guy_683930

Genesis 14:20
and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!" And Abram gave him a tenth of everything.
Psalms 47:2
For the LORD, the Most High, is terrible, a great king over all the earth.
Psalms 83:18
Let them know that thou alone, whose name is the LORD, art the Most High over all the earth.

It doesn't surprise me there are texts that identify Yahweh with Elyon, that was the purpose of Yahwism to begin with, but what I argue is, based on archaeological findings, like Ugarit (where Yw was a member of El's divine council), plus the fact the text has been found like this at Qumran, supports this reading, suggests that at one time, Yahweh was one of the sons of El, or one of the sons of Elyon, they are sometimes the same, sometimes different. Baal was eventually identified with El as well. But that's how mythology goes.


I would say it is the other way that makes more sense. The "sons of Israel" is never referred to anywhere else as a fixed number (see here). Everywhere else in the bible, sons of Israel refers to however many there are, but here it refers to a fixed number. Plus, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, since this is supposedly referring to dividing up humanity, and then he refers to Jacob being Yahweh's inheritance, it doesn't make sense why Jacob's sons would be the way that Elyon divided up humanity. Of course, mythology doesn't have to make sense. But, it makes less sense with the reading "sons of Israel" vs. "sons of El".

guy_683930

CJD-

Yes, I did, but it was because you scoffed at my first instance of Jesus removing laws from the Torah, because of the reasoning Jesus gave ("Moses gave it out of the hardness of people's hearts"). I only mentioned Abiathar in order to show that the reasoning given there was somewhat odd. So, the main purpose was the removing from the Torah, but Abiathar was just a sidenote, showing that the reasoning for the removing from the law was somewhat confused. However, the removal of Abiathar's name from Matthew and Luke is probably because of their seeing it to not fit with the story in 1 Samuel, which was the allusion Jesus was referring to. And no, you haven't presented any cogent reason why Jesus was not removing from the Torah.

However, my main points still stand. Another thing, based on Psalms 110. The Nag Hammadi library has a text named Melchizedek in it. It once again refers to Melchizedek as a priest of God Most High. This term is used by many people, greeks and jews, to talk about the supreme god. If Psalm 110 is what Jesus used to refers to himself, it's not because he considers himself Yahweh (the second "Lord" used is adoni, not used for god but for people), but because he was referring to himself as a priest of El Elyon, which by this time certain groups had interpreted in a certain typological fashion to refer to a higher god than Yahweh.

Also, look at Mark 5:6-8 and Luke 8:27-29. There it refers to Jesus as son of Most High God. Matthew changes it to say "Son of God". For what reason, I don't know. Maybe the term was a little too Greek for Matthew.

Notsri

I'm not sure I'd entirely agree here, either--IIUC. The Ugaritic text that mentions "Yw" (CAT 1.1 IV.14) provides little, if any, evidence, IMO, as to the supposed sonship of Yahweh. As far as I can tell, the name Yahweh has no etymological connection to Ugaritic Yw--though admittedly my knowledge of matters linguistic is rather limited; you'd be better off asking someone else here on that one; maybe spin.


Well, again, I would still suggest Most High and Yahweh are used in parallelism, even in the Qumran text(s); the Qumran variant has no bearing on that point.


Yes, I've read the note in that link before; thanks for posting it, though. I've also actually read a few sections from the book mentioned there, Paul Sander's The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32 (I'd like to buy it at some point, but I just can't justify the spending of $297 (!) on a single volume right now. Brill Pub. likes to make it hurt so bad. ).

Like I said before, this is a subject I intend to give much further thought to. Sanders does make a few very interesting points. E.g. he says: The only objection to Sander's comments I would raise at this point--and I'm not sure it's a valid one--is that no clear evidence from the biblical period exists, to my knowledge, for 70 sons of God among the Israelites. The tradition from the biblical era to which he refers--"a fixed number of 'sons of God' (also 70)"--is, as far as I can tell, uniquely Canaanite. The first Jewish, literary attestation of 70 angels (or "shepherds") appears not until 1 Enoch, and there, as in the later rabbinic literature (such as the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan's translation of Deut. 32:8,9), the number of angels is linked with the number of nations. In other words, the Jewish reckoning of 70 sons of God/angels seems to have most probably arisen from their reckoning of 70 nations in Gen. 10, not because the antecedent Syro-Palestinian religion maintained a divine council with 70 sons of El. In sum, the fact that El and Athirat had within their council 70 sons seems a somehow inappropriate criterion for the text-critical problem of Deut. 32:8--especially since v. 8's Most High is not the Canaanite El but the Israelite Yahweh .

Regards,
Notsri

guy_683930

Notsri-

The distinction between Yahweh and Yaw is not as big of one as you may think. First of all, it is a name used in the OT as a divine name, in Exodus (15.2, 17.16), in Isaiah (12.2, 26.4, 38.11), and in Psalms (68, 77, etc.). The names of sea and death are the same in the OT as at Ugarit (Yam-sea), (Mot-death).

This could be used as a counterargument to the idea that Yw from Ugarit is the same as Yaw in the OT. Since Ym and Yw seem to be different names for the same deity at Ugarit, and they are not in the OT, it could be argued that Yaw in the OT and Yw from Ugarit are different. However, Yahwism seems to be based on appropriating characteristics from El and Baal and applying them to Yahweh, as well as from other deities, like Aten (Psalm 104). Other, less powerful characteristics could be discarded. It is similar to in Greek mythology (Hesiod) where Pontus is replaced by Poseidon as being the god of the ocean, and the term Pontus is used simply to describe the ocean itself. Yahweh still maintains some watery features (Psalm 29).

The best example of appropriation from Ugarit would be from Psalm 68, one of those psalms where a divine name used is Yaw. In Psalm 68:4, Yaw is referred to as riding on the clouds, while this imagery is used of Baal at Ugarit (KTU 1.3 II 40). Later in Psalm 68, Elohim is referred to as both Yahweh and Adonai. Adonai MAY be an adaptation of a name at Ugarit, the god Adon, but it is less clear. But the connection between Yw and the OT deity Yahweh seems very clear.

The texts at Qumran are the earliest available. Plus, the sons of El are referred to several other times in the OT.

Plus, one note about Genesis 14:22, where Yahweh is associated with El Elyon. There is a problem, since Abraham does not know of Yahweh. He knows of El Shaddai (God Almighty or God of the Mountains), another deity found at Ugarit. It is an anachronism that is based on the text having been written 1100-1400 years after the fact. Here is Exodus 6.3:

So, there are four possibilities as far as I can tell. There was a cult of El Shaddai that was appropriating the features of El Elyon. There was a cult of El Elyon that was appropriating the features of El Shaddai. There was a deity named El who had at least two aspects, El Shaddai and El Elyon, and Yahweh was a divine son, perhaps known to Abraham or not (if he knew of him it was as a son of El, not El himself), or nonexistent at this point. Or the last scenario with Yahweh being one of the aspects of El that was unknown to Abraham for some reason. That last scenario you would probably prefer the most, but it seems unlikely based on what is known from Ugarit and the OT (Deut 32:8-9).

Notsri

Guy, it would seem to me that your argument is undermined by the fact that your biblical examples use not yw but yh. Yw is not found at all in the Bible.



I think you may have missed my point. Whether we read "sons of God" or "sons of Israel," the parallelism between Most High and Yahweh is unaffected.


Incidentally, additional literary analysis tends, I think, to further support my interpretation. In the first three half-lines of poetry from 32:8,9, the poet has the nations in general in view, and the subject matter, of course, concerns itself with the division of those nations. The epithet for the deity employed initially, Most High, corresponds nicely to the sphere of His sovereign activity described in those three half-lines. Then the poet's focus narrows; he shifts from the nations generally to Israel specifically in the next three half-lines. Accordingly, he also moves from the more generic "Most High" to the name used by Israel and for Israel's god alone, Yahweh.

We might also put it this way, by saying that "Most High" lends itself well to the initial ancillary theme of God's universal sovereignty, while "Yahweh" belongs to the latter theme of God's covenantal relationship to Israel (which, of course, ties into the poem's overarching theme).

Regards,
Notsri

guy_683930

You are splitting hairs with the yw/yh distinction, since yh is phonetically pronounced yaw. It was also sometimes spelled Yao in the ancient world as well, as well as Iao, etc. Words are spoken first, written down later. Spelling variations occur, especially in the pre-dictionary/printing press world.

Notsri

The Dicitionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible suggests the vocalization for Yw is unknown, also adding that the name "cannot convincingly be interpreted as an abbreviation for 'Yahweh.'"

I guess on this point we'll have to agree to disagree, guy.

Regards,
Notsri

Notsri

Guy, after some more reading and further consideration, a degree of clarification is warranted.

IIUC now, the dictionary mentioned above is evidently reluctant to connect Ugaritic Yw with Yahweh, at least in part, because the former's vocalization is unknown--as already mentioned. It insists that "Yahweh was not known at Ugarit."

However, it does also mention--and I missed this before--that Yahweh was known in abbreviated form in Neo-Assyrian sources as Yw (vocalized Yau). So my initial objections to your argument were misguided and simply wrong. :notworthy

Regards,
Notsri

guy_683930

That's ok, Notsri. What Neo-Assyrian place is it referring to? I heard about at Ebla Yahweh was probably known, plus perhaps at an egyptian site (based on the -yah suffix of the name). Those suffixes show up in the bible too, like Isaiah (Isa-iah).