Chapter 12

Chapter 12

Did Yahweh Have a Wife?

Iron Age Religion in Israel and Its Neighbors

Richard S. Hess

Importance of the Study of Israelite Religion

The study of Israelite religion has enjoyed a renaissance in the past generation.1 Several factors have contributed to this development. Following the so-called end of the biblical theology movement around the middle of the twentieth century, scholars became dissatisfied with traditional approaches to Old Testament theology and disenchanted with the pursuit of a single unifying theological principle. They reacted by identifying a plurality of theologies with contradictory approaches and interpretations somehow grouped together within the collection of literature known as the Hebrew Bible.

This approach meant that there would be a radical disjunction between an idealized and late final edition of the Old Testament and the recoverable earlier multiplicity of parties and contentious views regarding worship and religious beliefs. From such a milieu, Israelite religion strengthened itself as a discipline independent of Old Testament theology. Those who studied it sought a path between the Scylla of a "flattened out" Old Testament with no acknowledgment of its multiple voices and the Charybdis of an agnosticism that could not know anything about the history of early Israel and its religion.

Thus the study of this subject turned away from a fundamentally literary task aimed at distilling the principal teachings of the Old Testament for faith, and life, and, especially in Christian contexts, for a connection with the New Testament and Jesus Christ. In place of this, it focused on the growing body of textual and archaeological evidence addressing the subject of ancient Israel's life. This result is the second factor contributing to general interest in the religion of Israel. The analysis of cult centers and burials in Palestine emerged with the astonishingly intensive archaeological explorations and excavations of the region throughout the past century. Such cult centers, whether mere assemblages of cultic materials and altars or larger architectural structures, led to questions as to how they relate to the inhabitants of the land, and especially to Israel. The same was true of the burials where complements of eating utensils and cultic paraphernalia raised questions about a cult of the dead.

With an increasing accumulation of data there also emerged refined methods for the investigation and typological classification of these two phenomena. Hand in hand with the material cultural there appeared significant new inscriptional evidence. While written texts continue to be studied and published from all periods, there is no question but the evidence from ancient Palestine and its immediate neighbors has created the greatest interest.

Above all, those ninth-eighth-century inscriptions from the northern Sinai site of Kuntillet 'Ajrud, commonly understood as mentioning "Yahweh and his Asherah," have provided what is arguably the major catalyst for a revolution in the understanding of the beliefs of Israelites during the monarchy. The inscriptions that mention this blessing, while not limited to the Sinai caravansary or cult center (which one it was depends on one's interpretation of the architecture and location), provide the centerpiece for discussion of the role of a goddess or cult symbol and its relationship to Yahweh. It is, in fact, no longer possible to accept a simple division between those who worshipped Yahweh as a single and unique deity, on the one hand, and those who served Baal and a pantheon of deities, on the other. Yahweh has now become a member of the pantheon of Iron Age Palestine.

A third and final factor in the emergence of the study of Israelite religion has been the methodological and cultural impact of a cluster of philosophies and worldviews that may be grouped under the general term of postmodernism. Its wide-scale rejection of traditional authoritarian forms and its acceptance of particular types of pluralism have driven the discipline and its interpretation of the extrabiblical evidence in a specific direction. Thus scholars of Israelite religion in the past generation have directed their research away from assumptions of a single authoritarian faith with a single deity.

Instead, more inviting and inherently more probable from this perspective is the presence of multiple religions standing side by side in ancient Israel. These beliefs remained continually in a state of flux and transformation as they were affected by political, economic, and cultural forces from outside and from within the society. Far from an aberration in a dominant Yahwistic society, the "Yahweh and (his) Asherah" material at Kuntillet 'Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom represent the majority perspective of ancient Israel. There is a prevalence of multiple deities. Therefore, the Hebrew Scriptures must be penetrated behind the Deuteronomist and priestly redactors to find evidence of this religious pluralism.

How then should the question of the influence of postmodernism and prevailing philosophies on the study of Israelite religion be considered? Some have sought to examine it directly in terms of the philosophical rationale itself. That task, however essential it might be, lies beyond the scope of this study. Others would emphasize again the role of biblical theology as a legitimate enterprise. This too holds much promise but is not the direction of the present chapter.

Rather, this study proposes to reexamine the extrabiblical evidence for the religions of the southern Levant in the Iron Age and to locate features that might be distinctive in terms of the religions of Israelites and Judeans. If it succeeds at all, it will at best serve as an initial body of data that can be used for the study of Israelite religion. It will not directly answer the more profound questions of the influence of philosophies on the current models, but will rather address that which remains anomalous on the landscape of ancient religion and that which may best be interpreted by reaching beyond the context of ancient Near Eastern history and culture.

Definitions

Up to this point I have begged the question as to the definition of my terms, particularly "religion." As this has been largely a review of current trends, it has not been necessary to identify this term. However, the selection of evidence that will proceed from here must consider this basic question. And it must be considered in the light of archaeology and epigraphy, not merely as an abstract theological construct. Philosopher Paul Griffiths defines religion along these lines: "a form of life that seems to those who inhabit it to be comprehensive, incapable of abandonment, and of central importance."2 In other words, religion is no mere add-on but is a comprehensive, identity-shaping worldview and way of life. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (7th edition) provides for us a heuristic definition of religion: "the service and worship of the divine or supernatural through a system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices."

The limitations of the present study require that it be selective. Further, this chapter will seek to avoid, as much as possible, the influence of the Bible and of the diverse and contradictory assumptions used in the evaluation of the biblical sources. It will do this by largely bracketing these biblical sources out of consideration. Of course, any successful synthesis of the religion and history of ancient Israel must deal with those sources.

The decision to set this material aside is a provisional one, designed to allow a separate evaluation of the extrabiblical material before adding on the biblical element with its own history of interpretive issues and critical methods. It is methodologically indefensible in terms of any final statement on Israelite religion that must take into account all the evidence. However, it is possible because the nature of the contemporary extrabiblical evidence remains separate from the Bible. Further, this may permit a fresh evaluation of these important sources without using them to secure assumptions about the history of the biblical sources.3

In addition to a definition of religion, it is also appropriate to consider the significance of the "Israelite" in Israelite religion. Spatial and temporal parameters form the strictures here. The spatial position for ancient Israel must place it in the highlands of Canaan to the west and perhaps east of the Jordan River. Near the beginning of the Iron Age, in the last decade of the thirteenth century, the victory stele of Pharaoh Merneptah records Israel as a people group alongside a list of three fortified cities: Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yanoam. Assuming a location of Yanoam to the east of Pella in modern north Jordan and a geographical proximity for all four named entities, then Israel's location could be somewhere in Palestine or immediately east of the Jordan River.

Because Israel is not previously mentioned in Egyptian records until one of the last pharaohs of the era to wage war in Asia, it is reasonable to assume that Israel may be a new group on the scene of western Asia. This, combined with the sudden appearance of more than 300 village sites at the beginning of the twelfth century in the highlands of Palestine, provides a positive correlation for the identification of Israel with some or most of these settlements in highland Canaan, west of the Jordan River. A distinctive cultural connection between these settlements and those Iron Age I settlements to the east of the Jordan River and Dead Sea suggest Israel's habitation of this region. The dramatic demographic shift of the highlands settlement pattern, joined with the initial appearance of the name Israel in the final decades of Egypt's New Kingdom presence in Canaan, suggest a significant historical marker at c. 1200 BC.

The question of ethnicity cannot be answered here. The definition of Israel in Iron Age I will remain a geographical one, rather than an ethnic one. This is because it is difficult to determine an ethnic difference between the Israelites of the highlands of Palestine and those other groups (Canaanites, Amorites, etc.) that may have inhabited the same region.4 Thus it remains true that without the biblical evidence these highland and Transjordanian cultures cannot be further defined as Israelite, Canaanite, or whatever. However, despite evidence for cultural continuity with the preceding Late Bronze Age and an awareness of a mixture of people groups in this region, religious distinctives may yet emerge. Their connection with later, more clearly defined territories of Israel and Judah may assist in identifying that which was Israelite even in Iron Age I.

At the other end of the period, the invasions of the Babylonian army led by Nebuchadnezzar culminate in the events of 587 and 586. Of particular interest for this study is the period before the latter part of the seventh century. After this there is more general agreement as to the emergence of a distinctive monotheistic belief fostered by Josiah and his allies.

By this time the spatial coordinates of Israel, including both the earlier northern kingdom of Israel as well as the southern kingdom of Judah, have been recognized textually in the Moabite, Aramean, and Assyrian accounts of battles and conquest in this area. They may be positioned as far north as Dan and as far south as the area west of the Dead Sea. Their eastern borders at times reach beyond the Jordan River into territories disputed with Moab and Ammon. The western borders tend to be defined by the strength of lowland rivals such as Philistia and its cities, as well as city-states such as Dor, Acco, and even Tyre when it extends its influence southward.

Distinctive Elements of Israelite Religion

Within this context it is appropriate to consider whether Israelite religion possesses any distinctives when compared with its neighbors. In order to do this, four areas of extrabiblical evidence will be summarized in terms of their major distinctive elements: cult centers and burials, iconography, epigraphy, and onomastics.

Cult Centers and Burials

The Iron Age I period (1200–1000 BC) includes the emergence of several hundred villages in the highlands of Palestine and the areas east of the Jordan during the first part of the twelfth century. At least some of the inhabitants of these villages may be identified as recently settled Israel, as suggested above. The unusual aspect of these villages, in terms of religion, is their minimalization of objects related to worship.

Using the traditional means to identify cult centers, the early Iron Age cult sites are virtually free of any of the expected objects or architecture that customarily identify religious centers. There are almost no figurines, nor are there any distinctive altars or temple/shrine architecture. Unlike the large fortress temple at Shechem, for example, village sites at Dan, Ai, Khirbet Raddana, Tell Irbid, Tell es-Sa'idiyeh, and Tell el-'Umeiri contained evidence of cultic structures that stood among domestic structures. One finds at these sites an occasional standing stone, offering bench, or distinctive vessel.5

This is in contrast with the evidence from occupied sites of the same hill country region in the preceding Late Bronze Age (1550–1200 BC). Thus Alpert Nakhai identifies six sites west of the Jordan and four sites east of the Jordan that are within the region of early Israel or immediately adjacent to it where excavations have revealed distinctive architecture or cultic objects indicating material elements that suggest religious activities.6 These sites are also often characterized as larger population centers, whereas those highland settlements of the Iron Age I period were villages.

The finds at these village sites have revealed little or no distinctions in terms of any specialized architectural constructions or any prestige objects such as jewelry or cult items. The people of this society simply did not manufacture or use the same sorts of objects for worship as the evidence of their settled predecessors suggests. While some sites such as Shechem and Shiloh continue to exhibit special cultic buildings and objects into the Iron Age I, others such as Tell el-'Umeiri developed defenses with cultic installations. However, the highland villages of Iron Age I did not follow this pattern.

There remain two exceptions to this generalization: the Bull site east of Dothan and the anomalous structure on Mt. Ebal. The former, the Bull site, includes an oval-shaped open sanctuary marked by a ring of stones. One stone that may be a standing stone (or mazzebah) was found inside, as well as a figurine of a bull. This latter image resembles those of bulls from north of Israel. A similar one appears at Bronze Age Hazor and represents a southern extension of northern cultural and religious activities.

Although this site occurs within the area of the early Iron Age villages in the hill country, it appears to be unique. The small size of the cultic site and the immediately surrounding area do not support a view that this was a center for many worshippers. Rather, it appears to have been local to the village or villages near which it was found. Further, given the comparisons already noted, there remains nothing distinctive about this site. Finally, there is a question about the dating, so that some would reassign it to the Middle Bronze Age.7

The same cannot be said of the Mt. Ebal site. Mt. Ebal is the highest mountain in Samaria. Mt. Gerazim, its counterpart situated immediately to the south, is slightly smaller. They form the sides of the valley of Shechem that lies between them. Adam Zertal led the Israeli survey of this region. On Mt. Ebal he found nothing from the Bronze or Iron Ages I and II, except for this installation.

The site occurs some feet away from the ridge that forms the third highest peak on the mountain. It is surrounded by a stone wall.8 Two levels were found. The earlier is dated by two Egyptian scarabs (small replicas of dung beetles) to the second half of the thirteenth century BC.9 The site opens up on an area that would make it possible for many people to gather and view it.

Excavations revealed a central complex, a low western wall with an entrance, and an outer enclosure wall. In the central complex were found two layers of ash with some 2,800 bones, representing a variety of animals.10 West of the altar were two areas identified as courtyards. The major concentration of animal bones was found at the central structure. The upper, later layer is mainly that of cattle bones. The bones are burnt and have cut marks. In contrast with lowland sites from the same time period, where analysis revealed bones of dogs and donkeys, there are none here. Bones of gazelles and pigs were found elsewhere, especially Philistia, but not here. Horwitz suggests we have here "a pastoral economy based primarily on caprovine [i.e., sheep and goat] herding and to a lesser extent cattle."11 The area seems not to have been a food-producing place. No sickle blades were found similar to those in contemporary domestic sites.

The earlier thirteenth-century level included a round installation with ashes and bones found at the center of the twelfth-century structure, in addition to a fill of earth and stones. At the east side of the altar was found a chalice of volcanic stone. At about 1200 BC, with no indication of a violent disruption or break, apparently the same people built the larger structure that the excavator identified as an altar. This level of occupation lasted for about 50 years, according to ceramic evidence, and then it was abandoned without any indication of what happened. No figurines were found. The north courtyard contains what may be a "ramp" going up to center of the stone structure. Zertal identified a veranda around the top.12

Although the dominant pottery type changed somewhat between the two occupation levels and although there are three times as much pottery in the later phase, the material culture does not otherwise appear different. The excavator found that 20 percent of the pottery is distinct to the northern hill country area. It appears at the beginning of the thirteenth century BC and disappears at the end of the twelfth century BC. It occurs in Transjordan at sites such as Deir Alla.13

The excavator has suggested an identification of this altar with the Israelites, specifically with the altar of Joshua in Josh 8:30–35 and chap. 24. This interpretation has been disputed.14 Perhaps, after all, this is merely an early farmhouse and agricultural installation.15 Or perhaps it is a watchtower. Zertal disagrees.

The rough stones for the "altar," the area capable of handling a large public gathering, the animal bones found in the area, the lack of any sizeable wall for defense, and the position of the structure away from the peak of the ridge itself (where it would be if it were a watchtower) may suggest a cultic installation. Of course, that is not the same thing as saying it is the altar of Joshua. Nor does it seem to be an altar at all. There is no evidence of the sorts of things usually found at altars: cult figurines, votive offerings, and standing stones. But then the biblical texts argue that such was not allowed.16

Methodologically, the focus of this essay removes the discussion from any consideration of whether one can associate this structure with a biblical altar. However, it is appropriate to ask whether the structure has religious significance. Bloch-Smith and Alpert Nakhai describe the site as cultic and an atypical one for Iron I sites of this region insofar as it is isolated on a hilltop and distant from any extensive agricultural land.17

Thus it does not fit into the typology of surrounding sites in the region from the same period. Bloch-Smith and Nakhai suggest the earlier altar may have been Canaanite and that the later structure was built on top of it by the Israelites. However, the absence of Canaanite cultic paraphernalia makes a Canaanite altar difficult to identify there in the first place. Further, the continuity of culture between the phases suggests the same people who used the earlier one may also have used the later one.

The bull site and the Mt. Ebal site are the only two possible cult centers identified in the hill country villages. The bull site does demonstrate continuity with the surrounding Canaanite culture. However, the Mt. Ebal site does not. It remains anomalous. Perhaps for this reason some, such as Dever, wish to remove any cultic association from it.18 By so doing, its obvious discontinuity with the earlier cults of the surrounding areas does not require explanation.

However, no other interpretation of the site commends itself. It seems not to be well positioned for a watchtower. This would make more sense were the structure moved a distance of some feet to the peak of the ridge itself. The identification of a farmhouse requires one to explain the absence of horse, donkey, pig, and gazelle bones. As Ziony Zevit observes: "The skewed distribution of bones supports a non-domestic interpretation of the site."19 Note also his observation that the pottery, both the types and their distribution over the site, point toward a site where at least some of the animals may have been killed for cultic purposes.

Typologically, although the site is unique, the altar resembles that of the later Israelite sanctuary in the fort at Arad. Both were built of an outer shell of uncut stones with an inner fill of dirt, stones, and (at Mt. Ebal) ash. This altar construction distinguishes them from other forms of Canaanite altars and those in surrounding cultures. The continuity of the Ebal altar for animal sacrifice with one built three or more centuries later at Arad implies a tradition of altar construction that was unique and ongoing in the religious life of ancient Israel. Finally, the single structure may imply a single deity as the focus of worship. If this site on Mt. Ebal is an altar, then the absence of images, the particular animals sacrificed, the possible connection with a later Israelite cult site, and the single altar provide a distinctive collection of elements that set it apart from other Canaanite evidence.

The Iron Age II periods of interest here extend from 1000 to 587/6 BC. As already noted, the concerns here will focus on the evidence before 650 BC. During this earlier period, the population centers shift from a dominance of unfortified village life to a larger focus on fortified towns and cities in the region. Thus the major cultic sites of interest in the north and the south are found at Tel Dan and at Tel Arad respectively. Tel Dan's large sanctuary structure has been discussed in detail elsewhere. Its contents are not unlike those found at other Iron Age sanctuaries.

Tel Arad lay in the south.20 As at Dan, its cultic structure seems to have been located publicly and prominently in the fort, suggesting a religious shrine that conformed to state policy.21 Despite disputes regarding the precise dating of the strata that comprise the cult center in the corner of the fort at Arad, there is general agreement that it dates to the period of Iron Age II. The tripartite structure, as well as the standing stones and the incense altars, have parallels elsewhere in Israel and Judah as well as among their neighbors. However, an altar constructed of uncut fieldstones with a core of dirt and stones is unique to this site and that of Mt. Ebal. As noted above, it supports a typological connection between the two and invites the possibility that the sites represent centers of related religious practice.

Regarding burials, Bloch-Smith has shown a continuity of types of burials in the regions of Israel and Judah throughout the Iron Age.22 While no single form is unattested elsewhere, the bench tomb seems to have gained dominance in the latter part of the period. From late in the eighth century onward, the adoption of the bench tomb overwhelmingly in Judah and almost exclusively in Jerusalem has no statistical parallel. While known and used elsewhere in the Iron Age Levant, it never dominates as it does in the highlands of Judah.23

However, as the number of burials does not approximate population estimates for the period, these bench tombs were likely built for special individuals and families. As elsewhere, most people were probably buried in simple cist graves. Nevertheless, the significance of the bench tomb as a dominant form of elite burial practice may have unique religious implications. In many of these tombs the body of a recently deceased person was laid out on the bench cut into the rock in the tomb. At some later point, the remaining bones were then collected and placed along with the bones of other ancestors in a recess of the tomb. As much and more than any other form of burial, this type symbolized a physical connection of the members with the rest of their family in death.

Iconography

The iconography of the Iron Age I village sites does not preserve unique forms. The major representative of this period, the bronze bull from the bull site, has already been discussed above.

1. Iron Age IIA and Taanach Cult Stands. Keel and Uehlinger observe that the tenth century saw the gradual disappearance of anthropomorphic representations of deities, especially associated with Egypt in this area, and an orientation toward the north where deities were represented with their symbols.24 Thus the tree and lion become symbols of the goddess Asherah. The "Lord of the Ostriches" theme may point to a representation of Yahweh as God of the steppe or as an aggressive deity.

