COPYRIGHT AND CITATION CONSIDERATIONS FOR THIS THESIS/ DISSERTATION

o Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

o NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.

o ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

How to cite this thesis

Surname, Initial(s). (2012) Title of the thesis or dissertation. PhD. (Chemistry)/ M.Sc. (Physics)/ M.A. (Philosophy)/M.Com. (Finance) etc. [Unpublished]: University of Johannesburg. Retrieved from: https://ujdigispace.uj.ac.za (Accessed: Date).

THE DETRIMENTAL INFLUENCE OF THE CANAANITE RELIGION

ON THE ISRAELITE RELIGION WITH SPECIFIC

REFERENCE TO SACRIFICE

by

LORRAINE ELIZABETH HALLETT

Mini -dissertation

submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree

MASTER OF ARTS

in

BIBLICAL STUDIES

in

FACULTY OF ARTS

at the

RAND AFRIKAANS UNIVERSITY

SUPERVISOR PROF JH COETZEE

NOVEMBER 1995 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the mini -dissertation submitted for the

Masters degree to the Rand Afrikaans University, apart from the help recognised, is my own work and has not been formerly submitted to another university for a degree.

L E HALLETT

(i) ABSTRACT

Condemnation (by various biblical writers) of certain practices found amongst the Israelites which led ultimately to the Exile have often been viewed from two opposite views. The believer in the Bible simply accepted the condemnation at face value, and without question, whereas the scholar sought to explain it in terms of extra-biblical knowledge of the history of other civilisations which often threw doubt on the accuracy and veracity of the biblical record. This mini-dissertation seeks to show that it is possible to accept the viability of the biblical account in terms of the extra-biblical sources.

A brief history and survey of research and some current approaches and models (particularly the sociological model of Gottwald) are discussed to show that it is possible to use the Bible as a point of departure and still utilise current trends in research.

The subject matter concerns the detrimental influence the Canaanite religion had on the Israelite religion in terms of sacrifice. Consideration is given to the terms "Canaan' and "Canaanite" in order to delineate the source of the influence. Forms of sacrifice of both cults are discussed and compared in terms of what is known from the biblical ideal and from the discoveries of Ugarit/Ras Shamra. The confrontation of Elijah and Jezebel found in 1 Kings 18 is used as a specific episode in which the differences in sacrifice between the two cults are best illustrated.

Condemnation of certain sacrificial practices by various writers in the Old Testament are then discussed and explained. It is also shown how each condemnation was not merely a diatribe against the people of the time but how each practice violated the God-given ideal.

(ii) The results of the study show that the Canaanite religion did have a detrimental influence on the Israelite religion particularly in terms of sacrifice. This was mainly because of the motivation for sacrifice - the Canaanites sought to manipulate their gods whereas the God of the Israelites could not be bought by any form of sacrifice. It was also found that the requirement and form of sacrifice for the Israelites was God- given whereas the Canaanite requirement was devised by man and the form took whatever was thought necessary to satisfy the gods. This included sacral prostitution which was anathema to the Israelites. God required obedience to His law as corollary to sacrifice and not sacrifice for its own sake.

(iii) SAMEVATTING

Die veroordeling deur verskeie bybelskrywers van sekere Israelitiese gebruike wat uiteindelik tot die Baliingskap gelei het, word dikwels vanuit twee teenoorgestelde standpunte beskou. Die gewone gelowige aanvaar eenvoudig die veroordeling sonder twyfel, terwyl die vakkundige poog cm dit Le verduidelik ingevolge buite-Bybels.e kennis van die geskiedenis van ander beskawings wat twyfel opper oor die juistheid en die geloofwaardigheid van dit wat in die Bybel opgeteken is. Hierdie skripsie poog om aan te toon dat die Bybelse weergawe van gebeure geloofwaarig is en dat buite-Bybelse bronne hierdie geloofwaarigheid staaf.

'n Kort geskiedenis en navorsingsoorsig, sowel as etlike hedendaagse benaderings en interpretasiemodelle (veral Gottwald se sosiologiese model) word bespreek om aan te dui dat dit moontlik is om die Bybel as uitgangspunt te gebruik en nog steeds hedendaagse navorsingsrigtings te benut.

Die veld van ondersoek behels die nadelige invloed wat die Kananitiese geloof op die Israelitiese geloof gehad het, veral met betrekking tot offerande. Die begrippe 'Kanaän' en 'Kananiet' word ondersoek cm die oorsprong vand die invloeds af te grens. Die wyses van offering van albei kultusse word bespreek en vergelyk na aanleiding van wat bekend is van die Bybelse ideaal en van die opgrawings te Ugarit/Ras Shamra. Die konfrontasie tussen Elia en Isébel wat in 1 Konings 18 beskryf word, word as 'n spesifieke voorval gebruik waardeur die verskille in metodes van offer tussen die twee kultusse duidelik uitbebeeld word. Die veroordeling van sekere wyses van offer deur verskeie skrywers in die cu Testament word bespreek en verduidelik. Daar word ook aangetoon hoe elke veroordeling nie slegs 'n smaadrede teen die mense van daardie tydperk was nie, maar hoe elke praktyk die Godgegewe ideaal geskend het.

(iv) Die resultate van die studie toon aan dat die Kanaäxiitiese geloof wel 'n nadelige invioed op die Israeiitiese geloof gehad het, veral met betrekking tot offerandes. Die rede hiervoor lê in die basiese motivering vir die offerandes : die Kananiete poog om huile gode to manipuleer, terwyl die Israelitiese God nie deur offerandes omgekoop kan word nie. Daar is ook bevind dat die vereistes en die vorrn van die Israeiitiese offerandes deur God aan die yolk gegee is, terwyl die Kanaãnitiese vereistes deur die mens uitgedink is om die gode tevrede te stel. Laasgenoemde bet sakrale prostitusie ingesluit, wat deur die Israeliete as 'n vervloeking beskou is. God vereis gehoorsaamheid aan Sy wet as basis vir die offerandes en nie slegs die daad van offer rile.

(v) TABLE OF CONTENTS

Declaration

Abstract ...... Samevatting ...... (iv) Introduction ...... 1

1 APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF THE BIBLE ...... 5 1.1 The Historical-Critical Approach ...... 5 1.2 The Text-Immanent Approach ...... 6 1.3 The Social Science Approach ...... 6 1.3.1 Models ...... 6 1.3.1.1 The Structural Functional Model ...... 7 1.3.1.2 The Conflict Model ...... 7 1.3.1.3 The Symbolic Interactionist Model ...... 7 1.3.1.4 Gottwald's Sociological Model ...... 8

2 CANAAN AND THE CANAANITES ...... 11 2.1 Definition of terms ...... 11 2.1.1 Ugaricic and Canaanite ...... 12 2.2 Religion ...... 13 2.2.1 The Pantheon of Gods ...... 14 2.2.2 Forms of Worship ...... 15 2.3 Social Life ...... 16

3 SACRIFICE ...... 19 3.1 The Old Testament Ideal ...... 19 3.2 Canaanite Parallels ...... 21 3.3 Comparison of Rites ...... 22 3.3.1 System of Sacrifice ...... 23 3.3.2 Child Sacrifice ...... 23

4 JEZEBEL ...... 26 4.1 Personal Details ...... 26 4.2 Geographic Situation ...... 27 4.3 Religious Practices ...... 27 4.4 Family Life ...... 28

5 THE FORN OF SACRIFICE TO YAHWEH AND TO BAAL 30 5.1 Historical Setting ...... 30 5.2 The Literary Setting ...... 30 5.3 The Social Context ...... 31 5.4 The Challenge ...... 32

(vi) 6 CONDEIATION OF SACRIFICE FOUND IN SCRIPTURE 35 6.1 Condemnation by Historians ...... 35 6.2 Condemnation in the Psalms and Proverbs 36 6.3 Condemnation by the Prophets ...... 36 6.3.1 Obedience to God ...... 37 6.3.1.1 Jeremiah ...... 37 6.3.1.2 Isaiah ...... 38 6.3.1.3 Hosea ...... 38 6.3.1.4 Amos ...... 39 6.3.1.5 Micah ...... 39 6.3.2 Mutilation of the Body ...... 39 6.3.3 Customs of Mourning ...... 40 6.3.4 Places of Sacrifice ...... 41 6.4 Concluding Remarks ...... 42

7 CONCLUSIONS ...... 43 7.1 Sociological Models ...... 43 7.2 The Problem of Theories ...... 43 7.3 Ancillary Disciplines ...... 45 7.4 Points of Contact between the Israelites and Canaanites ...... 46 7.4.1 The Canaanites ...... 46 7.4.2 Jezebel ...... 47 7.4.3 Sacrifice and its Condemnation ...... 48 7.4.4 Causes of Influence ...... 49 7.5 Concluding Remarks ...... 50

LIST OF WORKS CONSULTED ...... 52

(vii) I NTRODUC TI ON

The purpose of this mini-dissertation is to investigate the way in which the Canaanite religion had a detrimental influence on the Israelite religion and to research one of the areas in which this is particularly noticeable i.e. sacrifice.

My interest in this topic was sparked by a chance remark (which did in fact refer to an accepted mode of thought) that the Bible follows an evolutionary pattern of religious development reaching its climax in the New Testament. Thus the religion of Israel was the development of an earlier and therefore more primitive (i.e. less sophisticated) religion. The outcome of this idea seemed to me to challenge the Christian claims that the Bible is God's revelation of Himself to man, and that the religion practised by the Israelites (God's chosen people) was not simply the culmination of man's evolving religious ideas about his world. Rather, it was a God-given religion which would confirm God's plan of salvation for sinful people and His operation in the history of the world to bring about the fulfillment of that plan. When considering the pagan religions that were condemned by the Bible itself, it seemed to me that the one termed "Canaanite" was the most frequently used. This led me to believe that it would be relevant to investigate the term "Canaanite' and how it had negatively affected the Israelite religion. The expression 'detrimental influence' in the title of this mini- dissertation was chosen because the outright and constant criticism of this pagan religion seemed to indicate that there had been no 'good' influence on the religion of Israel. It also seemed to me that there could only be good or bad influence if there was a parallel idea, teaching or practice that could be influenced and ultimately compared, hence the choice of the topic of sacrifice.

My hypothesis is that, when Israel took the land of Canaan by force, the resultant clash of the two completely different

Page 1 cultures materially affected the Israelite religion which the Bible reflects as 'detrimental' . In this study I shall concentrate on some aspects of sacrifice in the Canaanite cult which had a detrimental influence on the Israelite.

My own standpoint is that the Bible can be taken to be the inspired Word of God as revealed to various writers and editors and as such is important for man's growth and development in his relationship with God. It is also unique in its claim to be God's revelation of Himself and is therefore authoritative for man. I believe that one's faith is an integral part of all aspects of one's life including one's academic activities. One cannot be totally objective at all times as faith will have an influence on the way one views the world. The study of the Bible is important firstly, for the increase of one's faith and, secondly, in order to know what God has revealed both of Himself to man, and as a means for his salvation. So, for me, the very first level of study, whether for private or academic purposes, is Scripture itself and I maintain (as the Reformers did) that Scripture should be interpreted with Scripture. Thus the approach adopted here is one of comparing aspects of the two religions from a historical -grammatical point of view as defined by Scheffler (1991:52-65 - see 1.1) and the interpretation will be theological so that, wherever possible, Scripture will be interpreted with Scripture.

