, priests, prophets, educated men and uneducated men actually believe in. It's the actual beliefs that influence history (I think), and the different, personal beliefs are interconnected (a king needs men to go and actually wage a war, a prophet without an audience is pathetic, etc). > > Can Torquemada or Mother Theresa be explained solely on an > > intellectual/emotional/social basis? > [Noll] Yes. Oy ... > > My personal opinion aside, a lot of people, a LOT (I live in Jerusalem > > ...), claim otherwise. That's direct evidence which I can't ignore. > [Noll] Direct evidence of what? Self-delusion? Religion is an aspect of human > experience. It cannot be anything other than human experience. Oy vey ... . You are pushing me into a devil's advocate position. I find two main implications from "self delusion" - mental disorder and a belief which doesn't represent reality. I counter the mental disorder implication with the number of people who have religious beliefs, in various degrees, and I think (is there hard data?) they greatly outnumber the truly believing atheists (and agnostics, since in cases of extreme personal duress most of those will chose a belief system [a personal one]). A different mental order - sure, but a disorder? As for belief vs. reality - that's a much more complex issue. Even the phrasing of the question is critical, since real/imaginary is a strictly dualistic distinction. Would a Buddhist accept the phrasing of the question as being relevant? (which, of course, you can counter by saying that Buddhism and science don't go very well together ). I have no idea on how to approach this question, let alone have even the faintest idea of an answer, a "scientific" answer since it's the context. A scientific answer would have to be consistent with other scientific branches and disciplines. Any reasoning on "can religion be anything else than human experience" ends up leading me to some very disturbing places, like the Heisenberg principle of uncertainty, Godel's theorem, mathematical intuitionism (which claims that the law of the excluded middle fails when it comes to infinite sets, and which is useful in mathematical topology, which in turn is useful in "reality"), etc. But that doesn't stop me from wanting to understand the ANE, and religious issues are important in that context, and like a child - I want to understand it now! So I'm back to the more behavioristic approach of observing symptoms of religion, rather than trying to under the theory or the internal mental states that are involved. Basic question - is religion "real", in modern scientific terms? Imagine you have a god-like view of Jerusalem, and you observe the goings and comings of its Homo Sapience inhabitants. Soon you will notice some patterns - some people go to mosques on Fridays, others go synagogues on Saturdays, others go to churches on Sundays, others do Yoga exercises in public parks, etc etc. This is a physical, "real", phenomenon - some groups of atoms and molecules go to places of worship, while other, similar, groups of atoms and molecules don't. What's the differentiating factor? Over time you may notice other patterns. The children of parents in one "religious" group will usually (i.e. a statistically significant number of them) belong to that group. You may find a statistically significant correlation between the number of people who join or leave a "religious" group and some socio/economic/political conditions. But "statistically significant" may be a practical indicator of a causal factor, but it's not a necessary condition for the existence of one in formal reasoning. So I'm treating "religion" as "real", but as a black-box concept. I'm calling this black-box "religion" because that's what the people involved say it is. Maybe neurophysiology will provide another name ("zeta wave activity in the whatsitsname region of the brain" or whatever) in the future (and maybe not). Practical ANE example: ARM ("Archives Royales de Mari") X deals with female correspondence, a great deal of it during Zimri-Lim's reign (18th century BC). Apparently there many women in Zimri-Lim's entourage, and many of those felt compelled to give him advice. Some of Shibtu's (royal wife) tablets (just quick, rough sketches - don't treat it as an exact translation from the French text): She consulted public opinion (first Gallop branch ...) concerning an intended campaign against Imshe-Dagan and there's no doubt - Imshe-Dagan's soldiers will flee when they will see Zimri-Lim at the battlefield. In another tablet she reports, and agrees with, the divine message of Annunitum, delivered by the godess' eunuch, about Zimri-Lim's victory over Hammu-rapi (surprise, surprise ). In another tablet she reports the message from another of Annunitum's eunuchs about a plot against Zimri-Lim and suggests protecting himself with loyal people. In another tablet she tells Zimri-Lim