Origins of El and Yahweh

[enki]

Early Israelite culture cannot be separated easily from the culture of “Canaan.� 156 The highlands of Israel in the Iron Age (ca. 1200-587) reflect continuity with the “Canaanite� (or better, West Semitic 157 ) culture during the preceding period both in the highlands and in the contemporary cities on the coast and in the valleys.158 This continuity is reflected in scripts, for one example. Both linear and cuneiform alphabetic scripts are attested in inscriptions in the highlands as well as in the valleys and on the coast during both the Late Bronze (ca. 1550-1200) and Iron I(ca. 1200-1000) periods.159 This continuity is visible also in language. Though Hebrew and Canaanite are the linguistic labels applied to the languages of the two periods in this region,160 they cannot be easily distinguished in the Iron I period. For example, most scholars argue that the Gezer Calendar was written in Hebrew, but E. Y Kutscher labels its language Canaanite.161 Canaanite and Hebrew so closely overlap that the ability to distinguish them is premised more on historical information than linguistic criteria.162 The ancient awareness of the close linguistic relationship, if not identity, between Canaanite and Hebrew is reflected in the postexilic oracle of Isaiah 19:18, which includes Hebrew in the designation “the language of Canaan� (śěpat kěna’an; cf yěhûdît, “Judean,� in 2 Kings 18:26, 28; Isa. 36:11, 13; 2 Chron. 32:18; Neh. 13:24).163

Similarly, Canaanite and Israelite material culture cannot be distinguished by specific features in the judges period.164 For example, some Iron I (ca. 1200-1000) cooking pots and storage jars as attested at Giloh represent a pottery tradition continuous with the Late Bronze Age.165 Items such as the four-room house, collared-rim store jar, and hewn cisterns, once thought to distinguish the Israelite culture of the highlands from the Canaanite culture of the coast and valleys, are now attested on the coast, in the valleys, or in Transjordan.166 Both indigenous tradition and influence from the coast and valleys are represented also in burial patterns. Multiple primary burials in caves continued in the hill country from the Late Bronze Age throughout the Iron Age. Arcosolia and bench tombs, two types of rock-cut tombs, are initially attested on the coast, and appeared also in the highlands in the Iron I period.167

The Canaanite (or, West Semitic) background of Israel’s culture extended to the realm of religion. This is evident from the terminology for cultic sacrifices and personnel. BH sacrificial language with corresponding terms in Ugaritic and/or Phoenician includes zebah, “slaughtered offering,� a biblical term applied to sacrifices in the cults of both Yahweh (Gen. 46:1; Exod. 10:25; 18:12; Hos. 3:4; 6:6; 9:4;Amos 5:25) and Baal (2 Kings 10:19, 24; cf. KTU 1.116.1; 1.127; 1.148; KAI 69:12, 14; 74:10); zebah hayy�mim, “the annual slaughtered offering� (1 Sam. 1:21; 2:19; 20:6; cf. KAI 26 A II:19-III:2; C IV:2-5); šěl�mîm, “offering of well-being/greeting�168 (Leviticus 3; cf. KTU 1.105.9; 109; KAI 69:3; 51 obv.:5-6; 120:2); neder, offering of a vow (Numbers 30; Deuteronomy 12; cf. Ugaritic ndr, KTU 1.127.2; cf. m�r, 1.119.30; KAI 155:1; 156; cf. 18:1; 45:1); minḥah, “tribute offering� (Lev. 2:1-16; cf. CIS 14:5; KAI 69:14; 145:12-13); k�lîl, “holocaust� (Deut. 33:10; Lev. 6:15-16; 1 Sam. 7:9; Ps. 51:21; cf. Deut. 13:17; cf. KTU 1.115.10; KAI 69:3, 5, 7; 74:5).169 Other terms have been viewed as semantic equivalents in Hebrew and Ugaritic. It is assumed, for example, that BH ‘ôl�h (Leviticus 1; cf. judg. 11:30, 39) is semantically equivalent with Ugaritic šrp (KTU 1.105.9, 15; 1.106.2; 1.109); both denote an offering entirely consumed by fire. The ‘ôl�h sacrifice belonged not only to the cult of Yahweh in Jerusalem and elsewhere but also to the cult of Baal in Samaria (2 Kings 10:24; cf. ‘lt in KAI 159:8). A ritual of general expiation was not only an Israelite feature (e.g., Leviticus 16; 17:11; cf. Gen. 32:21 for a noncultic example); it was also a Ugaritic phenomenon (KTU 1.40).170 Both Ugaritic texts (1.46.1; 1.168.9) and biblical rituals (Leviticus 4-5) provide for divine forgiveness (*slḫl*slḥ). This incidence of highly specialized sacrificial terms suggests a common West Semitic heritage.

