Canaanite pantheon and Israel's Polytheistic roots

[Rushing Jaws]

Henotheism works. I used Monolarity because this is how Wright deals with it. As far as I am aware they are synomynous.

I think it is pretty cool how the traces of theological borrowings from Phonecian, Canaanite, and Babylonian myth remain in the bible itself. I just touched on some of the common ones.

I'll look up the exact reference tomorrow, but while in exile a group that worshipped the Queen of Heaven complains to Yahweh worshipers that while they were giving sacrifices to her they prospered, but when it was forbidden Israel was conquered and the exile began.

## Maybe Jeremiah 7 & 44 is talking about a goddess worshipped along with JHWH, such as Athirat. And perhaps the Queen of Heaven, whether Athirat or another, was prayed to on behalf of the king, and thought of as his mother, just as JHWH was his father. Worship the Q of H - and see the renewal of the monarchy & the end of the Exile.

Just my guess

[Rushing Jaws]

I have maintained throughout, or have attempted to, the position that the religion of the Israelites grew out of a polytheism which borrowed from surrounding cultures rather than polytheism being a distortion of an original monotheism. Later in the stages of writing of the OT texts, it is evident that much of the polytheistic origins had been polemically denounced as foreign notably in the DtrH and in the later prophets. By time the books had been canonized somewhere around 200 BCE the recipients of the message had only known monotheism. Israel went through stages of polytheism to henotheism to monotheism.

In mentioning Ysr'l l I specifically mentioned that in Ugarit it was not used in the same context as a tradition of Jacob. I wasn't trying to make a connection, but rather found it interesting that y'srl (in that form) is found at Ugarit. I then went down a second train of thought in the etymology of Israel in the Jacob tradition (He who fights/struggles with God).

I did not mean to imply that the charioteer only worshiped EL, only that the theophanic part of his name is associated with EL. Likewise the IsraEL theophanic portion can be hypothesized to be associated with EL. Exodus 6:2 may be an early witness to this that survived through redactions, or possibly a clarification by a redactor equivocating EL and Yahweh as one in the same god.

EL was a common Bronze Age God that headed a pantheon, Yahweh is an Iron Age God that heads a divine council (in much the same way as EL) and in instances such as Deuteronomy 32:8-9 Yahweh can be shown to be one of the sons of God the Most High. No less important is that Yahweh's main antagonists in the OT is El's consort Asherah (which Yahweh can be linked to via inscriptions) and one of El's sons (indirectly really) Baal.

## What reading of Deuteronomy 32:8 are you relying on ? As you are no doubt aware, there are two of them

[showmeproof]

I am using the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scroll readings and not the Masoretic text. It appears that the Masoretes, whom only had known monotheism, emended sons of EL to sons of ISRAEL.

This version can be found in the NRSV, and the ESV as well which is based off of the Septuagint and D.S.S.

The divine council imagery is very common place in Bronze Age into the Iron Age Levant.

[showmeproof]

## Maybe Jeremiah 7 & 44 is talking about a goddess worshipped along with JHWH, such as Athirat. And perhaps the Queen of Heaven, whether Athirat or another, was prayed to on behalf of the king, and thought of as his mother, just as JHWH was his father. Worship the Q of H - and see the renewal of the monarchy & the end of the Exile.

Just my guess

The bible itself attests to gods being worshipped along with YHWH in his own temple(s). The evidence definitely shows that polytheism was the norm not the exception so it could definitely be argued that those who were complaining in Jeremiah 44 worshiped YHWH along with the Q of H but were upset that they were no longer allowed to. The inscriptions at Kuntillet Arjud and El Qom attest to Asherah being YHWH's consort at least in those areas. There is scholarly debate as to whether or not Wisdom personified in Proverbs also refers to Athriat/Asherah/Q of H.

Proverbs starts off in talking of listening to your father's instruction and your mother's teaching. Then alternates between listening to YWHY (as a father) and Wisdom (as a mother). Much of the connection between Asherah and Wisdom lies in Proverbs 3:18 "She is a tree of life" and her home being "at the highet point of the city" (please recall the Asherim were placed in the high places). Furthermore, Wisdom in narration refers to mankind as her sons Proverbs 8:32-33.

So in short....quite possibly.

[mycatisamoron]

Basic Premise: The Israelites were not originally monotheistic. They were polytheists, and then went through periods of monolarity, and then finally towards monotheism.
Monolarity is basically the belief that there are other gods, but you worship the best. Usually a nationalistic God which is exactly what Yahweh is in the OT.