that other kings will negotiate with him only after they are beaten. Etc, etc - she mixes mundane and religious reasons. (She also tells him to wear the clothes she sent him on his campaign, which proves that some things never change ). This mix is repeated in the letters from other correspondents but some seem to value practical reasons while others give greater emphasis to religious reasons. However, since we don't know if the tablets we have are all the tablets that were written by a specific person, we can't really assign practical/religious frames of mind to specific women (though we can probably say that Erishti-Aya, a daughter, is a self-centered brat, since all she writes about is complaints - how she was slighted, how she didn't get servants, oil, sustenance, etc). Keeping that caveat in mind, the tablets do give an impression that different women had different outlooks on the importance of religious factors concerning the way the kingdom was run. We don't know if their advice influenced Zimri-Lim (we do know that he lost Mari to Hammurabi after reigning for ~30 years), and if it did - which aspects of the advice influenced him more. Can we ignore the religious factor and analyze Zimri-Lim's Mari using only non-religious terms - political, military, psychological, social, economical, etc? I don't think so. In some cases the non-religious terms let religious aspects in through the back door, since it's very hard to separate the "religious" from the "social" or "cultural" in a civilization like Mari's. Some aspects described in the Mari tablets may be purely cultic - some messages had hair attached (at least that's what the tablets say), the hair of whomever delivered the divine messages. Does the attached hair provide more credibility to the message? [And ARM X is great reading whenever you want to be reminded that the people who lived 3-4 thousand years ago were normal human beings] > [Noll] The answer to the first question ... > ... The third > question is moot. Religious motivation is -- as your Jerusalem experience > informs you -- rarely secondary. If there is a religious ideology involved in a > person's decision-making, it is quite often primary. And it is a sum of other > factors. I think I addressed most of this above. I'm not so certain about your answer to the 3rd question. Many Jews eat not Kosher and many Catholic women have abortions. The fanatics, or those who suffer from the "Jerusalem Syndrome", are a numerical minority. In fact, the primary/secondary aspect in the implications from Jacobs' article are what makes it so fascinating to me (and, as usual, only questions, no answers ). > Shalom. (And I really mean that -- I'm worried about Jerusalem and Israel right > now, as many of us are.) To all and every one in the region and in the world. Ariel. - --- Ariel L. Szczupak AMIS-JLM (Ricercar Ltd.) Jerusalem, Israel +972-2-5619660 als-ane@amis-jlm.co.il http://amis-jlm.co.il ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 07:51:18 EDT From: FucciXXV@aol.com Subject: Re: ane re: Kana'an - --part1_74.cc02390.287851b6_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/7/01 5:42:53 AM Central Daylight Time, als-ane@amis-jlm.co.il writes: > I counter the mental disorder implication with the number of people who > have religious beliefs, in various degrees, and I think (is there hard > data?) they greatly outnumber the truly believing atheists (and agnostics, > since in cases of extreme personal duress most of those will chose a belief > system [a personal one]). A different mental order - sure, but a disorder? > > I winced when Kurt said "self delusion." It was an unnecessarily insulting way to make the valid point that the belief of Yahwists in YHWH is "direct evidence" only of the belief of Yahwists in YHWH, not of the existence of YHWH. However, the above invocation of the myth that "there are no atheists in the foxholes" -- the notion that non-theists hold their "belief system" so weakly and so cowardly that any little fright will send them scurrying back to the loving arms of YHWH or Chemosh or Qos or whomever -- is equally insulting. Comparison of belief systems among persons who adhere to differing ones is always tricky ground. I think this is a valuable and interesting discussion, but it will go more smoothly if everyone involved is a tiny bit more politic. Jim Thorn Chicago, IL - --part1_74.cc02390.287851b6_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/7/01 5:42:53 AM Central Daylight Time,
als-ane@amis-jlm.co.il writes:


I counter the mental disorder implication with the number of people who
have religious beliefs, in various degrees, and I think (is there hard
data?) they greatly outnumber the truly believing atheists (and agnostics,
since in cases of extreme personal duress most of those will chose a belief
system [a personal one]). A different mental order - sure, but a disorder?



