Articles

by

I was teaching on the very touchy subject of Christian Universal Salvation the other day when one of my students confronted me with what he called the ‘faulty nature’ of the penal system against Christ. He asked, “why should I believe in an angry God who is shocked with the actions of humankind and kills his own son because he needs ‘justice’!?”

Backdrop to apostate thinking: N.T. Wright

I knew that one of my student’s *new influences* was N.T. Wright. N.T. Wright calls the Sacrifice of Christ not necessary for our salvation. N.T. Wright says that the Christ-Scapegoat formula is a faulty and pagan idea and that God does not need to go through all of that drama to save us.

N.T. Wright fails to see predeterminism, pre-ordained & portentous foreshadowing from non-Jewish and Jewish backdrop. He fails to see universal themes and the fulfillment point of all of these theme’s sketches in both the pagan and religious world. He fails to see how all of the enactments of the pagan and Jewish world line up to fulfill the Pagan-Religious Christ figure – i.e., *REASON* for the world (I might add as always that “pagan” was meant by me as an ‘a-moral’ term just as its etymology tells us).

N.T. Wright is a soft spoken academic who literally teaches “no suffering” at the hand of God—which, in turn, takes ANY SUFFERING out of God’s hands and strips the ancient to modern universal theme of the ‘stricken god’ out of the equation. N.T.W. steals the value and depth of “the Story” of a transcendent God who truly gave us value and REASON by His ACTS for 3 years. By these ACTS we now know value and reason, fulfillment of pagan and Jewish prophecy, and Reason by which Plato was alluded to in John chapter one as LOGOS – the “LOGIC”, “LOGICAL ONE”, “The -OLOGY of all things, etc.

N.T. Wright, due to his ‘easy-believism’ breaks the ‘continuity’ of this eternal theme from antiquity to the Ages to come. This is a ‘lesser god’ than the one of Isaiah 45 which claims that “I create Good and Evil – Tov and Ra’ah in Hebrew, or, ‘that which builds up and that which breaks down’. N.T.W. leaves himself and his followers ‘left in a field of quandary due to no ‘tie-in’ with 6 thousand plus years of human development and connected anthropological and sociological meaning. The only ‘rational’ reason that I could see him doing this is for popularity and the income which comes with popularity.

No matter what the next convoluted idea that might come out of N.T.W.’s mouth, I believe will implicate him as an apostate in the literal sense. That is, the word “apostate” means, “no suffering” (Greek: “apo” – “take off” + “stasis/ state” = “the stand”, “standing”; –i.e., “to fall away”).

I decided not to stir an infection caused by N.T.W. in my student. Rather, I said calmly, “The Narrative of the Scapegoat is Everything”.

He asked what I meant. I said to him, “I’ll ask you two questions to answer us both—

1) If the Lamb (the Jesus figure) was ‘slaughtered from the foundation of the creation’ –mentioned in Revelation 13:8– do you think that Jesus was actually ‘murdered’ by some hysterical God/ Father figure who needed someone to die because ‘he was angered over the sin that *surprised Him*?”

2) Or, do you think that EVERY series of events needs the next series of events to carry the entire creation of time and space in a collective gestalt —which was planned before the foundation of creation? If you answer yes then good! Consequently, the Lamb of God must fit into the laws of thermodynamics and Biblical Predestination as ‘energies that be’. Therefore, Jesus *necessarily* was slaughtered for our sake to fulfill a part of the congruent whole both under the laws of Thermodynamics (because it already happened), Biblically, and to fulfill the pagan’s hope. Hence, the FULL Narrative.

My student thought out loud with me: “If Jesus’ death was ordained from the Foundation of creation then every action would have to be *contingent* on the next from the very act of creation to present day and all actions in between”. I said, “good!, You just described Biblical Predestination, a befitting plan for The Scapegoat without a surprised God, and surprised Thermodynamics (lol) —-all at the same time! Funny, isn’t it, that these 3 AGREE in logic?!

Then I asked and answered for him the following:

“if you are willing to believe that God can bring us all, that is – the entire world- to justification, rectification and salvation not of our works but of His Will, Works, and Energy – (Philippians 2:13) then the next step is to ask about the transcendent “method” by which God must walk with us in order to teach and guide us. Might I say, God has been ‘walking with us’ as we were a created unified system – from the dawn of time to the end of the world.

God has shown us The Story over the millennia. Therefore, how does the Scapegoat NOT fit into the ultimate meaning/*Reason found in Christ’s death and resurrection as the ultimate Scapegoat? (A) I say that this is answered by Owen Barfield’s idea of ‘The Evolution of Consciousness’. We were babies 6,000 years ago and are adults today. That we have only *relatively-recently* (the past 2,000 years) been able to understand the ideas of the Scapegoat personified through Christ and the Grace received from Him. This MAIN EVENT takes away any intimation that WE DID ANYTHING TO DESERVE THIS and destroys the discontinuous postulate of N.T. Wright.

Were there earlier- more primitive enactments or Narratives that required a Scapegoat? (A) absolutely! James Frazier’s “Golden Bough” is an exemplary research into this practice among the pagans and Hebrew cult.

Why did these communities require a penal system? (A) Primitive beliefs instigated by Shamans, Priests, or collective superstitions show that when elemental or anthropomorphic gods were angered they ‘acted out’ in a retributive fashion. It was up to the Shaman, Priest, Priest-King, or leader of the primitive community to ‘resolve’ the god’s wrath by offering a vessel (Scapegoat) which would take the offending sins away from the community. This was a technique in controlling the masses. If this didn’t work, human sacrifice was not an estranged idea. We see the ‘appeasement’ of the angered god through Jack (the figure of the devil in the young boy) in the Lord of the Flies. The ‘collective soul’ amongst the tribe of English school boys -turned motley crew- was instigated by Jack’s ‘chaotic mind’ and his lust for dominance. In this example, the one with REASON was killed. REASON, expressed the character Piggy, was not welcomed because REASON exposed the chaos. The chaos of Jack, as the devil, worked-operated as the head of a ‘collective beast’ which generated a mesmerism of fear.

I find it interesting that in the Archko Volume, or Acta Pilati – Jesus was described physically as ‘not that attractive, big nosed, blue eyes and looked the part of a common Jew in His day. It was said that even the sound of His voice wasn’t that attractive until He spoke of His Father. It was the unattractive character – Piggy – that had likened societal defects . He was portly and optically challenged. His manner of speaking, for sure, was not appealing to the mass. Though his words were true he was hated because ‘the beast’ which worked through the boys under Jack saw a Scapegoat. The murder of Piggy, by Roger- who had no ability to think under Jack– ‘solidified’ the gang into faux strength and carried for another day an appeasement rooted in riotous fear and blood thirst.

Was there a ‘balance to be restored’ for these communities such as the children in the Lord of the Flies? As seen in my last statement, there can only be a short lived ‘appeasement’ of the masses (and the appeased god) for dominance seeking and leadership by power will begin again. Ultimately, had Ralph, the good boy-who led by righteousness, had not ‘come-upon’ the Military Commander who landed on Coral Island, the social cannibalism (possible physical cannibalism) would have continued until one would remain.

“if the enactment within the Narrative of the Scapegoat’s death was to be Christ’s crucifiction on the cross then what was the *meaning* of His death? – (A) I say, ‘to answer the pagan’s societal conflict of guilt, rage, shame and anxiety who had **no methodological approach to reason’. Christ IS **REASON for this VERY REASON! The Scapegoat fulfilled is the ULTIMATE REASON. Life Now has something to act to, for, from, at, journey from and come back to —i.e., the meaning of VALUE in the Scapegoat-Christ Jesus. Herein lies the answer for the Pagan in this regard. Again, this is where I address N.T. Wright’s faulty premise: Christ as ‘the Scapegoat’ is pagan. I agree with N.T.W. on this point!! But not in the way N.T. Wright says it. Christ fulfilled ALL pagan foreshadowing through God’s providential acts of establishing Primitive-Pagan enactments of putting sin to a thing and carrying it away into the unseen lands. Christ associates with the historical pagan and associates with the pagan in the Gospels! In this good sense of pagan association: Owen Barfield’s ‘collective consciousness’ might be answered in the Scriptural passage: Colossians 1:16 “For by Him ALL things were created: things in Heaven and on earth, visible, and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by HIM and for HIM”. Christ’s death and resurrection was once and for all. His atonement needed no further sacrifice or scapegoat. The doctrine that followed Christ’s enactment was in continuance to HIS enactment. That is, we must die as HE did, every day. We must speak the TRUTH unto our death as the enacted Scapegoat. In this, no more ritual without substance, rather, substance to everyday enactments.

Lastly and repeated for emphasis: “If the Lamb was ordained to death from the foundation of creation then *predestination* was the mode by which God’s Sovereignty acted. Clearly, the desire of the pagan’s collective enactments of sacrifice and Scapegoat were intently genetic and can be seen as a predetermination force all through the most remote of tribes from time immemorial. All of them and all of us have been looking for an eternal ONCE AND FUTURE KING.

by

It is for the Biblical “STORY”, “THE NARRATIVE”, “THE PLAY”, and REALITY, etc…that “ATONEMENT” created the  ***SENSE***.by which atonement was necessary— and actually agreed with neighboring Middle Eastern cultures concerning “sacrifice”.  Atonement creates the language of boundaries” and places colors on a canvass which would otherwise be white – reflecting all color.  When there’s no painting, no Story, no color, etc— it just Is. This is the distinction of eternity and eternal meaning set to print in time.  

Atonement wasn’t just relegated to the Biblical Story. In James Frazier’s “Golden Bough”, Mr. Frazier shows us that the entire world understood the importance of Atonement.  From primitive gods to group collective volitions,  designating who or what should take on their sea of troubles was a community participation and in-figured reality.   Sacrifice was necessary when community troubles grew to a boiling point without remedy. Therefore, “Pagan-Non Pagan-Hedonistic-Capitalistic, etc…”  atonement was/is/ will be necessary on a base-line  level for all cultures. 

The *Judicial* Murder by God-Father of Son-God was both (in their immediacy) (1) The Most Heinous Act ever committed and (2) The Salvation of the World —-where ‘That which was/is perfect’ can be shared *****by identity***** as ‘Broken Shards of Glass’. Christ, now, can be viewed reflectively “back to the Whole” and *valued* by HIS LOSS and then again, the GAIN by which we receive and what HE receives” 

I will be interviewing for the 4th time the leading J.R.R. Tollkien Scholar and Professor Emeritus at the University of Maryland and Oxford adjunct, Dr. Verlyn Flieger, next month concerning her book, “Pig’s Tale”. This book, through fiction, treats the topics of Sacrifice and Scapegoat to be entirely different from one another. It covers the primitive collective social sense for atonement. 

I conclude my thoughts here with Rene’ Girard’s “atonement theory” that Christ was the ONLY Myth that became real, dwelt amongst us and fulfilled all pagan aspirations of atonement. For those who don’t know me, “Pagan” is used by me in the *a-moral* sense: “those on the ‘other side of the peg’; ‘on the other *page*”

I’m still working on analogue/ and association of ‘what it takes to be a meaningful sacrifice and also — scapegoat).

by

U.P.T.

Up until now, we have triangulated our way up to a consistent Theology. The 3 main components that provide a coherent and consistent Theology are: (U) Universal Sanctification-reconciliation (Apocatastasis), (P) Pre-determinism (Pro-horidzo), and the (T) Teleology (teleos) which, in congress of forward motion (‘gestalt’), stands upon the first two. That is: the “END” or “teleos” is a *result* of ALL prior ENERGIES “that were”. This is what I call the “U.P.T.” formula.

It is with the faith (Greek:pistis – Proto Indo European: “Bheidh” – mental place where we launch from) that you will listen to my past lectures to understand WHY I believe in the coherency of this formula. Therefore, I will take a pass on ‘proving’ what I have stated up to this point. What I will state now is the “4th Dimension” to this U.P.T. formula. Simply, the etymology and story of the “Apocalypse”.

THE APOCALYPSE

The word “Apocalypse” literally means, “off (with the) cover”; “to expose”; “to reveal”; “to un-cover”; “to show”, etc. Simply: “apo” = ‘off’ + “kalupto” = ‘cover’, ‘lid’, ‘seal’.

So, the Greek “apokalupto” or ”Apocalypse” is NOT just something in the future, rather, it is the “Revealing of ALL that has been hidden” since time immemorial. In this sense, everyone experiences their own “apocalypse” every second as ‘revelations’ reveal themselves to the total sum of your being or ontology to right now.

THE FORMULA “U.P.A.T.” FOUND IN THE SPIRITUAL GRAMMAR OF JOB

Job 42:11 – “Then came there unto him and his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over (P.) ALL THE EVIL THAT THE LORD HAD BROUGHT UPON HIM ……every man also gave him a piece of money and every one an earing of gold. (42:12) (T.) So the LORD blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning…… “

“Satan” was a literal reality in the Narrative of Job but is diminished to a literary mechanism which becomes dispensable. Evil cannot ‘do’ a ‘work’. It can only *be used to do God’s plan*. Satan is a stylus that carves the predetermined significance upon the rock of meaning.

“(I label U, P, A, and T to show that necessary ‘quadratic’ necessary view.)