Although other terminological parallels between Israelite and Ugaritic and Phoenician texts are found also in Mesopotamian culture, these links further mark the closely related Israelite and Canaanite cultures. Biblical names with a Canaanite background for cult personnel include “priest,� k�hen (2 Kings 10:19; cf. KTU 4.29.1; 4.38.1; 4.68.72), “dedicated servants,� nětûnῑm/nětunîm (Num. 3:9; 8:19) and nětînîm (Ezra 2:43, 58, 70; 7:7; 8:17, 20; Neh. 3:26, 31; 7:46, 60, 72; 10:29; 11:3, 21; cf. 1 Chron. 9:2; cf. Ugaritic ytnm in KTU 4.93.1), and q�dēě, a cultic functionary of some sort in both Israelite religion (Deut. 23:18
[E 17]; 2 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:47; 23:7; Job 36:14) and Ugaritic cult (KTU 1.112.21; 4.29.3; 4.36; 4.38.2; 4.68.73).171 Similarly, BH hakk�hēn hagg�dôl, “chief priest� (Lev. 21:10; Num. 35:25-28; Josh. 20:6; 2 Kings 12:11; 22:4, 8; Neh. 3:1, 20; 13:28; 2 Chron. 34:9; Hag. 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 4; Zech. 3:1, 8; 6:11 ) compares closely with Ugaritic rb khnm, “chief of the priests� (KTU 1.6 VI 55-56). Furthermore, the “tent of meeting� (’�hel mô‘ēd) derived from Canaanite prototypes (2 Sam. 7:6; KTU 1.4 IV 20-26).172 To be sure, parallels in terminology do not establish parallels in cultural setting in each of these cases.173 Yet cultural continuity appears likely in these instances. It is evident from many areas of culture that Israelite society drew very heavily from Canaanite culture.174

The evidence of the similarities between Canaanite and Israelite societies has led to a major change in the general understanding of the relationship between these two societies. Rather than viewing them as two separate cultures, some scholars define Israelite culture as a subset of Canaanite culture.175 There are, however, some Israelite features that are unattested in Canaanite sources. These include the old tradition of Yahweh’s southern sanctuary, variously called Sinai (Deut.33:2; cf. Judg. 5:5; Ps. 68:9), Paran (Deut. 33:2; Hab. 3:3), Edom (Judg. 5:4), and Teiman (Hab. 3:3 and in the Kuntillet ‘Ajrûd
inscriptions ; cf. Amos 1:12; Ezek. 25:13),176 and Israel’s early tradition of the Exodus from Egypt (Exod. 15:4).177 Neither of these features appears to be Canaanite.178

That Israel in some form was distinguished from Canaan ca. 1200 is clear from an inscribed monument of the pharaoh Merneptah. This stele dates to the fifth year of the pharaoh’s reign (ca. 1208) and mentions both Israel and Canaan: The princes are prostrate, saying: “Mercy!� Not one raises his head among the Nine Bows. Desolation is for Tehenu; Hatti is pacified; Plundered is the Canaan with every evil Carried off is Ashkelon; seized upon is Gezer; Yanoam is made as that which does not exist; Israel is laid waste, his seed is not; Hurru is become a widow for Egypt! All lands together, they are pacified; Everyone who is restless, he has been bound.179 The purpose of this passage was to celebrate Egyptian power over various lands in Syro-Palestine. Hatti and Hurru stand for
the whole region of Syro-Palestine; Canaan and Israel represent smaller units within the area, and Gezer, Ashkelon, and Yanoam are three cities within the region. In this hymn to the power of the pharaoh, all these places stand under Egyptian rule. The text distinguishes between Israel and Canaan, as they constitute two different terms in the text. Some scholars note that the two terms are further distinguished. The word “Canaan� is written with a special linguistic feature called a determinative, denoting land. “Israel� is written with the determinative for people. Drawing historical conclusions from this difference in the scribal use of the two determinatives has proven problematic. On the one hand, if the determinatives were used accurately by the Egyptian scribe who wrote this text, then Israel as a people was established by 1200 B.C. On the other hand, some scholars believe that scribes did not use the two different determinatives consistently in other texts and therefore challenge the
accuracy of their use in the Merneptah stele.180 If the determinatives were used correctly, Israel stands for a people living in the region of the highlands rather than designating the geographical area of the highlands. In any case, Israel and Canaan are differentiated in the text, and in some way they represented different entities to the Egyptian scribe who inscribed the
Merneptah stele. Israel was differentiated as early as 1200 from its Canaanite forebears.

Iron I evidence currently at the disposal of scholars presents a dilemma. On the one hand, the historical understanding of the period has been tremendously enhanced by archaeological research.181 On the other hand, the data do not answer many of the important questions regarding early Israel. It is at present impossible to establish, on the basis of archaeological information, distinctions between Israelites and Canaanites in the Iron I period. The archaeological evidence does not provide a clear set of criteria for distinguishing an Israelite site from a Canaanite one, although a collocation of features (e.g., four-room houses, collared-rim store jars, hewn cisterns) in an Iron I site in the central highlands continues to be taken as a sign of an Israelite settlement.

Inscriptional evidence is likewise of limited help in this regard, since down to the tenth century the languages and scripts of the epigraphic sources do not provide distinctions between the two cultures. Biblical evidence is similarly problematic. Though it contains much historical information, the accuracy of this information is complicated by centuries of textual transmission and interpretation. Indeed, the narrative material of the Hebrew Bible pertaining to the Iron I period dates largely from the latter half of the monarchy, removed at least two or three centuries from the events of the Iron I period that the texts relate.182 Moreover, in some cases the biblical record complicates interpretational matters. The difficulty of distinguishing between Israelites and Canaanites is exacerbated by biblical references to several groups besides Israelites and Canaanites. Gibeonites (Josh. 9:15; cf. 2 Sam. 21), Jerahmeelites (1 Sam. 27:10; 30:29), Kenites (Judg. 1:16; 4:11; 1 Sam. 27:10; 30:29), the descendants of Rahab (Josh. 6:25), Caleb the Kenizzite (Josh. 14:13-14; 21:12), and the Canaanite cities of Hepher and Tirzah became part of Israel (cf. Exod. 6:15).183 Presumably other groups and places were absorbed into Israel as well. Furthermore, other groups are mentioned as being dispossessed of the land by the
Israelites: “Hittites, Hivites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Amorites, and Jebusites� (Josh. 3:10; 9:1; 11:3; 12:8). While some of these group names may be suspect and reflect a later attempt to reconstruct the history of Israel’s early development in the land, the point that some of them indicate the complex social composition of highlands Israel remains valid. Finally, current attempts to distinguish Israel from Canaan in the Iron I period are marked by their own modern limitations. To pose only one difficulty, although Israelite and Canaanite societies cannot be distinguished on the basis of archaeological evidence,184 archaeological features do not constitute all the criteria for making historical distinctions; even if there were not a single criterion for establishing clear distinctions based on material culture (and at present there is no such criterion), some early Israelites may have perceived themselves as radically different from Canaanites. Information bearing on such perceptions is at present unavailable for the Iron I period, although it might be inferred from older biblical texts such as Judges 5.

From the evidence that is available, one may conclude that although largely Canaanite according to currently available cultural data, Israel expressed a distinct sense of origins and deity and possessed largely distinct geographical holdings in the hill country by the end of the Iron I period. The Canaanite character of Israelite culture largely shaped the many ways ancient Israelites communicated their religious understanding of Yahweh. This point may be extended: the people of the highlands who came to be known as Israel
comprised numerous groups, including Canaanites, whose heritage marked every aspect of Israelite society. In sum, Iron I Israel was largely Canaanite in character.

Israel inherited local cultural traditions from the Late Bronze Age, and its culture was largely continuous with the Canaanite culture of the coast and valleys during the Iron I period. The realm of religion was no different. Although one may not identify the local deities prior to and during the emergence of Israel by equating Ugaritic religion with Canaanite religion, the Ugaritic evidence is pertinent to the study of Canaanite religion since inscriptions from the Late Bronze Age and the Iron I period in Canaan indicate that the deities of the land included El, Baal, Asherah, and Anat, all major divinities known from the Ugaritic texts. The proper name ’y’l, “where is El?� is contained in a twelfth-century inscription from Qubur el-Walaydah, which lies about ten kilometers southeast of Gaza.185 The Lachish ewer, dated to the thirteenth century, contains an inscription probably referring to this goddess: mtn. šy [11 [rb]ty ‘lt, “mattan. An offering [to] my [la]dy,’Elat�186 The words, rbt, “lady� (literally, “great one,� marked with a feminine ending) and ’lt, “goddess,� are regular, though not exclusive, titles of Asherah in the Ugaritic
texts,187 and these epithets in the Lachish ewer probably refer to her as well. An arrowhead from El-Khadr near Bethlehem dating to ca. 1100 reads bn ‘nt, “son of Anat�188 Baal is mentioned in a fifteenth-century Taanach letter and in a fourteenth-century El-Amarna letter from Tyre (EA 147:13-15).189 The element *b‘l occurs also in an inscription from Lachish,190 either as divine name or as an element contained in personal names. Other deities enjoyed cultic devotion in late second millennium Canaan. For example, ’/’b, the divine ancestral god, and b’lt, “the Lady,� are known from late second millennium inscriptions from Lachish.191 Given that Ugaritic and biblical texts attest so many of the same deities, religious practices, and notions, the Ugaritic texts may be used with caution for religious material in the West Semitic sphere which Israelite tradition inherited.

