What do you think?
Rate this book
The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel
Foreword by Patrick D. Miller
In this remarkable, acclaimed history of the development of monotheism, Mark S. Smith explains how Israel's religion evolved from a cult of Yahweh as a primary deity among many to a fully defined monotheistic faith with Yahweh as sole god. Repudiating the traditional view that Israel was fundamentally different in culture and religion from its Canaanite neighbors, this provocative book argues that Israelite religion developed, at least in part, from the religion of Canaan. Drawing on epigraphic and archaeological sources, Smith cogently demonstrates that Israelite religion was not an outright rejection of foreign, pagan gods but, rather, was the result of the progressive establishment of a distinctly separate Israelite identity. This thoroughly revised second edition of The Early History of God includes a substantial new preface by the author and a foreword by Patrick D. Miller.
In this remarkable, acclaimed history of the development of monotheism, Mark S. Smith explains how Israel's religion evolved from a cult of Yahweh as a primary deity among many to a fully defined monotheistic faith with Yahweh as sole god. Repudiating the traditional view that Israel was fundamentally different in culture and religion from its Canaanite neighbors, this provocative book argues that Israelite religion developed, at least in part, from the religion of Canaan. Drawing on epigraphic and archaeological sources, Smith cogently demonstrates that Israelite religion was not an outright rejection of foreign, pagan gods but, rather, was the result of the progressive establishment of a distinctly separate Israelite identity. This thoroughly revised second edition of The Early History of God includes a substantial new preface by the author and a foreword by Patrick D. Miller.
243 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1990
163 people are currently reading
2154 people want to read
About the author
Mark S. Smith
47 books60 followersMark S. Smith is Skirball Professor of Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Studies at New York University. He has served as visiting professor at the University of Pennsylvania, the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome. Smith was elected vice president of the Catholic Biblical Association in 2009.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews
April 10, 2021
Yahweh’s qualities were often expressed in terms largely shaped by the characteristics of other deities belonging to ancient Israel’s heritage that Israel rejected in the course of time.
The Early History of God, by Mark S. Smith, is so neat and careful that it’s impossible to make any qualitative judgments. To use some common critical adjectives we can say the work is “functional” and “effective” but certainly not “engaging”. These aren’t meant to be deterrents or encouragements, but simply observations. The book is distilled scholarship: an academic paraphrase of what biblical scholars know about God’s early history. At this point I just want to talk about content and implications, but should waste a few more words on Mr. Smith’s writing. I will say he has the annoying tendency to sprinkle worthwhile comments in his footnotes, when on the whole they are so polluted with sources and cross-references that it’s honestly not worth the time for the laymen to read them. Nor is it hyperbole to say the majority of the book is grad-school fodder, and I suggest sticking to the big text on the top of the page. Also the organization of the book is mediocre. It’s best to put a general history at the beginning of the text, not at the end, so to create an orientation for readers as they delve into the specifics. But as I said the book succeeds in being informative and Smith is a good writer, so these are just nitpicks.
On to the material. The history of God can be divided into five general stages:
1.) Nomadic desert hill-tribes in Edom (near the Gulf of Aqaba) worshipped a 'Yahweh', who's a warrior god, perhaps the deification of a great warrior but certainly a family deity. Egypt mentions these guys around ~14-13th centuries BCE.
2.) Either through trade or migration Yahweh is exported into Canaan, where a sub-group of Canaanites, called Israelites, make Yahweh their chief deity. They still worshiped the other gods in the Canaanite pantheon, and practiced necromancy, child sacrifice, sun/moon/star worship, and other fun stuff. This is from 1200-1000 BCE.
3.) When Israel becomes its own distinct state, the Yahweh cult becomes nationalized through David and Solomon. The stuff from (2) received royal support, and parts of the Bible began to be written to legitimize the crown. A sub-group of Yahwists within Israel begin to stress monolatry (ONLY Yahweh should be worshipped), a shift from henotheism (Yahweh is the most important God, but not the only one you can worship). 1000-800 BCE
4.) When Israel falls to Assyria, some of them migrate to Judah, where the Yahweh cult there incorporates both Northern and Southern traditions, which accounts for some discrepancies in the Bible. 800-500 BCE
5.) When Judah falls to Babylon, Judean nationalists reinterpret the entire Yahweh mythos, and claim monotheism. 'Yahweh' is replaced with a universal 'God'. The Torah is written, reinterpreting Israelite history and cosmology into this new framework. Judaism is born. ~500 BCE+
Outside of this chronology, Smith has two main objectives. The first is to examine the influence that the other Canaanite/Israelite gods had on the Yahweh cult, with both biblical and extra-biblical evidence. It seems not much was unique about Yahweh, who evolved from warrior-god to sun and storm composite, with a dash of fertility. This is what happens when your god becomes a composite entity, devouring the features of opposing/allied deities. But it wasn’t until the late prophets and Babylonian exile that the monotheistic revolution, itself a huge innovation, came to pass. Smith is a good boy and knows all the theories in his field, and even with the scant evidence the picture he paints of Yahweh is robust. But he does differ with mainstream thought in one era: Yahweh’s wife. He argues, on semantic grounds, that Asherah was not worshipped as a goddess by the Israelites, but was simply absorbed into Yahweh as El was. I mean, if you say so. By this point there’s so much blood and semen splashed on Yahweh that the reader has a hard time taking it all in.
This is Smith’s second goal; I’m sure it’s not an explicit one but it comes screaming through nonetheless: to portray this biography with as little scandal and drama as possible. The Early History of God reads like stereo instructions, and at no point does Smith attempt to reconcile God’s history with formal Christian thought. It’s outside his ‘scope’, I’m sure. Again, this is not meant to be a criticism, but it is like writing an essay about the toenail color of the elephant in the room. He’s the only one brave enough to acknowledge it, but he somehow still misses the big issue. This has less to do with Smith and his wonderful, frankly must-read book, then the nature of the field as a whole. It doesn’t go far enough.
As Smith had two goals, now I have three conclusions. One is that I now better appreciate the “progressive ethics” of the Bible in comparison to the royal and popular Yahweh cult of its era. A step away from Canaanite custom and ritual is a positive one, regardless of how much crap was brought along. Two, I’m tempted to claim the Old Testament is an Iron Age creation, rather than a Bronze Age one. The editing of old material was done during the Babylonian exile, and reflected a higher, albeit still imperfect, moral code. Three, it’s a misnomer to say Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are Abrahamic religions. They are clearly Mosaic ones, for what it’s worth.
Oh, and a last, bonus conclusion. Yahweh is still a monster. Learning about his origins, his Israelite cult, and his eventual fate (deicide by his very followers, how sick is that?) has only affirmed in me his historic character. (The name ‘Yahweh’ is considered too sacred to utter in Christian-English, which is profanity all by itself.) I’m just glad Smith is here to reveal the absurdity of it all, even as he still presumably worships the deity he dissects.
The Early History of God, by Mark S. Smith, is so neat and careful that it’s impossible to make any qualitative judgments. To use some common critical adjectives we can say the work is “functional” and “effective” but certainly not “engaging”. These aren’t meant to be deterrents or encouragements, but simply observations. The book is distilled scholarship: an academic paraphrase of what biblical scholars know about God’s early history. At this point I just want to talk about content and implications, but should waste a few more words on Mr. Smith’s writing. I will say he has the annoying tendency to sprinkle worthwhile comments in his footnotes, when on the whole they are so polluted with sources and cross-references that it’s honestly not worth the time for the laymen to read them. Nor is it hyperbole to say the majority of the book is grad-school fodder, and I suggest sticking to the big text on the top of the page. Also the organization of the book is mediocre. It’s best to put a general history at the beginning of the text, not at the end, so to create an orientation for readers as they delve into the specifics. But as I said the book succeeds in being informative and Smith is a good writer, so these are just nitpicks.
