- Mar 9, 2020
- 216
- 134
- 36
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
DIVINE ASSEMBLY. Common to the mythopoeic world of the ANE was the idea of a council or assembly of the gods that met to determine the fates of the cosmos. Depictions of such divine gatherings are found in the religious and mythological literatures of Mesopotamia, Ugarit, Phoenicia, and Israel. Though the concept of a “synod” of the gods was present in Egyptian mythology, it seems to have played little active role in Egyptian religion. While there is much to suggest that in Mesopotamia and Canaan this heavenly assembly reflects a developed political reality within the human realm, in the literatures of these cultures the council of the gods is presented as a standard part of the organization of the divine realm which constituted the major decision-making body in the divine world to which all the members of the pantheon were subject.
Within the biblical materials, the concept of an assembly of divine beings is found throughout the OT as an expression of Yahweh’s power and authority. Yahweh is frequently depicted as enthroned over an assembly of divine beings who serve to dispense his decrees and messages. It is this mythological setting that provides the background, in part, for the development of the angelic hierarchy that occurs during the intertestamental period. This concept of divine authority and power also supplies the conceptual background for understanding the idea of prophetic authority within the Hebrew texts.
A. Terminology
1. Extrabiblical
2. Biblical
B. Members of the Assembly
1. Mesopotamia
2. Ugarit
3. Israel
C. The Messenger of the Council
D. Hebrew Depictions of the Assembly
E. Development of Specialized Functions
A. Terminology
Despite the common mythological depictions of the assembly of the gods, the terminology used to describe this concept is rather diverse.
1. Extrabiblical. In the Mesopotamian materials, the standard term used for the assembly is puḫru—the assembly of the gods is most commonly designated as puḫur ilāni. Among the various terms used to designate the assembly in the Ugaritic materials is the analogous phrase pḫrʾilm. While it remains disputed whether ʾilm in this and analogous phrases in Ugaritic is to be read as the plural, “gods,” or as the singular, “El” (+ enclitic m), it is apparent that it is one designation for the assembly of the gods in the Ugaritic texts (UT 17.7 [KTU 1.47.29]; Ug V.9.I.9 [RS 24.643; KTU 1.148]). In UT 51.III.14 (KTU 1.4) the phrase pḫr bn ʾilm designates the assembly of the gods while mpḫrt bn ʾll is frequent in the liturgical texts (UT 107.3 [KTU 1.65]; UT 2.17, 34 [KTU 1.40; see also lines 8, 25]). To this should be compared the 10th-century B.C.E. Phoenician reference to “the assembly of the holy gods of Byblos” (mpḥrt ʾl gbl qdšm; KAI 4.4–5). In the most detailed Ugaritic description of the assembly (UT 137.14, 15, 16–17, 20, 31 [KTU 1.2]), the compound expression “gathered assembly” (pḫr mʿd) is employed. Elsewhere in the Ugaritic texts the most common designation for the assembly is dr ʾil/dr bn ʾil, “the assembly of El/the assembly of the sons of El” (UT 107.2 [KTU 1.65]; UT 2.17, 25–26, 34 [KTU 1.40; see also line 8]; UT 1.7 [KTU 1.39]; UT 3.16 [KTU 1.41]; RS 18.56, 17–18 [KTU 1.87]; UT 128.III.19 [KTU 1.15]). In the Keret text the phrase ʿdt ʾilm is also used to connote the assembly of the gods (UT 128.II.7, 11 [KTU 1.15]).
2. Biblical. The terminology used in Hebrew to denote the assembly is also diverse. Biblical Hebrew, while not using the term puḫru/pḫr to designate the assembly, does employ the terms ʿedâ, “assemblage” (Ps 82:1) and dôr, lit. “generation” (Amos 8:14; see also Pss 14:5; 49:20; 73:15; 84:11; 95:10; 112:2; Isa 53:8; Jer 2:31, 7:29; Prov 30:11–14; compare dr in KAI 26.III.19; 27.12), both of which are used of the council in Ugaritic materials. Additionally, Isa 14:13 employs the phrase har môʿēd, “mount of assembly” (cf. Ug pḫr mʿd), and qĕhal qĕdōšı̂m, “assembly of the holy ones” (Ps 89:6). The term sôd also occurs in the biblical materials as a designation for the council (Ps 89:8; Jer 23:18; 23:22; Job 15:8). Neither qāhāl nor sôd is attested in Ugaritic as a term designating the assembly of the gods.
B. Members of the Assembly
More significant for an understanding of the role and function of the divine assembly in the literature and religion of the ANE is the variety of terms used to designate the members of the assembly.
