The Rise of Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite Monotheism by Johannes C.

De Moor; The Early

History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel by Mark S. Smith
Review by: David Noel Freedman
Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 110, No. 4 (Winter, 1991), pp. 693-698
Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3267667 .
Accessed: 23/09/2013 16:18

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Biblical Literature.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 190.216.53.4 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 16:18:11 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JBL 110/4 (1991) 693-750

BOOK REVIEWS

The Rise of Yahwism:The Roots of Israelite Monotheism, by Johannes C. De Moor.

Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990. Pp. 320. N.P.
The Early History of God: Yahwehand the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, by Mark S.
Smith. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1990. Pp. 197. $26.95.

By remarkable coincidence two new books dealing with one of the hotter
subjects in biblical studies have appeared at the same time. The simultaneous studies
of the beginnings of Yahwistic religion by Johannes C. De Moor and Mark S. Smith
provide a rare if not unique opportunity for students of the subject to compare pre-
suppositions, principles, methods, and inferences, as well as reconstructions of the
origins of the religion of the God of Israel. Both scholars have established their
credentials and deserve a very careful and appreciative hearing.
De Moor adopts a mediating position between radical and conservative opinions
concerning the nature, character, and evolution of biblical religion, between the
Albright school on the one side and liberal/radical exponents on the other. His point
of departure is that of K. Budde, and his position is that old and reliable data are often
preserved even in late materials. In particular, there is merit in the argument that a
number of the poems in the Hebrew Bible are very old; although adapted and
changed or altered in the course of transmission, they nevertheless constitute viable
sources of authentic information about early Israel, especially in the transition from
the Late Bronze (LB) to Early Iron (EI) ages.
His first topic is "The Evidence of Names" (pp. 10-41). In the light of studies by
Tigay and Fowler showing that Hebrew personal names in the period of the monarchy
(derived from the inscriptions) are overwhelmingly compounded with the elements
yhw (yh) and 'el, De Moor investigates the names in the Bible attributed to the pre-
monarchic period. His conclusions are very interesting; 47% of the names are El-
names in comparison with 41% Yahweh-names and 12% other theophoric names
(without Chronicles, these percentages are 58-21-21). These results differ markedly
from those of Tigay (12-83-5) and Fowler (32-64-4 or 29-66-5). This tabulation
indicates strongly that El-names predominated in the earlier period, although there
is substantial representation of Yhwh names. Because the data differ markedly from
what might have been expected if they reflected the later period, we may rely on their
correctness: the names show that Yhwh and El are interchangeable, and also that the
religion of Yahweh had strong roots in the past at least 200 years before David.
De Moor insists that the almost total absence of names compounded with female
deities indicates that Yahwehdid not have an official consort. However, we must tread
carefully at this point, since there seems to be a similar dearth of such names at
Ugarit, where male deities did have consorts. In addition, it should be noted that the
word El serves as both a personal name (the chief god of the Canaanite pantheon)

693

This content downloaded from 190.216.53.4 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 16:18:11 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
694 Journal of Biblical Literature

and as a common noun for "god,"and it is difficult to tell the difference in names. It
may be that in the later period all the El names in Israel were simply surrogates for
Yahweh. Once Yahweh was established as the national god, it was understood or
accepted that El was simply a surrogate for Yhwh, without recognition that originally
they were separate or that El was a god in his own right.
In the next section of the book (pp. 42-100), De Moor deals with "The Crisis of
Polytheism,' the widespread decline of confidence in the old gods and rise of skep-
ticism throughout the Near East. This underlying discontent with the old faith led
to reform and reorganization most notably in Egypt, where the Aten Revolution took
place, and more enduringly a concentration of authority and power in a single deity,
Amun-Re,without demolishing the old polytheistic structures entirely. Similar devel-
opments occurred in Mesopotamia where Assur and Marduk as national gods of
powerful states emerged as dominant figures among the old gods. In Canaan, amid
the disillusionment with the old religion, younger gods also emerged according to
De Moor, Baal clearly in the north as successor and replacer of El, but another god,
Yahweh-El, a hypostasis of El, also came to the fore.
The fourth section (pp. 101-222) is the heart of the book and consists in a wide-
ranging, necessarily complex reconstruction of the critical LB-EI period when the
old order collapsed and a new political, socio-economic, and religious configuration
emerged in the region between Egypt and the great states in Mesopotamia. De Moor
takes into account the significant dynastic and other changes in Egypt, the collapse
of the Hittite empire to the north, the dramatic incursions of the Sea Peoples in
waves, and the emergence of the small nation-states in the interior (Edom, Moab,
Israel, and others).
One of the most interesting aspects of De Moor's work is his selection and use
of the old poems for recovering and reconstructing the early history of Israel and of
Yahwism,an idea that has been promoted vigorously for decades by members of the
Albright school, led by Albright himself. Indeed, a major point of interest is the way
De Moor orders the old poems, correlating their use of the divine names (see my
pioneering treatment in the Wright Festschrift) with his findings from the onomastica
of the Hebrew Bible. Essentially he reverses the order proposed by Albright and
modified by me and puts poems like Psalm 68 and Habakkuk 3 earlier while
relegating poems such as Judges 5, Exodus 15, and Deuteronomy 33 to a later date.
He notes that the distribution of divine names, Yahwehand El (Elohim) in particular,
then conforms to the evidence garnered by him and Tigay and Fowler. He seems to
assume that there should be a correspondence or equation between the proportions
of the divine names in the poetry and in personal names, but does not offer a rationale
or argument for that assumption. Is this cogent? The spread of Yahwistic names in
the population will presumably reflect the spread of the religion, the new adherents
adopting Yahwehnames in preference to those compounded with other gods or even
El. But why would we expect the same phenomenon with poets, all of whom were
dedicated Yahwists and part of the Yahweh community from the outset? In other
words, there is no necessary correlation between the spread of Yahwistic names in
the population and the use of the name Yahwehin the poems. A simple correlation
of the onomastica with the divine names in the early poetry will not work. De Moor's
obvious discomfort with an early date for Exodus 15 also needs to be considered as
an organizing factor in his rearrangement (p. 173). In any case we would expect the

This content downloaded from 190.216.53.4 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 16:18:11 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Book Reviews 695

use of divine names in the old poetry to precede trends in the onomastica rather than
coincide or follow. It is also important to recognize that many other factors and
variables are present but unaccounted for in the results not only of the poetry but
also of the onomastica.
The last major section of the book deals with "Yhwh-El, God of the Fathers"
(pp. 223-260). Here, as De Moor admits, the terrain is even shakier because the
evidence is even less extensive: consequently, the opportunities for speculation are
almost endless. The arguments are almost entirely linguistic and, while respectable
on the author's part, reflect only one side of a many-sided investigation. De Moor
traces the origins of Yahwismto the divine name Yahweh-El,which may have initially
belonged to some otherwise unknown ancestor of one of the tribes. This divinity may
be regarded as an aspect or emanation of El, a member of the bny '0l5him (cf. Deut
32:8). De Moor suggests further that this god Yhwh-El was at some time equated with
El. He did not displace El but was somehow merged back into El so that they became
one god. In short, the south Canaanite form of El was Yhwh-El. This is one of the
weaker links in De Moor's chain of reasoning, because other gods who bear similar
names compounded with El remained distinct and subordinate to the chief god El.
When it comes to the interpretation of the name, De Moor holds that yhwh is
a Qal stem verb from an original root hwy, "to be, become" He considers the debate
with those who take it as a causative (Hiphil) as settled beyond further discussion,
and would like to close debate on the subject; however, it is likely to remain open
since he brings only little new evidence and no more convincing arguments than his
predecessors. Curiously, he defends the accuracy and authenticity of the biblical
explanation of the name in Exodus 3, but here there are serious questions to be
raised. The expression 'hyh 'sr 'hyh can hardly be regarded in its current form and
context as anything other than the author's(E?) understanding and explanation of the
name, adapted from the 3rd person original and also adapted to the purpose and
interest of the story which he tells in Exodus 3 and 4. The actual and original meaning
of the name belongs to a different time, place, and circumstance, and in all likelihood
expresses a wish, but the apocopated prefix form of the verb may also serve as a
preterite about the god El (or another god). Whether it refers to El's existence or his
creative powers may be left open. It would be a remarkable coincidence if the biblical
author, writing in the 9th or 8th century (or later), not only hit upon the right mean-
ing but was also able to use it effectively for the purpose of his story. In the context
of chap. 3 the author's meaning is clear enough: the verbs are used in the future tense
and the sense is relational (cf. Exod 3:12 and 4:12). De Moor's citation of other
passages in which 'hyh has present force is somewhat disingenuous since the double
occurrence of 'hyh in this narrative (3:12 and 4:12) confirms its meaning for the
author as future. We should therefore not try to use the expression in its present form
or supposed earlier form to recover the original meaning of the name. Nevertheless,
it would be interesting to determine the real force of the name Yhwh (and it seems
clear that it is a verbal form from the root hwy) since that might help us better under-
stand how his nature or role was perceived in early Israel. It should be pointed out
that while the name dominates the old poems found in the PrimaryHistory (Genesis-
Kings) and some of the Psalms, it is used strictly as a proper noun or personal name,
and never has any verbal or etymological force.
De Moor dismisses the statement that is made in Exod 6:3 (P) to the effect that

This content downloaded from 190.216.53.4 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 16:18:11 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
696 Journal of Biblical Literature

the God of the Fathers was called El Shadday and that the name Yahweh was
introduced to Israel only at the time of Moses. In effect he says that P is late and
unreliable. The fact that yhw (yh) names do not appear in any significant numbers
in the Bible (none in Genesis) or elsewhere until after the time of Moses around 1200
is considered accidental or coincidental, and De Moor expects that more will turn
up later. But, as he recognizes in other situations, P (and the Chronicler even) may
preserve older traditions quite accurately, in this case we seem to find support in E
as well, since the tenor of the latter's narrative in Exodus 3 and 4 conveys the same
idea, namely, that the revelation of the name Yhwh to Moses was an important
moment in the life of Israel. While it is nowhere stated or implied that the name is
new, or that Moses created it, it is clearly implied that it will be new to the Israelites.
Despite all this, De Moor has given us a provocative and challenging reconstruc-
tion of the rise of Yahwism,combining biblical and extrabiblical data in a strikingly
original and intriguing way. De Moor himself concedes that there are many gaps in
the picture and that his proposals are creative and novel in many instances (and we
would add fanciful in some cases, e.g., the proposal that the biblical Moses should be
identified with Beya, a high Egyptian official around 1200 BCE).However, he is to be
commended for making this independent and extensive effort and for bringing new
data to bear to form a significantly different synthesis of the data. Not all will agree
with his conclusions or his procedures, but they can only stimulate further research
and reflection and produce substantial progress in our field.
The chronological scope of Smith's book is different from that of De Moor's,
beginning instead with the period of the Judges and continuing down to the end of
the First Temple period. However, there is considerable overlap in the consideration
of outside sources (e.g., Ugaritic) and in the discussion of major topics. After an intro-
duction in which he states his approach and procedure, Smith takes up "Deities in
Israel in the Period of the Judges" (pp. 1-40). Smith holds that the religion of Israel
during this period was polytheistic. Along with Yahweh, the particular national God
of Israel, there were deities of Canaan inherited from earlier times: El, Asherah, and
possibly Baal. He relies on some of the old poems for primary data, including Gen
49:25 and Deut 32:8. The case for or against Baal is problematic; aside from stories
in which the deuteronomistic polemic is prominent, the status of Baal and his rela-
tionship to Yahweh remain unclear. There is always the question, too, as to whether
the word is used as a title for a particular god (e.g., Hadad) or for other gods, including
Yahweh. The same is true of El, which can be understood as the personal name of
the chief of the gods, or as a generic term applicable to any god, and in particular
Yahweh. In the light of the actual usage in the old poems, it can be said at least in
the poems and perhaps generally that in that period Yahweh and El were often
equated (or at least the term El was used of Yahweh).Baal as title or in an equation
is never used. For the period of the Judges, a significant change had already taken
place with the introduction of Yahweh. Already the equation Yahweh= El was in
process, perhaps complete. Asherah remained as murky and enigmatic as ever,
although certainly not banished from the scene, but not central either. As for Baal,
the new shape of the old religion could not contain both Yahwehand Baal. While it
would have been possible to equate or merge these similar storm god warrior types,
and while it may have happened on occasion (especially with a multi-purpose honor-
ific such as Baal, and later 'Adon), such a peaceful solution was not going to work.

This content downloaded from 190.216.53.4 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 16:18:11 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Book Reviews 697