Polytheism in Israelite history had a long run until under Hezekiah and then later Josiah destroyed the temples, idols and altars of other gods. Josiah's reign is one of monolarity pushing towards monotheism which doesn't fully take root until after the exile.

This shouldn't sound too surprising as a cursory glance at the old testament frequently has the Israelites worshiping other deities.

"...the old testament frequently has the Israelites worshipping other deities."

Only 0.1 % (1 in 1000) Israelites were involved in the golden calf incident. You should be aware that the Hebrew Bible frequently employs the use of hyperbole when it comes to criticism of segments of Hebrew society. Generally, the entire nation is condemned for the actions of a few, because of the concept of communal responsibility.

The claim that the Hebrews were not monotheists but were polytheists and then henotheists is a load of garbage. There is no evidence for it, or for the documentary hypothesis.

Kind Regards

[mycatisamoron]

The evidence definitely shows that polytheism was the norm not the exception.

What "evidence"? The Bible makes it clear that worship of false gods was a departure from Judaism, and not a prelude to it.

[showmeproof]

What "evidence"? The Bible makes it clear that worship of false gods was a departure from Judaism, and not a prelude to it.

Yes it does in some places. There are other places in the bible that acknowledge the existence of other gods subordinate to Yahweh. There are other places that name feats of Yahweh that were originally attributed to Baal in the Baal Cycle. There are other places where YHWH has a theopanic retinue. The bible was written over a very long time span by many individuals. The form we now see it in gives an overall impression that monotheism was the original case, however archaeological evidence gives us great cause to question that premise. Look at most of the railing against polytheism where do you find it? When were those sources written and by whom? The strongest monotheistic statements come from the DtrH and the prophets which date to?

All indications show that monotheism was a product of the late monarchic period and solidified in exilic and post exlilic times.

Whom did Abraham know as god? It surely wasn't YHWH.

[showmeproof]

"...the old testament frequently has the Israelites worshipping other deities."

Only 0.1 % (1 in 1000) Israelites were involved in the golden calf incident. You should be aware that the Hebrew Bible frequently employs the use of hyperbole when it comes to criticism of segments of Hebrew society. Generally, the entire nation is condemned for the actions of a few, because of the concept of communal responsibility.

The claim that the Hebrews were not monotheists but were polytheists and then henotheists is a load of garbage. There is no evidence for it, or for the documentary hypothesis.

Kind Regards

You have piled on a load of assertions. That is fine, but please back it up as I have throughout this thread. Polytheism was the norm practiced by most. The host of heaven, the Asherah's etc were pulled out of the temple in Jerusalem and the high places destroyed during both Hezikiah and Josiah's days please refer to 2Kings and 2Chronicles where the reigns of both kings are detailed by the Jewish people themselves.

You seem to read the bible as one piece written in chronological order in which it is arranged today...odd way to read a compilation of texts.

As the Documentary hypothesis is a central tenet of my analysis and those whom I have quoted, please feel free to show how it is in error. Simply stating that no evidence exists is a bald assertion that flies in the face of over a century of scholarship.

[Rushing Jaws]

The bible itself attests to gods being worshipped along with YHWH in his own temple(s). The evidence definitely shows that polytheism was the norm not the exception

## I think this needs to be nuanced :) - what the people did, before (say) the centralisation of worship in Jerusalem by Josiah, is one part of the evidence; what the cult was like at Jerusalem, from the POV of the priests there, is not necessarily the same. The reformation under Josiah banned certain things which were part of the religion of the Patriarchs, such as holy trees.

Are you familiar with the discussion about specifically Assyrian polytheism/monotheism ? Or with Egyptian theism ?

so it could definitely be argued that those who were complaining in Jeremiah 44 worshiped YHWH along with the Q of H but were upset that they were no longer allowed to. The inscriptions at Kuntillet Arjud and El Qom attest to Asherah being YHWH's consort at least in those areas. There is scholarly debate as to whether or not Wisdom personified in Proverbs also refers to Athriat/Asherah/Q of H.

## That may depend on how far Wisdom is a personified hypostasis of a quality of Yahweh. If that is what she is, that makes her more like one of the malakhim who accomapany God in Genesis 18-19; they are subordinates, not equals, or consorts, of JHWH.

