ISRAELITE RELIGION/S.
The rediscovery of the ancient Near Eastern context of the Bible has transformed biblical interpretation. Literary scholarship and excavation and has yielded much textual and archaeological evidence in the last hundred and fifty years of so, since the great enlightenment. Text (the literature) and Rock (the artifacts) has changed everything we know in biblical studies. This rediscovery of the antique context of the Near East informs the Hebrew Bible’s place within the broader phenomenon of ancient Israel’s literary and cultural neighborhood. Unfortunately, more lucid understanding of Israel’s place in the ancient world has not led to commensurate confidence regarding Israel’s religious beliefs and expression.
WHY ANCIENT RELIGION IS HARD TO STUDY
It is actually never crystal clear how cultic artifacts were actually understood in real time and how ancient Israelites pictured Yahweh among the other gods in their minds-eye. To complicate matters, Israelite conceptions of divinity and cult must be understand as variegated; there is evidence for different religious ideology and praxis between urbanite priestly guilds and rural inhabitants. In all likelihood, there were many religious views represented in between the two extremes.
Moreover, divine conception and worship shifts slowly over time. Religion is always changing, even though our traditions appear to be consistent. This means how Yahweh is understood and approached in the earlier layers of the Bible has evolved into something much different in later texts. Monotheism was a gradual crystallization and a process arrived at over centuries.
Even a quick read of many passages in the Hebrew Bible reveals that other gods were accepted as existent and powerful. The command after all, was to worship Yahweh alone and “not to follow after other Gods.” This is because ancient Israelites believed these other gods existed, lived in family pantheons, and had regions of control, etc… All this is to say— reconstructing ancient Israel’s religious beliefs, attitudes, and cult is a near impossible task. Richard Hess is correct that scholars must rely on “heuristic models (Israelite Religions 348).”
WHAT IS A HEURISTIC MODEL AND SHOULD I GET ONE?
Heuristic models as they pertain to religion in Israel, are paradigms developed to synthesize and explain varied textual and archaeological evidence. While heuristic models are helpful, they naturally reflect the intellectual climate of the time in which they are employed. For instance, great advancement has come to the study of Israelite religions from the fields of anthropology and sociology.
Both of these fields, however, draw their origin and influence from the Darwinian model which began with the publication of Origin of the Species. Published in 1859, Darwin’s explanation of natural phenomena pervaded all fields for some time. For both Anthropology and Sociology, it became a pillar of Religionswissenschaft that all cultures evolve with respect to religious beliefs. Every culture’s conception of the divine, or so it was thought, moved from primitive notions of ancestor worship to polytheism and finally to the more complex and economic idea of monotheism.
The contrary model posited by Wilhelm Schmidt’s Urmonotheismus, was a reactive response to this darwinian model of religion. Schmidt and others proffered that monotheism was the natural and original religion. This pure monotheism was gradually perverted by polytheism later. However, neither of these models (Darwinian or Original Monotheism) account for the complexity and variance found in ancient religions. While beginning with monotheism makes little or even no sense based on field archaeology and textual evidence, it has been observed that many polytheistic cultures actually have a more complex and hierarchical understanding of their pantheon, often elevating a head god to the supreme position (think Zeus, El, Ra, Marduk, Justin Bieber…).
Despite the dangers of heuristic models to reflect their milieu, an overall comparison of the biblical corpus alongside material evidence allows for a soft model of religions in ancient Israel to be constructed. The people who self-identified as “Israelite” and dwelled in the land of Canaan from approximately 1200 through 586 B.C.E. (Iron Age I and II) have handed down a diverse, complex, and some times contradictory system of religious belief and expression. This pans out in both textual (the Hebrew Bible) and material evidence (religious stuff we have dug up). An appropriate model will account for changes over time and will expect diverse expression, and inner-biblical evidence for ancient Israelite religions attests to both these phenomena. Let’s walk through some of these primary witnesses.
TEXT: YAHWEH WORSHIP PORTRAYED IN THE HEBREW BIBLE
The patriarchal narratives of the Bible bear no grievance with practices which become outlawed at a later time. This may be because early on Israelite divine conception and religion bears much resemblance to broader Canaan (Smith, 64). The patriarchs set up māṣṣābōth (Genesis 28:18-21, 35:14-15) and possess idols (Genesis 31).
In the book of Judges one man makes his own idols and consecrates his own priesthood (Judges 17). It is noteworthy that the later editors of the Tanakh do not seem bothered by these accounts; perhaps they view them as prior to God’s revelation and laws in the Exodus narratives in the case of Genesis. In the latter case of Judges the narratives have been placed in an editorial framework when Israel lacked a king and “everybody did what was right in his own eyes”).
Whatever the case may be, it is later compilers who prohibit idols, standing stones, and icons, laws against non-centralized worship. That these writers mandate against the worship of other gods alongside Yahweh and prohibit rituals, divination, and unsanctioned cults speaks to tensions between the biblical ideal of national Yahweh cult and the reality of a robust polytheistic folk religion.
Both theophoric (Jeru-baal in Judges 6:32 for example — this just means the name contains reference to the patron deity) and geographical (beth-El, house of El in Genesis 12:8 bears the name of the Canaanite head god, El…) names which incorporate “El” and “Baal” suggest an earlier time in Israel’s history where these gods were included in worship. The imagery and language used in Ugaritic texts about El have been used to describe Yahweh often in the Bible. What is more, Yahweh and Elohim are used essentially interchangeably in the composite Tanakh.
This has led Mark Smith to argue reasonably that Yahweh and El converged into a single deity over time (Origin of Biblical Monotheism, 58). Yahweh may have been a martial god from the south, as suggested by verses referencing Yahweh marching up from Sinai, Paran, Edom, and Teiman (Judges 5:4-5, Psalm 29). At the same time, another warrior god entering the divine council of El made Yahweh and Baal logical competitors (Smith, Origin of Biblical Monotheism, 47).
Asherahs often accompany narratives about the threat of Baal. When Baal altars are destroyed, often an Asherah is also “cut down” and “burned,” suggesting some kind of cultic tree or pole (Judges 6:25). Perhaps the best example of such a story is found in Elijah’s showdown with the 450 prophets of Baal alongside 400 Asherah prophets (2 Kings 18). While numbers are surely exaggerated, the story bears witness to a cult for both deities within Israel. Asherah may have been understood by the people as a consort of Yahweh against the will of the priestly guilds writing texts. This is difficult to prove because the goddess seems to have evolved into more of cultic symbol by the time of the biblical accounts. What can be said with confidence, is that Baal and Asherah have a vibrant cult which the biblical writers wish to expel. Ironically, it is the condemnation of unsanctioned worship and narratives which vie for exclusive Yahweh worship which bear witness to the facts on the ground.
ROCK I: CENTRALIZED YAHWEH CULT
The facts in the ground support the religious diversity found in the Bible. The archaeological record demonstrates continuity with the larger religious environment of Canaan and the larger ancient Near East. The archaeological context of the Bible is found in Iron Age I and II, during the advent, unity, and division of the monarchy. During this time, Yahweh worship is evidenced by excavated temples and shrines. One of the two cult centers which the Bible attributes to Jeroboam I (1 Kings 12:26-33) is at tell Dan. Excavation at Dan yielded a low, small altar in the presence of five māṣṣābōth. In the main city, there is a large high place, or bāmāh (this is a raised platform for an alter), with a four horned altar in a central courtyard. A smaller, separate horned altar was unearthed nearby. Finally, a three roomed building seems to have served as a shrine.
At Arad, which appears to be a military outpost or garrison, a small temple complex complete with a courtyard, an altar, and a קדש קדשים (holy of holies— think inner temple chamber where the god dwells) has been unearthed (Hess, Israelite Religions, 303-304). The holy place was flanked by two incense altars and contained two māṣṣābōth. One of the hundred or more ostraca found at the Arad Temple, references the “temple of Yahweh.” It is assumed that this inscription in reference to the temple in Jerusalem, but it also links the site at Arad to Yahweh worship. Another horned altar found at Beersheba was likely also a regional cult center. At Beersheba a pot was also found in situ which scholars believe was intended for cultic use because of its inscription: קדש, or “holy.”
ROCK II: RURAL AND DOMESTIC POLYTHEISTIC RELIGION
If places like Arad or Beersheba represent sacrificial centers with a priestly guild connected to national Yahweh cult, there is also much in the way of material evidence to suggest a less structured and polytheistic household religion. Many dig sites have yielded rooms used as private shrines. Vast amounts of feminine, breasted “pillar figurines” have been found throughout early Israelite sites in domestic worship settings. Found separately are what appear to be model shrines for the figurines to be placed in. These likely were for domestic or small shrine settings simply based upon size. Female statues are ubiquitous throughout Judah, and molds for their mass production have been discovered. These figurines could represent any number of goddesses, but germane to this discussion, help to rule out a strict monotheistic belief system.
Cultic objects such as rattles, cylindrical stands for incense or libation offerings, unique pottery assemblages, or luxury items from other materials, which were used for sacred rituals, magic, and divination are ubiquitous at local shrines and in domestic settings. Two cylindrical stands, one found in Megiddo and another found in Tanaach, are marvelously preserved and obviously polytheistic. They combine Canaanite religious iconography, depicting a female divine being with lions alongside sun discs, bull calfs, and trees of life flanked by ibex or deer. Oil lamps, cult objects, drink altars, and comfort features found in family tombs suggest a robust cult of the dead in keeping with Israel’s larger context of Canaan (Hess 327-329). Finally, the Kuntillet ‘Ajrud and Khirbet El-Qom pithoi inscriptions mention “Yahweh and his Asherah,” bolstering the notion of a consort to Yahweh.
TOWARDS A WORKING MODEL
Having considered some of the textual and archaeological evidence, it seems a model of religion in ancient Israel must include both the idealized exclusive Yahweh worship promulgated by the writers of the Bible and also the things which they prohibit. Hints of unsanctioned religion including magic, divination, funeral cult, lesser divine beings, and idols are all over the place in the Bible, albeit the biblical writers’ attempts to condemn these practices. Most likely supplicants embraced aspects or all of these modes of worship. That is, one could believe in Yahweh as the national deity of Israel while at the same time practice ancestor cult, the cult of the dead, and believe in Baal, Asherah, and a range of other divine entities. Religious expression in ancient societies was textured and complex…just like today. This should actually be expected. Why would the biblical writers proscribe religious practices which were not actual threats to how they understood God and how they believed Israel was to worship?
TAKEAWAYS FOR MODERNS
RELIGION IS ALWAYS CHANGING…EVEN IN THE BIBLE ITSELF. Religion is not God. Religion is the human expression of worship or reverence towards a deity. That is to say, the reality of God is objective, but how we name God is a shifting shadow. And that’s okay. It is actually wilder and more beautiful. How we describe God, how we revere God, how we worship God, even how we conceive of God…slowly changes over time and we can actually see this happening in the Bible. The Hebrew Bible reveals a slow march towards a more helpful naming of divinity. Religions in Israel are an evolution from paganism and pantheon to an uncommonly good, single God responsible for and in all creation. What is more fascinating, is that this God that seems to want to be known as markedly different than what has been previously conceived.
THE BIBLE’S LAYERS ALLOW US TO SEE ISRAEL’S NAMING OF GOD PROGRESSING. Readers who are savvy to the complex layers of the Bible can begin to see earlier primitive conceptions of God and later, more enlightened ones. What happens over time is a remarkable movement of the human consciousness of God and what it means to be God’s people in God’s world. Think of the Hebrew Bible as a discussion of God that slowly moving from ethnocentric, local god to the monotheistic God that overcomes human divisions. It is a marvelous progression, and hopefully we are still progressing.