When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance,
when he divided all mankind,
he set up boundaries for the peoples
according to the number of the sons of Israel.
For the LORD’s portion is his people,
Jacob his allotted inheritance. Deuteronomy 32: 8-9.
Originally the Old Testament gods “Yahweh” and “El” were two separate entities. The passage quoted above is a Biblical remnant of this distinction. In it the warrior god Yahweh (translated “LORD”) has been initiated into a larger pantheon of gods headed by the Canaanite god El. The Hebrew word translated “Most High” is `el-yôn, an ancient title for the high god El. The passage relates that El apportioned “Jacob” to the god Yahweh as the latter's nation. It was quite common for each nation to have its own god or gods and this story merely plays a part in the mythic tale of how this apportioning came about. Though El divided all mankind, and gave the “nations” their inheritance, it was only the particular nation "Jacob" which was given to the particular god Yahweh as his portion (chêleq). To further support this, there is textual evidence for the variant reading of “the sons of Israel” as: “sons of God” or “divine beings” (which the NIV translators have honestly noted). The passage reads thus: “he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of divine beings (or “divine sons).
There are a number of places in scripture that also point to the original separation of the two deities. Judges 9:46 speaks of a local Canaanite temple of the god “El-Berith” or “El of the covenant”:
“On hearing this, the citizens in the tower of Shechem went into the stronghold of the temple of El-Berith.”
Earlier we learn that the Israelites had worshipped this false god: (Judges 8:33-34)
“No sooner had Gideon died than the Israelites again prostituted themselves to the Baals. They set up Baal-Berith as their god and did not remember the LORD their God, who had rescued them from the hands of all their enemies on every side.”
Once again notice the distinction made between “Yahweh” (LORD) and the local god. That we are not speaking of two separate gods is evident from Judges 9:3-4 where Baal-Berith is indeed identified with the temple of El-Berith in Shechem.
As is often the case, over time gods tend to be conflated with one another, forming a kind of hybrid. One can see this taking place in the passage quoted above, between Baal and El. This was also the case with El and Yahweh. There are many examples in Scripture of this conflation. Psalm 18:13 contains one:
The LORD (Yahweh) thundered from heaven;
the voice of the Most High (`el-yôn) resounded.
An interesting passage may be found in Exodus 6:2-3:
"God also said to Moses, “I am the LORD. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty (El Shadday), but by my name the LORD (Yahweh) I did not make myself fully known to them."
It also supports the evidence that the patriarchs were not aware of a god by the name Yahweh and worshipped rather the Canaanite god El. It further supports the evidence of a later attempt to smooth over the distinction between El and Yahweh (for the most part successfully).
In his book Who Wrote The Bible, Richard Elliott Friedman (following two 19th century German scholars whose names escape me ) carefully gets beneath the palimpsest that is the Pentateuch, and uncovers the sharp distinctions not only between the J and E, but also the P (Priestly) and D (Deuteronomist) texts. If i remember correctly, he brilliantly shows that these different texts and traditions were later redacted and combined, with the encouragement of Cyrus the Great, into the text as we now have it. Which brings me to my question: Seeing that this "Documentary Hypothesis" is basically a century and a half old now, what is the current thinking? Have there been any serious challenges to it in the past few years?
ReplyDeleteThe name you should know is "Wellhausen". Currently his source theory is being debated quite heatedly. Really important to note here, however, is that none of these scholars reject the idea of ancient authors using sources, but that they only used four! Four may be overly simplistic. They also debate the date and origin of the sources.
ReplyDeleteIn the past 100 years sources D and P have remained quite solid. Their language is distinct as well as their literary style. Their theology is also consistent. The other sources, E and J are more problematic. The challenge is that they represent a much more complex collection of traditions over a long period of time.
Ah, interesting; thanks for the elucidation!
ReplyDeletePerhaps more interesting is the fact that the popular understanding of "The Origin of God" lags so overwhelmingly far behind the scholarship. Any thoughts?
It depends partly on what you're referring to as the "popular understanding". Would you like to clarify this a bit?
ReplyDeleteErm, i can try.. By popular understanding i mean simply the general, widespread notion that the God of the Bible (in this case the Old Testament) is or has a single, unified meaning.
ReplyDeleteWould not the idea that there are different traditions out of which the current tradition has evolved, be greeted with, to say the least, some skepticism? Not only among church congregations, but among the non church-going public as well?
I hope i am fairly clear here. If not, i can have another bash at it
Ah yes. No you've been quite clear. Yes I totally agree with you that modern scholarship on this issue has been largely ignored or veraciously attacked within the Church. Of course this has more to do with emotional reaction than any solid critical scholarship. The evidence is there and is continuing to build.
ReplyDeleteAs far as reaction outside the Church this is an interesting question. I think due in large part the nature of the scholarship simply limits the audience. You know, if you're not familiar with the Bible, let alone notions of source criticism and documentary hypotheses, it's highly unlikely you'll wade into these waters. Those who are already critical of religion in general tend to welcome such findings as further evidence against any kind of objective truth claims made by the religious. For others it may seem obvious that over time various traditions inform one another creating something different.
Underlying your question is something quite important I think: the notion of a unified meaning of God. On one hand it would be easy to reply that there is simply no such thing.. that ALL notions of God are culturally mediated. But that's not really what you said is it? You commented on the widespread NOTION that there is a unified meaning, not on whether or not this notion is in fact true. Here I think it's a simple case of people not being exposed to the findings. It's a matter of education. It's not the kind of education one might receive in a Bible college either. This raises all kinds of issues about the objectives and ideological underpinnings of religious schooling.
Perhaps the answer to all this is also the answer to the question: "Why do some people think reflectively/critically about what they believe, and others do not?"