It is equally important to know the history, not only of the Israelites as found in the Old Testament, but also the nations which had an impact on the them e.g. the Egyptians, Babylonians, Chaldeans, Mesopotamians and others. The study of the geography of the Middle East is important to enrich one's understanding of the Word by being able to locate places and geographic features. A knowledge of both Hebrew and Greek is vital to get a 'feel' for the finer nuances of the languages which enhance one's understanding of the Bible. It is beneficial to know the social

Page 2 and cultural settings and the environments of Israel and the various nations with which she came in contact.

My field of study will be selected portions of the Old Testament covering various times in the history of Israel. The passage from Leviticus was chosen because I believe that, irrespective of its final editing, it spells out quite clearly the forms of sacrifice required by God. The choice of 1 Kings 18, relating the clash between Jezebel (representing Baal) and Elijah (representing God) , was made as it is the most vivid example of the difference in sacrifice between the two groups. In considering the area of condemnation of the Canaanites, the most fertile (though not exclusive) field is found in the prophets which also represent a later period of history.

I believe the study I have done to be significant not only for showing how the Canaanites adversely affected the Israelites in respect of sacrifice but also as a warning to present day Christians to be aware of the possibility of being detrimentally influenced by apparently innocuous pastimes such as astrology and religious experiences such as transcendental meditation.

Research directly related to this particular topic is often limited to small parts of larger works. However, four authors has been of specific assistance. De Vaux contained a detailed and succint study of sacrifice in the Israelite society, and Craigie and Kapeirud both supplied useful material on the links between Ugarit/Ras Shamra and the Old Testament. Gottwald advanced a sociological methodology which provided a challenge to my approach.

The point of departure will be to view briefly some of the schools of thought as well as some models that have had an

Page 3 influence on Biblical Theology to show that mine is not the only approach but is simply one of many, each having several advantages as well as drawbacks.

The method adopted will be to investigate

- the history, social customs and religious practices of the Canaanites, - the forms of sacrifice in both the Israelite and Canaanite cults, - Jezebel as a representative of the Canaanite cult, - the challenge of Yahweh to Baal as displayed by Elijah and Jezebel, - the condemnation of the Canaanites by prophets and others and finally to summarize my findings.

Page 4 CHAPTER 1 - APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF THE BIBLE

This mini-dissertation will begin with a brief overview of the history of the study of the Bible up to the present. My reasons for doing so are to show that new approaches, methods and models do not necessarily replace the old but can be used to extend and enrich the older ones. The views, hypotheses and ideas of various authors will be quoted, with limited comment, in an attempt to view each one dispassionately and to show that they are not mutually exclusive but can be integrated and so used more effectively.

The study of the Bible was, until about 200 years ago, seen as the domain of the Christian Church for teaching doctrine, in worship and for guidance in righteous living.

In the last 200 years a new field of study, Biblical Studies, has developed, and a variety of approaches has been made to it. Burden (1993:229) sees these approaches as forming three waves' i.e. 'the historical-critical (the first wave)', 'the text- immanent (the second wave) ' and the social science (the third wave) '.

1.1. The Historical-Critical Approach

Gottwald defines this approach as follows (1985:10) : 'this method tries to establish the actual origins of the text and to evaluate the probability that events it relates happened in the way described'. Deist (1991:42) sees the aim of this approach as being 'to expound the biblical text in terms of its own historical background - hence the term "historical"'. In a diagram of the development of this approach, Scheffler (1991:63) shows that it originated after the Enlightenment, together with the 'historical-literal approach' but rooted in the earlier 'historical-grammatical'. He states all three of these

Page 5 approaches are still used by modern exegetes in their attempt to understand the Bible'. Thus my approach, although pre- Enlightenment, is not outdated.

1.2. The Text-Immanent Approach

Deist (1984:171) sees this as the study which is 'confined to the text of a work of literature and paying no attention to the origin, history or author of that text.' Loader (1991:33) uses the term 'immanent' (inherent) to refer to that which 'we consider only that which is given in or intrinsic to the text'. Clements sees this as a natural successor to the Historical- Critical approach in which 'textual, grammatical, literary' disciplines 'become important aids to establishing the proper significance of biblical ideas' (1978:5-6). Although this method does not allow for the interpretation of Scripture with Scripture, Loader finds that it could form the basis for other methods and 'yield data that may be useful for historical criticism' (:41)

1.3. The Social Science Approach

Burden (1993:205) claims that 'the value of the social sciences for biblical interpretation is that they can provide some important tools for both the linguistic and the historical dimensions of biblical scholarship.' This approach is one of the most modern and lays great stress on the need for an interdisciplinary approach to research. It makes use of many of the models and tools taken from sociology and anthropology and can be used meaningfully in conjunction with the two previous approaches to explain and enrich Biblical knowledge.

1.3.1. Models

Theological studies have, in recent times, been bombarded by various sociological and anthropological models to explain and interpret the text. In order to fully understand the impact of

Page 6 these models one has to look briefly at their development. The late 19th century and the early 20th century saw the rise of three great sociologists, Durkheim, Marx and Weber. Each viewed and sought to explain society in terms of a particular model.

1.3.1.1. The Structural Functional Model

Durkheim observed certain patterns and purposes which appeared to function within the society and thus formed a cohesive whole. This cohesive whole he described in two ways. The first was as 'mechanical solidarity' in which similarity is the distinguishing feature. The second way was as 'organic solidarity' in which differentiation is the cohesive factor (Burden 1993:207). His model came to be known as the "structural functional model." Malina (1982:234) sees this as a "still picture" in which "society is a relatively persistent, stable, well-integrated structure of elements" which is best characterised by "consensus"

1.3.1.2. The Conflict Model

On the other hand, Marx and Weber saw society as being composed of various structures which were in conflict, each trying to maintain dominance. Marx observed, in the economic system of Capitalism, two distinct classes, the bourgeoisie (the haves) and the proletariat (the have-nots) , and the conflict between the two classes. Weber saw the conflict in society as being between the economic, social and political factors rather than between two economic classes (Burden 1993:208). Thus Marx and Weber propounded the first of the "conflict models" likened by Malina (1982:234) to "slow motion films", the overriding feature of which is change.

1.3.1.3. The Symbolic Interactionist Model

Malina (1982:233-234) also makes use of a third model in which the society comprises three groups of symbols, i.e. persons,

Page 7 things and events, which have symbolic meaning within thac society. The complex interaction of the individual or group within these symbols and their interpretation creates a constantly moving but inherently stable community.

Malina (:236-242) applies these three models to biblical interpretation and concludes that there is no ultimate model but, to be successful in transporting the meaning of the Bible from the ancient world to today, one must make use of a combination of models from the social sciences. He does, however, suggest that some models e.g. psychological (it is culture specific) and sociology of religion (it is present-day specific) , are not as acceptable or relevant as others e.g. anthropology and sociology.

The influence of Weber and Durkheim can be seen in the work of modern sociologists. Weber's influence in the work of Alt can be seen in his adoption of the idea of the city state being similar to the Greek polis and then applying this idea to his study of the cities of Jerusalem (David's city) and Samaria (Omri's city) as dynastic cities (Mayes 1989:46-47)

Weber's influence can also be seen in the work of Noth whose ideas on Israel as a covenant community are a development of Weber's description of Israel as an 'oath' community (Mayes :47)

1.3.1.4. Gottwald's Sociological Model

The work of N K Gottwald, according to Mayes (1989:49), shows little or no evidence of the conflict theory but rather reflects the structural-functional approach of Durkheim. Certainly, his mammoth work The tribes of Yahweh: a sociology of the religion of Israel has made a major contribution to the understanding of Israel from a sociological point of view. However, this approach is not without its flaws. Long (1982:253-254) finds the following problems and flaws with Gottwald's sociological method:

- He sees Israel's religion as merely a part of its society and not as its raison d'etre. His thesis of social change 'requires a villain, the Canaanite urban oppressor' the lack of which he suggests could be 'partly due to the absence of data for Canaan'

The assimilation of an alien religious convert into Israelite society could not be done prior to the period of the second temple (an idea he attributes to Jacob Milgrom)

He also attributes the Deuteronomic attack on Canaan as a manifestation of the fear of assimilation through marriage' and suggests that the 'peasants' revolt' model be amended.

I agree with Long in the flaws he finds in Gottwald's method. Particularly relevant to my viewpoint and this study is the repositioning of Israel's religion by Gottwald from its prime to an ancilliary position. Also his ideas of Israel's appearance in Canaan as being the result of a Canaanite 'peasants' revolt' rather than the traditional, historical teaching of a Conquest seems to be an example of rejection of previous methods.

Clements (1978:3) is correct when he sees a potential problem in a method such as Gottwald's for Old Testament study in that the abstraction of facts from their context could lead to the development of strange ideas and theories. He states 'When we abstract the religious ideas from their context we set out on a road full of abstractions. By the time we have formed these ideas into a system we are building a great house of abstractions by the roadside.'

Another problem is a complete change in thought patterns. Gottwald admits as much in his defence of the acceptance and use of his sociological model. 'I realize that what I am calling for is an enormous methodological shift for biblical scholars. It is not easy to shift from thinking of cultural and social

Page 9 realities deriving from beliefs about God to thinking of cultural and social realities as the matrices for spawning correlative beliefs about God' (1979:912) . I concur with Long when he places it in a different perspective and says (1982:255) 'Gottwald clearly gives up traditional theological procedure'

Gottwald has also criticized the traditional biblical approach and states (1979:667) that the good intentions of biblical theology were thwarted at every turn by its failure to treat the religion of Israel as a social phenomenon' . Childs has some reservations which he states in global terms whe he says 'I remain highly critical of any theological position in which ecclesiology take precedence over christology' (1992:23). I agree with Childs' reservations and would apply them specifically to Gottwald's need to move away from the traditional approach.

Within the framework of the approaches discussed above, I find myself best situated in the more traditional historical- grammatical approach. Whilst I accept that the most modern sociological approach does have much to recommend it, I cannot bring myself to make the 'methodological shift' required by Gottwald or to regard the religion of Israel as a purely social phenomenon (Gottwald 1979:912, 667). Thus whilst this study covers many social customs and aspects of life in the two cultures, Israelite and Canaanite, discussion will be governed by the traditional, historical-grammatical approach.

In the next chapter I shall discuss the Canaanite culture since it is essential to my hypothesis.

Page 10 CHAPTER 2 -CANAAN AND THE CANAANITES

Before one can discuss the detrimental effect of the Canaaflite religion on the Israelite, it would be wise to consider what is meant by the term 'Canaanite' . This chapter will review

- various definitions of Canaan, - its religion and religious practices, - social life and customs as a background to, and later comparison with, biblical condemnation in the books of the prophets.

