Talk:Canaanite religion

Religion Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Near East Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Yahweh isn't a Canaanite deity, it is the hebrew equivelent of Yaw, which was just under Yahweh, so I just moved the section on yahweh over to Yaw. It was referenced so I didn't want to delete it. Though Yaw is who is mentioned in the text they reference for yahweh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdishtar (talk • contribs) 02:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I edited this page before, and Yahweh is back up as a Canaanite god, this time, with a noncanaanite goddess as his wife. Asherah isn't canaanite, nor is Yahweh, both are hebrew. Athirat is the canaanite etymological equivelent of Asherah. Abdishtar (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ugaritic text KTU 1.1 IV 14 doesn't once mention Yahweh, nor does it mention Asherah. Etymologically, there is a link between Athirat and Asherah, but Asherah is still nonethless hebrew. The Bible has Asherah as a canaanite deity, the canaanites don't. I've read the text myself, in Ugaritic, and there's a preview here: English Translation: http://books.google.com/books?id=QwsVAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA18&dq=Athiratu&hl=en&ei=fNuXTL7uI8K78gak7dSWDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Athiratu&f=false Abdishtar (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some ancient inscriptions appear to refer to Asherah as the consort of Yahweh, including the early eighth century site of Kuntillet Ajrud, and a late monarchic inscription from the Shephelah of Judah (source: Finkelstein, Israel, and Neil Asher Silberman. 2001. The Bible unearthed: archaeology's new vision of ancient Israel and the origin of its sacred texts. New York: Free Press, pg. 242). Also the text you cite is not KTU 1.1 IV 14. Here is an English translation of that passage (source: http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm):

"There is one Ugaritic text which seems to indicate that among the inhabitants of Ugarit, Yahweh was viewed as another son of El. KTU 1.1 IV 14 says:

sm . bny . yw . ilt

“The name of the son of god, Yahweh.”

This text seems to show that Yahweh was known at Ugarit, though not as the Lord but as one of the many sons of El."

Also Deuteronomy 32:8-9 in the Dead Sea Scrolls identifies Yahweh as one of the sons of El (source: http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=445). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.140.81 (talk) 05:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next to where Yahweh was returned, there is a mention of Yam/Yaw. The yaw is that yw. Yes there is a linguistic relation between the two, but what I'm trying to say here is that they're not seperate canaanite deities, yhwh is the hebrew of the ugaritic yw. If you count hebrew as canaanite, then fine, but then why not fuse the section of yaw with yahweh? Why keep them seperate? Il is sometimes anglicised as Ilu and sometimes as El, depending on what translation. The same goes for Yaw/Yahweh. Abdishtar (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the reason they're translated as El or Yahweh, is for the same reason that Het-hert and Haru are translated from egyptian texts to Hathor and Horus, becuase people are more familiar with the anglicised greek translations of the names. Abdishtar (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I forgot to say, the sources listing Yahweh as a Canaanite deity have two problems. One is that it lists Kuntillet Arjud as canaanite, its hebrew: http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~semitic/wl/digsites/SLevant/KuntilletAjrud2006/ And relies on The Bible Unearthed, written by Israel Finkelstein, which focuses on the Bible and not the Canaanite religion.Leaving the section with Yaw instead of Yahweh, is to remove Bible-centric bias from the article. Abdishtar (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To not delete it, I fused the Yahweh (yhwh) translation of yw (yaw) with Yaw/Yam Nahar. They don't appear as two distinct deities in the canaanite pantheons, they appear as cognates between the canaanite and hebrew pantheons. See: Asherah: goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament By Tilde Binger Page 35 http://books.google.com/books?id=-xF8jqHEp_oC&pg=PA35&dq=yahweh+and+yaw&hl=en&ei=0NVjTf7WJ8GugQfr6YT7AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=yahweh%20and%20yaw&f=false Abdishtar (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to us to decide if something that is clearly a reliable source by our standards is right. Plenty of reliable sources refer to Yahweh and Asherah as Canaanite deities. If some sources say they weren't, we can include that pov. Finkelstein is fine, but there are plenty of other sources. We can't use our own interpretations in articles. Dougweller (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my interpretation, nor is it a POV issue. I agree that Finkelstein is fine. However, Finkelstein uses the spelling of the names Yahweh and Asherah in a way that is familiar-more to the audiences reading his books, that is, the anglicized forms of the hebrew names. The Hebrew names Yahweh and Asherah are cognates of Yaw and Athirat, that's not my interpretation, that's scholars-practice. Kind of like how you might see Osiris in a translation of an Egyptian text, because english speakers are familiar with that name, and not the name Wesir. Abdishtar (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't change the spelling of Pheonix to Phoenix because I wasn't sure it was the same word. Anyone know? Thanks! - Richfife 02:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is Phoenix, One thing, can users who edit the page significantly please post the reasons why here. John D. Croft 06:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The statement inserted recently "The first and most obvious is that the area was populated by the descendants of Canaan. Canaan, along with Misraim, Phut, and Cush, was the son of Ham. This pattern of naming a location after the first settler after Noah's flood is found in Egypt, actually called Misr, after Misraim, Hadramaut in Yemen, after Hadoram, and many others."

This is not an etymology for the origins of the word Canaan. To say "most obvious" is a POV error, not allowed in Wikipedia. John D. Croft 02:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A section on differences from the Bible is probably needed in this article. I suggest the following list from Bruce Lerro's book "Power in Eden: the emergence of Gender Hierarchies in the Ancient World" would be a good place to start.

• Canaanites
• Israelites

• Polytheistic
• Monotheistic

• Pre-Axial Tradition
• Post Axial Tradition*

• Pre-exilic and remained in Judea after Babylonian invasion.
• Post-exilic and returned from Babylonia after Persians allowed them to return.

• Agricultural in culture.
• Urban in culture

• Peasantry based.
• Merchant middle class based

• Subsistence economy based.
• Commercial economy based.

• Largely barter economy
• Monetarised economy

• Tributary in nature of polity.
• Taxation the nature of polity.

• Nature is an interplay of forces.
• No interplay of divine forces.

• Gods may battle each other or join forces. Goddesses subordinate to Gods
• No more divine battles. Both Gods and Goddesses vanish, their functions subsumed.

• Sexuality is a part of the Divine Order. Sex makes people more like divinities
• Sexuality is apart from the Divine Order. No sexuality to divine experience. Sexuality is part of human order.

• Space and time integrate the sexual and the sacred.
• Space and time separate the the sexual and the sacred

• Gods are gendered & sexual.
• God is not phallic, not imagined below the waist

• Fusion of the divine with Humanity.........
• Separation of the divine from Humanity

• Nature is self determining
• Human interaction determines natural conditions

• Humans determine what Gods do through manipulating and appeasing them......
• Humans determine God's actions through ethical or unethical actions

• Focus on deities fluctuates depending on crisis.......
• Focus on deity is a perpetual demand

• Fertility rituals needed*. Ritual can facilitate the the union of natural forces to create fertility.
• Fertility rituals are faithless Fertility lies in God's power over rain. Nature is already fertile. Land can be polluted by defying God's commands.

• Deities provide humanity with culture. Stories about Gods and Goddesses exemplify relations between humans.
• Humans develop their own culture. Stories about men and women teach lessons.

• Soul most important. Imagination, intuition, dreams. emotions, fantasies, impulses. the sensual.
• Spirit most important. Abstract reasoning, analysis, self reflection, consciousness and conscience, sensual denial

• Sacred presences immanent. Contact through spells. Organic, symmetrical. Interdependent,
• Sacred presence transcendent* Contact through faith and prayer. Contractual, asymmetrical, Independent

• Respect: elder brother younger sister metaphor
• Worship: father metaphor*

• Cosmos is improvised
• Cosmos is planned with a purpose

• Animals included as part divine*.
• Animals excluded from being part of the divine. Humans higher than animals.

• Afterlife shadowy & limited.
• Afterlife paradaisal for all.

