Demons and satan revisited

    A few months ago, I published a blog post with arguments for the Christadelphian view that demons, the satan, and the devil are merely personifications of evil without any personal existence. However, while I find their arguments stronger than I expected, I still think they’re very mistaken. In this post, I’ll respond to the arguments set forth in that earlier post, with the hope of showing that the Scriptures really do teach the personal existence of the satan and demons.

    The Hebrew Bible

    In the Hebrew Bible, the word translated as “demon” (Heb: sheyd) refers to gods other than YHWH to whom the Israelites made sacrifices (Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37). Therefore, the ‘demonology’ of the Hebrew Bible is tied to what it says about other gods. Christadelphians (and many other Christians) typically assume that its teaching about other gods must be unified and univocal. Because of this, they subsume the many passages that assume the existence of other gods beneath the relatively fewer passages which say that idols have no “breath” and are merely human creations. [1]

    However, as I showed in my recent study of ancient Israelite religion, the Hebrew Bible’s view of other gods is not unified or univocal. Furthermore, even the most clearly monotheistic sections (e.g., Isaiah 40-55) assumed the existence of lesser divine beings, including beings opposed to YHWH — what we might call “demons” (Isa. 40:25-26; 45:12; 51:9-10). [2] YHWH’s statements that “there is no god beside me,” and the rhetoric about idols having no “breath” and being “nothing,” both find their closest parallel in the polemics of other ancient Near Eastern, polytheistic cultures about how their national god is the best. [3] The real innovation of monotheism wasn’t the total denial of other deities, but their relegation from being “gods” (second-tier deities) to mere “angels” (fourth-tier deities). [4]

    The belief that lesser deities can be disobedient is found throughout the Hebrew Bible. For example, in J, the “sons of God” (second-tier deities) are said to “err” (Heb: bə-šaggam) by intermarrying with human woman (Gen. 6:1-4). [5] The book of Job (which retains the archaic belief in second-tier “sons of God”; see [6]) assumes that it’s possible for angels to err and be charged with error (4:18; 15:15). Zechariah has a vision of the high priest Joshua in the heavenly courtroom, with one angel (called “the angel of YHWH”) defending him and another (called “the adversary”) prosecuting him; the latter is rebuked, which suggests that he’s erring by accusing Joshua (Zech. 3:1-2). The book of Daniel describes an angel fighting together with “Michael, a chief prince,” against “the prince of Persia” and “the prince of Greece” (10:13, 20-21). [7] That being said, none of these texts make a clear distinction between ‘angels’ and ‘demons,’ they simply emphasize that lesser divinities (like angels) can err and be opposed.

    Christadelphians are right about one thing, however: the developed arch-enemy figure called “the satan” is nowhere to be seen in the Hebrew Bible. Instead, it uses satan as a generic noun meaning “adversary,” which can be applied to humans or (rarely) angels (Num. 22:22, 32; 1 Sam. 29:4; 2 Sam. 19:22; 1 Kgs. 5:4; 11:14, 23, 25; Ps. 109:6). “The anger of YHWH” may even be hypostatized as a satan in 1 Chronicles 21:1 (cf. 2 Sam. 24:1), although it’s also possible that this refers to a human adversary, or that it’s the first instance of “Satan” as the proper name of an angelic opponent. [8] Finally, in Job 1-2 and Zechariah 3, we see an angelic being called “the satan,” but this satan isn’t necessarily opposed to YHWH; rather, he acts as the heavenly prosecutor and/or executioner, though it’s possible for him to err (Zech. 3:2). [9]

    Second-Temple Judaism

    The distinction between “Hebrew Bible” and “second-Temple Judaism” is mostly artificial, since much of the Hebrew Bible was also composed during the second-Temple period. That being said, we can look at the non-canonical texts from this period to get an idea about the wider literary context of both the New Testament and the latest parts of the Hebrew Bible. Christadelphians, such as Jonathan Burke, emphasize the distinction between ‘forensic dualism’ (with its humanistic explanation of evil) and ‘cosmological dualism’ (with its mythological explanation of evil). [10] But this is a false dichotomy. James Davies has shown, using 1 Enoch, 2 Baruch, and 4 Ezra as test cases, that many second-Temple Jews held to both humanistic and mythological explanations of evil. [11] The same is true about the Community Rule of the Jewish sect at Qumran. [12]

    In Hellenistic-period Judaism, belief in “evil spirits” as a source of temptation became common. This is first exemplified in the Book of the Watchers, a 3rd-century BC text, which explains (based on Genesis 6:1-4) that the giants, offspring of angels and humans, became “evil spirits” after they were killed, and began to lead people astray and cause illnesses (1 En. 15:7-12). The 2nd-century BC book of Jubilees equated the “evil spirits” of the giants with “demons,” and gave them a leader called “Mastema,” meaning “hatred” (Jub. 5:7-10; 7:21-25; 10:1-9). In various second-Temple texts, these “evil spirits” and “demons” are able to inhabit people’s bodies, and can be exorcised (e.g., Tobit 8:1-3; 1QapGen 20:28-29; 1QS IV 18-22; 11Q11 V 4-12; 4Q560). Josephus assumes the Enochic explanation for the origin of possessing demons, saying that they “are none other than the spirits of wicked men” (Wars 7.6.3).

    The term “demon” (Gk: daimōn) wasn’t entirely negative. In Greek philosophy, a “demon” was a lesser divinity that administered fate and affected human personality. This concept was similar to angels in second-Temple Judaism. Thus, for example, Philo of Alexandria says, “philosophers in general tend to call them ‘demons,’ but the sacred writing calls them ‘angels’” (Somn. 1.141).

    As for the existence of a leading superhuman opponent (LSO), second-Temple sources are divided. The earliest example of this is, once again, in the Book of the Watchers, where the leaders of the sinning angels are Shemihazah and his lieutenant Asael, both of whom will be punished at the last judgment (1 En. 6:1-7; 9:6-8; 10:4-15; cf. 86:1-3). The Book of Parables, written in the 1st century BC, calls the LSO Azazel and gives him the title of “the satan”; he and his followers will be punished (1 En. 53:3; 54:5-6; 55:4). In this book, “satan” is also a class of angelic beings (1 En. 40:7; 65:6). The book of Jubilees refers to the LSO as Mastema, and he’s also called “satan” (10:8-11). [13] Finally, one passing reference to “the devil” in the Moses Fragment (10:1) and to “the adversary” in pseudo-Philo (LAB 45:6) suggests, but does not require, that the authors of these texts believed in an LSO.