JHWH can be the supreme God, without having a consort. He - or Shaddai, Elyon, etc. - might be supreme, while all other divine beings are of different ranks, having in common their subjection to Him.

Proverbs starts off in talking of listening to your father's instruction and your mother's teaching. Then alternates between listening to YWHY (as a father) and Wisdom (as a mother). Much of the connection between Asherah and Wisdom lies in Proverbs 3:18 "She is a tree of life" and her home being "at the highet point of the city" (please recall the Asherim were placed in the high places). Furthermore, Wisdom in narration refers to mankind as her sons Proverbs 8:32-33.

So in short....quite possibly.

## I'm surprised to see no mention of the Elephantine Temple & its Divine occupants such as Bethel & Anath-bethel & (IIRC) JHWH. It was a Jewish Temple, not without some claim to being legitimate.

[showmeproof]

## I think this needs to be nuanced :) - what the people did, before (say) the centralisation of worship in Jerusalem by Josiah, is one part of the evidence; what the cult was like at Jerusalem, from the POV of the priests there, is not necessarily the same. The reformation under Josiah banned certain things which were part of the religion of the Patriarchs, such as holy trees.

Are you familiar with the discussion about specifically Assyrian polytheism/monotheism ? Or with Egyptian theism ?
## That may depend on how far Wisdom is a personified hypostasis of a quality of Yahweh. If that is what she is, that makes her more like one of the malakhim who accomapany God in Genesis 18-19; they are subordinates, not equals, or consorts, of JHWH.

JHWH can be the supreme God, without having a consort. He - or Shaddai, Elyon, etc. - might be supreme, while all other divine beings are of different ranks, having in common their subjection to Him.
## I'm surprised to see no mention of the Elephantine Temple & its Divine occupants such as Bethel & Anath-bethel & (IIRC) JHWH. It was a Jewish Temple, not without some claim to being legitimate.

Thanks for the discussion.

[Mr. Anderson]

I have maintained throughout, or have attempted to, the position that the religion of the Israelites grew out of a polytheism which borrowed from surrounding cultures rather than polytheism being a distortion of an original monotheism. Later in the stages of writing of the OT texts, it is evident that much of the polytheistic origins had been polemically denounced as foreign notably in the DtrH and in the later prophets. By time the books had been canonized somewhere around 200 BCE the recipients of the message had only known monotheism. Israel went through stages of polytheism to henotheism to monotheism.

In mentioning Ysr'l l I specifically mentioned that in Ugarit it was not used in the same context as a tradition of Jacob. I wasn't trying to make a connection, but rather found it interesting that y'srl (in that form) is found at Ugarit. I then went down a second train of thought in the etymology of Israel in the Jacob tradition (He who fights/struggles with God).

I did not mean to imply that the charioteer only worshiped EL, only that the theophanic part of his name is associated with EL. Likewise the IsraEL theophanic portion can be hypothesized to be associated with EL. Exodus 6:2 may be an early witness to this that survived through redactions, or possibly a clarification by a redactor equivocating EL and Yahweh as one in the same god.

EL was a common Bronze Age God that headed a pantheon, Yahweh is an Iron Age God that heads a divine council (in much the same way as EL) and in instances such as Deuteronomy 32:8-9 Yahweh can be shown to be one of the sons of God the Most High. No less important is that Yahweh's main antagonists in the OT is El's consort Asherah (which Yahweh can be linked to via inscriptions) and one of El's sons (indirectly really) Baal.

