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: Yigal Levin <Yigal-Levin AT utc.edu>
  • To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Gen 12:8 Beth'el (Yigal)
  • Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:21:12 -0400


At 07:45 PM 8/19/2002 +0200, Ian Charles Hutchesson wrote:
>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.

Are you imlying that they are NOT pre-Judahite/Israelite, but rather
reflect Iron Age cults? Interesting, but there's no evidence.
>
>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.

Also true, of course.
>
>(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.

Again, an idea, but there's no evidence of worship of Shamash. Remeber that
the Samson story, while occuring in the Beth-shemesh area, makes no mention
of the town - my guess on purpose. Samson is probably called that (either
by his parents or, assuming that he was only a literary figure, by the
author) because he came from Beth-shemesh. My guess is that worship of
Shamash there goes back to the Middle Bronze Age, although the quite
extensive excavations have yet to reveal a cult site.

>
>(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.

That's enough for our purposes.
>
>>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.

This reminds me of Van Seters et al. Could be, though I'm not convinced.

>
>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.

Here I disagree, because I think that the Petateuchal traditions were in
place way before the Hasmoneans. Nowhere is there a claim that the
Hasmoneans illegitimately replaced the Aaronids/Zadokites (which by that
time had been equated). At least in rabbinic sources, which are none to
flattering of the Hasmoneans, the claim was that they had unjustly usurped
the "crown" of monarchy (instead of the Davidides).


Dr. Yigal Levin
Dept. of Philosophy and Religion
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
615 McCallie Avenue
Chattanooga TN 37403-2598
U.S.A.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page