1. Mesopotamia. The membership of the heavenly council is most clearly discernible in the Mesopotamian literature. There the membership of the council is composed of all the major gods and goddesses of the land. Most important among these gods are two special groups, the fifty ilū rabiūtu, “the great/senior gods,” and the seven gods called ilū šīmāti, “the gods of the fates,” or the mušimmū šīmāti, “the determiners of the fates.” The depictions of the council proceedings in Mesopotamian materials, most especially in the Enūma Eliš, reveal that the council met under the presidency of the high god Anu and that after a banquet and discussion of the issues, the fates were determined and pronounced. The executor of the will of the council was the storm god Enlil.
In the Canaanite and Hebrew literatures depicting the assembly of the gods, the individual natures of the constituent members of the assembly are not nearly so clear as they are in the Mesopotamian accounts. In both the Canaanite and Hebrew assemblies, the identities of the gods, apart from the high god, remain somewhat obscure.
2. Ugarit. In the assembly of the gods, as depicted in the Ugaritic materials, the members of the assembly are noted as ʾilm, “gods,” a fact that is conveyed by the designation of the assembly as pḫr (bn) ʾilm, mpḫrt bn ʾil, and dr bn ʾil. There are, however, some more specific indications of the membership in the Canaanite assembly. In the Keret epic (UT 126.V.1–28 [KTU 1.16]), El sits at the head of the assembly and four times addresses the gods, called either ʾilm, “gods,” or bny, “my sons,” asking who will heal the ailing Keret. UT 128.II.2–7 (KTU 1.15) presents El, Baal, Yarih (Moon), Kothar-wa-Hasis, Raḥmayyu (ʾAṯirat[?]), Reshep, and the ʿdt ʾilm, “the assembly of the gods,” as gathering to consider Keret’s request for progeny. Though broken, the text seems to give the names of some of the major deities and the leading members of the assembly, and then lists the assembly itself, as though the latter had been hypostatized and could represent a grouping of minor deities. This hypostatization of the council is confirmed by the appearance of the council in the pantheon lists and sacrificial tariffs from Ugarit. The Ugaritic pantheon list (UT 17.7 [KTU 1.47.29]) includes the pḫr ʾilm among the deities of Ugarit; the corresponding Akkadian list (Ug V.18.28 [RS 20.24]) reads dpu-ḫur ilāniM, “the council of the gods.” In addition to this grouping of deities occurs the notice of pḫr bʿl, the “assembly of Baal,” that might be equivalent to the “helper gods of Baal” (ʾil tʿḏr bʿl/ilānuM til-la-at dadad [UT 17.4 (KTU 1.47.26)/Ug V. 18.25 (RS 20.24)]). The connection of the two assemblages in the texts (dr ʾil wpḫr bʿl; UT 1.7 [KTU 1.39]; UT 3.16 [KTU 1.41]; RS 18.56.17–18 [KTU 1.87]) suggests that these might be interpreted as collective “summary” statements for those deities not designated specifically in the lists. The dedication of sacrifices to this hypostatized council (dr bn ʾil//mpḫrt bn ʾil, UT 2.17, 33–34 [KTU 1.40 (see also lines 7–8, 42)] or pḫr ʾilm, Ug V.9.9[RS 24.643; KTU 1.148]) indicates that it was regarded as an object of veneration, a view that is confirmed by the Phoenician references to the council that show that as late as the 6th century B.C.E., the divine assembly was still invoked as an active part of the Canaanite pantheon (KAI 4.3–5; 9.B.5–6; 26.III.18–19; 27:11–12). The Ugaritic materials reveal a concept of the council that may be summarized as follows: the major and minor deities of the pantheon met in assembly under the leadership of El to make those decisions concerning the cosmos that fell within the purview of the gods. Most specifically, the issues of kingship, temple, and progeny concern the council. Apart from the fact that the members of the assembly are noted as gods or sons of El and are often the recipients of sacrifices, there seems to be little or no development of the individual roles or functions as presented in the Ugaritic texts.
