As you read through this post, note the transliteration of the Ugaritic and Hebrew terms — you’ll notice the consonants are frequently the same. The vocabulary was shared by both languages, but Ugaritic has some consonants that Hebrew does not. The conceptual matches are very obvious, though.
The Abode and Meeting Place of the Divine Council
At Ugarit the divine council and its gods met on a cosmic mountain, the place where heaven and earth intersected and where divine decrees were issued. This place was at the “source of the two rivers” in the “midst of the fountains of the double-deep.” This well-watered mountain was the place of the “assembled congregation” (phÌ®r mÊ¿d). El dwelt on this mountain and, with his council, issued divine decrees from the “tents of El” (ḏd ʾil) and his “tent shrine” (qrsÌŒ ; KTU 1.1.III:23; 1.2.III:5; 1.3.V:20-21; 1.4.IV:22-23; 1.6.I:34-35; 1.17.VI:48). In the Kirta Epic, El and the gods live in “tents” (ʾahlm) and “tabernacles” (msÌŒknt ; KTU 1.15.3.18-19). The Ugaritic god Baal, the deity who oversaw the council for El (see below) held meetings in the “heights” (mrym) of Mount Zaphon (SÌ£apaÌ„nu, apparently located in a range of mountains that included El’s own abode. In Baal’s palace in SÌ£apaÌ„nu there were “paved bricks” (lbnt) that made Baal’s house “a house of the clearness of lapis lazuli” (bht tÌ£hrm ʾiqn ʾum).
These descriptions are present in the Hebrew Bible with respect to Israel’s God and his council. Yahweh dwells on mountains (Sinai or Zion; e.g., Ex 34:26; 1 Kings 8:10; Ps 48:1-2). The Jerusalem temple is said to be located in the “heights of the north [sÌ£apoÌ‚n].”  Zion is the “mount of assembly” (har moÌ‚Ê¿eÌ„d), again located in heights of sÌ£apoÌ‚n (Is 14:13). Additionally, Mount Zion is described as a watery habitation (Is 33:20-22; Ezek 47:1-12; Zech 14:8; Joel 3:18 [Hebr., 4:18]). A tradition preserved in Ezekiel 28:13-16 equates the “holy mountain of God” with Eden, the “garden of God.” Eden appears in Ezekiel 28:2 as the “seat of the gods (ʾĕloÌ„hiÌ‚m).”  The description of Eden in Gen 2:6-15 refers to the “ground flow” that “watered the entire face of the earth.” At Sinai Moses and others saw Yahweh and feasted with him (Ex 24). The description of this banquet includes the observation that under God’s feet was a paved construction of “sapphire stone” (libnat hassappiÌ‚r ; Ex 24:10), just as with Baal’s dwelling. Other striking parallels include Yahweh’s frequent presence in the tabernacle (misÌŒkan) and Zion as Yahweh’s tent (ʾohel; cf. Is 33:20; Ps 26:8; 74:7; 1 Chron 9:23).
The Structure and Bureaucracy of the Divine Council
The council at Ugarit apparently had four tiers (Smith, Origins, 41-53). The top tier consisted of El and his wife Athirat (Asherah). The second tier was the domain of their royal family (”sons of El”= bn ʾil). One member of this second tier served as the vice regent of El, and was, despite being under El’s authority, given the title “most high.” A third tier was for “craftsman deities,” while the lowest tier was reserved for the messengers (mlʾkm), essentially servants or staff.
In the divine council in Israelite religion, Yahweh was the supreme authority over a divine bureaucracy that included a second tier of lesser ʾĕloÌ„hiÌ‚m (see the first post — Part 1 — for the other titles of the lesser gods or sons of God), and a third tier of malʾakiÌ‚m (”angels”). In the book of Job some members of the council apparently have a mediatory role with respect to human beings (Job 5:1; 15:8; 16:19-21; cp. Heb 1:14).
The vice regent slot in the Israelite council represents the most significant difference between Israel’s council and all others. In Israelite religion, this position of authority was not filled by another god, but by Yahweh himself in another form. We’ll pick up with the “two Yahwehs” beginning with the next post.
May 21st, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Dr. Heiser, This is awesome stuff! I can’t wait for the next post! If you can, you should also keep us updated on your recent journey to discover the details of the third person in the godhead in the Hebrew scriptures. I wonder if one of the problems with finding the third person in the Hebrew scriptures is because there was not any parallels in the surrounding cultures. I believe the Ugarit parallels do not tell us that Israel was borrowing their myths to fit their own concept of God. But rather, both the Israelite and Ugarit tradition are so similar because they are both based on truth! The Israelite tradition is the most true because they are the one true God’s people who has revealed the truth to them. The Ugaritic culture were probably given over to an evil heavenly host (god) who led them astray with lies containing partial truths. Does that sound on target? If not help me out here
Grace be with you,
Chris
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:27 am
Chris
I think the biblical picture is that, at the beginning, everyone was a monotheist (had the knowledge of the true God and, importantly, the correct relationship of the One to the Many).
On the Spirit, I suspect you are on the right track. Polytheistic cultures had other gods to fulfill the roles that one sees the Spirit fulfilling (or the second Yahweh for that matter). We have to be armed with this in mind as we read the OT text.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Dr. Heiser,
I have been using your material and ideas to argue angelology and the correct interpretation (your view) of Genesis 1:26 in my theology class. With your interpretation of Genesis 1:26 wouldn’t that make the angels also bear the image of God. “Let us make mankind in OUR image, and OUR likeness”? Am I accurate in concluding this?
Thanks,
Chris
May 29th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Chris: Yes, though I’d say “angels (better, members of the heavenly host) are also imagers of God” — that is, they represent God in whatever sphere or place they are commissioned.
May 30th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Dr. Heiser: Good, I see that as a completely coherent view of the heavenly host, however I am finding much contention against our view here. Apparently, there is much evangelical presuppositions that angels are not imagers and that we are unique in that respect. I totally think this is fallacious and unfounded in scripture if your interpretation of Gen. 1:26 stands true.
May 30th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Yes, angel can be a difficult term. It’s easy for some people to look at all these scriptures involving divine beings and think - “Oh, they’re just angels, right?”
Sometimes the Biblical authors seem very precise with regards to divine beings e.g. Paul in his lists (seriously, who can really tell the difference between a ruler and an authority!?) However, sometimes they can be generic (e.g. author of Hebrews in chapter 1).
Peter seems to do both. He refers to the Sons of God as ‘angels’ (2Pe 2:4), yet is more precise in v.10 (angels would not accuse the ‘doxas’).
In my opinion, 2Pe 2:10 has to be the classic NT reference to a three-tiered divine council.
June 1st, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Chris: Did you expect anything else but resistance? It’s not in the Westminster Confession or the Left Behind novels, so it’ll be resisted or ignored. Sorry to sound jaded, but that’s the reality. Hasn’t stopped me, though. I’m quite unrepentant when it comes to making people look at the text.
June 1st, 2008 at 1:56 pm
James: I’ll be getting into the NT material (already am) in the remaining chapters of the Myth book draft (I assume you are/were a newsletter subscriber). Those chapters will be a succinct “divine council in the NT” primer.