--- 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
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
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
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