Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 39

Thread: Another thread

  1. #11
    tWebber Adrift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,609
    Amen (Given)
    7067
    Amen (Received)
    6736
    Quote Originally Posted by Juvenal View Post
    That's just a geography thing.

    I'm living down in the boonies south of Homestead, with the nearest Unitarian service about 30 miles away, north, in Miami. But with my recent purchase of a property in the East Everglades, the distance is cut in half on the weekends when I'm working the land. So why not?

    Again, not certain what was in CPs head at the time, but I'm assuming he was curious about your attending a church at all (Unitarian or otherwise), and thought it might be nice to have a friendly conversation with you about what draws you to church services, and what that particular service is like. That sort of thing. That sound about right CP?

  2. Amen Cow Poke amen'd this post.
  3. #12
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    56,243
    Amen (Given)
    12231
    Amen (Received)
    26120
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrift View Post
    Again, not certain what was in CPs head at the time, but I'm assuming he was curious about your attending a church at all (Unitarian or otherwise), and thought it might be nice to have a friendly conversation with you about what draws you to church services, and what that particular service is like. That sort of thing. That sound about right CP?
    Not just "about right", but dead on.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  4. Amen Adrift amen'd this post.
  5. #13
    radical strawberry
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Humanist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,483
    Amen (Given)
    466
    Amen (Received)
    1034
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrift View Post
    Yes, I'm aware.
    Thank you.

    Sorry about that.
    No worries.

    No, I don't think he's asserting that rising denotes superiority, rather he's rebuffing the view that one's posture in the court necessarily has to do with position of authority, and thus forces the reader to see two separate deities in the passage (El Elyon and Yahweh). Those who assert that a separate/higher deity, El Elyon, is presiding rather than Yahweh, do so by asserting that the posture is important for denoting who is presiding (sitting) and who is merely prosecuting (standing). Heiser is saying that that doesn't make sense if it's agreed that Yahweh is seen rising from a seated position in verse 8. Rising doesn't necessarily denote the position of authority to Heiser, rather "the psalmist wants Yahweh to rise and act as the only one who can fix the mess described in the psalm." And this is perfectly in line with passages like Isaiah 3:13, and Amos 7:7-9.
    I can't follow the Hebrew arguments, and I can't find an open text for the Parker reference, but if Parker has Yahweh prosecuting rather than judging, hence presiding, in v. 1, that's surely a contradiction to the standard translation, which supports Heiser.

    In any case, this is not an interaction with Smith, as cited here from p. 48 of Origins, who holds that:

    Verse 6 addresses the gods as "the sons of Elyon," probably a title of El at an early point in biblical tradition (cf. El Elyon mentioned three times in Genesis 14:18-20). If this supposition is correct, Psalm 82 preserves a tradition that casts the god of Israel in the role not of the presiding god of the pantheon but as one his sons.

    Smith is not suggesting El is present here, rather that a shadow of his presence has been preserved after redaction.

    In the footnotes, also on p. 48, relating to his treatment of v. 1, Smith clarifies:

    Psalm 82 belongs to the "elohistic Psalter," thought by many scholars to have undergone a replacement of the name of Yahweh with the title "God" ('akelohďm). I have reservations about this theory although it would point more clearly to Yahweh understood as the subject of this sentence.

    In any case, a plain reading of the text shows Yahweh being commanded, albeit in the prophetic voice, to rise and take command over the gods, implicitly claiming a position that was not previously his, and hence a position previously held by someone other than Yahweh.

    That's correct. Somewhat unlike New Testament studies, the mainstream position in Old Testament studies leans largely to the left. Heiser's views appear to be gaining some momentum among his peers lately though.
    I'd like to preface with my position that this isn't so much a debate for me as a conversation with a viewpoint I've mostly forgotten over the decades. Still, I'm going to point out rhetoric I find misleading or unhelpful. This mixing of political and theological terms is simply confusing to me. Left, or leaning left, cannot be a valid characterization of an overwhelmingly mainstream position, and creates an unjustifiable impression that the mainstream should be defined by its opposition to a fringe, where the converse is clearly more defensible.

