Origins

[Marduk]

so how do you come to conclusion that there was one true god in the Enuma Elish when others do not (not to mention all the gods named in the epic) but others do say the 18th dynasty did see the foundation for the first monotheistic religion

I have already answered that question, perhaps you should read all the posts in a thread you yourself started before repetition creeps in and everyone realises that you havent got anything worth reading

but briefly, answer me this
so how do you come to conclusion that there was one true god in the Bible when others do not (not to mention all the gods named in the Book)
??

Is it a good bet that you'll be providing some references for all of these assertions?

I'm not gonna hold my breath
I want to live

 

[Vortigern99]

Perhaps "proto" monotheism is another way of saying "nothing like" monotheism. although it seems a strange claim to make.

Does this sound like monotheism?

Enûma Eliš - The First Tablet

When in the height heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsu, who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamut, the mother of them both
Their waters were mingled together,
And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen;
When of the gods none had been called into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies were ordained;
Then were created the gods in the midst of heaven,
Lahmu and Lahamu were called into being . . .​

​

- Enuma Elish: The Epic of Creation by L.W.King, Kessinger Publishing, 2004​

​

An online translation of the tablets is available at:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm​

Here is a synopsis of the first tablet from the CRI/Voice Institute:

The stage is set for the story. The various gods represent aspects of the physical world. Apsu is the god of fresh water and thus male fertility. Tiamat, wife of Apsu, is the goddess of the sea and thus chaos and threat. Tiamat gives birth to Anshar and Kishar, gods who represented the boundary between the earth and sky (the horizon). To Anshar and Kishar is born Anu, god of sky, who in turn bears Ea. These "sons of the gods" make so much commotion and are so ill-behaved that Apsu decides to destroy them. When Ea learns of the plan, he kills Apsu and with his wife Damkina establishes their dwelling above his body. Damkina then gives birth to Marduk, the god of spring symbolized both by the light of the sun and the lightning in storm and rain. He was also the patron god of the city of Babylon. Meanwhile Tiamat is enraged at the murder of her husband Apsu, and vows revenge. She creates eleven monsters to help her carry out her vengeance. Tiamat takes a new husband, Kingu, in place of the slain Apsu and puts him in charge of her newly assembled army.

Or as good ol' Wikipedia says:

The epic names two primeval gods: Apsû (or Abzu) and Tiamat. Several other gods are created (Ea and his brothers) who reside in Tiamat's vast body. They make so much noise that the babel or noise annoys Tiamat and Apsû greatly. Apsû wishes to kill the young gods, but Tiamat disagrees. The vizier, Mummu, agrees with Apsû's plan to destroy them. Tiamat, in order to stop this from occurring, warns Ea (Nudimmud), the most powerful of the gods. Ea uses magic to put Apsû into a coma, then kills him, and shuts Mummu out. Ea then becomes the chief god, and along with his consort Damkina, has a son, Marduk, greater still than himself. Marduk is given wind to play with and he uses the wind to make dust storms and tornadoes. This disrupts Tiamat's great body and causes the gods still residing inside her to be unable to sleep.

Source

The above looks to be clear evidence that there were multiple gods in Mesopotamian mythology, distinct from Marduk who was born to earlier gods Ea (aka Nudimmud) and Damkina, and that several of them were involved in the creation myth to some degree. How deeply into historical times these other deities were actively worshipped appears to remain an open question, though JREF member Marduk (see below) asserts with conviction that the god Marduk was worshipped ("proto"-)monotheistically.

No, it sounds like cherry picking on your part, you deliberately didn't bother to mention that at the end of the Epic there are fifty titles/names given for Marduk which previously were titles held by other Gods, this syncretization of deities is exactly the same as the creation of YHWH from the syncretization of other deities deeds and actions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marduk#The_fifty_names_of_Marduk

Okay, that's certainly a reasonable and evidence-based argument. However, numerous other named gods (besides Marduk) are actively involved in the Creation myth and the story of the Flood. Other gods are named as being the progenitors of Marduk, and in some cases are themselves given named progenitors.

