El and Yahweh Are Separate Gods Redacted Into One

[BL2KTN]

Anybody up for the title of the debate?

 

[BL2KTN]

Sixty views and no takers...

 

[keith99]

Why would someone debate an idea so trivial?

All one needs to do is look up just what 'El' means in Hebrew.

Something pretty easy in the internet age.

 

[BL2KTN]

And yet Christianity kinfa depends on that not being the case.

 

[Ken Rank]

Anybody up for the title of the debate?

What is there to debate? El is Hebrew (short form) for God, YHWH is God's name as seen in the Hebrew. Unless you are following another god, or using some other religion's holy book, or can't read Hebrew, then YHWH and Elohim are one and the same. There is no debate!

 

[BL2KTN]

Ken... El is the chief god in the pantheon of Canaanite gods. Yahweh is his son, along with about seventy other gods in the Canaanite religion. In Genesis 1 we have El's creation, in Genesis 2 we have Yahweh's creation. At the burning bush we have Yahweh revealing to Moses that he has been El all along.

If you're interested in debating whether El and Yahweh were separate gods merged into one, feel free to take up the offer. However, I won't discuss it any further here, as I don't want to debate it in a proposal thread =)

 

[Ken Rank]

Ken... El is the chief god in the pantheon of Canaanite gods. Yahweh is his son, along with about seventy other gods in the Canaanite religion. In Genesis 1 we have El's creation, in Genesis 2 we have Yahweh's creation. At the burning bush we have Yahweh revealing to Moses that he has been El all along.

If you're interested in debating whether El and Yahweh were separate gods merged into one, feel free to take up the offer. However, I won't discuss it any further here, as I don't want to debate it in a proposal thread =)

I don't mean this condescendingly BL of TN (I am in KY).... but I suspected an answer like this. What you are revealing is a lack of semiotic awareness, and need for linguistic training, and likely a course or two in time period sourcing. Just because a word reaches across cultures and has different meanings or points to differing things or beings does not make any kind of case for you. A Christian (or a Jew for that matter) raised in an Arabic speaking country EVEN TODAY is raised calling YHWH, Allah. Not as a personal name as used in Islam, but because allah is derived from eloah and is simply the Arabic word for God! El is used similarly across Semitic cultures. Many false gods were called El, in fact, one of the gods of war from the Sumerians would have his name transliterated in English as Yahweh. Does that mean the true YHWH stole His name? No... not at all. So like I said, there is nothing to debate. Doing so against anyone who understands semiotics and linguistics will find you left in the corner eating his lunch. Peace!

 

[BL2KTN]

Feel free to debate it if you think I am in need of semiotic awareness, linguistic training, and time period sourcing. Just be aware that I have a degree in biblical studies, have taken multiple classes in Hebrew, and love studying the Ugaritic texts of ancient Canaan.

 

[BL2KTN]

Same to you

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Ken... El is the chief god in the pantheon of Canaanite gods. Yahweh is his son, along with about seventy other gods in the Canaanite religion. In Genesis 1 we have El's creation, in Genesis 2 we have Yahweh's creation. At the burning bush we have Yahweh revealing to Moses that he has been El all along.

If you're interested in debating whether El and Yahweh were separate gods merged into one, feel free to take up the offer. However, I won't discuss it any further here, as I don't want to debate it in a proposal thread =)

So, if we were to begin promoting this debate with a statement: El is the Chief god in the pantheon of Canaanite gods and father of Yahweh we may get more a bit more interest. Would you like this promoted in GT and UT to see if there are any takers?

 

[BL2KTN]

Sounds good to me, but there are certain mods who would be more than happy to ban me if I post in those forums. Try not to move a thread in there that has my name on it =)

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Sounds good to me, but there are certain mods who would be more than happy to ban me if I post in those forums. Try not to move a thread in there that has my name on it =)

Don't worry BL, I will make the invite threads, I will stick them, and within them, I will post a link back here. Give me a bit of time.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

GT promotion thread is here: Looking for someone to debate...

