In reply to my post
> >Glen, pre-exilic Sheol was not associated with the colour red.
> >[...] The association with fire only came after contact with the
Iranians.
>
> >Baal was never a "God of the Underworld". Rather he was a weather
> >god, (eg. "a thunderbolt weilder") son of El (Semitic father god).
Glen replied
> What of Babylonian deity Nergal, the fire god, associated with Mars
(the
> fire star), king of the Underworld? Is he Iranian too then? Check
out the
> following link:
Glen, see my point about the late insertion of Nergal as divinity of
the underworld in post Sumerian times. He certainly was not god of
the underword before but grew in importance as originally a minor god
of the plague. Nergal was never a fire god.
Thanks for the link, to
> http://www.good.co.uk/oneworld/sumeria.html
Perhaps you should read it yourself. It clearly states that Nergal's
colour was "black" and not red. He was responsible for Enkidu's
death
by pestilence, not by war, and that he only became associated with
War
in Babylonian times, with the rise of Marduk to King of the Gods (and
the replacement of many goddesses, eg. Ereshkigal as Goddess of the
Underword and Inanna as Goddess of War!) You are confusing events of
circa 1700 BCE with those supposedly 7,000 BCE, or 5,000 BCE.
Regarding your quote of Baal
> It says that Baal truely _IS_ "the UNDERWORLD or mountain god, the
son of El
> or Dagon whose sister Anath was goddess of WAR but much later he
was
also
> associated with the rain and fertility." He "declared that he would
no
> longer recognise the supremacy or authority of Mot (DEATH)" We have
the
> underworld, war and death, all in the same paragraph. I
particularly
like
> the sentence later on saying, "When [Mot] refused [Anath] tore Mot
limb from
> limb with a knife, scattering his pieces and grinding him in a mill
and
> finally BURNING his remains in an OVEN" My god, looks like fire!!!
The
> relationship with fire may be one of cremation. This automatically
creates
> an association between fire and the underworld of the dead that Mot
rules.
Glen please quote your own references correctly. The site states
verbatum
"The most important Ugaritic Myth forms a cycle of three episodes and
features the storm-god Baal, the liturgical texts were
probably intended for recital around the late autumn."
Interesting Glen, Baal was a storm god, not a mountain or underword
god as you assert.
"The first text deals with Baal's defeat of Yam - the Sea God or
Dragon, which is equivalent to the Sumerian TIAMAT, who is
granted supreme power by El if he can firstly overcome Baal. However,
the young Baal armed with magical weapons supplied
by the divine craftsman and after much tension and conflict finally
defeats and kills Yam scattering his dismembered body.
Essentially this myth demonstrates how to deal again with the forces
of chaos, that is Yam - the flow of waters from heaven."
This myth came originally from Sumeria during the Ubaid and later
spread of Sumerian myths northwards into Syria.
"The second text describes a banquet held to celebrate Baals'
victory,
then how his worshippers are slaughtered by Anath - this
symbolises perhaps the eventual return of the dry season. Baal
attempts to reconcile matters with her by promising to reveal the
secrets of lightning, while he is also anxious to secure a palace for
himself. Anath agrees to go to El and plead his case, but El at
first refuses to grant Baal his wishes until he is eventually
persuaded by his consort Ashera. The building of Baals' palace at
Ugarit is described and when complete a commemorative festival is
held
to celebrate Baals' sovereignty."
This is a classic case of the role of an older god's role being
superceded by a yonger one. One with clear Sumerian affinities.
"The third of these texts describes Baal's confrontation with death
itself. At this point in the story Baal then decides to issue a
challenge to the God of Death - Mot a primeval earth monster who
presides in the underworld. Mot forces Baal to descend
into his underground kingdom, whereby Baal is subsequently replaced
by
Asheras' son Ashtar. As Ashtar is unsuited to the
task, Anath goes in search of Baal and confronts Mot and kills him by
threshing and burning his remains, despite the obvious
paradox that death can only be assuaged by the intervention of the
supreme Gods and never vanquished. Baal eventually
returns to power and resumes his duties as sovereign largely due to
the intervention of Shapash the Sun Goddess. In a second
confrontation Mot ascends and confronts Baal in a fierce battle which
eventually ends in a draw. El finally persuades Mot to
acknowledge Baals' sovereignty and return to his own underground
kingdom."
