The .

|
BIRTH a
MONOTHEISM
[he Reet Disappearance of Yahwism

André Lemaire

& BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY SOCIETY

‘The birth of monotheism? How
can that
be? For many people, thé notion of an all
powerful, universal, creator God is simply
the Truth....
This book is the work of a historian.
It
does not deal with.metaphysical questions
regarding the existence or nature of God
Che historian asks, How and under what
circumstances did the monotheism of the
biblical tradition appear in human history?
This kind of inquiry may be less ambitious,
but it nonetheless-strikes at the heart of

one of the world’s most influential ideas,

one that serves as the basis of Judaism,
Christianity and Islam.”
—from the Introduction

In The Birth of Monotheism, André

Lemaire, the world-renowned scholar of
the ancient world, explores the develop
ment of perhaps the most important idea
in the history of mankind: the concept of a
single, universal God. Lemaire traces this
key concept from its precursor—the reli-
gion of ancient Israel, which worshiped a
single God but accepted the idea that
other nations would have gods of their
own
‘
to worship—to
{ r 1
the
he
development
eres nWment
olf{
classic, universal monotheism during the
)
crisis of the Babylonian Exile and after.
 Digitized by the Internet Archive
In 2022 with funding from
Kahle/Austin Foundation

https://archive.org/details/birthofmonotheisO000lema
THE BIRTH OF MONOTHEISM
THE BIRTH OF MONOTHEISM
The Rise and Disappearance
of Yahwism

By André Lemaire

G.M. Elliott Library

Cincinnati Christian University
2700 Glenway Ave
Cincinnati, OH 45204-3200
Translated by André Lemaire and Jack Meinhardt
Edited by Jack Meinhardt
Managing Editor — Steven Feldman
Designer — Sean Kennedy
Production Manager — Heather Metzger
Editorial Research — Bonnie Mullin

G.M. ELLIOTT LIBRARY

Cincinnati Christian University

This book has been published with the support

ofJohn PB Merrill, Jr and Carol Jennings Merrill.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:

Lemaire, Andre, 1942-
[Naissance du monotheisme. English]
The birth of monotheism : the rise and disappearance of Yahwism / Andre Lemaire.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references
ISBN 978-1-880317-99-0
1. Monotheism--History of doctrines. 2. God (Judaism)--History of doctrines. 3. God--
Biblical teaching. 4. Bible. O.T.--History of Biblical events. 5. Bible. O.T.--Theology. 6.
Middle East--Religion. I. Title.
BL221.L4613 2007
296.3'110901--de22
2006101696
All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions.

© 2007
Biblical Archaeology Society
4710 41st Street, NW Washington, DC 20016
CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION
:

CHAPTER 1 ll
Before YHWH

CHAPTER 2 19
The Origins of Yahwism

CHAPTER 3 29
Early Yahwism in Israel's Central Hill Country

CHAP LER oe)

YHWH the God of Israel

CHAPTER 5 43
Yahwism of the First Temple Period:
Monotheism or Monolatry?

CHAPTER 6 49
The Divided Kingdom and the Resurgence of Baalism
CHAPTER % at
“YHWH and His Asherah”: Did the God
of Israel Have a Consort?

CHAPTERS 63
Yahwism and Aniconism

CHAPTER 9 Te
The Rise of the Prophets

CHAPTER 10 87
The Religious Reforms of the Judahite King Hezekiah

CHAPTER.IF 92
Astral Worship and the Religious Reforms of King Josiah

GHAPT ER 99
The Religious Crisis of Exile

CHAPTER 13 105
The Emergence of Universal Monotheism

CHAPTER I 109
Israelite Religion in the Persian Empire:
YHWH as “God of Heaven”

CHAPTER [5 LL
The Temple, the Synagogue and Absolute Aniconism

CHAPTER 16 12a
The Disappearance of YHWH

APPENDIX 13>
The Pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton “YHWH”

ENDNOTES 139
INTRODUCTION

ik birth of monotheism? How can that be? For many people, the
notion of an all-powerful, universal, creator God is simply the
Truth. And the Truth is simply the Truth, always and everywhere. It
doesn’t get “born.”
That may be so, but truths do get discovered, and the discovery of a
truth is the birth of an idea. The basic laws of motion operated in the
world before Kepler described them and Newton gave them a mathe-
matical formulation. What Kepler and Newton did was to give coherent
shape to forces that govern the physical universe; they gave “birth” to
laws of nature. The birth of monotheism is something like that, an idea
about the nature of the universe that was born during the Israelite cap-
tivity in Babylon.
This book is the work of a historian. It does not deal with metaphys-
ical questions regarding the existence or nature of God. The historian
asks, How and under what circumstances did the monotheism of the
biblical tradition appear in human history? This kind of inquiry may be
less ambitious, but it nonetheless strikes at the heart of one of the
world’s most influential ideas, one that serves as the basis of Judaism,
Christianity and Islam.
For the student of ancient history, there are three principal kinds of evi-
Introduction

dence: contemporaneous epigraphy (inscriptions dating to the period in

question), archaeological remains and literary sources. Although ancient
inscriptions provide a direct link to the past,.they are rare and often sur-
vive only in fragments. Archaeological remains from the Land of Israel
are abundant, and they tell us a great deal about the material life of the
biblical Israelites; unfortunately, however, these material remains provide
only minimal help in understanding the beliefs and hopes of the people
who left them behind.
The richest source of information about the biblical Israelites is, of
course, the Bible. There are a number of problems, however, in using
the Bible as a history text. The Bible was not written all at once by
trained historians with access to reliable documents. Rather, it was writ-
ten by a number of people over a long period of time; and large sections
of the Bible were rewritten or re-edited at a still later time (often for pro-
pagandistic reasons). Consider, for example, the Book of Isaiah, which
is so important for the study of monotheism. Although the Book of Isa-
iah is attributed to the prophet Isaiah, son of Amoz, who lived at the end
of the eighth century B.C.E., that is probably and partially true only of
Isaiah 1-39; the rest of the book, Isaiah 40-66, or, at least 40-55, was
probably written by an anonymous author (called Deutero-Isaiah, or
Second Isaiah, by modern scholars) who lived in Exile in Babylonia in
the mid-sixth century B.C.E. At some point, these two sources were
combined into a single source, the Book of Isaiah.
Much of the Bible reflects this kind of historical complexity, and schol-
ars frequently debate the date and historicity of biblical texts. Inevitably,
a history like this one, which relies in large degree on the Bible, will be
a “partial” history, and this partial history will have to deal with texts
about which there is no unanimity of opinion. When working with dis-
puted texts, and when trying to fill in history for periods for which the
sources are few (and often for which the extra-biblical sources are non-
existent), it is necessary to form working hypotheses that can be cor-
rected as new discoveries are made. It is essential, however, that these
provisional hypotheses be consistent with all available documentation.
The term “monotheism,” belief in only one god, is so familiar to us
that we might forget that there are other forms of religious worship.
 Einführung

Since some of these forms of worship are important in a discussion of

the birth of monotheism, it will be useful to say something about them.
Monotheism, as the belief in a single universal God, is opposed to “poly-
theism,” the belief in several gods. It might seem that these two forms
cover the entire spectrum of belief; but a lesser-known form of belief—
one very common in the ancient world—is “henotheism,” belief in only
one god while leaving open the question of the existence of other gods
for other peoples. Henotheism often takes the form of a tribal or
national religion; the members of a tribe worship only their god, whom
they believe is stronger than any other tribe’s god.
Monotheism, polytheism and henotheism designate forms of belief,
that is, theological or philosophical concepts about the nature of the
universe. Another set of terms describes forms of cultic practice. The
term “monolatry” refers to worship of only one god without denying the
existence of other gods; thus the religious practice of the henotheists is
generally monolatrous.*
A final set of terms is used to classify religions according to the name
of their principal deity. For Israel, we will speak of “Yahwism,” the reli-
gion of the God of Israel, whose name is written with four Hebrew con-
sonants, “YHWH,” called the tetragrammaton (for a discussion of the
pronunciation of this divine name, see the Appendix). Other religions
include “Baalism,” the religion of the Canaanite-Phoenician deity Baal,
as well as “Mazdaism,” the religion of the Iranian god Ahuramazda.
The use of the same term, “Yahwism,” to refer to a religion that existed
for a long period of time does not imply that the religion remained
unchanged. As we will see, the “Yahwism” at the turn of the era is very dif-
ferent from the “Yahwism” of Moses’ day. Originally monolatrous, Yahwism

*Convention often opposes monolatry to “idolatry,” which literally means the worship of
idols (or images of deities). This opposition is curious, because one might think the term
“mono-latry” (worship of one god) would be the opposite of a term like “poly-latry” (worship
of several gods)—much as the opposite of “monotheism” is “polytheism.” Moreover, the
opposite of “idolatry” (worship of images) should be “aniconism’” (prohibition of the worship
of images). These two facts—the absence of a word like “poly-latry” and the opposition of
“monolatry” to “idolatry’—are explained, in part, by the development of religious ideas in the
biblical tradition. The forms of polytheism encountered by the Israelites—in Canaan, Egypt
and Mesopotamia, for example—were all characterized by divine representations: If polythe-
istic religions were always idolatrous, there was simply no need for a term like “polylatrous.”
Introduction

changed over time, sometimes gradually under its own momentum, some-
times dramatically under the pressure of authoritative reforms or interna-
tional politics. Then, during the sixth-century B.C.E. Exile, somewhere
in Babylonia, Deutero-Isaiah gave Yahwism a universal expression, and
monotheism was born.
There was, however, still a history to be lived: The development of
monotheistic Yahwism did not stop with the genius of Deutero-Isaiah. It
took a long time for this idea to become dominant in religious thought,
and even longer for it to become common in practice. Inevitably, though,
the rise of monotheism led to the disappearance of certain monolatrous
and nationalist aspects of Yahwism and, later, to the disappearance of the
divine name. After giving birth to a universal monotheism, Yahwism
itself disappeared for good once the Romans destroyed the Jerusalem
Temple of YHWH in 70 C.E.

10
Clds BER
Before YHWH

\\ /hen we think of Yahwism, we think of the religion practiced

by the Israelites after they settled in the Land of Israel under
the leadership of Joshua: A coalition of clans united by their worship of
Yahweh, their national god, who was served at various regional shrines
by a class of priests. In addition, Israelite worship was organized around
extended families, the beit ab (“house of the father”), who also offered
sacrifices to Yahweh at local shrines and household altars.
But Yahwism did not emerge from a vacuum. What do we know
about religious worship in the southern Levant (the lands of the south-
eastern Mediterranean littoral) before the appearance of Yahwism?
Most of our epigraphic information about southern Canaanite cults
of the Late Bronze Age (16th century B.C.E. to the early 12th century
B.C.E.) comes from the Amarna Letters,! some 300 cuneiform tablets
found in Middle Egypt at Tell el-Amarna, the capital built by Pharaoh
Akhenaten (c. 1359-1342 B.C.E.). The Amarna Letters are diplomatic
correspondence of the Egyptian pharaohs Amenhotep III, Amenhotep IV
(Akhenaten), Smenkhkere and Tutankhamun; they are written in Akka-
dian, an East Semitic language attested in both southern Mesopotamia
(Babylonia) and northern Mesopotamia (Assyria). This correspondence

11
Chapter 1

includes letters exchanged with important rulers, petty kings and other
officials throughout the eastern Mediterranean and Near East, including
Canaan, which was then an Egyptian protectorate. Among the cuneiform
tablets are letters to or from rulers in Hazor, Akko, Megiddo, Taanak,
Shechem, Gezer, Jerusalem and Lachish.
Unfortunately, the Amarna Letters give a very incomplete portrait of
religious worship at Canaanite sites. The information we have consists
primarily of evocations of some divinities and theophoric names, that is,
names incorporating the appellation of a deity (the name “Abibaal,” for
instance, ends with the name of the Canaanite god Baal). These sources
mention the West Semitic goddesses Anat, Asherah (Athirat), Astarte and
Beltu, and the West Semitic gods Baal, Dagan, Hadad, Milk (“King”),
Sidq (“Justice”) and, perhaps, Ilu/El. They also mention such Egyptian
deities as Amun, Hathor, Seth/Baal and Re-Harakhte, as well as the Hit-
tite god Teshub, the North Syrian goddess Hepat and the Mesopotamian
gods Bashtu and Marduk, among others.
The various iconographic representations from Canaan in this period
are difficult to interpret, as they generally lack inscriptions. It is often
impossible to determine whether a statue or relief carving represents a
human being or a god; and even when the figure can be unambiguously
identified as divine, we often don’t know the god’s name.
In the absence of any Canaanite mythological or ritual texts, the evi-
dence of the Amarna Letters suggests only that Canaanite religion was
polytheistic, comprising a number of gods and goddesses who may have
been represented by images or statues.
This picture is clarified somewhat by some 13th-century B.C.E.
mythological and ritual texts excavated at Ugarit, an ancient city located
on the Mediterranean coast of modern Syria.’ Although Ugarit lay north
of the land of Canaan, these texts probably reflect, to some degree, the
general West Semitic cultural features of the Levant as a whole. The doc-
uments reveal a polytheistic religion of about 30 deities with anthropo-
morphic characteristics. At the head of this pantheon is a divine couple,
the El bull (“father of humanity,” “creator of the creatures”) and the god-
dess Athirat (“procreatress of gods”). In the myths, the young god Baal
(also called Haddu/Hadad) plays a very prominent role. Baal (whose

12
 Before YHWH

ANATOLIA Harran*
MESOPOTAMIA

: SYRIA
Paphos
0 200 miles
300 km
_ MEDITERRANEAN SEA it. Carmel!
-
Mt. Gilboat

“y fois
@
EGYPT. ARABIAN
DESERT

name means “Master”) confronts his adversaries, the gods Mot (Death) and
Yam (Sea), vies with his rival, Athtar, and consorts with his sister/mistress,
Anat. The list of gods in these cuneiform texts also includes Dagan,
Astarte, Shapash (Sun), Yarih (Moon) and Rashap.
The numerous ritual texts specify the various sacrifices (animal and
vegetable) and other offerings (generally precious metals) made to the
various deities. These offerings were probably made at temples devoted
to the gods, and several such temples have been excavated at Ugarit.
One Levantine people mentioned in the Amarna Letters is the
Habiru. The Habiru apparently lived on the fringes of Canaanite society,
inhabiting the central hill country of Israel and possibly serving on
occasion as mercenaries of petty Canaanite kings.’
Although we do not have any Habiru documents, the Akkadian term
‘Apira (Habiru) of the second millennium may be cognate with the

13
Chapter |

adjective ‘Ibri (Hebrew) found

in the oldest texts of the Hebrew
Bible, particularly in the Penta-
teuch (Genesis 14:13, 39:14,17,
40:15, 41:12, 43:32; Exodus
115-1019, 26 eles eis,
53. (216 971, 212 Deuteron-
omy 15:12) but also in 1
Samuel, “(476.9 «1373, (19,
14:11,21 and 29:3). Since the
patriarch Abraham himself is
described as ‘Ibri (Genesis
14:13), it appears that Habiru
religion is partially reflected in
the oldest patriarchal biblical
traditions, those which imply
that the groups related to the
patriarchs had no knowledge of
RESOURCE
KULTURBESITE/ART
PREUSSICHER
BILDARCHIV YHWH (Yahweh).*
LETTER FROM JERUSALEM. Among the The groups that would later
hoard of cuneiform tablets known as the form biblical Israel at first seem
Amarna Letters—correspondence from the to have worshiped the “god of
Egyptian royal archives of the 14th cen- the father,” that is, a family or
tury B.C.E.—is this tablet, sent by Abdi-
clan god that eventually became
Heba, ruler of Jerusalem (written here as
associated with local sanctuaries
“Urusalim” and shown in the highlighted
area). The Amarna Letters contain many near which the clan settled. The
names of deities, providing us with a cat- god sometimes had its own
alogue of the gods worshiped in the name, but generally it was indi-
ancient Near East. cated by a name incorporating
the name of the “great god” El or
Baal. The traditions surrounding the biblical patriarchs—Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob—seem to have been connected to specific geographical areas.
Thus from north to south:

1. The Bene-Jacob (Sons of Jacob) probably originated in north-.

14
 Before YHWH

ern Mesopotamia,’ the Aramean region around Harran. They

probably left this area after the Mittani kingdom—formed by a
Hurrian-speaking people in North Syria during the mid-second
millennium B.C.E.—was invaded and destroyed by the Assyrians
around 1275 B.C.E. The Bene-Jacob settled in the central hill
country of what would later become Israel, primarily in the area
north and northeast of Shechem.° It is possible that this clan
took part in the worship at the sanctuary of Baal/El Berit (Mas-
ter/God of the Alliance) near Shechem (Judges 8:33, 9:4; see also
9:46).

2. The group related to the patriarch Abraham originally settled

in the southern Judean mountains around Hebron and its out-
door sanctuary Mamre (Genesis 13:18, 18). In the Bible, Abra-
ham buries Sarah “in the cave of the field of Machpelah facing
Mamre (that is, Hebron) in the land of Canaan” (Genesis 23:19).
Abraham is also connected to traditions concerning Lot and the
southern Dead Sea area (Genesis 13:5-13; 18-19). The old tradi-
tions associate Abraham with “El,” a word that means “god” but
may sometimes refer to a specific Canaanite god named El.*
Specifically, Abraham's god is variously called “El Shaddai” or “El
Elyon” (Genesis 17:1, 14:18-22, 28:3, 35:11, 43:14; Ezekiel
10:5; see also Numbers 24:16; Deuteronomy 26:19, 28:1, 32:8;
Psalms 7:18, 9:3, 21:7). In Genesis 17:1, for example, Abraham's
god appears before him and says, “I am El Shaddai”; “El Shaddai”
is often translated as “God Almighty” but it might also mean
“Mountain God.”? In Genesis 14:19 King Melchizedek of Salem
(Jerusalem) says that Abraham is blessed “by El Elyon,” which is
often translated as “God Most High.”"°

3. The group connected (or related) to the patriarch Isaac appar-

ently lived in the Negev around Beersheba, an area often men-
tioned as the territory of the tribe of Simeon. The principal sanc-
tuary of this group seems to have been at Beersheba, dedicated to
El Olam (Genesis 21:33), often translated as “Eternal God.” A

15
Chapter 1

sanctuary farther south was dedicated to El Roi, often translated

as “God of Seeing” or “God Who Sees Me” (Genesis 16:13-14).

In all of these instances, the patriarchal groups appear to have wor-

shiped their ancestral gods in local sanctuaries of the gods Baal or El.
These sanctuaries are open to the sky, and they all comprise three main
elements: an altar, a stela (or standing stone) and a sacred tree."!
Thus Abraham builds open altars at the “oak of Moreh” near Shechem
(Genesis 12:7) and at the “oaks of Mamre, which are at Hebron” (Genesis
13:18). Isaac builds a similar open altar at Beersheba (Genesis 26:25), as
does Jacob at Shechem (Genesis 33:20) and Bethel (Genesis 35:1,3,7).
Jacob erects stelae, or sacred standing stones, in the sanctuary of
Bethel (Genesis 28:18,22, 31:13, 35:14) and in Gilead (Genesis 31:45).
Other stelae are later erected by Moses, when he builds an altar at the
foot of the mountain (Exodus 24:4), and by Joshua, who sets up a “great
stone” in Shechem (Joshua 24:26).
The sacred tree could be an oak, as at Mamre (Genesis 13:18, 14:13,
18:1), Moreh (Genesis 12:6; Deuteronomy 11:30) and Bethel (Genesis
35:8); a tamarisk, which Abraham plants near Beersheba (Genesis
21:33); a terebinth-tree, as at Shechem (Genesis 35:4; see also 12:6:
Joshua 24:26); or any green tree, to serve as a symbol of power and life.
The patriarchal narratives reflect historical conditions before 1000
B.C.E., the beginning of King David’s reign from Hebron.’* We thus can-
not give a detailed history of the Habiru/Ibrim religion of Canaan from
the 14th century to the tenth century B.C.E. Religious rites, however,
are often preserved over long periods of time, and it seems likely that
the religious-historical conditions before 1000 B.C.E. had been in effect
for generations, perhaps even back to the references to the Habiru in the
Amarna Letters (mid-14th century B.C.E.).
Nonetheless, the patriarchal traditions probably reflect the religious
situation of the central hill country of Israel just before the arrival of
Yahwism. Yahwism did not appear everywhere at the same time: It prob-
ably appeared a little before 1200 B.C.E. in the central region, the terri-
tory of the tribe of Ephraim, and only about the year 1000 B.C.E. in the
mountains of Judah, to the south. Still, even when Yahwism began to

16
 Before YHWH

spread in these areas, it had to coexist for a time with the traditional reli-
gion of the local sanctuaries, so that aspects of this pre-Yahwistic reli-
gion of the patriarchal traditions probably remained in effect until the
eighth century B.C.E.
The broad outlines of pre-Yahwistic religion in Palestine seem clear
enough. High Canaanite society, in more urban areas and in areas with
direct contact with Egypt, practiced polytheism, complete with temples
of the gods and divine images. On the other hand, clans or tribes in
more rural areas practiced a religion based on worship of the “god of the
fathers” in various local sanctuaries, particularly sanctuaries dedicated
to forms of the god El.

Is/
 ta large ie aia ie wa a
pia om Rigen gr ed it ee Le
Ayia a tersebrs) | nichole t eal - war

ae ection
aea RPT <:
heh Jacl nani ak nile sani
pals Ri “sor fet in r-
mehet Crredn Be a ae ALA 4, Fae pobre prem ie:?
wr Usite 2H bebe Soetek =)
= Mite: eke Lehustle ony er ay “¥
i= atRY Sw Arnal OE abi EAE age ree jae hates “hh
2 Tt hwan sabe
eeba) aay arenes
“ub a40 toe acnetie on (aba 0 © Wier ep Cement ings:
its, tle cs. Cerete VC: ue pay 20ers sed Horne! tah
#)..@ ranerSh, weich Aber sep ite Reece Patyyiry id
Ly) 4 eahphitiaies at. 2 abeoheor tien Se, ope ees
ral ral emer tee a “Ve ©& 5 vy cree ee «

wrutehs motives ales Gineeatal nel seees pees,” ura

ae
be) ates gad AY > (6 ¥ ote east Foy: *- ve Hw P f 4
ee er ik. ea rift! Sy Crate | b HAAS OS 7,
ag rm j gayi? ComuaP i “piatce: {im lower,
one! ‘4 jig Gut Ms “is¢ Made hee)
ae LO gran SIO f, Fie: a 2 eG
. — “ue tas adele biel: Geis oh “4

“) f ‘ ip , 4 a
Lote yt : y tg % “Wate pti ce the rig wis ;
.
~ »
\ eo We eye a wie § tee! Sout oe oa a Vf wash:
Va ‘ AY ny Tie mrss al nt 2228 trom yen a
’ ewe. Sar rb (100 tte Bien ee m- Hee cone
Te ivilite FC Sires: 0) oo? a eer ee wet an 7 J =. * aie
lias 18 Me senain, 2 enipee gine ike
=

- Z Ath © iar
GIS PUES estes
The Origins of Yahwism

|: two earliest West Semitic inscriptions referring to YHWH

both date to the second half of the ninth century B.C.E. The 4-
foot-high Mesha Stela (also called the Moabite Stone) was inscribed with
34 lines of text by Mesha, king of the land of Moab (directly east of the
Dead Sea),' who tells us that he liberated Moab from the oppression of
the Israelite kings Omri (c. 882-871 B.C.E.) and Ahab (c. 871-852
B.C.E.). Line 18 mentions cultic objects of “YHWH” during the Israelite
occupation of Nebo.
The Tel Dan Stela, which was found at Tel Dan, north of the Sea of
Galilee, also tells of victories over Israelite kings, this time probably by
an Aramean king of Damascus named Hazael;’ line 9 of the Tel Dan
Stela identifies one of the defeated Israelite kings as “(Ahaz)iahu” (c. 841
B.C.E.), a name that ends with a Yahwist theophoric element (“YH(W)”
in Hebrew).’ Thus the first epigraphical evidence of YHWH shows him
clearly associated with Hebrew kingdoms.
The 14th-century B.C.E. Amarna Letters do not mention such a deity,
either directly or as a theophoric element in a personal name or place-
name.* The epigraphical evidence suggests, then, that YHWH appeared
in the land that would become Israel sometime between the mid-14th

19
Chapter 2

* Damascus

Jezreel Sea of
Valley Galilee
e Megiddo

ISRAEL

Shechem GILEAD
e

hrah
mage AMMON
Bethele Gilgal
° e Amman
Gezer Jericho
e z=
*Ekron - Heshbon

°Gath

PHILISTIA Arnon River

Beersheba
e

NEGEV

miO 10 20 30 40

km0O 10 20 30 40 50 60

Kadesh-Barnea
e Kuntillet Ajrud EDOM

century B.C.E. and the end of the ninth century B.C.E. By the time
YHWH does appear in the land, at least in the epigraphical record, he is
already a significant figure to the Hebrew population of both the north-
ern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah.’
Although archaeology is silent on the origins of Yahwism, the Bible is a
rich source of information. The oldest biblical texts are practically unani-
mous on two significant points: The divine name, the tetragrammaton

20
 is give
(Greek for “four letters,” in this case four Hebrew consonants) “YHWH,”
goes back to Moses; and YHWH, at least to some extent, was brought into
Canaan by the group Moses led, the Bene-Israel (Sons of Israel).
The southern origin of Yahwism is indicated not only by stories in the
Book of Exodus but also by several very old biblical poems. Thus
“YHWH came from Sinai, and dawned from Seir upon us; he shone
forth from Mount Paran” (Deuteronomy 33:2); “YHWH, when you went
out from Seir, when you marched from the region of Edom, the earth
trembled, and the heavens poured, the clouds indeed poured water. The
mountains quaked before YHWH, the One of Sinai” (Judges 5:4-5):
“God came from Teman, the Holy One from Mount Paran ... I saw the
tents of Cushan under affliction; the tent curtains of the land of Midian
trembled” (Habakkuk 3:3,7); “O God, when you went out before your
people, when you marched through the wilderness, the earth quaked,
the heavens poured down rain at the presence of God, the God of Sinai,
at the presence of God, the God of Israel” (Psalm 68:7-8).
Even though most of these poems were probably written down dur-
ing the First Temple period (tenth to early sixth centuries B.C.E.), they
show a clear unanimity about the southern origins of YHWH.® All the
place-names mentioned in these poems are associated with the desert
area south of Israel.
Sinai is both a desert (Exodus 19:1; Leviticus 7:38; Numbers 1:1) and
a mountain (Exodus 19:11,18,20). Its precise location remains much
debated, though most scholars agree that biblical Sinai is near Egypt in
the desert area between Egypt and Israel. The use of the term “Sinai”
seems characteristic of Judahite (southern) traditions, while Israelite
(northern) traditions use the place-name “Horeb” (see 1 Kings 19:8).
Seir is a mountain, or a mountainous country, and the dwelling place
of the Bene-Esau (Genesis 36:8; Deuteronomy 2:4,22). Since the name
“Esau” ends with the letter waw, which seems to connect it to North Ara-
bic names, Seir is probably the mountainous zone south of the Negev.’
This place-name is attested several times in inscriptions of the Egyptian
pharaohs Ramesses II (c. 1279-1213 B.C.E.) and Ramesses III (c. 1187-
1156 B.C.E.).* Because the Egyptians apparently did not penetrate into
the mountains of Edom east of the ‘Aravah (the valley extending from

Da!
Chapter 2

the Dead Sea to Gulf of Aqaba), Seir was likely located in the southern
Negev or northeastern Sinai, west of the ‘Aravah.
Paran is both a desert (Numbers 10:12, 12:16, 13:3) and a mountain
(Deuteronomy 33:2). It was apparently inhabited by the Bene-Ishmael
(Genesis 21:21) and located close to Kadesh-Barnea (Numbers 13:26),
about 50 miles southwest of Beersheba. It appears to have been contigu-
ous with the land of Midian (1 Kings 11:18), though somewhat closer to
Egypt. It was thus probably located west or northwest of Kadesh-Barnea.
Although Edom is identified with Seir in the Bible (Genesis 36:1-8,19-
20), this tradition probably only goes back to the second half of the
eighth century B.C.E., when Edomites crossed the ‘Aravah and seized
Eilat and the desert zone in the southern Negev (2 Kings 16:6). Before
this time, Edom probably designated the mountains east of the ‘Aravah.
Edom is mentioned once in Papyrus Anastasi VI (lines 54-56), which
was composed under Pharaoh Merneptah (c. 1212-1202 B.C.E.). The
text, which consists of a dispatch from a border post, suggests only that
Edom lay east of the Nile Delta: “We finished letting the Shosu clans of
Edom pass the fortress of ‘Merneptah-hotep-her-Maat—life, prosperity,
health—which is in Tjeku, to the pools of Per-Atum [perhaps biblical
Pithom] ... to maintain them in life and to maintain their herds in life.”°
Etymologically, Teman means “south” and seems to designate a clan
or tribe attached to the Bene-Esau (Genesis 36:11,15,42) and to Edom
(Amos 1:12; Jeremiah 49:7). A group of eighth-century B.C.E. paleo-
Hebrew inscriptions found at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud,'° in the southern Negev
about 40 miles northwest of Eilat, refer to “YHWH of Teman” and
“YHWH of Samaria.” These phrases are part of traditional blessing for-
mulas used at the beginnings of letters; the phrase “YHWH of Samaria”
indicates a letter sent from Samaria (the capital of the northern kingdom
of Israel), while the phrase “YHWH of Teman” indicates a letter to be sent
from Teman, or Kuntillet ‘Ajrud.'! The region of Teman thus included the
site of Kuntillet ‘Ajrud. .
Cushan is a place-name attested only in Habakkuk 3:7 and its loca-
tion remains unknown, though it may have been a clan or tribe of Mid-
ian (or Midian may have been a clan or tribe of Cushan). This would
explain the fact that Aaron and Miriam reproach their brother, Moses,

ae
 The Origins of Yahwism

for marrying a “Cushite” woman (Numbers 12: 1), whereas Exodus 2:21
clearly states that Moses married Zipporah, the daughter of a priest of
Midian. So the wife of Moses is sometimes designated as Midianite and
sometimes Cushite (probably an ethnic adjective from “Cushan”).
Midian seems to have been a North Arabic country/people. According
to the Bible, the Midianites carried on a slave trade with Egypt (Genesis
37:36), perhaps even conducting raids north into what would become the
Land of Israel. The last reference to a historical Midian comes when the
Aramaean prince “Hadad” flees through Midian to Egypt after David’s con-
quest (1 Kings 11:18).'* Some archaeologists connect Midian to the flour-
ishing civilization centered in northern Hejaz, east of the Gulf of Aqaba,
from about the thirteenth century B.C.E to the tenth century B.C.E.®
Clearly, the biblical evidence suggests that Yahwism arose in the south-
ern Negev or northeastern Sinai. Later, in the first half of the ninth cen-
tury B.C.E., when the prophet Elijah makes a pilgrimage to Horeb/Sinai
(1 Kings 19), his route takes him somewhere south of Beersheba.
Some Egyptian texts also provide fascinating evidence of YHWH's
southern origins. An inscription of the Egyptian pharaoh Amenhotep III
(c. 1390-1353 B.C.E), found at the Nubian site of Soleb,'* refers to
“Shosu of YHW’.” (This inscription, a list of routes traveled by the Egyp-
tians, was recopied at the Nubian sites of Amara West”? and Aksha’® dur-
ing the reign of Ramesses II.)!” This is all the more intriguing in that the
phrase “Shosu of YHW’” is parallel to “Shosu of Seir” or “Shosu of the
mountain of Seir,” attested in the inscriptions of Ramesses II.'* (Seir, as
we have seen, is one of the biblical place-names associated with the ori-
gins of YHWH; and “Shosu” refers to a southern nomadic or semi-
nomadic people whom Egypt had trouble controlling). Although
“YHW” in Amenhotep III's route list is a place-name, it is almost cer-
tainly related to the divine name YHWH.”
What can we say about the historical contexts of the origins of Yah-
wism?
In the biblical text, the divine name is revealed to Moses. Moreover,
Moses’ family line remained centrally important for the introduction of
Yahwism into Israel and the subsequent continuity of Yahwistic traditions.
Consider, for example, the role of the “Aaronide” sacerdotal family

23
Chapter 2

(priestly families were descendants of Moses’ brother Aaron) at the Shiloh

sanctuary. This sanctuary, in the heart of Israel's central hill country, was
probably the principal Yahwist sanctuary prior to the rise of the monar-
chy; it was also a pilgrimage center Judges 21:19; 1 Samuel 1:3,21) and
home of the Ark of the Covenant, the central symbol of the Israelite
armies since the 11th century B.C.E. (1 Samuel 4:3ff.) and the embodi-
ment of Israel’ covenant with YHWH. The priests of the Shiloh sanctuary
were descendants of the priest Eli, and they are called “Elides.””°
One of David’s staunchest allies and closest friends, Abiathar (1
Samuel 22:20ff. to 1 Kings 2:26-27), was a descendant of the Elide sac-
erdotal family. This suggests that the writing down of the old Mosaic tra-
ditions, in the early tenth century, involved the use of material transmit-
ted from Shiloh. This would also explain the diffusion of these old
traditions within Israel of the monarchic period.
Not only does Moses receive the revelation of the divine name
“YHWH” but his descendants preside over the Yahwist sanctuary at
Shiloh, home of the Ark of the Covenant, and sit side-by-side with King
David, the father of the Israelite nation, the people of Yahweh.
The problem here is that so much of the Bible—narratives, laws and
rites (and the entire Pentateuch)—has been associated with Moses that
this central figure tends to disappear under the weight of tradition.”!
Should we, then, relegate all of the biblical material relating to Moses to
the realm of legend? I do not think so. As the French scholar Roland de
Vaux wrote, “Removing Moses makes the religion and even the existence
of Israel inexplicable.””? Thus we can only try to distinguish what, in the
flood of Mosaic traditions, may go back to the historical Moses.
The name “Moses” is Egyptian, and we find it built into such pharaonic
names as Ahmose and Thutmose. Moreover, the construction of the towns
of Pithom and Ramesses (Exodus 1:11), probably to be identified with
Per-Atum/Pithom (Tell el-Maskhuta or Tell el-Retabeh?) and Pi-Ramesses
(Tell ed-Daba/Qantir),”* provides a good chronological indicator: the
beginning of the very long reign of Ramesses II (c. 1279-1213 B.C.E.).
The biblical text tells us that Moses killed an Egyptian foreman and fled
to Midian to escape the Egyptian police. This story, especially Moses’
sojourn with the Midianites, seems plausible. As Roland de Vaux

24
 The Origins of Yahwism

observed, later biblical narratives

show hostility to the Midianites:
for example, the war against
Midian as recounted in Numbers
31, and the Midianites’ oppres-
sion of the Israelites as told in
Judges 6-8. Much later, when
these stories were being written
down, the Midianites were
known to have been enemies of
the Israelites, so the scribes
would not have invented the tra-
dition that Moses married a Mid-
lanite woman, or that he
received the revelation of YHWH
in Midian, or that a Midianite
man had played an important
role in leading the Israelite peo-
ple. Moses’ marrying a Midianite
woman, which arouses the
wrath of Aaron and Miriam
(Numbers 12:1), and Moses’ RAD
Z.

humble occupation as shepherd THE MESHA STELA. This 4-foot-high black

of “the flock of his father-in-law basalt slab was erected in about 810 B.C.E.
by Mesha, king of Moab, to give thanks to
Jethro, the priest of Midian”
the Moabite god Chemosh for delivering
(Exodus 3:1) have a ring of
his people from Israelite rule and for his
truth. These events, as de Vaux conquest of new territories. Line 18 men-
says, ‘have a historical basis.” tions cultic objects of “YHWH”-one of the
It is in this context that bibli- earliest references to the Israelite God.
cal tradition places the revela-
tion of the divine name to Moses. This revelation takes place in a sacred
place—Horeb, “the mountain of God” (Exodus 3:1)—and is directly
related to the presence of a “bush,” which is the desert equivalent of the
sacred tree of traditional sanctuaries. In this Midianite sanctuary, Moses
receives the revelation of the divine name in the form of the tetragram-

25
Chapter 2

maton YHWH. This deity assigns Moses the mission of leading the
Hebrews out of Egypt and into the desert to make offerings to his name
(Exodus 3:18).
Given the geographical and historical contexts described above, this
revelation and mission appear thoroughly plausible, especially in that
they involve a limited number of people: the clan of Moses. If we add the
references to “YHW”” in the Egyptian route lists, then we should inter-
299

pret YHWH as the Midianite “god of their fathers,” with Jethro being the
priest of the sanctuary where Moses had his revelation.
Once Moses succeeds in leading the Hebrews out of Egypt and into
the desert, it is Jethro who presides over the making of offerings to
YHWH in the YHWH sanctuary where he is priest (Exodus 18:1-12):
“Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, brought a burnt offering and sacrifices to
YHWH?” (Exodus 18:12). Here, the very first time an offering is made to
YHWH, Moses and Aaron play only subordinate roles.” This could
hardly have been invented later.
What were the characteristics of Midianite YHWH? Once again, the
evidence is limited. We have no original Midianite document, and this
North Arabic people seems to have disappeared in the tenth century
B.C.E. The theonym “YHWH” does not appear in any North Arabic text
or personal name of the first millennium B.C.E. Paradoxically, although
YHWH seems clearly to have had North Arabic origins, at least accord-
ing to the biblical traditions, the name survived the disappearance of the
Midianites only by becoming the name of the “God of Israel,” the prin-
cipal deity of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the first half of the
first millennium B.C.E.
YHWH appears to have been the principal deity of those Midianites
who lived in the mountainous area of the central Negev. Nothing suggests
that Midianite worship of YHWH extended to Midianite populations east
of the ‘Aravah. It was probably limited to the region of the “mountain of God,
Horeb,” which in Numbers 10:33 is called the “mountain of YHWH.”
Thus YHWH seems to have been a mountain God, a reputation that
he still held in the ninth century B.C.E. According to 1 Kings 20:23, the
Aramean soldiers tell their king that the Israelite gods are “gods of the
hills, and so they were stronger than we.”

26
 rE The Origins of Yahwism
IG INS OF YaST

The blessing pronounced by Jethro refers to other gods: “YHWH is

greater than all the gods” (Exodus 18:10-11). This suggests that Midi-
anite Yahwism did not deny the existence of other gods; it simply con-
sidered YHWH the greatest of the gods. This is also true, as we shall see,
of First Temple Israelite Yahwism. Early Yahwism was not monotheistic.
It is more difficult to say whether early Yahwism was monolatrous.
There is no reference to the worship of any other deity by Jethro or
Moses; nor is there any mention of the presence or worship of another
deity in the sanctuary where Jethro was priest. Moreover, Moses is able
to lead his people out of Egypt by making sacrifices “to YHWH, our
God,” also called the “God of the Hebrews” (Exodus 3:18). Jethro also
blesses YHWH for delivering the people from the Egyptians (Exodus
18:10). The biblical evidence suggests that the people of Israel wor-
shiped only YHWH, that early Yahwism was monolatrous—which is
given expression in a covenant between YHWH and Israel (Exodus
34:10).
According to Exodus 3:18 and 18:10, worship of YHWH was char-
acterized by prayers, blessings and sacrifices, in particular sacrifices
involving a communal meal (Exodus 18:12). According to some stray
references, the Yahwistic sanctuary of Horeb seems to have comprised
an altar (Exodus 17:15, 24:4), one or several stelae (24:4) (the reference
to “twelve” stelae is probably not earlier than the tenth century B.C.E.)
and a sacred bush (Exodus 3:2-4; Deuteronomy 33:16). Finally, the
YHWH sanctuary seems to have had no statue or representation of the
deity. Although this is only an argument from silence, the early worship
of YHWH could well have been aniconic.
So YHWH was probably a god worshiped by a Midianite people of
North Arabia, and his earliest known sanctuary lay in the southern
Negev, in the mountains of the central Negev or in the northeastern part
of Sinai. This YHWH cult was at least contemporaneous with Moses,
around the reign of Ramesses II (c. 1279-1213 B.C.E.), though it could
have gone back to the 14th century B.C.E., given the references to
YHW’ in the route lists of Amenhotep III (c. 1390-1353 B.C.E.). The
adoption of this North Arabic deity by Moses was the consequence of
his marriage with the daughter of a Midianite priest and led to the adop-

20
Chapter 2

tion of this deity by the clan of Moses. Early Yahwism seems not to have
been monotheistic, as it recognized the existence of other gods, but it
does seem to have been monolatrous, as the .clan of Moses worshiped
no other god. Like other cults dedicated to the “god of the father,” early
Yahwism apparently consisted of worship within the framework of a
sanctuary with an altar, a stela and a sacred bush.”°

28
 GHABLUBR.S
Early Yahwism in Israel’s
Central Hill Country

|: sojourn of the Moses clan with the Midianites in the area of

Kadesh-Barnea and the mountains of the central Negev could
have involved an increase in population, since the Hebrews had a rep-
utation for being prolific (Exodus 1:7-20). Obtaining food and water
probably became increasingly difficult. Despite the kindness of Jethro,
economic and demographic factors probably spurred the decision to
separate (Exodus 18:27), and so Moses and his people sought more hos-
pitable ground.
According to biblical tradition, they marched east and then north to
the Transjordan, circumventing the land of Moab, which lay directly
east of the Dead Sea. It seems likely that the Israelites avoided Moab
because Egypt continued to be influential among the Moabites.'
In the Transjordan, along the northern border of Moab, the Israelites,
together with other groups, may have begun to occupy arable sites.
They seized the Heshbon area, possibly by force, and camped in “the
plains of Moab, in Transjordan, in front of Jericho” (Numbers 22:1;
Deuteronomy 34:1). The battle of Heshbon may have marked the begin-

29
Chapter 3

ning of the “wars of YHWH,” recorded in a collection of old poems

called “the Book of the Wars of YHWH” (Numbers 21:14).’ It is here
that biblical tradition places the death of Moses:

Then Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo, to

the top of Pisgah, which is opposite Jericho, and YHWH showed
him the whole land ... YHWH said to him: “This is the land of
which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, ‘I will
give it to your descendants’; I have let you see it with your eyes,
but you shall not cross over there.” Then Moses, the servant of
YHWH, died there in the land of Moab, opposite Beth-peor, but
no one knows his burial place to this day (Deuteronomy 34:1-6).

The leadership of his group, the Bene-Israel, was then entrusted to

one of Moses’ military leaders, Joshua (Exodus 17:8-16), the first bibli-
cal figure to have a Yahwistic name (Numbers 13:4-16). (The Hebrew
form of Joshua, “Yehoshua,” begins with the theophoric element
“YH(W).”) As head of the Bene-Israel, Joshua was to see that his people
kept their Yahwist traditions.
Although the biblical Book of Joshua is traditionally thought to be a
history of the Israelites’ conquering the Holy Land, the account of the
conquest seems to have been developed later on, probably at the time
of the composition of the so-called Deuteronomistic History during the
reigns of the Judahite kings Hezekiah (c. 727-699 B.C.E.) and Josiah (c.
640-609 B.C.E.). (Most scholars believe the Deuteronomistic History—
comprising the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings—was com-
posed probably using some older sources at the same time as the Book
of Deuteronomy; all of these works were re-edited after the Babylonian
destruction of the Temple in 587 B.C.E.)
If Joshua’s conquest and destruction of numerous cities belongs largely
to the realm of legend, the Book of Joshua nonetheless probably preserves
some historical material, such as Joshua’s treaty with the Gibeonites
Joshua 9) and his battle against a Canaanite coalition at the Beth-Horon
ascent Joshua 10).° Moreover, this battle against the Canaanite coalition
seems to reflect conditions described in the hieroglyphic text inscribed on

30
 Early Yahwism in Israel’s Central Hill Country

the Merneptah Stela (also called the Israel Stela), now in the Cairo
Museum.’ This stela, erected early in the reign of the Egyptian pharaoh
Merneptah (c. 1213-1204 B.C.E.),> tells of the kings campaigns in
Canaan, where he defeated a people called “Israel”—the earliest reference
to Israel in the archaeological record. According to both Joshua 10 and the
Merneptah Stela, both adversaries claimed victory. (Merneptah stela:
“Israel is laid waste”; Joshua 10:10: “He [Joshua] defeated them utterly in
Gibeon; he pursued them down the pass of Beth-Horon.”) Actually the
battle seems to have resulted in the maintenance of the status quo, with
the Bene-Israel remaining in the central hill country and the Egyptians
deciding to stay out of the area. This provides a valuable chronological ref-
erence for the beginnings of Yahwism in Israel.
Moreover, the role of Joshua as a Yahwist warrior seems consistent
with later references to YHWH at the head of the armies (or Lord of
Hosts), especially in connection with the Yahwist sanctuary of Shiloh,
resting place of the Ark of the Covenant (1 Samuel 1:3,11, 4:4).°
Joshua’ role in the so-called Shechem assembly (see Joshua 24), dat-
ing roughly to 1200 B.C_E., is probably also historical. Even though the
texts we have were recomposed by various later redactors, an actual his-
torical event was probably the basis of this proposed alliance with
Hebrew groups that were not part of the Exodus and thus did not know
YHWH. Joshua tells the people to revere YHWH and to “put away the
gods that [their] ancestors served beyond the River [that is, the
Euphrates River] ... the gods of the Amorites” (Joshua 24:14-15). These
were probably the Bene-Jacob who arrived from northern Mesopotamia;
Joshua tells them to give up their ancestral god (probably Pahad), the
“god of their fathers,” and commit themselves to the service of YHWH
alone (Joshua 24:23; Genesis 35:2,4).’
This alliance then becomes the basis for rallying other groups to the
Israelite confederation," with each of these clans/tribes retaining its
inheritance (Numbers 36:9):

Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and made
statutes and ordinances for them at Shechem. He took a large
stone, and set it up there under the oak in the sanctuary of

Sil
Chapter 3

YHWH. Joshua said to all the people, “See, this stone shall be a
witness against us, for it has heard all the words of YHWH that
he spoke to us; therefore it shall be witness against you, if you
deal falsely with your God.” So Joshua sent the people away to
their inheritances (Joshua 24:25-28).

This “constitution” of the Israelite confederation probably consisted

of a few basic rules demanding mutual respect among the members of
the alliance and laying out the consequences for violating these rules.
They could have constituted an early form of the Decalogue, which
probably did not receive its final form until after the Exile (sixth century
B.C.E.).? The most important rule of course, is the commandment to
worship only YHWH. And all this takes place in an open-air sanctuary
devoted to YHWH, replete with stela and sacred tree. In telling the
Israelites to give up their ancestral gods, Joshua implicitly recognized
the existence—if not the power—of those gods, thus giving expression
to a monolatrous (not monotheistic) Yahwism.
In becoming the official religion of the confederation, Yahwism ensured
a core of cultural and religious unity among the various Habiru/Ibrim
groups (Benjamin, Ephraim and Manasseh in the central hill country;
Gilead and other groups in the Transjordan; and various groups in
Galilee), which, gradually and step by step, came to form Israel.
Each of these clans/tribes may have continued to worship at its local
sanctuary: at Gilgal, Shechem, Bethel, Ophrah, Dan and so on. This pic-
ture is consistent with the archaeological record. For example, one such
local sanctuary has been uncovered on a hill north of Shechem (at Dha-
harat-Tawilah), where archaeologists found a small bronze Canaanite
bull dated to about the 12th century B.C.E.;° however, there is no indi-
cation of the name of the deity to which this sanctuary was dedicated.
What may be an Iron Age I (1200-1000 B.C.E.) sanctuary with a large
altar has been found on Mount Ebal by the Israeli archaeologist Adam
Zertal,'' though the interpretation of the site is much debated.
Perhaps the most authentic representative of Israelite Yahwism is the
Shiloh sanctuary in the territory of Ephraim,” the tribe of Joshua. Shiloh
has been identified as modern Tell Seilun, about 17 miles north of

o2
 Early Yahwism in Israel’s Central Hill Country

RADOV
Z.

BRONZE BULL. This 4-inch-high and 7-inch-long figurine dates to the

12th-century B.C.E. and was found at an Israelite site near Biblical
Dothan, in Samaria. The Canaanite god El was often called a bull; this
object suggests that early Israelite religion was greatly influenced by
Canaanite worship.

Bethel. This site has been excavated several times, most recently in the
1980s under the direction of Israeli archaeologist Israel Finkelstein.
Although the Shiloh excavations have not revealed the remains of any
Iron Age I sanctuary (leaving open the possibility that the early Yahwist
sanctuary at Shiloh was an open-air precinct), the archaeologists have
found 26 Iron Age I sites within a radius of only a few miles,’* which
suggests the demographic importance of the region of Shiloh after the
time of Joshua.
The early biblical texts make several references to an annual pilgrim-
age festival celebrated at Shiloh Judges 21:19; 1 Samuel 1:3,21), which
seems to have been an important gathering point for all the peoples of

33
Chapter 3

the central hill country. According to biblical tradition, Shiloh was home
to the Ark of the Covenant, the symbol of the power of the Israelite
armies (1 Samuel 4:3; cf. Joshua 3-4, 6; 2 Samuel 11:11). The ark was
guarded by the sacerdotal dynasty of the Elides (descendants of Eli),
who were connected to the Aaronide priesthood and Exodus traditions;
the names of the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas (1 Samuel 4:4),
are Egyptian names. Thus Shiloh is extremely important in the develop-
ment and diffusion of Yahwism.
Even though the Shiloh sanctuary may well have been destroyed by
the Philistines in the mid-11th century B.C.E. (see 1 Samuel 4:1ff.), the
Mosaic Yahwism of the Elide tradition continued to be influential in
Israel—initially because of the important role played by the prophet
Samuel, who was trained at Shiloh (1 Samuel 3:20ff.); and later because
of the role played by Abiathar son of Ahimelech (1 Samuel 23:6), son of
Ahituv (1 Samuel 22:9), brother of Ikabod, son of Phinehas, son of Eli
(1 Samuel 14:3; see also 4:21). The Elide priest Abiathar served as
David’s companion and as priest of the Israelite nation during David's
reigns in Hebron and in Jerusalem, though he was dismissed by David’s
son and successor, Solomon (1 Kings 2:26-27). Through Samuel and
Abiathar, Yahwism spread among the Israelite people.
The religious history of the Israelite confederation is known to us
principally through the Bible (with some help from the Merneptah
Stela). The main sources of information, the books of Joshua and
Judges, did not reach their final form until, at the earliest, the reign of
the Judahite king Josiah and the influence of the Deuteronomistic party
in the seventh century B.C.E. Nonetheless, these biblical sources convey
material that does not correspond to the religious ideology of the sev-
enth century—such as the significance of the sanctuaries at Shechem
and Shiloh, and the legislative power attached to Joshua. It is likely,
then, that this material was partly transmitted in some written form and
retained because the biblical authors believed it really happened: This
history reveals the important role played by the Elide priesthood even
if, by the seventh century B.C.E., it had long been supplanted by the
Zadokite dynasty.

34
CHAPTER 4
YHWH the God of Israel

|: defeat of the Israelite army by the Philistines (1 Samuel 4:1 ff.)

resulted in the destruction of the Shiloh sanctuary and the
Philistines’ capture of the Ark of the Covenant, the symbol of the pres-
ence of YHWH at the head of the Israelite armies. To a certain extent,
the battle between the Israelites and Philistines led to a confrontation
between YHWH, “God of Israel,” and Dagon, the principal god of the
Philistines.' The story told in 1 Samuel 5—in which the Ark of the
Covenant is installed in the Philistine cities of Ashdod, Gath and Ekron,
causing much damage to the local sanctuaries and populations—is
probably an attempt to recover some dignity from the Israelites’ defeat.
The Philistine threat forced the Israelites to choose a leader able to
carry out a war of liberation from the Philistine yoke. That became the
task of Saul, Israel’s first king, and the war with the Philistines tragically
consumed “all the days of Saul” (1 Samuel 14:52). Saul died during the
battle on Mount Gilboa (1 Samuel 31); the Philistines placed his
weapons as offerings in a temple (or in several temples) of Astarte and
they nailed his corpse to a wall in Beth-Shean (1 Samuel 31:10). Israel
and Yahwism seemed about to disappear, absorbed into Philistine civi-
lization.

55
Chapter 4

It is in this context that David rose to power as the Israelite king in

Hebron (c. 1010-1003 B.C.E.) and Jerusalem (c. 1003-970 B.C.E.).
Some versions of this story, told in the books of Samuel, were probably
first composed by a descendant of Shiloh’s Elide priesthood, Abiathar,
or a scirbe of his circle. This scribe has been rightly called Israel's “first
historian.”? The antiquity of the story, however, does not mean that it
presents a balanced and critical view, what we today call “history.” The
account of David's rise to power is largely propaganda, designed to pres-
ent him as the legitimate king of all Israel even though he did not
descend from Saul.’
Among the numerous political assassinations that David supposedly
ordered and the various dynastic marriages he is said to have entered,*
one aspect of these stories probably has a historical basis: David was a
supporter of YHWH. This was useful to him when he was recognized as
king by the elders of Israel in Hebron (2 Samuel 5:1-3). YHWH “was
with him” (1 Samuel 16:12,13, 17:37, 18:12,28, 20:13) because David
led the “YHWH wars” (1 Samuel 18:17, 25:28).?
The fact that David was a passionate supporter of YHWH explains
why his reign was marked by a significant expansion of Yahwism. This
expansion has four principal aspects:

1. David was initially proclaimed king of Judah in Hebron (1

Samuel 2:1-4). Hebron lies in the south, about midway between
Jerusalem and Beersheba. Hebron, that is, lies at the center of the
territory that would become the Judahite kingdom. But this terri-
tory did not form part the Israelite confederation prior to the
emergence of David;° indeed, nothing indicates that YHWH was
then known in the Jerusalem-Hebron-Beersheba corridor. From
the time of David on, however, Yahwism was the official religion
of this Judahite area.

2. After defeating the Philistines, David extended his power in

Canaanite zones that had been under Philistine influence: the
plains of Jezreel, Sharon and Akko. This political domination was
probably accompanied by a diffusion of the official Yahwistic

36
 YHWH the God of Israel

worship, even if local culture and religion were not given up

immediately.

3. Once David made Jerusalem the capital of the unified Israelite

kingdom, consisting of the territories that would later become
the southern kingdom of Judah and the northern kingdom of
Israel, he sought to make Jerusalem the Israelite religious capital
as well. He thus organized a ceremony in which the Ark of the
Covenant was installed in Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6). With this
symbol of YHWH at the head of the Israelite armies, and with
the help of the Elide priest Abiathar, David transferred the prin-
cipal center of Yahwistic worship from Shiloh to Jerusalem.

4. The reign of David probably marks the true birth of Hebrew

literature as the propagandistic arm of the new kingship. As we
have seen, the history of David’s ascent to power was likely writ-
ten by a scribe (or group of scribes) of Abiathar to present David
as the legitimate king of Judah and, later, of all Israel. This scribe
(or group of scribes) may also have been responsible for writing
down the patriarchal traditions, which place great emphasis on
Abraham: The role of the patriarch Abraham as ancestor of the
Hebrews corresponds to some extent with that of David as head
of the unified kingdom.’

This expansion of the state and the state religion, Yahwism, also posed
a problem. What happened when Yahwism reached into areas where it
was hitherto unknown, encountering the traditional forms of worship in
these new territories? Were the local gods to be utterly rejected in favor of
the exclusive worship of YHWH, as had been proposed by Joshua at the
Shechem assembly? Wouldn't any forced religious unification cause only
anger and resentment, posing an obstacle to political unification?
The genius of David and his allies was to avoid the extreme Joshua-
like rhetoric concerning the exclusive worship of YHWH and to propose,
instead, that the various “patriarchal” religious traditions be integrated
within Yahwism. The deity, though called by different names, was

37
Chapter 4

&
ie ; ”
4 IM
IS

MOUNT GILBOA. Saul, Israel’s first king, was killed here while fighting
the Philistines, who made offerings to the goddess Astarte of his weapons.
Had it not been for the rise of David, the Israelites might have disappeared
within Philistine culture.

always the same supreme Deity; the various versions of the god El in the
numerous sanctuaries of the unified kingdom—whether attached to
Abraham, Isaac or Jacob—ultimately represented the same great God,
who was known as YHWH to the Israelites. This is clearly stated in the
passage from Exodus in which God reveals his divine name to Moses:

I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of

Isaac, the God of Jacob ... Thus you shall say to the Israelites:
YHWH, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God
of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is my
name forever, and this my title for all generations (Exodus 3:6-15).

Such a policy of assimilation made it possible for various peoples to

keep alive their sanctuaries and ancestral traditions while coating them
with the varnish of Yahwism.

38
 YHWH the God of Israel

David’ integration of various local cults of the god El into Yahwism

began a process in which Yahwism was transformed from within. Little
by little, YHWH took on the features and functions attributed by the
local population and Canaanite culture to the supreme god El: YHWH
was the creator, He was eternal, He was a warrior, He was the ultimate
source of wisdom. According to Roland de Vaux: “This assimilation of
Yahweh with El had been prepared by that of the god of the father with
El, and it was done without a fight: There is no trace of a conflict
between Yahweh and El. Yahweh took from El his character of cosmic
God and the title of king.”
The enrichment of the attributes of YHWH—originally the mountain
God, the warrior God and, perhaps, the storm God—occurred gradu-
ally over time. Although the assimilation of traditional local forms of
worship (as opposed to Joshua’s command to “put away the gods” of the
“ancestors”) was in place early in David’ reign, it was a process that
would continue until the reform of King Hezekiah at the end of the
eighth century B.C.E.'°
Consider one example, Abraham’s meeting with Melchizedek in Gen-
esis 14:

King Melchizedek of Salem [Jerusalem] brought out bread and

wine; he was priest of God Most High [El Elyon]. He blessed him
and said, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven
and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered
your enemies into your hands.” And Abram gave him one tenth
of everything. Then the king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give me
the persons, but take the goods for yourself.” But Abram said to
the king of Sodom, “I have sworn to YHWH, God Most High [El
Elyon], maker of heaven and earth, that 1 would not take a thread
or a sandal-thong or anything that is yours, so that you might
not say, ‘I have made Abram rich” (Genesis 14: 18-23).

This account may well have been written during the reign of David
in Jerusalem.'! Melchizedek is described as being not only the king of
Salem (Jerusalem) but also the priest of El Elyon (often translated “God

39
Chapter 4

Most High”); he uses this divine name twice in his blessing, and he even
refers to El Elyon as “maker of heaven and earth.” Finally YHWH him-
self is referred to as El Elyon and maker of heaven and earth.
References to El Elyon also appear in the archaeological record. A
blessing formula on an eighth-century B.C.E. Aramaic inscription from
the Syrian site of Sfire mentions “El and ‘Elydn ... Heaven and Earth” (1
A, 11-12).” The first part of Melchizedek’s blessing—“El ... maker on
earth”—is also clearly attested in a Phoenician inscription (A III, 18)
from Karatepe (in south-central Turkey), dating around 700 B.C.E.”
Finally, a fragmentary inscription probably reading “[El], creator of
earth” appears on an earthenware jar—dating roughly to the second half
of the eighth century B.C.E.—that. was found in Jerusalem.'* This
inscription and the passage on Melchizedek” seem to suggest that wor-
ship of El Elyon was rooted in the city of Jerusalem, probably before it
was captured by David.
Interestingly, the final reference to El Elyon in the Melchizedek passage
is clearly identified with YHWH: “I have sworn to YHWH, God Most
High [El Elyon], maker of heaven and earth.” In the Psalms, too, the word
Elyon is often used as a qualifier for YHWH (Psalms 7:17, 9:2, 21:7).
YHWH and El Elyon are then completely assimilated, and henceforth
YHWH is recognized explicitly as a creator God.’ Thus the creation
account attributed to J (the “Yahwist” creation account, probably writ-
ten in Jerusalem although its date is disputed) describes “the day that
YHWH God made the earth and the heavens” (Genesis 2:4). (Scholars
have discerned four main narrative strands in the Torah/Pentateuch: one
in which, from the beginning, God is called YHWH [J, from the German
spelling of “Yahweh”], one in which God is called Elohim [E], one put
together by the author/redactor of Deuteronomy [D], and one created or
edited by a Priestly School [P].)
This integration of diverse forms of worship into Yahwism meant that
YHWH absorbed the attributes of other great gods. This is a significant
evolution. Not only does it testify to the increasing significance of
YHWH," but it also shows that YHWH, in taking on the attributes of
other gods—in particular, those of El as creator, healer and source of
wisdom—would gradually render those other gods unnecessary and

40
 YHWH the God of Israel

useless. In other words, little by little, YHWH penetrated all levels of the
Israelite society and became the sole “God of Israel.”
Yahwisms infiltration into the “new” territories took place slowly,
Even among David’ partisans, the number of personal names with the
Yahwist theophoric -yah(u) remains small (the frequency of such names,
however, is not always a sign of the popularity of the cult). Of David's
sons, only the fourth (Adonijah) and fifth (Shephatiah) have Yahwist
names ending with the Hebrew “YH” (see 2 Samuel 3:4), and none of
his sons born in Jerusalem (2 Samuel 5:14-16) has a Yahwist name.!®
Yahwist names are somewhat more common among David’ senior offi-
cials (2 Samuel 8:16-18, 20:23-25), though one finds only two such
names among the “thirty-seven” officers of David (Benaiah and Uriah [2
Samuel 23:30-39]).'° This situation remains about the same in the time
of Solomon (see 1 Kings 4).
The reign of Solomon is marked especially by the construction of the
Jerusalem Temple (1 Kings 6-9:9), officially confirming Jerusalem as the
center of Yahwism. This was a new element in the Yahwist tradition;
before this, YHWH did not have a house of stone but, at most, a tent (2
Samuel 7:6). The Temple was built, however, according to Canaanite
tradition (see the construction of the Baal temple in the Ugaritic texts);
specifically, it was built on a Canaanite Phoenician plan with the tech-
nical assistance of Hiram, king of Tyre. (Archaeologically, nothing has
survived of the Jerusalem Temple, except possibly the base of the east-
ern retaining wall of the Temple Mount. The site itself is of course
unavailable to archaeologists.)*? Moreover, the Jerusalem Temple seems
to have been a kind of royal chapel attached to the royal palace and
therefore narrowly controlled by the sovereign.*' One notes that in the
description of the Temple and its furnishings, there is no mention of a
statue or representation of YHWH; Yahwism retained its aniconism.
According to the Bible, Solomon was also responsible for other, non-
Yahwistic religious structures. For example, he constructed a “high
place” (bamdh) for the worship of the Moabite god Chemosh as well as
a sanctuary for the Ammonite god Milkom/Molech on a hill east of
Jerusalem (1 Kings 11:5.7). These sanctuaries were constructed not for
the local population but for foreign princesses or officials from Transjor-

AT
Chapter 4

dan. Still, as the sanctuaries were under the protection of the king, they
constituted a temptation for the local population and could throw some
doubt on the exclusive character of YHWH worship for Israel. More
generally, this situation suggests that the Yahwism of Solomon was not
monotheistic and could exist comfortably in a polytheistic—or
henotheistic—environment.

a2
PalLo Rs}
Yahwism of the First Temple Period:
Monotheism or Monolatry?

\\ as early Yahwism monotheistic or polytheistic? In fact, this

question is not terribly meaningful for the Yahwism of the
early part of the First Temple period (tenth to early sixth century B.C.E.,
when the Temple was destroyed by the Babylonians). The Yahwism of
this time was not primarily the fruit of philosophical or theological
reflection, or of a theoretical conception of the divine world, but rather
a practical religion expressing itself, in particular, in worship and in law.
In the general polytheistic context of the ancient Near East, the early
biblical tradition stresses that YHWH was the exclusive national deity of
the people of Israel: The Israelites were to worship no other god. At first
glance, two fundamental texts of the early religious tradition, going back
at least to the First Temple period, seem to reveal a thoroughly
monotheistic Yahwism:

1am YHWH your God, who brought you out of the land of
Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods
before me. You shall not make yourself an idol, whether in the

43
Chapter 5

form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth

beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not
bow down to them or worship them (Exodus 20:2-4; Deuteron-
omy 5:6-9),

Hear, O Israel: YHWH is our God, YHWH alone (Deuteronomy

6:4).

Looking more closely at these texts, however, one realizes that the
first text, taken literally, does not deny the existence of other gods. It
demands only that the people of Israel worship only YHWH. In other
words, there may be a number of gods, but the people of Israel are
restricted to worshiping only one of them, YHWH. This text, then, may
well express a form of monolatry, not a universal monotheism. What is
emphasized is the special bond between YHWH and Israel, leaving open
the possibility that other nations should worship other gods. The sec-
ond text, too, states that YHWH and only YHWH is the god of Israel.’
Other early biblical texts present YHWH, God of Israel, as belonging
to an assembly of gods, to a kind of pantheon, which at least apparently
implies some form of polytheism. Thus “God has taken his place in the
divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment” (Psalm
82:1). And this,

Let the heavens praise your wonders, O YHWH,

your faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones.
For who in the skies can be compared to YHWH?
Who among the heavenly beings is like YHWH,
a God feared in the council of the holy ones
great and awesome above all that are around him?
(Psalm 89:5-7).

The Book of Job, too, tells us, “One day the heavenly beings came to
present themselves before YHWH” (Job 1:6, 2:1; see also Job 38:7 and
Psalm 29:1),
Other texts state clearly that while YHWH is the God of Israel other

44
 Yahwism of the First Temple Period: Monotheism or Monolatry?

nations have other gods: “When

the Most High [Elyon] appor-
tioned the nations, when he
divided humankind, he fixed the
boundaries of the peoples accord-
ing to the number of the sons of
god” (Deuteronomy 32:8). Later
expositors were offended by this
reference to other gods and
emended the traditional Jewish
text (Masoretic text) to read “sons
of Israel” instead of “the number
of the sons of god.” However, the
Dead Sea Scrolls (and the Greek
translation known as the Septu-
agint) have preserved the original
reading.* According to the Book
of Micah, “[A]Il the peoples walk,
each in the name of its god; but
we will walk in the name of
YHWH our God, forever and LESS
ERIC

ever” (Micah 4:5). WIELDING A SPEAR, the figure on this

40-inch-high basalt stela is thought to
These texts indicate that each
represent Chemosh, the god of the
of the peoples in the biblical
Moabites. Author André Lemaire notes
world had its own god, its own that it was common in the ancient Near
national deity. YHWH is the East for some people to worship their
“God of Israel” (Genesis 33:20; national god even while acknowledging
Exodus 5:1: 24:10), and the that other peoples had their own deities.
people of Israel are the “people
of YHWH” (Numbers 11:29, 17:6; Judges 5:11). This special and exclu-
sive bond is wonderfully expressed by images of marriage and, espe-
cially, by the idea of a “covenant,” or official contractual alliance,
between YHWH and Israel.’ This is also why we often find YHWH
called a “jealous” God, for the people of Israel are prohibited from serv-
ing other, foreign gods and must serve only him.’

45
Chapter 5

If the Israelites were monolatrous, restricted to worshiping only

YHWH, were other peoples in the region monolatrous as well? We can-
not say for certain, but it does appear that similar forms of monolatry
may have been practiced by some of Israel's neighbors—especially the
Ammonite, Moabite and Edomite kingdoms of Transjordan.’
Our knowledge of religious worship in the Ammonite kingdom dur-
ing the First Temple period is rather uncertain. There are numerous
attestations of El (God), and “Milkom” seems to be the name of a god
especially worshiped by the Ammonites. Very possibly, then, Milkom
was one of the forms of El (as early on YHWH was one of the forms of
El) and Ammonite religion was a monolatrous religion devoted to the
god Milkom. Although we know even less about the Edomites, the
information we have suggests that they were also monolatrous. Inscrip-
tions from the latter part of the First Temple period reveal that the
“national” Edomite god was called Qés (not mentioned in the Bible), as
attested by the first-century C.E. historian Flavius Josephus (Jewish
Antiquities 15.253)°and now by numerous fourth century B.C.E. Ara-
maic ostraca from Idumea.
The religious situation of the Moabite kingdom is somewhat better
known. According to the Bible, the “god of Moab” was called Chemosh
(1 Kings 11:33) and the Moabites were the “people of Chemosh” (Num-
bers 21:29; Jeremiah 48:46). The special bond between Chemosh and
Moab seems to be confirmed by epigraphy. According to the ninth-cen-
tury B.C.E. Mesha Stela (or Moabite Stone), the people of Chemosh and
the people of Moab are the same. Lines 11 and 12 of the stela read, “And
I killed all the population and the city belonged to Chemosh and
Moab.”’ Moreover, Chemosh seems, like YHWH, the national god who
leads the armies of his people: “And Chemosh said to me: ‘Go, take
Nebo from Israel’” (Mesha Stela, line 14).
According to the Mesha Stela, the expansion of Moabite power north
of the Arnon River resulted in a systematic destruction of Yahwist sanc-
tuaries and the construction of new sanctuaries dedicated to Chemosh.
Because of the monolatrous character of the two national religions
(Moabite and Israelite), the worship of YHWH, mentioned several times
on the stela, could not continue to be practiced in the territory of Moab

46
 Yahwism of the First Temple Period: Monotheism or Monolatry?

and had to be replaced by the exclusive worship of Chemosh.

Chemosh’s role as the Moabite national deity is also confirmed by
numerous references to him in Moabite inscriptions, mainly on seals
and seal-impressions.*
The early biblical tradition indicates that the Yahwism of the First
Temple period in Israel was monolatrous, not monotheistic.’ It also
seems clear, especially from the evidence of the Mesha Stela, that the
Israelites shared this kind of religious practice with several neighboring
peoples, in particular the Moabites.

47
 : _—- ie

nh np prean
7 oe Re

5 ered) shbole %
= ean
_ bienrr tes ateei
Manton ree
ke ay scene rtp ck
i) are ghabor Uti pe ree ones :
be 2 Date ia wai set & pai ae
ore ee eee
ar let elas UA cir amiga eae a
o. teeto a let fae ae Tepe tad» eg, dla
* {Someta O23 lew eee etd ie pre diued att
wy the fire ower, Ce teats de: Fog age aS
ign 02 © * eal ne de ators Merk 1 ale | aos
° af. te ‘i, a =

moh nits Te ext db % cvs hanya! 2 > ee ie

eel tse Hine 4 ued At ex: <e lle ee

4 F airs he Preeitic hb tee a by q
. ‘ (Sd) vietal Se epeeo
er saaet hHavigt pag Ms Abas:
yaa? Es Povey al “Tas

: ; ag! Dol ag wee ten,

‘ 7 > - DAS a

> Ae S “Wicct) Ae

' rm «e ‘ ° = r.

¢@ Mba
* : , =. Gorse <s Z Fs jm~~ gp speatht

“ —— diniake col,
Le
: Ba ee et) ee Te
™ a F 7 ry P petra Riss.

% J Grr Scen e bhadird ierEalcsiencry Oe AG

*
. as
i
»

=
A me Wd eo
CHAPTER 6
The Divided Kingdom and the
Resurgence of Baalism

ik so-called “Shechem schism” (1 Kings 12:1-19)—the rebellion

of one of King Solomon’ former officials, Jeroboam, against
Solomon’s son and successor, Rehoboam—led to the separation of the
two “houses” of Israel. Rehoboam (c. 931-914 B.C.E.) became the first
king of the separated southern kingdom of Judah, and Jeroboam (c.
931-910 B.C.E.) became the first king of the northern kingdom of
Israel. The first 50 years of the divided kingdom were marked by a bor-
der war, two foreign invasions—by the Egyptian pharaoh Shosheng I (c.
945-925 B.C.E.), called Shishak in the Bible (1 Kings 14:25-28), and
King Bar-Hadad of Damascus (1 Kings 15:18-20)—and several coups
détat in the northern kingdom. The political situation improved only
with the rule of Omri (c. 885-881-876 B.C.E.) and his successors in the
northern kingdom, who practiced a policy of reconciliation and alliance
with their neighbors. The peace with the southern kingdom was sealed
by the marriage of the daughter of Omri’s son and successor, Ahab (c.
876-853 B.C.E.), with the son of the southern king Jehoshaphat (c. 871-
846 B.C.E. [see 2 Kings 8:18-26]). According to the Kurkh Monolith, a

49
Chapter 6

victory stela laid by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III (c. 858-824
B.C.E.), “Ahab the Israelite” was part of a coalition including the
Aramean kingdom of Damascus that fought against the Assyrians at the
battle of Qarqar in 853 B.C.E. Ahab also sealed a peace with the Phoeni-
cian kingdom of Sidon by marrying Jezebel, daughter of King Ethbaal
(1 Kings 16:31).
According to Assyrian texts, the Mesha Stela and the results of
archaeological excavations at such sites as Hazor and Megiddo, the
reigns of Omri and Ahab (874-853 B.C.E.) were marked by economic
and political prosperity. The Bible, on the other hand, gives an entirely
negative judgment: “Ahab son of Omri did evil in the sight of YHWH
more than all who were before him” (1 Kings 16:30). How do we
explain this contradiction?
The Omride Dynasty’ economic and political success indirectly
posed a serious religious problem: the diffusion of Baal worship among
the Israelite population.’ According to the Bible, Ahab

took as his wife Jezebel daughter of King Ethbaal of the Sido-

nians, and went and served Baal, and worshiped him. He erected
an altar for Baal in the house of Baal, which he built in Samaria.
Ahab also made a sacred tree [asherah] (1 Kings 16:31-33).

Later, King Jehu (c. 842-814 B.C.E.) ordered his men to burn the
“stela of Baal” and destroy the Baal temple, which they converted into a
latrine (2 Kings 10:26-27). This Baal temple in Samaria clearly had the
three elements of the traditional sanctuaries: altar, stela and sacred tree.
Moreover this Samarian temple of Baal seems to have been served by
a large staff: some 450 “prophets of Baal” (1 Kings 18:19). King Jehu
later refers to “all the prophets of Baal,” “all his worshipers” and “all his
priests” (2 Kings 10:19). The Bible notes that the staff serving the Baal
cult was maintained by Jezebel herself (1 Kings 18:19). Josephus
recounts that the father of Ittobaal (biblical Ethbaal, father of Jezebel)
seized the throne of Tyre after having been “a priest of Ashtarte.”?
According to the customs of the time, a foreign royal wife, especially
the daughter of king, was entitled to certain freedoms withheld from the

50
 The Divided Kingdom and the Resurgence of Baalism

local inhabitants. Solomon himself built sanctuaries for foreign gods out
of respect for princesses or visiting diplomats. It would have been nor-
mal for Jezebels husband to respect, and even facilitate, the practice of
her personal religion by building a sanctuary where she could worship.
This does not mean that Ahab repudiated his Israelite Yahwism; indeed,
he gave the two sons who succeeded him as king, Ahaziah (c. 853-852
B.C.E.) and Jehoram (c. 852-841 B.C.E.), Yahwist names.
Nonetheless, this situation—with the Yahwist cult tolerant of a Baal
cult in its midst—could easily result in conflict. As Phoenicians, Jezebel
and the staff she maintained would have been respected as representing
a people that was prosperous, technically sophisticated and culturally
rich. There would have been a natural tendency to follow their ways, the
ways of the Baal cult. Moreover, the Yahwism of this part of Israel, espe-
cially in the plains of Jezreel and Sharon and throughout Galilee, was
probably rather superficial; the new Baal worship would have consti-
tuted a revival of ancient local Canaanite traditions. Ostraca (inscribed
potsherds) from Samara, dating around the first quarter of the eighth
century B.C.E., contain about as many “Baalist” names* as “Yahwist”
names,’ especially among farmers, which seems to indicate that Baalism
was not limited to Phoenician foreigners or the immediate entourage of
Jezebel.
According to the Bible, a powerful personality from Gilead, in the
Transjordan, arose to confront the Baalist movement: the prophet Elijah
the Tishbite (1 Kings 17:1ff.). The so-called Elijah cycle of the books of
Kings (1 Kings 17:1 to 2 Kings 2:18) may well have been transmitted by
Elijah’s disciple, Elisha; these stories about Elijah were probably written
down in Samaria during the reign of King Jehoash (c. 805-790 B.C.E.).°
Two episodes in the Elijah cycle are especially significant for the evo-
lution of Yahwism: Elijah’s confrontation with the prophets of Baal on
Mount Carmel, and his pilgrimage to Horeb. In the first episode (1
Kings 18:18-46), Ahab agrees to Elijah’ request to assemble the
Israelites and the 450 Baal prophets on Mount Carmel, where Elijah
challenges the Israelites: “How long will you go limping with two differ-
ent opinions? If YHWH is God, then follow him; but if Baal, then follow
him” (1 Kings 18:21). When no one answers, Elijah devises a test: Two
G.M. ELLIOTT LIBRARY
Cincinnati Christian University
Chapter 6

bulls are to be chosen, as burnt offerings to Baal and YHWH. The bulls
are to be prepared for sacrifice and placed on the altar, but the sacrifices
are not to be lit. Instead, the Baal prophets ate to pray to have Baal start
the fire, and Elijah will pray to have Yahweh start the fire. The people
will follow whichever god wins. The Baalists then prepare a bull for sac-
rifice, waiting in vain for the arrival of fire. Elijah repairs a Yahwist altar,
prepares a bull for sacrifice on the altar, and prays to YHWH to set the
offering ablaze—which he does, and the Israelites prostrate themselves,
saying “YHWH indeed is the God.”
Elijah’s contest is a new departure, different from David's successful
policy of reconciliation in which the Yahwist cult would absorb the fea-
tures of the foreign ancestral god. Whereas YHWH could be assimilated
to El, possibly as an avatar of El or as the supreme god of a pantheon
that included El, this does not seem to be possible for Baal. It may be
that YHWH and Baal were simply too much alike. Indeed, as we know
from this episode and other biblical references, YHWH and Baal are
both “gods of the storm,” controlling the rains and thus maintaining the
fruitfulness of the country.
Moreover, the story in 1 Kings 18:18-46 suggests that the Baalist
party was on the rise while the Yahwists were in decline. That seems
indicated not only by the number of prophets serving each deity—Baal:
450; Yahweh: 2 (1 Kings 18:22)—but also by the reference to “the altar
of YHWH that had been thrown down” (1 Kings 18:30).
The choice of the place of this confrontation is probably significant.
During the First Temple period, Mount Carmel constituted the border
between Israel and the Phoenician kingdom of Tyre that extended along
the Akko plain (see 1 Kings 9:11-14).° In choosing Mount Carmel, Eli-
jah seems to say that the Baalists should not cross the border to pene-
trate into Israel; they should remain at home, in the kingdom of Tyre,
the domain of Baal.
Finally, the confession of faith of the Israelites—“YHWH indeed is the
God”—is sometimes understood as a monotheist confession of faith and
translated as “YHWH is the [only] God.” But this interpretation does not
comport with the precise context of this episode. This confession of
faith must be interpreted in light of Elijah’s prayer asking God to light

2
 The Divided Kingdom and the Resurgence of Baalism

the fire: “O YHWH, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, let it be known
this day that you are God in Israel” (1 Kings 18:36). The purpose of the
contest is not to determine the true God of the universe but rather the
true God of Israel. The answer conforms to assertions often found in
biblical texts from this period: YHWH is the God of Israel. The contest
between Yahweh and Baal on Mount Carmel leads to a renewed asser-
tion of Israelite monolatry.
After King Ahab tells Jezebel about YHWH* great victory over Baal,
Jezebel threatens to kill Elijah, who then flees south. Near Beersheba, in
despair over his inability to convince the Israelites to forsake Baal for-
ever, Elijah sits under a tree and asks God to take his life. An angel of
YHWH appears, telling Elijah to make a pilgrimage of “forty days and
forty nights to Horeb [Sinai] the mount of God.” On reaching the cave
of Horeb, Elijah says to God:

I have been very zealous for YHWH, the God of hosts: for the
Israelites have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars,
and killed your prophets with the sword. I alone am left, and
they are seeking my life, to take it away (1 Kings 19:14).

YHWH responds by sending Elijah on a mission to recruit the king

of Damascus (Hazael), the king of Israel (Jehu) and Elijah’s successor
(Elisha) to uproot and banish the Baalists (1 Kings 19:1-18).
Along with its mystical significance,’ this episode helps illustrate
some aspects of early Yahwism. First, as many biblical commentators
have observed, Elijah’s pilgrimage to Horeb, the “mount of God,” makes
him a kind of Moses, which in turn suggests that the Mosaic tradition
was still alive in the second quarter of the ninth century B.C.E. (The ref-
erence to the Mosaic tradition is also made obvious in the role of “the
cave,” which is reminiscent of the “hollow of the rock” [Exodus 33:22]
where YHWH appears to Moses.) Unfortunately, the text does not spec-
ify the nature of the connection between Elijah’ visit to the mountain
and Mosaic tradition. Nor are we told explicitly whether that tradition
had been written down. Because Elijah’s ninth-century B.C.E. pilgrim-
age was some 400 years later than Moses’ 13th-century B.C.E. sojourn

3)
Chapter 6

among the Midianites, the existence of some written source is likely.

Apparently, in confronting a severe crisis of Israelite Yahwism, Elijah
felt it necessary to make a pilgrimage to the sources of Yahwism—
which, as indicated by the early poems quoted in the first chapter, orig-
inated in the southern desert zone, outside the kingdoms of Israel and
Judah. Elijah seems to have had no trouble finding the exact site of
“Horeb the mount of God”; the “forty days and forty nights” probably
simply means “a significant distance south of Beersheba.” In any event,
the fact that “Horeb the mountain of God” had a very specific (south-
ern) locale did not pose any problem at the time.
Elijah’s journey to Horeb is different from Moses’ in one significant
respect: In the Moses stories, the Midianite Yahwists, led by their priest,
Moses’ father-in-law Jethro, seem to be prospering. When Elijah arrives
at Horeb, however, the sacred mountain seems abandoned and
deserted. Indeed, we have seen that the Midianites disappeared from the
historical record towards the beginning of the tenth century B.C.E.,
meaning that “Horeb the mount of God” had probably been abandoned
for about a century. This pilgrimage to the sources of Yahwism revealed
to Elijah that the situation of Yahwism was no better in its country of
origin, Midian, than in Israel itself, where the Israelites had destroyed
the YHWH altars.
This is the last time Horeb/Sinai appears in the Bible as an actual
place, that is, as a place visited by a biblical figure; henceforth, it is a
place to be evoked only in song and prayer. The future of Yahwism will
not be played out at Horeb but in Israel itself. That is the meaning of
Elijah’s mission to join forces with Hazael of Damascus and Jehu of
Israel, work that will be carried on by Elijah’s disciple, Elisha.
The open crisis between Baalism and Yahwism in Israel will be finally
settled, in theory at least, by the bloody coup of King Jehu (c. 841-814
B.C.E.), who “wiped out Baal from Israel” (2 Kings 10:28). This is fol-
lowed a few years later by the destruction of a Baal temple that had been
built in Jerusalem(2 Kings 11:4-18). To judge from the personal names
on the many inscriptions (mostly seal impressions) from Judah of the
eighth and seventh centuries B.C.E., Baal no longer had much influence
in the southern kingdom. |

D4
 The Divided Kingdom and the Resurgence of Baalism

Is this to say that polytheism, with YHWH coexisting among a num-

ber of Canaanite deities, was totally abandoned? A number of modern
commentators think not, with some arguing that Israelite religion of the
First Temple period was clearly polytheistic,* and that YHWH had an
official consort.’ We must therefore examine this historical question.

ee)
 Ky Nth Me Pay
aI T x
KEM tte 7
: detvaivomes’s
afi 4 3008
_~ is ha.
vice (Oy ey atl Merehe”

* woes toe 26 Gin" Gu ay

[24 Cat “Ath tee met Teel” Rigd Gee
ioe Flash aug: )* the aes 6 eG
‘ ; 4 m ,
re Sere ows, ‘Ver ie7 Sey BlassSipe7
Pea &) ' ed “tle tt bes 1OCS

& ii.teasyta (oy ie @ eh ‘

_ te S96 beng Rp Dee weeA
P.
ae
é AE ae | am “2 aweGe

. as ° @ st See a) |
chs Muah 1 Te = OA) ie
sy o> Esaen i ik
I Tenia Bytopes athe site

AY, aaa slg’ “gpd ay aeg

baw ee — Law| ==

" Caer o : BT eS aaa lela

ag
CHAPTER 7
Sui meanuenisshcratn Did
the God of Israel Have a Consort?

A 30 years ago, I proposed that three lines of text inscribed in

a tomb at Khirbet el-Qom, about 8 miles west of Hebron, con-
sisted of a blessing formula reading, “by YHWH and his asherah.”! Other
similar blessing formulas have appeared about the same time among the
paleo-Hebrew inscriptions of Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, in the Sinai.’ These epi-
graphic discoveries have altered the contexts in which we have come to
understand the word asherah in the Hebrew Bible and have been the sub-
ject of numerous books. As one scholar has written, “Asherah studies are
becoming, in their own right, a subset of ancient Near Eastern studies.”
The majority of these publications have tried to show that Asherah is
the name of an official wife/consort of YHWH.’ If we are to understand
Israelite Yahwism of the First Temple period, then we must look in
detail at this complex issue.
The 14th-century B.C.E. Amarna Letters often mention the name
‘Abdi-Ashirta (“Servant of Ashirta”), borne apparently by an Amorite
king who was an enemy of the king of Byblos and who proclaimed him-
self a vassal of Egypt.’ The divine name “Ashirta” is attested (as Ashratu)

yi
Chapter 7

in Mesopotamian inscriptions from the reign of Hammurabi (c. 1792-

1750) to the turn of the era more than 17 centuries later. Ashirta is the
consort of the god Amurru and possibly carries the title “Lady of the
steppe.” The question arises as to whether Ashirta has re-emerged as
biblical Asherah and as a consort of YHWH.
In the Amarna Letters, Ashirta appears only in the proper name
‘Abdi-Ashirta. She is obviously related to the goddess Athirat, however,
who is well attested in the neighboring kingdom of Ugarit. Excavations
at Ugarit have brought to light nearly 2,000 tablets written in an alpha-
betical cuneiform script generally dating from the 13th century B.C.E.°
and used until the destruction of the city in the early 12th century
B.C.E.’ The name of the goddess Athirat appears at least 74 times in
these Ugaritic texts, including 55 times in myths or legends, 17 times in
rituals,® once in correspondence and once in a fragment difficult to clas-
sify.? She is “the Lady Athirat of the sea (rbt.atrt.ym),” and has a sanctu-
ary in Tyre (qds.atrt.srm); she is “procreatress of the gods (gnyt.ilm).”
Although she is never called the wife of the great god Ilu/El, scholars
have almost universally recognized her as his consort,'° who assumed
the role of the queen mother and placed her sons on the throne.
Curiously, the deity Athirat seems to disappear from Northwest
Semitic texts in the first millennium B.C.E., at least in Phoenician and
Aramaic texts. Indeed, in Phoenician and Aramaic, ‘srt (athirat) is sim-
ply a common noun indicating a “sanctuary,” and “Athirat” no longer
appears as a separate divine name or as a theophoric element in per-
sonal names. The discovery of I’srt on an earthenware jar in a sanctuary
at Tell Miqneh/Ekron has prompted the excavators to interpret it as a
reference to the goddess Athirat,” but this Philistine, or rather Philist-
ian, inscription probably means only that the earthenware jar belongs
“to the sanctuary.”"
The only first-millennium B.C.E. references to the goddess Athirat
appear in South Arabic epigraphy. According to the French scholar
Francois Bron,

The worship of Athirat in pre-Islamic South Arabia seems charac-

teristic of the kingdom of Qataban, where she had a significant |

58
 “YHWH and His Asherah”: Did the God of Israel Have a Consort?

sanctuary in Wadi Harib. She is attested in a more sporadic way

at the site of as-Sawda. In Qataban, an object called bht was dedi-
cated to her; if this term indicated truly a “votive phallus,” as has
been proposed, one would have a convincing indication that it
was a fertility worship, but this translation remains hypothetical."

It is in the context of the “disappearance” of the goddess Athirat in

the first millennium B.C.E. that it is necessary to understand the prob-
lem arising from the term “asherah” in paleo-Hebrew epigraphy and in
the Bible.
As we saw at the beginning of this chapter, the term “asherah” is men-
tioned in a mid-eighth century B.C.E. inscription from a tomb at Khir-
bet el-Qom, probably corresponding to biblical Makkedah (see, for
example, Joshua 10:28).'° The inscription is very difficult to read
because it was incised twice, with the second incision only imperfectly
covering the first one. After the publication of the site by the the exca-
vator, William G. Dever,’* I proposed a more complete reading of the
inscription: “Blessed be Uriyahu by YHWH and his asherah [brk
ryhw.lyhwh.wel’srth>].” With some nuances about the order of the
words, this reading has been accepted by most scholars."*
Excavations at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud—a kind of caravansary in the northeast-
ern Sinai during the first half of the eighth century B.C.E.’’—brought to
light several inscriptions written in ink on pithoi (in Hebrew script) and on
the plaster surface of a wall (in Phoenician script). Some of these inscrip-
tions are blessings similar to the one from Kirbet el-Qom: “I bless you by
YHWH of Samaria and by his asherah (brkt.’tkm.lyhwh.smrn.wl’srth)”
(pithos inscription); “I bless you by YHWH of Teman and by his asherah
[brktk lyhwh tmn wl’srth]” (pithos inscription); “by YHWH of Teman and his
asherah [I[yJhwh [?]tymn.wl’srt[h]]” (wall inscription); and “YHWH of
Te[man and his asherah] made good to you [hytb.yhwh.hty[mn.w’srth]]”
(wall inscription).
These attestations have often been interpreted as decisive evidence of
the goddess Asherah, consort of YHWH.’! However, the long list of con-
temporaneous Hebrew personal names does not include any theonym
“Asherah,” not even among the names from Khirbet el-Qom or Kuntil-

59
Chapter 7

let ‘Ajrud.* Moreover, “Asherah” is written I’srth, with the grammatical

suffix (-h) of the third person singular; such a construction is found
nowhere else for a Hebrew proper name, not in the Bible or in the epi-
graphical record.” Finally, in the following sentence of the pithos
inscription the verb ybrk, and in the wall inscription the verb hytb, are
singular instead of plural as would be expected if two deities were men-
tioned. Given these facts, would it not be better to interpret “asherah”
as a common noun?
In fact, according to a very old exegetical tradition attested by the Sep-
tuagint (a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, dating to the third and
second century B.C.E.), Aramaic Targums and rabbinical exegesis, the
common Hebrew noun asherah generally designates the sacred tree or
thicket of a traditional sanctuary. This interpretation clearly seems to cor-
respond to most uses of asherah in the Hebrew Bible. Indeed, the context
of asherah indicates that it is something that is wooden (Deuteronomy
16:21; Judges 6:25-30), that one plants (Deuteronomy 16:21),” that one
tears off (Micah 5:14),’¢ that one cuts (Exodus 34:13; Judges 6:25-30; 2
Kings 18:4, 23:14),”” that one cuts down (Deuteronomy 7:5; 2 Chronicles
14:2, 31:1), that one breaks down into parts (2 Chronicles 34:7, 34:4)”
or that one burns (Deuteronomy 12:3; 2 Kings 23:15; 2 Chronicles 19:3).*°
It is also something that is often standing up (2 Kings 13:6; 2 Chronicles
33:19; Isaiah 27:9)°' near the altar of YHWH (Deuteronomy 16:21-22).”
Consequently, the asherah is associated with YHWH in blessing for-
mulas because this sacred tree placed in YHWH sanctuaries has
assumed some of the sacred power of YHWH, especially his power of
fertility. As shown by various Aramaic,* Hebrew,** Nabatean® and
Greek” parallels towards the turn of the era, a sanctuary precinct or an
object of worship can acquire the numinous power of the deity sufficiently
to become associated with the deity itself, and it sometimes becomes a new
divine name or even a new deity.
This interpretation of asherah as a common noun meaning “sacred tree”
is clearly correct for the biblical references to asherahs in Yahwist sanctu-
aries, even when the practice of placing an asherah in a sanctuary comes
under attack during the reforms of kings Hezekiah and Josiah
(Deuteronomy 16:21-22). |

60
 “YHWH and His Asherah”: Did the God of Israel Have a Consort?

Some scholars claim, however,

that occasional references to
asherah in the Bible should be
interpreted as references to a con-
sort of Baal. In Judges 3:7, for
instance, we learnthat the
“Israelites did what was evil in the
sight of YHWH, forgetting YHWH
their God and worshiping the
Baals and the Asherahs.” And 1
Kings 18:19 mentions “four hun-
dred prophets of the Asherah.”
The use of the definite article in
this latter case and the plural form
in the first suggests that both are COUR
DEVE
WILL

common nouns, rather than THIS ENIGMATIC DRAWING was found

proper names. Moreover, these on the wall of an eighth-century B.C.E.
tomb at Khirbet el-Kom, near Hebron; an
passages are obviously late, writ-
accompanying inscription reads, “Blessed
ten down around the time of . by Yahweh ... and his asherah.” A similar
Josiah’s reforms (late seventh cen- inscription appears on an eighth-century
tury B.C.E.) or later; to make the B.C.E. sherd from Kuntillet “Ajrud, in
practice of setting up asherahs in Sinai. Whether asherah referred to Yah-
Yahwist sanctuaries seem espe- weh’'s consort or simply to a sacred tree
in temples to Yahweh is a matter of con-
cially bad, the writers of the
tinuing debate among scholars.
Deuteronomistic tradition simply
associated it with Baal worship.
Other references to asherah that are thought to refer to a goddess should
prcbably instead be interpreted as referring to the sacred tree. The “carved
image” of the asherah mentioned in 2 Kings 21:7 might simply refer to a
representation of a sacred tree, an iconographic motif well known in the
ancient Near East. The reference in 2 Kings 23:7 to a woman doing weav-
ing for the asherah might refer to colored cloth placed on a sacred tree, a
practice attested in Palestine as late as the 19th century.” In the Bible there
is simply no definite reference to a goddess named Asherah.”
If no ancient Hebrew text unequivocably mentions a goddess named

61
Chapter 7

Asherah, some archaeologists have suggested that she is represented by

various objects or iconographic motifs, such as the sacred tree. Some
argue that Asherah is more directly represented during the First Temple
period (especially the eighth and seventh centuries B.C.E.) by the
numerous female terracotta figurines that have been found in excava-
tions of Judahite sites.” The argument that Asherah is depicted in these
abundant terracotta figurines is very popular among scholars,” despite
the fact that the statues do not present any characteristic features of
deities. The terracotta statues may well be toys, or depictions of ordi-
nary women, or votives of pregnant women hoping to induce abundant
lactation (they have large breasts), and in the 1980s they were often
identified as “Astarte” figurines. The only argument advanced in favor of
the identification of the figurines with Asherah is her so-called “domi-
nant position in the Old Testament” and the Khirbet el-Qom and Kun-
tillet-‘Ajrud inscriptions.*! We have just seen that this argument has lit-
tle, if any, scholarly support. YHWH did not have a consort.
If the goddess Asherah was represented by the sacred tree, then she
would have been the only great goddess surviving in eighth- and sev-
enth-century B.C.E. Palestine.** This is not very likely. Moreover, the
various proposals for an iconographic identification of the goddess
Asherah in first-millennium B.C.E. are all completely hypothetical or
based on circular reasoning.*? Although we have solid references to the
goddess Asherah in late-second-millennium B.C.E. Ugarit, there is not
a single certain reference to her from first-millennium B.C.E. in Israel.
Even if she did exist and was depicted, we have no knowledge whatever
of the iconography.
In short, there is no reason to believe that First Temple period Yah-
wists believed YHWH had a consort named “Asherah.” There is no indi-
cation that such a goddess was worshiped in Judah or Israel. However,
an examination of the references to asherah reveals the importance of
the sacred tree in traditional Israelite Yahwism and in the blessing for-
mulas. The role of the asherah/sacred tree will in turn shed light on the
religious reform of the Judahite king Hezekiah. First, however, it is nec-
essary to delineate the aniconic character of Yahwism.

62
 CHAPTER 8
Yahwism and Aniconism

H: did people represent YHWH? Were there statues or repre-

sentations of the God of Israel? The Second Commandment of
the Decalogue seems to provide a clear answer:

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of
anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth below, or
that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to
them or worship them (Exodus 20:4-5; Deuteronomy 5:7-9).

This rather long commandment is probably the result of numerous

editorial elaborations. The most primitive form may have been some-
thing like, “You will not make of me a carved representation [pesel].”'
The Bible never refers to any statue or anthropomorphic representa-
tion of YHWH. In the detailed description of the temple built by
Solomon, probably according to a Canaanite-Phoenician model, there is
no mention of a statue of the deity that one would normally expect to
be placed in the holiest part of the sanctuary (1 Kings 6:16-28).* None
of the many archaeological excavations of Israelite and Judahite sites has
brought to light any carved image of the national divinity. This is very

63
Chapter 8

different from what we find in Mesopotamia and Egypt, where thou-

sands of representations of deities have been unearthed. Although the
Mesha Stela describes the Moabite king’s conquest of YHWH sanctuar-
ies of Atarot and Neboh, it makes no mention of any YHWH statue. The
Bible gives a fairly detailed list of what the Babylonians carried off from
the Jerusalem Temple, which they destroyed in 587 B.C.E.:

The bronze pillars that were in the house of YHWH, as well as

the stands and the bronze sea that were in the house of YHWH,
the Chaldeans broke in pieces, and carried the bronze to Baby-
lon. They took away the pots, the shovels, the snuffers, the
dishes for incense, and all the bronze vessels used in the Temple
service, as well as the firepans and basins. What was made of
gold the captain of the guard took away for the gold, and what
was made of silver, for the silver. As for the two pillars, the one
sea, and the stands, which Solomon had made for the house of
YHWH, the bronze of all these vessels was beyond weighing. The
height of the one pillar was eighteen cubits, and on it was a
bronze capital; the height of the capital was three cubits; the lat-
ticework and pomegranates, all of bronze, were on the capital all
around. The second pillar had the same, with the latticework
(2 Kings 25:13-17).

There is no reference to a statue or representation of the deity. Fur-

thermore, while the Persian king Cyrus the Great returned statues of
deities to other Near Eastern sanctuaries,’ the Israelites received only
“the vessels of the house of YHWH that [the Babylonian king] Neb-
uchadnezzar had carried away from Jerusalem and placed in the house
of his gods” (Ezra 1:7).
Nonetheless, this Israelite religious aniconism has recently been
questioned by some scholars.* These scholars rely on an inscription and
some relief carvings of the Assyrian king Sargon II (c. 721-705 B.C.E.),
who conquered the northern kingdom of Israel c. 722 B.C.E. A prism
found at Nimrud, site of the ancient capital of Kalhu (biblical Calah),
(continued on page 73)

64
 ics)
Z
SS

LE
ERICH

THE “HERETIC PHARAOH” Akhenaten (ruled c. 1359-1342 B.C.E.) and his

famed wife Nefertiti worship Aten, represented by the sun disk at upper
right. Akhenaten attempted to purge Egyptian religion of all gods except
Aten and is often thought of as an early monotheist. A cache of some 300
cuneiform tablets found atTell el-Amarna, Akhenaten’s capital, provides
an unparalleled window into the political, military and religious life of the
ancient Near East.
 LESSING
ERICH

DEPICTED AS A MIGHTY WARRIOR, the

Canaanite god Baal (top) brandishes a club in
his right hand and a lance with branches rep-
resenting lightning in his left. Baal attracted
worshipers among the Israelites-and the ire
of Israel's prophets.
The gold pendant at right depicts Astarte
and emphasizes the goddess’s sexual fea-
tures. The figurine dates to the 16th-century
B.C.E. and was found at Gezer. Astarte and
her variant, Ashtoreth, were also popular
among the Israelites and were condemned
by the Biblical authors. BI
CO
R
FI
7

66
 THE GODDESS HATHOR
displays her trademark
“flip” hairdo on an ivory
carving from Megiddo. An
important Egyptian deity,
Hathor was believed to
protect pregnant women
and mothers.

LESSIN
ERICH

Ba Chea ORliE CANAANTE

PANTHEON, is shown seated
in this bronze statuette dis-
covered at Megiddo. The fig-
ure is covered from head to
foot in gold foil and wears a
conical hat; its facial features
are highlighted by black inla y,
probably bitumen. “El” is a
generic name for God in
Northwest Semitic; in the
Hebrew Bible, God is often
ORIENTAL
THE
OF
COURTESY
INSTITUTE
THE
OF
UNIVERSITY
CHICAGO called El.

67
 DU
AL
TAL

THE CRAGGY CLIFFS OF EDOM reflect a reddish light, which gave the
region its name (Edom means red). References in the earliest parts of the
Bible suggest that Israelite religion was first formed in areas southeast
and south of Israel, such as Edom and Midian.

THETEL DAN STELA,

from the second half of
the ninth century B.C.E.
was probably erected by
King Hazael of Damascus
to boast of a victory over
Jehoram, king of Israel,
and Ahaziah, king of
Judah. It contains the
first-known reference to
King David outside the
Bible-in the phrase
“House of David” (high-
lighted words at lower
Z.
right). Ahaziah’s Hebrew
name, Ahaziahu, contains at its end a form of YHWH, the personal
name of the Israelite God.

68
 LEVINE
MARYL

“ISRAEL IS LAID WASTE” claims this stela carved by Pharaoh

Merneptah (c. 1212-1202 B.C.E.). The name “Israel” appears in the
highlighted area near the bottom of the stela and is shown in the
detail. A hieroglyphic sign after the name indicates that “Israel”
refers to a people-the earliest historical reference to the Israelites.

69
 BECK
PIRHIYA
TER

MESHEL/DRAWING
ZE'EV
4

“| BLESS YOU BY YHWH of Samaria and by his asherah,’ reads the Hebrew
inscription on this pithos, or storage jar, from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud in the Sinai
Desert. The illustration depicts two figures standing side-by-side with
arms akimbo, a pose typical of the Egyptian god Bes. The larger one, at
left, has a man’s torso and posture, but a bovine face, horns and a tail.
The smaller figure has a human body with breasts and a bovine face and
tail. A seated musician appears at far right. Author André Lemaire disagrees
with those scholars who
identify the two standing
figures as Yahweh and
Asherah and suggest that
Asherah was considered
by some Israelites as
Yahwebh’s consort.

70
 LESS
ERIC

FERTILITY FIGURINES such as these were common in ancient Judah.

Many scholars believe they represent the goddess Asherah, though
André Lemaire argues that they do not bear any distinctive signs of a
deity and may simply be dolls or votives of pregnant women hoping to
induce abundant lactation or eventually used as a kind of doll.

ipl
 ASSYRIAN WARRIORS carry
away ceremonial vessels
as booty from the Judahite
city of Lachish after their
conquest in 701 B.C.E. The
scene appears on the walls
of the palace of Sennacherib
in Nineveh but does not
mean that there was a
temple in Lachish or that
King Hezekiah’s reforms
did not extend to Lachish.
LESSING
ERICH

THE SYNAGOGUE at Gamla, atop a dramatic peak

in the Golan Heights was in use from the late first
century B.C.E. until
its destruction by
the Romans in 67
C.E. Synagogues,
André Lamaire
notes, functioned
as both houses of
study and of
prayer. Ironically,
they seem to have
developed first in
the Diaspora, then
spread to Galilee
and then last to
Jerusalem.
EXCA
SYO
DAN

{2
 Yahwism and Aniconism

(continued from page 64)

and probably written towards the end of Sargon’s reign, reports that the
king took from Samaria as spoil “the gods in whom they entrusted.”
These “gods” have been connected to Assyrian reliefs representing the
conquests of Sargon in which divine statues are taken as plunder from
an unidentified city. Some scholars have identified the text and the
images as representing the “gods of Samaria,” which would imply not
only that the Israelites created images of their gods but that Israelite reli-
gion was polytheistic.>
The weak points of this argument have been pointed out by Tel Aviv
University historian Nadav Na’aman.° This Sargonic text was written
down around 706 B.C.E., long after Sargon’s conquest of Samaria in 722
B.C_E., and the sentence “and the gods in whom they entrusted I counted
as spoils” is lacking in earlier copies of the text. The reference is thus
apparently not a historical detail but a literary embellishment, like others
in this text. The relief in question, moreover, does not show the capture
of a Samarian city but of the Aramean city of Hamat in 720 B.C.E. On the
other hand, a relief showing the Assyrian king Sennacherib’s capture of
Israelite Lachish in 701 B.C.E., well identified by a cuneiform legend,
shows the plunder of cultic vessels but no statue representing the deity.
Even if the Assyrian evidence does not indicate that Yahwism was
idolatrous, what about the “golden calves” installed at Dan and Bethel
by the first ruler of the northern kingdom of Israel, Jeroboam I? After
setting them up, Jeroboam even proclaims: “You have gone up to
Jerusalem long enough. Here are your gods, O Israel, who brought you
up out of the land of Egypt” (1 Kings 12:28). In fact, scholars have long
considered this a polemical passage intended by the biblical author to
discredit the worship in the temples of Dan and Bethel in favor of the
Jerusalem Temple. In any event, in the ancient Near East the deity is
often represented as standing on an animal that becomes the god's sym-
bol. Thus Jeroboam’s golden calves probably represented only “the sup-
port of the invisible presence of Yahweh, who in Jerusalem was sitting
enthroned on the cherubim.” It is not a question of representing the
divinity itself but of symbolizing its invisible presence in the temple by
representing its support, and the expression “the one who sits on the

ta
Chapter 8

BR
WE

THE HOLY OF HOLIES at Arad’s temple was flanked by two incense

altars; against the back wall, placed on a stone base, was a standing
stone with traces of red paint. André Lemaire believes this stone may
have represented the deity. The Arad sanctuary was apparently used
only briefly, from about 755 to 715 B.C.E., when it was destroyed,
perhaps as part of King Hezekiah’s religious reforms.

cherubim” (yosheb [hak]kerubim) is probably borrowed from the iconog-

raphy of the god El sitting on his royal throne.*
To understand Israelite aniconism, it is useful to look at the general
context of aniconism in the ancient Near East. Following T.N.D. Met-
tinger,? we can distinguish between an “empty” aniconism, in which the
presence of the deity is merely symbolized, and a “material” aniconism,
in which the deity is represented, though not anthropomorphically. The
Jerusalem Temple represents empty aniconism, for the presence of
YHWH is symbolized by cherubim, which act as his throne; similarly,
the YHWH sanctuaries in Dan and Bethel use a calf/bull to symbolize
the presence of the deity. In material aniconism, on the other hand, the
deity is directly represented, though not depicted. For example, excava-
tors found a stone stela in the cella of a sanctuary at Arad; this stela
likely signified the deity himself, not merely his throne. Both types of

74
 Yahwism and Aniconism

aniconism may have been characteristic of Yahwism.

We can also distinguish between “traditional” aniconism, which is sim-
ply passed from generation to generation, and “programmatic” aniconism,
which is a clearly expressed policy that prohibits illustrated representa-
tions of the deity. The first may be tolerant and able to coexist comfort-
ably with certain kinds of divine images; the second tends to exclude such
representations systematically and may become iconoclastic.
In the ancient Near East, material aniconism was common. Aniconic
stelae are attested from the third and second millennia B.C.E. in Syria—
Mari,’ Emar and Qatna—as well as in the southern Levant, especially
in Gezer, Hartuy, Tel Kitan, Shechem, Megiddo and Hazor. During the
first millennium B.C.E., according to the literary tradition, aniconic ste-
lae were used in Gades, Paphos, Carmel and Emesa."' It also seems that
the Nabateans were originally aniconic; the Nabatean use of anthropo-
morphic representations of divinities toward the end of the first millen-
nium B.C.E. was probably due to the influence of Hellenism.”
Empty aniconism, on the other hand, is more difficult to detect
archaeologically. Many scholars believe that some ancient depictions of
sphinxes or cherubim, often carved in stone or ivory, may represent the
thrones of deities. One in particular is dedicated by an inscription to
Astarte, so the sphinxes/cherubim thought to represent empty anicon-
ism are commonly called “Astarte thrones,”'’ even though they might
have served as thrones for other deities as well. It is not certain, how-
ever, that these sphinx/cherub depictions were originally completely
empty; the deity may simply be lost. Some reliefs may have representa-
tions. One relief also seems to show a standing stone (stela),’* which
might represent the convergence of the two types of aniconism.
Yahwistic aniconism appears to go back to its origins, to the Midian-
ite cult practiced in the southern Negev. Archaeological surveys of the
Negev and Sinai have revealed the existence of cult sites with standing
stones as early as the 11th millennium B.C.E.’” The Nabateans contin-
ued to practice material aniconism until about the turn of the era.’°
In fact, material aniconism was practiced by most of Israel's neigh-
bors. It seems to have been an intrinsic aspect of Canaanite civilization,
in which it coexisted with forms of worship that were not aniconic and

15
Chapter 8

did make use of statues and other representations.

It is difficult to determine whether empty aniconism was equally
common, though it does not seem to have been. Our evidence is largely
limited to images of empty “thrones,” especially from Phoenician-
Canaanite culture, which apparently influenced the Temple of Solomon.
Thus traditional Yahwist aniconism was expressed in various forms,
which leaves open the possibility that it underwent some kind of evolu-
tion. In the eighth and, especially, seventh centuries B.C.E., traditional
Yahwism became increasingly programmatic—as kings Hezekiah and
Josiah inaugurated reform movements inspired by the prophets, which
purified Israelite aniconism.

76
CHAPTER 9
The Rise of the Prophets

I:the rejection of Baal worship, Elijah played a crucial role, as did

his disciple and successor, Elisha. We call these men “prophets,”
those who proclaim the “word of YHWH.” Prophecy has often been
regarded as a unique feature of ancient Israelite society. According to the
historian Ernest Renan, “The unique character of Israel starts with the
prophets ... It is by prophecy that Israel occupies a special place in the
history of the world.”
Since the publication of Assyrian and other Near Eastern texts begin-
ning in the second half of the 19th century, however, it has beer clear
that Israelite prophecy was not an isolated phenomenon. The Mesha
Stela, for instance, with two oracles of Chemosh (lines 14 and 32), was
first published in 1870;? and an Assyrian cuneiform oracle was pub-
lished in 1875.
Taking into account only Semitic texts, and leaving aside the problem of
Egyptian prophecy (which seems to have been common among senior offi-
cials), ancient Near Eastern prophecy is primarily attested in three groups
of inscriptions: cuneiform texts from Mari on the Middle Euphrates (18th
century B.C.E.), Assyrian oracles (seventh century B.C.E.) and Northwest
Semitic inscriptions (ninth and eighth centuries B.C.E.).*

77
Chapter 9

During the last half century the prophetic texts from Mari have been
much studied, and excavations at the site continue to turn up new
examples. We now have about 50 published texts that report oracles or
symbolic gestures in letters generally intended for the king.” The kings
servants were apparently obliged to tell the king directly about any
divine oracles expressed by prophets. The majority of these oracles, it
seems, were uttered during temple services; they were then immediately
transcribed for the king, sometimes accompanied by the scribe’s inter-
pretation of the oracle. In this way, the king received a fresh and faith-
ful account of the prophecy.
These prophetic oracles are generally introduced by the formula:
“Thus speaks the god ...” According to the French scholar Dominique
Charpin, “In the majority of cases, prophecies emanate from a deity who
addresses the sovereign of the kingdom in which the temple stands.”°
The majority of these oracles have a nationalist tenor, affirming the
deity’ support for the king and promising the king victory over his ene-
mies. Some prophecies are more complex, however, and some even
have a certain “universalist” message, revealing the ambitions of such
local divinities as Dagan of Terqa, Shamash of Andarig or Addu
(=Hadad) of Aleppo. Addu is sometimes presented as a kind of World
Master who dispenses justice:

Thus Addu speaks:

“I had given all the country to Yahdun-Lim
And, thanks to my weapons, he did not have any rival in
battle.
He gave up my party
And the country that 1 had given him, I gave it to Samsi-Addu

I put you back on the throne of your father ...

I anointed you with my victory oil
And no one stood in front of you.
Listen to this word from me:
When somebody who will have a lawsuit calls to you
By saying to you: ‘Somebody made me wrong,’

18
 The Rise of the Prophets

Stand up and give him judgment;

Answer him righteously.
That is what I want from you.
When you depart for the battlefield,
Do not leave without hearing an oracle.
If the oracle that I give is favorable,
You will leave for the battlefield.
If it is not thus,
Do not cross the door!”’

The prophetic tradition of Mari is clearly similar to that attested in

the Hebrew Bible.®
The same is true of Assyrian oracles of the seventh century B.C.E.° Assyr-
ian prophets are especially designated by two terms: mahht (“ecstatic”) and
raggimu (“the one who proclaims”), and they can be male or female. The
oracles were proclaimed primarily during the reigns of Esarhaddon (c. 680-
669 B.C_E.) and Assurbanipal (c. 668-631 B.C.E.). The god who most often
speaks through the medium of the prophet is Ishtar of Arbela:'°

Do not rely on man!

Raise your eyes and look at me!
I am Ishtar of Arbela.
I reconciled Assur with you.
When you were a child, I raised you towards me.
Do not fear anything, praise me.”

Certain tablets contain more than one oracle,” the first stage in the
formation of a literary tradition of oracle collections.
Prophetic oracles are also attested in several West Semitic monumen-
tal inscriptions. The clearest example is that of the Aramaic stela of
Zakkur, king of Hamat and Lu‘ash (in Syria) at the beginning of the
eighth century B.C.E. In the stela, Zakkur tells how, besieged in his cap-
ital, he turned to his principal god, Baal Shamayin (Master of Heaven),
who answered him with oracles transmitted by hdztyin (“seers”) and
‘adidin (“spokesmen”):

79
Chapter 9

And I raised my hands towards Baal Shamayin,

And Baal Shamayin answered me,
And Baal Shamayin (spoke) to me
Through seers and spokesmen
(And) Baal Shamayin (said to me):
“Do not fear!
Because it is |who made you king,
(And I, I) will stand with you
And I, I will deliver you from all (those kings who)
set up a siege against you.”
And (Baal Shamayin) said to (me) ...
“All these kings who set up (against you a siege,
I will disperse them),
And this wall that (they built up,
I will cut down).””

The late-ninth-century B.C.E. Mesha Stela does not specify the

medium through which the oracles of the national divinity, Chemosh,
were transmitted, but it quotes two oracles and tells how each one of
them was later carried out:

And Chemosh said to me:

“Go, take Nebo from Israel.”
And I went at night
And I fought there from break of dawn until midday.
And | took it and killed it whole:
Seven thousand men, boys, women, (girl)s and pregnant women,
Because | dedicated it to Ashtar-Chemosh.
And I took from there the altar-hear(ths) of YHWH
And dragged them in front of Chemosh ...
And the house of (Da)vid lived in Horonen ...?
And Chemosh said to me:
“Go down, fight against Horonen.”
And I went down
And (1 fought against the city

80
 The Rise of the Prophets

Se A
s NAL
GAR

THE “BOOK OF (BA)LAAM (son of Be’o)r, the man who saw the gods,”
reads this inscription, in red and black ink, on the plaster wall at Deir ‘Alla
in the Jordan Valley. Balaam son of Be’or appears in Numbers 22-24, a
foreign seer who prophesies in favor of Israel.
The inscription dates to the first half of the eighth century B.C.E. but
likely reproduces a text that could go back to the ninth or tenth century
B.C.E. This inscription shows that prophets were a part not only of
Israelite religion but also of the religions of Israel’s neighbors.

And I took it.

And) Chemosh (returned) it in my days.”

These two royal inscriptions not only reveal the existence of a

prophetic tradition among contemporaneous kings in the vicinity of
Israel, but also show that kings collected favorable oracles and inscribed
them on monuments to propagate the royal ideology.
Another Aramaic inscription provides evidence of an old prophetic lit-

81
Chapter 9

erature—an inscription in red and black ink on a plaster wall at Deir ‘Alla
in the middle Jordan Valley. According to the title, written with red ink,
it is an extract of the “Book of (Ba)laam (son of Be’o)r, the man who saw
the gods.” The rest of the text, unfortunately badly preserved, reports
that the gods revealed to Balaam an oracle of misfortune, which he, with
sadness, conveyed to his people.”
According to paleographic analysis and the archaeological context,
this inscription dates from the first half of the eighth century B.C.E., but
it is obviously a copy of an earlier literary manuscript, on papyrus or
leather, the composition of which could go back to the ninth or tenth
century B.C.E. Such an Aramaic prophetic literature, apparently
attached to the kingdom of Damascus, indicates the probable existence
of a similar literature in the contemporaneous kingdoms of Israel and
Judah. Moreover, the seer Balaam son of Be’or appears in the Bible; he
is the principal character in Numbers 22-24, a foreign seer who proph-
esies in favor of Israel.
The existence of a prophetic tradition outside of Israel is thus attested
in the Bible itself, as well as in the epigraphical record. Prophecy was
not unique to Yahwism or to Israel; it was a more general religious phe-
nomenon.
The fact that Israelite prophecy is not unique does not diminish the
role of prophets in the development of Yahwism. The prophetic biblical
texts clearly show that these “men of God” could play a very significant
political and religious role. Some scholars have argued that the Israelite
prophetic tradition was an invention of the Deuteronomistic History,
which was re-edited during the Babylonian Exile. But the Deuterono-
mist probably simply developed an older historical tradition—with,
perhaps, some exaggeration—by presenting a systematic account of ear-
lier stories about prophecies and prophets.
The role of prophets in the history of Yahwism in the First Temple
period is apparent from traditions reporting prophetic interventioris by
such prophets as Nathan (with respect to David and Solomon), Ahijah
of Shiloh (Solomon and Jeroboam I), Elijah (Ahab) and Elisha (Jehoram,
Jehu, Jehoahaz and Jehoash). This simple list suggests that transmitted
oracles, announcing the fall of a king or his dynasty, could be used to

82
 The Rise of the Prophets

legitimate the reign of that king’s successor. In a way, then, oracles could
become “king makers.” Prophets were not only propagandists in service
of the king, however, for they also denounced abuses of royal power (2
Samuel 12:1-15; 1 Kings 21) and fought the diffusion of Baal worship
(1 Kings 18).
One important function of prophecy involved extending the influ-
ence of YHWH beyond the borders of Israel. For example, the fact that
YHWH was the “God of Israel” (but not the god of territories beyond
Israel), much as a king is the ruler of a kingdom (but not of territories
beyond the borders of that kingdom), is suggested by David when he
asks Saul why the king is pursuing him: “If it is YHWH who has stirred
you up against me, may he accept an offering; but if it is mortals, may
they be cursed before YHWH, for they have driven me out today from
my share in the heritage of YHWH, saying, ‘Go, serve other gods” (1
Samuel 26:19).'° Around 1000 B.C.E., then, to be exiled outside the ter-
ritory of YHWH meant that one would have to serve other gods; YHWH
apparently had no power outside Israel, and worship of YHWH stopped
at Israel’s borders.
But this was no longer true for the prophet Elijah, in the first half of
the ninth century B.C.E. To escape Ahab and Jezebel, Elijah took flight
out of Israel and even beyond neighboring countries that had extradi-
tion agreements with Israel (see 1 Kings 18:10). Thus he initially sought
refuge near the Arabs of the country of Qedem (1 Kings 17:2-6);"’ then
in Sarepta, in the kingdom of Sidon (1 Kings 17:8ff.); and finally on the
mountain of God, in Horeb, beyond the kingdom of Judah (1 Kings
19:3-8).
The cycle of stories about the prophets Elijah and Elisha also tells of
the extension of YHWHs power beyond the borders of Israel, especially
into the Aramean kingdom of Damascus. The kingship of Hazael, for
example, is in conformity with YHWH’s plans (2 Kings 8:7-15; see 1
Kings 19:15).'* Moreover, this cycle recounts the conversion of the
Aramean general Naaman, who states, “there is no God in all the earth
except in Israel” (2 Kings 5:15); Naaman recognizes only YHWH, even
though he thinks of YHWH as literally attached to the territory of Israel
and carries two mule-loads of Israeli earth (2 Kings 5:17).

83
Chapter 9

The international character of YHWH's power becomes apparent in

the oracles of later prophets, particularly Amos (mid-eighth century
B.C.E.), who makes three general kinds of prophecy: (1) Oracles stating
that nations will be punished for their transgressions against YHWH,
not only Judah and Israel but most of the kingdoms of the southern Lev-
ant (Amos 1:3-2:3); (2) oracles stating that YHWH does not act simply
in favor of the Israelites but is also the God of other nations, such as the
Cushites, Philistines and Arameans (Amos 9:7); and (3) oracles suggest-
ing that the misfortunes of other nations (Calneh, Hamath, Gath) will
also strike Israel (Amos 6:2).
These three kinds of prophetic oracle are also characteristic of later
prophets, particularly Isaiah, who prophesies the intervention of Egypt
and Assyria (Isaiah 7:18-20; see also 5:26-30, 6:11-13, 8:7), with
Assyria being simply an instrument in YHWHs hands (Isaiah 10:5ff.),
and Jeremiah, who predicts the intervention of the Babylonian armies of
Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 5:15ff., 6:22ff., 13:20ff., 20:4ff.).
Even if some of these oracles developed late, the assertion of YHWH's
power beyond the borders of Israel seems to go back to the prophets of
the First Temple period. YHWH’s actions are no longer limited to
Israelite territory. Historically, this is not a new phenomenon; we have
already seen, for instance, that the prophetic texts from 18th-century
B.C.E. Mari tell of gods acting outside of their traditional territories.'°
In a more general way, the tradition relating to Elijah reveals that
prophets could pass down the prophetic tradition to disciples, or the
“sons of prophets,” who were associated with particular sanctuaries
(Gilgal/Jericho, Bethel, Carmel). The Elijah cycle and Elisha cycle were
probably composed toward the end of the ninth century B.C.E., even if
they were not transmitted to us independently but were integrated into
the historiographic tradition of the books of Kings.
Beginning in the eighth century B.C.E., the diffusion of writing led to
the appearance of Hebrew prophetic books that remained independent
of the royal historiographic tradition. Thus emerged the first “prophet-
scribes”: Amos and Hosea. The phenomenon of the prophet-scribe
makes it possible to know more directly the thinking and teaching of
the prophets themselves, rather than merely the consequences of their

84
 The Rise of the Prophets

teaching for the king and his court.

We have seen that the earliest prophets tell of a more international Yah-
wism. We now will look at what the teachings of the prophet-scribes say
about the Yahwism of the latter part of the First Temple period, the Exile,
and the early Persian period, for these played a central role in transform-
ing Israelite Yahwistic monolatry into a totally aniconic religion.

85
 ee asa!

errr
2
aot i Pei epost
ey *y :

oo ite VeMorteces ofnaber tart

on th ce S
is cca prinnein Ae PF eM,
i " ks tl nani ORE whewae
eet
cs a BA Wepre eto Se | 2K. 1 ws
a mowa: (Laquily Tle A soe ealiad dr eS ahve, Sf.
ie ng sree 8 athe EO tar due 5D
a\' pw Pek the poate olp Viner’ "ates0 tht Cherny art “2a
“Te dbecpabbale = 58) a 5* om, ISS 412< ;
Te ee a, ee ee” St sith if
vee } tic wees hayet Pa 5 p> taath ei ia: 208
: 4 feo. Tew hrs ot Cy saree ne ee
‘rs of firs : VP PekAaneé SS oe
; aegn ks i> oie 2 ae Be «| Rare {rer ters-d nits

»~ g ae =D mies org A/S Vaan pes.

‘ a eno . SL eee tess (ease wal at

> =]

as v: =e ] geet viq@? cheer '.

; ye “Oren Seat ee ht oe raters > bor ol :

F wit Cn Diewh els ct 00 Se bars whe pee

= a+ iv, “$ a ‘sik |= re & ee ~ die HS

:
- > Pet) Meh
=r hw,
CaM - Fhe
at

ie y } of ange
het ai Labcieiies on cal Me
| “ serie Sistic ty) Herma bryos .
# Lincs sega ells lenge ae pepe
ri ‘te we forse «we idee) Gems i | ae eae
‘seh. «> KOUTA’ Gore GUt ae Cie tris pealy a ae

: afacy! Vins AIT Dae LI (eee bl-2e o rips:

a = iis
rink Take lO
The Religious Reforms of the
Judahite King Hezekiah

M ost of the prophecies of Amos of Tekoa (a town in Judah) seem

to come from the reign of Jeroboam II of Israel (c. 790-750
B.C.E.), even though material was added later. These prophecies are
thus contemporaneous with the Samaria ostraca and the Kuntillet ‘Ajrud
and Khirbet el-Qom inscriptions, as well as with the copy of the book
of Balaam inscribed on the plaster wall of Deir ‘Alla.
Although Amos is from Judah, he proclaims his oracles in the Bethel
sanctuary in Israel (Amos 7:10ff.) and addresses peoples throughout the
region: Damascus, Tyre, Philistia, Ammon, Moab, Edom, Judah and
Israel. YHWH does not judge only the Israelites but also neighboring
peoples; YHWH not only brought the Israelites out of Egypt but also the
Philistines out of Caphtor and the Arameans out of Kir (Amos Or7).
Thus YHWH takes on the features of a great God with a regional domain
who does not hesitate to criticize worship at the traditional Israelite high
places (Amos 7:9) of Bethel, Gilgal and Beersheba.’ Even the horns of
the Bethel altar will be cut down (Amos 3:14).? Finally, YHWH prophe-
sies the fall of Samaria and the deportation of Israelite leaders.

87
Chapter 10

Soon after Amos comes Hosea to denounce the infidelity and the
instability of the Israelites. Hosea is critical of the sanctuaries at Bethel
(Hosea 12:3-5) and Gilgal, and explicitly denounces ritual practices in
high places involving sacred trees (Hosea 4:12-15; see also 14:9 and Isa-
iah 1:29-30) and altars (Hosea 8:11, 12:12). Hosea reproaches the
Israelites for making sacrifices to Baal and carved representations
(Hosea 1122, 132122),
The prophecies of Micah (second half of the eighth century B.C.E.)°
are set in a clearly monolatrous context: “For all the peoples walk, each
in the name of its god, but we will walk in the name of YHWH our God
forever and ever” (Micah 4:5). Nonetheless, Micah is also sharply criti-
cal of the traditional sanctuaries:

I will cut off sorceries from your hand,

and you shall have no more soothsayers;
and I will cut off your images and your stelae from among
you,
and you shall bow down no more to the work of your hands;
and I will uproot your sacred trees [asherim] from among you.
(Micah 5:13-14)*

Such prophecies imply a religious movement that protests abuses

occurring in the traditional sanctuaries. According to 2 Kings, King
Hezekiah (c. 727-699 B.C.E.) acted as a representative of this prophetic
movement by carrying out a radical reform of the traditional sanctuaries:

He removed the high places, broke down the stelae, and cut
down the sacred tree [asherah]. He broke in pieces the bronze
serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of
Israel had made offerings to it; it was called Nehushtan (2 Kings
1:4) .

A little further on, 2 Kings recounts a speech by the Assyrian ambassa-

dor, who tries to convince the Jerusalemites to capitulate to the Assyrian
army. In the course of his speech, he refers to the reforms of Hezekiah:

88
 The Religious Reforms of the Judahite King Hezekiah

If you say to me, “We rely on YHWH our God,” is it not he

whose high places and altars Hezekiah has removed, saying to
Judah and Jerusalem, “You shall worship before this altar in
Jerusalem”? (2 Kings 18:22).

Some scholars have questioned the historicity of Hezekiah’s reforms.°

(We leave aside the question of whether the complementary accounts in
Kings and Chronicles used different sources.)® The historicity of the
reform described very briefly in 2 Kings 18:4 was probably based on an
early edition of Kings during Hezekiah’ reign.’ This composition is
characterized by its insistence that former kings of Judah “did not sup-
press [lo’-sdrui] the high places [habbamét],” but Hezekiah was the one
who “removed/suppressed the high places [hw’ hésir ‘et-habbamét].” This
was the essential aspect of the religious reform of Hezekiah (the sup-
pression of the high places), who insisted that previous kings be judged
according to their attitude toward the high places.
Hezekiah’s reform appears to have been very daring, even revolution-
ary, striking at some of the main features of earlier Yahwism.* The elim-
ination of Nehushtan, the famous bronze snake fashioned by Moses
according to Numbers 21:6-9,’ suggests that Hezekiah did not hesitate
to criticize even aspects of the sacred Mosaic tradition. He also attacked
traditional sanctuaries that were attached by foundation legends to the
patriarchs. The Beersheba sanctuary with its altar and sacred tree, for
example, was associated with Abraham (Genesis 21:33) and Isaac (Gen-
esis 26:25). Legends associated with the various patriarchs had legit-
imized the sacred stelae, trees and altars of the traditional sanctuaries.
They were now to be abolished.
Perhaps these measures had the support of refugees from the north-
ern kingdom, which had been conquered by the Assyrians in 722 B.C.E.
The Samarians who settled in Judah—many in Jerusalem itself—would
not have been attached to traditional Judahite sanctuaries. Hezekiah
may also have had the support of his people in reaffirming the inde-
pendence of Judah under the threat of an aggressive Assyrian empire.
Nonetheless, his reforms would have seriously upset the religious tradi-
tions of the provincial Judahite population, and they were probably not

89
Chapter 10

easily accepted by the population as a whole.

Archaeological evidence from two sanctuaries in the Negev—Beer-
sheba and Arad—suggests that at least some of Hezekiah’s reforms were
put into effect.!° Although excavators at Beersheba have not found a
sanctuary, they have uncovered a large stone altar with horns that had
been re-used to build a wall apparently destroyed during the Assyrian
king Sennacherib’s campaign of 701 B.C.E." This suggests that the altar
had been torn down sometime earlier, very likely toward the beginning
of Hezekiah’s reign, when he undertook a building program to with-
stand a siege by the Assyrian army. Although the original site of this altar
remains conjectural,” it seems clear that the altar itself was deliberately
de-consecrated, for one of the horns was sawed off.
The stratigraphy of Arad, excavated by Israeli archaeologist Yohanan
Aharoni between 1962 and 1967, remains in dispute. Another Israeli
archaeologist, Zeev Herzog, has recently published a detailed report on
Arad’ Iron Age fortress, which contained a sanctuary excavated by Aha-
roni.'’ The sanctuary comprised a court with an altar for burnt offerings,
an entry room (hekal) and a small holy of holies (debir) with an entrance
marked by two incense altars. The holy of holies contained one stela
(massebah) with traces of red paint, set up against the back wall. The
Arad sanctuary was apparently in use only for a short period of time,"*
from about 755 to 715 B.C.E., when it was destroyed—probably as a
result of Hezekiah’s reforms.
Despite the archaeological evidence from Beersheba and Arad, which
supports the biblical narrative, some archaeologists, such as Nadav
Na’aman of Tel Aviv University, still believe that Hezekiah could not
have carried out sweeping reforms in Judah. Na’aman argues that Assyr-
ian reliefs depicting Sennacherib’ capture of Judahite Lachish in 701
B.C.E. show bronze cult basins being carried off by Assyrian soldiers;
according to him such cult basins imply that a sanctuary existed in
Lachish at the time of its destruction,!® which occurred after Hezekiah’s
reform. Also, in excavations at Lachish conducted between 1966 and
1968, Aharoni found the remains of a First Temple period sanctuary,
Unfortunately, however, the stratigraphy of this sanctuary is not com-
pletely clear, and we do not know with any certainty when it was in

90
 The Religious Reforms of the Judahite King Hezekiah

RAD
Z.

HORNS AT EACH CORNER were typical of Israelite altars. This one was
part of a temple in Beersheba, though one of its horns was sawed off,
probably as part of King Hezekiah’s religious reforms that sought to cen-
tralize worship in Jerusalem. This altar was reassembled by archaeolo-
gists; it had been taken apart in ancient times and its stones reused in a
wall destroyed by the Assyrian king Sennacherib in 701 B.C.E.

use.!© In his final publication of the Lachish excavations,'’ David

Ussishkin dates this sanctuary to the ninth-eighth century B.C.E. with a
possible destruction during Hezekiah’s reform or a little earlier c. 760
BAG. EB:
As for the basins shown in the Assyrian reliefs, we do not know that
they had any religious purpose. In fact, one of Na’aman’ colleagues at
Tel Aviv University, archaeologist David Ussishkin, specifically makes
the argument that the vessels shown in the Assyrian reliefs were not cul-
tic: “The second and third soldiers bear large ceremonial chalices. These

91
Chapter 10

resemble in general smaller Iron Age cultic vessels, but here they prob-
ably had a purely ceremonial function.”
There is thus little reason to doubt the biblical account concerning
Hezekiah’s reforms.'? And they were radical reforms, cutting Yahwism
from its traditional local, geographical and cultural roots. The Yahwism
that began as worship of “the god of the father’—in that god’s sanctu-
ary, with that god’s sacred tree (asherah) and standing stone—was dras-
tically changed toward the end of the eighth century B.C.E., in four
principal ways:

First, the official center of worship was now in the Jerusalem

Temple. Yahwism thus became less at risk of losing its funda-
mental unity. Indeed, the blessing formulas from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud
mentioning “YHWH of Samaria” and “YHWH of Teman” suggest
that Yahwism was evolving very differently, toward a plurality of
YHWHs, each with its own sanctuary and features, little by little
obliterating whatever it was that held each of these YHWHs
together in a single divine personality. Something similar is found
with cults of the Virgin Mary in Catholic tradition; in popular
religion, “Our Lady of Chartres,” “Our Lady of Lourdes” and
“Our Lady of Fatima” tend to become different personalities.*°

The sharp prophetic criticism of the various sanctuaries is directed at

this evolution in popular religion towards a plurality of local YHWHs.”!
It is clearly formulated by the Deuteronomist:”

You must demolish completely all the places where the nations
whom you are about to dispossess served their gods, on the moun-
tain heights, on the hills, and under every leafy tree. Break down
their altars, smash their stelae, burn their sacred trees [asherim|]
with fire, and hew down the idols of their gods, and thus blot out :
their name from their places. You shall not worship YHWH your
God in such ways. But you shall seek the place that YHWH your
God will choose out of all your tribes as his habitation to put his
name there [lasum ’et-Semd Sam] (Deuteronomy 12:2-5).”

92
 The Religious Reforms of the Judahite King Hezekiah

It is also this opposition to the various local Yahwist sanctuaries that

explains the Deuteronomist’s insistence on the unity of the national
deity: “YHWH our God, YHWH is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4).
Second, in the blessing formulas in the inscriptions from Kuntillet
‘Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom, the sacred tree seems to have acquired some
of the numinous character of the deity, so as to become semi-divine. In
popular religion, the stela and the altar (especially its horns) probably
came to be regarded as so sacred as to become divine. Thus the eighth-
century B.C.E. prophets protested against this evolution, calling for the
destruction of sacred trees, stelae and altars. Once again, this reaction of
the prophets is codified in Deuteronomy: “You shall not plant any tree
as a sacred tree [asherah] beside the altar that you make for YHWH your
God; nor shall you set up a stela [massebah]—things that YHWH your
God hates” (Deuteronomy 16:21).
Third, the elimination of the sacred tree and the stela from Yahwist
sanctuaries meant that Yahwism was consistent with only “empty ani-
conism,” expressed in the architecture and furniture of the Jerusalem
temple where the divine presence was symbolized by the empty throne
of the cherubim. “Material aniconism,” represented by the stela, was
rejected and the deity was simply evoked by the vacuum. The anicon-
ism of Yahwism thus reached a significant new stage, becoming pro-
grammatic and absolute.”
Last, the concentration of worship in Jerusalem emphasized the reli-
gious unity of the Israelites, especially by means of the institution of pil-
grimage festivals held in Jerusalem (see Isaiah 2:2-3). The disappearance
of the local sanctuaries implied the disappearance of specific local festi-
vals held in association with those sanctuaries. Thus the three annual
pilgrimage festivals in Jerusalem (Exodus 23:14-17, 34:18-23;
Deuteronomy 16:1-16) became all the more important. Yahwist religion
was becoming less and less rooted to a particular piece of earth, and
more and more rooted in the conception of the “people of YHWH.”
On the whole, then, Hezekiah’s reforms represented a movement away
from both the origins of Yahwism and from the Yahwism that was popu-
larized by David. King David had promoted a policy of tolerance and
integration; he sought to bring the various local sanctuaries and religious

93
Chapter 10

traditions together under the name of YHWH. Thus, YHWH could take
root in sanctuaries throughout Israel. Hezekiah’s reforms, on the other
hand, constituted a geographical uprooting of provincial Yahwisms, cen-
tering them in Jerusalem as a single and regularized Yahwism.”
Despite his reforms, Hezekiah led Judah into political, military and
economic disaster. The Assyrians, who had destroyed the northern
kingdom in 722 B.C.E., also had designs on the south. If the Assyrian
king Sennacherib (704-681 B.C.E.) was unable to take Jerusalem
(which only added to Jerusalem's religious prestige), he nonetheless rav-
aged the Shephelah and Negev, killing thousands of people, taking
numerous prisoners and forcing Hezekiah to pay a heavy tribute of
“thirty gold talents” (2 Kings 18:14), a figure confirmed by the Assyrian
annals of Sennacherib. For part of the population, this disaster was
probably interpreted as a consequence of the drastic, even “impious,”
measures taken against the local sanctuaries (see 2 Kings 18:22,25).
Hezekiah’s religious reforms were quickly forgotten during the reign of
his successor, Manasseh (c. 699-645 B.C.E.). Similar reforms, however,
were to be advocated later in the seventh century B.C.E. by King Josiah
(c. 640-609 B.C.E.).

Of
CiAr Lehel |
Astral Worship and the Religious
Reforms of King Josiah

he Second Book of Kings describes the return to early Yahwism

under Hezekiah’s successor, Manasseh:

For he [Manasseh] rebuilt the high places that his father

Hezekiah had destroyed; he erected altars for Baal, made a sacred
tree [asherah], as King Ahab of Israel had done, worshiped all the
host of heaven, and served them ... He built altars for all the host
of heaven in the two courts of the house of YHWH. He made his
son pass through fire; he practiced soothsaying and augury, and
dealt with mediums and wizards (2 Kings 21:3-6).

There is no doubt about the polemical character of this passage.’ The

authors of the Deuteronomistic History were determined to make Man-
asseh appear as evil as possible—probably so that Manasseh, not the
“good” king Josiah, would appear ultimately responsible for the fall of
Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 587 B.C.E.
This description is especially striking because of its reference to wor-

95
Chapter 11

ship of the stars. Many of Manasseh’ faults, such as worshiping “the host
of heaven,” are also attributed to the Israelites of the northern kingdom
just before it was conquered by Assyria (2 Kings 17:16-17). Both pas-
sages, however, are part of the Deuteronomistic History composed during
the reign of Josiah and then re-edited during the Babylonian captivity.’
Interestingly, the denunciation of star worship does not begin until
the latter part of the seventh century B.C.E., with the prophecies of Jere-
miah and Ezekiel:

Do you not see what they are doing in the towns of Judah and in
the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, the fathers kin-
dle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes [kawwdnim|
for the queen of heaven Jeremiah 7:18; see also 44:17-19).

The bones of the kings of Judah, the bones of its officials, the
bones of the priests, the bones of the prophets, and the bones of
the inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be brought out of their tombs;
and they shall be spread before the sun and the moon and all the
host of heaven, which they have loved and served, which they
have followed, and which they have inquired of and worshiped
Jeremiah 8:1-2).

And the houses of Jerusalem and the houses of the kings of

Judah shall be defiled like the place of Topheth—all the houses
upon whose roofs offerings have been made to the whole host of
heaven, and libations have been poured out to other gods VJere-
tala NOwNS)s

He brought me to the inner court of the house of YHWH; there,

at the entrance of the temple of YHWH, between the porch and
the altar, were about twenty-five men, with their backs to the
temple of YHWH, and their faces toward the east, prostrating
themselves to the sun toward the east (Ezekiel 8:16).

This astral worship is explicitly rejected by Deuteronomy:

96
 Astral Worship and the Religious Reforms of King Josiah

When you look up to the heavens and see the sun, the moon,
and the stars, all the host of heaven, do not be led astray and
bow down to them and serve them (Deuteronomy 4:19).

If there is found among you, in one of your towns that YHWH

your God is giving you, a man or a woman who does what is evil
in the sight of YHWH your God, and transgresses his covenant
by going to serve other gods and worshiping them, whether the
sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven ... then you shall
bring out to your gates that man or that woman who has com-
mitted this crime and you shall stone the man or woman to
death (Deuteronomy 17:2-3,5).

Such star worship is not mentioned in the account of Hezekiah’s reforms,

so it probably took root in Jerusalem between the reign of Hezekiah and the
fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in the early sixth century B.C.E.
According to Zephaniah 1:5, star worship was practiced especially in
the Temple and on the terraces of houses. In the second half of the sev-
enth century, star worship came under severe attack by King Josiah,*
who “deposed the idolatrous priests whom the kings of Judah had
ordained to make offerings in the high places at the cities of Judah and
around Jerusalem; those also who made offerings to Baal, to the sun,’
the moon, the constellations [mazzaldét] and all the host of the heavens”
(2 Kings 23:5). “The altars on the roof of the upper chamber of Ahaz,
which the kings of Judah had made, and the altars that Manasseh had
made in the two courts in the house of YHWH, he [Josiah] pulled down
from there and broke in pieces, and threw the rubble into the Wadi
Kidron” (2 Kings 23:12).
The historical context of the development of star worship in Judah is
clear: It developed during the period when the Assyrians and later the
Babylonians dominated the Levant. That is, Israelite star worship was
strongly influenced by Mesopotamian astral worship.° This Mesopotamian
influence is apparent linguistically in the borrowing of two Akkadian
words, kawwdnim for the cakes offered to the “queen of heaven” in Jere-
miah 7:18 and 44:19,’ and mazzalot to indicate the “constellations” in 2

OF
Chapter 11

Kings 23:5.° The “queen of heaven” is therefore the great Mesopotamian

goddess Ishtar, which seems confirmed by the iconography of some
seals and jewelry from this time.’
Star worship was a significant phenomenon in Aramean culture and
religion as well. The Aramean pantheon included the god of heaven Baal
Shamayin, the sun-god Shamash, the moon-god Sahar,’* and such con-
stellations as the Pleiades. In fact, the Assyrian empire of the first half of
the first millennium B.C.E.'! was an Assyrian Aramean empire, and sim-
ilar forms of star worship were practiced by both Assyrians and
Arameans; we see this clearly in contemporaneous iconography,” partic-
ularly in seals and seal impressions.”
As we have seen, King Josiah attacked the Mesopotamian-influenced
star worship with surprising violence. This violence may be explained
by Josiah’s ultimate intention of reaffirming the independence of the
Judahite kingdom, especially as the Assyrian empire weakened and then
collapsed under the onslaught of the Babylonians. The firm, official
rejection of all forms of foreign worship,'* which had even come to affect
worship in the Jerusalem Temple, makes perfect sense in the context of
such a “nationalist” movement.
Josiah’s reform had some success.” For instance, numerous Yahwist
names appear on Judahite ostraca, seals and seal impressions from the
seventh and early sixth century B.C.E.,’° as indicated by the recent pub-
lication of a group of West Semitic seals'’ and two volumes of bullae
(seal impressions).'* This phenomenon is best explained by a resurgence
of monolatrous Yahwism in Judahite religion of that time.!°
Josiah died in Megiddo in 609 B.C.E. His successors were confronted
by a rivalry between Egypt and Babylonia (which had wrested
supremacy from Assyria in Mesopotamia) for control of the Levant. The
Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II first laid siege to Jerusalem in 597
B.C.E. A decade later, he set fire to the city, its royal palace and its tem-
ple, deporting part of its population to Babylonia. The country was
transformed into: a simple province managed by a Judahite puppet
named Gedaliah; later, after Gedaliah’s assassination as a “collaborator,”
the province was probably run by a Babylonian governor. Could Yah-
wism survive this decimation of the “people of YHWH”?

98
She AbERe12
The Religious Crisis of Exile

| | ntil the Babylonian Exile, YHWH remained primarily the “God

of Israel,” the national deity of the Israelites who lived in the ter-
ritories of Israel and Judah and worshiped at the Jerusalem Temple.
After the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple in
587 B.C.E., they resettled the Israelite political and religious elites in
Babylonia; these exiled leaders included priests and such prophets as
Ezekiel.
The Exile meant a deep and painful crisis for Yahwism. If the “god of
the father” had become YHWH the “God of Israel,” he nonetheless
retained an essential connection to the land of his people. Originally,
YHWH:s sanctuary was at Horeb/Sinai, in the south and later in Shiloh
in Cisjordan; then, after David, YHWH's sanctuaries were in the entire
Land of Israel; and then, with the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah,
YHWHs sanctuary was exclusively the Jerusalem Temple, though he
remained the God of all Israelites. Despite this evolution, YHWH was
always firmly attached to a place; he was the God of his place, Israel and
Judah, while other gods were sovereign in their places. Now, however,
with the Exile, this monolatrous Yahwism had to change fundamentally
or become extinct.

99
Chapter 12

THE
INST
ORIE
THE
OF
COU
CHI
UNIV

MARDUK was the patron deity of the city of Babylon and the chief god
of the Babylonian pantheon. When the Israelites found themselves in
exile in Babylonia after 587 B.C.E., they faced a theological crisis: The
temple of their God, Yahweh, lay in ruins in Jerusalem, yet Marduk and
other gods were worshiped in grand temples throughout Babylonia. Did
that mean Marduk was mightier than Yahweh?

Yahwism could no longer be simply a religion practiced in Israel and

Judah, with its official cult limited to the Jerusalem Temple. Not only
was the Temple destroyed, but the Judahites were now forced to live
under the jurisdiction of a different god—or, rather, gods, for the Baby-
lonians were polytheists who worshiped multiple deities.
One factor in the survival of Yahwism was the Babylonian policy of
resettling exiled peoples in their own communities. That is, exiled
Phoenicians were resettled in Phoenician villages, and exiled Philistines
were resettled in Philistine villages in Babylonia. From ancient
cuneiform texts found at Babylon, we know ofvillages of deportees with
such names as Ashkelon and Gaza (Philistine cities), as well as Tyre and
Kedesh (Phoenician cities). These villages were a kind of New Ashkelon
and New Tyre, much like our New York and New Orleans.
The exiled Israelites were also aggregated in their own communities.

100
 The Religious Crisis of Exile

The Book of Ezekiel, for example, describes just such a setting in which
the prophet answers questions from the elders and other leaders gath-
ered around him. Moreover, a recently published cuneiform tablet dat-
ing to 498 B.C_E.,' inscribed with names of deported Israelites, was
composed at a place called “Al Yahtidu” (meaning “the town of Judah”),
which is the Babylonian Akkadian name for Jerusalem. This Al Yahtdu,
however, clearly refers to a village in Babylonia—a New Jerusalem,
where people from the Judahite capital were resettled.
Living among the Babylonians, the exiled Judahites must have won-
dered: Did the Babylonians so completely overwhelm Judah because
their gods were stronger than YHWH? Large temples of the Babylonian
gods Marduk, Nabu and Ishtar, among others, graced Babylonian cities,
reflecting the economic prosperity and power of the people who served
these gods. The Temple of YHWH in Jerusalem, on the other hand, the
only temple where YHWH could be worshiped following the reforms of
Hezekiah and Josiah, lay in ruins. Under these conditions, with Israel
and Judah completely overrun and with the Temple destroyed, what
would it mean to serve YHWH as the “God of Israel”?
The Judahites in Babylonia, moreover, would have witnessed an
atmosphere of rich religious ferment. Especially during the reign of the
Babylonian empire's last king, Nabonidus (c. 556-539 B.C.E.), the vari-
ous gods of Babylonia were in continual rivalry with one another, with
their adherents making claims for their god’s supremacy. The partisans
of Marduk, for example, whose center of worship was Babylon, tried to
outdo the partisans of the moon-god Sin, whose greatest temple had
been rebuilt in Harran and who may have been supported by
Nabonidus himself.? Akkadian texts from this time recount a kind of
theological contest in which the followers of Marduk or Sin chant
hymns saying that their god is incomparable, the most beautiful and the
most powerful.
Given these conditions, the fact that Israelites were resettled in their
own communities, along with their priests and prophets, allowed them
to address the religious crisis in a more coherent way. Initially, under the
reign of Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562 B.C.E.), the prophet Ezekiel
explained to the Israelites that the catastrophe that had struck them was

101
Chapter 12

the result not of the impotence of YHWH but of the Israelites’ repeated
disregard of his commandments. Thus YHWH speaks through the
agency of the prophet Ezekiel:

I myself will bring a sword upon you, and I will destroy your
high places. Your altars shall become desolate, and your incense
stands shall be broken; and I will throw down your slain in front
of your idols (Ezekiel 6:3-4).

Soon now I will pour out my wrath upon you;

I will spend my anger against you.
I will judge you according to your ways,
and punish you for all your abominations
(Ezekiel 7:8).

Ezekiel’s explanation for the Israelite catastrophe is not new. The late-
ninth-century B.C.E. Mesha Stela (lines 5-6) attributes the oppression of
Moab to the anger of the Moabite national deity, Chemosh: “Omri was
king of Israel, and he oppressed Moab for many days, for Chemosh was
angry with his land.” In other words, such oppression is not inconsis-
tent with the power of YHWH as the “God of Israel.” Ezekiel apparently
hoped for a revival of Yahwism led by those deported to Babylonia,
because the divine presence had left Jerusalem (Ezekiel 1) to rest among
the exiles in Babylonia, close to the river Chebar (Ezekiel 10:20-22). It
is important to note, then, that Ezekiel YHWH is not confined to his
“sanctuary” in Israelite territory or Jerusalem. YHWH is in the midst of
his people wherever they are.
The aniconism of Yahwism—especially the programmatic aniconism
mandated by the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah—also served the Judahites
well in Babylonia. They would have been confronted on a daily basis with
images of Mesopotamian gods, especially the divine statues in teniples.
Even though these images represented the gods of the powerful Babyloni-
ans who had conquered the Israelites and taken them into exile, the
Israelites rejected the attraction of these deities, following Ezekiel’ warning:
“What is in your mind shall never happen—the thought, ‘Let us be like the

102
 The Religious Crisis of Exile

nations, like the tribes of the

countries, and worship wood and
stone’” (Ezekiel 20:32).
The prophets forcefully affirm
that images of the gods are not
gods but merely things made by
men. For example, the anony-
mous prophet Deutero-Isaiah
(Second Isaiah), who lived in
Babylonia in the second half of
the sixth century B.C.E. (chap-
ters 40-55 of the Book of Isaiah
are attributed to Deutero-Isaiah),
writes that “Bel [Bel-Marduk,
chief god of Babylon] bows
down, Nebo [the son of Bel-Mar-
duk] stoops, their idols are on LESSI
ERICH

beasts and cattle” (Isaiah 46:1). ISHTAR, THE GODDESS OF LOVE

What is an “idol?” asks Deutero- stands astride a lion, a symbol closely
associated with the Mesopotamian god-
Isaiah: “A workman casts it, and
dess. During the periods of Assyrian and
a goldsmith overlays it with gold, Babylonian domination over ancient
and casts for it silver chains” (Isa- Israel (eighth-sixth centuries B.C.E.),
iah 40:19). Those who make Mesopotamian astral worship greatly
idols do so in vain, he says: influenced Israelite religion. The Bible
condemns the practice of offering cakes
to the “queen of heaven” (Jeremiah 7:18,
All who make idols are noth-
44:19), a reference to Ishtar.
ing, and the things they
delight in do not profit; their
witnesses neither see nor know. And so they will be put to shame.
Who would fashion a god or cast an image that can do no good?
Look, all its devotees shall be put to shame; the artisans too are
merely human (Isaiah 44:9-11).

This kind of derision expressed with regard to divine images appears

in the Book of Jeremiah, too, though in a passage inserted into the text

103
Chapter 12

after the time of the prophet:

Their idols are like scarecrows in a cucumber field,

and they cannot speak;
They have to be carried, for they cannot walk.
Do not be afraid of them, for they cannot do evil,
nor is it in them to do good.
(Jeremiah 10:5)

The rejection of Babylonian-style idol worship, with its numerous

divine statues and numerous rituals performed in honor of these
images,’ such as “washing the god’s mouth [mis pi],”* subsequently
became a traditional aspect of prophetic preaching and literature.’
When later redactors edited the Deuteronomistic History (which
includes not only the book of Deuteronomy but also the books of
Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings), they added the strong message that
the making and worshiping of divine images violated YHWH's com-
mandments. For example, Deuteronomy 4:27-28—“YHWH will scatter
you among the peoples ... There you will serve other gods made by
human hands, objects of wood and stone that neither see, nor hear, nor
eat, nor smell”—was clearly inserted after the Babylonian captivity into
the older text of Deuteronomy, which had been composed near the end
of the seventh century B.C.E.
If the Babylonian gods were simply “objects of wood and stone” made
by “human hands,” what about YHWH?

104
CHAPIER413
The Emergence of
Universal Monotheism

|: religious ferment during Nabonidus’s reign—with the great

god Marduk vying with the great god Sin for pride of place in the
Babylonian pantheon—forced the Israelites to ponder the role of YHWH
outside of Israel. If YHWH had indeed followed his people into Babylo-
nia, what was his relation to the Mesopotamian gods? If the Babylonian
gods were just “objects of wood and stone,” then was YHWH the only
true God, acting not only in Babylonia but throughout the universe?
This understanding of YHWH as the universal God emerges in
Deutero-Isaiah, written during the reign of the Persian king Cyrus the
Great (559-530 B.C.E.), who conquered the Babylonians and replaced
them as the Near Eastern superpower. The prophet quotes YHWH:
“Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me” (Isaiah
43:10): and “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god”
(Isaiah 44:6). It was YHWH, says Deutero-Isaiah, “who created the heav-
ens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it. He established it; he
did not create it a chaos; he formed it to be inhabited!” (Isaiah 45:18).
In Deutero-Isaiah, YHWH% role as creator is a fundamental aspect of

105
Chapter 13

his universal power: “I made the earth, and created humankind upon it;
it was my hands that stretched out the heavens” (Isaiah 45:12). The idea
of YHWH as creator-god is not expressed for the first time in Deutero-
Isaiah; YHWH% role as creator emerged early on as a result of his assim-
ilation with El Elyon (God Most High). Nonetheless, it now becomes an
essential feature of YHWH: He created the entire world and the entire
world depends upon him.
Monotheism and universalism go hand in hand, and the prophet
quotes YHWH as commanding the entire universe to recognize him as
the one and only God: “I am YHWH, and there is no other; besides me
there is no god ... [so let all the peoples] know, from the rising of the
sun and from the West, that there is no one besides me” (Isaiah 45:5-6).
Or this:

There is no other god besides me,

A righteous God and a Savior;
there is no one besides me.
Turn to me and be saved,
all the ends of the earth!
For I am God, and there is no other.
(Isaiah 45:21-22)

Here we have a full-blown monotheism. The prophet is not saying

that YHWH is the greatest of all the gods but that YHWH is the only
God. Nor is the prophet saying that YHWH is the god only of the peo-
ple of Israel; he is the God of everyone everywhere. This is not monola-
try in the grand old tradition of Yahwism, in which the “god of the
father” became the “God of Israel.” This is something completely new:
YHWH is the universal God, “and there is no other.”
In this spirit, as we have seen with respect to the severe strictures
against divine images, biblical redactors re-edited and re-published the
ancient texts to make them consistent with a strict monotheism. Thus
they added monotheistic passages to Deuteronomy: “To you it was
shown [that is, YHWH's power in leading the Israelites out of Egypt] so
that you would acknowledge that YHWH is God; there is no other

106
 The Emergence of Universal Monotheism

besides him” (Deuteronomy 4:35). “So acknowledge today and take to

heart that YHWH is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath:
there is no other” (Deuteronomy 4:39). Similar passages were also
inserted elsewhere in the Deuteronomistic History; in Kings, for
instance, King Solomon prays “that all of the peoples of the earth may
know that YHWH is God; there is no other” (1 Kings 8:60).
This sudden emergence of Yahwist monotheism,' in a Mesopotamian
context, is all the more astonishing in that we know almost nothing
about the author of Deutero-lsaiah, the prophet who gave it such a clear
expression. One of the few things we do know about him is that he was
an admirer of the Persian empire and that he found favor with the greatest
Persian king, Cyrus.? According to Deutero-Isaiah, it is YHWH himself

who says of Cyrus, “He is my shepherd,

and he shall carry out all my purpose;”
and who says of Jerusalem, “It shall be rebuilt,”
and of the temple, “Your foundation shall be laid.”
Thus says YHWH to his anointed, to Cyrus,
whose right hand I have grasped
to subdue nations before him
(Isaiah 44:28-45:1).

Is it possible, then, that Deutero-Isaiah’s strict monotheism influ-

enced Persian religion—and/or Persian religion influenced Yahwism?
Indeed, according to the early fifth-century B.C.E. Greek historian
Herodotus, the Persians “do not erect statues of gods in their temples or
altars, and they consider such people who do raise divine statues to be
mad: the reason for this, in my opinion, is that, unlike the Greeks, the
Persians never considered the gods as comparable in nature to men.”
Persian religion thus seems to have shared an aniconism with Yahwist
tradition. Moreover, the Persian god Ahuramazda was also a creator-
god. A statue of the Persian king Darius I (c. 522-486 B.C.E.), found at
Susa, is inscribed, “Ahuramazda is the great god who created the earth,
who created the heavens, who created man.”
Unfortunately, we know little about Persian beliefs and religious

107
Chapter 13

practices at the time of Cyrus and his son and successor, Cambyses.’
Scholars disagree, for example, about whether Cyrus worshiped the god
Mithra or the Zoroastrian god Ahuramazda. It is difficult to know any-
thing with certainty about ancient Persian religion.®
All we can say for certain is that Deutero-Isaiah admired Cyrus for
political reasons: Cyrus freed the exiles from the yoke of Babylon. Con-
sequently, YHWH could “anoint” Cyrus as someone who carried out his
wishes, much as he had anointed the Aramean king Hazael (1 Kings
19:15;’ see 2 Kings 8:13) and had regarded Nebuchadnezzar as his “ser-
vant” Jeremiah 25:9, 43:10), though in none of these cases is there any
reference to a religious influence.
The Judahites now faced the more favorable circumstances of the Per-
sian empire, the largest empire the ancient Near East had ever known,
extending from the Aegean Sea to the Indus River. Persian authorities
seem to have shown respect for the many diverse local cultures and reli-
gions, at least as far as these peoples recognized the authority of the
Great King. These conditions offered fertile soil for the development of
a universal God.

108
GHAPTERAL4
Israelite Religion in the Persian
Empire: YHWH as “God of Heaven”

B= monotheism goes back to the mid-sixth century B.C.E., to

the reign of the Babylonian king Nabonidus and to the prophet
Deutero-Isaiah.’ But such monotheism was not immediately and every-
where accepted, not in the increasingly diverse Jewish world of Judea,
Samaria or the Diaspora.
In Babylonia, not all exiles took up Deutero-Isaiah’s polemic, in
which the Babylonian gods were reduced to nothing. Many exiles had
adopted Babylonian customs, which involved tolerance for the local
gods. A number of Israelites had names containing the theophoric ele-
ments of Mesopotamian gods, for example, Marduk or Nebo. It is diffi-
cult to make precise inferences about the beliefs of people with
theophoric names, but it seems surprising, given the fierceness of
Deutero-Isaiah’s rhetoric, that the heroes of the Book of Esther—Esther
herself and her cousin Mordecai—bear names derived from the Baby-
lonian deities Ishtar and Marduk. It is thus likely that the nascent
monotheism, for the most part, was not aggressive toward “idols” but
rather tolerant of them, including the idols of the Babylonians as well as

109
Chapter 14

the idols of other peoples.

This attitude of accommodation also seems to characterize the Jewish
community of Elephantine, an island in the Nile River in Upper Egypt
(that is, southern Egypt). Aramaic papyri and ostraca* from Elephantine
reveal that this community remained Yahwistic (they called YHWH
“Yaho/YHW”) while accepting a certain syncretism, generally related to
intermarriage with Aramean or Egyptian spouses. It is in this context
that we should understand blessing formulas by Yahé and an Egyptian
divinity—‘I blessed you by Yaho and [the Egyptian god of good for-
tune] Khn(um)” (ostracon Clermont-Ganneau 70.3)’—as well as an
exculpatory oath sworn to an Aramean deity and Yaho: “Oath that
Menahem son of Shallum son of Hésha‘yah swore to Meshullam son of
Natan ... by ‘Anat-Yaho.”* The same applies to an oath uttered by a man
named Malkiyah, who has a Yahwist name but is presented as an
“Aramean,” which explains the oath he delivered before a court: “I,
Malkiyah, I witness against you to Herem/temenos’ of Bethel, the god,
among the four avengers.”°
It is difficult to know how much these formulas, which were official
utterances required for participation in various social activities (such as
a law court), reflect the beliefs of those who used them. But cultural
coexistence and mixed marriages probably reflect at least a measure of
pragmatic tolerance.’
The need for accommodation with one’s neighbors was certainly not
limited to the Jewish colony on the island of Elephantine in the fifth
century B.C.E. During the Roman period, the rabbis of the pharisaic tra-
dition tried to specify what behaviors, in relationships with pagans,
would be allowed or occasionally tolerated without becoming idolatry.
Throughout the Jewish world, and especially in the Diaspora, Jews often
had relationships with non-Jews simply in carrying on with daily life,
and the famous Mishnah treatise ‘Abodah Zarah devotes five et os to
the risks of idolatry posed by such interactions.
For about two centuries after the Exile, from the mid-sixth century
through the mid-fourth century B.C.E., the Near East was ruled by the
Persian Achaemenid empire. This meant that Jewish priests and other
leaders needed to communicate with their Persian overlords, which in

110
 Israelite Religion in the Persian Empire: YHWH as “God of Heavan”

turn meant being able to discuss their religious beliefs and practices
with a people who followed Mazdaism. The Jewish leaders thus empha-
sized the transcendent and universal character of YHWH, which
brought him closer to the great god Ahuramazda and made him under-
standable to the Persians. During the Persian period, YHWH is more
and more frequently called by the general name “God,” which could be
understood in any culture, rather than by the specific name “YHWH,”
the name of the particular god of the Jews.
The use of such expressions is particularly clear in the Aramaic doc-
uments preserved in the Book of Ezra. (The Book of Ezra contains mate-
rial from several sources, some dating earlier than Ezra himself, who
was contemporaneous with the Persian king Artaxerxes II [c. 404-359
B.C.E.].)° In a letter to the Persian king Darius (c. 522-486 B.C.E.), Tat-
tenai, governor of the province “Beyond the River” (“Tattenai” is also
referred to in cuneiform inscriptions as governor of the province
“Beyond the River”), describes the Temple of Jerusalem as “the house of
the great God [béit elaha’ rabba’]” (Ezra 5:8); and the Judeans helping to
rebuild the temple are called “servants of the God of heaven and earth
[‘abdohi di-elah shemayyd’ we’ar‘a’|” (Ezra 5:11). The decree of King
Cyrus II (c. 559-530 B.C.E.) concerning the rebuilding of the Temple
also employs the expression béit elahd’, “the house of God” (Ezra 6:3-5),
which he specifies several times is “the God of heaven” (Ezra 6:9-10).
The Aramaic expression elah shemayyd’ (the God of Heaven) is also
attested in Jewish Aramaic texts from Elephantine (fifth century B.C.E.).
These texts also frequently employ the proper name “Yaho/YHW”
(especially in letters exchanged between Jews), but elah shemayya’”” can
easily be substituted for “Yaho/YHW.” For example, a petition to the
governor of Judea, a man named Bagohi, uses elah shemayyd’ as well as
“Yaho the God” and “Yaho the God of Heaven” to refer to YHWH,;"' the
memorandum of the answer sent by the governor in response to the
petition, however, uses only eldh shemayya’.”
YHWH is also referred to as elah shemayyd’ in the firman (an official
letter granting the bearer special privileges) issued to Ezra by the Per-
sian king Artaxerxes II. This firman describes the so-called Ezra mis-
sion, which took place in the seventh year of Artaxerxes’ reign, in 398

oa
Chapter 14

BIL
KU
PR
RE

ELEPHANTINE PAPYRI. A Jewish community thrived on the island of

Elephantine, on the Nile River, in the fifth century B.C.E. A trove of papyrus
documents illuminates the life of the community; the document shown
here is addressed to a Yedaniah from a certain Hananiah, who urges the
Elephantine Jews to observe the Passover.

B.C.E.; it states that Ezra is to lead Jewish peoples scattered throughout

Persian territories back to Jerusalem, taking with him the text of the
Torah and vast resources dedicated to the Jerusalem Temple. In the fir-
man, Ezra is officially called “the scribe of the law of the God of Heaven
[elah shemayya’].” In other words, the Torah brought from Babylonia by
Ezra to codify the traditions and rites suitable for official Judaism is
under the protection of the great universal God. Nevertheless, the Book
of Ezra does reveal some tension between the old provincial Yahwism
and the new universal Yahwism; sometimes the God of Israel is called
“YHWH” and sometimes he is called “the God of Heaven.”
In the firman, however, only the Aramaic expression eldh shemayyda’
(God of Heaven) is found (see Ezra 7:12,21-23) along with the expres-
sions “God of Israel” (Ezra 7:15) and “God of Jerusalem” (Ezra 7:19).
The tetragrammaton YHWH is completely lacking in this official letter.
Henceforth “the God of Heaven” appears more and more frequently—
initially in relations between non-Jews and Jews,” and then among Jews
themselves—during the Persian period and the early Hellenistic period.

Lig
 Israelite Religion in the Persian Empire: YHWH as “God of Heavan”

It also appears in the Book of Daniel (2:18-19,37,44; see also 2:28),

while a Hebrew version (elohey shamayim) of the Aramaic elah shemayy@’
appears in the books of Ezra (1:2) and Nehemiah (1:4-5, 2:4,20)."
A similar phenomenon was also taking place in contemporaneous
Aramean civilization. The Canaanite storm god Baal was increasingly
called Baal Shamayin/Baal Shamén!> (Master of Heaven), as attested in
Syria and Cilicia. In the Hellenistic period, Baal Shamayin was often
considered another name for Zeus. On a fourth-century B.C.E. coin
found at Samaria, for example, the Aramaic legend “Baal of Tarsus” (an
avatar of Baal Shamayin’*), used on Cilician coins, was replaced by the
Greek legend “Zeus.”'’ It may seem surprising that coins minted in
Samaria would contain the name Zeus.
Such a “dialogue of the religions,” or reciprocal influence among reli-
gions, seems to have developed during the Persian Achaemenid period.
Recognition of the great gods of the various cultures did not prevent
peoples from remaining attached to their own traditions and particular
forms of worship, all with the blessing of Persian authorities. An exam-
ple of this atmosphere of tolerance is the rebuilding of the Jerusalem
Temple, concluded in 515 B.C.E. (‘in the month of Adar the sixth year
of the reign of King Darius” [Ezra 6:15]), and the restoration of certain
types of sacrifices practiced in the first Temple.
In many ways, the inhabitants of the Persian province of Judea (called
Judah in the First Temple period), who returned some 70 years after the
587 B.C.E. destruction of the Temple, retained a monolatrous faith with
particularistic accents. Many of them wanted to restore an ideal Jewish
nation in all its purity, and they often insisted on the importance of rites
distinguishing Jews from other peoples—even from Jews who remained
in Judah. This became a source of tension, not only between Jews who
returned from Exile and Jews who did not, but also between the Jews of
Judea and the Jews of neighboring provinces, such as Samaria.
Such tensions could be focused on places of worship. The destruction
of the Jerusalem Temple, for example, probably involved the suspension of
official sacrifices of animals. According to the Book of Jeremiah, however,
“On the day after the murder of [the Babylonian-appointed governor]
Gedaliah ... eighty men arrived from Shechem and Shiloh and Samaria,

115
Chapter 14

with their beards shaved and their clothes torn, and their bodies gashed,
bringing grain offerings and incense to present at the temple of YHWH”
(Jeremiah 41:4-5). As we have no evidence of a temple at Gedaliah’s capi-
tal of Mizpah,'* the temple here is probably the temple of Jerusalem, which
now lay in ruins. Apparently rituals involving vegetable offerings, rather
than animal sacrifices, continued to be performed at the site of the Temple.
Animal offerings were not restored until the return of the first exiles, prob-
ably around 538/537 B.C.E. (see Ezra 3). The rebuilding of the temple in
515 B.C_E. allowed for a complete resumption of the rites and sacrifices
performed before the fall of Jerusalem (Ezra 6:15).
Unfortunately, we have no certain information about any temple of
YHWH built in Babylonia, or about any rites and sacrifices that may have
been performed in Exile. The prophet Ezekiel, however, may refer to the
existence of a small temple: “Though I removed them far away among the
nations, and though I scattered them among the countries, yet I have been
a sanctuary to them for a little while in the countries where they have
gone” (Ezekiel 11:16).'° Indeed, one of the purposes of Ezekiel’s preach-
ing was to convince the Israelites that the divine presence remained with
them in Exile, despite the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple.”
We know more about cult practices outside of Babylonia. Not only
did the Judeans have a Yahwist temple in Jerusalem (after 515 B.C.E.),
but so did the Samaritans, on Mount Gerizim,”! and the Idumeans,
probably at Khirbet el-Qom/Makkedah.” We have also seen that the
Jews of Elephantine, in Upper Egypt, had a temple of Yaho.
From the correspondence of the Jews of Elephantine with the high
priest of Jerusalem and the governors of Judea and Samaria, it appears
that the high priest in Jerusalem did not answer and that the governors
gave only reluctant authorization—with great initial misgiving® and a
number of reservations—for the rebuilding of the temple of Yah6 at Ele-
phantine. According to a memorandum written around 407 B.C.E., the
governors of Judea and Samaria gave the community permission to’ make
vegetable offerings and to use incense, but not to sacrifice animals:

Regarding the house of the altar (byt mdbh’) of the God of heaven
in Elephantine-the-fortress, built before the reign of Cambyses

114
 Israelite Religion in the Persian Empire: YHWH as “God of Heavan”

and destroyed in the year 14 of King Darius by the criminal

Vidranga: Build it in its place as it was before, and plant offerings
and incense are to be presented on this altar (wmnht’ wlbwnt’
ygqrbwn ‘l mdbh zk) in accordance with what was before.”4

By the end of the fifth century B.C.E., then, official doctrine appears
to have limited the sacrifice of animals to the Jerusalem Temple but
allowed for plant and incense offerings elsewhere.
The biblical scholar Alfred Marx has suggested that the influence of
Persian religion accounts for the vegetable offerings in the Bible, espe-
cially in the P (Priestly) strand of the Pentateuch. According to Marx, “It
is not thus excessive to think that through this official sacrifice P met the
Zoroastrian ideal of non-violence and respect of life, the echoes of which
had already reached him by the preaching of Deutero-Isaiah [see Isaiah
f1-6-9, 65-25].
Perhaps not surprisingly, the evolution of vegetable and incense offerings,
especially in the Diaspora, probably made Yahwism more acceptable to for-
eign populations, as the Book of Malachi implies: “For from the rising of the
sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place
incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering” (Malachi 1:11).
During the Exile, then, a movement developed that strictly regulated
sacrificial worship, especially the sacrifice of animals. Thus the prophet
Hosea quotes YHWH, “I desire steadfast love (hesed) and not sacrifice
(zabah), the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings” (Hosea 6:6).
Such thinking could well have led to the notion that the Temple itself,
while a good and holy place, was not necessary:

Thus says YHWH:

Heaven is my throne
and the earth is my footstool;
what is the house that you would build for me,
and what is my resting place?
(Isaiah 66:1).7°

It is probably in the context of this relativization of sacrifice (see also

i'd
Chapter 14

1 Samuel 15:22-23; Amos 5:22.25) Hoseav8:13 Isaiah 12id; and Jere-

miah 6:20, 7:1-8:3)”’ and the emphasis on the “knowledge of God” that
we should understand the birth of the synagogue.

116
@HAPTERZI5
The Temple, the Synagogue
and Absolute Aniconism

DE much research, the origins of the synagogue remain

obscure.’ Some scholars propose that synagogues first sprung
up during the Babylonian Exile, as part of a tradition of prayer and
study that developed around exiled priests, prophets and scribes.* To
date, however, we have no literary, epigraphical or archaeological evi-
dence for synagogues in Babylonia during the Exilic period.
The oldest Jewish synagogues, or gathering houses, are called proseuché
(Greek for “place of prayer”) or proseuché Ioudaion (“place of prayer of
the Jews”). The term proseuché was never applied to a non-Jewish build-
ing,’ and sometimes the proseuché was dedicated to hypsistd theo (God
Most High).* These “places of prayer” are attested in third-century
B.C.E. Greek inscriptions from the Egyptian Fayum, about 40 miles
southwest of Cairo. The term “synagogue” (from the Greek synagége,
meaning “assembly” or “place of assembly”) appears in the Fayum later,
replacing the term proseuche by the second century C.E.
Significantly, the earliest epigraphical evidence of synagogues comes
fromm the Diaspora: an inscription from the reign of Ptolemy III Euer-

8
Chapter 15

getes (246-221 B.C.E.) from Arsinoe (Crocodilopolis) in the Fayum;’

another inscription dated to the reign of Ptolemy III from Schedia in
Lower Egypt (Northern Egypt);° a papyrus dated 218 B.C.E. from
Alexandrou-Nesos in Middle Egypt;’ and inscriptions from the second
and first centuries B.C.E. from several sites in the Nile Delta, including
Xenephyris,® Athribis,? Nitriai'? and Alexandria." A first-century B.C.E
synagogue on the Aegean island of Delos reveals that the phenomenon
extended to the eastern Mediterranean,” and some first-century B.C.E.
inscriptions indicate that synagogues even existed in Rome.”
This epigraphical evidence confirms what we know from the literary
tradition. Around the turn of the era, according to Philo, Josephus and
the New Testament, there were synagogues throughout the eastern
Mediterranean. Moreover, an inscription on a recently published
ossuary (a bone-box used for secondary burials) indicates that syna-
gogues also existed in the Syrian interior, in Apamea and Palmyra.”
The earliest synagogues in Palestine itself come somewhat later, and
for years scholars debated whether any existed before the year 70 C.E.,
when the Romans destroyed the Herodian Temple. The absence of
archaeological and epigraphical evidence was surprising, given refer-
ences in the Gospels to synagogues in the Galilee; and according to later
rabbinical tradition, numerous synagogues also existed in Jerusalem.
Since the 1960s, however, several pre-70 C.E. synagogues have been
found, for example at Masada and Herodion. But the only inscription
from a pre-70 C.E. Palestinian synagogue was found during excavations
in the area of Jerusalem known as the City of David in 1913-1914. This
first-century C.E. inscription,’ incised in Greek on a limestone slab 25
inches wide and 17 inches high, specifies the functions of a synagogue
at that time:'°

Theodotus son of Vettenus, priest and synagogue leader, son of a

synagogue leader, grandson of a synagogue leader, rebuilt this -
synagogue for the reading of the Law and the teaching of the
commandments, and the hostelry, rooms and baths, for the lodg-
ing of those who have need from abroad. It was established by
his forefathers, the elders and Simonides.

118
 The Temple, the Synagogue and Absolute Aniconism

COURT
AUTHO
ANTIQ
ISRAE

“THEODOTUS ... priest and synagogue leader ... rebuilt this synagogue
for the reading of the Law and the teaching of the commandments,”
reads a first-century C.E. Greek inscription found in Jerusalem. The fact
that the text is in Greek, not Hebrew, and its reference to “those who
have need from abroad,” suggests that the synagogue was used by Jews
from the Diaspora and that it housed large numbers of visiting pilgrims.
Some scholars have identified it with the Synagogue of the Freedmen
(former slaves in the Roman Empire), mentioned in Acts 6:9.

Even if Theodotuss synagogue served as a hostelry and ritual bath

(miqveh) for pilgrims, its primary function was as a venue for the read-
ing and teaching of the Law. Thus it resembled the beit midrash (“house
of instruction”) referred to in the Book of Ecclesiasticus 51:23. The beit
midrash, however, was apparently a place of study for younger students,
whereas the purpose of the synagogue was to have the Law read for all.
In the synagogue, the scriptures were studied by everyone, as a kind of
continuing weekly education. The first-century C.E. historian Jose-
phus—a Jew from a priestly Jerusalem family who wrote histories in
Aramaic and Greek while living in Rome—describes this kind of study:

[Moses] appointed the Law to be the most excellent and neces-

sary form of instruction, ordaining, not that it should be heard

119
Chapter 15

once or twice or on several occasions, but that every week men

should desert their other occupations and assemble to listen to
the Law and to obtain a thorough and accurate knowledge of it
(Against Apion 2.175).

From excavations at Masada, Herodion, Magdala, Gamla, Kiriat-

Sefer’ and, perhaps, Capernaum" and Jericho,” we know a good deal
about the architecture of Palestinian synagogues. They were clearly built
as gathering places, consisting of a large hall where members could sit
on benches. There was no altar and no cella (holy niche).
Did the institution of the synagogue change between the third cen-
tury B.C.E. and 70 C.E.? The evidence strongly indicates that these
“places of prayer” had their origins in the Diaspora and later spread to
Palestine and to Jerusalem itself. It seems likely, then, that their impetus
in Palestine came from the Diaspora; that is, Jewish pilgrims would have
spread the word that synagogues could be built to teach the Law. Per-
haps the first synagogues in Palestine were even built by Jews returning
to Israel from the Diaspora—which would explain why the Theodotus
Inscription was written in Greek. (Some scholars have identified the
synagogue of the Theodotus Inscription with the “synagogue of the
Freedmen” mentioned in the Book of Acts 6:9).?° The Jews of Jerusalem
were late to adopt the institution of the synagogue probably because the
Temple precinct itself served as a place to read and teach the Law.
The fact that synagogues took root in Judea somewhat slowly reflects
the history of the region. Until the beginning of the Hasmonean period
(141-37 B.C.E.), Judea was a relatively small territory, extending no
more than 20 miles from Jerusalem, so that Judeans could easily travel
to Jerusalem to worship at the Temple. Not until 112/111 B.C.E. were
Idumea, in the south, and Samaria, in the north,?’ annexed to the Has-
monean kingdom by John Hyrcanus; and only in 104/103 B.C.E. did
central Galilee become part of the Jewish kingdom, with its capital in
Jerusalem. The problem of Jews living at a distance from Jerusalem,
therefore, only arose around 100 B.C.E. for the “new” Jews of southern
and northern Palestine, who might then have needed local community
centers. This scenario regarding the evolution of the synagogue remains

120
 The Temple, the Synagogue and Absolute Aniconism

only a hypothesis, however, and more evidence is needed to confirm or

refute it.
What is clear is that the synagogue, depending on where it was, could
appear first as a house of prayer (Egypt) or as a house of study (Israel).
In fact, it seems likely that these two functions of the synagogue were
combined in synagogues before 70 C.E., and that both were part of the
weekly synagogue liturgy as described by Josephus. In this liturgy, the
writings of the Torah and the Prophets played a paramount role.
The institution of the synagogue is characteristic of a “religion of the
book,” not a religion of sacrifices. With the development of synagogues,
sacrifices continued to be performed, but only within the framework of
the Jerusalem Temple. The Temple continued to be an important pil-
grimage center, attracting visitors from Israel and the Diaspora. It was
an awesome and imposing institution with its complicated ritual cere-
monies, its priestly hierarchies, its sacrifices of animals and grain. This
Temple was entirely rebuilt—and on what a scale, with its earthen plat-
form forming a rough rectangle of some 1,600 feet by 900 feet—by
Herod the Great, who made it one of the most spectacular monuments
of the eastern Roman Empire.” Through its architecture and its sacri-
fices, the Herodian Temple could compete with the most elaborate
pagan temples of the day. It was the religious and national reference
point of Judaism at the turn of the era, and it prolonged the ancestral
Yahwist tradition by maintaining the priesthood and sacrifices. The
Temple had so high a reputation in the Roman Empire that, as the
Alexandrian Jewish scholar Philo recalled, Augustus himself “ordered
that burnt sacrifices be offered at his expense everyday to the God Most
High (hypsist6 theo), and this institution has remained in force so far.””
Even if the Herodian Temple was partly inspired by the architecture
of pagan temples, and even if the Temple's priests regularly performed
sacrifices to YHWH in honor of the Roman emperor, it remained strictly
a part of the national cult. Non-Jews were prohibited from entering the
holy precinct of the Temple, under penalty of death—as we know from
two Greek Herodian inscriptions, which describe the parapet separating
the pagan court from the sacred enclosure. The exclusion of pagans
from the holy part of the Jerusalem Temple goes back at least to the time

21
 *

NS
Nae
ee
oe
oe
Se

ieee
* eee

- a & oat
* * : ud . ‘!
:
veo 3 + Mile “+g ts fy: 3 ee = “a.
y ee nS ee en ae ie *@ es ee Wes * oe ? ee
NY
RES
ART

THE PROPHET SAMUEL (left) anoints David (center) king of Israel, as

painted on the wall of a third-century C.E. synagogue at Dura-Europos, in
modern Syria. In the mid-third century, Dura, a fortress on the eastern
edge of the Roman Empire, supported a multi-ethnic community that
practiced a variety of religions. At the beginning of the Christian era,
author Lemaire notes, synagogues welcomed not only jews but also non-
jews who “feared God.”

of Antiochus HI (223-187 B.C.E.), who, according to Josephus, recog-

nized that it was “forbidden for any foreigner to enter the enclosure of
thelemple
According to one of the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QFlorilegium), those
excluded from the holy precinct of the Temple included not only
Ammonites and “Moabites but also children of illegitimate marriages
(mamzerim), foreigners and proselytes (gerim).*° Around 58 C.E. the
Apostle Paul was seized by an angry mob for having “brought Greeks

122
 The Temple, the Synagogue and Absolute Aniconism

into the temple ... and defiled this holy place” (Acts 21:28). Moreover,
the First Jewish Revolt of 66-70 B.C.E. (with Masada holding out for a
few years afterward) was precipitated by the strict enforcement of this
exclusion and the cessation of sacrifices offered for the emperor. Accord-
ing to Josephus, “Eleazar, son of Ananias the high priest, a very daring
youth, then holding the position of captain, persuaded those who offi-
ciated in the Temple services to accept no gift or sacrifice from a for-
eigner. This action laid the foundation of the war with the Romans.””
Paradoxically, then, it was the strict exclusion of foreigners from the
Temple that led to the destruction of the Temple itself.
Synagogues, on the other hand, at least in the Diaspora, appear to
have been more open and inviting. Synagogues seem to have been
accessible to anyone who “feared god,” whether Jew or non-Jew (see the
Acts of the Apostles 10:1-22, 13:16-26, 16:14, 18:7).8
One practice in synagogues that made them more open to non-Jews
was the tendency to refer to the God of Israel not as “YHWH” but as the
“Most High” (hypsistos),° which could also refer to Zeus,® to a great
Phoenician deity” or to other gods worshiped by non-Jews. This is a
reversal of the development that occurred toward the beginning of the
first millennium B.C.E., when the divine name ‘Elyon (Most High)
became replaced by “YHWH7”; now, beginning around 200 B.C.E. and
continuing through the Hellenistic and Roman periods, “YHWH” tends
to be replaced by the appellative “Most High.” A Greek translation of the
Book of Ecclesiasticus from the second half of the second century B.C.E.,
for example, uses the word hypsistos about 50 times to refer to God and
the tetragrammaton does not appear at all in the Masada fragments.” The
Aramaic ‘Ilaya@’ (Most High) appears frequently in the Book of Daniel
(6265.4224295 32:34, 3:16.21, 25esee also. 7:18,22 25527), and. the
Greek hypsistos often appears in the works of Luke (Luke 1:32,35,76,
6:35, 8:28; Acts 7:48, 16:17).
Although the synagogue was a more accessible and fluid institution
than the Jerusalem Temple, the Temple too could mean different things
to different groups.” We have already seen that during and after the
Exile, rituals once reserved for the Temple (especially after the reforms
of Hezekiah and Josiah), such as offerings of grain or incense, could

£23
Chapter 15

now be performed in such places as Babylon or Elephantine. Or sacrifi-

cial rituals could be dropped entirely, with Yahwists urged to know and
love and fear God rather than to make offerings to him.
According to Josephus, the Essenes send “votive offerings to the tem-
ple but [do not?]* perform sacrifices,’ employing a different ritual of
purification. This is why they are barred from those precincts of the
Temple that are frequented by all the people and perform their rites by
themselves”® (the authenticity of this passage is disputed by some
scholars). Although the attitude of the Essenes toward the Jerusalem
Temple remains somewhat ambiguous,” it is clear that they did not take
part in the cult as practiced by the high priests of Jerusalem.
Furthermore, the site of Qumran on the northwest coast of the Dead
Sea, with its buildings and library, was probably a kind of Essene beit
midrash (house of study) deliberately located at a distance from Jerusalem
and its Temple.* Under these circumstances, the Essenes “spiritualized”
sacrificial worship; the “offering of lips,” or praise of God, replaced the
offering of sacrifices. This is confirmed by Philo, who recounts that the
Essenes were “devoted to the service of God not by offering sacrifices of
animals but by resolving to sanctify their minds.””
In the first half of the first century C.E., another group adopted a
somewhat ambivalent attitude toward the Temple: the “sect of the
Nazarenes,” as Jesus and his early followers are called in the Acts 24:5.
Some texts, particularly the work of Luke, show Jesus and his disciples
attending the Jerusalem Temple like anyone else. Other texts, however,
express skepticism and even hostility toward the Temple, its rituals and
its priests, such as the account of Jesus’ driving the money-changers
from the Temple (Matthew 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46:
John 2:13-17),* Jesus’ prophecies regarding the destruction of the Tem-
ple (Matthew 24,2-3,26,61 and parallels), and the speech by Stephen
(one of the leaders of the Jerusalem church) stating that “the Most High
does not live in houses made with human hands” (Acts 7:48: see also
Gees .
Nonetheless, one important feature of the Jerusalem Temple
remained in place until its final destruction in 70 C.E., a feature that dis-
tinguished the Jerusalem temple from all contemporaneous pagan tem-

124
 The Temple, the Synagogue and Absolute Aniconism

ples: the emptiness of the cella, or Holy of Holies.? In describing the

Romans’ entry into Jerusalem in 63 B.C.E., the Roman historian Tacitus
makes note of this odd fact:

Pompey was the first Roman who overcame the Jews and who,
by right of conquest, penetrated into the temple. At this point
in time the rumor spread that the temple contained no figure
of gods, that the sanctuary was empty and did not hide any
mystery.”

The utter emptiness of the Temple’ sanctum sanctorum is confirmed

by Josephus: “The innermost recess measured twenty cubits, and was
separated off by a screen. Inside stood nothing whatever: Unapproach-
able, inviolable, invisible to all, it was called the Holy of Holies.”*
This absolute aniconism of the Jews and their Temple is mentioned
relatively frequently in classical sources. The late-fourth-century B.C.E.
Greek ethnographer Hecataeus of Abdera attributed Jewish aniconism
to Moses, who allowed “no images whatsoever of the gods ... being of
the opinion that God is not in human form.” The late-first-century
B.C.E. Roman historian Strabo, probably relying on the work of Posido-
nius of Apamea (c. 145-85 B.C.E.),**also discussed the Mosaic concept
of divinity and worship:

Which judicious man would dare to represent this divinity by an

image made on the model of one of us? It is thus necessary to
give up any manufacture of statues and to be limited, to honor
the divinity, to dedicate a sacred enclosure and a sanctuary to
him worthy of him, without any effigy.*’

Another Roman historian, Tacitus, who lived in the second half of the
first century C.E., also commented on this unusual aspect of the religion
of the Jews:

The Jews conceive the divinity only in thought and admit only
one [God]. For them it is a profanation to make images of the

Des)
Chapter 15

gods with perishable materials and to the resemblance of man.

To their eyes, the supreme being is eternal, inimitable, impossible
to destroy. Thus they do not have any representation of him in
their cities or in their temples.*

Much more familiar to ancient visitors were the traditional Temple

sacrifices. Even if these sacrifices, offered by priests, constituted the
principal ritual activity of the Temple, the precinct also served both as a
“house of prayer”*” and as a place for teaching the Law. Masters and dis-
ciples could gather there in the shade of the porticoes surrounding its
esplanade (see-Luket2:46, 21:37, Acts 2:46, 12202942) Invother
words, the kinds of activities associated with synagogues—especially
the effort to learn the divine Law and to know God—had spread even
to the High Place of the thousand-year-old Yahwist sacrificial cult: the
Temple of Jerusalem.

126
Cit éPLERALO
The Disappearance of YHWH

B the first century B.C.E. Yahwism had become completely ani-

conic. It had also, in a sense, ceased to be Yahwism, for the name
YHWH had virtually disappeared as a proper name of the divinity.
When the Israelites returned from Exile, they needed to be able to
communicate with the various representatives of the immense Persian
empire, including the Persian overlords themselves. This led to a dimin-
ishment of the particularity of the God of Israel and to a less frequent
use of the name “YHWH/YHW,” which often came to be replaced, espe-
cially in Aramaic, by elah shemayyd’ (the God of Heaven). This practice
of substituting “the God of Heaven” for “YHWH” quickly became wide-
spread in Hebrew writings as well.
The name “YHWH” does not appear in the late biblical literature. It
is conspicuously absent from the Book ofJob, the Song of Songs, Eccle-
siastes and Esther.' Even though the reason for YHWH's absence may
differ from book to book, it is striking to note that they are generally late
books, from the Persian or even Hellenistic period.
In substituting other theonyms for YHWH, Jews were probably also
seeking to obey biblical law in the strictest possible manner.
One of the commands of the Decalogue involves the use of the divine

Pee
Chapter 16

name: “You shall not make wrongful use of the name of YHWH your
God, for YHWH will not acquit anyone who misuses his name” (Exo-
dus 20:7). Originally, this commandment was likely intended to pro-
hibit false oaths (see Leviticus 19:12), especially in the context of a
treaty or a lawsuit. Pre-Exilic literature and Hebrew inscriptions often
tend to invoke YHWH by pronouncing his name, a phenomenon also
attested in the fifth-century B.C.E.? But the commandment was later
interpreted as prohibiting utterance of the name “YHWH” in everyday
life. It is possible that one reason for this prohibition was to prevent the
divine Name from being used in divination or magic,’ as seen in some
ancient magic intaglios* and several psalms of exorcism found among
the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran (such as 11Q11).°
Whatever the reasons, toward the end of the Hellenistic period® and
during the Roman period, Jews, especially Jews of the Diaspora’ but
probably also Jews living in Judea, avoided pronouncing the name
“YHWH.” In reading the old religious texts that came to form the Bible,
they replaced “YHWH” with the reverential Hebrew title “Adonai,”
which the Greeks translated as kyrios (Master/Lord).
The course of this evolution is difficult to trace precisely. In the old-
est manuscripts of the Septuagint (for example, in papyrus 4+QLXXLev
B),® the Greek transcription “IAO” is used, while in other manuscripts
(for example, papyrus Fouad 266),’ the tetragrammaton is neither trans-
lated nor transcribed in Greek but retained in Judean Aramaic script.
This preservation of the Judean Aramaic tetragrammaton is then
adapted into Greek as “PIPI.”"° Other Judean Greek manuscripts present
the tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew script.'! Finally, especially in man-
uscripts transmitted by the Christian tradition,’? YHWH is written as
kyrios, which implies that these texts were based on original Hebrew
manuscripts in which the tetragrammaton was rendered as “Adonai.”
The discovery of the Qumran manuscripts—or Dead Sea Scrolls—a
little more than half a century ago shed new light on ancient usage of
the tetragrammaton. These manuscripts are mainly Hebrew or Aramaic
texts copied between the end of the third century B.C.E. and 68 C.E.
The appearance of the tetragrammaton in these texts is dependent on
chronology (it becomes more rare the later the text) and, possibly, on

128
 The Disappearance of YHWH

differences among scribal schools (the most significant school represented

was the Qumran school, which many scholars believe was Essene) or even
among individual scribes.'? The Dead Sea Scrolls show at least a dozen ways
of transcribing the tetragrammaton:!*

1. It can be transcribed with the same characters (in paleo-

Hebrew or in square Judean Aramaic/Hebrew) as the remainder
of the manuscript."

2. The tetragrammaton is not written at all on the line but five

supralinear dots above the following word presumably indicate
the reading “Adonai/Lord”: 1QIsa? XXXV,15 (= 42, 6).

3. In a significant number of square Hebrew texts, the tetragram-

maton is written in paleo-Hebrew, probably to indicate that it was
not to be pronounced, unlike the remainder of the text. This prac-
tice seems to be widely used in the scribal school of Qumran."

4. In ten manuscripts,” particularly texts devoted to the rules of

the Qumran sect,"* the tetragrammaton is replaced by four points
suspended from the line of writing of the other letters.!? These
manuscripts were apparently copied between the second half of
the second century B.C.E. and about the middle of the first cen-
tury B.C.E. They are characteristic of the scribal school of Qum-
ran, and four of them were likely copied by the same scribe.”°

5. Some texts replace the tetragrammaton, especially in biblical

quotations, with *DNY (Adonai).”

6. In a few texts, the tetragrammaton is replaced by ’L (God).”

This is the reverse of the early first-millennium B.C.E. practice of
replacing “El” with “YHWH.”

7. In 4Q364 (Pentateuchal Paraphrase), the tetragrammaton is

written in square Hebrew characters but preceded by two vertical

129
Chapter 16

points, perhaps to alert the reader to the special quality of this

word.”

8. Many Qumran texts, in Hebrew and Aramaic, replace the

tetragrammaton with ‘LYWN (Elyon/Most High) or ’L ‘LYWN (El
Elyon/El, God Most High).

9. In manuscript 4Q248 (4QHistorical Text A),” the tetragram-

maton is replaced by five strokes.

10. In 11Q22 (11QpaleoUnidentified Text),”* LLHYK (“to your

God”) is written with an ink of a different color than the remain-
der of the manuscript.”

11. In 4Q511 10:12, YWD seems to be substituted for YHWH

(see Psalm 19:10).

12: In 1QS 8:13, HWH seems to be substituted for YHWH (see

Isaiah 40:3).

Besides these various practices,” the rule of the Qumran community

absolutely prohibited pronouncing the divine name. Transgressing this
rule meant expulsion from the community:

Whoever pronounces the name honored (YZKR DBR BSM

HNKBD) over all ... by surprise when confronted by misfortune
CM QLL ’W LHB‘H MSRH) or for any other reason ... or if he
reads in a book or if he blesses, then he will be excluded and he
will not return any more to the council of the community (1QS
VipQieyiilee

This severe prohibition against pronouncing the tetragrammaton was

not confined to the Essene movement. From the acceptance of the Torah
of Ezra, this prohibition was probably related to the solemn judgment
against blasphemy, codified in Leviticus 24:10-26. In Leviticus 24:16 of

130
 The Disappearance of YHWH

the Septuagint (composed in Alexandria around the mid-third century

B.C.E.), the prohibition against blasphemy is already generalized to forbid
pronunciation of the divine Name (en t6 onomasai auton to onoma kyriou).*!
Before the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 C.E., there
was only a single exception to the prohibition against uttering the divine
name: the high priest in the Temple.” In the Book of Ecclesiasticus, for
example, the high priest Simon blesses Israelites gathered at the Temple:

Then Simon came down and raised his hands

over the whole congregation of Israelites,
to pronounce the blessing of the Lord with his lips,
and to glory in his name;
and they bowed down in worship a second time
to receive the blessing from the Most High.
(Ecclesiasticus 50:20-21)*

According to the Mishnah, only the high priest could pronounce the
tetragrammaton in its correct intonation, and even then only in the Tem-
ple on Yom Kippur (Yoma 3:8, 4:2, 6:2; see Tamid 3:8). The high priest
was also the only one on that day who could enter the Temple’s Holy of
Holies, where he could recite the sacerdotal blessing and pronounce “the
Name such as it is written” (Sotah 7:6; Tamid 7:2; see Jerusalem Talmud,
Yoma 3:7). To some extent, then, the high priest was the last witness—
around the turn of the era—of Israelite Yahwism, and the Temple was the
last refuge of the worship of YHWH as a particular divinity.
When the Romans captured Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple, in
70 C.E., the animal sacrifices performed in the Temple became a thing
of the past, as did the role of the high priests (and the influence of the
Sadducee movement). This also marked the end of Israelite Yahwism,
since the particular Name of the God of Israel could no longer be pro-
nounced, not generally or in religious practice. Josephus (who was
from a priestly family)” recognized that he was forbidden from pro-
nouncing the divine name” and used the Greek term despotes (Sovereign
Lord) as an equivalent of the tetragrammaton.” In the Mishnah tractate
Sanhedrin, among the lists of “those who will not have a share in the

ISL
 Chapter 16

CENTER
MANUSCIPT
BIBLICAL
TREVER/ANCIENT
JOHN

THE DEAD SEA SCROLL known as the Habakkuk Commentary shows

how some ancient Jewish scribes treated the divine name. When this
scroll’s scribe came to the name of the deity, he wrote out the tetragram-
maton-the four-letter personal name of God—in archaic, slanted paleo-
Hebrew script, rather than in the square script of the rest of the text. Two
examples can be seen on this fragment. In line 7, the third word from the
right, one can see the four letters of the tetragrammaton (yod, heh, vav,
heh) in a quotation from Habakkuk 2:13. The letters appear again in the
last complete line, the Second word from the left, in a quotation from
Habakkuk 2:14. The verse reads: “For the earth will be filled with the
knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.”

ie
 The Disappearance of YHWH

world to come,” Abba Saul includes “the one who pronounces the Name
with its proper letters” (10:1). Abba Saul, who lived after the year 70,
did not make any exceptions, not even for the high priest on Yom Kip-
pur. In fact, the tetragrammaton does not appear in the Mishnah, except
under the abbreviation YY,** and the Greek transcription IAO is absent
from the New Testament.”
The disappearance of YHWH, especially in prayer and worship, gives
emphasis to the transcendental character of the divinity. The transcen-
dent oneness of God is indicated in the designations used to evoke Him:
Lord/Master, Most High/Supreme. He is the God of Everywhere and All,
not just of the Temple and the people of Israel. The destruction of the
Herodian Temple meant the end of Yahwism as a particular religion
related to YHWH.* Judaism was now a religion of universal monotheism.
This monotheism, as we have seen, was a complex phenomenon that
evolved over some 1,400 years. Its evolution was especially character-
ized by two developments:

First, Yahwism, a local cult in the southern desert around the

13th century B.C.E., developed into an Israelite monolatry. Over
time YHWH became the exclusive God of the Israelites, to the
exclusion of all foreign gods. This movement reached its apogee
with the reform of Josiah at the end of the seventh century
B.C.E., when, according to the epigraphical record, there was a
dramatic increase in the proportion of Yahwist names.

Second, the national religion of Yahwism was thrown into a crisis

with the Babylonian Exile—that is, with the collapse of Judah
and the resettlement of Judahites in Babylonia. This event could
well have marked the end of Yahwism as a monolatry (with
YHWH, the God of Israel, defeated by the gods of Babylonia).
Thanks to the prophets, however, monolatrous Yahwism was
transformed into a universal monotheism; this is attested in
Deutero-Isaiah’s prophecies from the mid-sixth century B.C.E.

The transformation from monolatry into monotheism was probably

Chapter 16

partly related to the new international context in which the Judahite

exiles found themselves: They no longer lived in the place of Yahweh
(Israel/Jerusalem), and they needed to show deference to the local
divinities. Yahwism was kept alive—in a transcendental, monotheistic
form—by the strong sense of religious feeling among the Israelites prior
to and then during the Exile. Also, the fact that their worship was ani-
conic—meaning that YHWH was not localized by images of him placed
in his temples—allowed Yahwism to be transportable. YHWHS pres-
ence, the presence of the God Most High, could even be felt by the
waters of Babylon.
When Yahwism became the national religion of Israel, worship was
centralized in the Jerusalem Temple, with its complex and strictly gov-
erned sacrificial ceremonies. Ultimately, this led to the multiplication of
places of prayer—in synagogues, with non-sacrificial worship based on
praise and study of Scripture.
As it was being transformed into a universal monotheism, Yahwism
opened itself to other peoples, spread outside the old territories of Israel
and Judah, and disappeared as a particular form of worship with the fall
of the Temple in 70 C.E. Yahwism, that is to say, fulfilled its historical
role by giving birth to universal monotheism.

L354
APPENDIX
The Pronunciation of the
Tetragrammaton “YHWH”

| earliest evidence of the tetragrammaton, the four consonants

representing the name YHWH, the God of Israel, is found on the
Mesha Stela (Moabite Stone), which dates to the second half of ninth
century B.C.E. On this stela, the Moabite king Mesha describes the
longstanding confrontation between Moab (the land directly east of the
Dead Sea) and Israel as a confrontation between their two national
deities: Chemosh and YHWH. The tetragrammaton later appears in
Hebrew inscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom, dating
to the eighth century B.C.E., and on ostraca (inscribed potsherds) from
Lachish and Arad, dating to the late seventh and early sixth centuries
BE:
At least twice in inscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, and frequently in
Aramaic documents from Elephantine (fifth century B.C.E.), the tetra-
grammaton is shortened to only three letters, YHW. This reduction to
three letters also appears as a theophoric element in names from the

L35
Appendix

southern kingdom of Judah during the First Temple period. Inscriptions

from the northern kingdom of Israel simplify the tetragrammaton to YW.
According to the Bible, the proper name of the God of Israel is
revealed to Moses. God tells Moses: “Thus you shall say to the Israelites,
‘YHWH ... has sent me to you’: This is my name forever, and this my
title for all generations” (Exodus 3:15).
Do we know with any certainty how to pronounce this theonym?
The exact pronunciation of the tetragrammaton is very difficult to
specify because the Jews of the Hellenistic and Roman periods avoided
pronouncing the tetragrammaton and replaced it with the reverential
Hebrew title “Adonai” (“Master/Lord”). In the Septuagint, a Greek trans-
lation of the Hebrew Bible dating to the third and second century
B.C.E., Adonai is for the most part translated as kyrios; and God is called
kyrios in the New Testament Greek. Later, around sixth century C.E., the
rabbis who produced the Masoretic vocalization of the Hebrew Bible
gave the tetragrammaton the vowels of the word “Adonai.” This has
been interpreted as meaning that the divine name is pronounced
YeHoWaH,' but it really means that one should not pronounce the tetra-
grammaton at all; instead, one should substitute the honorific “Adonai.”
How did one pronounce the tetragrammaton before the fourth cen-
tury B.C.E., before the Hellenistic period? It is impossible to say with cer-
tainty because, in the earlier period, only consonants were written. As a
result there are three possibilities: “Yahwoh,” “Yahweh” and “Yahwa.”
The argument for “Yahwoh” is based on two characteristics of paleo-
Hebrew orthography. First, during the period of the monarchy, the con-
sonant “H” is often preceded by the vowel “O,” particularly in marking
the third person singular (ahu>oh), as in the name “Neboh” (in later
Hebrew, the third person singular is denoted by a simple “W”). Second,
in the proper names of this period, the divine name is generally short-
ened to YW (pronounced yawo>yaw?) in the northern kingdom or to
YHW (pronounced yahwo>ydhu?) in the Judahite kingdom. Since the
sound “O” is often associated with the semi-consonant “W.” the tetra-
grammaton could well have been pronounced “Yahwoh.”
“Yahwoh” evolved into YHW/yahu as a theophoric element in
Judahite proper names (with the loss of the final “H”) and into YW

136
 The Pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton “YHWH”

Yaw/Yau in the kingdom of Israel (with the loss of both “H”s). This
vocalization may be based on the Egyptian word Y-H-W3-W found in an
inscription on the wall of a temple built by Amenhotep III (c. 1390-
1353) at Soleb in Nubia; the final “W” can indicate that the preceding
group be pronounced wo.’ Moreover, “Yahwoh” is in harmony with the
vocalization of the Greek transcription IAO,’ as well as with the later
Latin form, IAHO, used by the church father Jerome.*
The argument for the pronunciation “Yahweh” rests on an interpreta-
tion of the meaning of the name. In the biblical account, the revelation
of the tetragrammaton is associated with the Hebrew verb “to be”
(hawah/hdayah):

Moses said to God: “If I come to the Israelites and say to them,
‘The God of your ancestors has sent me to you,’ and they ask me,
‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” God said to Moses,
“Tam who I am [éheyeh ‘ashér ‘eheyeh].” He said further, “Thus
you shall say to the Israelites, ‘I am has sent me to you” (Exodus
o19-14):

This answer is sometimes interpreted as God’s refusing to reveal his

name, sometimes as Gods stating that the God of Israel is the only god
who “is” (that is, the other gods do not exist), and sometimes as Gods
making clear his intention to serve as the God of his people: “I am who
I will be,” or “I will reveal myself in action, in being at your side.” Such
a threefold interpretation could explain the vocalization of the tetra-
grammaton as “Yahweh,” which could mean “he causes to be.” As such,
God does not provide his name but his attributes. “Yahweh” is also con-
sistent with such Greek transcriptions of the tetragrammaton as Iaoue/ai
in Clement of Alexandria (late second century C.E.),° labe in Epiphanius
(fourth century C.E.)’ and Iabe/Iabai among the Samaritans (fifth cen-
mryc.E.)°
The argument for “Yahwa” is based on the transcription of theophoric
Yahwist names into Babylonian Akkadian around 500 B.C.E. (yaha or
yama, probably pronounced ydwa)’ The theophoric element yaha, how-
ever, could also come from the nominative form ydhwt/ydhwoh."° More-

i?
Appendix

over, around 500 B.C.E., under the probable influence of Aramaic, one
could expect a change of a final “o” into “a.”
In all probability, the theonym YHWH. was originally pronounced
“Yahwoh.”"! The “Yahweh” pronunciation later became widespread, to
give a theological interpretation to the mysterious, ancient name
“YHWH,” which may have initially been a place-name.

138
Endnotes

NOTES TO CHAPTER 1
’ See William L. Moran, The Amarna Letters (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1992).
> See, for example, A. Caquot, M. Sznycer, A. Herdner, Textes ougaritiques 1: Mythes et légendes,
Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient (LAPO) 7 (Paris, 1974); Caquot, J.-M. de Tarragon and
J.-L. Cunchillos, Textes ougaritiques II: Textes religieux, rituels, correspondance, LAPO 14 (Paris,
1989): D. Pardee, Les textes rituels, 2 fascicules, Ras Shamra-Ougarit (RSO) 12 (Paris, 2000).
> See Anson F Rainey, “Unruly Elements in Late Bronze Canaanite Society,” ed. D.P Wright et al.,
Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Litera-
ture in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995, pp. 481-496.
* See André Lemaire, “Recherches actuelles sur les origines de l’ancien Israél,” Journal Asiatique
270 (1982), pp. 5-24.
> Lemaire, “La Haute Mésopotamie et l’origine des Bené Jacob,” Vetus Testamentum 34 (1984), pp.
95-101.
° The name of the “god of their father” (Genesis 31:42,53), possibly “Pahad” (often translated
“fear”) is apparently found in the proper name “Zelo-pahad,” perhaps carried by one of the
heads of this group. See Lemaire, “Les Bené Jacob: Essai d’interprétation historique d’une tradi-
tion patriarcale,” Revue Biblique 85, 1978, pp. 321-337.
7 About these appellations, see TJ. Lewis, “The Identity and Function of El/Baal Berith,” Journal of
Biblical Literature 115, 1996, pp. 401-423. See also Lawrence E. Stager, “The Shechem Temple:
Where Abimelech Massacred a Thousand,” Biblical Archaeology Review, (BAR) July/August 2003.
® See Volkmar Fritz, “Die Bedeutung der vorpriesterschriftlichen Vatererzahlungen fur die Reli-
gionsgeschichte der Konigszeit,” in Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus
im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte, ed. W. Dietrich and M.A.
Klopfenstein (Freiburg, 1994), pp. 403-411.
° See E. Dhorme, “Le nom du Dieu d’Israél,” Revue d'Histoire des Religions 71/141 (1952), pp. 5-18.
10 See J.A. Emerton, “The site of Salem, the city of Melchizedek (Genesis XIV 18),” in Studies in
the Pentateuch, ed. Emerton, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum (SVT) 41 (Leiden, 1990), pp.
45-71

139
Endnotes
i

1 See, for example, Emerton, “The Biblical High Place in the Light of Recent Study,” Palestine
Exploration Quarterly 129 (1997), pp. 116-132. Strangely enough A. Pagolu (The Religion of the
Patriarchs, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement (JSOTS) 277 [Sheffield,
1998]) discusses the role played by the altar and the stela but seems to forget the sacred tree,
mentioned in passing by M. Gleis (Die Bamah, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fir die Alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft (BZAW) 251 [Berlin, 1997], p. 245), who does not recognize that the sacred tree
is designated by the Hebrew word asherah.
2 See Lemaire, “Cycle primitif d’ Abraham et contexte géographico-historique,” in History and Tra-
ditions of Early Israel, Studies Presented to Eduard Nielsen, eds. Lemaire and B. Otzen, SVT 50,
(Leiden, 1993), pp. 62-75; “Vues nouvelles sur la tradition biblique d’Abraham,” in Les routes
du Proche-Orient, Des séjours d’Abraham aux caravanes de l’encens, ed. Lemaire (Paris, 2000), pp.
21-31. This dating is questioned, for example, by T.C. Romer in “Recherches actuelles sur le
cycle d’Abraham,” in Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History, ed. A.
Weénin, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) 140 (Leuven, 2001),
pp. 179-211; Romer, however, recognizes that the traditions about Abraham are geographically
connected with Hebron or the region around Hebron (p. 189).

NOTES TO CHAPTER’ 2
' See Lemaire, “Notes d’épigraphie nord-ouest sémitique,” Syria 64 (1987), pp. 295-316; “La stéle
de Mésha et l’histoire de l’ancien Israél,” in Storia e tradizioni di Israele, Scritti in onore di J.
Alberto Soggin, ed. D. Garrone and EF Israel (Brescia, 1991), pp. 143-183.
> See Avraham Biran and Joseph Naveh, “The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment,” Israel Explo-
ration Journal (IEJ) 45 (1995), pp. 1-18.
* Lemaire, “The Tel Dan Stela as a Piece of Royal Historiography,” Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament 81 (1998), pp. 3-14.
* See R.S. Hess, “The Divine Name Yahweh in Late Bronze Age Sources,” Ugarit-Forschungen 23
(1991), pp. 181-188; Amarna Personal Names, American Schools of Oriental Research, Disserta-
tion Series 9 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993). For more on the absence of “YHWH” in
Amorite onomastics, see M.P. Streck, “Der Gottesname ‘Jahwe’ und das amurritische Onomas-
tikon,” Die Welt des Orients 30 (1999), pp. 35-46.
> The hypothesis about the existence of Yahwistic but non-Israelite names rests upon a somewhat
dubious philology; see K. Lawson Younger, “Yahweh at Ashkelon and Calah? Yahwistic Names
in Neo-Assyrian,” Vetus Testamentum 52 (2002), pp. 207-218.
° See, for example, L.E. Axelsson, The Lord Rose Up from Seir, Coniectanea Biblica Old Testament
Series (CBOTS) 25 (Lund, 1987), pp. 48-55.
’ See Lemaire, “D’Edom a I'Idumée et 4 Rome,” in Des Sumériens aux Romains d’Orient. La percep-
tion géographique du monde. Espaces et territoires au Proche-Orient ancien, ed. A. Sérandour, Antiq-
uités sémitiques 2 (Paris, 1997), pp. 81-103.
“J. Janssen, “Les monts Se’ir dans les textes égyptiens,” Biblica 15 (1934), pp. 537-538; S. Ahituy,
Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents (Leiden, 1984), p. 169
* R. Giveon, Les Bédouins Shosou des documents égyptiens, Documenta et Monumenta Orientis
Antiqui (DMOA) 22 (Leiden, 1971), p. 132; K.A. Kitchen, “The Egyptian Evidence on Ancient
Jordan,” in Early Edom and Moab. The Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern Jordan, ed. P.
Bienkowski, Sheffield Archaeological Monographs (SAM) 7 (Sheffield, 1992), pp. 21-34.
10
See Lemaire, “Date et origine des inscriptions paléo-hébraiques et phéniciennes de Kuntillet
‘Ajrud,” Studi epigrafici e linguistici 1 (1984), pp. 131-144.
™ See “Kuntillet ‘Ajrud,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary IV, ed. D.N. Freedman (New York, 1992),

140
 Endnotes

pp. 103-109.
® See O. Eissfeldt, “Protektorat der Midianiter tiber ihre Nachbarn in letzten Viertel des 2.
Jahrtausends v. Chr,” Journal of Biblical Literature 87 (1968), pp. 383-393; Lemaire, “Les pre-
miers rois araméens dans la tradition biblique,” in The World of the Aramaeans I, Biblical Studies
in Honour of P-E. Dion, ed. PM.M. Daviau et al., JSOTS 324, (Sheffield, 2002), pp. 113-143.
© See P. Parr, “Contacts between Northwest Arabia and Jordan in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages,”
in Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 1, ed. A. Hadidi (Amman, 1982), pp. 127-133;
J.EA. Sawyer and D.J.A. Clines eds., Midian, Moab, and Edom, The History and Archaeology of
Late Bronze and Iron Age Jordan and North-West Arabia, JSOTS 24 (Sheffield, 1983); E.A. Knauf,
Midian: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Paldstinas und Nordarabiens am Ende des 2. Jahrtausends v.
Chr, Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins (ADPV) (Wiesbaden, 1988); V. Fritz, Die
Entstehung Israels im 12. und 11. Jahrhundert v. Chr, Biblische Enzyklopadie 2 (Stuttgart, 1996),
pp. 175-177. See also the possible association with the copper mines in Timna and Feinan
(Fritz, “Copper Mining and Smelting in the Area of Feinan at the end of Iron Age I,” in Aharon
Kempinski Memorial Volume. Studies in Archaeology and Related Disciplines, ed. Eliezer D. Oren
and Shmuel Ahituv, Beer-Sheva 15 [Beer-Sheva, 2002], pp. 93-102).
'* See, for example, J. Leclant, “Fouilles et travaux en Egypte et au Soudan, 1961-1962,” Orien-
talia 32 (1963), pp. 184-219; “Le ‘tétragramme’ a l’époque d’Aménophis III,” in Near Eastern
Studies Dedicated to H.I.H. Prince Takahito Mikasa, ed. M. Mari, Bulletin of the Middle Eastern
Culture Center in Japan V (Wiesbaden, 1991), pp. 215-217.
'5 See B. Grdseloff, “Edom d’apres les sources égyptiennes,” Revue de I’Histoire Juive en Egypte 1 (1947),
pp. 69-99; Caquot, “Le nom du Dieu d'Israél,” Positions luthériennes 14 (1966), pp. 244-257.
16 See E. Edel, “Die Ortsnamenlisten in den Tempeln von Aksha, Amarah und Soleb im Sudan,”
Biblische Notizen 11, 1980, pp. 63-79.
7 See Giveon, Les Bédouins Shosou, pp. 26-28, 74-77.
'® See Giveon, Les Bédouins Shosou, notes 16a, 25 and 38.
'° M. Gorg, “Jahwe—ein Toponym?” Biblische Notizen 1 (1976), pp. 7-14; Knauf, Midian, pp. 46-
48 (compare, for example, the mountain/god “Carmel,” in Tacitus, Histoires 2.78.3); Gorg,
“YHWH—ein Toponym? Weitere Perspektiven,” Biblische Notizen 101 (2000), pp. 10-14.
20 As “Aharonide” refers to priestly descendants of Aaron, “Elide” refers to priestly descendants of
Eli (1 Samuel 1:3ff).
4 For an attempt to place these stories in an Egyptian context, see James K. Hoffmeier, Israel in
Egypt (New York, 1997).
2 Roland de Vaux, Histoire ancienne d’Israél, Des origines a l’installation en Canaan (Paris, 1971), p.
311 (published in English as The Early History of Israel, trans. by David Smith (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1978]).
See D. Valbelle, “Le paysage historique de l’Exode,” in La protohistoire d'Israél, de l'exode a la
monarchie, ed. E.-M. Laperrousaz (Paris, 1990), pp. 87-107.
% De Vaux, Histoire ancienne d’Israél (English ed., The Early History of Israel), p. 313. This Midian-
ite interpretation was first broached in 1862 by EW. Ghillany (also known as Richard von der
Alm) and then independently by others; see, for example, L.E. Binns, “Midianite Elements in
Hebrew Religions,” Journal of Theological Studies 31, 1930, pp. 337-354; H.H. Rowley, From
Joseph to Joshua (London, 1958), pp. 149-152; N.P. Lemche, “The Development of Israelite Reli-
gion in the Light of Recent Studies on the Early History of Israel,” in Congress Volume, Leuven
1989, ed. J.A. Emerton, SVT 43 (Leiden, 1991), pp. 97-115; K. van der Toorn, Family Religion
in Babylonia, Syria and Israel, Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East
(SHCANE) 7 (Leiden, 1996), pp. 282-285; N. Shupak, “The God from Teman and the Egypt-
ian Sun God: A Reconsideration of Habakuk 3:3-7,” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society

ae
Endnotes
nnn EE

28, (2002), pp. 97-116; Ch. Frevel, “Jetzt habe ich erkannt, dass YHWH grésser ist als alle
Gotter’: Ex 18 und seine kompositionsgeschichtliche Stellung im Pentateuch,” Biblische
Zeitschrift 47 (2003), pp. 3-22.
> In verse 12, the mention of the holocaust and Aaron could have been added by a later priestly
editor. See A. Cody, Exodus 18:12 Jethro Accepts a Covenant with the Israelites,” Biblica 49
(1968), pp. 153-166.
26 See de Vaux, Histoire ancienne d’Israél (English ed., The Early History of Israel), p. 433: “ce n'est
pas le monothéisme.”

NOTES TO CHAPTER 3
' See K.A. Kitchen, “The Egyptian Evidence on Ancient Jordan,” in Early Edom and Moab: The
Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern Jordan, ed. P. Bienkowski, SAM 7 (Sheffield, 1992), pp. 21-
34; D. Warburton, “Egyptian Campaigns in Jordan Revisited,” Studies in the History and Archaeol-
ogy ofJordan VIL (Amman, 2001), pp. 233-237.
> The dating of this collection is uncertain, because all that remains of the collection is the pas-
sage quoted in Numbers 21:14 (and perhaps 21:17-18); the phrase “YHWH wars” appears
again only in reference to David (1 Samuel 18:17, 25:28).
> See de Vaux, Histoire ancienne d’Israél (English ed., The Early History of Israel), p. 579.
* See Lemaire, “Aux origines d’Israél: la montagne d’Ephraim et le territoire de Manassé,” in La
protohistoire d’Israél, ed. Laperrousaz (1990), pp. 183-292.
> See, with bibliography, A.F Rainey, “Israel in Merneptah’s Inscriptions and Reliefs,” IEJ 51
(2001), pp. 57-75; B. Lurson, “Israél sous Merenptah ou le sort de l’ennemi dans Egypte anci-
enne,” in Etrangers et exclus dans le monde biblique. Colloque international a l'Université Catholique
de l'Ouest, Angers, les 21 et 22 février 2002, ed. J. Riaud (Angers, 2003), pp. 45-62.
° See T.N.D. Mettinger, “YHWH SABAOTH—The Heavenly King on the Cherubin Throne,” in
Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays, ed. T. Ishida (Tokyo, 1982), pp. 109-
138; S.-M. Kang, Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East, BZAW 177
(Berlin, 1989), pp. 198-201. The phrase “YHWH Zebaot” is attested in a Judahite eighth-cen-
tury B.C.E. inscription probably from Khirbet el-Qom (see Naveh, “Hebrew Graffiti from the
First Temple Period”, IEJ 51 [2001], pp. 194-207).
” See Lemaire, “Aux origines d’Israél,” pp. 242-246.
® See Genesis 32:28: “You shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel.”
* See Lemaire, “Le décalogue: essai d'histoire de la rédaction,” in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en
Vhonneur de M. Henri Cazelles, ed. Caquot and M. Delcor, Alter Orient und Altes Testament
(AOAT) 212 (Neukirchen, 1981), pp. 259-295.
© See A. Mazar, “The ‘Bull Site,’ an Iron Age I Open Cult Place,” Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 247 (1982), pp. 27-42; and “Bronze Bull Found in Israelite ‘High Place’ from
the Time of Judges,” BAR, September/October 1983.
" See Adam Zertal, “An Early Iron Age Cultic Site on Mount Ebal: Excavation Seasons 1982-
1987,” Tel Aviv 13-14 (1986-1987), pp. 105-164; “Has Joshua’s Altar Been Found on Mt.
Ebal?” BAR, January/February 1985; and Aharon Kempinski, “Joshua’s Altar—An Iron Age I
Watchtower,” BAR, January/February 1986. The recent discovery of a rock-cut altar near Shiloh
is difficult to date: see Yoel Elitzur and Doron Nir-Zevi, “A Rock-Hewn Altar Near Shiloh,”
Palestine Exploration Quarterly 135 (2003), pp. 30-36. See also Elitzur and Nir-Zevi, “Four-
Horned Altar Discovered in Judean Hills,” BAR, May/June 2004.
See Lemaire, “Aux origines d’Israél,” pp. 284-286.
" See Israel Finkelstein, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement (Jerusalem, 1988), peZole

142
 Endnotes

NOTES TO CHAPTER 4
* See I. Singer, “Towards the Image of Dagon, the God of the Philistines,” Syria 69 (1992), pp.
431-450.
* See Caquot and Ph. de Robert, Les livres de Samuel, Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament VI
(Geneva, 1994), p. 20.
* Baruch Halpern, David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerd-
mans 2001).
* See Jon D. Levenson and Halpern, “The Political Import of David’s Marriages,” Journal of Biblical
Literature 99 (1980), pp. 507-518.
> See, generally, Divine War, pp. 193-224; A. van der Lingen, Les guerres de Yahvé, Lectio divina
139 (Paris, 1990).
° See Lemaire, “La montagne de Juda,” in La protohistoire d’Israél, de l’exode a la monarchie, ed.
Laperrousaz (Paris, 1990), pp. 293-298.
” See Lemaire, “Cycle primitif d’Abraham et contexte géographico-historique,” in History and Tra-
ditions of Early Israel, Studies Presented to Eduard Nielsen, ed. A. Lemaire and B. Otzen., SVI 50
(Leiden, 1993), pp. 62-75.
8 See, for example, Eissfeldt, “El and Yahweh,” Journal of Semitic Studies 1 (1956), pp. 25-37; and
J. Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, JSOTS 265 (Sheffield, 2000), pp. 13-34.
° De Vaux, Histoire ancienne d'Israél, p. 428.
© See, for example, M.S. Smith, The Early History of God, Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient
Israel (New York, 1990: pp. 161-168; and Grand Rapids, 2002: pp. 182-191).
"' See Emerton, “Some problems in Genesis XIV,” in Studies in the Pentateuch, ed. Emerton, SVT
41 (Leiden, 1990), pp. 73-102.
2 See Lemaire and Durand, Les inscriptions araméennes, pp. 113, 120-121.
® See F Bron, Recherches sur les inscriptions phéniciennes de Karatepe, Hautes Etudes Orientales
(HEO) 11 (Geneva, 1979), pp. 14, 25, 120. The complete formula, “Baal of the heavens and El
creator of the earth,” evokes even more precisely the formula used by Melchisedek.
' See Nahman Avigad, “Excavations in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, 1971,”
IEJ 22 (1972), pp. 193-200; see also Patrick D. Miller, Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology:
Collected Essays, JSOTS 267 (Sheffield, 2000), pp. 45-50.
5 Just as there are parallels between Abraham and David, there are parallels between Melchisedek
and Zadok, the priest of Jerusalem whom David takes into his service beside Abiathar.
© See, for example, J. Day, “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan,” in Ein Gott allein?
ed. Dietrich and Klopfenstein, pp. 181-196.
7 See H. Niehr, Der héchste Gott: Alttestamentlicher JHWH-Glaube in Kontext syrisch-kanaanischer
Religion des 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr, BZAW 190 (Berlin, 1990); and “The Rise of YHWH in
Judahite and Israelite Religion. Méthodological and Religio-Historical Aspects,” in The Triumph
of Elohim. From Yahwisms to Judaisms, ed. D.V. Edelman (Kampen, 1995), pp. 45-72.
18 The role of the second name, “Yedidiah,” given to Solomon according to Nathan's oracle, is not
clear. It could have been a kind of nickname rather than a true name, unless it was a name
given by David/Nathan in addition to the one given by Bathsheba.
’° For a possible confusion sélosim/Salisim, see. N. Na’aman, “The List of David's Officers
(Salisim),” Vetus Testamentum 38 (1988), pp. 71-79.
20 Laperrousaz, “A-t-on dégagé l’angle sud-est du ‘temple de Salomon’?” Syria 50 (1973), pp. 355-
399; and Les temples de Jérusalem (Paris, 1999), pp. 33-43.
These two aspects will be found again in the temples of Dan and Bethel established by Jer-
oboam I (1 Kings 12:26-33; compare Amos 7:13) and in the temple of Samaria.

143
Endnotes

NOTES TOICHAPTER 5
‘ See, for example, Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1-11, The Anchor Bible Dictionary 5 (New
York, 1991), p. 338: “Deut. 6:4 is a kind of liturgical confessional proclamation and by itself
cannot be seen as monotheistic.”
> See, for example, Innocent Himbaza, “Dt 32,8, une correction tardive des scribes, Essai d’inter-
pretation et de datation,” Biblica 83 (2002), pp. 527-548.
> See, for example, P Buis, La notion dalliance dans l’Ancien Testament, Lectio divina 88 (Paris, 1976).
* See, for example, “You shall worship no other god, because YHWH, whose name is Jealous, is a
jealous God” (Exodus 34:14).
> See Lemaire, “Essai sur les religions ammonite, moabite et €domite (X-Vle s. av. n. é.),” Revue de
la Société Ernest-Renan NS 41 (1993), pp. 41-67; and “Déesses et dieux de Syrie-Palestine
d’aprés les inscriptions (c. 1000-500 av. n. é.),” in Ein Gott allein?, ed. Dietrich and Klopfen-
stein, pp. 127-158.
° Lemaire, “Déesses et dieux de Syrie-Palestine d’aprés les inscriptions (c. 1000-500 av. n. é.),” in
Ein Gott allein?, ed. Dietrich and Klopfenstein, pp. 127-158.
’ For the justification of this reading and interprétation, see Lemaire, “Notes d’épigraphie nord-
ouest sémitique,” Syria 64 (1987), pp. 205-216. The reading proposed by A. Schade, “New
Photographs Supporting the Reading ryt in Line 12 of the Mesha Inscription,” IEJ 55 (2005),
pp. 205-208 is contradicted by a new examination of the stela and of the squeeze: see Lemaire,
“New Photographs and ryt or hyt in Mesha, Line 12,” to be published in JE].
8 See Avigad and Benjamin Sass, Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals, Jerusalem, 1997), pp. 372-386;
and Robert Deutsch and Michael Heltzer, Windows to the Past, (Tel Aviv-Jaffa, 1997), pp. 59-61.
° This epigraphic evidence is enough to reject B. Lang’s hypothesis of a “Yahweh-alone move-
ment” that appeared around 750 B.C.E. (see The Hebrew God: Portrait of an Ancient Deity [New
Haven, 2002], p. 188).

NOTES TO CHAPTER 6
' The god “Baal,” whose name etymologically means “Master,” was known in 13th-century B.C.E.
Ugarit and in the Phoenician/Punic world during the first millennium B.C.E. He was presented
as a young storm god, and he seems to have been the most prominent god in the pantheons of
numerous Levantine cities, especially Tyre.
* Josephus, Against Apion 1.123.
*“Baalist” designates here a theophoric name containing the divine name “Baal.”
* See Lemaire, Les inscriptions hébraiques I. Les ostraca, LAPO 9 (Paris, 1977), p. 55.
> See Lemaire, “Joas, roi d'Israél, et la premiére rédaction du cycle d’Elisée,” in Pentateuchal and
Deuteronomistic Studies, ed. C. Breckelmans andJ.Lust, BETL 94 (Leuven 1990), pp. 245-254. In
any case, the emphasis on the Yahwist sanctuary on Mount Carmel is clearly pre-Deuteronomistic.
° See Lemaire, “Asher et le royaume de Tyr,” in Phoenicia and the Bible, ed. E. Lipinski, Studia
Phoenicia XI (Leuven, 1991), pp. 131-150.
"See M. Masson, “Rois et prophétes dans le cycle d'Elie,” in Prophetes et rois, Bible et Proche-Ori-
ent, ed. Lemaire (Paris, 2001), pp. 119-131.
* See, for example, L.K. Handy, Among the Host of Heaven (Winona Lake, 1994); “The eee
of Pantheon in Judah,” in The Triumph of Elohim, ed. D.V. Edelman, Contributions to Biblical
Exegesis and Theology (CBET) 13 (Kampen, 1995), pp. 27-43; and B. Lang, “Monotheismus,”
in Neues Bibel-Lexikon 10, ed. M. Gérg and B. Lang (Soloturn/Diisseldorf, 1995), col. 834-844
(in col. 835, however, Lang bases his argument on the Deir ‘Alla inscriptions that are in Aramaic,
not Hebrew).

144
 Endnotes

* See, for example, C. Frevel, Aschera und der Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch YHWHs, Bonner Biblis-
che Beitrage (BBB) 94/1-2 (Weinheim, 1995); and H. Niehr, “Religio-Historical Aspects of the
‘Early Post-Exilic’ Period,” in The Crisis of Israelite Religion, Transformation of Religious Tradition in
Exilic and Post-Exilic Times, ed. B. Becking and M.C.A. Korpel, Oudtestamentische Studien
(OTS) 42 (Leiden, 1999), pp. 228-244.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 7
‘ Lemaire, “Les inscriptions de Khirbet el-Qém et I’ashérah de YHWH,” Revue biblique 84 (1977),
pp. 595-608.
* See Zev Meshel, Kuntillet ‘Ajrud: A Religious Centre from the Time of the Judaean Monarchy on the
Border of Sinai, Cat. no. 175 (Jerusalem, 1978). See also Meshel, “Did Yahweh Have a Consort?”
BAR, March/April 1979.
* S.A. Wiggins, “Asherah Again: Bingers Asherah and the State of Asherah Studies,” Journal of
Northwest Semitic Languages 24 (1998), pp. 231-240.
* According to a religious concept well attested in Phoenicia, the pantheon of each city was
headed by a divine couple consisting of a great god and a great goddess (see Lemaire, “Déesses
et dieux de Syrie-Palestine d’aprés les inscriptions [c. 1000 - 500 av. n. @.],” in Ein Gott allein?
ed. Dietrich and Klopfenstein, pp. 127-158. Those who argue that Asherah is a goddess say that
the same situation held in Israel and Judah: YHWH was the great god and Asherah was the
great goddess (see Meshel, “Did Yahweh Have a Consort?”).
> See Moran, The Amarna Letters, nos. 60-149, 362, 367.
° For this dating, see S. Dalix, “Suppiluliuma (II?) dans un texte alphabétique d’Ugarit et la date
d’apparition de l’alphabet cunéiforme. Nouvelle proposition de datation des “Archives Ouest”.”
Semitica 48 (1999), pp. 5-15.
7 SeeJ.Freu, “La fin d’Ugarit et de Empire hittite. Données nouvelles et chronologie,” Semitica
48 (1999), pp. 17-39; and Singer, “A Political History of Ugarit,” Handbook of Ugaritic Studies,
ed. G.E. Watson and N. Wyatt, HdO 1.39 (Leiden, 1999), pp. 603-733.
® See Pardee, Les textes rituels Il, RSO XII (Paris, 2000), p. 1,118.
° Taking into account a few texts in which the word is restored so as to be practically certain, see
J.-L. Cunchillos and J.-P. Vita, Concordancia de Palabras Ugariticas en morfologia desplegada
(Madrid-Zaragoza, 1995), pp. 169-171.
‘© Cf., for example, L.K. Handy, Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureau-
cracy, 1994, pp. 65-95.
" See J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions | (Leiden,
1995), p. 129.
2 See, for example, Seymour Gitin, “Seventh Century B.C.E. Cultic Elements at Ekron,” in Bibli-
cal Archaeology Today, 1990, Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology
Jerusalem, June-July 1990, ed. Biran and Joseph Aviram (Jerusalem, 1993), pp. 248-258.
3 See Lemaire, “Phénicien et philistien: paléographie et dialectologie,” in Actas del IV congreso
internacional de estudios fenicios y punicos, Cadiz, 2 al 6 de Octubre de 1995, ed. M.E. and Aubet
and M. Barthélemy (Cadix, 2000, pp. 243-249).
4 E Bron, “Notes sur le culte d’Athirat en Arabie du Sud préislamique,” in Etudes sémitiques et
samaritaines offertes a Jean Margain, ed. Ch.-B. Amphoux et al. (Lausanne, 1998, pp. 75-79).
'5 See D.A. Dorsey, “The Location of the Biblical Makkedah,” Tel Aviv 7 (1980), pp. 185-193.
16 William G. Dever, “Iron Age Epigraphic Material from the Area of Khirbet el-Kom,” Hebrew
Union College Annual 40-41 (1969-1970), pp. 139-204.
7’ Lemaire, “Les inscriptions de Khirbet el-Qém et Vashérah de Yhwh,” Revue Biblique 84 (1977),

145
Endnotes
8S
ES SSS SS SS eee

pp. 595-608.
8 See J.M. Hadley, “The Khirbet el-Qom Inscription,” Vetus Testamentum 37 (1987), pp. 50-62;
The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 84-102, 207; andJ.
Renz, Die althebrdischen Inschriften, Handbuch der althebraischen Epigraphik 1.1 (Darmstadt,
1995), pp. 202-211 (but the inscription is to be dated to the middle of the eighth century
B.C.E rather than to the last quarter of the eighth century).
'° See Lemaire, “Date et origine des inscriptions hébraiques et phéniciennes de Kuntillet ‘Ajrud,”
Studi epigrafici e linguistici 1 (1984), pp. 131-143.
20 See Meshel, “Kuntillet ‘Ajrud,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary IV, ed. David Noel Freedman
(New York, 1992), pp. 103-109.
21 See J.M. Hadley, The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah (Cambridge, 2000); and B.B.
Schmidt, “The Iron Age pithoi Drawings from Horvat Teman or Kuntillet ‘Ajrud: Some New
Proposals,” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 2 (2003), pp. 91-125.
2 See M. Heide, “Die theophoren Personennamen der Kuntillet-’Ajrad Inscriften,” Die Welt des
Orients 32 (2002, pp. 110-120).
> This argument has been given new emphasis by Emerton, “Yahweh and his Asherah’: the god-
dess or her symbol?” Vetus Testamentum 49 (1999), pp. 315-338. See also Day, Yahweh and the
Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, JSOTS 265 (Sheffield, 2000), p. 51.
* For a discussion of the sacred tree or thicket in Palestinian pagan sanctuaries through the first
century C.E., see J.-M. Nieto Ibanez, “The Sacred Grove of Scythopolis (Flavius Josephus Jewish
War Il 466-471),” IEJ 49 (1999), pp. 260-268.
* Compare nt‘: Deuteronomy 16:21.
*» Compare nts: Micah 5:3.
*” Compare krt: Exodus 34:13; Judges 6:25-30 and 2 Kings 18:4, 23:14.
*® Compare gd: Deuteronomy 7:5; 2 Chronicles 14:2.
*? Compare ktt: 2 Chroniques 34:7; and sbr: 2 Chronicles 34:4.
*° Compare srp: Deuteronomy 12:3; 2 Kings 23:15, 31:1. Compare also b’r: 2 Chronicles 19:3.
** Compare “md: 2 Kings 13:6 and 2 Chronicles 33:19; compare also qwm: Isaiah 27:9 and 2
Chronicles 33:3.
* Some commentators interpret the asherah as a wooden symbol or statue of the goddess
Asherah. However, the actions that can be performed on the asherah are more consistent with a
tree than with a wooden symbol or statue, for which one would have expected such actions as
carving.
* See A.E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford, 1923), no. 44:3; 71:20; P.
Grelot, Documents araméens d’Egypte, LAPO 5 (Paris, 1972), pp. 95-96; J. Teixidor, The Pagan
God, Popular Religion in the Greco-Roman Near East (Princeton, 1977), pp. 31, 86-87; and van
der Toorn “Herem-Bethel and Elephantine Oath Procedure,” Zeitschrift
fiirdie alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 98 (1986), pp. 282-284.
* See Jeffrey H. Tigay, “A Second Temple Parallel to the Blessings from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud,” IE] 40
(1990), p. 218.
» See Teixidor, The Pagan God, p. 87; L. Nehmé, “Une inscription inédite de Bosra (Syrie),” in
Etudes sémitiques et samaritaines offertes a Jean Margain, ed. Ch.-B. Amphoux et al. (Lausanne,
1998), pp. 62-73.
* See Matthew 23:16-22,°
*” See W. Baudissin, Studien zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte (Leipzig, 1878, pp. 184-230); WR.
Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (London, 1894), p. 186; and MJ. Lagrange, Etudes
sur les religions sémitiques, Etudes bibliques (Paris, 1905), pp. 169-180.
* This late dating is recognized by Hadley, “Yahweh and ‘His Asherah’: Archaeological and Tex-

146
ig
POPC
eS ks Endnotes

tual Evidence for the Cult of the Goddess,” in Ein Gott allein? ed. Dietrich and Klopfenstein, pp.
235-268.
* Raz Kletter, “Between Archaeology and Theology: The Pillar Figurines from Judah and the
Asherah,” in Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan, ed. Amihai Mazar,
JSOTS 331 (Sheffield, 2001), pp. 179-216.
* Kletter, “Between Archaeology and Theology,” p. 205.
* Kletter, “Between Archaeology and Theology,” p. 199.
* See Othmar Keel, Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh, Ancient Near Eastern Art and the
Hebrew Bible, JSOTS 261 (Sheffield, 1998), p. 38.
* P Merlo, “Note critiche su alcune presunte iconografie della dea Ashera,” Studi epigrafici e lin-
guistici 14 (1997), pp. 43-64. S.A. Wiggins (“Of Asherahs and Trees: Some Methodological
Questions,” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 1 [2002], pp. 158-187) doubts the associa-
tion of the goddess Asherah with a tree but he does not distinguish clearly enough between the
Hebrew common name asherah and the proper name of the deity, Asherah.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 8
* See Lemaire, “Le Décalogue: essai d'histoire de la rédaction,” in Mélanges bibliques, ed. Caquot
and Delcor, pp. 259-295.
* The Cherubim mentioned in this description are clearly not representations of the deity; they
are mythic beings playing the role of protectors of the deity in his sanctuary. At the most, in the
tradition of empty thrones, they can be considered as a kind of pedestal for the deity.
> See P. Lecog, Les inscriptions de la Perse achéménide (Paris, 1997), p. 184.
* See, for example, C. Uehlinger, “Eine anthropomorphe Kultstatue des Gottes von Dan?” Biblische
Notizen 72 (1994), pp. 85-100.
* Uehlinger, “Anthropomorphic Cult Statuary in Iron Age Palestine and the Search for Yahweh's
Cult Images,” in The Image and the Book. Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in
Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. van der Toorn (Leuven, 1997), pp. 97-155; “Israelite Ani-
conism in Context,” Biblica 77 (1996), pp. 540-549; “‘... und wo sind die Gotter von Samarien?’
Die Wegfuhrung syrisch-palastinischer Kultstatuen auf einem Relief Sargons II in Horsébad/Dtr-
Sharrukin,” in Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf, ed. M. Dietrich et al., AOAT 250 (Munster,
1998), pp. 739-776; H. Niehr, “In search of YHWH's Cult Statue in the First Temple,” in The
Image and the Book, ed. van der Toorn, pp. 73-95; B. Becking, “Assyrian Evidence for Iconic
Polytheism in Ancient Israel?” in The Image and the Book, ed. van der Toorn, pp. 157-171; and
Lewis, “Divine Images and Aniconism in Ancient Israel,” Journal of the American Oriental Society
118 (1998), pp. 42-47.
° Na’aman, “No Anthropomorphic Graven Image. Notes on the Assumed Anthropomorphic Cult
Statues in the Temples of YHWH in the Pre-Exilic Period,” Ugarit-Forschungen 31 (1999), pp.
391-415.
7 See de Vaux, Bible et Orient (Paris, 1967), p. 155.
® See, for example, Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Essays in the History of
the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: 1973), p. 69.
°T.N.D. Mettinger, “Aniconism—a West Semitic Context for the Israelite Phenomenon,” in Ein
Gott allein? ed. Dietrich and Klopfenstein, pp. 159-178; No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in
Its Near Eastern Context, CBOTS 42 (Stockholm, 1995); “The Roots of Aniconism: An Israelite
Phenomenon in Comparative Perspective,” in Congress Volume, Cambridge 1995, ed. Emerton,
SVT 66 (Leiden, 1997), pp. 219-234; O. Loretz, “Semitischer Anikonismus und biblisches Bild-
verbot,” Ugarit-Forschungen 26 (1994), pp. 209-223; and TJ. Lewis, “Divine Images and Ani-

147
Endnotes
ee a a

conism in Ancient Israel?” Journal of the American Oriental Society 118 (1998), pp. 36-53. See
also S.A. Fransouzoff, “A Parallel to the Second Commandment in the Inscriptions of Raybtn,”
Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 28 (1998), pp. 61-67.
See, for example, Durand, “Le culte des bétyles en Syria,” in Miscellanea Babylonica, Mélanges
offerts a Maurice Birot, ed. Durand and J.R. Kupper (Paris, 1985), pp. 79-84; “Assyriologie,”
Annuaire du College de France 102 (2002-2003), pp. 747-767; Le culte des pierres et les monu-
ments commeénoratifs en Syrie amornite, Mémoires de N.A.B.U 9 (Paris: 2005).
'! See Mettinger, No Graven Image? pp. 84-90.
2 See Mettinger, No Graven Image? pp. 57-68; and J.-F Healey, The Religion of the Nabataeans (Lei-
den, 2001), pp. 185-188.
'3 See Delcor, “Les trénes d’Astarté,” in Atti del I Congresso internazionale di studi fenici e punici, Roma, 5-
10 novembre 1979, Il (Rome, 1983), pp. 777-787; and Mettinger, No Graven Image? pp. 100-106.
‘* Mettinger, No Graven Image? p. 101.
'5 See U. Avner, “Ancient Cult Sites in the Negev and Sinai Deserts,” Tel Aviv 11 (1984), pp. 115-131;
“Mazzebot Sites in the Negev and Sinai and their Significance,” in Biblical Archaeology Today (1990),
ed. Biran and Aviram (Jerusalem), pp. 166-181; and Mettinger, No Graven Image? pp. 168-174.
‘© Mettinger, No Graven Image? pp. 57-68.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 9
'E. Renan, Histoire du peuple d'Israél II (Paris, 1889), p. 273.
> C. Clermont-Ganneau, La stéle de Dhiban ou stéle de Mésa, roi de Moab (Paris, 1870), pp. 5-8, 31.
> See G. Smith, “Addresses of Encouragements to Esarharhaddon,” in The Cuneiform Inscriptions of
Western Asia IV, ed. H.C. Rawlinson ed. (London, 1875, 1891), no. 68.
* See Lemaire, ed., Prophétes et rois. Bible et Proche-Orient (Paris, 2001).
° See Durand, “Les prophéties des textes de Mari,” in Oracles et prophéties dans ’Antiquité. Actes du
colloque de Strasbourg 15-17 juin 1995, ed. J.-G. Heintz, Travaux du centre de Recherche sur le
Proche-Orient et la Gréce Antiques (TCRPOGA) (Paris, 1997), pp. 115-134.
° D. Charpin, “Prophetes et rois dans le Proche-Orient amorrite,” in Propheétes et rois, ed. Lemaire,
pp. 21-53.
"See Durand, “Le mythologeme du combat entre le dieu de l’orage et la mer en Mésopotamie,”
MARI 7 (1993), pp. 41-61.
* Lemaire, ed., Prophetes et rois, pp. 13-14.
* See S. Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies, SAA 9 (Helsinki, 1997); M. Nissinen, References to Prophecy
in Neo-Assyrian Sources, SAAS 7 (Helsinki, 1998); Nissinen, ed., Prophecy in its Ancient Near
Eastern Context, SBL Symposium Series 13 (Atlanta, 2000); P. Villard, “Les prophéties a ’époque
néo-assyrienne,” in Prophetes et rois, ed. Lemaire, pp. 55-84; and M. Weippert, “Konig, furchte
dich nicht!’ Assyrische Prophetie im 7. Jahrhundert v. Chr.,” Orientalia 71 (2002), pp. 1-54.
’° Villard, in Prophetes et rois, ed. Lemaire, p. 60.
" Villard, in Prophetes et rois, ed. Lemaire, p. 70.
” Villard, in Prophetes et rois, ed. Lemaire, pp. 72-79.
® Lemaire, “Prophéetes et rois dans les inscriptions ouest-sémitiques,” in Prophétes et rois, ed. .
Lemaire, pp. 85-115.
'* Lemaire, “Prophéetes et rois dans les inscriptions ouest-sémitiques,” in Prophétes et rois, ed. Lemaire,
pp. 103-104; and “House of David’ Restored in Moabite Inscription,” BAR, May/June 1994.
Lemaire, “Prophéetes et rois dans les inscriptions ouest-sémitiques,” in Prophetes et rois, ed.
Lemaire, pp. 97-98; and “Fragments from the Book of Balaam Found at Deir Alla,” BAR, Sep-
tember/October 1985.

148
ie
OS eee ee Endnotes

A similar religious idea is present in the story about Absalom’ exile, which would cut him off
“from the heritage of God” (2 Samuel 14:16).
’ Regarding the hospitality of the Arabs in this story, see Lemaire, “Achab, l’exil d’Elie et les
Arabes.” in Prophétes et rois, ed. Lemaire, pp. 133-144.
“ Regarding the political interpretation of this prophetic oracle, see Lemaire, “Prophetes et rois
dans les inscriptions ouest-sémitiques,” in Prophétes et rois, ed. Lemaire, pp. 86-93.
* See Charpin, “Prophétes et rois dans le Proche-Orient amorrite,” in Prophétes et rois, ed.
Lemaire, pp. 21-53.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 10
' The phrase “high place” (Hebrew, bamah) designates a type of traditional sanctuary in the open
sky, a sacred enclosure generally containing an altar, a stela and a sacred tree.
* The horns of the altars were the most sacred part of the altar (see 1 Kings 2:28), and such
horns in cut stone are attested at Tel Dan (see Biran, Biblical Dan Uerusalem, 1994], p. 165), as
well as at Megiddo and Beersheba.
> See A. Schenker, “Le monothéisme israélite: une dieu qui transcende le monde et les dieux,”
Biblica 78 (1997), pp. 436-448.
* Regarding this passage and its historical interest, see. J.T. Willis, “The Authenticity and Meaning
of Micah 5:9-14,” Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 81 (1969), pp. 353-368. For
more on the dating of the passage, see B. Renaud, La formation du livre de Michée, Etudes
bibliques (Paris, 1997), pp. 267-270; and Michée, Sophonie, Nahum, Sources bibliques (Paris,
1987), pp. 112-115.
> See, for example, Na’aman, “The Debated Historicity of Hezekiah’s Reform in the Light of His-
torical and Archaeological Research,” Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 107, 1995,
pp. 179-195; L.S. Fried, “The High Places (Bamot) and the Reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah,”
Journal of the American Oriental Society 122 (2002), pp. 437-465.
* See Andrew G. Vaughn, Theology, History, and Archaeology in the Chronicler’s Account of Hezekiah,
Archaeology and Biblical Studies 4 (Atlanta, 1999).
” See Weippert, “Die ‘deuteronomistischen’ Beurteilungen der K6nige von Israel und Juda and das
Problem der Redaktion der Konigsbtcher,” Biblica 53 (1972), pp. 301-339; WB. Barrick, “On
the Removal of the ‘High-Places’ in 1-2 Kings,” Biblica 55 (1974), pp. 257-259; Lemaire, “Vers
Phistoire de la rédaction des Livres des Rois,” Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 98
(1986), pp. 221-236 (= “Toward a Redactional History of the Book of Kings,” in G.N. Knoppers
and J.G. McConville, eds., Reconsidering Israel and Judah [Winona Lake, 2000], pp. 446-461];
Halpern and D.S. Vanderhooft, “The Editions of Kings in the 7th-6th Centuries B.C.E.,” Hebrew
Union College Annual 62 (1991), pp. 179-244; WB. Barrick, “On the Meaning of béyt-ha/bamét
and batéy-habbamot and the Composition of the Kings History,” Journal of Biblical Literature
115/4 (1996), pp. 621-642; E. Eynikel, The Reform of King Josiah and the Composition of the
Deuteronomistic History, OTS 33 (Leiden, 1996);and A.F Campbell and M.A. O’Brien, Unfolding
the Deuteronomistic History (Minneapolis, 2000).
® The unifying of the Hebrew people around a Yahwism that absorbed local deities and cults.
° The story of the Nehushtan is therefore earlier than the late-eighth century B.C.E. Like the
“golden calf,” the Nehushtan could have been a “Canaanite” tradition justified by a story con-
nected to Moses/Aaron (see K. Koenen, “Eherne Schlange und goldenes Kalb. Ein Vergleich der
Uberlieferungen,” Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 111 [1999], pp. 353-372).
‘© See Anson F Rainey, “Hezekiah’s Reform and the Altar at Beer-Sheba and Arad,” in Scripture and
Other Artifacts, ed. Mordecai D. Cogan et al. (Louisville, 1994), pp. 333-354.

149
Endnotes
Be
ee ee

"See Aharoni, “Excavations at Tel Beer-sheba, Preliminary Report of the Fifth and Sixth Seasons,
1973-1974,” Tel Aviv 2 (1975), pp. 146-168.
Tt may well have been located in an open-air sanctuary near the well.
8 Ze’ev Herzog, “The Fortress Mound at Tel Arad: An Interim.Report,” Tel Aviv 29 (2002), pp. 3-
109; see also, “The Date of the Temple at Arad: Reassessment of the Stratigraphy and the Impli-
cations for the History of Religion in Judah,” in Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel
and Jordan, ed. Mazar, JSOTS 331 (Sheffield, 2001), pp. 156-178.
4 The same is probably true of the Lachish sanctuary (see David Ussishkin, “The Level V ‘Sanctu-
ary’ and ‘High Place’ at Lachish,” in Saxa loquentur. Studien zur Archdologie Paldstinas/Israel.
FestschriftfiirV. Fritz, ed. C.G. den Hertog et al., AOAT 302 (Miinster, 2003), pp. 205-211.
'S Na’aman, “The Debated Historicity of Hezekiah’s Reform,” pp. 191-193.
'© Aharoni, Investigations at Lachish, The Sanctuary and the Residency (Lachish V) (Tel Aviv, 1975),
pp. 26-32.
'’ David Ussishkin, “The Level V ‘Sanctuary’ and ‘High Place’ at Lachish,” in C.G. den Hertog et
al., eds., Saxa loquentur (Minster, 2003), pp. 205-211; The Renewed Archaeological Excavations
at Lachich (1973-1994) (Tel Aviv, 2004) I, pp. 105-109.
'® Ussishkin, The Conquest of Lachish by Sennacherib (Tel Aviv, 1982), p. 105.
'° See Israel Finkelstein and N.A. Silberman, David and Solomon (New York, 2006), Appendix E,
pp. 267-269.
? This phenomenon was emphasized by Renan, “Nouvelles considérations sur le caractére
général des peuples sémitiques et en particulier sur leur tendance au monothéisme.” Journal
Asiatique (1859), p. 273.
*1 See also Jeremiah 2:28: “For you have as many gods as you have towns, O Judah.”
* Since Hezekiah’s and Josiah’s reforms had similar characteristics, it is difficult to distinguish the
corresponding levels of composition in Deuteronomy, as emphasized by Weinfeld: “As the book
of Deuteronomy was discovered in the days of Josiah (622 B.C.E.) we must suppose that the
main layout of the book existed long before that time—that is, at the time of Hezekiah. But we
still do not know what belongs to later Josianic elaboration and what existed before” (Deuteron-
omy 1-11, The Anchor Bible 5 [New York, 1991], p. 51).
* As shown by de Vaux (“Le lieu que Yahvé a choisi pour y établir son nom,” in Das ferne und
nahe Wort, Festschrift L. Rost, ed. EFMass, BZAW 105 [Berlin, 1967], pp. 219-228) and S.L.
Richter (The Deuteronomic History and the Name Theology, BLAW 318 [Berlin, 2002]), this
phrase probably corresponds to the Akkadian shuma shakanu to indicate the taking possession
of a town by a victorious king.
** See, for example, O. Keel, “Warum im Jerusalemer Tempel kein anthropomorphes Kultbild ges-
tanden haben durfte,” in Homo Pictor, ed. G. Boehm, Colloquium Rauricum Band 7 (Leipzig,
2001), pp. 244-282: “Die Polemik gegen allerhand figurative Kultobjekte (Stier, Schlange) hat
schlussendlich auch zur Ablehnung der heiligen Steine und der Lade geftihrt.” The elimination
of the stelae is also emphasized by Mettinger (No Graven Image? p. 25).
* See the contemporaneous inscription from Khirbet Beit Lei invoking the “God of
Jerusalem/LHY YRSLM” (see Lemaire, “Priéres en temps de crise: les inscriptions de Khirbet
Beit Lei,” Revue Biblique 83 [1976], pp. 558-569; and J. Renz, Die althebréischen Inschriften, '
Handbuch der althebraischen Epigraphik I/1 [Darmstadt, 1995], pp. 245-246).

NOTES, LO. CHAPTER 1

‘See William M. Schniedewind, “History and Interpretation. The Religion of Ahab and Manasseh
in the Book of Kings,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55 (1993), pp. 649-661; PS.E van Keulen,

150
 Endnotes

Manasseh Through the Eyes of the Deuteronomist: The Manasseh Account (2 Kings 21:1-18) and the
Final Chapters of the Deuteronomistic History, OTS 28 (Leiden, 1996).
* In the Deuteronomist’s account, Manasseh is responsible for the fall of Jerusalem. See E. Ben
Zvi, “The Account of the Reign of Manasseh in II Kings 21:1-18 and the Redactional History of
the Book of Kings,” Zeitschrift fiirdie alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 103 (1991), pp. 355-374;
Schniedewind, “History and Interpretation,” pp. 649-661; PS.F van Keulen, Manasseh Through
the Eyes of the Deuteronomists, OTS 38 (Leiden, 1996); E. Eynikel, “The Portrait of Manasseh and
the Deuteronomistic History,” in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature, Festschrift C.H.W.
Breckelmans, ed. M. Vervenne and J. Lust, BETL 133 (Leuven, 1997), pp. 233-261; and
Halpern, “Why Manasseh is blamed for the Babylonian exile: the evolution of a biblical tradi-
tion,” Vetus Testamentum 48 (1998), pp. 473-514.
> This seems to correspond to the one mentioned in 2 Kings 21:5.
* About the historicity of this reform, see N. Lohfink, “The Cult Reform of Josiah of Judah: 2
Kings 22-23 as a Source for the History of Israelite Religion,” in Ancient Israelite Religion. Essays
in Honor of EM. Cross, ed. Miller et al. (Philadelphia, 1987), pp. 459-475; and Uehlinger, “Gab
es eine joschianische Kultreform?” in Jeremia und die “deuteronomistische Bewegung”, ed. W. Gross,
BBB 98 (Weinheim, 1995), pp. 57-89.
> The importance of the solar cult for the worship of YHWH has been the subject of several stud-
ies. See, in particular, J.W. McKay, Religion in Judah under the Assyrians 732-609 B.C. (London,
1973), pp. 28-73, 97-124; “Further Light on the Horses and Chariot of the Sun in the
Jerusalem Temple (2 Kings 23:11),” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 105 (1973), pp. 167-169;
H.-P. Stahli, Solare Element im Jahweglauben des Alten Testaments, Orbis Biblicuset Orientalis
(OBO) 66 (Fribourg/Gottingen, 1985); Keel, “Conceptions religieuses dominantes en
Palestine/Israél entre 1750 et 900,” in Congress Volume, Paris 1992, ed. Emerton, SVT 61 (Lei-
den, 1995), pp. 119-144; Keel and Uehlinger, “Jahwe und die Sonnengottheit von Jerusalem,”
in Ein Gott allein? pp. 269-306; and N. Shupak, “The God from Teman and the Egyptian Sun
God: A Reconsideration of Habakuk 3:3-7,” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 28
(2002), pp. 97-116.
® See, for example, Delcor, “Les cultes étrangers en Israél au moment de la réforme de Josias
d’aprés 2R 23. Etude de religions sémitiques comparées,” in Mélanges bibliques, ed. Caquot and
Delcor, pp. 91-123.
” See Akkadian kamanu.
® See Akkadian manzaltu.
° See T. Orman, “IStar as Depicted on Finds From Israel,” in Studies of the Archaeology of the Iron
Age in Israel and Jordan, ed. Mazar, JSOTS 331 (Sheffield, 2001), pp. 235-256.
See E. Lipinski, The Aramaeans. Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion, Orientalia Lovaniensia
Analecta 100 (Leuven, 2000), pp. 607-626.
4 See, for example, Lemaire and Durand, Les inscriptions, pp. 23-58; and Lemaire, Nouvelles
tablettes araméennes, Hautes Etudes Orientales 34 (Geneva, 2001), p. 11.
2 See Lemaire, “Coupe astrale inscrite et astronomie araméenne,” in Michael, Historical, Epigraphi-
cal and Biblical Studies in Honor of Prof. Michael Heltzer, ed. Y. Avishur and Deutsch (Tel
Aviv/Jaffa, 1999), pp. 195-211.
° See, for example, Uehlinger, “Bildquellen und ‘Geschichte Israels’: Grundsatzliche Uberlegun-
gen und Fallbeipsiele,” in Steine—Bilder—Texte, ed. C. Hardmeier (Leipzig, 2001), pp. 25-77.
4 See Delcor, “Les cultes étrangers,” in Mélanges bibliques, ed. Caquot and Delcor, pp. 91-123.
5 Its historicity is generally recognized. See, for example, Uehlinger, “Gab es eine joschijanische
Kultreform? Pladoyer fur ein begrindetes Minimum,” in Jeremia und die “deuteronomische
Bewegung”, ed. W. Gross, BBB 98 (Weinheim, 1995), pp. 57-89.

LoL
Endnotes
peu
ee eee een

© See Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions, Har-
vard Semitic Studies (HSSt) 31 (Atlanta, 1986).
” Avigad and Sass, Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals (Jerusalem, 1997); see also Deutsch and
Lemaire, Biblical Period Personal Seals in the Shlomo Moussaieff Collection (Tel Aviv, 2000).
® Deutsch, Messages from the Past, Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Isaiah Through the Destruction of
the First Temple (Tel Aviv, 1999); and Biblical Period Hebrew Bullae. The Josef Chaim Kaufman Col-
lection (Tel Aviv, 2003).
'° Sociologists generally distinguish among three levels of religion, whether ancient or modern:
official religion, local religion practiced in local sanctuaries, and family religion (see H.M. Nie-
mann, Herrschaft, Konigtum und Staat: Skizzen zur sociokulturellen Entwicklung im monarchischen
Israel, FAT 6 (Tubingen, 1993], pp. 227-245). The centralization of the cult in Jerusalem and
the proportion of Yahwist names around 600 B.C.E. suggest that Yahwism was not only an offi-
cial religion but also penetrated to other levels of society. According to the prophetic writings,
those who deviated from official Yahwism were as likely to be members of the elites (influenced
by cults of foreign gods) as members of the peasantry (perhaps influenced by fertility cults).

NOTES TO, CHAPTERW2

' See F Joannés and Lemaire, “Trois tablettes cunéiformes 4 onomastique ouest-sémitique (collec-
tion Sh. Moussaieff),” Transeuphraténe 17 (1999), pp. 17-34.
> The god Sin is the “master/king of the gods of heavens and earth.” See, for example, M.-J. Seux,
Hymnes et priéres aux dieux de Babylonie et d’Assyrie, LAPO 8 (Paris, 1976), pp. 521-522; F
d’Agostino, Nabonedo, Adda Guppi, il deserto e il dio luna. Storia, ideologia e propaganda nella
Babilonia del VI sec. A.C. (Pisa, 1994); P-A. Beaulieu, “The Sippar Cylinder of Nabonidus
(2.123A),” in The Context of Scripture II, Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World, ed. W.
Hallo (Leiden, 2000), pp. 310-14; H. Schaudig, Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros’
des Grossen, AOAT 256 (Munster, 2001).
> See A. Berlegung, Die Theologie der Bilder. Das Kultbild in Mesopotamien und die alttestamentliche
Bilderpolemik unter besondere Bertcksichtigung der Herstellung und Einweihung der Statuen, OBO
162 (Fribourg, 1998).
* See C. Walker and M. Dick, The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia. The
Mesopotamian Mis Pi Ritual, State Archives of Assyria Literary Texts 1 (Helsinki, 2001).
> See Berlejung, Die Theologie der Bilder, pp. 315-411: “Die Polemik gegen Kultbilder im Alten
Testament.”
* See especially M. Albani, Der eine Gott und die himmlischen Heerscharen. Zur Begrundung des
Monotheismus bei Deuterojesaja im Horizont der Astralisierung des Gottesverstandnis im Alten Orient,
ABG 1 (Leipzig, 2000).
"YHWHS support for Cyrus in Deutero-Isaiah corresponds to Marduk’s support for Cyrus in
dominating the Babylonian empire. See Lecoq, Les inscriptions de la Perse achéménide, pp. 181-
185; M. Cogan, “Cyrus Cylinder,” in The Context of Scripture II, Monumental Inscriptions from the
Biblical World, ed. Hallo, pp. 314-316; and H. Schaudig, Die Inschriften, pp. 552-556. Both texts
are variants of Persian propaganda in favor of Cyrus; see, for example, M. Weippert, “Ich bin
Jahwe’—Ich bin Ishtar von Arbela’ Deuterojesaja im Lichte der neuassyrischen Prophetie,” in
Prophetie und Psalmen, Festschrift fur K. Seybold, ed. B. Huwyler et al. AOAT 280 (Munster,
20015, pp.31e h—®
* Histories 1.131. See also Strabo 15.3.13: “The Persians do not set up statues or altars to their gods.”
* Lecogq, Les inscriptions de la Perse achéménide, p. 246 (see also pp. 217, 219, 229, 232, 241).
P. Briant, Histoire de empire perse. De Cyrus a Alexandre (Paris, 1996), p. 105.

192
a ee Endnotes
TS

“ See J. Kellens, Essays on Zarathustra and Zoroastrianism (Costa Mesa, 2000), pp. 25-30. See also
Kellens, ed., La religion iranienne a l’époque achéménide. Actes du Colloque de Liége 11 décembre
1987 (Gand, 1991); “Les Achéménides dans le contexte indo-iranien,” in Recherches récentes sur
Empire achéménide, ed. F Boussac, Topoi—Orient, Occident, Supplément 1 (Lyon, 1997), pp.
287-295; and G. Ahn, “Schopfergott und Monotheismus,” in “Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf.”
Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient, Festschrift ftir O. Loretz, ed. M. Dietrich and I.
Kottsieper, AOAT 250 (Munster, 1998), pp. 15-26; J. Kellens, La Quatrigme Naissance de
Zarathoustra (Paris, 2006).
* For more on the historical interpretation of this oracle, see Lemaire, “Oracles, politique et lit-
térature dans les royaumes araméens et transjordaniens (IXe-VIlle s. av. n. @.),” in Oracles et
prophéties dans l’Antiquité, ed. Heintz, pp. 171-193.

NOTES TO'CHAPTER 14
‘J. Day reminds us that this historical interpretation is not new; see “The Religion of Israel,” in
Text in Context. Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study, ed. A.D.H. Mayes
(Oxford, 2000), pp. 428-453: “Many scholars now accept Wellhausen’s view that absolute
monotheism was not attained till Deutero-Isaiah during the Exile, and its development was a
gradual process in which the monolatrous challenge of Elijah, the work of the classical
prophets, and the Deuteronomistic reform movement played significant roles.” See also R.K.
Gnuse, No Other Gods. Emergent Monotheism in Israel, JSOTS 241 (Sheffield, 1997), pp. 62-128;
and “The Emergence of Monotheism in Ancient Israel: A Survey of Recent Scholarship,” Religion
29 (1999), pp. 315-336.
> See, for example, Grelot, Documents araméens d’Egypte; Bezalel Porten and Ada Yardeni, Textbook
of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt I-IV (Jerusalem, 1986-1999).
> Grelot, Documents araméens d’Egypte, no. 87.
* Cowley, Aramaic Papyni of the Fifth Century B.C., no. 44:1-3; and Grelot, Documents araméens
d’Egypte, no. 10.
> About this use of Herem (taboo/inviolable object) in the oath formulas and as a divinity in the
Aramaic onomasticon, see van der Toorn, “Herem-Bethel and Elephantine Oath Procedure,” pp.
282-285.
* Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., no. 7:7-8; and Grelot, Documents araméens d’E-
gypte, no. 9.
’ Thus the name “Anat-Yaho” is influenced by Aramaic; see van der Toorn, “Anat-Yahu, Some
Other Deities, and the Jews of Elephantine,” Numen 39 (1992), pp. 80-101.
® The Ezra mission is dated to the seventh year of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:7) who has been identified
sometimes as Artaxerxes I (464-424 B.C.E.) and sometimes as Artaxerxes II (404-359 B.C.E.),
though the later date is more likely. See, for example, Lemaire, “La fin de la premiére période
perse en Egypt et la chronologie judéenne vers 400 av. J.-C.,” Transeuphratene 9 (1995), pp. 51-62.
° The alternative spellings YHWH (Yahweh?) and YHW (Yah6) are attested in the Kuntillet ‘Ajrud
inscriptions (first half of the eighth century B.C.E.).
” Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., nos. 38:3,5 (=Grelot, Documents araméens d’E-
gypte, no. 98) and 40:1 (=Grelot, Documents araméens d’Egypte, no. 16). About this phenome-
non, see T.M. Bolin, “The Temple of YHW at Elephantine and Persian Religious Policy,” in The
Triumph of Elohim. From Yahwisms to Judaisms, ed. D.V. Edelman (Kampen, 1995), pp. 127-142,
and P-E. Dion, “La religion des papyrus d’Eléphantine: un reflet du Juda d’avant Vexil,” in Kein
Land fir sich allein. Studien zum Kulturkontakt in Kanaan, Israel/Paldstina und Ebirndri fiir M.
Weippert, ed. U. Hubner and E.A. Knauf, OBO 186 (Fribourg, 2003), pp. 243-254.

133
iE SE
" Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., nos. 30:2,15,28, 31:27 (=Grelot, Documents
araméens d’Egypte, no. 102).
2 Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., no. 32:4 (=Grelot, Documents araméens aE-
gypte, no. 103).
5 See, for example, H. Niehr, Der héchste Gott, Mircstaptentlicher JHWH-Glaube im Kontext syrisch-
kanaandischer Religion des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr, BLAW 190 (Berlin, 1990), pp. 48-51.
4 See T.M. Bolin, “The Temple of YHW at Elephantine,” in The Triumph of Elohim, ed. Edelman,
p. 38, n. 38. Niehr suggests that these Aramaic and Hebrew phrases refer to the “inclusive
monotheism” of Ahuramazda.
1° See Niehr, “JHWH und die Rolle des Baalshamem,” in Ein Gott allein? ed. Dietrich and Klopfen-
stein, pp. 307-326.
'6 See Lemaire, “Remarques sur certaines légendes monétaires ciliciennes (Ve-IVe s. av. MEGDe vita
Mécanismes et innovations monétaires dans l’Anatolie achéménide. Numismatique et histoire. Actes de
la Table Ronde Internationale d’Istanbul, 22-23 mai 1997, ed. O. Casabonne (Paris, 2000), pp.
129-141. The appellation “Master of the heavens” is later interpreted as referring to a celestial
world where, in some way, “angels” take the place of “gods”; see, for example, K. Koch,
“Monotheismus und Angelologie,” in Ein Gott allein? ed. Dietrich and Klopfenstein, pp. 565-581.
‘7 See Yaakov Meshorer and S. Qedar, Samarian Coinage (Jerusalem, 1999), no. 40; this coin
could also date from the very beginning of the Hellenistic period.
'8 See, however, the hypothesis of Joseph Blenkinsopp, “The Judaean Priesthood during the Neo-
Babylonian and Achaemenid Periods: A Hypothetical Reconstruction,” Catholic Biblical Quar-
terly 60 (1998), pp. 25-43.
' See, for example, PR. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration (London, 1968), p. 34; I. Eph’al, “The
Western Minorities in Babylonia in the 6th-5th Centuries B.C.: Maintenance and Cohesion,”
Orientalia 47 (1978), pp. 74-90; H.G.M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, World Biblical Commen-
tary 16 (Waco, TX: 1985), p. 117; and Blenkinsopp, “The Social Roles of Prophets in Early
Achaemenid Judah,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 93 (2001), pp. 39-58.
*° Cf. A. Ruwe, “Die Veranderung Tempel theologischer Konzepte in Ezekiel 8-11,” in Gemeinde
ohne Tempel—Community without Temple. Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer
Tempels und seines Kultes im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frihen Christentum, ed. B. Ego
et al., Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament (WUNT) 118 (Tubingen,
1999), pp. 3-18.
* Cf. J. Frey, “Temple and Rival Temple—The Cases of Elephantine, Mt. Gerizim, and Leontopo-
lis,” in Gemeinde ohne Tempel, ed. Ego et al., pp. 171-203; and Y. Magen, “Mt Gerizim—A Tem-
ple City,” Qadmoniot 33/2 (2000), pp. 74-118 (Hebrew).
* See Lemaire, “Les religions du sud de la Palestine au IVe siécle ay. J.-C. d’aprés les ostraca
araméens d’Idumée,” in Comptes rendus de ‘Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres (2001), pp.
1141-1158; Nouvelles inscriptions araméennes d’Idumée II, Collections, Moussaieff, Jeselsohn, Welch
et divers, Suppl. n° 9 a Transeuphratene (Paris, 2002), pp. 149-153, 223; and “Another Temple
to the Israelite God,” BAR, September/October 2004.
* Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., nos. 30:18-19; 31:17-18 (=Grelot, Documents
arameéens d’Egypte, no. 102:17-18)
* Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., no. 32 (=Grelot, Documents araméens d’E-
gypte, no.° 103).
» Alfred Marx, Les offrandes végétales dans l’Ancien Testament. Du tribut d’hommage au repas escha-
tologique, SVT 57 (Leiden, 1994), pp. 145, 148.
* See Albani, “‘Wo sollte ein Haus sein, das ihr mir bauen Konntet?’ (Jes 66,1)—Schdpfung als
Tempel JHWHs?” in Gemeinde ohne Tempel, ed. Ego et al., pp. 37-56.

154
a ee a Endnotes
POON

* See A. Lange, “Gebotobservanz statt Opferkult. Zur Kultpolemik in Jer 7,1 - 8,3,” in Gemeinde
ohne Tempel, ed. Ego et al., pp. 19-35.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 15
' See E Huttenmeister, Die jtidischen Synagogen, Lehrhduser und Gerichtshofe, in Huttenmeister and
G. Reeg, eds., Die antiken Synagogen in Israel 1, BTAVO.B 12/1 (Wiesbaden, 1977); “Synagogue”
und ‘Proseuché’ bei Josephus und in anderen antiken Quellen,” in Begegnungen zwischen Chris-
tentum und Judentum in Antike und Mittelalter, Festschrift H. Schreckenberg, Schriften des Institu-
tum Judaicum Delitzschianum 1, ed. D.A. Koch and H. Lichtenberger (Géttingen, 1993), pp.
161-181; “Die Synagogue. Thre Entwicklung von einer multifunktionalen Einrichtung zum
reinen Kultbau,” in Gemeinde ohne Tempel, ed. Ego et al., pp. 357-370; Emil Schtirer, The History
of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135), vol. 2, ed. G. Vermes, E Millar
and M. Black (Edinburgh, 1979), pp. 415-454; D.D. Binder, Into the Temple Courts. The Place of
the Synagogues in the Second Temple Period, SBL.DS 169 (Atlanta, 1999); H. Bloedhorn and Hut-
tenmeister, “The Synagogue,” in The Cambridge History ofJudaism Ill, ed. W. Horbury et. al.,
(Cambridge, 1999), pp. 267-297; S.J.D. Cohen, “The Temple and the Synagogue,” in The Cam-
bridge History of Judaism Ill, ed. W. Horbury et al., pp. 298-325; PW. van der Horst, “Was the
Ancient Synagogue a Place of Sabbath Worship?” in Jews, Christians and Polytheists in the Ancient
Synagogue. Cultural Interaction During the Greco-Roman Period, ed. S. Fine (London/New York,
1999), pp. 18-43; L.I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue. The First Thousand Years (New Haven/Lon-
don, 2000), pp. 34-73; and A. Runesson, The Origins of the Synagogue. A Socio-Historical Study,
Coniectanca Biblica, New Testament Series (CBNTS) 37 (Stockholm, 2001); C. Claussen, Ver-
sammlung, Gemeinde, Synagogue. Das hellenistisch-judische Umfeld der frihchristlichen Gemeinden,
Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 27 (Gottingen, 2002).
> SeeJ. Bright, A History of Israel (London, 1972), p. 439.
> C. Claussen, Versammlung, Gemeinde, Synagogue, p. 57.
* See W. Horbury and D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt (Cambridge, 1992), nos.
9, 27, 105; and P. Bruneau, Recherches sur les cultes de Délos a l’époque hellénistique et a l’époque
impériale (Paris, 1970), pp. 484, 487-488.
> See Horbury and Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, no. 117.
° See Horbury and Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, no. 22.
7 See VA. Tcherikover and A. Fuks, eds., Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum 1, (Cambridge, MA: 1957-
1964), pp. 239-241, no. 129.
® Horbury and Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, no. 24.
° Horbury and Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, nos. 27, 28.
© Horbury and Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, no. 25.
" Horbury and Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, no. 9, 13.
2 See A. Plassart, “La synagogue juive de Délos,” Revue Biblique 11 (1914), pp. 523-534; Bruneau,
Recherches sur les cultes de Délos, pp. 480-493; and Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, pp. 100-101.
5 See HJ. Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome (Philadelphia, 1960), pp. 135-166.
'* Lemaire, “Trois inscriptions araméennes sur ossuaire et leur intérét,” Comptes Rendus, Académie
des Inscriptions & Belles-Lettres, Janvier-Mars 2003, pp. 301-317. “Engraved in Memory,” BAR,
May/June 2006, pp. 52-57.
5 See MJ. Martin, “Interpreting the Theodotos Inscription: Some Reflections on a First Century
Jerusalem Synagogue Inscription and E.P. Sanders’ ‘Common Judaism’,” Ancient Near Eastern
Studies 39 (2002), pp. 160-181.
6 The identification of this synagogue with the “synagogue of the Freedmen” in the Book of Acts

155
Endnotes
Be
eraee

6:9 is considered as a “serious possibility” by R. Riesner (“Synagogues in Jerusalem,” in The

Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, ed. R. Bauckham, The Book of Acts in its First Century Set-
ting 4 [Grand Rapids, 1995], pp. 179-211).
” See Yitzhak Magen et al., “Kiryat Sefer—A Jewish Village and Synagogue of the Second Temple
Period,” Qadmoniot 32/1 (1999), pp. 25-32 (Hebrew).
'8 See S. Loffreda, “Capernaum,” in The New Encypclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the
Holy Land I, ed. E. Stern Jerusalem, 1993), pp. 291-295.
'° For discussion of the identification of this synagogue, see Ehud Netzer et al., “A Synagogue
from the Hasmonean Period Recently Exposed in the Western Plain ofJericho,” IEJ 49 (1999),
pp. 203-221; and Y. Rapuano, “The Hasmonean Period ‘Synagogue’ at Jericho and the ‘Council
Chamber Building at Qumran,” IEJ 51 (2001), pp. 48-56.
2» Acts 6:9 also mentions the presence of “Alexandrians,” whose synagogue in Jerusalem is
referred to in Tosephta, Megillah 3.6 (see J.P. Siegel, “The Alexandrians in Jerusalem and their
Torah Scroll with Gold Grammata,” IEJ 22 [1972], pp. 39-43).
» During the Persian period, Samaria and Idumea each had at least one temple. The Samarians
built one on Mount Gerizim; and Aramaic ostraca from Idumaea refer to a “temple of YHW,”
probably at Khirbet el-Qom/Makkedah. Other Idumaean temples may have been located at
Lachish (see O. Tufnell, Lachish III, The Iron Age [London, 1953], pp. 141-149; Aharoni, Investi-
gations at Lachish. The Sanctuary and the Residency (Lachish V) (Tel Aviv, 1975), pp. 3-11) and
Beersheba (see Herzog, “Tel Beersheba,” in The New Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations
in the Holy Land 1, ed. Ephraim Stern, pp. 167-173), though we do not know the deity to
which these temples were dedicated. See also A. Runesson, The Origins of the Synagogue, CBNTS
37 (Stockholm, 2001), pp. 423-426.
» Thus the saying, “One has not seen a beautiful building if he has not seen the Temple” (Sukka
51:2); and Philo, “Of all the temples anywhere, it is the most beautiful” (Legatio ad Caium,
198); and the Gospel of Mark, “As he [Jesus] came out of the temple, one of his disciples said
to him, ‘Look, Teacher, what large stones and what large buildings!” (Mark 13:1; see also
Matthew 24:1; Luke 23:5). For a discussion of this Herodian temple, see. E.-M. Laperrousaz,
Les Temples de Jérusalem (Paris, 1999), pp. 62-84.
* Philo, Legatio ad Caium, 317-318.
* See J.-B. Frey, Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum I, Asie, Afrique (Rome, 1952), pp. 328-330, no.
1400. For a discussion of this barrier (soreg) and its function, see F Schmidt, La pensée du Tem-
ple. De Jérusalem a Qoumran (Paris, 1994), pp. 95-103.
» Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 12.145.
* See, for example, F Garcia Martinez and EJ.C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls. Study Edition 1
(Leiden, 1997), pp. 352-353.
* Josephus, Jewish War 2.409. See also C. Mézange, “Exclusion et intégration des Romains dans
loeuvre de Flavius Joséphe,” in Etrangers et exclus dans le monde biblique, ed. J. Riaud, pp. 125-
eel
* See Schurer, The History of the Jewish People, vol. 3 (1986), ed. Vermes et al., pp. 162-169. See
also F Siegert, “Die Synagogue und das Postulat eines unblutigen Opfers,” in Gemeinde ohne
Tempel, ed. Ego et al., pp. 335-356.
»» For Delos, see Bruneau, Recherches sur les cultes de Délos, pp. 484, 487-488.
” See Schiirer, The History, of the Jewish People, vol. 3, ed. Vermes et al., p. 169.
' See Harold W. Attridge and R.A. Oden, Philo of Byblos. The Phoenician History, The Catholic Bib-
lical Quarterly Monograph Series (CBQMS) 9 (Washington, 1981), pp. 46-47, after Eusebius of
Caesarea, Preparatio Evangelica 1.10,14-30.
* See, for example, George Howard, “The Tetragram and the New Testament,” Journal of Biblical Liter-

156
 Ee Endnotes

ature 96 (1977), pp. 63-83. Note, however, that the thesis of this article remains very conjectural.
» For a discussion of Philo’s developing an allegorical interpretation of the Temple cult
while pre-
serving the importance of the “temple built by human hands,” see V Nikiprowetzky, “La spiri-
tualisation des sacrifices et le culte sacrificiel au temple de Jérusalem chez Philon d’Alexandrie
,”
in Nikiprowetzky, Etudes philoniennes (Paris, 1996) (also in Semitica 17 [1967], pp. 97-116),
pp. 79-96.
* Josephus’ Epitome and the Latin version have a negative phrasing.
» The negative phrasing seems to correspond to the position of Philo, who describes the Essenes
as “devout in the service of God, not by offering sacrifices of animals, but by resolving to sanc-
tify their minds” (Quod omnis probus liber sit, 75).
* Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.19. See A. Baumgarten, “Josephus on Essene Sacrifice,” Journal of
Jewish Studies 45 (1994), pp. 169-183.
* See, for example, Caquot, “La secte de Qumran et le Temple (Essai de synthése),” Revue dHis-
toire et de Philolosophie Religieuse 72 (1992), pp. 3-14; E. Puech, “Les Esséniens et le temple de
Jérusalem,” in “Ou demeures-tu?” (Jn 1,38). La Maison depuis le monde biblique, Mélanges Guy Cou-
turier, ed. J.-C. Petit (Saint-Laurent, 1994), pp. 263-286; Schmidt, La pensée du Temple, pp. 130-
157, and Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Community Without Temple: The Qumran Community's
Withdrawal from the Jerusalem Temple,” in Gemeinde ohne Tempel, ed. Ego et al., pp. 267-284:
“Despite some claims to the contrary, the Sectarians did not practice sacrificial rites at Qumran.
They believed, on the one hand, that sacrifice was permitted only in Jerusalem, the place that
God has chosen, and on the other hand, that the rituals and priesthood of the Jerusalem Temple
of their own days were illegitimate. The Sectarians saw their group as a virtual Temple.”
* See Lemaire, “Lenseignement essénien et I’école de Qumran,” in Hellenica et Judaica. Hommage a
Valentin Nikiprowetzky, ed. Caquot et al. (Leuven/Paris, 1986), pp. 191-203; “Réflexions sur la
fonction du site de Qumran,” in Josef Tadeusz Milik et le cinquantenaire de la découverte des manu-
scrits de la Mer Morte de Qumran, ed. D. Dlugosz and H. Ratajczak (Warsaw, 2000), pp. 37-43;
“Lexpérience essénienne de Flavius Joseéphe,” in Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Paris 2001,
ed. F Siegert and J.U. Kalms, Munsteraner Judaistische Studien 12 (Munster, 2002), pp. 138-
leds
* Philo, Quod omnis probus liber sit, 75. For a discussion of Philo’ own position, see Nikiprovet-
zky, Etudes philoniennes, pp. 79-96.
* See, for example, J. Adna, “Jesus’ Symbolic Act in the Temple (Mark 11:15-17): The Replace-
ment of the Sacrificial Cult by his Atoning Death,” in Gemeinde ohne Tempel, ed. Ego et al., pp.
461-475; J. Murphy-O’Connor, “Jesus and the Money Changers (Mark 11:15-17; John 2:13-
17),” Revue Biblique 107 (2000), pp. 42-55.
* This position seems typical of the thought of the “Hellenists” and close to Alexandrian allegori-
cal exegesis (see V. Nikiprowetzky, Etudes philoniennes, (Paris, 1996) pp. 95-96).
* See Keel, “Warum im Jerusalemer Tempel kein anthropomorphes Kultbild gestanden haben
durfte,” in Homo Pictor, Colloquium Rauricum 7, ed. G. Boehm (Miinchen, 2001), pp. 244-281.
* Tacitus, Histories 5.4.
* Josephus, Jewish War 5.219.
* Quoted in Diodorus Siculus 60.3.4; see M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism 1.
From Herodotus to Plutarch Jerusalem, 1974), pp. 26, 28.
* See K. Berthelot, “Poseidonios d’Apameée et les Juifs,” Journal
for the Study ofJudaism 34 (2003),
pp- 160-198.
* Strabo 16.2.35; see Stern, Greek and Latin Authors 1, pp. 294-300
* Tacitus, Histories 5.5.
* See 1 Maccabees 7:,37; Matthew 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46. For a discussion of the

ey
Endnotes

phrase, see Runesson, The Origins of the Synagogue, p. 429. The phrase, with a universalist
emphasis, goes back to Deutero-Isaiah: “For my house shall be called a house of prayer for all
peoples” (Isaiah 56:7).

NOTES TOiCHAPTER*6
' See, for example, M. Gorg, “Jahwe,” in Neues Bibel-Lexikon 7, ed. M. Gorg and B. Lang (Zurich,
1992), cols. 260-266.
2 Compare the phrase HY LYHH in ostracon Clermont-Ganneau 152 and in seven other ostraca
from the same collection. See A.Dupont-Sommer, “Lostracon araméen du Sabbat,” Semitica 2
(1949), pp. 29-39; “Sabbat et parascéve a Eléphantine d’aprés des ostraca araméens inédits,” in
Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres XV (1949/1950), pp. 67-88 (=Grelot, Doc-
uments araméens d’Egypte, no. 91; and Porten and Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from
Ancient Egypt 1V Jerusalem, 1999], pp. 168-169).
> See, for example, Eissfeldt, “Jahwe-Name und Zauberwesen. Ein Beitrag zur Frage “Religion und
Magie,” in Kleine Schriften 1 (Tibingen, 1962), pp. 150-171.
* See, for example, M. Philonenko, “Languipéde alectorocéphale et le dieu lao,” Comptes rendus
des séances de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres [Paris] (1979), pp. 297-303; “Une intaille
magique au nom de IAO,” Semitica 30 (1980), pp. 57-60.
> See Garcia Martinez et al., Qumran Cave 11, II, 1192-18, 1192031, Discoveries in the Judean
Desert (DJD) 23 (Oxford, 1998), pp. 181-205, pl. XXII-XxXV, LIII.
° The origins of this phenomenon, which probably developed over a period of time, are difficult
to date with precision. M. Résel dates the earliest use of “Adonai” to the mid-third century
B.C.E. because of the use of the Septuagint (Adonaj—Warum Gott “Herr” gennant wird,
Forschungen zum Alten Testament (FAT) [Tubingen, 2000], p. 6), but the phenomenon could
have started a little later since the earliest Septuagint manuscripts may have used the transcrip-
tion “IAO.”
’ This interprétation was proposed by Nikiprowetzky: “Il semble que l’habitude de ne pas nom-
mer Dieu procéde du judaisme hellénistique” (De Decalogo, Les oeuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie
23 (Paris, 1965], p. 146).
* See PW. Skehan et al., Qumran Cave 4, IV, Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts, DJD 9
(Oxford, 1992), p. 168.
* See F Dunand, Papyrus grecs bibliques (Papyrus EF Inv. 266). Volumina de la Genese et du
Deutéronome (Cairo, 1966), pp. 39-50, pl. IX-X; Z. Aly, Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint: Genesis
and Deuteronomy (Bonn, 1980), pp. 1, 5, pl. 44-45.
'° See W.G. Waddell, “The Tetragrammaton in the LXX,” Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1944),
pp. 157-161; Delcor, “Des diverses maniéres d’écrire le tétragramme sacré dans les anciens
documents hébraiques,” Revue d’Histoire des Religions 74/147 (1955), pp. 145-173; Skehan,
“The Divine Name at Qumran, in the Masada Scrolls and in the Septuagint,” Bulletin of the
International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 13 (1980), pp. 14-44. This practice
was known from Saint Jerome's letter (25) to Marcella: “Ninth (name): the tetragrammaton that
they thought ... unutterable; it is written with the lettres yod, he, vau and he—which some peo-
ple did not understand and read as PIPI” (see, for example, J. Labourt, Saint Jérome Lettres Il,
Collection des Universités de France (Paris, 1951), p. 14).
See E. Tov, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll From Nahal Hever (8 hevXIlgr), DJD 8 (Oxford,
1990), p. 12.
" See, for example, E. MacLaurin, “YHWH, the Origin of the Tetragrammaton,” Vetus Testamen-
tum 12 (1962), pp. 439-463. :

158
 ae Endnotes

® See, for example, Rosel, “Names of God,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Schiffman
and J.C. Vanderkam (Oxford, 2000), pp. 600-602; and Adonaj—Warum Gott “Herr” gennant
wird, pp. 207-211.
** Outside of Qumran other scribal techniques could be used; see J.P Siegel, “The Alexandrians in
Jerusalem and their Torah Scroll with Gold Tetragrammata,” IE] 22 (1972), pp. 39-43.
® See, for example, Eileen M. Schuller, Non-Canonical Psalms from Qumran. A Pseudepigraphic Col-
lection (Atlanta, 1986), pp. 38-41.
° See Emanuel Tov, “Further Evidence for the Existence of a Qumran Scribal School,” in The
Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after their Discovery. Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20-25,
1997, ed. Schiffman et al. Jerusalem, 2000), pp. 199-216.
7 4Q176, 4Q196, 4Q382, 4Q391, 4Q443, 4Q462, 4Q524.
*S LQSVII:14; 4Q531:3(=1 Samuel 25:31) and IIl:7 (=2 Samuel 15:8); 4Q1751:19.
* See, for example, E. Puech, Qumran Grotte 4, XVIII. Textes hébreux (40521-49528, 4Q576-
49579), DJD 25 (Oxford, 1998), p. 89 (4Q524).
* E. Tigchelaar, “In Search of the Scribe of 1QS,” in Emanuel. Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and
Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, ed. S.M. Paul et al., SVT 94 (Leiden, 2003), pp. 439-452.
*! See, for example, D. Barthélemy and J.T. Milik, Qumran Cave 1, DJD 1 (Oxford, 1955), p. 60
(1 QDinb ad Dt 32:27); and Rosel, Adonaj—Warum Gott “Herr” gennant wird, pp. 211-212.
* See Hartmut Stegemann, “Religionsgeschichtliche Erwagungen zu den Gottesbezeichnungen in
den Qumrantexten,” in Qumran. Sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu, ed. Delcor, BETL 46
(Paris/Leuven, 1978), pp. 195-217.
» See Attridge et al., Qumran Cave 4, VIII, Parabiblical Texts, Part 1, DJD 13 (Oxford, 1994), p-
22 pL, ire 14.3.
* Attridge et al., Qumran Cave 4, VIII, Parabiblical Texts, pp. 196, 201-202, 214-216. In the Gen-
esis Apocryphon there appear alternating Hebrew (LYWN) and Aramaic (‘LY’) forms.
» See Magen Broshi and Esther Eshel, “248. 4QHistorical text A (pl. IX),” in Qumran Cave 4,
XXVL. Cryptic Texts, ed. StephenJ. Pfann et al., DJD 36 (Oxford, 2000), pp. 192-200.
2° See Garcia Martinez et al., Qumran Cave 11, p. 415, pl. XLVIIL.
* See A. Wolters, “The Tetragrammaton in the Psalms Scroll,” Textus 18 (1995), pp. 87-99. For
more on this practice, which seems to have been common, see Dunand, Papyrus grecs bibliques,
p. 13; J.P Siegel, “The Employment of Palaeo-Hebrew Characters for the Divine Names at Qum-
ran in the Light of Tannaitic Sources,” Hebrew Union College Annual 42 (1971), pp. 158-171.
*® See M. Baillet, Qumran Grotte 4, III (4Q482-4Q520), DJD 7 (Oxford, 1982), pp. 226-227.
* See Stegemann, “Religionsgeschichtliche Erwagungen,” in Qumran: Sa piété, sa théologie et son
milieu, ed. Delcor, pp. 195-217; Skehan, “The Divine Name at Qumran, in the Masada Scroll,
and in the Septuagint,” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Stud-
ies 13 (1980), pp. 14-44.
* In the Book of Jubilees 23:21, the uttering of the great Name is a sign of the Apocalypse.
| P Harlé and D. Pralon, La Bible d’Alexandrie. 3. Le Lévitique (Paris, 1988), pp. 195-196; and R.
Goldenberg, “The Septuagint Ban on Cursing the Gods,” Journal for the Study ofJudaism 28
(1997), pp. 381-389.
» See also the comments of Philo (On the Life of Moses 2.114) on the vestment of the High Priest:
“A piece of gold plate, too, was wrought into the form of a crown with four incisions, showing
a name which only those whose ears and tongues are purified may hear or speak in the holy
place, and no other person, nor in any other place at all.”
% Tt is uncertain whether this refers to the celebration of Yom Kippur or the daily offering; see
FO. Fearghail, “Sir 50:5-21: Yom Kippur or the Daily Whole Offering,” Biblica 59 (1978), pp.
301-316.

159
Endnotes

»* We set aside here the problem of the pronunciation of the tetragammaton in the Jewish temple
of Leontopolis, Egypt, built about the middle of the second century B.C.E. and destroyed by
the Romans after the fall of Masada in 73 or 74 C.E.—though the use of the tetragrammaton in
the Diaspora does not seem likely. On this temple, see Josephus, Jewish War 7.426-436 (com-
pare 1.33); Jewish Antiquities 13.62-63 (compare 12.237-237, 387-388; 20.236), Mishnah
Menahot 13(14?).10; Tosephtah Menahot 13.12-15; Yeroushalmi Yoma 6.3; Babli Menahot 109b;
Avodah Zarah 52b; Megillah 10a; Delcor, “Le temple d’Onias en Egypte,” Revue Biblique 75
(1968), pp. 188-205; Schtirer, The History of the Jewish People, vol. Ill, ed. Geza Vermes et al.,
pp. 47-49.
> See Hanan Eshel, “Josephus’ View on Judaism without the Temple in Light of the Discoveries at
Masada and Murabba’at,” in Gemeinde ohne Tempel, ed. Ego et al., pp. 229-238.
* Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 2.276.
37 See J.-B. Fischer, “The Term DESPOTES in Josephus,” Jewish Quarterly Review 49 (1958-1959),
pp. 132-138.
8 N. Walker, “The Writing of the Divine Name in Aquila and the Ben Asher Text,” Vetus Testa-
mentum 3 (1953), pp. 103-104; P. Katz, “YHWH = JeJA, YHWH = JAJA?” Vetus Testamentum 4
(1954), pp. 428-429; and Katz, “Zur Aussprache von YHWH,” Theologische Zeitschrift 4 (1948),
pp. 467-469.
® This is emphasized by Résel; see Adonaj—Warum Gott “Herr” genannt wird, p. 5.
* See, for example, F Stolz, “Wesen und Funktion von Monotheismus,” Evangelische Theologie 61
(2001), pp. 172-189: “Wenn es nur eine Gott gibt, braucht er keinen Eigennamen: dies ist fur
Judentum, Christentum and Islam selbstverstandlich.”

NOTES TO APPENDIX
"On this pronunciation and its antiquity, see B. Alfrink, “La prononciation ‘Jehova’ du tétra-
gramme,” Oudtestamentische Studien 5 (1948), pp. 43-62.
> See, for example, Caquot, “Le nom du Dieu d'lsraél,” Positions luthériennes 14, pp. 244-257.
* Diodorus Siculus, Historical Library 1,94,2.
* Jerome, Commentarium in Psalmos 8.2: “Prius nomen domini apud Hebraeos quatuor litterarum
est: jod, he, vau, he quod proprie Dei vocabulum sonat et legi potest IAHO, et Hebraei arréton,
id est, ineffabile opinantur.”
* It is still supported by GJ. Thierry, “The Pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton,” Old Testament
Studies 5 (1948), pp. 30-42.
° Clement of Alexandria, Stromates 5.6.34.
’ Epiphanius, Heresies 1.3.20; 1.3.40.5.
* Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Quaestiones. XV in Exodum, ad Ex 3.14.
* J. Tropper, “Der Gottesname *Yahwa,” Vetus Testamentum 51 (2001), pp. 81-106.
' Tropper, “Der Gottesname *Yahwa,” p. 84.
" See A. Lukyn Williams, “The Tetragrammaton—Jahweh, Name or Surrogate?” Zeitschrift far die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 54 (1936), pp. 262-269; W. Vischer, “Eher Jahwo als Jahwe,” The-
ologische Zeitschrift 16 (1960), pp. 259-267; and A. Caquot, Positions luthériennes 14, p24.

160
 DATE DUE

=)
RS

> aD ——
C as

E
nw

a iva a = 3 <
 André Lemaire is
directeur d'Etudes
at the history and
philology section
of the Ecole Pee
tique des Hautes
Etudes (Sorbonne,
Paris) and profes-
sor of Hebrew and
Aramaic philology
and epigraphy. He
has worked for nearly 40 years in the
fields of Northwest Semitic epigraphy,
archaeology and ancient history and has
published about 400 articles on those
subjects. His books include Inscriptions
hébraiques I. Les ostraca; Nouvelles inscrip-
tions araméennes d'Idumée I and II; Nou-
=
' ee. veee S BOTS araméennes; Le Proche-Orient
N ie)
+
OY
a=
~ siatique IT Mésopotamie, Israél (with P.
<4 1)
= Garelli): Bib ical Period Personal Seals from
. wo
1e)
=
oT
=
= the Moussaieff Collection (with Robert
= —
<x Oo Deutsch); Histoire du peuple hébreu; and
ar ail

=
~
— Le Monde de la Bible
ge} te.
-
= Vv
eB) poles
= —
 : |
3 4320 00217 2684
“Nothing in our rich heritage from ancient Israel is more
‘important than the belief in one universal God. But the
Bible itself shows that this belief did not exist among
Israel's earliest ancestors:Itemerged in the course of
history, as the biblical community experienced the events
and ideas of the ancient world in which it lived. The
story of how this happened is told by André Lemaire
in The Birth of Monotheism in a way that will challenge
specialists and fascinate laypeople. His account is clear,
concise and carefully crafted, and he never shrinks from
his conviction, derived primarily from the biblical text,
that true universal monotheism was not the religion of
Moses or David and Solomon or even the early prophets
but appeared first in the sixth century. B.C.E. in the
sublime versesof the anonymous poet-prophet who
composed Isaiah 40-55.”
_—P Kyle McCarter, William EF Albright Professor ofBiblical
and Near Eastern Studies, Johns Hopkins University

“André Lemaire, a very distinguished epigraphist and

historian, takes us on a vivid tour of the origins and
- development of Biblical monotheism. There is much to
admire in his narrative, particularly where he discusses
the evidence of Israelite and other Near Eastern inscrip-
tions. This is a very clearly written and informative book,
which will be welcomed by anyone seriously interested
in Biblical religion.”
—Ronald Hendel, Norma and Sam Dabby Professor
of Hebrew Bible and Jewish Studies, University of
California, Berkeley

SBN-13: 978-1-880317-99-0
— 10 mm 99-0

© Biblical Archaeology Society vn 317990

4710 41st Street, NW Washington, DC 20016