• External laws, obedience to the Gods.
• Internal dictates, conscience, Morality.

• Unity of king with priests.
• Separation of rulers and priests.

• Traditional ritual based
• Scripturally textually based

Regards John D. Croft 08:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say go for it, definitely. This article bends too much the other way for my tastes. I wouldn't agree with all the above statements, though, so I'd watch exactly what you put down.---G.T.N. (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the second-last and fourth-last. Jewish afterlife is very shadowy, unknowable. The cult of Jesus introduced the Paradise myth. The second-last is definitely wrong. Hebrew culture was as much a theocracy as any other.

217.20.20.85 (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Canaanite mythology: redirects to this page, but the article certainly needs a section on myth.
• Etymology and history: needs far less etymology (this is not the article for discussing the origins of the name Canaan]]; there needs to be a discussion of the development of Canaanite religion over time, from the early stage reflected in the Ugarit texts to the Iron Age stage when it broke up into numerous kingdom-centred cults each with a separate national god (Chemosh, Yahweh, etc).
• Similarites to/differeneces from Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Hittite and Greek religion (and Jewish if you want, but Jewish religion in the Iron Age was still part of general Canaanite religion (Yahweh as high god/royal god, plus worship of subsidiary gods, goddesses, etc) and to talk of "similarities" is rather misleading).
• Bibliography: Where are the major works on Canaanite religion? There are plenty!

PiCo 10:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought they were all written on papyrus which decomposed over the millenia, so there's almost nothing left of any of them now.HS7 (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what about the rituals and practices? — Rickyrab | Talk 01:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a small section on the modern rebuilding of this religion, since the main article for that is being deleted, but then I thought maybe I should have asked here first. I'm doing that now. Is it OK with you? I couldn't think of any reason why just a few lines on that wouldn't belong here. Also would it be possible to add a link to their site somewhere(http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/2938/), since that's relevent too, and provides a lot of information about the original religion.HS7 (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the merge between Canaanite and Ancient Semitic Religions because effectively they are different subjects. Whilst Ancient Semitic Religions is a general subject there are significant differences between the various areas which requires separate articles. We don't merge Mesopotamian or Babylonian religion under the topic of Ancient Semites. This view also is an ancient Ethnocentric view that underemphasises other cultural groups like the Hurrians and Sumerians which had a huge impact on Canaanite religious understandings. John D. Croft 05:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the merger was purely pragmatic. If you want to expand this into a full article, too large to figure as a section in Ancient Semitic religion, it should of course be separate. It's still a sub-article of that on the larger topic. dab (𒁳) 12:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This [1] is recent, as is this [2] although it isn't free to read (it does mention child sacrifice according to Google Scholar). --Doug Weller (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually hadn't read every page on that other site. However, I'm not sure I see why a few pages there suggesting the possiblilty of things that differ from the commonly accepted facts means the majority of the site, which seems rather more sensible, can't be used as a source. The page I linked to provided the arguments of both sides set out clearly without making any similarly unsubstantiated claims as those you found elsewhere on the site. But since this isn't my encyclopedia, and I am quite new to this, I will accept that you know what you are doing and had good reason to do it.HS7 (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having read through some more of that site, I have discovered that it really isn't a reliable source, with some parts of it being rather inaccurate. So just ignore what I said above.HS7 (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting the relevant bits of the article you linked to:

Several kinds of human sacrifice are mentioned in the Bible. First, it categorically denounces infant sacrifice to the god Molek in Leviticus 20:2–5 and elsewhere. Second, the Bible accuses some people of offering human sacrifices to Baal, as in Jeremiah 19:5. Third, a few biblical passages imply that sacrifice of the first-born male child was offered to Yahweh, the biblical god. Most explicit are Exodus 22:28–29 and Ezekiel 20:25–26. The former demands infant sacrifice to Yahweh, and the latter declares that Yahweh commanded the sacrifice to punish Israelites for their sins.

These biblical passages are difficult to evaluate. As was seen in Section V, Molek was a god of the dead who presided over the mute nonexistence of the underworld, but there is no clear evidence that he received human sacrifices. A god named Baal-Hammon was part of the ritual sacrifices in the western Mediterranean, but the Canaanite Baal does not seem to have received regular child sacrifices, and the biblical testimony that Yahweh once received these offerings is bewildering. To date, there remains no archaeological evidence to corroborate any of the biblical passages, though many biblical scholars are convinced that the evidence from the western Mediterranean confirms biblical testimony (Heider 1985; J. Day 1989).

The bit in the article about how there is no god called Moloch seems incorrect, though. The author seems quite certain of the fact that this refers to Molek: (although the info in that article also seems to ignore the underworld-god qualities

As an underworld god, Resheph is associated with the dead, but other gods of the dead are known, particularly Malik (or Molek) and Raphiu. Scholars frequently claim that the biblical god has nothing to do with the dead, but that is not quite accurate. Biblical Yahweh has appropriated the attributes of a god of the dead in several texts. Yahweh performs the role of Resheph when he sends a slave-god to strike the Assyrian army with plague in 2 Kings 19 (cf. 2 Samuel 24 and Habakkuk 3), and the god who appears in a whirlwind to Job has surrounded himself not with Baal’s storm attributes, but with the desiccating winds of the hot desert, a motif more typical of an underworld god (M. S. Smith 2004, p. 99).

boombaard (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the sentence about the pantheon, because the Phoenicians didn't have a pantheon or Elohim so far as I know.

Which led me to realise that there is a major problem here. The article assumes that the 'Canaanite religion' and the 'Phoencian religion' are the same thing. I don't think that can be taken for granted. Maria Eugenia Aubet [3] writes "With respect to the ancient Canaanite religion, the Phoenician religion of the Iron Age presupposes an ideological break..." please read [[4]] for the full context. Glenn Markoe on the other hand doesn't mention Canaanite religion, hardly touches the 2nd millennium BCE, but does also discuss Punic religion. I'm not sure how we should handle these issues/questions, but handle them I think we should. I'm not convinced that Phoenician religion should be a redirect. Maybe it should be the other way around?--Doug Weller (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that the Phoenician and later the Punic religions would have been slight variations on the overall Canaanite religion, if there was any difference at all, probably emerging from them gradually and retaining many similarities. Of course I may be totally wrong here, but have yet to see any proof contrary to this. Also I'm quite sure the Phoenicians were one group of the Canaanites, all of which are covered by this page, which therefore is an article on Canaanite religion, rather than just Phoenician. Maybe if you have enough information on Phoenician beliefs which differs from the information here you could create your own article on it.HS7 (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is your source for any of the above? And what is the 'overall Canaanite religion', given the large changes that took place at the beginning of the first millennium BCE?--Doug Weller (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually have a specific source that I can direct you to right now, mostly it's just an assumpiton based on my understanding of the topic from all of my combined research. I know, that's not good enough here, but i just don't think it's too good an idea to jump in without looking at the other side first. I also may have said things a bit differently than I should have. I had been hoping to get back here and change that before you noticed, but it seems I missed that chance. I've been thinking about this and I've come to the conclusion that I'm not entirely sure what it is that you're trying to say. is it that you think their religious beliefs changed so much around that time that there should be two articles on it, because that's what it seems like to me now when I reread it. the way I see it is that even if there was such a change it seems unlikely that over a short period they would suddenly go from one religion to another, totally different, and that instead there would have been changes within the religion whilst other parts of it remained the same or similar. If this is what you are saying, I definitely think you should just go and add information about it to the article, the history section really needs to be totally rewritten, but I'm not sure what you mean about changing the redirects of the article. I think what I'll do is I'll read back through your sources again to see if they have any evidence that shows I am wrong, and then maybe look around the internet myself and see what I can find. Or you could just ignore me and get on with rewriting the article.HS7 (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they didn't have a pantheon, who are the people in their myths? Or is it just the later Phoenicians that didn't have the pantheon, because I'm not so familiar with their mythology.HS7 (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A pantheon is a system of gods. They had local pantheons, not an all-embracing one. These were once thought to be a family triad but now are seen to be a dual system of a supreme male and female god. By the way, you shouldn't make changes per se, you should strike out what you no longer wish to say and then (in a separate post) say what you now want to say.

Take a look at the article. It says at the moment "Thus while Phoenician and Canaanite refer to the same culture, archaeologists and historians commonly refer to the Bronze Age, pre-1200 BCE Levantines as Canaanites and their Iron Age descendants, particularly those living on the coast as Phoenicians. More recently, the term Canaanite has been used for the secondary Iron Age states of the interior, that were not ruled by Aramaean peoples, a separate and closely related ethnic group, a group which included the Philistines and the states of Israel and Judah [2]."

Glenn Markoe doesn't make the time differentiation the article does, and I'm not sure how you differentiate between the religion of the Canaanites in the interior and the Phoenicians (except of course when Judaism develops). I do think we need to show which gods were attested in which millennium. The list at the moment is pretty bad (not from an academic source I'd wager), where are Amen, Bes, Bastet, Osiris, Isis and Horus for instance? I'll try to work something up out of Markoe.--Doug Weller (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They seemingly started with a single pantheon, but that then broke apart into the local worship of between one and three gods in each area. Focussing on a small number of gods out of the entire bunch was very common back then, and might well have also happened in the earlier Canaanite pantheon as well. Rather annoyingly my book on the history of the region has disappeared, so I'll have to find it before I can check any details. The whole article needs to be reorganised, and maybe completely rewritten. It's not all that great at the moment. Aren't those all Egyptian gods though? Although, they may well have borrowed them. Maybe if you're going to add them to the list you might want to mention that somewhere? it might be possible to add the region and time that each god was worshipped to that list, but it might look a bit crowded then. Maybe writing a few lines on each god, in seperate sections, might work better?HS7 (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting some references sources here

“Child-sacrifice was a prominent feature of the worship of the Phenician Malik-Baal-Kronos,” says the Funk and Wagnalls Jewish Encyclopedia.

De 18:9-10 shows a specific details of how many were killed, "fire".

Added to their other degrading practices was that of child sacrifice. According to Merrill F. Unger: “Excavations in Palestine have uncovered piles of ashes and remains of infant skeletons in cemeteries around heathen altars, pointing to the widespread practice of this cruel abomination.” (Archaeology and the Old Testament, 1964, p. 279) Halley’s Bible Handbook (1964, p. 161)

How the deity whom they sacrificed to, Molech, Child Sacrifice to Molech. God’s law to Israel prescribed the death penalty for anyone, even an alien resident, who would give his offspring to Molech. Levitcus 20:2-5 would a law like exist it there was no chance of the canaanites praticating. Nonetheless, apostate Israelites, both in the kingdom of Judah and in the ten-tribe kingdom, passed their offspring through the fire. 2 Kings 17:17, 18; Ezekiel 23:4, 36-39, Jeremiah 7:31.

The Bible Handbook, by Henry H. Halley, notes that at Megiddo, archaeologists found the ruins of a temple of Ashtoreth, goddess-wife of Baal. He writes: “Just a few steps from this temple was a cemetery, where many jars were found, containing remains of infants who had been sacrificed in this temple . . . Prophets of Baal and Ashtoreth were official murderers of little children.” “Another horrible practice was [what] they called ‘foundation sacrifices.’ When a house was to be built, a child would be sacrificed, and its body built into the wall.”

The most notorious characteristic of Carthaginian religion was child sacrifice. Diodorus Siculus reports that in 310 B.C.E., during an attack on the city, the Carthaginians sacrificed over 200 children of noble birth to appease Baal-Hammon. The Encyclopedia of Religion states: “Offering up an innocent child as a vicarious victim was a supreme act of propitiation, probably intended to guarantee the welfare of family and community alike.”

In 1921, archaeologists discovered what came to be called the Tophet, after the Biblical expression used at 2 Kings 23:10 and Jeremiah 7:31. Digs revealed multiple levels of urns containing the charred remains of animals (used as substitute sacrifices) and young children, buried under stelae with votive inscriptions. It is estimated that the Tophet contains the remains of over 20,000 children who were sacrificed during just one 200-year period. Some revisionists today claim that the Tophet was simply the funeral site of children who were stillborn or died too young to be interred in the necropolis. However, as notes Lancel, quoted earlier, “the reality of Carthaginian human sacrifice cannot be categorically denied.”

Children from noble families were offered up in fire to such gods as Tanit and Baal-Hammon. In Carthage young victims were burned in sacrifice to a bronze statue of Kronos. Diodorus Siculus, a historian of the first century B.C.E., says that the child’s relatives were not allowed to cry. Perhaps it was believed that tears of anguish would diminish the value of the sacrifice.

For a time a similar ritual was practiced near Jerusalem in ancient Topheth. Worshipers there would dance and strike tambourines to drown out the child’s cries as it was thrown into the furnace-belly of Molech.—Jeremiah 7:31.

Adrammelech, A god worshiped by the Sepharvites, one of the subjugated peoples the king of Assyria brought into the territory of Samaria after his taking the Israelites of the ten-tribe kingdom into exile. It was to Adrammelech and Anammelech that the Sepharvites sacrificed their sons in the fire.—2Ki 17:22-24, 31, 33. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.144.241 (talk) 02:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was documented in the Bible and other sources. You might want to put this in the article. Of course there are other sources which refute these claims as well and they can also be included. Piercetp (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Child sacrifices were real. But there is a misundersmding of what MLKh (Molek, Moloch) really represents. It is not a God, but a type of sacrifice involving burning "first fruits" amd comes from the Hebrew-Canaanite word for King (or God - eg Baal Melech - the God of Tyre). It was not only believed that the killing of children was demanded by God (i.e. the stories of Abraham and the sacrifice of Japhenah), but to these people it was believed that the child would "sit at the right hand of (their) God!" The offering of your eldest (or only) begotten son or daughter was considered an act of great merit. It ties into later Christian belief of sacrificing the Son of God for our sins. John D. Croft (talk) 06:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The biblical references here should be included, as well as the rabbinical commentary from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch#Jewish_rabbinic_commentary --as far as the conjecture about Abram/Yitzhak, it's very insightful but not necessarily scholarly. The Xtian belief has no direct chronological relation but is also interesting. I'm performing a grammar edit. I really recommend you all clean up this section. Chaim1221 (talk) 10:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should only include what recent archeological sources say about this, unless we want, and I'm not convinced that we do, a section on the view of Canaanite religion expressed in the Bible and rabbinical commentary. The problem with this is that there is every reason to expect it to be inaccurate, so it is interesting in a historical sense but doesn't help us understand Canaanite religion, only what others thought about it at the time. Dougweller (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)hemp clarify the purpose of this page too. What do you think? John D. Croft (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller, this would be good I think, if we had a separate page on "Canaanite religion from Biblical and rabbinical sources". It would

Hey. This page is really messy, with incredibly lengthy and often unclear sections, particularly to the non-expert reader. It could also do with a few pictures. I made many of these changes, but they were reverted. So, how are we going to clean up this article? (Midnightblueowl (talk)#)

I would suggest using the following design guide, which is used in the pages of most religions, such as Christianity and Shinto etc.

Beliefs :

• Deities
• Afterlife
• Cosmology
• Mythology

Practises :

• Worship
• Priesthood
• Festivals
• Human sacrifice

History :

• Origins
• Clashes with early Judaism
• Decline
• Revival > by which I mean Neopaganism

Sources :

• Literary
• Archaeological

(Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I have removed from the lead the claim that Canaanite religion 'has been considered a form of paganism'. Paganism generally refers to non-Christian, or non-Abrahamic, religions; calling a pre-Abrahamic religion 'pagan' is therefore anachronistic to the point of incoherence. Terraxos (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Paganism" seems to be commonly used these days, at least in much of the USA, to refer to polytheism. Canaanite religion is clearly certainly polytheistic. Ellenois (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the history section the brief paragraph describing the recent attempt to revive the ancient Canaanite religion was deleted. Was there a reason? Perhaps its not "significant", but it is a revival of a sort. Piercetp (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero evidence of a Canaanite deity named "Moloch" (or Molech). This is only mentioned in the Bible and the writings of the enemies of Canaanite polytheism. It does not appear in the writings or inscriptions of the Canaanites themselves. I do not object to a discussion in the body of the article about this putative Moloch, but i do in the list of deities. Ellenois (talk) 01:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced it with a note that it is alleged but not attested. It should be here as a lot of people think Moloch was a Canaanite deity, but it does need a health warning, which I've given it. If you want to reword what I've done, feel free, but please leave it here (it would probably be replaced anyway if removed) Dougweller (talk) 06:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moloch doesn't show up in *any* Canaanite deity lists. It's only a "Canaanite god" because it's in the Torah and the later Bible, hardly a dispassionate source of information about religious rivals. It's pure propaganda, meant to show that "those guys" do bad awful things, and "we" are better. I'd really like to see this article stop giving credence to a source that is so subjective and unreliable, ignoring all information from the culture itself and verifiable through archaeology. Ellenois (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of making this article about the Canaanite Religion through the lense of the Bible, it would be best that we use verified material about the Canaanite religion. That's why Moloch is being removed. Abdishtar (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC) It looks like below this post, its already being done. So I'll leave it be for the supporters of Molech being a canaanite deity to verify their sources. Abdishtar (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

El is never referred to as "Most high" in any of the Ugaritic texts. That ephitet is only ever give to Baal later on when Baal becomes the number one god. Albright's theories on various ephitets of Yahweh and their relation to El, I don't think are as well accepted as they used to be since I have certainly heard many different ideas in various books written after his death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.76.77 (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are already two sections on this theme (6 Child sacrifice and 8 Child sacrifice was real!), I have decided to start this new section, because I believe it is necessary to come out of the dispute, either modifying the text of the relative section of the article (4 Human sacrifice), or at least appending warnings to it

The fundamental (and obvious) consideration is that, at sub-section 3.2 Pantheon we find listed Molech, "putative god of fire". Now, if we look at the relative Wiki article, we will find that Wikipedia treats Molech simply as another form of the main variant form of the name Moloch.

So, it is necessary to remove, or at least to signal this evident discrepancy between section of this article (4 Human sacrifice) and the main article on Moloch/Molech.

Unless somebody comes up with a definitive (and convincing ...) solution within the next 24 hours, I will append to the section of the article (4 Human sacrifice) the following warnings:

This section's factual accuracy is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Miguel de Servet (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As anticipated, the two above warnings have been appended to the section 4 Human sacrifice of the main article
Miguel de Servet (talk) 12:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take this the wrong way, but the bible could be wrong about them worshipping moloch and committing human sacrifice, as there is no evidence for it. However, there is evidence from greek sources, but they also said that the pyramids were built by slaves and that all the younger women of babylon were sent to do temple prostitution, so if you use greek sources, they have to be supplemented by facts. I am currently in college for anthropology/archaeology of the ancient near east and will look this up, but so far (And I've read alot) I haven't come acrossed even a name similar to moloch, let alone canaanite human sacrifice. Abdishtar (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section Pantheon: "Baal" just means lord. When "Baalit" is a feminine counterpart of Baal, that must mean lady, so Baalit is not a specific goddess. Dagon cannot be a father to just "Baal" but there must be a specific god. Yahweh/Yah must be a brother to a specific god, not just to a "Baal". Which "Baal"? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, it's not a god but an epithet/common noun. It refers in theology to the head of the pantheon, and as you say "lord". When saying Baal, in Ugarit Hadad is who is being referred to. So we should just replace baal with Hadad. Thanks for pointing this out. Abdishtar (talk) 02:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]