In order to understand my proposal-that divine council co-regency provides the conceptual backdrop to the two powers idea-we have to begin with a brief introduction to the divine council and its structure. This material is quite familiar to scholars of the Hebrew Bible and the Semitic world, but isn’t on the radar at all for scholars whose focus is Second Temple Judaism and New Testament. We have to bridge this gap.
As many scholars of the Hebrew Bible have noted for many years, early Israelite culture cannot be divorced from the culture of “Canaan.” As Smith notes, “Canaanite” is better described as “West Semitic,” since “Canaanite” is used more often than not as a term of contrast with “Israelite,” a choice that is influenced by the biblical record, not archaeology.1 The close relationship of Israelite and West Semitic culture is securely established through the well-known commonalities in material culture, script, language, burial customs, and religion. In terms of language, biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic, for example, have an abundance of common terms in religious contexts: priesthood; sacrifice; offering; tabernacle/temple; the realm of the dead and its inhabits; and names, epithets, and stock descriptions of divine beings.2 Hebrew itself is described in the Bible as one of the languages of Canaan (Isaiah 19:18).
The Council of the Gods / God3
The religious similarity between the Israelites and other West Semitic cultures is quite evident with respect to the hierarchical bureaucracy of divine beings. The textbook example outside the Bible is the literature from Ras Shamra (Ugarit). Translated shortly after their discovery in the 1930s, these tablets contain several phrases describing a council of gods that are conceptually and linguistically parallel to the Hebrew Bible. The Ugaritic council was led by El, the same proper name used in the Hebrew Bible for the God of Israel (e.g., Isaiah 40:18; 43:12). References to the “council of El” include:
- phÌ®r ʾilm (”the assembly of El/ the gods”; KTU 1.47:29, 1.118:28, 1.148:9)4
- phÌ®r bn ʾilm (”the assembly of the sons of El/ the gods”; KTU 1.4.III:14)
- mphÌ®rt bn ʾil (”the assembly of the sons of El”; KTU 1.65:3; cf. 1.40:25, 42)
- dr bn ʾil (”assembly [circle, group] of the sons of El”; KTU 1.40:25, 33-34)
- Ê¿dt ʾilm (”assembly of El / the gods”; KTU 1.15.II: 7, 11). Phoenician texts, such as the Karatepe inscription, also describe a Semitic pantheon: wkl dr bn ʾilm (”and all the circle/group of the sons of the gods”; KAI 26.III.19; 27.12).
The Ê¿dt ʾilm (”assembly of El / the gods”) of Ugaritic texts represents the most precise parallel to the data of the Hebrew Bible. Psalm 82:1 uses the same expression for the council (Ê¿dt ʾilm), along with an indisputably plural use of the word ʾĕloÌ„hiÌ‚m (”God, gods”): “God (ʾĕloÌ„hiÌ‚m) stands in the council of El/the divine council (baÊ¿adat ʾeÌ„l); among the gods (ʾĕloÌ„hiÌ‚m) he passes judgment.” The second occurrence of ʾĕloÌ„hiÌ‚m must be plural due to the preposition “in the midst of.” The Trinity cannot be the explanation for this divine plurality, since the psalm goes on to detail how Israel’s God charges the other ʾĕloÌ„hiÌ‚m with corruption and sentences them to die “like humankind.” Psalm 89:5-7 [6-8] places the God of Israel “in the assembly of the holy ones” (biqhal qĕdoshiÌ‚m) and then asks “For who in the clouds can be compared to Yahweh? Who is like Yahweh among the sons of God (beneÌ‚ ʾeÌ„liÌ‚m), a god greatly feared in the council of the holy ones (bĕsoÌ‚d qĕdoshiÌ‚m)?” Psalm 29:1 commands the same sons of God (beneÌ‚ ʾeÌ„liÌ‚m) to praise Yahweh and give him due obeisance. These heavenly “sons of God” (beneÌ‚ ʾeÌ„loÌ„hiÌ‚m, or the beneÌ‚ ha-ʾeÌ„loÌ„hiÌ‚m) appear in other biblical texts (Gen 6:2.4; Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7; and Deut 32:8-9, 43 [LXX, Qumran]).5
Another biblical Hebrew term matching Ugaritic terminology is doÌ‚r, which often means “generation” but, as with Ugaritic and Phoenician dr, may also refer to the “circle” (group) of gods; that is, the divine council (Amos 8:14 [emendation]; Psa 49:20; 84:11).
The next post will detail: (1) the comparative evidence for the meeting place / abode of the gods / temple / tabernacle language, and (2) the structure of the divine council.
- Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (2nd ed.; Eerdmans, 2002), 19. ↩
- Smith, 19-24. ↩
- The classic book-length study on the divine council is E. Theodore Mullen, The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature (HSM 24; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1980. See also Gerald Cooke, “The Sons of (the) God(s),” ZAW 76 (1964): 22-47; Mullen, The Divine Council; idem, “Assembly, Divine,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary 2:214-217; S. B. Parker, “Sons of (the) God(s),” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, 204-208 (hereafter, DDD); Matitiahu Tsevat, “God and the Gods in Assembly,” HUCA 40-41 (1969-1970): 123-137; J. Morgenstern, “The Mythological Background of Psalm 82,” HUCA 14 (1939): 29-126. ↩
- KTU = Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit; now known as The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995). ↩
- Textual critics of the Hebrew Bible are unanimous in agreement that the Qumran reading (in brackets) is superior to the Masoretic text in Deut 32:8, which reads ×‘× ×™ ישׂר×ל (”sons of Israel”). See for example, P. W. Skehan, “A Fragment of the ‘Song of Moses’ (Deut 32) from Qumran,” BASOR 136 (1954) 12-15; idem, “Qumran and the Present State of Old Testament Text Studies: The Masoretic Text,” JBL 78 (1959) 21; Julie Duncan, “A Critical Edition of Deuteronomy Manuscripts from Qumran, Cave IV. 4QDt b, 4QDt e, 4QDt h, 4QDt j, 4QDt b, 4QDt k, 4QDtl,” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1989); Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 269; Eugene Ulrich et al., eds., Qumran Cave 4.IX: Deuteronomy to Kings (DJD XIV; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 75-79; Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, 156; J. Tigay, Deuteronomy, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 514-518 ↩
May 16th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Very interesting even to those of us who have already studied the subject. Thank You!
May 16th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Thanks!
May 17th, 2008 at 5:23 am
…doÌ‚r, which often means “generation†but, as with Ugaritic and Phoenician dr, may also refer to the “circle†(group) of gods; that is, the divine council (Amos 8:14 [emendation]; Psa 49:20; 84:11).
Hi Michael
Can’t spot the divine Council referneces in these scriptures - am I missing something?
May 17th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
See the note on Amos 8:14, “emended” - this means that the vowels in a word in Amos 8:14 needs to be repointed in the Hebrew. The ESV has “As your god lives, O Dan, and As the Way of Beersheba lives…”). The words “the Way” in Hebrew = drk (derek). Most scholars think it makes more sense to have drk be pointed doreka, which means “your circle” (i.e., your council [of gods]). If you do this repointing, the the “god” would need to be translated as a plural to fit the context. Bottom line: the result would be that AMos 8:14 says: “As your gods live, O Dan, and as your council [of gods] live, O Beersheba…”). AMos 8:14 would then be an oracle against a pagan divine council.
In the other verses, the word “dor” occurrs but gets translated as “generation” - it probably makes more sense to translate it as “council” (of gods).
Psa 49:20 (ESV) says, “his soul will go the generation of his fathers” (but it could be “his soul will go the council gods of his fathers”
Psa 84:11(ESV) says “I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than dwell in the tents of the wicked” but it would be translated “I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than in the council of wicked gods.”
May 17th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Okay, thanks for that. I think I got it!
However, I make those references Ps 49:19 and 84:10, in the ESV.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Dr. Heiser,
I feel that this discussion is long needed. Perhaps the resurrection of this ancient Jewish belief can be used in evangelism to the Jews. You mentioned that their is a context for a binitarian Jewish belief in their scriptures, but how about trinitarian? Is the Spirit veiled to much in the Hebrew Bible? Do you think the Christian Godhead can only be deduced from the New Testament scriptures?
Grace be with you,
Chris
May 20th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
James: Yes - there is different versification in the Hebrew Bible than in the English (in these places, among many others).
May 20th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Chris: It is pretty easy to establish binitarianism in the Hebrew Bible (I say easy, ten years down the road and with the benefit of a dissertation!). Trinitarianism in the OT is much more difficult, and is something I’m just embarking on. Basically, one needs to establish what the two powers “do” and what motifs are attached to them, so to speak, and then go trolling in the text for descriptions of the Spirit and his activities.
Regarding evangelism, I agree. During my dissertation time I was invited to teach a non-credit summer course to senior citizens on “angels in the Bible.” I decided to go into the two powers thing on the first day. I got about half way through and a woman raised her hand and said “my rabbi never taught us this.” Turned out everyone in room (about 30 people or so) was Jewish! It was great fun, and they were fascinated. One told me after the course that it really helped her understand how Jews in ancient times could become Christians - it made sense to her.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:12 am
How about this for an example of OT trinitarianism:
Is. 48:12 “Listen to me, O Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last. … 16 Come near me and listen to this: “From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret; at the time it happens, I am there.†And now the Sovereign LORD has sent me, with his Spirit.
or
Is. 63:7 I will tell of the kindnesses of the LORD … 9 In all their distress he too was distressed, and the angel of his presence saved them. In his love and mercy he redeemed them; he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old. 10 Yet they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:55 pm
James: The first one doesn’t work - all it says is that God has a Spirit; it doesn’t suggest that the Spirit IS Yahweh and yet distinct.
The second is workable IF you find the right cross-reference - I’ll let you look for that…before I give it to you.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:56 pm
James,
Excellent find of Isaiah 63:7! I will help you find that cross-reference. If we cannot find it, we will have to beg Dr. Heiser for it!…LOL
Grace and Peace to you,
Chris
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Deal. Game on…
My initial thought is:
Eph. 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
MSH: So you would say the word spirit in Is 48:16 is partitive rather than hypostatic?
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Bingo!
Psa. 78:40 How often they rebelled against him in the desert and grieved him in the wasteland!
The antecedent of ‘him’ being God Most High (El Elyon).
(Also, Psa. 106:32 may be helpful)
May 29th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
James - Isa 48.16 is very interesting. I had not taken note of it before, since I haven’t gone full bore after the triunity in the OT (just binitarianism to this point — I’ve been “prepping” for the other, and this passage will certainly need consideration).
I have no trouble with arguing in favor of hypostasis in general. The term is lambasted all the time in scholarship as being nebulous or difficult to define. That difficulty (I think) seems to stem from the desire to come up with a definition all or most scholars will approve. I don’t think that concern is primary. I ask questions like whether the Israelites (alone?) were too dumb or unsophisticated to view a god (their God) as being more than one “person” and yet the persons are the same in nature. If we see other peoples (Egyptians, Canaanites, Assyrians) doing that, I think we need to give Israelites some credit here. I’d rather describe the situation and the beliefs than worry about whether one word captures what’s going on or not. Could Israel grasp that a second being “was but wasn’t” Yahweh in the same way Christians would conceive of Jesus - he was God yet wasn’t the Father?
May 29th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Thanks for Psa 106.32 as well!