Michael Heiser's "So What Exactly is an elohim?"

I came across an interesting article by Michael Heiser (here) that discusses the taxonomy of the word "elohim." Rather than incorporate a wider Near Eastern context, Heiser focuses primarily on the biblical contextualization, even including New Testament ideologies. Although I disagree with the presumption of a univocal biblical text and the neglect shown other Northwest Semitic manifestations of the word (see Joel S. Burnett's dissertation for a comprehensive discussion. I discuss it here), I found much worth contemplating in his paper, and I think it's excellent that Heiser has devoted so much time to the Divine Council. I hope you enjoy it.

The Assyro-Babylonian Context for qoneh as "Begetter"

As I dig deeper into the participle qoneh in Gen 14:19, 22, I am more and more convinced that Bruce Vawter is partially correct in rejecting the translation "creator." I think the most accurate translation is "Begetter" (which Vawter does not support). Looking through Akkadian texts for parallel vernacular and ideas, I have run across quite a bit of information that supports my reading.

Vawter correctly states in his paper, "Yahweh, Lord of the Heavens and the Earth" (CBQ 48 [1986]: 465)that the Akkadian literature from Syria-Palestine does not contain a single use of qanû in a context that suggests creation (the same is true of Mesopotamian Akkadian literature). On the other hand, while the titles “Lord of Heaven and Earth” and “Lord of the Gods” are not uncommon in Akkadian, qanû appears in none of them. In fact, it appears in no divine epithets. This seems to have escaped Vawter’s consideration. The titles that do occur, however, indicate a procreative reading of qny fills a significant gap in the parallels to Assyro-Babylonian divine epithets that is left empty if that reading is rejected. As in early Syria-Palestine, theogony plays a central role in Mesopotamian literature. Several titles address the creation of heaven and earth as well as of other gods. In some epithets, and even some prose, the procreative aspect of this creation is explicit. Anu is described in one text as inseminating the heavens, which then gives birth to the earth. Marduk is called bān šamê u erṣeti, “Creator of Heaven and Earth” in CT 9, 6.1. Ea is pātiqu šamê u erṣetim, “Creator of Heaven and Earth” in KAR 252 and RS 3.39. Enlil is described as ālid ilāni rabûti, “Begetter of the Great Gods,” in KAR 25.3.32. In a parallel epithet, Ninlil is called bānīt ilāni rabûti, “Creatress of the Great Gods.” Elsewhere the participle bānû, “Creator,” appears directly parallel to the participle mu-al-lid, “Begetter.” In light of these parallels, it is clear that creation and procreation were often conceived of as synonyms. It also establishes the priority of a procreative reading of the Ugaritic qnyt ’lm, contra Vawter’s proposal that it be translated “Mistress of the Gods.” In the Syro-Palestinian or Assyro-Babylonian epithets there is no equivalent, of which I am aware, to Vawter’s reading, which is why he must appeal to the Egyptian title nbt pt to provide a parallel. If one accepts the procreative nuance of the Syro-Palestinian use of qny, the Assyrian literature provides numerous analogies. These theogonic epithets, combined with the prose mentioned above, support the head of the Near Eastern pantheon as begetter of deities named “Earth” and “Heaven.”

An additional relevant phrase is abi wa-li-di-ka, “the father who begot you,” which appears repeatedly in Akkadian literature. The parallel use of abu and the participle ālidu throws light on the phrase אביך קנך in Deut 32:6. Scholars have long recognized the procreative nuance to the verse, but rarely is that sense conveyed in the translation. “Your father who begot you” would be most appropriate. Vawter’s argument against this reading is untenable. He rejects the contextual influence of עשך and יכננך on the procreative reading of קנך, arguing rather that תגמלו provides a more immediate context in Israel’s failure to appropriately “repay” Yahweh. He argues we must understand what it is Yahweh did for Israel that merited repayment. He posits that vv. 8–9 provide the clearest answer in Yahweh’s inheritance of Israel. Nowhere does Vawter engage the word אביך, immediately parallel to קנך. He must mitigate the clear and immediate context with one that is broad and eisegetic.

This is some interesting summer research. Further updates to follow.

Can qoneh Mean "Creator"?

The participle qoneh has generally been understood to reference the acquisition or possession of a thing, whether through creation, purchase, or inheritance. The participle is found most importantly (for our purposes) in Gen 14:19, 22:

קנה שמים וארץ

It has traditionally been translated, "Creator of heaven and earth," but some have raised objections to that reading. In Lowell K. Handy's treatment of the Syro-Palestinian pantheon (Among the Host of Heaven) we read, "the meaning of the root . . . has been determined to be ‘acquire/own’ and not ‘create'" (76). Handy cites Peter Katz's 1954 Journal of Jewish Studies article and Bruce Vawter's 1986 Catholic Biblical Quarterly article. We may add a 1980 article by Vawter appearing in the Journal of Biblical Literature which argues the verb qnh in Prov 8:22 should not be understood as "created." To support this he argues the verb should never be taken to mean "create" in Ugaritic or in the Hebrew Bible.

His argument clearly stems from a need to find an uncreated premortal Christ in Proverbs' Wisdom, but of interest to us is his footnote number 20, in which he attempts to support the statement that the translation "create" in the Ugaritic corpus' use of qnh is "never certain," and in some cases, "definitely ruled out." He does this simply by citing translations that use another word:

wy'ny.]aliyn[.b'l.]/ m.kqnyn. '[ ] / kdrd.dyknn. This is translated by Gordon in Ugarit and Minoan Crete (New York: Norton, 1966) 89: "And Aliyan Baal declares: / 'Why, like - upon / Like - which he causes to be"'; the same translation is in his earlier Ugaritic Literature (Scripta PBI 89; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1949) 50. In the second edition of Canaanite Myths and Legends (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978) 133, J. C. L. Gibson does not translate the text (10 iii 5-7, according to the Herdner sigla), but in his glossary he offers "creator" as the meaning of the qny there (the full word he transliterates kqnym).

Vawter does not address any of these arguments directly, but in this instance he is particularly to be faulted for neglecting to address that qnyn appears in parallel with yknn, which overlaps most parsimoniously with qnh in the sense of creation. My translation of KTU 1.1.0.3.6-7:

Indeed, our creator is eternal
Indeed, ageless is he who made us.

For a similar reading, see Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 15. Compare also to KTU 3.5.35-36; 4.1.5-6; 4.4.47-48; where yknnh is parallel to 'abh ("his father").

In this instance, Vawter has overstated his argument and has neglected to even engage a very serious obstacle to his thesis, preferring rather to assert that Gordon translated it with another word, and so "create" cannot be "certain," which, in this case, is clearly incorrect. The argument that qoneh in Biblical Hebrew cannot mean "creator" because it does not mean "create" in Ugaritic is thus undermined.

Comments?

Deut 32:43 and Scribal Emendation

I posted quite some time ago about scribal emendation in Deut 32:8 regarding the "sons of God." That's not the only passage in that chapter, however, to betray such emendation. Deut 32:43 is a little less simple, but just as important to the discussion of early Israelite and even Second Temple Period beliefs in deity. The MT reads thus:

הַרְנִ֤ינוּ גֹויִם֙ עַמֹּ֔ו כִּ֥י דַם־עֲבָדָ֖יו יִקֹּ֑ום וְנָקָם֙ יָשִׁ֣יב לְצָרָ֔יו וְכִפֶּ֥ר אַדְמָתֹ֖ו עַמֹּֽו

“Praise, O nations, with him, for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and take vengeance on his adversaries; he will be merciful to his land, to his people.”

LXX has an entirely different reading that seems to preserve something missing from MT, but also seems to add something to the text:

εὐφράνθητε, οὐρανοί, ἅμα αὐτῷ, καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι Θεοῦ· εὐφράνθητε, ἔθνη μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐνισχυσάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες υἱοὶ Θεοῦ· ὅτι τὸ αἷμα τῶν υἱῶν αὐτοῦ ἐκδικᾶται, καὶ ἐκδικήσει καὶ ἀνταποδώσει δίκην τοῖς ἐχθροῖς καὶ τοῖς μισοῦσιν ἀνταποδώσει, καὶ ἐκκαθαριεῖ Κύριος τὴν γῆν τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ.

“Rejoice, O heavens, together with him, and let all the sons of God worship him. Rejoice, O nations, and let all the angels of God draw near to him. For he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will take vengeance and repay righteousness to the enemies, and recompense the hated, and the Lord will purify the land of his people.”

The first clause includes the phrase "let all the sons of God worship him" where MT is silent. This seems close to an original reading, closely attested by 4QDeutq, which reads "let all the gods worship him," which is almost identical to Ps 97:7. Q and LXX also have "heavens" against MT's "nations. LXX adds the clause with "nations," however, and provides the parallelism "angels of God" for "sons of God," manifesting the Second Temple Period's conflation of angels and all other divinity attested in the Hebrew Bible (Brenton's version of this verse has "Let all the angels of God worship him," which is quoted verbatim in Heb 1:6). While the "sons of God" were originally conceived of as actual offspring of El, the conflation of Yahweh and El combined with the elevation of Yahweh-El over all the nations and their gods demoted everyone else to the rank of angel, or mere messenger of God. Where MT simply erases the reference to the children of God (or possibly just "gods"), LXX adds a parallel to qualify it. Earlier, in Deut 32:8, LXX interpolates "angels" where Q has "sons" in the phrase "sons of God."

MT also puts "his servants" where LXX and Q have "his sons." It seems quite a bit of manipulation has taken place over the years in this verse. I'm still doing preliminary research, but I've found this verse fascinating. What do you think?

'ilānū

I just picked up a publication from the SBL Dissertation Series. It's Joel S. Burnett's A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim. It's a fascinating read, but I thought I'd highlight the first section, which discusses the early Near Eastern manifestations of the plural of El/'ilu as a singular title. Burnett groups the Hebrew 'elohim, the West Semitic 'ilanu, and the Phoenician 'lm together as "concretized abstract plurals" that were used with singular verbs in reference to patron or personal gods, and sometimes to the Egyptian king. They are found from the Amarna Letters to Mari, Ugarit, Taanach, and Qatna. Burnett rejects the notion of a "plural of majesty" on the grounds that it is not clearly found in all the languages which preserve the above plural noun. It is more closely related in all the languages to an abstract plural, like 'adonim (lordship), or 'abot (fatherhood). He calls it "concretized" because of its appropriation as a title for specific gods. This would render a literal translation of the word in the Hebrew Bible "deity." ha'elohim would be "the deity."

A New Dead Sea Scroll Discovered?

Again via Jim Davila, an IAA operation has confiscated what appears to be a 2,000 year old piece of papyrus with a Hebrew text on it referencing "year 4 to the destruction of Israel," which could refer to 74 CE, after the destruction of the temple, or 139 CE, four years after the Bar Kokhba Revolt. The story is here. A photo of the papyrus (courtesy of the Scroll Conservation Laboratory, Israel Antiquities Authority) is downloadable here. Cool stuff.

History of the Publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls

Via Jim Davila, Geza Vermes discusses, in Standpoint: Online, his role in, and a history of, the discovery and publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as their impact. A very informative read.