    This is reminiscent of claims that biological evolution is somehow defined by its opposition to creationism, where the truth is that biologists investigating the emergence and diversification of species simply ignore the theological repercussions.

    Similarly, my examination of your sacred texts and religious tradition is purely humanistic, differing little from my examinations of the Qur'an and Ahadith of Islam, the Avesta of Zorastrianism, the Bardo Thodol of Tibetan Buddhism, the Vedas of Hinduism, and other, more obscure texts. In the process, I've found the Hebrew Bible to be vastly more illuminating once freed of a priori assumptions of divine inspiration. Focusing instead on the humanity of its authors yields, for me, a far more robust understanding of our cousins across the millennia.

    There's value in seeking out the adherent's perspective as well, including that of evangelicals. Enns' Inspiration and Incarnation, written from this perspective, (or so a majority of his department agreed), made a profound impact on me, literally changing the way I read the Bible to this day.

    I believe those papers are just archived at Liberty. Are Yahweh and El Distinct Deities was published in the peer-reviewed HIPHIL (Hebrew Bible Theology, Interpretation, Poetics, History, Interactivity, and Linguistics) Volume 3, 2006, and Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality was published in the peer-reviewed JESOT (Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament) 1.1 (2012).
    To be clear, both of these are strictly evangelical journals, though I'm embarrassed to note the former reference is actually listed in the header in Heiser's Yahweh and El. After noting the "Recommended Citation" on the cover page, I simply didn't think to look further, and just missed it in my focus on the text. Toward an Assessment's relation to JESOT is more obscure, and if I'd managed to notice its header, I'd have instead been looking at the Bulletin for Biblical Research, which is also an evangelical publication.

    Dr. Heiser was only an adjunct for Liberty in their distance learning program, and he is not a literal six day creationist.
    That may be, but the citation doesn't support it. It's a statement rejecting ANE flat earth cosmology, and while it leaves room for something other than six-day creationism, it doesn't declare it.

    It wasn't. Till this year, Dr. Heiser's main employment was as Scholar in Residence at Faithlife Corporation for Logos Bible Software, where he saw plenty of academic freedom. He recently left that position for a role as Executive Director of Celebration Church's (currently non-accredited) Awakening School of Theology.
    From their HR docs, linked earlier, online adjuncts are required to sign the same doctrinal statement as their full-time, bricks and mortar colleagues. Moreover, both are listed as Liberty faculty publications, with the implication that deviation from the doctrinal statement would be suitable cause for dismissal. Similarly, his choice to publish in strictly evangelical journals constrains both his positions and those of his peer reviewers, as does his assorted positions attached to religious institutions.

    Again, even in the absence of what I consider the scholar's ultimate coin, academic freedom, to the extent his scholarship reflects the views of a significant slice of humanity, they interest me.

  6. #14
    radical strawberry
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Humanist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,483
    Amen (Given)
    466
    Amen (Received)
    1034
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrift View Post
    Again, not certain what was in CPs head at the time, but I'm assuming he was curious about your attending a church at all (Unitarian or otherwise), and thought it might be nice to have a friendly conversation with you about what draws you to church services, and what that particular service is like. That sort of thing. That sound about right CP?
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Not just "about right", but dead on.
    Well, my brother would take issue with anyone calling a Unitarian Church a "church," preferring to cast them as "social clubs." To which I've always replied, "That's the point!"

    Unitarian services are famously open to atheists and theists alike, and typically draw moral lessons from any and all religious traditions, or even from secular humanism. I have no problem sharing a pew with any theist who doesn't have a problem sharing a pew with me in mutual tolerance of our sectarian disagreements.



    But that's pretty much exactly why I'd say it's not a comfy space for evangelicals. They don't like us much, or if they do, it's for other reasons, like for instance, because I and my LC/MS preacher are brothers. I'm sure he's deluded in thinking I'm headed for hell, but we love each other just the same.

    His family is awesome. One of the niecelets, my buddy John's kid and an inveterate backseater on my bike, described them as "The Waltons." I shared that with them after a visit, and my brother Bob's wife, Nancy, just beamed!

