now grounded only on considerations of humanity (the care of widows, orphans, and gérim).
646 RELIGION OF ISRAEL
baals by Jahweh, at least so far as the better portion of the people were concerned.
(a) One of the most essential factors in achiev- ing this result was unquestionably the localizing of Jahweh in Canaan, especially at certain primeval and much frequented sanctuaries. Such a localiz- ing process was by no means a matter of course from the most ancient point of view. True, even from the earliest times we hear of appearances of Jahweh on Canaanite soil in the form of the mavakh Jahweh (see above, p. 688 ff.). But the latter came and went without its being possible to speak of any fixed dwelling-place. The sacred Ark, again, guaranteed, nay represented (cf. above, p: 628 f., the presence of Jahweh. But the Ark was, above all, the shrine of Jahweh Zéb@ 6th, the war- God, who had nothing to do with the cultivating of the soil or the training of vines. The proper seat of Jahweh continued to be, as before, Sinai. It is from there that Jahweh comes to aid the tribes of Israel in their struggle with Sisera (Jg 5‘). We may perhaps leave out of account Dt 337f, Hab 3°, oad. Ps 68° as merely poetical reminis- cences of Jg 54, while Dt 3316 (‘the dweller in the bush’) suffers from uncertainty of interpretation. But there is still left 1 K 198 as a positive proof that in the time of Elijah the seat of Jahweh was found at ‘Horeb the mount of God.’
But it cannot be pronounced that the above was the only way of looking at the matter that pre- vailed in the time of the Judges, not to speak of the monarchical period. The gradual subjugation of the Canaanites, which was completed by the entire subjection of their surviving representatives by Solomon, and the signal proof of the might of Jahweh afforded by David’s victories, naturally involved a lowering of the prestige of Baal more and more—nay, in many places its complete anni- hilation. To this was added the erecting of new sanctuaries, dedicated to Jahweh exclusively : like that of Gideon at Ophrah (Jg 6”! 8”’), the temple for the sacred Ark at Shiloh, then the tent for it in the city of David, and, above all, the temple of Solomon, which no doubt surpassed in splendour and in art all the hitherto existing sanctuaries of Canaan (with the possible exception of the Phe- nician ones). All these spots, where Jahweh alone was venerated, could not fail to familiarize men’s minds with the notion of His personal dwelling in Canaan. And thus it was only the last step to- wards the complete localizing of Him there, when even the former Canaanite sacred places, which, as such, had long given an advantage to the Baal worship, were expressly brought into relation with Jahweh. Jahweh thus becomes simply identified with Baal, steps into possession of all hs property and functions of the latter. This could be done all the more readily that Baal is not, like Jahweh, areal proper name, but an appellative=‘lord’ or ‘owner,’ so that it could serve equally well as a designation of Jahweh.
The surest evidence that Jahweh thus took the place of Baal is to be found in the employment of Baal in the composition of Israelitish” personal names (possibly also in a number of place-names [so certainly in 28 5%]) as quite the equivalent in meaning of Jahweh.* Thus we find Jerubba‘al
* Later generations were so unable to comprehend this that (probably with reference to Hos 217t.) for Baal they substituted either E/, ‘God’ (so in the family of David, 28 616, 1 Ch 38 Eliada for Be'eliada‘ of 1 Oh 147), or bosheth, ‘shame.’ So, in the family of Saul, Hshba'al, ‘man of Baal? [so still in 1 Ch 833 939], becomes Ishbosheth [2 8 288] ; Mériva‘al, ‘man of Baal’ [so still in 1 Ch 940, whereas in 1 Ch 834 the objection is removed by the form Méribba'al, ‘opponent of Baal’], becomes Mephi- bosheth, (?) ‘despiser of Baal’ [28 44 96f. 218]. On the other hand, Jerubba‘al (prob.=‘he who contends for the lord’ [t.e. Jahweh]) was retained unchanged, with the same si ification as Israel [the very artificial interpretation in Jg 625m takes it as a surname afterwards given to Gideon, whereas the pro-
a TE
RELIGION OF ISRAEL
(the real name of Gideon), Eshba‘al, Meriba‘al (descendants of Saul), Be'eliada’ (one of David's sons); cf. also 1Ch 12> Be‘eliah, ‘Jah[weh] is Baal.’
With the transference of the cult of Jahweh to the spots where Baal worship had been practised is certainly connected a circumstance which by itself appears very strange to us, but which finds its analogies in all popular religions which have images of gods (or even of saints). The Canaanite Baal was originally one particular god ; but, as his images became localized in different lands and sanctuaries, he was correspondingly broken up as it were into different deities. This is proved by the numerous discriminating appellations, where the name of a place is added to that of Baal (e.g. Baal-Peor, Baal-Hermon, etec.), or where we have some other distinguishing mark (e.g. Baal-berith, ‘Baal of the covenant’; Baal-zébub, ‘the fly-Baal,’ ete.). So also Milcom the god of the Ammonites, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Melkart the city-god of Tyre, are manifestly examples of such loenttiue of the one Canaanite Baal. It is thus intelligible that in Jg 21 37 108 ete., and even in Hos 21-19 (8.17) 112, a worship of ‘the baals’ is spoken of. But the same differentiating process was applied also to Jahweh when He (or His images) stepped into the place of Baal, or had even new places of worship assigned to Him. The proof of this is supplied once more by the special names given to particular altars or places of worship of Jahweh ; this special name serving to distinguish, as it were, the local God of this place from other local gods. The Jahweh who was worshipped at the sacred tamarisk of Beersheba (Gn 21**) is called Jahweh ’El ‘élam (‘the God of primeval time’? or ‘the eternal God’?); He who appears to Jacob at Luz is called ’HZ Béthél, ‘the God of Bethel’ (313° 357); the altar erected by Jacob at Shechem is called ’H7 ’El0hé Israel, ‘El, God of Israel’ (33%); that which Jerubbaal built at Ophrah receives the name Jahweh shalém, ‘ Jah- weh is safety’ (Jg 64). When, finally, Absalom declares (2S 15’) that he must go to Hebron to discharge a vow to Jahweh, he evidently means to distinguish the Jahweh of Hebron from the Jahweh of Jerusalem. Presumably, a sacrifice offered at the far older place of worship at Hebron was believed to have greater efficacy than one presented at the more recent sanctuary at Jeru- salem.