(P) Any trial one goes through is a segway to ‘an Apocalypse’. (T) Job’s trials led him to his

*Teleology*. (T.) His *teleology* was the ‘end point’ by which he could (A) understand/ see that (P.) it was GOD that put him through the FIRE of Satan to be purified and, finally, (T.) renewed. (P.) “The Satan” could only act upon the office he was given. (U *.) Remember, Job was prior to Christianity, Judaism, the Prophets, and even the Biblically Legislative brand of Patriarchs which dictated a law code. This means that the only way that Job could have been ‘saved’ was the UNIVERSAL LOVE by which God granted Job without law code or Christianity.

TRIBAL ASPECTS OF APOCALYPSE

For simple association: if you saw Mel Gibson’s movie, “Apocalypto”, you’ll have taken away the *broadest and simplest* explanation for the meaning of “Apocalypse”. The movie is about a tribe of brutal profiteering and conquering “Aztec” Indians (historically, it was the Mayans) putting into bondage other weaker tribes and selling them off to sun god worshipping “Aztecs (again, Mayans)” who cut the heads off their victims for the sake of appeasing the sun god. This act of ‘social cannibalism’ is not new to the Aztecs if one only reads James Frazier’s “Golden Bough”. At the end of the movie a new “Apocalypse” occurs when the Spanish Armada arrives ending, historically, the Mayan civilization in the Yucatan peninsula. This is yet a new Apocalypse.. All to say: ‘the end of an *AEON* or AGE and the beginning of a new AEON. Isn’t this word, AEON, the very word used in Revelation 20-22 for “eternal” in the English? —might I say, a horrible and derailing English translation. For a deeper study into Social Cannibalism one can refer to this topic in a doctoral thesis at UMI titled, “Social Cannibalism. Also, the 12 volume treatment given to Mankind and his social taboos by Sir James Frazier, quod vide.

As a side note:

Concerning ‘advancement’ from social cannibalism and into Catholicism I go as follows: whether the argument can be made that spreading Catholicism in the Yucatan peninsula was a relatively good (if one is to not take the ‘centricity’ of Jesus’ Gospels) thing or not can be up to you to make. I would say (1) all things are ‘good’ under God’s Providence —i.e., “good” as *beneficial to build the ‘full house of meaning’ * and (2) that ‘new archetypes’ were infused into such cultures with the precise progression needed to make the higher idea of a Christ figure. Therefore, Spanish Medieval Catholicism was a necessary ‘afterthought’ or ‘echo’ of the original Christ figure —-which, to me, is better than nothing and it was a *start* to that which was previously barbarous and laden with superstition. Arguments can be ensued, and will be I’m sure.

BIBLICAL APOCALYPSE

We must dispense with child’s play concerning the faulty English translation of “eternity” and “apocalypse” and return to the Glossary by which the entire New Testament had faith in to use…namely, the Paideia of the Greeks. I have done enough work on this subject on my website, The Fullness Of Meaning Christian Ministries.com (fomcm.com), to convey a solidly backed Word bank supporting a new and fresh look at an etymologically sound Scripture.

Since I address at the top of this piece what “Apocalypse” means, I will again, from prior lectures, address the tangential word to apocalypse, “AEON”.

“Indefinite time” or “AEON” does not have to mean “infinity”, though it could. The WAY in which Aeon and Aidion were used as ‘indefinite times’ were poetically and philosophically expressed a complimentary union of ideas.

Such a poetical employment of words could be used to create the seemingly “irrational” mental state of either the poet or the characters by which they participate. Therefore, subsuming the ‘rational’ or ‘reasonable’ for a beautiful alien ‘irrationality’, if conveyed by the poet correctly, could arrest one’s senses and lure one’s self out of the lust, greed, covet, anger world—i.e., suspend one from the mire of social relativism which leads to nihilism.

This beautific apocalyptic irrationality created words fit for philosophical treatise and revelatory Biblical writing—-paratactic writing – for the words has concretized into ‘meaning’ and a correlative ‘semiotic commitment’ for the ‘abstract’ had occurred. Hence, the mathematical philosophers and prophets had a ground to work from.

From here, I hope to begin my statement of faith as the U.P.A.T. or – “Universal Pre-Determinative Apocalyptic Teleology”. For audible aesthetic convenience only I place “apocalyptic’ before “teleology”.

by

*To know what something is – is to know what it is not*

–k.j.-

PREFACE

The Greek word for “time segment”, or, Aionios was contrasted with Adios – meaning “infinity”. These two terms were used throughout Homeric times down to the 1st century A.D. Christian Church. As we introduce the term “Adion” for infinity in this lecture piece we will see what Aeon is not.

I will be clear: Aeon, meaning “a segment of time”, “an era”, “an eon”, “an age” and “a limited/unknown ‘finite time”, was employed by the Biblical writer, John, in his Revelation – or, “Apocalypse”, for the usage of Hell within its “aeon of purpose”. Moreover, the “ontology” or “coming to be” of ‘an age’ of ‘being a sinful human’ requires AN aeon or “era” of hell to refine them to God; this intimates ‘direction’, therefore, INTENT of a GOD to create a passageway by which we will be refined, ready, and reserved for the final destination, i.e., UNION with GOD.

We, therefore look at our part 4 focusing on the ‘’vocabulary bank’’ by which the New Testament used its terms for Eternity, Perpetuity, Eons, Ages, and infinitude.

Parts 1-3 covered Aeon in all of its forms. We conclude that “Aeon” was used as an *finite undefined time segment*.

Our next focus is Adios (Adion). Since we have seen by its usage that Aeon is not an ‘unending’ term we therefore look to Adios.

We continue to go to the archaic authors of the Greek and Hellenized world to see that ‘Aidios’ was socially normalized in its usage. Again, words are used in their participation of the figuration of a culture. I reiterate from my past 3 lectures that the beginning New Testament community (ca 30 A.D.) had its rich linguistic heritage spanning at least 800 years, if not more, from the Classical Greek authors.

Examples of TIME: ETERNITY

Adios and Chronos working together

Time (1)

One of the earliest cultural usages and accounts of Adios is found in Homer’s “Hymn to Hestia” (ca. 800 B.C.). Here, the ‘goddess resides on a throne’ with mortals. This, by context alone, should give us ample information to see that there is a kind of “time” that can ‘participate’ in this “throne realm” but is separate from….for …if mortality exists there, then ‘mortality’ requires sequential time or “chronos”—which is separate and distinguished from Aidion as we shall see. Chronos is neither subsumed or supervened by Adios at this aforementioned juncture, rather, they (Chronos and Adios) share their ‘attributes’ at certain juncture points for a fuller gestalt of meaning. That is, time and eternity (chronos and Aidios) are ‘conjunctive’ as ‘time’ meets the eternal…or, relating to mortals → **the epiphanal**.

We see Hestia, the Goddess of the *Hearth/ Throne* sitting at her ‘permanent seat’….”edren aidion elaxes”. Such as ‘seat/ throne’ is the hearth at the fireplace. It is where the family convened to talk, eat, share, cook, stay warm, associate with HOME. Hestia, was considered LOVE, THE BELOVED…and, in this Maiden Housekeeper sense, she was Divinely Eternal Without End. Hestia was called, “She of the Public Hearth”. So, there is a sharing of the “time” of mortality and this AIDION throne. This is no more contradictory than when the Eternal God of the Bible talks with the Patriarchs, Matriarchs and Prophets. How About the answerable Platonic idea of “coming to be” to the FULLNESS of the UNIVERSAL found in the very NATURE of JESUS CHRIST ‘coming to HIS FULLNESS?!? I.e., When the UNIVERSAL meets the Particulars. The “participation” by which the gods, Gods act involves such a confluence of different “times”.

Time (2)

We find Aidios inscribed in Hesiod’s “Shield of Hercules” saying, “‘aidion eixon ponon”. This means that no one side can win in this athletic competition. It states the ‘stasis’ by which movability cannot be achieved, therefore, ‘without end’ —–in the duration of the game. But here’s the catch: it is in the ‘picture’ of stasis without resolution. This depiction fires on the mind a never ending battle for glory without resolve….a state of being…a longsuffering of worldly effort…the battle of the EPOS (‘epic ones’) or “eroes” (“heros”).

Time (3)

Anaximander’s ( A.NAX’.uh.MAN.der) Greek says, “Tayn Aidion Kinaysin” —i.e., “The Aidion is perpetual movement”, —-therefore, Aidion shows no retirement of motion, hence, no *aging*.

Time (4)

Anaximenes (A.NAXIMENEEZ) says,”Kinaysin de kai hootos aidion poiei” as to agree with Anaximander.

Time (5)

Anaximander went on to say, “There is a certain NATURE of the infinite” – “phusin tina tou apeirou” – “and that this NATURE is ETERNAL and UNAGING” – “Aidion ein kai a.gayro {“a” = “not” + gayro’ – aging/ i.e., ‘geriatric’}”.

Time (6)

Xenophanes (XSE.NAH’.fa.neez) attests Adios as “indestructable”, immortal, and ungenerated (i.e., uncreated). Xenophanes uses Adios in contrast to anything that is “coming to be” —or “generated”. To conclude Xenophanes: anything that segways to the next event is not Adios.

Time (7)

Diogenes (DIE-AH.jeh.neez) Laertius (Lay.er.ti.uhs) simply agreed with Xenophanes here.

Time (8)

Anaxagoras agreed with Aristotle that “Adios” is ‘without end’

Time (9)

Heraclitus says, “Adios is perpetual motion of things without end”. These “Things” therfore do not share in the attributes of Aeones.

Time (10)

Empedocles says, “There is a “THING OF NECESSITY”, an ancient DECREE of *gods ETERNAL*—- i.e., “Anankayce Krayma Theon Psaypheesma Palaion Aidion”. Conclusively brilliant, Empedocles continues to his conclusion that Aidion is “spherical, eternal, and immobile” – i.e., “Sphairo-eides Kai Aidion Kai Akin-ay-ton To Hen”.

Time (11)

Parmenides used the term Aidion to mean “ALL” in the sense of “ALL that will always be…ALL that is ungenerated and imperishable”.

Time (12)

Simplicius says, “nothing that has a beginning and end is Aidion”

*Time (13)

For me, maybe the most important statement was from Metrodorus of Chios who stated, “The ALL (TO’ PAN) is Eternal (AIDION), Because, If It Came Into Being At A Certain Moment, It Would Come To Be From Non-Being; And It Is Unlimited (Apeiron) Inasmuch As It Is Eternal:For It Does Not Have A Principle (Archay) From Which It Began, Nor A Limit (PERAS) Or An End (TELEUTAY)” For today I will end our section on the usage of Aidion in Greek Antiquity. Thank you,

Kyle Jones

Post Statement and Recap

Our job at fomcm.com is to search for historically overlooked material that substantiates the Bible to the regard that it should be given.

Often, the Westerm “orthodox approach” ‘limits’ the purview of the authentic linguistic content, a.k.a., “Message” of God’s Word by *Westernisms* or recognizable ideas that fit into ‘our sense’ of our Orthodox god. Sadly, the robbery is by and to the ‘church’ by which its failures are founded upon limitations of Eastern Understanding of the Biblical Text. One limitation after the next, always trying to ‘keep up’ with the ever reducing idea of the ‘so called biblical text’ which is currently founded upon man-made notions of God.

Fear is the engine by which ‘an orthodoxy’ fights not repent. Scientists have to secularly ‘repent’ when they find something that counters and finally disproves an older thesis–which becomes no-more-scientific…but simply, WRONG….. . Likewise, Theology SHOULD contain the same humility within their “orthodoxies” —as I speak ‘tongue and cheek’. And again, once there has been grounds for challenging the English Text of King James…one should be allowed to find answers to countertheses via an orthodox ‘council’ without agenda. It is here that I make mention of “rhetors” from the Paideia of the class Trivium.

I speak of “rhetors” in the classical sense by which the first grade of learning Greek and Latin language began the Trivium’s rite of passage to academic bliss. Then, from Language to logic. Finally, argumention (or rhetors) was taught by the very wise secular Greek and Hellenized Christian mothers of the first and second centuries.

These 3 phases (language, logic and rhetors) of the Trivium ( by which the educated Greek class lived) led facets of Greek culture to be strung together with respect and congruity of thought……and not as brute beast ‘authoritarians’ who ‘brawl’ over ideas for dominance and not truth. I need not discuss the brutal nature of this approach in today’s world.

In contrast to this last mentioned civil unrest…. the Paidea of the Greek’s Trivium created learned scholiasts of the Biblical Text to find their ‘senses’ in historical comparitive hermeneutics, Biblical Greek analysis and parsing of the stems of Greek Grammar, socially-contextualizing and examining the socio-linguistic understanding by which the geographical ‘neighbors’ of the Palestinian Jews and Christians understood their God. THIS IS of the Hebrews and New Testament Christ, and, finally, exegete the Biblical Textus Receptus or “Received Authoritative Greek and Hebrew Bible”—as well as the LXX or Septuagent, i.e., the Greek Old Testament by which we have transferable Greek terms with Hebrew.

Finally, fomcm.com gathers writers of Greek pagan antiquity to show that the ‘vocabulary bank’ of the New Testament was not out of a ‘vaccum’. Rather, the Greek New Testament used the Greek language that the ENTIRE Greek world had been baptized in, saturated, steeped in since the inception of Greek culture. This is nothing to overlook, and yet, the Western American Orthodox Church has somehow or another concluded to not deem it important to know what the New Testament REALLY WAS SAYING IN THEIR DAY, THEIR CULTURAL CONTEXT, THEIR SEMIOTIC AGREEMENT, THEIR SLANG, THEIR WAY OF SAYING THINGS, IDIOMS, DIALECTS, etc…. I hear from western ‘authorities’ of the ‘orthodox churches’ saying that “devotion is over theology”. You can’t ‘devote’ to something ill-defined. Why fear exegeting while ‘working on your *devotion*?’. *What IF, ….the “MATHETIKON” (in the Greek) meant “TOTAL DEVOTEE” to the LOGOS or Christ as He spoke on Earth?!!—Well, it does! Lastly, I say….”if you *know* the God you serve then you will serve HIM correctly; otherwise, there will be a false sense by which you relate to the WORDS that HE has spoken and YOU have so neglectfully handled in your isoglossed cultural *SENSE* of “”devotion””.

RECAP

Remember, “Indefinite time” does not have to mean “infinity”, though it could. The WAY in which Aeon and Aidion were used as ‘indefinite times’ were poetically and philosophically expressed a complimentary union of ideas.

Such poetical employment of words could be used to create the seemingly “irrational” mental state of either the poet or the characters by which participate. Therefore, subsuming the ‘rational’ for a beautiful alien ‘irrationality’, if conveyed by the poet correctly, could arrest one’s senses and lure one’s self out of the lust, greed, covet, anger world.

This “irrationality” created words fit for philosophical treatise for the words has concretized into ‘meaning’ and a correlative ‘semiotic commitment’. Hence, the mathematician-philosophers had a ground to work from.

It is not so strange to look at a word complex if we understand ‘pictographic societies’ as our ancestral origins. Herein lies the genius of the Greeks that was not so different, if not related, to the pictographic societies of the Egyptians, Sumerians and the Original Ancient Hebrew pictographic texts of the Pre-Sinaitic Israelites. Such ‘radicals’ as “fire, serpent, toxic, 6 wings, etc.” did indeed mean the “Seraph” or angels that flew with the temple of God in HIS ETERNAL “Train” or Verb of Perpetual – unending Motion through and into this “temporal state”. This is the “Parousia”, per se, of the Old Testament God who condescends to us.

Nonetheless, the force of each archaic Greek word was known by a millennia of usage for the exact purpose to specify categories of thought, therefore, distinguishing one term FROM the other.

The richness of Greek vocabulary is found in how one word can dance around the other, never stepping on the other’s semiotic ‘toes’ —- only reinforcing the other’s role, creating a union of ideas and images due to the strength and value the Greeks held to word care.

To paraphrase Edward Gibbon, the author of the Decline of the Roman empire, “Empires Fall when the study, usage, retention, and guarding of their language is no longer preserved. Double entendres, business-speak, cultural popular slang, etc. are the beginnings of this sorrow”.

by

In parts 1 and 2 we did a brief glimpse into the socio-linguistic aspect of the New Testament *vocabulary*. A more complex study pertaining to parts 1 and 2 can be obtained by studying the Paideia of the Christian youth in the first and second centuries.

The application of historical-morphological filtering of word meanings down to an “age” of “collective reasoning” is necessarily implemented in order to find Biblical “vocabulary agreement’. With this said, for sure the Greek New Testament’s social context could be viewed as heavily influenced by two forces: (1) Socially Naturalized verbal usage from Logographic/ Pictographic Proto-Armenian (Syunik) to Hittite, Proto-Georgian/ Kartvelian and Sumerian pictographic society …and, (2) the ingenious handling of Aristotle’s deductive syllogism and Plato’s agreement of particulars in motion to the fuller receptacle of itself. Such a view synthesized pagan predeterminism with Theistic determinism. It has hyper focused the question of ‘direction’ and ‘duration’ by which the associative words ‘move forward’ in a given society which would therefore be superimposed by a Deity. Simply put, Plato’s etymological treatments concerning Natural elements, their associative words and the evolution of their abstractions became a grammatical and etymological “theology”.

I might add a very interesting point of this study of historical morphology: The “abstract” nature of an ancient Sumerian, Chinese, Egyptian, Hittite, Indus Valley, pictograph was designated as ‘abstract’ due to the Thalian (Thales) approach (starting with Thales, ca. 586 B.C. {the year Judah was taken captive into Babylon}).

Herein lies the beginnings of ‘specific-STRUCTURE’ deduction – a.k.a. “probabilities” – “proving via ‘observation’ “ vs. ‘acting within the ‘genius’ or ‘joining’ of a community without the weariness of analysis. Such examples might be found contrasted in tribal communities. Such as a New Guinean tribe living within their own biosphere perfectly adapted to the genius of the trees, streams, water, food gathering, family life, etc…. Such a lifestyle is what we might call, NATURAL… or “nature”. Language is, on the other hand, “Abstracted” (‘taken from’ “off” + “structure” –”nature at its origins”) from its ‘root form’ of Natural elements such as “sky, tree, stream, dirt, earth, fire, wind, etc.”. To this, there is a ‘meeting ground’ for me that solidifies a verbal-social *semiosis* within the telegraphed (i.e., to that era studied) socio-verbal bank. One needs the other to exist, past needs present and visa versa. If you will, out of time ‘semiosis’.

One might delve into Aristotle’s Rhetoric, generatione et corruptione (coming to be and going away) and Plato’s Cratylus for a wonderful side study on word morphologies and the limitations of their interpretations, aka, ‘semiotics’. So beautifully found for me were the “Natural” elements were linguistically ‘abstracted’ into a combined STORY. They had to go somewhere. The Morphology of the Folktale is all about the natural becoming unnatural and the Morphology of the Folktale also brought about the FULFILLMENT of all things (aeon) in the fullness of time to a mythopoeic and then prophetically instanced culmination of pagan and Biblical agreements. In this ‘eye’ I see NO contradiction between the movement of pagan tales and Semitic prophecy.

I see no distance between Biblical archetypes found either in the Bible or in the Norse Volsung Saga, Greek myths, Rig Veda, etc…..only movements to agreement by force of LOGOS.

The Padeia of the early Greek words found their fulfillments in a Hellenized Christ figure. The origins of Greek Society were in their pagan poets such as Aeschylus, Sappho, Homer, etc….so, how could they be a mistake if the God of the Bible created ALL THINGS (—aeon–)?!?

Such Semitic archetypes, shadows, types, and prophecies did Christ Jesus fulfill! Such European and Hellenized archetypes did Christ fulfill as the Messiah versus the limited Hero. Jesus was and is the physical fountainhead by which all myths, folklores, etc. were pointing to. It was, and still is, the negative of the pagan’s sociatal “photograph” of the Hero that the Christ fulfills. More than this, the efforts of the pagan that ‘miss the mark’ for joy, selflessness, consistency and specific direction are ‘naturally’ painted without cognisance of the Christ. Christ TRULY fills in the MISS (the lacking of the pagan). Truly, if there is a historical Odin that walked around the backstreets of Norway or Iceland no historian wrote it down, only the poets and bards created the mythos. Did Krishna sit down to dinner with a local Indian community in Historical reality? I think not. All of these beautiful pagan stories allude with cultural color a Christ to come and the solidification of the Language, the LOGOS, by which the Greek Words in the New Testament submitted and took to their stations. It is within this ‘imaginative field’ of the fantastic do I digress for I know the literary genius of Tolkien in this world. Yet, even Tolkien was a Christian who believed in the ‘collective consciousness’ of all myths had a bearing of LOGOS to which other worlds could be generated. But, Tolkien’s focus was just that and by THAT he accepted the Trueness of the LOGOS and the power of its deployment upon all of the aons of our existence. This is why I stay within such realities writing this paper which are not ‘subcreated’ within a vacuum of humankind’s opinion, or technical ‘idiocy’—’viewed as one perceives’.

Lastly, the Greek New Testament should be read within the context by which the Christ was in agreement with the Greek myths/ Hellenized Paideia, Christian Paideia, The Greek Old Testament (LXX/ Septuagent), the great philosophers – Plato and Aristotle and our parent, the Hebrew Bible, by which YHVH revealed HIS RHEMA, DABAR, SHEM, and SHEKINAH that we may operate within the confines of His WORDS.

by

The Perversion of the “HELL VERSES”

REASON BASED IN EXEGESIS TO FREEDOM FROM IGNORANCE

“Paideia” (cf. Dr. Werner Yeager’s treatment on “Christian Paideia” and “Classical Greek Paideia”) was the classical education for the first century Christian Children which means, “to walk; walk; the walk”—-i.e., “the little *footers*”. One could use the Star Wars term, “Padua (same term as Paideia) ”, for “young ones learning “The Force”. We see this term in “Pediatrics” for medical care for the youth.

The Paideia for 1st century Christian children consisted of (1) Greek and Latin language (2) Logic (3) Rhetoric. All such Classical education came DIRECTLY out of Aristotle and Plato’s Greek and references to the classical myths of Homer on down (cf. my treatment on Homeric ties with the synoptic Gospels). There would have been no confusion between the New Testament text presented by Paul and the Paideia because Paul was Hellenistically-classically trained. Paul cryptically if not openly referred to the classics and the Great Philosophers in the Scripture. Paul, by inspiration of God, fulfilled the philosophy of the Greek writings by stitching them into their final stages with the Resurrection of the unknown god at Mars Hill. Paul’s Christianity was understood by the Hellenized World, i.e., to the Barbarians, Pagan Rome, Greece, and Europe. Everyone would have understood the Greek usage of the Greek New Testament because the words were interlocked with the Hellenized culture which was Aristotelian based and enforced through his student, Alexander.

So, the Greek usage during the ante-nicene first century Church (ca. 33 A.D. to ca. 350 A.D.) was, for sure, philosophically and linguistically Aristotelian (and Platonic based). Alexander the Great, who “Hellenized (made everyone learn Greek/ think Greek) the world, was the direct padua/ ‘mathetikon’ of Aristotle —or, “Mathetekes (mathematician – i.e., “disciple” is known in the New Testament).

Now, let’s apply this knowledge to Biblical exegesis:

APAKATASTASIS (Acts 3:21) vs. THE ENGLISH ETERNAL “JUDGMENT”

THE FIRST OF TWO ‘HELL-VERSES’

I will use this definition again within this treatment but I would like to place this first for our “mental coathangers”: Aristotle’s “Kolosis (judgment) is used for the SAKE/ BENEFIT of the one being punished” – i.e., IN ORDER FOR REMISSION OF THE SIN!/ A RECTIFICATION!!!

The ‘eternal scourging’ was and is our English idea of “Eternity” from the *interpolation -perversion* via the Latin Vulgate’s “Aeturnus” ((and not the original Biblical Greek, ‘Aeones’)) which, indeed, meant “eternity without end”.

In contrast to the Vulgate’s erroneous translation-usage of Aeturnus, the Biblical Aeones (a certain duration of time) and Kolosis (affliction for the benefit of the afflicted unto remission of guilt), which was not understood or applied in the Medieval mind of King James or his Biblical *version*, was used as an expression of the ‘baptism of fire’ (( Matthew 3:11: John the Baptist as an ‘enactment’ or ‘panomimist’ says: “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but HE that cometh after me (JESUS) is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: HE shall baptize you with the HOLY GHOST and WITH FIRE/ 1 Peter 4:12 – “Don’t think it a strange thing that a fiery trial would take place upon you”)) or ‘fiery trials which are to try us’ (The “evil” aspect of us as the ‘evil doer’) unto the remission of sins’ in order for their eye or hand to burn and not them (cf. Matthew 18:8 {paraphrased) if your hand, foot, or eye causes you to stumble, cast it into eternal fire lest the “WHOLE” body be thrown into eternal fire! ←– But now! In Philippians 2:13 it states: “For it is God WHO works in you to WILL and to ACT in order to fulfill HIS GOOD PURPOSE”. So, any “repentance” unto remission of sins is a GOOD *act, will, choice, doing, becoming, etc.*. So, WHO is doing the “casting of the limbs lest the whole body is cast into hell” thing? …Looks to me that this is a “META” idea. If we are “speaking” as “we see” then we are very well deluded. If we read, learn, obey, study, dig deep, etc. into the Biblical Greek and Hebrew text we WILL FIND that it is GOD who creates, does, WILLS ALL things for the ‘good’ of HIM and those who have been made to believe in HIM (Isaiah 45:7; ff—Isaiah 48; Romans 8:28-ff, etc.).

It would be psychotic to shed rageful anger and eternal damnation forever upon something, someone that is governed by YOUR WILL to begin with. Adversely, what IS LEFT IS REASON: In the FREEDOM of being within the INFINITE WEB of GOD’s existence as HIS *CHILDREN* to roam FREELY in HIS mansion/ domicile/dominion/’doom’/judgement = all the same word, etymologically (cf. my “WYRD HOARD” podcast on “Doom and Fates”) we are eternally bound to infinite possibilities of joy, love, experience, etc. Not even the Calvinists seem to take “Predeterminism” this far, yet, THIS KIND OF PREDETERMINISM is what concludes us to UNIVERSAL RECONCILIATION and Calvinists MUST HAVE THEIR JUDGEMENTS! It’s a schizophrenic approach to scripture to hold to either Calvinism for all of its predeterminism of “love” for the Calvinist and “Hate” for the non Calvinist. Worse yet, the “seeking” of the doomed. I become sickened at reading my own typing here because I know these words are ALL ‘ill-defined’ by ‘orthodoxy’.

