Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan

by John Day, Claudia V. Camp (Series Editor), John Day

This masterly book is the climax of over twenty-five years of study of the impact of Canaanite religion and mythology on ancient Israel and the Old Testament. It is John Day's magnum opus in which he sets forth all his main arguments and conclusions on the subject. The work considers in detail the relationship between Yahweh and the various gods and goddesses of Canaan, including the leading gods El and Baal, the great goddesses (Asherah, Astarte and Anat), astral deities (Sun, Moon and Lucifer), and underworld deities (Mot, Resheph, Molech and the Rephaim). Day assesses both what Yahwism assimilated from these deities and what it came to reject. More generally he discusses the impact of Canaanite polytheism on ancient Israel and how monotheism was eventually achieved.

Genres: Religion, History, Judaism, Nonfiction, Mythology, Spirituality, Theology

290 pages, Paperback

First published December 1, 2000

Reviews

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ancient Middle Eastern religion is an area of interest for me, both because of my own religious background and because the real history is almost always more complicated than the popular account that becomes accepted wisdom, and that applies equally to religious history. Ever since I first heard of Ugarit during my Early Jewish History class and learned about scholars' belief that Josiah's "discovery" of the book of the law was actually written to help cement his reign, I've wondered about the actual beliefs of the Children of Israel. And יה and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan goes into that in exhaustive detail.

Mostly exhaustive linguistic detail. A huge portion of the book is comparative analysis of words in Semitic languages, of which Hebrew is the only one I know anything about and that not very much. Here's an example:

Since Asherah was El's consort, this therefore implies that El's sons were seventy in number. Now Deut. 32.8, which is clearly dependent on this concept, declares, 'When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God'. The reading 'sons of God' (bene 'elohim) has the support of the Qumran fragment, 4QDeut, the LXX, Symmachus, Old Latin and the Syro-Hexaplaric manuscript, Cambr. Or. 929. This is clearly the original reading, to be preferred to the MT's 'sons of Israel' (bene yisrd'el), which must have arisen as a deliberate alteration on the part of a scribe who did not approve of the polytheistic overtones of the phrase 'sons of God.'

This is from the section making the case that the Ugaritic god El was conflated with G-d, such that G-d took on El's attributes of being the creator of the world, of dwelling on a mountain--Day analyizes the epithet "Shaddai" as meaning "of the mountain"--and of being old, referring to the title Ancient of Days and from which the common image of G-d as having a long white beard and flowing white hair derives.

Apparently El was also associated with bulls, hence the bulls of Jeroboam in 1 Kings 12:28, the Golden Calf (as a polemic against associations of G-d with bulls), and more linguistics:

abîr ya'aqōb, 'the Mighty one of Jacob' (Gen. 49.24). However, the word 'abîr is very similar to 'abbîr

If your eyes glaze over at all these comparisons, this is not the book for you.

I was most interested in the analysis of resurrection imagery. Day connects this ultimately to Baal, who descended into the underworld, fought the god of death Mot, was saved by his sister-wife Anat, and returned to life. In Hosea and Isaiah, this story was stripped of all its previous mythological content and the resurrection was used entirely as a metaphor for Israel returning from exile. Then in Daniel, this mythological meaning was re-added to speak of a general resurrection of the dead at the end of time. Day also deals with the idea that the Jews picked up these concepts while in Persia by noting that sleep and death were often correlated in ancient Jewish thought, but not in Zoroastrian sources, indicating a different source.

Here the contest between Elijah and the prophets of Baal is also framed as a rejection of G-d's association with Baal. Baal was a storm and fertility god, and Day connects the fire that came from heaven with lightning, indicating G-d's superiority in what was supposed to be Baal's domain.

There's a lot of other aspects here, such as the chaoskampf of Baal vs. Yam and the way it's reflected in G-d taming the Leviathan; Asherah and the way that later Jewish writers forgot that Asherah was ever a goddess and referred only to her cultic objects, the oft-mentioned "Asherah poles;" the way that syncretism occurred in diasporic communities like Elephantine in Egypt with names like Anat-Yahu (based on Anat, wife of Baal); and so on.