On to the material. The history of God can be divided into five general stages:
1.) Nomadic desert hill-tribes in Edom (near the Gulf of Aqaba) worshipped a 'Yahweh', who's a warrior god, perhaps the deification of a great warrior but certainly a family deity. Egypt mentions these guys around ~14-13th centuries BCE.
2.) Either through trade or migration Yahweh is exported into Canaan, where a sub-group of Canaanites, called Israelites, make Yahweh their chief deity. They still worshiped the other gods in the Canaanite pantheon, and practiced necromancy, child sacrifice, sun/moon/star worship, and other fun stuff. This is from 1200-1000 BCE.
3.) When Israel becomes its own distinct state, the Yahweh cult becomes nationalized through David and Solomon. The stuff from (2) received royal support, and parts of the Bible began to be written to legitimize the crown. A sub-group of Yahwists within Israel begin to stress monolatry (ONLY Yahweh should be worshipped), a shift from henotheism (Yahweh is the most important God, but not the only one you can worship). 1000-800 BCE
4.) When Israel falls to Assyria, some of them migrate to Judah, where the Yahweh cult there incorporates both Northern and Southern traditions, which accounts for some discrepancies in the Bible. 800-500 BCE
5.) When Judah falls to Babylon, Judean nationalists reinterpret the entire Yahweh mythos, and claim monotheism. 'Yahweh' is replaced with a universal 'God'. The Torah is written, reinterpreting Israelite history and cosmology into this new framework. Judaism is born. ~500 BCE+
Outside of this chronology, Smith has two main objectives. The first is to examine the influence that the other Canaanite/Israelite gods had on the Yahweh cult, with both biblical and extra-biblical evidence. It seems not much was unique about Yahweh, who evolved from warrior-god to sun and storm composite, with a dash of fertility. This is what happens when your god becomes a composite entity, devouring the features of opposing/allied deities. But it wasn’t until the late prophets and Babylonian exile that the monotheistic revolution, itself a huge innovation, came to pass. Smith is a good boy and knows all the theories in his field, and even with the scant evidence the picture he paints of Yahweh is robust. But he does differ with mainstream thought in one era: Yahweh’s wife. He argues, on semantic grounds, that Asherah was not worshipped as a goddess by the Israelites, but was simply absorbed into Yahweh as El was. I mean, if you say so. By this point there’s so much blood and semen splashed on Yahweh that the reader has a hard time taking it all in.
This is Smith’s second goal; I’m sure it’s not an explicit one but it comes screaming through nonetheless: to portray this biography with as little scandal and drama as possible. The Early History of God reads like stereo instructions, and at no point does Smith attempt to reconcile God’s history with formal Christian thought. It’s outside his ‘scope’, I’m sure. Again, this is not meant to be a criticism, but it is like writing an essay about the toenail color of the elephant in the room. He’s the only one brave enough to acknowledge it, but he somehow still misses the big issue. This has less to do with Smith and his wonderful, frankly must-read book, then the nature of the field as a whole. It doesn’t go far enough.
As Smith had two goals, now I have three conclusions. One is that I now better appreciate the “progressive ethics” of the Bible in comparison to the royal and popular Yahweh cult of its era. A step away from Canaanite custom and ritual is a positive one, regardless of how much crap was brought along. Two, I’m tempted to claim the Old Testament is an Iron Age creation, rather than a Bronze Age one. The editing of old material was done during the Babylonian exile, and reflected a higher, albeit still imperfect, moral code. Three, it’s a misnomer to say Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are Abrahamic religions. They are clearly Mosaic ones, for what it’s worth.
Oh, and a last, bonus conclusion. Yahweh is still a monster. Learning about his origins, his Israelite cult, and his eventual fate (deicide by his very followers, how sick is that?) has only affirmed in me his historic character. (The name ‘Yahweh’ is considered too sacred to utter in Christian-English, which is profanity all by itself.) I’m just glad Smith is here to reveal the absurdity of it all, even as he still presumably worships the deity he dissects.
August 4, 2007
This is a fantastic synthesis of 20th Century scholarship on the religion of Israel in the period of the Judges and early monarchy. The Smith surveys the literature and provides his own theory of the the relationship between Israelite religion and that of other Canaanites. (One thing you will learn is that contrary to the way the situation is portrayed in the Bible, there is little to distinguish between the Israelites and Canaanites.) It deals with the issue of monolatry versus monotheism, did God have a wife?, are there various names of God in the Bible because originally they stories were about different gods?, and what of the ritual and cult in early Israelite religion.
Smith definitely draws heavily on the scholarship of Frank Moore Cross, Jr. and Marvin H. Pope, and their students, such as John Day (e.g., Molech: a god of human sacrifice in the Old Testament) and W.R. Garr (e.g., Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine: 1100-586BC).
The book is extremely well footnoted, making it valuable even if you don't buy all his arguments.
Smith definitely draws heavily on the scholarship of Frank Moore Cross, Jr. and Marvin H. Pope, and their students, such as John Day (e.g., Molech: a god of human sacrifice in the Old Testament) and W.R. Garr (e.g., Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine: 1100-586BC).
The book is extremely well footnoted, making it valuable even if you don't buy all his arguments.
June 22, 2014
Excellent book and a must read for anyone interested in biblical scholarship. Smith reconstructs an early Israelite theology where the father god El and his consort, mother goddess Asherah have a son Yahweh. El is also the father of many other divine beings including Baal who becomes a symbol of apostasy in Israel. Eventually differentiation between Yahweh and El becomes lost and Asherah (represented by a sacred tree or pole) becomes discarded. He also traces the origins or priesthood functions and centralization of the cult in the Jerusalem temple. Major reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah are covered in detail. There is also significant coverage of various forms of syncretism with Canaanite religions and also those features that are uniquely Israelite.
While some of Smith's conclusions are more compelling than others, all are well reasoned with copious documentation and reference to primary sources. He also freely sites other scholars who hold differing interpretations. It was a pleasure to read and I will be referencing back to it frequently for further research.
While some of Smith's conclusions are more compelling than others, all are well reasoned with copious documentation and reference to primary sources. He also freely sites other scholars who hold differing interpretations. It was a pleasure to read and I will be referencing back to it frequently for further research.
October 22, 2024
This was great!
Fundamentally, it did the job it needed to, which was - be interesting enough to want to read before bed but always, always dry enough to fall asleep to.
But I also found it really fascinating! Smith is essentially comparing parts of the Bible to Canaanite texts from similar eras to identify ways in which Biblical depictions of Yahweh are similar/different to Canaanite gods/other gods from the region, like El, Ba’al, and Asherah. To really simplify, Smith argues that “Yahweh” was the product of a “convergence” in which characteristics of El and other gods were attributed to Yahweh over time. He also gives a great breakdown of the older “polytheistic”-ish religious practices which existed in the religions in the region; I particularly liked the concept of “high places” as being particularly holy - makes sense! - and the concept of the asherah as some kind of tree/tree-inspired object with religious significance, which we can’t at all understand because by definition none of that organic material has survived. (Some other fun topics - necromancy! child sacrifice!)
Something I was thinking about as I read this - I really prefer this older style of academic writing where, yes, it’s dry, and yes, there are a lot of citations, but it’s not afraid to cut to the chase in a way so much recent academic and pseudo-academic writing is. If anything, Smith under-explains, under-interprets, under-justifies his points… and that means the analysis that IS on the page is that much starker, and at the same time you come away from the book with excitement for just how much more there is out there to learn.
I feel like I’ve read so much bad academic and academic-for-mainstream-audience writing, where it’s so generic and detail-less that I don’t believe anything the author is arguing, or every sentence is so packed with qualifiers and caveats that the writing is only relevant to the five people who know everything it’s saying already. And I think both of those options are really horrible for intellectual curiosity - the second because you think “they’ve answered the question and it turns out it’s irrelevant to me” and the first because without a decent groundwork of actual facts, any further consideration is just going to be a waste of your time.
Anyway normalize having the facts but not having all the answers!! The second-to-last page of this book says: “The historical relationship lying behind [characteristics specific to Israelite culture, or Israel’s Canaanite heritage, or features Israel shared with its first-millennium neighbors, vis-à-vis Israelite convergence of divine aspects to Yahweh] is unknown, and how to explain the emergence of any one of these items is historically problematic for the Iron I period. Significant cultural continuities and discontinuities of Israel with its Canaanite past and its Iron Age neighbors are identifiable, but historical causes cannot be clarified further at this stage of investigation. The development lying behind Israelite monotheism becomes impossible to trace back to the point of ancient Israel’s historical appearance ca. 1200.” And then the next paragraph continues: “Though the reasons for Israelite ‘convergence’ are not clear, the complex paths from convergence to monolatry and monotheism can be followed.” Is that point not strengthened by the paragraph that comes before??
Just feeling extremely passionate rn about the importance of being able to acknowledge and accept what can and cannot be known, within the context of the specific information and resources we have access to, and also the nature & limitations of human existence & history.
Fundamentally, it did the job it needed to, which was - be interesting enough to want to read before bed but always, always dry enough to fall asleep to.
But I also found it really fascinating! Smith is essentially comparing parts of the Bible to Canaanite texts from similar eras to identify ways in which Biblical depictions of Yahweh are similar/different to Canaanite gods/other gods from the region, like El, Ba’al, and Asherah. To really simplify, Smith argues that “Yahweh” was the product of a “convergence” in which characteristics of El and other gods were attributed to Yahweh over time. He also gives a great breakdown of the older “polytheistic”-ish religious practices which existed in the religions in the region; I particularly liked the concept of “high places” as being particularly holy - makes sense! - and the concept of the asherah as some kind of tree/tree-inspired object with religious significance, which we can’t at all understand because by definition none of that organic material has survived. (Some other fun topics - necromancy! child sacrifice!)
Something I was thinking about as I read this - I really prefer this older style of academic writing where, yes, it’s dry, and yes, there are a lot of citations, but it’s not afraid to cut to the chase in a way so much recent academic and pseudo-academic writing is. If anything, Smith under-explains, under-interprets, under-justifies his points… and that means the analysis that IS on the page is that much starker, and at the same time you come away from the book with excitement for just how much more there is out there to learn.
I feel like I’ve read so much bad academic and academic-for-mainstream-audience writing, where it’s so generic and detail-less that I don’t believe anything the author is arguing, or every sentence is so packed with qualifiers and caveats that the writing is only relevant to the five people who know everything it’s saying already. And I think both of those options are really horrible for intellectual curiosity - the second because you think “they’ve answered the question and it turns out it’s irrelevant to me” and the first because without a decent groundwork of actual facts, any further consideration is just going to be a waste of your time.
Anyway normalize having the facts but not having all the answers!! The second-to-last page of this book says: “The historical relationship lying behind [characteristics specific to Israelite culture, or Israel’s Canaanite heritage, or features Israel shared with its first-millennium neighbors, vis-à-vis Israelite convergence of divine aspects to Yahweh] is unknown, and how to explain the emergence of any one of these items is historically problematic for the Iron I period. Significant cultural continuities and discontinuities of Israel with its Canaanite past and its Iron Age neighbors are identifiable, but historical causes cannot be clarified further at this stage of investigation. The development lying behind Israelite monotheism becomes impossible to trace back to the point of ancient Israel’s historical appearance ca. 1200.” And then the next paragraph continues: “Though the reasons for Israelite ‘convergence’ are not clear, the complex paths from convergence to monolatry and monotheism can be followed.” Is that point not strengthened by the paragraph that comes before??
Just feeling extremely passionate rn about the importance of being able to acknowledge and accept what can and cannot be known, within the context of the specific information and resources we have access to, and also the nature & limitations of human existence & history.
February 9, 2023
Mark S. Smith's popular and important work on the "history of God" and religion in ancient Israel is an interesting and very comprehensive book. Overall, I enjoyed the book, but am also unsure of where I stand on some of Smith's conclusions. It seems logical enough that many of the characteristics that Israel's ancient neighbors applied to a pantheon of gods Israel (eventually) applied solely to their God, YHWH (but this was true of only "positive" characteristics; any characteristics deemed "negative" were not attributed to YHWH); the ways in which YHWH looks like other deities from the ANE is an important topic, and it is one that has key theological and spiritual implications (for the best treatment of this issue that I have come across, see the edited volume Divine Doppelgängers: Yhwh's Ancient Look-Alikes).
It is also quite apparent that throughout Israel's history, many people (perhaps even a large portion of the nation, including monarchy, priesthood, prophetic circles, and laypeople) were polytheistic in belief and practice (this is exactly what some prophetic and monarchic figures throughout Israel's history were trying to combat). It is hard to know, though, exactly how Israel's monotheism/monolatry developed (if it did develop at all). Smith, like many other scholars, argues that Israel's past was polytheistic (although a limited polytheism in comparison with the pantheons of Ugarit, Mesopotamia, and Egypt), and that over time Israel became more and more monotheistic, eventually resulting in the clear monotheism one plainly sees in the exilic and post-exilic periods. This seems logical enough, given that most of Israel's ancient neighbors were polytheistic; religion in ancient Israel would have begun similarly, according to this historical reconstruction, eventually evolving into a monotheistic faith, due to a host of developments throughout Israel's history. This argument, however, is not without its own problems. For instance, Josey Bridges Snyder, in an article in the aforementioned book "Divine Doppelgängers," argues convincingly that it is quite possible that the Moabites (one of Israel's closest ancient neighbors) only worshipped one god, a "bachelor god," who did not have a consort/wife, and who was not worshipped alongside a pantheon: "[T]he Moabites might provide an ANE example of a people who worshipped a 'bachelor god'—and that, in turn, might provide corroborating evidence that ancient Israel too could have been a single-deity people" (Snyder, 125). Snyder cautions against seeing this (potential) similarity between Israel and Moab as being either "good" or "bad" (from a theological perspective); still, however, it may be an argument in favor of monotheism being an early facet of ancient Israelite religion, rather than a later development.
All that to say, Smith's book is an impressive treatment of a very complex topic, and I learned much from it. Smith's command not only of the biblical text, but also of the literature and history of the ANE, especially Ugaritic history and literature, is astounding. I will definitely return to his writings in the future.
It is also quite apparent that throughout Israel's history, many people (perhaps even a large portion of the nation, including monarchy, priesthood, prophetic circles, and laypeople) were polytheistic in belief and practice (this is exactly what some prophetic and monarchic figures throughout Israel's history were trying to combat). It is hard to know, though, exactly how Israel's monotheism/monolatry developed (if it did develop at all). Smith, like many other scholars, argues that Israel's past was polytheistic (although a limited polytheism in comparison with the pantheons of Ugarit, Mesopotamia, and Egypt), and that over time Israel became more and more monotheistic, eventually resulting in the clear monotheism one plainly sees in the exilic and post-exilic periods. This seems logical enough, given that most of Israel's ancient neighbors were polytheistic; religion in ancient Israel would have begun similarly, according to this historical reconstruction, eventually evolving into a monotheistic faith, due to a host of developments throughout Israel's history. This argument, however, is not without its own problems. For instance, Josey Bridges Snyder, in an article in the aforementioned book "Divine Doppelgängers," argues convincingly that it is quite possible that the Moabites (one of Israel's closest ancient neighbors) only worshipped one god, a "bachelor god," who did not have a consort/wife, and who was not worshipped alongside a pantheon: "[T]he Moabites might provide an ANE example of a people who worshipped a 'bachelor god'—and that, in turn, might provide corroborating evidence that ancient Israel too could have been a single-deity people" (Snyder, 125). Snyder cautions against seeing this (potential) similarity between Israel and Moab as being either "good" or "bad" (from a theological perspective); still, however, it may be an argument in favor of monotheism being an early facet of ancient Israelite religion, rather than a later development.
All that to say, Smith's book is an impressive treatment of a very complex topic, and I learned much from it. Smith's command not only of the biblical text, but also of the literature and history of the ANE, especially Ugaritic history and literature, is astounding. I will definitely return to his writings in the future.
February 25, 2014
An excellent resource for the early history of religion in the Middle Eastern region, especially the particular people that became Israelites. The text covers many primary and secondary archaeological and lexical sources covering the first and second millennia BC, which makes it invaluable for further study. Due to the scarcity of sources for the period, suppositions are kept well balanced and explicit, which is nice. Relatively new discoveries at Ugarit have been incorporated well.
The rating is only this low because it is very dry and dense. But the data is well worth the read.
The rating is only this low because it is very dry and dense. But the data is well worth the read.
January 26, 2013
I enjoyed this book but found it drier than the other academic books I have recently been devouring voraciously...though that might be more a comment about me than the book. He did seem to be making the same handful of points again and again. But they were good points!
November 11, 2024
I really thought I was going to like this book given how interesting the subject matter is. But unless you have the entire Bible memorized by verse as well as Kanaanaische und Aramaische Inschriften: 3 volumes: Text, Commentary, Indices/Tables (KAI) and The Cuneiform alphabetic texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and other places (KTU), you may have a hard time following the arguments Smith makes.
He seems to either assume that the reader has all of these works memorized by line or that they have all three of these books sitting open on the table next to them as they read his book, because he frequently discusses specific wordings and themes without providing quotes or summaries. Here are a few typical examples, both from the same page (Chapter 1, part 7):
"Based on the theophoric elements in proper names, K. Jackson lists ten Ammonite deities: 'b, 'dn, 'l, 'nrt, bl, hm, mlk, nny, 'm, and šmš . Footnote 272. Some of these elements, such as 'b and 'dn, are presumably titles, however. Biblical sources presuppose that mlk or Milkom was the national Ammonite god (1 Kings 11:5, 33; Jer. 49:1, 3; cf. 2 Sam. 12:30; 1 Chron. 20:2; Zeph. 1:5)." (What about these passages presuppose that mlk was the national god?)
"The patron god of the Moabite dynasty was Chemosh (KAI 181:3, 5, 9, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 32, 33; 1 Kings 11:7, Jer. 48:13). Footnote 257." (This footnote lists 8 more texts).
Footnotes are frequent (by page 1 of the introduction Smith has already amassed 130 footnotes), but instead of providing more context or the text of the passages being discussed, about 99 in 100 only provide the names of articles where that context or passage could be found. Some list up to 20 texts. This may be helpful for a graduate student who is willing to put down the book every sentence or two, locate the primary source, and hunt for whatever Smith is referencing, but for a casual reader that's not realistic.
I am not sure who Smith's intended audience is. Anyone who has this many texts on the topic memorized likely already has a good understanding of the arguments he makes, and in that case why would they even read the book? On the other hand, anyone who does not needs to choose between hunting down primary sources every few sentences to understand what Smith is talking about, or completely ignore the referenced material.
In the future, I'd like to give this book another shot after I can collect all of the works he references.
He seems to either assume that the reader has all of these works memorized by line or that they have all three of these books sitting open on the table next to them as they read his book, because he frequently discusses specific wordings and themes without providing quotes or summaries. Here are a few typical examples, both from the same page (Chapter 1, part 7):
"Based on the theophoric elements in proper names, K. Jackson lists ten Ammonite deities: 'b, 'dn, 'l, 'nrt, bl, hm, mlk, nny, 'm, and šmš . Footnote 272. Some of these elements, such as 'b and 'dn, are presumably titles, however. Biblical sources presuppose that mlk or Milkom was the national Ammonite god (1 Kings 11:5, 33; Jer. 49:1, 3; cf. 2 Sam. 12:30; 1 Chron. 20:2; Zeph. 1:5)." (What about these passages presuppose that mlk was the national god?)
"The patron god of the Moabite dynasty was Chemosh (KAI 181:3, 5, 9, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 32, 33; 1 Kings 11:7, Jer. 48:13). Footnote 257." (This footnote lists 8 more texts).
Footnotes are frequent (by page 1 of the introduction Smith has already amassed 130 footnotes), but instead of providing more context or the text of the passages being discussed, about 99 in 100 only provide the names of articles where that context or passage could be found. Some list up to 20 texts. This may be helpful for a graduate student who is willing to put down the book every sentence or two, locate the primary source, and hunt for whatever Smith is referencing, but for a casual reader that's not realistic.
I am not sure who Smith's intended audience is. Anyone who has this many texts on the topic memorized likely already has a good understanding of the arguments he makes, and in that case why would they even read the book? On the other hand, anyone who does not needs to choose between hunting down primary sources every few sentences to understand what Smith is talking about, or completely ignore the referenced material.
In the future, I'd like to give this book another shot after I can collect all of the works he references.
Read
September 15, 2024Read for information, thus not for rating.
That having been said, this is not a book that I would ever recommend to someone who is not an academic studying this topic. There's a lot of really interesting information, but it's all buried in approximately one million citations. This is a book that is aimed at an academic audience of potential detractors, so every single idea needs to be backed up by a lot of examples; that's effective at proving your point to rival academics, but as a lay reader, the examples tended to feel repetitive.
There is, I think, a version of this book that is much more readable: that presents the information plainly and relegates additional examples to endnotes, that includes some more definitions of terms, that includes better historical context. I have not been able to find that book.
All of this is a shame because the information itself is so very interesting and so poorly represented in the other media and education I have consumed. The history of how the Israelites broke away from their Canaanite origins, the ways that their polytheism became monotheism, the political history of Yahweh as a national god, this is all fascinating stuff. If you want to learn about that and are willing to skim the citations and refer to other sources to figure out who the gods in question are, this is a great way to do so.
That having been said, this is not a book that I would ever recommend to someone who is not an academic studying this topic. There's a lot of really interesting information, but it's all buried in approximately one million citations. This is a book that is aimed at an academic audience of potential detractors, so every single idea needs to be backed up by a lot of examples; that's effective at proving your point to rival academics, but as a lay reader, the examples tended to feel repetitive.
There is, I think, a version of this book that is much more readable: that presents the information plainly and relegates additional examples to endnotes, that includes some more definitions of terms, that includes better historical context. I have not been able to find that book.
All of this is a shame because the information itself is so very interesting and so poorly represented in the other media and education I have consumed. The history of how the Israelites broke away from their Canaanite origins, the ways that their polytheism became monotheism, the political history of Yahweh as a national god, this is all fascinating stuff. If you want to learn about that and are willing to skim the citations and refer to other sources to figure out who the gods in question are, this is a great way to do so.
August 23, 2019
Задълбочено изследване върху процесите на конвергенция и диференциация, оформили култа към Яхве през желязната епоха, на базата на археологически и писмени данни. Базисни познания по библейски иврит и угаритски биха били от огромна помощ при разбирането на труда на Смит, но дори те да ви липсват (както на мен) не се плашете!, информацията в книгата е достъпно представена.
April 13, 2017
The most fascinating book I've read in ages. I had to knock a star off because the writing makes the Sahara look like a tropical jungle, but given the topic, that is, in its own way, a blessing. A topic like this is the type to attract crackpots and the fiercely biased, and in a field like that, someone simply setting out the major theories and the evidence behind them as neutrally as possible is a resource of incalculable value.
And holy shit, when I was viscerally revolted by the story of Isaac and Abraham still being seen as a valued story in modern times, I thought it at least recorded the end of child sacrifice. Not that there's evidence of child sacrifice in Israel through the monarchical period. Jesus.
And holy shit, when I was viscerally revolted by the story of Isaac and Abraham still being seen as a valued story in modern times, I thought it at least recorded the end of child sacrifice. Not that there's evidence of child sacrifice in Israel through the monarchical period. Jesus.
February 1, 2023
An extremely interesting book on an interesting topic. Smith's clear and simple writing style is greatly appreciated.
There are several assumptions that he makes that he tries to engage with but are ultimately circular. He assumes that the exodus is a myth and that Israel originated as inhabitants of Canaan (a very commonly held belief among scholars). He never states this assumption. Second, hen he combats those who believe that the Israelites were monotheistic early on in the "Mosaic period" he uses circular reasoning to defend his own take on the historical development of Israelite religion.
There are some chapters that are stronger than others, but overall, the work is extremely helpful and well researched. The copious footnotes alone are worth looking at.
There are several assumptions that he makes that he tries to engage with but are ultimately circular. He assumes that the exodus is a myth and that Israel originated as inhabitants of Canaan (a very commonly held belief among scholars). He never states this assumption. Second, hen he combats those who believe that the Israelites were monotheistic early on in the "Mosaic period" he uses circular reasoning to defend his own take on the historical development of Israelite religion.
There are some chapters that are stronger than others, but overall, the work is extremely helpful and well researched. The copious footnotes alone are worth looking at.
April 23, 2021
In certain ways, the book seems to reflect a conviction and mode of thinking characteristic of the Cross-Harvard school. With regard to that (and given that this was the revised 2002 edition), I was disappointed that it didn't acknowledge alternative theories that have long had an impact on academic fields of Near Eastern and Biblical Studies. In general it's an informative and interesting book, but I would recommend readers to be cognizant of the criticism of this school of thought as well.
April 14, 2025
4/5; -1 star for lack of accessible readability.
Though that is not the fault of the book but simply my own barrier in reading academic quality research.
Absolutely brilliant and illuminating nevertheless. Despite the fact that this knowledge has been discussed for decades, there are very few of these ideas that have properly trickled down to practitioners of Christianity.
There are numerous reasons to dismiss the univocal and inerrant characteristics many Christians brand the Bible with. This book provides a ready source of textual and archaeological evidence to support that dismissal and invite readers of the Bible into a new and more dynamic reading that respects the text and allows it to speak on it's own terms.
Though that is not the fault of the book but simply my own barrier in reading academic quality research.
Absolutely brilliant and illuminating nevertheless. Despite the fact that this knowledge has been discussed for decades, there are very few of these ideas that have properly trickled down to practitioners of Christianity.
There are numerous reasons to dismiss the univocal and inerrant characteristics many Christians brand the Bible with. This book provides a ready source of textual and archaeological evidence to support that dismissal and invite readers of the Bible into a new and more dynamic reading that respects the text and allows it to speak on it's own terms.
Read
September 15, 2024Really fascinating - if dry - text on the origins of monotheistic Judaism, and particularly the social, political, and military power relations in the region that resulted in the dominance of the cult of Yahweh. To me, the negotiation between different religions or cultic influences is especially intriguing - it's hard to imagine those negotiations could take place without an implicit understanding of religion as a tool of empire.
February 22, 2018
A very good starter for understanding ANE mythology and locating the emergence of monotheism.
June 7, 2020
As a scholar myself, I'm always taken aback by other disciplines that seem driven by conjecture, and that is unfortunately the case in much modern Biblical scholarship. This book argues that the history of the Bible is one of a shift from polytheism to monotheism--which is not unreasonable--but argues that the biblical Yahweh represents a mix of Canaanite gods, whose worship overlapped and was accepted in early Israelite history. The latter claim is hard to make.
Taken on its own terms, the book never really satisfyingly defends its thesis. It includes a lot of interesting discussion of Biblical passages and corresponding Canaanite/Ugaritic practices and myths. But it is mostly correlation. The big claim that worship of Yahweh was initially one among many is never conclusively demonstrated, just hinted at.
Smith's evidence is that there are hints of polytheistic worship throughout the Bible. But of course there is, as the Old Testament is a history of Israel struggling to institute monotheism in the face of polytheistic beliefs. I.e. it shouldn't be a surprise to find mentions of polytheistic worship, because that is what the Biblical authors were directly addressing!
He also makes some claims that are just wrong. He says there isn't any hostility towards Baal worship in the Judges period, but there is clearly such hostility in the text. At times he dismisses this as a later addition--which always feels like a post hoc justification to me--and at other times just doesn't address it.
It is plausible that early Israelites were polytheistic, and any hints of monotheism were added later, in the Exile period, to expunge records of their earlier beliefs. But it is also possible that early Israelites were monolatrous--accepting other gods' power but believing theirs was superior--and they struggled to enforce this belief while interacting with polytheistic neighbors. And the benefit of the latter is that we have textual evidence of this, while the former is mere conjecture. So why do so many scholars insist on the former?
I also struggle with the methodology of many scholars. They think the Bible is a corrupted document, with Exile era writers coming up with a false history of their people to justify their current predicament. But they also think they can delve into specific words and passages to find hints of polytheism. If Exile period writers developed these stories out of oral traditions, why would they leave in the tricky parts? And if these stories were fully developed before the Exile, than this story of the Bible's creation needs to be adjusted.
Overall, this was an interesting book. But it is flawed as so many in this realm are, by a hostility to the Bible as an unreliable textual document, turning instead to conjecture. You don't have to be a religious person to take the claims in the Bible seriously; there is a fascinating story about a unique, tribal religious belief system clashing with a more expansive polytheism in there.
Taken on its own terms, the book never really satisfyingly defends its thesis. It includes a lot of interesting discussion of Biblical passages and corresponding Canaanite/Ugaritic practices and myths. But it is mostly correlation. The big claim that worship of Yahweh was initially one among many is never conclusively demonstrated, just hinted at.
Smith's evidence is that there are hints of polytheistic worship throughout the Bible. But of course there is, as the Old Testament is a history of Israel struggling to institute monotheism in the face of polytheistic beliefs. I.e. it shouldn't be a surprise to find mentions of polytheistic worship, because that is what the Biblical authors were directly addressing!
He also makes some claims that are just wrong. He says there isn't any hostility towards Baal worship in the Judges period, but there is clearly such hostility in the text. At times he dismisses this as a later addition--which always feels like a post hoc justification to me--and at other times just doesn't address it.
It is plausible that early Israelites were polytheistic, and any hints of monotheism were added later, in the Exile period, to expunge records of their earlier beliefs. But it is also possible that early Israelites were monolatrous--accepting other gods' power but believing theirs was superior--and they struggled to enforce this belief while interacting with polytheistic neighbors. And the benefit of the latter is that we have textual evidence of this, while the former is mere conjecture. So why do so many scholars insist on the former?
I also struggle with the methodology of many scholars. They think the Bible is a corrupted document, with Exile era writers coming up with a false history of their people to justify their current predicament. But they also think they can delve into specific words and passages to find hints of polytheism. If Exile period writers developed these stories out of oral traditions, why would they leave in the tricky parts? And if these stories were fully developed before the Exile, than this story of the Bible's creation needs to be adjusted.
Overall, this was an interesting book. But it is flawed as so many in this realm are, by a hostility to the Bible as an unreliable textual document, turning instead to conjecture. You don't have to be a religious person to take the claims in the Bible seriously; there is a fascinating story about a unique, tribal religious belief system clashing with a more expansive polytheism in there.
January 24, 2019
A very compelling, although quite academically composed, account on the process of convergence of various Ancient Near East deities to ultimately form the one familiar to us from The Bible. Smith elaborates on almost every possible scenario that could have played out in the melting pot of ancient Canaan. He juxtaposes El, Baal, Asherah and Yahweh showing how despite their initial differences, they eventually felt victims to religious syncretism. The phase of initial convergence ends up with monolatry when I don’t deny you your god, it’s just that mine is better. In the second part of the book we witness how the more mundane factors kick in. Both priestly class and the ruling house, fearing to lose their foothold, exert their influence to shape the ordinance according to their needs.
“The innovative centralization of national worship was also part of the process leading to monotheistic Yahwism, as it encouraged a single national deity and devalued local manifestations of deity. The royal unification of national life — both political and religious — helped to achieve political and cultic centralization by concentrating and exhibiting power through the capital city and a relationship with the national deity residing in that city.”
Ultimately realpolitik combined with hardships and political vacuum created by Babylonian exile finally gave birth to the monotheistic Judaism, with the remnants of God’s former names poorly hidden in the almost hurriedly assembled Torah.
The narrative is strongly backed up by material and linguistic evidence originating from the Canaanite, Edomite and Ugartitic cultures.
I recommend the book but only after having read some more comprehensive and introductory material. I liked The Bible Unearthed much for that matter.
“The innovative centralization of national worship was also part of the process leading to monotheistic Yahwism, as it encouraged a single national deity and devalued local manifestations of deity. The royal unification of national life — both political and religious — helped to achieve political and cultic centralization by concentrating and exhibiting power through the capital city and a relationship with the national deity residing in that city.”
Ultimately realpolitik combined with hardships and political vacuum created by Babylonian exile finally gave birth to the monotheistic Judaism, with the remnants of God’s former names poorly hidden in the almost hurriedly assembled Torah.
The narrative is strongly backed up by material and linguistic evidence originating from the Canaanite, Edomite and Ugartitic cultures.
I recommend the book but only after having read some more comprehensive and introductory material. I liked The Bible Unearthed much for that matter.
July 6, 2024
This is a detailed, scholarly analysis of the evolution of ancient Israelite religion that traces the Yahwistic cult from the late Bronze Age to the post-exilic period. The author shows how the Canaanite/Israelite (the author accepts the general scholarly consensus that the Israelites were culturally and religiously continuous with the Canaanites and only later came to see themselves as a separate people group) worship of, cultic practices surrounding, and ideas about El, Baal, and Asherah (all Canaanite/Israelite deities) were refined and adapted into the Yahwistic cult. This book provides a well-researched account of the development of the ancient Israelite religion from polytheism to monolatry and towards monotheism.
December 27, 2018
Interesting information on the evolution of Yahwey. However, the book is written for other biblical archaeology scholars. Footnotes take up 2/3 of most pages, and the book seems more concerned with arbitrating between different theories than explaining the currently accepted thinking to a layperson. The writing is hard to follow, full of references to other scholars, and highly repetitive. I frequently had to stop and read various Wikipedia articles to understand what was being discussed, and learned more from Wikipedia than the book itself.
December 22, 2020
I wanted a book to challenge my brain, but I think this one may have overtaxed it and blown a few circuits. This is an academic read which presupposes the reader possesses some basic knowledge of the subject and sources. I found the history, artifacts, research and conclusions interesting, although I disagreed with some of implications drawn from historical evidence. Then I had to question if I even knew/understood enough to have a valid disagreement. Anyway, I accomplished my goal: my brain was stretched.
July 13, 2007
Very well resourced and very interesting. Although, I think it would have benefited the text if he talked about the changing economics of the societies to supplement why female deities started becoming excluded in religion.
Want to read
June 1, 2014My Amazon review -
http://www.amazon.com/review/R3ITIU16...
http://www.amazon.com/review/R3ITIU16...
Want to read
October 4, 2014From Jeremy
December 1, 2022
Very readable and extremely interesting.
February 23, 2020
En una zona que comprende el territorio Sirio-Palestino, vivieron los pueblos de Israel y Canán allá en el principio de la Era del Hierro. En ese tiempo no se distinguían ni en sus idiomas que era muy parecidos. Se cree que compartieron los mismos dioses : El, el viejo y bondadoso patriarca y su consorte Asherah; Baal, el joven dios guerrero y de la tormenta; su hermana Anat, guerra también; una serie de dioses menores que formaban parte del consejo divino; y el advenedizo Yavé, que apareció gracias a Moisés quien lo trajo de Edom/Median/Teiman.
El desarrollo del monoteísmo necesitó un proceso complejo de convergencia de características de otras deidades y de la diferenciación que tuvo un patrón singular en Yavé. Estas características se refieren a los atributos robados a El, Baal, Asherah e inclusive a "el carruaje del sol". En algún momento El dejó de ser una amenaza, porque sus atributos fueron asimilados por Yavé, también le fueron incorporadas las características de Asherah tales como Gloria y Divino Nombre, inclusive se apropió de la figura femenina de la Sabiduría. Todo esto aminoró el antropomorfismo en Israel que caracterizaba a los viejos dioses y que representaba a la vieja tradición cananea en Israel. No obstante, se pueden reconocer los atributos de El y Baal en Yavé en algunos pasajes bíblicos, así como otros que le son definitivamente ajenos, tal es el caso del sacrificio de infantes. Ezequiel da una explicación diferente para esta práctica prohibida. En un pasaje Yavé describe el sacrificio de infantil como un castigo divino: "Los consiento con regalos para que ofrezcan al fuego a sus primogénitos, de modo que pueda horrorizarlos; lo hago para que sepan que yo soy Yavé". Sin Embargo, Jeremías niega que su dios lo haya ordenado alguna vez. Yavé absorbió los atributos de otros sin aceptar su realidad que les era propia.
No aparecen en la Biblia los atributos del concilio divino de los Textos Ugaríticos y de las festividades de su panteón, solo se conserva el sacrificio del Sabath; otros aspectos notables de El están ausentes, entre otros "el borracho escandaloso" y el compañero sexual de las diosas; tampoco los aspectos del dios moribundo Baal, compañero sexual voraz de animales y, quizá, de su hermana Anat, que se daba gusto con la carne de sus víctimas militares (¿se los comía o practicaba la necrofilia?). Estas imágenes festivas fueron tachadas de la Biblia.
Cómo se llevó a cabo esta selección y distribución de roles, no se sabe. Al final de la monarquía, Israel rechazó las prácticas de sus vecinos cananeos. también desecharon el antropomorfismo del dios israelita. Otro proceso elimina estos roles: el lenguaje divino del sexo y la muerte, pero el politeísmo persiste esporádicamente. La tradición sacerdotal y la del Deuteronomio insistieron en la impureza de la muerte y de las relaciones sexuales, de esta manera presentan a Yavé como un asexual. Por fortuna para el pueblo israelita estas reglas sobre la impureza y la santidad fueron aplicadas en principio a los sacerdotes y al jefe de estos, con mayor razón. Todo esto tuvo como motivo evitar las prácticas religiosas familiares que incluían el contacto con sus ancestros muertos y la creencia en una religión casera encabezada por una pareja divina.
Gracias al Génesis, quien provee la evidencia, se puede asumir que el politeísmo fue parte de la religión de Israel antes del siglo X a.C., como ejemplo el caso de Asherah y algunos dioses menores. Es posible también que el sexo y la muerte fueran atributos de Yavé, antes del siglo X mencionado, sin haber constancia de que lo fueran o no.
Por lo que Yavé fue un deidad poderosa que protegía como castigaba. Se unía a la pena de Israel, lo consolaba y lo amaba lo amaba. Yavé fue expresado y formado con los atributos de otros dioses que pertenecieron a la herencia antigua y que fue rechazada en el transcurso del tiempo.
Este libro puede leerse sin temor, pues se trata de una investigación histórica.
El desarrollo del monoteísmo necesitó un proceso complejo de convergencia de características de otras deidades y de la diferenciación que tuvo un patrón singular en Yavé. Estas características se refieren a los atributos robados a El, Baal, Asherah e inclusive a "el carruaje del sol". En algún momento El dejó de ser una amenaza, porque sus atributos fueron asimilados por Yavé, también le fueron incorporadas las características de Asherah tales como Gloria y Divino Nombre, inclusive se apropió de la figura femenina de la Sabiduría. Todo esto aminoró el antropomorfismo en Israel que caracterizaba a los viejos dioses y que representaba a la vieja tradición cananea en Israel. No obstante, se pueden reconocer los atributos de El y Baal en Yavé en algunos pasajes bíblicos, así como otros que le son definitivamente ajenos, tal es el caso del sacrificio de infantes. Ezequiel da una explicación diferente para esta práctica prohibida. En un pasaje Yavé describe el sacrificio de infantil como un castigo divino: "Los consiento con regalos para que ofrezcan al fuego a sus primogénitos, de modo que pueda horrorizarlos; lo hago para que sepan que yo soy Yavé". Sin Embargo, Jeremías niega que su dios lo haya ordenado alguna vez. Yavé absorbió los atributos de otros sin aceptar su realidad que les era propia.
No aparecen en la Biblia los atributos del concilio divino de los Textos Ugaríticos y de las festividades de su panteón, solo se conserva el sacrificio del Sabath; otros aspectos notables de El están ausentes, entre otros "el borracho escandaloso" y el compañero sexual de las diosas; tampoco los aspectos del dios moribundo Baal, compañero sexual voraz de animales y, quizá, de su hermana Anat, que se daba gusto con la carne de sus víctimas militares (¿se los comía o practicaba la necrofilia?). Estas imágenes festivas fueron tachadas de la Biblia.
Cómo se llevó a cabo esta selección y distribución de roles, no se sabe. Al final de la monarquía, Israel rechazó las prácticas de sus vecinos cananeos. también desecharon el antropomorfismo del dios israelita. Otro proceso elimina estos roles: el lenguaje divino del sexo y la muerte, pero el politeísmo persiste esporádicamente. La tradición sacerdotal y la del Deuteronomio insistieron en la impureza de la muerte y de las relaciones sexuales, de esta manera presentan a Yavé como un asexual. Por fortuna para el pueblo israelita estas reglas sobre la impureza y la santidad fueron aplicadas en principio a los sacerdotes y al jefe de estos, con mayor razón. Todo esto tuvo como motivo evitar las prácticas religiosas familiares que incluían el contacto con sus ancestros muertos y la creencia en una religión casera encabezada por una pareja divina.
Gracias al Génesis, quien provee la evidencia, se puede asumir que el politeísmo fue parte de la religión de Israel antes del siglo X a.C., como ejemplo el caso de Asherah y algunos dioses menores. Es posible también que el sexo y la muerte fueran atributos de Yavé, antes del siglo X mencionado, sin haber constancia de que lo fueran o no.
Por lo que Yavé fue un deidad poderosa que protegía como castigaba. Se unía a la pena de Israel, lo consolaba y lo amaba lo amaba. Yavé fue expresado y formado con los atributos de otros dioses que pertenecieron a la herencia antigua y que fue rechazada en el transcurso del tiempo.
Este libro puede leerse sin temor, pues se trata de una investigación histórica.
May 18, 2025
Actually this book is pretty interesting, it discuss about how Ugaritic texts influenced study of Yahweh, and thanks to these texts there is a relation between Canaanite Pantheon and Yahweh made, in this book it discuss about how Israel is monolatrous, and present also different scholars opinion, but I would say that Israel monolatry is present clearly in the monarchic era of Israel, it also presents a argument regarding how kings of the kingdom incorporated some parts of gods inside of Yahweh, not only that, this book also give a spoiler in few pages that incorporation of gods and goddesses into Yahweh is present in period of the book of judges and monarchic era
Not only this 2 factors that contribute, but it also contribute to the Prophetic condemnation of some worship to other gods, including Asherah, solar imagery, Ba'al worship (although this is gone in the 9th Century after Jehu's reformation, many Ba'al's temple is torn down, but this is Phoenecian Ba'al's temple)
Ba'al worship were condemned and Ahab (a king who strongly promote the worship of Phoenecian Ba'al) repented, its also stated that monotheism is the product of exile
Not only all of these but surprisingly Israelites derived from it's cannanite heritage, it could've been said also that the Israelites and Canaanites language were not much of different, in was in the Late Bronze Age (1550-1200) and Iron 1 (1200-1000) being said so Israelites live in highlands of Canaanites land, Merneptah stele also differs between both of these groups, well Merneptah stele is a celebration of Egypt conquest of Syrio-Palestine
Now, we get to the fun part, Yahweh is influenced highly by the head of Canaanites Pantheon call El, well ig I forget to type this but uh Canaanites Pantheon is consisted of El, his wife, Asherah, his sister, Ba'al, and finally a solar god, Anat (need to be noted that Anat is not a god in any Israelites religion in the Iron 1 Period or maybe any time in Israelites religion) anyway back to the topic, El is a aged partiarchal god, and this feature is also in Yahweh, in sometime El became a generic noun (God) a coin fron the Achaemenid Empire probably during Darius reign present a old god that is probably Yahweh with the word "Yehud"
Anyway for Asherah, it's pretty hard to determine worship of gods in Judges other than Ba'al, Asherah didn't has it own cult, although inscription from Tanaach city that is probably Canaanite's before gave a inscription of a naked female god, it could be Asherah? Who knows.
And for Ba'al and Yahweh, both are strom god and Divine warrior, Phoenecian Ba'al worship spreaded in Northern Israel, some royals even have their name with element of Ba'al in it, marking the co-existence of Cult of Yahweh and Cult of Ba'al, although Ahab (a ruler there) presecuted Prophets of Yahweh but gave income to Prophet of Ba'al, and finally Phoenecian Ba'al in this book is somehow says to be related to god Melqart Of Tyre, cuz Ba'al's name mean king of city probably trying to connect it to Tyre, but Melqart isn't Storm god so, after that blah blah blah Ahab repents and Jehu (the Tenth king of this kingdom) reform threats Baal worship with many Ba'al's temple torn down this all happened in 9th Century also
Not only this 2 factors that contribute, but it also contribute to the Prophetic condemnation of some worship to other gods, including Asherah, solar imagery, Ba'al worship (although this is gone in the 9th Century after Jehu's reformation, many Ba'al's temple is torn down, but this is Phoenecian Ba'al's temple)
Ba'al worship were condemned and Ahab (a king who strongly promote the worship of Phoenecian Ba'al) repented, its also stated that monotheism is the product of exile
Not only all of these but surprisingly Israelites derived from it's cannanite heritage, it could've been said also that the Israelites and Canaanites language were not much of different, in was in the Late Bronze Age (1550-1200) and Iron 1 (1200-1000) being said so Israelites live in highlands of Canaanites land, Merneptah stele also differs between both of these groups, well Merneptah stele is a celebration of Egypt conquest of Syrio-Palestine
Now, we get to the fun part, Yahweh is influenced highly by the head of Canaanites Pantheon call El, well ig I forget to type this but uh Canaanites Pantheon is consisted of El, his wife, Asherah, his sister, Ba'al, and finally a solar god, Anat (need to be noted that Anat is not a god in any Israelites religion in the Iron 1 Period or maybe any time in Israelites religion) anyway back to the topic, El is a aged partiarchal god, and this feature is also in Yahweh, in sometime El became a generic noun (God) a coin fron the Achaemenid Empire probably during Darius reign present a old god that is probably Yahweh with the word "Yehud"
Anyway for Asherah, it's pretty hard to determine worship of gods in Judges other than Ba'al, Asherah didn't has it own cult, although inscription from Tanaach city that is probably Canaanite's before gave a inscription of a naked female god, it could be Asherah? Who knows.
And for Ba'al and Yahweh, both are strom god and Divine warrior, Phoenecian Ba'al worship spreaded in Northern Israel, some royals even have their name with element of Ba'al in it, marking the co-existence of Cult of Yahweh and Cult of Ba'al, although Ahab (a ruler there) presecuted Prophets of Yahweh but gave income to Prophet of Ba'al, and finally Phoenecian Ba'al in this book is somehow says to be related to god Melqart Of Tyre, cuz Ba'al's name mean king of city probably trying to connect it to Tyre, but Melqart isn't Storm god so, after that blah blah blah Ahab repents and Jehu (the Tenth king of this kingdom) reform threats Baal worship with many Ba'al's temple torn down this all happened in 9th Century also
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 5, 2020
A short, concise, and accessible introduction to the archeological and philological debates surrounding ancient Israelite religion. The exact way by which polytheism (with a pantheon of only a handful of, it is believed, mostly Canaanite deities) gradually transformed into henotheism (or 'monolatry' as Smith prefers to call it) and then into outright monotheism is predictably still a matter of intense scholarly debate. Yahweh, the storm god, and El, the creator god become (theistically and ritualistically) one at some pre-exilic point with the vaguely more ethno-culturally Israelite Yahweh emerging 'victorious'. Other traditional (Canaanite) deities like Asherah and Baal also begin 'losing out' for reasons not entirely clear (though Smith makes some interesting conjectures) with the former becoming only a ritualistic prop by the time of the late monarchy (10th c. BC and after the dissolution of the united kingdom) - in the form of the 'asherah pole'- while the latter became - in the Hebrew Biblical tradition - Yahweh's quintessential adversary; a 'demon' requiring child sacrifices and worshipped only by 'bad' kings such as Ahab or 'weak' ones like the aged and 'henpecked' Solomon.
How did this process change the nature of Yahweh himself? How, in other words, did Yahweh become God? For one, he ceased being a mere weather god and assumed the cosmogonic omnipotence of the now absent El. He also ceased being an uncomplicatedly anthropomorphic tribal deity requiring violent (and sometimes human) sacrifice while glorying in the death of 'his' enemies. Instead Yahweh became the 'jealous' but ultimately just judge passing swift and fair retribution or reward without any 'dionysian' excesses. Lastly and perhaps most importantly, Yahweh ceased being a mortal (if renewable) and sexual god (characteristics associated with the 'demon' Baal) among other gods. He became instead a sexless, timeless, deathless, and peerless 'inconceivable' mystery transcending and yet continuously adjusting human reality. It is of course not at all clear how exactly this metamorphosis occurred or over what specific time span, but in Smith's view (which I find compelling enough) the priestly caste played a likely decisive role:
“Given the priestly insistence on the impurity of death and sexual relations, it is difficult to resist the suggestion that the presentation of Yahweh generally as sexless and unrelated to the realm of death was produced precisely by a priesthood whose central notions of holiness involved separation from the realms of impurity, specifically sexual relations and death. For the priesthood there were several levels of cultic purity, and the deity represented the epitome of this hierarchy."
How did this process change the nature of Yahweh himself? How, in other words, did Yahweh become God? For one, he ceased being a mere weather god and assumed the cosmogonic omnipotence of the now absent El. He also ceased being an uncomplicatedly anthropomorphic tribal deity requiring violent (and sometimes human) sacrifice while glorying in the death of 'his' enemies. Instead Yahweh became the 'jealous' but ultimately just judge passing swift and fair retribution or reward without any 'dionysian' excesses. Lastly and perhaps most importantly, Yahweh ceased being a mortal (if renewable) and sexual god (characteristics associated with the 'demon' Baal) among other gods. He became instead a sexless, timeless, deathless, and peerless 'inconceivable' mystery transcending and yet continuously adjusting human reality. It is of course not at all clear how exactly this metamorphosis occurred or over what specific time span, but in Smith's view (which I find compelling enough) the priestly caste played a likely decisive role:
“Given the priestly insistence on the impurity of death and sexual relations, it is difficult to resist the suggestion that the presentation of Yahweh generally as sexless and unrelated to the realm of death was produced precisely by a priesthood whose central notions of holiness involved separation from the realms of impurity, specifically sexual relations and death. For the priesthood there were several levels of cultic purity, and the deity represented the epitome of this hierarchy."
January 11, 2025
I read this ages ago (it came out in 1990) but gave it another look after reading Daniel E. Fleming's recent Yahweh before Israel: Glimpses of History in a Divine Name. I was wondering if Smith had said anything about Yahweh's origins, via the Midiante Hypothesis or otherwise. There's a footnote about the Bronze Age inscriptions in Egypt mentioning a Levantine tribe with a name very much like "Yahweh" -- the starting point for Fleming's book -- as well as Frank Cross and David Noel Freedman's suggestion that "Yahweh was a shortened form of a title of El, which became a divine name," but that's it. Shouldn't a book titled "The Early History of God" try to say a bit more on the subject?
Still, it was worth revisiting Smith's detailed explanation of what Canaanite and Israelite religion had in common. He sums it up in the first chapter: Early on, "Israel knew three deities, El, Asherah, and Yahweh. In addition, Baal perhaps constituted a fourth ... Yahweh and El were identified [i.e., merged] by the tenth century, and devotion to the goddess Asherah did not continue as an identifiably separate cult," although cultic objects called asherahs continued to be a part of Israelite religion. (Contrast the view that Asherah had a rather more exalted role, expressed in the title of William G. Dever's Did God Have a Wife?) Over time, Yahweh picked up attributes and epithets of the other deities that dated back as far as Ugarit, and starting in the 800s BCE, prophets and others retroactively declared Yahwism a monotheistic religion, denouncing as imports gods who had been part of Israelites' cult since the earliest days.
I don't know how Smith's fellow scholars greeted his finding that Israelites, and not just Phoenecians and their descendants, did sometimes practice child sacrifice. I do know that some specialists now read Judges-2 Kings much more skeptically than Smith does here, which makes me wonder how his references to the royal cult during the period of the (so-called) United Monarchy have held up. And I'd completely forgotten his brief discussion of similiarities between Baal and the Vedic god Indra, though he leaves open the question of whether the influence traveled from west to east or vice versa. Definitely a topic worth pursuing.
Still, it was worth revisiting Smith's detailed explanation of what Canaanite and Israelite religion had in common. He sums it up in the first chapter: Early on, "Israel knew three deities, El, Asherah, and Yahweh. In addition, Baal perhaps constituted a fourth ... Yahweh and El were identified [i.e., merged] by the tenth century, and devotion to the goddess Asherah did not continue as an identifiably separate cult," although cultic objects called asherahs continued to be a part of Israelite religion. (Contrast the view that Asherah had a rather more exalted role, expressed in the title of William G. Dever's Did God Have a Wife?) Over time, Yahweh picked up attributes and epithets of the other deities that dated back as far as Ugarit, and starting in the 800s BCE, prophets and others retroactively declared Yahwism a monotheistic religion, denouncing as imports gods who had been part of Israelites' cult since the earliest days.
I don't know how Smith's fellow scholars greeted his finding that Israelites, and not just Phoenecians and their descendants, did sometimes practice child sacrifice. I do know that some specialists now read Judges-2 Kings much more skeptically than Smith does here, which makes me wonder how his references to the royal cult during the period of the (so-called) United Monarchy have held up. And I'd completely forgotten his brief discussion of similiarities between Baal and the Vedic god Indra, though he leaves open the question of whether the influence traveled from west to east or vice versa. Definitely a topic worth pursuing.
May 2, 2025
The Bible's authors were devout monotheists telling the story of their monotheism. But stepping back from the "in-story" viewpoint we know that most ancient religion was polytheist. A natural question is whether and how monotheism arose from polytheism, and this book attempts to answer that question. The first issue to be addressed is whether Israelite monotheism did in fact arise from monotheism, and Smith marshals philological and archaeological to show just that. Hebrew civilization arose from a "Canaanite" milieu ("Canaanite" here is not meant in the Biblical sense of an antagonist people, but instead denotes an ethnolinguistic group and culture based on linguistic, archaeological, and historical evidence). In Smith's account, the Israelites started out as just one of many Canaanite tribes, sharing culture, language (both spoken and written), and many gods. Gradually, the group that we later call Hebrew differentiated itself from its Canaanite brethren by reserving worship for one god above all the others. Eventually (possibly as late as the Babylonian exile during the Axial Age), this one god became the only God, with all other lesser gods dismissed as false and nonexistent. This was the moment when most of the texts constituting the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible, or the Old Testament to Christians) were put down in writing. Smith, in very dry academic prose, successfully shows that this slow change did happen, and how. He does not show why, that is why the outcome of this cultural and intellectual process was a single omnipotent omnipresent omniscient omnibenevolent creator God. After all, the other contemporaneous Axial Age intellectual traditions (in Greek, Sanskrit, and Chinese) also started with polytheism but did not come to quite the same conclusion.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews