NOTE: I’m adapting and trimming this from my dissertation, so I’m excluding footnote material for space.
——
Understanding the notion of “two Yahwehs” in the Hebrew Bible requires first grasping the relationship of the high god and his co-regent (”vizier”) within the divine council structure. We’ll start first with the council at Ugarit and then move to Israelite religion.
At Ugarit, El was high sovereign and Baal was his co-regent. Under the authority of El, the most powerful office in the divine bureaucracy of Ugarit was the position of overlord of the gods. As scholars of Ugaritic religion have long recognized, it is this office, the right to be the one who “rules over the gods,” that is the focus of the conflicts between Yamm, Baal, and Mot in the Baal Cycle.
Unlike the first few decades following the discovery of the Ugaritic tablets and their content, current scholarship is virtually unanimous in its conclusion that El was not displaced by Baal at Ugarit. Within the context of El’s supreme command of the pantheon, Baal had to fight rivals for the right to rule the other gods. Once he emerged victorious, he was given the titles of “most high” (Ê¿ly), “king, sovereign”(mlk), and “[the one] who rules over the gods” (d ymlk Ê¿l ʾilm). The Baal Cycle reads that the response to Baal’s victory is tgr ʾil bnh, which de Moor renders as “El appointed his son deputy.” Baal is also referred to as “lord” or “ruler” (yw) of the gods. The rendering “god of the gods” is also possible, according to Wyatt, who remarks, “The apparent sense was ‘lord’, or even ‘god’, given the equation in BM93035 ʾilu = yau.” Baal also earns the title zbl bÊ¿l arsÌ£ (”prince Baal of / over the earth”), a title “found on nine occasions . . . but never used until Baal’s victory over Yamm is assured.” This title “appears to indicate that the conflict between Baal and Yamm is concerned with lordship of the earth.” This would make contextual sense, since the other sons of El were princes over geographic regions of the earth, while their ruler would have authority over them and their individual earthly provinces. The title therefore is another reminder that Baal is king over the second-tier gods under El.
Lastly, in the divine council scene of KTU 1.2.I:20ff., while the second-tier gods of the council are sitting (ytb) on their princely thrones, Baal is described as “standing by El” (qm Ê¿l ʾil). The phrase comes at the point in the Baal Cycle where Yamm challenges the gods of the council to surrender Baal, “the god whom you obey.” The gods of the council are described in cringing posture at the demand, and are rebuked by Baal. The interchange is curious, for Yamm at the time is referred to as the “ruler of the gods” but since Baal is the god who is obeyed in council, Yamm must challenge him. Wyatt notes in this regard, “though Baal is Yamm’s successor on the divine throne, it appears from the present passage that he also had a prior claim to it, but was passed over by El in favour of Yamm.” Hence the Baal Cycle in its entirety clarifies who ultimately earns the kingship of the gods under El. The two powers in the Ugaritic heaven are certainly El and Baal.
El is also considered by most scholars to be the father of Baal, but this depends on how one takes the references to Baal being “the son of Dagan.” There have been three approaches to this description and the apparent problem it creates for Baal being a son of El. I’ll cut to the chase here and focus on the one I think most coherent-that El and Dagan are the same deity. This view is supported by the fact that KTU 1.118 and 1.47 have both El and Dagan sharing the same epithet, “father god” (ʾilib). Additionally, inscriptions at what most scholars consider the temple of Dagan at Ugarit make an identification very likely, the Mesopotamian pantheon identified both Dagan and El with the supreme god (Anu/Enlil), and at Ebla Dagan is the high god, also called “lord of Canaan.” Combining Wyatt’s reasonable conclusion that Dagan was a weather god with the shared epithet and this comparative material persuades this writer that, in the words of del Olmo Lete, “there can be no doubt that the equation of Ilu and Daganu expresses the process of cultural and cultic identification of two (Canaanite / Amorite) pantheons.” This fusion explains the dual reference to Baal’s parentage alongside the clear descriptions of Baal’s kinship with the other sons of El.
So what’s the point with starting our discussion of co-regency with extra-biblical material? For three reasons: (1) in the Hebrew Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is referred to as El; (2) Yahweh is identified with both El and Baal; and (3) divine figures other than Yahweh-but which are also equated with Yahweh-are also identified with Baal. This may seem like a weird set of affairs, but what it amounts to is that, while El and Baal are fused into Yahweh, Israelite religion retained the co-regency structure of the divine council-and filled each slot with a Yahweh figure! More on that as we progress.
(Brill, 1977). Segal’s work is indispensible for understanding the rabbinic debate and indictment of the two powers belief within Judaism. I’m not going to reinvent that wheel in this post, but it’s important for readers to understand the basics of the rabbinic discussion, as it sets the stage for my explaining my own work and my own views on where all this came from.
