Musings on Deuteronomy/Joshua (Old Testament Lessons 17 and 18)
As I was studying recently about the “transfer of power” from the prophet Moses to his young aide, Joshua, it hit me that there was a similarity in this motif with the ideas presented in a paper by Julian Morgenstern that I recently read called “The King-God among the Western Semites and the Meaning of Epiphanes.” This is quite an intriguing, even if somewhat old and outdated, work that looks at the ancient ideology of the Near East regarding kingship. I must preface my thoughts here by explaining that I don’t necessarily share all of Prof. Morgenstern’s reasoning or conclusions, but I found the pattern he describes strangely applicable to the Moses-Joshua narrative.
Morgenstern’s argument is that the religious traditions of the Ancient Near East, which he sees as background to, and an influence on, Israel’s religious thought, were associated with their understanding of the patterns of nature. More specifically, the life-cycle of their gods, in their view, was reflected in, for example, the annual cycles of the sun that provide the different seasons, or the vegetation cycles of death in the winter and rebirth in the spring. Examples of these traditions pervade the religions of the ancient world.
Morgenstern explains that, for example, in the ancient Tyrian (western-Semitic) religion, Baal-Haddad was the reigning god, the god of the storms, who brought rain and fertility to the earth. His consort was Astarte, the mother goddess who was represented as a type of Mother Earth. Their offspring was Tammuz, who was represented by the yearly crops. According to the myth, in the spring, Tammuz, the divine child, was born and grew to maturity to the point where he was identified with, or even supplanted, the Father god. In the autumn, the old god was seen as dying and being buried, only to be born again in the spring as the young god. The cycle repeated itself annually as the young god rose up from the soil (from the Underworld), grew up to become the old Father god, died, and then was born again with new and vigorous life. (For me, personally, I think it is hard for us to know if this is how the ancients actually saw their gods, as dying and resurrecting each year, or if they saw the cycles of nature as merely reflecting a more archetypal divine example)
Later on, the Tyrian king Hiram, who had so much influence on Solomon and the building of his temple, supposedly reformed his people’s religion so that it no longer followed the pattern of the vegetation cycle, but followed the solar phases. The main phases of this new belief were following the steadily increasing light of the winter/spring sun and then the receding radiance of the summer/autumn sun. The summer/autumn sun, representing the god Baal-Shamem, grew older and dimmer as the year went on, until at the winter solstice, the point of least light in the year, the old god was believed to have died, fallen asleep, or departed on a journey. The sun-god journeys to the darkness of the Netherworld through the portals of the West, only to be reborn far in the East. When he is reborn as the winter/spring sun, he is Melcarth, the Lord of Heaven, the young warrior god that brings new life as he grows in brightness and strength throughout these seasons of the year. Essentially, according to Morgenstern, the two gods, Baal-Shamem and Melcarth, were the same god, but in two basic phases — one mortal and one immortal. Often, the old god never truly dies but is replaced in the world of the living by the young god, who rules from his throne. The old god continues to rule, but more remotely, from the realm of the Afterlife. This general pattern can be seen in similar Egyptian beliefs regarding the dying Osiris who is avenged and “replaced” by his son Horus, the Greek traditions of the son god killing and replacing the father god, Zeus and Heracles, the Phoenix, Babylonian beliefs regarding Marduk, and so on.
While Morgenstern goes on extensively to then compare this pattern to ancient Israelite religion, including yearly temple rites in the autumn and spring at the Temple of Solomon, I will only briefly relate some of his ideas that concern the Israelite concept of kingship. Morgenstern argues that the kings throughout the region of the Near East followed a similar pattern for their transfers of power, imitating the trajectory of the gods. As the reigning king became old, he would appoint his son, his heir, to rule in his stead. The son symbolically “became” his father, the king, ruling on his throne. The old king would die and the new, young king would continue ruling in his stead, the embodiment of his father. Although the old king had died and journeyed to the Underworld, he would continue to rule, in a sense, through his seed who occupied his throne.
Similarly, the new reigning king would go through an annual cycle represented in the great religious festivals at the temple. In these festivals, there were dramatic re-enactments in which, according to Morgenstern, the king would play the role of the god, as the embodiment of the god. At the Autumn New Year Festival, on the day of the autumn equinox, the king-god would, in a dramatic presentation, die and be buried in the earth (which Morgenstern seems to be saying would have been represented by the king entering the temple, the pillars of which represented the gates to the world of the dead). At the festival of the vernal equinox, there would have been a celebration of the god/king’s “awakening” or “resurrection” when, at the point of greatest light hitting the temple, he would emerge from its eastern entrance and appear to his people, glorious and radiant (the sun likely reflecting brightly off his throne and/or silver or gold colored crown/clothing) and full of new life, giving new hope to his people. (If such ideas were ever represented in Israelite religion, which I believe that they were, at least to an extent, they were greatly modified over time. According to some theories, all of these themes were represented in one great Autumn festival, and the Spring festival represented different ideas altogether).
I could go on and on about Morgenstern’s interesting analysis of these themes, but my point in bringing this up is that the idea of the old dying god/king and the rise of the young, vibrant god/king seems to have had some influence on the Israelite traditions regarding Moses and Joshua. We could say that history does have a tendency to repeat itself, or perhaps it is a case of ancient stories recontextualized to shape narrations of historical events, but the story of the transfer of power between Moses and Joshua does seem to follow this ancient pattern of cyclical transition as described by Morgenstern. Moses, the old prophet (who was, for all intents and purposes, Israel’s earthly king), having lived a full life in service of the Lord, reaches the point when it is time for him to die and be replaced by a young, vibrant new leader. There is a period where Moses is commanded to “share” the authority of his office with Joshua, in preparation for the transition. It is interesting that this takes place just as the people of Israel are reaching the promised land. It is as if God, when bringing his people into a new land for a new life, wants them to be led by a new, younger Moses into the promised land. Just as Moses had, in earlier years, been both the spiritual and military leader of Israel, Joshua comes as a young warrior-prophet ready to lead the people to further conquests. This is how the resurrected, young god of the ancient traditions was depicted — as a warrior who comes to deliver his people.
However, as some traditions affirm, Moses does not really die, but was “translated” — he is essentially deified and continues ruling, in a sense, from beyond and afar, guiding still his young replacement through the prophetic mantle passed on, through the law that he had recorded, and perhaps, like the succession of Elisha following Elijah, through the endowment of a portion of his “spirit” to Joshua. Certainly, the same prophetic Spirit that had guided Moses was now operating in the Lord’s new servant.
6 Comments
The patterns Morgenstern identified are nearly universal in ancient cultures. In my opinion, they were not the result of cultural diffusion. All kingship rites were instigated by stunning astral or cosmological dramas played out across earthly skies by three planets (hence the universal triumvirate, god/father/creator/king, goddess/mother/daughter/consort/ and son/child/warrior/hero/heir) and their accompanying plasma discharges (axis mundi/world mountain/celestial tree/path to heaven/pillar or pyramid/dragon/beast/leviathan). It was an age unlike anything our tired old planet has seen since, with cosmic forms that dominated the skies as they seemed to interact with one another in celestial pageants that became the basis for all cultural traditions, including coronation, succession and rebirth rights. This same narrative form is found in many Old Testament stories, and was an integral part of Israelite tradition. So, too, was the story of the son/warrior/hero found in all antique cultures, wherein he is born, sojourns away from heaven/home/throne, suffers many misadventures and then returns to his rightful place in heaven/home/throne and discovers he is or is recognized as the heir and is crowned/glorified, which motif is the basis of so much tradition it’s nearly ubiquitous. These are all elements I cover in my symposium presentations designed to help Latter-day Saints see the connection of these traditional, cosmological motifs to prophetic visions such as those of Ezekiel, Daniel, John’s Apocalypse (Revelation) and mythic stories such as Sisyphus, Heracles, Horus, Tammuz, Marduk, et al, as well as cultural traditions such as Jack and the Beanstalk, Rapunzel, Jack and Jill and even our Christmas traditions of Santa Claus. These ‘ascension’ motifs and traditions are also rehearsed, in the visions of all the prophets and, of all places, in our modern temple rituals. In my mind, they are proof positive that Joseph Smith was a prophet. How else, except by revelation, could he have placed an authentic temple drama motif in our temples, one that conforms in every respect to the ancient cosmological and universally traditional patterns? I applaud your interest in applying these traditional, cultural patterns to the gospel. It’s a worthy and worthwhile pursuit because it reveals much.
Thank you, Anthony, for your comments. They are always very interesting. One of the difficulties that I have, however, with this theory is that, although it does seem to make a lot of sense, how do you see God fitting into the picture? Seeing parallels between Joseph Smith’s teachings and ancient beliefs as evidence of his prophetic calling doesn’t mean too much if he got the First Vision all wrong! Unless I’m misunderstanding, your theory seems to be saying that the Father, Mother, and Son Gods are nothing more than planets and that the awe-inspiring spectacle of these heavenly bodies in our earthly sky is what inspired all ancient beliefs regarding God. Is this what you are saying, or have I misunderstood?
Yes. You’ve misunderstood, though I do appreciate your kind way of putting it. Most are less temperate. (grin) Those ancient sky pageants influenced the symbolism and metaphor, rites and rituals, religion and tradition of all ancient cultures. In fact, in was the source of all that. Remove those elements from the most antique cultures, and there is no culture. Ask any mythologist, including Morganstern, and he’ll confirm it. The only flaw in their thinking is their failure to recognize the planets and plasmas in Earth’s ancient heavens were the origin of all that mythic tradition. That is, the effects of these celestial light and sound shows that played out in the theater of the gods was so profound that everything in human thought was defined by the way it impacted them. Recognize that crucial concept, and you throw open wide the door to the world of the prophets.
But the God we worship, the one that appeared to Joseph Smith in the sacred grove that day along with his son, the Savior, are who we’ve been taught they are. But because the ancient beliefs and traditions were so much a part of those cultures, the antique prophets and apostles were constrained to teach the gospel in terms the people could understand, in symbolism based in their sacred traditions and beliefs, which were, in turn, based in ancient astral events. In fact for that reason, such symbol-based or icon-based language became the traditional language of the prophets. For example, “mountain of the Lord’s house” is such a phrase, one of thousands. We correctly understand it to refer to a temple. But as a stand-alone concept, it makes no sense. How can a building be a mountain, or vice-versa? Yet, it fits perfectly with the concept that the original “Lord’s house” appeared to stand atop a pillar of light (a plasma column that seemed to connect Earth and heaven) called the “world mountain in ancient lore,” a magnificent mountain- or pyramid-shaped phenomenon that stood at Earth’s North Pole were all could see it, day and night. Consider as well the phrase “Lamb of God,” applied to Jesus. While it works well as a title for him, since he was to be sacrificed for our sakes, its origins can be found in the concept that the father of the archetypal ‘son’ was a ram or ram-headed god (see Facsimile No. 2, figure #1). Naturally, the son of a ram would be called a lamb. Again, it is a metaphorical construct based in imagery constructed around astral images. So it is in this context alone that the prophetic language makes sense.
But, none of that symbolism takes away from the reality of the true God and the gospel. It does, however, allow us to discern all the metaphor of prophecy and the symbolism of our temple ritual, which is replete with such references and allusions. In fact, I maintain that we cannot fully understand the Restored Gospel without this perspective since it is an integral part of what God revealed to Joseph Smith. Our temples, our new scripture, the Egyptian papyri and Joseph’s teachings are chock full of this imagery. How are we to properly and fully understand it without comprehending the ancient astral metaphors employed by the prophets?
I urge you to peruse the information I’ve place on my blog (www.mormonprohecy.blogspot.com) to understand the extent and depth of these notions, since I’ve there documented Joseph Smith’s interest and understanding of them. Since you displayed such interest in Morganstern’s views and acumen in your analysis, I thought you might find much to ponder in my views.
I’d be very interested in your impressions after doing so. Thanks.
“Unless I’m misunderstanding, your theory seems to be saying that the Father, Mother, and Son Gods are nothing more than planets and that the awe-inspiring spectacle of these heavenly bodies in our earthly sky is what inspired all ancient beliefs regarding God.”
I’ve read Anthony’s books and also Velikovsky’s and I’ve concluded that the planets are associated with the Gods because that is the method they use to travel to this earth. That is to say, Jesus doesn’t float thru space like the Silver Surfer — He travels on “his planet” [so to speak].
Thus, the planets are associated with the Gods because the planets would accompany an appearence by them.
Hmmm…that’s interesting. I haven’t yet had a chance to look at Anthony’s site in much detail, but that is an interesting speculation. Now would this be the planets Jupiter, Saturn, etc., specifically, or are we talking about other, perhaps unknown, planets?
Because of the imagery provided in D&C 88:46–6, I believe that the planet that Jesus will return on — the one referred to as the “sign of the Son of Man” — is a body that no longer resides in this solar system.