So in Sumer we see they have culture, ideologies, religion, and society. Sumer would predate the Israelite’s by a very long stretch of time, so the development of theology is passed on through time, along with cultural developments. A good example is the Sabbath which is a day of rest, I think Saturday. The earlier use of the term come from Babylon, sappatu, and is originally the 15th day of the month, the Jews being monotheistic borrow the ideas of a day of rest from Babylon, who believe in a multitude of Gods. So we see an influence from culture to culture and an adoption of themes. I will agree that theology has changed and evolved (both positively and negatively) over the ages, but it is hard to make such a distinction when it comes to older societies due to the fact that their theology is included in their social norms. We even see when someone commits a “sin” in Sumer they are held in a trial at a court, and their “sin” is rectified before their God in ritual. We can even see the same with the Hattat ritual in the Old Testament and similarities in the Hittite and early Mesopotamian atonement rituals. I would have to thoroughly disagree with you that theology is not passed along.
Sumerian being a Pre Semitic aggulagnative language inherently is part of their religion. Israelite’s would speak a Semitic based language, they wouldn’t speak a Sumer language.
What I am stating is that polytheism influences polytheism, and polytheism influences henotheism, and henotheism influences monotheism. Please show me where monotheism is a prelude to polytheism? Show me an earlier civilization than the people of Sumer and were monotheist, the closest we find and is not pre Sumer is the Egyptians, the Akhenaten are monotheistic, but it is a far cry from Christian or early Israelite monotheism. In order for your claim to succeed the Israelite’s would have to not have come out of Canaan.
It’s very hard to “cherry pick” 2 Chron 20:16 and its rooted word. It is generally accepted that in origin this denoted 'the foundation of [the god] Shalem', Shalem being the god of dusk (cf. Jeruel, 'foundation of El' in 2 Chron. 20.16). It is interesting that Shahar (dawn) and Shalem (dusk) are brothers in Ugaritic mythology, as they were begotten at the same time by the god El (KTU2 1.2.3). If the god Shalem ('dusk') was prominent in Jebusite Jerusalem mythology, it is only natural that his brother Shahar, 'dawn', would appear there as well.
Melchizedek is a Jebusite priest out of Canaan, in Bible lit they are a tribe who inhabited Jerusalem prior to its conquest by Joshua.
You state Zedek, but it’s Zadok who is a Jebusite and not an Israelite.
According to the book of Genesis, Melchizedek king of Jerusalem, was also a priest of El Elyon, “God Most High” (Genesis 14:18). The meaning of the name Melchizedek is “My King is [the god] Zedek.” In the book of Hebrews, the name Melchizedek is interpreted to mean “King of Righteousness” (Hebrews 7:2).
While I make reference to one singularity, it would be much longer for me to incorporate the entire scope of my argument.
Also, the fact is that, in early Israel, many people identified Yahweh with Baal. Saul’s son was named Eshbaal, “Man of Baal” (1 Chronicles 8:33) and one of David’s sons born in Jerusalem was called Beeliada, “Baal Knows” (1 Chronicles 14:7). In addition, the name of one of the soldiers who served in David’s army was Bealiah, “Baal is Yahweh.”
I have only a short reference for this, but I will give more on Ba’al and Yahweh in a minute.
·
Was Zadok a Jebusite?
· Anchor Bible Dictionary, George W. Ramsey
It’s not really a point for anyone to distinguish El and its meaning to each culture. Notice I stated that El becomes a general term, not that it originally was.
Theology:
All theology is an attempt to treat the most fundamental human problems through a metaphysical game of suspended disbelief.
I clicked on your link; it seems the author is so far addressing the issue of El and Yahweh. Okay so the author is stating:
“Instead, scholars use the divine council parallels in the Ugaritic texts and Hebrew texts to prove that the biblical religion was no different from the Canaanite religion. The question is whether or not there is a valid argument for these claims. Does the Hebrew Scriptures allow for Ugaritic parallelism? Is Yahweh the only supreme deity in the Hebrew Scriptures or is there another? To answer these questions, this thesis will examine how scholars on both sides of the argument understand the function of Yahweh in two primary texts proposed to have divine council imagery: Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and Psalm 82.”
My contention is that El does seem to reflect the Canaanite background; however this author is discussing whether or not Hebrew parallels Ugarit. He seems to give function of Yahweh mainly per Biblical texts. We can explore this a little deeper. Before we begin I will reference “Religious Texts from Ugarit” by author N Wyatt. And of course Yahweh and Gods and Goddess of Canaan by author John Day.
I will use one argument and we can see where it goes to.