    An LSO, called “Belial,” plays a much bigger role in the texts of the Qumran sect. Belial is also called the “angel of darkness” (1QS 3:20-22) and “angel of hatred” (CD 16:1-6; 1QM 13:11), and is said to be the leader of “angels of destruction” and spirits that lead people astray (CD 12:1-2; 1QM 13:1-6). The “angel of darkness” leads astray the “sons of deception,” and also tests the “sons of righteousness” in order to try to lead them astray (1QS 3:20-22). Two liturgical texts from Qumran, 4QBerakhot and 4QCurses, provide formulas for cursing the LSO, whom they also call “the evil one” and “Melkiresha” (4Q280 2:2; 4Q286 7 ii 5). However, the LSO isn’t necessarily opposed to God, as he was created by God for the purpose of leading people astray (1QM 13:11-12; 1QS 3:15-19, 25), and will serve as the agent of God’s judgment on the unfaithful (CD 8:1-3).

    Christadelphians point to a few second-Temple Jewish texts which appear to ‘demythologize’ the idea of an LSO. The first is Sirach 21:27, which says, “When an impious person curses the satan, he curses himself.” This might repudiate a belief in a heavenly “satan,” but more likely repudiates the practice of cursing the heavenly satan, because the author (like Job and Zechariah) saw the satan as an important functionary of the heavenly court. [14] Wisdom 2:24 says, “through the envy of the devil death entered into the world,” which was interpreted by Clement of Rome and some modern scholars as a reference to Cain as a “devil” (1 Clem. 3:4ff). However, most scholars interpret it as an LSO, not a human slanderer. [15] The clearest example of ‘demythologization’ is found in 4Q Barkhi Nafshi, which refers to the satan of Zechariah 3 as the “evil inclination” (yetzer ha’ra).

    New Testament

    Apart from the Dead Sea Scrolls, in the second-Temple Jewish literature, an LSO is mentioned in as many as seven texts; in only three of these is he mentioned more than once. [16] In contrast, the New Testament refers to its LSO between 103 and 147 times, using various titles like “the satan,” “the devil,” and “the evil one.” [17] If, as Christadelphians claim, the New Testament authors were embarking on a campaign of ‘demythologization’ to dissuade belief in a personal satan, this data is extremely surprising. To the contrary, the New Testament emphasizes the idea of the LSO to an extent not seen elsewhere except in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

    In the synoptic gospels, the topic of demon possession and exorcism is extremely prominent. By my count, there are five accounts of specific exorcisms during Jesus’ ministry, and many other nonspecific statements about exorcisms that he performed. [18] Furthermore, the synoptic gospels report that this was a point of contention between Jesus and the Pharisees, who claimed that he cast out demons “by the ruler of the demons” (Matt. 9:34; Mk. 3:22-30/Matt. 12:24-32, 43-45/Lk. 11:15-26). Jesus’ three tests by “the devil” and “the satan” are what prepares him for his ministry in Matthew and Luke (Mk. 1:12-13/Matt. 4:1-11/Lk. 4:1-13), which parallels the “three nets of Belial” that prepare Israel for the end of the age (CD 4:15-18). Once again, these facts are very difficult to explain if the gospel writers were embarking on a deliberate campaign of ‘demythologization.’ Instead, demons and the satan most likely formed a major part of the historical Jesus’ message and worldview. [19]

    Some Christadelphians try to avoid this conclusion by appealing to the dichotomy between humanistic and mythological explanations of evil in second-Temple Judaism. Since the New Testament teaches that the main source of sin is our internal desires, and the way to avoid it is self-discipline and relying on God’s spirit, this puts it squarely within a humanistic explanation of evil. However, as noted earlier, this has been shown to be a false dichotomy. [11,12] The falseness of this dichotomy can be seen in the NT itself: the same text which says, “one is tempted by one’s own desire” (Jas. 1:13), also says that false wisdom is “demonic” (3:15) and exhorts its readers to “resist the devil and he will flee from you” (4:7). [20]

    In order to claim that the New Testament uniformly shares a humanistic explanation of evil, one must seriously cherry-pick the data. Three of the books in the NT explicitly reference the “Watchers” narrative (1 Pet. 3:18-22; 2 Pet. 2:4-5; Jude 6), which suggests they held a similar mythological etiology of demons (the spirits of fallen angels and giants) found elsewhere in second-Temple Judaism. As noted already, the satan and demons feature much more prominently in the NT than in other second-Temple texts. Moreover, none of the alleged ‘demythologization’ in the NT comes even close to the only clear example of such in the second-Temple literature, where the satan of Zech. 3 is explicitly referred to as “the evil inclination” (4Q436 1 i 10).

    Within the NT, the concept of the LSO isn’t totally uniform. Some texts present the satan as a tester, who should be resisted but whose role isn’t necessarily opposed to God (e.g., Lk. 22:31; 1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Tim. 1:20; James; see [20]). Other texts clearly present him as opposed to God, and say that his destiny is to be punished (e.g., Acts 26:18; Rom. 16:20; Rev. 20:10). This tension even appears within a single corpus, Luke-Acts, which shows that the NT authors weren’t concerned by this inconsistency. [21] As shown above, the same tension appears in the second-Temple Jewish depictions of Belial (in the DSS) and Mastema (in Jubilees; see [13]). However, what’s indisputable is that the NT does have a concept of an LSO, even if not a uniform one.

    As a test case, let’s look at the Christadelphian interpretation of James 2:19: “Even the demons believe [that God is one], and shudder!” This is related by Christadelphians to a few passages in the Hebrew Bible where inanimate idols are depicted as trembling and tottering before YHWH (1 Sam. 5:3-4; Isa. 19:1; Jer. 50:2?). However, the Greek word phrissō refers to shuddering with fear, not merely tottering. [22] Furthermore, in Greco-Roman and second-Temple Jewish texts, there is an association between demons — i.e., lesser divinities — and “shuddering,” but not with inanimate idols. [23] Finally, the wider context of James’ argument requires that the demons are conscious beings, since their belief in God is compared to human belief (Jas. 2:18-19).

    A passage sometimes appealed to by Christadelphians is 1 Cor. 8:4ff, where Paul says that “no idol in the world really exists,” but not all believers know this. Since he also says that demons are behind idols (1 Cor. 10:19-21), it follows, they claim, that demons don’t exist. But in the same passage, he acknowledges the existence of “so-called gods in heaven and on earth... many gods and many lords,” but clarifies that “for us there is one god... and one lord” (8:5-6).

    In fact, Paul accepted the existence of lesser divinities opposed to God. He spoke of “angels... princes... [and] energies” that could in principle be opposed to God’s love (Rom. 8:38-39). He spoke of “the god of this age” who prevents the spread of the Messiah’s gospel (2 Cor. 4:4). There are beings in the heavens who must be reconciled and submit to the Messiah (Phil. 2:10; Col. 1:20). Such beings, however, are “not gods by nature” (Gal. 4:8); instead, they are “demons,” lesser divinities, and shouldn’t be worshipped or served (1 Cor. 10:19-21). Paul’s rhetoric about idols having no life is drawn from Second Isaiah, who also believed in lesser divinities who could be opposed to YHWH. [24] Thus, like other second-Temple Jewish monotheists, Paul believed in a universe full of divinities, who were ultimately subject to Israel’s god but could nevertheless be opposed to him. [25]

    Post-Apostolic Christianity

    Jonathan Burke, a Christadelphian amateur scholar, has argued that several early Christian texts display an “unusual” lack of belief in demons and satan, and thus such beings must play a limited (or nonexistent) role in early Christian belief. [26] However, his argument is flawed because it presupposes the false dichotomy between humanistic and mythological etiologies of evil (see above); thus, he assumes that any text which depicts an ‘internal’ source of evil must not (or only inconsistently) share a belief in demons. Furthermore, he cherry-picks the data by discounting possible references to satan in early Christian texts (e.g., Did. 8:2; 16:4; 1 Clem. 51:1). When these errors are accounted for, the “unusual” lack of data disappears. [27]

    Conclusion

    Both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament consistently assume the existence of lesser divinities, subject to the one god (YHWH/the Father), who could in principle be opposed to God and his son, some of whom are opposed. Some of us might be uncomfortable with this conclusion for various reasons — I know that I would prefer if it weren’t true — but it’s the only responsible conclusion. It’s up to the reader to accept the Scriptures’ teaching as true, or to embark on their own campaign of ‘demythologization.’ But what can’t be done, at least not with intellectual responsibility, is to claim that the Scriptures themselves are ‘demythologizing.’

______________________________

[1] For example, Ps. 115:4; 135:15; Isa. 2:8, 20; 40:18-20; 41:21-24; 44:9-20; 57:12f; Jer. 10:2-15; 51:17f; Hos. 8:4-6; 13:2f; Hab. 2:18f.

[2] Saul M. Olyan, “Is Isaiah 40-55 Really Monotheistic,” JANER 12, no. 2 (2012), 190-201.

[3] Nathaniel B. Levtow, Images of Others: Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 108, 124, 168-169; Saul M. Olyan, “Is Isaiah 40-55 Really Monotheistic,” 197; Stephen O. Smoot, “An Egyptian View of the Monotheism of Second Isaiah,” CBQ 86, no. 1 (2024).

[4] On the four-tier structure of the early Canaanite and Israelite pantheons, see Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (New York: Oxford, 2001), 45-58. After the development of Israelite monotheism, the pantheon was collapsed into a distinction between YHWH, the only true god, totally sovereign over the cosmos, and the messengers (“angels”), who could be opposed to YHWH but were still utterly subject to him.

[5] Aren Wilson-Wright, “Yahweh’s Kin: A Comparative Linguistic and Mythological Analysis of ‘The Children of God’ in the Hebrew Bible,” in Where Is the Way to the Dwelling of Light? (Leiden: Brill, 2022), 51-53.

[6] Aren Wilson-Wright, “Yahweh’s Kin,” 54-55. The poem in Job 38:7-11, after mentioning “sons of God,” describes the birth of the god Sea in surprisingly naturalistic terms, which suggests a belief in literal children of God. Furthermore, “sons of God” in Job 1:6; 2:1 was translated as “angels of God” (Gk: hoi angeloi tou theou) in the LXX, showing that this category of deity was later considered problematic for Jewish monotheism.

[7] This reflects the earlier belief, found in Ugaritic and Israelite literature, about second-tier gods being given authority over each nation by the most high god (e.g., Deut. 4:19-20; 32:8-9). When the other gods were downgraded to angels, this belief was retained (Jub. 15:31-32; 1 En. 89:59-60).

[8] For a range of views on this passage, see John W. Wright, “The Innocence of David in 1 Chronicles 21,” JSOT 18 (1993), 87-105; Noel Bailey, “David’s Innocence: a Response to J. Wright,” JSOT 19 (1994): 83-90; Paul Evans, “Divine Intermediaries in 1 Chronicles 21,” Biblica 85, no. 4 (2004), 545-558; Pancratius C. Beentjes, “Satan, God, and the Angel(s) in 1 Chronicles 21,” in Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 139-154; Ryan E. Stokes, “The Devil Made David Do It... or Did He?”, Journal of Biblical Literature 128, no. 1 (2009), 91-106; see also NET Bible commentary on 1 Chronicles 21:1.

[9] In support of the ‘satan as prosecutor’ view, see Christopher A. Rollston, “An Ur-History of the New Testament Devil: The Celestial śāṭān in Zechariah and Job,” in Evil in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 1-16. In support of the ‘satan as executioner’ view, see Ryan E. Stokes, “Satan, Yhwh’s Executioner,” JBL 133 no. 2 (2014), 251-270.

[10] For example, see Jonathan Burke, “Rethinking satan & demons in the New Testament #2 | dualism & hamartiology,” 22:53.

[11] James P. Davies, “Evil’s Aetiology and False Dichotomies in Jewish Apocalyptic and Paul,” in Evil in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity, 169-189.

[12] Julia Leonhardt-Balzer, “Evil at Qumran,” in Evil in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity, 18-22.

[13] Cf. Jub. 23:39; 40:9; 46:2; 50:5 where “satan” is used as a generic noun. Mastema is portrayed similarly to the satan in Job and Zechariah; his authority is given by God (10:8-11), he accuses people for God to test them (17:15-16), and he acts as the ‘destroying angel’ of the exodus (49:2). He’s also portrayed more negatively than Job’s and Zechariah’s satan, as he is “shamed” when Abraham passes his test (18:12) and temporarily bound at one point to prevent him from accusing the people of Israel (48:15).

[14] Thomas J. Farrar, “New Testament Satanology and Leading Suprahuman Opponents in Second Temple Jewish Literature: A Religio-Historical Analysis,” JTS 70, no. 1 (2019), 35-38.

[15] Thomas J. Farrar, “New Testament Satanology and Leading Suprahuman Opponents,” 38-39 and fnn.

[16] The seven texts are the Book of the Watchers, the book of Jubilees, the Book of Parables, the Moses Fragment (one possible mention), pseudo-Philo (one possible mention), the book of Sirach (one possible mention), and the Wisdom of Solomon (one possible mention).

[17] Thomas J. Farrar and Guy J. Williams, “Diabolical Data: A Critical Inventory of New Testament Satanology,” JSNT 39, no. 1 (2016), 40-71.

[18] Specific exorcisms: Mk. 1:23-27/Lk. 4:33-36; Mk. 5:2-20/Matt. 8:28-33/Lk. 8:27-39; Matt. 9:32-33; Matt. 12:22/Lk. 11:14; Mk. 7:24-30/Matt. 15:22-28; Mk. 9:17-29/Matt. 17:14-20/Lk. 9:38-43. Nonspecific exorcisms: Matt. 4:24; 8:16; 10:1, 8; Mk. 1:32-34, 39; 3:11; 6:7; [16:17;] Lk. 4:41; 6:18; 7:21; 9:1; 10:17; 13:32.

[19] N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (London: SPCK, 1997), 446-466.

[20] Nicholas J. Ellis, “A Theology of Evil in the Epistle of James: Cosmic Trials and the Dramatis Personae of Evil,” in Evil in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity, 262-281. Ellis concludes that “the devil” of James 4:7 is a prosecutorial figure, similar to “the satan” of Job and Zechariah, whose role is to test humans in order to determine if they can overcome their own sinful desires.

[21] Tom de Bruin, “In Defence of New Testament Satanologies,” JSNT 44, no. 3 (2021), 435-451.

[22] https://lsj.gr/wiki/%CF%86%CF%81%CE%AF%CF%83%CF%83%CF%89

[23] Thomas J. Farrar, “Even the Demons Believe and Shudder: Demonology in the Epistle of James,” dianoigo (blog), 12 February 2018.

[24] Emma Wasserman, “‘An Idol is Nothing in the World’ (1 Cor 8:4): The Metaphysical Contradictions of 1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1 in the Context of Jewish Idolatry Polemics,” Portraits of Jesus (2012), 201-227; see also [2].

[25] Paula Fredriksen, “Philo, Herod, Paul, and the Many Gods of Ancient Jewish ‘Monotheism’,” Harvard Theological Review 115, no. 1 (2022), 23-45; see also William Horbury, "Jewish and Christian Monotheism in the Herodian Age," in Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 16-44.

[26] Jonathan Burke, “Satan and Demons in the Apostolic Fathers: A Minority Report,” Swedish Exegetical Annual 81 (2016): 127-168.

[27] Thomas Farrar, “Satanology and Demonology in the Apostolic Fathers: A Response to Jonathan Burke,” Swedish Exegetical Annual 83 (2018): 156-191.

The history of Israelite religion (part 2)

    YHWH as head of the pantheon

    As we saw in the last post, after YHWH was introduced to Israelite religion, some (whose writings are preserved in Deut. 32 and parts of the ‘Deuteronomistic History’) saw him as a second-tier deity, the patron god of Israel who was appointed by the most high god El. By the end of the exilic period, all the evidence that we have points to YHWH as the head of the Israelite pantheon, having been conflated with the most high god El. We can see a transition between these two views in Psalm 82:

Elohim takes his stand in the council of El; he accuses among the gods.

“How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Defend the weak and the orphan, give justice to the poor and needy. Rescue the weak and the needy, deliver them from the hand of the wicked. They have neither knowledge nor understanding; they walk around in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken.”

“I presumed that you are gods, and all of you sons of the most high. Nevertheless, you will die like men and fall like one of the princes. Arise, Elohim, and judge the earth, for you will inherit all the nations.” (Ps. 82:1-8)

In this psalm, YHWH (called “Elohim” or “God”) is depicted as standing in “the council of El,” which is known from the Ugaritic texts to be a technical term for the group of second-tier deities (El’s children) below the most high god El. [1] This term shares the same connotation in Psalm 82, as we see that the gods of the council are “sons of the most high” (v. 6). But is YHWH conflated with El here, or is he one of El’s sons as in Deuteronomy 32?

    Several considerations support the latter view. First, if this were YHWH’s council, it would be more natural to say, “Elohim takes his stand in his council,“ rather than “Elohim takes his stand in El’s council” (v. 1). [2] Furthermore, rather than presiding over El’s council, YHWH is standing in the midst of the council as prosecutor. There’s no precedent in the ancient Near East texts, Israelite or otherwise, for the high god himself acting as prosecutor in his council. [3] YHWH is told, “you will inherit all nations” (qal imperfect; v. 8), which implies that he’s not already ruler of all nations. It’s probable that the speaker changes between YHWH and El from v. 5 to 6. After YHWH denounces the other gods before El, El condemns them to death, and as a consequence, YHWH inherits the nations that his former siblings once ruled. [4] This parallels the Ugaritic “Ba’al Cycle,” where Ba’al is declared to be ruler of the gods after defeating one of them in battle. [3]

    The likely setting of this psalm, and the other “psalms of Asaph,” is the exilic period. The “inheritance” of YHWH has been destroyed by the gentiles (Ps. 79:1-4), and his people have been driven from the land of Israel, making it impossible for them to worship YHWH (Ps. 137:1-4; see previous post). The solution is that YHWH must rebuke the other gods for their injustice, take his place as leader of the divine council, and inherit rulership of all nations (Ps. 82). [5]

    This transition can also be seen in the redactional history of Deuteronomy. Moses’ speech in Deut. 1:1-4:43 is known to have been written later than the rest of Deuteronomy, probably in the exilic period (but the precise dating doesn’t matter very much). [6] This speech modifies the account of Deut. 32:8-9 by putting YHWH in the place of the most high god, as the one who divided the nations among the gods, and who took Israel as his own possession (4:19-20). It also emphasizes that YHWH himself set the borders of the nations (2:4-5, 9). The Deuteronomistic account of the exile, which must date to the exilic period, also emphasizes YHWH’s sovereignty over the foreign armies that invaded Judah (2 Kgs. 24:2-4, 20), which shows that he was seen as ruler of all nations.