2.1 Definition of terms

No discussion can begin without a clear statement of what is understood by the terms 'Canaan' and 'Canaanite' . The terms are widely used in Scripture (Gen 10:15, 18; Ex 33:2; Lev 25:38; J0S 5:1; Jdg 4:2; Ps 105:11) and the words 'Canaan' and 'Canaanite' are used as general terms without there being any clear definition as to what they mean. And when one looks at the literature, it is often found that the terms are used equally without clarity of meaning. The problem of defining 'Canaan' and 'Canaanite' leads through a maze of differentiated usage.

From the Bible (Lev 14:34; Jdg 4:2) the word 'Canaan' seems to apply to a geographical region, the borders of which are fluid and unspecified. The term 'Canaanite' appears to apply to a people who are differentiated from a variety of other groups e.g. Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadxnonites, Hittites, Perizzites, RephaiteS, Arnorites, Hivites, Girgashites and Jebusites (Gen 15:19-21; J0S 24:11), yet without a specific ethnic identity. At times it even appears that Canaanites are part of one group e.g. the Amorites, yet, at the same time, are separate from it (Jos 24:11, 15,18).

Page 11 Coogan (1993:44) sees the reason for this lack of clear and definitive identity as 'the Egyptian loss of control of western Asia' which caused the emergence of 'smaller national entities' Besides Israel, these included 'I're, Aram, Ammon, Moab and Edom each developing 'its own indigenous culture within the Canaanite matrix'

2.1.1. Ugaritic and Canaanite

The discovery and deciphering of the texts from the Ugaritic civilisation at Ras Shamra offered a superficial solution in that anything Ugaritic was equated with anything Canaanite. Thus, we find it applied to the religion by Oldenburg (1969:2) in which he sees that 'The Ugaritic pantheon, as revealed by the myths, was composed of gods characteristic of ancient Canaan, therefore we must classify Ugaritic religion as Canaanite' . In a footnote he explains the use of 'Canaariite' in a 'cultural-religious sense' in which it 'designates the native culture and religion characteristic of the original West Semitic inhabitants of Palestine and the Phoenician Coast' . In the same footnote he also refers to a 'linguistic sense' in which 'Canaanite designates a group of languages, such as Hebrew and Phoenician, within the North-West Semitic branch of languages sharing certain linguistic characteristics.' Jobling (1975:359-375) agrees with this in part but has shown that there are marked differences between the two languages and concludes (:990) that 'the use of the term "Canaanite" as of a linguistic phenomena (sic) needs to be distinguished from the usage which applies the term "Canaanite" to culture or religion'

Jobling (:28-29) regards the lack of suitable definition and subsequent confusion arising 'from the failure to distinguish the usage of this term among the peoples of the Ancient Near East, particularly Syria-Palestine and Egypt, and the modern scholarly usage'

Page 12 In a detailed and well-argued chapter, Jobling (:54-93) is able to show from an analysis of the correspondence between Egypt and Ugarit that 'To Ugarit Canaan was the southern Egyptian topographical division of her Western Asiatic Empire. The Ugaritians did not regard themselves Canaanites according to these terms'. He also sees this as (:92) an internationally recognised convention' in which (:93) 'Canaan appears to be the Southern and most clearly controlled section of the Egyptian Empire in Western Asia'.

The solution to the problem is not only religious and geographic, but also cultural as indicated above by Gldenburg. Coogan (1993:45) cites biblical instances where 'the word "Canaanites" is roughly synonymous with merchant and trader' - Prov 31:24, Is 23:8, Ez 17:4. And Jobling is also able to show (1975:213-215) from two tablets found at Alalakh that any person could be described as 'Canaanite' . The first text refers to a loan contract in which the borrower is described as 'Canaanite' and the second is a census list in which is found the designation 'Canaanite' . These two texts also go a long way to showing that not only did the Ugaritians not regard themselves as 'Canaanite' but neither did their neighbours. But from the vantage point of the 20th Century it seems that Ugarit should be seen as part of Canaan even if they did not see themselves as such. Also, the similarities between the Ugaritians and the Canaanites are such that the knowledge gained from the Ugarit discoveries regarding religion can be used to understand the Canaanite form of religion.

2.2. Religion

The second point to be considered is the religion which will impact on the difference between the God/gods of the twc religions.

Page 13 2.2.1 The Pantheon of Cods

The religion of the Canaanites is seen throughout the Old Testament as a threat to the Israelites both before and whilst they were living in the land. Little detail is given in Scripture other than the condemnation of certain practices e.g. sorcery, divination, necromancy and child sacrifice (Dt 18:9-11) Thus it would be well to begin with a summary of what is known of the religion. The texts of the myths and legends from Ugarit add significantly to our knowledge of this religion. It was ancient, featuring a pantheon of gods, the father of which was El. He 'is old and wise' and so represents 'preservation and balance' and is usually depicted as 'a "bull" with horns and a thick white beard' (Caquot 1980:12).

Of the other gods, the best known and most active was Baal, the son of Dagan (Hebrew = Dagon) the god of vegetation. As Baal- Hadad, he was the god of the storm and the rains which were needed to replenish the vegetation, so he was seen as the god of fertility and as such had to be worshipped and/or appeased (Aibright 1968:108) . He is contrasted with El by being 'young and strong', representative of 'action and progress', and is depicted as 'a 'bull-calf" with thin horns and a narrow beard' (Caquot 1980:12). He appears to be the god of conflict and Oldenburg (1969:69) sees him as 'the young fighter' who fights and overcomes the pantheon including El and thereby relegates El to the shadows (disputed by Jobling 1975:773) . His most lasting conflict is with Mot, the god of death, which is celebrated annually as Baal triumphs over death as seen in the growth of the vegetation (Albright 1968:109-111) . According to Caquot (1980:13) he is 'powerful and benevolent to man in his action of fertilizing flocks and herds'

Baal is surrounded and supported by many goddesses, of which two are of importance. Anat (Anath), his consort/sister, is the goddess of war, love and fertility. She is 'impetuous', 'delights in massacres' and 'is an enthusiastic huntress and

Page 14 extremely warlike' (Caquot 1980:14). Asherah (Athirath) is the sea goddess, the worship of whom led to lascivious practices and sacred prostitution. Caquot (1980:14) describes her as 'ambitious and intriguing' and 'open to corruption' . Gray (1965a:175) maintains that 'her fertility functions at Ugarit were apparently usurped by Anat' even though 'she is known from the Old Testament as the fertility goddess.' Gray (1965b:124) reveals that 'Both goddesses, usually nude and with sexual organs emphasized, were represented on moulded clay plaques, which are an archaeological commonplace in Canaan' and 'were probably amulets to promote childbirth'

2.2.2 Forms of Worship

Worship of these gods took the form of sexual activity performed by a group of 'devotees', for as Craigie (1983:35) points out 'the sexual act in the context of such worship was intended to secure the fertility of the gods, and hence of the land.' An interesting observation is made by Clements (1978:59) : 'the avoidance of any suggestion that Yahweh possessed female sexuality must certainly owe a great deal to the need for shunning any association with the sexual elements of the cults of Canaan in which the female element, through the goddesses Anat and Astarte, was very prominent. The sexual practices of the cultus associated with these conceptions were strongly abhorrent to the Israelites as a prominent stream of Old Testament polemic shows'. Kapelrud (1965:52) states it more simply when he says that 'Yahweh, unlike Baal, never had a divine consort' primarily because goddesses were 'alien and abominable'

Sacrifices of animals and birds were also made to these gods. Although child sacrifice was condemned by Scripture (Dt 18:10) it would appear to have been found amongst other nations e.g. Phoenicians, Moabites and Aramaens. Rushdoony (1973:33) sees that 'the "higher sacrifices of paganism and especially Baal worship, were sacrifices of humanity, i.e. self-mutilations'

Page 15 which were offered specifically to Moloch. This latter name has not been attested in the Ugaritic literature, and so Jobling (1975:743) is able to claim that 'human sacrifice does not appear to be equally substantiable at Ugarit.' The only text, 19.15, is liturgical and so fragmentary that any evidence is inconclusive. Caquot concurs as he finds only one tablet on which mention is made of child sacrifice (1980:18) . Although human sacrifice may not have been a feature of Ugaritic religion, it was obviously known to the inhabitants of Tyre. Albright (1968:204-205) cites Greek and Roman authors referring to 'a practice which had been in disuse for centuries, namely, revival of the institution of human sacrifice' when Alexander besieged the city of T're. He then states it was still being practised in Phoenicia when the early Punic colonies in the western Mediterranean were founded (tenth to eighth centuries B.C.)'. Harden (1963:95) confirms this when he refers to the excavation of the precinct of Tanit in Carthage : 'here for the first time sufficient evidence accumulated to show conclusively that the ancient stories of Phoenician and Canaanite infant sacrifice to "Moloch" were only too true, ' and 'that other peoples' detestation of the Phoenicians for such a practice was founded on fact'. It was also known amongst other Canaanite societies, for Aibright (1968:132) is able to confirm that 'human sacrifice lasted much longer among the Canaanites and their congeners than in either Egypt or Mesopotamia.'

This discussion of the Canaanite religion will be used later to show how different the Canaanite and Israelite religions were and how the polytheistic beliefs and practices of the Canaanites affected the monotheistic beliefs of the Israelites.

2.3 Social Life

It is necessary to consider aspects of the Canaanite society to show how these were present in the court of Israel at the time of Elijah.

Page 16 The society as a whole was governed by a dynastic king who according to Gray (1965a:219) held a 'unique sacral status, the son of former rulers and the father of rulers to come' . He also held the position of priest whose function was 'to approach the deity on behalf of the community.' 'Thus the king represents the people before the deity as their priest in sacrifices and he mediates to them the divine influence' (Gray 1965a:210) However, it later became obvious (in Late Bronze Age) that the role of king as priest had changed and the religious life of the community was governed by a high priest although the king still retained part of his priestly function (Gray 1965a:211-212)

Gray (1965b:104-118) covers the major aspects of Canaanite society including some aspects of family life. Family life was important although the population of Ugarit was listed by occupation rather than by family. Marriage was at the desire of the man who treated the 'capture' of a bride as a military operation. The payment of a bride price was common although this was usually given to the bride as a dowry by her father (Gray 1965a:251) . At the end of the marriage, by divorce or the death of the husband, the bride price-cum-dowry remained the property of the woman. Polygamy was acceptable but there appeared to be various descriptions of wives. In some cases women were 'legitimate' wives who had the position and privilege of the modern wife. In other cases, women were labelled 'concubines' whose sole role was to provide the husband with extra children.

This discussion of Canaan, its religion and social life is essential if one is to understand Jezebel's background in relation to her confrontation with Elijah. It is also important to understand exactly which practices were condemned by the prophets and how these could be seen to have been a good or bad influence on Israel.

Page 17 The aspect of sacrifice will be dealt in the next chapter which will include the various forms of sacrifice as well as a comparison of the sacrificial practices of the Israelites and the Canaanites.