I thought it was really interesting, but it still took me a week to read it because my eyes would often glaze over when Day did another deep dive into single-letter correspondences between Ugaritic, Hebrew, Aramaic, Babylonian, and so on. It's definitely not a book for the casual reader, and while there's a lot of good information here, I don't have the expertise to judge any of its merits or not.

[Kevin K · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book to get more background on the Canaanite gods which appear in the Old Testament: El, Baal, Asherah, Ashtoreth, Dagon, Molech etc. The book is exhaustively researched, and has a lot of interesting information on these gods, derived primarily from the finds at Ugarit. Day's conclusions on the exact nature of the Asherim cult object were especially interesting; it made me wonder whether the Asherim survived in later Judaism in subliminal forms like the Menorah and the Tree of Life (in Kabbalah). Other intriguing topics were Biblical references to the Canaanite pantheon on Mt. Zaphon, and to the chaoskampf battle between Baal and the chaos monster Yam, which became a battle between Yahweh and Leviathan in the Bible.
Although certainly worth reading, this probably isn't the best book for the general reader. It is extremely scholarly, and spends a lot of time on close linguistic analysis of Semitic word forms. Day also examines all competing hypotheses on each question, and this ends up being tedious because most of the hypotheses are rejected.
Nevertheless, I got what I wanted from this book: a much clearer understanding of the "other" gods in the Bible.

[Lukerik · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reading the Old Testament raised some questions. What is the relationship between El and Yahweh? Why is it sometimes hard to distinguish Yahweh and Ba’al? Why do I need a commentary as big as my upper torso before I can spot the goddesses? I’ve read a few books which touched incidentally on these questions, but nothing really satisfying. This book is the motherlode. The questions I came to the book with are really just a small part of what you’ll find here. If you have any interest in Canaanite deities, no matter how obscure the point, you’ll probably find something about it here. It’s a rich book with interesting bye-ways. At one point, in seeking to prove some obscure point about El, Day digresses into a sensible (!!) discussion of where people in the ancient world thought Eden was.

For me I think the main attraction was just how much good information there is about Ba’al Hadad. With a lot of these ancient gods I struggle to see the appeal. Ba’al strikes me as quite an attractive figure, yet a lot of other books offer half-baked theories about him and are often too old to take account of recent interpretations of the finds at Ugarit. At twenty years old this book is about as up-to-date as the history of Canaan gets.

A real plus is Day’s clear and fair presentation of the views of his scholarly opponents. Even if you come to an argument with ignorance you’ll come away with an opinion. Once he’s demolished his opponents he’ll argue his own position and it’s always clearly argued and usually sensible. Just to give an example of the clarity of the writing, many of his arguments are on some obscure philological point in one Semitic language or another. I have no knowledge of any Semitic language, but everything’s Romanised and I was able to follow the arguments even if I couldn’t form an opinion. Day is a highly opinionated writer, but he gives you the room to disagree. For example, he holds that Genesis 1 is based not on the Enuma Elish but on Psalm 104 or something. The most preposterous claim I have ever read. I see he has written an entire book on the subject. I might read it as I’ll need something to spoke my sense of outrage now Trump is leaving office.

Most of the books I’ve read on these subjects have been by Protestants. I like how their application of reason to discovering what the Israelites thought back in the day is in itself an act of worship for them. Also, living in a Protestant country I get their biases and can think around them. By contrast I know nothing about schools of thought in modern Judaism. Day is obviously working in the Protestant tradition, but I have absolutely no idea what religion he belongs to, if any. No idea at all. A true scholar and a very fine writer.

[BlackOxford · Rating 4 out of 5]

What’s In A Name?

My given name is Michael. Derived from Hebrew מיכאל, the name means “He who is like God.” Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of other ‘el’ names (either as prefix or suffix) are scattered throughout the Hebrew Bible, all referring to the supreme deity. Israel itself is such a name, probably meaning “El will rule.” Our inheritance of these proper names largely goes unrecognised as the most immediate cultural link we have to the ancient religions of the Middle East - at least for those of us who carry around birth certificates entitled Elizabeth, Daniel, Raphael, Gabriel, or Ethel.

But here’s the thing: although these names are biblical, the god they refer to is not originally the Hebrew God. The discovery, almost a century ago, of texts in the Ugaritic language (a progenitor of Hebrew) clearly show that El was identified as a benign creator god by several cultures that are generally designated as Canaanite, including the Hebrew culture. This is further attested by other evidence, including a 13th century BCE Egyptian pharaonic stele.

The numerous biblical references and allusions to El as identical to the god Yahweh indicate a comfortable assimilation of the two cults. As Professor Day notes: “Most scholars who have written on the subject during recent decades support the idea that Yahweh had his origins outside the land of Israel to the south,…” This conforms with the biblical legend of the revelation of the name of God to Moses on Mount Sinai (which if the place today identified as this is correct, is about as far south in the peninsula as one can get).

El and Yahweh complemented one another nicely in terms of desirable divine characteristics like age, wisdom, power and concern for humanity (with El being the likely favourite according to modern sensibilities). Some of El’s characteristics, especially those involving his consort, were dropped but mentioned frequently and negatively in Hebrew scripture. It also seems likely that the mutual assimilation was helped along by some positive politics in the region (unlike the extreme antipathy to another important local deity, Baal, who became a The Other for adherents to the cult of El/Yahweh).

Both El and Yahweh also have pre-histories. For example, El likely “involves a conflation of Elyon, lord of heaven, and El, lord of earth…” in earlier regional cultures but mentioned explicitly in the biblical books of Isaiah, Deuteronomy, and Psalms. The somewhat startling statement in the opening chapter of the book of Genesis to “Elohim,” that is to many unspecified gods involved in creation could be a reference to the “sons of god” or the “royal court of god,” as suggested in prior myths. The singular use of the name El Shaddai, probably meaning Lord of the Mountain and referring to an (assimilated) Amorite deity is also noteworthy. These suggest that at least some of the biblical authors weren’t at all sensitive about the origins or rigorous consistency of their thoughts about the divine; nor did they share the awe or fear in expression of the divine name with later commentators, editors, and other religious authorities.

Yahweh’s evolution before his conflation with El is similarly complex. Despite the cultic antipathy toward Baal, Yahweh clearly inherits much of Baal’s association with weather and its indifferently and capriciously directed power (cf. the Seven Thunders of Psalm 29 as an appropriation from Baal). The Ugaritic texts also affirm the assimilation of the mythology of conflict with monsters like the Leviathan and Behemoth to Yahweh from its Canaanite sources (19th century scholars had identified this as Babylonian in origin).

Day systematically analyses most of the gods and goddesses relevant to the emerging form of Yahweh in a manner of interest primarily to the professional scholar. However it appears to me that the evolutionary trajectory of Yahweh is always in line with the general precept that we get the god we want. Put more positively: theology, especially in its mythological rather than its dogmatic form, is an attempt to formulate the fundamental principles of a society. These principles are necessarily poetic, and equally necessarily unstable as a society grapples with what has been hitherto unsaid, and perhaps unsayable, about what is important, just, lasting etc.

But there is also in the history of the development of the idea of Yahweh, an apparent meta-principle at play. Implicitly - perhaps driven by political exigency, some inherent drive toward cooperation, or intellectual satisfaction - the evolution of religious ideas through assimilation, conflation, combination and so forth is an attempt to find common ground. As in negotiating a peace treaty, this is essentially a literary exercise carried out to make otherwise mutually incoherent languages compatible. The result, while hardly to be called truth, is something nonetheless worthwhile. Could this be the primary historical lesson for not just religion but also science and politics, namely that all insistent dogmatisation is inevitably harmful to human well-being?

[Mike · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a great reference book, but perhaps not the greatest read. I would add that it is probably not going to be enjoyed by those without some experience in biblical studies.

Warning: spoilers ahead.

From the Early Iron Age onward, and continuing at least until the post-exilic era, the exclusive worship of the God of Israel wasn't the prevailing practice in the region. In fact, there existed a multitude of gods and goddesses who were venerated alongside the God of Israel. The Hebrew Bible underwent editing by monotheistic Deuteronomistic and then later post exilic Masoretic editors who sought to convey the notion that these other deities were solely revered by neighboring tribes and wayward Israelites. Nevertheless, through the lens of textual criticism and archaeological findings, John Day asserts that it has become quite evident that the early Israelite populace also acknowledged the presence of numerous divinities. Furthermore, it is clear that they shaped their understanding of Yahweh by drawing inspiration from aspects of the cult and personas of Canaanite gods.

John Day initiates his exploration of the intricate connections between various Canaanite gods and goddesses and their relationship to Yahweh in ancient Israel (p. 226). Throughout the book, the author delves into the notable Canaanite deities who make appearances in the Bible, as well as the astral (chapter 6) and underworld deities (chapter 7). While some deities receive in-depth analysis regarding their inherent nature, such as uncovering Asherah's identity as a goddess, Day typically considers their connection to Yahweh. Some deities, according to Day, wielded a significant influence over the development of Yahwehism. For instance, El and Yahweh, originally separate deities, eventually merged, with Yahweh inheriting many of El's attributes and characteristics. A dedicated chapter is also allocated to "Yahweh's Appropriation of Baal Imagery." Simultaneously, Day conscientiously highlights elements of these cults that the Old Testament rejects, like Jeroboam's golden calves stemming from El iconography. Day thoroughly examines various proposed interpretations, generously referencing secondary sources. He addresses dubious or uncertain references for each deity as well. Inevitably, the study sometimes encounters repetition and overlap across chapters, which may hinder a seamless reading experience but enhances its value as a reference. In his conclusion, Day primarily engages with two matters: the onomastic aspect, notably J.H. Tigay's work, and Josiah's reforms. A concluding note outlines the trajectory of Canaanite deities within the framework of post-exilic Israel's monotheism, culminating the study.
In the first chapter Day works to identify the early origins of Yahweh. He explains (p. 15):
Since Yahweh and El were originally separate deities, the question is raised where Yahweh originated. Yahweh himself does not appear to have been a Canaanite god in origin: for example, he does not appear in the Ugaritic pantheon lists. Most scholars who have written on the subject during recent decades support the idea that Yahweh had his origins outside the land of Israel to the south, in the area of Midian (cf. Judg. 5.4-5; Deut. 33.2; Hab. 3.3, 7). He notes that even minimalists take this approach, stating, “Even the arch-'minimalist' N.P. Lemche feels confident about this,” in The Development of Israelite Religion in the Light of Recent Studies on the Early History of Israel', in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume, Leuven 1989 (VTSup, 43; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991), pp. 97-115 (113-15).

The Underworld: Resheph

I really liked Day’s analysis of Resheph in the Hebrew Bible, as he was the first one to introduce me to this god and how his attributes were incorporated into depictions of Yahweh in Habakkuk’s writings. Resheph (also Reshef and many other variants, ršp, Egyptian ršpw, ršp, Hebrew: רֶשֶׁף‎ Rešep̄) was a god associated with war and plague, originally worshiped in Ebla in the third millennium BCE. He was one of the main members of the local pantheon, and was worshiped in numerous hypostases, some of which were associated with other nearby settlements, such as Tunip. He was associated with the goddess Adamma, who was his spouse in Eblaite tradition. Eblaites considered him and the Mesopotamian god Nergal to be equivalents, most likely based on their shared role as war deities.

In the writings of Habakkuk, a fascinating transformation occurs as the deity Resheph becomes intertwined with the divine attributes of Yahweh. Resheph, an ancient god associated with plague and pestilence, is depicted as an integral part of Yahweh's character within the text. This incorporation reflects the complex religious landscape of the time, where the merging of different divine identities served to emphasize Yahweh's power over various aspects of life, including calamities. Habakkuk's portrayal of Yahweh encompassing the attributes traditionally associated with Resheph provides a unique perspective on the evolving nature of religious beliefs and the gradual assimilation of local deities into the broader conception of the Hebrew god.
Habakkuk 3.5 reads:

Before him went Pestilence (deber)
and Plague (reShep) followed close behind.

Day explains:
These words occur as part of Yahweh's theophany in which he comes up from the south (vv. 2-7) prior to engaging in conflict with the chaos waters (vv. 8-15). Both deber and reShep, rendered here respectively 'Pestilence' and 'Plague', appear to be personified, and form as it were angelic or perhaps rather demonic accompaniers of Yahweh. Although in previous centuries reSep was sometimes rendered otherwise (cf. AV 'burning coals, RV 'fiery bolts'), the combination of the fact that Resheph was a plague god and the parallelism with deber, 'pestilence', leaves no doubt that reShep is here the personified Plague (p. 199).

After Day’s analysis of Resheph, I went on a journey wanting to learn more. You can read what I have found here: https://www.ldsscriptureteachings.org...

There is quite a bit going on here! Of course, Day doesn’t stop there. He explains Resheph in Job 5.7, Song of Songs 8.6-7, Psalm 76.4, and Psalm 91.5-6. Seeing these connections helps readers to see how the Bible and its ideas are involved in the culture in which it was produced.

Asherah

Day asks the question concerning whether Asherah was a consort of Yahweh. He says “the majority seem to regard this as probable,” and then throws his hat into the ring of those scholars who make this assertion (p. 59-60).

Day asks the question, “If Asherah was Yahweh's consort, how then are we to explain the fact that Baal and Asherah are paired together several times in the Old Testament (e.g. Judg. 6.35, 28, 30; 1 Kgs 18.19)? It has sometimes been thought that Baal might have appropriated El's wife” (p. 60).
Day gives S.M. Olyan’s explanation, that the Deuteronomists, in an effort to discredit Asherah, made this connection in order to imply “guilt by association” by making these two connected (p. 61).

On the etymology of Asherah, Day explains:

There is no complete agreement with regard to the etymology of the name Asherah, though as will be seen, one proposal does have the merit of a certain plausibility. A view that may definitely be excluded, however, is the later opinion of W.F. Albright, which has been followed widely subsequently, that the common Ugaritic epithet rbt. 'trt. ym, generally rendered 'Lady Athirat of the sea', etymologically means 'the Lady who traverses the sea', or 'the Lady who treads on the sea (dragon)'. The problem with this understanding is that it presupposes that the longer version is the original form of her name and that Athirat is a later abbreviation of it. Against this, however, stands the fact that this goddess is already known by the name Asratum as early as the First Dynasty of Babylon (c. 1830-1531 BCE), which strongly supports the originality of the short form. A more plausible explanation, which was Albright's earlier view, connects the name with the Semitic root 'tr place', which came to denote 'holy place, sanctuary', and in this meaning is attested for Akkadian, Phoenician, Aramaic 'tr and 'trt', and Ugaritc 'atr. In support it may be noted that in Ugaritic Athirat is several times referred to under the name of Qudshu (cf. KTU2 1.16.1.11, 22), which similarly means 'holiness' or 'sanctuary'. Sanctuaries are elsewhere personified as deities amongst the Semites, as in the case of the god Bethel, whose name means 'house of El'. There is much less to be said for the view of B. Margalit, according to which Athirat means 'wife, consort', literally, 'she-who-foliows-in-the footsteps (of her husband)', for unlike the previously mentioned suggestion, there is no clear evidence for this meaning in any Semitic language. (Day, p. 61-62)
Day’s conclusion has some great points. He concludes that pre-exilic Israel did worship other gods. This seems pretty clear from just reading the Hebrew Bible. Day explains the arguments over when the people of Israel became monotheists, asserting that it was during the exile, but that there was a “monolatrous party” in the pre-exilic period that gave rise to the victory of the monotheists (p. 228). He notes that “there has been a general rejection in recent decades of the view (once associated with W.F. Albright) that absolute monotheism can be traced back to the time of Moses (p. 228). Rather, absolute monotheism was given expression by the prophet Deutero-Isaiah in the exile and became “fully operative in the post-exilic period.” (p. 228).

He ends asking and answering some excellent questions:

Absolute monotheism having been established in postexilic Israel, what then happened to the Canaanite deities? Of course, amongst such people as the neighbouring Phoenicians they continued to be worshipped. Even amongst monotheistic Jews, though no longer worshipped, the Canaanite deities sometimes left a kind of 'afterglow'. This is perhaps most marked in the world of apocalyptic. For example, the seventy sons of God, originally denoting the gods of the pantheon under El, with whom Yahweh became identified, now became demoted to the status of angels, the seventy guardian angels of the nations attested in 1 Enoch. Again, I have noted how the name of 'Baal the Prince' (zbl b'l in Ugaritic) became transformed into Beelzebul, the Prince of the Demons or Satan, in the gospels. The relation between Baal and El became encapsulated in the relationship of the one like son of man and the Ancient of Days in the apocalyptic imagery of Daniel 7, as did the chaos monster, and the seven-headed Leviathan of Canaanite mythology lives on even in the New Testament, where both the seven-headed dragon of Revelation 12, symbolizing Satan, and the seven-headed beast of Revelation 13, symbolizing Rome, derive from him. I have argued too that the imagery of the resurrection of the dead, another important concept in apocalyptic, also derives ultimately from the resurrection of Baal. However, although these images lived on, everything became transformed in the light of monotheism, and it is arguably monotheism (at first monolatry), rather than God's mighty acts in history as used to be argued, that most distinguishes the Old Testament from the religions of the other nations of the ancient Near East (Day, p. 232-233).

Overall, like this review, the book could have been written better. But if you get past this, it has quite a bit of new information for the reader not fully immersed in biblical studies, and it certainly opens up ways of reading the Hebrew Bible.

I give it a solid 3/5 stars.

[Michael Nguyen · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very complicated book, full of theories, and it does not have a definitive explanation on the deities of Canaan. It does describe many scholarly views and disagreements. There is talk of Ishtar, Ashtarte, Asherah, Yahweh, El, Baal. It does get quite deep into linguistic nitty gritty and archeological inscriptions. I enjoyed it however, discovering that El and Yahweh were different gods, and that El's consort was Asherah. And that Baal was appropriated into Yahweh by the deuteronomist authors. Its all very fascinating stuff. El and Yahweh being merged into one God in the Old Testament. The polytheism of the Elephantine Jews. This is an extremely different narrative from the Orthodox Religious perspective good and evil, Satan and Lucifer. This book book paints a more vivid and vast landscape of ethnic groups, nations, and peoples mixing and separating and merging and appropriating. It reminds me a lot of the Hindu studies with very similar speculations about the merging of Hindu deities, and the textual editing of the brahmins. Both religions of Early Judaism and Hinduism are thoroughly complicated by the academic literature, neither of which have final conclusions in books written about them, including this book which does not give a final conclusion of the gods and goddesses of Canaan. Only a hint.

[Mislav · Rating 4 out of 5]

An academic book that provides a fantastic insight into the origins of Yahweh from a scholarly point of view. It describes how the ancient Israelites originally worshipped gods from the Canaanite pantheon (e.g. Deuteronomy 32,8-9), but had their own local god Yahweh as the god of storms and war.

Eventually, Yahweh became the main god in the pantheon, replacing El. During the Babylonian exile, the Israelites went from monolatry to monotheism, with Yahweh becoming the only god. This set the stage for Second Temple Judaism, Jewish apocalypticism, and the arrival of Jeshua (Jesus) as a Jewish apocalyptic preacher.

A great book, providing fantastic content based on archeological and historical data that ought to be studied as history in schools.

[Arturo Serrano · Rating 2 out of 5]

The Kindle version is disastrously typeset. I tried my best to finish this, because the topic is very interesting, but the way it displays on Kindle is unreadable.

[Ella · Rating 4 out of 5]

Somewhat dated but still a useful examination of how the god of the bible fits into ancient west Asian polytheism and pantheons.

[Gwynfor · Rating 3 out of 5]

✔️

[B. Forrester · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was more academic than I was expecting. I was looking for a book of myths rather than an academic discussion on theology and ancient literature. That said, the book was done well, if a little confusing. In the digital edition pages are often repeated and there isn't always a clear distinction between the text and the footnotes. The discussion was interesting and provided a summary on multiple works.

[Rebecca · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book to turn to if you are really interested in the subject - but quite scholarly so it might be a good idea to be familiar with the most common gods of the area in ancient times before picking this one up.