It was King James, however, who wrote “Demonology” and was a supporter of a fifteenth century text written by the clergyman, Heinrich Kramer, called “Malleus Maleficarum (Medieval Latin: “the Hammer of Witches”)” which supported the Medieval “hunt for the **Judgment** of those that ‘seemed’ to be a witch. This book seems to match the Vulgate’s adopted fallible translation and perverse “judgment or ‘other judgment’ not mentioned in the Bible from  God.

Such a vengeful spirit was astutely addressed by Aristotle (as he defined all things) using his Greek. Such a Greek word that Aristotle contrasted with kolosin was ekdike, or, revenge.

Ekdike was Aristotle’s Greek for ‘revenge/ vengeful judgment’ in his work called, “rhetoric”. Aristotle said that “ekdike” was based on a ‘hunger-anger-appetite-revenge-emotional seated’ perversion. Such a definition of “revenge and judgment” based on a humanistically made “god” fit human ‘justification’ and fit King James and all of his witch hunting club’s views of ‘control, God, sexuality, possession, dominance, sexual deviancy, beastiality very nicely. For sure, the spirit of fear quelled the masses’ complaints and garnered the populus with an iron fist. Maybe the history of King James is hidden from most due to his disgusting appetites and sado-masochistic practices that anyone can read about now. What ‘modern orthodox King James Version thumper’ wants that out of the bag? This is not to say that we cannot use the King James Version to read the histories, peoples, Israel’s conflicts, internal strifes, etc… But, only to be aware of reading the English text *AT FACE VALUE DISMISSING THE ORIGINAL

GREEK*!!!!

Revenge – *JUDGEMENT* Recap:

“Revenge”: Greek: “ekdike”. Aristotle said that ekdike’ meant: “anger for revenge” Aristotle continued to define ‘ekdike’ and say: the action of inflicting harm or hurt on someone for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands) is a “habit” based on appetite and is rooted in emotions–human emotions” –> cf  Aristotle’s “Rhetoric”–Book 1/ Chapter 10/ vs. 13 in the “Basic Writings of Aristotle”.

This “ekdikes” is connotatively akin to the King James, “Judgment”. This puts God with emotional problems and relates to a humanistic-childish approach for ‘resolve’ if we interpolate THIS KIND OF JUDGMENT into the connotation of God’s Final Judgment, which has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL GREEK TEXT OR ITS SEMIOTIC COMMITTED LANGUAGE.

Once again, New Testament word for Matthew 25’s, “judgement”: “Kolosin —chastisement-judgement-for full acknowledgement of infraction and ‘coming to be’ to restitution)!!!

Let’s continue:

When we look at Matthew 25:41 Jesus uses the term “judgment {Greek: kolosis}. As we see the final usage of it in the “final judgment“ in the following verses: “Then He will also say to those on the left hand (sinister gyrate/ hand of no blessing), Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared the the devil and his angels (this does not mean that we won’t be ‘singed’ and ‘remitted’ for sins through ‘the fire that burns’. That is, there is a heat or “orge” that we will experience when we break the law. This has nothing to do with another topic, i.e., OUR SALVATION. These are entirely two different things. : for I was hungry and you gave ME no food: I was thirsty and you gave ME no drink. …etc.

Here’s something that needs to be understood before the next paragraph: Jesus is aligning Himself with King David, the Messiah to Come, The Sun of the Son, and the Father. His WORDS are in unity and conjunction with the LINE of the Lion (Lebayu) of Judah. Saul was named the same, Lebayu,….the Lion. But, his actions of jealousy and murder assigned him a new NAME or Shem: “SAUL” which is the same word for “HELL”—i.e., “SHEOL”. Saul was, “The Lord’s ANOINTED”. How can a saved man be in hell? …. These are the concepts we must understand to correctly read the Bible. “In Darkness” meant, “SHEOL”…or, in the Germanic, “HOLEN”…in the “hole”…in the place of “Darkness”. This is also Latin for DUCARE’ …which means, “Darkness”…hence, “e + ducare” = “education” = “out of + darkness”. Saul was ‘coming to be’. Saul was “God’s Anointed” 0000 yet he had to “fall into darkness” AS AN ANOINTED OF GOD!!! Hmmmmmm, ever happen to you? Do you ever ‘fall into darkness, feel like you’re in hell – so distant from God due to your ‘actions’ that here and now do judge you unto repentance by the Holy Spirit?!?!?!! I know of NO OTHER WAY. I HAVE NO OTHER REFERENCE TO MY LIFE WITH GOD BUT THIS. Do I call out to God in hell to help me?! Do I ask Him to save me and do I profess the HE is ALONE my ONLY Savior while I’m in HELL: “holen- German-”darkness”/ Sheol – Hebrew- “darkness/ phulake – Greek -“prison (as known as the dark caverns guarded by the prison watch)

Might I remind you that King David spoke to God using the exact same words as the Aristotelian defined, “Kolosus”, by David’s enemies being in the process of the ‘destroyed enemies’ in order that THEY could ‘’come back to be ashamed”. Who are the “THEY” if they are both sent off to ‘eternal damnation’ and yet, “come back to be ashamed”?!??!?!?! Refer to the previous paragraph!

Here are Christ’s words in Matthew 25 echoed in Psalms 6:9: “Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity; for the LORD has heard the voice of my weeping”..(David continues this prayer in Psalms 6:10, “Let all my enemies be ashamed and sorely vexed; LET THEM RETURN AND BE ASHAMED”.

Is this NOT a *RETURN* – repentance?! Is this NOT a return to the ‘acknowledgement’ of their wrong?! Is this not the meaning of “REPENTANCE” —metanoia –’a changed mind, a repented mind’?!?!? Yes, yes it is!!! Again, Is this NOT the VERY usage of “Kolosis”—”Judgment” in the Greek New Testament of Christ’s words that Aristotle used of “JUDGMENT- Kolosus”!?!? Let’s go on:

GOING BACK TO THE TEXT OF CHRIST’S ‘JUDGMENT’

Jesus continues to express *those* who did NOT give charity: “…as you did not do unto the least of them you did not do it unto ME”.

*These beings* who act as non-charitable are not the full ‘being’, not the ontological-‘’coming to be” –whole “ person who is FINALLY RECTIFIED. If there was the word, “REVENGE”, as Aristotle continues, it would be for the benefit of the Avenger. This ‘revenge’ would be “in reaction” to an act by the infractor of the Law. Aren’t works of the Law Destroyed by Christ?! The VERY THING that holds to account damnation upon the infractor of the Law?!?!

Again, look at the words in Matthew 25:40: “The KING (! quoting King David right here from Psalms 5-6!) will say, –The KING will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me. Then he (King David – past in foreshadowed *language*) will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels….”. .

Are not even the angels subdued under Christ’s feet at the end where death, hell, all powers and principalities subdued?! Continuing Matthew 25: “…..will go away into everlasting punishment ( kolasin aionion —durative infliction for the benefit of the sinner as Aristotle defined and original language used in the New Testament), but the righteous into eternal life”.

These are two different allotments and two kinds of ‘beings’. Once again, Aristotle does indeed use this term in his “rhetoric”: Aristotle: “Kolosus (judgment)” is used for the SAKE/ BENEFIT of the one being punished” – i.e., IN ORDER FOR REMISSION OF THE SIN!/ A RECTIFICATION!!!

The eternal scourging (not our English idea of “Eternity” from the perverted Latin Vulgate, “Aeturnus”, which was moreover used in the Medieval King James *version*) is a tool put upon the ‘evil doer’ in order for their eye or hand to burn and not them! Aristotle says that “anger for revenge (Greek: “ekdikes – the action of inflicting harm or hurt on someone for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands} is a “habit based on appetite that is rooted in emotions–human emotions” –> cf. Aristotle’s “Rhetoric”–Book 1/ Chapter 10/ vs. 13 in the “Basic Writings of Aristotle”. This kind of revenge is ‘retributory’ and you see it working in legalism throughout the Middle East. Wars find their way fairly easy into such common grounds of “eye for an eye” mentality.

Once more: Kolosin Aeonon = “a duration or time of beneficial affliction to bring one back to restoration”. THIS is the meaning in the classical, Platonic and Aristotelian Greek from which the New Testament was the “catcher’s mitt” for such terms. Therefore, terms such as judgment, salvation, faith, God, Logos, etc. have been all too familiar for the Greek speaking New Testament Church who knew EXACTLY what they meant when they were edified and taught their children in the Paideia!!!

Where do we see Hell as a real place? I see it HERE and NOW. It has meaning if IT is Here and Now.

by

The Classical Greek Paideia was originally the classical education for the early Greek youth. The central Philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle comprised a large component of this Paideia. Language, Logic, and Rhetoric were the primers by which all further study into the sciences could ‘rationally’ be obtained. The language by which these primers functioned was a result of Platonic and Aristotelian reasoning and cultural bearing.

Therefore, any word used in the Paideia (language, logic, rhetors) was *refined*, delineated, syllogistically filtered, deduced, re-examined, etc. The words found in the Paideia were therefore known in the sense by which their Greek “glossary” used its “howness”. It is no wonder that the word, “Disciple”, in the Platonic, Aristotelian, …and, yes, Biblical New Testament language was called the “Mathetikon” or “mathematician (of the Words)”.

To add, this “howness” would have been used in its Platonic and Aristotelian sense. Might I add here that I do not in any way disenfranchise Plato and Aristotle from Greek culture, rather, they simply are the most notable fountainheads of Greek culture.

The New Testament Greek language must be understood from its roots founded in The Paideia of the ancient pagan (amoral) Greeks. Therefore, the implementation of any word used in the New Testament was based centrally upon the verbal bank of Plato and Aristotle. Yes, there are other ‘sources’ but the well read Philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, were baptized by their Greek heritage and contemporaries. That is, Plato and Aristotle were the “result” of Greek Heritage…therefore, the consequential “Parents” of classical Greek scholasticism.

As a linguist, it is of most import to know the etymologies, morphological rules, socio-linguistic phenomena, etc. of any given language to fully comprehend its worth. It shouldn’t be a hard jump to understand that Alexander the Greek, the Hellenizer of Palestine brought with him the Greek culture by which Palestine was baptized into. Moreover, Alexander’s teacher was the renowned Aristotle himself!!! Straight from the horse’s mouth to the One who would order a new language be spoken.

Alexander, for sure, was the leopard in Daniel’s prophecy and a necessity for the spread of Christianity via Greek language and reason to a Hellenized pagan Europe.

With all that I have said, I conclude with this: there is consensus and concentrated agreement with HOW the Greek language was implemented in the days of the early Greek New Testament writers. For sure, the Gospel writers were Hellenized. Paul was highly educated both in the Hebrew and Greek systems of thinking and his fluency of both Hebrew and Greek was known and expressed in his writings. Therefore, it would be blasphemous on a secular and theological level to “Anglicize” the Paideia of the Pagan Greeks, the Paideia of the New Testament Christian Youth (taught by the Christian Mothers!) OR the New Testament Text.

Deep analysis of the HORRID perversion of Anglicizing the rest of the world will begin at the New Testament verses concerning “eternal damnation” in our 3rd piece to this series.

by

One could safely say that until the past century, especially at the point of understanding Einstein’s equation E=mc2 , “time” was relatively not understood. Moreover, the Universe was not understood as to how it worked. Spatiality was beheld by objects *relatable* such as “to the top of the mountain from here”, “where the land meets the ocean”, “the darkness created by the depth of an abyss”, “the unseen in the darkness of the waters”, etc. With this in mind, “relatable” objects such as the horizon (i.e. sky touching earth) would have been used to express where heaven meets the earth, hence, “eternity” was a ‘spatial understanding’ in that the earth stopped accounting for spatiality.

Another example of relatable understanding: the sun was the roving eye of God searching the hearts of humankind and scanning the actions of humankind as it appeared in the sky or heavens where God abided.

The earth might have been seen as ‘round’ but as a globe probably not. Therefore, to the ‘primitive’ genius, the ‘water-course’ of the seas ‘circled’ the flat-circular earth. It is within these waterways that our primitive-genius ancestors find the lore, of sorts, that “Leviathan” swims his course ‘round the earth. What a great story to tell your children when not wanting them to get too close to the water!

These were primitive understandings but not stupid. “Primitive” is the strongest-purest foundation by which all other mental structures are established. So, as I stated- “primitive-genius”- I meant it. “Genius” means to ‘be joined’, ‘to be connected’ to everything and ‘act’ or ‘participate’ within this *connectivity* or *genius*. For each level of evolution of participation of the figurations of WORD signaling, we have deeper fulfillment to the higher complexity of the original generative WORD. The “Genius” is Pregnant with higher fulfillments yet to come both semiotically and spiritually. Therefore, I witness that each Biblical epoch/ era/ aeon/ etc. was needed to fulfill a greater archetype (as do we need the grace to ‘evolve’). We will see that the terms“permanence” and “eternity” will use the terms ‘epoch’, ‘era’, and ‘aeon’ to substantiate the vagaries of contextual meaning later on in the Biblical text and pagan authors by which the Bible borrowed.

Truths of God were not the same as the Biblical Patriarch’s understanding of their surroundings. Nonetheless, there was a symbiosis between YHVH and Israel through YHVH’s ‘metalogue’.

God might say “forever” concerning HIS statutes …yet, there was no example of specific relatable ‘time mapping’, only conceptualizing of ‘referred continuance’ by the tools given to the primitive sense not lesser ‘sense’. (“Forever”: Hebrew: Olam: Genesis 9:12; Ecclesiastes 12:5;

Isaiah 26:4; Psalm 145:13; etc. { all such usages allude to a ‘duration’ of non-accounting}). As we delve into the concept of “permanence” vs. “eternal” we will see ‘relational differences such as ‘being with God in a “RELATIONSHIP” that never ends versus and ‘PERMANENT’ ordinance that “NEVER ENDS” but is superseded by it’s fulfilments and becomes the stronger “archetype” for its “exponential ‘primacy’ “.

To conclude:

The Biblical Patriarch/ Matriarch was a recipient of God’s Word and had a limited skill set for a specific purpose. Nonetheless, the conveyed Words were relayed by God while the recipient of God’s Words participated in obedience. Obedience is the key word. Obedience is necessary to have completion of God’s telegraphed ending to HIS Narrative = our Marriage to Him.

For the Primitive-Genius to ‘analyze’ or ‘parse’ the etymologies of God’s Rema or divine expressions would be not only ludicrous but, in Old Testament Times, idolatrous. This is the evolution of consciousness and levels over time of “how” a tribe is to participate with the God of Ancient Israel. “Analysis” would begin the VERY YEAR that Judah was taken captive (last of the 3 deportations) by Babylon. Thales would introduce deductive thinking and jumpstart a new ‘era’ of ‘anatomizing’ versus ‘collectively participating’. Genius would leave and Wit (Greek: ‘eido’ = “to see”/ “observe”) would begin.

by

SETS OF ‘MOTIONS’ / PLATO’S DIALOGUES TO BIBLICAL FULFILLMENT

Loeb Classics; Plato; Cratylus; pg 121; vs. 418

SET ONE OF ‘MOTIONS’

Dei’on – “obligation” (Root: ‘to go through’)

*de’o—-* (root of Dei’on) – “to bind” as a prisoner or animal—-Mt. 18:18

(Cf. “Deismos” as cognate)

Blaberon (cognate)

SET TWO OF ‘MOTIONS’

(Plato says that these particular names signify the principle of *arrangement* and *motion*

Owe-fee’-lee-mohn – “useful”

Lusitelon – “profitable”

Kerda.lay’on – “gainful”

Agathon – “good”

Ksoom-fe’ron – “advantageous”

Euphoron – “prosperous”

SET THREE OF MOTIONS

Zay.mee.OH’.dayce “that which binds motion” – in a good way (halting from trouble)

(Other spelling: daymiOH’dayce = good”)

SET FOUR OF MOTIONS

Hay.doe.nay (from, “hedonism”) – “pleasure”

Lupay – “pain”

Epithumea – “desire”

SET FOUR OF MOTIONS

Hay.doe.nay (from, “hedonism”) – “pleasure”

Lupay – “pain”

Epithumea – “desire”

SET FIVE OF MOTIONS

‘Haydonay’ – ‘the action that tends towards advantage 

(Root of haydonay: “eonay” – PN – TO BREATHE

LUPAY – “dissolution of the body which takes place through the process of pain”

Ania – “sorrow – that which hinders motion”

(Root to ‘ania’: “algaynos” – “distress” – “having a hard time”

SET SIX OF MOTIONS

Odu’nay – “grief; putting on the pain; 

Aksthaydon – “vexation” – as in weight 

Aksthos – “burden” – “as vexation of weight puts upon motion”

Loeb Classics; Plato; Cratylus; pg 125; 420, B, .5

SET SEVEN OF MOTIONS

Doxa  (“opinion” – i.e., ‘shooting for the goal or intention to meaning without knowledge or certainty as of yet’).

In Plato’s dialogue, Doxa comes from the pursuit {‘dioxis’} which the soul carries on as it pursues the knowledge of the nature of things, or, most likely, from the *SHOOTING OF THE BOW (toxon)*; i.e., though we can’t say for sure that we have hit the mark, we are aiming with good intention. 

Oi’.ay.sis – “belief” —- “the sense of the MOTION of the soul towards the essential nature of every individual thing (i.e., *trajectory*; *intention*; *goal towards someTHING; from the universal to the particulars {from the Heavenly to the Earthly—Kyle})

Just as “oi.ay.sis” acts in its motion, so does “Boulay”.

Boulay –  “intention” – denotes “shooting (Bolay)”

Boulesthai – “wish”

Bouleu’esthai – “plan” = denoting “aiming at something”

SET EIGHT OF MOTIONS

Kara – “joy”

Diakoosis – “of the flow of the soul”

Terpsis – “delight”

Terpnon – “creeping of the soul” – “delightful”

{page: 123; vs. 419}

(Root of “terpnon” – *-pnoay [pne-] = “breath”)

Eufrosu’ne – “mirth” = {“harmony with all things/ universe}

{eu – well; good + sunay – “all things ‘summed’/ ‘joined’ (together)”

EpithuMEE.ah – “desire”; thumos = thusis = “boiling over; boiling of”

*’Ee.oo.sa* = “goes into thumos” – cf. below with above

SET NINE OF MOTIONS

Hay’.me.roos – “longing”; “the day”; 

(Root: “hay’.mee” + “rous”

** Hay.mee.ros** = emera + roos = longing for the flow; the flow that goes away; takes away; the “rush away as a stream from the soul”; “yearning”

(Cf hay.meh.nos)

Pothos- “yearning”

“Allothi pou” – “that which is elsewhere”

“Hay.me.roos” “present (object)” – “The Day that Has Come Upon””

“Pothos” – “absent”

*Eros – “flows in from out” 

(Cf. Root Eros —> root: “esrei” = ‘eis’ = ‘into’ + “roos” = ‘river’ = ‘flows INTO as a river [ from an outside source]. 

SET TEN OF MOTIONS

Aboulia – “evil”; “without intention”, “ill-advised” (cf. to notes below)

(“A” = alpha privative = Greek prefix for making negative, negating the meaning)

So, Boulay + alpha privative = “Aboulay” – “evil”; “ill advised; without intention, plan, goal, desire, wish, trajectory; *therefore, a *failure to hit* = cf. “sin” = Greek: “harmateia” = sin, senex, sine, missing the mark (even if planned to hit the mark)

Anankay – (‘anagkay’ = ana’g {“g” takes the nasal/liquid-“n”}kay) – “compulsion”

Hekou’sion – “voluntary” —( Hekou’sion means ‘voluntary’ because ‘hekou’sion’ comes *in line* with the ‘events’ of motion to the *YIELDING* (Greek:eikon = English: ‘icon’) and not in opposition. 

Anankay is the converse of of “hekou’sion” and is ‘compulsory’ and ‘resistant’, which is contrary to the will and is associated with error and ignorance. Anankay is likened to *walking through ravines (‘ankay’ {cf. “angst”}), because they are hard to traverse, rough, and rugged, and *RITARD MOTION*. 

SET ELEVEN OF MOTIONS

CONVERSE OF NOBLEST AND THEIR HINDRANCE TERMS OF MOTION 

Aletheia (‘to wander with’ + ‘god (goddess)’ = “To wander with the God”); “Divine Motion”; Divine Motion of the Universe

Pseudos – “the opposite of Motion”; ‘held back and kept silent – hence, associated with ‘slumberers’ – heu’dousi {the addition of “ps” {or “psi”}, says Plato through Socrates’ daemon {deity mind}, simply conceals the ‘slumber’ word, “heu’dousi”.

Onoma – signifying “this is *a being about* which our search is”.

Summation

So, Aletheia means ‘motion forward’, Pseudos is known by being the opposite of “truth” or “aletheia” —-the slumber from Divine motion, and onoma

*signifies* what the divine wandering is about. 

This summation gives us hints to our New Testament Theology within the Greek. “Nomos” is the Name is “onoma” is “authority”. Jesus is the “Name” of God represented on earth. His “motion” was THE *Sign* or “Onoma” of God the Father’s Will or “boulay”. The Disciples *followed* or *wandered* with the Name of God, the Onoma of God-Father, aka, Jesus. Their ‘motion’ driven by the God on earth followed in line with the Narration of the Universal Divine Motion of doing and fulfillment. Pseudos, to my view, indicates the ‘hated’ mentioned in Romans 9. “Before they were born, God loved Jacob and hated Esau. The “slumber” is the meaning of Esau. As the Greek gives us “miseo” for “hate” in this passage of Romans 9, it does NOT say, “I, the Lord, despise you”, rather, it means “dismiss”, “not include for the narration of motion of Divine Wandering, hence, the Jews to Jesus to the Disciples to us. The “Sign (onoma)” of God is in US now. This does NOT mean that Esau, as the Middle Eastern race, shall be damned. Rather, for now, Islam is not the indicative “Onoma” of Grace, forgiveness, salvation through Jesus’ atoning blood. This is simply factual and not condescending. 

Calvert Watkins’, “How to kill a Dragon”, explains “hindrance (from the societal ideas of “stoppage”)” as stoppage of waterways to plenish their respective cultures.

by

Yahweh, the cult of metallurgy.

Everywhere the ensign of Yahweh went so did the secret art of the cauldron and its smithy go. Kennites (the Canaanite smelters) are the Cainites are the Khanites. Cain never stopped believing in Yahweh.

In antiquity, south-eastern Canaan was a very important centre for copper smelting. While it is likely that there existed a patron deity of metallurgy, the identity of the Canaanite god of smelting remains unknown. Although some biblical writings suggest a south Canaanite origin of Yahweh, no details are provided concerning his worship prior to him becoming the god of Israel. This study explores whether Yahweh was formerly the Canaanite god of metallurgy. The following observations corroborate this hypothesis: (1) Yahweh was worshiped by the Edomites, and especially by the Kenites, a small tribe regarded as the Canaanite smelters; (2) the Israelite cult of Yahweh was associated with copper and with a bronze serpent, a typical symbol of metallurgy; (3) the melting of copper is considered in Exodus 4 as the specific sign of Yahweh; (4) a parallel exists between Yahweh and the god of metallurgy worshiped in Egypt (Ptah), Mesopotamia (Ea/Enki) and Elam (Napir), all of them being a mysterious lonely deity; (5) fighting the (other) gods is common to Yahwism and to ancient metallurgical traditions. These data suggest that, before becoming publicly worshipped in Israel, Yahweh was formerly the god of the Canaanite guild of metallurgists. Keywords: Cain, copper smelting, Yahweh, Edom, Kenite, origin of monotheism.

Until now, investigations into the origin of Yahweh worship have remained highly speculative, not least because the deity is almost ignored outside of the biblical writings. Many scholars have emphasized the occurrence of a crisis of polytheism during the second half of the second millennium BCE in Egypt, Canaan and Mesopotamia.1 In such a context, some scholars have proposed a foreign origin for Yahweh.2 And yet, no evidence exists towards a foreign cult of Yahweh. Other scholars have assumed the existence of an endemic tribal cult of Yahweh in Canaan prior to the deity’s metamorphosis into the ‘national god’ of Israel. In this case, the increasing importance of Yahweh would result from a political expansion of the tribes worshiping him, and monotheism would emerge as a consequence of a gradual subordination of all Canaanite gods to Yahweh prior to their progressive ‘collapse’.3 However, such a ‘gradualist’ explanation is not entirely satisfying. The raising up of a clan-deity and his transformation into a ‘national god’ is considered as a common feature in the history of religion, yet it does not always evolve towards monotheism. Furthermore, as observed with the raise of Marduk at Babylon, the transformation of a clan-deity into a national deity is generally concomitant with the concentration of political power towards the town this god patronized. In the Canaan of the early Iron Age, no such concentration of political power can be used to justify the collapse of the whole pantheon. Shechem, a place of central importance for the ancient Israelite religion,4 was not the capital of any vast kingdom at the beginning of the first millennium BCE. Even Jerusalem, the town sub- sequently associated with Yahweh, was formerly patronized by Shalem, an epithet of the Canaanite god Resheph.5

Since no substantial evidence exists to confirm the gradualist sequence from local clan-deity to universal monotheism, a ‘latent monotheism or monolatry’ inherent to the Canaanite culture is sometimes postulated in order to account for the emergence of Yahwism. 6 However, such an ad hoc argument is no more than an attempt to convert the final conditions into a ‘starting point’, thus transforming the historical explanation into a tautology. By analysis of biblical texts, some scholars have assumed for a long time that Yahweh was formerly worshipped in the south of Canaan (especially in Edom and/or by the Kenites).7 The claim that ‘Yahweh comes from Seir’8 has been strengthened by the discovery of Canaanite inscriptions evoking ‘Yahweh of Teman’,9 but also by Egyptian writings mentioning Negeb and northern Sinai as ‘the land of Ywh’.10

The idea of an Edomite origin for Yahweh may be of crucial impor- tance for discovering his former identity, because the south-eastern part of Canaan was known from the earliest times as a very important place for copper metallurgy.11 At Punon (Feynan), the most important centre of metallurgy in the Arabah, archaeologists have estimated that between

6. For example, Norbert Lohfink (‘Gott und die G tter im Alten Testament’, Theologische Akademie 6 [1969], pp. 50-71 [mentioned by Gnuse, No Other Gods, p. 91]) assumes that a latent monotheism or monolatry existed in the ancient Near East.

7. The southern origin of Yahweh was already suggested in the nineteenth century; see, for example, Karl Budde, Die Religion des Volkes Israel bis zur Verbannung (Giessen: Alfred T pelmann, 1900). Recent scholars defending this opinion are discussed by Gnuse, No Other Gods, and include G sta Ahlstr m (see pp. 77-79), Hermann Vorlander (see pp. 86-88) and P. Kyle McCarter (see pp. 97-98).

8. Judg. 5.4: ‘LORD, when you went out from Seir, when you marched from the region of Edom’. For the correspondence between Seir and the land of Edom, see Z. Kallai, ‘The Campaign of Chedorlaomer and Biblical Historiography’, Shnaton 10 (1989), pp. 153-70.

9. See J.A. Emerton, ‘New Light on Israelite Religion: The Implications of the Inscriptions from Kuntillet Ajrud’, ZAW 94 (1982), pp. 2-20. See also A. Lemaire, ‘Les inscriptions de Khirbet el-Qom et l’Ashera de YHWH’, RB 84 (1977), pp. 595-608; J. Hadley, ‘The Khirbet el-Qom Inscriptions’, VT 37 (1987), pp. 39-49.

10. See de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, p. 111. See also M. Weinfeld, ‘The Traditions Relative to Moses and Jethro at Mount Elohim’, Tarbiz 56 (1988), pp. 449-60 (Hebrew). See also K.A. Kitchen, ‘The Egyptian Evidence on Ancient Jordan’, in P. Bienkowski (ed.), Early Edom and Moab: The Beginning of Iron Age in Southern Jordan (Sheffield Archaeological Monographs, 7; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), pp. 21-34.

11. E.A. Knauf and C.J. Lanzen, ‘Edomite Copper Industry’, in A. Hadidi (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan (Amman: Department of Antiquities, 1987), III, pp. 83-88.

Downloaded from http://jot.sagepub.com at UBO Bibliotek for on June 8, 2009

390 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33.4 (2009) 150,000 and 200,000 tons of slag resulted from copper metallurgy in the period from the Chalcolithic to the Iron Age.12 Even the emergence of Edom as a political entity, during the first millennium BCE, has been related to the sudden increase in mining and smelting activities in this area.13 Thus, it would be extremely surprising if metallurgy had not impacted the Edomite way of life and religion.

Based on the central importance of Levantine copper smelting from the earliest times,14 the patron of the Canaanite smelters would certainly have been famous. And yet, strikingly, this deity has not been yet identi- fied among the 240 Canaanite deities mentioned in the Ugaritic texts.15 In parallel, it is interesting to notice that the Ugaritic texts also ‘forgot’ to mention Yahweh. All these indications invite the testing of the hypothe- sis that Yahweh was formerly the Canaanite god of metallurgy. 2. Yahweh, an Edomite God Many ‘theophoric’ names including the divine name Qos have been found in Edom. Accordingly, it has been assumed that Qos was the main 12. V.C. Pigott, ‘Near Eastern Archaeometallurgy: Modern Research and Future Directions’, in J.S. Cooper and G.M. Schwartz (eds.), The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-first Century (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996), pp. 139-76. According to these authors, a collapse in copper metallurgy industry is observed during the second millennium BCE. 13. Bienkowski (ed.), Early Edom and Moab, pp. 1-13. Concerning the metallurgic activity in Edom at the beginning of the first millennium BCE, see T. Levy et al. ‘Reassessing the Chronology of Biblical Edom: New Excavations and 14C Dates from Khirbat en-Nahas (Jordan)’, Antiquity 302 (2004), pp. 865-79. 14. See G.N. Amzallag, The Copper Revolution: Canaanite Smelters and the Origin of Civilizations (Shani: Hameara, 2008 [Hebrew]). 15. See J.C. de Moor, ‘The Semitic Pantheon of Ugarit’, UF 2 (1970), pp. 187-218. Canaanite gods have been identified in recently discovered Ugaritic texts, but the god of metallurgy is yet absent from these writings. See D. Pardee, Les textes para-mytho- logiques de la 24e campagne (Paris: Edition Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1988). In Ugaritic mythology, Kothar is the god who produces copper artifacts both for the other deities and for the heroes, suggesting that he was the patron of the coppersmiths. However, one has to keep in mind that during Antiquity, smelting (the genesis of copper from ore) and metal craft (the cold-working, hot-working and casting of copper) were activities carried out by distinct corporations; see T. Levy and S. Shalev, ‘Prehistoric Metalworking in the Southern Levant: Archaeometallurgical and Social Perspectives’, World Archaeology 20 (1989), pp. 352-72. See also Amzallag, The Copper Revolution, pp. 46-63. Thus it is likely that the patron of metal crafts and the god of metallurgy were distinct entities.

Downloaded from http://jot.sagepub.com at UBO Bibliotek for on June 8, 2009

Edomite deity.16 However, nothing is known about Qos worship since no public cult is found in Edom.17 Neither is the interpretation of Qos as the main Edomite deity supported by the biblical writings, where this name is never mentioned. In fact, the name of no other Edomite is mentioned. This situation contrasts with the explicit mention of Chemosh and Milkom as the ‘national’ deities of Moab and Amon respectively.18 This silence about the Edomite deity is probably not incidental. Edom, the bitter enemy of Israel, is never blamed for idolatry by the prophets. This suggests that Edom did not oppose Israel in the name of any other god.19 The silence of the biblical writings about the Edomite deity provides circumstantial evidence for its identification with Yahweh. Further indications strengthen this claim. First, Edom is qualified as ‘the land of wisdom’ in Jer. 49.7 and Obad- iah 8. In a monotheistic context, it is difficult to assume that wisdom would have a source other than Yahweh.

Furthermore, it seems that the book of Job, the main ‘wisdom book’ of the Bible, has an Edomite origin,20 thus strengthening the linkage between Edom and Yahweh. Second, the worship of Yahweh in Edom is explicitly mentioned in Isa. 21.11 (‘One is calling to me [Yahweh] from Seir’), and the duty of Yahweh in regard to his Edomite worshippers is stressed by Jer. 49.11 (‘Leave [Edom] your orphans, I [Yahweh] will keep them alive; and let your widows trust in me’). 16. See J.A. Dearman, ‘Edomite Religion: A Survey and an Examination of Some Recent Contributions’, in D.V. Edelman (ed.), You Shall Not Abhor an Edomite for He is Your Brother (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), pp. 119-36.

17. See also J.R. Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites (JSOTSup, 77; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989) (see especially Chapter 11: ‘Religion in Edom’, pp. 187-207).

18. For Chemosh, see, for example, Num. 21.29; Judg. 11.24. Concerning Milkom, see 1 Kgs 11.33 and 2 Kgs 23.13.

19. Concerning the outstanding position of Edom in the prophetic literature, see B. Dicou, Edom, Israel’s Brother and Antagonist: The Role of Edom in Biblical Prophecy and Story (JSOTSup, 169; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994).

20. About the Edomite origin of the book of Job, Uz, the country of Job (Job 1.1), has been identified with Edom in Lamentations (4.21). Teman, the homeland of Eliphaz (Job 4.1), is also located in the south of Canaan. The name Job has been also related to Jobab, mentioned in Gen. 36.33 as a grandson of Esau and king of Edom. Furthermore, a short text very similar to a fragment of the book of Job has recently been discovered at Khirbet Uzza (south of the Dead Sea), providing further evidence for the Edomite origin of the book of Job. See V. Sasson, ‘An Edomite Joban Text with a Biblical Joban Parallel’, ZAW 117 (2006), pp. 601-15.

Downloaded from http://jot.sagepub.com at UBO Bibliotek for on June 8, 2009

392 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33.4 (2009) Third, according to the book of Exodus, Esau–Edom and not Jacob– Israel had to inherit Yahweh’s benediction from Isaac (Exod. 27.2-4). This suggests that, before emergence of the Israelite alliance, Esau was the ‘legitimate trustee’ of the Yahwistic traditions.21

1. The Israelite nazirim (the men self-consecrated to Yahweh in Israel) are compared by Jeremiah to the Edomites: ‘For thus says the LORD: If those [the Israelite nazirim] who do not deserve to drink the cup still have to drink it, shall you [Edom] be the one to go unpunished? You shall not go unpunished; you must drink it.’22 Such a parallel between the elite of the Israelite worshippers (nazirim) and the Edomite people as a whole also suggests that Edom was the first ‘land of Yahweh’.

2. The primacy of Edom did not disappear quickly from the Israelite collective memory. This point is clearly stressed by Amos (9.11-12): ‘On that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen, and repair its breaches, and raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old; in order that they may possess the remnant of Edom…’ Together, these five points suggest the conclusion that Yahweh was truly the main (if not the only) deity worshipped in Edom. In this case, it is likely that (1) the name of Yahweh was not used publicly in Edom,23 and (2) ‘Qos’ was an Edomite epithet for Yahweh rather than an autonomous deity.24

21. This prevalence is confirmed by the fact that Jacob had to disguise himself as Esau in order to receive Yahweh’s benediction (Exod. 27.20-26).

22. See Jer. 49.12. A similar parallel is established in the book of Obadiah (16). This linkage confirms the relationship existing between the Kenites, Edom and Yahweh. The interdiction against consuming wine is common to the nazirim in Israel (Num. 6.2-3; Judg. 13.4-5; Amos 2.12) and to the Kenites (Jer. 35.5-6).

23. A lack of public use of the name of the metallurgic deities is well known and relates to the initiatory dimension of the cults related to metallurgy; see Amzallag, The Copper Revolution, pp. 64-97; and M. Eliade, Forgerons et Alchimistes (Paris: Flammarion, 1977), pp. 45-53. Even though the Israelite cult of Yahweh was public, it seems that the ‘use’ of his name was submitted to severe restrictions (see, e.g., Exod. 20.7 and Deut. 5.11).

24. See M. Rose, ‘Yahweh in Israel—Qaus in Edom?’, JSOT 4 (1977), pp. 28-34.

Downloaded from http://jot.sagepub.com at UBO Bibliotek for on June 8, 2009

AMZALLAG Yahweh, the Canaanite God of Metallurgy? 393 3. The Metallurgic Dimension of Yahwism

Yahweh, a Kenite God

From the earliest of times, production of metal from ore (a stone) in the furnace was interpreted as an act of creation of matter.25 Interestingly, the name Cain derives from the Semitic root (QN) that formerly referred to acts of creation.26 Accordingly, it is not surprising that Cain is the common name of the smelters in ancient Canaanite, and that Tubal-cain is regarded in the book of Genesis as ‘the father of every smith’ (Gen. 4.22).

The Kenites (the sons of Cain), a small tribe mentioned in the Bible, have been identified for a long time as the Canaanite copper metallur- gists.27 Bringing together data from many biblical sources reveals that this small tribe originated from the land of Edom, and especially to the area of Bozrah–Sela–Punon,28 the homeland of the Canaanite copper metallurgy.

The intimate link existing between Yahweh and the Kenites is strengthened by the following observations:

1. The first mention of Yahweh (neither Elohim nor Yahweh– Elohim) in the book of Genesis is related to the birth of Cain: ‘Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have produced a man with the help of the LORD’ (Gen. 4.1). This may be a symbolic way to claim that the ‘discovery’ of Yahweh is concomitant to the discovery of metallurgy.

2. Enosh is mentioned in Genesis as the first man who worshipped Yahweh: ‘To Seth also a son was born, and he names him Enosh. At that time people began to invoke the name of the LORD’ (Gen. 4.26). Interestingly, Enosh is the father of Keynan (= Cain). Again, the worship of Yahweh appears to have been linked to the discovery of metallurgy.

25. This explains why metallurgists were generally considered as men with divine powers. See Eliade, Forgerons et alchimistes, pp. 71-81; M. Martin, Magie et magiciens dans l’Antiquit (Paris: Errance, 2005), pp. 17-54. See also Amzallag, The Copper Revolution, pp. 46-63.

26. This initial meaning is mentioned in Gen. 14.19, where the verb qnh is used to express the act of creation of the earth and the heaven by ‘El Elyon’.

27. See S. Abramsky, ‘The Kenites’, ErIs 3 (1953), pp. 116-24 (Hebrew). See also M. Rosen and S. Bendor, The Origin of Kingdom in Israel: An Introduction to the Book of Samuel (Tel Aviv: Sifryat Poalim, 1959 [Hebrew]).

28. See Abramsky, ‘The Kenites’. Downloaded from http://jot.sagepub.com at UBO Bibliotek for on June 8, 2009

394

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33.4 (2009)

The Kenites had a sign (taw) on their forehead. From Gen. 4.15, it appears that this sign signalled that Yahweh protects Cain and his sons. From Ezek. 9.4-6, it seems that, at the end of the First Temple period, a similar sign remained the symbol of devotion to Yahweh.

The book of Jeremiah confirms the existence of a Kenite wor- ship of Yahweh as follows: ‘Jonadab son of Rechab shall not lack a descendant to stand before me [Yahweh] for all time’ (Jer. 35.19).29

When considered together, these data suggest that Yahweh was inti- mately related with the metallurgists from the very discovery of copper smelting.

Yahweh and Copper Smelting

An essential link between Yahweh and copper is suggested in the book of Zechariah, where the dwelling of the God of Israel is symbolized by two mountains of copper (Zech. 6.1-6). In his prophecies, Ezekiel describes a divine being as ‘a man was there, whose appearance shone like copper’ (Ezek. 40.3), and in another part of this book, Yahweh is even explicitly mentioned as being a smelter (Ezek. 22.20).30

In Isa. 54.16, Yahweh is explicitly mentioned as the creator of both the copperworker and his work: ‘See it is I who have created the smith who blows the fire of coals, and produces a weapon fit for its purposes’. Such an involvement of Yahweh is never mentioned elsewhere for other crafts or human activities.

Extensive use of copper is made in the construction of the ‘tabernacle of Yahweh’ (Exod. 27)and the Jerusalem temple (1 Kgs 7). In the latter case, the entrance to the temple is described as being flanked by two large columns wholly made of copper (termed Boaz and Yakhin, 1 Kgs 7.15-22). These two bronze columns are not pillars supporting the roof the Temple. Devoid of any architectural function, their presence should

29. This fidelity of smelters and smiths to the initial Yahwistic tradition may explain why the liberators of Judah, Israel and Jerusalem are depicted as smiths in the book of Zechariah (Zech. 2.3-4).

30. A similar association is encountered in the book of Zechariah (Zech. 13.9). It is interesting to notice that these visions are not simple popular metaphors. Both Ezekiel and Zechariah described processes of metal purification (fractionation through melting for Ezekiel and cupellation for Zechariah), suggesting that the authors of these two books had a deep knowledge not only of Yahwistic traditions, but also of metallurgy.

Downloaded from http://jot.sagepub.com at UBO Bibliotek for on June 8, 2009

AMZALLAG Yahweh, the Canaanite God of Metallurgy? 395 be considered as purely symbolic. By their outstanding dimensions (about 9 meters height and 2 meters in circumference), they were the most prominent symbol of the Temple.31 Interesting evidence of the essential link between Yahweh and copper metallurgy is provided by the story of the first ‘encounter’ between Moses and Yahweh on Mt Horeb, near the ‘burning bush’ (Exod. 3), where it is related that Moses is involved in the mission to deliver the sons of Israel from Egyptian tyranny. It is also stressed that Moses had to perform a ‘prodigy’ in order to demonstrate that he acts in the name of Yahweh (Exod. 4.5). This prodigy is depicted as the reversible transfor- mation of a matteh into a nahash (Exod. 4.2-5).

The term matteh is generally understood as designating a wood-made staff, but this meaning is probably secondary. From Isa. 10.15 and Ezek. 19.13-14 it appears that a matteh was formerly a copper scepter hung up on a wooden staff.32 The term nahash is generally translated as ‘serpent’. However, the closeness existing in Hebrew between the terms nahash (‘serpent’) and nehoshet (‘copper’) suggests that nahash may also designate copper.33

31. Also the ‘sea of copper’, another unique masterpiece of art of metallurgy (1 Kgs 7.23-36), is especially reminiscent of the praise of a god of metallurgy. The central importance of the bronze columns and the sea of bronze is also stressed in 2 Kgs 25: among the seven verses relating the Temple’s destruction (vv. 9, 10, 13-17), three (vv. 13, 16, 17) are devoted to the removal of the bronze columns and the sea of bronze. Apparently, this act was considered as the symbol of the Temple’s destruction.

32. The term matteh is explicitly used to designate the wooden staff in Exod. 17.16- 23. But the initial meaning is revealed in Isa. 10.15, when it is asked, ‘Shall the axe vaunt itself over the one who wields it, or the saw magnify itself against the one who handles it? As if a rod should raise the one who lifts it up, or as of a staff should lift the one who is not wood!’ If a matteh cannot be hung up without a wooden staff, it is clear that it is not the wooden staff itself but something that is fitted with it. Furthermore, in his lamentation about the destruction of Israel, Ezekiel mentions the fact that the staff supporting the matteh will burn and will provoke a qeyna (Ezek. 19.13-14), a term designating the smelting of copper (and by extension its melting). This strongly suggests that the matteh is a copper-scepter. In some cases, traces of wood have been found in the inner space of the scepter, confirming that such items were probably borne upon wooden staffs. See P. Bar Adon, The Cave of the Treasure (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1980).

33. The term nahash is also used to designate copper in languages closely related to Hebrew= (Ugaritic, Aramaic, Arabic). In the book of Chronicles, the term nahash is used once to designate copper: Ir Nahash was a town founded by a descendant of Celoub (Caleb), a clan of metalworkers (1 Chron. 4.11-12), so that it designates the town where

Downloaded from http://jot.sagepub.com at UBO Bibliotek for on June 8, 2009

396 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33.4 (2009)

Accordingly, the prodigy performed ‘in the name of Yahweh’ becomes the transformation of a copper artifact (matteh, the scepter) into melted copper (nahash, the serpent). It is interesting to notice that such a ‘prodigy’ (occurring not so far from the camp of Jethro the Kenite) happens after Moses threw his matteh on a hot source, the ‘burning bush’, which may be a poetic evocation of live charcoal. If the reversible matteh–nahash conversion is considered in the book of Exodus as a specific sign of Yahweh, this implies that this deity was intimately asso- ciated with copper melting,34 at least in the period prior to the Israelite Alliance.

4. Homology between Yahweh and the Other Gods of Metallurgy

In his comparative study, Forgerons et alchimistes, Mircea Eliade observed a high level of similarity in way of life and beliefs of metallur- gists all over the ancient world.35 This singularity has been related to their mode of organization as a guild of craftsmen travelling very long distances for trade, copper smelting and mining survey.36 This over- extended metallurgical network is, at least partly, the source of the broad degree of homogeneity among the Bronze Age civilizations.37 Strong similarities are observed between beliefs and traditions of metallurgists from Bronze Age cultures of Africa, Asia and Europe. Accordingly, we may expect to find affinities between the god of metallurgy from (among other places) Egypt, Mesopotamia, Elam and Yahweh, in the event that he is truly the Canaanite god of copper metallurgy. copper was smelted or worked (see Abramsky, ‘Ir Nahash’, in Encyclopaedia Biblica, VI [Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1971], pp. 218-19).

34. The production of molten copper occurs both during the smelting process and after heating copper ingots for casting. Thus, it is not exclusively related to smelting. Copper is molten not only during the smelting process (the production of metallic copper from ore), but also during the re-melting (purification, alloying and casting of the already-existing metal). However, these activities, being the late stages of production of copper, may be also integrated into the smelting process.

35. See Eliade, Forgerons et alchimistes, pp. 14-20.

36. See J.D. Muhly, ‘Copper and Tin: The Distribution of Mineral Resources and the Nature of the Metal Trade in the Bronze Age’ (unpublished PhD dissertation, Yale University, 1969). See also K. Kristiannsen and T.B. Larsson, The Rise of the Bronze Age Society: Travels, Transmissions and Transformations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). See also Amzallag, The Copper Revolution, pp. 22-45.

37. See Kristianssen and Larsson, The Rise of the Bronze Age Society.

Downloaded from http://jot.sagepub.com at UBO Bibliotek for on June 8, 2009

AMZALLAG Yahweh, the Canaanite God of Metallurgy? 397

The Mysterious Great God

The god of metallurgy generally appears as an outstanding deity. He is generally involved in the creation of the world and/or the creation of humans. The overwhelming importance of the god of metallurgy reflects the central role played by the copper smelters in the emergence of civilizations throughout the ancient world.

Ptah, the Egyptian god of metallurgy, was considered to be the source of the Ka, the vital principle dwelling both in gods38 and humans. He was also contemplated as a mysterious deity devoid of any shape, vitalizing the world as a whole.39 The Mesopotamian god of metallurgy, Ea/Enki, was one of the three main deities of the Akkadian pantheon.40 Like Ptah in Egypt, he was celebrated in Sumerian hymns as ‘the intelligent’, but also as the ‘lonely god’.41 At Dilmun, he was worshipped as the god that both created the world42 and opened a new era of prosperity. Ea/Enki was also the god reigning over the domain of Apsou, through which he ensured a perma- nent vitalization of the world.

Undoubtedly, these attributes conferred on Ea/Enki an outstanding position among the gods.43

Elam was termed ‘the country of copper’ in Mesopotamia, and archae- ology has confirmed the central importance of copper metallurgy in the

38. This special status should not be related only to the fact that Ptah was the tutelary god of Memphis. Amon-Re, the patron of Thebes, was also considered as the creator of the universe.

In order to make this association, the poets had first of all to identify him to Ptah. In the Theban papyrus 1350, it is written: ‘You [Amon] self-transform in Ta-Tenen (Ptah) to engender the first deities in the time of origins’ (S. Sauneron and J. Yoyote, ‘La naissance du monde selon l’Egypte ancienne’, in A.M. Esnoul and P. Garelli (eds.), La naissance du Monde [Paris: Seuil, 1959], p. 61).

39. See Sauneron and Yoyote, ‘La naissance’, pp. 73-74.

40. H. Koch, ‘Theology and Worship in Elam and Achemenid Iran’, in J.M. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (New York: Macmillan, 1995), III, pp. 1959– 65. Ea/Enki was regarded as the ‘father’ of the gods who patronized crafts, but he was also intimately related to metallurgy. Ea/Enki was the patron of Eridu (the town of Urud, which means ‘copper’), and also dwelled at Dilmun, a very important centre of metal- lurgy and copper working during the Bronze Age.

41. S.N. Kramer, ‘Enki and Ninhursag’, BASOR Supplement 1 (1945), vv. 65-66.

42. In the Dilmun myth of creation, Nintu, the earth-goddess, engendered the world after being impregnated by Enki.

43. A parallel exists between Hayoum (the living), the name given to Ea in the Ebla texts (see R.R. Stieglitz, ‘Ebla and the Gods of Canaan’, Eblaitica 2 [1990], pp. 79-89) and Elohim Hayim (the ‘living god’) used to designate Yahweh in the Bible (see 1 Sam. 17.26, 36; Jer. 10.10, 23,

36). A similarity may be also noticed between the Akkadian Ea and the Canaanite Ya or even Yahu.

Downloaded from http://jot.sagepub.com at UBO Bibliotek for on June 8, 2009

398 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33.4 (2009) development of the Elamite civilization.44 Akkadian scribes established a parallel between Napir (the great deity of Elam) and Ea, confirming that the Elamite religion is organized around metallurgy. However, beyond this evidence, the Elamite religion is still poorly understood.45 This obscure situation is partly due to the lack of traces of any official cult in Elam and the lack of representation of the gods. Even the names of the deities worshiped were generally hidden and replaced by attributes, as we see with Tempt (‘my lord’), Napir (‘the great’) or Kiririsha (‘the great goddess’).46 A similar mystery is found in Elam and in South Canaan concerning the cult related to metallurgy. This mystery features the lack of figuration of the deity, which is common to Yahweh and to the Elamite god of metallurgy.

The Bronze Serpent Cultic bronze serpents are frequently encountered at Dilmun, the land associated with metallurgy south of Sumer. Bronze serpents have also been found at Elam, and it seems that Napir, the great god associated with metallurgy, was symbolized by a human-headed bronze serpent.47 Enki, the Sumerian homolog of Napir, was also intimately associated with serpents.

Athena, the Greek goddess of crafts, was from ancient times represented as being associated with snakes. Her son Erechthonios (also the son of the smith god Hephaestus) was symbolized by a bronze

44. See T.F. Potts. Mesopotamia and the East: An Archaeological and Historical Study of Foreign Relations 3400–2000 BC (Archaeology Monograph, 37; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994).

45. R. Labat (‘Elam, c. 1600–1200 BC’, in The Cambridge Ancient History, II, Part 2 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975], pp. 379-416) concluded that ‘The original bases of the native religion [of Elam] still escape our knowledge’ (p. 416). Twenty years later, Koch (‘Theology and Worship’) opened his review paper on the Elamite religion as follows: ‘It is very difficult to say anything certain about Elamite religion’ (p. 1959).

46. The primordial importance of metallurgy is not restricted to the Near Eastern traditions. Also in Chinese mythology, the first deities are described as a couple of burning serpents (dragons, probably homolog to the Canaanite seraphim), Fu-Hi (male dragon) and Niu-Kua (female dragon). The latter engendered humankind. She has also instructed Yu the great, the first civilizing hero of China who was strongly associated to the metal element (as one of the five basic elements of the world). See M. Kaltenmark, ‘La Naissance du monde en Chine’, in Esnoul and Garelli (eds.), La naissance du Monde, pp. 457-61.

47. Labat, ‘Elam, c. 1600–1200 BC’.

Downloaded from http://jot.sagepub.com at UBO Bibliotek for on June 8, 2009

AMZALLAG Yahweh, the Canaanite God of Metallurgy? 399 serpent, and a sacred snake dwelled in the Erechtheum on the Acropolis of Athens.48 Cultic bronze serpents are also frequently encountered in Canaan.49 There association with metallurgy is suggested by the discovery of a bronze serpent in the Midianite shrine of Timna (dating from the end of the second millennium BCE), near the copper-ore mines.50 According to the books of Kings, a bronze serpent called Nehushtan was worshipped at Jerusalem until the reign of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18.4). Since this cult of a bronze serpent is not explicitly condemned as idolatry by the author of the book of Kings, it is likely that it was related to the (former) cult of Yahweh. Furthermore, it is claimed in the book of Numbers that this bronze serpent was made by Moses ‘in the name of Yahweh’ (Num. 21.8-9).51 This Nehushtan is termed seraph (‘the burning’) in Num. 21.8. This appellation may be related to the strong sensation of burning felt follow- ing the bite of the saw-scaled viper (Echis coloratus), a snake widespread in south Canaan, while Isaiah mentioned seraphim (‘burning snakes’) lauding the Israelite deity around his throne (Isa. 6.2-3). In this context, seraph probably does not evoke a dangerous snake.52 Naming a bronze

48. For testimonies about the serpent cult in the Erechtheum, see R. Parker, ‘Myths of Early Athens’, in J. Bremmer (ed.), Interpretations of Greek Mythology (London: Barnes & Noble, 1987), pp. 187-214. See also G. Ferrari, ‘The Ancient Temple on the Acropolis at Athens’, AJA 106 (2002), pp. 11-35.

49. In Canaan, cultic bronze serpents have been found in cultic areas at Megiddo, Gezer, Hazor, Tel Mevorakh and Shechem. At Hazor, the two bronze serpents have been discovered in the holy of holies area of the Temple; see K.R. Joines, ‘The Bronze Serpent in the Israelite Cult’, JBL 87 (1968), pp. 245-56. According to Mesnil du Buisson (Etude sur les dieux ph niciens h rit s par l’empire romain (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970), pp. 131- 36, this profusion of cultic bronze serpents suggests that the snake was the symbol of holiness in Canaan.

50. See B. Rothenberg, ‘The Alveolated Temple of the Timna Valley’, in Israel Am Vehaaretz (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv Museum, 1984), pp. 93-100. It seems that this Midianite sanctuary replaced an Egyptian temple devoted to Hathor, the goddess protecting the copper-ore mines.

51. This detail indicates that Moses is considered in the Bible both as the founding- father of the public cult of Yahweh in Israel and as a coppersmith (see G. Garbini, ‘Le serpent d’airain et Moise’, ZAW 100 [1988], pp. 264-67).

52. According to J. de Savignac (‘Les “seraphim” ’, VT 22 [1972], pp. 320-25), the seraphim should be assimilated to the Uraeus, the symbol of sanctity in Egypt. A parallel between the biblical Seraph and the Egyptian winged serpent (also being a symbol of deity and power) is clearly established by O. Keel (Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst [Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977], pp. 70-79).

Downloaded from http://jot.sagepub.com at UBO Bibliotek for on June 8, 2009

400 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33.4 (2009) serpent ‘burning’ evokes rather the melted copper released from a fur- nace, which winds on the ground before solidification. Again, in this case, Yahweh can be seen as strongly related to metallurgy.

Fighting the Gods

Fighting the gods is a common feature in metallurgic traditions.53 In Greece, the Cyclops (the creatures symbolizing the former metallur- gists54) are mentioned as the first creatures that revolted against Ouranos, the main god of the ancient pantheon, and against all the gods.55 Prome- theus, the one that revealed metallurgy to humankind, was also the hero that restricted forever the part devoted to the gods in sacrifices.56 The deity patronizing the metal crafts is frequently represented as a limping god. Bes, an avatar of the Egyptian patron of the smiths, was depicted with leg malformations. Hephaestus, the patron of the Greek smiths, was called ‘the famous cripple’ by Homer. Vulcain, his roman homolog, was also described as a limping god. A similar infirmity affected Volund, the patron of the Scandinavian smiths.57 The meaning of this singularity is revealed by the Greek mythology: Hephaestus limped because Zeus threw him down from the Olympus after he challenged his authority and that of all the other gods.58 According to the book of Genesis, Jacob had his name changed to Israel after he successfully fought against a ‘divine being’.59 Here again,

53. Eliade, Forgerons et alchimistes, pp. 54-59.

54. The Cyclops are sometimes depicted as assistants of Hephaestus in his workshop

or as metallurgists dwelling in the volcano of Lipari. See R. Graves, Greek Myths (Paris: Fayard, rev. French edn, 1967), section 22d, p. 132. See also C. Salles, Quand les dieux parlaient aux hommes (Paris: Tallandier, 2003), p. 170.

55. Chuvin, La mythologie grecque (Paris: Fayard, 1992), p. 39.

56. This characteristic has been maintained for a long time. In the Dogon mythology (Western Africa), the first metallurgist is considered as the hero who has challenged the gods for the benefit of humans (see L. Levi Makarius, Le sacr  et la violation des interdits [Paris: Payot, 1974], p. 128).

57. See Martin, Magie et Magiciens, p. 19. Concerning the initiatory dimension of the cult of Volund, see also R.L. Dieterle, ‘The Metallurgical Code of the Volundarkvida and its Theoretical Import’, History of Religions 27 (1987), pp. 1-31.

58. According to Homer (Iliad 1.586-94), it is Zeus who threw him from Olympus. Another interesting case of limping is reported by Apollodorus (1.6.3), who tells that Typhon, the serpent god, cut off the leg sinews of Zeus during their fight, provoking his limping.

59. ‘You shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with humans, and have prevailed’ (Gen. 32.28).

Downloaded from http://jot.sagepub.com at UBO Bibliotek for on June 8, 2009

AMZALLAG Yahweh, the Canaanite God of Metallurgy? 401 this victory was associated with a mutilation that caused him to limp: ‘When he [the divine being] saw that he did not prevail against him [Jacob], he struck him on the hip socket; and Jacob’s hip was put out of joint, as he wrestled with him’ (Gen. 32.25).

This association between the transformation of Jacob into Israel (the one who fights against gods) and his limping coincides with what is known in other metallurgical traditions. This suggests that the exclusive- ness of the cult of Yahweh in Israel is not a late development, which is generally assumed. Rather, it appears to be rooted in the ancient tradi- tions and way of thinking of metallurgists.

The Over-extended Domain of Yahweh It is very interesting to observe that, in the Bible, Yahweh is not exclusively linked to Israel.60 This point is clearly stressed in the book of Amos, where it is claimed: ‘On that day…they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my name, says the LORD who does this’ (Amos 9.11-12). Indeed, it appears from many biblical sources that Yahweh also ‘protects’ the Canaanite alliances of Edom, Moab and Amon, sometimes against the political interest of the Israelite Alliance.61

Even more intriguing is the special attention, in the book of Jeremiah, devoted to the far country of Elam:

I [Yahweh] will terrify Elam before their enemies, and before those who seek their life; I will bring disaster upon them, my fierce anger, says the LORD. I will send the sword after them, until I have consumed them; and I will set my throne in Elam, and destroy their king and officials, says the LORD. But in the latter days I will restore the fortunes of Elam, says the LORD (Jer. 49.37-39).

This oracle is amazingly similar to those devoted to Judah and Israel. Such a commitment concerning Elam suggests that the Elamites were

60. This reality is especially interesting considering that the south of Canaan is considered to be one of the world’s most ancient centres for metallurgy. See J.D. Muhly, ‘The Beginnings of Metallurgy in the Old World’, in R. Maddin (ed.), The Beginnings of the Use of Metals and Alloys (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1988), pp. 2-20.

61. It is especially mentioned that the Israelites cannot conquer the lands of Edom, Moab and Ammon, since Yahweh has given them forever to the sons of Esau (Deut. 2.5) and Lot (Deut. 2.9, 19). In Jer. 9.24-25, Edom, Moab and Ammon are considered together with Judah as the circumcised, the peoples of Yahweh. The Amos oracles against Amon, Moab, Damas or Edom (Amos 1 and 2) not only mention their ‘crimes’ against Judah and Israel, but also all the ‘crimes’ perpetrated between and among them in regard to Yahweh.

Downloaded from http://jot.sagepub.com at UBO Bibliotek for on June 8, 2009

402 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33.4 (2009) also regarded here as a ‘people of Yahweh’. In this case, however, one has to assume a homology (if not an identity) between Yahweh and Napir (‘the great god’), the main deity of Elam, who was also the god of metallurgy.

A singular statement of commitment of Yahweh towards Egypt appears in the book of Isaiah: ‘The Lord will strike Egypt, striking and healing; they will return to the Lord, and he will listen to their supplicants and heal them’ (Isa. 19.22). A similar promise concerning Yahweh’s redemption of Egypt is also found in the book of Ezekiel.62 Moreover, Egyptians are considered as being circumcised (Jer. 9.24), a detail generally mentioned in order to distinguish the people belonging to the Alliance of Yahweh from others. This is mentioned especially con- cerning the king of Egypt (Ezek. 31.18).63

Memphis was the symbol of unification of Egypt from the beginning of the First Dynasty. Yet it was also the city of Ptah, the god of metallurgy. This fact strongly suggests an intimate link between metal- lurgy and the early kingdom in Egypt.64 A homology between Ptah and Yahweh is suggested in the book of Isaiah. There (Isa. 19.13), Memphis is qualified as the ‘city of wisdom’, the same expression used to describe Edom in Jeremiah (see above). A parallel between Ptah and Yahweh is clearly observed in the book of Ezekiel: ‘I [Yahweh] will destroy the idols and put an end to the images in Noph’ (Ezek 30.13). Hence, if Yahweh ‘intends’ to eliminate idolatry especially from Noph (Memphis), this is probably in the name of a strong homology with Ptah, the god of metallurgy intimately related to the city Memphis from its foundation.

62. ‘Further, thus says the Lord GOD. At the end of forty years I will gather the Egyptians from the peoples among whom they were scattered; and I will restore the fortunes of Egypt, and bring them back to the land of Pathros, the land of their origin; and there they shall be a lowly kingdom’ (Ezek. 29.13-14).

63. It seems that the central importance of circumcision, for the Israelites, may also be related to metallurgy. This link is revealed by the parallels observed between the metallurgical traditions from antiquity and those from traditional societies of Africa; see S. Blakely, Myth, Ritual, and Metallurgy in Ancient Greece and Recent Africa (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). In many of the African mythologies, circumcision is introduced by the first smelter, and it is still practiced by smiths and smelters in traditional African societies; see Blakely, Myth, Ritual, and Metallurgy, p. 4; H. Tegnaeus, Le h ros civilisateur (Upsala: Studia Ethnographica Upsaliensa, 1950), pp. 23-29, 50, 104; and Makarius, Le sacr  et la violation des interdits, p. 143, and the references cited there.

64. This may explain why the king of Egypt is depicted in the book of Ezekiel as the nicest tree of the Garden of Eden (Ezek. 31.9).

Downloaded from http://jot.sagepub.com at UBO Bibliotek for on June 8, 2009

AMZALLAG Yahweh, the Canaanite God of Metallurgy? 403 According to these considerations, the over-extended domain of Yahweh should not be regarded as the consequence of a rapid diffusion of the Israelite religion during the First Temple period. It is rather the expression of a very ancient homology (if not identity) existing between the gods of metallurgy during the Bronze Age.

5. Conclusion

The present study reveals a strong parallel existing between Yahweh, as described in some of the biblical writings, and the gods of metallurgy known from antiquity. The evidence enables us to challenge the current paradigm depicting Yahweh as being formerly a tribal deity. While the current view about the origins of Yahweh is quite unverifiable (naturally, nothing may be known about the traditions of a small, nomadic Bronze Age tribe), the assumption that Yahweh was\ formerly the Canaanite god of metallurgy is open to testing.65

If confirmed by further investigations, the identification of Yahweh as the Canaanite god of metallurgy may have significant implications for the way we approach the history of Israel and the emergence of monotheism.

First, the worship of Yahweh suddenly emerging with the Israelite Alliance becomes an Iron Age movement, the popularization of the beliefs of the Canaanite smelters. In this case, the novelty of the Israelite Alliance consists of the transformation of the (initiatory) cult of the Canaanite guild of copper smelters into a public cult.

Second, the uncompromising attitude observed in Israel towards deities other than Yahweh becomes a resurgence of a very ancient tradi- tion, that of the Canaanite smelters, challenging the current gradualist view of emergence of monotheism from monolatry and henotheism.

Third, it seems that many of the biblical writings include traces of very ancient traditions, including those of the Canaanite metallurgists from the Bronze Age. Their identification and their comparison with other metallurgical traditions may be a tool that can be used in the identification of the various strata of redaction of the biblical texts.

65. The hypothesis of the Kenite origin of Yahwism had already been formulated in earlier scholarship. However, the absence of reliable information about metallurgical traditions in antiquity meant that this assumption was considered improvable; see R. de Vaux, ‘Sur l’origine kenite ou madianite du Yahwisme’, ErIs 9 (1969), pp. 28-32.

Downloaded from http://jot.sagepub.com at UBO Bibliotek for on June 8, 2009

404 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33.4 (2009) Today, metallurgy is considered only as a craft, making it difficult to believe that Yahweh was formerly the god of metallurgy. In addition, our ignorance of this reality results from the exclusion of almost all direct evidence linking Yahweh to metallurgy in the biblical writings. How- ever, as shown by the sources cited in this study, something about the ‘metallurgic roots’ of Yahwism was certainly known at least by the authors of the book of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Obadiah, Habakkuk, Zechariah and Job. For this reason, the hiatus existing in the Bible concerning the former identity of Yahweh should be considered as intentional. Understanding the source of this attitude may certainly help to elucidate many obscure points in the emergence of monotheism in Israel.

Downloaded from http://jot.sagepub.com at UBO Bibliotek for on June 8, 2009