Crucifixion of Inanna ?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
cienfuegos
Posts: 346
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 6:23 pm

Re: Crucifixion of Inanna ?

Post by cienfuegos » Sun Feb 01, 2015 7:14 am

GakuseiDon wrote:
cienfuegos wrote:It makes no sense whatsoever to point to insignificant differences like Ianna was hanged on hook, but Jesus was hanged from a T-shaped cross.
I think it does, if the claim is something like "Inanna was crucified, just like Jesus." While Carrier is clear in his book, he is much less clear in some of his on-line articles. I give two examples below.
You seem to be arguing against a straw man. No one is saying that "Inanna was crucified just like Jesus." Your Carrier quotes demonstrate that he argues against that notion himself. Again you are stirring tempests in teapots.

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5377
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Crucifixion of Inanna ?

Post by Peter Kirby » Sun Feb 01, 2015 11:09 am

With that bolding perhaps they would get 'the wrong impression.'
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

philvaz
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 9:27 am

No Crucifixion of Inanna

Post by philvaz » Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:52 pm

Hanging something dead from a hook in the 'underworld' is not a crucifixion. Carrier does indeed imply Inanna was 'crucified like Jesus' in those online articles. I rebut that in full here. http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologe ... arrier.htm

The main points are:

(1) Carrier repeatedly says Inanna was "crucified" and the Sumerian religion "we now know included the worship of a crucified Inanna...." and "the idea of worshipping a crucified deity did predate Christianity...." and "we have here a clear example of many people worshipping a crucified god...."

(2) However, death by crucifixion was invented and first used by the Persians in the 6th-7th centuries B.C. and was in prominent use by the Romans at the time of Jesus. Inanna's story dates to 1750 B.C. which is 1000 years before 'crucifixions' took place. I'm sure Carrier knows this so why push this 'parallel' ?

(3) What actually happened is "Inanna was turned into a corpse, a piece of rotting meat, and was hung from a hook on the wall...." ("Descent of Inanna" translated in Inanna by Wolkstein/Kramer [1983], page 60). The word for 'hook' can also be translated 'nail' or 'stake'. If you want to call that a 'crucifixion' be my guest, but we know such things as Roman 'crucifixions' didn't take place at the time, also the Inanna story's setting is the 'underworld' (not earth), etc.

(4) As for being 'worshipped' as a 'crucified deity' we know from the New Testament and early Church history that Jesus certainly was (Acts of the Apostles 2:23,36; 4:10; 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; 1 Cor 1:13-23; 2:2-8; 15:1ff; Gal 2:20; 3:1,13; 6:12-14; Phil 2:8; Col 1:20; 2:14-15; 1 Thess 2:14-16; Heb 6:6; 12:2; etc). Of course this takes the 'historicity' of Jesus as a given. See my other article for that.

(5) We know Inanna certainly was NOT worshipped as a 'crucified deity' -- her titles are precisely these: she was known as a goddess of warfare, or a goddess of love and sexuality.

A very large corpus of Sumerian and Akkadian cuneiform literature is extant in which Inanna-Ishtar is prominent. The primary image that emerges from these texts, in addition to her as the embodiment of Venus, is that of a goddess of love and sexuality, but in some she is instead a goddess of warfare. The Code of Hammurabi, for example, calls her "the lady of battle and conflict." (Encyclopedia of Religion, "Inanna", volume 7, page 145-6).

There are several hymns to Inanna-Ishtar, including one in which she praises herself as queen of the heavens and omnipotent among the gods. Another, the Hymnal Prayer of Enheduanna, addresses Inanna as "queen of the divine decrees, radiant light, life-giving woman, beloved of heaven and earth, supreme one." This remarkable hymn, reputedly written by the daughter of Sargon the Great, touches on virtually every aspect of Inanna (Encyclopedia of Religion, "Inanna", volume 7, page 146).

Here is a portion of this Hymnal Prayer:

You are known by Your heaven-like height,
You are known by Your earth-like breadth,
You are known by Your destruction of rebel-lands,
You are known by Your massacring (their people),
You are known by Your devouring (their) dead like a dog,
You are known by Your fierce countenance.
You are known by the raising of Your fierce countenance,
You are known by Your flashing eyes.
You are known by Your contentiousness (and) disobedience,
You are known by Your many triumphs.....

(Hymnal Prayer of Enheduanna, The Adoration of Inanna of Ur; Pritchard, James D. [1975]: The Ancient Near East, Volume II, Princeton University Press)

Nothing in here about being worshipped as or known as or called a 'crucified deity'. Carrier added that language to force the 'similarity' but the parallel doesn't exist. You will find similarity in the 'three days' after which Inanna 'rose' -- which as I understand was a common period of time for the ancients to know for sure if 'someone was really dead' -- and the 'ascension' from the underworld (which was also common among many pagan deities who 'descended' to the underworld). Two quotes from evangelical and biblical commentaries on that:

"'Three days and three nights' is a special phrase used in the ancient world with the meaning 'long enough to be definitely dead.' It derives originally from the ancient pagan notion that the soul's trip to the after-world took three days and three nights. Jesus' use of the same phrase for the duration of his death before his resurrection (Mt 12:40) carries a similar force: it is a way of 8saying that he would really die, NOT that he would be literally dead for exactly seventy-two hours. 'Three days and three nights' was a Jewish idiom for a period covering PARTS of three 24-hour 'days-and-nights' (cf. 1 Sam 30:12-13; Est 4:16-5:1)." (New Bible Commentary, p 819,920 under Jonah 1:17/Matt 12:40)

"In ancient literature [three days and three nights] indicated a period so long that if someone appeared to be in the realm of death for that length of time, only divine intervention could bring him back to life. ...Three days may also simply mean a fairly long time (cf. 1 Sam 30: 12; Esther 4:16). In Jonah it heightens the picture of the great power of God who can save his disobedient messenger even after 'three days and three nights.' Much later Jesus' disciples on the way to Emmaus had given up hope because 'this is THE THIRD DAY since it happened' (Luke 24:21)." (The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah commentary by John D.W. Watts [Cambridge Univ Press, 1975], p 82f)

http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologe ... arrier.htm
and
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologe ... orical.htm
and
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologe ... #THREEDAYS

PhilVaz

philvaz
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 9:27 am

death of Jesus, death of others

Post by philvaz » Sun Feb 01, 2015 7:46 pm

Jay << I think the parallel is that Inanna is a goddess who undergoes a terrible punishment dies and rises again and Jesus is a god who undergoes a terrible punishment, dies and rises again. >>

And the differences are these:

-- on "death" : none of the so-called "savior-gods" died for someone else; Jesus Christ the Son of God died in place of His creatures (1 Cor 15:3-4; Romans 5:6-8; 1 John 2:1-2; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 Tim 2:4-6) which is unique to Christianity;
-- only Jesus died on the cross for sin, the pagan gods are never claimed to die for sins; they were not crucified (there are in fact NO "crucified saviors" other than Jesus) but died violently by other means (self-emasculation; hunting accident; ripped apart by wild boars or the Titans or crazed women or jealous brothers; etc);
-- Jesus died once for all (Heb 7:27; 9:25-28; 10:10-14); many of the pagan gods were vegetation deities whose repeated death and "rebirth" depicted the annual cycle of nature; it is a mythical drama with no historical ties;
-- the early Christian church believed its proclamation of Jesus' one-time death upon the cross and bodily resurrection is grounded upon what actually happened in history ("we are witnesses of these things" cf. Acts 1:1-4; 1:8; 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39-41; Luke 1:1-4; 24:48; 1 John 1:1-3; 2 Peter 1:16).
-- unlike the pagan gods, Jesus dies voluntarily (John 10:10-18; Phil 2:5-11);
-- Jesus' death was not a defeat but a triumph (1 Cor 15:54-58; Col 2:14-15; 2 Tim 1:10).

-- on "resurrection" : central to the mysteries was the annual vegetation cycle where life is renewed each spring and died each fall; the cults found symbolic and spiritual significance in the natural process of growth, death, decay, and rebirth;
-- many mystery religions involved secret ceremonies, sometimes in connection with an initiation rite, with esoteric knowledge revealed to the participant;
-- a basic element was a myth in which the deity dies or "disappears" (and then "returns" or "revives" or "reappears" or is "restored") and otherwise triumphs over enemies;
-- unlike the early Christians, the mysteries had little use for correct doctrine, dogma, or belief; they were primarily concerned with the emotional state of their followers and appealed to the imagination;
-- the immediate goal was a mystical or religious experience in order to achieve union with their god, or otherwise some kind of "salvation" of the soul or immortality or deification;
-- the Greco-Roman pagan religions found bodily resurrection difficult to accept; man was regarded as a body with a soul, but it was the soul that was often believed to survive death; the dissolution of the body was regarded as inevitable; accordingly, Greco-Roman ideas on "resurrection" were quite different from the Christian concept (see the New Catholic Encyclopedia [2003, 2nd edition], article on "Resurrection, Greco-Oriental").

With credit given to The Gospel and the Greeks by Nash, etc.

http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologe ... arrier.htm

PhilVaz

User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 812
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Crucifixion of Inanna ?

Post by GakuseiDon » Sun Feb 01, 2015 7:58 pm

cienfuegos wrote:
GakuseiDon wrote:
cienfuegos wrote:It makes no sense whatsoever to point to insignificant differences like Ianna was hanged on hook, but Jesus was hanged from a T-shaped cross.
I think it does, if the claim is something like "Inanna was crucified, just like Jesus." While Carrier is clear in his book, he is much less clear in some of his on-line articles. I give two examples below.
You seem to be arguing against a straw man. No one is saying that "Inanna was crucified just like Jesus."
I was responding to the comment you made about 'insignificant differences' above. But Inanna was in no sense "crucified", given the meaning of the word means "attached to a cross". Whether this is a nitpick or not depends on how crucial a "crucified Inanna" is to the point that Carrier makes. SInce Carrier is clear about how he is using "crucifixion" in OHJ, this is a minor nitpick. But see how Carrier refers to "a crucified Inanna" in the examples I provided earlier. See also Andrew Criddle's OP. Indeed, see the title of this thread.

By far a more salient criticism of Carrier's use of "Descent of Ishtar" is made by Andrew Criddle in the OP. Carrier writes in OHJ on pages 45/46 (my bolding below):
  • We have even more reason than that to be suspicious here. For the initial story told of Jesus in the Ascension of Isaiah sounds a lot like a story of another descending-and-ascending, dying-and-rising god, originating over a thousand years before the Christian era. In the Descent of Inanna, we are given a similarly repetitious account of a goddess (lnanna, variously otherwise known as Ishtar or Astarte), the very 'Queen of Heaven' (and daughter of God), who descends 'from the great above'. Thus 'abandoning heaven' she descends from outer space all the way past earth into the realm of the dead below it, fully intending to be killed there and then resurrected three days later. Just like in the Ascension of Isaiah, the narrative relates her plans in advance to ensure this, and then relates how it happens exactly to plan. And like the 'Jesus' figure in the the Ascension of Isaiah, Inanna is crucified (nailed up), and notably not on earth, but in a non-earthly realm...

    This is an extremely unlikely coincidence, particularly given the highly repetitious nature of both texts. It cannot be believed that the author of the Ascension just 'by coincidence' ended up telling almost the very same story, right down to its characteristic repetitions, seven-stage descent and disrobing, crucifixion by demons, and resurrection.
As the OP points out though, there is no "nailed up" or no "hung up on a hook" in the Akkadian "Descent". Some translations are here:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/ishtar.htm
http://www.gatewaystobabylon.com/myths/ ... ardesc.htm

In the Sumerian version, Inanna is "hung on a hook". Andrew makes the point that the translation literally reads "The afflicted woman was turned into a piece of meat. And the piece of meat was hung on a hook." This is something that is done to butchered cows. If someone said that in the first Rocky movie that Rocky was punching "crucified cows", we would question the usage of the word "crucified".

John T accused Carrier of deliberate deception in another thread. I don't support that this is deception, but Carrier is obviously using the word to create an association with the story of Christ. As he writes at the link I gave earlier in this thread:
  • ...my point is not that the Christians got the idea of a crucified god from early Inanna cult. There may have been some direct or indirect influence we cannot trace. We can't rule that out--the idea of worshipping a crucified deity did predate Christianity and had entered Jewish society within Palestine. But we don't know any more than that.[3] Rather, my point is that we have here a clear example of many people worshipping a crucified god...
This leaves him open to criticism of his word of choice. That's a shame, because his point doesn't rely on Inanna being "crucified" as such.

Image
"Take THAT, Inanna!"
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse

Sheshbazzar
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 7:21 am

Re: Crucifixion of Inanna ?

Post by Sheshbazzar » Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:06 pm

Sheshbazzar wrote:
Metacrock wrote:almost none of the dying rising savior gods were crucified. mythers shamelessly make up source and exaggerate everything. read real mythology books, none of those guys were crucified.
כי־קללת אלהים תלוי

Understand what this bit of ancient text states Metacrock? Do you need it explained to you?
NO exceptions. Not even for the Christ himself.
As the thread is moving on, and evidently Metacrock is in no hurry to respond, and no one else has asked or commented on the content or meaning of the Hebrew quote, its time that I translate and explain.
It is the clause from Deuteronomy 21:23
("For anyone hung (Heb, 'talah ') is accursed of Elohim: ")
The clause states that to be 'hung' is to be under the curse of Elohim.
The clause of the curse does not specify where, how, or upon what the victim must be 'hung' in order to be subject to the curse.
To be 'hung' is in Torah usage the equivalent of 'stauroō' ('impaled') of the Greek, and 'crucifigatur' of the Latin. (but forget the Latin's falsely implied required 'cross' form, as such a T form is not ay all implied by, nor required by the Hebrew and Greek that the Latin incorrectly "translates".)

'hanging' or being 'hung' - upon anything at all- is the Scriptural equivalent of 'crucifixion' (which did not and does not in Hebrew or Greek require that a 'cross' form need be employed for it to be a 'crucifixion').
A meat hook would serve.

Ianna being 'hung' upon a hook would, by both the ancient Hebrew idiom, and the ancient Greek terminology, qualify as being regarded as being a 'crucifixion'.

Sheshbazzar.
Last edited by Sheshbazzar on Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:35 pm, edited 7 times in total.

User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 812
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: No Crucifixion of Inanna

Post by GakuseiDon » Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:08 pm

philvaz wrote:(5) We know Inanna certainly was NOT worshipped as a 'crucified deity' -- her titles are precisely these: she was known as a goddess of warfare, or a goddess of love and sexuality...

Here is a portion of this Hymnal Prayer:

You are known by Your heaven-like height,
You are known by Your earth-like breadth,
You are known by Your destruction of rebel-lands,
You are known by Your massacring (their people),
You are known by Your devouring (their) dead like a dog,
You are known by Your fierce countenance.
You are known by the raising of Your fierce countenance,
You are known by Your flashing eyes.
You are known by Your contentiousness (and) disobedience,
You are known by Your many triumphs.....

(Hymnal Prayer of Enheduanna, The Adoration of Inanna of Ur; Pritchard, James D. [1975]: The Ancient Near East, Volume II, Princeton University Press)

Nothing in here about being worshipped as or known as or called a 'crucified deity'. Carrier added that language to force the 'similarity' but the parallel doesn't exist.
I think that is a very good point above, and one which I missed.
philvaz wrote:Jay << I think the parallel is that Inanna is a goddess who undergoes a terrible punishment dies and rises again and Jesus is a god who undergoes a terrible punishment, dies and rises again. >>

And the differences are these: <snipped>
I don't think the differences are that important. Carrier himself states in OHJ that there are differences, but as Jay noted, the important parallel that Carrier points out is that both Innana and Jesus descend, undergo terrible punishments, and then rise again.
Last edited by GakuseiDon on Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse

User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 812
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Crucifixion of Inanna ?

Post by GakuseiDon » Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:18 pm

Sheshbazzar wrote: As the thread is moving on, and evidently Metacrock is in no hurry to respond
Metacrock's post on this thread was more than six months ago, so he is due to swap places with spin in the Underworld.
Sheshbazzar wrote:and no one else has asked or commented on the content or meaning of the Hebrew quote, its time that I translate and explain.
It is the clause form Deuteronomy 21:23
(for anyone hung (Heb, 'talah ') is accursed of Elohim;)
The clause states that to be 'hung' ( is to be under the curse of Elohim.
The clause of the curse does not specify where, how, or upon what the victim must be 'hung' in order to be subject to the curse.
To be 'hung' is in Torah usage the equivalent of ' stauroō' of the Greek and 'crucifigatur' of the Latin (but forget the Latin's false implied 'cross' form)
'hanging' or being 'hung' - upon anything at all- is the Scriptural equivalent of 'crucifixion' (which did not and does not in Hebrew or Greek require that a 'cross' form need be employed for it to be a crucifixion.
Ianna being 'hung' upon a hook would, by both the ancient Hebrew and the ancient Greek terminology, qualify as being regarded as being a 'crucifixion'.
This can all too easily become a semantic flamewar over the differences of translations into English. In the image I give just above, is Rocky punching crucified cows?

The solution is easy: Carrier to explain HOW he is using the word "crucified". He does that in his book, and that's fine. He doesn't do that in the on-line articles on the previous page. And that can lead to misunderstandings.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse

Sheshbazzar
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 7:21 am

Re: Crucifixion of Inanna ?

Post by Sheshbazzar » Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:31 pm

GackuseiDon wrote: In the image I give just above, is Rocky punching crucified cows?
In the Hebrew and Greek terminology, yes. The cows are dead and hung up, they are 'talah' and 'stauroō' > to Latin 'crucifigatur' = English 'crucified'.

User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 812
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Crucifixion of Inanna ?

Post by GakuseiDon » Sun Feb 01, 2015 9:16 pm

Fair enough.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse

Post Reply