While many pictorial objects suggest religion, few provide the wealth of images found in one of the Taanach cult stands, included among the finds that Holladay associates with a cult center there.25 Dated to the tenth century BC, this object provides a unique glimpse into something of the mythology or ideology that informed an (presumably) official religion in this town, a population center adjacent to or within the area of Israelite influence, culture, and religion.26 As a cult stand, its assembly of artistic representations is unique. On one of the four sides of the stand there are a series of four panels, each portraying a different scene. I will number the panels from bottom (panel 1) to top (panel 4). Panels 1 and 3 are both flanked by carvings of two lions facing the viewer. On panel 1 there is the portrait of a nude female with each arm raised toward the ear of one of the lions. Two identical creatures with four legs flank panel 2. They face the viewer. These creatures have human faces, however, and their bodies, which continue along the mold of the two sides of the stand, exhibit wings. They are best identified as sphinxes or griffins. Between them is an empty space void of any molding. This space shows no sign of ever having contained anything that might have broken and fallen off. The molding around the empty space is smooth and intact. Panel 3, flanked by lions, has at its center a tree. Two identical animals flank either side of the tree, each facing the tree and standing on its back legs. The animals are either ibexes or goats.27 Panel 4, at the top of this side of the stand, portrays a quadruped, drawn more simply than any of the other living creatures portrayed on the four panels. The quadruped faces to the left. Over its body there hovers a disk with wavy lines extending out from either side of it. This is a winged sun disk. Voluted columns flank the animal.

There are difficulties with any interpretation of pictorial symbols such as those described here. Scholars who have studied the first and third panels and compared the scenes with other parallels in iconography and in West Semitic texts have suggested that both the woman and the tree represent the same deity, Asherah.28 The tree represents the tree of life, also called the asherah, which appears in iconography at Kuntillet 'Ajrud and perhaps also in a blessing there (see below).

If the first and third panels represent Asherah, what do the second and fourth represent? The fourth panel displays a quadruped surmounted by a sun disk. Scholars have been inclined to identify the animal as a calf, a natural enough deduction given the known association of the calf with Canaanite worship.29 Associations of this animal with Baal have led Ruth Hestrin to identify the fourth panel as a representation of Baal.30

However, J. Glen Taylor suggests that the animal portrayed in this panel is an equid. He refers to two animal biologists who have examined this image and come to this conclusion.31 The sun disk, the equid, and the columns (representing the temple) all fit together as a Canaanite religious expression. The winged sun disk is a common motif in iconography throughout the Ancient Near East.32 Its possible association with horses also appears in figurines found in Palestine, including at Megiddo and at Jerusalem (Cave 1).33

Panel 2 represents two sphinxes on either side of an empty space. The lack of indication of anything broken off the molding around that space is clear. Taylor has proposed that the two sphinxes are cherubs and that this is a representation of an aniconic deity, whom he identifies with Yahweh.34 Given the parallelism, if panels 1 and 3 represent Asherah, then panels 2 and 4 would also represent the same deity. If panel 2 is a (non)representation of Yahweh, then we should expect the same of panel 4, whether it is an equid or a bovine.

This Canaanite representation of Yahweh may suggest an aspect of the portrayal unique to the northern kingdom. If it is a bovine, it could suggest a portrayal of the deity as a calf.35 If it is an equid, then this deity's image may be associated with the horse figurines found elsewhere at Megiddo and Jerusalem.36 As will be noted below, the inscription at Kuntillet 'Ajrud associates Yahweh with Asherah. The arguments of symmetry in the presentations, of the aniconic nature of panel 2, and of the evidence from Kuntillet 'Ajrud all point to an association of both panels 2 and 4 with Yahweh.37

Archaeologists discovered another cult stand at Taanach.38 Judith Hadley has identified alternating rows of lions and sphinxes although earlier scholars found only lions. This suggests similar deities as are found on the first stand mentioned above. There is also a tree flanked by ibexes and architectural features on the top tier. Although more poorly made, the motifs resemble those of the first cult stand discussed. The lions and the tree may suggest that this stand also depicted Asherah.39

Zevit suggests that these stands represent different views of a shrine with the top register pointing toward the inner sanctum.40 The alternating pattern created by the four panels on the first stand recalls the A-B-A'-B' parallelism found in Ugaritic and Canaanite poetry and literature.41 Scholars have noted the use of parallelism for the purposes of emphasis.42 The same sort of emphasis of these two deities may be taking place on this cult stand, and may reflect both their association and prominence among inhabitants of Taanach in the tenth century.

2. Iron Age IIB and Kuntillet 'Ajrud. In Iron IIB (c. 925–c. 722 BC), Judah possessed few pictorial representations other than symbols of royalty adapted from Egypt, and some local motifs. The northern kingdom adapted and contributed to the flourishing Phoenician artistic and religious traditions.

At Kuntillet 'Ajrud, the presence of distinctive drawings, especially those that appear near inscriptions referring to Yahweh and asherah/Asherah, have generated some discussion. These occur on a collection of shards that form a large storage jar. There are three figures. Two on the left (from the viewer's viewpoint) are standing. They have bovine faces and feet, and are adorned with feathered headdress. They stand with their arms behind their back and linked to one another. Dots decorate the upper parts of their bodies. They suggest some form of apparel. The lower parts of their bodies do not have this decoration, suggesting possible nakedness. The projection between the legs of each figure may be a phallus or a tail. The third figure to the right sits and plays a lyre. The "dotted apparel" stretches the full length of the body. It also describes the hair. The figure faces to the right toward the lyre, unlike the two standing figures who face toward the front.

Can these figures be identified? Do they have any relationship to the inscription that occurs with them? Some have tied the identification of the figures to the inscription (see below). In that case, either the two standing figures appear as representations of Yahweh and Asherah, or the lyre player represents Asherah. Arguments for these interpretations include: the bull calf imagery of Yahweh in the Bible, formal similarities of the lyre player to figures elsewhere identified as Asherah, and the etymology of Asherah as one who follows her male consort (introducing a three-dimensional perspective into the drawing).43 However, none of these arguments can overturn the careful analysis of art historian Pirhiya Beck. She concludes that the two standing figures are both representations of Bes, the Egyptian dwarf deity who appears throughout the eastern Mediterranean in various forms.44 The facial appearance, the nudity, the headdress, and even the accompanying lyre player are understandable in this interpretation. The artistic form is Phoenician. The lyre player cannot be a deity of superior rank because this musician would occupy an inferior role playing for the Bes figures.45 Zevit argues that the Bes figures are symbols of deity that can apply to any god or goddess.46 In this case he suggests that the larger one signifies Yahweh without actually portraying him. Zevit identifies Ashera(ta)h as the lyre player, pointing to such a portrayal of her in Ugaritic mythology.47

However, the unparalleled appearance of these types of Bes figures with Yahweh and Asherah creates doubt that there was an intentional association with the figures and the accompanying writing. Instead, it represents one more example of figures and writing found on the plastered walls and shards throughout the caravansery. This interpretation of the figures and their lack of association with the inscription is much more understandable given the noncultic nature of the structure in which they occur. If this was a cult center of some sort, arguments relating the art and inscriptions to a single ideology or theology would be more persuasive. A priestly leadership would have directed the cult and probably represented an official or state cult. However, an interpretation of the site as noncultic allows the iconography and the inscriptions to represent random expressions of popular piety, emanating from different times and different ethnic groups that might have passed through the site.48 It is possible that this was true, at least for a short period. In such a case the figure on the votive containers in the cultic room could represent the chief deities, Yahweh and Asherah, expressed in the form of Bes figures.

3. Iron Age IIC. In Iron Age IIC (c. 722–586 BC) Assyrian centers of power in Palestine become foci for Assyrian cultural and religious influence. Keel and Uehlinger note that a lack of female deities in pictorial art except in cheaper terracottas is a feature of most of Iron Age II.49 However, hundreds of these pillar base female figurines have been attested. They occur in homes and tombs reflecting the family piety that was expressed by earlier (Late Bronze Age and Iron I) plaque figures. In the coastal regions, but not Judah, the naked goddess plaques continue. She is identified with Astarte by Keel and Uehlinger. In fact, the pillar base figurines are prominent throughout Judah and their presence can be used, for the most part, to define the territorial limits of Judah in the latter period of the Monarchy. Their identification with a particular goddess is in dispute. The connection with the Phoenician plaques would suggest Astarte while others connect them with Asherah.50

Statues of a horse with a male rider occur, numbering above 450. Although the horse and rider statues, which can appear in groups, have been associated with the host of heaven and with guardian angels, there is little in the figurines themselves to require this. The solar symbolism of the numerous rosettes in seventh-century Judah may refer directly to symbols of Yahweh. Otherwise, seals from Judah lack images in Iron IIC, including the early part, which is the period of our interest.51 Thus this era saw an end to Egyptian influence, an increasingly Assyrian influence, and some evidence of an increasing aniconism.

Keel and Uehlinger note that there is an absence of anthropomorphic iconography of deities in the latter part of the Monarchy.52 This is in contrast with Edom, for example, where there was a goddess portrayed alongside the chief deity, Qaus. In Judah, images disappear from seals. From panel two of the tenth-century Taanach cult stand in the north to the absence of images in Judah, especially in the later period, aniconism seems to have been a distinctive part of the religious life of this region.

Epigraphy

There are very few inscriptions from Israel or its neighbors in the period between 1200 and 900 BC, for a variety of reasons.53 Therefore, as with the iconography, little can be said regarding this period's religion in terms of inscriptions. Yahweh as a chief deity is so identified for the first time in the ninth century. Although the name may appear as part of a place name already in the fourteenth century, its occurrence as a deity is suggested in the Mesha stele and is indicated clearly in the Kuntillet 'Ajrud inscriptions.54

There are mentions in monumental inscriptions of national deities, such as Chemosh the god of Moab in the ninth-century Mesha stele. The same stele also describes Yahweh as god of Israel and describes his cult in a Transjordanian Israelite town in the mid-ninth century, where a key element is the 'r'l yhwh ("altar hearth of Yahweh").55 So understood, Yahweh is the only god associated with Omride Israel and possesses no image at the site (which would have certainly been mentioned by Mesha if it existed) but rather an object that may have been used for the burning of incense.

