First, Ishtar and Inanna are not one-to-one the same deity. Ishtar is a syncretistic conglomeration, including elements of the male deity Attar (this is why Ishtar is depicted in both masculine and feminine ways). So GE’s discussion already is missing a lot of key points and nuance, not that we should be surprised.
Second, he argues that the Israelites were aware of Inanna’s descent. While they were certainly aware of Tammuz’s own demise (Ezekiel 8:14), there is no evidence they were aware of the full legend, and, in fact, later accounts of Tammuz only recognize his own demise, not Inanna/Ishtar’s. Interestingly enough, Tammuz in later writings close to the time of Jesus is equated most closely with Adonis, to which there is no connecting myth of Ishtar nor a resurrection attested in our sources (at best is Lucian’s De Dea Syria, however the language is also consistent with apotheosis, not necessarily resurrection). This is what later Christian church fathers like Jerome and Origen did. GE makes several extrapolations which the texts do not support. He argues for them knowing of Ishtar/Inanna’s descent into the underworld based on a few passages which may or may not mention her, none of which ever mention her descent either (Jeremiah 7:18, 44:15-26; Ezekiel 8:14). In short, GE resorts to pure conjecture. His position is not supported.
Third, there is actually wide debate as to whom we should identify as the Queen of Heaven. In fact, most scholars do NOT identify this as Ishtar in Jeremiah, but as one of the many Canaanite goddesses (or a syncretism of them). M. Dijkstra identifies her as Asherah (not Ishtar), some identify her as Qudshu, some as Anat, some as Astarte, and even Shapshu are all options for this identification. Since numerous ANE goddesses possessed this epithet, GE’s conclusion simply cannot be in any way an articulated fact. Furthermore, none of those passages mention Ishtar’s descent. As such, GE is simply stating things without any understanding of them.
Fourth, Inanna does not rise after three days. It is after three days that mourning rituals begin. Mettinger noted this in his book The Riddle of Resurrection (page 189), noting that there is not a period of “three days between death and resurrection but between the death and the beginning of the mourning rites.” In short, GE has completely misread the text and fabricated a false parallel.
Fifth, Inanna is not crucified. She is transformed into a “corpse” and then hung on a hook, akin to how a butcher hangs meat. The text never mentions her being crucified, nor is there any iconography depicting this of any kind. Furthermore, in the later Akkadian version (see Lapinkivi’s latest edition from Eisenbrauns for more on this) she is not ever hung on a hook either. This means that the versions of the myth closest to Jesus don’t have that element, it was lost or altered. In short, it is not a parallel to Jesus at all.
Sixth, Ishtar/Inanna being stripped of their robes and garments has to do with them being stripped of their power. Jesus’ beatings and assaults and torture (not at all a valid comparison) are actually the exact opposite, since those ascend him to power and achieve ultimate authority. Ishtar/Inanna’s entire goal was to take dominion over the underworld, which failed. Jesus’ was to achieve salvation, which succeeded. In short, it is not a parallel. GE has simply fabricated these things by misreading (something that a basic introductory course on these subjects would have clarified for him). Furthermore, Inanna/Ishtar is not persecuted. Lastly, Jesus would never be “just another agricultural god” as GE states. He has no ties to vegetation fertility or growth, unlike Inanna/Ishtar and her husband Dumuzi/Tammuz.
Conclusions:
GE knows barely anything about these myths, except surface readings and things probably gleaned from the highly doubtful and ill-researched works of Richard Carrier. He clearly has not an understanding of the nuance, nor of anything else regarding these issues.
I will list some of the more noteworthy problems:
First, Ishtar and Inanna are not one-to-one the same deity. Ishtar is a syncretistic conglomeration, including elements of the male deity Attar (this is why Ishtar is depicted in both masculine and feminine ways). So GE’s discussion already is missing a lot of key points and nuance, not that we should be surprised.
Second, he argues that the Israelites were aware of Inanna’s descent. While they were certainly aware of Tammuz’s own demise (Ezekiel 8:14), there is no evidence they were aware of the full legend, and, in fact, later accounts of Tammuz only recognize his own demise, not Inanna/Ishtar’s. Interestingly enough, Tammuz in later writings close to the time of Jesus is equated most closely with Adonis, to which there is no connecting myth of Ishtar nor a resurrection attested in our sources (at best is Lucian’s De Dea Syria, however the language is also consistent with apotheosis, not necessarily resurrection). This is what later Christian church fathers like Jerome and Origen did. GE makes several extrapolations which the texts do not support. He argues for them knowing of Ishtar/Inanna’s descent into the underworld based on a few passages which may or may not mention her, none of which ever mention her descent either (Jeremiah 7:18, 44:15-26; Ezekiel 8:14). In short, GE resorts to pure conjecture. His position is not supported.
Third, there is actually wide debate as to whom we should identify as the Queen of Heaven. In fact, most scholars do NOT identify this as Ishtar in Jeremiah, but as one of the many Canaanite goddesses (or a syncretism of them). M. Dijkstra identifies her as Asherah (not Ishtar), some identify her as Qudshu, some as Anat, some as Astarte, and even Shapshu are all options for this identification. Since numerous ANE goddesses possessed this epithet, GE’s conclusion simply cannot be in any way an articulated fact. Furthermore, none of those passages mention Ishtar’s descent. As such, GE is simply stating things without any understanding of them.
Fourth, Inanna does not rise after three days. It is after three days that mourning rituals begin. Mettinger noted this in his book The Riddle of Resurrection (page 189), noting that there is not a period of “three days between death and resurrection but between the death and the beginning of the mourning rites.” In short, GE has completely misread the text and fabricated a false parallel.
Fifth, Inanna is not crucified. She is transformed into a “corpse” and then hung on a hook, akin to how a butcher hangs meat. The text never mentions her being crucified, nor is there any iconography depicting this of any kind. Furthermore, in the later Akkadian version (see Lapinkivi’s latest edition from Eisenbrauns for more on this) she is not ever hung on a hook either. This means that the versions of the myth closest to Jesus don’t have that element, it was lost or altered. In short, it is not a parallel to Jesus at all.
Sixth, Ishtar/Inanna being stripped of their robes and garments has to do with them being stripped of their power. Jesus’ beatings and assaults and torture (not at all a valid comparison) are actually the exact opposite, since those ascend him to power and achieve ultimate authority. Ishtar/Inanna’s entire goal was to take dominion over the underworld, which failed. Jesus’ was to achieve salvation, which succeeded. In short, it is not a parallel. GE has simply fabricated these things by misreading (something that a basic introductory course on these subjects would have clarified for him). Furthermore, Inanna/Ishtar is not persecuted. Lastly, Jesus would never be “just another agricultural god” as GE states. He has no ties to vegetation fertility or growth, unlike Inanna/Ishtar and her husband Dumuzi/Tammuz.
Conclusions:
GE knows barely anything about these myths, except surface readings and things probably gleaned from the highly doubtful and ill-researched works of Richard Carrier. He clearly has not an understanding of the nuance, nor of anything else regarding these issues.