The author your refer to at (
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/c...w&start=10&sa=N#search="JC De moor Yahweh el") in sum has an assertion that, "Deuteronomy 32:8-9 presents a unique problem in the area of comparative studies. The polemic of a divine council in the traditionally monotheistic text has raised many questions and concerns. While some may argue for Yahweh and El to be members of the same Canaanite pantheon, there is a lack of evidence that Yahweh was ever recognized as a Canaanite deity as he does not appear in the Ugaritic pantheon. The ideology of Yahweh being a subordinate of El is also incoherent with the broader scope of the text itself. First, it is observed that the divine beings within the council of Yahweh are not identified and are considered inferior to him. Second, the rib pattern does not support Yahweh being subordinate to any other deity. Yahweh is evidenced most clearly in Deuteronomy 32:6-7 where five functions of El are ascribed to Yahweh.124 Finally, in Deuteronomy 4:19-20, it is accepted that Yahweh is the one who assigned the nations to the host of heaven and took Israel as his own inheritance. Heiser sums up the issue well by saying “Israel was not given to Yahweh by El, which is the picture that scholars who separate El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 32 want to fashion. In view of the close relationship of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 to Deuteronomy 4:19-20, it is more consistent to have Yahweh taking Israel for his own terrestrial allotment by sovereign act as Lord of the council.”
According to your author Yahweh is not in Ugaritic literature and is not "sub" to El. Let’s look into this below:
Yahweh and El were originally separate deities, the question is then raised where Yahweh originated. Yahweh himself does not appear to have been a Canaanite god in origin: for example, he does not appear in the Ugaritic pantheon lists. Most scholars who have written on the subject during recent decades support the idea that Yahweh had his origins outside the land of Israel to the south, in the area of Midian (cf. Judg. 5.4-5; Deut. 33.2; Hab. 3.3, 7) and there has been an increasing tendency to locate Mt Sinai and Kadesh in N.W. Arabia rather than the Sinai peninsula itself. The former view, long held by German scholars, has been supported by evidence of a civilization in the Hejaz area in N. W. Arabia (Midian) in the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age, in contrast to the general lack of this in this period in the Sinai peninsula. Also, the epithet 'Yahweh of Teman' in one of the Kuntillet 'Ajrud inscriptions fits in with this. References to the Shasu Yahweh in Egyptian texts alongside the Shasu Seir may also be cited in support. Though M.C. Astour has questioned this, claiming that the reference was not to Seir in Edom but to Sarara in Syria, on balance, however, the Egyptian Scrr still seems more likely to be a slip for S 'r (Seir) than the name Sarara. As will be seen at various points later on in this chapter, a plausible case can be made that several of the El epithets referred to in Genesis in connection with patriarchal religion do indeed derive from the worship of the Canaanite god El (El-Shaddai, El-Olam, El-Bethel, and possibly El-Elyon). As Eissfeldt and others have also noted, the promises of progeny to the patriarchs bear comparison with the promise of progeny by the god El to Keret and Aqhat in the Ugaritic texts. Although no one can today maintain that the patriarchal narratives are historical accounts, there are grounds for believing that their depiction of an El religion does at least in part reflect something of pre-monarchical religion, however much it has been overlaid by later accretions. In favor of a pre-monarchic El religion amongst the Hebrews one may first of all note the very name Israel, meaning probably 'El will rule', a name already attested in the late thirteenth century BCE on the stele of the Egyptian pharaoh Merneptah. It is surely an indication of El's early importance that the very name of the people incorporates the name of the god El. Secondly, as various scholars have noted, prior to the rise
El's Influence on Yahweh Accepted by the Old Testament
Granted that El and Yahweh were originally separate deities who became equated, the question now arises what was the nature of El's influence on the depiction of Yahweh. Here several points emerge which will be discussed under the following headings.
Yahweh as an aged God
One instance where a strong case can be made for the influence of El symbolism on Yahweh concerns those few places where Yahweh is represented as an aged God with many years. In the Ugaritic texts El is frequently given the epithet 'ab $nm, 'Father of Years' (e.g. KTU2 1.4.IV.24), a concept reinforced by the references to his grey hair (e.g. KTU2 1.3.V.2, 24-25; 1.4.V.4). In the Old Testament there are just three places where Yahweh's 'years' are alluded to, and it is therefore particularly striking that in two of these he is specifically called by the name El. The first of these is in Job 36.26, where Elihu declares, 'Behold, God ('el) is great, and we know him not; the number of his years is unsearchable'. Clearly Yahweh is being represented as a supremely aged deity. The second occurrence is in Ps. 102.25 (ET 24), where the Psalmist prays, '"O my God ('elty\ I say, "take me not hence in the midst of my days, thou whose years endure throughout all generations!"' The fact that Yahweh is here referred to as 'my God' (literally, 'my El') is all the more striking in that it is the one place in the whole Psalm in which God is not addressed as Yahweh (cf. vv. 2,
13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23 [ET 1, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22]). The only other instance in the Old Testament where Yahweh's 'years' are mentioned is Job 10.5, where Job asks God, 'Are thy days as the days of man, or thy years as man's years?' (This is part of a section in which God is called 'eloah, a term related to 'el, e.g. in Job 10.2.). But these specific references to Yahweh's years are not the only places where he is depicted as an aged God. As J.A. Emerton was the first to note, Dan. 7.9 also has this concept and has appropriated it from El. In Daniel's apocalyptic vision God is there entitled the 'Ancient of Days', a term reminiscent of 'Father of Years', and we read that 'the
hair of his head was like pure wool', which likewise reminds one of EL In keeping with this, the one like a son of man who comes with the clouds of heaven and reigns for ever after being enthroned by the Ancient of Days (Dan. 7.13-14) derives ultimately from Baal, 'the rider of the clouds', and the beasts of the sea, whose rule is succeeded by that of the one like a son of man, reflect Yam, Leviathan, and others, who were defeated by Baal. It seems inherently plausible that we have an Old Testament allusion related to El's being an aged deity in Gen. 21.33, where the patriarchal deity at Beer-sheba is called El-Olam, 'El, the Eternal One', which may possibly have meant originally 'El, the Ancient One', as P.M. Cross has noted.
However, the proposal of P.M. Cross to find an allusion to 'El (god) of eternity' ('I d 7m) in the Proto-Sinaitic text 358 has proved to be unfounded, since M. Dijkstra, having examined the text at first hand, has shown that this reading is invalid. El-Olam was the local Canaanite god of Beer-sheba, but as we know from archaeology that Beer-sheba was not settled before c. 1200 BCE, the cult there will not antedate that time.
Yahweh as Wise
It was the god El who was especially noted for his wisdom according to the Ugaritic texts (KTU2 1.4.V.65, etc.). It seems that the author of Ezekiel 28 was familiar with this notion, since the king of Tyre's wisdom is emphasized in vv. 2, 3, 4, 5, and elsewhere in the very same context he claims to be God ('el). As will be seen below, El traditions lie behind the notion of the garden of Eden, so it is striking that the divine wisdom is connected with the story of the first man in Gen. 3.5, 6, 22; Ezek. 28.12, 17, and Job 15.7-8. In my opinion it is probable that it was from the god El that the notion of Yahweh's wisdom was appropriated. Plausibility is added to this view by the fact that wisdom and old age were traditionally associated, and, as noted already, it was from the god El that the notion of Yahweh as an aged deity with many years was derived. We do not know whether Yahweh was conceived of as a creator god from the beginning or not. One cannot presuppose this from the name itself, for it is more likely that it means 'he is' rather than 'he causes to be' (i.e. creates); certainly the former sense is how the Old Testament itself understands it (cf. Exod. 3.14). Anyhow, whether Yahweh was conceived to be a creator god from the beginning or not, there is some evidence that there are occasions on which the Old Testament has appropriated El language when it speaks of Yahweh as creator. Thus, it can hardly be a coincidence that Gen. 14. 19, 22 speaks of 'El-Elyon, creator (qoneh) of heaven and earth', and Deut. 32.6 declares, 'Is not he your father, who created you (qanekaj.This is so because not only is it the case that the verb qnh is used outside the Bible to speak of El's creative activity, but in both cases cited above we have other evidence supporting El influence: Gen. 14.19 and 22 specifically refer to El(-Elyon), and Deut. 32.8 also refers to the 'sons of God' (implicitly seventy, deriving from the seventy sons of El) as well as the name Elyon. (We should also note the personal name Elkanah ['elqand], 'God [El] has created', 1 Sam. 1.1, etc.) It is therefore possible that it is not merely a coincidence when we find the concept of God as creator and the name El together elsewhere in the Old Testament. Psalm 19.2 (ET 1) proclaims, 'The heavens declare the glory of God ('el)', and Ps. 102.26-27 (ET 25-26), which speaks of God's work as creator, is not only sandwiched between two verses referring to God's years (cf. El;vv. 25, 28, ET 24, 27), but following the only verse in the Psalm (v. 25, ET 24) to refer to God as 'eli, 'my God (lit. El)', rather than Yahweh. Reference was made above to Gen. 14.19, 22, 'El-Elyon, creator of heaven and earth', where this deity is depicted as the pre-Israelite, Jebusite god of Jerusalem. Elyon also occurs elsewhere as a divine name or epithet a number of other times in the Old Testament (e.g. Num. 24.16; Deut. 32.8; Ps. 18.14 [ET 13], 46.5 [ET 4], 78.17, 35, 56, 82.6, 87.5; Isa. 14.14; Dan. 7.22, 25, 27). There is dispute as to whether Elyon was originally the same deity as El or not. Philo of Byblos (c. 100 CE) depicts Elioun, as he calls him, as a separate god from EL Interestingly, he refers to Elioun (Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 1.10.15) as the father of Heaven (Ouranos) and Earth (Ge), which is reminiscent of the creator god El, and also strongly supports the idea that the reference to El-Elyon as 'Creator of heaven and earth' in Gen.
14.19. 22 is an authentic reminiscence of the Canaanite deity, and not simply invention.
Prima facie the eighth-century BCE Aramaic Sefire treaty also represents Elyon as a distinct deity from El, since 'El and Elyon' occur together (XA/222.A.11). This is one of a number of cases of paired deities in the treaty, some of whom are god and consort, whilst some others represent two parts of a whole. It is difficult to see how the pairing of El and Elyon fits into either of these categories. It has sometimes been suggested that 'El and Elyon' here might be a compound divine name, analogous to Kothar-and-Hasis, for example, in the Ugaritic texts. Whether or not they are the same deity, since Elyon was apparently the creator, which was also the case with El, it
would appear that these two gods were functionally equivalent. Some other language associated with the name Elyon in the Old Testament is also El-like, for example, the association of Elyon with the mount of assembly (Isa. 14.13-14), with the sons of God or Elyon (Deut. 32.8; Ps. 82.6), and with the mythical river and streams (Ps. 46.5 [ET 4]).
The Sons of El (God)
In the Old Testament there appears the concept of Yahweh's having a heavenly court, the sons of God. They are referred to variously as the 'sons of God' (be ne ha'eldhim, Gen. 6.2, 4; Job 1.6, 2.2; or bene' elohim, Job 38.7), the 'sons of gods' (bene 'elim, Pss. 29.1, 89.7 [ET6]), or the 'sons of the Most High' (bene 'elyon, Ps. 82.6). It is also generally agreed that we should read 'sons of God' (bene 'elohim) for 'sons of Israel' in Deut. 32.8 (see below). There are further numerous places where the heavenly court is referred to without specific use of the expressions 'sons of God(s)' or 'sons of the Most High'. Thus, the heavenly court is mentioned in connection with the first human(s) (Gen. 1.26, 3.22; Job 15.7-8) or elsewhere in the primaeval history (Gen. 11.7; cf. Gen. 6.2 above), and in the context of the divine call or commission to prophesy (1 Kgs 22.19-22; Isa. 40.3, 6; Jer. 23.18, 22; cf. Amos 3.7). We also find it referred to in connection with the guardian gods or angels of the nations (Isa. 24.21; Ps. 82.1; Ecclus 17.17; Jub. 15.31-32; cf. Deut. 32.8 and Ps. 82.6 above; implied in Dan. 10.13, 20; 12.1). Apart from isolated references to the divine assembly on the sacred mountain in Isa. 14.13 and to personified Wisdom in the divine assembly in Ecclus 24.2, the other references to the heavenly court are more general (Zech. 1.10-11, 3.7, 14.5; Ps. 89.6-8 [ET 5-7]; Dan. 4.14 [ET 17], 7.10, 21, 25, 27, 8.10-13; cf. Job 1.6, 2.2, 38.7 and Pss. 29.1, 89.7 [ET 6] above). Just as an earthly king is supported by a body of courtiers, so Yahweh has a heavenly court. Originally, these were gods, but as monotheism became absolute, so these were demoted to the status of angels. It was H. Wheeler Robinson who first drew attention to this concept in the Old Testament, though he cited only Babylonian parallels and so concluded that the origin of the Israelite notion was Babylonian, overlooking the more recently discovered Ugaritic parallels concerning the sons of EL It is in connection with the Canaanite god El and his pantheon of gods, known as 'the sons of El', that a direct relationship with the Old Testament is to be found. That this is certain can be established from the fact that both were seventy in number. At Ugarit we read in the Baal myth of 'the seventy sons of Asherah (Athirat)' (Sb'm. bn.'am, KTU21.4.VI.46). Since Asherah was El's consort, this therefore implies that El's sons were seventy in number. Now Deut. 32.8, which is clearly dependent on this concept, declares, 'When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God'. The reading 'sons of God' (bene 'elohim) has the support of the Qumran fragment, 4Q Deut, 30 the LXX, Symmachus, Old Latin and the Syro-Hexaplaric manuscript, Cambr. Or. 929.31.