It is Mot who is God of the underword, not Baal, who retains his role
as weather divinity and King of the Gods.
It is important that you get the seasonal cycle symbolism here Glen.
"Milling, Threshing and Burning" is the milling, threshing and the
roasting of barley that is being referred to here. This is a
fertility cult that is being spoken of, linked to the seasonal cycle.
It has little to do with any "fires of Sheol".
The site continues
"Again this myth appears to parallel that of the Sumerian Ishtar who
also journeys into the underworld to find Tammuz."
Glen, Sumerian... not Semitic, or Semitish, Europo-Semitish or
anything else. Tammuz was the Sumerian Dammuzi... Hope you get it
now.
> Gee. How might we blaim Mot, Baal AND Nergal with Sheol, all on our
beloved
> Iranians now, John? Do you know what you're talking about at all?
Mot was god of the underword, a dark and gloomy place, not a place of
fire and red. Nergal's colour was black (read the site you
quoted again Glen) not red. And the Sumero-Semitic underword was
similarly black and lightless. Baal was a weather god, the
association with Tammuz came later as a result of Sumerian influence
and was not in the original Semitic mythos. In fact Baal was a
relatively late God, his name just means "lord" - it was a title
(Like
Adonai) not a Gods name. And Nergal (from Sumerian Ner = sickness,
and gal = great) was god of the plague, not originally the underword
divinity. Cannot you see how how you are taking a mixmash of
elements
drawn out of historical context and stitching them together using a
faulty "colour" system drawn from many non contemporary sources?
And your
> Iranian excuse only brings up another important question: "How the
hell
> would Iranian's have a fire myth at all if it weren't for the
IndoEuropean
> mythos and further why would the IEs have a firey underworld view
at
all if
> the underworld was clearly watery??"
The watery underword of the Sumerians was weakened as one moves away
from Southern Iraq and into areas where flooding was not an ever
present danger. Invasions of southern Iraq by mountainous
tribespeople (Gutians, Subartu, Luallabi, Amorites, Elamites, and
Iranians, over the centuries) weakened the watery association of
early
Sumero-Akkadian identification until it was possible for the Iranian
concepts to prevail under Cyrus and Darius. Glen, you were talking
about the Semites having a firey underword, linked to the colour red.
Now you are speaking of IE's.... get your story strait please.
Glen the watery association of the underword was Middle Eastern, not
IE. And yet you have been claiming the Middle East was the location
for the development of a firey underword. It wasn't.
> Nice try.
To my point
> >Do tell. Monotheism was a creation of the Jewish religion only
after
> >the Babylonian captivity. Before then they were as polytheistic as
> >the next person. No evidence of Monotheism in Akkadian, Eblaite,
> >Canaanite or Aramaean areas Glen.
Glen wrote
> John, I clearly said time and time again already that the Semitoid
religions
> were NOT monotheistic. Only the Old European ones. Reread, my
friend, get
> out the glasses. And the Semitish didn't have to travel either
because this
> myth (like all information technology) radiates outwards naturally
despite
> human movement or linguisto-cultural identity.
Old Europe monotheistic! Surely you jest. Even Gambutas makes no
such claim. There is a huge gap between henotheism and monotheism.
There is no examples of monotheism anywhere in the world until the
closure of the Oecumene in the Axial Age of Karl Jaspers (post 700
BCE). As Zaehner shows, it was Zarathushtra who developed the first
monotheism, and the Deutero-Issiah writings that occurred during (at
earliest) the Babylonian captivity was heavily influenced from this
source, as any student of comparative religion could tell you.
I repeat my conclusion
> >Come on Glen, please start talking about real research, based on
> >evidence and sources rather than fanciful reconstructions based on
> >god knows what?
Regards (somewhat ruefully)
John