Deir 'Allā is an ancient cult site located in the Jordan Valley. Plaster fragments containing writing have been found in what may have been a cult center. This site may be dated to the late ninth century. The ink writing presents a text in a distinctive dialect of Aramaic, influenced by the Canaanite dialects of the area. As reconstructed from the plaster fragments, it describes a seer named Balaam son of Beor. Balaam has a vision that has been understood as a picture of the natural world turned upside down.56 The name of the god El appears. Of interest for the question of religious distinctives is the mention of the Shaddayin, who appear as a divine council responsible for the supernatural effects. The term, Shaddayin, occurs only at this Transjordan site.57

Occupied at approximately the same time as Deir 'Allā, c. 800 BC, Kuntillet 'Ajrud, the caravansery or cult center in the northern Sinai, has yielded important inscriptions. These mention Yahweh and Asherah as deities invoked in the pronouncement of blessings upon various people. El and Baal are also mentioned in a single poem. The interpretation of these texts bristles with problems. Elsewhere, I have argued that the mention of Asherah, in conjunction with Yahweh, is not a cult symbol nor is "his Asherah" the best translation. Instead, it is preferable to render the goddess's name as Asherata, in accordance with the spelling and reading of her name everywhere outside the Bible for more than a thousand years.58

It is not certain who wrote all these inscriptions. In particular, the texts that mention Baal and El have been thought to have been composed by non-Israelites. The texts associate these deities with war and with theophanies. If they are Israelite, and this is increasingly more likely, they indicate that either Baal, like El, should be identified with Yahweh, or that there was a rival cult that accepted Baal as a martial deity.59 The most frequently mentioned deity, the only one associated with Asheratah, and the one who appears in blessings formulae, is Yahweh. His name is associated with two place names that occur as Yahweh of the Teman (htmn) and Yahweh of Samaria (šmrm). (The) Teman can be identified as a desert region to the south of Judah while Samaria can be associated with the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel or, possibly, with the nation of Israel itself.

Although best identified as a caravansary with some cultic associations in my view, this site yields the following distinctives in terms of its religious inscriptions: (1) Yahweh as a deity associated both with the state of Israel and with a region outside Israel and Judah, in the southern desert; (2) Yahweh as a male deity with a female consort, Asheratah, a goddess also associated with El, the chief deity in thirteenth-century mythological texts from Ugarit; (3) Yahweh and Asheratah as powerful deities capable of blessing others.

Some would date the paleography of the Jerusalem pomegranate to this same period, although with only a few letters the paleography is difficult to ascertain. Purchased from the black market, this small ivory pomegranate functioned as the head of a scepter. Although several of the letters for "house/temple" and "Yahweh" are missing, the most likely reconstruction allows a translation, "Belonging to the temple of Yahweh, holy to the priests."60 This translation implies a temple and priesthood related to Yahweh in Israel. It is not possible to determine the location of the temple or the function of the scepter.

From c. 750 BC at the southern Judean site of Khirbet el-Qom (probably ancient Makkedah), a tomb inscription mentions Yahweh as a deliverer of the writer, Uriyahu, from his enemies. This deliverance is associated either with the work of Asheratah or as something done for her benefit. Thus salvation from surrounding enemies is ascribed to Yahweh. Further, Asherata is mentioned multiple times as also involved. This association of these two deities at a second site suggests that this belief was more than casual, even if the writing represents a view outside the official cult. It is not impossible that in both Judah and Israel for some time in the late ninth and eighth centuries a view of Yahweh with a consort prevailed.

To this evidence should be added the possibly eighth-century BC seal, lmqnyhw 'bd yhwh: "Belonging to Miqneyahu, servant of Yahweh."61 This seal provides evidence for an active cult of Yahweh in which figures such as Miqneyahu could serve as officiants. From the time of the Monarchy, seals of Israelites and Judeans are given titles such as "the priest" and "priest of Dor."62 The absence of any Hebrew seals with titles that mention other deities or those in service to them may be significant. Clearly, similar evidence does not exist for any deity other than Yahweh.

From c. 700 BC in a cave in the heights above Ein Gedi there occurs an inscription that Zevit has studied at length.63 Although there is more than one interpretation of this inscription, all are agreed that it mentions Yahweh as blessed and associates him with lines describing his rule among the nations. Two or three lines later in the same inscription 'dny is also blessed. Otherwise unidentified as a deity, and possessing the legitimate interpretation of "my lord," it is not unreasonable to understand this term as an epithet for Yahweh.

Khirbet Beit Lei is a cave about eight kilometers east of Lachish that includes several important inscriptions. A major question concerns the dating of the cave's epigraphy. An early paleographic study of the latter suggested a sixth-century date.64 However, Zevit argues for an eighth- or seventh-century date, citing the tomb's contents and architecture, as well as the paleography.65 The paleography of the inscriptions mentioning Yahweh has been dated to c. 700 by Lemaire, a date with which Naveh and Zevit agree.66 This has become more convincing with the discovery of the above inscriptions and their dating to the time of the Monarchy. None of the texts mention any deity other than Yahweh. The most important inscriptions are those in the antechamber directly opposite the entrance. Faults in the rock surface and other marks render the two upper lines and the single lower line difficult to read. The upper inscription attests to Yahweh's sovereignty over Jerusalem and probably Judah. The lower line is a request or prayer for Yahweh's absolution.

These inscriptions describe an awareness of and worship of several deities, including Asheratah, Baal, El, and perhaps the Shaddayin in Israel and Judah. However, the dominant deity in all these inscriptions was Yahweh. Occasionally, he was also the only deity. He is mentioned exclusively in the ninth-century Mesha stele as the one deity associated with Israelite communities who had cultic objects. He appears alone in the Miqneyahu seal as well as at Ein Gedi and in the inscriptions at Khirbet Beit Lei. Thus Yahweh functions either as dominant or as sole deity. Israelites are involved in his cult. He alone is identified as "my lord." He alone is appealed to for blessing, for absolution, and for his reign over Jerusalem and his people.

Onomastics: The Personal Names67

Names can reveal something of the popular faith of the people. Seals and impressions (bullae) from the Iron Age give evidence of some 1,200 personal names, and the number is increasing with new evidence coming to light. What is unusual for Judah and Israel is the near absence of personal names compounded with divine names of deities other than Yahweh or the generic term for "god" ('el ). Over 46 percent of all names are Yahwistic names, about 6 percent are 'el names, and about 1 percent comprise personal names compounded with all other divine names that are clearly not epithets.68 Before the Monarchy there is no clear extrabiblical evidence for names compounded with "Yahweh" or its abbreviated form.69 Van der Toorn hypothesizes that at the earlier time the worship of Yahweh was restricted to a minority population (and later grew to a national religion).70 Others note an "onomastic lag" between the introduction of deity and the use of that deity in personal names.71 However, no explanation is certain.

In terms of the public use of personal names in society, Israel and Judah were Yahwistic worshipping communities. The one exception is the north kingdom at the capital of Samaria in the early eighth century, where a number of personal names in the ostraca found there use Baal. Even here, however, it is not the majority, and the bʿl element may simply refer to the common noun, "lord," an epithet of any deity, including Yahweh.

To Yahweh were ascribed the many characteristics of other deities as found in personal names. For examples, Sheharya ("Yahweh is dawn")72 ascribes an image to the God of Israel that at Ugarit is given status as a separate deity (Shahar—"Dawn"). However, there were also distinctives among the Yahwistic theophoric names, when compared with theophoric names of surrounding nations.73

The distinctive nature of Yahwistic names has been studied by Fowler. Unlike neighboring onomastica, Yahweh is never described as producing offspring or involved in fertility. Yahweh is never associated with a divine consort and rarely is he depicted in the form of an animal.74 He is not identified with architecture, cities, or astral phenomena. Unlike Mesopotamian names, no Israelite personal name suggests that the deity may harm an individual, act vengefully, or need to be appeased. The qualities of compassion, mercy, love, joy, transcendence, and perhaps salvation seem to occur to a unique degree in Israelite names in a manner that is not present in Ugaritic, Phoenician, Palmyrene, and Aramean names.75

Also in terms of the mention of other deities, the situation is different outside Israel, both in Canaan before the arrival of the Israelites and in the Phoenician and Aramaic names contemporary with Israel. In all cases, other divine names occur in the personal names.76 In fourteenth-century Canaan, Baal and Asherah occur in names: Baal by itself (Baalumme) or with a predicate nominative (Balumehr, "Baal is a warrior") and Asherah in the form of "servant of Asherah" (Abdi-Ashirti).77 In Phoenician and Punic names, Anat, Baal, Eshmun, and Melqart occur as deities, by themselves, and compounded in personal names.78 However, these collections are not directly comparable with the Israelite evidence because they derive from multiple urban centers across widely dispersed geographic regions.

But is there really a difference in the contemporary extrabiblical evidence among surrounding nations?79 For example, Lemaire notes that, in inscriptions of Transjordanian and Aramaean peoples, the names all contain a limited number of deities, less than in Mesopotamia or Egypt.80 Therefore, this suggests a resemblance to Israelite personal names.