    It's not a requirement, but as it turns out, every Unitarian Church I've visited was headed by an LGBT pastor, often enough assisted by their partners, which, perhaps not so coincidentally, also figures in my assessment they're close kin to libxians.

    I also attend services at his church when I'm visiting, leaving him and Nancy to find their own explanations back when the kids were young, and would ask why I didn't take communion. They were raised far too polite to demand further explanation from me, and were understandably unsatisfied with my ... yes, cryptic but true ... claim, "I'm not a Lutheran." Lutherans have a closed communion, so the reasoning was valid, if misleading.

    Anything else you'd like to ask, CP, feel free.

  7. #15
    tWebber Adrift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,609
    Amen (Given)
    7067
    Amen (Received)
    6736
    Quote Originally Posted by Juvenal View Post
    In any case, this is not an interaction with Smith, as cited here from p. 48 of Origins, who holds that:

    Verse 6 addresses the gods as "the sons of Elyon," probably a title of El at an early point in biblical tradition (cf. El Elyon mentioned three times in Genesis 14:18-20). If this supposition is correct, Psalm 82 preserves a tradition that casts the god of Israel in the role not of the presiding god of the pantheon but as one his sons.

    Smith is not suggesting El is present here, rather that a shadow of his presence has been preserved after redaction.

    In the footnotes, also on p. 48, relating to his treatment of v. 1, Smith clarifies:

    Psalm 82 belongs to the "elohistic Psalter," thought by many scholars to have undergone a replacement of the name of Yahweh with the title "God" ('akelohďm). I have reservations about this theory although it would point more clearly to Yahweh understood as the subject of this sentence.
    Right. Heiser addresses this earlier in the paper,

    This position is in part based on the idea that these passages presume Yahweh and El are separate, in concert with an “older” polytheistic or henotheistic Israelite religion, and that this older theology collapsed in the wake of a monotheistic innovation. The reasoning is that, since it is presumed that such a religious evolution took place, these texts evince some sort of transition to monotheism. The alleged transition is then used in defense of the exegesis. As such, the security of the evolutionary presupposition is where this analysis begins.

    Quote Originally Posted by Juvenal View Post
    In any case, a plain reading of the text shows Yahweh being commanded, albeit in the prophetic voice, to rise and take command over the gods, implicitly claiming a position that was not previously his, and hence a position previously held by someone other than Yahweh.
    Plain readings of ancient Hebrew texts translated into English can be tricky (which is why there's considerable discussion regarding Psalm 82). As Heiser suggests, it may not be a command. Rather the prophetic voice pleads for God to act on those he has judged. We see similar language in passages like Psalm 68.

    Quote Originally Posted by Juvenal View Post
    This mixing of political and theological terms is simply confusing to me. Left, or leaning left, cannot be a valid characterization of an overwhelmingly mainstream position, and creates an unjustifiable impression that the mainstream should be defined by its opposition to a fringe, where the converse is clearly more defensible.
    There's nothing inherently political in the terminology. There are, I'm certain, liberal Biblical scholars who are politically conservative, and vice versa. If you find the terminology confusing, then your issue may be with Bible scholars themselves. I've read scholars on both divides (and those who straddle the middle) who use the terminology in their work (Bart Ehrman, for instance, identifies himself as a left leaning scholar, and John Dominic Crossan also makes liberal/conservative distinctions). I've also read scholars who'd like to forego such terminology altogether (Christian bible scholar Ben Witherington III and Jewish bible scholar Amy-Jill Levine encourage this in their shared commentary on the Gospel of Luke, for instance).


    Quote Originally Posted by Juvenal View Post
    I've found the Hebrew Bible to be vastly more illuminating once freed of a priori assumptions of divine inspiration. Focusing instead on the humanity of its authors yields, for me, a far more robust understanding of our cousins across the millennia.
    From my readings, most of the scholars whose names come up again and again in both Old and New Testament studies do just that. They attempt academic objectivity as best they can, especially in their more professional work. As John Sailhamer has said (paraphrasing), when we study the Old Testament on it's own terms, when we attempt to see what the original authors intended and what the original audience understood, only then will the full richness of the text be revealed. That said, if divine inspiration exists (however it may take shape), then one might argue that it does a disservice to the text to ignore it. I think this is something Nick discussed in a Deeper Waters thread some while back.


    Quote Originally Posted by Juvenal View Post
    That may be, but the citation doesn't support it. It's a statement rejecting ANE flat earth cosmology, and while it leaves room for something other than six-day creationism, it doesn't declare it.
    It's not a rejection of ANE flat earth cosmology, as such. I mean, it is, but that's not the point of the post. His point is that he's not a literal six-day creationist, and that those who claim to be "'literal creationists' are actually only selective literalists." Heiser would regard himself as an accommodationist. He's very much the opposite of a literalist creationist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Juvenal View Post
    From their HR docs, linked earlier, online adjuncts are required to sign the same doctrinal statement as their full-time, bricks and mortar colleagues. Moreover, both are listed as Liberty faculty publications, with the implication that deviation from the doctrinal statement would be suitable cause for dismissal.
    Don't know what to tell you. He's definitely not a literalist. Maybe his contract had an exception clause.

    Quote Originally Posted by Juvenal View Post
    Similarly, his choice to publish in strictly evangelical journals constrains both his positions and those of his peer reviewers, as does his assorted positions attached to religious institutions.
    I have no idea why Dr. Heiser chose to publish in those evangelical journals, but I doubt it's because he thought they would constrain his positions or those of his peers. Perhaps he published in them because they share his ideals. You can contact him here and maybe find out for yourself. He's an incredibly busy guy, but I've been able to touch base with him a couple times over email.
    Last edited by Adrift; 10-06-2019 at 12:25 AM.

  8. #16
    tWebber Adrift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,609
    Amen (Given)
    7067
    Amen (Received)
    6736
    Quote Originally Posted by Juvenal View Post
    Well, my brother would take issue with anyone calling a Unitarian Church a "church," preferring to cast them as "social clubs." To which I've always replied, "That's the point!"

    Unitarian services are famously open to atheists and theists alike, and typically draw moral lessons from any and all religious traditions, or even from secular humanism. I have no problem sharing a pew with any theist who doesn't have a problem sharing a pew with me in mutual tolerance of our sectarian disagreements.

    But that's pretty much exactly why I'd say it's not a comfy space for evangelicals. They don't like us much, or if they do, it's for other reasons, like for instance, because I and my LC/MS preacher are brothers. I'm sure he's deluded in thinking I'm headed for hell, but we love each other just the same.

    His family is awesome. One of the niecelets, my buddy John's kid and an inveterate backseater on my bike, described them as "The Waltons." I shared that with them after a visit, and my brother Bob's wife, Nancy, just beamed!

    It's not a requirement, but as it turns out, every Unitarian Church I've visited was headed by an LGBT pastor, often enough assisted by their partners, which, perhaps not so coincidentally, also figures in my assessment they're close kin to libxians.

    I also attend services at his church when I'm visiting, leaving him and Nancy to find their own explanations back when the kids were young, and would ask why I didn't take communion. They were raised far too polite to demand further explanation from me, and were understandably unsatisfied with my ... yes, cryptic but true ... claim, "I'm not a Lutheran." Lutherans have a closed communion, so the reasoning was valid, if misleading.

    Anything else you'd like to ask, CP, feel free.
    I'll ask for him, since I seem to be reading his mind pretty well these days, but you said a lot without actually discussing why you're going to a Unitarian church. I think we all know that Unitarians are open to both theists and atheists (as all churches ought to be). And yes, I think we all know it probably wouldn't be a comfy space for your more conservative Evangelical. And of course it's no surprise that Unitarian churches accept LGBT pastors. But why are YOU going to a Unitarian church (and no, we're not asking about it's proximity). Is it purely the social dimension? Is it a vestige of some religious interest? What's important about it to you? If that's too personal, then no worries.

    Oh, and I have no idea what an LC/MS is (CP might though).

    Oh, and also Brazil is phenomenal, but that's true of all of Gilliam's earlier work.

  9. #17
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,959
    Amen (Given)
    5256
    Amen (Received)
    3566
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrift View Post
    Oh, and I have no idea what an LC/MS is (CP might though).
    Based on the fact that he mentioned it in connection with his brother being a LC/MS preacher I'm gonna wager a guess that he's talking about the LCMS, or The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. Especially since he also mentions Lutherans having closed communion, which the confessional Lutheran synods LCMS and WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) are known for holding to, in contrast to the more liberal ELCA.

  10. Amen Juvenal, Cow Poke, Adrift amen'd this post.
  11. #18
    radical strawberry
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Humanist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,483
    Amen (Given)
    466
    Amen (Received)
    1034
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrawnus View Post
    Based on the fact that he mentioned it in connection with his brother being a LC/MS preacher I'm gonna wager a guess that he's talking about the LCMS, or The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. Especially since he also mentions Lutherans having closed communion, which the confessional Lutheran synods LCMS and WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) are known for holding to, in contrast to the more liberal ELCA.
    Bob once framed his choice of denomination for me in terms of guilt.

    How many Jewish mothers does it take to screw in a light bulb?
    Don't worry about me, I'll just sit here in the dark.

    He told me:

    Jews know better than anyone how to make you feel guilty.
    The Catholics make you feel guilty, too, but they give you a reason!
    Lutherans give you the right reason.

    Bob went LCMS during the Seminex crisis, joining in on the anti-modernist side. Because of our seven-year age gap, that translated to a 6th grader being inundated with excoriations of the "higher-critical" school, as I remembered it.

    He didn't push that on the rest of us, though, steering my aunt and grandmother, which was "home" at the time, to a United Presbyterian church that went on to become one of the first of the Denver-area megachurches. Every Sunday service started with a junior pastor asking us all to, "Stand up. Squeeze in. Make room!" Good times.

    One of those junior pastors, a youngster named Jim Dixon, went on to create his own megachurch.

    I wrote him a few years ago. He never wrote back.

  12. #19
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    56,243
    Amen (Given)
    12231
    Amen (Received)
    26120
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrift View Post
    I'll ask for him, since I seem to be reading his mind pretty well these days....
    Because you appear to take me at face value - not looking at my words with an intent to launch into a diatribe.

    One of my favorite stories...

    Johnny asked his mother "where did I come from?"
    She knew it was about time he started wondering about the mysteries of life...
    She told him "ask your father when he comes home from work".
    Dad responded by telling him "ask your mother" - and finally the two of them - mom and dad - decided it was time for "the talk".

    That evening, they sat Johnny down, and explained a little about the biology of human sexuality, the sperm and the egg, fertilization, etc....

    After sitting spellbound for nearly an hour, Johnny responded, "while I found that really fascinating, what I meant was - Bobby comes from Texas - where did *I* come from?

    So, yeah, I really wasn't asking for some arrogant condescending lecture -- just a friendly interest in what was bringing him to "services", such as they were.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  13. Amen Adrift amen'd this post.
  14. #20
    radical strawberry
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Humanist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,483
    Amen (Given)
    466
    Amen (Received)
    1034
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrift View Post
    Right. Heiser addresses this earlier in the paper,

    This position is in part based on the idea that these passages presume Yahweh and El are separate, in concert with an “older” polytheistic or henotheistic Israelite religion, and that this older theology collapsed in the wake of a monotheistic innovation. The reasoning is that, since it is presumed that such a religious evolution took place, these texts evince some sort of transition to monotheism. The alleged transition is then used in defense of the exegesis. As such, the security of the evolutionary presupposition is where this analysis begins.
    Prefaced by:

    The focus of this paper concerns the position expressed by Smith and held by many others: whether Yahweh and El are cast as separate deities in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32. This paper argues that this consensus view lacks coherence on several points.

    As above, Smith does not take the position that "Yahweh and El are cast as separate deities in Psalm 82." Which makes me wonder whether Heiser is similarly inaccurate in speaking of it as a consensus position. He argues against Parker, someone I'd never heard of before, and cites Smith in ways I find misleading.

    Heiser's preliminary citation from Smith, framing Heiser's introduction ...

    The author of Psalm 82 deposes the older theology, as Israel's deity is called to assume a new role as judge of all the world. Yet at the same time, Psalm 82, like Deut 32:8-9, preserves the outlines of the older theology it is rejecting. From the perspective of this older theology, Yahweh did not belong to the top tier of the pantheon. Instead, in early Israel the god of Israel apparently belonged to the second tier of the pantheon; he was not the presider god, but one of his sons. (1)

    ... simply does not say what Heiser says it says.

    From the earliest ANE records we have, featuring tutelary deities for city-states from Ur to Shurrupak within the Empire of Sumer and Akkad, gods assumed power over their peers by abrogating the traditions and epithets of their parent gods. Inanna famously claimed ascendancy by taking possession of the "mes" for the city of Uruk from Enki of the city Eridu, who took them from Enlil of Nippur, generally mirroring the cities' political ascendancy.

    As an aside, Dianne Wolkstein worked to assemble a lyrical presentation of Inanna's myths, working with Samuel Noah Kramer, the icon of Sumerology, to keep them true to the best available translations.


    From the epic of Marduk of Babylon to the epic of Gilgamesh, there are no exceptions in the ANE to this theme of slaying the corrupt older gods or stealing their powers when weakened, by wine, cf. Inanna, which is the true foundation of whatever consensus there may be that Yahweh of Israel acquired ascendancy by abrogating the powers and position of El of Ugarit.

    While Yahweh is not named among the sons of El in the Ba'al cycle, his opposition to the Ba'als, who are named there, forces the examination of the Biblical texts within this wider frame. This is the position Heiser fails to interact with, a position that is not answered by a niggling objection to Parker's claim they're both present in Psalm 82 while paying lip service to an interaction with Smith.

    Is name-dropping Smith a requirement for anyone writing on these topics?

    This theme of religious traditions emerging from their contemporary and near contemporary matrix is compelling for me, not because it grants license to demote the god of Abraham from its assumed suzerainty, which it certainly does, but because it provides a broader explanatory vision encompassing a greater range of archaeological, linguistic, and historical facts.

    It makes more sense.

    Plain readings of ancient Hebrew texts translated into English can be tricky (which is why there's considerable discussion regarding Psalm 82). As Heiser suggests, it may not be a command. Rather the prophetic voice pleads for God to act on those he has judged. We see similar language in passages like Psalm 68.
    The plain reading of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 leaves the same impression.

    When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance,
    when he divided all mankind,
    he set up boundaries for the peoples
    according to the number of the sons of Israel.
    For the Lord’s portion is his people,
    Jacob his allotted inheritance.

    This is from the NIV.

    Now I'd argue the interior reading is one of Yahweh, the most high, dividing the nations and leaving them to their own gods, while claiming Jacob's progeny as his chosen people, noting, with Heiser, Smith, et al. that "sons of Israel" is an inferior translation taken from the MT, where the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint render the phrase, "sons of God."

    Heiser cites Smith here, still on p. 48 of Origins:

    The texts of the LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls show Israelite polytheism which focuses on the central importance of Yahweh for Israel within the larger scheme of the world; yet this larger scheme provides a place for the other gods of the other nations in the world. Moreover, even if this text is mute about the god who presides over the divine assembly, it does maintain a place for such a god who is not Yahweh. Of course, later tradition would identify the figure of Elyon with Yahweh, just as many scholars have done. However, the title of Elyon "Most High") seems to denote the figure of El, presider par excellence not only at Ugarit but also in Psalm 82. (20)

    While Heiser interacts strongly with Smith and the Ugaritic here, noting that Elyon appears in the Ba'al cycle only as an epithet for Ba'al, not El, he fails to interact with the inference, or denotation, that Ba'al acquired the epithet by usurping his father.

    And, again, stepping back, Heiser's thesis that El and Yahweh are identical in the Biblical texts does not interact with the fact they are not identical in Ugarit, where the written references to El antedate even the most optimistic dating for these Biblical passages, by centuries.

    Breaking here to get some other things done before returning to the more political issues in the sequel.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •