Tuesday, May 23, 2023

Michael S. Heiser on the Primacy of El not being Compromised by the Rise of Baal to Kingship in the Ugaritic Texts

  

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])