Baal was simply banished from Israelite religion. Even as a mere title it would prove
unsuitable for Yahweh,so the term is not used in any Yahwisticpoem of the period -
even though Baal was surely recognized all over the land.
Smith's second chapter (pp. 41-79) deals with Yahwehand Baal according to the
biblical writers; the conflict between the devotees of these two gods provides the key
to the religious history of Israel from the time of the settlement to the end of the First
Temple period. It ended in a victory for the forces of Yahweh but at great cost and
over an extended period of time. No sooner was a battle fought and won than Baalism
revived and needed to be fought again. Given that these gods were very similar in
characteristics, qualities, and achievements, mutual identification or merger-but not
coexistence-would certainly have been possible. Smith discusses the battle between
the Omrides (including especially Ahab or Jezebel) on the one hand and, on the
other, the prophet Elijah followed by Jehu and his associates. He apparently mistakes
the case by having Jehoiada and his cohorts in Jerusalem attack Baal's temple in
Samaria(p. 45), but the latter was destroyed byJehu (2 Kgs 10:27-28); thus, Jehoiada's
attack must have been aimed at the Baal sanctuary in Jerusalem (2 Kgs 11:17-18).As
an appendix Smith discusses the ephemeral figure of Anat in the 1st millennium and
concludes that she does not figure in the story, whereas there is more tangible
evidence for the other two great Canaanite goddesses of the 2nd millennium,
Asherah and Astarte. The point to be emphasized here is that these goddesses do not
seem to have temples and cults of their own, but were attached to male deities with
such appurtenances. Thus when Ahab builds an altar and temple to Baal, he also
makes "the Asherah"(1 Kgs 16:32-33), and it is clear that there is some connection
between them. The writer of 1 Kings 18 in the MT at least was willing to associate
them apparently as consorts, although the marriage of Baal and Asherah is not
attested in other sources. In view of the widespread mixing of qualities, attributes,
and stories concerning the three great Canaanite goddesses, some confusion is under-
standable. It also makes sense to see in the word Asherah not only the name of the
great goddess (the 2nd millennium consort of El) and an independent power in her
own right, but also a generic term for goddess, just as El became a generic term for
any male god; and Baal from the beginning was a title rather than a name. Since we
ourselves are not completely clear on just which god is named Baal in these stories,
we may regard the Asherah in the same light. Certainly she was the symbol or image
of the goddess, presumably in the same sacred area and under the same roof (if there
was one) as the image of Baal. And whatever we are willing to say about "the Asherah"
in relation to Baal, we must also say about "the Asherah" in relation to Yahweh,
because long after the battle with Baal was won and he and his temple destroyed, "the
Asherah remained standing in Samaria"(2 Kgs 13:6). We now know whose Asherah
she became because the Kuntillet Ajrud inscription (which is contemporary with the
situation described in 2 Kings 13) speaks of Yahwehof Samariaand his Asherah- the
same Asherah constructed by Ahab two generations earlier in conjunction with the
building of the altar and temple for Baal.
Having provisionally established that Yahwehhad a consort, it remains to define
the role of such a person: hardly an independent deity with its own cult, yet more
than an abstraction or aspect of the male god's character. Certainly in Jerusalem,
where the Queen of Heaven held sway, we have a separate cult of the goddess

This content downloaded from 190.216.53.4 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 16:18:11 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
698 Journal of Biblical Literature

(probably Astarte), but one who also must have been attached to Yahweh,who after
all had usurped Baal's title of King of Heaven.
That brings us to the famous Taanach incense stand, which Smith discusses
(pp. 19-20) and which has been much studied and expounded upon. It has four
registers and it is generally agreed that the 2nd and 4th feature goddesses; the god-
dess in the 2nd register is identified with Asherah (note the tree and ibexes), while
in the 4th register there is some dispute as to whether the naked female figure is
Asherah or Astarte. The 3rd register with its cherubim flanking a blank opening has
been identified with the temple in Jerusalem and its Holy of Holies, clearly an ani-
conic representation of the invisible Yahwehenthroned upon the cherubim. The top
register, with its young bovine (probably a crudely executed calf), might represent
Baal or Yahweh;but given the date and provenance (10th century BCETaanach, one
of Solomon's royal cities [cf. 1 Kgs 4:12]), we should see the top register as repre-
senting Yahweh,while not excluding the idea that Baal is also represented. Thus the
top two registers signify the northern cult of Yahweh (= Baal) with his consort
Asherah, while the bottom two signify the southern cult of Yahweh (the Jerusalem
cherubim flanking the invisible god) with his consort Astarte (but perhaps also under
the name of Asherah).
In subsequent chapters, Smith treats Yahwehand the sun (pp. 115-124), Yahweh
cult practices, with a special section on the dead and the underworld (pp. 125-144),
and finally sums up his findings in a chapter on "The Origins and Development of
Israelite Monotheism" (pp. 145-160). Smith sees Israelite monotheism developing
slowing and gradually through the centuries, reaching a relatively pure, if still pre-
philosophic form in the oracles of Second Isaiah. That sounds fairly familiar,and is
in fact a well-documented update of the classic liberal theory of the evolution of
Israelite religion from polytheism to monotheism. It still has weight and merit, and
is argued gracefully and learnedly by Smith.
In conclusion, De Moor and Smith could each learn something from the other,
and together they provide a feast for the attentive reader and concerned scholar. We
are not yet at the stage of compiling a convincing synthesis, but the day is coming
closer thanks to the devoted efforts of two fine scholars.
David Noel Freedman
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093

Der h6chste Gott: AlttestamentlicherJHWH-Glaubeim Kontextsyrisch-kanaaniiischer

Religion des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr., by Herbert Niehr. BZAW 190. Berlin/New York:
de Gruyter, 1990. Pp. x + 268. DM 98.
In the current study, which is the author's Habilitationsschrift accepted by the
University of Wiirzburg in 1989, Niehr advances the thesis that the rise of YHWH
to the status of the supreme god is not the result of the identification of YHWH with
El or of the adoption of attributes from El and Baal, but rather is a postexilic develop-
ment that must be seen in connection with the rise of Ba'alsamem as the high god
in Syria-Palestine.The investigation proceeds in three parts. Part I treats the question
of the high god(s) in the religion of Syria-Palestine in the first millennium Bc on the

This content downloaded from 190.216.53.4 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 16:18:11 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions