pounded with Baal. From this fact the Rabbins have drawn such a conclusion; and in order to conceal this discovery, which was anything but agreeable to them, and to erase as much as possible this sorrowful memorial of the olden time, they have changed Baal into Bosheth ('shame') or into El.

50. We, however, ought not to be guilty of a similar fault. The use of the name 'Baal' was no offence in the view of the most zealous worshippers of JHVH in David's time, for this reason, that the name did not exist at all as the name of a Deity who stood in opposition to JHVH.5 We shall show this more at length in Section II, and will here make only one remark, which raises already this suspicion.

54

to suppose. The more intelligent Romanists do not actually worship the image or picture before which they bow: they regard it only as the symbol of the Divine. And so too, doubtless, among the tribes of Canaan, there were those, who, while they worshipped the Sun as Life-Giver, or sacrificed to him their best and dearest, (as Abraham in the story was willing to do,) had some confused ideas of the Majesty of Him with whom we have to do,' and of the right which He has to claim our best service of 'body, soul, and spirit, which are His.'

We may copy on this point the following passage from P.V.382:

'In fact, the state of Israel may be compared with that which, in the view of many ardent Protestants, exists even now in some Roman-Catholic communities. The people in such cases worship the same God as English Protestants: they call themselves Christians, as servants of the same Lord. Yet there is much in their religion, which not a few English travellers regard as profane and idolatrous, and denounce as gross abominations. The desire, however, of such persons would be, not to teach these (so-called) 'idolaters' to use another name as the name of 'their King,' but to teach them to use the same name worthily. They call them idolaters, not because they bow at the name of Jesus, but because they worship images, adore the Host, and mix up, with the honours due to their one true Lord, the worship of Saints and Virgins innumerable,—which, though, like the Baalim and Ashtaroth of old, supposed to shadow forth under various aspects the glory of the great Life-Giver, have come at last to be regarded as separate divinities, and stand, as such, between the worshipper and the LORD, the Living God.'

Hence also may be explained the fact that, whereas Hezekiah had 'removed the high-places, and shattered the images, and hewn-down the asheras, &c.,' 2K.xviii.4, in his kingdom, Rabshakeh says to the Jews, v.22, 'But, if ye say unto me 'We trust in JHVH our Elohim,' is that not He, whose high-places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away, &c. ?'-for these high-places were really 'high-places of JHVH.'

5 It need scarcely be repeated that this corresponds precisely with our own view.

51. The only names of persons, that we know of, compounded with Baal (except Jerubbaal, Ju.vi.32) are those of sons of Saul [Esh-Baal, 1Ch.viii.33,] and of David, [Baalyadah, 1Ch.xiv.7,] and of an officer and a hero of David, Baalhanan, 1Ch.xxvii.28, Baaljah, 1Ch.xii.5. This may be accidental; since the notices. of other similar names may, perhaps, have been struck out by those who have manipulated these writings. Yet it is remarkable that just in this particular age these names appear in peaceable union with that of JHVH, [comp. especially BaalJah JHVH is Baal,]-inasmuch as the national strength of Israel had then awaked in great strength, and David, at all events, must have been zealously opposed to everything that was anti-JHVH-istic. *55

55 Add to the above the names of Baal, the brother of Ner, Saul's grandfather, 1Ch.ix.36, and of Jonathan's son, Meribbaal, 1Ch.ix.40. See also App.V.

Dr. OORT's remark, however, entirely accords with our view, that in David's time JHVH had only been recently recognised as the Name of the God of Israel.

Yet it would seem that the Psalmists and Prophets abstained from using the name 'Baal' in connection with JHVH. At all events, it occurs nowhere in any of their writings except Hos.ii.16,-'Thou shalt call me Ishi (my Husband), and shalt call me no more Baali (my Lord)'—where there is probably a reference to the name 'Baal,' (as if the people had all along been calling Jehovah 'their Baal,') but also to the social position of the wife, as contrasted with that of a servant or slave.

So, again, it is remarkable that in the Pentateuch we have many names compounded with El, but none (except Joshua and Jochebed) compounded with either JHVH or -Baal. We may regard the first of these facts as a proof that the name JHVH had not long been used familiarly in the religious worship of Israel, at the time when the passages, including these names, were written, and the second as an indication that the more advanced minds in Israel had already begun to feel a distaste for the use of 'Baal.'

Upon the whole, it would almost seem as if these pious writers preferred to leave 'Baal' to be used for Lord,' as the heathen used it, with reference only to the worship of JHVH or IAO; while in the worship of Jehovah they used habitually the synonym 'Adonai.'

* The inference, that Baal was a general Divine Name, has been derived from this fact also by Dr. TH. NOLDEKE, Zeitsch.d.m. G.xv.p.809. Dr. A. GEIGER, who treats of the use of Baal in Proper Names, Zeitsch.d.m. G.xvi.728-732, does not determine what conclusion follows from it for the confirmation of the meaning of the name Baal.-OORT.

35

SECTION II.

MEANING OF THE BAAL AND THE BAALIM.

52. PROF. DOZY writes, p.36, as follows:

The name 'Baal,' or, rather, with the article, the Baal,' i.e. the Lord, was that of the greatest Deity in a great part of Asia. He was at once the Sun, the planet Saturn, and the planet Mars, i.e. (if MOVERS's view is correct) the producing, sustaining, and destroying power. Here, however, we are only concerned with his meaning as Saturn. As such, he was the highest deity with the Phoenicians and Carthagians, the El par excellence, to whom the other Elohim were subordinated.

53. Whence comes this interpretation? It is not enough merely to refer briefly to MOVERS's Phönizie I. How does MOVERS Come to find that Baal has anything in common with the planet Saturn? In point of fact, the proposition is a mere castle in the air. It derives some countenance from the fact that the Greeks and Romans, who occupied themselves much with Asiatic history and worship, sometimes combined Bel with Kronos or Saturn. This was first done, if the citations of MOVERS, p.185, are all that can be produced, three centuries after Christ by SERVIUS ad En., who has observed among other things,―

Apud Assyrios Bel dicitur, quādam sacrorum ratione, et Saturnus et Sol,— Among the Assyrians, by some system of sacred matters, both Saturn and Sol are called Bel.

MOVERS regards this as the first proof of the fact in question, and he gives no others which prove any more..

54. But who will assume on the ground of this that eight centuries earlier the planet Saturn was worshipped under the name of Baal? Nothing is said here about a planet; and

though it is very possible that the Asiatic astrologers, shortly before or after the beginning of our Epoch, gave the name 'Star of Baal' to the planet which the Greeks called 'Star of Kronos,' (for which, however, I can find no proof,) others have connected the 'Star of Baal' with Jupiter. (See SANCH. ed. ORELL. p.43, where a passage is quoted from JABLONSKY, Panth. Egypt.)

*

55. Who then is Baal?, The Sun? MOVERS maintains this also, and produces more proofs for this than for the combination with Kronos, though all out of a time many centuries later than Solomon. I believe that the question, as to what astrological meaning lies at the foundation of Baal-worship, cannot be answered; since, as far back as we can reckon, astrology either did not exist at all in Western Asia before the time of the Assyrians or Chaldæans, or, at all events, exercised no influence upon religion.56

56. Appeal is made for the contrary to MOVERS; and there is some wisdom in this, since out of his work may be proved whatever one wishes to prove. On this point he is altogether at variance with himself. He allows, p.67, that the influence of astrology entered the religions of Western Asia only subsequently to the Assyrian times,-that it came, not from Egypt, but from Chaldæa, p.316,—that, in any case, an influence might be assumed of Phoenicia upon Egypt, rather than the contrary, p.39,40,-that the old Phoenician religion had no astrological foundation whatever, p.316,-that for this there was need also of a priestly caste, which should apply itself to astronomy, and bring it into connection with religion,—but that in any case a simple worship preceded it, p.167.

56 But, surely, it did not need 'astrological' Science to fix attention on the Sun, as the Great (apparent) Lord (Baal) of Nature. The question about Saturn is very much more obscure. The Sun must have been regarded as 'the Baal' in very early pre-scientific times.

* L.p.180-185: elsewhere Baal is combined with Mars, p.187,188; sometimes Baal (Herakles) is named a son of Saturn, p.267.-Oort.

57. But, on the other hand, he asserts that the Phoenician Deities had already, before the time of the Chaldæans, a 'sidereal meaning,' p.65,-that Mosaism was an advance upon Saturn-worship of Western Asia, p.315,-that—

the

the planet Saturn was already in earlier times the Supreme God of Semitism, as is shown, at all events, by the institution of the Sabbath, by Moses hallowing the number 'seven,' by Saturn being regarded as the father of Jupiter and the other gods in Greece and Italy. p.313.

He produces no proof for all this.57

58. Up to this time, as far as I am aware, no evidences have been brought forward to show the astrological signification of the Asiatic Divine Names. And if, in respect of our knowledge of the ancient religions, we desire to stand in some sense on firm ground, we must be humble, and not say that we know more than our sources of information supply to us. Nothing whatever is known of an astrological meaning of Baal. We know nothing of what happened in primeval times in the heart of Asia.58

59. The O.T. gives us the oldest notions about the worship of Baalim. And this is certain that under the name 'Baal' the Israelites understood neither the Sun nor the Moon nor the Planets. At all events, together with Beth-Shemesh (House of the Sun) we find mention made of Kirjath-Baal (City of Baal); and, when the Assyrians brought the Star-worship into Israel, Baal was distinguished from the Sun, Moon, and Planets, 2K.xxi.3,5,xxiii.5.*59

57 We agree entirely with Dr. OORT in rejecting the notion of an astrological origin of the early religion of the Phoenicians and Hebrews,-of its having any relation to the planet Saturn, which was probably not discovered till a much later age. But the worship of the Sun and Moon is, surely, most natural, and is not to be called astrological.

58 We do not need to be told that in primitive times the Sun must have been worshipped under some name or other. And what name more likely than 'the Baal''the Lord,' i.e. the Lord of all Creation?

59 The mention of 'Beth-Shemesh' in close connection with 'Kirjath-Baal'

* MOVERS mentions also a Palmyrene inscription, wo by OORT.