The Polemic against Baalism in Israel’s Early History and Literature

By Robert B. Chisholm Jr.

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

Over the past 25 years several scholars have pointed to the polemical character of 1 Kings 17—18, which tells of Elijah’s encounter with the prophets of Baal and the incidents leading up to that event.[1] Following King Ahab’s decision to promote Baal worship in the Northern Kingdom (1 Kings 16:31–33), Yahweh sent a drought on Israel and Phoenicia (the homeland of Ahab’s queen, Jezebel). This form of judgment was appropriate because the fertility god Baal promised his worshipers agricultural prosperity. Through the Prophet Elijah, Yahweh supernaturally provided the staples of life for a Phoenician widow (17:14) and raised her son from the dead (v. 17), thereby demonstrating His superiority to Baal, who was thought to be subject to Mot, the god of death, during times of prolonged drought. The story culminates with Elijah’s challenge to the prophets of Baal at Carmel. Before the eyes of all Israel, Yahweh proved that He, not Baal, controls the elements of the storm. After Baal’s prophets unsuccessfully went through their frantic mourning rites in an effort to rouse their god to action (18:26–29), Yahweh, in response to Elijah’s prayer, sent fire to consume the sacrifice and then caused it to rain (vv. 36–38, 45). By exhibiting His sovereignty over Baal’s traditional spheres of authority, Yahweh established His right to Israel’s undivided loyalty. Israel must look to Yahweh, the one true God (18:24, 37, 39), for the necessities of life. Baalism was not an option.

This dramatic confrontation, precipitated by Ahab’s blatant Baalism, was inevitable. In fact the conflict had been brewing for centuries, during which Yahweh had utilized the same polemical strategy as in Elijah’s day. Throughout Israel’s early history the nation was vulnerable to the allurements of Baalism, a fertility cult offering its devotees agricultural prosperity (cf. Judg 2:11, 13; 3:7; 6:25–32; 8:33; 10:6, 10; 1 Sam 7:4; 12:10). In response to this threat Yahweh, through His mighty acts and the inspired poetic words they prompted, affirmed His superiority to Baal in an effort to win the allegiance of His fickle covenantal people. Several passages in the Old Testament describe Yahweh and His exploits in Baal-like terms. Many of Yahweh’s deeds, especially His victories over kings who challenged His sovereignty, parallel Baal’s alleged accomplishments and demonstrate that Yahweh, not Baal, controls the elements of the storm and possesses authority over the forces of chaos and death. Several of Israel’s early poems, many of which were inspired by Yahweh’s salvific intervention in the nation’s experience, assert that Yahweh is the incomparable King who, like Baal, reveals Himself in the storm and subdues all challenges to His rule.

Though many acknowledge the close parallels between the biblical account of Yahweh’s mighty deeds and the mythological description of Baal’s exploits, these same scholars disagree over the significance of these parallels. Some regard the parallels as evidence of a demythologizing phase in Israel’s religious evolution, while others attribute them to mere literary borrowing or to a common Semitic literary milieu in which warrior-kings are described in somewhat stereotypical terms.[2] In light of the clear polemical pattern revealed in 1 Kings 17—18 (whereby Yahweh makes Baal’s deeds His own and thereby usurps Baal’s authority), it is far more likely that the Old Testament utilized the mythological motifs for polemical purposes.[3]

The appearance of incomparability formulae in several pertinent contexts (Exod 9:14; 15:11; 18:11; Deut 33:26; 1 Sam 2:2; Ps 18:31) corroborates this thesis. In ancient Assyro-Babylonian hymns, expressions of incomparability were used of various deities but without any notion of exclusivism being attached to the concept.[4] As such, they appear to be, in the words of Labuschagne, “nothing more than exclamations of praise without any comparative notion.”[5] However, within the framework of the Old Testament’s militantly exclusivistic Yahwism (Exod 20:2–5a), such expressions, rather than being idiomatic hyperbole, are inherently comparative/polemical and, in their respective contexts, affirm Yahweh’s uniqueness and right to rule over His people (Exod 9:14; Deut 33:26; 1 Sam 2:2; 2 Sam 7:22; 1 Kings 8:23; Ps 86:8; Jer 10:6–7).[6]

This article seeks to show how the polemic against Baalism originated and developed by deed and word in Israel’s early history and literature. However, it is necessary first to review briefly how second millennium B.C. Ugaritic mythological texts portray Baal and his struggle for kingship among the gods.[7]

Baal in the Ugaritic Myths

The Ugaritic myths depict Baal as a mighty warrior-king who controls the elements of the storm. Many of his names and epithets reflect his position and roles, including, among others, aliyn b'l, “mightiest Baal,” aliy qrdm, “mightiest of warriors,” hd d'nn, “Haddu, lord of the stormcloud,” and rkb 'rpt, “rider of the clouds.” The myths speak of Baal appointing a time “for the sounding of his voice in the clouds, for him to release (his) lightnings on the earth” (CTA 4 v 70–71; CML, 60-61).8 Another text describes Baal in the following manner: “Seven lightning bolts he casts, eight magazines of thunder, he brandishes a spear of lightning.”[9]

As the controller of the storm, Baal was responsible for agricultural blessing. According to the Legend of Kirtu, Baal provided rain and, consequently, food for all:

A source (of blessing) to the earth was the rain of Baal and to the field(s) the rain of the Most High; a delight to the earth was the rain of Baal and to the field(s) the rain of the Most High, a delight to the wheat in the furrow, (to) the spelt in the tilth…. The ploughmen did lift up (their) head(s), they that prepared the corn (did lift up their heads) on high; for the bread had failed (in) their bins, the wine had failed in their skins, the oil had failed in their (cruses) (CTA 16 iii 4–16; CML, 98).

Baal “fattens gods and men” and “satisfies the multitudes of the earth” (CTA 4 vii 50–52; CML, 66). When he is dead, the “furrows in the fields are cracked” (CTA 6 iv 25–29; CML, 78), but when he lives the heavens rain down oil and the ravines flow with honey (CTA 6 iii 6–8; CML, 77).

Baal’s quest for kingship is the main theme of the mythological texts. Baal defeats his rival Yam, the god of the sea, with the aid of Kothar-wa-Khasis, the god of craftsmanship, who forges special weapons for the storm god. Following Baal’s victory, the goddess Anat calls him “our king, mightiest Baal, our judge, over whom there is none” (CTA 3 E 40–41; CML, 54).[10] Baal himself boasts, “I alone am he that is king over the gods” (CTA 4 vii 49–50; CML, 66). With the assistance of the goddess Anat, Baal persuades El, the high god, to allow a royal palace to be built. Baal celebrates his kingship with a feast, a victorious military campaign, and an awesome theophanic display. Seemingly unimpressed, Mot, the god of death and the underworld, challenges Baal’s authority and initially defeats him. El and Anat mourn Baal’s subjugation to Mot, and then the warlike Anat seeks to avenge his death. She seizes Mot, kills him with a sword, grinds him to dust, and scatters him to the wind. Baal eventually returns from his imprisonment and reestablishes his rule. Seven years later Mot reappears and engages in a violent struggle with Baal. This time Baal emerges victorious and Mot is forced to acknowledge his kingship.[11]

The Baal Polemic in the Days of Moses

The Deliverance from Egypt

As early as the time of Moses, Yahweh revealed Himself as an incomparable Warrior-King who, like Baal, controls the elements of the storm and suppresses all challenges to His rule. Yahweh demonstrated His sovereignty over the storm while Israel was still enslaved in the land of Egypt. In conjunction with the seventh plague, He sent thunder, hail, and lightning against Egypt’s crops (Exod 9:23–24), proving His incomparability to Pharaoh, who claimed to be Israel’s master and refused to acknowledge Yahweh’s authority. Before unleashing this destructive storm Yahweh warned Pharaoh: “Let My people go, that they may serve Me. For this time I will send all My plagues on you and your servants and your people, so that you may know that there is no one like Me in all the earth” (Exod 9:13–14; cf. 8:10).The revelation of Yahweh’s power reached its climax at the Red Sea, where He used the waters to annihilate Pharaoh’s army. Moses’ song of celebration (Exod 15) praised the victorious warrior Yahweh (v. 3), who shattered and threw down the enemy, angrily consuming them like chaff before fire (v. 7). His self-manifestation as warrior was so impressive that the Canaanites trembled at the report of His deeds (vv. 14–15). Yahweh’s acts as a warrior are the basis for the song’s assertions of His incomparable greatness and royal authority. Yahweh is highly exalted (v. 2) and great in majesty (v. 7). His greatness prompted Moses to ask, “Who is like Thee among the gods, O Lord? Who is like Thee, majestic in holiness, awesome in praises, working wonders?” (v. 11).[12] The song concludes with the affirmation that Yahweh will “reign forever and ever” (v. 18).

In defeating Pharaoh at the Red Sea, Yahweh exhibited His authority over the sea and the underworld, the opponents of Baal in the myths. Yahweh used the sea (vv. 8, 10) and death (v. 12) as His instruments. As Cross observes, “the sea is not personified or hostile, but a passive instrument in Yahweh’s control.” He adds, “There is no question here of a mythological combat between two gods. Yahweh defeats historical, human enemies.”[13] According to verse 12, the earth (אֶרֶחּ), in response to Yahweh’s stretching out His mighty hand, swallowed up the Egyptians. In this context, where the sea, not the literal ground, engulfs the enemy, it is likely that אֶרֶחּ refers to the realm of death.[14]

In celebrating Yahweh’s victory Moses described Yahweh’s kingship in terms reminiscent of the Baal myth. Yahweh would lead His people across the Jordan River and establish them in the land, called here His mountain of inheritance, dwelling place, and sanctuary (vv. 16b–18).[15] From there He would rule as eternal king over His people (v. 18, יְהוָה יִמְוֹּךְ לְעֹלָם וָעֶד, “Yahweh will reign for ever and ever”). The precise phrase הַר נָחֲלָה, “mountain of inheritance” (v. 17), occurs only here in the Old Testament, but the Ugaritic myths use a semantically equivalent expression (ǵr nḥlt, “mountain of inheritance”) of Baal’s throne or place of rule (cf. CTA 3 C 27 and 3 D 64; CML, 49, 51).[16] This mountain, which is associated with Baal’s victory over Yam and is also called his “hill of victory” (CTA 3 C 28; CML, 49), is “the territory won by the deity through battle.”[17]

Before Baal’s battle with Yam, Kothar-wa-Khasis tells the storm god; “Truly I tell you, O prince Baal, I repeat to you, O rider on the clouds. Now (you must smite) your foes, Baal, now you must still your enemies. You shall take your everlasting kingdom, your dominion forever and ever” (CTA 2 iv 7–10; CML, 43).[18] Following Baal’s victory, onlookers declare, “Yam is indeed dead! Baal shall be king!” (CTA 2 iv 32; CML, 45). Shortly thereafter both Anat and Athirat refer to Baal as an incomparable king (CTA 3 E 40–41, 4 iv 43–44; CML, 54, 60). In the same way, Yahweh had defeated His enemies (Exod 15:6) and would rule forever as incomparable King (vv. 11, 18) from the mountain of His inheritance (v. 17).[19]

Yahweh’s Self-Revelation at Sinai

At Sinai Yahweh revealed Himself as the victorious Warrior-King who claimed the allegiance of the people He had delivered. Elements of the storm, including thunder, lightning, and a thick cloud, accompanied His descent on the mountain, causing it to smolder and shake (Exod 19:16, 18; Deut 4:11–12). The effects of Yahweh’s self-revelation at Sinai resemble closely those of Baal’s storm theophany following his victory over Yam, the sea god:

Baal uttered his holy voice, Baal repeated the (issue) of his lips; (he uttered) his (holy) voice (and) the earth did quake, (he repeated) the issue of his lips (and) the rocks (did quake); peoples afar off were dismayed (…) the peoples of the east; the high places of the earth shook. The foes of Baal clung to the forests, the enemies of Hadad to the hollows of the rock. And mightiest Baal spoke: “Foes of Hadad, why are you dismayed, why are you dismayed at the weapons of Dmrn? (Is it because) the eye of Baal outstrips his hand when the ‘cedar’ is brandished in his right hand?” Forthwith Baal did sit down in his mansion (and spoke): “Will anyone else, whether king or commoner, occupy for himself the land of (my) dominion?” (CTA 4 vii 29–44; CML, 65).

Baal’s theophany from his new palace manifests his power as a victorious warrior and is an assertion of his kingship.

It is apparent that the theophany of Baal is designed to terrify his opponents and to express his complete kingship and lordship over all. The storm god is king de facto; he has finally given full expression to his individuality as the victorious storm god. At that moment Baal’s theophany is a demonstration of his divine supremacy and a disclosure of his essential nature…. Baal is enthroned as king and by virtue of his theophany must now be acknowledged as such.[20]

Through His self-revelation at Sinai, Yahweh was again making the exploits of Baal His own. Yahweh, like Baal, reigned as victorious king, a fact demonstrated by the manifestation of His power in the theophany.

Moses’ Blessing of the Tribes

Additional parallels to the Baal myth appear in Moses’ blessing of the Israelite tribes (Deut 33), which combines the themes of Yahweh’s kingship (v. 5), incomparability (v. 26), control over the storm (v. 26), and prowess as warrior (vv. 27–29). Moses depicted the Lord as coming from Sinai (v. 2), the scene of His enthronement over Israel, to bless His people with military victory (vv. 7, 11, 17, 22–23, 26–27, 29) and agricultural prosperity (vv. 13–16, 28). The concluding stanza, which begins with an affirmation of Yahweh’s incomparability (v. 26), calls Him “the God” and the “rider of the heavens,” an epithet which is similar to Baal’s title “rider of the clouds.”[21] As “rider of the clouds” Baal appears as both warrior and bestower of the rains,[22] precisely the roles Yahweh assumes, according to verses 26–29. The warrior Yahweh would drive out the Canaanites, enabling Israel to dwell securely in a land blessed with the grain, wine, and dew which He provides (cf. CTA 16 iii 4–16; CML, 98).

Summary

From the very beginning of Israel’s history, Yahweh revealed Himself as the incomparable Warrior-King. Like Baal He controls the elements of the storm (Exod 9:22–25; 19:16–19) as the Rider of the heavens (Deut 33:26) and suppresses all challenges to His rule (Exod 19:4; Deut 33:29). He is sovereign over the sea and death, which He even uses as weapons (Exod 15:8, 10, 12). Following Yahweh’s victory at the Red Sea, Moses envisioned a time when Yahweh would lead His people to the mountain of His inheritance where He would defeat the Canaanites, abundantly bless His people, and rule over them forever (Exod 15:16–18; Deut 33:26–29). These Baal-like exploits, accomplished in the historical arena for all to see, are proof of Yahweh’s incomparability and kingship (Exod 9:14; 15:11; Deut 33:26) and validated His right to demand Israel’s exclusive loyalty and worship (Exod 20:2–5).[23]

The Baal Polemic in the Judges and Early Monarchical Periods

As Israel moved into the Promised Land and encountered Baalism, Yahweh again proved His superiority to Baal through His mighty deeds and self-revelation in the storm, while Israel’s poets continued to affirm His kingship and incomparability in terms reminiscent of the Baal myths.

Yahweh’s Self-Revelation in the Storm

On several occasions Yahweh revealed His power in the storm in order to defeat challengers to His authority and/or affirm His right to Israel’s allegiance. At Gibeon He hurled hailstones down on the fleeing armies of the five Amorite kings (Josh 10:11).[24] According to the song of Deborah (Judg 5), a poetic account of Yahweh’s victory over “the kings of Canaan” (v. 19), the stars fought for Israel and the Kishon River swept Sisera’s army away (vv. 20–21). The language suggests that Yahweh caused a storm and flashflood, an interpretation consistent with the song’s introduction, which pictures Yahweh coming in the storm to do battle (vv. 4–5).[25]

Yahweh also revealed Himself in the storm in the days of Samuel. Following Israel’s repudiation of false gods, including the Baals (1 Sam 7:4), Yahweh won a great victory over the Philistines as He thundered from the heavens (v. 10). Just as He would do later at Carmel, Yahweh demonstrated that He, not Baal, controls the storm. In this way He affirmed the wisdom of the Israelites’ decision to serve Him only and to turn from Baalism (v. 3). In his farewell address Samuel urged the people to renew their covenantal loyalty to Yahweh and reminded them that Yahweh, not their newly appointed human king, was their true sovereign (1 Sam 12:14–15). As proof that He possessed the right and power to bless and curse, Yahweh “sent thunder and rain” on the ready-to-harvest fields of wheat (vv. 16–18a). Having witnessed this covenantal curse,[26] the people repented and begged Samuel to intercede for them (vv. 18b–19). Samuel then exhorted the people to serve Yahweh wholeheartedly and warned them not to turn to idols (vv. 20–25). Yahweh’s self-revelation in the storm was a demonstration of His power as a warrior and an affirmation of His kingship and exclusive right to rule over Israel.

Poetic References to Yahweh’s Baal-like Abilities

Many early Israelite poems emphasize Yahweh’s control of the storm and affirm His kingship and incomparability. As already noted, the introduction to Deborah’s victory song pictures Yahweh marching from Sinai and coming in the storm to fight for His people (Judg 5:4–5).[27] The song, addressed to “kings” (v. 3), emphasizes Yahweh’s superiority to the “kings of Canaan” who opposed His rule (v. 19). Psalm 68:7–8 borrows and adapts the language of Judges 5:4–5 to describe Yahweh’s conquest of Canaan and His bestowal of agricultural blessing (cf. vv. 9–10). Like Deuteronomy 33:26, Psalm 68 pictures Yahweh as the “rider of the heavens” (v. 33) who thunders in the skies as an affirmation of His sovereignty over the earth’s kingdoms (cf. vv. 32, 34–35). Psalm 68:4 even applies Baal’s title “rider of the clouds” to Yahweh.[28]

In her song of praise following the birth of her son, Hannah portrayed Yahweh as a mighty Warrior who “thunders against” His enemies and shatters their power (1 Sam 2:4, 9–10). Yahweh is the incomparable, transcendent Ruler of the world who protects His people (vv. 2, 8b) and dispenses justice by elevating the oppressed and humiliating the proud (vv. 3, 5–10). Yahweh grants fertility (v. 5) and exercises control over the realm of death (v. 6). In short, this poem describes Yahweh in typically Baal-like terms as a Warrior-King who controls the storm and is sovereign over death. By declaring Yahweh the incomparable Judge of the world (vv. 3, 10), Hannah also directly attributed to Yahweh another of Baal’s royal epithets. In the Baal myth Anat declared, “Mightiest Baal is our king, our judge (tp̱ṭn), over whom there is none” (CTA 3 E 40–41; CML, 54).

Psalm 18 (cf. the parallel version in 2 Sam 22), attributed to David in Israelite tradition (cf. the heading), also depicts Yahweh in Baal-like terms as the incomparable Warrior-King who is sovereign over the chaos waters/death and utilizes the elements of the storm to deliver His servant. Helpless and vulnerable before his many enemies, the psalmist pictured himself as engulfed by “mighty waters” and ready to succumb to death’s power (vv. 4–5, 15–18). In response to the psalmist’s cry for help, Yahweh came to his rescue. The psalmist hyperbolically described his deliverance in cosmic, theophanic terms, thereby emphasizing Yahweh’s active intervention and linking his own redemptive experience with Yahweh’s earlier theophanic self-revelation in Israel’s salvation-history. Enveloped in rain clouds through which His divine radiance is nevertheless visible, the fire-breathing Yahweh approaches swiftly, borne along by the “wings of the wind” (vv. 8–11).[29] His thunderous battle cry[30] causes the earth to shake and His enemies to scatter in fear before His lightning bolts and hailstones (vv. 7, 12–15).[31] He reaches down with His mighty hand, pulls the psalmist from death’s raging waters, and places him on safe ground (vv. 16–19). Having experienced such power, the psalmist affirmed Yahweh’s incomparability: “For who is God besides the Lord? And who is the Rock except our God?” (v. 31, NIV). The declaration “The Lord lives!” (v. 46) may even echo El’s confident words, “mightiest Baal is alive” (CTA 6 iii 20; CML, 78), a statement made after the high god had seen in a dream the evidence for Baal’s resuscitation.

Psalm 29, another ancient (perhaps Davidic) poem celebrating Yahweh’s power, also describes Israel’s God in Baal-like terms. This psalm pictures Yahweh as an incomparable King (vv. 1–2, 9b–10) who, like Baal, possesses authority over the chaotic waters of the sea and controls the elements of the storm (vv. 3–9a). As Israel’s mighty Warrior-King He energizes His people for battle, giving them victory and ensuring their ongoing prosperity (v. 11). The cluster of parallels between Psalm 29 and the mythological texts is so striking that Day remarks, “Ps 29 stands remarkably close to the circle of mythological ideas surrounding Baal as they are attested in the Ugaritic texts.”[32] Similarly Kloos affirms, “The correspondence with the Baal epic is almost total,” and then concludes, “Ps xxix depicts Yhwh as Baal from beginning to end.”[33]

The focal point of the psalm is Yahweh’s powerful voice, mentioned seven times. Yahweh’s thunderous voice devastates the forest-covered mountains of the north (vv. 5, 9) and causes the earth to shake (vv. 6, 8).[34] According to Day, the sevenfold reference to Yahweh’s voice echoes the mythological theme of Baal’s “seven lightning bolts” and “eight magazines of thunder” (on this text, see note 9 above).[35] Day explains that the x/x + 1 (7/8 in this case) pattern is not meant to indicate an actual numerical distinction, but is simply a poetic way of referring to one of the numbers (in this case the first).[36] The 7/8 pattern indicates completeness in the Ugaritic text, suggesting that Baal has at his disposal a full arsenal of lightning and thunder. In Psalm 29 the sevenfold reference to Yahweh’s voice emphasizes its intensity.

Another prominent motif in Psalm 29 is Yahweh’s sovereignty over the chaotic waters of the sea, a theme that echoes Baal’s victory over Yam (also see Ps 93:3–4). Psalm 29:3 pictures Yahweh thundering above (or perhaps “against”[37] the “mighty waters” (מַיִם רַבִּים). The “mighty waters” often symbolize those chaotic forces that contest Yahweh’s authority by threatening His people (Pss. 18:16; 32:6; 77:19; 144:7; Isa 17:12–13; Hab 3:15).[38]

The precise meaning of the statement לַמַּבּוּל יָשָׁב (Ps 29:10) is uncertain. Some argue that the Noahic flood is in view here and so they translate the Hebrew words “before the Flood.”[39] In support of this interpretation one may point to usage elsewhere (מַּבּוּל occurs only here and in Gen 6–11, where it refers to the Noahic flood), the parallel line (cf. לְעוֹלָם), the switch to the perfect tense in verse 10a (participles and yiqtol forms appear in vv. 5–9), and the similar Akkadian phrase lām abūbi, “before the Flood” (or “from time immemorial”). However, on the basis of the immediate context, where the “mighty waters” are viewed as subject to Yahweh’s authority (v. 3), it is possible that מַּבּוּל here refers to the chaotic waters that symbolize the foes of Yahweh. If so, verse 10, like verse 3, must be viewed against the background of Baal’s victory over Yam.[40] Another possibility is that מַּבּוּל refers to the heavenly ocean or reservoir of waters on which Yahweh sits enthroned.[41] In this case, verse 10 depicts Yahweh’s sovereignty over the fructifying rains (one of Baal’s spheres of authority) rather than His authority over the chaotic waters.[42]

Summary

The polemic against Baalism inaugurated in Moses’ time gained momentum during the period of the Judges and the early monarchy. Yahweh continued to reveal Himself as an incomparable Warrior-King who, like Baal, controls the elements of the storm (Josh 10:11; Judg 5:4–5; 1 Sam 2:10; 7:10; 12:16–18; Pss. 18:7–15; 29:3–9), defeats those who challenge His rule (Josh 10; Judg 5), and exercises sovereignty over the sea and death (Pss. 18:4–6, 15–19; 29:3, 10[?]). As the incomparable King (1 Sam 2:2; Ps 18:31) Yahweh alone possesses the right to Israel’s allegiance (cf. 1 Sam 7 and 12).

Conclusion

In several texts from the Mosaic and Judges-early monarchical periods, Yahweh’s self-revelation, as well as the poetic descriptions of His deeds, have a decidedly Baal-like quality. Yahweh is the incomparable King who controls the storm, suppresses challenges to His rule, and exercises sovereignty over sea/death. Though these parallels have been interpreted in different ways, it seems preferable to see them as part of a polemical strategy whereby Yahweh established His exclusive right to His people’s worship and loyalty. The appearance of incomparability formulae in many of these contexts, especially when viewed within the framework of Yahwistic exclusivism, favors this interpretation, as does the polemical pattern of 1 Kings 17–18, which tells how Yahweh demonstrated, once and for all, His sovereignty over the storm and the spheres of life/death and fertility/drought, usurped Baal’s position, and proved that He, not Baal, deserved Israel’s worship.

Notes

1. See Leah Bronner, The Stories of Elijah and Elisha as Polemics against Baal Worship, Pretoria Oriental Series 6 (Leiden: Brill, 1968); F. Charles Fensham, “A Few Observations on the Polarisation between Yahweh and Baal in 1 Kings 17—19 ,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlicheWissenschaft 92 (1980): 227-36; George E. Saint-Laurent, “Light from Ras Shamra on Elijah’s Ordeal upon Mount Carmel,” in Scripture in Context: Essays on the Comparative Method, ed. C. D. Evans, W. W. Hallo, and J. B. White (Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1980), 123–39; and James R. Battenfield, “YHWH’s Refutation of the Baal Myth through the Actions of Elijah and Elisha,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison, ed. A. Gileadi (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 19–37.
2. For a helpful discussion of the various ways in which scholars have explained biblical and mythological parallels, see Carola Kloos’ survey of recent interpretations of Psalm 29 in Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea: A Canaanite Tradition in the Religion of Ancient Israel (Amsterdam: van Oorschot, 1986), 94–124.
3. Several scholars have recognized the polemical character of various Old Testament passages. See, for example, the works cited in ibid., 94–98, most of which pertain to Psalm 29. (In particular see A. H. W. Curtis’s insightful study, “The ‘Subjugation of the Waters’ Motif in the Psalms: Imagery or Polemic?” Journal of Semitic Studies 23 [1978]: 245-56.) After a meticulous study of Psalm 29, Kloos rejects a polemical approach and contends that Yahweh’s “Baal qualities” are not the result of “a hostile attitude toward Baalism” (p. 124). Instead, Kloos suggests, “the Israelites, seeing that Baal could satisfy a fundamental need by sending the rain, wanted to possess ‘a Baal of their own’“ (ibid.; also see 213–14). Given the distinctive character and militant exclusivism of early Yahwism, this conclusion is not adequate.
4. C. J. Labuschagne, The Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old Testament, Pretoria Oriental Series 5 (Leiden: Brill, 1966), 53–54.
5. Ibid., 66. However, he does point out that a comparative notion adhered to the formula at an earlier stage of its use (ibid., 53).
6. For a detailed defense of this view, see ibid., 64–123.
7. Because of the paucity of Palestinian religious literature dating to the second millennium B.C., one must rely heavily on the Ugaritic texts. These texts, which predate the destruction of Ugarit in 1200 B.C., are roughly contemporary with the Mosaic and Judges/early monarchical periods (the focal point of this study). However, Ugarit was located north of Palestine. (For the importance of recognizing this fact when using the Ugaritic texts for comparative purposes, see A. F. Rainey, “The Kingdom of Ugarit,” Biblical Archeology 28 [1965]: 121.) While it is apparent from the biblical text that Baalism flourished in Canaan, it is not so easy to demonstrate that the Canaanite view of Baal was identical to that of Ugarit in the north. Using the Ugaritic materials to illuminate later (first millennium B.C.) biblical texts is especially problematic, for one now faces a chronological as well as a geographical gap. While caution is necessary and conclusions must be tentative, the parallels between the Ugaritic myths and certain biblical passages indicate that the Canaanite Baal did, to a great degree, correspond to his Ugaritic counterpart and that many biblical writers were aware of the beliefs of Baalism and the mythological motifs associated with Baal. For discussion of the problems inherent in attempting to identify the biblical/Canaanite Baal, see Fensham, “A Few Observations on the Polarisation between Yahweh and Baal in 1 Kings 17—19 ,” 231–32; Alan Cooper, “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” in Ras Shamra Parallels: The Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible, vol. 3, ed. S. Rummel (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1981), 348–50; and Battenfield, “YHWH’s Refutation of the Baal Myth through the Actions of Elijah and Elisha,” 29–33.
8. Unless indicated otherwise, this article identifies the mythological texts according to the sigla employed by Andrée Herdner, Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétiques (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1963), abbreviated CTA. Unless indicated otherwise, translations of the texts are from J. C. L. Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 2d ed. (Edinburgh: Clark, 1978), abbreviated CML.
9. On 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, 1973), 147–48.
10. The declaration of Baal’s incomparability pertains primarily to his rivalry with Yam. The high god El still reigns supreme over the divine realm, as the context indicates. Line 44 refers to “El the king who installed [or created] him [i.e., Baal]” (see CML, 54).
11. For a survey of the major interpretations of the Baal cycle, an up-to-date reading of the myth, and extensive bibliography, see Mark S. Smith, “Interpreting the Baal Cycle,” Ugarit-Forschungen 18 (1986): 313-39.
12. The plural לִים occurs four times in the Old Testament, only here without a preceding construct form (י in Ezek 32:21 and לִים in Job 41:17 are from אַיִל, “ram, leader”; cf. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, s.v. “ל,” by Frank M. Cross, 1:254). The phrase ל לִים, “God of gods,” appears in Daniel 11:36 as a divine superlative. In Psalms 29:1 and 89:6 (possibly also Deut 32:8) בְּנֵי לִים, “sons of the gods” (or perhaps, “sons of El/God,” if the final mem is an enclitic, rather than a plural ending; cf. ibid., 1:255), refers to God’s heavenly council, as the context of Psalm 89:6 indicates (cf. vv. 5–8). In Exodus 15:11לִים appears to be an “ordinary generic appellative” (cf. ibid.), referring to pagan deities in general. The statement is similar to that of Psalm 86:8, ין־כָּמוֹךָ בָּאֱוֹּהִים, “there is none like you among the gods.” In Exodus 15:11b some have proposed reading קְדֹשִׁים, “holy ones,” for the Masoretic text’s קֹדֶשׁ, “holiness.” This would provide a tighter parallel with לִים and has the support of the Septuagint, which reads ἐν ἁγίοις. If this reading is correct, it is possible that these לִים/קְדֹשִׁים are members of the heavenly council, as in Psalm 89:5–7, where the בְּנֵי לִים are associated with the קְדֹשִׁים, “holy ones,” in conjunction with an incomparability formula. In this case the statement of Yahweh’s incomparability in Exodus 15:11 would not be a polemic against the pagan gods, but rather a declaration of His exalted position in His own heavenly council. However, even if one accepts the textual variant as original, the reference may still be to pagan gods. As Labuschagne notes, “the heavenly beings are nowhere in the Old Testament referred to as אלים; when this word is used, they are always called בני אלים” (The Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old Testament, 80). There may indeed be a distinction between לִים and בְּנֵי לִים, the former referring to pagan deities, the latter to the angelic assembly (cf. the distinction between אֱוֹּהִים, which sometimes is a numerical plural referring to pagan gods [Pss. 95:3; 96:4–5; 97:7 ], and the phrase אֱוֹּהִים(הָ)בְּנֵי , which refers to angelic beings [Gen 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 ]). Though קְדֹשִׁים does not clearly refer to pagan gods anywhere in the Old Testament (cf. however, Ps 16:3), Ugaritic bn qds̆, “sons of the Holy One” or “holy ones,” appears in parallelism with ilm, “gods” in CTA 2 i 20–21, 37–38 (CML, 41-42) and 17 i 3–4 (CML, 103). If original, it is possible that קְדֹשִׁים, in parallelism with לִים, has this nuance in the archaic Exodus 15.
13. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 131-32.
14. Ibid., 129. See also Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, 88; and Nicholas Tromp, Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World in the Old Testament (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969), 25–26.
15. The terms used in verse 17 of Yahweh’s dwelling place often refer in later texts to Jerusalem and the temple mount (see, e.g., 1 Kings 8:13; Ps 79:1; Jer 12:7–9). However, in Exodus 15 they refer more generally to the land of Canaan. The word נָחֲלָה even retains this meaning in some later texts (Jer 2:7; 16:18), as does הַר (Ps 78:54). See David N. Freedman, “Strophe and Meter in Exodus 15, ” and Hans Eberhard von Waldow, “Israel and Her Land: Some Theological Considerations,” in A Light unto My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Myers, ed. H. N. Bream, R. D. Heim, and C. A. Moore (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974), 190–92, 493–96, respectively; and Frank M. Cross and David N. Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 21 (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1975), 64–65, n. 56.
16. In CTA 3 C 27 (CML, 49) the expression is parallel to qds̆, “holy place.” Note the presence of מִקְּדָשׁ, “sanctuary,” in Exodus 15:17b (on the peculiar form, see Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 20h).
17. CML, 9. See also E. Theodore Mullen, Jr., The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1980), 59, n. 97.
18. Compare the reference to Baal’s “everlasting kingdom” (mlk 'lmk in CTA 2 iv 10; CML, 43) with Exodus 15:18.
19. See Norman C. Habel, Yahweh versus Baal (New York: Bookman, 1964), 61–62; Frank M. Cross, “The Divine Warrior in Israel’s Early Cult,” in Biblical Motifs: Origins and Transformations, ed. A. Altmann (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966), 22–23; Patrick D. Miller, Jr., The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 116–17; John Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 98; and Kloos, Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea, 150-51.
20. Ibid., 77-78.
21. The title הָל indicates that Yahweh is “the God, par excellence” (Umberto Cassuto, Biblical and Oriental Studies [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973—75], 1:66).
22. See ibid., 247, and Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 147-51. For passages where this title is associated with Baal’s role as warrior, see CTA 2 iv 8, 29 (CML, 43-44), and CTA 3 D 35, 48–50 (CML, 50); for texts associating this epithet with Baal’s bestowing agricultural prosperity see CTA 3 B 39–41 (CML, 48), 16 iii 4–16 (CML, 98), 19 i 42–46 (CML, 115).
23. Some might ask if such a Baal polemic would have been meaningful to Israel before its entry into the land. However, one must allow for the proleptic nature of preconquest polemical material. Yahweh knew that His people would soon encounter Baalism and He prepared them for the temptation they would face. It is also possible that the Israelites were already aware of the main elements of Canaanite religion because of their contact with Palestine in the patriarchal era and Canaanite-Egyptian cultural interchange. For a discussion of the latter, see S. I. L. Norin, Er spaltete das Meer. Die Auszugsüberlieferung in Psalmen und Kult des alten Israel (Lund: Gleerup, 1977), 46–58; and Frank E. Eakin, “The Relationship of Yahwism and Baalism during the Pre-Exilic Period” (Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1964), 53–54.
24. Hailstones, an element of the thunderstorm, are attested as a divine weapon in ancient Near Eastern texts. 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), 141. However, hail is rarely if ever associated with Baal in the Ugaritic texts. F. C. Fensham translates abn brq in CTA 3 C 23 (cf. CML, 49) as “thunderstones” (see “Thunderstones in Ugaritic,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 18 [1959] 273–74), which he identifies as fire-producing stones that accompany lightning and thunder. He understands rgm in the parallel line as “thunder.” If Fensham is correct, this may be a reference to hail. However, it is more likely that abn is a verb, “I understand” (from byn), as wltbn, “nor do (the multitudes of the earth) understand,” in line 24 suggests. In this case rgm means “word, speech, tale” (cf. Gibson’s translation in CML, 49).
25. In CTA 3 B 40–41 (CML, 48) the stars are sources of rain. Thus Judges 5:20 may picture the stars fighting by pouring forth rain and causing the Kishon River to flood. For other interpretive options see 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. The reference to the stars may simply be a way of emphasizing the cosmic scope of the battle, with the stars being depicted as Yahweh’s heavenly army. For suggested ancient Near Eastern parallels to Judges 5:20–22, see Weinfeld, “Divine Intervention in War in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East,” 124–31.
26. Tremper Longman rightly argues that Yahweh’s theophany was more than a demonstration of His omnipotence and control of the storm. A thunderstorm at harvest time jeopardized the crop and amounted to a covenantal curse. See his “1 Sam 12:16–19: Divine Omnipotence or Covenant Curse?” Westminister Theological Journal 45 (1983): 168-71.
27. The translation “This Sinai” (v. 5, NASB) makes little sense in a context in which Yahweh marches to Canaan from Edom (v. 4). The context and poetic parallelism are better satisfied if the phrase זֶה סִינַי is understood as a divine epithet, “the One of Sinai” (NIV). This is an archaic northwest Semitic use of the demonstrative pronoun attested in Amorite, Ugaritic, and the proto-Sinaitic inscriptions, as well as later in Old South Arabic and Arabic (cf. Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, 253). For full discussion see 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. Lipinski, “Juges 5, 4–5 et Psaume 68, 8–11, ” Biblica 48 (1967): 198, n. 3. This interpretation makes the phrase parallel to אֱוֹּי יִשְׂרָל in the following line, rather than to הָרִים in the preceding line (contra the accentuation in the Masoretic text).
28. The older interpretation of the epithet רֹב בֲָּעֲרָבוֹת was “rider of the steppes” (Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament [Oxford: Clarendon, 1907], 787; cf. NASB). For recent defenses of this view see Newton Lee Bush, “A Critical and Exegetical Study of Psalm 68” (Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1980), 60; and Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, 31-32. The phrase is better understood as equivalent to Ugaritic rkb 'rpt, “rider of the clouds” (NIV). The immediate context focuses on Yahweh’s aid to His people, especially in the form of rain (vv. 8–9). The presence of the epithet “rider of the heavens” later in the poem (v. 33) also favors this interpretation. In this case עֲרָבָה, “cloud,” is a homonym of עֲרָבָה, “steppe,” and is cognate to Akkadian urpatu/erpetu and Ugaritic 'rpt. This is an example of the nonphonemic interchange of the bilabials b and p attested elsewhere in Ugaritic/Hebrew. See the examples offered by Mitchell Dahood, Psalms 1–50 , Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), 141. While Bush’s statistical study shows the rarity of such interchanges in roots common to Ugaritic and Hebrew, it nevertheless demonstrates the existence of the phenomenon (“A Critical and Exegetical Study of Psalm 68, ” 69).
29. The reference to the “wings of the wind” in verse 10b suggests that the cherub (v. 10a), a winged creature depicted in the Old Testament as possessing both human and animal characteristics, is a personification of the storm wind. The wind/ cherub is Yahweh’s war vehicle, the equivalent of a horse-drawn chariot. Parallels to this portrayal of Yahweh abound in ancient Near Eastern literature. See Moshe Weinfeld, “‘Rider of the Clouds’ and ‘Gatherer of the Clouds,’“ Journal of the Ancient Near East Society 5 (1973): 421-26. As for Ugaritic parallels, according to Weinfeld, CTA 5 v 6–8 (cf. qḥ `rptk rṭk mdlk mṭrk, cf. CML, 72) associates Baal’s clouds, winds, and rains with his “yoked team” or chariot. Gibson takes the key word mdl as “thunder-bolts,” relating the term to Akkadian mudulu, “rod” (CML, 150; see The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago 10B, 168). Cyrus Gordon sees in the term some type of weather phenomenon, pointing out that it may refer to lightning (Ugaritic Textbook 431, no. 1430). However, Weinfeld argues that mdl refers to a yoked team, relating the word to the verb mdl, “to saddle, prepare a mount for the rider” (for this verb see CML, 150, and Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook, 431, no. 1429), which is parallel to ṣmd, “bind, yoke,” in CTA 4 iv 9 (CML, 59) and 19:52–53, 57–58 (CML, 115). Joseph Aistleitner supports this position, suggesting the meaning “Gespann” (“team, yoke”) here (Wörterbuch der ugaritischen Sprache [Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1967], 77, no. 744a). Also see Ulf Oldenburg, The Conflict between El and Ba’al in Canaanite Religion (Leiden: Brill, 1969), 76, who translates “your cloud chariot,” following Moshé Held, “Studies in Ugaritic Lexicography and Poetic Style” (Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University, 1957), 147.
30. The noun גְּעָרָה (v. 15), like its verbal counterpart גָּעַר, is often translated “rebuke,” a sense that it carries in several passages (e.g., Prov 13:1, 8; 17:10; Eccl 7:5). However, in Psalm 18 (= 2 Sam 22) and other contexts where the term is associated with God’s anger this translation fails to convey the full force of the word. For example in Psalm 104:7 the noun is parallel to קוֹל רַעַמְךָ, “your thunderous voice.” Job 26:11 states that heaven’s pillars “quake” and are “aghast” at Yahweh’s גְּעָרָה. According to Psalm 76:6, Yahweh’s גְּעָרָה casts His enemies into a stupor. The physical reactions described in these verses suggest a cause more powerful than a mere verbal rebuke (cf. Pss. 9:5; 106:9; Isa 50:2; 51:20; 66:15; Nahum 1:4). Likewise in Psalm 18 (= 2 Sam 22), where the term is associated with Yahweh’s anger and thunder (vv. 7, 13) and stands parallel to “the blast of breath from your nostrils” (v. 15b, NIV), something more than a mere rebuke must be in view. Caquot observes that Yahweh’s גְּעָרָה cannot be distinguished from storm phenomena and is the equivalent of His battle cry (Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, s.v. “גָּעַר,” by A. Caquot, 3:51, 53).
31. The NIV rightly understands the third masculine plural suffixes on וַיְפִים and וַיְהֻם (v. 14, Heb v. 15) as referring to the psalmist’s (and God’s) enemies. Some argue that the suffixes refer to the arrows/lightning bolts mentioned in the verse, in which case the verbs describe the flight or sound of Yahweh’s arrows (Charles A. Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms, International Critical Commentary, 2 vols. [New York: Scribner’s, 1906], 1:144, 155; Georg Schmuttermayr, Psalm 18 und 2 Samuel 22: Studien zu einem Doppeltext [Munich: Kosel-Verlag, 1971], 80; and P. Kyle McCarter, 2 Samuel, Anchor Bible [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984], 467). However, it is more likely that the enemies are the antecedent. Though the psalmist’s real physical enemies have not been specifically mentioned since verse 3 and were not clearly referred to again until verse 17, they are certainly in his mind throughout the account. The verbs פּוּחּ and הָמַם appear frequently in early poetical and Holy War accounts to describe the effects of Yahweh’s military strength on His enemies (for פּוּחּ, see Num 10:35; 1 Sam 11:11; and Ps 68:1; for הָמַם, see Exod 14:24; 23:27; Josh 10:10; Judg 4:15; and 1 Sam 7:10).
32. Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, 59.
33. Kloos, Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea, 93.
34. In verse 9a the reading קוֹל יְהוָה יְחוֹל ילוֹת is preferable and rendered, “Yahweh’s voice twists (or perhaps, ‘shakes’) the oaks” (cf. NIV and see ibid., 38, 41, as well as Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms, 1:253–54, 256). This reading provides tighter parallelism with the following line. Though some (e.g., Dahood, Psalms 1–50 , 178-79) defend the Masoretic text (אַיָּלוֹת, “deer”) on the basis of an alleged parallel in Job 39:1 (cf. חֹל אַיָּלוֹת תִּשְׁמֹר, “Do you observe the calving of the deer?”), one should note that the polel of חוּל there means “give birth,” while the traditional interpretation of Psalm 29:9a (“The voice of the Lord makes the deer to calve,” NASB) would require an additional causative nuance for the verb form.
35. Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, 58-59.
36. See ibid., 59, and idem, “Echoes of Baal’s Seven Thunders and Lightnings in Psalm xxix and Habakkuk iii 9 and the Identity of the Seraphim in Isaiah vi ,” Vetus Testamentum 29 (1979): 144.
37. Kloos, Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea, 52-53.)
38. See Herbert G. May, “Some Cosmic Connotations of Mayim Rabbim, ‘Many Waters,’“ Journal of Biblical Literature 74 (1955): 9-21.
39. See D. T. Tsumura, “‘The Deluge’ (mabbûl) in Psalm 29:10, ” Ugarit-Forschungen 20 (1988): 351-55, and Chaim Cohen, “הי למבול ישׁב (PS 29:10)—A New Interpretation,” Les̆ 53 (1988–89): 193-201 (with English summary, I-III).
40. Cf. Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, 58.
41. Kloos, Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea, 88-93. Also see Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, “YHWH SABAOTH—The Heavenly King on the Cherubim Throne,” in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon, and Other Essays, ed. T. Ishida (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1982), 119.
42. If one takes מַבּוּל as a reference to the chaos waters or the heavenly reservoir of waters, then the phrase -יָשַׁב לְ must be translated “sit over/on” (cf. Ps 9:4 [Heb., v. 5 ], יָשַׁבְתָּ לְכִא, “you have sat on your throne,” and Ugaritic yṯb l, used of sitting on a throne in CTA 6 i 58 [CML, 76] and CTA 16 vi 22 [CML, 101]).