Each of the Sumerian city states had their own god, and the set of them became the Sumerian pantheon when the country was united. Anu was the sky and was the god of Erech (Uruk) and Der. Enlil (Bel) was the air and the god of Nippur. Enki (Aa or Ea) was the god of the fresh groundwater (apsu) and of the city of Eridu. The mother goddess was Ninhurshag, the goddess of Kish. Nanna (Sin) was the moon god of Ur, and father of the sun. The sun was Utu of the city of Larsam. Inanna was the mother, war and love goddess at Unug and Zabalam. Ishtar was goddess of love and of war at Agade, Nineveh and Arbela. Nina was another goddess like Ishtar at Nina. The god at Muri, Ennigi and Kakru was the storm god, Hadad or Rimmon. Nergal (Mars) was a plague and war god at Cuthah, but would respond to petitioners. Ninurta, the Sumerian war god remained important. Allatu (Erishkigal) was the goddess of the underworld. The celestial gods were never the celestial objects themselves, but the gods that moved them.
​

Source for above.

This all stands in marked contrast to biblical/Hebraic monothesism, which although it mentions other gods as being worshipped, does not involve them in the Creation or Flood accounts, and indicates that these deities are not Creators, and are not worthy of worship.

Hence, the statement "this syncretization of deities is exactly the same as the creation of YHWH from the syncretization of other deities deeds and actions" is erroneous. The syncretization is similar, but demonstrably not "exactly the same" as YHWH.

Perhaps it seems as though I'm splitting hairs, but this is a skeptical website, after all, and this happens to be a topic I'm interested in examining. I certainly admire JREF member Marduk's breadth of knowledge on this and other ancient-world topics, but really, Marduk, your condescension is unwarranted, and sometimes, man, even you are wrong/make exaggerated claims.

When you add to the well known and established truth that many aspects of Hebraic Monotheism are taken directly from the beliefs prevalent in Babylonia at the time of the Diaspora it leaves your claim of understanding the origins of monotheism looking a little flat. You know full well for instance that the idea of Angels is derived from Babylonian mythos because I have posted you that information at least three times already, it even featured heavily in a thread I started which I know you read. Perhaps you should read it again
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=152198&highlight=mesopotamian+facts
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5049133#post5049133

I concur with all of this, but since it has little bearing on the question of Mesopotamian monotheism I'll leave it alone.

Now I could post here attestation after attestation to this fact of proto monotheism from numerous well known and recognised scholars, but as I have determined that you only bothered to post that misunderstood nonsense and attack my claim because of your personal vehemence against me you can do it yourself with this if you really do have an interest,
www.google.com
otherwise, whatever

In the first place, that's an argument to authority. Their ideas are either correct or they are in error, regardless of their academic status, and certainly there are other "well known and recognised scholars" who disagree with Mesopotamian proto-monotheism, at least in the way that you've described it.

The sources I've been examining make it clear that monotheistic worship of Marduk developed by the New Babylonian period, but this development does not wipe out the fact that polytheistic worship was prevalent in the region for centuries prior to that development.

Marduk became the senior god and flourished in the New Babylonian and Persian periods, attaining the ethical and monotheistic features of Ahuramazda and Mithras. A small lapis-lazuli relief shows Marduk carrying a staff and a ring, solar symbols of justice, and his robe is covered with circles, confirming, possibly, his solar nature. Elsewhere, Marduk is accompanied by a large two-horned dragon, doubtless the subdued chaos monster, Tiamat. At the abandonment of Babylon in the time of Seleucus Nicator, about 300 BC, the head of the pantheon seems not to have been Marduk, but Anu-Bel—unless this was simply his title by then. The height of the religion therefore seems to have been under the Persians, though its legendary base extends back to the start of the second millennium. According to Damascius, its philosophical ideas were held until the sixth century AD.​

And:

The basis of this [monotheistic] evolution was the original devotion of each city state to its own deity. Even when the cities formed into wider nations, the individual devotion was not lost but had to be melded with a respect for the gods of others under the national god—the king of the gods. The multiplicity of Sumerian gods and their idea that they were all subject to a divine order meant that Sumerians were tolerant of other gods and religions. The Babylonians also had this tolerance from their predecessors. They adopted some of the Kassite gods, and some became popular, but it was too much to expect them to love Ashur. The link of cities with individual gods continued right into the late period, and it seems likely that the totality of the divine entities—the cosmic order—was seen as a divine power behind them all.​

Source (same as above).

