Posted on 03/27/2016 2:55:03 PM PDT by daniel1212
Tammuz vs Jesus
The ancient Sumerian deity Tammuz, or Dumuzi, has been thrown around a bit as a possible source for Christian belief by copycatters, but with little in the way of specifics. One critic refers to Tammuz as "the savior god worshipped in Jerusalem" [107 -- though they never say what he saved people from, or how he was a savior], as the "savior/fertility sun god who annually died and was resurrected" [138 -- we'll look into this claim below]; and uses word games to hint that he is represented by the Apostle Thomas [172 -- though this point isn't developed, much less proven linguistically or historically; it is merely remarked, without a footnote, that "it is said", via the indication that Thomas preached to the Parthians and Persians, that this somehow conveys that these groups were followers of Tammuz!]. The most extensive claims about Tammuz claims that:
At a sacred time of his "passion in Jerusalem", he "wore a 'crown of thorns' made of myrrh." He was annually sacrificed in the Temple in Jerusalem. Was called "only-begotten Son" and "Son of the Blood"; as well as Healer, Savior, Heavenly Shepherd, and Anointed One. He "tended the flocks of stars, which were considered souls of the dead in heaven." Acharya adds that Tammuz/Adonis was "representative of the spirit of the corn" and this connects with Bethelehem meaning "House of Bread" or "House of Corn." She also adds that Tammuz was "born in the very cave in Bethlehem now considered the birthplace of Jesus."
Little will be said in response to much of this, because frankly, much of this is either unsubstantiated or else of no moment. Scholarly literature on Tammuz is not common, but what I have found offers utterly no confirmation of, or reference to, any of these claims, with two exceptions: Tammuz' identity as a shepherd, and his death and "raising". So let's look at what scholars of the literature have to say that relates to these claims.
The god Tammuz was known as a Sumerian god of fertility and of new life [ImT, 28] earlier than 3000 B.C. [Lang.TI, 2-3]. He was indeed known by two of the names above: he was called a shepherd -- but that was only because he literally was a shepherd [ImT, 29]. His specific charge was the production of lambs and ewe's milk.
Of course we would note that in a pastoral ancient society, it would be no surprise for any leading figure (political, religious, or whatever) to be called a "shepherd" -- but in this case, the parallel isn't even there, because the title is literal!
Tammuz was also called a "healer" (as a profession), and regarded as a savior, but as Langdon notes [Lang.TI, 34], those who referred to Tammuz by these names "have not those spiritual doctrines which these words convey in Christian doctrine" in mind, but use the words "in the sense that all life depended upon his sacrifice and especially upon his return from hell." (As a reminder, that is something Jesus didn't do.)
Tammuz healed medically, but as Langdon reminds us, "[e]very deity, male or female, possessed this power," so Tammuz is nothing special, or unexpected for a god true or false, for that matter. Tammuz saved, but not from sin: He saved from starvation and physical death! He was never looked upon as one to rescue from eternal damnation; that was too way out for him!
Now this leads to the death and return to life of Tammuz, and there is indeed one -- though to call it a "resurrection" (as even Langdon does) is to remove all meaning from the word; Smith in Origins of Biblical Monotheism [112] notes that the means of Tammuz' return to life is unknown, but adds that the description points to his "participation in a ritual in which the dead were invoked and then temporarily manifested." The Tammuz cult was centered in Tammuz' marriage to Inanna, and it was her lamenting of his early death that women imitated (as in Ezekiel).
Tammuz' death was usually ascribed, though, to raiders from the nether world who attacked him and took his sheep. Thereafter he was mourned by his mother, sister, and widow. [ImT, 29, 54] But good news for them: Tammuz didn't stay dead. He came back again later, rescued by his consort and some demons who sang to him.[LangTI, 20-1] The mechanism whereby this was accomplished, though, is not described, much less obviously comparable to Jewish resurrection.
Scholars of religion and of Tammuz recognize this story as representative of the usual birth-death cycle of vegetation. (As such, he was called "the faithful son", but of "the fresh waters which come from the earth" [Lang.TI, 6n] -- this is the closest title I could find to the other "son" titles above -- his other titles include "Mother-milk" [?], "god of date palms," and "image of Ea".) There are links proving this -- Tammuz' death occurred at the end of spring; he was killed in one story by the gods of the thunderstorm (which fits because thunder tends to curdle milk!) -- and the story is so told that the "return of the god seems no new beginning: it is more we who are back to the old beginning."
The death and "raising" of Tammuz occurs every year and corresponds with the natural cycle of vegetation. This provides no parallel at all for the Christian religion, expect by redefining terms into meaninglessness (i.e., "resurrection" meaning not just a specific Jewish concept, but any dead-alive transition!) and ignoring vast differences in meaning.
More: http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/tammuz.php
I do not agree with all that this industrious Christian apologist holds, but he seems to do an overall good job in dealing with typical skeptic charges, including copycat assertions.
Ping. Apologetics by God’s grace.
Skeptics/atheists reach at ANY straw, egged on by THEIR spiritual father. Unfortunately (for their arguments), they cannot overcome the facts! There is NOTHING that can disproves ANYTHING in the Bible.
There is plenty of extra-Biblical evidence supporting Jesus’ existence.
Flavius Josephus writes of Jesus and his brother James in ‘Antiquities’.
Tacitus writes of ‘Christus’ in ‘Annals’ 15.44 in a most unflattering way. If this were a ‘creation’ of the disciples, why would it be so negative, if they wanted to build a religion?
Pliny the Younger, about 112 AD, mentioned Christ in his ‘Letters’.
Even ‘The Talmud’ mentions Christ! (The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a).
These are but a few of the extra-Biblical evidence of Jesus’ existence. Of course, Believers know through interaction with the Lord, but to a non-Believer, this cannot be quantified.
Those who seek to equate Jesus with myths are either too lazy to research their claims, wilfully blind, or purposely lying.
Satan has always tried to counterfeit the works of God This is no surprise
Other historical references by the likes of Josephus remove any. Copy cat notions to me.
Isn’t corn a New World crop?
The article is interesting, but the author a little uninformed.
Tammuz is the Babylonian/Assyrian name of the Sumerian god Dumuzi(d), which does indeed mean, in Sumerian, “faithful/upright/righteous son.” His was a cult, which, at least in the course of time, came to be identified with typical pagan fertility cults (of which there were many in the various cultures of the ancient world), the truth of the unique promise in Genesis 3:15 being lost in the details and echoes of time and culture.
A better source of information, though dated - but not as dated as that to which the article refers - is a Festschrift (volume dedicated to the honor of a particular scholar) of Thorkild Jacobsen entitled, “Toward the Image of Tammuz.” It is out of print, but perhaps still available by way of EBay or Amazon.
It is likely - and in the interest of transparency, this is from a Christian - that the Sumerian god Dumuzi, and his semitic cultural equivalents, Tammuz etc. (in the languages of Mesopotamia: Babylonia, Assyrian, and, farther afield, Eblaic, are all to be grouped as east semitic, as opposed to the northwest semitic languages, Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, etc., and south semitic, Arabic) is to be understood as a result of the various nations or cultures after the flood, and the great loss of knowledge at the division of languages (Genesis 10), trying to come to grips with the promise preserved in the memory of many as it came to be imbedded in, and mixed with, the natural religion of the culture, that there would be one, who was both divine and human, who would appear among them in order to give himself into death so as to overcome death and bring life to mankind.
In other words, the pagan ideas are not the source of the biblical texts, but quite the opposite, that the truth Moses recorded was corrupted by and identified with other cultures. This is not evidence against the truth of scriptural Christianity, but, to the contrary, evidence in support of it.
maize is a new world crop. “Corn” means the common grain of any locale.
Parallels between the contents of the Bible and the myths, legends, and sacred texts of other cultures have been known to scholars for at least two centuries. A frequently cited example is a book by T.A. Doane last revised in 1882 and still available both in print and online (i.e., Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions). However, the mere existence of these parallels does not resolve the issue of what to make of them or how to interpret them. Their existence certainly does not disprove the divine inspiration of the Bible, nor could it, since that is mainly a matter of faith. Incidentally, in the scholarly literature, the word “stolen” is not to be found in this context. Instead, less polemical words such as “borrowing,” “influenced,” or “cultural diffusion” are thought to be more accurate descriptions.
Men will cling to ANY straw that they can use to claim that they do NOT need a Savior!
Dang!
I really shudda read ahead!
And many cultures have a FLOOD story of it’s early days...
Well, the devil could know what would be required to redeem lost souls, and would bruise his head.
I think the latter is disputed, but hardly any reputable historian rejects that Christ was a real person, while the issue is here is that of copycat theories being exposed.
Holding that affirm that he was called "the faithful son." But thanks for the research. You can email Holding at jphold@att.net
Thanks.
Miller addresses this aspect here: http://christianthinktank.com/copycat.html
Climate Change.
Tammuz was worshipped in Jerusalem at the time of Ezekiel—see Ezekiel 8.14 (women weeping for Tammuz).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.