Summarizing the work of R. Lack, “Les origins de Elyon, le Très-Haut, dans la tradition cultuelle d’Israël,” CBQ 24 (1962): 44-64:
He
surveys the use of ‘lyn along with the related epithets ‘l, ‘ly,
and t’ly, all derived from the root *’ly and meaning “most high”
or the like. He concludes that all of these epithets belong most appropriately to
El, but they are not limited to him. The tendency is for the epithet to be
applied to whichever god was considered to be “highest” in any given time and
place. In any case, there never was an independent god Elyon.
Regarding
the ‘l w’lyn of the Sefire inscription, Lack follows the common view
that in this text ‘l and ‘lyn are distinct deities. In keeping
with his general construction, however, he regards ‘lyn as an epithet
concealing the proper name of another god who has appropriated what used to
belong to El. This deity he identifies as Baal-Shamem. Another possibility,
also keeping with Lack’s basic position, would be to understand this ‘lyn
as being indeed an El epithet but one which had received such cultic significance
that it “split off” from El and became quasi-independent. The combination ‘l
w’lyn would therefore be a rejoining of what seemed at the time of the
inscription to be two distinct but related deities.
There
is yet a third possibility, namely that the combination ‘l e’lyn was
made with full awareness that ‘lyn was an epithet of El joined here to ‘l
in order to maintain the pattern of divine pairs which characterizes the
list of witnesses. Another example of the same phenomenon is found earlier in
the list, viz. šmš wnr in line 9. The element šmš is
transparently the name of the sun god. The element following the waw is
most likely interpreted as the epithet proper to the sun god and documented in
Ugaritic as nrt and in Akkadian as nūr. The pair šmš wnr
would thus form a precise parallel to ‘l w’lyn which may, then, be
translated, “El, that is, Elyon.” Although this solution, which we prefer, is
not certain, it remains true that the Sefire evidence proves neither that El and
Elyon were originally independent gods, nor that Philo was “correct” in placing
Elioun as a theogonic god, “grandfather” of El.
As
to the traditions preserved in the Hebrew Bible, ‘elyôn is best
understood as an epithet proper to El and the evidence of Gen 14:18-22 can be
taken at face value in witnessing to the cult of El under the epithet Elyon at
Jerusalem in pre-Israelite times. (Conrad. E. L’Heureux, Rank Among the Canaanite
Gods: El, Ba’al, and Repha’im [Harvard Semitic Monographs 21; Missoula,
Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979], 45-47)
