Our canonical documents, particularly the books of the
Former and the Latter Prophets, level an extensive polemic
against Israelite devotion to "Baal
" (ba`al),
or "the baal
" (hab-ba`al) or "the baals
"
(hab-be`alim), among other gods
imagined to be subordinate or even alien to the state god, Yhwh
-- the host of heaven, the Asherah/Asherim, the
Ashtoret/Ashtarot, the Queen of Heaven, to name a few. Modern
scholars, for the most part, have taken the Biblical testimony at
its word. They thus understand the cults of such gods as imports
either from the nations Israel had defeated in Canaan (as Judg
1:1- 3:5) or from the nations "around
" Israel (as
Spieckermann 1982:201-211): astral worship (the host of
heaven, the Queen of Heaven), for example, is sometimes ascribed to
Assyrian influence (see Stahelin 1843:85-86;
Spieckermann 1982:215-225; Lemaire 1986:228;
contrast Kaufmann 1956:3/2:389- 90);
in origin, the gods were those of foreigners.
Yet this perspective, whatever its merits or defects, certainly cannot reflect the subjective experience of the Israelites who performed oblations to the "baals". Israel's public culture was given to fits of nativism: Jeroboam I's secession, for example, must have represented a reaction in part against the centralization of the state cult in Jerusalem under Solomon; Jeroboam thus consciously built his state shrines, at Dan and Bethel, not in the back yard of his palace at Tirzah, but distant from it. The notion of a separation of the cult from the kingship under Jeroboam and his successors reflects a popular concern about the usurpation of the national cult by the state. Interestingly, another nativist movement, that of Jehu ben-Nimshi, reacted against ostensibly foreign cults at a time when another temple had been erected in the Israelite capital: presumably, Ahab had adopted the Solomonic course. Even the programme implemented by Josiah to eradicate worship of the host of heaven and the baals clothed itself in the rhetoric of nativism -- Josiah's history of Israel, the Deuteronomistic History, identifies the high places and the baals as remnants of the Canaanites whom Joshua had conquered (Halpern 1988:220-228).
Such an appeal to "authentic" Israelite praxis in the past betrays a concern for identity: what is "authentic" is good, what is "foreign" is bad. To say, under the circumstances, that Israelite worshippers of "the baals" experienced those gods as foreign is to mistake the polemic against the baals for portrayal rather than caricature. It is at the same time to misunderstand how the polemic works: the baals are inappropriate objects of devotion -- despite what their worshippers think -- because they are foreign. But if the worshippers already understood the baals to be foreign, this polemic can have had no persuasive effect. It is only by tracing the baals to foreign sources -- to the Amorites and to Jezebel -- in the remote, and forgotten, past that the polemicist can hope to show quondam adherents of the baals that they have been misguided. In other words, the votary of the baals and other gods must have understood those gods to be ancestral, those of his father, "authentic" Israelite deities.
This is indeed the understanding expressed in the only Biblical text in which the alleged apostates actually speak up for themselves. Jeremiah 44, an exilic text, preserves at least a reasonable version of their defense. It does so in the interest of attacking that defense, but the apostates' logic seems unimpeachable. Probably, the record of the episode survived only because it established a plausible rationale for why the Restoration community should come from Mesopotamia -- it denied the possibility of a return from exile in Egypt.
In Egypt, Jeremiah announces that Yhwh had exiled Judah
because of its worship of "other gods whom they didn't know --
they, you and your fathers
" (44:3, the last phrase
of which has accrued from Deut 13:3,7 and parallels in
Deuteronomy: see Dion
1991:151, 182 #38). Continuation of these practices in Egypt
precludes a restoration to Judah from the Judaean settlements
there (44:7-14). Astonishingly, at this point the
objects of Jeremiah's harangue are quoted --
There answered Jeremiah all the men who knew that their wives were burning incense to other gods, and all the women who were standing in (ha-`omedot, G om.) a large congregation, and all the people who dwelt in the land of Egypt, in Patros, saying:
"As to the word which you have spoken to us in the name of Yhwh, we will not listen to you. For we will do everything that came forth from our (G: your) mouth, burning incense to the Queen of the Heavens, and pouring libations to her, just as we have done, we and our fathers, our kings and our officials, in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem, and we were sated with bread, and we were good, and evil we did not see. It was when we desisted from burning incense to the Queen of the Heavens, and from pouring out libations to her (G om.), that we lacked everything, and perished by the sword and by famine."
(Jer 44:15-18).
Jeremiah disputes this perfectly sensible interpretation of the Josianic reform and its aftermath -- insisting that it was the cultic activity of the Judaean fugitives and their ancestors, their kings and their officials, that had led Yhwh to devastate Judah. He prophesies the decimation of the Judaeans in Egypt, ostensibly by the Babylonians (44:20-30).
The critical aspect of this account is Jeremiah's admission
(v 21) that the cult of "other gods" was indeed
the ancestral and
state practice that the Judaeans represent it as having been.
Villagers are notoriously conservative, the more so in the realm
of religion -- and one of Mohammed's regular complaints was that
the villagers preferred "to follow the way of our ancestors
"
rather than listen to his revelations from the heavens (Quran
Sura 2.165; 43.20-23). The state, too (before Josiah),
conducted such a cult -- kings and officials (44:17,21),
a phrase that does not stipulate Manasseh, or even Manasseh and Amon,
as the only guilty parties. It is thus no coincidence that the
Deuteronomistic History, and in particular Kings
(1 Kgs 11:1-10; Judg 1:1-3:5), is careful
to trace the introduction of such
practices well beyond the bounds of living memory, and even
beyond those of normal family tradition. For the Judahites of
the late 7th and early 6th century, worship of these "other
gods", including the Queen of Heaven, was indeed traditional
practice, part of the folk- and traditional state religion of
Judah.
Given these circumstances, the worship of the baals, principally attacked in the Josianic and post-Josianic era in such texts as Jeremiah (as 8:2; 19:13), Zephaniah (1:5) and the Deuteronomistic History (Deut 4:19; 17:3), was probably equally traditional.[1] In the same period, the worship of the Host of Heaven came under attack, probably for the first time (Halpern and Vanderhooft 1992): the first negative reference to the Host in Kings comes at 2 Kgs 17:16 in connection with Israel, and in 2 Kgs 21:3,5 in connection with Judah (Lemaire 1986:228). It is only in literature concentrated after the reign of Hezekiah, thus, that the Host seem to come under attack.[2]
The coincidence of polemic against the baals in the
7th-century prophets and the Deuteronomistic History with polemic
against the Host in the same prophets and the same history raises
the question whether the two were substantially related. It has
been the tendency among biblicists to assume that the term, Baal
(ba`al), referred to Haddu, the figure addressed as Baal in the
Ugaritic mythological, liturgical and ritual texts (as Smith
1990:41- 64), to Melqart, or to Baal Shamem
(B. Mazar 1986:79-81; Eissfeldt 1962:1-12).
The confrontation between Yhwh and the
baal -- certainly an individual god held in opposition to Yhwh in
1 Kings 18:21,25-27 (but baals in 18:18, where the
Lucianic
recension corrects back to the singular) -- in the Elijah-Elisha
cycle has conditioned this assumption. The phraseology "If the
baal is the god, go after him
" (18:21), and "for he
is a god
" (18:27) leaves no doubt that a single deity
is under scrutiny (so, too, Judg 6:31). Yet the
seventh-century polemicists
regularly refer to baals, not just to a single Baal, and this is
even true of Hosea, the lone literary prophet to complain about
devotion to the baals in the 8th century. It is thus possible
that the polemic against the baals in the seventh century is
connected with the new assault on the cult of the Host. Indeed,
it may be that the baals are partly identical with the Host of
Heaven, who are represented, of course, by the stars.
For assessing the identity of the baals in 8th-7th century literature, it is important first to understand the morphosyntactical properties of the word, ba`al, itself. When ba`al in HB refers to immortals, it is without exception a determined noun. Where it occurs in the absolute state without a proclitic, it is always preceded by the definite article. Massoretic pointing carries this pattern through by vocalizing all cases where baal appears with a proclitic as determined. This pattern also characterizes occurrences in the plural. One might propose repointing in one or another case, but the ubiquity of the definite article where the orthography leaves it susceptible to observation contraindicates such a hypothesis.[3]
The same pattern holds, as well, for the term, 'asera,
"Asherah
", when this denotes a goddess, an object of devotion
(singular in 1 Kgs 15:13//2 Chr 15:16
[Asa's mother made a mipleset for the asherah]; 1 Kgs
18:19 [OG renders plural, then
adds a singular in 18:22 -- prophets of the asherah]; 2 Kgs 21:7
[the graven image of the asherah]; 23:4 [the implements dedicated
to the baal, and to the asherah, and to all the host of the
heavens], 7 [where women wove 'houses' for the asherah]; plural
only in Judg 3:7, 'aserot [they did service to the baals and the
asherahs]). It does not hold, however, where the asherah is, or
the asherim/ot are, objects dedicated to a goddess -- and thus
the object of a verb such as "build", "cut down" or "remove", or
classified together with "stelae", "high places" or the like.[4]
Not altogether dissimilar is usage in connection with the term
'elohim: used with plural reference, as a common noun, it does
not require a determinative; used with singular reference, it can
serve as an effective substitute for a proper noun, a "divine
name," in effect, but can also take the definite article, at
which point it becomes a title, a common noun (similarly, 'el).
In the case of the term, `astarot, "Ashtorets
",
a more
interesting pattern arises. In three passages referring to the
high places built by Solomon on the Mount of Olives, the
singular, Ashtoret, appears without a definite article:
Solomon went after Ashtoret, the god of Tyrians, and after Milcom, the abomination of Ammonites....Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Ammon, on the mountain which is opposite Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. And so he did for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and sacrificed (D) to their gods.
(1 Kgs 11:5-8, MT).
Here, the Old Greek, which may have suffered a haplography
("David, his father
" to "David, his father
") and some
revision,
preserves the reading "Milcom" for the Ammonite abomination, and
the idea that the high place was dedicated to Ashtoret as well as
to Chemosh and Milcom.
A second passage in 1 Kgs 11:33 refers to the first. Yhwh announces the division of the kingdom,
Because they abandoned me and prostrated themselves to Ashtoret, the god of Sidonians, to Chemosh, the god of Moab, and to Milcom, the god of the children of Ammon...
Finally, 2 Kgs 23:13 reports Josiah's demolition of the Solomonic high places, which, along with dedications to the Host and altars to the Host in Jerusalem, had survived Hezekiah's reform:
And the high places [G: singular, as in 1 Kgs 11:7] which are opposite Jerusalem, which are south of the Mount of the Vanguard (?), which Solomon, king of Israel, built for Ashtoret, the abomination of Sidonians, and for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, and for Milcom, the vexation of the children of Ammon, the king defiled.
In these passages, Ashtoret is a specific goddess (i.e.,
Astarte) particularly venerated in Sidon (c.f., e.g.,
KAI 13-14,
where "priest[ess] of Astarte
" is the sinecure of kings and
queen-mothers). She is mentioned by name along with other
national gods. None of the divine names in any of the passages,
therefore, is marked with a definite article: the proper noun is
definite in and of itself.
Contrast, however, the occurrences of the plural, ashtorets
(`astarot), where goddesses are the reference:
Judg 2:13: "they did service to the baal [singular]
and to the ashtorets
". Judg 10:6:
"they did service to the baals and the astorets.
" 1 Sam
7:3-4: "Put away the foreign gods from your midst and the
ashtorets....The children of Israel put away the baals and the
ashtorets.
" 1 Sam 12:10: "We have abandoned Yhwh and we have
done service to the baals and the ashtorets.
" Each occurrence in
which one specific goddess is not in point takes the definite
article.[5] Notably, the Biblical place name formed from this
term is itself in the plural: Ashtarot, and it is useful to
compare to this the names Anathoth and Baaloth (as Josh 15:24; 1
Kgs 4:16).
The alternation between a determined plural and a
non-determined singular status in the case of Ashtoret hinges on
the semantic shift that occurs as once switches numbers. In the
singular, in the texts adduced above, Ashtoret functions as a
name. In the plural, however, it is not a name, but a common
noun denoting a group of individual goddesses. It is immaterial
here whether the various ashtorets to which the texts allude are
all manifestations of a single deity (so, e.g. Smith 1990:48),
though the usage would in that case be a trifle awkward: why
would the authors of Judges and Samuel not say, "They did service
to Ashtoret
" if they recognized the identity of these gods?
There is no evidence that Biblical usage distinguished the
different local manifestations of a single god -- rather, the
tendency is the reverse, with El Elohe Israel identified with El
Elyon and the like, all of them identified -- already in JE --
with Yhwh. In either case, however, the plural form functions
solely as a common noun, which requires the definite article.
In the case of the term, asherah, the existence of a cult
object of the same name somewhat obscures the situation. "Do not
plant an asherah,
" warns Deuteronomy 16:21, "any tree near the
altar of Yhwh your god.
" Where the cult object is concerned, no
definite article is required. However, wherever a goddess may be
called an asherah, the definite article consistently appears.
The implication is that, singular or plural, the Hebrew term,
asherah, is not a proper noun, not a name, but, like ashtorets in
the plural, a common noun, denoting a female divinity.
Indeed, except for Judg 3:7, the term asherah does not occur in the plural with reference to a goddess. This occurrence, at the start of the Othniel story, is sometimes divorced from the (Josianic -- i.e., H[Dtr]) stratum in Judges (Budde 1890:93; Noth 1943:50-51; Richter 1963; 1964:23-26), and the variation in usage -- against ashtorets in Judg 2:13; 10:16 -- may be taken to confirm that view (but Halpern 1988:142 n. 21). In either case, the standard term in Biblical (Deuteronomistic) usage for "goddess" in the plural is ashtorets, which is not a common noun in the singular (in the singular, we should also expect 'ela, which occurs in the onomasticon, but not in the lexicon, despite 'lt on the Lachish ewer, as a reference to a goddess).
The implications for the term, baal, are stark. As
designations of divine beings, baal, singular or plural, asherah
in the singular, and ashtorets (plural) in HB usage are not
proper nouns, but rather titles, like "king," that attach to
particular figures. The definite article, or a genitive
following baal in construct, indicates which particular god of
this class is in point. That is why the term Baal Berith (Judg
8:33; 9:4) can freely take the alloform, El Berith (Judg
9:46):
the "lord of the covenant
" or the "god of the covenant
" is
equally nameless, but equally accurately described. By the same
token, Phoenician adulation was directed toward no fewer than
five "baals" -- such as Baal Hammon (as KAI 24:16),
Baal Lebanon (KAI 31:1-2), Baal Zaphon
(KAI 50:2-3; 69:1), and, on the other
hand, Baal Addir (KAI 9.B:5, distinct from Baal Hammon
in KAI 162:1), Baal Semed (KAI 24:15,
distinct from Baal Hammon), and
Baal Shamem (distinct from Baal Hammon and Baal mgnm in KAI
78:2-4). Toponyms, such as Baal Hermon and Baal Rosh may also
indicate the existence of local "baals" (see Peckham 1987:80); if
so, the number of such local cults would be astronomical. Yet
the identity of these gods with one another, let alone with
actual divine proper names, is difficult to establish with
anything approaching certainty.
It is worth observing that in connection with "baal", the pull of the plural is such that, formally, there is no 3 m. s. possessive suffix on the singular noun (ba`lo); the 3 m.s. possessive suffix, even in reference to a singular baal, is appended to the plural stem (be`alayw -- Ex 21:29 bis, 34, 36; 22:10, 11, 13, 14; Isa 1:3; Prov 1:19; 3:27; 16:22; 17:8; Eccl 8:8). This is not the case with comparable nouns, notably ma`al, of the pattern bilabial-`ayin-lamed, or comparable medial `ayin formations: ba`ad, za`am, ka`as, ma`an, na`al, na`ar, sa`ad, se`ar, so`al all occur in HB with a 3 m.s. suffix on a singular nominal base. In other words, substantive, rather than phonological, patterning has determined the suffix paradigm for ba`al.[6]
"The baal", Hebrew hab-ba`al, does not refer to a single
god, Baal, by name, but is a title, specifically, "master,
lord." It is sometimes applied to Yhwh, the high god (as in Isa
1:3; and in the onomasticon in the case of Saul's sons Ishbaal
and Meribbaal or the judge Jerubbaal -- see Cross 1973:263-264).
This is plain in the case of the name b`lyh, one of David's
heroes in 1 Chr 12:6: the name should be construed, "Yhwh is my
baal,
" or, with the MT, "Yhwh acts as master/baal
". Hosea,
moreover, claims that Yhwh instructs Israel, "Call me no more 'My
baal'
" (2:18), implying that such had indeed been the practice.
As a term for "husband", this expression, applied to Yhwh,
fathered Hosea's imagery portraying Israel's alleged apostasy as
marital infidelity. Hosea's Yhwh, thus, counsels the use of the
term 'is, "man," in its place. To this text, we will recur.
Isaiah's clever couplet, "An ox knows its owner, and (even)
a donkey it's master's trough, but Israel do not know, my people
do not understand
" (1:3) identifies Yhwh as the owner
and master of Israel. For the owner, the term is qoneh,
"owner, purchaser, creator,
" a not too oblique reference to the
epithet, qoneh samayim wa-'ares, "creator of heaven and
earth
" (Gen 14:19),witnessed both in the
second-millennium myth of Elqunirsa and in the godhead 'l qn
'rs, ""El, creator of the earth,"
" at Karatepe
(KAI 26 A III 18), as well as in the epigraph, qn
'rs from 8th-7th c. Jerusalem (Avigad 1983:41; c.f.
KAI 129:1). For the master, Isaiah's term is
ba`al, another Yahwistic epithet. If we
also equate Israel, "my people", with its animal counterparts
here, the first, "bull/ox", is an El epithet at Ugarit, but the
resonance in the Israelite context is with the name Israel or its
synonym, Jeshurun (sor: yesurun/yisra'el; c.f.
Hos 8:6, construed
by Wyatt [1990:46] as my swr 'l --
"who is the bull of El
";
though MT is comprehensible, the pun on the fathering of the
"calf" may remain). The donkey is harder to connect to
tradition, except to Hamor in Genesis 34. However, use of the
term, "trough
" ('bws), here is surely related to the root, bws,
"trampling
" -- Israel should recognize that its trampling is
Yhwh's doing, the point of the passage as a whole -- a root
deployed in Isaiah 14:19, 25; 18:2, 7; 22:5,
in 31.25% of its
occurrences. A layering of paronomasia is in point, and at its
center is the use of the epithet, baal, to denote Yhwh.
Not coincidentally, a fragmentary plaster inscription at
Kuntillet `Ajrud, where Yhwh (and his asherah -- below) was the
primary object of veneration, runs, "When El shines forth [from
Teman?] ... the mountains are melted ... To bless Baal in the day
of batt[le] [...] For the name of El in the day of [his]
batt[le]
"[7] -- probably, El is the baal in this text, both being
identical with Yhwh. Not coincidentally, the expression brk b`l
(Baal bless) occurs at Kuntillet `Ajrud (Meshel 1978), again,
given the distribution of divine names at the site, probably of
Yhwh, and if not, certainly of a subordinate.