Yahweh Versus The Canaanite Gods: Polemic In Judges And 1 Samuel 1–7

By Robert B. Chisholm Jr.

[Robert B. Chisholm Jr. is Chair and Professor of Old Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas.]

The prologue to Judges (1:1–3:5) indicates that the book is in part an apology for Yahweh, whose reputation was jeopardized by Israel’s failure.[1] The prologue explains why Israel failed and makes it clear that Yahweh warned the people about this possibility from the very beginning.[2] The rest of the book justifies His decision to test His people by allowing the enemy to remain in the land. Israel’s defeats were punitive, rather than being due to some weakness in the Lord or to the strength of foreigners and their gods.

This kind of theological agenda is not unique to the Bible and reflects the cultural context in which Judges originated. In the Moabite Stone, King Mesha attributes Israel’s victory over Moab to the anger of his god Chemosh.[3] He then tells how Chemosh restored his divine favor and enabled him to defeat Israel after all.[4]

Another element in the book’s defense of Yahweh’s honor is the prologue’s affirmation of God’s commitment to His people. Despite their failure and Yahweh’s disciplinary measures, He showed them compassion and continued to deliver them from oppression. The stories within the book’s central section support this affirmation as they tell how God responded to the people’s pain and intervened to save them.[5] As Fretheim states, “We are surprised by a God who finds ways of working in, with, and under very compromising situations in which people have placed themselves in order to bring about good. In the midst of unfaithfulness, the faithfulness of God is revealed, a God who never breaks covenant.”[6]

A third feature of the book’s Yahwistic apology is its polemical dimension. The Israelites worshiped the gods of the surrounding peoples, including those of the Canaanites, Arameans, Sidonians, Moabites, Ammonites, and Philistines (10:6). On a general level the book demonstrates that Israel’s obsession with idols did not bring success. In fact idolatry consistently brought defeat and humiliation. The book especially denounces Israel’s devotion to the god Baal (2:13; 6:25–32; 8:33; 10:6). It gives ample reason why Israel should have chosen Yahweh over Baal. The Song of Deborah depicts Yahweh as the Lord of the storm who defeats the Canaanite armies (5:4–5). The Gideon account, along with its sequel about Abimelech, also contains a strong anti-Baal polemic, as Baal is unable to avenge Gideon’s (Jerubbaal’s) attack on his altar.[7] The polemical dimension takes a different turn in the Samson story, where Samson burned the grain supposedly provided by the Philistine grain-god Dagon (15:4–5). Like Baal, Dagon was apparently an object of Israel’s devotion (10:6). Though Dagon initially seems to have won the conflict (16:23–24), Samson ended up bringing Dagon’s temple to the ground (v. 30).

The polemic against both of these gods continues in 1 Samuel 1–7, which is in many ways the sequel to Judges. In terms that echo the Baal myths, Hannah celebrated Yahweh’s ability to give fertility (2:1–10), the ark of Yahweh humiliated Dagon in the latter’s very own temple (chap. 5), and Yahweh thundered against and defeated the Philistines following Israel’s rejection of Baal worship (chap. 7). As in Judges the polemic in 1 Samuel shows that Israel’s defeat was because of their own sin and idolatry, not some deficiency on Yahweh’s part.

This study seeks to illustrate one of the ways in which Old Testament historical literature utilizes West Semitic religious motifs in developing its theology and to demonstrate that God’s self-revelation was contextualized, in this case, with the purpose of demonstrating His superiority to the gods of the Canaanites and Philistines, as well as His exclusive right to Israel’s loyalty and worship.

Polemic In Judges

Lord Of The Storm

After the death of Ehud, Israel relapsed into sin and experienced God’s discipline. Jabin of Hazor oppressed them for twenty years, aided by his general Sisera (Judg. 4:1–3). But the Lord gave Barak and his Israelite forces a stunning victory over Sisera at the Kishon River (vv. 4–16). Jael, the wife of Sisera’s ally Heber (v. 11), assassinated the fleeing general when he sought protection in her tent (vv. 17–22).

A poem recounting the events follows the narrative account. The opening verses of the poem make it clear that Yahweh was the real victor in the battle. The address to kings and rulers (5:3) sets the tone for the entire poem. God’s battle with the Canaanites was a test of power to determine whether King Jabin of Canaan or Yahweh would rule over Israel (v. 19). This song of victory was necessary because all kings needed to know of the royal splendor and power of Yahweh, the God of Israel.[8] The reference to the “kings of Canaan” in verse 19 refers again (see v. 3) to the fact that this battle was a test of power in which Yahweh demonstrated His superiority to the Canaanites. The plural likely refers to Jabin’s subjects among the Canaanite city states who marshaled their forces under Sisera in anticipation of acquiring rich spoils.[9]

At the beginning of the poem a theophanic hymn depicts Yahweh as marching from Seir and Edom in the south. Since he is called “the One of Sinai,” the implication is that He is coming from Sinai to fight for His people.[10] The God of Moses, who once revealed His might at Sinai, is still alive and well! The titles “the One of Sinai” and “the God of Israel,” emphasize that He is Israel’s Lord. At Sinai God established His covenant with Israel and exhibited His power as a victorious warrior. While Israel stood shaking at the base of the mountain, He thundered away and hurled lightning bolts, demonstrating His sovereignty over the elements of the storm. It comes as no surprise, then, to find storm motifs in the poem’s theophanic description of the warrior Yahweh. As He marched to the aid of His people, the earth and mountains shook and the heavens poured down water.