Page 18 CHAPTER 3 -SACRIFICE

The idea of sacrifice is found in most religions, whether they are described as primitive or more highly developed. This section will delineate aspects of both the Old Testament and Canaanite forms of sacrifice and then compare the different rites pertaining to both. Henninger (1987:544) uses van Baal's definition of sacrifice : an offering accompanied by the ritual killing of the object of the offering' but elaborates it by stating that 'an essential element . . . is that the recipient of the gift be a supernatural being'

3.1. The Old Testament Ideal

The use of the term 'ideal' is to indicate what the Bible regarded as the standard or model form of sacrifice, since man so often twisted or corrupted it to suit his own purposes. It is not used to suggest that it is unique, as similar forms were found in the rites of the surrounding nations.

The first mention of sacrifice in the Old Testament is found in Gen 4:3-5 in which Cain and Abel offered sacrifices to the Lord. These could be described as offerings of thanksgiving to the Lord and although no reason is given for the rejection of Cain's offering, it would appear that his motivation was defective. Another offering of thanksgiving to the Lord was made by Noah and his family when they were safely delivered off the ark (Gen 8:20) . Thus it appears that right from the earliest times people were aware of the need to offer sacrifice to God. Rushdoony (1973 :79) puts sacrifice into Biblical perspective when he states 'Biblical sacrifice requires a doctrine of human sacrifice while rejecting sinful man as the sacrifice. / This human sacrifice demands the total devotion of the person to God both in consecration and dedication. Animals without defect were offered as representative of the perfect sacrifice which sinful man could not be.

Page 19 The formalisation of what sacrifices were to be offered and under what circumstances is found in Lev 1-7. The offerings can be summarised as follows

3.1.1 Burnt Offering - a defect-free ox, sheep, goat or male bird wholly consumed on the altar - it was to be offered in worship to God, or in acknowledgement of unintentional sin.

3.1.2 Grain Offering - a portion of roasted grain, flour, incense, olive oil or a cake baked without yeast or honey - only part of the offering was burnt the rest belonged to the priest - it was offered in recognition of God's goodness or as an act of thanksgiving and worship.

3.1.3 Fellowship Offering - also known as a peace offering - any ox, sheep or goat without defect - all the fat had to be burnt and no blood was to be eaten - it could be accompanied by bread, cakes or wafers - those parts which were not burnt were to be eaten by the priest - it was for thanksgiving, in fulfilment of a vow or as a freewill offering. 3.1.4 Sin Offering - a variety of animals ranging from a young bull for the priest and the congregation to a bird for the poor and flour for the very poor - the fat was burned on the altar and the rest of the animal was taken outside the camp and burnt on the ash heap - it was the compulsory offering for the confession and forgiveness of sins and cleansing from defilement. 3.1.5 Guilt Offering - a ram without defect - all the fat had to be burned and the meat could be eaten by the priest or his family - it was the compulsory offering for sin for which restitution of 20% (one-fifth) was required and had to be made.

The purpose of the sacrifices was to focus man's attention on God either for praise or forgiveness. Man was obliged to see the severity of his sin from God's perspective and then to atone for the wrongdoing, not by offering his sinful self, but rather a substitute without blemish. He is also encouraged to express his devotion to God and his fellow man in the form of sacrifice. It is interesting to note that the various forms of sacrifice were given by God and it was not left to man to decide what he thought was appropriate. Rushdoony (1973:80-81) points out that no one was exempt from offering sacrifice because of ignorance since provision was made for unintentional sin. He also

Page 20 highlights the principle that 'the greater the responsibility, the greater the culpbiiiy, the greater the sin' and so the greater the sacrifice.

3.2 Canaanite Parallels

Archaeological excavations at Ras Shamra, Megiddo, Lachish, Hazor and Shechem have produced animal bones which revealed various forms of sacrifice including animals and birds.

Gray (1965b:66-77) describes in detail the holy places within Canaanite cities which were used for the offering of sacrifices. Mention is made of the burning of incense and of the temple apartments in which part of the sacrifice could be shared by the worshippers. Gray also details (1965b:125) various forms of sacrifice which include:

3.2.1 offerings of sheep and cattle of various sizes and ages devoted to a god by being burnt in toto.

3.2.2 offerings of sheep and cattle of various sizes and ages, parts of which e.g. vital organs and fat, were burnt as an offering to a god and the rest eaten by the worshippers. 3.2.3 vows were made and paid although there appears to be no reference to human sacrifice as recorded in Jdg 11:30 in relation to Jephthah's daughter. 3.2.4 offerings of wine, silver and gold were also made.

Sacrifice to the Canaanite gods was primarily to worship, appease or placate one or more of the gods at a specific time e.g. at the beginning of the rainy season. Caquot (1980:17) points to a monthly calendar of feasts, each set for a particular day, beginning with the new moon. There appears to have been a ritual form of sacrifice which was laid down but people also did what they thought was necessary to attract the god's attention as in 1 Kgs 18:28. De Vaux considers two Punic price-lists in an effort to find details of Canaanite sacrificial rituals but is led to conclude they do not, however, give a description of the rites, nor do they tell us the motives for which the various

Page 21 sacrifices are offered' (1961:439). Further evidence of this comes from the statement by Aibright (1968:168) that 'we have almost no description of ritual n the entire Ugaritic literature' which 'consists chiefly of lists of gods and offerings'

3.3 Comparison of Rites

The comparison of sacrifice in Canaan and Israel leads one to accept that there are indeed many similarities. In fact, de Vaux states that if one ignores the element of child sacrifice, then 'Canaanite sacrifices do not seem to be materially different from those which were offered to Yahweh' (1961:438) . Clements (1978:158) warns that whenever comparisons are done 'everywhere parallels are noted, but differences ignored' by scholars. Thus one needs to identify the similarities but also to isolate and explain the differences and the effects they had.

Tracing the religious differences may seem to be a difficult task for present day scholars, but Clements sees a similar problem for the Israelites. The similarity between the sanctuaries, rites, symbolism and artefacts of the Canaanites and the Israelites were the cause of much confusion; thus 'For many worshippers it must have been very difficult at times to detect obvious physical signs of the change of religious occupation' (1978:160) . But there was obvious evidence of discontinuity and change. This is because the religion was monotheistic, 'devoted to Yahweh' and that 'the Israelite tradition was blatantly and almost self- consciously, aware of its separate identity' . This meant that 'Myths were re-interpreted, ideas were subtly adapted and modified, new concepts added and older, cruder, ideas pruned away. Always the old tradition was being reminted and refashioned so that it became more truly expressive of the Israelite tradition' (1978:160)

Page 22 3.3.1 System of Sacrifice

Change was particularly noticeable in the rites of sacrifice, most of which 'were already extant in Canaan before the rise of Israel' but when adopted 'established them(selves) in a new context of tradition and religious life which immediately began to change and modify the way in which they were understood and used' (Clements, 1978:161) . Thus 'the meaning and significance of sacrifice which has left a profound legacy of ideas and spirituality long after the original rituals have ceased to be practised' (1978:161). Rushdoony (1973:78-79) rejects the idea that Israel simply adopted pagan ideas of sacrifice but accepts rather that sacrifice is central to Biblical law. Caquot (1980:17), whilst seeing similarities between the two forms of sacrifice, emphasises that 'we have no evidence that the Ugaritic rites had the same function as the parallel biblical rites.' De Vaux concurs for he states, regarding a comparison of rites, 'we can conclude only that the Canaanite system of sacrifice was similar to the Israelite system: they offered at least holocausts and communion-sacrifices, vegetable produce and perfumes, but the two systems developed independently of each other, and their terminology was not altogether the same' (1961:439)

3.3.2 Child Sacrifice

Clements (1978:165-170) points to the worship of other gods, which is often termed 'idolatry', as the major polemic of the Old Testament. The idolatry is linked to the unethical and immoral practices of the non-Yahwst religions. One of the areas in which this is evident is in child sacrifice. It was condemned by a variety of Scriptural references (Lev 18:21; 20:2-5; Dt 18:10; 1 Kgs 11:5-6, Jer 32:35) yet Gray (1965b:60-61) cites the discovery of the skeletons of two new-born infants under the gate of Tell el-Far'a as evidence of the practice of child sacrifice. He sees the reference in 1 Kgs 16:34 (the fulfilment of the curse of Jos 6:26) as being literally fulfilled. This is quite

Page 23 possible as the rebuilding of the wall of Jericho was carried out during the reign of Ahab, a period of idolatry in which child sacrifice was possible. On the other hand, de Vaux regards these 'so-called 'foundation-sacrifices'' which were reported by archaeologists, not as evidence of child sacrifice but rather 'these skeletons merely show that the normal practice was to bury children who died in infancy under the ground in the house' (1961:442)

Carroll (1986:222) points out that the context of the prohibition against child sacrifice is that of sexual offences and so the practice 'may indicate the sexual nature of some of the forms and possibly the dedication of children to prostitution' and consequently 'that the Molech cult involved the sacrifice of newborn children which were the result of cultic prostitution'

Caquot (1980:18) refers to a tablet excavated in Ugarit in 1961 which contained 'a single, exceptional rite' in which 'the poet invites the people of Ugarit to raise their eyes up to Baal and to dedicate their first-born to him, and to make over their booty to him and to offer him banquets (in other words, sacrifices) This seems to have been a religious practice in which a child was sacrificed - in principle a royal child - to appease the anger of that god that was manifested in the danger threatening the city' . It would appear then, that, although Scripture condemned child sacrifice in the Canaanites and others, the records at Ugarit indicate that it was a rare occurrence in that city. However, it seems that child (or human) sacrifice had been practised more widely in othr places and areas because Henninger (1987:547) states 'that human sacrifices were replaced . is attested by votive inscriptions'.

De Vaux counteracts the argument by some critics that Ex 22:28-29 refers to child sacrifice, since it requires the offering of the first-born of sons and animals, by stating that 'all the first- born belong to Yahweh, but men are redeemed and beasts are sacrificed' (1961:444)

Page 24 Among other similarities between Canaanite and Israelite cults, the sacrifical ritual stands out as being almost identical' so says Cornfeld (1964:190). But there are major differences which seem to be in motivation and destination. Dc Vaux expresses it well when he says man's desire to receive something from God may become the predominant motive for sacrifice' (1961:448) . This seems to me to be the motivation for Canaanite sacrifice, they sought to "get' something e.g. recognition, rain, fertility, by offering sacrifice. In contrast, the people of Israel were required by God to "give" something rather than to receive it. Not that God had need of a gift but Israel's loyalty and devotion were to be seen in giving not receiving.

The second difference is in destination. The purpose of sacrifice for the Israelites was religious i.e. it brought about a communion between God and man. De Vaux states that it is essential that the external action should express the true inward feelings of man, and that it should be favourably received by God' (1961:451) . The Israelites were to worship the One True God, who was in a class all of His own, and definitely incapable of the petty behaviour. The Canaanites had what de Vaux calls a cruder concept of divinity (1961:450) for they worshipped gods which they had created and which were thought to be vindictive and capable of being bribed. Thus, whatever similarities may be found in the forms of sacrifice the Israelites shared with the Canaanites, the major and significant differences are seen in motivation and destination.

Page 25 CHAPTER 4 - JEZEBEL

Any discussion of the detrimental effects of the Canaanite sacrificial ritual on the Israelites must take account of the Scriptural record of the challenge of Elijah against the prophets of Baal as recorded in 1 Kings 18:16-46. One of the central characters in the overall account of Ahab's reign is his wife Jezebel who brought with her, when she married, a "dowry" of religious affiliation to Baal. Thus, to put the story into perspective, it is essential to consider her background and how it would affect court, social and religious life.

4.1 Personal Details

Most of the biographical details of Jezebel are found in the first book of Kings. In 1 Kgs 16:31-33, 18:17-40, 21:1-25 and 2 Kgs 9:30-37 we find a composite picture of a remarkable woman.

She was the daughter of Ethbaal, the king of Tyre and Sidon, who was also high priest of Baal before being made king on the death of Hiram. Her marriage to Ahab was arranged by Omri to endorse a political alliance between the Northern Kingdom (Israel) and Syria against Damascus. As Ethbaal's daughter, Jezebel was possibly a Eaal priestess before her marriage (a suggestion made by Erenner and quoted by Emmerson 1989:374) . Certainly her commitment to her native religion was almost fanatical as seen by the building of a temple to Eaal in Samaria (1 Kgs 16:32) and her attempted annihilation of the Lord's prophets (1 Kgs 18:4, 13). Her character is best revealed in 1 Kgs 21 in her dealings with Naboth; she is strong and aggressive (v 7), devious (v 8), authoritative (vv 8-9) and domineering (vv 15 & 25) . Spurgeon (1962:779) describes her as 'that strong-minded, proud, Sidonian Queen' who 'twisted poor Ahab round her fingers just as she pleased.

Page 26 4.2 Geographic Situation

The area in which Tyre and Sidon is found is often referred to as 'Phoenicia' and a note of caution is sounded by Jobling (1975:974ff) in using the term 'Phoenicia'. He argues that the terms 'Phoenicia' and 'Phoenician' are Greek in origin and apply to an area south of Ugarit. So the question needs to be asked if Ugarit should be regarded as a Phoenician city. Since the Greek civilisation is much later, the terminology cannot be used but the area is nevertheless known. The Old Testament refers to the area as Sidon and describes it 'as being part of the land of Canaan.' (Jobling 1975:975). The Ugaritic texts referred to the area as T're and Sidon and regarded it 'as distinctive and separate from a commercial, political and cultic point of view.' (:976). Harden claims that within the area of Phoenicia, 'Tyre was the chief city' with Sidon 'taking a lesser place' (1963:51).

4.3 Religious Practices

Knowledge of the religious practices of Tyre and Sidon is limited, but, because of their proximity to Ugarit, similarities may be found between the two forms of religious practices. Whereas in Ugarit the chief gods were El and Eaal, the chief god of Tyre was Melcarth (Harden:1963:51) although Scripture still refers to him as Eaal. Rushdoony (1973:32) links Melcarth to the Moloch to whom child sacrifice was offered, for he states that 'under the name of Melcarth, king of 'Tyre, Baal was worshipped with human sacrifices at Tyre.' His further reference to self-mutilation as a form of human sacrifice (:33) finds possible confirmation in the slashing of themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until the blood flowed' (1 Kgs 18:28) . Albright (1968:129) claims that the chief god of Sidon was Eshmun which name is not found in Ugarit. However, for this comparative study I will accept Melcarth as the god that Jezebel appears to worship.

Page 27 The temple in Samaria was obviously served by a large number of diviners (the 450 prophets of Baal mentioned in 1 Kgs 18:19) and cult priests (the 400 prophets of Asherah in the same reference) all of whom were supported (financially?) by Jezebel i.e. they ate at her table. As the cult was a fertility cult, it is safe to assume that there would also be a fair number of temple priestesses who would perform any number and manner of sexual practices as part of the sacred rituals. Kapeirud (1965:50) attests to this when he states 'the leading circles, particularly in the Northern Kingdom . . . appear to have protected the system of temple prostitution' . Not only are these temple residents condemned for not acknowledging Yahweh as being the one and only God but also for encouraging immoral sexual practices (see Hos 4:10-14 where Israel is condemned for doing exactly this)

4.4 Family Life

It would appear that Jezebel was not Ahab's only wife since 1 Kgs 20:5 refers to 'your wives' as part of a demand by Ben-Hadad. However, from the power she wielded, that she was probably the 'principal' wife. Emmerson (1989:373-374) states that Jezebel was never given the title of 'queen' but rather 'queen mother' (2 Kgs 10:13) . She concurs with Brenner that Jezebel was extremely powerful and that this is not recognized by the writers of the Old Testament.

Ahab had at least three children although it is uncertain which, if any, were born of Jezebel. Ahaziah the eldest who succeeded Ahab as king of the Northern Kingdom (1 Kgs 22:40), Joram the second son who succeeded Ahaziah after his untimely death after a short reign of two years and leaving no heir (1 Kgs 22:51; 2 Kgs 1:17), and Athaliah, a daughter, who married Jehoram the king of the Southern Kingdom presumably to cement a political alliance.

Jezebel's religious influence can be seen in all three of the known children. Ahaziah was said to have followed the evil,

Page 28 religious ways of his mother and father (1 Kgs 22:52). He also sent to the god of Ekron, Baal-Zebub, to establish whether or not he would live after a fall (2 Kgs 1:2) . Joram destroyed the 'sacred stone of Baal', possibly a sculpture of a male deity, erected in the temple which Ahab had built for Jezebel in Samaria. However, he continued the 'sins of Jeroboam' which according to Wilson (1980:189) were that he 'revived the old northern shrines at Dan and Bethel, where he set up bull images, installed a non-Levitical priesthood, and instituted a new cultic calendar' and 'he claimed priestly status for himself (1 Kgs 12:26-33)'. Athaliah, as the wife of Jehoram, obviously continued all her religious practices in her adopted land because we are told that both her husband and her son 'walked in the ways of the house of Ahab' (2 Kgs 2:18,27). The power she exerted over the royal household can be seen in her desperate measures to retain the position as ruler of Judah for herself (2 Kgs 11:1) and which enabled her to rule for six years.

There can be no doubt that Jezebel's influence was widespread, not only in the Northern Kingdom but also in the Southern Kingdom. Being a powerful, dynamic and charismatic leader, she was able not only to influence Ahab, her children and the priests and prophets of Baal, but also the people of the land who appear to have slipped easily into the worship of Baal.

Page 29 CHAPTER 5 - THE FORM OF SACRIFICE TO YAHWEH AND TO BAAL

This chapter will consider the nature and form of sacrifice in the Canaanite and the Israelite cults and appraise the challenge of Elijah to the prophets of Baal.

5.1. Historical Setting

The only Scripture which compares (indirectly) thesacrifices offered to Yahweh and Baal is found in 1 Kings 18:19-40, and in order to review it, it is necessary to put it in its historical setting.

The story takes place after the split of the Promised Land into two i.e. the Northern Kingdom (Israel) and the Southern Kingdom (Judah) in 930 B.C. The action is set in Samaria (in the Northern Kingdom) during the reign of Ahab c 874-853 B.C. at the end of a predicted three-year drought (1 Kgs 17:1, 18:1) that had severely disadvantaged the land.

After his marriage to Jezebel, Ahab had continued and extended a practice begun by Solomon - he built in Samaria a temple to Baal, the god of his wife (1 Kgs 11:7-8, 16:32) . He also set up pagan altars and asherah poles to the pagan gods (1 Kgs 16:29- 34) which further encouraged and legitimated the worship of Baal. This had caused friction between, on the one hand Jezebel and her prophets of Baal, and on the other hand, Elijah and the prophets of the Lord who faced total annihilation. Robinson (1972:189) sees this clash as 'a deep and bitter conflict between two opposed ideals of religion and human society'

5.2. The Literary Setting

The passage takes the form of narrative literature set in the historical account of the kings of Israel and Judah. Within narrative literature, it can be seen as a 'larger' narrative set in a 'real' historical setting in which the narrator uses the

Page 30 plot to show the dramatic intervention of God. Long (1984:194) prefers to see it as a 'prophetic legend' since it 'shows less interest in artistic development of plot or character than in emphasizing wondrous attributes and deeds of God's intermediary'

The point of view of the narrator shows the supremacy of the God of Israel against the pagan gods. This point of view controls those of the pagans, i.e. to destroy the Lord's people in order to eliminate opposition to their religion, and Elijah, i.e. to demonstrate the power of Yahweh to the people. The climax is the killing of the prophets of Baal in the Kishon Valley (v 40)

5.3. The Social Context

In an interesting note on the conflict between Yahwism and Baalism, Montgomery (1960:308) states that the 'Baal' is to be 'distinguished, as "the Baal", from the many local Baals . . . and is to be identified with the well-known Baal-of-the-Heavens'. Belief in and worship of him was evidence of a move towards monism. So it was 'under Jezebel's fanatical patronage that the Heavenly Baal was brought into conflict with Israel's sole Deity'. Clements (1978:66), in looking at why 'other traditions, or aspects of them, were felt to be hostile and unacceptable to the worship of Yahweh', finds that there is a 'marked hostility felt by Israel to the immorality associated with certain cultic traditions. Most obvious here is the sexual immorality associated with the cult of Baal.'

The conflict between the two groups of prophets could be put in the context of the end of the summer drought (Kapelrud - 1965:65) after which there would be a new year festival celebrating Baal's victory over Mot and his triumphant return to earth from the underworld. The three-year drought in the land (1 Kgs 17:1, 18:1) would have been a great incentive for the prophets of Baal to whip up as much fervour as possible in order to try to persuade Baal to return to the earth and bring the much-needed

Page 31 rain with him. The rain would guarantee the fertility of the land which would further encourage temple prostitution.

The confrontation between the two sets of prophets takes the form of a challenge to the God/gods to accept or reject a sacrifice. Elijah's call to prepare a bull for sacrifice (v 23) indicates that both parties, Israelites and Canaanites, had the ritual of offering a bull for sacrifice to their respective God/gods. De Vaux (1961:438) comments on the similarity of the preparation of the sacrifice for he says 'the point of the story is lost if this was not the normal way of offering sacrifice to Baal'. The sacrifices mentioned in Lev 1-7 (see 3.1.1 above) show that a bull was used for a burnt offering, the fellowship offering and the sin offering. Similarly, the Canaanites offered a bull to be totally destroyed by fire as a sacrifice to their gods (see 3.2.1 above).

The preparation of the two bulls differed. Elijah tells the prophets of Baal to cut the bull into pieces (v 23) which may or may not have been the standard Canaanite procedure (see 3:2 above) . The Israelite bull is prepared in the prescribed manner 'for the evening sacrifice' (v 29) . According to Num 28:8 the evening sacrifice was a burnt offering, which comprised a bull which would have been slaughtered, skinned and cut into pieces before being placed on the altar (Lev 1:5-9) . The onlookers would have recognized the significance of the bull for both the Israelites and the Canaanites.

5.4. The Challenge

The challenge of Elijah to the prophets of Baal was an appeal to test which god really had power over the elements. In one of his many identities, Eaal was regarded by the Canaanites as the god of the storm (Eaal-Hadad - see 2.2.1 above) which included thunder (his voice) , lightning (his fire) and rain (his answer) The Israelites saw Yahweh not simply as the god of the storm but rather the God of the entire creation to whom the thunder,

Page 32 lightning and rain were mere 'servants' . It was in this respect that the Canaanite idea of sacrifice had a detrimental influence over the Israelites since they began to approach the 'servants' as gods instead of acknowledging the One who had control over the 'servants'. The call for the 'fiery' answer from the god is also interesting, since 'fire' from a god of the storm would be lightning and as there had been no rain, and presumably no lightning, for three years (1 Kgs 18:1) the request seemed futile.

Gray (1977:393) highlights that the word 'nebi'im' is used 'to denote the prophets of Yahweh and the devotees of Eaal' However, the devotees of Baal tried by the use of 'imitative magic ... to promote a new effusion of life after rain by the release of the life-essence, their own blood' to prove the superiority of their god. This contrasts sharply with the behaviour of the prophets of the Lord, in this case Elijah, who simply called on their God.

In Lev 19:28 and Dt 14:1, the Israelites had been forbidden to mutilate their bodies in any way since there was no need for Yahweh to be reminded of their needs by self-debasing behaviour. The self-mutilation by the prophets of Baal (referred to in 1 Kgs 18:28) which was 'their custom' was condemned by the above passages. Robinson (1972:210) points out the 'cutting oneself until the blood ran was . . . a common practice in Canaanite worship' in which the release of blood i.e. the life, 'was a symbolic way of inducing Baal to send rain which would restore life to the soil'. Rushdooney (see 4.2 above) regards this as a form of human sacrifice i.e. physical self-sacrifice, to the god Molech. Yahweh was more interested in the dignity of man than his disfigurement and in this respect the two religions were markedly different.

In discussing the passage regarding the challenge of Elijah to the prophets of Baal, some of the major difference between the two cults have been shown by the challenge of Elijah. It is

Page 33 obvious that the nature of the two religions is vastly different. The basis of the Canaanite religion is the attempted manipulation of the gods by rituals of appeasement and placation. By contrast, Yahweh is in control of all areas of his creation - nature and humans and far from been manipulated, operates as He sees fit and when necessary, at the request of man.

There is also a sharp contrast in the behaviour patterns of the adherents of the two religions in that one embarks on ecstatic, dramatic and frenetic, self-mutilating dances, whilst the other performs sacrificial ritual with the minimum amount of fuss.

This comparison of the two forms of sacrifice to the different deities leads naturally into showing how and why the form of sacrifice of the Canaanites was condemned in Scripture. And this is the focus of the next chapter.

Page 34 CHAPTER 6 - CONDE\TATION OF SACRIFICE FOUND IN SCRIPTURE

Throughout the Old Testament, condemnation of various forms of sacrifice is found. This chapter will consider examples of this condemnation primarily from the writings of the prophets, but will also briefly consider references by historians, psalmists and wisdom writers, in an attempt to establish why it was necessary. It will also attempt to show that the Canaanite influence was both invidious and insidious. However, no attempt will be made to place the discussion in chronological date order.

6.1. Condemnation by Historians

In Jdg 6:25-32, Gideon is ordered to smash the altar to Baal and then to rebuild a 'proper kind of altar' (v26) so as to worship 'the Lord, the God of Israel' who 'brought you up out of Egypt' (v8) . Not only was he to destroy the altar but he was to use the asherah pole as firewood for his sacrifice which was required by God (26) . The condemnation here lies in the fact that the altar to Baal was unacceptable as was the asherah pole and that the only acceptable offering was that made in obedience to God's command.

In the account of Saul's attack against the Amalekites and its consequences (1 Sam 15:1-33), Samuel condemns Saul for not obeying the Lord's instruction to 'attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them' (v3) . And in v22, Samuel states categorically that 'to obey is better than sacrifice' . This does not imply that sacrifice is not important but rather that it is acceptable to the Lord only when it is offered in obedience. When sacrifice displaces obedience then the priority of sacrifice is wrong and the action is displeasing to God. Bright (1971:65) claims it is an uncompromising demand for obedience rather than sacrifice' . The fact that Saul claimed that the soldiers planned to offer the best of the livestock to God as a sacrifice did not detract from the need

Page 35 first to obey and then offer sacrifice. Bright (:65) sees this as 'a reminder that the man anointed by Yahweh is of no little consequence and cannot be bullied by his troops'. And the Lord rejected Saul as king (v23) for his blatant disobedience, with a frightening finality (v29)

6.2. Condemnation in the Psalms and Proverbs

The idea that obedience is more acceptable to God than sacrifice is also found in the books of Psalms and Proverbs. In Ps 40:6- 8, David sees obedience to God's law as more important than sacrifice, and Ps 15:2-5 lists the moral and righteousness behaviour which will give access to God rather than the sacrifices offered by the pagan religions of the ancient Near East.

In Ps 51:16, in which David seeks forgiveness for his adultery with Bathsheba, he realizes that the offering of sacrifice cannot achieve the forgiveness he desires if his attitude to God is wrong. The sacrifice God requires is 'a broken spirit and a contrite heart' (v17) and not the blood of animals with an arrogant attitude as displayed by Saul.

In Pr 21:3 and Pr 15:8, the wisdom writers also show that sacrifice to the Lord is not acceptable unless one's behaviour i.e. 'to do what is right and just' and one's attitude i.e. 'the prayer of the upright' is right. The reason why the 'Lord detests the sacrifice of the wicked' is because they are seeking to appease God without an acceptable change of attitude or behaviour. This theme of attitude and behaviour is also found in the writings of the prophets.

6.3. Condemnation by the Prophets

Throughout the writings of the prophets the behaviour and attitude of the people towards God when they offered sacrifice was roundly condemned.

Page 36 6.3.1 Obedience to God

6.3.1.1. Jeremiah

In the passage Jer 7:21-26, the prophet highlights the fact that the instructions God gave concerning sacrifices were not to be seen as separate from the need for obedience. Thus sacrifice was to be seen as a corollary to obedience. And sacrifice-without true repentance was just as meaningless as sacrifice in place of obedience. The passage also shows that the disobedience of the people was no different to that of their forefathers. The injunction to 'eat the meat yourselves' (v21) indicates that the sacrifice is unacceptable. Carroll (1986:215) sees the condemnation as nothing more than 'an indication that sacrifice is now no more than a domestic meal' because 'the people have failed to understand the divine priority of obedience to the word'. Thus, Jeremiah's message is similar to that of Samuel (see above) , obedience precedes sacrifice or as Carroll states (:215) 'sacrifice is no substitute for obedience' . And further, 'because sacrifices are rejected, everything associated with them is also condemned'

However, it needs to be pointed out that it is those who offer sacrifice and not the sacrifice itself that is scorned. And so, by implication, the Canaanites were condemned and their sacrifices considered meaningless since they were not directed to the true God. So de Vaux is able to conclude that 'the Bible does not condemn this cult because of the rites it entailed, but because it was (sic) offered in illegitimate sanctuaries or to deities other than Yahweh' (1961:438) . The primary requirement for the Israelites was to be obedient to God and then to offer sacrifice as a corollary to obedience. It is in this that we see the detrimental influence of the Canaanites for their sacrifices were part of an approach to the god/gods and not in obedience to any god-given laws since there were no such laws. Obedience to the one, true God was required of the Israelites as a forerunner to sacrifice if it was to be acceptable to the Lord.

Page 37 6.3.1.2. Isaiah

The concept of obedience to God is also implied in Isa 1:11-17 and Is 66:3 in which God is not interested in the amount or the type of sacrifice but rather the attitude of the person offering it. So De Vaux points out that 'the Prophets are opposed to the formalism of exterior worship when it has no corresponding interior dispositions' (1961:455).

6.3.1.3. Hosea

The need for the right attitude is spelled out quite clearly in Hos 6:6 'For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgement of God rather than burnt offerings' . The word mercy (Hebrew = hesed) implies not only obedience to God but also concern and care for one's neighbours, and this is really what God wants from his people. Sacrifice, if offered in place of obedience to God's commands, is wholly unacceptable to him. Ward (1982:98) states that 'the rituals of the sanctuary were the vehicles for recollection and celebration of the sustaining and saving presence of God' and so any sacrifice that did not fulfil this purpose was not acceptable to God. Thus, the motivation for, and the ritual of, the pagan sacrificial system automatically had a negative effect on the Israelite's religion. He states further (:99) 'this does not mean that sacrificial ritual was entirely unacceptable, but it did relegate it to relative unimportance as a means of communication and encounter between the people and God. It certainly made ritual an unacceptable substitute for steadfast devotion'

In his introduction to his commentary on Hosea, wolff (19'74:xxi- xxxii) discusses the theology of the prophet as 'polemical dialogue with the cultus and mythology of Canaan'. He shows how Hosea's use of metaphor 'stands dangerously close to the imagery of the Canaanite vegetation cult' when he refers to God as 'dew' (14:5) and 'green pine tree' (14:8). However, he points out that Israel's apostasy is best described in the metaphor of the

Page 38 first husband and wayward wife (as exemplified by Hosea himself - chapters 1 - 3) . Here Israel's flirtation and involvement with Canaanite mythology and ritual practices are regarded by the husband (God) as 'whoring' and so she has committed spiritual adultery. This is possibly the most vivid picture of indictment against Israel because Hosea uses language of the lover (Canaan) to highlight the nature and severity of the condemnation.

6.3.1.4. Amos

The book of Amos also contains a condemnation of sacrifice (Am 5:21-27) . And again, it was the attitude of the worshippers and the manner in which they worshipped that were wrong. In this passage, justice and righteousness (v24) , as evidence of obedience, are the prerequisites of God if the peoples' sacrifices are to be accepted.

6.3.1.5 Micah

Similar thoughts are contained in Mic 6:6-8, where the prophet does not deny the need for sacrifice. In answer to the question of what God requires he states (v8) 'to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God' and this can only be done if the people are obedient to God's commands.

6.3.2 Mutilation of the Bod

In Lev 19:28, the people were forbidden to mutilate their bodies as a sign of mourning or to tattoo it. In Dt 14.1 this injunction was supplemented by the prohibition of shaving one's head which was seen as a pagan custom of mourning. The priests were also required not to shave their heads or the sides of their beards or to cut themselves (Lev 21:5) for, as these were pagan customs, they would be seen to be contrary to the need of the priests to be holy.

In the passage relating Gedaliah's assassination (Jer 40:7-Jer

Page 39 41:15) verse 5 of chapter 41 refers to the arrival of 'eighty men who had shaved off their beards, torn their clothes and cut themselves' as signs of mourning for Gedaliah. They had also brought 'grain offerings and incense' which presumably they intended to offer as a sacrifice. Their signs of mourning are in direct contradiction of the above prohibitions given by God. Here again we observe the insidious influence of the Canaanite religion which permitted (and encouraged? - 1 Kgs 18:28) the mutilation of the body. The shaving of the head and beard were no different in effect from the cutting of the body by the Canaanites and so, because of their disobedience, the 'grain and incense' sacrifices offered by these eighty men would not be accepted by God.

6.3.3 Customs of Mourning

In an interesting verse (Jer 16:6) in which God tells Jeremiah of the coming disasters, he is told 'no one will cut himself or shave his head ' in mourning for those who die. Obviously, the practice had continued over a long period of time and become entrenched as a social custom even though it was specifically prohibited by the law. Carroll (1986:339) describes these and other funeral practices as those 'whereby the living proclaimed their solidarity with the dead and the spirits of the ancestors' as forbidden by Yahwistic ideology in order to 'differentiate between acceptable Israelite religion and pagan practices'. They are also 'forbidden here because they are tacit acknowledgements of the gods and spirits of other cults'. This too, is another area in which the detrimental influence of the Canaanites can be seen on the customs of the people.

Thus we see that, even some three centuries after Elijah's challenge at Mount Carmel, the detrimental influence of the Canaanites in regard to self-mutilation and signs of mourning can still be seen since even Jeremiah's contemporaries were guilty of pagan customs!

Page 40 6.3.4 Places of Sacrifice

The place for a pagan sacrifice was often the top of a hill as illustrated by the challenge of Elijah to the prophets of Baal which took place on Mount Carmel. The custom appears to have been absorbed by the Israelites because in a particularly horrible picture (Jer 7:30-8:3), Jeremiah declares God's condemnation and describes the subsequent punishment. The custom of building places of worship on high places was partially linked to the pagan custom of child sacrifice. God's people are condemned for following this custom by building 'the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben 1-lirinom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire - something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind' (Jer 7:31). Child sacrifice was condemned in the Bible (Lev 18:21, Dt 18:10) yet from this reference it appears to have been carried out. (see 3.3.2 above and note on Carthage by Albright and Harden in 2 . 2 .2.)

Douglas (1962:1287) describes Topheth as a place of child sacrifice outside Jerusalem. The word appears to be Aramaic in origin meaning 'fireplace' although it was commonly used to refer to any 'place of child sacrifice.' Carroll (1986:221) says 'it appears to have housed a fire cult when children were offered "in the fire" to nature gods. This first cult demanded human sacrifice and may have been associated with the astral powers' and 'will become the place of the dead' . The name Valley of Ben Hinnom by New Testament times became known as Gehenna, a rubbish dump outside Jerusalem. Carroll (:224) finds it theologically ironic that this valley should eventually become a synonym for hell i.e. a place of condemnation becomes a place of commendation for eternity.

An interesting overall comment regarding sacrifice is made by Ward (1982:104) 'few of Israel's rituals . . . were distinctively Israelite, or Yahwistic. Much of her cultic life was indistinguishable from that of the surrounding peoples'. However true this might be, the two features that distinguish the

Page 41 Israelite form of sacrifice from the Canaanite, are their motivation i.e. to give in obedience and devotion and not to receive some benefit, and their destination, to Yahweh, the only God.

6.4. Concluding Remarks

The message of the prophets with regard to sacrifice, and their outright condemnation of its incorrect practice and performance stems from the apparent lack of understanding by the people in general of what God intended sacrifice to be. That sacrifice was important and necessary is not in dispute, but God required the people firstly to obey His commands and secondly to offer the required sacrifices. And this they did not do. That their form of sacrifice so often followed the pattern of the Canaanite form, as well as an imitation of the attitude, amply illustrates the detrimental effect that the Canaanites had on the Israelites in terms of sacrifice.

Perhaps the last word is to be found in the New Testament. Jesus confirms the wisdom of the teacher of the law who recognizes that loving God with all one's heart and one's neighbour as oneself 'is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices' (Mk 12:33).

Page 42 CHAPTER 7 - CONCLUSIONS

This chapter will gather the various threads together in an effort to show the importance of each of the arguments put forward in the previous chapters.

7.1. Sociological Models

Gottwald's sociological, model can be used to explore, and possibly explain, certain phenomena but one must beware of not stretching the data to fit the model rather than the other way round. Peter L Berger in the article 'Reflections of an ecclesiastical expatriate" has the following to say : 'Sociology cannot predict the movements of the Holy Spirit.' 'All we can do is to follow our callings' (1991:112) . And so too, sociological models can only be a tool in research. Berger also points out that 'changing one's mind as a social scientist is both an occupational hazard and a point of professional honor' (:112)

Long (1982:244) recognises the uneasiness that can exist between the theologian and the historian (and the sociologist, I think) because of their respective fields being 'other-worldly' and 'this-worldly'. This can lead to the rejection of a social methodology, used by some scholars, 'which is naturalistic, empiricistic, and agnostic' . But he does point out that 'from a social scientific perspective the common description of ancient Israel as a people of God bound together in allegiance to the idea of divine covenant is plainly unsatisfactory' . Obviously, there needs to be a meeting of the theological and the sociological.

7.2. The Problem of Theories

It would appear that the acceptance of a sociological or an archaeological or an anthropological model, very often leads to

Page 43 theory going off at a tangent and one is therefore forced to look for other explanations which eventually ignore the biblical data or, at best, describe it as 'faulty' or 'edited'. For example, Domeris (1994:8) sees the 'myth of the Deuteronomist' as needing 'a sharp line between the people of Israel and the original inhabitants of Canaan. Such a line would be easy if one could show, on archaeological grounds, reason to believe that the Canaanites were conquered by another nation, namely Israel' (italics mine) . But, he claims, such evidence does not exist!' on the grounds that there is no distinct difference in the pottery. Thus, his starting point is archaeology and he expects the Bible to fit the findings. Bimson has shown (1981:137-171) that the commonly accepted dating of the pottery record in archaeology is not without its problems. And so, it is unwise to contradict Biblical teaching simply because the research results from an ancillary discipline are not foolproof.

Domeris (:8) also states that 'culturally Israelites and Canaanites were one people!' following Gottwald's idea of a 'peasants' revolt'. Here again we find this sociological model being the criterion by which the biblical data is judged and, when the evidence does not fit the model, the biblical data is said to be deficient and not the model. Domeris acknowledges that, regarding Gottwald's ideas, the matter is far from reaching a broader scholarly consensus, even among the archaeologists, ' (:8-9) but continues that 'the testimony of the pottery is a powerful one.' Again the Bible is at fault because it does not fit the model!

In his book Together in the Land, Mitchell discusses the concept of war in the book of Joshua and his method illustrates my point very clearly. He admits that the book is written in the period of 'post-exilic Judaism' (1993:190) and he accepts the 'face- value' Biblical teaching of a Conquest even though there is a contradiction between total annihilation of the inhabitants and the very real fact that not all inhabitants were destroyed, some were incorporated. He attempts to, and does eventually, explain

Page 44 this in terms of dream and reality (:190). Thus he seeks to explain what he finds in the text and its apparent contradictions rather than proposing a theory or model and using the text to prove or disprove his assumptions.

One of the justifications for rejecting Biblical data is that Galileo proved that the earth was round, not flat and so proved that the Bible was wrong. However, this was a 'scientific' discovery which could be shown to be objective and proved beyond any shadow of doubt, particularly in today's world with man's ability to produce satellite pictures from outer space. In contrast to this, the human sciences are always subjective and therefore cannot be proven conclusively. Every sociological model cannot be shown to be correct as can an objective model. And the problem which arises is that so often scholars accept the model as the fact and build theories on the 'model-cum-fact' which leads to all manner of error. The model-cum-fact replaces what biblical facts we do have, which leads to error.

7.3. Ancillary Disciplines

The study of anthropology and linguistics can also increase one's knowledge of the Bible and its people. BUT, the study of the many ancillary disciplines, i.e. history, geography, sociology, anthropology and linguistics, should not dominate the study of the Bible. I see them as extremely useful and even essential tools to expand, extend, enrich and enhance one's knowledge of God's Word but never to replace it or even govern its teachings by casting doubt on them. And this is what worries me about some of the new methods taken over from sociology, anthropology and linguistics. The models and tools developed in these disciplines can be useful but only insofar as they remain 'in service' to the Bible rather than trying to become 'master' of it by making it fit into a non-religious role. I am also concerned that much of the study of the Bible is done at a

Page 45 secular level, sometimes by people who profess to being atheists and agnostics, and these studies often regard the Bible as suspect and unreliable and then postulate that it is necessary to rewrite, re-interpret, correct or change it.

7.4. Points of Contact between the Israelites and Canaanites

7.4.1. The Canaanites

The terms 'Canaan and "Canaanite" although applied loosely to a place with varying boundaries peopled by various tribes and groups can nevertheless be seen to refer broadly to that geographic area in which much of the life of the Biblical Israelites took place. The land area referred to included both the Coastal Plain (from Sidon to Gaza) and the hinterland as well as the Jordan Valley (from Hazor to the Dead Sea) . Various authors (e.g. Oldenburg and Jobling) have also highlighted the cultural aspects of religion and linguistics which are often included in these terms. The discoveries made at Ras Shamra- Ugarit reflecting the social and religious customs of that area are extremely useful in explaining and understanding the form and nature of similar customs amongst the people known as Canaanites. That the people of Ugarit often saw themselves as different from the other people of the area should be seen in proper perspective. As Ugarit was situated in the north, it is possible that certain practices differed from places in the south, and so cognizance must be taken of this fact when equating Ugaritic with Canaanite. Similarly comparisons between practices found in the Bible must take account of both geographic and time differences. And it is into this area (Canaan) that the Israelites moved, and amongst these peoples (the Canaanites) that they settled and by whom they were influenced. Virtually nothing is known from Scripture concerning 'good' influences but one could speculate that these were in the agricultural domain. But this would overlap into religious life and practice, so it is here that this

Page 46 influence was seen to be the most detrimental. This mini- dissertation has discussed the realm of sacrifice, but other aspects should not be overlooked e.g. monotheism vs polytheism, and the parallel names of Yahweh and the Canaanite gods.

7.4.2. Jezebel

The totally negative picture of this woman which the Bible paints has led Bar-Efrat (1989:48) to contemplate whether we have 'an accurate representation of a specific historical person' or not. Little or nothing is known of her from extra-biblical sources and so Bar-Efrat's contemplation can never be given an answer. What we do know of the cult of the area from which she came i.e. Tyre and Sidon, indicates that its practices were in complete contrast to those of the Israelites and would therefore of necessity be condemned by the Bible. Nevertheless, there can be little doubt of her charisma and power. Her charisma is seen in the large number of prophets and priests of Baal who were drawn into service at the temple in Samaria. Her influence over them is seen in their willingness to obey the call to go to Mount Carmel to perform a ritual sacrifice. So, too, her influence over Ahab's children had far-reaching effects. Athaliah took the ideas of Baal worship she had learned from Jezebel with her when she married Jehoram and moved to Jerusalem. And this led to the infiltration of these pagan ideas into the Israelite religion in the Southern Kingdom. The power she exercised in exterminating the prophets of Yahweh (1 Kgs 18:4) had Obadiah (v9 & v14) terrified of facing Ahab with the news of Elijah's presence. And Elijah himself (19:3-5) was ready to commit suicide after the Mount Carmel encounter out of fear of this powerful woman. The confrontation with Elijah brought to the fore not simply the antagonism of two individuals with different ideas, but rather the conflict of two religious systems, of which one, Yahwism, would (through Judaism and Christianity) survive, expand and mature.

Page 47 7.4.3. Sacrifice and its Condemnation

A comparison of the forms of sacrifice of the two nations shows a similarity in the nature of sacrifice. Yet there can be little doubt that 'the religion of Israel and ancient Canaanite religion both had their own distinctive character and characteristics' Kapelrud (1965:27) . He sees them as operating in 'the same cultural environment' but not in 'hermetically sealed, air-tight compartments' . In both cultures, the same animals i.e. cattle, sheep and birds, were offered using a similar ritual, burnt in part or in whole. Drink offerings were made but these were often in the form of libations by the Canaanites.

However, there were two major differences between the two cultures regarding sacrifice. The first concerned motivation. The Canaanites offered sacrifices to their gods in order to control and manipulate them and thereby get something which would benefit them e.g. rain, good crops, fertility. They were able to do this because they saw in nature, powerful elements which they worshipped as their gods. Around these man-made gods, myths and legends evolved which indicated that they were capable of being bribed with a variety of sacrifices. This included animal and vegetable sacrifice as well as child sacrifice, whether as first-born, or the offspring of prostitution. Child sacrifice was absolutely forbidden for the Israelites as being totally unacceptable to the Lord (Lev 18:21, Dt 18:1)

The Israelites offered sacrifice (or were supposed to) in order to give back to God something from which they had benefitted e.g. first fruits, first-born animals, and also in recognition of and atonement for their waywardness. Their behaviour in offering sacrifice could not in any way control or manipulate Yahweh their God.

It was essential for the Israelites to adhere closely to their God-given religion and constantly reappraise its efficacy in

Page 48 terms of what God required 'lest it should be dominated by the influence of Canaanite and other religions' (Kapelrud 1965:27) Thus, in their condemnation of the sacrifices offered by the people, the prophets persistently pointed out that God was not interested in sacrifice per se but required sacrifice in response to obedience (see 6.3.1 above).

With regard to destination, the polytheistic Canaanites offered sacrifice to a whole pantheon of gods, each of whom could be placated, appeased or offended by the sacrifice offered and who appeared to be as whimsical, fickle and changeable as the weather. The Israelites, on the other hand, offered sacrifice to the only God who had proved over and over again His control over the creation and His superiority in intervening in the affairs and history of His people.

7.4.4. Causes of Influence

The question needs to be posed as to why the Canaanites were able to exert such a great influence, and it has been suggested that 'the Old Testament may have been influenced by Canaanite religion precisely at those points where it most decisively differs from it' (Kapeirud 1965:28) . I think that this is a valid suggestion, because it does appear that the Israelites did not fully comprehend that they were to be different from the surrounding nations. They were not the same as every other nation, they were 'a chosen people' (Ex 6:7, 33:13, Jer 7:23, 11:4, 24:7, Zec 13:9), who were expected to be holy i.e. set apart (Ex 19:6, Lev 11:44-45, 19:2, 20:26) . It appears that it is a human trait to want to fit in with the majority and not to be seen to be different (e.g. the powerful effect of peer pressure on youth today) , and, in this regard, the Israelites allowed themselves to follow the Canaanite customs.

Another cause was the similarity of annual festivals of celebration, often after the harvest or rain, in which the offering of sacrifices was accompanied by unrestricted and

Page 49 unchecked merrymaking. These festivals appear to have been widespread throughout the land and its various peoples.

A typical example of a similarity between two such festivals is seen in the Canaanite New Year Festival and the Israelite Feast of Tabernacles (Kapelrud 1965:67ff) . Both were autumnal feasts and Kapelrud (following Mowinckel and Volz) sees similarities between Baal's triumph over death and his subsequent enthronement, and the idea of Yahweh's enthronement found in Ps 47, Ps 93, Pss 95-99. Thus, it becomes obvious that even in festivals, 'the Israelites . . . adopted Canaanite practices . and related them to Yahweh' . Not only was there a similarity in the sacrifice itself, but also in the language used, so that there appeared to be no intrinsic difference between the two. The indisputable conclusion to be drawn is that the Israelites 'not only borrow(ed) from Canaanite ways of worship but constantly relapsed into them' (:76) - another point which led to the frequent condemnation of the prophets.

Celebration in the Canaanite cult was often associated with blatant sexual activity. This 'the moral limitation of Canaanite religion was probably due to its preoccupation with ritual related to the phases of the agricultural year' (Gray 1965a:257) Thus, this religion was not concerned with morals and morality and therefore promoted and encouraged sexual prostitution. However, the idea of sacred prostitution was anathema to the Israelites in terms of the Decalogue.

7.5. Concluding Remarks

My contention that there was a detrimental influence by the Canaanites on the Israelites has been shown to be evident from the Old Testament as well as several modern authors and commentators.

The pernicious influence on the form of sacrifice is found mostly in the areas of motivation and destination. Clements (1978:169-

Page 50 170) sums up the general position as follows : 'It is impossible to suppose that the Old Testament would be what it is, or that Israel's religion would have developed in the way it did, if it had not grown up against the historical background of the ancient Near East'.

I believe that I have shown that the Bible, particularly in the writings of the prophets, condemns certain religious practices, which were unacceptable to God, who required complete obedience to His instructions and laws. The lack of obedience to God led the people, whose rituals were often almost identical to those of the other nations, to refocus their thinking from God to other gods and so earn God's displeasure and condemnation. This is particularly true in the case of sacrifice, the motivation for which became the satisfaction of certain requirements, to earn approval, or to appease God rather than in obedience to Him.

My use of the historical-grammatical approach with a theological interpretation has relied heavily on knowledge gained from various ancillary disciplines which have been essential in enhancing and illuminating Biblical texts. Each discipline has its own sphere of expertise although there is often considerable overlap. The knowledge gained from these various disciplines, and the approach one takes in interpreting it, must indicate that one's conclusions can only be tentative and one's viewpoint controversial.

Page 51 LIST OF WORKS CONSULTED

Albright, W F 1968. Yahweh and the gods of Canaan : A historical analysis of two contrasting faiths. London: Athlone Press.

Bar-Efrat, S 1989. Narrative art in the Bible. Sheffield: Almond Press

Berger, P L 1991. Reflections of an ecclesiastical expatriate, in Wall, J M & Heim, D (eds), How my mind has changed, 100-112. Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans.

Bimson, J J 1981. Redating the Exodus and conquest. 2nd ed. Sheffield: Almond Press.

Bosman, H L, Gous, I G P & Spangenberg, I J J 1991. Plutocrats and Paupers. Pretoria : Van Schaik.

Bright, J 1971. A history of Israel. 3rd ed. London: S C K.

Burden, J J 1993. Social science and recent trends in Old Testament research : its relevance for South African Old Testament scholarship. OTE 6, 205-232.

Caquot, A & Sznycer, K 1980. Ugaritic religion. Leiden: E J Brill.

Carroll, R P 1986. Jeremiah - a commentary. London: SCM. (Old Testament Library.)

Childs, B 5 1992. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. London: S C M.

Clements, R E 1978. Old Testament theology, a fresh approach. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott.

Clements, R E (ed) 1989. The world of Ancient Israel Sociological, anthropological and political perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Coogan, M D 1993. Canaanites: who were they and where did they live? Bible Review 9/3, 44-45.

Page 52 Cornfeld, G (ed) 1964. Pictorial biblical encyclopedia : a visual guide to the Old and New Testaments. New York MacMillan.

Craigie, P C 1983. Ugarit and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdrnans.

Deist, F 1984. A concise dictionaiy of theological terms. Pretoria : Van Schaik 1991. Where do the biblical texts come from? Historical- critical exegesis in Bosman, H L, Gous, I G P & Spangenberg, I J J, Plutocrats and Paupers, 42-51. Pretoria : Van Schaik.

De Vaux, R [1961] 1973. Ancient Israel : Its life and institutions, tr by J McHugh. London: Darton, Longman & Todd.

Domeris, W R 1994. Jeremiah and the religion of Canaan. OTE'7, 7-20.

Douglas, J D (ed) 1962. The new Bible dictionary. London: Intervarsity Press.

Eliade, M (ed) 1987. The Encyclopedia of Religion Vol 12. New York: Macmillan.

Emrnerson, G I 1989. Women in ancient Israel, in Clements, R E (ed), The world of Ancient Israel : Sociological, anthropological and political perspectives, 371-394. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gottwald, N K 1979. The tribes of Yahweh : A sociology of religion of liberated Israel 1250 - 1050 B.C.E. Maryknoll: Orbis Books.

- 1985. The Hebrew Bible - a socio-literary introduction. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Gray, J 1965a. The legacy of Canaan: the Ras Shamra Texts and their relevance to the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Leiden: E J Brill.

- 1965b. Ancient people and places : the Canaanites. London: Thames and Hudson.

- 1977. I & II Kings, a commentary. 3rd ed. London: S C M.

Page 53 Harden, D 1963. Ancient people and places : the Phoenicians. London: Thames and Hudson.

Henniger, J 1987. s v 'Sacrifice' in Eliade M (ed), The Encyclopedia of Religion Vol 12. 544-557. New York: Macmillan.

Jobling, W J 1975. Canaan, Ugarit and the Old Testament: a study of relationships. PhD thesis, University of Sydney.

Kapelrud, A S 1965. The Ras Shamra discoveries and the Old Testament. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Loader, J 1991. How is the biblical text structured? Immanent exegesis in Bosman, H L, Gous, I 0 P & Spangenberg, I J J, Plutocrats and Paupers, 33-41. Pretoria : Van Schaik.

Long, B 0 1982. The social world of ancient Israel Interpretation 36/3, 243-255. - 1984. 1 Kings with an introduction to historical literature - volume IX. Grand Rapid: Eerdmans. (Forms of the Old Testament Literature.)

Malina, B J 1982. The social sciences and Biblical interpretation. Interpretation 36(1), 229-242.

Mayes, A D H 1989. Sociology and the Old Testament, in Clements, R E (ed) , The world of Ancient Israel : Sociological, anthropological and political perspectives, 39-63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mitchell, G 1993. Together in the land : a reading of the book of Joshua. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. (JSOT supplement series 134.)

Montgomery, J A 1960 A critical and exegetical commentary on the books of kings. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. (ICC.)

Oldenburg, U 1969. The conflict between El an Baal in Canaanite religion. Leiden: E J Brill.

Robinson, J 1972. The first book of Kings. Cambridge: University Press.

Page 54 Rushdoony, R J 1973. The institutes of Biblical law. S 1: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing.

Scheffler, E 1991. What does God's word refer to? Historical- grammatical exegesis in Bosman, H L, Gous, I G P & Spangenberg, I J J, Plutocrats and Paupers, 52-65. Pretoria Van Schaik.

Spurgeon, C H 1962. The Treasury of the Bible - Old Testament Volume I. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott.

Wall, J M & Heim, D (eds) 1991. How my mind has changed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Ward, J M 1982. The prophets. Nashville: Abingdon.

Wilson, R R 1980. Prophecy and society in ancient Israel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Wolff, H W 1974. Hosea - a commentary on the book of the prophet Hosea. tr by G Starisell. Philadelphia: Fortress

*****************************

Page 55