A few details should be added to the rough sketch of the story that has been told
so far. Dumuzi (Tammuz) was primarily known for his animal husbandry as the overseer and owner of an estate. Specifically he was a sheep herder, that is, a shepherd. That was not all he did, surely there was an orchard of some kind, and in all probability he grew barley, as did most Sumerians who owned land, but sheep were central to everything else as I understand the story. This is important to know inasmuch as the motif of religious-leader-as-shepherd is central to the New Testament much later in time. But there are no shepherds as such, not that I know about, either among the Hebrew prophets or among the original leadership of the Christian movement, including Christ. The one actual shepherd in Western religious leadership tradition happens to be Dumuzi. Did Dumuzi / Tammuz traditions survive that long? Heck, they have survived to the 21st century. There still is a Jewish month of Tamuz, for example. And how many men do you know who are named Thomas? The etymology of that name, Thomas, is none other than Tammuz. Maybe this doesn't mean too terribly much, Martin Luther's name, Martin, derives from the Roman God of war, Mars, but traditions can persists even when we are unaware of their origins. About Dumuzi, there is general agreement among scholars that his particular story is an amalgam. A Sumerian religious "orthodoxy" was in place no later than the Ur III era (think 2000 BC or thereabouts) and it clearly combined disparate sub-plots that once had been central to various city states, each of which had some claim to Dumizi's legacy as their part of Sumerian civilization. In this context it should be noted that Dumuzi was also lord of the "tree of like," namely, as Sumerians understood it, the date palm. Dumuzi was also associated with alcoholic beverages, especially beer, for which the Sumerians had a reputation and exported quantities as part of their trade networks. They also were noted for their fine wines, but about that drink, the deity to refer to was Inanna's sister (later deified), Geshtinanna. What does any of this have to do with Christ? Well, what if I told you that the first "signs" of Jesus' ministry were revealed in the context of a get together at which large quantities of wine were served? That, of course, is exactly what the second chapter of the Gospel of John says; the setting was the wedding at Cana. As far as the narrative had gone yesterday was the information that Dumuzi was attacked by marauders as he worked his estate; he later died as a result of his injuries at the hands of these "bandits" or "soldiers" -how best to characterize the raiders is uncertain. News of Dumuzi's death reached Inanna and she was inconsolable. As was her sister Geshtinanna, and Dumuzi's mother. Hence began the tradition each July of women weeping and wailing for Dumuzi / Tammuz. This was in a religious context as part of the belief system. So what? I'll tell you so what. First, a weeping and wailing tradition has continued into modern times among Jews, although, to be sure, since late Biblical times this has been limited to men only. Regardless, it is clear enough that the tradition began in Mesopotamia. But there was a "men only" variant, namely self flagellation. This is a well known custom among the Shiah of Iraq and to a lesser extent in Iran. It is also a tradition among the so-called Penitentes of New Mexico, Spain, and the Philippines. But as far as most Catholics are concerned this is some sort of penultimate Christian observance. Actually, it is not. The origins date to Uruk some time after 2650 BC in the context of the death of Dumuzi. Well, sure, you may say, "but I believe in the Bible and it does not concern me"? Uh, huh. Here is a little Bible verse; it would be nice if you explained things in some way that makes good sense.... Ezekiel 8: 14 has the prophet visiting the temple in Jerusalem; "and there I saw women sitting and wailing for Tammuz." Look it up; I am not inventing anything. To be certain, Ezekiel did not like this one little bit; he was very unhappy about it. But this begs the question: How in the world did that happen? The Jews of the time did not invent things either; they got the idea from somewhere. And just as clearly, it meant something important to many Jewish women. Actually, it would be better to say "Hebrew women" since strict monotheistic Judaism was not current at the time. I am convinced of the findings of the late Raphael Patai that strict monotheism was the product of events after the era of Amos, and that Moses, while he may have had beliefs that may be called "proto-monotheistic" was not a pure monotheist himself. He did, for instance, regard the religious cult object Nehushtan as a vital part of his spiritual observances, and the strict monotheists of a much later time had Nehushtan destroyed as an unwelcome example of idolatry, but let's not get lost in this thicket.... In point of fact, in other words, Tammuz worship was present in Jerusalem and it involved a good number of Hebrew women and, presumably, some number of Hebrew men. "But I believe in the Bible and this does not concern me"? I presume that Ezekiel is in your version of the Bible. Besides, there is more to consider. Like, exactly how is it that an entire OT book has the name Ishtar as its title? For that is exactly what "Esther" means. Indeed, the name Esther was used by those Mesopotamians who lived in what is now Diyala province in Iraq, as the local variant of the name. Her uncle, who figures prominently in that story, was Mordecai. Scholars have long known that his name is simply the Hebrew variant of Marduk, the Babylonian version of Enlil / El / Yahweh. About the book of Esther there is a great deal to be said, and most of what there is to be discussed is completely outside Evangelical (or Catholic) understanding of the message of the book, the symbolism in it is Mesopotamian up and down the line, but that is a subject for another essay........ As a wild guess, Jeremiah is also in your copy of the Bible. He was also unhappy with Goddess veneration as he found it and was not at all reluctant to be critical. Hence crowds of women who opposed Jeremiah when he spoke with 'Jewish' exiles in Egypt who had fled from Jerusalem when the Babylonians invaded. The women said that none of that would have happened had the people remained true to their "ancient customs," when they all (some large percentage anyway) "offered sacrifices to the Queen of Heaven." These sacrifices, viz, gifts, included baking crescent cakes (Jeremiah 44:19) in the image of the Goddess, the female deity in question being Ishtar since that was her symbol. What we call the 'star' (planet) Venus, the ancient peoples of the Mid East referred to as Ishtar and, it so happens, some people with acute vision can see the crescent of 'Venus' on good viewing nights. Jeremiah didn't like this at all, either, but the point is what these Ishtar devotees were doing in Jerusalem in the first place. Why were there large numbers of devotees to the Queen of Heaven, that being one of her titles? And that title, actually "Queen of Heaven and Earth" in its complete form, has lasted to our own time as the prime title of the Virgin Mary, and, yes, many of the attributes of one are pretty much the same as those of the other....... Raphael Patai's point was that it is anachronistic to claim that the available evidence shows us a people constantly "backsliding" from pure monotheism into Paganism. There is no solid historical evidence at all for some hypothetical "original monotheism" which was corrupted into Pagan religion later. Indeed, there was no monotheistic "Jewish" people at the time of Moses, much less Joshua, who complained about how their ancestors worshiped "other gods" besides the Euphrates in the distant past. That is, you can't have it both ways. Either the ancestors were monotheists as monotheistic theory says they must have been, or they were not, as Joshua says was the case. And why the consistency whereby, when we peel back the layers of history, do we invariably get some version of Mesopotamian religion in the midst of the Hebrew people? Consider the short but important book of Ruth. You can, of course, limit your reflections about Ruth to normative Christian texts or sermon material. Trouble in that approach is that it is seldom if ever remotely scholarly. It concludes with what it assumes at the outset, namely, Ruth must be a cautionary tale mixed in with a morality tale, which, as a story, tells us what we already know: Ruth abandoned her Pagan gods to become a convert to the true faith. End of story, the only lesson to learn is that Pagan gods are waaaaay bad. However, there happens to be a great deal to learn from this short book. See the article by Susan Sherman and John Curtis in the January 1968 edition of the Journal of Near Eastern Studies, "Divine-Human Conflicts in the Old Testament." A major part of this paper concerns the book of Ruth. Without going into details here -you can look this up yourself if you have an interest- it seems that there is a formula for interpreting Ruth in terms of its source materials. Which is: Naomi is a stand-in for Inanna Ruth represents the High Priestess of later eras who, herself, represented Inanna Boaz is a stand-in for the Sumerian king as, himself, representing Dumuzi Oprah represents Ereshkigal, Queen of the Underworld Ruth, needless to say, came from Moab. The High God of that country, a next door neighbor to Israel, was Chemosh, one of the major deities of Sumeria. This deity is mentioned in Numbers 11: 24. It isn't exactly far fetched that the ancient Hebrews were familiar with and shared at least some of the religion of the Mesopotamians. Just how much was shared is discussed in detail in a 1984 book by Savina Teubal, Sarah the Priestess. Much was, in fact, shared. Try to remember the obvious: There was a regular parade of early patriarchs to Mesopotamia, recorded in Genesis, to procure appropriate wives. In one recorded case the story involved a family's "household gods." This refers to a set of statuettes that most families maintained at altars in their homes -the way that some Catholics today maintain a collection of statuettes representing various saints. There are references to household gods later in the Bible, David had his own set, and Hosea also mentions them.... There are many other historical facts that might be discussed but this should provide some important background in understanding how the Mesopotamians understood religious faith, especially how they understood the Holy Spirit. (more continuation to follow) -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
