Scholarship on the divine council has
resulted in several points of broad agreement. With respect to Ugarit, contrary
to earlier studies, it is now widely agreed that the primacy of El was not
compromised by the rise of Baal to kingship. The vast majority of Ugaritic
scholars view Baal’s kingship as operating under the author of El as El’s
vizier or co-regent. Scholars have put forth a convincing co-regent model
operating between the two. Baal can be called “king” (mlk) and can declare,
“I alone it is who will rule over the gods” (‘aḥdy d ymlk ‘l ‘ilm), yet
Ugaritic religion also references El as “king” (mlk). Baal, not El, is
called “Most High” (‘ly) at Ugaritic, yet Baal is “begotten" by El
and it is El’s prerogative to appoint successors to the kingship position when
it is unoccupied. Despite his exalted status, Baal does not have a house like
other gods, and El’s permission must be solicited for one to be constructed. In
fact, the Baal cycle describes El as having had other elevated co-regents, so
that Baal’s kingship could be viewed as one of several successive occupations
of a contested position. (Michael S. Heiser, "The Divine Council in Late
Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature," [Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2004], [14-15])