"Sumerian creation myth — Anu's primary role in the Sumerian pantheon was as an ancestor figure; the most powerful and important deities in the Sumerian pantheon were believed to be the offspring of Anu and his consort Ki."
EnKi - "Benito states "With Enki it is an interesting change of gender symbolism, the fertilising agent is also water, Sumerian "a" or "Ab" which also means "semen". In one evocative passage in a Sumerian hymn, Enki stands at the empty riverbeds and fills them with his 'water'"."
"Enki, the Water-Lord then "caused to flow the 'water of the heart" and having fertilised his consort Ninhursag, also known as Ki or Earth"
I've read your posts and the Hindu creation accounts for the world and the gods. On the rig-veda, it's a completely different thought-world from the Tanakh. These other stories are filled with polytheistic overtones or pantheism/panentheism while Judaism is strongly monotheistic. YHWH is one and unique: he is incomparable and towers above other so-called deities. Deuteronomy and Isaiah spell these ideas out in explicit terms.
I'm not as familiar with Hindu thought as I could be ... but I don't think one could claim that creation (very broadly taken) was absolutely unique to Judaism, One might say that Plato has a creation account in the Timeaus, if you include emanation then you have even more ... The difference with YHWH is that he is a dynamic personal God who intereacts with a specific people, he's a God of a people (like the other gods) except he is ALSO the creator of everything. He's not merely the ground of all being, or something like that, he's that as well as a personal interactive god with a people.
You have some people in the hellenistic world doing stuff like this later (like with Zeus or Apollo being identified with the highest God in the philosophical sense), but I think one can say that it is consistanty and originally a Hebrew phenomenon.
I would concede that other cultures have creation stories, broadly speaking, but I think most of them differ from the Judaic narrative. The Timaeus of Plato could be called a creation account--and it often is--but in that story, Plato's Demiurge takes recalcitrant matter and shapes it into the sensible world, based on the eternal Forms in the noetic world. So while it may be creation, the creation takes place with preexisting matter.
Yes, and I agree with the difference you mention above, that Jehovah is personal and creates all things.
Look into how the Stoics redefine and portray Zeus: he becomes a cosmic principle like the Logos and the Stoics develop a pantheistic conception of god.
Yes that's what I was refering to when I mention Zeus being identified with the highest God in a philosophical sense :).
That's the problem with the term "creation narrative" is that creation in the mythological sense is different from how it's used in theology, in the former it's much broader, but in theology it's usually strictly ex-nihilo.
The real dividing line however, in my mind, is between emenation and strict ex-nihilo. One could argue for emenationist "creation" in some hellenistic philosophy ... but I think strict ex-nihilo is probably unique to the Abrahamic tradition (don't quote me on that, because I haven't checked everything :P).
Duncan: Personally, I don't like the divine council nomenclature for the sole reason that it's often ambiguous and I have to probe in order to find out the meaning. IMO, a divine council does not have to be polytheistic, but it could refer to created angels, who attend to Jehovah's throne. It just depends on what someone means by the terminology.
Roman: I think you're probably right about ex nihilo or close enough. It's another phrase that's ambiguous at times. In the past, I've rejected some formulations of ex nihilo, but I've long believed that God created the universe without using preexisting matter. I mainly dislike the way Athanasius formulates ex nihilo or maybe it's his language; on the other hand, Tertullian is better IMO, but to your point, I believe ex nihilo is uniquely Abrahamic. You probably know about the Egyptian creation myths, which I frankly think are absurd or base.
In the Israelite tradition/Tanakh, it seems that you have one God, then subordinate divine beings (angels/demons) and so-called gods, which are proclaimed to be false and non-existent, so not created by God.
In Greek myths, the gods are usually not created, but rather begotten. Zeus is the father of gods and men and I've seen this phenomenon in Mesopotamian narratives too. I also don't think the Egyptian narrative and Israel's account are similar. And since when were the Hindu gods created or the Japanese kami?
Are you saying the Greek term for "beget" (etc) is just language? Read the myths and I hink you'll get a different impression: Zeus literally begets gods and humans, unlike YHWH, who does not literally beget anyone.
I'm not skilled at ancient Sumerian, so I don't know and I would have to consult sources to find a possible answer to that question. I just know that at least some Mesopotamian narratives use the begettal language similar to Greek.
IMO, when the Bible calls angels "sons" or Jesus, the son of God--these are metaphors for the most part. Even when God "begets" the human Jesus through Mary, it's not in the same way that Zeus and other deities beget their children. Anointed Christians are sons of God, but that too is metaphorical like the adoption language.
I think you know that the Greeks have a word/words for "create," so they could have said Zeus created gods and men, but that's not what I read. Instead, he begets them biologically. While "beget" can be used metaphorically, I don't think that is the case with Zeus.
16 comments:
If you have read my posts about the rig-veda it is also noted that all "gods" come from a single creator.
"Sumerian creation myth — Anu's primary role in the Sumerian pantheon was as an ancestor figure; the most powerful and important deities in the Sumerian pantheon were believed to be the offspring of Anu and his consort Ki."
EnKi - "Benito states "With Enki it is an interesting change of gender symbolism, the fertilising agent is also water, Sumerian "a" or "Ab" which also means "semen". In one evocative passage in a Sumerian hymn, Enki stands at the empty riverbeds and fills them with his 'water'"."
"Enki, the Water-Lord then "caused to flow the 'water of the heart" and having fertilised his consort Ninhursag, also known as Ki or Earth"
The water and the dirt.
I've read your posts and the Hindu creation accounts for the world and the gods. On the rig-veda, it's a completely different thought-world from the Tanakh. These other stories are filled with polytheistic overtones or pantheism/panentheism while Judaism is strongly monotheistic. YHWH is one and unique: he is incomparable and towers above other so-called deities. Deuteronomy and Isaiah spell these ideas out in explicit terms.
I'm not as familiar with Hindu thought as I could be ... but I don't think one could claim that creation (very broadly taken) was absolutely unique to Judaism, One might say that Plato has a creation account in the Timeaus, if you include emanation then you have even more ... The difference with YHWH is that he is a dynamic personal God who intereacts with a specific people, he's a God of a people (like the other gods) except he is ALSO the creator of everything. He's not merely the ground of all being, or something like that, he's that as well as a personal interactive god with a people.
You have some people in the hellenistic world doing stuff like this later (like with Zeus or Apollo being identified with the highest God in the philosophical sense), but I think one can say that it is consistanty and originally a Hebrew phenomenon.
I would concede that other cultures have creation stories, broadly speaking, but I think most of them differ from the Judaic narrative. The Timaeus of Plato could be called a creation account--and it often is--but in that story, Plato's Demiurge takes recalcitrant matter and shapes it into the sensible world, based on the eternal Forms in the noetic world. So while it may be creation, the creation takes place with preexisting matter.
Yes, and I agree with the difference you mention above, that Jehovah is personal and creates all things.
Look into how the Stoics redefine and portray Zeus: he becomes a cosmic principle like the Logos and the Stoics develop a pantheistic conception of god.
So what of the divine council?
Yes that's what I was refering to when I mention Zeus being identified with the highest God in a philosophical sense :).
That's the problem with the term "creation narrative" is that creation in the mythological sense is different from how it's used in theology, in the former it's much broader, but in theology it's usually strictly ex-nihilo.
The real dividing line however, in my mind, is between emenation and strict ex-nihilo. One could argue for emenationist "creation" in some hellenistic philosophy ... but I think strict ex-nihilo is probably unique to the Abrahamic tradition (don't quote me on that, because I haven't checked everything :P).
Duncan: Personally, I don't like the divine council nomenclature for the sole reason that it's often ambiguous and I have to probe in order to find out the meaning. IMO, a divine council does not have to be polytheistic, but it could refer to created angels, who attend to Jehovah's throne. It just depends on what someone means by the terminology.
Roman: I think you're probably right about ex nihilo or close enough. It's another phrase that's ambiguous at times. In the past, I've rejected some formulations of ex nihilo, but I've long believed that God created the universe without using preexisting matter. I mainly dislike the way Athanasius formulates ex nihilo or maybe it's his language; on the other hand, Tertullian is better IMO, but to your point, I believe ex nihilo is uniquely Abrahamic. You probably know about the Egyptian creation myths, which I frankly think are absurd or base.
But in these other traditions the OTHER gods are also created beings.
In the Israelite tradition/Tanakh, it seems that you have one God, then subordinate divine beings (angels/demons) and so-called gods, which are proclaimed to be false and non-existent, so not created by God.
In Greek myths, the gods are usually not created, but rather begotten. Zeus is the father of gods and men and I've seen this phenomenon in Mesopotamian narratives too. I also don't think the Egyptian narrative and Israel's account are similar. And since when were the Hindu gods created or the Japanese kami?
That's just language and it does not change the hierarchy. Does ancient sumerian have a term equivalent to bara?
No getting away with the fact that angels have been called sons of God and Jesus, the son of God.
Are you saying the Greek term for "beget" (etc) is just language? Read the myths and I hink you'll get a different impression: Zeus literally begets gods and humans, unlike YHWH, who does not literally beget anyone.
I'm not skilled at ancient Sumerian, so I don't know and I would have to consult sources to find a possible answer to that question. I just know that at least some Mesopotamian narratives use the begettal language similar to Greek.
IMO, when the Bible calls angels "sons" or Jesus, the son of God--these are metaphors for the most part. Even when God "begets" the human Jesus through Mary, it's not in the same way that Zeus and other deities beget their children. Anointed Christians are sons of God, but that too is metaphorical like the adoption language.
I am saying, how do you describe it if you do not have the word "create"?
Also I am still mindful of El-Gibbor and what it might mean.
I think you know that the Greeks have a word/words for "create," so they could have said Zeus created gods and men, but that's not what I read. Instead, he begets them biologically. While "beget" can be used metaphorically, I don't think that is the case with Zeus.
Some of these articles might be helpful:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/528274?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
On Sumerian myths
It seems there is a way to communicate the idea of creation in Sumerian too.
I mad a mistake in my comment - I meant El-Shaddai.
https://sethlsanders.wordpress.com/2021/04/09/ancient-babylon-where-to-start/
Post a Comment