According to biblical tradition, these deities continued in various ways during the period of the Judges within Israel. (While few, if any, of the following texts actually date to the premonarchic period, they may reflect earlier religious conditions, or at least help to suggest some of the range in the deities worshiped in premonarchic Israel.) The god of Shechem in Judges 9:46 (see 8:33) is called ‘ěl bērît, which scholars have identified as a title of El.192 Religious devotion to Asherah perhaps lies behind Genesis 49:25. The asherah, the symbol named after the goddess Asherah, is explicitly described in Judges 6:25-26. The word ba’al forms the theophoric element in the biblical name Jerubbaal (Judg. 6:32; 8:35). Two members of the family of Saul, Eshbaal (1 Chron. 8:33; 9:39) and Meribbaal (1 Chron. 8:34; 9:40), likewise have names containing the element ba‘al. Only one proper name, Shamgar ben Anat (Judg. 5:6), attests to the name of Anat in the period of the Judges. The lack of either inscriptional or biblical evidence for Anat would suggest the absence of a cult devoted to her. During the Judges period, the major deities in the territory of Israel included Yahweh, El, Baal, and perhaps Asherah.

Some scholars have used this evidence to demonstrate that Israel in the period of the Judges was heavily “syncretistic,� insofar as it incorporated Canaanite elements into an Israelite religion that was originally non-Canaanite. 193
Indeed, some biblical texts view Israel’s protohistory at Sinai as a time when Canaanite elements would have been alien to Yahwism. For example, Deuteronomy 32 expresses life in the wilderness in the following terms:

“the Lord alone did lead him [Israel], and there was no foreign god with him� (v. 12; see also w. 8, 17).194 The claim is potentially misleading on two counts.

First, religious elements identified as “Canaanite� were not “syncretistic,� at least not in the sense that such elements were not original to Israel. The biblical historiography in Deuteronomy 32 omits any reflection of the fact that Israel’s cultural heritage was largely Canaanite; indeed, it implicitly denies this idea. Second, the evidence that the Canaanite deities, El, Baal, or Asherah, were the object of Israelite religious devotion separate from the cult of Yahweh in the period of the Judges is scant. Both of these claims are largely extensions of biblical historiography: because the historical works of the Bible view the religion of the Judges period in this way, then some scholars have concluded that the biblical view represents historical reality.195 However, in various ways, El, Baal, and Asherah (or at least the symbol named after her, the asherah) were integrally related to Yahweh and the cult of this deity during the period of the Judges.

In sum, the Israelites may have perceived themselves as a people different from the Canaanites. Separate religious traditions of Yahweh, separate traditions of origins in Egypt for at least some component of Israel, and separate geographical holdings in the hill country contributed to the Israelites’ sense of difference from their Canaanite neighbors inhabiting the coast and the valleys. Nonetheless, Israelite and Canaanite cultures shared a great deal in common, and religion was no exception. Deities and their cults in Iron Age Israel represented aspects of the cultural continuity with the indigenous Late Bronze Age culture and the contemporary urban culture on the coast and in the valleys. The examples of El, Baal, and the symbol of the asherah illustrate this continuity for the period of the Judges.

YAHWEH AND EL

The original god of Israel was El. This reconstruction may be inferred from two pieces of information. First, the name of Israel is not a Yahwistic name with the divine element of Yahweh, but an El name, with the element, *’ ēl. This fact would suggest that El was the original chief god of the group named Israel.196 Second, Genesis 49:24-25 presents a series of El epithets separate from the mention of Yahweh in verse 18 (discussed in section 3 below). Yet early on, Yahweh is understood as Israel’s god in distinction to El. Deuteronomy 32:8-9 casts Yahweh in the role of one of the sons of El, here called ‘elyôn:

