makerowner

Do you think the princes of Persia and Greece in Daniel 10 are descendants of the 'council of the gods' idea?

spin

Well, what do you think, working from a reconstructed Deut 32:8-9 which says that "the most high apportioned the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of El (one of which is YHWH)"?


spin

Adamu

Indeed, but the primary issue remains the same, no? Elohim is morphologically plural because YHWH is merely one of many gods in an assembly, a divine council. As you note, the writers of the time simply changed it according to their worldview. The tradition, though, was by that time exceedingly ancient.

And so needless to say, this is why I prefer to examine the mesopotamian sources of the bible. To me, it provides a fuller account of Man and his gods.

Interesting indeed.
Are you familiar with the work of Hebrew scholar Michael Heiser?
Sounds like it.
Here is an excerpt from his upcoming book which deals with these very issues.
And her is an excerpt from his treatment of "elohim."

While I agree with much of what Heiser says, we differ greatly in two respects: Neither am I a Christian nor do I employ metaphysics in understanding the Gods, sons of the gods, angels and emissaries of the ancient world.
I don't deny the possibility of a spiritual realm, or as I reckon, other dimensions, but in many respects, I daresay most, the gods of the ancients were regarded as physically present flesh and blood beings.

Clivedurdle

I cannot cope with trinitarian inerranists who seem to be trying to be honest about these texts but are forcing round pegs into square holes.

What are the conclusions about elohim without his skewing assumptions about God and Jesus?

He uses the phrase equal about the members of this council of gods....

Adamu

Hi Clivedurdle.

Heiser points out various meanings of the word, most plural.
Essentially they are beings of the spirit world, dead humans, and a divine council of gods, over which YHWH presides.

Clivedurdle

Does he discuss the role of the Most High? (Also known as Ahura Mazda?)

mg01

Yes I'm wordy, my apologies. Hopefully this will be of interest...

The “plural of majesty” and “trinity” explanations are both woefully lacking and obvious later inventions regarding the usage of Elohim, a term that there is little doubt descended from the ‘lm from Ugarit and that both are related to the ilani from Mesopotamia. The explanation for Elohim that comes closes to making sense states the term implies the “grandness” of YHWH with regard to his divinity. However even that is an evolved concept that was applied to earlier texts.

When attempting to understand what the original writers meant when using Elohim we unavoidably interjection of our modern perceptions, in particular, the idea that deity and divinity are automatically associative. If you separate the concepts however, the use of Elohim become clear and falls right in line with the “concepts of divinity” definition from Wikipedia. The way to view the relationship is expressed as YHWH, who is an El (god) is Elohim (divine), or possess “Elohim-like/divine-like” qualities. Elohim is more likened to a “class of existence” which is, of course, beyond the normal/natural one we mere mortals experience (i.e., supernatural). Elohim is an attribute of an object be it a deity/El/God, a mountain, a place, a staff, a messenger (angel), or in a few rare instances, a person that implies “other-worldly” qualities and also serves as a reference to the supernatural realm in general. By their nature, Gods (Elim) possess the quality of divinity (Elohim), but that quality it is not limited just to Gods (Elim). We also see how Gods preside over different aspects of divinity, or other gods in a pantheon that represent those aspects, where Elohim is used in the broadest possible sense as representative of all of the divine as in examples of the “council of the Elohim”.

The most common use of Elohim by far is not as a title, but in the possessive sense, as in “the Elohim of X”, and while the most frequent use of this is with YHWH, there are also references to other objects serving as in individual’s Elohim, and regarding (condemning) the worship of the Elohim of others. In this sense, an individual’s Elohim is that which serves as an “intermediary” between their existence in the natural world, and the supernatural one. YHWH, the text (D) professes, is the deity of choice for the Israelites. Additional evidence in support of this same idea can be found in inscriptions from the Levant and in particularly in the Armana letters where in the introductions there are instances of “oh Pharaoh, my “god”, who art greater than…” in which cases the word for god is plural but used in reference to the singular Pharaoh.

In E, the use of Elohim is at the very least ambiguous in reference to what was the original intent of the author. More so than any other source, the context of the verses can interpreted with Elohim used in the generic sense of divinity rather than a title in reference to YHWH (which doesn’t fully appear until P). E introduces a concept later expanded on by J and P that underlies the EofX idea, which is that YHWH, who in E is first known by that name to Moses, is the same deity as the one referenced as the “Elohim of the Fathers” (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob), who simply didn’t know him by that name. This is accepted as a latter appellation of YHWH back onto El who appears as the primary deity in E. This is also the same stem that leads to all of the usages of EofX in relationship between YHWH and Israel that make up the majority of use of Elohim. Also striking in E is the use of “ha-Elohim” or “the Elohim” which can again be seen not as reference to YHWH (for most occur before E introduces YHWH in Exodus to Moses), but to indicate which Elohim specifically, as in reference to a particular manifestation of divinity. This is illustrated as in the cases of the appearance of “messengers”, which after the text announces its presence, subsequently refers to it as “ha-Elohim”. (The same term does appear in later sources as reference to YHWH as in declarations such as “YHWH (is) ha-Elohim (of) Elohim”, or, “God of Gods”.

In J, it is even easier to discern how Elohim is used simply because it is never used as a title at all. In reference to the deity J always uses YHWH. J’s use of Elohim is always in reference to the EofX, where for instance he declares that from the beginning the Elohim of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (and even Shem, the eponymous ancestor of the Semites) was YHWH, in contrast to E’s implicit El. There are a handful of verses that one may argue is a title based on the singular verb argument, but based on the context and in reference to our working definition the “generic divinity reference” works just as well.
In D, we have our first evangelist. As in J, there are very few verses where it may be argued that Elohim is used as a title. The majority of cases are found as “other Elohim” (again condemning or forbidding) and in use of the EoX cases. Examples of both can be seen by para-phrasing D, “YHWH, the Elohim of Israel, who is a jealous El, shall be your Elohim. You shall have no Elohim before me” where we also see the first real clarification between El and Elohim. Other verses in D also seem to validate the distinction between El and Elohim such as Deut 3:24, “What El is there in the sky or on earth who can do the deeds and mighty works you (YHWH) do?” El as “god” also shows up repeatedly in the “Song of Moses” in Deut 32. D also has the first occurrences of “YHWH, the Elohim of Israel”, an occurrence of the EofX formula and in reference to Israel the eponymous ancestor, not the kingdom. (This however doesn’t occur until Joshua and may be the product of either D2 in the time of Josiah or J, depending on whether or not some form of J extends into the primary history.) Another feature in D found in the “tales of the prophets” strung through Kings, is the term “man of Elohim” which is used in regard to the prophets as a appellative reference to the special/divine quality they possess that allows them to communicate to YHWH (think Shamans). They (and the “judges” that proceeded them), go into their tent/temple, enter a trance/toss dice, etc… and exit with a judgment/decision. (The “Urim and Thurim” is the original “Magic 8-Ball” Yes/No divination device.)

Finally in P, these are the only two types of usage seen. That is as a title, and in the proclamation that YHWH, the Elohim of Israel (EofX) shall be your Elohim (possessive). (There are two exceptions: with Moses whom YHWH imparts “Elohim-like” qualities to in order to gain audience with Pharaoh, and with Abraham who is declared to be a “mighty prince”, but the actual Hebrew used is Elohim.) It is from P that the direct “Elohim”=”God” association is derived. In P, “El” is never used as a word for “God” by itself, but it does show up in epithets such as “El Shadday” (an epithet to El known from Ugarit) translated into English as “God Almighty”.

There are also a number of themes that repeatedly occur that point to a generic reference to the divine and not specifically to YHWH. Some of these are the idea of “fear(respect) of Elohim” (social behavior/laws), specifically pertaining to the “covenant of Elohim” , and being “judged by Elohim” or cases that reference “seeing an Elohim” as well as other objects referenced as having “Elohim-like” qualities. (The last reference being from where the Elohim = “mighty” definition stems from.) When these ideas are all examined in context, they clearly reference the divine/supernatural in general, not YHWH specifically. The role of YHWH (or any El) is to serve as functionary of these concepts to the people, i.e, YHWH who is an El, shall be your Elohim. This is exactly the message of both D and P, both populizers of “YHWHism” and proponents of centralization of worship.

The primary basis of any argument against this idea resorts back to the usage of singular verbs and adjectives with respect to Elohim. Again, gramatics removed, the context of the usage is in complete agreement with these ideas. That gramatic usage was “updated” to reflect the shift in thinking that emerged with P is not outside the realm of possibility. There are plenty of examples that can be pointed to in reference to not only in regards to changes in the text itself, (Deut 32 in particular) but also where older concepts were transformed to fit later more developed ideas, (Psalm 82 in particular). Just like the “plural of majesty” and “trinity” ideas, the “singular verb” defense only goes to show how the final editors viewed the relationship and cannot be automatically extended back onto works (potentially) 400 years earlier.

What is additionally compelling, is realizing that the concept of separating the deity from its divinity is exactly the same way it is expressed in eastern and primitive religious thought. To put it Campbell’s terms, in eastern thought the gods are the vehicle for the energy/divinity where in western tradition the god is the energy. From this perspective, could it be that what we see from the progression of ideas in the Biblical sources is a reflection of this transformation?

judge

Interesting post. What do you mean by primitive ?