c



     
 
 

 c

    

Introduction (Abstract)
Y iblical scholarship has reached a consensus with respect to the presence of
a divine assembly of gods in Israelǯs faith1.
pY uestioning of common reconstruction of the Israelite belief and
situation in the Abstract
GY elief in a divine council survived the exile

Chapter 1
Y uablets of ancient Ugarit and the study of comparative religion was an
impetus2
pY ctriking and unmistakable correspondences between the god of Israel
and two of Ugaritǯs most important deities, El and aal3
Y áate canonical and non-canonical cecond uemple4 literature surveyed
Y Important categories of Nu studies affected5
Y Oob 1-2 and Ps 82 as exilic or post-exilic6
Y rahweh as reigning ancient concept not late development7
Y Pre-exilic terms for divine plurality and the divine council exist in second
temple literature, especially from umran8
Y ivine plurality and hypostasized vice regency are features of the pre-exilic
divine council
pY ·or Heiser Dzhypostasisdz refers to Dzan aspect of deity that is depicted
with independent personhood of varying degreesdz9
Y Consensus of scholars that the Ugaritic (and larger Canaanite) council was
the conceptual precursor to the Israelite version of the divine council10 as
reflected in Deut 32:8-9 (El and rahweh seen as separate deities in this view,
eventually El and rahweh being fused)
Y ccholars agree that pre-exilic Israelite religion was not monotheistic11 yet a
there is a debate to best characterize their religion
pY  
Ȃ belief in many gods alongside the belief in one god,
presiding over the other, no longer supreme gods12
pY   Ȃ intolerant Henotheism, where the acceptance of one
supreme god turns to the insistence that only the supreme god be
worshipped13

1 Heiser, Abstract
2 1.1
3 1.1
4 from the construction of Israelǯs second temple, ca. 516 .C.E. to itǯs destruction in 70 C.E. Ȃ 1.1 n.8
5 1.1
6 1.2
7 1.2
8 Approximately 175 references to plural à
à r=
in the Dead cea ccrolls -Y 1.2
9 1.2 n.30 Ȃ cf. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 45
10 1.3 Ȃ see handout
11 1.2
12 1.2 n.47
13 1.2 n.48
 pY  
Ȃ the exclusion of other gods; that is it differs from those
views that accept a plurality of divine beings.14 Denial of the existence
of other gods
Y If this is the definition should post-exilic Oudaism be categorized as
monotheistic?15
Y Consensus is that Deuteronomy is to be dated to time of Oosiah (ca. 640-609
.C.E.) and that at the destruction of Oerusalem and beginning of exile (586
.C.E.) a monotheistic religious revolution occurred16. Deutero-Isaiah
composed at the end of the release from exile (539 .C.E), also Ooshua Ȃ 2
Kings wedded to Deuteronomy to form the Deuteronomistic History
pY Challenges the assumption that this literature becomes exclusively
monotheistic are made by Heiser
GY Psalm 82; Oob 1-2; Zech 3:1-7; Deut 4:19; 32:8-9; 1 Kgs 22:17-
23; Deutero-Isaiah
Y Ñc
 
 
 
 
17
pY Deut 4:19-20; 32:8-9 (see footnote 27 in Heiserǯs work for validation
of the á and umran reading of 32:8-9)
GY Correlation of the usage of halaq (to divide or allot) in 4:19;
29:25 (26 in English); 32:9
Y Deutero-Isaiahǯs use of Dzthere is no god beside medz is similar in vocabulary to
Deut 4 and 32
Y uerms have been coined such as Dzinclusive monotheismdz or Dztolerant
monolatrydz but have not found much acceptance
Y Vonotheism is a modern term18
Y Nuance of the definition of Henotheism19 (incipient monotheism)
Y rahweh as creator of the other gods and preexistent allows for species
uniqueness amongst the gods ontologically while demanding worship and
remaining completely sovereign20
Y In cecond uemple áiterature there arose what is referred to as Dzthe uwo
Powers in Heavendz controversy, emerging from the divine plurality in the
Hebrew bible, involved interpretation that said there is a principal angel or
hypostatic manifestation in heaven equivalent to God21
Y Unease in Rabbinic Oudaism in late second temple Oudaism stems from the
assimilation of divine council motifs from the Hebrew bible into the religion
of the day
Y Õice regency concept in the Hebrew bible is an adaptation of the co-regency
of El-aal of Canaanite religion22
pY uhis then would not violate the chema if appropriated

14 1.2 n.49
15 1.2 n.50 Ȃ read the citation of cmith
16 1.2
17 1.2 n.57 Ȃ read all of note 57, extremely important
18 1.2 n.71
19 1.2 n.73, 74, 75
20 1.3
21 1.4 n.82
22 1.4
 Y Coins the term Dzmono-rahwismdz to adequately represent second temple
thought which would be monotheism on ancient terms (species
uniqueness)23
Y How does one explain the 175 refrences to multiple Ñlohim and elim in the
umran literature if divine council has ceased to exist in second temple
Oudaism?24
Y Discussion of the possible demotion of Dzgodsdz to Dzangelsdz in this period
(cmith, Deutero-Isaiah)
Y uhe terms Ñlohim and malakim intersect and overlap in the literature which
degrades the viability of that position

- !    


As referenced in Heiserǯs work

-Y Exodus 15:11; 20:1-6

-Y Deuteronomy 4:19-20; 5:7; 6:4; 17:3; 29:25-26; 32:8-9, 12
-Y 1 Kings 22:17-23
-Y Nehemiah 9:6
-Y Oob 1-2; 38:7-8
-Y Psalm 33:6; 82; 148:1-5
-Y Isaiah 40:1-9
-Y Oeremiah 8:2; 19:13
-Y Daniel 8:10-11
-Y Zechariah 3:1-7

 
 "  

1)YÚhat is the nature of the relationship between the Canaanite

concept of the divine council and the Hebrew ibleǯs?

a.Y In Deut 32:8-9, Are Elyon and rHÚH distinct deities?

2)YÚhat are we to make of the consensus view of the dating of the

so-called exilic/post-exilic biblical texts in Heiserǯs work (granting
the disclaimer) and what bearing does this have on the discussion
of the nature of Israelite religion of the second temple period?

23 1.4
24 1.4
3)YÚhat is the nature of the pre-exilic view of the divine council
(monotheistic, henotheistic, monolatrous, etc.)?

4)YIs the chema a declaration of early Israelite monotheism? If not,

what does it assert?

5)Yased on the handling and presentation of the evidence by Heiser,

can it be agreed that cecond uemple Oudaism did maintain a belief
in the divine council?