Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Gen 12:8 Beth'el (Yigal)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Ian Charles Hutchesson <MC2499 AT mclink.it>
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Gen 12:8 Beth'el (Yigal)
  • Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 19:45:04 +0200 (CEST)


Yigal wrote:

>Whether or not the Patriarchs worshiped God by the
>name YHWH depends on which Pentateuchal "source" you read. In any case it's
>assumed that most of the "Beth" toponyms refer to a pre-Israelite cult
>site: Beth-lehem, Beth-anat, Beth-bamoth-baal, Beth-horon, Beth-dagan, to
>name but a few.

The endurance of these towns' names suggests that the
names were born long enough in the Judahite tradition for
the religious aspects of the names to no longer have any
impact, as though those religious aspects were natural
and accepted, as against names of foreign deities which
would be changed had they been conquered and the names
found offensive.

And there is strong evidence for the endurance of non-
Yahwistic religious beliefs down at least to the exilic
period, given texts like those at Kuntillat Ajrud, Khirbet
el-Qom and Deir-Alla, as well as the existence of a bamah
just outside of Jerusalem whose activities continued
throughout the period of the Josian reforms and probably
only came to an end with the Babylonians.

(And an important town to consider in this context, though it
doesn't have the beth element, is Jerusalem, or Uru-Salim
in the Amarna letters.)

>In Some cases we have some information on the deity
>worshiped there, in some we don't. Presumably, these names were not changed
>by the Israelites, even when we have no record that the cults themselves
>continued (that is, we have no evidence of Israelite sun-worship at
>Beth-shemesh, but the name was kept).

I think the name of Samson is a good indication that people
in the Judahite tradition probably held to the sun god Shamash.

(For Dave W.:)
The reason why these towns of course had the "beth" element
was because there was a cultic site in each of these places,
hence the names.

>Beth-el is different, for three reasons. First, because El, while being (as
>we know from Ugarit) the proper name of a Canaanite deity, was also a
>generic word for "god" and a title for YHWH. Second, because there WAS an
>Israelite cult site there throughout the monarchy.

Certainly it was a cultic site during the pre-exilic period, but
we cannot take the anti-Israelite biblical traditions to reflect
anything useful about the Israelite cult at the site.

>And third (or second,
>depending on your views on the relationship between the reality of the
>Monarchy and the composition of the Pentateuch), because of the site's
>importance in the Patriarchal narratives, especially those of Abraham and
>Jacob.

One of the things which has bothered me long about Abraham
and Jacob: while the name Jacob is extremely common
throughout the tnk, Abraham is little known outside the
chapters of Genesis. While it is Abraham who is given the
covenant, it is only the children of Jacob for whom it is
applicable. The Jacob stories are much more primitive and
unflattering.

There is a process in biblical literature which seems to be
more and more evident to me: newer traditions are placed
before older ones to give them precedence: The "priestly"
creation comes before the more primitive dry world creation;
the priestly tradition of Melchizedek, which I understand to
have been a reflection of the Hasmonean king-priests (hence
the name "king of righteousness", tapping into the Zadok
rhetoric of the previous high priests), is placed before the
Aaronid traditions to give the Hasmoneans some legitimacy
after having usurped the high priesthood. I think the same
fronting may be true of the Abrahamic traditions as well,
placed before those of Jacob in order to supercede them.
The purpose would be along the lines of shifting the
importance somewhat away from Jacob and principally
northern traditions.

I fear Abraham is a rather later Judahite tradition, which at
least cannot be taken to reflect any pre-exilic situation.

>So there is a case to be made of Beth-el's being a primary Israelite
>cult site (which does not mean that it was not used before).

Agreed.


Ian






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page