I winced when Kurt said "self delusion."  It was an unnecessarily insulting
way to make the valid point that the belief of Yahwists in YHWH is "direct
evidence" only of the belief of Yahwists in YHWH, not of the existence of
YHWH.

However, the above invocation of the myth that "there are no atheists in the
foxholes" -- the notion that non-theists hold their "belief system" so weakly
and so cowardly that any little fright will send them scurrying back to the
loving arms of YHWH or Chemosh or Qos or whomever -- is equally insulting.

Comparison of belief systems among persons who adhere to differing ones is
always tricky ground.  I think this is a valuable and interesting discussion,
but it will go more smoothly if everyone involved is a tiny bit more politic.

Jim Thorn
Chicago, IL - --part1_74.cc02390.287851b6_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 16:15:06 +0200 From: "Ariel L. Szczupak" Subject: Re: ane re: Kana'an >[And ARM X is great reading whenever you want to be reminded that the >people who lived 3-4 thousand years ago were normal human beings] Forgot to credit Georges Dossin & Andre Finet for ARM X (Librarie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, Paris, 1978) Ariel. - --- Ariel L. Szczupak AMIS-JLM (Ricercar Ltd.) Jerusalem, Israel +972-2-5619660 als-ane@amis-jlm.co.il http://amis-jlm.co.il ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 21:21:01 +0200 From: "Ariel L. Szczupak" Subject: Re: ane re: Kana'an Maybe I should give a "blanket" apology for past and future messages. I'm extremely, maybe even obsessively, curious, and I like to examine ideas, facts, concepts, conjectures, etc. My curiosity is more of the aggressive feline type than of the social simian one, and it sometimes leads to misunderstandings. So, whatever remarks I make are always directed at ideas, not persons. Even if I think a specific idea is totally wrong I have enormous respect for the thought and knowledge that went into formulating that idea. If anyone did, or will, understand what I say as a personal comment, or as a qualitative comment instead of an analytical one - all I can say is that there was no intent and apologize. At 07:51 07/07/01 -0400, you wrote: >I winced when Kurt said "self delusion." It was an unnecessarily insulting >way to make the valid point that ... I didn't understand Kurt's remark as being insulting, nor did I intend "mental disorder" to be insulting. My wife works in special education - learning disabilities, ADHD, etc. I myself have dysnomia. I would probably include conditions like ADHD in a broad sense of "mental disorder", but I would NEVER think that it implies something personally negative about those who suffer from ADHD. >... way to make the valid point that the belief of Yahwists in YHWH is >"direct >evidence" only of the belief of Yahwists in YHWH, not of the existence of >YHWH. In case this refers to my calling the ten commandments "direct evidence", you stated my intention perfectly. As for the actual existence of deities - I don't know how to handle such a question rationally, so I didn't try to, and I have no intention of trying to. >However, the above invocation of the myth that "there are no atheists in the >foxholes" -- the notion that non-theists hold their "belief system" so weakly >and so cowardly that any little fright will send them scurrying back to the >loving arms of YHWH or Chemosh or Qos or whomever -- is equally insulting. Being an atheist myself, including in "foxhole" situations, I certainly didn't intend my comment to imply something negative about non-theists . While I may have different ideas from Kurt about the validity of certain conjectures concerning ANE religions, it seems to me that as far as personal beliefs go, Kurt's and mine are probably similar. Being a curious atheist, and being in contact with a variety of personal religious beliefs, both in type and degree, I've always tried to understand, rationally, the "religious experience", whatever it is. Never could, probably never will, but I'm still curious. What I did learn from these observations is that being religious has no connection whatsoever to being weak or being a coward. As for estimating that a greater number of agnostics embrace a religious belief system in cases when they feel they must decide, than embrace an atheist (atheistic?) belief system (then sometimes switching to atheism when the religious belief system does not provide whatever they were looking for) - I base myself on what I observed and read. And I used "agnostics" for both the"don't know" and the "don't care" types. I may be wrong - please correct me if I am. >Comparison of belief systems among persons who adhere to differing ones is >always tricky ground. I think this is a valuable and interesting discussion, >but it will go more smoothly if everyone involved is a tiny bit more politic. I disagree. Being diplomatic or politically correct makes for a pleasant conversation, not for a discussion where ideas are examined and dissected in order to determine their validity. I've been wrong before and I will certainly be wrong again. It's not pleasant, but as long as I feel that I exposed my reasoning to criticism, I don't think that being proven wrong implies anything on the quality of my personality or character (not that they are anything to brag about, but it's what I''m stuck with). I'd rather have someone tell me I'm BSing, and explain why, than have the reasons withheld for fear of having me go through an unpleasant moment. And, as I said before, in this specific case I don't think that Kurt's belief system concerning religious matters and mine are very different (if this is the case you had in mind), but that's a personal issue, not a scientific one ... Ariel. - --- Ariel L. Szczupak AMIS-JLM (Ricercar Ltd.) Jerusalem, Israel +972-2-5619660 als-ane@amis-jlm.co.il http://amis-jlm.co.il ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 18:52:22 +0000 (GMT) From: jwest@highland.net Subject: ane To: biblical-studies@yahoogroups.com List participants, I am in the process of attempting to make the Biblical Studies Resources web site even more useful- especially for college and graduate school students who will no doubt be turning more and more to online resources for class projects, collections of materials, and general studies purposes. I have, then, to ask for your assistance. if you know of a web address that should be included, please be so kind as to pass that along to me. I would like to have the BSR site thoroughly updated before the summer is over and the new semester has begun. My ongoing effort is to provide information useful to all areas of biblical studies and not merely one area (like websites devoted to the new testament or the gospels or luke, or hebrew or greek, etc.) As useful and as excellent as those sites are, they are highly specialized. My interest is to provide a resource covering the whole of the Biblical text as well as the ancillary disciplines (like archaeology, linguistics, etc). Also- if you make reference to web sites in your own classes I would be honored if you would mention mine to your students. Also pass on to them the same request I make of you now- that is- to send any web addresses thought useful (from a scholarly perspective rather than a devotional one). My site is at http://web.infoave.net/~jwest Your comments are greatly appreciated. thanks jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology Adjunct Professor of Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Hudson College Biblical Studies Resources http://web.infoave.net/~jwest ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 23:01:36 +0200 From: "Walter Mattfeld" Subject: ane Eden's Trees Available at my website is the following article (if interested, click on the url in my signature and navigate to the OT Menu) "The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden (The Ancient Near Eastern Motifs behind)" Genesis opens with the story of God's having planted a garden in the East called Eden. He evidently places two trees within this garden, one is the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, the other is the Tree of Life. This brief article will explore the Ancient Near Eastern motifs and concepts lying behind Genesis' portrayal of the events. All the best, Walter Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld Walldorf by Heidelberg Baden-Wurttemburg, Germany http://bibleorigins.homestead.com/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 15:57:34 -0700 From: Marianne Luban Subject: Re: ane Eden's Trees Walter Mattfeld wrote: > > Available at my website is the following article (if interested, click > on the url in my signature and navigate to the OT Menu) > "The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life in the > Garden of Eden (The Ancient Near Eastern Motifs behind)" > > Genesis opens with the story of God's having planted a garden in the >East called Eden. He evidently places two trees within this garden, one >is the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, the other is the Tree of Life. >This brief article will explore the Ancient Near Eastern motifs and >concepts lying behind Genesis' portrayal of the events. However, doesn't modern science and the mitrochondrial "Eve" indicate that "Eden" should be in Africa and not in the ancient Near East? Geneticists now tell us we are all from an African mother and subseqently descended from her 33 daughters who migrated in various directions. Marianne Luban ------------------------------ End of ANE Digest V2001 #179 **************************** Back issues are available on the Oriental Institute World-Wide Web (WWW) site at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html