Verses 20–21, when viewed in light of the earlier theophanic description (vv. 4–5), provide a hint as to how Yahweh accomplished the victory. He came in the storm and caused a torrential downpour. The stars of the heavens, associated with God’s assembly elsewhere in the Old Testament and viewed as sources of rain in ancient cosmology, showered rain down on the enemy.[11] The ground grew muddy and the Kishon overflowed, making the Canaanite chariots useless.[12] To escape from the battlesite at Taanach (v. 19) to their home in the north, the panic-stricken Canaanites had to cross the swelling Kishon River, which swept many of them away along with their chariots and horses.[13] The terrified survivors who made their way northward were easy pickings for the pursuing Israelite forces.

The battle at the Kishon revealed more than just God’s superiority to human kings. Through His self-revelation in the storm He also demonstrated that He, not Baal, is the true warrior-king and deserves the sole allegiance of His people. The Canaanites believed that Baal was king among the gods (under the ultimate authority of the high god El). With the aid of the goddess Anat, Baal had defeated the chaotic sea and death. He maintained order in the world, defended his people, and, as lord of the storm, was the source of human fertility and agricultural prosperity. This is why Israel found Baal so appealing (2:11, 13; 3:7; 6:25–32; 8:33; 10:6, 10). However, at the Kishon, Yahweh once again revealed Himself as lord of the storm, coming to deliver His people in Baal-like fashion. In the Ugaritic myths Baal’s appearance in the storm to do battle shakes the earth’s high places (mountains), just as Yahweh did according to the poem (5:4–5).[14] Thus God’s enemies should realize that it is suicidal to challenge His royal authority, and His people should worship Him, not Baal or any other would-be king, as the real Lord of the cosmos who controls their destiny.[15]

In Baal’s Face

In their initial encounter God forced Gideon to recognize His presence and power (6:11–24). Next He pushed Gideon a step further and demanded that he display his loyalty by destroying his father’s Baal altar and Asherah symbol (vv. 25–27). When the townspeople discovered Gideon was the culprit, they demanded that his father Joash hand Gideon over for execution. Their words are sadly ironic and symptomatic of their apostasy. Gideon had obeyed the Law of Moses (Exod. 34:13; Deut. 7:5; cf. Judg. 2:2), but an entire Israelite town was ready to kill him for it.

Though Joash owned the pagan altar (Judg. 6:25), his attachment to his son seems to have outweighed his devotion to Baal. His words may even indicate he had become skeptical of Baal’s power. His introductory questions (v. 31) suggest that Baal should not need men to fight his battles for him. The next statement is quite bold. Joash declared that whoever tried to vindicate Baal would end up dead by morning.[16] Was this simply a warning to the crowd that Joash would kill anyone who tried to lay a hand on Gideon? Or was he implying that Baal would kill anyone who dared to defend his honor, as if he were incapable of vindicating himself?[17] Or perhaps had Joash’s faith been shaken so that he was sarcastically implying that Baal’s defenders would end up dead by morning because their god lacked the power to defeat the attacks of his enemies? After all, the reality of the broken altar suggested as much! In his final statement Joash argued that a god ought to be able to defend his own honor when someone smashes his altar. He should not need the help of mere men. Joash then boldly gave his son a new name, Jerubbaal, and declared, “Let Baal contend with him” (v. 32).[18]

God’s Spirit empowered Gideon as he assembled an army. The stage was set for the battle and one anticipates an account of how the Israelites, led by their divinely empowered general, routed the easterners. Unfortunately the narrative does not deliver what one expects. Instead Gideon still had doubts about the success of the mission and about the Lord’s capability and reliability.[19] He asked for a confirming sign to prove that the Lord would deliver Israel through him as He had promised. He claimed that if God gave him this confirmation, he would “know” that God’s promise was dependable. However, when the Lord responded positively to Gideon’s request for a sign, Gideon was still not satisfied. He asked for a second sign and God patiently complied.

Gideon’s choice of signs was not arbitrary or random. The tests were designed to demonstrate Yahweh’s control of the dew. This is significant because in Canaanite thinking the storm god Baal controlled the rain and the dew. In the Ugaritic legend of Aqhat, Baal’s weakness results in the disappearance of rain and dew.[20]

One of Baal’s daughters is even named “Dew” (“Tallaya”).[21] Gideon had destroyed Baal’s altar, depriving him of sacrifices. Gideon’s own father had challenged Baal to “contend” with his son. Indeed Gideon’s new name, Jerubbaal, made him a potential target for one of Baal’s lightning bolts. By seeing a demonstration of Yahweh’s sovereignty over the dew, an area supposedly under the control of Baal, Gideon could be assured that he was insulated from Baal’s vengeance.[22]

Gideon led Israel to a resounding victory. The epilogue to his story (8:29) refers to him by the name Jerubbaal, recalling the fact that Gideon was God’s instrument in His ongoing attack on Baalism. Gideon’s return home as a conquering hero, his living to a “good old age,” and his burial in his father’s tomb (v. 32) highlight the weakness of the Canaanite god, who never did contend with the one who desecrated his altar, at least during Gideon’s lifetime.