I agree with your first sentence with the exception of the word, "grew' which I have to replace with the word, "came". The clai to monothiesm in the OT is by special revelation from a supernatural source. In a later post than the one I'm responding to you mention the documentary hypothisis as an authoritive means in which yourself and most scholars use to posit your position on Isreals religious history. That hypothisis negates divine revelation and implies the Hebrews borrowed all things from the surrounding peoples. I reject ist's conclusions on the grounds of negated supernatural revelation without which there is no use bothering with the Bible as anything than another book of antiquity. A failing of the hypothisis is that in it's attempt to prove that the Hebrews borrowed their religion from their neighbors is that none of their neighbors practiced any form of monothiesm during any period where texts were produced. If they borrowed their religion from their neighbors they would have always been polythiestic. Even during the kingly reigns. It become a who created God argument. This is the hurdle for me that keeps me leary of the documentary hypothisis. The break between the two is to dramatic and spontanious for monothiesm to have been a protracted ongoing growth from polythiesm.
That there was trouble along the way is to be expected and would play itself out as depicted in the OT. As to Ex. 6:2, I can agree to a redactor equivicating El, Yahweh, Shaddai, Sur, Ab, Akh, and even Har as the same God. If the redactors were really trying to remove a polythiestic trace from the OT something so obvious wouldnt have been missed. The followers of Judiesm living at the time of the redaction wouldn't have been compelled into monothiesm by such a missed feeble effort. They would of had no need to if as you say, the polthiestic expressions were still contained in the text.
Your arguments hold up better if focused on the patriarchal and pre exodus periods. When comparing scholarly sources to the Biblical text you must remember that they aren't viewing the patriarchal Jews as a microcosm within a general people group but as the general people group. The Biblical texts bear out that the Jews were a microcosm seperated from the general people group. So when you refer to using scholarly research and the glorified documentary hypothisis, particularly in the patriarchal age, you are speaking only to a general people group and not the microcosm people actually specified within the Biblical text. This is why a Christian may so easily dismiss your argument as not applicable to Biblical texts.
From the time Abraham left Ur till the time of the Judges they went through 3 differing Semitic dialects. And by the times of the redactions they had moved to a fourth. For me this answers the questions behind El, Yahweh, or any other name for God that was uased in the texts. When redacting the text for clarification of understanding with a changing or evolving language yet attempting to keep it in the form in which it was recieved you leave in old words and change others. The end result would look exactly as we see it. An example of this would be in comparing an original King James with a modern English translation. Lots of conflict there.

[showmeproof]

In a later post than the one I'm responding to you mention the documentary hypothisis as an authoritive means in which yourself and most scholars use to posit your position on Isreals religious history. That hypothisis negates divine revelation and implies the Hebrews borrowed all things from the surrounding peoples. I reject ist's conclusions on the grounds of negated supernatural revelation without which there is no use bothering with the Bible as anything than another book of antiquity. A failing of the hypothisis is that in it's attempt to prove that the Hebrews borrowed their religion from their neighbors is that none of their neighbors practiced any form of monothiesm during any period where texts were produced. If they borrowed their religion from their neighbors they would have always been polythiestic. Even during the kingly reigns. It become a who created God argument. This is the hurdle for me that keeps me leary of the documentary hypothisis. The break between the two is to dramatic and spontanious for monothiesm to have been a protracted ongoing growth from polythiesm.

All the documentary hypothesis shows is that the Pentateuch was written over a period of time by different individuals which can be identified as sources. This is contrary to the Talmudic tradition that Moses himself wrote the whole of the Pentateuch.

I have not attempted to give you the impression that Israelites exclusively borrowed, and had no unique religious features of their own. They did indeed become monotheistic which is contrast to the earlier traditions which influenced them. The question arises, when did they become monotheistic? To answer this question, one must also ask when were the monotheistic statements of the bible written.

From what I can gather, this transition was a late monarchic feature that solidified after the return of the Babylonian Exile. If one likes, they can claim that their transition from polytheism to monotheism was divinely inspired. However, this is unnecessary theological baggage. The transition from monotheism can be explained in terms the political factors during the late monarchic period. Israel had fallen, those who did not get relocated by the Assyrians migrated to Jerusalem. Jerusalem's population grew. Hezekiah, not wizened by the mistake of Hoshea, stopped paying tribute to Assyria. In turn Sennacherib seized everything of Hezekiah's land, but Jerusalem (even by the Bible's account). Hezekiah realizing he royally screwed up (quite literally), admits his mistake and gives tribute to Sennacherib again. Following this one of two things happened; the biblical account has Sennacherib laying siege to Jerusalem and then by a divine miracle of 185,000 Assyrians killed overnight forces Sennacherib's withdrawal. OR Sennacherib's account where he testifies in taking the fortified cities and then was content to leave Hezekiah shut up in Jerusalem like a bird in a cage. Now remember the offense was not paying tribute. In taking the other cities Sennacherib took Hezekiah's economic resources...problem solved. One thing that historians and the bible both agree on is that Sennacherib's sons were attempting a coup in Nineveh forcing him to go there where he is subsequently killed. However, by the bible's own account Jerusalem remains under Assyrian control through Hezekiah's regin, through Manasseh's long reign, and then by the time of Josiah the Babylonians had started carving up the Assyrian empire. The Assyrian capitol was moved from Nineveh to Harran to finally Carchemish where the Babylonians finally route the Assyrian and Egyptian forces. Josiah is the one to find the book of Law and it is under his rule that the Deuteronomical reform took place...not before. Now of what political use would monotheism be to a king like Josiah? For the first time ever in Judah's history, the one and only offical place to worship becomes Jerusalem. All potential enemies that threaten to fracture this unity are killed. All temples, and idols are said to have been destroyed. In the backdrop of a crumbling Assyrian Empire Josiah has sights for unifying the people behind the official national religion and reclaiming the land once held by Israel. Unfortunately for him, he is killed rather unceremoniousnsly by Necho II at Meggido, who was on his way to Carchemish to help the Assyrians against the Babylonians. The Babylonians were okay to leave Jerusalem alone (except for vassalage), it was Zedekiah who made another political blunder and the Babylonians respond by destroying Jerusalem and forcing the exile.

The Israelite story is one of being in the shadow of the great empires. Now with their repeated defeat they have a few theological options...their victors god's are more powerful, OR that their god is so powerful that he edified the other people in order to punish them for turning from him. We know from history that they chose the later.

That there was trouble along the way is to be expected and would play itself out as depicted in the OT. As to Ex. 6:2, I can agree to a redactor equivicating El, Yahweh, Shaddai, Sur, Ab, Akh, and even Har as the same God. If the redactors were really trying to remove a polythiestic trace from the OT something so obvious wouldnt have been missed. The followers of Judiesm living at the time of the redaction wouldn't have been compelled into monothiesm by such a missed feeble effort. They would of had no need to if as you say, the polthiestic expressions were still contained in the text.

The problem is that the redactors were so far removed from the original meanings that they were assimilated already. In fact the equivocation between El and Yahweh could have happened early in Israel's history...but the fact that El was originally distinct from Yahweh means that the language of the divine council and other factors that link the two were borrowed from the earlier tradtion and not vice versa. These vestiges were not removed because the redactors did not see them as an issue, but it allows us to trace the development of cultures from an archaeological and historical background. Plus one has to take the inscriptions of Yahweh and HIS Asherah into account, Asherah was EL's consort before this is evidence of the convergence of the two gods in the Levant...it may not be representative of everywhere, but it does show that these two gods were being connected...and this occurred during the Omride dynasty in the 8th century.

Your arguments hold up better if focused on the patriarchal and pre exodus periods. When comparing scholarly sources to the Biblical text you must remember that they aren't viewing the patriarchal Jews as a microcosm within a general people group but as the general people group. The Biblical texts bear out that the Jews were a microcosm seperated from the general people group. So when you refer to using scholarly research and the glorified documentary hypothisis, particularly in the patriarchal age, you are speaking only to a general people group and not the microcosm people actually specified within the Biblical text. This is why a Christian may so easily dismiss your argument as not applicable to Biblical texts.

The 'microcosm' is the Levant culture and it remains steadfast within the bible as you see it today. El, Asherah, Dagon, Leviathon, Tannin, Resheph, Baal, Yamm, Deber, Shapsu, Mot, Yarih, heavenly hosts, the divine council all make appearances in the bible. They are often translated in the english Plague (Resheph), Sun (Shapsu), Moon (Yarih), Sea & River (Yamm), Pestilence (Deber), Death (Mot). These are used in mythic imagery showing Yahweh's control or victory over them. Some of them are even part of his apocalyptic retinue. These remnants go far beyond the just the time of the patriarchs. Read the end of 2 Kings whom were the gods pulled out of the temple of Yahweh by Josiah?

From the time Abraham left Ur till the time of the Judges they went through 3 differing Semitic dialects. And by the times of the redactions they had moved to a fourth. For me this answers the questions behind El, Yahweh, or any other name for God that was uased in the texts. When redacting the text for clarification of understanding with a changing or evolving language yet attempting to keep it in the form in which it was recieved you leave in old words and change others. The end result would look exactly as we see it. An example of this would be in comparing an original King James with a modern English translation. Lots of conflict there.

Sure, but the fact remains that in the earlier times those names meant something completely different than Yahweh, and over time became associated with Yahweh.

[OneSizeFit]

Now there are two scenarios that are offered here. One must either admit that the god of their captors is greater (Baal), or they must formulate it that Yahweh used the followers of Baal to punish Israel thus making Baal subserviant to Yahweh. The Israelites upon their return from exile had successfully established the later. This is not unique in Canaanite history as the Moabite Stone indicates their God Chemosh was not above punishing his followers by allowing thier subjugation and defeat in battle.

YHWH as sole god of the universe and the problem of adhering to the Law/sin most definitely developed as a need to explain how Judah/Israel were continuously bullied by neighboring nations despite having such a great god, this was the job of the prophets. It is interesting because this his how faith and loyalty developed as a religious concept, ie. Most ancients even up to Roman times would just ditch their god as ineffective when times got rough. The Jews broke the mold in remaining loyal to YHWH and instead blaming themselves rather than their god as the problem (sin). Nice post.

[Mr. Anderson]

I have not attempted to give you the impression that Israelites exclusively borrowed, and had no unique religious features of their own. They did indeed become monotheistic which is contrast to the earlier traditions which influenced them. The question arises, when did they become monotheistic? To answer this question, one must also ask when were the monotheistic statements of the bible written.

From what I can gather, this transition was a late monarchic feature that solidified after the return of the Babylonian Exile. If one likes, they can claim that their transition from polytheism to monotheism was divinely inspired. However, this is unnecessary theological baggage. The transition from monotheism can be explained in terms the political factors during the late monarchic period. Israel had fallen, those who did not get relocated by the Assyrians migrated to Jerusalem. Jerusalem's population grew. Hezekiah, not wizened by the mistake of Hoshea, stopped paying tribute to Assyria. In turn Sennacherib seized everything of Hezekiah's land, but Jerusalem (even by the Bible's account). Hezekiah realizing he royally screwed up (quite literally), admits his mistake and gives tribute to Sennacherib again. Following this one of two things happened; the biblical account has Sennacherib laying siege to Jerusalem and then by a divine miracle of 185,000 Assyrians killed overnight forces Sennacherib's withdrawal. OR Sennacherib's account where he testifies in taking the fortified cities and then was content to leave Hezekiah shut up in Jerusalem like a bird in a cage. Now remember the offense was not paying tribute. In taking the other cities Sennacherib took Hezekiah's economic resources...problem solved. One thing that historians and the bible both agree on is that Sennacherib's sons were attempting a coup in Nineveh forcing him to go there where he is subsequently killed. However, by the bible's own account Jerusalem remains under Assyrian control through Hezekiah's regin, through Manasseh's long reign, and then by the time of Josiah the Babylonians had started carving up the Assyrian empire. The Assyrian capitol was moved from Nineveh to Harran to finally Carchemish where the Babylonians finally route the Assyrian and Egyptian forces. Josiah is the one to find the book of Law and it is under his rule that the Deuteronomical reform took place...not before. Now of what political use would monotheism be to a king like Josiah? For the first time ever in Judah's history, the one and only offical place to worship becomes Jerusalem. All potential enemies that threaten to fracture this unity are killed. All temples, and idols are said to have been destroyed. In the backdrop of a crumbling Assyrian Empire Josiah has sights for unifying the people behind the official national religion and reclaiming the land once held by Israel. Unfortunately for him, he is killed rather unceremoniousnsly by Necho II at Meggido, who was on his way to Carchemish to help the Assyrians against the Babylonians. The Babylonians were okay to leave Jerusalem alone (except for vassalage), it was Zedekiah who made another political blunder and the Babylonians respond by destroying Jerusalem and forcing the exile.

Well done, you have now produced a better explaination and defense of your position than that presented in the thread from another forum that you posted. Which I read but didn't comment on. And you did so without the need of listing proof sources. Thats just my opinion so take it for what thats worth.

...but the fact that El was originally distinct from Yahweh means that the language of the divine council and other factors that link the two were borrowed from the earlier tradtion and not vice versa. These vestiges were not removed because the redactors did not see them as an issue, but it allows us to trace the development of cultures from an archaeological and historical background. Plus one has to take the inscriptions of Yahweh and HIS Asherah into account, Asherah was EL's consort before this is evidence of the convergence of the two gods in the Levant...it may not be representative of everywhere, but it does show that these two gods were being connected...and this occurred during the Omride dynasty in the 8th century.

Every word used by the Hebrews was borrowed and following the entomology of the pantheonistic names for the gods, El and Yahweh. I see no problem with their usage without a referance to multiple gods. You make a list of other panthiestic god names below but being lesser on the cultic pole their only given attributes of a controlled being and aren't relevant to your discussion outside of an inclusion of a heavenly council of which the definition is so vague that it has to settle as one of three possibilities. If approached by God yourself, when you later told of your account you would use the only words you know to describe Him. I doubt you could make up a better fitting word to describe Him. As when you use the English translation of the individual names you come out with a clearer definition of God and who He is revealing Himself as. When you lock them into the panthiestic names you have every appearance as you say of a transition from worsgipping one god to another when viewed critically. Your conclusions are consistant with what your seeing and I dont fault you for them. It's logically a good assessment of the face value.

The 'microcosm' is the Levant culture and it remains steadfast within the bible as you see it today. El, Asherah, Dagon, Leviathon, Tannin, Resheph, Baal, Yamm, Deber, Shapsu, Mot, Yarih, heavenly hosts, the divine council all make appearances in the bible. They are often translated in the english Plague (Resheph), Sun (Shapsu), Moon (Yarih), Sea & River (Yamm), Pestilence (Deber), Death (Mot). These are used in mythic imagery showing Yahweh's control or victory over them. Some of them are even part of his apocalyptic retinue. These remnants go far beyond the just the time of the patriarchs. Read the end of 2 Kings whom were the gods pulled out of the temple of Yahweh by Josiah?

Sure, but the fact remains that in the earlier times those names meant something completely different than Yahweh, and over time became associated with Yahweh.

Microcosm--- Is a miniture representation, model of a larger system. And it can bear significant dissimilarities. Not the entirety of the levant culture. You dont get that one on your best day. And as I've stated your lists of gods other then El and Yahweh aren't names for God but names given to natural things under submission. I listed other names used that do, El "God", Sur "Mountain" (Aram. Tur); Shaddai "(God) of the mountain": Amm "Kindred, Family, Folk" ; Ab "Father"; Akh "Brother. All these names of the early Hebrew onomasticon direct the evidence away from your surface conclusion of the pantheon names you listed in another direction. For me this is enough evidence to posit that the acceptance of all these names was evidence of a monothiestic nature among the patriarch's.


The references to the pantheon names you listed are only used in describing worship run amuck and not as a norm. Always referred to in the negitive with a fallen people and priesthood. If you can pull it out of scripture in the positive, outside of sarcastic hyperbole, please enlighten me.

[showmeproof]

The references to the pantheon names you listed are only used in describing worship run amuck and not as a norm. Always referred to in the negitive with a fallen people and priesthood. If you can pull it out of scripture in the positive, outside of sarcastic hyperbole, please enlighten me.

I suggest the ESV, as many of the other translations use angels to denote sons of God which has a much different context in earlier traditions of the divine counsel. In my opinion with our knowledge of cognate languages this is deceptive because it does not denote what the writer originally said.

Genesis 1:26, 6, 14:18-22, 17:1, 28:3, 31:53, 35:11, 43:14, 48:3, 49:25
Exodus 6:2, 15:11, 34:6
Deuteronomy 32:7-9
1 Kings 22:19-22
2nd Kings 23:15
Judges 9:46, 11:24
Job 1:6, 2:1, 5:1, 38:7
Psalms 29, 48, 68:5, 74:12-17, 80:11, 82:1, 86:15, 89, 103:8, 104, 145:8,
Isaiah 27:1
Jeremiah 23:18, 44
Habakkuk 3

The Genesis references are of El...see Exodus 6:2 for clarification. If we are to assume that this text is correct, and Abraham came from Ur in approximately 1900BCE then El was most certainly a deity that was distinct from Yahweh as evidenced by the documents from Ugarit attest. The later writers may have associated him with Yahweh, but it is clear that Abraham did not (here the distinction of YHWH is an emendation by RJE). All of the altars built by Abraham denote El. Deuteronomy talks of the sons of God their place in the heavenly council, Job speaks of those who assemble in the counsel specifically as the sons of god, also holy ones (most translations denote 'angels')...Satan is listed as one who presents himself before the lord.


Many of these statements are polytheistic, mainly those of the divine council, some are henotheistic talking of the other gods in a negative light but in a manner that denotes their existence, others are the gods attributed to as powers of Yahweh in his theophanic retinue.

The real test is to examine where the truly monotheistic statements appear, which is in Deuteronomy, and the prophets.

We do know that the bible found its final form and canonization in its final monotheistic theology which makes it evident that some redacting of texts would have taken place. To me the equivocating of Yahweh with EL, and letting that stand in the process of canonization is a testament to the original tradition...at the end of the day EL was a completely different deity during the time of the patriarchs than understood by the redactors and thus than he is portrayed in the bible today.