3. Israel. An analogous situation is encountered in the Hebrew materials. Though there are numerous references to the divine beings that constitute the members of the heavenly court, there is little or no development of individual figures or functions in the early Hebrew materials. In Pss 29:1, 89:7, the members of the Hebrew council are called bĕnê ʾēlı̂m, “sons of gods/gods” (or possibly “sons of El,” reading ʾēl-m; cf. Ug bn ʾilm). Likewise, Deut 32:8 may contain the reading bĕnê ʾĕlōhı̂m (cf. LXX, 4QDt), a reference that would be analogous to the bĕnê hāʾĕlōhı̂m, “the sons of god,” contained in Gen 6:2, 4; Job 1:6, 2:1. See also SONS OF GOD. In Ps 82:6, the deities of the assembly are called “sons of the Most High/Elyon” (bĕnê ʿelyôn), while the inclusive nature of the membership in the assembly is reflected by the reference to kōl ʾĕlōhı̂m, “all the gods,” in Ps 97:7. A more general designation of the members of Yahweh’s court is qĕdōšı̂m, “holy ones” (Deut 33:2–3; Job 5:1, 15:15[Q]; Pss 16:3; 89:6, 8; Zech 14:5; Prov 9:10; 30:3), or the collective meaning of qōdeš (Exod 15:11; Pss 77:14; 93:5; cf. Ug bn qdš). Despite the tendency of interpreters to view the Hebrew materials from a monotheistic viewpoint, it is apparent that the biblical materials themselves envisioned Yahweh surrounded by his heavenly court, the lesser deities who made up the divine entourage.
Given the warrior character of Yahweh presented in the early Hebrew materials, it is possible to ascertain one function of these divine beings who accompanied the high god. Though the precise meaning and etymology of the phrase remain debated, it is possible to interpret the ṣĕbāʾôt, “host, army,” of the phrase YHWH ṣĕbāʾôt as a reference to the military retinue that fought alongside the high god. Whatever character is assigned to these divine beings, two matters are made clear from those texts that are concerned with the incomparability of Yahweh (cf. Deut 3:24; 10:17; 1 Kgs 8:23; Jer 10:6; Pss 86:8, 95:3; 96:4[=1 Chr 16:25]; 97:7; 135:5; 136:2; etc.): such comparisons presume the setting of the council (cf. Ps 89:6–9), and the members of that council are presumed to be clearly inferior to Yahweh. Despite this inferior status, these beings constituted the “host of heaven” (ṣĕbāʾ haššāmayı̄m, cf. Isa 40:26; Ps 148:3), the worship of whom was forbidden in Hebrew tradition (Deut 4:19; 17:3; cf Jer 8:2, etc.). As illustrated by the parallelism of the kôkĕbê bōqer and kōl bĕnê ʾĕlōhı̂m (“the morning stars”//“all the sons of god”; Job 38:7), the heavenly bodies could be envisioned as part of the divine entourage who participated in the wars of Yahweh (cf. Josh 5:13–15; 10:12b–13a; Judg 5:20; Ps 148:2–3). In addition to the function of serving as part of the divine retinue, the beings served to praise and adore Yahweh in his court (Pss 29:1; 148:2–3)
Within the biblical materials, the concept of an assembly of divine beings is found throughout the OT as an expression of Yahweh’s power and authority. Yahweh is frequently depicted as enthroned over an assembly of divine beings who serve to dispense his decrees and messages. It is this mythological setting that provides the background, in part, for the development of the angelic hierarchy that occurs during the intertestamental period. This concept of divine authority and power also supplies the conceptual background for understanding the idea of prophetic authority within the Hebrew texts.
A. Terminology
1. Extrabiblical
2. Biblical
B. Members of the Assembly
1. Mesopotamia
2. Ugarit
3. Israel
C. The Messenger of the Council
D. Hebrew Depictions of the Assembly
E. Development of Specialized Functions
A. Terminology
Despite the common mythological depictions of the assembly of the gods, the terminology used to describe this concept is rather diverse.
1. Extrabiblical. In the Mesopotamian materials, the standard term used for the assembly is puḫru—the assembly of the gods is most commonly designated as puḫur ilāni. Among the various terms used to designate the assembly in the Ugaritic materials is the analogous phrase pḫrʾilm. While it remains disputed whether ʾilm in this and analogous phrases in Ugaritic is to be read as the plural, “gods,” or as the singular, “El” (+ enclitic m), it is apparent that it is one designation for the assembly of the gods in the Ugaritic texts (UT 17.7 [KTU 1.47.29]; Ug V.9.I.9 [RS 24.643; KTU 1.148]). In UT 51.III.14 (KTU 1.4) the phrase pḫr bn ʾilm designates the assembly of the gods while mpḫrt bn ʾll is frequent in the liturgical texts (UT 107.3 [KTU 1.65]; UT 2.17, 34 [KTU 1.40; see also lines 8, 25]). To this should be compared the 10th-century B.C.E. Phoenician reference to “the assembly of the holy gods of Byblos” (mpḥrt ʾl gbl qdšm; KAI 4.4–5). In the most detailed Ugaritic description of the assembly (UT 137.14, 15, 16–17, 20, 31 [KTU 1.2]), the compound expression “gathered assembly” (pḫr mʿd) is employed. Elsewhere in the Ugaritic texts the most common designation for the assembly is dr ʾil/dr bn ʾil, “the assembly of El/the assembly of the sons of El” (UT 107.2 [KTU 1.65]; UT 2.17, 25–26, 34 [KTU 1.40; see also line 8]; UT 1.7 [KTU 1.39]; UT 3.16 [KTU 1.41]; RS 18.56, 17–18 [KTU 1.87]; UT 128.III.19 [KTU 1.15]). In the Keret text the phrase ʿdt ʾilm is also used to connote the assembly of the gods (UT 128.II.7, 11 [KTU 1.15]).
2. Biblical. The terminology used in Hebrew to denote the assembly is also diverse. Biblical Hebrew, while not using the term puḫru/pḫr to designate the assembly, does employ the terms ʿedâ, “assemblage” (Ps 82:1) and dôr, lit. “generation” (Amos 8:14; see also Pss 14:5; 49:20; 73:15; 84:11; 95:10; 112:2; Isa 53:8; Jer 2:31, 7:29; Prov 30:11–14; compare dr in KAI 26.III.19; 27.12), both of which are used of the council in Ugaritic materials. Additionally, Isa 14:13 employs the phrase har môʿēd, “mount of assembly” (cf. Ug pḫr mʿd), and qĕhal qĕdōšı̂m, “assembly of the holy ones” (Ps 89:6). The term sôd also occurs in the biblical materials as a designation for the council (Ps 89:8; Jer 23:18; 23:22; Job 15:8). Neither qāhāl nor sôd is attested in Ugaritic as a term designating the assembly of the gods.
B. Members of the Assembly
More significant for an understanding of the role and function of the divine assembly in the literature and religion of the ANE is the variety of terms used to designate the members of the assembly.
1. Mesopotamia. The membership of the heavenly council is most clearly discernible in the Mesopotamian literature. There the membership of the council is composed of all the major gods and goddesses of the land. Most important among these gods are two special groups, the fifty ilū rabiūtu, “the great/senior gods,” and the seven gods called ilū šīmāti, “the gods of the fates,” or the mušimmū šīmāti, “the determiners of the fates.” The depictions of the council proceedings in Mesopotamian materials, most especially in the Enūma Eliš, reveal that the council met under the presidency of the high god Anu and that after a banquet and discussion of the issues, the fates were determined and pronounced. The executor of the will of the council was the storm god Enlil.
In the Canaanite and Hebrew literatures depicting the assembly of the gods, the individual natures of the constituent members of the assembly are not nearly so clear as they are in the Mesopotamian accounts. In both the Canaanite and Hebrew assemblies, the identities of the gods, apart from the high god, remain somewhat obscure.
2. Ugarit. In the assembly of the gods, as depicted in the Ugaritic materials, the members of the assembly are noted as ʾilm, “gods,” a fact that is conveyed by the designation of the assembly as pḫr (bn) ʾilm, mpḫrt bn ʾil, and dr bn ʾil. There are, however, some more specific indications of the membership in the Canaanite assembly. In the Keret epic (UT 126.V.1–28 [KTU 1.16]), El sits at the head of the assembly and four times addresses the gods, called either ʾilm, “gods,” or bny, “my sons,” asking who will heal the ailing Keret. UT 128.II.2–7 (KTU 1.15) presents El, Baal, Yarih (Moon), Kothar-wa-Hasis, Raḥmayyu (ʾAṯirat[?]), Reshep, and the ʿdt ʾilm, “the assembly of the gods,” as gathering to consider Keret’s request for progeny. Though broken, the text seems to give the names of some of the major deities and the leading members of the assembly, and then lists the assembly itself, as though the latter had been hypostatized and could represent a grouping of minor deities. This hypostatization of the council is confirmed by the appearance of the council in the pantheon lists and sacrificial tariffs from Ugarit. The Ugaritic pantheon list (UT 17.7 [KTU 1.47.29]) includes the pḫr ʾilm among the deities of Ugarit; the corresponding Akkadian list (Ug V.18.28 [RS 20.24]) reads dpu-ḫur ilāniM, “the council of the gods.” In addition to this grouping of deities occurs the notice of pḫr bʿl, the “assembly of Baal,” that might be equivalent to the “helper gods of Baal” (ʾil tʿḏr bʿl/ilānuM til-la-at dadad [UT 17.4 (KTU 1.47.26)/Ug V. 18.25 (RS 20.24)]). The connection of the two assemblages in the texts (dr ʾil wpḫr bʿl; UT 1.7 [KTU 1.39]; UT 3.16 [KTU 1.41]; RS 18.56.17–18 [KTU 1.87]) suggests that these might be interpreted as collective “summary” statements for those deities not designated