Monday, 1 December 2014

The Serpent of Paradise

The speaking serpent of Eden has mystified scholars throughout the ages. In my analysis, I focus on the ancient milieu in which the story originated which allows us to understand the story in a radically new way. This is the fourth part in the series on the Book of Genesis. 

There is always a serpent in paradise!! Already in the Biblical story of the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2-3), the serpent is a very important character. In this regard the serpent is introduced as a being who is closely connected with the dark and fallen aspect of our world: "the fall" of the human race is closely connected with this creature. As such it is depicted as cunning and crooked. What sets the serpent apart from all the other animals in Eden, however, is not merely the fact that it was "more subtle" (Gen. 3:1) than them, but that it had some strange abilities, foremost of which was the ability to speak (Gen. 3:1-5)!!

Readers and scholars had been mystified by this for ages. For some this part of the garden story proves that this is "just a story"; some conservative Christians think that it did, in fact, happened as told. They think that taking the Bible as the divinely inspired Word of God requires such a reading. In this essay, I revisit the question: How should we understand the speaking serpent of Eden? I believe that the best way to approach this question is to study the ancient world in which this story came into being.

We cannot understand this part of the story (as is the case with the creation story and the other important motifs in the garden story, for example, that Eve was made from Adam's rib etc. - see parts 1-3 of this series), without considering the ancient background from which this story originated. I have previously argued [1] that the author of the Book of Genesis used the ancient source material that the fathers of the Israelites brought from their original homeland Sumeria (Abraham is said to have been from Ur in Sumeria). This is again relevant to this discussion.

The serpent and the tree

To understand the motif of the serpent in the garden story, we should first observe the following. In the Biblical story there seems to be a very close connection between the serpent and one of the trees in the garden, namely the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" which grew in the midst (or: middle) of the garden (Gen. 2:16, 17; 3:3). God forbid Adam and Eve from eating the fruit of this tree. Although He did not give any reason, it seems that this was a very serious matter in God's eyes because he warned them (at first only Adam was warned, but Eve understood the warning as applying to them both) that they would surely die on the day when they eat of it.

When the serpent approached Eve, it mentioned something else: the fruit of this tree had some amazing qualities. If they ate thereof their eyes would be "opened" and they would be "as gods" who know "good and evil". Although it might seem that the serpent's intention was merely to get them to disobey God - which would make it into an opponent of God - there does seem to be some special connection between the tree and the serpent. The qualities of the fruit of the tree aligned with the serpent's purpose. The one place in the garden where the serpent would make its appearance was exactly at this tree.

This close association between the serpent and some tree is not unique to the Bible; it is a very old motif that goes back to the earliest strata in ancient Sumerian thought. I previously mentioned that the other motifs in the garden story in the Book of Genesis are also very ancient: contrasting it with the other garden of Eden story in the Book of Ezekiel makes this clear (see part 3: The Garden of Eden: Was it a real place?). In part 3 of this series, I showed that the Genesis story incorporates motifs that are much, much older than those in the Ezekiel story. In this regard I mentioned the geographical details which place the garden somewhere in the "east", near the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, instead of in the "northern" Lebanon (the geographical details in the Genesis story corresponds with the ancient Sumerian view which locates this place in the land of Aratta - the Biblical Ararat).

I also mentioned that different trees grew in the middle of the garden according to the two stories, namely a fruit-bearing tree and a cedar. I showed that both motifs, namely the location of the garden and the cedar in the middle of the garden, reflect developments during and after the Akkadian period in Mesopotamia (~2350-2150 BC) when the older motifs were replaced by these more recent ones. This implies that the Genesis story could go back to the earlier version - which we can only account for if we accept that the Abrahamic family brought this story with them from their ancient homeland in Sumeria. Such an ancient origin for these motifs is in general agreement with the other Mesopotamian motifs in the ancient history in Genesis (ch. 2-11) which also show no influences whatsoever from after the Old Babylonian period (the first half of the second millennium BC; see my previous discussions in this regard).

I now add another ancient motif to the others in the garden story in Genesis: the close association between the serpent and some remarkable tree. In ancient Sumerian literature, there are various stories where we find such a close association between the serpent and the tree, namely that of Inana and the Halub tree, the myth of Lugalbanda as well as the legend of Etana. In the Etana legend, the serpent is in control of a deep pit at the bottom of the tree, which could refer to the realm of the dead since the serpent is also closely associated with that realm in ancient Sumerian thought.

In the Sumerian stories, there is another creature that is also associated with the same tree, namely the eagle which is also called Anzu (the one who "knows heaven"). The eagle is typically depicted in the top of the tree, whereas the serpent is depicted at the bottom. I have previously argued that these Mesopotamian eagles correspond to the Biblical cherubim [1] which would explain why we find both the serpent as well as such cherubim mentioned in the garden story in Genesis. Cherubim also have large wings and we read in Biblical poetry that God rides on a cherub (or: cherubim according to the Septuagint; Ps. 18:10, 11). Although the cherubim of later Biblical tradition are depicted with four heads of which only one is that of an eagle (Esek. 1:5-10; 10:20-21), it is possible that this reflects later developments (as is the case with the garden story in Ezekiel).

The speaking serpent

Sumerologists have proposed that the motif of the eagle in the top and the serpent at the bottom of the tree is part of the oldest strata in Sumerian thought. This motif probably goes back to the prehistoric shamanistic inheritance of the Sumerians in the time when their forebears lived in the northern mountains of Aratta. Stephanie Dalley writes in this regard: "Certain themes of shaman narratives are strikingly similar to themes of Sumerian and Akkadian myths. The World Tree, the Cosmic Eagle and a Serpent often feature in the shaman's attainment of his otherworldly goal, as they also do in the story of Inana and the Halub [Huluppu] tree, of the myth of Lugalbanda and of the Legend of Etana... One might suppose that shamanism was ingenious in northern Asia and extremely ancient so that in some way it influenced Mesopotamian myths at their very roots" [2].

According to Sumerian legend, their forebears originated in the northern mountainous area of Aratta (which originally could have been in the vicinity of the Urmia Lake - see part 3). This is also where the Biblical story of Eden place the origin of the forebears of the later Mesopotamian peoples and Israel in particular. What is quite striking, is that the motifs that we are discussing, namely of the serpent and the tree (together with the eagle) is thought to go back to this early phase in Sumerian/Mesopotamian history - exactly in accordance with the Biblical story where it is placed right at the beginning of remembered history. This motif captures the early origins of the Mesopotamian peoples (including the Semites) the best!

The reason why the motif of the serpent and eagle in the tree is ascribed a shamanistic origin is that this is, in fact, the pre-eminent symbol of shamanism, especially in the northern Asiatic and Siberian regions. The shamans of this region - even to this day - hold the birch, with its white bark, in high regard and envision that there is an eagle sitting at its top and a serpent coiled up at its roots. The Yahut shamans are said to perceive a naked woman, who embodies the spirit of the tree, at its roots. As such the lower part of her body could have had a serpent-form because roots were often symbolized as serpents [3]. She would be the serpent at the bottom of the tree.

In the Yahat tradition, this serpent woman at the bottom of the tree tempts the aspirant shaman with the milk of her breasts which is said to be a symbol of the mushrooms which grow in close proximity to the birch tree. These mushrooms are said to be of special importance in their shamanistic rituals. The shamans use them to induce the shamanistic experience that takes them to those otherworldly regions which they visit on their spiritual journeys. That such a snake-woman could speak to the shaman would not be considered strange - animal spirits and other spirits speak to them all the time.

This background shows that we should also consider the garden story in the Book of Genesis in a shamanistic context. In such a context it is not strange to find speaking animals involved. Is it not in another shamanistic context, in the story of Balaam, that we find the same motif, i.e. where the donkey speaks to him (Num. 22:27-30)? This means that the speaking serpent should not be understood either in the context of "just stories" or as some real event where some snake actually spoke, but rather as something that does in fact "happens" in reality in the context of the shamanistic experience. As such the story of the speaking serpent in the garden story in Genesis captures something that really happens in shamanistic context.

This background also throws some light on the "fruit" of the tree in the middle of the garden of Eden. In the context of primitive shamanism, this would refer to the mushrooms which grow in proximity to the beach. This is the fruit with which the serpent-woman tempts the shaman - in exactly the same way that the serpent tempted Eve in the garden story with the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The amazing qualities of the fruit of Eden are now easy to explain: it "opens" the eyes to spiritual dimensions (Balaam also refers to himself as the one "having his eyes open"; Num. 24:16) and those who partake of such shamanistic "food" often think that this enables them to becomes like "gods".

Taking the fruit of the tree in the middle of Eden as referring to such mushrooms allow us to make sense not only of the speaking serpent but also of God's command not to eat of that fruit. The appearance of this prohibition in the garden story, which clearly refers to a very early period in our human existence, makes perfect sense in the framework of that time when shamanism was still very much part of all human life. It also brings into focus a prohibition which is generally accepted throughout Israel's history, namely of all occult experience and anything that would induce such experience.

The serpent as fallen seraph?

We can now consider the Biblical serpent in more detail. In the Sumerian tradition, both the eagle and the serpent (especially when considered in the context of the world tree) were considered to be symbols of spiritual entities. In this regard, we find that both of these creatures were supposedly able to renew themselves (symbolizing living forever?), i.e. the eagle's feathers grow back and the serpent shed its skin. In the Legend of Etana, we are told how the eagle's feathers were pulled out when he was thrown into the deep pit guarded by the serpent, but also how it regrew after his escape. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, we are told how the serpent stole a special plant from the hero and directly thereafter shed its skin.

When we consider the eagle and serpent as signifying "spiritual entities" it is very possible that they were later remembered as cherubim and seraphs in Biblical tradition. In the Bible seraphs are flaming beings of which the name means "serpent". Although such seraphs are found around the throne of God, there were corresponding creatures with the same name which were possibly fallen beings. As such certain characteristics of the serpent are especially applicable to them - which could be the reason why the Biblical author of the garden story accentuated the fact that the serpent was "more subtle than any beast of the field" (Gen. 3:1). In this regard, the symbol of the serpent was especially applicable to these creatures.

These creatures are flaming (and flying) snakes called "sârâph", which kept in desert places (they were associated with such snakes in the desert; Deut. 8:15; Is. 30:6; but see also Is. 14:29 [4]). The serpent which Moses set upon the pole was also such a creature (Num. 21:6, 8). It is possible that this image of the serpent on the pole had reference to the garden story, i.e. to the serpent in the tree (I have shown that this story is very old and not fabricated during or after the Babylonian period) in which case that serpent was in fact taken to be such a "sârâph". Later, in the New Testament, this same image is applied to Jesus Christ who took our sins upon Himself on the cross (Joh. 3:14).

In the ancient Sumerian context the serpent which held at the bottom of the tree was closely associated with the realm of death of which the pit in the Etana story is clearly a symbol (see above). The serpent was also the pre-eminent symbol of that realm in ancient Sumeria. As such, the serpent was regarded as the prime enemy of the Anzu eagle, who had access to the abode of the Most High God. The conflict between these creatures, and supposedly the two realms, is illustrated in the legend of Etana where these are depicted as arch-enemies. The Biblical story seemingly uses the same motif of the conflict between the serpent (which would be the servant of the ruler of the realm of death) and God. In this story, the fruit of the tree is also associated with death (God warned Adam and Eve that they would die if they eat that fruit). 


The ancient Sumerian background of the garden story in the Book of Genesis helps us to understand some of the motifs which would otherwise be hard to explain. The motif of the serpent and the tree is a very old one - going back to the earliest strata of Sumerian thought. It takes us back to the time when shamanism was a basic way of life. This shamanistic context explains the talking serpent - this is a typical experience in such a context. It also explains the "fruit" of the tree of knowledge of good and evil [5]. In my view, we can regard that fruit as the mushrooms which shamans use to induce their experience - in this context God's prohibition makes perfect sense. God did not merely forbid Adam and Eve to eat some apple (how would that make sense?); He forbid them to engage with the occult world where the initiates experience that their eyes are "opened" and that they become "as gods".

This interpretation of the garden story does not explain everything. Some aspects of the story still need an explanation but I will do that in the context of the next part of the series which focuses on the "Fall". The next question to answer is: How should we understand the "Fall", especially if Adam and Eve were not the very first humans, as I argued previously (see part 2)?

[1] In my book Abraham en sy God (Griffel, 2012).
[2] Dalley, S. 1998. The Legacy of Mesopotamia. Oxford: Oxford University.
[3] In my view this shamanistic serpent-woman is probably the forerunner of the goddess Ninhursag, depicted as a snake-woman, who in the Kesh Temple Hymn could also be viewed as the "spirit of the temple". Kesh originally referred to an area in the northern mountains. She is not only described as a snake in the hymn; in later Mesopotamian tradition she is also depicted with the lower part of her body in the form of a snake. (See Johan Coetser's essay on this blog: An introduction to ancient Sumerian religious literature).
[4] The fiery serpent with wings first appeared as a symbol in the Akkadian period when the great king Naram-Sin, grandson of Sargon the Great, used it as his symbol. This symbol was probably used by later Mesopotamian kings who regarded him as the archetypal king, which would be the reason why it is ascribed by the prophet Isaiah to the later Assyrian king Sargon (Is. 14:29). It seems that this symbol was translated into heaven as the constellation Draco that rules the northern starry heavens. It was later stripped of its wings but stayed the "heavenly serpent" who rules over all earth. In the Book of Revelation, this is referred to as the Great Dragon (Open. 12). The fallen seraphs that are depicted as fiery flying serpents could clearly be viewed as belonging to the realm of this king of serpents.
[5] In the garden story another tree is mentioned, namely the "tree of life" (Gen. 3:22; 24). Why is this tree only mentioned towards the end of the story and why were Adam and Eve not also previously (i.e. before the "Fall") prohibited from eating its fruit? In this regard, it is interesting to remember that there is a strong tradition according to which the great tree in the garden of Eden was felled (Ezek. 31:12-18). We find this motif also in extra-Biblical traditions according to which the conflict between the eagle and serpent led to the tree being cut down. After that, however, a new shoot sprouted out. This could be the tree of life. There is a sense in which those partaking in the shamanistic (or, in later times, in the mystical) experience believe that they can obtain immortality.

Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud. (Ref.
The author has written a book on the Sumerian roots of the Bible (Op soek na Abraham en sy God (Griffel, 2012)) and is a scientist (PhD in Physics). He writes on issues of religion, philosophy, science, and eschatology.

Read also the other parts of the series on the Book of Genesis:
If readers find the article interesting, they are welcome to share it or forward it to others, including their pastors or other scholars. 

Tuesday, 4 November 2014

Meeting God

I believe that we are (also) spiritual beings who could have a relationship with God. Meeting God can lead to such a relationship. 

In life it happens from time to time that we meet someone who will forever change our lives, either for the good or for the bad. Some people will have a lasting positive impact on our lives: they will become our partners for live, either as friends or husbands and wives. We think back to the moment when we first met them with feelings of happiness and thankfulness. Other people whom we met had a negative impact on our lives. We curse the day when we first met them.

We are social beings; we need other people in our lives. There are certain deep emotional and intellectual needs that can only be filled by other people. Our dogs or cats cannot fill that gap (although they can help a bit!). Without encounters with other people, we can never meet the "right" people who will bring joy into our lives. We can, however, never know beforehand when we will meet the "right" people. It is something that just happens. Some day, some moment - when we do not even think in these terms - we just meet someone who will have a lasting positive impact on our lives.

In this whole process of meeting people, one of the most exciting moments is when we actually see and converse with somebody that we feel connected to. What is special about this moment, is that it is an actual and personal experience. It is different from thinking or dreaming about someone whom we have not met. It is not merely some deeply personal experience - we can have many such experiences all by ourselves. What makes this kind of experience so special is that it involve both a personal and a mutual component. This mutual component is what makes the moment so special: both persons see in the other someone who has the potential to bring joy and happiness into their lives. Sometimes it take some time before we actually realize this, namely that we enjoy the company of some person.

There are people who can bring a lot of joy into our lives, but we never meet them. Somehow, they never cross our paths or they cross it at the wrong moment. Sometimes we meet them, but we have all sorts of misplaced perceptions about ourselves and others and the meeting lead nowhere. Sometimes misplaced perceptions of someone (maybe created by some jealous person) result in us never actually meeting them. This is the story of what could have been...

We are also spiritual beings and a lot about our social life is also applicable to the spiritual domain. Encountering God could also change our lives dramatically - Yes, more than meeting some person. People hold all sorts of ideas about God. They have certain perceptions about God often based on other people's thinking and doings in the name of God. For some, God is merely an idea. They do not think that we can ever encounter God in the spirit. For them he will always be the unmeetable Other: we cannot encounter Him because He does not exist. Others have all sorts of experiences which they attribute to God. But in many cases these are merely experiences - no actual encounters with God had actually occurred. It is like thinking or dreaming about other people - we have some experience, but this does not include the reality of the encounter with someone else.    

Encountering God also involves a special moment. As is the case with meeting other humans, it so often happens that we encounter God when we do not in the least expect it to happen. This does not mean that we cannot seek God: God will help us find Him but the moment when He does so is so often totally unexpected. Suddenly, without expecting it in any way, we become aware of God. We have a deep sense of awareness of the presence of God. And this is the wonder of such encounters: God is not merely in the mind, He is Spirit and he encounters us in the spirit. This is not merely a personal experience; it is an experience that involves another person: the person of God. Meeting God changes our lives not because it is merely some deeply personal experience; it changes our lives because we encounter God.

We all have deep spiritual needs that only God can fulfill. People can bring joy and happiness into our lives; God brings a much deeper level of joy, peace and happiness into our lives because He touches us on a much deeper and more subtle level. God can bring a level of happiness and fullness in our lives that no human can. What makes God so different is that He does not only touch us on the positive side, bringing joy into our lives; He also touches us on a deep level where we have all sorts of pain, guilt and regret. All of us have had negative experiences in our encounters and relationships with other people and we carry that pain with us. Some people even project such feelings on God due to some loss in their lives which they cannot handle: it is much easier to keep someone responsible, even if it is God. These feelings are so deep in our inner being that we cannot even reach the depths thereof.

Meeting God touches this level. The relationship with God goes deeper than with any human - and brings healing to those experiences that brought darkness into our lives due to what others have done to us, what we have done or said to them or some event that left deep scars in our inner being. When we encounter God, the moment arises where we have to decide: are we going to allow Him into our lives? Are we going to get involved with God, enter into a relationship with God. In the same way that we have requirements for relationships, God has. And the basic requirement is that we have to be willing to let God touch us on the deepest level.

We have to open ourselves to God: when we hear His voice in the deepest essence of our being we must be willing to say: Yes God. Just as we say Yes to the person whom we love, we have to say Yes to God. The relationship with God is not a forced one - as any unhealthy human relationship would be. Since God is so much higher, greater and mightier than us, this Yes will include that we obey his requests which are only in our own best interest. God is not a hard, ruthless ruler; God is not one who kills loved ones. He is the loving Father. He is the Father because He is the one who bow down to us in a loving relationship.

We do not dive into relationships with other people. We consider many things, especially if such a relationship will be in our best interest. In the same manner we should also carefully consider a relationship involving God. The benefits are clear, I think. But sometimes we have reservations. We do not want to enter into a relationship where we have to obey. Maybe we have negative perceptions about obedience. Maybe we had some negative experiences with people in this regard. Maybe we feel that we are best off if we are our own master. As with so many things in life there are no neutral ground here: either we are open to the idea of obeying God or we think that we should obey only ourselves. Strangely, love is the only value that would get us so far as to obey willingly. And this is what God is: Love. He has demonstrated His love when he send his Son, Jesus Christ, to bring us the good news of God's love for us.

As with so many relationships that have never been, it is such a pity that so many people have never actually met God. They have heard about Him, they have thought about Him - but they have never encountered Him. The reason for this can well be because they are not open to such an encounter or that they have not recognized it as such when the encounter was indeed with Him. Meeting God is the most important life-changing experience. I hope that for everyone...

Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref.

Read also: A message for the church

Monday, 20 October 2014

Darwin's Doubt

In this essay I discuss Stephen C. Meyer's book Darwin's Doubt (2013) in which he makes a case for Intelligent Design. How convincing is his case? Should we consider Intelligent Design as a viable alternative to the neo-Darwinist theory of evolution? What are the options on the table?

I received Darwin's Doubt as a birthday present from my two daughters. I love good books - and I enjoyed reading the book. Meyer's style is very relaxed but at the same time includes in-dept discussions of issues that other authors merely touch on. Although he is not a biologist, as a philosopher of biology at the Discovery Institute and the Biologic Institute in the US he is clearly a master of his topic. The book gives a good overview of the historical development of Darwin's theory of evolution as well as the central issues in contemporary debate. He argues that neo-Darwinism has come at a cross-roads since more and more senior biologists acknowledge that it cannot explain macro-evolution. In this regard he sets aside whole chapters to discuss technical issues in a manner that is easy to understand. He also discusses some of the growing number of post-Darwinian viewpoints. His answer is Intelligent Design. But is it a sensible solution?

The Cambrian explosion

Meyer's main concern is with the Cambrian explosion 544-530 million years ago. The reason why this particular period is of great interest is that the fossil record shows the sudden appearance of many new animal forms and structures. I fact, about twenty of the twenty-six total phyla - that is, the highest (or widest) categories of biological classification in the animal kingdom - made its first appearance during the Cambrian explosion. The fossil record does not show any previous ancestor forms from which they could have evolved. They appear out of the blue. And this presents a clear problem for Darwin's theory - which was in fact also recognized by him - since his theory is one which explains incremental change, not "quantum leaps" in change. This represents the one issue on which Darwin had some doubts - from there the title. Meyer shows that it is not a question of "missing fossils", but rather that we have good reason to think that no "missing" fossils exist. The Cambrian explosion therefore presents a real challenge to Darwin's theory. 

The first biologists who became well-known for accentuating the discontinuities in the fossil record, were Stephan Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge. They proposed a theory called "punctuated equilibrium". The gaps which they accentuated were confirmed by statistical paleontology which showed that such gaps are not an anomaly; this is exactly what the fossil record tells us. The fossil record that we have (with the gaps) is a complete picture of the forms of life and it is unlikely that the many intermediate forms required by neo-Darwinism would ever be found. Although their view presented the first real challenge to neo-Darwinian theory, in the end the problem with their theory was that it did not provide an adequate mechanism to explain the gaps. So, although it focused attention on the gaps (and the deficiency of neo-Darwinism), it could not explain the origin of new body parts.

The appearance of new body structures involves a radical increase in the level of complexity of the information needed to produce them. Meyer is especially interested in this aspect of the Cambrian explosion: the Cambrian explosion is also an information explosion. Our knowledge of DNA enforces the realization that such an explosion in complexity also involves an enormous explosion in the amount of information involved. He starts this part of his discussion with the challenge presented at the Wistar Institute conference in 1966, namely that the available time since the formation of the earth is not nearly enough to produce the required complexity in biological structure through genetic mutation (which works hand in hand with natural selection; genetic mutation is the basic mechanism though which change is introduced according to neo-Darwinist evolution). One possible answer to that challenge was that functional proteins are very common in the "combinational space" i.e. the ratio of functional to non-functional biological structures produced by mutation is larger than assumed. This would reduce the necessary time periods for evolution to succeed. But this loophole was closed by Douglas Axe in a series of articles since the year 2000.

The main problem for genetic mutation is that one does not merely have to consider individual mutations; the larger context is also important. The various genes and proteins are embedded in larger "protein folds" and mutations in the first could leave the protein folds non-functional - both aspects must be taken into account. In this regard the protein folds are the smallest units of structural innovation. For evolution to work, both individual mutations and adaptations in the protein folds as a whole must be successfully achieved - and this is just not possible in any of the manners that biologists thought it would. I fact, even the "genes and proteins themselves represent complex adaptations - entities that depend upon the coordinated interaction of multiple subunits that must arise as a group to confer any functional advantage" (p253).

Meyer also discusses developmental biology where genes and proteins play an important role in embryo development. A possible Darwinian solution suggests itself in the form of mutations in key regulatory genes - but all such efforts have lead to destructive evolutions. Then there are the developmental gene regulatory networks - the many gene products, which are necessary for the development of specific animal body plans, transmit signals that influence how the various cells in an embryo develop and differentiate. There are reasons to believe that these are animal-wide systems of genetic control functions which turn genes on and off during the life of the organism. These genetic control systems have been extensively studied by Eric Davidson, who has drawn up detailed flow-diagrams which shows how such gene regulatory networks (dGRN) work. This means that building new animal body plans like those which appeared during the Cambrian Explosion, require not just new genes and proteins embedded in new protein folds, but new dGRN's. This involves significant changes on the macro-level which make classical neo-Darwinian unsuitable as the mechanism producing change (as Davidson also points out).

Another reason to reject the idea of genetic mutation according to Meyer, is the "epigenetic" revolution. This word is derived from the Greek prefix epi which means "above/beyond" and refers to sources of information which lay beyond the genes. Since 2003 it became abundantly clear that certain information regarding body plans is not derived from DNA at all - it is derived from other sources like the microtubules in the cytoskeleton of cells, the cell membranes, iron channels and electromagnetic fields in cells and the arrangement of sugar molecules on the exterior surface of cell membranes. Meyer writes: "If DNA isn't wholly responsible for the way an embryo develops - for body-plan morphogenesis - then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely and still not produce a new body plan, regardless of the amount of time and the number of mutational trails available to the evolutionary process" (p281).

The inability of neo-Darwinism to explain the gaps in the fossil record has lead to other approaches which can be called "post-Darwinian". Such approaches became a mainstream phenomena with the gathering of the "Altenberg 16" in 2008 - scientists who believe that neo-Darwinism does not provide the evolutionary mechanisms needed to explain the origin of new biological structures (body forms). Meyer discusses some of the most important approaches in this regard. There are self-organizing models which think in terms of biological forms that arise "spontaneously ("self-organizes") through the laws of nature. Meyer shows that, although these models can account for "order" which arises mechanically (in crystals etc.), it cannot account for "complexity", which requires information - "that characterizes the digital code of DNA and the higher-level information-rich biological structures" (p306). He also discusses other approaches, for example those which focus on Hox (regulatory) genes, which can supposedly account for macro-evolution (as in Jeffrey Schwartz's Sudden Origins). He shows that these approaches have problems of their own which disqualify them as sensible explanations for the sudden appearance of new body structures in the process of evolution. 

Intelligent design?

Meyer believes that Intelligent Design can account for the sudden appearances of new life forms. He presents this solution not in metaphysical (religious) terms, but in scientific terms (he discusses the various arguments against Intelligent Design as a scientific theory). Meyer uses the method of abductive inference (to be distinguished from both inductive and deductive reasoning) according to which inference is made from past events based on present clues, facts or causes. In his view, of all the causes now in operation, the one which can best explain the Cambrian explosion, is that of (human) intelligent design. Since neo-Darwinism (as well as the other post-Darwinist models) cannot provide an explanatory cause which can account for the sudden appearance of new body structures, other possibilities should be explored - and the only one which explains the sudden appearance of new complex structures (including new dGRN's and new epigenetic information) that we know of, is (human) design. Of all the available hypotheses, this is the one, according to him, which we are forced to adopt in accordance with the method of inference to the best explanation.

Meyer argues that this approach can also predict outcomes just as any other scientific theory. In this regard he mentions the case of "junk DNA". Neo-Darwinists originally argued that the large percentage of DNA which seemed to be without any function, is a predictable outcome of the inherently random process of evolution. Intelligent Design proponents, however, predicted that some function would eventually be found for "junk DNA" - if it was designed, it must have some function. When the ENCODE project eventually confirmed that at least 80% of the genome can be assigned biochemical functions, these scientists felt vindicated. They took it as an important confirmation for their theory.

Does this confirm that Intelligent Design (ID) as a scientific theory is correct? In my view it does not. Although neo-Darwinism seemingly has serious problems in providing an adequate mechanism for macro-evolution, and ID seems to be able to account for such evolution ("designed" animal forms which appear suddenly in the fossil record), one can argue that biology as a science has just not developed the tools to deal with the complexity that is manifest in biological structures. There could be causes that we have not yet discovered and therefore not taken into account. I immediately think of the fast evolving field of quantum decoherence, where the impact of quantum effects on macro-structures is studied. It is possible that we will eventually find that evolution has a quantum component, i.e. that leaps in biological evolution have their grounds in the quantum world where they would arguably seem to be at home.

It is interesting that Immanuel Kant presented a problem very similar to the one outlined in Meyer's book in his Critique of the Power of Judgment (1790), in the second part called Critique of the Teleological Power of Judgment, in which he develops a scientific approach suitable for application to biological structures. In the seventh antinomy (a conflict of laws) he sets the following opposing dogmatic positions in conflict: 1. The view that everything in nature can be mechanically explained (as is the case with neo-Darwinism) and 2. that at least some biological structures can only be explained though design (in accordance with Intelligent Design). These are opposing positions which cannot be reconciled. According to Kant we can, however, defuse the conflict when we allow that both could be true - in general biological change is caused by the laws of nature, but some biological structures can only be explained if we regard them (heuristically) as if they are designed. 

According to Kant these positions can be reconciled if we allow for a supersensible (noumenal) realm as the substratum of nature in which the ground for the second type of causality (design) is situated. As such, the "whole and the parts" (i.e. the total design and its components) which have the capacity to spontaneously produce biological structures, as both the cause and the means of its own production, would be situated beyond the reach of human sensibility in the supersensible realm. In this regard Kant allows not only that the various biological products of nature, but even the whole of nature, could have been produced in this manner. According to Kant the human understanding cannot conceptualize this ground (i.e. such wholes and their relation with their parts).

In my opinion we can take the supersensible realm as empirically confirmed in the quantum realm, and the second type of causality which Kant allows (other than deterministic causality or mechanism) as the spontaneous causality typical in quantum collapse (I plan to argue this in future essays on this blog). This would mean that such "designs" are at least in part situated in the quantum realm and find expression in self-organizing (albeit not in the above-mentioned sense) biological structures. The whole-part relation which Kant refers to, finds affirmation in the various quantum states ("parts") which together form superpositions of states ("wholes") - which are in fact beyond human access and conceptualization (we only have a partial understanding thereof). One can think that complex superpositions of states could somehow incorporate the potentiality (in close integration with material biological structures) to produce the new body forms that become visible in macro-evolution.

Kant did not exclude God from such "designs" underlying biological products. He allowed for two aspects regarding these "designs" - there are the spontaneous causality (potentiality) which is grounded in the supersensible realm as well as the fundamental cause (i.e. God) beyond all of nature and even the supersensible realm in this sense. According to Kant we can think that some (non-human) understanding can think this whole-parts potentiality behind visible biological structures (i.e. the designs in the supersensible realm) which is beyond the capacity of our understanding. We can even think that some understanding (which would be God) could have intentionally designed these. Kant argues this in the final part of the Critique of the Power of Judgment. So, although we can think that the Cambrian explosion would eventually be explained in quantum terms, this will not exclude the possibility that God created the unfolding world with all the "designs" built into it. The arguments for divine design, however, go beyond this essay.


In my view Meyer did a good job in showing where and why the theory of neo-Darwinian evolution is falling short of expectations. Clearly there is a growing concern among biologists that the available mechanisms (especially genetic mutation) cannot account for macro-evolution. This is not only clear in the technical details of the arguments presented, but also in the fact that we are currently seeing a post-Darwinian revolution in biological thinking. If Meyer is correct in his assessment, we can expect that neo-Darwinism would increasingly come under pressure as the all-encompassing theory of biological explanation. Paradigms, however, do not change easily and without a viable alternative I cannot see the situation changing any time soon.

Does Intelligent Design provide an viable alternative? I do not think so. In my view it has merit in that it proposes that there are some underlying "designs" that become manifest in new biological forms. This could very well be the case. This would mean that the process of evolutionary change (genetic mutation) is not random at heart - it follows some pattern which could involve some form of order (complexity) deeply imbedded in nature as Kant proposed long ago. Although one can ascribe the origin of such "body plans" to God's active involvement in history, it is also possible that they are, at least in part, situated in the quantum realm and that the scientific community just does not as yet have the explanatory tools to account for that. They may, however, be able to do so in future. If such "plans" do exist in some form, it would nonetheless show that our universe is not merely mechanistic. And that would already be an argument that some designer, which would be God, has woven that design into the fabric of the universe at the time of the Big Bang.   

Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref.

Monday, 1 September 2014

Postmodernism faces its first great challenge

Postmodernism seems to have become the dominant contemporary paradigm governing Western thought. I use the events in the Ukraine to show that postmodernism is facing its first real challenge - on the political front. I ask: What will come of this?

Over the last century postmodernism has slowly but steadily grown to become what is probably the most important paradigm governing Western thought. At first it was only an idea, a philosophical idea. But with time postmodernism has seemingly become the dominant paradigm in Western thinking which pervaded not only the arts and literature, but most areas of academic research and life: psychology, politics, theology and even the some of the sciences. There are some scientists in the natural sciences who still cling to the modernist paradigm, but even in the philosophy of those sciences the boat has departed to different shores (although not postmodernism).

In the public and political space postmodernism seems to govern the thinking of the world's most important leaders and a very large part of the main media outlets. The EU, where postmodernism governs the thinking of the elite, is a paradigmatic example. The same is true of Barack Obama's administration. The new manner of thinking says that all narratives are fine, all have a valid point, no standpoint is to be excluded, peace should reign, all are even (why stand outside?). This paradigm thinks of itself as representing an all-inclusive package, where all views in its otherness find acceptance in an open space of reconciliation and accommodation (except maybe those which degrade our humanity in a substantial way).

Often challenges for such paradigms arrive in the political arena. This is where the practical implications of ideas and paradigms become visible. As such, the Kremlin's annexation of Crimea in the Ukraine presents a direct and substantial challenge to postmodernism. It is not merely that the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, rejects the postmodern paradigm and tries to present an alternative (a nationalist-traditionalist perspective). It is rather that he presents a part of reality which is not included in the postmodern paradigm. And this poses the first real challenge to postmodernism. The question is: How will these events impact on postmodern thinking?

Postmodernism and reality

As with all powerful paradigms, postmodernism became part and parcel of Western thinking over a long period of time. As its name suggests, the idea behind it originally developed in reaction against the modernist paradigm which ruled the Western world from the Enlightenment into the early twentieth century. The thinker who can in my view be regarded as the father of postmodernism, is Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). He was the first philosopher who radically challenged modernism, and with it, the long rationalist tradition going back to Socrates. To some extent, however, his philosophy should rather be viewed merely as anti-modernist.

Although various great names, such as Sigmund Freud, took a lot from Nietzsche's thinking, it was the French philosophers Jean-Francois Lyotard (1924-1998), Jacques Derrida (1930-2004) and others who formulated the ideas which took the name postmodernism and which became the paradigm of thinking all over the West (and even wider). Some philosophers, like Richard Rorty (1931-2007) with his easy style of writing, was influential in getting the ideas out to the American public and others around the world.

Postmodern thinkers staged an effective reaction against modernism in leveling severe criticism against it. The greatest reason for modernism's eventual fall, however, was that it showed serious discrepancy with practical reality. In the era when the sciences were established, it seemed so natural and logical to think that one would always be able to obtain a final objective view on things. Is not science exactly the pursuit of such final truths? Final truths which show for once and for all what reality is like?

Already in Immanuel Kant's (1724-1804) philosophy, who is often viewed as the paradigmatic modernist thinker (that distinction rather belongs to René Descartes (1596-1650)), it is clear that although we can obtain "objectivity" to the extent that we as humans share the same type (forms) of understanding as well as the same world, both our reason as well as our access to the world are restricted. This means that we do not have a God's eye view from which we can make final judgments - all our judgments are made from our restricted human standpoint (this is captured in the famous "Copernican turn" in his philosophy). Even in the natural sciences, for example, in quantum mechanics, we cannot do better than allowing for various interpretations.

This disconnect between paradigms arising from great ideas, and reality, can generally be attested in the history of such paradigms. Take Marxism, for example. For many it seemed like the final social answer to the class-divided world. Many great Western thinkers were Marxists. But when it was implemented in practice in Communist countries all over the world, it failed miserably. With the collapse of the Soviet-Union, Marxism effectively also ceased to be a viable paradigm.

The events in the Ukraine brings postmodernism at the same cross-roads. Again, as with so many older paradigms, it does not seem to fit reality. The reason is simple: Putin represents a view which sets itself apart from the postmodern paradigm. This demonstrates that at least some views are not only not-included in postmodernism; these views are in conflict with the basic perspectives guiding postmodernism. On the surface postmodernism seems to be exceptionally accommodating, but in practice it cannot include views which assert their own correctness against postmodernism.

Putin thinks in geopolitical terms - and the expansion of the EU, with its postmodernist paradigm, presents a do-or-die moment for him. The expansion of the EU strangles the Russian sphere of influence. It says: join us or join us. There is not any allowance for Russian geopolitical concerns, which view the EU-expansion (and its ideas) as "life" threatening. Putin represents that part of reality which stands outside the postmodern paradigm and its political goals; that part of reality which is not included in the postmodernist paradigm.

Postmodernist thinkers would not see it in these terms. They view Putin's stance as out of line with contemporary thought. They believe that Putin holds fast to outdated ideas. They believe that Russia - and the world - will eventually come around and see that postmodernism is in fact correct. If the present conflict escalates into a full-blown (cold)war, they would view the Western perspective as one worth fighting for. And if the West prevails, they would believe that such a victory demonstrates the triumph of postmodernism on the political front. It will be taken as evidence for the success of postmodernism itself.

Postmodernism as ideology

One of the typical problems with the implementation of ideas and the establishment of paradigms, is that it reveals underlying problems that would otherwise remain hidden. It shows what are the defects of such generally accepted paradigms. And as I argued above, the general defect of paradigms is that they in general exclude some aspect of reality. Since we only have a human perspective, it is impossible to obtain final proof to demonstrate that some paradigm is the only valid one (that was the main idea behind modernism!).

Often those situated in some paradigm are blind to such defects and try to enforce their paradigm as the only correct and acceptable one. Then the problem is not merely that the adherents of the paradigm regard it as the only valid view (many competing paradigms can hold to that), but that they do not allow for any discontent. At this point the paradigm becomes an ideology. In the case of Marxism the ideological implementation lead to dictatorship and total control over peoples lives. It lead to the suppression of all freedom. And this is generally true of all paradigms who become ideologies and which come in control of the resources and means to enforce implementation.

Postmodernism represents a very large house in which many and diverse alternative viewpoints have been accommodated. It presents a unity in diversity, but not an unity which includes all diversity. Since it represents mainly "alternative" viewpoints which have traditionally been excluded from mainstream thinking, it also presents an alternative to traditional viewpoints. But the alternative which is presented, does not have space for those traditional views. This is the part of reality which it can never incorporate. Although postmodernism professes to accept all narratives as having validity, the peace which it preaches can only be realized when their viewpoint becomes the final one - undisputed and taken as the only correct one.

To achieve this goal, postmodernist advocates are in a total war against its opposition: to discredit, undermine and exclude it as far as possible. Its sense of reconciliation has very definite limits: there is no place for alternative paradigms, like that of traditional Christianity, who rejects "alternative" world-views and lifestyles as undermining the basic foundations of healthy family life. In fact, it preys on broken and dismembered family members who are (largely because of the modernist paradigm) disillusioned with traditional thinking. These advocates are involved in an all-out war of ideas. Since they are in alliance with the contemporary political elite, they are in near-control of the mind-forming media. One can expect that at some point in future they will also start to reinforce their paradigm as the only acceptable one.

The partnership between postmodernism and the political elite in the EU and (partially) the US can eventually lead to exactly this outcome. We already see that postmodernism has become an ideology which is enforced through "political correctness". Journalists who are not careful to stay in line with politically correct thinking will soon find themselves out of work. Books which do not toe the line, will not be published in the mainstream press. One can think that the EU, where postmodernism is in every respect the unofficially accepted paradigm, would eventually as it grows in power also start to enforce this ideology not only in the media, but even beyond that. When it becomes the enforced norm, freedom of thinking will be sacrificed. The question is maybe not whether, but when, the EU will eventually proceed along this road?

What is the alternative?

Some philosophers seem to be stuck in the modernist-postmodernist dichotomy. They think in either-or terms. But are these real opposites or are they merely opposing paradigms. Are there any other road - even if it is the one less traveled? There are in fact such alternatives. An important alternative is the one presented by Kant, namely the "transcendental idea" (as I will call his basic philosophical idea). One cannot really call it a paradigm because it has never developed into a generally accepted paradigm, in spite of the enormous impact that Kant's thought had on Western philosophy. The main reason for this is that for most of the past two hundred years Kantian studies was dominated by the two-object view which supposedly finds all sorts of inconsistencies in Kant's philosophy. Over the last half-century there has, however, been a dramatic repositioning in Kantian thought with the general acceptance of the two-aspect view.

According to the transcendental idea, there are ideas (say, scientific theories) which fit our observation of reality, but only within certain constraints. We can obtain a good fit between our conceptual structure and the external world around us given in perception. We can, however, never achieve a fit between our ideas and the world as it really is outside those constrains. The fit between ideas or paradigms and reality can, therefore, never be final. One often finds opposing paradigms which are dogmatically asserted by their proponents, but which do not capture reality as it really is - and which effectively "says to much" about the world. It affirms things that cannot be proven.

Modernism and postmodernism can be viewed as such opposing paradigms. Although postmodernism has brought a very effective criticism against modernism, the same can be done regarding postmodernism. In both cases the paradigm says more than it should: Modernism believed we can obtain one final and objective truth, postmodernism believes that all possible truths are included in its truth. In fact, both these extremes are too restricted to capture the whole truth - or the world as it really is.

Kant showed that we can bring such opposites into conflict and in that way discover solutions which, although they cannot be proven to be true, may in fact be true. In this way we create space for various valid possibilities. In fact, one of the most important outcomes of the conflicting positions discussed by Kant, is the possibility of saving "freedom". We can in general take this as the free space in which paradigms can compete. This would allow all possible paradigms to freely compete in the open space of the market place of ideas. Viable ideas would present themselves as worthy competitors. Restricting this space is a typical sign that the adherents of that paradigm who do this do not have confidence that their own view would be able to survive open competition.

On the market space of ideas rational discussion and practical demonstration should freely compete. And those ideas which are better, would carry the day - if this space is not loaded to favor one over the other. Although absolute freedom is obviously not obtainable (there are always certain paradigmatic structures imbedded in society which developed over many years), this space should involve freedom to promote one's views without being persecuted (there are obviously certain limits to this, for example, child pornography etc.). Although we can respect all views (maybe rather the persons holding those views), this does not mean they are all worthy of our consideration. We can at the same time argue that some are better and even that one is correct - even though we, from a human perspective, would never be in a position to prove that in a final sense.

The problem with the present situation is that this space is severely restricted by the affiliation between postmodernism and the political elite. Only those ideas which are in line with postmodern thought are accepted and allowed in the public media. Only certain viewpoints are heard on TV, on radio and in the main papers. When the traditional viewpoint is presented, it is often not by sufficiently accomplished persons and it is always attacked vehemently by the proponents of postmodernism. Often a caricature is made out of it. What we see is not a free space for ideas (although the main papers would often say that it is!), it is rather a war zone where the postmodern ideologists try to gain as much field as possible.

In my opinion the present conflict in the Ukraine demonstrates that postmodernism is not all-inclusive and can never be. The fact that this conflict between the West and Russia is also cast in ideological terms in the mainstream media (especially in the EU) could eventually lead to a perceived victory for postmodernism if the West win in any future escalation of the conflict. This can strengthen the ideological impulse in postmodernism circles leading to even stronger enforcement of its view.

At some point along the way freedom can give way to effective dictatorship, although under a different name. Then their enemies would be cast in the role of enemies of reconciliation and accommodation. Since the postmodernist house is so large, it could easily lay claim to the whole space, and try to eliminate all who reject this paradigm. Since traditional Christians would surely find themselves on the outside, their breathing space could become extremely small. Although this would exhibit the failure of postmodernism in its ideological dictatorship, there would probably be nobody to to appreciate this.


In this essay I discuss the present challenge that postmodernism faces on the political front in the confrontation between the EU and Russia over the Ukraine. I am not a supporter of Putin; I merely show that his stance demonstrates the shortfall of postmodernism. Postmodernism have been victorious over modernism, but this victory can easily lead to the dogmatic assertion that this is the only valid and acceptable paradigm. In fact, this is already thought to be the only "politically correct" view for the media to promote. When this paradigm is eventually enforced as an ideology, it can easily, as has so often happened in the past - think of Marxism - lead to loss of freedom for alternative paradigms and even dictatorship.

I obviously do not know what will eventually happen. As such this essay is like a time capsule, like a letter in a bottle. It refers to things in the distant future. It refers to the time when the EU project has transformed itself into a powerful force on the world stage - maybe even a great and powerful empire [1]. Only then will the ideological impulse behind postmodernism become visible for all to see. But then there will maybe not be anybody to appreciate this final failure of postmodernism - except those who will face the full force of its might. As such, this essay will be forgotten long before it becomes relevant. And who will then read it?

[1] Click on  The European Union: forever rising
I discuss the transcendental idea in the framework of hermeneutics in the following essay:
Part 1: Can we still believe the Bible: a hermeneutical perspective

Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref.

Thursday, 31 July 2014

The European Union: forever rising

The election of Jean-Claude Junker on 15 July 2014 as president of the European Commission represents a very important moment in the long rise of an unified Europe. With this event the EU has effectively become a parliamentary democracy, not too dissimilar from Germany. It signals the beginning of a new phase of unification and integration. With Italian prime minister, Matteo Renzi,  we can expect that this integration will eventually lead to the formation of the United States of Europe. I discuss the implications of Junker's election as well as the long-term prospects for the EU. I also discuss the eschatological implications.

It is said that the best way to hide something is to place it where nobody can miss it. So often something important happens and most people do not even take notice. Something like that has just happened - some major news channels did not even report on it! A new parliamentary democracy has arrived on the world scene. A new giant has been born. The EU has just elected its first leader. Although there are still a lot of denial, and most commentators have not yet understood or at least spelled out the full implications of this event, a new day has arrived in the long march towards a truly unified union in Europe.

The election of Jean-Claude Junker as president of the European Commission may seem to be just another day in the EU where so many things happen all the time. In fact, it is not. It signals a dramatic shift in power in the framework of the EU away from the European states to the European Parliament. After a long process which took decades to accomplish, the EU has eventually become a parliamentary democracy - not too different from Germany, for example. And this is not the end of the road; it signals the beginning of a new phase in the unification and integration of the European Union.

The resilience of the European project

Doomsayers have often forecasted the decline or end of the European project. I remember the time when the Maastricht Treaty, which created the European Union as well as the Euro, was signed in 1992. In the period before that treaty was agreed, the Anglo-American media often said that the European project would not succeed and that it was just a matter of time before it becomes derailed. After the treaty was signed they went ballistic. It was a step too far, too soon, they said. For months they moaned and groaned.

When the economic crisis of 2008-12 stroke, there were again many voices - especially in the Anglo-American media - who predicted that the EU or Eurozone would break up or at least that it would become a declining power. And again, these academics and commentators have been shown wrong. Instead, the crisis provided the impulse for further integration and both the Fiscal Compact (2012) and the Banking Union, which was recently agreed, was the direct outcome of that crisis. Although the British leader strongly resisted both the Fiscal Compact and Junker's election, the rest of the union (with the exception of the Czech Republic) proceeded in the face of this fierce opposition with these steps towards an "ever-closer" union.

Although the EU has reached a certain limit on the road to the stated goal of "an ever closer union" with the Treaty of Lisbon (signed in 2007), it has at the same time started with a new phase towards further integration. That treaty, which increased the power of the European Parliament and created the posts of President of the European Council as well as High Representative for the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, also signaled the end of the road for Britain. The long process which started with the signing of the Treaty of Rome 1958 had come to its climax. It would not be possible to take all the EU countries further on the road to more integration. But that treaty also contained the seed for a new phase in the unification of Europe.

Junker's election

After the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon the center of power in the EU was still firmly in the hands of the European Council, comprised of all the leaders of the states in the EU. This means that the countries which belong to the EU were to a large extent in control of the processes involving the EU. Although they had to involve the European Parliament in discussions about most issues, they could make the important decisions. Especially, they could decide who the leader of the European Commission would be. The commission introduces most of the initiatives in the union as well as drafts for laws to the European Parliament. Now, this has changed.

In the run-up to the last European election, some leaders in the European Parliament introduced the idea of "lead candidates" ("Spitzenkandidaten"). Each party nominated a "lead candidate" to lead them in the election campaign, with a general agreement that the candidate of the party who won the election would become president of the commission. This is also how the German parliamentary system operates. Although the EU treaties do not say anything in this regard, there is also no reason why it could not be done - as long as most countries went along with it. Junker was nominated as the candidate for the European People's Party (EPP) to which the party of German Chancellor Angela Merkel (the Christian Democratic Union) also belongs. When that party got the most votes in the election, Junker effectively became the first choice for President of the European Commission (if he could win the necessary majorities in the European Council and the European Parliament).

Although the European Council was at first reluctant to accept the outcome of the Spitzenkandidaten process, pressure from all over Europe (and especially from within Germany) swayed them to nominate Junker on 27 June as candidate (for the first time a vote was necessary in this regard; Britain was outvoted) - which effectively means that they had given up on their right to nominate that leader. In future the choice of the people of Europe, who elect not only the various parties to the European Parliament, but also the candidates for the post of President of the European Commission, will decide this. The EU will therefore in future have an elected President of the European Commission who is elected in exactly the same manner than the German Chancellor. The only other requirement would be that such a candidate must have a ruling majority in parliament. Junker managed that also: on 15 July he was elected by a large majority in the European Parliament to become the next president of the commission.

An important shift in power has happened in the EU. The leaders of the countries which comprise the European Council have lost their powerful hold over the European Commission. In future the president of the commission would not serve their interests per se, but rather that of parliament. Although Junker presented his program for the next few years to the council, he also held meetings with all the parties in the European Parliament to convince them that he would take their interests into consideration. He is therefore especially responsible to parliament. If he looses his majority in parliament, he would also loose his job.

Although the European Council suggests candidates for the various posts on the commission, the final decision must be negotiated with the president-elect of the commission. These candidates must also appear at hearings of parliament who decides if they are suitable candidates. Since the commission is henceforth responsible to the European Parliament (via their president) and the laws which the commission proposes are negotiated in close consultation with parliament, the MEC's (Members of the European Parliament) would probably gain the upper hand in this process. Although the parliament does not initiate laws on their own as in other parliamentary systems, they have gained effective control over this process.

We can therefore say that the EU has become a parliamentary democracy where parliament elects the president of the commission and is directly involved in the whole process of law-making. In future, the President of the European Commission will effectively be a "prime minister", the commission will operate as the executive arm (i.e. like a cabinet), the European Council will operate very much like an Upper House or Senate whereas the European Parliament is effectively the Lower House of Parliament.

As elected president of the commission Junker would have more power than the various leaders of the EU, even the German Councillor, since he is duly elected to that post! Whereas they are elected merely in their respective countries, the president has been elected by all the peoples of the EU. Junker himself is a very experienced politician, who was the prime minister of Luxembourg from 1995-2013 and headed the Euro-group from 2005-2013. He has both the authority (being elected) and the experience to stand up to the leaders of the EU countries. With him the EU would become a coherent and powerful force on the world stage.

The future of Europe

When the leaders of the EU agreed to nominate Junker as president of the commission, they also accepted that some countries, like Great Britain, would not participate in any further integration. They agreed that the expression "ever closer union" in the EU treaties allows for different paths of integration for different countries. Countries like Britain who do not want deeper integration, therefore do not have to participate in any further integration, but can also not stop other EU countries from pursuing such a path. This means that the future EU would incorporate various levels of integration, with Britain (if she stays in the union) at the lowest level.

In his acceptance speech in parliament, Junker spelled out what he has in mind for his term at the helm. He accentuated that further integration would take place in the framework of the Eurozone. He said that the countries which share the euro must have their own budget and be "represented by one single chair, one single office". We can therefore expect that a single post for Eurozone affairs would be established - maybe even in the next few years. He praised those European leaders who in the past played an important role over a dynamic period of EU integration, namely Jacques Delors, Francois Mitterand, and Helmut Kohl - the commission president, and the French and German leaders, respectively. On the other hand, Junker has previously mentioned that he is willing to renegotiate Britain's position in the EU. So, while the Eurozone would begin another process of integration, some countries in the EU, like Britain, would become even less integrated. This will eventually lead to different zones of integration in the EU.

In my opinion this new phase, which has started with the election of Junker, will eventually lead to the United States of Europe. The Italian prime minister, Matteo Renzi, who is one of the leading lights in the EU after his good performance in the last EU elections and who just took over the rotating presidency of the EU, presented his vision for Europe in his State of the Nation speech in May 2014. He called courageous leaders to work towards an United States of Europe: "For my children’s future I dream, think and work for the United States of Europe". He appealed to EU leaders to show "not in the cold language of technocracy, that a stronger and more cohesive Europe is the only solution to solve the problems of our time.”

The formation of a true United States of Europe would take many years to construct. The period from the signing of the Treaty of Rome in 1958 to the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon took more than 50 years. We can expect this new phase, which effectively started with Junker's election (since the European Parliament will now start playing a more dominant role), to also take many years to complete. But eventually some countries in the Eurozone will also, just like Britain now, reach the limit of their willingness to surrender more power to Brussels.

I foresee that eventually there would be a third phase in European unification and integration. This is the phase when the United States of Europe would become an empire. In this regard Europe would proceed in the same manner than Britain and the US (and many others before them) who first became unified entities (Scotland joining England in the union of Great Britain; the northern and southern states joining after the Civil War) and then became empires (who would dispute that the US is effectively an empire although they do not always show the same enthusiasm to project power?). Until now the EU only projected soft power. I believe that the new phase that has just began would require the EU to also develop a hard component in its power projection. Countries like Germany would slowly but steadily leave behind their reluctance to engage military. In the empire phase, this projection of hard power - in an ever more unstable world - would become dominant.

One can expect that the empire phase would start in the same way than the current phase, namely with a change in the leadership structure of the united states in Europe. Although Junker's election provides the EU effectively with a prime minister, this role falls far short of the power that the presidents of France or the USA, for example, has. They do not only have control over the day to day affairs of their countries (this role is often assigned to a prime minister who stands under the authority of the president); they also have effective control over foreign and military affairs. In my opinion the United States of Europe would also eventually appoints (or elects) such a leader, be it an executive president, king or even emperor. We should not forget that Europe has an unique history in this regard going back to the Roman Empire. It is possible that future generations would see themselves as the heirs to that empire.

Which countries would proceed along this road? These would be the countries that are the most willing to relinquish sovereignty. These countries would be those who are willing to join their economies and eventually join forces politically. In this regard we can take the countries who are willing to introduce a financial transaction tax (FTT) as barometer. They want to introduce a tax which is supra-national and would create a European tax-base. This is one of the most important characteristics of sovereign states: they can tax their citizens. On 6 May 2014, ten out of the initial eleven participating member states (all except Slovenia) agreed to seek a "progressive" tax on equities and "some derivatives" by 1 January 2016. They aim for a final agreement later in 2014.

Eschatological implications

Christians have been expecting for many centuries that the Roman Empire would be reborn at the end of days. They interpret the prophecies in the Biblical books of Daniel and Revelation in this manner (see [1] for the different views). Although we are definitely not even close to that happening, it seems that the developments in the EU are slowly but steadily moving in that direction. There can be no doubt that Junker's election is a very important step along that path. If my interpretation is correct, we have just entered a totally new phase in the unification and integration of the EU which can lead to the formation of the United States of Europe in accordance with many pronunciations in this regard (Renzi is not the only EU leader talking like that) and eventually to an European empire.

At this stage those who are skeptical about the eschatological dimension could argue that it is a mere coincidence that Europe is rising again. This can be the case. Over time the picture would become clearer. The prophecies referred to give particular details - and we can watch out for the time when those things start happening [1]. These details include the appearance of ten leaders/countries at the helm of a re-established Roman Empire (i.e. the ten "horns/toes" of the prophecy) as well as the Antichrist who will appear in the period directly before the second coming of Jesus Christ. Although many antichrists have appeared in the past, it seems that the prophecy speaks of a particular person who will appear right at the end of days. I do not think that the appointment or election of a president (or king or emperor) to lead a  future United States of Europe would be the Antichrist, but I do think that the growth of that empire could eventually lead to the point where such a leader appear.

The problem for our generation is that these things lay in the distant future and it is unlikely that we would live to see it happening. The type of evidence that could possibly sway the skeptic would therefore not be forthcoming in the near future. The success of the unification of the EU, in spite of great resistance and against all odds (i.e. contra many predictions in that regard by learned academics and commentators), are, however, a good reason to be open-minded and to not dismiss this possibility out of hand. The fact that so many other countries have followed exactly the same path to become empires (in the last few centuries: Britain, the US), with the difference that Europe has a great history in this regard, seems to suggest that the EU could very well also proceed along that path. If we take the Roman history of Europe into account, it seems quire possible that future generations could take inspiration from that. They could eventually view themselves as the descendents of that great and mighty leaders (Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar etc.). All of this seems to suggest that we have good reason to think that this interpretation of the prophecies is correct and that they will eventually be fulfilled in this manner [2].


The election of Jean-Claude Junker as President of the European Commission is a very important moment along the way towards an "ever closer union". Although it might seem to be just another event among many others happening in the EU, it is in fact a water-shed moment. Power has shifted from the leaders of the EU states to the European Parliament. The EU has effectively become an elected parliamentary state. This introduces a new phase in the integration and unification of the EU which will probably lead to an United States of Europe. Although many doomsayers have predicted the end of the union or the Eurozone as we know it, I have consistently said over the past three decades that we will see exactly the opposite, namely that the EU will become stronger and stronger (based on my interpretation of the prophecies). This is exactly what has happened until now.

I have divided the long road towards full unification into three phases. The first phase resulted in the formation of the EU with a powerful European Parliament, a President of the European Council as well as a High Representative for the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The second phase, which started with Junker's election, would lead to the formation of an United States of Europe. The last phase would lead to the rise of an European empire, which could view itself as heir to the Roman Empire. It is within this context that the Biblical prophecies regarding a re-established Roman Empire may go into fulfillment. Although this would clearly take many years to happen, it seems that we have good reason to think that it would eventually come to pass.

[1] The rise of the final world empire: the different views
[2] Bible prophecy: predicting the distant future?

Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref.

Sunday, 6 July 2014

An introduction to ancient Sumerian religious literature

Readers of this blog will know that I have posted various essays in which I made reference to the ancient Sumerians and their influence on the Biblical tradition. In this essay Johan Coetser discusses the ancient Sumerian religious thinking in more detail. He gives special attention to one of the first literary documents ever produced, namely the Kesh Temple Hymn. The oldest copies of this poem, which belongs to the genre of songs glorifying temples, date back more than four thousand years to 2600 BC. This gives us some insight into the ancient world where Abraham's family lived more than a thousand years before the time of Moses.
‘‘[T]he efforts to achieve and ensure divine presence took the form of building temples’’ - Thorkild Jacobsen
About 5500 years ago the Sumerians settled in southern Iraq on the alluvial plain between the two rivers, the Euphrates and Tigris. There they established the world's first urban civilization centered on the great city of Uruk. The Sumerians are remembered, among other things, as the people who were the first to write. The first traces of writing appear in about 3500 BC and took the form of pictographs on clay tablets. Gradually these developed into the well-known cuneiform script that produced the first know literature by 2600 BC.
At first, the script was mostly used for administration and business purposes. Soon afterward, however, the earliest wisdom sayings, like The Instructions of Shurrupak, as well as religious literature, like The Kesh Temple Hymn, were produced. Unlike today, these documents were not meant to be read by the wider population since very few people could read and write. Instead, this was the privilege of a small literate elite who spoke the Sumerian language and used that script. As part of the curriculum for trainee scribes they studied and copied these early documents.
The documents that the Sumerians produced more than four thousand years ago provides us with a unique opportunity to peek into the minds of those ancient people. One of the genres produced by the scribes was temple hymns, of which the Kesh temple hymn is an example. Four fragments of the hymn were found at Tel Abū Salābīkh in Iraq dating to about 2600 BC [1]. Over the next 800 years this document was continuously copied and by the time of the Old Babylonian period (c.1800 BC) we have a hymn that shows little difference from the archaic copies.
The Kesh Temple Hymn describes the temple dedicated to a goddess called Ninḫursag or Nintu. Ninḫursag was one of the four great gods/goddesses worshiped in ancient Sumeria, together with Enlil, An and Enki. The name Nintu refers to her role as goddess of birth-giving. In the hymn, her temple is described with various metaphors which capture its glory and glamor. It tells how the head of the Sumerian pantheon, Enlil, originally gave permission to build the temple. The hymn describes the various parts of the temple, the gods living there and the personnel who served them.
Ancient temples were more than a place of worship; they were part of the economy of the city where they were situated. Temples held vast tracts of land worked by slaves and freedmen, producing surplus grain. They gave loans in silver, employed women as weavers and sold the products. The kings gave offerings to the temples and many other worshipers gave dedications. The priests administered oaths between parties and kept business records for merchants. They themselves also participated in trade. Temples were central to the Sumerian civilization and had a variety of functions. The most important, however, was that temples served as places of human-god interaction.We will now discuss this in more detail.
The use of metaphor in the Kesh hymn
One of the important aspects of Sumerian poetry is the extensive use of metaphor. The Kesh hymn is no exception. Various metaphors and similes are used to describe both the temple and the goddess [2]. Naomi Miller said it well: "Metaphors were basic to Sumerian poetic expression" [3]. Hirchman, following in the Jungian tradition, suggests that metaphors were born from the deepest human psyche: "Humans were now able to think metaphorically: archetypes became cognitively available to us [4]. And Moser suggests "Analyzing metaphors thus not only gives us tactic knowledge and mental models which shape the individual understanding of the self, but also the cultural models provided by language to express individuality, self-concept and the 'inner world'" [5].
Although the Sumerian metaphors include a far wider domain than we can reconstruct, the language of the Kesh hymn gives us a glimpse into the thoughts of those ancient people. It allows us to see something of their world. We can explore one of these metaphors used in this hymn to depict the temple, namely that of the boat. We read that the temple is
"Like the princely Mag-ur boat floating in the sky
Like the pure Mag-ur boat provided with a ...gate
Like the boat of heaven, foundation of all the lands
Cabin of the banda-boat which shines from the beaches..." [6].

The image of a sickle-shaped boat floating in the sky brings the moon to mind. The reason is that the so-called Ma-gur boat belonged to the moon god Nanna (also called Suen/Sin). This boat was used to take the yearly produce from the city of Ur to the temple of Enlil, which was situated in Nippur [7]. The waxing and waning of the moon depict fruitfulness. This corresponds with the temple as a place of fruitfulness and production, linked to the changing seasons.
The mythical theme of the voyages of the gods is depicted on many cylinder seals [8]. The image of the moon god's boat would have meant a lot more to those ancient people than to us. The partial glimpse of the meaning of the metaphor allows us to see that the idea of fertility was important to the Sumerians; in fact, it was crucial for their survival. Droughts and floods were a real threat that could lead to famine. They needed the goodwill of the gods to ensure a bountiful harvest. As such, the image of the Mag-ur boat moving on the canals that crossed the land, spreading the bounty of the harvest in its wake, depicted the temple as a source of fertility.
These are some of the ideas behind the complex metaphor and similes of the Sumerians of which the full meaning is still inaccessible to us today. We can, however, see that the idea that the gods were the source of fertility, was crucial in the mind of these ancient people. The temple was the place where god and human could meet to negotiate the god's favor and blessing on society.
Music in the Kesh temple hymn
Music played a very important role in worship all over the ancient world. The Kesh Temple Hymn was therefore also meant to be sung [9]. We learned a lot about this aspect of their worship from the Cylinders of the priest Gudea, who lived in the city of Girsu in the south of Sumeria during the end of the third millennium BC. He even had a director of music. Needless to say, music features prominently in a temple hymn that he wrote for the temple of the god Ningirsu [10]. We read in the hymn
"With his divine duties,
namely to soothe the heart,
to soothe the spirits
To dry weeping eyes:
To banish mourning from the heart...
Gudea introduced his drum, Lugal-igi-uš,
to lord Ningirsu" [11].

The purpose with the recitation of the hymn was to invoke the presence of the gods. The great Sumerologist Thorkild Jacobsen writes: "Poetry was another means of invoking the presence of the powers, for word pictures, too, created the corresponding reality" [12].
The Kesh hymn mentions music made both by singing and the use of instruments
  • They recited the e-šub and uru-šub (verses)...
  • The pašeš beat on the (drum)skin...
  • The bull’s horn is made to growl;
  • The drumsticks are made to thud.
  • The singer cries out to the ‘ala’ drum;
  • The grand sweet ‘tigi’ drum is played for him.
  • The house is built; its nobility is good [13].
Singing hymns of praise comes naturally to us. This was also true in ancient times. Music was part of the pageantry of the rituals that involved offerings to the gods. One can say that the music in itself was an offering to the gods. It allowed humans to conduct ritual actions vital to the well-being of the country.
Various instruments were used, especially various kind of drum. Other instruments included the harp, lyre and various kinds of the flute. Sir Leonard Woolley found a beautiful lyre decorated with a bull’s head in excavations at Ur in 1923. It is currently to be seen in the British Museum. Instruments were important enough to merit their own names as we can see from the quotation from the Cylinders of Gudea where the drum is called Lugal-igi-uš. All this was done with the worship of the gods in mind and to secure human prosperity. To have the gods on your side meant no famine or foreign invasions.
The temple was a place where the gods were invoked to help humans prosper. Daily offerings were made to keep the gods happy. The Kesh hymn also mentions this
"The temple consumes many oxen.
The temple consumes many sheep" [14].

The offerings were administrated by a plethora of priests. The Kesh hymn mentions a remarkable number of different types of priests working in the temple. Even the man playing the drum was considered to be a priest.
  • Whose nu-eš priest are the sacrifices to the E-anna (E = house; anna = of heaven)
  • The lugalbura priest...stepped up to the temple
  • The good en-priest..held the lead-rope suspended
  • The atu priest held the staff
  • The ...brought the gathered waters [name missing in text]
  • The... took his seat in the holy place [name missing in text]
  • The enkum bowed down in prayer.
  • The pašeš beat the (drum) skin.
  • They recited the e-šub and uru-šub verses [15].
After invoking the presence of the gods, it was time to placate them to do their duty toward humans. The reason why the gods created humans was that they can provide the gods with food and drink. Elaborate meals were offered at least twice a day before the cult statue of the god. This included drink-offerings. The god's image was enclosed by a curtain, allowing it to eat and drink without being observed by humans. When the god was finished eating, the meal was taken to the royal table for the king to eat [16]. This act of worship was not available to ordinary citizens.
Wealthy persons had small statues of themselves made, inscribed with a prayer, which they placed before the cult statue. This allowed them to offer continuous prayer before the god and ask for blessings. The offerings maintained the relationship between man and god and kept the blessings flowing. Failure to do this could be catastrophic, causing the god to abandon the city - with horrifying consequences. The offerings and rituals had to be maintained at all times in order to keep the gods happy.
One of the most important types of priests was the En priest/priestess. The most famous among these was the princess Enḫeduanna, who became the En-priestess of the moon god Nanna at Ur during the early years of the Akkadian period (c.2300 BC). This post was so important that it was held only by members of the royal family, who in this case was a daughter or sister of the reigning king.
The name Enḫeduanna means "lady gift of heaven". She is the first known poet in history and became famous for her poetry [17]. The En priestess lived in the so-called giparu (holy precinct) at Ur and was the human mate of the god [18]. Her primary duty was to pray and intercede for the life of the king. On a secular level, she also administrated the large estates of the giparu. Some of these priestesses, like Enannatumma and Enmegalanna, were later worshiped in their own right [19].
Ninḫursag of Kesh
We can now meet the lady (goddess) of the Kesh temple, Ninḫursag. Her name is usually interpreted as "lady head mountain". It has also been proposed that the name could be translated as "lady of the mountain of the gods" [20]. In the Kesh hymn, she is also called Nintu. As such, she represents the goddess of birth. In the hymn, she is depicted as sitting curled up in the cela, the holiest part of the temple
"Ninḫursag, like a great dragon, sits (in its) interior
Nintu, the great mother, has brought about its birth
Ninḫursag, its lady has taken a seat in its..." [21]

The goddess is here depicted as a snake or dragon. The Sumerian word for dragon is ušumgal and means literally "great snake". Much later, in Greek times, the word drakon was still used to describe a great snake [22]. The temples of goddesses were also sometimes described as great snakes, as we can see in the collection of Sumerian temple hymns by Enḫeduanna
"Keši, valient (city)...of heaven and earth,
Like a great poisonous serpent, installing fear,
house of Ninḫursanga, built on an awe-inspiring place" [23].

The snake was associated with the underworld and the earth. Even in Greek times, the snake remained a symbol of the underworld. It was especially goddesses who were linked with snakes [24]. The snake was a powerful symbol for regeneration because it sheds its skin from time to time. As a symbol, it was used as a metaphor for the fruitfulness of the earth and was especially apt for the goddess of birth-giving. The use of the snake as a symbol for regeneration goes back to the Neolithic age (the new stone age c.8000–4000 BC) and continued as a metaphor for regeneration until Greek and Roman times.
In our hymn, however, the goddess is not only described as a snake, but also as a lion. As Nintu, the ‘great mother’ she was responsible for the ‘birth’ of the temple
"Keš tempel borne by a lion,
whose interior the hero has embellished,
Nintu, the great mother has brought about its birth" [25].

Inside the temple, in the cela (most holy), was the cult statue made of wood and plated with gold and/or other precious metals.The idea of being born was also applied to the cult statue, which was given life through a ceremony called mis pi or "mouth washing". On this occasion, the equipment of the artisan who made the statue was ceremonially thrown into the river - while he proclaimed that his hand did not make the statue [26].
After receiving the spirit of the god, the cult statue became the living embodiment of the god, who, at the same time, remained present in heaven. Great care was taken of the statue because of the fear that the god could leave it if it was damaged. The statue was dressed in costly robes. People visited it to present their petitions, in the same manner, that they petitioned the living king. On certain occasions, the statue would travel by barge or chariot to visit the cult centers of other gods.
The cult statue was the supreme focus of the temple and stood centrally in the worship of that god. It was hidden from profane sight in the cool depths of the cela, adored in secret, away from the bustle of the wider public. If the city lost a war, the cult statue was carried away into captivity to the victor’s land. When this happened, it was necessary to restore the cult statue to secure blessings for the city again.
The heavenly dimensions of the temple
The Sumerian temple had a cosmic function, bringing heaven and earth together.While the top of the temple was in heaven, the bottom was anchored in the abyss [27]. The Sumerians called the abyss ‘abzu’, envisioned as an underground sweet water lake. It was the realm over which the god Enki ruled. It has been suggested that the temple was pictured as a boat adrift on the water of the abzu [20]. The Sumerians also used the metaphor of a mountain to express the temple's cosmic dimensions: the temple was rooted deep in the earth with its top reaching like a large mountain high up into heaven. We read (about the Kesh temple?)
"Growing up like a mountain, embracing the sky...
Temple, great shrine reaching the sky
Great, true temple, reaching the sky
Temple, great crown, reaching the sky
Temple, rainbow, reaching the sky
Temple, whose platform is suspended from heaven’s midst
Whose foundation fills the Abzu..." [28]

At the end of the hymn, it is reaffirmed that the temple was the place where man and god interacted. Although ordinary citizens could not enter the temple, they benefited from its presence in their midst. The temple was the source of abundance and divine blessing, bringing heaven close to the realm of man:
"To the city, to the city, man, approach!
To the city Keš, man, approach.
Its hero Aššir, man, approach!
Its lady Nintu, man, approach!
(well) constructed Keš, Aššir, praise!
...Keš, Nintu, praise!" [29]

The duty of the priests was to ensure that the gods were happy; that the lines between heaven and earth were kept open. In this regard, they functioned similarly to the retainers at the king’s court. The cult statue was treated as a very real and important person. The god in the statue was the source of all blessings to the larger community. Although ordinary citizens were not allowed to enter the temple, and there was a huge distance between cult and citizen, they still benefited from the god's presence in their community. They worshiped from afar and only saw the god on special festivals and when it was brought forth to visit other gods.
The Sumerians, however, also worshiped their gods in a more personal manner, namely as the personal gods who were worshiped by particular families. These gods spoke for the individual in the council of the gods. They trusted in their personal gods for their daily spiritual needs. Being discarded by your personal god meant great suffering. You had to do everything in your power to live in peace with your god.
It is clear from this short journey through the Kesh Temple Hymn that those ancient people did not share our religious mindset. The gods were awesome personages who had to be carefully handled to prevent them from becoming angry and withholding their blessings on which the city depended.
Music and ritual were part of their lives; they kept the gods happy with offerings. Cult statues were revered like a king or queen and treated with great respect. The metaphors that were used to describe temples and gods had meanings for the ancient Sumerians which we can only partially access - as we can see from the metaphor of the boat. Since ancient times worship of the gods were very important for the well-being of the state. Disasters that befell the city were the consequences of botched relationships with the gods. A whole genre of lamentation was developed in response to this, namely to soothe the angry deity’s heart and to lure him/her back to his/her place in the temple.
The ancient Mesopotamians did a lot to maintain good relationships with their gods and feared the consequences if such relationships broke down. The fall of a city like Ur (the city of Abraham), which was sacked by the Elamites (c.2004 BC), was ascribed to the goddess abandoning the city. She did that because a decision was taken in the council of the gods to destroy the city.
The Kesh Hymn gives us some insight into ancient Sumerian religious thought and how different it was from modern conceptions [30]. This should serve as a warning that we should be careful not to read ancient texts like the Bible as if they were written from a modern perspective. Although this is the world that Abraham left behind when he moved to Canaan, the Biblical worldview still has more in common with the ancient world of the Sumerians than with our own.
[1] Alster, B.1976. On the earliest Sumerian literary tradition. Journal of Cuneiform studies 28 (2):112.
[2] Ehrlich, C.S. 2009. From an Antique land: An introduction to Ancient Near Eastern Literature. p22.
[3] Miller, N. 2013. Symbols of Fertility and Abundance in the Royal Cemetary at Ur. American Journal of Archaeology 117 (1):128.
[4] Hirchman, E.C. 2002. Metaphors, archetypes, and the biological origins of semiotics. Semiotica 142 (1):316, 317.
[5] Moser, K. 2000. Metaphor Analysis in Psychology - Method, theory and fields of application. Forum Qualitative Soziafforschung/ Forum Qualitative Social research 1(2).
[6] Gragg, G.B. 1969. The Kesh Temple Hymn, in A. L. Oppenheim (ed). Texts from Cuneiform Sources. p168.
[7] Ferarra, A. J. 1973. Nanna-Suen's journey to Nippur. p203-5.
[8] Jacobsen, T. 1976. The Treasure of Darkness: A history of Sumerian Religion. p7.
[9] Galpin, F. 1937. The music of the Sumerians and their immediate successors the Babylonians and Assyrians. p51.
[10] Polin, C. 1954. Music of the Ancient Near East. p160.
[11] Black, J.A., Cunningham, G., Fluckiger-Hawker, E., Robson, E., & Zólyomi, G. 1998. The building of Ningirsu’s temple (Gudea cylinders A and B). The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature ( lines 1048-1057.
The Cylinders of Gudea contains the longest Sumerian temple hymn. It tells about the building of the Eninnu temple for the god Ningirsu and is dated to c. 2100 BC.
[12] Jacobsen, T. 1976. The Treasure of Darkness: A history of Sumerian Religion. p15.
[13] Gragg, G.B. 1969. The Kesh Temple Hymn, in A.L. Oppenheim (ed). Texts from Cuneiform Sources. p239.
[14] Gragg, G.B. 1969. The Kesh Temple Hymn, in A.L. Oppenheim (ed). Texts from Cuneiform Sources. p171.
[15] Gragg, G.B. 1969. The Kesh Temple Hymn, in A.L. Oppenheim (ed). Texts from Cuneiform Sources. p174.
[16] Schneider, T.J. 2011. Introduction to Ancient Mesopotamian religion. p104.
[17] De Shong Medeaor, B. 2009. The Sumerian Temple hymns of Enheduanna: Princess, Priestess, Poet. p19.
There is a debate about the authorship of the works attributed to Enheduanna. I believe she wrote the poems herself.
[18] Black et al. 2006. The Literature of Ancient Sumer. p316.
[19] Weadcock, P.N.1975. The Giparu at Ur, in Iraq 37 (2):101-104.
[20] Personal conversation with Willie Mc Loud.
[21] Gragg, G.B. 1969. The Kesh Temple Hymn, in A.L. Oppenheim (ed). Texts from Cuneiform Sources. p173,175.
[22] Ogden, D. 2013. Drakon: Dragon myth and Serpent cult in Greek and Roman worlds. p2.
[23] Sjǿberg, W. 1969. The Collection of the Sumerian Temple Hymns, in A.L. Oppenheim (ed) Texts from Cuneiform Sources. p22.
[24] Ogden, D. 2013. Drakon: Dragon myth and Serpent cult in Greek and Roman worlds. p6.
[25] Gragg, G.B. 1969. The Kesh Temple Hymn, in A.L. Oppenheim (ed). Texts from Cuneiform Sources. p172.
[26] Walls, N.H. 2005. Cult image and divine representation in the Ancient Near East. p57,63.
There is some debate as to whether temple buildings should be understood in terms of birth giving or not.
[27] Edzard, D.O. 1987. Deep-rooted skyscrapers and Bricks: Ancient Mesopotamian Architecture and its Imagery in, M. Mindlin, Geller & Wansbrough (eds). Figurative language in the Ancient Near East. p13.
[28] Gragg, G.B. 1969. The Kesh Temple Hymn, in A.L. Oppenheim (ed). Texts from Cuneiform Sources. p167,169.
[29] Gragg, G.B. 1969. The Kesh Temple Hymn, in A.L. Oppenheim (ed). Texts from Cuneiform Sources. P175.
[30] Readers who are interested in reading the full text of the Kesh Temple Hymn can google The Electronic Text Corpus of The Sumerian Language.

Published on
For essays in which the Sumerian influence in the Bible is discussed, click on
Adam and Eve: were they the first humans?