Re: Resource for Mythicist and Response Documentation
Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2020 3:22 pm
So here is where I'll use an example:
Ahmad Al-Jallad, “Echoes of the Baal Cycle in a Safaito-Hismaic Inscription,” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Religions 15 (2015), pp. 5-19. The Arabic inscription specifically reads (7):
“Mot has celebrated a feast; the scorner eats / established is the succession of his nights and days / and behold, Baal is cut off; cut off indeed, but not dead.”
How can one compartmentalize this with the idea that Ba'al dies and rises, when in fact, it is clear that they did not conceptualizing him as dying?
The answer lies in how the narrative is being used at Ugarit. The narrative does not reflect the belief. I.e. simply because Ba'al is presented as dying, does not mean that this actually is being applied to the god. This is why N. Wyatt, M. S. Smith, and M. Suriano are important, because they demonstrate that the narrative is not about Ba'al in its actual meaning. It is about kingship and the ascension of the new king after the passing of the first. In effect, the narrative is not about the god. It is about the social event. We can parallel this with Marduk in the "Marduk Ordeal Text." Marduk is presented as dying, but this is *not* a dying-rising text because it isn't reflecting any communal beliefs or conceptions of Marduk. It is a political propaganda piece where Marduk is representative of something bigger. It is not about the god. It is about the society.
And this is why the dying-rising category really makes little sense. Just because a narrative occurs, does not mean that it means what it says on the surface. Seldom does this ever happen.
Ahmad Al-Jallad, “Echoes of the Baal Cycle in a Safaito-Hismaic Inscription,” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Religions 15 (2015), pp. 5-19. The Arabic inscription specifically reads (7):
“Mot has celebrated a feast; the scorner eats / established is the succession of his nights and days / and behold, Baal is cut off; cut off indeed, but not dead.”
How can one compartmentalize this with the idea that Ba'al dies and rises, when in fact, it is clear that they did not conceptualizing him as dying?
The answer lies in how the narrative is being used at Ugarit. The narrative does not reflect the belief. I.e. simply because Ba'al is presented as dying, does not mean that this actually is being applied to the god. This is why N. Wyatt, M. S. Smith, and M. Suriano are important, because they demonstrate that the narrative is not about Ba'al in its actual meaning. It is about kingship and the ascension of the new king after the passing of the first. In effect, the narrative is not about the god. It is about the social event. We can parallel this with Marduk in the "Marduk Ordeal Text." Marduk is presented as dying, but this is *not* a dying-rising text because it isn't reflecting any communal beliefs or conceptions of Marduk. It is a political propaganda piece where Marduk is representative of something bigger. It is not about the god. It is about the society.
And this is why the dying-rising category really makes little sense. Just because a narrative occurs, does not mean that it means what it says on the surface. Seldom does this ever happen.