A Belated Counterattack Backfires

Despite Baal’s apparent weakness the people turned back to Baal worship following Gideon’s death (8:33). More specifically they worshiped Baal-Berith (lit., “Baal of the covenant”), who was apparently a local manifestation of the Canaanite storm god (v. 33).[23] Perhaps the name suggests that Israel’s covenantal allegiance had shifted.[24] Ungrateful for all that Gideon, the enemy of Baal, had done for them, they mistreated his family (v. 35). The name Jerubbaal appears in verse 35 and nine times in chapter 9, where the name Gideon is absent. Perhaps this choice of names serves to highlight the irony and absurdity of Israel’s actions. Gideon’s experience demonstrated Yahweh’s power and Baal’s weakness. Through Yahweh’s power Gideon delivered Israel from terrible oppression. He also desecrated Baal’s altar at Ophrah and then carried a name with him through most of his adult life that was a challenge and an affront to the Canaanite deity. Baal’s failure to contend with Gideon was evidence of Baal’s weakness. And yet Israel rejected Yahweh in exchange for Baal!

Abimelech, Gideon’s son by a Shechemite concubine, murdered his seventy half-brothers, the sons of Gideon, in his quest for power (9:1–7). The account of Abimelech’s attack against his brothers holds tragic irony. Though Gideon was dead, it seems that Baal finally did contend with the one who had torn down his altar. After all, Abimelech’s murderous attack on Gideon’s family was financed from a Baal temple (v. 4). Baal had seemingly struck down Gideon’s seventy sons, ironically through the instrumentality of another of Gideon’s sons. This may also explain in part why the name Jerubbaal is used exclusively in chapter 9 when reference is made to Gideon.

When Jotham, the sole survivor of the slaughter, appealed to God for justice (vv. 7–21), He sent a spirit to stir up hostility between Abimelech and his Shechemite allies so that Gideon’s murdered sons might be avenged (vv. 22–24). The Shechemites rebelled against Abimelech, so he besieged and destroyed the city (vv. 25–45). The inhabitants retreated to the stronghold of the temple of El-Berith (v. 46), but Abimelech burned it to the ground (vv. 47–49).

The reference to the temple of El-Berith is puzzling, for verse 4 refers to a temple to Baal-Berith in Shechem. In Canaanite mythology El and Baal were distinct deities. El was the high god who ruled over the divine assembly and imparted authority to the storm god Baal. If this distinction is maintained here, then the city apparently contained a temple for each god and swore allegiance to both. (In the legend of Aqhat, references to the “house of Baal” [bt b‘l] and the “house of El” [bt ’il] appear in poetic parallelism.)[25] This would mark another ironic twist in the conflict between Gideon (i.e., Jerubbaal) and Baal. As noted earlier, Baal seemed to strike back at his antagonist Jerubbaal through Abimelech. But then this same Abimelech destroyed the very Baal temple that had initially financed his takeover (implied in v. 45) and even went one step further by burning El’s temple to the ground. In His providential control of events God turned Baal’s attack on Jerubbaal into a humiliating defeat for both Baal and El by using Abimelech, the same instrument of destruction employed by Baal!

Day prefers not to distinguish Baal and El in Judges 9; he regards the two names as variants, with El (“god”) perhaps being used in a generic sense. He points out that 8:33 associates this deity with the Baals and that the wine festival mentioned in 9:27 is most naturally seen as a celebration for Baal, not El. In this case the temples mentioned in verses 4 and 46 are the same and verses 46–49 describe a direct attack on Baal’s Shechemite shrine, the very temple that had financed Abimelech’s rise to power.[26]

Lewis holds the opposite view. He contends that El-Berith is the Canaanite deity El and that the phrase Baal-Berith (8:33; 9:4) should be understood as a title for El, meaning “lord of the covenant.” He argues that it is unlikely the city would have had more than one patron deity and that El is a more likely candidate for this position than Baal.[27] If this is the case, then the polemical element is more subtle than if Baal were in view. Gideon attacked Baal, one of El’s sons.[28] Gideon’s father then gave him the name Jerubbaal, a challenge to Baal to defend his interests. In retaliation Baal’s father El attacked the sons of Jerubbaal, ironically through the instrumentality of Abimelech, another of Jerubbaal’s sons. But then in an ironic twist this same instrument of destruction, energized by the spirit sent by Israel’s God, attacked and destroyed El’s temple![29]

Dagon’s Temple Had A Great Fall

Having subdued Samson, their greatest enemy, the Philistines decided to celebrate their victory by holding a sacrificial feast for their patron deity Dagon, the god of grain. Dagon seems to have been the chief deity of the Philistines (cf. 1 Sam. 5:1–7 and 1 Chron. 10:10). Though an older interpretation understood that he was a fish god, it is more likely that he was a weather/fertility deity responsible for crops.[30] In Ugaritic dgn refers to “grain,” and the storm god Baal is called Dagon’s son.[31] The Philistine rulers and people praised Dagon for delivering their archenemy Samson into their hands. They viewed Samson as one who had devastated their land and killed many of their people. Indeed, when Samson destroyed the Philistines’ fields (Judg. 15:5), they must have viewed this as an affront against Dagon, the one who had supplied the crops. The Philistines’ declaration of praise was their response to Samson’s victory song (15:16). But the victorious Philistines would not have the last word. Samson cried out to Yahweh for help so that he could get vengeance on the Philistines. God answered his prayer, allowing him to push the pillars over and to bring Dagon’s temple crashing down.

Ironically in Samson’s death he won his greatest victory, for the narrator wrote that he killed many more Philistines on this one occasion than he had throughout his life. Yahweh accomplished His purpose (the beginning of Israel’s deliverance from the Philistines; cf. 13:5) despite Samson’s shortcomings. In the process He again demonstrated His sovereignty and superiority to pagan deities by destroying the temple of a foreign god (cf. 9:46–49). Samson’s great victory in Dagon’s temple proved that Yahweh’s disfavor with His people, not the power of foreign gods (cf. 16:23–24), had caused Israel to be humiliated before their enemies.[32]

When viewed in the light of what transpired in chapter 16, the destruction of the Philistines’ crops (15:5) foreshadowed Samson’s destruction of Dagon’s temple. Though Samson was simply seeking revenge against the Philistines for depriving him of his wife and eyes, he was in reality God’s instrument in striking at the Philistine god Dagon, who suffered even worse abuse in a subsequent story (1 Sam. 5).

Polemic In 1 Samuel 1–7

Barren No More

First Samuel begins with the account of Samuel’s birth. The key figure in the story is a seemingly insignificant, oppressed, barren woman named Hannah. In response to her prayer for a son God enabled her to conceive Samuel, whose birth was a turning point in Israel’s history. As Hannah acknowledged in her song of praise, her deliverance from her oppressed condition foreshadowed what Yahweh would do for the nation in the years that immediately followed. Through Hannah’s son Samuel God spoke to His people again, gave them military victory over hostile enemies, and raised up a king who would lead the nation to previously unrealized heights. As Hannah affirmed in her song of praise, Yahweh is king. As king He is a deliverer, incomparable protector, just judge who brings the proud low and elevates the oppressed, and invincible warrior. Hannah was vindicated because she put her trust in Yahweh, rather than in the fertility deity so popular in her culture.

Viewed in its cultural context her song of thanks has a strong polemical dimension. She affirmed the incomparability of Yahweh, asserting that no one can rival His kingship (1 Sam. 2:2a) or His ability to protect His people (v. 2b). In the Ugaritic myths the assembly of the gods is referred to as “sons of the Holy One” (or “holy ones”).[33] Though El is viewed as the head of the assembly, Baal occupies a prominent position as well. In fact in one scene he stands by El.[34]The goddess Anat declares, “Mightiest Baal is our king, our judge, over whom there is none.”[35] Against this backdrop Hannah’s affirmation that “there is no Holy One like Yahweh” is a powerful assertion of Yahweh’s uniqueness that challenges and drowns out Anat’s claim.[36]

In Hannah’s experience God demonstrated His justice by vindicating her and humiliating her enemy (vv. 3–9). He (not Baal) is the one who gives children to barren women. In contrast to Baal, who succumbs periodically to Mot, the god of death, Yahweh holds the power of both life and death in His hands. Rather than descending into the land of the dead, as Baal did after being defeated by Mot, Yahweh “brings down to Sheol and raises up” (v. 6). A comparison of the language used in the myth with that of Hannah’s song is instructive. Baal descends into Mot’s throat and goes down into the underworld.[37] The verb yrd (used intransitively) describes Baal’s descent. Hannah used the hiphil form of this verb to describe how Yahweh “brings down” to Sheol. In the myth El and Anat lament, “Baal is dead” (b‘l mt; the verb mt is used intransitively),[38] but Hannah declared that Yahweh “brings death” (hiphil form of the verb). Later El celebrates Baal’s return to life, announcing “mightiest Baal is alive” (ḥy aliyn b‘l—ḥy is either a perfect verbal form used intransitively or an adjective),[39] but Hannah knows that Yahweh is the one who “makes alive” (piel of חָיָה). The contrast between Baal’s susceptibility to death and Yahweh’s sovereignty over it is highlighted by Hannah’s use of causative/factitive forms to describe Yahweh’s activity as opposed to the intransitive forms used in the myth of Baal’s descent and condition.

As Hannah anticipated a time when Israel would have a king, she described Yahweh as shattering His enemies and thundering against them from the sky (v. 10).[40] By portraying Yahweh as the Lord of the storm, she once more depicted her God, the source of all fertility and life, as superior to Baal. According to the myth the thunder is Baal’s powerful voice, which shakes the earth.[41] In fact Baal keeps his thunder stored up in full measure along with his lightning, so that he may use it in full force at appropriate times. One text describes him as follows: “Seven lightning bolts he casts, eight magazines of thunder, he brandishes a spear of lightning.”[42] In her description of Yahweh as the one who thunders from the sky, Hannah may even have used one of Baal’s divine titles. The problematic עָלָו in verse 10 has been taken traditionally as a preposition with a third masculine singular suffix (“against him”), but this is syntactically problematic. It is more likely that the form is a corruption of an ancient divine title and should be vocalized לִי.43 This title is used of Baal in the Ugaritic legend of Kirtu in a passage describing the storm god as the source of rain.[44]

Decapitated Dagon Had A Great Fall

When the Philistines defeated the Israelites at Aphek/Ebenezer and captured the ark of God, they attributed their victory to their god Dagon. They brought the ark to Dagon’s temple in Ashdod and placed it beside an image of their god (5:2). The next morning they found Dagon’s image lying prostrate before the ark, as if the image were showing respect to the ark (v. 3; cf. Gen. 44:14; 50:18). Apparently not getting the point, the Philistines put Dagon back in his place, but the next morning they again found him prostrate before the ark, this time minus his head and hands (1 Sam. 5:4).[45] The decapitation of Dagon was an act of war by Yahweh (cf. 17:51; 31:9).[46] Sometimes victors also cut off the hands of their dead victims. In the Ugaritic myths the warrior goddess Anat cuts off the heads and hands of her victims and attaches them to her belt.[47] By displaying His superiority to Dagon, Yahweh demonstrated that Israel’s defeat was not because of some weakness on His part.

An Outburst Of Thunder

Stirrup has shown that 1 Samuel 4:1–7:1 “forms a coherent story, which from beginning to end is concerned to explain Israel’s defeat at Ebenezer.”[48] He adds,

Through the course of the narrative several possibilities, that Yahweh has forgotten about the covenant, that he was defeated, and that he has abandoned Israel, are set aside until finally, at the climax, we learn that Israel is to blame for the defeat. It has not kept itself holy. It has not maintained the distinctions that would mark it out as Yahweh’s own special treasure among the nations. There is, in the denouement, an implied challenge to Israel to return again to the covenant, to be holy, set apart for its holy God.[49]

The account of Dagon’s defeat contributes in an important way to this Yahwistic apology. So does the sequel to the narrative in 7:2–17. The Israelites put away their Baal idols and acknowledged their sin (vv. 3–6). Samuel interceded for them (vv. 7–9) and Yahweh thundered against the Philistines from the sky (v. 10; cf. 2:10), causing the panic-stricken enemy to flee (7:11). This theophany was especially timely, given the fact that the people had just thrown away their Baal idols. By revealing Himself in this manner, Yahweh reminded them that He, not Baal, controls the storm. If they remained loyal to Him, they would be secure and victorious. Sadly the lesson did not last long, for the people soon rejected Yahweh’s authority by asking for a king to protect them and lead them into battle (chap. 8).

Conclusion

Judges and 1 Samuel 1–7 show that Israel’s problems were caused by their sin and idolatry, not some deficiency on Yahweh’s part. He remained faithful to His people, seeking to win back their loyalty. The text’s polemical dimension is an important part of this Yahwistic apology, designed to demonstrate Yahweh’s superiority to the Canaanite fertility god Baal and his father, the Philistine god Dagon. This being the case, it made no sense for the Israelites to worship these pagan gods and perfect sense for them to return to Yahweh.

Notes

1. Lyle Eslinger would probably disagree with this perspective (Into the Hands of the Living God [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989], 55–80). In his analysis of Judges 1–2 he attempts to show that Yahweh bears some culpability for what happened during the period of the Judges. Yet he decides that the narrator maintains a degree of objectivity and refuses to lay the blame for Israel’s failure on either God or Israel. He concludes that Judges 1–2 is descriptive, not analytical; he says that the passage “offers theology, not theodicy” (ibid., 80).
2. See Antti Laato, “Theodicy in the Deuteronomistic History,” in Theodicy in the World of the Bible, ed. Antti Laato and Johannes C. de Moor (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 193–96.
3. Philippe Guillaume also compares the theology of the framework in the Judges stories to that of the Mesha inscription (Waiting for Josiah: The Judges [Edinburgh: Clark, 2004], 22–23).
4. James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969), 320–21. On Mesha’s theology see Bertil Albrektson, History and the Gods (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1967): 100–101; and Simon B. Parker, Stories in Scripture and Inscriptions (New York: Oxford, 1997), 47. Parker observes, “For the narrator, the only reason why Omri was able to oppress Moab was Chemosh’s displeasure with his country, which left it at the mercy of its neighbor. This also establishes that, while Moab may have lost its sovereignty, Chemosh had not lost his” (ibid., 47). If one substitutes “Yahweh” for “Chemosh,” “Israel” for “Moab,” and “the enemy” for “Omri,” this quotation would be a fair summary of what Judges says about Yahweh’s punishment of Israel.
5. Once again there is a parallel to this in the Moabite Stone, where Mesha affirms that Chemosh “saved” him “from all the kings.” The verb translated “saved” is the causative (hiphil) stem form of the root ישׁע, which is the same form used of Yahweh’s saving acts in Judges 2:16.
6. Terence Fretheim, Deuteronomic History (Nashville: Abingdon, 1983), 98. See also J. Clinton McCann, Judges, Interpretation (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2002), 138–39.
7. See Wolfgang Bluedorn, Yahweh versus Baal: A Theological Reading of the Gideon-Abimelech Narrative (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001).
8. Commenting on the opening verses of this victory song, Steven Weitzman observes, “It is God who deserves Israel’s praise first and foremost, because it was his intervention in the battle that made victory possible,” and so the song promotes “allegiance to God” (Song and Story in Biblical Narrative: The History of a Literary Convention in Ancient Israel [Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1997], 32). Alan J. Hauser sees the defeated kings of Canaan as the addressees in verse 3. “Since the only kings around at this point in Israel’s history would have been the kings of the Canaanites, whom Israel had just defeated, these Canaanite rulers are being sarcastically told to listen while praises are sung to the God who has just defeated them. This has the effect not only of putting down the Canaanite kings, but also of praising Yahweh and thanking him for the victory” (“Two Songs of Victory: A Comparison of Exodus 15 and Judges 5, ” in Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry, ed. Elaine R. Follis [Sheffield: JSOT, 1987], 269).
9. See C. F. Burney, The Book of Judges (reprint, New York: KTAV, 1970), 144. Subjects were required to give military support to their lord. See, for example, the treaty between Ashurnirari V of Assyria and Mati’ilu of Arpad (Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 532–33).
10. In parallelism with the title “God of Israel” the phrase זֶה סִינַי is best taken as an epithet “the One of Sinai.” This use of the demonstrative pronoun is attested in Amorite, Ugaritic, and the proto-Sinaitic inscriptions, as well as in Old South Arabic and Arabic (Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, eds., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament [Leiden: Brill, 2001], 264; William F. Albright, “The Song of Deborah in the Light of Archaeology,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 62 (1936): 30; Frank M. Cross, “Yahweh and the God of the Patriarchs,” Harvard Theological Review 55 [1962]: 238–39, 255; and E. Lipínski, “Juges 5, 4–5 et Psaume 68, 8–11, ” Biblica 48 [1967]: 198 n. 3).
11. For texts describing the stars as members of the Lord’s heavenly assembly or army see Job 38:7; Isaiah 40:26; and Daniel 8:10. In 1 Kings 22:19 the phrase “host of heaven” is used of the Lord’s assembly. Elsewhere this expression refers to the heavenly luminaries, including the stars and planets (Deut. 4:19; 17:3; 2 Kings 17:16; 21:3, 5; 23:4–5; 2 Chron. 33:3, 5). A Ugaritic text (CTA 3.B.ii.40–41) seems to view the stars as sources of rain. See J. C. L. Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: Clark, 1978), 48; and William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger Jr., The Context of Scripture (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 1:251. On the imagery employed in Judges 5:20–22 see Moshe Weinfeld, “Divine Intervention in War in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East,” in History, Historiography and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures, ed. H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld (reprint, Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984), 124–31; Peter C. Craigie, “The Song of Deborah and the Epic of Tukulti-Ninurta,” Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969): 262–63; and idem, “Three Ugaritic Notes on the Song of Deborah,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 2 (1977): 33–38. John F. A. Sawyer suggests that the background for the language is a total eclipse of the sun (“ ‘From Heaven Fought the Stars’ (Judges V 20),” Vetus Testamentum 31 [1981]: 87–89).
12. See Yigael Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands, trans. M. Pearlman (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1963), 256.
13. On the problem of identifying the precise geographical location of the battle see John Soden, “Prose and Poetry Compared: Judges 4 and 5 in Their Ancient Near Eastern Context” (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1989), 277–80.
14. See CTA 4.vii.29–37, especially 34–35 (Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 65); and Hallo and Younger, The Context of Scripture, 1:262–63.
15. Like Baal, Yahweh even had a female ally in Jael. If the author, with polemical design, likened the exploits of Jael to those of the warlike Canaanite goddess Anat, then the reference to Shamgar as “son of Anat” (Judg. 3:31) may be a somewhat tongue-in-cheek foreshadowing of what was to come. “Anat’s son” had appeared; “Anat” herself then arrived on the scene! For more on the possible parallels to Canaanite texts see Stephen J. Dempster, “Mythology and History in the Song of Deborah,” Westminster Theological Journal 41 (1978): 33–53; J. Glen Taylor, “The Song of Deborah and Two Canaanite Goddesses,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 23 (1982): 99–108; Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic, 1985), 46; and Susan Ackerman, Warrior, Dancer, Seductress, Queen: Women in Judges and Biblical Israel (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 59–61.
16. When used with the preposition לְ, the verb רִיב means “contend for” (see, e.g., Job 13:8).
17. Elie Assis, Self-Interest or Communal Interest: An Ideology of Leadership in the Gideon, Abimelech and Jephthah Narratives (Judg 6–12), Vetus Testamentum Supplements (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 47–48.
18. The New International Version has “they called,” but the Hebrew verb is singular, and Gideon’s father, who speaks in verse 31, is most naturally understood as its subject. The precise meaning of the name (which combines a verb with its subject) is uncertain. The verbal element (יְרֻב from יָרוּב) seems to be an imperfect verb (“Baal will contend”), not a jussive. One expects the imperfect to be יָרִיב, since the root is רִיב, not רוּב, but perhaps the name preserves an archaic form (the root רוּב does seem to be attested in the Kethib of both Judg. 21:22 and Prov. 3:30). The name is apparently a case of a popular etymology; it sounds like the statement, “let Baal contend” (which uses the distinctly jussive form יָרֶב). For a detailed survey and analysis of the various roots that have been proposed for יְרֻב (which include ריב, ירב, ירה, רבב, and רבה), see Bluedorn, Yahweh versus Baal, 101–4. Bluedorn concludes that the verb probably derives from רבב I, “increase, be numerous,” and that the name is here a soundplay on ריב, “to contend.”
19. Most assess Gideon’s request in a negative light, though one must admit that the text itself leaves it to the reader to decide which of Gideon’s actions should be attributed to the divine Spirit and which should not. In this regard J. Cheryl Exum asks, “Is he no longer under the influence of the spirit when he asks for a sign or does the spirit not obviate the need for a sign?” (Tragedy and Biblical Narrative [Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1992], 164 n. 7).
20. See CTA 19.i.42–46 (Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 115); and Hallo and Younger, The Context of Scripture, 1:351.
21. See CTA 3.A.i.24–25; 3.C.iii.4 (Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 46, 48); and Hallo and Younger, The Context of Scripture, 1:250–51. On the morphology of the name see Daniel Sivan, A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 74.
22. See Fred E. Woods, Water and Storm Polemics against Baalism in the Deuteronomic History (New York: Peter Lang, 1994), 68–69; and Benoit Standaert, “Adonai Shalom (Judges 6–9): The Persuasive Means of a Narrative and the Strategies of Inculturation of Yahwism in a New Context,” in Rhetoric, Scripture and Theology: Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), 199–200.
23. See M. J. Mulder, “בַּעַל,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, vol. 2, trans. John T. Willis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 194. Some have suggested that Baal-Berith was the witness or guardian of a covenant between Shechem and other city-states, while others understand Baal-Berith as a party to a covenant with his worshipers. R. E. Clements concludes that the title “points more towards a divine covenant between the local Baal and certain citizens of Shechem than to a covenant in which Baal acted as the guardian of a local political compact” (“Baal-Berith of Shechem,” Journal of Semitic Studies 13 [1968]: 21–32, esp. 32).
24. In this regard see Bluedorn, Yahweh versus Baal, 198–99.
25. CTA 17.i.32–33; ii.21–22 (Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 104); and Hallo and Younger, The Context of Scripture, 1:344–45.
26. John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 69–70. Bluedorn is not certain if ל is a proper noun or a common noun here (Yahweh versus Baal, 254–55). If it is a common noun, Bluedorn suggests that “the narrator now focuses more generally on the Canaanite deities as gods” (ibid., 255, italics his). If ל here is a proper noun, “the reference builds on the implication that Baal has failed to protect the Shechemites (cf. 9.42–45), so that they recognize that Baal is less powerful than YHWH and seek refuge in El’s temple” (ibid.). Bluedorn adds, “In all cases, the reference to ל בְּרִית (9.46) prepares for the demonstration that the Canaanite gods are like Baal powerless gods who are unable to keep their covenant and protect their temple and their worshipers from being killed in the fire, which—if ל refers to Baal—has even been kindled by his own representative (9.49)” (ibid.).
27. Theodore J. Lewis, “The Identity and Function of El/Baal Berith,” Journal of Biblical Literature 115 (1996): 401–23.
28. In the Ugaritic texts both Dagon and El are identified as Baal’s father. This does not mean that these two deities should be equated, nor does it indicate that there were competing traditions. The most likely explanation is that Dagon was considered Baal’s literal father, but that El can also be called Baal’s father because he was the patriarch of the gods who stood at the head of the divine genealogical tree. He may have been viewed as Baal’s grandfather. For a discussion of Baal’s parentage that develops the arguments and conclusion presented here see Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 89–90.
29. If one follows this line of argumentation, then the text polemicizes against El as well as Baal. Mark S. Smith contends, however, that “there are no biblical polemics against El” (The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, 2nd ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002], 33). Perhaps that statement needs to be qualified.
30. Knut Holter argues, however, that there is nothing in the biblical text that precludes seeing Dagon as a fish god. He suggests that the Philistines may have associated the name of their god with דָּג, “fish,” by a popular etymology. He concludes, “We ought to reconsider today’s commonly accepted a priori rejection of any connection at all between Dagon and dg, and at least acknowledge the possibility of an ichthyomorphic representation of Dagon among the Philistines” (“Was Philistine Dagon a Fish-God? Some New Questions and an Old Answer,” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 3 [1989]: 146–47 [italics his]).
31. For a discussion of the Old Testament and extrabiblical evidence pertaining to this deity see Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 85–90. Day thinks that “grain” is probably a secondary meaning for dgn in Ugaritic and that the term is etymologically related to a verbal root “be cloudy, rainy” (ibid., 87–88). “The earliest sources,” Day notes, “do not particularly connect Dagon with the grain, though they do suggest that Dagon was a storm god, and of course a storm god is implicitly a fertility god, whence the corn would derive” (ibid., 88). Itamar Singer prefers to see Dagan/Dagon as fundamentally “an earth and vegetation deity” and any storm characteristics “as no doubt secondary” (“Towards the Image of Dagon the God of the Philistines,” Syria 69 [1992]: 437). Singer argues that evidence from the Bible and from Amarna and Canaanite inscriptions indicates that Dagan/Dagon was not a native Canaanite deity. “The cumulative evidence from various sources leads to the inevitable conclusion that the Philistines and the other Sea Peoples who settled in Palestine did not encounter Dagon as one of the gods of the land, and obviously could not have adopted his cult in their new land” (ibid., 439, italics his). Singer asks, “If so, how did Dagon become the main god of the Philistines?” He suggests that they adopted him from the Phoenicians or that they “encountered and adopted the cult of Dagan/Dagon” in Syria before they moved south into Canaan and then “brought Dagon with them” (ibid., 439–40).
32. On the polemical element in Judges 16 see David M. Gunn, “Joshua and Judges,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. Robert Alter and Frank Kermode (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987), 118; Barry G. Webb, The Book of the Judges: An Integrated Reading (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1987), 165–66; and Marc Zvi Brettler, The Book of Judges (London: Routledge, 2002), 57.
33. The Ugaritic expression is bn qds̆. See CTA 2.i.20–21, 37–38; and 17.i.3–4 (Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 41–42, 103); and Hallo and Younger, The Context of Scripture, 1:246, 343.
34. CTA 2.i.21 (Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 41); and Hallo and Younger, The Context of Scripture, 1:246.
35. CTA 3.E.v.40–41 (Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 54); and Hallo and Younger, The Context of Scripture, 1:254–55.
36. For this translation of verse 2a see Theodore J. Lewis, “The Textual History of the Song of Hannah: 1 Samuel II 1–10, ” Vetus Testamentum 44 (1994): 23. Lewis also sees a reference in verse 10 to Yahweh’s holiness. Based on Vaticanus and 4QSama, Lewis reconstructs the second line of verse 10 to read, “Who is holy like Yahweh?” (ibid., 25, 41). Lewis’s translations of the song are used throughout this section of this article.
37. See CTA 5.i.6–7 (Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 68); and Hallo and Younger, The Context of Scripture, 1:265. In CTA 5.vi.24–25; and 6.i.7–8 (Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 68; cf. Hallo and Younger, The Context of Scripture, 1:268) El and Anat lament that they will follow after Baal and descend into the underworld.
38. See CTA 5.vi.23; and 6.i.6 (Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 73–74); and Hallo and Younger, The Context of Scripture, 1:268.
39. See CTA 6.iii.20 (Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 78); and Hallo and Younger, The Context of Scripture, 1:271.
40. Hannah’s vision of God thundering in battle on behalf of His king was fulfilled, if not literally, then certainly in essence. In a song reflecting on Yahweh’s protection and intervention, David described the Lord as thundering from the sky to deliver him from the clutches of death (2 Sam. 22:5–20).
41. In CTA 4.vii.29–37 Baal’s thunder is called “his holy voice” (qlh qds̆). See Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 65; and Hallo and Younger, The Context of Scripture, 1:262–63.
42. For this text (RS 24.245.3) see Marvin H. Pope and Jeffrey H. Tigay, “A Description of Baal,” Ugarit-Forschungen 3 (1971): 118; and Frank M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 147–48.
43. See Lewis, “The Textual History of the Song of Hannah: 1 Samuel II 1–10, ” 41–42; P. Kyle McCarter, I Samuel, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1980), 73; and Smith, The Early History of God, 82–83. Lewis translates the line, “The Exalted One thunders in the heavens” (“The Song of Hannah,” 25).
44. See CTA 16.iii.6, 8 (Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 98); and Hallo and Younger, The Context of Scripture, 1:341.
45. First Samuel 5:4b reads literally, “Only Dagon remained upon him/it.” McCarter prefers to emend the text to read, “only his back was left upon him,” that is, “only his trunk was left intact” (I Samuel, 117, 119). Appealing to archaeological evidence, Vladimir Orel proposes that Dagon refers here to the deity’s “wheat-shaped head and/or hands,” which, having been separated from the torso, were lying on the threshold (the referent of “upon it”) (“The Great Fall of Dagon,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 110 [1998]: 427–32).
46. Ralph W. Klein, 1 Samuel, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1983), 50.
47. CTA 3.B.ii.9–13 (Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 47); and Hallo and Younger, The Context of Scripture, 1:250.
48. A. Stirrup, “ ‘Why Has Yahweh Defeated Us Today before the Philistines?’ The Question of the Ark Narrative,” Tyndale Bulletin 51 (2000): 100.
49. Ibid.