Monday, September 12, 2022

Notes from Conrad E. L’Heureux, Rank Among the Canaanite Gods on Elyon

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)