Most readers of will likely not be familiar with these problems since their reading of the Old Testament is filtered through English translation and lack of exposure to the Canaanite / Ugaritic context of the language.Consequently, these issues are perhaps best explained and discussed once they have been introduced.The “must-have” resource DDD ( in the Ugaritic texts frequently has the appellative meaning too, especially in the epistolary literature, but partially also in the mythological, cultic, and epic texts.
He bears the title ) occurs without the other or in another connection.
It might be presumed that this epithet characterizes the attitude and the experience of mankind in its relation to El. The mythical procreation of gods, on the contrary, might have been recognized at Ugarit though the textual basis is small ( 26 A III:18). In the Phoenician, Aramaic, Punic and Neo-Punic inscriptions the noun is generally used as appellative in the sense of ‘god, godhead’ or as adjective ‘divine’. This is the case in the Aramaic inscription of Panammuwa I king of 214) dating from the middle of the eighth century bce.
The heavenly gods guaranteed and promoted human life. It is doubtful whether El was conceived of as →‘El creator of the earth’ at Ugarit since there is no reference to the concept (Pope 199–230; Rendtorff 197; contrast de Moor 1980; 1990: 69). This use of the term is also known from the Ugaritic texts of Ras Shamra and from the OT. The text mentions the gods →Hadad, El, →Resheph, →Rakib-el and Shamash (→Shemesh) as benefactors of Panammuwa, bestowing upon him the kingship and welfare of his state ( 214:1, 2, 11, 18).
To El was attributed the kind of wisdom that made him judge everything rightly (, ‘father of mankind’, obviously because he is the creator of humanity. The gods Hadad, El, Rakib-el and Shamash are found also in the closing formula of the inscription on the statue of Panammuwa II.
Chapters 10 and 11 are grouped together on this site since the two chapters jointly deal with the same subject matter: the serpent figure, the Edenic rebellion, and the relationship of Genesis 3 to Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah -15. These chapters deal with the events in Eden, specifically with respect to the serpent figure.
van Dijk, (BZAW 385; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008 The ensuing discussion provides several source references relevant to the chapter.There are three primary issues in these two chapters that need further attention: A footnote in this chapter refers to the problems of the relationship of El and Yahweh, including the matter of Ugaritic El’s female goddess consort.As you might imagine, these problems are inter-related.Moreover, the first stela of the Aramaic Sefire-inscription (eighth century bce) containing the text of the treaty between the kings of KTK and Arpad ( in a myth discovered at Boghazköy. Movers ( 1 [Bonn 1841] 389) held that the Israelites worshipped El as a god distinct from Yahweh (but cf. As a result the OT contains texts where the Canaanite background of the name is still recognizable. 277) The expressions , ‘El, the god of your father’, (Gen 46:3) should be discussed first.It must be emphasized that nowhere in the Phoenician and Punic inscriptions is El mentioned as president of the other gods (Rendtorff 1966). 276) The population of Palestine in the first millennium bce knew the deity El. In these few instances El refers to a deity other than Yahweh. The present context of both phrases relates them to the patriarch Jacob and his God in whom none other than Yahweh could be seen (Smith 19).Yet it is the Canaanite El who is depicted here as the God of Israel (contrast Josh ). 277) The view that El was worshipped among the Israelites is supported by Isa 14:4b–20, a lamentation about the downfall of a universal ruler.