PDF

#6 - The Ancient Tradition - Ep. 51-60

From legends of clal hub - july 22 2026/Legends of Clal - Hub/The Ancient Tradition/#6 - The Ancient Tradition - Ep. 51-60.pdf · 2.0 MB · open the original file
Text pulled from the PDF. Layout and pictures are not shown; open the original to see the real page.

--- page 1 ---

Episode

#51

-

The

Cosmic

Wall:

The

Holy

Barge

&

The

Water

Bolt

https://theancienttradition.com/51-the-cosmic-wall-part-i/

00:00

Music

00:10

Listening

to

the

Ancient

Tradition.

A

Wonk

Media

Production.

Music

provided

by

Joseph

McDade.

Here’s

your

host,

Dr.

Jack

Logan.

00:25

Welcome

to

the

Ancient

Tradition.

I’m

your

host,

Jack

Logan.

00:32

Welcome

to

the

program.

I

hope

you’re

all

having

a

wonderful

week.

The

sun

is

shining

outside

my

window.

It’s

a

beautiful,

gorgeous

day.

God’s

creations

are

beautiful.

I

hope

you’re

out

there

enjoying

them.

I’m

going

to

just

get

right

to

it

today.

In

our

last

episode,

we

learned

from

the

ancients

that

everything

God

created

and

everything

God

continues

to

create

every

star,

every

nebula,

every

galaxy,

every

planet,

our

planet.

00:59

Every

waterfall

and

lily

and

dove

is

sanctified

or

holy

because

they

were

brought

about

by

God’s

ordering

power,

which

was

given

to

him

because

he

perfectly

upheld

the

cosmic

law

of

righteousness.

All

of

God’s

creations

are

sacred

because

he

was

the

one

who

transformed

them,

the

elements

01:29

into

beautiful,

ordered,

fertile,

life-full

creations.

We

learned

that

the

power

to

order

is

the

power

to

sanctify.

To

order

something

is

to

transform

it

from

its

awful

profane

state

into

a

sanctified,

holy

state.

01:56

To

this

point,

we’ve

been

talking

about

this

transformative

process

in

terms

of

the

creation

of

the

cosmos.

But

don’t

miss

the

deeper

esoteric

symbolism

of

the

creation

here.

If

God

has

the

power

to

transform

the

profane

elements

into

a

beautiful,

sacred

creation,

doesn’t

He

also

have

the

power

to

do

the

same

for

us?

To

transform

the

profane

sides

of

our

nature?

02:25

into

fully

ordered,

sanctified,

holy

people

like

him.

I

don’t

wanna

get

too

far

ahead

of

myself,

but

that’s

precisely

what

the

ancients

are

gonna

tell

us

takes

place

inside

the

sacred

temples

they

--- page 2 ---

built.

The

precise

process

by

which

this

transformative

sanctification

or

personal

creation

process

takes

place.

02:55

It’s

gonna

be

a

little

bit

before

we

cover

that

process

on

the

podcast,

but

one

of

the

things

that

you’re

gonna

see

is

that

the

ancients

taught

that

this

sanctification

process

involved

seven

steps,

just

like

the

creation

of

the

world

seen

in

the

Hebrew

Bible,

or

just

like

we’re

going

to

see

on

the

Sumerian

Gudea

cylinders

today,

where

the

creation

is

directly

associated

03:23

with

the

number

seven.

It

was

the

culmination

of

those

seven

steps

that

brought

about

the

full

ordering

or

sanctification

of

what

was

originally

profane.

I

bring

this

up

here

to

illustrate

to

you

the

symbolic

depth

of

the

ancient

mind.

See,

when

the

ancients

give

us

an

account

of

the

creation

of

the

world,

they

aren’t

just

giving

us

an

account

of

the

creation.

03:53

of

the

world.

They’re

using

the

creation

of

the

world

to

symbolize

God’s

ordering

power,

to

symbolize

the

process

by

which

he

brought

about

the

sanctification

of

all

of

his

creations,

including

me

and

you.

The

sanctification

of

his

entire

cosmic

kingdom,

which

precisely

because

of

that

sanctification

process

made

04:21

and

makes

God’s

entire

cosmic

kingdom

an

unimaginably

grand,

holy

cosmic

temple.

The

ancients

then

built

miniature

replicas

of

God’s

sacred

temple

on

earth

as

a

tent

or

a

brick

and

mortar

earthly

temple,

a

microcosmos

if

you

will,

of

God’s

macro

cosmic

temple

04:49

And

then

the

ancients

taught

that

it

was

within

this

earthly

temple

that

human

beings

could,

like

we

see

in

the

ordering

process

of

the

world,

become

fully

sanctified.

There

are

so

many

layers

here

that

you

really

do

have

to

take

time

to

ponder

the

symbolism,

to

capture

the

depth

of

how

the

ancients

associate

the

sanctifying,

ordering

process

of

the

creation

with

the

cosmos.

05:18

with

the

cosmic

temple,

with

the

earthly

temple,

with

the

earth,

and

with

the

sanctification

process

of

human

beings.

And

don’t

forget

that

the

ancients

taught

that

all

of

this

was

directly

tied

to

kingship.

You

really

do

have

to

see

how

all

of

these

concepts

are

symbolically

tied

together

to

truly

grasp

the

magnitude

of

the

theology

the

ancients

taught

in

their

texts

and

in

their

05:49

In

episode

number

11,

we

talked

about

how

God,

by

necessity,

has

to

use

symbols

to

teach

us

about

the

reality

of

the

spiritual

realm.

Because

there

aren’t

one-for-one

word

equivalents

here

on

earth

that

can

convey

the

reality

of

what

that

spiritual

realm

is

really

like.

So

God

uses

symbols

to

point

us

in

the

right

direction.

But

we

have

to

ponder

them

and

let

God

teach

us.

06:17

their

spiritual

meaning.

The

nifty

thing

about

symbols,

like

a

parable,

is

that

it

allows

God

to

teach

on

at

least

two

levels,

the

exoteric

level

and

the

esoteric

level.

So

whereas

some

people

see

the

creation

account,

like

in

the

Hebrew

Bible,

as

an

exoteric

account

of

the

geological

creation

of

the

earth,

others

who

ponder

it

are

gonna

note

that

the

creation

account

there

06:47

--- page 3 ---

holds

important

esoteric

wisdom

about

the

process

that

God

uses

to

bring

about

the

transformation

and

sanctification

of

everything

in

his

kingdom,

including

me

and

you.

You

know,

the

same

thing

can

be

said

of

ancient

myths.

On

the

exoteric

level,

the

myth

of

Jason

and

the

Argonauts

is

this

really

fun

story

about

07:15

who

slays

a

dragon

guarding

a

sacred

tree

on

which

hangs

a

beautiful

golden

fleece.

But

if

you’re

a

long-time

listener

to

the

program,

you

know

that

this

fun

myth

conceals

all

kinds

of

really

important

esoteric

truths.

I

like

how

Thomas

Roussell,

he’s

a

scholar

of

Old

English

and

Icelandic

medieval

studies,

says

it.

Listen

to

what

he

says

about

the

esoteric

nature

of

Norris’

myth.

07:46

In

particular,

Chapter

42

of

the

Prose

Edda,

the

Gilfonganing,

which

we

talked

about

in

our

last

episode.

07:55

unless

you

understand

that

the

myths

are

symbolic

of

truths,

of

actual

truths.

So

the

function

of

the

myth

is

to

impart

wisdom

from

the

Divine

to

the

mortal

realm.

And

that’s

how

you

should

regard

it.

What

is

the

wisdom

within

this

myth?

There

is

an

esoteric

dimension

and

there’s

an

exoteric

one.

The

exoteric

one

is

not

hard

to

understand,

as

despite

people

deliberately

trying

to

misrepresent

08:25

what’s

in

there.

But

I

think

the

esoteric

ones

in

this

one

are

not

particularly

difficult

to

approach

either.

It’s

about

order

versus

chaos.

08:37

I

like

how

Rausl

says

that

the

function

of

myth,

and

I

would

add

the

function

of

symbol,

is

to

quote,

impart

wisdom

from

the

divine

to

the

mortal

realm,

which

is

something

that

we’ve

clearly

seen

and

we’re

going

to

continue

to

see

on

the

program.

And

I

especially

like

how

he

says

that

we

should

ask

ourselves,

you

know,

what

esoteric

truths

are

these

myths

teaching

me?

And

I

would

add

symbols

too.

09:06

What

are

these

symbols

trying

to

teach

me?

Because

that’s

where

the

full

theology

is

being

taught.

09:14

With

that

in

mind,

I

want

to

continue

where

we

left

off

in

our

last

episode.

In

that

episode,

we

learned

that

in

the

heavens,

in

the

cosmos,

that

not

all

space

is

the

same.

The

ancients

tell

us

that

in

order

to

preserve

the

sanctified,

holy,

sacred

nature

of

his

creations,

God

created

a

cosmic

boundary

around

his

creations,

around

his

cosmic

kingdom,

which

separates

it

and

protects

it

from

the

profane

waters.

09:42

where

dwell

chaos

and

the

awful

sea

dragon

and

his

followers.

The

ancients

tell

us

that

in

the

heavens,

there

is

a

clear

demarcation,

a

cosmic

demarcation

between

holy

and

profane

space.

And

it’s

this

demarcation

that

establishes

the

borders

around

God’s

cosmic

temple.

Everything

within

the

border

10:09

--- page 4 ---

is

holy

a

temple

and

everything

outside

the

border

is

unholy

or

profane.

I’ve

mentioned

this

on

the

program

before

but

it’s

worth

noting

here

again.

The

English

word

profane

actually

comes

from

the

Latin

word

profanus

where

pro

means

beyond

or

outside

of

and

fanus

means

temple.

So

the

English

word

profane

literally

means

to

be

10:39

quote,

outside

the

temple.

To

be

outside

of,

to

be

outside

of

clearly

implies

there

is

some

sort

of

demarcation

or

boundary

between

the

two.

So

today

in

today’s

episode,

I

want

to

take

a

closer

look

at

this

cosmic

boundary,

especially

what

the

ancients

have

to

say

about

it

in

their

ancient

records.

11:06

So

with

that,

I

want

to

start

by

going

straight

to

the

world’s

oldest

known

religious

text,

the

Keshe

Temple

Hymn.

This

text

was

found

on

a

cuneiform

tablet

in

the

ruins

of

the

Mesopotamian

city

of

Nippur,

which

is

located

today

in

Iraq.

Archaeologists

date

the

tablet

to

around

2600

BC.

So

to

reiterate,

11:35

this

planet

there

is

no

known

earlier

religious

text

than

this

one.

So

it’s

incredibly

significant

that

this

text

gives

us

a

description

of

the

cosmic

boundary

that

separates

God’s

cosmic

temple

precinct

from

the

profane

waters

that

surround

it.

And

the

description

actually

shows

up

very

early

in

the

text.

So

all

of

this

indicates

that

12:03

knowledge

of

a

cosmic

boundary

between

sacred

and

profane

space

was

known

very,

very

early

in

world

history.

And

not

only

that,

but

that

this

knowledge

was

foundational

to

the

entire

theology

that

we

see

taught,

not

only

in

this

text,

but

throughout

the

ancient

Near

East,

and

then

ultimately

across

the

whole

world.

So

let’s

jump

into

the

text.

While

I

read

12:33

Remember,

the

text

is

talking

in

symbols.

So

see

if

you

can

figure

out

what

the

ancients

are

using

in

the

text

to

symbolize

the

boundary

between

the

two.

Between

lines

22

and

30

of

the

Keshe

Temple

Hymn,

the

text

reads.

And

this

comes

from

the

English

translation

provided

by

Oxford

University

in

their

electronic

text

corpus

of

Sumerian

literature.

Quote.

13:02

Good

house

built

in

a

good

location.

House

cash

built

in

a

good

location,

floating

in

the

heavens

like

a

princely

barge,

like

a

holy

barge

furnished

with

a

gate

like

the

boat

of

heaven.

13:17

Did

you

figure

it

out?

Did

you

figure

out

what

symbolizes

the

cosmic

boundary

between

the

sacred

and

profane?

Now,

it’s

not

easy

if

we

don’t

understand

the

symbols

that

the

ancients

used.

It’s

just

a

mystery

to

us

if

we

don’t

know.

But

on

this

program,

we’re

learning,

so

let’s

break

it

down.

The

text

begins,

quote,

good

house.

So

what

do

you

think

good

house

refers

to?

13:47

The

text

is

called

the

Keshe

Temple

Hymn

because

this

text

is

about

the

building

of

a

sacred

temple

in

Keshe,

an

ancient

city

in

Sumer.

And

the

next

line

refers

to

this

house

as

House

Keshe.

So

we

know

that

the

good

house

or

house

Keshe

here

refers

to

the

Keshe

temple.

The

text

then

goes

on

to

compare

this

sacred

earthly

temple

to

something

else.

Do

you

remember

what

it

was?

14:16

--- page 5 ---

Well,

it

was

a

quote,

princely

barge.

The

text

reads

quote,

good

house

built

in

a

good

location.

House

Keshe

built

in

a

good

location,

floating

in

the

heavens

like

a

princely

barge.

Take

note

that

the

text

compares

the

earthly

brick

and

mortar

temple

in

Keshe

to

a

princely

barge,

to

a

boat.

14:44

that

is

floating

in

the

heavens.

Note

that

this

boat

is

quote,

a

princely

barge,

a

princely

boat.

So

think

of

all

of

the

royal

kingship

theology

that

princely

connotates.

You

can

think

of

Ra

in

ancient

Egypt

on

his

celestial

bark,

seated

on

his

royal

throne.

Take

note

that

the

object

in

the

heaven

is

a

boat.

Boats

float

on

water.

15:13

So

we

know

that

when

the

ancients

talk

about

a

boat

in

or

on

the

waters

in

heaven,

they’re

talking

about

this

boat

floating

in

or

on

the

profane

primordial

waters.

And

note

that

this

boat

is

floating

in

the

heavens,

not

on

earth.

So

the

author

here

is

comparing

the

earthly

Keshe

temple

to

a

celestial

princely

boat

that

floats

atop

the

profane

primordial

waters

of

chaos.

15:43

So

you

see

where

we’re

going

here.

The

author

is

telling

us

that

the

Keshe

Temple

is

a

replica

of

God’s

cosmic

temple,

which

he’s

symbolizing

by

a

princely

barge,

which

floats

atop

the

profane

primordial

waters.

And

not

only

that,

the

author

goes

on

to

stress

that

this

barge

is

sacred.

It’s

not

profane

like

the

waters

that

surround

it.

The

text

reads,

quote,

16:11

floating

in

the

heavens

like

a

princely

barge,

like

a

holy

barge

furnished

with

a

gate,

like

the

boat

of

heaven.

Note

how

this

holy

barge

has

a

gate,

like

a

temple

would

have,

which

suggests

guarded,

protected

space.

Like

we

discussed

in

our

last

episode,

the

gate

allows

the

sacred

in

and

shuts

the

profane

out.

Okay.

16:41

So

back

to

my

original

question.

What

is

the

author

of

this

text

using

to

symbolize

the

boundary

between

God’s

sacred

precinct

or

temple

and

the

profane

waters?

Did

you

guess

the

whole

of

the

boat?

Because

the

whole

of

the

boat,

the

shell

of

the

vessel

is

what

keeps

the

water

out.

The

whole

is

what

gives

the

vessel

structural

integrity.

17:09

It’s

what

keeps

the

boat

buoyant

on

the

water.

It’s

what

protects

the

vessel

from

being

submerged

in

the

water.

The

hull

is

what

separates

and

protects

what’s

in

the

boat

from

what’s

outside

the

boat.

The

hull

of

the

boat

is

the

boundary

that

separates

the

sacred

from

the

profane.

I

don’t

know

if

any

of

you’ve

ever

been

on

a

cruise

ship,

but

a

couple

of

months

back,

I

was

on

a

cruise

ship.

17:38

and

I

was

headed

to

Panama.

And

I

was

seated

on

the

promenade

deck

where

I

love

to

hang

out

the

most

because

I

can

sit

there

and

read.

And

I

was

thinking

about

this

very

thing,

how

the

ancients

used

a

boat

to

symbolize

God’s

cosmic

kingdom

or

temple.

And

I

was

seated

on

one

of

those

deck

chairs,

so

I

stood

up

and

I

moseyed

over

to

the

railing

and

I

just

looked

out.

And

all

I

saw

for

as

far

as

my

eyes

could

see

in

every

direction

18:08

endless

ocean

of

water.

And

I

thought

to

myself,

the

only

thing

saving

me

from

these

waters,

from

sure

death,

is

this

boat.

Literally.

Below

me

is

shark-infested

waters.

So

the

only

thing

--- page 6 ---

saving

me

from

the

sharks

is

this

boat.

Literally.

And

I

thought

to

myself,

man,

the

ancients

picked

a

great

symbol.

18:37

for

God’s

cosmic

temple.

The

boat

is

what

is

protecting

me.

There’s

nothing

but

death

and

destruction

and

disorder

outside

of

this

boat.

God’s

cosmic

kingdom

or

temple

is

the

boat.

18:56

The

Keshe

Temple

Hymn

is

pretty

clear.

The

text

attests

that

in

the

spiritual

realm,

in

the

real

real,

there’s

a

clear

separation

between

profane

and

sacred

cosmic

space.

God’s

cosmic

temple

is

protected

from

the

profane

like

a

boat

protects

one

from

the

waters.

Like

an

air

bubble

or

cavity

or

a

floating

gourd

is

protected

from

the

waters.

Or

a

peach

pit

is

protected

19:25

from

the

flesh

of

the

peach,

or

the

nucleus

of

an

atom

is

protected

from

the

cloud

of

negative

electrons

that

surround

it.

19:34

If

you’d

like

to

hear

a

full

audio

recording

of

the

Keshe

Temple

Hymn,

you

can

find

it

on

our

sister

podcast,

the

Ancient

Tradition

Audio

Rit.

19:45

The

symbolic

representation

of

God’s

cosmic

temple

as

a

boat

is

quite

intriguing,

especially

when

we

read

the

account

of

Utnapishtim,

the

Mesopotamian

Noah

in

Tablet

11

of

the

Epic

of

Gilgamesh.

In

Tablet

11,

Utnapishtim

tells

Gilgamesh

that

the

gods

have

warned

him

that

a

great

flood

is

coming.

20:13

In

the

section

that

I’m

going

to

read,

Utnapishtim

recounts

to

Gilgamesh

what

the

gods

commanded

him

to

do.

The

text

reads,

and

this

is

the

Stephanie

Dalley

translation,

quote,

Man

of

Shuru

Pak,

son

of

Ubaratutu.

Those

are

epitaphs

that

the

gods

have

given

Utnapishtim.

Dismantle

your

house.

Build

a

boat.

Leave

possessions.

20:43

Put

aboard

the

seed

of

all

living

things

into

the

boat.

The

boat

that

you

are

to

build

shall

have

her

dimensions

in

proportion.

Her

width

and

length

shall

be

in

harmony.

Roof

her

like

the

Apsu.

Here

we

see

that

Utnapishtim

is

given

very

specific

instructions

about

how

to

build

the

boat

or

arc

that’s

to

save

his

life.

Now,

considering

that

we

just

saw

in

the

Keshe

temple

hymn

that

in

the

ancient

world,

21:11

God’s

cosmic

temple

was

symbolized

by

a

heavenly

boat,

then

we

would

surmise

that

when

the

gods

give

Utnap

Pishtim

specific

instructions

about

how

to

build

a

boat,

that

what

the

gods

are

really

asking

him

to

do

is

build

a

temple,

a

temple

boat,

one

that’s

a

miniature

replica

of

God’s

heavenly

temple

boat.

And

this

interpretation

is

actually

21:40

by

the

text

itself.

When

we

read

the

following

a

couple

of

lines

later,

the

text

reads,

quote,

the

carpenter

brought

his

axe,

the

reed

worker

brought

his

stone,

children

carried

the

bitumen.

If

you’re

not

familiar

with

what

bitumen

is,

bitumen

is

kind

of

like

tar.

It’s

a

naturally

forming

petroleum

based

substance

that

naturally

bubbles

up

out

of

the

earth.

22:09

--- page 7 ---

One

acre

was

her

circumference,

10

poles

each

the

height

of

her

walls.

I

laid

down

her

structure,

and

this

is

Utnapishtim

speaking,

drew

it

out.

So

this

sounds

like

the

gods

gave

him

very

specific

plans

for

this

boat,

plans

which

he

drew

out,

kind

of

like

a

blueprint,

gave

her

six

decks,

divided

her

into

seven.

All

right,

everything

in

here

is

so

interesting.

22:38

In

this

section

of

the

text,

we

can

see

some

interesting

connections

between

the

building

of

this

boat

and

the

creation

account

given

in

Genesis

in

the

Hebrew

Bible.

The

text

tells

us

very

intriguingly

that

this

boat

was

to

have

a

circumference.

A

circumference.

A

circumference

the

size

of

an

acre.

Which

implies

that

this

boat

was

to

be

formed

in

the

shape

23:08

a

circle.

Now

that’s

interesting.

The

text

also

tells

us

that

the

width

and

the

length

of

the

boat

were

to

be

quote

in

harmony,

which

seems

to

suggest

that

the

boat

was

to

have

either

a

cylindrical

shape

or

a

spherical

shape.

It

sounds

to

me

like

the

boat

was

to

take

on

the

same

form

as

the

earth

itself.

23:38

And

the

text

gets

even

more

intriguing

when

Utnapishtim

tells

us

that

this

boat

was

to

have

six

decks.

Six

decks

which

would

divide

the

boat

into

seven

sections.

That

should

stick

out

to

you.

Because

almost

all

of

us

know

that

in

the

Genesis

account

in

the

Hebrew

Bible

that

the

creation

of

the

earth

was

divided

into

seven

periods

of

creation

and

rest.

But

here’s

the

thing.

24:06

We

don’t

just

find

the

connection

between

the

number

seven,

the

creation

of

the

earth

and

temple

building

in

the

Hebrew

Bible.

It’s

found

all

over

the

ancient

world.

For

example,

in

this

Sumerian

Gudea

cylinders,

which

I

mentioned

earlier,

dated

to

2125

BC,

we

read

of

seven

stones

that

surrounded

the

temple,

a

seven

day

temple

dedication,

24:34

And

then

between

lines

562

to

577

of

cylinder

A,

we

read

about

the

laying

of

the

foundation

of

the

temple

by

the

stretching

of

the

line

or

the

stretching

of

the

cord,

which

we’ve

talked

about

on

the

program.

And

the

marking

out

of

seven

squares.

The

text

reads,

and

this

translation

comes

from

Oxford’s

electronic

text

corpus

of

Sumerian

literature.

Cylinder

A

reads,

25:05

And

note

the

kingship

reference

in

here

too.

Quote,

Gudea.

Now

Gudea

is

the

king,

so

this

is

King

Udea.

In

charge

of

building

the

house,

the

temple.

Well,

of

course

he

is,

we

already

learned

this

in

the

program,

it’s

the

king

who

builds

the

temple.

Placed

on

his

head

the

carrying

basket

for

the

house

as

if

it

were

a

holy

crown.

He

laid

the

foundation.

25:33

set

the

walls

on

the

ground.

He

marked

out

a

square,

aligned

the

bricks

with

a

string.

He

marked

out

a

second

square

on

the

side

of

the

temple.

And

then

the

text

goes

through

the

third

and

the

fourth

and

the

fifth

and

the

sixth

squares,

and

then

it

ends

with

quote,

he

marked

out

a

seventh

square

on

the

site

of

the

temple.

The

fact

that

the

number

seven

is

associated

here

in

this

Mesopotamian

Gudea

cylinder

26:02

with

the

building

of

an

earthly

temple,

and

in

the

Genesis

account

with

the

days

of

creation,

the

building

of

a

cosmic

temple,

and

in

the

architecture

of

Utnapishtim’s

boat

or

ark

in

the

Epic

of

Gilgamesh,

which

I

argue

is

also

a

temple,

is

striking

because

it

tells

us

that

there

is

something

--- page 8 ---

very,

very

important

about

the

connection

between

the

number

seven

and

God’s

temple,

which

we

are

definitely

gonna

unravel

down

the

line.

26:33

I

also

want

to

point

out

that

after

Utnap

Pishtham

and

his

workers

finished

building

the

boat,

the

cylinder

tells

us,

quote,

they

made

a

feast

like

the

New

Year’s

Day

Festival.

This

is

significant

because

the

New

Year’s

Day

Festival

was

the

day

in

the

ancient

world

when

the

ancients

celebrated

the

creation

of

the

world.

All

of

this

points

to

Utnap

Pishtham’s

boat

or

arc.

27:03

as

yet

another

symbolic

representation

of

God’s

sacred

creations,

his

cosmic

temple,

which

the

ancients

also

symbolized

as

we

just

saw

in

the

Keshe

temple

hymn

as

a

holy

barge

floating

on

the

primordial

waters.

I

bring

this

up

in

reference

to

our

discussion

of

the

cosmic

boundary

between

sacred

and

27:31

The

ancient

Mesopotamians

smeared

bitumen,

that

natural

tar-like

substance

found

in

natural

deposits,

all

over

the

exterior

and

interior

of

their

reed

boats

as

a

sealant

to

prevent

water

from

seeping

through

the

hull.

They

coated

every

inch

of

their

boats,

filled

every

seam

with

bitumen

so

that

not

a

single

drop

of

water

could

penetrate

the

hull.

28:01

If

they

missed

a

spot

or

they

didn’t

apply

the

bitumen

thick

enough,

then

water

would

seep

in

and

sink

the

boat,

drowning

everyone

on

board.

So

the

ancients

did

everything

they

could

to

keep

the

water

out.

See,

it’s

the

bitumen

that

creates

the

barrier

between

the

boat

and

the

water

in

which

it’s

submerged.

It

was

the

bitumen

that

made

Utnap

Pishdem’s

great

circular

arc

watertight.

28:31

and

preserved

it

and

humanity

from

the

flood.

Bitumen

is

the

wall.

The

exoteric

message

here

is

pretty

easy

to

follow,

but

consider

the

deeper

esoteric

wisdom.

The

story

of

Utnapishtim

in

the

Ark

invites

us

to

ponder.

Now,

there

are

likely

many,

many

layers

of

wisdom

in

the

Ark

account,

but

one

message

that’s

clear

to

me,

28:59

especially

when

we

recognize

that

Utnapishtim’s

boat

represents

God’s

cosmic

temple,

is

the

message

that

we

need

to

be

inside

God’s

holy

barge,

inside

God’s

temple

if

we

don’t

want

to

spiritually

perish.

The

flood

waters

represent

all

that

is

evil

and

profane.

So

we

must

symbolically

coat

our

homes

and

ourselves

29:29

bitumen

so

that

not

a

single

drop

of

profane

water

can

seep

into

our

homes

or

into

our

souls.

Now

Pishnam

is

teaching

us

that

in

our

own

lives

we

must

clearly

demarcate

the

sacred

from

the

profane.

I

don’t

have

time

to

develop

this

here

but

there

are

even

greater

esoteric

messages

being

conveyed

here.

One

of

which

is

the

symbolic

29:58

parallel

between

the

smearing

of

bitumen

over

the

boat

as

a

protective

wall

against

the

profane

and

the

smearing

of

holy

anointing

oil

over

the

whole

body

as

a

protective

covering

against

the

profane.

The

holy

anointing

oil

is

the

wall.

30:23

So

there’s

so

much

to

ponder

there.

--- page 9 ---

30:27

Before

I

leave

this

section,

I

want

to

talk

a

little

bit

more

about

Uthnapishtim’s

boat.

From

what’s

written

in

the

Epic

of

Gilgamesh,

it

seems

pretty

clear

that

the

ark

Uthnapishtim

constructed

looked

nothing

like

how

modern

artists

portray

it.

You

know,

today

the

ark,

we

imagine

it

as

a

large

kind

of

oval

or

rectangular

boat

with

the

bow

and

stern

rising

high

above

the

midsection.

30:57

This

interpretation

does

not

align

with

what

we

find

in

the

Epic

of

Gilgamesh.

The

text

clearly

indicates

that

the

gods

asked

Utnapishtim

to

construct

a

large

circle

shaped

boat.

And

I

argue

that

that’s

because

this

boat

was

supposed

to

symbolically

represent

a

miniature

replica

of

the

earth,

God’s

creations.

31:27

Assyriologist

Stephanie

Dally,

who

translated

this

text

into

English,

says

the

following

of

Utnap

Pichtim’s

boat

on

page

133

of

her

book,

Myths

from

Mesopotamia,

published

by

Oxford

University

Press.

Quote,

the

ancient

Mesopotamians

were

builders

of

rafts

and

reed

boats

for

use

on

rivers,

not

builders

of

timber

frame

vessels.

The

ark

is

described

here

seems

to

be

a

tub

of

Kufa

type.

31:57

which

consists

mainly

of

a

framework

of

reed

matting,

liberally

coated

with

bitumen

and

oil

to

make

it

waterproof,

fitted

inside

with

benches

and

supporting

poles.

32:12

Dali

tells

us

here

that

Utnapishtim’s

boat

was

indeed

a

round

boat

known

as

a

kufa,

which

is

the

Arabic

word

for

a

basket

woven

from

reeds.

The

Greek

historian

Herodotus,

who

visited

Babylon

in

450

BC,

actually

saw

these

circle

boats

navigating

up

and

down

the

Tigris

and

Euphrates

rivers.

He

was

in

awe

of

them.

32:42

In

section

194

of

book

one

of

the

histories,

Herodotus

wrote,

and

this

is

the

G.C.

Macaulay

translation,

quote,

the

greatest

marvel

of

all

the

things

in

the

land,

and

he’s

talking

about

Babylon,

after

the

city

itself

to

my

mind

is

this

which

I’m

about

to

tell,

their

boats.

Those

I

mean

which

go

down

the

river

to

Babylon

are

round.

33:11

These

vessels

are

made

both

a

very

large

size

and

also

smaller.

Such

are

their

boats.

When

Herodotus

writes,

such

are

their

boats,

we

gather

that

the

circle

boats

were

the

norm,

the

traditional

way

the

Mesopotamians

traveled

down

the

river.

Now,

as

you

can

imagine,

a

circle

boat

would

not

be

easy

to

navigate.

33:38

These

boats

didn’t

have

a

sail,

so

they

didn’t

have

the

ability

to

sail

against

the

current.

They

pretty

much

just

drifted

wherever

the

current

took

them.

And

as

you

can

imagine,

these

circle

boats

had

the

tendency

to

spin,

so

they

had

to

carry

these

really

long

poles

to

try

and

steer

them.

And

I

tell

you

that

because

it

makes

you

wonder

why

they

chose

a

circle

shape

if

it

was

so

impractical

in

so

many

ways.

Of

course,

I

can’t

prove

this.

34:08

but

I

offer

up

the

possibility

from

what

we’ve

read

in

the

Epic

of

Gilgamesh

that

they

chose

the

circle

shape

because

of

its

cosmic

significance.

If

you’d

like

to

see

a

couple

of

pictures

of

these

circle

boats,

you

can

find

them

on

the

webpage

for

this

episode.

--- page 10 ---

34:30

Interestingly,

the

Epic

of

Gilgamesh

is

not

the

only

place

we

learn

that

Utnap

Pishdem’s

Ark

was

constructed

in

the

shape

of

a

circle

or

a

sphere.

Just

15

years

ago,

just

15

in

2009,

a

man

by

the

name

of

Douglas

Simmons,

he

was

the

son

of

an

RAF

officer,

loaned

the

British

Museum

a

cuneiform

tablet

that

his

father

had

obtained

years

earlier

in

the

Middle

East.

34:57

The

tablet

was

then

translated

into

English

by

the

famed

and

I

think

adorably

quirky,

British

museum

curator

Irving

Finkel.

Now

I

can’t

remember

if

I’ve

talked

about

Dr.

Finkel

on

the

program,

but

if

I

haven’t,

you

have

got

to

see

video

of

this

gentleman.

He

is

quite

a

character.

And

sometimes

I

think

someone

needs

to

write

a

film

series

that’s

based

off

of

him,

kind

of

like

they

did

with

Indiana

Jones,

because

I

think

it

would

be

amazing.

35:26

In

2015,

Dr.

Finkel

published

the

first

translation

of

this

tablet.

It’s

now

known

as

the

Ark

tablet,

and

he

published

it

in

his

book,

The

Ark

Before

Noah.

What

Dr.

Finkel

found

was

that

this

tablet,

which

he

dates

between

1900

and

1700

BC,

contains

detailed

specifications

for

building

Noah’s

Ark,

who

was

known

as

Atrahasis.

35:55

among

the

Akkadians

and

as

we’ve

pointed

out

as

Utnap

Pishtim

among

the

Babylonians.

Let’s

read

some

of

what

the

tablet

says.

You’ll

note

that

this

tablet

sounds

a

whole

lot

like

what

was

written

in

the

Epic

of

Gilgamesh

but

with

a

lot

more

detail.

This

tablet

predates

the

Epic

of

Gilgamesh

by

about

500

years.

The

tablet

reads,

and

this

is

the

god

Enki

speaking

to

Atrahasis,

36:25

giving

him

detailed

instructions

of

how

to

build

the

boat.

And

I’m

gonna

skip

over

some

of

the

parts

because

there’s

a

lot

of

details.

Quote,

destroy

your

house,

build

a

boat,

spurn

property

and

save

life.

Draw

out

the

boat

that

you

will

make

on

a

circular

plan.

Let

her

length

and

breadth

be

equal,

let

her

floor

area

be

one

field.

Dr.

Finkel

says

that

36:54

This

field

is

about

the

size

of

a

soccer

pitch.

So

this

is

a

very

big

boat.

Let

her

sides

be

one

ninden

high.

I

set

up

3,600

stanchions

within

her.

I

constructed

her

cabins

above

and

below.

I

apportioned

one

finger

of

bitumen

for

her

outsides.

I

apportioned

one

finger

of

bitumen

for

her

interior.

Dr.

Finkel

notes

that

one

finger

here

refers

37:25

the

length

of

the

last

section

of

your

finger,

so

about

almost

two

centimeters.

So

the

bitumen

would

be

decently

thick.

Listen

to

what

Dr.

Finkel,

in

his

very

characteristic

way,

thought

the

very

first

time

he

read

what

was

written

on

this

tablet.

Quote,

reading

lines

six

and

seven,

and

that’s

where

it

says

that

the

boat’s

gonna

be

circular.

37:51

for

the

first

time

was

certainly

an

adrenaline

stirring

moment.

And

my

first

reaction,

as

anybody’s

would

have

been,

can

this

be

right?

A

circular

plan?

But

then

thinking

it

over,

staring

into

space

with

the

tablet

precariously

poised

over

the

desk,

the

idea

began

to

make

sense.

A

truly

round

boat

would

be

a

coracle,

which

is

a

kaffa.

And

they

certainly

had

coracles

38:21

in

ancient

Mesopotamia.

Now

I

find

the

fact

that

this

boat

is

circular,

of

course

intriguing

because

of

its

cosmological

significance,

but

it’s

the

last

two

lines

of

the

tablet,

lines

59

and

60

--- page 11 ---

that

really

fascinate

me

in

terms

of

this

episode.

Listen

to

how

the

tablet

ends.

This

is

what

it

says

after

the

Mesopotamian

Noah

has

completely

finished

the

boat

and

filled

it

with

animals.

38:52

The

tablet

ends

with

these

lines,

quote,

when

I

shall

have

gone

into

the

boat,

caulk

the

frame

of

her

door.

39:05

Now

that’s

interesting.

The

Mesopotamian

Noah

goes

inside

the

circular

boat

and

then

commands

that

the

seams

of

that

door

be

caulked

or

sealed

off

with

bitumen.

He

literally

seals

himself,

all

of

the

animals,

everything

else

inside

the

boat

so

that

there

is

absolutely

no

way

for

the

water

to

seep

in.

I

hope

you

see

where

I’m

going

with

this.

39:34

The

Mesopotamian

Noah

has

sealed

himself

inside

what

is

now

effectively

a

protective

bubble

or

gourd.

39:44

to

seal

oneself

inside

the

boat

doesn’t

seem

to

make

a

whole

lot

of

practical

sense.

I

mean,

sealed

in,

what’s

he

gonna

do

for

air

and

light?

But

it

does

make

a

whole

heck

of

a

lot

of

sense

cosmologically.

Symbolically,

from

what

we’ve

learned,

the

esoteric

message

here

is

that

the

Mesopotamian

Noah,

by

sealing

himself

inside

the

ark,

40:14

is

effectively

sealing

himself

inside

God’s

sacred

temple

precinct,

where

he’s

protected

from

the

evil,

profane

floodwaters.

I

find

the

symbolic

parody

here

amazing.

As

above,

so

below.

I

was

so

intrigued

by

this,

I

wanted

to

know

what

Dr.

Finkel

had

to

say

about

it,

about

the

Mesopotamian

Noah

sealing

himself

inside

the

boat,

because

it’s

definitely

odd.

So,

40:43

I

scoured

all

445

pages

of

the

Ark

before

Noah

and

I

couldn’t

find

anywhere

where

he

commented

or

made

a

statement

about

this,

which

is

kind

of

surprising

because

the

book’s

quite

thorough.

It

covers

nearly

every

imaginable

aspect

of

the

Ark

tablet.

I’d

really

love

to

hear

Dr.

Finkel’s

thoughts

on

this

because

after

all,

he

is

one

of,

if

not

the,

world’s

leading

astereologists.

41:12

He

does

mention

in

a

lecture

he

gave

in

Vienna,

Austria

at

the

Origins

Conference

that

the

Babylonian

version

of

the

coracle

had

a

roof

on

top,

which

would

make

it

very

much

like

a

giant

gourd

floating

on

the

ocean.

After

Dr.

Finkel

finished

translating

the

ARC

tablet,

you

are

never

gonna

believe

what

he

did

next.

He

actually

went

out

and

tried

to

build

the

boat.

41:42

Yes,

he

did.

He

got

the

financial

backing

of

several

wealthy

Americans

and

he

traveled

to

India

and

he

constructed

a

one-third

scale

replica

of

the

boat

based

off

of

that

blueprint

that’s

in

the

tablet.

And

it

cost

him,

you’re

never

going

to

believe

how

much

it

cost

him,

it

cost

him

10

million

dollars

to

build

this

boat.

Listen

to

Dr.

Finkel

describe

the

boat

and

how

it

was

built

and

listen

very

closely

to

how

he

describes

the

boat.

42:11

towards

the

very

end

of

the

clip.

42:15

--- page 12 ---

What

you

do

when

you

build

one

of

these

things

is

you

lay

the

rope,

you

have

to

twist

the

rope

firstly,

and

this

is

all

covered

in

the

cuneiform

inscription.

You

get

the

pith

of

a

palm

tree

and

you

twist

it

into

rope

and

it’s

laid

out

in

the

great

circle

of

the

right

size

which

is

3600

square

meters.

42:35

And

then

when

you’ve

done

that,

as

it

comes

around

to

the

beginning

point,

you

lay

it

on

top

all

over

again

and

then

on

top

each

time.

And

as

it’s

done,

the

various

strands

of

the

wall

are

lashed

together

north

to

south.

So

you

end

up

with

a

giant

floppy

basket

made

of

this

material.

And

the

next

step

in

the

tablet

is

that

ribs

are

cut,

which

go

from

the

top

on

the

inside,

follow

the

profile

down,

and

these

great

ribs

interlock

the

base

to

make

a

kind

of

gap

43:05

done

that,

the

thing

is

bitumen

from

floor

to

ceiling,

or

rather,

as

it

were,

from

floor,

or

inside

and

out,

thickly

with

bitumen,

which

dries

hard

and

waterproofs

it,

and

there

you

have

your

boat.

And

the

tablet

tells

you

moreover

that

there

was

a

deck,

there

had

to

be

a

deck.

Obviously

the

animals

were

underneath,

there

was

a

little

house

on

the

top,

and

there

was

a

roof,

the

profile

of

which

matched

the

base

of

the

thing.

So

that

when

the

ark

in

the

43:35

walnut

floating

in

the

sea

with

this

kernel

of

life

inside.

43:43

Did

you

know

how

he

said

that

the

roof

of

the

boat

matched

the

profile

of

the

base

of

the

boat?

That

indicates

that

the

boat

was

shaped

like

a

sphere.

And

how

did

he

describe

it?

It

looked

a

bit

like

a

walnut

floating

on

the

sea

with

its

kernel

of

life

inside.

Dr.

Finkel’s

description

here

of

the

Mesopotamian

Noah’s

Ark

as

a

44:13

walnut

floating

on

the

sea

is

perfectly,

perfectly

in

keeping

with

the

cosmological

and

theological

notion

that

God’s

cosmic

temple

floats

in

the

cosmos

like

a

holy

barge

or

gourd

or

air

bubble

and

contains

the

kernel

of

life

like

the

stone

pit

of

a

peach.

And

don’t

forget

that

this

so-called

44:43

was

completely

slathered

in

bitumen

so

that

not

a

single

drop

of

profane

water

could

permeate

the

hole.

If

you’re

interested

in

seeing

a

video

of

the

coracle

arc

that

Dr.

Finkel

built,

I’ve

posted

a

link

on

the

webpage

for

this

episode

to

a

documentary

that

PBS

produced

on

the

subject.

And

if

you’re

in

London,

45:11

and

you’d

like

to

lay

your

eyes

on

the

actual

ARC

tablet,

you

can

find

it

at

the

British

Museum.

45:21

If

you’re

familiar

with

the

Hebrew

Bible

and

you’re

an

acute

listener,

you

may

have

caught

some

similarities

between

the

Mesopotamian

Noah’s

basket-shaped

reed

boat

and

the

story

of

the

infant

Moses

in

Exodus

chapter

2.

In

this

account,

Moses’

mother

bears

a

son,

Moses,

and

notes

that

he’s

a

goodly

child.

45:47

And

when

she

can

no

longer

hide

him

from

Pharaoh,

who

wants

to

kill

all

of

the

sons

born

to

Hebrew

women,

she

places

him

in

a

basket

and

sets

him

afloat

in

the

waters

of

the

Nile.

The

New

Living

Translation

of

Exodus

chapter

two,

verse

three

reads,

but

when

she,

and

this

is

Moses’

mother,

could

no

longer

hide

him,

she

got

a

basket

made

of

papyrus

reeds

and

water

46:16

--- page 13 ---

and

proofed

it

with

tar

and

pitch.

She

put

the

baby

in

the

basket

and

laid

it

among

the

reeds

along

the

bank

of

the

Nile

River.

46:27

Did

you

know

how

we’re

told

in

this

verse

that

Moses’s

mother

coated

the

basket

with

tar,

which

is

bitumen?

The

King

James

version

of

this

same

verse

actually

refers

to

the

basket

in

which

Moses

was

laid

as

an

arc.

The

King

James

version

reads,

quote,

46:57

and

daubed

it

with

slime.

And

the

slime

here

is

the

bitumen

and

pitch

and

put

the

child

there

in

and

she

laid

it

in

the

flags

by

the

rivers

brink.

This

is

quite

interesting

because

the

Hebrew

word

that

the

King

James

translators

translated

as

arc

is

tabat,

T-E-B-A-T,

a

word

that

actually

comes

from

Egypt

and

which

literally

means

a

chest.

And

we

all

know

that

a

chest

has

a

lid

47:27

So

this

means

that

Moses’s

mother

placed

him

in

a

basket

that

completely

surrounded

him

like

a

little

capsule

or

walnut

or

air

bubble.

And

she

waterproofed

that

capsule

with

bitumen

and

she

placed

it

with

her

precious

child

inside

in

the

Nile

waters.

And

what’s

more,

the

King

James

translators

called

that

little

capsule

an

ark.

47:55

Moses’

mother,

by

placing

him

in

a

bitumen-slathered

capsule,

was

symbolically

placing

her

son

inside

sacred

space,

symbolically

placing

him

inside

a

temple

where

he

was

completely

sealed

off

from

the

waters.

I

hope

you

can

see

that

the

ark

the

infant

Moses

was

placed

in

was

a

microcosm

of

the

macrocosm.

It

was

a

miniature

replica

of

God’s

cosmic

temple.

We’re

getting

the

same

48:24

symbolic

image

of

God’s

kingdom

as

an

air

bubble

of

protected

sacred

space

here

in

the

infant

Moses

account.

In

these

accounts,

again,

the

bitumen

is

the

wall.

Stuff

like

this

absolutely

blows

me

away.

And

don’t

miss

that

it

was

this

little

ark

or

reed

capsule

that

saved

the

infant

Moses

from

assured

death.

48:51

just

like

the

wall

around

God’s

cosmic

temple

saves

us

from

assured

death.

There

is

so

much

more

being

conveyed

in

these

ancient

texts

than

most

of

us

could

ever

imagine.

We

can

see

this

same

idea

illustrated

on

the

oldest

known

map

of

the

world,

the

Mapa

Mundi.

It’s

also

known

as

the

Babylonian

map

of

the

world.

49:21

or

tablet

BM

92687,

which

scholars

date

to

sometime

between

the

9th

and

7th

centuries

BC.

This

map

was

discovered

in

the

ancient

Mesopotamian

city

of

Sippar

in

what

is

now

modern-day

Iraq.

On

this

map,

the

known

world

is

depicted

as

a

circular

island

or

sphere

of

land.

The

cuneiform

captions

that

accompany

the

map

49:50

give

names

to

individual

locations

on

the

map

like

Assyria

or

the

city

of

Babylon.

But

for

our

purposes

what’s

remarkable

about

this

map

is

that

the

ancient

Mesopotamians

depicted

the

world

as

being

entirely

encircled

by

a

ring

of

water.

A

ring

which

is

identified

four

times

on

the

map

itself

as

the

Maratu

which

translated

into

English

means

bitter

sea

50:20

--- page 14 ---

salt

sea.

The

obverse

side

of

the

tablet

tells

us

that

in

this

vast

sea

are

found

quote

the

ruined

gods

which

he

Marduk

settled

inside

the

sea.

Here

we

learn

that

the

quote

ruined

gods

live

50:47

in

the

bitter

waters

that

surround

God’s

creations.

The

quote

ruined

gods

here

refer

to

the

god

or

god’s

Marduk

battled

and

victoriously

defeated

before

the

earth

was

created.

We

find

a

similar

thing

written

on

an

inscription

of

King

Sennacherib,

second

ruler

of

the

Sargonid

dynasty,

known

as

OIP2142b2.

In

this

inscription,

51:15

The

creatures

of

Tiamat

are

said

to

be

the

quote,

ruined

gods

that

Marduk

cast

into

the

bitter

waters.

On

the

backside

of

the

Babylonian

map

of

the

world,

the

text

gives

us

a

description

of

who

these

ruined

gods

are.

The

text

reads,

quote,

the

ruined

gods

which

he,

Marduk,

settled

inside

the

sea

are

present

the

viper,

sea

serpent.

51:44

great

dragon,

Ansoobird

and

scorpion

man.

Clearly,

this

water

is

bitter

due

to

more

than

just

salt.

Remember

that

Marduk

cast

these

creatures,

or

as

the

text

says,

settled

these

ruined

gods

inside

the

sea

because

they

rebelled

against

the

high

god

and

the

cosmic

law.

Had

they

been

allowed

to

remain

in

God’s

presence,

they

would

have

polluted

and

profaned

the

sanctity

of

his

kingdom.

52:15

precisely

because

they

rejected

the

law,

the

cosmic

law

that

brought

about

the

sanctity

of

all

things,

including

the

sanctity

of

God

and

his

kingdom.

The

only

way

for

God

to

preserve

the

sanctity

of

his

kingdom

is

to

establish

a

clear

barrier

between

those

who

are

willing

to

keep

the

cosmic

law

and

those

who

are

not.

Those

who

are

not

are

quote,

settled

52:44

inside

the

sea.

For

our

purposes

today,

the

Babylonian

map

is

important

because

it

visually

demarcates

the

division

between

the

ruined

gods

in

the

profane

sea

and

God’s

sacred

creations

by

a

circle.

Everything

within

the

circle

is

sacred,

a

temple.

Everything

outside

of

it

is

profane,

bitter

waters.

53:14

On

this

map,

the

circle

is

the

wall.

If

you’d

like

to

see

a

picture

of

the

Babylonian

map

of

the

world,

you

can

find

it

on

the

webpage

for

this

episode.

If

you’d

like

to

lay

your

eyes

on

the

real

thing,

it’s

on

display

at

the

British

Museum.

Yet

one

more

reason

to

visit

the

British

Museum.

53:41

The

cosmic

boundary

between

sacred

and

profane

is

especially

pronounced

in

tablet

four

of

the

Enuma

Elish.

In

our

last

episode,

I

mentioned

that

I

was

gonna

save

two

important

lines

from

the

tablet

for

this

episode.

And

that’s

because

they

have

to

do

with

this

boundary.

In

this

tablet,

we’re

told

that

Marduk

used

Tiamat’s

dead

carcass

to

create

the

earth.

In

the

very

next

line,

the

text

reads,

54:10

This

is

the

Stephanie

Dalley

translation.

Quote,

he,

speaking

of

Marduk,

drew

a

bolt

across

and

made

a

guard

hold

it.

Now

this

is

interesting.

The

text

tells

us

that

after

Marduk

created

the

heavens

and

earth,

his

cosmic

temple,

he

quote,

drew

a

bolt

across

it.

Well,

what

does

that

mean?

What’s

this

bolt?

54:40

--- page 15 ---

Well,

in

parts

of

the

ancient

world,

the

ancients

would

slide

a

bolt

across

the

door

to

lock

it

in

place.

In

this

passage,

keep

in

mind

that

the

bolt

is

symbolic.

It’s

not

talking

about

Marduk

using

an

actual

physical

lock

to

protect

his

creations.

The

bolt

symbolizes

something

that

God

did

to

seal

off

or

lock

the

cosmic

waters

out.

This

is

clear

in

the

next

line,

which

reads,

quote,

55:09

He,

speaking

again

of

Marduk,

drew

a

bolt

across

and

made

a

guard

hold

it.

Her,

and

this

is

speaking

of

Tiamat,

her

waters

he

arranged

so

that

they

could

not

escape.

55:25

By

drawing

the

bolt

across

his

creations,

the

text

is

symbolizing

that

Marduk

did

something

to

set

a

firm

boundary

between

his

newly

formed

kingdom

and

the

profane

waters

where

dwelt

the

ruined

gods.

The

bolt

acted

as

a

barrier,

which

prevented

the

waters

from

polluting

his

sacred

creations

or

cosmic

temple.

Listen

to

what

a

serologist

Wayne

Horowitz

says

in

his

quite

important

book,

Mesopotamian

Cosmic

Geography.

55:54

about

this

bolt.

On

pages

326

and

327,

he

writes,

quote,

“‘A

cigarro

is

a

bolt

on

a

door.

“‘In

the

context

of

the

sea,

“‘the

cigarro

may

be

a

bolt

on

a

water

lock

“‘that

holds

the

waters

of

the

sea

in

place.

“‘In

this

passage,

the

function

of

the

bar

“‘and

doors

of

the

sea

is

to

keep

the

waters

“‘of

the

sea

within

their

bounds.'”

I

think

it’s

quite

interesting.

56:22

This

text

also

tells

us

that

Marduk

placed

a

guard

or

a

sentinel

of

some

type

in

charge

of

making

sure

that

the

bolt

stayed

securely

locked.

The

text

reads,

quote,

he,

speaking

of

Marduk,

drew

a

bolt

across

and

made

a

guard

hold

it.

This

is

very

intriguing

and

as

you’re

going

to

see

as

the

podcast

continues,

the

notion

that

God

assigns

guards

56:50

to

protect

the

precincts

of

his

cosmic

temple

is

yet

another

very

important

stubborn

bit.

I’ve

got

to

leave

it

there.

There’s

a

lot

to

ponder

in

this

episode,

which

I

hope

you’ll

do.

In

our

next

episode,

we’ll

pick

up

right

here.

So

with

that,

I’ll

leave

you

with

the

words

of

William

Shakespeare,

knowledge

is

the

wing

we’re

with,

we

fly

to

heaven.

I’m

Jack

Logan.

57:23

You’ve

been

listening

to

the

Ancient

Tradition.

A

Wonk

Media

Production.

Episode

#52

-

The

Cosmic

Wall:

The

Ouroboros

&

The

Shen

Ring

https://theancienttradition.com/52-the-cosmic-wall-the-ouroboros-the-shen-ring/

00:00

Music

00:09

--- page 16 ---

You’re

listening

to

The

Ancient

Tradition.

A

Wonk

Media

Production.

Music

provided

by

Joseph

McDade.

He

is

your

host,

Dr.

Jack

Logan.

00:25

Welcome

to

the

ancient

tradition.

I’m

your

host,

Jack

Logan.

00:31

Great

to

have

you

listening

in.

Have

you

ever

wondered

if

God,

upon

the

creation

of

the

world,

revealed

to

human

beings

a

pure,

true

religious

tradition?

Because

on

this

podcast,

we

explore

the

surprising

and

what

I

consider

to

be

mind

boggling

evidence

that’s

found

in

the

oldest

religious

writings

and

cosmologies,

theologies,

symbols,

sacred

architecture,

rituals,

and

myths.

01:01

pointing

to

a

distinct

primordial

tradition,

which

we

refer

to

on

this

program

as

the

ancient

tradition.

On

this

podcast,

we

delve

into

the

evidence.

We

look

at

all

of

the

patterns.

We

talk

about

the

theology.

And

we

contemplate

the

spiritual

implications

of

that

theology.

It’s

not

always

in

line

what

we

think

things

are

going

to

be.

So

it’s

a

podcast

that’s

going

to

spark

some

discussion.

01:31

It

may

even

provoke

a

lot

of

questions.

And

ultimately,

I

hope

that

it

inspires

the

pursuit

of

the

divine.

Be

sure

and

check

out

our

companion

website,

thea

because

you

can

find

pictures

and

transcripts

and

links

to

each

of

our

past

episodes,

which

are

pretty

darn

important

to

getting

a

comprehensive

view

of

the

theology

inherent

in

the

ancient

tradition.

In

today’s

episode,

02:00

We’re

going

to

dig

into

the

texts

that

were

left

by

the

ancient

Egyptians

to

see

if

they,

like

the

ancient

Mesopotamians,

attest

that

God

imposed

a

divine

wall

or

barrier

of

some

type

in

the

cosmos

to

separate

sacred

and

profane

space.

So

let’s

start

by

looking

at

an

ancient

Egyptian

document

translated

by

the

famed

Egyptologist,

Kurt

Sete.

02:29

dated

to

the

19th

dynasty,

which

spanned

from

1550

to

1292

BC,

which

speaks

of

the

gods

giving

the

earthly

Egyptian

pharaoh

dominion

over

everything

under

the

heavens

until

it

reaches

the

dark

primordial

waters.

The

text

reads,

quote,

“‘Cause

your

boundaries

to

extend

beneath

the

whole

reach

of

the

sky

to

the

limits.’

02:59

the

eternal

darkness.

So

this

text

clearly

indicates

that

ancient

Egyptians

understood

that

there

was

a

boundary

to

the

King’s

dominion

and

that

that

boundary

was

distinguished

by

the

quote

limits

of

the

eternal

darkness.

The

earliest

known

ancient

Egyptian

iconographic

depiction

of

the

cosmic

boundary

between

the

sacred

and

the

profane

was

actually

found

in

the

tomb

of

King

Tut.

03:28

He

ruled

from

1332

to

1323

BC.

And

in

this

image,

an

ancient

Egyptian

god

is

depicted

encircled

by

a

snake.

And

that

snake’s

devouring

its

own

tail.

This

image

is

known

as

the

Arabaros.

The

name

Arabaros

comes

from

Greek,

where

aro

means

tail

and

baros

means

eating.

So

when

you

put

them

together,

it’s

the

tail

eating

or

the

tail

devourer.

03:56

And

sometimes

it’s

called

the

dragon,

which

is

Greek

for

dragon

or

snake,

arabaros,

or

the

snake

or

dragon

tail

eater.

Which

incidentally,

I

think

I’ve

mentioned

this

on

the

program

before,

--- page 17 ---

is

why

Draco

Malfoy

in

the

Harry

Potter

series

is

named

Draco.

Rawling

wanted

his

name

to

mean

snake,

like

the

Slytherin

house

that

he

was

part

of,

and

to

associate

him

with

Voldemort,

who

was

the

serpent.

04:23

If

you

would

like

to

see

a

picture

of

the

King

Tut

Arabaros,

you

can

find

it

on

the

webpage

for

this

episode.

Okay,

so

how

does

this

image

of

a

snake

eating

its

own

tail

symbolize

the

cosmic

division

between

sacred

and

profane

space?

Well,

for

the

answer

to

that,

we

need

to

look

at

another

ancient

Egyptian

text.

This

one’s

found

in

the

Khafin

texts,

in

Khafin

text

four,

spell

321.

04:53

In

this

text

you’ll

see

that

the

image

of

the

snake

is

directly

connected

to

the

cosmogony,

the

creation

of

the

universe

or

earth,

and

to

the

creator

Atum.

As

I

read,

see

if

you

can

decode

the

symbol.

The

text

reads,

quote,

I,

and

I

here

refers

to

Atum,

am

the

outflow

of

the

primeval

flood,

he

who

emerged

from

the

waters.

05:24

So

here,

Autum

is

telling

us

that

he’s

the

one

who

emerged

in

the

midst

of

the

dark

chaotic

profane

waters.

The

text

continues,

quote,

I

am

the

provider

of

attributes

serpent

with

its

many

coils.

I

extend

everywhere

in

accordance

with

what

was

to

come

into

existence.

He,

the

indwelling

soul.

05:52

So,

Atum’s

referring

to

himself

here.

It

was

who

made

the

universe.

I

bent

right

around

myself.

I

was

encircled

in

my

coils.

And

by

coils,

Atum

is

referring

to

the

coils

of

a

snake.

So,

Atum

is

referring

to

himself

here

in

this

text,

symbolically

as

a

snake.

In

this

text,

Atum’s

telling

us

that

when

he

emerged

in

the

midst

of

the

profane

waters,

at

the

time

of

creation,

06:22

that

he

extended

his

presence

out

over

the

waters,

over

all

the

chaotic

elements

that

were

to

quote,

come

into

existence,

which

tells

us

that

he

didn’t

extend

his

presence

over

all

the

chaotic

waters,

just

over

the

waters

that

he

wanted

to

come

into

existence.

Then

he

tells

us

that

those

elements

that

took

on

an

ordered

form

became

the

universe.

Then

he

tells

us

that

as

part

of

this

creative

process,

he

bent

himself

06:52

into

a

circle

like

a

snake.

Now

that’s

interesting.

To

understand

the

symbolism

behind

what

Atum

is

telling

us

here,

we

have

to

understand

why

real

snakes

do

this.

Circle

themselves

in

their

coils.

Because

in

the

natural

world,

snakes

coil

themselves

as

a

defense

mechanism

against

threats.

By

curling

up,

they

shield

their

vulnerable

areas,

create

a

more

intimidating

appearance,

07:22

poise

themselves

to

strike

if

a

predator

ventures

too

close.

And

this

coiling

behavior

is

mainly

a

way

for

snakes

to

protect

and

defend

themselves

against

predators.

So

when

Atum

tells

us

that

like

a

snake,

he

coiled

himself

around

the

universe

he

just

created,

we

get

the

impression

that

he

did

this

to

protect

the

sacred

space

he

just

created.

Protect

it

from

what?

Well,

from

the

predators.

07:51

that

lurk

in

the

profane

waters,

the

ruined

gods,

like

we

learned

in

our

previous

episode.

Now,

listen

to

the

last

thing

he

says.

The

text

reads,

quote,

“‘I

bent

right

around

myself.

“‘I

was

encircled

in

my

coils,

“‘one

who

made

a

place

for

himself

“‘in

the

midst

of

his

coils.'”

--- page 18 ---

08:18

This

is

kind

of

an

amazing

little

text.

The

last

part

of

the

text

is

pretty

important.

He

tells

us

that

he

made

a

place

for

himself

in

the

midst

of

his

coils,

the

midst.

The

midst

is

the

very

center.

So

Atum’s

telling

us

that

he

created

the

universe,

his

cosmic

kingdom,

his

cosmic

temple,

and

he

made

a

place,

a

home

for

himself

in

the

very

center,

in

the

sacred

center

of

the

cosmic

temple

he

just

created.

08:48

Take

a

second

and

picture

the

symbol

of

a

coiled

snake

in

your

mind,

where

the

head

of

the

snake

is

in

the

center

and

the

snake

coils

around

itself

again

and

again

and

again,

making

concentric

circles

around

the

center.

Does

this

make

you

think

of

anything

we’ve

talked

about

on

the

program?

Because

it

should,

it

should

conjure

up

in

your

mind

the

image

of

a

circum-pump.

09:15

because

that’s

the

same

image

Atum

is

creating

here

when

he

says,

quote,

I

bent

right

around

myself.

I

was

encircled

in

my

coils,

one

who

made

a

place

for

himself

in

the

midst

of

his

coils.

What

we

glean

from

the

symbolism

Atum

is

using

here

is

that

he

resides

in

the

sacred

center

of

his

creations.

The

serpent’s

spiraling

coils

09:44

extend

outward

and

symbolize

that

God’s

power

and

influence

permeates

every

inch

of

his

kingdom.

The

outer

coil

symbolizes

the

farthest

boundary

of

his

realm

and

represents

the

threshold

that

separates

God’s

kingdom

from,

quote,

the

limits

of

the

eternal

darkness.

Note

how

the

coiled

snake

symbol

that

Atum

uses

here

is

a

miniature

10:14

replica

of

his

cosmic

kingdom.

Amazingly,

the

coiled

snake

symbol

is

a

microcosm

of

the

macrocosm.

The

coiled

snake

symbolizes

how

the

cosmos,

God’s

heavenly

kingdom,

is

actually

structured.

We

get

this

same

structural

diagram

of

God’s

kingdom

in

the

even

more

simplified

symbol,

the

circum-punct,

where

the

point,

the

punct,

is

the

point

of

the

10:41

in

the

center

of

the

circle

represents

the

sacred

center

of

God’s

kingdom,

the

location

of

God’s

personal

residence,

and

the

outer

circle,

the

circum

represents

the

cosmic

boundary

or

wall

around

his

kingdom.

For

today’s

discussion,

our

primary

focus

is

on

this

outer

circle,

Atum’s

outer

coil.

Note

how

it

is

Atum’s

outer

coil

that

completely

encircles

his

kingdom.

11:12

This

matters

because

this

indicates

that

it’s

Atum’s

power

and

authority

that

serves

as

the

protective

barrier

or

wall

that

safeguards

his

kingdom.

It

indicates

that

Atum

is

the

wall.

This

notion

is

further

substantiated

in

ancient

Mesopotamian

texts

like

the

Epic

of

Gilgamesh,

where

Gilgamesh

and

Enki

must

journey

to

the

paradyceical

cedar

forest,

which

Tablet

Five

calls

the

quote

11:41

dwelling

place

of

gods.

So

keep

in

mind

that

this

forest

is

not

a

regular

earthly

forest.

This

forest

is

located

in

the

divine

realm.

If

you’re

a

longtime

listener,

you’ll

recall

that

Gilgamesh

and

Enki

had

to

defeat

the

awful

monster

Humbaba

before

they

could

enter

this

sacred

cedar

forest

where

dwelt

the

glorious

god

Shamash,

who

like

the

Egyptian

Atum-re

12:09

--- page 19 ---

was

symbolized

by

the

sun.

And

let

me

remind

you,

like

we

discussed

many

times

on

the

program,

that

in

the

ancient

world,

God

was

symbolized

by

a

sacred

tree.

Keep

all

of

this

in

your

mind

when

you

listen

to

what

Gilgamesh

and

Enki

do.

So

let’s

start

with

this

question.

Why

did

Gilgamesh

and

Enki

want

to

gain

entrance

to

the

Cedar

Forest,

the

dwelling

place

of

the

gods?

Well,

they

wanted

to

gain

access

to

the

forest,

12:38

so

that

they

could

gain

access

to

the

trees.

And

why

did

they

want

to

gain

access

to

the

trees?

They

wanted

to

gain

access

to

the

trees

so

that

they

could

cut

the

trees

down

and

use

the

trees

to

build

the

sacred

city

of

Uruk,

the

temple,

the

gate,

and

the

wall

that

was

to

surround

the

city.

Keep

in

mind

that

although

the

epic

refers

13:03

to

a

cedar

forest,

to

cedar

trees,

to

the

felling

of

those

trees,

to

the

wood

of

those

trees,

and

to

the

use

of

those

trees

for

building

the

sacred

city

of

Uruk.

They’re

being

used

in

the

epic

as

religious

symbols

to

conceal

greater

esoteric

or

spiritual

truths.

When

Gilgamesh

and

Anki

speak

of

using

the

timber

from

the

sacred

trees,

which

were

found

in

the

divine

forest,

to

build

13:33

say

a

magnificent

gate

for

a

temple,

which

the

texts

say

they

did,

you

Areodite

listeners

will

see

that

this

text

conceals

the

teaching

that

God

is

the

wood.

It’s

teaching

that

God

is

the

actual

gate

by

which

one

enters

the

temple.

And

if

the

temple

itself

is

made

from

the

wood

of

the

sacred

tree,

14:01

then

again,

it

symbolizes

that

God

is

the

temple.

And

if

the

protective

wall

that

is

built

around

the

temple

is

built

from

the

wood

of

the

sacred

tree,

then

just

like

is

suggested

in

ancient

Egypt

by

the

outer

coil

of

the

snake,

it

indicates

that

God

is

the

wall

that

separates

the

sacred

from

the

profane.

14:29

And

if

God

is

the

wall

that

protects

us

from

the

profane,

then

like

I

suggested

in

the

last

episode,

it

makes

perfect

sense

ritually

speaking

that

the

anointing

oil,

which

is

the

gift

of

the

sacred

tree,

is

what

protects

one

personally

from

all

that

is

profane.

I

hope

you’re

starting

to

see

how

profound

symbols

are

and

how

if

you

ponder

them,

14:58

you’ll

gain

great

insight

into

the

spiritual

realm.

And

when

this

happens,

you

will

have

acquired

what

the

ancients

referred

to

as

wisdom.

Wisdom

is

spiritual

knowledge

and

spiritual

understanding.

For

those

willing

to

ponder

them,

the

ancient

texts

and

ancient

symbols

are

literally

dripping

in

wisdom.

I

consider

them

a

global

treasure.

15:27

One

of

the

building

projects

for

which

Gilgamesh

was

known

was,

you

guessed

it,

building

a

real,

a

literal,

massive

protective

wall

around

the

sacred

city

of

Uruk.

In

fact,

the

Epic

of

Gilgamesh

begins

by

heaping

praise

on

Gilgamesh

for

accomplishing

this

exact

architectural

feat.

Listen

to

what

the

prologue

to

the

Epic

of

Gilgamesh

says

about

15:56

Gilgamesh

built

around

Uruk.

And

this

is

the

Stephanie

Dalley

translation.

He,

and

this

refers

to

Gilgamesh,

journeyed

far

and

wide,

weary

and

at

last

resigned.

He

had

the

wall

of

Uruk

built,

--- page 20 ---

the

sheepfold.

See

its

wall,

which

is

like

a

copper

band.

Survey

its

battlements,

which

nobody

else

can

match.

Go

up

on

the

wall

of

Uruk

and

walk

around.

16:28

I

love

how

this

text

refers

to

the

protective

wall

as

a

quote,

sheepfold,

a

place

where

sheep

are

kept

safe

and

as

a

quote,

copper

band,

which

suggests

both

strength

and

beauty.

And

the

text

clearly

indicates

that

this

wall

was

used

to

defend

the

city

against

enemies

when

the

text

invites

us

to

quote,

survey

the

battlements.

16:56

You

might

be

wondering

to

yourself,

have

archaeologists

found

evidence

that

a

wall

was

built

around

the

ancient

Mesopotamian

city

of

Uruk?

Well,

yes.

Yes

they

have.

They

estimate

that

it

was

built

sometime

around

3000

BC.

And

the

wall

was

massive.

Archaeologists

estimate

that

it

stood

between

40

and

50

feet

tall.

17:25

which

encompassed

the

entire

city,

measured

more

than

five

and

a

half

miles

long.

A

50-foot

tall

wall

is

enormous.

To

construct

a

50-foot

tall

wall

five

and

a

half

miles

long

in

3000

BC

was

an

architectural

feat

if

there

ever

was

one.

But

we

all

know

that

Gilgamesh

didn’t

literally

build

this

wall.

17:51

out

of

the

cedar

trees

in

the

sacred

cedar

forest.

Cause

remember

that

forest

was

in

the

spiritual

realm

where

dwelt

the

gods.

But

we

do

know

that

the

ancient

Mesopotamians

built

a

wall

around

their

sacred

city

of

Uruk

made

out

of

brick.

18:10

So

why

did

the

ancient

Mesopotamians

build

a

40

to

50

foot

tall

wall

around

the

city

of

Uruk?

According

to

Jill

C.

Katz

in

an

article

published

in

the

fourth

edition

of

the

2017

volume

of

Near

Eastern

Archaeology,

titled,

Building

a

City

Wall,

Speaking

of

the

building

of

walls

in

the

ancient

world

did

not

build

them

to

thwart

large

scale

military

threats.

18:40

because

there

weren’t

any.

She

writes

the

following

on

page

282,

quote,

the

lack

of

evidence

for

large

scale

military

threats

and

the

equipment

to

counter

them

forces

us

to

reconsider

the

meaning

behind

these

monumental

walls.

Katz

goes

on

to

argue

that

cities

in

the

Southern

Levant

and

cities

like

the

Neolithic

Jericho

were

walled

to

quote,

19:10

symbolically

demarcate

sacred

space.

Within

the

walls

was

the

world

of

the

sacred

and

outside

the

walls,

that

of

the

profane.

We

learned

the

same

thing

in

Dina

Ragavan’s

book,

Temple’s

Ritual

and

Cosmic

Symbolism

in

the

Ancient

World.

The

ancients

built

these

walls

to

replicate

the

structure

of

the

heavens

on

earth.

Or

as

Ragavan

says

on

page

one,

as,

19:40

reflection

or

embodiment

of

the

cosmos.

As

above,

so

below.

The

earthly

wall

that

Gilgamesh

built

around

the

sacred

city

of

Uruk

served

as

a

replica

of

the

cosmic

boundary

that

separated

sacred

from

profane

space

in

the

heavens.

Just

as

the

cosmic

boundary

or

wall

found

in

the

heavens

served

to

keep

the

awful

profane

sea

monsters

out

of

God’s

kingdom,

20:09

--- page 21 ---

So

too

did

the

wall

Gilgamesh

erected

around

the

sacred

city

of

Uruk

serve

to

keep

the

profane

enemies

of

Uruk

out.

See,

the

entire

sacred

city

of

Uruk

with

its

sacred

temple

in

the

center

of

the

city

was

built

to

mirror

the

way

God’s

cosmic

kingdom

was

structured.

20:32

Back

to

the

ancient

Egyptians

and

the

symbol

of

God’s

kingdom

as

a

coiled

snake

or

as

an

araboros,

a

snake

biting

its

own

tail.

In

both

cases

the

image

used

to

symbolize

the

sacred

boundary

around

God’s

kingdom

is

a

circle.

Now

this

is

where

the

ancient

Egyptians

get

into

some

significant

what

I

call

symbolism

stacking,

where

they

stack

multiple

meetings

into

the

same

symbol

21:02

point.

And

the

Arrobaros

is

a

great

example

of

this.

In

Coffin

Text

714,

Atum

is

actually

referred

to

as

a

circle.

The

text

reads,

quote,

I,

speaking

of

Atum,

was

in

the

primeval

waters.

I

was

he

who

came

into

existence

as

a

circle.

21:29

Because

the

text

opens

in

reference

to

the

primeval

waters,

we

know

the

context

of

this

text

is

the

cosmogony.

So

the

text

is

talking

about

Atum

appearing

in

the

beginning

in

the

primeval

waters

as

a

circle.

Okay,

so

what

does

this

circle

symbolize?

Well,

more

than

one

thing,

which

is

where

we

get

into

symbolism

stacking.

On

one

level,

the

circle

symbolizes

the

sun.

It

symbolizes

that

Atum

on

the

day

of

creation,

21:58

appeared

in

the

primordial

waters

as

a

glorious

being

of

light,

which

the

ancient

Egyptians

symbolized

by

the

sun.

The

sun

and

its

rays

also

symbolize

the

extent

or

the

outer

limits

of

Atum’s

kingdom,

as

well

as

the

extent

of

the

living

pharaoh’s

dominion.

They’re

parallel.

22:27

Occasionally,

this

was

symbolized

iconographically

prior

to

the

Amarna

period,

which

dated

to

between

1348

and

1320

BC

as

a

solar

disk

with

outstretched

rays.

But

more

often

than

not,

this

idea

was

depicted

as

a

solar

disk

with

outstretched

wings,

the

winged

disk,

which

is

one

of

the

most

prominent

ancient

Egyptian

symbols.

One

of

the

things

that

the

wings

represented,

because

there

are

several,

22:56

was

the

sun’s

rays

or

vice

versa.

They

represented

the

same

idea.

They

represented

the

reach

of

God’s

power

and

authority,

the

reach

of

his

kingdom,

like

the

loving

care

of

a

brooding

bird.

The

outstretched

wings

represented,

now

listen

to

this,

divine

protection,

like

a

wall,

protection

against

evil.

23:22

Which

is

why

the

ancient

Egyptians

placed

these

winged

disks

on

the

walls

of

temples

and

on

tombs

and

above

doorways

and

on

stele.

They

served

as

symbols

of

protection.

23:37

You

can

find

images

of

the

solar

disc

with

outstretched

rays

and

the

solar

disc

with

outstretched

wings

on

the

webpage

for

this

episode.

In

the

Metropolitan

Museum

of

Art

in

New

York

City,

in

Gallery

111,

you

can

find

this

beautiful

necklace

that

was

found

among

the

jewelry

of

the

Princess

Sahathar

unit.

It

was

found

in

her

underground

tomb,

which

was

found

beside

the

pyramid

of

King

Senesaret

II.

24:06

--- page 22 ---

who

reigned

between

1897

and

1878

BC.

Let

me

read

the

Met’s

description

of

this

item.

They

write,

this

cloisonné

pectoral

is

inlaid

with

372

cut

pieces

of

semi-precious

stones.

The

heraldic

design

is

replete

with

symbolism.

Zigzag

lines

on

the

base

bar

24:32

represent

the

primordial

waters

out

of

which

the

primeval

hill

emerged.

Each

of

the

falcons,

symbols

of

the

sun

god,

clasps

a

circular

hieroglyph,

meaning

encircled,

thus

declaring

the

solar

deity’s

supreme

power

over

the

universe.

Now

listen

very

closely

to

what

the

hieroglyphs

on

this

necklace

say,

because

it’s

what

they

say

that’s

so

important

to

our

discussion.

25:01

The

Met

writes,

quote,

hieroglyphic

signs

make

up

the

design

and

the

whole

may

be

read,

quote,

the

God

of

the

rising

sun

grants

life

and

dominion

over

all

the

sun

in

circles

of

1,000,000

on

100,000

years

to

King

Sennachereth

II.

Did

you

catch

what

it

said?

This

necklace

says

that

God

gives

the

king

25:31

In

this

case,

King

Senniuseret

II,

life

and

dominion

overall

that

quote,

the

sun

encircles,

all

that

the

sun

encircles.

In

other

words,

the

bounds

of

King

Senniuseret

II’s

dominion,

which

is

symbolic

of

the

bounds

of

Atum’s

dominion,

the

totality

of

creation

is

symbolized

by

the

sun

and

everything

that

the

sun

can

encircle.

26:01

which

is

also

what

the

winged

sun

symbolizes.

The

outstretched

wings

of

which

represent

all

that

the

sun

or

God

in

circles.

Everything

within

the

circle

of

those

outstretched

wings

is

divinely

protected.

Life

can

only

be

found

inside

that

circle.

And

this

is

where

the

symbolism

gets

kind

of

amazing.

See,

the

ancient

Egyptian

hieroglyph

for

quote,

26:30

all

the

sun

in

circles,

is

known

as

the

Egyptian

Shen

Ring.

The

word

Shen

actually

means

two

in

circle.

This

ring

is

actually

very,

very

similar

to

the

ring

held

centuries

later

by

the

Zoroastrian

god

Ahura

Mazda

that

we

talked

about

in

episodes

number

48

and

50.

If

you

recall,

the

ring

that

Ahura

Mazda

holds

isn’t

a

ring

like

one

would

wear

on

their

finger.

It’s

actually

a

ring

made

of

rope.

26:58

and

it

represents

the

rope

that

Ahura

Mazda

used

or

gave

to

the

king,

the

Shah

on

Shah,

to

measure

out

the

ground

plan

for

or

mark

the

boundaries

of

a

temple

before

he

began

construction.

The

rope

and

the

rod

were

Ahura

Mazda

and

the

Shah

on

Shah’s

temple

building

tools.

Now,

just

guess

what

the

ancient

Egyptian

hieroglyph

for

the

Shen

Ring

looks

like.

27:24

Yep,

a

rod

and

a

ring.

The

hieroglyph

is

a

circle

with

a

short

perpendicular

rod

at

the

base.

So

it’s

just

like

the

Zoroastrian

ring

and

rod

that

a

Hora

Mazda

holds

out,

but

you

gotta

kind

of

turn

it

45

degrees

to

the

right.

So

the

circle

sits

atop

the

rod

or

bar.

This

hieroglyph

actually

represents

a

coil

of

rope

bound

to

a

straight

rod.

And

yes,

27:53

This

rod

and

rope

represent

the

same

rod

and

rope

that

were

used

by

ancient

Egyptian

temple

builders

to

define

the

boundaries

of

ancient

Egyptian

temples.

Yes,

the

boundaries

or

the

limits

of

the

temple.

We

know

that

the

earthly

temple

that

the

ancient

Egyptians

built

was

a

replica

of

God’s

heavenly

temple.

So

the

Shen

Ring

symbol,

which

represented

the

tools,

--- page 23 ---

28:20

The

ancient

Egyptians

used

to

map

out

the

boundaries

of

the

earthly

temple

also

served

as

a

symbol

of

the

boundaries

of

God’s

cosmic

temple.

Are

you

following

all

of

this?

Because

it’s

pretty

amazing.

I

hope

you

can

see

how

the

Shen

Ring

itself

is

a

replica

of

God’s

heavenly

kingdom

and

the

protective

circle

or

wall

that

surrounds

his

kingdom.

And

this

isn’t

just

me

making

this

argument.

28:49

It’s

widely

concluded

by

Egyptologists

that

the

circular

form

of

the

Shen

Ring

represented

eternal

protection

in

ancient

Egypt.

It’s

amazing

because

this

small

but

prominent

Egyptian

symbol

served

as

a

microcosm

of

the

macrocosm

too.

And

there’s

even

more

to

this.

The

Shen

symbol

was

directly

connected

to

kingship

and

the

new

royal

name

the

king

adopted

at

coronation.

29:19

known

as

the

prenomen

or

throne

name.

See,

the

ancient

Egyptians

inscribed

the

new

king’s

prenomen

or

throne

name

and

sometimes

his

nomen,

his

birth

name,

right

in

the

center

of

the

Shenring,

symbolizing

that

the

king

and

his

dominion

were

encircled

by

divine

protection,

by

a

divine

protective

wall,

which

we

know

represents

the

boundary

around

God’s

sacred

cosmic

temple.

29:48

More

often

than

not,

Egyptian

scribes

needed

to

elongate

the

chen

ring

so

that

it

could

hold

the

total

length

of

the

king’s

new

royal

name.

Today,

most

of

us

know

this

elongated

rope

ring

as

a

cartouche,

which

is

the

name

the

French

gave

it

because

they

thought

it

resembled

the

paper

gun

cartridges

that

they

used.

The

ancient

Egyptians

actually

called

it

chenu.

30:11

The

ancient

Egyptians

inscribed

the

king’s

name

inside

the

chen

ring

to

symbolize

that

the

king

was

surrounded

by

a

circle

of

divine

protection.

30:23

Right

after

I

put

this

section

of

today’s

program

together,

I

came

across

an

article

titled

The

Encircling

Protection

of

Horus,

published

in

the

Proceedings

of

the

12th

Annual

Symposium

of

Current

Research

in

Egyptology,

where

to

my

surprise,

the

author

David

Ian

Lightbody

argued

in

2011

what

I’ve

just

argued

here,

that

the

Shen

Ring

symbolized

a

boundary

or

enclosure

wall.

30:54

pages

134

and

135

he

demonstrates

that

the

word

family

that’s

associated

with

the

ancient

Egyptian

word

Shen

is

directly

related

to

the

notion

of

the

protection

of

a

sacred

enclosure.

On

page

134

he

writes,

quote,

the

form-based

word

family

of

the

word

Shen,

S-H-E-N,

31:19

directly

relates

to

the

circumferences

of

buildings

and

tombs

and

their

protection.

And

then

referring

to

this

word

family,

significant

meanings

include

the

words

protection,

encircle,

enclose,

surround,

circumference,

and

perimeter.

31:40

On

page

135

where

he

lists

the

words

found

in

the

Shenward

family,

one

of

the

words

SNW

literally

means

enclosure

wall.

And

another

word

that

begins

with

SNWT

literally

means

quote,

the

pyramid

and

temple

are

encircled.

This

last

one

sort

of

stopped

me

in

my

tracks

because

32:07

--- page 24 ---

That

was

exactly

what

I

had

concluded

in

my

own

research,

that

the

Shen

Ring

represented

the

protective

ring

or

wall

around

God’s

sacred

temple

precinct,

and

here

it

was

on

page

135,

written

right

on

the

page

in

ancient

Egyptian

hieroglyphs,

the

temple

is

encircled.

32:29

This

is

incredibly

significant

because

as

I

mentioned,

the

Shen

Ring

was

a

prominent

ancient

Egyptian

symbol.

So

for

the

ancient

Egyptians

to

create

a

stylized

version

of

a

divinely

protected

enclosure

in

the

Shen

Ring,

it

indicates

that

the

ancient

Egyptians

were

not

only

aware

that

God’s

cosmic

temple,

of

which

their

temples

was

a

microcosm,

was

encircled

by

a

protective

wall

of

some

sort.

It

also

indicates

that

this

doctrine

32:58

constituted

a

very

important

component

of

the

ancient

Egyptian

religion.

Lightbody,

like

I

argued,

argues

that

the

Shen

was

directly

associated

with

the

laying

of

temple

foundations

and

the

stretching

of

the

cord

ritual.

On

page

134

and

135,

Lightbody

writes,

quote,

the

ritual

setting

out

of

building

plans

through

the

stretching

of

the

cord

ceremony

33:28

is

attested

from

the

Old

Kingdom.

And

it

seems

plausible

that

the

Shen

ropes

are

related

to

those

used

in

these

foundation

rituals.

The

establishment

of

temples

seems

to

have

included

the

stretching

of

the

cord

ceremony,

which

set

the

orientation

and

involved

an

encircling

of

the

building,

perhaps

while

setting

out

the

boundary.

Lightbody

goes

on

to

illustrate

that

33:58

protection

and

dominion

symbolized

by

the

Shen

Ring

was

not

only

incorporated

in

ancient

Egyptian

architecture,

it

also

played

an

important

role

in

ancient

Egyptian

ritual.

Lightbody

writes

the

following

on

page

134,

quote,

the

symbolism

of

pharaonic

protection

and

dominion

encompassed

the

architecture

to

designate,

delineate,

and

protect.

34:26

enclosed

royal

spaces.

Just

as

the

pyramids,

temples,

and

tombs

were

protected

by

encircling

rituals

and

spells.

And

we

learned

many

many

many

episodes

ago

that

spells

in

ancient

Egypt

were

a

form

of

divine

utterance.

This

encirclement

was

depicted

and

embodied

in

the

art

and

artifacts

contained

within

these

sacred

spaces.

34:56

And

what

was

the

Pharaoh

hoping

to

protect

himself

and

his

dominion

from

by

way

of

these

encircling

rituals?

Well,

we

know,

his

enemies,

which

were

theologically

associated

with

the

awful

sea

serpent

of

Pophos,

who

lurked

in

the

primeval

waters

of

Nune.

On

page

138,

Lightbody

writes,

texts

referring

to

the

mythical

origins

of

the

Egyptian

temple

refer

35:24

to

these

early

palisade

enclosures

and

rituals

of

protection

for

warding

off

snakes

and

enemies.

Now

listen

to

this.

Often

the

rituals

included

in

circling

processions

where

the

Pharaoh

and

his

entourage

would

seem

to

have

verified

the

integrity

of

the

enclosure

and

bestowed

sacred

blessings

to

ensure

its

strength.

What

Lightbody

says

here

is

really

interesting.

35:52

It

had

me

thinking

about

episode

number

seven,

the

King

of

the

Four

Corners.

If

you

recall

in

that

episode,

we

talked

about

an

ancient

Egyptian

kingship

ritual

known

as

running

the

circuit

as

part

of

the

Royal

Sed

Festival,

which

renewed

the

strength

and

the

vitality

of

the

reigning

king.

--- page 25 ---

The

king

would

run

a

circuit

around

the

perimeter

of

a

field,

which

symbolized

the

entirety

of

his

dominion.

36:21

a

dominion

which

he

had

inherited

from

his

father.

36:26

Ancient

Egyptians

performed

many

encircling

type

ceremonies

and

rituals

to

ensure

the

divine

protection

of

a

particular

space.

In

light

of

these

rituals,

Lightbody

writes,

quote,

“‘I

believe

circumambulation

ceremonies,

such

as

the

Sokar

Festival,

are

descended

from

these

early

rituals

of

encircling

protection.'”

We’ve

certainly

touched

on

circumambulation

rights

on

this

program.

36:56

But

what

Lightbody

says

here

also

had

me

thinking

about

the

possible

association

between

rituals

of

encircling

protection

and

the

ring

dance.

I

don’t

have

time

to

develop

this

here,

but

it’s

definitely

something

worth

pondering.

Note

how

everything

about

the

Shen

Ring

symbol

teaches

and

reinforces

the

theology

taught

within

the

ancient

tradition.

The

Shen

Circle.

37:25

represents

many

things.

It

represents

the

sun,

which

represents

the

glorious

nature

of

Atum’s

being,

a

being

of

ineffable

light.

The

circle

also

represents

the

rope

used

by

divine

architects

to

lay

out

the

boundaries

of

Atum’s

sacred

temple

precinct.

And

the

circle

also

represents

the

boundary

or

wall

itself

that

encircles

Atum’s

sacred

cosmic

temple

precinct.

37:54

And

note

as

well

how

this

symbol

directly

associates

kingship

with

temple

building,

which

you

should

be

starting

to

gather

by

now

represents

two

core

theological

elements

taught

within

the

ancient

tradition.

It’s

the

king’s

new

royal

name

that’s

placed

directly

inside

the

protective

shin

ring,

the

rope

and

rod.

The

tools

used

38:23

to

build

a

sacred

temple.

And

take

note

how

this

symbol

was

used

to

house

the

king’s

new

name,

the

name

that

reflected

the

new

nature,

the

king’s

rebirth

that

he

acquired

upon

coronation.

A

name

that

you’re

gonna

see

down

the

line

reflects

the

king’s

full

sanctification.

Shen

Ring

symbolism

is

symbolism

stacking

in

its

finest

form.

38:53

See

again,

God

is

the

circle.

God

is

the

protective

wall

that

safeguards

or

encircles

his

sacred

cosmic

precinct

and

everything

that’s

lucky

enough

to

be

inside

that

sacred

space.

In

Pyramid

Text

366,

God

is

actually

referred

to

as

the

Great

Circle.

The

text

reads,

quote,

the

Great

Circle,

in

your

name

of

39:23

great

surround,

an

enveloping

ring

in

the

ring

that

encircles

the

outermost

lands.

39:34

Note

how

this

text

refers

to

God

as

a

quote,

enveloping

ring,

and

the

quote,

ring

that

encircles

the

outermost

lands.

Keep

in

mind

that

this

text

is

very,

very,

very

old.

It

was

written

on

the

walls

of

King

Tete’s

pyramid

by

Egyptian

scribes,

sometime

around

2290

BC.

40:02

What

great

circle

is

this

text

referring

to?

Again,

the

meaning

is

layered,

but

great

circle

is

unquestionably

connected

to

Atum,

or

ray.

It

was

symbolized

by

the

sun

disc,

the

sun

disc

that

--- page 26 ---

encircles

the

outermost

lands

like

an

enveloping

ring.

With

this

in

mind,

I

wanna

return

to

the

ancient

Egyptian

symbol,

the

araboros,

the

snake

devouring

its

own

tail.

40:30

I

argued

at

the

beginning

of

today’s

program

that

the

aroboros

is

a

symbol

of

the

protective

boundary

around

God’s

cosmic

kingdom.

But

how

so?

From

the

text

that

we

read

earlier,

where

Atum

made

a

place

for

himself

in

the

midst

of

his

coils,

we

learned

that

Atum

was

sometimes

symbolized

by

a

snake.

In

the

aroboros,

the

snake

that

is

biting

its

tail

represents

Atum.

41:00

captures

the

notion

of

Atum’s

glorious

nature

as

the

sun,

as

well

as

the

cyclical

nature

of

the

sun

itself,

where

it

rises

each

morning,

circles

the

earth,

and

then

it

dies

in

the

evening,

which

represents

birth,

death,

and

rebirth.

That

process,

it’s

symbolized

by

the

snake

eating

its

own

tail.

It’s

Atum

that

encircles

his

creation,

41:29

which

is

symbolized

by

the

sun

circling

the

earth.

It’s

Atum

that

protects

his

creation

from

the

awful

Apophis

and

the

eternal

darkness.

The

Arabaros

symbolizes

that

Atum

is

the

protective

wall.

I’d

argue

that

at

least

one

of

the

reasons

why

the

ancient

Egyptians

depicted

the

snake

eating

its

own

tail,

of

which

rebirth

was

one,

41:56

was

to

convey

the

notion

that

the

border

around

God’s

creation

is

completely

sealed.

It

is

completely

sealed

off

from

the

primordial

waters,

like

the

bitumen.

There’s

no

gap

or

opening

by

which

the

profane

waters

can

pollute

the

sacred

space

inside.

And

I

argue

this

because

this

is

what

is

conveyed

by

the

Shenring

and

what

was

also

conveyed

in

ancient

Egyptian

protection

rituals.

On

the

micro

level,

42:26

The

goal

of

those

rituals

was

to

create

a

sealed

protective

barrier

around

a

particular

sacred

space,

effectively

stopping

demons

or

enemies

from

entering

that

space.

On

the

macro

level,

the

image

of

the

Auroboros

depicted

a

closed

system

model

of

the

universe,

which

I’ve

noted

earlier

in

the

podcast

is

a

view

that

many

contemporary

astrophysicists

are

beginning

to

embrace.

42:57

Now,

lest

you

think

that

I

might

be

taking

my

interpretation

of

this

symbol

a

bit

too

far,

listen

to

how

Marinus

Vandersleuths

in

Volume

1

of

Traditional

Cosmology

connects

the

Araboros

to

exactly

what

we

discussed

in

our

last

episode,

episode

number

51,

the

Cosmic

Wall,

to

the

Gourd

and

to

the

Seed,

or

as

Irving

Finkel

referred

to

Atrahasis

or

Noah’s

Ark,

as

a

Walnut.

43:25

with

its

kernel

of

life

inside.

On

page

105,

speaking

of

the

ordered

space,

which

was

surrounded

by

the

waters

of

unorganized

chaos,

van

der

Sluis

writes,

quote,

in

a

large

number

of

traditions

varying

from

archaic,

unpolished

myth

to

the

elevated

astronomical

understanding,

and

he’s

talking

about

astrophysicists

there,

this

receptacle

43:55

was

conceived

to

be

shaped

like

a

hollow,

enclosing

or

surrounding

perimeter

or

shell,

for

which

the

generic

term

enclosure

could

be

used.

The

domain

encompassed

by

the

enclosing

ball

or

circle

was

primarily

characterized

as

the

first

organized

cosmos,

land

or

earth,

as

opposed

to

the

unorganized.

--- page 27 ---

44:25

state

of

chaos

that

continued

to

exist

outside

it.

Note

how

van

der

Sluis

argues

here

that

the

distinguishing

characteristic

between

the

enclosure

and

the

waters

is

organized,

cosmo-sized,

or

sanctified

space,

and

unorganized,

uncosmo-sized,

profane

space.

He

continues,

quote,

44:54

five

biological

metaphors,

and

I

would

say

symbols,

based

on

the

procreation

of

offspring

in

the

natural

world

were

most

prominently

employed

in

the

mythical

descriptions

of

this

enclosure.

A

shell,

a

gourd,

or

nut,

a

seed,

and

likewise,

an

egg.

Now

listen

to

this.

A

sixth

common

symbol

to

describe

the

perimeter

of

the

enclosure

45:24

is

that

of

an

encompassing

serpent.

An

encompassing

serpent

is

the

Ara

Baros

or

some

rendition

of

it.

Baner

Sluss

is

telling

us

here

that

from

his

research,

he

found

that

the

ancients

symbolized

the

perimeter

of

the

outer

boundary

of

this

special

cosmo-sized

enclosure,

which

we

know

represents

God’s

cosmic

temple

as

an

encompassing

serpent.

45:52

So

we

were

right

on

track

in

our

interpretation.

Very

interestingly,

R.T.

Rundle

Clark

associates

God

as

the

great

circle,

the

boundary

that

surrounds

his

kingdom

to

the

ancient

Egyptian

Ka,

K-A.

I

don’t

have

time

to

get

into

this

too

much

here,

but

the

hieroglyph

for

the

Ka

is

what

looks

like

two

vertical

or

upraised

arms,

except

that

that’s

not

what

it

is

at

all.

46:22

The

hieroglyph

is

actually

an

image

of

a

horizontal

embrace.

Clark

notes

that

another

version

of

pyramid

text

366

exclaims

of

God,

quote,

“‘You

encircle

everything

within

your

arms.'”

So

another

way

one

could

imagine

or

symbolize

the

cosmic

barrier

between

sacred

and

profane

space

would

be

with

an

image

of

God

46:50

encircling

his

kingdom

in

a

loving,

protective

embrace.

46:58

On

page

232,

Clark

writes,

quote,

an

embrace

is

protective.

The

high

God

put

his

arms

around

his

progeny

to

shield

them

from

the

disintegrating

powers

of

the

primeval

waters.

And

then

on

page

240,

he

continues,

the

world

has

to

be

protected

against

the

disintegrating

forces

of

the

surrounding

chaos.

All

the

people’s

47:27

of

antiquity

felt

that

light

and

life

were

constantly

threatened

by

very

real

cosmic

enemies.

Hence

the

need

to

put

a

guard

around

the

earth

or

its

symbolic

alternative,

the

primeval

mound.

47:45

I

also

want

to

point

out

that

many

of

these

same

ideas

are

present

on

the

Pharaoh’s

crown.

If

you’ve

ever

looked

at

a

Pharaoh’s

crown,

you’ll

notice

that

there’s

a

cobra

right

in

the

center

of

the

crown,

poised,

ready

to

strike.

It’s

called

a

uraeus,

which

is

the

Greek

word

for

a

kind

of

snake.

This

cobra

was

believed

to

protect

the

Pharaoh

from

his

enemies,

who

were

understood

to

be

the

incarnation

of

the

evil

forces

of

chaos.

48:14

It’s

the

serpent

that

protects

the

king

and

his

kingdom.

48:19

--- page 28 ---

Over

time,

the

ancient

Egyptians

began

to

interpret

the

snake

in

the

Arobaro

symbol,

which

was

once

considered

a

tomb

as

the

profane

water

serpent

or

dragon

who’d

been

relegated

to

the

waters

for

his

rebellion.

Instead

of

the

serpent

being

interpreted

as

guarding

or

protecting

the

sacred

space

God

created

when

he

created

the

universe,

now

he

was

seen

as

a

threat

to

the

order

and

the

stability

of

the

realm.

48:48

The

serpent

came

to

represent

the

primordial

waters

themselves.

But

despite

this,

despite

these

varied

interpretations,

they

all

reinforce

the

central

belief

that

in

the

cosmos,

sacred

and

profane

space

is

divided.

Whether

the

snake

is

conceived

as

protecting

God’s

cosmic

temple

or

is

conceived

as

threatening

it,

the

snake

marks

the

boundary.

49:15

between

where

God’s

cosmic

temple

ends

and

the

profane

waters

begin.

49:21

If

ancient

Egyptian

temples

were

meant

to

be

a

microcosm

of

the

macrocosm,

then

we

would

expect

the

boundary

or

barrier

between

cosmic,

sacred

and

profane

space

to

be

visible

in

ancient

Egyptian

temple

architecture.

And

guess

what?

That’s

exactly

what

we

find.

Do

you

remember

the

ancient

Egyptian

city

of

Heliopolis?

We

talked

about

it

quite

a

bit

in

episode

number

34,

the

Ebenezer.

49:49

If

you

don’t

remember,

the

ancient

Egyptians

believed

that

Heliopolis

was

the

actual

location

where

the

primordial

hillock

rose

out

of

the

primordial

waters

on

the

day

of

creation.

There

was

no

more

sacred

place

in

all

of

ancient

Egypt.

Unfortunately,

the

temple

that

was

built

there

is

no

longer

standing,

but

archaeologists

have

found

evidence

of

a

massive

wall

that

surrounded

the

city.

50:15

Andrew

Curry,

writer

for

Archaeology

Magazine

notes

in

the

March-April

2019

edition,

the

following

dimensions

of

the

wall.

Listen

to

the

unbelievable

width

of

the

wall

that

surrounded

Heliopolis.

Quote,

based

on

their

width,

some

sections

revealed

by

recent

excavations

are

55

feet

across

in

some

spots.

Can

you

imagine

that?

50:45

Walls

that

are

55

feet

wide.

That’s

just

crazy.

Kari

goes

on.

Roe,

now

Roe

was

a

German

Egyptologist

who

worked

on

the

site,

estimates

that

Heliopolis

might

have

been

guarded

by

walls

up

to

60

feet

high.

60

feet

high,

can

you

imagine

that?

Roe

states,

quote,

“‘In

a

flat

landscape,

it

must

have

looked

more

“‘like

a

fortress

than

a

city.’

51:16

So

that’s

a

massive

wall.

But

how

do

archeologists

know

that

this

isn’t

just

a

plain

old

wall

rather

than

a

microcosmic

depiction

of

the

boundary

dividing

sacred

and

profane

space?

Well,

that’s

where

the

excavation

gets

really

interesting

because

guess

what

archeologists

found?

In

the

spring

of

2014,

archeologists

unearthed

about

150

foot

section

of

the

southern

portion

of

the

wall.

51:46

and

they

found

that

the

wall

was

undulated.

Okay,

so

what

in

the

heck

does

that

mean?

A

scholar

by

the

name

of

Max

Johann

Biersendorf

in

an

article

titled,

Undulating

Mud

Brick

Walls

in

Ancient

Pharaonic

Egypt,

explains

the

wall

that

surrounds

the

ancient

Egyptian

city

of

--- page 29 ---

Heliopolis

like

this.

Quote,

the

most

striking

feature

of

this

wall

is

the

undulating

construction.

It’s

composed

of

mud

bricks

placed

in

curves

that

are

ascending

and

descending.

52:15

and

not

organized

in

a

plain

horizontal

fashion.

The

undulating

appearance

yields

a

regular

pattern

of

concave

segments

alternating

with

convex

ones.

To

put

it

simply,

the

wall

that

encircled

Heliopolis

was

constructed

to

look

like

a

wave.

It

was

constructed

to

look

like

water,

like

the

profane

chaotic

primordial

waters

that

surrounded

God’s

cosmic.

52:45

temple.

Now

if

I

would

have

told

you

at

the

beginning

of

today’s

episode

that

the

ancient

Egyptians

constructed

walls

around

their

temples

that

looked

like

waves,

this

would

have

made

no

sense

to

you.

But

now

that

you

know

ancient

Egyptian

temples

were

constructed

to

be

microcosms

of

the

macrocosm,

then

you

know

precisely

why

the

ancient

Egyptians

built

a

wall

that

looked

like

water

around

the

sacred

temple

city

of

Heliopolis.

They

did

it!

53:13

represent

the

wall,

the

membrane,

the

shell,

the

tough

rind

that

divided

the

sacred

temple

precinct

inside

from

the

profane

chaotic

waters

outside.

And

from

the

colossal

height

and

thickness

of

the

wall

they

obviously

didn’t

want

the

profane

world

to

have

any

chance

of

penetrating

the

sacred

temple

precinct

inside.

53:37

If

you’d

like

to

see

an

artist’s

rendering

of

Heliopolis’s

undulating

walls,

along

with

pictures

of

undulating

walls,

at

other

archeological

sites

in

Egypt,

you

can

find

them

on

the

webpage

for

this

episode.

Each

of

the

ancient

Egyptian

symbols

we’ve

discussed

in

this

episode,

the

Shenring

symbol

and

the

Arabaros

symbol,

attest

that

in

the

heavens,

there

is

a

strict

division

between

sacred

and

profane

space.

54:07

Over

time,

many

of

the

theological

ideas

we’ve

discussed

in

today’s

episode

have

been

altered

or

corrupted

and

even

usurped

by

various

groups.

One

example

of

this

is

the

practice

of

ritual

magic,

where

practitioners

use

salt

or

chalk

or

flour

to

draw

a

magic

circle

that

they

believe

will

offer

them

magical

protection.

Among

the

Wicca,

a

modern

day

pagan

religion

that

was

developed

during

the

mid-

54:37

20th

century

AD,

so

not

that

long

ago,

the

casting

of

a

magic

circle

is

widely

practiced.

Entomologically,

the

word

wicca

comes

from

the

Old

English

word,

P-I-C-C-A,

which

is

pronounced

witta,

which

is

a

masculine

noun

meaning

sorcerer

or

male

witch.

Whether

these

modern

day

witches

or

wiccans

recognize

it,

when

they

ritually

cast

a

magic

circle,

55:05

They’re

drawing

heavily

from

the

rich

religious

legacy

handed

down

by

the

ancients

and

the

theology

the

ancients

taught

within

the

ancient

tradition.

While

Wiccan

rituals

are

most

likely

significantly

altered

versions

of

the

original

teachings,

they

provide

further

evidence

that

an

ancient

religious

tradition

was

imparted

to

humanity

in

the

beginning.

55:36

one

that

ultimately

gave

rise

to

the

vast

majority

of

religious

traditions

we

see

today.

On

this

program

we

refer

to

that

original

religious

tradition

as

the

ancient

tradition.

I’m

going

to

have

to

leave

it

there.

I

hope

I’ve

given

you

a

lot

to

think

about.

Until

next

time,

I’ll

leave

you

with

the

--- page 30 ---

words

of

William

Shakespeare,

“Knowledge

is

the

wing

wherewith

we

fly

to

heaven.”

I’m

Jack

Logan.

56:10

You’ve

been

listening

to

the

Ancient

Tradition.

A

Wonk

Media

Production.

Episode

#53

-

The

Cosmic

Wall:

The

Compass

&

The

Firmament

https://theancienttradition.com/53-the-cosmic-wall-the-compass-the-firmament/

00:00

Music

00:09

You’re

listening

to

The

Ancient

Tradition.

A

Wonk

Media

Production.

Music

provided

by

Joseph

McDade.

He

is

your

host,

Dr.

Jack

Logan.

00:25

Welcome

to

the

Ancient

Tradition.

I’m

your

host,

Jack

Logan.

00:32

Glad

to

have

you

with

me

and

welcome

to

all

of

our

new

listeners.

Glad

to

have

you

along

with

us

today

too.

Today’s

episode

is

titled,

The

Cosmic

Wall,

The

Compass

and

the

Firmament.

So

let’s

just

jump

right

in.

For

the

past

two

episodes,

we’ve

been

discussing

another

very

important

stubborn

bit.

And

by

stubborn

bit,

I’m

referring

to

those

theological

tenants

that

stubbornly

persist

across

the

world.

01:00

in

different

time

periods

and

in

different

hemispheres

that

we

can

trace

all

the

way

back

to

the

dawn

of

human

history.

I

want

to

start

by

taking

a

brief

second

to

set

up

for

our

new

listeners

where

today’s

stubborn

bit

fits

in

the

overarching

theology

that

the

ancients

taught,

which

we’ve

been

reconstructing

piece

by

piece

on

the

program.

If

you’re

new

to

the

program,

know

that

this

theology

is

01:27

fully

supported

by

an

incredible

amount

of

textual

evidence

found

in

the

world’s

oldest

written

records.

And

the

back

catalog

of

the

podcast

is

loaded

with

that

evidence.

So

if

you’re

interested

in

learning

more

about

the

theology

the

ancients

taught,

which

we

refer

to

on

this

program

as

the

ancient

tradition,

then

be

sure

to

check

out

the

back

catalog

because

that’s

--- page 31 ---

where

you’re

going

to

find

all

of

that

textual

evidence.

And

I

guarantee

that

you’re

going

to

learn

something

new.

01:55

and

you

may

even

learn

something

that

will

truly

enrich

your

life.

To

briefly

recount

where

we

are

in

the

theology,

the

ancients

tell

us

that

upon

conquering

the

dragon,

the

beloved

son

of

the

high

god,

be

he

called

Marduk,

Ninurta,

Osiris,

Baal,

Christ,

or

by

some

other

name,

was

crowned

a

heavenly

king

and

he

was

given

the

power

and

the

authority

to

create

a

cosmic

kingdom.

02:24

The

ancients

tell

us

that

one

of

the

first

things

that

he

did

when

he

began

building

his

cosmic

kingdom

was

to

build

a

cosmic

wall

of

some

sort

around

his

kingdom,

the

cosmos,

the

space

that

he

just

cosmo-sized

or

sanctified

to

protect

it,

to

protect

all

of

his

creations

from

the

onslaught

of

the

dragon

and

chaos.

This

cosmo-sized

sacred

sanctified

space

02:53

is

referred

to

as

a

temple

or

in

this

case,

a

cosmic

temple.

We

saw

in

episode

number

51,

the

holy

barge

and

the

water

bolt

that

the

ancient

Mesopotamians

and

other

peoples

in

the

ancient

Near

East

symbolized

this

sanctified,

cosmicized

space

as

a

holy

barge

or

an

arc.

The

arc

itself

03:21

defined

the

boundary

between

the

sacred

space

that

was

within

the

boat

from

the

profane

waters

of

chaos

outside

of

it.

And

we

see

this

theology.

The

slaying

of

the

dragon,

the

hero’s

son,

kingship,

and

the

special

boat

come

together

very

nicely

in

the

epic

poem,

Jason

and

the

Argonauts,

which

was

written

in

the

third

century

BC

by

Apollonius

of

Rhodes.

03:48

He

was

for

a

time

the

head

librarian

of

the

Library

of

Alexandria.

The

poem

is

actually

titled

The

Argonautica,

which

refers

to

Jason’s

boat,

the

Argo.

And

we’re

told

that

this

vessel

was

constructed

by

a

man

named

Argus,

who,

we’re

not

surprised

to

learn,

constructed

it

with

the

help

of

the

gods.

According

to

Apollodorus,

04:16

who

was

a

renowned

Greek

engineer,

the

Argo

was

favored

by

the

gods

and

it

was

considered

the

first

ship

to

sail

the

seas.

So

you

should

see

in

this

some

cosmological

significance.

It’s

what

Jason’s

boat

was

made

out

of

that

I

want

to

emphasize

here.

See,

Jason’s

boat

was

considered

special

because

the

whole

itself

was

made

from

the

wood

of

a

very

sacred

oak

tree.

04:44

And

which

oak

tree

was

this?

It

was

the

sacred

oak

tree,

which

was

the

oracle

found

in

the

temple

of

Dadoena,

which

is

the

oldest

oracle

in

Greece.

And

it

was

dedicated

to

the

god

Zeus,

the

king

of

Mount

Olympus.

A

special

plank

of

this

wood

was

placed

in

the

prow

of

the

boat.

And

we’re

told

in

book

one

that

this

plank

spoke.

05:13

to

the

Argonauts

and

guided

them

through

the

seas.

Book

one,

lines

519

to

531

tell

us

this,

quote,

and

yes,

the

ship

itself,

the

Argo,

called

to

them

also,

since

its

hull

contained

a

talking

plank.

Athena

had

herself

cut

it

from

the

Dédonan

Oak

to

serve

beneath

them

as

the

keel.

05:42

And

we

learn

later

in

the

poem

in

book

two,

line

1267,

that

the

golden

fleece,

which

Jason

is

pursuing

to

affirm

his

kingship

is

actually

hanging

in

a

sacred

grove

on

an

oak

tree.

The

text

--- page 32 ---

reads,

quote,

the

plane

of

acres

and

the

God’s

sacred

grove

where

the

snake

kept

watch

and

ward

over

the

fleece

spread

on

the

leafy

branches

06:12

of

an

oak.

If

you’re

a

long

time

listener,

you

should

clearly

see

here

that

the

poem

of

Jason

and

the

Argo

conceals

significant

esoteric

truths.

I’m

not

going

to

spell

them

out

for

you

here,

but

note

how

just

as

Gilgamesh

used

wood

from

the

sacred

cedar

forest,

where

dwelt

the

gods,

to

build

his

sacred

city,

so

too

Jason

uses

the

wood

of

the

sacred

tree

to

build

his

special

boat.

06:42

the

Argo.

And

likewise

in

the

Old

Testament

in

first

Kings

chapter

five,

we

see

that

King

Solomon

requests

that

Hiram,

the

king

of

Tyre

cut

down

cedar

trees

for

the

building

of

a

temple

to

Yahweh.

Verses

five

and

six

read

quote,

and

behold,

I

propose

to

build

an

house

and

a

house

is

a

temple.

07:11

And

to

the

name

of

the

Lord

my

God,

now

therefore

command

thou

that

they

hew

me

cedar

trees

out

of

Lebanon.”

Hiram

does

this

and

then

in

1

Kings

chapter

6

verses

9

and

15,

we

read

that

Solomon

used

the

cedar

to

build

the

temple.

The

text

reads,

quote,

so

he

built

the

house

and

finished

it

and

covered

the

house

with

beams

and

boards

of

cedar.

07:41

And

he

built

the

walls

of

the

house

within

with

boards

of

cedar,

both

the

floor

of

the

house

and

the

walls

of

the

ceiling.

We

get

the

picture

from

this

verse

that

the

entire

temple

that

Solomon

built,

both

inside

and

out,

was

constructed

out

of

this

special

cedar.

And

then

listen

to

what

it

says

in

verse

16,

quote,

and

he

built

20

cubits

on

the

sides

of

the

house,

both

the

floor

08:10

and

the

walls

with

the

boards

of

cedar.

He

even

built

them

for

it

within,

even

for

the

oracle,

even

for

the

most

holy

place.

And

the

most

holy

place

here

refers

to

the

innermost

sanctum,

the

Holy

of

Holies.

According

to

this

verse,

King

Solomon

used

precious

cedar

trees

for

the

floor

and

the

walls

of

the

Holy

of

Holies.

And

this

makes

absolutely

perfect

08:39

theological

sense

that

he

did

so.

But

you

have

to

understand

what

the

cedar

trees

represent

symbolically

to

understand

that

and

understand

why.

Many

different

types

of

precious

materials

were

used

to

build

King

Solomon’s

temple

to

Yahweh.

But

it

should

be

pretty

easy

for

you

to

see

the

parallel

here

between

King

Solomon’s

use

of

cedar

to

build

the

temple,

in

particular

the

Holy

of

Holies.

09:08

Jason’s

use

of

the

sacred

oak

tree

to

build

the

whole

of

the

Argo

and

Gilgamesh’s

use

of

cedar

trees

from

the

sacred

cedar

forest

to

build

a

magnificent

gate

for

Anlil’s

temple.

The

esoteric

message

is

the

same.

In

all

three

of

these

instances,

and

there’s

more,

which

we’re

going

to

talk

about

in

a

future

episode,

the

wood

of

the

sacred

tree

is

the

material

that

master

builders

use

09:38

to

build

a

temple.

As

I

mentioned

a

couple

of

minutes

ago,

one

of

the

first

things

the

hero’s

son

did

when

he

commenced

building

his

cosmic

kingdom

was

establish

a

clear

barrier

or

enclosure

of

some

type

around

his

creations

to

protect

them

from

the

dragon

and

to

hold

back

the

waters

of

chaos.

This

barrier

clearly

established

the

boundary

between

sacred

and

profane

space.

10:06

--- page 33 ---

In

the

ancient

world,

this

boundary

was

conceived

of

as

a

wall.

As

we

saw

in

our

last

episode,

episode

number

52,

the

Arab

Aros

and

the

Shenring.

The

ancient

Sumerians

built

a

massive

wall

around

the

world’s

oldest

true

city,

the

city

of

Uruk

founded

according

to

the

Sumerian

King

list

by

King

Enmerkar

around

4500

BC

to

reflect

10:32

the

barrier

in

the

cosmos

that

separated

sacred

from

profane

space.

The

Sumerians

built

their

cities

to

be

mirror

images

of

God’s

kingdom

in

the

cosmos.

As

above,

so

below.

The

wall

around

the

Sumerian

city

of

Uruk

was

not

unique.

The

practice

of

building

these

walls,

despite

the

lack

of

evidence

of

large

scale

threat,

10:56

was

widespread

in

ancient

Mesopotamia

and

across

the

entire

ancient

Near

East.

The

city

of

Babylon

was

surrounded

by

an

impressive

double

wall

that

was

built

by

Nebuchadnezzar

II

and

it

stretched

five

miles.

The

ancient

city

of

Nineveh

was

also

protected

by

a

massive

wall,

some

eight

to

nine

miles

long.

And

in

some

cases,

it

was

an

astounding

70

to

80

feet

high.

If

you’d

like

to

see

a

picture

of

the

footprint,

11:25

of

the

wall

around

the

city

of

Nineveh,

can

find

it

on

the

webpage

for

this

episode.

And

we

saw

a

similar

thing

in

ancient

Egypt

where

the

city

of

Heliopolis

was

surrounded

by

a

massive

wall,

as

was

the

temple

of

Karnak.

And

both

of

these

walls

were

constructed

in

that

undulating

manner

to

convey

that

outside

that

protective

wall,

the

city

or

temple

was

encircled

by

the

waters

of

chaos.

These

enclosure

walls

are

a

11:53

ubiquitous

feature

of

ancient

Egyptian

communities

and

towns

and

temples.

When

we

look

across

the

entire

ancient

Near

East,

we

see

that

walls

are

a

major

architectural

feature

of

most

temples

in

the

ancient

world.

Scholars

refer

to

these

walls

as

temenos

walls.

The

root

here

is

temen,

which

should

ring

a

bell

for

a

lot

of

you,

which

is

a

Greek

word

for

to

cut

or

to

cut

off.

12:22

If

you

recall,

we

talked

about

this

a

long

time

ago

on

the

podcast.

The

Temin

usually

marked

where

the

Carto,

the

north-south

line

of

a

city

and

the

Decumanos,

the

east-west

line

of

a

city,

cut

across

each

other.

Where

those

lines

crossed

marked

the

sacred

center

of

all

space,

which

marked

the

site

where

the

temple

was

to

be

built,

which

is

why

it’s

used

in

English

as

the

root

for

our

word

temple.

12:51

which

is

why

the

wall

that

surrounds

sacred

space

is

called

a

temenos

wall,

because

it

cuts

profane

space

off

from

sacred

space,

separating

the

two,

thereby

creating

the

boundary

around

the

temple.

Wikipedia

defines

a

temenos

wall

like

this,

quote,

a

piece

of

land

marked

off

from

common

uses

and

dedicated

to

a

God

such

as

a

sanctuary,

holy

grove,

13:21

or

holy

precinct.

13:24

I

mentioned

this

to

emphasize

that

the

walls

that

the

ancients

built

around

their

cities,

you

know,

even

though

they

were

really

useful

for

protecting

what

was

within

from

these

physical

threats

or

enemies,

they

were

first

and

foremost

built

to

serve

as

mirror

images

or

miniature

replicas

of

the

--- page 34 ---

wall

that

surrounds

God’s

home

and

all

of

his

sacred

creations.

His

temple.

Don’t

miss

what

the

ancients

by

13:54

building

these

walls

are

attesting

to.

What

they’re

attesting

is

that

the

cosmos

are

structured.

I

don’t

know

if

you’ve

ever

even

thought

about

this

before,

but

what

the

ancients

are

teaching

here

is

quite

fascinating.

The

ancients

are

attesting

that

there

is

an

actual

real

physical

or

spiritual

structure

to

the

cosmos.

And

they’re

testing

that

part

of

that

structure

consists

of

a

real

14:22

physical

or

spiritual

barrier

of

some

sort

around

God’s

cosmic

kingdom,

which

we

refer

to

as

a

cosmic

temple

because

everything

within

God’s

cosmic

kingdom

is

sacred.

Now,

this

is

a

structure

that

I

can’t

see,

that

none

of

us

can

presently

see,

but

it’s

a

structure,

a

wall

of

some

sort

that

the

ancients

tell

us

exists

14:51

in

the

cosmos

and

is

real.

Now

that’s

pretty

fascinating.

Canaanite

cities

like

Jericho

and

Dan,

they

were

also

famously

surrounded

by

impressive

walls,

as

was

the

city

of

Jerusalem.

Many

of

you

know

this,

it

was

walled

and

some

of

that

wall

still

exists

today.

Like

all

of

the

other

ancient

Near

Eastern

civilizations,

the

Israelites

designed

the

city

of

Jerusalem

to

reflect

15:19

the

structure

of

the

cosmos.

Jerusalem

was

built

to

be

a

microcosm

of

the

macrocosm.

I

can

easily

see

that

there’s

a

wall

around

Jerusalem,

but

I

was

wondering

if

there

was

anything

in

the

Old

Testament

that

specifically

attests

to

this

theology,

that

there’s

a

structure

to

the

heavens,

in

particular

that

a

real

barrier

or

wall

of

some

sort

completely

encircles

God’s

kingdom.

And

yes,

15:49

There

definitely

is.

It

is

a

strong,

stubborn

bit.

So

to

see

what

I’m

talking

about,

let’s

jump

into

the

Old

Testament.

Let’s

start

in

the

book

of

Job,

chapter

26,

verses

eight,

10

and

12.

In

these

verses,

Job

is

teaching

a

man

by

the

name

of

Bildad

about

Yahweh’s

power

and

strength.

And

this

is

what

he

says

about

Yahweh’s

power.

Verse

eight

reads,

and

this

is

the

King

James

Version,

quote,

16:19

He,

and

He

here

is

speaking

of

Yahweh,

bindeth

up

the

waters

in

his

thick

clouds.

Right

here

is

a

clear

reference

that

Yahweh

has

the

power

to

quote

bind

the

waters.

Verse

10

continues,

quote,

He,

again

speaking

of

Yahweh,

hath

compassed

the

waters

with

bounds.

16:48

I

really

like

this

verse

because

here

Job

tells

us

that

Yahweh,

quote,

have

compassed

the

waters

with

bounds.

And

by

using

the

word

compass,

we

should

get

the

picture

of

a

compass

in

our

mind.

And

I’m

not

talking

about

the

directional

compass.

I’m

talking

about

the

compass

that

you

used

in

geometry

class,

where

you

place

the

pointed

end

of

the

compass

on

a

specific

point,

and

then

you

adjust

the

width

between

the

arms.

17:16

to

your

desired

radius.

And

then

you

rotate

the

compass

around

that

point,

keeping

the

pointed

end

fixed.

And

when

you

do

this,

the

pencil

end

will

trace

out

a

perfect

circle.

So

when

Job

tells

us

that

Yahweh

compassed

the

waters

with

bounds,

imagine

Yahweh

using

a

compass

to

draw

a

circle

around

his

kingdom,

which

binds

the

waters.

The

waters

are

17:44

--- page 35 ---

prohibited

from

going

beyond

the

bounds

that

Yahweh

has

drawn.

The

English

Standard

Version

translation

of

this

verse

actually

reads,

quote,

he,

Yahweh,

has

inscribed

a

circle

on

the

face

of

the

waters

at

the

boundary

between

light

and

darkness.

The

Amplified

Bible

translates

it

this

way,

quote,

he

has

inscribed

a

circular

limit

18:15

on

the

face

of

the

waters

at

the

boundary

between

light

and

darkness.

The

imagery

of

Yahweh

inscribing

a

circle

on

the

face

of

the

waters

using

a

compass

is

highly

symbolic

because

the

compass

is

a

builder’s

tool.

It’s

one

of

a

couple

of

very

important

tools

that

a

carpenter

uses

to

build

a

building.

But

the

ancients

aren’t

talking

about

building

any

old

building

here.

They’re

talking

about

Yahweh

building

a

18:44

cosmic

temple.

Temple

building

is

a

metaphor

for

God

creating

the

universe,

his

cosmic

temple.

This

is

worth

repeating.

Temple

building

is

a

metaphor

for

creating

the

universe,

God’s

cosmic

temple.

And

if

you

give

that

just

a

little

bit

of

thought,

you’ll

probably

catch

that

19:13

The

compass

is

akin

to

the

rope

and

the

rod

that

we’ve

talked

about

in

the

past

couple

of

episodes.

The

rope

and

the

rod

that

the

ancient

kings

are

depicted

holding

in

their

hands.

Cause

all

you

gotta

do

to

draw

a

circle

with

a

rope

and

a

rod

is

to

tie

the

rope

to

the

rod,

stick

the

rod

in

the

ground,

and

then

stretch

out

the

rope

and

then

walk

around

the

rod.

And

then,

voila,

you

have

a

circle.

19:40

We’ve

produced

a

circle

in

nearly

the

exact

same

way

that

you

would

with

a

compass

that

you

use

in

a

geometry

class.

So

for

Job

to

tell

us

that

Yahweh,

quote,

compassed

the

waters,

we

should

glean

two

important

things.

Number

one,

that

Yahweh

by

holding

the

compass

in

his

hand

had

to

have

been

a

king.

20:06

Because

as

we’ve

learned

from

the

ancient

tradition,

kings

were

the

only

ones

who

were

given

the

compass

or

the

rope

and

the

rod,

which

signified

the

right

to

build

a

sacred

temple.

And

the

only

reason

that

they

were

given

the

right

to

build

a

sacred

temple

was

because

they

had

conquered

the

dragon.

And

as

I

just

pointed

out,

temple

building

is

a

metaphor

for

creating

the

universe.

So

when

a

king

is

depicted

holding

a

compass

or

a

rope

and

a

rod,

20:36

temple

building

tools,

it

really

conveys

that

he’s

been

given

the

right

to

create

a

universe,

a

sacred

cosmic

temple.

And

number

two,

because

of

this,

we

glean

that

Yahweh

is

the

creator

and

that

his

use

of

the

compass

here

to

inscribe

a

limit

on

the

waters,

the

building

of

a

boundary

or

wall

to

protect

his

cosmic

creations,

21:05

constituted

a

very

important

part

of

the

creation

process,

the

cosmic

temple

building

process.

The

notion

that

the

establishment

of

this

wall

took

place

as

part

of

the

creation

process

is

actually

fully

supported

by

the

account

of

the

creation

that’s

given

in

the

Old

Testament

in

the

book

of

Genesis.

21:33

I

want

to

walk

you

through

the

first

couple

of

verses

of

this

account

in

detail,

because

I’ve

never

read

or

heard

anyone

offer

up

the

interpretation

that

I’m

going

to

offer

up.

Now

that’s

not

to

say

--- page 36 ---

that

someone

hasn’t

made

the

argument

that

I’m

going

to

make.

It’s

just

that

I

have

never

come

across

it.

So

I’m

guessing

that

you

probably

haven’t

either.

I

think

you’re

going

to

find

that

the

creation

account

given

in

Genesis,

when

we

examine

it

intertextually

with

what

is

written

in

Job,

reveals

22:02

a

clear

picture

of

what

God

did

in

the

beginning

stages

of

the

creation

process.

There

are

some

notoriously

difficult

passages

in

the

Genesis

account

which

are

cleared

up

almost

instantly

when

we

draw

on

the

knowledge

we

have

of

ancient

Near

Eastern

cosmology.

I

think

you’re

going

to

find

that

it

sheds

a

whole

lot

of

light

on

what’s

written

in

the

Genesis

account.

22:29

In

Genesis

chapter

one,

verse

one,

we

read

that

quote,

the

beginning,

God

created

the

heaven

and

earth.

In

verse

two,

we’re

told

that

the

earth

hasn’t

been

formed

yet

and

that

darkness

covered

quote,

the

face

of

the

deep.

And

the

deep

here

refers

to

the

primordial

waters.

These

verses

tell

us

like

the

rest

of

the

ancient

world

tells

us

that

God

22:59

looked

out

over

the

pre-creative

state

of

the

universe

and

he

saw

nothing

but

this

endless

sea

of

dark,

profane,

uncreated

chaotic

matter,

which

the

ancients

symbolically

conceived

of

as

water.

In

verse

two,

we’re

told

that

something

of

God’s

essence

permeated

some

of

the

chaotic

matter,

something

which

initiated

the

cosmicizing

or

creation

process.

23:28

something

that

initiated

the

sanctification

process

of

that

matter.

We

talked

about

this

aspect

of

the

creation

quite

a

bit

in

episode

number

13,

the

incomprehensible

brooding

wind.

So

if

this

interests

you,

be

sure

and

check

that

episode

out.

It’s

worth

listening

to.

After

this

in

verse

three,

we’re

told

that

God

commanded

via

divine

utterance,

light

to

appear

in

the

midst

of

the

newly

cosmicized

matter.

23:57

And

verse

four

tells

us

that

when

God

saw

the

light,

he

saw

that

it

was

good.

Now

listen

to

what

God

does

next.

Remember,

all

of

this

is

happening

on

the

first

day.

Verse

four

reads,

and

this

is

the

King

James

version,

quote,

and

God

saw

the

light

that

it

was

good

and

God

divided

the

light

from

the

darkness.

Okay.

The

light

here

referred

to

in

this

verse,

24:27

does

not

refer

to

the

sun.

According

to

the

text,

the

sun

wasn’t

created

until

day

four.

So

if

the

light

that’s

referred

to

here

is

not

the

sun,

then

what

is

it?

And

what

is

the

darkness?

If

we

look

at

the

clues

given

in

the

two

verses

that

precede

verse

four,

we

see

that

in

verse

two,

darkness

is

the

descriptor

that’s

used

to

describe

the

profane

chaotic

elements,

the

primordial

waters.

24:57

It

says,

quote,

darkness

was

upon

the

face

of

the

deep.

And

then

in

the

latter

half

of

verse

two,

and

then

in

verse

three,

we

see

that

light

is

what

appears

after

God

cosmo

sizes

or

sanctifies

a

portion

of

the

chaotic

elements.

As

we

discussed

in

episode

number

29,

who

is

God,

a

glorious

being

of

ineffable

light.

We

see

that

25:24

One

of

the

fundamental

principles

taught

within

the

ancient

tradition

is

that

sanctification

is

always

associated

with

light.

The

greater

the

sanctification,

the

greater

the

light.

So

it

comes

as

--- page 37 ---

no

surprise

that

after

God

cosmicized

or

sanctified

a

portion

of

the

profane

waters,

that

God

then

commanded

that

light

appear.

25:53

Note

that

light

in

this

passage

is

made

directly

in

reference

to

the

waters

that

God

had

just

sanctified

after

he’d

imbued

those

waters

or

chaotic

matter

with

something

of

his

essence.

The

point

I’m

trying

to

make

is

that

darkness

and

light

in

these

verses

is

directly

associated

with

un-cosmocized

and

cosmo-sized

matter.

Un-cosmocized

matter

is

associated

with

darkness

and

cosmo-sized

matter

is

associated

with

light.

26:24

There’s

a

lot

of

authors

that

I’ve

read,

in

particular

John

Walton,

who

have

made

the

argument

that

the

Genesis

account

is

not

at

all

about

the

actual

physical

creation.

And

I

respectfully

disagree.

In

the

ancient

world,

the

waters

are

matter,

physical

matter,

albeit

matter

in

an

inert,

chaotic

form.

So

when

the

text

tells

us

that

something

of

God’s

essence,

quote,

moved

upon

the

waters,

26:53

It’s

telling

us

that

something

of

God’s

essence

moved

upon

the

matter,

physical

matter,

which

transformed

it

and

sanctified

it.

If

we

don’t

understand

the

ancient

Near

Eastern

conception

of

the

waters,

then

we’re

going

to

completely

miss

that

this

text

is

actually

teaching

us

something

very

important

about

how

the

physical

creation

was

brought

about.

In

particular,

how

God

has

complete

power

over

physical

matter.

27:21

right

down

to

the

ordering

of

subatomic

particles,

as

we’ve

discussed

numerous

times

on

the

program.

If

you’re

interested

in

this,

again,

there’s

a

whole

episode

on

this,

episode

number

30,

the

grand

primordial

singularity.

You

can

check

that

out.

So

when

verse

four

tells

us

that

God,

quote,

divided

the

light

from

the

darkness,

I’m

arguing

that

the

text

is

telling

us

27:48

that

God

began

his

creative

process

by

first

separating

the

sacred,

cosmicized

matter

from

the

profane,

chaotic

matter.

He

separated

the

sacred

from

the

profane.

And

as

you’re

going

to

see

in

just

a

second,

this

interpretation

is

corroborated

by

what

is

actually

written

in

verses

six

and

seven.

Now,

of

course,

we

know

on

this

program

that

the

ancients

used

symbols,

which

light

and

darkness

can

be.

28:18

precisely

because

they

have

the

ability

to

teach

us

many

things

about

the

reality

of

the

spiritual

realm.

So

there

are

probably

layers

of

meaning

that

we

can

and

probably

should

cull

from

the

statement

that

God

divided

the

light

from

the

darkness.

But

still

the

same,

I

contend

that

because

this

statement

was

made

within

the

context

of

the

cosmogony,

the

physical

creation,

28:44

And

from

the

verses

that

we

just

read

that

link

darkness

with

the

primordial

waters

and

light

with

the

cosmicized

waters,

that

the

primary

interpretation

of

this

passage

should

be

that

on

the

first

day

of

creation,

God

separated

cosmicized

sacred

space

from

un-cosmicized

profane

space.

This

interpretation

is

highly

significant

because

29:12

What

this

means

is

that

on

the

first

day

of

creation,

God

began

building

a

temple.

To

divide

or

separate

sacred

space

from

profane

space

is

to

build

a

temple.

That’s

the

definition

of

a

temple.

--- page 38 ---

Remember

the

word

profane

literally

means

to

be

outside

of

the

temple.

What

this

means

is

that

the

Genesis

creation

account

is

really

29:40

account

of

how

God

built

his

cosmic

temple.

The

process

of

creation

is

temple

building

and

temple

building

is

the

process

of

creation.

After

I

put

this

part

of

today’s

episode

together,

I

reread

the

English

Standard

Translation

of

Job,

chapter

26

verse

10,

which

I

read

to

you

a

couple

of

minutes

ago,

and

I

was

like,

oh

my

goodness.

30:07

Job

chapter

26

verse

10

says

exactly

what

I’m

trying

to

argue.

Listen

again

to

Job

chapter

26

verse

10.

The

text

reads,

quote,

he,

Yahweh,

has

inscribed

a

circle

on

the

face

of

the

waters

at

the

boundary

between

light

and

darkness.

According

to

this

verse,

where

did

God

inscribe

the

circle?

30:37

text

tells

us

that

he

inscribed

the

circle

on

the

waters.

So

we’re

talking

about

the

waters,

the

unorganized

matter.

And

where

on

the

waters

did

he

inscribe

the

circle?

The

text

tells

us

that

he

inscribed

the

circle

on

the

waters

at

quote

the

boundary

between

light

and

darkness,

which

we

just

saw

our

descriptors

for

cosmicized

and

uncosmicized

matter.

31:07

Job

tells

us

that

God

inscribed

a

circle

right

where

he

divided

the

light,

the

cosmicized

matter,

from

the

darkness,

the

uncosmicized

matter.

The

contemporary

English

translation

makes

us

even

more

clear.

It

reads,

quote,

on

the

surface

of

the

ocean,

God

has

drawn

a

boundary

line

between

light

and

darkness.

Why

is

this

verse

so

important?

31:37

It’s

important

because

this

tells

us

that

God

began

the

creation

of

his

kingdom,

his

cosmic

kingdom,

heaven

and

earth,

by

first

separating

the

matter.

The

implications

of

this

are

unimaginably

profound

because

this

means

that

heaven

itself,

the

spiritual

realm

where

God

dwells,

is

also

made

of

matter,

physical

matter.

32:07

If

you’re

a

Gnostic,

you’re

probably

screaming

at

the

podcast

right

now,

but

that

is

what

the

text

is

telling

us.

Now,

of

course,

the

physical

matter

in

the

heavenly

realm

would

be

sanctified

beyond

anything

that

we’re

familiar

with

here

in

the

fallen

world.

But

irregardless,

the

text

attests

that

God’s

cosmic

kingdom

is

composed

of

sanctified

matter.

This

text

is

also

incredibly

important

because

it

tells

us

32:37

If

we

were

able

to

peer

into

the

farthest

realm

of

God’s

cosmic

kingdom,

to

the

end

of

the

universe,

so

to

say,

we

would

find

a

boundary

there,

the

divided

God’s

kingdom

from

un-cosmicized

matter.

On

the

cosmic

level,

this

text

tells

us

that

there

is

a

fixed

structure

to

God’s

cosmic

kingdom,

or

the

universe,

so

to

say,

that

astrophysicists

have

yet

to

discover,

which

is

33:06

pretty

awesome.

All

right,

let’s

return

to

the

Genesis

account

and

keep

reading.

What

does

the

text

tell

us

that

God

did

on

day

two?

Well,

this

is

where

things

get

interesting

and

kind

of

confusing.

The

text

tells

us

that

on

day

two,

God

made

a

quote,

firmament,

a

firmament.

Well,

what

is

that?

--- page 39 ---

33:34

Well,

a

lot

of

biblical

scholars

don’t

really

know.

A

biblical

scholar

by

the

name

of

Gaines

Johnson

says

this

of

the

firmament.

He

says,

quote,

the

term

firmament

and

its

identity

has

been

one

of

the

greatest

puzzles

concerning

the

creation

account.

One

of

the

greatest

puzzles.

Nobody

seems

to

be

quite

sure

what

this

firmament

thing

is.

34:03

If

you’re

familiar

with

the

Genesis

creation

account

and

the

Judeo-Christian

tradition,

take

a

minute

and

think

about

this.

If

somebody

asks

you

to

explain

to

them

what

the

firmament

is,

what

would

you

say?

It’s

not

so

easy.

A

lot

of

people

say

it’s

the

atmosphere,

but

that’s

actually

quite

problematic,

which

you’re

going

to

see

in

just

a

second.

You

know,

like

most

people,

when

I

read

about

the

firmament

many,

many

years

ago,

34:31

the

text

just

didn’t

seem

to

make

sense.

I

found

the

whole

thing

really

confusing.

Now

that

I’m

familiar

with

the

ancient

world

and

I

understand

a

lot

more

about

ancient

cosmology,

what’s

written

in

Genesis

about

the

firmament

makes

complete

sense.

Let’s

read

Genesis

chapter

one,

verses

six

and

seven

and

see

if

we

can

figure

out

what

this

perplexing

firmament

thing

is.

God

created

it

so

it

must

be

important.

35:01

And

it’s

mentioned

in

the

creation

account,

so

it

must

be

really

important.

Starting

in

verse

six,

the

text

reads,

and

keep

in

mind

that

this

happens

on

day

two.

Quote,

and

God

said,

let

there

be

a

firmament

in

the

midst

of

the

waters.

Let’s

break

this

down.

First,

note

that

God

made

this

firmament

via

divine

utterance.

The

text

says,

quote,

and

God

said,

35:30

let

there

be

a

firmament

in

the

midst.

Second,

note

where

God

placed

this

firmament.

Quote,

in

the

waters.

Well,

what

waters?

Seems

kind

of

odd.

Well,

not

if

you’re

a

long

time

listener

to

the

program.

If

you

are,

you

know

exactly

what

water

this

is

referring

to.

See,

without

an

understanding

of

ancient

Near

Eastern

cosmology,

35:59

we

would

be

completely

lost,

which

several

early

theologians

were,

like

Scotus

Aragina.

Listen

to

what

he

says

about

these

verses.

And

this

is

found

in

Aragina’s

work,

De

Genesi

Ad

Literum,

dated

to

the

mid-19th

century

AD.

Aragina

says,

quote,

only

God

knows

how

and

why

the

waters

are

there.

36:26

but

we

cannot

deny

the

authority

of

Holy

Scripture,

which

is

greater

than

our

understanding.

36:34

makes

me

chuckle

a

little

bit,

but

only

because

I

know

that

the

waters

in

this

verse

are

symbolic.

From

Arijina’s

statement,

it

sounds

like

he

thought

that

the

waters

referred

to

in

this

verse

referred

to

literal

water,

that

the

heavens

were

filled

with

literal

water

and

that

God

built

a

firmament

in

those

literal

waters.

So

no

harsh

judgment

on

Arijina.

He

likely

wasn’t

privy

to

so

much

of

what

we

know

now

about

ancient

cosmology

and

symbolism.

37:05

Those

of

you

who

are

longtime

listeners

of

the

program

who

have

been

exposed

to

a

measure

of

ancient

cosmology

know,

as

we’ve

discussed

on

today’s

program,

that

the

waters

refer

to

--- page 40 ---

un-cosmized,

profane

matter,

not

literal

water.

Let’s

continue

reading

to

find

out

why

God

placed

a

firmament

in

the

waters.

Verse

six

continues,

quote,

and

let

it

37:35

the

firmament

divide

the

waters

from

the

waters.

So

why

did

God

place

a

firmament

in

the

waters?

He

placed

a

firmament

in

the

waters

to

divide

the

waters.

When

we

understand

what

the

waters

are,

this

makes

perfect

sense.

Are

you

following?

This

means

that

God

placed

a

divider

in

the

primordial

waters

and

why

would

God

do

that?

Well,

we

know

why.

38:01

because

as

we

just

saw

in

the

verses

that

preceded

this

one,

God

separated

the

sacred

from

the

profane

on

day

one.

Once

he’d

done

that

on

day

two,

he

placed

what

can

only

be

understood

as

a

permanent

barrier

of

some

type

between

them

to

separate

the

two,

a

barrier

that

the

text

calls

a

firmament.

I

hope

you’re

following

all

of

this

because

what

you’re

reading

right

here

in

the

Bible

38:30

is

textual

evidence

that

God

created

a

cosmic

wall

of

some

sort

around

his

sacred

creations,

protecting

them

from

the

profane

waters.

This

is

remarkable

because

this

means

that

all

three

ancient

civilizations,

the

Mesopotamians,

Egyptians,

and

Hebrews,

attest

to

the

exact

same

thing,

to

the

exact

same

structure

of

the

cosmos,

a

structure

38:59

that’s

not

only

fascinating

to

consider,

but

undeniably

a

temple-based

structure.

It’s

worth

pausing

here

for

a

minute

to

look

at

the

word

firmament

itself.

It

can

teach

us

a

little

more

about

this

divider.

The

word

firmament

is

the

English

translation

of

the

Hebrew

word

rakia,

R-A-Q-I-A.

The

Brown

driver

Briggs

Hebrew

and

English

lexicon

defines

rakia

as

39:29

quote,

an

extended

surface,

a

solid

expanse

as

if

beaten

out.

This

is

interesting.

The

definition

of

the

Hebrew

word

rakiah

means

an

extended

solid

expanse.

As

if

beaten

out

refers

to

the

pounding

out

or

the

beating

out

of

a

piece

of

metal,

which

again

indicates

that

we’re

talking

about

something

solid.

39:57

It’s

telling

us

that

there’s

some

type

of

solidity

to

the

barrier

God

established

in

the

waters.

Listen

to

what

Wikipedia

says

about

the

translation

of

the

Hebrew

word

rakia

into

the

English

word

firmament.

Quote,

in

English,

the

word

firmament

is

recorded

as

early

as

1250

AD

in

the

Middle

English

story

of

Genesis

and

Exodus.

It

later

appeared

in

the

King

James

Bible.

40:23

The

same

word

is

found

in

French

and

German

Bible

translations,

all

from

Latin

firmamentum.

And

guess

what

firmamentum

means?

It

means

a

firm

object,

which

was

used

in

the

Vulgate.

This

in

turn

is

a

calque.

Now

calque

is

a

word

that’s

borrowed

from

another

language

of

the

Greek

sterama.

40:52

also

meaning

a

solid

or

firm

structure.

And

the

Greek

means

rigid.

So

we

can

see

the

Hebrew

word

rikia

indicates

that

the

divider

that

God

placed

in

the

waters

is

a

solid

or

firm

object

of

some

type,

which

is

precisely

why

the

English

translators

translated

the

Hebrew

word

rikia

as

firmament.

And

this

goes

without

saying,

but

41:21

--- page 41 ---

This

definition

doesn’t

mesh

very

well

with

the

suggestion

by

many

that

the

firmament

is

the

atmosphere.

I’d

argue

that

the

firmament

itself

is

not

the

atmosphere.

Instead,

I’d

argue

that

it’s

the

firmament’s

enclosure

of

sanctified

space

that

makes

an

atmosphere

possible.

Let’s

continue

reading

in

Genesis

and

see

what

else

it

tells

us

about

this

firmament.

41:50

Genesis

chapter

one,

verse

seven

reads,

and

this

is

the

King

James

version,

quote,

and

God

made

the

firmament

and

divided

the

waters

which

were

under

the

firmament

from

the

waters

which

were

above

the

firmament.

And

it

was

so.

Anyone

that’s

not

familiar

with

ancient

cosmology

and

symbolism

are

going

to

find

this

verse

utterly

perplexing.

Whoever

heard

of

waters

above

the

earth

and

waters

underneath

the

earth.

42:18

If

the

verse

is

talking

about

literal

water,

then

it’s

just

crazy

talk

to

say

that

the

earth

is

surrounded

by

literal

water.

Anybody

can

see

that

this

is

not

the

case.

This

verse

perplexed

many

early

church

fathers.

St.

Ambrose,

a

theologian

who

served

as

a

bishop

in

Milan,

Italy

from

374

to

397

AD

said

this,

speaking

of

the

waters

above

and

below

the

earth.

42:48

quote,

wise

men

of

the

world

say

that

water

cannot

be

over

the

heavens.

Well,

if

you

interpret

Genesis

chapter

one,

verse

seven

as

literal

water,

then

yeah,

it’s

not

surprising

at

all

that

the

wise

men

of

the

world

would

say,

yeah,

no,

there’s

no

water

up

there

over

the

heavens.

See

the

problem

with

the

verse

is

not

the

verse

itself.

43:14

It’s

the

reader’s

lack

of

familiarity

with

ancient

cosmology

and

the

reader’s

lack

of

symbolism

literacy

that’s

obscuring

the

verses

true

meaning.

So

what

is

the

true

meaning

of

the

verse?

I’m

guessing

that

most

of

you

long

time

listeners

have

figured

it

out.

At

this

point

in

the

creation

account,

the

earth

hasn’t

been

created

yet.

43:40

So

the

text

is

not

talking

about

the

earth

being

surrounded

by

water.

It’s

talking

about

cosmicized

matter

being

surrounded

by

water.

And

the

author,

by

telling

us

that

there

are

waters

above

the

barrier

and

waters

below

the

barrier,

is

trying

to

help

us

grasp

that

the

barrier

is

three-dimensional,

that

waters

completely

surround

this

barrier.

44:08

So

the

image

that

you

should

be

getting

in

your

mind

is

the

image

of

an

air

bubble,

or

as

the

Chinese

old

yellow

one

was

taught,

a

peach

pit.

Or

like

we

saw

in

episode

number

51,

the

Holy

Barge,

as

a

spherical,

coracle

boat.

In

fact,

the

English

translators

of

the

new

international

version

actually

translate

rakia

as

vault,

like

the

vault

of

heaven,

which

connotates

a

dome

or

vaulted

domed

ceiling.

44:37

which

is

actually

a

really

great

translation.

They

translate

Genesis

chapter

one

verse

seven

as,

quote,

so

God

made

the

vault

and

separated

the

water

under

the

vault

from

the

water

above

it.

And

it

was

so.

The

firmament

you

should

clearly

be

able

to

see

is

the

wall.

The

firmament

is

the

firm,

solid,

rigid,

cosmic

wall.

45:06

wall

that

God

built

around

his

cosmic

kingdom

on

day

two

of

the

Genesis

account

to

keep

everything

that

is

profane

from

entering

the

cosmic

kingdom.

Again,

this

is

cosmic

temple

--- page 42 ---

building.

I

hope

that

you

can

see

now

that

the

firmament

spoken

of

in

the

Genesis

account

is

not

in

the

slightest

perplexing.

45:30

It

makes

complete

sense

and

it’s

completely

in

conformity

with

what

the

ancient

Mesopotamians

and

ancient

Egyptians

taught.

Let’s

return

to

the

Genesis

account

and

take

a

look

at

the

last

thing

that

the

text

tells

us

about

the

firmament.

It’s

found

in

verse

eight.

Verse

eight

reads,

and

this

is

the

King

James

version,

quote,

and

God

called

the

firmament

heaven.

45:57

So

this

verse,

just

like

verse

seven,

confuses

a

lot

of

people.

Does

this

mean

that

heaven

is

the

firmament

or

that

the

firmament

is

heaven?

Well,

not

exactly.

When

we

interpret

this

verse

in

terms

of

everything

else

that

we’ve

learned

about

the

firmament,

in

particular,

that

the

firmament

serves

to

wall

off

cosmicized,

sanctified

space,

then

we

deduce

that

everything

inside

the

firmament

46:27

because

it’s

sacred

and

because

God

resides

there

is

heaven.

So

for

God

to

call

the

firmament

heaven

is

apropos

because

the

firmament

is

what

establishes

the

boundaries

of

heaven.

And

don’t

forget,

this

is

the

same

thing

that

is

signified

by

the

walls

that

the

ancients

built

around

Uruk

and

Babylon

and

Heliopolis

and

Jericho

and

Jerusalem.

Everything

sacred

is

inside

the

wall.

46:54

and

everything

profane

is

outside

the

wall.

In

Psalm

104

verses

six

to

nine,

we

get

a

little

more

vivid

picture

of

how

this

firmament

was

established.

The

text

reads,

and

this

is

speaking

of

the

creation,

quote,

the

waters

stood

above

the

mountains.

At

thy

rebuke,

they

fled.

At

the

voice

of

thy

thunder,

they

hasted

away.

47:25

This

verse

clearly

has

reference

to

divine

utterance.

Here

we

see

that

God

commands

the

waters

to

flee

and

we

see

that

the

waters

do

just

that.

The

text

says

that

they,

quote,

hasted

away.

This

indicates

that

the

profane

elements

obeyed

God’s

command.

And

it

could

also

mean,

because

we

know

that

these

waters

are

filled

with

the

ruined

gods,

that

this

could

also

refer

to

the

ruined

gods

fleeing

God’s

presence.

47:54

They

aren’t

allowed

access

to

his

kingdom.

Verse

nine

continues,

quote,

that

has

set

a

bound

that

they

may

not

pass

over.

So

here

we

clearly

see

that

the

profane

elements

and

the

ruined

gods

that

have

been

relegated

to

those

waters

are

forbidden

to

pass

over

the

boundary.

They

cannot

penetrate

the

firmament.

48:22

We

see

the

same

thing

in

Jeremiah

chapter

five,

verse

22.

The

text

reads,

and

this

is

the

King

James

Version,

quote,

I

think

it’s

interesting

here

that

the

text

tells

us

that

God’s

decree

48:50

that

the

sea

cannot

pass

this

boundary

is

perpetual.

It’s

an

eternal

decree.

The

rest

of

the

verse

tells

us

that

no

matter

how

much

the

seas

desire

to

cross

the

boundary

and

throw

themselves

into

a

tizzy

to

do

so,

they

still

won’t

be

able

to

pass

over

the

boundary.

The

text

reads,

quote,

and

though

the

waves

thereof

toss

themselves,

yet

can

they

not

prevail

though

they

roar.

49:20

--- page 43 ---

yet

can

they

not

pass

over

it.

I

find

the

statement,

though

they

roar,

really

interesting

because

if

you

remember,

one

of

the

most

notable

characteristics

that’s

ascribed

to

the

dragon

is

his

screaming

and

wailing.

One

of

the

texts

said

that

he

continues

on

in

his

own

shouting.

This

text

tells

us

that

no

matter

how

much

the

dragon

kicks

and

wails

and

all

of

the

other

ruined

gods,

49:48

that

they

will

never

be

able

to

pass

over

this

boundary.

They

are

perpetually

locked

out

of

God’s

cosmic

kingdom.

Job

also

confirms

that

the

seas

will

not

be

able

to

penetrate

this

boundary.

In

Job

chapter

38,

verse

eight

and

11,

it

reads,

quote,

who

shut

up

the

sea

with

doors?

know,

doors

obviously

symbolize

that

the

seas

shut

out.

Hitherto

shalt

thou

come,

50:18

but

no

further.

And

here

shall

thy

proud

waves

be

stayed.”

It’s

interesting

that

Job

refers

to

the

sea’s

quote,

proud

waves.

Pride,

especially

in

the

biblical

canon,

is

also

one

of

the

characteristics

of

the

sea

serpent,

Rahab.

If

you

remember,

the

Hebrew

word

Rahab

actually

means

pride

or

arrogance.

And

here,

like

we

see

in

the

other

books,

50:47

Job

tells

us

that

the

sea

is

shut

out

or

stayed.

In

the

Judeo-Christian

tradition,

all

of

these

biblical

passages

attest

that

God

began

the

creation

of

his

cosmic

kingdom

by

first

dividing

the

waters,

dividing

the

sacred

from

the

profane,

and

second

by

erecting

a

cosmic

wall,

a

firmament

in

the

midst

of

the

waters

to

permanently

separate

them

from

his

kingdom.

51:18

both

of

these

things

happened

before

any

dry

land

was

ever

called

forth

or

could

ever

be

called

forth.

When

we

understand

this,

then

it’s

quite

easy

to

see

that

the

creation

account

in

Genesis

is

an

account

of

Yahweh

building

a

temple,

a

temple

on

an

unbelievably

cosmic

scale.

Before

I

close

out

this

episode,

I

wanna

make

two

more

observations.

51:45

First,

I

want

to

note

how

closely

the

account

of

Moses

parting

the

Red

Sea

parallels

the

account

of

Yahweh

parting

the

waters

in

Genesis.

In

Moses’

account,

the

Israelites

are

trapped.

To

their

east

is

the

Red

Sea

and

to

their

west,

in

hot

pursuit,

are

600

Egyptian

chariots

racing

to

bring

death

and

destruction

to

the

Israelites.

Starting

in

verse

14,

this

is

what

we’re

told

happened.

52:15

While

I

read,

see

if

you

can’t

pick

up

the

parallels

to

the

creation

account.

Verse

14

starts

with

Moses

addressing

the

frightened

Israelites.

Moses

tells

them,

quote,

the

Lord

shall

fight

for

you

and

ye

shall

hold

your

peace.

And

the

Lord

said

unto

Moses,

wherefore

cryest

thou

unto

me?

Speak

unto

the

children

of

Israel

that

they

go

forward.

52:43

And

forward

here

refers

to

them

going

forward

into

the

Red

Sea.

But

lift

thou

up

thy

rod.

Now,

remember,

the

rod

that

Moses

holds

is

a

branch

of

the

sacred

tree,

and

it

represents

in

part

God’s

power.

And

stretch

out

thine

hand

over

the

sea

and

divide

it.

And

the

children

of

Israel

shall

go

on

dry

ground

through

the

midst

of

the

sea.

53:14

And

Moses

stretched

out

his

hand

over

the

sea,

and

the

Lord

caused

the

sea

to

go

back

by

a

strong

east

wind

all

that

night,

and

made

the

sea

dry

land,

and

the

waters

were

divided.

And

the

children

of

Israel

went

into

the

midst

of

the

sea

upon

the

dry

ground,

and

the

waters

were

a

wall

unto

them

on

their

right

hand

and

on

their

left.

--- page 44 ---

53:42

The

parallels

are

pretty

obvious

and

I’m

not

going

to

go

through

them,

but

I

do

want

to

note

how

the

divided

waters

created

a

safe,

protective

space

for

the

Israelites.

And

also

note

how

the

text

describes

the

parted

waters

as

a

wall.

The

text

says,

quote,

the

waters

were

a

wall.

Of

course,

if

you’re

familiar

with

this

text,

the

only

reason

why

the

Israelites

were

able

to

escape

from

their

Egyptian

enemies

was

54:12

because

God

parted

the

waters,

created

a

dry

space.

Otherwise,

they

would

have

been

drowned

in

the

sea.

There

are

so

many

creation

parallels

and

esoteric

temple

messages

in

this

account.

The

second

observation

I

want

to

make

is

found

in

the

New

Testament

in

the

Gospel

of

St.

Mark,

chapter

six,

verse

three,

which

reads,

speaking

of

54:42

Jesus.

Quote,

is

not

this

the

carpenter,

the

son

of

Mary?

I

want

to

draw

your

attention

to

the

description

of

Christ

as

a

carpenter.

Carpenter

is

the

English

translation

of

the

Greek

word

tecton,

which

according

to

Strong’s

lexicon

refers

to

a

craftsman

or

builder,

specifically

a

carpenter.

Now,

of

course,

it’s

entirely

possible

that

Christ

worked

as

a

carpenter.

55:11

while

on

earth.

But

there’s

no

missing

the

greater

esoteric

message

taught

in

the

Judeo-Christian

tradition

that

Christ,

the

Yahweh

of

the

Old

Testament,

isn’t

the

craftsman

of

any

old

building.

He’s

the

master

carpenter

of

an

unimaginably

grand,

magnificent,

and

glorious

cosmic

temple.

He

is

55:41

the

cosmic

Christ.

55:46

That

wraps

up

our

discussion

of

the

cosmic

wall.

We’ll

pick

up

right

here

in

the

next

edition

of

the

ancient

tradition.

With

that,

I’ll

leave

you

with

the

words

of

William

Shakespeare,

knowledge

is

the

wing

wherewith

we

fly

to

heaven.

I’m

Jack

Logan.

56:08

You’ve

been

listening

to

the

Ancient

Tradition.

A

Wonk

Media

Production.

Episode

#54

-

Who

is

God?

-

A

Sexed

Being,

Part

I

https://theancienttradition.com/54-who-is-god-a-sexed-being/

00:00

Music

00:10

Listening

to

the

Ancient

Tradition.

A

Wonk

Media

Production.

Music

provided

by

Joseph

McDade.

Here’s

your

host,

Dr.

Jack

Logan.

--- page 45 ---

00:26

Welcome

to

the

Ancient

Tradition.

I’m

your

host,

Jack

Logan.

00:32

Great

to

have

everybody

listening

in

today.

Today’s

episode

is

titled,

Who

is

God,

a

Sexed

Being?

I

know

that

the

title

sounds

a

little

bit

provocative,

but

it’s

not

meant

to

be.

See,

the

question,

is

God

a

sexed

being?

Does

God

have

a

sex?

Has

unimaginably

profound

theological

implications.

We’ve

got

to

get

this

question

right

from

the

very

start.

00:59

or

else

we’re

going

to

get

the

entire

theology

of

celestial

kingship

wrong.

A

sexless

God

leads

to

a

very,

very,

very

different

theology

than

a

sexed

God,

which

makes

God’s

sex

or

sexlessness

an

absolutely

critical

piece

of

the

theological

puzzle.

And

what

makes

this

program

different

is

that

we

dive

into

the

world’s

oldest

written

records

for

the

answers

to

these

questions.

We

let

the

ancients

teach

us

01:29

who

God

is.

And

the

reason

that

we

do

this

is

because

the

ancients

tell

us

that

God

revealed

a

pure

religious

tradition

in

the

very

beginning,

a

tradition

which

we

refer

to

on

this

program

as

the

ancient

tradition.

So

today

we’re

going

to

dive

into

the

ancient

texts

and

see

what

the

ancients

taught

about

the

sext

or

sexless

nature

of

God.

Before

I

do

that

though,

I

want

to

let

our

new

listeners

know

about

our

sister

podcast.

01:56

the

ancient

tradition

audio

writ,

which

you

can

find

anywhere

that

you

get

your

podcasts.

On

that

podcast,

you’re

going

to

find

full

audio

recordings

of

a

lot

of

the

different

ancient

texts

that

we

talk

about

on

the

program.

And

this

includes

things

like

the

book

of

the

holy

secrets

of

Enoch,

the

ancient

Egyptian

Shabaka

stone

and

the

Mesopotamian

epic

of

Gilgamesh.

I

want

to

let

our

longtime

listeners

know

that

02:25

A

little

over

a

week

ago,

we

released

a

complete

audio

recording

of

the

Mesopotamian

Ark

tablet,

which

we

talked

about

not

too

long

ago

in

episode

number

51,

the

Holy

Barge

and

the

Water

Bolt.

That

tablet

features

the

account

of

Atra-Hossus,

the

Mesopotamian

Noah,

who

received

instructions

from

the

god

Enki,

the

son

of

the

high

god

An

in

the

temple

of

Enki.

02:51

which

you

long

time

listeners

will

remember

was

called

the

Eopsu

or

the

house

or

temple

that

was

built

on

the

primordial

waters.

In

this

temple,

the

god

Enki

appears

to

Atrahasis

and

instructs

him

to

build

a

circle

shaped

arc

so

that

he

and

his

family

can

escape

the

destructive

flood

waters.

I

also

want

to

let

our

new

listeners

know

that

this

podcast

has

a

companion

website.

03:20

the

ancienttradition.com.

In

the

menu

bar,

you

can

click

on

about

and

you’ll

learn

all

about

the

premise

of

the

podcast.

Under

podcast,

you

can

find

links

to

all

of

the

past

episodes.

Under

audio

writ,

you

can

find

links

to

the

full

audio

recordings

that

I

just

mentioned.

And

under

scholars,

you

can

find

a

list

of

the

most

important

and

influential

scholars

in

the

field.

03:47

along

with

some

of

the

books

that

they’ve

written

that

we

think

are

very

important

on

this

program.

It’s

a

treasure

trove

for

anyone

that

wants

to

learn

more.

One

of

the

most

powerful

--- page 46 ---

things

on

the

website

is

found

on

the

menu

under

show

notes.

In

the

pull

down,

you’ll

find

a

link

to

a

webpage

dedicated

to

every

single

episode.

And

you

can

find

the

full

audio

transcript

for

that

episode.

You

can

find

links

to

resources

to

learn

more,

and

you

can

find

pictures.

04:17

pictures

of

the

symbols,

texts,

artifacts,

locations,

and

iconography,

anything

that

we

talk

about

in

that

episode.

So

for

example,

in

our

last

episode

number

53,

the

compass

and

the

firmament,

we

talked

about

how

the

ancients

built

walls

around

the

old

cities,

like

the

wall

the

ancient

Mesopotamians

built

around

the

city

of

Uruk,

or

the

wall

the

ancient

Egyptians

built

around

the

ancient

city

of

Heliopolis,

or

the

wall

that

the

ancient

Canaanites

built

around

the

city

of

Jericho.

04:47

replicate

the

cosmic

wall

that

the

ancients

taught

surrounds

and

protects

God’s

sacred

creations

in

the

cosmos.

On

the

webpage

dedicated

to

episode

number

53,

you

can

find

actual

pictures

of

these

walls

for

Jericho

and

Uruk

and

Heliopolis

or

an

archaeological

representation

of

them.

And

I

always

like

looking

at

the

pictures

because

I

find

that

looking

at

the

actual

symbols

or

artifacts

or

architecture

really

05:15

kind

of

brings

home

the

theology,

brings

it

to

life.

The

pictures

too,

just

for

your

information,

are

posted

chronologically.

They’re

posted

in

the

order

in

which

they’re

discussed

in

that

episode.

Sometimes

I

even

put

together

a

visual

that

I

think

will

be

helpful

to

illustrate

or

to

clarify

something

that

we’ve

talked

about

on

the

program,

which

is

what

I

did

for

our

last

episode,

number

53.

Because

in

that

episode,

I

argued

that

Genesis

chapter

one

verses

seven

to

eight

needed

to

be

interpreted

05:43

first

and

foremost

in

reference

to

ancient

Near

Eastern

cosmology,

in

reference

to

how

the

ancients

themselves

attested

the

cosmos

were

structured,

not

in

reference

to

what

we

think

that

they’re

saying

or

in

reference

to

what

we

hope

they’re

saying,

but

into

what

they’re

actually

saying.

In

post-production,

when

I

listened

to

episode

number

53,

I

thought

that

the

explanation

that

I

gave

of

ancient

Near

Eastern

cosmology

in

Genesis

chapter

one

was

a

little

bit

wanting

and

I

think

actually

could

have

been

a

little

bit

confusing.

06:13

So

I

put

together

a

couple

of

visuals

to

try

and

clarify

the

theological

points

I

was

trying

to

make.

So

if

you

were

a

bit

confused

in

episode

number

53,

be

sure

and

check

out

the

visuals

that

you

can

find

for

that

episode.

think

that

they

will

help.

If

you’re

busy

and

you

don’t

have

time

to

check

out

the

visuals

that

I

created

for

episode

number

53,

06:37

Let

me

do

something

that

I

probably

should

have

done.

Let

me

take

a

couple

of

seconds

here

and

go

through

something

which

I

should

have

done,

which

is

to

substitute

the

symbolic

word

waters

in

Genesis

chapter

one,

verses

six

and

seven

with

the

ancient

Near

Eastern

meaning

of

waters,

which

is

materia

prima

or

preexisting

eternal,

unordered

and

unformed

matter.

A

scholar

by

the

name

of

David

Nieman.

07:06

wrote

on

page

247

of

his

article

titled,

The

Supersalient

Sea,

published

in

volume

28,

number

four

of

the

Journal

of

Near

Eastern

Studies,

this

of

the

ancient

Near

Eastern

conception

of

the

--- page 47 ---

primordial

waters.

Quote,

in

Babylonian,

in

Hebrew,

and

in

Canaanite,

this

primeval

sea

represents

chaos,

the

disordered

illogical

07:34

uncontrolled

agglomeration

of

elements,

matter,

making

up

the

physical

universe.

07:43

The

Roman

poet

Ovid,

I

don’t

know

if

you’ve

heard

of

Ovid,

many

have,

he

was

born

in

43

BC

and

he

said

the

same

thing

in

his

famous

work,

The

Metamorphoses,

written

around

the

eighth

century

AD.

Ovid

says

this

of

the

primordial

waters,

quote,

before

the

ocean

was

or

earth

or

heaven,

nature

was

all

alike,

a

shapelessness,

chaos,

so-called

all

rude

and

lumpy,

08:12

matter,

nothing

but

bulk,

inert

in

whose

confusion

discordant

atoms

ward.”

Ovid

calls

the

Primordial

Waters,

quote,

rude,

lumpy

matter

or

discordant

atoms.

So

in

light

of

what

we

learn

the

waters

mean

to

the

ancients,

Genesis

chapter

one

verses

six

and

seven

could

be

translated,

quote,

and

God

said,

08:42

Let

there

be

a

firm

divider

placed

in

the

midst

of

the

disordered

matter,

and

let

it

divide

the

disordered

matter

from

the

disordered

matter.

And

God

made

the

firm

divider

and

divided

the

disordered

matter,

which

was

under

the

firm

divider,

from

the

disordered

matter,

which

was

above

the

firm

divider,

and

it

was

so.”

We

know

from

Job

chapter

26

verse

10

that

09:11

this

firm

divider

was

circle

shaped.

So

when

we

consider

this,

the

firmament

or

the

firm

divider,

because

this

is

disordered

matter

above

it

and

then

disordered

matter

below

it,

creates

a

three

dimensional

spherical

protective

cavity

or

enclosure

in

the

midst

of

the

disordered

matter,

kind

of

like

a

bubble.

Where

cosmicized

sanctified

matter

is

inside

the

firm

enclosure

and

it’s

protected,

09:39

and

then

outside

is

the

disordered

profane

matter.

The

firm

enclosure

creates

a

spherical

vault

or

a

ceiling

or

a

roof

around

the

entirety

of

God’s

creations,

His

kingdom.

I

hope

that

clarifies

a

little

bit

better

what

I

was

arguing

in

the

previous

episode.

If

not,

I

tried,

be

sure

and

check

out

the

illustrations

on

the

webpage

for

episode

number

53.

On

page

248,

Neiman

concludes

with

this.

10:09

quote,

for

the

universe

to

come

into

being,

that

is

for

creation

to

take

place,

there

must

be

an

imposition

of

order,

the

crushing

of

unbridled

chaos

and

the

limitation

of

its

elemental

power.

Chaos

is

not

destroyed.

It

must

be

bridled,

restrained

and

modified.

Its

elements

or

parts

must

be

used

to

create

the

ordered

universe.

For

without

it,

10:39

the

universe

cannot

come

into

being.

I

think

that’s

a

really

great

summary

of

what

the

peoples

of

the

ancient

Near

East

have

been

teaching

us

all

along.

All

right,

with

that,

let’s

jump

into

today’s

topic.

If

we’re

to

understand

the

theology

of

what

happened

during

what

the

ancients

referred

to

as

the

first

time,

the

time

right

after

the

earth

was

created,

the

time

when

the

earth

was

quote,

11:05

in

heaven’s

embrace

when

the

earth

resided

very,

very,

very

close

to

heaven,

we’ve

got

to

have

a

more

complete

understanding

of

who

God

is.

If

we

don’t,

we

won’t

understand

what’s

--- page 48 ---

happening

during

the

first

time

and

we

won’t

understand

the

theology

and

the

importance

of

that

theology.

Up

to

this

point

in

the

program,

the

ancients

have

taught

us

a

lot

of

things

about

who

God

is.

11:30

And

I’d

like

to

briefly

summarize

these

here

to

set

the

stage

for

today’s

episode.

So

first

and

foremost,

the

ancients

taught

us

that

God

is

a

Lord

of

Maat

or

a

King

of

Setek.

God

is

one

who

perfectly

upholds

the

cosmic

law

of

righteousness,

the

law

that

governs

every

single

thing

in

the

cosmos.

And

the

second

thing

that

we’ve

learned

from

them

is

that

they

taught

us

that

God,

because

he

fully

upholds

the

cosmic

law,

12:00

that

there

isn’t

a

drop

of

profanity

or

darkness

in

him.

He’s

perfectly

holy.

He

is

a

perfectly

sanctified

being.

We

haven’t

gotten

into

this

too

much

in

the

program

yet,

but

the

ancients

taught

that

the

more

sanctified

one

became,

the

greater

and

greater

light

that

that

person

would

take

on.

So

God,

cause

he

upholds

ma’at

perfectly,

is

thereby

an

12:28

unimaginably

glorious

being

of

light,

which

is

why

the

ancients

always

symbolized

him

with

the

sun.

The

third

thing

that

they

teach

us

is

that

God

has

a

form,

that

he

is

corporeal.

He’s

a

corporeal

being.

He

has

a

body

with

arms

and

legs

and

hands

and

feet.

That

he

has

a

face

with

eyes

and

ears

and

a

mouth.

And

the

ancients

teach

us

that

we

human

beings

are

12:58

Theomorphic.

Theo

means

God

and

morphic

means

form.

So

by

the

ancients

teaching

us

that

we

are

theomorphic,

they’re

teaching

us

that

we

human

beings

are

created

to

look

like

God.

And

the

fourth

thing

that

the

ancients

have

taught

us

is

that

God

as

a

corporeal

being

of

light

reigns

on

a

throne

as

the

chief

civil

authority

over

his

cosmic

kingdom

as

a

king.

13:28

If

you’re

new

to

the

program

and

this

is

the

first

time

that

you’ve

ever

heard

about

these

characteristics

of

God,

or

if

you’ve

heard

about

these

characteristics

of

God,

but

they

happen

to

differ

markedly

from

what

you’ve

been

taught

about

who

God

is,

I

invite

you

to

listen

to

episodes

number

28,

29,

44,

and

45,

which

make

up

the

Who

is

God

series.

Cause

those

episodes

are

loaded

with

textual

and

iconographic

evidence

for

these

claims.

13:58

evidence

which

comes

from

the

world’s

oldest

written

records

and

iconography.

Those

records

attest

that

God

is

a

Lord

of

Maat,

He’s

a

being

of

glorious

light,

a

being

who

has

a

body,

and

a

being

who

reigns

as

a

king

over

His

heavenly

kingdom.

But

don’t

take

our

word

for

it

here

on

the

podcast.

Just

go

and

study

the

ancient

documents

and

the

iconography

for

yourself.

There’s

literally

so

much

evidence

that

you

don’t

14:27

actually

have

to

read

that

much

before

you

start

to

see

it.

It’s

just

everywhere.

But

if

you’re

like,

hey,

I

don’t

have

time

to

go

read

those

ancient

documents

or

to

study

all

this

stuff,

but

I

do

have

time

to

read

one

book,

I’d

recommend

that

you

read

E.T.

Mullen’s

book,

The

Divine

Council

in

Canaanite

and

Early

Hebrew

Literature.

It’s

published

by

Brill.

I

know

it’s

a

hairy

title,

but

it’s

fabulous.

14:54

--- page 49 ---

And

it’s

an

excellent

example

of

the

copious

evidence

that

there

is

for

these

claims

in

the

Canaanite

and

the

early

Hebrew

literature.

On

this

program,

we

cover

a

whole

lot

more

literature

than

just

the

Ugaritic

literature,

but

it’ll

give

you

an

excellent

example

of

the

evidence

that’s

out

there.

You

can

find

info

on

ET

Mullen

and

this

book

on

our

companion

website,

theancienttradition.com,

under

Scholars.

15:23

And

just

for

the

record,

I

don’t

get

any

kickbacks

for

recommending

this

book.

I

don’t

know

Mullen

and

I

don’t

have

any

ties

to

Brill

Publishing.

I

just

love

the

book.

Mullen

wrote

it

for

his

dissertation

while

he

was

studying

at

Harvard.

15:39

Because

it’s

critical

to

what

happens

in

the

first

time,

we’re

going

to

continue

our

examination

of

who

the

ancients

tell

us

God

is

and

ask

the

question,

is

God

a

sexed

being?

Did

the

ancients

teach

that

God

has

a

sex,

male

or

female?

Now

the

answer

to

the

question

is

yes.

Yes,

they

absolutely

did.

The

ancients

16:06

unabashedly

proclaimed

in

their

texts

and

in

their

iconography,

their

statues

and

sculptures,

bas-reliefs,

engravings

and

frescoes

and

mosaics

and

even

jewelry

that

God

is

a

sexed

being.

In

the

ancient

world,

nearly

all

deities

are

presented

with

either

male

reproductive

anatomy

symbolizing

a

god

or

female

reproductive

anatomy

symbolizing

a

goddess.

16:34

This

is

a

very,

very

curious

fact

because

sex

is

a

characteristic

of

a

physical

body.

One

is

male

because

one

has

the

physical

reproductive

organs,

the

chromosomes

and

androgens

of

a

male.

And

one’s

female

because

one

has

the

physical

reproductive

organs

and

chromosomes

and

hormones

of

a

female.

16:57

the

entire

ancient

world,

the

ancients

attest

that

God

has

a

sex.

It’s

one

of

the

strongest

distinguishing

features

we

find

in

the

ancient

world

of

God.

It’s

another

incredibly

strong

stubborn

bit.

So

why

would

God

need

this

reproductive

capacity?

Why

would

God

need

a

sex?

17:23

To

answer

that

question,

the

first

thing

that

we’re

going

to

do

is

we’re

going

to

dive

into

the

ancient

texts

and

we’re

going

to

take

a

look

at

the

evidence,

see

what

the

ancients

have

to

say

about

God’s

sex.

And

once

we’ve

done

that,

we’re

going

to

consider

the

theological

implications,

which

you’re

going

to

see

are

quite

profound

and

indisputably

part

and

parcel

to

the

theology

of

celestial

kingship.

So

let’s

start

in

ancient

Mesopotamia.

17:49

Before

I

jump

into

the

ancient

text,

I

want

to

read

to

you

what

Wikipedia

says

about

the

gods

in

ancient

Mesopotamia

and

listen

closely

to

how

it

aligns

with

the

Who

is

God

series

and

what

we’ve

been

arguing

about

who

God

is.

Quote,

deities

in

ancient

Mesopotamia

were

almost

exclusively

anthropomorphic.

Anthro

here

means

human

and

morphic

means

form.

So

the

ancient

Mesopotamians

taught

that

God

had

a

body.

18:19

that

was

shaped

like

human

beings.

They

were

thought

to

possess

extraordinary

powers.

The

deities

typically

wore

melum,

M-E-L-A-M,

an

ambiguous

substance

which

covered

them

in

quote,

terrifying

splendor.

This

is

that

glorious

light

that

we’re

talking

about.

--- page 50 ---

18:45

With

that

in

mind,

let’s

take

a

look

at

what

the

ancient

Mesopotamians

have

to

say

about

God

as

a

sexed

being.

If

you’re

a

long

time

listener,

you’ll

remember

that

the

Mesopotamian

assembly

of

the

gods

was

made

of

the

high

god

On’s

children.

The

cuneiform

tablets

that

speak

of

these

gods

make

unambiguous

familial

and

linguistic

references

that

indicate

that

a

particular

god

was

understood

to

be

male

or

female.

For

example,

when

we

examine

what

is

written

about

On,

19:15

the

king

of

the

Mesopotamian

gods.

The

texts

tell

us

that

he

is

the

quote,

father

of

the

gods,

which

indicates

male

paternity.

The

texts

also

tell

us

that

he

is

the

quote,

king

of

the

gods.

The

word

for

king

in

Sumerian

is

lugal,

L-U-G-A-L.

Loo

is

the

word

for

man,

gal

is

the

word

for

great

or

big.

So

when

you

put

them

together,

19:44

You

get

Lugol,

which

literally

means

big

man

or

great

man.

In

the

ancient

Mesopotamian

texts,

Lugol

is

exclusively

used

to

refer

to

male

leaders.

In

an

18th

century

BC

text

known

as

the

Old

Babylonian

version

of

Atrahasis,

and

we

talked

about

this

earlier,

Atrahasis

is

the

Mesopotamian

Noah,

the

Mesopotamians

tell

us

this

about

the

high

god

On.

20:13

in

tablet

one

lines

five

to

seven.

This

is

the

Stephanie

Dalley

translation.

Quote,

the

great

Anunnaki.

Now

you

remember

the

Anunnaki

are

the

children

of

An

and

Ki.

Made

the

Igigi.

The

Igigi

are

actually

the

younger

children

of

An

and

his

wife

Ki.

Carry

the

workload

sevenfold.

Anu,

their

father,

was

king.

20:42

Later

in

tablet

three,

it

reads,

quote,

what

was

Anu’s

intention

as

decision

maker?

It

was

his

command

that

the

gods,

his

sons

obeyed.

So

these

two

texts

clearly

describe

the

high

god

Anu

as

male.

The

text

describes

him

as

a

father,

the

father

of

the

gods,

whom

the

text

describes

as

his

sons,

also

a

male

descriptor.

21:09

What

we

glean

is

that

sex

is

a

salient

characteristic

of

those

who

inhabit

the

heavens.

We

also

learn

from

this

text

a

little

bit

later

that

the

heavens

are

not

entirely

inhabited

by

males.

Some

of

the

gods

are

described

as

female.

For

example,

in

the

Old

Babylonian

version,

the

text

refers

to

Belet-Ili,

a

female

god

who’s

charged

with

creating

human

beings.

21:39

The

text

reads,

Bellat

Illy,

the

womb

goddess

is

present.

Let

the

womb

goddess

create

offspring.

They

called

up

the

goddess,

asked

the

midwife

of

the

gods,

why

is

Mammy?

Now

Mammy

here

is

Bellat

Illy.

You

are

the

womb

goddess

to

be

the

creator

of

mankind.

Create

primeval

man.

22:06

This

text

is

amazing.

This

passage

not

only

reveals

that

the

heavens

are

inhabited

by

females,

but

it

also

tells

us

that

a

female

god

in

heaven

was

entrusted

with

the

sacred

task

of

creating

the

first

humans

to

inhabit

this

earth.

Or

as

the

text

says

it,

to

quote,

create

primeval

man.

Now

the

word

create

could

be

interpreted

in

a

number

of

different

ways,

but

the

text

itself

guides

us

22:35

towards

one

specific

interpretation

when

it

says,

let

the

womb

goddess

create

offspring.

The

text

emphasizes

Bella

Ille’s

womb

and

her

womb’s

ability

to

produce

offspring,

which

are

progeny

or

--- page 51 ---

children.

This

text

is

remarkable

because

it

attests

that

we

human

beings

are

the

literal

offspring

of

a

female

god

who

resides

in

heaven.

23:02

Bellat-Illi

is

also

known

in

some

cuneiform

tablets

as

Nintu,

which

literally

means

lady

of

birth.

You

can

clearly

see

how

this

text

refers

to

her

as

a

female

god,

a

womb

goddess,

a

womb

goddess,

whom

the

text

tells

us

has

the

ability

to

begat

children,

human

beings,

you

and

me.

Take

note

how

incredibly

theologically

significant

this

is.

23:31

and

how

critical

Bellat

Illy’s

sex

as

a

female

god

is

in

the

divine

procreative

process.

23:40

What

I’ve

done

here

with

the

text

known

as

Atrahasis

can

be

done

with

any

of

the

ancient

Mesopotamian

texts

that

speak

of

the

gods,

because

all

these

texts

speak

of

the

gods

as

sexed

beings.

I

haven’t

come

across

a

single

Mesopotamian

text

that

doesn’t

either

explicitly

refer

to

the

gods’

sex

or

contextually

or

linguistically

imply

a

particular

god’s

sex.

If

we

look

at

the

texts

that

speak

of

the

major

Mesopotamian

gods,

they

tell

us

that

24:08

The

god

Enlil

is

male,

the

son

of

the

high

god

An

and

his

wife

Ki.

If

we

look

at

the

god

Enki,

the

text

tells

us

that

he’s

male,

also

the

son

of

the

high

god

An

and

his

wife

Ki.

They

tell

us

that

Marduk

is

male,

Ashur

male,

Nabu

male,

Nana

male,

Utu

male,

Ninurta

male,

and

I

could

go

on

and

on.

And

they

tell

us

that

Enana

is

female,

Ninhursag

female,

24:37

Erishkigal

female,

Gula

female,

Baal

female,

of

the

25

major

Mesopotamian

deities

that

are

listed

in

Black

and

Green’s

Dictionary

of

the

Gods

in

Ancient

Mesopotamia,

published

by

the

British

Museum

Press,

all

25

gods

are

identified

as

having

a

sex,

either

male

or

female.

The

ancient

Mesopotamian

texts

are

loaded

with

references

to

the

gods

as

gods

or

goddesses,

kings

or

queens,

fathers,

25:07

or

mothers,

sons

or

daughters,

brothers

and

sisters.

When

we

look

at

the

iconography,

like

statues

or

cylinder

cells,

we

see

the

same

thing.

Enlil,

Enki,

Marju,

Kanitu

are

all

depicted

with

beards.

They’re

kind

of

fancy

beards.

And

they

got

these

really

muscular

upper

arms.

But

the

goddesses

like

Iana,

Gula,

Oreshkigal

and

Bao,

they’re

depicted

beardless.

25:35

and

they

are

often

depicted

with

these

really

pretty

feminine

locks

and

wearing

layered

dresses

and

sometimes

like

Arishkigal

without

clothing

which

reveal

her

female

breasts.

If

you’d

like

to

see

pictures

of

these

Mesopotamian

gods

you

can

find

them

on

the

web

page

for

this

episode

and

if

you

do

be

sure

to

check

out

the

clay

relief

panel

of

Arishkigal.

It’s

dated

to

between

the

19th

and

18th

century

BC

26:04

but

it

is

theologically

astounding.

You’re

never

gonna

believe

what

the

Mesopotamian

goddess,

Oreshkigal,

is

holding

in

her

hands.

And

not

in

just

one

hand,

but

in

both

hands.

And

what

is

she,

a

female

god,

holding?

The

rope

and

the

ring.

Again,

in

each

hand.

Now,

think

on

that.

Really

ponder

that.

Unfortunately

for

you

new

listeners,

we

just

don’t

have

time

in

this

episode

to

spell

out

the

26:31

--- page 52 ---

profound

theological

significance

of

what’s

being

conveyed

in

this

relief.

So

you’re

just

going

to

have

to

go

back

and

listen

to

some

of

the

past

episodes

and

really

ponder

on

it

to

grasp

the

full

significance.

But

know

that

this

relief

is

astounding,

primarily

because

Arishgagal

is

female.

A

female

god

holding

the

ring

and

the

rod.

It’s

astounding.

When

I

first

saw

this

relief,

my

jaw

did

literally

drop.

27:01

And

why?

Because

of

what

the

theology

conveyed

in

this

relief

tells

me

personally

about

my

potential

as

a

female.

It’s

powerful.

In

this

relief,

Arishkigal

is

also

depicted

wearing

a

four-horned

crown.

In

the

ancient

world,

horns

symbolized

power.

So

the

image

literally

depicts

Arishkigal

as

an

incredibly

powerful

being.

27:30

and

the

crown

signifies

her

royalty.

Interestingly,

this

relief

is

known

as

the

Queen

of

the

Night,

the

Queen.

If

you’d

like

to

see

this

relief

in

person,

it’s

housed

in

the

British

Museum.

27:46

All

right,

let’s

move

to

ancient

Egypt.

In

ancient

Egypt,

we

find

the

same

thing.

All

of

the

major

gods

in

ancient

Egypt

are

sexed

beings.

When

we

dive

into

the

texts,

like

the

ancient

Egyptian

pyramid

text

dated

to

as

early

as

2400

BC,

we

see

that

the

gods

are

identified

in

sexed

terms.

For

example,

in

pyramid

text

213

to

217,

we’ve

talked

about

this

a

little

bit

before

on

the

program,

the

deceased

King

Unus

is

told

that

28:16

he’s

not

dead

but

that

he’s

to

climb

to

heaven

where

he’ll

embrace

his

father

Atum

after

which

he’ll

reign

on

Osiris’s

throne

as

a

heavenly

king

in

a

glorified

body

that

looks

like

his

father

Atum’s

body.

The

texts

read

speaking

to

the

deceased

King

Unus

and

this

is

the

James

P

Allen

translation

quote

climb

to

the

place

where

your

father

is

28:45

Note

that

the

high

god

Atum

is

referred

to

here

in

sext

terms

as

a

male,

as

King

Unus’s

father.

So

we’re

getting

that

male

paternity.

Ho

Unus,

your

envoys

have

gone,

your

heralds

have

run

to

your

father

to

Atum.

We’re

told

here

that

an

envoy

has

already

gone

to

heaven

to

find

Atum,

Unus’s

heavenly

father,

so

that

Atum

will

be

ready

to

greet

King

Unus

with

an

embrace

when

he

gets

to

heaven.

29:15

Ho,

Eunice,

your

envoys

have

gone,

your

heralds

have

run

to

your

father,

to

Atum,

to

say

to

you,

Atum,

bring

me

up

to

you,

encircle

me

inside

your

arms.

We

see

that

one

of

the

primary

things

that’s

going

to

happen

when

Eunice

ascends

to

heaven

is

that

he’s

going

to

be

embraced

by

his

father.

This

is

known

as

the

sacred

embrace,

which

obviously

requires

a

body

to

do.

Eunice

ascends

to

heaven

and

the

text

reads,

29:45

quote,

sun,

atum,

sun

here

is

S-U-N.

Here

atum

is

associated

with

the

sun,

which

is

symbolic

of

atum’s

glorious

nature.

This

unis

has

come

to

you.

Your

son

has

come

to

you.

This

unis

has

come

to

you.

Note

here

how

unis

is

referred

to

as

the

high

god

atum’s

son.

In

this

passage,

the

son,

the

deceased

king

unis,

is

a

human

being.

30:14

who

upon

his

death

ascends

to

heaven

where

he’s

going

to

be

greeted

by

his

celestial

father,

the

god

Atum.

So

note

here

how

we’re

reading

about

a

family-based

theology.

King

Unus

is

the

--- page 53 ---

son

of

the

high

god,

which

is

very

similar

to

the

theology

that

we

just

saw

in

ancient

Mesopotamia

where

human

beings

are

the

sons

and

daughters

of

the

goddess

Belet-Ili.

I

continue,

quote,

he,

King

Unus,

30:44

has

become

Auk.

Auk

here

refers

to

the

process

of

being

transformed

to

getting

a

resurrected,

glorified

body

of

light.

30:56

I

continue,

he,

King

Unus,

has

become

Auk,

inside

the

arms

of

his

father,

inside

the

arms

of

Atum.

Note

how

the

Akification

process,

the

process

of

being

transformed

into

a

resurrected,

glorified

being,

happens

when

Atum

embraces

his

son.

Donald

Redford

in

his

book,

The

Ancient

Gods

Speak,

31:24

published

by

Oxford

University

Press,

notes

on

pages

seven

and

eight,

quote,

In

virtually

all

of

the

periods

of

ancient

Egypt’s

religion

and

secular

texts,

the

concept

of

Akh

operated

in

a

reciprocal

relationship

between

God

and

King,

between

father

and

son.

In

the

pyramid

texts,

the

king

as

Horus

became

Akh

through

his

father

Osiris.

Just

as

Osiris

became

Akh,

31:53

through

his

son.

In

the

Book

of

the

Dead,

each

embraces

the

other

that

he

might

be

an

awk

thereby.

Theologically,

this

sacred

embrace

is

pretty

fascinating

because

what

Redford

is

telling

us

is

that

not

only

is

it

through

Atum,

the

father,

that

the

son,

in

this

case

King

Unus,

is

occupied,

it

also

indicates

that

the

father

himself

gains

greater

glory

when

one

of

his

sons

is

occupied.

And

as

you’re

going

to

see

right

now,

32:23

is

made

a

heavenly

king.

That

son

adds

greater

glory

to

his

father.

It’s

a

quote,

reciprocal

relationship.

You

should

also

note

that

this

occultification

process

is

family

based.

It’s

the

father

that

occupies

the

son.

And

don’t

miss

the

fact

that

the

son

that’s

being

occupied,

which

is

akin

to

deification,

is

32:49

human

being,

a

human

being

who

lived

here

on

earth,

the

deceased

King

Unus.

Note

how

the

father

and

the

son

in

this

text

are

clearly

distinct

individuals.

One

is

the

high

god

Atum

and

the

other

is

his

earthly

son

King

Unus.

King

Unus

and

Atum

are

bound

to

each

other

by

virtue

of

their

family

relationship.

This

is

a

family-based

theology.

33:18

After

King

Unus

embraces

his

father

and

the

occification

process

takes

place,

the

text

tells

us

that

King

Unus

is

given

the

right

to

reign

as

a

heavenly

king

on

Osiris’

throne

in

an

occupied,

resurrected,

glorified

body

that’s

just

like

his

father

Atum’s

body,

with

eyes

and

ears

and

hands

and

feet.

Listen

to

the

text.

Quote,

Ho,

Unus,

you

have

not

gone

away

dead.

33:47

You

have

gone

away

alive.

Sit

on

Osiris’s

chair,

which

is

Osiris’s

throne.

So

he’s

being

invited

to

sit

on

a

heavenly

throne

with

your

baton

in

your

arm

and

govern

the

living

with

your

lotus

scepter

in

your

arm

and

govern

those

of

the

remote

places.

Your

lower

arms

are

of

Atum.

Your

upper

arms

are

of

Atum.

Your

belly

of

Atum.

Your

back

of

Atum.

Your

rear

of

Atum.

34:16

--- page 54 ---

your

legs

of

Atum.

So

you’re

getting

this

full

picture

here

of

this

glorified

being

that

resembles

his

father,

Atum.

34:27

Pyramid

Text

217

ends

with

this

amazing

line.

Listen

to

how

it

is

Atum’s

body,

Atum’s

male

body

that

ties

this

entire

theology

together.

The

text

reads,

quote,

son

Atum,

so

son

again

here

is

S-U-N,

your

son

has

come

to

you.

This

unis

has

come

to

you.

Elevate

him

to

you

and

circle

him

within

your

arms.

He

is

your

bodily

son.

34:57

This

entire

text

is

remarkable,

but

the

last

line

is

really

remarkable.

Speaking

of

the

god

Atum,

the

text

states,

he,

speaking

of

King

Unus,

is

your

bodily

son

forever.

In

the

clearest

fashion

possible,

the

text

is

telling

us

that

Unus

is

Atum’s,

quote,

bodily

son.

The

theology

in

this

text

is

remarkable.

35:26

because

it’s

telling

us

that

Atum

is

the

literal

father

of

King

Unus’s

physical

body.

What

this

means

theologically

is

that

Atum’s

maleness,

Atum’s

male

body,

Atum’s

male

sex

organs

are

anything

but

inconsequential.

They’re

absolutely

imperative

to

the

theology,

because

what

the

ancient

Egyptians

are

teaching

us

here

is

that

the

theology

of

celestial

kingship

is

again

a

family-based

theology.

35:56

I’m

getting

a

bit

ahead

of

myself

here,

but

what

this

text

attests

to

is

that

God

is

genetically

the

literal

father

of

our

physical

bodies

and

that

we’re

literally,

not

figuratively,

but

literally

physically

God’s

children.

And

because

God

reigns

as

a

heavenly

king,

this

literally

means

that

royal

DNA

makes

up

every

single

cell

of

our

physical

body.

We’re

literally

36:25

princes

and

princesses

incarnate

because

the

high

god,

the

king

of

the

gods

is

our

father.

Which

is

what

every

single

princess

movie

teaches

that

inside

every

little

girl

is

a

princess.

No

wonder

those

films

resonate

so

much

with

audiences.

It’s

like

we

already

know

this,

like

we

already

know

this

deep

down

inside.

36:53

What

this

text

implies

is

that

God

had

to

have

fathered

the

first

man

and

woman

who

inhabited

this

planet.

Which

if

you’re

a

long

time

listener,

you’ll

recall

is

what

it

says

in

the

ancient

Egyptian

text

known

as

the

instruction

for

Merikari,

where

we’re

told

that

human

beings

came

from

God’s

flesh.

37:13

This

theology

also

demands

the

existence

of

and

the

indispensable

involvement

of

a

female

god

because

as

we

know

procreation

requires

both

a

male

and

a

female.

And

since

as

the

ancients

have

taught

us,

God

has

a

sex,

then

we

can

safely

presume

that

no

god

can

independently

produce

children

on

his

or

her

own.

I

too

must

have

37:41

a

female

partner

for

King

Unus

to

be

his

quote,

bodily

son.

One

of

the

things

that

rings

true

to

me

about

this

theology

is

that

not

only

does

it

make

logical

sense,

I

mean,

this

would

explain

why

there

are

two

sexes

on

the

earth

and

why

we’re

organized

and

arranged

into

families

here

on

earth.

But

it

just

makes

sense

to

me

that

our

strongest,

most

loving

bonds

38:10

--- page 55 ---

would

be

patterned

after

loving

parents

and

a

loving

family

in

heaven.

The

whole

as

above,

so

below

idea.

One

of

the

things

that

I

find

most

compelling

about

this

theology

is

that

it

completely

validates

the

value,

necessity,

and

potential

of

every

single

woman

on

planet

Earth.

And

not

only

that,

that

we

need

each

other.

You

there’s

no

going

it

alone.

38:40

This

is

a

family

theology.

What

I’m

trying

to

illustrate

by

walking

you

through

the

theology

that

was

taught

in

Pyramid

Text

213

to

217

is

that

God’s

sex,

his

male

body,

is

intimately

tied

to

every

single

aspect

of

the

theology.

What

the

ancient

Egyptians

are

teaching

us

is

that

the

God

of

heaven,

by

way

of

his

male

sex,

fathered

children,

children

that

now

inhabit

this

earth,

39:11

children

that

the

instruction

for

Merakari

refers

to

as

the

sacred

herd,

who

through

a

process

the

ancient

Egyptians

called

aquification,

which

is

akin

to

sanctification,

can

after

this

life

obtain

resurrected

glorified

bodies

and

reign

themselves.

That’s

the

theology.

That’s

what

all

of

the

ancient

pyramid

texts

attest

to.

39:40

It’s

a

family

theology

in

all

of

it.

Every

single

bit

of

it

is

dependent

on

God

having

male

sex

organs.

And

every

single

bit

of

it

is

dependent

on

God

having

a

partner

with

female

sex

organs.

It’s

a

bit

indelicate

to

talk

about

God’s

reproductive

organs,

but

we

aren’t

being

true

to

the

theology

if

we

don’t.

40:03

Such

a

theology

not

only

validates

the

importance

of

the

family,

it

also

validates

the

deeply

religious

importance

of

sex,

the

procreative

act,

as

well

as

validates

maleness

and

femaleness.

And

note

how

all

of

this

is

tied

to

kingship,

to

the

kingship

theology.

And

if

this

theology

is

true,

this

would

demand

that

there

is

no

God

40:32

without

a

goddess,

no

heavenly

king

without

a

heavenly

queen,

because

without

the

two,

there

is

no

family

unit.

There

is

no

family,

no

children,

there’s

no

sacred

herd.

Now,

you

might

be

thinking

to

yourself,

God

is

God,

God

can

make

whatever

God

wants

to

make.

God

doesn’t

need

to

have

a

partner

to

make

as

many

people

as

God

wants

to.

God

doesn’t

need

to

be

male

and

God

doesn’t

need

a

female

God

to

do

any

of

it.

40:59

A

bodiless,

sexless

God

can

create

whatever

it

wants.

That’s

definitely

a

view

that

many

people

have.

But

what

I’m

trying

to

illustrate

on

this

podcast

is

that

the

entire

ancient

world

refutes

the

description

of

God

as

formless

and

sexless.

The

entire

ancient

world

attests

that

God

has

a

body

and

that

that

body

is

sexed

and

that

that

body

is

very,

very

important.

41:29

If

the

ancients

are

correct,

what

this

means

on

a

deep

theological

level

is

that

sex,

male

and

female,

is

built

right

into

the

structure,

right

into

the

fabric

of

the

cosmos

itself

and

how

it

operates,

which

would

suggest

that

sex

is

an

eternal

feature

of

who

God

is

and

subsequently

of

who

we

are.

41:53

This

would

also

mean

that

no

so-called

God

or

divine

being

could

be

fully

realized

by

him

or

herself.

God’s

sex

would

paradoxically

place

limits

on

his

or

her

abilities.

Alone,

he

or

she

--- page 56 ---

would

not

have

the

power

to

produce

children.

But

simultaneously,

God’s

sexed

nature

would

give

him

or

her

the

power

to

forge

deep

physical

bonds.

42:22

through

the

procreative

act,

and

the

power

to

forge

lasting

bonds

through

the

formation

of

a

family.

Both

of

these

things

tie

people

together

in

deep,

meaningful,

lasting

ways,

and

in

ways

which

a

bodiless

god

could

never

do.

All

right,

back

to

Egypt.

All

of

the

major

deities

in

ancient

Egypt

are

depicted

in

the

text

and

in

the

iconography

as

male

or

female.

Amun

is

male.

42:51

Otten

male,

Atum

male,

Horus

male,

Osiris

male,

Ptah

male,

Thoth

male,

and

could

go

on

and

on.

And

Hathor?

Female.

Isis?

Female.

Nephtys?

Female.

Newt?

Female.

Bastet?

Female.

In

fact,

the

Egyptologist

Richard

A.

Wilkinson,

who

we’ve

quoted

several

times

on

the

podcast,

even

titled

his

encyclopedic

tome

on

the

deities

in

ancient

Egypt,

The

Complete

Gods.

43:20

and

goddesses

of

ancient

Egypt,

which

clearly

indicates

that

sex

was

one

of

the

most

important

distinguishing

features

of

the

gods.

Archaeologists

have

found

a

really

beautiful,

elegant

diorite

statue

of

the

goddess

Hathor.

You

can

find

a

picture

of

it

on

the

webpage

for

this

episode.

She

was

a

goddess

in

ancient

Egypt

known

to

be

the

consort

of

Ra.

And

she

was

directly

connected

to

kingship

as

the

mother

of

the

pharaohs.

43:50

And

on

the

statues,

she’s

depicted

wearing

a

form-fitting

dress.

She

looks

beautiful.

And

on

top

of

her

head,

she

wears

a

headdress,

and

that

headdress

hangs

on

each

side

of

her

face,

and

her

face

has

these

really

delicate

features,

and

it

hangs

down

just

above

her

breasts.

And

then

perched

atop

her

headdress,

she’s

wearing

a

sun

disc

that’s

set

between

some

cow

horns.

And

those

point

to

her

zoomorphic

form

as

a

cow.

44:17

which

the

ancient

Egyptians

used

to

symbolize

her

role

as

the

consort

of

Ra,

the

bull,

and

her

ability

to

give

suck

and

nourishment

to

her

offspring.

Again,

it’s

emphasizing

the

offspring.

So

all

of

these

features

speak

to

her

female

sex.

44:36

If

we

turn

to

Canaan

and

we

open

up

E.T.

Mullen’s

book,

The

Divine

Council

in

Canaanite

and

early

Hebrew

literature,

which

I

mentioned

earlier,

which

is

loaded

with

ancient

Ugaritic

texts,

we

see

the

same

thing.

In

these

texts,

the

high

god

El,

the

king

of

the

gods

who

reigns

over

his

children,

is

clearly

identified

in

the

text

as

male.

For

example,

in

Canaanian

foreign

tablet

4.4,

lines

23

to

26,

45:06

We

read

of

a

goddess

who

enters

El’s

temple.

It’s

referred

to

in

the

text

as

a

domed

tent.

She

finds

him

in

the

tabernacle

and

when

she

finds

him,

she

falls

to

the

ground

and

she

worships

him.

The

text

reads,

quote,

she,

this

is

the

goddess,

opened

the

dome

tent

of

El

and

entered

the

tabernacle

of

King,

father

of

years.

Note

how

El

is

referred

to

as

both

a

father

and

a

king.

45:35

both

male

designations

like

we

see

all

over

the

ancient

world.

She

bowed

and

fell

at

the

feet

of

L.

Note

how

L

has

feet

here.

45:48

--- page 57 ---

did

obeisance

and

honored

him.”

This

text

clearly

speaks

to

both

male

and

female

gods

inhabiting

heaven.

In

another

text,

Ugaritic

5.2.2,

lines

6

to

8,

we

see

just

like

we

saw

in

ancient

Egypt

that

El’s

reign

is

a

family

affair.

And

take

note

in

this

text

how

El

is

called

Malku

Olami,

which

means

the

eternal

king.

46:18

So

L

isn’t

just

a

king,

which

is

a

male

designation,

but

he’s

a

king

that

reigns

eternally.

The

text

reads,

let

Rappapoo,

and

that

refers

to

L,

the

eternal

king,

rule

by

his

might.

Let

the

eternal

king

judge

in

his

strength,

yea,

let

him

rule

his

offspring

in

his

grace.

This

text

clearly

states

that

L

reigns

as

a

king.

46:48

He

doesn’t

reign

over

just

anyone.

He

reigns

as

a

king

over

his

family,

his

offspring,

his

children.

In

fact,

one

of

El’s

chief

epitaphs

in

the

Ugaritic

literature

is

toru,

T-O-R-U,

which

means

the

bull,

which

is

very

similar

to

toro

in

Spanish,

which

means

bull.

Mullen

writes,

quote,

the

epitaph

toru,

bull,

47:15

which

is

applied

only

to

the

god

El

in

the

three

passages

which

display

El

as

the

father

of

Baal.

Bull

El

is

in

parallel

with

King

El,

connecting

the

epitaphs

of

Malku,

king,

and

Toru,

bull.

The

most

dominant

imagery

invoked

by

the

title

Toru

is

that

of

the

creator

god,

since

the

bull

was

employed

as

the

common

image

of

fertility

in

Near

Eastern

mythology.

47:44

In

the

Ugaritic

text,

the

procreative

aspects

of

the

epitaph

bull

are

easily

seen

in

two

common

formulaic

variants

of

the

title

bull,

El

your

father

and

bull

your

father

El.

They

depict

El

as

the

fertile

bull

who

fathered

the

various

gods.

I

want

to

make

a

couple

of

points

about

what

Mullen

says

here

in

terms

of

El’s

male

sex.

The

first

is

48:13

Note

how

the

Ugaritic

texts

directly

connect

El’s

eternal

kingship

to

his

procreative

powers

as

a

bull.

See,

if

El

didn’t

have

offspring,

he

would

not

be,

quote,

an

eternal

king.

Why?

Because

without

offspring,

El

wouldn’t

have

anyone

over

whom

to

reign.

And

you

can’t

have

offspring

if

you

don’t

have

reproductive

organs.

48:42

Do

you

see

how

El’s

male

procreative

powers

are

completely

tied

up

in

the

notion

of

kingship

itself

and

eternal

kingship?

The

only

way

El

can

reign

as

a

king

is

over

his

own

children.

So

if

he

doesn’t

have

any

children,

he

isn’t

an

eternal

king

and

he

doesn’t

have

an

eternal

kingdom.

Do

you

see

how

this

entire

theology

is

dependent

on

El

as

a

bull,

on

El’s

reproductive

capacity

as

a

male,

his

ability

to

father?

49:12

That’s

what

these

texts

are

telling

us.

And

the

second

thing

is

that

El

only

contains

within

himself

half

of

the

reproductive

capacity

to

produce

offspring.

So

we

surmise

that

he

must

have

a

female

consort,

a

queen.

And

that’s

exactly

what

the

Ugaritic

texts

tell

us.

In

Ugaritic

text

5.2.1.2,

we

read

the

following,

quote,

49:41

El

is

enthroned

with

a

tart.

This

is

an

absolutely

amazing

text.

Here

we’re

told

that

El

has

a

throne

and

he

sits

on

that

throne

with

someone

named

a

tart.

Well,

who

is

a

tart?

Well,

a

tart

is

--- page 58 ---

a

female

god,

a

goddess,

who

we

presume

because

she

sits

enthroned

with

El,

who

is

the

king

of

the

gods,

that

she

is

the

queen

of

the

gods.

50:11

In

Canaaniform

tablet

4.4

around

lines

32

and

33,

it

tells

us

this

about

Attart.

Quote,

why

have

you

come,

old

lady,

Adirot

of

the

sea?

And

Adirot

here

is

Attart.

Why

have

you

come

here,

oh,

progenitress

of

the

gods?

We

see

that

Attart

is

the

quote

progenitress

of

the

gods.

She

reigns

with

El

on

a

throne.

50:40

as

an

eternal

queen,

precisely

because

she

is

the

female

progenitor

or

mother

of

the

gods.

See,

this

entire

theology

is

dependent

on

Etart’s

reproductive

capacity

as

a

female

too,

not

just

El’s.

Neither

can

reign

as

an

eternal

king

or

queen

without

each

other,

else

there

would

be

no

children

and

thereby

no

one

to

reign

over

and

their

titles

51:09

King

and

Queen

would

be

absolutely

meaningless.

The

line

that’s

above

this

is

actually

really

interesting.

The

line

that

says,

Atart

is

called

Adorot

of

the

sea.

Adorot

again

is

the

name

for

Atart.

In

much

of

the

Ugaritic

literature,

El’s

principal

consort

is

known

to

be

Asherah.

And

you’re

never

gonna

guess

what

Asherah’s

principal

epitaph

is.

It’s

quote,

she

who

walks

on

the

sea.

51:39

And

I

find

this

epitaph

way

interesting,

especially

considering

all

of

the

insights

we’ve

gained

on

this

program

about

the

symbolic

nature

of

the

sea

and

the

act

of

symbolically

walking

on

the

sea

or

on

the

water

or

the

subjugating

of

the

sea

beneath

one’s

feet.

To

me,

Asherah’s

epitaph

has

the

same

symbolic

connotation

as

the

iconographic

depiction

of

the

Mesopotamian

Arishkigal

holding

a

rope

and

a

rod

in

each

hand.

If

you’re

a

longtime

listener,

52:09

and

you

can’t

see

the

connection

between

the

two,

ponder

it

a

little

bit

because

you’ll

see

it.

If

you’d

like

to

see

an

engraving

of

Asherah

found

near

Ugarit,

dated

to

between

1330

and

1500

BC,

you

can

find

it

on

the

webpage

for

this

episode.

The

female

form

of

her

body

is

unmistakable.

The

artifact

is

currently

housed

in

the

Louvre.

52:37

And

I

don’t

know

if

this

is

what

the

artist

intended,

but

on

this

engraving,

Asherah

actually

looks

like

she’s

walking

on

water.

No

matter

how

you

slice

it,

to

say

that

Asherah

had

the

ability

to

quote,

walk

on

the

sea,

is

a

striking

testament

to

her

power

and

authority.

I’ve

only

barely

scratched

the

surface

here,

but

take

note

in

the

Ugaritic

literature

how

53:02

Again,

the

entire

theology

is

dependent

on

El’s

capacity

to

father

children.

As

I

mentioned

earlier,

Ugaritic

5.2.2.8

says,

speaking

of

El,

quote,

yea,

let

him

rule

his

offspring

in

his

grace.

This

passage

makes

it

pretty

clear

that

El

only

reigns

over

his

offspring.

Mullen

says

this

of

this

passage,

quote,

53:32

This

passage

makes

it

clear

that

El

sits

at

the

head

of

the

pantheon

ruling

over

his

offspring.

I

hope

you

can

see

how

El’s

male

sex

and

a

tart

or

Asherah’s

female

sex

is

directly

tied

to

the

concepts

of

kingship

and

queenship

and

subsequently

to

cosmic

kingdom

building.

Again,

the

theology

that

we’re

seeing

here

is

a

family-based

theology.

--- page 59 ---

54:00

where

fatherhood

and

motherhood

is

absolutely

essential.

Remember

in

El’s

Cosmic

Kingdom,

he

sits

enthroned

with

a

tart.

Together

they

reign

as

king

and

queen

over

their

offspring.

54:19

That’s

the

theology.

54:24

Unfortunately,

I’ve

got

to

leave

it

there.

There’s

plenty

to

chew

on

here

in

our

next

episode.

We’ll

pick

it

up

right

here.

With

that,

I’ll

leave

you

with

the

words

of

William

Shakespeare.

Knowledge

is

the

wing

wherewith

we

fly

to

heaven.

I’m

Jack

Logan.

54:46

You’ve

been

listening

to

the

Ancient

Tradition.

A

Wonk

Media

Production.

Episode

#55

-

Who

is

God?

-

A

Sexed

Being,

Part

II

https://theancienttradition.com/55-who-is-god-a-sexed-being-part-ii/

00:00

Music

00:09

You’re

listening

to

The

Ancient

Tradition.

A

Wonk

Media

Production.

Music

provided

by

Joseph

McDade.

Here’s

your

host,

Dr.

Jack

Logan.

00:25

Welcome

to

The

Ancient

Tradition.

I’m

your

host,

Jack

Logan.

Great

to

have

you

listening

in.

If

you’re

a

new

listener,

we

welcome

you

to

the

program.

If

you’re

a

long

time

listener,

we

welcome

you

back.

It’s

great

to

have

you.

Today

I’m

gonna

just

jump

right

in.

We’re

gonna

pick

up

right

where

we

left

off

in

our

last

episode,

in

episode

number

54.

00:49

we

found

that

across

the

ancient

Near

East

and

ancient

Mesopotamia

and

Egypt

and

Canaan

that

God

is

universally

described

in

the

text,

universally

depicted

in

the

iconography

as

a

sext

being,

as

a

being

who

has

either

a

male

or

a

female

body.

This

is

a

very

important

discovery

because

it

indicates

that

in

the

ancient

world

there

was

a

remarkably

consistent

belief

that

divine

beings

possessed

01:19

both

a

body

and

a

defined

sex.

On

today’s

program,

I’m

gonna

demonstrate

that

across

the

world,

thousands

and

thousands

of

miles

away

from

the

ancient

Near

East

and

thousands

of

years

later,

we

find

that

God

as

a

sexed

being

stubbornly

persists.

It’s

yet

another

powerfully

--- page 60 ---

strong

stubborn

bit.

One

so

persistent

that

we

can

trace

its

roots

all

the

way

back

to

the

dawn

of

civilization.

01:48

And

because

we

can

do

this,

we

argue

that

the

belief

that

God

possesses

a

defined

sex

emerged

from

a

single

source

in

deep

antiquity,

a

source

we

call

in

this

program,

the

ancient

tradition,

where

it

constituted

a

central

tenant

of

who

God

is.

Now,

you

might

be

thinking

to

yourself,

wait,

02:10

The

vast

majority

of

Jews

and

Christians

today

don’t

believe

this.

They

don’t

believe

that

God

has

a

physical

body

or

a

defined

sex.

And

you’re

correct.

The

vast

majority

of

Jews

and

Christians

today

reject

outright

the

notion

that

God

is

a

sexed

being.

I

think

it’s

really,

really

important

before

we

move

on

in

the

podcast

to

explain

why

this

is.

So

today

we’re

going

to

start

the

podcast

by

diving

into

the

biblical

canon

to

first

see

how

the

text

itself

02:40

describes

God.

And

then

we’ll

examine

why

and

when

the

notion

of

a

sexless

God

developed

among

Jews

and

Christians.

I

think

you

may

be

a

bit

surprised

by

what

you

learn.

This

is

why

it’s

always

important

that

we

don’t

abdicate

our

personal

responsibility

to

acquire

knowledge,

be

it

book

knowledge

or

spiritual

knowledge

to

anyone

else.

If

we

do,

we

just

might

end

up

believing

things

we

otherwise

wouldn’t

if

we

just

done

our

homework.

03:10

After

that,

we’re

gonna

take

a

look

at

a

couple

of

the

deep

theological

tensions

the

shift

from

a

sexed

God

to

a

sexless

God

has

caused

in

Judaism

and

Christianity.

From

there,

we’ll

explore

just

how

deeply

rooted

the

belief

in

a

sexed

God

is

across

various

parts

of

the

world,

in

ancient

Greece,

among

the

Hindu,

Norse,

and

Pacific

Islanders,

in

South

America,

Japan,

and

China.

03:39

So

let’s

start

with

the

biblical

canon.

What

does

the

Bible

say

about

the

notion

of

a

sext

God?

When

we

examine

the

textual

descriptions

of

God

in

the

Bible,

we

find,

as

astounding

as

this

sounds,

that

God

is

described

almost

identically

to

the

way

in

which

God

is

described

across

the

ancient

Near

East,

in

ancient

Egypt,

Mesopotamia,

and

Canaan.

04:08

As

number

one,

a

being

who

upholds

the

cosmic

law.

We’ve

talked

about

this

quite

a

bit

on

the

program.

In

Hebrew,

it’s

referred

to

as

tzedek.

And

as

a

glorious

being

of

light,

which

we’ve

discussed

in

episode

number

29.

And

as

a

being

who

has

a

distinct

corporeal

form,

a

body.

I’ve

given

numerous

biblical

examples

of

this

throughout

the

podcast.

If

this

subject

really

interests

you,

I’ve

got

to

tell

you

about

a

book

published

three

years

ago.

04:37

written

by

Dr.

Francesca

Stavrakopoulou.

She

received

her

doctorate

in

theology

from

Oxford

University

and

today

she

teaches

at

the

University

of

Exeter.

She’s

there

as

a

professor

of

Hebrew,

Bible

and

ancient

religion.

The

book’s

titled

God

and

Anatomy.

In

this

book,

Dr.

Stavrakopoulou

shows

that

05:02

contrary

to

the

contemporary

descriptions

of

God

in

Judaism

and

Christianity

as

bodiless

and

sexless

that

the

God

actually

described

in

the

biblical

canon

is

described

as

having

a

tangible

male

body.

The

book’s

pretty

big.

It’s

like

420

some

pages

of

written

text,

but

then

there’s

like

--- page 61 ---

an

additional

200

pages

of

like

a

glossary

and

a

bibliography

and

sources

and

notes.

It’s

quite

large.

05:29

that’s

because

she’s

meticulously

cataloged

biblical

reference

after

biblical

reference

that

speaks

of

God’s

body

parts,

His

feet

and

hands

and

face

and

for

today’s

episode

very

importantly

His

loins.

She

finds

just

like

I’m

arguing

that

the

God

described

in

the

Bible

is

described

in

much

the

same

way

in

which

God

is

described

across

the

ancient

Near

East

which

of

course

05:58

indicates

to

me

that

this

was

the

original

way

in

which

the

ancient

heroes

understood

God.

The

book

blurb

that’s

posted

on

Amazon

calls

the

book,

quote,

an

astonishing

and

revelatory

history

that

re-presents

God

as

he

was

originally

envisioned

by

ancient

worshipers

with

a

distinctly

male

body.

06:28

Before

I

get

into

her

research,

I

want

to

point

out

that

I

don’t

agree

with

all

of

the

conclusions

that

she

makes

in

this

book.

She’s

an

acknowledged

atheist

who

believes

that

the

God

depicted

in

the

Bible

is

a

social

construct,

is

manmade,

where

I

do

not.

I

firmly

believe

based

on

what

the

ancients

themselves

tell

us,

along

with

the

jaw-dropping

cosmic

depth,

symbolic

depth

and…

06:56

sophisticated

nature

of

the

theology

that

the

ancients

taught

that

the

God

described

in

the

ancient

world

and

in

the

Bible

was

revealed

to

human

beings

by

God

or

by

God’s

emissaries

in

the

very

beginning

so

that

we

human

beings

would

have

the

correct

understanding

from

the

very

start

of

who

God

is.

The

difference

between

Dr.

Stabarakopoulou

and

myself

of

course

is

a

matter

of

faith.

07:23

Still

the

same,

I

think

her

book

is

really

important

and

it’s

worth

reading

because

she

establishes

that

the

Bible

from

cover

to

cover

unequivocally

describes

God

as

having

a

male

body.

What’s

even

more,

especially

in

relation

to

this

program,

is

that

so,

much

of

what

she

writes

is

tied

to

so

many

of

the

things

that

we’ve

discussed

on

the

podcast,

like

kingship

and

conquering

the

sea

dragon,

the

temple

abode.

07:51

subjugating

one’s

enemies

under

one’s

feet

and

what

she

calls

quote,

God’s

heavenly

household.

And

that’s

just

to

name

a

few.

So

it’s

worth

the

read

if

just

for

that.

I

think

Dr.

Stavro

Coppola

would

find

so

much

of

this

podcast

intriguing

because

we’ve

independently

been

arguing

so

many

of

the

same

things

that

she

argues

in

her

book.

08:17

But

this

podcast

clearly

differs

in

that

we

argue

like

we

did

in

the

last

episode

that

God’s

male

body

has

to

be

understood

in

reference

to

the

entire

theology.

God’s

male

body

plays

a

very,

very

important

role

in

the

grand

kingship

theology

that

was

taught

across

the

ancient

world.

It’s

a

cosmic

theology,

the

full

extent

of

which

doesn’t

appear

to

be

very

well

known

or

very

well

understood

by

contemporary

scholars.

08:48

Contemporary

scholars

seem

to

be

really

well

versed

in

individual

aspects

of

the

theology,

like

Forsyte’s

great

book,

you

remember

that?

The

Old

Enemy,

which

established

the

importance

of

--- page 62 ---

slaying

the

sea

monster.

But

I

don’t

know

of

any

scholar

who’s

systematically

laid

out

the

entire

cosmic

kingship

and

temple

building

theology

as

it’s

found

in

the

ancient

world.

Along

with

its

astounding

implications,

it’s

a

grand

theology.

09:18

which

is

precisely

why

we’ve

put

this

podcast

together

so

that

anyone

from

scholar

to

layman

who’s

interested

can

gain

a

much

greater

understanding

of

the

theology

the

ancients

actually

taught.

See,

without

the

full

theological

backdrop,

which

Dr.

Stavro

Kapulou

is

missing

on

some

level,

it’s

pretty

easy

to

dismiss

the

corporeal

nature

of

God

as

man-made

or

the

social

construct.

09:47

But

when

we

consider

the

full

theological

backdrop

and

the

absolutely

vital

role

God’s

male

body

plays

in

that

theology,

it’s

not

so

easy

to

dismiss

the

corporeal

nature

of

God

as

just

some

social

construct.

The

theology

matters.

God’s

male

body

must

be

understood

in

terms

of

the

full

theology.

Now,

of

course,

whether

or

not

one

believes

the

theology,

again,

that’s

a

matter

of

faith.

But

I’m

arguing

10:17

that

one

cannot

understand

God’s

male

body

independent

of

a

full

understanding

of

the

theology.

Because

the

ancients

themselves

never

saw

God’s

male

body

outside

of

or

tangential

to

the

cosmic

kingship

theology

they

taught.

The

two

are

inseparable.

All

right,

so

let’s

take

a

look

at

the

Bible.

When

we

look

at

the

text

itself,

10:46

we

find

that

there

are

literally

thousands

upon

thousands

of

pronouns.

He,

his,

him,

masculine

verb

forms,

like

the

Hebrew

word

bara,

which

means

he

created.

And

loads

of

titles

like

God,

Lord,

Master,

Father,

King,

which

describe

God

as

male.

And

even

titles

like

Savior.

11:13

which

is

found

in

Isaiah

chapter

43

verse

three,

or

Judge,

which

is

found

in

Genesis

chapter

18

verse

25,

are

masculine

titles

in

Hebrew.

When

we

examine

the

biblical

text

itself,

the

God

described

there

is

unequivocally

a

sexed

being,

a

male

God.

So

let’s

take

a

look

at

two

of

the

titles,

Father

and

King.

These

are

two

of

the

most

common

titles

outside

of

God

and

Lord.

11:43

Which

is

interesting

because

these

are

the

same

two

titles

that

show

up

time

and

time

again

in

the

ancient

Mesopotamian,

Egyptian,

and

Ugaritic

literature

to

describe

God.

For

example,

in

the

book

of

Malachi,

chapter

two,

verse

10,

it’s

towards

the

very

end

of

the

Hebrew

Bible,

it

says,

speaking

of

God,

and

this

is

the

King

James

Version,

quote,

12:12

Have

we

not

all

one

Father?

Have

not

one

God

created

us?

The

New

Living

Translation

reads,

are

we

not

all

children

of

the

same

Father?

Are

we

not

all

created

by

the

same

God?

This

verse

clearly

stresses

God’s

male

paternity

as

a

Father.

And

who

does

this

text

tell

us

God

is

the

paternal

Father

of?

Us.

12:42

all

of

us

on

the

earth,

you

and

me.

Now

where

have

we

heard

this

before?

On

page

20

of

God

and

Anatomy,

Dr.

Stavro

Kapulou

notes,

quote,

a

fragment

of

ancient

poetry

in

the

book

of

Deuteronomy.

So

we’re

talking

about

the

Torah

here.

Not

only

locates

Yahweh

with

a

pantheon,

and

a

pantheon

is

more

than

one

God,

but

also

reveals

exactly

who

his

--- page 63 ---

13:11

and

his

here

is

Yahweh’s

father

was.

She’s

referring

to

Deuteronomy

chapter

32

verse

eight.

And

the

translation

she

provides

reads,

when

Elion,

now

Elion

here

is

the

Hebrew

name

for

God,

which

means

God

most

high.

Don’t

miss

the

adjective

most

high

here

because

that

suggests

that

there

are

lower

gods.

Elion

is

the

most

high

of

the

gods.

13:41

apportioned

the

nations.

When

he

divided

humankind,

he

fixed

the

boundaries

of

the

peoples

according

to

the

number

of

the

divine

sons,

his

sons.

So

here

we’re

told

that

the

most

high

God,

Elion,

had

fathered

divine

sons,

which

is

exactly

the

same

thing

we

read

in

the

ancient

Mesopotamian,

Egyptian,

and

Ugaritic

texts.

Now

listen

to

what

this

biblical

text

tells

us

about

who

one

of

his

sons

was.

Quote,

he

14:12

speaking

of

the

most

high

God,

fixed

the

boundaries

of

the

peoples

according

to

the

number

of

the

divine

sons.

For

Yahweh’s

portion

was

his

people.

Jacob,

who

is

Israel,

his

allotted

share.

Right

here,

this

biblical

text

tells

us

that

Yahweh

is

one

of

the

high

God,

Elion’s

many

divine

sons.

14:37

This

text

is

telling

us

that

Yahweh,

the

God

of

the

Old

Testament,

who’s

the

Christ

of

the

New

Testament,

is

the

son

of

the

most

high

God,

Elion.

Now

know

there

are

many

out

there

who

can’t

fathom

the

notion

that

there

could

be

any

God

higher

than

Christ

of

the

New

Testament,

but

that’s

exactly

what

this

text

is

telling

us.

It’s

telling

us

that

Yahweh,

or

Christ,

is

the

male

son

of

Elion,

the

most

high,

his

father.

15:05

who’s

given

the

epitaph

most

high

because

in

the

heavens

he

is

ranked

higher

than

his

sons.

This

passage

stresses

the

most

high

God’s

male

paternity.

So

just

like

we

saw

in

our

last

episode,

we

see

here

that

the

theology

that

is

contained

in

the

biblical

canon

is

a

family-based

theology,

a

divine

family

theology.

In

reference

to

this

text,

Dr.

Stavro

Kapulou

writes,

15:36

Here,

Yahweh

appears

as

just

one

among

El’s

many

divine

children.

When

we

turn

to

the

Psalms,

to

Psalm

29

verse

10,

which

was

written

by

King

David,

we’re

told

that

God,

like

we

see

in

ancient

Egypt

and

in

the

Ugaritic

literature,

reigns

as

an

eternal

king.

Verse

10

reads,

and

this

is

the

NET

Bible

translation,

quote,

the

Lord,

which

refers

to

Yahweh,

16:06

sits

enthroned

over

the

engulfing

waters.

The

Lord

sits

enthroned

as

the

eternal

King.

In

this

verse,

the

Hebrew

for

eternal

King

is

melek

olam.

According

to

Strom’s

lexicon,

olam

conveys,

quote,

the

concept

of

eternity

or

an

indefinite

unending

duration,

something

that’s

everlasting

or

perpetual.

And

melek,

as

we’ve

learned

on

this

program,

is

a

masculine

noun.

16:36

that

denotes

a

male

king

or

ruler.

And

this

is

all

in

reference

to

Yahweh.

This

biblical

text

clearly

affirms

that

God

is

a

male

being

who

reigns

as

an

eternal

king,

a

male

ruler.

Now,

this

verse

should

cause

you

pause

because

what

King

David

is

telling

us

here

is

not

a

uniquely

Jewish

doctrine.

17:04

--- page 64 ---

King

Dave

is

telling

us

the

same

thing

about

God

that

the

rest

of

the

ancient

Near

East

has

been

telling

us

all

along,

that

God

is

male,

that

he

sits

and

that

his

throne

sits

on

the

waters.

The

Mesopotamian

Apsu,

the

Egyptian

waters

of

noon,

the

Primordial

waters,

and

then

it’s

from

that

seat

that

he

reigns

as

an

eternal

king.

What

it

says

right

here

in

Psalm

26

is

exactly

the

same

thing

that

the

Egyptians

tell

us

in

17:33

Pyramid

Text

600,

which

we

covered

in

depth

in

episode

number

31.

So

what

are

we

to

make

of

this?

This

isn’t

a

minor

controversial

prophet

or

Jew

writing

this.

This

is

King

David

teaching

these

things.

Right

here,

King

David

writes,

quote,

the

Lord

sits

enthroned

over

the

engulfing

waters.

18:02

the

Lord

sits

enthroned

as

the

eternal

King.

What

King

David

writes

here

is

actually

the

exact

image

that’s

portrayed

on

the

top

of

nearly

every

ancient

Egyptian

obelisk.

A

tomb

seated

on

a

throne

on

the

Ben

Ben

stone

that

sits

atop

the

primordial

waters.

Or

as

King

David

says

it,

over

18:31

the

engulfing

waters.

Now

I

bring

this

up

because

it’s

widely

believed

among

Jews

and

Christians

today,

like

I

pointed

out,

that

God

is

without

body

or

sex.

But

this

is

not

what

the

ancient

Mesopotamians,

Egyptians

and

Canaanites

taught

about

the

God

who

sat

on

a

throne

over

the

primordial

waters.

They

indisputably

attested

that

he

was

male

and

had

a

male

body.

So

19:00

When

King

David

tells

us

right

here

in

verse

10

of

Psalm

26,

the

same

thing

that

the

rest

of

the

ancient

world

has

been

telling

us

about

God,

I

believe

that

King

David’s

words

are

yet

another

witness

to

that

truth,

as

is

every

reference

to

God’s

maleness

in

the

biblical

canon.

I’ve

only

briefly

hit

on

some

of

the

passages

in

the

Bible

that

attest

to

God’s

male

sex,

but

know

that

19:29

These

passages

are

not

anomalies.

Nearly

every

single

page

of

the

Bible

refers

to

God

as

a

male

being.

So

when

we

consider

this,

then

we

have

to

ask

why

so

many

Jews

and

Christians

today

believe

the

opposite,

that

God

is

disembodied

and

without

sex.

Did

Jews

always

believe

this

or

is

this

a

more

recent

belief?

19:56

So

to

answer

these

questions,

we

need

to

dive

into

the

Jewish

writings

and

find

out,

number

one,

when

historically

was

this

argument

first

made?

Does

it

show

up

really

early

in

the

Jewish

writings,

in

the

middle

writings,

or

in

the

later

writings?

And

number

two,

we

need

to

look

into

who

made

the

argument.

What

was

their

background?

And

number

three,

we

need

to

look

into

why

that

individual

or

those

individuals

20:25

made

this

argument?

Did

they

claim

that

God

revealed

it

to

them?

Did

they

come

up

with

it

by

themselves?

Were

they

heavily

influenced

by

groups

outside

of

Judaism?

The

answers

to

all

of

these

questions

matter

when

we’re

trying

to

establish

the

true

nature

of

God.

Because

if

we

don’t

get

the

true

nature

of

God

correct,

we

won’t

get

the

theology

correct.

A

sexless

God

20:55

leads

to

a

very,

very

different

theology

than

a

sexed

God.

So

let’s

dive

into

the

Jewish

writings

to

see

if

we

can

find

where

Jews

first

argued

that

God

was

sexless.

Let’s

start

with

the

Bible.

So

--- page 65 ---

the

first

thing

that

we

find

as

Dr.

Stavro

Kapulou

puts

it

on

page

16

is

that

quote,

God’s

body,

which

we’ve

established

as

male

is

21:25

nowhere

denied

in

the

Bible.

In

fact,

get

this,

seeing

God’s

body

was

one

of

the

greatest

privileges

given

to

mortal

beings

in

the

Bible.

Dr.

Stavro

Kapulou

writes

on

pages

16

and

18,

quote,

in

Genesis,

Abraham

walks

alongside

him

and

Jacob

has

a

wrestling

match

with

him.

21:53

In

the

books

bearing

their

names,

the

prophets

Isaiah

and

Ezekiel

each

see

God

sitting

on

his

throne,

while

Amos

sees

him

standing

in

one

of

the

temples.

A

talkative

young

man

called

Stephen

in

the

book

of

Acts,

and

the

enraptured,

if

terrified,

writer

of

Revelation

known

as

John

of

Patmos,

both

of

whom

see

God

sitting

enthroned

in

the

heavens

with

Christ

seated

or

standing

next

to

him.

22:21

in

all

these

biblical

stories

and

many

more

besides,

it

was

simply

a

given

that

God

had

a

body.

The

sensational

aspect

in

their

telling

was

that

God

had

allowed

people

to

see

it.

Such

a

rare

privilege

that

during

the

second

temple

period

between

515

BC

to

70

CE,

God

was

increasingly

understood

to

have

long

hidden

his

body.

22:51

from

the

world,

rendering

it

unseeable.

Okay,

let’s

stop

here

for

a

second.

Here

we

learn

that

during

the

second

temple

period

between

515

BC

and

70

AD,

God,

quote,

hid

his

body

from

the

people.

Now,

why

would

he

do

that?

Well,

I

imagine

from

what

we’ve

read

previously

on

the

program

in

the

Moses

Sinai

account,

must

have

been

because

the

people

weren’t

worthy

to

see

his

body.

23:21

Listen

to

Dr.

Stavro

Kapulou

explain

how

the

people’s

inability

to

see

God’s

body

during

this

time

period

actually

contributed

to

the

belief

in

a

bodiless

God.

She

writes,

during

the

second

temple

period

between

515

BC

to

70

CE,

God

was

increasingly

understood

to

have

long

hidden

his

body

from

the

world,

rendering

it

unseeable,

but

an

unseen

body

23:50

is

not

the

same

as

a

non-existent

body.

This

emerging

theological

emphasis

on

the

hiddenness

of

God

would

eventually

give

rise

to

the

abstract,

incorporeal

deity

of

Judaism

and

Christianity.

A

deity

no

longer

shrouded

by

fire

and

clouds,

but

only

wondrous,

inscrutable

mystery.

But

Judaism

and

Christianity

are

post-biblical

religions,

and

their

disembodied

deity

24:20

is

a

later

reimagining

of

a

God

who

was

far

from

enigmatic.

For

the

God

of

the

Bible

was

a

deity

who

not

only

had

a

body,

but

a

personal

name,

a

family,

and

a

host

of

companions

in

the

heavens.

So

note

here

how

she

argues

that

God’s

hiddenness

during

the

Second

Temple

Period

led

to

the

quote,

reimagining

of

God.

24:50

as

a

disembodied

deity.

She

wrote,

quote,

this

emerging

theological

emphasis

on

the

hiddenness

of

God

would

eventually

give

rise

to

what

would

become

the

abstract,

incorporeal

deity

of

Judaism

and

Christianity.

Eventually

is

the

key

word

here,

because

although

there’s

hints

here

and

there

in

the

Hebrew

Bible

that

the

Deuteronomists,

the

group

of

writers

that

were

responsible

for

composing

and

--- page 66 ---

25:19

shaping

significant

portions

of

the

Hebrew

Bible

during

the

sixth

century

BC,

which

was

a

time

of

considerable

political

and

religious

upheaval

in

ancient

Israel

and

Judah,

reimagined

what

was

meant

by

God’s

hidden

nature.

You

know,

wasn’t

until

some

400

to

600

years

after

the

Deuteronomus,

around

the

turn

of

the

millennium,

around

the

first

century

AD,

that

we

find

the

first

written

statement.

25:48

by

a

Jew

explicitly

asserting

that

God

is

bodiless

and

by

implication,

sexless.

So

who

was

the

first

known

Jewish

writer

to

declare

God

to

be

bodiless?

It

was

a

man

by

the

name

of

Philo

of

Alexandria.

If

you

aren’t

familiar

with

Philo

of

Alexandria,

Philo

was

a

Hellenistic

Jewish

philosopher

who

lived

in

Alexandria,

Egypt.

26:16

sometime

between

20

BC

and

50

AD.

If

you’re

familiar

with

this

time

period,

Alexandria

was

actually

a

major

center

of

Hellenistic

culture,

where

you

had

Jews

and

Greeks

and

Egyptians

interacting

with

each

other.

Now,

we

don’t

know

if

Philo

was

formally

schooled

in

Greek

philosophy.

It’s

very

likely

that

he

was,

but

we

know

from

his

works,

and

he

had

an

extensive

number

of

works,

26:44

They

estimate

at

least

70,

50

of

them

survived

today.

They’re

full

of

direct

references

and

concepts

and

terms

directly

from

Greek

philosophy.

This

indicates

that

he

was

deeply

immersed

in

Greek

philosophy,

especially

in

the

works

of

Plato.

He

seems

to

have

had

a

very

deep

admiration

for

Plato.

Philo

was

so

persuaded

27:13

by

Greek

philosophy,

especially

Plato’s

philosophical

ideas

about

the

nature

of

God,

that

he

tried

to

harmonize

them

with

Jewish

theology.

This

is

a

practice

that’s

known

as

philosophical

syncretism.

A

scholar

by

the

name

of

Marija

Todorovska

notes

that

Philo’s

writings,

quote,

27:43

mythical

and

theological

Hebraic

thought

and

the

philosophical

concepts

of

the

Greeks.

So

he

merges

them

together.

And

this

is

a

really,

really

important

aspect

of

Philo’s

writings

for

us

to

understand.

Because

as

you’re

gonna

see

in

just

a

second,

the

notion

of

a

bodiless

God

came

directly

from

Plato,

from

Platonic

philosophy.

See,

28:12

Philo

was

profoundly

influenced

by

the

Platonic

view

that

ultimate

reality

is

immaterial,

perfect

and

unchanging.

Ultimate

reality.

In

Plato’s

thought,

anything

material

is

by

nature

imperfect

and

subject

to

decay.

So

a

truly

divine

being

would

have

to

be

incorporeal

and

beyond

physical

limitation.

Therefore

God

could

not

28:40

have

a

body

or

a

sex.

So

Philo

applied

Plato’s

framework

to

his

interpretation

of

Hebrew

scripture,

arguing

that

biblical

references

to

God’s

body

or

emotions

had

to

be

read

allegorically

and

not

literally.

Philo

portrayed

God

as

abstract,

infinite,

and

completely

beyond

the

physical

world,

which

was

in

complete

alignment

29:10

with

the

Greek

philosophical

ideal

of

a

transcendent,

formless

deity.

This

marked

a

significant

departure

from

earlier

Jewish

traditions,

which

often

accepted

the

anthropomorphic

language

of

--- page 67 ---

the

Bible

at

face

value.

As

Rabbi

Joshua

Amaru

insightfully

asks,

quote,

why

was

no

one

bothered

by

corporeal

imagery

of

God?

29:37

until

Judaism

came

into

contact

with

Greek

philosophy?

Well,

that

is

indeed

a

very

excellent

question.

Philo’s

conception

of

a

bodiless,

and

again

by

implication

a

sexless

god,

was

absolutely

shaped

by

Greek

metaphysics.

And

it

may

have

also

been

shaped

by

30:02

Second

Temple

Jewish

thought,

which

we

mentioned

earlier,

which

was

still

tying

to

grapple

with

the

notion

of

a

hidden

God.

Ultimately

though,

Philo

reimagined

the

Hebrew

God

as

bodiless.

Not

because

scripture

declared

it,

but

because

Greek

philosophy

demanded

it.

And

I

wonder

how

many

Jews

and

Christians

today

are

aware

of

this,

that

the

belief

in

a

bodiless

God

comes

30:30

primarily

from

Plato,

not

from

one

of

the

Hebrew

prophets.

As

Dr.

Stavrokapoulou

outlined

earlier,

the

Hebrew

prophets,

the

ones

who

were

privileged

to

see

God

and

wrote

about

it

in

the

Bible,

universally

declared

that

God

had

a

body

and

that

he

was

male.

This

is

especially

apparent

in

the

Hebrew

prophet

Ezekiel’s

account.

30:59

which

is

found

in

Ezekiel

chapter

one.

We’ve

talked

about

this

before

in

the

program,

but

I’ve

got

to

bring

it

up

again

here

because

this

account,

more

than

any

other

account

found

in

the

Bible,

attests

to

God’s

male

body.

In

this

account,

the

prophet

Ezekiel

is

given

the

rare

privilege

of

seeing

God.

And

in

verses

26

and

27,

he

describes

for

us

what

he

saw.

The

King

James

Version

reads,

quote,

31:27

upon

the

likeness

of

the

throne

was

the

likeness

as

the

appearance

of

a

man

above

upon

it.

And

I

saw

as

the

color

of

amber,

as

the

appearance

of

fire

round

about

within

it,

for

the

appearance

of

his

loins

even

upward

and

from

the

appearance

of

his

loins

even

downward,

I

saw

as

it

were

the

appearance

of

fire.

31:53

The

Hebrew

prophet

Ezekiel

tells

us

here

that

when

he

was

given

the

privilege

of

laying

eyes

on

God,

he

saw

that

God

had

the

body

of

a

man,

but

it

was

different.

His

body

had

the

appearance

of

fire.

It

took

on

the

color

of

amber.

It

actually

shined.

And

Ezekiel

tells

us

that

it

wasn’t

just

his

face

that

was

shining.

His

body

above

his

loins

had

the

appearance

of

fire

and

his

body

below

his

loins

had

the

appearance

of

fire.

32:23

which

is

just

another

way

of

telling

us

that

God’s

entire

body

shined

like

fire.

The

Hebrew

word,

the

King

James

translator

is

translated

as

loins

here,

is

the

Hebrew

word

mot-ni-am,

which

I’m

gonna

talk

about

in

just

a

second.

Loins

refers

to

God’s

reproductive

organs.

If

we

take

a

look

at

the

same

verses

in

the

New

Living

Translation,

we

see

that

they

chose

to

translate

mot-ni-am

as

waste.

32:53

And

this

is

their

translation

quote,

from

what

appeared

to

be

his

waist

up,

he

looked

like

gleaming

amber

flickering

like

a

fire.

And

from

his

waist

down,

he

looked

like

a

burning

flame

shining

with

splendor.

So

the

New

Living

Translators

preserve

Ezekiel’s

witness

that

God

has

a

bodily

form.

But

when

they

translate

the

Hebrew

word

mot

naim

as

waste,

--- page 68 ---

33:21

They’re

essentially

sanitizing

Ezekiel’s

more

explicit

claim

that

God

had

male

reproductive

anatomy.

Motinayem

or

variations

of

it

show

up

47

times

in

the

Hebrew

Bible

and

42

out

of

47

times

the

King

James

translators

translate

it

in

its

reproductive

sense

as

loins.

Listen

to

what

Dr.

Stavro

Kapulou

says

about

the

Hebrew

word

motinayem.

33:51

and

this

is

on

page

103.

Quote,

mot

naim,

a

Hebrew

term

traditionally

and

politely

rendered

loins

or

waste,

but

which

more

accurately

refers

to

the

groin

and

its

genitals.

He,

Ezekiel,

openly

acknowledges

God’s

genitals.

Ezekiel’s

account

is

a

stunning

display

of

the

graphic

corporeality

of

God.

34:22

Ezekiel’s

witness

of

God

is

indeed

stunning.

One

would

have

to

employ

a

considerable

amount

of

mental

gymnastics

to

interpret

Ezekiel’s

witness

of

God’s

body

and

God’s

reproductive

organs

as

metaphorical.

Why

would

a

God

who

does

not

have

a

sex

show

himself

to

the

prophet

Ezekiel

metaphorically

as

a

male

having

a

body

with

reproductive

anatomy?

34:53

What

could

this

possibly

convey

to

Ezekiel

metaphorically?

Well,

luckily,

we

don’t

have

to

depend

on

mental

gymnastics

because

it’s

Philo’s

admiration

of

Plato,

not

Ezekiel,

that

demands

a

metaphorical

interpretation.

With

this

in

mind,

we

need

to

take

a

minute

here

and

talk

about

Plato’s

reasoning

in

light

of

the

theology

taught

within

the

ancient

tradition.

See,

35:22

Plato

argued

that

God

could

not

be

made

of

matter,

possess

a

material

body,

because

matter

was

subject

to

decay

and

eventual

dissolution.

Take

for

example

a

tree,

as

the

tree

ages,

it

eventually

rots

and

it

decays

and

it

ultimately

dies.

So

if

God

were

made

of

matter,

Plato

reasoned,

he

too

would

be

susceptible

to

decay

and

death,

qualities

that

are

fundamentally

incompatible

with

the

notion

35:51

of

God.

So

Plato

concludes

that

God

cannot

possibly

be

made

of

matter,

so

he

must

need

be

immaterial,

bodiless,

and

again

by

implication,

sexless.

In

terms

of

logic,

this

seems

very

persuasive.

And

it

was.

Dr.

Stavro

Kapulou

notes

on

page

nine

that

36:18

Plato’s

ideas

were

so

persuasive

that

they

ultimately

shaped

the

conception

of

God

across

the

entire

Western

world.

She

writes,

quote,

these

erudite

philosophical

ideas

would

gradually

come

to

shape

the

thinking

of

certain

Jewish

and

Christian

intellectuals.

So

they

began

to

reimagine

their

deity

in

increasingly

incorporeal,

immaterial

terms.

36:47

It

is

the

broadly

Platonic

notion

of

the

otherness

and

unlikeness

of

the

divine

that

has

shaped

the

more

formal

theological

constructions

of

God

in

the

Western

religious

imagination.

And

yet,

these

constructions

are

built

on

a

conceptual

framework

very

much

at

odds

with

the

Bible

itself.

For

in

these

ancient

texts,

God

is

presented

37:16

in

startlingly

anthropomorphic

ways.

This

is

a

deity

with

a

body.

Nearly

everything

that

Plato

taught

about

the

nature

of

God

contradicted

what

the

ancients

taught.

The

ancients

taught

that

--- page 69 ---

God

was

not

constrained

by

the

corruptibility

inherent

in

matter.

The

ancients

taught

that

God

had

the

power

to

reverse

the

second

law

of

thermodynamics.

37:45

We’ve

talked

about

this

quite

a

bit

on

the

program.

The

second

law

of

thermodynamics

states

that

in

a

closed

system,

entropy

or

disorder

tends

to

increase

over

time,

meaning

that

all

material

things

naturally

move

toward

decay

and

disintegration

and

chaos,

just

like

Plato

argues.

But

the

ancients

taught

that

God

was

not

subject

to

this

law.

They

taught

that

he

had

the

power

to

halt

or

reverse

or

even

transcend

entropy

itself.

Nearly

all

ancient

cultures

affirmed

38:15

this

very

idea.

From

Mesopotamia

to

Egypt

to

Hebrew

tradition,

one

of

the

fundamental

characteristics

attributed

to

God

was

his

ability

to

transform

chaotic

matter

into

ordered

matter,

to

reverse

the

second

law

of

thermodynamics.

The

creation

stories

that

we

find

across

the

ancient

world

and

frankly

around

the

world

depict

God

transforming

a

formless

and

tropic

void

38:44

into

a

harmonious

structured

cosmos.

The

biblical

account

of

the

first

day

of

creation

is

a

great

example

of

this.

God

brings

light

into

darkness

and

he

separates

and

defines

the

elements

and

he

establishes

the

boundaries,

acts

that

are

at

their

core

a

direct

reversal

of

entropy.

So

God,

far

from

being

bound

by

the

laws

of

physics

as

we

know

them,

had

the

power

to

impose

order

on

chaos.

39:14

to

restore

what

decayed

and

to

renew

what

died,

which

is

precisely

why

Christ

in

the

Christian

tradition

was

able

to

rise

from

the

dead

in

a

resurrected

perfect

material

body

as

recorded

in

Luke

chapter

24

verse

39.

In

this

verse,

the

resurrected

Christ

appears

before

his

apostles

and

tells

them,

quote,

behold

my

hands

and

my

feet.

39:42

that

it

is

I

myself

handle

me

and

see

for

a

spirit

hath

not

flesh

and

bones

as

ye

see

me

have.

If

God

has

the

power

to

reverse

the

second

law

of

thermodynamics,

which

the

ancients

taught

and

which

they

argued

was

one

of

the

most

important

characteristics

of

God,

then

God

by

necessity

need

not

be

immaterial

as

Plato

claims.

40:12

And

matter

itself

need

not

be

innately

inferior

or

inherently

flawed,

corrupt,

or

evil,

as

the

later

Gnostics

argued.

Gnostics,

who

we

learned

from

the

Platonic

terms

they

used

in

their

writings,

were

also

heavily,

heavily

influenced

by

Platonism

and

Plato.

From

what

we

can

glean

from

the

ancients,

matter

appears

to

be

a

substance

that

can

be

acted

upon.

When

the

awful

sea

monsters

given

reign

over

matter,

40:42

That

matter

is

subject

to

the

second

law

of

thermodynamics

and

it

moves

in

the

direction

of

corruptibility,

deterioration

and

decay.

But

when

God

reigns

over

matter,

his

authoritative

power

transforms

and

sanctifies

it

and

it

moves

it

in

the

direction

of

incorruptibility,

order,

perfection

in

life.

All

of

the

ancients

attest

to

this.

The

ancients

taught

that

matter

is

only

corruptible

41:11

in

the

absence

of

divine

power.

And

I’m

just

not

quite

sure

how

Plato

missed

the

theological

inconsistency

in

his

argument.

He

clearly

argues

that

God

is

sovereign,

yet

he

imagines

a

God

--- page 70 ---

that

doesn’t

have

sovereignty

over

matter.

And

this

is

really

perplexing

to

me,

especially

considering

how

God’s

sovereignty

over

matter,

his

imposition

of

order,

41:41

on

chaotic

matter.

His

ability

to

subdue

chaos

and

bring

about

order

is

one

of

the

most

enduring

literary

themes

in

the

ancient

world.

We’ve

talked

about

this

quite

a

bit

on

the

program

about

God’s

power

to

reverse

the

second

law

of

thermodynamics.

If

you’re

new

to

the

program

and

you

want

to

learn

more

about

this,

it’s

pretty

fascinating.

Be

sure

and

check

out

episode

number

14,

the

terrifying

second

law

of

thermodynamics.

42:11

You’ll

get

a

lot

out

of

that

episode

as

a

standalone,

but

if

you

want

to

see

how

it

fits

into

the

larger

theological

landscape

in

the

ancient

world,

I

recommend

listening

to

several

of

the

episodes

before

and

after

it.

42:25

All

right,

back

to

Philo

of

Alexandria.

So

Philo

was

so

persuaded

by

Plato’s

conception

of

God

as

an

immaterial

abstraction

that

now

he

had

a

problem.

What

was

he

to

do

with

all

of

the

verses

in

the

Hebrew

Bible

and

all

of

the

Hebrew

prophets

that

insisted

God

had

a

body

and

a

sex?

What

was

he

to

do

with

this

incongruity?

Well,

there

weren’t

a

lot

of

options.

42:55

The

only

way

to

make

Plato’s

immaterial

God

compatible

with

what

was

actually

written

in

the

Hebrew

Bible

was

to

redefine

it,

to

redefine

the

references

to

God’s

body

and

sex

as

merely

allegorical

or

metaphorical,

which

is

the

position

that

persists

to

this

day.

After

Philo,

another

1200

years

go

by

before

we

find

another

Jewish

writer

systematically

argue

the

immateriality

43:25

disembodied

and

by

implication

sexless

nature

of

God.

And

who

was

this?

Many

of

you

should

know

if

you’ve

been

listening

to

the

program.

This

was

the

medieval

rabbi

and

Jewish

philosopher,

Mamanides,

who

we’ve

talked

about

quite

a

bit

on

the

program,

who

lived

from

1138

to

1204

AD.

In

his

work,

The

Guide

for

the

Perplexed,

he

argued

that

God

was

formless.

43:52

and

beyond

human

attributes.

And

just

like

Philo

before

him,

that

position

led

him

to

interpret

all

of

the

sex-based

language

used

to

describe

God

found

in

the

Bible

as

metaphorical.

All

right,

that

kind

of

gives

you

a

historical

background.

We

don’t

have

time

to

get

into

this

too

much

today,

but

in

a

book

titled

God’s

Phallus

and

Other

Problems

for

Men

in

Monotheism,

the

author,

who

is

Howard

Elberg

Schwartz,

44:22

He’s

a

trained

rabbi

and

at

the

time

he

published

this

book,

he

was

actually

a

professor

of

religious

studies

at

Stanford.

He

notes

that

the

notion

of

an

immaterial

sexless

God

has

caused

serious

theological

tensions

in

Judaism

for

men.

In

a

chapter

that

he

titled,

quote,

a

sexless

father,

referring

to

God

and

his

procreating

sons,

44:51

Schwartz

asks

the

following

on

page

199,

quote,

the

symbol

of

a

male

god

is

not

simply

a

legitimation

of

masculinity.

It

is

also

an

image

against

which

men

must

measure

themselves

and

by

whose

standard

they

fall

short.

So

how

can

men

who

are

expected

to

procreate

and

reproduce

the

lineage

of

their

fathers

be

made

45:20

--- page 71 ---

in

the

image

of

a

sexless

God.

As

a

symbol

to

be

emulated,

a

sexless

father

God

naturally

provides

an

ideal

of

male

asceticism.

To

be

really

like

God

then,

a

man

should

have

no

sexuality.

One

can

see

how

the

theological

tension

here

is

considerable.

The

Torah

commands

men

to

multiply

and

replenish

the

earth,

yet

a

sexless

God

45:49

whom

they’re

expected

to

emulate,

demands

that

they

should

have

no

sexuality

or

reproductive

capacity

at

all.

How

are

Jewish

men

expected

to

reconcile

this?

It

doesn’t

compute.

On

page

200

Schwartz

notes,

quote,

an

aesthetic

male

god,

of

course,

would

have

posed

much

less

of

a

problem

for

human

masculinity

had

reproduction

been

less

central

to

what

ancient

Israel

understood

by

manhood.

46:19

Israelite

men

were

caught

to

be

most

like

God.

They

had

to

renounce

their

sexuality,

but

they

could

not

be

truly

men

unless

they

fulfilled

their

obligations

to

continue

the

generations.

Schwartz

notes

then

that

this

theological

tension

becomes

especially

pronounced

when

the

blessing

of

fertility

is

directly

tied

46:45

to

the

covenant

that

God

makes

with

Abraham

and

his

male

descendants.

In

Genesis

chapter

17

verses

four

to

six,

God

tells

the

Israelites,

quote,

as

for

me,

this

is

my

covenant

with

you.

You

shall

be

the

father

of

a

multitude

of

nations

and

you

shall

no

longer

be

called

Abram,

but

your

name

shall

be

Abraham,

for

I

will

make

you

the

father

of

a

multitude

of

nations.

47:15

I

will

make

you

exceedingly

fertile

and

make

nations

of

you

and

kings

shall

come

forth

from

you.”

As

a

quick

aside,

did

you

know

how

Abraham

is

told

that

he

will

not

only

be

fertile

if

he

keeps

the

covenant,

but

that

quote,

kings

shall

come

forth

from

him.

So

note

how

the

covenant

fertility

and

kingship

are

all

theologically

tied

together.

47:43

This

is

why

the

male

sex

of

God

really

matters,

theologically.

The

association

between

the

covenant

and

fertility

was

really

driven

home

when

it

was

symbolized

by

removing

the

foreskin

from

the

male

phallus

via

circumcision.

Schwartz

writes,

quote,

the

intertwining

of

masculinity

and

procreation

are

no

more

more

evident

48:11

than

in

the

priestly

understanding

of

circumcision.

In

the

priestly

writings,

circumcision

is

treated

as

a

symbol

of

male

fertility,

of

God’s

promise

to

make

Abraham

a

father

of

multitudes.

It

is

no

accident

that

the

symbol

of

the

covenant

is

impressed

on

the

male

organ

of

generation.

By

exposing

the

male

organ,

the

rite

of

circumcision

makes

concrete

the

symbolic

link

48:40

between

masculinity,

genealogy,

and

reproduction.

And

I

would

add

the

covenant

and

the

entire

theology.

The

close

association

of

masculinity

with

genealogical

proliferation,

however,

conflicts

with

the

image

of

a

sexless

God.

49:03

Again,

one

can

see

how

this

would

cause

considerable

theological

tension

among

Jewish

men.

And

these

tensions

are

further

exacerbated

by

the

scriptural

mandate

in

the

Hebrew

Bible

to

marry,

the

order

of

patrilineal

descent,

the

perpetuation

and

expansion

of

Abraham’s

descendants

through

procreation,

the

conferrence

of

priestly

status

from

father

to

son,

and

--- page 72 ---

49:32

the

express

declaration

in

the

Torah

that

human

beings

are

made

in

God’s

image

and

likeness.

It’s

incredibly

difficult

to

reconcile

a

sexless

God

with

a

theology

that

is

entirely

dependent

on

male

sexuality.

It

doesn’t

make

sense.

On

page

222,

Schwartz

writes,

50:02

Views

that

deviate

from

Jewish

tradition

require

explanation.

Well,

the

explanation

is

Plato

in

Greek

philosophy.

Plato’s

conception

of

the

nature

of

God

is

a

great

example

of

how

the

theology

that

was

originally

taught

in

the

ancient

tradition

can

become

transformed

and

distorted

and

corrupted

over

time.

Plato’s

50:31

philosophical

conception

of

the

nature

of

God,

of

how

he

thought

God

needed

to

be,

has

led

to

quite

a

bit

of

confusion.

What

you

should

glean

from

this

is

that

the

doctrine

of

an

immaterial

sexless

God

in

Judaism

came

largely

from

Plato

and

Hellenistic

philosophy,

which

was

then

advocated

and

perpetuated

by

Jewish

philosophers

like

Philo

and

Maimonides.

51:01

And

you

should

also

glean

that

this

philosophical

movement

occurred

quite

late.

Most

of

Philo’s

writings

were

written

in

the

early

part

of

the

first

century

AD,

which

is

nearly

2000

years

after

the

prophet

Abraham

is

believed

to

have

lived.

And

the

vast

majority

of

this

new

doctrine

developed

only

in

the

last

800

years

after

Mimonides

wrote

the

Guide

for

the

Perplexed.

51:28

The

ancient

Mesopotamians,

Egyptians,

Canaanites,

and

Hebrews

had

all

been

attesting

for

literally

millennia

in

their

ancient

texts

and

iconography

that

God

had

a

material

body

and

was

a

sexed

So

these

ideas

came

rather

late.

Despite

Philo’s

powerful

influence

over

Jewish

philosophers

and

later

Christian

theologians,

the

notion

that

God

had

a

material

body

and

a

sex

51:57

persisted

and

it

continues

to

persist

throughout

the

world.

It

constitutes

yet

another

robust

stubborn

bit.

In

ancient

Greece,

biological

sex

served

as

a

fundamental

marker

of

divine

identity.

In

the

ancient

Greek

texts

and

iconography,

the

gods

Zeus,

Poseidon,

Hades,

Apollo,

Hermes,

Asclepius

and

Oceanus

are

consistently

described

as

male.

52:24

whereas

Hera,

Aphrodite,

Persephone,

Artemis,

and

Gaia

are

consistently

described

as

female.

For

example,

in

the

Homeric

hymn

27,

a

hymn

to

the

goddess

Artemis,

we

read,

and

this

is

the

Hugh

G.

Evelyn

White

translation,

quote,

I

sing

of

Artemis

with

golden

spindle.

This

refers

to

an

arrow.

Loud

calling

the

pure

maiden.

52:53

Note

how

Artemis

is

referred

to

here

as

the

pure

maiden.

The

Greek

word

that’s

translated

as

maiden

here

is

parthenos,

which

means

virgin,

maiden,

or

girl.

Parthenos

is

actually

where

the

word

parthenon

comes

from.

The

word

parthenon

literally

means

the

temple

of

the

virgin

goddess.

The

sex

of

the

god

is

clear.

The

hymn

continues,

quote,

the

pure

maiden

shooter

of

stags.

53:22

poorer

of

Eros

own

sister

of

Apollo.

Here

we

see

reference

to

the

goddess

Artemis

in

familial

terms

as

the

female

sibling,

the

sister

of

the

god

Apollo.

Iconographically

Artemis

is

consistently

--- page 73 ---

represented

across

all

forms

of

media

like

invasives

and

statues

and

coins

and

bas

reliefs

with

a

very

distinctly

female

body.

53:47

She’s

depicted

with

delicate

facial

features.

She’s

usually

got

her

hair

pulled

up

or

it’s

flowing

and

curls.

She’s

wearing

flowing

robes

and

she

has

a

visibly

female

body,

including

breast.

If

you’d

like

to

see

depictions

of

Artemis

as

a

female

God,

you

can

find

them

on

the

webpage

for

this

episode.

If

we

turn

to

the

oldest

Hindu

scripture,

the

Rig

Vita

dated

to

the

second

millennium

BC,

54:15

And

we

read

the

very

first

line.

We

read

of

a

deity

named

Agni,

whom

the

text

describes

as

male.

The

text

reads,

and

this

is

the

H.H.

Wilson

translation,

quote,

I

glorify

Agni,

the

high

priest

of

the

sacrifice,

the

divine

ministrant.

In

this

text,

Agni

is

clearly

described

as

a

high

priest.

The

Sanskrit

word

that’s

translated

as

high

priest

here

54:45

is

Ruteviz

which

refers

historically

to

a

male

priest

who

officiated

or

participated

in

Vedic

sacrifices

in

the

holy

place

of

Kanakala.

The

text

says,

I

glorify

Agni,

the

high

priest

of

the

sacrifice,

the

divine

minstrant.

In

this

text,

the

Sanskrit

word

that’s

translated

as

divine

is

devam

or

deva.

55:13

which

is

the

Sanskrit

word

for

a

male

god,

one

who

interestingly

shines,

one

who

glows,

who’s

bright,

who’s

radiant.

The

word

comes

from

the

root

div,

D-I-V,

which

means

to

shine.

The

female

equivalent

to

deva

is

devi,

D-E-V-I,

which

specifically

denotes

a

female

god.

So

in

Sanskrit,

devas

are

male

gods

and

devis

are

female

gods.

55:43

In

this

text,

Agni

is

described

as

a

deva,

a

male

god.

So

here

we

have

the

very

first

line

of

the

oldest

known

Vedic

scripture

attesting

the

divine

beings

have

a

sex,

male

or

female.

Now

that’s

something.

In

the

Rig

Veda,

the

gods

Indra,

Agni,

Mitra,

Varuna

and

Vishnu,

along

with

a

lot

of

others

are

described

as

male.

Iconographically,

the

god

Agni

is

depicted

with

a

male

body.

56:10

Sometimes

he’s

depicted

with

a

beard,

but

most

of

the

time

he’s

depicted

shirtless

with

a

clearly

male

upper

body.

If

you’d

like

to

see

iconographic

images

of

Agni,

you

can

find

them

on

the

webpage

for

this

episode.

In

other

Vedic

traditions,

Ushas,

Lakshmi,

Parvati

and

Suti

are

identified

as

female

gods.

For

example,

Lakshmi,

one

of

the

chief

goddesses

in

Hinduism

is

sometimes

referred

to

as

56:39

Shri,

S-H-R-I,

which

in

Sanskrit

means

noble

or

one

of

glory

or

high

rank,

which

get

this

is

often

associated

with

kingship.

In

a

late

body

of

hymns

known

as

the

Skri

Kumula

Stotram,

dated

to

sometime

between

the

9th

and

12th

century

AD,

all

women

are

described

as

being

the

embodiment

of

the

goddess

Lakshmi.

57:10

The

song

reads,

speaking

of

the

goddess

Lakshmi,

every

woman

is

an

embodiment

of

you.

You

exist

as

little

girls

in

their

childhood,

as

young

women

in

their

youth,

and

as

elderly

women

in

their

old

age.

The

connection

in

this

song

between

Lakshmi

and

the

female

body,

all

female

bodies

is

unmistakable.

It

seems

to

suggest

like

we’ve

seen

elsewhere,

--- page 74 ---

57:36

that

women

on

earth

are

patterned

after

the

likeness

or

image

of

a

female

god

in

heaven.

All

right,

iconographically,

Lakshmi

is

commonly

portrayed

as

a

beautiful

woman.

She’s

usually

draped

in

an

elegant

red

sari,

standing

or

sitting

on

a

lotus

flower.

If

we

turn

to

the

Norse

pantheon

in

Scandinavia,

we

see

the

same

thing.

58:01

All

of

the

deities

mentioned

in

the

Poetic

and

Prose

Edas

are

identified

as

either

male

or

female.

For

example,

Baldr,

Freyr,

Thor,

Dillinger,

and

the

high

god

Odin,

along

with

several

others,

are

identified

as

male.

For

example,

in

the

Prose

Eda

in

the

Gelfangening,

the

god

Baldr

is

described

like

this.

Listen

for

the

male

descriptors.

This

is

the

Broder

translation.

Quote,

58:31

The

second

son

of

Odin

is

Balder,

and

good

things

are

to

be

said

of

him.

He

is

best,

and

all

praise

him.

He

is

fair

of

feature

and

so

bright

that

light

shines

from

him.

The

masculine

descriptors

are

pretty

apparent.

The

second

son

of

Odin

is

Balder,

and

good

things

are

to

be

said

of

him.

He

is

best,

and

all

praise

him.

He

is

fair

of

feature

and

so

bright

59:00

that

light

shines

from

him.

Balder

is

clearly

described

as

male.

As

a

quick

aside,

did

you

also

catch

that

the

god

Balder

is

described

as

having

a

glorious

light?

The

text

says

that

he

is

quote,

so

bright

that

light

shines

from

him.

Some

15

female

goddesses

are

mentioned

in

the

Gelfangining

just

alone,

including

Frigg,

Saga,

Fula

and

Freya.

59:27

The

Gelfangenin

says

this

of

the

goddess

Frigg,

quote,

his,

and

his

here

refers

to

the

high

god

Odin,

wife

was

called

Frigg,

daughter

of

Fjorgen.

And

of

their

blood

has

come

that

kindred,

which

we

all

call

the

races

of

the

Assyr

that

have

people

the

elder

Asgard

and

those

kingdoms

which

pertain

to

it.

And

that

is

a

divine

race.

So

we

learned

quite

a

bit

about

Frigg

in

this

passage.

We

learned

that

she’s

female.

59:57

passage

tells

us

that

she

is

the

wife

of

the

high

god

Odin.

It

tells

us

that

she’s

the

daughter

of

Fjordun,

who’s

a

male

god.

And

the

passage

tells

us

that

Frigg

is

the

mother

of

the

Assyr.

Now

the

Assyr

are

those

gods

who

make

up

the

principal

pantheon

of

gods

in

Norse

mythology.

The

passage

stresses

Frigg’s

female

sex

as

a

wife,

a

daughter,

and

a

mother.

01:00:28

all

familial

relations.

If

we

turn

to

the

South

Pacific

to

Polynesia,

we

find

a

similar

pattern.

We

find

that

Kane,

Kanaloa,

Ku,

Lono,

Tangaloa,

and

Tane

Mahuta

are

described

as

male

gods,

and

Papatuanuku,

Hikuleo,

Pele,

and

Nuakea

are

described

as

female

goddesses.

The

goddess

Hikuleo

01:00:58

is

the

Tongan

goddess

who

stands

guard

at

the

entrance

to

Pulohtu,

the

realm

of

the

ancestors.

A

statue

of

her

is

housed

in

the

Met

in

the

Metropolitan

Museum

of

Art

in

New

York

City,

and

it

depicts

her

with

very

voluptuous

breasts,

legs,

and

buttocks.

The

Met

says,

quote,

that

belie

her

tremendous

vigor.

If

you’d

like

to

see

pictures

of

the

Tongan

goddess,

Ikoleo,

you

can

find

them

on

the

webpage

for

this

episode.

01:01:29

--- page 75 ---

If

we

turn

to

South

America

to

the

Aztecs,

we

find

the

same

thing.

Nearly

every

single

one

of

the

numerous

gods

found

there

is

defined

as

either

male

or

female.

Tesla

Kapoka,

Quetzalcoatl,

Huetzalopochtli,

Etzpapalotl

Totec,

and

Etz

Tetli

are

all

described

as

male.

For

example,

Huetzalopochtli,

the

patron

god

of

the

Mexica

tribe,

is

01:01:57

depicted

in

the

Codex

Barbonicus

anthropomorphically

as

a

male

with

black

and

yellow

facial

markings,

wearing

battle

gear,

holding

a

serpent-shaped

scepter.

Whereas,

Myktikatsiwadal,

Taltecutli,

Shochi

Ketsal,

and

Tonantzin

are

described

as

female.

Myktikatsiwadal,

for

example,

is

depicted

in

the

Codex

Borgia,

shirtless,

01:02:25

exposing

female

breasts.

In

Japan,

Amaterasu,

Itsunami,

Inari,

Kanan,

Tsukuyumi

are

all

defined

as

female

goddesses.

And

Fujin,

Fukurokuchu,

Hotoi,

and

Izugnagi

are

all

described

as

male

gods.

Paintings

and

statues

of

the

goddess

Kanan

01:02:51

depict

her

in

full

female

form

dressed

in

flowing

robes

and

she’s

decked

in

lace

and

jewelry

and

then

there’s

a

crown

on

top

of

her

head.

Pukorokujo

on

the

other

hand,

a

male

god

is

depicted

as

balding.

He’s

depicted

as

an

elderly

man

with

a

white

beard

and

this

really

protruding

forehead.

And

finally,

if

we

turn

to

China,

we

find

the

same

thing.

The

gods

are

understood

to

be

sexed

beings.

Bixia,

01:03:21

Chang’un,

Chang’chi,

Matsu,

and

Doumu

are

described

as

female

goddesses,

and

Fu

Xi,

Lei

Gong,

Lu

Ban,

Ying

Wang,

and

Yu

Lao

are

described

as

male

gods.

In

the

iconography,

the

male

gods

are

often

portrayed

with

stately

goatees,

you’ve

seen

these,

in

elaborate

robes,

in

a

crown,

or

an

imperial

headdress

of

some

type.

01:03:48

whereas

the

female

gods

tend

to

be

depicted

with

delicate

female

features,

very

white

faces,

and

often

with

these

elegant

updos.

As

we’ve

seen

in

this

episode

and

in

the

last

episode,

the

vast

majority

of

religious

traditions

in

the

world

attest

that

God

is

a

sexed

being.

It’s

quite

a

robust,

stubborn

bit.

And

for

those

religious

adherents

in

Judaism

and

Christianity

who

no

longer

believe

that

God

is

sexed,

01:04:18

We

learned

in

this

episode

that

this

is

largely

due

to

Plato

and

the

influence

of

Plato’s

philosophical

ideas

had

on

Philo

of

Alexandria

during

the

first

century

AD

and

on

Maimonides

in

the

12th

century

AD.

A

theological

shift

that

occurs

very,

late

in

Jewish

history,

some

2000

years

after

the

Hebrew

prophet

Abraham

and

hundreds

and

hundreds

of

years

after

the

Hebrew

prophets.

01:04:46

Jacob,

Moses,

Isaiah,

and

Ezekiel,

mortal

beings

who

had

the

rare

privilege

of

seeing

God

with

their

own

eyes

and

who

unequivocally

testified

in

the

Bible

that

God

was

male

and

had

a

male

body.

God’s

embodied

sexed

nature

matters.

It

matters

theologically.

I

hope

you’ve

seen

that

in

this

episode,

especially

in

Judaism,

how

it’s

intimately

tied

to

the

theology.

01:05:15

As

the

podcast

unfolds,

you’re

going

to

discover

that

it’s

intricately

tied

to

nearly

every

single

aspect

of

the

ancient

tradition.

As

I

close

out

this

episode,

I’d

like

to

leave

you

with

something

to

--- page 76 ---

ponder.

If

as

the

Hebrew

prophets,

I

just

mentioned

a

test,

God

is

male

and

maleness

constitutes

only

one

half

of

the

reproductive

whole,

then

01:05:43

Doesn’t

this

imply

that

there

has

to

be

a

female

God?

Doesn’t

God’s

maleness

make

him

by

definition

incomplete?

If

so,

what

happened

to

her

in

the

Hebrew

Bible?

Where

did

she

go?

Those

are

some

things

to

think

about.

I’ve

got

to

leave

it

there.

With

that,

I’ll

leave

you

with

the

words

of

William

Shakespeare.

Knowledge

is

the

wing

wherewith

we

fly

to

heaven.

01:06:13

I’m

Jack

Logan.

01:06:18

You’ve

been

listening

to

the

Ancient

Tradition.

A

Wonk

Media

Production.

Episode

#56

-

Who

is

God?

-

A

Married

Being,

Part

I

https://theancienttradition.com/56-who-is-god-a-married-being/

00:00

Music

00:09

You’re

listening

to

The

Ancient

Tradition.

A

Wonk

Media

Production.

Music

provided

by

Joseph

McDade.

He

is

your

host,

Dr.

Jack

Logan.

00:25

Welcome

to

The

Ancient

Tradition.

I’m

your

host,

Jack

Logan.

Great

to

have

you

listening

in

today.

Today’s

episode

is

super

long.

I

thought

about

splitting

it

into

two,

but

since

I’ve

been

gone

for

so

long

with

the

end

of

the

semester

grading,

I

thought

I’d

just

leave

it,

make

it

kind

of

a

bonus

episode.

There’s

a

lot

in

here,

so

you

may

not

want

to

listen

to

it

all

in

one

sitting.

You

may

want

to

split

it

up,

but

it’s

of

course

up

to

you.

00:53

If

you’re

a

new

listener,

just

want

to

let

you

know

that

the

podcast

has

a

companion

website,

theancienttradition.com,

where

you

can

find

important

resources

linked

to

today’s

episodes.

Just

click

on

show

notes

and

you’ll

find

this

episode.

With

that,

let’s

jump

in.

One

of

the

really

interesting

things

that

I

noticed

when

I

began

studying

religious

traditions

around

the

world

and

something

that

was

quite

honestly

surprising

was

01:21

that

the

high

god,

especially

the

high

gods

in

deep

antiquity,

be

they

Mesopotamian,

Egyptian

or

Canaanite,

and

even

the

early

Hebrews

didn’t

reign

alone.

The

high

god

was

married.

He

reigned

over

the

cosmos

as

a

king

with

his

spouse,

the

queen

of

heaven,

and

together

they

--- page 77 ---

reigned

over

the

heavens

as

a

divine

royal

couple.

It’s

one

of

those

details

that’s

quite

striking

considering

01:49

You

know,

how

many

today

envision

God

as

a

solitary,

aloof,

invisible,

immaterial,

transcendent

entity?

A

notion

that

we

learned

in

our

last

episode

was

largely

shaped

by

Plato’s

philosophical

ideas.

As

Dr.

Stavro

Kapulu

writes,

quite

poignantly

on

page

415

of

her

book,

God

and

Anatomy,

that

the

God

that’s

found

in

the

Hebrew

Bible

is

very,

very

different

from

the

God

envisioned

02:19

by

Plato

and

many

modern

day

believers.

She

writes,

quote,

the

modern

God

of

the

West

and

the

ancient

God

of

the

Bible

are

very

different

beings.

Prominent

Western

intellectuals

have

not

only

rendered

the

biblical

God

lifeless,

but

reduced

him

to

a

mere

phantom.

The

modern

deity

is

a

post

biblical

hybrid

being,

a

disembodied

science

free

artificial

intelligence.

02:48

assembled

over

the

course

of

2,000

years

from

selected

scraps

of

Greek

philosophy.

Dr.

Stavros

Kapoulou

says

it

in

kind

of

a

charged

way,

but

she

makes

a

really

important

point.

And

that’s

that

there

is

a

divide

between

what

Plato

taught

about

the

nature

of

God

and

what

the

peoples

of

the

ancient

world

taught

about

the

nature

of

God.

So

who

are

we

to

believe?

Which

of

these

two

are

attesting

to

the

true

nature

of

God?

03:16

Plato

and

Western

intellectuals

or

the

ancients?

Well,

on

this

podcast,

we

believe

the

ancients

and

that’s

because

the

ancients

themselves

tell

us

they

attest

that

in

the

very

beginning

when

the

earth

was

still

in

heaven’s

embrace,

God

reigned

on

earth

and

that

during

that

time,

God

walked

and

talked

with

human

beings.

They’re

often

referred

to

as

the

ancestors.

03:45

and

he

revealed

to

them

the

truth

about

who

he

is,

his

true

nature.

For

example,

among

the

ancient

Egyptians,

this

time

was

actually

referred

to

as

the

reign

of

Re.

The

reign

of

Re.

Re

here

being

the

high

god,

Atum

Re.

The

time

when

the

high

god

Atum

Re

reigned

on

earth

as

a

divine

king.

And

we’re

actually

gonna

talk

about

this

very,

very

soon.

04:12

Believe

it

or

not,

we’re

only

an

episode

or

two

away

from

diving

into

those

accounts,

finally.

So

you

don’t

have

to

wait

much

longer.

And

it’s

something

to

look

forward

to

because

there’s

some

pretty,

pretty

great

stuff.

When

we

dive

into

what

the

ancients

teach

about

the

nature

of

God,

like

we’re

going

to

do

in

this

episode,

we

absolutely

see

contrary

to

what

Plato

and

Western

intellectuals

taught

that

God

has

a

material

body

made

of

immortal

04:42

flesh

and

bone,

a

body

which

the

ancients

tell

us

emits

a

glorious

radiant

light,

which

they

likened

under

fire.

If

you’re

new

to

the

program

and

you’d

like

to

learn

more

about

the

textual

evidence

for

these

claims,

be

sure

and

give

episode

number

29,

who

is

God,

a

glorious

being

of

ineffable

light,

and

episode

number

44,

who

is

God,

a

corporeal

being,

a

lesson,

because

we

cover

the

textual

evidence.

05:11

for

these

claims

in

detail.

All

right,

in

our

last

episode,

we

learned

that

the

ancients

also

attested

that

God’s

body

is

sexed,

male

or

female,

which

speaks

to

a

very

important

theological

point.

It

--- page 78 ---

indicates

that

God

contains

within

himself

only

half

of

the

reproductive

anatomy

necessary

for

divine

procreation,

which

05:38

clearly

implies

that

God

is

only

whole

with

a

reproductive

partner

of

the

opposite

sex.

Now,

theologically,

this

is

very

intriguing

because

this

indicates

just

like

the

ancients

taught

about

the

cosmic

law

known

among

the

ancients

as

Ma’at,

Tzedek,

Asha,

Rita,

the

Tao,

that

God

is

not

omnipotent.

He

doesn’t

contain

within

himself

all

06:07

power

in

the

sense

that

many

today

believe.

Rather,

we

learned

in

episode

number

28,

who

was

God,

Lord

of

Maat,

King

of

Zedek,

that

the

ancients

taught

that

God

is

bound

by

a

cosmic

law,

which

demands

truth,

righteousness,

and

justice.

They

just

taught

that

God

didn’t

have

the

power

to

circumvent

or

alter

or

change

this

law.

06:33

In

fact,

we

learned

that

it

was

only

by

abiding

by

this

law

that

one

could

become

a

God

in

the

first

place.

The

ancients

taught

that

this

law

was

permanently

embedded

in

the

fabric

of

the

cosmos

itself.

If

God

did

not

conform

to

this

law,

he

would

cease

to

be

God,

which

of

course

means

as

unsettling

as

this

may

sound

to

a

lot

of

people

today,

that

while

God’s

power

is

immense,

the

ancients

taught

that

it

was

not

07:03

absolute.

They

taught

that

it

was

constrained

by

his

submission

to

the

cosmic

law.

When

the

ancients

tell

us

that

God

is

a

sexed

being,

we

get

a

similar

theological

picture.

If

God

contains

within

himself

only

one

half

of

the

reproductive

anatomy

necessary

for

divine

procreation,

then

God

would

not

be

able

to

divinely

procreate

without

a

reproductive

partner

07:30

of

the

opposite

sex.

He

would

not

be

able

to

produce

offspring

by

himself.

He

would

be

constrained

by

the

limitations

of

his

sexual

anatomy.

This

is

theologically

profound,

because

this

means

that

God’s

immense

power

is,

again,

limited.

It’s

not

absolute.

His

divine

procreative

powers

are

relationally

dependent.

Theologically,

again,

07:58

This

is

incredibly

significant

because

it

suggests

that

the

full

capacity

of

Godship,

the

full

power

of

Godship

can

only

be

realized

by

a

divine

couple,

which

is

exactly

what

the

ancients

attest

in

the

ancient

record.

Across

the

ancient

world,

the

ancients

taught

that

God,

most

notably

the

high

God,

reigned

in

the

heavens

or

on

the

peak

of

the

holy

mountain,

08:27

with

his

wife

as

a

married

couple,

not

as

a

solitary

being.

This

divine

couple

reigned

together

as

the

king

and

queen

of

the

cosmos.

I

don’t

know

that

I’ve

heard

a

single

theologian

talk

about

the

prevalence

of

this

stubborn

bit

in

the

ancient

world,

especially

not

in

an

academic,

theologically

rigorous

way,

but

it

is

prevalent

indeed,

which

I’m

gonna

demonstrate.

08:57

Like

always,

we’re

gonna

start

by

jumping

into

the

ancient

texts

to

see

what

the

ancients

themselves

have

to

say

about

God’s

marital

status.

We’re

gonna

be

looking

primarily

at

what

the

texts

have

to

say

about

the

high

God’s

marital

status.

Texts

also

mention

the

marital

status

of

other

gods,

so

we’ll

consider

a

few

of

those,

but

our

primary

focus

today

will

be

on

the

marital

status

of

the

high

God.

We’re

gonna

start

--- page 79 ---

09:25

with

the

earliest

known

civilization

in

the

world,

the

region

known

as

Sumer,

which

was

located

in

southern

Mesopotamia

between

the

Tigris

and

the

Euphrates

rivers

in

what

is

now

modern-day

Iraq.

Scholars

believe

Sumer

was

first

settled

sometime

between

5500

and

3300

BC.

The

early

dynastic

period

dates

to

2900

BC

and

the

first

dynasty

09:55

It’s

known

as

the

dynasty

of

Lagash.

It’s

well

attested

to

in

the

historical

record.

It’s

dated

to

about

2500

BC.

And

I

mentioned

this

just

so

you

get

a

picture

of

the

timeframe

that

we’re

talking

about.

In

ancient

Mesopotamia,

the

high

god,

the

king

of

the

gods

was

known

among

the

Sumerians

as

An,

A-N.

Among

the

Akkadians,

the

same

high

god

was

known

as

Anu,

A-N-U.

10:25

We’ve

discussed

the

High

Sumerian

God,

several

times

on

the

podcast,

so

you

long-time

listeners

should

have

a

really

good

feel

for

who

I’m

talking

about.

On

is

widely

mentioned

in

the

Mesopotamian

literature.

For

example,

he’s

mentioned

in

the

text

known

as

Atrahasis.

In

tablet

one,

we

learned

that

he

reigned

as

the

king

of

the

gods

over

the

assembly

of

the

gods

made

up

of

his

divine

children,

which

he

divinely

procreated.

10:55

In

the

Epic

of

Gilgamesh

in

the

beginning

of

tablet

one,

in

the

Maureen

Kovacs

translation,

we

learned

that

the

high

god

Anu

granted

Gilgamesh,

quote,

the

totality

of

knowledge

of

all.

Or

in

the

text

known

as

Adapa,

we

learned

that

the

high

god

Anu

sends

for

the

man

Adapa

and

instructs

him

to

ascend

to

heaven.

The

tablet

reads,

11:25

And

this

is

the

high

God

Anu

speaking,

quote,

send

for

him

Adapa

to

be

brought

here.

And

here

is

Anu’s

throne

in

the

heavens.

Then

Ea,

Ea

is

a

God

and

he

is

one

of

Anu’s

divine

sons,

tells

Adapa,

quote,

Adapa,

you

are

to

go

before

King

Anu,

you

will

go

up

to

heaven.

And

when

you

go

up

to

heaven,

when

you

reach

the

gate

of

Anu,

11:55

Demusie

and

Gezida

will

be

standing

in

the

gate

of

Anu.

We’ll

see

you,

we’ll

keep

asking

you

questions.

We’ll

talk

about

this

text

a

whole

lot

more

when

we

talk

about

the

Judeo-Christian

first

man

Adam

in

a

couple

of

months,

but

for

today’s

purposes,

I

wanna

point

out

that

this

text

indicates

that

the

king

of

the

gods,

Anu,

is

described

here

as

residing

in

heaven

in

a

sacred

area

that’s

guarded

by

a

gate.

12:25

and

gatekeepers.

And

one

of

the

gatekeepers

mentioned

here

is

the

god

Demusie.

I

point

this

out

because

we’re

gonna

talk

about

Demusie

in

a

couple

of

minutes.

In

this

text,

the

god

Ea

tells

Adapa

that

when

he

gets

to

the

gate

to

the

high

god

Anu’s

throne,

he’ll

be

expected

to

answer

some

questions.

Ea

says

to

Adapa,

quote,

when

you

approach

the

gate

of

Anu,

Demusie

and

Gazeta

will

be

standing

in

the

gate

of

Anu

12:55

They

will

see

you

and

will

keep

asking

you

questions.

Keep

all

of

this

in

your

back

pocket

kids.

It’s

going

to

be

very,

very

important

as

the

podcast

progresses,

especially

when

we

get

into

ritual.

All

right.

Those

are

just

a

few

examples

of

what

we

know

about

the

high

Mesopotamian

God

On

from

the

Mesopotamian

literature.

In

terms

of

the

high

God

On’s

marital

status,

we

know

he

was

married

because

--- page 80 ---

13:23

multiple

ancient

texts,

lists

of

gods

known

as

god

lists,

and

inscriptions

explicitly

identify

his

spouse.

Sometimes

you’ll

hear

scholars

refer

to

Ann’s

spouse

as

a

consort.

The

word

consort

is

generally

used

to

refer

to

a

husband

or

wife

of

a

reigning

monarch,

which

is

important

because

it

speaks

to

Ann’s

status

as

the

king

of

heaven.

13:53

in

his

wife’s

status

as

the

Queen

of

Heaven.

In

one

of

the

God

lists

that

I

just

mentioned,

on

a

tablet

known

as

the

Great

God

List,

or

sometimes

it’s

referred

to

as

An

equals

Anum,

or

An

is

the

equivalent

of

Anu.

This

tablet

is

dated

by

scholars

to

between

1300

and

1100

BC.

But

it’s

on

it

that

we

find

an

explicit

reference

to

the

high

god

An’s

wife.

14:23

Some

scholars

have

given

the

tablet

the

name

On

equals

Onum

because

the

tablet’s

divided

into

two

columns.

And

on

line

one,

on

the

left-hand

column,

is

written

On,

which

like

I

mentioned

is

the

Sumerian

name

for

the

high

god.

And

on

the

right-hand

column

is

written

Onum,

which

is

the

Akkadian

name

for

the

same

high

god.

So

you

get

the

title

On

is

equivalent

to

Onum

or

On

equals

Onum.

It’s

on

line

14:52

three

of

this

tablet

that

we

find

mention

of

Ahn’s

wife.

In

the

left-hand

column

is

written

Ahn

period

Ki,

A-N

period

Ki,

which

is

the

same

thing

as

saying

Ahn

and

Ki.

So

here

we

learn

that

Ahn’s

wife

is

Ki.

In

the

right-hand

column

in

Akkadian

it

reads

Ahnum,

Yu,

Antum,

which

means

Ahnum

and

15:22

Atum

which

are

their

Akkadian

names

and

sometimes

they

drop

the

M

at

the

end

So

with

this

would

be

on

to

or

on

tomb

is

the

Akkadian

name

for

on’s

wife

on

to

or

on

tomb

If

you’d

like

to

see

a

scholar’s

depiction

of

this

you

can

find

it

on

the

web

page

for

this

episode

It’s

really

important

to

point

out

that

the

on

equals

on

you

great.

God

list

is

not

just

a

list

15:48

of

the

Sumerian

gods

and

then

their

Akkadian

equivalents.

The

chief

purpose

the

ancient

compilers

of

Anikles

Anu

had

was

to

chart

the

family

tree

of

the

Sumerian

gods

so

that

Mesopotamians

could

grasp

the

family

relationships

between

gods.

So

each

entry

in

this

god

list

included

the

gods’

titles,

the

name

of

their

spouse,

the

name

of

their

divine

children,

and

then

any

known

attendance.

16:18

So

the

text

An

equals

Anum

is

not

a

list

of

solitary

gods.

It’s

a

detailed

portrayal

of

An’s

celestial

family.

Or

as

Dr.

Stavrikapulu

calls

it,

his

heavenly

household

and

its

divine

members.

It’s

a

family

document.

Or

in

scholar

speak,

it’s

known

as

a

theogony,

a

genealogy

of

the

gods.

16:45

And

as

I

mentioned

earlier,

it’s

in

this

document

that

we

find

that

the

Sumerian

high

god

An

was

married

and

his

wife’s

name

was

Khi.

And

as

we’ve

already

discussed

on

this

program,

their

royal

offspring

in

the

Mesopotamian

literature

are

called

the

Anunnaki,

which

literally

means

the

princely

offspring

of

An

and

Khi.

An

and

Khi

reign

together

as

the

king

and

queen

of

heaven

from

their

royal

palace

temple

on

high.

17:16

--- page 81 ---

If

you’d

like

to

see

the

layout

of

the

High

God

An’s

family

tree,

you

can

find

it

on

the

webpage

for

this

episode.

Now,

the

High

God

Anu

was

not

the

only

member

of

the

Mesopotamian

pantheon

who

was

married.

The

Sumerian

literature

frequently

describes

the

gods

as

having

consorts.

For

example,

Enlil,

he

was

one

of

the

High

God

An

and

his

wife,

Kees’

divine

sons,

is

married

to

Ninlil.

17:46

and

sins

consort

is

Ningal.

Their

union

is

celebrated

in

a

lot

of

Sumerian

love

poetry.

Enki’s

wife

was

Damkina,

Utu’s

wife

was

Sharita,

Ninurta’s

wife

was

Gula,

also

known

as

Bao,

the

goddess

Irishkigal,

now

we’ve

talked

about

her,

her

husband

was

Gugulana.

And

do

you

remember

Demusi?

He

was

also

known

as

the

shepherd

god.

18:15

the

god

who

we

just

learned

in

the

Mesopotamian

text

of

Dappa

stands

as

a

gatekeeper

outside

the

gate

to

Anu’s

throne

in

the

heavens.

Well,

he

was

married

to,

he

was

married

to

the

goddess

Inanna

and

their

marriage

was

incredibly

important

in

the

ancient

world.

The

story

of

D’amuzi

and

Inanna’s

courtship

and

marriage

is

captured

in

a

text

scholars

have

given

the

name,

Inanna

prefers

the

farmer.

18:45

I

love

how

the

scholars

give

these

texts

very

interesting

names,

but

sometimes

it

deters

from

the

serious

nature

of

the

content

that

it

has.

In

this

text,

which

we’re

gonna

discuss

in

detail

when

we

get

to

ritual,

reveals

that

Demusie

and

Inanna’s

marriage

was

so

important

that

it

was

ritually

performed.

And

you’re

never

gonna

guess

when.

It

was

celebrated

as

the

culminating

rite

in

the

Mesopotamian

19:13

New

Year

celebration,

the

New

Year

celebration

known

as

the

Akitu

Festival.

Do

you

remember

what

the

Mesopotamians

celebrated

when

they

celebrated

the

New

Year?

If

you

don’t,

they

celebrated

the

creation

of

the

world.

This

was

when

they

recited

the

Anuma

Elish,

the

Babylonian

epic

of

creation,

when

Marduk

conquered

the

terrible

sea

serpent

Tiamat.

As

part

of

the

festival,

they

actually

19:41

ritually

enacted

the

combat

between

Marduk

and

Tiamat.

They

create

these

wooden

effigies

of

Tiamat

or

the

enemy,

and

then

they’d

ritually

destroy

them

in

a

symbolic

battle,

which

of

course

we

know

Marduk

victoriously

won.

So

when

this

battle

was

performed

during

the

New

Year

rite,

it

reaffirmed

Marduk’s

divine

ordering

power,

his

power

and

authority

to

establish

order

in

the

cosmos.

20:11

as

well

as

his

right

to

rule

as

a

celestial

king.

Right

after

this,

the

earthly

Mesopotamian

king

would

take

Marduk’s

hand

in

a

binding

ritual,

which

reaffirmed

the

king’s

oath

or

contract

or

covenant

with

Marduk.

This

hand

ritual,

of

course,

legitimized

and

affirmed

the

earthly

Mesopotamian

king’s

right

to

rule.

20:39

It’s

right

after

this

that

scholars

believe

the

reenactment

of

Demusie’s

marriage

to

the

goddess

Inanna

was

performed

ritually.

It’s

known

among

scholars

as

the

Hiros

Gamos.

Hiros

being

the

Greek

word

for

sacred

or

holy

and

gamos

being

the

Greek

word

for

marriage

or

wedding.

So

the

Hiros

Gamos

means

the

sacred

marriage.

Scholars

like

Stephen

Langdon,

Samuel

--- page 82 ---

21:07

and

David

Thomas

argue

that

the

sacred

marriage

was

the

central

element

of

the

New

Year

festival.

During

the

Akitu

festival,

the

marriage

was

seen

as

a

reenactment

of

the

primordial

marital

union

of

the

gods.

It

was

believed

to

regenerate

the

cosmos

and

to

ensure

fertility

and

prosperity

in

the

land.

And

we’re

going

to

talk

a

lot

more

about

this

when

we

get

to

ritual,

but

I

mention

it

here

to

demonstrate

21:37

that

the

marriage

of

the

gods

wasn’t

just

an

ancillary

belief.

It

was

directly

tied

to

all

of

the

other

stubborn

bits

we’ve

talked

about

on

this

program,

like

slaying

the

dragon,

the

right

to

rule

as

a

heavenly

king,

the

creation

of

the

world,

and

the

legitimation

of

earthly

kingship.

The

god’s

marriage

was

seen

as

the

culminating

right

that

would

ensure

the

fertility

and

the

prosperity

of

the

kingdom.

22:06

Okay,

let’s

move

to

ancient

Egypt

now.

If

you’re

a

long

time

listener

to

the

program,

you

know

that

the

high

god

among

the

ancient

Egyptians

is

the

god

Atum,

A-T-U-M.

Sometimes

it’s

spelled

A-T-E-M,

Atem,

as

mentioned

in

Pyramid

Text

600.

Over

time,

Atum

and

the

ancient

Egyptian

gods

like

Rae

and

Ra

were

merged

together

into

kind

of

composite

deities.

So

they

were

referred

to

as

Atumra

or

Rae-Atum.

22:36

and

various

religious

texts

use

their

names

interchangeably.

And

this

is

important

because

functionally

they

represent

the

same

High

Creator

God.

I

just

don’t

want

you

to

get

confused

by

this.

In

Pyramid

Text

527,

we

see

the

beginning

of

the

ancient

Egyptian

theogony

or

genealogy

of

the

gods.

In

this

text,

the

High

God

Atum

is

described

as

giving

birth

to

two

divine

children,

Shu

and

Tefnut.

23:07

And

the

text

tells

us

that

he

does

this

by

his

own

hand.

So

we

kind

of

get

the

impression

that

the

High

God

Atum

produced

these

children

without

a

reproductive

partner,

that

he

was

a

self-sufficient

deity.

But

there’s

actually

more

here

than

meets

the

eye.

See,

the

ancient

Egyptian

word

for

hand

is

gerit,

which

is

grammatically

feminine

and

was

understood

23:33

by

the

ancient

Egyptians

to

be

the

symbolic

personification

of

Atum’s

consort.

In

several

ancient

Egyptian

sources,

God’s

wife

is

given

the

formal

titulari,

Jaret

Netur,

which

means

God’s

hand.

Dr.

Alward

and

Blackman

notes

on

page

10

of

his

article,

24:00

on

the

position

of

women

in

the

ancient

Egyptian

hierarchy.

It’s

found

in

volume

seven

of

the

Journal

of

Egyptian

Archaeology

that

quote,

the

God’s

hand

is

identical

with

the

God’s

wife.

Dr.

Mina

Salah

notes

on

pages

three

and

four

of

her

2009

book,

God’s

Wife,

that

the

title

God’s

Hand

quote,

seems

to

emphasize

its

bearer’s

sexual

role

24:30

in

relation

to

the

creator

God.

When

a

God

is

first

mentioned

as

having

a

wife,

it

is

the

Ithophallic

God,

Min.

I

mention

this

because

in

Egyptian

creation

myths,

particularly

those

involving

the

high

god,

Atum,

Atum’s

hand

is

understood

to

be

the

feminine

entity

that

assists

him

in

the

act

of

creation,

his

wife.

In

the

ancient

Egyptian

texts

that

spanned

at

least

25:00

--- page 83 ---

three

millennia.

Atum’s

wife

varied

depending

on

the

region

of

the

period,

but

he

was

invariably

depicted

as

having

a

wife.

One

of

the

earliest

and

most

prominent

female

counterparts

of

Atum,

described

as

his

consort

in

Heliopelitan

theology,

is

a

really

important

goddess

who

I

bet

most

of

you

have

never

heard

of

before.

And

her

name

was

Eusas,

or

sometimes

it’s

pronounced,

Eusaset.

25:30

Richard

H.

Wilkinson

says

this

of

the

goddess,

Yousas

on

page

150

of

his

book,

The

Complete

Gods

and

Goddesses

of

Ancient

Egypt,

quote,

Yousas

was

a

Heliopelitan

goddess

whose

name

seems

to

mean

she

comes

who

is

great

and

who

functioned

as

a

feminine

counterpart

of

the

male

solar

creator,

Atum.

The

earliest

known

reference

to

Atum’s

wife,

25:59

you

saw

us,

is

found

in

the

Old

Kingdom

Pyramid

Text.

So

it’s

very,

very

old,

which

we’ve

noted

several

times

on

the

program,

or

dated

to

around

2400

BC.

In

utterance

519,

which

reads,

and

this

English

translation

is

found

in

Dr.

Edward

P.

Butler’s

book,

Theological

Encyclopedia

of

the

Goddesses

and

Gods

of

the

Ancient

Egyptians.

Quote,

I.

26:29

and

I

here

is

the

deceased

Egyptian

king.

I

am

the

son

of

Kepri.

Now,

Kepri

is

the

god

who

represents

the

rising

sun.

Born

in

Hethapet.

Hethapet’s

important

here,

because

according

to

French

Egyptologist

Jacques

Vandier,

Hethapet

refers

to

the

female

vulva,

as

well

as

a

religious

site

near

Heliopolis.

26:58

Under

the

Tresses.

Tresses

here

refer

to

hair.

Sometimes

it’s

translated

as

under

the

curls

of

the

goddess

of

Usaustown.

The

goddess

of

Usaustown,

of

course,

refers

to

some

town

that’s

associated

with

the

goddess

Usaust.

Atum’s

wife,

north

of

On.

If

you

recall,

On

is

the

Greek

name

for

Heliopolis.

So

Usaustown

existed

27:27

just

north

of

Heliopolis,

who,

and

who

here

refers

to,

you

saw

us,

ascended

from

the

vertex

of

Geb.

A

vertex

is

where

three

points

come

together,

like

the

tip

of

a

triangle

or

the

tip

of

a

pyramid.

And

Geb

is

the

god

of

the

earth.

So

the

vertex

of

Geb

here

refers

to

the

primordial

mound

that

rose

out

of

the

primordial

waters

and

became

the

earth.

27:57

Butler

agrees

with

this

interpretation,

which

I’ll

get

to

in

just

a

second.

All

right,

so

what

is

this

text

telling

us?

Well,

here

the

deceased

King

of

Egypt

is

telling

us

that

he

was

born

from

under

the

goddess,

you

saw

us

as

hair,

which

Butler

argues

refers

to

the

pubic

hair

of

her

vulva.

He

writes,

quote,

while

the

tresses

in

question

may

be

hanging

down

from

the

head,

they

may

also

be

an

anatomical

reference

28:26

in

accord

with

the

reading

of

Hethapet

as

vulva.

So

the

first

half

of

the

utterance

could

read,

quote,

I

am

the

son

of

the

high

God

born

from

the

vulva

under

the

pubic

hair

of

the

goddess,

you

saw

us.

So

the

deceased

king

is

telling

us

that

he

is

the

son

of

divine

parents.

28:53

In

the

second

half

of

the

utterance,

the

deceased

Pharaoh

tells

us

that

when

you

saw

us

gave

birth

to

him,

it

took

place

just

north

of

Heliopolis.

Now,

Heliopolis

is

very,

very

important

here,

kids.

If

you’ll

recall,

Heliopolis

was

one

of

the

most

sacred,

if

not

the

most

sacred

site

in

the

--- page 84 ---

entire

ancient

world.

And

that’s

because

the

ancient

Egyptians

believed

that

the

very

first

particle

of

earth

to

emerge

out

of

the

primordial

waters

of

chaotic

matter

happened

right

there.

29:22

The

ancient

Egyptians

believed

that

Heliopolis

was

the

literal

location

where

the

creation

of

the

earth

began.

The

place,

and

this

is

important,

where

the

high

god

Atum

himself

appeared

above

the

waters

and

rose

up

out

of

the

waters

on

the

sacred

hill

that

emerged

out

of

the

waters.

The

primordial

hillock,

as

stated

in

Pyramid

Text

600,

which

29:51

We

dedicated

an

entire

episode

to.

So

if

you

haven’t

given

it

a

listen,

you

may

want

to

do

that.

And

of

which

every

ancient

Egyptian

pyramid

perched

atop

the

Sahara

desert

is

a

stylized

version

of.

So

when

the

deceased

Egyptian

king

tells

us

in

the

second

part

of

utterance

519

that

Atum’s

wife,

the

goddess

you

saw

us,

gave

birth

to

him

near

Heliopolis,

30:20

and

that

she

was

the

goddess

who,

quote,

ascended

from

the

vertex

of

Gab,

we

get

this

really

amazing

image

that

she

too,

like

Atum,

rose.

The

text

says,

ascended

the

vertex,

the

primordial

mound

in

the

beginning,

just

like

Atum.

This

is

an

absolutely

amazing

pyramid

text,

because

when

we

couple

pyramid

text

600,

30:48

which

talks

about

Atum

rising

atop

the

primordial

mound.

With

Pyramid

Text

519,

which

talks

about

Atum’s

wife,

you

saw

us

ascending

the

primordial

mound.

We

get

the

picture

of

a

divine

royal

couple

rising

together

on

the

first

day

of

creation

upon

the

primordial

hillock,

the

first

earth

to

emerge

out

of

the

primordial

waters.

31:17

It’s

quite

astounding.

So

Pyramid

Text

519

could

be

translated,

quote,

I

am

the

son

of

the

high

god,

Ray.

So

he’s

acknowledging

his

divine

father,

the

rising

sun,

born

from

the

vulva

under

the

pubic

hair

of

the

goddess,

you

saw

us,

north

of

Heliopolis.

You

saw

us

who

ascended

31:47

on

the

primordial

hill

of

the

earth.

So

he’s

acknowledging

his

divine

mother

as

well.

So

he’s

giving

us

right

here,

his

divine

parentage.

Now

all

of

this

gets

even

more

interesting.

Listen

to

Butler

describe

what

was

kept

in

Usaus

town.

Usaus’

sacred

location

just

north

of

Heliopolis.

Butler

writes,

quote,

the

tresses

in

question

32:17

may

also

be

those

of

a

sacred

tree

associated

with

you

saw

us

for

we

find

occasional

references

to

an

acacia.

Now

an

acacia

is

a

type

of

tree

sacred

to

you

saw

us

in

coffin

text

spell

660

which

mentions

quote

the

acacia

of

you

saw

us

town

north

of

souls

of

on.

So

what

are

the

coffin

texts?

32:47

dated

2100

BC,

Telus

was

kept

in

Eusaus’

sacred

location

just

north

of

Heliopolis.

A

tree,

a

sacred

acacia

tree.

And

from

Marie-Louise

Bull,

former

head

of

the

Department

of

Classical

and

Near

Eastern

Antiquities

at

the

National

Museum

of

Denmark,

the

goddess

Eusaus,

the

wife

of

Atum,

is

the

earliest

known

tree

goddess

in

ancient

Egypt.

33:17

even

earlier

than

Hathor.

Bull

says

this

of

the

sacred

Eusaus

acacia

tree

on

page

86

of

her

article,

the

goddesses

of

the

Egyptian

tree

cult

found

in

volume

six

of

the

journal

of

Near

--- page 85 ---

Eastern

studies.

Quote,

in

the

neighborhood

of

Heliopolis,

there

was

a

shrine

for

the

female

counterpart

of

the

sun

god,

Atun.

She

was

Seiosus.

Now,

Seiosus

is

the

Greek

rendering

of

Eusaus.

33:47

who

was

a

personification

of

the

God

Atum’s

hand.

In

this

place,

Atum’s

children,

Shu

and

Tefnet

were

born,

and

here

the

sacred

Acacia

was

worshiped.

I’ve

got

to

stop

right

here,

because

here

Bull

tells

us,

in

this

place,

in

the

place

where

the

earth

was

first

created,

the

center

of

the

earth

and

the

cosmos,

the

most

sacred

place

on

earth,

God’s

temple,

34:17

in

the

place

where

stood

a

sacred

acacia

tree

intimately

linked

to

Atum’s

wife,

Usaas,

quote,

Atum’s

children,

Shu

and

Tefnet

were

born.

And

what

did

the

deceased

Egyptian

king

just

tell

us

in

Pyramid

Text

519?

The

exact

same

thing.

He

just

told

us

that

he

too

was

born

to

Usaas

right

there.

34:46

in

the

location

where

stood

her

sacred

acacia

tree.

Now

keep

all

of

this

in

your

back

pocket

that

children

are

born

from

or

near

this

tree

because

this

is

going

to

be

really

important

when

we

get

into

some

Native

American

accounts

in

a

couple

of

episodes.

I

have

a

ton

I

want

to

say

about

this,

but

I’m

going

to

save

it

for

the

episode

on

the

creation

of

human

beings.

For

now,

I

want

you

to

hold

on

to

all

of

this,

especially

the

link

between

God’s

wife,

the

sacred

tree

and

the

35:15

birth

of

offspring,

because

it’s

all

gonna

come

together

in

a

couple

weeks.

If

you

have

time

to

ponder

it

a

bit

before

we

get

there,

think

about

how

the

sacred

tree

and

the

primordial

mound

are

connected.

So

here’s

a

little

clue.

Butler

writes,

quote,

the

reading

which

would

see

here

a

sacred

tree

would

accord

well

with

the

reference

to

ascending

from

the

vertex

of

Geb,

35:43

to

be

understood

therefore

as

a

hill

or

mound.

The

two

readings

are

in

any

event

not

mutually

exclusive.

And

no,

no

they

are

not.

In

fact,

the

tree

in

the

Primordial

Hill,

often

referred

to

as

the

sacred

mountain,

were

used

across

the

ancient

world

as

microcosmic

symbols

of

the

macrocosm.

Ponder

that

a

bit.

If

you

can’t

figure

out

how

both

36:13

Symbolize

the

macrocosm.

Don’t

worry

too

much.

I’ll

explain

it

in

much

greater

detail

in

the

episodes

that

are

coming

up.

But

pondering

the

symbols

before

those

episodes

is

a

really

great

way

to

sharpen

your

symbolism

literacy.

Before

we

move

on,

let’s

listen

to

what

else

Bull

has

to

say

about

Atum’s

wife

and

the

shrine

that

housed

the

acacia

tree

associated

with

her.

On

page

86

Bull

continues,

quote,

36:42

An

execration

text.

Now,

if

you’re

not

familiar

with

execution

texts,

these

are

texts

that

list

all

of

the

names

of

the

Pharaoh’s

enemies.

From

the

late

period

contains

the

following

passage

in

connection

with

the

god

Seth.

Okay,

do

you

remember

who

the

ancient

Egyptian

god

Seth

was?

37:03

If

you

don’t,

Seth

is

the

god

of

chaos.

He’s

the

awful

monster

who

brings

nothing

but

disorder,

destruction,

degradation,

desolation,

and

decay.

He’s

the

awful

enemy

who

must

be

conquered.

So

the

text

Bull

is

about

to

quote

is

about

him.

It’s

also

important

to

note

that

this

text

dates

to

a

--- page 86 ---

time

rather

late,

to

sometime

between

600

and

300

BC,

though

the

content

itself

is

probably

based

off

of

much,

much

older

material.

37:32

but

still

the

same,

it’s

important

to

note

that.

The

exe-creation

text

reads,

quote,

he,

and

he

here

is

Seth,

has

approached

the

wonderful

hall,

the

shrine

or

temple

of

Se-o-sis

with

the

acacia

tree

in

which

life

and

death

are

contained.

Now,

this

is

interesting.

Here

we

have

an

ancient

Egyptian

text

that

tells

us

that

God’s

enemy,

Seth,

38:01

entered

the

shrine

or

temple

near

Heliopolis

where

the

earth

was

first

created

and

where

stood

Euseas’s

acacia

tree.

Note

how

this

text

refers

to

Euseas,

the

high

god

Atum’s

wife’s

tree

as,

quote,

the

acacia

tree

in

which

life

and

death

are

contained.

So

note

how

Euseas’s

tree

is

associated

with

the

dualism

of

life

and

death.

38:30

This

is

a

pretty

important

aspect

of

her

tree.

And

the

African

acacia

tree

is

actually

a

really,

really

great

symbol

of

this,

because

acacia

trees

have

the

ability

to

thrive

in

harsh,

arid

conditions.

And

they’re

also

evergreens.

So

this

makes

them

a

great

symbol

for

life.

But

on

the

flip

side,

some

acacia

species,

especially

those

that

are

native

to

Africa

produce

38:56

synogenic

compounds

in

their

leaves.

And

they

do

this

to

thwart

the

herbivores

like

giraffes

who

love

to

eat

them.

And

those

compounds

can

release

cyanide

when

the

leaves

are

damaged,

which

of

course

makes

them

toxic

to

the

animals

that

try

to

eat

them.

And

it

sometimes

even

kills

them,

which

makes

the

acacia

tree

a

fitting

symbol

for

death

too.

39:23

We

learned

earlier

that

it

was

near

this

tree

of

life

and

death

that

the

dead

Egyptian

king

was

born,

brought

to

life

from

the

goddess,

Yusas’s

vulva.

And

like

I

mentioned,

this

text

is

likely

based

on

much,

much

older

material.

For

example,

in

the

pyramid

texts,

which

are

dated

2000

years

earlier

than

this

text,

in

pyramid

text

470,

it

says

that

the

deceased

king

will

be

taken

to

39:53

quote,

the

high

places

of

Seth

to

that

high

sycamore,

which

is

a

sacred

tree

of

the

Eastern

sky.

Are

any

of

you

seeing

a

connection

here

to

the

Judeo-Christian

Garden

of

Eden

story?

Because

you

should,

which

speaks

to

the

power

of

the

ancient

tradition.

So

both

of

these

accounts

take

place

in

the

same

setting,

in

the

sacred

center

of

the

earth.

40:22

in

a

sacred

temple.

To

learn

more

about

the

Garden

of

Eden

as

a

sacred

temple,

give

episode

number

four

a

listen,

if

you

haven’t.

They

both

contain

a

sacred

tree.

In

the

ancient

Egyptian

execration

text,

this

tree

is

referred

to

in

dualistic

terms

as

the

quote,

tree

in

which

life

and

death

are

contained.

And

in

the

Judeo-Christian

account,

a

dualistic

tree

is

referred

to

in

Genesis

chapter

two,

verse

nine.

40:52

as

the

quote,

tree

of

knowledge

of

good

and

evil.

And

I

don’t

have

time

to

fully

develop

this

here.

We

will

down

the

line,

but

note

here

how

in

ancient

Egypt,

God’s

wife,

you

saw

us,

is

associated

with

a

sacred

dualistic

acacia

tree,

the

tree

of

life

and

death,

birth

into

this

life,

this

mortal

existence

and

death,

the

exit

out

of

this

life,

this

mortal

existence.

And

in

the

Judeo-Christian

tradition,

--- page 87 ---

41:21

The

dualistic

tree

is

associated

with

the

ability

to

gain

knowledge

of

the

difference

between

what

is

good

and

what

is

evil,

what

is

sacred

and

what

is

profane.

When

the

two

trees,

the

tree

in

ancient

Egypt

and

the

tree

in

the

Judeo-Christian

accounts

are

theologically

considered,

the

tree

seems

to

suggest

that

by

being

born

into

this

life,

mortality,

41:49

One

can

gain

knowledge

of

what

is

good

and

what

is

evil.

Theologically,

this

is

quite

profound,

because

it

suggests

that

we

human

beings

are

born

into

this

mortal

existence

for

a

distinct

purpose,

to

learn,

to

gain

knowledge

about

what

is

good

and

what

is

evil.

Many,

many

people

have

wondered

what

the

purpose

of

this

whole

earthly

experience

is.

42:16

And

here

we

see

the

ancients

telling

us

that

one

of

the

major

purposes

for

why

we’re

here

on

earth

is

to

gain

this

knowledge.

In

Genesis

chapter

three,

verse

five,

the

serpent

tells

Eve,

and

this

is

the

King

James

version,

quote,

for

God

does

know

that

in

the

day

ye

eat

thereof,

so

eating

the

fruit

of

the

tree,

then

your

eyes

shall

be

opened

and

ye

shall

be

as

gods

knowing

good

and

evil.

42:46

Man,

theologically,

this

is

an

amazing

verse

because

here

the

snake

tells

Eve

that

if

she’ll

partake

of

the

fruit

of

the

tree,

now

fruit

here

is

important

because

fruit

is

something

that

is

produced

by

the

tree.

It

comes

by

way

of

the

tree.

It

can’t

be

separated

from

the

tree

itself.

Of

the

knowledge

of

good

and

evil,

she’ll

be

able

to

acquire

the

knowledge

that

she

needs

to

quote,

43:16

be

as

the

gods.

I

posit

that

partaking

of

the

fruit

here

refers

to

Eve’s

choice

to

be

born.

Born

through

God’s

wife

into

a

mortal

world

like

the

Egyptian

king

who

was

born

from

her

vulva.

Because

remember,

before

Eve

partook

of

the

fruit,

there

was

no

death

or

decay.

The

earth

was

still

in

heaven’s

embrace.

43:44

The

snake

is

basically

telling

her

that

it’s

only

by

partaking

of

the

fruit,

by

choosing

to

be

born

into

this

mortal

world,

that

she

can

gain

the

knowledge

that’s

necessary

to

become

like

the

gods.

Now,

Eve

tells

the

snake

that

she

doesn’t

wanna

do

this

because

she

knows

if

she

does,

she

knows

she’s

going

to

die.

She

knows

she’ll

be

born

into

a

mortal,

corruptible

world

where

she’ll

ultimately

die.

44:12

Note

here

though,

how

Eve

has

the

option

to

choose

to

eat

the

fruit

of

the

tree

or

not

to

eat

the

fruit

of

the

tree.

It’s

her

choice.

Nobody’s

making

her

eat

the

fruit.

I

bring

this

up

because

this

is

theologically

significant.

It

indicates

that

agency

is

an

important

part

of

our

existence,

both

before

and

after

we

got

here.

So

if

you’re

wondering

how

you

got

on

planet

Earth,

it

may

just

be

that

you

yourself

44:41

like

Eve,

partook

of

the

tree

of

knowledge

of

good

and

evil

and

chose

to

be

born

into

this

world.

Now,

this

is

not

just

my

thinking.

In

a

couple

of

episodes,

we’re

gonna

get

into

some

really

interesting

myths

that

tell

us

about

how

when

the

earth

was

in

heaven’s

embrace,

the

people

there

were

really

agitated

because

their

situation

couldn’t

improve

until

heaven

and

earth

split.

--- page 88 ---

45:08

which

in

the

Judeo-Christian

tradition

is

when

the

earth

fell,

fell

far,

far

from

heaven

and

death

and

decay,

mortality

was

introduced

into

the

world.

All

right,

back

to

Genesis

chapter

three,

verse

five.

The

serpent

tells

Eve

that

if

she

partakes

of

the

fruit,

she

shall

quote,

be

as

the

gods,

knowing

good

and

evil.

Note

that

gods

here

is

plural.

45:38

It’s

Elohim

in

the

Hebrew

text,

indicating

that

there

is

more

than

one

God

in

the

heavens.

Other

English

translations

like

the

New

International

Version,

New

Living

Translation,

and

the

New

American

Standard

Bible

sanitize

the

text

by

translating

Elohim

as

God,

making

it

singular.

So

it

complies

with

later

Bonotheism.

46:05

But

the

original

Hebrew

text

clearly

states

Elohim,

the

gods.

This

verse

is

telling

us

that

in

order

to

become

like

the

gods,

note

how

this

implies

that

we

human

beings

can

become

like

the

gods,

deification,

we

must

first

acquire

knowledge.

Where

we

can,

as

the

verse

says,

know,

K-N-O-W,

the

difference

between

good

and

evil.

46:34

Knowledge

that

Adam

and

Eve

at

this

point

in

the

account

did

not

have

so

they

couldn’t

become

like

the

gods

Unless

they

chose

to

partake

of

the

tree

unless

they

chose

to

be

born

into

this

mortal

world

Which

indicates

that

this

earthly

existence

is

a

critical

part

a

necessary

part

of

the

process

to

become

like

the

gods

We’ll

talk

about

this

a

lot

more

down

the

line,

but

I

wanted

to

point

it

out

here

because

all

of

this

is

tied

47:04

to

the

sacred

tree

that

the

ancients

associated

with

God’s

wife.

For

the

purposes

of

this

episode,

just

as

the

sacred

acacia

tree

in

ancient

Egypt

is

associated

with

God’s

wife,

you

saw

us.

I

posit

that

the

tree

of

good

and

evil

in

the

Judeo-Christian

tradition

is

a

symbol

of

God’s

wife.

Why?

47:31

Because

as

we’re

gonna

see

more

in

depth

in

a

couple

of

episodes,

it’s

through

her,

through

the

tree,

that

human

beings

are

born

into

this

world

and

through

whom

human

beings

can

have

an

earthly

experience

where

they

can

learn

the

difference

between

good

and

evil.

This

would

mean

that

when

Eve

chose

to

partake

of

the

fruit

of

the

tree

of

knowledge

of

good

and

evil,

that

what

she

was

really

doing

was

choosing

to

be

born

through

the

tree.

47:59

through

God’s

wife,

the

queen

of

heaven

into

this

mortal

world

so

that

she

could

learn

the

difference

between

good

and

evil.

Listen

to

what

verse

six

of

Genesis

chapter

three

says.

It

reads,

quote,

and

when

the

woman,

this

is

talking

about

Eve,

saw

that

the

tree

was

good

for

food

and

that

it

was

pleasant

to

the

eyes

and

a

tree

to

be

desired

to

make

one

wise,

she

took

of

the

fruit

thereof

and

did

eat,

48:28

and

gave

also

to

her

husband

with

her,

and

he

did

eat.”

We

can

clearly

see

in

this

text

that

one

of

the

primary

reasons

Eve

particular

fruit

of

the

tree

was

because

it

would

make

her,

quote,

wise.

The

Hebrew

word

that’s

translated

as

wise

here

is

sakal,

S-A-K-A-L.

The

topical

lexicon

on

Bible

Hub

says

this

of

the

word

sakal.

48:58

--- page 89 ---

The

concept

of

Sakal

is

integral

to

the

biblical

understanding

of

wisdom,

emphasizing

not

only

intellectual

acumen,

but

also

moral

and

spiritual

insight.

It

underscores

the

importance

of

aligning

one’s

actions

with

divine

principles

to

achieve

success

and

understanding.

49:24

We’re

going

to

talk

a

whole

lot

more

about

the

acquisition

of

wisdom

as

we

get

into

ritual,

but

for

the

purposes

of

today’s

episode,

I

want

you

to

note

how

God’s

wife

is

associated

with

the

acquisition

of

wisdom.

The

spiritual

knowledge

that

apparently

can

only

be

gained

when

we

choose

to

be

born

on

earth

and

journey

through

this

moral

experience.

You’re

going

to

see

down

the

line

that

the

connection

between

wisdom

49:53

and

a

sacred

tree

is

found

all

over

the

world.

Believe

it

or

not,

the

choice

to

be

born

on

earth

is

a

widespread

theme

among

those

who

have

had

near

death

experiences.

Many

of

them

recount

how

during

their

near

death

experience,

they

were

shown

their

personal

choice

to

leave

their

heavenly

home

and

come

to

earth.

Many

even

say

that

they

chose

along

with

the

help

of

a

guide,

50:22

the

trials

and

challenges

that

they

would

endure

here

so

that

they

could

develop

more

God-like

attributes.

Listen

to

Dr.

Christine

Dolehan

recount

what

she

was

shown

about

her

choice

to

be

born

into

this

world.

As

I

was

walking

or

floating

down

this

path,

I

also

perceived

someone

or

something

else

next

to

me

that

I

perceived

as

my

mentor.

It

was

a

being

that

was

so

much

more

50:52

evolved

and

had

so

much

more

wisdom

than

I

did.

It

felt

like

maybe

he

was

in

a

similar

space

or

a

similar

place

that

I

had

been

at

that

moment

beforehand,

but

he

had

had

the

choice

of

sort

of

stepping

into

the

next

role

of

mentoring

souls

and

what

to

do

next.

So

I

can

only

say

that

he

was

a

mentor.

He

was

sort

of

larger

and

taller

on

my

right

side.

I

perceived

him

as

male.

51:21

This

being

on

my

right

was

internally

loving.

mean,

everything

was

incredibly

loving

over

on

this

other

side.

Very

loving,

very

non-judgmental.

I

was

also

discussing

with

my

mentor

at

the

time

that

this

knife

time

that

I

had

chosen

and

why

it

come

and

or

why

I

was

going

into

this

new

lifetime.

And

then

also

kind

of

voicing

a

bit

of

reluctancy

because

I

really,

I

knew

that

I

had

to

come.

I

knew

that

there

was

something

really

important

and

that

I

had

chosen

to

do

this.

51:51

But

I

didn’t

really

want

to

go.

And

I

want

to

make

this

clear

because

in

past

interviews,

got

feedback

like,

well,

great,

here

we

are.

being

made

to

come

down

to

Earth.

I

want

to

make

clear

this

was

a

free

will

decision.

I

did

come

here

free

will.

We’re

not

slaves.

We’re

not

made

to

go

down

there.

This

is

a

free

will

decision.

And

all

of

us

make

it

in

a

free

will

way

because

we

know

it’s

good

for

us

to

come.

52:21

One

last

thing

that

I

want

to

say

about

Genesis

chapter

three

is

that

after

Eve

and

Adam

chose

to

partake

of

the

tree

of

knowledge

of

good

and

evil,

verse

seven

says,

quote,

and

the

eyes

of

them,

so

Adam

and

Eve,

were

opened

and

they

knew

that

they

were

naked

and

they

sewed

fig

leaves

together

and

made

themselves

aprons.

Several

Jewish

commentaries

and

rabbinic

sources

--- page 90 ---

52:48

speculate

that

the

tree

of

knowledge

of

good

and

evil

was

a

fig

tree.

In

the

Talmud,

Barakot

40a,

for

example,

reads,

Rabbi

Nehemiah

says

it

was

a

fig

tree.

They

must

have

taken

the

leaves

from

the

tree

closest

at

hand

the

tree

of

knowledge.

53:11

Of

course,

the

tree

itself

is

symbolic.

So

is

the

notion

that

the

tree

was

a

fig

tree.

But

the

fact

that

the

original

author

of

Genesis

in

the

Hebrew

tradition

associated

the

leaves

that

Adam

and

Eve

used

to

cover

their

reproductive

loins

with

a

fig

tree

is

not

trivial.

See,

in

the

ancient

world,

the

fig

tree

and

the

fig

fruit

itself,

its

plump

shape

and

the

abundance

of

seeds,

53:39

were

strongly

associated

with

fertility.

So

note

that

in

both

of

these

accounts,

the

ancient

Egyptian

and

the

Judeo-Christian,

that

the

sacred

tree

is

strongly

associated

with

the

power

to

produce

offspring.

Be

it

the

high

God,

you

saw

us

as

power

to

give

birth

to

the

gods

or

to

give

birth

to

the

earthly

kings

or

the

tree

of

knowledge

of

good

and

evil

in

its

strong

association

with

Adam

and

Eve’s

reproductive

organs,

which

they

covered.

54:09

with

fig

leaves

in

which

rabbinic

sources

argue

came

directly

from

the

tree.

A

late

Kabbalistic

work

written

by

Moses

de

Leon

around

1290

AD

tells

a

really

interesting

Jewish

legend

of

a

tree

that

was

found

in

paradise

from

which

all

souls

were

born.

The

legend

reads,

Rabbi

Yosei

taught

54:38

There

were

three

prominent

rabbi

Yosses

who

lived

during

the

Tanah

Aytik

period

between

the

first

and

second

centuries

AD.

It’s

unclear

which

of

these

three

Yosses

the

text

is

referring

to,

but

it

does

at

least

attribute

the

legend

to

a

much,

much

earlier

date.

Quote,

God

has

a

tree

of

flowering

souls

in

paradise.

This

tree

is

surrounded

by

the

four

winds

of

the

world.

55:08

Now

the

four

winds

is

interesting

here.

If

we

know

what

the

four

winds

are,

they’re

assigned

to

the

cardinal

points,

then

this

marks

the

tree

is

being

located

in

the

sacred

center.

From

the

branches

of

this

tree

sprout

forth

all

souls.

For

they

grow

upon

this

tree

as

is

written,

I

am

a

cypress

tree

in

bloom,

your

fruit

issues

forth

from

me.

And

that’s

found

in

Hosea

chapter

14

verse

nine.

55:38

Note

here

how

one

of

the

meanings

of

the

fruit

of

the

tree

is

offspring.

That’s

a

widespread

ancient

Near

Eastern

symbol.

And

from

the

roots

of

this

tree

sprout

the

souls

of

all

the

righteous

ones

whose

names

are

inscribed

there.

Now

that’s

super

interesting

because

if

you

remember

many,

many

episodes

ago,

we

talked

about

how

the

ancient

Egyptian

god

Thoth

inscribed

the

Egyptian

king’s

royal

name,

the

name

written

in

the

cartouche.

56:07

on

the

leaves

of

the

sacred

persiatry.

From

this

we

learn

that

all

souls

are

the

fruit

of

the

Holy

One,

blessed

be

he.

This

legend

is

found

in

Howard

Schwartz’s

aptly

named

book

on

Jewish

mythology,

Tree

of

Souls.

I

haven’t

read

it

all,

I’m

working

on

it,

it’s

a

thick

book.

So

in

both

cases,

56:36

--- page 91 ---

the

symbolism

of

the

tree

points

heavily

to

the

importance

of

procreative

powers,

the

ability

to

produce

offspring.

If

in

fact

the

Judeo-Christian

sacred

tree

found

in

the

garden

temple,

the

tree

of

knowledge

of

good

and

evil

symbolizes

at

least

in

part

God’s

wife.

And

I’m

purposely

trying

to

avoid

being

overly

dogmatic

here,

because

I

know

enough

about

symbols

to

know

that

they

were

used

by

the

ancients

and

probably

by

the

high

God

himself.

57:05

precisely

because

they

can

and

they

do

have

the

ability

to

contain

multiple

layers

of

meaning

within

a

single

symbol,

not

just

one.

Yet

still

the

same,

think

that

the

textual

evidence

found

in

the

ancient

world

is

more

than

abundant

to

make

the

claim

that

one

of

the

primary

meanings

of

the

sacred

tree

is

that

it

was

meant

to

represent

God’s

wife,

the

Queen

of

Heaven.

It’s

also

highly

significant

that

Adam

and

Eve

clothed

57:34

their

reproductive

organs

in

leaves

from

her

tree,

the

reproductive

organs

that

they

would

use

to

fulfill

the

commandment

by

God

to

multiply

and

replenish

the

earth,

which

would

continue

the

queen

of

heaven’s

great

work

of

giving

birth

so

that

we

could

each

have

a

mortal

experience

where

we

could

acquire

that

knowledge

of

good

and

evil

necessary

to

become

like

the

gods.

Now,

58:04

At

this

point,

if

you’re

a

long

time

listener,

you

might

be

thinking,

hey,

now

wait

a

minute.

Didn’t

you

say

earlier

in

the

podcast

that

the

sacred

tree

symbolized

God?

And

now

you’re

saying

it

symbolizes

God’s

wife?

Well,

yes,

that’s

exactly

what

I’m

saying.

In

the

ancient

world,

the

sacred

tree

is

actually

not

an

exclusively

male

or

female

symbol.

It

was

actually

used

primarily

to

represent

deity.

58:33

and

the

role

the

deity

played

in

connecting

heaven

and

earth

together.

It

was

also

used

to

represent

earthly

kings

or

a

king

who

was

a

representation

of

deity

on

earth

and

who

also

played

a

vital

role

in

connecting

heaven

and

earth

together.

And

this

is

one

of

the

reasons

why

ancient

Egyptian

kings

emphasized

the

point

that

they

were

born

through

God’s

wife,

which

we

pointed

out

was

symbolized

by

the

acacia

tree.

59:03

This

divine

parentage

legitimized

his

right

to

rule

as

a

king

over

the

whole

earth.

This

is

gonna

be

really

important

in

a

couple

of

months

when

we

talk

about

the

first

man

Adam.

So

keep

that

in

mind.

In

Pyramid

Text

294,

we

see

this

clearly

stated

when

the

Egyptian

king

exclaims,

quote,

I

am

Horus.

Horus

is

the

heavenly

king

59:32

the

living

King

represented,

who

came

from

the

acacia,

who

came

from

the

acacia.

Note

how

the

earthly

King

states

his

divine

parentage

here

twice.

He’s

really

trying

to

drive

home

the

point

that

the

acacia

tree,

the

queen

of

heaven

is

his

mother.

He

is

her

royal

son.

He

is

the

heir

because

she

is

his

mother.

So

note

how

closely

the

sacred

tree

01:00:01

and

God’s

wife

are

tied

to

kingship

and

the

legitimation

of

that

kingship.

Again,

the

theology

of

the

ancient

tradition

is

a

theology

all

about

kingship

and

queenship.

In

the

ancient

world,

there

are

many

examples

of

the

sacred

tree

representing

both

male

and

female

deities

or

kings.

I’m

--- page 92 ---

gonna

give

you

a

couple

examples

of

this.

In

Pyramid

Text

572,

we

learn

of

a

God

by

the

name

of

Sopdu.

01:00:31

who

the

text

tells

us

bears

the

epitaph,

he

who

is

under

his

trees,

or

in

other

texts,

it’s

singular,

he

who

is

under

his

tree.

So

we

see

here,

obviously,

a

male

connotation

to

the

tree.

In

the

Hebrew

Bible,

in

Daniel

chapter

four,

verses

10

to

27,

we

see

a

similar

thing.

And

I’m

gonna

read

some

of

the

text

so

you

can

get

a

feel

for

it.

In

this

text,

King

Nebuchadnezzar

is

having

a

really

difficult

time

understanding

a

dream

that

he

had.

01:01:00

and

this

dream

was

of

a

great

tree.

So

he

appeals

to

the

prophet

Daniel

to

help

him

interpret

the

symbols.

Starting

in

verse

10,

the

King

James

Version

reads,

and

this

is

King

Nebuchadnezzar

speaking,

quote,

01:01:30

and

the

sight

thereof

to

the

end

of

all

the

earth.

The

leaves

thereof

were

fair,

and

the

fruit

thereof

much,

and

in

it

was

meat

for

all.”

Then

in

verse

18,

the

prophet

Daniel

tells

King

Nebuchadnezzar

that

he

was

given

the

privilege

of

seeing

the

king’s

dream

too.

And

in

verses

20

through

22,

he

interprets

what

was

meant

by

the

symbol

of

the

tree.

The

text

reads,

01:02:00

And

this

is

the

prophet

Daniel

speaking

now.

01:02:27

So

when

King

Nebuchadnezzar

asks

Daniel

what

the

great

tree

in

his

dream

symbolizes,

Daniel

tells

him

it

represents

him.

It

is

thou,

O

King,

Daniel

tells

him.

This

is

classic

ancient

Near

Eastern

tree

symbolism.

We’re

gonna

come

back

to

this

text

and

dissect

it

in

detail

when

we

discuss

the

world

tree

in

a

couple

of

episodes.

There’s

a

lot

here.

01:02:55

For

our

purposes

today,

it

illustrates

the

fact

that

the

sacred

tree

in

the

ancient

world

was

used

to

symbolize

royal

divine

status,

regardless

of

sex.

In

terms

of

heavenly

kingship

and

queenship

theology,

this

is

important

to

recognize

because

in

Psalm

92,

it’s

a

Psalm

attributed

to

King

David,

David

exclaims

the

following,

starting

in

verse

10.

01:03:23

Speaking

of

Yahweh’s

power,

quote,

but

my

horn.

Remember

that

a

horn

was

used

in

the

ancient

world

as

a

symbol

of

power.

So

David’s

talking

about

his

power.

But

my

horn,

shalt

thou

exalt

like

the

horn

of

a

unicorn.

The

Hebrew

here

is

kiram,

which

actually

means

wild

bull.

01:03:50

Remember,

in

the

ancient

world,

the

bull

was

widely

used

as

a

symbol

for

God,

because

bulls

were

powerful,

especially

their

horns,

as

well

as

for

their

remarkable

virility,

the

power

to

father

countless

offspring.

It’s

basically

saying

that

Yahweh

would

exalt

him

like

a

God.

And

this

becomes

even

more

clear

and

is

directly

linked

to

the

theology

of

heavenly

kingship

in

the

rest

of

the

verse

when

King

David

says,

quote,

01:04:20

I

shall

be

anointed

with

fresh

oil.

If

you’re

a

long

time

listener

to

the

program,

then

you

know

that

the

anointing

is

a

kingship

rite.

It’s

the

ritual

that

takes

place

when

God

exalts

one

to

the

station

of

heavenly

king.

Let’s

read

the

whole

verse

again

so

you

can

hear

it.

Again,

this

is

--- page 93 ---

David

speaking,

quote,

but

my

horn

shalt

thou

exalt

like

the

horn

of

an

wild

bull.

I

shall

be

anointed

01:04:49

with

fresh

oil.

If

you

don’t

think

the

ancient

Israelites

believed

in

deification

or

heavenly

kingship,

then

we

need

to

really

think

again,

because

it’s

right

there

in

incredibly

plain

language

when

you

understand

the

language

of

the

ancients.

But

there’s

more.

We’ve

got

to

keep

reading.

In

verse

12,

King

David

continues,

quote,

the

righteous

shall.

Now,

01:05:18

Just

guess

what

the

Hebrew

word

is

that

is

translated

as

righteous

here.

You

long

time

listeners

should

know.

Yeah,

it’s

tzedek,

the

cosmic

law.

We

spent

a

whole

episode

on

this

on

episode

number

28,

which

you

have

to

listen

to

if

you

haven’t,

if

you

wanna

grasp

the

full

magnitude

of

what

David

is

saying

here.

King

David

is

saying

that

anyone,

including

you

and

me

who

keep

the

cosmic

law,

01:05:47

shall,

well,

shall

what?

Well,

that’s

where

it

gets

amazing.

The

verse

continues,

quote,

the

righteous

shall

flourish

like

the

palm

tree.

He

shall

grow

like

a

cedar

in

Lebanon.

01:06:07

What

did

King

David

just

say?

He

just

said

that

those

who

keep

the

cosmic

law

of

righteousness

will

become

a

tree,

a

palm

tree

or

cedar

tree,

both

of

which

were

used

in

the

ancient

world

to

symbolize

the

sacred

tree.

King

David

is

teaching

that

those

who

uphold

the

cosmic

law

will

become

a

sacred

tree,

which

in

the

ancient

world,

as

I

just

mentioned,

represents

divine

royal

status.

01:06:37

heavenly

kingship

and

queenship.

When

you

think

about

this,

when

Adam

and

Eve

sewed

together

fig

leaves

and

wore

them,

leaves

which

the

rabbi

Nehemiah

argued

came

from

the

sacred

tree

of

knowledge

of

good

and

evil

in

the

Garden

of

Eden,

it

was

likely

that

they

did

so

in

part

to

claim

their

royal

status

like

the

ancient

Egyptian

king

did

when

he

exclaimed

his

status

as

the

offspring

of

the

tree.

As

well

as

a

01:07:06

a

symbol

of

their

divine

potential,

like

David

says

here,

to

become

a

sacred

tree

themselves.

What’s

clear

from

the

ancient

world

is

that

the

sacred

tree

represented

God,

his

wife,

and

royalty,

all

of

which

must

be

considered

when

one

interprets

the

symbolism

of

the

fig

tree

aprons

Adam

and

Eve

made

in

war.

I

argue

that

they

must

be

understood

as

royal

regalia.

01:07:36

Wow,

I’m

way

over

time,

but

I

have

to

make

one

more

comment

about

what

David

says

here

before

I

close

out

this

episode.

If

you’ll

recall

in

tablet

five

of

the

Epic

of

Gilgamesh,

King

Gilgamesh

and

Enkidu

make

an

arduous

journey

to

an

incredible

forest

of

cedar

trees,

which

the

text

tells

us

is

the

quote,

dwelling

place

of

the

gods.

The

tablet

reads,

and

this

is

the

Marine

Kovacs

translation,

quote,

01:08:06

They,

this

is

talking

about

Gilgamesh

and

Enkidu,

stood

at

the

forest’s

edge,

gazing

at

the

top

of

the

cedar

tree,

gazing

at

the

entrance

to

the

forest.

They

saw

the

cedar

mountain,

the

dwelling

of

the

gods,

the

throne,

dais

of

Emini.

Emini

here

is

actually

not

a

god.

It

actually

means

sacred

location

or

sanctuary.

The

woods

were

a

thicket.

--- page 94 ---

01:08:36

among

the

cedars.

So

this

isn’t

any

old

regular

forest

of

trees.

These

are

cedar

trees,

sacred

trees

that

are

found

in

a

sacred

location

where

there’s

a

sanctuary

and

royalty.

There’s

a

throne

there

and

it’s

where

the

gods

dwell.

I

hope

you’re

honing

your

symbolism

literacy

and

can

see

here

that

the

quote

cedar

forest

Gilgamesh

and

Enkidu

entered

is

a

forest

of

righteous

01:09:06

exalted

people,

gods,

people

who

have

become,

like

David

said,

trees.

The

same

thing

is

actually

said

in

the

Hebrew

Bible

in

Genesis

chapter

two

of

the

Garden

of

Eden.

In

verses

eight

and

nine

it

reads,

quote,

and

the

Lord

God

planted

a

garden

eastward

in

Eden

and

there

he

put

the

man

whom

he

had

formed.

01:09:33

and

out

of

the

ground

made

the

Lord

God

to

grow

every

tree

that

is

pleasant

to

the

sight

and

good

for

food.

The

tree

of

life

also

in

the

midst

of

the

garden

and

the

tree

of

knowledge

of

good

and

evil.

Note

in

this

verse

how

the

sanctuary

God

built

eastward

in

Eden

was

loaded

with

trees.

The

text

says

the

garden

was

full

of

quote,

every

tree

01:10:02

that

is

pleasant

to

the

sight.

This

is

a

reference

to

the

garden

being

full

of

divine

royal

beings.

Remember

the

trees

the

text

is

referring

to

here

is

being

used

symbolically.

That’s

super

clear

as

we’ve

seen

with

the

tree

of

knowledge

of

good

and

evil.

I

think

most

casual

readers

of

this

account

miss

that

there

are

loads

and

loads

of

trees

in

the

garden

and

that

those

trees

too

01:10:32

were

being

used

symbolically

to

refer

to,

as

King

David

tells

us,

the

righteous,

kings

and

queens

of

Zedek,

upholders

of

the

cosmic

law.

God’s

garden

was

loaded

with

these

people.

This

interpretation

is

what

Near

Eastern

symbolism

demands.

I

mentioned

this

very

early

in

the

podcast.

I

think

it

was

around

episode

number

eight

or

something.

01:10:59

when

I

talked

about

the

architecture

in

Westminster’s

Abbey.

But

just

as

a

reminder,

this

symbolism

of

the

trees

is

captured

in

the

world’s

greatest

cathedrals.

My

favorite

cathedral

in

the

United

States

is

National

Cathedral

in

Washington,

D.C.

If

you

look

at

the

interior,

and

I’ll

post

some

pictures

of

it

on

the

webpage

for

this

episode,

you’ll

notice

that

the

massive

pillars

that

line

the

nave

01:11:27

are

meant

to

represent

sturdy

trees

whose

branches

join

with

the

branches

of

the

other

pillar

trees

to

form

this

beautiful

Edenic

garden

canopy

over

the

congregants.

The

whole

objective

of

this

architecture

is

to

recreate

the

Garden

of

Eden

sanctuary

on

earth.

That’s

what

the

cathedrals

are

meant

to

represent.

And

each

one

of

these

pillars

is

a

tree.

The

garden,

as

you

can

see,

is

full

01:11:56

of

tree

pillars,

human

beings,

King

David

tells

us,

who

upheld

Tzedek

and

were

exalted

like

a

wild

bull

and

who

were

anointed

and

whom

now

flourish

like

a

sacred

cedar.

Think

on

that

symbolism

the

next

time

you

enter

a

cathedral.

Wow,

this

episode

didn’t

quite

go

in

the

direction

I

anticipated,

but

still

the

same,

it’s

all

relevant

because

it’s

directly

connected

to

01:12:26

--- page 95 ---

the

ancient

accounts

that

attest

that

the

high

god

was

married

and

that

his

wife,

who

was

symbolized

by

a

sacred

tree,

gave

birth

to

gods

and

kings.

Since

we

were

originally

talking

in

this

section

about

the

ancient

Egyptian

god,

Atum,

and

his

wife,

you

saw

us.

I’ll

close

out

by

mentioning

that,

like

we

see

in

ancient

Mesopotamia,

in

ancient

Egypt,

the

theology

was

a

family

business.

01:12:55

and

the

high

god,

along

with

several

of

his

divine

children,

were

married.

For

example,

Shu

was

married

to

Tefnut.

Geb

was

married

to

Nut.

The

creator

god,

Patah,

was

married

to

Sekhmet.

Ra

was

married

to

Hathor.

Amun

was

married

to

Mut.

And

most

famously,

Osiris

was

married

to

Isis.

And

there

are

a

lot,

lot

more

than

I’ve

mentioned.

01:13:22

And

remember

too,

this

is

also

replicated

by

earthly

kings.

You

can

see

some

of

the

pyramids,

you

have

the

large

pyramid,

then

you’ll

have

two

or

three

smaller

pyramids,

which

was

the

king

or

the

Pharaoh’s

wives

as

above,

so

below.

As

we’ve

seen

in

this

episode,

in

ancient

Mesopotamia

and

in

ancient

Egypt,

the

high

God

was

married

and

he

reigned

with

his

wife,

be

it

key

or

you

saw

us

and

together

they

produced

a

line

of

royal

progeny.

01:13:52

be

it

divine

and

or

human.

The

theology

of

the

ancient

tradition

is

a

family

theology.

That’s

it

for

me,

I’ve

got

to

leave

it

there.

We’ll

pick

it

up

right

here

in

our

next

episode.

With

that,

I’ll

leave

you

with

the

words

of

William

Shakespeare.

Knowledge

is

the

wing

wherewith

we

fly

to

heaven.

I’m

Jack

Logan.

01:14:23

You’ve

been

listening

to

the

Ancient

Tradition.

A

Wonk

Media

Production.

Episode

#57

-

Who

is

God?

-

A

Married

Being,

Part

II

https://theancienttradition.com/57-who-is-god-a-married-being-part-ii/

00:00

Music

00:10

--- page 96 ---

Listening

to

the

Ancient

Tradition.

A

Wonk

Media

Production.

Music

provided

by

Joseph

McDade.

Here’s

your

host,

Dr.

Jack

Logan.

00:25

Welcome

to

The

Ancient

Tradition.

I’m

your

host,

Jack

Logan.

00:31

Welcome

to

the

program.

It’s

great

to

have

all

of

you

listening

in

today.

As

always,

welcome

to

all

of

our

new

listeners.

It’s

great

to

have

you

listening

in.

And

of

course,

welcome

back

to

all

of

our

longtime

listeners.

Of

course,

we

love

having

you

back.

I’ve

got

a

long

one

for

us

today.

We’re

going

to

pick

up

right

where

we

left

off

in

our

last

episode.

If

you

remember,

I

mentioned

that

one

of

the

things

that

really

struck

me

when

I

first

started

diving

into

religious

traditions,

01:01

especially

those

found

in

the

ancient

world,

was

the

persistent

and

what

I

consider

fascinating

notion

that

God,

especially

the

high

God,

was

married.

The

ancients

taught

that

God

ruled

as

a

king

in

the

heavens

with

his

consort,

his

wife,

the

Queen

of

Heaven,

and

together

they

reigned

from

their

sacred

palace

temple

located

symbolically

at

the

top

of

the

sacred

mountain

that

marked

the

01:29

the

center,

the

sacred

center

of

all

creation,

their

kingdom.

In

our

last

episode,

we

found

that

in

the

ancient

texts,

the

Sumerian

high

god

On

was

married

to

Ki

and

the

ancient

Egyptian

high

god

Atum

was

married

to

Usaz,

who

we

learned

from

the

ancient

Egyptian

pyramid

and

coffin

text

was

symbolized

by

a

tree,

an

acacia

tree.

01:57

In

today’s

episode,

we’re

going

to

take

a

look

at

a

couple

of

other

high

gods

and

see

what

we

can

learn

about

their

marital

status

from

the

ancient

record.

We’re

going

to

start

by

jumping

into

the

ancient

Canaanite

literature.

The

Canaanites

were

an

ancient

people

who

lived

in

the

region

known

as

Canaan,

which

today

encompasses

modern

day

Israel,

Palestine,

Lebanon,

Syria,

and

Jordan.

02:24

We

refer

to

this

area

as

the

Southern

Levant.

People

lived

in

this

area

during

the

Bronze

Age,

which

dates

to

roughly

3500

to

1150

BC.

Now,

city-states

didn’t

begin

to

emerge

in

this

area

until

the

middle

of

the

Bronze

Age,

between

about

2000

and

1550

BC.

02:50

And

the

people

that

we

know

as

the

Canaanites

actually

refers

to

a

Semitic

speaking

people

who

lived

there

during

the

Late

Bronze

Age

between

1550

and

1200

BC.

Most

of

our

literature

about

the

Canaanites

comes

out

of

this

age,

the

Late

Bronze

Age,

and

they

come

primarily

from

the

palace

and

temple

archives

that

were

found

at

the

city

of

Ugarit.

03:17

And

that’s

located

near

the

modern

day

city

of

Roshamra.

And

that’s

in

Syria.

And

this

is

why

scholars

refer

to

the

Canaanite

literature

as

the

Ugaritic

literature.

It’s

in

this

literature

that

we

learn

that

the

Canaanite

high

god

El,

E-L,

just

like

we

see

all

across

the

ancient

world,

was

married.

And

who

do

the

Canaanites

tell

us

he

was

married

to?

They

tell

us

he

was

married

to

a

woman

by

the

name

of

03:47

--- page 97 ---

Adirat,

A-T-I-R-A-T,

which

is

rendered

athirat

or

ashur-to

in

transliteration.

You

might

be

more

familiar

with

her

Hebrew

name,

which

is

rendered

ashura.

So

we

go

from

athirat

to

ashura.

We

can

learn

quite

a

bit

about

El’s

consort,

Adirah,

by

the

names

and

the

titles

that

the

Canaanites

gave

her.

04:16

The

most

common

title,

one

that

appears

21

times

in

the

Ugaritic

literature

is

Rabitu

Ratu

Yam.

It’s

my

favorite

because

when

it’s

translated

into

English,

we

have

Rabitu,

which

is

translated

by

scholars

as

lady

or

the

great

lady.

It

actually

literally

translates

as

female

great

one,

which

emphasizes

both

her

sex

and

her

04:45

chief

status.

Now

this

is

significant

because

if

you

recall

in

cuneiform

tablets

from

Mesopotamia,

the

king

of

the

land

was

called

Lugol,

where

Loo

meant

man

and

Gol

meant

great.

So

when

we

put

the

two

together,

Lugol,

you’d

get

great

man.

In

ancient

Mesopotamia,

Lugol

or

great

man

was

the

name

that

the

people

gave

to

a

powerful

leader

or

the

head

of

a

family.

In

English,

05:14

Scholars

render

Lugal

king.

So

when

we

see

here

in

the

Ugaritic

literature

that

Adirat

was

given

a

similar

title,

the

great

lady,

we

get

the

same

connotation.

Rabito

was

actually

the

feminine

form

of

great

or

chief.

So

Adirat

could

be

rendered

the

great

lady

or

the

chief

lady.

And

like

in

Mesopotamia,

this

title

signified

a

powerful

ruler

or

head

of

the

family.

05:43

but

this

time

it’s

female.

So

like

what’s

done

with

Lugal

in

the

Mesopotamian

literature,

Rabito

can

be

rendered

into

English

as

queen

or

matriarch.

Now

the

second

part

of

Adarath’s

title,

Rabitu

Aratu

Yam,

is

Aratu.

Some

scholars

translate

this

as

a

genitive

particle,

meaning

of,

but

other

scholars,

06:07

And

this

is

based

on

a

prominent

Northwest

Semitic

tradition

where

titles

were

written

in

the

form

of

a

short

sentence.

Translate

aratu

in

its

verb

form,

meaning

to

walk

on

or

tread

on

or

trample.

Which

to

this

point

would

give

her

the

title,

the

queen

who

treads

or

tramples.

Well,

treads

or

tramples

what?

Well,

the

last

part

of

her

title

is

yam,

Y-A-M-M.

06:36

You

long

time

listeners

should

know

what

yam

means.

It

means

sea.

And

it’s

most

often

used

to

refer

to

the

awful

sea

monster

or

sea

serpent

yam

who

resided

in

the

chaotic

primordial

waters

or

sea.

So

when

we

put

all

three

parts

of

the

high

god

El’s

wife’s

title

together,

Rabitu

Aratu

Yam,

it

renders

something

along

the

lines

of

the

great

lady

or

queen

07:06

who

tramples

or

treads

on

the

sea

dragon,

which

is

the

translation

that

W.F.

Albright,

former

WW

Spence

Professor

of

Semitic

Languages

at

John

Hopkins

University

argued

in

his

book,

Yahweh

and

the

Gods

of

Canaan.

Now,

I

of

course

absolutely

love

that

the

most

frequent

title

we

find

for

otter-ot

07:33

The

high

god

El’s

wife

in

the

Ugaritic

literature

is

something

along

the

lines

of

the

queen

who

tramples

the

sea

dragon.

And

that’s

because

this

title

ties

her

to

so

many

of

the

other

stubborn

bits

we’ve

discussed

on

this

program.

I

love

how

her

title

captures

the

theology

of

the

ancient

--- page 98 ---

tradition

in

a

nutshell.

And

I

also

find

this

title

fascinating

because

we’re

talking

about

the

queen

of

heaven

here.

08:02

and

not

the

King

of

Heaven.

In

so

many

of

the

ancient

texts

that

we’ve

covered

on

the

program,

the

battle

with

the

sea

monster

is

largely

told

in

male

terms.

For

example,

this

past

week,

I

made

my

daughters

watch

the

first

Hobbit

movie

with

me,

Peter

Jackson’s

The

Hobbit,

The

Unexpected

Journey,

because

they

had

never

seen

it.

And

I

can’t

have

that,

especially

since

J.R.R.

Tolkien’s

writings

contain

so

many

of

the

elements

of

the

ancient

tradition.

08:33

It

had

been

a

really

long

time

since

I’d

seen

it,

definitely

before

we

started

this

podcast.

So

I

was

struck

this

past

weekend

when

the

old

white

bearded

dwarf

Balin

recounted

the

story

of

the

dwarf

Thorin’s

battle

with

the

terrible

monster,

the

leader

of

the

orcs,

the

gruesome

pale

orc

Azog.

In

this

battle

scene,

the

hideous

orc

09:02

decapitates

Thorin’s

grandfather

who

was

the

reigning

king

of

the

dwarfs

and

he

swings

it

triumphantly

in

the

air

and

then

he

hurls

it

to

the

ground

and

this

incites

all

of

the

rest

of

the

hideous

orcs.

Thorin

watches

this

in

horror.

It

appears

as

if

the

dwarfs

are

on

the

verge

of

utter

defeat.

Thorin

screams

out

in

defiance

and

then

he

races

towards

the

grotesque

Azog.

09:32

wielding

his

sword

and

his

shield.

The

repulsive

orc,

who’s

at

least

five

times

taller

than

Thorin,

swings

his

giant

club

at

Thorin

and

this

knocks

his

sword

and

his

shield

to

the

ground.

So

Thorin

is

utterly

defenseless.

Without

a

sword

and

shield,

there’s

really

no

way

that

he

can

survive

the

next

blow

that

comes.

The

fearsome

Azog

raises

his

massive

club

10:01

over

his

shoulder.

He’s

channeling

all

of

his

strength

and

then

he

brings

it

crashing

down

towards

Thorin’s

head.

Thorin’s

defeat

seems

assured,

yet

in

that

moment

Thorin

grabs

something.

He

grabs

something

near

him

and

he

uses

it

to

protect

him

from

Azog’s

blow.

Do

you

know

what

he

grabs?

Do

you

know

what

it

is?

Well

listen

to

this

clip

and

see.

10:31

You

long

time

listeners

are

going

to

find

this

super,

super

interesting

and

theologically

profound.

Here’s

the

clip.

10:44

began.

10:47

be

heading

the

king.

11:04

Thorin’s

father

was

driven

mad

by

grief.

He

went

missing,

taken

prisoner

or

killed.

We

did

not

know.

11:15

We

were

leaderless.

Defeat

and

death

are

upon

us.

11:26

is

when

I

saw

him.

11:32

A

young

dwarf

prince

facing

down

the

pale

orc.

--- page 99 ---

11:43

You

alone

have

used

this

terrible

phone.

11:57

wielding

nothing

but

an

open

branch

as

a

shield.

12:15

The

Defiler

12:20

Turin

would

not

be

so

easily

broken.

12:31

How

did

Thorin

survive

the

battle

with

the

Pale

Orc?

Well,

Balon

tells

us

that

Thorin

grabbed

the

branch

of

an

oak

tree.

The

branch

of

an

oak

tree

to

protect

him.

Balon

says,

quote,

13:01

be

so

easily

broken.

Don’t

think

for

a

second

that

J.R.R.

Tolkien

didn’t

know

what

he

was

doing

when

he

wrote

that

Thorin

used

the

branch

of

an

oak

to

save

him

that

day.

Because

Tolkien

absolutely

did.

If

you

remember,

Tolkien

drew

heavily

from

the

Norse

legend

of

Sigmund,

where

if

you’ll

remember,

Sigmund

the

king’s

son

was

the

only

one

who

could

pull

the

sword

from

the

barn

stoker

tree.

The

special

weapon

he

needed

to

defeat

13:30

the

dragon

and

which

represented

a

branch

of

the

tree.

know,

Tolkien

absolutely

knew

what

the

oak

tree

represented

symbolically

and

he

purposely

used

it

right

here

in

The

Hobbit

as

a

way

to

both

reveal

and

conceal

the

theology.

It’s

pretty

fantastic.

So

what

did

the

oak

tree

represent

symbolically?

Well,

I’m

not

going

to

go

over

it

again

here.

We’ve

discussed

the

oak

tree.

13:59

several

times

on

the

podcast,

including

in

our

last

episode,

so

you

long-time

listeners

should

know.

If

you’re

a

new

listener,

there

are

loads

of

back

episodes

that

are

worth

listening

to

if

you’d

like

to

know

what

the

oak

tree

represented

symbolically.

After

Thorin

uses

the

oaken

branch

to

protect

himself

from

the

fearsome

orc’s

fatal

blow,

Thorin

grabs

a

sword

and

he

charges

towards

the

pale

oak

14:28

and

he

severs

his

arm.

The

orc

stumbles

backwards

and

collapses

to

the

ground.

So

Thorin

thinks

he’s

probably

on

his

way

to

dying.

Thorin

triumphantly

raises

his

sword

and

he

charges

with

full

courage

towards

the

army

of

raging

orcs

who

await

him.

The

army

of

dwarfs

are

inspired

by

this

and

they

raise

their

swords

in

alliance

with

Thorin

and

they

charge

towards

the

orcs.

14:58

Great

battle

ensues.

But

it’s

what

the

old

white

beard

dwarf

Balin

says

next

that

reveals

Tolkien’s

familiarity

with

the

theology

taught

within

the

ancient

tradition.

Listen

to

what

Balin

says.

15:23

I

thought

to

myself

15:29

There

is

one

who

I

could

follow.

15:35

There

is

one.

--- page 100 ---

15:50

I

love

that

Balin

says,

quote,

there

is

one

that

I

could

follow.

There

is

one

I

could

call

king.

This

is

the

theology

of

the

ancient

tradition

in

a

nutshell.

Upon

defeating

the

hideous

pale

orc

with

the

branch

of

an

oak

tree,

Thorin

is

now

worthy

to

be

called

king.

In

the

movie,

when

Balin

says

these

words,

16:19

The

camera

shows

Thorin

climbing

to

the

top

of

a

hill,

which

is

not

insignificant.

The

branch

of

the

oak

tree

in

one

hand

and

a

special

sword

in

the

other

hand.

Both

symbolize

the

same

thing.

The

clip’s

worth

watching,

so

if

you’d

like

to

see

it,

you

can

find

it

on

the

webpage

for

this

episode.

Now

know

that

was

a

bit

of

a

detour,

but

it

illustrates

that

16:45

Much

of

the

Dragon

Slayer

kingship

theology

has

been

expressed

in

male

terms.

So

it’s

quite

significant

that

in

the

Canaanite

texts,

the

high

god’s

wife

is

spoken

of

in

these

same

terms.

That

she

too

is

a

Dragon

Slayer.

She

is

the

great

lady

or

queen

who

tramples

the

sea

monster.

17:11

Now,

some

scholars

object

to

the

translation

of

the

title

Rabito

Aratu

Yam

on

the

grounds

that

there

is

nothing

in

the

Ugaritic

literature

themselves

that

talks

of

Atara

actually

engaging

battle

with

Yam.

I

might

find

this

argument

persuasive

if

it

weren’t

for

the

fact

that

there

is

an

account

in

the

Ugaritic

ball

cycle

of

a

female

god

battling

and

victor-

17:39

notoriously

defeating

the

Sea

Dragon

Yam,

which

is

clear

evidence

that

female

gods

could,

and

I

would

argue

from

a

theological

standpoint,

have

to

be

dragon

slayers

too.

So

to

translate

Rabito

Aratu

Yam

as

the

queen

who

tramples

the

Sea

Dragon

would

not

only

not

be

anomalous,

it

would

do

more

to

legitimize

her

position

at

the

top

of

the

pantheon.

18:08

as

El’s

wife,

the

Queen

of

Heaven,

than

almost

any

other

epitaph

that

Canaanites

could

give

her.

We’re

going

to

return

to

Adiracht

in

a

minute,

but

before

you

do,

who

is

this

other

female

god

who

victoriously

conquered

the

Sea

Dragon?

What

do

we

know

about

her?

Well,

her

name

was

Anat,

A-N-A-T,

and

she’s

a

very

important

figure

in

the

Ugaritic

literature.

She’s

not

only

important

because

she’s

Baal’s

fiercest

ally,

18:37

But

for

the

purposes

of

this

episode,

she’s

important

because

she’s

believed

by

many

scholars

to

be

the

consort

or

wife

of

Baal,

the

hero

son

of

the

High

God

El.

Now,

not

all

scholars

agree

with

this

conclusion,

but

despite

this,

there’s

actually

considerable

contextual

evidence

in

the

Ugaritic

literature

19:03

to

support

the

notion

that

she

is

Baal’s

wife.

And

we’re

gonna

explore

that

evidence

in

detail

much,

much

later

down

the

line.

When

we

get

to

the

episode

where

Anat

mourns

over

Baal’s

death

and

wages

war

against

the

god

Mote,

the

god

of

death,

who’s

another

manifestation

of

the

dragon

archetype.

It’s

Anat’s

defeat

of

Mote

that

frees

Baal

from

death.

19:32

and

by

which

he’s

resurrected.

A

narrative

that’s

strikingly

similar

to

the

ancient

Egyptian

account

of

Osiris’s

wife,

Isis,

restoring

Osiris

to

life

after

his

death.

Now

at

the

pace

I’m

going

--- page 101 ---

though,

we

probably

won’t

get

to

that

for

quite

a

while.

It’s

worth

noting

though

that

it’s

Baal’s

wife,

Anat,

who

is

the

female

god

who

is

described

in

the

Ugaritic

literature

as

a

dragon

slayer.

20:02

We

actually

have

an

account

of

this

in

cuneiform

tablet

PRU,

which

was

found

in

the

Royal

Palace

of

Ugarit

and

it’s

tablet

2.3

and

it’s

found

in

lines

8

to

9,

which

read,

in

the

land

of

Mahanim,

he,

and

he

here

refers

to

the

dragon,

swirled

the

sea.

His

double

tongue

licked

the

heavens.

His

twin

tails

churned

up

the

sea.

She,

20:31

and

she

here

refers

to

Anat,

fixed

the

un-muzzled

dragon.

She

bound

him

to

the

heights

of

Lebanon.

Lebanon

here

is

the

cultural

localization

of

the

sacred

mountain.

Here

we

clearly

see

that

Anat

herself

fixes

or

binds

the

dragon.

Richard

J.

Clifford

says

this

of

the

goddess

Anat

on

page

20:57

59

of

his

book,

The

Cosmic

Mountain

in

Canaan

and

the

Old

Testament.

Quote,

from

a

speech

of

a

knot

we

learn

that

soften.

Now

soften

is

the

name

the

Canaanites

gave

to

the

sacred

cosmic

mountain,

which

is

important

because

the

battle

that

takes

place

between

a

knot

and

the

dragon

takes

place

on

the

top

of

this

mountain.

And

why

is

this

significant?

Well,

because

the

top

of

the

mountain

is

the

dwelling

place

of

the

gods.

It’s

the

location

of

God’s

sacred

21:26

temple

sanctuary.

It’s

the

primordial

hillock

in

the

ancient

Egyptian

literature

and

the

Garden

of

Eden

in

the

Judeo-Christian

literature.

It’s

at

the

top

of

this

mountain

that

a

knot

binds

the

dragon.

So

note

how

all

three

of

these

civilizations

attest

that

the

dragon

be

at

the

evil

set

in

ancient

Egypt

like

we

talked

about

in

our

last

episode.

21:55

the

evil

serpent

in

the

Judeo-Christian

Garden

of

Eden

or

the

evil

yam

in

the

Ugaritic

literature

is

described

as

being

present

in

God’s

sacred

temple

sanctuary.

That

clearly

speaks

to

a

common

source.

We

shouldn’t

be

surprised

that

the

awful

dragon,

as

awful

as

he

was

and

is,

was

present

in

God’s

temple

sanctuary

at

the

top

of

the

cosmic

mountain.

Cause

if

you

recall,

22:23

The

ancient

texts

tell

us

that

the

dragon

wasn’t

always

awful.

They

tell

us

that

he

was

originally

a

member

of

the

council

of

the

gods,

one

of

the

high

gods

beloved

sons

until

that

is

he

wanted

to

usurp

God’s

power

and

dominion

and

steal

the

throne

until

he

rebelled

against

the

high

God.

An

act

which

we

see

here

led

to

a

battle

on

the

top

of

Mount

Soffin,

a

battle

that

took

place

in

God’s

temple

sanctuary.

22:54

I

point

this

out

so

that

you

have

some

context

for

why

a

knot’s

battle

with

the

dragon

takes

place

on

Mount

Soffin.

And

also

so

you

can

see

the

continuity

in

the

accounts

across

the

ancient

Near

East.

Let’s

continue

reading

what

Richard

J.

Clifford

has

to

say

about

a

knot’s

battle

with

the

dragon.

Quote,

from

a

speech

of

a

knot,

we

learn

that

Soffin

is

the

scene

of

another

furious

combat.

On

one

occasion,

she

23:23

This

is

Anat,

is

provoked

to

describe

her

past

battles

for

Baal

against

the

monsters.

Now

Clifford’s

going

to

go

on

here

and

quote

what

Anat

has

to

say

in

the

Ugaritic

texts,

which

are

--- page 102 ---

found

on

cuneiform

tablets

three

and

four.

Quote,

did

I

not

crush

the

beloved

of

El,

Yam?

Did

I

not

destroy

El’s

stream,

Rabim?

23:51

stream

here

refers

to

Yam

as

the

waters.

Here

she

explains

why

she

went

to

battle.

Because

the

dragon

and

his

minions

wanted

to

drive

her

husband,

Baal,

from

God’s

temple

sanctuary

on

the

top

of

the

mountain.

24:19

Here

we

see

that

the

dragon

Yam

and

his

minions

wanted

to

kick

ball

off

his

throne

in

the

heavens

from

his

dais,

from

his

powerful

seat.

24:32

from

this

text,

it’s

clear

that

the

dragon

and

his

minions

wanted

to

get

rid

of

Baal

and

that

Baal’s

wife,

took

the

battle

to

the

awful

dragon

and

his

awful

followers.

In

this

text,

Anat

is

clearly

described

as

a

dragon

slayer.

Throughout

the

Ugaritic

texts,

Anat

is

described

as

a

mighty

warrior,

a

mighty

war

goddess,

which

is

not

surprising

considering

this

battle

with

the

sea

dragon.

25:01

She’s

a

spiritual

warrior.

In

the

text,

she’s

referred

to

by

the

high

God

L

as

his

quote,

daughter.

And

as

you’re

going

to

see

in

a

couple

of

minutes,

one

of

her

well-attested

epitaphs

is

found

10

times

in

the

Ugaritic

literature.

And

it’s

quite

important.

And

it’s

the

epitaph,

Yabamat

Liam,

where

Yabamat

is

generally

understood

to

mean

sister-in-law

or

daughter-in-law.

And

Liam,

25:31

means

people’s

nations

or

clans.

So

the

title

would

mean

something

like

sister-in-law

of

the

clans

or

nations.

Many

scholars

contextually

translate

Yabomet

as

progenitrist

instead

of

sister-in-law

to

emphasize

her

role

as

the

progenitor

or

mother

of

a

family

line

of

clans

or

nations.

A

scholar

by

the

name

of

Joshua

Fox

wrote

an

entire

article

on

this

epitaph

which

you

can

find

25:59

in

the

International

Yearbook

of

the

Archaeology

of

Syria

and

Palestine,

Volume

30,

where

he

argues

that

Anat’s

epitaph,

Yambet-Liam,

is

the

female

counterpart

to

Baal’s

epitaph,

Yambu-Lilum,

which

means

brother-in-law

or

progenitor

of

the

gods

or

progenitor

of

the

sons

of

God.

In

either

case,

these

epitaphs

emphasize

that

Anat

and

Baal

26:29

are

the

progenitors,

the

father

and

mother

of

an

important

family

line

or

nation.

Fox

writes,

quote,

26:58

there

are

accounts

in

the

ancient

literature

of

females

who

both

battled

the

dragon

and

were

understood

to

hold

exalted

positions.

We

know

from

the

Ugaritic

ball

cycle

that

Baal

destroyed

the

sea

monster

Yam

with

a

pair

of

clubs

that

were

specially

crafted

by

the

craftsman

god,

Cothr

Wacossus.

Following

Yam’s

defeat,

the

text

tells

us

that

kingship

was

given

to

Baal.

27:26

KTU

1.2.4,

lines

32

to

34

read,

Lo

and

behold,

Yam

is

dead

and

Baal

now

reigns

as

sovereign.

In

Cuneiform

tablet

2.3,

the

divine

craftsman

Cawther

Wacossus

tells

Baal,

quote,

Thou

shalt

take

thine

eternal

kingdom,

thine

everlasting

dominion.

27:57

--- page 103 ---

if

Anat’s

to

be

understood

as

Baal’s

wife.

This

would

mean

that

Baal

and

Anat

reigned

together

as

sovereigns,

as

king

and

queen

over

an

eternal

kingdom,

an

everlasting

dominion.

In

Cuneiform

tablet

KTU

1.108,

she’s

given

a

sequence

of

epitaphs

which

conform

with

this

interpretation,

which

include,

quote,

the

mistress

of

kingship,

the

mistress

of

dominion.

28:27

the

mistress

of

the

high

heavens

and

the

mistress

of

the

kept

headdress

or

crown.

Aisha

Ramuni,

author

of

the

Divine

Epitaphs

in

the

Ugaritic

Alphabetic

Texts,

says

on

page

109

that

all

of

Enoch’s

epitaphs,

quote,

express

Enoch’s

power

and

authority

within

the

Ugaritic

pantheon.

28:55

And

I’d

say

they’re

amazing

titles

because

they

place

the

theology

of

the

ancient

tradition

on

full

display.

As

I

mentioned,

there’s

considerable

evidence

in

the

Ugaritic

literature

to

suggest

that

Anat

is

Baal’s

wife.

And

I’ll

share

a

little

bit

more

of

that

at

the

beginning

of

our

next

episode.

But

just

as

a

quick

example

in

Cuneiform

tablet

4AB

and

RS319,

Baal

and

Anat

are

described

as

29:23

having

sexual

intercourse

and

in

Cuneiform

tablet

4AB3,

knot

gives

birth

to

their

baby,

a

baby

that

the

text

refers

to

as

a

wild

bull,

which

is

a

fitting

image

given

that

the

bull

was

one

of

the

most

prominent

symbols

for

a

male

god

in

the

ancient

world,

as

we’ve

pointed

out

several

times

on

the

program.

In

Cuneiform

tablet

4AB3,

it

reads,

quote,

29:53

She,

this

refers

to

a

knot,

goes

up

to

Arar,

up

to

Arar

and

soften.

That’s

the

sacred

mountain.

In

the

Pleasance,

the

Mount

of

Possession,

the

Mount

of

Possession

here

refers

to

the

sacred

palace

temple

or

kingdom

that

Baal

inherited

for

slaying

the

sea

serpent

Yam.

She,

a

knot,

cries

aloud

to

Baal,

receive

Baal.

30:39

So

here

Anat

goes

to

the

sacred

mountain

and

she

proclaims

glad

tidings

that

a

wild

bull,

young

god

has

been

born

to

Baal

and

then

Baal

rejoices.

30:52

This

passage

comes

right

after

Balin

and

Ahnott

had

had

sexual

intercourse.

The

two

had

begun

their

roles

as

the

progenitor

and

progenitress

of

God’s

orination.

Before

we

move

on,

I’ve

got

a

couple

more

things

that

I’d

like

to

highlight

about

the

Canaanite

high

god

El’s

wife,

Adiracht.

In

the

Ugaritic

literature,

Adiracht

is

given

the

epitaph,

Kha’nit-alim,

where

31:19

K’neet

means

to

create,

to

produce,

or

to

begat.

And

ilim

means

gods.

So,

K’neet

ilim

means

the

creator

or

begater

of

the

gods.

This

epitaph

clearly

emphasizes

her

procreative

role

as

the

mother,

the

begater

of

divine

offspring.

El

cannot

produce

offspring

without

her.

Her

presence

is

indispensable

to

the

continuation

of

the

divine

family.

31:49

This

could

possibly

go

without

saying,

but

I

want

to

make

sure

that

you’re

not

missing

the

profound

nature

of

what

the

ancients

are

teaching

us

here.

They’re

teaching

us

that

God

is

not

a

solitary

being.

They’re

teaching

us

that

God

has

a

family,

that

God

is

a

family

man,

that

he’s

married,

that

he

has

a

wife,

that

he

has

children,

that

the

divine

realm

is

a

two-parent

household.

32:16

--- page 104 ---

The

ancients

are

telling

us

that

the

divine

realm

is

familial,

relational,

and

sexed.

Adorat’s

epitaphs

reveal

that

it’s

through

her

union

with

El

that

divine

royal

offspring

are

born

and

that

the

divine

family

is

possible.

Now

the

most

important

thing

that

I

wanted

to

point

out

about

El’s

wife

Adorat

is

that

she’s

referred

to

in

the

literature

as

Kadesh.

32:45

QDS.

In

Cuneiform

Tablet

16.1.11,

line

22,

it

reads,

Atterat

is

called

Kudzu,

which

is

the

same

as

Kadesh.

A

scholar

by

the

name

of

John

Day

out

of

Oxford

University

says

this

of

the

meaning

Kadesh.

And

this

is

written

in

his

article,

Asherah

in

the

Hebrew

Bible

and

Northwest

Semitic

Literature,

published

in

volume

105.

33:14

the

Journal

of

Biblical

Literature.

And

this

is

found

on

page

388.

Quote,

the

goddess

authorized

called

on

a

number

of

occasions

kudzu,

a

name

meaning

holiness

or

sanctuary.

I

think

it’s

really

telling

that

God’s

wife

has

given

the

epitaph

holiness

or

sanctuary.

The

root

of

kudzu,

Kadesh,

33:42

is

used

in

a

lot

of

different

Semitic

languages,

but

it’s

always

used

to

convey

a

couple

of

ideas.

Consecration,

sanctity,

and

separation

from

the

profane.

When

it’s

used

as

a

noun,

kudzu

means

holiness,

a

holy

place,

a

sanctuary,

or

a

temple.

In

fact,

the

Aramean

word

for

temple

is

kudza.

34:11

Day

notes

Adorah’s

association

with

a

sanctuary

or

a

temple

on

page

389.

says,

what

are

the

major

occasions

in

which

Adorah

appears

in

the

Ugaritic

texts?

Most

prominently,

she

appears

in

the

text

concerning

Baal’s

desire

for

a

house,

which

is

a

temple.

The

title

kudzu

clearly

speaks

to

the

profound

sanctified

nature

of

God’s

wife.

34:39

It

emphasizes

her

sacred

status

among

the

gods.

It

emphasizes

that

she

is

the

personification

of

holiness.

She

is

holiness.

What

I

really

find

compelling

is

the

identification

of

God’s

wife

with

sacred

space.

On

page

389,

Day

notes

that

her

proper

name,

Adorat,

denotes

holy

place

or

sanctuary.

35:09

Day

writes,

and

he’s

speaking

of

her

name,

Adirot.

Quote,

what

is

its

entomology?

An

earlier

suggestion

of

Albright

was

that

the

name

Adirot

means

holy

place

sanctuary.

And

this

view

is

held

today

by

such

scholars

as

H.

Geese

and

J.C.

DeMore.

In

support,

it

is

noted

that

the

Semitic

root

TR,

place,

came

to

denote

holy

place.

35:39

sanctuary

and

this

meaning

is

attested

for

in

the

Akkadian

Asirtu,

Essertu,

Issertu,

and

Ashretu,

Phoenician

SRT,

Aramaic

TR

and

TRT,

and

Ugaritic

ATR.

The

goddess

Atharat

is

called

on

on

a

number

of

occasions

kudzu

a

name

meaning

holiness

or

sanctuary.

36:07

And

so

it

is

argued

that

it

would

be

very

fitting

if

the

name

Atharat

bore

a

similar

meaning.

In

other

words,

is

telling

us

that

El’s

wife’s

proper

name

Atharat

and

her

title

Kutsu

both

mean

the

same

thing,

sanctuary

or

temple.

God’s

wife

is

the

personification

of

a

sanctuary.

She’s

so

holy

that

she

is

sacred

space.

36:36

--- page 105 ---

is

a

sanctuary,

a

temple.

This

is

going

to

be

very

important

towards

the

end

of

today’s

episode

when

we

get

into

the

early

Christian

literature.

Okay,

up

to

this

point

in

our

discussion

on

God’s

marital

status,

we’ve

seen

that

among

the

ancient

Mesopotamians,

Egyptians,

and

Canaanites,

that

the

high

god

was

unequivocally

married.

So

what

about

among

the

ancient

Hebrews?

Was

the

high

god

of

the

Old

Testament,

El,

married?

Well,

37:06

It

depends

on

who

you

ask.

Generally

speaking,

if

you

ask

modern

day

adherents

of

the

Judeo-Christian

tradition,

you

get

a

pretty

resounding

no.

But

when

you

ask

biblical

scholars,

those

scholars

who

have

spent

their

careers

carefully

examining

the

biblical

texts,

the

history

and

the

archaeology

of

the

Israelites,

you

get

a

different

answer.

Do

you

remember

Dr.

Stavro

Kapulou,

the

Oxford

trained

professor

who

we

talked

about

on

the

program?

37:37

Well,

listen

to

what

she

says

about

the

marital

status

of

God

in

the

Bible.

Quote,

after

years

of

research

specializing

in

the

history

and

religion

of

Israel,

I

have

come

to

the

colorful

and

what

would

seem

to

some

uncomfortable

conclusion

that

God

had

a

wife.

Dr.

Staffer

Kapulu

isn’t

the

only

biblical

scholar

that’s

come

to

this

conclusion.

In

fact,

38:03

There’s

a

significant

and

growing

body

of

scholarship

and

scholars

who

argue,

and

this

comes

directly

from

archaeological

evidence,

artifacts

that

have

been

unearthed,

as

well

as

direct

passages

in

the

Bible

that

refer

to

Asherah.

If

you

remember,

Asherah

is

the

Hebrew

form

of

Atarat,

the

name

of

the

Canaanite

high

god

El’s

wife,

who

we’ve

just

been

talking

about,

the

woman

who

is

so

sacred

and

holy

that

her

proper

name

and

her

epitaph,

Kudzu,

38:33

actually

mean

sanctuary

or

temple.

So

let’s

look

at

the

archaeological

evidence.

Archaeologists

have

found

thousands

of

female

figurines.

They’re

known

as

Judean

pillar

figurines

across

Israel.

These

figurines

date

to

the

Iron

Age

II

period,

which

spans

from

1000

to

586

BC,

the

same

time

known

as

the

Israelite

first

temple

period,

the

time

of

King

Solomon’s

temple.

39:03

The

largest

concentration

of

these

figurines

was

found

in

and

around

Jerusalem.

Now

there

are

a

lot

of

reasons

why

scholars

believe

that

these

figurines

are

representations

of

Asherah.

There’s

two

main

reasons

why.

The

first

is

because

there’s

some

strong

iconographic

parallels

between

the

pillars

and

the

Levantine

goddesses.

Most

notably

the

prominent

depiction

of

their

breasts.

39:31

which

emphasizes

their

role

as

a

mother,

a

progenitress.

And

the

second

reason

is

because

archeologists

have

actually

found

inscriptions

that

contain

the

phrase

Yahweh

and

quote,

his

Asherah.

The

first

inscription

was

found

in

the

West

Bank

near

Hebron.

It

was

found

on

a

tomb

wall.

And

then

they

found

multiple

inscriptions

39:58

in

the

northeastern

part

of

the

Sinai

Peninsula,

right

near

the

Israeli

border.

They

found

one

inscription

on

wall

plaster

and

then

they

found

two

inscriptions

on

pithos.

Pithos

are

large

storage

jars.

All

of

these

explicitly

stated,

quote,

Yahweh

and

his

Asherah.

Now,

all

of

these

inscriptions

are

dated

to

the

eighth

century

BC.

For

example,

the

inscription

on

Pithos

A

reads,

quote,

--- page 106 ---

40:28

by

Yahweh

of

Temin

and

by

his

Asherah.

Dr.

William

G.

Deaver,

a

Harvard-trained

expert

in

the

history

of

the

ancient

Near

East

and

the

ancient

kingdoms

of

Israel,

wrote

the

following

on

page

30

of

his

article,

Asherah,

Consort

of

Yahweh,

New

Evidence.

Quote,

the

conclusion

of

our

survey.

And

the

article

lays

out

all

of

the

archeological

and

textual

evidence.

40:57

is

by

now

obvious.

I

believe

that

the

lady

of

Adroud,

now

Adroud

is

the

town

in

the

Sinai

Peninsula

where

these

were

found,

is

not

simply

a

representation

of

the

great

goddess,

but

can

be

identified

specifically

with

Asherah.

Her

appearance,

both

seated

on

a

throne

and

mentioned

in

a

text

coupling

her

with

Yahweh,

41:24

and

named

as

an

agent

of

blessing

strongly

suggests

that

she

was

revered

as

the

consort

of

Yahweh.

As

Dr.

Stavro

Coppulu

mentioned

earlier,

the

idea

that

the

God

of

the

Old

Testament

had

a

wife

might

feel

strange

or

even

uncomfortable

to

a

lot

of

people

today.

But

the

truth

is,

as

we

pointed

out

in

the

last

episode

and

in

this

episode,

41:52

the

ancient

Near

East,

the

high

god

is

always

married.

The

anomaly

is

when

the

high

god

is

not

married.

Of

course,

there’s

nothing

prohibiting

Jews

and

Christians

today

from

believing

in

a

god

who

is

not

married.

That’s

their

prerogative.

But

what

I’m

trying

to

illustrate

here

is

there

is

considerable

archaeological

evidence

to

argue

that

before

the

Babylonian

exile,

the

ancient

Israelites

42:22

knew

of,

made

figurines

of,

and

made

offerings

to

Asherah,

the

Hebrew

form

of

Atira,

who

was

the

wife

of

El

and

Canaan,

and

of

whom

we

find

inscriptions

that

refer

to

her

as

Yahweh’s

Asherah,

his

Asherah,

in

and

around

Israel.

If

this

interests

you,

if

you’re

interested

in

learning

more

about

this,

there

are

a

lot

of

books

and

articles

that

have

been

written

on

the

subject,

books

42:52

like

When

God

Had

a

Wife,

The

Fall

and

Rise

of

the

Sacred

Feminine

in

the

Judeo-Christian

Tradition

by

Lynn

Picknett

and

Clive

Prince,

Did

God

Have

a

Wife

by

William

G.

Deaver,

The

Hebrew

Goddess

by

Rafael

Ptai,

and

Asherah,

History’s

Vanquished

Goddess

by

Darlene

Koznik.

These

books

do

a

really

nice

job

of

laying

out

the

evidence.

43:20

The

BBC

also

published

a

docu-series

titled,

Did

God

Have

a

Wife

with

Dr.

Stavro

Kapulou.

And

PBS

published

another

docu-series

by

the

same

name

with

Dr.

Deaver.

If

you’d

like

to

watch

either

of

those,

I’ve

posted

a

link

to

them

on

the

webpage

for

this

episode.

In

addition,

if

you’d

like

to

see

pictures

of

the

Judean

pillar

figurines

or

the

inscription

of

Yahweh

and

his

Asherah,

you

can

find

them

too

on

the

webpage

for

this

episode.

43:49

In

terms

of

the

biblical

evidence,

the

name

Asherah

or

Asereem

is

found

40

times

in

the

Hebrew

Bible.

John

Barclay

Burns

of

George

Mason

University

notes

in

his

article,

Female

Pillar

Figurines

of

the

Iron

Age,

A

Study

in

Text

and

Artifact

found

in

volume

36

of

Andrews

University

Seminary

Studies,

the

following

on

page

24,

quote,

the

majority

of

references

to

Asherah

44:19

--- page 107 ---

would

appear

to

indicate

a

cultic

object.

The

figure

was

made

of

wood,

planted

or

driven

in

the

ground

or

erected

often

beside

an

altar.

In

light

of

the

textual

evidence

and

in

view

of

the

connection

of

the

goddess

with

a

tree,

Asherah

was

most

likely

an

artificial

and

stylized

sacred

tree.

What

Burns

is

telling

us

here

44:48

is

that

the

references

to

Asherah

in

the

Hebrew

Bible

associate

her

with

a

cultic

object,

an

artificial

or

stylized

tree

of

some

sort

that

was

planted

beside

an

altar.

Now

this

is

interesting.

Asherah’s

association

with

a

tree

and

an

altar

is

stated

explicitly

in

Deuteronomy

chapter

16

verse

21,

which

reads,

and

this

is

the

English

standard

version,

quote,

45:18

You

shall

not

plant

any

tree

as

an

asherah

beside

the

altar

you

build

for

the

Lord

your

God.

The

Amplified

Bible

translation

says

this.

You

shall

not

plant

for

yourself

an

asherah

of

any

kind

of

tree

or

wood

beside

the

altar

of

the

Lord

your

God,

which

you

shall

make.

Okay,

there’s

a

couple

of

things

that

are

worth

noting

here.

First

note

how

in

ancient

Israel

the

symbol

used

45:46

to

signify

Asherah,

God’s

wife,

was

a

tree

or

a

cultic

object

of

some

type

that

looked

like

a

tree.

This

is

in

complete

conformity

with

what

we

saw

in

ancient

Egypt,

where

the

high

god

Atum’s

wife,

you

saw

us,

was

symbolized

by

an

acacia

tree.

Second,

you’ll

note

that

the

author

of

this

text

is

telling

the

Israelites

that

they’re

not

supposed

to

do

this.

Create

a

stylized

tree

and

place

it

beside

the

altar

of

Yahweh.

46:17

This

is

highly,

highly

suspect

because

during

the

first

temple

period,

this

is

exactly

what

was

placed

near

the

altar

in

Yahweh’s

temple,

a

stylized

tree.

You

might

be

more

familiar

with

it

by

its

name,

the

menorah.

In

1

Kings

chapter

seven,

verse

49,

we’re

told

that

the

menorah

stood

46:45

before

the

inner

sanctuary.

But

in

the

Christian

New

Testament

in

Revelation

chapter

22

verse

2,

John

the

beloved

sees

a

vision

of

the

Holy

of

Holies

and

in

that

vision

he

sees

the

tree

of

life

planted

there

in

the

midst

by

the

throne

of

God.

47:08

So

what

are

we

to

make

of

the

prohibition

to

this

in

Deuteronomy?

If

a

tree

was

actually

placed

near

the

altar

to

Yahweh

in

King

Solomon’s

temple?

Well,

there’s

a

general

consensus

among

biblical

scholars

that

the

book

of

Deuteronomy,

where

the

prohibition

is

found,

was

composed

or

compiled

during

the

late

monarchical

period

and

then

later

edited

into

its

current

form

during

the

Babylonian

exile.

47:37

The

group

of

authors

or

editors

who

shaped

the

theological

and

literary

perspective

found

in

Deuteronomy

are

known

among

scholars

as

the

Deuteronomists.

The

reason

this

is

important

is

because

scholars

like

Margaret

Barker,

who

you

can

find

on

our

companion

website,

theancienttradition.com

under

scholars,

lays

out

a

considerable

amount

of

evidence

that

the

Deuteronomists

altered

the

text.

48:03

to

radically

reform

and

deliberately

suppress

the

older

Jerusalem

temple

tradition.

She’s

written

a

number

of

books

on

this

subject,

all

of

which

are

very

good.

As

part

of

their

editing

agenda,

--- page 108 ---

Barker

argues

they

deliberately

eradicated

Asherah

from

Israelite

religion.

This

was

done,

she

argues,

as

part

of

a

larger

strategy

by

the

Deuteronomists.

48:32

to

impose

strict

monotheism.

If

you

aren’t

familiar

with

a

lot

of

the

biblical

scholarship

that’s

been

produced

in

the

past

couple

of

decades,

you

may

not

be

aware

that

there

is

pretty

conclusive

evidence

that

ancient

Israel

was

a

polytheistic

religion

before

the

Babylonian

exile.

The

BBC

documentary

I

mentioned

earlier,

hosted

by

Dr.

Stavro

Coppulu,

lays

this

all

out.

Here’s

what

she

says.

49:06

I’ve

come

to

the

very

place

where

the

Bible

says

monotheism

was

practiced.

This

is

probably

where

the

Temple

of

Jerusalem

once

stood,

supposedly

the

sanctuary

where

only

one

God

was

revered.

And

yet,

if

you

examine

the

biblical

texts,

you

find

within

them

clear

references

to

more

than

one

God

here

in

Jerusalem

itself.

God,

it

seems,

didn’t

always

act

alone.

49:34

I

saw

Yahweh

sitting

on

his

throne,

with

all

the

host

of

heaven

standing

beside

him,

to

the

left

of

him

and

the

right

of

him.

49:43

God

has

taken

his

place

in

the

divine

council.

In

the

midst

of

the

gods,

he

holds

judgment.

Let

us

make

mankind

in

our

image

according

to

our

likeness.

Who

is

like

you,

Yahweh,

among

the

gods?

The

Bible

itself

is

telling

us

that

Israel

had

its

own

divine

council,

its

own

pantheon

of

gods.

50:07

In

other

words,

the

religion

of

the

Israelites

was

polytheistic,

just

like

that

of

the

Canaanites.

It’s

not

the

conventional

view,

and

it

weakens

further

the

foundations

of

monotheism.

But

Herbert

Neer,

a

professor

of

biblical

history,

has

researched

the

real

beliefs

and

practices

of

the

ancient

Israelites.

He

feels

we’re

blinded

to

the

polytheism

in

the

Bible’s

pages.

So

do

you

think

Israelite

religion

was

polytheistic?

50:36

Of

course

I

do

think

that,

and

we

have

many

traces

of

it

conserved

in

the

Old

Testament.

Only

if

you

read

the

Old

Testament

through

the

lenses

of

monotheism,

you

should

neglect

several

important

texts

and

you

could

come

to

the

conclusion

that

Abraham

and

Moses

were

monotheistic

believers

of

Yahweh.

But

as

we

now

know,

it

was

quite

different.

In

the

Old

Testament

we

have

several

texts

which

speak

about

a

divine

council,

for

example

also

in

the

Psalms

and

in

the

Prophets.

51:02

So

there

are

divine

beings

helping

Yahweh

to

fulfill

his

duties.

For

example,

if

something

has

to

be

done

on

earth,

Yahweh

has

to

send

his

messenger.

So

when

we

read

texts

like,

who

is

like

you

or

Yahweh

among

the

gods,

this

is

a

reference

to

the

divine

council,

to

a

polytheism.

Yes,

and

a

very

clear

reference,

of

course.

So

polytheism

was

normal

in

ancient

Israel

too?

Yes,

it

was

normal

like

in

any

other

ancient

Near

Eastern

cultures.

51:31

If

you’re

a

long

time

listener

to

the

program,

you

know

we’ve

hit

on

much

of

what

Dr.

Stavro

Coppulu

and

the

other

biblical

scholars

argue

here.

That

ancient

Israel

was

originally

polytheistic

or

henotheistic.

We

talked

about

this

in

episode

number

16,

the

council

of

the

gods

--- page 109 ---

and

in

episode

number

17,

more

than

one

God.

In

the

Hebrew

Bible,

there’s

evidence

that

in

the

early

ancient

Israelite

religion,

the

Israelite

God

El

52:00

and

the

Israelite

God

Yahweh

were

two

separate

gods

who

were

later

merged

into

one.

As

we

saw

in

the

Septuagint

in

Deuteronomy

chapter

32

verses

8

9,

Yahweh

was

originally

understood

to

be

El’s

son,

a

distinction

that’s

preserved

in

much

of

the

New

Testament,

especially

in

the

book

of

Hebrews,

where

God

the

Father

is

understood

to

be

Christ’s

actual

father

and

Christ

is

understood

to

be

God’s

actual

son.

52:28

And

when

we

consider

Asherah,

like

we’ve

done

in

today’s

episode,

what

we

get

is

the

Father,

the

Mother,

and

the

Son.

A

family.

This

really

comes

to

fruition

in

the

New

Testament

when

God

the

Father

and

the

Virgin

Mary

have

a

son,

Christ.

It’s

very,

very

difficult

to

reconcile

Christ’s

conception.

52:55

with

the

theology

where

God

the

Father

and

God

the

Son

are

the

same

thing.

It

takes

a

lot

of

mental

gymnastics

to

make

sense

of

God

the

Son

conceiving

himself

with

his

mother

Mary.

I

remind

you

that

the

notion

that

God

the

Father

and

God

the

Son

are

one

being

and

the

notion

that

God

is

sexless

and

without

form

are

later

ideas.

In

their

original

form,

53:25

God

was

a

sext

being

who

had

a

wife

with

whom

he

had

a

son.

This

is

the

form

in

the

ancient

world.

In

ancient

Mesopotamia,

the

high

god

On

was

married

to

Key

and

they

had

a

son

Enki.

In

ancient

Egypt,

the

high

god

Atum

was

married

to

Ussas

and

they

had

a

son

Shu.

In

Canaan,

the

high

god

El

was

married

to

Atarat

53:54

and

they

had

a

son,

Baal.

This

same

family-based

theology

is

clear

to

see

in

the

New

Testament

when

the

text

is

not

forced

to

conform

with

later

ideas

like

strict

monotheism,

Trinitarian

theology,

or

Plato’s

philosophical

ideas

of

a

sexless,

formless

God.

Somehow

I

think

a

lot

of

Christians

already

know

this.

54:23

And

believe

this,

and

that’s

because

of

the

way

Mary,

the

mother

of

Jesus,

is

venerated.

A

couple

of

weeks

ago,

I

was

in

the

beautiful

little

town

of

Sitka,

Alaska.

If

you’ve

never

been

there,

it’s

worth

visiting.

In

the

center

of

the

town

sits

a

small

cathedral,

St.

Michael’s

Cathedral.

It’s

the

oldest

Russian

Orthodox

cathedral

in

the

United

States.

In

the

early

19th

century,

the

Russians

controlled

the

fur

trade

in

what

we

now

call

Alaska.

54:53

and

Sitka

served

as

their

headquarters.

So

while

I

was

there,

I

dropped

in

and

I

was

immediately

struck

by

this

large,

beautiful

icon

of

Mary.

It’s

called

Our

Lady

of

the

Inexhaustible

Cup.

In

this

image,

which

is

a

recent

commission,

Mary

is

depicted

wearing

a

crimson

cosmic

robe.

There

are

two

eight

pointed

stars

55:23

sitting

on

her

shoulders.

The

robe

veils

her

head

and

in

the

very

center

of

the

veil,

the

center

of

her

forehead,

sits

a

prominent

eight-pointed

star.

Now

we’ve

discussed

this

several

times

on

the

program.

The

eight-pointed

star

is

the

symbol

for

deified

beings,

for

gods,

those

who

reside

in

the

sacred

center.

If

you’d

like

to

learn

more

about

this,

give

episode

number

38.

--- page 110 ---

55:51

and

he

went

a

little

further,

listen.

What

I

found

most

striking

though,

was

that

Mary

was

depicted

wearing

a

jeweled

crown.

She’s

depicted

as

a

queen.

And

with

her

cosmic

robes,

this

surely

conveys

that

she

is

the

queen

of

heaven.

A

queen

is

one

who

rules

over

a

kingdom.

56:18

The

artist

is

anonymous.

This

is

common

for

icons,

so

we

don’t

know

who

created

it.

But

based

on

the

symbolism

in

the

icon,

the

artist

is

conveying

that

Mary

is

both

a

god

and

a

queen,

both

of

which

defy

orthodox

theology.

If

Mary

is

the

mother

of

Jesus,

then

we

need

to

reassess

whether

God

has

a

wife.

I

mean,

in

the

New

Testament,

56:48

Christ

is

conceived

with

a

woman.

He

doesn’t

do

it

alone.

And

if

Mary

is

a

God,

then

we

have

to

reassess

strict

monotheism.

And

if

Mary

is

a

queen,

she

reigns

over

a

kingdom,

and

then

we

need

to

reassess

whether

God

reigns

as

a

solitary

being.

All

of

these

are

modern

day

reassessments.

57:16

The

ancients

always

taught

these

things.

So

why

is

this

icon

sitting

prominently

in

St.

Michael’s

Cathedral?

I

do

not

know.

What

it

suggests

to

me

is

that

deep

down

somebody

already

seems

to

know

these

things

or

believe

these

things.

If

you’d

like

to

see

a

picture

of

Our

Lady

of

the

Inexhaustible

Cup,

you

can

find

it

on

the

webpage

for

this

episode.

57:45

As

we

saw

in

Canaan,

the

high

god

El

and

his

wife

Adorot

had

a

son,

Baal,

who

we

learned

earlier

in

today’s

episode

was

also

married.

He

was

married,

if

you

recall,

to

the

goddess,

Anat.

If

you

remember,

she’s

the

goddess

in

the

Uridic-Baal

cycle

who

battled

and

bound

the

sea

dragon,

Yam.

Anat

is

a

dragon

slayer.

So

you’ll

also

recall

that

Anat

and

Baal

conceived

and

gave

birth

to

a

son,

a

young

bull.

58:16

Continuing

the

Divine

Family

Line.

This

is

interesting

because

in

the

early

episodes

of

this

podcast,

we

came

across

another

female

dragonslayer.

I

don’t

know

if

you

remember

who

she

was.

Though

her

dragon

slaying

was

described

in

more

conspicuously

spiritual

terms.

In

a

Jewish

text

dated

to

between

100

BC

and

100

AD

known

as

the

Book

of

Joseph

and

Azaneth.

58:43

I

mention

this

because

these

two

female

dragon

slayers,

one

the

wife

of

the

god

Baal

and

the

other

a

human

being,

whom

after

she

slew

the

dragon

was

anointed

by

God

with

the

quote,

unction

of

incorruption,

which

is

a

kingship

or

queenship

rite.

She

was

then

clothed

in

a

wedding

robe,

crowned

with

a

gold

wreath

like

a

queen

and

married

to

Joseph

of

Egypt,

where

God

59:12

tells

her

in

chapter

15

that

she

will

be

Joseph’s

quote,

beloved

bride

forever.

Forever.

God

tells

her

that

her

marriage

to

Joseph

will

endure

into

the

eternities.

It

will

be

an

everlasting

marriage.

I

mentioned

Azanath

because

she’s

not

only

a

good

example

of

a

female

dragon

slayer,

she’s

also

a

good

example

of

how

dragon

slaying,

kingship,

in

this

case

queenship,

59:42

and

marriage

are

all

theologically

interconnected.

How

they’re

steps

in

a

grand

cohesive

theology.

In

this

text,

Azaneth’s

marriage

to

Joseph

is

the

culminating

right.

Now

listen

to

what

--- page 111 ---

God

tells

Azaneth

right

after

he

anoints

her

with

the

unction

of

incorruption.

This

is

found

in

chapter

16.

01:00:11

and

been

anointed

with

the

unction

of

incorruption.

Lo,

now

today

thy

flesh

produceth

flowers

of

life

from

the

fountain

of

the

Most

High,

and

thy

bones

shall

be

made

fat

like

the

cedars

of

the

paradise

of

delight

of

God,

and

unwarying

powers

shall

maintain

thee.

Accordingly,

thy

youth

shall

not

see

old

age,

nor

shall

they

beauty

01:00:40

fail

forever.

So

what

does

God

tell

Azanith

right

after

he

anoints

her

with

the

unction

of

incorruption?

Well,

he

tells

her

that

she

is

now

like

a

tree.

Yep,

a

tree.

God

tells

her

that

she

is

now

like

a

tree

that

stands.

A

tree

that

stands

where?

A

tree

that

stands

in

paradise.

Yep,

01:01:10

just

like

all

of

the

other

trees

planted

in

paradise,

like

we

discussed

in

our

last

episode.

God

says

to

Azanath,

quote,

thy

bones

shall

be

made

fat

like

the

cedars

of

the

paradise

of

delight

of

God.

Now

that

Azanath

has

slayed

the

dragon

and

been

anointed

a

queen,

she’ll

stand

like

a

cedar

tree

in

paradise,

where

she

will

not

age

01:01:40

nor

will

her

beauty

fail.

Now

note

how

all

of

this

is

then

tied

to

marriage.

God

tells

Azanith

quote,

God

most

high

loveth

her

and

all

the

angels

revere

her

and

I

love

her

exceedingly

for

that

she

herself

also

is

my

sister.

And

lo

for

my

part

I

go

to

Joseph.

It’s

talking

about

Joseph

of

Egypt

here.

01:02:07

and

will

speak

to

him

all

these

words

concerning

thee.

And

he

will

come

to

thee

today

and

see

thee

and

rejoice

over

thee

and

love

thee

and

be

thy

bridegroom

and

thou

shalt

be

his

beloved

bride

forever.”

So

note

there

how

God

tells

her

that

she

can

now

be

married

to

Joseph

forever,

for

eternity.

01:02:33

which

is

really

interesting

because

this

text

is

believed

to

be

a

Jewish

text.

So

here

we

have

a

Jewish

text

talking

about

marriages

that

last

forever

into

eternity.

Remember,

she’s

been

anointed

with

the

oil

of

incorruption,

the

oil

of

immortality.

So

when

the

text

says

forever,

that’s

what

the

text

means.

For

eternity.

This

text,

01:03:00

clearly

speaks

of

marriages

lasting

into

and

existing

in

heaven.

Now

listen

to

what

God

tells

her,

quote,

01:03:28

and

adorn

thyself

as

a

good

bride

and

make

thyself

ready

to

meet

him.

And

when

the

angel

of

the

Lord

in

the

shape

of

a

man

had

finished

speaking

these

words

to

Azanath,

she

rejoiced.”

As

a

quick

aside,

did

you

catch

that

the

text

referred

to

God

as

in

the

shape

of

a

man?

That’s

what

the

text

says.

And

again,

this

is

believed

by

scholars

to

be

a

Jewish

text.

01:03:57

In

chapter

18,

we

read

that

Azanath

does

as

God

asks

her,

and

adorns

herself

in

the

first

robe,

the

ancient

robe,

which

we’re

told

in

the

text

turns

out

to

be

a

robe

like

lightning.

When

the

text

refers

to

this

robe

as

her

quote,

first

robe

or

ancient

robe,

a

robe

that

the

text

then

tells

us

is

like

lightning,

--- page 112 ---

01:04:24

Scholars

think

that

this

refers

in

some

way

to

a

former

light

or

glory

that

Azenith

used

to

have

in

the

first,

which

Isermais

refers

to

the

first

time,

which

is

super

intriguing.

The

text

tells

us

that

she

does

this

and

then

adorns

herself

with

precious

stones

and

jewelry.

After

this,

the

text

tells

us,

quote,

and

a

golden

wreath

she

put

about

her

head.

01:04:52

She

placed

a

golden

crown

atop

her

head.

She’s

a

queen.

She

does

all

of

this

in

preparation

for

her

wedding

to

Joseph,

which

again,

God

tells

her

will

last

forever.

The

Slavonic

version

of

the

text

actually

states

that

she

put

on

wedding

remnant

and

decked

herself

like

a

bride

for

the

wedding

chamber.

Keep

the

wedding

chamber

aspect

of

this

passage

in

your

back

pocket

because

it’s

going

to

be

important

at

the

very

close

of

today’s

episode.

01:05:20

What’s

interesting

is

that

right

after

this,

Azanath

sees

a

reflection

of

herself

in

a

water

basin.

And

she

notes

that

her

face

shines

like

the

sun.

There

is

a

glory

to

her.

But

then

listen

to

this.

In

the

reflection,

she

sees

herself

once

again

as

a

tree.

And

this

is

found

in

chapter

18.

01:05:47

In

this

text,

she

looks

into

the

basin

and

she

sees

her

eyes

and

her

cheeks

and

her

lips,

and

then

she

sees

her

neck.

And

it

says,

as

an

all

variegated

Cyprus.

Cyprus.

A

Cyprus,

of

course,

is

a

tree.

If

you

aren’t

familiar

with

the

word

variegated,

it

usually

means

colorful,

which

is

interesting

because

Cyprus

trees

are

evergreens,

so

they’re

never

quote

colorful.

A

variegated

Cyprus.

01:06:15

usually

refers

to

a

cypress

tree

whose

leaves

have

lightened.

And

when

this

happens,

the

leaves

take

on

a

golden

hue.

So

note

how

when

Azaneth

looks

into

the

basin,

she

sees

that

she

looks

like

a

golden

tree.

This

is

fascinating.

If

you’d

like

to

see

a

picture

or

two

of

variegated

cypress

trees,

you

can

find

them

on

the

webpage

for

this

episode.

01:06:44

After

this,

Azanath

and

Joseph

are

married.

And

the

Pharaoh

says

to

Joseph

in

chapter

21,

quote,

01:07:12

is

as

the

son

of

the

Most

High,

and

thou

shalt

be

called

his

bride

henceforth

and

forever.”

Note

again

how

this

text

speaks

to

the

notion

of

marriage

lasting,

quote,

unto

time

eternal.

This

is

theologically

breathtaking.

Also

noted

in

this

text

how

Joseph

is

referred

to

as,

quote,

the

son

of

the

Most

High.

01:07:41

This

will

be

important

down

the

line.

All

in

all,

note

how

Azenith’s

triumph

over

the

dragon

is

connected

not

only

to

queenship,

but

to

immortality

where

she’ll

stand

like

a

tree

in

paradise.

And

to

marriage,

a

marriage

to

Joseph

that

the

text

tells

us

will

last,

quote,

unto

time

eternal.

The

notion

of

a

marriage

that

is

eternal

01:08:10

makes

sense

if

God,

like

the

ancients

teach,

is

himself

married.

If

you’d

like

to

listen

to

a

full

audio

recording

of

the

book

of

Joseph

and

Azanith,

you

can

find

it

on

our

sister

podcast,

The

Ancient

Tradition

Audio-Rid.

I

want

to

conclude

this

episode

by

taking

a

look

at

the

marital

--- page 113 ---

status

of

Christ

in

the

early

Christian

writings.

When

we

examine

these

texts,

we

find

that

there

is

not

01:08:38

a

single

passage

in

either

the

canonical

or

apocryphal

writings

that

says

Jesus

was

married.

But

at

the

same

time,

I’d

also

like

to

know

that

when

we

examine

these

texts,

we

don’t

find

a

single

passage

in

either

the

canonical

or

apocryphal

writings

that

says

Jesus

is

not

married.

Those

who

say

Jesus

was

not

married

don’t

have

any

more

textual

evidence

to

support

their

claim

than

those

who

say

he

was

married.

01:09:07

The

old

adage,

the

absence

of

evidence

is

not

the

evidence

of

absence

is

apropos

here.

The

plain

fact

is

that

we

just

don’t

know

what

Christ’s

marital

status

was.

There’s

no

textual

evidence

either

way

to

definitively

claim

that

he

was

or

was

not

married.

Historically

speaking

though,

it’s

important

to

point

out

that

in

the

ancient

world,

01:09:36

the

son

of

the

high

god,

like

the

high

god

himself

was

married.

In

ancient

Egypt,

Atum’s

son

Shu

was

married

to

Tefnut,

and

Osiris,

the

hero

son,

was

married

to

Isis,

and

the

archetypal

earthly

son

Horus

was

married

to

Hathor.

In

Mesopotamia,

An’s

son

Enki

was

married

to

Damkina,

01:10:06

And

the

hero

son,

Marduk,

was

married

to

Sarpunet.

In

Canaan,

El-San-Bal,

the

hero

son,

like

we

noted

in

today’s

episode,

was

married

to

Anat.

And

in

ancient

Israel,

Yahweh,

who’s

mentioned

in

the

Septuagint

in

Deuteronomy

chapter

32,

eight

to

nine,

as

one

of

the

most

high

God’s

sons,

appears

to

be

understood

by

early

Israelites

to

be

married

to

Asherah.

01:10:34

as

is

evidenced

by

the

Judean

pillar

figurines

and

the

inscriptions

that

refer

to

Yahweh

and

His

Asherah.

So

if

I

were

to

guess

whether

or

not

Christ,

the

hero

son

of

El,

God

the

Father,

was

married,

I

would

guess

that

he

was.

Because

that

is

what

we

find

across

the

ancient

world.

The

hero

son

was

married

to…

01:11:03

Marriage

as

you

can

see

was

part

and

partial

to

the

theology

of

the

ancient

tradition

Before

I

close

this

out.

I

want

to

offer

up

one

last

thought

about

Christ’s

marital

status

This

is

something

that

I’ve

thought

about

for

a

while

It’s

something

that

I’ve

never

heard

anyone

else

suggest

Scholar

or

layman

so

keep

that

in

mind

Still

the

same.

I

think

there’s

something

here

If

you’ll

recall

earlier

in

today’s

discussion

on

otter

off

01:11:34

the

high

god

El’s

wife.

We

noted

that

Atarat’s

proper

name,

Atarat,

and

the

special

epitaph

that

was

given

to

her,

kudzu,

both

meant

the

same

thing,

a

holy

place,

a

sanctuary,

or

a

temple.

From

this

we

glean

that

God’s

wife

is

so

holy

that

she

herself

is

holy

space,

that

she’s

the

01:12:03

personification

of

a

sanctuary

or

temple.

I

find

the

identification

of

God’s

wife

with

a

temple

incredibly

compelling

because

when

we

examine

the

title

assigned

to

Mary

Magdalene

in

the

early

Christian

tradition,

we

find

the

same

thing.

The

name

Magdalene

is

not

a

surname.

01:12:31

--- page 114 ---

It’s

what’s

called

a

toponymic

identifier.

It

means

of.

It’s

widely

believed,

and

there’s

a

good

reason

for

this,

that

the

designation

Magdalene

means

of

Magdala,

which

refers

to

a

first

century

Jewish

village

named

Magdala,

located

on

the

western

shore

of

the

Sea

of

Galilee.

Luke

describes

Mary

Magdalene

in

chapter

23

verse

55

as,

quote,

01:13:00

the

woman

which

came

with

Jesus

from

Galilee.

So

it’s

appropriate

to

conclude

that

she

was

from

the

village

of

Magdala

in

Galilee.

This

was

a

common

naming

convention

used

in

the

ancient

world

to

distinguish

individuals

who

shared

the

same

first

name.

So

calling

her

Mary

Magdalene

would

distinguish

her

from

the

other

Marys

in

Christ’s

circle.

Mary

Magdalene

would

be

like

saying

Mary

from

the

village

of

Magdala.

Now,

01:13:30

I

don’t

contend

with

any

of

this,

it’s

sound.

But

I

would

argue

from

what

we’ve

seen

in

so

many

of

the

world’s

ancient

texts

that

we’ve

covered

on

the

program,

that

there’s

more

here

than

meets

the

eye.

Remember,

symbols

were

intentionally

used

by

the

ancients

in

their

writings

to

both

reveal

and

conceal

important

sacred

truths.

And

I

think

that

that

is

what

is

going

on

here.

01:13:58

See,

the

name

Magdal

originates

from

the

Aramaic

word

magdala,

which

means

tower.

This

is

closely

related

to

the

Hebrew

word

migdal,

which

also

means

tower,

and

which

comes

from

the

root

gadal,

which

means

to

be

great

or

high.

So

here

we

see

that

Mary’s

name

Magdalene

is

associated

with

being

great,

high,

and

with

a

tower.

01:14:28

Well,

why

is

this

significant?

Well,

it’s

significant

because

in

the

Old

Testament

a

tower

was

used

to

symbolize

sacred

space.

The

most

sacred

space

in

the

entire

Israelite

world.

The

Israelite

temple,

the

Temple

of

Yahweh.

I’m

going

to

illustrate

this

by

turning

to

Isaiah

chapter

5.

01:14:56

the

parable

of

the

Lord’s

vineyard.

Listen

to

the

first

couple

of

verses.

And

this

is

Isaiah

speaking.

My

well-beloved,

Isaiah

is

speaking

of

Yahweh

here,

hath

a

vineyard

in

a

very

fruitful

hill.

Note

how

this

vineyard

is

on

a

hill.

And

he

fenced

it.

Note

how

there’s

a

fence

around

Yahweh’s

vineyard.

This

is

the

fence,

the

cosmic

wall.

01:15:25

We

spent

episodes

number

51,

52,

and

53

talking

about.

And

gathered

out

the

stones

thereof

and

planted

it

with

the

choicest

vine.

Note

how

Yahweh

planted

a

vine

inside

the

sacred

space.

This

is

the

same

as

planting

a

tree

or

trees

in

the

Garden

of

Eden.

It’s

talking

about

a

person

or

people

here.

Now

listen

to

this.

And

built

a

tower

in

the

midst

of

it.

A

tower.

01:15:55

And

where

did

he

build

this

tower?

The

text

says,

in

the

midst.

In

the

midst

of

the

vineyard,

right

in

the

middle,

in

the

sacred

center

of

the

vineyard,

God

built

a

tower.

What

this

means

is

that

the

tower

doesn’t

exactly

represent

God’s

temple.

The

whole

vineyard

represents

God’s

temple.

The

area

fenced

off

from

the

dragon.

So

what

does

the

tower

represent?

01:16:26

Sometimes

this

tower

is

referred

to

as

a

watchtower

because

it’s

the

tower

from

which

Yahweh

watches

over

his

vineyard.

Again

though,

what

does

this

tower

represent?

Well,

the

tower

represents

the

innermost

sanctum

of

God’s

temple,

the

place

where

God

himself

dwells.

The

tower

represents

the

most

sacred

place

in

the

entire

cosmos.

--- page 115 ---

01:16:56

the

Holy

of

Holies.

Yeah,

the

Holy

of

Holies.

So

when

I

read

in

Matthew,

Mark,

Luke,

and

John

that

Jesus’s

most

intimate

female

disciple,

Mary

Magdalene’s

epitaph,

means

tower,

I

pause.

And

I

really

pause

when

I

couple

this

with

the

knowledge

that

in

the

Ugaritic

literature,

the

high

god

El’s

wife,

Atarat,

01:17:23

was

also

given

a

proper

name

and

the

epitaph

kudzu

meaning

temple

or

sanctuary.

With

both

Adirad

and

Mary

Magdalene,

we’re

getting

an

incredibly

strong

association

between

a

female

close

to

God

and

their

name

connotating

sacred

space,

a

temple

or

the

Holy

of

Holies.

In

Greek,

Mary

isn’t

referred

to

as

Mary

Magdalene.

01:17:52

She’s

referred

to

as

Mary

the

Magdalene.

In

its

exoteric

form,

this

would

be

Mary

the

woman

of

Magdala.

In

its

esoteric

form,

from

what

we’ve

seen

in

this

episode,

it

would

be

Mary

the

Holy

of

Holies.

Now,

I’m

not

exactly

sure

what

this

means

theologically,

but

it’s

there.

01:18:21

We

haven’t

gotten

into

this

in

the

program

yet,

but

the

innermost

sanctum,

the

Holy

of

Holies

in

the

ancient

world

was

also

associated

with

the

marital

bedchamber.

So

that’s

worth

considering

too.

At

a

minimum,

I

think

it’s

safe

to

conclude

that

these

women

were

so

holy

that

they

themselves

were

the

personification

of

a

sanctuary.

01:18:49

Maybe

it’s

that

they

were

so

holy

that

they

themselves

were

a

holy

of

holies.

That’s

definitely

what

their

epitaphs

seem

to

imply,

which

to

me

is

just

mind

blowing.

I’ve

got

to

leave

it

there.

We’ll

pick

it

up

right

here

in

our

next

episode.

With

that,

I’ll

leave

you

with

the

words

of

William

Shakespeare,

knowledge

is

the

wing

we’re

with.

01:19:18

we

fly

to

heaven.

I’m

Jack

Logan.

01:19:27

You’ve

been

listening

to

the

Ancient

Tradition.

A

Wonk

Media

Production.

Episode

#58

-

Who

is

God?

-

A

Married

Being,

Part

III

https://theancienttradition.com/58-who-is-god-a-married-being-part-iii/

00:00

Music

--- page 116 ---

00:09

You’re

listening

to

The

Ancient

Tradition.

A

Wonk

Media

Production.

Music

provided

by

Joseph

McDade.

He

is

your

host,

Dr.

Jack

Logan.

00:25

Welcome

to

the

ancient

tradition.

I’m

your

host,

Jack

Logan.

00:32

Welcome

to

the

program.

It’s

great

to

have

all

of

you

listening

in

today.

It’s

beautiful

outside

my

window.

I

hope

it’s

the

same

outside

yours.

Today’s

episode

is

jam

packed.

So

I’m

going

to

just

jump

right

in.

Before

I

do

though,

I

want

to

let

our

new

listeners

know

that

this

podcast

has

a

companion

website,

theancienttradition.com.

You

can

find

pictures

and

links

and

a

transcript

for

today’s

episode

right

on

the

site.

00:59

And

you

can

also

find

some

general

information

about

the

podcast,

past

episodes,

and

a

list

of

notable

books

and

scholars

if

you

want

to

continue

researching.

Sometimes

there’s

a

delay

between

episodes,

so

if

you’re

curious

as

to

when

the

next

episode

will

be

released,

check

out

the

website,

because

we

usually

post

updates

there.

For

the

past

couple

of

episodes,

we’ve

been

examining

who

God

is.

01:25

You’ve

probably

noticed

that

much

of

what

the

ancients

taught

about

the

nature

of

God

is

at

odds

with

what

much

of

the

modern

world

teaches

about

the

nature

of

God.

And

one

such

source

of

difference

is

God’s

marital

status.

In

the

past

two

episodes,

we’ve

seen

that

the

ancients

taught

that

God

does

not

rule

over

the

heavens

as

a

solitary

being.

They

taught

that

God

is

married,

that

01:54

He

rules

over

the

heavens

with

his

divine

consort,

his

wife,

the

queen

of

heaven.

A

divine

woman

who

we

learned

in

our

last

episode

is

described

in

the

Ugaritic

literature

as

Kadesh,

the

personification

of

holiness,

the

personification

of

sacred

space,

which

is

quite

something.

So

in

those

episodes,

we

established

that

the

high

God

in

Egypt

02:24

Mesopotamia

and

Canaan

were

married.

And

then

we

also

looked

at

some

archeological

evidence

that

indicated

that

some

Israelites

during

the

first

temple

period,

particularly

in

the

vicinity

of

Jerusalem,

believed

that

the

God

of

the

Old

Testament

was

married.

So

today

we’re

gonna

wrap

up

our

discussion

on

God’s

marital

status

by

looking

all

over

the

world.

We’re

gonna

look

at

all

of

the

major

civilizations.

02:50

We’re

gonna

look

at

the

Hindu,

the

Chinese,

the

Hittites,

the

Greeks,

and

the

Maya,

and

a

couple

others.

And

what

you’re

gonna

see

is

that

with

the

notable

exception

of

Islam,

in

every

one

of

these

ancient

civilizations,

the

high

god

is

married.

So

let’s

start

with

the

Hindu.

Among

the

Hindu,

the

creator

god

is

Brahma.

He’s

a

member

of

the

Trimurti.

03:17

the

Trinity

of

Supreme

Divinity,

which

includes

Vishnu

and

Shiva.

If

you

remember,

Brahma

is

the

God

who

resided

inside

the

Haranyagarbha,

the

golden

egg,

the

universal

womb,

the

sacred

center,

which

is

akin

to

the

Holy

of

Holies.

Remember,

this

is

the

egg

that

appeared

over

the

primordial

waters,

then

broke

open.

Brahma

came

forth

and

created

the

heavens

and

the

earth.

--- page 117 ---

03:44

So

what

do

the

Hindu

writings

say

about

Brahma’s

marital

status?

Well,

in

pretty

much

all

of

the

Hindu

scriptures,

in

the

Vedas,

the

Brahmanas,

the

Upanishads,

and

in

the

Puranas,

Brahma

is

described

as

being

married.

He’s

married

to

the

goddess

Saraswati.

It’s

in

the

Mutsya

Purana,

which

is

considered

the

oldest

04:11

and

the

most

authoritative

of

the

Puranas.

It’s

dated

to

between

250

and

500

AD

that

we

read

of

Brahma’s

enchantment

and

then

marriage

to

the

goddess

Saraswati.

In

this

account,

Brahma

sees

Saraswati,

he’s

enchanted

with

her,

and

then

listen

to

what

happens

next.

Starting

in

chapter

three,

line

35,

we

read,

and

this

is

the

A

Talukdhar

of

Ud

translation.

04:40

Brahma

continued

uttering,

Oh,

what

an

enchanting

form.

Oh,

what

an

enchanting

form

in

his

love

for

the

goddess

Saraswati.

And

the

latter,

referring

to

Saraswati,

after

saluting

him

began

to

circumambulate

him

in

reverence.

Brahma

fixed

his

gaze

on

Saraswati

and

could

not

distract

himself

from

her

as

she

was

circumambulating

him.

05:08

He

felt

shy

of

turning

his

head

each

time

to

her

direction.

He

therefore

created

four

heads,

each

pointed

to

a

direction

in

order

that

he

may

see

Saraswati

undisturbed

without

having

to

turn

his

head

each

time

in

course

of

her

circumambulations.

Brahma,

fired

with

passion

in

her

company,

married

Saraswati

and

began

to

pass

his

days

in

enjoyment

inside

a

lotus.

05:37

He

enjoyed

the

company

of

Saraswati

for

a

hundred

years

and

after

a

long

time

Manu

was

born

to

them.

Okay,

there’s

a

lot

of

interesting

things

going

on

in

this

account.

Did

you

catch

what

Saraswati

was

doing?

Because

it’s

important.

The

text

tells

us

that

she

quote,

began

to

circumambulate

him

in

reverence.

So

she’s

making

a

circle

around

him.

Do

you

recognize

what

Saraswati

is

making

here?

06:07

If

you’ve

been

listening

to

the

program

for

a

while,

you

should

probably

know.

If

Brahma

is

sitting

in

the

middle

and

Saraswati

is

making

a

circle

around

him,

what

is

Saraswati

making?

She’s

making

a

circum-punked.

Yes,

a

circum-punked.

And

what

is

the

circum-punked

meant

to

symbolize?

If

you

recall,

it’s

meant

to

focus

our

attention

on

what’s

in

the

center.

06:37

the

sacred

center.

It’s

meant

to

symbolize

that

Brahma

resides

in

the

sacred

center

of

all

things,

in

the

Holy

of

Holies.

Are

you

beginning

to

see

how

in

no

matter

which

religion

we

look,

we’re

being

taught

the

same

doctrine

here

about

God?

What

accounts

for

this?

This

is

a

serious

historical,

archaeological,

anthropological,

and

sociological

question.

Now,

07:06

Brahma

is

so

struck

by

Saraswati

that

he

doesn’t

want

to

take

his

eyes

off

of

her

while

she’s

circling

around

him.

So

what

does

he

do?

He

creates

four

heads,

one

head

to

face

each

of

the

cardinal

points,

north,

south,

east,

and

west.

Keep

in

mind

though

that

this

is

symbolic.

Brahma

didn’t

literally

create

four

heads

for

himself.

The

four

heads

are

meant

to

convey

a

deeper

meaning.

07:32

--- page 118 ---

If

you

recall

in

the

ancient

world,

the

four

cardinal

points

were

used

to

mark

the

center

place.

Where

the

four

cardinal

points

converged

marked

the

center,

the

sacred

center.

The

sacred

center

again

of

all

things.

And

it’s

right

where

the

four

cardinal

points

converge

that

Brahma

sits.

So

take

note

how

this

account

is

emphasizing

the

same

symbolic

message

twice.

08:01

that

Brahma

resides

in

the

sacred

center

of

the

cosmos.

Now

it’s

important

to

note

here

in

this

passage

that

Brahma

is

not

symbolically

associated

with

the

sacred

center

until

Saraswati

comes

onto

the

scene.

It’s

Saraswati

who

creates

the

circum-punct.

It’s

Saraswati’s

presence

that

triggers

Brahma

to

create

four

heads.

08:29

If

you

recall

in

the

ancient

world

when

the

ancients

used

the

four

cardinal

points,

they

used

them

to

symbolize

geographic

totality.

So

in

this

passage,

Brahma’s

four

heads

are

being

used

to

convey

the

notion

that

he

is

the

Lord

over

the

totality

of

his

creations.

He

is

the

King

of

the

four

corners.

For

the

purposes

of

today’s

episode

though,

I

want

you

to

see

that

the

author

of

this

Hindu

scripture

wants

you,

the

reader.

08:58

recognize

that

Brahma

doesn’t

create

four

heads.

He

doesn’t

become

the

king

of

the

four

corners

until

Saraswati

comes

onto

the

scene.

The

author

wants

you

to

understand

that

Saraswati

played

some

sort

of

really

important

role

in

Brahma’s

exaltation

as

a

cosmic

king.

Now

speaking

of

cosmic

kingship

in

traditional

Indian

iconography

09:26

Brahma

is

almost

always

depicted

with

these

four

heads

that

he

created

after

meeting

Saraswati.

And

then

on

each

one

of

his

head,

he’s

topped

with

a

golden

crown.

Yes,

a

crown.

And

get

this,

each

golden

crown

is

shaped

like

a

mountain.

He’s

wearing

four

mountain

crowns

called

Makuta

crowns.

Why?

Because

this

crown

represents

the

sacred

mountain,

Mount

Maru.

09:55

which

is

the

Hindu

cultural

expression

of

the

primordial

mound.

Yes,

Brahma

is

wearing

the

primordial

mound

on

each

of

his

foreheads.

They

are

his

crowns.

You

know,

why

would

he

do

this?

Well,

he

does

this

because

it

represents

his

personal

spiritual

ascent

and

his

authority

as

the

king

that

reigns

on

the

top

or

the

peak

of

the

mound.

Now,

after

this,

the

text

tells

us,

10:24

directly

that

Brahma

married

Saraswati.

The

text

reads,

quote,

Brahma

married

Saraswati

and

began

to

pass

his

days

in

enjoyment

inside

a

lotus.

The

text

couldn’t

state

it

any

more

clearly

than

it

has.

The

text

directly

states

that

the

high

Hindu

god

Brahma

is

married.

So

what

did

the

text

tell

us

that

they

did

after

they

got

married?

10:51

It

says

that

they

began

to

pass

their

days

in

enjoyment

living

inside

a

lotus.

Okay.

The

lotus

is

incredibly

important

in

Hinduism.

It’s

one

of

the

most

revered,

one

of

the

most

important

symbols

in

Hinduism.

It

represents

some

very

important

cosmological

and

theological

concepts.

First

of

all,

it

represents

creation.

When

the

lotus

blooms,

this

represents

the

cosmic

birth

of

the

universe

and

our

world.

11:21

And

it

also

represents

enlightenment,

the

spiritual

birth

of

those

that

are

seeking

greater

light.

And

it’s

a

really

great

symbol

because

the

real

life

water

lily

or

lotus

sits

right

on

the

waters,

just

--- page 119 ---

like

the

primordial

waters.

And

as

the

lotus

blooms,

beauty

and

order

and

creation

is

born

out

of

the

waters,

just

like

the

primordial

mound.

The

lotus

is

a

kin.

11:49

to

the

ancient

Near

Eastern

arc

or

bark

that

sits

on

the

waters.

So

just

like

the

ancient

Egyptian

Ray

sits

on

his

throne

in

the

center

of

the

arc

that

floats

on

the

waters,

the

Hindu

Brahma

sits

on

his

throne

in

the

center

of

the

lotus

that

floats

on

the

waters.

The

lotus

is

also

a

great

symbol

for

spiritual

enlightenment

or

growth

because

in

the

morning

when

the

sun

shines

down

on

the

lotus,

12:18

the

petals

unfold

or

blossom,

which

symbolizes

the

soul’s

expansion

that

accompanies

spiritual

growth

or

enlightenment.

And

when

the

spiritual

growth

is

fully

realized,

when

the

lotus

fully

blossoms,

it

symbolizes

divine

perfection.

So

when

we

learn

in

this

account

that

Brahma

and

Saraswati

lived

their

days

in

a

lotus,

12:45

That’s

akin

to

saying

that

they

lived

out

their

days

in

divine

perfection

together

in

the

sacred

center.

And

don’t

forget,

Brahma

sits

on

a

lotus

throne.

This

passage

is

basically

telling

us

that

the

high

God

Brahma

and

his

wife,

Saraswati,

lived

out

their

days

in

the

Holy

of

Holies,

which

is

incredibly

interesting,

especially

in

light

of

our

last

episode

where

we

13:12

learned

that

Mary

Magdalene’s

epitaph,

Magdhal

or

Migdhal,

meant

tower.

Both

passages,

this

one

here

in

the

Hindu

Mutsya

Purana

and

the

other

one

in

the

Christian

New

Testament,

Matthew

chapter

27

verses

55

to

56,

associate

female

intimates

of

God

with

the

Holy

of

Holies.

That’s

interesting.

13:39

If

you’d

like

to

see

a

depiction

of

the

four

headed

Brahma

crowned

with

gilded

Mount

Marous,

seated

on

a

lotus

throne,

you

can

find

it

on

the

webpage

for

this

episode.

In

chapter

four

of

the

Muttsia

Purana,

we

learn

a

little

bit

more

about

the

high

God

Brahma

and

his

wife

Saraswati’s

relationship.

Round

lines

eight

to

nine,

it

reads,

and

this

is

speaking

of

the

two,

quote,

she

is

the

better

half

of

the

Lord.

14:09

Brahma

and

Saraswati

are

inseparables.

Sometimes

only

one

of

the

two

puts

on

appearance

and

sometimes

both

do

the

same,

but

all

the

same,

both

are

always

together.

They

never

remain

apart

as

sunshine

or

light

never

lives

devoid

of

its

shadow.

Similarly,

Brahma

never

lives

apart

from

Saraswati.

That’s

a

beautiful

description

of

a

very

loving

14:38

relationship

between

the

high

god

Brahma,

the

lord

of

the

four

corners,

and

his

consort,

Saraswati,

living

together

as

inseparable

companions,

divine

husband

and

wife

in

the

sacred

lotus

center.

The

passage

we

read

earlier

in

chapter

three

ends

with

the

following

line,

quote,

he,

Brahma,

enjoyed

the

company

of

Saraswati

for

a

hundred

years,

and

after

a

long

time,

15:06

Manu

was

born

to

them.

So

this

passage

tells

us

that

a

long

time

after

Brahma

and

Saraswati

were

married,

Saraswati

gave

birth

to

a

baby

boy,

a

boy

named

Manu.

Now

this

is

very,

very

important

because

Manu

is

the

Hindu

atom,

the

first

man,

the

progenitor

of

the

human

race.

So

note

here

how

in

the

oldest

Hindu

Purana,

we

read

that

God,

the

creator,

--- page 120 ---

15:35

and

his

wife

Saraswati

gave

birth

to

the

first

human

being

on

earth,

Manu.

This

is

theologically

significant

and

we’ll

talk

about

this

a

lot

more

in

coming

episode.

I

just

wanted

to

point

it

out

here

so

it’s

on

your

radar.

When

we

look

at

the

iconography

of

Saraswati,

she’s

usually

depicted

wearing

a

white

sare

and

in

Hinduism,

white

represents

clarity.

16:03

purity

of

mind.

She’s

usually

wearing

the

Makuta

crown,

the

sacred

Mount

Maru,

just

like

her

husband,

and

she’s

usually

depicted

in

the

company

of

a

swan.

The

swan

represents

her

ability

to

discern

truth

from

falsehood

or

wisdom,

higher

truth

and

knowledge.

And

like

her

husband,

she’s

usually

depicted

seated

on

a

lotus.

16:33

Let’s

turn

to

the

Hurrians

now.

We

haven’t

talked

a

bunch

on

the

program

about

the

Hurrians,

but

we

should.

Scholars

believe

the

Hurrians

were

a

non-Semitic,

non-Indo-European

people

who

spoke

the

language

Hurrian

and

flourished

during

the

Bronze

Age,

which

was

from

the

mid-third

millennium

BC

to

the

early

first

millennium

BC.

They

inhabited

the

area

just

north

of

Syria.

17:00

and

Upper

Mesopotamia

and

then

South

Eastern

Anatolia,

which

is

modern

day

Turkey.

The

Hurrians

played

a

really

important

role

in

this

area

and

they

influenced

a

lot

of

their

neighbors

like

the

Hittites

who

inhabited

the

other

parts

of

Anatolia

or

Turkey.

The

Hurrians

were

polytheistic

and

chief

among

the

gods

was

Teshub,

T-E-S-H-U-B.

Teshub

is

sometimes

referred

to

as

a

hero

Hittite

god.

17:29

because

of

the

religious

syncretism

that

took

place

between

the

Hurrians

and

the

Hittites.

We’ve

talked

about

Teshab

briefly

on

the

program

a

couple

of

times.

If

you

don’t

remember,

not

surprising,

we

talk

about

a

lot

of

stuff

on

this

program,

but

to

kind

of

refresh

your

memory,

Teshab

is

the

hero

god

who

reigned

as

the

head

of

the

Hurrian

pantheon.

In

the

Hurrian

literature,

he

was

given

the

titles

Eri,

which

means

Lord,

and

Shari.

17:59

which

means

king.

And

he

was

also

referred

to

in

the

literature

as

Shari

Enatze,

which

means

king

of

the

gods.

And

in

at

least

one

text,

it

refers

to

him

as

Eni

Enaze,

which

means

god

of

gods.

There

aren’t

a

lot

of

depictions

of

Teshub

that

we

have

in

the

ancient

record,

but

the

ones

that

we

do

have

show

him

standing

on

a

bull

or,

no

surprise,

18:27

standing

on

a

mountain,

which

you

know

by

now

represents

the

Primordial

Hill.

Now

don’t

believe

I’ve

ever

gone

over

the

account

of

Teshub

slaying

the

monster

Ulcumi

on

the

program.

We’ve

talked

about

it,

but

I

don’t

remember

think

I’ve

ever

shared

the

story.

So

I

want

to

do

that

briefly

here.

In

a

text

known

as

the

Song

of

Ulcumi,

Teshub

battles

the

terrible

stone

monster

Ulcumi.

Ulcumi’s

name

means

18:56

Uli

destroy

and

Kumi

was

the

location

of

Teshub’s

temple,

his

residence.

It

was

the

center

of

Teshub

religious

worship.

So

we

can

see

by

the

monster’s

name

that

his

main

objective

here

was

to

destroy

Teshub

and

his

dominion.

His

main

objective

was

to

supplant

or

usurp

just

like

--- page 121 ---

all

of

the

other

monsters

that

we

see

across

the

ancient

world.

He

wanted

to

usurp

Teshub’s

throne.

19:24

Now,

Ulikumi

was

a

monster

that

was

made

of

stone,

but

the

text

tells

us

that

he

came

up

from

the

sea

waters.

In

this

text,

Ulikumi

is

referred

to

as

Basalt,

which

is

a

rock.

The

Song

of

Ulikumi,

Tablet

One,

starting

in

Section

19

reads,

just

as

Qumarbi,

now

Qumarbi

is

Teshub’s

father,

raised

Teshub.

So

now

he

has

raised

against

him

this

Basalt.

19:54

as

a

supplanter.

The

basalt

kept

growing.

It

was

standing

like

a

shaft

with

the

sea

coming

up

to

its

knees.

The

stone

came

out

of

the

water.

So

we’re

seeing

a

lot

of

parallels

here

with

the

sea

serpent.

In

tablet

two,

we

read

about

the

battle.

Starting

in

section

32,

it

reads,

quote,

Teshub,

the

king

of

Kumi

set

his

eye.

He

set

his

eye

upon

the

dreadful

basalt.

20:24

Teshub

sat

down

on

the

ground

and

his

tears

flowed

like

streams.

Tearfully,

Teshub

said,

who

can

any

longer

behold

the

struggle

of

such

a

one?

Who

can

behold

the

terrors

of

such

a

one

any

longer?

And

this

is

really

interesting.

Here

we

see

the

king

of

the

gods,

Teshub,

weeping

over

the

terror

that

the

terrible

monster

is

causing.

The

tablet’s

broken

in

this

section.

20:53

But

at

this

point

in

the

account,

Teshub’s

sister

comes

along

to

help

Teshub

by

singing

a

song,

which

is

like

a

prayer.

A

song

that

the

text

says,

quote,

heaven

and

earth

echoed

back,

which

is

super

interesting

because

we

get

the

chorus

idea

here,

like

we

talked

about

a

long

time

ago

when

we

talked

about

the

Lord

of

the

dance.

At

this

point,

a

wave

appears

out

of

the

water

and

says

something

really

interesting

to

Teshub’s

sister.

21:22

The

wave

says,

quote,

for

whose

benefit

are

you

singing?

The

man

referring

to

Ulikumi

is

deaf.

He

cannot

hear.

He

is

blind

in

his

eyes.

He

cannot

see.

He

has

no

compassion.

So

go

away

and

find

your

brother,

referring

to

Tesheb,

before

the

skull

of

his

head

becomes

really

terrifying.

21:50

Keep

the

reference

here

to

Ulikumi’s

inability

to

hear

or

see

in

your

back

pocket,

because

it’s

gonna

be

quite

relevant

when

we

get

to

ritual.

At

this

point,

the

battle

between

Teshub

and

Ulikumi

ensues.

Now

the

text

is

pretty

broken

here,

but

it

describes

Ulikumi

as

growing

to

this

absolutely

enormous

size.

It’s

described

in

the

text

as

growing.

22:15

to

9,000

danas

high

and

9,000

danas

wide.

A

dana

is

10.7

kilometers

long.

So

we’re

talking

about

an

absolutely

enormous

monster

here.

In

section

43,

it

reads,

it,

Uli

Kumi,

took

its

stand

before

the

gates

of

the

city

Kumi

like

a

shaft.

22:43

So

note

here

how

Ulikumi

stands

outside

the

gate

to

the

city.

He’s

outside

the

city

wall,

the

cosmic

wall

we

talked

about

in

episodes

number

51

to

53.

Then

in

section

60

it

says,

it,

Ulikumi,

has

blocked

heaven,

the

holy

temples.

Section

66,

the

valiant

king

of

Kumi

here.

Then

they

came

to

the

place

of

assembly.

23:10

So

we’re

talking

about

the

assembly

of

the

gods

here

and

all

the

gods

began

to

bellow

like

cattle

at

Uli

Kumi.

Teshub

leaped

into

his

wagon

and

with

thunder

came

down

to

the

sea.

--- page 122 ---

Teshub

fought

the

basalt.

The

monster

then

says

to

Teshub,

quote,

I

will

go

up

to

heaven

to

kingship.

I

will

take

to

myself

Kumi,

the

God’s

holy

temples.

23:39

and

the

Kuntara

shrines.

Now

Kuntara

shrines

are

temples.

They’re

the

houses

of

the

gods

in

the

heavens.

I

will

scatter

the

gods

down

from

the

sky

like

meal,

which

is

like

flower.

So

this

suggests

that

there’s

a

whole

lot

of

gods

in

the

heavens.

Now,

unfortunately

the

tablet

breaks

here,

so

we

don’t

know

how

the

battle

ends,

but

it’s

presumed

that

Teshub

came

off

victor,

because

in

the

other

text

it

shows

that

Teshub

is

the

one

who

ultimately

reigns

24:08

as

the

king

of

the

gods

and

not

Ulikumi.

And

there

are

other

hero

Hittite

texts

that

confirm

Teshub’s

victory

like

the

Song

of

the

Sea,

KBO

26.105

and

the

myth

of

Piscesa.

Interestingly,

Gary

Beckman,

he’s

a

professor

of

Hittite

in

Mesopotamian

studies

at

the

University

of

Michigan.

And

he

argues

that

the

battle

over

kingship

in

heaven,

like

we’ve

been

arguing

on

this

program,

shows

up

all

over

the

ancient

world.

24:38

On

page

570

of

his

book

mythology,

he

writes,

parallels

with

Greek

material,

especially

with

the

theogony

of

Hesiod

have

led

to

the

question

of

whether

the

myth

of

battle

for

mastery

in

heaven

might

be

of

Indo-European

origin.

But

since

similarities

are

also

to

be

noted

in

Mesopotamian

and

Syrian

mythology,

we

may

rather

be

dealing

with

a

mythological

aerial

feature,

common

25:07

to

the

Eastern

Mediterranean

area,

Anatolia

and

Mesopotamia.

Which

of

course

is

exactly

what

I’ve

been

arguing

that

this

is

all

coming

out

of

one

common

fount.

In

terms

of

the

premise

of

this

podcast

and

some

of

the

stubborn

bits

that

we’ve

discussed

in

the

program,

I

hope

this

gives

you

a

better

idea

of

who

the

Hurrian

High

God

Teshup

is

and

how

he

fits

right

in

with

the

dragon.

25:35

divine

kingship

pattern

that

we

see

all

across

the

ancient

world.

Now

for

the

purposes

of

today’s

episode

though,

the

Hurrian

Hittites

tell

us

that

the

king

of

the

gods,

Tesheb,

was

married.

And

we

find

this

on

a

god

list.

It’s

similar

to

the

Sumerian

god

list

on

equals

Anum

that

we

talked

about

a

couple

of

episodes

ago.

Alfonso

Archie,

doctor

of

Anatolian

studies

and

the

author

of

the

Western

Hurrian

Pantheon

and

its

background.

26:05

published

in

the

book

Beyond

Hati,

writes,

speaking

of

the

Hurrian

god

lists

found

in

Aleppo,

the

following

on

page

nine,

quote,

at

the

head

of

the

pantheon

are

Teshub

and

his

consort,

Hebat,

H-E-B-A-T,

each

of

whom

is

followed

by

a

court

known

as

a

kaludi

of

deities,

respectively

male

and

female.

26:32

According

to

KUB

29.8,

1,

3-7,

and

50-57,

the

gods

were

aligned

along

the

right

side,

the

goddesses

on

the

left.

So

like

we

saw

with

the

Sumerian

god

list,

Teshub

is

inscribed

in

the

right

hand

column

and

his

wife

Hebet’s

name

is

inscribed

in

the

left

hand

column.

It’s

from

this

list

that

we

see

that

the

high

Herohittite

god,

Teshub

was

married.

27:01

Now,

interestingly,

French

Assyriologist

Jean-Marie

Durand

argues

that

Hebbat’s

name

is

likely

derived

from

the

Semitic

root

H-B-B,

which

means

to

love.

So

he

proposes

interpreting

her

--- page 123 ---

name,

Hebbat,

as

beloved.

Now,

we

haven’t

discussed

this

in

the

program

yet,

but

this

is

quite

significant.

When

we

get

into

ritual,

I’m

going

to

argue

that

the

phrase

the

beloved

27:27

isn’t

just

a

nice

expression,

but

that

it

was

used

by

the

ancients

as

an

epitaph

to

designate

someone

who

was

ritually

complete,

one

who

had

experienced

full

spiritual

rebirth

as

a

son

or

in

this

case,

a

daughter

of

God.

In

the

ancient

world,

the

title

beloved

was

used

to

designate

someone

who

had

gained

favor

or

who

had

a

special

relationship

with

God.

The

epitaphs

27:56

Beloved

of

Atum

and

Beloved

of

Reh

were

regularly

used

in

ancient

Egypt

by

the

pharaohs

right

in

their

royal

titularity

to

express

their

divine

legitimacy,

their

close

relationship

with

the

gods.

For

example,

Ramses

II,

his

Horus

name

was

Ka-Nacht-Meri-Ra,

which

renders

the

strong

bull

Beloved

of

Ra.

28:26

In

ancient

Egyptian,

the

word

for

beloved

was

Mary,

rendered

M-E-R-Y

in

English,

which

is

why

Ramsey’s

the

second’s

horse

name

was

Ka-Nacht-Mary-Ra.

Now

there’s

lots

of

variants

of

his

horse

name.

One

of

them,

variate

C3,

has

it

Ka-Nacht-Sa-A-Tun,

which

renders

the

strong

bull,

son

of

Atun.

So

we

can

see

in

this

variant

that

beloved

28:55

is

replaced

with

son.

And

I’m

going

to

talk

about

this

a

whole

lot

more

down

the

line,

but

I

wanted

to

point

it

out

here

because

it

highlights

the

significance

of

the

Herohittite

High

God’s

wife’s

name,

Chabad,

which

according

to

Durand

means

the

beloved.

To

be

named

beloved

is

also

significant

in

terms

of

the

discussion

that

we

had

in

our

last

episode

about

Mary

Magdalene.

Why?

Well,

29:23

Because

a

lot

of

scholars

argue

that

the

popular

name

Mary,

M-A-R-Y,

is

of

Egyptian

origin.

The

scholars

argue

that

Egypt

is

most

likely

the

origin

for

the

name

Mary

because

of

the

historical

context

of

the

Israelites

in

Egypt.

They

argue

that

Miriam,

a

name

that

was

famously

born

by

Moses’s

sister,

was

derived

from

the

Egyptian

titled

Maryamun,

meaning,

like

we

just

mentioned,

29:53

beloved

of

Amun.

They

argue

that

Maryamun

became

Maryum

and

Maryum

was

then

shortened

to

Mary,

meaning,

you

guessed

it,

the

beloved.

So

this

would

mean

that

Mary

Magdalene’s

name

could

be

rendered

the

beloved,

the

tower.

A

rendering

that

I

argue

carries

absolutely

profound

theological

30:22

significance.

It’s

not

too

much

to

surmise

that

Miriam

is

a

name

of

Egyptian

origin

because

it’s

well

established

among

scholars

that

the

name

of

Miriam’s

brother,

Moses,

is

an

Egyptian

name.

And

you’re

never

going

to

guess

what

Moses’s

name

is

in

Egyptian.

It

means

son.

So

for

example,

tutmoses,

tutmoses

means

son

of

those.

In

the

compound

name,

the

God’s

name

comes

first.

30:50

and

then

it’s

followed

by

Moses,

which

indicates

to

be

born

of

or

son

of.

So

among

the

Israelites,

the

name

Moses

doesn’t

tell

us

who

Moses

is

the

son

of,

but

considering

the

Egyptian

context

of

the

name,

this

implies

that

Moses

is

the

son

of

God,

which

you’ll

see

down

the

line,

--- page 124 ---

like

I

mentioned,

is

of

profound

theological

significance.

A

significance

that

is

like

we

see

in

ancient

Egypt

directly

tied

to

kingship.

31:19

Or

in

terms

of

today’s

discussion,

queenship.

31:24

All

right.

In

the

Heru-Hittite

literature,

Teshub’s

wife,

Habat,

is

given

some

pretty

great

epitaphs.

Queen

or

Lady

of

Heaven.

And

in

a

Hittite

treaty

between

Hatti

and

Egypt,

it’s

actually

inscribed

right

on

the

walls

of

the

Temple

of

Amun

in

Karnak.

It’s

known

as

the

treaty

between

Ramses

II

and

Hattusalee

III.

Teshub’s

wife,

Habat.

31:53

given

the

distinct

epitaph,

Queen

of

Heaven.

There’s

some

interesting

things

in

the

Haryan

religious

tradition.

For

example,

there

are

two

distinct

rituals

there.

The

ritual

of

kingship

is

known

as

the

Sarasi

ritual.

It

confirmed

Teshab’s

status

as

the

supreme

divine

ruler.

It

paralleled

earthly

kingship.

But

there’s

also

actually

a

ritual

of

ladyship

or

queenship.

It’s

known

as

the

Alasi

ritual.

32:23

and

it

emphasized

Chabot’s

status

as

the

Queen

of

Heaven

or

as

the

tablet

that

outlines

this

ritual

known

as

CTH

718.

It’s

dated

to

between

1600

and

1180

BC,

calls

her

in

section

19,

the

quote,

lady

of

gods

and

kings.

I

like

that

one.

Gary

Beckman,

he’s

the

expert

on

the

Alasi

ritual

and

he

wrote

a

whole

book

about

32:52

cth

718

it’s

titled

the

babalili

ritual

from

hatusha

and

this

is

what

it

says

about

the

purpose

of

the

ritual

on

page

five

he

writes

quote

the

goal

of

the

babalili

ritual

is

the

purification

of

a

member

of

the

royal

family

from

the

pollution

of

sin

so

note

that

the

goal

33:18

the

Alasi

Queenship

Ritual

is

to

purify

those

participating

in

the

ritual

from

sin.

In

CTH

718

section

3

we

learn

that

in

this

Queenship

Ritual,

a

Katra

woman,

and

a

Katra

woman

is

a

priestess,

is

to

go

down

to

a

spring

and

to

make

offerings

into

the

spring

of

bread

and

wine

and

oil

and

then

draw

the

water.

The

text

refers

to

this

water

as

the

water

of

purification.

33:49

So

he’s

then

to

take

the

purified

water

to

the

gate

house,

which

scholars

believe

refers

to

the

primary

gate

of

the

capital

city

of

the

Hittites,

Hattusha.

Now

can’t

remember

if

we’ve

talked

about

this

in

the

program

or

not,

but

Hattusha

was

surrounded

by

a

massive

wall.

It

was

over

five

miles

long

and

encircled

the

entire

city.

And

if

you’ve

listened

to

episodes

51

to

53,

you

know

why

Hattusha

was

surrounded

by

a

wall.

There’s

a

lot

of

archeological

remains

still.

34:18

So

we

know

that

outsiders

could

access

the

city

through

five

different

gates,

the

Lion

Gate,

the

King’s

Gate,

and

the

Sphinx

Gate.

The

most

prominent

gate

was

the

Lion’s

Gate.

So

this

is

likely

the

gate

where

the

priestess

was

to

take

the

water

of

purification.

Like

I

mentioned,

there’s

a

lot

of

remains

today.

So

just

as

a

quick

aside,

in

1986,

UNESCO

designated

the

ancient

Hittite

city

of

Hattusha

a

World

Heritage

Site.

So

if

you’d

like

to

see

pictures

of

the

Lion

Gate,

you

can

find

them.

34:47

--- page 125 ---

on

the

webpage

for

this

episode.

So

at

this

point

in

the

ritual,

the

participant

ritually

washes

their

hands.

And

then

there’s

this

really

elaborate

ritual

that

unfolds.

It’s

significant

to

note

that

this

purification

ritual

takes

place

at

the

gate

of

the

city,

because

this

implies

that

the

participant

cannot

enter

the

city

without

being

washed

or

purified

first.

And

this

makes

sense

when

we

consider

that

the

walled

city

itself

35:17

is

a

microcosm,

a

microcosmic

representation

of

God’s

grand

cosmic

temple.

To

enter

the

city

of

Atusha

is

to

enter

sacred

space,

so

one

must

be

purified

to

enter

that

space.

As

part

of

the

Elasi

queenship

ritual,

two

sheep

were

involved.

Beckman

writes,

quote,

near

the

end

of

the

tablet,

the

scene

shifts

to

a

riverbank

where

two

additional

sheep

35:46

one

for

the

deity

and

one

for

the

offerent

are

introduced

as

substitutes.

Unfortunately,

the

ultimate

disposition

of

these

animals

is

obscured

by

a

break

in

the

text.

So

we

don’t

know

how

these

two

sheep

were

used,

but

the

ultimate

purpose

of

the

ritual

was

to

purify

the

participant

who

was

a

member

of

the

royal

family

from

the

pollution

of

sin.

Overall,

you

can

see

36:14

According

to

the

hero

Hittite

literature,

the

high

god

Teshub

was

married.

And

there’s

a

lot

of

very

interesting

things

going

on

with

his

wife,

Habat’s

proper

name,

her

epitaphs,

and

the

queenship

rituals

associated

with

her.

Now

let’s

take

a

look

at

ancient

Greece.

The

high

god

of

the

Titans

was

Cronus.

So

according

to

the

ancient

Greek

literature,

was

he

married?

Yes,

yes

he

was.

He

was

married

to

Rhea.

36:42

Together

Cronus

and

Rhea

ruled

as

the

king

and

the

queen

of

the

Titans.

In

line

453

of

Hesiod’s

Theogony

we

read,

and

this

is

the

Hugh

G.

Evelyn

White

translation,

quote,

But

Rhea

was

subject

in

love

to

Cronus

and

bore

splendid

children,

Hesia,

Demeter,

and

gold-shot

Hera,

and

strong

Hades

and

wise

Zeus.

So

as

we

can

see

here,

Rhea

is

37:12

the

mother

of

the

gods.

Now,

what

about

the

high

god

Zeus

who

overthrew

Cronus

and

became

the

high

god?

Was

he

married?

Yes,

yes

he

was.

He

was

married

to

Hera.

Together

Zeus

and

Hera

reigned

on

Mount

Olympus

as

the

king

and

queen

of

the

gods.

She

is

the

queen

of

the

12

Olympians

on

Mount

Olympus.

We

read

of

Zeus’s

marriage

to

Hera.

37:40

between

lines

920

and

925

of

Hesiod’s

theogony,

which

reads,

quote,

he,

Zeus,

made

Hera

his

blooming

wife,

and

she

was

joined

in

love

with

the

king

of

gods

and

men,

and

brought

forth

Hebe

and

Ares

and

Aletheia.

In

Aristophanes’

Greek

comedy,

Birds,

38:06

dated

to

the

fifth

century

BC,

we

also

learn

of

Zeus’s

marriage

to

Hera.

Starting

in

line

1720,

it

reads,

quote,

let

your

nuptial

hymns,

your

nuptial

songs

greet

Zeus

and

his

wife.

It

was

in

the

midst

of

such

wedding

festivities

that

the

fates

formerly

united

Olympian

Hera

to

the

King

Zeus,

who

governs

the

gods

from

the

summit

of

his

inaccessible

throne.

38:36

Oh

Hymen.

Now

Hymen

is

the

Greek

god

of

marriage

ceremonies.

Oh

Hymenos,

rosy

Eros

with

the

golden

wings,

held

he

reigns

and

guided

the

chariot,

twas

he

who

presided

over

the

--- page 126 ---

union

of

Zeus

and

the

fortunate

Hera.

In

this

passage

we

can

see

it

clearly

indicates

that

Zeus

and

Hera

were

married.

Interestingly,

the

goddess

Gaia

39:05

gave

Zeus

and

Hera

a

tree

with

golden

apples

as

their

wedding

gift.

Hera

was

so

delighted

to

receive

this

gift

and

she

asked

Gaia

to

plant

it

in

her

divine

garden,

which

was

located

at

the

far

western

edge

of

the

world.

These

golden

apples

were

believed

to

grant

immortality

to

those

who

ate

them

and

they

were

guarded

by

a

hundred

headed

dragon

named

Laedon

who

never

slept.

39:35

In

the

ancient

Greek

historian,

Diodorus

Siculeus’s

history

known

as

the

Library

of

History,

Book

5,

we

find

a

very

interesting

passage

about

how

the

Greeks

on

the

island

of

Crete

imitated

or

replicated

the

marriage

between

Zeus

and

Hera.

Chapter

72,

Section

4

reads,

men

say

that

the

marriage

of

Zeus

and

Hera

was

held

in

the

territory

of

the

Nassians

on

the

island

of

Crete.

40:03

at

the

place

near

the

river

Theron,

where

now

a

temple

stands

in

which

the

natives

of

the

palace

annually

offer

holy

sacrifices

and

imitate

the

ceremony

of

the

marriage

in

the

manner

in

which

tradition

tells

it

was

originally

performed.

So

when

we

read

here

that

once

a

year,

the

people

of

Crete

reenacted

the

marriage

of

Zeus

and

Hera,

it’s

clear

that

their

union

was

understood

or

honored

as

a

heros

gamos.

40:34

Their

divine

union

was

more

than

myth.

It

symbolized

the

archetypal

marriage,

the

cosmic

union

that

guaranteed

fertility,

order,

and

prosperity

in

the

cosmos

and

on

earth.

Zeus

and

Hera’s

marriage

served

as

the

divine

model.

As

above,

so

below.

For

all

marriages,

the

sacred

bond

believed

to

be

the

bedrock

of

both

divine

and

mortal

society.

41:04

In

the

Greek

literature,

Hera

is

given

a

lot

of

really

important

epitaphs

like

bride,

patroness

of

marriage,

the

yoke

of

marriage,

one

who

brings

the

fulfillment

of

marriage,

as

well

as

queen,

she

of

the

heights.

And

listen

to

this

one,

she

of

the

mound,

life-giving,

bearing

arms

or

shield,

the

giver

of

victory.

When

we

look

at

her

name,

Hera,

41:32

Entomologically

speaking,

nobody’s

quite

sure

what

her

name

means

or

where

it

came

from,

but

there’s

been

a

lot

of

scholars

and

historians

and

philosophers

who

have

offered

up

varying

possibilities.

Two

of

these

possibilities

are

actually

quite

interesting.

One

possibility

is

that

her

name

is

connected

to

the

Greek

word

hora,

which

according

to

Strong’s

Greek

dictionary

means

a

finite

season,

a

limited

time.

It’s

where

we

get

our

English

word

hour.

42:02

Hora

is

believed

to

be

connected

to

the

idea

of

being

ripe

for

marriage,

which

indicates

that

there

was

a

right

age

or

a

season

for

marriage.

And

what’s

really

interesting

is

that

Plato

and

other

Greek

writers

used

the

word

errata

to

describe

someone

who

was

at

their

most

desirable,

most

beautiful

or

in

the

right

season.

And

you’re

never

going

to

guess

what

the

Greek

word

errata

means.

It

means

42:32

Beloved.

Yes,

beloved.

According

to

Plato,

errata

is

directly

translated

as

beloved.

It’s

used

in

the

ancient

Greek

literature

and

poetry

to

describe

someone

who

is

deeply

loved.

All

right,

and

--- page 127 ---

the

other

possibility,

and

this

is

offered

up

by

John

Chadwick.

He’s

an

English

linguist

and

classical

scholar.

He

argues

on

page

87

of

his

book,

The

Mycenaean

World,

quote,

43:00

her

name

may

be

connected

to

the

Greek,

heros.

Now,

heros

is

rendered

in

English

as

heroes

or

hero.

Chadwick

goes

on

to

add

that,

you

know,

it’s

impossible

to

know

since

the

entomology

is

pretty

obscure,

but

the

notion

that

her

name

could

be

associated

with

the

notion

of

a

hero

is

pretty

intriguing,

you

know,

especially

since

we’ve

learned

on

this

program,

heroes

are

individuals

who

slay

dragons

and

save

others

from

the

dragon.

43:27

It’s

intriguing

to

me

to

think

that

her

name

could

possibly

reflect

the

female

personification

of

the

hero.

Like

we

saw

in

our

last

episode

with

Baal’s

Anat

who

bound

the

dragon

or

El’s

wife,

Adara,

who

trampled

the

sea

monster.

Of

course,

it’s

not

a

sure

entomology

for

Hera,

but

I

also

want

to

point

out

it’s

worth

noting

that

the

hero

Heracles,

the

greatest

of

Greek

heroes,

is

named

after

her.

Hera.

43:56

Heracles,

if

you’ll

recall

Heracles

in

a

fit

of

madness

killed

his

wife

and

children.

Overwhelmed

with

grief

for

these

actions,

he

went

and

sought

guidance

from

the

Oracle

of

Delphi

and

the

Oracle

instructed

him

to

serve

the

King

of

Tyrrhyns.

The

King

of

Tyrrhyns

told

him

that

in

order

to

be

purified

of

his

sin,

he

had

to

complete

a

series

of

12

seemingly

impossible

tasks,

one

of

which

included

slaying,

44:25

the

nine-headed

fire-breathing

serpent

Hydra,

which

he

successfully

did.

In

his

name,

Heracles,

Hera

of

course

refers

to

Hera,

the

queen

of

the

gods.

And

Cleos

is

the

Greek

word

for

glory.

So

Heracles

means

Hera’s

glory

or

the

glory

of

Hera.

In

the

end,

Heracles

victoriously

triumphed

over

all

12

labors

44:53

earning

his

redemption,

bringing

glory

to

the

Queen

of

the

Gods.

45:02

If

we

turn

to

Persia,

to

Zoroastrianism,

was

the

high

god

Uhura

Mazda

married?

Well,

it

depends

on

who

you

ask.

In

mainstream

Zoroastrianism,

Uhura

Mazda

is

not

described

as

having

a

wife,

at

least

not

in

the

conventional

sense,

but

he

does

have

a

very,

very

close

female

counterpart

named

Spenta

Armaity.

In

other

Zoroastrian

traditions,

Uhura

Mazda

is

married.

45:31

to

Spenta

are

mighty.

And

together

as

God

and

goddess,

they

give

birth

to

a

very

important

person

in

Zoroastrianism,

a

person

by

the

name

of

Caimars.

Well,

who

was

Caimars?

Caimars

was

the

very

first

human

being,

the

Zoroastrian

atom,

the

progenitor

of

all

mankind.

Now,

what’s

really

interesting

in

terms

of

this

program

is

that

in

Zoroastrian

religion,

46:00

Caio

Mars,

the

first

man

was

taught,

we

presume

by

Ahura

Mazda

himself,

in

the

very

beginning,

the

quote,

good

religion.

Carlo

Credi,

he’s

a

professor

of

history

of

Iran

at

Sapienza

University

of

Rome,

and

he

said

the

following

in

an

article

he

wrote

on

Caio

Mars,

quote,

it

is

noteworthy

that

Caio

Mars

is

assigned

a

46:28

--- page 128 ---

prominent

role

in

Zoroastrian

religion,

being

the

first

to

accept

the

good

religion

in

its

entirety.

Caimars

was

the

quote,

first

to

accept

the

good

religion

in

its

entirety.

Well,

how

is

this

possible?

He’s

the

first

man.

I

mean,

this

implies

that

God

taught

Caimars

in

the

beginning.

I’m

getting

a

little

ahead

of

myself,

but

what

Crete

is

saying

here

is

the

crux.

46:58

of

this

entire

podcast

that

in

the

very

beginning,

starting

with

the

first

man,

God

revealed

a

full

religious

tradition

to

human

beings.

And

here

we

have

the

Zoroastrians

attesting

to

this

very

thing

that

the

first

human

being,

Caio

Mars,

was

taught

and

fully

accepted

the

religious

tradition

God

gave

him.

Now,

the

Zoroastrian

account

of

Caio

Mars

gets

even

better

though,

because

guess

what

else

the

Zoroastrians

teach

about

him?

They

teach

that

he

was

the

very

47:27

first

king

or

shah

of

the

world.

Yes,

the

very

first

human

king.

The

ruling

shahs

both

in

antiquity

and

in

the

Middle

Ages

claimed

descent

from

him.

And

we’re

going

to

talk

about

this

a

whole

lot

more

in

a

couple

of

episodes,

but

note

in

this

account

how

everything

is

tied

together,

how

we’re

starting

to

get

a

cohesive

religious

theology

here.

47:56

The

high

god

is

married.

He

and

his

wife

give

birth

to

the

first

human

being,

whom

they

reveal

a

full

religious

tradition

to

and

whom

they

coronate

as

the

world’s

first

king.

These

are

key

theological

tenets

of

the

ancient

tradition.

There’s

a

Persian

text,

a

Persian

text

of

uncertain

date

known

as

the

Awa

de

Omega.

48:24

even

refers

to

Khayomars

as

the

quote,

King

of

the

mountain.

In

the

Sanskrit

version,

he’s

called

the

great

King.

Now,

like

I

mentioned,

we’ll

talk

about

this

a

lot

more

in

a

couple

of

episodes,

but

for

the

purposes

of

this

episode,

I

want

you

to

see

that

the

theology

is

directly

tied

to

God.

In

this

case,

Ahura

Mazda

having

a

wife,

a

wife

who

gave

birth

to

the

world’s

first

man,

48:53

and

first

king.

Let’s

turn

to

the

Maya

of

Mesoamerica

now.

We

learned

that

the

greatest

of

the

gods

of

the

Yucatan

is

the

creator

god

Atsamna.

Like

the

rest

of

the

gods

we’ve

seen,

Atsamna

was

married

and

he

was

married

to

the

goddess

Ishell.

Ishell

was

a

jaguar

goddess

associated

with

fertility,

pregnant

women,

midwives,

medicine

and

war.

49:22

She’s

often

depicted

equipped

with

a

shield

and

a

spear.

She,

along

with

her

husband,

Yitzamna,

gave

birth

to

four

sons,

and

in

some

accounts,

she

gave

birth

to

13.

And

they

are

known

as

the

B’qabs.

Now

these

sons

created

the

heaven

and

earth,

and

all

four

of

them

were

charged

with

holding

up

and

guarding

the

four

corners

of

the

universe.

In

the

account

of

the

13

sons,

49:51

Each

son

was

tasked

with

ruling

over

one

of

the

13

upper

levels

of

the

heavens.

We’re

to

talk

about

both

of

these

accounts

in

much

greater

detail

down

the

line.

It’s

important

to

note

that

under

Yisamnus

and

Eshel’s

union,

the

Mayan

people

experienced

prosperity

and

fertility.

Their

union

was

foundational

to

the

Mayan

earthly

and

divine

order.

50:18

In

Eukatech

Maya,

the

name

E-Shell

means

E,

Lady,

and

Shell

can

mean

light

or

shining

or

rainbow.

So

her

name

means

something

like

Lady

of

Light

or

Shining

Lady

or

Rainbow

Lady.

If

--- page 129 ---

we

turn

to

the

Aztecs,

you’ll

notice

that

they

held

a

lot

of

beliefs

that

were

really

similar

to

the

Maya,

and

that’s

because

the

Aztec

arose

50:45

prominence

several

centuries

after

Mayan

influence

had

spread

all

across

Mesoamerica.

Let’s

take

a

minute

and

listen

to

Adam

Brown

of

Pantheon

Mythology.

Walk

us

through

the

Aztecs

account.

51:13

before

the

earth

itself

had

taken

shape.

In

this

void,

there

existed

two

powerful

deities,

Omece

Kutli

and

Omece

Huatl.

They

were

the

divine

duality,

representing

the

ultimate

source

of

all

creation.

Omece

Kutli

was

often

depicted

as

a

male

god,

while

Omece

Huatl

was

his

female

counterpart.

Together,

they

embodied

the

balance

and

unity

of

opposites,

the

fundamental

forces

from

which

all

things

would

emerge.

51:42

In

the

darkness

of

the

cosmos,

Ometekutli

and

Omesehwatl

contemplated

the

state

of

the

world.

They

desired

to

bring

order

to

the

chaos

and

give

rise

to

a

new

cycle

of

creation.

With

their

combined

power,

they

initiated

a

cosmic

dance,

a

divine

union

that

sparked

the

birth

of

the

gods.

From

their

union,

four

gods

were

born.

Weetzee

Lopochli,

Tezcatlipoca,

Quetzalcoatl

and

Hipecotec.

52:11

These

gods

held

the

key

to

creating

the

world

and

shaping

its

destiny.

Each

deity

brought

their

unique

qualities

to

the

emerging

universe,

guiding

the

forces

of

creation,

change,

wisdom

and

transformation.

As

the

gods

ventured

forth,

they

encountered

the

giant

ancient

earth

monster,

Tral

Te

Kutli.

This

fearsome

creature

possessed

the

power

to

create

and

destroy.

Its

body

formed

the

foundation

of

the

world

to

be.

With

determination,

52:41

and

divine

might,

the

gods

overpowered

Tlaocatutli.

They

divided

the

monster’s

body

into

two

halves.

From

its

upper

half,

they

fashioned

the

heavens

and

the

sky,

adorning

it

with

shimmering

stars

and

the

radiant

sun.

A

great

ball

of

fire

that

would

light

the

world.

Its

lower

half

became

the

fertile

earth,

teeming

with

life

and

potential.

53:09

The

Aztecs

held

that

the

supreme

god,

the

god

who

reigned

in

Omeyucan,

the

highest

of

the

13

heavens,

and

who

represented

the

source

of

all

creation,

was

known

as

Ometiolto.

He

was

believed

to

embody

both

male

and

female.

He

was

known

as

the

Lord

of

Duality,

or

as

the

Two

God.

The

male

aspect,

or

the

Two

Lord,

was

Ometikutli,

and

the

female

aspect,

or

the

53:38

lady

was

Omei-sewado

and

they’re

referred

to

as

the

father

and

mother

of

the

gods

and

the

quote

father

and

mother

of

us

all.

Together

Omeitekutli

and

Omeitewado

produced

four

sons.

Shipe-totec,

Teske-lopoko,

Ketse-kwado,

and

Weite-lopotli.

These

four

sons

are

referred

to

as

the

Teske-lopokas

and

each

one

was

assigned

54:06

to

be

the

ruler

of

a

specific

cardinal

point,

north,

south,

east,

or

west.

If

you

recall,

it

was

these

four

sons

that

took

the

dead

carcass

of

the

primordial

dragon

and

used

it

to

create

the

world,

just

like

we

saw

Marduk

do

in

the

Mesopotamian

enuma

liege.

We

haven’t

talked

about

world

ages

or

dispensations

yet,

but

each

one

of

these

four

sons

took

turns

--- page 130 ---

54:33

ruling

over

a

particular

age

and

we’ll

talk

about

all

of

this

more

down

the

line.

But

for

our

purposes

here,

these

gods

were

the

sons

of

the

two

Lord

Omete

Kutli

and

his

counterpart,

the

two

lady

Omese

Waddle,

who

resided

as

one

in

the

highest

heaven.

54:56

Among

the

Inca,

the

chief

god

was

the

god

Varacocha.

Varacocha

was

believed

to

be

the

architect

of

the

universe,

the

supreme

creator,

as

well

as

the

architect

of

civilization

itself.

Now

we

haven’t

talked

about

Varacocha

on

the

program

yet,

but

we’re

going

to.

For

the

purposes

though

of

today’s

episode,

Varacocha

was

sometimes,

it

varied

by

account,

described

as

having

a

wife.

A

woman

the

Inca

called

55:25

Mama

Kocha

or

Mama

Kocha.

And

get

this,

just

guess

what

Mama

Kocha

means

in

Quechua.

No,

it’s

not

beloved,

but

get

this,

it

literally

means

mother

of

the

sea.

Mama

means

mother

and

Kocha

means

sea

or

body

of

water.

So

Mama

Kocha

means

mother

of

the

sea.

And

why

did

the

Inca

call

her

this?

Well,

because

she

had

the

power

to

calm

the

sea.

55:56

Where

have

we

heard

this

before?

Where

have

we

heard

that

the

high

god’s

wife

had

the

power

to

rule

the

sea?

Well,

it

was

in

our

last

episode.

If

you

remember,

we

learned

in

that

episode

that

the

Canaanite

high

god,

El’s

wife,

Otterod,

was

given

the

epitaph,

Lady

of

the

Sea,

or

the

lady

who

trampled

the

sea.

Well

here,

halfway

around

the

world,

thousands

of

years

later,

among

a

totally

different

group

of

peoples,

56:25

the

Incan

high

God

Vera

Koch’s

wife

is

given

the

name

Mother

of

the

Sea

precisely

because

she

has

the

power

to

calm

the

sea.

Now

I

might

think

this

is

just

coincidence.

mean,

practically

speaking,

it

made

sense

that

people

who

live

in

coastal

regions

or

near

lakes

would

develop

a

God

who

had

the

power

to

calm

the

sea.

But

I

get

skeptical

of

this

explanation

56:54

when

this

exact

power

is

assigned

to

a

female

god.

And

I

get

even

more

skeptical

when

this

exact

power

is

assigned

to

a

female

god

who

is

the

high

god’s

wife.

And

then

that’s

when

it

just

gets

a

little

too

coincidental

for

me

to

think

it’s

coincidence.

In

one

legend,

Veracocha

and

Mamacucha

had

a

son,

Enti,

the

Incan

sun

god.

57:22

who

was

himself

married

to

Mamma

Kea,

who

gave

birth

to

Monco

Cawpock,

the

legendary

founder

and

first

Sapa

Inca,

the

first

emperor

or

king

of

the

Incan

Empire.

Are

you

starting

to

see

a

pattern?

Because

you

should.

Among

the

Chinese,

the

high

god,

the

Jade

Emperor,

is

always

described

as

married.

57:52

He’s

married

to

Shi

Huangmu,

also

known

as

the

Queen

Mother

of

the

West.

In

Taoist

mythology

and

Chinese

folklore,

Shi

Huangmu

is

regarded

as

the

supreme

goddess

of

heaven.

She’s

portrayed

as

powerful,

the

leader

of

all

of

the

goddesses.

In

Taoist

temples,

she’s

described

as

absolutely

beautiful,

one

who

looks

to

be

in

her

30s.

I

love

that.

58:23

All

accounts

agree

that

she

holds

significant

authority

and

rules

right

alongside

her

husband,

the

Jade

Emperor,

as

the

supreme

empress

of

heaven,

the

mystical

mountain,

Mount

Kunlun.

In

her

--- page 131 ---

palace,

a

retinue

of

important

goddesses

and

spiritual

attendants

surround

her.

Shiwangmu

is

mentioned

in

the

oldest

known

Chinese

writings,

the

Oracle

Bones.

58:53

where

she’s

described

as

a

warrior

goddess,

which

is

interesting,

much

like

Anat,

who

we

learned

in

our

last

episode

went

to

war

against

the

terrible

dragon

and

bound

him.

A

scholar

by

the

name

of

Masako

Mori

wrote

this

really

fascinating

article

titled

Quest

for

the

Archetypal

Image

of

Shi

Huangmu,

where

he

actually

argues

in

chapter

two

that

the

development

of

the

Chinese

Shi

Huangmu

was

heavily

influenced

59:22

by

a

knot.

On

page

20,

he

writes,

quote,

59:52

literary

treasure

trove

and

archaeological

findings.

Shi

Huangmu

is

a

mother

goddess

par

excellence.

Mori

makes

a

point

here

that

I’ve

been

trying

to

make

throughout

the

podcast

that

nearly

all

of

the

religious

traditions

of

today

can

be

traced

back

to

one

fount

in

the

ancient

Near

East.

In

the

Chinese

literature,

the

Jade

Emperor’s

wife

Shi

Huangmu

01:00:21

is

said

to

have

a

very

special

garden

on

Mount

Kunlun,

which

contains

an

orchard

of

peach

trees,

the

fruit

of

which

peaches

grants

one

immortality.

On

Mount

Kunlun,

at

a

special

feast

that’s

held

right

on

her

birthday,

Shiwangmu

serves

these

peaches

to

her

honored

guests,

granting

them

immortality.

Now,

01:00:50

Don’t

miss

the

cosmic

symbolism

here

of

Shiwangmu’s

Peach

Orchard.

Because

remember,

symbolically

in

the

ancient

world,

trees

represented

divine

royal

people.

And

if

you’ll

recall

in

episode

number

50,

a

cosmic

temple,

we

learned

that

the

gold

one

appeared

to

the

old

yellow

one,

the

Chinese

Adam,

in

the

beginning

and

taught

him

that

the

cosmos

was

structured

like

a

stone

fruit.

01:01:19

He

said,

quote,

the

great

earth

lies

in

the

middle

of

the

world

sea.

The

water

flows

around

all

the

sides

of

the

great

earth

as

the

juicy

meat

surrounds

the

seed

of

fruit.

Now

I

don’t

know

what

precise

type

of

fruit

the

gold

one

used

for

this

demonstration,

but

since

we’re

talking

about

a

Chinese

account

here,

I’m

gonna

guess

that

it

was

a

peach.

Peaches

are

the

01:01:49

stone,

fruit,

par,

nun.

What

I’m

trying

to

say

here

is

that

when

we

consider

what

the

Gold

One

taught

the

Chinese

Abbot,

then

we

understand

that

every

single

peach

in

Xu

Angmu’s

peach

orchard

represents

a

cosmic

kingdom,

innumerable

cosmic

kingdoms.

And

when

we

consider

the

orchard

represents

hundreds

of

trees,

exalted

people,

like

we

discussed

in

episode

number

56,

01:02:16

and

each

person

tree

contains

hundreds

of

peaches,

then

what

we

have

by

an

orchard

of

peaches

is

universes

beyond

universes.

A

Tang

dynasty

collection

of

poems

that

was

commissioned

by

Emperor

Kangxi

of

the

Qing

dynasty

in

1705

gives

us

this

really

beautiful

description

of

Shiwangmu’s

residence

in

the

heavens.

Take

a

listen.

01:02:46

--- page 132 ---

This

is

starting

in

line

49,

42.

reads,

riding

on

the

mist,

I

wandered

to

lofty

world

wind

peak.

That’s

speaking

here

of

the

peak

of

Mount

Koon

Loon.

The

lady

of

the

Supreme

primordial

descends

through

Jade

interior

doors.

The

queen

mother

opens

her

blue

gem

palace.

Celestial

people,

what

a

crowd.

01:03:16

So

notice

how

there

are

loads

of

people

there.

A

lofty

meeting

inside

the

Scion

audience

hall.

Scion

is

a

color

of

blue.

Arrayed

attendants

perform

cloud

songs.

Realized

intonations

fill

the

grand

empty

space.

So

it

sounds

like

there’s

a

lot

of

beautiful

singing

there.

So

convivial

and

certainly

infinite.

01:03:42

by

convivial

it

sounds

like

this

is

a

friendly

lively

and

enjoyable

place

and

infinite

it’s

eternal

where

God

and

his

wife

reside

sounds

like

a

truly

wonderful

place

I’m

running

out

of

time

so

I’m

gonna

run

through

these

next

few

quickly

among

the

Shinto

the

indigenous

religion

of

Japan

the

male

creator

God

is

a

Nagi

is

married

to

is

a

Nami

if

you’ll

recall

is

a

Nagi

and

is

a

Nami

were

the

ones

who

01:04:11

together

used

a

jeweled

spear

to

stir

the

chaotic

primordial

waters.

And

when

they

lifted

the

spear,

drops

fell

from

its

tip

and

solidified

to

form

the

first

Japanese

island,

Onogoro

Shima.

After

this

island

was

created,

Izanagi

and

Izanami

descended

upon

the

island

and

built

a

great

palace

there

and

built

a

heavenly

pillar

on

the

top

of

the

palace.

01:04:39

right

there

they

performed

a

marriage

ritual

by

circling

the

pillar.

The

account

of

this

is

recorded

in

the

Japanese

Kojiki.

It’s

the

earliest

known

compilation

of

Japanese

oral

traditions

believed

to

have

been

composed

between

711

and

712

AD.

In

chapter

four

it

reads

and

this

is

the

Donald

A.

Philippi

translation

quote

01:05:08

descending

from

the

heavens

to

this

island.

They

erected

a

heavenly

pillar

and

a

spacious

palace.

Izanagi

said,

then

let

us,

you

and

me,

walk

in

a

circle

around

this

heavenly

pillar

and

meet

and

have

conjugal

intercourse.

After

thus

agreeing,

Izanagi

then

said,

you

walk

around

from

the

right

and

I

will

walk

around

from

the

left

and

meet

you.

01:05:37

After

having

agreed

to

this,

they

circled

around.

So

I

hope

you

see

how

they’re

making

a

circum-punked

here

again.

Notice

how

this

is

similar

to

the

Hindu

account

of

Saraswati,

circumambulating

Brahma.

And

I

don’t

have

time

to

go

into

all

the

symbolism

of

the

pillar

and

the

circumambulation

of

the

pillar,

but

I

hope

knowing

what

you’ve

learned

on

this

program

that

you

might

have

some

idea

of

what’s

being

symbolized

here.

We’ll

definitely

talk

about

this

more

when

we

get

into

ritual.

01:06:07

After

Izanagi

and

Izanami

are

married,

we

learn

in

chapter

seven

that

they

gave

birth

to

a

number

of

Shinto

gods

known

as

Kami.

From

here,

the

myth

gets

a

little

bit

convoluted

and

Izanami

and

Izanagi

actually

get

divorced.

And

ultimately

in

chapter

11,

Izanagi

produces

by

himself

a

daughter,

the

supreme

goddess

Amaterasu,

considered

today

to

be

the

chief

deity

of

the

Shinto

pantheon.

01:06:36

--- page 133 ---

She’s

important

because

she’s

considered

the

progenitor

of

the

Imperial

House

of

Japan.

All

Japanese

emperors

claim

to

be

her

direct

descendant.

I

wonder

sometimes

if

Izanami

was

removed

from

the

mythological

picture

by

way

of

divorce

so

that

there

would

be

no

goddess

that

could

challenge

Amaterasu’s

supremacy.

We

definitely

see

things

like

that

in

ancient

literature

and

in

ancient

mythology.

But

regardless,

01:07:06

Note

that

all

Japanese

emperors

claim

that

they

have

the

right

to

the

throne

because

Amaterasu,

the

great

August

goddess

who

shines

in

heaven,

is

their

mother.

Like

we

saw

in

ancient

Egypt

when

the

deceased

pharaoh

claimed

legitimacy

to

their

throne,

having

been

born

from

Atum’s

wife,

you

saw

us.

01:07:32

If

we

turn

to

Islam,

revealed

to

Muhammad

in

610

AD,

the

high

god

Allah

is

unequivocally

not

married.

But

remember

in

Islam,

Allah

is

not

believed

to

have

a

body,

nor

is

Allah

believed

to

be

male

or

female.

Allah

is

believed

to

be

beyond

sex

or

gender.

So

it’s

not

surprising

that

Allah

is

not

believed

to

be

married.

01:08:03

Finally,

let’s

turn

to

Scandinavia.

Among

the

Norris,

the

high

god

Odin

was

married

and

he

was

married

to

Frigg,

F-R-I-G-G.

In

Snorri

Sturluson’s

13th

century,

Prose

Ida

in

the

Gelfangining

in

section

nine,

it

reads,

and

this

is

the

Arthur

Broder

translation,

quote,

there

is

one

abode

called

Hildesgald.

Hildesgald

is

the

name

of

Odin’s

throne.

01:08:32

And

when

all

father,

which

is

Odin,

sat

in

the

high

seat

there,

he

looked

out

over

the

whole

world

and

saw

every

man’s

acts

and

knew

all

things

which

he

saw.

His

wife

was

called

Frigg,

daughter

of

Fjörgen.

And

their

blood

has

come

that

kindred

which

we

all

call

the

races

of

Assyr.

Now

the

Assyr

are

the

gods

that

have

people

the

elder

Asgard.

Asgard

is

the

heavenly

realm.

01:09:00

and

those

kingdoms

which

pertain

to

it.

And

that

is

a

divine

race.

So

we

can

see

this

passage

that

Odin

and

Frigg

were

the

parents

of

a

line

of

divine

children.

In

the

Norse

writings,

Frigg

is

described

as

the

foremost

of

the

Assyr,

the

highest

ranking

goddess

who’s

surrounded

by

a

retinue

of

goddesses

like

Fulla,

Gnaw,

and

Hiln.

01:09:29

In

the

text,

she’s

described

as

a

loving

mother,

one

who

possesses

great

wisdom,

and

the

relationship

between

her

and

Odin

is

depicted

as

one

of

mutual

respect

and

partnership

and

a

very

deep

affection.

In

honor

of

Odin’s

wife,

the

queen

of

the

gods,

Frigg,

I’m

releasing

today’s

episode

on

a

Friday.

So

what’s

the

connection?

01:09:59

Well,

the

English

word

Friday

is

derived

from

the

old

English

word

Frihag,

which

means

Frigg’s

Day.

Yes,

Friday

is

just

the

modern

day

English

way

of

saying

Frigg’s

Day.

See,

the

Romans

named

each

day

of

the

week

after

one

of

the

seven

classical

planets,

and

they

named

Friday

after

Venus,

the

goddess

of

love.

So

when

the

Germanic

peoples

adopted

the

Roman

calendar,

01:10:27

they

replaced

the

Roman

gods

with

their

own

gods.

And

since

Frigg

was

like

Venus,

was

considered

a

goddess

of

love

and

beauty,

they

changed

Venus

Day

to

Frigg’s

Day.

Before

I

--- page 134 ---

close

out

this

episode,

I

have

to

say

one

last

thing

about

Odin’s

beautiful

wife,

Frigg.

You’re

never

gonna

believe

what

Frigg’s

name

means.

Just

take

a

guess.

Yes,

Frigg

means

01:10:57

beloved.

See,

the

name

Frigg

is

entomologically

derived

from

the

Proto-Germanic

word

Frio,

which

means

beloved.

And

Frio

is

built

from

the

Proto-Indo-European

root

Priya,

which

also

means

beloved.

This

root

is

the

source

of

her

name,

be

it

Frigg

in

Old

Norris,

01:11:23

Freia

in

Old

High

German

or

Freig

in

Old

English.

They

all

carry

the

same

meaning,

beloved.

The

sense

of

deep

love

and

endearment.

I

can’t

make

this

stuff

up.

It’s

all

right

in

the

historical

record.

That’s

it

for

me.

I’ll

leave

you

with

the

words

of

William

Shakespeare.

Knowledge

is

the

wing

wherewith

we

fly

to

heaven.

01:11:52

Happy

Frig

Day,

everyone.

I’m

Jack

Logan.

01:11:59

You’ve

been

listening

to

the

Ancient

Tradition.

A

Wonk

Media

Production.

Episode

#59

-

Royal

Marriage

&

The

Sacred

Center

Not

live