When the Most High (‘elyôn) gave to the nations their inheritance,

when he separated humanity,

he fixed the boundaries of the peoples

according to the number of divine beings.198


For Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. This passage presents an order in which each deity received its own nation. Israel was the nation that Yahweh received. It also suggests that Yahweh, originally a warrior-god from Sinai/Paran/Edom/Teiman, 199 was known separately from El at an
early point in early Israel.200 Perhaps due to trade with Edom/Midian, Yahweh entered secondarily into the Israelite highland religion. Passages such as Deuteronomy 32:8-9 suggest a literary vestige of the initial assimilation of Yahweh, the southern warrior-god, into the larger highland pantheism, headed by El; other texts point to Asherah (El’s consort) and to Baal and other deities as members of this pantheon. In time, El and Yahweh were identified, while Yahweh and Baal co-existed and later competed as warrior-gods. As the following chapter (section 2) suggests, one element in this competition involved Yahweh’s assimilation of language and motifs originally associated with Baal. One indication that Yahweh and El were identified at an early stage is that there are no biblical polemics against El. At an early point, Israelite tradition identified El with Yahweh or presupposed this equation.201 It is for this reason that the Hebrew Bible so rarely distinguishes between El and Yahweh. 202 The development of the name El (’ēl) into a generic noun meaning “god� also was compatible with the loss of El’s distinct character in Israelite religious texts. One biblical text exhibits the assimilation of the meaning of the word ’ēl quite strongly, namely Joshua 22:22 (cf. Pss. 10:12; 50:1): The first word in each clause in this verse reflects the development of the name of the god El into a generic noun meaning “god.� In this verse the noun forms part of a superlative expression proclaiming the incomparable divine status of Yahweh. The
phrase “god of gods� may be compared to other superlative expressions of this type in the Bible such as “king of kings� (Dan. 2:37; Ezra 7:12), the name of the biblical book “Song of Songs� (Song of Songs 1:1), and the opening words of the first speech in Ecclesiastes, “vanity of vanities� (Eccles. 1:2).204

The priestly theological treatment of Israel’s early religious history in Exodus 6:2-3 identifies the old god El Shadday with Yahweh. In this passage Yahweh appears to Moses: “And God said to Moses, ‘I am Yahweh. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as El Shadday, but by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them.’� This passage reflects the fact that Yahweh was unknown to the patriarchs. Rather, they worshiped the Canaanite god, El. Inscriptional texts from Deir ‘Alla, a site north of Jericho across the Jordan River, attest to the epithet shadday. In these inscriptions the shadday epithet is not applied to the great god, El. The author of Exodus 6:2-3 perhaps did not know of or make this distinction; rather, he identified Yahweh with the traditions of the great Canaanite god, El.205 J. Tigay’s recent study of inscriptional onamastica is compatible with the historical reconstruction of the identification of El with Yahweh in early Israelite tradition.206 Tigay lists all proper names with theophoric elements. Found in Israelite inscriptions, all dating after the beginning of the monarchy, are 557 names with Yahweh as the divine element, 77 names with *’l, a handful of names with the divine component *b‘l, and no names referring to the goddesses Anat or Asherah. The few proper names with the divine names of Anat and Asherah do not reflect a cult to these deities; Baal may be an exception. The names with the element of the name of El historically reflect the identification of Yahweh and El by the time these names may appear in the
attested inscriptions. Just as no cult is attested for Anat (and perhaps Asherah) in Israelite religion, so also there is no distinct cult attested for El except in his identity as Yahweh. In Israel the characteristics and epithets of El became part of the repertoire of descriptions of Yahweh. In both texts and
iconography, El is an elderly bearded figure enthroned,207 sometimes before individual deities (KTU 1.3 V; 1.4 IV-V), sometimes before the divine council (KTU 1.2 I), known by a variety of expressions; this feature is attested also in Phoenician inscriptions (KAI 4:4-5; 14:9, 22; 26 A III 19; 27:12; cf. KTU 1.4 III 14). In KTU 1.10 III 6 El is called drd<r>, “ageless one,� and in KTU 1.3 V and 1.4 V, Anat and Asherah both affirm the eternity of his wisdom. 208 His eternity is also expressed in his epithet, ‘ab šnm, “father of years.�209
In KTU 1.4 V 3-4 Asherah addresses El: “You are great, O El, and indeed, wise; your hoary beard instructs you� (rbt ‘ilm lḥkmt šbt dqnk ltsrk). Anat’s threats in 1.3 V 24-25 and 1.18 I 11-12 likewise mention El’s gray beard. Similarly, Yahweh is described as the aged patriarchal god (Ps. 102:28; Job 36:26; Isa. 40:28; cf. Ps. 90:10; Isa. 57:15; Hab. 3:6; Dan. 6:26; 2 Esdras 8:20; Tobit 13:6, 10; Ben Sira 18:30), enthroned amidst the assembly of divine beings (1 Kings 22:19; Isa. 6:1-8; cf. Pss. 29:1-2; 82:1; 89:5-8; Isa. 14:13; Jer. 23:18, 22; Zechariah 3; Dan. 3:25).210 Later biblical texts continued the long tradition of aged Yahweh enthroned before the heavenly hosts. Daniel 7:9-14, 22, describes a bearded Yahweh as the “ancient of days,� and “the Most High.� He is enthroned amid the assembly of heavenly hosts, called in verse 18 “the holy ones
of the Most High,� qaddîšê ’elyônîn (cf. 2 Esdras 2:42-48; Revelation 7). This description for the angelic hosts derives from the older usage of Hebrew qĕd�šîm, “holy ones,� for the divine council (Ps. 89:6; Hos. 12:1; Zech. 14:5; cf. KAI 4:5, 7; 14:9, 22; 27:12). The tradition of the enthroned bearded god appears also in a Persian period coin marked yhd, “Yehud.�211 The iconography belongs to a god, apparently Yahweh.

The Canaanite/Israelite tradition of the divine council derived from the setting of the royal court212 and evolved in accordance with the court terminology of the dominant royal power. During the Israelite monarchy, the imagery of the divine council continued from its Late Bronze Age antecedents. M. Brettler has observed that the Israelite monarchy also had a distinct impact on some features of the divine council.213 Roles in the divine council in Canaanite and early Israelite literature were generally not individuated, but one exception was “the commander of the army of Yahweh� (śar ṣĕb�’ yhwh) in Joshua 5:13-15, which, according to Brettler, was based on the comparable role in the Israelite army (1 Sam. 17:55; 1 Kings 1:19; cf. Judg. 4:7).

Similarly, the divine “destroyer,� mashit, of Exodus 12:13 and 1 Chronicles 21:15 (cf. Isa. 54:16; Jer. 22:7), may be traced ultimately to the military mašḥît of 1 Samuel 13:17 and 14:15, perhaps as a class of fighters personified or individualized and secondarily incorporated into the divine realm.214 The mašḥîtîm appear either singly or as a plurality acting on behalf of their divine Lord. Two of the mysterious divine figures in Genesis are evidently mašḥîtîm, since they apply this very term to themselves in Gen. 19:13. Other features of the divine council in Israelite literature reflect later political developments.
According to Brettler, mĕš�rēt, “servant,� applied first to royal officials in the postexilic period (e.g., 1 Chron. 27:1; 28:1; 2 Chron. 17:19; 22:8; Esther 1:10; 2:2), and secondarily referred to angels in a postexilic text, Psalm 103:21 (cf. Ps. 104:4).215

Some biblical innovations in terminology of the heavenly court in the postexilic period may have been modeled on the court of the reigning Mesopotamian power. The depiction of the satan in Job 1-2 and Zechariah 3 has been traced to neo-Babylonian or Persian bureaucracies.216 Similarly, J. Teixidor has suggested that the angelic term, ‘îr, “watcher� (e.g., Dan. 4:10, 14, 20), was based on spies who watched over the empire on behalf of the Persian ruler.217 El and Yahweh exhibit a similar compassionate disposition toward humanity. Like “Kind El, the Compassionate� (lṭpn ’il dp’id), the “father of humanity� (’ab ’adm), Yahweh is a “merciful and gracious god,� ’ēl-r�h ûm wĕḥannūn (Exod. 34:6; Ps. 86:15), and father (Deut. 32:6; Isa. 63:16, 64:7; Jer. 3:4, 19; 31:9; Mal. 1:6, 2:10; cf. Exod. 4:22; Hos. 11:1). Both El and Yahweh appear to humans in dream-visions and function as their divine patron.218 Like El (KTU 1.16 V-VI), Yahweh is a healing god (Gen. 20:17; Num. 12:13; 2 Kings 20:5, 8; Ps. 107:20; cf. personal name, rĕp�’ēl, in 1 Chron. 26:7). Moreover, the description of Yahweh’s dwelling-place as a “tent� (’�hel; e.g., Pss. 15:1; 27:6; 91:10; 132:3), called in the Pentateuchal traditions the “tent of meeting� (’�hel mô‘ēd; Exod. 33:7-11; Num. 12:5, 10; Deut. 31:14, 15) recalls the tent of El, explicitly described in the Canaanite narrative of Elkunirsa.219 The tabernacle of Yahweh has qĕr�šîm, usually understood as “boards� (Exodus 26-40; Num. 3:36; 4:31), while the dwelling of El is called qrš, perhaps “tabernacle� or “pavilion� (KTU 1.2 III 5; 1.3 V 8; 1.4 IV 24; 1.17 V 49). Furthermore, the dwelling of El is set amid the cosmic waters (KTU 1.2 III 4; 1.3 V 6; 1.4 IV 20-22; 1.17 V 47-48), a theme evoked in descriptions of Yahweh’s abode in Jerusalem (Pss. 47:5; 87; Isa. 33:20-22; Ezek. 47:1-12; Joel 4:18; Zech. 14:8).220 The characteristics of Yahweh in Deuteronomy 32:6-7 include some motifs that can be traced to traditional descriptions of El:

Do you thus requite Yahweh,

you foolish and senseless (l�’ḥ�k�m) people?

Is he not your father (’�bîk�), who created you (q�nek�)

who made you and established you (wayĕk�nĕnek�)?

Remember the days of old (‘ôl�m),

consider the years of many generations (šĕnôt dôr-w�dôr);

ask your father, and he will show you;

your elders and they will tell you.

As J. C. Greenfield notes,221 almost every line of this passage contains an element familiar from descriptions of El, known as “Bull El his Father, El the king who establishes him,� tr ‘il ’abh ’il mlk dyknnh (KTU 1.3 V 35-36; 1.4 I 4- 15, etc.). Like El, Yahweh is the father (*’ab) who establishes (*kwn) and creates (*qny). The verb qny recalls the epithet “El, creator of the earth,� ’l qny ’rṣ. Second-millennium Canaanite tradition, preserved in a Hittite text, attributes this title to El.222 Genesis 14:19 likewise applies this title to ’ēl ’elyôn, itself an old El epithet. The phrase is also found in a neo-Punic inscription from Leptis Magna in Libya (KAI 129:1). While Deuteronomy 32:6-7 applies some traditional traits of El to Yahweh, it also employs other features of El as a foil to the people’s character, according to Greenfield. The people, for example, are “senseless� (l�’ḥ�k�m), unlike El.

Finally, “eternity� (‘ôl�m) evokes El’s same epithet, and “the years of many generations� (šĕnôt dôr-w�dôr) echoes El’s title, ’ab šnm, “father of years.�
Like some descriptions of Yahweh, some of Yahweh’s epithets can be traced to those of El. Traditions concerning the cultic site of Shechem illustrate the cultural process lying behind the Yahwistic inclusion of old titles of El, or stated differently, the Yahwistic assimilation to old cultic sites of El. In the city of Shechem the local god was ‘el bĕrît, “El of the covenant� (Judg. 9:46;
cf. 8:33; 9:4). This word ’ilbrt appears as a Late Bronze Age title for El in KTU 1.128.14-15.223 In the patriarchal narratives, the god of Shechem, ‘ēl, is called ’ĕl�hê yiśr�’ēl, “the god of Israel,� and is presumed to be Yahweh.224 In this case, a process of reinterpretation appears to be at work. In the early history of Israel, when the cult of Shechem became Yahwistic, it inherited and
continued the El traditions of that site.225 Hence Yahweh received the title ’ēl bĕrît, the old title of El. This record illustrates up to a point how Canaanite/Israelite traditions were transmitted. Israelite knowledge of the religious traditions of other deities was not due only to contact between Israel and its Phoenician neighbors in the IronAge. Rather, as a function of the identification of Yahweh-El at cultic sites of El such as Shechem and Jerusalem, the old religious lore of a deity such as El was inherited by the Yahwistic priesthood in Israel. Ezekiel 16:3a proclaims accordingly: “Thus says the Lord God to Jerusalem: Your origin and your birth are of the land of the Canaanites.� Israelite inclusion of Yahweh into the older figure of El was not syncretistic insofar as El belonged to Israel’s original religious heritage. If syncretism was involved, it was a syncretism of various Israelite notions, and one that the prophets ultimately applauded. B. Vawter remarks: �The very fact that the prophets fought Canaanization would make them advocates of the ‘syncretism’ by which pagan titles were appropriated to Yahweh.“226 Yet even this “Canaanization,� to use Vawter’s term, was part of Israel’s heritage.

[Willum]

Well Enki:
I agree - but you have posted on the wrong forum.
In Theology and Doctrine, the Bible reigns supreme, not science or history.

However I think I can compliment your post:

YHVH is sometimes ascribed mystical power because it is in consonants, but the Phonetician/Canaan/what apologists are now re-imagining Hebrew to be, had no vowels, so that is no magic in the name.

Also, my current research into the Canaan leads me to believe they were a bronze age people, as you mention, but that their culture probably indistinguishable from Phoenician, even by Phoenician, survived until 65 BC, and dominated even the pagan Sadducee, from 250 BC. When Pompey the Great broke their empire, and handed it over to the Sadducee.

I believe Yahweh, was a deity of convenience, close enough to Jove that the conquering Romans told the Jews that he was their totem god, so that the Romans, whose god was close enough to Yahwey that they could pull a shell game.

My proof? Is in the History of Pompey the Great and the pronunciation of Jove, once you've spelled it in Latin: iove.

Jove

I think there was a massive campaign to erase history, such a evolution, heliocentricism, and in general history that contradicted Old and New Testaments, and mankind has been reeling since.

Welcome to the forum!

[OnceConvinced]

Moderator Action

Moved to "bible study" as there is no debate or discussion question offered.


______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.

[enki]

[Replying to post 2 by Willum]

Yeah I seem to be very bad aboout posting in thr wrong section...lol

YHVH is sometimes ascribed mystical power because it is in consonants, but the Phonetician/Canaan/what apologists are now re-imagining Hebrew to be, had no vowels, so that is no magic in the name.

This does sound familiar as well however, I don't think I touched on this aspect of it.

About the Canaanite's, they come out of Canaan, Abraham enters Canaan from Ur (as he is Sumerian) and engages in their rituals and tribal functions.

Yeah about heliocentricism, we wouldn't see that in Sumer as they were not astrologist per se, that comes along with PanBabylonianism after Akkad has implemented the Semitic Mothertongue.

Many seem to think that the Tower of Babel is the first language split, but it is not, before that in Cuneiform if you read "Enki confuser of languages" you see it there as well.

Now Pompey the Great and the pronunciation of Jove as I know is from the Greek culture. More so however, Greek culture is indicated by their languages and what they spoke and so on. But pre Greek, we see influence on the Greeks from older cultures. We can get into discussion if you'd like, I am not a Christian btw, I am a Sumerian Polytheist, but it isn't hard to relate to Christian ideologies. I do discount Christianity as secondary to its older cousins the Isrealite's, so I don't necessarily subscribe to Christian, but the Isrealite's who actually may have been intermixed with the people of Canaan, roughly we could purport that the Jews are Canaanites, in fact Biblical Hebrew indicates that.

[ttruscott]

Well enki,
when I was about 10, 11 yrs old, I was wandering about the woods outside of a dairy farm when I saw a dead cow. I gather the farmer used the woods to dispose of his dead animals. It had bloated so huge I was fascinated and poked it with a stick. It broke and deflated. I saw a green mist rush toward me and when it hit me the smell made me retch for almost an hour. I could barely walk away and get to fresh air. I retched off and on for 2 days. For twenty or so years if I remembered that incident, I retched again but it slowly got better.

Was the cow real? Of course but it was dead and rotten. This is the smell I get from the use of real but dead and rotten pagan resources that are used to supposedly teach me something about my GOD. False teachings that are dead and rotten are referred to here, Matthew 23:27 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean.

In Jer 2:13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns / pits, H877 broken cisterns / pits, H877 that can hold no water. Pits, H877 is the root of the word for stench: Strong's H889 - bĕ'osh: From בֹּ�ר (H877)
The KJV translates Strong's stench, H889 in the following manner: stink (3x).
stench, foul odour

The living waters is the Word of GOD and the stench of the pit is the word of false gods and pagans.

[enki]

[Replying to post 5 by ttruscott]

Okay so you post Matthew 23:27, cool, however that doesn't dispute the claim I made. Furthermore you go on and post Jeremiah 2:13 and then attempt to be impressive by posting etymologies from either Koine Greek or Biblical Hebrew (most likely Hebrew). You also improperly use the word "pagan", and attempt to directly substitute it for polytheism. Your entire posting has circular logic all over it, and then you post something about "Adam's" sin, problem is the Bible isn't begin to be written about 1700 BCE, so all the prior creation epics you'd have to make claim are not older than the Bible, then you'd have to debunk that the creation epic of Adam and Eve is from other cultural sources. Before you can do any of this, can you please try and attack my original posting? I mean really try, don't just post some verse like Matthew 23:27, that doesn't dispute the claim directly, it just says loudly "hey you are wrong, I don't know how to disprove what you said in your original post, but based upon this vague verse you are wrong".