The Desert God ʿAṮTR in the Literature and Religion of Canaan

Gray, John

doi:10.1086/370915

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…'Attr, however, was not able to compensate for Ba'al's rain, but had rather to descend from Ba'al's exalted throne and assume his inferior function of giving dew to the earth." For a discussion on Attr, see Gray's (1949) article "The Desert God Attr in the Literature and Religion of Canaan," esp. 76ff.…”

Section: Julian In the Light Of Ugaritic Scholarshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Philosophy, archaeology and the Bible: is Emperor Julian's Contra Galilaeos a plausible critique of Christianity?

Aiken

2017

JLARC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Contra Galilaeos, Julian makes the case that in the writings of Moses Yahweh is not the 'Most High' God, but simply one of many national gods (the biblical term is 'angels' or 'sons of god/s', ‫אל‬ ‫,בני‬ ‫אלים‬ ‫,בני‬ or ‫ב‬ ‫האלהים‬ ‫ני‬) of the ancient Near Eastern world, who received Israel as an inheritance from the hand of the Most High. Christians claim the Jewish Yahweh as their God, and appeal to the Hebrew writings to identify the qualities of that God; but Julian claims that the Jewish writings clearly depict Yahweh as a subordinate tribal god, who was neither the Creator (demiurge), nor to be identified with the God of Abraham, nor to be equated with the Most High (Hypsistos), apportioning God of Deut. 32:8-9. Julian extrapolates from this stunning premise that there is therefore no compelling comparison to be advanced between Yahweh, as depicted in the Hebrew Scriptures, and the God proclaimed by the Christians. Julian's argument will receive unexpected support from the 1929 archaeological findings of Ugarit, which have had a significant impact on helping to identify ancient Near Eastern gods alluded to in the documents of the Hebrew Bible. Indeed, Julian's analyses of the texts of the Hebrew Bible are sustained by nothing less than the accumulated mythological weight of the entire ancient Near East.

show abstract

Section: Julian In the Light Of Ugaritic Scholarshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Philosophy, archaeology and the Bible: is Emperor Julian's Contra Galilaeos a plausible critique of Christianity?

Aiken

2017

JLARC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Ciąża mnoga i wieloraczki w starożytności

Lewandowska¹

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The book concerns multiple pregnancy and multiple births in Antiquity. The analysis of written sources from the Middle East (Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Levant, Anatolia) as well as from Greece and Rome allows looking at the subject from several perspectives: the author investigated myths about semi-divine twins and numerous multiple births, medical and astrological concepts of multiple pregnancies and the consequences of multiple births in the Roman law.

show abstract

Mount Sinai and Mount Zion: Discontinuity and continuity in the book of Hebrews

Ramantswana¹

2013

In die Skriflig/In Luce Verbi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The author of Hebrews draws significant contrasts between Mount Sinai and Mount Zion which both played a major role in the old covenant. For the author of Hebrews the former mountain, Mount Sinai, only had limited significance with respect to the new covenant, whereas the latter mountain, Mount Zion, continued to have significance in the new covenant. Mount Zion was viewed as a shadow of the heavenly reality, which is the true destination for the pilgrimage community. Mount Sinai as the locus of encounter or meeting between God and Israel only played a transitory role, whereas Mount Zion had perpetual significance as the destination, the dwelling place of God and his people.

Berg Sinai en Berg Sion: Diskontinuïteit en kontinuïteit in die brief aan die Hebreërs. Die skrywer van Hebreërs wys op betekenisvolle teenstellings tussen Berg Sinai en Berg Sion, wat elkeen ’n beduidende rol in die ou verbond gespeel het. Vir die Hebreërskrywer het Berg Sinai egter beperkte betekenis vir die nuwe verbond, terwyl Sion nog steeds betekenis het. Berg Sion word as skaduwee van die hemelse werklikheid beskou, wat die uiteindelike bestemming van die pelgrimsgemeenskap is. Berg Sinai, as die lokus van ontmoeting tussen God en Israel, speel slegs ‘n oorgangsrol, terwyl Berg Sion steeds beduidende betekenis het as bestemming en woonplek van God en sy volk.

show abstract

The Desert God ʿAṮTR in the Literature and Religion of Canaan

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Philosophy, archaeology and the Bible: is Emperor Julian's Contra Galilaeos a plausible critique of Christianity?

Philosophy, archaeology and the Bible: is Emperor Julian's Contra Galilaeos a plausible critique of Christianity?

Ciąża mnoga i wieloraczki w starożytności

Mount Sinai and Mount Zion: Discontinuity and continuity in the book of Hebrews

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About