UT promotion thread is here: Looking for someone to debate...

I'll look after these threads, and will close and delete them when we (hopefully) find an opponent for you.

Mark

 

[BL2KTN]

The debate is very simple: El was a god and Yahweh was a god... eventually the two were redacted into being a single god in the bible. This was due to the Yahweh religion becoming the stronger and desiring monotheism.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

MOD HAT...

Everyone; this is a proposal thread, not a debate thread. If you are going to debate this, then post your intent and I will set it up. If you don't want to engage the proposer in a formal debate, then please don't try and do so informally here.

OK?

Mark
Staff Supervisor

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

And yet Christianity kinfa depends on that not being the case.

Not really. Educated Christians have known about and accepted Pentateuchal redaction for over a century and a half. The fact that ancient Israelite monotheism developed through a progressive, historically-bound process out of Canaanite/Phoenician polytheism is a challenge to biblical literalism, but not Christian faith.

So as for the proposal, I feel like a more pertinent question would be whether redaction criticism and history-of-traditions scholarship is something that should be seen as a threat to faith or as a sign of mature faith.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

But i doubt we have enough people here who are expert in early Semitic religion to debate this. If we do, I'd love to watch the debate.

Exactly. I fancy myself an amateur student in ancient Israelite religion, but I don't really have the competency to debate the specifics of the pre-redaction theology of J, E, JE, P, D1, and D2, or the pre-textual history of stories about the divine beings. Even specialized scholars like Mark S. Smith, Frank Moore Cross, Israel Finkelstein, Richard Elliott Friedman, and William G. Dever have trouble connecting the gaps between the pantheon and stories of the Ugaritic texts with the proposed oral tales that form the theological/narrative core behind J, E, and the earliest Psalms and songs.

So again, I feel like there's a good debate topic here, but as proposed it seems like it would flounder pretty quickly on the shoals of "No one (else besides the OP?) here speaks Ugaritic and has mastery of the textual and epigraphical evidence."

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I also think it would be an interesting debate, however we are not getting very far.

I'm going to throw something out for your consideration; please let me know what you think...

GCC, you posted here (Looking for someone to debate...) that you would be interested in taking the affirmative.

BLTN, would you be interested in taking the negative instead?

I think mixing things up might make for a really interesting discussion.

 

[BL2KTN]

Not really. Educated Christians have known about and accepted Pentateuchal redaction for over a century and a half. The fact that ancient Israelite monotheism developed through a progressive, historically-bound process out of Canaanite/Phoenician polytheism is a challenge to biblical literalism, but not Christian faith.

So as for the proposal, I feel like a more pertinent question would be whether redaction criticism and history-of-traditions scholarship is something that should be seen as a threat to faith or as a sign of mature faith.

I don't agree with you, but I can already tell I like you. It's obvious you've put some real thought into this and the way that you accept an evolving religious background is intriguing. I'm not sure it would measure up under real scrutiny, but I like that it has some depth as opposed to "ignore all evidence that disagrees with my wants". Kudos!

I also think it would be an interesting debate, however we are not getting very far.

I'm going to throw something out for your consideration; please let me know what you think...

GCC, you posted here (Looking for someone to debate...) that you would be interested in taking the affirmative.

BLTN, would you be interested in taking the negative instead?

I think mixing things up might make for a really interesting discussion.

I don't know - now I'm kinda wondering about a debate over whether or not it is important to Christianity's core teachings.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

<snip> ... now I'm kinda wondering about a debate over whether or not it is important to Christianity's core teachings.

I think I'd be more willing to go that route as well. Something like: "Is the truth of Christianity depend on the literal historicity of the Torah?"

Although I think it could be framed better, something that would both take into account that your "Yes" answer isn't the answer of a literalist Christian but rather of a non-religious historian, and take into account the fact that my answer is not an absolute "No" but a qualified "No."

However it's worded, I think a good jumping off point would be the argument Paul makes in Romans 9-11, especially his thematic statement in 9:4-5: "They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen."