Mark S. SmithThe Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (The Biblical Resource Series (BRS))

This book is not an introduction to ancient Israel's religion or history, or to the Hebrew Bible. It shouldn't be your first book on the topic. (For your first book, try  Who Wrote the Bible?  by Friedman. In this book Smith will not review or attempt to prove source theory, Israel's Canaanite origins, and so on.) But it is about the evolution of Yahweh through his encounters with Canaanite deities on his way to becoming the "One God" of post-exhilic Judaism.Smith's thesis is that the development of monolatry (which preceeded monotheism) in Israel began with a process of convergence and differentiation. "Covergence," he writes, "involved the coalescence of various deities and/or some of their features into the figure of Yahweh" (7). And differentiation was the process of Israel rejecting its Caananite heritage, creating a separate identity (8).So, he writes, "The issue is not one of identifying the earliest instances of monolatry; rather, the old question of explaining monotheism becomes a new issue of accounting for the phenomenon of convergence, a stage in Israelite religion older than the appearance of monolatry" (197).The deity Yahweh apparently came to Israel from Edom or another southern location (Smith discusses this in another book, "The Origins of Biblical Monotheism"). He was incorporated into Israel's pantheon, which was Canaanite: it featured the deities El, Baal, Anat and Asherah prominently. Smith has a lot of experience with the Ugaritic texts, which record Canaanite religion similar to what Israel must have inherited, so he has the ability to find ways that Yahweh has taken over the features of Canaanite gods. (Unfortunately, no one knows what Yahweh was like before he came to Israel.)Smith naturally begins with Yahweh's convergence with El, which must have been complete by the time of the earliest texts: "there is no distinct cult attested for El except in his identity as Yahweh (35)." Then Smith examines the similarites between Ugaritic El and Biblical Yahweh, such as descriptions (aged patriarchal god with a heavenly court and a kindly disposition to humanity, and so on), epithets (Berit, Shaddai, Elyon), and iconography (bearded, enthroned).Next Smith turns to Baal. There was a transition at some point from Baal being worshipped alongside Yahweh without controversy, to a struggle between their cults, to the final emergence of Yahweh's cult alone. This transition included Yahweh's taking over Baal's imagery as storm god (which may not have been part of his Edomite character), bull, warrior and fertilizing deity. Smith analyzes material in Judges and the historical texts, concluding that the conflict must have arisen (or at least intensified) because of Ahab's and Jezebel's attempt to elevate a foreign god, Baal Shamem of the Phoenicians (distinct from Baal of Canaanite/Israelite heritage). Smith covers the ways that Yahweh's cult adopted Baal's epithets, iconography, descriptions and mythology in the process of replacing him. However, Smith admits that all the evidence indicates that Baal remained a popular deity to the end of the southern kingdom.In this chapter, Smith also looks at Yahweh's acquiring of Anat's martial imagery.Next, he turns to Asherah, where his analysis is probably most controversial. Smith acknowledges that most scholars believe some goddess, probably Asherah, was worshipped during the period of the monarchy; but he believes she may have been forgotten already by the period of the judges. Her symbolism was obviously incorporated into Yahweh's cult (and later purged from it). Smith focuses on textual analysis, not on the ubiquitous figurines that most scholars believe demonstrate popular Asherah worship. He points to various forms of plausible uncertainty--"Yet scholars have long suspected that these figurines represent Astarte, and given the maternal imagery for her in Phoenician, this is as plausile an identification as that with Asherah. Moreover, these figurines may not represent any deity (111)."A few scholars agree with Smith, but most continue to believe that Asherah was worshipped during that period. Moving on, Smith examines the ways that Yahweh's cult absorbed Asherah's. He analyzes gender language for Yahweh and comparison in this respect to other near eastern deities. He looks at the decline of anthropomorphic imagery in general for Yahweh. Finally, he also considers the figure of Wisdom as a continuation of many of Asherah's features in a way acceptable to monolatrous Yahwism.Smith next briefly looks at solar imagery applied to Yahweh, concluding that on the whole it was an inovation of the monarchy of Judah, under the influence of Egypt's New Kingdom. He also looks at the rejection of this imagery by some Biblical authors.A final chapter looks at transitions in some prominent Israelite cultic practices: the high places, practices associated with the dead, and the Molech sacrifice.All in all: a fine coverage of the covergence of Canaanite deities and Yahweh. The presentation of evidence in some places could be more well-structured, but that is only my opinion. Here is a good book on Israelite religion, suitable for undergraduate students with a little experience, or armchair scholars. (For serious scholars, of course, it is essential.)In addition to this book, Smith himself recommends Zevit's "The Religions of Ancient Israel." If you are considering this book or Smith's "The Origins of Biblical Monotheism," I recommend this one first.

This in an almost unbelievably detailed and erudite study of the history of the worship of Yahweh in Israel from roughly the 12th century to the 6th century, B.C. It is very narrowly focused: it provides very little historical background, probably because there is very little reliable history to serve as background. It is very reliant on biblical texts -- the reader is advised to keep a Bible in hand while reading this book. It reaches only a few conclusions, and he acknowledges how tentative those conclusions are. One of the troubling -- but probably true -- subtexts of the book is how little we know about the subject due to the paucity of the material. Smith may have cited just about piece of evidence that currently exists within the ambit of his inquiry, and this in itself demonstrates how many gaps there are in that evidence.Smith's primary thesis is that worship of Yahweh went from polytheism in the 12th century (Yahweh was already the most important God, but one of several acknowledged gods) through monolatry during the later monarchy (Yahweh was the only god to be worshipped, but other gods existed -- after about 800, all of them bad) to monotheism after the Babylonian exile (Yahweh was the only god that existed). His secondary thesis is that the characteristics of many of the gods of the pantheistic early Israelites -- El, Baal, Asherah, perhaps Astarte -- became incorporated into the person of Yahweh. He believes that much of this was due to the policy of the early ("Davidic") monarchy, which wanted a strong national god to compete with the national gods of Israel's troublesome neighbors. HIs tertiary thesis is that the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament in the Christian Bible) is a redaction of older sources complied during the pre-exile Southern kingdom period, and which hides the polytheistic elements in earlier Jewish worship, as it was compiled in large measure to support the Yahwist ideology of its monarchy. Smith does not have much to say about how the still-monolatrous Jews of Josiah's time became the post-exilic monotheists of Ezra's, because that promises to be the subject of a subsequent book.Smith says almost nothing about the origin of Yahweh or Yahwist worship, largely I suspect because it arose before the 12th century and we have virtually no evidence of anything concerning Israelite worship before that date. He does accept that the early Israelites were essentially West Semitic peoples who inhabited the high country of what is now Israel (Canaanite hillbillies, as it were), and that their early practices contained disturbing elements -- such as child sacrifice -- which were later repudiated by the Hebrew people. He also accepts what is now majority scholarly opinion that Israelite penetration of the rest of Canaan was less a conquest than an integration. He offers no opinion on how this happened -- probably because we do not have the foggiest idea of how it did.Smith has an irritating, but ultimately sound, policy of refusing to speculate much beyond the evidence. Of what little we know, we are reasonably sure. Of what we don't, Smith prefers to pass over in silence.

No doubt Mark brings alot of sources one may not be aware of; lots.However, he's quick to jump to conclusions while firing from the hip. I don't really see him aiming through sights. He might hit a few points here and there, but isn't accurate by the full definition.His introduction talks about how reconstructing historical texts is not as easy as it seems, because the texts are so old and refracted. So the only way to understand the religious texts is to take them completely out of context (pg xxii). This is what he states.He finishes his introduction by claiming he will be *partial and subjective* in the following chapters (pg18) for the rest of the book.Pair the fact that the texts will be taken out of context and analyzed with Mark's subjective perspective, and you've got an author already admitting he will be bias towards his own opinion.You will notice all over the book his usage of passive words: "perhaps, may, could, if" to make his final conclusions. He is admitting he is not absolutely certain of his claims. But then a few sentences later from his foundations of "perhaps", he'll launch his attack. Coming from weak stances in the beginning, he feigns certainty with only loose conjectures.So be warned he is not really seeking genuine truth, only the goal to disprove the Bible. Jumping to conclusions at all costs.

Gives a good insight in the development from a pantheon of Gods into monotheism.Readable without too much hampering by too many notes.In this 2000+ edition the author gives a summary of new developments in the field of archaeology etc. so you become aware of contemporary insights.

Pensar en que la concepción de un sólo dios por los primeros israelitas es algo cerrado desde sus inicios y sin evolución, influencias externas y falta de permeabilidad no es posible. Este libro habla de ello con criterio científico y objetividad.

very interesting but the footnotes often take up 75% of the page

This is who you are

le livre est Interessant par son sujet mais tres aride dans sa presentation. Il manque aussi de resume et de commentaire