 

[Marduk]

Thats all well and good Vort

but we're not discussing pure monotheism here but the development of monotheism in its proto form
from earlier in the thread

they were practicing proto monotheists 500 years before Akhenaten was in nappies

which is what Akh was responding to, which you in turn responded to

Always consider the source

I have made no claim that the time of Hammurabi was monotheistic in its theology, just that it was going that way as evidenced by their texts. There are references to the "true God" in texts from the time of Gudea 2144 - 2124 BC.
If you look at the cultures of the world at that time, proto monotheism was emerging everywhere, that Akhenaten also practiced a form of this therefore is no surprise, and getting to the point, that Akhenaten did that is not proof that the Hebrews got the idea in Egypt


so youre basically agreeing that the syncretization of gods into Bel Marduks character is similar to what happened with the creation of YHWH, thats what I have been saying all along, its just that from my knowledge of Babylonian culture I am able to produce the evidence

 

[Akhenaten]

. . . the Enuma Elish is the Babylonian cosmology which tells of the creation of the earth and the character of the one true God (they were practicing proto monotheists 500 years before Akhenaten was in nappies).

From the foreword of The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria by Theophilus G. Pinches, LL.D., Lecturer in Assyrian at University College, London:

The religion of the Babylonians and Assyrians was the polytheistic faith professed by the peoples inhabiting the Tigris and Euphrates valleys from what may be regarded as the dawn of history until the Christian era began, or, at least, until the inhabitants were brought under the influence of Christianity. The chronological period covered may be roughly estimated at about 5000 years. The belief of the people, at the end of that time, being Babylonian heathenism leavened with Judaism, the country was probably ripe for the reception of the new faith. Christianity, however, by no means replaced the earlier polytheism, as is evidenced by the fact, that the worship of Nebo and the gods associated with him continued until the fourth century of the Christian era.

my bolding

further reading​

Attempting to rebrand what is clearly polytheism, or possibly, at a stretch, henotheism, as something called 'proto-monotheism is going to take a little more than the bluster of an appeal to self-authority, strawman arguments and assorted red herrings.

 

[Marduk]

From the foreword of The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria by Theophilus G. Pinches, LL.D., Lecturer in Assyrian at University College, London:

my bolding

further reading​

Attempting to rebrand what is clearly polytheism, or possibly, at a stretch, henotheism, as something called 'proto-monotheism is going to take a little more than the bluster of an appeal to self-authority, strawman arguments and assorted red herrings.

I see, so its back to cherry picking again, do you have any explanation as to why you chose that part,
rather than this part of that particular book

In Babylonia.

Babylonia, on the other hand, continued the even tenor of her way.
More successful at the end of her independent political career than
her northern rival had been, she retained her faith, and remained the
unswerving worshipper of Merodach, the great god of Babylon, to whom
her priests attributed yet greater powers, and with whom all the other
gods were to all appearance identified. This tendency to monotheism,
however, never reached the culminating point--never became absolute--
except, naturally, in the minds of those who, dissociating themselves,
for philosophical reasons, from the superstitious teaching of the
priests of Babylonia, decided for themselves that there was but one
God, and worshipped Him.

as for your repeated demands to know what proto monotheism is, its a phrase made up of two very easy to understand words
Proto, meaning "first," from Gk. proto-, comb. form of protos "first," superlative of pro "before"
and monotheism, which as you may or may not know (i'm placing no bias) is the worship of one God.

Now do you understand what were talking about here, proto monotheism, something which led to monotheistic belief, now go back and read all my posts in this thread and see where youve been going wrong,

"appeal to self-authority, strawman arguments and assorted red herrings" you are more guilty of these than anyone else posting here, like your last post where you first accused me of appealing to authority and then did exactly the same thing except with a cherry picked paragraph which clearly shows that you had read that paragraph and nothing else in the entire text.
You may find this helps to prevent you doing that in future
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
I also suggest in future you actually research a subject properly before wasting everybodies time with what you assume you know


Like have a look at what your cherry picking method has missed
this is from the same text you just messed up with

Monotheism.

As the matter of Babylonian monotheism has been publicly touched upon
by Fried. Delitzsch in his "Babel und Bibel" lectures, a few words
upon that important point will be regarded in all probability as
appropriate. It has already been indicated that the giving of the
names of "the gods his fathers" to Merodach practically identified
them with him, thus leading to a tendency to monotheism. That tendency
is, perhaps, hinted at in a letter of Aššur-banî-âpli to the
Babylonians, in which he frequently mentions the Deity, but in doing
so, uses either the word /îlu/, "God," Merodach, the god of Babylon,
or Bêl, which may be regarded as one of his names. The most important
document for this monotheistic tendency, however (confirming as it
does the tablet of the fifty-one names), is that in which at least
thirteen of the Babylonian deities are identified with Merodach, and
that in such a way as to make them merely forms in which he manifested
himself to men.

so you can see that he totally supports my earlier claim about the names of Bel Marduk as monotheistic
He even goes on to date proto monotheism

What may be the date of this document is uncertain, but as the
colophon seems to describe it as a copy of an older inscription, it
may go back as far as 2000 years B.C. This is the period at which the
name /Yaum-îlu/ "Jah is God," is found, together with numerous
references to /îlu/ as the name for the one great god, and is also,
roughly, the date of Abraham, who, it may be noted, was a Babylonian
of Ur of the Chaldees. It will probably not be thought too venturesome
to say that his monotheism was possibly the result of the religious
trend of thought in his time.

and then suggests that Abraham got the idea from the babylonian source
so whatever way you look at it, you just posted something which has proven my point
and made yours unsupportable

way to go

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

I also suggest in future you actually research a subject properly before wasting everybodies time with what you assume you know

It's "everybody's" and sentences traditionally end with a full stop rather than a smiley.

Let's be civil and on topic, please.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[Vortigern99]

The points that required clarification were that:

[1] Mesopotamian religion was initially polytheistic, an assertion for which there is ample contemporaneous documentary evidence;

[2] said religion developed over the course of several centuries toward a "tendency to monotheism", among what appears to have been a non-official, non-state-sanctioned minority of worshippers;

[3] Judaism has no direct, concrete evidence of a previous period of polytheism; since its historical inception it has been full-blown, unvariegated monotheism

[4] the preceding three points render erroneous the assertion "this [Mesopotamian] syncretization of deities is exactly the same as the creation of YHWH from the syncretization of other deities deeds and actions".

With these points clarified, it appears we can proceed with the main thrust of the thread.

 

[Harte]

[3] Judaism has no direct, concrete evidence of a previous period of polytheism; since its historical inception it has been full-blown, unvariegated monotheism

[4] the preceding three points render erroneous the assertion "this [Mesopotamian] syncretization of deities is exactly the same as the creation of YHWH from the syncretization of other deities deeds and actions".

With these points clarified, it appears we can proceed with the main thrust of the thread.

Hardly clarified, more like you stated whatever was convenient for your world view:

The important textual finds from the Ras Shamra (Ugarit) site shed a great deal of light upon the cultic life of the city.[5] There is growing scholarly agreement that the material culture of Ugarit should be properly designated Canaanite High Culture.[citation needed]

In the north-east quarter of the walled enclosure the remains of three significant buildings were unearthed; the temples of Baal and Dagon and the library (sometimes referred to as the high priest's house). Within these structures atop the acropolis numerous invaluable mythological texts were found. Since the 1930s these texts have opened some initial understanding of the Canaanite mythological world. The Baal cycle represents Baal's destruction of Yam (the chaos sea monster), demonstrating the relationship of Canaanite chaoskampf with those of Mesopotamia and the Aegean: a warrior god rises up as the hero of the new pantheon to defeat chaos and bring order.

It is almost certain that the cult(s) of Baal in the Levant influenced later Israelite cult and mythology. Yahweh often takes on the chaoskampf role of Baal in his struggle with the chaotic sea. It would, however, be incorrect to use later redacted biblical texts to reconstruct Canaanite religion or cult.

While El is the chief of the Canaanite pantheon, very little attention is paid to him in the cultic/mythological texts. This is rather common of Middle to Late Bronze Age mythology; the high god is drawn into the background whilst new warrior deities move to centre stage. In Ugarit and much of the Levant this figure is Baal; to the Shasu / Shosu this is Yahweh and his consort[citation needed], and in Mesopotamia this is Marduk. These warrior-god mythologies show remarkable points of contact and are most likely reflections of the same archetypal myth.

SOURCE
You know the Shasu? Here:

Regarding the "Shasu of Yhw," Astour has observed that the "hieroglyphic rendering corresponds very precisely to the Hebrew tetragrammaton YHWH, or Yahweh, and antedates the hitherto oldest occurrence of that Divine Name - on the Moabite Stone - by over five hundred years."[3] This has led a significant number of scholars, among them Donald B. Redford[4] and William G. Dever,[5] to conclude that the people who would eventually be the "Israel" recorded on the Merneptah Stele (widely known as the Israel Stele), and that later formed the Kingdom of Israel, were at one time known to the Egyptians as a Shasu tribe. Rainey supports this view with texts from the el-Armana letters.

[6][/quote]

SOURCE

Yahweh's "consort?"