Although Zevit endorses this conclusion, his own analysis of the Ammonite onomastica tells a different story.81 There the chief deity, Milkom, occurs in only nine names.82 'l occurs 150 times, lending credence to the view that this is a generic term for "god," whether in Ammon or Israel.83 Other deities and their frequencies include: bʿl—2; gd—3; yh/yhw—3; mwt—1; and mr—1.84 When the earlier study of Jackson on the Ammonite names is used, similar results obtain: ʾl—48; ʾnrt—1; bl—1; šm—1; nny—1; ʾmʾ—1.85 In contrast with Israel, where Yahwistic names have a huge dominance compared with all those compounded with other deities, in Ammon the evidence is the opposite. Ammonite personal names composed of other deities outnumber those with Milkom. Thus the situation provides a real contrast. Similar implications can be found when examining the Moabite and Philistine collections of personal names. However, all these provide considerably fewer names than the Ammonite corpus.

A challenge to the use of personal names in the study of Israelite religion has come from Callaway.86 Using biblical and archaeological evidence, he attempts to argue that the personal names on Israelite seals and bullae describe an elite, urban population that was dominated by the reforms of Josiah and does not reflect the larger rural population. However, none of this is convincing.

First, there is much more evidence of writing in ancient Israel than his sources would suggest.87 The eleventh-century abecedary at the village of Izbet-Sartah, the multiple attestations of writing from villages and rural areas in every century of the Iron Age, and the seals with written names possessed by individuals of many different classes attest to the wide use of writing. Further, the number of published seals and bullae has more than doubled since discovery of the sources that Callaway used, and there is a wide range of writing styles on these seals, reflecting both the elite and their professional scribes as well as those who were neither professional nor artistic.88 To attribute all seals and sources of personal names to Judah's urban elite is speculation.

Second, Callaway ignores the neighboring cultures where the evidence for the personal names exists at the same time on similar sources of seals and bullae and yet reveals a completely different set of data in terms of references to foreign deities, as noted above. In this regard, a major pillar of Callaway's argument rests on what he calls standardization, in which personal names of a whole nation, or at least the elite, are changed to follow the policy of the capital.

If this is the case in Jerusalem, there is no evidence for it. There are no contemporary examples. More importantly, one would expect to see examples of names changing from non-Yahwistic forms to Yahwistic forms between generations. This does not exist. Nor can it be argued that all the seals and bullae must come from Josiah's reign and later, that is, after 650 BC. Paleography does not support this claim.

To conclude regarding the onomastic evidence, the dominant and almost sole use of the divine name Yahweh in the onomastics of ancient Israel suggest that this deity played a role in Israel distinct from how the surrounding nations regarded their chief deities. While it is certainly true that the mention of deities in the personal names does not necessarily prove the dominance of a deity in the religion of the peoples, the onomastic evidence should not be dismissed as completely irrelevant. Like all the other types of evidence, it must be taken into consideration where the totality of data is limited.89 In the eighth and seventh centuries, the only period of Iron Age Israel with significant onomastic evidence, the public recognition of Yahweh in Israel and Judah's naming of their children reached an exclusive level that has no parallel among the neighboring nations.90

Conclusions

This brief survey of selected evidence has revealed several important observations about the distinct nature of ancient Israelite religion as evident in several of the forms of the extrabiblical evidence.

First, the evidence suggests an aniconic aspect that is evident in many of the assemblages of evidence. This is true in the highland villages of Iron Age I Palestine where there is a significant absence of religious paraphernalia in contrast with predecessors and with contemporary fortified sites. If there was an altar on Mt. Ebal, then this absence of images seems to have been found in Israelite religion from the beginning. Its continuation at a major center such as Tel Arad may attest to the ongoing presence of this phenomenon. Tryggve Mettinger's careful survey of the evidence leads him to conclude an association between this imageless religion and that found in the desert to the south, a region also associated with the earliest appearance of the divine name Yahweh, as part of a place name.91 Mettinger relates this aniconism to the unworked standing stones or mazzebot that occur at the bull site, at Tel Arad, and at other sites within ancient Israel. He notes the earlier presence of these sorts of mazzebot in the Negev, particularly in the Uvda and Timnah Valleys in the southern part.92 Thus the origins of this aspect of Israelite religion and perhaps its earlier manifestation suggest that it was brought from the southern desert by groups, perhaps the Israelites themselves, at the time of their earliest appearance and settlement in Palestine.

Second, it is possible that the chief deity was at times represented in a form common to that of the leading West Semitic god, El, as a bull.93 In addition, the leading storm god, Baal or Hadad in West Semitic tradition, could be represented as a bull or bull calf. This image is found on the Taanach cult stand, on a panel that corresponds to a vacant one, perhaps representing the imageless form and the image of the chief god. Of course the twelfth-century bull site itself produced a form of just such a creature. The other images considered here, those on the jar fragments from Kuntillet 'Ajrud c. 800 BC, suggest Bes-type figures that cannot be definitely correlated with the writing scribbled on a line beside them. These may point to deities but if so (following Zevit) the Bes forms symbolize the deity; they are not intended as a pictorial representation of Yahweh and Asherata. Elsewhere the general absence of pictorial images, which reaches a total dearth in seventh-century Judah, implies the increasing influence of the aniconic religious belief on practitioners in the southern kingdom.

Third, other deities were known in ancient Israel. Baal may occur in some personal names from eighth-century BC Samaria, though this is disputed. He is mentioned in the Kuntillet 'Ajrud inscription. El also appears there and in the Deir 'Allā inscriptions, although their language suggests that they may have been written by non-Israelites. Like Baal, El appears in personal names. However, it is even more likely that this is a common noun "god" that describes the chief deity, and so may be used as an epithet for Yahweh. In fact, the sole deity that achieves any prominence is the goddess Asherah or Asherata.

Her appearance in Israelite religion seems to occur as early as the tenth century, if the Taanach cult stand can be considered truly Israelite and if two of the panels that center on a naked female and on a tree can be identified with her. She may also appear with Yahweh in the blessings found at Kuntillet 'Ajrud and at Khirbet el-Qom. While this interpretation is disputed, I have argued elsewhere and continue to believe that this is the most probable interpretation of the references to "Yahweh and Asheratah."94 If she is identified with the terracotta figurines, then Asherah continues to be present in Judah right to the end of the period and the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem.95

Therefore, some Israelites regarded Asherah as an important goddess and consort of Yahweh. However, this must be balanced with the absence of Asherah in the onomastica, in other inscriptions such as Ein Gedi and Khirbet Beit Lei, and with the elimination of any reference to her in the many inscriptions that date to the final decades of the Judean Monarchy. The last 60 years of this period were omitted from consideration, because of the generally recognized appearance of Yahwistic monotheism at this time. However, it is important to note that Asherah's complete absence in all the blessing formulae of letters and all other Judean references to deity is a surprise if she was a prominent figure in the immediately preceding period.

In fact, it remains to be proven that Asherah was a dominant deity even in c. 800 BC. Her absence in the onomastica and in other inscriptions, as well as the lack of association of this deity with Israel among any of the inscriptions from nearby nations, make it difficult to accept that she held any clear place in the official cult(s). Her domestic role, while emphasized by some scholars,96 remains unclear because there is no inscriptional material to connect her to the female terracotta figurines, whose own function remains unclear.

Fourth and finally, the onomastica suggest a role for Yahweh as chief god in a manner distinct from neighboring lands. Pardee demonstrated that, in terms of the relative importance of the different deities at Ugarit, the onomastica reveal a different perspective than do the myths and other text genres.97 However, this does not prove that the personal names reveal nothing about the relative importance of various deities. This is all the more true when a concentration of Yahwistic names exists to the near exclusion of others and when this is unique in comparison with surrounding nations. Further, this deity possesses distinctive character traits not found in the onomastica of other nations. Together, the evidence suggests that on the public level of personal names, the worship of Yahweh was somewhat exclusive in ancient Israel and virtually exclusive in Judah, especially later in time.

Thus the overall evidence is that of an ongoing contest between a special worship of Yahweh, on the one hand, and a worship of Yahweh that included other deities (especially Asherah) on the other. Although there is evidence of times when Yahweh was part of a pantheon, this deity's dominance is exceptional, and it suggests something more than a chief or national deity. To this should be added the largely aniconic nature of the worship and the distinctive confessional aspects found in some inscriptions and the personal names.

Yahweh appears sovereign over forces of nature and exhibits mercy, love, joy, and compassion. In general, he is not identified with physical objects, with animals, nor with the production of offspring. While both the names and texts are largely limited to the latter part of the period under consideration, they remain the only written evidence that we possess. Thus the Yahweh of these texts, supported by the iconography and cult sites that reach into earlier periods, all attest to a distinctive role and view of this deity that diverges from that of the other nations and their deities.

1 For more details see my book-length study, Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007).

2 Paul J. Griffiths, Problems of Religious Diversity (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001), 7; see also 2–12.

3 For this reason there will be no discussion of the two distinctive characteristics that Mark S. Smith finds in Israelite religion that have no antecedent or comparison in Canaanite religion: Yahweh's southern sanctuary in Sinai (or other mountains) and the exodus tradition from Egypt. See his The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 25.

4 Cf. Judg 2:9–12 and Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, "Israelite Ethnicity in Iron I: Archaeology Preserves What Is Remembered and What Is Forgotten in Israel's History," Journal of Biblical Literature 122 (2003): 401–25. Bloch-Smith's attempt to identify cultural distinctives to Israelites in relation to the Philistines uses boundary distinctions in a method not unlike that applied here. Among the many discussions of ethnicity and ancient people groups, see Steven Grosby, Biblical Ideas of Nationality: Ancient and Modern (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 13–68. He does not identify a nation (national identity) to Israel before the United Monarchy. Alternatively, see William G. Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), for an attempt to identify specific cultural forms that distinguish the Canaanites from Israelites in the Iron Age I.

5 Beth Alpert Nakhai, Archaeology and the Religions of Canaan and Israel (Boston: Americans Schools of Oriental Research, 2001), 170–76. Villages at Hazor and Megiddo contained more elaborate remains, but these may have included forms from the Bronze Age. Tel Qiri, located near the ancient sacred area of Mt. Carmel and close to the Canaanite passes into the Megiddo Plain, contains materials that may reflect its situation close by important international trade routes.

6 Ibid., 120, 136–52, lists Beth Shean, Shechem, Aphek, Shiloh, Gezer, and Jerusalem west of the Jordan; and Pella, Tell Abu al-Kharaz, Tell Deir Alla, and Tel Safut east of the river.

7 Israel Finkelstein, "Two Notes on Northern Samaria: The 'Einun Pottery and the Date of the Bull Site," Palestine Exploration Quarterly 130 (1998): 94–98.

8 The outer enclosure wall encompasses some 14,380 square meters. No building was found in the outer court. There is an inner enclosure wall, encompassing some 3,850 square meters of the higher northern side of the area. There are three steps at the entrance to this part.

9 James Weinstein, "Exodus and Archaeological Reality," in Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence, ed. Ernest S. Frerichs and Leonard H. Lesko (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 88–89, argues that this is insufficient evidence to date this structure. He prefers a twelfth-century date but does not explain why.

10 The bones included sheep, goats, cattle, and fallow deer predominantly, but also hedgehogs, doe, porcupine, and lizards in much smaller quantities.

11 Liora Kolska Horwitz, "Faunal Remains from the Early Iron Age Site on Mount Ebal," Tel Aviv 13–14 (1986–87): 173–89.

12 Ziony Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches (London and New York: Continuum, 2001), 303, considers this a yesod as was required for certain blood sacrifices. Was it used to sprinkle blood on the four corners of the altar?

13 Zertal argues that the Transjordanian pottery appears earlier and thus represents an east- to-west movement of the pottery. Adam Zertal, "Israel Enters Canaan—Following the Pottery Trail," Biblical Archaeology Review 17/5 (1991), 32–34; idem, The Manasseh Hill Country Survey: The Eastern Valleys and the Fringes of the Desert (Tel Aviv: University of Haifa and Ministry of Defense, 1996); idem, "The Iron Age I Culture in the Hill Country of Canaan—A Manassite Perspective," in Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries B.C.E., ed. Seymour Gitin, Amihay Mazar, and Ephraim Stern (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1998 [Hebrew]), 220–38, referring to the distribution of three types of cooking pots. However, William G. Dever, "How to Tell a Canaanite from an Israelite," in The Rise of Ancient Israel: Symposium at the Smithsonian Institution October 26, 1991, ed. Hershel Shanks, et al. (Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1992), 51, disputes this as impossible to demonstrate from an archaeological standpoint. Nevertheless, ongoing publication of the ceramic data continues to support this (Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel, 102–3) as does the analysis of the genealogical data of Chronicles (Gershon Galil, The Genealogies of the Tribes of Judah, Ph.D. thesis, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1983, xxiii-xxiv).

14 Dever, "How to Tell," 33–34; idem, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 89–90.

15 Gösta W. Åhlström, The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander's Conquest, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 146 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 366.

16 Adam Zertal, "Three Iron Age Fortresses in the Jordan Valley and the Origin of the Ammonite Circular Towers," Israel Exploration Journal 45 (1995): 273, concludes that the cultic nature of the site has been generally accepted and that no convincing alternative for it has been successful. His own analysis of contemporary and later fortresses in the region concludes that they are not like the Mt. Ebal site.

17 Elizabeth Bloch-Smith and Beth Alpert Nakhai, "A Landscape Comes to Life: The Iron Age I," Near Eastern Archaeology 62 (1997): 71, 77.

18 Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites? 89–90.

19 Zevit, Religions of Ancient Israel, 200.

20 Ibid., 656–57.

21 Following the typological analysis of J. S. Holladay Jr., "Religion in Israel and Judah under the Monarchy: An Explicitly Archaeological Approach," in Patrick D. Miller Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride, eds., Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 249–99.

22 Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 123; Journal for the Study of the Old Testament/American Schools of Oriental Research Monograph 7 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1992); idem, "Life in Judah from the Perspective of the Dead," Near Eastern Archaeology 65 (2002): 120–30.

23 Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices, 137, 142.

24 Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel, trans. Thomas H. Trapp (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 133–75.

25 Holladay, "Religion in Israel and Judah."

26 In addition to the above comments regarding the shift of population to such fortified centers, the comments of Smith, The Early History of God, 54, are pertinent:

If the stand is dated correctly, then it might constitute evidence for Israelite religion. Judges 1:27 would suggest that the city remained at least partially Canaanite down to the monarchy. Afterwards following the rise of the Davidic dynasty, the city became Israelite. Solomon's organization of the nation lists Taanach and Megiddo in the fifth district (1 Kgs 4:12). Though politically identified as Israelite, the city may have continued its Canaanite cultic traditions, which flourished in the valleys and the coast in the Late Bronze Age. Dated to the early monarchy, the stand would appear to provide evidence for Israelite polytheism (including Asherah), continuous with earlier Canaanite traditions.

27 Cf. Lev 17:7.

28 William G. Dever, "Asherah, Consort of Yahweh? New Evidence from Kuntillet 'Ajrud," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 255 (1984): 33n24; Ruth Hestrin, "The Cult Stand from Ta'anach and Its Religious Background," in Phoenicia and the East Mediterranean in the First Millennium B.C.: Proceedings of the Conference Held in Leuven from the 14th to the 16th of November 1985, ed. Edward Lipinski, Studie Phoenicia V, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 22 (Leuven: Peeters, 1987), 68–71; J. Glen Taylor, "Yahweh and Asherah at Tenth Century Taanach," Newsletter for Ugaritic Studies 37/38 (1987): 16–18; idem, "The Two Earliest Representations of Yahweh," in Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical & Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie, ed. Lyle Eslinger and J. Glen Taylor, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 67 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1988), 560. See, however, Philip J. King and Lawrence E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel, Library of Ancient Israel (Louisville: Westminster, 2001), 343, who do not accept the identity with Asherah as established. Indeed, they are correct in terms of a text. Nevertheless, this is the best understanding of a female portrayed with animals.

29 Paul W. Lapp, "The 1968 Excavations at Tell Ta'annek: The New Cultic Stand," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 195 (1969): 44; Hestrin, "Cult Stand from Ta'anach," 67.

30 Ruth Hestrin, "Canaanite Cult Stand," in Treasures of the Holy Land: Ancient Art from the Israel Museum, ed. John P. O'Neill (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1986), 161–63; idem, "Cult Stand from Ta'anach," 75; Philip J. King, Amos, Hosea, Micah—An Archaeological Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 107.

31 J. Glen Taylor, "Two Earliest Known Representations of Yahweh," 561–66; idem, Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 111 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1993), 24–37; idem, "Was Yahweh Worshipped as the Sun?" Biblical Archaeology Review 20/3 (May/June 1994): 55–59. This suggestion was first made by Albert E. Glock, "Taanach," in Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. Michael Avi-Yonah and Ephraim Stern (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1978), 4:1138–47. It is followed by Judith M. Hadley, Yahweh's Asherah in the Light of Recent Discovery, Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge University, 1989, 219; idem, The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess, University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 57 (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2000). Ruth Hestrin, "Understanding Asherah: Exploring Semitic Iconography," Biblical Archaeology Review 17/5 (Sept./Oct. 1991): 59, argues that the absence of a mane on the representation opposes the interpretation of these animals as horses. She also identifies this image with the reference in 2 Kgs 23:11 to the horses dedicated to the sun. Josiah destroyed them.

32 See especially George E. Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation: The Origins of the Biblical Tradition (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University, 1973), 32–56. For the appearance of this motif in the Bible, see Taylor, Yahweh and the Sun; Mark S. Smith, "'Seeing God' in the Psalms: The Background to the Beatific Vision in the Hebrew Bible," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 50 (1988): 171–83; idem, "The Near Eastern Background of Solar Language for Yahweh," Journal of Biblical Literature 109 (1990): 29–39.

33 Herbert G. May, Material Remains of the Megiddo Cult, Oriental Institute Publications 26 (Chicago and London: University of Chicago, 1935); Kathleen M. Kenyon, The Bible and Recent Archaeology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1978), 76; Thomas A. Holland, "A Study of Palestinian Iron Age Baked Clay Figurines with Special Reference to Jerusalem Cave 1," Levant 9 (1977): 121–55; Hadley, Yahweh's Asherah, 219; idem, Cult of Asherah; Taylor, "Was Yahweh Worshipped," 58. Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990), 116, also indicates that these objects were discovered at Lachish and Hazor.

34 King and Stager, Life in Biblical Israel, 344, argue that the cherubim themselves represent Yahweh. However, this is not clear from any biblical text.

35 Dated to the tenth century, it could suggest the portrayal of Yahweh that Jeroboam I intended. He erected images of calves at the cult centers of Dan and Bethel.

36 Cf. 2 Kgs 23:11.

37 Smith, "Near Eastern Background," 32n16, suggests that a tradition associating the calf and Baal could have persisted at Taanach and could be represented on panel 4. This is a possibility, but my present assessment of the arguments favors Taylor's identification with Yahweh. Smith does not address the question of the identification of panel 2. Hadley, Yahweh's Asherah, 220–21; idem, Cult of Asherah, accepts the identification with Yahweh and observes that neither the Ugaritic literature nor the Bible provides substantial identification of Asherah with Baal, the one other god whom scholars have identified here. Cf. Zevit, Religions of Ancient Israel, 324, who determines that Yahweh and Asherah are represented (maximally; minimally he suggests two deities).

38 Ernst Sellin, Tell Ta'annek (Vienna: Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1904), 75–76; Lapp, "The 1968 Excavations," 16–17; Glock, "Taanach," 1143–44; Hadley, Yahweh's Asherah, 221–22; idem, The Cult of Asherah.

39 Ruth Hestrin, "A Note on the 'Lion Bowls' and the Asherah," Israel Museum Journal 7 (1988): 117.

40 Zevit, Religions of Ancient Israel, 325.

41 Wilfred G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 26 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1986), 114–22.

42 James L. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry (New Haven: Yale University, 1981), 51; cf. Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic Books, 1985).

43 For bull/calf imagery, cf. Michael D. Coogan, "Canaanite Origins and Lineage: Reflections on the Religion of Ancient Israel," in Ancient Israelite Religion, ed. Miller et al., 119; P. Kyle McCarter Jr., "Aspects of the Religion of the Israelite Monarchy: Biblical and Epigraphic Data," in ibid., 137–55. For formal comparisons with Asherah, cf. Dever, "Asherah, Consort of Yahweh?" For the etymology of Asherah as one who follows after and its association with the inscription, cf. Baruch Margalit, "Some Observations on the Inscriptions and Drawing from Khirbet el-Qôm," Vetus Testamentum 39 (1989): 374.

44 Pirhiya Beck, "The Drawings from Horvat Teiman (Kuntillet 'Ajrud)," Tel Aviv 9 (1982): fig. 4. See also Saul M. Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel, Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 34 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 29 nn.31, 32. Olyan refers to a similar conclusion that the figures are those of Bes, by Fritz Stolz, "Monotheismus in Israel," in Monotheismus im alten Israel und seiner Umwelt, ed. Othmar Keel, Biblische Beiträge 14 (Fribourg: Schweizerisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1980), 168. Dever, "Asherah, Consort of Yahweh?" (cf. Hadley, Yahweh's Asherah, 184–85; idem, Cult of Asherah) argues that the Bes figures were intentionally placed at the entrance to the caravansary to ward off wild animals and other dangers.

45 Hadley, Yahweh's Asherah, 184, 194.

46 Zevit, Religions of Ancient Israel, 387–89, 392.

47 Ugaritica V, 557–58, RS 24.245, lines 5–7.

48 Positions that argue for a state-controlled cult represented at Kuntillet 'Ajrud may turn out to be correct. However, the weight of evidence is not on their side at present. The inscriptions and drawings (with the lack of cultic artifacts) would appear to indicate that this was one of the "peripheral sites exposed to foreign influence." Cf. Jeffrey H. Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions, Harvard Semitic Series 31 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 29; idem, "Israelite Religion: The Onomastic and Epigraphic Evidence," in Ancient Israelite Religion, ed. Miller et al., 176. Some argue that the structure in which the inscriptions and drawings were found is a government structure and that therefore the views represented must be those of the state-supported cult. Cf. Silvia Schroer, In Israel Gab es Bilder: Nachrichten von darstellender Kunst im Alten Testament, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 74 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987), 32; Klaus Koch, "Aschera als Himmelskönigen in Jerusalem," Ugarit Forschungen 20 (1988): 99; Zevit, Religions of Ancient Israel. This view requires the demonstration that (1) the building was controlled by a government such as Judah or Israel, rather than a local group; (2) that government was capable and interested in exerting its control in cultic matters; and (3) that the government concerned can be identified, not an easy task given the variety of places named in the inscriptions. Zevit, Religions of Ancient Israel, has attempted to make the case. He argues, among other things, that (1) the topography of the site, built high above the surrounding area, would make it an unlikely spot to drag animals up to; (2) the position of some inscriptions on lintels and the professional nature of the writing suggest something more than graffiti; and (3) the benched room with the inscriptions, drawings, and pottery typologically resembles contemporary Israelite and Judean cult centers. Argument 1 is not convincing as the prominent position would be expected, whether a state fort or a caravansery. Argument 2 argues a stronger case than previously that the inscriptions were authorized rather than random. Argument 3 suggests that the room was an intentional cult site. However, this does not require the assumption that the material here necessarily represented official Judean religious policy. Nevertheless, both the witness of 2 Chron 25:14 and the relatively brief occupation of the site may suggest that for a short time this did represent a religious polytheism with which the monarchy was comfortable. It could provide background to the indictments of Isaiah and Micah a few generations later.

49 Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, 288–372.

50 For the Astarte identification, see Smith, Early History of God, 111.

51 The 211 seal motifs found in the Burnt Archive in Jerusalem include only two with solar motifs, indicating the diminution of the influence of solar imagery (and Egypt). However, this archive appears to date later than the time of Josiah and thus outside the period of our interest.

52 Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses.

53 Richard S. Hess, "Literacy in Iron Age Israel," in Windows into Old Testament History: Evidence, Argument, and the Crisis of "Biblical Israel," ed. V. Philips Long, David W. Baker, and Gordon J. Wenham (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 82–102.

54 See Richard S. Hess, "The Divine Name Yahweh in Late Bronze Age Sources," Ugarit Forschungen 23 (1991): 181–88, for a summary of the other possible occurrences of the divine name, Yahweh, in Bronze Age sources, and a critique of some of the identifications.

55 So Anson F. Rainey, "Syntax, Hermeneutics and History," Israel Exploration Journal 48 (1998): 249.

56 Jo Ann Hackett, The Balaam Texts from Deir 'Allā, Harvard Semitic Monographs 31 (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1980), 29–30.

57 For the former, see Smith, Early History of God, 58. For the latter, see James Robert Engle, Pillar Figurines of the Iron Age and Asherah/Asherim, Ph.D. diss., University of Pittsburgh, 1979, 55, 62; and Ruth Hestrin, "The Lachish Ewer and the Asherah," Israel Exploration Journal 37 (1987): 221–22. Cf. also Hadley, Cult of Asherah, 196–205; Holland, "Study of Palestinian Iron Age Baked Clay Figurines"; Raz Kletter, "Between Archaeology and Theology: The Pillar Figurines from Judah and the Asherah," in Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan, ed. Amihai Mazar, with Ginny Mathias, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 331 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), 177–216; and Elizabeth C. LaRocca-Pitts, "Of Wood and Stone": The Significance of Israelite Cultic Items in the Bible and Its Early Interpreters, Harvard Semitic Monographs 61 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001), 161–204.

58 Richard S. Hess, "Yahweh and His Asherah? Religious Pluralism in the Old Testament World," in One God, One Lord: Christianity in a World of Religious Pluralism, ed. Andrew D. Clarke and Bruce W. Winter, 2nd ed. (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 13–42; idem, "Asherah or Asheratah?" Orientalia 65 (1996): 209–19.

59 Smith, Early History of God, 73.

60 André Lemaire, "Un inscription paleo-hébraïque sur grenade en ivoire," Revue Biblique 88 (1981): 236–39; Hess, "Yahweh and His Asherah?"; idem, "Asherah or Asheratah?"

61 Graham I. Davies, Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions. Corpus and Concordance (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1991), #100.172; Nahman Avigad and Benjamin Sass, Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1997), #227.

62 Cf. Ephraim Stern, "Pagan Yahwism: The Folk Religion of Ancient Israel," Biblical Archaeology Review 27/3 (May/June 2001): 26. These figures are so identified on the basis of the personal names being compounded with Yahweh.

63 Zevit, Religions of Ancient Israel, 351–59.

64 Frank M. Cross, "The Cave Inscription from Khirbet Beit Lei," in Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck, ed. James A. Sanders (Garden City: Doubleday, 1970), 299–306.

65 Zevit, Religions of Ancient Israel, 405–37.

66 Zevit, Religions of Ancient Israel, 420; Joseph Naveh, "Old Hebrew Inscriptions in a Cave," Israel Exploration Journal 13 (1963): 81–87; André Lemaire, "Priéres en temps de crise: les inscriptions de Khirbet Beit Lei," Revue Biblique 83 (1976): 558–65.

67 It is difficult to separate the place names from the biblical evidence because they are a primary source for understanding ancient Israelite toponymy. Of the 502 place names in the Bible, none are Yahwistic. However, toponyms with bʿl are unattested in Canaanite toponyms from Egyptian sources. Therefore, some suppose that the Israelites introduced them. In the south, in Judah and Simeon in particular, some eight place names have a form of this element. This leads Zevit to conclude that Baal worship was more prevalent than might be supposed on the basis of biblical evidence alone (Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel, 606). Baal was a popular deity of the towns (ibid., 649). However, it should be noted that many of the Baal place names are not found on the well-traveled lowland routes that the Egyptians used and whose place names they more easily recorded. Nor are places with Baal names usually identified as major population centers. Thus the rarity of the Baal names in Egyptian New Kingdom sources may have more to do with the selection of regions and sites whose names were recorded in Egyptian records than with the absence of such sites altogether.

68 Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods, identified 557 Yahwistic personal names, 44 'el names, and a handful of baʾal names. Cf. Alan R. Millard, "The History of Israel against the Background of Ancient Near Eastern History," in From the Ancient Sites of Israel: Essays on Archaeology, History and Theology in Memory of Aareli Saarisalo (1896–1986), ed. Timo Eskola and Eero Junkkaala, Iustitia Supplement Series (Helsinki: Theological Institute of Finland, 1998), 101–17; Smith, Early History of God, 35.

69 The suggestion of an Iron Age I arrowhead with a personal name compounded with YHWH has been disputed as to its reading (personal communication, A. Lemaire, 7/2003). For the theories of De Moor that Yahweh occurs at Ugarit and in the Amarna letters from Tyre, whether as part of personal names or separately, see the problems with this interpretation in Hess, "The Divine Name Yahweh."

70 Karel van der Toorn, Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel: Continuity and Change in the Forms of Religious Life, Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 7 (Leiden: Brill, 1996). It is a testimony to the syncretism of Judg 2:9–11.

71 Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods, 17.

72 Taylor, Yahweh and the Sun, 90.

73 Jeaneane D. Fowler, Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew: A Comparative Study, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 49 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1988), 314–18. The criticisms of the book, particularly Emerton's rebuttal to her critique of Gray's study (John A. Emerton, Review of Fowler, Theophoric Personal Names, in Vetus Testamentum 29 [1989]: 246–48), do not overturn the main conclusions of the work or its significance.

74 There is much discussion of the Samaria ostraca's eighth-century BC name, 'glyw. Although some see this as undoubtedly identifying Yahweh with a calf, others prefer the interpretation, "calf of Yahweh," noting parallels in Akkadian personal names and biblical references to young men as 'gl. See Fowler, Theophoric Personal Names, 120; Martin Noth, Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1928), 150; André Lemaire, Inscriptions hébraïques. Tome I. Les ostraca. Littératures anciennes du proche-orient (Paris: Les editions du Cerf, 1977), 53. For the first option, see Smith, Early History of God, 83.

75 Fowler, Theophoric Personal Names, 315–18, observes the absence of divine compassion and mercy in Ugaritic and Phoenician names, the absence of deities as a source of joy or compassion in Aramaic names, and the absence of divine choice and compassion in Palmyrene names. She concludes that each collection of onomastica reflects a different type of "piety." Further, and importantly, she notes that the theophoric names in the epigraphical material contain the same semantic material as that found in the biblical onomastica.

76 John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 265 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 227–28, argues against the view of Tigay that this demonstrates the worship of a single deity in Monarchic Israel. While the extreme position of total monotheism can hardly be demonstrated (neither in the Bible nor in extrabiblical inscriptions), the Yahwistic element of the personal names is significant. Day presents four arguments: (1) Yahwistic names imply not that Yahweh was the only deity but that he was the most important deity; (2) many names could be traditional; (3) Tigay's evidence is limited to late monarchic Judah; (4) the statistic ratio of the number of Yahwistic names in comparison with the number of "pagan" names is lower than suggested. The following responses to these arguments may be made. (1) The first argument is not relevant because it does not challenge the data nor does it prove the alternative. (2) Whether the names are traditional or not, it nevertheless proves that people preferred Yahwistic names. (3) Tigay's evidence includes all available onomastic data from within Palestine. Although a preponderance of the evidence originates in late Monarchic Judean contexts, the dramatic increase in the number of personal names in the decade since Tigay wrote has not changed the percentages and conclusions. (4) The error is not identified in detail by Day so it is difficult to evaluate the validity of this argument. However, the scholars cited in this section do not seem to agree with this observation.

77 Cf. Richard S. Hess, Amarna Personal Names, American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series 9 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993), 235–36.

78 Frank L. Benz, Personal Names in the Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions, Studia Pohl 8 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1972), 233–34. Richard J. Clifford, "Phoenician Religion," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 279 (1990): 55–64, has observed the multiplicity of deities worshipped in all of the Phoenician deities, arguing for a special emphasis on a triad of deities at the top.

79 There clearly seems to be a difference if the personal names in the Bible are taken into account. Zevit, Religions of Ancient Israel, 586–609, presents a different view of the Israelite personal names with divine name elements. He notes that the Yahweh names are the largest class of Israelite names, dominant from the United Monarchy until the exile. Yahweh is never depicted as an animal nor is he ever referred to as "Prince" (zbl) or "treasure" (nks). This is based on the 2,202 Israelite names counted in Ran Zadok, The Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponymy and Prosopography, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 28 (Leuven: Peeters, 1988): 397–459. Zevit estimates that less than 20 percent of Israelites bore non-Yahwistic names (Religions of Ancient Israel, 608n95). Other deities that were worshipped include: Canaanite ¸nt, ym, mwt, and ršp (but not Asherah!); and the Egyptian 'mwn, ḥwr, bs (Bes in bsy, Ezra 2:49), and 's (Isis). Given that Yahwistic names appear from the time of the United Monarchy, it is clear that the spread of Yahwism is pre-Davidic as many in David's administration bore Yahwistic names (Zevit, Religions of Ancient Israel, 607). If the majority of Israelites were Yahwistic, the multiple cult centers suggest no single or centralized means of worshipping. Following Dennis Pardee, "An Evaluation of the Proper Names from Ebla from a West Semitic Perspective: Pantheon Distribution according to Genre," in Archiv reali di Ebla 1 (Rome: Missione Archaeologica Italiana in Syria, 1988), 132, Zevit, Religions of Ancient Israel, 608, argues that Yahwistic names indicate little about cultic affiliation (though this is not strictly what Pardee said). First Kings 19:18 reports 7,000 who had not bowed to Baal, this out of a total population of the ninth-century north Israel of about 500,000 is less than 5 percent. On the other hand, exclusive Baal worshippers of the north in the ninth century could fill the temple of Baal, and that could be at most a few thousand (2 Kgs 10:19–21; Zevit, Religions of Ancient Israel, 649–50). Within Israel there was a minority who chose the names of other deities for their children, but in general the non-Yahwistic names seem to have been used by parents with Yahwistic names and vice versa (Zevit, Religions of Ancient Israel, 649). This suggests random choices for at least one minority group.

80 André Lemaire, "Déesses et dieux de Syria-Palestine d'apres les inscriptions (c. 1000–500 Av. N. E.)," in Ein Gott allein? JHWH-verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der Israelitischen und altorientalischen Religiongeschichte, ed. Walter Dietrich and Martin A. Klopfenstein (Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), 135–45.

81 Zevit, Religions of Ancient Israel, 651n75. For these purposes Zevit relies on the work of Aufrecht 1989:356–376, a collection of Ammonite inscriptions including all available data from seals and bullae.

82 Zevit notes this fact but does not attempt to explain it.

83 Walter Aufrecht, "The Religion of the Ammonites," in Ancient Ammon, ed. Burton MacDonald and Randall W. Younkers (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 152–62, suggests the view that El was the chief deity in Ammon, and therefore these references are not to a generic term for a deity but rather to a god named El similar to the chief deity of the Ugaritic pantheon. However, no textual evidence outside the onomastica supports this. Further, the consistent usage of 'l as a generic term for deity in Israelite texts, as well as those of all surrounding peoples in the Iron Age, places the burden of proof on the attempt to assert that El was recognized as a specific deity in Ammon.

84 As in Israel, goddesses such as Asherah receive little or no mention.

85 Kent P. Jackson, "Ammonite Personal Names in the Context of West Semitic Onomasticon," in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Carol L. Meyers and Michael O'Connor (Philadelphia: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1983), 518.

86 Roger Callaway, "The Name Game: Onomastic Evidence and Archaeological Reflections on Religion in Late Judah," Jian Dao 2 (1999): 15–36.

87 Cf. David W. Jamieson-Drake, Scribes and Scribal Schools in Monarchic Judah: A Socio-Archaeological Approach, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 109; Social World of Biblical Antiquity 9 (Sheffield: Almond, 1991). Contrast Alan R. Millard, "The Knowledge of Writing in Iron Age Palestine," Tyndale Bulletin 46 (1995): 207–17; Hess, "Yahweh and His Asherah?"

88 Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods. See Aaron Demsky and Meir Bar-Ilan, "Writings in Ancient Israel and Early Judaism," in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Martin Jan Mulder (Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 15; Nahman Avigad, Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Jeremiah (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1986), 121; William M. Schniedewind, "Orality and Literacy in Ancient Israel," Religious Studies Review 26/4 (October 2000): 328.

89 See Pardee, "An Evaluation of Proper Names"; Callaway, "Name Game"; and Smith, Early History of God, 4–5, for the discussion of the limitations of the onomastic evidence. This is based on the Ugaritic and Punic personal names and the deities represented in them. While it is true that 'trt is rare in personal names from Ugarit, it is nevertheless also true that deities such as Baal and Dagan, who are represented in the major temples and archaeological evidence from Ugarit, also occur frequently in the personal names. Furthermore, Baal (along with the other names of the storm deity, hdd), is second in frequency in the "principal gods of the cultic-sacrificial pantheon of Ugarit," those receiving the most offerings. On the other hand, Dagan is not mentioned among the first 17 deities. See Gregorio del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion: According to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit (Bethesda: CDL, 1999), 71. Thus the evidence from the cultic texts does not agree with that of the archaeological data. Therefore, none of this evidence should be dismissed. Instead, it should all be taken into consideration until such a time as evidence is available that allows greater clarity.

90 See Richard S. Hess, "Aspects of Israelite Personal Names and Pre-Exilic Israelite Religion," in New Seals and Inscriptions: Hebrew, Idumean and Cuneiform, ed. Meir Lubetski, Hebrew Monographs 8 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2007), 301–13, for a diachronic analysis of the theophoric elements in the personal names from four archives of Israel and Judah that supports the exceptionally large percentage of Yahwistic names in these states in contrast with the corresponding theophoric elements in the neighboring states.

91 See Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context, Coniectanea Biblica Old Testament Series 42 (Stockholm: Amqvist & Wiksell, 1995), 174. For a compilation of the evidence, biblical and archaeological, for the origins of Yahweh worship in the south, see especially Lars E. Axelsson, The Lord Rose Up from Seir: Studies in the History and Traditions of the Negev and Southern Judah, Coniectanea Biblica Old Testament Series 25 (Stockholm: Amqvist & Wiksell, 1987).

92 For this he is dependent on the seminal research of Uzi Avner, "Ancient Cult Sites in the Negev and Sinai Deserts," Tel Aviv 11 (1984): 115–31; idem, "Ancient Agricultural Settlement and Religion in the Uvda Valley in Southern Israel," Biblical Archaeologist 53 (1990): 125–41; idem, Maççebot Sites in the Negev and Sinai and Their Significance," in Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology; Jerusalem, June-July 1990, ed. Avraham Biran and Joseph Aviram (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993), 166–81; idem, "Sacred Stones in the Desert," Biblical Archaeology Review 27/3 (May/June 2001): 30–41.

93 Daniel E. Fleming, "If El Is a Bull, Who Is a Calf? Reflections on Religion in Second-Millennium Syria-Palestine," Eretz-Israel 26 (1999): 23–27.

94 Hess, "Yahweh and His Asherah?"

95 William G. Dever, Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005).

96 Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know; idem, Did God Have a Wife?

97 Pardee, "An Evaluation of the Proper Names."

↑ Back to top