specifically in the lists. The dedication of sacrifices to this hypostatized council (dr bn ʾil//mpḫrt bn ʾil, UT 2.17, 33–34 [KTU 1.40 (see also lines 7–8, 42)] or pḫr ʾilm, Ug V.9.9[RS 24.643; KTU 1.148]) indicates that it was regarded as an object of veneration, a view that is confirmed by the Phoenician references to the council that show that as late as the 6th century B.C.E., the divine assembly was still invoked as an active part of the Canaanite pantheon (KAI 4.3–5; 9.B.5–6; 26.III.18–19; 27:11–12). The Ugaritic materials reveal a concept of the council that may be summarized as follows: the major and minor deities of the pantheon met in assembly under the leadership of El to make those decisions concerning the cosmos that fell within the purview of the gods. Most specifically, the issues of kingship, temple, and progeny concern the council. Apart from the fact that the members of the assembly are noted as gods or sons of El and are often the recipients of sacrifices, there seems to be little or no development of the individual roles or functions as presented in the Ugaritic texts.
3. Israel. An analogous situation is encountered in the Hebrew materials. Though there are numerous references to the divine beings that constitute the members of the heavenly court, there is little or no development of individual figures or functions in the early Hebrew materials. In Pss 29:1, 89:7, the members of the Hebrew council are called bĕnê ʾēlı̂m, “sons of gods/gods” (or possibly “sons of El,” reading ʾēl-m; cf. Ug bn ʾilm). Likewise, Deut 32:8 may contain the reading bĕnê ʾĕlōhı̂m (cf. LXX, 4QDt), a reference that would be analogous to the bĕnê hāʾĕlōhı̂m, “the sons of god,” contained in Gen 6:2, 4; Job 1:6, 2:1. See also SONS OF GOD. In Ps 82:6, the deities of the assembly are called “sons of the Most High/Elyon” (bĕnê ʿelyôn), while the inclusive nature of the membership in the assembly is reflected by the reference to kōl ʾĕlōhı̂m, “all the gods,” in Ps 97:7. A more general designation of the members of Yahweh’s court is qĕdōšı̂m, “holy ones” (Deut 33:2–3; Job 5:1, 15:15[Q]; Pss 16:3; 89:6, 8; Zech 14:5; Prov 9:10; 30:3), or the collective meaning of qōdeš (Exod 15:11; Pss 77:14; 93:5; cf. Ug bn qdš). Despite the tendency of interpreters to view the Hebrew materials from a monotheistic viewpoint, it is apparent that the biblical materials themselves envisioned Yahweh surrounded by his heavenly court, the lesser deities who made up the divine entourage.
Given the warrior character of Yahweh presented in the early Hebrew materials, it is possible to ascertain one function of these divine beings who accompanied the high god. Though the precise meaning and etymology of the phrase remain debated, it is possible to interpret the ṣĕbāʾôt, “host, army,” of the phrase YHWH ṣĕbāʾôt as a reference to the military retinue that fought alongside the high god. Whatever character is assigned to these divine beings, two matters are made clear from those texts that are concerned with the incomparability of Yahweh (cf. Deut 3:24; 10:17; 1 Kgs 8:23; Jer 10:6; Pss 86:8, 95:3; 96:4[=1 Chr 16:25]; 97:7; 135:5; 136:2; etc.): such comparisons presume the setting of the council (cf. Ps 89:6–9), and the members of that council are presumed to be clearly inferior to Yahweh. Despite this inferior status, these beings constituted the “host of heaven” (ṣĕbāʾ haššāmayı̄m, cf. Isa 40:26; Ps 148:3), the worship of whom was forbidden in Hebrew tradition (Deut 4:19; 17:3; cf Jer 8:2, etc.). As illustrated by the parallelism of the kôkĕbê bōqer and kōl bĕnê ʾĕlōhı̂m (“the morning stars”//“all the sons of god”; Job 38:7), the heavenly bodies could be envisioned as part of the divine entourage who participated in the wars of Yahweh (cf. Josh 5:13–15; 10:12b–13a; Judg 5:20; Ps 148:2–3). In addition to the function of serving as part of the divine retinue, the beings served to praise and adore Yahweh in his court (Pss 29:1; 148:2–3)