The Case for Ancient Monotheism

[Proclaimer]

The consensus among historians is that Monotheism emerged around 500 BC, with polytheism prevalent before that. But there is overwhelming evidence now that monotheism may precede all other forms of religion. This is interesting because it would indicate that all men believed in a most high God with pantheons of gods emerging after that.

[gadam123]

Eric J. Sharpe has said: “Schmidt did believe the emergent data of historical ethnology to be fundamentally in accord with biblical revelation.

This may be the creation of another Christian. The context of origin of Hebrew religion was Polytheism not Monotheism. Every tribe may had its own god but that doesn’t prove any Monotheism. Deut 32:8-9 reflects this concept on High God (Elyon) and tribal God Yahweh for people of Israel.

[gadam123]

Monotheism in the Ancient World

Monotheism is simply defined as the belief in one god and is usually positioned as the polar opposite of polytheism, the belief in many gods. However, the word monotheism is a relatively modern one that was coined in the mid-17th century CE by the British philosopher Henry More (1614-1687 CE). It comes from the Greek words, monos (single) and theos (god). In the Western tradition, this ‘belief in one god’ specifically refers to the God of the Bible; the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (and always written with a capital G). However, in the ancient world, the concept of monotheism as we understand it today did not exist; all ancient people were polytheists. They may have elevated one god as higher than the others (henotheism) but nevertheless recognized the existence of divine multiplicity.

The concept of the universe for the ancients consisted of three realms: the sky (the heavens); earth (humans); and the underworld (sometimes known as the netherworld or simply ‘the land of the dead’). The sky was the domain of the gods and was crowded with a host of divinities understood in a gradient of powers. Many ancient civilizations had a dominant god, or a king of the gods, with other divinities being in charge of various aspects of life, serving as a court of advisers, or simply as messengers to humans below. Many of these powers could transcend (cross over) to the earth below in various manifestations. They could also travel to the underworld, and in those manifestations were known as chthonic (underworld powers). Some of the lesser deities, known as daemons, came to be perceived as evil over time (demons). These powers were believed to be able to possess people and functioned as an explanation for diseases and mental disorders.

Belief, Faith, & Creed
THERE WAS NO CENTRAL AUTHORITY (LIKE THE VATICAN) TO DICTATE CONFORMITY OF BELIEFS & PRACTICES.
The modern concept of monotheism also assumes two other concepts, that of ‘belief’ and ‘faith.’ The problem in understanding religions in antiquity is not that they did not believe in things or that they lacked faith in the gods and goddesses. However, this was not often articulated or manifest in the same way that we now assume in our religious systems. Unlike the later creeds of Christianity, there was no comparable creed in the various ethnic cults in the Mediterranean basin.

The closest equivalent of shared knowledge was found in the works of Homer (Iliad; Odyssey) Hesiod (Theogony; Works and Days) and the myths of the bards as the basis of stories of creation and the gods and heroes. There was no central authority (like the Vatican) to dictate conformity of beliefs and practices. Each ethnic group developed rituals and practices necessary for worship (consisting of sacrifices) that was passed down to their ancestors from the gods. It was crucially important to carry out these rituals without mistakes.

Ancient Roots of Monotheism
While the term monotheism itself is modern, scholars have attempted to uncover ancient roots of monotheistic beliefs in the ancient world. High on the list is the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten (1353-1336 BCE), often referred to as the first monotheist. During the Amarna Period, Akhenaten promoted the worship of Aten, the symbol of the sun, as the highest form of worship, and eliminated the worship of Amon-Ra at Luxor, who was the dominant god at the time. However, the attempt to destroy the temples, images, and priesthood of Amon-Ra nevertheless would indicate a belief in this god’s existence (and influence). At the same time, there is no evidence that Akhenaten also persecuted or attempted to eliminate the other gods/goddesses of Egyptian religion, nor did he attempt to eliminate the numerous religious festivals or afterlife beliefs throughout Egypt.

Akhenaten and the Royal Family Blessed

Another source for the roots of ancient monotheism can be found in Zoroastrianism which became the state cult of ancient Persia. Zoroaster was a prophet (with dates anywhere from 1000-600 BCE) who promoted the worship of one supreme deity, Ahura Mazda, who was the creator of everything in the universe. Nevertheless, Ahura Mazda emanated six primary Amesha Spentas (spiritual forces) as well as other Yazatas (abstract powers) who were in polar opposition to other forces (e.g. truth vs. evil thinking). The extreme opposite of Ahura Mazda was druj, or ‘chaos,’ personified as Angra Mainyu. As such, the existence of a power opposed to all creation eventually gave rise to later Jewish, Christian, and Islamic concepts of the ‘Devil.’  Despite the extremes of pure good vs. pure evil (or the concept known as dualism), modern Zoroastrians claim that they are the true originators of monotheism, as everything arose from ‘the one.’

Ancient Judaism continues to receive the most attention as creating the origins of monotheism in the Western tradition. More recently some scholars are applying the term ‘monolatry,’ a system that recognizes the existence of other gods, but chooses to worship only one. Like their neighbors, ancient Jews conceived of a hierarchy of powers in heaven: “sons of god” (Genesis 6), angels, archangels (the messengers from God who communicate God’s will to humans), cherubim and seraphim. Jews also recognized the existence of demons with many examples in the ministry of Jesus in the gospels in his role as an exorcist.

JEWS COULD PRAY TO ANGELS & OTHER POWERS IN HEAVEN, BUT THEY WERE ONLY TO OFFER SACRIFICES TO THE GOD OF ISRAEL.
Scholars have perennially attempted to analyze Genesis 1:26: “Then God said, ‘let us make man in our image, in our likeness. . . ‘” Who is God talking to?  Is the “our” the same as the “royal we?” Suggestions have included the ancient and comparable ideas in ancient cultures that the heavens reflected societal structures on earth; kings usually had a court of advisers and thus there was a heavenly court as well.

The foundational story for the idea that Jews were monotheistic is when Moses receives the commandments of God on Mt. Sinai:  “I am the Lord your God . . . You shall have no other gods before me.”  The Hebrew could actually be translated as “no other gods beside me.” This does not indicate that other gods do not exist; it is a commandment that the Jews were not to worship any other gods. Worship in the ancient world always meant sacrifices. Jews could pray to angels and other powers in heaven, but they were only to offer sacrifices to the god of Israel.

The Jewish Scriptures consistently refer to the existence of the gods of the nations (ethnic groups):  Deuteronomy 6:14 (“do not follow other gods”); 29:18 (“to serve the gods of those nations”); 32:43 (“Praise O heavens, his people, worship him all you gods!”); Isaiah 36:20 (“who among all of the gods of these nations have saved their nations?”); Psalm 821 (“God presides in the great assembly; he renders judgment among the gods”). In the story of the Jews’ Exodus from Egypt, God battles against the gods of Egypt to demonstrate who controls nature. This makes little sense if their existence was not recognized: “. . . I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt.” (Exodus 12:12)

Moses & the Parting of the Red Sea

While Jews only offered sacrifices to the god of Israel, they shared a common conviction that all the gods should be respected; it was perilous to anger the other gods. Exodus 22:28 ordered the Jews never to revile the gods of the nations. With the destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE, cultic sacrifices were no longer possible. The later leaders of Judaism, the Rabbis, began a long process of reinterpreting worship as a focus on the “one,” which would lead to the eventual concept of the existence of only one god in the universe.

Under the persecution by the Seleucid Greeks (which resulted in the Maccabean Revolt in 167 BCE), those who died for refusing to worship the Greek gods were believed to be rewarded by instantly being transported to god in heaven, as martyrs (‘witnesses’).

Philosophical Monotheism
With the emergence of schools of Greek philosophy c. 600 BCE in Miletus, philosophical speculation concerning the universe and humans’ place in it began to spread throughout the Mediterranean basin.  Many philosophers gathered students around them (disciples), and it was these students who often wrote down the teachings and passed them on to the next generation. Philosophy was also associated with the upper classes, as only the rich had time and leisure to devote to this form of higher education.  Not simply an ivory tower speculation, philosophy, like ancient religion, taught a way of life, offering its own moral and spiritual interpretations.

The schools of Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics taught ways in which to cope with the vagaries of life, more concerned with the state of one’s soul than with worldly externals. A focus was on how the soul could return to its origins in the higher realm after death, reuniting with the “most high god.” For Plato, this high god was uncreated, immutable (not subject to change), and pure essence (not matter and therefore not subject to decay). Through the device of allegory, abstracts of reality emanated from the mind of god, like light from a candle. This god also emanated the logos, or the principle of rationality, to order the physical world.

Plato
Aristotle (384-322 BCE) dealt with metaphysics or the existence of first principles. The highest god is the first of all substances, the “unmoved mover,” causing the motion of the spheres, the planets. For the Stoics, the universe was a single organism energized by an imminent, divine rational force which ordered the universe according to natural law. They taught that all should live a life of accepting both good and evil, disciplining oneself to ultimately attain harmony with this divine force.

Many schools critiqued traditional Greek mythology and its anthropomorphism (assigning human characteristics to the gods), although very few condemned traditional sacrifices outright or called for an elimination of traditional rituals. Through their writings, philosophy contributed to the eventual views of monotheism for both Christian theologians and the later Rabbis.

Christianity
Our earliest evidence for Christian communities, the letters of Paul (c. 50-60 CE), demonstrate the same Jewish recognition in the powers of the universe. Many manifestations of the divine were accepted in the same gradients of power, but only the god of Israel was to be worshipped: “Even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as in fact there are many lords—yet for us there is one god, the Father” (1 Corinthians 8:5). Paul often railed against the others’ gods who impeded his mission (2 Corinthians 4:4). Their existence was real.

Paul the Apostle
However, early Christianity became complicated in relation to the concept of one god when a new concept was introduced. From the very beginning (in the post-Easter experiences of the Apostles), Christians began to claim that along with Jesus’s resurrection from the dead, he had also been “exalted” to heaven and given a seat “at the right hand of god” (Acts 7:56). 1 Peter 3:21-22 states that: “It [baptism] saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of god, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him.”

Until the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, the first followers of Jesus were in accord with the Jewish dictate that sacrifices could only be offered to the god of Israel. We also know that these early followers began including other elements of worship in relation to Jesus: baptizing people in the name of Jesus; curing and driving out demons in his name; expanding upon the concept of forgiving sins in his name; prayers and hymns directed to Jesus.

An early hymn recited by Paul is found in Phil. 2:9-11:

Who, being in the very nature god, did not consider equality with god something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!  Therefore, god also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of god the father.
That “every knee should bend” meant worship, in an age-old concept of bowing down before images of various gods. The idea that Jesus pre-existed in heaven before being manifest as a human on earth was reinforced in the Gospel of John, where he begins by claiming that Jesus was the logos who took on flesh to teach us about God and salvation. This idea was later canonized as the Incarnation of Jesus.

The Road to the Trinity
When ex-pagans converted to Christianity, they adopted the Jewish concept of refusing to worship the other gods. This led to persecution as such a refusal was understood as treason to the Roman Empire; not placating the gods meant that you did not want the Empire to prosper and could bring disaster.  Treason was always a capital offense, and so Christians were executed in the arenas.

Many Christian writers appealed to the emperors that they should be given the same exception to the traditional sacrifices that had been given to the Jews (during the reign of Julius Caesar). Christians claimed that they were the ‘true Jews,’ and not a new religion, using allegory to demonstrate that they had ancient ties through the Jewish Scriptures. They argued that everywhere that God was mentioned, it was actually a form of the pre-existent Christ. Technically, then, like the Jews, they only worshipped one god. Rome always responded that Christians were not circumcised and therefore, not Jews.

Holy Trinity
In 312 CE, Emperor Constantine became a Christian and legalized Christianity so that persecution ceased. However, Christian thinkers still debated the relationship between God and Jesus. An elder in the church at Alexandria, Arius began teaching that if God created everything in the universe, then at some point in time, he must have created Christ. This meant that Christ was subordinate to God. Riots arose over this in Alexandria and other cities of the Empire.

The First Council of Nicaea assembled to settle the matter; they decided that God and Christ were identical in substance and that Christ was a manifestation of God himself on earth:

We believe in one god, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven:  by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary and became man . . . We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
The creed was revised several times over the next decades and a shortened version became popular and is commonly known as the Apostles’ Creed. The concept of the Trinity claims that God remains one, but with three manifestations or personas: God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

Absorbing ideas from both Judaism and Greek hero cults, Christians began meeting at the tombs of martyrs to petition them in prayer. The rise of the cult of the saints combined Jewish martyrdom and ancient Greek hero cults where people would gather at the tombs of the hero. The Greco-Roman concept of patron gods/goddesses of a particular ethnic group or town was absorbed into Christian patron saints in heaven who became mediators between humans and God.

Islam
In the 6th century CE, a prophet arose in Saudi Arabia, Mohammad, who became the founder of Islam.  He was essentially a reformer, claiming that both Judaism and Christianity had become corrupted by false teaching. Utilizing the Jewish Scriptures, he emphasized the oneness of God (Allah); combining Allah with any other power is considered ‘shirk,’ equivalent to idolatry. Nevertheless, Islam does recognize gradients of powers.

God created three intelligent types of beings: angels, jinn (the equivalent of demons), and humans.  Angels did not have free will (they are pure reason) and therefore cannot sin, but jinn and humans can choose between good and evil. When God created Adam, he ordered all the angels to bow down to him. One angel, Iblis (Shaytan, the Devil), refused to do so and was cast down to Hell. He was given permission by God to tempt humans, but his authority would ultimately be destroyed on the Day of Judgment.

Hagia Sophia Interior
After the death of Muhammad, his followers split into two major groups over the succession. Those who supported his son-in-law, Ali, became the Shi’ites, while the majority are known as Sunnis.  Shi’ites honor their great teachers, imams, with the same kind of pilgrimage and rituals at their tombs. Sunnis claim that this is equivalent to the Christian veneration of saints and compromises the oneness of God.

Over the centuries, many elements contributed to what would eventually become the modern, Western conception of monotheism. The paradox is found in proclaiming God as one and yet perceiving that God is not alone.

[Danny Dabbs]

Hi Adam,

You: Deut 32:8-9 reflects this concept on High God (Elyon) and tribal God Yahweh for people of Israel.

Me: All this passage is saying is that when He divided up humankind He kept Israel for his own.
Yahweh is the Most High God (El Elyon)

[gadam123]

Hi Danny,

Hi Adam,

You: Deut 32:8-9 reflects this concept on High God (Elyon) and tribal God Yahweh for people of Israel.

Me: All this passage is saying is that when He divided up humankind He kept Israel for his own.
Yahweh is the Most High God (El Elyon)

Please read my  above the original Hebrew Text of  Deut 32:8-9 reads like this;

When the Most High apportioned the nations,
when he divided humankind,
he fixed the boundaries of the peoples
according to the number of the gods;[c]
9 the Lord’s own portion was his people,
Jacob his allotted share.

Here the Most High [Elyon] divided the human kind (People) according to the number of gods and Lord[Yahweh]’s own portion is his people Jacob. But the Lord[Yahweh] is subordinate to the Most High [Elyon] here. The gods are in the secondary level to the Most High. This is the most primitive form of the religion in the Hebrew Bible I find. Later stage this El Elyon was merged with Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible.

 

[Danny Dabbs]

Hi Adam,

Here is my answer:

In Deuteronomy 4:19-20,
a passage recognized by all who comment on these issues as an explicit parallel to 32:8-9, the
text informs us that it was Yahweh who “allotted” the nations to the host of heaven and
who “took” Israel as his own inheritance (cf. Deuteronomy 9:26, 29; 29:25). Neither
the verb forms nor the ideas are passive. Israel was not given to Yahweh by El, which is the
picture that scholars who separate El and Yahweh in Deuteronomy 32 want to fashion. In
view of the close relationship of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 to Deuteronomy 4:19-20, it is more
consistent to have Yahweh taking Israel for his own terrestrial allotment by sovereign act as
Lord of the council.

This is taken from:
Michael S. Heiser, “Are Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deut 32:8-9 and Psalm 82?”

[Danny Dabbs]

@gadam123

Hi Adam,

The Bible is a harmony.
So Deuteronomy 32 has to fit with Isaiah 45 for example.
Let’s read Isaiah 45:21,22

“Declare and present it.
Yes, let them take counsel together.
Who has shown this from ancient time?
Who has declared it of old?
Haven’t I, Yahweh?
There is no other God besides me, a just God and
a Savior.
There is no one besides me.
“Look to me, and be saved, all the ends of the
earth; for I am God, and there is no other.”

Conclusion:
Yahweh is the only supreme Most High God!

[gadam123]

The Yahwist Religion and Judaism

The Hebrew Bible claims that the Jews as a people worshipped Yahweh exclusively from the time of the Covenant, albeit with the worship of “false” gods from neighboring lands sometimes undermining their unity (and inviting divine retribution on the part of Yahweh for those transgressions). There is no historical or archeological evidence that suggests a single unified religion in Israel or Judah during the period of the united Hebrew monarchy or post-Solomon split between Israel and Judah, however (the Hebrew Bible itself was written down centuries later). A more likely scenario is that the Hebrews, like every other culture in the ancient world, worshipped a variety of deities, with Yahweh in a place of particular importance and centrality. A comparable case would be that of the Assyrians, who emphasized the worship of Ashur but who acknowledged the existence of other gods (including Yahweh).

As the Hebrews became more powerful, however, their religion changed dramatically. A tradition of prophets, later remembered as the Prophetic Movement, arose among certain people who sought to represent the poorer and more beleaguered member of the community, calling for a return to the more communal and egalitarian society of the past. The Prophetic Movement claimed that the Hebrews should worship Yahweh exclusively, and that Yahweh had a special relationship with the Hebrews that set Him apart as a God and them apart as a people. The Prophetic Movement lasted from the period before the Assyrian invasion of Israel through the Babylonian Captivity of the Jews, from about 750 BCE – 550 BCE.

This new set of beliefs, regarding the special relationship of a single God to the Hebrews, is referred to historically as the Yahwist religion. It was not yet “Judaism,” since it did not yet disavow the belief that other gods might exist, nor did it include all of the rituals and traditions associated with later Judaism. Initially, most of the Hebrews continued to at least acknowledge the existence of other gods – this phenomenon is called henotheism, the term for the worship of only one god in the context of believing in the existence of more than one god (i.e. many gods exist, but we only worship one of them). Over time, this changed into true monotheism: the belief that there is only one god, and that all other “gods” are illusory.

The Prophetic Movement attacked both polytheism and the Yahwist establishment centered on the Temple of Jerusalem (they blamed the latter for ignoring the plight of the common people and the poor). The prophets were hostile to both the political power structure and to deviation from the exclusive worship of Yahweh. The prophets were also responsible for enunciating the idea that Yahweh was the only god, in part in reaction to the demands of Assyria that all subjects acknowledge the Assyrian god Ashur as the supreme god. In other words, the claim of the Prophetic Movement was not only that Yahweh was superior to Ashur, but that Ashur was not really a god in the first place.

This is, so far as historians know, the first instance in world history in which the idea of a single all-powerful deity emerged among any people, anywhere (although some scholars consider Akhenaten’s attempted religious revolution in Egypt a quasi-monotheism). Up to this point, all religions held that there were many gods or spirits and that they had some kind of direct, concrete connections to specific areas. Likewise, the gods in most religions were largely indifferent to the actions of individuals so long as the proper prayers were recited and rituals performed. Ethical conduct did not have much influence on the gods (“ethical conduct” itself, of course, differing greatly from culture to culture), what mattered was that the gods were adequately appeased.

In contrast, early Judaism developed the belief that Yahweh was deeply invested in the actions of His chosen people both as a group and as individuals, regardless of their social station. There are various stories in which Yahweh judged people, even the kings like David and Solomon, making it clear that all people were known to Yahweh and no one could escape His judgment. The key difference between this belief and the idea of divine anger in other ancient religions was that Yahweh only punished those who deserved it. He was not capricious and cruel like the Mesopotamian gods, for instance, nor flighty and given to bickering like the Greek gods.

The early vision of Yahweh present in the Yahwist faith was of a powerful but not all-powerful being whose authority and power was focused on the Hebrew people and to the territory of the Hebrew kingdom only. In other words, the priests of Yahweh did not claim that he ruled over all people, everywhere, only that he was the correct God of the Hebrews and their land. That started to change when the Assyrians destroyed the northern kingdom of Israel in 722 BCE. Many of the Hebrews regarded this disaster as proof of the corruption of the rich and powerful and the righteousness of the Prophetic Movement. Even though the loss of Israel was an obvious blow against the Hebrews as a people, the worship of Yahweh as the exclusive god of the Hebrews gained considerable support in Judah. Likewise, as the exclusive worship of Yahweh grew in importance among the Jews (now sundered from the other Hebrews, who had been enslaved), the concept of Yahweh’s omnipotence and omnipresence grew as well.

The most important reforms of Hebrew religion occurred in the seventh century BCE. A Judean king, Josiah, oversaw the imposition of strict monotheism and the compilation of the first books of the Hebrew Bible, the Torah, in 621 BCE. In the process, the Yahwist priesthood added the book of Deuteronomy to older sacred writings (the priests claimed to have discovered Deuteronomy, but almost all historians of ancient religion believe that it was simply written at the time). When many Jews left the religion after Josiah’s death, the prophet Jeremiah warned them that disaster would ensue, and when the Neo-Babylonians conquered Judah in 586 BCE, it seemed to validate his warning. Likewise, during the Babylonian Captivity, the prophet Ezekiel predicted the liberation of the Hebrews if they stuck to their faith, and they were indeed freed thanks to Cyrus (who admired older cultures like the Hebrews, since the Persians were originally semi-nomadic).

The sacred writings compiled during these events were all in the mode of the new monotheism. In these writings, Yahweh had always been there as the exclusive god of the Hebrew people and had promised them a land of abundance and peace (i.e. Israel) in return for their exclusive worship of Him. In these histories, the various defeats of the Hebrew people were explained by corruption from within, often the result of Hebrews straying from the Covenant and worshiping other gods.

These reforms were complete when the Neo-Babylonians conquered Judah in 586 BCE and enslaved tens of thousands of the Hebrews. The impact of this event was enormous, because it led to the belief that Yahweh could not be bound to a single place. He was no longer just the god of a single people in a single land, worshiped at a single temple, but instead became a boundless god, omnipotent and omnipresent. The special relationship between Him and the Hebrews remained, as did the promise of a kingdom of peace, but the Hebrews now held that He was available to them wherever they went and no matter what happened to them.

In Babylon itself, the thousands of Hebrews in exile not only arrived at this idea, but developed the strict set of religious customs, of marriage laws and ceremonies, of dietary laws (i.e. keeping a kosher diet), and the duty of all Hebrew men to study the sacred books, all in order to preserve their identity. Once the Torah was compiled as a single sacred text by the prophet Ezra, one of the official duties of the scholarly leaders of the Jewish community, the rabbis, was to carefully re-copy it, character by character, ensuring that it would stay the same no matter where the Jews went. The result was a “mobile tradition” of Judaism in which the Jews could travel anywhere and take their religion with them. This would become important in the future, when they were forcibly taken from Judah by the Romans and scattered across Europe and North Africa. The ability of the Jews to bring their religious tradition with them would allow them to survive as a distinct people despite ongoing persecution in the absence of a stable homeland.

Another important aspect of Judaism was its egalitarian ethical system. The radical element of Jewish religion, as well as the Jewish legal system that arose from it, the Talmud, was the idea that all Jews were equal before God, rather than certain among them having a closer relationship to God. This is the first time a truly egalitarian element enters into ethics; no other people had proposed the idea of the essential equality of all human beings (although some aspects of Egyptian religion came close). Of all the legacies of Judaism, this may be the most important, although it would take until the modern era for political movements to take up the idea of essential equality and translate them into a concrete social, legal, and political system.

[Danny Dabbs]

Hi Adam,

So what you are saying is that we can’t trust our Bibles today?

God was not able to protect His Word?

[gadam123]

The Origins of Yahwism

1 Introduction
This paper seeks to sketch the origins and early development of Yahwism¹ as it appears from the perspective of Deuteronomistic texts.² They provide an excellent glimpse to the development of Yahwism from the sixth to fourth centuries BCE, when these texts were mainly written. This period was crucial for the eventual and later development of monotheistic conceptions that lie at the background of three world religions. Deuteronomistic literature may also be the most fruitful area for observing and understanding the reasons for the exceptional development that led Israel’s religion to a trajectory away from the other religions of the Ancient Near East. Although the Deuteronomists were active from the sixth century BCE onwards, their sources also contain some information about the earlier development of Yahwism.³

The Hebrew Bible is not an unproblematic source for investigating the history of Israel’s religion especially in the monarchic period. Most texts were written after the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE, which meant the destruction of the main structures of the ancient Israelite society: the temple, monarchy, and other state institutions. This destruction necessitated and entailed a complete reorientation of Israel’s religion, and this has to be taken into consideration when using the Hebrew Bible as a historical source. Consequently, there are considerable challenges when Israel’s religion in the monarchic period is reconstructed on the basis of texts that were written later and largely represent a very different religion that had already adapted itself to the new situation without the temple

1   In this paper Yahwism refers to the worship and cult of Yhwh.

2   Deuteronomism is here defined rather generally to include the Deuteronomic sections and re- dactions of Deuteronomy as well as the Deuteronomistic texts and redactions in the books from Deuteronomy to 2 Kings. It is necessary to acknowledge the uncertainties concerning Deutero- nomism especially in the Book of Samuel but also in Joshua and Judges. See discussion in C. Edenburg and J. Pakkala (ed.), Is Samuel Among the Deuteronomists? Current Views on the Place of Samuel in a Deuteronomistic History (SBLAIL 16; Atlanta, GA 2013). Although not very specific, Deuteronomism is a usable concept for the purposes of the current paper.

3   Using other parts of the Hebrew Bible and beyond, the very early evidence for Yahwism will be discussed in much more detail in other papers of this volume.

and the king. It seems probable that the Hebrew Bible only contains vestiges of the early and monarchic religion, for especially features that contradicted with later conceptions would have been left out or outright censored in the post– 587 BCE texts. Parts of the old mythology featuring the monarchic religion are best preserved in the Psalms and other poetic literature, as their liturgical and hymnic contexts as well as the poetic form may have conserved ancient features better than the context and form of prose.

Methodologically this paper is based on literary and redaction critical analysis of the source texts. Although these methods have their limitations, it has become evident that the preserved texts were written by many authors, editors, and redactors in different times and contexts. It is therefore necessary to distinguish between different authors if we use the text as a source to reconstruct the history and religion of ancient Israel.⁴ For the rise of Yahwism this approach is particularly fruitful, because it reveals crucial differences between Deuteronomistic literary layers, which implies the development of concepts during the time when these texts were produced.⁵

It should further be noted that the Deuteronomistic texts, as well as much of the rest of the Hebrew Bible, mainly deal with the state religion and the religion of the powerful. The Hebrew Bible was written by a group of people who probably represent only a small section of the society, the literate elite, who was close to the society’s powerful. For example, the main source for the book of Kings was the royal annals, which recorded events from the perspective of the royal house. It is therefore probable that the Hebrew Bible provides only scanty evidence for the various forms of Yahwism practiced by the ordinary people on a local level. One also has to assume considerable local differences.

2 Pre-Deuteronomistic Yahwism
Although witnessed by the Deuteronomistic texts only in vestiges, it is necessary to give a brief overview of the development predating and leading to Deuteronomistic conceptions. Because sources are lacking or fragmentary, the very earliest Yahwism is controversial. Traditionally it has been assumed that Yhwh did not

4   See discussion in R. Müller et al., Evidence of Editing. Growth and Change of Texts in the He- brew Bible (SBLRBS 75; Atlanta 2013). Failure to distinguish between different authors and editors would mean that we can only use the final texts as a very general source and then acknowledge that texts from very different contexts and centuries are intermingled.

5   For literary and redaction critical analysis of the texts discussed in this paper, see J. Pakkala, Intolerant Monolatry in the Deuteronomistic History (PFES 76; Helsinki and Göttingen 1999).

originate in Palestine but came from a region south of Judah perhaps at the end of the Bronze Age. There are some indications in support of this view. The giving of the law and the sojourn of the Israelites is strongly tied with the Sinai, an area outside of Israelite and Judean heartland, which begs for an explanation. Four short passages, often assumed to be early vestiges, point to the same geographical direction. These passages mention Yhwh’s coming from areas that can be located in the Sinai or Edom: Judg 5:4 – 5, 31 from Seir and Edom, Hab 3:3 – 4, 7 from Teman, Deut 33:2 from Seir and Paran, and Ps 68:8 – 9 from Sinai. It would be difficult to explain, why the national God of Israel and Judah had originated in an area of another nation, unless there was a strong tradition behind it.

There is also extra-biblical evidence to connect Yhwh with the general area of Sinai and Edom. As many scholars have pointed out, some Late Bronze Age texts from Egypt link Yhwh with Šasu, which have been assumed to be a people living in the approximate area south of Judah.⁶ Moreover, the inscriptions from Kuntillet ‛Ajrud in the Sinai could also be seen as argument to connect Yhwh with this region. In addition to its southern location, some of the texts (KAgr 9:6, 9, 10) mention Yhwh of Teman.⁷ Incidentally, Teman is also mentioned in Hab 3:3, where it is paralleled with Paran, which may be connected with Edom (Deut 33:2) or is otherwise in the general area. Taking all this evidence together, many scholars have assumed that Yhwh’s origins are somehow connected with the general area in Edom and Sinai.⁸

Nevertheless, recently some scholars have challenged the southern origins of Yhwh. Henrik Pfeiffer in particular has shown the weaknesses of using the biblical fragments as well as the extra-biblical references. He argues that the four short passages are literarily interdependent, Judg 5 being the oldest but still of post-monarchic origin.⁹ If his analysis is correct, the passages are not a strong witness to the early origins of Yhwh. Moreover, Reinhard Müller has provided

6   See S. Herrmann, “Der Alttestamentliche Gottesnahme” in Gesammelte Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des Alten Testaments (TB 75; München 1966), 76 – 88.

7   According to Ernst A. Knauf, “Teman,” Das wissenschaftliche Bibellexikon im Internet (2009), (https://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/de/stichwort/33170/), Teman primarily means “south”, and since Yhwh of Judah or Jerusalem is not otherwise mentioned in the Kuntillet ‛Ajrud inscriptions, it is probable that Yhwh of Teman refers to Yhwh of Judah, the southern kingdom.

8   With many others, thus K. van der Toorn, “Yahweh,” DDD2 (ed. K. van der Toorn; Leiden 21999), 910 – 919, especially pp. 911– 913, and most recently M. Leuenberger, “Jhwhs Herkunft aus dem Süden. Archäologische Befunde – biblische Überlieferungen – historische Korrelationen,” ZAW 122 (2010), 1– 19.

9   See Pfeiffer’s contribution in this volume; he also provides good arguments to be more cautious with the use of the extra-biblical sources for the early origins of Yhwh.

an alternative solution to the southern origins and shown that Yhwh’s early characteristics, preserved as vestiges in some poetic texts of the Hebrew Bible, correspond with those of a typical Syrian-type weather god.¹⁰ This would make origins in the arid zones of Edom or Sinai unlikely.

In the end, the southern hypothesis remains a possibility, but for under- standing Yhwh as a divinity it does not contain much substance. For the development of Yhwh, his clear characteristics as a weather god are much more important. Certainly, one can speculate that Yhwh, at least as the name of the divinity, came from outside Palestine, perhaps from the South. Having some similar characteristics with a local weather god, he would have retained an old name, but otherwise merged with an older Syro-Palestinian storm god.¹¹ At any rate, it seems probable that Yhwh, at least as the name of the deity, has an origin outside the conventional and known core-pantheons of Syria-Pales- tine.¹²

Regardless of his early origins, Yhwh was the main divinity worshipped in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah during most of the monarchic period, but the 10th and the first half of the 9th century BCE are uncertain. While the early history of Judah—and thereby also the history of Yhwh of Jerusalem—is poorly known and controversial, we are on a more solid ground with the kingdom of Israel. Historically it seems certain that Yhwh became the unquestioned dynastic and state God of Israel by mid–9th century BCE, during the time of Omri or Ahab. For example, the Mesha inscription, which can be dated to the second half of the 9th century BCE, refers to Yhwh as the divinity of the kingdom of Israel (line 18). Moreover, an inscription from Kuntillet ‛Ajrud refers to the Yhwh of Samaria (KAgr 9:8), which implies that Samaria had become a significant location of Yhwh’s cult already by beginning of the eight century BCE, when the inscription was written.

It seems probable that the house of Omri was a strong proponent of Yahwism. This is suggested by the mostly Yahwistic names of kings after King Ahab. Before Ahab’s son Ahaziah none of the Israelite kings had a Yahwistic name, which implies a dramatic shift in the time of Omri and Ahab. There may even

10   R. Müller, Jahwe als Wettergott. Studien zur althebräischen Kultlyrik anhand ausgewählter Psalmen (BZAW  387; Berlin), 241– 244.

11   If one follows this line, a possible candidate would be Baal. This could explain why Baal is largely missing as a theophoric element in personal names as well as in the inscriptions. Nevertheless, there is very little evidence for this hypothesis.

12   The Amarna correspondence does not contain any personal name with Yhwh as a theophoric element, which suggests that Yhwh was either an insignificant local deity during the Late Bronze Age or that he came later from outside Palestine.

be indirect textual evidence in 1 Kings 16:32 that Ahab built a temple for Yhwh in Samaria. According to the Masoretic text, “Ahab erected an altar for Baal in the Baal’s temple, which he had built in Samaria” (בנה אשר בעל בית לבעל מזבח ויקם בשמרון). This text can hardly be original, as the main sin illogically would be the erection of Baal’s altar, while the building of the temple is mentioned merely as the place of the sin. It would be much more logical that the sin was the erection of Baal’s altar in Yhwh’s temple. It is notable that the references to the temple differ considerably in the witnesses (for example, the LXX reads ἐν οἴκῳ τῶν προσοχθισμάτων αὐτοῦ “the house of his abominations”). The probable reason for the variant readings is that the original text contained an offensive or problematic reading that later scribes tried to avoid. A reference to the existence of Yhwh’s temple in Samaria would certainly have been a problematic reading causing many scribes to censor it. Consequently, the original text, which is not preserved in any witness, probably read “He (Ahab) erected an altar for Baal ויקם מזבח לבעל בית( Samaria” in built had he which Yhwh, of temple the in ).¹³יהוה אשר בנה בשמרון

The building of Yhwh’s temple in the new capital Samaria would have given a powerful boost to promote the state god of the new dynasty and its new capital. Considering the position of Samaria in the 9th century BCE, it would seem logical that the rise and eventual success of Yhwh is the result of his elevation to the status of state God of the house of Omri. Yhwh’s characteristics as a Syrian type weather god may derive from or be a result of this period, for in the mid 9th century Israel was well connected with Syria and Lebanon.¹⁴ Ironically, two of the most derided Israelite kings, Omri and Ahab, may have been essential in promoting early Yahwism.

The pre-Deuteronomistic remains in the Deuteronomistic literature give an impression of a strongly Yhwh -centered religion during the monarchic period. Certainly this picture is partly a result of censoring, but only partly. The theophoric elements in personal names imply that Yhwh was clearly the dominant deity who was not challenged after the 9th century BCE. Asherah had a role – as implied by the vestiges in the Hebrew Bible as well as by the inscriptions from Kuntillet ‛Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom – but this divinity seems to have been closely connected with Yhwh’s cult, probably as his consort. It is fair to assume that Yhwh and El were originally separate divinities, but since most of the

13 For details, evidence, and arguments in favor of this hypothesis, see J. Pakkala, God’s Word Omitted. Omissions in the Transmission of the Hebrew Bible (FRLANT 251; Göttingen 2013), 231– 234.

14 For example, according to the Kurkh stela, Israel under Ahab was part of a military alliance with Damascus and Hamath against Assyria.

Hebrew Bible implicitly identifies them, it is probable that they had merged or were in the process of merging at least by end of the monarchic times.¹⁵

Baal’s role has been subject of wide discussion, not the least because the He- brew Bible criticizes the Israelites of worshipping this deity, but there is very little evidence that Baal had a significant position in Israel or Judah during the monarchic period. For example, Baal is met only seldom as a theophoric element of personal names on seals and inscriptions from the monarchic period.¹⁶ The El Amarna correspondence similarly contains only a few personal names with Baal as a theophoric element. This would seem to suggest that Baal never had a similar position in Palestine as he had in Lebanon and (parts of) Syria. He is mentioned in a Kuntillet ‛Ajrud inscription (KAgr 9:7), but so far there is not much evidence to suggest that he was a major deity in Israel or Judah during the monarchic time. This is understandable, since Yhwh and Baal had very similar characteristics that would hardly fit the same pantheon or be both needed by the same worshipper.¹⁷ In other words, Yhwh’s dominance explains why Baal is largely missing, at least in the monarchic period. Alternatively, Yhwh and Baal could have been identified, but the evidence for this is meagre. There is some evidence for their worship in the same contexts—the original text of 2 Kings 10:23¹⁸ and KAgr 9:7¹⁹—but they are too uncertain and open to interpretation to build a solid case.

15   Thus many, for example, van der Toorn, “Yahweh” (see n. 8), 917.

16   See J. H. Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods. Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscrip- tions (HSM 31; Atlanta 1986). In the material discussed by Tigay, Baal is met only six times, out of which five are in the Samaria ostraca. Although new personal names have been found on seals and inscriptions after his analysis, personal names with Baal as the theophoric element still form a small fraction of all names. Nevertheless, J. Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (JSOTS 265; Sheffield 2002), 226 – 228, has criticized Tigay’s conclusions and suggested that the worship of other gods may have been more common. Day writes: “My overall conclusion is that Yahweh was very much the chief god in ancient Israel, and the other gods and goddesses would have been worshipped as part of his pantheon, but the frequency of their worship has been underestimated by Tigay.”

17   That Yhwh was a Baal-Adad type weather god has been convincingly demonstrated by Müller,  Jahwe als  Wettergott  (see n. 10), 241– 244.

18   Second Kings 10:23 is a possible but quite uncertain source for a Baal- Yhwh syncretism. The verse seems to imply that Baal and Yhwh were worshipped in the same sanctuary. The original reference to a syncretistic cult has been censored in the Masoretic text by omitting the offensive section of the passage, but the Old Greek and Codex Vindobonensis, an Old Latin witness, have preserved the original reading. This position has been argued by J. T. Barrera, Jehú y Joás: Texto y composición literaria de 2 Reyes 9 – 11 (Institución San Jerónimo 17; Valencia 1984), 147– 157, 222 –223. For discussion, see also Pakkala, God’s Word Omitted (see n. 13), 234 – 237.

All in all, it is probable that Israel’s monarchic religion was essentially poly- theistic in its conceptions, but with a tendency towards Yhwh-monolatry at least in Judah by the 7th century BCE. This provides the background for the later development towards the exclusive worship of Yhwh that developed after the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE. The reasons for the concentration on one divinity are unclear but they may be connected to the provincial and perhaps somewhat secluded location of Judah, its small size, and its relatively homogenous population.²⁰

Many scholars have assumed that there was a party or group of people, who demanded the exclusive worship of Yhwh already during the monarchic times.²¹ The main evidence in support of a general attack on other gods before 587 BCE have been the religious reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah.²² Especially Josiah’s re- form has often been regarded as a historical event where new ideas in Israel’s religion were initiated.²³ The invention of Deuteronomy is often connected to the reform as well. However, it is very unlikely that any religious reforms in the  sense  intended  by  the  authors  of  2  Kings  18:4  and  23:1– 24  took  place.  I have provided arguments for this position in a separate article, and will only refer to some arguments and considerations here.²⁴

Rather than being historical events, it is more likely that the reform accounts are projections of later, post-monarchic BCE religious ideals into a monarchic context. This would explain the blatant contradiction between the reality, implied

19   Although the text is fragmentary and consists of a few lines only, El, Yhwh and Baal seem to be mentioned in this hymn that is reminiscent of some theophanies of the Hebrew Bible.

20   Although there is very little information about the religion in Edom, Moab, and Ammon during the Iron Age, the scant evidence seems to suggest a concentration on the main god. It stands to reason that in areas with a heterogeneous population and wide international contacts the di- vine has the tendency to become more complex. It should be emphasized that our theories concerning this period are based on very little information, and thus a new significant find could considerably change the way we understand the monarchic religion of Israel.

21   Thus, among many others, M. Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (New York 1971); B. Lang, “The Yahweh-Alone-Movement and the Making of Jewish Monotheism,” in Monotheism and the Prophetic Minority (Sheffield 1983), 13 – 59; Day, Yahweh and the Gods (see n. 16), 228 – 229.

22   The criticism of other gods in some books of the prophets, especially in Hosea, has tradition- ally been used as an indicator that demands for the exclusive worship of Yhwh were made al- ready during the monarchic period.

23   For example, Day, Yahweh and the Gods (see n. 16), 230.

24   For discussion and arguments, see J. Pakkala, “Why the Cult Reforms in Judah Probably Did not Happen,” – One God – One Cult – One Nation. Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives (Ed.R. Kratz and H. Spieckermann in collaboration with B. Corzilius and T. Pilger; BZAW 405; Berlin 2010),  201– 235.

in the reforms accounts, and the religious ideals of the reforms. It would be very unusual that during the monarchic times the Israelites were almost constantly at war with the demands of their own religion and that only some kings defended the accepted religion. In addition to a strange conception that a nation always fails the demands of its God, the reforms would be a structural peculiarity during monarchic times.

From a textual and source-critical perspective, the reforms stand on a thin basis. Hezekiah’s reform is only mentioned in one verse (2 Kings 18:4), which many scholars have argued to be a late addition. Josiah’s reform in 2 Kings 23, on the other hand, is one of the most edited and debated texts in the Hebrew Bible. The reforms are not mentioned in any other passage in the Hebrew Bible or in other contemporary literature. Consequently, the evidence for a systematic attack on other gods during the monarchic times is too scanty to assume that demands for exclusive worship of Yhwh were made before the destruction of 587 BCE.

Instead of relying on biblical texts that have been heavily edited in post–587 BCE contexts, one needs to find more fundamental reasons for a development that took Israel’s religion into a path that eventually separated it from other religions of the Ancient Near East. Since a major reorientation in Israel’s religion took place at some point in the 8th to 4th centuries BCE, it is most logical that it took place as a result of the events in 587 BCE. The destruction of the temple, monarchy, and state— the sudden loss of the main institutions of the religion —would have necessarily caused a dramatic change in Israel’s religion.²⁵ For example, it is difficult to see that the temple cult in Jerusalem would not have been an essential part of any Yhwh religion in monarchic Judah. With a possible image of Yhwh and his ark,²⁶ the temple was also the presence and house of the divinity, with which the royal ideology and mythology would have been connected in some way. It also stands to reason that the monarchic institution was closely tied with Yahwism. Consequently, it is difficult to see how the monarchic religion could have continued without a fundamental change after the destruction of the temple.

25   Considering the importance of the royal house in other known religions of the Ancient Near East, the end of the Davidic dynasty would have brought about a similar crisis as the loss of the temple.

26   It seems increasingly probable that there was an image of Yhwh in the temple. See, for ex- ample, the discussion by H. Niehr, “In Search of YHWH’s Cult Statue in the First Temple,” in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East (ed. K. van der Toorn; CBET 21; Leuven 1998), 73 – 95.

This leads us to the evidence preserved in the Deuteronomistic literature that provides a more solid ground to see what happened next in Israel’s religion. The pre–587 BCE features of Yhwh are mainly preserved as fragments, while much of the Yhwh that the Hebrew Bible portrays was shaped by Deuteronomism.

3 Deuteronomistic History Writer and Deuteronomy
For the purposes of the current paper, the Deuteronomistic History writer²⁷ and the Deuteronomic author of Deuteronomy largely imply a similar picture of Yhwh.²⁸ It is probable that both of these literary phases were written after the catastrophe of 587 bcE.²⁹ In their portrayal Israel has only one God, Yhwh, and the intimate relationship between Yhwh and the people of Israel neither needs nor gives much space to other divinities, but there does not seem to be any explicit exclusion of other gods. Although one cannot completely rule out the possibility that positive references to other gods were later censored from these literary phases, this seems improbable. The Yhwh of these texts functions as the sole divinity to whom Israel is responsible and in relation to whom Israel should live. Israel’s history and future is only determined by Yhwh, who judges on the basis of how Israel obeys and follows him. In other words, there is a silent and de facto exclusion of other divinities, but no explicit command to reject or to condemn other gods can be connected with these literary phases. The position of the history writer and the Deuteronomic authors towards the other gods can be characterized as tolerant but within a clearly monolatric framework, where Yhwh is the unquestioned God of Israel.

27   This author is conventionally called DtrH, but there are considerable problems related to the original theory that the same author edited all books from Joshua to 2 Kings. Nevertheless, it is possible to distinguish a history writer, who represents Deuteronomistic conceptions, at least in the book of Kings, but the Deuteronomistic contribution in Samuel in particular, and perhaps also in Judges, is more controversial.

28   Many controversial and debated issues are connected to the relationship between Deuteronomy and the books from Joshua to 2 Kings, but they are not directly relevant to the aims of this paper.

29   The post–587 BCE dating of the Deuteronomistic editors has been widely accepted in continental European scholarship, whereas the dating of the so-called Urdeuteronomium and the Deuteronomic authors is more debated. For arguments in favor of post-monarchic origin of Ur- deuteronomium, see J. Pakkala “The Date of the Earliest Edition of Deuteronomy,” ZAW 121/3 (2009), 388 – 401.

In comparison with the monolatric tendencies of the monarchic times, Israel’s religion took small step further, as it is probable that the roles other divinities had had before 587 BCE are largely missing in the Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic tradition that emerged after 587 BCE. The reason for Asherah’s disappearance or abandonment may have been the destruction of her main symbol in the temple in 587 BCE. In other words, there may not have been any active rejection of her or an attack on her cult; she would have been left out of the history writer’s presentation because with the destruction of her physical symbol and representation, her main cult in the temple would have lost its basis. This does not mean that Asherah would have been abandoned in all contexts,³⁰ but since the history writer as well as the original authors of Deuteronomy were largely focused on the temple, its destruction would have mean the end of Asherah as an important divinity. Therefore, their conception of Yahwism did not need Asherah.

Although the temple had already been destroyed in 587 BCE, it remains the conceptual center of Yahwism.³¹ For the history writer and Deuteronomic authors the main concern was the sacrificial cult of Yhwh in many places; there may only be one place where the Israelites were allowed to sacrifice to Yhwh. At the background was probably the concern of many Yhwhs, because each temple and sacrificial cult potentially nurtured a different form of Yahwism. Instead of seeking the background of centralization in Josiah’s time, a situation after 587 BCE is more probable. Jerusalem had ceased to be the unquestioned center of Yahwism, which inevitably increased the importance of local forms of Yahwism. The prohibition to sacrifice locally may thus have been an attempt to control them.

Although the exact reasons for the appearance of centralization are unclear and debated, it was a significant step towards defining and regulating Yahwism. It started a long tradition that gradually prohibited features that should not belong

30   Many scholars assume that Asherah continued to be worshipped after 587 BCE. Thus, for ex- ample, S. Ackerman, Under Every Green Tree (HSM 46; Atlanta 1992), 5 – 99 and H. Niehr, “Religio-Historical Aspects of the ‘Early Post-Exilic’ Period,” in The Crisis of Israelite Religion. Trans- formation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times (ed. B. Becking and M.C.A. Korpel; OTS 42; Leiden 1999) 228 – 244, here 240. This is very probably the case outside the Deuteronomistic tradition.

31   The author of Kings in particular is very centered on and interested in the Temple. From the annals he took several texts that mention the Temple: its repairs in 2 Kgs 12:5 – 16; 22:4 – 7, its blundering in 1 Kgs 14:25 – 28; 2 Kgs 16:8, and its violation in 2 Kgs 16:10 – 14; 21:4. He also evaluated the kings on the basis of how they related towards the Temple. Kings who repaired or contributed to the Temple were regarded as good (e. g., Asa, Hezekiah, Jehoash and Josiah), but its violators were regarded as bad (e. g., Ahaz and Manasseh).

to Yahwism. The idea of excluding something from the legitimate cult is a prominent feature in early Deuteronomy and in the history writer’s text, and this feature is further increased in later Deuteronomism. Moreover, the development towards oneness also begins in this phase, although it was still restricted to the oneness of the cult. The rise of these ideas were essential for the later development towards oneness of the entire divinity and the exclusion of other gods.

4 Intolerant Monolatry in the Nomistic Texts
One can see a clear change in attitude inside Deuteronomism. Whereas the his- tory writer and the Deuteronomic author are largely silent about the other gods, this changes dramatically in the late Deuteronomistic texts, which for the purposes of this paper are called nomistic.³²

The ideas of oneness and exclusivity were inherited from the history writer, but the nomists expanded them to include the other gods, while cult centralization recedes to the background. It was a consistent next step of the already implied monolatry, but now implicit became explicit, and the monolatric tendencies became intolerant. For the nomists Israel would only be allowed to worship one divinity, Yhwh, while all others must be rejected. This idea is crystallized in the first commandment of the Decalogue: “You shall have no other gods before me,” (Deut 5:7), and it is met in numerous different forms in com- mandments (e. g., Deut 12:2; 17:2 – 7), threats (e. g., Deut 29:21– 27), and condemnations (e. g., 2 Kings 21:2 – 15). In many passages the danger posed by other gods is closely connected with cult items, objects, and religious phenomena that the nomists regard as illegitimate and foreign to their conception of pure Yahwism.³³ One receives the impression that the nomists have gradually limited the acceptable form of Yahwism to a form that strips it of as many aspects as possible that are shared with other religions and especially those practiced in Palestine. Exclusivity and oneness eventually become central features of nomistic Yahwism, although they were probably meant as a means to an end and not the end itself. Although the texts do not specify the concrete reasons for the intolerance and exclusivity, the perceived external and/or internal threat would provide an

32   A central feature of the nomistic texts is the repeated reference to the Law that the Israelites should obey. It is often difficult to distinguish between different nomistic texts, and they are probable a group of successive editors with similar ideological conceptions.

33   Among many other similar examples, Deut 7:5 lists foreign altars, stone pillars/Massebot, the Asherahs, and idols as representatives of illegitimate cults of the foreign gods and foreign nations.

explanation. A group that feels its social identity threatened is more prone to attack and criticize other groups, especially those that are perceived to weaken the boundary between the ingroup and outgroup.³⁴ With significant institutions of Yahwism destroyed in 587 BCE, Yahwism would have been at a constant risk of losing its uniqueness and identity, and one strategy to survive would have been a protective attitude towards everything that may threaten the only fragments of individuality that were left. These would have been emphasized and perhaps expanded, whereas features that threatened to weaken the boundaries between Yahwism and other religions would have been diminished or prohibit- ed. This would explain why the Canaanites and other native people of the land are the main target of religious polemic in the narrative fiction of Deuteronomistic texts. The Mesopotamian or Egyptian religions are not perceived threats but those religions that are much closer to Yahwism. In effect, the nomistic criticism is targeted at the religion that lies at the background of Israel’s own religious conceptions.

That the development of exclusive Yahwism is closely connected with idetity and its protection is seen in its profound relationship with nationalistic tendencies. Yhwh is the God of Israel and of Israel only (e. g., Deut 4:19; Deut 7; 29:25), while other nations have their own gods. Israel is described as Yhwh’s possession (Deut 7:6: הלָּ ֻג ס ַעם ) that was chosen along the nations to be his special people (Deut 10:5). Israel will inherit the land if the Israelites follow his commandments  (Deut  8; 9:1– 6), the  most  important  of  which  is  the  exclusive  worship of Yhwh. In the nomistic conception Israel’s wellbeing as well as its relationship with Yhwh is largely dependent on undivided loyalty towards Yhwh as its God.

Although the idea of a law defining Yahwism is present already in earlier Deuteronomism, it becomes a prominent feature in the nomistic texts. The Law effectively replaced the temple as the main means to follow Yhwh. Instead of sacrifices, the Israelites should approach Yhwh by obeying his law. The trans- formation of Yahwism from preexilic conceptions to Deuteronomistic and nomistic conceptions is illustrated in this chart:³⁵

34   As noted by J. N. Shelton et al., “Threatened Identities and Interethnic Interactions,” European Review of Social Psychology 17 (2006), 321– 358, here p. 353: “perceived threats to identity are a primary source for intergroup tension, prejudice, and hostility.” For terminology of ingroup and outgroup, see, for example, H. Tajfel et al., “Social Categorization and Intergroup Behaviour,” European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 1, Issue 2 (1971), 149 –178.

35   For details and discussion, see J. Pakkala “The Nomistic Roots of Judaism,” Houses Full of All Good Things. Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola (ed. J. Pakkala and M. Nissinen; PFES 95; Helsinki and  Göttingen  2008), 251– 268.

Preexilic religion              History Writer              Nomistic religion

Core                                    Temple                            Temple                           Law

Mediator                            King                                  King                               Moses

Worship of Yhwh             Sacrifices                         Sacrifices                       Obedience to the Law

Physical Symbol              Yhwh’s statue                                                          Tablets of the Law

The exclusive relationship between Israel and Yhwh was further inspired by vassal and/or succession treaties. Although many of the same elements were already present in earlier nomistic texts, later nomistic editors were strongly influenced by the ideology and conceptions of vassal treaties. The relationship between the lord and the vassal was defined and specified in the terms of a treaty that was made between the counterparts. In most cases, the exclusive devotion of the vassal towards the lord was the rationale and goal of the treaty, and the various stipulations and terms aimed at keeping the vassal from following other lords.³⁶ If the vassal was loyal the lord promised to protect the vassal from its enemies. This scheme was largely adopted mutatis mutandis in late no- mistic texts: Yhwh represented the lord, Israel the vassal, and Deuteronomy the treaty. The influence of the vassal treaties is most clear in Deut 13 and 28, both of which may have be literarily dependent on a vassal treaty,³⁷ but the ideas can be found in many other late nomistic passages as well.³⁸

The Deuteronomists and nomists did not represent the entire society. We are mainly dealing with a small group of people, whose ideas were adopted by all Jewish communities only slowly, perhaps only after centuries. It is thus probable that the worship of other divinities continued in many Yahwistic contexts much after these texts were written. For example, it is unlikely that Asherah would have been abandoned in all contexts immediately after 587 BCE. For everyone her cult was not dependent on the temple in Jerusalem. Since her cult is so vehemently

36   The main rationale of succession treaties was to guarantee the safe transfer of power within the dynasty; the vassal was expected to assist and contribute to this by hindering any potential threats.

37   For a detailed discussion of these passages in relation to vassal treaties, see C. Koch, Vertrag, Treueid und Bund (BZAW 383; Berlin and New York 2008). He has shown that both chapters derive from a post–587 BCE context. Koch also excludes the possibility—argued by H. U. Steymans, Deuteronomium 28 und die adê zur Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons. Segen und Fluch im Alten Ound in Israel (OBO 145; Fribourg 1995) – that the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon could be used to date Deuteronomy or these chapters.

38   For example, T. Veijola, Das fünfte Buch Mose (Deuteronomium) Kapitel 1,1 – 16,17 (ATD 8/1; Göttingen 2004), has found the same author’s hand in many parts of Deuteronomy, especially in chapters 4 and 7– 11, 29 – 30.

condemned much later (Deut 16:21; 2 Kgs 23:6), it seems probable that her cult was rather wide-spread and continued at least on a local level. The Elephantine letters also show that other gods were worshipped alongside with Yhwh in some Yahwistic contexts still in the fifth century BCE. Although the Elephantine context may not be the best representation of Yahwism in the Persian period, the community was in contact with Jerusalem (including the high priest) and Samaria, which shows that it was not merely a secluded and abnormal Jewish community. Yahwism of the Persian period was practiced in various contexts in different parts of the Near East and it is probable that it took many local forms.

5 Monotheistic Tendencies in Late Deuteronomistic Texts

Some of the youngest Deuteronomistic texts show a further development of Yahwism. Instead of a hostile attack on the other gods, there is a group of six texts that deny their existence: Deut 4:32 – 40; Deut 7:7– 11; 2 Sam 7:22 – 29; 1 Kgs 8:54 – 61; 1  Kgs  18:21– 40  and  2  Kgs  19:15 – 19.  Although  they  may  not  derive from the same author, many scholars have shown that they are some of the latest additions to the books in question.³⁹

It is clear that the conceptions in these texts are far from systematic mono- theism. Without any arguments or discussion about its basis, the passages bluntly claim that there is only one God, Yhwh, and all six passages share a core sentence that makes the claim: האלהים הוא יהוה (Yhwh is the God) or האלהים הוא אתה (You are the God).⁴⁰ By adding עוד אין, Deut 4:35, 39; 1 Kgs 8:60 and 2 Kgs 19:15, 19 further specify that the phrase refers to the uniqueness of Yhwh as God: הוא יהוה עוד אין האלהים.

Besides taking a step towards monotheism, these texts largely build on earlier nomistic conceptions. The nationalistic tendency is evident in Deut 4:32– 40, 7:7– 11 and 2 Sam 7:22 – 29, which is not entirely consistent if there are no other gods for other nations to worship. They refer to Israel’s election from all the nations to be Yhwh’s own people. Israel’s history is also used as proof that Yhwh is the only God. Only 2 Kgs 19:15 – 19 is more open to the possibility that Yhwh could be the God of all nations (cf. v. 15: הארץ ממלכות לכל), and it is possible that the author of 2 Kgs 19:15 – 19 was familiar with the monotheism of

39   For discussion of the passages in question, see J. Pakkala, “The Monotheism of the Deuteronomistic History,” SJOT 21/2 (2007), 159 – 178.

40   The first person address is due to the context.

Deutero-Isaiah.⁴¹ The passages also contain some other elements that could be connected with monotheistic ideas: For example, Deut 4:32 and 2 Kgs 19:15 directly refer to creation, which is a development in comparison with conventional Deuteronomistic conceptions.

6 Conclusions
We may observe an evolutionary development in the Deuteronomistic texts. At the background are theological conceptions common in the Levant during the monarchic period, but there is a slightly elevated tendency towards monolatry at least in Judah by the seventh century BCE. The idea of an early form of Yahwism that differed fundamentally from other religions of the Levant should be rejected. After the destruction of 587 BCE the religion of Israel began a new trajectory that eventually led to monotheistic conceptions and developed into Judaism. An exceptional drive for oneness and the demand for exclusivity separated Yahwism from other religions of the Ancient Near East, but there is no evidence that these features emerged during the monarchic period. Rather than assume the historicity of Josiah’s reform, the destructions of 587 BCE provide a more logical background for the revolutionary conceptions to emerge. A literary and redaction critical approach of Deuteronomistic literature shows that crucial stages in the emergence of oneness and exclusivity took place when the Deuteronomistic texts were written and edited from the sixth century BCE onwards. One can observe the development of monolatric features from the earliest Deuteronomistic texts to monotheistic conceptions in latest Deuteronomistic additions.

41 This aspect is much more developed in the monotheism of Deutero-Isaiah (see, for example, Isa 45,18 – 23).

[Danny Dabbs]

Hi Adam,

If secular scholarship contradicts the Bible then
we have to reject secular scholarship.
Because the Bible is the Word of God.
The Hebrews didn’t develop their God to be the only God.
Over and over again Yahweh himself said that He is the only true God.
Believe Him or not.
It’s your decision.

[gadam123]

Are Yahweh and El the same god OR different gods?

Recent archaeological, biblical, and extrabiblical research has led scholars working in the area of the origins of Israelite religion to assert rather boldly and confidently that the original god of Israel was in fact the Canaanite deity El. Just exactly how has this come about you ask?

First, the name Israel is not a Yahwistic name. El is the name of the deity invoked in the name Israel, which translates: “May El persevere.” This suggests that El was seen as the chief god in the formative years of Israel’s religious practices. In fact, the etiological story explaining the origin of the name Israel occurs in Genesis 35:9-15, where Jacob obtains this name through the blessing of El Shaddai, that is “El of the Mountain.”

Second, there exist numerous parallels and similarities between descriptions and cultic terminology used for El in the Canaanite texts and those used for Yahweh in the biblical sources (see below). At some point, it is ascertained, the cultic worship of Yahweh must have absorbed that of El, through which means Yahweh assimilated both the imagery and epithets once used of El.

Finally, there is strong confirmation of this assimilation in the biblical record itself. In the oldest literary traditions of the Pentateuch, it is El who regularly appears and not Yahweh, or Yahweh as El! The patriarchal narratives identify El as the deity to whom many of the early patriarchal shrines and altars were built. For example, we are informed in Genesis 33:20 that Jacob builds an altar in the old cultic center of the north, Shechem, and dedicates it to “El, god of Israel” (’el ’elohe yišra’el ). There is no ambiguity in the Hebrew here: ’el must be translated as a proper name, El. The textual tradition from which this text derives, the Elohist, ultimately remembers a time when El was the patron god of Israel.

That El was the deity worshiped at Shechem is also attested in Judges 9:46, which speaks of the shrine of “El of the covenant.” The god of the shrine at Bethel, which literally translates, “house of El,” is additionally El—”I am El of Bethel” (Gen 31:13; cf. 35:7)—and appears to Jacob as El Shaddai (35:11; cf. 48:3). Jacob has another encounter with El at Penuel, which is so named because Jacob sees El face-to-face (32:31). Moreover, Isaac blesses Jacob through El Shaddai (28:3), and likewise Jacob blesses Joseph “by El of your fathers” (49:25). “El who sees” is given as the etymology of Beerlahai-roi in Genesis 16:13. And we are informed that Abraham journeys to the old cultic shrine at Beersheba, where he plants and worships a tree and calls on the name “El the eternal” and at the same time Yahweh (Gen 21:33). Contrary to Genesis 33:20, where the Shechemite El is presented unambiguously as the “god of Israel,” in Genesis 21:33, El is apparently already assimilated to Yahweh (see below). Finally, Genesis 14:18-22 speaks of “El the most high,” of whom the Canaanite Melchizedek is priest at Jerusalem.

This assimilation between Yahweh and El, or El into Yahweh, is present in much of the Priestly material as well. In fact, the Priestly source largely advocates this assimilation. In Genesis 17:1, the Priestly writer states that “Yahweh appeared to Abram and said to him: ‘I am El Shaddai.’” And Exodus 6:2-3, in contradiction to J , has Yahweh assert: “I am Yahweh. And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El Shaddai, and I was not known to them by the name Yahweh.” Although the verse suggests an identification between Yahweh and El “of the mountain,” the verse also subtly recognizes an ancient distinction between the god of the patriarchs (El) and the god of the Mosaic era (Yahweh). But the assimilation is clear here: the patriarchs who worshiped El in the past were actually worshiping Yahweh, claims the Priestly writer.

Perhaps it is necessary at this point to ask: Who was El? And why is he even mentioned in the Bible in the first place, let alone as the god of Israel in the older literary traditions of Genesis?

Our knowledge of El predominantly comes from an invaluable corpus of tablets discovered in 1929 in the ancient city of Ugarit, a major city-state of the second millennium BC located on the northern coast of Syria, modern day Ras Shamra. The Ugaritic tablets are the best available witness to Canaanite religion and religious practices, and thus also “to the background from which the religion of Israel emerged, and to the Canaanite beliefs that it shared, adopted, compromised with, and sometimes rejected.” The Ugaritic literature depicts El as the sovereign deity of the Canaanite pantheon. He is frequently referred to as “Father of the gods,” “the eternal King,” and “Creator of all living beings.” El’s other epithets include: “El the Kind, the Compassionate,” “the Bull,” “the Ageless One,” and “the Father of Years.” He is depicted as bearded, and residing in a tent or a tabernacle, whose throne rests on Cherubim. He is the god of blessings and of covenants.

Many of these epithets and images later become assimilated to Yahweh. For example, Yahweh is often depicted as bearded, as King of the gods, as Compassionate, and as residing in a tent, whose throne, like that of El, rests on Cherubim. There are, in addition to this, numerous El epithets in various strains of biblical tradition—epithets that through a process of assimilation and adoption later become associated with Yahweh. We have already encountered El Shaddai, “El of the Mountain.” Like Yahweh who is associated with the mountain of Sinai and later in eschatological traditions with Zion, so too El resides on a mountain. Other patriarchal narratives attest the use of El Olam, “El the Eternal” to whom Abraham plants and worships a tree at Beersheba, El Elyon, “El the Most High,” the god of Melchizedek (Gen 14:18-24), and El Roi, “El who sees” (Gen 16:13).

These various El epithets are associated with different shrines: El Shaddai with Bethel, El the Most High, the creator of the heavens and the earth, with Jerusalem, El the Eternal with Beersheba, El who sees with Beerlahai-roi, and El the god of Israel with Shechem.  Many of these shrines and altars to El were established by the patriarchs themselves (e.g., Gen 21:33, 28:18, 33:20, 35:14). It has also been suggested that the name Yahweh might have originally been a cultic epithet of El! The etymology of Yahweh, yhwh, is still unclear, but one proposal is to see it as the causative imperfect of the Canaanite-Proto-Hebrew verb hwy, “to be.”

It is probable therefore, as many commentators have contended, that the early Israelites actually worshiped El through his epithet ‘Yahweh.’ This process of assimilation is usually presented the other way around in the biblical literature: Yahweh is worshiped through the epithets of El: Shaddai, Olam, and Elyon.

Contrary to these biblical traditions that suggest an assimilation between Yahweh and El, there are other passages that seem to indicate that Yahweh was a separate and independent deity within El’s council. Deuteronomy 32:8-9 is one of those rare biblical passages that seemingly preserves a vestige of an earlier period in proto-Israelite religion where El and Yahweh were still depicted as separate deities: Yahweh was merely one of the gods of El’s council! This tradition undeniably comes from older Canaanite lore.

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. For Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.

There are two points to take away from this passage. First, the passage presents an apparently older mythic theme that describes when the divine beings, that is each deity in the divine counsel, were assigned and allotted their own nation. Israel was the nation that Yahweh received. Second, Yahweh received his divine portion, Israel, through an action initiated by the god El, here identifiable through his epithet “the Most High.” In other words, the passage depicts two gods: one, the Most High (El), is seen as assigning nations to the divine beings or gods (the Hebrew word is elohim, plural “gods”) in his council; the other, Yahweh, is depicted as receiving from the first god, the Most High, his particular allotment, namely the people of Israel. Similarly, in another older tradition now preserved in Numbers 21:29, the god Chemosh is assigned to the people of Moab.

Other biblical passages reaffirm this archaic view of Yahweh as a god in El’s council. Psalm 82:1 speaks of the “assembly of El,” Psalm 29:1 enjoins “the sons of El” to worship Yahweh, and Psalm 89:6-7 lists Yahweh among El’s divine council.

Thus there seems to be ample evidence in the biblical record to support the claim that as Yahweh become the supreme national deity of the Israelites, he began to usurp the imagery, epithets, and old cultic centers of the god El. This process of assimilation even morphed the linguistic meaning of the name El, which later came to mean simply “god,” so that Yahweh was then directly identified as ’el—thus Joshua 22:22: “the god of gods is Yahweh” (’el ’elohim yhwh).

Noteworthy also is the fact that unlike the god Baal, there is no polemic in the Bible against El, and all the old cultic centers of El, those in Jerusalem, Shechem, and Beersheba, were later accredited to Yahweh. Since the large majority of patriarchal narratives that speak of shrines and altars to El are found in the northern kingdom, such as Bethel and Shechem, and, on the other hand, many biblical texts seem to accredit Yahweh’s origin to the southern Negeb, the current scholarly hypothesis is that the worship of El in the north and of Yahweh in the south eventually merged. This thesis finds further support in the incident of Jeroboam, who may have acted to re-establish the cult of Yahweh-El at Dan and Bethel via his “golden bulls” . In sum, the biblical literature, spanning as it does hundreds of centuries of cultural and cultic traditions, preserves divergent views, portraits, theologies, and origins of its god Yahweh. We will come across others.

[Danny Dabbs]

Hi Adam,

You: Are Yahweh and El the same god OR different gods?

Me: Isaiah 45:5
I am Yahweh, and there is no one else.
Besides me, there is no God.

[mikeboll64]

The idea that the Hebrew culture and the Bible are strictly monotheistic is the furthest thing from the truth.  The Bible is loaded with all kinds of gods, some of them good, some of them evil.  And the Bible includes only one Most High God OF all the other gods. His name is YHWH, and He not only created us and the world in which we live, but He also created those other gods before He created us and our world. (They were the ones who shouted for joy when YHWH laid the foundations of the earth.)

So if you define “monotheism” as the belief that there exists only one Most High God (as opposed to a pantheon of co-equal gods), then yes, the Bible is “monotheistic”.

If you define it as the belief that there literally exists only one single god, then no, the Bible is anything but.

[Proclaimer]

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

[gadam123]

The idea that the Hebrew culture and the Bible are strictly monotheistic is the furthest thing from the truth.  The Bible is loaded with all kinds of gods, some of them good, some of them evil.  And the Bible includes only one Most High God OF all the other gods. His name is YHWH, and He not only created us and the world in which we live, but He also created those other gods before He created us and our world. (They were the ones who shouted for joy when YHWH laid the foundations of the earth.)

So if you define “monotheism” as the belief that there exists only one Most High God (as opposed to a pantheon of co-equal gods), then yes, the Bible is “monotheistic”.

As per the historians Hebrew religion had taken its birth in the Polytheistic environment.

El was the Canaanite father of the gods and therefore the father of the gods in the earliest Hebrew religion. At first, Yahweh was not one of the gods in the Hebrew pantheon, but he seems to have arrived in Judah, probably from Midian, quite early. Although not known among the other north-western Semitic societies (except perhaps the Moabites), he quickly became the national God of both Judah and Israel.

Of course, El was the father of all the gods, so Yahweh quite naturally was one of his children. Deuteronomy 32:8–9 explains how El Elyon (‘Most high God’) divided the nations among the seventy children of El, with Lord (Yahweh) receiving his share:

When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the of gods. For the LORD’S [Yahweh’s] portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

As the Israelites focussed more on the worship of one important God to the virtual exclusion of others, Yahweh was syncretised with El (Hebrew: Elohim) to become one God.

The divine councils also count Yahweh as one among the holy ones ( gods) which can  be found in few other scriptures of Hebrew Bible like Ps 89:

 6 For who in the skies can be compared to the Lord?
Who among the heavenly beings (gods) is like the Lord,
7 a God feared in the council of the holy ones (gods),
great and awesome above all that are around him?

 

[Proclaimer]

Cultures are fluid. They are either heading toward the the truth that there is one God or moving away from One God to Polytheism. A third option is they are moving toward no God.

[Proclaimer]

As for God and gods, this video might give you some insight. Ignore the title though. It talks about God and gods.

[GeneBalthrop]

Polclaimer…………The word God is not any “PERSON” ,  THE WORD DESCRIBES A “RELATIONSHIP ” you have with something,  AND THAT CAN BE WITH ANYTHING THAT EXISTS. It is never about a “DESCRIPTOR” OF ANYTHING, or ANYONE,  IT IS YOUR “RELATION WITH ANYTHING , OR ANYONE THAT EXISTS.  

The word God is about your beliefs, about something, real or not real.

The best meaning of the word is the word itself,   THE POWER YOU LEAN ON AND TRUST IN,   WHATEVER OR WHOEVER THAT IS , “IS” YOUR TRUE GOD, TO YOU!

“But unto “US”, we have only “ONE” GOD, WHO IS THE POWER WE TRUST AND LEAN ON,  AND THAT IS,  YEHOVAH, HE ONLY IS OUR GOD. 

peace and love to you and yours……….gene

 

 

[mikeboll64]

Adam:  Of course, El was the father of all the gods, so Yahweh quite naturally was one of his children. Deuteronomy 32:8–9 explains how El Elyon (‘Most high God’) divided the nations among the seventy children of El, with Lord (Yahweh) receiving his share:

When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the of gods. For the LORD’S [Yahweh’s] portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

This verse is accurate… the sons of Adam were indeed separated according to the number of gods.  That’s why Egypt, for example, had it’s own gods, who matched the signs and wonders that YHWH did through Aaron and Moses – up to a point.  People have a very hard time accepting that these were real, powerful, living gods.  They think that when YHWH led the Israelites out of Egypt and exacted punishment on the gods of Egypt (Exodus 12:12, etc), He was somehow “punishing” man-made statues.

That being said, your interpretation of the verse is not supported by the verse itself – or anything else in scripture (especially the many scriptures that credit YHWH with the creation of the heavens, the earth, and everything in them).  It was YHWH who separated the sons of Adam according to the number of gods, and YHWH who kept Jacob as His own portion.

Adam:  The divine councils also count Yahweh as one among the holy ones ( gods) which can  be found in few other scriptures of Hebrew Bible like Ps 89:

 6 For who in the skies can be compared to the Lord?
Who among the heavenly beings (gods) is like the Lord,
7 a God feared in the council of the holy ones (gods),
great and awesome above all that are around him?

This passage is also accurate.  YHWH’s Divine Council is indeed comprised of YHWH and many other gods.  But again, your interpretation is not supported by the passage, for it is clearly placing YHWH above the gods in His council – not as just one of the members of the council.  The last words, “above all that are around him”, should be a big clue.  How can YHWH be just another god in El’s Council, yet be ABOVE all the other gods… including El, whose council it supposedly is?

So you are on the right track as far as the vast number of gods we learn about in scripture… but you err in thinking that YHWH isn’t the Most High God of all the other gods.  There are many gods and many lords, but YHWH is the Almighty.

[Author]

Posts