Yahwism and Baalism in the Monarchic Period

[Erasmus7]

Good day,

I wonder if somebody could assist.

I am curious as to the ‘relationship’ between Yahwism and Baalism during the monarchic period (from late-Solomon to the Exile).

Evidently both religions existed together on-and-off for much of the monarchic period. However, was it the case that:

1. Yahweh and Baal were worshiped separately, where two separate religions existed side by side, or perhaps
   
   
2. were Yahweh and Baal considered part of the same pantheon, an unholy merger of Yahwistic and Baalist religions into one new religion?

Is there any evidence as to which religion was more popular in respective periods? For example, one might assume that in the case of the righteous kings who nonetheless allowed the high places to stand (e.g., Jehoshaphat), public opinion might have veered more toward Yahwism.

Furthermore, what transpired in the case of the wicked kings? Was Yahwism banned outright? Or was it permited to exist, but perhaps in more watered-down and Baal-friendly format (such as, for example, the manipulated churches in the Stalin and Nazi periods)?

One option here is that true prophets, such as Elijah, were demonised as extremists and as even dangerous, while a more compromised (and state-controlled) version of mosaic religion was endorsed.

Furthermore, what was the state of affairs in perhaps the most extreme example of the above, i.e., the reigns of Ahab and Jezebel? An outright ban of Yahwism?

Further, can anybody put me onto any literature, podcasts, or theses that contain a detailed treatment of this subject?

Would appreciate assistance with these questions.

Regards,
Gregory Rogers

 

[pilgrimage]

I think they were side by each.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

A number of things to consider:

1. Kuntillet Ajrud: The series of inscriptions here, from about the 8th century BC, speak of 'YHWH of Samaria and his Asherah', and is combined with invocations of El and Baal. Now the Asherah may be the cultic pole cut down in the Bible, but may also be the consort goddess of El. It is possible that the Asherah pole became a goddess over time, but it is fairly clear that at the Temple to YHWH at Elephantine in Egypt, YHWH was worshipped concurrently with the goddess Asherah as consort.
YHWH is invoked in relation to Samaria, thus the Northern Kingdom. We should not forget that it is IsraEL, which although El is a generic West Semitic term for god, is also the name of a specific god associated with Baal.

2. Jerobeam had Golden Calves set up at Dan and Bethel. Now, El was associated with the Bull, as was Tyrian Melqart, which is a good stand-in for the deity worshipped by Jezebel of Tyre.

3. Baal was a generic term for Lord. In fact, areas that were fruitful due to rains were said to belong to Baalim in Semitic culture. There were multiple Baals, such as Baal Hadad, but Baals were often subsidiary gods. El was conceived as the father of the gods, but some of his sons were termed Baalim (plural of Baal).

4. Saul named his son Ishbaal, or 'man of Baal'. This may just be syncreticism, or utilising Baal as a generic term, but is significant nonetheless.

5. Jezebel tried to export Baal worship to the Southern kingdom of Judah via Athaliah.

So based on these factors, a number of options are open to us. YHWH might be equated to El, with Baal being his son. This is supported by the consort Asherah, Israel, Golden Calves, etc. If this were the case, then Baal worship entailed a subtle shift of emphasis in the religion, which at that time was monolatric in nature. So YHWH would not be suppressed, but treated very differently than it would have been as the National God. Alternately, YHWH might have been treated as if the equivalent of Baal and El. Here a different cultus would likely be suppressed.

The idea that Bronze or Iron Age peoples would suppress a god is not very strong. Usually gods were equated to one another, or another god worshipped alongside, placed in some relation to the original one.
This is why the prophets had so much trouble getting the Israelites to stay faithful, for all these extra gods and worships were seen as adjuncts or a part of the worship of YHWH. Remember, Aaron said "Behold the God that delivered you from Egypt" when making the golden calf. They were not seen as substantially different from YHWH, as the Northern Prophets essentially were bringing the fairly novel concept of Monotheism, that few really understood.

 

[Tolworth John]

I am curious as to the ‘relationship’ between Yahwism and Baalism during the monarchic period (from late-Solomon to the Exile).

Read and reread kings and chronicles and you'll quickly start to see the patten of a Godly king followed by a series of godless kings and the people follow their examples.
The worship of God YHWH is an exclusive belief but the worship of local deities like the baals is/was an inclusive belief.
There was always a strong attempt to make the worship of God YHWH not so ristictive and to tone down the moral elements in it.

A similar thing can be seen today.

 

[Yekcidmij]

A number of things to consider:

1. Kuntillet Ajrud: The series of inscriptions here, from about the 8th century BC, speak of 'YHWH of Samaria and his Asherah', and is combined with invocations of El and Baal. Now the Asherah may be the cultic pole cut down in the Bible, but may also be the consort goddess of El. It is possible that the Asherah pole became a goddess over time, but it is fairly clear that at the Temple to YHWH at Elephantine in Egypt, YHWH was worshipped concurrently with the goddess Asherah as consort.
YHWH is invoked in relation to Samaria, thus the Northern Kingdom. We should not forget that it is IsraEL, which although El is a generic West Semitic term for god, is also the name of a specific god associated with Baal.

2. Jerobeam had Golden Calves set up at Dan and Bethel. Now, El was associated with the Bull, as was Tyrian Melqart, which is a good stand-in for the deity worshipped by Jezebel of Tyre.

3. Baal was a generic term for Lord. In fact, areas that were fruitful due to rains were said to belong to Baalim in Semitic culture. There were multiple Baals, such as Baal Hadad, but Baals were often subsidiary gods. El was conceived as the father of the gods, but some of his sons were termed Baalim (plural of Baal).

4. Saul named his son Ishbaal, or 'man of Baal'. This may just be syncreticism, or utilising Baal as a generic term, but is significant nonetheless.

5. Jezebel tried to export Baal worship to the Southern kingdom of Judah via Athaliah.

So based on these factors, a number of options are open to us. YHWH might be equated to El, with Baal being his son. This is supported by the consort Asherah, Israel, Golden Calves, etc. If this were the case, then Baal worship entailed a subtle shift of emphasis in the religion, which at that time was monolatric in nature. So YHWH would not be suppressed, but treated very differently than it would have been as the National God. Alternately, YHWH might have been treated as if the equivalent of Baal and El. Here a different cultus would likely be suppressed.

The idea that Bronze or Iron Age peoples would suppress a god is not very strong. Usually gods were equated to one another, or another god worshipped alongside, placed in some relation to the original one.
This is why the prophets had so much trouble getting the Israelites to stay faithful, for all these extra gods and worships were seen as adjuncts or a part of the worship of YHWH. Remember, Aaron said "Behold the God that delivered you from Egypt" when making the golden calf. They were not seen as substantially different from YHWH, as the Northern Prophets essentially were bringing the fairly novel concept of Monotheism, that few really understood.

What do you think about an option where Baal is used by [at least some] biblical authors in a pejorative sense? So when they accuse the Northern Israelites of worshiping Baal, it could be that the Northern Israelites were actually worshiping Yahweh (which would explain things like Kuntillet Ajrud) , but doing so in a way that offended or caused disagreement with some of their counterparts (eg, perhaps those in Jerusalem), so their counterparts accuse them of worshiping Baal. Maybe this would be closer to your latter option, but slightly modified, where Yahweh was worshiped in ways that other people had reserved for Baal and El. It then draws out the critics who accused them of simply worshiping Baal while they, the critics, were the ones actually worshiping Yahweh.

So it could be the case that Saul's son is also called "Ishbaal" by the Chronicler in a pejorative way, just as the author of Samuel does so with the name "Ishbosheth." It may be that his name was actually "Ishvi" as that appears in the list in 1 Sam 14:49.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

What do you think about an option where Baal is used by [at least some] biblical authors in a pejorative sense? So when they accuse the Northern Israelites of worshiping Baal, it could be that the Northern Israelites were actually worshiping Yahweh (which would explain things like Kuntillet Ajrud) , but doing so in a way that offended or caused disagreement with some of their counterparts (eg, perhaps those in Jerusalem), so their counterparts accuse them of worshiping Baal. Maybe this would be closer to your latter option, but slightly modified, where Yahweh was worshiped in ways that other people had reserved for Baal and El. It then draws out the critics who accused them of simply worshiping Baal while they, the critics, were the ones actually worshiping Yahweh.

So it could be the case that Saul's son is also called "Ishbaal" by the Chronicler in a pejorative way, just as the author of Samuel does so with the name "Ishbosheth." It may be that his name was actually "Ishvi" as that appears in the list in 1 Sam 14:49.

That is an interesting opinion. However, I wouldn't particularly buy it, as the Bible reports continuous whoring after other gods and Kuntillet Arjud has unequivocal inscriptions to Pagan Baal and El as well. I don't know how one would go around arguing for such an eventuality though. We don't have the Northern Kingdom's defence of its actions, only the Prophets and accounts of the OT, which were compiled and written by opponents of Baal worship.

I see no reason to doubt that Ahab and Jezebel tried to introduce foreign usages, which historically are associated with a Baal, so some heretical syncreticism with Baal seems more likely to me.

With Ishbaal, I think it more likely he really was named thus, with Isbosheth connecting his name to a determinative for shame. I don't think it unlikely that a King of that era would have used the name, especially as it may just have meant 'lord' in this instance. But it is exceedingly difficult to get definitive answers for such poorly documented and ancient times.