    To be sure, I’m not arguing for a linear development of Israelite religion, only that such a development can be seen in the Deuteronomistic literature. The J source of the Pentateuch, belonging to the monarchic period, already conflates YHWH with El, as the “sons of God” (Gen. 6:1-4) are depicted as YHWH’s offspring. [7] The view of YHWH as the leader of the second-tier deities, the “sons of El/God,” is also found in some of the poetic literature of the Hebrew Bible — pre-exilic (Ps. 29:1-2), exilic (Ps. 89:6-7), and post-exilic alike (Job 1:6; 38:7-9). [8] The commandment to have “no other gods before” YHWH, found in the Covenant Code (Exod. 20:3), may mean that El was no longer seen as a separate god. The prophet Hosea, writing in the mid-8th century BC, equated YHWH with El who wrestled Jacob (Hos. 12:2-5). The prophet Isaiah, writing slightly later, saw YHWH as sovereign over all nations including Assyria (Isa. 10:5-12).

    The inscriptions at Kuntillet ’Ajrud, dating to the late monarchic period, describe YHWH alongside a consort A/asherah (which may be a proper name or a generic noun), and may conflate YHWH with both El and Ba’al. [9] Thus, the conflation of YHWH with El as the head of the divine council occurred in some Israelite circles by the early monarchic period, and in others possibly as late as the exilic period.

    Through the Persian period, the view of YHWH as head of the Israelite pantheon continued in some areas. The Elephantine papyri, belonging to a group of YHWH-worshipping Israelite exiles in Egypt during the 5th century BC, testify to the conflation of YHW with the Aramean high god Bethel. Alongside him, they worshipped his consort Anat-Bethel and their son Eshem-Bethel, making a three-god pantheon out of the divine family. [10] In 408 BC, the Elephantine community petitioned the Judean high priest for help rebuilding their temple of YHW (Elephantine Papyri no. 30), but seemingly never received a response, which suggests a break between the YHW-centered polytheism of Elephantine and the monotheism of the post-exilic Judean community.

    YHWH as the only true god

    During the exilic period, some of the Judean exiles took the next step of not only seeing YHWH as the highest god and ruler of the pantheon, but as the only one worthy of being called “God” (Heb: elohim). This is most clearly seen in Second Isaiah (2Isa; Isaiah 40-55), a text written toward the end of the exilic period. 2Isa repeatedly says of YHWH that there is no god beside him, that no god was formed before him nor will outlast him, and that there is no one like him (Isa. 43:10-11; 44:6-7; 45:5-7, 14, 18, 21; 46:8-9). The uniqueness of YHWH is tied to his sole creation of the heavens and earth, with no one else beside him (40:12, 21-22; 44:24; 45:12, 18; 48:13; 51:13, 16).

    The prophet Jeremiah, writing in the late pre-exilic period, shared a similar view: “The gods who did not make the heavens and the earth shall perish from the earth and from under the heavens” (Jer. 10:11-12). Both Jeremiah and 2Isa went so far as to say that the idols of the nations have no breath in them, and are not gods at all (Isa. 40:9-22; Jer. 10:2-15; 51:17).

    However, none of this rhetoric is unparalleled in the ancient Near East. The statements about no god being beside YHWH, and his creation of the heaven and earth, is very similar to Egyptian and Babylonian statements about the superiority of their own favored gods. [11] Even the rhetoric about the idols of other nations having no breath and being “nothing” is paralleled in the statements of Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus about their enemies’ idols. [12] Furthermore, 2Isa acknowledges the existence of other divine beings, such as the “heavenly hosts” whom YHWH created and commands (40:25-26; 45:12), and the sea monster Rahab whom YHWH defeated (51:9-10). The real innovation of 2Isa is its refusal to call other divine beings “gods/God” (Heb: elohim). [13] Based on this, it should truly be classified as monotheistic, with its belief in only one God.

    By the late Persian and Hellenistic periods, monotheism became the hegemonic view in second-Temple Judaism. The other “gods” of the nations, formerly second-tier deities, had been downgraded to mere angels, fourth-tier heavenly beings totally subordinate to the one true God YHWH. This can be seen, for example, in the LXX translation of Deuteronomy 32 into Greek, which downgrades the “sons of God” to “angels of God” and exhorts the angels, not the “gods,” to worship the Lord. [14] The Dead Sea Scrolls, written by the Qumran community in the 2nd-1st centuries BC, frequently refer to “gods” (Heb: elim or elohim), but use this title to refer to angels and lesser spiritual beings, both those subordinate and opposed to God. [15] Like the LXX, the DSS replaces “sons of God” in the Hebrew Bible with “angels of God” (11QtgJob 30:5; 4Q180).

    Other second-Temple texts refer to the mythological motif of the most high god dividing the nations among the gods. However, in these texts, the lower gods are “angels” and/or “spirits,” who may be opposed to God and his angels (Dan. 10:20-21), or may have been sent by God to deceive the nations (Jub. 15:31-32) or to punish Israel (1 En. 89:59-60). These angels may overstep their bounds and themselves be punished severely (1 En. 89:61-70; 90:22, 25).

    Conclusion

    The Hebrew Bible doesn’t present a single, unified view of YHWH’s relationship with the other gods. The history of Israelite religion can be divided into a few stages or groups, starting with the religion of the patriarchs:

1. The earliest Israelite religion was worship of the Canaanite high god El, creator of heaven and earth (Gen. 14:17-22; 28:19; 31:13; 33:20; 35:7, 15; 46:3; 49:24-25). This is where the name “Isra-El” (“El contends”) comes from in the first place. The patriarchs never even knew the name “YHWH,” a fact explained in Exodus 6:3.
2. YHWH was introduced to Israelite religion, most likely from the south (in the region of Sinai and Edom), some time in the late 2nd millennium BC. Based on the very earliest Israelite texts that we have (preserved in Exodus 15:1-18 and Judges 5:2-31), it appears that YHWH began as a deity associated with storms and war.
3. After YHWH was introduced, he was seen as the national god of Israel, and as such subordinate to the high god El who assigned the gods to their nations (Deut. 32:8-9). He could be worshipped only on Israelite soil (1 Sam. 26:16-20; 2 Kgs. 5:15-19; 17:24-28; Ps. 137:1-4), and could be defeated by other national gods like Chemosh in battle (2 Kgs. 3:17-27).
4. YHWH was distinguished from the high god El in some circles of Israelite religion until at least the 8th century BC, perhaps as late as the exilic period (if that’s when Psalm 82 was composed). On the other hand, the J source of the Pentateuch, which most likely dates to the monarchic period, clearly conflates YHWH and El. The earliest clearly datable conflation of YHWH with El comes from the prophets of YHWH, Hosea and Isaiah, in the 8th century BC (Isa. 12:1-2; Hos. 12:2-5).
5. In the late exilic and post-exilic periods, the status of other divine beings in Israelite religion was degraded from “gods” (second-tier deities) to merely angels (fourth-tier deities), making YHWH into the only true god (Isa. 40-55; LXX; DSS). This final step marks the transition from polytheism to monotheism.

    How can we reconcile this with faith in God? Can we do so? I believe it’s possible to be a consistent Christian while also accepting where this evidence leads. Rather than assuming that God directly revealed everything about himself to Israel, we can see the history of Israelite religion as a history of discovery and realization about their god. Perhaps God originally revealed himself to the patriarchs within the framework of their religion, as the most high god El, creator of heaven and earth. He also revealed himself to Israel as YHWH at a later date (the same solution proposed in Exodus 6:3). Some Israelites thought that YHWH, as the god of Israel, was subordinate to El and able to be defeated by other national gods. Others (notably, YHWH’s prophets) saw him as the highest god and the same as El. Finally, with the tragedy of the exile, the Israelites realized that YHWH was completely unique and sovereign over world events.

______________________________

[1] Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 42-49.

[2] As late as the 1st century BC, it was recognized that “Elohim” and “El” refer to two different figures in Psalm 82:1. However, in order to reconcile it with Jewish monotheism, “Elohim” was reinterpreted as the angelic figure Melchizedek, and “El” was reinterpreted as YHWH himself (11QMelch 2:9-14).

[3] Thom Stark, “The Most Heiser.”

[4] David Frankel, “El as the Speaking Voice in Psalm 82:6-8,” JHS 10 (2011), 3-12.

[5] Daniel McClellan, “The Gods-Complaint: Psalm 82 as a Psalm of Complaint,” JBL 137, no. 4 (2018), 833-851; however, a pre-exilic date and setting are also possible, see David Frankel, “El as the Speaking Voice,” 12-14.

[6] Joel S. Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (London: Yale, 2012), 129-132. It’s long been recognized that there are two introductions to Deuteronomy, both of which begin with the convening of all Israel (1:1; 5:1), a historical prologue about the defeat of Sihon and Og (1:4; 4:46-49), and a statement about the exposition of the law (1:5; 4:44-45). The second introduction (4:44-11:32) primarily focuses on the events of the giving of the law at Horeb, whereas the first introduction (1:1-4:43) complements it by adding details about the wilderness events, showing that it was written later.

[7] Aren Wilson-Wright, “Yahweh’s Kin,” 51-53. On the existence of the J source, see Joel S. Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch, 45-81. If the J source didn’t exist, and something like the supplementary hypothesis is true instead (with D as the original form of the Pentateuch), then a linear development of Israelite religion would be more plausible.

[8] Aren Wilson-Wright (“Yahweh’s Kin,” 54-55) notes that Job 38:8-9 describes the birth of “Sea” (Heb: yam) in surprisingly naturalistic terms, which suggests that the author viewed the “sons of God” as a true familial relationship, similarly to Ugaritic literature about the children of El.

[9] B. A. Mastin, “The Inscriptions Written on Plaster at Kuntillet ’Ajrud,” Vetus Testamentum 59, no. 1 (2009), 110-113. However, see Ryan Thomas, “Plaster Wall Inscription 4.2: El, Baal, and YHWH,” who argues that El and Ba’al refer to the head of the pantheon (“holy one over the gods”), a separate deity from YHWH at Kuntillet ’Ajrud.

[10] Ryan Thomas, “Reconstructing the Pantheon of Judaean Elephantine,” Ugarit-Forschungen 51 (2020), 225-297.

[11] Saul M. Olyan, “Is Isaiah 40-55 Really Monotheistic,” JANER 12, no. 2 (2012), 197; Stephen O. Smoot, “An Egyptian View of the Monotheism of Second Isaiah,” CBQ 86, no. 1 (2024). For example, consider the Middle Egyptian Hymn to Amun-Re, which describes Amun as “sole one, unique among the gods... sole image who made everything that exists... single one, without his equal.”

[12] Nathaniel B. Levtow, Images of Others: Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 108, 124, 168-169.

[13] Saul M. Olyan, “Is Isaiah 40-55 Really Monotheistic?”

[14] Daniel McClellan, “What is Deity in LXX Deuteronomy,” Studia Antiqua 10, no. 1 (2011), 67-79.

[15] John J. Collins, “Powers in Heaven: God, Gods, and Angels in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 11-19; Cecilia Wassen, “Angels in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook (2007), 500-501.

The history of Israelite religion

    What does the Hebrew Bible say about gods other than YHWH? According to some (such as the late Michael Heiser), the other gods of the nations were viewed as second-tier deities in the divine council, above the angels but below YHWH, the one true and unique God. Others (including most second-Temple Jews) viewed these “gods” as merely angels. Most Christians today simply assume that, in the Hebrew Bible, YHWH is the only god whatsoever, and the gods of the nations don’t exist in any way. However, all of these views assume that the Hebrew Bible must share a single, unified view of the relationship between YHWH and the gods of the nations. Most scholars agree that the Hebrew Bible contains multiple views about YHWH and other gods. Let’s go over the evidence for this.

    YHWH as patron deity of Israel

    In the ancient Near East, it was believed that there was a patron god for each nation, allotted by the most high god of the divine council. As attested by many Ugaritic texts, this highest god of the Canaanite pantheon was El, a name that literally means “god.” This view is also attested in the Hebrew Bible, most notably in the poem of Deuteronomy 32:

When the most high divided the nations as an inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of El. [1] YHWH’s portion is his people, and Jacob his share of the inheritance. (Deut. 32:8-9)

This passage attributes the division of the nations to “the most high” god (Heb: ’elyon), and says that they were divided among “the sons of El.” As in Canaanite mythology, El is the most high god who divides the nations. What’s truly striking is that in this passage, YHWH himself appears to be a son of El, and not identical to the most high god!

    This becomes especially clear when read in the original Hebrew. We’re told that the most high god gave the peoples (Heb: ammim) as an inheritance (Heb: b’hankhel) to the sons of El, and that the people (Heb: ammow) of YHWH are Israel, who are his share of the inheritance (Heb: khebel nakhalatow). The same root words are used in both cases, indicating that Israel was given to YHWH by the most high god. This becomes even clearer when we realize that a “share of the inheritance” is always something given by a superior, never something taken by oneself (Josh. 17:14; 1 Chron. 16:18; Ps. 78:55; 105:11). While a few scholars have argued against this conclusion, their arguments are remarkably weak and fail to account for the clear parallelism between vv. 8 and 9. [2]

    The rhetorical effect within the larger poem is to show that YHWH’s status as god of Israel is part of the divine order established by the most high god. YHWH has shepherded Israel from the beginning (Deut. 32:10-14), but Israel has abandoned this divine order and worshipped other gods (32:15-18).

    The existence of these other gods isn’t in question, and it’s possible that several lower-tier deities of Israel’s pantheon are actually named in this poem as YHWH’s allies (32:23-24). [3] Their characterization as “not-gods” is parallel to the characterization of Israel’s enemies as “not-people” (32:21) — it’s not that they don’t exist, but that they are insignificant. YHWH’s declaration, “I, I am he, and there is no god beside me” (32:39), parallels other ancient Near Eastern statements about the superiority of one’s own national deity. [4] After YHWH defeats his people’s enemies in combat, their gods will bow down to him and acknowledge his superiority (32:40-43).

    Thus, the poem in Deuteronomy 32 presents an Israelite pantheon in which (as at Ugarit) the most high god is El, who gave Israel to YHWH and the other nations to the other gods. In this view, YHWH is the best national god, but not the only one. This view is also found in several parts of the Deuteronomistic History (Joshua–2 Kings). The gods of other nations are acknowledged as real, but it’s wrong for Israel to worship them (Josh. 10:6; 1 Kgs. 11:33).

    YHWH, however, is tied to the land of Israel and can only be worshipped on Israelite soil. When Saul pursued David to the borders of Israel, he cried out that he was being driven “away from the presence of YHWH” and forced to worship other gods (1 Sam. 26:17-20). When the Aramean general Na’aman converted to Israelite religion and had to return to his home country, Elisha gave him two cartloads of Israelite soil so that he could continue to worship YHWH (2 Kgs. 5:15-19). The foreigners transplanted to Israel by Assyria initially failed to worship YHWH, “the god of the land,” and were punished as a result (2 Kgs. 17:24-28).

    YHWH’s authority outside of the land of Israel wasn’t total. When he promised that Israel would conquer Moab, but Moab’s king sacrificed his son to Moab’s patron deity Chemosh, the resulting divine fury drove Israel out — YHWH was defeated by Chemosh (2 Kgs. 3:17-27). [5] All of these passages belong to the first redactional stratum of the Deuteronomistic History, dating to the 7th century BC. [6]

    The earliest Isra-El-ite religion

    The ruler of the Israelite pantheon, according to Deut. 32:8 (and corroborated by the Ugaritic texts), was the most high god El. There’s much evidence that this was the god originally worshipped by Israel’s patriarchs. [7] In fact, this is evidenced by the very name Isra-El (meaning “El contends”). Unlike later in the Hebrew Bible, most of the theophoric names in Genesis involve the name El rather than YHWH — for example, “Beth-El” (house of El; Gen. 28:19; 35:7, 15) and “El-Elohe-Israel” (El, god of Israel; Gen. 33:20). There are other examples of “El” names in the patriarchal narratives (Gen. 16:11, 13; 32:28, 30, 31), in contrast to only one claimed instance of a “YHWH” name (Gen. 22:14).

    Abraham worships “El the most high” alongside the Canaanite priest Melchizedek (Gen. 14:17-22). [8] Jacob blesses Joseph by “El the mighty,” mentioned separately from YHWH (Gen. 49:24-25; cf. v. 18). One of the accounts of Moses’ commission says that the patriarchs didn’t know the name “YHWH,” but rather worshipped him as “El the mighty” (Exod. 6:3). This appears to be a later attempt, after YHWH and El were conflated within the Israelite pantheon, to explain why the patriarchs worshipped God as “El” and not “YHWH.”

    Recent findings from Tel Rehov, in the northern Jordan Valley, show that the cult of the high god El (as a separate deity from YHWH) continued in parts of Israel until at least the 9th century BC. [9] The Deir ’Alla inscription (KAI 312), dating to the early 8th century BC in the eastern Jordan Valley, testify to a belief in El as the leader of the pantheon at that date. [10] There is evidence from the biblical texts that El continued to be worshipped as the high god, distinct from YHWH, at Bethel well into the 8th century BC. [11] The evidence from personal theophoric names in the archaeological record shows that “YHWH” names grew in popularity, while “El” names became less common, from the 10th century BC onward. [12] This points to YHWH’s supercession of (and eventual conflation with) the god El.

    How was YHWH introduced to the Israelite pantheon as their patron deity, if the patriarchs of Israel originally worshipped El alone? All signs point to the south, especially Edom and the Sinai peninsula, as the origin of YHWH-worship. The Hebrew Bible repeatedly emphasizes that YHWH came from Sinai, from Seir, from Paran, from Teman — all locations to the south of Israel (e.g., Deut. 33:2; Judg. 5:4-5; Ps. 68:8-9; Hab. 3:3; cf. Kuntillet ’Ajrud pithos B). An inscription from 18th-Dynasty Egypt refers to the “land of the nomads of YHW” as a place in the southern Levant, before “Israel” is first attested as a people group in the 19th Dynasty. [13]

    Therefore, the earliest Israelite religion, practiced by Israel’s patriarchs, was most likely worship of the high god El. At some later time, the deity YHWH was brought in from the south (perhaps, though this is complete speculation, in a historical ‘exodus’ event) and became the patron god of Israel. YHWH was eventually conflated with El to become the most high god (this will be covered in my next post). To be clear, I am not suggesting the debunked idea of linear evolution of Israelite religion. There’s no reason to think Israelite religion was totally uniform, and there may have been groups that conflated YHWH and El from the start. However, it’s clear that there were groups — some of whose texts survive in the Hebrew Bible — that believed YHWH to be a second-tier deity beneath El.

______________________________

[1] The reading “sons of El” isn’t directly attested in any extant manuscript of Deut. 32:8, but it’s the best explanation for the widely variant readings that do exist: “sons of Israel” (MT), “angels of God” (LXX), and “sons of Elohim” (4QDeutj). Furthermore, this reading is indirectly attested in one of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QHa XXIV 10a). For more information, see Aren Wilson-Wright, “Yahweh’s Kin: A Comparative Linguistic and Mythological Analysis of ‘The Children of God’ in the Hebrew Bible,” in Where Is the Way to the Dwelling of Light? (Leiden: Brill, 2022), 41-42. The fact that this verse was modified in so many different ways by later Jewish scribes shows how difficult it was to reconcile with Jewish monotheism.

[2] Michael S. Heiser, “Are Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deut. 32:8-9 and Psalm 82,” Hiphil 3 (2006); Thom Stark, “The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32,” Religion at the Margins (blog), 16 July 2011; Chrissy Hansen, “The Many Gods of Deuteronomy: A Response to Michael Heiser’s Interpretation of Deut. 32:8-9,” ASRR (2022). The position that Deut. 32:8-9 distinguishes YHWH from “the most high” is by far the majority view among scholars; see Chrissy Hansen, “The Many Gods of Deuteronomy,” fn. 19.

Another fact which Hansen and Stark don’t discuss, but which strongly undermines Heiser’s argument, is the chiastic structure of Deut. 32:8-9 (see below):

A. When the most high divided the nations as an inheritance [Heb: b’hankhel], when he separated the sons of men...

B. ...he fixed the boundaries of the peoples [Heb: ammim] according to the number of the sons of El.

B’. YHWH’s portion is his people [Heb: ammow]...

A’. ...and Jacob his share of the inheritance [Heb: khebel nakhalatow].

Within this chiasm, “YHWH” is parallel to “sons of El,” not to “the most high.” This forcefully argues for a reading on which YHWH is a second-tier deity, given the nation of Israel as an inheritance by his father, the most high god El.

[3] Chrissy Hansen, “The Named Gods of Deuteronomy: Additional Comments on Deuteronomy 32:1-43,” ASRR (2023).

[4] See Thom Stark, “The Most Heiser,” ref. 1.

[5] 2 Kings 3:27 says that there was “great wrath” (Heb: qetseph gadowl) against Israel after Moab’s king sacrificed his son to Chemosh, using a word which elsewhere [except in late Persian-period writings] only refers to divine wrath (Num. 1:53; 16:46; 18:5; Deut. 29:28; Josh. 9:20; 22:20; 1 Chron. 27:24; 2 Chron. 19:2, 10; 24:18; 29:8; 32:25, 26; Ps. 38:1; 102:10; Isa. 34:2; 54:8; 60:10; Jer. 10:10; 21:5; 32:37; 50:13; Zech. 1:2, 15; 7:12; cf. Esth. 1:18; Ecc. 5:17). The parallel Moabite account of this battle, found in the Mesha Stele, also attributes Israel’s defeat to Moab’s patron god Chemosh. Later apologetic attempts by Jews and Christians to make YHWH the source of this divine wrath are utterly strained, as the context shows that YHWH was the one who promised Moab to Israel in the first place (2 Kgs. 3:18).

[6] Thomas Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical, and Literary Introduction (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 91-104.

[7] For a lengthier summary of the evidence, see Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (New York: Oxford, 2001), 139-145.

[8] The Masoretic Text adds “YHWH” before “El the most high” at Gen. 14:22, but this reading is not supported by the LXX, the Peshitta, or the Samaritan Pentateuch, showing that it’s a much later addition.  Similarly, at Gen. 31:13 and 46:3, the definite article was added before “El” in the MT, transforming it into the generic noun “god.” As with Deut. 32:8, the very fact that these verses were edited shows that the references to “El” as the proper name of a deity were considered problematic for Jewish monotheism.

[9] Amihai Mazar, “Religious Practices and Cult Objects during the Iron Age IIA at Tel Rehov and their Implications regarding Religion in Northern Israel,” HeBAI 4 (2015), 25-55.

[10] This inscription, which is a story about the prophet Balaam son of Beor, sheds some light on the account in Numbers 22-24, which is also an account of Balaam’s prophecies and focuses more on El (whom he calls “most high”) than YHWH. Smith (The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 146-147) argues that this text preserves the distinction between YHWH and El.

[11] Aren Wilson-Wright, “Bethel and the Persistence of El: Evidence for the Survival of El as an Independent Deity in the Jacob Cycle and 1 Kings 12:25-30,” JBL 138, no. 4 (2019), 705-720.

[12] Mitka R. Golub, “Israelite and Judean Personal Theophoric Names in the Hebrew Bible in the Light of the Archaeological Evidence,” ANES 54 (2017), 41.

[13] Titus Kennedy, “The Land of the š3sw (Nomads) of yhw3 at Soleb," Dotawo 6 (2019).