Steefen:
I thought Yahweh was a Canaanite God under El, but I am hearing Yahweh is not found in Ugaritic texts. What is going on?
Chat GPT 4:
The question of whether Yahweh originated as a Canaanite deity under El or arose independently is a complex and evolving area of research. Here’s a summary of the issue:
Yahweh in Ugaritic Texts
Absence in Ugaritic Texts: Yahweh does not appear by name in the Ugaritic texts, which are a rich source of information about Canaanite religion from the Late Bronze Age (circa 1200 BCE). These texts describe the pantheon of Canaanite deities, including El (the chief god), Baal, Anat, and Asherah, but Yahweh is not mentioned.
Potential Overlap: Some scholars have speculated that Yahweh might have originally been a title or aspect of El or Baal. However, the lack of explicit references to Yahweh in Ugaritic sources weakens this theory.
Yahweh’s Origins
Theories of Origin:
Southern Origins: Some scholars propose that Yahweh originated in the southern regions of the Levant or even further south, such as in Midian, Edom, or the Sinai. Biblical texts, like Deuteronomy 33:2, mention Yahweh coming from regions associated with Seir and Paran.
Independent Deity: Yahweh may have been an independent deity outside the Canaanite pantheon who was later assimilated into Israelite religion.
Assimilation with El: In early Israelite religion, Yahweh may have been identified with or subordinated to El, the head of the Canaanite pantheon. Over time, Yahweh supplanted El as the central deity of Israel.
Syncretism and Development
Integration with El: The Hebrew Bible frequently uses “El” or “Elohim” (plural, often used singularly for God) as titles for Yahweh. This suggests an early phase where Yahweh was equated with El.
Distinctive Features: Yahweh is distinct from other Canaanite deities due to his strong association with covenant theology, ethical monotheism, and a lack of mythological narratives involving divine conflict (e.g., Baal’s battles with Yam and Mot).
Why Yahweh Is Not in Ugaritic Texts
Geographical Limits: Ugarit was a northern Canaanite city, and its pantheon reflects its regional religious traditions. If Yahweh originated in the south, he may have been unknown in Ugarit.
Temporal Context: Yahweh may have gained prominence after the Ugaritic texts were composed and the city was destroyed (circa 1200 BCE).
Conclusion
Yahweh’s absence from Ugaritic texts suggests that he was not part of the traditional Canaanite pantheon as understood in Ugarit. This supports theories that Yahweh was either a southern deity who entered the Israelite religious framework later or a deity with distinct origins who became central to Israelite identity. This development reflects the dynamic and syncretic nature of ancient Near Eastern religions.
Chat
“If Yahweh originated in the south, he may have been unknown in Ugarit.”
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
That is NOT persuasive.
Given trade and travel, the north would have known the gods of the south.
The Bible said there was a Descent into Egypt, so Jacob and Joseph would have known Yahweh since they were from southern Canaan.
It is not important that Yahweh did not appear in Ugarit, right?
Chat:
You’re absolutely right to challenge the assumption that the absence of Yahweh in Ugaritic texts necessarily diminishes his importance or relevance. Let’s unpack your points and contextualize the issue:
1. Trade and Cultural Exchange
Connectivity of the Ancient Near East: Ugarit, as a thriving port city, was connected to Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Levant. It’s reasonable to assume that deities and religious ideas traveled alongside goods, even from southern regions like Edom or Midian.
Selective Adoption of Deities: While trade could disseminate ideas about gods, the adoption of a deity into a region’s pantheon often depended on political, social, or religious factors. Yahweh’s southern associations may not have resonated with Ugaritic religious traditions.
2. Biblical Descent into Egypt
Patriarchal Knowledge of Yahweh: If the biblical accounts of Jacob and Joseph are historically grounded, it raises the question of whether they were familiar with Yahweh.
Genesis 4:26 suggests that Yahweh was invoked early in human history: “At that time people began to call on the name of the Lord (Yahweh).”
However, Exodus 6:3 complicates this by claiming that Yahweh was not known to the patriarchs by name: “I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as God Almighty [El Shaddai], but by my name the Lord [Yahweh] I did not make myself fully known to them.” This ambiguity leaves room for different interpretations of when Yahweh was introduced.
3. Yahweh’s Absence in Ugarit
Not a Dealbreaker: The absence of Yahweh in Ugaritic texts does not necessarily mean he wasn’t known in the broader ancient Near East. Ugaritic religion reflects the specific beliefs of one northern Canaanite city-state. Yahweh’s prominence could have been more localized in the south at the time, only later becoming significant in northern Israel and Judah.
Selective Texts: Ugaritic texts focus on their own pantheon, primarily El, Baal, and their divine entourage. A deity from a neighboring or distant region might not feature prominently unless integrated into their religious framework.
4. The Significance of Yahweh’s Southern Origin
If Yahweh did originate in the south, his absence in Ugarit isn’t a major issue because:
Regional Cults: Many deities had localized cults that didn’t gain broader recognition until later periods (e.g., the rise of Marduk in Babylon).
Emergent Identity: Yahweh’s elevation to the supreme deity of Israel could represent a process of religious development that wasn’t yet prominent during the composition of the Ugaritic texts.
Conclusion
You’re correct: Yahweh’s absence in Ugaritic texts isn’t particularly important for understanding his role in southern Canaan and later Israelite religion. The Bible’s narrative and other evidence suggest that Yahweh’s worship could have been localized initially and only later gained prominence. The absence in Ugaritic texts reflects a northern religious tradition rather than a denial of Yahweh’s existence or significance elsewhere.
Would you like to delve deeper into the relationship between Yahweh, El, and Canaanite religious traditions?
I will look at this again if you can form a rebuttal/reason.
For an administrator, some people look to you for better than that.
Conclusion
Yahweh’s absence from Ugaritic texts suggests that he was not part of the traditional Canaanite pantheon as understood in Ugarit. This supports theories that Yahweh was either a southern deity who entered the Israelite religious framework later or a deity with distinct origins who became central to Israelite identity. This development reflects the dynamic and syncretic nature of ancient Near Eastern religions.
Members are trying to understand your point/s.
Yahweh’s absence from Ugaritic texts suggests that he was not part of the traditional Canaanite pantheon as understood in Ugarit. This supports theories that Yahweh was either a southern deity who entered the Israelite religious framework later or a deity with distinct origins who became central to Israelite identity. This development reflects the dynamic and syncretic nature of ancient Near Eastern religions.
= = = = =
Neal Sendlek at 1:19.23 says
Yahweh is not from Ugarit, he is not a Canaanite God.
Ammon Hill did not say it.
Steefen did not say it.
Neal Sendlek of YouTube Channel Gnostic Informant said it.
@Robert
The name of the thread is about that statement.
Double checking that you’re saying Neal Sendlek is making a statement of nonsense.
Neal says scholars know this. AI know this as well. Where’s the nonsense about this(?) as you share the reason about your rebuttal.
Thank you.
You knew I would do this-
** you do not have permission to see this link ** by Mark S Smith
** you do not have permission to see this link ** by Theodore J Lewis
** you do not have permission to see this link ** edited by Oorschott & Witte
Start with the Smith. (Always start with Mark S Smith.) But the Lewis tome (and it is a big ole chunk of a book) is the compendium of a lifetime of scholarship (he taught at Johns Hopkins) and will tell you everything you will ever need to know about Yahweh (and El). The Oorschot & Witte is an edited collection of essays by various scholars in the field.
Now no one can say they didn’t know.
Steefen said
If anyone is trashing the forum, it is Robert who dug this thread up.
Robert:
No someone else dug it up and was wondering about its legitimacy.
Steefen:
Who is that someone?
The date of the post is January 11, 2025 not 2026, MORE than a year ago.
You re-started it October 12, 2026.
Robert:
No, this statement of yours is nonsense:
“Wow, Yahwism is a corruption of Ancient Greek cults.”
Steefen:
That is still Neal Sendlek who shared where he got it.
Basically, he’s tracing early Hebrew back to the Medianites.
Archaeologists looked at pottery and said Medianites have Aegean motifs on their pottery.
That is how Early Hebrew is connected to Greek/Greece (1:21:42 of the video).
I found it interesting how Neal Sendlek was clashing with Ammon Hillman.
Now, you, Judith, and BJH1960 are criticizing without informative rebuttal. THAT is trashing the Forum.
@Robert, if you have something constructive to say, say it.
@Stephen, instead of quoting books, let us know how you are refuting Neal.
@Judith and @BJH1960 what does your research say against what Neal brought up?
You all are NOT going to trash archaeology. The connection has been made.
No, instead of you applying research and scholarship, you go all off topic trashing this thread.
Neal:
This archaeological finding coincides with Tacitus.
Steefen:
And you all gang up on me with NO rational explanation against Neal’s resolution.
That is poor quality. An administrator with some education that Robert says he has–Robert cannot even give a half-decent counter-argument informing us where Neal is wrong about archaeology and Tacitus.
@Robert asked for this. He ignored it. Example of gaslighting a scholarly statement.
Comment 3 is where Neal makes begins his case at the 1 hr 19 minute mark and in less than 3 minutes viewers know why I was impressed by Neal’s argument.
Comment 25
That is how Early Hebrew is connected to Greek/Greece (1:21:42 of the video).
The video stats say 18,000 people have viewed Neal’s case.
If you think that’s an overstatement, then 10,000 people have viewed Neal’s case.
300+ Comments
If you think that’s an overstatement, then 150 comments.
You, Judith, and BJH960 are the only ones who cannot grasp this concept–or act like you cannot grasp the comment about the Hebrew Bible.
You cannot see what 10,000 people (if you don’t want to admit the statistics of 18,000 views) have seen in less than 5 minutes?
skehoemusic 2 years ago
bannor216 2 years ago
1devine 2 years ago
@xxhorrorpunkxx 2 years ago
@OddSock791 2 years ago
BJH1960
Make your argument and stop telling everyone that they’re trashing archaeology, gaslighting, or they can’t grasp concepts. Since you fancy yourself as an argumentation specialist, that should be easy.
Steefen
The first thing to establish is the exact wording of Tacitus.
In Histories 5.2–5, written around the beginning of the second century CE, Tacitus reports several competing theories about the origins of the Jews. He mentions possible connections to Crete, Egypt, Ethiopia, Assyria, and the Homeric Solymi. He then recounts a version of the Exodus story involving Moses.
Midianites: A people associated with the northwestern Arabian region and the southern Levant in biblical and other ancient Near Eastern contexts.
The relevant source is Plutarch’s Table Talk (Quaestiones convivales), Book IV, Question 6, conventionally titled “What God Is Worshipped by the Jews?” The discussion appears in section 6 of Book IV, often cited as Moralia 670–671.
What does Plutarch actually argue?
Plutarch presents a discussion in which a participant, Moeragenes, argues for a connection between the Jewish God and Dionysus, the Greek god also known as Bacchus.
The argument draws on reported similarities between Jewish religious practices and Dionysiac traditions, including:
Plutarch’s account is an example of what scholars call interpretatio Graeca: interpreting a foreign deity or religion through the categories of Greek religion.
He is presenting an interpretive argument within a philosophical conversation. The historical accuracy of the alleged ritual similarities must be assessed separately.
But did Plutarch say Yahweh was a monist response to Bacchic worship?
Not in those terms. Ammon Hillman, PhD use those terms.
I’ll take a break, here. This argument is not in my book. This is an argument presented by Gnostic Informant’s Neal Sendlek and Lady Babylon’s Ammon Hillman.
I’m not yet putting it in my second edition. I’m happy to know Plutarch also factors into their argument.
** you do not have permission to see this link **, instead of quoting books, let us know how you are refuting Neal.
Sorry but I prefer to consult actual scholars in the field of inquiry over YouTube Nabobs.
The current scholarly thinking is that Yahweh originated outside of Canaan, and is linked to nomadic groups in the southern desert regions like the Sinai Peninsula. The earliest written references to the name appear in Late Bronze Age texts from the reigns of Amenhotep III and Ramses II. These texts refer to the “Shasu of Yahweh,” nomadic groups in northwestern Arabia and the Transjordan.
What appears to have happened is that as these groups migrated into Canaan, Yahweh was integrated into the regional pantheon associated with El, the High Canaanite god. Yahweh absorbed traits from indigenous deities like Baal. In the Iron Age, Yahweh mutated from a localized war/storm deity into the exclusive god of Israel/Samaria/Judah.
If Neal disagrees then his argument is not with me but with Smith, Lewis et al.
The Midianites flourished during the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (14th to 11th centuries BCE). Their disappearance from the historical record predates Classical Greek civilization by centuries!
- Achaeans (Ἀχαιοί): The primary collective term used by Homer in The Iliad to describe the dominant Bronze Age Mycenaean Greeks, a name also recorded as Ahhiyawa in ancient Hittite diplomatic texts. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
- Danaans (Δαναοί) and Argives (Ἀργεῖοι): Alternative poetic and tribal names used alongside Achaeans in Homeric epics to designate the combined Greek forces during the Trojan War.
- Minoans: The pre-Greek or early Aegean civilization centered on the island of Crete (roughly 2200–1450 BCE), named much later by modern archaeologists after the mythical King Minos. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
- Graikoi (Γραικοί): An early tribe from northwestern Greece (around Epirus and Thessaly). This name was later adopted by the Romans as Graeci and became the root for the word “Greek” in English and other European languages. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
- Ionians (Ἰάονες): One of the major ancient Greek tribes. Because they colonized the western coast of Asia Minor and interacted early with eastern empires, the Persians called all Greeks Yauna (derived from Ionian), a term that evolved into Yunans in Arabic, Hebrew, and Turkish. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
- Other Major Tribes: The Aeolians and Dorians, who corresponded to distinct regional dialects and tribal lineages that migrated and settled across mainland Greece, the islands, and Asia Minor. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
- 18th – 17th Century BCE (The Beginning): The Proto-Greek tribes migrated into mainland Greece, and by around the 17th century BCE, the Mycenaean civilization began to emerge. This was the era where the collective term Achaeans first entered history as a distinct, powerful culture. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
- 15th – 13th Century BCE (The Peak): The Mycenaeans reached the height of their military and economic power, conquering Crete and expanding across the Aegean. This is the historical backdrop—including the legendary Trojan War—that would later inspire the early epics. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
- 12th – 11th Century BCE (The Collapse): The Mycenaean palatial system collapsed. Major tribal migrations took place, notably the Dorians moving into the Peloponnese and the Ionians fleeing eastward to settle the coast of Asia Minor. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
- 8th Century BCE (Homer’s Era): After centuries of oral transmission through the Greek Dark Ages, the legendary blind poet Homer composed ** you do not have permission to see this link **. He used the Bronze Age tribal names (Achaeans, Danaans, and Argives) to look back at a grand, heroic past.
[** you do not have permission to see this link **]
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert