VAULT DWELLERS SERVED

Monday, March 16, 2015

The Law Pertaining To "Gods" (Anointed Ones) In Akkadian

I was reading through the Hammurabic code last night and I noticed the same pattern of legal treatments applied to three different kinds of people in the ancient kingdoms of Sumeria and Akkadia.

There were basically three classifications of legal distinction in the Hammurabic code :

1. One applied to "Gods" (Incorrect english translation, better understood as anointed or highborn special people of the uppermost class of rulers, "them who wish not to be named," and "those who none dare challenge" in other contexts.)

2. One applied to the "servants" and "watchers" of the "Gods." (Better translated as a more muscular, more astute and more warrior-like slave or servant employed by the "Gods" to surround them, protect them, act as their delegates and serve them.) The laws seem to indicate there was often less mingling between the "watchers" and any other class of the society, as befits guards and sentries. This class of people is marked as capable of "great insight and craft" as found in The Book of Enoch in the Apocrypha.

3. One applied to the lowest grade of ordinary people, divided into "freemen" and "slaves." Their lives are not worthy of the death penalty in most cases, rather a mere fine for those who take them arbitrarily or who cheat them in a transaction or abuse them. As with Jimmy Savile, probably only applied on the rare instances someone had the nerve to dare accuse them.

Here is an example of how accusations of adultery towards the "Gods" were handled :

Slander :

Ex. Law #127: "If any one "point the finger" at a sister of a god or the wife of any one, and can not prove it, this man shall be taken before the judges and his brow shall be marked. (by cutting the skin, or perhaps hair.)" 


The english world continues to insist that "Gods" is the right translation when in fact we discover here that the "Gods" walk down the street in plain view, can commit adultery with human beings and are so common as to carry their own distinction in the law as merely another class of people, albeit of a very distinguished nature. This has been a strong hint for over a century that many translations of Sumerian and Akkadian are inherently faulty in that they apparently confused mythical creatures with the very real men and women being spoken of.

In another place, we learn that these "Gods" were taller than ordinary people (the giant ruling class spoken of in Genesis) and that they "bore high crowns" to make themselves appear even taller than they were in the presence of commoners. I figure many of the women were 7 feet on average, plus a huge piece of headgear to give them the appearance of being nearly 8 feet tall. To such people the laws that govern the "Gods" were applied. It was obvious from their appearance to the lower classes who such people were. Today I am sure most of them would marvel at the fact that they occupy our leadership classes and modern people are less capable of distinguishing them by appearance than were the ancient commoners and peasants of Sumeria.

Lastly, wherever we have translated "God" in Akkadian, I do not think the Akkadians believed in a Supreme Being as do we Christians. I think scholars have translated "God" where they intended the "most high" melonhead ruler, unseen and in secret chambers where the commoners were never permitted to step. I am thinking of somebody like the surviving Atlantean ruler depicted in the movie "10,000 B.C." revered as a "supreme being" who is really just flesh and blood.

3 comments:

styrac1 said...

I also have the same opinion. For instance the Egyptian "judgement" is mistakenly thought as being judgement in the afterlife when in reality it was the judgement by the melonhead overlord on who would be allowed to live or not.

The term "gods" is indeed deceptive. Manetho writes that the original founders of Egypt were considered deities. Their cultural descendants, the pharaohs were also seen as deities, suggesting that the founders of Egypt may have been as human as anybody else, despite their exalted reputations.

Btw to you have this? It's the most valuable book on the subject:

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/1754.html

Vombat said...

OT but related to the melon heads. Was watching the SBS doco "Lost Kingdoms Of Central America" last Sunday. (http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/program/1486/lost-kingdoms-of-central-america)

It was the second of a four part series. This episode focussed on the Taino people of the Caribbean who were supposed to have been around the area at least 5,000 years using canoes to travel between the islands. What struck me were the stone heads and flattened/deformed skulls of some of the skeletons.

e.g.
http://blog.mailasail.com/beezneez/461/image/jpgld3dZskSgq.jpg

NjordDanuson said...

They were really just monkey farmers raisin up a crop of lulu monkeys to grow grain for beer nothing godlike there only very tall well dressed monkey farmers who were fall down alcoholics..

www.000webhost.com