The Early History of God Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel by Mark S. Smith, Patrick D
School
Georgia Piedmont Technical College**We aren't endorsed by this school
Course
HIST MISC
Subject
Religion
Date
Dec 20, 2024
Pages
477
Uploaded by JudgeWombatMaster210
Table of ContentsTHE BIBLICAL RESOURCE SERIESTHE BIBLICAL RESOURCE SERIESTitle PageCopyright PageDedicationForewordPreface to the Second EditionAcknowledgementsAbbreviations and SiglaIntroductionCHAPTER 1 - Deities in Israel in the Period of the Judges1. Israel’s “Canaanite” Heritage2. Yahweh and El3.Yahweh and Baal4. Yahweh and Asherah5. Convergence of Divine Imagery6. Convergence in Israelite Religion7. Israel and Its NeighborsCHAPTER 2 - Yahweh and Baal1. Baal Worship in Israel2. Imagery of Baal and Yahweh3. The Role of the Monarchy4. Excursus: Yahweh and AnatCHAPTER 3 - Yahweh and Asherah1. Distribution in the Biblical Record2. The Symbol of the Asherah3. The Inscriptional Evidence4. Asherah — An Israelite Goddess?5. The Assimilation of the Imagery of Asherah
6. Excursus: Gender Language for YahwehCHAPTER 4 - Yahweh and the Sun1. The Biblical Record2. The Role of the Monarchy3. The Assimilation of Solar ImageryCHAPTER 5 - Yahwistic Cultic Practices1. Yahwistic Cultic Symbols and Sites2. Practices Associated with the Dead3. The mlk SacrificeCHAPTER 6 - The Origins and Development of Israelite Monotheism1. The Period of the Judges2. The First Half of the Monarchy3. The Second Half of the Monarchy4. The Exile5. Israelite Monotheism in Historical PerspectiveCHAPTER 7 - Postscript: Portraits of Yahweh1. Processes Leading to Divine Portraiture in Israel2. The Absence of Some Canaanite Divine Roles in the Biblical RecordIndexes of TextsIndex of AuthorsGeneral Index
THE BIBLICAL RESOURCE SERIESGeneral EditorsASTRID B. BECKDAVID NOEL FREEDMANEditorial BoardHAROLD W. ATTRIDGE,History and Literature of Early ChristianityJOHN HUEHNERGARD,Ancient Near Eastern Languages and LiteraturesPETER MACHINIST,Ancient Near Eastern Languages and LiteraturesSHALOM M. PAUL, Hebrew BibleJOHN P. MEIER,New TestamentSTANLEY E. PORTER,New Testament Language and LiteratureJAMES C. VANDERKAM,History and Literature of Early JudaismADELA YARBRO COLLINS,New Testament
THE BIBLICAL RESOURCE SERIESAvailableJohn J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination,Second EditionJohn J. Collins,Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in theHellenistic Diaspora,Second EditionJoseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., To Advance the Gospel,Second EditionRichard B. Hays,The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure ofGalatians 3:1-4:11,Second EditionColin J. Hemer,The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local SettingAnthony J. Saldarini,Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees in Palestinian SocietyMark S. Smith,The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities inAncient Israel, Second EditionRoland de Vaux,Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions
© 1990, 2002 Mark S. SmithAll rights reservedFirst published 1990 by HarperSanFrancisco, a division of HarperCollins PublishersSecond edition published 2002by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.255 Jefferson Ave. S.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 /P.O. Box 163, Cambridge CB3 9PU U.K.www.eerdmans.comand byDove Booksellers13904 Michigan Avenue, Dearborn, Michigan 48126www.dovebook.comPrinted in the United States of America07 06 05 04 03 7 6 5 4 3 2Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataThe early history of God: Yahweh and the other deities in ancient Israel /Mark S. Smith; with a foreword by Patrick D. Miller. — 2nd ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical referencesand index.ISBN 0-8028-3972-X (paper: alk. paper)1. God — Biblical teaching. 2. Bible. O.T. — Criticism, interpretation, etc. 3. Gods, Semitic. 4. Israel —Religion. I. Title.BS1192.6.S55 2002291.2’11’0933 — dc212002024467
For my father,Donald Eugene Smith,with loveEverything God has made beautiful in its own time; also eternity God has giveninto their heart.(cf. Ecclesiastes 3:11)
Foreword to the Second EditionThe last quarter century has witnessed a burgeoning of interest in Israelitereligion,arisingfromsignificantnewdiscoveries,bothepigraphicandiconographic, as well as from renewed attention to the roots of monotheism inthe Bible. No consensus has been reached on the origins of monotheism inancient Israel. On the contrary, the distance between perspectives on thisquestion may be farther than it has ever been. There are some who speak withease of an early polytheism in Israelite religion, while others insist on thepriority and generally exclusive worship of the god Yahweh from very earlystages in Israelite religion.No single study of Israelite religion during this period of time has contributedmore informatively and constructively to the discussion of the issues than MarkSmith’s volume,The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities inAncient Israel.Its subtitle identifies not only the primary subject matter but thetwo perspectives that make this book so valuable. It is in a sense a study of thebeginning of “God,” at least insofar as the contemporary understanding of deityin western traditions reaches back to the God of Israel. Smith’s effort is not towrite a history of Israelite religion but a history of God, with particular attentionto the way in which the understanding of deity that has so shaped Judaism,Christianity, and Islam — with influences far beyond those circles — took shapeat the earliest stages. The reference to “the other deities” is appropriate becauseYahweh clearly came out of the world of the gods of the ancient Near East, sothat kinship relations to these other deities are there from the beginning. Smith isparticularly interested in the “other deities” as they found their way into Israelitereligion as objects of worship alongside the national deity, Yahweh. But on theway to that analysis, he uncovers the roots of Yahweh and Yahwism and theways in which the other deities found their way into the profile and character ofIsrael’s god. So the place of the other deities is not simply alongside Israel’sdeity but within the god Yahweh as well as in differentiation and, at times,conflictwithhim.Thedevelopmentofatypologyofconvergenceanddifferentiation,sketched in the introduction and then worked out in the rest ofthe chapters, is a major contribution to the possibility of a complex but coherentunderstanding of the origins of Yahweh and the place that deity had in theextended history of Israel up to the exile. Along the way, Smith is attentive tosocial context and typologies within Israelite religion, particularly with regard tofamily and popular religion in distinction from royal and state religion.
The further groundwork laid by this book is to be found in its focus on twoaspects of deity that have come to be seen in much larger ways than previously.Already before Smith’s work appeared, much discussion — and some heat —had been stirred up over the discovery of texts from two different areas ineighth-century Judah alluding to an “asherah” in relation to Yahweh. The clearconnection of that term to the equivalent term in the Bible — with its pejorativedisdain — as well as to a goddess well known from second-millennium WestSemitic texts has raised the possibility of Israel’s god having had a recognizedconsort in pre-exilic Israelite religion. Smith takes this question up withperspicuity and careful attention to the various views on the topic, including nowthe most recent studies of the issue. The further dimension of Yahweh’s profilethat has grown in our awareness, in part because of Smith’s own originalresearch on the topic, is his solar character, an issue to which a chapter isdevoted in this study.While this major study of Israel’s god has not become outdated, the secondedition is a welcome contribution to the further study of Israelite religion and theroots of monotheism. Characteristically attentive to the latest research, Smith hasbrought his study up to date at many points. Most important is the Preface to theSecond Edition, itself a small monograph looking afresh at all the issuesdiscussed in the book from the perspective of the most recent investigations.Even within the main text, however, especially in the notes, Smith has revisedwithout shifting position — an unnecessary move in his case because of thewisdom and judiciousness of his constructive and persuasive view of the originand nature of Yahweh among the gods of Israel’s world. By a careful reading ofthis book, historians and theologians alike will learn much that they need toknow in order to understand the biblical God and the religious world thatbrought forth the Jewish and Christian scriptures.PATRICK D. MILLER
Preface to the Second Edition
1. Recent Research on DeitiesIt has been over a decade sinceThe Early History of Godfirst appeared, andmany new developments have taken place that have altered the landscape ofresearch on deities. Many new inscriptional, iconographic, and archaeologicaldiscoveries pertinent to research have been made. Important new epigraphicfinds bearing on deities include several inscriptions from Tel Miqneh (Ekron),1and the yet to be published Phoenician inscription from the south-westernTurkishvillageofInjirli.2Someofthemoredramaticdiscoveriesoficonography would be the Bethsaida stele depicting the horned bull-deity, theTel Dan plaques representing a seated-god figure and a standing deity depictedinanunusualfashion,andtheIshtarmedallionfromMiqneh.3Finally,archaeology has further furnished students of Israelite religion with a newarsenal of data to ponder and integrate. As a result of more recent inscriptional,iconographic, and archaeological discoveries, many standard hypotheses arefading and new syntheses are emerging in their wake.The rate of new discoveries has been more than matched by the pace ofsecondary literature. Over the last decade the subject of deities in ancient Israelhas enjoyed a high profile in the academic world of biblical studies. Many newarticles and books have appeared, treating all of the deities discussed inTheEarly History of God.Indeed, hardly a year has passed by without theappearance of a new volume on the goddess Asherah,4and many other deitieshave received substantial treatments in their own right. Offering broad coveragespecifically on deities in ancient Israel are works by well-known Europeanscholars (listed in order by year): O. Loretz,Ugarit und die Bibel: KanaanäischeGötterundReligionimAltenTestament;5theiconographicallyorientedsynthesis of O. Keel and C. Uehlinger,Göttinen, Götter und Gottessymbole,6which appeared in English in 1998 under the title Gods,Goddesses and ImagesofGodinAncientIsrael;7W.Herrmann,VonGottunddenGöttern:Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament;8N. Wyatt,Serving the Gods;9and J.Day,Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan.10The apex of this line ofresearch is the landmark volume,Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible(DDD),11which appeared in a revised, expanded edition in 1999.
Complementing these works are studies devoted to West Semitic religion.These include G. del Olmo Lete,La Religión Cananea según la liturgia deUgarit: Estudio textuel,12which was published in English asCanaanite Religionaccording to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit;13a volume edited also by del OlmoLete,SemitasOccidentales(Emar,Ugarit,Hebreaos,Fenicios,Arameos,Arabes preislamicos)with contributions by D. Arnaud, G. del Olmo Lete, J.Teixidor, and F. Bron;14and H. Niehr,Religionen in Israels Umwelt:Einführungin die nordwestsemitischen Religionen Syrien-Palästinas.15F. Pomponio and P.Xella have producedLes dieux d’Ebla,a resource treating deities not only intexts from Ebla, but also in later corpora.16Wide coverage for Phoeniciansources has been nicely provided by E. Lipiński in his volume,Dieux et deessesde l’univers phénicien et punique.17Some histories of Israelite religion have also appeared, including R. Albertz’s1992 work,Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit18(which waspublished two years later in English asA History of Israelite Religion in the OldTestament Period).19A more recent entry in this venerable genre is the 2000volume of P. D. Miller,The Religion of Ancient IsraeL20The 2001 volume by Z.Zevit,The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches,embodies history of religion research, but this work vastly extends the traditionalgenre by the depth of its textual, iconographic, and archaeological treatment aswell as its theoretical discussion.21By the time this second edition ofThe EarlyHistory of Godappears in print, the field may be benefiting from the survey ofIsraelite religion by T. J. Lewis published in the Anchor Bible Reference Library(Doubleday).22Conference volumes and other collections on Israelite religion inits West Semitic milieu also have made their impact.23New investigations of polytheism and monotheism include H. Niehr’sDerhöchste Gott;24J. C. de Moor’s substantial yet controversial volume, The RiseofYahwism: Roots of Israelite Monotheism;25N. Wyatt’sMyths of Power: A Studyof Royal Power and Ideology in Ugaritic and Biblical Tradition;26R. K.Gnuse’s combination of ancient religion and modern theology,No Other Gods:Emergent Monotheism in Israel;27and my study,The Origins of BiblicalMonotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts.28Therehas also appeared a popular work on the subject, with essays by D. B. Redford,W. G. Dever, P. K. McCarter, and J. J. Collins.29A number of substantial essayshave also addressed this topic.30As all of the new discoveries and research indicates,31it is impossible to do
justice to the progress of the past decade or so on the topic of deities in ancientIsrael. In what follows, I would like to offer an idea of some of the main trendsand ongoing problems bearing on research on deities in ancient Israel.
2. Important Trends since 1990Looking beyond specific works on deities to the wider disciplines informing thestudy of Israelite religion, several new trends have emerged over the last decade.Apart from new discoveries, I would mention three trends in the study ofIsraelite religion.First, the study of iconography and its relevance for Israelite religion hascome to the fore with particular force. Already mentioned above is thetremendously important synthetic work by the team of O. Keel and C. Uehlinger,Göttinen, Götter und Gottessymbole(English translation:Gods, Goddesses andImages of God in Ancient Israel). The field has also benefited from the manyimportant studies on iconography by many figures, including (the late lamented)P. Beck, I. Cornelius, E. Gubel, T. Ornan, B. Sass, and S. Timm.32A major“event” on the specific question of Israelite iconography and aniconism was T.N. D. Mettinger’s 1995 book,No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in ItsAncient Near Eastern Context.33This work spawned a tremendous amount ofdiscussion, epitomized by the essays inThe Image and the Book; Iconic Cults,Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East,34and an important review article by T. J. Lewis35as well as the overview by N.Na’aman.36As a result of this work, iconography has emerged as a third majorset of data in addition to texts and archaeological realia in the study of Israelitereligion.Second,syntheticarchaeologicalresearchhasreachedanewlevelofsophistication. Examples of important work by archaeologists interested insituating biblical texts in their larger cultural contexts include studies by L. E.Stager37as well as J. D. Schloen,38D. M. Master,39and E. M. Bloch-Smith,including her monograph,Judahite Burials Practices and Beliefs about theDead.40In addition, three prominent accessible syntheses produced by seniormembers of the archaeological field appeared in 2001: a beautiful volume by P.J. King and L. E. Stager,Life in Biblical Israel;41W. G. Dever’s all too oftenvenomous book,What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They KnowIt? What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel;42and thesomewhat one-sided work of I. Finkelstein and N. Silberman,The Bible
Unearthed.43Already cited above is the monumental 2001 volume by Z. Zevit,The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches,44whichdeserves to be mentioned in this context because of its massive synthesis ofarchaeological sources. Another recent entry among archaeological investigationof Israelite religion is B. Alpert Nakhai’sArchaeology and the Religions ofCanaan and Israel.45Underlying the efforts at synthesis is the theoretical discussion about therelationships between primary texts and other remains in the interpretation ofancient cultures. Over fifteen years ago, F. Brandfon wrote a probing piece inwhich he addressed some of the theoretical difficulties.46Yet until relativelyrecentlythiscriticalreflectionhasnotinformedthemainstreamofthediscussion. For example, W. G. Dever has long been known for his importantarchaeological research and sustained interest in the social sciences.47However,in his theoretical stance toward the historically pertinent material embodied inthe Bible and archaeological record, Dever shrinks back to an entrenchedposition of what he himself characterizes as “common sense.”48Why is this? Iwould only offer my suspicion that Dever’s difficulties stem from a pragmatism(he characterizes his model as one of “neopragmatism”49), which evidentlyeshews philosophy and more specifically philosophy of history. In contrast, in2001 two well-known figures moved this discussion to center stage. Zevitdevotes the first eighty pages ofThe Religions of Ancient Israelto the subject. J.D. Schloen has offered his philosophical prolegomenon on archaeology andhistorical research in his book,The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol.50Schloen senses a great theoretical need where Dever assumes a posture of“common sense.” Schloen comments: “Tempting as it may be to avoid explicittheorizing, the fact remains that contestable choices are embedded in even themost ‘obvious’ and innocent-looking of ‘common sense’ interpretations inarchaeology and socio-economic history.”51Third, and related, the impact of social sciences has been felt in a strongerway over the past decade. Anthropology and sociology have informed the workof archaeologists and other scholars working in religion. Following older studiesby R. Albertz on personal religion and drawing on the classic work of thesociologist Emile Durkheim, K. van der Toorn has emphasized the basicstructure of the family for understanding Israelite culture and religion as awhole. His work on domestic and gender issues in religion deserves special notehere, especially his impressive 1996 book,Family Religion in Babylonia, Syriaand Israel52and his simpler yet useful 1994 monograph,From Her Cradle to
Her Grave.53Van der Toorn is continuing the analysis of religion from thevantage point of social location. At present, he is preparing a study ofintellectual religion which examines the understanding of divinity and the worldin scribal circles in Israel and ancient Mesopotamia. Influenced by Max Weber,J. D. Schloen offers some initial suggestions about applying the concept of thepatrimonial household to the pantheon.54I have applied this line of inquiry inordertoexploreconceptualmonismswithinUgariticandearlyIsraelitepolytheisms, and in turn to understand better the background for the emergenceof Judean monotheism in the seventh-sixth centuries B.C.E.55Similarly, studiesof Anat by P. L. Day56and N. H. Walls57have looked at family structure inorder to enhance the understanding of one specific deity, namely the goddessAnat. Another area where social sciences has been influential in the study ofreligion of Israel and Ugarit involves ritual studies (developed by figures such asCatherine Bell). As only three works informed strongly by this area, I wouldmention G. A. Anderson’sA Time to Mourn, A Time to Dance,S. M. Olyan’sRites and Rank, and D. P. Wright’sRitual in Narrative.58Finally, studies ofIsraelite ethnicity have been applied to both archaeological data59and biblicaltexts.60As a result of studies drawing on social sciences, texts whether biblical orextrabiblical have been situated more within the different segments of societieswhich produce them. This agenda is hardly new,61but the research has becomemore influential. Accordingly, the perspectives offered in the texts may notrepresent the cultures as wholes (as presupposed by the long-used constructs“Israelite”and/or/versus“Canaanite”).Instead,textshavebeentakenasrepresentations of the overlapping perspectives of various social factions, strata,and segments: so-called official versus popular; domestic versus public; eliteversus peasant; male versus female. J. Berlinerblau has discussed sociologicalrefinements in these categories.62He has also criticized the use of the long-usedcategories, “popular” and “official” religion.63How research uses and nuancesthese categories and their dynamic interrelationship remains to be seen. Scholarsin biblical studies will continue to compare and contrast as well as critique theconstruction of these categories in other academic fields.64As a corollary ofthese refinements, syntheses in archaeological and textual research have furtherattempted to situate religious practices or notions known from texts withinspecific architectural locations as attested in the archaeological record. Inaddition to Z. Zevit’s massive study cited above, I would mention in this vein T.H. Blomquist’s 1999 book,Gates and Gods,65and a recent article by A. Faust
on doorway orientation and Israelite cosmology.66On the whole, news vistas offered by iconographic and archaeological datahave been accompanied by advances in theoretical considerations. Inclusion of awider range of primary data has been matched by an increase in theoreticalconsiderations and efforts at synthesis. With these changes have come severalserious challenges.
3. Theoretical ChallengesWhile the turn of the millennium has witnessed strong research on Israelitedeities and religion,67several older difficulties remain. Despite many gains, thebasic task remains largely a matter of interpreting and integrating small pieces ofevidence drawn from rather disparate sources. In studying biblical texts inparticular, scholars are often dealing with literary vestiges of religious practicesand worldviews. The larger works in which these older vestiges appear have sorefracted the earlier religious history that their recovery requires disembeddingthem from their literary contexts. This may seem counterintuitive to manyreaders of the Bible because such an operation often runs against the grain of theBible’s claims. In my opinion, what vestiges we have provide barely enoughmaterial to write a proper history of religion for ancient Israel. In general, it isvery difficult to garner little more than a broad picture of Israel prior to theeighth century, and at times the theses offered seem conjectural. Readers missinga clear societal context (or, set of contexts) for the wider developments discussedin this book will be largely disappointed. More specifically, the vestiges of earlyIsraelite religion point to a development which I labelled “convergence” in thisbook, but these vestiges all too often do not, in my opinion, provide sufficientinformation to illuminate their social and political background, apart from acircumstantial case made for royal impact. As for the phenomenon which Icalled “differentiation,” I did note some of the ancient players (specifically,priestly lines as well as the writers and tradents behind the book of Deuteronomyand the Deuteronomistic History) in this development, but here too the vestigesoffer only a partial view of their larger historical context.The fundamental difficulty lies in the nature of textual evidence. Becausemythic images (and little mythic narrative) have been incorporated and refractedthrough the textual lens of the various genres, these genres offer only a glimpseof the larger understanding. Furthermore, the texts have been written so muchafter the fact or have undergone such long redactional histories that the situationwith the various deities is very difficult to gauge. This situation is particularlyacute with the Iron I period, but it also affects our understanding of Iron II.Archaeology and iconography, while central to the enterprise, can alleviate onlysome of the difficulty. Both require interpretation all too often in the face of little
or no aid from roughly contemporary textual sources (apart from Judges 5 andperhaps some other small number of texts). As a result, it is generally notpossible to recover how premonarchic Israel fashioned its own narrative aboutits religious identity (reflected in the early archaeological and iconographicevidence).68Instead, scholars combine a number of approaches into theirsyntheses: they rely heavily on the small number of early texts, they addinterpretations drawn from the contemporary archaeological or iconographicsources, and they work from later texts that seem (at least, to them) to reflect theearlier situation (Zevit’s work is a good example of this situation). The workremains highly inferential. This shortcoming may be overcome in the future bynewdiscoveries,moreextensiveexaminationsofthedata,andtheirincorporation into more theoretically sophisticated frameworks.Recent developments have complicated the task as well. First, newer researchhas altered long-standing axioms of biblical studies. For example, the oldersource theory of the Pentateuch (often called the “Documentary Hypothesis”)had already come under serious fire whenThe Early History of Godfirstappeared (this is the reason why the conventional sigla for the Pentateuchalsources were given quotation marks). The newer redactional model developedby E. Blum69and extended by D. M. Carr70on the biblical side, and the studiesof redaction in Gilgamesh by J. H. Tigay on the ancient Near Eastern side,71have complicated source theory without abolishing it.72While the death knell forsource theory was sounded often over the course of the 1980s and 1990s, it hasnot been supplanted by a more persuasive model. Tigay’s work in particularsuggests that source criticism comports with what is known for the compositionand transmission of ancient texts outside the Bible. Moreover, old-fashionedsource criticism and redaction criticism could be combined and modified toorder to provide a satisfactory range of models of textual composition that wouldattend to the interrelated processes of memorization and reading, writing andinterpretation(addressingamongotherquestions,Israelitepracticesofcommemoration and memorization, both by scribes and in the wider culture).These processes were addressed in an incipient way in the first edition ofTheEarly History of God(chapter 6), but several further points about orality andscribalism have been made recently, for example by S. A. Niditch and by R. F.Person, Jr.73Studies also stress literacy, for example the otherwise widelyvarying treatments by M. D. Coogan, J. L. Crenshaw, and M. Haran.74M.Fishbane has nicely noted the role of interpretation in scribal practice.75It is theintersection of literacy, orality, interpretation, collective memory, and modes ofmemorization that underlay scribal praxis. Indeed, the ingredients insufficiently
representedinthediscussionofthepraxisofancientIsraelitetextualcomposition are, to my mind, cultural memory and memorization. The formerhas been addressed increasingly in recent years,76while the latter continues to belargely neglected. In contrast, memory and memorization are nicely noted in C.Hezser’swork,JewishLiteracyinRomanPalestine77andbeautifullyemphasized by M. Carruthers in her two studies of medieval culture.78Theconstellation of scribal practices, including memorization, are attested for Israelin the Lachish letters.79As only one working model, it might be assumed thatsuch a scribal praxis informed late monarchic Judean (and perhaps later) textualproduction that underlies those narrative works regarded later as biblical(Pentateuch and Deuteronomistic History). From the eighth century (Isaiah)through the sixth century (Jeremiah), prophetic accounts suggest a further rangeof models combining reading, writing, and interpretation,80while some sixth-centuryprophecy(SecondIsaiah)showsanorientationaroundreading,interpretation, and writing.81Liturgical models combining memory and writingperhaps in yet other modes can be discerned in the diachronic reuse of texts,suchasPsalm29:1-2.82Anexampleofpriestlyreading,writing,andinterpretation of prior tradition and texts may be found in Genesis 1:1-2:3.83Inaddition to these models, multiple editions of biblical works proposed throughtext-critical analysis offer further perspective on the practices underlying someaspects of scribal compositions and transmission.84Well beyond the scope ofthis discussion, ultimately a successful history of religion will have to includeworking out a history of models of textual production in ancient Israel (alongwith criteria for assessing them), locate the witnesses to those models withintheir social settings, interrelate those witnesses and settings, and synthesize whatinformation they provide about Israelite religion.Second, literary study with little or no interest in diachronic development(coupled with a de-emphasis on ancient langages apart from Hebrew) has tendedto minimize the significance of ancient Near Eastern contexts of Israelite culture,not to mention Israelite history in general and the history of Israelite religionspecifically. To name only a handful of subdisciplines applied to the HebrewBible,structuralism,reader-responsetheory,ideologicalcriticism,andpostmodern readings have contributed to a devaluation of diachronic research,including the history of the religion of Israel.85While each wave of atomismwithinthebiblicalfieldseemstobemetbyanopposingwaveofinterdisciplinary research (which often reintegrates what has been becomeatomized), the sustained disassociation of the study of biblical literature from
Israelite history complicates the situation. However, the neglect has cut in theother direction at the same time. The full impact of literary study, which has alltoo often been neglected in history of religion research (including my own),86has yet to be felt in syntheses of Israelite religion.Third, and related, the study of Israelite history in particular has become moreproblematic over the last decade. Refined analyses reveal data which do not fitinto traditional large-scale syntheses. The common models for the origins ofIsrael in the land (conquest, infiltration, and peasant- revolt) have all beeninundatedbyevidencederivedfromsurveysandexcavations.Regionalvariations call into question the viability of a single master thesis to explain thesituation on the ground. The discussions of the Late Bronze-Iron I and the Iron I-Iron II transitions have grown in complexity.87Serious doubts as to thehistoricity of the biblical descriptions of the United Monarchy have beenincreasingly voiced by I. Finkelstein and others; and despite strong efforts byarchaeologists such as Stager and Dever in the United States and A. Mazar andA. Ben-Tor in Israel, defending the historicity of biblical events purporting todate to the tenth century has become a more difficult proposition. Pertinentstudies largely from the textual side include two recent books bearing on thefigure of David, produced by B. Halpern and S. L. McKenzie.88These attempt tosift the myth from the life of the historical David; no simple task. Despite thechallenges, these works are remarkably sane, and they would suggest theplausibility of historical recontruction based on critical analyses of biblical texts.The historical questions remain problematic, even without introducing thefurther issues involved in responding to the challenges posed by figures such asP. Davies, N. P. Lemche, and T. Thompson.89Their efforts to locate biblicaltexts generally in the Persian or even the Hellenistic period pass over manylinguistic and historical difficulties of their own. A recent entry in the discussionof the Iron Age is the dissertation of K. Wilson directed by P. K. McCarter.90Wilson disputes the historical value of the Shishak list which he argues does notprovide evidence for a specific campaign by Shishak; instead, the list representsa compilation of sites designed to represent Shishak as a world-conqueror.Wilson’sargumentdoesnotunderminethebiblicalevidenceconcerningShishak’s campaign, which could well have taken place as 1 Kings 14:25 claims,but his argument would preclude using the Shishak list in the discussion ofcorrelating destruction levels at archaeological sites with the Shishak list itself.As a result, a major linchpin in tenth-century chronology falls.More fundamental questions surrounding the definition of “history” and theBible underlie these discussions. Biblical historians agree that the biblical
narrativesofthepastconstitutehistory,buttheirdisagreementoverthedefinition of history raises serious problems. For example, both B. Halpern andM. Brettler treat the Deuteronomistic History and Chronicles as history,91butthey strongly differ in their understanding as to how these biblical worksconstitute history. Brettler rejects Halpern’s view of the biblical historians ashaving an antiquarian interest in using sources to recover a past that theybelieved was the case. Instead, Brettler prefers a broader definition of history asa narrative about the past. Brettler further notes the didactic function of theseworks, not to mention the literary tropes that help to advance their teachinggoals. Given the difference between Halpern and Brettler over what constituteshistory, one may ask if a basic problem afflicts their operating assumption thatbiblicalnarrativesaboutthepastarehistory.Withoutexhaustingtheconsiderations that go into whether these works are history, it seems worthwhileto examine the degree to which biblical presentations of the past shape the pastto conform to present concerns, or in other words, how cultural memory isexpressive of present vicissitudes. Brettler nicely explores this function ofcollective memory, and his definition does not distinguish between history and anarrative about the past produced by the collective memory of a tradition.Where biblical scholars such as Halpern and Brettler maintain that biblicalworks such as the Deuteronomistic History (Joshua through Kings) and thebooks of Chronicles constitute history, I have my doubts about the scope of thischaracterization. Even in the case of the books of Chronicles, where the use ofsources is clear, their author(s) may have inherited such source material fromreligious tradition and used that source material not simply to create a narrationpresenting the past, but one whose primary function was to celebrate the past asan antecedent to the present. The historical-looking work of Chronicles seems tolack some assessment of sources, and it shows a deeply commemorative functionin its narrative of the past, specifically in structuring the past in terms of thepresent.92Unlike Brettler, I would probably put history and collective memoryin narrative forms on a spectrum, perhaps with the crucial distinction lying notsimply in using prior sources or an author’s interest in the past as such (paceHalpern), but in an author’s work being informed by some sense of what goesinto the representation of the past as past.93In any case, this discussion indicatesthat these theoretical questions impinging on the Bible and its representations ofthe past necessarily involve a number of critical issues which have yet to beassimilated into the discussion (with the partial exception of Zevit’sTheReligions of Ancient Israel).Fourth and finally, use of the Ugaritic texts for the study of Israelite religion
has evolved since the first edition ofThe Early History of God. Since 1990,comparison of Ugaritic and biblical texts has come to be viewed in morecomplex terms. Scholars are well beyond the situation of “pan-Ugariticism” inbiblical studies derided in earlier decades. The high-water mark of Ugaritic-biblical parallels was reached with the three volumes of RasShamra Parallels94and the trend ebbed around 1985. Simplistic drawing of Ugaritic and biblicalparallels has passed from fashion. Morever, a certain disjunction has taken placebetween Ugaritic and biblical studies, while more attention has been paid tolocating Ugarit within its larger societal and ecological context. The Frencharchaeological team has produced a whole new awareness of ancient Ugariticculture. Wider interests of industry and society have been treated by the Frenchteam, and by other scholars.95A related development involves situating Ugariticand Ugarit within their larger ancient Syrian context, as known at other sites,some known for decades (Mari), others more recently (Emar, Munbaqa/TelEkalte, ‘Ain Dara, Suhu).96The field will also continue to be aided by Amoritematerial.97The field of Ugaritic studies no longer holds, nor should it hold, to anunilinear focus aimed toward ancient Israel or the Bible. All these discoverieshave forced scholars interested in situating the Bible in its wider West Semiticcontext to take a longer (perhaps more scenic) route in traveling the historicaland cultural distances between Ugarit and ancient Israe1.98Such an intellectualsituation will in no way diminish the important and deep cultural and linguisticrelations between the Ugaritic and biblical texts; instead, such relations are nowunderstood more richly. Commenting on the comparison of the Ugaritic textsand the Bible, Keel and Uehlinger are, technically speaking, right to state thatthe Ugaritic texts “are not primary sources for the religious history of Canaanand Israel,”99but such a view hardly precludes seeing the Ugaritic texts asproviding some of the larger background behind the development of Israelitereligion. Although it is quite correct to note the temporal, geographical, andcultural distance between the Ugaritic and biblical texts,100it is precisely thedifferences within their larger similarities that sharpen scholarly understandingof Israelite religion, in particular its differentiation from the larger West Semiticculture of which the Ugaritic texts constitute the single greatest extra-biblicaltextual witness. Again this issue, like the others mentioned above in this section,stands in need of further investigation and refinement.It is clear from consideration of these challenges that the field is movingforward on several fronts that include both the collection and assessment of newdata as well as the consideration of theory from various quarters. History of
religion work for ancient Israel remains largely in the stage of assembling andexamining pertinent data, with steps having been taken toward satisfactorytheoretical frameworks for specific topics within the larger enterprise. At thispoint, a more overarching theoretical framework for the larger enterprise still hasyet to appear. Perhaps because of its historical roots in theology, the field ofIsraelite religion (not to mention biblical studies generally) remains one thatdoes not generate its own general theoretical contribution to the humanities orsocial sciences. Yet the successes of the recent decade should not be minimized.Increasing complexity in the patterns of religous concepts and their developmenthasclearlymarkedmorerecentresearch.Thefactorsthatgointotheconceptualization of Israelite religion as an intellectual project have grownenormously.
4. Asherah/asherah RevisitedI would like to take this opportunity to revisit briefly this area of the first editionofThe Early History of God, first because the chapter on this subject receivedsubstantial criticism and because the field has maintained strong interest inAsherah studies.101In the meantime, the main base of data has changed in tworespects. The first is the addition of the newer inscriptional material from TelMiqneh (Ekron).102The second is the increase in iconographic evidence broughtto bear on the discussion. At the forefront of this effort has been O. Keel and C.Uehlinger’s important iconographic work in their book,Gods, Goddesses andImages of God, and in Keel’s 1998Goddesses and Trees, New Moon andYahweh.103At this point the range of viewpoints about Asherah as a goddess in Israel isperhaps best represented on one side by S. M. Olyan’s acceptance of the goddessin his important 1988 monograph,Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel, andon the other by C. Frevel’s considerably circumscribed and extensive 1995study,Aschera und der Ausschliesslichkeitanspruch YHWHs,104(Keel andUehlinger’s Gods, Goddesses and Images ofGod105combines the two views,namely that the symbol of the asherah lost its associations to the goddess by theeighth century, only to regain them by the second half of the seventh century.)Since the first edition ofThe Early History of God, several other studies haveappeared. S. Ackerman has also situated the issues against the larger issue ofpopular religion in ancient Israel.106She has made a further case for a royalideology paralleling Asherah and the queen mother in ancient Judah.107S. A.Wiggins has surveyed the comparative evidence, and his work offers a critiqueof what he regards as the excessive claims made about the evidence forAsherah.108There is also John Day’s treatment of the issues in his book,Yahwehand the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. Additional Mesopotamian material hasbeen supplied by P. Merlo’s 1998 work,La dea Asratum — Atiratu—Ašera,109The field now enjoys the benefit of having J. M. Hadley’s fine study, entitledThe Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a HebrewGoddess. M. Dijkstra and M. C. A. Korpel have addressed the question pro andcon in a recent volume of essays.110
At this point most commentators believe that Asherah was a goddess inmonarchic Israel (e.g., Ackerman, Binger, Day, Dever, Dijkstra, Edelman,Hadley, Handy, Keel and Uehlinger, Loretz, Merlo, Niehr, Olyan, Petty, Wyatt,Xella, Zevit, as well as NJPS at 1 Kings 15:13). Some do not (e.g., Cross,111Frevel, Korpel, Tigay; cf. Emerton’s very cautious formulation, McCarter’sasherahasYahweh’shypostasis,Miller’snuancedpositionofsecondarydivinization of the symbol). The first edition ofThe Early History of God112concluded that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that Asherah was agoddess in Israel during the monarchy and asked whether the symbol of theasherah lost its original association with the goddess at that point. I would notstate categorically that there was no goddess in monarchic Israel, but wouldstress that the data marshalled in support of the goddess in this period are moreproblematic than advocates have suggested.The Early History of Godoffersarguments why Asherah may not have enjoyed cultic devotion in the period ofthe monarchy despite the apparently strong evidence from Kuntillet ‛Ajrud andin 1 Kings 15 and 18, 2 Kings 21 and 23. Advocates for Asherah as a monarchicperiod goddess in Israel did not address sufficiently the idea that a cultic symbolmay have been rendered in the likeness of an’ăšērâtree or pole, a view hardlyimpossible for passages such as 1 Kings 15:13 and 2 Kings 21:7 (so, too, 2Kings 23:6). What could be involved is a more elaborate royal version of the’ăšēerâ.Some new objections to this view have been raised since the first edition ofThe Early History of God. It has been considered implausible that culticdevotion could be paid to the cultic item of the’ăšērâ(as in 2 Kings 23).113However, J. Tigay notes an example in a discussion that many commentatorshave overlooked.114It is to be noted further that if the Jerusalemite templetradition was aniconic or at least non-anthropomorphic for Yahweh (as manyscholars argue),115then it would be reasonable to entertain the possibility thatthe image of the asherah might be at least non-anthropomorphic as well. It hasalso been suggested that the attestation of’ăšērôtas a generic word for“goddesses” demonstrates that its ancient users knew that the word’ăšērâstoodfor a divine name.116However, this logic suffers from the etymological fallacy.It is dubious to argue that the reference to the prophets of Asherah in 1 Kings18:19 demonstrates an earlier awareness of the goddess Asherah, if thisknowledge was the product of a polemical misidentification with Astarte. Inother words, the symbol may have been misconstrued to pertain to some goddessbecause later tradents who added the reference to a putative Phoenician Asherahto 1 Kings 18:19 conflated the Phoenician Astarte (there is no Phoenician
Asherah attested) with the name of the symbol and assumed that it represented agoddess named Asherah (this explanation would comport with the textualvariations between Asherah and Astarte117and between’ăšērôtand ’ăštārôt).118Accordingly, a misconstrual informs a claim made that my “explanation of’ăšērâsurely still implies an awareness of the goddess Asherah in Israel.”119Later literary usage of’ăšērâimplies only that at some time in the history ofIsraelitereligiontherewasanawarenessofAsherahasagoddess,notnecessarily still in the time when the literary usage is attested.120The polemical nature of the Deuteronomistic History has been raised as apowerful argument in favor of’ăšērâas a goddess. The history’s handling ofreferences (including the most crucial biblical attestation tohā’ăšērâwith “thebaal” in 2 Kings 23:4 suggesting a deity), but it is unclear whether this ishistorical observation or polemic. There is an important, broader consideration inthe discussion. Curiously, advocates such O. Loretz sometimes claim that thosescholars who do not accept’ăšērâin the passages mentioned above as a goddesshave been deceived by the ideological perspective of the DeuteronomisticHistory or are somehow psychologically unprepared to deal with its outlook.121However, if it were true that the Deuteronomistic authors understand’ăšērâinthe passages involved as a goddess (as the advocates maintain) and if their workis an ideologically charged polemic (as the advocates also claim, rightly in myview), why should its viewpoint regarding the nature of’ăšērâas a goddessduring the monarchy be accepted as historically reliable? In short, the appeal tothe ideological character of the Deuteronomistic History cuts as readily againstthose who accept’ăšērâas a goddess; it might be argued that advocates are thescholars taken in by the ideological perspective of the Deuteronomistic History.On the whole, I find this particular line of discussion unproductive. Furthermore,if one were inclined to draw psychological inferences about scholars (paceLoretz),onemightmakethecounterclaimthattheZeitgeistofouragepsychologically preconditions advocates to desire to discover a goddess inancient Israel. In short, psychological arguments are tendentious, and barringclear evidence, implicitlyad hominem(or,ad feminam).Finally with respect to the biblical discussion,The Early History of Godproposed that the demise of the goddess’s cult would have begun by the end ofthe pre-monarchic period. However, this position too needs to be revisited andqualified. So much relies on an argument from silence especially where the tenthand ninth centuries are involved. Accordingly, one might see the duration of thegoddess’s cult later and situate the beginning of the symbol’s career apart fromthe goddess by the end of the ninth century. It is hard to be precise on this point.
Different rates of change may apply in different areas or social segments ormovements, and so it is possible that the transition took place in some quarterseven later. The discussion warrants considerably greater circumspection in thematter of the biblical evidence.The discussion of main inscriptional evidence from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud hascontinued to revolve around the grammatical interpretation of /‘šrth. Scholarscontinue to debate whether the name of the goddess can take a pronominalsuffix.122There seems to be a deadlock over this issue. For scholars wishing toobviate this difficulty and to see Asherah as a monarchic period Israelitegoddess, they take refuge in the view that the word involved is instead thesymbol of the’ăšērâwhich represents the goddess. In addition to the importantgrammatical question, there are semantic issues affecting the interpretation ofthe noun as either the goddess’s name or the symbol in its putative capacity ofreferring to the goddess. If/’šrthin the inscriptions from Kuntillet ‛Ajrud refersto the goddess (“and by/to his Asherah”), then it is unclear what “his Asherah”means. Only by assuming an ellipsis of “his consort, Asherah” or the like doesthe word as a reference to the goddess’s name make reasonable sense. If/‘šrthmeans “his asherah” referring to the symbol (surely the most reasonable viewgrammatically, as advocates generally hold), then “his asherah” should denotesomething that is not hers, but “his.” On this point, Zevit correctly asks: “Whatwould it have meant to say that the goddessbelonged toor waspossessed byYahweh?”123I would therefore remain partial to the answer proposed in the firstedition of this book, namely that a symbol had earlier referred to the goddess bythe same name, but it came to function by the time of the Kuntillet ‘Ajrudinscriptions as part of Yahweh’s symbolic repertoire, possibly with olderconnotations associated with the goddess; in other words, the asherah was “his.”Older connotations of the goddess may have continued in the literary recorddespite the demise of her cult.The contribution made by the Tel Miqneh (Ekron) inscriptions to thisdiscussion depends on their interpretation. The excavator of the site, S. Gitin,understood the words‘šrtorqdšin the inscriptions as the name and title (“HolyOne”) of the goddess.124Given the Phoenician cognates for these words and theresemblances of the Ekron script with Phoenician writing, others have preferredto view these words respectively as “shrine” and “holy” (place).125This is not todeny that the site knew at least one goddess. The goddess called “PTGYH, hislady,” is attested in an important inscription from Miqneh.126The identity of thisgoddess is disputed; offered as options are Pidray known from Ugaritic texts,Pothnia (assuming a scribal error) or Pythogaia, both known from the Aegean.127
However, this figure may have no bearing on the references to‘šrtandqdšin theepigraphic evidence from Miqneh.In conclusion, I am not opposed in theory to the possibility that Asherah wasan Israelite goddess during the monarchy. My chief objection to this view is thatit has not been demonstrated, given the plausibility of alternative views. By thesame token, the case has not been disproven, and I must concede that I may bewrong. It may be only a matter of time before superior evidence attesting toAsherah’s cult in monarchic Israel is discovered.
5. In RetrospectAs the preceding sections illustrate, the landscape of academic research hascontinued to develop mostly in ways that are intellectually challenging andrefreshing. Despite the advances discussed in the first section above and thedesiderataaddressed in the second section, a new edition ofThe Early History ofGodmay serve as an introductory work to Yahweh and other major deities inancient Israel. In this second edition, I have been able to correct errors, prunesome of the more dubious citations, and modify some of the larger discussion. Iam also pleased to be able to update the most important bibliography andprimary data. Readers interested in a more complete and recent discussion of theissues would benefit from perusing Zevit’s important book,The Religions ofAncient Israel. If readers wish to know more about what I think, my viewsparticularly on polytheism and monotheism are explored in my recent book,TheOrigins of Biblical Monotheism(published in 2001).In some ways,The Origins of Biblical Monotheismreads like a sequel to TheEarly History of God. The former builds on the latter in an effort to develop amore sustained analysis of the development of monotheism in the seventh andsixth centuries. In a sense,The Origins of Biblical Monotheismpicks up wherethe discussion of monotheism in chapters 6 and 7 ofThe Early History of Godleave off. (Accordingly, some of the processes prior to monotheism, such asconvergence and differentiation, hallmarks ofThe Early History of God, arepresumed inThe Origins of Biblical Monotheism.) The new book also revisitsthe Ugaritic texts and early biblical evidence and makes a number of suggestionsabout how conceptual unity informing polytheism in the Ugaritic texts may helpscholars to understand monotheistic formulations found in the Bible.TheOrigins of Biblical Monotheismalso contains more theoretical considerationsleft aside in The Eary History of God. In order to make the connections betweenthe two books easier to follow, I have included numerous citations toTheOrigins of Biblical Monotheismin this second edition ofThe Early History ofGod. This has also given me the opportunity to fill out some points (such as theoriginal home of Yahweh in Edom/ Midian/Teiman and his original profile as awarrior-god as well as the process leading to his assimilation into the highlandpantheon, headed by El along with his consort, Asherah, and populated further
by Baal and other deities). By the same token, I have advanced a number offurther points in this second edition not found in the first edition or inTheOrigins of Biblical Monotheism.Despite their flaws, it is my hope that these twobooks will contribute toward future studies offering a more sophisticated historyof religions analysis and synthesis for ancient Israel.I would like to close with some acknowledgments and thanks. In retrospect,the aid offered by those recognized in the preface to the first edition is all themore appreciated. Morever, I am grateful to the reviewers of the first edition ofthe book (G. Ahlström, L. Boadt, D. Edelman, D. N. Freedman, L. K. Handy, R.S. Hendel, R. S. Hess, W. L. Humphreys, T. J. Lewis, O. Loretz, N. Lohfink, S.B. Parker, J. G. Taylor, and Z. Zevit), as well as other scholars who havecommented on The Early History of God (among others, J. Day, D. V. Edelman,J. Hadley, T. N. D. Mettinger, and K. van der Toorn). All of the responses havebeen extremely helpful, and I am very grateful for them. I wish also to expressmy thanks to Eerdmans for its interest in publishing a second edition of thiswork and for their help in producing it. Patrick Miller generously agreed toprovide a foreword to this edition, and I am very grateful to him for hisreflections. I am also thankful for the learning I’ve received from students andcolleagues in the Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies as well as theReligion and Ancient Studies programs at New York University. I wish to“update” my thanks to my family, the joy of my life. My wife, Liz Bloch-Smith,hasofferedconstantprofessionalhelpandpersonalsupport(includingsuggesting improvements for this preface). Our three children, Benjamin,Rachel, and Shulamit, have contributed in ways more wonderful than they willever know. The two editions of this book mark their progress thus far in theirlives: Benjamin, four years old at the time when the first edition was finished, isnow sixteen; Rachel was two, but is now fourteen; and Shula is now ten. Finally,the first edition’s dedication to my father, Donald Eugene Smith, feels evenmore true now than it did in 1990.New York University10 February 2002MARK S. SMITHDepartment of Hebrewand Judaic Studies
Acknowledgments (First Edition)While in residence at the W. F. Albright Institute in Jerusalem in the spring of1987, I began research on this work in conjunction with a commentary on theUgaritic Baal cycle. As I delved into the use of parallels to the Baal cycle, theproblems attending the often-cited biblical parallels began to require attention intheir own right. The character of the biblical parallels, their relationship to oneanother, and their bearing on Israelite culture generated an investigation separatefrom my examination of the Baal cycle. This volume is the result of the detour Itook. It represents an attempt to synthesize a wide array of information buildingon the studies of many scholars. It is my great pleasure to acknowledge my debtto those who facilitated my research in various ways.My family’s stay at the Albright Institute during the spring and summer of1987 was made possible by the American Schools of Oriental Research. Thanksto the congenial and stimulating environment of the Albright, I was able to workwell. I wish to acknowledge my great debt of gratitude to its director, Dr. SyGitin, his family, and his staff. They were helpful and friendly to my wife, LizBloch-Smith,andme,andtolerantofour(then)one-and-a-half-year-oldBenjamin, ashebecame accustomedtorunning about thehallways andexercising his newly found vocal facility. My visit to the Albright was enhancedfurther by the help and hospitality of the community of École Biblique etArcheologique Française. Like the warmth of the people living at the Albright,the generosity and friendship offered to me by the École community made EastJerusalem seem like home. Émile Puech, Marcel Sigrist, John Strugnell, Jean-Michel de Tarragon, and Benedict Viviano were especially kind. Other friends inJerusalem were likewise personally and intellectually generous: Celia and SteveFassberg, Bella and Jonas Greenfield, Menachem Haran, Ruth Hestrin, AvigdorHurowitz,AviHurwitz,AmiMazar,AbrahamMalamat,ShalomPaul,Alexander Rofé, Arlene and Steve Rosen, and Aaron Schaffer. The apartment ofCharlotte and Mordecai Hopp was always a second home to us. The Associationof Theological Schools and the Dorot Foundation provided for my family’sliving expenses during this term. I am especially grateful to the president of theDorot Foundation, Joy Underleider-Mayerson, who has long supported myresearch with financial aid and personal encouragement. Yale University waskind enough to permit my leave of absence for the spring semester of 1987. Thespring of 1987 was a wonderful time for me, and I thank all these friends andinstitutions for making it so.
Upon returning to Yale in the summer of 1987, I benefited from thecommunity of scholars and friends who helped in many ways with my research.I am especially grateful to my colleagues and friends who aided me in this study.Gary Beckman, Bill Hallo, Sarah Morris, Saul Olyan, Marvin Pope, Chris Seitz,and Bob Wilson read an early draft of this manuscript and offered many helpfulsuggestions.Mywife,LizBloch-Smith,offeredcriticalquestionsandobservations regarding material culture, especially burials and other realiapertaining to the dead. To Saul Olyan I am especially indebted, as chapter 3 ofthis study drew heavily from his work on the asherah, which first appeared as achapter in his dissertation (Harvard University, 1985) and has now beenpublished as a monograph,Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel(1988).Our conversations frequently helped to clarify many points and to stimulate mythinking. I am very grateful to Yale, where my position afforded me the time andresourcestoconductresearch.IwishtothankDouglasGreen,RichardWhitekettle, and Stephen Cook, who participated in a semester of the Ugariticseminar devoted primarily to the texts and topics in this work. Gösta Ahlström,Baruch Halpern, Stephen Happel, Patrick Miller, Dennis Pardee, and JeffreyTigay, as well as my father, Donald E. Smith, and my father-in-law, Ted C.Bloch, read a draft of this work and offered many comments and insights. Fortheir generosity with their time and their help, I thank them. I express mygratitude to Stephen Happel, who encouraged me to make this work moreaccessible to scholars outside the field of biblical studies. Toward this end Iadded the second section to the Introduction describing the assumptions thatbiblical scholars customarily make. I am further grateful to Professor Happel forcommenting on drafts of this section. I also thank a number of scholars forproviding me with access to their work before publication: Marc Brettler, PeterMachinist, Dennis Pardee, and David Petersen. I wish to express a word of greatthanks to my editor, John Collins, for offering many valuable suggestions, and toHarper & Row, for including this work in its highly selective academic booksprogram. I also thank Stephen Cook for his assistance with proofreading.The professional biblical societies greatly aided the completion of this work.Many scholars offered critical questions and suggestions at various seminars andmeetings where some of the data and ideas in this study were presented: afaculty seminar at the St. Paul Seminary/School of Divinity of the College of St.Thomas (spring 1985), a lecture at the University of Winnipeg (fall 1985), theUpper Midwest meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature (spring 1986), agraduate seminar of Abraham Malamat at the Hebrew University (spring 1987),and the Old Testament Colloquium at Conception Seminary College (winter1989). Some of the material in this manuscript was presented at national
meetings of the Catholic Biblical Association (summer 1988) and the Society ofBiblical Literature (fall 1988). I am gratified that my paper presented at theSociety of Biblical Literature’s 1988 Annual Meeting was awarded the MitchellDahood Memorial Prize, and I wish to thank Doubleday for its sponsorship ofthe prize. My profound thanks go to all of these groups and the scholars whobelong to them. I am also grateful to the American Academy of Religion forproviding funding for the preparation of the book’s indexes.I wish to make special mention of my teachers of matters Canaanite andIsraelite: Frank Cross, Aloysius Fitzgerald, Jonas Greenfield, Marvin Pope,Franz Rosenthal, and Robert Wilson. Their written works, their teaching, and mydiscussions with them have often aided my efforts to grasp the nature of Israelitereligion. Their command of the ancient world of Israel has guided and inspiredme. The specific debt I owe Frank Cross is clearly marked in chapters 1 and 2.My debt to Marvin Pope is especially manifest in chapter 5 and generallyreflected in the use of the Ugaritic texts. I hasten to add that I alone amresponsible for the views expressed in this volume.My wife, Liz, and our children, Benjamin (now four) and Rachel (now two),have lived with my pursuit of Israelite religion. I thank them for their patienceand love. As I seemed lost sometimes in a faraway time and place, my familyalways made me feel the goodness of this world. This work is dedicated to myfather, Donald E. Smith; I do not have words sufficient to express my love forhim.
Abbreviations and Sigla
Introduction
1. The Question of Understanding Israelite ReligionThere has been and is much disagreement among theologians about the godhonored among the Hebrews.The view expressed in the epigraph is as true today as it was when Lydus, aGreek of the sixth century A.D., wrote these words.128The role of Yahwehwithin Israelite religion was an important area of inquiry within biblical studiesthroughout most of the twentieth century. During this century, the understandingof Yahweh has been shaped strongly by the study of Canaanite deities. The titleof a significant work in the field of Israelite religion, W. F. Albright’sYahwehand the Gods of Canaan,129echoed in the subtitle of this present work, reflectsthe central place that various “Canaanite” deities have long held inthediscussion of Israelite monotheism, which may be defined as the worship andbelief in Yahweh and disbelief in the reality of other deities. The study ofCanaanite deities in connection with Yahweh was inspired largely by thediscovery of numerous ancient texts in the Levant, especially the many Ugaritictablets discovered since 1929 at Ras Shamra on the coast of Syria. The Ugaritictexts, dating to the second half of the second millennium B.C., have providedextensive information about the religion of the Canaanites, the neighbors ofIsrael whom legal and prophetic texts in the Bible roundly condemn. Thanks tothe Ugaritic texts, scholars finally have a native Canaanite source to helpreconstruct the relationship between Canaanite and Israelite religion.The Ugaritic mythological texts largely feature the deities El, the aged andkindly patriarch of the pantheon; his consort and queen mother of the divinefamily, Asherah; the young storm-god and divine warrior, Baal; his sister, Anat,likewise a martial deity; and finally, the solar deity.130Scholars of religion havefrequently assumed that because these deities were Canaanite, they were notIsraelite. According to this view, Israel had always been essentially monolatrous;Israel worshiped only Yahweh, although it did not deny the existence of otherdeities. While Israel could tolerate other peoples’ worship of their deities,Yahweh was ultimately the most powerful deity in the cosmos. Accordingly,Exodus 15:11 asks, “Who is like you among the gods, O Yahweh?” It was
Israel’s monolatry that led to the monotheism just before and during the Exile(587-539), when Israel explicitly denied the power of all other deities. Whateverinfluence other deities manifested in ancient, monolatrous Israel, scholars oftenconsidered them syncretistic, peripheral, ephemeral, or part of Israel’s “popularreligion” and not its “official religion.” Israel was essentially monolatrousdespite the threat other deities presented.This view of Israelite religion has been expressed in part or in full byEuropean, American, and Israeli scholars with otherwise widely divergingviews, including W. F. Albright, Y. Kaufmann, H. Ringgren, G. Fohrer, G. W.Ahlström, and J. Tigay.131This historical perspective on Israelite religionderives largely from biblical historiography manifest in passages such as Exodus23:23-24 and Judges 3:1-7 (cf. Jer. 2:11). Exodus 34:11-16 provides anextensive example of this view:Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I will drive out before youthe Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, andthe Jebusites. Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with theinhabitants of the land to which you are going, lest it become a snare in themidst of you. You shall break down their altars, and break their pillars, andcut down their asherim (for you shall worship no other god, for Yahweh,whose name is jealous, is a jealous God), lest you make a covenant with theinhabitants of the land, and when they play the harlot after their gods andsacrifice to their gods and one invites you, you eat of his sacrifice, and youtake of their daughters for your sons, and their daughters play the harlotafter their gods and make your sons play the harlot after their gods.The passage asserts four points about Israel. First, Israel’s ethnic identity wasoriginally separate from other peoples of the land. Second, Israel was notoriginally among the peoples in the land. Third, specific cultic objects were aliento Israel. Finally, Yahweh was the only deity of Israel. Some scholarly workshave used these biblical claims as elements in their historical reconstructions ofIsraelitereligion.SyncretismofIsraelitereligionwithCanaanitereligionremains a historical reconstruction prevalent among biblical scholars. Beyondthis scholarly consensus, there has been wide disagreement. Some scholars, suchas Y. Kaufmann and J. H. Tigay,132argue that neither Baal nor Asherah washardly a deity in Israel. Other scholars, such as G. W. Ahlström, H. Ringgren,and G. Fohrer,133vigorously defend the biblical witness to Israelite worship ofBaal and Asherah.The category of syncretism continues to affect the approach to the issues
surroundingdeitiesinancientIsrael.Syncretism,theunionofreligiousphenomenon from two historically separate systems or cultures, remains astandard way of characterizing Israelite interest in deities other than Yahweh,and de-emphasizes the importance of Israelite worship of other deities andpractices forbidden in the Bible. For example, K. Spronk relegates practicespertaining to the dead forbidden in the Bible to the realm of “popular religion”and claims that “popular religion” was syncretistic, allowing the influences ofCanaanite practices in a way that “official religion” did not permit. Thishistorical reconstruction overlooks the difficulties of historically defining thenature of “official religion.”134Similarly, J. Tigay, largely depending on theevidence of divine elements in proper names, has followed in the footsteps of Y.Kaufmann in arguing that Israel was essentially monotheistic, or at leastmonolatrous, during the period of the monarchy (1000-587) and that Israeliteshardly worshiped Asherah at all and Baal but briefly. To show that Israel wasessentially monotheistic, Tigay cites the overwhelming preponderance of propernames with Yahweh as the divine or theophoric element and the paucity ofpersonal names with theophoric elements other than Yahweh’s name.135The distribution of “theophoric” elements — that is, forms of divine names —in proper names lends credence, however, only to the notion that Yahweh wasIsrael’s most popular god, its national deity. There is more to the evidence thanproper names, which, however suggestive, are notoriously difficult to assess forhistorical purposes. The giving of names was subject to conventions governed byfactors other than religious concerns. Indeed, as D. Pardee has observed,136thenames of deities contained in proper names are little proof of devotion to thosedeities. For example, Ugaritic texts rarely, if ever, have proper names with thetheophoric element of the goddess Asherah(’atrt).137However, Ugaritic ritualtexts indicate this goddess was venerated at ancient Ugarit. Similarly, althoughTannit was the most popular goddess in the Punic west, Punic names likewiserarely containtntas a theophoric element.138In general, proper names serve asreliable evidence of religious conditions only when used in conjunction withother information.While many parameters of the discussion of Israelite religion have remainedthe same since Albright’sYahweh and the Gods of Canaan, there has been agreat deal of change. The more than twenty years since the publication ofAlbright’sbookhavewitnessedmajorepigraphicandarchaeologicaldiscoveries. For the Middle and Late Bronze Ages (ca. 1950-1200), the ongoingpublication of the Mari letters and Ugaritic texts continue to provide newinformation bearing on Canaanite religion. For instance, a recently published
letter from the city of Mari on the Euphrates River helps to illuminate thepolitical function of storm imagery of Baal at Ugarit and of Yahweh in Israel.New tablets from ancient Emar, modern Meskene in Syria, also provide somedata regarding Canaanite religion in the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1550-1200). NewIron Age (ca. 1200-587) data include discoveries both within and outside Israel.Inscriptions from Deir ‛Alla, a Transjordian site located on the Jordan Rivernorth of Jericho, lend insights into the religion of Transjordan. The Aramaicversion of Psalm 20 in Demotic, a late form of Egyptian, provides informationabout Baal, among other deities. The Kuntillet ‛Ajrûd and Khirbet el-Qôminscriptions furnish new texts about the asherah forbidden in the Bible. Manyscholars have considered the references to the asherah in these inscriptions asevidence of Asherah as an Israelite goddess. The excavations at Carthage havetransformedscholarlyunderstandingofchildsacrificeinPhoenicianandIsraelite religion. The recently discovered iconography from Pozo Moro in Spainperhaps provides depictions of the Punic cult of child sacrifice. The growingbody of Phoenician and Transjordian inscriptions has helped to focus thinkingon the nature of the religions of Israel’s immediate neighbors. The Dead SeaScrolls continue to supply new text-critical readings of important biblicalpassages. Nonbiblical writings of the Dead Sea Scroll community have beenpublished. These texts reflect religious notions with roots in the Late Bronze orIron Age, and at some points the texts supply new information about thesenotions in biblical tradition. A wide variety of archaeological discoveriescontinues to add important information to the historical record of Israel’s culture.In short, the data illuminating the religion of Israel have changed substantially inthe last twenty years, and they have helped to produce four major changes inscholarly perspective that inform the present work.The most significant change involves Israel’s cultural identity. Despite thelongregnantmodelthatthe“Canaanites”andIsraeliteswerepeopleoffundamentally different culture, archaeological data now cast doubt on this view.The material culture of the region exhibits numerous common points betweenthe Israelites and “Canaanites” in the Iron I period (ca. 1200-1000). The recordwould suggest that the Israelite culture largely overlapped with, and derivedfrom, “Canaanite” culture. (Scholars call the preceding culture “Canaanite”because the Bible refers to it with this term, but this biblical term may be in parta “cover-all” term for the various people in the land.) As noted below in chapter1,theextrabiblicaltextfromEgyptknownastheMerneptahstelealsodistinguishesIsraelandCanaan.Inshort,Israeliteculturewaslargely“Canaanite” in nature. Given the information available, one cannot maintain aradical cultural separation between “Canaanites” and Israelites for the Iron I
period. To be sure, the early history of Israel was extremely complex, andestablishing ethnic continuity or discontinuity is impossible for this period.Some distinctions probably existed among the various groups inhabiting thehighlands and valleys and coastal regions in Israel’s earliest history; informationabout them is largely unavailable at present. The first section of chapter 1focuses on the development of Israelite culture from the larger “Canaanite”culture. The remainder of this study focuses on one specific area of this culturalcontinuum, namely, the literary and religious motifs from Israelite’s “Canaanite”heritage that bear on the development of Israelite monolatry.The change in the scholarly understanding of early Israel’s culture has led tothe second major change in perspective, which involves the nature of Yahwisticcult.WiththechangeinperspectiveconcerningIsrael’s“Canaanite”background, long-held notions about Israelite religion are slowly eroding. Baaland Asherah were part of Israel’s “Canaanite” heritage, and the process of theemergence of Israelite monolatry was an issue of Israel’s breaking with its own“Canaanite” past and not simply one of avoiding “Canaanite” neighbors.Although the biblical witness accurately represented the existence of Israeliteworship of Baal and perhaps of Asherah as well, this worship was not so much acase of Israelite syncretism with the religious practices of its “Canaanite”neighbors, as some biblical passages depict it, as it was an instance of oldIsraelite religion. If syncretism may be said to have been involved at all, it was asyncretism of various religious traditions and practices of Israelites. In short, anysyncretism was largely a phenomenon within Israelite culture. In early Israel, thecult of Yahweh generally held sway. However, this statement does not fullycharacterize pre-exilic Israelite religion as a whole. Rather, Israelite religionapparently included worship of Yahweh, El, Asherah, and Baal.The shape of this religious spectrum in early Israel changed, due in largemeasure to two major developments; the first was convergence, and the secondwas differentiation.139Convergence involved the coalescence of vari-ous deitiesand/or some of their features into the figure of Yahweh. This development beganin the period of the Judges and continued during the first half of the monarchy.At this point, El and Yahweh were identified, and perhaps Asherah no longercontinued as an identifiably separate deity. Features belonging to deities such asEl, Asherah, and Baal were absorbed into the Yahwistic religion of Israel. Thisprocess of absorption is evident in the poetic compositions that a number ofscholars consider to be the oldest stratum of Israel’s literature.140From alinguistic perspective,141these poems, including Genesis 49, Judges 5, 2 Samuel22 (= Psalm 18), 2 Samuel 23:1-7, and Psalms 29 and 68, appear to be older than
the poetic compositions in the prophetic books and therefore date at least to thefirst half of the monarchy; some of them may be older. Judges 5, for example,suggests a premonarchic setting.142In these poetic compositions, titles andcharacteristics originally belonging to various deities secondarily accrued toYahweh.Furthermore, if the prophetic critiques of Elijah and Hosea include crediblehistorical information, then Baal was accepted within Israel by Israelites. Whatthe prophets fail to mention is how deities functioned in monarchic Israel.Israelite monolatry developed through conflict and compromise between thecults of Yahweh and other deities. Israelite literature incorporated some of thecharacteristics of other deities into the divine personage of Yahweh. Polemicagainst deities other than Yahweh even contributed to this process. For althoughpolemicrejectedotherdeities,YahwisticpolemicassumedthatYahwehembodied the positive characteristics of the very deities it was condemning.The second major process involved differentiation of Israelite cult from its“Canaanite” heritage. Numerous features of early Israelite cult were laterrejected as “Canaanite” and non-Yahwistic. This development apparently beganfirst with the rejection of Baal worship in the ninth century, continued in theeighth to sixth centuries with legal and prophetic condemnations of Baalworship, the asherah, solar worship, the high places, practices pertaining to thedead, and other religious features. The two major developments of convergenceand differentiation shaped the contours of the distinct monotheism that Israelpracticed and defined in the Exile (ca. 587-538) following the final days of theJudean monarchy. Chapter 1 discusses convergence in early ancient Israelitereligion in connection with the deities El, Baal, and Asherah. Chapter 2, section4, illustrates how the martial imagery associated with the goddess Anat wasassimilated to Yahweh, although the goddess herself makes no appearance inIsraelite texts; in this case, convergence of imagery is indicated, although there isno issue of the cult of this goddess in ancient Israel. Chapters 2, 3, and 4 presentexamples of both convergence and differentiation in ancient Israel. In thesechapters, Baal, the symbol of the asherah, and solar imagery are seen as subjectto modification to the cult of Yahweh; varying degrees of convergence orassimilation to the cult of Yahweh can be discerned. All of these threephenomenaalsoreflectthelaterdevelopmentofdifferentiation.AsoldCanaanite/Israelite features, Baal and the asherah were perceived as non-Yahwistic and therefore non-Israelite. Chapter 5 examines some cultic practicesalso subject to differentiation: high places, practices pertaining to the dead, andthe mlk sacrifice. High places and practices pertaining to the dead, originallypart of ancient Israel’s heritage, were criticized as non-Yahwistic.
The third shift in perspective involves the role of the monarchy (ca. 1000-587)in the processes of convergence and differentiation. The monarchy fostered theinclusion of various deities, or their features, into the cult of Yahweh.143Thedevelopment of a national religion and a national god did not exclude otherdeities; indeed, at times they were encouraged. The national or state religions inMesopotamia and Egypt tolerated other deities; moreover, these religionsincorporated the features of various deities into the cult of the state deity, therebyexalting the main deity and the state’s own identity. As one example ofincorporation, the traits of numerous deities were attributed to Marduk, the godof Babylon, not only in the fifty names that he receives at the end of EnumaElish, but also in the characterizing of over a dozen deities as aspects of Mardukin a small god list.144Assur, the god of the city-state by the same name, wasdepicted with the iconography of other deities. Similarly, Amun-Re, the divinechampion of New Kingdom Egypt, received the attributes of Egypt’s moretraditional chief deities.145A comparable process might be seen at work inmonarchicIsrael.Forexamplesoftoleration,onemayappealtoeitherSolomon’s concessions to the gods of his foreign wives (1 Kings 11:5, 7-8) orAhab’s sponsorship of Phoenician Baal worship (1 Kings 17-19).146In the firsthalf of its existence, the monarchy fostered some features of convergence inexalting Yahweh as the national god. By this exaltation, Yahweh evidentlyacquired titles and traits originally belonging to other deities.Moreover,royalreligionwasbothconservativeandinnovative.Itincorporated practices traditional in popular religion, such as the cult of Baal, thesymbol of the asherah, high places, and practices pertaining to the dead. Duringthe second half of the monarchy, religious programs patronized by the Judeankings Hezekiah and Josiah contributed to the differentiation of Israelite religionfrom its “Canaanite” past. Centralization of cult and criticism of various culticpractices reflect substantial changes in royal religious policies following the fallofthenorthernkingdom.Despitetherolesthemonarchyplayedinthedevelopment of Israelite monotheism, the monarchy has been perceived as aninstitution hostile to “pure” Yahwistic cult. If the condemnations in the books ofKings are to be believed, the monarchs of Israel were the most guilty intolerating and sometimes even importing deities and religious practices allegedlyalientoYahwism.Whilethisviewpointispartiallytrue,itispartiallymisleading. The monarchy was responsible for some of the developmentsleading to the eventual emergence of monotheism. The monarchy generallymaintained a special relationship with Yahweh; Yahweh was the national godand patron of the monarchy. Israelite “service”(*‛bd)only to Yahweh in the
monarchic period eventually developed into a notion of universal service toYahweh.147Though monotheism was ultimately a product of the Exile, somedevelopments leading to it are evident in a variety of religious expressions datingto the monarchy. Royal influence is abundantly manifest in the political use ofstorm imagery, which chapter 2, section 3, emphasizes. The royal setting of theasherah is discussed in chapter 3, section 1. Solar imagery in ancient Israel wasperhaps in part a royal phenomenon, as explored in chapter 4. Other features inIsraelite religion, though not royal in origin, were tolerated by the monarchy andsometimes incorporated into the royal cult; high places and practices pertainingto the dead, discussed in chapter 5, belong to this category.One caveat regarding the historical reconstruction of the monarchy’s role inIsrael’s religion deserves comment. Because the Hebrew Bible received itsfundamentalformationinthecityofJerusalem,thebiblicalinformationpertaining to royal religious policy derives largely from the southern kingdom.As a result, it is not possible to provide a balanced view of the religious practicesof the northern monarchy except in those cases that held importance for southerntradents. The institution of bull iconography by Jeroboam I in the cities of Danand Bethel (1 Kings 12:28-30) and the royal patronization of the cult ofPhoenician Baal by Ahab and his Tyrian wife, Jezebel (1 Kings 17-19),evidently appeared in biblical books produced in the southern capital becausethese practices contained evidence of the northern kingdom’s apostasy. Many ofthe religious practices studied in the following chapters appear to be featuresgeneral to both kingdoms (including the asherah, the high places, and religiouscustoms pertaining to the dead) or specific to Judah (such as solar imagery forYahweh). Religious contributions made by the monarchy examined in this studyare thus often decidedly Judean in character.The fourth change in outlook reflects the tremendous interest expressed ingoddesses in Israelite religion. As the title of Albright’sYahweh and the Gods ofCanaanillustrates, goddesses have not featured nearly as prominently as gods inthe secondary literature pertaining to ancient Israel. This is due to the relativepaucity of primary material bearing on goddesses in ancient Israel. The featuresof the gods, El and Baal, are more frequently attested in biblical descriptions ofYahweh than the imprint of the goddesses, Asherah and Anat. Fortunately,recent interest in ancient goddesses and their place in Israelite religion hassparked greater scrutiny of the ancient sources for pertinent information.Furthermore, inscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrûd and Khirbet el-Qôm (and Ekron,according to some scholars) furnish further data concerning one goddess,Asherah, or at least her symbol, the asherah, and have compelled scholars toreexamine the roles of goddesses in Israel. The goddesses Asherah, Astarte, and
Anat are discussed in various parts of the present study. Chapter 1, section 4, andchapter 3 are devoted to Asherah and her symbol, the asherah. Chapter 3, section4, addresses the evidence concerning Astarte in ancient Israel. Chapter 2, section4, presents the data bearing on the literary influence that traditions pertaining tothe goddess Anat may have exercised on some descriptions of Yahweh, althoughit appears that Anat was not a goddess at any time in ancient Israel. Othergoddesses receive brief notice: the Phoenician figures Tannit and tnt‘štrt, thebiblical “Queen of Heaven” (Jer. 7:18; 44:17-25), and Mesopotamian Ishtar.Chapter 3, section 5, discusses personified Wisdom (Proverbs 1-9; Ben Sira1:20; 4:13; 24:12-17; Baruch 4:1), another female figure often included byscholars in this divine company.The present work utilizes the recent additions of data and major changes inperspective in order to illuminate broad trends underlying the development ofvarious features of Israelite religion. Scholars have long recognized how theUgaritic corpus provides evidence of the literature, the mythology, and thereligion of the Canaanites, which constituted the background from whichIsraelite religion largely emerged. Indeed, many scholarly studies have treatedindividual aspects of the Canaanite contributions to Israelite religion. Thepresent work examines the Canaanite and Israelite data in some detail andinquires into the fundamental relationship between Canaanite and Israelitereligion. The task involves more than drawing parallels between Canaanite andIsraelite texts and iconography. Rather, it requires situating Canaanite deities andtheir cultic symbols and imagery within the context of the complex historicaldevelopment of the cult of Yahweh. Early Israel initially witnessed a spectrumof religious worship that included the cults of various Canaanite deities.InscriptionalandbiblicalevidencereflectstheoverwhelmingreligioushegemonyofYahwehfornearlyallperiodsofIsraelitehistory.Texts,iconography,archaeology,andotherdatafurtherdocumentthecomplexcharacter of this hegemony over the course of the Iron Age. By the end of themonarchy much of the spectrum of religious practice had largely disappeared;monolatrousYahwismwasthenorminIsrael,settingthestagefortheemergence of Israelite monotheism.148As chapters 2 through 5 illustrate, theperiod of the monarchy produced the conditions for the gradual development ofmonotheism. With a view to the information provided in the first five chapters,chapter 6 offers a historical overview of the development of convergence,monolatry, and monotheism in ancient Israel. Chapter 7 pre-sents some majorhistorical and theological issues presented by the historical picture drawn inchapter 6. The information contained in this study illustrates the complex factorsinvolvedintheemergenceofIsraelitemonotheism,oneofthegreatest
contributions of ancient Israel to Western civilization.
2. Presuppositions in This StudyBefore presenting the historical data bearing on the development of the cult ofYahweh, it may be valuable to state at the outset some of the methodologicalpresuppositionsinherentinthisinvestigation.149Themostimportantassumptions regard the nature of the Bible. The Bible, the main source for thehistory of ancient Israel, is not a history book in the modern sense. Nonetheless,the Bible contains much information about history, and indeed the books runningfrom Joshua through 2 Chronicles may rightly be called the works of ancientIsraelite historians. As B. Halpern comments, the authors of these biblical bookswere no less historians than Herodotus or Thucydides.150The biblical historianspresented a picture of ancient Israel based on information that they viewed ashistorically true. There are other similarities between the historiography of theancient biblical authors and that of modern scholars of Israelite religion. Bothancient and modern scholars have tried to identify the periods to which thevarious parts belong; both sift through all the pieces of biblical books to assessthe historical nature and accuracy of the information contained in them. Bothancient and modern scholars have attempted to arrange information before themin chronological order and to narrate accordingly a history of Israel. Modernscholars attempt to arrange biblical books and the blocks of material within themin order so as to understand various periods of Israel’s history. Like the ancientscribes of Israel, modern scholars also bring other data to bear on interpreting thehistory of Israel. They incorporate sources or material from other genres ofliterature or other sources to enable their history writing. Like modern historians,biblical writers provided background information from time to time (e.g., 1 Sam.28:3; 1 Kings 18:3b; 2 Kings 9:14b-15a; 15:12) or “historical” explanations ofthe events that they describe (e.g., 2 Kings 13:5-6; 17:7-23). Biblical and modernauthors alike have supplied footnotes for their studies. The difference is thatbiblical authors incorporated their footnotes into their text (e.g., 1 Kings14:19,29; 15:7, 23, 31; 16:14, 20; 22:45; 2 Kings 1:18; 10:34; 12:19; 13:8, 12;14:15, 28; 15:6, 11, 15, 21, 26, 31, 36; 16:19; 20:20; 21:17; 23:28).There are, however, major differences between the historiography of the Bibleand modern historiography. In rendering a picture of ancient Israel, modernhistorians customarily avoid the heavily theological interpretations of events that
lace biblical historiography. At the same time, one must recognize that like theancient historians of Israel, modern historians investigating biblical history oftenhave a personal, theological interest in their subject, even if they attempt tomaintain a critical distance from the subject. Indeed, the research of modernscholars is dictated in large measure by both the concern with historical accuracyand scholars’ religious interest in the biblical record. Modern scholars aresensitive to the different types of texts included in the Bible and their separatehistories. They have recognized how unevenly biblical material is distributedover the history of ancient Israel. The sources for the years from the fall of thenorthern kingdom (ca. 722) down to the fall of the southern kingdom (ca. 587)heavily outweigh the sources for either the period of the Judges (ca. 1200-1000)or the initial stages of the monarchy (ca. 1000-722). As a result, much more isknown about the late monarchy than either the period of the Judges or the firsthalf of the monarchy. Moreover, the bulk of the data derives from the southernkingdom, and therefore there are great gaps in information regarding thenorthern kingdom. Besides large gaps in primary data, there are other problems.The historical reconstruction drawn in the following chapters is complicatedfurther by the long time frame and the culturally and topographically diverseareas from which the data derive. For example, the northern and southernkingdoms exhibited many cultural divergencies in pottery, tomb types, language,and social institutions. Further regional differences within the northern andsouthern kingdoms are even more difficult to grasp, since there is littleinformation available for such specific regional features. Finally, transitionsbetween periods based on the archaeological record remain obscure; they werefar more complex than the textual record indicates.151Indeed, A. Faust has notedthat despite long-term continuities, the eleventh to early tenth century witnessedsomebreakinmaterialcultureaswellassignificantruralhighlandabandonment.152After testing the historical setting of biblical passages, biblical scholars studythe information provided by various passages for potential interrelationships.Often such relationships are unclear, tenuous, or nonexistent. This stage ofinvestigation resembles working with a puzzle that is missing many or most ofits pieces.153Worse yet, scholars do not know how many pieces there are. It isclear that many or probably most of the pieces are missing, but there is no wayto verify the extent of the gaps in data. Commentators try to overcome theselimitationsbyconsultingothersources:archaeology,iconography,andinscriptions. These sources suffer from many of the same limitations found inthe biblical record, however. From a synthesis of all these sources, a partial
picture of ancient Israel emerges.Studying Israelite religion involves recognizing the character of ancientreligion manifest in the biblical record. This study often focuses on large-scaledevelopments and examines religion in its institutional expressions, as thebiblicalrecordprovidesinformationmostlyaboutIsrael’sinstitutions—religious, social, and royal. For many people today, religion is a private matterkept separate from politics. In striking contrast, religion depicted in the HebrewBible is primarily not a private matter but a communal one, a national one, withmajor social and political implications. The Torah or Pentateuch, consisting ofthe first five books of the Bible, relates Israel’s national origins as well as thelegal, social, and cultic norms by which Israelites were called to live. Thenarrative books of Joshua through 2 Chronicles provide a national history downto the fall of the southern kingdom. The prophetic books detail religiousproblems with the northern or southern kingdom as a whole, though sometimesfocusing on the religious problems among specific groups of people. Thewisdom books and other works of the Writings (Ketubim) offer instruction ineveryday norms and the difficulties of Israelite existence. The Bible oftenpresents a general picture of ancient Israel and its religion. The present workoften depends on this sort of picture insofar as it relies on correlating religiousfeatures with developments within political and social institutions.There are not only problems with the historical record, but also difficultieswith modern methods and perspectives. In the analysis of the available data,conscious and unconscious assumptions are made. Furthermore, presenting datainevitably involves making choices. The examination of Israelite religion in thepresent work has concentrated more on the literary data than on archaeologicalinformation. Because contemporary interests dictate the subjects of some partsof this study, the data are inevitably shaped by contemporary considerations.Monotheism is not only a question for the scholarly investigation of ancientIsrael; ancient Israelite monotheism continues to elicit interest among adherentsto Judaism and Christianity, two of the great monotheistic traditions of today.Similarly, renewed interest in the Northwest Semitic goddesses and in genderlanguage applied to Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible affects the treatment of thesehistorical issues in chapters 1 and 3.The study of Israelite religion often involves studying practices more thancredal beliefs because the Bible more frequently stresses correct practices thancorrect beliefs or internal attitudes. Christian scholars, however, tend to focusmore on beliefs or internal attitudes because Christian theology has oftenemphasized this aspect of religion. The study of Israelite monotheism iscomplicated by this factor, as monotheism has usually been defined as a matter
of belief in one deity whereas monolatry has been understood as a matter ofpractice, specifically, the worship of only one deity, sometimes coupled with atolerance for other peoples’ worship of their deities. However, if ancient Israelitereligion is to be viewed primarily as a matter of practice, then the moderndistinction between monotheism and monolatry is problematic.154Nonetheless,the distinction is retained in this study for two reasons. First, the appearance ofboth monolatry and monotheism remains a matter of current interest. Second, thedistinction between the two phenomena emerged within Israelite religion.Finally, the modern study of Israelite religion considers both what somebiblical sources consider “normative” and what appears to be outside the normsset by biblical laws or prophetic criticisms. Although the Bible and the religiousclaims made in it are entirely relevant to the task of reconstructing the history ofIsraelite religion, they do not represent the sum of Israelite faith in Yahweh. Allreligiousdata,includingtheBible,inscriptions,iconography,andotherarchaeological data, are pertinent to the attempt to understand the religion ofancient Israel. The notion of an essence of a religion apart from the sum total ofapeople’sreligiousbeliefs,words,andactionsconstitutesasecondaryabstraction. When expressions about a religious essence of ancient Israel arebased on biblical statements about religious norms, the expressions representstatements of personal faith and not historical description. Biblical statementsand sometimes contemporary claims about religious syncretism constitute onetype of attempt to make distinctions between a normative, religious essence ofIsrael, on the one hand, and illegitimate or non-Israelite practices infectingIsraelite religion, on the other. Although it is historically true that some practiceswere secondarily incorporated into the religion of Israel from Israel’s neighbors,other practices classified as being the result of syncretism belonged to Israel’sancientreligiousheritage.Bothoriginalandborrowedfeaturesconstitutelegitimate subjects of historical inquiry. Ancient Israelite religion included bothofficiallysanctionedpracticesandpracticesnotsanctionedbyvariousauthorities; both official and popular religion belong to any historical descriptionof Israelite religion. The historical enterprise examines the historical limitationsand presuppositions of biblical claims. The task of reconstructing the cult ofYahweh includes biblical claims and sets them within a wider framework thataccounts for the available information. The data in the attested sources indicate apluralism of religious practice in ancient Israel that led sometimes to conflictabout the nature of correct Yahwistic practice. It is precisely this conflict thatproduced the differentiation of Israelite religion from its Canaanite heritageduring the second half of the monarchy. As a result of this conflict, someelements of faith appear transformed or muted in the Bible in a variety of ways.
Anthropomorphic descriptions of Yahweh and language of the goddess mayconstitute examples of this change. Both were part of Israel’s ancient traditions;both were considerably modified during the process of differentiation.155Because of these considerations about ancient historical evidence and aboutmodern methods used to reconstruct Israelite religion, the picture presented inthe following chapters is necessarily a partial and subjective one.
CHAPTER 1Deities in Israel in the Period of the Judges
1. Israel’s “Canaanite” HeritageEarly Israelite culture cannot be separated easily from the culture of “Canaan.”156The highlands of Israel in the Iron Age (ca. 1200-587) reflect continuity withthe “Canaanite” (or better, West Semitic157) culture during the preceding periodboth in the highlands and in the contemporary cities on the coast and in thevalleys.158This continuity is reflected in scripts, for one example. Both linearand cuneiform alphabetic scripts are attested in inscriptions in the highlands aswell as in the valleys and on the coast during both the Late Bronze (ca. 1550-1200) and Iron I (ca. 1200-1000) periods.159This continuity is visible also inlanguage. Though Hebrew and Canaanite are the linguistic labels applied to thelanguagesofthetwoperiodsinthisregion,160theycannotbeeasilydistinguished in the Iron I period. For example, most scholars argue that theGezer Calendar was written in Hebrew, but E. Y Kutscher labels its languageCanaanite.161Canaanite and Hebrew so closely overlap that the ability todistinguish them is premised more on historical information than linguisticcriteria.162The ancient awareness of the close linguistic relationship, if notidentity, between Canaanite and Hebrew is reflected in the postexilic oracle ofIsaiah 19:18, which includes Hebrew in the designation “the language ofCanaan” (śěpat kěna’an; cfyěhûdît, “Judean,” in 2 Kings 18:26, 28; Isa. 36:11,13; 2 Chron. 32:18; Neh. 13:24).163Similarly, Canaanite and Israelite material culture cannot be distinguished byspecific features in the judges period.164For example, some Iron I (ca. 1200-1000) cooking pots and storage jars as attested at Giloh represent a potterytradition continuous with the Late Bronze Age.165Items such as the four-roomhouse, collared-rim store jar, and hewn cisterns, once thought to distinguish theIsraelite culture of the highlands from the Canaanite culture of the coast andvalleys, are now attested on the coast, in the valleys, or in Transjordan.166Bothindigenous tradition and influence from the coast and valleys are representedalso in burial patterns. Multiple primary burials in caves continued in the hillcountry from the Late Bronze Age throughout the Iron Age. Arcosolia and benchtombs, two types of rock-cut tombs, are initially attested on the coast, and
appeared also in the highlands in the Iron I period.167The Canaanite (or, West Semitic) background of Israel’s culture extended tothe realm of religion. This is evident from the terminology for cultic sacrificesand personnel. BH sacrificial language with corresponding terms in Ugariticand/or Phoenician includeszebah,“slaughtered offering,” a biblical term appliedto sacrifices in the cults of both Yahweh (Gen. 46:1; Exod. 10:25; 18:12; Hos.3:4; 6:6; 9:4; Amos 5:25) and Baal (2 Kings 10:19, 24; cf. KTU 1.116.1; 1.127;1.148; KAI 69:12, 14; 74:10); zebah hayyāmim, “the annual slaughteredoffering” (1 Sam. 1:21; 2:19; 20:6; cf. KAI 26 A II:19-III:2; C IV:2-5); šělāmîm,“offering of well-being/greeting”168(Leviticus 3; cf. KTU 1.105.9; 109; KAI69:3; 51 obv.:5-6; 120:2);neder,offering of a vow (Numbers 30; Deuteronomy12; cf. Ugariticndr,KTU 1.127.2; cf. mḏr, 1.119.30; KAI 155:1; 156; cf. 18:1;45:1); minḥah, “tribute offering” (Lev. 2:1-16; cf. CIS 14:5; KAI 69:14; 145:12-13); kālîl, “holocaust” (Deut. 33:10; Lev. 6:15-16; 1 Sam. 7:9; Ps. 51:21; cf.Deut. 13:17; cf. KTU 1.115.10; KAI 69:3, 5, 7; 74:5).169Other terms have beenviewed as semantic equivalents in Hebrew and Ugaritic. It is assumed, forexample, that BH‘ôlāh(Leviticus 1; cf. judg. 11:30, 39) is semanticallyequivalent with Ugaritic šrp (KTU 1.105.9, 15; 1.106.2; 1.109); both denote anoffering entirely consumed by fire. The ‘ôlāh sacrifice belonged not only to thecult of Yahweh in Jerusalem and elsewhere but also to the cult of Baal inSamaria (2 Kings 10:24; cf. ‘ltin KAI 159:8). A ritual of general expiation wasnot only an Israelite feature (e.g., Leviticus 16; 17:11; cf. Gen. 32:21 for anoncultic example); it was also a Ugaritic phenomenon (KTU 1.40).170BothUgaritic texts (1.46.1; 1.168.9) and biblical rituals (Leviticus 4-5) provide fordivine forgiveness(*slḫl*slḥ).This incidence of highly specialized sacrificialterms suggests a common West Semitic heritage.Although other terminological parallels between Israelite and Ugaritic andPhoenician texts are found also in Mesopotamian culture, these links furthermark the closely related Israelite and Canaanite cultures. Biblical names with aCanaanite background for cult personnel include “priest,” kōhen (2 Kings 10:19;cf. KTU 4.29.1; 4.38.1; 4.68.72), “dedicated servants,” nětûnῑm/nětunîm (Num.3:9; 8:19) and nětînîm (Ezra 2:43, 58, 70; 7:7; 8:17, 20; Neh. 3:26, 31; 7:46, 60,72; 10:29; 11:3, 21; cf. 1 Chron. 9:2; cf. Ugaritic ytnm in KTU 4.93.1), andqādēě, a cultic functionary of some sort in both Israelite religion (Deut. 23:18 [E17]; 2 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:47; 23:7; Job 36:14) and Ugaritic cult (KTU1.112.21; 4.29.3; 4.36; 4.38.2; 4.68.73).171Similarly, BH hakkōhēn haggādôl,“chief priest” (Lev. 21:10; Num. 35:25-28; Josh. 20:6; 2 Kings 12:11; 22:4, 8;Neh. 3:1, 20; 13:28; 2 Chron. 34:9; Hag. 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 4; Zech. 3:1, 8; 6:11 )
compares closely with Ugaritic rbkhnm,“chief of the priests” (KTU 1.6 VI 55-56). Furthermore, the “tent of meeting” (’ōhel mô‘ēd) derived from Canaaniteprototypes (2 Sam. 7:6; KTU 1.4 IV 20-26).172To be sure, parallels interminology do not establish parallels in cultural setting in each of thesecases.173Yet cultural continuity appears likely in these instances. It is evidentfrom many areas of culture that Israelite society drew very heavily fromCanaanite culture.174The evidence of the similarities between Canaanite and Israelite societies hasled to a major change in the general understanding of the relationship betweenthese two societies. Rather than viewing them as two separate cultures, somescholars define Israelite culture as a subset of Canaanite culture.175There are,however, some Israelite features that are unattested in Canaanite sources. Theseinclude the old tradition of Yahweh’s southern sanctuary, variously called Sinai(Deut. 33:2; cf. Judg. 5:5; Ps. 68:9), Paran (Deut. 33:2; Hab. 3:3), Edom (Judg.5:4), and Teiman (Hab. 3:3 and in the Kuntillet ‘Ajrûd inscriptions ; cf. Amos1:12; Ezek. 25:13),176and Israel’s early tradition of the Exodus from Egypt(Exod. 15:4).177Neither of these features appears to be Canaanite.178That Israel in some form was distinguished from Canaan ca. 1200 is clearfrom an inscribed monument of the pharaoh Merneptah. This stele dates to thefifth year of the pharaoh’s reign (ca. 1208) and mentions both Israel and Canaan:The princes are prostrate, saying: “Mercy!”Not one raises his head among the Nine Bows. Desolation is for Tehenu;Hatti is pacified;Plundered is the Canaan with every evil;Carried off is Ashkelon; seized upon is Gezer;Yanoam is made as that which does not exist;Israel is laid waste, his seed is not;Hurru is become a widow for Egypt!All lands together, they are pacified;Everyone who is restless, he has been bound.179The purpose of this passage was to celebrate Egyptian power over variouslands in Syro-Palestine. Hatti and Hurru stand for the whole region of Syro-Palestine; Canaan and Israel represent smaller units within the area, and Gezer,Ashkelon, and Yanoam are three cities within the region. In this hymn to thepower of the pharaoh, all these places stand under Egyptian rule. The textdistinguishes between Israel and Canaan, as they constitute two different terms
in the text. Some scholars note that the two terms are further distinguished. Theword “Canaan” is written with a special linguistic feature called a determinative,denoting land. “Israel” is written with the determinative for people. Drawinghistorical conclusions from this difference in the scribal use of the twodeterminatives has proven problematic. On the one hand, if the determinativeswere used accurately by the Egyptian scribe who wrote this text, then Israel as apeople was established by 1200 B.C. On the other hand, some scholars believethat scribes did not use the two different determinatives consistently in othertexts and therefore challenge the accuracy of their use in the Merneptah stele.180If the determinatives were used correctly, Israel stands for a people living in theregion of the highlands rather than designating the geographical area of thehighlands. In any case, Israel and Canaan are differentiated in the text, and insome way they represented different entities to the Egyptian scribe whoinscribed the Merneptah stele. Israel was differentiated as early as 1200 from itsCanaanite forebears.Iron I evidence currently at the disposal of scholars presents a dilemma. Onthe one hand, the historical understanding of the period has been tremendouslyenhanced by archaeological research.181On the other hand, the data do notanswer many of the important questions regarding early Israel. It is at presentimpossible to establish, on the basis of archaeological information, distinctionsbetween Israelites and Canaanites in the Iron I period. The archaeologicalevidence does not provide a clear set of criteria for distinguishing an Israelitesite from a Canaanite one, although a collocation of features (e.g., four-roomhouses, collared-rim store jars, hewn cisterns) in an Iron I site in the centralhighlands continues to be taken as a sign of an Israelite settlement. Inscriptionalevidence is likewise of limited help in this regard, since down to the tenthcentury the languages and scripts of the epigraphic sources do not providedistinctions between the two cultures.Biblical evidence is similarly problematic. Though it contains much historicalinformation, the accuracy of this information is complicated by centuries oftextual transmission and interpretation. Indeed, the narrative material of theHebrew Bible pertaining to the Iron I period dates largely from the latter half ofthe monarchy, removed at least two or three centuries from the events of the IronI period that the texts relate.182Moreover, in some cases the biblical recordcomplicates interpretational matters. The difficulty of distinguishing betweenIsraelites and Canaanites is exacerbated by biblical references to several groupsbesides Israelites and Canaanites. Gibeonites (Josh. 9:15; cf. 2 Sam. 21),Jerahmeelites (1 Sam. 27:10; 30:29), Kenites (Judg. 1:16; 4:11; 1 Sam. 27:10;
30:29), the descendants of Rahab (Josh. 6:25), Caleb the Kenizzite (Josh. 14:13-14; 21:12), and the Canaanite cities of Hepher and Tirzah became part of Israel(cf. Exod. 6:15).183Presumably other groups and places were absorbed intoIsrael as well. Furthermore, other groups are mentioned as being dispossessed ofthe land by the Israelites: “Hittites, Hivites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Amorites,and Jebusites” (Josh. 3:10; 9:1; 11:3; 12:8). While some of these group namesmay be suspect and reflect a later attempt to reconstruct the history of Israel’searly development in the land, the point that some of them indicate the complexsocial composition of highlands Israel remains valid. Finally, current attempts todistinguish Israel from Canaan in the Iron I period are marked by their ownmodern limitations. To pose only one difficulty, although Israelite and Canaanitesocieties cannot be distinguished on the basis of archaeological evidence,184archaeological features do not constitute all the criteria for making historicaldistinctions; even if there were not a single criterion for establishing cleardistinctions based on material culture (and at present there is no such criterion),some early Israelites may have perceived themselves as radically different fromCanaanites. Information bearing on such perceptions is at present unavailable forthe Iron I period, although it might be inferred from older biblical texts such asJudges 5. From the evidence that is available, one may conclude that althoughlargely Canaanite according to currently available cultural data, Israel expresseda distinct sense of origins and deity and possessed largely distinct geographicalholdings in the hill country by the end of the Iron I period. The Canaanitecharacter of Israelite culture largely shaped the many ways ancient Israelitescommunicated their religious understanding of Yahweh. This point may beextended: the people of the highlands who came to be known as Israel comprisednumerous groups, including Canaanites, whose heritage marked every aspect ofIsraelite society. In sum, Iron I Israel was largely Canaanite in character.Israel inherited local cultural traditions from the Late Bronze Age, and itsculture was largely continuous with the Canaanite culture of the coast andvalleys during the Iron I period. The realm of religion was no different.Although one may not identify the local deities prior to and during theemergence of Israel by equating Ugaritic religion with Canaanite religion, theUgariticevidenceispertinenttothestudyofCanaanitereligionsinceinscriptions from the Late Bronze Age and the Iron I period in Canaan indicatethat the deities of the land included El, Baal, Asherah, and Anat, all majordivinities known from the Ugaritic texts. The proper name ’y’l, “where is El?” iscontained in a twelfth-century inscription from Qubur el-Walaydah, which liesabout ten kilometers southeast of Gaza.185The Lachish ewer, dated to the
thirteenth century, contains an inscription probably referring to this goddess:mtn. šy [11[rb]ty‘lt, “mattan. An offering [to] my [la]dy,’Elat”186The words,rbt,“lady” (literally, “great one,” marked with a feminine ending) and’lt,“goddess,” are regular, though not exclusive, titles of Asherah in the Ugaritictexts,187and these epithets in the Lachish ewer probably refer to her as well. Anarrowhead from El-Khadr near Bethlehem dating to ca. 1100 reads bn ‘nt, “sonof Anat”188Baal is mentioned in a fifteenth-century Taanach letter and in afourteenth-century El-Amarna letter from Tyre (EA 147:13-15).189The element*b‘l occurs also in an inscription from Lachish,190either as divine name or as anelement contained in personal names. Other deities enjoyed cultic devotion inlate second millennium Canaan. For example,’/’b,the divine ancestral god, andb’lt,“the Lady,” are known from late second millennium inscriptions fromLachish.191Given that Ugaritic and biblical texts attest so many of the samedeities, religious practices, and notions, the Ugaritic texts may be used withcaution for religious material in the West Semitic sphere which Israelite traditioninherited.According to biblical tradition, these deities continued in various ways duringthe period of the Judges within Israel. (While few, if any, of the following textsactually date to the premonarchic period, they may reflect earlier religiousconditions, or at least help to suggest some of the range in the deities worshipedin premonarchic Israel.) The god of Shechem in Judges 9:46 (see 8:33) is called‘ěl bērît, which scholars have identified as a title of El.192Religious devotion toAsherah perhaps lies behind Genesis 49:25. The asherah, the symbol namedafter the goddess Asherah, is explicitly described in Judges 6:25-26. The wordba’al forms the theophoric element in the biblical name Jerubbaal (Judg. 6:32;8:35). Two members of the family of Saul, Eshbaal (1 Chron. 8:33; 9:39) andMeribbaal (1 Chron. 8:34; 9:40), likewise have names containing the elementba‘al.Only one proper name, Shamgar ben Anat (Judg. 5:6), attests to the nameof Anat in the period of the Judges. The lack of either inscriptional or biblicalevidence for Anat would suggest the absence of a cult devoted to her. During theJudges period, the major deities in the territory of Israel included Yahweh, El,Baal, and perhaps Asherah.Some scholars have used this evidence to demonstrate that Israel in the periodof the Judges was heavily “syncretistic,” insofar as it incorporated Canaaniteelements into an Israelite religion that was originally non-Canaanite.193Indeed,some biblical texts view Israel’s protohistory at Sinai as a time when Canaaniteelements would have been alien to Yahwism. For example, Deuteronomy 32expresses life in the wilderness in the following terms: “the Lord alone did lead
him [Israel], and there was no foreign god with him” (v. 12; see also w. 8,17).194The claim is potentially misleading on two counts. First, religiouselements identified as “Canaanite” were not “syncretistic,” at least not in thesense that such elements were not original to Israel. The biblical historiographyin Deuteronomy 32 omits any reflection of the fact that Israel’s cultural heritagewas largely Canaanite; indeed, it implicitly denies this idea. Second, theevidence that the Canaanite deities, El, Baal, or Asherah, were the object ofIsraelite religious devotion separate from the cult of Yahweh in the period of theJudgesisscant.Bothoftheseclaimsarelargelyextensionsofbiblicalhistoriography: because the historical works of the Bible view the religion of theJudges period in this way, then some scholars have concluded that the biblicalview represents historical reality.195However, in various ways, El, Baal, andAsherah (or at least the symbol named after her, the asherah) were integrallyrelated to Yahweh and the cult of this deity during the period of the Judges.In sum, the Israelites may have perceived themselves as a people differentfrom the Canaanites. Separate religious traditions of Yahweh, separate traditionsof origins in Egypt for at least some component of Israel, and separategeographical holdings in the hill country contributed to the Israelites’ sense ofdifference from their Canaanite neighbors inhabiting the coast and the valleys.Nonetheless, Israelite and Canaanite cultures shared a great deal in common, andreligion was no exception. Deities and their cults in Iron Age Israel representedaspects of the cultural continuity with the indigenous Late Bronze Age cultureand the contemporary urban culture on the coast and in the valleys. Theexamples of El, Baal, and the symbol of the asherah illustrate this continuity forthe period of the Judges.
2. Yahweh and ElThe original god of Israel was El. This reconstruction may be inferred from twopieces of information. First, the name of Israel is not a Yahwistic name with thedivine element of Yahweh, but an El name, with the element, *’ēl. This factwould suggest that El was the original chief god of the group named Israel.196Second, Genesis 49:24-25 presents a series of El epithets separate from themention of Yahweh in verse 18 (discussed in section 3 below). Yet early on,Yahweh is understood as Israel’s god in distinction to El. Deuteronomy 32:8-9casts Yahweh in the role of one of the sons of El, here called‘elyôn:When the Most High(‘elyôn)gave to the nations their inheritance,when he separated humanity,he fixed the boundaries of the peoplesaccording to the number of divine beings.198For Yahweh’s portion is his people,Jacob his allotted heritage.This passage presents an order in which each deity received its own nation.Israel was the nation that Yahweh received. It also suggests that Yahweh,originallyawarrior-godfromSinai/Paran/Edom/Teiman,199wasknownseparately from El at an early point in early Israel.200Perhaps due to trade withEdom/Midian, Yahweh entered secondarily into the Israelite highland religion.Passages such as Deuteronomy 32:8-9 suggest a literary vestige of the initialassimilation of Yahweh, the southern warrior-god, into the larger highlandpantheism, headed by El; other texts point to Asherah (El’s consort) and to Baaland other deities as members of this pantheon. In time, El and Yahweh wereidentified, while Yahweh and Baal co-existed and later competed as warrior-gods. As the following chapter (section 2) suggests, one element in thiscompetition involved Yahweh’s assimilation of language and motifs originallyassociated with Baal.One indication that Yahweh and El were identified at an early stage is thatthere are no biblical polemics against El. At an early point, Israelite tradition
identified El with Yahweh or presupposed this equation.201It is for this reasonthat the Hebrew Bible so rarely distinguishes between El and Yahweh.202Thedevelopment of the name El(’ēl)into a generic noun meaning “god” also wascompatible with the loss of El’s distinct character in Israelite religious texts. Onebiblical text exhibits the assimilation of the meaning of the word’ēlquitestrongly, namely Joshua 22:22 (cf. Pss. 10:12; 50:1):The first word in each clause in this verse reflects the development of the nameof the god El into a generic noun meaning “god.” In this verse the noun formspart of a superlative expression proclaiming the incomparable divine status ofYahweh. The phrase “god of gods” may be compared to other superlativeexpressions of this type in the Bible such as “king of kings” (Dan. 2:37; Ezra7:12), the name of the biblical book “Song of Songs” (Song of Songs 1:1), andthe opening words of the first speech in Ecclesiastes, “vanity of vanities”(Eccles. 1:2).204The priestly theological treatment of Israel’s early religious history in Exodus6:2-3 identifies the old god El Shadday with Yahweh. In this passage Yahwehappears to Moses: “And God said to Moses, ‘I am Yahweh. I appeared toAbraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as El Shadday, but by my name Yahweh I didnot make myself known to them.’” This passage reflects the fact that Yahwehwas unknown to the patriarchs. Rather, they worshiped the Canaanite god, El.Inscriptional texts from Deir ‘Alla, a site north of Jericho across the JordanRiver, attest to the epithetshadday.In these inscriptions theshaddayepithet isnot applied to the great god, El. The author of Exodus 6:2-3 perhaps did notknow of or make this distinction; rather, he identified Yahweh with the traditionsof the great Canaanite god, El.205J. Tigay’s recent study of inscriptional onamastica is compatible with thehistorical reconstruction of the identification of El with Yahweh in early Israelitetradition.206Tigay lists all proper names with theophoric elements. Found inIsraelite inscriptions, all dating after the beginning of the monarchy, are 557names with Yahweh as the divine element, 77 names with *’l, a handful ofnames with the divine component *b‘l, and no names referring to the goddessesAnat or Asherah. The few proper names with the divine names of Anat and
Asherah do not reflect a cult to these deities; Baal may be an exception. Thenames with the element of the name of El historically reflect the identification ofYahweh and El by the time these names may appear in the attested inscriptions.Just as no cult is attested for Anat (and perhaps Asherah) in Israelite religion, soalso there is no distinct cult attested for El except in his identity as Yahweh.In Israel the characteristics and epithets of El became part of the repertoire ofdescriptions of Yahweh. In both texts and iconography, El is an elderly beardedfigure enthroned,207sometimes before individual deities (KTU 1.3 V; 1.4 IV-V),sometimes before the divine council (KTU 1.2 I), known by a variety ofexpressions; this feature is attested also in Phoenician inscriptions (KAI 4:4-5;14:9, 22; 26 A III 19; 27:12; cf. KTU 1.4 III 14). In KTU 1.10 III 6 El is calleddrd<r>, “ageless one,” and in KTU 1.3 V and 1.4 V, Anat and Asherah bothaffirm the eternity of his wisdom.208His eternity is also expressed in his epithet,‘ab šnm,“father of years.”209In KTU 1.4 V 3-4 Asherah addresses El: “You aregreat, O El, and indeed, wise; your hoary beard instructs you” (rbt‘ilm lḥkmt šbtdqnk ltsrk).Anat’s threats in 1.3 V 24-25 and 1.18 I 11-12 likewise mention El’sgray beard. Similarly, Yahweh is described as the aged patriarchal god (Ps.102:28; Job 36:26; Isa. 40:28; cf. Ps. 90:10; Isa. 57:15; Hab. 3:6; Dan. 6:26; 2Esdras 8:20; Tobit 13:6, 10; Ben Sira 18:30), enthroned amidst the assembly ofdivine beings (1 Kings 22:19; Isa. 6:1-8; cf. Pss. 29:1-2; 82:1; 89:5-8; Isa. 14:13;Jer. 23:18, 22; Zechariah 3; Dan. 3:25).210Later biblical texts continued the longtradition of aged Yahweh enthroned before the heavenly hosts. Daniel 7:9-14,22, describes a bearded Yahweh as the “ancient of days,” and “the Most High.”He is enthroned amid the assembly of heavenly hosts, called in verse 18 “theholy ones of the Most High,”qaddîšê ’elyônîn(cf. 2 Esdras 2:42-48; Revelation7). This description for the angelic hosts derives from the older usage of Hebrewqĕdōšîm,“holy ones,” for the divine council (Ps. 89:6; Hos. 12:1; Zech. 14:5; cf.KAI 4:5, 7; 14:9, 22; 27:12). The tradition of the enthroned bearded god appearsalso in a Persian period coin markedyhd,“Yehud.”211The iconography belongsto a god, apparently Yahweh.The Canaanite/Israelite tradition of the divine council derived from the settingof the royal court212and evolved in accordance with the court terminology of thedominant royal power. During the Israelite monarchy, the imagery of the divinecouncil continued from its Late Bronze Age antecedents. M. Brettler hasobserved that the Israelite monarchy also had a distinct impact on some featuresof the divine council.213Roles in the divine council in Canaanite and earlyIsraelite literature were generally not individuated, but one exception was “thecommander of the army of Yahweh”(śarṣĕbā’ yhwh) in Joshua 5:13-15, which,
according to Brettler, was based on the comparable role in the Israelite army (1Sam. 17:55; 1 Kings 1:19; cf. Judg. 4:7). Similarly, the divine “destroyer,”mashit,of Exodus 12:13 and 1 Chronicles 21:15 (cf. Isa. 54:16; Jer. 22:7), maybe traced ultimately to the militarymašḥîtof 1 Samuel 13:17 and 14:15, perhapsas a class of fighters personified or individualized and secondarily incorporatedinto the divine realm.214Themašḥîtîmappear either singly or as a pluralityacting on behalf of their divine Lord. Two of the mysterious divine figures inGenesis are evidentlymašḥîtîm,since they apply this very term to themselves inGen. 19:13. Other features of the divine council in Israelite literature reflect laterpolitical developments. According to Brettler,mĕšārēt,“servant,” applied first toroyal officials in the postexilic period (e.g., 1 Chron. 27:1; 28:1; 2 Chron. 17:19;22:8; Esther 1:10; 2:2), and secondarily referred to angels in a postexilic text,Psalm 103:21 (cf. Ps. 104:4).215Some biblical innovations in terminology of theheavenly court in the postexilic period may have been modeled on the court ofthe reigning Mesopotamian power. The depiction of thesatanin Job 1-2 andZechariah 3 has been traced to neo-Babylonian or Persian bureaucracies.216Similarly, J. Teixidor has suggested that the angelic term,‘îr,“watcher” (e.g.,Dan. 4:10, 14, 20), was based on spies who watched over the empire on behalfof the Persian ruler.217El and Yahweh exhibit a similar compassionate disposition toward humanity.Like “Kind El, the Compassionate”(lṭpn ’il dp’id),the “father of humanity” (’ab’adm), Yahweh is a “merciful and gracious god,”’ēl-rāhûm wĕḥannūn(Exod. 34:6; Ps. 86:15), and father (Deut. 32:6; Isa. 63:16, 64:7; Jer. 3:4, 19;31:9; Mal. 1:6, 2:10; cf. Exod. 4:22; Hos. 11:1). Both El and Yahweh appear tohumans in dream-visions and function as their divine patron.218Like El (KTU1.16 V-VI), Yahweh is a healing god (Gen. 20:17; Num. 12:13; 2 Kings 20:5, 8;Ps. 107:20; cf. personal name,rĕpā’ēl,in 1 Chron. 26:7). Moreover, thedescription of Yahweh’s dwelling-place as a “tent”(’ōhel;e.g., Pss. 15:1; 27:6;91:10; 132:3), called in the Pentateuchal traditions the “tent of meeting”(’ōhelmô‘ēd;Exod. 33:7-11; Num. 12:5, 10; Deut. 31:14, 15) recalls the tent of El,explicitly described in the Canaanite narrative of Elkunirsa.219The tabernacle ofYahweh hasqĕrāšîm,usually understood as “boards” (Exodus 26-40; Num.3:36; 4:31), while the dwelling of El is calledqrš,perhaps “tabernacle” or“pavilion” (KTU 1.2 III 5; 1.3 V 8; 1.4 IV 24; 1.17 V 49). Furthermore, thedwelling of El is set amid the cosmic waters (KTU 1.2 III 4; 1.3 V 6; 1.4 IV 20-22; 1.17 V 47-48), a theme evoked in descriptions of Yahweh’s abode inJerusalem (Pss. 47:5; 87; Isa. 33:20-22; Ezek. 47:1-12; Joel 4:18; Zech. 14:8).220The characteristics of Yahweh in Deuteronomy 32:6-7 include some motifs
that can be traced to traditional descriptions of El:Do you thus requite Yahweh,you foolish and senseless(lō’ḥākām)people?Is he not your father(’ābîkā),who created you(qānekā)who made you and established you(wayĕkōnĕnekā)?Remember the days of old(‘ôlām),consider the years of many generations(šĕnôt dôr-wādôr);ask your father, and he will show you;your elders and they will tell you.As J. C. Greenfield notes,221almost every line of this passage contains anelement familiar from descriptions of El, known as “Bull El his Father, El theking who establishes him,”tr ‘il ’abh ’il mlk dyknnh(KTU 1.3 V 35-36; 1.4 I 4-15, etc.). Like El, Yahweh is the father(*’ab)who establishes(*kwn)andcreates(*qny).The verbqnyrecalls the epithet “El, creator of the earth,”’l qny’rṣ.Second-millennium Canaanite tradition, preserved in a Hittite text, attributesthis title to El.222Genesis 14:19 likewise applies this title to’ēl ’elyôn,itself anold El epithet. The phrase is also found in a neo-Punic inscription from LeptisMagnainLibya(KAI129:1).WhileDeuteronomy32:6-7appliessometraditional traits of El to Yahweh, it also employs other features of El as a foil tothe people’s character, according to Greenfield. The people, for example, are“senseless”(lō’ḥākām),unlike El. Finally, “eternity”(‘ôlām)evokes El’s sameepithet, and “the years of many generations”(šĕnôt dôr-wādôr)echoes El’s title,’ab šnm,“father of years.”Like some descriptions of Yahweh, some of Yahweh’s epithets can be tracedto those of El. Traditions concerning the cultic site of Shechem illustrate thecultural process lying behind the Yahwistic inclusion of old titles of El, or stateddifferently, the Yahwistic assimilation to old cultic sites of El. In the city ofShechem the local god was‘el bĕrît,“El of the covenant” (Judg. 9:46; cf. 8:33;9:4). This word’ilbrtappears as a Late Bronze Age title for El in KTU 1.128.14-15.223In the patriarchal narratives, the god of Shechem,‘ēl,is called’ĕlōhêyiśrā’ēl,“the god of Israel,” and is presumed to be Yahweh.224In this case, aprocess of reinterpretation appears to be at work. In the early history of Israel,when the cult of Shechem became Yahwistic, it inherited and continued the Eltraditions of that site.225Hence Yahweh received the title’ēl bĕrît,the old title ofEl. This record illustrates up to a point how Canaanite/Israelite traditions weretransmitted. Israelite knowledge of the religious traditions of other deities was
not due only to contact between Israel and its Phoenician neighbors in the IronAge. Rather, as a function of the identification of Yahweh-El at cultic sites of Elsuch as Shechem and Jerusalem, the old religious lore of a deity such as El wasinheritedbytheYahwisticpriesthoodinIsrael.Ezekiel16:3aproclaimsaccordingly: “Thus says the Lord God to Jerusalem: Your origin and your birthare of the land of the Canaanites.” Israelite inclusion of Yahweh into the olderfigure of El was not syncretistic insofar as El belonged to Israel’s originalreligious heritage. If syncretism was involved, it was a syncretism of variousIsraelite notions, and one that the prophets ultimately applauded. B. Vawterremarks: ”The very fact that the prophets fought Canaanization would makethem advocates of the ‘syncretism’ by which pagan titles were appropriated toYahweh.“226Yet even this “Canaanization,” to use Vawter’s term, was part ofIsrael’s heritage.
3.Yahweh and BaalIt is assumed sometimes that in the period of the Judges religious devotion toBaal competed with the cult of Yahweh.227The basis for this claim is groundedin the criticism that the books of Judges (2:11-13; 3:7) and 1 Samuel (7:3-4;12:10) direct against Baal. The story of Gideon in Judges 6 functions as aparadigmatic story designed to illustrate how true Yahwists in the early phase ofIsrael’s history eradicated devotion to Baal and Asherah (see w. 25-32). Indeed,in the story Gideon’s name is changed from Jerubbaal, a name withba‘alas itstheophoric element.The historical picture of Israelite treatment of Baal is difficult to reconstruct. Itmay be clarified by distinguishing between the older material and the use thatthe tradents of the book of Judges made of this material. Their later viewpoint isembedded in the polemics of Judges 2-3, a secondary stage of the book, datingprobably to the second half of the monarchy.228Textual hints in the book ofJudges point to the monarchy as the period of redaction (which involved editingand supplementing received tradition). The final verse of Judges (21:25) relatesthe period of the Judges from a monarchist perspective: “in those days there wasno king in Israel; each man did what was right in his own eyes.” It is possible topinpoint more precisely the time frame for the redaction of the book of Judges.Judges 18:30 relates the historical development of the priesthood in the tribe ofDan: “and Jonathan the son of Gershom, son of Moses, and his sons were prieststo the tribe of the Danites until the day of the captivity of the land.”229Thetemporal phrase, ‘ad-yôm gĕlôt hā’āreṣ,“until the day of exile of the land,”would refer either to the captivity of the northern kingdom in 722, whichincluded the territory of the tribe of Dan, or less likely the exile of the southernkingdom in 587. Given the royal perspective of Judges 21:25, the exile of thenorthern kingdom is evidently intended. In this case, the redaction of the book ofJudges belongs to the eighth century or later. The later polemics in Judges 2 and3 function as the initial elements in the cyclic pattern underlying the structure ofmany of the Judges stories: the Israelites sin against God, who in turn leavesthem prey to their enemies; the Israelites cry out to God to save them, at whichtime God sends a judge to deliver them from their enemies.230
The information about Baal and the asherah in Judges 6 appears to be older, asit is integrated into the fabric of the story. The older information contained inthis chapter was available to tradents and probably served as the historical sourcefor the later polemics. If this material is older, does it then attest to Israeliteacceptance of Baal and Asherah in the Judges period? The redaction of the latertradents manifest in Judges 2-3 indicates that they answered this question in theaffirmative. Despite problems with this conclusion, it is in fact a reasonableconclusion, yet it may mask the larger picture. The tradents assumed that in theJudges period Baal and Asherah were distinctive deities worshiped by Israelitesat expense to the cult of Yahweh. To be sure, worship of the Phoenician storm-god Baal at the expense of Yahweh’s cult occurred during of the reign of Ahab,yet that does not appear to have been the case in the time of the Judges. Despitethe picture that later tradents constructed, some older elements, especially theproper names with the element *ba‘alin Judges 6 and elsewhere may suggest adifferent situation. The evidence may point to a more complex picture, in whichthe cult of the old Canaanite god Baal was deemed tolerable by some Israelites.The tradents’ treatment of the name of Jerubbaal in Judges 6-7 exposes thereligious problem. The tradents altered the original Baalistic import of the name,which means “may Baal contend.” The name of the Byblian king Rib-Addiillustrates the original significance of Jerubbaal’s name, since the name Rib-Addi has essentially the same elements as the name of Jerubbaal. Both nameshave the same verbal base or root, *ryb, “to contend,” and both have a name ofthe Canaanite storm-god. The name Addu appears as Haddu in Ugaritic textswhere Haddu stands in parallelism with Baal. In the second millennium, Baalwas an epithet of Haddu. Like the name Jerubbaal, the name Rib-Addi means“may Addu contend.” Judges 7:32 reinterprets the name of Jerubbaal negativelyas an anti-Baal name: “let Baal plead against him, because he has thrown downhis altar.” The negative interpretation of the name as anti-Baal shows thetradents’ assumption that the theophoric element refers to the god Baal.231Likewise, 2 Samuel 11:21 reflects a negative view of the name of Jerubbaal. Theverse refers to Jerubbaal as Jerubbeshet, substituting forba‘althe element*bešet,a play on bôšet, “shame.” Jeremiah 3:24 refers to Baal precisely ashabbôšet,“the Shame” (cf. 11:13; Hos. 9:10).232Albright argued that the nameof Gideon, based on the root *gd’, “to hew,” functioned in the text to indicateJerubbaal’s role as a destroyer of Baal’s altar and the asherah. Albright thereforesuggested that Jerubbaal was the original and perhaps the only name of thisfigure (although two historical figures may stand behind the two names). Someconfirmation for Albright’s conclusion is provided in 1 Samuel 12:11. The verse
offers a partial list of judges who saved Israel; the recitation gives Gideon’sname only as Jerubbaal.233The editorial gloss in Judges 7:1 also reflects theindependent tradition regarding Jerubbaal. The chapter begins its story, “ThenJerubbaal (that is, Gideon)...” Some proper names withba‘alas the theophoricelement probably did refer to the god Baal, which would explain the redactor’salterations. Such ambiguity underlies some proper names withba‘alas thetheophoric element, which may be either a Baal or a Yahweh name. Forexample, like Jerubbaal, the nameba‘al hānān, the royal overseer of olive andsycamore trees under David in 1 Chronicles 27:28 (cf. Gen. 36:38-39), isambiguous. The name means either “Baal is gracious,” referring to the divinityBaal, or “the lord is gracious,” referring to Yahweh.The presupposition that ba‘al refers to a god, Baal, not only underlies thechange of Jerubbaal to Jerubbeshet in 2 Samuel 11:21 but also informs the factthat the names of Eshbaal (“man [?] of Baal/lord”) and Meribbaal (“Baal/ lord isadvocate/my master”) in 1 Chronicles 8-9 were altered to Ishboshet (“man [?] ofshame”) and Mephiboshet (from *mippîbôšet, “from the mouth [?] of shame”) in2 Samuel 2-4. The changes in these names reflect the supposition that thesenames witnessed to an acceptance of Baal.234However, Eshbaal and Meribbaalbelonged to the clan of Saul, in which Yahwistic names are also attested, such asJonathan, the son of Saul. Why would a Yahwistic family give Baal names, ifBaal were a god inimical to Yahweh? The answer is perhaps implicit in the nameof another family member provided in the genealogy of Saul’s clan in 1Chronicles 8:30 and 9:36. In this verse, Baal is the name of Saul’s uncle. Thename is hypocoristic (i.e. lacking a divine name), and is usually interpreted as“(Yahweh is) lord.” This name belongs also to a Reubenite (1 Chron. 5:5).Direct analogies are provided by the namebĕ‘alyāh,“Yah is lord” (1 Chron.12:6) and ywb‘l, “Yaw is lord,” attested in a seal inscription.235These namespoint to three possibilities. In Saul’s family, eitherba‘alwas a title for Yahweh,or Baal was acceptable in royal, Yahwistic circles, or both.236The same range ofpossible interpretations underlies the names of Eshbaal and Meribbaal; bothwere possibly Yahwistic names, later understood as anti-Yahwistic in import.The later defensiveness over these names points to the fact that the language ofBaal, though criticized during the monarchy, was used during the Judges period.Furthermore, the characteristics of Baal and Yahweh probably overlapped. Thereis indirect evidence for this conclusion in what is considered Israel’s oldestpoetry. Some passages, for example, Judges 5:4-5 and Psalm 29, use imagerycharacteristic of Baal to describe Yahweh as the divine warrior fighting todeliver Israel.237In short, the conflict between Yahweh and Baal was a problem
of the monarchic period and not the period of the Judges.238The religious issue of the Judges period requires further explanation. If inearly Israel El and Yahweh were identified, and the cults of Baal and Yahwehcoexisted, the question why the cults of Baal and Yahweh were consideredirreconcilable beginning in the ninth century needs to be addressed. To anticipatethe discussion of the next chapter, El was not a threat to the cult of Yahweh inancient Israel. Phoenician Baal, on the contrary, represented a threat in the ninthcentury and onward, especially thanks to the efforts of Ahab and Jezebel toelevate him in the northern kingdom.239This situation was the perspectivethrough which the later tradents of Judges viewed the religious material inJudges 6-7. In Israel during the Judges period, however, Baal was probably nomore a threat than El. Later tradition did not view the figure of Baal in theseterms; indeed, later sources treat Baal as a threat to Yahwism from the era of theJudges down to the period of the monarchy. While this historical witness to Baalin Israelite circles is probably correct, the polemical cast of the witness is not.Baal was probably not the threat in the Judges period or the tenth century thatlater tradents considered him. It was the traumatic events of the ninth centuryand afterwards that shaped the perspective of the tradents.
4. Yahweh and AsherahJust as there is little evidence for El as a separate Israelite god in the era of theJudges, so Asherah is poorly attested as a separate Israelite goddess in thisperiod. Arguments for Asherah as a goddess in this period rest on Judges 6 andelsewhere where she is mentioned with Baal. Yet the story in Judgs 6 focusesmuch more attention on Baal worship and none on Asherah. Only the asherah,the symbol that bears the name of the goddess, is criticized. Furthermore, unlike‘ēl andba‘al, ’ăšērāhdoes not appear as the theophoric element in Hebrewproper names.240In recent years it has been claimed that Asherah was anIsraelite goddess and the consort of Yahweh, because her name or at least theculticitemsymbolizingher,theasherah,appearsintheeighth-centuryinscriptions from Kuntillet Ajrûd and Khirbet el-Qôm. To anticipate thatdiscussion,241*’šrthin these inscriptions refers to the symbol originally namedafter the goddess, although during the eighth century it may not have symbolizedthe goddess. This conclusion does not address, however, the issue of whetherAsherah was distinguished as a separate goddess and consort of Yahweh in theperiod of the Judges. Indeed, it may be argued that her symbol was part of thecult of Yahweh in this period, but it did not symbolize a goddess. Just as El andBaal and their imagery were adapted to the cult of Yahweh, the asherah was asymbol in Yahwistic cult in this period.There is one passage that may point to Asherah as an Israelite goddess at somepoint in early Israel. Genesis 49 reports Jacob’s blessings to his twelve sons. B.Vawter, D. N. Freedman, and M. O‘Connor argue that verses 24-26, part of theblessings to Joseph, represent a series of divine epithets, including two titles ofAsherah.242MT reads:wattēšeb bĕ’êtân qaštôwayyāpōzzûzĕrō‘êyādāywmîdê ’ăbîr ya‘ăqōbmiššām rō‘eh ’eben yiśrā’ēlmē’ēl ’ābîkā wĕya‘zĕrekkāwĕ’ĕt šadday wîbārĕkekkā
birkōt šāmayim mē‘ālbirkōt tĕhôm rōbeṣet tāḥhatbirkōt šādayim wārāḥambirkōt ‘ābîkā gābĕrû‘a/birkōt hôray ‘adta’ăwatgib‘ōt ‘ôlāmtihyêna lĕrō‘š yôsēpûlqodqōd nĕzîr ’eḥāywThe following translation departs from the MT and instead reflects theproposal of B. Vawter that four pairs of divine entities are invoked from verse24d through verse 26c:His bow stayed taut,His hands were agile,By the Bull of Jacob,By the strength of the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel,By El, your Father, who helps you,By Shadday who blesses youWith the blessings of Heavens, from above,The blessings of the Deep, crouching below,The blessings of Breasts-and-Womb,The blessings of your Father, Hero and Almighty,The blessings of the Eternal Mountains,The delight of the Everlasting Hills,May they be on the head of Joseph,On the crown of the chosen of his brothers.243Within verses 24-26 Vawter sees four sets of divine epithets: (a)’ăbîrya‘ăqōb,“Bull244of Jacob,” andrō‘eh ’eben yiśrā‘ēl, “Shepherd, Stone ofIsrael”; (b)’ēl ’ābîkā wĕya‘zĕrekkā,“El, your father, who saves you,” andšadday wîbārekĕkkā,“Shadday who blesses you”; (c)šāmayim mē‘āl,“Heavenabove,” andtĕhôm rōbeṣet tāḥat,“Deep crouching below”; and (d)šādayimwārāḥam,“Breasts-and-Womb,” and’ābîkā gibbôr wā‘āl,“your Father, Heroand Almighty.” Most of these epithets, including “Father” and “Shadday,” areattributed elsewhere to Yahweh-El. “Bull of Jacob” is a title of Yahweh in Psalm132:2, 5; Isaiah 49:26; 60:16 (cf. Isa. 1:4). The pair of Heaven and Deep isdescribed in similar fashion in Deuteronomy 33:13. Theretal,“dew,” occurs inthe same syntactic position as‘āl,“above,” in Genesis 49:25c (cf. Gen. 27:28a).
Genesis 27:39 combines differently the various terms associated with Heaven inthese verses:ûmiṭṭal haššāyim mē‘āl,“from the dew of Heaven from above.”O’Connor understands verse 26a as a series of epithets and translates “theblessings of your father, Hero and Almighty.” Instead of MTgābĕrû ‘al(soRSV), *gbris understood as a noun, w- is taken as the conjunction, and ’1 isread as a short form of the divine epithet, ‘ly.245Verse 25e also contains epithets:“the blessings of Breasts-and-Womb.” This reading of verse 25e is compelling,given the pairs of epithets in the preceding cola. Indeed, the titles of verse 25eare paired with the title “your father” of verse 26a, which recalls a standard Elepithet.The phrasešādayim wārāḥamin verse 25e echoes Ugaritic titles of thegoddesses Asherah and Anat.246The wordrḥmis associated with the goddessAnat in KTU 1.6 II 27, 1.15 II 6, and 1.23.16. In KTU 1.23.13 and 28, this titlerefers to Anat in her pairing with Asherah.247In an invocation in KTU 1.23.23-24, the “beautiful gods”(’ilm n‘mm)are characterized as receiving nourishmentfrom Asherah and Anat:248The description of the “beautiful gods” is paralled in KTU 1.23-61, whichrefers to a goddess with the wordšt,“lady,” perhaps a title of Anat elsewhere inUgaritic (KTU 1.18 IV 27; 1.19 IV 53).249In Genesis 49:25e-26a, “Breasts-and-Womb” might be a title attributed to a goddess, paired with the standard maleimagery of El as father. This pair would belong to a larger sequence of pairedepithets including titles of El. The question of which goddess might be involvedis not too difficult to establish. The epithets do not belong to Anat, as her cult isunattested for Iron Age Israel or Phoenicia. Astarte could be the goddess ofGenesis 49:25, since her name is associated with natural fertility, which is thesetting for the epithets in this passage. More specifically, the expression‘aštĕrôtṣō’nrefers to the young of animals (Deut. 7:13; 28:4, 18, 51)250and derivesfrom the goddess’s name in construct withṣō’n,a collective term for smallanimals such as sheep and goats.251Moreover, there are later references toAstarte in biblical literature (Judg. 2:13; 10:6). The strongest evidence, however,supports Asherah as the goddess evoked by the female epithets in Genesis 49:25.
The Ugaritic background of the epithets favors Asherah. Furthermore, thepairing ofšādayim wārāḥamwith El would further point to Asherah, sinceAsherahisthegoddesspairedwithhimintheUgaritictexts.Otherinterpretations are posssible foršādayim wārāḥam.These terms meaning“breasts and womb” could be interpreted in purely natural terms, as signs ofnatural fertility. This interpretation represents the traditional view of the termsand is reflected in most modern translations (e.g., RSV, NAB, New JewishPublicationSociety).Thewordšdymcouldbetranslateddifferentlyandunderstood to refer to “mountains” cognate with Akkadianšadû,andrāḥamcould be understood in another way, perhaps as “winds,” the plural of Hebrewrûah.The first alternative would fit well with the setting of natural fertility inthese verses. The second alternative would comport with the cosmic terms,“Heaven” and “Deeps” in the preceding bicolon and “Eternal Mountains” and“Everlasting Hills” in the following line. The pairing with El, however, favorsthe interpretation ofšādayim wārāḥamas the epithets of Asherah. If thisinterpretation of Genesis 49:24-26 is correct, then El and Asherah were Israelitedeities distinguished from Yahweh, who is invoked separately in verse 18.252This chapter might then represent a tradition or early stage in Israel’s religioushistory in which El and Yahweh were not identified and Asherah stood as anidentifiable goddess.In subsequent tradition, the titles of El in this passage were treated differentlyfromšādayim wārāḥam.In the period of the monarchy, the male titles of El aswell as Baal were regarded as epithets of Yahweh, as their attestations inDeuteronomy 33:26-27 and Psalm 18 (2 Sam. 22):14-16 show. The femaleimagery of Genesis 49:25e suffered a different fate in the history of the tradition.It was not directly assimilated to Yahweh in the way that male epithets were.Rather, these epithets were not applied to Yahweh and, as chapter 3 shows,female language for the divine appears infrequently and indirectly in biblicaltexts. The history of interpretation of Genesis 49:25e also illustrates the way thatthisfemalelanguagewastreated.Moderntranslationsandcommentariesgenerally treat the language of “Breasts-and-Womb” in purely natural terms,despite the cluster of divine epithets surrounding this phrase. S. Olyan hasdemonstrated that Asherah was a goddess paired with El, and this pairing wasbequeathed to Israelite religion by virtue of the Yahweh-El identification.253This reconstruction is consistent with the evidence of Genesis 49:25. However,the subsequent history of the female language seems to differ. In some quartersdevotion to the goddess may have persisted, but neither biblical information norinscriptional material unambiguously confirms this historical reconstruction.
Rather, the explicit cult of the goddess may not have endured. The maternallanguage, originally deriving from the goddess and made cultically presentthrough the symbol of the asherah, did not refer to the goddess later in the cult ofYahweh. The titles and imagery belonging to El and Baal in Genesis 49:24-26raise a further question about the nature of conflation of deities in early Israel.While later tradition presumed that these verses describe Yahweh, the godtreated in these verses appears to be a different god, since Yahweh is invoked ina separate section in verse 18.One further piece of evidence, a cultic stand from the site of Taanach, maypoint to Israelite devotion to Asherah in the early monarchy. Dated to the tenthcentury by its excavators, this square hollow stand has four levels or registersdepicting a number of divine symbols.254The bottom level depicts a nakedfemale figure with each of her hands resting on the heads of lions (or lionesses)flanking her. This figure could be Anat, Asherah, or Astarte, but the attestationof Astarte’s cult in this period and her iconography with the lion in Egypt mightfavor the identification of the female figure here with her. The second lowestregister has an opening in the middle flanked by two sphinxes with a lion’sbody, bird’s wings, and a female head. The next register has a sacred tree,composed of a heavy central trunk sprouting symmetrically three pairs of curlingbranches. Two ibexes stand on their hind legs, and both face the tree in thecenter. On the outside of the two ibexes are two lions. The symbol of the tree isan asherah, the tree named after the goddess Asherah. The top register depicts ayoung four-legged animal, either a bovine, such as an ox or a young bull withouthorns (BH‘ēgel).This animal may have represented either Baal or Yahweh intenth-century Taanach. Finally, above the animal appears a solar disk, thesymbol of the sun deity that appears with major gods in the iconography of thisperiod. In short, assuming the correct dating of the stand to the tenth century, thestand attests to polytheism in this area. The Taanach stand suggests that at thebeginning of Iron II (ca. 1000-587), the city maintained the worship of a god,either Yahweh or Baal, a goddess, probably Astarte, and the devotion to theasherah,possiblyatthisjuncturesymbolizingthegoddessAsherah.Thesignificance of the stand for understanding Israelite religion in the early years ofthe monarchy hinges in part on the accuracy of the dating of the stand by itsexcavators. If the stand is dated correctly, then it might constitute evidence forIsraelite religion. Judges 1:27 would suggest that the city remained at leastpartially Canaanite down to the monarchy. Afterwards following the rise of theDavidic dynasty, the city became Israelite. Solomon’s organization of the nationlists Taanach and Megiddo in the fifth district (1 Kings 4:12). Though politicallyidentified as Israelite, the city may have continued its Canaanite cultic traditions,
which flourished in the valleys and the coast in the Late Bronze Age. Dated tothe early monarchy, the stand would appear to provide evidence for Israelitepolytheism (including Asherah), continuous with earlier Canaanite traditions.That Anat was not a goddess in Iron Age Israel seems clear. Apart fromproper names, evidence for her cult is virtually nonexistent. As section 4 ofchapter 2 discusses, her imagery also became part of the repertoire of martialdescriptions for Yahweh. Solar worship in this early period is likewise difficultto establish. Solar imagery for Yahweh developed during the period of themonarchy, perhaps through the influence of monarchic religious ideology.255The geographical distribution of these deities can be pinpointed minimally. Thecult of Yahweh and the symbol, the asherah, appear from later data to be generalfeatures of both northern and southern religion. The northern evidence for Elseems clear from his cult in Shechem. Jerusalem probably represents anothercultic site where the royal cult of Yahweh assumed the indigenous traditions ofEl. The monarchic solar imagery for Yahweh seems to be strictly a southerndevelopment, a special feature of the royal Judean cult. The information aboutBaal stems from largely northern sources, but he was apparently popular in bothkingdoms. Evidence for Astarte is extremely rare in the period of the Judges.Moreover, the biblical evidence may stem from a later, southern polemic againstthis goddess.
5. Convergence of Divine ImagerySome of the older Israelite poems juxtapose imagery associated with El and Baalin the Ugaritic texts and apply this juxtaposition of attributes to Yahweh. It wasnoted that Genesis 49:25-26, for example, exhibits language deriving from Eland Asherah. According to F. M. Cross,256Deuteronomy 33:26-27257mixes Eland Baal epithets.258Verse 26 describes Yahweh in storm language traditional toBaal259while verse 27 applies to Yahweh the phrase,‘ĕlōhêqedem, “the ancientgod,” a description reflecting El’s great age:There is none like God, O Jeshurun,who rides(rōkēb)through the heavens(šāmayim)to your help,and in his majesty through the skies.The eternal God(’ĕlōhê qedem) is your dwelling place ...Psalm 18 (2 Sam. 22):14-16 (E 13-15) likewise juxtaposes El and Baalimagery or titles for Yahweh:Yahweh also thundered in the heavens,and the Most High(‘elyôn)uttered his voice,hailstones and coals of fire.And he sent out his arrows,and scattered them;he flashed forth lightnings,and routed them.Then the channels of the sea(’ăpîqê mayim) were seen ...This passage bears two explicit hallmarks of El language within a passageprimarily describing a storm theophany of the type predicated of Baal in Ugariticliterature. The title‘elyônis an old epithet of El.261In Genesis 14:19 it occurs asa title of the god of the patriarchs, and it appears in the older poetic compositionsfor the god of Israel (see also Num. 24:4; cf. Deut. 32:8). It is a common divinetitle in the Psalter (Pss. 93; 21:8; 46:5; 50:14; 57:3; 73:11; 77:11; 78:17, 35, 56;
83:19; 91:1, 9; 92:2; 107:11). In Psalm 82:6 it appears in the phrasebĕnê ‘elyôn.There it refers to other deities and reflects El’s role as father of the gods. The“channels of the sea”(ăpîqêmayim) perhaps echo the description of the watersof El’s abode, called mbknhrm//’apqthmtm, “springs of the two rivers//thechannels of the double-deeps” (KTU 1.2 III 4; 1.3 V 14; 1.4IV 21-22; 1.5 VI 1*;1.6 1 34; 1.17 VI 48; cf. 1. 100.2-3).262Besides the features associated with El inCanaanite tradition, Psalm 18:14-16 describes Yahweh as a divine warrior,manifesting his divine weaponry in the storm like Baal in the Ugaritic texts.In these passages, Deuteronomy 33:26-27, Psalm 18 (2 Sam. 22):14-16, aswell as Genesis 49:25-26, imagery regularly applied to El and Baal in NorthwestSemitic literature was attributed to Yahweh at a relatively early point in Israel’sreligious history. Moreover, in applying this imagery to Yahweh, these passagescombine or conflate the imagery of more than one Canaanite deity. Other poeticpassages treated in subsequent chapters, such as Psalm 68 and Deuteronomy 32,offerfurtherexamplesofconflationorconvergenceofdivinelanguageassociated with a variety of deities in Canaanite literature. Such convergence inIsrael’s earliest history occurs in other forms. The modes and content ofrevelation appropriate to El and Baal appear in conflated form in the earliestlevels of biblical tradition.263Likewise, Psalm 27 describes the divine dwellingin terms used of El’s and Baal’s homes in Canaanite tradition. Psalm 27:6 callsYahweh’s home a tent (*‘ōhel)like El’s dwelling in the Elkunirsa myth. Psalm27:4 calls Yahweh’s home a “house”(bêt),language more characteristic ofBaal’s abode (KTU 1.4 VII 42) than El’s dwelling (cf. KTU 1.114). As J. C.Greenfield has noted,264other terms in Psalm 27 evoking language of Baal’shome includenō‘amin verse 4 andyiṣpĕnēnî(*ṣpn) in verse 5.
6. Convergence in Israelite ReligionIsrael’s major deities in the period of the Judges were not numerous. Genesis49:25-26 possibly point to an early stage when Israel knew three deities, El,Asherah, and Yahweh. In addition, Baal constituted a fourth deity in Israel’searly religious history. This situation changed by the period of the earlymonarchy. Yahweh and El were identified, and at some point, devotion to thegoddess Asherah did not continue as an identifiably separate cult. After thispoint, polytheism in the Judges period other than devotion to Baal is difficult todocument. In general, the oldest stages of Israel’s religious literature exhibitsome limited signs of Yahweh having assimilated the imagery of the primarydeities. These conclusions cannot be stated without qualification, inasmuch asthe data is incomplete and possibly not representative. Indeed, because of theincomplete picture of this period, perhaps it should be concluded that Israel wasmore polytheistic in the period of the Judges.Other religious developments within the cult of Yahweh may have played arole in accenting Yahwistic monolatry during various periods. According to P.D. Miller,265these features include Israel’s imageless or aniconic tradition, theinfluence of the Ten Commandments in Israel’s religious tradition, and polemicsagainst’ĕlōhîm ’ăḥērim,“other gods” (Exod. 20:3; Deut. 5:7), and’ĕlōhîmḥădāšîm,“new gods” (Judg. 5:8; cf. Ps. 44:21), as well as denials of other gods(Deut. 32:39; 1 Sam. 2:2). Although numerous polemics against images (e.g.,Isa. 2:8; 10:10; 30:22; 31:7; 40:19; 42:19; Jer. 1:16; 8:19; Micah 1:7; Nahum1:14) would bring into question the claim that the aniconic requirementexercised influence on other apects of Israelite religion, presumably thesefeatures helped to mold ideas of monolatry early in Israel’s history.266Moreover,the prophetic criticisms against images belong largely to the eighth century,leaving open the question of the later influence of the aniconic requirement. Aschapter 6 illustrates, centralization of cult and the rise of writing as anauthoritative medium also contributed to the development of Israelite monolatryin the period of the monarchy. These features of Israelite religion generallydistinguish it from Israel’s neighbors, as far as the evidence indicates.The convergence of titles and imagery of deities to the personage of Yahweh
appears to have been part of a wider religious development of conflation ofreligious motifs in Israelite tradition. Two examples of this general religiousdevelopment illustrate it. The biblical and extrabiblical traditions of Shaddayperhaps witness to a regional influence on the cult of Yahweh. The epithetappears twice in the stories in Numbers 22-24 pertaining to the prophet seerBalaam (Num. 24:4, 16).267A non-Israelite initially hired to curse the Israelitesmoving through Moab, Balaam in the end proclaims a blessing upon them. TheDeir ‘Alia texts likewise suggest that *šd(y)was a divine epithet at home inTransjordan. These texts describe an oracle of Balaam witnessing to divinitiescalledšdyn, shaddays.Thešdyndeities in these texts diverge from materialknown about El or Yahweh from either Ugaritic or generally from the Bible. Itwould appear from both the biblical attestation to the title El Shadday inNumbers 24 and the reference to thešdynin the Deir ‘Alia texts that this divineepithet was traditional to the region of Transjordan. The epithet was a title for Elduring the period of the monarchy, appearing, for example, in Genesis 49:25.The priestly tradition reflects the further assimilation of this title into therepertoire of epithets for Yahweh (Gen. 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 43:14; cf. Ezek. 10:5),and attaches the name to Bethel (Gen. 48:3).In Israelite religious tradition, the waters of El’s abode apparently underwenttwo major alterations. First of all, they appear in two different ways in biblicaltradition.268As in the examples of Genesis 49:25d and Deuteronomy 33:13bnoted above, these waters are life-giving. In Isaiah 33:20-22; Ezekiel 47:1-12;Joel 4:18; Zechariah 14:8 (cf. Gen. 2:10; 2 Esdras 5:25-26; 1 Enoch 26), theyissue from beneath the Temple. As noted above in the case of Psalm 18 (2 Sam.22):16, the waters also appear in biblical tradition as underworld waters (see alsoJob 28:11;26938:16-17; 2 Esdras 4:7-8). Second, the underworld setting of thewaters was perhaps originally alien to the mythologem.270The examples of ElShadday and the waters of El’s home illustrate that despite the explicitidentification between Yahweh and El made in some biblical passages, therelationship between the traditions of El and Yahweh was highly complex.Indeed, Canaanite religious traditions exhibit substantial modifications in theirIsraelite forms. By and large, it is difficult, if not impossible, to identify thespecific socio-political forces behind the process of convergence. One of themajor instances cited above is Psalm 18 (= 2 Samuel 22), which is clearly a royalthanksgiving. From this example, it is evident that the monarchy either generatedor inherited (and then used) the convergence of divine imagery in order toelevate the national god. Indeed, the vast bulk of biblical texts date to themonarchic period or later, and the ascendant position of Yahweh as the national
god under the monarchy would make convergence of divine imagery a powerfulideology political tool. Yet, given the lack of information, the premonarchicperiod cannot be ruled out entirely as the older context for convergence, at leastto some degree.
7. Israel and Its NeighborsThe immediate neighbors of Israel that emerged by the early first millenniumexhibit ten or fewer deities, according to the meager data.271At first glance,Ammon does not appear to reflect a relatively small group of deities. Based onthe theophoric elements in proper names, K. Jackson lists ten Ammonite deities:’b,’dn, ’l,’nrt, bl,hm,mlk, nny, ’mandšmš.272Some of these elements, such as’band’dn,are presumably titles, however. Biblical sources presuppose thatmlkor Milkom was the national Ammonite god (1 Kings 11:5, 33; Jer. 49:1, 3; cf. 2Sam. 12:30; 1 Chron. 20:2; Zeph. 1:5). Ammonite proper names show apreponderance of the theophoric element *‘l,273which might suggest a closerelationship between El and Milkom in Ammonite religion. Perhaps the twowere identified, like El and Yahweh in Israelite religion.274The patron god ofthe Moabite dynasty was Chemosh (KAI 181:3, 5, 9, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 32, 33; 1Kings 11:7; Jer. 48:13).275The name Ashtar-Chemosh appears once (KAI181:17). Otherwise, the deities of Moab are little known.276The case for Edom perhaps parallels the religious situation of early Israelmore closely. The national god of Edom was Qaws, attested in inscriptionalmaterial from Qitmit and the writings of Josephus(Antiquities15.253).277Thisdivine name appears as the theophoric element in several Edomite, Nabatean,and Arabic names, including those of Edomite kings.278El (Gen. 36:39), Baal(Gen. 36:38), and Hadad (1 Kings 11:14-21; Gen. 36:35- 36) also appear astheophoric elements in Edomite proper names. Some of these names werepossibly old Canaanite deities that continued into first millennium Edomitereligion, although like the name of Anat in Israelite names, these theophoricelements may not point to cultic devotion to these deities. A head of a goddess,presumed to be Edomite, was excavated at Qitmit.279As an aside, it should benoted that biblical information about the Edomites in these passages may suggesta high level of cultural interaction in early Israel. This interaction would furtherexplain the origins and incorporation of the cult of Yahweh into the highlands ofIsrael in the Iron I period from Edom/ Midian/Teiman/Paran, a tradition thatperdured despite later hostilities between Israelites and Edomites.280
The Phoenician city-states of Byblos, Sidon, and Tyre manifest fewer than tendeities. Byblos’ deities were Baal Shamem (KAI 4:3), b‘l ’dr (KAI 9 B 5), b‘l(KAI 12:4), andb‘lt gbl,“the lady of Byblos” (KAI 5:1; 6:2; 7:3).281Thedynastic god of Byblos was Baal Shamem, and the other deities perhaps wereolder Canaanite divinities.282Sidonian deities included Eshmun (KAI 14-16) andAstarte (KAI 13:1; 1 Kings 11:5).283Sidonian inscriptions also mention Resheph(KAI 15) and the Rephaim (13:7; 14:8). The treaty of Esarhaddon with Baal II ofTyre lists in order the deities of Tyre as Bethel, Anat-Bethel, Baal Shamem,Baal-Malaga,Baal-Saphon,Melqart,Eshmun,andAstarte.284Theinitialposition of Bethel would point to his status as the primary god of the Tyrianpantheon. That Bethel is a secondary hypostasis of El has been argued by M.Barré.285The depiction of Tyrian El in Ezekiel 28 would comport with thisconclusion. Baal Shamem is also mentioned in a Tyrian inscription (KAI 18).Astarte is attested in KAI 17:1 from nearby Umm el-‘Amed. Inscriptions fromnearby Sarepta include the deitiesšdrp’andtnt‘štrt,perhaps a combination ofthe names of two goddesses, Tannit and Astarte.286The collectivity of deities,the divine council, is attested in Phoenician inscriptions from Byblos (KAI 4:4-5, 7), Sidon (KAI 14:9, 22), and Karatepe (KAI 26 A III 19).On the basis of the little available evidence, it would appear that the first-millennium neighbors of Israel did not maintain cultic devotion on the samescale as the second-millennium religion in the Levant. While more than twohundred deities are attested at Ugarit, the texts for the first-millennium states inthe region attest to ten or fewer deities. It might be presumed that in Israel andamong its neighbors there were other deities to which the extant texts do notwitness. Indeed, it might be argued that if the same number and variety of textswere available for early Israel or its neighbors as from Ugarit, the number ofdeities in them would approximate the number of deities in the Ugaritic texts.This argument by extrapolation to the Ugaritic texts may represent no better orno worse an argument from silence than one that would conclude a relativepaucity of deities from the little evidence of Israelite and other first-millenniumNorthwest Semitic texts. In the final analysis, deriving historical claims on thebasis of the actually attested texts (especially for the early period) is highlyproblematic. While it can be claimed only that the deities attested for Israel arerelatively few in number, it remains possible that first-millennium Levantinereligion differed in this respect from its second-millennium antecedents, andIsrael was part of this development.In conclusion, according to the available evidence, Israelite religion in itsearliest form did not contrast markedly with the religions of its Levantine
neighbors in either number or configuration of deities. Rather, the number ofdeities in Israel was relatively typical for the region. Furthermore, as they did inthe religions of surrounding states, some old Canaanite deities continued withinan Israelite pantheon dominated by a national god. Like some of the Phoeniciancity-states and perhaps Edom, earliest Israel knew El, Baal, a new dynastic ornational god, the divine council, a partial divinization of deceased ancestors(Rephaim), and perhaps the cult of a goddess. Similarly, during the period of theJudges, Yahweh held hegemony over a complex religion that preserved some oldCanaanite components through an identification with El, a continuation of theconcepts of the divine council and partially divinized ancestors, a coexistencewithBaal,andperhapsanearlytolerationforAsherahandsubsequentassimilation of her cult and symbol, the asherah. This state of affairs was not tohold for the period of the monarchy.
CHAPTER 2Yahweh and Baal
1. Baal Worship in IsraelAccording to the biblical record, the worship of Baal threatened Israel from theperiod of the Judges down to the monarchy.287It is assumed in 1 Kings 11:4 thatthis was the case for Solomon’s reign. Names withba‘alas the theophoricelement, such as Jerubbaal, Eshbaal, and Meribbaal, have been taken to indicatethat Israelite society, including some royal circles, viewed the worship of Baal asa legitimate practice. Indeed, some scholars interpret these names as evidenceboth thatba‘alwas a title for Yahweh and that the cult of Baal coexisted withthe cult of Yahweh.288Inscriptions from Samaria, the capital city of the northernkingdom, provide an important witness for the ninth or eighth century. Theseinscriptions, called the Samaria ostraca, contain at least five names with thetheophoric element ofba‘alas opposed to nine names with the Yahwehcomponent.289By way of contrast, no personal names withba‘alas thetheophoric element are extant from Judah. These data have prompted somescholarly speculation about the widespread acceptance of Baal from the periodof the Judges down through the fall of the northern kingdom in 722, especially inthe north.290According to 1 Kings 17-19, the ninth century marked a critical time for thecult of Baal in Israel. The biblical and extrabiblical sources provide a wide arrayof information pertaining to the cult of Baal in Israel and Phoenicia during thisperiod. The biblical record dramatically presents the spread of the cult ofPhoenician Baal in Samaria. Jezebel, daughter of Ittobaal, king of Tyre, and wifeof Ahab, king of the northern kingdom, strongly sponsored the worship of Baal(1 Kings 16:31). First, Ahab built a temple to Baal, which is said to have been inSamaria (1 Kings 16:32). From 2 Kings 13:6, it is clear that Baal had his owntemple in the environs of Samaria, apart from the cult of the national god,Yahweh (cf. 1 Kings 16:32; 2 Kings 10:21-27).291Ahab also erected an asherah,whose location and relationship to Baal are not specified. Elijah, the enemy ofAhab, and the measures that Ahab and Jezebel took to support the worship ofBaal in the capital are presented in 1 Kings 17-19. Jezebel persecuted theprophets of Yahweh (1 Kings 18:3), but provided income to the prophets of Baal
and Asherah (1 Kings 18:19).292Later, in a speech to Yahweh, Elijah says thathe is the only prophet of Yahweh to have escaped Ahab and Jezebel (1 Kings19:10).To judge from the biblical sources, the baal of Jezebel was a god with powerover the rain, like Ugaritic Baal. In 1 Kings 17-19 is stressed Yahweh’s powerover nature, which corresponds to various phenomena associated with Baal inthe Ugaritic texts.293These powers include dominion over the storm (1 Kings17:1-17; 18:41-46).294The prophets of “thebaal” compete with Elijah on MountCarmel to see whose god truly has power over nature (1 Kings 18). One of thefunctions of 1 Kings 17-19 is to prove that Yahweh has power over all of thesephenomena,butunlikethebaalofJezebel,Yahwehtranscendsthesemanifestations of divine power (1 Kings 19, esp. v. 11).295Jezebel’s own name,’izebel,“where is the Prince?” (e.g., 1 Kings 16:31; 18:4f.; 19:1; 21:5f.; 2 Kings9:7), recalls the specific wording of human concern expressed over Baal’s death,attested in the Ugaritic Baal cycle (KTU 1.6 IV 4-5).296That the biblical baal was a Phoenician god with power over the storm may bededuced from extrabiblical texts. The baal is identified either with Melqart297orBaal Shamem.298Nothing in the meager Phoenician sources bearing on this goddirectly contradicts an identification with Melqart. Perhaps he was the main citygod of Tyre, since in KAI 47:1 he is called the “lord of Tyre”(b‘lṣr).299Furthermore, it might be argued that the baal of Jezebel should be Melqart, sincehis name means “king of the city,” presumably referring to Tyre (although thispointperhapspresupposesthathisnameandcultoriginatedatTyre,aconclusion beyond the scope of the currently available information). A primaryfeature of his cult seems to be his “awakening” from death.300Melqart is theHerakles whom Josephus calls the “dead hero”(hērōi enagizousi) who receivesofferings. Josephus (Antiquities8.146) also mentions that Hiram “brought aboutthe resurrection of Herakles”(tou hērakleous egersin epoiēsato).The title “raiserofHerakles”(egerse[itēntou]herakleou[s])occursinaRomanperiodinscription from Philadelphia. This cult likely underlies the titlemqm ’lm,“theraiser of the god(s),” in a second-century Phoenician inscription from Rhodes(KAI 44:2). Arguments identifying the Baal of 1 Kings 17-19 with Melqart relylargely on viewing the taunt of 1 Kings 18:27 as an allusion to this rite of“awakening.” Yet the ancient Near Eastern notion of the “sleeping god” in thisverse is wider than the specific cult of Melqart. Sleep is attributed to deities inMesopotamia,Egypt,andCanaan,includingYahweh(Pss.44:24[E23];78:65).301There is no evidence indicating that Melqart was a storm-god,
although appeal might be made to his lineage presented in Philo of Byblos (PE1.10.27): “Demarous had a son Melkarthos, who is also known as Herakles.”302From this connection between Melqart and Demarous, a title of Baal Haddu inthe Ugaritic texts,303it might be inferred that the nature of Melqart wasmeteorological.The evidence for Baal Shamem is manifestly meteorological. Attested inPhoenician inscriptions at Byblos (KAI 4:3), Umm el-‘Amed (KAI 18:1, 7),Karatepe (KAI 26 A III 18), Kition (RES 1519b), Carthage (KAI 78:2), andSardinia (KAI 64:1), Baal Shamem had power over the storm, which ismentioned in a curse in the treaty between Esarhaddon and Baal II of Tyre. Thetreaty invokes three “baals” — Baal Shamem, Baal-Malaga, and Baal-Saphon —to bring an “evil wind” upon Baal II if he violates the treaty: “May BaalShamem, Baal Malaga and Baal Saphon raise an evil wind against your ships, toundo their moorings, tear out their mooring pole, may a strong wave sink themin the sea, a violent tide [...] against you.”304This curse invokes all three gods towield their power of the storm (cf. Jonah 1:4). According to Philo of Byblos (PE1.10.7),beelsamenwas a storm-god, associated with the sun in the heavens andequated with Zeus,305although Baal Shamem’s solar characteristic apparentlywas a later product.306That Baal Shamem and not Melqart was the patron god ofAhab and Jezebel may be inferred from the proper names attested for the Tyrianroyal family. The onomasticon of the Tyrian royal house bears no names withMelqart. There is only one exception to*b‘las the theophoric element in royalproper names from Tyre.307That Baal Shamem and not Melqart was a threat in Israel in the pre-exilicperiod might be inferred from the fact that the god in question is called “thebaal” (1 Kings 18:19, 22, 25, 26, 40). The invocation of Baal Shamem in theAramaic version of Psalm 20 written in Demotic may also provide evidence ofthis god in Israelite religion.308This version of Psalm 20 belongs to a papyrusdating to the second century known as Papyrus Amherst Egyptian no. 63(column XI, lines 11-19). The text, which may have come from Edfu, showssome Egyptian influence, specifically the mention of the god Horus. The textmay secondarily reflect genuine Israelite features. M. Weinfeld argues that thepsalm was originally Canaanite or northern Israelite.309For Weinfeld, thereferences to Baal Shamem, El-Bethel, and Mount Saphon reflect an originalCanaanite or northern Israelite setting, perhaps Bethel. The biblical version ofPsalm 20 would reflect a southern version, which secondarily imported thepsalm into the cult of Yahweh. In this case, the Aramaic version may have
derived from a northern Israelite predecessor. If so, the reference to BaalShamem might reflect the impact of this god in Israelite religion.Some scholars identify the baal of Jezebel with the baal of Carmel, perhaps ashis local manifestation at Carmel.310Like Baal Shamem, the baal of Carmelappears to be a storm-god. A second-century inscription from Carmel on a statueidentifies the god of Carmel as Zeus Heliopolis.311At Baalbek, Zeus Heliopolishad both solar and storm characteristics. According to Macrobius (Saturnalia1.23.19), this Zeus Heliopolis was a solarized form of the Assyrian storm-god,Adad.312As with Baal Shamem, the solar characteristic of Adad is a secondarydevelopment.Macrobius(Saturnalia1.23.10)identifiesthecultofZeusHeliopolis with a solarized worship of Jupiter. The text provides furtherdescription:The Assyrians, too, in a city called Heliopolis, worship the sun with anelaborate ritual under the name of Heliopolis, calling him “Zeus ofHeliopolis.” The statue of the god was brought from the Egyptian town alsocalled Heliopolis, when Senemur (who was perhaps the same as Senepos)was king of Egypt... the identification of this god with Jupiter and the sun isclear from the form of the ceremonial and from the appearance of thestatue.313In sum, the biblical evidence suggests that the Phoenician baal of Ahab andJezebel was a storm-god. The extrabiblical evidence indicates that the baal ofCarmel and Baal Shamem were also storm-gods, whereas Melqart does notappear to have been a storm-god. From the available data, following O.Eissfeldt, Baal Shamem was the baal of Jezebel.Some reason for the adoption of the Phoenician baal by the northernmonarchy may be tentatively suggested. The coexistence of cult to Yahweh andBaal prior to and up to the ninth century may have suggested to Ahab and hissuccessors that elevating Baal in Israel would not represent a radical innovation.Ahab’sreligiouspoliciespresumablywouldhaveappealedtothose“Canaanites” living in Israelite cities during the monarchy, if these “Canaanites”represent a historical witness to those descendents of the old Canaanite cities thatthe Israelites are said not to have held originally (Josh. 16:10; 17:12-13; Judg.1:27-35);314however, this witness is difficult to assess for historical value. Thereligious program of Ahab and Jezebel represented a theopolitical vision incontinuity with the traditional compatibility of Yahweh and Baal. Up to this timeboth Yahweh and Baal had cults in the northern kingdom. Whereas Yahweh was
the main god of the northern kingdom and divine patron of the royal dynasty inthe north, Baal also enjoyed cultic devotion. Ahab and Jezebel perhaps created adifferent theopolitical vision. While the cult of Yahweh continued in thenorthern kingdom, Baal perhaps was elevated as the patron god of the northernmonarchy, thus creating some sort of theopolitical unity between the kingdom ofthe north and the city of Tyre.It would appear from various statements in the biblical text that althoughAhab and Jezebel attempted to promote Baal, there may have been initially nocorresponding royal attempt to rid the north of the cult of Yahweh, although thecomplaints of Elijah (1 Kings 18:22) give that impression. Ahab was not quitethe apostate from Yahwism that the biblical polemics of 1 Kings 16:30-33 and21:25-26 present. Ahab’s sons, Ahaziah (1 Kings 22:40) and Joram (2 Kings1:17; 8:25), bear Yahwistic names. After his conflict with Elijah, Ahab consultsYahwistic prophets (1 Kings 20:13-15, 22, 28). In the presence of Elijah, whomhe calls “my enemy” (1 Kings 21:20), Ahab repents (1 Kings 21:27-29), whichrequiresapostponementofdivinepunishment.Thehistoricalnarrativesdepicting Ahab and Jezebel as opponents to the cult of Yahweh contain aconsiderable degree of negative typecasting. The theopolitical vision of Ahaband Jezebel perhaps did not initially include the eradication of the cult ofYahweh, but it would appear that some cost was involved, at least within theroyal cult. This situation likely provoked the severe reaction against thePhoenician baal represented in the Elijah cycle (1 Kings 17-19). The perspectiveof Elijah represents a third theopolitical vision reacting against the royalprogram. This reaction perhaps issued subsequently in the persecution ofYahwistic prophets on the part of Ahab and Jezebel. Both the evidence for royalsupport for Yahweh and Baal and the reports of royal persecution of Yahwisticprophets are historically plausible.315According to historical sources, support for Baal was severely ruptured at thisjuncture in Israelite history. Jehu managed the slaughter of Baal’s royal andprophetic supporters and the destruction of the Baal temple in Samaria (2 Kings10), and Jehoiada the priest oversaw the death of Athaliah and the destruction ofanother temple of Baal (2 Kings 11). Jehu’s reform was not as systematic as thetexts might suggest, however. Jehu did not fully eradicate Baal worship.316Confirmation for this viewpoint comes from inscriptional and biblical sources.The Kuntillet ‘Ajrûd inscriptions contain the names of Baal and Yahweh in thesame group of texts. Dismissing such attestations to the god Baal because thescript may be “Phoenician” appears injudicious.317Indeed, the texts bear “vowelletters” (ormatres lectionis),318which constitute a writing convention found in
Hebrew, but not in Phoenician. Unlike Hebrew, Phoenician does not use lettersto mark vowels.319References in Hosea to “the baal” (2:10 [E 8]; 2:18 [E 16]; 13:1; cf. 7:16) and“the baals” (2:15 [E 13]; 2:19 [E 17]; 11:2) add further evidence of Baal worshipin the northern kingdom. Hosea 2:16 (E 18) begins a section that recalls imageryespecially reminiscent of Baal. According to some scholars,320Hosea 2:18 (E16) plays onba‘alas a title of Yahweh and indicates that some northernIsraelites did not distinguish between Yahweh and Baal. The verse declares,“And in that day, says Yahweh, you will call me, ‘My husband,’ and no longerwill you call me, ‘Myba‘al.’”321The substitution of Yahweh for Baal continuesdramatically in Hosea 2:23-24 (E 21-23). These verses echo Baal’s message toAnat in KTU 1.3 III 13-31 (cf. 1.3 IV 7-20). In this speech, Baal announces toAnat that the word that he understands will be revealed to humanity who doesnot yet know it. In the context of the narrative, this word is the message of thecosmic fertility that will occur when Baal’s palace is built on his home on MountSapan. Upon the completion of his palace, Baal creates his meteorologicalmanifestation of the storm from the palace, which issues in cosmic blessing(KTU1.4V-VII).PartofthemessagetoAnatdescribesthecosmiccommunication between the Heavens and the Deeps, an image for cosmicfertility322(cf. Gen. 49:25; Deut. 33:13):With victory in hand, Baal’s message presages a glorious natural paradise onearth through the agency of his fructifying rains.Hosea 2:23-24 (E 21-22) bears a similar message, which also utilizes thelanguage of cosmic speech or “answering”:323
LikeBaal’svictoryovertheforcesofdestruction,onedayYahweh’s“answering” will produce cosmic bounty for Israel (cf. Hos. 14:9). Like Baal’sword to Anat, the message of Yahweh will traverse the heavens and the earth,which will explode with universal fertility. For Hosea 2, this cosmic speechcommunicates the natural fertility, a blessing that issues from the covenantbetween Yahweh and Israel (v. 20). The words of Hosea 2:23-24 bear the freightof Canaanite literary tradition, evoking, like Hosea 2:18, the imagery of thestorm-god Baal and his divine blessings on the cosmos.Despite royal attempts at reform, Baal worship continued. Although Jehoram,the son of Ahab, undertook a program of reform (2 Kings 3:2) and Athaliah andMattan, the priest of Baal, were murdered (2 Kings 11:18), royal devotion toBaal persisted. Ahaz fostered Baal worship (2 Chron. 28:2). According toJeremiah 23:13, Baal worship led to the fall of Samaria and the northernkingdom. The verse declares, “And among the prophets of Samaria I saw anunsavory thing; they prophesied by Baal and led astray my people, Israel.”Jeremiah 23:27 further condemns Israelite prophecy by Baal. Hezekiah sought toeliminate worship of Baal, but his son, Manasseh, rendered royal support to hiscult (2 Kings 21:3; 2 Chron. 33:3). Finally, Josiah purged the Jerusalem templeof cultic paraphernalia designed for Baal (2 Kings 23:4; cf. Zeph. 1:4). Propheticpolemic from the end of the southern kingdom also claims that the monarchypermitted religious devotion to Baal down to its final days (Jer. 2:8; 7:9; 9:13;12:16). From the cumulative evidence it appears that on the whole Baal was anaccepted Israelite god, that criticism of his cult began in the ninth or eighthcentury, and that despite prophetic and Deuteronomistic criticism, this godremained popular through the end of the southern kingdom. There is no evidencethat prior to the ninth century Baal was considered a major threat to the cult ofYahweh.The wordba‘alexhibits a complex development in biblical and extrabiblicalsources. The Hebrew terms “the baal”(habba‘al)and “the baals”(habbĕ‘ālîm)represent the god Baal, his manifestation at a variety of cult sites, and various
divine “lords” or gods. Baal Hermon, Baal Lebanon, and Baal Saphon, theUgaritic storm-god (cf. KAI 50, 69; Exod. 14:2, 9; Num. 33:7), appear to beCanaanite storm-gods.324The baal of Carmel in 1 Kings 18, the Phoenician baalof Ahab and Jezebel, and the baal criticized by Hosea were also storm-gods,perhaps the same one. The grouping of various storm-gods known by the nameBaal is attested in the treaty of Esarhaddon with Baal of Tyre and also at Ugaritand in an Egyptian-Hittite treaty. CTA 29 (KTU 1.47).6-11 and KTU 1.118.5-10list six baals(b‘lm)after Baal Saphon(b‘l spn;cf. KTU 1.148.3-4, 11-12). AnAkkadian version of the same text from Ugarit, RS 20.24,325lists the storm-godsix times (dIMII-VII) after the weather-god called “lord of Mount Hazzi” (dIMbe-elḫuršânḫazi).326Similarly, in the treaty (ca. 1280) between Ramses II andthe Hittite king, Hattusilis, the divine witnesses include both “Seth [i.e., Baal],lord of the sky” and Seth of various towns.327The mention of “this Hadad”(hddzn)in one of the Panammu inscriptions (KAI 213:14, 16) reflects an awarenessof multiple Hadads.Hosea plays on the relationship between the great god Baal, his manifestationsin numerous cult sites, and finally the generic use of his name to refer to other“lords.”328Hosea 2:18-19 (E 16-17) makes explicit the connection between “thebaal” and the generic phrase for gods, “the baals.” Seventh- and sixth-centuryattestations to the term “the baals” reflect the widespread, but not exclusivelygeneric, use of the expression. Jeremiah 23:13 indicates that the west Semiticstorm-god, Baal, continued to be known as a deity in Israel. At the same time,two sections of Jeremiah criticize Baal worship, “for as many as your cities areyour gods, 0 Judah” (2:28; cf. 11:13). Jeremiah mixes the singular, “the baal”(2:8; 7:9; 11:13, 17; 32:29), with the plural, “the baals” (2:23; 9:14). The plurals,“the baals,” in Jeremiah 2:23 and 9:14, like “the baals and the asherahs” inJudges 3:7 and “the baals and the astartes” in Judges 2:13, 10:6, 1 Samuel 7:4and 12:10, reflect a further development in the use of the term “the baals.”329These expressions indicate that the designation of “baal” in the period of the latemonarchy came to signify all “the baals” or various gods of the land, withdifferent cults and identities. This usage perhaps compares withilāni u ištarāti,an Akkadian phrase for “gods and goddesses” based on the word for “god” plusthe generic use of the plural form of the proper name of the goddess Ishtar.330Biblical tradition grouped and conflated a number of different gods as “baals,”just as it apparently conflated various El traditions and grouped and conflated theasherahs with the astartes. The plural form of “the baals”(habbĕ‘ālîm)refers tothe divine “lords” or gods of various places, some surviving in the Iron Age only
in the form of place names.331These would include Baal (1 Chron. 4:33), BaalGad (Josh. 11:17; 12:7; 13:5), Baal Hamon (Song of Songs 8:11), Baal Hazor (2Sam. 13:23), Baal Hermon (Deut. 3:9; Judg. 3:3; 1 Chron. 5:23), Baal Lebanon(2 Kings 19:23; Ps. 29:5-6), Baal Ma‘on (Num. 32:38; 1 Chron. 5:8; Ezek. 25:9;cf. KAI 181:3, 30), Baal Peor (Num. 25:3, 5; Deut. 4:3; Ps. 106:28; cf. Hos.9:10), Baal Perazim (2 Sam. 5:20; 1 Chron. 14:11), Baal Shalisha (2 Kings4:42),andBaalTamar(Judg.20:33).332Thesebaalsincludeddifferentmanifestationsofthestorm-godinvariouslocales,withculttraditionspresumably as varied as for El or for Yahweh in their various sanctuaries.333The descriptions of Baal and baals in 1 Kings 17-19, Hosea 2, and otherbiblical texts raise a final issue concerning Baal’s character in ancient Israel. Inthe Ugaritic sources Baal’s meteorological manifestations are expressions of hismartial power. In contrast, 1 Kings 17-19 and Hosea 2 deplore belief in Baal’sability to produce rains, but these and other biblical passages are silent on themartial import of his manifestation. Indeed, no biblical text expresses ideasabout Baal’s status as a warrior. Yahweh had perhaps exhibited and possiblyusurped this role at such an early point for the tradents of Israel’s religiousliterature. This conclusion might be inferred from the numerous similaritiesbetween Baal and Yahweh that many scholars have long observed.
2. Imagery of Baal and YahwehVarious West Semitic descriptions emphasize either Baal’s theophany in thestorm (KTU 1.4 V 6-9, 1.6 III 6f., 12f., 1.19 I 42-46) or his role as warrior (KTU1.2 IV, 1.5 I 1-5, 1.119.26-29, 34-36; RS 16.144.9334). These two dimensions ofBaal are explicitly linked in KTU 1.4 VII 29-35, 1.101.1-4, and EA 147.13-15 aswell as some iconography.335F. M. Cross treats different descriptions of Baal asa singleGattungwith four elements, which appear in these passages in varyingdegrees. The four components are: (a) the march of the divine warrior,(b)theconvulsing of nature as the divine warrior manifests his power, (c) the return ofthe divine warrior to his holy mountain to assume divine kingship, and (d) theutterance of the divine warrior’s “voice” (i.e., thunder) from his palace,providing rains that fertilize the earth.336Biblical material deriding other deitiesreserves power over the storm for Yahweh (Jer. 10:11-16; 14:22; Amos 4:7; 5:8;9:6). Biblical descriptions of Yahweh as storm-god (1 Sam. 12:18; Psalm 29; Job38:25-27, 34-38) and divine warrior (Pss. 50:1-3; 97:1-6; 98:1-2; 104:1-4; Deut.33:2; Judges 4-5; Job 26:11-13; Isa. 42:10-15, etc.) exhibit this underlying unityand pattern explicitly in Psalm 18 (= 2 Sam. 22):6-19, 68:7-10, and 86:9-19.337Psalm 29, 1 Kings 19, and 2 Esdras 13:1-4 dramatize the meteorologicalprogression underlying the imagery of Yahweh as warrior. All three passagespresuppose the image of the storm moving eastward from the Mediterranean Seato the coast. In 1 Kings 19 and 2 Esdras 13:1-4 this force is portrayed withhuman imagery. The procession of the divine warrior is accompanied by acontingent of lesser divine beings (Deut. 32:34; 33:2; Hab. 3:5; KTU 1.5 V 6-9;cf. Judg. 5:20). The Ugaritic antecedent to Resheph in Yahweh’s entourage inHabakkuk 3:5 may be KTU 1. 82.1-3, which perhaps includes Resheph as awarrior with Baal againsttnn,related to biblicaltannînîm.338Though the powerof other Near Eastern warrior-gods was manifest in the storm (e.g., Amun,Ningirsu/Ninurta, Marduk, and Addu/Adad),339the proximity of terminologyand imagery between the Ugaritic and biblical evidence points to an indigenouscultural influence on meteorological descriptions of Yahweh.Israelite tradition modified its Canaanite heritage by molding the march of the
divine warrior specifically to the element of Yahweh’s southern sanctuary,variously called Sinai (Deut. 33:2; cf. Judg. 5:5; Ps. 68:9), Paran (Deut. 33:2;Hab. 3:3), Edom (Judg. 5:4), and Teiman (Hab. 3:3340and in the Kuntillet‘Ajrûd inscriptions; cf. Amos 1:12; Ezek. 25:13). This modification mayunderlie the difference between Baal’s epithetrkb ‘rpt,“cloud-rider” (e.g., CTA2.4[KTU 1.2 IV].8), and Yahweh’s title,rokeb bāa‘ărābôt,“rider over thesteppes,” in Psalm 68:5 (cf. Deut. 33:26; Ps. 104:3),341although a sharedbackground for this feature is evident from other descriptions of Baal andYahweh. The notion of Baal riding on a winged war chariot is implicit inmdl,one element in Baal’s meteorological entourage in KTU 1.5 V 6-11.342Psalm77:19 refers to the wheels in Yahweh’s storm theophany, which presumes adivine war chariot. Psalm 18 (2 Sam. 22):11 presents Yahweh riding on the windsurrounded by storm clouds. This image forms the basis for the description ofthe divine chariot in Ezekiel 1 and 10. Psalm 65:12 (E 11) likewise presupposesthe storm-chariot image: “You crown your bounteous year, and your tracks dripwith fatness.” Similarly, Yahweh’s storm chariot is the image presumed byHabakkuk 3:8 and 15:Was your wrath against the rivers, O Yahweh?Was your anger against the rivers,or your indignation against the sea,when you rode upon your horses,upon your chariot of victory?You trampled the sea with your horses,the surging of the mighty waters.The description of Yahweh’s horses fits into the larger context of the stormtheophany directed against the cosmic enemies, Sea and River. (The horses inthis verse are unrelated to the horses dedicated to the sun in 2 Kings 23:11,unless there was a coalescence of the chariot imagery of the storm and thesun.343) The motif of chariot-riding storm-god with his divine entourage extendsin Israelite tradition to the divine armies of Yahweh riding on chariots withhorses (2 Kings 2:11; 6:17).Other features originally attributed to Baal also accrued to Yahweh. Albrightand other scholars344have argued the epithet‘ly,“the Most High,” belonging toBaal in the Ugaritic texts (KTU 1.16 III 6, 8; cf. RS 18.22.4’), appears as a titleof Yahweh in 1 Samuel 2:10, 2 Samuel 23:1, Psalms 18 (2 Sam. 22):14 and68:6, 30, 35 (cf. Dan. 3:26, 32; 4:14, 21, 22, 29, 31; 5:18, 21; 7:25), in the
biblical hypocoristicon‘ē/î,the name of the priest of Shiloh,345and in Hebrewinscriptional personal namesyhw‘ly,“Yahu is Most High,”yw‘ly,“Yaw is MostHigh,”῾lyhw,“Most High is Yahu,” and‘lyw,“Most High is Yaw.”346The bull iconography that Jeroboam I sponsored in Dan and Bethel (1 Kings12:28-31) has been attributed to the influence of Baal in the northern kingdom.This imagery represented an old northern tradition of divine iconography forYahweh used probably as a rival symbol to the traditional royal iconography ofthe cherubim of the Jerusalem temple.347The old northern tradition of bulliconography for Yahweh is reflected in the name ‘glyw,which may betranslated, “Young bull is Yaw,” in Samaria ostracon 41:1.348The ca. twelfth-century bull figurine discovered at a site in the hill country of Ephraim and theyoung bull depicted on the tenth-century Taanach stand likewise involve theiconography of a god, either Yahweh or Baal.349Newer discoveries have yieldediconography of a deity on a bull on a ninth-century plaque from Dan and aneighth-century stele from Bethsaida.350Indeed, evidence for Yahweh as bullappears in Amherst Papyrus 63 (column XI): “Horus-Yaho, our bull is with us.May the lord of Bethel answer us on the morrow.”351Despite later syncretismwith Horus, the text apparently preserves a prayer to Yahweh in his emblem-animal as a bull invoked as the patron-god of Bethel. The further question iswhether these depictions were specific to either El or Baal (or both) in the IronAge. The language has been thought also to derive from El, frequently called“bull”(tr)in the Ugaritic texts. There is some evidence pointing to theapplication of this iconography to El in the Iron Age. The title,‘ăbîr ya‘ăqōb,“bull of Jacob” (Gen. 49:24; Ps. 132:2, 4), derived from the bovine imagery ofEl. The image of Yahweh having horns “like the horns of the wild ox”(kĕtô῾ăpōt rĕ’ēm) in Numbers 24:8 also belongs to this background. Other LateBronze and Iron I iconographic evidence might favor a connection with Baal.352The reference to kissing Baal in 1 Kings 19:18 and the allusion to kissing calvesin Hosea 13:2353would seem to bolster the Baalistic background to the bulliconography in the northern kingdom. However, the mention of kissing bulls inthe apparent context of the Bethel cult in Papyrus Amherst 63 (column V) wouldpoint to the Yahwistic background of this practice.354It is also possible that anumber of major gods could be regarded as “the divine bull,”355as this titleapplies also to Ashim-Bethel in Papyrus Amherst 63 (column XV).356Thepolemics against the calf in Samaria in Hosea 8:5 and 10:5 may reflectindignation at the Yahwistic symbol that was associated also with Baal.Similarly, Tobit 1:5 (LXX Vaticanus and Alexandrinus) mentions the worship of
“the Baal the calf” (te Baal tē damalei)in the northern kingdom. Despite theevidence for the attribution of “bull” to Baal in the first millennium, a geneticsolution tracing the imagery specifically to either El or Baal may not beapplicable. B. Vawter argues that “bull” means no more than chief “male,”357apoint perhaps supported by the secular use of this term in KTU 1.15 IV 6, 8, 17,19 and 4.360.3.358The anti-Baalistic polemic of Hosea 13:2 and Tobit 1:5 mayalso constitute a secondary rejection of this Yahwistic symbol, because bulliconography may have represented both gods in the larger environment ofPhoenicia and the northern kingdom. In any case, the Canaanite tradition of thebull iconography ultimately provides the background for this rendering ofYahweh.Common to both Yahweh and Baal was also a constellation of motifssurrounding their martial and meteorological natures. The best-known and oldestof these motifs is perhaps the defeat of cosmic foes who are variously termedLeviathan,‘qltn, tnn, the seven-headed beast, Yamm, and Mot. A second-millenniumsealfromMaridepictsagodthrustingaspearintowaters,apparently representing the conflict of the West Semitic war-god with thecosmic waters (cf. the piercing, *hll, of the serpent in Job 26:13 and oftannîninIsa. 51:9).359This conflict corresponds at Ugarit with Baal’s struggle withYamm in KTU 1.2 IV, although Yamm appears as Anat’s adversary in KTU 1.3III 43. Yamm appears as a destructive force in the Ugaritic texts (KTU 1.14 I 19-20; cf. 1.2 IV 3-4) and a proud antagonist to the divine warrior in the biblicalrecord (Job 38:11; Ps. 89:10 [E 9]). Baal’s victory over Yamm in KTU 1.2 IV27-34 presents the possibility of Yamm’s annihilation(*kly;cf. KTU 1.3 III 38-39, 46) and then proclaims his death, an image that appears rarely in biblicalmaterial (Rev. 21:1; cf. Testament of Moses 10:6).360Various biblical textsdepict the divine defeat of Yamm with other images: the stilling(*sbhl*rg’) ofYamm (Pss. 65:8 [E 7]; 89:10 [E 9]; Job 26:11); the crushing361(*prr)of Yamm(Ps. 74:13; cf. the crushing,*dk’,of Rahab in Ps. 89:11 [E 10]); the drying up(*hrb)of Yamm (Isa. 51:10); the establishment of a boundary(gĕbûl)for Yamm(Ps. 104:9; Jer. 5:22; cf. Prov. 8:29); the placement of a guard(mišmār)overYamm (Job 7:12); and the closing of Yamm behind doors (Job 38:8, 10);compare the hacking of Rahab into pieces (*hsb; Isa. 51:9); and the scattering(*pzr)of cosmic enemies (Ps. 89:11 [E 10]).A seal from Tel Asmar (ca. 2200) depicts a god battling a seven-headeddragon, a foe identified as Baal’s enemy in CTA 5.1 (KTU 1.5 I).3 (andreconstructed in 30) and Yahweh’s adversary in Psalm 74:13 and Revelation13:1.362A shell plaque of unknown provenance depicts a god kneeling before a
fiery seven-headed dragon.363Leviathan, Baal’s enemy mentioned in CTA 5.1(KTU 1.5 I).1 (and reconstructed in 28), appears as Yahweh’s opponent andcreature in Isaiah 27:1, Job 3:8, 26:13, 40:25 (E 41:1), Psalm 104:26, and 2Esdras 6:49, 52.364In Psalm 74:13-14 (cf. Ezek. 32:2), both Leviathan and thetannînîmhave multiple heads, the latter known as Anat’s enemy in 1.83.9-10and in a list of cosmic foes in CTA 3.3(D).35-39 (= KTU 1.3 III 38-42). ThisUgaritic list includes “Sea,” Yamm//“River,” Nahar, Baal’s great enemy in CTA2.4 (KTU 1.2 IV). In Isaiah 11:15 the traditions of Sea//River and the seven-headed dragon appear in conflated form:And the Yahweh will utterly destroy the tongue of the sea of Egypt, andwill wave his hand over the River with his scorching wind, and smite it intoseven channels that men may cross dry-shod.Here the destruction of Egypt combines both mythic motifs with the ancienttradition of crossing the Red Sea in Egypt. The seven-headed figure is attested inother biblical passages. In Psalm 89:10 the seven-headed figure is Rahab,mentioned in Isaiah 51:9-11 in the company oftannînand Yamm. The seven-headed enemy also appears in Revelation 12:3, 13:1, 17:3 and in extrabiblicalmaterial, includingQiddushin29b, Odes of Solomon 22:5, andPistis Sophia66.365Yamm appears in late apocalyptic writing as the source of the destructivebeasts symbolizing successive empires (Dan. 7:3). J. Day has suggested that thisimagery developed from the symbolization of political states hostile to Israel asbeasts.366For example, Rahab stands for Egypt (Isa. 30:7; Ps. 87:4), the Riverfor Assyria (Isa. 8:5-8; cf. 17:12-14),tannînfor Babylon (jer. 51:34).367Thistype of equation is at work in a less explicit way in Psalm 18 (2 Sam. 22):4-18.In this composition, monarchic victory over political enemies (w. 4, 18) isdescribed in terms of a storm theophany over cosmic waters (w. 8-17). Becauseof the political use of the cosmic enemies, Day suspects that a political allusionlies behind the figure of Leviathan in Isaiah 27:1.368Finally, the figure of Mot, “Death,” is attested in KTU 1.4 VIII-1.6 and 2.10and in several biblical passages, including Isaiah 25:8, 28:15 and 18, Jeremiah9:20, Hosea 13:14, Habakkuk 2:5, Psalm 18(2 Sam. 22):5-6, Revelation 21:4 (cf.Odes of Solomon 15:9; 29:4).369Biblical Mot is personified as a demon, in themanner of Ugaritic Mot in KTU 1.127 and Mesopotamianmütu.As J. Tigay hasobserved, this background would explain the description of Mot in Jeremiah9:20 better than either U. Cassuto’s recourse to the episode of the window inBaal’s palace (KTU 1.4 V-VII) or S. Paul’s comparison with the Mesopotamian
demon Lamashtu.370Biblical descriptions of the east wind as an instrument ofdivine destruction may have derived from the imagery of Mot in Canaanitetradition, although mythological dependency is not necessarily indicated in thisinstance. The juxtaposition of the east wind and personified Death in Hosea13:14-15 may presuppose the mythological background of Mot as manifest inthe sirocco.371Like the motif of the divine foes, the biblical motif of the divine mountainousabode derives primarily from the Northwest Semitic tradition of divinelyinhabited mountains, especially the Baal’s mountainous home of Sapan(ṣpn),modern Jebel el-Aqra‘. This dependency on language connected with Sapan inUgaritic tradition is especially manifest in the identification of Mount Zion asyarkĕtê sāpôn,“the recesses of the north,” in Psalm 48:3 (cf. Isa. 14:13) and theMT’s apparent substitution of Zion forspnin the Aramaic version of Psalm 20:3written in Demotic.372According to Josephus(Antiquities7.174), Belsephonwas a city in the territory of Ephraim.373Saphon is the site of conflict betweenBaal and his cosmic enemies, Yamm (KTU 1.1 V 5, 18) and Mot (KTU 1.6 VI12). The same mountain, modern Jebel el-Aqra‛, Mount Hazzi in Hittitetradition,occursinthenarrativeofconflictbetweenthestorm-godandUllikumi.374In classical tradition, the same peak, Mons Cassius, was one site ofconflict between Zeus and Typhon (Apollodorus, The Library 1.6.3; Strabo,Geography16.2.7).375Herodotus (History3.5) records that Typhon was buriedby the Sirbonian Sea, which was adjacent to the Egyptian Mount Saphon.376Similarly, Zion is the place where Yahweh will take up battle (Joel 3:9-17, 19-21;Zech.14:4;2Esdras13:35;cf.Isa.66:18-21;Ezekiel38-39).Thedescriptions of Yahweh’s taking his stand as warrior on top of Mount Zion (Isa.31:4; Zech. 14:4; 2 Esdras 13:35) also echo depictions of the Hittite and Syrianstorm-gods standing with each foot on a mountain.377Saphon and Zion share anumber of epithets. For example, KTU 1.3 III 13-31 (cf. IV 7-20), cited in full inthe previous section, appliesqdš,“holy place,”n‛m,“pleasant place,” andnḥlt,“inheritance,” to Baal’s mountain. Similarly, Psalms 46:5 and 48:2 describe Zionas*qōdeš(cf. Exod. 15:13; Pss. 87:1; 93:5; KAI 17:1, 78:5 [?]), while Psalm27:4 calls Yahweh’s mountainnõ‛am(cf. Ps. 16:6).378As Greenfield hasobserved,nō‛amin Psalm 27:4 is followed in the next verse by wordplay orparonomasia on the root*ṣpn.379Yahweh’s mountain is called anaḥălāh,“portion” (Ps. 79:1; Jer. 12:7; cf. Exod. 15:17; Ps. 16:6). The epithets for Zionand the way they are listed together in Psalm 48:2-3 likewise recall the titles forSapan in KTU 1.3 III 29-31.380
The mountainous temple home from which Baal utters his voice and rainslavishly upon the earth (KTU 1.4 V-VII) appears not only in descriptions ofYahweh roaring from Zion (Joel 3:16; Amos 1:2) or giving forth rains (Isa.30:19; Jer. 3:3; 5:24; 10:13; 14:4; 51:16; Amos 4:7) but also in postexilicdiscussions of the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem. The tradition of thetemple home that guarantees the life-giving rains underlies the relationshipbetween tithe and temple in Malachi 3:10. This passage reflects the notion thatpayment of the tithe to the temple would induce Yahweh to open the windows ofheaven and pour down crop-producing rains. Similarly, Haggai 1:7-11 attributesdrought and scarcity to the failure to rebuild the temple.381Yahweh’s role as thedivine source of rain appears elsewhere in postexilic prophecy (Zech. 10:1). Joel4 (E 3) presents various aspects of the mountain tradition. It is the divine home(4:17 [E 3:17]), the location of Yahweh’s roar (4:16 [E 3:16]), the site of divinebattle (4:9-15 [E 3:9-15]) with heavenly hosts (4:11-13 [E 3:11-13]; cf. 2:1-11),and the origin of the divine rains issuing in terrestrial fertility (4:18 [E 3:18]).In sum, the motifs associated with Baal in Canaanite literature are widelymanifest in Israelite religion. The Baal cycle (KTU 1.1-6) presents the sequenceof defeating the enemy, Sea, followed by the building of the divine palace for thedivine warrior, and concluding with the vanquishing of the enemy, Death. Thispattern of features appears in a wide variety of biblical texts describing divinepresence and action. Rabbinic aggadah and Christian literature continue thesemotifs. Indeed, the defeat of Sea, the building of the heavenly palace, and thedestruction of death belong to the future divine transformation of the world inRevelation 21:1-4. These motifs are of further importance for the long life thatsome of them enjoyed; for example, the motif of Leviathan is attested inreligious documents into the modern period.382
3. The Role of the MonarchyThe presentation of Yahweh in imagery associated with Baal in Canaanitetradition played a role in Israel’s politics. Yahweh, a tribal god of the highlands,emerged as the national god of Israel (1 Kings 20:23).383As in Mesopotamia andEgypt, this god became the divine “king” (Ps. 10:16; cf. Exod. 15:18; 1 Sam.8:7; Pss. 47:9; 93:1; 96:10; 97:1; 99:1; 146:10, etc.) and national god.384In orderto describe the powerful god that brought them to prominence, the Davidicdynasts drew on older, traditional language used for the divine warrior, knownfrom judges 5:3-5 and elsewhere (cf. 1 Sam. 7:10; 12:18).385A dramaticexample of the patron god fighting on behalf of the Davidic king is Psalm 18 (=2 Sam. 22). Verses 8-19 describe Yahweh in terms associated with Baal’s battle(KTU 1.2 IV; cf. 1.4 VII 8-9, 38-39), fighting for the king and saving him fromdestruction. Verses 29-45 depict Yahweh’s enabling the monarch to conquer hisenemies in battle.386Psalm 2, a royal psalm, alludes to the enemies who standagainst Yahweh and “his anointed,” the king.387Psalm 89 likewise parallels thevictorious power of Yahweh in verses 5-18 with the divine favor that Yahwehbestows upon the Davidic monarch in verses 19-37. In verse 26 Yahweh extendshis power to the monarch in language associated with the god Baal: “I will sethis hand on Sea and his right hand on River(s).” As many commentators haveobserved,388Sea and River(s) are titles of Baal’s enemy in the first major sectionof the Ugaritic Baal cycle (KTU 1.1-2). The psalm thus draws on the imagery ofYahweh’s victory over Sea and other cosmic enemies in verses 9-10 and extendsthis imagery to the king in verse 26 at a time of royal decline, indicated byverses 38-51. Psalm 72:8 likewise alludes to Sea and River in describing theexpanse of the Davidic territory: “May he have dominion from sea to sea, andfrom the River to the ends of the earth!”(wĕyērd miyyām ‛ad-yām ûminnāhār‛ad-’apsê-’āreṣ).389While “the River” historically refers to the Euphrates, itmay also evoke the mythic pair of “Sea” and “River.” It appears that 2 Samuel5:20 plays on the storm imagery of Baal. After his defeat of the Philistines atBaal-perazim, David is quoted as saying, “The Lord has broken through myenemies before me, like a bursting flood.” The same verse then gives these
words as the basis for the place-name: “Therefore the name of that place iscalled Baal-perazim.”390Other motifs known from the Ugaritic traditions of Baal appear in Israeliteroyal theology. J. J. M. Roberts has argued that the Baal motifs of divine warriorand his mountain developed within the Zion tradition during the reigns of Davidand Solomon.391According to T. N. D. Mettinger,392the divine titlesb’taccruedto Yahweh during the reign of David and expressed Yahweh’s functions asdivine patron and national god of the Davidic dynasty. S. Moon-Kang attributesthe same function and setting to the divine titlesgbrand‛zr.393That thetheological self-understanding of the dynasty and not simply worship of Baalinspired this divine warrior language in Israel may be deduced from the fact thatthe language of the divine warrior emerged independently in various ancientNear Eastern locales, and not infrequently under the impetus of newly emergingpolitical units.394The inclusion of traditional language of the warrior-god suitedYahweh, the patron deity of a newly emerging nation-state. The concept ofYahweh as the divine warrior therefore did not derive simply from the worshipof Baal; it was also the product of the Davidic polity. Indeed, it may be surmisedthat Baal continued to be popular in Israel precisely because the monarchyembraced his titles and imagery to describe its patron god. The Iron Agedevelopment of the Mesopotamian city gods, Marduk of Babylon and Assur ofAssur, illustrates further the dependency of martial language for Yahweh on theIsraelite/Canaanite literary tradition. Like Yahweh, these two warrior deities hadcults that gave expression to the newly emerging military powers in Babylon andAssur.395These two gods were attributed imagery found in the literary traditionsof the local regions. Similarly, biblical descriptions of Yahweh, the nationaldeityofthenewlyemergingstate,drewonthetraditionsoftheIsraelite/Canaanite matrix.Scholars have long focused on the parallels between Baal in the Ugaritic textsand Yahweh in biblical material. Not only can the imagery and titles of Yahwehas storm-god be found in the Ugaritic texts; the political background of thesedescriptions of Yahweh can also be traced to the second-millennium westSemitic material from the city of Mari on the Euphrates River. A second-millennium letter from Mari confirms the political function of the storm-god’sconflict with the cosmic sea. The letter, which dates toward the end of the reignof the king Zimri-Lim of Mari, is addressed to him by the prophet Nur-Sin ofAleppo. Quoting the storm-god Adad, the text states: “When you [Zimri-Lim]sat on the throne of your father, I gave you the weapon(s) with which I foughtagainst Sea(tâmtum).”396This text provides the first external textual witness to
the West Semitic conflict myth in the Middle Bronze Age. In the version fromMari, the storm-god is identified as Addu, the Akkadian equivalent to Haddu(hd), equivalent to Baal in Ugaritic mythic texts. A list of divinities at Ugaritalso supplies the equivalence of Addu with Baal.397The goddIMbe-elḫuršânḫazi,“Adad, lord of mount Hazzi,” corresponds tob‛lṣpn,“Baal Saphon.” Thesame lists provides the correlation ofym,“Yamm” (Sea), anddtâmtum,“Tiamat”(Sea). A comparable witness to the deified sea occurs in an Akkadian text fromRas Shamra. In RS 17.33 obv. 4’, the list of deities serving as witnesses to atreaty between the Hittite king Mursilis and his Ugaritic royal vassal Niqmepaincludes [dA].AB.BA.GAL,that is,[tâ]mtu rabitu,“the great Sea.”398The WestSemitic deity of the cosmic ocean is also attested at Mari. Some proper names atMari includeymas the theophoric element.399According to A. Malamat, theoffering that Yahdun-Lim of Mari makes to the “Ocean”(a-ab-ba)at theMediterranean Sea reflects the West Semitic cult of the sea-god.400A text fromEmar attests to offerings to Yamm (dIa-a-mi).401By contrast with the conflict between Baal and Yamm portrayed in the Baalcycle (KTU 1.2 IV), the Mari text focuses on the human, political function of thecosmic weapons as gifts from the storm-god to the king. The power of the storm-god, the king’s patron, reinforces the power of the king. Divine weaponselsewhere play an important role in expressing royal power. In both OldBabylonian and neo-Assyrian texts, kings are described as wielding the weaponsof particular martial gods.402One letter preserved at Mari was sent to Yashub-Yahad, king of Dir, from Yarim-lim, king of Aleppo. In this letter Yarim-limdeclares, “I will show you the terrible weapons of Addu(GIŠ. TUKUL.ḪIA.dIM) and of Yarim-lim.”403In these texts, the king demonstrates his great powerby invoking the power of the divine weapon. The Mari letter citing the words ofNur-Sin of Aleppo mentions the power of the divine weapons of Addu, but italso refers to the West Semitic conflict myth. The divine gift of weaponsenhances the relationship between the patron god and his king by invoking thepatron god’s victory over the cosmic enemy. The power of the king over hisenemies mirrors on the cosmic level the victory of the storm-god over hisadversary.The Baal cycle indicates that the martial language for Yahweh derived fromthe Canaanite sphere. That this mythic material was employed in such a politicalmanner in the Canaanite sphere is less evident from the Baal cycle. Kingship,however, is a central concern of the Ugaritic Baal cycle, which may point to apolitical use for the Baal-Yamm conflict (and perhaps for the whole of the
cycle), similar to the political function of the Mari letter.404The production ofthe Baal cycle may have served the function of reinforcing the kingship not onlyof the god Baal but also the Ugaritic dynasty. Indeed, the names of the Ugaritickings reflect the special relationship between Baal and the Ugaritic dynasty. Thekings Niqmaddu I and II took an Addu name. The namenqmdconsists of twoparts, the verb*nqmand the theophoric element(h)d;it may be translated“Addu avenged.”405Another dynast bears the namey‛ḏrd,which means “MayAddu help.”406It may be noted that only these three dynasts have names withtheophoric elements, and in all three instances the theophoric element is(h)d.The dynasty perhaps considered Baal/Haddu to be its special divine patron, andthe transmission and final production of the Baal cycle may have resulted in partfrom the political values that it expressed on behalf of the dynasty.Comparable political contexts have been proposed for the Enuma Elish, aMesopotamian work exhibiting many similarities with the Baal cycle.407T.Jacobsen proposes that the similarities are due to dependence. He argues that theconflict between Marduk and Tiamat was modeled on a West Semitic version ofthe conflict tradition, as attested in the Baal cycle.408Like the Mari letter, EnumaElish features Tiamat as the cosmic sea, but unlike the Mari letter, Enuma Elishpresents Marduk, the Babylonian divine patron, as Tiamat’s enemy. Theequivalence between Marduk and Addu is expressly made in Enuma Elish 7:119,where Marduk’s forty-seventh name is Addu.409Likewise, this equivalence isattested in another text delineating various deities as aspects of Marduk: “Adad(is)Mardukofrain.”410ThecommonAmoritetraditionsunderlyingthedynasties of Ugarit, Mari, and Babylon would appear to bolster Jacobsen’sview.411Behind the Ugaritic myth of Baal and Yamm, and explicit in the Mariletter, is a political function of divine support for a human monarch. To judgefrom its biblical attestations, the political use of the conflict myth belonged tothe Canaanite patrimony of monarchic Israel. It was noted that the cosmicenemies appear as political symbols for states hostile to Israel, for example,Rahab for Egypt (Isa. 30:7; Ps. 87:4). The background for the equation ofpolitical enemies with cosmic ones may perhaps be located in the parallelismbetween the enemies of the god and king, illustrated in Israelite tradition byPsalm 18 (2 Sam 22):17-18 and in earlier West Semitic tradition in the Mariletter.In view of the political background for motifs associated with the storm-god atUgarit, Mari, Babylon, and Israel, scholarly reconstructions for the setting of thelanguagedescribingYahweh’sstormtheophanydeservesomefurtherconsideration. Some scholars have argued that the Feast of Tabernacles every
fall (Exod. 23:16; 34:22) included the enthronement of Yahweh.412Accordingto S. Mowinckel,413the theory’s most vigorous proponent, the enthronementaspect of the festival is reflected in numerous psalms containing the motif ofYahweh’s battle, often in the storm, against the cosmic enemies. These textsinclude Psalms 65, 93, and 96-99. The burden of proof for this theory has fallenlargely on two pieces of data. The superscription of Psalm 29 in the SeptuagintassociatesthispsalmwiththeFeastofTabernacles.Zechariah14:16-17specifically refers to the celebration of Yahweh’s kingship in connection withthe Feast of Tabernacles:Then every one that survives of all the nations that have come againstJerusalem shall go up year after year to worship the King, Yahweh of hosts,and to keep the feast of booths. And if any of the families of the earth donot go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Yahweh of hosts, there willbe no rain upon them.As J. Day notes,414the reference to rain in verse 17 accords with the motif ofYahweh’s control over the cosmic enemies of the water. Although this passageis postexilic, some of its motifs may have enjoyed a long history in Israelitetradition. A pre-exilic setting for the celebration of divine kingship in the contextof Tabernacles is plausible. The setting of Psalm 65, which celebrates in thetemple the bounty of the autumn harvest, is possibly a Tabernacles psalm. Dayobserves that Psalm 65:6-9 (E 5-8) recalls Yahweh’s victory over the cosmicwaters.415It may be further noted that the motif of verse 9 (E 8) is precisely ameteorological one. The “signs” witnessed at the ends of the earth are thethundering of the heavens and earth that announce the imminent arrival of thelife-supporting rains (cf. KTU 1.15 III 2-11; cf. 1.3 III 13-31, IV 7-20). Psalm 65and Zechariah 14:16-17 indicate the meteorological importance of rain in theearly autumn. That divine power over the waters was celebrated in the autumnalfeast in Jerusalem would seem evident from Psalm 65 and might be inferredfrom other psalms.416While some psalms celebrating Yahweh’s kingship maynot belong to this setting, and although too much has been made of the theory oftheNewYearfestival,theFeastofTabernaclesperhapsincludedsomecelebration of divine kingship manifest in the divine climatic weaponry thatsubdues the cosmic waters.This political background for the imagery pitting Yahweh against the cosmicwaters may have antecedents within Canaanite culture. Meteorological theoriesof the sort proposed for some biblical psalms have been offered for the Baal
cycle as well. T. H. Gaster and J. C. de Moor associate various points of thecycle with various times of year, including the fall.417Though de Moor’s attemptto correlate the Baal cycle with one annual cycle has not met with acceptance,Gaster’s association of two parts in the Baal cycle with the fall seems moreprobable. Building on Gaster’s work, M. S. Smith has argued further that each ofthe three major sections of the Baal cycle, namely, the Baal-Yamm conflict(KTU 1.1-2), the building of Baal’s palace (1.3-4), and the Baal-Mot (1.5-6),draws on the weather of the fall, specifically the arrival of the rains. Internalevidence points to all three sections building toward the appearance of rain thathad been previously lacking. The meteorological imagery lying behind theweapons calledṣmdmin KTU 1.2 IV has been noted by many scholars. Y.Yadin argued on the basis of the rootṣmd,“to bind” (cf. Arabicḍamada),thatthe weapon is double lightning. The lightning presages the appearance of theautumn rains. In the second section of the cycle, Asherah is glad for El’spermission to build a palace for Baal so that Baal can produce the rains,evidently lacking up to this point (1.4 V 6-9). After the palace is built, Baalfinally utters his thunder, literally “holy voice,” through the rift in the clouds (1.4VII 25-31). The completion of the palace, permitting the full manifestation ofBaal’s power in the storm, is after all the cosmic message that Baal had earlierintimated to Anat (1.3 III 13-31, IV 7-20). The third section of the Baal cycle,1.5-1.6, expresses the issue of Baal’s rain in a different way. In 1.5 VI 23-25 Ellaments the condition of humanity due to Baal’s death, which means no rain (cf.1.6 I 6-8). El’s dream-vision indicates to him that the earth will flow withfertility produced by Baal’s rains (1.6 III). The one season that fits the situationdescribed in these passages is the autumn when the rains finally overtake theheat of late summer.Like the biblical psalms used in the theory of the enthronement celebration,the Baal cycle has a manifestly royal theme. Just as the enthronement psalmsproclaim the kingship of Yahweh, the Baal cycle asserts the kingship of Baal.The enthronement psalms and the Baal cycle express the political dimension ofdivine kingship. The Mari letter and Psalm 89 illustrate the connection betweenthe human and divine levels of the West Semitic storm imagery, and it may bethat the enthronement psalms and the Baal cycle likewise presupposed thehuman as well as the divine level of kingship. The two levels of kingship mayhave been celebrated in ancient Israel at the one time of year when the stormdeity appeared most strongly, in the early fall. Moreover, the intertwined natureof divine and human kingship in compositions during the period of the monarchysuggest that the Tabernacles festival would have served as an appropriateoccasion for communicating the relationship between the divine and human
kings. In short, the storm imagery associated with Baal in Canaanite texts andYahweh in Israelite tradition exhibited a political function. The martial imageryof the goddess Anat may have exercised a similar role.
4. Excursus: Yahweh and AnatAlthough the Bible presents Baal, and, to a lesser extent, Asherah, as separatedeities, there is no such depiction of Anat.418Except for personal names, Anatdoes not appear in the Bible.419The Jewish Aramaic papyri from Elephantinecontain the divine names,‘ntbyt’l(AP 22:125) and ‘ntyhw(AP 44:3) and thepersonal name ‘nty(AP 22:108), which some scholars have interpreted asindirect evidence for a Jewish cult of Anat at Elephantine, a practice theninferred for ancient Israel. Attempts to mitigate this view by suggesting that *‘ntis a common noun that expresses a hypostasis of Yahweh420are problematic,since this derivation is controverted.421It appears rather that *‘ntin the Aramaicpapyri from Elephantine derived from the name of the goddess Anat attested inother Egyptian Aramaic documents of the Persian period. The derivation of *‘ntfrom the name of the goddess may be viewed as due to either local Aramaean orPhoenician influence; the latter is viable, as the name Anat-Bethel belongsamong the Tyrian deities mentioned in the treaty between Esarhaddon and BaalII of Tyre.422That her cult was known at Iron Age Bethel might be inferred fromthe mention of her in Papyrus Amherst 63 (column VII).423(Accordingly,‘ntbyt’lin AP 22:125 may be “Anat of Bethel.”) While Anat was generally agoddess in some quarters of Egypt, including in a form combined with the namesof other deities at Elephantine, there is little or no clear evidence that Anat was agoddess in Israel.Although Anat was hardly a goddess in Israel, her savage battling in theUgaritic Baal cycle (CTA 3.2 [KTU 1.3 II].3-30) has been often compared withnumerous biblical passages. To illustrate the basis for comparison betweenYahweh and Anat, first a translation of this Ugaritic text is provided:
There are many parallels between this Ugaritic passage and a variety of biblicaltexts.425First, the divine battle takes place at the mountain of the deity, a motiffound in Psalms 2:1-2; 48:5-8; 110; Joel 4:9-14; Zechariah 12:3-4; 14:2; andelsewhere. In Ugaritic, this motif is not restricted to Anat. Baal also fights hisenemies on his mountain (KTU 1.6 VI 12-13; cf. 1.1 V 5, 18). Second, the battleis universal in scope; “peoples” are collectively the enemies of the deity. Manyof the biblical passages just cited likewise contain this motif. Isaiah 59:15-19
describes the universal scope of Yahweh’s warfare:Like Anat in KTU 1.3 II, here Yahweh is described as enraged(qin’â),and thedivine enemies are described according to the “west”(ma‘ărāb)and the “east,”literally “the rising of the sun”(mizraḥ-šemeš).Third, the battle produces heaps of corpses (Isa. 34:2) or skulls (Deut. 32:43;Ps. 110:6). The image of harvest appears in Anat’s “gleaning” and in somebiblical scenes of divine war (Joel 3:13; Rev. 14:14-20; cf. secular examples inJudg. 8:1-2; 20:44-46; Jer. 6:9; cf. Jer. 49:9; Obadiah 5). Fourth, like the secondpart of the Ugaritic passage given above, the aftermath of war is described as afeast, a feature attested in Isaiah 34:6-7, 49:26 and perhaps presupposed in thesacrificial language of Deuteronomy 32:43. This feast includes feeding on theflesh of captives (Deut. 32:42), drinking the blood of the victims (Isa. 49:26;LXX Zech. 9:15; cf. Num. 23:24), called “captives” in Deuteronomy 32:42 (asin KTU 1.3 II), and wading in the blood of the vanquished (Pss. 58:11; 68:24).Isaiah 49:26 alters the motif of feeding on the captives. In this verse, the enemieswill cannibalize themselves: “I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh,and they shall be drunk with their own blood as with wine.” The image ofwading in the blood may be related to the theme of the battle as bloody harvest.Because of its blood red color, the image of the wine harvest appears in biblical
descriptions of divine war (Deut. 32:42-43; Isa. 49:26; 63:3; Ezek. 39:19; Joel4:13; Lam. 1:15; Rev. 19:15). Finally, the delight that Anat derives from hercarnal destruction has biblical correspondences in the language of both divinelaughter (Ps. 2:4; cf. Prov. 2:26) and drunkenness with battle (see Deut. 32:43;Isa. 34:2; 63:3-6; cf. Jer. 46:10).The many parallels drawn between CTA 3.2 (KTU 1.3 II).3-30 and thesebiblicaldescriptionsofdivinewarhavegeneratedtheoriesconcerningdependence of the biblical language on prior Canaanite tradition as representedby the Ugaritic material, much as divine storm language in the Bible is comparedwith the meteorological imagery of the Ugaritic god Baal. In the case of the warimagery associated with Anat, there are additional factors involved in assessingthe relationship beween the Ugaritic and biblical evidence. Since Anat is notattested in the Bible excepting in a few personal names, the lack of contactbetween her cult and that of Yahweh forestalls any theory of direct dependence.The language in common between Anat and Yahweh could have derived from athird source. Or, possibly no source was involved, since the language of battleunfortunately belongs to general human experience. From ancient descriptions ofhuman battle and carnage in New Kingdom Egyptian records, the Moabite stele(KAI 181:16-18), 2 Kings 10:10-27, and other texts, it might seem that noliterary relationship needs to be imputed to the bloody rendering of Yahweh.ThebloodyimageryofYahwehseemstohavereflectedacomplexdependence on imagery for Anat, nonetheless. There is indirect evidence forsuspecting this dependence. The monarchy apparently had a role in transmittingthe bloody martial imagery for Yahweh, and there are a few hints pointing to theroyal role in the biblical passages. First, some biblical examples includereferences to Yahweh together with the human monarch (Ps. 2:1-2; cf. KAI181:16-18). Second, the deity and the king in Psalms 2 and 110 are pitted againstthe nations. Third, some of the imagery used of divine battle appears in secularaccounts of battle, both royal or otherwise (e.g., the severed heads, the harvestimagery, the drinking of blood). Like the solar imagery for Yahweh, thelanguage of savage battle may have stemmed from attributing to divine kings thecharacteristicsoftheirhumanroyalcounterpartsaccordingtoindigenousmodels. Egyptian texts of the New Kingdom period used the names of Anat andAstarte to dramatize pharaonic prowess. One text describes Anat and Astarte asa shield to Ramses 111.426By the biblical period, the savage, grisly descriptionsof battle accorded Anat in the Late Bronze Age perhaps became one way todescribe Yahweh, the divine warrior.Details in the biblical record provide a few indications as to how Israelitetradition incorporated the bloody type of martial depiction of Yahweh. Some
passages, such as Deuteronomy 32:42-43 and Psalm 68:24, combine bloodymartial imagery with storm language. These examples of conflation may suggesthow the type of divine warrior language for Anat in Canaanite tradition wasmediated to Israelite tradition for Yahweh. Both types of language describing thedivine warrior — the storm language of Baal and the bloody imagery of Anat —appear in conflated form in Israelite tradition, much as various types of imageryassociated with El and Baal in Canaanite texts are conflated in early biblicaltradition.427
CHAPTER 3Yahweh and Asherah
1. Distribution in the Biblical RecordNarratives (Judg. 3:7; 6:25-30), legal prohibitions (Exod. 34:13; Deut. 7:5; 12:3;16:21), and prophetic critiques (Isa. 17:8; 27:9; Jer. 17:2; Micah 5:13) indicatethat the devotion to the cult symbol known as the asherah, a wooden pole ofsome sort, and the religious items collectively called the asherim was observedas early as the period of the Judges and as late as a few decades before the fall ofthe southern kingdom (2 Kings 23:4, 6, 7, 15).428As S. Olyan has shown, theasherah was acceptable in both northern and southern kingdoms, both outside(see 1 Kings 14:23; 2 Kings 17:10, 16; Jer. 17:2) and inside the royal cults ofSamaria (1 Kings 16:33; 2 Kings 13:6) and Jerusalem (2 Kings 21:7; 23:6; 2Chron. 24:18).429Besides Samaria and Jerusalem, devotion to the asherah isattested for Ophrah (Judges 6:25) and Bethel (2 Kings 23:15). From thisinformation, it would appear that the symbol of the asherah was a general featureof Israelite religion.Furthermore, there is no indication that devotion to the symbol was limited toa specific group or social stratum within Israel. Olyan has argued that criticismof the goddess Asherah and her symbol, the asherah, was restricted to a singlequarter of Israelite society, namely, the Deuteronomistic tradition.430From thislimited base of opposition, it might be inferred that many other quarters ofIsraelite society either accepted the asherah or at least did not oppose it. NeitherJehu nor Hosea opposed the asherah, although they are depicted as outspoken intheir criticism of Baal. In 1 Kings 18:19 the prophets of Asherah are referred toonly once in the conflict on Mount Carmel between Elijah and the prophets ofBaal, themselves mentioned five times in the story.431Some critics view thesingle reference as a secondary addition designed to cast aspersions on Asherahby connecting her with the cult of Baal.432Olyan observes that no prophetopposed the asherah until the eighth century, and the prophetic passages thatcriticizetheasherahappeartobeDeuteronomisticorderivativefromDeuteronomistic passages. Even if not all the passages can be explained in thisway, prophetic opposition to the asherah does not appear in any sources extantfrom before the eighth century. Analysis of the legal prohibitions is consistent
with this conclusion. The laws pertaining to the asherah derive from the book ofDeuteronomy, with the exception of Exodus 34:13, which some scholars,including Olyan, interpret as a Deuteronomistic addition,433although othercommentators view it as representing an earlier critique of the asherah.434Thebiblicalevidencepertainingtotheasherahdoesnotsustainahistoricaldichotomy between “normative Yahwism” over and against “Canaanite religion”or a “popular religion” tainted by Canaanite influence.435Rather, as biblicalscholars have long noted, biblical criticism of the asherah points to its being anIsraelite phenomenon.436There is the further matter of the distinction between theasherahand theasherim. Besides the difference in morphology, the first word being a femininesingular noun (with a feminine plural) and the latter a masculine plural noun,biblical passages suggest a functional difference. The asherah is erected next tothe altar of a god (Deut. 16:21; Judg. 6:25-26). However, the asherim neverappear next to an altar but beside or under a tree on high places (Jer. 17:2; 1Kings 14:23; 2 Kings 17:10). Further distinctions offered are little more thaneducated guesses. J. R. Engle suggests that the female figurines found inabundance in Iron Age Israel are asherim, representing the goddess, as opposedto the wooden pole of the asherah.437R. Hestrin argues that the pillar figurinesthat she interprets as symbols of Asherah were household items designed toenhance fertility.438Yet scholars have long speculated that these figurines mayrepresent Astarte, and given the maternal imagery for her in Phoenician, this isas plausible an identification as that with Asherah.439Moreover, these figurinesmay not represent any deity.440
2. The Symbol of the AsherahThe asherah was a wooden object symbolizing a tree. It was an item that was“made”(*śh,1 Kings 14:15; 16:33; 2 Kings 17:6; 21:3, 7; Isa. 17:7), “built”(*bnh,1 Kings 14:23), “set up”(*nṣb,2 Kings 17:10;*‘mdin the hiphil, 2Chron. 33:19; cf. Isa. 27:9), and “planted”(*nţ’,Deut. 16:21; cf. Gen. 21:33).441According to the Mishnaic tractate‘Abodah Zarah3:5, the asherah is forbiddenbecause “the hands of man have been concerned with” it.442In other words, theasherah involves human manufacture.‘Abodah Zarah3:7 is more detailed:Three kinds of asherah are to be distinguished: if a tree was planted fromthe first for idolatry, it is forbidden; if it was chopped and trimmed foridolatry and it sprouted afresh, one only need take away what has sproutedafresh; but if a gentile did but set up an idol beneath it and then desecrate it,the tree is permitted. What is an asherah? Any tree under which is an idol.Rabbi Simeon says: Any tree which is worshipped.443Unlike the biblical data, this Mishnaic text includes both living and dead treesin its definition of the asherah, perhaps influenced by the phenomenon of sacredgroves in Hellenistic religion. To date, no convincing examples of an asherahhave been excavated, an understandable state of affairs since biblical accounts ofthe asherah describe it as made of wood. Y. Aharoni suggested, for example, thatthe burned tree trunk found next to a standing stone in an Israelite level (stratumV-III) at Lachish was perhaps an asherah.444The combination of stone and treeappears in some biblical texts, Jeremiah 2:27, for example.Various pieces of iconography indicate that the tree was the Canaanite symbolof the goddess and represented her presence. K. Galling compared the asherah toa stylized tree on a clay model of a cultic scene from Cyprus.445O. Negbi haspublisheddrawingsofseveralpiecesofCanaanitefemalefigures,oftenconsidered divine, with trees or branches etched between their navels and pubictriangle.446These pieces derive from Late Bronze Age levels at Tell el-‘Ajjûl,Minetel-Bheida,andUgarit.AnotherpieceoficonographyfromUgaritillustrates the development of the pole as the symbol of the goddess. A plaque
from Ugarit depicts a female figure holding bundles of grain in either hand withanimals feeding from each hand.447If this plaque were a depiction of thegoddess Asherah, it would indicate that the tree found in comparable latericonography was a symbol of the goddess giving nourishment to the animalsflanking her. Examples of the tree flanked by feeding twin animals appear in theTaanach stand, one pot belonging to the Kuntillet ‘Ajrûd pottery known aspithos A, and on the Lachish ewer.448The ewer, found in a favissa, a cache ofcultic items, in the Fosse Temple, is perhaps most pertinent. According to R.Hestrin,449the ewer links the tree and the goddess, since the goddess mentionedin the inscription appears directly above the depiction of the tree.450To illustratethe religious significance of the asherah, Hestrin compares two scenes from NewKingdom Egypt.451One shows the goddess Hathor as a tree giving nourishmentto the king, and another renders Isis in the form of a tree giving suck to a nobleand his wife. In these depictions, the tree stands for the fertile and nurturinggoddess; the goddess is made present through the symbolism of the tree. Thismode of representing Asherah in Canaan obtained in the Late Bronze Age. Noneof the iconographic depictions of the goddess derives from an Israelite stratum.The asherah that Manasseh made in 2 Kings 21:7 was perhaps the sameasherah that Josiah dragged out of the Jerusalem temple in 2 Kings 23:6-7; bothwere housed in the Jerusalem temple. The asherah of the temple may have beena more elaborate version of the symbol. It is perhaps for this reason that 2 Kings21:7 calls itpesel hā’ăšērāh,“the graven image of the asherah.” The asherah of2 Kings 23:6-7 hadbāttîm,often understood as “clothes” on the basis of bothversional support (LXXchettieim/n,“tents”; Lucianicstolās,“garments”; andTargumicmkwlyn,“coverings”)452andtheArabiccognatebatt,“wovengarments.”453A number of scholars have compared the asherah with thenineteenth- and twentieth-century Palestinian custom of hanging clothes on holytrees,454including theSpina christi lotus, the Christ’s thorn tree.455The hangingof clothes on the asherah might be compared also to clothes hung on cult statuesin Mesopotamia and Ugarit attested in the second and first millennia andridiculed in the Letter of Jeremiah 6:33.456Although they are not specifically identified as such, some trees in sacredprecincts were perhaps asherahs or the antecedents to asherahs. For example,Joshua 24:26-27 describes the placement of an altar next to a tree(’ēlāh)in thesacred precincts of Yahweh at Shechem (cf. Gen. 35:4).457It was at a tree,’ēlāh,where an angel appeared to Gideon (Judg. 6:11), although the narrative assumesthat the asherah was a different item (Judg. 6:25). Isaiah 1:29-30 condemns the
oaks(’êlîm)without providing any further information and states that the peopleshall be like an oak whose leaf withers. Isaiah 61:3 may transform this image incalling the people’êlê haṣṣedeq,“oaks of righteousness.” Hosea 4:13 condemnsa variety of trees, including’ēlāh,as sites of improper sacrifice. Traditionscontained in classical sources likewise point to the tree as a cultic symbol inPhoenician religion. Achilles Tatius describes the tree growing in a sacredprecinct in Tyre.458Herodotus (History2.56) mentions a Phoenician “holywoman,” who before establishing the oracular cult of Dodona in Epirus, foundeda temple to Zeus beneath an oak.459The biblical and classical witnesses maypoint to a common Canaanite tradition.Was the tree originally the symbol of the goddess, and did the polesubstituting for a tree secondarily come to be the symbol of the asherah?460Inthis case, the symbol developed originally from the cultic use of an actual tree.This interpretation underlies the proposal of Albright that BH’ēlāhmay bederived from the epithet of Asherah,’ilt,“goddess.”461Both Hebrew’ēlāhandUgaritic’iltare grammatically feminine singular nouns corresponding to themasculine forms’ēlin Hebrew and ’il in Ugaritic. (Both BH’ēland Ugaritic‘ilare generic words for “god” and designations for the god “El.”) While the viewof Albright might suggest that the usual LXX translation of asherah withalsos,“grove,” and the less frequentdendra,“tree” (LXX Isa. 17:8; 27:9) andMishnaic descriptions of the asherah as a living tree(‘Orlah1:7, 8;Sukkah3:1-3;‘Abodah Zarah3:7, 9, 10;Me‘ilah3:8) could reflect a genuine recollection ofthe variety of forms that the asherah assumed in Israelite religion, it appearsmore likely that these texts reflect a later understanding of the asherah, perhapsinfluenced by the phenomenon of sacred groves in Hellenistic religion.462Biblical texts provide a few indications for the cultic context of the asherah.According to two passages it was a wooden item erected next to the altar of agod. In Judges 6:25-26, Gideon is commanded to “pull down the altar of Baalwhich your father has, and cut down the asherah that is beside it.” Deuteronomy16:21 forbids the “planting” of “any tree — an asherah — besides the altar of theLord your God which you shall make.”463The asherah was a religious symbolwithin Yahwistic cult in both northern and southern capitals. It is indicated in 2Kings 13:6 that the asherah belonged to the cult of Samaria. The Jerusalemtemple was expunged of cultic objects considered unacceptable according to 2Kings 23. The list includes the asherah, but there is no indication that the asherahwas related to a cult of Baal. Rather, as Olyan has argued, the asherah wasassociated historically with Yahweh and not with Baal.464The Late Bronze Age iconography of the asherah would suggest that it
represented maternal and nurturing dimensions of the deity.465Jeremiah 2:27may point to the maternal symbolism of the asherah in the waning days of themonarchy.466The verse refers to the house of Israel, with its priests, prophets,and kings “who say to a tree, ‘You are my father,’ and to a stone, ‘You gave mebirth’”(’ōmĕrîm lā‘ēṣ’ābî ’attāh wĕlā’eben ’att yĕlidtānî[Qere:yĕlidtānû]).Many scholars argue that the verse polemically reverses the roles of the maternalsymbolism of the asherah with the paternal symbolism of the stone.467Further cultic functions of the asherah may be queried, although data aresparse. De Moor suggests that the asherah perhaps involved divination.468Habakkuk 2:19 may allude to the “revelation,” or “teaching,” achieved throughdivination within the cult of the tree(‘ēṣ)and the stone(’eben):The versedeclares:Woe to him who says to a wooden thing(’ēṣ),Awake;to a dumb stone(’eben),Arise!Can this give revelation(yôreh)?Behold, it is overlaid with gold and silver,and there is no breath at all in it.The pairing of tree and stone might recall the asherah, since the tree is thegoddess’s symbol.469Indeed, this pairing occurs in Deuteronomy 29:16 andJeremiah 2:27 (cf. Ezek. 20:32). This section of Habakkuk 2:18-19, however,may involve a description of making an idol from materials of wood and stoneand may refer only to functions that deities may provide generally; therefore, itmay not be a reference specifically to the asherah. Hosea 4:12 may also preservea record of the role of divination through the asherah: “My people inquired of athing of wood(‘ēṣ),and their staff gives them oracles.” While the parallellismhas suggested to commentators that the wood constitutes a staff of some sort,470this verse may allude to divination by means of the asherah. Divination via theasherah might explain the grouping of asherim with diviners in Micah 5:11-13(E 12-14). Furthermore, this approach to these passages would also providefurther explanation for prophetic and Deuteronomistic criticisms of the asherah.In the popular religion of the high places and perhaps the royal religion of thecapital cities, the asherah perhaps provided an access to divine information thatcompeted with prophetic inquiry.Another possible function of the asherah was healing. Like the bones of theprophet Elisha (2 Kings 13:21), the asherah perhaps was used for medicinalpurposes. While no biblical texts hint at this feature of the asherah, a Talmudic
passage,Pesaḥim25a, mentions that any remedy, except the wood of theasherah, is acceptable:Rabbi Jacob said in Rabbi Johanan’s name: We may cure ourselves with allthings, save with the wood of theasherah.How is it meant? If we say thatthere is danger, even the wood of theasherahtoo [is permitted]; while ifthere is no danger, even all [other] forbidden things of the Torah too are not[permitted]. After all [it means] that there is danger, yet even so the woodof theasherah[must) not be used.471From this text it might be inferred that healing was an ancient aspect of theasherah that biblical sources do not mention. It is not possible to confirm furthereither the divinatory or healing aspects of the asherah, but the cultic features ofthe asherah were perhaps more far-reaching than the biblical and inscriptionalsources indicate.
3. The Inscriptional EvidenceThe evidence for the asherah in the Kuntillet ‘Ajrûd inscriptions bears on theissue of whether Asherah was a goddess in ancient Israel and whether she wasthe consort of Yahweh. The inscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrûd in the easternSinai are dated on paleographic grounds to ca. 800.472The two followingquotations typify the inscriptions containing the element *’šrth:473474Since the initial publication of these inscriptions, scholars have noted that thepronominal suffix on *‘šrthindicates that the form is a common noun and notthe personal name of the goddess Asherah.475This logic is not airtight. Indeed,although divine names do not appear in Hebrew with a pronominal suffix (i.e.,an ending meaning “his”/“its”), many divine names are found in similarly“bound” syntactic constructions. Divine names appear in “bound” forms whenthey stand in genitive relationship with (or in “construct state” to) a noun or apronominal suffix (nouns with the definite article belong to a closely relatedcategory).476For example, Yahweh stands in construct relationship with anumber of place-names, a formula attested in “Yahweh of Teiman” in theinscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrûd; this construction warrants interpretingšmrnas a place-name, Samaria, rather than translating “our guardian.”477As P. K.McCarter notes, this type of construction may be elliptical for deity X whodwells in Y place, as in BHyhwhbṣiyyôn,“Yahweh in Zion” (Ps. 99:2),dāgônb‘ašdôd, “Dagon in Ashdod” (1 Sam. 5:5), Phoeniciantnt blbnn,“Tannit inLebanon” (KAI 81:1) and Ugaritic mlkb‘ṯtrt,“Mlk in Ashtaroth” (KTU
1.100.41; cf.mlk ‘ṯtrt,“Mlk of Ashtaroth” in RS 1986/2235.17).478Similarly,the form*’šrthmight be interpreted as the name of the goddess in a genitiverelationship (or in construct state to) a pronominal suffix. From this evidence, itmight be then argued that*’šrthin the inscriptions represents a divine name.Although no Hebrew examples for a divine name with a pronominal suffix areattested, Ugaritic provides some examples, including’aṯrty(KTU 2.31.39) and‘nth(KTU 1.43.13).479The biblical bound forms,habba‘al(“the baal”) andha’ăšērāh(“the asherah”) appear in a few cases to refer to a specific deity, butthese instances may conform to their use as generic references to deities as inJudges 3:7 (cf. Judg. 2:13; 10:16; 1 Sam. 7:4; 12:10; Jer. 2:23; 9:14). Despite thepossibility that the Ugaritic examples could point to taking*’šrthas the name ofthe goddess, it appears better to follow the grammatical rule of seeing boundforms as common nouns rather than to discard the rule and thereby interpret*’šrthas the goddess Asherah.480Z. Zevit has offered a different morphologicalinterpretation of*’šrthas the goddess’s name.481Instead of viewing the endinghas a pronominal suffix, he considers it to be a second indicator of femininegender. According to Tigay, most of the analogues Zevit marshalls as support donot contain two endings indicating feminine gender. Tigay denies the relevanceof most of these examples because many are place-names with finalhindicatingdirection (“heh-locale”).482It might be argued that the object of the verb-preposition combination,*brk l-,“to bless by X,” denotes a deity in WestSemitic votive offerings. As Tigay has observed,483this view is vitiated by anumberofPhoenicianinscriptionsthathaveculticobjectsfollowingthepreposition (KAI 12:3-4; 251; 256).Apart from the grammatical problem, there are further semantic issuesafflicting interpreting the noun as either the goddess’s name or the symbol in itscapacity of referring to the goddess. If /‘šrthin the inscriptions from Kuntillet‘Ajrud refers to the goddess (“and to his Asherah”), then it is unclear what “hisAsherah” means.484Only by assuming an ellipsis of “his consort, Asherah” orthe like does this interpretation make reasonable sense. Ifl’šrthmeans “hisasherah” referring to the symbol, then “his asherah” should denote somethingthat is “his,” and not hers. In short, it appears preferable to take “his asherah” assomething that is “his,” i.e., a symbol that once may have referred to the goddessby the same name, but functions in this context as part of Yahweh’s symbolicrepertoire, possibly with older connotations associated with the goddess. Someof these older connotations are explored below.Attempts to interpret the name with a different semantic range are underminedby etymological fallacies of various kinds. For example, interpreting Hebrew
*’šrthon the basis of Ugaritic’aṯr,Akkadianašru,and Phoenician’šr,“sanctuary,”485founders on the fact that such a meaning does not occurotherwise in Hebrew. Even greater difficulty attaches to meanings positedwithout any etymological basis in any Northwest Semitic language. Thisproblem attends proposals such as “symbol,”486“consort,”487“goddess,”488and“trace.”489The fourth translation, proffered by P. K. McCarter, offers aningenious solution to interpreting*’šrth.McCarter interprets the name to be ahypostasis of Yahweh and not a goddess as such; in this connection he comparesother goddesses who bear titles expressing relationship of hypostasis with gods.The two main examples are the Ugaritic and Phoenician title for Astarte, who iscalled “the name of Baal,”šm b‘l(KTU 1.16 VI 56 [cf. 1.2 IV 28]; KAI14:18),490and a title of Phoenician Tannit designated “the face of Baal,”pn b‘l(KAI 78.2; 79:1, 10-11; 85:1; 86:1; 137:1; 175:2; 176:2-3; cf. 87:1) andp‘n b‘l(KAI 94:1; 97:1; 102:1; 105:1; cf. 164:1; cf.’npy-b‘ltwice in an incantationfrom Wadi Hammamat in Upper Egypt, written in Demotic script but Aramaic inlanguage, and dated to the sixth or fifth century B.C.E.; cf.phanebaloson coinsof the Roman period from Ashkelon; BHpnû’ēl[Gen. 32:32; Judg. 8:8, 9, 17;1 Kings 12:25]/pnî’ēl[Gen. 32:31]; and the Greek place-name for a cape northof Byblos,prosopon theou,“face of God”).491Following Albright, McCarteralso appeals to the uncertain hypostatic interpretation of the name Anat asmeaning “sign” in the Aramaic divine names‘ntyh(AP 44:3) and‘ntbt’l(AP22:125).492The weakness of this suggestion for*’šrthis not limited to theetymological difficulty identified above, namely, that the base (“root”)*’ṯrdoesnot mean “trace” in any Northwest Semitic language.493There is the moreglaring problem that in the cases of Astarte and Tannit it is not the goddess’sname but her title that is the term of hypostasis. These cases are therefore nottrue analogies for McCarter’s proposals for Anat and Asherah, whose names hetakes to be expressions of aspects of gods. Furthermore, the analogy with divinenames‘ntyh, ‘ntbt’l,ḥrmbt’l(AP 7:7), or’šmbt’l(AP 22:124) is unsure. Someof these names may not be construct chains, “aspect X of god Y,” but two divinenames or divine name plus a place name.494The interpretation of these formsshould not obscure the fact that different developments may lie behind them. Inany case, the etymology “presence” or “sign,” either for the element*‘ntin thesenames or the Ugaritic goddess Anat, is not secure. Finally, McCarter makes theproblematic assumption that Asherah is historically disassociated from*’šrthinthe Kuntillet ‘Ajrûd inscriptions, that the former was a Canaanite goddess andthe latter an internal Israelite development. As both Asherah and*’šrtharereligiousphenomenacriticizedinancientIsraelduringthesameperiod,
McCarter’s assumptions constitute dubious grounds upon which to build afurther historical reconstruction.Finally, an attempt to see these attestations as non-Israelite because the scriptmay be non-Israelite appears unfounded.495McCarter and Olyan consider theSamaria ostraca as the inscriptions written in the nearest paleographic hand.496AhlströmgroupsKuntillet‘AjrûdwithAradandBeershebaasdistrictadministrative centers and military forts that had sanctuaries or cult places.497According to Ahlström, the royal character of Kuntillet ‘Ajrûd lends credence tothe view that the religious practices there represent official Judean religion.Furthermore, much of the pottery that served as the medium for the inscriptionsand iconography derived from Judah.498The religious practices of Kuntillet‘Ajrûd probably do not constitute practices peripheral to Judean culture. Indeed,“Yahweh . . . and his asherah” are attested also in a Hebrew inscription fromKhirbet el-Qôm (ca. 700) in the heartland of Judah.499Although problems attendthe interpretation of this inscription, it supports the point that the asherah was anIsraelite phenomenon. Yet, the precise importance of the information attested atKuntillet ‘Ajrûd and Khirbet el-Qôm cannot be determined without recourse tothe other textual source attesting to the asherah, the biblical record, itself amatter of controversy.
4. Asherah — An Israelite Goddess?The question of Asherah as an Israelite goddess constitutes a major issue inunderstanding Israelite religion. Does the biblical and extrabiblical evidencesupport the view that Asherah was a goddess in pre-exilic Israel and that she wasthe consort of Yahweh? Or, alternatively, does the data point to the asherah as asymbol within the cult of Yahweh without signifying a goddess? The firstposition constitutes a majority view, represented by the older works of H.Ringgren, G. Fohrer, and G. W. Ahlström, and the studies in the 1980s by W. G.Dever, D. N. Freedman, R. Hestrin, A. Lemaire, and S. Olyan and more recentworks by J. M. Hadley, J. Day, M. Dijkstra, O. Keel, and Z. Zevit.500A minorityposition, held earlier by B. Lang, P. D. Miller, J. Tigay, and U. Winter andrecently by C. Frevel and M. C. A. Korpel, maintains on the paucity of evidencethat’ăšērāhneither referred to a goddess nor symbolized the goddess inIsrael.501The inscriptional evidence points to a cult symbol, the asherah. Demonstratingwhether the symbol represented a goddess who was Yahweh’s consort requiresan appeal to the biblical evidence, since the inscriptional data does not resolvethis issue. The discussion of Genesis 49:25 above indicated that Asherah mayhave been the consort of El, but not Yahweh, at some early point in Israelitereligion.502Olyan’s argument that Asherah became Yahweh’s consort by virtueof the identification of Yahweh and El has provided a viable explanation for thedevelopment of the cult of Yahweh and his Asherah.503Indeed, a number ofbiblical passages have been cited in defense of the reconstruction that Asherahwas a goddess in Israel. These texts, 1 Kings 18:19, 2 Kings 21:7, 2 Kings 23:4,Judges 3:7, and Jeremiah 2:27,504are addressed in turn to examine the strengthof the reconstruction of Asherah as Yahweh’s consort.As many scholars have noted, the one Iron II (ca. 1000-587) passage thatunambiguously mentions the goddess Asherah is 1 Kings 18:19. The prophets ofAsherah are presented in chapter 18 as the prophets of the Tyrian Jezebel. Likethe prophets of Baal in this chapter, the prophets of Asherah are presented asTyrian functionaries. The historical difficulty with this depiction is that Asherah
is not attested in any Tyrian text. It would appear that Asherah was not a Tyriangoddess; indeed, Asherah is not attested anywhere in coastal Phoenicia duringthe Iron Age. The reference to “the prophets of Asherah” apparently does notconstitute a plausible historical witness to the cult of Asherah in ancient Israel.Indeed, the phrase “the prophets of Asherah” in 1 Kings 18:19 has been viewedas a secondary gloss to the story.505The question is why the name of Asherah is used here. If Phoenician Astartewas the goddess lying behind this reference to Asherah, the reference to “theprophets of Asherah” in 1 Kings 18:19 might be explained in terms of the threatthat Astarte may have posed. As the main Phoenician goddess during the IronAge, Astarte could have represented an intrusion during the monarchy. Thepolemic against Asherah in 1 Kings 18:19 may have represented a reactionagainst the cult of Astarte either in the northern kingdom during the ninthcentury or in the Jerusalem cult at the end of the Iron Age. The references to “theasherah” in 2 Kings 21 and 23 might point to the late Judean monarchy as thetime for the substitution of Asherah for Astarte in 1 Kings 18:19. It is preciselythis period when Astarte had a cult in ancient Israel. There is no evidence forAstarte as a goddess in Israel prior to the second half of the monarchy. She doesnot appear to be an old Canaanite inheritance of Israel, as her name does notappear in the old Canaanite inscriptions of the Late Bronze or Iron I periods.Furthermore, biblical literature does not point to a historical witness for her inthe period of the Judges. She makes her initial appearance in the Bible as aPhilistine goddess (1 Sam. 31:10) during the reign of Saul and as the “goddess ofthe Sidonians” (1 Kings 11:5, 33; 2 Kings 23:13) in the reign of Solomon. Shedoes not appear as an Israelite phenomenon explicitly except in the polemics ofJudges 2:13; 10:6 and 1 Samuel 7:3, 4; 12:10. These references belong to thetradents of these biblical books; the references likely stem from the second halfof the monarchy506and might reflect the Judean cult to Astarte in Jerusalem. The“Queen of Heaven” in the book of Jeremiah may refer either to Astarte, the onlyWest Semitic goddess bearing this title during the Iron Age, or to Ishtar (orpossibly some combination of the two).507Jeremiah 44 presents the cult of the“Queen of Heaven” as an old one in Israel. It included the cultic acts of burningincense and pouring libations in her name and the baking of cakes in her honor(Jer. 7:18; 44:15-28). It would appear dubious that either Asherah or Astarte wasthe threat in the northern kingdom that 1 Kings 18:19 implies. Rather, thisreference has the appearance of being a retrojection onto the earlier history ofthe northern kingdom, perhaps inspired by the known Phoenician background ofBaal. This god represented a threat not only in the north in the ninth century, but
also in the south at the end of the Judean monarchy. In sum, 1 Kings 18:19 is ahistorically implausible reference to Asherah. The gloss may be the result ofsubstitution and not historical report; it perhaps belongs to the seventh or sixthcentury.Two other passages taken to refer to the goddess Asherah, namely, 2 Kings21:7 and 23:4, also constitute questionable historical witnesses to the goddess.Both texts belong to the second half of the Judean monarchy. The first, 2 Kings21:7, refers to “the image/idol of the asherah”(pesel hā’āšērāh).The word“image”(pesel)here is elsewhere used for images of deities, and consequentlythis verse has been viewed as a reference to the image of the goddess Asherah.There is no question that the asherah in 2 Kings 21:7 was considered anidolatrous object by the writer. That it signified the image of the goddess cannotbe determined. The item calledpesel hā’ăšērāhhere may not have been animage of the goddess; it may have been a more elaborate form of the asherah inthe royal cult of Jerusalem.After 1 Kings 18:19 and Genesis 49:25, the passage most strongly suggestingthat Asherah was a goddess is the second, 2 Kings 23:4 (cf. w. 6, 7, 15). Thisverse mentions the asherah in the phrase “the vessels made for the baal, theasherah, and all the host of heaven”(hakkēlîm hā‘ăśûyim labba‘al wĕlā’ăšērāhūlkōlṣĕbā’ haššāmāyim).The terms “the baal” and “all the host of heaven” aredeities, and the most natural reading of the placement of “the asherah” betweenthese two terms is that it likewise refers to a deity, specifically Asherah. Thisreading is not compelling on a number of grounds. All three are recipients ofcultic paraphernalia, but there is no reason not to suppose that the asherah andnot a goddess was the object of cultic items. This is precisely the way theasherah of the Jerusalem temple is presented in the same chapter. According toverse 7, the asherah received “clothes”(bāttîm).Furthermore, it was dragged outoftheJerusalemtemple,accordingtoverse6.Inordertosustaintheinterpretation that the asherah in verse 4 refers to the goddess, it is necessary toseparate the reference to the asherah in this verse from the asherah in verses 6-7.It may be that only the tree is involved in 2 Kings 21 and 23, however. It isfurther plausible that the same asherah is involved in 2 Kings 21:7 and 2 Kings23:6. According to the first passage, the asherah was erected in the Jerusalemtemple, and in the second passage, the asherah was removed from the temple.The reference to “the asherahs” in Judges 3:7 has been used to establish thepresence of Asherah in ancient Israel. The immediate difficulty with this view isthat while “the asherahs” represent goddesses, they do not appear to refer to aspecific goddess. Indeed, the term involved does not represent a single figure,but a collective group. The group is probably goddesses in general, as “the
asherahs” are paired with “the baals” as a means of alluding to foreign gods andgoddesses in general. The variation between “the baals and the asherahs” inJudges 3:7 and “the baals and the astartes” in Judges 2:13, 1 Samuel 7:4, 12:10further reflects the fact that “the asherahs” in Judges 3:7 represents a genericusage. The question is how “the asherahs” came to be used in this way. Onepossibility is that these expressions reflect an interchange between Asherah andAstarte. The Hebrew names of Asherah(‘ăšērāh)and Astarte(’aštōret)aresomewhat similar. Furthermore, Astarte shows some of the traits and rolesearlier reckoned to Asherah. For example, in the Ugaritic texts,rbtis a standardtitle of Asherah (e.g., KTU 1.3 V 40; 1.4 I 13, 21; 1.4 IV 31, 40; 1.6 I 44, 45, 47,53; cf. 1.16 I 36, 38; 1.23.54), but in inscriptions from Sidon, Tyre, Kition, andEgypt, this epithet belongs to Astarte (KAI 14:15; 17:1; 33:3; cf. 48:2; 277:1).508Similarly, Asherah is considered the mother figure in the Ugaritic texts (KTU1.4 II 25-26, IV 51, V 1; 1.6 I 39-41,46), but in Phoenician inscriptions it isAstarte who bears the title of “mother,”’m(KAI 14:14).509The figure ofAsherah did not continue by name in the Phoenician world, and Astarte mayhave been the bearer of some features earlier associated with Asherah. To besure, some scholars510have argued that the goddess Tannit may have been thePhoenician-Punic descendant of Canaanite Asherah or included her features,including the titles “lady,” rbt (e.g., KAI 78:2; 79:1; 81:1; 85:1; 86:1), and“mother,” ’m (cf. KAI 83:1).511Asherah was, apart from 1 Kings 18:19,nowhere called by her old Canaanite name in the first millennium. She is notonce attested in Phoenician sources. The biblical authors characterizing the cultlyingbehindthesymboloftheasherahperhapstelescopedthesecond-millennium goddess Asherah and the first-millennium goddess Astarte, just asthesecond-millenniumstorm-godBaal,partofIsrael’soldCanaaniteinheritance, was conflated with the first-millennium storm-god Baal of Tyre.512Jeremiah 2:27 has been understood as a reference to Asherah as the consort ofYahweh. According to a number of scholars, Jeremiah 2:27 reverses the role ofthe paternal symbol of the stone with the maternal role of the tree, symbolswhich refer to Asherah and Baal.513If so, Jeremiah 2:27 would provide ahistorical witness to Asherah as a goddess and the consort of Baal. In contrast,Olyan argues that Jeremiah 2:27 may refer not to Asherah and Baal, but toAsherah and Yahweh, since paternal language is rarely, if ever, attributed toBaal, whereas Yahweh receives paternal language in a number of instances (e.g.,Deut. 32:6; Isa. 63:16; 64:7 [E 8]; Jer. 3:4, 19; 31:9; Mal. 1:6; 2:10; Wisdom ofSolomon 14:3; Ben Sira 23:1, 4; cf. Exod. 4:22; Hos. 11:1). According toOlyan’s view, Jeremiah 2:27 may indicate that Asherah was a goddess in Israel
andtheconsortofYahwehduringthewaningdecadesoftheJudeanmonarchy.514For all these scholars, the asherah was perceived as the goddess’ssymbol, not only by its critics, but also by Israelite worshipers. These views arehistorically problematic, however. The myth in Jeremiah 2:27 is not attributed toa goddess, as in Canaanite religion, but to a symbol in the cult of Yahweh. ThatsuchmaternallanguagewasappropriatedtoYahwehisevidentfromDeuteronomy 32:18, discussed in the following section. It is possible, therefore,that the symbol named in this verse did not refer to Asherah. Yet there is afurther difficulty for assuming that Asherah is described in Jeremiah 2:27. Thelarger context of this verse, Jeremiah 2:23-28, names Baal also as an object ofopprobrium, and perhaps it is Baal and Asherah who are the objects of attack inthis verse. Elsewhere in the Deuteronomistic History, especially in 1 Kings18:19, the juxtaposition of Baal and Asherah may reflect the substitution ofAsherah for Astarte. The same replacement may be involved in Jeremiah 2:27.Or, perhaps this verse reflects a historical connection made secondarily betweenBaal and Asherah in Jeremiah’s own time. As a result of the complex problemsthat Jeremiah 2:27 presents, the precise divine referents of the symbols of treeand stone in this verse are difficult to establish; indeed, many scholars deny thatthere are any divine referents.515To summarize the evidence for Asherah as the consort of Yahweh, there is noclear reference to the goddess in the Bible, apart from 1 Kings 18:19, possibly apolemic against Astarte. Genesis 49:25 may attest to Asherah as El’s consort; itprovides no support for the view that Asherah was Yahweh’s consort. The otherbiblical references used to support this reconstruction are susceptible to otherinterpretations, which would vitiate the view of Asherah as a goddess. A furtherdifficulty with positing Asherah as a goddess in monarchic Israel involves notonly the biblical evidence, but the Phoenician evidence as well. Asherah was nota Phoenician or Punic goddess during the Iron Age. She apparently did notcontinue as a goddess in Phoenicia and therefore was not the Phoenicianproblem as 1 Kings 18:19 presents her. There is other negative evidence thatmight support the reconstruction that Asherah was not a goddess in Israel; thissort of evidence is, however, based on the argument from silence, and it hasmerit only in conjunction with the positive evidence presented above. It is to benoted that prophetic and legal condemnations never refer to the goddess, only tothe symbol. There are no personal names formed with the theophoric element ofthe goddess’s name.516Furthermore, unlike Yahweh, El, Baal, or even Anat,*‘šrhdoes not appear as the theophoric element in Israelite personal names.According to Tigay, this fact indicates a lack of religious cult devoted expressly
to the goddess. The argument in itself would be unconvincing, because, asEmerton and Olyan have observed in the case of the name of Asherah,517onomastica do not always reflect accurately religious devotion. The cult of thisgoddess is attested at Ugarit, but her name does not appear as a theophoricelement in Ugaritic names. However, the onomastic evidence comports with theother Iron Age evidence. Finally, there is the questionable argument that neitherbiblicalnorinscriptionalHebrewhasawordfor“goddess”(’ēlāhnotwithstanding). In conclusion, the evidence for Asherah as an Israelite goddessduring the monarchy is minimal at best. In view of the difficulties raised aboutthis historical reconstruction, the rejection of this position by B. Lang, P. D.Miller, J. Tigay, U. Winter, C. Frevel, and M. C. A. Korpel appears morecompatible with the available evidence.518If the symbol no longer represented the goddess, there are two historicalquestions. First, what was the historical development lying behind this situation?Second, why did the Deuteronomistic tradition, in so strongly opposing thesymbol, suppose that the goddess Asherah was involved? In other words, if thesymbol no longer represented the goddess, why was it condemned?The first question is very difficult. On the basis of the biblical associationbetween Baal and Asherah, some scholars argue that Baal replaced El as thehusband of Asherah in the Iron I period (1200-1000), and that this is whybiblical criticisms link Baal and Asherah.519This view suffers from thefundamental weakness that the evidence for Baal replacing El in Canaan is scant.To be sure, a weighty analogue could be based on various evidence, includingthe Elkunirsa narrative.520Despite the suggestive direction of this analogue, sucha state of affairs perhaps never obtained in Iron Age Israel. Olyan has suggestedthat as a result of the Yahweh-El identification and the pairing of El andAsherah,AsherahwastheconsortofYahwehandtheasherahwashersymbol.521At some point, however, perhaps as early as the period of the Judges,the symbol of the asherah, like the name and imagery of El, continued in the cultof Yahweh but did not refer to a separate deity. As seen in chapter 1, theevidence for Asherah as a goddess in Israel during the period of the Judges isminimal. The same difficulty afflicts the data for the period of the monarchy.Rather than supporting a theory of a goddess as the consort of Yahweh, it wouldindicate that the symbol outlived the cult of the goddess who gave her name to itand continued to hold a place in the cult of Yahweh. Other scholars such asHadley would date this development generally to the post-exilic period. Yet shealso allows for the development earlier: “By Manasseh’s time, it is possible thatthe asherah statue had lost enough of its ‘goddess background’, and it was
considered more as an aspect of (Yahweh’s?) fertility.”522Given the problematicreferences in the books of Kings to the goddess, the development may be earlier.In this connection, it is pertinent to note the number of Iron Age tree sceneswhich lack the female figure, as noted by Keel.523It is precisely this lack as wellas the preponderance of biblical references to the asherah symbol compared tothe putative number of references to Asherah the goddess that makes one thinkthat the symbol outlasted the goddess’s cult.The second question is even more problematic. If the asherah was a Yahwisticsymbol that no longer represented a separate goddess, why then did it fall undersuch weighty biblical criticism? Any answer is speculative, but some of thebiblicalcriticismsoftheasherahconfinedtoDeuteronomisticinfluenceobserved by Olyan provide a starting point. Secondary association of the nameof the asherah with the goddess Astarte, perhaps represented by the variationbetween “the baals and the asherahs” in Judges 3:7 and “the baals and theastartes” in Judges 2:13, 1 Samuel 7:4, and 12:10, may have provided a negativeview of the asherah. Another reason for the condemnation of the asherah may beapproached on the basis of its functions. Perhaps its roles in providing fertility orhealing were offensive to its critics. Its function of divination may havecompeted with prophecy, which may have led to prophetic condemnations. Inany case, its indictment belongs to a more sweeping rejection of a number ofcultic practices.524From this survey of the biblical evidence, it would appear thatthe asherah continued with various functions in the cult of Yahweh withoutconnection to the goddess who gave her name to the symbol.
5. The Assimilation of the Imagery of AsherahThe history of the Israelite asherah apparently ended with the Judean exile(587/6), but biblical passages that depict an independent divine figure mightreflect at some level of the tradition the ongoing literary impact of the mythassociated with the asherah. The female figure of Wisdom in Proverbs 1-9 is apossible candidate. G. Boström, H. Ringgren, W. F. Albright, and otherscompared the figure of Wisdom to the Canaanite goddess Asherah.525C. Camp’sstudy on the figure of Wisdom, which otherwise minimizes the history ofreligion approach, also recognizes such an influence.526If the symbolic contentof the asherah was in any sense a literary model for the figure of Wisdom(perhaps as a counter-advertisement, orKontrastbildin von Rad’s terms), it mayhave been due to the background of the indigenous cult of “Yahweh and hisasherah.”527The “tree of life,” which recalls the asherah, appears in Israelitetradition as a metaphorical expression for Wisdom (Prov. 3:18; cf. Prov. 11:30;15:4; Gen. 3:22; Rev. 2:7).528Like the symbol of the asherah, Wisdom is afemale figure, providing life and nurturing. Proverbs 3:18 is especially pertinent:“She is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her; those who hold her fast aremade happy”(‘ēs-hayyîm hî’ lammahăzîqîmbāhwĕtōmĕkêhā mĕ’uššār).Thisverse closes a small unit consisting of verses 13-18 and forms with verse 13 aconspicuous chiasm (a type of poetic structure connecting four terms). Verse 13opens with “Happy the one who finds wisdom”(’ašrê ‘ādām māsā’ hokmāh).The unit begins and ends with the same root, *’šr, “to be happy,” specificallywith’ašrê,“happy,” in verse 13 andmĕ‘uššār,“made happy,” in verse 18. Theinside terms of the chiasm arehokmāh,“wisdom,” and‘ēṣ-hayyîm,“a tree oflife.” Finally, the terms,’ašrêandmĕ’uššār,perhaps allude to the asherah, thetree symbolizing life and well-being.529Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus) continues andamplifies the female personification of Wisdom. Ben Sira 1:20 draws on theimage of Wisdom as a tree of life: “To fear the Lord is the root of wisdom, andher branches are long life.“530Ben Sira 24:12-17 likewise describes Wisdom asdifferent types of trees.531Ben Sira 4:13532and Baruch 4:1, echoing Proverbs3:18, use the image of holding fast to Wisdom.
Otherexamplesoftheasherah’simpactonbiblicalimageryarelessconvincing. J. Day perceives an instance of the asherah imagery in Hosea 14:9(E 8).533Yahweh declares:O Ephraim, what have I do to with idols?It is I who answer(‘ānîtî)and look after him(wa’ăšûrennû).I am like an evergreen cypress,from me comes your fruit.Following J. Wellhausen,534Day sees in the second half of the verse an allusionto Anat and Asherah. He also reads *lô, “him” (i.e., Ephraim), forlî, “me” (i.e.,Yahweh).535An allusion is plausible for the asherah, but not in the case of Anat,since she appears only in proper names in Israelite sources.536Furthermore, theuse of the root*‘ny,“to answer,” recalls rather the use of the same root in Hosea2.537The reading*loforlîhas little textual support and may misconstrue thenature of the religious problem under indictment. The idolatry is not merely amatter of Ephraim’s sin; rather, the prophetic criticism may hint at the inclusionof the asherah with Yahweh. Finally, Hosea 14:10 (E 9) may be related to thetheme of the preceding verse. While Hosea 14:10 is generally regarded as asecondary addition separate from the preceding section or the book as a whole,G. Yee treats the verse as part of the larger unit comprising Hosea 14:2-10 andbelonging to the final redactional level of the book.538If the verse is to beunderstood in the context of both the whole book539and the unit Hosea 14:2-10,then perhaps the subtext of this verse includes idolatry generally expressedthroughout the book and specifically the object of opprobrium to which Hosea14:9 alludes, the asherah. Read as part of the same unit, Hosea 14:9-10 isreminiscent of the imagery in Proverbs 3:13-18. Like Proverbs 3:13- 18, Hosea14:9 draws on the image of the tree, perhaps as a transformation of the asherahinto the Yahwistic symbol of life. This transformation in both cases is perhapsdisclosed by the use of the root*’šr,not as an explicit reference to the asherah,but as an allusion through paronomasia. Like Proverbs 3:13-18, Hosea 14:10casts this motif into the mold of wisdom language. As Yee notes,540the image ofthe tree in Hosea 14:10 is unique in describing Yahweh as the tree. In thisrespect Hosea 14:2-10 differs in one significant way from Proverbs 3:13-18. Inthe latter passage it is the female personification of Wisdom being describedmetaphorically as a tree; in Hosea 14:9 this attribution falls to Yahweh. Perhapsparonomasia with the asherah is involved in this verse, although the evidence forthis example is considerably weaker than the data supporting Proverbs 3:13-18.
Another less than persuasive example of the imagery associated with the asherahmay underlie Song of Songs 4:1-5 and 7:1-9. According to M. H. Pope,541thefemale protagonist of the Song of Songs 4 and 7 may have been modeled in parton a divine prototype; if so, the model may have been indigenous.542The assimilation of language originally associated with the asherah may beillustrated by a comparison of Jeremiah 2:27 with Deuteronomy 32:18, whichreads, “You were unmindful of the Rock who begot you, and you forgot the Godwho gave you birth”(ṣûr yĕlādĕkā tešî wattiškah ’ēl mĕhōlĕlekā).543WhereasJeremiah 2:27 reverses the role of the paternal symbol of the stone with thematernal role of the tree, Deuteronomy 32:18 forges from various cultic themesan image of Yahweh that transcends sexuality.544It has been argued thatmĕhōlĕlekāpresents in this passage a female image of giving birth,545althoughthis use of the word lacks specifically female connotations (Prov. 26:10).Deuteronomy32:18otherwisede-emphasizesthespecificallysexualconnotations of the stone and tree, first by omitting the specifically female imageof the tree, and second, by usingṣûr,“rock,” instead of’eben,“stone.” The rock(’eben)in Jeremiah 2:27 may represent the symbol of the god, hence the godhimself (cf. Gen. 49:24), but in Deuteronomy 32:18 the image of the rock(ṣûr)functions very differently.In its current context in Deuteronomy 32, the image of the rock is a leitmotifpunctuating the poem (vv. 4, 13, 15, 18, 30, 31, 37). There are three furtherfunctions that the sevenfold repetition ofṣûr,“rock,” exhibits in this poem. First,verses 4 and 15 use the image of the rock as an expression of divine strength.Second, verse 13 employs the image of the rock to recall the divine care in thewilderness, described in Exodus 17:1-7 and Numbers 20:2-13. In this wayattention is diverted from rock as an image of the male deity, and rock isassociated instead with the wilderness incident. Third, verses 18, 31, and 37 usethe image of the rock in a polemical way. Verse 31a is most direct: “For theirrock is not as our Rock”(kî lō’ kēṣûrēnûṣûrām).Here the wordṣûrrefers toboth Yahweh (“our god”) and other gods, a contrast at issue also in verses 12,16, 21, 37-38, 39. The image in the poem, on the one hand, disarms the rock ofits cultic associations with respect to Yahweh and places it in the context ofIsrael’s wilderness traditions and, on the other hand, attacks the associations ofthis image with other gods. The image of the rock is a central one for this poem,expressing both Yahweh’s parental care for Israel and Yahweh’s negativeposture toward other deities.
6. Excursus: Gender Language for YahwehGender-specific language in the Bible that might be traced back to the asherahraises the issue concerning the background and significance of female metaphoroccasionally used to describe either Yahweh or Yahweh’s action. Reactingagainst the ideas of P. Trible, J. W. Miller argues that in Deuteronomy 32:18,Numbers 11:12, Psalm 22:9-10, and Isaiah 46:3; 66:9, 13, Yahweh was notconsidered female, either separately or in conjunction with male language forYahweh. Rather, Yahweh was treated as a male deity to whom female imagerywas occasionally attributed on a metaphorical level.546Miller claims that whilepaternal imagery is more attested and directly applied to Yahweh, femalelanguage for Yahweh is rarer, used indirectly to stress qualities that Yahwehshares with female figures. Miller is therefore critical of Trible’s attempts tomaximize the female dimensions of Yahweh.547Finally, for the religiousbackground for the personage of Yahweh, Miller appeals to the West Semiticantecedent of El as father, following a long-accepted scholarly tradition, aschapter 1 indicates.There are both strengths and weaknesses in Miller’s arguments. First, Millercorrectly observes that paternal language is applied to Yahweh directly, althoughit is not very frequent (Deut. 32:6; Isa. 63:16; 64:7 [E 8]; Jer. 3:4, 19; 31:9; Mal.1:6; 2:10; Wisdom of Solomon 14:3; Ben Sira 23:1, 4; cf. Exod. 4:22; Hos.11:1). Other images of king, redeemer, warrior, and so on are considerably morewidespread in the Hebrew Bible and deuterocanonical works.548Second, insupportofMiller’sargument,theclaimthatsomepassages,suchasDeuteronomy 32:18 and Psalm 27:10 (cf. 2 Esdras 1:28), combine male andfemaleimageryforYahwehsuffersfromexegeticalconsiderations.Deuteronomy 32:18 reads, “You were unmindful of the Rock who begot you,and you forgot God who brought you forth”(ṣûr yĕlāděka tešî wattiškah ’ēlmēḥōlĕlekā).The verbal forms in Deuteronomy 32:18 are both masculine,implying a masculine subject. Psalm 27:10 declares, “For my father and mymother have forsaken me, but Yahweh will take me up”(kî-’ābî wĕ‘immî‘ăzābûnî wayhwh ya’aspênî).This verse at best draws an indirect comparisonbetween Yahweh and either a father or mother; indeed, Yahweh stands in
contrast to either a mother or a father.Third, the comparison between El and Yahweh is pertinent; yet it covers onlypart of the historical issue. Miller does not address the impact that the languageof either the god Baal or the goddesses Asherah and Anat may have made oncharacterizations of Yahweh. If El imagery was a constitutive component ofYahweh’s nature, likewise it may be possible to identify in the nature of YahwehelementsofAsherah’scharacter,specificallyhermaternalandnurturingcharacter. The balance of the data in this chapter favors this reconstruction. Theevidence may not be as widespread as the basis for comparing Yahweh with Elor Baal, but it remains significant. While from the perspective of the ancientNear East, Yahweh constituted a male god, nonetheless some female features ortraits, perhaps traceable to the assimilation of the goddess Asherah, wereascribed to him. In particular, Trible points to use of the root*rḥm(Isa. 49:13;Jer. 31:20; Hos. 2:21 [E 19]; 2:25 [E 23]) and the image of mother for Yahwehin biblical texts,549and it is precisely these features that belong to Asherah inCanaaniteliteratureandpossiblyunderlieGenesis49:25.Moreover,thedescription of Wisdom in Proverbs 3:13-18 illustrates another survival oflanguage formerly associated with the asherah.Finally, in defense of Trible’s treatment of female metaphors for Yahweh, ifYahweh was considered essentially a male deity, then biblical passages withfemale imagery for Yahweh may have represented an expansion of the Israeliteunderstanding of Yahweh. Such innovation may best explain the attestation offemale images for the divine in Second Isaiah (Isa. 42:14; 46:3; 49:15; cf. 45:10-11; 66:9, 13). The innovative character of these passages would support the pointthat Miller attempts to discredit, namely, that Yahweh both encompasses thecharacteristics and values expressed through gendered metaphors and transcendsthe categories of sexuality (cf. Job 38:28-29).Both Trible and Miller largely confine their perspective to the biblicalmaterial. The broader cultural setting of ancient Near Eastern literature providesfurther context for understanding female metaphors applied to Yahweh. Theattribution of female roles to gods was by no means an Israelite innovation.Indeed, even specifically female roles for gods (and vice-versa) might be positedon the basis of proper names, such as Ugaritic ‘ṯtr’um,“Athtar is mother” (cf.‘ṯtr’ab,“Athtar is father”),’i/‘nt,“Anat is (a) god,” Akkadianummi-šamaš,“Shamash is my mother,” anda-da-nu-um-mu,“lord is mother.”550Similarly,the combination of male and female roles for a single deity is not withoutparallel in the ancient Near East. Like the storm-gods Ningirsu and Marduk,Yahweh was represented with both storm and solar language either separately or
jointly, as in Hosea 6:3, indicating both power over and transcendence of theseforces of nature (cf. I Kings 17-19).124Yahweh was described in both male and female imagery, like deities inancient Near Eastern prayers. Two examples suffice. In his prayer to Gatumdug,the city-goddess of Lagash, Gudea says:I have no mother — you are my mother,I have no father — you are my father,You implanted in the womb the germ of me,gave birth to me from out of the vulva (too),Sweet, O Gatumdug, is your holy name!125The poem combines parental imagery of mother and father. The samesentiment appears to underlie Psalm 27:10.551By implication compared toGudea’s prayer, this biblical verse suggests that Yahweh assumes the role offather and mother, thereby affirming divine care. A second-millennium Hittiteprayer likewise attributes both parental roles to Istanu, the sun-god: “Thou,Istanu, art father and mother of the oppressed, the lonely [and the] bereavedperson.”552These examples illustrate the larger ancient Near Eastern backgroundto the combination of parental roles for Yahweh. They also show that suchcombination was already ancient in Near Eastern literature. Ancient NearEastern texts indicate that female metaphors do not imply a female status for agod. Rather, according to ancient Near Eastern categories, a god could beaccorded female imagery without implying that he was considered both maleand female. The inverse is true as well: a goddess could receive male metaphorswithout meaning that the goddess was thought to be both female and male.Yahweh could have been attributed female imagery without any influence fromany goddess. Where specific signs of language for the asherah can be discerned(e.g., Prov. 3:13-18), however, the influence of the asherah on the cult ofYahweh and descriptions of Yahweh may be recognized.The relative lack of gender language for Yahweh may be attributed in part tothe avoidance of anthropomorphic imagery for Yahweh. Over the course of itshistory, Israelite religion reduced anthropomorphic depictions of Yahweh. Thistrend is perceptible in both specific, linguistic usages and general, thematicfeatures. Five areas may be mentioned. First, the legal and prophetic requirementforbidding images reflects this trend at a relatively early point in Israel’shistory.553Second, some biblical sources, such as Psalm 50:12-14, play downthenotionofYahwehconsumingsacrificesdespiteindicationstothe
contrary.554Sacrifice is called a “pleasing odor to Yahweh” (Lev. 1:9, 13, 17;2:2, etc.). Numbers 28:2 extends this imagery, calling sacrifices “my offerings,my food for my offerings by fire, a pleasing odor.” Zephaniah 1:7 mentions thesacrifice to which Yahweh invites “his guests” (cf. 1 Sam. 9:12-13; 16:3-5). Therelated notion of the “bread of God” appears in Leviticus 21:6, 8, 17; 22:25. Thebackground for these expressions seems to have been the view of sacrifice as acommunal celebration where Yahweh and Israelites eat, although a depiction ofdivine and human participants eating jointly is unattested (cf. Exod. 24:9-11;Deut. 12:18). The biblical denial of the notion that Yahweh eats offerings inPsalm 50:12-14 suggests, however, that this was not an uncommon idea; thepassage offers a less anthropomorphic rendering of the divine role in sacrificialcelebrations. Third, A. Hurvitz has demonstrated how the book of Ezekielavoided anthropomorphisms evident in parallel passages in Leviticus 26.555Leviticus 26:12 applies to Yahweh the verbhithallaktî(with waw consecutive),“I will walk,” but the parallel passage in Ezekiel 37:26-27 omits the verb.Similarly, Leviticus 26:30 presents Yahweh’s proclamation that “my soul willabhor you”(wĕgā‘ălāh napšî ’etkem). Again the parallel passage in Ezekiel 6:5omits the clause.Fourth, entities personifying divine aspects, such as the divine “name”(šēm),“face”(pānîm),and “glory”(kābôd),sometimes describe the divine presence inpriestly and Deuteronomistic traditions, attested in the Pentateuch as the priestly(P) and Deuteronomistic (D) traditions or “sources.”556In Isaiah 30:27, part ofan oracle dated to the eighth or seventh century,557the divine name serves as thedivine instrument of theophanic wrath: “Behold, the name of Yahweh comesfrom afar, burning with his anger, and in thick rising smoke, and his tongue is adevouring fire.” In this instance, the divine name acts as warrior (cf. 1 Sam. 6:2),a depiction frequently applied to Yahweh in earlier materia1558and applied latertothedivinelogos,“word”(Wisd.ofSol.18:15;Rev.19:11-16).Thesubstitution of the angel and the name for Yahweh is an issue in Exodus 32-33.559Exodus 32:34 and 33:2 declare that an angel will lead Israel. Thisleadership substitutes for Yahweh’s guidance (Exod. 33:16b). In contrast,Exodus 33:14 states the divine “presence”(pānîm)will escort the people.Exodus 23:20-21 exhibits a third variation on this theme. This passage states thatthe divine name is in the angel leading Israel (cf. Isa. 63:9). The divine “glory”(kābôd)dwells in the temple according to priestly theology (Ps. 26:8; Isa. 4:5;Ezek. 43:3-5), like the divine “name” in Deuteronomistic tradition.560The“voice”(qôl)in Numbers 7:89 might be included in this group of personifiedterms(cf.Exod.25:22).561Thoughotherwisedevoidofanytheophanic
characteristics, this usage perhaps derives ultimately from old theophaniclanguage of the storm (Ps. 29:3-9). These qualities of the divine seem to be oneway to refer to the divine military retinue in its protection and help todevotees.562Some of these divine aspects could not be experienced directly,according to some biblical passages. Neither Yahweh, nor the divine “face,”pānîm(Exodus 33-34), nor the divine “form,”tĕmûnāh(Deut. 4:15-16; cf. Num.12:8; Ps. 17:15; Wisd. of Sol. 18:1),563were supposed to be seen, despiteindications to the contrary (Exod. 24:9-11; Pss. 11:7; 17:15; 27:4, 13; 42:3; 63:3;Job 33:26; 42:5; cf. Gen. 16:13; judg. 6:22). In discussing those passages, R. S.Hendel comments: “The belief that one cannot see God and live is bestunderstood as a motif of Israelite folklore, rooted in popular conceptionsconcerning purity and danger.”564In these passages, some divine aspects are notto be directly present to the Israelites.Fifth,thelongtraditionofdescribingthedivinecouncilexhibitsadecreasingly anthropomorphic depiction of Yahweh in the works of Ezekiel andthe priestly Pentateuchal “source” or tradition.565The earliest texts renderYahweh as a divine monarch enthroned among other heavenly beings. Thedivine status of the other members of the council is stressed by terms such as“sons of gods,”bĕnê ‘ēlîm(Pss. 29:1; 89:7) and “congregation of the holy ones,”qĕhal qĕdōšîm(Ps. 89:6; cf. Hos. 12:1; Zech. 14:5). Similarly,’ĕlōhîmin Psalm82:1b apparently means “gods,” since it parallels the “divine council”(‘ădat ’ēl)in verse 1a. All these texts present Yahweh as the preeminent member of thedivine assembly. In 1 Kings 22:19, Yahweh is surrounded by a heavenly army or“host”(ṣĕbā’).The prophetic vision of the divine assembly of Isaiah 6:1 rendersYahweh after the fashion of an enthroned human king. Ezekiel 1:26 minimizesthe anthropomorphism of Isaiah 6:1. Ezekiel describes the “likeness”(dĕmût)ofGod as being “like(kĕ-)the appearance of a human.” This vision lessens theanthropomorphismofthedivine;itnonethelessrendersYahwehalongessentially the same lines as Isaiah 6. Like Isaiah 6 and Ezekiel 1, Genesis 1:26-28 utilizes the traditional language of the divine council, as manifest, forexample, in the use of the first common plural for divine speech in Genesis 1:26,a feature found also in Genesis 3:22; 11:7; and Isaiah 6:8.566The use ofdĕmût,“likeness,” andṣelem,“image,” in Genesis 1:26-28 presupposes the vision of theanthropormorphic god yet reduces the anthropomorphism radically compared toEzekiel 1:26. In fact, Genesis 1 achieves the opposite effect of Ezekiel 1:26.While Ezekiel 1:26 conveys the prophet’s vision of Yahweh in the likeness ofthe human person, Genesis 1 presents a vision of the human person in thelikeness of the divine. Rather than reducing Yahweh to human terms through an
anthropomorphic portrait, Genesis 1:26-28 magnifies the human person in divineterms. In this way, Genesis 1 draws on the older visionary tradition of theanthropomorphic deity but ultimately transcends it insofar as it omits anydescription of the divine.567In its present context in Genesis 1:26, thisanthropomorphic background is muted.568The avoidance of anthropomorphic imagery was by no means a generalfeature of Israelite religion after the Exile. While the tendency away fromanthropomorphism marks priestly and Deuteronomistic traditions belonging tothe eighth through the fifth centuries, later works belonging to the priestlytraditions continued to transmit anthropomorphic imagery. Postexilic priestlytexts, such as Zechariah 3, attest to the divine council. Zechariah 3:7 includes thehigh priest in the ranks of the celestial courts (cf. Zech. 12:8). Postexilicapocalyptic circles also continued anthropomorphic renderings of Yahweh andthe divine council (Daniel 7; cf. Zech. 14:4; 1 Enoch 14).569These and otherbiblical passages (such as Isa. 27:1 ) reflect the continuation of old mythicmaterial in postexilic Israelite tradition.570Furthermore, nonbiblical Jewishliterature from the fourth to the second centuries, including 1 Enoch and theBookofJubilees,representsanadditionalsourceofspeculation.571Theanthropomorphic language of Yahweh, other divine beings, and their heavenlyrealms never disappeared from Israel. The relative absence of this imagery frombiblical texts during the second half of the monarchy reflects a religious reactionagainst Israel’s old Canaanite heritage. Mythic imagery surfaced again inpostexilic priestly traditions, though without the religious problems that itinvolved in the pre-exilic period. In the postexilic period, the old motifsassociated with El, Baal, and Asherah in Canaanite tradition ceased to refer tothe cults of deities other than Yahweh. With the death of the cults of the oldCanaanite/Israelitedeities,theimageryassociatedwiththemcontinued.Furthermore, the development of the apocalyptic genre provided fertile groundfor mythic material.572This genre more than any other expressed mythic contentin dramatic form. According to M. Stone,573widespread speculation in suchareas as cosmology, astronomy, and the calendar represents one of the coreinterests in Jewish apocalypses (such as 1 Enoch) and a new development inJewish religious literature. The postexilic interest in the old mythic content ofIsrael’s Canaanite heritage was consistent with the new interest in cosmicspeculation.In sum, the picture of Yahweh, the male god without a consort, dominatedreligious discourse about the divine in ancient Israel from the Iron II periodonward, at least as far as the sources indicate and assuming that these sources
correspond with historical reality to a reasonable degree. At the same time, malelanguageforYahwehstoodintensionbothwithlessanthropomorphicdescriptions for the deity and metaphors occasionally including female imageryor combining it with male imagery. This state of affairs resembled neither aGreek philosophical notion of Deity as nonsexual Being nor some type of divinebisexuality. Rather, Israelite society perceived Yahweh primarily as a god,although Yahweh was viewed also as embodying traits or values expressed byvarious gendered metaphors and as transcending such particular renderings.Just as some features of El and Baal can be perceived in the nature ofYahweh, it is possible to trace some female images for Yahweh to the goddessAsherah or at least her symbol, the asherah. Near Eastern examples invokingvarious gods in female and male language demonstrate how pliable language fora god or goddess could be, incorporating even language of the opposite sex.Female language for Yahweh could have stemmed from the flexibility of divinelanguage. In those cases where the literary use of imagery specific to the asherahseems to function as the background for biblical divine language, as in Proverbs3:13-18, the goddess, or at least her symbol, apparently made an impact, just asthe gods El and Baal affected the shape of some male portrayals of Yahweh.Indeed, since the impact of the imagery of the asherah can be detected in someinstances, it may be argued that its effects were more widespread than can beperceived at present.
CHAPTER 4Yahweh and the Sun
1. The Biblical RecordThe amount of solar language used for Yahweh is quite limited in the Bible. Theclassic example is Psalm 84:12:kî šemeš ûmāgēn yhwh,traditionally rendered,“for a sun and a shield is Yahweh.” While this language is figurative (as noted insection 2 below), it assumes that the divine could be described in solar terms.Psalm 84 also reflects the larger context for the Bible’s application of solarlanguage to Yahweh. Psalm 84 displays the setting of a pilgrim longing for theexperience of God in the temple in Jeruslaem. Verse 9b speaks of Yahweh asbeing “seen in Zion.” The psalm presents a temple setting that explicitly drawson solar language for God to express the motif of “seeing God,” in the psalms anexpression for divine presence (Pss. 11:7; 17:15; 27:4, 13; 42:3; 63:3; cf. Judg.14:20, 22; cf. 1 Sam. 1:22), later transformed into a motif of seeing God or thedivine glory in the future (Isa. 35:2; 52:8; 66:5, 18).574Like Psalm 84, Psalms42-43 exhibit the setting of a pilgrim longing for the temple in Jerusalem. LikePsalm 84:9b, Psalm 42:3 speaks of “seeing God.” The solar language in Psalm84:12 would seem to constitute an expression for divine presence in theJerusalem temple. Indeed, the setting of Psalm 84 and the explicit reference tothe divine presence by the expression of “seeing God” in Psalm 84:9b supportsthis idea. The eastern orientation of the Jerusalem temple has led to speculativetheories regarding the solarized character of Yahweh.575Psalms of vigil, such asPsalms 17, 27, and 63,576and Ezekiel 8:16577similarly suggest that the sunevoked at least the luminescent dimension of the divine presence, perhaps inkeeping with a solar interpretation of Yahweh (cf. Zeph. 1:3; Ben Sira 49:7;Baruch 4:24). It might be argued that the simile for the appearance of the highpriest in Ben Sira 50:7, “like the sun shining on the temple of the King” (NAB),derived from solar theophanic language in the context of the temple. Otherpassages, such as Josh. 10:12-13, suggest the sun (and the moon) as deitiesultimately subservient to Yahweh.578There are other instances of solar metaphor for Yahweh. These includedescribing Yahweh with the verbal root*zrh,“rise,” in Deuteronomy 33:2,Isaiah 60:1, Hosea 6:3, and once in the Kuntillet ‘Ajrûd inscriptions.579This
word is the normal verb for the rising of the sun (Judg. 9:33; 2 Sam. 23:4; Nah.3:17; Jon. 4:8; Job 9:7; Ps. 104:4; Eccles. 1:5; cf. Judg. 5:31). Biblical andextrabiblical Yahwistic names with the elements*šḥr,“dawn,” zrh, “rise,” and*n(w)r, “light,” may point to a solarized Yahwism.580Ezekiel 8:16 and 2 Kings 23:5, 11 criticize solar worship in the Jerusalemtemple in the final decades of the Judean monarchy. Some scholars argue thatthese passages point to solar worship, either as an indigenous practice or as aresult of Mesopotamian or Aramaean influence.581Ezekiel 8:16 belongs to asection detailing a number of cultic practices (including worship of idols andwomen weeping for Tammuz) conducted in the temple precincts:And he brought me into the inner court of the house of the Lord; andbehold, at the door of the temple of the Lord, between the porch and thealtar, were about twenty-five men, with their backs to the temple of theLord, and their faces toward the east, worshiping the sun toward the east.The verse interprets this cultic activity that takes place in the temple asworship of the sun. It is of further interest that the location of the practice pointsto priests as the culprits, unless this interpretation anachronistically assumes thatonly priests were permitted in this part of the temple.In its denunciation of various temple practices, 2 Kings 23:11 includes “thechariots of the sun”(markĕbôt haššemeš).582The picture is apparently one ofchariots carrying the sun on its course, being pulled by horses. Archaeologicalfindings may add to this picture. Horse figurines with a sun disk above theirheads have been discovered at Iron Age levels at Lachish, Hazor, and Jerusalem.583The uppermost register of the tenth-century stand from Taanach likewisebears a sun disk above the body of a young bull.584At Ramat Rahel, two sealsdating to the Persian period (ca. 587-333) depict bulls with solar disks betweentheir horns.585Finally, the imagery of divine wings, as in Psalms 17:18, 36:7,57:1,61:4, and 63:7, invites comparison with the winged sun disk represented onpre-exilicseals(althoughtheimagerycouldhavecoalescedwiththeiconography of the cherubim in the Judean temple). It would appear fromEzekiel 8:16 and 2 Kings 23:11 that either solar worship or worship of asolarized Yahweh took place in the temple during the waning years of theJudean monarchy.Job 31:26-28 refers to an astral rite of some sort, although its precise setting isunclear:
If I have looked at the light [i.e., sun] when it shone,or the moon moving in splendor,and my heart has been secretly enticed,and my mouth has kissed my hand;this also would have been an iniquity to be punished by the judges,for I should have been false to God above.586Like 2 Kings 23:5, this passage connects solar worship with lunar devotion.Whether an indigenous development or a foreign import, these practices wereallowed by the Judean dynasty at times to take place within the cult of itsnational god.Several scholars situate solar or astral devotion in Iron II Judah within a largercontext of the “astralization” of the chief god in a number of Levantinepantheons.587The criticism of solar cult in the Bible may be approached from afurther religious perspective. Following ancient Near Eastern tradition, theprocession of divine “glory”(kābôd)described in Ezekiel 43:1-5 perhapscombines language from different realms of nature. The return of the warrior-god Ningirsu to his temple is rendered in both storm and solar language.588Anenameled tile from the reign of the ninth-century Assyrian monarch Tukulti-Ninurta II589also provides an analogue to the description of the divine in Ezekiel43:1-5. The tile depicts the god Assur590riding the winged sun disk with drawnbow aimed at the enemies of the king. On either side are storm clouds with rainfalling. Enuma Elish 1:101-2, 157, and 11:128-29 apply solar qualities toMarduk,althoughstormlanguageismorecharacteristicofhim.591Thecombination of solar and storm imagery and iconography in Mesopotamiansources and biblical texts raises an important issue. By combining two types ofnatural phenomena, Psalm 50:1-3 and Ezekiel 43:1-5 suggest that the divinenature is beyond identification with a single natural phenomenon. In effect,Yahweh is equated metaphorically with natural phenomena, but also has powerover and transcends these natural phenomena. Like Ningirsu and Marduk,Yahweh is “supernatural.”This perspective may help to explain criticism of the solar cult in the temple inEzekiel 8:16. According to this passage, solar rendering of Yahweh reduced thedivine to a form of natural idolatry, perhaps identified with the cult of a foreigndeity. It may be argued, however, that the “idolatry” was an indigenous form ofYahwistic cult. Psalm 84 and other evidence for solar language predicated ofYahweh militates against interpreting solar worship in the temple as non-Yahwistic. There is no evidence for a separate sun cult, and the explanation of
foreign influence remains a matter of speculation. Indeed, the notion that neo-Assyrian rulers imposed their religious practices on their Levantine subjects hasbeen discredited.592The theopolitical function of Yahwistic solar language maybe further understood in the context of solar language predicated of themonarchy, both in Judah and elsewhere.
2. The Role of the MonarchyAlthough the evidence is largely circumstantial, the application of solar languageand imagery to Yahweh may have gained momentum under the impetus of themonarchy. The title of “the (divine) sun” goes back to royal titularies beginningin the second half of the third millennium. The Mesopotamian rulers, Ur-Nammu, Amar-Sin, Lipit-Ishtar, Hammurapi, and Zimri-Lim, are compared tothe sun-god.593In international correspondence of the Late Bronze Age (1600-1200), solar language for monarchs is common. In this period, letters from ElAmarna and Ugarit attest to the use of the title “the Sun” for the kings of Egypt,Hatti, and Ugarit.594For example, in KTU 2.16.6-10 Talmiyanu speaks to hismother, Thariyelli, concerning his audience before the Ugaritic king:’umy td‘ ky‘rbt Ipn špš wpn špš nr by m’id,“My mother, you must know that I have enteredbefore the Sun and the face of the Sun shone upon me greatly.”595This text alsofurnishes background not only to Psalm 84:12’s image of the divine king as the“Sun” and the shining of his face, but also to the biblical language of the shiningof Yahweh’s face elsewhere (e.g., Pss. 4:7; 31:17; 34:6; 67:2; 80:4, 8, 20; 89:16;90:8; 119:25; Num. 6:24-26). Similarly, CTA 64 (KTU 3.1).24-25 reads:’argmnnqmd mlk ’ugrtdybllšpšmlkrbb‘lh,“The tribute of Niqmaddu king of Ugarit,which was brought to the Sun, the great king, his lord.”596Finally, EA 147:59-60 records how the speaker has asked through a messenger when he will enterinto the presence of the pharaoh. “Behold I have sent (a message) to the Sun, thefather of the king, my lord (asking): ‘When shall I see the face of the king, mylord?’”(ma-ti-mi i-mur pa-ni sarri be-li-ya).597This question bears a strikingresemblance to the wording of Psalm 42:3c: “When shall I come and behold theface of God?”598The Ugaritic and Amarna letters would suggest that during theLate Bronze Age, New Kingdom Egypt was the source of this theology.599Itspread to the rest of the Levant, leaving its imprint on biblical expressions fordeity and king.In the Iron Age, the Israelite king was described, as was Yahweh, in solarmetaphor, sometimes in combination with rain imagery. Like Hosea 6:3 andperhaps Ezekiel 43:2, which compare Yahweh to both the sun and the rain,6002
Samuel 23:3b-4 compares the king to the sun as it dawns and the rain as it causesgrass to grow:When one rules justly over people,ruling in the fear of God,he dawns(yizrah)on them like the morning light,like the sun bright upon a cloudless morning,like rain that makes grass to sprout from the earth.Like 2 Samuel 23:3b-4, Psalm 72:5-6 first invokes the sun as an image ofroyal durability and then uses the lush rains as a metaphor for the well-beinggenerated by the monarchy. The royal use of solar imagery extended to thewinged sun disk on the royal(lmlk)stamp seals found on jar handles.602Theinscriptionnryhwbnhmlk,“Neriyahu son of the king,” may be mentioned in thisconnection. Here a solar attribution to Yahweh may lie behind the name of theking’s son.603Given these bits of evidence for the royal background of divinesolar language, P. K. McCarter suggests revocalizing MTûmagēnin Psalm84:12 toûmāgān,understanding the half-verse to mean “for a sun and asovereign is Yahweh.”604Both titles render Yahweh as a divine suzerain. Theroyal context of this passage, exemplified by the reference to the “anointed” ofYahweh in verse 10, supports this interpretation.The use of solar imagery for the monarch continued into the postexilic period.Malachi 3:20605utilizes solar imagery to paint a picture of Israel’s future saviorand the effects that savior will have on Israel:But for you who fear my name the sun of righteousness shall rise(zārěbāh)with healing in its wings.Similarly, Isaiah 58:8 uses solar language to describe the “theophany of therighteous,” with the divine glory serving as the rearguard (cf. Judg. 5:31):Then shall your light(’ôrekā)break forth like the dawn(kaššahar),and your healing shall spring up(tismāh)speedily;your righteousness shall go before you,the glory of Yahweh shall be your rearguard.Like 2 Samuel 23:3-4 and Psalm 72:5-6, the first part of this verse employssolar imagery606and the second evokes imagery of natural growth. Isaiah 58:8perhaps applies the royal theology expressed in 2 Samuel 23:3-4,607not to a
royal group, but to Israel as a whole.608The royal background is perhaps echoedin the verbtismāh,although Isaiah 58:8 in following 2 Samuel 23:4b employsthis verb in its natural sense. Davidic kings were compared to a “shoot,”semah(Jer. 23:5; 33:15; Zech. 3:8; cf. Zech. 6:12; KAI 43:10-11; Isa. 11:1, 4-5, 10; cf.4:2; Ben Sira 47:22; 51:12 h).609Both Malachi 3:20 and Isaiah 58:8 mentionhealing, a blessing evidently rooted in the old royal idea that the monarchprovides well-being for his subjects. Finally, the royal iconography of thewinged sun disk compares well with the description of the royal scion inMalachi 3:20.Whiletheevidenceismeager,solarlanguageforYahwehapparentlydeveloped under the monarchy’s influence. Stated differently, the application ofsolar language to Yahweh was a consequence of Yahweh’s status as nationalgod.Moreover,thereareLateBronzeandIronAgeanaloguesforthisdevelopment. In Assyria, the solar disk, originally the symbol of the sun-god,Shamash, was used for the national god, Assur.610Similarly, “Babyloniantheologians” (to use W. G. Lambert’s term) call their national god, Marduk, the“sun-god of the gods” in Enuma Elish 1:102 and 6:127.611A small god-listidentifies various deities with specific functions of Marduk.612Shamash is the“Marduk of justice.” Another text states that “Shamash is Marduk of the law-suit.”613On a stele from Ugarit, the winged sun disk belongs to a scenedepicting the enthroned El.614The sun disk appears withb‘l hmnon an inscribedstone known as the Kilamuwa orthostat.615These analogues illustrate theassimilation of solar imagery to a chief deity. The solar imagery for the patrongod in the royal setting served to enhance the power of the monarchy throughidentification with the power of the divine king. More specifically, the solarimagery, insofar as it was applied to both the king and the god, enhanced thedivine aura of the human king.To summarize, solar language for Yahweh apparently developed in twostages. First, it originated as part of the Canaanite, and more generally NearEastern, heritage of divine language as an expression of general theophanicluminosity. Like Ningirsu, Assur, and Marduk, Yahweh could be rendered ineither solar or storm terms or both together. Second, perhaps under the influenceof the monarchy, in the first millennium the sun became one component of thesymbolic repertoire of the chief god in Israel just as it did in Assur, Babylon, andUgarit.616In Israel it appears to have been a special feature of the southernmonarchy, since the available evidence is restricted to Judah; it is not attested inthe northern kingdom. Furthermore, it seems to have been a special expression
of Judean royal theology. It expressed and reinforced dimensions of both divineand human kingship. This form of solarized Yahwism may have appeared to theauthors of Ezekiel 8 and 2 Kings 23 as an idolatrous solar cult incompatible withtheir notions of Yahweh.617
3. The Assimilation of Solar ImageryThe solar descriptions of Yahweh during the monarchy perhaps furnish thebackground to descriptions of the sun in biblical cosmology. According to N.Sarna, Psalm 19 uses solar language as a polemic against solar worship in Israel,as reflected in Ezekiel 8:16 and 2 Kings 23.618The tone of Psalm 19 is, however,not polemical. In addition, the sun in Psalm 19:4-6 plays a role perhapsanalogous to the Torah in verses 7-10: both attest to the glory of God. Similarly,the function of the sun as providing order in the cosmos in Genesis 1:14 andPsalm 104:19 has been related to this same theme by H. P. Stähli.619Thesereligious expressions are not to be seen only as polemic, although this point isfrequently made in the case of Genesis 1:14.620Rather, the sun serves as apositive sign of order in Yahweh’s creation. Reduced to a sign of divine order,solar imagery in these cases represents instances of “a harmless sun” (Wisd. ofSol. 18:3; cf. Letter of Jeremiah 6:60; Odes of Solomon 15:2).621
CHAPTER 5Yahwistic Cultic Practices
1. Yahwistic Cultic Symbols and SitesAs chapter 3 describes, the biblical record condemns the goddess Asherah muchless frequently than the asherah. The symbol was initially an acceptable featureof Yahwistic cult, but later was treated as a non-Yahwistic aberration. In legalmaterials, the symbol of the asherah is not alone the object of opprobrium.Exodus 34:13 condemns not only the asherim of the other peoples previously inthe land, but also “their altars”(mizběhōtām)and “their pillars”(massēbōtām).Pillars are denounced also in Deuteronomy 16:22 following a condemnation ofthe asherah in the previous verse. To this list of abominations Deuteronomy 7:5and 12:3 add “their graven images”(pesîlêhem).Prophetic condemnations of theasherah and asherim likewise include other cultic paraphernalia. Isaiah 17:8 and27:9 denounce other deities’ altars, asherim, and incense altars(hammānîm).Jeremiah 17:2 includes not only altars and asherim in its criticism, but also the“high places”(bāmôt)where these objects were considered to have been used.The oracle of Micah 5:10-15 is more inclusive; sorceries, soothsayers, images,pillars, and asherim are all to be swept away by Yahweh.622Some of these practices belonged to Yahwistic cult prior to and following theperiods when legal and prophetic condemnations were raised against them. Likethe asherah, the “high places” were acceptable both in the period of the Judgesand during the monarchy.623In 1 Samuel 9-10 Samuel is described con-ductingworship at a high place, and in 1 Kings 3:4-5, Solomon goes to the high place ofGibeon, where Yahweh appears to him in a dream. A Deuteronomistic apologyfor Solomon’s use of the high place (cf. Deut. 12:1-14), verse 2 reads: “Thepeople were sacrificing at the high places, however, because no house had yetbeen built for the name of the Lord.” Verse 3 relates how Solomon sacrificedand burned incense at the high places, indicating royal support for thesetraditional religious practices. The text of 2 Kings 23:8 (cf. 2 Chron. 14:4)suggests that high places functioned in Israel down to the reign of Josiah. Amos7:9 refers to the high places in the northern kingdom. Like the royal religion ofthe central sanctuaries (Amos 7:13), the high places were staffed with priests (1Kings 13:2, 33; 23:20; 2 Kings 23:8-9) who conducted sacrifice (2 Kings 18:22;23:15; Ezek. 18:6,15; 20:28; cf. 2 Kings 17:11; Ezek. 6:3-4). The geographical
range of the high places likewise reflects widespread popular support for highplaces. High places were present in both rural (Ezek. 6:13; cf. Hos. 4:13) andurban settings (1 Kings 13:32; 2 Kings 23:8),624probably for clan religion, asopposed to sanctuaries and temples, which operated for higher levels of socialcomplexity (tribes and nations), under “higher” authorities (traditional priestlylines at sanctuaries, some employed as monarchic functionaries).Like the asherah, high places were not specific to Israelite society, butbelonged to a broader cultural picture. The Mesha stele (KAI 181:3), Isaiah 15:2,16:12, and Jeremiah 48:35 indicate that high places were a feature of Moabitereligion as well. Perhaps, like the asherah and high places, some of the otheritems mentioned in Micah 5:10-15 were initially acceptable in Yahwistic cult butlater condemned. This was also the fate of some practices concerning the deadand child sacrifice, as the following sections illustrate.
2. Practices Associated with the DeadThe practices in the Bible concerning the dead belonged to Israel’s Canaaniteheritage. Feeding the dead (KTU 1.20-22; 1.142), consulting the dead (KTU1.124; 1.161; cf. KAI 214), and mourning the dead (KTU 1.5 VI 11-22, 31-1.6 I5) were all part of Canaanite religion. Ancient Israel continued most of thesepractices in juxtaposition with Yahwistic cult. A work by K. Spronk has soughtto minimize the Canaanite/Israelite nature of Israelite customs pertaining to thedead by distinguishing between Yahwistic religion and popular religion.625Thefirst is identified as Yahwistic and eschews practices associated with theCanaanites.Thesecondisconsiderednon-YahwisticandembracestheCanaanite customs of the dead. Spronk defines neither the constitution anddevelopment of official Yahwistic religion, nor how this Yahwistic religion orthe “mainstream of Yahwistic religion” functioned with official status in thenation, nor how it gave rise to the Hebrew Bible, assumed to be the officialexpression of “official Yahwistic religion.” In short, the official religious policyof pre-exilic Israel does not conform to the societal bearers of the officialreligion defined by Spronk. To believe Isaiah (28:7; 30:10) and Jeremiah (2:26-28; 6:13), all sectors of Israelite society, including priests, prophets, and kings,participated in what was later condemned as non-Yahwistic religion. Thisproblem is by no means restricted to practices pertaining to the dead but todeities and their cult symbols as well. Therefore, either the Law and the literaryprophets do not represent the official religion of Israel, or a clear distinctionbetween official and popular religion cannot be supported, at least for somedeities and some cultic practices. As with the symbol of the asherah, somepractices involving the dead, initially conducted without legal or propheticcriticism, were later regarded as non-Yahwistic.626The only practice associated with the dead that was possibly forbidden prior tothe seventh century was necromancy. Condemnation of necromancy is notrecorded for any prophet before Isaiah (8:19; cf. 19:3; 29:4; cf. 57:6) or any legalcode before the Holiness Code (Lev. 19:26-28; 20:6-7; cf. Deut. 18:10-11). Theonly passage perhaps suggesting that necromancy was viewed negatively before750 is 1 Samuel 28, the story of the Necromancer of Endor. The chapter tells
how by means of a female medium Saul inquired of the dead Samuel, whoseappearance in verse 13 is called’ělōhîm,“a divine one.” Verse 3 relates: “andSaul had put away the mediums and wizards of the land”(wěšā’ûl hēsîr hā’ōbôtwě’et-hayyidě‘ōnîm mēhā’āres).This verse claims that Saul had banishednecromancers. It may be noted in passing that 1 Samuel 28 does not addressother practices involving the dead condemned in later legal and propheticmaterial. The material in 1 Samuel 28:3, as noted by commentators,627mayhave been an editorial addition. The narrator, perhaps a Deuteronomistic one,supplies background information, and indeed, some formulas in this verse arereminiscent of Deuteronomy 18:10-11. As in Deuteronomy 18:10-11, the issuein 1 Samuel 28:3 involves securing otherworldly information from a sourcedeemed unacceptable to the author.628The concern was not simply what wasacceptable to so-called normative Yahwistic religion. Rather, the issue concernsa form of inquiry that competed with prophecy in ancient Israel. Like Isaiah8:16-20 and Deuteronomy 18:9-22, 1 Samuel 28:3 frames the question of inquiryas a form of appropriating information from sources that some pre-exilicprophets and Deuteronomists considered wrong. Indeed, necromancy competedwith prophecy (Isa. 8:19-20; 29:4; cf. Lev. 19:26). Later tradition understood thenecromancy described in 1 Samuel 28 as an occasion of prophecy (Ben Sira46:20). What is reflected in 1 Samuel 28:3 is either a later belief that Saul hadbanished necromancy or, less likely, a genuine pre-750 negative attitude towardnecromancy.629Like 1 Samuel 28:3, Psalm 106:28 and Numbers 25:2 have been taken as earlycriticisms of cult practices pertaining to the dead. Psalm 106:28 reads: “Theyyoked themselves to Baal Peor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead”(zibhê mētîm).This verse is dependent on Numbers 25:2,630which does not condemn practicesassociated with the dead; rather, it forbids “sacrifices of their gods”(zibhê’ělōhêhen).Psalm 106:28 condemns the sacrifices intended for the dead.Elsewhere the dead are called’ělōhîm,“gods,” as in 1 Samuel 28:3 and Isaiah8:19. KTU 1.6 VI 45-49 illustrates this usage. In these four lines,rp’im,“rephaim,” is parallel with ’ilnym, “divinities,” and’ilm,“gods,” is parallel withmtm, “the dead.” The second and third terms are etymologically related toHebrew’ělōhîm,“gods.” Similarly, Akkadian ilu and Phoenician’lnare used forthe dead. Numbers 25:2 does not address the issue of sacrifices to the dead; onlyPsalm 106:28 does so. Psalm 106:40-47 refers to the Exile, indicating that thispsalm was exilic or later.631To be sure, it could be argued that verse 28 predatesthe Exile; nonetheless, it is unlikely that this verse is historically pertinent forexamining practices with respect to the dead before the seventh century.
Prior to ca. 750, Israelites engaged not only in necromancy but probably inother practices pertaining to the dead. Early veneration for the dead probablyincluded funerary mourning for the dead, feeding the dead, and invoking thedead as sources of divine information and perhaps aid. Negative criticism ornegative depictions of customs concerning the dead first appeared around themiddle of the eighth century, perhaps as a response to the competition thatnecromancy posed to prophecy. During the Iron Age, other practices associatedwith the dead were conducted without conflicting with the cult of Yahweh; noteven later criticisms recorded in the Bible suggest otherwise.Explicit objections to feeding the dead with the tithe of Yahweh appear in theseventh century (Deut. 26:14; cf. Psalm 16, and MT Ps. 22:30, which refers tothe dead).632Following a late eighth-century criticism of necromancy in Isaiah8:16-20a,633Isaiah 8:20b-21 possibly describes the dead who go about the landhungry:Surely for this word which they speak there is no dawn. He will passthrough the land, greatly distressed and hungry; and when he is hungry, hewill be enraged and will curse his king and God, and turn his face upward;and they will look to the earth, but behold, distress and darkness, the gloomof anguish; and they will be thrust into thick darkness.This passage plays on the time of day when necromancy takes place, namelyat night (1 Sam. 28:8; cf. Isa. 65:4). The “word” is not to be successful; it has no“dawn.” The subject of the verbs is unclear. MT and lQIsaaread the verbs in thesingular beginning in verse 21 with‘ābar;LXX renders the verbs in the plural.The one whose word has no dawn has no immediate antecedent; the closestantecedent ishammētîm,“the dead,” in verse 19b, although this section is oftenregarded as a secondary addition, since it seems unconnected to the precedingmaterial.634The antecedents often proposed for these verbs are Jerusalem or theland.635Yet there is no comparable description of either Jerusalem or the land inbiblical literature. The verbs perhaps characterize the dead, as found elsewhere.The interpretation of*‘brfor the dead has been maintained for Ezekiel 39:11,14.636This interpretation would clarify the images at the end of Isaiah 8:21b-22,that the dead will turn their faces upward to the earth and that they will be thrustinto the darkness of the netherworld. The terms “king” and “god” are moredifficult to understand, but elsewhere these terms both refer to the dead. Biblicaland extrabiblical parallels to the use of “god” for the dead have been notedabove. The term of king (mlk) may refer to the leader of the dead, like Ugaritic
mlkin KTU 1.108.1 and perhaps surviving in a few biblical passages, such asIsaiah 57:9, a passage also dealing with necromancy (cf. Amos 5:26; Zeph. 1:5,8; see below). In KTU 1.108.1,rp’uis called the “eternal king”(mlk ‘Im),probably designating his leadership of the dead described in the following linesas “companions” or “divined ones”(hbrm).637In Isaiah 8:21b the dead cursetheir leadership, their “king” and “god,” and look upward to the land of theliving for help. In any case, Isaiah 8:20b-22, although secondary in nature, maycontinue the criticism of Isaiah 8:16-20a against necromancy. Necromancyappears in prophetic condemnations dating to the seventh and sixth centuries(Jer. 27:9; Ezek. 13:17-23).Legislation forbids the specific mourning customs of cutting hair or skin onaccount of the dead (Lev. 19:27-28; 21:5; Deut. 14:1 ). These texts appear tobelong also to the second half of the monarchy, although the legal material of theHoliness Code is difficult to date.638These funerary customs passed uncriticizedin the prophets of the eighth (Isa. 7:20; 15:3; 22:12; Hos. 7:14; Amos 8:10; Mic.1:16; cf. Isa. 19:3) and sixth centuries (Jer. 7:29; 41:5). Only necromancy mayhave been viewed negatively prior to 750, if 1 Samuel 28:3 reflects historicallyreliable information. In 2 Kings 21:6 it is reported that Manasseh permittednecromancy,and2Kings23:24creditsJosiahwitheliminating(bī‘ēr)necromancers and mediums. Down to this late point in the monarchy andperhaps beyond, necromancy flourished.It would appear also that prior to the seventh century, feeding the dead andfunerary practices of mourning and veneration for the dead flourished in varioussocial strata and quarters of Israelite society. The ritual actions surrounding thedead perhaps formed a central feature of family life throughout Israel’s history.A. Malamat has made the interesting suggestion that the feast mentioned in 1Samuel 20:6 represented a family funerary celebration.639During the reigns ofsome monarchs, various funerary practices flourished under royal auspices.Royal tombs were presumably elaborate affairs (Isa. 22:15-17; Ezek. 32:11-32;cf. Isa. 28:16-20), although not different in type from the graves of nonroyalty(cf. Judith 16:23).640Israelite royalty participated in the common West Semiticcustom of erecting funerary steles. According to 2 Samuel 18:18, Absalomerected a funerary stele in his own memory, “for he thought, ‘I have no son toinvoke my name,’” ba῾ăbûrhazkîr šemî(cf. Isa. 56:5; 66:3).641A Persian-periodinscription from Kition records a similar funerary inscription:msbt lmbhy ...᾽᾿lmškb nhty l‘lm w/’šty,“a stele for among the living ... on my eternal restingplaceandformywife”(KAI35:1-3).AHellenistic-periodPhoenicianinscription from the environs of Athens (KAI 53) likewise attests to the practice
of erecting a stele (mṣbt)as a “memorial,” skr, a term apparently cognate with*zkr. A third-century Phoenician inscription from Lapethos (KAI 43:6) records acommemoration for a father by a son (cf. KAI 34:1; CIS 44:1; 46:1-2; 57:1-2;58:1; 59:1; 60:1; 61:1; RES 1208). This Phoenician funerary practice is alsomentioned by Philo of Byblos (PE 1.10.10): “He says that when these men died,those who survived them dedicated staves to them. They worshipped the stelesandconductedannualfestivalsforthem.”642Thepracticeoferectingcommemorative steles is also attested in the Ugaritic texts (KTU 1.17 I 28; 6.13;6.14).643Interacting with deceased ancestors was a practice that occurred amongAramaean and Israelite royalty. KAI 214:16, 21 records how the Aramaean kingPanammu entreats his sons to invoke the name (yzkr šm)of the god Hadad andhis own name after his death.644In 2 Chronicles 16:12 is recorded a traditionthat Asa sought medical help from “doctors”(ĕrõpĕ‘îm)for his diseased feet. Acontextual difficulty suggests that the correct reading may be not rōpĕ’îm but*rĕpā῾îm, the dead ancestors. According to the verse Asa’s feet contracted anunspecified disease. The verse continues: “yet even in his disease he [Asa] didnot seek Yahweh, but sought help from physicians (rōpĕ’îm).” The contrastdrawn between the help of Yahweh and the aid of physicians appears forced, asseeking help from doctors is not contrary to seeking help from Yahweh.However, if the reading of the word were notrōpĕ’îm, “physicians,” but *răpā’îm, “the dead,” the objection would be clear.645Furthermore, the verb*drš,translated in this context as “seek help,” is a regular term for divination. SeekinghelpfromdivinizeddeadancestorsrunscountertotheprohibitionsinDeuteronomy 18:10-11 and Isaiah 8:19-20 and the narrative of 1 Samuel 28:3.Though securing the favor of deceased ancestors was criticized in the eighthcentury and afterward in Israel, it was part of Israel’s Canaanite heritage,paralleled in Ugaritic literature (KTU 1.161).In 2 Kings 9:34-37 is apparently reflected the special concern for the properburial of the royal dead. T. J. Lewis has proposed that the description of thedisposal of Jezebel’s corpse in this passage refers to traditional funerary custom.The command of Jehu to attend to Jezebel’s corpse,piqdû-nā’,does not meansimply to “take care of” or “see to” in a general sense. Rather, this root has acultic sense, tied to funerary ritual. It means to “act as a pāqidu on her behalf infulfilling the customary funerary rites, including the essential services of the cultof the dead.”646The command is motivated by Jezebel’s royal lineage, “for shewas a king’s daughter”(kîbat-melek hî’). If this interpretation of this passage iscorrect, it would suggest that Jehu adhered to traditional funerary practices. With
regard to practices involving the dead, royal and popular religion belonged to thesame fabric.Support for traditional practices pertaining to the dead extended beyond thelives of common people and royalty. At least some priests tolerated royalfunerary traditions (Ezek. 43:7-9). The prophets in the early periods did notobject to necromancy. Here comparing the criticisms against the marzeah feastconducted by the well-to-do in Amos 6:1-7 and Jeremiah 16:5-9 is illustrative.647The earlier prophet Amos deplores the marzeah not because of any funeraryassociation, as the later Jeremiah does, but because of the exploitation of thepoor symbolized in the lavish luxuries enjoyed in the feast. The story of Elisha’sbones in 2 Kings 13:20-21 also shows that prophetic circles in the northernkingdom prior to its fall could treat the power of the dead in a positive manner(cf. Ben Sira 48:13).Belief in the life of the dead continued for centuries. In the postexilic period,practices concerning the dead persisted. Isaiah 57:6-7 mocks the Israelitepractice of feeding the dead: “with the dead of the wadi is your portion, they,they are your lot. Even to them have you poured out a drink offering, you havebrought a cereal offering.”648Verse 9 mocks necromancy: “You have journeyedto the king(mlk)with oil, and multiplied your perfumes; you sent your envoysfar off and sent down even to Sheol.” Isaiah 65:4 criticizes “those who sit amonggraves and lodge in vaults.” Feeding the dead continued in the Hellenistic andRoman periods. While Ben Sira condones proper lamentation and burial for thedead (38:16-17), he takes a negative view of feeding the dead: “Good thingspoured out upon a mouth that is closed are like offerings of food placed upon agrave” (30:18).649Tobit 4:17 refers positively to either feeding the dead or theliving mourners on the behalf of the dead: “Place your bread on the grave of therighteous, but give none to sinners.”Necromancy and prayer to the dead for help likewise continued for a longtimeinJewishsociety.NecromancyiscondemnedinIsaiah59:9.Communication with the dead is discussed also in a number of Talmudicpassages and in intertestamental literature. According to Shabbat 152a-b, thedead hear what is said in their presence until decomposition begins; after thatpoint the righteous dead cannot be reached through necromancy. According toBerakot 18b, a man visiting a cemetery received a message from a dead woman:“Tell my mother to send me my comb and my tube of eye-paint by so and sowho is coming here tommorrow.”650The same passage relates how a man heardtwo spirits in conversation. Praying to the dead is mentioned in 2 Baruch85:12651and Pseudo-Philo 33:5.652According to Sotah 34b, Caleb went to
Hebron to the grave of the patriarchs and prayed: “My fathers, ask mercy forme.”Later Jewish literature points to communication with the dead and belief intheir powers. At the beginning of the tenth century A.D., the Karaite scholarSahl ben Mazli’ah complained:How can I remain silent when some Jews are behaving like idolators? Theysit at the graves, sometimes sleeping there at night, and appeal to the dead:“Oh, Rabbi Yose ha-Gelih! Heal me! Grant me children!” They kindlelights there and offer incense....Concern for the dead and belief in the dead’s powers derived from Israel’searliest Canaanite heritage, as reflected in the Ugaritic texts.654
3. ThemlkSacrificeThe divine recipients of themlksacrifice vary within the same cultures. In Israelmlk in Jeremiah 19:5 and 32:35 (cf. 2 Kings 17:16-17) is a term for a humansacrifice intended allegedly for Baa1.655Psalm 106:34-38 attributes childsacrifice to Baal Peor. According to 2 Kings 17:31 the Sepharvites devoted childsacrifice to two gods, Adrammelek and Anammelek.656Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5, and32:35 deny thatmlksacrifice was offered in Yahweh’s name; these denials maysuggest that offering this sacrifice in Yahweh’s name occurred (cf. Lev. 18:21;20:3; Genesis 22). Ezekiel 20:25-26 provides a theological rationale for Yahwehcausing child sacrifice:Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by whichthey could not have life; and I defiled them through their very gifts inmaking them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; Idid it that they might know that I am the Lord.These passages indicate that in the seventh century child sacrifice was a Judeanpractice performed in the name of Yahweh.657Isaiah 30:27-33 appears as thebest evidence for the early practice of child sacrifice in Israel. According to P.Mosca, the image of child sacrifice in this eighth- or seventh-century passageserves as a way to describe Yahweh’s coming destruction of Israel.658In this textthere is no offense taken at the tophet, the precinct of child sacrifice. It wouldappear that Jerusalemite cult included child sacrifice under Yahwistic patronage;it is this that Leviticus 20:2-5 deplores. Ezekiel 16:20, 21, 36 and 23:39 assumethatchildsacrificewasintendedforamultiplicityofdeities.Thelegalproscriptions against child sacrifice in the Holiness Code (Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5)and in Deuteronomy 12:31 and 18:10 are unclear regarding the divine recipients.Leviticus 20:2-5 suggests that this sacrifice is not to take place in Yahweh’stemple, perhaps to avoid performance of it in his name.Phoenician and Punic texts designate more than one recipient of the mlksacrifice. Amlkoffering is perhaps attested once for Eshmun in the onlymlktextfrom the Phoenician mainland.659Evidence for amlk-childsacrifice has also
been reported for an unpublished Phoenician basalt stele discovered in 1993 inthe southeastern Turkish village of Injirli.660Dated to the late eighth century, theinscription recounts two battles. Zuckerman and Kaufman comment : “Ofparticular importance ... is the detailed discussion of the use ofmulk-sacrificesofsheep, horses, and — if we read correctly — first-born humans in the process ofwar, and the gods’ reactions to those sacrifices.” Zuckerman and Kaufman relatethis discovery to themlk-sacrificeknown from around the Mediterranean. Themlksacrifice in the western Mediterranean was offered tob‘l hmnand tnt.661According to Diodorus Siculus’Library of HistoryXX, 14:4-7, Kronos was therecipient of child sacrifices at Carthage.662A tradition of some version of infantsacrifice introduced by the Phoenicians to Crete in the early Iron Age may liebehind a number of reports in classical sources.663The Cretans sent theirfirstborn to Delphi to be sacrificed (Plutarch,Theseus16, citing Aristotle,Constitution of Bottiaeans).664According to PE 4.16.7 (citing Porphyrius), theCretans used to sacrifice their children to Kronos. Clement of Alexandria(Protreptikos pros HellenasIII 42.5) cites Antikleides on the Lyktians in Cretewho sacrifice men to Zeus.665The story of the Minotaur may partake of thesame tradition. A semigod with the head of a bull, in Near Eastern fashion, theMinotaur demands that the Athenians send him seven youths and maidens everyyear, before Theseus slays him and ends the tribute.666Punic sources provide some data regarding the site and mode of presentationfor child sacrifice. Sacred precincts for child sacrifice are known from NorthAfrica, Sicily, Sardinia, Spain, and possibly at Tyre.667The precinct at Carthagewas an open-air enclosure surrounded by a wall.668The size of the precinct was,according to the excavator, L. E. Stager, at least 5,000-6,000 square metersduring the fourth and third centuries. The number of urns estimated for thefourth and third centuries was placed at about 20,000. Both the size of theprecinct and the number of urns indicate that the use of the precinct was notsporadic. Stager demonstrates on the basis of the excavated urns that thepercentage of infant burials did not decrease over time; rather, they increased. Inthe seventh- and sixth-century sample of eighty urns, human-only burialsconstituted 62.5 percent of all burials (fifty), human plus animal 7.5 percent(six), and animal-only 30 percent (twenty-four). In the fourth-century sample offifty urns, human-only burials increased to 88 percent (forty-four), animaldecreased to 10 percent (five), and human plus animal decreased to 2 percent(one). Other scholars, such as M. Fantar and G. Picard, have argued againstStager’s interpretation of the data.669H. Benichou-Safar further suggested that
ancient witnesses to Carthaginian child-sacrifice represent anti-Carthaginianpropaganda. She also noted irregularities in the rate of children’s burials atCarthage and proposed that in fact, child sacrifice was rare, a point that would bein keeping with the literary evidence cited below, in particular Philo of Byblos(PE 1.10.44 = 4.6.11). Despite several issues raised and scholarly demurrals,670some level of child sacrifice evidently took place at Carthage. This is not toprecludethedevelopmentofadditionalculturalunderstandings,suchas“sacrifice” of children as a religious ritual to address infant and child mortality.Possible information about the mode of presentation of child sacrifice comesfrom a tower discovered beneath a mid-fifth- to early-fourth-century Punicnecropolis at Pozo Moro, a site near the Mediterranean coast approximately 125kilometers southwest of Valencia.671Parts of a few panels to the tower survive.One depicts the presentation of a small person or child in a bowl to a double-headed deity or monster seated on a throne. With the left hand, the monster holdsthe bowl bearing the child, whose head and feet are visible. With the right hand,the deity or monster holds the left hind leg of a pig, lying on its back on a tablein front of the monster’s throne. Behind the table stands a human figure wearinga long fringed tunic or robe. He raises a small bowl in a gesture of offering.Another figure across from the deity or monster appears to be standing, withright hand upraised holding a sword with a curved blade and with a head shapedlike an animal, perhaps a horse or a bull. The human figure in the tunic or robemight be a priest, reminiscent of a priest carrying a child for sacrifice depictedon a stele excavated from the precinct for child sacrifice at Carthage.672Thesecond human figure perhaps effects the cutting of the child. The animal shapeof the head may represent a ritual mask, an item known from Carthage, otherPunic sites, and on the Phoenician mainland.673The function of some masks apparently was cultic. Cultic masks have beendiscovered in Late Bronze Age levels at ancient Emar and Hadidi in Syria and atDan, Hazor, and Gezer in Israel.674The mask at Dan appears on the face of acult musician, illustrating another cultic use of masks at this time. In the IronAge Levant, masks are more common. Masks have been found at Tel Qasile(twelfth to tenth century), Tel Shera (tenth century), and Hazor (eighth century).Fromtheninthcenturyonward,masksalongthePhoenicianlitoralareattested.675In view of these discoveries, L. E. Stager676has suggested followingH. Gressman that BH masweh in Exodus 34:33-35, customarily regarded as a“veil,” is a cultic mask; his suggestion deserves consideration. In the presentform of the text, the masweh does not funtion as a cultic mask, since Mosesremoves the masweh when he communes with Yahweh. Indeed, the force of the
text is to show Moses’ experience of Yahweh’s presence, since the masweh“horned” (qāran), a theophanic expression like “horns,”qarnayim,in Habakkuk3:4.677Yet, the passage exhibits some internal tensions,678which might point toan earlier stage of the tradition representing a different view of the maswehcompared to the present form of the text. Two possibilities may be suggested.Either the verbqãranreferred originally to the horns of an animal mask,although they were understood in later tradition as theophanic language; or thedescription of the masweh drew on the imagery of the cult mask to form itstheophanous description of the divine presence’s impact on Moses.Philo of Byblos (PE 1.10.44 = 4.6.11 ) describes the royal setting of childsacrifice: “Among ancient peoples in critically dangerous situations it wascustomary for the rulers of a city or nation, rather than lose everyone, to providethe dearest of children as a propitiatory sacrifice to the avenging deities. Thechildren thus given up were slaughtered according to a secret ritual.” Thisdescription is followed by Kronos’ act of child sacrificed.679Before sacrificinghis “only son,” Kronos prepares him “in royal attire” (ten chõran basilikõ),perhaps an echo of the sacrificial term mlk.680The motif of the “only son” to besacrificed appears also in Genesis 22:2, and perhaps yāhîd, “only one,” inZechariah 12:10b should be understood against this background. The expressionof “only son” is not a literal one, but conveys the high value set on the child.Stager has suggested on the basis of double interment in urns of baby bones atCarthage that an “only child” was not literally involved.681PE 1.10.33 alsorelates: “At the occurrence of a fatal plague, Kronos immolated his only son tohis father Ouranos.”682Kronos had many other sons according to Philo ofByblos (PE 1.10.21, 24, 26).AnumberofwarreliefsdatingtoNewKingdomEgyptconfirmthecircumstances of child sacrifice in the Levant.683Scenes depicting the Egyptiansiege of Canaanite cities include the sacrifice of children with various culticpersonnel in attendance. The depiction of Ashkelon under siege by Merneptah’sarmy is perhaps the most dramatic. Four men extend their hands to the sky,while three women kneel below them. The chief stands before them with aburning brazier in hand, and before him is a man with a young child. The child’sarms and legs are limp, indicating that the child is dead. The same offeringappears on the left hand side of the scene.A battle relief of Ramses II at Medinet Habu likewise depicts the lowering ofthe limp bodies of two children over the wall. Here two braziers are alight asindividuals raise their hands. Ramses II’s battle against the Asiatic enemies atthe city of Dapur, depicted at Abu Simbel, includes a child depicted on the
citadel, next to a woman. To their right, the chief stands holding a brazier, thistime flameless. The child is not dead, perhaps preserving an earlier part of theritual prior to the child’s demise.The temple of Beit el-Wali in Nubia contains another depiction of childsacrifice in the midst of a battle conducted by Ramses II. It again shows a chiefwith brazier raised. This time, however, a woman lowers a child whose limbs arenot flexed as in the scene from Medinet Habu, perhaps indicating that the childis not dead. This scene includes an inscription extolling Baal, probably as therecipient of the sacrifice. These scenes illustrate the indigenous Canaanitecharacter of the rite and its specific context in battle.Late Bronze Age remains from Amman included burned bones of infants,evidence of the cult of child sacrifice in Transjordan.684It is indicated in 2 Kings3:27, 16:3 (//2 Chron. 28:3), 21:6 (//2 Chron. 33:6) and PE 1.10.44 (= 4.6.11 )that in Moab, Judah, and Phoenicia, child sacrifice was a form ofmlksacrifice,performed primarily in times of national crisis.685Themlksacrifices were notconfined to royalty in Carthage, although it might be argued thatmlk b‘lmaypreserve this distinctive royal background. According to P. Mosca,mlk b‘l(e.g.,KAI 61A:1-2) represents themlksacrifice by nobles or families owning land, asopposed tomlk’dm (e.g., KAI 61B:1-2; 106:1-2; 109:1-2; 110:1), themlksacrifice of a commoner.686If one were to follow the etymology of mlk, it mightbe supposed that themlkperhaps originated either as a Canaanite royal childsacrifice devoted to the main god of the locality or a sacrifice devoted to thedeity considered in the locality as the king of the pantheon.687Themlk’dmmight indicate that any hypothetical royal background had been lost by the timethe Carthaginians practiced child sacrifice.As support for connecting child sacrifice to a godmlk, M. H. Pope and G. C.Heider invoke Ugaritic attestations tomlkdwelling in Ashtaroth (‘ttrt).688AsPope, Heider, and Pardee have argued, Ugariticmlkwas the name of a god or anepithet of a god, perhaps to be identified withrp’u mlk῾lmin KTU 1.108.1 (Cf.milkuin Emar 472:62’; 473:15’).689Bothmlkandrp‘udwell in Ashtaroth,assuming that‘ttrtandhdr῾yin the following lines are place-names and notepithets.690The wordmlkin these passages refers to a god or at least a divineepithet. Even so, this deity may not pertain to the cult of the dead at Ugarit.Indeed, Ugariticmlkappears to be unrelated to either child sacrifice or thePhoenician sacrificial term mlk.691Although Phoenicianmlk‘štrt may be relatedto the Ugaritic divine name or epithet, mlk, plus place-name Ashtaroth (‘ṯtrt),692neither Phoenicianmlk‘štrtnor Ugaritic mlk occurs in the context of the mlk
sacrifice or a child sacrifice described in any other way. Furthermore, Ugariticdoes not attest to either child sacrifice or the sacrificial term,mlk. For thesereasons, Heider’s connection of Ugaritic mlk, the divine name or epithet, withPhoenicianmlk,the sacrificial term, is conjectural.Nonetheless, the Ugaritic references tomlkbear on the biblical evidenceregarding mlk as a title for the leader of the dead. This name or epithet evidentlysurvives in a handful of biblical passages. D. Edelman693cites Isaiah 8:21; 57:9;Zephaniah 1:5, 8; Amos 5:26 as possible examples. Pope notes the attestations inActs 7:43 (citing Amos 5:26 after LXX) and Qur’an 43:77.694Like Acts 7:43,Testament of Solomon 26:6 (in manuscript P) refers to Moloch in connectionwith Rapha, probably to be traced to Ugaritic rp’u (KTU 1.108.1).695Theconnection between Ugaritic mlk and BH mlk as epithet is possible, but neitherappears related to child sacrifice, to judge from the extant evidence. Indeed, thescholarly confusion between a god “Moloch” and the name of the sacrificeseems to have biblical roots. In 1 Kings 11:7 the god of the Ammonites is called“Moloch” instead of Milkom.696BH mlk, whatever its precise background, seems to have been an acceptablepractice, at least during the second half of the monarchy. Like the high places,child sacrifice was known in both Israel and Moab, and if Jeremiah 7:30-32 and32:35 are any indication, child sacrifice was practiced at high places. Childsacrifice and veneration for the dead appear together in two polemics, Psalm106:34-38 and Isaiah 57:3-13,697prompting the question of a possible historicalrelationship between the two practices.698Was child sacrifice or veneration forthe dead conducted on a regular basis at high places during the period of themonarchy? In support of such a historical connection, Albright understood highplaces etymologically as “pagan graves” or funerary cairns.699While thephilological part of this interpretation has not met with acceptance,700Albrightdrew attention to the relationship between high places and veneration for thedead, based on Ezekiel 43:7 and Job 27:15 (cf. 2 Sam. 18:17-18; Isa. 15:2).Child sacrifice appears also in condemnations against high places. Was childsacrifice an element in the religion of the high places? The high places appearthroughout the period of the Judges and monarchy as cultic sites, servicing notonly the family and clan, but also the monarchy. The royal cult, at least inJerusalem, as at Ugarit and probably Phoenicia, maintained some cult ofveneration for the dead, and the bulk of the record assigns child sacrifice to royalpractitioners. The religion of the clan likewise included veneration for the dead,and at least some of the religious practices involving the dead were celebrated atthe local high places. Child sacrifice likewise belonged to the traditional religion
of high places, assuming the historical veracity of biblical polemics. There is,however, no historical evidence outside biblical polemic for child sacrifice at thehigh places. Indeed, descriptions of child sacrifice in Canaan and Israel specifytheir largely royal character, as undertaken in moments of crisis. A city undersiege seems to be the most characteristic setting; child sacrifice was designed toenlist the aid of a god to ward off a threatening army. If this does represent thecustomary setting for child sacrifice, then it belonged to urban, royal religion; itwas reserved for special occasions and not part of regular cultic offerings. Giventhe available sources, the connection between child sacrifice and high placeswould not appear to be a general feature of Israelite religion.Toconcludethischapter’sverybriefconsiderationofYahwisticcultpractices, child sacrifice may not have been a common religious practice; thebiblical and inscriptional records do not indicate how widespread the practicewas. The religion of high places was generally Yahwistic in name and practice,allowing a wider variety of cultic activity than its critics in the second half of themonarchy. The religious practices of the high places were fundamentallyconservative, preserving Israel’s ancient religious heritage. Perhaps for thisreason, many of these practices belonged also to the royal cult of Jerusalem. Yet,perhaps because some of these practices were maintained by Israel’s neighbors,legal and prophetic condemnations rejected these traditional practices of Israel.In the name of the deity to whom the religion of high places was devoted, itslegal and prophetic critics condemned this part of Israel’s ancient religiousinheritance.
CHAPTER 6The Origins and Development of Israelite MonotheismIn reconstructing the history of Israelite religion, it is important to neitheroveremphasize the importance of deities other than Yahweh nor diminish theirsignificance.701On the one hand, it would appear that each stage of Israelitereligion knew relatively few deities. The deities attested in Israel appear limited,compared to the pantheons of Ugarit, Mesopotamia, and Egypt. The Phoeniciancity-states and the new nation-states of Moab, Ammon, and Edom perhapsreflect a lack of deities relatively comparable to early Israel.702In the Judgesperiod, Israelite divinities may have included Yahweh, El, Baal, and perhapsAsherah as well as the sun, moon, and stars. During the monarchy, Yahweh,Baal, Astarte, and the sun, moon, and stars were considered deities in Israel.703Other candidates for Israelite deities are equated by some scholars with thesedeities; these are largely attested late in the Judean monarchy. The Queen ofHeaven (Jer. 7:18; 44:18-19, 25) was the title of a goddess, perhaps Astarte,Ishtar (or, a syncretized Astarte-Ishtar) or less likely Anat.704Tammuz (Ezek.8:14; cf. Isa. 17:10-11; Dan. 11:37) and Hadad-Rimmon (Zech. 12:11) aresometimes considered to be manifestations of Baal.705In the case of some otherdeities identified in biblical sources, devotion appears to be restricted to aparticular area or period. Deities in this category would include Bethel (Jer.48:13), perhaps Chemosh ( Kings 11:7; 2 Kings 23:17), andmlk,the name of asacrifice except in Isaiah 8:21 and 57:9 (cf. Amos 5:26; Zeph. 1:5, 8).706It maybe argued that some, if not all, of these deities appeared in Israelite religionduring the last century of the Judean monarchy. In some cases, they may havebeen borrowed from another culture. Chemosh belongs to this category. The lateappearance of Astarte and Bethel may reflect Phoenician influence. In Tyrianreligion Bethel perhaps developed as an aspect of El into a god. This deity isattested in the treaty of Esarhaddon with Baal of Tyre, in double-names (AP 7:7;22:124, 125) and proper names (AP 2:6-10; 12:9; 18:4, 5; 22:6; 42:8; 55:7) inthe Jewish Aramaic papyri from Elephantine, the Aramaic version of Psalm 20written in Demotic, and Jeremiah 48:13.707From these pieces of evidences,Bethel, like Astarte, may have been a specifically Phoenician import into Judean
religion, an influence reflected in both Jeremiah 48:13 and the Jewish Egyptianevidence.708On the other hand, the Israelite evidence should be neither minimized norignored. The data indicates a significant range of religious practice withinancient Israel. As the identification between El and Yahweh indicates, the cult ofYahweh could be monotheistic and “syncretistic,” to use the polemical termcustomarily aimed at Baal worship. There was no opposition to “syncretism”with El. As the interaction of Baal worship and Yahwistic cult attests, Yahwismcould vary from coexistence or identification with other deities to outrightrejectionofthem.Inthiscase,polytheisticYahwismisindicated.Theassimilation of El and the asherah symbol into the cult of Yahweh points toYahwism’s Canaanite heritage. At some early point, Israel perhaps knew a stageof ditheism in addition to its devotion to Yahweh (possibly reflected in Gen.49:25). That ditheism and polytheistic Yahwism were later condemned bymonotheisticYahwistsdoesnotindicatethatnonmonotheisticYahwismnecessarily constituted “Canaanite syncretism” or “popular religion,” tainted byCanaanite practices and therefore non-Yahwistic in character. Rather, the variedforms of Yahwistic cult reflected Israel’s Canaanite background. Similarly, theasherah, high places, necromancy and other practices relating to the deadbelonged to Israel’s Canaanite heritage, enjoyed Yahwistic sanction in Israel, butwere later condemned in Israel as non-Yahwistic.The development of Israelite monotheism involved complex features invarious periods. Convergence and differentiation occurred in conjunction withseveral societal factors that gave them their formative shape. Some of thesefactors can be isolated and placed within the context of four general periods: theperiod of the Judges (1200-1000); the first half of the monarchy (1000-800); thesecond half of the monarchy (800-587); and the Babylonian exile (587-538).Given the large-scale factors under review, it is difficult to specify theirinfluence during more narrow time periods.
1. The Period of the JudgesThe stage of convergence can be dated only along very broad lines, but it wouldappear to have belonged to the earliest stages of Israelite literature. This processof convergence continued down through the monarchy until the powers andimagery of Baal were fully assimilated by Yahweh, and it anticipates the laterdevelopment of monolatry. The incorporation of divine attributes into Yahwehhighlights the centrality of Yahweh in Israel’s earliest attested literature. Aswarrior fighting on Israel’s behalf, Yahweh exercises power in Judges 5 againstpowerful peoples and deities. In this poem Yahweh controls the cosmic bodies(Judg. 5:20), who fight for Israel. Judges 5 also asserts a distinction betweenYahweh and “new gods” (5:8). The emergence of Israel as a people coincideswith the appearance of Yahweh as its central deity.709Indeed, Yahweh was “thegod of Israel” (Judg. 5:3, 5) who eventually was identified with El. It is difficultto add more to this picture of Yahweh’s hegemony at this early stage, butinferences based on data from the period of the monarchy might be made. Forexample, older covenantal forms became prominent under the monarchy.710Since the monarchy tended to be conserva-tive in its modications of traditionalreligious forms, the royal Davidic covenant probably drew on an older Israeliteconcept of the covenantal relationship binding Israel to Yahweh as its maindeity.
2. The First Half of the MonarchyThe monarchy was equally a political and religious institution, and under royalinfluence,religioncombinedpowerfulexpressionsofstateandreligiousideology. When the prestige of the national deity was increased, the prestige ofthe dynasty in turn was enhanced. The special relationship between Yahweh andthe Davidic dynasty assumed the form of a formal covenantal relationship, calledin 2 Samuel 23:5 an “eternal covenant”(bĕrît ‘ôlām).711The binding of the deityand the king in formal relationship ensured divine well-being for the king andpeople as well as human devotion to the deity. More specifically, Yahwehensured national well-being, justice, and fertility (Psalms 2; 72; 89; 110), whilethe king in turn guaranteed national cult to Yahweh (1 Kings 8; 2 Kings 12).712The covenantal relationship directly involved the land and the people ofYahweh. Through the king the people received the blessings provided byYahweh. The people were also partners in the Davidic covenant. The partnershipbetween Yahweh and the king and the people is described in 2 Kings 11:17:“And Jehoiada made a covenant between Yahweh and the king and people, thatthey should be Yahweh’s people; and also between the king and the people:”713The religious-political conceptualization of the covenant reached its fullestexpressionintheDavidicdynastictheology.Thenationalizationofthecovenantal form exalted Yahweh as the national deity of the united monarchy.The national hegemony of Yahweh was thereby established for ancient Israel.The continuing development of treaty language in covenantal literary forms mayalso be seen as part and parcel of royal influence. Born of political experience,treaty forms and expressions came to communicate the relationship betweenYahweh and Israel in the law (Exod. 20:3; 22:19; 24:1-11).714The innovative centralization of national worship was also part of the processleading to monotheistic Yahwism, as it encouraged a single national deity anddevalued local manifestations of deity. The royal unification of national life —bothpoliticalandreligious—helpedtoachievepoliticalandculticcentralization by concentrating and exhibiting power through the capital city anda relationship with the national deity residing in that city. This development wasconcomitant with the development of the monarchy itself. It began with the
establishment of the capital city under David, continued in the religiousimportance that Jerusalem achieved under Solomon, and culminated in thereligious programs of Hezekiah and Josiah. As P. K. McCarter comments onthese two Davidic kings, “their policies, by unifying the worship of Yahweh, hadthe effect of unifying the way in which he was conceived by his worshippers,thus eliminating the earlier theology of local manifestations.”715The religiousfunction was but one dimension in the effects of cultic centralization. Thisreligious policy held political and economic benefits as well.716The role of themonarchy was both innovative and conservative, reacting to the needs of thedeveloping state. And, as illustrated by the examples described in the previouschapters, like the monarchy Israelite monolatry developed out of both adherenceto past religious traditions and departure from them, out of both conservatismand innovation.As patron deity of the monarchy, Yahweh supported Israel in internationalconflicts. Divine power became international in scope, thereby promoting anearly form of monolatrous faith. In a variety of ways, the Elijah-Elisha cyclescommunicate the scope of Yahweh’s power against other deities, even outside ofIsrael. Through his prophets Elijah and Elisha, Yahweh works beyond Israel’sborders (1 Kings 17:14; 19:15; 2 Kings 5:1; 8:13).717The story of Naaman in 2Kings 5 sets the stage for an expression that the action and plan of Yahwehextends beyond Israel’s national borders. Naaman is given victory, thanks toYahweh, and in recognizing this fact, he declares “there is no God in all theearth but in Israel” (2 Kings 5:15). Political and religious conflict with otherstates during the pre-exilic period provided a political context for expressing thesovereignty of Yahweh over Israel’s enemies and thereby “over all the earth”(Ps. 47:2; cf. Pss. 8:1; 24:1; 48:2; 95:4; 97:5; Isa. 6:3).718This notion ofYahweh’s power over the nations continued into the prophets of the eighthcentury and reached full flower with the emergence of Israelite monotheism inthe Exile.Another historical factor of centralization during the period of the monarchy,significant for the development of Israelite monolatry, is the role of writing inIsraelite society. J. Goody argues that the rise of writing helped to generateIsraelite monolatry.719While Goody projects this development to the Mosaicperiod,hisideasregardingtheinfluenceofwritingnonethelessmeritconsideration. He suggests that the process of writing gives the customs of orallaw a more general application and a more authoritative status within a society.As a result, social norms in written form become authoritative for a wideraudience. In Israel these norms included the notion of monolatry, which emerged
in early legal and prophetic materials. The role of writing in the development oflegal traditions is evident in the period of the monarchy (Jer. 8:7-8; 2 Kings22:3; 23:24; cf. Hos. 8:12; 1 Chron. 17:7-9; 24:6) and appears explicitly in thepostexilic period (Ezra 7:6, 11; Neh. 8:1). Like the monarchs of other ancientNear Eastern kingdoms, Israelite kings maintained written records of theirreigns. Various biblical passages allude to written chronicles, such as “the annalsof the kings of Judah” (1 Kings 14:29; 15:7, 23; 22:46), “the annals of the kingsof Israel-Ephraim” (1 Kings 14:19; 15:31; 16:5, 14, etc.), and “the annals of thekings of Judah and Israel” (2 Chron. 16:11; 25:26; 27:7; 28:26, etc.). There werealso “the records of David” (1 Chron. 29:29), “the book of the acts of Solomon”(1 Kings 11:41; 2 Chron. 9:29), “the records of the deeds of Rehoboam whichhad been written by Shemaiah the prophet and Iddo the seer” (2 Chron. 12:15;cf. 13:22), and a work of Jehu the son of Hanani that recounted the history ofJehoshaphat’s reign and was incorporated into “the books of the kings of Israel”(2 Chron. 22:34). The written collections called “the book of the wars ofYahweh” (Num. 21:14) and “the book of Yashar” (Josh. 10:12; 2 Sam. 1:17)included material attributed to the premonarchic period and point to transmissionof this material during the monarchy. Pentateuchal traditions attest to theimportance of writing for storing legal material, a role attributed to Moses(Exod. 24:4, 7, 12; Deut. 30:10; 31:24-26) and the priesthood (Num. 5:23-24).Scribes were used to preserve records by the monarchy (2 Sam. 8:16; 1 Kings4:3; Prov. 25:1; cf. Ps. 45:1), the army (2 Kings 25:19; Jer. 52:25; cf. Josh. 18:9;Judg. 8:13-17), and the judicial administration (Jer. 32:11-14). Similarly, thepriesthood had scribes specializing in the storage of legal material throughwriting (Jer. 8:7-8; cf. KTU 1.6 VI 54-56; KAI 37 A 15).The fostering of Baal language, the asherah, and other features served furtherpolitical and ideological functions channeled and expressed by royal scribalactivity (for example, in the records of kings, and presumably in their publicmonuments — though none of the latter are now extant). The inclusion of such awide array of religious expressions during the monarchy may reflect functions ofsocial and political integration. When David used the language of Baal forYahweh, it may have served the function of extending divine dominion in orderto confirm royal power. When Ahab and his line sought to promote Baal, it wasperhaps to effect religious compatibility and perhaps to strengthen political tieswith his royal relatives in Tyre. The inclusion of the asherah in the Jerusalemtemple was perhaps no more than a conservative cultic preservation of Israel’sancient traditions; criticism of it was probably more the innovation. Like theark,720the asherah in the national temple cult tied the cult to Israel’s ancientroots. Necromancy and prophecy competed as forms of inquiry for information
from the divine realm, as the contrast of the two phenomena in Deuteronomy 18and Isaiah 8 would suggest. The condemnation of high places was tied to thequestion of centralization of cult during the monarchy.The monarchy played a significant role in encouraging the religious imageryof other deities within the cult of Yahweh. The examples of the asherah, solarlanguage, necromancy, and feeding the dead would suggest that the monarchyaccepted these traditional religious practices, and during the period of royaltoleration and patronization of these practices, some prophets perhaps acceptedinitially a number of these practices. Furthermore, the monarchy was traditionalin its preservation of the asherah, its appropriation of Baal and solar language forYahweh, and possibly even its toleration for Baal worship. The issue then is notwhy the monarchy accepted such practices against the condemnations ofprophetic critics, but why some of the prophets secondarily came to condemnthese practices. For prophets and legal codes, the threat of Baal in the ninthcentury produced the initial precedent leading to later condemnation of someother religious features of Israel. In this struggle the status of Yahweh was seento be crucially threatened. For this reason prophetic critics and legal codesopposed the monarchy on these issues and took innovative measures of attackingtraditional devotion to the asherah and the traditional use of Baal and solarlanguage for Yahweh. This conflict marked a turning point in the developmentof Israelite religion in creating a precedent for eliminating from the cult ofYahwehfeaturesassociatedwithBaalorotherdeities.Thisprocessofdifferentiation reached full force in the next period.
3. The Second Half of the MonarchySome features from the preceding era continued even more strongly during thesecond half of the monarchy. The international scope of Yahweh’s powerexpressed in the Elijah-Elisha cycles appeared as well in prophetic oraclesagainst the nations. The condemnation of the foreign nations in Amos 1-2 andIsaiah 13-22 was premised on Yahweh’s ability and choice to exercise powerover the neighbors of Israel.721The differentiation of some religious featuresfrom the cult of Yahweh, such as devotion to the cult of Baal and specificpractices associated with the dead, signified a distinctive change from theprevious period. Hosea’s polemic against Israelite devotion to Baal reflects astrong witness to the differentiation of Yahweh from practices previously seen ascompatible with Yahwism or at least tolerated by Israelites. Jeremiah’s satire onidol making (Jeremiah 10) contrasts the falsity of other deities with Yahweh, the“true God,” “the living God and the everlasting King” (v. 10), and anticipates thesatires of idols by Second Isaiah during the Exile. Furthermore, priestly andDeuteronomisticavoidanceofanthropomorphicdepictionsofYahwehcontributed to the uniqueness of the Israelite deity.The appearance of some deities in late Judean religion may account for afurther element in the development of monolatry. Some deities, such asChemosh, patently reflect foreign influence. Other deities, such as Bethel (Jer.48:13)andAstarte,seemtoreflectlatePhoenicianinfluence.Thislatedevelopment may have laid the basis for further polemic against other deities,such as Baal, who belonged authentically to Israel’s Canaanite heritage (indistinction to the Phoenician Baal of Jezebel). Chemosh, Bethel, and Astartewere known as religious imports, and Baal may have been understood alongsimilar lines. It is precisely in this way that 1 Kings 17-19 presents Baal.The covenant assumed a greater importance as an expression of Israel’sexclusive relationship with Yahweh. By the second half of the monarchy, thelaw (Exodus 32-34) and the prophets (Hos. 6:7; 8:1) communicated the integralduties and blessings exercised by Israel and its deity with formulas found also intreaties between kings of differing status.722The development of writing perhapswent hand in hand with the evolution in the use of covenantal forms for
expressing the human-divine relationship in ancient Israel. Writing became moreimportant for Israelite legal traditions and prophecy during the second half of themonarchy. Legal material was shaped by its emergence in written forms,achieving a more authoritative status in Israel by addressing a wider audience.The two forms of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5,and the modeling of Deuteronomy 12-26 after the order and themes of the TenCommandments,723indicate both the general form and authoritative status thatthey held in the circles that produced them and perhaps more widely in Israelitesociety. The Deuteronomistic narrative concerning the creation of the TenCommandmentspresentsthempreciselyasawrittenproductpennedbyYahweh, the divine scribe (Deut 9:10; 10:2, 4). Deuteronomy 12-26 illustrateshow the Ten Commandments, although general in form, were made relevant forthe changing circumstances of Israelite society, and how writing itself played arole in the growth of the parameters of covenant. Indeed, covenant andmonolatry received elaboration and definition in written forms.Writing eventually became the main mode of storing the prophetic cyclesinvolving Elijah, Elisha, and their disciples, and this trend is reflected inprophets of the eighth and sixth centuries (Isa. 8:19-20; Jeremiah 36; Hab. 2:2).While oral transmission was the older mode of proclaiming the propheticmessage (2 Kings 3:15), oral (Ezek. 33:2) and written forms of propheticproclamation coexisted in the second half of the monarchy. Indeed, in the laterhalf of the monarchy, the written form may have become the more commonmode of communicating the prophetic word (Isa. 29:11-12; cf. 30:11; Jer. 25:13).724The rise of writing for both legal and prophetic proclamation andpreservation evidently partook of a wider societal development (cf. Isa. 10:19).Similarly,whilewritinginthebureaucracyremainedthedomainofprofessionally trained scribes, other bureaucrats knew how to read (KAI 193:9-12). Wisdom texts also refer to writing (Job 31:35-37). It is difficult to gaugefully the effect that generating and preserving legal and prophetic texts throughwriting had on Israelite society. It would appear that legal and propheticproclamation gained a wider audience through writing. In later times, writingwas crucial in the efforts of legal and prophetic tradents to transmit, update, andproclaim the words they received. Therefore, the legal and prophetic criticismsof the monolatrous cult and proclamation of Yahweh’s hegemony exercisedfurther influence, in part thanks to writing.
4. The ExileTexts dating to the Exile or shortly beforehand are the first to attest tounambiguous expressions of Israelite monotheism. Second Isaiah (Isa. 45:5-7)gave voice to the monotheistic ideal that Yahweh was the only deity in thecosmos. Not only are the other deities powerless; they are nonexistent.725LikeJeremiah 10, Second Isaiah (Isa. 40:18-20; 41:6-7; 44:9-20; 46:1-13; 48:3-8)stresses the uniqueness of Yahweh in marked contrast with the lifeless, emptyidols who represent lifeless, nonexistent deities.726Israelite cult apparently cameto grips with devotion rendered to other deities by Israelites. Down to theBabylonian captivity, Israelite religion tolerated some cults within the largerframework of the national cult of Yahweh. While some illicit practices persistedinto the Persian period (Isa. 65:3; 66:17),727these religious phenomena do notappear to have been tolerated in the central cult of Yahweh.As in previous periods, during the Babylonian captivity writing continued toplay a formative role in the development of Yahwism. By the end of themonarchy writing became the dominant mode of generating prophetic texts.Ezekiel was perhaps generated largely as a written work.728There are a numberof indications of the written composition of Ezekiel. First, its length betrays awritten hand. Ezekiel’s call narrative in chapters 1-3 covers sixtyfive verses,whereas Isaiah’s call in chapter 6 is a brief and succinct thirteen verses.Similarly, single oracles in Ezekiel are quite long. Ezekiel 16 has sixty-threeverses, and both Ezekiel 20 and 23 have forty-nine verses. Second, the writtencharacter of the book is intimated in 2:9-10, where Ezekiel is commanded to eatthe scroll bearing the divine word; it is the “words of lamentation and mourning”that constitute the remainder of the book (cf. 9:11). Third, as an indication of thewritten character of Ezekiel, R. R. Wilson observes that the book does notpresent the prophet orally delivering his words.729Fourth, although the prosestyle generally found in Ezekiel does not prove that it was a written work fromits inception, some features that do not appear regularly in oral speech730arecommon. The appearance of such features would further suggest that Ezekieloriginally constituted a written work in the main. Fifth, the book of Ezekiel
developed new forms, in part due to the written mode of producing prophecy.For instance, Wilson points to the first-person narrative extending throughout thebook, a form that has continuity with eighth-century prophets. Other forms,including the vision of the divine chariot in chapter 1,731the tour given by adivine figure in chapters 8 and 40-48,732and the detailed plan in chapters 40-48,do not appear in prior prophetic tradition. Wilson attributes the rise of writtenprophecy reflected in Ezekiel to the geographical distances between Jewishcommunities of the sixth century. Between communities separated by greatdistances prophecy could be communicated more efficiently in written form.A similar case might be made for Second Isaiah (Isaiah 40-55) as originally awritten work733that imitates the poetic style of the prophet after whom the bookis named. That this is the purpose of the work may be inferred from the fact thatthe author(s) of Second Isaiah remains nameless; the authorship of Second Isaiahwas sublimated into the identity of the original prophet. The verbal forms,known as the “waw consecutive,” that is, the conjunction waw plus eitherdoubling of initial consonant and imperfect, or the conjunction waw plus perfect,occur less frequently in direct discourse than in narrative,734suggesting that theirfrequency in Second Isaiah might point to a written composition.735The writtenworks of Ezekiel and Second Isaiah permitted a sustained reflection on Israel’shistory and the nature of the Israelite deity. Out of the process of reflection andwriting arose clear expressions of Israelite monotheism.New reflections developed out of Israel’s new social circumstances as well asits new political situation on the international stage from the seventh century on.The loss of family patrimonies due to economic stress and foreign incursionscontribute to the demise of the model of the family for understanding divinity.With the rise of the individual along with the family as significant units of socialidentity (Deut.24:16; Jer.31:29-30; Ezekiel 18; cf.33:12-20)camethecorresponding notion on the divine level, namely of a single god responsible forthe cosmos. Judah’s reduced status on the world scene also required newthinking about divinity. Like Marduk, Yahweh became an “empire-god,” the godof all the nations but in a way that no longer closely tied the political fortunes ofJudah to the status of this god. With the old order of divine king and his human,royal representation on earth reversed, Yahweh stands alone in the divine realm,with all the other gods as nothing. In short, the old head-god of monarchic Israelbecame the Godhead of the universe.736
5. Israelite Monotheism in Historical PerspectiveThe historical reconstruction of Israel’s religion that notes the variegated roles ofstate and popular religion, the mixture of indigenous and imported religiousfeatures,andthecomplexfeaturesofconvergenceanddifferentiationundermines some of the main scholarly views about Israelite religion in generaland Israelite monotheism in particular. Some scholars argue for an early Israelitemonotheism.737Albright speaks of a Mosaic age of monotheism deriving fromthe Sinai experience. H. Gottlieb, M. Smith, B. Lang, and P. K. McCarter notethe role of the monarchy in the development of monotheism.738Morton Smith,followed by Lang, stresses the importance of the development of the “Yahweh-only party” in the ninth century and afterward. Lang especially emphasizes the“prophetic minority” that provided initial support for this religious posture in thenorthern kingdom before its fall and later in the southern kingdom. Manycommentators attach great importance to the Exile739as the formative period forthe emergence of Israelite monotheism.740Israel’s position in a foreign landthreatened the validity of its religious heritage and the centrality of Yahweh; theExile changed the circumstances of national life and therefore altered thedefinition of Yahweh’s centrality. The radical circumstances of the Exile issuedin a radical redefinition of Yahweh.All these views require at least minor modification in view of the evidencepresented in the previous chapters. Monotheism was hardly a feature of Israel’searliest history. By the same token, convergence was an early development thatanticipates the later emergence of monolatry and monotheism. The monarchywas one of many formative influences on the development of monolatry.Furthermore, convergence appeared by the time of the monarchy and continuedwell into the monarchy. The “Yahweh-only party” represented a modification ofthe cult of the national deity and an important step in the development ofmonolatry. By the same token, other factors gave definition and impetus to thisreligious position. Differentiation gave shape to the form that the religion of the“Yahweh-only party” assumed in the second half of the monarchy. Furthermore,it is not clear that this “Yahweh-only party” originated as “a prophetic minority,”to paraphrase the words of B. Lang. Rather, although prophetic works provide
the best witness to the “Yahweh-only” position, Israelite prophecy was largelydependent on other quarters of society. In other words, the “Yahweh-only party”may not have developed as a purely prophetic position (cf. Exod. 20:3; 22:19; 2Sam. 22 [Ps. 18]: 32).741Finally, the literary expression of monotheism at arelatively late point in Israel’s history, either in the late monarchy or the Exile,“overwrites”andobscuresthelongdevelopmentinvolvingtheearlierphenomenon of monolatry as well as the important roles of convergence anddifferentiation.Some scholars have stressed early Israelite religion as the quintessentialperiod of pure Yahwism. Following in the footsteps of Albright, G. Mendenhalland J. Bright posit an early pure Yahwism that was polluted secondarily in theland by the cult of Baal and other idolatry.742In their schemes, the monarchywas largely a negative influence. There are three major problems with thischaracterization of Israelite religion. First, some of the features that Mendenhalland Bright view as secondary idolatry belonged to Israel’s Canaanite heritage.The cult of Baal, the symbol of the asherah, the high places, and the culticpractices involving the dead all belonged to Israel’s ancient past, its Canaanitepast. Second, the “purest form of Yahwism” belonged not to an early stage ofIsrael’s history but to the late monarchy. Differentiation of the cult of Yahwehdid not begin until the ninth century and appeared in full flower only in theeighth century and afterward. Even this stage of reform was marked by otherreligious developments considered idolatrous by later generations; the cults ofthe “Queen of Heaven” and “the Tammuz” undermine any idealization of thelatemonarchy.ThetempleidolatrydenouncedinEzekiel8-11probablyconstituted the norm rather than the exception for the final decades of themonarchy. The religious programs of Hezekiah and Josiah have been claimed asmoments of religious purity in Judah, although even these policies had theirpolitical reasons.743The pure form of Yahwism that Mendenhall and Brightenvision was perhaps an ideal achieved rarely, if ever, before the Exile — ifeven then. Third, the monarchy was not the villain of Israelite religion thatMendenhall and Bright make it out to be. Indeed, the monarchy made severalreligious contributions crucial to the development of monolatry. In short,Mendenhall and Bright stand much of Israel’s religious development on its head.In the analysis presented in the preceding chapters, the classic problem ofmonotheism is pushed back in time. The issue is not one of identifying theearliestinstancesofmonolatry;rather,theoldquestionofexplainingmonotheism becomes a new issue of accounting for the phenomenon ofconvergence, a stage in Israelite religion older than the appearance of monolatry.
Three levels of development in early Israel bear on convergence. The firstreflects Israel’s Canaanite heritage; features in this category include El, Baal,Asherah, and their imagery and titles, and the cultic practices of the asherah,high places, and devotion to the dead. The second level involves features thatIsrael shared with its first-millennium neighbors: the rise of the new nationaldeity, the presence of a consort goddess, and the small number of attested deitiescompared with second-millennium West Semitic cultures. Third, there arecharacteristics specific to Israelite culture, such as the new god, Yahweh, thetraditionsofseparateoriginsandthesouthernsanctuary,theaniconicrequirement, and decreased anthropomorphism. Any of the features in this thirdcategory might be invoked to help explain convergence. Biblical traditionconcerning Israel’s separate religious development includes aspects of all theitems in the third category; it especially stresses the origins of Israel outside theland, the giving of Law (Torah), and the creation of the covenantal relationshipat Mount Sinai. The features belonging to the third category are the mostpromising “explanations” currently known.Yet appeal to them would be premised on the assumption that these religiouselements were causes, and convergence and monotheism were the effects. Thehistoricalrelationshiplyingbehindtheseitems(orothersthatmightbementioned) is unknown, and how to explain the emergence of any one of theseitems is historically problematic for the Iron I period. Significant culturalcontinuities and discontinuities of Israel with its Canaanite past and its Iron Ageneighbors are identifiable, but historical causes cannot be clarified further at thisstage of investigation. The development lying behind Israelite monotheismbecomes impossible to trace back to the point of ancient Israel’s historicalappearance ca. 1200.Though the reasons for Israelite “convergence” are not clear, the complexpaths from convergence to monolatry and monotheism can be followed. ThedevelopmentofIsraelitemonolatryandmonotheisminvolvedbothan“evolution” and a “revolution” in religious conceptualization, to use D. L.Petersen’s categories.744It was an “evolution” in two respects. Monolatry grewout of an early, limited Israelite polytheism that was not strictly discontinuouswith that of its Iron Age neighbors. Furthermore, adherence to one deity was achanging reality within the periods of the Judges and the monarchy in Israel.While evolutionary in character, Israelite monolatry was also “revolutionary” inanumberofrespects.Theprocessofdifferentiationandtheeventualdisplacement of Baal from Israel’s national cult distinguished Israel’s religionfromthereligionsofitsneighbors.Furthermore,asP.Machinisthas
observed,745one feature clearly distinguishing Israel from its neighbors was itsapologetic claim of religious difference. Israelite insistence on a single deityeventually distinguished Israel from the surrounding cultures, as far as textualdata indicate.
CHAPTER 7Postscript: Portraits of Yahweh
1. Processes Leading to Divine Portraiture in IsraelThe development toward monotheism in Israel involved complex processes ofconvergence and differentiation of deities. The convergence of other deities, orat least their characteristics, toward Yahweh involved no single pattern. Polemic,for example, was directed against Baal, and to a lesser extent, asherah and thesun. Polemic was not only a negative factor in these cases, but involved apositive process at work as well, namely, the attribution of the positivecharacteristics of other deities to Yahweh. In some instances, polemic involveddirect criticism of other deities, such as Baal, or cultic items, such as the asherah(2 Kings 21:7; 23:4), the asherim (2 Kings 23:14), and “the horses ... dedicatedto the sun” and “the chariots of the sun” (2 Kings 23:11). Sometimes polemicassumed the form of negative depiction, as in the description of the priestsbowing down before the sun in Ezekiel 8:16. Identification of Yahweh andanother deity occasionally escaped polemic. Since El was no longer a religiousthreat in the first millennium, the positive identification of Yahweh-El was madewithout later accusations of idolatry.This discussion has emphasized the process of addition of other deities or theirtraits to Yahweh. Yahweh is given the titles’ēlorba‘al,or is called “the Sun,”or is attributed their features. The word addition may also be applied to theincorporation of distinctly different attributes within Yahweh. Both solar andstorm language are attributed to Yahweh in different passages and even withinthe same units. Similarly, Yahweh embodies both male and female, both El andAsherah. Addition is not infrequently accompanied by the feature of paradox.For example, 1 Kings 17-19 dramatizes how Yahweh, while controlling thenatural power associated with Baal, transcends it as well. Yahweh is known insome way in both sun and storm, but at the same time transcends suchmanifestations. Where explicit criticism of another deity is involved, as in thiscase, paradox functions as a form of polemic. Another use of paradox againinvolves the application of gender. While Yahweh embodies the characteristicsof mother and father, for example in the parental experience they convey,Yahweh also transcends the human finiteness inherent in both of them (Ps.27:10). The paradox of natural manifestation is posed also by the biblical
language of “seeing God,” an experience that was denied at times (Exod. 33:20,23) and at other times affirmed (Num. 12:8; Isa. 6:1; Job 42:5; cf. Deut. 34:11;Pss. 11:7; 17:15; 27:4, 13; 42:3; 63:3).Afurtherprocessunderlyingthedevelopmentofconvergenceanddifferentiation was the creation of new contexts for metaphorical expressionsthat functioned originally in polytheistic settings. Yahweh is called a “sun” (Ps.84:12) and described as “rising” like the sun (Deut. 33:2). Although this solarattribution was thought to have been taken too literally (at least according toEzek. 8:16), solar language functioned to convey aspects of Yahweh withoutreducing Yahweh to being the sun. In Genesis 1:14, the absorption of solarlanguage works in another direction. In this passage, the sun is not a deity, butfunctions as the great light that God(’ĕlōhîm)created and set in the firmament.Some originally polytheistic motifs were changed into forms deemed compatiblewith monotheistic Yahwism. One dramatic example of this alteration is thefemale figure of Wisdom in Proverbs 1-9. In addition to her other components,she perhaps included some features of Asherah. The representation of the divinepresence as “glory”(kābôd)or “name”(šēm)constituted alternate strategies forexpressing divine presence.746The background to the divine “name” and “face”of God is to be found precisely in the Canaanite milieu of the other deities.While these terms in both Canaanite-Phoenician and Israelite contexts expresseddivine qualities, in Israel these terms lessened the anthropomorphism thatcharacterized older descriptions of the deity more in continuity with Israel’sCanaanite heritage.Finally, the biblical record involves a shift in temporal perspective regardingYahweh and other deities. Although features of El and Baal have beenconvincingly recognized in Yahweh, some biblical passages regard other deitiesas originally alien to Israel and Yahweh (Exod. 34:11-16; Deut. 32:12, 39;Ezekiel 28). Ezekiel 20:25-26 provides a different type of explanation for theotherwise forbidden practice of child sacrifice. In this passage Yahweh describeschild sacrifice as divine punishment: “Moreover, I gave them statutes that werenot good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I defiled themthrough their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that Imight horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am Yahweh.” Similarly,Jeremiah 7:21-22 dismisses the divine authority for child sacrifice by denyingthat Yahweh ever commanded it. For the biblical record, the order of history isnot theologically tantamount to the order of reality. Hence, understandingYahweh involves a theological interpretation of history that, according to thebiblical perspective, permits the nature of Yahweh to be disclosed more fully.While drawing on older tradition and claiming basis in Israel’s earliest history,
later prophetic and legal materials reflect a sustained reflection concerningYahweh, supplementing and correcting older incomplete renderings of thedivine.These processes represent various aspects of convergence and differentiation.Convergence and differentiation influenced the depictions of the divine found inthe Hebrew Bible. The inclusion of solar language for Yahweh, the acceptanceof the symbol of the asherah and the cultic sites of the high places, and numerouspracticespertainingorrelatingtothedead,longescapedpriestly,Deuteronomistic, and prophetic criticism. The old body of Israelite literatureassigns solar language to Yahweh. From the reconstruction offered in chapter 3,the symbol of the asherah was assimilated into the Yahwistic cult. Convergenceapparently accounts for the numerous descriptions of Yahweh with imageryassociated in Canaanite tradition with El, Baal, and other deities. Differentiationof Yahweh from some descriptions traditional for these deities is also evident.Some traditional religious features were eventually condemned as non-Yahwisticand ultimately passed from the national cult of Yahweh. Some aspects, includingthe Yahweh-El identification and the attribution of Baal’s characteristics toYahweh, continued to be acceptable. Within monotheistic Yahwism the figure ofYahweh absorbed some features of other deities without acceptance of theirseparate reality.
2. The Absence of Some Canaanite Divine Roles in the BiblicalRecordThe traits of Canaanite deities are attested in biblical tradition in widely varyingdegrees. Some roles were applied frequently to Yahweh, others less so, andsome not at all.747A number of descriptions of El and Baal are highlyconspicuous in some biblical depictions of Yahweh. Other features describingthe di-vine playa a lesser role. For example, the divine council in biblical textsshows little sign of the magnificent feasting of the Ugaritic pantheon, althoughtraces of divine feasting survive in the biblical record (Exod. 24:11 ).748Descriptions of the heavenly temple barely materialize in biblical tradition(Exod. 24:10; Ezek. 1:26), although 1 Enoch 14 and the Songs of the SabbathSacrifice from Qumran indicate the availability of this material in Israelitetradition.749Indeed, intertestamental apocalypses and the book of Revelationattest strongly to the persistence of mythic material. Various biblical books,especially Ezekiel, provide glimpses of this material and indicate knowledge ofthese traditions.Other divine roles known from the Ugaritic literature are conspicuously absentfrom both the biblical record and extrabiblical Jewish literature. Yahweh doesnot appear like El, the drunken carouser (KTU 1.114) and sexual partner ofgoddesses (KTU 1.23.30-51; cf. 1.4 V 38-39), or Baal, the dying god (KTU 1.5V-1.6 V) and voracious sexual partner of animals (KTU 1.5 V 18-22) andperhaps of his sister, Anat (KTU 1.11.1-5). Yahweh is unlike Anat, who feastson the flesh of her military victims (KTU 1.3 II), or the sun-goddess in hernetherworldly role (KTU 1.6 110-18, VI 42-53; cf. 1.161.8f.).750Of theseimages, only the language of feasting on the enemies is attested in biblicalliterature, and even this imagery appears indirectly with respect to Yahweh.Moreover, the feature of divine feasting in biblical tradition hardly conveys therich and vivid character of divine imagery expressed in the Ugaritic narratives.The Canaanite descriptions render divine behavior in human or natural termsdiffering from biblical renderings of Yahweh in primarily two areas, sex anddeath. El, Baal, and perhaps Anat engage in sexual activity, and Baal, Anat, and
the sun-deity are intimately involved in the processes of death and return to life.In Ugaritic texts, sexual relations belong to the divine life. Death, both in itsmanifestation in the figure of Mot and in descriptions of its effects, is part of thenatural and divine realm, on par with Baal, the source of life and well-being inthe cosmos. Although some of this mythic material appears in biblical traditionin various settings and in fractured forms, the language of death applied toYahwehisrareandlargelymetaphorical.Yahwehdoesnotdie,evenfiguratively. Yahweh does not have a consort according to any biblical source;nor does he engage in divine sex.Establishing reasons for the selection and distribution of divine roles inbiblical texts is exceptionally difficult.751A few suggestions may be offered, butonly most tentatively; this exploration bears the character of the possible but notverifiable. First, numerous critics of Israelite cult during the latter half of themonarchy, including the priestly and Deuteronomistic quarters, rejected thereligious practices of Israel’s neighbors that both Israel and its neighbors sharedas a result of their common Canaanite heritage. High places constitute anespecially pertinent example, since criticisms of foreign peoples sometimesinclude mockery of this religious practice.Second, as noted in chapter 3, depiction of Yahweh became decreasinglyanthropomorphic to some extent, especially in priestly and Deuteronomistictraditions.752These same traditions dominated the production and transmis-sionof biblical texts from the late eighth century to the sixth century. The phase ofdifferentiation in the second half of the monarchy and the Exile coincided withthe period of greatest literary production in ancient Israel, and it is precisely thisphase of Israelite literary production where the priestly and Deuteronomistictraditions have so strongly left their mark. In contrast, textual material dating tothe Iron I period is sparse, and the full range of religious phenomena from thisperiod is lacking in the extant record.753Indeed, biblical tradition alludes inpassing to now-lost textual sources of the Iron I period (Num. 21:14; 21:27;Josh. 10:12; 2 Sam. 1:17). It would appear that the priestly and Deuteronomistictraditions heavily influenced the divine roles exhibited in the Bible, at least forthose roles that survive into postexilic Jewish literature, including the divinecouncil (Zechariah 3; Daniel 7) and the heavenly temple (1 Enoch 14; the Songsof the Sabbath Sacrifice).Third, a further process seems to underlie the omission of some roles. Divinelanguage of sex and death did not survive at all, although polytheism in aYahwistic context sporadically persisted. These omissions might be explained byappeal to the influence of the priestly and Deuteronomistic traditions. Given the
priestly insistence on the impurity of death and sexual relations, it is difficult toresist the suggestion that the presentation of Yahweh generally as sexless andunrelated to the realm of death was produced precisely by a priesthood whosecentral notions of holiness involved separation from the realms of impurity,specifically sexual relations and death. For the priesthood there were severallevels of cultic purity, and the deity represented the epitome of this hierarchy.Priests are restricted in their selection of spouses and also in their contact withthe dead (Lev. 21:7), compared to non-priests (Num. 11-19; 31:19). The chiefpriest is even more restricted than the priesthood in general (Lev. 21:11-13).Unlike other priests, the chief priest is associated with the holiness of the divinesanctuary. Holier than the holy of holies, the deity constituted the fullestmanifestation of holiness, one totally removed from the realms of sexuality anddeath. Given the development of this concept within priestly circles, it might beunderstood as an inner-Israelite development and not necessarily an originalfeature of Yahweh. This rendering of Yahweh may have been aimed not onlyagainst other views of Yahweh or other deities in ancient Israel to whom sexualrelations and death were attributed, but perhaps specifically against familyreligious practices and life, which included contact with the deceased ancestorsand belief in a household religion headed by a divine couple (as modelled intheir own family life).754The absence of divine sex and death from the biblical record may belong to areaction that predates the priestly and Deuteronomistic production of biblicaltexts. Given the historical viability of Baal language down to the ninth centuryand the virulent opposition to Baal from the ninth century and afterward, thedivine roles involving sex and death and polytheism perhaps ceased early insome priestly and Deuteronomistic quarters. Perhaps in the areas of divine sexand death, reduced anthroporphism constituted a significant factor. Reducedanthropomorphism apparently belonged to an earlier stage of Israelite religionand continued through the Exile. It may therefore help to explain the generalreduction of the goddess in Israelite religion and the omission of the roles of sexand death for Yahweh. In any case, thanks to the evidence that Genesis 49provides, it may be surmised that polytheism was part of the religion of Israelprior to the tenth century, and in the case of the “Queen of Heaven” and perhapsother minor deities, afterward as well. Similarly, divine roles in sex and deathcould have belonged to the repertoire of descriptions for Yahweh or other deitiesworshiped by Israelites prior to the tenth century, and possibly afterward,although no evidence known at present supports this reconstruction.In conclusion, the cults of the major deities developed differently in Israel andits neighbors. Religious developments specific to Israel played a role in the
processes underlying the selection and shaping of the main divine roles andimages for Yahweh from Israel’s Near Eastern heritage, especially manifest inCanaanite and Mesopotamian texts and traditions.755Like other Near Easterndeities, Yahweh provided fertility in the cosmos, acted as ruler of the world, andshowed the care of a divine parent. Yet, unlike other deities who combined thesefunctions(suchasMarduk),Yahwehexercisedavarietyofroles,evensometimes conflicting ones, to the detriment of the cults of other deities.Yahweh sometimes embodied apparently contradictory capacities. Yahweh wasseenasmanifestinnatureandbeyondnature;Yahwehwassometimesanthropomorphic and yet beyond humanity. Imaged in the human person (Gen.1:26-28) yet only partially imaginable (Isa. 55:8-9), Yahweh was a deitysufficiently powerful both to protect (Psalm 48; Isa. 31:4) and punish Israel (Jer.9:8-9). Yahweh was equally a personal deity (Deut. 4:7), whose pain matchedIsrael’s pain (MT Jer. 9:9 [E 10]; cf. 12:7-13). Yahweh consoled Israel (Isa.40:2), answered Israel (Exod. 3:7; Ps. 99:8; Hos. 2:23-25 [E 21-23]), and lovedIsrael (Hos. 2:16 [E 14]; Job 37:13). Yahweh’s qualities were often expressed interms largely shaped by the characteristics of other deities belonging to ancientIsrael’s heritage that Israel rejected in the course of time.
Indexes of Texts
BIBLICAL CITATIONSGenesis11:1-2:31:141:14-161:161:261:26-282-32:103:223:2411:714:1814:1916:1317:119:319:1320:1721:332222:227:2828:332:21
32:3132:3233:103435:435:1136:35-3636:3836:38-3936:3938:21-2243:1446:148:34949:1849:2449:24-2549:2549:25-26Exodus3:74:226:2-36:156:2310:2510:28-2912:1314:214:915
15:415:1115:1315:1715:1817:1-718:1219:1119:1819:202020:322:1923:1623:20-2123:23-2424:1-1124:424:724:9-1124:1024:1124:1224:1625:2226-4032-3432-3332:1832:3433-3433:233:7-1133:933:13 (LXX Vat.)33:14
33:1533:1633:2033:2334:534:634:11-1634:1334:2234:2934:33-35Leviticus11:91:131:172:1-162:234-56:15-161617:1118:2119:2619:26-2820:2-520:320:6-721:521:621:7
21:821:1021:11-1321:1722:252626:1226:30Numbers3:93:364:315:23-246:24-266:257:898:1910:29-3011-1911:1211:1711:2512:512:812:1012:1316:2220:2-1321:1421:2721:3322-24
23:3424:424:824:1625:1-525:225:526:3027:1628:23031:1932:3833:735:25-28Deuteronomy1:43:13:94:34:74:124:15-164:2355:77:57:139:1010:210:412-26
1212:1-1412:212:312:1812:3113:1714:116:2116:221818:9-2218:1018:10-1123:18 (E 17)24:1626:1428:428:1828:5129:1630:1031:1431:1531:24-263232:432:632:6-732:832:8-932:1232:1332:1532:1632:16-17
32:1732:1832:2132:2432:3032:3132:3432:3732:37-3832:3932:4232:42-4332:433333:233:1033:1333:2633:26-2734:11Joshua3:105:13-156:259:19:1510:1210:12-1311:311:1712:412:7
12:813:513:1213:3114:13-1415:5916:1017:7 (LXX Vat.)17:12-1318:919:3820:621:1221:1822:2224:25-2624:26-27Judges1:161:271:27-352-322:11-132:1333:1-73:33:74-54:74:11
55:35:3-55:45:4-55:55:65:85:205:316-766:116:226:256:25-266:25-306:25-326:327:17:328:1-28:88:98:13-178:178:338:359:49:339:4610:610:1611:3011:3914:20
14:2218:3020:3320:44-4621:251 Samuel1:211:222:22:102:194:215:56:27:37:3-47:47:97:108:79-109:12-1312:1012:1112:1813:1714:1516:3-517:5520:627:1028
28:328:828:1330:2931:102 Samuel1:172-45:207:68:1611:2112:1612:3013:2316:717:1118:17-1818:18212222:2323:182, 8323:1-723:3-423:423:523:2723:3124:16
1 Kings1:192:263:4-54:34:12811:411:511:711:7-811:14-2111:3311:4112:2512:28-3012:28-3113:213:3213:3314:1514:1914:2314:2514:2915,15:315:715:13,15:2315:3116:516:1416:20
16:30-3316:3116:3216:3317-1917:1-1717:141818:318:4-518:1918:2218:2518:2618:2718:4018:41-461919:119:1019:1119:1519:1820:2-420:13-1520:2220:2320:2821:5-621:2021:25-2621:27-2922:1922:4022:4522:46
23:1123:202 Kings1:171:182:113:23:153:274:4255:15:156:178:139:79:14-159:34-371010:10-2710:1910:21-2710:2410:341111:1711:181212:1112:1913:5-613:6
13:813:1213:20-2113:2114:1514:2414:2815:615:1115:1215:1515:2115:2615:3115:3616:316:1917:617:7-2317:1017:1117:1617:16-1717:3118:1818:2218:2518:2618:2818:2919:2320:520:820:202121:3
21:621:721:1722:322:422:822:472323:423:4-623:523:623:6-723:723:823:8-923:1123:1323:1423:1523:1723:1923:2423:2825:191 Chronicles2:434:335:55:85:236:10
6:227:88-98:248:308:338:348:459:29:199:369:399:4011:2812:312:614:1117:7-920:221:1524:626:727:127:227:2527:2828:129:292 Chronicles9:2912:1513
13:813:1013:1213:2214:415:1616:1116:1217:1922:822:3424:1825:2627:728:228:328:2630:1-123131:132:1833:333:633:1934:935:18Ezra2:232:432:582:703:12
5:157:67:77:117:128:178:20Nehemiah3:13:203:263:317:277:467:607:728:110:2911:311:2111:3213:2413:28Tobit1:5 (LXX Vat., Alex.)4:1713:613:10
Judith16:23Esther1:102:2Job1-23:85:77:129:720:326:7-826:1126:11-1326:1327:152828:1128:1428:2231:26-2831:35-3733:2636:14
36:2637:1337:2138:838:1038:1138:16-1738:25-2738:28-2938:34-3840:25 (E 41:1)42:5Psalms22:42:124:78:110:1210:1611:715:11616:316:61717:1517:181818:4-1818:5-618:6-19
18:8-1718:8-1918:1118:1418:14-16 (E 13-15)18:1618:17-1818:29-451919:4-619:7-102020:321:822:9-1022:30 (MT)24:126:82727:427:527:627:1027:132929:129:1-229:229:3-929:5-631:1734:636:742-434242:3
44-4944:2144:2445:146:547:247:347:547:94848:248:2-348:348:5-850:150:1-350:12-1450:1451:2157:157:358:1161:46363:363:76565:6-9 (E 5-8)65:8 (E 7)65:9 (E 8)65:12 (E 11)67:26868:568:668:7-10
68:968:2468:3068:357272:5-672:873:1174:1374:13-1476:377:1177:1978:1778:3578:4878:5678:6579:180:480:880:2082:182:683:1984-858484:984:1084:1286:9-1986:1587-888787:187:4
8989:5-889:5-1889:689:789:9-1089:10 (E 9)89:11 (E 10)89:1689:19-3789:2689:38-5190:890:1091:191:991:1092:29393:193:595:496-9996:1097:197:1-697:597:11 (LXX)98:1-299:199:299:8102:28103:21104104:1-4
104:3104:4104:9104:19104:26106:28106:34-38106:37106:40-47107:11107:20110110:6119:25132:2132:3132:4132:5146:10Proverbs1-92:263:13-183:188:2911:3013:415:416:2025:126:1029:18
Ecclesiastes1:21:59:14Song of Songs1:144:1-577:1-98:68:11Wisdom of Solomon7-814:318:118:318:15Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus)1:204:13
17:1718:3023:123:424:12-1730:1838:16-1746:2047:2248:1349:750:751:12Isaiah1:41:29-302:84:24:566:16:1-86:36:87:2088:5-88:16-208:198:19-208:20-218:20-22
8:20-238:218:21-2210:1010:1910:3011:111:4-511:1011:1513-2214:1315:215:316:1217:717:817:8 (LXX)17:10-1117:12-1419:319:1822:1222:15-1725:82727:127:927:9 (LXX)28:728:1528:16-2028:1829:429:11-1230:7
30:1030:1130:1930:2230:2730:27-3331:431:733:20-2234:234:6-735:236:436:1136:1340-5540:240:440:540:640:1440:18-2040:1940:2240:2440:2841:6-741:741:941:1142:642:10-1542:10-1742:1442:1542:16
42:1942:2543:1243:1443:2844:444:9-2044:1244:1344:1444:1545:345:445:5-745:10-1145:2246:1-1346:346:446:1347:647:747:1048:3-848:548:1548:1848:1949:249:349:649:749:1349:1449:1549:21
49:2249:2349:2650:651:251:351:951:9-1151:1051:1351:1551:1651:2352:852:1053:253:954:1254:1655:8-955:1055:1155:1356:557:3-1357:657:6-757:957:1558:859:959:1059:15-1960:160:1661:3
63:363:3-663:963:1664:7 (E 8)6565:365:46666:366:566:966:1366:1766:1866:18-21Jeremiah1:11:162:82:112:232:23-282:26-282:272:282:28 (LXX)3:33:43:193:245:22
5:246:96:137:97:187:21-227:297:30-327:318:7-88:199:8-99:9 (E 10)9:139:149:201010:1010:11-1610:1311:1311:1711:2111:2312:712:7-1312:1614:414:221616:5-916:2617:219:522:723:5
23:1323:1823:2223:2725:1327:929:2731:931:2031:29-3032:7-932:11-1432:2532:3933:153641:54444:15-2844:15-3044:17-2544:18-1944:2546:1048:1348:3549:149:349:951:1651:3452:25Lamentations
1:15Baruch4:14:24Ezekiel1-311:262:9-103:113:26-276:26:3-46:56:138-1188:38:148:169:111010:310:512:1012:2313:713:17-23
14:41616:2016:2116:361818:618:152020:25-2620:2820:322323:3924:2725:925:132828:12-1932:232:11-3233:233:12-1033:2237:26-2738-3939:1139:1439:1940-4842:1443:1-543:243:3-543:743:7-9
47:1-12Daniel2:352:372:393:253:263:324:104:144:204:214:224:294:315:185:216:36:56:76:2677:37:67:77:9-147:187:227:25911:37
Hosea22:10 (E 8)2:15 (E 13)2:16 (E 14)2:18 (E 16)2:18-19 (E 16-17)2:19 (E 17)2:202:21 (E 19)2:21-232:23-24 (E 21-22)2:23-25 (E 21-23)2:25 (E 23)3:44:124:134:145:156:36:66:77:147:168:18:58:129:49:1010:511:111:212:113:1
13:213:1213:1413:14-1514:2-1014:9 (E 8)14:9-1014:10 (E 9)Joel2:1-113:9-173:133:163:19-214 (E)4:9-144:9-15 (E 3:9-15)4:11-13 (E 3:11-13)4:134:16 (E 3:16)4:17 (E 3:17)4:18 (E 3:18)Amos1-21:21:3-2:161:122:7
2:174:75:85:255:2666:1-76:107:97:138:108:149:69:12Obadiah5Jonah1:44:8Micah1:161:75:10-155:11-13 (E 12-14)5:13
Nahum1:143:17Habakkuk2:22:52:18-192:193:33:3-153:43:53:63:83:103:15Zephaniah1:31:41:51:71:8Haggai
1:11:7-111:121:142:22:4Zechariah33:13:73:86:116:129:15 (LXX)10:112:3-412:812:1012:1114:214:414:514:814:16-17Malachi1:61:142:10
3:103:20Matthew12:2715:22Mark3:227:26Luke11:18Acts7:43Revelation2:74:5712:313:1
14:14-2017:319:11-1619:1521:121:1-421:4
INTERTESTAMENTAL TEXTS2 Baruch29:4-885:121 Enoch1414:11262 Esdras1:282:42-484:7-85:25-266:498:2013:1-413:35Letter of Jeremiah
6:336:60Odes of Solomon15:215:922:525:429:4Pseudo-Philo33:5Testament of Moses10:6Testament of Solomon26:6
POST-BIBLICAL JEWISH REFERENCESDead Sea Scrolls1QIsaa4Q403 fragment 1, col. 2, line 94Q405, fragments20-21-22, col. 2,line 10Songs of the SabbathSacrificeMishnah‘Abodah Zarah 3:5‘Abodah Zarah 3:7‘Abodah Zarah 3:9‘Abodah Zarah 3:10Baba Batra 3:1Me‘ilah 3:8‘Orlah 1:7‘Orlah 1:8Sebi‘it 2:9Sukkah 3:1-3Terumot 10:11Talmud
Baba Batra 75bBerakot 18b 170Pesahim 25aQiddushin 29bShabbat 152a-bSotah 34b 170Leviticus Rabbah22:10Midrash Tehillim91
TEXTS FROM UGARITCTA1.42.43.23.3.15-283.3(D).35-393.5.454.1.84.45.16.114.4.19814.4.20215.3172929.123364116n.8KTU1.1-21.1-6
1.1 IV 141.1 V 51.1 V 181.2 I1.2 I 17-191.2 I 191.2 I 331.2 I 33-351.2 I 351.2 I 361.2 I 37-381.2 I 391.2 III 41.2 III 51.2 IV1.2 IV 3-41.2 IV 81.2 IV 101.2 IV 131.2 IV 171.2 IV 261.2 IV 271.2 IV 27-341.2 IV 281.3 I1.3 II1.3 II 3-301.3 II 181.3 III 13-311.3 III 18-311.3 III 29-311.3 III 34-351.3 III 38-391.3 III 38-421.3 III 431.3 III 46
1.3 III 46-471.3 IV 7-201.3 V 361.3 V 61.3 V 81.3 V 141.3 V 171.3 V 311.3 V 35-361.3 V 371.3 V 401.3-41.4 I 4-51.4 I 71.4 I 131.4 I 211.4 II 191.4 II 25-261.4 III 141.4 IV 20-221.4 IV 20-261.4 IV 21-221.4 IV 241.4 IV 27-391.4 IV 311.4 IV 401.4 IV 421.4 IV 491.4 IV 511.4 IV-V 361.4 V 361.4 V 11.4 V 3-41.4 V 6-91.4 V 38-391.4 V-VII
1.4 VI1.4 VII 8-91.4 VII 211.4 VII 25-311.4 VII 291.4 VII 29-351.4 VII 38-391.4 VII 421.4 VII 441.4 VIII-1.61.5-61.5 I 11.5 I 1-51.5 I 31.5 II 121.5 III 2-111.5 IV 4-51.5 V 2031.5 V 6-91.5 V 6-111.5 V 7-91.5 V 18-221.5 V-1.6 V 2031.5 VI 1*1.5 VI 11-221.5 VI 23-251.5 VI 31-1.6 I 51.6 I 1451.6 I 6-81.6 I 8-91.6 I 10-181.6 I 111.6 I 131.6 I 341.6 I 39-411.6 I 44
1.6 I 451.6 I 461.6 I 471.6 I 531.6 II 241.6 II 271.6 III 1001.6 III 6-71.6 III 12-131.6 VI 121.6 VI 12-131.6 VI 42-531.6 VI 45-491.6 VI 54-561.6 VI 55-561.10 III 61.11.1-51.14 I 19-201.14 IV 351.14 IV 391.15 II 391.15 II 61.15 III 2031.15 III 2-41.15 III 13-151.15 III 261.15 IV 61.15 IV 81.15 IV 171.15 IV 191.16 I 361.16 I 37-381.16 I 381.16 III 61.16 III 81.16 V
1.16 V-VI1.16 VI 561.17 I-II 391.17 I 161.17 I 271.17 I 27-281.17 I 281.17 I 31-321.17 V 47-481.17 V 491.17 VI 481.18 IV 271.19 I 42-461.19 IV 531.20-221.22 I 101.231.23.131.23.161.23.23-241.23.281.23.30-511.23.37-521.23.541.23-611.28.14-151.401.43.131.46.11.471.47.6-111.61.401.82.1-31.91.21.91.111.100.2-3
1.100.411.101.1-41.105.91.105.151.106.21.107.171.1081.108.11.108.1-21.108.51.108.71.1091.112.18-201.112.211.1141.114.18-191.115.101.116.11.1181.118.5-101.118.111.119.26-291.119.26-381.119.301.119.34-361.1241.124.41.1271.127.21.1421.1481.148.3-41.148.11-121.1611.161.8-91.161.10
1.161.191.168.92.102.15.32.16.6-102.23.21-242.31.392.31.602.422.43.72.43.93.13.1.24-253.1.264.29.14.29.34.364.38.14.38.24.68.724.68.734.91.14.93.14.360.36.136.14RS16.144.916.144.12-1316.394.6017.33 obv. 4ʹ18.22.4’
20.2420.24.2025.3181929.171986/2235.17
OTHER NEAR EASTERN INSCRIPTIONSAP2:6-107:712:918:418:522:622:10822:12422:12542:844:355:7Armenian Ahiqar1:4Bethsaida steleBeth-Shan steleCIS14:5
44:146:1-257:1-258:159:160:161:1108Deir ‘AllainscriptionsDelos inscriptionno. 1719EA68:473:3-474:2-3084:33147:13-15147:59-60155:6155:47249-50256258266:12-15
ElephantinepapyriEl-Khadr arrowheadElkunirsanarrativeEmar32:3552:299:15109:46158:6279:25282:16319:8373:88’373.92’379:5’381:15382:16472:58’472:62’473:9’473:15’474:21’
Enuma Elish1:101-21:1021:1574:39-404:46-476:1277:11911:128-29Gudea Cylinder BV152Injirli inscriptionIshtar medallionKAI4:34:4-54:54:75:16:27:39 B 510:210:310:710:9-1010:15
12:3-412:413:114-1614:914:1414:1514:1814:221515:217:11818:118:719:426 A II:19-III:226 A III 12-1326 A III 1826 A III 1926 C IV:2-527:1233:334:134:435:1-337 A18843:643:10-1144:245:147:148:25051 obv. 5-653
54:15761A:1-261A:3-461B:1-264:167:1-26969:369:569:769:1269:1474:574:1078:278:579:179:10-1181:183:185:186:187:194:197:198:1-299:1-2102:1103:1-2105:1106:1-2107:1-4109:1-2110:1120:2
137:1145:12-13155:1156159:8164:1167:1-2175:2176:2-3181:3181:5181:9181:12181:13181:14181:16-18181:17181:18181:19181:30181:32181:33193:9-12213:14213:16214214:11214:16214:21222 B123251256277:1Khirbet el-Qôm
inscriptionsKilamuwa orthostatKuntillet ‘AjrûdinscriptionsLachish ewerLachish letters3, 4, 5, 6Mari textsMerneptah steleMesha steleMoabite stelePapyrus Amherst Egyptian no. 63column V 84column VII 103column XI 84column XI,lines70column84Proto-Sinaiticinscription62
Qubur el-WalaydahinscriptionRES289:2290:3302 B:53671519b1208Samaria ostraca1:72:42:712:2-337:341:1Sefire inscriptionTaanach letterTel Dan plaquesplaque BTell FakhariyehinscriptionTel Miqneh (Ekron)
inscriptions
CLASSICALAchilles Tatius, The Adventures of Leucippe and Clitophon2.143.6Apollodorus, The Library1.6.31.7-9Clement of Alexandria,Protreptikos pros HellenasIII 42.5De Dea Syriapara. 4para. 6Diodorus Siculus,Library of HistoryXX 14:4-7Herodotus, History
1.1052.563.5Josephus, Antiquities7.1748.144-498.14615.253Josephus, Contra Apionem1.1181.1231.1572.112-142.157Lydus, De mensibus4.53Macrobius, Saturnalia1.171.17.66-671.21.11.23.10
1.23.19Philo of Byblos (PE)1.10.71.10.101.10.151.10.161.10.201.10.211.10.241.10.261.10.271.10.291.10.311.10.321.10.331.10.361.10.444.6.114.16.7Pistis Sophia66Plutarch, De Iside et Osiridepara. 15, 3
Plutarch, Theseus16Pseudo-Philo33:5Strabo, Geography16.2.7
Index of Authors
Abu-Rabia, A.Ackerman, S.Adler, A.Aharoni, Y.Ahituv, S.Ahlström, G. W.Ahn, G.Albertz, R.Albright, W. F.Alessandrino, C.Alexander, R. L.Almagro-Gorbea, M.Alpert Nakhai, B. See Nakhai, B. A.Alt, A.Alter, R.Altmann, A.Amiet, P.Andersen, F. I.Anderson, B. W.Anderson, G. A.Angerstorfer, A.Ap-Thomas, D. R.Archi, A.Arfa, M.Arnaud, D.Assman, J.Astour, M. C.Attridge, H. W.Auffret, P.Aufrecht, W. E.Augustin, M.Auld, A. G.
Avigad, N.Avishur, Y.Avi-Yonah, M.
Baines, J.Baldacci, M.Balentine, S. E.Barkay, G.Barnett, R. W.Barr, J.Barré, M. L.Barrick, W. B.Barth, H.Barthélemy, D.Barton, D.Barton, G. A.Barton, J.Batto, B.Baudissen, W. F.Beck, M.Beck, P.Becking, B.Beckman, G.Beek, G. vanBeek, O. vanBeit-Arieh, I.Bell, C.Benichou-Safar, H.Bennett, C. M.Ben-Tor, A.Ben-Zvi, E.Berlinerblau, J.Bernett, M.Berthier, A.Betlyon, J. W.Beuken, W. A. M.
Biezais, H.Biggs, I. D. G.BingerBiran, A.Bird, P. A.Bittel, K.Blake, F.Blau, J.Bloch-Smith, E. M.Blomquist, T. H.Blum, E.Boadt, L.Böhl, F. M. Th.Boling, R. G.Bonnet, C.Bordreuil, P.Borger, R.Bornecque, H.Boström, G.Bottéro, J.Botterweck, G. J.Bowden, J. S.Brandfon, F.Brett, M.Brettler, M.Briggs, C. A.Briggs, E. G.Bright, J.Bron, F.Brooke, G. J.Brown, M. L.Brown, S.Brueggemann, W.Brunnow, R. E.Bunimovitz, S.Buren, E. D. van
Burnett, J. S.Burroughs, W. J.
Callaway, J.Callaway, R.Callendar, D. E., Jr.Camp, C.Campbell, E. F., Jr.Canaan, T.Caquot, A.Carr, D. M.Carroll, R. P.Carruthers, M.Carter, E.Carter, J. B.Cassuto, U.Catastini, A.Ceresko, A. R.Chakraborty, R.Charlier, R.Charpin, D.Chazan, R.Childs, B. S.Choquet, C.Ciasca, A.Civil, M.Clements. M.Clements, R. E.Clifford, R. J.Cogan, M.Cohen, M. E.Collins, J. J.Conroy, C.Conzelmann, H.Coogan, M. D.
Cook, G. A.Cooper, A.Coote, R. B.CorneliusCornell, S.Craigie, P. C.Crenshaw, J. L.Cresson, B.Cross, F. M.Cryer, F. H.Culley, R. C.Cullican, W.Cunchillos, J.-L.Curtis, A. H. W.Curtis, E. L.
Dahood, M.Danby, H.Darr, K. P.Davies, P. V.Davis, N. Z.Day, J.Day, P. L.Dayyagi-Mendels, M.Delavault, B.Delcor, M.Dever, W. G.Dhorme, E.Dietrich, M.Dietrich, W.Diewart, D. A.Dijkstra, M.Di Lella, A. A.Di Vito, R. A.Donner, H.Dörrfuss, E. M.Dossin, G.Dothan, M.Dothan, T.Draffkorn Kilmer, A. E.Duncan, J. A.Durand, J. M.Durkheim, E.Dyke, B.
Edelman, D. V.Efird, J. M.Eichrodt, W.Eissfeldt, O.Emberling, G.Emerton, J. A.Engelkern, K.Engle, J. R.Eph‘al.Epstein, I.Eslinger, L.Esse, D.Exum, J. C.
Falkenstein, A.Fantar, M.Faust, A.Fauth, W.Feldman, E.Fensham, F. C.Ferrera, A. J.Finet, A.Finkelstein, I.Finkelstein, J. J.Fischer, D. H.Fishbane, M.Fisher, L.Fitzgerald, A.Fitzmyer, J. A.Fleming, D.Fleming, D. E.Fleming, O.Floss, J. P.Floyd, M. H.Fohrer, G.Forsyth, N.Fowler, J. D.Frankfort, H.Frazer, J. G.Freedman, D. N.Freedman, M. A.Frendo, A.Frerichs, E. S.Frevel, C.Friedman, R. E.Friedrich, G.
Fuentes Estañol, M. J.Fulco
Gaál, E.Galling, K.Garbini, G.Garfinkel, Y.Garr, W. R.Gaselee, W.Gaster, T. H.Geer, R. M.Gehman, H. S.Gelb, I. J.Geller, M. J.Geller, S. A.Gerstenberger, E. S.GiantoGibson, A.Gibson, J. C. L.Gilula, M.Ginsberg, H. L.Gitin, S.Giveon, R.Glock, A. E.Gnuse, R. K.Godley, A. D.Goedicke, H.Goldstein, B.Gonen, R.Good, R. M.Goody, J.Gordon, C. H.Gorelick, L.Görg, M.Gottlieb, H.
Gottwald, N. K.Gray, J.Green, A.Green, A. R. W.Green, D.Greenberg, M.Greenfield, J. C.Greenstein, E. L.Gressman, H.Griffiths, J. G.Gröndahl, F.Gruber, M. I.Gruenwald, I.Gubel, E.Gunkel, H.Gunneweg, J.Güterbock, H. G.Gutmann, J.Guttmann, J.
Hackett, J. A.Hadley, J. M.Halevi, B.Hallo, W. W.Halpern, B.Hamilton, A.Hamilton, G. J.Handy, L. K.Hanhart, R.Hanson, P. D.Haran, M.Harden, D.Harrelson, W.Harris, M.Harth, D.Hartmann, B.Hasel, M.Haupt, P.Hayes, C. E.Hayes, J. H.Healey, J. F.Heider, G. C.Held, M.Heltzer, M.Hendel, R. S.Hennessey, J. B.Hentrich, T.Herdner, A.Herion, G. A.Herrman, S.Herrmann, W.Herzog, Z.
Hess, R.Hess, R. J.Hess, R. S.Hestrin, R.Hezser, C.Hiebert, T.Hill, G. F.Hillers, D. R.Himmelfarb, M.Hobbes, T.Hoffman, H. D.Hoffner, H. A.Hofner, M.Hoftijzer, J.Holladay, J. S.Holladay, J. S., Jr.Holladay, W. L.Holland, T. A.Hollis, F. J.Holloway, S. W.Hooke, S. H.Horst, P. W. van derHorwitz, W. J.Hübner, U.Huehnergard, J.Huffmon, H. B.Hurowitz, V.Hurvitz, A.Hyatt, J. P.
Ibrahim, M. M.Irwin, W. H.Ishida, T.
Jackson, K.Jacobsen, T.Jasper, D.Jastrow, M.Jirku, A.Jobling, D.Johnson, A. R.Jolly, K. L.Jones, H. L.Jongeling, K.Jong Ellis, M. deJüngling, H. W.
Kaiser, O.Kapelrud, A. S.Kaufman, I. T.Kaufman, S.Kaufmann, Y.Keel, O.Kempinski, A.Kennedy, C.Kenyon, K.Kermode, EKimchi, DavidKinet, D.King, P. J.Kitchen, K. A.Klein, H.Kletter, R.Kloner, A.Kloos, C.Klopfenstein, M. A.Knapp, A. B.Knauf, E. A.Knight, D. A.Knohl, I.Knutson, F. B.Koch, K.Koenen, K.Kooij, G. van derKorpel, M. C. A.Kort, A.Kottsieper, I.Kraus, H. J.Kruger, H. A. J.
Kubac, V.Kuschke, A.Kutscher, E. Y.
Labat, R.Laberge, L.Lachman, E.Lafont, B.Lagrange, M. J.Lahiri, A. K.Lambert, W. G.Landsberger, B.Lane, E.Lang, B.Lange, A.Langlamet, F.LaRocca-Pitts, E. C.Laroche, E.Launey, M.Lawton, R.Lehmann, R. G.Lemaire, A.Lemche, N. P.Lemke, W. E.Levenson, J. D.Levine, B. A.Levinson, B. M.Lewis, T. J.L’Heureux, C. E.Lichtenberger, H.Lichtenstein, M.Lichtheim, M.Lieberman, S.Lipiński, E.Livingstone, A.Lloyd, J. B.
Loewenstamm, S. E.Loisy, A.Long, B. O.Loretz, O.Luria, B. Z.Lust, J.
Maass, F.McAlpine, T.McBride, S. D.McBride, S. D., Jr.McCarter, P. K.McCarthy, D. J.MacDonald, J.Machinist, P.Macholz, C.McKane, W.McKay, B.McKay, J. W.McKenzie, S. L.McLaughlin, J. L.Madsen, A. A.Maier, C.Maier, W A.Maisler, B.. Same as Mazar, B.Malamat, A.Mann, T. W.Marchetti, P.Marcus, R.Margalit, B.Margolin, R.Marks, J. H.Master, D. M.Mathias, G.Mathias, V. T.May, H. G.Mayer-Opificius, R.Mayes, A. D. H.Mays, J. L.
Mazar, A.Mazar, B..Same asMaisler, B.Mazar, E.Meek, T. J.Meinhardt, J.Menard, J. E.Mendenhall, G.Merlo, P.Meshel, Z.Mettinger, T. N. D.Meyer, R.Meyers, C.Meyers, C. L.Meyers, E. M.Michèle Daviau, P. M.Miles, J. A., Jr.Milgrom, J.Milik, J. T.Millard, A. R.Miller, J. M.Miller, J. W.Miller, P. D.Miller, P. D., Jr.Mitchell, T. C.Montgomery, J. A.Moon-Kang, S.Moor, J. C. deMoorey, R.Moran, W. L.Morgenstern, J.Morrill, W. T.Morris, S.Morschauer, S.Mosca, P. G.Moscati, S.Mowinckel, S.
Mrozek, A.Muenchow, C. A.Mullen, E. T.Müller, H. P.Müller, M.Muntingh, L. M.Muth, R. F.
Na’aman, N.Nakhai, B. A.Naveh, J.Negbi, O.Neusner, J.Niccacci, A.Nicholson, E. W.Niditch, S. A.Niehr, H.Nielsen, F. A. J.Niemeyer, H. G.Nims, D. F.Norin, S. I. L.Norton, S. L.Noth, M.Nougayrol, J.
Oberman, H. A.O’Connor, M.Oded, B.Oden, R. A., Jr.O’Flaherty, W.Oldenburg, U.Olmstead, A. T.Olmo Lete, G. delOlyan, S. M.Oppenheim, A. L.Oren, E. D.Orlinsky, H. M.Oman, T.Oswald, H. C.Overholt, T. W.
Page, H. R., Jr.Pardee, D.Parker, S. B.Parpola, S.Parr, P.Patrick, D.Paul, S.Paul, S. M.Peckham, B.Peli, P.Perlman, A. L.Person, R. F., Jr.Petersen, D. L.Pettinato, G.PettyPicard, C. G.Picard, G.Picard, G. C.Pitard, W. T.Pomponio, F.Pope, M. H.Porten, B.Porter, B. N.Posener, G.Posner, R.Pritchard, J. B.Propp, W. H. C.Propp, W. L.Puech, E.Pury, A. dePusch, E.
Quispel, G.
Rad, G. vonRainey, A. F.Ratner, R.Ratosh, J.Redford, D. B.Reed, W. L.Reichert, A.Reiner, E.Rendsburg, G.Rendtorff, R.Ribichini, S.Richter, S.Richter, W.Ringgren, H.Roberts, J. J. M.Roberts, K. L.Robertson, D. A.Robertson Smith, W. See Smith, W. R.Robinson, A.Robinson, J. A.Robinson, J. M.Rogerson, J. W.Rollig, W.Römheld, D.Rosen, B.Ross, J. F.Rossmann, D. L.Rouseel, P.Rowe, A.Rowlands, C.Rowley, H. H.Rummel, S.
Russel, J.Rylaarsdam, J. C.
Sanders, J. A.Sanders, P.Sanmartin, J.Santucci, J. A.Saracino, F.Sarna, N.Sass, B.Saviv, A.Schaeffer, C. F. A.Schafer-Lichtenberger, C.Schart, A.Schenker, A.Schiffman, L. H.Schley, D. G.Schloen, J. D.Schmidt, B. B.Schmidt, H.Schmidt, W. H.Schmitt, J. J.Schniedewind, W. M.Schoors, A.Schorch, S.Schottroff, W.Schroer, S.Schulman, A. R.Schunk, K. D.Seebass, H.Seeligman, I. L.Seitz, C. R.Sellheim, R.Seyrig, H.Shanks, H.
Shea, W. H.Shepley, J.Sheppard, G. T.Shury, W. D.Signer, M.Sigrist, M.Silberman, N.Skehan, P. K.Skehan, P. W.Skjeggestad, M.Smend, R.Smith, G. A.Smith, H. R.Smith, J. Z.Smith, Mark S.Smith, MortonSmith, W. R.Snell, D. C.Snidjers, L. A.Soggin, J. A.Sollberger, E.Sommer, B. D.Sommerfeld, W.Spalinger, A.Spenser, J. R.Sperling, D.Spickard, P.Spieckermann, H.Spina, F. A.Spronk, K.Stade, B.Stadelmann, R.Stager. E.Stähli, H. P.Steck, O. H.Stegemann, E. W.
Steiner, R. C.Stern, E.Steuenagel, C.Stolz, F.Stone, M. E.Strugnell, J.Stulz, F.Sznycer, M.
Tadmor, H.Talmon, S.Tappy, R.Tarragon, J. M. deTawil, H.Taylor, J. G.Teixidor, J.Thackeray, H. St.J.Thompson, J. A.Thompson, T. L.Tigay, J. H.Timm, S.Tomback, R. S.Toombs, L.Toorn, K. van derTournay, R.Tov, E.Trible, P.Trinkaus, C.Tromp, N.Tropper, J.Tsevat, M.Tubb, J. N.Tucker, G. M.Tuttle, G.
Uehlinger, C.Ullendorff, E.Ulrich, E. C.Ussishkin, D.
Vanel, A.Vattioni, F.Vaughan, A. G.Vaux, R. deVawter, B.Velankar, H. D.VirolleaudVotto, S.Vovelle, P. M.Vreizen, T. C.Vrijhof, H.
Waardenburg, J.Wakeman, M. K.Waldman, N. M.Wallace, H. N.Wallenfells, R.Walls, N. H.Ward, W. WWatson, W. G. E.Watts, J. W.Weber, M.Weider, A. A.Weigl, M.Weinfeld, M.Weippert, M.Weisberg, D. B.Weiser, A.Weiss, K. M.Weitzman, M. P.Weitzman, S.Wellhausen, J.Wenning, R.Wensinck, A. J.Westenholz, J. G.Westermann, C.Wevers, J. W.Whiting, R. M.Wiggins, S. A.Wildberger, H.Williams, P. H., Jr.Williams-Forte, E.Willis, J.Wilson, J. A.
Wilson, K.Wilson, R. R.Winter, N. H.Winter, U.Wiseman. J.Wolff, H. WWorschech, U.Wright. P.Wright, G. E.Wyatt, N.Wyk, K. van
Xella, A. P.
Yadin, Y.Yamauchi, E. M.Yee, G. A.Yerushalmi, Y. H.Young, G. D.Younger, K. L., Jr.
Zadok, R.Zebulun, U.Zeitlin. M.Zenger, E.Zevit, Z.Zijl, P. J. vanZimmerli, W.Zuckerman, B.
General Index
Abdi-AshirtaAbsalomAbu SimbelAdadAddu.See alsoHadduAdonis (god)Adonis (river)AdrammelekAfqa RiverAhabAhazAhaziah‘Ain DaraAkhenatenAleppoAmar-SinAmmi-ditanaAmmonAmunAmun-ReAnammelekAnat; and Baal; and martial imagery; name of; and YahwehAnat-BethelanthropomorphismAntitApolloAqhatAradArmenian AhiqarAsaAshdodAsherah (goddess); and Astarte; and Baal; and El; during the Judges period;during the monarchy; and Yahweh
asherah (symbol); assimilated into Israelite religion; and Asherah; biblicalreferences to; forbidden; functions of; and Kuntillet ‘Ajrûd evidence; andWisdomasherimAshin-BethelAshkelonAshtar-ChemoshAshtaroth (place)Assur (god)Assur (place)AssyriaAssyrian King List AAstarte; and Asherah; biblical references to; and ElAthaliahAthenaAthensAthiratAthtar
Baal: and Anat; and Asherah; bull imagery of; cult of; and El; during Judgesperiod; as Phoenician deity; rejection of, by Israelites; as storm-god; as warrior;worship of, by Israelites; and Yahweh passimBaalbekBaal cycleBaal Gad (place)Baal Haddu (god)Baal Hamon (place)Baal Hazor (place)Baal Hermon (god)Baal Hermon (place)Baal Lebanon (god)Baal Lebanon (place)Baal-Malaga (god)Baal Ma‘on (place)Baal-Mot (god)Baal of Carmel (god)Baal of Tyre (god)Baal Peor (god)Baal Peor (place)Baal Perazim (place)Baal-Saphon (god)Baal II of TyreBaal Shalisha (place)Baal Shamem (god)Baal Tamar (place)BabylonBalaamBeershebaBeit el-WaliBelsephonBethel (god)Bethel (place)
BethlehemBethsaida steleBeth-Shan; steleBoghazköiByblos
CalebCarmelCarthageChemoshConstantineconvergence of divine imagery.See alsodifferentiation; syncretismCreteCyprus
Dan (place)Dan (tribe)DapurDaviddead, practices relating to thedeathDeborahDeir ‘Alla inscriptionsDelos inscriptionDelphiDemarousDeuteronomistic HistoryDeuteronomistic traditiondifferentiation.See alsoconvergenceDirdivination.See alsonecromancyDodona, oracular cult of
EblaEdfuEdomEdrei (Deraa)El: and Asherah; and Astarte; and Baal; bull imagery of; and convergence withotherdeities;fatherimageryof;asheadofpantheon;duringJudgesperiodpassim; titles of; and YahwehEl-BethelElephantine papyriElijahElijah-Elisha cyclesElishaEl-Khadr arrowheadElkunirsa narrative and myth“Elohist” traditionElosEmarEndorEnlilEphraimEpirusEsarhaddon, treaty ofEshbaalEshem-BethelEshmunEthbaalEuphrates
female imagery and Yahweh
GatumdugGazaGershomGezerGezer CalendarGibeonGideonGilohGudeaGudea Cylinder BGuelma (Algeria)
HadadHadad-RimmonHaddu.See alsoAdduHadidiHammurapiHanatHathorHattiHattusilisHazorHazzi, MountHebronHepherHeraklesHexaplaHezekiahhigh placesHiramHorusHosea
individuation.See alsodifferentiationIndraInjirli inscriptionIshbaalIshboshetIshkurIshtarIshtar medallionIsisIstanuIttobaal
JacobJebel el-Aqra‘JehoiadaJehoshaphatJehuJeroboam IJerubbaalJerubbeshetJerusalem; royal cults of; temple ofJezebelJonathan (son of Gershom)Jonathan (son of Saul)JoramJosiahJudges period; and Asherah; and Baal; and Elpassim
KaratepeKeretKetubimKhirbet AfqaKhirbet el-Q6mKilamuwa orthostatKitionKronosKuntillet ‘Ajrûd
LachishLachish ewerLagashLamashtuLapethosLebanonLeptis MagnaLeviathanLipit-Ishtar
Ma‘subMaltaManassehMardukMarimarzeah feastmasks, culticMattanMedinet HabuMegiddoMelqartMephiboshetMeribbaalMerneptahMerneptah steleMesha steleMeskeneMidianMilkomMinet el-BheidaMinotaurMoabMoabite steleMolochmonolatrymonotheismMosesMotMunbaqaMursilis
NaamanNebmare Amenophi IIInecromancy. See also divinationNew Year festivalNingirsuNinurtaNiqmaddu INiqmaddu IINiqmepaNubiaNur-Sin
official religion.See alsoroyal religion; state religionOphrahOrigenOrtheiaOuranos
PanammuPanammu inscriptionsParanPentateuch.See alsoTorahPentateuchal traditions.See alsoDeuteronomistic tradition; priestly traditionPhiladelphiapolytheismpopular religionPozo Moropriestly traditionProto-Sinaitic inscriptionPyrgiQawsQitmitQubur el-Walaydah inscriptionQueen of Heaven
RahabRamat RahelRamses IIRamses IIIRaphaRas ShamraRephaimReshephRhodesRib-AddiRig Vedaroyal religion.See alsoofficial religion; state religion
sacrifice; child sacrifice;mlk; and sacrificial languageSongs of the Sabbath SacrificeSahl ben Mazli’ahSamariaSamuelSapanSapan, MountSaphon, MountSardiniaSareptaSaulSefire inscriptionSennacheribShamashShamgar ben AnatShechem; god ofShishak listSicilySidonSinaiSirbonian Seasolar imagery: and worship.See also underYahwehSolomonsources, biblical.SeeDeuteronomistic tradition; “Elohist” tradition; priestlytraditionSousse (Hadrametum)SpainSpartastate religion.See alsoofficial religion; royal religionSuhusyncretism.See alsoconvergence
Taanach; letter; standTabernacles, feast ofTalmiyanuTammuzTannitTeimanTel Asmar sealTel Dan plaquesTel EkalteTell el-‘AjjûlTell Fakhariyeh inscriptionTel Miqneh (Ekron) inscriptionsTel QasileTel Sheratemple, heavenlyTerqaThariyelliTiamatTirzahTorah.See alsoPentateuchTukulti-Ninurta IITyphonTyre
Ullikumi’Umm el-‘AmedUr-Nammu
ValenciaVenusVrtra
Wadi HammamatWen-Amun taleWisdom, female figure ofwriting, importance of
Yahdun-LimYahweh: bull imagery of; cult practices associated with; and gender language;and meaning of name; and monotheism; and solar imagery; and understanding ofCanaanite deitiesYahweh in Israel’s history: Exile; Jerusalem temple tradition; Judges period;monarchyYahweh and other gods: Anat; Asherah; Baal passim; convergence of; ElYammYanoamYarim-limYashub-YahadYehud
ZahraZeusZeus HeliopolisZimri-LimZion
1For references, see below pp. xxv, xxx.2For references, see below pp. 172-73.3For the Bethsaida stele, see below p. 84 n. 64; for the medallion, see T. Ornan,“Ištar as Depicted on Finds from Israel,” inStudies in the Archaeology of theIron Age in Israel and Jordan,ed. A. Mazar with G. Mathias, JSOTSup 331(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 235-52.4For references, see the section 3 below entitled “Asherah/asherah Revisited” andchapter 3.5Loretz,Ugarit und die Bibel: Kanaanaische Götter und Religion im AltenTestament(Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1990).6Keel and Uehlinger,Göttinen, Götter und Gottessymbole,Questiones disputatae134 (Freiburg: Herder, 1992).7Keel and Uehlinger,Gods, Goddesses and Images of God in Ancient Israel,trans. T. Trapp (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998).8Herrmann,VonGottunddenGöttern:GesammelteAufsätzezumAltenTestament,BZAW 259 (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1999).9Wyatt,Serving the Gods(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000).10Day,Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan,JSOTSup 265 (Sheffield:Sheffield Academic Press, 2001).11Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible(DDD), ed. K. van der Toorn, B.Becking, and P. W. van der Horst (Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 1995).12Del Olmo Lete,La Religión Cananea según la liturgia de Ugarit: Estudiotextuel,Aula Orientalis Supplementa 3 (Barcelona: Editorial AUSA, 1992).13Del Olmo Lete,Canaanite Religion according to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit,trans. W. G. E. Watson (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1999).14
Del Olmo Lete, ed.,Semitas Occidentales (Emar, Ugarit, Hebreaos, Fenicios,Arameos, Arabes preislamicos),with contributions by D. Arnaud, G. del OlmoLete, J. Teixidor, and F. Bron, Mitología y Religion del Oriente Antiguo II/2(Barcelona: Editorial AUSA, 1995).15Niehr,Religionen in Israels Umwelt: Einführung in die nordwestsemitischenReligionen Syrien-Palästinas,Ergänzungsband 5 zum Alten Testament, DieNeue Echter Bibel (Würzburg: Echter, 1998). Other important works include: J.-L. Cunchillos,Manual deEstudiosUgaríticos(Madrid: CSIC, 1992); W. G. E.WatsonandN.Wyatt,eds.,HandbookforUgariticStudies,HdO1/39(Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 1999). See also M. Dijkstra, “Semitic Worship atSerabit el-Khadem (Sinai),” ZAH 10 (1997): 89-97, which announces I. D. G.Biggs and M. Dijkstra,Corpus of Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions (CPSI)(AOAT 41;in preparation).16Pomponio and Xella,Les dieux d’Ebla: Étude analytique des divinités éblaïtes àl’époque des archives royales du IIIe millénaire,AOAT 245 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1997).17Lipiński,Dieuxetdéessesdel’universphenicienetpunique,OrientaliaLovaniensia Analecta 64, Studia Phoenicia 14 (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters &Departement Oosterse Studies, 1995).18Albertz,ReligionsgeschichteIsraelsinalttestamentlicherZeit,DasAlteTestament Deutsch (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992).19Albertz,A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period,trans. J.Bowden, OTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1994).20Miller,TheReligionofAncientIsrael(London:SPCK;Louisville,KY:Westminster/ John Knox, 2000).21Zevit,The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches(London/ New York: Continuum, 2001).22See also F. M. Cross, FromEpic to Canon: History and Literature in AncientIsrael(Baltimore /London: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1998).23These include, by year:Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer
MonotheismusimKontextderisraelitischenundaltorientalischenReligionsgeschichte,ed.W.DietrichandM.A.Klopfenstein,OBO139(Fribourg,Switzerland:Universitätsverlag;Göttingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht,1994);UgaritandtheBible:ProceedingsoftheInternationalSymposium on Ugarit and the Bible. Manchester, September 1992,ed. G. J.Brooke, A. H. W. Curtis, and J. F. Healey, UBL 11 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag,1994);The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms,ed. D. V. Edelman(GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,1996);Ugarit,ReligionandCulture:Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Ugarit, Religion and Culture.Edinburgh, July 1994. Essays Presented in Honour of Professor John C. L.Gibson,ed. N. Wyatt, W. G. E. Watson, and J. B. Lloyd, UBL 12 (Münster:Ugarit-Verlag, 1996);“Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf”: Studien zum AltenTestament und zum Alten Orient. Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zur Vollendungseines 70. Lebenjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen,ed.M. Dietrich and 1. Kottsieper, AOAT 250 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1998);TheCrisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic andPost-ExilicTimes,ed.B.BeckingandM.C.A.Korpel,OTSXLII(Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 1999); and B. Becking et al.,Only One God?Monotheism in Ancient Israel and the Veneration of the Goddess Asherah, TheBiblical Seminar (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001).24Niehr,DerhöchsteGott:AlttestamenticherJHWH-GlaubeimKontextsyrischkannanäischerReligiondes1.Jahrtausendsv.Chr.,BZAW190(Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1990). Cf. the response of K. Engelkern,“BA’AL ŠAMEM: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit der monographie von H.Niehr,” ZAW 108 (1996): 233-48, 391-407. An English summary of Niehr’swork can be found in his essay, “The Rise of YHWH in Judahite and IsraeliteReligion: Methodological and Religio-Historical Aspects,” inThe Triumph ofElohim,ed. D. V. Edelman, 45-72.25De Moor,The Rise of Yahwism: Roots of Israelite Monotheism,BibliothecaEphemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 91 (Leuven: Peeters/UniversityPress, 1990; 2d ed., 1997).26Wyatt,Myths of Power: A Study of Royal Power and Ideology in Ugaritic andBiblical Tradition,UBL 13 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996).27Gnuse,NoOtherGods:EmergentMonotheisminIsrael,JSOTSup241(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997).
28Smith,The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Backgroundand the Ugaritic Texts(Oxford/New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2001). Forfurther discussion of how this book relates toThe Early History of God,see theend of this preface.29Aspects of Monotheism: How God Is One,ed. H. Shanks and J. Meinhardt(Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1997).30For example, by year: W. H. Schmidt, “‘Jahwe und ...’ : Anmerkungen zur sog.Monotheismus-Debatte,”inDieHebräischeBibelundihrezweifacheNachgeschichte: Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburstag,ed. E. Blum,C. Macholz, and E. W. Stegemann (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,1990), 435-47; M. Weippert, “Synkretismus und Monotheismus,” inKultur undKonflikt,ed. J. Assman and D. Harth, Edition Suhrkamp N.S. 612 (Frankfurt amMain: Suhrkamp, 1990), 143-79; G. Ahn, “‘Monotheismus’ — ‘Polytheismus’:Grenzen und Möglichkeiten einer Klassifikation von Gottesvorstellungen,” inMesopotamica—Ugaritica — Biblica: Festschrift für Kurt Bergerhof zurVollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres am 7. Mai 1992,ed. M. Dietrich and O.Loretz, AOAT (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: NeukirchenerVerlag, 1993), 1-24; T. L. Thompson, “The Intellectual Matrix of Early BiblicalNarrative: Inclusive Monotheism in Persian Period Palestine,” inThe Triumph ofElohim,ed. D. V. Edelman, 107-24; A. Schenker, “Le monothéisme israelite: undieu qui transcende le monde et les dieux,”Biblica78 (1997): 436-48; W. H. C.Propp, “Monotheism and ‘Moses’: The Problem of Early Israelite Religion,” UF31 (1999): 537-75.31Forfurtherlistingsanddiscussion,seethereviewarticleofO.Loretz,“Religionsgeschichte(n) Altsyrien-Kanaans und Israel-Judas,” UF 30 (1998):889-907.32See among others, P. Amiet,Corpus des cylindres de Ras Shamra—Ougarit II:Sceaux-cylindres en hématitie et pierres diverses,RSO IX (Paris: EditionsRecherche sur les Civilisations, 1992); B. Sass and C. Uehlinger, eds.,Studies inthe Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals,OBO 125 (Fribourg:Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993); 1. Cornelius,The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods Reshef and Ba‘al: Late Bronze Age IPeriods(c.1500-1000BCE),OBO140(Fribourg:Universitätsverlag;Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994); and C. Uehlinger, ed.,Images as
Media: Sources for the Cultural History of the Near East and the EasternMediterranean(1stmillenniumBCE),OBO175(Fribourg,Switzerland:Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000). See also themonumental volume by the late N. Avigad,Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals,revised and completed by B. Sass (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciencesand Humanities/The Israel Exploration Society /The Institute of Archaeology,the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1997).33Mettinger,No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near EasternContext,ConBOT 42 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995).34The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religionin Israel and the Ancient Near East,ed. K. van der Toorn, Contributions toBiblical Exegesis and Theology 21 (Leuven: Peeters, 1997).35Lewis, “Divine Images: Aniconism in Ancient Israel,” JAOS 118 (1998): 36-53.See also the essay of B. B. Schmidt, “The Aniconic Tradition: On ReadingImages and Viewing Texts,” inThe Triumph of Elohim,ed. D. V. Edelman, 75-105.36Na’aman,“NoAnthropomorphicGravenImage:NotesontheAssumedAnthropomorphic Cult Statues in the Temples of YHWH in the Pre-exilicPeriod,”UF31 (1999): 391-415.37Two particularly seminal studies by Stager are: “The Archaeology of the Familyin Ancient Israel,” BASOR 260 (1985): 1-35; and “Archaeology, Ecology andSocialHistory:BackgroundThemestotheSongofDeborah,”CongressVolume: Jerusalem 1986,ed. J. A. Emerton, VTSup 40 (Leiden: Brill, 1988),221-34.38Schloen, “Caravans, Kenites, andCasusBelli: Enmity and Alliance in the Songof Deborah,” CBQ 55 (1993): 18-38; andThe House of the Father as Fact andSymbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient Near East,Studies in theArchaeology and History of the Levant 2 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001).Another entry in the field is L. K. Handy,Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994).See the comments on Handy’s book made by Schloen(The House of the Father,356-57) and myself (The Origins of Biblical Monotheism,52-53).39
Master, “State Formation Theory and the Kingdom of Ancient Israel,”JNES60(2001): 117-31.40Bloch-Smith,Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead,JSOTSup123, JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 7 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,1992). See also her essay, “The Cult of the Dead in Judah: Interpreting theMaterial Remains,” JBL 111 (1992): 213-24. Bloch-Smith’s study of theJerusalem temple remains the most advanced study available on the subject:“‘Who Is the King of Glory?’ Solomon’s Temple and Its Symbolism,” inScripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor ofPhilip J. King,ed. M. D. Coogan, J. C. Exum, and L. E. Stager (Louisville, KY:Westminster/John Knox, 1994), 18-31, which was republished and modified inM. S. Smith,The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus,with contributions by ElizabethM. Bloch-Smith, JSOTSup 239 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 85-100. Similarly, her forthcoming study, “Israelite Ethnicity in Iron I” (submittedfor publication; my thanks to the author for prepublication access to the articleand permission to cite it), advances the current discussion of Israelite identity inthe Iron I period. Truth in advertising: see the end of this preface.41King and Stager,Life in Biblical Israel,Library of Ancient Israel (Louisville,KY: Westminster /John Knox, 2001).42Dever,What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? WhatArchaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel(Grand Rapids, MI:Eerdmans, 2001). See below for further discussion of one point in this book.43Finkelstein and Silberman,The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision ofAncient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts(New York: The Free Press,2001). See the review of Dever, “Excavating the Hebrew Bible, or Burying ItAgain?” BASOR 322 (2001): 67-77.44Zevit,The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches(London/ New York: Continuum, 2001).45Alpert Nakhai,Archaeology and the Religions of Canaan and Israel,ASORBooks 7 (Boston: The American Schools of Oriental Research, 2001). See alsoMarit Skjeggestad,Facts in the Ground: Biblical History in ArchaeologicalInterpretationoftheIronAgeinPalestine(Oslo:Unipubforlag,2001)(reference courtesy of Tryggve Mettinger).
46Brandfon, “The Limits of Evidence: Archaeology and Objectivity,”Maarav4/1(1987): 5-43.47Dever,What Did the Biblical Writers Know?53-95.48Dever,What Did the Biblical Writers Know?15, 106.49Dever,What Did the Biblical Writers Know?266.50Schloen,The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol,7-62.51Schloen,The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol,8.52Van der Toorn,Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel: Continuity andChange in the Forms of Religious Life,Studies in the History and Culture of theAncient Near East VII (Leiden: Brill, 1996).53Van der Toorn,From Her Cradle to Her Grave: The Role of Religion in the Lifeof the Israelite and the Babylonian Woman,The Bible Seminar 23 (Sheffield:JSOT Press, 1994). See also M. I. Gruber,The Motherhood of God and OtherStudies,South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 57 (Atlanta, GA:Scholars, 1992).54Schloen,The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol,349-57. See also hisarticle, “The Exile of Disinherited Kin in KTU 112 and KTU 1.23,”JNES 52(1993): 209-20.55Smith,The Origins of Biblical Monotheism,54-66, 77-80, 163-66.56See Day’s three articles: “Why Is Anat a Warrior and Hunter?” inThe Bible andthe Politics of Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Norman K. Gottwald on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday,ed. D. Jobling, P. L. Day, and G. T. Sheppard (Cleveland, OH:Pilgrim Press, 1991), 141-46, 329-32; “Anat: Ugarit’s ‘Mistress of Animals,’”JNES51 (1992): 181-90; and “Anat,” DDD, 36-43.57Walls,The Goddess Anat in Ugaritic Myth,SBLDS 135 (Atlanta: Scholars,1992).58
Anderson,A Time to Mourn, A Time to Dance: The Expression of Grief and Joyin Israelite Religion(University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State Univ. Press,1991); Olyan,Rites and Rank: Hierarchy in Biblical Representations of Cult(Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 2000); and Wright,Ritual in Narrative: TheDynamics of Feasting, Mourning and Retaliation Rites in the Ugaritic Tale ofAqhat(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000).59SeethediscussionsofDeverandFinkelsteininthemid-1990s:Dever,“Ceramics, Ethnicity, and the Question of Israel’s Origins,” BA 58 (1995): 206-10; “‘Will the Real Israel Please Stand Up?’ Part I: Archaeology and IsraeliteHistoriography,” BASOR 297 (1995): 61-80, and “‘Will the Real Israel PleaseStand Up?’ Part II: Archaeology and the Religions of Ancient Israel,” BASOR298 (1995): 37-58; Finkelstein, “Ethnicity and the Origins of the Iron I Settlersin the Highlands of Canaan: Can the Real Israel Stand Up?”BA59 (1996): 198-212. See further Bloch-Smith, “Israelite Ethnicity in Iron I” (submitted forpublication).60For example, see the essays in M. Brett, ed.,Ethnicity in the Bible(Leiden/NewYork/ Köln: Brill, 1996); and B. McKay, “Ethnicity and Israelite Religion: TheAnthropology of Social Boundaries in Judges” (Ph.D. diss., University ofToronto, 1997).61Forexample,R.R.Wilson,ProphecyandSocietyinAncientIsrael(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980). See the review of this book by G. W. Ahlström inJNES 44 (1985): 217-20.62Berlinerblau,The Vow and the ‘Popular Religious Groups’ of Ancient Israel: APhilological and Sociological Inquiry,JSOTSup 210 (Sheffield Academic Press,1996); and “Preliminary Remarks for the Sociological Study of Israelite ‘OfficialReligion,’” inKi Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic Studiesin Honor of Baruch A. Levine,ed. R. Chazan, W. W. Hallo, and L. H. Schiffman(WinonaLake,IN:Eisenbrauns,1999),153-70.ForaconsiderationofBerlinerblau’s book, see my review in JSS 43 (1998): 148-51. See alsoBerlinerblau, “The ‘Popular Religion’ Paradigm in Old Testament Research: ASociological Critique,” JSOT 60 (1993): 3-26.63See the works by Berlinerblau cited in the preceding note. See also N. K.Gottwald, “Social Class as an Analytic and Hermeneutical Category in BiblicalStudies,” JBL 112 (1993): 3- 22.
64For some studies of popular religion in European studies (by year), see N. Z.Davis, “Some Tasks and Themes in the Study of Popular Religion,” inIn thePursuit of Holiness in Late Medieval and Renaissance Religion,ed. C. Trinkausand H. A. Oberman (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 307-36; P. M. Vovelle, “La religionpopulaire: Problèmes et méthodes,”Le monde alpin et rhodanien5 (1977): 7-32;H. Vrijhof and J. Waardenburg, eds.,Official and Popular Religion: Analysis ofa Theme for Religious Studies,Religion and Society 19 (The Hague: Mouton,1979); and K. L. Jolly,Popular Religion in Late Saxon England: Elf Charms inContext(Chapel Hill, NC/ London: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1996).65Blomquist,Gates and Gods: Cults in the City Gates of Iron Age Palestine, AnInvestigationoftheArchaeologicalandBiblicalSources,ConBOT46(Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1999).66Faust, “Doorway Orientation, Settlement Planning and Cosmology in AncientIsrael during Iron Age II,”Oxford Journal of Archaeology20/2 (2001): 129-55.67For further discussion and bibliography, see M. S. Smith,Untold Stories: TheBibleandUgariticStudiesintheTwentiethCentury(Peabody,MA:Hendrickson Publishers, 2001), 192-93.68For this perspective, I am indebted to E. M. Bloch-Smith, “Israelite Ethnicity inIron I,” which draws on the work of S. Cornell, “That’s the Story of Our Life,”in WeArea People: Narrative and Multiplicity in Constructing Ethnic Identity,ed. P. Spickard and W. J. Burroughs (Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press, 2000),43-44. Cf. the emphasis placed on traditional narrative in Schloen,The House ofthe Father as Fact and Symbol,29-48.69Blum,Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch,BZAW 189 (Berlin: de Gruyter,1990).70Carr,Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches(Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1996).71J. H. Tigay, ed.,Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism(Philadelphia: Univ. ofPennsylvania Press, 1985), 1-20, 21-52, 149-73.72See further R. K. Gnuse, “Redefining the Elohist?” JBL 119 (2000): 201-20.
73Niditch,Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature(Louisville,KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1996); Person, Jr., “The Ancient Israelite Scribe asPerformer,”JBL117 (1998): 601-9.74Coogan, “Literacy and the Formation of Biblical Literature,” inRealia Dei:Essays in Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation in Honor of Edward F.Campbell, Jr., at His Retirement,ed. P. H. Williams, Jr., and T. Hiebert,ScholarsPressHomageSeries23(Atlanta,GA:Scholars,1999),47-61;Crenshaw,Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence,TheAnchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1998); Haran, “On theDiffusion of Literacy and Schools in Ancient Israel,” inCongress Volume:Jerusalem 1986,ed. J. A. Emerton, 81-95.75Fishbane,Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel(Oxford: Clarendon, 1985).76See the works cited in n. 93 below.77Hezser,Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine,Texts and Studies in AncientJudaism 81 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 99-100, 427-29.78Carruthers,The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture,CambridgeStudiesinMedievalLiterature10(Cambridge/NewYork:Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990); andThe Craft of Thought: Meditation, Rhetoric,and the Making of Images, 400-1200,Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature14 (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998).79Lachish 3, 4, 5, 6, conveniently transliterated, translated, and discussed by D.Pardee, in D. Pardee et al.,Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Letters: A StudyEdition, SBL Sources for Biblical Study 15 (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1982), 81-103.80The complexity of the interrelated features of orality, reading, writing, andinterpretation has been underscored for prophecy in the book,Writings andSpeech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy,ed. E. Ben-Zvi and M.H. Floyd, SBL Symposium 10 (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature,2000). See also A. Schart, “Combining Prophetic Oracles in Mari Letters andJeremiah 36,”JANES23 (1995): 75-93; and K. van der Toorn, “Old BabylonianProphecy between the Oral and the Written,”JNWSL24 (1988): 55-70.
81For some initial comments about Second Isaiah as a written composition, seebelow chapter 6, section 4. For reading, writing, and interpretation in SecondIsaiah, see the important study of B. D. Sommer,A Prophet Reads Scripture:Allusion in Isaiah 40-66,Contraversions. Jews and Other Differences (Stanford:Stanford Univ. Press, 1998). Daniel 9 is a written representation of the model ofinspired interpretation of the explicitly named prophetic figure of Jeremiah.82See the important article of H. L. Ginsberg, “A Strand in the Cord of HebraicPsalmody,”EI9 (1969 = W. F. Albright Volume): 45-50.83Ihavediscussedthisideainanessayentitled“Reading,WritingandInterpretation: Thoughts on Genesis 1 as Commentary” (unpublished paper).84See the survey in E. Tov,Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible(Minneapolis:Fortress; Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1992), 313-50.85For surveys, see D. Jasper, “Literary Readings of the Bible,” inThe CambridgeCampanion to Biblical Interpretation,ed. J. Barton (Cambridge: CambridgeUniv.Press,1998),21-34;andinthesamevolumeR.P.Carroll,“Poststructuralist Approaches: New Historicism and Postmodernism,” 50-66.86Exceptions are the works of S. B. Parker,The Pre-Biblical Narrative Tradition,SBL Resources for Biblical Study 24 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1989); andStoriesin Scripture and Inscriptions: Comparative Studies on Narratives in NorthwestSemitic Inscriptions and the Hebrew Bible(New York/Oxford: Oxford Univ.Press, 1997).87For the Late Bronze-Iron I transition, see the references on p. 21 n. 9. For theIron I-Iron II transition, see p. 15 n. 24.88Halpern,David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King(GrandRapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001); and McKenzie,King David: A Biography(Oxford/New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2000). See also W. Schniedewind,Society and the Promise to David: The Reception History of 2 Samuel 7:1-17(New York/Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1999).89A convenient listing of their works can be found in Dever,What Did the BiblicalWriters Know?However, I do not condone the rhetoric in this work; indeed, it is
the very sort of rhetoric which he deplores in their publications. See also Dever,“Histories and Nonhistories of Ancient Israel,” BASOR 316 (1999): 89-105.90Wilson, “The Campaign of Pharaoh Shoshenq I into Palestine” (Ph.D. diss., TheJohns Hopkins Univ. Press, 2001).91Forexample,seeBrettler,TheCreationofHistoryinAncientIsrael(London/New York: Routledge, 1995); and Halpern,The First Historians: TheHebrew Bible and History(San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988). See also F. A.J. Nielsen,The Tragedy in History: Herodotus and the Deuteronomistic History,JSOTSup251,CopenhagenInternationalSeminar4(Sheffield:SheffieldAcademic Press, 1997).92See Brettler,The Creation of History in Ancient Israel,20-47, esp. 46.93On memory in the Bible, see (by year): B. S. Childs,Memory and Tradition inIsrael(London: SCM, 1962); W. Schottroff,“Gedenken” im Alten Orient undim Alten Testament,2d ed., WMANT 15 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: NeukirchenerVerlag, 1967); D. Fleming, “Mari and the Possibilities of Biblical Memory,”RA92 (1998): 41-78. For two recent studies on collective memory, see M. Brettler,“Memory in Ancient Israel,” inMemory and History in Christianity andJudaism,ed. M. Signer (Notre Dame, IN: Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 2001), 1-17; and R. S. Hendel, “The Exodus in Biblical Memory,” JBL 120 (2001): 601-22. Brettler and Hendel are influenced by Y. H. Yerushalmi,Zakhor: JewishHistory and Jewish Memory(Seattle/London: Univ. of Washington Press, 1982;rev. ed., 1989). Informed more byAnnalesfigures writing on cultural memory, Iam presently preparing a book-length study of memory and ancient Israeliteculture and religion. The praxes of orality and scribalism mentioned above playa highly significant role in receiving, transmitting, and generating collectivememory.94Ras Shamra Parallels I-II, ed. L. Fisher, AnOr 49-50 (Rome: Pontifical BiblicalInstitute, 1972, 1975);Ras Shamra Parallels III, ed. S. Rummel, AnOr 51(Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1981).95For example, S. Ribichini and P Xella,La terminologia dei tessili nei testi diUgarit,CollezionediStudiFenici20(Rome:ConsiglioNazionaledelleRicerche, 1985).96
See R. S. Hess, “A Comparison of the Ugarit, Emar and Alalakh Archives,” inUgarit: Religion and Culture; Proceedings of the International Colloquium.Edinburgh July 1994, ed. N. Wyatt, UBL 12 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996),75-84. See also in the same volume M. Dietrich, “Aspects of the BabylonianImpact on Ugaritic Literature and Religion,” 33-48.97See H. Huffmon,Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts(Baltimore: JohnsHopkins Univ. Press, 1965); I. J. Gelb,A Computer-Aided Analysis of Amorite,Assyriological Studies 21 (Chicago/London: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1980); andR. Zadok, “On the Amorite Material from Mesopotamia,” inThe Tablet and theScroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William H. Hallo,ed. M. E. Cohen, D.C. Snell, and D. B. Weisberg (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1993), 315-33.98The issues are put nicely by D. Pardee, “Background to the Bible: Ugarit,” inEbla to Damascus: Art and Archaeology of Ancient Syria(Washington, DC:Smithsonian Institution, 1985), 253-58.99Keel and Uehlinger,Gods, Goddesses and Images of God, 396.100Keel and Uehlinger,Gods, Goddesses and Images of God, 395-96.101See the books mentioned below. For partial surveys (by year), see S. A.Wiggins, “Asherah Again: Binger’s Asherah and the State of Asherah Studies,”INWSL24 (1998): 231-40; J. A. Emerton, “‘Yahweh and his Asherah’: theGoddess or Her Symbol,”VT 49(1999): 315-37; and J. M. Hadley,The Cult ofAsherahinAncientIsraelandJudah:EvidenceforaHebrewGoddess,University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 57 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.Press, 2001), 11-37. See also W G. E. Watson, “The Goddesses of Ugarit: ASurvey,”Studi epigrafici e linguistici10 (1993): 47-59.102Gitin, “Seventh Century BCE cultic elements at Ekron,” inBiblical ArchaeologyToday, 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on BiblicalArchaeology(Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/The Israel Academy ofSciences and Humanities, 1993), 248-58. See further the discussion below.103Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses and Images of God, 228-48, 332, 369-70;Keel,Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh: Ancient Near Eastern Artand the Hebrew Bible, JSOTSup 262 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,1998). See also U. Hübner, “Der Tanz um die Ascheren,”UF 24(1992): 121-32.
104Olyan,Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel, SBLMS 34 (Atlanta, GA:Scholars, 1988); Frevel,Aschera und der Ausschliesslichkeitanspruch YHWHs,BBB 94, two vols. (Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995).105Keel and Uehlinger,Gods, Goddesses and Images of God, 228-48, 332, 369-70.106Ackerman,Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah,HSM 46 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1992).107Ackerman, “The Queen Mother and the Cult in Ancient Israel,”JBL112 (1993):385-401. The reasoning has been criticized by B. Halpern, “The New Names ofIsaiah 62:4: Jeremiah’s Reception in the Restoration and the Politics of ‘ThirdIsaiah,’”JBL117 (1998): 640 n. 46.108Wiggins, “The Myth of Asherah: Lion Lady and Serpent Goddess,”UF23(1991): 383-94;A Reassessment of ‛Asherah’: A Study According to the TextualSources of the First Two Millennia B.C.E., AOAT 235 (Kevelaer: Butzon &Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993); “Of Asherahs andTrees: Some Methodological Questions,”Journal of Ancient Near EasternReligions1/1 (2001): 158-87.109Merlo,La dea Ašratum — Atiratu — Ašera: Un contributo alla storia dellareligione semitica del Nord(Mursia: PontificiaUniversitàLateranese, 1998).110Dijkstra, “‘I Have Blessed You by YHWH of Samaria and His Asherah’: Textswith Religious Elements from the Soil Archive of Ancient Israel,” inOnly OneGod?17-44; and Korpel, “Asherah Outside Israel,” inOnly One God?127-50.111Cross (letter to me, dated 7 December 1998) comments in reference to thisdebate: “If you want syncretism in the Hebrew Bible, there is plenty of materialto be found without manufacturing it.”112Smith,The Early History of God, 1st ed., 80-97.113D. V. Edelman’s criticism that if’ăšērâis not the goddess but only a symbol,then 1 Kings 15:13 would attest to an image made for an image; see Edelman,“Introduction,” inThe Triumph of Elohim,18.114
J. H. Tigay, “A Second Temple Parallel to the Blessings from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud,”IEJ 40(1990): 218.115See the discussions of Mettinger, Na’aman, and others noted in section 1 above.116J. Day,Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 45.117See 2 Chron. 15:16, discussed by Hadley,The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israeland Judah,66.118See Judges 3:7, discussed by Hadley,The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel andJudah, 63-64.119J. Day,Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 46 n. 12.120As noted by Hadley (The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah, 7, 67), alater article of mine characterizes Asherah as a goddess in Israel in the Iron Age.See Smith, “Yahweh and the Other Deities of Ancient Israel: Observations onOld Problems and Recent Trends,” inEin Gotte allein? JHWH-Verehrung undbiblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischenReligionsgeshichte,ed.W.DietrichandM.A.Klopfenstein,OBO139(Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), 206.Hadley’s I discussion of my position may give the impression that it iscontradictory, that sometimes I claim Asherah was a goddess in the Iron Age,elsewhere that she was not. In fact, there is no contradiction in my writing onthis point, since the article speaks of the Iron Age (in a summary statement on p.206), whereas the book distinguishes matters between Iron I and Iron II.121See O. Loretz, Review ofThe Early History of God, UF 22(1990): 514: “Theauthor thus exposes himself ... as unwilling to view the new evidence without thedeuteronomistic filter.”122For comparative evidence marshalled in favor of this view, see P. Xella, “Ledieu et ‛say’ déesse: l’utilisation des suffixes pronominaux avec des théonymesd’Ebla à Ugarit et à Kuntillet ‘Ajrud,”UF 27(1995): 599-610; and M. Dietrich,“Die Parhedra in Pantheon von Emar: Miscellenea Emariana (1),”UF 29(1997):115-22.123Zevit,The Religions of Ancient Israel, 403 n. 10; Zevit’s italics.
124Gitin, “Seventh Century BCE Cultic Elements at Ekron,” 248-58; cf. Zevit,TheReligions of Ancient Israel, 321 n. 126, 374.125Hadley,The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah, 179-84; Lipinski,Dieux et déesses,421; Smith, “Yahweh and the Other Deities of Ancient Israel,”197-234, andThe Origins of Biblical Monotheism,73.126S. Gitin, T. Dothan, and J. Naveh, “A Royal Dedicatory Inscription fromEqron,”IEJ47/1-2 (1997): 1-16.127These options are discussed by R. G. Lehmann, “Studien zur Formgeschichte der‘Eqron-Inschrift des ’KYŠ und den phönizischen Dedikationtexten aus Byblos,”UF 31(1999): 255-306, esp. 258-59.128Lydus,De mensibus4.53; for text and translation, see H. W. Attridge and R. A.Oden, Jr.,Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History, CBQMS 9 (Washington,DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979), 70-71.129W. F. Albright,Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: An Historical Analysis of TwoConflicting Faiths(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968). Albright (p. vi) datesthe preface of the book 1 July 1967. For an interesting retrospective ofAlbright’sthought,seeJ.A.Miles,Jr.,“UnderstandingAlbright:ARevolutionary Etude,”HTR 69(1976): 151-75. Albright’s title is echoed in thename of J. Day’s book,Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan,JSOTSup265(Sheffield:SheffieldAcademicPress,2001).Ontheterm“Canaanite,” see the comments on p. 19 n. 2 below.130For surveys of these deities, see M. Dahood, “Ancient Semitic Deities in Syriaand Palestine,” inLe antiche divinita semitiche, Studi Semitici 1 (Rome: Centrodi Studi Semitici, 1958), 65-94; M. H. Pope and W. Röllig,Syrien: DieMythologie der Ugarititer und Phönizier,Wörterbuch der Mythologie 1/1(Stuttgart: Ernst Klett, 1965), 217-312; A. Cooper, “Divine Names and Epithetsin the Ugaritic Texts,” inRas Shamra Parallels: The Texts from Ugaritic and theHebrew Bible, vol. 3, ed. S. Rummel, AnOr 51 (Rome: Pontificium InstitutumBiblicum, 1981), 335-469 and various listings inDDD. For the Ugariticmythological texts with translations, see J. C. L. Gibson, Canaanite Myths andLegends, 2d ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978); G. del Olmo Lete,Mitos yleyendas srgún la tradicionde Ugarit, InstituciónSan Jerónimo parala
Investigación Biblica, Fuentes dc la Ciencia Bíblica 1 (Valencia: Institución SanJeronimo; Madrid : Ediciones Cristianidad, 1981). For translations with notes,seeANET,129-55; A. Caquot, M. Sznycer, and A. Herdner,Textes ougaritiques,vol. 1, Mythes et legendes,LAPO 7 (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1974); M. D.Coogan,Stories from Ancient Canaan(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978); A.Caquot, J. M. de Tarragon, and J. L. Cunchillos,Textes ougaritiques:TomeII.textes religieux. rituels. correspondance, LAPO 14 (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf,1989);M.DietrichandO.Loretz,inTexteausderUmweltdesAltenTestaments, ed. O. Kaiser, Band II (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus GerdMohn, 1986-); J. C. de Moor,An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit,Nisaba 16 (Leiden: Brill, 1987); D. Pardee et al., in W. W. Hallo, ed., TheContext of Scripture(Leiden: Brill, 1997), 241-375; S. B. Parker, ed.,UgariticNarrative Poetry,Writings from the Ancient World (Atlanta, GA: Scholars,1997); and N. Wyatt,Religious Texts from Ugarit:The Words of Ilimilku andHis Colleagues, The Biblical Seminar 53 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,1998). For an introduction to the relations between Ugaritic literature and theHebrewBible,seeJ.C.Greenfield,“TheHebrewBibleandCanaaniteLiterature,” inThe Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. R. Alter and F. Kermode(Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, Belknap Press, 1987), 545-60. Forfurther discussion of Ugaritic and biblical studies, see M. S. Smith,UntoldStories: The Bible and Ugaritic Studies in the Twentieth Century(Peabody, MA:Hendrickson Publishers, 2001).131Y. Kaufmann,The Religion of Israel from Its Beginnings to the BabylonianExile, trans. and abridged by M. Greenberg (New York: Schocken, 1960), 142-47; H. Ringgren,Israelite Religion,trans. D. E. Green (Philadelphia: Fortress,1966), 42, 58, 99; G. Fohrer,History of Israelite Religion, trans. D. E. Green(Nashville and New York: Abingdon, 1972), 127-30; G. W. Ahlström,Aspectsof Syncretism in Israelite Religion, Horae Soederblomianae V (Lund: Gleerup,1963), 8; J. Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in theLight of Hebrew Inscriptions, HSS 31 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1986). Cf. F. M.Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religionof Israel(Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1973), 190-91. For discussion,see D. R. Hillers, “Analyzing the Abominable: Our Understanding of CanaaniteReligion,”JQR75 (1985): 253-69.132Y. Kaufmann,The Religion of Israel, 134-47; J. H. Tigay,You Shall Have NoOther Gods,37-41. See Hillers, “Analyzing the Abominable,” 253-69; R. A.Oden,The Bible Without Theology(San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 1-39.
See also the observations of Morton Smith, “On the Differences between theCulture of Israel and the Major Cultures of the Ancient Near East,” JANES 5(1973): 389-95.133Ahlström,Aspects of Syncretism, 23-24, 50-51; Ringgren,Israelite Religion, 24,42, 95- 96, 261 ; Fohrer,History of Israelite Religion, 58, 104.134See chapter 5, section 2.135Tigay,You Shall Have No Other Gods, 12, 65-73, 83-85.136See D. Pardee, “An Evaluation of the Proper Names from Ebla from a WestSemitic Perspective: Pantheon Distribution According to Genre,” inEblaitePersonal Names and Semitic Name-Giving, ed. A. Archi (Rome: MissioneArcheologica Italiana in Siria, 1988), 119-51. Pardee collects a number ofexamples of deities worshiped in cult, but absent from the onomastica. See alsoK. M. Weiss, D. L. Rossmann, R. Chakraborty, and S. L. Norton, “WhereforeArt Thou, Romeo? Name Frequency Patterns and Their Use in AutomatedGenealogy Assembly,” inGenealogical Demography, ed. B. Dyke and W. T.Morrill (New York: Academic Press, 1980), 41-61. For a critique of Tigay’sstudy,seeR.Callaway,“TheNameGame:OnomasticEvidenceandArchaeological Reflections on Religion in Late Judah,”JianDao II (1999): 15-36.137See J. A. Emerton, “New Light on Israelite Religion: The Implications fromKuntillet “Ajrûd;”ZAW 94(1982): 16 n. 10; S. Olyan,Asherah and the Cult ofYahweh in Israel, SBLMS 34 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1988), 35-36; J. M.Hadley,The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah : Evidence for aHebrew Goddess, University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 57 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 106-55; and Z. Zevit,The Religions ofAncient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches(London/New York:Continuum, 2001), 370-405. F. Gröndahl (DiePersonennamender TexteausUgarit, Studia Pohl 1 [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967]) lists no propernames with’atrtas the theophoric element.138Olyan,Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 36-37. For further discussion of Tannit,see D. Harden, ThePhoenicians,2d ed. (Middlesex, England/New York:Penguin, 1980), 79; DISO, 229; Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 28;M. Dothan, “A Sign of Tannit from Tel ‘Akko,”IEJ 24(1974): 44-49; R. A.
Oden, Jr., Studies inLucian’s De Syria Dea, HSM 15 (Missoula, MT: Scholars,1977), 92-93, 141-49; M. Görg, “Zum Namen der punischen Göttin Tinnit,”UF12 (1980): 303-6; E. Lipinski, “Notes d’epigraphie phéniciennes et puniques,”OLP 14 (1983): 129- 65; P Bordreuil, “Tanit du Liban (Nouveaux documentspheniciensIII),”inPhoeniciaandtheEastMediterraneanintheFirstMillenniumB.C.:ProceedingsoftheConferenceHeldinLouvain14-16November 1985, Studia Phoenicia V (Louvain: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1987), 79-86;Olyan,Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 53-54, 59-60; Lipiński,Dieux etdéesses,62-64, 199-215, 423-26, 440-46.139For convergence in this early period, see B. Halpern, “‛Brisker Pipes ThanPoetry’: The Development of Israelite Monotheism,” inJudaic Perspectives onAncient Israel, ed. J. Neusner, B. A. Levine, and E. S. Frerichs (Philadelphia:Fortress, 1987), 88. That this was a general feature of Israelite society as a wholeas argued by Halpern appears unlikely in view of the worship of Baal in ancientIsrael (see chapter 2, section 1). Cross uses the term “differentiation” withrespect to Canaanite and Israelite religion (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic,71). In his discussion of the biblical combination of El and Baal traits in thepersonage of Yahweh, he uses the term “conflation” (163), which I take toreflect the larger process of convergence. See also Ahlström, “The Travels of theArk: A Religio-Political Composition,”JNES43 (1984): 146- 48. For furtherdiscussion, see below, especially chapter 1, section 4; chapter 3, section 5;chapter 5; and chapter 6, section 1. In his review of the first edition of this book,S. Parker prefers the term “individuation” to my “differentiation.” See Parker,Hebrew Studies33 (1992): 158. For “differentiation,” see further G. Emberling,“Ethnicity in Complex Societies: Archaeological Perspectives,”Journal ofArchaeological Research5/4 (1997): 306, reference courtesy of E. Bloch-Smith;seeherrelevantpiece,“IsraeliteEthnicityinIronI”(tentativetitle,inpreparation).140For discussion of the dating of the so-called old poetry, see F. M. Cross and D.N. Freedman,Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry, SBLDS 76 (Missoula, MT:Scholars, 1975); Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 100-103, 121-44,151-62, 234-37; D. N. Freedman, Pottery,Poetry, and Prophecy: Studies inEarly Hebrew Poetry(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980), 77- 178. For acontrary view, see M. H. Floyd, “Oral Tradition as a Problematic Factor in theHistorical Interpretation of Poems in the Law and the Prophets” (Ph.D. diss.,Claremont Graduate School, 1980), 174-205, 484-93.141
D. A. Robertson, “Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry” (Ph.D.diss., Yale University, 1966); M. O’Connor,Hebrew Verse Structure(WinonaLake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980).142Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 100-101. G. Garbini (“Il cantico diDebora,”La parola del passato178 [1978]: 5-31 ) and J. A. Soggin(Judges: ACommentary,OTL[Philadelphia:Westminster,1981],93)argueforamonarchic date for Judges 5, but some details of background in this chaptersuggest an earlier setting (see L. E. Stager, “Archaeology, Ecology, and SocialHistory: Background Themes to the Song of Deborah,” inCongress Volume:Jerusalem1986, ed. J. Emerton, VTSup [Leiden: Brill, 1988], 221-34).143This has been seen by H. Gottlieb (“El und Krt — Jahwe und David. ZumUrsprung des alttestamentlichen Monotheismus,”VT 24[1974]: 159-67) andMorton Smith(Palestinian Parties and Politics That Shaped the Old Testament[New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1971 ], 21-22). Most substantial treatmentsof the history of religion in Israel comment on the role of the monarchy. Forexample, see Ringgren,Israelite Religion, 57-65, 220-38; Fohrer,History ofIsraelite Religion, 123-50; Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 219-65; G.Mendenhall,The Tenth Generation: The Origins of the Biblical Tradition(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1973), 181, 188-94; G. W. Ahlström,Royal Administration and National Religion in Ancient Palestine, Studies in theHistory of the Ancient Near East 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1982); idem,Who Were theIsraelites?(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1986), 85-99; Halpern, “‘BriskerPipes Than Poetry,’” 77-115.144SeeW.G.Lambert,“TheHistoricalDevelopmentoftheMesopotamianPantheon: A Study in Sophisticated Polytheism,” inUnity and Diversity: Essaysin the History, Literature, and Religion of the Ancient Near East,ed. H.Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts (Baltimore: John Hopkins Univ. Press, 1975),191-200; idem, “Trees, Snakes and Gods in Ancient Syria and Anatolia,”BSOAS48 (1985): 439; A. Livingstone,Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Worksof Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars(Oxford: Clarendon, 1986), 101, 233; W.Sommerfeld,Der AufstiegMarduks, AOAT 213 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker;Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982), 174-81. On the fifty names ofMarduk, see J. Bottéro, “Les noms de Marduk, l’écriture et la ‘logique’ enMésopotamie ancienne,” inEssays on the Ancient Near East in Memory ofJacob Joel Finkelstein,ed. M. de Jong Ellis, Memoirs of the ConnecticutAcademy of Arts and Sciences (Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1977), 5-28. For
further discussion, see R. S. Hendel, “Aniconism and Anthropomorphism inAncient Israel,” inThe Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and theRise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. K. van der Toorn,Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 21 (Leuven: Peeters, 1997),206-12;andM.S.Smith,TheOriginsofBiblicalMonotheism:Israel’sPolytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts(Oxford/ New York: OxfordUniv. Press, 2001), 87-88. See further S. Parpola, “Monotheism in AncientAssyria,” inOne God or Many? Conceptions of Divinity in the Ancient World,ed. B. N. Porter, Transactions of the Casco Bay Assyriological Institute(Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2000), 165- 209.145On Amun-Re, see J. Assman,Re und Amun: Die Krise des polytheistischenWeltbildes im Agypten der 18.-20. Dynastie,OBO 51 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht, 1982); G. Posener, “Sur le monothéisme dans l‘ancienne Egypte,”inMélanges biblique et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles,ed. A.Caquot and M. Delcor, AOAT 212 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 347-51; cf. D. B. Redford,Akhenaten: TheHeretic King(Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1984), 158, 176, 205, 225-26,232; J. C. de Moor, “The Crisis of Polytheism in Late Bronze Ugarit,”OTS24(1986): 1-20; J. Baines, “Egyptian Deities in Context: Multiplicity, Unity, andthe Problem of Change,” inOne God or Many? ed. B. N. Porter, 9-78, esp. 53-62. See also Halpern, “‘Brisker Pipes Than Poetry,’” 79-80.146J. Tigay, “Israelite Religion: The Onomastic and Epigraphic Evidence,”inAncient Israelite Religion:Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross,ed. P. D.Miller, Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 178-79.147On this point, see J. P. Floss,Jahwe dienen — Göttern dienen: Terminologische,literarische und semantische Untersuchung einer theologischen Aussage zumGottesverhältnisimAltenTestament,BBB45(CologneandBern:PeterHanstein Verlag GmbH, 1975), esp. 140-49.148See Ahlström, Royal Administration, 69; M. S. Smith, “God Male and Female inthe Old Testament: Yahweh and His Asherah,” Theological Studies 48 (1987):338. Halpern (“‘Brisker Pipes Than Poetry,”’ 85, 87, 88, 91, 96, 101) equatesIsrael’s monolatrous henotheism (i.e., worship of one deity without denying theexistenceofotherdeities)withmonotheismandcallsthemonolatroushenotheistic religion of monarchic Israel “unselfconsciously monotheistic.” For
a study of this terminology, see D. L. Petersen, “Israel and Monotheism: TheUnfinished Agenda,” in Canon,Theology,and Old Testament Interpretation:Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs, ed. G. M. Tucker, D. L. Petersen, and R.R. Wilson (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 92-107. See also the discussion inchapter 6.149See G. A. Herion, “The Impact of Modern and Social Science Assumptions ontheReconstructionofIsraeliteReligion,”JSOT34(1986):3-33;andJ.Berlinerblau, “The ‘Popular Religion’ Paradigm in Old Testament Research: ASociological Critique,”JSOT 60(1993): 3-26.150B. Halpern,The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History(San Francisco:Harper & Row, 1988), 3-35; cf. M. Brettler,The Creation of History in AncientIsrael(London/ New York: Routledge, 1995). See also the discussion above onpp. xxvi-xxviii.151For the Late Bronze-Iron I transition, see below p. 21 n. 9. For the Iron I-Iron IItransition, see A. Faust, “Abandonment, Urbanization, Resettlement and theFormation of the Israelite State,”Near Eastern Archaeology(in press).152Fordiscussionandevidence,seeA.Faust,“Abandonment,Urbanization,Resettlement and the Formation of the Israelite State,” and E. M. Bloch-Smith,“Israelite Ethnicity in Iron I” (in preparation). I do not accept the cause put forthby Faust for these developments.153For illustrations of problems inherent in historical reconstructions, see D. H.Fischer, Historians’ Fallacies:Toward a Logic of Historical Thought(NewYork: Harper & Row, 1970).154For a critical treatment of issues pertaining to the definition, terminology, andunderstanding of monotheism in Israel, see Halpern, “‘Brisker Pipes ThanPoetry,”’ 75-115; Petersen, “Israel and Monotheism,” 92-107.155Cf. Day,Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 226-33.156On the environment and social organization of early Israel, see L. E. Stager,“The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel,” BASOR 260 (1985): 1-35;C. Meyers, “Of Seasons and Soldiers: A Topographical Appraisal of thePremonarchic Tribes of Galilee,” BASOR 252 (1983): 47-59; Ahlström,Who
Were the Israelites? 2-83; J. W. Rogerson, “Was Israel a Fragmentary Society?”JSOT36 (1986): 17-26; and E. Bloch-Smith and B. Alpert Nakhai, “ALandscape Comes to Life: The Iron Age I,”Near Eastern Archaeology62/2(1999): 62-92, 101-27. On judicial administration in early Israel, see R. R.Wilson, “Enforcing the Covenant: The Mechanisms of Judicial Authority inEarly Israel,”The Quest for the Kingdom of God:Studies in Honor ofGeorgeE.Mendenhall,ed. H. B. Huffmon, E A. Spina, and A. R. W. Green (Winona Lake,IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 59-75. The traditional designation, “period of theJudges,” is employed without adherence to the notion that this label accuratelycharacterizestheperiodofIsraelitehistory(ca.1200-1000).Forthehistoriographical issues involved with this label, see A. D. H. Mayes, “ThePeriod of the Judges and the Rise of the Monarchy,” inIsraelite and JudaeanHistory, ed. J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster,1977), 285-331.157In this edition, I have generally used the more tradition label, “Canaanite.”However, “Canaanite” as a term of contrast with “Israelite” is more a product ofbiblical historiography than historical record. I prefer instead the term, “WestSemitic,” since it does not reinscribe the ideology of biblical historiography. Fordiscussion, see M. S. Smith,Untold Stories: The Bible and Ugaritic Studies inthe Twentieth Century(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2001), 196-97.See further O. Loretz, “Ugariter, ‘Kanaanäer’ und ‘Israeliten,’” UF 24 (1992):249-58.158See Stager, “Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel,” 1-35; J. Callaway,“A New Perspective on the Hill Country Settlement of Canaan in Iron Age I,” inPalestine in the Bronzeand Iron Ages: Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell,ed. J.N. Tubb (London: Institute of Archaeology, 1985), 31-49.159On the continuity of noncuneiform alphabetic scripts between the highlands andthe valleys and coast, see the references below in n. 30. On alphabetic cuneiformtexts with a comparable distribution, see A. R. Millard, “The Ugaritic andCanaanite Alphabets — Some Notes,” UF 11 (1979): 613-16.160For the scholarly views regarding the relationships among Northwest Semiticlanguages,seeJ.C.Greenfield,“Amurrite,UgariticandCanaanite,”inProceedingsoftheInternationalConferenceonSemiticStudiesHeldinJerusalem, 19-23 July 1965 (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences andHumanities, 1969), 92-101; W. R. Garr,Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine,
1000-586 B.C.E. (Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 2-6. For alisting of pertinent works, see 241-60.161E. Y. Kutscher, AHistory of the Hebrew Language(Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden:Brill, 1982), 67. D. Pardee proposes that the Gezer Calendar is possiblyPhoenician(reviewofTextbookofSyrianSemiticInscriptions,vol.3,Phoenician Inscriptions, Including Inscriptions in the Mixed Dialect of ArslanTash, by J. C. L. Gibson, JNES 46 [1987]: 139 n. 20). This classification isbased on comparing the proleptic suffixes in lines 1 and 2 of the Gezer Calendar,in Phoenician inscriptions, and in late biblical Hebrew (Ezek. 10:3; 42:14; Prov.13:4; Ezra 3:12; Job 29:3). The suffixes in the Gezer Calendar are notoriouslydifficult, however, and other, albeit less convincing, proposals for them havebeen made. Moreover, the anticipatory or proleptic suffix may represent asurvival in both Phoenician and Hebrew (see Garr, Dialect Geography, 63,108,167-68).162For “Canaan” and “Canaanite” as terms applied to both material culture andlanguage, see the following discussions: B. Maisler (Mazar), “Canaan and theCanaanites,” BASOR 102 (1946): 7-12; W. F. Albright, “The Role of theCanaanites in the History of Civilization in TheBible and the Ancient NearEast: Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright,ed. G. E. Wright (GardenCity, NY: Doubleday, 1961), 328-420; J. C. L. Gibson, “Observations on SomeImportant Ethnic Terms in the Pentateuch,” JNES 20 (1961): 217-38; M. C.Astour, “The Origin of the Terms ‘Canaan,’ ‘Phoenician’ and ‘Purple,’” JNES24 (1965): 346-50; A. F. Rainey, “A Canaanite at Ugarit,”IEJ13 (1963): 43-45;idem, “The Kingdom of Ugarit,” BA 28/4 (1965): 105-7 (reprinted inTheBiblical Archaeologist Reader 3, ed. E. F. Campbell, Jr., and D. N. Freedman[GardenCity,NY:Doubleday,AnchorBooks,1970],79-80);idem,“Observations on Ugaritic Grammar,” UF 3 (1971): 171; idem, “ToponymicProblems (cont.),” TA 6 (1979): 161; idem, “Toponymic Problems (cont.),” TA9 (1982): 131-32; R. de Vaux, “Le Pays de Canaan,”JAOS88 (1968): 23-30;idem,Histoire ancienne d’Israel: Des origines a l’installation en Canaan(Paris:Gabalda, 1971), 124-26 (translation: The Early History of Israel, trans. D. Smith[Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978], 126-28); A. R. Millard, “The Canaanites,” inPeoples of Old Testament Times,ed. D. J. Wiseman (Oxford: Clarendon, 1973),29-52; M. Görg, “Der Name ‘Kanaan’ in aegyptischer Wiedergabe,” BN 18(1982): 26-27; M. Weippert, “Kinaẖẖi,”BN27(1985): 18-21; idem, “Kanaan,”Reallexikon der Assyriologie5:352-55. See N. P. Lemche,The Canaanites andTheir Land: The Tradition of the Canaanites, JSOTSup 110 (Sheffield: JSOT,
1991). See the critiques of A. Rainey, “Who Is a Canaanite? A Review of theTextual Evidence,” BASOR 304 (1996): 1-15; N. Na’aman, “The Canaanitesand Their Land: A Rejoinder,”UF 26(1994): 397- 418. See Lemche’s responsesin “Greater Canaan: The Implications of a Correct Reading of EA 151:49-67,”BASOR 310 (1998): 19-24, and “Where Should We Look for Canaan? A Replyto Nadav Na’aman,” UF 28 (1996): 767-72. See also 0. Fleming, “‘The StormGod of Canaan’ at Emar,”UF 26(1994): 127-30; R. Hess, “Occurrences of‘Canaan’ in Late Bronze Age Archites of the West Semitic World,”IOS18(1998): 365-72; idem, “Canaan and Canaanites at Alalakh,” UF 31 (1999): 225-36; and N. Na’aman, “Four Notes on the Size of Late Bronze Age Canaan,”BASOR 313 (1999): 31-38. See also the comments in Smith, Untold Stories,196-97. Late Bronze Age “Canaan” as a geographical unit refers to the Egyptianprovince generally and to the coast in particular (Maisler, “Canaan and theCanaanites,” 11). The northern limit of Canaan ran somewhere south of thekingdom of Ugarit and north of Byblos (see Rainey, “Kingdom of Ugarit,” 106;idem, “Toponymic Problems (cont.),” TA 9 [1982]: 131). Canaanite merchantsare distinguished at Ugarit as foreigners (Rainey, “A Canaanite at Ugarit,” 43-45; S. E. Loewenstamm, “Ugarit and the Bible II,” Biblica 59 [1978]: 117). Therelationship between Ugaritic and Canaanite language is more complex (see theworks cited in n. 5 and the remarks of Albright, Yahweh and the Gods ofCanaan, 116 n. 15). Second-century coins minted in Laodicea (Latakia) bear theinscription “Of Laodicea, mother in Canaan” (G. F. Hill, ACatalogue of theGreek Coins of Phoenicia[London: Longmans, 1910], pl. 50). In the homeland,the term “Canaanite” is attested as late as the New Testament (Matt 15:22; c£Mark 7:26).163O. Kaiser,Isaiah13-39;A Commentary,trans. R. A. Wilson, OTL (Philadelphia:Westminster, 1974), 106-7; R. E. Clements, Isaiah 1-39, New Century BibleCommentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan &Scott, 1980), 171; H. M. Orlinsky, “The Biblical Concept of the Land of Israel,”EI18 (1986 = N. Avigad Volume): 55* n. 17. On this verse, see further D.Barthélemy,CritiqueTextuelledel’AncienTestament:Isaïe,Jérémie,Lamentations,OBO50/2(Fribourg:EditionsUniversitaires;Göttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 1.143-50.164See the survey in Bloch-Smith and Alpert-Nakhai, “A Landscape Comes toLife,” 62- 92, 101-27. See also A. Mazar, “The Iron Age I,” inThe Archaeologyof Ancient Israel,ed. A. Ben-Tor, trans. R. Greenberg (New Haven/London:Yale Univ. Press/The Open University of Israel, 1992), 258-301; S. Bunimovitz,
“Socio-Political Transformations in the Central Hill Country in the Late Bronze-Iron I Transition,” inFrom Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological andHistoricalAspectsofEarlyIsrael,ed.1.FinkelsteinandN.Na’aman(Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zri/Israel Exploration Society; Washington, DC:Biblical Archaeological Society, 1994), 179-202; and Dever,What Did theBiblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? 108-24. See some helpfulcautions expressed by S. Bunimovitz and A. Faust, “Chronological Separation,Geographical Segregation, or Ethnic Demarcation? Ethnography and the IronAge Low Chronology,” BASOR 332 (2001): 1-10. For economic considerations,see R. F. Muth, “Economic Influences on Early Israel,”JSOT 75(1997): 59-75.165See A. Mazar, “Giloh: An Early Israelite Settlement Site Near Jerusalem,”IEJ31 (1981): 20-27, 32-33; Ahlstrom,Who Were the Israelites?26, 28; I.Finkelstein,The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement(Jerusalem: IsraelExploration Society, 1988), 270-91, 337.166For a lack of diagnostic features distinguishing Canaanite and Israelite materialculture in the Judges period, see Ahlström,Who Were the Israelites?28-35;Callaway, “A New Perspective,” 37-41; W. G. Dever, “The Contribution ofArchaeology to the Study of Canaanite and Early Israelite Religion,” inAncientIsraelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller, Jr.,P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 235; M. M.Ibrahim, “The Collared Rim Jar of the Early Iron Age,” inArchaeology and theLevant: Essays in Honor of Kathleen Kenyon,ed. R. Moorey and P. Parr(Warminster, England: Aris & Philips, 1978), 116-26; A. Schoors, “The IsraeliteConquest: Textual Evidence in the Archaeological Argument,” in The Land ofIsrael:Cross-Roads of Civilizations, ed. E. Lipinski, Orientalia LovansiensiaAnalecta 19 (Louvain: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1985), 78-92. See also G. and O. vanBeek, “Canaanite-Phoenician Architecture: The Development and Distributionof Two Styles,”El15 (1981): 70*-74*. See also the continuity of the practice ofterraceagriculture;seeS.Gibson,“AgriculturalTerracesandSettlementExpansionintheHighlandsofEarlyIronAgePalestine:IsThereAnyCorrelation between the Two?” inStudies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age inIsrael and Jordan,ed. A. Mazar, with the assistance of G. Mathias, JSOTSup331 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 113-46.167R. Gonen, “Regional Patterns and Burial Customs in Late Bronze Age Canaan,”Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society(1984-85): 70-74; E. M.Bloch-Smith,“Burials,Israelite,”ABD1.785-89;idem,JudahiteBurial
Practices and Beliefs about the Dead, JSOTSup 123, JSOT/ASOR MonographSeries 7 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992). See also her essay, “TheCult of the Dead in Judah: Interpreting the Material Remains,” JBL 111 (1992):213-24. See further R. Tappy, “Did the Dead Ever Die in Biblical Judah?”BASOR 298 (1995): 59-68.168See B. A. Levine,The JPS Torah Commentary: Leviticus(Philadelphia/NewYork/Jerusalem: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 15.169See Fohrer,History of Israelite Religion, 58-59; B. Levine,In the Presence ofthe Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel(Leiden:Brill, 1974); J. M. de Tarragon, Le Culte à Ugarit, CRB 19 (Paris: Gabalda,1980); M. Weinfeld, “Social and Cultic Institutions in the Priestly SourceAgainst Their Ancient Near Eastern Background,” in Proceedings of theEighthWorld Congress of Jewish Studies(Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies,1983), 95- 129.170See J. C. de Moor and P Sanders, “An Ugaritic Expiation Rite and Its OldTestament Parallels,” UF 23(1991): 283-300.171Regarding cultic personnel at Ugarit, see J. M. de Tarragon,Le Culte à Ugaritd’après les textes de la pratique en cunéiformes Alphabétiques, CRB 19 (Paris:Gabalda, 1980), 131-48; M. Heltzer,The Internal Organization of the KingdomofUgarit(RoyalServiceSystem,Taxes,RoyalEconomy,ArmsandAdministration) (Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1982), 131- 39. For asynopsis of cultic personnel at Ugarit, see D. M. Clements,Sources for UgariticRitual and Sacrifice, Vol. Ugaritic and Ugaritic Akkadian Texts, AOAT 284/1(Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2001), 1086-89. For a general presentation of Ugariticritual, see G. del Olmo Lete,Canaanite Religion according to the LiturgicalTexts of Ugaritic,trans. W. G. E. Watson (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1999).For in-depth study of the Ugaritic ritual texts, see the magisterial work of D.Pardee,Les textes rituels,2 vols., RSO XII (Paris: Edition Recherche sur lesCivilisations, 2000). An English translation of the rituals is to appear fromPardee in the Writing in the Ancient World series. Concerning Ugariticytnm,BH nětûnîm and nětînîm , see B. A. Levine, “The Něthînîm,”JBL82 (1963):207-12; E. Puech, “The Tel el-Fûl Jar and the Něthînîm,” BASOR 261 (1986):69-72. On qdš, see M. I. Gruber, “Hebrew qědēšāh and Her Canaanite andAkkadian Cognates,” UF 18 (1986): 133; see also the references in n. 18.172
On the Ugaritic parallels to BH ’ōhel mô‘ēd, see chapter 1, section 2.173TheinterpretationofBHqědēšāhisagoodexampleofhowculturalequivalences have been wrongly drawn on the basis of etymological cognates.According to Gruber (“Hebrew qědēšādh,” 133-48), scholars have incorrectlyimputed a cultic background to BH qědēšādh, “prostitute” (Gen. 38:21-22; Deut.23:18[E 17]; Hos. 4:14), and a sexual meaning to its cognates, Ugaritic qdšt andAkkadian qadiětu. In this way, BH qědēšādh and its cognates have been viewedas terms for cultic prostitutes. Based on his examination of the extant evidence,Gruber concludes, on the contrary, that BH qědēšādh refers to a (secular)prostitute, while its Ugaritic and Akkadian cognates refer to cultic functionarieswhose roles do not include sexual activities. See further the discussions of J. G.Westenholz,“Tamar,Qědēšā,Qadištu,andSacredProstitutionsinMesopotamia,” HTR 82/3 (1989): 245-65; and P. A. Bird,Missing Persons andMistaken Identities: Women and Gender in Ancient Israel, Overtures to BiblicalTheology(Minneapolis:Fortress,1997),206-8,233-36.SeefurtherS.Ackerman, Warrior Dancer, Seductress, Queen: Women in Judges and BiblicalIsrael, The Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 156,176 n. 92.174This is not to suggest that the transition from the Late Bronze to the Iron I in thehighlandswassimple.Thearchaeologyofthistransitionisimmenselycomplicated, and beyond the scope of this discussion. For treatments of thissubject, see the works cited in n. 9.175See M. D. Coogan, “Canaanite Origins and Lineage: Reflections on the Religionof Ancient Israel,” inAncient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of FrankMoore Cross,ed. P. D. Miller, Jr., P D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride, 115.176For the traditions of the southern sanctuary, see chapter 2, section 2.177On the development of the traditions of the Exodus and the wandering in thewilderness,seeB.S.Childs,TheBookofExodus,OTL(Philadelphia:Westminster, 1974), 218-30, 25464.178Ringgrcn,Israelite Religion, 43-44. The Canaaanite background of the name ofYahweh is contraverted. According to Cross and Freedman Yahweh was ashortened form of a title of El, which became a divine name (Cross,CanaaniteMyth and Hebrew Epic, 60-72; idem, “Reuben, First-Born of Jacob,” ZAW 100
[1988]: 57-63; Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy, 132-46, 119-20). Forcriticisms of this theory see Ringgren,Israelite Religion,68; Childs, The Bookof Exodus, 62-64; A. Gibson, Biblical Semantic Logic: A Preliminary Analysis(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981), 71-73, 159-64. For the argument that the nameof Yahweh may be related to a place name in the region to the south of Canaanmentioned in Late Bronze Age Egyptian records, see R. Giveon, “ToponymesOuest-Asiatiques a Soleb,” VT 14 (1964): 244; S. Herrman, Israel inEgypt,Studies in Biblical Theology 11/27 (London: SCM, 1973), 56-86; cf. M. C.Astour, “Yahweh in Egyptian Topographic Lists,” inFestschrift Elmar Edel: 12Marz 1979, ed. M. Gorg and E. Pusch, Aegypten und Altes Testament 1(Bamberg: M. Görg, 1979), 17-34; Ahlström, WhoWere the Israelites? 58-60;R. J. Hess, “The Divine Name Yahweh in Late Bronze Age Sources?” UF 23(1991): 180-82. For further discussion of the issues, see D. B. Redford, “TheAshkelon Relief at Karnak and the Israel Stela,”IEJ36 (1986): 199-200; M.Weinfeld, “The Tribal League at Sinai,” inAncient Israelite Religion: Essays inHonor of Frank Moore Cross,ed.P. D. Miller, Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D.McBride, 303-14; Finkelstein,Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement, 345.179ANET, 378. For the text, see K. A. Kitchen,Ramesside Inscriptions: Historicaland Biographical, vol. 4 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1982), 12-19. For furtherinformation, see M. Lichtheim,Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol. 2, The NewKingdom(Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press, 1976), 73-78.For further discussion, see D. Redford, “The Ashkelon Relief at Karnak and theIsrael Stela,” 188-200; A. R. Schulman, “The Great Historical Inscription ofMernepta at Karnak: A Partial Reappraisal,”Journal of the American ResearchCenter in Egypt 24(1987): 21-34; M. Hasel, “Israel in the Merneptah Stela,”BASOR 296 (1994): 45-61. For an analysis of the text, see A. Niccacci, “LaStèled’Israël.Grammaireetstratégiedecommunication,”inÉtudesÉgyptologiques et Bibliques à la mémoire du Père B. Couroyer, ed. M. Sigrist,CRB 36 (Paris: Gabalda, 1997), 43-107. For further commentary (especially acritique of Hasel’s article), see A. Rainey, “Israel in Merneptah’s Inscription andReliefs,”IEJ51 (2001): 57-75.180For discussion, seeANET,378 n. 18; G. W. Ahlström and D. Edelman,“Merneptah’sIsrael,”JNES44(1985):59-61;Ahlström,WhoWeretheIsraelites? 37-42.181See the valuable survey by E. Bloch-Smith and B. A. Nakhai, “A LandscapeComes to Life: The Iron Age I,” NearEasternArchaeology 62 (1999): 62-92,
101-27.182For a recent discussion of various positions on the development of Israelitehistorical material, see Halpern,The First Historians;see also chapter 1, section3.183Smith,Palestinian Parties and Politics,16, 211 n. 15; D. Sperling, “Israel’sReligion in the Ancient Near East,” inJewish Spirituality: From the BibleThrough the Middle Ages, ed. A. Green, World Spirituality: An EncyclopedicHistory of the Religious Quest 13 (New York: Crossroad, 1987), 9. Smith wouldinclude Midianites on the basis of Num. 10:29f. and Moabites on the basis ofNum.25:1-5.WhileitispossiblethatMidianitesandMoabiteswerecomponents in the population of early Israel, the sources cited do not supportthis reconstruction.184See D. Esse, review ofThe Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement, by I.Finkelstein,Biblical Archaeologist Review14/5 (1988): 6-9.185See F. M. Cross, “Newly Found Inscriptions in Old Canaanite and EarlyPhoenician Scripts,” BASOR 238 (1980): 2-3; E. Puech, “Origine de l’alphabet,”RB 93 (1986): 174. On this type of name, see W. F. Albright, “NorthwestSemitic Names in a List of Egyptian Slaves from the Eighteenth Century B.C.,”JAOS74 (1954): 225-26; idem, “An Ostracon from Calah and the North-IsraeliteDiaspora,” BASOR 149 (1958): 34 n. 12; and H. B. Huffmon, Amorite PersonalNames(Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniv.Press,1965),161.Forissuesconcerning the dating of these inscriptions, see R. Wallenfels, “Redating theByblian Inscriptions,” JANES 15 (1983): 97- 100.186On the Taanach letter, see ANET, 490. Concerning the inscription on theLachishewer,seeF.M.Cross,“TheEvolutionoftheProto-CanaaniteAlphabet,” BASOR 134 (1954): 21; idem, “The Origin and Early Evolution ofthe Alphabet,”El8 (1967 = E. L. Sukenik Volume), 16*; Puech, “Origine del’alphabet,” 178-80; idem, “The Canaanite Inscriptions of Lachish and TheirReligious Background,”TA13-14 (1986-87): 17-18. In the first article, Crossoffers a second possible translation: “A gift: a lamb for my Lady ’Elat.”187Cross, “Evolution of the Proto-Canaanite Alphabet,” 20 n. 17. In CTA 3.2(KTU1.3 II).18,‘iltrefers to the goddess Anat; otherwise it refers to Athirat (1.4[1.1IV].14; 3.5.45 = 1.3 V 37; 4.1.8 = 1.4 I 7; 4.4[1.4IV].49; 6.1 [1.61].40; 15.3
[1.15 III].26; 14.4.198, 202 = 1.14IV 35, 39). A neo-Punic inscription bears adedicationlhrbt l’lt, “to the Lady, the Goddess” (G. A. Cook, ATextbook ofNorth Semitic Inscriptions[Oxford: Clarendon, 1903], 158, cf. 135). See also thename Abdi-Ashirta (meaning “servant of Asherah”) of Amurru in the EA letters(see B. Halpern,The Emergence of Israel in Canaan, SBLMS 29 [Chico, CA:Scholars, 1983], 58-62, 69-78).188Cross, “Old Canaanite and Early Phoenician Scripts,” 7. On the arrowheads ofthis period, see T. C. Mitchell, “Another Palestinian Inscribed Arrowhead,” inPalestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages: Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell,ed. J.N. Tubb, 136-53.189See A. E. Glock, “Texts and Archaeology at Tell Ta‘anak,” Berytus 31 (1983):59-61. The theophoric element of b’l may lie behinddIM attested as thetheophoric element in the Canaanite names of some senders of El Amarnaletters, e.g., EA 249-250, 256, and 258. See R. Hess, “Divine Names in theAmarna Texts,” UF 18 (1986): 154. The name b‘ly is attested in a ca. twelfth-century inscription from Shiqmana (see A. Lemaire, “Notes d’épigraphie nord-ouest sémitique,”Semitica30 [1980]: 17-32).190Puech, “The Canaanite Inscriptions,” 17.191Puech, “The Canaanite Inscriptions,” 17-22.192On ‘ē/ běrît, see Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic,39, 44; T. J. Lewis,“The Identity and Function of El/Baal Berith,” JBL 115 (1996): 401-23; and L.E. Stager, “The Fortress-Temple at Shechem and the ‘House of El, Lord of theCovenant,’” inRealiaDei:Essays in Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation inHonor of Edward F. Campbell, Jr. at His Retirement, ed. P. H. Williams, Jr., andT. Hiebert, Scholars Press Homage Series 23 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1999),228-49.193See Kaufmann,The Religion of Israel, 229-31; cf. the biblical evidence thatKaufmann (229 n. 7) dismisses.194ThesecondaryliteratureexhibitslittleconsensusconcerningthedateofDeuteronomy 32. Some commentators, citing archaic poetic features, favor adate in the first half of the monarchy or earlier (see P K. Skehan, “The Structureof the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy (Dt 32:1-43),” CBQ 13 [1951]: 153-63 ;
idem,Studies in Israelite Poetry and Wisdom, CBQMS 1 [Washington, DC:Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1971], 67-77; Cross,Canaanite Mythand Hebrew Epic, 264 n. 193; Freedman,Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy, 99-101Other writers prefer an exilic or postexilic date (see G. von Rad,Deuteronomy:A Commentary, trans. D. Barton, OTL [London: SCM, 1966], 200; A. D. H.Mayes,Deuteronomy, New Century Bible [London: Oliphants, 1979], 382).Yahweh’s choice of Israel in MT Deut. 32:8-9 need not be viewed as a latefeature. A comparable concept is attested in the Wen-Amun tale dated to ca.1100. In this story, the ruler of Byblos, Zakar-Ba’l, tells Wen-Amun: “Nowwhen Amon founded all lands, in founding them he founded first the land ofEgypt”(ANET,27; M. Lichtheim,Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol. 2, 227).According to von Rad, the mixture of literary material (wisdom, prophetic, etc.)does not favor an early date. Moreover, commentators have noted the presenceof originally northern elements (e.g., the mention of Jacob in v. 9) and southerncomponents (the divine appellative of “rock”), presupposing a setting whenthese features had come together. This combination of features, too, wouldsupport a date in the eighth century or later, according to A. Reichert (“The SongofMoses(Dt.32)andtheQuestfortheDeuteronomicPsalmody,”inProceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Division A, ThePeriod of the Bible[Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986], 57-58).For the evidence for a later date, see Olyan,Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 72n. 7. For a recent survey, see P. Sanders,The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32,OTS 37 (Leiden: Brill, 1996).195See n. 5 above.196G. W. Ahlström, “Where Did the Israelites Live?” JNES 41 (1982): 134.197On‘elyonas a title of El, see section 4 below.198MT readsbĕnê yiśrā‘ēl,whereas LXXaggelōn theouand Qumranbny ’lhym(cf.Symmachus and Old Latin). For the DSS evidence, see the discussion by J. A.Duncan, inQumran Cave 4. IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, ed. E.Ulrich and F. M. Cross, DJD XIV (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 90. See also P. K.Skehan, “A Fragment of the ‘Song of Moses’ (Deut. 32) from Qumran,”BASOR136 (1954): 12-15; R. Meyer, “Die Bedeutung von Deuteronomium 32, 8f. 43(4Q) für die Auslegung Mosesliedes,” inVerbannung und Theologie Israels im6. und 5. jahrhundert v. Chr. Wilhelm Rudolph zum 70. Geburtstage,ed. A.Kuschke (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1961), 197-209. E. Tov,Textual Criticism of
the Hebrew Bible(Minneapolis: Fortress; Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum,1992), 269; A. Schenker, “Le monothéisme israélite: un dieu qui transcende lemonde et les dieux,”Biblica78 (1997): 438. Skehan (Studies, 69) notes that BenSira 17:17, reflecting later exegesis of Deut. 32:8, implies a divine ruler forevery nation.199See above for the biblical references to these locations, and n. 82 below.200For discussion of Yahweh’s original people, his importation from Edom and hissecondary adoption into the highlands religion, see K. van der Toorn,FamilyReligion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel(Leiden: Brill, 1996), 266-315, esp. 281-86;and“Yahweh,”DDD,910-19,andSmith,TheOriginsofBiblicalMonotheism, 135-48. See below n. 82. The background of the name of Yahwehis disputed. For a present discussion of the form, see J. Tropper, “DerGottesname*Yahwa,”VT 51 (2001): 81-106. For earlier proposals, see K. vander Toorn, “Yahweh,”DDD, 913-16. For a recent defense of Yahweh as a titleof El, see M. Dijkstra, “El, de God van Israël — Israel, het volk van YHWH.Over de van het Jahwisme in Oud-Israël,” inEén God alleen... ? Overmonothëisme in Oud-Israël en de verering van de godin Asjera,ed. B. Beckingand M. Dijkstra (Kampen: Kok, 1998), 59-92; and his article, “El, YHWH andTheir Asherah: On Continuity and Discontinuity in Canaanite and AncientIsraelite Religion,” inUgarit: Eine ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum in AltenOrient. Ergebnisse und Perspektiven der Forschung; Band I. Ugarit und seinealtorientalische Umwelt, ed. M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, ALASP 7 (Münster:Ugarit-Verlag, 1995), 43-73. Like earlier advocates of this view, Dijkstra has notmarshalled evidence for the identification of Yahweh as a title of El. A plausiblecase for the Midianite-Edomite background of Yahweh has been made by K. vander Toorn, but the argument for the importation of Yahweh-cult under Saul dueto his Edomite background is speculative. See van der Toorn,Family Religion,266-86.201O. Eissfeldt, “El and Yahweh,” JSS 1 (1956): 25-37; Cross,Canaanite Myth andHebrew Epic, 44-75. For the possible attestation of El at Ebla as DINGER in anoffering list, see W. G. Lambert, “Old Testament Mythology in Its Ancient NearEastern Context,” inCongress Volume: Jerusalem 1986,ed. J. Emerton, VTSup40 (Leiden: Brill, 1988), 131. Cf.DINGER-liin Emar 282:16.202Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 44. For various views as to how theidentification between Yahweh and El occurred, see Cooper, “Divine Names and
Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” 337-42; and C. E. L’Heureux, “Searching for theOrigins of God,” inTraditions in Transformation: Turning Points in BiblicalFaith, Festschrift Honoring Frank Moore Cross, ed. B. Halpern and J. D.Levenson (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981), 33-44. Ezekiel 28 representsan exception to the fact that the biblical tradition does not distinguish between Eland Yahweh, but the god in this satire on the city of Tyre is the Tyrian El andnot the El indigenous to Israel’s Canaanite tradition. On this chapter, see Pope,El in the Ugaritic Texts, VTSup 2 (Leiden: Brill, 1955), 97-103; R. R. Wilson,“The Death of the King of Tyre: The Editorial History of Ezekiel 28,” inLoveand Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope, ed. J.H. Marks and R. M. Good (Guilford, CT: Four Quarters, 1987), 211-18, esp.213-14; Greenfield, “The Hebrew Bible and Canaanite Literature,” 554; H. R.Page, Jr.,The Myth of Cosmic Rebellion: A Study of Its Reflexes in Ugaritic andBiblical Literature, VTSup 65 (Leiden/New York/Köln: Brill, 1996), 140- 58;andD.E.Callendar,Jr.,AdaminMythandHistory:AncientIsraelitePerspectives on the Primal Human, HSS 48 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,2000), 179-89. Recognizing that Ezekiel 28 refers to Tyrian El would providefurther confirmation that El was a Tyrian god although under a different name(e.g. Bethel, see below).203See J. J. M. Roberts, “El,”IDBSup,255-58. For a recent treatment of BH’ĕlōhȋm,see J. S. Burnett,A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim, SBLDS 183(Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 2001).204M. H. Pope,Song of Songs, AB 7C (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977), 294-95.205See Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 47 n. 15, 52-60, 86 n. 17, 298;Childs,The Book of Exodus, 111-14; Freedman,Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy,86; J. A. Hackett, “Some Observations on the Balaam Traditions at Deir ‘Alla,”BA 49 (1986): 216-22; idem, “Religious Traditions in Israelite Transjordan,” inAncient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D.Miller, Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride, 125-36. Cf. O. Loretz, “Derkanaanäische Ursprung des biblischen GottesnamesEl Šaddaj,” UF11 (1979):420-21; E. A. Knauf, “El Šaddai — der Gott Abrahams?”BN29 (1985): 97-103.For theeditio princepsof the Deir ‘Alla texts, see J. Hoftijzer and G. van derKooij,Aramaic Texts from Deir ‘Alla(Leiden: Brill, 1976). For bibliographypertaining to the Deir ‘Alla texts up to 1984, see W. E. Aufrecht, “ABibliography of the Deir ‘Alla Plaster Texts,”Newsletter for Targumic and
Cognate Studies, Supplement 2 (1985): 1-7. Thešdymin Deut. 32:16-17 and Ps.106:37 may not be demons (cf. Akkadianšēdu),but a group of deitiescorresponding tošdynin the Deir ’Alla texts (for discussion, see J. A. Hackett,The Balaam Texts from Deir ‘Alla,HSM 31 [Chico, CA: Scholars, 1984], 85-89;idem, “Religious Traditions,” 133). Might they be the military retinue of ElShadday? For further discussion, see below section 5.206Tigay,You Shall Have No Other Gods, 12, 65-73, 83-85. These totals forYahweh and El names compare with only twenty-six plausible non-Yahweh-Elnames. Some of the twenty-six cases may be Yahwistic (such asịbšlm, “[divine]ally is good”[?], so Tigay, 69) or belong to foreigners. The relative popularity ofEl names in fact stems from their being considered Yahwistic names. Z. Zevit(“A Chapter in the History of Israelite Proper Names,”BASOR250 [1983]: 1-16) notes that no names with-yhl-yhwoccur before the tenth century, perhapsreflecting the relatively late development of Yahweh’s cult in Canaan/Israel (cf.Smith,Palestinian Parties and Politics, 21). See also S. I. L. Norin,Sein Namealleinisthoch:DasJhw-haltigeSuffixalthebraischerPersonnennamenuntersuchtmitbesondererBerücksichtigungderalttestamentlichenRedaktionsgeschichte,ConBOT 24 (Lund: Gleerup, 1986). For the limitations onusing proper names as evidence of religious practice, see introduction. Ononornastic lag, see Tigay,You Shall Have No Other Gods, 17.207For descriptions of El, see Pope,El in the Ugaritic Texts, 34-35; and W.Herrmann, “El,”DDD,274-80. See further W. Herrmann, “Wann werde JahwezumSchöpferderWelt,”UF23(1991):166-80.Ugariticexamplesoficonography of the bearded El includeANEP,no. 493, and the drinking mugfrom Ugarit. For discussion, see C. F. A. Schaeffer, “Neue Entdeckungen inUgarit,”Archiv für Orientsforschung20 (1963): 206-16, esp. fig. 30; idem, “Leculte d‘El à Ras Shamra et le veau d’or,”CRAIBL1966, 327-28; idem,“Nouveaux témoinages du culte d’El et de Baal à Ras Shamra et ailleurs enSyrie-Palestine,”Syria43 (1966): 1-19, esp. fig. 1; M. H. Pope, “The Scene onthe Drinking Mug from Ugarit,” inNear Eastern Studies in Honor of WilliamFoxwell Albright, ed. H. Goedicke (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press,1971), 393-405; Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 35-36. These piecesof iconography of El are the closest analogues to the metal enthroned malefigures with hand upraised from Ugarit, Jezzin (Lebanon), Byblos, Tell AbuHawam, Beth-Shemesh, and elsewhere (see O. Negbi,Canaanite Gods in Metal:An Archaeological Study of Ancient Syro-Palestinian Figurines[Tel Aviv: TelAviv Univ. Institute of Archaeology, 1976], 42-56, nos. 1441, 1443, 1446, 1447,
1450). See further the discussions of W. Herrmann, “El,”DDD, 274-80; andSmith,The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 41-66. Note the debate over El asprimarily an Aramean god between I. Kottsieper, “El — ein aramäischer Gott?— Eine Antwort,” BN 94 (1998): 87-98, and C. Maier and J. Tropper, “El — einaramäischer Gott,”BN93 (1998): 77-88, who reject this thesis of Kottsieper. Forfurther discussion of the divine assembly in Canaanite and Israelite tradition, seechapter 3, section 5.208Cross(Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 21) argues that‘lmis an epithetespecially appropriate to El. The evidence is quite restricted, however. El’swisdom is called’m ‘lm,“for eternity” (KTU 1.3 V 31; 1.4 IV 42). The relatedword,‘llmn,in KTU 1.1 V 5 may refer to El, but the context is too broken toprovide confirmation. Cross interprets the occurrence of‘lmin KTU 1.108.1 alsoas a title of El. The first line of the text presentsrp’u mlk ‘lmand the second linecalls this figure’il. Cross regards’ilin line 2 as El and not generically as “god,”andidentifiesrp’umlk‘lmwithEl.Fortheproblemsunderlyingthisinterpretation, see chapter 5, sections 2 and 3. The term’lmis an epithet suitablealso to Ugaritic deities other than El. Baal’s kingship is called’lmin KTU 1.2 IV10. The phrasezbl mlk ’llmyin KTU 1.22 I 10 is problematic. The word’llmyappears to be a form of*’lm,“eternal one” (R. M. Good, “Geminated Sonants,Word Stress, and Energic in-nn/-.nnin Ugaritic,”UF13 [1981]: 118-19).Where BH‘ŏlāmappears with other elements of imagery attested for El in theUgaritic texts, the BH use of’ôlāmmay be traced back to El.209For further discussions of‘ab šnmas “father of years,” see Pope,El in theUgaritic Texts, 32-33; Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 16 n. 24;Greenfield, “The Hebrew Bible and Canaanite Literature,” 555; E. Ullendorff,“Ugaritic Marginalia IV,”El14 (1978 = H. L. Ginsberg Volume): 23*. The title,’ab šnm,has been interpreted in other ways for two reasons. First, the plural ofyears is otherwise expressed by the feminine formšnt.In this case the use of themasculine plural is a frozen form. Second,šnmappears in KTU 1.114.18-19 asthe second element in the double-name of the divine personage,tkmn w-šnm,who accompanies El, stricken with severe drunkenness, to his home. This role istreated as a filial duty in 1.17 I 31-32. Therefore, it has been inferred thattkmnw-šnmis a son of El and that El’s title,‘ab šnm,refers to El’s paternity of thisfigure. For these alternative views, seeANET,129 n. 1; C. H. Gordon, “El,Father ofšnm,” JNES35 (1976): 261-62; J. Gray,The Biblical Doctrine of theReign of God(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979), 235, esp. n. 201; A. Jirku, “Šnm(Schunama) der Sohn des Gottes ’Il,”ZAW82 (1970): 278-79; J. C. de Moor,
“Studies in the New Alphabetic Texts from Ras Shamra I,”UF1 (1969): 79;Pope,El in the Ugaritic Texts, 33, 61, 81.210For surveys of the terminology of the divine council in Akkadian, Ugaritic,Phoenician, and Hebrew, see E. T. Mullen,The Divine Council in Canaanite andEarly Hebrew Literature, HSM 24 (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1980); A. Cooper,“Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” 431-41.211See D. V. Edelman, “Tracking Observance of the Aniconic Tradition ThroughNumismatics,” inThe Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms, ed. D.V. Edelman (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 185-225, esp. 190-204, withdrawings of the coin’s two sides on p. 225.212ThelanguagedescribingtheUgariticdivinecourtincludesmanyfurtherelements derived from royal realia of the second millennium. Royal treatyterminology for tribute(‘argmn)and royal gifts from an inferior king to asuperior king(mnḥ)appear in KTU 1.2 I 37- 38 (cf. KTU 3.1.24-25; 4.91.1).The language of‘bd,literally “slave,” but in the context of an inferior to asuperior, a “servant,” appears also in KTU 1.2 I 36 and 1.5 II 12 (cf.PRUIV,p.49, line 12; 2 Sam. 16:7; see J. C. Greenfield, “Some Aspects of TreatyTerminology in the Bible,”Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Papers,vol. 1 [Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1967], 117-19; F. C.Fensham, “Notes on Treaty Terminology in Ugaritic Epics,”UF11 [1979]: 265-74; A. Rainey,The Scribe of Ugarit[Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences andHumanities, 1969], 141-42). The use ofb‘las a title of Yamm in KTU 1.2 I 17-19//33-35 and Mot in 1.5 II 12 reflects the diplomatic title for a superior king(3.1.26). The messengers’ insistence on having Baal’s gold(pḏ)in 1.2 I 19//35reflects a routine demand from one monarch to the king whom he is besieging(cf. KTU 1.3 III 46-47; 1 Kings 20:2-4; for the interpretation ofpḏ,see delOlmo Lete,Mitos y leyendas, 609). The protocols of messengers and theirpresentations of their messages reflect the language of royal internationalcorrespondence. The formulas introducing Yamm’s message in 1.2 I 16//33 arecommon in royal letters. For further discussion of these parallels, see J. F. Ross,“The Prophet as Yahweh’s Messenger,”Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays inHonor of James Muilenburg, ed. B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson (New York:Harper, 1962), 98-107 (reprinted inProphecy in Israel: Search for an Identity,ed. D. L. Petersen, Issues in Religion and Theology 10 (Philadelphia: Fortress;London: SPCK, 1987, 112-21). Similarly,lḥt,etymologically derived from“tablet,” means “message,” in both human and divine passages (1.2 I 26; see D.
Pardee, “A New Ugaritic Letter,”BiOr34 [1977], 7-8) and not “insult” or thelike (for this view, see del Olmo Lete,Mitos y leyendas, 571-72). Otherterminology within descriptions of the heavenly court appear to have deriveddirectly from a royal setting. Baal’s approach to Elbḥnt,“with his graciousness”in KTU 1.17 I 16 has been modeled on the act of intercession before the king inthe Ugaritic court. In a secular setting, one person asks another to “intercede forme before the king” (KTU 2.15.3; cf. KAI 10:9-10). On this comparison, see J.W. Watts,“Hnt:An Ugaritic Formula of Intercession,”UF21 (1989):443-49.213M. Brettler,God Is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor, JSOTSup 76(Sheffield: JSOT, 1989), 102-9. Professor Brettler suggested the formulationregarding themašḥît.On aspects of the divine council in the prophetic literature,see J. S. Holladay, “Assyrian Statecraft and the Prophets of Israel,” HTR 63(1970): 29-51 (reprinted inProphecy in Israel: Search for an Identity, ed. D. L.Petersen, 122-43).214See the view of R. de Vaux and B. Mazar that the Philistinemašḥîtîmin 1 Sam.13:5, 31:2 may be characterized as mobile strike-forces; cited in P. Machinist,“Biblical Traditions: The Philistines and Israelite History,” inThe Sea PeoplesandTheirWorld:AReassessment,ed.E.D.Oren,UniversityMuseumMonograph 108, University Museum Symposium Series 11 (Philadelphia: TheUniversity Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 2000), 58, 71 n. 29. See furtherp. 123 n. 64 below.215Brettler,God Is King, 106-7, 109.216See A. L. Oppenheim, “‘The Eyes of the Lord,’”JAOS88 (1968): 173-80; C. L.Meyers and E. M. Meyers,Haggai, Zechariah 1-8,AB 25B (Garden City, NY:Doubleday, 1987), 184; P. L. Day,An Adversary in Heaven: śāṭān in theHebrew Bible, HSM 43 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1988), 39-43; Brettler,God IsKing, 105, 109. On thesatan, see further N. Forsyth,The Old Enemy: Satan andthe Combat Myth(Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1987), 107-23.217J.Teixidor,reviewofTheGenesisApocryphonofQumranCaveI:ACommentary, by J. A. Fitzmyer, JAOS 87 (1967): 634; cf. Day,An Adversary inHeaven, 42.218See Pope,El in the Ugaritic Texts, 25-54; idem, “Ups and Downs in El’s
Amours,” UF 11 (1979 = C. F. A. Schaeffer Festschrift): 701-8; Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 13-43; P. D. Miller, “Aspects of the Religionof Israel,” inAncient Israelite Religion; Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross,ed. P. D. Miller, Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride, 55; Greenfield, “TheHebrew Bible and Canaanite Literature,” 547-48. For El and Baal as coregents,see PE 1.10.31 (Attridge and Oden,Philo of Byblos,54-55). Compatibilitybetween El and Baal is likewise evident in KTU 1.15 II and 1.17 I-II.219ANET, 519.220Studies of El’s abode include: Pope,El in the Ugaritic Texts, 62-72; idem, “TheScene on the Drinking Mug from Ugarit,” inNear Eastern Studies in Honor ofWilliam Foxwell Albright, 393-405; O. Kaiser,Die mythische Bedeutung desMeeres in Ugarit, Aegypten und Israel, BZAW 80 (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1961),42-56; E. Lipiriski, “El’s Abode: Mythological Traditions related to Mt. Hermonand to the Mountains of Armenia,”OLP2 (1971): 13-69; R. J. Clifford, “TheTent of El and the Israelite Tent of Meeting,”CBQ33 (1971): 221-27; idem,TheCosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament, HSM 4 (Cambridge, MA:Harvard Univ. Press, 1972), 35-37; Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic,36-39; idem, “The Priestly Tabernacle in Light of Recent Research,” inTempleand High Places in Biblical Times: Proceedings of the Colloquium in Honor oftheCentennialofHebrewUnionCollege,JewishInstituteofReligion,Jerusalem, 14-16 March 1977(Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College, JewishInstitute of Religion, 1981), 177-78; P. K. McCarter, “The River Ordeal inIsraelite Literature,”HTR66 (1973): 403- 12; Mullen,The Divine Council, 128-68; M. Weinfeld, “Social and Cultic Institutions in the Priestly Source AgainstTheir Ancient Near Eastern Background,” inProceedings of the Eighth WorldCongress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, 16-21 August 1981(Jerusalem: WorldUnion of Jewish Studies, Perry Foundation for Biblical Research, 1983), 103-4;M. S. Smith, “Mt.Llin KTU 1.2 I 19-20,”UF18 (1986): 458; Greenfield, “TheHebrew Bible and Canaanite Literature,” 548, 554. See also the importantcontribution by D. E. Fleming, “Mari’s Large Public Tent and the Priestly TentSanctuary,” VT 50 (2000): 485-98. The new Mari evidence discussed byFleming adds to the cultural background of El’s tent and the tent-shrine(tabernacle) of Yahweh. A number of commentators (e.g., Cross, Clifford,Greenfield, Mullen) identify El’s abode with the seat of the divine council inUgaritic tradition. Iconography on a seal from Mari perhaps bolsters thisidentification (A. Vanel,L’Iconographie du Dieu de l’Orage dans le Proche-Orient Ancien jusqu’à Vlle Siècle avant J.-C.,CRB 7 [Paris: Gabalda, 1965], 73-
74; O. Keel,The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near EasternIconography and the Book of Psalms[New York: Seabury, 1978], fig. 42). O.Keel describes the scene: The seal depicts “a god of the type of El enthroned,between the spring of two streams, on a mountain. He is flanked by twovegetation goddesses who grow out from the waters. A fourth figure, a warlikegod, appears thrusting into the stream with a spear” (“Ancient Seals and theBible,”JAOS106 [1986]: 309). This seal apparently combines at least twoscenes that are distinguished in the Baal cycle. El in his abode and Baal piercingthewatersconstitutetwoseparatemythologemsormythologicalscenes.DiscrepanciesintheUgariticdescriptionsofthetwocautionagainstanidentification of the settings of El’s abode and the divine council, at least forUgaritic tradition (Pope,El in the Ugaritic Texts, 69), if not for Canaanitetradition generally — although Ugaritic literature may assume the identificationwithout expressing it explicitly. If the two were not identified in Ugariticliterature or Canaanite literature generally, the conflation of the scene of thedivine council with the heavenly abode as found in biblical tradition wouldbelong to a point in Canaanite literary tradition later than the Ugaritic literarytexts. On the traditions of El and his waters at Hierapolis, see H. W. Attridge andR. A. Oden,The Syrian Goddess (De Dea Syria) Attributed to Lucian,Society ofBiblical Literature Texts and Translations 9, Graeco-Roman Religion Series 1(Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1976), 4, 8 n. 14; Oden,Studies, 32-33, 124-26, 142.For Mesopotamian iconography of the waters flowing from the vase held byEa/Enki, see E. D. van Buren,The Flowing Vase and the God with Streams(Berlin: Hans Schoetz und Co., GMBH, Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1933), 9-10;idem,Symbols of the Gods in Mesopotamian Art, AnOr 23 (Rome: PontificiumInstitutum Biblicum, 1945), 131-33.221Greenfield, “The Hebrew Bible and Canaanite Literature,” 554.
222SeeANET,519. On this title, see P. D. Miller, Jr., “El, the Creator of the Earth,”BASOR239 (1980): 43-46. For the Luvian correspondences for this title, see E.Laroche, “Études sur les Hieroglyphes Hittites,”Syria31 (1954): 102-3. Cf.Asherah’s Ugaritic title,qnyt ’ilm,“creatress of the gods,” and Dagan’s title atEmar, ENqu-ù-ni,“lord of creation” (Emar 373:88’, 379:5’, 381:15 and 382:16;my thanks go to Mr. Douglas Green for bringing these references to myattention).223P. C. Craigie,“El brt. El dn(RS 24. 278, 14-15),” UF 5 (1973): 278-79; Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 39, 44; K. A. Kitchen, “Egypt, Ugarit, Qatnaand Covenant,”UF11 (1979): 458; Lewis, “The Identity and Function ofEl/Baal Berith,” 408, 416; Stager, “The Fortress-Temple,” 239.224Fohrer,History of Israelite Religion, 38.225See R. Boling,Judges, AB 6A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975), 180. Thecomplex tradition history surrounding the cult of Shechem perhaps points also toits antiquity (see G. E. Wright,Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City[NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 1965], 123-58; L. Toombs and G. E. Wright, “The FourthCampaign at Balatah (Shechem),”BASOR169 [1963]: 28, 30; L. Toombs,“Shechem: Problems of the Early Israelite Era,” inSymposia Celebrating theSeventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Founding of the American Schools of OrientalResearch (1900-1975),ed. F. M. Cross [Cambridge, MA: American Schools ofOrientalResearch,1979],69-83).ThepeacefulrelationshipbetweentheIsraelites and Shechemites in Josh. 24:25- 26 has spawned theories positing anearly emergence of Israel in the vicinity of Shechem. Genesis 34 depicts aviolent period in the early relationships between the clan of Jacob and thenatives of Shechem. The history of relations between the various members of thepopulation was undoubtedly complex. See A. de Pury, “Genèse XXXIV etl‘histoire,” RB 71 (1969): 5-49; A. Lemaire, “Asriel,śr’l,Israel et l‘origine de laconféderation Israelite,”VT 23(1973): 239-43; idem, “Les Benê Jacob: Essaid’interprétation historique d‘une tradition patriarcale,”RB85 (1978): 321-37; cf.de Vaux,The Early History of Israel, 800-804; Freedman,Pottery, Poetry, andProphecy,84, 88, 164, 172, 176; G. W. Ahlström, “Another Moses Tradition,”JNES39 (1980): 65- 69, esp. 66; idem,Who Were the Israelites?40, 66-70; andHalpern,The Emergence, 81-94, 228. Because at Shechem no destruction levelscan be dated to the time shortly before 1200 and continuous repair of LateBronze Age fortifications into the Iron I period are attested, Ahlström argues that
the Shechemite kingdom of Labayu known from the Amarna letters continueddown through Gideon’s time. The archaeological evidence, especially fromsurveys, could be wedded to such a theory; see I. Finkelstein,The Archaeologyof the Period of the Settlement and Judges(Tel Aviv: Hakkibutz Hameuchad,1986) (Heb.); idem,’Izbet Sarṭah: An Early Iron Age Site Near Rosh Ha‘ayin,Israel, BAR International Series 299 (Oxford: BAR, 1986), esp. 205-13; idem,The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement;B. Mazar, “The Early IsraeliteSettlement in the Hill Country,”BASOR241 (1981): 75-85; Stager, “TheArchaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel,” 24, and “The Fortress-Temple,”228-49.226B. Vawter, “The Canaanite Background of Genesis 49,” CBQ 17 (1955): 12 n.40.227A. S. Kapelrud,Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts(Copenhagen: Gad, 1952), 64-93;Pope,El in the Ugaritic Texts, 32, 35-42.228On these passages, see Boling,Judges,30, 74; Soggin,Judges, 39, 41-44, 45.229For Judg. 18:30, read “Moses” instead of MT “Manasseh” (for the evidence ofthe versions and rabbinic sources, see D. Barthélemy,Critique Textuelle del‘Ancien Testament,2 vols., OBO 50/1 [Fribourg: Editions Universitaires;Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982], 1.115-16). See the discussion of S.Weitzman, “Reopening the Case of the Suspiciously Suspended Nun in Judges18:30,” CBQ 61 (1999): 429-47. On Judges 18, see Soggin, Judges, 276-78; D.G. Schley,Shiloh: A Biblical City in Tradition and History,JSOTSup 63(Sheffield: JSOT, 1988). On the function of related phrases in Judges, see B. S.Childs, “A Study of the Formula, ‘Until This Day,”’JBL82 (1963): 272-92; B.O. Long, “Framing Repetitions in Biblical Historiography,”JBL106 (1987):397-98.230On this cycle, see W. Richter,Die Bearbeitungen des ‘Retterbuches’ in derdeuteronomischen Epoche, BBB 21 (Bonn: P. Hanstein, 1964), 65-68; A.Malamat, “Charismatic Leadership in Early Israel,” inMagnalia Dei, TheMighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G.Ernest Wright, ed. F. M. Cross, W. E. Lemke, and P. D. Miller, Jr. (Garden City,NY: Doubleday, 1976), 155; A. D. H. Mayes, “The Period of the Judges and theRise of the Monarchy,” in Israelite andJudaeanHistory, ed. J. H. Hayes and J.M. Miller, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 290; Soggin, Judges, 43-44;
Ahlström,Who Were the Israelites? 75; Halpern,The First Historians, 121-43;and M. Brettler, “The Book of Judges: Literature as Politics,” JBL 108 (1989):395-418.231Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel(Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniv. Press, 1956), 160; idem,The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra(NewYork: Harper & Row, 1963), 42; idem,Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 199-200, esp. n. 101; Ringgren,Israelite Religion, 44; J. A. Emerton, “Gideon andJerubbaal,”Journal of Theological Studies27 (1976): 289- 312; U. Oldenburg,The Conflict Between El and Ba‘al in Canaanite Religion(Leiden: Brill, 1969),179. For an attempt to compare the element *bôšet in these names withAkkadianbaštu,“dignity, pride, honor,” see M. Tsevat, “Ishbosheth andCongeners: The Names and Their Study,”Hebrew Union College Annual34(1975): 71-87; for criticisms of this position, see P. K. McCarter,IISamuel, AB9 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 84-85. The view of Tsevat has receivednew support from G. J. Hamilton, “New Evidence for the Authenticity ofbštinHebrew Personal Names and for Its Use as a Divine Epithet in Biblical Texts,”CBQ60(1998):228-50.SeefurtherS.Schorch,EuphemismeninderHebräischenBibel,OrientaliaBiblicaetChristiana12(Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz, 2000), 78 n. 201. Assuming Hamilton’s view of the origins of the*bštelement is correctly “protective spirit,” it remains possible that it wassecondarily understood in these contexts as “shame.”232See Cooper, “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” 359-60.233Ahlström, “Another Moses Tradition,” 65-69.234See Albright,Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, 113, 207 n. 62; idem,TheBiblicalPeriod, 38; Tigay,You Shall Have No Other Gods, 8 n. 10; cf.Oldenburg, TheConflict,181 n. 4. For textual and philological discussions of thenames, see McCarter, II Samuel, 82, 85-87, 124- 25, 128. See n. 77 above.235N. Avigad, “Hebrew Seals and Sealings and Their Significance for BiblicalResearch,” in CongressVolume: Jerusalem1986, ed. J. Emerton, VTSup 40(Leiden: Brill, 1988), 8.236Ringgren,Israelite Religion, 44.237See chapter 2, section 2. It is possible that the application of storm-imagery (in
the rain storm) was secondary to Yahweh, who after all is said to derive fromMidian/Teiman/Paran, a region not particularly known for its rain-storms. SeeSmith,The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 145-46. If correct, the applicationof storm-imagery, made under the appropriation of Baal imagery, would still bequiteearly,probablypremonarchic.J.Day(YahwehandtheGodsandGoddesses of Canaan,91-116) has stressed the secondary appropriation of Baalimagery by Yahweh.238Ringgren,Israelite Religion,44.239See chapter 2, section 1.240For this point, see Olyan,Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 35-36.241See chapter 3, section 3.242Vawter, “The Canaanite Background,” 12-17; Freedman, ‘“Who Is Like TheeAmongthe Gods?’ The Religion of Early Israel,” inAncient Israelite Religion: Essays inHonor of FrankMoore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller, Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride, 324-25;O’Connor,HebrewVerse Structure, 177-78. For the question of the etymology ofšadday,seeAlbright, “The NamesShaddai and Abram,”JBL54 (1935): 173-204; Ringgren,Israelite Religion, 22;Cross,CanaaniteMyth and Hebrew Epic, 52-56; and references in n. 50 above.243Many emendations have been proposed for these verses. For the text-criticalissues, see Vawter, “The Canaanite Background,” 16; Cross and Freedman,Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry,75-76, 91-92 nn. 78-83. In v. 24a, MTunderstands Joseph as the referent (so RSV, New Jewish Publication Societyversion; cf. NAB), but many commentators take Joseph’s enemies as the referent(so O’Connor,Hebrew Verse Structure, 177). This translation emends MTgābĕrûtogibbôrand MThôraytoharĕrêin v. 26. In the attempt to makebirkōt‘ābîkā gābĕrûmore consistent with the customary interpretation ofbirkōtšādayim wārāḥamas an expression of natural fertility, some commentatorsemend the former expression tobirkōt ’ābîb wĕgib‘ōl(e.g., E. A. Speiser,Genesis, AB I [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964], 369-70); there is no text-
critical basis for this change. The blessings of w. 25b-26a are translated assyntactically dependent onwîbārĕkekkā.It is possible to read them as the subjectof the verb in v. 26b (so O’Connor,Hebrew Verse Structure, 177).244I am not inclined to separate the semantics of’ăbîrl’abbîr,as N. Sarna maintains(Sarna,TheJPSTorahCommentary:Genesis[Philadelphia/NewYork/Jerusalem: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989], 343, 372 n. 49), basedon Sarna’s early study, “The Divine Title ”abhîr ya‘ăqôbh,“’ inEssays on theOccasion of the 70th Anniversary of Dropsie University[Philadelphia: DropsieUniv. Press, 1979], 389-98). For’ăbîras “bull,” see P. D. Miller, “AnimalNames as Designations in Ugaritic and Hebrew,”UF11 (1979): 177-86; see alsoCross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic,4-5, n. 6.245On‘lyas an epithet, see chapter 2, section 2.246Vawter, “The Canaanite Background,” 16-17.247Seerḥmtfor “young women” also in the Mesha stele (KAI 181:17). Fordiscussion, see P. Bordreuil, “A propos de l‘lnscription de Mesha’ deux notes,”inThe World of the Arameans III: Studies in Language and Literature inHonour of Paul-Eugène Dion, ed. P. M. Michèle Daviau, J. W. Wevers, and M.Weigl, JSOTSup 326 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001),158-61.248On KTU 1.23, see Pope, “Mid Rock and Scrub: A Ugaritic Parallel to Exodus7:19,” inBiblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of W. S. Lasor, ed.G. Tuttle (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), 146-50; del Olmo Lete,Mitosyleyendas,427-48; R. Ratner and B. Zuckerman, “‘A Kid in Milk’?: NewPhotographs of KTU 1.23, Line 14,”Hebrew Union College Annual57 (1986):15-60. The reconstruction of [’agzr ym bn] is suggested by the parallel phrases inlines 58-59 and 61. The pairing of’atrtwrhm in line 13 and’atrt wrḥmyin line28 is the basis for the reconstruction of line 24b.249For interpretations ofšt, see del Olmo Lete,Mitos y leyendas,633-34. Seefurther P. Merlo, “Über die Ergänzung ,<št> in KTU 1.23:59,”UF28 (1996):491-94.250BDB, 800; Albright,Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan,185; H. L. Ginsberg,“The North-Canaanite Myth of Anath and Aqhat,”BASOR97 (1945): 9; Oden,Studies, 80; J. M. Hadley, “The Fertility of the Flock? The De-Personalization of
Astarte in the Old Testament,” inOn Reading Prophetic Texts: Gender-Specificand Related Studies in Memory of Fokkelien van Dijk-Hemmes,ed. B. Beckingand M. Dijkstra (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 115-33.251See B. A. Levine, “Ugaritic Descriptive Rituals,”Journal of Cuneiform Studies17 (1963): 105-11.252The authenticity of this invocation has been doubted (so Freedman,Pottery,Poetry, and Prophecy, 85; cf. O’Connor,Hebrew Verse Structure, 175).253Olyan,Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 38-61.254For a picture of the stand, see A. E. Glock, “Taanach,”EAEHL4:1142. For adetailed discussion of the stand, see R. Hestrin, “The Cult Stand from Ta‘anachand Its Religious Background,” inStudia Phoenicia V: Phoenicia and the EastMediterranean in the First Millennium B.C., Proceedings of the ConferenceHeld in Leuven 14-16 November 1985,ed. E. Lipinski, Orientalia LovaniensiaAnalecta 22 (Louvain: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1987), 62-77. Tigay (You Shall HaveNo Other Gods, 92-93) argues for the Caananite provenience of the stand. J. G.Taylor argues that the stand is Israelite and that Asherah is depicted in registers 2and 4 and Yahweh in registers 1 and 3. (“Yahweh and Asherah at Tenth CenturyTaanach,”Newsletter for Ugaritic Studies37/38 [1987]: 16-18; “The TwoEarliest Representations of Yahweh,” inAscribe to the Lord: Biblical and OtherStudies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie, ed. L. Eslinger and G. Taylor, JSOTSup67 [Sheffield: JSOT, 1988], 557-66). For assessments, see Hadley,The Cult ofAsherah in Ancient Israel and Judah,169-76; and Miller,The Religion ofAncient Israel, 43-45. See also the important study of P. Beck, “The Cult-Standsfrom Taanach: Aspects of the Iconographic Tradition of Early Iron Age CultObjects in Palestine,” inFrom Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological andHistorical Aspects of Early Israel,ed. I. Finkelstein and N. Na’aman (Jerusalem:YadIzhakBen-Zvi/IsraelExplorationSociety;Washington,DC:BiblicalArchaeology Society, 1994), 352- 81. For further discussion of the iconographyof this stand, see also below chapter 2, section 2; chapter 3, section 4; chapter 4,section 3. For archaeological discussion of Taanach in the Iron Age, seeFinkelstein,Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement, 88-89.255Ringgren, Israelite Religion, 62, 97-98. On solar language, see chapter 4.256Cross,CanaaniteMyth and Hebrew Epic, 157 n. 52; cf. 163.
257The dating of Deuteronomy 33 varies significantly. Scholars arguing for apremonarchic date include 1. L. Seeligman, “A Psalm from Pre-Regal Times,”VT 14 (1964): 90; Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 123; Freedman,Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy,90-92. H. Seebass argues for a Davidic settingfor the poem (“Die Stämmeliste von Dtn XXXIII,”VT27 [1977]: 158-69). VonRad (Deuteronomy, 208) dates Deuteronomy 33 to the ninth or early eighthcentury. Other scholars who propose an eighth-century dating include Mayes,Deuteronomy, 397; G. A. Smith,The Book of Deuteronomy, The CambridgeBible (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1918), 361; C. Steuenagel, DasDeuteronomium,GöttingenHandbuchzumAltenTestament(Göttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923), 173; and R. Tournay, “Le Psaume et lesBenedictions de Möise (Deutéronome, XXXIII),” RB 65 (1958): 208. The laterdates proposed for the formation of the chapter do not preclude an earlier datefor w. 26-27.258In view of the evidence pertaining to the conflation of El and Baal between theUgaritic sources and the earliest biblical traditions, it may be queried whetherthe Israelite traditions created the conflation of divine imagery or inherited it(see the discussions of Genesis 49 in sections 4 and 5). Such a question isimpossible to answer unless the character of Yahweh prior to contact with El orBaal (if there was any such period) can be determined. In the oldest Israelitetraditions describing the march of the divine warrior, Yahweh appears primarilyas a storm deity with El epithets. Despite some scholarly claims to the contrary(see P. D. Miller,The Divine Warrior in Early Israel, HSM 5 [Cambridge, MA:Harvard Univ. Press, 1973], 48-58; J. J. M. Roberts,The Earliest SemiticPantheon: A Study of the Semitic Deities Attested in Mesopotamia before Ur III[Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972], 95-96 n. 233), El is not attestedclearly as a warrior figure in the extant textual material. If the approach taken inthis section is correct, it would serve to explain the fundamental compatibility ofYahweh with Baal during the Judges period and the early monarchy (see chapter2).259See chapter 2, section 2.260Regarding the date and function of Psalm 18, see Cross,Canaanite Myth andHebrew Epic, 158-59.261Scholars differ whether‘elyônwas originally an epithet of El or a secondary
accretion to El (see Gen. 14:18). On this issue, see Cross,Canaanite Myth andHebrew Epic,50-52; cf. R. Rendtorff, “The Background of the Titlein Genxiv,” inFourth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Papers,vol. 1 (Jerusalem:World Union of Jewish Studies, 1967), 167-70. PE 1.10.15 differentiates beweenEl and Elioun(‘elyôn),but this may represent a Hellenistic attempt to imitateclassical accounts (for text and translation, see Attridge and Oden,Philo ofByblos,46-47). For further discussion, see Pope,El in the Ugaritic Texts,55-57.262See above, section 2.263Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 186.264Greenfield, “The Hebrew Bible and Canaanite Literature,” 551-54.265P. D. Miller, “Israelite Religion,” inThe Hebrew Bible and Its ModernInterpreters,ed. D. A. Knight and G. M. Tucker (Philadelphia: Fortress;Decatur, GA: Scholars,1985), 212. On Israel’s aniconic requirement, see W. W.Hallo, “Texts, Statues and the Cult of the Divine King,” inCongress Volume:Jerusalem 1986,ed. J. Emerton, VTSup 40 (Leiden: Brill, 1988), 54-66;Halpern, “‘Brisker Pipes Than Poetry,”’ 82, 83, 100, 101, 109-10 nn. 25-26; R.S. Hendel, “The Social Origins of the Aniconic Tradition in Early Israel,” CBQ50 (1988): 365-82; T. Mettinger, “The Veto on Images and the Aniconic God inAncient Israel,” inReligious Symbols and Their Functions, ed. H. Biezais(Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1979), 15-29. Concerning “othergods,” especially within the context of the Ten Commandments, see Childs,TheBook of Exodus,403-4. See discussion on pp. xvi-xvii; chapter 3, section 3;chapter 6, section 1.266See the important study of T. N. D. Mettinger,No Graven Image? IsraeliteAniconisminIts Ancient Near EasternContext, ConBOT 42 (Stockholm:Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995). See the responses inThe Image and the Book:Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the AncientNear East,ed. K. van der Toorn, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis andTheology 21 (Leuven: Peeters, 1997); and T. J. Lewis, “Divine Images:Aniconism in Ancient Israel,”JAOS118 (1998): 36-53. Based on the lack ofdivine images in what are plausibly identified as Israelite sites, R. S. Hendelwould argue for aniconism as a feature that distinguishes early Israel fromCanaanite culture; see Hendel, “The Social Origins of the Aniconic Tradition inEarly Israel,” 367-68, and his review ofThe Early History of God,in CBQ 54
(1992): 132-33. Other scholars locate aniconism considerably later. See B. B.Schmidt, “The Aniconic Tradition: On Reading Images and Viewing Texts,” pp.75-105, and Edelman, “Tracking Observance of the Aniconic Tradition ThroughNumismatics.”267See n. 50 above.268See above, section 2.269Besides the underworld streams in Job 28, Greenfield (“The Hebrew Bible andCanaanite Literature,” 556) notes two other Ugaritic motifs clustered in Job 28,the references in w. 14 and 22 to Yamm and Mot, both called the “beloved ofEl” in Ugaritic literature, and the larger issue of the location of wisdom, a featureof EI in Ugaritic mythology. On El’s abode, see above.270A.J.Wensinck,TheOceanintheLiteraturesoftheWesternSemites(Amsterdam: Johannes Muller, 1918), 4-49; T. H. Gaster, “Dead, Abode of the,”IDB1:787.271J. Wellhausen,Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel(Edinburgh: A. &C.Black,1885;reprinted,NewYork:MeridianBooks,1957;reprinted,Gloucester,MA:PeterSmith,1973),440;Cross,citedinHalpern,TheEmergence, 102; Halpern, “‘Brisker Pipes Than Poetry,’” 79, 84.272Jackson, “Ammonite Personal Names in the Context of the West SemiticOnomasticon,” inThe Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor ofDavid Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. C. L. Meyersand M. O‘Connor, American Schools of Oriental Research Special VolumeSeries No. 1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 518. See further L. M.Muntingh, “What Did the Ammonites’ Deities Mean to Them? The Concept ofDeity as Revealed in Ammonite Personal Names,” in “Feet on Level Ground”:A South African Tribute of Old Testament Essays in Honor of Gerhard Hasel,ed. K. van Wyk (Berrien Center, MI: Hester, 1996), 193-300. W. E. Aufrechtinterprets the name‘nmwtas the root*‘ny plus the divine name Mot, “Death”(“TheAmmoniteLanguageoftheIronAge,”BASOR266[1987]:92).Concerningthelimitationsonusingnamestoreconstructreligion,seeintroduction.273Jackson, TheAmmonite Language of the Iron Age, HSM 27 (Chico, CA:
Scholars, 1973), 95-98; idem, “Ammonite Personal Names,” 518. On mlkm ininscriptions, see also N. Avigad, “Some Decorated West Semitic Seals,”IEJ35(1985): 5. See further E. Puech, “Milcom,” DDD, 575-76.274See Tigay,You Shall Have No Other Gods, 19 n. 60.275On Chemosh, see H. P. Müller, “Chemosh,” DDD, 186-89. See also W. Aufrechtand W. D. Shury, “Three Iron Age Seals: Moabite, Aramaic and Hebrew,”IEJ47 (1997): 58. See also U. Worschech, “Der Gott Kemosch. Versuch einerCharacterisierung,”UF24 (1992): 393-401. On the historical circumstances ofChemosh in Moabite history, see N. Na’aman, “King Mesha and the Foundationof the Moabite Monarchy,”IEJ47 (1997): 83-92. For the broader context ofculture in Moab, see S. Timm, MoabzwischendenMachten: Studien zuhistorischenDenkmälernundTexten,AgyptenundAltesTestament17(Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1989). Cf. K. van Wyk,Squatters in Moab: A Studyin Iconography, History, Epigraphy, Orthography, Ethnography, Religion andLinguistics of the ANE(Berrien Center, MI: Louis Hester, 1996); see the criticalreview of W. Aufrecht, CBQ 60 (1998): 132-34. For Moabite figurines, see U.Worschech, “Pferd, Göttin und Stier: Funde zur moabitischen Religion aus el-Bālū (Jordanien),” UF 24 (1992): 385-91.276See the El and Baal PNs listed for Moabite seals in M. Heltzer, “The RecentlyPublished West Semitic Inscribed Stamp Seals,”UF31 (1999): 216-17.277See E. A. Knauf, “Qôs,” DDD, 674-77. For a useful survey of what is knownabout Moab, seeBA60/4 (1997).278See I. Beit-Arieh and B. Cresson, “An Edomite Ostracon from Horvat ‘Uza,” TA12 (1985): 96-100; C. M. Bennett, “Fouilles d’Umm el-Biyara,” RB 73 (1966):400; B. Oded, “Egyptian References to the Edomite Deity Qaus,”AndrewUniversity Seminary Studies9 (1971): 47- 50; T. C. Vriezen, “The EdomiticDeity Qaus,”Oudtestamentische Studien14 (1965): 330-53. For Josephus,Antiquities15.253, see R. Marcus,Josephus, vol. 8, Jewish Antiquities, Books15-17,Loeb Classical Library (London: W. Heinemann; Cambridge, MA:Harvard Univ. Press, 1963), 118-19.279P. Beck, “A Head of a Goddess from Qitmit,”Qadmoniot19 (1986): 79-81.280See van der Toorn,Family Religion,281-86; and Smith,The Origins of Biblical
Monotheism,145-46. See above, pp. 25, 32-33.281On Baal Shamem, see chapter 2, section 1. The goddess,hrbt b‘lt gbl,“theDame, the Lady of Byblos” (KAI 10:2,3,7,15), is known in the secondmillennium asdNIN ša URU gu-ubla(EA 68:4),dNIN ša URU gub-la(EA 73:3-4, 74:2-30), etc. (see Hess, “Divine Names,” 151). For the divine titleb‘ltin theproto-Sinaitic inscription 347, see Albright,The Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions andTheir Decipherment(Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1966), 17; Cross, “TheEarly Alphabetic Inscriptions from Sinai and Their Development,”BASOR110(1948): 6- 22; idem, “Origin and Early Evolution,” 8*-24*. She has beenidentified with either Astarte or Asherah. The identification of “the Lady ofByblos” with Astarte is founded on inferences drawn from classical sources.According to Plutarch (DeIside et Osiride, para. 15, 3), the queen of Byblos iscalled Astarte according to some (J. G. Griffiths,Plutarch’s De Iside et Osiride[n.p.: University of Wales; printed at Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1970],140-41). An identification of Astarte as the goddess of Byblos might be inferredalso from the description of Aphrodite at Byblos inDe Dea Syria,para. 6(Attridge and Oden,De Dea Syria,13). Aphrodite is equated with Astarte inother sources, such as PE 1.10.32 (Attridge and Oden,Philo of Byblos,54-55).Cross (“Origin and Early Evolution of the Alphabet,” 8*;Canaanite Myth andHebrew Epic,28-29 n. 90) and R. A. Oden (“Ba‘al Shamem and ’Ēl,”CBQ39[1977]: 460) argue for an identification of theb‘lt gblwith Asherah, largelybased on common functions, but it is possible that Astarte exercised thesefunctions in first-millennium Phoenicia. J. W. Betlyon (The Coinage and Mintsof Phoenicia: The Pre-Alexandrine Period,HSM 26 [Chico, CA: Scholars,1980], 115, 139-40) argues for a syncretism of features of the three greatgoddesses in the “lady of Byblos.” For Astarte at Ashkelon, see 1 Sam. 31:10.Herodotus,History1.105 (A. D. Godley,Herodotus,vol. 1, books 1 and 2, LoebClassical Library [Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press; William Heinemann, 1920],136-37) refers to the “temple of Aphrodite Ourania” in Ashkelon, a reference toAstarte. Olyan (“Some Observations Concerning the Identity of the Queen ofHeaven,” UF 19 [1987]: 168-69) has noted an inscription from Delos whereAphrodite Ourania is identified with Astarte of Palestine: “To the heavenly Zeusand to Astarte of Palestine/Aphrodite of the Heavens, gods with hearing,”DiiOurioi kai Astartei Palaistinei Aproditei Ouraniaitheois epekoois (P. Rouseeland M. Launey, Inscriptions deDelos,2 vols. [Paris: Honore Champion, 1937],no. 2305). Inscription no. 1719 reads similarly with some restoration. There is noevidence for the names of Asherah and Anat on the Phoenician mainland. For
further discussion, see E. Lipinski, Dieux etdéessesdel’univers phenicienetpuniques,Orientalia Lovaniensa Analecta 64 (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters/&Departement Oosterse Studies, 1995), 70-76; C. Bonnet,Astarté: Dossierdocumentaire et perspectives historiques,Contributi all Storia della ReligioneFenicio-Punica II, Collezione di Studi Fenici 37 (Rome: Consiglio Nazionaledelle Ricerche, 1996), 19-30.282Concerningb‘l’dr, see Olyan,Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh,64-68. See alsoF. M. Cross, “A Recently Published Phoenician Inscription of the Persian Periodfrom Byblos,”IEJ29 (1979): 41, 43; and Lipiński,Dieux et déesses,88-89, 261-62, 418.283For Astarte at Sidon, see alsoDe Dea Syria,para. 4 (see Attridge and Oden,DeDea Syria,13); cf. 1 Kings 11:5, 33; 2 Kings 23:13. For discussion and furtherprimary sources, see Lipiński,Dieux et deesses,128-54; Bonnet,Astarté,30-36.Claims for Asherah as a Sidonian goddess during the Persian period arecircumstantial. J. W. Betlyon (“The Cult of ’Ašerah/’Ēlat at Sidon,”JNES44[1985]: 53-56) argues that the title of ’Itṣr,“goddess of Tyre,” appearing onSidonian coins points to a cult of Asherah since’Itis best attested as an epithetof Asherah in the Ugaritic texts, though not exclusively (see above, n. 32). Anepithet as general as ’Itperhaps applied to the main goddess of a locality. Astarteis clearly the most important goddess of Persian-period Sidon. Similarly,rbt,anepithet applied in the Ugaritic texts for Asherah, is attributed to Astarte in thePersian-period Phoenician inscriptions from Sidon and elsewhere (see chapter 3,section 4). There is no attestation to Asherah either separately or as thetheophoric element in proper names from Sidon. In contrast, Astarte is attestedin proper names (see Betlyon,The Coinage and Mints, 3-20). On Eshmun, see S.Ribichini, “Eshmun,”DDD,306-9; and P. Xella, “Les plus anciens temoignagessur le dieu Eshmoun: Un mise au point,” inThe World of the Aramaeans II:Studies in History and Archaeology in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion,ed. P. M.Michèle Daviau, J. W. Wevers, and M. Weigl, JSOTSup 325 (Sheffield:SheffieldAcademicPress,2001),230-42;and“EshmunvonSidon:Derphönizische Aklepios,” inMesopotamica-Ugaritica-Biblica: Festschrift fur KurtBergerhof zur Vollendung seines 70.Lebensjahresam 7. Mai 1992, ed. M.Dietrich and O. Loretz, AOAT (Kevalaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993), 481-98.284For Astarte at Tyre, see the treaty of Esarhaddon with Baal II of Tyre (ANET,534), the late classical witnesses of PE 1.10.32 (Attridge and Oden,Philo of
Byblos, 54-55) and Josephus,Antiquities8.146 (H. St.J. Thackeray and R.Marcus,Josephus,vol. 5,Jewish Antiquities, Books5-8, Loeb Classical Library[Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press; London: William Heinemann, 1934],650-51) andContra Apionem1.118, 123 (Thackeray,Josephus: The Life,Against Apion,Loeb Classical Library [Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press;London: William Heinemann, 1926], 210-13). According to Josephus (ContraApionem1.123; Thackeray,Josephus:The Life, 224-25), King Ethbaal was apriest of Astarte. Astarte appears as the theophoric element in proper namesfrom Tyre (J. B. Pritchard,Palestinian Figurines in Relation to CertainGoddesses Known Through Literature[New Haven: American Oriental Society,1943], 71). Her name appears also as an element in Tyrian royal names recordedin Josephus (Contra Apionem1.157; H. St.J. Thackeray,Josephus:The Life,224-25). For Hellenistic and Roman evidence for Astarte at Tyre, see H. Seyrig,“Antiquités syriennes,”Syria40 (1963): 19-28. For an overview, see Bonnet,Astarté,37-44.285M. L. Barré,The God-List in the Treaty between Hannibal and Philip V ofMacedonia(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1983), 48-49. However, seethe critique by K. van der Toorn, “Anat-Yahu, Some Other Deities, and the Jewsof Elephantine,”Numen39 (1992): 80-101.286For discussion of these deities, see B. Peckham, “Phoenicia and the Religion ofIsrael: The Epigraphic Evidence,” inAncient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honorof Frank Moore Cross,ed. P. D. Miller, Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride,80-81. See also the references in nn. 128 and 129 above.287For secondary literature up to 1975, see Cooper, “Divine Names and Epithets inthe Ugaritic Texts,” 350-52; see also M. H. Pope, “Baal Worship,”EncJud4:7-12; R. Rendtorff, “El, Ba‘al und Jahwe: Erwägungen zum Verhältnis vonkanaanäischer und israelitischer Religion,” ZAW 78 (1966):277-92; E. Gaál,“Tuthmosis III as Storm-God?”Studia Aegyptica3 (1977):29-37; D. Kinet,Ba‘al und Jahwe: Ein Beitragzur Theologie des Hoseabuches, EuropaischeHochschulschriften 23/87 (Frankfurt/Bern: Lang, 1977); A. Saviv, “Baal andBaalism in Scripture,”Beth Mikra29 (1983/84): 128-32 (Heb.). On Baal insources prior to Ugaritic material, see K. Koch, “Zur Entstehung der Ba‘al-Verehrung,”UF11 (1979 = C. F. A. Schaeffer Festschrift): 465-79; G. Pettinato,“Pre-Ugaritic Documentation of Ba‘al,” inThe Bible World: Essays in Honor ofCyrus H. Gordon,ed. G. Rendsburg, A. Adler, M. Arfa, and N. H. Winter (NewYork: KTAV, 1980), 203-9; W. Herrmann, “Baal,” DDD, 132-39; cf. E.
Sollberger,Administrative Texts Chiefly Concerning Textiles:L. 2752, ArchivReali di Ebla Testi 8 (Rome: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria, 1986), 9-10.288See chapter 1, section 3.289On the Baal names in the Samaria ostraca, see Pope, “Baal Worship,” 11; R.Lawton, “Israelite Personal Names on Pre-Exilic Hebrew Inscriptions,”Biblica65 (1984): 332, 335, 341; I. T. Kaufman, “The Samaria Ostraca: A Study inAncient Hebrew Paleography” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1966); idem,“The Samaria Ostraca: An Early Witness to Hebrew Writing,” BA 45 (1982):229-39; Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods, 65-66. The names are’bb‘l,“Baal/ lord is father” (2:4); b‘l’, “Baal/lord” (1:7);b‘lzmr,“Baal/lord is strong”(or “Baal/lord sings,” 12:2-3);b‘l’zkr,“Baal/lord remembers” (37:3); andmrb‘l,“Baal/lord is strong(?)” (2:7); cf.[t]ṣb‘l(?)in Mesad Hashavyahu (see Tigay,You Shall Have No Other Gods, 66). On the background of the ostraca, see alsoA. F. Rainey, “TheSitz im Lebenof the Samaria Ostraca,” TA 6 (1979): 91-94;cf. W. H. Shea, “Israelite Chronology and the Samaria Ostraca,” ZDPV 101(1985): 9-20. See also the Phoenician nameb‘lpltfrom Tel Dan (J. Naveh,“Inscriptions of the Biblical Period,” inRecent Archaeologyin the Land ofIsrael, ed. H. Shanks and B. Mazar [Jerusalem: Biblical Archaeology Societyand Israel Exploration Society, 1985], 64); the Hebrew nameblntn (*bel-natanfrom*ba‘al-nātan)in an eighth-century Aramaic inscription from Calah (soAlbright, “An Ostracon,” 34 n. 15, 35). Albright interprets the theophoricelement in this name as a title of Yahweh, but the name seems to be non-Yahwistic.290Pope, “Baal Worship,” 11-12. See also A. Rainey, “The Toponyms of EretzIsrael,” BASOR 231 (1978): 1-17; B. Rosen, “Early Israelite Cultic Centres inthe Hill Country,”VT38 (1988): 114-17.291Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 6. For further discussion, see Y. Yadin,“The ‘House of Baal’ of Ahab and Jezebel in Samaria, and that of Athalia inJudah,” in Archaeology in the Levant: Essays for Kathleen Kenyon, ed. R.Moorey and P. Parr (Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips, 1978), 127-35; cf. B.Halpern, “‘The Excremental Vision’: The Doomed Priests of Doom in Isaiah28,” Hebrew Annual Review 10 (1986): 117 n. 14. See also H. D. Hoffmann,ReformundReformen:UntersuchungenzueinemGrundthemader
deuteronomistischenGeschichts-schreibung,AThANT66(Zurich:Theologischer Verlag, 1980), 42-43.292Numerous scholars treat the reference to the prophets of Asherah in 1 Kings18:19 as a secondary gloss. See chapter 3, section 1, for discussion.293For older discussions, see A. Alt, “Das Gottesurteil auf dem Karmel,”KleineSchriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel: Zweiter Band(Munich: C. H.Beck‘sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1953), 135-49; K. Galling, “Der Gott Karmelund die Achtung der fremden Gotter,” Geschichteund Altes Testament,ed. W.F. Albright (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1953), 105-26; H. H.Rowley, “Elijah on Mount Carmel,”Bulletin of the John Rylands Library43(1960-61): 190- 219; D. R. Ap-Thomas, “Elijah on Mount Carmel,”PEQ92(1960): 146-55; Kaufmann,The Religion of Israel,273-75; O. Eissfeldt, “JahveundBaalKleineSchriften:ErsterBand,ed.R.SellheimandF.Maass(Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1962), 1-12; and Albright,The BiblicalPeriod, 38, 42, 70-71. See also Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic,190-94; F. C. Fensham, “A Few Observations on the Polarization Between Yahwehand Baal in I Kings 17-19,” ZAW 92 (1980): 227-36; Peckham, “Phoenicia andthe Religion of Israel,” 80, 87; C. Bonnet,Melqart: Cultes et Mythes del’Héraclès & Tyrien en Méditerranée,Studia Phoenicia 8 (Louvain: UitgeverijPeeters/Presses Universitaires de Namur, 1988), 139-43; Olyan,Asherah and theCult of Yahweh,8, 38, 62; M. Beck,Elia und die Monolatrie, Ein Beitrag zurreligionsgeschichtlichen Ruckfrage nach dem vorschriftprophetischen Jahwe-Glauben, BZAW 281 (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1999). On 1 Kings 18, seealso chapter 3, section 1.294Cf. Fensham, “A Few Observations,” 233-34; cf. Bonnet,Melqart,143.295Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 190-94.296Jezebel’s name,’îzebel,consists of two elements,’y,“where?” andzebel,“prince” (with distortion from*zebul;see BDB, 33). For*zblin names, seezbl(P. Mosca and J. Russel, “A Phoenician Inscription from Cebel Ireis Dagi inRough Cilicia,”Epigraphica Anatolia9 [1987J: 1-27),šmzbl,“name is prince”(KAI 34:4),b‘l’zbl(KAI 67:1-2), andbeelzeboul(Mark 3:22; Matt. 12:27; Luke11:18). For the element*’i in names, cf.’î-kābôd,“where is Glory?” (1 Sam.4:21),’î‘ezer,“where is Help?” (Num. 26:30),’îtāmār,“where is Tamar?”
(Exod. 6:23, etc.), and ’b‘l, “where is Baal?” (A. Berthier and R. Charlier,LeSanctuaire punique d’El-Hofra à Constantine: Texte[Paris: Arts et MetiersGraphiques, 1955], 106, text 141, line 2).297Albright,Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan,243-44; R. de Vaux,The Bible andthe Ancient Near East,trans. D. McHugh (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971),238-51; Bonnet,Melqart,139-43. Oden (“Ba‘al Samem and ’Ēl,” 457-73)identifies Baal Shamem with El, which does not comport with the attestation ofBaal Shamem and’l qn ’rṣas separate gods in KAI 26 A III 18. For furthercriticisms, seeBarré, The God-List,56-57.298Eissfeldt, “Jahve und Baal,” 1-12; Ringgren,Israelite Religion,42, 261; B.Mazar,The Early Biblical Period: Historical Essays,ed. S. Ahituv and B. A.Levine (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1986), 79-80; Barré,The God-List, 56; Olyan,Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh,62- 64; H. Niehr, “JHWH inder Rolle des Baalšamem,” inEin Gott allein?ed. W. Dietrich and M. A.Klopfenstein, 307-26; and W. Röllig, “Baal-Shamem,” DDD, 149-51.299Seealso“MelqartinTyre”(mlqrtbsr),whichappearsinaPhoenicianinscription (P. Bordreuil, “Attestations inédité de Melqart, Baal Hamon et BaalSaphon à Tyr (Nouveaux documents religieux phéniciens II),” inReligioPhoenicia: Acta Colloquii Namurcensis habiti diebus 14 et 15 mensis Decembrisanni 1984,ed. C. Bonnet, E. Lipinski, and P. Marchetti, Studia Phoenicia 4[Namur: Société des études classiques, 1986], 77-82). My thanks go to ProfessorOlyan for bringing this article to my attention.300ForthetextofJosephus,Antiquities8.146,seeThackerayandMarcus,Josephus,vol. 5,Jewish Antiquities, Books 5-8, 650. For details regardingmqm’lm,“the awakener of god(s),” in KAI 44:2, see de Vaux,The Bible and theAncient Near East, 247-49; J. C. L. Gibson,Textbook of Syrian SemiticInscriptions, vol. 3,Phoenician Inscriptions(Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), 144-47;Bonnet, Melqart, 143, 377. Concerning Baal Shamem and Melqart at Tyre in theHellenistic and Roman periods, see also Seyrig, “Antiquités syriennes,” 19-28.For Greek descriptions of Herakles, see de Vaux,The Bible and the AncientNear East, 247, 250; and Gibson,Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, vol. 3,145-46. See further the works discussed in n. 15 below.301For the motif of the “sleeping god” in ancient Near Eastern literature, see B.Batto,“TheSleepingGod:AnAncientNearEasternMotifofDivine
Sovereignty,”Biblica68 (1987): 153-77; T. McAlpine,Sleep Divine and Humanin the Old Testament,JSOTSup 38 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1987), 181-90; and A.Mrozek and S. Votto, “The Motif of the Sleeping Divinity,”Biblica 80(1999):415-19. If the motifs in 1 Kings 18:27, including the sleeping god, wereintended to refer specifically to Melqart, it is possible that a conflation of thefigures Baal Shamem and Melqart lies behind the portrait of Jezebel’s god in 1Kings 18. For the so-called “dying and rising gods,” see Smith,The Origins ofBiblicalMonotheism,104-31;andT.N.D.Mettinger,TheRiddleofResurrection: “Dying and Rising Gods” in the Ancient Near East,ConBOT 50(Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2001). Mettinger beautifullysurveys the ancient evidence as well as the modern debate. Mettinger believesthat this category has more merit than recent treatments (such as mine) haveconsidered.302Attridge and Oden,Philo of Byblos,52-53.303Pope,El in the Ugaritic Texts, 47 n. 95, 56.304ANET, 534. On the three baals in the treaty of Esarhaddon, see Barré,The God-List,50-56. Baal Saphon appears with Baal Hamon in a Phoenician text dated tothe sixth century and originating in the region of Tyre (Bordreuil, “Attestationsinédités,” 82-86).305See Attridge and Oden,Philo of Byblos,40-41; Olyan,Asherah and the Cult ofYahweh,62. Bull iconography surviving on Tyrian coins dating to the Persianperiod (Betlyon,The Coinage and Mints,43-44) perhaps constitutes a furtherelement supporting the identification of Baal Shamem as a storm-god.306M. Avi-Yonah, “Mount Carmel and the God of Baalbek,”IEJ2 (1952): 121;Oden, “Ba‘al Samem and ’El,” 464; Attridge and Oden,Philo of Byblos, 81 n.49. For further examples, see Zeus Heliopolis (see n. 27) and Adonis inMacrobius,Saturnalia1.21.1 (P. V Davies,Macrobius: The Saturnalia[NewYork: Columbia Univ. Press, 1969], 141). See also Macrobius,Saturnalia1.17(Davies,Macrobius,114-27).307CitingMenanderofEphesus,Josephus(ContraApionem2.112-14,157[Thackeray,Josephus:TheLife,210-19,224-51;cf.Antiquities8.144-49[Thackeray and Marcus,Josephus, vol. 5,Antiquities, Books5-8, 648-53]).308
C. F. Nims and R. C. Steiner, “A Paganized Version of Psalm 20:2-6 from theAramaic Text in Demotic Script,”JAOS103 (1983 = S. N. Kramer Festschrift):261-74. For a different view of the relationship between the Demotic version andMT, see Z. Zevit, “The Common Origin of the Demotic Prayer to Horus andPsalm 20,” JAOS (1990): 213-28.309M. Weinfeld, “The Pagan Version of Psalm 20:2-6 — Vicissitudes of aPsalmodic Creation in Israel and Its Neighbours,”EI18 (1985 = N. Avigadvolume): 130-40, 70*; Nims and Steiner, “A Paganized Version,” 269-72. Seefurther R. Steiner, “Papyrus Amherst 63: A New Source for the Language,Literature, Religion, and History of the Aramaeans,” inStudea Aramaica: NewSources and New Approaches; Papers Delivered at the London Conference ofthe Institute of Jewish Studies University College London 26th-28th June 1991,ed. M. J. Geller, J. C. Greenfield, and M. P. Weitzman with the assistance of VT. Mathias, JSS Supplement 4 (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1995), 205-7. For aconvenient translation, see R. C. Steiner, “The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script,”inThe Context of Scripture,vol. 1,Canonical Compositions from the BiblicalWorld,ed. W. W. Hallo and K. L. Younger, Jr. (Leiden/New York/Köln: Brill,1997), 309-27.310Eissfeldt, “Jahve und Baal,” 1-12.311Avi-Yonah, “Mount Carmel,” 118-24; Albright,Yahweh and the Gods ofCanaan,229- 30; Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 7 n. 13, 8 n. 16;Olyan,Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh,62.312Avi-Yonah, “Mount Carmel,” 121.313Davies, Macrobius,151. For text, translation, and notes, see also H. Bornecque,Macrobe: Les Saturnales, vol. 1, books 1-3 (Paris: Librairie Garnier Freres,1937), 236-37; J. Willis,Ambrosii Theodosii Macrobii: Saturnalia(Leipzig:BSB B. G. Teubner Verlagsgesellschaft, 1970), 126. For 1.23.19, see Davies,Macrobius,152. Cf. 1.17.66-67 (Davies,Macrobius,126).314On the monarchic date of these references, see chapter 1, section 3.315Smith,Palestinian Parties and Politics,34. See further W. M. Schniedewind,“History and Interpretation: The Religion of Ahab and Manasseh in the Book ofKings,”CBQ55 (1993): 649-61.
316On the political circumstances surrounding Jehu’s accession and reform, see H.Donner, “The Separate States of Israel and Judah,”Israelite and JudaeanHistory, ed.J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster,1977), 407-13; G. W. Ahlström, “The Battle of Ramoth-Gilead in 841 B.C.,”“WünschetJerusalemFrieden”:CollectedCommunicationstothe12thCongress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament,Jerusalem1986, ed. M. Augustin and K. D. Schunk, Beiträge zur Erforschungdes Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums 13 (New York: Peter Lang,1988), 157-66.317So Z. Meshel,Kuntillet ‘Ajrûd: A Religious Centre from the Time of the JudaeanMonarchy,Museum Catalog 175 (Jerusalem: The Israel Museum, 1978), 19,English section 12-13.318J. Tigay, “Israelite Religion: The Onomastic and Epigraphic Evidence,” inAncient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross,ed. P. D.Miller, Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride, 177, 192 n. 115.319F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman,Early Hebrew Orthography(New Haven:American Oriental Society, 1952), 11-20. On the script of the Kuntillet ‘Ajrûdinscriptions, see chapter 3, section 3.320See F. 1. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea, AB 24 (Garden City, NY:Doubleday, 1980), 278-79. The material in Hosea is quite complex literarily; inconnection to the question of the references to Baal in Hosea, see T. Hentrich,“DieKritikHoseasanderkanaanäischenReligion.Eineredaktionsgeschichtliche Analyse” (Ph.D. diss., Université de Montreal, 1999).321See chapter 1, section 3. On the redactional stage of Hos. 2:21-23, see H. W.Wolff,Hosea: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Hosea, trans. G.Stansell, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 47; G. A. Yee,Compositionand Tradition in the Book of Hosea: A Redaction Critical Investigation,SBLDS102 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1987), 87-88. On Hosea 2, see also M. A.Freedman, “Israel’s Response in Hosea 2:17b; ‘You are my Husband,”’JBL99(1980): 199- 204.322Andersen and Freedman,Hosea,286-87; B. Batto, “The Covenant of Peace: ANeglected Ancient Near Eastern Motif,”CBQ49 (1987): 187-211, esp. 189, 200.
For the context of CTA 3.3.15-28 (= KTU 1.3 III 18-31) and the meaning of*‘nhin Hos. 2:21-23, see M. S. Smith, “Baal’s Cosmic Secret,”UF16 (1985): 295-98; cf. Freedman, “Israel’s Response,” 199-204; Batto, “The Covenant ofPeace,” 199. For the pair “Heaven” and “Deep” in another context of earthlyfertility, see Gen. 27:39; 49:25; Deut. 33:13. According to Hab. 3:10, “Deepgave forth its voice,”nātan tĕhôm qôlô.The phrase is highly reminiscent ofBaal’s giving forth of his holy voice in KTU 1.4 VII 29 and Yahweh in variousbiblical passages, including Joel 4:16 (E 3:16) and Amos 1:2. The application ofthis image to Deep in Hab. 3:10 perhaps represents an extension of this motifgenerally attributed to the storm-god in Ugaritic and Israelite literature (seechapter 2, section 2).323See Yee,Composition and Tradition, 88-90.324SeeANET,534. For discussion, see Cross,CanaaniteMyth and Hebrew Epic,28 n. 86; Peckham, “Phoenicia and the Religion of Israel,” 89-90 nn. 11-13. Forlater evidence from Philo of Byblos, see Attridge and Oden,Philo of Byblos,82n. 55.325See Nougayrol,UgV, 45-46; de Tarragon, LeCulte a Ugarit, 157; J. F. Healey,“The Akkadian ‘Pantheon’ List from Ugarit,” SEL 2 (1985): 115-25.326According to Nougayrol(Ug V,48) theseb‘lmconstitute Baal’s military escort.Nougayrol further allows for the possibility that these baals are baals of variouslocal sanctuaries. R. J. Clifford (The Cosmic Mountain,65) also surmises theseare the baals at local sanctuaries. J. C. de Moor (“The Semitic Pantheon ofUgarit,” UF2 [1970]: 219) likewise identifies theseb‘lmwithb‘l spn,butdiscounts them as various baals at local sanctuaries. The reference tob‘lmin thismanner differs from allusions tob‘/,b‘l spn,orb‘l’ugrtin other texts and wouldappear to differ in some way from all three of these baals.327ANET,201. This sort of delineation of the storm-god is found also in Hittitetreaties discovered at Ras Shamra (seeUg V,48). It is by no means certain,however, that groups of multipledIM in Hittite lists of gods refer to localvariants or manifestations of the storm-god.328Cf. B. Halpern, “‘Brisker Poetry Than Pipes,’” 84, 92-94.329
Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 256-58. Besides the manifestation of the deityat various locales, there are other types of plural forms of deities in NorthwestSemitic literature, mostly attested in Ugaritic and Phoenician. Plural forms ofdeity may reflect a divine vanguard of a deity. This constitutes a less likelyinterpretation of “the baals,” since after six references tob‘lm,CTA 29.12 (=KTU 1.118.11) lists’il t‘dr b‘l,“Baal’s divine helpers,” perhaps equivalent withhis vanguard described in KTU 1.5 V 7-9. This idea may apply to enigmaticplural references toršpm,cognate with the West Semitic god Resheph. Ugariticattests to bothršpmand to severalršpcombined with a place name (P. Xella,“KTU 1.91 [RS 19.15] e i sacrifici del re,” UF 11 [1979]: 833-38). The pluralršpmin KTU 1.91.11 are described entering bt mlk, the royal palace or royalsanctuary/chapel. According to de Tarragon (Le Culte a Ugarit, 167), thisdescription refers to the procession of cult statues into a sanctuary. Sidonianinscriptions (KAI 15:2; RES 289:2, 290:3, 302 B:5) mention’rṣršpm,“the landof reshephs” (cf.’rqršpin KAI 214:11). Following Albright, H. Donner and W.Röllig(KanaanäischeundArarmäischeInschriften,vol.2,Kommentar[Wiesbaden:OttoHarrassowitz,1973],24)interpretršpmasageneralcollectivity of deities like the Rephaim (see below). Might‘rsrefer, likešmmrmmin the preceding line of KAI 15:2, to a sacred “district,” in this case perhapsfiguratively to the “underworld,” hence a cemetery? (See G. C. Picard, “Fromthe Foundation of Carthage to the Barcid Revolution,”Archaeologia Viva1/2[1968-69]: 152.) Fulco (The Canaanite God Rešep[New Haven, CT: AmericanOriental Society, 1976], 47) renders’rs ršpm“Land of the Warriors.” Ugariticand Phoenicianršpmmay designate a martial vanguard. An Egyptian descriptionof the army of Ramses III is compatible with this view: “the chariot-warriors areas mighty as Rashaps”(ANET,250 n. 27). BHrešepappears as part of atheophanic vanguard (Deut. 32:24; Hab. 3:5) and as a term for sparks and fieryarrows (Ps. 76:3; Job 5:7; Song of Songs 8:6; cf. Aramaicrišpā’,“flame”). OnResheph,seealsoP.Xella,“LedieuRashaphàUgarit,”Lesannalesarchaeologiques arabes syriennes29-30 (1979-80): 145-62; Cooper, “DivineNames and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” 413-15; Y. Yadin, “New Gleaningson Resheph from Ugarit,” inBiblical and Related Studies Presented to SamuelIwry,ed. A. Kort and S. Morschauer (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985),259-74; Greenfield, “The Hebrew Bible and Canaanite Literature,” 549). Othercollective groups of deities in Ugaritic includerp’um,themlkmand thektrt.Thetermgṯrmin KTU 1.112.18-20 may belong to this category (as a title for theRephaim likemlkm? cf.gṯras title ofrp‘u mlk ‘lmin KTU 1.108.1-2; see deTarragon,Le Culte Ugarit,159, 176; chapter 5, sections 2 and 3). De Moor(“The Semitic Pantheon,” 226) interprets some Ugaritic divine names (e.g.,
’ilhm, b‘lm, mtm,nhrm,and sometimes‘ilm)with mimation as instances ofplural of majesty (might the place name‘ănātôtin Jer. 1:1 be explained alongthese lines?) See also the “Baali-Zaphon,” attested in New Kingdom Egypt(ANET,250). J. A. Wilson interprets this phrase as either a plural of majesty or acollective noun(ANET,250 n. 12). Bethel(Ba-a-a-ti-ilîmeš)and Anat-Bethel(dA-na(?)-ti-Ba-[a]-[a-ti-il]îmeš)found in the treaty of Baal of Tyre with Esarhaddonare marked as plural forms (R. Borger,Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Königs vonAssyrien,ArchivfürOrientsforschungBeiheft9[Graz:Weidner,1956;reprinted, Osnabrück: Biblio-Verlag, 1967], 109, col. 4, line 6;ANET,491;Barré, The God-List, 46-47). BH‘ĕlōhîmmay be understood as a plural ofmajesty or the like (seeGKC,para. 124 g-h; Ginsberg,The Israelian Heritage ofJudaism[New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1982], 35;A. E. Draffkorn Kilmer,“IlānilElohîm,”JBL 76 [1957]: 216-17; Ahlström,WhoWere the Israelites?94; cf. Roberts,The Earliest Semitic Pantheon,134-35).The remarks in Philo of Byblos (PE 1.10.20) may be noted in this connection:“Now the allies of Elos, i.e., Kronos, were called ‘eloim,’ as the ones namedafter Kronos would be ‘Kronians,’”hoi de summachoi Ēlou tou Kronou Elōeimepeklēlēsan hos an Kronioi houtoi ēsan hoi legomenoi epi Kronou(Attridge andOden,Philo of Byblos,50-51). However, Burnett (A Reassessment of BiblicalElohim,19-24, 57-58) rejects the plural of majesty in favor of the plural ofabstraction. The resulting understanding (and translation of’ĕlōhîm(“divinity”)is not preferable to understanding (and translation) resulting from interpreting‘ĕlōhîmas a plural of majesty (“godhead”). Still Burnett’s arguments specificallyabout’ĕlōhîmas a plural of abstraction have much to commend them. Forfurther discussion of such divine groups, see Smith,The Origins of BiblicalMonotheism,67-68;andnotefurther1.Kottsieper,“‘ŠTRM—einesüdarabische Gottheit in der Scharonebene,”ZAW113 (2001): 245-50.330Onilāni u ištarāti,see CAD 1:272; AHw, 399-400; Cooper, “Divine Names andEpithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” 342, 404. The genericization of West Semiticdeities for common nouns occurred in a variety of ways. The name of Dagon(Roberts,The Earliest Semitic Pantheon, 18-19) became a BH word for “grain,”dāgôn(BDB, 186). BH‘aštĕrôt (haṣ)ṣo’n,referring to young sheep and goats inDeut. 7:13 and 28:4, 18, 51, represents the generic usage of Astarte’s fertility(BDB, 800; Albright,Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 185; H. L. Ginsberg,“The North-Canaanite Myth of Anath and Aqhat,” 9; Oden, Studies, 80). BHrešepas a demon (Deut. 32:24; Hab. 3:5), disease (Ps. 78:48), and sparks andfiery arrows (Ps. 76:3; Job 5:7; Song of Songs 8:6) can be traced to the
Canaanite god by the same name (see the preceding note). For evidence ofrĕšāpîmin rabbinic sources as a breed of birds, see E. Lipiński,“Rešāfīm:FromGod to Birds of Prey,” inMythos im Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt:FestschriftfürHans-PeterMüllerzum65.Geburstag,ed.A.Lange,H.Lichtenberger, and D. Römheld, BZAW 278 (Berlin/New York, 1999), 255-59.In Arabic, the names of Baal and Mot denote types of soil relating to thequalities of the gods who gave their names to these types (W. R. Smith,TheReligion of the Semites: The Fundamental Institutions,Burnett Lectures 1888-1889, rev. ed. [London: Adam & Charles Black, 1894; reprint, New York:Schocken, 1972], 97; T. H. Gaster,Thespis: Ritual, Myth, and Drama in theAncient Near East, rev. ed. [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961], 124-25).Gaster would add Athtar to this list, but Robertson Smith questions thisattribution (Religion of the Semites, 99 n. 2). The expressions “house of Baal”and “field of the house of Baal” refer to a well-watered field in the Mishnah(Sebi‘it2:9;Terumot10:11,Baba Batra3:1; see Smith,Religion of the Semites,96-97, 99 n. 2, 102). According to G. Dossin, at Mari the name of Shamash wasused as a word for “god” (“Le Pantheon de Mari,” inStudia Mariana,vol. 4[Leiden: Brill, 1950], 46). For the possibility that‘annôtin Exod. 32:18 derivedfrom the name of the goddess Anat, see H. L. Ginsberg, “The North-CanaaniteMyth,”9.Albright(YahwehandtheGodsofCanaan,187)interprets*‘ašmannîm(written with waw in 1QIsaa) in Isa 59:10 as an abstract pluralmeaning “health,” deriving from the name of the god Eshmun. The developmentof’lfor “god” from El/ Ilu has been discussed in connection with the process ofgenericization (see A. R. Millard, review ofThe Earliest Semitic Pantheon,by J.J. M. Roberts,JSS19 [1974]: 89). The generic usage does not appear to apply tothe divine name mlk (see chapter 5, section 3).331The formhabbĕ‘ālîmis not singular with an added or enclitic mem (so Boling,Judges, 74).332On the difficulties attending the interpretation of Baal Hamon, see Pope,Song ofSongs, 686-88. Concerning Baal Peor, see chapter 5, section 2. According to Ps.106:34-38, the cult of Baal-Peor involved child sacrifice, on which see belowchapter 5.333See McCarter, “Aspects of the Religion of the Israelite Monarchy: Biblical andEpigraphic Data,” inAncient Israelite Religion:Essays in Honor of FrankMoore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller, Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride, 139-43.
334PRU III,76.335ANEP,168 and 307, no. 490. For EA 147:13-15, see W. L. Moran,Les Lettresd‘El-Amarna, trans. D. Collon and H. Cazelles, LAPO 13 (Paris: Les Editionsdu Cerf, 1987), 378-80. For general discussions, see Cross,Canaanite Myth andHebrew Epic,147-51; Miller,The Divine Warrior, 24-48; M. Weinfeld, “DivineIntervention in War in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East,” inHistory,HistoriographyandInterpretation:StudiesinBiblicalandCuneiformLiteratures, ed. H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1983), 121-47; S. Moon-Kang,Divine War in the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East,BZAW 177 (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1989), 77-79; and C. Kloos,Yhwh’sCombat with the Sea: A Canaanite Tradition in the Religion of Ancient Israel(Amsterdam: G. A. van Oorschot; Leiden: Brill, 1986), 42-52. For furtherpertinent iconography, see the depictions of the Late Bronze Age Syrian“smiting god”; see A. Vanel,L’Iconographie du dieu de l’orage, dans le proche-orient ancien jusqu’au Vllesiecle avant J.-C.,CRB 3 (Paris: Gabalda, 1965), 69-110; O. Negbi,Canaanite Gods in Metal: An Archaeological Study of AncientSyro-PalestinianFigurines(TelAviv:TelAvivUniversity,InstituteofArchaeology, 1976), 29-36; I. Cornelius,The Iconography of the CanaaniteGods Reshef and Ba‘al: LateBronze AgeIPeriods(c.1500-1000 BCE), OBO140 (Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994);Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses and Images of God, 60, 76-78, 135-36,138 & 140 n. 8.336Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic,162-63. See also Pope, “BaalWorship,” 12.337Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic,151-63; Moon-Kang,Divine War,204-22; Kloos,Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea.338J. Day,God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, University of CambridgeOriental Publications 35 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985), 105-6.339See M. Weinfeld, “‘Rider of the Clouds’ and ‘Gatherer of the Clouds,’”JANES5 (1975 = T. H. Gaster Festschrift): 421-26; idem, “Divine Intervention,” 121-24; Moon-Kang, Divine War, 23-48; T. Hiebert,God of My Victory: The AncientHymn of Habakkuk3, HSM 38 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1986), 93.340
Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 101-2; idem, “Reuben, First-Born ofJacob,” 57-63; Miller,Divine Warrior, 160-61; Hiebert,God of My Victory, 83-92. These poems are thought to belong to the older strata of Israelite literature(see introduction, section 1).341A. R. Johnson,Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel, 2d ed. (Cardiff: Univ. ofWales, 1967), 78 n. 6; J. Gray, “A Cantata of the Autumn Festival: PsalmLXVIII,” JSS 22 (1977): 7, 9, 21 n. 4; Day,God’s Conflict, 31. Although BHbā‘ărābotis interpreted as “steppes” instead of “clouds,” Yahweh nonetheless isregarded as riding on a cloud in this passage (see Day,God’s Conflict, 32). Forother suggestions, see Cooper, “Divine Names and Epithets in the UgariticTexts,” 458-60.342See J. C. Greenfield, “Ugariticmdland Its Cognates,”Biblica45 (1964): 527-34; Weinfeld, “‘Rider of the Clouds,”’ 421-26; J. Day, “Echoes of Baal’s SevenThunders and Lightnings in Psalm xxix and Habakkuk iii 9 and the Identity ofthe Seraphim in Isaiah vi,” VT 29 (1979): 147 n. 18; R. M. Good, “SomeDraught Terms Relating to Draught and Riding Animals,” UF 16 (1984): 80-81.Day (God’s Conflict, 33 n. 93) also compares Enlil’s commission to Ishkur: “Letthe seven winds be harnessed before you like a team, harness the winds beforeyou” (ANET, 578). See also the seven winds in Marduk’s weaponry in EnumaElish 4:46-47(ANET,66). Cf. A. A. Weider, “Ugaritic-Hebrew LexicographicalNotes,”JBL84 (1965): 164.343Cf.Ahlström, Royal Administration, 70 n. 130.344Albright,The Biblical Period, 18; Dahood,Psalms I: 1-50,AB 16 (Garden City,NY: Doubleday, 1965), xxiii, xxv, xxxvi, 45, 79, 89, 117, 194, 251; idem,Psalms II: 51-100,AB 17 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968), xxxix, 38, 149,303; idem,Psalms III: 101-150,AB 17A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970),xxxix-xl, 188, 201, 229, 293, 295, 310, 320, 341; Freedman,Pottery, Poetry,and Prophecy, 78-79, 261; Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 234 n. 66;Cooper, “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” 451-58. On‘lyinRS 18.22.4’, see PRUVI,55; and J. Huehnergard,Ugaritic Vocabulary inSyllabic Transcription, HSS 32 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1987), 160. Freedman(Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy,95) and G. Rendsburg (“The Northern Origin of‘the Last Words of David’ (2 Sam. 23, 1-7),”Biblica69 [1988]: 119) interpret‘ālin 2 Sam. 23:1 as an epithet. Citing the reading ’lin 4QSama, Cross(Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 52 n. 31, 234 n. 66) and McCarter(II
Samuel, 477) reject this interpretation of 2 Sam. 23:1 (see E. C. Ulrich,TheQumran Text of Samuel and Josephus, HSM 19 [Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1978],113-14; Barthelemy,Critique Textuelledel’Ancien Testament, 1.310).345The name‘ēlîdoes not indicate that he was a priest of a deity‘lyother thanYahweh (so Ahlström, “The Travels of the Ark,” 142; idem,Who Were theIsraelites?78), but rather that‘ly,a title of Baal in the Ugaritic texts, hadbecome a title of Yahweh in ancient Israel.346N. Avigad,Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Jeremiah: Remnants of a BurntArchive(Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1986), 45, 93-94.347Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 73-75. See also Ahlström,RoyalAdministration, 69 n. 91; and K. Koenen, “Eherne Schlage und goldenes Kalb:Eine Vergleich der Überlieferungen,”ZAW111 (1999): 353-72. For the Exodusas a northern “charter myth,” see van der Toorn,Family Religion,287-315; seealso A. Cooper and B. Goldstein, “Exodus andMassôtin History and Tradition,”Maarav 8/2 (1992): 15-37.348On the reading of the name, see J. C. L. Gibson,Textbook of Syrian SemiticInscriptions, vol. 1,Hebrew and Moabite Inscriptions(Oxford: Clarendon,1971), 10, 12; Ahlström, “An Archaeological Picture of Iron Age Religion inAncient Palestine,”Studia Orientalia55 (1984): 11; Tigay,You Shall Have NoOther Gods, 59. In a private communication, Tigay mentions that the PN may bemoot, if *῾glmeans “to speed, hasten.” Yet this verbal meaning is rare, if notunattested, for Hebrew, at least in the biblical period.349For a discussion of the bull site, see A. Mazar, “The ‘Bull Site’ — An Iron Age IOpen Cult Place,” BASOR 247 (1982): 27-42; R. Wenning and E. Zenger, “Einbäuerliches Baal-Heiligtum im samarischen Gebirge aus der Zeit der AnfängeIsraels,” ZDPV 102 (1986): 75-86. For a defense of the site as Israelite, see A.Mazar, “On Cult Places and Early Israelites: A Response to Michael Coogan,”Biblical Archaeologist Review15/4 (1988): 45. In contrast, I. Finkelstein (“TwoNotes on Northern Samaria: The ‘Einun Pottery and the Date of the ‘Bull Site,’”PEQ 130 [1998]: 94-98) regards the bull site as Middle Bronze. Besides calficonography, the solar disk and a goddess are depicted on the Taanach stand, andif one were to assume its Israelite provenience, it would constitute an example ofthe polytheistic religious belief in Israel; cf. R. Hestrin, “Cult Stand fromTa‘anach,”EAEHL4:61-77; and chapter 1, section 4; chapter 4, section 3.
350For the Tel Dan plaque B, see A. Biran, “Two Bronze Plaques and theHussotofDan,”IEJ 49(1999): 43-54. For the Bethsaida stele, see M. Bernett and O. Keel,Mond, Stier und Kult am Stadttor, Die Stele von Betsaida (et-Tell),OBO 161(Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998);Keel,Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh: Ancient Near Eastern Artand the Hebrew Bible, JSOTSup 261 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,1998), 115-20; and T. Ornan, “The Bull and Its Two Masters: Moon and StormDeities in Relation to the Bull in Ancient Near Eastern Art,”IEJ51 (2001): 1-26.351See Steiner, “The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script,” 310, 318. Steiner alsocompares the speech of Abijah in 2 Chronicles 13 (esp. w. 8, 10, 12).352See Cooper, “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” 361; Mazar,“The ‘Bull Site,’” 27-32; Hestrin, “Cult Stand from Ta‘anach,” 75. See furtherthe discussion of D. Fleming, “If EI is a Bull, Who is a Calf? Reflections onReligion in Second-Millennium Syria-Palestine,”EI 26(1999): 52*-63*.353Perhaps the motif of “kissing” in Hos. 13:2 should be compared withnaššĕqû-bar, “kiss purely (?)” in Ps. 2:12, although C. A. and E. G. Briggs (A Criticaland Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 1, ICC [Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark, 1906], 17) compare Job 31:26- 28 (see chapter 4 n. 13 below).354See Steiner, “The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script,” 313.355So T. J. Lewis (personal communication).356See Steiner, “The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script,” 321. This text may providebackground to the ’ašmat ofSamaria in Amos 8:14 and Eshem-Bethel, acompound divine name attested at Elephantine. See M. Cogan, “Ashima,” DDD,105-6.357Vawter, “The Canaanite Background,” 4.358For this usage, see P. D. Miller, “Animal Names as Designations in Ugaritic andHebrew,”UF 2(1970): 180.359On this seal, see chapter 1 n. 66.
360For a discussion of the verbs in KTU 1.2 IV 27, see J. C. de Moor,The SeasonalPattern in the Ugaritic Myth of Ba‘lu: According to the Version of Ilimilku,AOAT 16 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag desErziehungsvereins, 1971), 138-39; E. L. Greenstein, “The Snaring of Sea in theBaal Epic,”Maarav3/2 (1982): 195-216.361Citing *prr, “crush, batter,” in Mishnaic Hebrew and Akkadian, J. C. Greenfield(review ofThe Ras Shamra Discoveries and the Old Testament, by A. S.Kapelrud, JAOS 87 [1967]: 632) rejects the common rendering ofpôrartāin Ps.74:13 as “split, divide” (RSV; cf. New American Bible: “stirred up”; NewJewish Publication Society: “drove back”).362See C. H. Gordon, “Leviathan: Symbol of Evil,” in Biblical Motifs: Origins andTransformations,ed. A. Altmann (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1966),4, pl. 1; J. C. Greenfield, “Notes on Some Aramaic and Mandaic Magic Bowls,”JANES 5 (1973 = T. H. Gaster volume): 151; E. Williams-Forte, “The Snakeand the Tree in the Iconography and Texts of Syria during the Bronze Age,” inAncient Seals and the Bible, ed. L. Gorelick and E. Williams-Forte (Malibu, CA:Undena, 1983), 18-43; G. Rendsburg,“UT68 and the Tell Asmar Seal,”Orientalia53 (1984): 448-52. For iconographic evidence for the Syrian warrior-god piercing a serpent, see also Vanel,L’Iconographie du Dieu,126; Keel,“Ancient Seals and the Bible,” 309.363ANEP, 218, no. 671.364H.Ringgren,“UgaritunddasAlteTestament:EinigemethodologischeErwägungen;” UF 11 (1979): 719-20; Cooper, “Divine Names and Epithets inthe Ugaritic Texts,” 388-91; O. Loretz, “Der Tod Baals als Rache Mot für dieVernichtung Leviathans in KTU 1.5 I 1-8,” UF 12 (1980): 404-5; D. A. Diewart,“Job 7:12: Yam, Tannin and the Surveillance of Job,”JBL106 (1987): 203-15.365Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 113-16, 119-20; Cooper, “DivineNames and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” 369-83; S. Rummel, “NarrativeStructures in the Ugaritic Texts,” inRas Shamra Parallels,vol. 3, ed. S.Rummel, AnOr 51 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1981), 233-75; S. E.Loewenstamm, “The Ugaritic Myth of the Sea and Its Biblical Counterparts,”EI14 (1978): 96-101 =Comparative Studies in Biblical and Oriental Literatures,AOAT 204 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1980), 346-61; Day,God’s Conflict,18-61, esp. 24. The tradition ofYamm has been presumed to be older than the extant Ugaritic tablets of the Baalcycle dating to the fourteenth century. Cross (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic,113), for example, dates the earliest oral forms of the cycle to no later than theMiddle Bronze Age (1800-1500). This point has been recently confirmed by aMari letter discussed below. For further discussion, see M. S. Smith,TheUgariticBaalCycle:VolumeI,IntroductionwithText,TranslationandCommentary of KTU 1.1-1.2,VTSup 55 (Leiden/New York/ Koln: Brill, 1994),105-14.366Day,God’s Conflict,151-78.367Day,God’s Conflict,88.368Day,God’s Conflict,112, 142-45.369Cooper, “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” 392-400. For thename of the god Mot as the theophoric element in Eblaitic proper names, seeLambert, “Old Testament Mythology,” 132; F. Pomponio, “I nomi divini neitesti di Ebla,”UF15 (1983): 152. Personal names from Emar likewise have thisgod as the theophoric element:iliya-mut(Emar 109:46; 279:25; 319:8),mutu(Emar 32:25; 99:15), andmu[tu]-re’ú(J. Huehnergard, “The Vicinity of Emar,”Revue Assyriologique77 [1983]: 23, text 4, line 27; cf. Eblaite namere-u9-mu-tùin Pomponio, “I nomi divini,” 152). Mesopotamian tradition occasionallypersonifies death in the figure ofmütu,“death,” but it does not appear as aliterary character (see CAD M/2: 317-18). The absence of an epic figure of deathin Mesopotamian tradition is conspicuous, since there is a plethora of motifs inthe Baal-Mot section of the Baal cycle (KTU 1.4 VIII-1.6, not simply 1.5- 6, asit is customarily characterized) also in Mesopotamian literary texts, such as thedescent of the hero to the netherworld, the return of the hero from thenetherworld, descriptions of the netherworld, and the searching and lamenting ofthe consort for the hero. It may be suggested tentatively that the older narrativeof the hero’s death appears transformed in West Semitic tradition as a story ofconflict between the hero and personified death. The new form of the story mayhave been modeled on the conflict narrative between Baal and Yamm. Some ofthe points of contact between the Baal-Yamm and Baal-Mot stories have alreadybeen observed (see Rummel, “Narrative Structures in the Ugaritic Texts,” 241-42). The date of this transformation is impossible to fix, although the personal
names with Mot as the theophoric element from Ebla might suggest a date priorto the extant Ugaritic literary corpus. For further details, see M. S. Smith, “Deathin Jeremiah IX, 20,”UF19 (1987): 291-93. The biblical names‘azmawet,meaning “Death is strong” (2 Sam. 23:31; 1 Chron. 27:25), and’ăhîmôt, “my[divine] brother is Death” (1 Chron. 6:10), might suggest the continuation of thegod Mot into Israelite religion (see McCarter,II Samuel, 498). One might appealas well to personifications of Death in biblical texts as evidence of devotion tothe god of death. On Mot in Ugaritic and biblical literature, see N. Tromp,Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Netherworld in the Old Testament,Biblica et Orientalia 21 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969), 99-107;Cooper, “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” 392-400; see also J.C. de Moor, “‘O death, where is thy sting?’” inAscribe to the Lord: Biblical andOther Studies in Memory of Peter C.Craigie, ed. L. Eslinger and G. Taylor,JSOTSup 67 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1988), 99-107.370For discussion and references, see Tigay,You Shall Have No Other Gods,70; F.Saracino, “Ger. 9, 20, un polmone ugaritico e la forza di Mot,” AION 44 (1984):539-43; Smith, “Death in Jeremiah IX, 20,” 289-91; cf. J. L. Cunchillos, “Ledieu Mut, guerrier de El,” Syria 62 (1985): 205-18. See also H. Tawil, “‘Azazelthe Prince of the Steppe: A Comparative Study,”ZAW92 (1980): 43-59.371For the possible Canaanite background for Mot manifest in the east wind, see deMoor,Seasonal Pattern,115, 173-76, 180, 187-89, 207, 228, 238-39; M. S.Smith, “Interpreting the Baal Cycle,”UF17 (1985): 331. See now the importantstudy of A. Fitzgerald,The Lord of the East Wind,CBQMS 34 (Washington,DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2002, in press), 182. Cf. S.A. Wiggins, “The Weather Under Baal: Meteorology in KTU 1.1-6,”UF32(2000): 577-98.372Gaster,Thespis, 181-83; Clifford,The Cosmic Mountain,142-44; A. Robinson,“Zion andSāphônin Psalm XLVIII 3,”VT24 (1974): 118-23; M. Astour, “PlaceNames,” inRas Shamra Parallels II,ed. L. Fisher, AnOr 50 (Rome: PontificalBiblical Institute, 1975), 318-24; J. J. M. Roberts,“Sapônin Job 28:7,”Biblica56 (1975): 554-57; Mullen,The Divine Council,154-55. Cf. divinized MountHazzi (= Saphon) in Emar 472:58’, 473:9’, and 474:21’;*spnas a theophoricelement in the Phoenician namebdṣpn(CIS 108). For Baal Saphon in Egyptianand Phoenician sources, see R. Stadelmann,Syrisch-Palästinensische Gottheitenin Agypten,Probleme der Âgyptologie 5 (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 32-47; Pope,“Baal-Hadad,” in Pope and Röllig,Syrien,257- 58; W. Fauth, “Das Kasion-
Gebirge und Zeus Kasios. Die antike Tradition und ihre vorderorientalischenGrundiagen,” UF 22 (1990): 105-18. According to Achilles Tatius,Adventures3.6, “at Pelusium [in Egypt] is the holy statue of Zeus of Mount Casius; in it thegod is represented so young that he seems more like Apollo” (W. Gaselee,Achilles Tatius, Loeb Classical Library [London: William Heinemann; NewYork: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1917], 146-47). On the Demotic text of Psalm 20,see nn. 22 and 23 above.373Thackeray and Marcus,Josephus,Antiquities V,454-55.374ANET,123; H. G. Güterbock, “The Song of Ullikumi,”Journalof CuneiformStudies 5 (1951): 145; Clifford,The Cosmic Mountain,59-60.375J. G. Frazer,Apollodorus: The Library,Loeb Classical Library (London:William Heinemann; New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1921), 1.48-49; H. L.Jones,The Geography of Strabo 8,Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA:Harvard Univ. Press; London: William Heinemann, 1930), 244-45. See Day,God’s Conflict,32.376A. D. Godley,Herodotus, vol. 2,Books 3 and 4,Loeb Classical Library(Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press; London: William Heinemann, 1921), 8-9; Day,God’s Conflict,33 n. 92.377For examples of the Anatolian storm-god standing on mountains in Hittiteiconography, see R. L. Alexander, “The Mountain-God at Eflatun Pinar,”Anatolian Studies2 (1968): 77-85; idem, “A Hittite Cylinder Seal in theFitzwilliam Museum,”Anatolian Studies25 (1975): 111-17; H. G. Güterbock, inK. Bittel et al.,Das hethitische Felsheiligtum Yazilikaya(Berlin: Gebr. MannVerlag, 1975), 169-70, Tafel 42d; Lambert, “Trees, Snakes and Gods,” 443. Forthis iconography on Hittite seals from Ras Shamra, see C. F. A. Schaeffer,Ugaritica 3: Sceaux et cylindres hittites, epee gravée du cartouche de Mineptah,tablettes chypro-minoennes et autres découvertes nouvelles de Ras Shamra,Mission de Ras Shamra 8 (Paris: Geuthner, 1956), 24-25 figs. 32-33, 48-49 figs.66-67, and 50 figs. 68-69. For iconography of the Syrian warrior-god standingon a mountain, see Vanel,L’Iconographie du Dieu,39, 61, 79, 83, 114, 118,162. See also M. Dijkstra, “The Weather-God on Two Mountains,”UF23(1991): 127-40.378Greenfield, “The Hebrew Bible and Canaanite Literature,” 553-54.
379For literary play on the name of Baal’s mountain in Hos. 13:12, Ps. 27:5, andJob 26:7- 8, see Greenfield, “The Hebrew Bible and Canaanite Literature,” 551,553-54.380Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain, 143 n. 63; J. Levenson,Theology of theProgram of the Restoration of Ezekiel 40-48,HSM 10 (Missoula, MT: Scholars,1976), 15-16. For further Ugaritic connections with Psalm 48, see also M. L.Barré, “The Seven Epithets of Zion in Ps 48, 2-3,” Biblica69 (1988): 557-63;M. S. Smith, “God and Zion: Form and Meaning in Psalm 48,”SEL6 (1989):67-77.381See Pope, “Baal Worship,” 12. See G. Anderson,Sacrifices and Offerings inAncient Israel: Studies in Their Social and Political Importance,HSM 41(Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1987), 91- 122.382In rabbinic tradition Leviathan was identified as a big fish (Leviticus Rabbah22:10; David Kimchi on Isa. 27A). As in 2 Baruch 29:4-8, later rabbinic sourcesmention Leviathan as food for the righteous at the messianic banquet (BabaBatra75b;Leviticus Rabbah22:10;Midrash Tehillim18). Leviathan wasinvoked in two Aramaic bowls (see Gordon, “Leviathan: Symbol of Evil,” 8; J.C. Greenfield, “Notes on Some Aramaic and Mandaic Magic Bowls,” 151). OnLeviathan in Arabic tradition, see Wensinck,The Ocean,3, 25. Leviathan wasportrayed in thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Hebrew manuscripts and onSeder plates in fifteenth-century Jewish communities in northern Italy (see J.Guttmann, “Leviathan, Behemoth and Ziz: Jewish Messianic Symbols in Art,” inNo Graven Images: Studies in Art and the Hebrew Bible,ed. J. Gutmann [NewYork: KTAV, 1971], 225-30). Leviathan has come into modern parlance as thelargest or most massive thing of its kind, including various large sea animals orseagoing vessels, inspiring the title of Thomas Hobbes’s treatise on the state,Leviathan(1651 English edition; 1668 Latin edition).383See Fohrer,History of Israelite Religion,125; Ahlström, “The Travels of theArk,” 141- 48; Stager, “Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel,” 1.384See J. A. Soggin, “The Davidic-Solomonic Kingdom,” inIsraelite and JudaeanHistory,ed. J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller, OTL (London: SCM, 1977), 361-63,370-73.385
Moon-Kang (Divine War,224) describes the political dimensions of the divinewarrior: “the traditions and the historical and annalistic records of the Davidicbattles show that the idea of YHWH’s help and intervention in the battles beganto appear in the rising period of the Davidic kingdom.” Cross, Freedman, andothers date Exodus 15, Hab. 3:3-15, and other biblical compositions to thepremonarchicperiod,whilesomecommentatorspreferamonarchicdate,conforming more closely to the point that the monarchy played a significant rolein the patterning of Yahweh after Baal (for the range of opinions on Exodus 15,see Moon-Kang,Divine War,115-16 n. 9; for the dates proposed for Hab. 3:3-15, see Hiebert,God of My Victory, 119-20; cf. Floyd, “Oral Tradition,” 272-300). The premonarchic date of the Song of Deborah in Judges 5 is more secure(see Moon-Kang,Divine War,179-80; and Floyd, “Oral Tradition,” 233-66).386Concerning Psalm 18 = 2 Samuel 22, see chapter 1, section 5.387OnthepoliticalaspectsofPsalm2,seeH.J.Kraus,Psalms1-59:ACommentary,trans. H. C. Oswald (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1988), 125-32.388G. W. Ahlström,Psalm 89: Eine Liturgie aus dem Ritual des leidenden Königs(Lund: Håkan Ohlssons Boktryckeri, 1959), 108-9; Cross,Canaanite Myth andHebrew Epic,258; Clifford, “Psalm 89: A Lament over the Davidic Ruler’sContinued Failure,” HTR 73 (1980): 35-47; P. G. Mosca, “Ugarit and Daniel 7:A Missing Link,”Biblica 67(1986): 496-517. For the political significance ofPsalm 89, see further Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic,160-62, 257-61.Despite the suggestive parallel of Yamm’s titletpt nhr, “Judge River,” there areno text-critical grounds for interpreting BHnhrwtin the singular, although theword might be interpreted as a plural of majesty (for discussion, see U. Cassuto,Biblical and Oriental Studies,vol. 2,Bible and Ancient Oriental Texts,trans. I.Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1975], 84; Dahood,Psalms II,120-21). In textsdating to New Kingdom Egypt, the military prowess of the pharaoh is comparedwith Baal’s martial abilities (see EA 147:13-15;ANET,249-50; M. Lichtheim,Ancient Egyptian Literature,vol. 3, 65, 67, 69, 71; Gaál, “Tuthmōsis as a Storm-God?” 29-37).389The use of the singular*nāhārin Ps. 72:8 differs strikingly from the general useof the plural in BH texts containing the cosmic terms “Sea” and “River” (see theprevious note). On this verse, see H. J. Kraus,Psalmen 60-150,BKAT 15/2(Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1972), 498.390
On 2 Sam. 5:20, see McCarter,II Samuel, 154. See also A. Mazar, “ThreeIsraelite Sites in the Hills of Judah and Ephraim,” BA 45 (1982): 170.391J. J. M. Roberts, “Zion in the Theology of the Davidic-Solomonic Empire,” inStudies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays: Papers Read atthe International Symposium for Biblical Studies, Tokyo, 5-7 December 1979,ed. T.Ishida (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1982), 93-108. See also Moon-Kang,Divine War, 202. Freedman (Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy,79, 93-107)characterizes the tenth century and following as a period of “monarchicsyncretism” with respect to divine titles (e.g.,‛ly;see above section 2).392T. N. D. Mettinger, “YHWH SABAOTH — The Heavenly King on theCherubim Throne,” inStudies in the Period of David and Solomon and OtherEssays: Papers Read at the International Symposium for Biblical Studies, Tokyo,5-7 December 1979, ed. T.Ishida, 117.393Moon-Kang,Divine War,197-98.394Moon-Kang,Divine War.395See Introduction, section 1; and the following discussion.396J. M. Durand, “Le mythologème du combat entre le dieu de l’orage et la mer enMesopotamia,”MARI7 (1993): 41-61; P. Bordreuil and D. Pardee, “Le combatde Ba‘lu avec Yammu d’après les textes ougaritiques,”MARI7 (1993): 63-70;Smith,The Origins of Biblical Monotheism,158-59. Concerning the prophetNur-Sin of Aleppo, see B. Lafont, “Le roi de Mari et les prophètes du dieuAdad,”Revue assyriologique78 (1984): 7-18.397RS 20.24 and RS 1929.17 (KTU 1.47), treated by Nougayrol,Ug V,44-45, 47-48; cf. the readings in KTU 1.47 and 1.118. See F. B. Knutson, “Divine Namesand Epithets in the Akkadian Texts,” inRas Shamra Parallels: The Texts fromUgarit and the Hebrew Bible,vol. 3, ed. S. Rummel, AnOr 51 (Rome:Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1981), 474-76. On Ugaritichd,see M. H.Pope, “Baal-Hadad,” in Pope and Röllig,Syrien,253-54; P. J. van Zijl,Baal. AStudy of the Texts in Connexion with Baal in the Ugaritic Epics,AOAT 10(Kevelaer: Butzon und Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag desErziehungsvereins, 1972), 346-51; Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic,10-11, 58. Onhdespecially in first-millennium sources, see J. C. Greenfield,
“Aspects of Aramaean Religion,” inAncient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honorof Frank Moore Cross,ed. P. D. Miller, Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride,67-70.398PRU IV,85.399See Huffmon,Amorite Personal Names,120, 124, 210; I. J. Gelb,A Computer-Aided Analysis of Amorite,Assyriological Studies 21 (Chicago: Oriental Instituteof the University of Chicago, 1980), 272-73; J. M. Durand, “Différentesquestions à propos de la Religion,”MARI5 (1987): 613-14. Cf. the nameaḫiyamiatTaanach(seeA.E.Glock,“TextsandArchaeologyatTellTa‛annak,”Berytus31 [1983]: 60).400See A. Malamat, “’lhwtw šl hym htykwn btqst prh-‘wgryty” [The Divinity of theMediterranean Sea in a pre-Ugaritic text],” inMhqrym bmqr’: yws’ym l’wr bml’tm’h šnh lhwldtw šl m”d q’swṭw[Research in the Bible; Published on theoccasion of the hundredth anniversary of the birth of M. D. Cassuto] (Jerusalem:Magnes, 1987), 184-88; cf. Malamat, “Campaigns to the Mediterranean byIahdunlim and Early Mesopotamian Rulers,” inStudies in Honor of BennoLandsberger on His Seventy-fifth Birthday, April 21,1965, AssyriologicalStudies 16 (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1965), 367.401Emar 373:92’:a-nadINANNA ša a-biudIa-a-mi2ta-pal x[,“à Astarté de laMer et à Iammu, les deux pai[res ... ditto” (an offering).402CAD K:52-55.403G. Dossin, “Une lettre de Iarîm-Lim, roi d‘Alep, à Iasub-Iahad, roi de Dir,”Syria 33 (1956): 67, line 32; CAD K:54; D. Charpin, “De la Joie à l’Orage;”MARI5 (1987): 661.404See Smith, “Interpreting the Baal Cycle,” 330-31 n. 95. King Arhalbu’sinvocations of Baal in RS 16.144.9, 12-13 (PRU III,76) are perhaps pertinent:dba‘lu (IŠKUR) li-ra-ḫi-is-šu,“may Baal inundate him”;dBa‛lu (IŠKUR) bel(EN)ḫuršân (ḪUR.SAG)Ḫazi li-ra-ḫi-iṣ-šu,“may Baal, the lord of MountHazzi, inundate him.” See further discussion of the Baal cycle in this context inSmith,The Ugaritic Baal Cycle,105-14.405
The dissimilation of /dd/ to /nd/ in the theophoric element*andu in ni-iq/niq-ma-an-duis not exceptional (see Roberts,The Earliest Semitic Pantheon,13). On*nqm,see W. T. Pitard, “Amarnaekēmuand Hebrewnāqam,” Maarav3/1(1982): 5-25.406Gröndahl,Die Personennamen,17, 68.407For proposals for the historical setting of Enuma Elish, see T. W. Mann,DivinePresence and Guidance in Israelite Traditions: The Typology of Exaltation(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1977), 48-51.408T. Jacobsen, “The Battle Between Marduk and Tiamat,”JAOS88 (1968): 104-8;idem, “Religious Drama in Ancient Mesopotamia,” inUnity and Diversity,ed.H. Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1975),75-76. It has been argued also that the West Semitic conflict myth wastransmitted through Mesopotamia to India, reflected in material in the Rig Vedaconcerning the storm-god, Indra, who defeats the cosmic enemy, Vrtra (so A. K.Lahiri,Vedic Vrtra[Delhi: Motital Banarsidass, 1984]; for texts 1.32, 1.85,1.165, 1.170, and 1.171, see W. O‘Flaherty,The Rig Veda: An Anthology[Middlesex, England: Penguin, 1981], 148-51, 167-72; H. D. Velankar, “Hymnsto Indra in MandalaI,” Journal of Bombay University20/2 [1950]: 17-34).Gaster long ago compared the West Semitic, East Semitic, and Vedic material(Thespis, 150, 164-65, 170). The evidence rests largely on the comparisonbetween the storm-gods, Baal and Indra. Both gods defeat a cosmic enemy withthe aid of divine weapons fashioned by a craftsman-god. Furthermore, likeMarduk (cf. Enuma Elish 4:39-40; seeANET,66), both storm-gods are describedas having meteorological helpers (see O’Flaherty,The Rig Veda,167- 72).Baal’smeteorologicalentourageincludes“yourclouds,yourwinds,yourchariots (?), your rains,... your seven youths, your eight lads” (KTU 1.5 V 6-9).Indra’s entourage includes his assistants, the Maruts; they are youthful warriors,riding chariots that produce rains (O’Flaherty,The Rig Veda,166-72). On thispoint, see further N. Wyatt, “Baal’s Seven Boars,” UF 19 (1987): 391-98. It isinteresting to note the observation of M. Muller (Vedic Hymns: Part 1, Hymns toMaruts, Rudra, Vâya, and Vâtra,The Sacred Books of the East 32 [Oxford: Atthe Clarendon, 1891], 58) that the description of the Maruts tossing cloudsacross the sea is unexpected for an inland people. This is precisely the type ofargument that Jacobsen employs for his theory of transmission of the WestSemitic conflict myth to Mesopotamia. The theory espoused by Lahiri, however,is marred by poor data and problematic historical reconstructions (J. A. Santucci,
review ofVedic Vrtra, by A. K. Lahiri,Religious Studies Review14/1 [1988]:89; see also J. Z. Smith, review ofGod’s Battle with the Monster: A Study inBiblical Imagery,by M. K. Wakeman,JBL94 [1975]: 442-44; Wyatt, “Baal’sSeven Boars,” 396-98). The craftsman-god is absent from Enuma Elish, castingsome doubt on this text as the middle step in the transmission of the conflictmyth.409ANET,72; F. M. Th. Böhl, “Die fünfzig Namen des Marduk,”Archiv für Orient-forschung11 (1936): 210. On the fifty names of Marduk, see also Bottéro, “Lesnoms de Marduk,” 5-28. That the divine hero varied according to locale isevident from the Assyrian version that substitutes Assur for Marduk (see ANET,62 n. 28). I thank Professor Olyan for bringing this point to my attention.410On this text, see Böhl, “Die fünfzig Namen des Marduk,” 210; Lambert,“Historical Development of the Mesopotamian Pantheon,” 198.411Further evidence of the common Amorite traditions behind the Ugaritic andBabylonian dynasties includes their common tribal ancestor, Ugariticddnldtn(see KTU 1.15 III 2-4, 13- 15; 1.124.4; 1.161.10), anddi-ta-nuin the genealogyof the Hammurapi dynasty of Babylon anddi-ta-naanddi-da-a-nuof AssyrianKing List A. For the evidence, see E. Lipiński, “Ditanu,” inStudies in the Bibleand the Ancient Near East Presented to Samuel E.Loewenstamm,ed. Y. Avishurand J. Blau (Jerusalem: E. Rubinstein’s Publishing House, 1978), 91-99; J. C. deMoor, “Rapi’uma — Rephaim,”ZAW88 (1968): 332-33; K. A. Kitchen, “TheKing List of Ugarit,”UF9 (1977): 142; M. H. Pope, “Notes on the RephaimTexts from Ugarit,” inEssays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of Jacob JoelFinkelstein,ed. M. de Jong Ellis, Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Artsand Sciences (Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1977), 179; D. Pardee, “VisitingDitanu — The Text of RS 24.272,”UF15 (1981): 127-40; B. Levine and J. M.de Tarragon, “Dead Kings and Rephaim: The Patrons of the Ugaritic Dynasty,”JAOS104 (1984): 655. On the genealogy of the Hammurapi dynasty, see J. J.Finkelstein, “The Genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty,”JCS20 (1966): 95-118; W. G. Lambert, “Another Look at Hammurabi’s Ancestors,” JCS 22 (1968-69): 1-2. Concerning the Assyrian King List, see I. J. Gelb, “Two Assyrian KingLists,” JNES 13 (1954): 209-30, esp. 210 line 5, 211 line 4; A. R. Millard,“Fragments of Historical Texts from Nineveh: Middle Assyrian and LaterKings,” Iraq 32 (1970): 167-76, especially 175 line 5. See also A. Malamat,“King Lists of the Old Babylonian Period and Biblical Genealogies,” JAOS 88(1968): 163-73; and R. R. Wilson,Genealogy and History in the Biblical World,
Yale Near Eastern Researches 7 (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1977), 87-100,107-14. See also the names of two monarchs of the first dynasty of Babylon,sa-am-su /si-di-ta-nu,and the name of one ruler in the ancestral line,a-bi-di-ta-an(Lipiński, “Ditanu,” 92-93). The name of Ammi-ditana occurs in the genealogyof the Hammurapi dynasty and in the Ras Shamra recension ofHAR-ra=ḫubullu(B. Landsberger, E. Reiner, and M. Civil,Materials for the SumerianLexicon XI: The Series Har-ra =ḫubullu, Tablets 20-24[Rome: PontificiumInstitutum Biblicum, 1974], 48, col. 4, lines 20-21, and 52, line 26). The latterattests todi-da-naas well (Landsberger, Reiner, and Civil,Materials, 48, col. 4,line 22, and 52, line 28).412Day,God’s Conflict,18-37.413S. Mowinckel,The Psalms in Israel’s Worship,2 vols. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell,1962), 1.16-92, 2.222-50; see also Gaster,Thespis, 442-59.414E. S. Gerstenberger, “The Lyrical Literature,” inThe Hebrew Bible and ItsModern Interpreters,ed. D. A. Knight and G. M. Tucker (Philadelphia: Fortress;Decatur, GA: Scholars, 1985), 430; Day,God’s Conflict,20.415Day,God’s Conflict,22.416See now the magisterial work on meteorology and biblical poems (especially thePsalms) by A. Fitzgerald,The Lord of the East Wind.417For a full discussion of the following points, see Smith, “Interpreting the BaalCycle,” 313-39; cf. Gaster,Thespis, esp. 238; and de Moor, Seasonal Pattern,ad loc.418On Anat, see Cooper, “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” 400-402; Oden,Studies,81-82; M. Delcor, “Une allusions à Anat, déesse guerrièreen Ex. 32:18?”JJS33 (1982= Essays in Honour of Yigael Yadin):145-60; B. Z.Luria, “Who Was Shamgar ben Anat?”Dor le Dor14 (1985-86): 105-7;Ahlström,Who Were the Israelites?77; N. H. Walls,The Goddess Anat inUgaritic Myth,SBLDS 135 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1992); P. L. Day, “Anat: Ugarit’s‘Mistress of Animals,”’JNES51 (1992): 181-90; “Anat,” DDD, 36-43; idem,“Why Is Anat a Warrior and Hunter?”in The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis:Essays in Honor of Norman K. Gottwald on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday,ed. D.Jobling, P. L. Day, and G. T. Sheppard (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1991),
141-46, 329-32; and J. Day,Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan(JSOTSup 265; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 132-44. Day’sassessment appears overly optimistic for the extent of Anat in pre-exilic Israelitereligion. Anat appears in the Bible only in the form of proper names (see chapter1, section 3), and no Phoenician inscription extant from the mainland attests toher. The goddess Antit is attested in an Egyptian stele from Beth-Shan (see A.Rowe,The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-Shan[Philadelphia: Univ. ofPennsylvania Press, 1940], 34, pl. 65A; A. Kempinski, “Beth-shean,” EAEHL1:215). The vocalization of Ugaritic ‘ntas *‘anatu(hence the English spelling,Anat) is based on the occurrence of her name asda-natum in RS 20.24.20(UgV,44; see Knutson, “Divine Names and Epithets in the Akkadian Texts,” 476-77)and Ugaritic personal names. For Anat in Phoenician and Punic, see A. Frendo,“A New Punic Inscription from Zejtun (Malta) and the Goddess Anat-Astarte,’PEQ 131 (1991): 24-35. For the etymology of her name, see n. 135 below andchapter 3, section 3.419In addition to Shamgar son of ‘Anat (ben‘ănāt), see bêt-‘ănāt (Josh. 19:38) andhuion Anat, “sons of Anat” (LXX Vaticanus Josh. 17:7) as well asbn‘ntin aseventh-century inscription from Ekron (see S. Gitin, T. Dothan, and J. Naveh,“A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron,”IEJ47 [1997]: 13-14). Cf.‘ănātôt, a place in Benjamin and the home of Jeremiah (Josh. 21:18; 1 Kings2:26; Isa. 10:30; Jer. 1:1; 11:21, 23; 32:7-9; Ezra 2:23; Neh. 7:27; 11:32; 1Chron. 8:45), possibly a place-name based on a divine name (cf. place-names‘Ashtarot, ‘Anat on the Euphrates,URUBa-’-liin a Neo-Assyrian list; see Astour,“Yahweh,” 33); cf. the Benjaminite with this name (1 Chron. 7:8). The personalname‘antōtiyyāh,the name of a Benjaminite (1 Chron. 8:24), could be related tothe name of the goddess, but following the lead of Albright and Milik, Olyan(“Some Observations,” 170 n. 56) takes this name as a sentence name meaning“Yahweh is my providence,” connecting *‘antôt-with Aramaic ‘antā’ andAkkadianittu,“sign, omen” (cf. E. L. Curtis and A. A. Madsen,A Critical andExegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles, ICC [New York: CharlesScribner’s Sons, 1910], 163). See also the possibly related gentilic forms in 2Sam. 23:27; Jer. 29:27; 1 Chron. 11:28; 12:3; 27:2. Concerning Anat as thetheophoric element in proper names, in addition to the studies cited in theprevious note, see A. G. Auld, “A Judaean Sanctuary of ‘Anat (Josh. 15:59),”TA4 (1977): 85-86. Arguments that these names indicate cultic devotion to thegoddess (e.g., Ahlström,Who Were the Israelites?77) exceed the evidence,since the giving of personal names was subject to conventions other than those
of cultic devotion (for further discussion, see Introduction). Furthermore, theplace-names with the theophoric element ‘ntsupply information pointing to theindigenous character of her cult, but the cult may predate the attestation of thenames. For a proposal comparing the imagery of Anat and Deborah, see P. C.Craigie, “Three Ugaritic Notes on the Song of Deborah,”JSOT 2(1977): 33-49;idem, “Deborah and Anat: A Study of Poetic Imagery,”ZAW90 (1978): 374-81.See also R. M. Good, “Exodus 32:18,” inLove and Death in the Ancient NearEast: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope, ed. J. H. Marks and R. M. Good(Guilford, CT: Four Quarters, 1987), 137-42.420For the elementsbyt’l, *’šm, *‘nt,and*ḥrmas hypostases, see J. T. Milik, “Lespapyrus araméens d’Hermoupolis et les cultes syro-phéniciens en Egypte perse,”Biblica48 (1967): 556-64; P. K. McCarter, “Aspects of the Religion of theIsraelite Monarchy: Biblical and Epigraphic Data,” inAncient Israelite Religion:Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller, Jr., P. D. Hanson, andS. D. McBride, 138-43; Olyan, “Some Observations,” 170, and Burnett, AReassessment of Biblical Elohim,Society of Biblical Literature, 90-92.421B. Porten discusses the two possibilities that these elements are either hypostasesor survivals of old divinities (Archives from Elephantine[Berkeley and LosAngeles: Univ. of California Press, 1968], 154, 156, 165-70, 178-79, 317). J. P.Hyatt (“The Deity Bethel in the Old Testament,”JAOS59 [1939]: 81-98) and B.Levine (In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms inAncient Israel, Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 5 [Leiden: Brill, 1974], 131-32) see no impediment to the latter view. The name Bethel in Jer. 48:13 maypoint to a Phoenician source lying behind the evidence for Bethel as a divinename in both biblical and Jewish Egyptian sources. Such an explanation mightaccount for the element*‘ntin the names from Elephantine. For variousproposals for the etymology of Anat’s name, see Pope, “‘Anat,” in Pope andRöllig,Syrien,235-41. Lambert equates Anat’s name with Hanat, an areapopulated by a group of Amorites with its capital at Terqa (“Old TestamentMythology,” 132, esp. n. 6).422On Anat-Bethel of Tyre, see chapter 1, section 6.423See Steiner, “The Aramaic Text in Demotic Scripture,” 314.424See Caquot, Sznycer, and Herdner, Textesougaritiques,1.157-61; Coogan,Stories from Ancient Canaan,90-91; Gibson,Canaanite Myths and Legends, 47-
48; del Olmo Lete, Mitos y leyendas, 181-82; see also the works cited in thefollowing note. Forhln,see M. L. Brown, “‘Is It Not’ or ‘Indeed!’: HL inNorthwest Semitic,”Maarav4/2 (1987): 205. Onšbm//mdntas terms forenemies, see M. Held, “Studies in Comparative Semitic Lexicography,” inStudiesinHonorofBennoLandsbergeronHisSeventy-FifthBirthday,Assyriological Studies 16 (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1965), 404 n. 122;onksl qšth,see Held, “Studies,” 404. The verbtgllhas been usually rendered“wade.” For the alternative interpretation of the verb as “glean,” and for otherexamples of agricultural imagery used for descriptions of warfare, see R. M.Good, “Metaphorical Gleanings from Ugarit,”JJS33 (1982 =Essays in HonourofYigaelYadin):55-59.Forḥlqmas“neck(-deep),”seethecontextualcomparison with Rev. 14:14-20 suggested by D. Pardee, “The New CanaaniteMyths and Legends,” BiOr 37 (1980): 276; cf. Mehri and HarsusiḥelqemōtandJibbaliḥalqūt,meaning “Adam’s apple” or “side of the throat” (so G. A.Rendsburg, “Modern South Arabian as a Source for Ugaritic Etymologies,”JAOS 107 [1987]: 628). Due to similar martial language in both halves, mostinterpreters view the second half of the passage as a continuation of the fighting.The second half is not battle proper, but the goddess’s feast on her captives.Concerning cannibalism following battle, see M. Harris,The Sacred Cow andthe Abominable Pig: Riddles of Food and Culture(New York: Simon &Schuster, 1987), 216-22; see Harris’s comments relating the decline of warfarecannibalism to state development.425J. Gray, “The Wrath of God in Canaanite and Hebrew Literature,”Bulletin of theManchester University Egyptian and Oriental Society25 (1947-53): 9-19; Pope,Song of Songs, 606-12; P. D. Hanson, “Zechariah 9 and the Recapitulation of anAncient Ritual Pattern,”JBL92 (1973): 46-47 n. 25; J. Gray, “The Blood Bathof the Goddess Anat in the Ras Shamra Texts,” UF 11 (1979): 315-24; Pardee,“The New Canaanite Myths and Legends,” 276-77; V. Kubac, “Blut im Gurtelund in Sandalen,”VT31 (1981): 225-26.426SeePritchard,PalestinianFigurines,78-79;Stadelmann,Syrisch-Palastinensische Gottheiten,91-96;ANET,250.427On the conflation of imagery of El and Baal in biblical tradition, see chapter 1,section 4.428For a full treatment of the biblical evidence, see Olyan,Asherah and the Cult ofYahweh,1-22; C. Frevel,Aschera und der Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch YHWHs,
Bonner biblische Beiträge 94 (Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995); O. Keel,Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh: Ancient Near Eastern Art andthe Hebrew Bible, JSOTSup 261 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998),15-57; P. Merlo, Ladea Ašratum—Atiratu—Ašera: Un contributo alla storiadellareligione semiticadel Nord(Mursia: Pontificia Universitè Lateranense,1998); and J. M. Hadley,The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah:Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess, University of Cambridge Oriental Publications57 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000). See also N. Wyatt, “Asherah,”DDD, 99-105; J. Day,Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan,JSOTSup 265 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 42-67; P. D. Miller,TheReligionofAncientIsrael(London:SPCK;Louisville,KY:Westminster/John Knox, 2000), 29-40; and Z. Zevit,The Religions of AncientIsrael: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches(London/New York: Continuum,2001),472,478,537-38,650-52,677.Forrecentdiscussionsoftheinterpretational problems pertaining to Asherah and her symbol, the asherah, seealso Oden,Studies,88-102; A. L. Perlman, “Asherah and Astarte in the OldTestament and Ugaritic Literature” (Ph.D. diss., Graduate Theological Union,1978); A. Angerstorfer, “Asherah als — ‘consort of Jahwe’ oder Aširtah?”BN17 (1982): 7-16; Emerton, “New Light on Israelite Religion,” 1-20; U. Winter,Frau und Göttin: Exegetische und ikonographische Studien zum weiblichenGottesbild im Alten Testament und in desen Umwelt,OBO 53 (Fribourg:Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 479-538, 551-60; J. Day, “Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature,”JBL105 (1986): 385-408; Tigay,You Shall Have No Other Gods,26-30; Smith,“God Male and Female,” 333-40; R. Hestrin, “The Lachish Ewer and theAsherah,”IEJ 37(1987): 212-23. For a survey of data pertaining to Asherah,including the South Arabic evidence, see Pritchard, Palestinian Figurines, 59-65.For further comments on the South Arabic evidence, see M. Hofner,Sudarabien,Saba’, Qataban und anderen,Wörterbuch der Mythologie 1/6 (Stuttgart: ErnstKlett, 1965), 497. For the vocalization of Ugaritic ’atrt as*’atiratubut possibly*’atirtu,see Huehnergard,Ugaritic Vocabulary, 111-12, 283. The goddess’sname in the Canaanite myth of Elkunirsa (ANET, 519) is given either as odA-še-er-du-uš(with Hittite declensional endings) or the Akkadianized forms,dA-še-er-tumorŠAdA-še-er-ti(H. A. Hoffner, “The Elkunirsa Myth Reconsidered,”Revue Hittite et Asianique23 [1965]: 6 n. 5).429Olyan,Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh,6-9, 29, 34. Ahlström (Aspects ofSyncretism,51) and Olyan (Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh,7) have noted that
2 Kings 13:6 indicates that the cults of Baal and the asherah were separate inSamaria. D. N. Freedman argues that behind 2 Kings 13:6 lies a differenthistorical picture, that after the cult of Baal was removed from Samaria, thegoddess Asherah was no longer paired with Baal but with Yahweh (“Yahweh ofSamaria and His Asherah,” BA 50 [1987]: 248). Olyan’s demonstration thatBaal and Asherah were not paired in the Late Bronze Age or the Iron Agevitiates Freedman’s view of 2 Kings 13:6 (Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 38-61). Freedman also argues that’ašmat šōmērônin Amos 8:14 alludes to thegoddess. Other interpretations are feasible. The word’ašmatcould be a negativereference to the “name”(šēm)of Yahweh; if so,derekin Amos 8:14 might be anaspect of Yahweh related to Ugariticdrkt,“power, dominion” (see Ringgren,Israelite Religion, 264 n. 54; n. 136 below). If so,‘ašmatas a biform of the wordšēmis anomalous for BH generally and for Amos specifically (cf.šmin Amos2:7; 5:8; 6:10; 9:6, 12); nonetheless, it is possible (cf. Aramaic’šmbt’lin AP22:124). For the view that’ašmatin Amos 8:14 might be an allusion, see thediscussion in M. Cogan, “Ashima,” DDD, 105-6. In any case, Freedman’sproposal for’ašmatenjoys no more certitude than other proposals. Freedman’sarguments for allusions to the goddess Asherah in Amos 2:17 and Ezek. 8:3 areingenious, though unconvincing. The “Queen of Heaven” (Jer. 44:15-30) maynot be Asherah, as Freedman suggests. She never bears this title in the extanttexts, unlike Astarte, and to a lesser extext, Anat and Ishtar (so Olyan, “SomeObservations,” 161-74).430Olyan,Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh,3-19.431Olyan,Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh,8.432Origen’s Hexapla marks “the prophets of Asherah” with an asterisk indicatingthat these words are an addition in Origen’s text of the Septuagint. Fordiscussion, see J. A. Montgomery, ACritical and Exegetical Commentary on theBooks of Kings,ed. H. S. Gehman, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1951), 310;Emerton, “New Light on Israelite Religion,” 16; E. Lipiński, “The Goddess’Atirat in Ancient Arabia, in Babylon and in Ugarit,”OLP3 (1972): 114; Olyan,Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 8. Against the view of D. N. Freedman(“Yahweh of Samaria,” 248), recognizing that the reference to asherah in thisverse is a secondary addition need not be resolved through emendation, only thatthe addition reflects a secondary stage in the development of the verse.433M. Noth,Exodus; A Commentary,trans. J. S. Bowden, OTL (London: SCM,
1962), 262; Childs,The Book of Exodus, 608; Ginsberg,The Israelian Heritage,64; Olyan,Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 18. For similar analyses, see F.Langlamet, “Israël et ‘l’inhabitant du pays’; Vocabulaires et formules d’Éx.,xxxiv, 11-16,” RB 76 (1969): 323-24.434See Langlamet, “Israël;” 324-25, 483-90.435See Olyan,Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 4-5. For examples of thisdichotomy used in discussion of the asherah, see J. C. de Moor,“’ashērāh;”inTheological Dictionary of the Old Testament,vol. 1, ed. G. J. Botterweck and H.Ringgren, trans. J. T. Willis, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 444;Tigay,You Shall Have No Other Gods,26. On the further uses and abuses of theterm “Canaanite religion,” see also Hillers, “Analyzing the Abominable,” 253-69. Further examples of the types of works that Hillers discusses includeOldenburg,The Conflict, 1; Mendenhall,The Tenth Generation, 226; cf. deMoor, “The Crisis of Polytheism in Late Bronze Ugarit,” 1-20.436Ahlström,Aspects of Syncretism,50-34.437J. R. Engle, “Pillar Figurines of Iron Age and Asherah/Asherim” (Ph.D. diss.,University of Pittsburgh, 1979), 55, 62; cf. Hestrin, “The Lachish Ewer,” 221-22;Ahlström,“AnArchaeologicalPicture,”136;Pritchard,PalestinianFigurines, 86. See also T. A. Holland, “A Survey of Palestinian Iron Age BakedClay Figurines, with Special Reference to Jerusalem: Cave I,”Levant9 (1977):121-51. For considerations of Engle’s view, with a survey of evidence, see alsoHadley,The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah,196-205. For furtherdiscussion, see R. Kletter, “Between Archaeology and Theology: The PillarFigurines from Judah and the Asherah,” inStudies in the Archaeology of the IronAge in Israel and Jordan, ed. A. Mazar with the assistance of G. Mathias,JSOTSup 331 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 179-216; and E. C.LaRocca-Pitts,“Of Wood and Stone”: The Significance of Israelite Cultic Itemsin the Bible and Its Early Interpreters, HSM 61 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,2001), 161-204.438R. Hestrin, “Israelite and Persian Periods,” inHighlights of Archaeology, TheIsrael Museum, Jerusalem(Jerusalem: The Israel Museum, 1984), 172.439Albright, “Astarte Plaques and Figurines from Tell Beit Mirsim,” inMelangessyriens offerts à M. René Dussaud, vol. 1 (Paris: Geuthner, 1939), 102-20.
440Pritchard,Palestinian Figurines,87.441On the nature of the asherah, see W. L. Reed,The Asherah in the Old Testament(Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian University, 1949); J. Barr, “Seeing the Woodfor the Trees? An Enigmatic Ancient Translation,” JSS 13 (1968): 11-20; J. B.Carter, “The Masks of Ortheia,”American Journal of Archaeology91 (1987):355-83; Hestrin, “The Lachish Ewer,” 212-23; Olyan,Asherah and the Cult ofYahweh,1-3. For scepticism about the “dendrical associations of Asherah,” seeS. A. Wiggins, “Of Asherahs and Trees: Some Methodological Questions,”Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions1/1 (2001): 158-86. E. Lipinski (“TheGoddess ’Atirat,” 101-19), A. Perlman (“Asherah and Astarte”), and P. K.McCarter (“Aspects of the Religion,” 148-49) deny the relationship between thegoddess Asherah and the symbol asherah.
442H. Danby,The Mishnah(London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1933), 441.443Danby,The Mishnah,441. For other discussions of the asherah in the Mishnahand Talmud, see C. E. Hayes,Between the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds:Accounting for Halakhic Difference in Selected Sugyot from Tractate AvodahZarah(New York/Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1997), 63-66, 102-4, 111-13,115-16.444See Y. Aharoni, “Lachish,” EAEHL 3:749.445K. Galling,Biblisches Reallexikon, HAT 1 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [PaulSiebeck],1937),35-36;Pritchard,PalestinianFigurines,84;deMoor,“’ashērāh,”443.446So Hestrin, “The Lachish Ewer,” 215-17. See Negbi,Canaanite Gods in Metal,nos. 1661, 1664, 1680, 1685, 1688, 1691 (?), 1692.447Carter, “The Masks of Ortheia,” 373-74. For discussion and pictures of thepiece, see Syria 10 (1929): 292-93 and pl. 56; C. F. A. Schaeffer,Ugaritica,Mission de Ras Shamra 3 (Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1939), 32-33, frontpiece and pl. 11;ANEP,nos. 464, 303; A. Caquot and M. Sznycer,Ugaritic Religion, Iconography of Religions XV, 8 (Leiden: Brill, 1980), 22 andpls. 4, 5; R. W. Barnett, “Ancient Ivories in the Middle East,”Qedem14 (1982):30 and pl. 124b. Carter identifies the cult of Ortheia in Sparta as Phoenicianinspired. She argues that Ortheia may be the Greek name for Asherah/Tannit,and that her cult symbol, the upright wooden object, was the local realization ofthe asherah.448P. Beck, “The Drawings from Horvat Teiman (Kuntillet ‘Ajrûd),” TA 9 (1982):3-86, esp. 13-16; Hestrin, “The Lachish Ewer,” 212-23.449Hestrin, “The Lachish Ewer,” 221-22; idem, “Cult Stand from Ta‘anach,” 68-71.On the inscription on the Lachish ewer, see chapter 1, section 1.450Cf. W. Dever, “Asherah, Consort of Yahweh? New Evidence from Kuntillet‘Ajrûd,”BASOR255 (1984): 26-28.451Hestrin, “Cult Stand from Ta‘anach,” 68-71, fig. 6; idem, “The Lachish Ewer,”
219; see also Keel,The Symbolism of the Biblical World, 186-87.452For discussion, see B. Stade,The Books of Kings: Critical Edition of the HebrewText, trans. R. E. Brunnow and P. Haupt (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche;Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press; London: David Nutt, 1904), 293; and J.A. Montgomery,A Critical and Exegetical Commentary,534.453E. Lane,Arabic-English Lexicon,Book 1, part 1 (London/Edinburgh: Williams& Norgate, 1863), 159; so, among many scholars, M. J. Lagrange, “Études surles religions sémitiques,” RB 10 (1901): 550 n. 2; J. Gray,I and II Kings,2d ed.,OTL (London: SCM, 1970), 734; A. Lemaire, “Les inscriptions de Khirbet el-Qöm et l’ashérah de Yhwh,” RB 84 (1977): 606; M. Weinfeld, “Kuntillet ‘AjrûdInscriptions and Their Significance,” SEL 1 (1984): 129 nn. 21- 22; Ahlström,“An Archaeological Picture,” 135, 144 n. 108; McCarter, “Aspects of theReligion,” 144; cf. H. Gressman, “Josia und das Deuteronomium,” ZAW 1(1924): 325-26. See also de Moor,“’ashērāh,”441. Weinfeld also comparesclothing woven for Astarte and Athena (“The Kuntillet ‘Ajrûd Inscriptions,” 129n. 22). Ahlstrom relates the textiles discovered at Kuntillet ‘Ajrûd to BHbāttîm.454W. F. Baudissen,Studien zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte(Leipzig: F. W.Grunnow, 1876-70), 221-22; M. J. Lagrange,Études sur les religions semitiques(Paris: V. Lecoffre, 1905), 175; Smith,Religion of the Semites, 186.455A.Abu-Rabia,FolkMedicineAmongtheBedouinTribesintheNegev(Beersheba: The Jacob Blaustein Institute for Desert Research, Ben-GurionUniversity of the Negev, 1983), 21; cf. T. Canaan,Mohammedan Saints andSanctuaries in Palestine(Jerusalem: Ariel, 1927), 36-37.456L. Oppenheim, “The Golden Garments of the Gods,”JNES8 (1949): 172-93; D.B.Weisberg,“WoolandLinenMaterialinTextsfromtheTimeofNebuchadnezzar,”EI16 (1982 = H. Orlinsky Festschrift): 224*-225*; deTarragon,Le Culte à Ugarit,110.457See R. G. Boling and G. E. Wright,Joshua,AB 6 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday,1982), 540.458Achilles Tatius,The Adventures of Leucippe and Clitophon2:14. See S. Gaselee,Achilles Tatius,Loeb Classical Library (London: William Heinemann; New
York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1917), 81-85. For further discussion, see M. Delcor,“The Selloi of the Oracle of Dodona and the Oracular Priests of the SemiticReligions,” inReligion d’IsraëletProche Orient Ancien: Des Phéniciens auxEsseniens(Leiden: Brill, 1976), 116-23.459Herodotus,History2:56 (Godley,Herodotus,vol. 1, 344-45).460See Emerton, “New Light on Israelite Religion,” 15.461Albright,Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan,189; Oden, Studies, 154. See also deMoor, “Diviners’ Oak,”IDBSup,243-44; Ringgren,Israelite Religion,25;Andersen and Freedman,Hosea,158.462See J. A. Robinson,The Mishna on Idolatry: ‘AbodaZara, Texts and Studies,Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature, vol. 8, no. 2 (Cambridge: Atthe University Press, 1911; reprinted, Nendeln/Liechtenstein: Kraus, 1967), 60-61.463Olyan,Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 9.464Olyan,Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh,38-61; cf. Day, “Asherah in the HebrewBible,” 391. De Moor(“’ashērāh,”441) argues that in Iron Age Israel Asherahwas the consort of Baal because of the fusion of Baal’s consort, Anat, withAsherah.465See Hestrin, “The Lachish Ewer,” 212-23; idem, “Israelite and Persian Periods,”72; Weinfeld, “Kuntillet ‘Ajrûd Inscriptions,” 121-22; P. D. Miller, “TheAbsence of the Goddess in Israelite Religion,”Hebrew Annual Review10(1986): 239-48; andThe Religion of Ancient Israel,29-40.466See J. A. Thompson,The Book of Jeremiah(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980),180; Olyan, “The Cultic Confessions of Jer 2,27a,”ZAW99 (1987): 254-59. Ithank Professor Olyan for bringing the biblical reference to my attention.467For further discussion of this verse, see section 4 below.468De Moor, “Diviners’ Oak,” 243-44.469Olyan, “Cultic Confessions of Jer 2,27a,” 254-59; Andersen and Freedman,
Hosea, 366. For further discussion of Jer. 2:27 and this pairing, see below insection 4.470See Freedman and Andersen, Hosea, 365-66. For criticisms of Hos. 4:12 as areference to the asherah, see Olyan,Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh,19-20.471I. Epstein, ed.,The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Mo‘ed(London: Soncino, 1938),114; I. Epstein, ed.,Hebrew English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud,Pesahim, trans. H. Freedman, rev. ed. (London: Soncino, 1967), ad loc. Mythanks go to W. Holladay, who brought to my attention the following descriptionof the temple of Astarte standing at the grotto of the Afqa River at Khirbet Afqain Syria about twenty-three miles northeast of Beirut, midway between Byblosand Baalbeq: “The river Adonis emerges from a huge grotto in the side ofprecipitous rock nearly 650 ft. high....On the rock facing the grotto there is aplatform where you will see the remains of a Roman temple....The sacredcharacter of the place has been strengthened by tradition. The inhabitants placeoil-lamps beneath the vault which they light in honour of the ‘lady’ who hauntsthis region. There is here a curious mixture of cults; both Shiites and Christianscome to worship the Zahra, who, in Lebanon, was Venus’ successor. TheChristians affirm that the ruins of Afqa are those of a church dedicated to theVirgin. Nearby there is a fig tree on which pieces of the clothing of sick peopleare hung in order to bring about their recovery; this has the same function as thesacred tree in antiquity” (The Guidebook, The Middle East — Lebanon, Syria,Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Hachette World Guides [Paris: Hachette, 1966], 176; formore details of the site, see Pope,El in the Ugaritic Texts,75-78).472For discussion of the dating, see Olyan,Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh,23.473Z. Meshel, “Kuntillat ‘Ajrûd — An Israelite Site from the Monarchial Period onthe Sinai Border,”Qadmoniot9 (1976): 118-24; idem, “Kuntillet ‘Ajrûd — AnIsraelite Religious Center in Northern Sinai,”Expedition20 (1978): 50-54; idem,“Did Yahweh Have a Consort?”Biblical Archaeologist Review5/2 (1979): 24-34; J. Naveh, “Graffiti and Dedications,”BASOR235 (1979): 27-30; Weinfeld,“Kuntillet ‘Ajrud Inscriptions,” 121-30; Lemaire, “Les inscriptions de Khirbetel-Qôm,” 595-608; idem, “Date et origine des inscriptions paléo-hebraïques etphéniciennes de Kuntillet ‘Ajrûd,”SEL1 (1984): 131-43; Dever, “Asherah,Consort of Yahweh?” 21-37. The bibliographical items listed in n. 1 also providediscussions of these inscriptions. The epigraphic evidence is summarized in W.A. Maier III,’Ašerah: Extrabiblical Evidence,HSM 37 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars,
1986); and Olyan,Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh,23-37.474In the first edition of this book, I followed the standard translation, “to.” S.Parker (Hebrew Studies33 [1992]: 161) comments: “The expression means‘bless someone to a deity.’ To say ‘I bless you to Yahweh’ is to report that inpraying to Yahweh one says ‘bless PN.’ In other words it is tantamount to saying‘I am praying for you.’”475See Emerton, “New Light on Israelite Religion,” 14-19; Tigay,You Shall HaveNo Other Gods,26-28; McCarter, “Aspects of the Religion,” 143.476Emerton, “New Light on Israelite Religion,” 14-19.477M. Gilula, “To Yahweh Shomron and His Asherah,” Shnaton 3-4 (1978-79):129-37 (Heb.; English summary 15-16); Emerton, “New Light on IsraeliteReligion,” 3, 12-13; Weinfeld, “Kuntillet ‘Ajrûd Inscriptions,” 125; McCarter,“Aspects of the Religion,” 139. “His” asherah would refer to Yahweh, whereas“its” asherah would refer to Samaria. The pottery discovered at Kuntillet ‘Ajrûdincludes “Samaria ware” (see J. Gunneweg, I. Perlman, and Z. Meshel, “TheOrigin of the Pottery of Kuntillet ‘Ajrûd,”IEJ 35[1985]: 270-83), enhancing theinterpretation ofyhwh šmrnas referring to Samaria.478McCarter, “Aspects of the Religion,” 140-41. On RS 1986/2235.17, see P.Bordreuil, “Découvertes épigraphiques récentes à Ras ibn Hani et à RasShamra,”CRAIBL1987, 298.479Fordiscussion,seeM.Dietrich,“DieParhedrainPantheonvonEmar:Miscellanea Emariana (I),” UF 29 (1997): 115-22; Tigay, You Shall Have NoOther Gods, 27, 34; Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 72-73; A. P.Xella, “Le dieu et «sa» déesse: l‘utilisation des Suffixes pronominaux avec desthéonymes d’Ebla à Ugarit et à la Kuntillet ‘Ajrud,” UF 27 (1995): 599-610; andZevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel, 403.l’aṯrty(KTU 2.31.39) occurs in abroken context. In RS 16.394:60,PRU II(9-10) reconstructs[l]aṯr[ty];KTU2.31.60 reads /*aṯr[t]x.Ugaritic’il’ib,“god, father” or divine ancestral father,occurs with pronominal suffixes (e.g., KTU 1.17 I 27). On this figure, seechapter 1 n. 105. CTA 33 (KTU 1.43).13 may provide another Ugaritic exampleof divine name plus suffix,l‘nth,but the reading is uncertain (see CTA 116 n. 8;M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartin, “Die ugaritischen und hebräischenGottes-namen,”UF7[1975]:553).KTUreadsl‘nth*withoutadditional
comment. Cf. AN.DA.MU-ia usually read asdDA.MU-ia,“my Damu,” in EA84:33 andhattammûzin Ezek. 8:14. For an alternative understanding of the deityin EA 84:33, see N. Na’aman, “On Gods and Scribal Traditions in the AmarnaLetters,”UF22 (1990): 248-50, who believes the AN.DA.MU-ia is a title of thegoddess known as “The Lady of Byblos” (cf. 132.53-55). This issue wouldaffect the relevance of AN.DA.MU-ia for the category of divine names withpronominal suffixes.480Gilula, “To Yahweh Shomron,” 134-37; Naveh, “Graffiti and Dedications,” 28;Ahlström, “An Archaeological Picture,” 20; idem, Royal Administration, 43;Dever, “Asherah, Consort of Yahweh?” 21-37; Hestrin, “The Lachish Ewer,”212-23; Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 28. See the comments ofLambert, “Trees, Snakes, and Gods,” 439-40. Before the discovery of theinscriptions, A. T. Olmstead, Ahlström, and other scholars anticipated thisconclusion (see Ahlström, Aspects of Syncretism, 50-54; idem, “Some RemarksonProphetsandCult,”inTransitionsinBiblicalScholarship,ed.J.C.Rylaarsdam (Chicago and London: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1968), 121. Inprevious discussions I held out for this possibility (Smith, “God Male andFemale,” 333-40; idem, “Divine Form and Size in Ugaritic and Pre-exilicIsraelite Religion,”ZAW100 [1988]: 426).481Z. Zevit, “The Khirbet el-Qöm Inscription Mentioning a Goddess,” BASOR 255(1984): 39-47.482Tigay,You Shall Have No Other Gods, 30; see also Rainey, “The Toponyms,” 4.483Tigay,You Shall Have No Other Gods, 28-29.484As Zevit (The Religions of Ancient Israel, 403 n. 110) rightly asks: “Whatwould it have meant to say that the goddess belonged to or was possessed byYahweh?” (Zevit’s italics).485Lipiński,“TheGoddess‘Atirat,”101-19;idem,“TheSyro-PalestinianIconography of Woman and Goddess (Review Article),”IEJ 36(1986): 87-96;cf. McCarter, “Aspects of the Religion,” 145. For a Phoenician inscription fromAkko with’šrtas “shrine(s),” see M. Dothan, “A Phoenician Inscription,” 81-94.McCarter (“Aspects of the Religion,” 145) relates the BH’āšērāhto’šrtin athird-century Phoenician text from Ma‘sub bearing the dedication “to Ashtart inthe asherah of Baal Hamon,”l‘štrt b‘šrt b‘lḥmn(KAI 19:4). Peckham
(“PhoeniciaandtheReligionofIsrael,”91n.24)comparesPhoenicianinscriptions from ’Umm el-‘Amed and Pyrgi where an asherah is reserved forAstarte. In these instances, the Phoenician word means “shrine” or the like.486Meshel, “Did Yahweh Have a Consort?” 31.487M. H. Pope, “Response to Sasson on the Sublime Song,” Maarav 2/2 (1980):210-11; Engle, “Pillar Figurines,” 84-85.488See the remarks of Pardee, “The New Canaanite Myths and Legends,” 274;Cooper, “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” 342.489McCarter, “Aspects of the Religion,” 137-55. McCarter is followed by J. S.Burnett, AReassessment of Biblical Elohim, SBLDS 183 (Atlanta: Society ofBiblical Literature, 2001), 91 n. 36.490S. D. McBride, “The Deuteronomistic Name Theology” (Ph.D. diss., HarvardUniversity, 1969), 135-37; Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic,11, 30-31;T. N. D. Mettinger, TheDethronement of Sabaoth; Studies in the Shem andKabod Theologies, ConBOT 18 (Lund: Gleerup, 1982), 38-79, 123-30; L.Laberge, “Le lieu que YHWH a choisi pour mettre son Nom,”Estudios Bíblicos43 (1985): 209-36; McCarter, “Aspects of the Religion,” 155 n. 62. Examples of*šiml*šumin Northwest Semitic personal names include Phoenicianšm,“Name”(KAI 54:1),šmzbl,“Name is prince” (KAI 34:4),šm’dny,“Name is lord” (seeGianto, “Some Notes on the Mulk Inscription from Nebi Yunis (RES 367),”Biblica 68 (1987): 397-400), Elephantine’šmbyt’l,“Name of Bethel” (AP22:124; Oden, Studies, 126-27), and Shimil in Armenian Ahiqar 1:4 (OTPs2:486 n. 50). See Cross, “Old Canaanite and Early Phoenician Scripts,” 3; P.Bordreuil,“Mizzbul lô:à propos de Psaume 49:15,” inAscribe to the Lord;Biblical and Other Studies in Memory of PeterC. Craigie, ed. L. Eslinger and G.Taylor, JSOTSup 67 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1988), 93-98. In addition to the Akkadianexamples cited by McBride,*sum is also attested in Eblaite names (Pomponio,“I nomi divini,” 152, 156) and one name from Emar (Emar 52:2). The long-standing view of the Deuteronomisticšēmtheology has been questioned recentlyby Sandra Richter,The Deuteronomistic History and the Place of the Name,BZAW 318 (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2002, in press). As a result, a seriousreassessment of the extent ofšēmin Deuteronomistic passages will be made.Passages such as 1 Kings 8 will likely hold up. Further consideration of non-Dtrpassages with “the name” (e.g., Isa. 30:27, Ps. 29:2 [?]) needs to be included in
the discussion. See further p. 142 below.491Onpānîm,“face,” as divine hypostasis in both Phoenician and Israelite religion,see Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 28. For the incantation fromEgypt, see R. C. Steiner, “The Scorpion Spell from Wadi Hammamat: AnotherAramaic Text in Demotic Script,”JNES60 (2001): 259-68. Secular usage of thisterm occurs in Gen. 33:10, Exod. 10:28-29 (cf. 2 Sam. 17:11; Rashi on Exod.33:15), and the Late Bronze antecedents cited in chapter 4, section 1. RS 25.318provides further background. The inscription, found on a lion rhyton, calls therhyton pn ‘arw, “the face of the lion” (see M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, “Diekeilalphabetische Krugausschrift RS 25.318,” inUgaritica VI,ed. C. E A.Schaeffer, Mission de Ras Shamra 18 [Paris: P. Geuthner; Leiden: Brill, 1978]:147-48; U. Zebulun, “A Canaanite Ram-Headed Cup,”IEJ 37[1987]: 96-99);cf. the name pnsmlt, “face of image” (KAI 57). These examples may illustrate inthe secular realm what “Tannit, face of Ba‘l,”tnt pn b‘l(e.g., KAI 78:2; 79:1,10-11; 85:1; 86:1; 137:1; cf. 87:1) andtntp’n b‘l(e.g., KAI 94:1; 97:1; 102:1;105:1; cf. 164:1 attested in various Punic and neo-Punic sites from Tunisia andelsewhere,signifiedinthesacredrealm,namely,thatTannitwastherepresentation of Baal. Onphanebalos,“face of Baal,” on Roman coins fromAshkelon, see Albright,Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 129; Cross,CanaaniteMyth and Hebrew Epic, 28; for the Greek place name for a cape north of Byblos,prosopon theou,“face of God,” see Harden,The Phoenicians,79. “The face ofGod” stands as a hypostasis for God inOdes of Solomon25:4 (OTPs2:758).Divine hypostases of the face and name may be one of several Israelite ways ofreferring to the divine military retinue of Yahweh. Given the attestation of suchterms in Ugaritic and Phoenician, the origins of this usage predate biblical usage.Unlike the usages in the wider West Semitic world, the biblical usage is notassociated with other deities. Another old way of describing the divine militaryretinue is to name other divinities as part of the retinue (Hab. 3:5). For theseforms of the divine retinue, see Smith,The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 47,68, 74-76. A third way of referring to the retinue in its destructive function is asmašḥîtīmas in Gen. 19:3 (see p. 38 above). For’lōhîmas a possible fourthway, see Burnett, AReassessment of Biblical Elohim,79-119. This wouldcomport with only divine pluralities (e.g.,b‘lmandršpm)which appear to bemilitary in character (Smith,The Origins of Biblical Monotheism,67-68). PE1.10.20 which refers toelohimas the allies of Elos would constitute a goodparallel for Burnett’s proposal.492See chapter 2, section 4.
493The Northwest Semitic attestations of the root*’ṯrsuggest the base meaning of“to be/go after/to.” Ugariticaṯr,Akkadian’ašru,and Phoenician’šrmean“place” (see n. 58 above for references; cf. M. Dietrich and O. Loretz,“Ugaritisch’ṯr, aṯr, aṯrytundaṯrt,” UF16 [1984]: 57-62). The Ugaritic andAkkadian forms of the noun secondarily marked subordinate clauses denotingplace (see A. Rainey, “Observations on Ugaritic Grammar,” UF 3 [1971]: 162;D. Pardee, “A Further Note onPRU V,No. 60,” UF 13 [1981]: 152, 156); thisusage formed the basis for the development of BH’ăšerand Moabite’šras amarker for relative clauses (see Garr, Dialect Geography, 85, 87). The Ugariticpreposition’aṯrmeans “after” (for attestations in mythological texts, see delOlmo Lete,Mitos y leyendas,519). Like later BH’ăšerand Moabite’šr,theprepositionapparentlydevelopedfromaccusativeofplace.IntheSefireinscription (KAI 222 B 3), the prep.b-plus the noun*’šrmeans “in the placeof” and refers to a successor (see J. A. Fitzmyer,The Aramaic Inscriptions ofSefire, Biblica et Orientalia 19 [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967], 18-19;cf. BA’ătar,“place,” in Dan. 2:35; 6:3, 5, 7; Ezra 5:15 and the preposition*bā’tar,“after,” in Dan. 2:39; 7:6, 7). This sense of the root apparently underliesthe Ugaritic noun’uṯryn,“successor” (cf. Huehnergard, Ugaritic Vocabulary,112), referring to the heir apparent (Rainey, “Observations,” 169). BH *’šr(andperhaps Ugaritic *’ṯr) mean “to go, advance” (BDB, 80). Albright’s (Yahwehand the Gods of Canaan, 105;Archaeology and the Religion of Israel[GardenCity, NY: Doubleday, 1965], 76) interpretation of Asherah’s name as a verbalsentence, i.e.,’aṯrt ym,“she who treads on the sea [or, sea-dragon],” is moresemantically consistent with the Northwest Semitic attestations of the root (seeOden,Studies, 72, 93). None of the proposed explanations for’aṯrt ymissatisfactory, however.494For various proposals, see chapter 2, section 4.495See chapter 2, section 1.496McCarter, “Aspects of the Religion,” 138; Olyan, Asherah and the Cult ofYahweh, 32.497Ahlström, Royal Administration, 40-43. J. M. Hadley (“Some Drawings andInscriptions on Two Pithoi from Kuntillet ‘Ajrûd,”VT 37[1987]: 180-213)argues that Kuntillet ‘Ajrûd served as a caravanserei.498
See Gunneweg, Perlman, and Meshel, “The Origin,” 270-83.499See Zevit, “The Khirbet el-Qôm Inscription”; Tigay,You Shall Have No OtherGods,29-30; J. M. Hadley, “The Khirbet el-Qôm Inscription,”VT 37(1987): 50-62; M. O‘Connor, “The Poetic Inscription from Khirbet el-Qôm,”VT 37(1987):224-30. A. Catastini (“Note di epigrafia ebraica I-II,”Henoch6 [1984]: 129-38)interprets’šrtas G passive participle meaning “cursed,” derived from*’šr,“blessed,” an unlikely semantic development given what is known of the root(discussed above in n. 66). For the bench tomb where the inscription was found,see W. G. Dever, “El-Qôm, Khirbet,” EAEHL 4:976-77.500See Introduction n. 6; and Dever, “Asherah, Consort of Yahweh?” 21-37;Lemaire, “Les inscriptions de Khirbet el-Qôm,” 595-608; Freedman, “Yahwehof Samaria,” 241-49; Hestrin, “The Lachish Ewer,” 212-23; Olyan, “CulticConfessions of Jer 2,27a,” 255; idem,Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh,xiv, 1-22, 33, 35, 74; Hadley,The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah;Day,Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 42-67; Dijkstra, “‘I HaveBlessed You by YHWH of Samaria and His Asherah’: Texts with ReligiousElements from the Soil Archive of Ancient Israel,” in B. Becking et al., eds.,Only One God?17-44; Keel, Goddesses and Trees, 16-57; and Zevit, 472, 478,537-38, 650-52, 677.501B. Lang,Monotheism and the Prophetic Minority: An Essay in Biblical Historyand Sociology,The Social World of Biblical Antiquity Series 1 (Sheffield:Almond, 1983), 39-40; Miller, “Absence of the Goddess,” 239-48; Tigay,YouShall Have No Other Gods, 26-30; Winter,Frau und Göttin,551-60; Frevel,AscheraundderAusschliesslichkeitsanspruchYHWHs;Korpel,“AsherahOutside Israel,” in B. Becking et al., Only One God? 127-50.502See chapter 1, section 4.503Olyan,Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 38-61.504BDB (p. 81) lists the following passages as references to the goddess: 1 Kings15:3; 18:19; 2 Kings 21:7; 23:4, 7. Reed (“Asherah,”IDB1:251) interprets 2Kings 21:7 as the image of the goddess and 2 Kings 32:4 as a reference to thegoddess. Dever (“Asherah, Consort of Yahweh?” 31) cites Judg. 3:7; 1 Kings18:19; and 2 Kings 23:4 as references to the goddess. He takes 2 Kings 21:7 as areference to the image or furnishing for Asherah. Olyan (Asherah and the Cult of
Yahweh, 2 n. 7) asserts that 2 Kings 21:7 and 23:4 are references to the goddess.Olyan (“Cultic Confessions of Jer 2,27a,” 254-59) adds Jer. 2:27 to the list. DeMoor(“’ashērāh,”441) presents quite a different picture: “When one compares2 K. 23:4-6 with 23:13 f., the cult object’asherahseems to be connected withboth the Asherah cult (in v. 4 probably a proper name; cf. 21:7) and the Astartecult.” A comparable position is argued below with respect to 1 Kings 18:19 andJudg. 3:7.505See chapter 1, section 2; and chapter 2, section 1.506See chapter 1, section 3.507See Olyan, “Some Observations,” 161-74; see also M. Held, “Studies in BiblicalLexicography in Light of Akkadian,”EI16 (1982): 76-85. Morton Smith, “TheVeracity of Ezekiel, the Sins of Manasseh, and Jeremiah 44:18,” ZAW 87(1975): 11-16; cf. K. Koch, “Ashera als Himmelskönigin in Jerusalem,”UF20(1988): 97-120. For iconographic evidence for Ishtar in Israel in the seventh andsixth centuries, see T. Ornan, “Ištar as Depicted on Finds from Israel,” inStudiesin the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan, ed. A. Mazar with theassistance of G. Mathias, JSOTSup 331 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,2001), 235-52. This evidence bolsters the case for Ishtar as the “Queen ofHeaven.” For further discussion with evidence from material culture andadditional bibliography, see P. J. King and L. E. Stager,Life in Biblical Israel,Library of Ancient Israel (Louisville/London: Westminster/John Knox, 2001),350.508Pritchard,Palestinian Figurines,71, 91; Olyan, Asherah and the Cult ofYahweh, 57 n. 84.509See Pritchard, Palestinian Figurines, 91; Olyan,Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh,58.510On Tannit, see references in Introduction n. 11.511See R. S. Tomback,A Comparative Semitic Lexicon of the Phoenician andPunic Languages,SBLDS 32 (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1978), 23.512See chapter 2, section 1.513
See Olyan, “Cultic Confessions of Jer 2,27a,” 254-59. If Olyan’s interpretationis correct, then Jer. 2:23-28 would include a polemic against both the cult ofYahweh and Asherah, on the one hand, and on the other hand, Baal (2:23 andLXX 2:28b). For the evidence on LXX 2:28b, see W. L. Holladay,Jeremiah 1:A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1-25,Hermeneia(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 54; W. McKane,A Critical and ExegeticalCommentary on Jeremiah, vol. 1,Introduction and Commentary on Jeremiah I-XXV,ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986), 47.514Olyan, “Cultic Confessions of Jer 2,27a,” 254-59.515Besides the scholars cited by Olyan (“Cultic Confessions of Jer 2,27a,” 255), seeDay, “Asherah in the Hebrew Bible,” 408; and Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 104.516Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods, 13-14.517Emerton, “New Light on Israelite Religion,” 16 n. 10; Olyan, Asherah and theCult of Yahweh, 35-36.518See the references in n. 74 above.519See Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 38-61.520SeeANET,519. For a critique of the use of this material in this way, see Olyan,Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 43.521See chapter 2, section 2. For the textual differences in the formulas of “the baalsand the asherahs/astartes,” see Oden, Studies, 97-98. Baal and Astarte arecoupled together also in PE 1.10.31: “Greatest Astarte and Zeus, called bothDemarous and Adodos, king of gods, were ruling over the land with the consentof Kronos,”Astartē de he megistē kai Zeus Dēmarous kai Adōdos basileus theōnebasileuon tēs chorās Kronou gnōmē(Attridge and Oden,Philo of Byblos,54-55). For a cultic functionary who was both a prophet of Baal and a prophet ofAstarte in the time of Akhenaten, seeANET,250 n. 13.522Hadley, The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah, 80.523Keel, Goddesses and Trees, 39-46.524
See chapter 5.525See G. Boström,Proverbiastudien:Die Weisheit und das fremde Weib in Spr. 1-9 (Lund: Gleerup, 1935), 12-14, 135f.; H. Ringgren, Word and Wisdom: Studiesin theHypostatizationof Divine Qualities and Functions in the Ancient NearEast (Lund: Håkan Ohlssons Boktryckeri, 1947), 132-34; L. A. Snidjers, “TheMeaning of zār in the Old Testament: An Exegetical Study,” OTS 10 (1954): 63;G. von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, trans. J. D. Martin (London: SCM, 1970), 167; R.J. Clifford, “Proverbs IX: A Suggested Ugaritic Parallel,”VT25 (1975): 305; B.Lang,Wisdom and the Book of Proverbs: A Hebrew Goddess Redefined(NewYork: Pilgrim Press, 1986). Concerning Ugaritic parallels to Proverbs 9, seeClifford, “Proverbs IX,” 298-306; cf. M. Lichtenstein, “The Banquet Motifs inKeret and in Proverbs 9,”JANES1/1 (1968): 19-31; J. C. Greenfield, “TheSeven Pillars of Wisdom (Prov. 9:1) — A Mistranslation,”JQR76 (1985 =Moshe Held Memorial Volume): 18 n. 25. For other opinions concerning thehistory of religion background to the figure of Wisdom, see H. Conzelmann,“The Mother of Wisdom,” in The Future of Our Religious Past: Essays inHonorof Rudolf Bultmann,ed. J. M. Robinson, trans. C. Carlson and R. Scharlemann(New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 230-43; G. Fohrer, “Sophia,” TheologicalDictionary of the New Testament, vol. 7, ed. G. Friedrich, trans. G. W. Bromiley(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971), 477-90; Winter,Frau und Göttin,508-29;C. Camp, Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs, Bible andLiterature Series 11 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1985), 23-68. See further S. Schroer,DieWeisheit hat ihr Haus gebaut: Studien der Sophia in den biblischen Schriften(Mainz: Matthias Grunewald Verlag, 1996).526Camp,Wisdom and the Feminine,95, 103, 106, 115, 133, 187-90, 276, 283.527Coogan, “Canaanite Origins and Lineage,” 119-20; Miller, “Absence of theGoddess,”246;Smith,“GodMaleandFemale,”337;cf.AndersenandFreedman, Hosea, 326. Coogan links the descriptions of Sophia in Wisdom ofSolomon 7-8 to the cult of Yahweh and the asherah as well (cf. G. Quispel,“Jewish Gnosis and Mandean Gnosticism,” inNag Hammadi Studies VII,ed. J.E. Menard [Leiden: Brill, 1975], 93).528Cf. Prov. 11:30; 15:4; Gen. 3:22; Rev. 2:7. The traditions lying behind the “treeof life” in Gen. 3:22 are complex. Besides the tradition of the goddess’s tree andthe snake evident in this story, further traditions of sanctuary and divine abode(cf. Ezek. 28:12-19) are present. For details, see F. Stulz, “Die Bäume des
Gottesgartens auf dem Libanon,”ZAW82 (1972): 141- 56; Lambert, “Trees,Snakes, and Gods,” 435-51; and H. N. Wallace, TheEdenNarrative, HSM 32(Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1985), 60-172. On the divine waters of Gen. 2:10, seealso chapter 1, section 6. For Mesopotamian iconography of the sacred treeespecially in the context of a sanctuary, see E. Dhorme, “L’arbre de verité etl’arbre de vie,”RB4 (1907): 271-74; van Buren,Symbols of the Gods,3-4, 22-30. The snake of Genesis 2-3 need not be associated with a cosmic enemy ofBaal (so Williams-Forte, “The Snake and the Tree,” 18-43). Since the snakeappears with the goddess (perhaps Asherah), inANEP,nos. 470-474 (cf. no.480), these depictions provide a better point of departure for addressing thebiblical traditions. See also the serpent on a shrine model from Beth-Shan(ANEP,no. 590; A. Rowe,The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-shan,fig. 10,no. 14; cf.ANEP,no. 585; E. Stern,Excavations at Tel Mevorakh (1973-1976);Part Two: The Bronze Age,Qedem 18 [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984], 22-23).529I wish to thank Professor Anthony Ceresko for pointing out to me in a privatecommunication the paronomasia evoking the asherah in the use of the root *’šrin this passage. For criticism of this view, see Day,Yahweh and the Gods andGoddesses of Canaan, 66-67. Day’s discussion ignores the argument thatwisdom personified may be modelled on Asherah or her connotations associatedwith the tree as a foil or counteradvertisement.530See G. T. Sheppard,Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct: A Study intheSapientalizing of the Old Testament,BZAW 151 (Berlin/New York: Walter deGruyter, 1980), 52-55. For text-critical issues, see P. W. Skehan and A. A. DiLella,The Wisdom of Ben Sira, AB 39 (New York: Doubleday, 1987), 145.531Skehan and Di Lella,The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 334-35.532Skehan and Di Lella,The Wisdom of Ben Sira,171. The medieval femalepersonification of the Shekinah, the divine presence, has been connected withthe personification of Wisdom (Pope,Song of Songs,158-79).533Day, “Asherah in the Hebrew Bible,” 404-6. Cf. Prov. 16:20; 29:18b. For athorough critique of this interpretation, see Olyan,Asherah and the Cult ofYahweh,20-21.534See Day, “Asherah in the Hebrew Bible,” 404-5. See Cooper, “Divine Namesand Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” 401.
535Day, “Asherah in the Hebrew Bible,” 404 n. 59.536See above chapter 2, section 4.537See Yee,Composition and Tradition, 137, 139. For discussion of Hosea 2, seeabove, chapter 2, section 2. Given the possible appearance of asherah in the bookof Hosea, Hosea’s use of love language between Yahweh and Israel mayrepresent a transformation of divine love language attested in Canaanite texts.538Yee,Composition and Tradition,131-42, 317.539See Sheppard,Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct,129-36.540Yee,Composition and Tradition,138.541Pope,Song of Songs,465, 468; idem, “Sasson on the Sublime Song,” 213.542Smith, “Divine Form and Size,” 424-27.543The connection between the two texts has been noted also by W. L. Holladay(Jeremiah 1,104).544For the date of Deuteronomy 32, see chapter 1, n. 39.545P. Trible,God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), 63.546J. W. Miller, “Depatriarchalizing God in Biblical Interpretation: A Critique,”CBQ48 (1986): 609-16.547Trible, “Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation,”Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Religion41 (1973): 30-48; idem, “God, Nature of, in the OT,”IDBSup, 368-69; idem,God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality,12-33. On thepassages in Second and Third Isaiah, see also M. Gruber, “The Motherhood ofSecond Isaiah,”RB90 (1983): 351-59; idem, “‘Will a Woman Forget HerInfant?’ Isaiah 49:14 Reconsidered,” Tarbiz 51/3 (1982): 491-92; J. J. Schmitt,“The Motherhood of God and Zion as Mother,” RB 92 (1985): 557-69. For acritique against interpreting Isa. 42:10-17 as female imagery for Yahweh, see K.P. Darr, “Like Warrior, like Woman: Destruction and Deliverance in Isa. 42:10-
17,”CBQ49 (1987): 560-71. According to Darr, the force of the activity thatwomen exhibit in childbirth lies behind the comparison in Isa. 42:10- 17, not anapplication of female imagery to Yahweh. Similar argumentation could be madefor the other passages that Miller discusses. For the background of*rḥm,seechapter 1, section 4. P. D. Miller (“Absence of the Goddess,” 246) hasindependently argued that the language of the goddess has been assimilated intoYahweh and is reflected in female metaphors applied to Yahweh in variousbiblical passages.548See T. Mettinger,In Search of God: The Meaning and Message of theEverlasting Names,trans. F. H. Cryer (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988).549Trible,God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality,31-71.550Gröndahl,Die Personennamen,46, 83, 86, 90; Roberts,The Earliest SemiticPantheon,52. The most important study of this phenomenon is H. W. Jüngling,“‘Was anders ist Gott fur den Menschen, wenn nicht sein Vater and seineMutter?’ Zu einer Doppelmetapher der reliogiösen Sprache,” inEin Gott allein?ed. W. Dietrich and M. A. Klopfenstein, 365-86. 124. See chapter 2, section 2and chapter 4, section 1. 125. T. Jacobsen,The Harps That Once ... : SumerianPoetry in Translation(New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1987), 361.551W. W. Hallo, “Individual Prayers in Sumerian: The Continuity of a Tradition,”JAOS 88 (1968 =Essays in Memory of E.A. Speiser, ed. W. W. Hallo,American Oriental Series 53), 78; S. M. Paul, “Psalm XXVII 10 and theBabylonian Theodicy,”VT32 (1982): 490.552H. Güterbock, “The Composition of Hittite Prayers to the Sun,”JAOS78 (1958):240.553On the aniconic tradition in ancient Israel, see chapter 1, section 6. P. Amiet (Artof the Ancient Near East,trans. J. Shepley and C. Choquet (New York: Harry N.Abrams, 1980, 173) argues that depiction of the high deities in Mesopotamiadiminishes beginning in the late second millennium. If such a view werehistorically viable, then Israel’s aniconic requirement would belong to this largerNear Eastern development. See chapter 1, section 4.554Ringgren,Israelite Religion, 169, 171; Anderson,Sacrifices and Offerings,14-19.
555A. Hurvitz,A Linguistic Study of the Relationship Between the Priestly Sourceand the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem,CRB 20 (Paris:Gabalda, 1982), 102-7. For a similar argument regarding the priestly source’ssubstitution of the verb*škn,“to dwell, settle” (e.g., Exod. 24:16), for*yrd,“todescend” (e.g., Exod. 19:11, 18, 20; 33:9; 34:5; Num. 11:17, 25; 12:5), todescribe the motion of divine presence, see Mettinger,The Dethronement ofSabaoth,81-97.556See section 3 above for discussion of Northwest Semiticšmandpnm.Onšēminbiblical literature, see McBride, “Deuteronomistic Name Theology,” 177-219;cf. the comments made in n. 63 above. On biblicalpānîm,see J. D. Levenson,“The Jerusalem Temple in Devotional and Visionary Experience,”JewishSpirituality: From the Bible through the Middle Ages, ed. A. Green, WorldSpirituality: An Encyclopedic History of the Religious Quest 13 (New York:Crossroad, 1987), 43-44; M. S. Smith, “‘Seeing God’ in the Psalms: TheBackground to the Beatific Vision in the Hebrew Bible,”CBQ50 (1988): 171-83.Onkābôd,seeCross,CanaaniteMythandHebrewEpic,165-67;Mendenhall,TheTenthGeneration,32-66,esp.59;Mettinger,TheDethronement of Sabaoth, 80-115, 116-22. For discussion of how these divinetraits relate to human features designated by these terms, see for face, R. A. DiVito, “Old Testament Anthropology and the Construction of Personal Identity,”CBQ 61 (1999): 217-38; for name, see p. 122 above and Smith,The Origins ofBiblical Monotheism, 74-76; for glory, see Brettler,God Is King,56-57.557See Clements,Isaiah1-39, 252. The Name in this passage is reminiscent ofdescriptions of fiery divine messengers in Ugaritic, biblical tradition, andintertestamental literature, e.g., KTU 1.2 I 33; Num. 16:22; 27:16; Ps. 104:4;1Enoch14:11; the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q403, fragment 1, col. 2, line9; and 4Q405, fragments 20-21-22, col. 2, line 10); and Rev. 4:5. For discussion,see P. D. Miller, “Fire in the Mythology of Canaan and Israel,”CBQ27 (1965):256-61; idem,Divine Warrior, 31; R. Hendel, “‘The Flaming of the WhirlingSword’: A Note on Gen 3:24,” JBL 104 (1985): 671-74; M. S. Smith, “Biblicaland Canaanite Notes to the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice from Qumran,”Revuede Qumran48 (1987): 585-87.558See chapter 2, section 4.559Childs,The Book of Exodus,584-97.
560See McBride, “The Deuteronomistic Name Theology,” 203; Cross,CanaaniteMyth and Hebrew Epic,30 n. 102. Exod. 12:23 and 2 Sam. 24:16 usemašḥîtfora divine destroyer. The verbal form(mašḥît)refers to divine slaying in the formof a plague in Exod. 12:13 (Childs, The Book of Exodus, 183; see chapter 1,section 2). Cf. Gen. 3:24 (see n. 132 above).561BHderekin Exod. 33:13 may represent another form of divine manifestation.LXX Vaticanus readsseauton,“yourself,” in this verse to translatedĕrākekā,not“way,” as represented by Vulgatetuamviam and Targum’wrḥ ṭwbk(see N. M.Waldman, “God’s Ways — A Comparative Note,”JQR70 [1979-80] : 67-72).This interpretation of this word as “power” may be supported by appeal toUgaritic drkt, “dominion” (e.g., KTU 1.2 IV 10, 13; 1.108.7; probably 1.4 VII44), a connection made for BHderekin other passages (so Albright, “The NorthCanaanite Poems of Al’eyan Ba‘al and the ‘Gracious Gods,’” JPOS 14 [1934]:130 n. 153; Dahood, “UgariticDRKTand BiblicalDEREK,” TheologicalStudies15[1954]:627-31;Cross,“ARecentlyPublishedPhoenicianInscription,” 43-44; cf. Ginsberg,The Israelian Heritage, 21 n. 25). Theinterpretation also accords well with other terms in this dialogue, which allreflect some type of divine manifestation. I wish to thank John Strugnell forpointing out this interpretation to me.562For discussion, see above pp. 122-23 n. 64. Other instances of such a divinemilitary retinue include’ĕlōhîmandmašhît(îm).563Concerning BHtĕmûnāh,“form,” applied to Yahweh, see Childs,The Book ofExodus, 343. The denial of seeing God’s form in Deut. 4:12 plays off againstthe condemnations of (visible) images in Deut. 4:23, 25. The parallelismbetweenpāanêkāandtĕmûnātekāin Ps. 17:15 has been compared with theparallel term,pnthandtmnh,in KTU 1.2 IV 17, 26 (Cross,Canaanite Myth andHebrew Epic, 33 n. 121). The meaning of Ugaritic*pnt is, however, not “face.”In KTU 1.2 IV 17 and 26,pntrefers to parts of Yamm’s body that “shake”(tnǵṣn).In KTU 1.3 III 34-35 it is the sinews(ksl)of Anat’spntthat “shake”(*nǵṣ).Clearly her face is not under discussion (cf. KTU 1.4 II 19). Akkadianpanātu,“front side,” is closer to the meaning involved (AHw, 818). PerhapsUgariticpnmandpntboth underlie BHpānîm;in any case, the comparisonbetween KTU 1.2 IV 17, 26 and Ps. 17:15 appears viable. For discussion, see M.Dietrich and O. Loretz, “Ug.tmn,‘Gestalt,’UF10 (1978): 432-33; J. C. deMoor, “The Anatomy of the Back,”UF12 (1981): 425-26; cf. M. Baldacci, “A
Lexical Question Concerning the Ugaritic Anath’s Texts,”UF10 (1978): 417-18.564Hendel, “Aniconism and Anthropomorphism in Ancient Israel,” inThe Imageand the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism and the Rise of Book Religion in Israeland the Ancient Near East,ed. K. van der Toorn, Contributions to BiblicalExegesis and Theology 21 (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1997), 221. See furtherchapter 4, section 1 below.565On the divine council, see chapter 1, section 2.566Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 187. For the “image” and “likeness”in the Tell Fakhariyeh Inscription and how it relates to Gen. 1:26, see thenuanced discussion of W. R. Garr, “‘Image’ and ‘Likeness’ in the Inscriptionfrom Tell Fakharijeh,”IEJ50 (2000): 227-34.567See Ringgren,Israelite Religion,70, 124; A. Angerstorfer, “Hebräisch dmwtund aramäischdmwt:Ein Sprachproblem der Imago-Dei-Lehre,”BN24 (1984):30-43; Smith, “God Male and Female,” 339. Part of the material in Gen. 1:26-28discussed may predate the priestly or “P” source or tradition to which the entirechapter is frequently attributed. The poetic tricolon of v. 27 especially seems topredate its prose context. See U. Cassuto,A Commentary on the Book ofGenesis: Part I, From Adam to Noah, Genesis 1-VI 8,trans. I. Abrahams(Jerusalem: Magnes, 1978), 56. For the dating of “P,” see A. Hurvitz,ALinguistic Study;idem, “The Language of the Priestly Source and Its HistoricalSetting — The Case for an Early Date,”Proceedings of the Eighth WorldCongress of Jewish Studies(Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1983),83-94; idem, “Dating the Priestly Source in Light of the Historical Study ofBiblical Hebrew a Century After Wellhausen,” ZAW 100 (1988): 88-100; B. A.Levine, “Late Language in the Priestly Source: Some Literary and HistoricalObservations,”Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies,69-82.568In Ugaritic scenes of divine council El proclaims such decrees. KTU 1.16 V maybe the Ugaritic text most relevant to interpreting Gen. 1:26-27, as it describes Eltelling the divine council that he will create (causative stem of*kwm)a being.Unfortunately, there is no Ugaritic text describing human creation. It might beinferred from El’s epithet,bny bnwt,“Creator of creatures,” and Athirat’s title,qnyt ’ilm,that El and Athirat created humanity and deities in primordial time,
although these titles do not bear on the creation of the cosmos (for discussionand references, see M. S. Smith, “Interpreting the Baal Cycle,”UF18 [1987]:319-20). If so, it would furnish further Canaanite background, however distant,to the description of creating in Gen. 1:26-27 (so Ahlström,Aspects ofSyncretism,50; Smith, “God Male and Female,” 339). Moreover, one instance ofthe topos of the divine council in both Ugaritic and biblical literature involves adialogue of El and Athirat (KTU 1.6I), including the use of the first person pluralfor this divine couple. However, this background appears to be so removed fromGen. 1:26-27 that it seems an unlikely parallel. A further possible example ofdecreased anthropomorphism involving the divine council may underlie MTDeut. 32:8. MT substitutesbĕnê’ādām, “people,” for Qumranbny ’lhym,“divine beings” (see chapter 1, section 2), which may reflect more than a text-critical variant; it also omits an anthropomorphic description of the divinecouncil.569For a discussion of the circles that produced the book of Daniel, see R. R.Wilson, “From Prophecy to Apocalyptic: Reflections on the Shape of IsraeliteReligion,” inAnthropological Perspectives on Old Testament Prophecy,ed. R.C. Culley and T. W. Overholt, Semeia 21 (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1982), 79-95.For 1 Enoch, see J. T. Milik,The Books of Enoch(Oxford: Clarendon, 1976); fordiscussion of 1 Enoch 14, see J. J. Collins, “The Place of Apocalypticism in theReligion of Israel,” inAncient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of FrankMoore Cross,ed. P. D. Miller, Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride, 545.570Cf. Cross,Cariaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic,135. For the distinctive biblicaltreatment of some mythic material, see B. S. Childs,Myth and Reality in the OldTestament,Studies in Biblical Theology (London: SCM, 1960), 30-93. WhileChilds rightly observes how the biblical record handles mythic material inmanners differing from other ancient Near Eastern texts, various Near Easterntraditions also reflect distinctive treatments. Furthermore, the mythic materialevident in other Near Eastern traditions, especially in Ugaritic literature, suffusesbiblical texts more deeply than Childs’s discussion indicates.571For intertestamental apocalyptic literature, see OTPs 1. For discussions of thesetexts, see J. J. Collins,The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to theJewish Matrix of Christianity(New York: Crossroad, 1984); C. Rowlands,TheOpen Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity(NewYork: Crossroad, 1982); M. E. Stone, ed.,Jewish Writings of the Second TemplePeriod,Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad novum testamentum 2/II (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1984).572See I. Gruenwald,Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism(Leiden: Brill, 1980);Collins, “The Place of Apocalypticism,” 539-58.573M. E. Stone,Scriptures, Sects and Visions: A Profile of Judaism from Ezra to theJewish Revolts(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 42-43.574For the motif of “seeing God,” see above, p. 143 and below, p. 154. For recenttreatments of solar language applied to Yahweh, see H. P. Stähli,SolareElementeimJahweglaubendesAltenTestaments,OBO66(Fribourg:Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985); M. S. Smith,“‘Seeing God’ in the Psalms,” 171-83; idem,Psalms: The Divine Journey(NewYork/ Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1987), 52-61; idem, review ofSolare Elemente,byH. P. Stähli, JBL 106 (1987): 513-15; J. G. Taylor,Yahweh and the Sun: Biblicaland Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel,JSOTSup 111(Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993); E. Lipiński, “Shemesh,” DDD, 764-68; Day,Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan,151-63. See also other workscited in n. 14 below. See also S. A. Wiggins, “Yahweh: The God of Sun?”JSOT71 (1996): 89-106, with a retort by J. G. Taylor, “A Response to Steve A.Wiggins, “Yahweh: The God of Sun?”JSOT71 (1996): 107-19, answered by S.A. Wiggins, “A Rejoinder to J. Glen Taylor,”JSOT 73(1997): 109-12. Bothwriters overargue an extreme view in my opinion, although Taylor’s discussionbetter captures what may have been a “popular” view of Yahweh as solar in theIron II period.575F. J. Hollis, “The Sun-Cult and the Temple in Jerusalem,” in Myth and Ritual,ed. S. H. Hooke (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press; London: Milford, 1933), 87-110;cf. J. Morgenstern, “Biblical Theophanies,” ZA 25 (1911): 139-93, ZA 28(1914): 15-60; idem,The Fire upon the Altar(Leiden: Brill, 1963); E. Lachman,“The Seraphim of Isaiah 6,”JQR59 (1968-69): 71-72. For further discussion,see Ahlström,Psalm 89,85-88; idem,Joel and the Temple Cult of Jerusalem,VTSup 21 (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 84 n. 2; J. D. Levenson, “The JerusalemTemple in Devotional and Visionary Experience,” 43-44; Smith, “‘Seeing God’in the Psalms,” 171-83, esp. 175-76.576J. W. McKay, “Psalms of Vigil,” ZAW 91 (1979): 229-47; A. R. Ceresko, “ANote on Psalm 63: A Psalm of Vigil,”ZAW92 (1980): 435-36. See n. 13 below.577
On Ezek. 8:16, see Ahlström,Royal Administration,70; M. Greenberg, Ezekiel1-20,AB 22 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), 172; Stähli,Solare Elemente,9, 46-47. See also the references in n. 8.578See Taylor,Yahweh and the Sun,114-18; H. A. J. Kruger, “Sun and MoonGrinding to a Halt: Exegetical Remarks on Joshua 10:9-14 and Related Texts inJudges,”Hervormde Teologiese Studies55 (1999): 1077-97; and note thediscussion of astral bodies as divinities in Smith,The Origins of BiblicalMonotheism,61-66.579BDB, 280; C. L. Meyers,The Tabernacle Menorah: A Synthetic Study of aSymbol from the Biblical Cult,ASOR Dissertation Series 2 (Missoula, MT:Scholars,1976),145.On*zrhusedofYahwehintheKuntillet‘Ajrûdinscriptions, see Weinfeld, “Kuntillet ‘Ajrûd Inscriptions,” 126.580See Tigay,You Shall Have No Other Gods,47, 58; Avigad,Hebrew Bullae fromthe Time of Jeremiah,58 on*zrh, 38-41, 72, 78, 79 on*šḥr,and 26, 28, 35, 52,83-87 on*nr. Phoenician names with the element*n(w)r are found withb‘lasthetheophoricelement:b‘lnwrandb‘lnr(seeK.Jongeling,reviewofVocabulario Fenicio,by M. J. Fuentes Estañol,BiOr42 [1985]: 361).581W. Eichrodt,Ezekiel: A Commentary,trans. C. Quin, OTL (Philadelphia: SCM,1970), 127; N. Sarna, “Psalm XIX and the Near Eastern Sun-god Literature,”Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Papers, vol. 1(Jerusalem: WorldUnion of Jewish Studies, 1967), 171-75; M. Cogan,Imperialism and Religion:Assyria, Judah and Israel in the 8th and 7th Centuries B.C.E.,SBLDS 19(Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1974), 84-87; Greenberg, Ezekiel1-20,172; cf. W.Zimmerli, Ezekiel1,trans. R. E. Clements, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress,1979), 244. Cf. J. McKay,Religion in Judah under the Assyrians,Studies inBiblical Theology, 2d ser., no. 26 (London: SCM, 1973), 21, 32-35, 71, 99 n. 34.H. Schmidt and W. Eichrodt view Ezek. 8:16 as a description of devotion toShamash (see Eichrodt,Ezekiel,127). Greenberg (Ezekiel 1-20,172) considerspossible Aramaean influence. Zimmerli (Ezekiel1,244) categorizes the practicein Ezek. 8:16 as “solarized Yahwistic worship,” although he allows for possibleexternal influence. See further below n. 19.582J. W. McKay, “Further Light on the Horses and Chariots of the Sun in theJerusalem Temple (2 Kings 23:11),”PEQ105 (1973): 167-69; and references in
n. 99; M. Weinfeld, “Queen of Heaven,”UF4 (1972): 150-52. A bilingual textfrom Boghazkoi refers to horses of Shamash (see J. S. Cooper, “Bilinguals fromBoghazköi. II,” ZA 62 [1972]: 71, 76; I wish to thank Professor Victor Hurowitzfor this reference).583See Holland, “A Survey,” 149-50; Cogan,Imperialism and Religion,87-88.Citing 2 Kings 23:11, K. Kenyon comments: “It is tempting to call this a sun-disk, and to think of those as miniatures of ‘the horses that the kings of Judahhad given to the sun,’ which Josiah took away”(Royal Cities of the OldTestament[New York: Schocken Books, 1971], 120). Cf. n. 9. See also E.Mazar, “Archaeological Evidence for the ‘Cows of Bashan Who Are in theMountains of Samaria,”’ in FestschriftReubenR. Hecht (Jerusalem: Koren,1979), 151-52. For further archaeological evidence of solar devotion, see Smith,“‘Seeing God’ in the Psalms,” 178-79. For the Israelite or Canaanite provenienceof the Taanach stand, see chapter 1, section four.584For a photograph of the stand with an archaeological summary, see A. E. Glock,“Taanach,” in EAEHL 4:1142-43, 1147.585See the discussion in Smith, Psalms, 78 n. 65.586For textual support for ‘ôras the sun, see LXX helion, Vulgatesolem,andTargumic ’sthr (E. Dhorme,A Commentary on the Book of Job,trans. H. Knight[Nashville/Camden/New York: Thomas Nelson, 1984], 461). The parallelismwith moon also suggests this interpretation (cf. Job 37:21). On the motif of thehand to the mouth as a gesture of prayer, see Dhorme,A Commentary,462; M.H. Pope, Job, 3d ed., AB 15 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1973), 235; chap. 2n. 67.587See Niehr, “The Rise of YHWH in Judahite and Israelite Religion,” in TheTriumph ofElohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms,ed.D. V. Edelman, 67-71; O.Keel and C. Uehlinger, Gods,Goddesses, and Images of God,trans. T. Trapp(Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1998), 283-372; Keel,Goddesses and Trees, NewMoon and Yahweh: Ancient Near Eastern Art and the Hebrew Bible,JSOTSup261 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 102-4; and J. Day,Yahweh andthe Gods and Goddesses of Canaan,151-84. For the issue of neo-Assyrianinfluence, see below, n. 19.588Gudea Cylinder B, V 109. See G. A. Barton,The Royal Inscriptions of Sumer
and Akkad(New Haven: Yale Univ. Press; London: Humphrey Milford, OxfordUniversity, 1929), 240-41; Jacobsen, The Harps ThatOnce ..., 429. On Ningirsuin the inscription, see A. Falkenstein, DieInschriftenGudeasvon Lagaš, I.Einleitung,AnOr 30 (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1966), 90-101.589Or possibly Assur-bel-kala of the mid-tenth century. See Mendenhall, The TenthGeneration, 44-45. For the god Assur with the winged solar disk, see van Buren,Symbols of theGods, 89-90. On the motif of the “many waters” in Ezek. 43:2,see H. G. May, “Some Cosmic Connotations ofmayim rabbîm,‘Many Waters,’”JBL 74 (1955): 17.590Cf. R. Mayer-Opificius, “Die geflügelte Sonne: Himmels und Regendarstellungim Alten Vorderasien,” UF 16 (1984): 200, 233.591ANET,62, 69-70.592SeeMcKay, Religion in Judah; Cogan, Imperialism and Religion,42-61, and“Judah Under Assyrian Hegemony: A Re-examination of Imperialism andReligion,”JBL112(1993):403-14.TheviewisrepresentedbyH.Spieckermann,JudaunterAssurinderSargonidenzeit,FRLANT129(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982). See further Keel, Goddesses andTrees, 102-3; S. W. Holloway, “The Case for Assyrian Religious Influence inIsrael and Judah,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1992); and Smith, TheOrigins of Biblical Monotheism,63.593R. Labat, Lecaractère religieuxdela royauté assyro-babylonienne,Étudesd’Assyriologie2(Paris:Librairied’Ameriqueetd’Orient,Adrien-Maissonneuve, 1939), 231-33; cf. Lambert, “Trees, Snakes, and Gods,” 438-39n. 25; G. Dossin, with A. Finet, CorrespondanceFéminine,Archives royales deMari 10 (Paris: Geuthner, 1978), 150-51, text 99:5-6. My thanks to Mr. GaryBeckman for bringing these references to my attention.594SeeANET,483-90; McCarter,IISamuel, 484; Hess, “Divine Names,” 158-59,163.595On this letter, see D. Pardee, “Further Studies in Ugaritic Epistolography,”Archiv für Orientforschung31 (1984): 219-21; D. Pardee and R. M. Whiting,“Aspects of Epistolary Verbal Usage in Ugaritic and Akkadian,” BSOAS 50(1987): 8.
596This Ugaritic passage illustrates the background of another divine title, namely,“great king,”melek rābin Ps. 48:3 andmelek gādôlin 2 Kings 18:18, 29; Ps.47:3; Eccles. 9:14; Isa. 36:4, 13; Mal. 1:14 (see J. J. M. Roberts, “Zion in theTheology of the Davidic-Solomonic Empire,” inStudies in the Period of Davidand Solomon and Other Essays,ed. T. Ishida [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,1982], 94; and A. Malamat, “A Political Look at the Kingdom of David andSolomon and Its Relations with Egypt,” in Studies in the Period, 197). On CTA64 (KTU 3.1) and its parallels in Akkadian texts discovered at Ugarit, see M.Dietrich and O. Loretz, “Der Vertrag zwischen Suppililuliuma und Niqmadu:Eine philologische und kulturhistorische Studie,”WO3/3 (1966): 206-45; D. J.McCarthy,Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Near East andin the Old Testament,rev. ed., AnBib 21A (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute,1981), 68-69 n. 63.597ANET,484; Moran, Les Lettresd’El-Amarn,trans. D. Collon and H. Cazelles,LAPO 13 (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1987), 379. See EA 266:12-15 and Num.6:25.598On the “face” of God, see Smith, “‘Seeing God’ in the Psalms,” 171-83. For the“hiding of the divine face,” the opposite of “seeing the divine face,” see R. E.Friedman, “The Biblical Expressionmastir pānîm,” Hebrew Annual Review1(1977): 139-47; S. E. Balentine, The Hidden God:The Hiding of the Face ofGod in the Old Testament(New York/Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1983).599EA 155:6, 47 identifies the sun with the pharaoh:šarrudšamaš dāritum,“theking is the Eternal Sun.” The latter phrase has equivalents in Ugariticšpš ‘lmattested in KTU 2.42 and 2.43.7 (see A. B. Knapp, “An Alishiyan Merchant atUgarit,” TA 10 [1983]: 39; D. Pardee, “Epigraphic and Philological Notes,”UF19 [1987]: 204-9) and Phoenicianšmš ‘lmin KAI 26 A III 19. The Egyptianinfluence in KTU 2.42 and 2.43.9 is evident also from the presence of the name,nmry, referring to Nebmare Amenophis III (cf. KTU 2.23.21-24). See A.Cooper, “MLK‘LM.‘Eternal King’ or ‘King of Eternity’?” inLove & Deathinthe Ancient Near East: Essays in Honorof MarvinH. Pope, ed. J. H. Marks andR. M. Good (Guilford, CT: Four Quarters, 1987), 3. For further Egyptianinfluence in the phraseology of the Amarna correspondence, see Albright, “TheEgyptian Correspondence of Abimilki, Prince of Tyre,” Journal of EgyptianAntiquities 23 (1937): 190-203.600
On Hos. 6:3, see Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 423-24; J. L. Mays, Hosea: ACommentary,OTL (London: SCM, 1969), 95-96; McCarter,II Samuel,484. Inconnection with dawn imagery and psalms of vigil, the paronomasia betweenyešahārūněnî,“they will seek me” (Hos. 5:15), andšahar,“dawn” (Hos. 6:3),may be noted.601McCarter,II Samuel,484; Stähli, Solare Elemente, 27-28. See also H. N.Richardson, “The Last Words of David: Some Notes on 2 Samuel 23:1-7,” JBL90 (1971): 259; D. N. Freedman, “II Samuel 23:4,”]BL90 (1971): 329-30;McCarter, II Samuel, 476-86. For a tenth-century dating of this poem, see Cross,CanaaniteMyth and Hebrew Epic, 234-37; Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, andProphecy, 95-97, 118; G. Rendsburg, “The Northern Origin of ‘the Last Wordsof David’ (2 Sam. 23, 1-7),” Biblica 69 (1988): 113-21.602For examples, seeANEP,349 and 377, no. 809a-c; see McKay, Religion inJudah,52- 53, 102 n. 55. For the recent discussion of theImlkstamps, see N.Na’aman, “Hezekiah’s Fortified Cities and the LMLK Stamps,” BASOR 261(1986): 5-21; Y. Garfinkel, “The Distribution of Identical Seal Impressions andthe Settlement Pattern in Judea Before Sennacherib’s Campaign,” Cathedra 32(1984): 35-52; G. Barkay and A. G. Vaughan, “LMLK and Official SealImpressionsfromTelLachish,”TA23(1996):61-74;andVaughan,“Palaeographic Dating of Judaean Seals and Its Significance for BiblicalResearch,” BASOR 313 (1999): 43-64, andTheology, History, and Archaeologyin the Chronicler’s Account of Hezekiah, Archaeology and Biblical Studies 4(Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1999), 81-167.603See N. Avigad, “Three Ancient Seals,” BA 49 (1986): 51-53.604McCarter, II Samuel, 484. Onmgnfor suzerain, see M. O’Connor, “Yahweh, theDonor,” AulaOrientalis6 (1988): 47-60.605See Morton Smith, “Helios in Palestine,” EI 16 (1982 = H. Orlinsky Festschrift):205*; McCarter,IISamuel, 484; Stähli,SolareElemente, 39. Cf. F. Vattioni,“Mal. 3,20 e un mese del calendario fenicio,” Biblica 40 (1959): 1012-15.606On’ôras the sun, see n. 13 above; cf. Gen. 1:14-16. For the image, cf. Ps. 97:11,LXX and Syriac.607M. S. Smith, review of Stähli,Solare Elemente,514.
608See O. Eissfeldt, “The Promises of Grace to David in Isaiah 55:1-5,” inIsrael’sProphetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenberg, ed. B. W. Andersonand W. Harrelson (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962), 201-6; M. S. Smith,“Běrît ‘āmlbērît ‘ôlām:A New Proposal for the Crux of Isa 42:6,”JBL100(1981): 241-43.609See M. Fishbane,Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel(Oxford: Clarendon,1985), 304-6, 471-72; C. L. and E. M.Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8,AB 25B(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987), 202-3.610Van Buren,Symbols of the Gods,89-90; Mendenhall,The Tenth Generation,45;see also W. G. Lambert, “Trees, Snakes, and Gods,” 439;ANEP,215 and 328,no. 658.611ANET,62, 69; van Buren, Symbols of the Gods, 87-89; Lambert, “Trees,Snakes, and Gods,” 439; Sommerfeld, Der Aufstieg Marduk, 174-81.612Lambert, “The Historical Development,” 197-98; Lambert, “Trees, Snakes, andGods,” 439 n. 28; Sommerfeld, Die Aufstieg Marduks, 10.613Lambert, “Trees, Snakes, and Gods,” 439 n. 28. For further evidence anddiscussion, see H. Frankfort, “Gods and Myths on Sargonid Seals,” Iraq 1(1934): 6, 21-29; and Sommerfeld, Der AufstiegMarduks,9-12.614SeeANEP,168, no. 493; A. Caquot and M. Sznycer, Ugaritic Religion, 23 andpl. 7. For speculation as to the meaning of the stele, see N. Wyatt, “The Stela ofthe Seated God from Ugarit,” UF 15 (1983): 271-77. See also H. Niehr, “Einumstrittenes Detail der El-Stele aus Ugarit,” UF 24 (1992): 293-300. For asurveyofthesundiskinSyro-Mesopotamia,seeMayer-Opificius,“Diegeflügelte Sonne,” 189-236. According to PE 1.10.36 (Attridge and Oden,Philoof Byblos,56-57), Kronos had wings. For the identification of El with Kronos inPhilo of Byblos’PhoenicianHistory, seePE1.10.16, 29; cf. 1.10.20 (Attridgeand Oden,Philo of Byblos,48-49, 50-51, 54-55).615ANEP, no. 281. See Cross,CanaaniteMyth and Hebrew Epic, 24, 26. Cf. Y.Yadin, “Symbols of Deities at Zinjirli, Carthage and Hazor,” in Near EasternArchaeology in theTwentieth Century: Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck, ed. J.A. Sanders (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970), 208-12.
616According to Hestrin (“Cult Stand from Ta‘anach,” 75), the winged sun disk“symbolized the supreme god in the Mesopotamian, Hittite and Canaanitepantheons.” Her analysis includes a cult stand from Taanach (see n. 11 above);the top register of the stand depicts the solar disk above a four-legged animalthat she argues signifies Baal. J. G. Taylor identifies the animal as an equid andconnects it with the horses of the sun of 2 Kings 23:11 (“Yahweh and Asherah atTenth Century Taanach,”Newsletter forUgaritic Studies 37/38 [1987]: 16-18;“Two Earliest Representations of Yahweh,” 561-64). Questions about Taylor’sinterpretation of the stand have been raised (e.g., Miller,The Religion of AncientIsrael, 43-45; Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel,321 n. 125, 323).617Ringgren,Israelite Religion, 62, 97-98.618Sarna, “Psalm XIX and the Near Eastern Sun-god Literature,” 171-75.619Stähli,Solare Elemente,17-23. For Egyptian influence on Psalm 104, see P.Auffret,Hymnes d‘Egypte et d’Israel: Etudesdes structureslitteraires,OBO 34(Fribourg: Editions Universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981),279-302.620See G. von Rad, Genesis: ACommentary,rev. ed., trans. J. H. Marks, OTL(London: SCM, 1963), 54; C. Westermann, Genesis I, BKAT 1/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins GmbH, 1968), 179; B.Vawter, On Genesis: A New Reading (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977), 48;Stähli, Solare Elemente, 17-19. It has been claimed (e.g., Vawter, On Genesis,48) that Gen. 1:16 uses the title “great light”(hammā‘ôr haggādōl)instead of“the sun”(haššemeš)in order to diminish the divine connotation of the solardeity. Nonetheless, the title in Gen. 1:16 echoes common titles for the sun-goddess in Ugaritic literature where she is called “the great light,” nyrrbt(KTU1.16 137-38; 1.161.19), and “the light of the gods,”nrt ’ilm(1.3 V 17; 1.4 VII21; 1.6 18-9, 11, 13; 1.6 II 24).621For postbiblical use of solar imagery, see Morton Smith, “Helios in Palestine,”199*- 214*.622Concerning the ancient Yahwistic background of these practices, see Fohrer,History of Israelite Religion, 57-58, 114; Ahlström, Aspects of Syncretism, 11,50-51; Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 17-18, 21-22, 73; Elizabeth C.
LaRocca-Pitts, “Of Wood and Stone”:The Significance of Israelite Cultic Itemsin the Bible and Its Early Interpreters,HSM 61 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,2001); and Zevit,The Religions of Ancient Israel,esp. 256-63, 460-67.623On “high places”(bāmôt),see in addition to references in the preceding note,Ringgren, Israelite Religion, 157-58, 177; W. B. Barrick, “The FuneraryCharacter of ‘High-Places’ in Ancient Palestine: A Reassessment,”VT25(1975): 565-95; M. Haran, “Temples and Cultic Open Areas as Reflected in theBible,” in Temples and High Places in Biblical Times: Proceedings of theColloquium in Honor of the Centennialof HebrewUnionCollege —JewishInstitute of Religion, Jerusalem,14-16March1977,ed. A. Biran (Jerusalem:Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology of Hebrew Union College —Jewish Institute of Religion, 1981 ), 31-37; Ahlström, Royal Administration, 59-61; and J. A. Emerton, “The Biblical High Place in the Light of Recent Study,”PEQ129 (1997): 116-23. Emerton correctly questions whether “high place” isan accurate rendering forbāmāh.Onbāmôtand especially the cultic installationat Tel Dan, see A. Biran, “Tel Dan,” BA 37 (1974): 40-41; idem, “‘To the GodWho Is in Dan,’” in Temples and High Places, 142- 51. G. Mendenhall (TheTenth Generation, 181) views the prohibitions against high places as a functionof the political religious establishment of Jerusalem; in his own words,bāmôt“became increasingly incompatible with ancient Yahwism, especially after thepolitical establishment of Yahwism under the Monarchy” (Mendenhall’s italics).On the contrary, the monarchy conservatively retained many features of Israelitereligion, including high places. On the conservatism of the monarchy especiallyunder Manasseh, see Ahlström, RoyalAdministration,75-81.624See T. H. Blomquist, Gates and Gods: Cults in the City Gates of Iron AgePalestine;AnInvestigationoftheArchaeologicalandBiblicalSources,ConBOT 46 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1999), 151-63. Fora dramatic illustration of abāmâ,see A. Biran, “The High Places of BiblicalDan,” inStudies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan,ed. A.Mazar with the assistance of G. Mathias, JSOTSup 331 (Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic Press, 2001 ), 148-55.625K. Spronk,Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and the Ancient Near East,AOAT219 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,1986); cf. T. J. Lewis,Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit,HSM 39(Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989), 1-4. For further discussion, see M. S. Smithand E. Bloch-Smith, “Death and Afterlife at Ugarit and Ancient Israel,” JAOS
108 (1988): 277-84. For a more fruitful treatment of the categories between“official” and “popular” religion in this area, see R. Albertz,PersönlicheFrömmigkeit und officielle Religion: Religionsinterner Pluralismus in Israel undBabylon,Calwer Theologische Monographien, Reihe A, vol. 9 (Stuttgart:Calwer Verlag, 1979); W. Brueggemann, review ofPersönliche Frömmigkeit,by Albertz,CBQ42 (1980): 86-87; Halpern, “‘Brisker Pipes Than Poetry,’” 83-84; J. S. Holladay, Jr., “Religion in Israel and Judah Under the Monarchy: AnExplicitly Archaeological Approach,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays inHonor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller, Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D.McBride (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 249-99; Miller, “Israelite Religion,”215-18; Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods, 20 n. 64. To be sure, there waspopular and official religion in Israel. Official religion during the period of themonarchy was not maintained, however, by the monarchy, priesthood, orprophets in the form suggested by Spronk. For the issue of religion and socialsegments, see S. Ackerman, UnderEvery Green Tree: Popular Religion in SixthCentury Judah,HSM 46 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1992); J. Berlinerblau, “The‘PopularReligion’ParadigminOldTestamentResearch:ASociologicalCritique,”JSOT60(1993):3-26;idem,“PreliminaryRemarksfortheSociological Study of Israelite ‘Official Religion,’” in Ki BaruchHu:AncientNear Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic Studies inHonorof Baruch A. Levine, ed. R.Chazan, W. W. Hallo, and L. Schiffman (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995),153-70; idem, The Vow and the“Popular Religious Groups” of Ancient Israel:A Philological and Sociological Inquiry, JSOTSup 210 (Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic Press, 1996); K. van der Toorn, Family Religion inBabylonia,Syriaand Israel: Continuity and Change in the Forms of Religious Life, Studies in theHistory and Culture of the Ancient Near East VII (Leiden/New York/Köln: Brill,1996); Zevit,The Religions of Ancient Israel,643-48. For some questions aboutBerlinerblau’s approach, see my review of his book in JSS 43 (1998): 148-51.626Ringgren,Israelite Religion, 219; B. Lang, “Life After Death in the PropheticPromise,” CongressVolume;Jerusalem 1986, ed. J. Emerton, VTSup 40(Leiden: Brill, 1988), 144-56.627See J. Lust, “On Wizards and Prophets,” in StudiesonProphecy: A Collection ofTwelvePapers,VTSup 26 (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 133. Cf. H. R. Smith, ACritical andExegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel,ICC (Edinburgh:T. & T. Clark, 1899), 240; and McCarter,I Samuel,AB 14 (Garden City, NY:Doubleday, 1980), 422.628
For another apparent example of necromancy in Israel, 2 Sam. 12:16, see H.Niehr, “Ein unerkannter Text zur Nekromantie in Israel: Bermerkungen zumreligionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund von 2 Sam 12, 16a,”UF23 (1991): 301-6.629See Lust, “On Wizards and Prophets,” 140-42; W. A. M. Beuken, “I Sam 28:The Prophet as ‘Hammer of Witches,”’JSOT6 (1978): 15.630M. Noth, Numbers, trans. J. D. Martin, OTL (London: SCM, 1968), 195-97;Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 202, 316. See also Spronk, BeatificAfterlife, 231-32. Unlike Ps. 106:28, Num. 25:2 does not explicitly describedevotion to the dead, although it could have presupposed it.631See F. C. Fensham, “Neh. 9 and Pss. 105, 106, 135 and 136: Post-ExilicHistorical Traditions in Poetic Form,” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages9 (1981): 35-51, esp. 35 n. 6. A. Weiser suggests the possibility that w. 40-47refer to the fall of the northern kingdom (The Psalms, OTL [London: SCM,1962], 680, 682). In that case, Ps. 106:28 would provide information on“sacrifices of the dead” as it was perceived in the mid-eighth century or later. Ps.16:3 may also refer to the honored dead, literally “the holy ones,”qědôšîm(Popein Cooper, “Divine Names and Epithets,” 457; Spronk,Beatific Afterlife,249,334-38); the poem is often dated to the sixth century or later (see C. A. and E. G.Briggs,A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 1,117-18; Weiser,The Psalms,172-73). The practices to which v. 3 may allude,namely, the pouring out of libations for the dead and the naming of the dead,date back to the Late Bronze Age both at Ugarit and in Canaan proper (seeSpronk,Beatific Afterlife,334-38).632See Smith and Bloch-Smith, “Death and Afterlife,” 283.633See Spronk,Beatific Afterlife,40, 163, 252, 253, 255-56; Lewis,Cults of theDead, 128-32. Neither work addresses w. 20b-23. The following exegesislargely follows the lines drawn by J. G. Taylor, cited in G. C. Heider,The Cult ofMolek:AReassessment,JSOTSup 43 (Sheffield, England: JSOT, 1985), 329.For necromancy elsewhere condemned in Isaiah, see K. van der Toorn, “Echoesof Judaean Necromancy in Isaiah 28, 7-22,” ZAW 100 (1988): 199-217.634Clements, Isaiah1-39,102.635See O. Kaiser, Isaiah1-12:ACommentary,2d ed., trans. J. Bowden, OTL
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983), 200-202; Clements, Isaiah1-39,102. Kaiserargues for a Persian period date for these verses.636On*‘brfor the dead, see J. Ratosh, “On”ebr’inScripture or the Land ofh‘brym,”BethMikra47 (1971): 549-68; B. Halevi, “Additional Notes onAncestor Worship,” Beth Mikra 64 (1975): 101-17; Pope, “Notes on theRephaim Texts,” 173; Spronk,Beatific Afterlife,229-30.637For the suggestions that thehbrmin KTU 1.108.5 are the Rephaim and rp’u in1.108.1 is their leader, see M. S. Smith, “The Magic of Kothar, the UgariticCraftsman God, in KTU 1.6 VI 49-50,” RB 91 (1984): 377-80; idem, “Kotharwa-Hasis, the Ugaritic Craftsman God” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1985),444. Onmlkandrp’uas terms for the dead in Ugaritic, see below in section 3.For a discussion of the identifications forrp’u,see Pope, “Notes on the RephaimTexts,” 170; idem, in Cooper, “Divine Names and Epithets,” 446; Heider,TheCult of Molek,90-91, 115-33; D. Pardee, “A New Datum for the Meaning of theDivine Name Milkashtart,” in Ascribe to theLord: Biblical and Other Studies inMemory of Peter C. Craigie, ed. L. Eslinger and G. Taylor, JSOTSup 67(Sheffield: JSOT, 1988), 55-67. Ifrp’uis to be identified with any other deity,the available evidence would best support an identification with Ugariticmlkwho dwells in Ashtaroth(‘ttrt),although bothmlkandrp’ucould be epithets ofone another or another deity. The title ofdNE.IRI11.GAL be-elid-ri, “Nergal,lord of Idri,” attested at Emar (Emar 158:6) may be relevant. This epithet isfound in a text describing a piece of land bound by auinu(a type of road orpathway) of “Nergal, lord of Idri.” If Idri proves to be a toponym equated withUgaritichdr‘yandbiblicalEdrei,Cooper’sidentificationofrp’uwithNergal/Resheph gains in force. I wish to thank Mr. Douglas Green for bringingthis epithet to my attention. However, it is possible to read the more commonNergal name spelled syllabicallybe-el ma-hi-ri,“lord of the trade.” My thanksgo to Daniel Fleming for pointing out this possibility to me. See section 2 belowfor the Ugaritic evidence.638For various views as to the date of the Holiness Code, see G. von Rad, “Form-Criticism of the Holiness Code,” inStudies in Deuteronomy, trans. D. Stalker,Studies in Biblical Theology 119 (Chicago: H. Regnery, 1953), 25-36; M.Haran, “Holiness Code,”EncJud8:820-25; I. Knohl, “The Priestly Torah Versusthe Holiness School: Sabbath and the Festivals,”Hebrew Union College Annual58 (1987): 65-117; D. Patrick,Old Testament Law(Atlanta, GA: John Knox,
1985), 146-51. Cf. Hurvitz, ALinguistic Study, 102-7.639See A. Malamat, “King Lists of the Old Babylonian Period and BiblicalGenealogies,”JAOS88 (1968): 173 n. 29.640See A. Mazar, “Iron Age Burial Caves North of Damascus Gate Jerusalem,”IEJ26 (1976): 1-8; G. Barkay and A. Kloner, “Jerusalem Tombs from the Days ofthe First Temple,”Biblical Archaeology Review12 (1986): 22-39; E. M. Bloch-Smith, “The Cult of the Dead in Judah: Interpreting the Material Remains,”JBL111 (1992): 213-24, esp. 217. For the meaning of “bed” in Isa. 28:16-20 as areference to a cave bench tomb, see Halpern, “The Excremental Vision,” 117.641Ringgren,Israelite Religion, 157.642For the text and translation of PE 1.10.10, see Attridge and Oden,Philo ofByblos, 42-43.643For the Akkadian evidence, seešumazakāru(CADE, 400a; Z, 18); Lewis, Cultsof the Dead, 119. In CTA 17 (KTU 1.17 I 27f.), the son commemorates hisdeceased father. The stele that the son erects is apparently in honor of “hisancestral god,” ’il’ibh. Funerary steles are attested in KTU 6.13 and 6.14. Cf.Huehnergard, “The Vicinity of Emar,” 13, 15 (text 1:8), 17, 19 (text 2:11-12),27-28.644B. S. Childs,Memory and Tradition in Israel, Studies in Biblical Theology 37(Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1962), 13; McBride, “The Deuteronomistic NameTheology,” 101; J. C. Greenfield, “Un rite religieux araméen et ses parallèles,”RB 80 (1973): 46-52. See also H. Tawil, “Some Literary Elements in theOpening Sections of the Hadad, Zakir, and the Nerab Inscriptions in Light ofEast and West Semitic Royal Inscriptions,”Orientalia43 (1974): 41 n. 3. Seealso KTU 1.161 (for studies of this text, see W. T. Pitard, “RS 34.126: Notes onthe Text,”Maarav4/1 [1987]: 75-86; D. Pardee, “Epigraphic and PhilologicalNotes,” UF 19 [1987]: 211-16).645M. Jastrow, “Rō’ēh and Hôzeh in the Old Testament,”JBL28 (1909): 49-50 n.23; Curtis and Madsen,A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books ofChronicles, 391.646Lewis,CultsoftheDead,120-22.SeeFinkelstein,“Genealogyofthe
Hammurapi Dynasty,” 114-15.647On the marzeah in Northwest Semitic texts, including Amos 6 and Jeremiah 16,see M. H. Pope, “A Divine Banquet at Ugarit,” inThe Use of the Old Testamentin the New and Other Essays, ed. J. M. Efird, W. F. Stinespring Festschrift(Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press, 1972), 170- 203; idem, “The Cult of the Deadat Ugarit,” inUgarit in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Ugarit and Ugaritic, ed. G. D.Young (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981), 176-79; N. Avigad and J. C.Greenfield, “A Bronzephialēwith a Phoenician Dedicatory Inscription,”IEJ32(1982): 118-28; B. Halpern, “A Landlord-Tenant Dispute at Ugarit?”Maarav2/1 (1979-80): 121-40; R. E. Friedman, “The MRZH Tablet from Ugarit,”Maarav2/2 (1979-80): 187-206; Spronk,Beatific Afterlife, 169-70, 196-202,232, 248; C. Maier and E. M. Dörrfuss, “‘Um mit ihnen zu sitzen, zu essen undzu trinken’ Am 6; 7; Jer 16,5 und die Bedeutung vonmarzeah,” ZAW 111(1999): 45-57; J. L. McLaughlin,The marzeah in the Prophetic Literature:References and Allusions in the Light of the Extra-Biblical Evidence, VTSup 86(Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 2001); and Zevit,The Religions of Ancient Israel,547-49, 576-77.648See W. H. Irwin, “‘The Smooth Stones of the Wadi’? Isaiah 57,6,”CBQ29 (1967): 31- 40; T. J. Lewis, “Death Cult Imagery in Isaiah 57,”Hebrew AnnualReview 11 (1987): 267-84.649Skehan and Di Lella,The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 379.650S. Lieberman, “Afterlife in Early Rabbinic Literature,” inSeper Ha-Yovel li-KbodTseviVolfson(Harry A. Wolfson Jubilee Volume), vol. 2 (New York:American Academy for Jewish Research, 1965), 511; E. Feldman,Biblical andPost-Biblical Defilement andMourning: Law asTheology(New York: YeshivaUniversity/KTAV, 1977), 19.651OTPs 1:651.652OTPs 2:348.653R. Posner, “Holy Places,”EncJud8:922.654On early twentieth-century Palestinian Christian and Islamic beliefs on feedingthe dead, see Canaan,Mohammedan Saints, 188-93. Healing also occurs at
tombs (Canaan,Mohammedan Saints, 114-15).655See P. G. Mosca, “Child Sacrifice in Canaanite and Israelite Religion: A Studyin Mulk and” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1975). The recent work of G.Heider, The Cult ofMolek,presents a substantial collection of the pertinentmaterial; cf. D. Edelman, “Biblical Molek Reassessed,” JAOS 107 (1987): 730;J.D.Levenson,TheDeathandResurrectionoftheBelovedSon:TheTransformationofChildSacrificeinJudaismandChristianity(NewHaven/London : Yale Univ. Press, 1993), 3-52; K. Koch, “Molek astral,” inMythos im AltenTestament undseinerUmwelt :Festschrift für Hans-PeterMüller zum65.Geburstag, ed. A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger, and D. Römheld,BZAW 278 (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1999), 29-50; Zevit,The Religions ofAncient Israel, 469, 473, 476, 520-21, 530, 643, 653.656Olyan,Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 68.657Greenberg,Ezekiel1-20, 281, 369; Mosca, “Child Sacrifice,” 216-20, 238-40;Heider,The Cult of Molek,223-408; idem, “A Further Turn on Ezekiel’sBaroque Twist in Ezek 20:25-26,”JBL107 (1988): 721-24.658Mosca,“ChildSacrifice,”195-223;Heider,TheCultofMolek,319-26.Clements (Isaiah1-39, 252) follows H. Barth in assigning this passage to aseventh-century Josianic redaction of Isaiah’s oracles.659See B. Delavault and A. Lemaire, “Une stele ‘molk’ de Palestine dediée aEshmoun?RES367reconsidere,”RB83(1976):569-83;idem,“Lesinscriptions pheniciennes de Palestine,” RSF 7 (1979): 24-26; A. Gianto, “SomeNotes on the Mulk Inscription from Nebi Yunis (RES 367),”Biblica68 (1987):397-400.660For now, see the report of E. Carter, “The Injirli Stela: A Preliminary Report ontheInjirliStela,”athttp://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/nelc/stelasite/stelainfo.html;and“RecordingtheStela:FirstStepontheRoadtoDecipherment,”byB.ZuckermanandS.Kaufman,athttp://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/nelc/stelasite/stelainfo.html.661For example, amlksacrifice is dedicated tob‘l hmnandtntin Sousse(Hadrametum) in KAI 98:1-2 (cf. 99:1-2); tob‘l hmnin Constantine in 103:1-2;
107:1-4; 109:1-2; 110:1; tob‘lmnin Guelma (Algeria) in 167:1-2; and to b῾lhmnin Malta in 61A:3-4. For a full survey of evidence from the WesternMediterranean, see S. Brown, LateCarthaginian Child Sacrifice and SacrificialMonuments in Their Mediterraneann Context, JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 3(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991). See also E. Lipiński,Dieux etdéesses de l’univers phénicien et punique,Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 64,Studia Phoenicia XIV (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters & Departement OosterseStudies, 1995), 481-83.662R. M. Geer,Diodorus of Sicily, vol. 10,Books14.66-100and20, Loeb ClassicalLibrary (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press; London: William Heinemann,1957), 178-79. See Mosca, “Child Sacrifice,” 4, 214; L. E. Stager, “Carthage: AView from the Tophet,” inPhönizier im Westen,ed. H. G. Niemeyer,MadriderBeiträge8 (1982), 158.663Sarah Morris, private communication. I wish to thank Professor Morris forproviding me with the following classical references.664Plutarch’s Lives, vol. 1, trans. B. Perrin, Loeb Classical Library 46 (Cambridge,MA: Harvard Univ. Press; London: William Heinemann, 1967), 30-31.665C. Alessandrino,Protreptikosai Greci, Corona Patrum Salesiana, Series Graeca3 (Turin: Societa Editrici Internazionale, 1940), 86-87.666On Theseus and the Minotaur, see Apollodorus,The Epitome of the Library ofApollodorus1:7-9 (J. G. Frazer,Apollodorus: The Library, vol. 2, LoebClassical Library [London: William Heinemann; New York: G. P. Putnam’sSons, 1921], 134-37). For further literary sources, see Lipinski, Dieux etdeesses,480-83.667Harden, ThePhoenicians,86-91; S. Moscati, “New Light on Punic Art,” in TheRole of thePhoenicians in the Interaction of Mediterranean Civilizations:Papers Presented to the Archaeological Symposium at the American Universityof Beirut,March 1967, ed. W. W. Ward (Beirut: American Univ. of Beirut,1968), 68-71; idem, “Découvertes phéniciennes à Tharros,”CRAIBL1987, 483-503; Lipiński,Dieuxetdéesses,476-83. For a possible tophet in Tyre, see thediscussion in Lipiński,Dieuxetdéesses,439-40, with pertinent bibliography onp. 440 n. 127.668
Stager, “Carthage: A View from the Tophet,” 155-66; Stager and Wolff, “ChildSacrificeatCarthage—ReligiousRiteorPopulationControl?”BiblicalArchaeologyReview 10/1 (1984): 30-51, esp. 36-38; H. Benichou-Safar, “Surl’incineration des enfants aux tophets de Carthage et de Sousse,”Revue del’Histoire des Religions205 (1988): 57-67. For a history of discoveries atCarthage, see Brown,Late Carthaginian Child Sacrifice, 37-57.669This discussion is drawn from Brown,Late Carthaginian Child Sacrifice, 49-56,esp. 54-55.670See Lipiriński,Dieuxetdéesses,483.671See M. Almagro-Gorbea, “Los relieves mitológicos orientalizantes de PozoMoro,”Trabajos de Prehistoria35 (1978): 251-78, 8 pls.; idem, “Les reliefsorientalisantsdePozoMoro(Albacete,Espagne),”inMythesetPersonnification: Travaux et Memoires, Actes du Colloque du Grand Palais(Paris) 7-8Mai1977 (Paris: Société d’Édition “Les Belles Lettres,” 1980), 123-36, 7 pls.; idem, “Pozo Moro y el influjo fenicio en el periodo orientalizante dela peninsula Ibérica,” RSF 10/2 (1982): 231-72. My thanks to Professor C.Kennedyforthesereferences.Forfurtherdiscussion,seeBrown,LateCarthaginian Child Sacrifice, 70-72, with a drawing of the relief on p. 288,figure 46a.672See Viva Archaeologia1/2 (1968-69): 114 and 123, fig. 119.673C. G. Picard, “Sacra Punica, Étude sur les masques et rasoires de Carthage,”Karthago13 (1967): 49-115; Moscati, “New Light on Punic Art,” 72; idem,TheWorld of the Phoenicians,trans. A. Hamilton (London: Praeger, 1968), 163-65;E. Stern, “Phoenician Masks and Pendants,”PEQ108 (1976): 109-18; W.Cullican, “Some Phoenician Masks and Their Terracottas,”Berytus24 (1975-76): 47-87; R. Hestrin and M. Dayyagi-Mendels, “Two Phoenician PotteryMasks,”Israel MuseumNews 16 (1980): 83-88; Carter, “The Masks of Ortheia,”355-74; A. Biran, “Tel Dan, 1981,”IEJ 32(1982): 138, pl. 16:B.674Y. Yadin et al., HazorII(Jerusalem: Magnes, 1960), pls. 182-183; idem,“SymbolsofDeities,”223;A.Ciasca,“MasksandProtomes,”inThePhoenicians,ed. S. Moscati (Milan : Bompiani, 1988), 354-69. For the maskdepicted on a dancer with a musical instrument on a Late Bronze Age clayplaque from Tel Dan, see A. Biran, “The Dancer from Dan, the Empty Tomb
and the Altar Room,” IEJ 36 (1986): 168-73. On masks in Israelite religion, seethe speculations of Fohrer,History of Israelite Religion, 114. Note also the maskbefore the enthroned god, possibly Yahweh, depicted on a Persian period coinfrom Yehud (see chapter 1, section 1).675See Childs,The Book of Exodus, 609-10; M. Haran, “The Shining of Moses’Face: A Case Study in Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Iconography,” in TheShelter of Elyon:Essays inHonor of G.W.Ahlström,ed. W. B. Barrick and J.R. Spenser, JSOTSup 31 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1984), 159-73; W. L. Propp, “TheSkin of Moses’ Face — Transfigured or Disfigured?” CBQ 49 (1987): 375-86.676L. E. Stager, private communication.677Childs,The Book of Exodus, 618-19.678Childs,The Book of Exodus, 604; cf. Rashi on Exod. 34:29 inPentateuch withTargum Onkelos, Haphtaroth,and Rashi’s Commentary:Exodus, trans. M.Rosenbaum and A. M. Silbermann (Jerusalem: TheSilbermannFamily, 1930),196.679For text and translation, see Attridge and Oden,Philoof Byblos, 60-63. On theidentification between Kronos and El in Philo of Byblos’ Phoenician History,see chapter 4 n. 41.680M. H. Pope, “Moloch,” in Pope and Röllig,Syrien,300.681Stager, “Carthage,” 160-62. T. Canaan records that parents when praying tosaintsforhelpfortheirsickchildcallthechildwāhîd,“onlyone”(Mohammedan Saints, 106 n. 2).682Attridge and Oden,Philo of Byblos, 56-57.683A. Spalinger, “A Caananite Ritual Found in Egyptian Reliefs,”Journalof theSociety forthe Study of Egyptian Antiquities8 (1978): 47-60.684J. B. Hennessey, “Thirteenth Century B.C. Temple of Human Sacrifice,” inPhoeniciaandItsNeighbors:ProceedingsoftheColloquiumHeld9-10December 1983atthe Vrije Universiteit Brussels,in cooperation with theCentrumvoorMyceenseenarchaische-Grieke Cultuur, Studia Phoenicia 3
(Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1985), 85-104.685Ahlström,Royal Administration,76 n. 2.686Mosca, “Child Sacrifice,” 100. Cf. mlk and ’dm in KAI 26 A III 12-13. For adifferent view, see Lipiński, Dieux etdéesses, 428-29. For further discussion,see Brown, Late Carthaginian Child Sacrifice, 29-35.687Cf. the Ugariticdbh mlk, “royal sacrifice,” as in KTU 1.91.2. On this text, seeXella, “KTU 1.91,” 833-38.688KTU1.100.41;1.107.17;andRS1986/2235.17(Bordreuil,“Découvertesepigraphiques,”298).SeefurtherH.Niehr,“Herkunft,GeschichteundWirkungsgeschichte eines Unterweltgottes in Ugarit, Phönizien und Israel,” UF30 (1998): 569-85, esp. 570-74.689See n. 16.690Interpreters who view these two words as divine names include Virolleaud,UgV,553; Attridge and Oden,Philo of Byblos,91 n. 127; Caquot, “La tablette RS24.252 et la question des Rephaim ougaritiques,” Syria 53 (1976): 299; Cross,Canaanite Mythand Hebrew Epic, 31; A. J. Ferrera and S. B. Parker, “SeatingArrangements at Divine Banquets,”UF4 (1972): 38; M. Görg, “Noch einmal:Edrei in Ugarit?”UF6 (1974): 474-75; J. Gray, inUgariticaVII, Mission deRas Shamra 17 (Paris: Paul Geuthner; Leiden: Brill, 1978), 86; W. J. Horwitz,“The Significance of the Rephaim rm. aby.btk rp’im,” Journal of NorthwestSemitic Languages7 (1979): 40 n. 12; C. E. L’Heureux,Rank Among theCanaaniteGods:El, Ba‘al, and the Repha‘im, HSM 21 (Missoula, MT:Scholars, 1979), 172; J. C. de Moor, “Studies in the New Alphabetic Texts fromRas Shamra,” UF 1 (1969): 175; S. B. Parker, “The Feast of Rapi’u,”UF 2(1970): 243. Increasingly, scholars favor interpretingṯttrtandhdr‘yas place-names, originally suggested by B. Margalit (“A Ugaritic Psalm [RS 24.252],”JBL 89 [1970]: 292-304). See M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, “Baal rpu in KTU1.108; 1.113 und nach 1.17 VI 25-33,”UF12 (1980): 174,176 (reversing theirearlierviewofthetwowordsasdivinenamesintheirarticle,“Der‘Neujahrspsalm’ RS 24.252 Ug. 5, S. 551-557 Nr. 2,”UF7[1975]: 115, 117);Heider,Cult of Molek, 118-23; Pardee, “The Preposition in Ugaritic,”UF7 7(1975): 352 and UF 8 (1976): 245; Pope, “Notes on the Rephaim Texts,” 170;M. H. Pope and J. Tigay, “A Description of Baal,”UF3 (1971): 120; Smith,
“Kothar wa-Hasis,” 385-88, 429-34; Spronk,Beatific Afterlife,178; Olyan,Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh,49; D. Pardee,Les textes para-mythologiquesde la 24ecampagne(1961), Ras Shamra-Ougarit IX (Paris: Editions RecherchesurlesCivilisations,1988),94-96;Niehr,“Herkunft,GeschichteundWirkungsgeschichte,”570-74.Discussionofthesubterraneancomplexdiscovered at Edrei (Deraa) appears in both Pardee’s and Niehr’s treatments.Interpreting ‘ṯtrt andhdr‘yin KTU 1.108 as place-names is preferable toviewing them as divine titles on the following grammatical grounds: first,Ugariticyṯbb- means to “sit, dwell in” a particular place and not “sit with”someone (D. Pardee, “The Preposition in Ugaritic,”UF8 [1976]: 245; idem,“More on the Preposition in Ugaritic,”UF11 [1979]: 686); second, Ugaritichdoccurs rarely, if ever, as an A-word; third, ’il in KTU 1.108.1 need not refer toEl, but it may mean “the god,” referring to a separate figure,rp‘u,named in thefollowing line. Furthermore, the biblical place-names Ashtaroth and Edrei areknown in Josh. 12:4; 13:12, 31 (cf. Num. 21:33; Deut. 1:4; 3:1) as the home ofthe last of the Rephaim, just as ‘ṯtrtandhdr‘yare the home ofrp’u,first notedby B. Margalit (“A Ugaritic Psalm [RS 24.252],” 193). It may be noted furtherthat the place-name Edrei belongs to a pre-Israelite stratum of Hebrew, as*dunderlyingdin this place-name generally became /z/ in Hebrew, butdinUgaritic and Aramaic (see Rainey, “The Toponyms,” 4).691See Lipinski,Dieux et déesses,477.692S. Ribichini and P. Xella, “Milk‘aštart, mlk(m) e la tradizione siropalestinese suiRefaim,”RSF7(1979):145-58.SeealsoS.Ribichini,“In’ipotesiperMilk’aštart,” Rivista di StudiOrientalisti50 (1976): 43-55; A. Caquot, “Le dieuMilk‘ashtart et les inscriptions de Umm el ‘Amed,” Semitica 15 (1965): 29-33.Gibson (Textbook of Syrian SemiticInscriptions, vol. 3, 39) viewsmlk‘štrtas acombination of the names El and Astarte. Gibson’s interpretation is based on theargument thatmlk‘štrtis given the titleb‘l hmnin an inscription from Umm el-‘Amed (no. 13:1; see Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 24 n. 60;Gibson,Textbookof Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, vol. 3, 121), but Gibsoninterpretsb‘l hmnin other inscriptions as a title of El (so also B. Landsberger,Sam’al [Ankara: Druckerei der Türkischen historischen Gesellschaft, 1948], 47n. 117; Cross,CanaaniteMythand Hebrew Epic, 24-28; Olyan,Asherah and theCult of Yahweh, 52-54).693Edelman, “Biblical Molek Reassessed,” 730.
694Pope, “Notes on the Rephaim Texts,” 170, 172.695OTPs 1:987.696BDB, 574; Mosca, “Child Sacrifice,” 121-22; E. Puech, “Milkom, le dieuammonite, en Amos I 15,”VT27 (1977): 117-25; Heider,Cult of Molek,302-4.697On Isa. 57:3-13, see Irwin, “The Smooth Stones,” 31-40.RegardingPs. 106:34-38, see Hackett, “ReligiousTraditions,” 133. On both passages, see Spronk,Beatific Afterlife, 231-33.698Spronk,Beatific Afterlife,231-33.699Albright, “The High Place in Ancient Palestine,” in Volumede Congres,Strasbourg 1956, VTSup 4 (Leiden: Brill, 1957), 242-58; Barrick, “The FuneraryCharacter,” 565-95. See also Ringgren, Israelite Religion, 157; Fohrer,Historyof Israelite Religion, 198.700Spronk,Beatific Afterlife, 44-48.701For some of the difficulties in assessing historical evidence, see Machinist, “TheQuestion of Distinctiveness in Ancient Israel,” in Ah,Assyria ... : Studies inAssyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to HayimTadmor,ed. M. Cogan and I. Eph‘al, Scripta Hierosolymitana 33 (Jerusalem:Magnes, 1991), 196-212.702On the deities of the states surrounding Israel, see chapter 1, section 4.703For minor deities in Iron Age Israel, see Tigay,You Shall Have No Other Gods.704See chapter 3, section 4.705On the biblical evidence for Tammuz, see E. M. Yamauchi, “Tammuz and theBible,”JBL84 (1965): 283-90; McKay,Religion in Judah, 68-69. RegardingDumuzi in Mesopotamian religion, see also T. Jacobsen, “Toward the Image ofTammuz,” History of Religions 1 (1961): 189- 213 =Toward the Image ofTammuz and Other Essays on Mesopotamian History and Culture, ed. W. L.Moran, HSS 21 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1970), 73-103; idem,
“Religious Drama in Ancient Mesopotamia,” 65-72; Livingstone,Mystical andMythological Explanatory Works, 161-64. On the medieval evidence for the cultof Ta’uz (= Tammuz) among the Sabeans of Harran, see Livingstone,Mysticaland Mythological ExplanatoryWorks, 162. On Hadad-Rimmon, see J. C.Greenfield, “The Aramaean GodRammān/Rimmōn,”IEJ 26 (1976): 197-98; J.Gray, “Baal,”IDB1:329. See the recent discussion of these figures by T. N. D.Mettinger,The Riddle of Resurrection: “Dying and Rising Gods” in theAncientNear East, ConBOT 50 (Stockholm : Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2001),esp. 185-215. See also n. 27 below.706So Mosca, “Child Sacrifice,” 117-272; Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods,esp. 11-12, 65-73. On “Molek,” see chapter 5, section 3.707Cf. Smith,Palestinian Parties and Politics, 19.708See Hyatt, “The Deity Bethel,” 81-98; Cross,Canaanite Myth and HebrewEpic,46-47 n. 14. For the attestation of El-Bethel in the Aramaic version of Psalm 20written in Demotic, see Nims and Steiner, “A Paganized Version,” 264.709E. W. Nicholson,God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the OldTestament(Oxford: Clarendon, 1986), 202.710See McCarthy,Treaty and Covenant, 155-298; J. D. Levenson, review ofGodand His People, by E. W. Nicholson,CBQ50 (1988): 307. Ahlström (“Travelsof the Ark,” 148 n. 34) notes that the cult of’ēl bĕrît/ba‘al bĕrîtin Judges 6-7would point to covenant as a Canaanite feature. For the problems with thisassumption, see R. E. Clements, “Baal-Berith of Shechem,”JSS13 (1968): 21-32. On Judges 6-7, see chapter 1, section 3. For an optimistic appraisal of therole of covenant in early Israel, see Sperling, “Israel’s Religion in the AncientNear East,” 21-27.711Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 241-65; Smith,“Bĕrît ‘ām/bĕriît‘ôlām,”241- 43; Nicholson,God and His People, 44-45.712In addition to the treatments of kingship noted in Introduction n. 16, see A. S.Kapelrud, “King and Fertility,”Norsk teologisk tidsskrift56 (1955): 113-22; andO. H. Steck,Friedensvorstellungen in alten Jerusalem, Theologische Studien 3(Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972), 19-35.713
McCarthy,Treaty and Covenant,215, 259-60, 284-85; idem, “Ebla,ὁρχαιτεµνειν, tb, šlm:Addenda toTreaty and Covenant2,” Biblica60 (1979): 250-51.See also K. L. Roberts, “God, Prophet, and King: Eating and Drinking on theMountain in First Kings 18:41,” CBQ 62 (2000): 632-44.714On the dating of Exod. 24:1-11, and the relationship between units, w. 1-2, 3-8,9-11,seeChilds,The Book of Exodus, 499-507, esp. 501; Nicholson,God andHis People, 122-33; Levenson, review of Nicholson,God and His People, 307;Roberts,“God,Prophet,andKing,”638-40.On“E,”seeR.K.Gnuse,“Redefining the Elohist,” JBL 119 (2000): 201-20. The general attribution of vv.3-8 to the “Elohist” source or tradition would place this unit in the first half ofthe monarchy according to a traditional dating of the Pentateuchal sources ortraditions.715McCarter, “Aspects of the Religion,” 143. See also the comments of Y. Aharoni,“Israelite Temples in the Period of the Monarchy,” inProceedings of the FifthWorld Congress of Jewish Studies1, ed. P Peli (Jerusalem: World Union ofJewish Studies, 1969), 73; and more recently, Z. Herzog, “The Date of theTemple at Arad: Reassessment of the Stratigraphy and the Implications for theHistory of Religion in Judah,” inStudies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age inIsrael and Jordan, ed. A. Mazar with the assistance of G. Mathias, JSOTSup 331(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 156-78. The evidence from Aradsuggests cultic activity through the late seventh century (see F. M. Cross, “TwoOffering Dishes with Phoenician Inscriptions from the Sanctuary of ‘Arad,”BASOR235 [1979]: 77; D. Ussishkin, “The Date of the Judaean Shrine at Arad,”IEJ37-38[1987-88]:142-57).TheKorahitesareknownfromtheAradinscriptions and in the Jerusalem temple, according to 1 Chron. 6:22; 9:19, thepsalmic superscriptions bearing their name (see Psalms 42, 44-49, 84-85, 87-88),and the genealogy of Korah (1 Chron. 2:43; see J. M. Miller, “The Korahites ofSouthern Judah,”CBQ32 [1970]: 58-68). On the Korahites in 1 Chronicles, seealso D. L. Petersen,Late Israelite Prophecy: Studies in Deutero-PropheticLiterature and in Chronicles, SBLMS 23 (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1977), 55-87.716Smith,Palestinian Parties and Politics, 51.717M. Cogan and H. Tadmor,II Kings, AB II (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1988),67.718
See J. J. M. Roberts, “The Religio-Political Setting of Psalm 47,”BASOR 221(1976): 129-32; cf. E. S. Gerstenberger,Psalms: Part 1, With an Introduction toCultic Poetry, The Forms of the Old Testament Literature 14 (Grand Rapids, MI:Eerdmans, 1988), 198.719J. Goody,The Logic of Writing and the Organization of Society(Cambridge:Cambridge Univ. Press, 1986), 39-41; cf. Patrick,Old Testament Law, 189-218.For writing in Israel, see J. L. Crenshaw, “Education in Ancient Israel,” JBL 104(1985): 601-15, andEducation in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence,Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1998). A. Lemaire,Lesécoles et la formation de la Bible dans l’ancien Israēl,OBO 39 (Fribourg:Editions Universitaires; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981); idem,“Sagesses et Écoles,”VT34 (1984): 270-81. Note also the important cautionsissued in S. Niditch,Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature(Louisville: Westminster /John Knox, 1996); and R. F. Person, Jr., “The AncientIsraelite Scribe as Performer,”JBL117 (1998): 601-9. See further pp. xxii-xxivabove.720On the political function of the ark, see Ahlström, “The Travels of the Ark,”141-48.721Many commentators view the oracles against the nations in Amos 1:3-2:16 assecondary and late; nonetheless, some of these oracles may date to an eighth-century tradent. For the various positions, see H. W. Wolff,Joel and Amos,trans. W. Jansen, S. D. McBride, Jr., and C. A. Muenchow, Hermeneia(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 112, 139-42, 151-52; R. B. Coote,Amos Amongthe Prophets(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 66-70.722See Nicholson,God and His People, 134-50, 179-88; cf. Levenson, review ofNicholson,God and His People, 307. On the dating of Hos. 6:7 and 8:1, see alsoYee,Composition and Tradition, 279-81, 288-89.723S. Kaufman, “The Structure of Deuteronomic Law,”Maarav1/2 (1979): 105-58.See Miller, “Israelite Religion,” 211-12; and the important book of B. M.Levinson,DeuteronomyandtheHermeneuticsofLegalInnovation(NewYork/Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1997).724See the essays inWritings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near EasternProphecy, ed. E. Ben-Zvi and M. H. Floyd, SBL Symposium 10 (Atlanta, GA:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2000).725Barr, “The Problem of Israelite Monotheism,”Transactions of the GlasgowUniversity Oriental Society17 (1957-58): 52-62.726R. J. Clifford, “The Function of Idol Passages in Second Isaiah,”CBQ42(1980): 450- 64; Smith,The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 179-94.727See the essays inThe Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of ReligiousTradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times, ed. B. Becking and M. C. A. Korpel,OTS XLII (Leiden/Boston/ Köln: Brill, 1999). The gardens mentioned in Isa.17:10-11, 65:3, and 66:17 may be related to the cult of Adonis. The practice ofeating pig in Isaiah 65 and 66 could be suggestive of the cult of Osiris (JonasGreenfield, private communication). For a general discussion, see de Vaux,TheBible and the Ancient Near East, 210-37.728See H. Gunkel, “The Prophets as Writers and Poets,” inProphecy in Israel;Search for an Identity, trans. J. L. Schaaf, ed. D. L. Petersen, Issues in Religionand Theology 10 (Philadelphia: Fortress; London: SPCK, 1987), 25, 28; A.Loisy,The Religion of Israel, trans. A. Galton (New York: G. P Putnam’s Sons,1910), 196; L. Boadt, “Rhetorical Strategies in Ezekiel’s Oracles of Judgement,”inEzekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation,ed. J. Lust, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum 74 (Louvain: Univ.Press/Uitgeverij Peeters, 1986), 187; R. R. Wilson, “Ezekiel,” inHarper’s BibleCommentary, ed. J. L. Mays (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 657-58; cf.Lang,Monotheism and the Prophetic Minority: An Essay in Biblical History andSociology, The Social World of Biblical Antiquity (Sheffield, England: Almond,1983), 138-56.729Wilson, “Ezekiel,” 657-58. While the book of Ezekiel assumes of its audiencethe notion that some of the prophecies were orally delivered (e.g., 3:11; 6:2;12:10, 23; 13:7; 14:4), the portrait of the silent prophet in Ezek. 3:26-27, 24:27,and 33:22 (Greenberg,Ezekiel 1-20,120- 21) would suit a reading audiencebetter than a hearing audience. The extended portraits of Ezekiel and Jeremiah,in contrast to the descriptions of Isaiah, Hosea, or Amos, would also suggest awritten work, although the observation of this contrast is not intended to implythat the stories of the eighth-century prophets were not possibly written incharacter.730
J. MacDonald identifies some grammatical features common to both spokenspeech and poetry; both are notably less marked than prose (“Some DistinctiveFeatures of Israelite Spoken Hebrew,”BiOr33 [1975]: 162-75). Furthermore,inverted word order occurs proportionately more frequently in the prose of directspeech and poetry than in narrative prose. See also J. Blau, “Marginalia SemiticaIII,”IOS7 (1977): 23-27. For the problems involved in distinguishing betweenprose and poetry, see A. Cooper, “On Reading Biblical Poetry,”Maarav4/2(1987): 221-41.731Greenberg,Ezekiel 1-20,205-6.732See M. Himmelfarb, “From Prophecy to Apocalypse:The Book of the Watchersand Tours of Heaven,” inJewish Spirituality: From the Bible Through theMiddle Ages, ed. A. Green, World Spirituality: An Encyclopedic History of theReligious Quest 13 (New York: Crossroad, 1987), 155.733O. Eissfeldt,The Old Testament: An Introduction, trans. P. R. Ackroyd (NewYork/ Evanston: Harper & Row, 1965), 340. See also G. von Rad,OldTestament Theology, vol. 2,The Theology of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions, trans.D. M. G. Stalker (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 242; R. R. Wilson, “TheCommunity of the Second Isaiah,” inReading and Preaching the Book of Isaiah,ed. C. R. Seitz (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 60. See the strong literaryarguments made for this view by B. D. Sommer,A Prophet Reads Scripture:Allusion in Isaiah 40-66, Contraversions. Jews and Other Differences (Stanford,CA: Stanford Univ. Press, 1998). While waw-consecutive forms are found inquoted speeches, they are considerably rarer in quoted speeches than in narrative(MacDonald, “Some Distinctive Features,” 162-63, 175).734F. Blake, “Forms of Verbs After Waw in Hebrew,”JBL65 (1946): 57.735For cases of waw consecutive in Second Isaiah, see Isa. 40:4, 5, 14, 22, 24; 41:7,9, 11; 42:15, 16, 25; 43:12, 14, 28; 44:4, 12, 13, 14, 15; 45:3, 4, 22; 46:4, 13;47:6, 7, 10; 48:5, 15, 18, 19; 49:2, 3, 6, 7, 14, 21, 22, 23, 26; 50:6; 51:2, 3, 13,15, 16, 23; 52:10; 53:2, 9; 54:12; 55:10, 11, 13 (cf. 42:6). MTwĕ’āmarin Isa.40:6 is problematic. IQIsaareadsw’wmrh,which has been understood as either afirst person form with the final “cohortative” ending-ah(Cross,Canaanite Mythand Hebrew Epic, 188) or a feminine singular participle (Petersen,Late IsraeliteProphecy, 20-21, 46-47 n. 15). The evidence favors the former view (seeBarthélemy,Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, vol. 2,Isaïe, Jérémie,
Lamentations, 278-79).736For these points, with further discussion, see Smith,The Origins of BiblicalMonotheism, esp. 77-79, 163-66.737For scholars who speak of monotheism in the “Mosaic age,” see Albright,Fromthe Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process, 2d ed.(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1957), 257-72; Kaufmann,The Religionof Israel, 229-31; J. Milgrom, “Magic, Monotheism, and the Sin of Moses,” inThe Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall,ed. H. B. Huffmon, F. A. Spina, and A. R. W. Green (Winona Lake, IN:Eisenbrauns, 1983), 251-65, esp. 263; I. M. Zeitlin,Ancient Judaism: BiblicalCriticism from Max Weber to the Present(Cambridge, MA: Polity Press, 1984).For criticisms of this position, see T. J. Meek, “Monotheism and the Religion ofIsrael,” JBL 61 (1942): 21-43; J. Barr, “Problem of Israelite Monotheism,” 52-62; H. H. Rowley, “Moses and Monotheism,”From Moses to Qumran: Studiesin the Old Testament(London: Lutterworth, 1963), 35-63; Halpern, “‘BriskerPipesThanPoetry,’”80-82;C.Schafer-Lichtenberger,reviewofAncientJudaism, by 1. Zeitlin, JAOS 108 (1988): 160-62.738Gottlieb, “El und Krt,” 159-67; Smith,Palestinian Parties and Politics, 23; B.Lang,Monotheism and the Prophetic Minority, 13-59; McCarter, “Aspects ofthe Religion,” 143. See also B. Hartmann, “Es gibt keinen Gott ausser Jahwe.Zur generellen Verneinung im Hebraischen,” ZDMG 110 (1960): 229-35.739W. Eichrodt,Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 1, trans. J. A. Bakker, OTL(London: SCM, 1961), 220-27, 363-64; G. von Rad,Old Testament Theology,vol. 1, The Theologyof Israel’sHistorical Traditions, trans. D. M. G. Stalker(New York/Evanston: Harper & Row, 1962), 210- 12; Fohrer,History ofIsraelite Religion, 172; H. Wildberger, “Der Monotheismus Deuterojesajas,” inBeiträge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift für Walther Zimmerli zum70.Geburtstag,ed.H.Donner,R.Hanhart,andR.Smend(Göttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 506-30; Ahlström,Royal Administration, 69;H. Klein, “Der Beweis der Einzigkeit Jahwes bei Deuterojesaja,” VT 35 (1985):267-73; B. Lang, “Yahwé seul! Origine et figure du monothéisme biblique,”Concilium97(1985):55-64.Forfurthersurveysofthedevelopmentofmonotheism in Israel, see H. P. Müller, “Gott und die Götter in den AnfängenderbiblischerReligion:ZurVorgeschichtedesMonotheismus,”inMonotheismusimAltenTestamentundseinerUmwelt(Fribourg:Verlag
SchweizerischesKatholischesBibelwerk,1980),99-142;F.Stolz,“MonotheismusinIsrael,”inMonotheismusimAltenTestament,143-89;Halpern,“‘BriskerPipesThanPoetry,’”77-115;Petersen,“IsraelandMonotheism,” 92-107.740See Introduction.741R. R. Wilson,Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel(Philadelphia: Fortress,1980), 192-212.742G. Mendenhall, “The Monarchy,”Interpretation29 (1975): 155-70; idem,TheTenth Generation, 21-31, 114, 181, 196; cf. J. Bright,A History of Israel, 2d ed.(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 141, 221-24, 281-82. For criticisms of thesenegative views of the monarchy and a positive assessment of the monarchy, seeJ. J. M. Roberts, “In Defense of the Monarchy: The Contribution of IsraeliteKingship to Biblical Theology,” inAncient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honorof Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller, Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride,377-96.743L. K. Handy (“Hezekiah’s Unlikely Reform,”ZAW100 [1988]: 111-15) disputesthe religious motives attached to Hezekiah’s reform in 2 Chronicles 31 andattributes Hezekiah’s changes in religious policies to the political vicissitudes ofSennacherib’s advances into Judah.744Petersen, “Israel and Monotheism,” 92-107. Mendenhall (The Tenth Generation,21, 194) and de Moor (“Crisis of Polytheism,” 1-20) argue for a revolutionaryschema.745P. Machinist, “The Question of Distinctiveness in Ancient Israel: An Essay.” Seealso E. L. Greenstein, “The God of Israel and the Gods of Canaan: HowDifferent Were They?”Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies,Jerusalem,July 29-August 5,1997,Division A,The Bible and Its World, ed. R.Margolin (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1999), 47- 58; S. A.Geller, “The God of the Covenant,” inOne God or Many? Concepts of Divinityin the Ancient World, ed. B. N. Porter, Transactions of the Casco BayAssyriological Institute (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2000), 273-319; Zevit,TheReligions of Ancient Israel, 687-90.746See chapter 3, section 5.
747See the important compilation of M. C. A. Korpel,A Rift in the Clouds: Ugariticand Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine(Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1990). See alsothe suggestive study of J. D. Fowler,Theophoric Personal Names in AncientHebrew: A Comparative Study, JSOTSup 49 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988).748On divine feasting in Ugaritic, see especially KTU 1.3 I; 1.4 VI; 1.15 III; 1.20-22. The sequence of feasting and sexual relations underlie 1.4 IV 27-39 and1.23.37-52. On this section of 1.23, see del Olmo Lete,Mitos y leyendas, 434-35, 444-45; and R. M. Good, “Hebrew and Ugariticnḥt,”UF 19 (1987): 155-56.749On the topos of the heavenly temple in Ugaritic, biblical, and intertestamentalliterature, see Himmelfarb, “From Prophecy to Apocalypse,” 145-65; Smith,“Biblical and Canaanite Notes,” 585-87.750On KTU 1.114, see Spronk,Beatific Afterlife,198-201. On El’s sexual exploitsin KTU 1.23, see Pope,Elin the Ugaritic Texts, 37-41; idem, “Ups and Downsin El’s Amours,” UF 11 (1979 = Festschrift fur C. F. A. Schaeffer): 701-8; cf.Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 22- 24; Olyan,Asherah and the Cultof Yahweh, 42 n. 13. Regarding KTU 1.5 V and the site of Baal’s mating, see M.S. Smith, “Baal in the Land of Death,” UF 17 (1986): 311-14. Biblical literaturegenerally renders the power of death as demonic and not a full-fledged deity (seechapter 2, section 2, and Smith,The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 130-31).751One problem in comparing conceptions of deity in Ugaritic and Israeliteliteratures is the way in which scholars use different genres to serve as the basisfor comparison. For example, depictions of deities in the Ugaritic Baal cycle,Aqhat, or Keret are commonly compared with descriptions of Yahweh in thePsalms. While there is certainly common material between these two groups, therelative anthropomorphism might be gauged better by comparing descriptions ofdeity in the Psalms and Ugaritic prayers (e.g., KTU 1.119.26-38). On theseproblems, see Cassuto,Biblical and Oriental Studies, vol. 2,Bible and AncientOriental Texts, 69-109; C. Conroy, “Hebrew Epic: Historical Notes and CriticalReflections,”Biblica61 (1980): 1-30; Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic,esp. viii-ix; Greenfield, “Hebrew Bible and Canaanite Literature,” 545-60;Hallo, “Individual Prayers,” 71-75; S. Parker, “Some Methodological Principlesin Ugaritic Philology,”Maarav2/1 (1979): 7-41; S. Talmon, “Did There Exist aBiblical National Epic?” inProceedings of the Seventh World Congress ofJewish Studies: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East(Jerusalem:
World Union of Jewish Studies, 1981), 41-61. It might be argued that Israel’slack of mythic material compared to its Canaanite neighbors is a further sign ofits distinctive religious character. However, the strong mythic character in someapocalypticmaterialindicatesthatIsraelcontinuedtoemployhighlyanthropomorphicrenderingsofYahweh(seechapter3,section5,fordiscussion).Fordiscussionofsomeoftheseproblemsinatheologicalframework, see Childs,Myth and Reality, 94-105. For the question of mythicmaterial in the Deuteronomistic History, see Halpern,The First Historians, 266-71.752The labels “priestly” and “Deuteronomistic” are not intended to imply thatproponentsofDeuteronomistictheologydidnotparticipateinIsrael’spriesthood. Some members belonged to the Levitical priesthood in the northernkingdom down to the time of its fall and probably afterward, given the biblicalindications of later religious activity (2 Kings 23:19; cf. 2 Chron. 30:1-12; 31:1;34:9; 35:18; Jer. 41:5). (To be sure, the reform of the cult of Bethel following thefall of the northern kingdom mentioned in 2 Kings 23:15 does not point tosouthern influence generally in the north, as Bethel belonged to the tribe ofBenjamin. Due to its geographical proximity to the south, Benjamin became avirtual part of the southern kingdom, as Jer. 16:26 illustrates. For the northernborder of Judah, see Cross,Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 109 n. 57) Somemembers of the northern Levitical priesthood came to Jerusalem in the wake ofthe north’s fall. At this time Deuteronomistic views became influential in thesouthern capital (see Wilson,Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel, 156-57,298-306). The Levitical background of Deuteronomistic theology illustrates howmuch the Pentateuch and the historical and prophetic books were shaped bymembers of Israel’s priesthood. Indeed, the development of the Hebrew Bible isdue largely to the history of conflict and compromise between Israel’s variouspriestly lines. For an analysis of the history of Israelite religion along these lines,see P. D. Hanson,The People Called: The Growth of Community in the Bible(San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986); cf. S. D. McBride, Jr., “BiblicalLiterature in Its Historical Context: The Old Testament,”Harper’s BibleCommentary, ed. J. L. Mays (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 14-26.753Smith,Palestinian Parties and Politics, 19.754For these points, see M. S. Smith, “Yahweh and Other Deities in Ancient Israel,”in Ein Gott allein? ed. W. Dietrich and M. A. Klopfenstein, 222-23.755
T. Jacobsen,The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion(NewHaven:YaleUniv.Press,1976),esp.164;Petersen,“IsraelandMonotheism,” 92-107.