The Early History of God

Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel

Mark S. Smith

• Editorial: Eerdmans
• Año: 2002
• ISBN:
  9781467427630
• Categoría: Teología y religión
• Categoría: Religión comparada

Foreword by Patrick D. Miller In this remarkable, acclaimed history of the development of monotheism, Mark S. Smith explains how Israel's religion evolved from a cult of Yahweh as a primary deity among many to a fully defined monotheistic faith with Yahweh as sole god. Repudiating the traditional view that Israel was fundamentally different in culture and religion from its Canaanite neighbors, this provocative book argues that Israelite religion developed, at least in part, from the religion of Canaan. Drawing on epigraphic and archaeological sources, Smith cogently demonstrates that Israelite religion was not an outright rejection of foreign, pagan gods but, rather, was the result of the progressive establishment of a distinctly separate Israelite identity. This thoroughly revised second edition of The Early History of God includes a substantial new preface by the author and a foreword by Patrick D. Miller.

CHAPTER 1

Deities in Israel in the Period of the Judges

1. Israel’s “Canaanite” Heritage

Early Israelite culture cannot be separated easily from the culture of “Canaan.”¹ The highlands of Israel in the Iron Age (ca. 1200-587) reflect continuity with the “Canaanite” (or better, West Semitic²) culture during the preceding period both in the highlands and in the contemporary cities on the coast and in the valleys.³ This continuity is reflected in scripts, for one example. Both linear and cuneiform alphabetic scripts are attested in inscriptions in the highlands as well as in the valleys and on the coast during both the Late Bronze (ca. 1550-1200) and Iron I (ca. 1200-1000) periods.⁴ This continuity is visible also in language. Though Hebrew and Canaanite are the linguistic labels applied to the languages of the two periods in this region,⁵ they cannot be easily distinguished in the Iron I period. For example, most scholars argue that the Gezer Calendar was written in Hebrew, but E. Y. Kutscher labels its language Canaanite.⁶ Canaanite and Hebrew so closely overlap that the ability to distinguish them is premised more on historical information than linguistic criteria.⁷ The ancient awareness of the close linguistic relationship, if not identity, between Canaanite and Hebrew is reflected in the postexilic oracle of Isaiah 19:18, which includes Hebrew in the designation “the language of Canaan” (śĕpat kĕnaʿan; cf. yĕhûdît, “Judean,” in 2 Kings 18:26, 28; Isa. 36:11, 13; 2 Chron. 32:18; Neh. 13:24).⁸

Similarly, Canaanite and Israelite material culture cannot be distinguished by specific features in the Judges period.⁹ For example, some Iron I (ca. 1200-1000) cooking pots and storage jars as attested at Giloh represent a pottery tradition continuous with the Late Bronze Age.¹⁰ Items such as the four-room house, collared-rim store jar, and hewn cisterns, once thought to distinguish the Israelite culture of the highlands from the Canaanite culture of the coast and valleys, are now attested on the coast, in the valleys, or in Transjordan.¹¹ Both indigenous tradition and influence from the coast and valleys are represented also in burial patterns. Multiple primary burials in caves continued in the hill country from the Late Bronze Age throughout the Iron Age. Arcosolia and bench tombs, two types of rock-cut tombs, are initially attested on the coast, and appeared also in the highlands in the Iron I period.¹²

The Canaanite (or, West Semitic) background of Israel’s culture extended to the realm of religion. This is evident from the terminology for cultic sacrifices and personnel. BH sacrificial language with corresponding terms in Ugaritic and/or Phoenician includes zebaḥ, “slaughtered offering,” a biblical term applied to 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); zebaḥ hayyāmîm, “the annual slaughtered offering” (1 Sam. 1:21; 2:19; 20:6; cf. KAI 26 A II:19–III:2; C IV:2-5); šĕlāmîm, “offering of well-being/greeting”¹³ (Leviticus 3; cf. KTU 1.105.9; 109; KAI 69:3; 51 obv.:5-6; 120:2); neder, offering of a vow (Numbers 30; Deuteronomy 12; cf. Ugaritic ndr, KTU 1.127.2; cf. mḏr, 1.119.30; KAI 155:1; 156; cf. 18:1; 45:1); minḥāh, “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).¹⁴ Other terms have been viewed as semantic equivalents in Hebrew and Ugaritic. It is assumed, for example, that BH ʿôlāh (Leviticus 1; cf. Judg. 11:30, 39) is semantically equivalent with Ugaritic šrp (KTU 1.105.9, 15; 1.106.2; 1.109); both denote an offering entirely consumed by fire. The ʿôlāh sacrifice belonged not only to the cult of Yahweh in Jerusalem and elsewhere but also to the cult of Baal in Samaria (2 Kings 10:24; cf. ʿlt in KAI 159:8). A ritual of general expiation was not only an Israelite feature (e.g., Leviticus 16; 17:11; cf. Gen. 32:21 for a noncultic example); it was also a Ugaritic phenomenon (KTU 1.40).¹⁵ Both Ugaritic texts (1.46.1; 1.168.9) and biblical rituals (Leviticus 4–5) provide for divine forgiveness (*slḫ/*slḥ). This incidence of highly specialized sacrificial terms suggests a common West Semitic heritage.

Although other terminological parallels between Israelite and Ugaritic and Phoenician texts are found also in Mesopotamian culture, these links further mark the closely related Israelite and Canaanite cultures. Biblical names with a Canaanite background for cult personnel include “priest,” kōhēn (2 Kings 10:19; cf. KTU 4.29.1; 4.38.1; 4.68.72), “dedicated servants,” nĕtûnīm/nĕtunîm (Num. 3:9; 8:19) and nĕtînîm (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), and qādēš, a cultic functionary of some sort in both Israelite religion (Deut. 23:18 [E 17]; 2 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:47; 23:7; Job 36:14) and Ugaritic cult (KTU 1.112.21; 4.29.3; 4.36; 4.38.2; 4.68.73).¹⁶ Similarly, 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 rb khnm, “chief of the priests” (KTU 1.6 VI 55-56). Furthermore, the “tent of meeting” (ʾōhel môʿēd) derived from Canaanite prototypes (2 Sam. 7:6; KTU 1.4 IV 20-26).¹⁷ To be sure, parallels in terminology do not establish parallels in cultural setting in each of these cases.¹⁸ Yet cultural continuity appears likely in these instances. It is evident from many areas of culture that Israelite society drew very heavily from Canaanite culture.¹⁹

The evidence of the similarities between Canaanite and Israelite societies has led to a major change in the general understanding of the relationship between these two societies. Rather than viewing them as two separate cultures, some scholars define Israelite culture as a subset of Canaanite culture.²⁰ There are, however, some Israelite features that are unattested in Canaanite sources. These include 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 ʿAjrûd inscriptions; cf. Amos 1:12; Ezek. 25:13),²¹ and Israel’s early tradition of the Exodus from Egypt (Exod. 15:4).²² Neither of these features appears to be Canaanite.²³

That Israel in some form was distinguished from Canaan ca. 1200 is clear from an inscribed monument of the pharaoh Merneptah. This stele dates to the fifth 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.²⁴

The purpose of this passage was to celebrate Egyptian power over various lands 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 the power of the pharaoh, all these places stand under Egyptian rule. The text distinguishes between Israel and Canaan, as they constitute two different terms in the text. Some scholars note that the two terms are further distinguished. The word “Canaan” is written with a special linguistic feature called a determinative, denoting land. “Israel” is written with the determinative for people. Drawing historical conclusions from this difference in the scribal use of the two determinatives has proven problematic. On the one hand, if the determinatives were used accurately by the Egyptian scribe who wrote this text, then Israel as a people was established by 1200 B.C. On the other hand, some scholars believe that scribes did not use the two different determinatives consistently in other texts and therefore challenge the accuracy of their use in the Merneptah stele.²⁵ If the determinatives were used correctly, Israel stands for a people living in the region of the highlands rather than designating the geographical area of the highlands. In any case, Israel and Canaan are differentiated in the text, and in some way they represented different entities to the Egyptian scribe who inscribed the Merneptah stele. Israel was differentiated as early as 1200 from its Canaanite forebears.

Iron I evidence currently at the disposal of scholars presents a dilemma. On the one hand, the historical understanding of the period has been tremendously enhanced by archaeological research.²⁶ On the other hand, the data do not answer many of the important questions regarding early Israel. It is at present impossible to establish, on the basis of archaeological information, distinctions between Israelites and Canaanites in the Iron I period. The archaeological evidence does not provide a clear set of criteria for distinguishing an Israelite site from a Canaanite one, although a collocation of features (e.g., four-room houses, collared-rim store jars, hewn cisterns) in an Iron I site in the central highlands continues to be taken as a sign of an Israelite settlement. Inscriptional evidence is likewise of limited hel...