What Do Ugaritic And Akkadian Have To Do With The Bible?

[Olavarria]

I notice that when people talk about anthropomorphism, divine sexuality and related subjects in the Bible they often draw from texts written in Ugaritic and Akkadian.

I am not trying to start a fight. I am a TBM, a novice and a Bokovoy fan. I just want to know what do Ugaritic and Akkadian have to do with the Bible?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Well there are several relevant things.

The first is that the Ugaritic texts and the Akkadian texts and the Hebrew Bible all reflect languages that share some common features. So previously unknown words or orthographic variants can be more accurately identified using these languages to help.

The second is that Canaanite texts (or at least oral traditions) were in circulation during the Biblical periods. There are many phrases in the Hebrew Bible which are similar enough to parallel phrases and texts in these other libraries to suggest a more technical usage for some terms. The Bible is then alluding to extra-biblical traditions which can now be identified with some degree of certainty.

A third issue is that Canaanite religion (ala Ba'alism) was rampant in popular Israelite worship. Ba'al was, for a while, worshipped, for example, in the temple in Jerusalem (alongside YHWH and the Asherah). We can now more accurately pinpoint those Biblical criticisms of specific Canaanite beliefs and practices that before we could only hypothetically extrapolate.

A fourth issue is that figures in the Bible are often described in terms and depictions consistent with the religious literature of Israel's neighbors. If they are from a related body of literature, this helps us understand that the Bible is also a part of this body of literature and should be looked at from that perspective.

A fifth issue is that while the Bible has allegedly undergone revision (from either a little bit to an extreme amount), most of our Ugaritic and Akkadian texts are found in an archaeological setting which precludes them from having been redacted beyond the time period of their having been "lost". This then gives us a snapshot of events contemporary with older time periods unlike the Bible which doesn't. This aids when trying to separate the more ancient biblical material from the more recent.

A sixth issue is that these kinds of discoveries are used by those critical of religion (in various ways) to try and force a showdown with those who believe that revealed religion should not be affected by or subject to cultural, social and linguistic issues.

I could probably come up with some more, but this is the gist of it.

[Sargon]

Ben,

Certainly the discoveries at Ugarit have been overwhelmingly useful for understanding the OT. That being said, do you think that sometimes the information found at Ugarit is over emphasized? Ugarit lies approximately 300 miles to the north of Jerusalem, while Memphis Egypt lies the same distance to the southwest. It is clear that "canaanite" myth was generally believed from Ugarit down to "canaan", but should be we believe that all the same stories and personalities were retained by the canaanite gods 300 miles away? Only 300 miles in the opposite direction we encounter a nation whose popular religion was quite different. Why should it be different between the Jerusalem area and Ugarit?

Furthermore, the excavations at Ugarit date to around 1200 BC, while most of the bible wasn't written until hundreds of years after that date. JasonH attempted to dissuade us from associating Asherah with Heavenly Mother because of the "sexcapades" told of her in Ugaritic lore. What is the likelihood that those same legends were consistent 300 miles away, and hundreds of years later? While we find titles and phrases in the OT for Yahweh that clearly have been influenced by canaanite myth, what is the likelihood that the Baal cycle found at Ugarit was told in the same way, if at all, 300 to the south and hundreds of years later?

Sargon

[Benjamin McGuire]

Well to start, 300 miles isn't very far - even in the ancient world. I am not sure that this is an overwhelming distance - take Ugaritic and Egyptian interactions.

I think the governing principle here is that any amount of information (no matter how small) expands to fill any intellectual void (no matter how large).

In reality, the Ugaritic texts tend to conform to other information that was had - biblical and Greek. And could be placed in comparison with the texts from Ebla as well as other near eastern semitic groups. And the results to some extent conform to practices seen in popular religion in archaeological sites (like the 800 BC site Kuntillet Arjud). In some ways, it probably is over done.

I think though that we have to distinguish between the idea that "most of the Bible was written hundreds of years later" and the idea that some of the Bible was produced quite early and not so far from that date. Furthermore we have to be aware that Canaanite religion as practiced in the environs of Jerusalem was probably somewhat different in any case from that at Ugarit. But I think there is a wealth of valuable information and parallels - especially when working on understanding the Hebrew text.

At the same time, the narratives you talk about do seem to be preserved (to some degree) for long periods of time over large areas. And the Biblical evidence - particularly in Isaiah - seems to reference details of the Canaanite myths. That is, there is evidence from the Bible that I see that indicates that it is responding to certain elements within, say, the Ba'al narratives. And that make a lot of sense within that context.

But as to it being overdone? It depends on who is doing it, and what they are really doing. These discussions here on this topic often get caught up in the debate just for the sake of debate. We aren't redefining our theology on the basis of these connections - in fact we aren't even doing a good job of updating our Sunday School Lesson Manuals. So, ultimately, the impact of these things on our religious lives is quite minimal. Interesting, but not a lot of impact.

In some ways I think Kevin is right in his underlying view. In other ways, I think that he is addressing a larer group of people all lumped together, and that his charges come at all the samw, but that not all of them are as problematic as Kevin's claims suggest. And I think that this discussion suffers from too many generalities. It becomes difficult to have a meaningful discussion about what may be borrowed and what may have been in a sense a core part of Israelite beliefs. Personally, I think that Kevin is wrong in what he suggests about what prophets may or may not have revealed. I don't think that revelation comes without cultural and social and linguistic filters (I am, by the way, for the purposes of full disclosure, the token post-modernist here in these forums).

[Ron Beron]

Ben,

Certainly the discoveries at Ugarit have been overwhelmingly useful for understanding the OT. That being said, do you think that sometimes the information found at Ugarit is over emphasized? Ugarit lies approximately 300 miles to the north of Jerusalem, while Memphis Egypt lies the same distance to the southwest. It is clear that "canaanite" myth was generally believed from Ugarit down to "canaan", but should be we believe that all the same stories and personalities were retained by the canaanite gods 300 miles away? Only 300 miles in the opposite direction we encounter a nation whose popular religion was quite different. Why should it be different between the Jerusalem area and Ugarit?

Sargon

My two cents.

Actually four cents since I have two points to make. Distance seems a minor thing since cities such as Hazor were definitely within the sphere of influence of not only Ugaritic society, but Akkadian as well. I would even venture that Egyptian religious belief found influence in Akkadian and Sumerian religious culture.

Two, and most related to the Ugaritic influences is a passage found in a dandy little book, "Stories from Ancient Canaan". While the title is a bit willowy the content is definitely just the opposite. The author, Michael David Coogan, writes,

"Canaanite motifs are ubiquitous in the Bible. Most significant is the fusion of Baal-language and El-language in the descriptions of Yahweh and his activity: the god of Israel may be unique, but the formulae with which Israel expressed her understanding of him were not. The more we learn of the cultural context in which the Israelites lived, the more the prophetic remark rings true: 'By origin and by birth you are of the land of Canaanites.' Ezekiel 16:3"

[Olavarria]

So I guess one can say that Akkadian and Ugaritic are to Hebrew what Italian and Portugues are to spanish. Perhaps some one in Saudi could use Don Quixote to understand aspects of Don Giovani.

[Ron Beron]

So I guess one can say that Akkadian and Ugaritic are to Hebrew what Italian and Portugues are to spanish. Perhaps some one in Saudi could use Don Quixote to understand aspects of Don Giovani.

Interestingly, Arabic influences in Spanish culture are very common. To interpret Italian opera? Hmmmmm....I wonder?

[Sargon]

So I guess one can say that Akkadian and Ugaritic are to Hebrew what Italian and Portugues are to spanish. Perhaps some one in Saudi could use Don Quixote to understand aspects of Don Giovani.

Whatever is meant by that, make sure you know that Portuguese is the superior language.

Sargon

Missao Brasil Rio de Janeiro Alumni

[Ron Beron]

Whatever is meant by that, make sure you know that Portuguese is the superior language.

Sargon

Missao Brasil Rio de Janeiro Alumni

Even the Japanese speak a little of it!

[David Bokovoy]

Sorry I missed this interesting thread.

Iâ??ve been out of town without access to the internet.

Iâ??ll probably have very little time to post over the next couple weeks since my experience at Education Week created a great desire to finally sit down and write up the book Iâ??ve planned for several years on ancient temple worship and the restored Gospel. I'm really feeling motivated.

Ben, of course, did an excellent job summarizing some of the issues concerning the relevancy of Ugaritic for biblical studies. Another point that could be added would be the use of parallelisms as a literary feature in both the tablets of Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible.

I specifically believe that Akkadian, the language of ancient Babylon and Assyria, is perhaps the second most important language for Old Testament studies following Hebrew and Aramaic. I had to devote four and a half years to studying Akkadian in my program.

Simply recognizing that the Babylonian story Enuma Elish appears to have influenced the creation story in Genesis 1; that the Eden story not only takes place in Mesopotamia, but is heavily influenced by Babylonian mythic themes featured in sources such as the Epic of Gilgamesh; that the biblical flood story has been directly influenced by Babylonian tradition; that the story of Babel presents a polemic directed towards Babylonian worship; that Abraham comes from Mesopotamia; that the law collection known as the Covenant Code in Exodus derives from the Babylonian laws of Hammurabi; that the book of Deuteronomy reflects the language, literary patterns, and ideology of the Assyrian Vassal treaty, it is obvious that in order to understand the Old Testament from a scholarly perspective, one must possess an ability to interact with Mesopotamian sources in Akkadian.

Best.

[hagoth7]

...I specifically believe that Akkadian, the language of ancient Babylon and Assyria, is perhaps the second most important language for Old Testament studies following Hebrew and Aramaic...

Ugh, I'm still working on my English....

[e=mc2]

Bokovoy:

Simply recognizing that the Babylonian story Enuma Elish appears to have influenced the creation story in Genesis 1; that the Eden story not only takes place in Mesopotamia, but is heavily influenced by Babylonian mythic themes featured in sources such as the Epic of Gilgamesh; that the biblical flood story has been directly influenced by Babylonian tradition; that the story of Babel presents a polemic directed towards Babylonian worship; that Abraham comes from Mesopotamia; that the law collection known as the Covenant Code in Exodus derives from the Babylonian laws of Hammurabi; that the book of Deuteronomy reflects the language, literary patterns, and ideology of the Assyrian Vassal treaty, it is obvious that in order to understand the Old Testament from a scholarly perspective, one must possess an ability to interact with Mesopotamian sources in Akkadian.

Yer graspin at straws here pilgrim........

[Ron Beron]

'David Bokovoy' writes,

I've been out of town without access to the internet.

You mean you had all that time to do nothing but read? Lucky you.

I specifically believe that Akkadian, the language of ancient Babylon and Assyria, is perhaps the second most important language for Old Testament studies following Hebrew and Aramaic. I had to devote four and a half years to studying Akkadian in my program.

And what about Sumerian? The problem is I had to look far and wide for a hebrew language program within the confines of SoCal and there is only one viable program within one hundred miles. Akkadian is cool, but find a school that teaches it. Well, now that I said it I realize that it is being taught at UCLA.

Given my interest in Mesopotamian cultures I agree completely with you. There is ample evidence to show that Mesopotamian religious thought rightly influenced all major religions, except for Asian thought.

[e=mc2]

If I recall correctly, and I probably don't but ah well, the Sumerian studies of Samuel Noel Kramer has been updated within the last decade, and there is much new fresh light available. Kramer is or was in the situation that Thompson was in Mayan studies. He got the word out, he got folks excited about Mesopotamian texts, etc., but his translations are so dated, and sometimes so terrible wrong, that they ought not to be used if one can help it. When a good friend of mine who is a Mesoamerican scholar told me that Thompson is useless, much like Budge is with the ancient Egyptian studies, I bawled, because not only had I bought a ton of Budge's materials, I also had an enormous amount of Thomspen's stuff on the Mayan. All no good now. Sigh....... the cost of updating is enormous on one's pocketbook if one takes these things seriously.

[Ron Beron]

If I recall correctly, and I probably don't but ah well, the Sumerian studies of Samuel Noel Kramer has been updated within the last decade, and there is much new fresh light available. Kramer is or was in the situation that Thompson was in Mayan studies. He got the word out, he got folks excited about Mesopotamian texts, etc., but his translations are so dated, and sometimes so terrible wrong, that they ought not to be used if one can help it. When a good friend of mine who is a Mesoamerican scholar told me that Thompson is useless, much like Budge is with the ancient Egyptian studies, I bawled, because not only had I bought a ton of Budge's materials, I also had an enormous amount of Thomspen's stuff on the Mayan. All no good now. Sigh....... the cost of updating is enormous on one's pocketbook if one takes these things seriously.

Darn, Kerry, I really love Kramer's work! I even bought a lot of Budge's works awhile back. Now, you got me wondering. For the little I know it can't be too dangerous. I have also been reading some of Jean Bottero's writings. Any others?

[charity]

Iâ??ll probably have very little time to post over the next couple weeks since my experience at Education Week created a great desire to finally sit down and write up the book Iâ??ve planned for several years on ancient temple worship and the restored Gospel. I'm really feeling motivated.

Go for it, David. We can put up with your absence here in anticpation of the greater good in the future.

And if you need a proof reader for typos (not for accuracy of material ) I can do that. I should be finished with my current proofing project in a couple of weeks. At the latest.