This is clearly the original reading, to be preferred to the MT's 'sons of Israel' (bene yisrd'el), which must have arisen as a deliberate alteration on the part of a scribe who did not approve of the polytheistic overtones of the phrase 'sons of God'. Interestingly, it is known that the Jews believed there to be seventy nations on earth, so that the sons of God were accordingly also seventy in number. This emerges from the table of the nations in Genesis 10, where there are seventy nations, and from the later Jewish apocalyptic concept according to which there were seventy guardian angels of the nations (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Deut. 32.8; 1 En. 89.59-77, 90.22-27). This view, which I have defended previously, seems eminently reasonable. The criticisms that it has received seem unconvincing. Thus, first, R.N. Whybray claims that it is illegitimate to argue from the number seventy, since this is merely a conventional way of referring to a large, but indeterminate, number. But this does not seem to be the case here, since Genesis 10 lists precisely seventy nations on earth. Secondly, D.I. Block has claimed that the seventy gods of the nations implied in Deut. 32.8 are rather to be seen as a back projection from the notion of seventy nations on earth, such as is found in Genesis 10. Since, however, the idea of seventy sons of God (El) is already attested prior to Deut. 32.8, as the Ugaritic texts prove, Block's theory seems strained.
Finally, it is interesting to note that the Old Testament never refers to the heavenly court as 'the sons of Yahweh'. As we have seen above, apart from one instance of bene 'elyon, we always find 'sons of God', with words for God containing the letters '/ (beneha'elohim, bene 'elohim, be e 'elim). This finds a ready explanation in their origin in the sons of the Canaanite god El.
Did you miss the part talking about how Ugarit and El's assembly of the gods did indeed meet on a mountain? It is also interesting that the name of 'el (God) is mentioned in the phrase 'stars of God', and that the stars and the sons of God are
sometimes equated (Job 38.7; cf. KTU2 1.10.1.3-4). Ezekiel 28.2, 9 should also be
recalled, since God is there three times referred to as 'el (a term used elsewhere in Ezekiel only in Ezek. 10.5), part of a passage that has multiple allusions characteristic of Ugaritic El: the emphasis on the divine wisdom (vv. 2-6), the watery nature of the dwelling (v. 2), and the expression moSab >elohim 'seat of God (or gods)' (v. 2).
Okay so the reference you make from your article is that:
“He later explains however, that the title “sons of” may just be a designation of the divine realm.” (see above on Sons).
Cherry picking I know is your fave word, however, even the Bible isn’t placed in proper order from its own books, so in what order would you favor I use as so I am not “cherry picking”? Job is thought to have been written out of order from the Old Testament.
Biblical literature is very much anti “idolatry”, what happens when you look at the sources and roots, such as the E, J, P sources you find that meanings aren’t contemporaneous with its own passages.
On rebuttals: the Israelite’s aren’t the first to develop the idea of Monotheism; the Israelite’s are the first to develop it from Henotheism after Babylonian captivity. However, we see the Aten as being monotheistic, long before the Israelite’s adopt it. In this view I’d have to drop all preconceived notions of the adoption of Polytheism and Monotheism as the Aten are Monotheist, granted it isn’t the same Monotheism the Israelite’s carry. I’d really like to know what concepts the Israelite’s had that was totally different. We see them engaging in Hattat rituals as we did in early history with the Hittite’s and much earlier the Mesopotamian’s. We see them engaging in the Sabbath which was the Sapattu in Babylon. The only thing that really changes is that there is a one God concept with the Israelite’s and that concept is new to the Israelite’s, but before them the Aten already have this concept. So I am curious to know what changes exactly?
Language matters very much so, the word for Sky God is Anu in Sumer, in Akkad it is An, and we see a head of each pantheon in each polytheistic group and setting and it specifically deals with language. The difference between Akkad and Sumer is that Akkad is a Semitic based language while Sumer is not Semitic based in language. This may seem insignificant, but if the people of Sumer have a Pre Semitic based language, obviously the concept of God isn’t the same, but it has influence on the other culture. Also, you cannot have Semitic language developed without Sumer language, go see the Sumerian and Akkadian lexicons for this.
I know we disagree and if you are going to withdraw I understand. But, thank you for your candor; it was truly a stimulating disagreement. Lastly, I tend to think that if a Monotheistic God did reveal Monotheism to Polytheist they would have reflected so, but of course we will disagree. Thank you for your time.