Asherah (Ugaritic: &#55296;&#57216;&#55296;&#57240;&#55296;&#57239;&#55296;&#57242; : 'ṯrt; Hebrew: אֲשֵׁרָה‎), in Semitic mythology, is a Semitic mother goddess, who appears in a number of ancient sources including Akkadian writings by the name of Ashratum/Ashratu and in Hittite as Asherdu(s) or Ashertu(s) or Aserdu(s) or Asertu(s). Asherah is generally considered identical with the Ugaritic goddess Athirat (more accurately transcribed as ʼAṯirat).

The Book of Jeremiah written circa 628 BC possibly refers to Asherah when it uses the title "queen of heaven" in chapters 7 and 44.[1] For a discussion of "queen of heaven" in the Old Testament, please see Queen of heaven (Antiquity).

SOURCE

Marduk's statement that Judaism arose from polytheistic beginnings (as the worship of Marduk himself - the God, not the poster - did) seems to be more valid than you are willing to admit.

Again, it's foolish to argue with Marduk on matters Mesopotamian.

Harte

 

[Marduk]

It might also be helpful if I post this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh#Syncretistic_Yahwism
Wikis page on the syncretization of YHWH from many other deities worshipped in canaan is well supported. I am surprised you didn't check it already Vort

might have saved us some time if I'd posted it earlier, but either way its quite clear that YHWH and his monotheistic worship developed from polytheism, which brings us back to the point of this thread, when one of the ten commandments proscribes against "worshipping any other God but YHWH" its quite clear that the people that commandment was written for were originally polytheists.

 

[Vortigern99]

Hardly clarified, more like you stated whatever was convenient for your world view:

Harte, you don't know me, so you don't yet understand that I state facts as I have researched and am able to grasp them, not "whatever is convenient to my worldview". Where I have overlooked or failed to include pertinent information, I will gladly accept it where it is evidentially-based, and I'll move forward from there, happy to be better educated than I was before.

So to that end: thanks for the links and quotes that help me better grasp the ancient world and the development of monotheistic religion. See my commentary on the offered information below.

SOURCE
You know the Shasu? Here:[6]

SOURCE

Yahweh's "consort?"

SOURCE

Note that phrases in the quotes you've supplied such as "growing scholarly agreement", "texts [which] have opened some initial understanding", "almost certain that" and "most likely" are all part and parcel of the careful, cautious, skeptical scholarism which stops short of stating outright, as Marduk erroneously did, "this [Mesopotamian] syncretization of deities is exactly the same as the creation of YHWH from the syncretization of other deities deeds and actions".

In short, it's not "exactly the same", it's "most likely a reflection of the same archetypal myth" according to the very quotes you supplied. There is "growing scholarly agreement"; it's not an iron-clad certainty. This is all I am pointing out. If you and Marduk continue to disagree with me, and posit that Judaic monotheism developed without any doubt along "exactly the same" lines as Mespotamian monotheism, then you're going to need to supply further and more confident quotes and links than you've already done.

The Enuma Elish is an ancient document which provides direct, concrete, unarguable evidence that Mesopotamian religion was polytheistic. There is no such concrete evidence for early Hebraic polytheism, only "growing scholarly agreement" that such a development occurred. I am simply being cautious, skeptical and scholarly in my approach to the evidence. Marduk has a tendency to overstate things as though they are known to an iron-clad certainty. In this instance, they are not, regardless of his expertise in the area, which is indisputable.

Marduk's statement that Judaism arose from polytheistic beginnings (as the worship of Marduk himself - the God, not the poster - did) seems to be more valid than you are willing to admit.

I'm "willing to admit" any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain. I am not disputing Marduk's assertions, merely the certainty with which he is making them them. That's all.

Again, it's foolish to argue with Marduk on matters Mesopotamian.

Harte

Arguing for scholarly caution and skepticism is never "foolish". If you opt to continue making appeals to authority, your position will continue to be logically fallacious.

 

[Vortigern99]

It might also be helpful if I post this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh#Syncretistic_Yahwism
Wikis page on the syncretization of YHWH from many other deities worshipped in canaan is well supported. I am surprised you didn't check it already Vort

might have saved us some time if I'd posted it earlier, but either way its quite clear that YHWH and his monotheistic worship developed from polytheism, which brings us back to the point of this thread, when one of the ten commandments proscribes against "worshipping any other God but YHWH" its quite clear that the people that commandment was written for were originally polytheists.

Awesome, thanks for the link. Ironically, I've been making this argument for years to biblical literalists, pointing out that according to certain passages in the Torah, it's clear the Israelites once acknowledged and worshipped other gods besides YHWH. This is not in dispute and I don't mean to indicate otherwise.

What I objected to was the certainty with which you made the claim "this [Mesopotamian] syncretization of deities is exactly the same as the creation of YHWH from the syncretization of other deities deeds and actions". It isn't. That's all.

 

[refamat]

Like have a look at what your cherry picking method has missed
this is from the same text you just messed up with

so you can see that he totally supports my earlier claim about the names of Bel Marduk as monotheistic
He even goes on to date proto monotheism

and then suggests that Abraham got the idea from the babylonian source
so whatever way you look at it, you just posted something which has proven my point
and made yours unsupportable

way to go

It is my understanding that there was always a favorite god of someone. The one god they turned to for most problems.

I do not suggest that there were not those who preferred one over all the others, but what do more modern studies suggest (Pinches is a little out of date and there should be many more recent texts on the subject and early translations have been corrected often in the years since, or at least had translations expanded in scope and possible meanings) as either support or disagreement to Pinches reasoning?

 

[Marduk]

What I objected to was the certainty with which you made the claim "this [Mesopotamian] syncretization of deities is exactly the same as the creation of YHWH from the syncretization of other deities deeds and actions". It isn't. That's all.

Are you still objecting to that one sentence

Marduk was a minor God until his character was added to by the exploits of previous Gods
YHWH was a minor God until his character was added to by the exploits of previous Gods

How is this not exactly the same, with regards to proto monotheism.
YHWH went through just the same syncretic process as Bel Marduk did. Both were originally created in polytheistic pantheons and both were eventually worshipped monotheistically as the one true God in a world where many other deities were still acknowledged.
I posted this list earlier, perhaps you missed it
http://www.palmyria.co.uk/superstition/biblegods.htm
It lists the other Gods worshipped at the same time as YHWH by the Hebrews

I am totally failing to see any grounds for your objection, I think maybe you are confusing the worship of YHWH with that of the later Christian version Jehovah, now there you do have a Divinity who was monotheistic from the outset, as long as you ignore, His son, his ghost, the saints, and all the angels

 

[Marduk]

I do not suggest that there were not those who preferred one over all the others, but what do more modern studies suggest (Pinches is a little out of date and there should be many more recent texts on the subject and early translations have been corrected often in the years since, or at least had translations expanded in scope and possible meanings) as either support or disagreement to Pinches reasoning?

Pinches was introduced by Akhenaten because its the only source he could find where he could cherry pick a quote which at first appeared to support his assertion.

I got my understanding that worship of Bel Marduk was a form of proto monotheism from a varied selection of modern scholars. Wether they all based their opinion on Pinches I wouldn't know. But the evidence speaks for itself
It is regarded as common knowledge amongst Assyriologists, it is even mentioned on the wiki page on monotheism in the "Origin and development" section
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism#Origin_and_development

Historically, some ancient Near Eastern religions from the Late Bronze Age begin to exhibit aspects of monotheism or monolatrism.

This is notably the case with the Aten cult in the reign of the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten, but also with the rise of Marduk from the tutelary of Babylon to the claim of universal supremacy

The list of names given to Bel Marduk at the end of the Enuma Elish is a clear indication of monotheistic thought as I mentioned earlier, this is not speculation on my part, it is also backed up by another text which states the names of the former Gods again but adds the area of worship now to be attributed to Bel Marduk

Lugal-aki-… is Marduk of the water-course. Nirig is Marduk of strength. Nergal is Marduk of war. Zagaga is Marduk of battle. Bel is Marduk of lordship and domination. Nebo is Marduk of trading(?). Sin is Marduk the illuminator of the night. Shamash is Marduk of righteous things. Addu is Marduk of rain. Tispak is Marduk of frost(?). Sig is Marduk of green things(?). Suqamunu is Marduk of the irrigation-channel

Its also a claim made by
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_S._Smith
in "The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts"
http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Biblical-Monotheism-Polytheistic-Background/dp/0195167686
and more famously by Samuel Noah Kramer (who needs no link) who claimed that Genesis borrowed heavily from the Enuma Elish in many aspects of creation and so was more responsble for the emergence of monotheism than any other text before of since.
I'd like to mention Sir Leonard Woolley here, who although writing from an age when such claims about pagan monotheism would certainly destroy someones career certainly left enough clues throughout his writing on mesopotamia. He himself originally christian seemed to have lost his belief during his excavations. Maybe it was the constant dissappointment at not finding any compelling evidence of a Great flood in the land known to originate the story, personally I think it was this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_in_a_Thicket
These predate not only the bible but the birth of Abraham in whos story one appears as an important plot piece

so if the point of this thread was to find the basis for many monotheistic bible stories, you need look no further than Mesopotamia. It has them all with the one exception of the Exodus story, that story known to date from between the 8th and 6th centuries BCE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Anachronisms
It has the basic moral that "although we may be enslaved by a foreign power, our God will free us" and was written down at a time that the Hebrews were actually known to be enslaved by a foreign power and were looking for their God to free them.
so imho Refamat, if youre looking for an origin to the bible in Egypt solely because of the similarity of one Egyptian hymn to just one psalm, then youre having to deliberately ignore all the evidence to the contrary, of which there is a multitude. That the particular psalm you are talking about was more than likely available at the Library of Ashurbanipal (and was taken as booty from the conquest of Thebes) which was staffed by Rabbis skilled at linguistic translation also might be something you should consider

You won't mind my saying that, in my opinon, it is illuminative to note that there are no longer any practitioners of the Babylonian religion

Oh I don't know, I can think of at least five
http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=8101610795

After all, it is his reputation, not yours, that would suffer if Marduk goes too far with his "certanties." LOL

I have a reputation, you mean other than as a smartass ?

I've yet to see this happen, by the way. Admittedly, I've only been reading his posts since 2006.

Ah the heady days of 06, how young we all seemed then. Are we still looking for a dollar for everytime we answer the same question Harte
Its happened on other subjects, Dracula springs readily to mind, Vortigern knows more about Vampires than most teenage girls
My favourite question I ever got asked was this one

Hey Marduk,

Bet you have been asked this before... Just been watching Ghostbusters, and picked up on something that hadn't registered before. Gozer the Gozarian (and the minions Zuul and Vinscortho) is referred to as a Sumerian/Babylonian god... is this fact, or spurious Hollywood clap-trap?


Cheers,

my reply

Gozer is hebrew
it means "he who performs circumcisions"
seriously
in the original script they had Tiamat as the name but had to drop it for fear of breaching Dungeons and dragons copyright where Tiamat is a central character
Zuul who in the film is described as the gatekeeper of Gozer is also made up by hollywood
the only gatekeeper who appears in Sumerian mythology is "Neti" who is the gatekeeper of the underworld who appears in "the descent of inanna"
as for vince clortho the keymaster
well locks hadn't been invented then
so could you work out the spuriability on that one yourself

 

[refamat]

so if the point of this thread was to find the basis for many monotheistic bible stories, you need look no further than Mesopotamia. It has them all with the one exception of the Exodus story, that story known to date from between the 8th and 6th centuries BCE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Anachronisms
It has the basic moral that "although we may be enslaved by a foreign power, our God will free us" and was written down at a time that the Hebrews were actually known to be enslaved by a foreign power and were looking for their God to free them.
so imho Refamat, if youre looking for an origin to the bible in Egypt solely because of the similarity of one Egyptian hymn to just one psalm, then youre having to deliberately ignore all the evidence to the contrary, of which there is a multitude. That the particular psalm you are talking about was more than likely available at the Library of Ashurbanipal (and was taken as booty from the conquest of Thebes) which was staffed by Rabbis skilled at linguistic translation also might be something you should consider

actually, there is quite a lot more, prayers attributed to Akhenaten and that he was to be the focus of prayers to the god Aten

http://www.cyberessays.com/Term-Paper-on-Akhenaten/11171/

and to answer someone else's comment here, Akhenaten was also known as Amenhotep, given the above essays comment on how Akhenaten directed that prayers be addressed to him, ending a prayer with amen could be the short form of the name.

...the use of one spell implied the ten commandments. that in itself implies knowledge of the book of the dead.
Anything hebrew from between the 6th and 8th bce was during the reapplication of a covenant with their god. the hebrews felt earlier groups had failed in the original covenant and so a new one was generated.

It is also interesting that the biblical "joseph" may have a reference, albite slim, there are no Egyptian sources that parallel the story (Joseph), although it has been suggested that the career of Joseph bears similarity to that of the historical Chancellor Bay/Irsu, an Asiatic who rose to high office in Egypt and died in 1192 BC.

most legends and myths refer to something real, even if it's many times removed from the main point of the myth or legend.
The epic poems of Sumeria are a interesting aside that look at and ponder more tenuous thinking of ancient peoples. But, they do lend themselves to later myths and legends because of the widespread knowledge of the stories, but, within the gilgamesh epic is the flood story. one that many feel is just a story, but from which both geology and archaeology have uncovered 3 possible sources (one of which may have which would have filtered down through oral tradition or local to the lands between the rivers.

http://mythprojects.wikispaces.com/Origins+of+Flood+Myth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Agassiz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziusudra

this is where the real study of ancient peoples can be fun...looking and picturing how legends and myths could be formed

 

[Vortigern99]

Are you still objecting to that one sentence

Well, yes, because you haven't conceded that that one sentence is an overstatement. The development from monotheism in Mesopotamian and Judaic religious thought was not "exactly the same". That constitutes the full extent of my position. Careful, cautious, skeptical scholarism is all I'm arguing for here.

Marduk was a minor God until his character was added to by the exploits of previous Gods
YHWH was a minor God until his character was added to by the exploits of previous Gods

Here is how current mainstream academia of the subject would rephrase the above statements:

It is a matter of documentary record with direct, incontrovertible evidence that Marduk was a minor God until his character was added to by the exploits of previous Gods.

It is a matter of growing scholarly agreement based on various indirect and arguable pieces of evidence that YHWH was a minor God until his character was added to by the exploits of previous Gods

How is this not exactly the same, with regards to proto monotheism.
YHWH went through just the same syncretic process as Bel Marduk did. Both were originally created in polytheistic pantheons and both were eventually worshipped monotheistically as the one true God in a world where many other deities were still acknowledged.

The statements regarding YHWH are contended opinions, not irrefutable facts. I am not objecting to your conclusions, merely the iron-clad confidence with which you assert them.

I posted this list earlier, perhaps you missed it
http://www.palmyria.co.uk/superstition/biblegods.htm
It lists the other Gods worshipped at the same time as YHWH by the Hebrews

Awesome! That's an excellent resource for showing that polytheism was a facet of early Hebraic religious thought/worship/practices. However, it falls short of supporting your assertion: "this [Mesopotamian] syncretization of deities is exactly the same as the creation of YHWH from the syncretization of other deities deeds and actions". That statement is an exaggeration of conclusions not necessarily in evidence. That's all.

I am totally failing to see any grounds for your objection, I think maybe you are confusing the worship of YHWH with that of the later Christian version Jehovah, now there you do have a Divinity who was monotheistic from the outset, as long as you ignore, His son, his ghost, the saints, and all the angels

Ha, no, I'm addressing only the Judaic YHWH and leaving the Christian Trinity to be argued by others in other threads. The extent of my objection is to your exaggerated claim that the syncretization of deities is exactly the same (it isn't), and/or that there is as much direct, concrete evidence for one as there for the other (there isn't), and/or that mainstream academics are in universal agreement over the details of the development of YHWH (they aren't).

We don't need to keep going round about this; your statements have been clarified to my satisfaction (for whatever that's worth).

 

[Harte]

I don't mean to imply you cannot disagree.

I mean to state that to do so in this instance is foolish.

Which is what I stated.

Don't try to put words in my mouth. You may find my response to have "too much certainty" and to be "objectionable," a finding for which you seem to have no tolerance.

Harte

 

[Marduk]

I don't mean to imply you cannot disagree.

I mean to state that to do so in this instance is foolish.

Which is what I stated.

Don't try to put words in my mouth. You may find my response to have "too much certainty" and to be "objectionable," a finding for which you seem to have no tolerance.

Harte

Tell me about it, personally I'm waiting for Vort to post something that wasn't written by a chemist and which he didn't find at the top of the list when he googled "Marduk Monotheism"


I certainly don't see how he can claim that YHWH and Bel Marduk weren't syncretized in exactly the same manner from humbler beginnings when he doesn't apparently know the backgrounds of either and has posted nothing in support of his position.

seems desperately pseudo sceptical to me

 

[Foolmewunz]

I love it when the ancients get off their chariots and rassle in the sand.



Carry on (I'm a big fan of these threads, truly... I learn a lot).

 

[Harte]

Tell me about it, personally I'm waiting for Vort to post something that wasn't written by a chemist and which he didn't find at the top of the list when he googled "Marduk Monotheism"


I certainly don't see how he can claim that YHWH and Bel Marduk weren't syncretized in exactly the same manner from humbler beginnings when he doesn't apparently know the backgrounds of either and has posted nothing in support of his position.

seems desperately pseudo sceptical to me

The difference, obviously, is that Marduk is no longer worshipped.

Sorry to have to break it to you that way Marduk!

Harte