BlackOxford's Reviews > Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan
Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies, 265)
by
by
Andrew Mein (Series Editor),
Claudia V. Camp (Series Editor),
What’s In A Name?
My given name is Michael. Derived from Hebrew מיכאל, the name means “He who is like God.” Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of other ‘el’ names (either as prefix or suffix) are scattered throughout the Hebrew Bible, all referring to the supreme deity. Israel itself is such a name, probably meaning “El will rule.” Our inheritance of these proper names largely goes unrecognised as the most immediate cultural link we have to the ancient religions of the Middle East - at least for those of us who carry around birth certificates entitled Elizabeth, Daniel, Raphael, Gabriel, or Ethel.
But here’s the thing: although these names are biblical, the god they refer to is not originally the Hebrew God. The discovery, almost a century ago, of texts in the Ugaritic language (a progenitor of Hebrew) clearly show that El was identified as a benign creator god by several cultures that are generally designated as Canaanite, including the Hebrew culture. This is further attested by other evidence, including a 13th century BCE Egyptian pharaonic stele.
The numerous biblical references and allusions to El as identical to the god Yahweh indicate a comfortable assimilation of the two cults. As Professor Day notes: “Most scholars who have written on the subject during recent decades support the idea that Yahweh had his origins outside the land of Israel to the south,…” El and Yahweh complemented one another nicely in terms of desirable divine characteristics like age, wisdom, power and concern for humanity (with El being the likely favourite according to modern sensibilities). It also seems likely that the mutual assimilation was helped along by some positive politics in the region (unlike the extreme antipathy to another important local deity, Baal, who became a The Other for adherents to the cult of El/Yahweh).
Both El and Yahweh also have pre-histories. For example, El likely “involves a conflation of Elyon, lord of heaven, and El, lord of earth…” in earlier regional cultures but mentioned explicitly in the biblical books of Isaiah, Deuteronomy, and Psalms. The somewhat startling statement in the opening chapter of the book of Genesis to “Elohim,” that is to many unspecified gods involved in creation could be a reference to the “sons of god” or the “royal court of god,” as suggested in prior myths. The singular use of the name El Shaddai, probably meaning Lord of the Mountain and referring to an (assimilated) Amorite deity is also noteworthy. These suggest that at least some of the biblical authors weren’t at all sensitive about the origins or rigorous consistency of their thoughts about the divine; nor did they share the awe or fear in expression of the divine name with later commentators, editors, and other religious authorities.
Yahweh’s evolution before his conflation with El is similarly complex. Despite the cultic antipathy toward Baal, Yahweh clearly inherits much of Baal’s association with weather and its indifferently and capriciously directed power (cf. the Seven Thunders of Psalm 29 as an appropriation from Baal). The Ugaritic texts also affirm the assimilation of the mythology of conflict with monsters like the Leviathan and Behemoth to Yahweh from its Canaanite sources (19th century scholars had identified this as Babylonian in origin).
Day systematically analyses most of the gods and goddesses relevant to the emerging form of Yahweh in a manner of interest primarily to the professional scholar. However it appears to me that the evolutionary trajectory of Yahweh is always in line with the general precept that we get the god we want. Put more positively: theology, especially in its mythological rather than its dogmatic form, is an attempt to formulate the fundamental principles of a society. These principles are necessarily poetic, and equally necessarily unstable as a society grapples with what has been hitherto unsaid, and perhaps unsayable, about what is important, just, lasting etc.
But there is also in the history of the development of the idea of Yahweh, an apparent meta-principle at play. Implicitly - perhaps driven by political exigency, some inherent drive toward cooperation, or intellectual satisfaction - the evolution of religious ideas through assimilation, conflation, combination and so forth is an attempt to find common ground. As in negotiating a peace treaty, this is essentially a literary exercise carried out to make otherwise mutually incoherent languages compatible. The result, while hardly to be called truth, is something nonetheless worthwhile. Could this be the primary historical lesson for not just religion but also science and politics, namely that all insistent dogmatisation is inevitably harmful to human well-being?
My given name is Michael. Derived from Hebrew מיכאל, the name means “He who is like God.” Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of other ‘el’ names (either as prefix or suffix) are scattered throughout the Hebrew Bible, all referring to the supreme deity. Israel itself is such a name, probably meaning “El will rule.” Our inheritance of these proper names largely goes unrecognised as the most immediate cultural link we have to the ancient religions of the Middle East - at least for those of us who carry around birth certificates entitled Elizabeth, Daniel, Raphael, Gabriel, or Ethel.
But here’s the thing: although these names are biblical, the god they refer to is not originally the Hebrew God. The discovery, almost a century ago, of texts in the Ugaritic language (a progenitor of Hebrew) clearly show that El was identified as a benign creator god by several cultures that are generally designated as Canaanite, including the Hebrew culture. This is further attested by other evidence, including a 13th century BCE Egyptian pharaonic stele.
The numerous biblical references and allusions to El as identical to the god Yahweh indicate a comfortable assimilation of the two cults. As Professor Day notes: “Most scholars who have written on the subject during recent decades support the idea that Yahweh had his origins outside the land of Israel to the south,…” El and Yahweh complemented one another nicely in terms of desirable divine characteristics like age, wisdom, power and concern for humanity (with El being the likely favourite according to modern sensibilities). It also seems likely that the mutual assimilation was helped along by some positive politics in the region (unlike the extreme antipathy to another important local deity, Baal, who became a The Other for adherents to the cult of El/Yahweh).
Both El and Yahweh also have pre-histories. For example, El likely “involves a conflation of Elyon, lord of heaven, and El, lord of earth…” in earlier regional cultures but mentioned explicitly in the biblical books of Isaiah, Deuteronomy, and Psalms. The somewhat startling statement in the opening chapter of the book of Genesis to “Elohim,” that is to many unspecified gods involved in creation could be a reference to the “sons of god” or the “royal court of god,” as suggested in prior myths. The singular use of the name El Shaddai, probably meaning Lord of the Mountain and referring to an (assimilated) Amorite deity is also noteworthy. These suggest that at least some of the biblical authors weren’t at all sensitive about the origins or rigorous consistency of their thoughts about the divine; nor did they share the awe or fear in expression of the divine name with later commentators, editors, and other religious authorities.
Yahweh’s evolution before his conflation with El is similarly complex. Despite the cultic antipathy toward Baal, Yahweh clearly inherits much of Baal’s association with weather and its indifferently and capriciously directed power (cf. the Seven Thunders of Psalm 29 as an appropriation from Baal). The Ugaritic texts also affirm the assimilation of the mythology of conflict with monsters like the Leviathan and Behemoth to Yahweh from its Canaanite sources (19th century scholars had identified this as Babylonian in origin).
Day systematically analyses most of the gods and goddesses relevant to the emerging form of Yahweh in a manner of interest primarily to the professional scholar. However it appears to me that the evolutionary trajectory of Yahweh is always in line with the general precept that we get the god we want. Put more positively: theology, especially in its mythological rather than its dogmatic form, is an attempt to formulate the fundamental principles of a society. These principles are necessarily poetic, and equally necessarily unstable as a society grapples with what has been hitherto unsaid, and perhaps unsayable, about what is important, just, lasting etc.
But there is also in the history of the development of the idea of Yahweh, an apparent meta-principle at play. Implicitly - perhaps driven by political exigency, some inherent drive toward cooperation, or intellectual satisfaction - the evolution of religious ideas through assimilation, conflation, combination and so forth is an attempt to find common ground. As in negotiating a peace treaty, this is essentially a literary exercise carried out to make otherwise mutually incoherent languages compatible. The result, while hardly to be called truth, is something nonetheless worthwhile. Could this be the primary historical lesson for not just religion but also science and politics, namely that all insistent dogmatisation is inevitably harmful to human well-being?
posted by The Mind of BlackOxford @ August 27, 2023
0 Comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home