BAAL (DEITY). Canaanite storm and fertility god. The name, meaning “lord”, is an epithet for the god Hadad (literally, “thunder”). Well known from the OT, it is now very well attested in Ugaritic texts, as well as being mentioned in other ancient texts.
—
A. Baal in extra-biblical texts
1. The Ugaritic texts
2. Later Phoenician sources
B. Baal in the OT
1. Israelite worship of Baal
2. OT’s use of Baal’s motives
—
A. Baal in extra-biblical texts
1. The Ugaritic texts. This deity is first attested in the Ebla texts from the second half of the 2d millennium BC, where he appears as A-da, and in Egyptian execration texts from around 1800 BC, but is the Ug mythological texts from Ras Shamra on the Syrian coast that shed more light on it. He is clearly the most active and prominent of all the Canaanite deities, although technically El is the supreme god, to whose ultimate authority Baal is subservient. The texts of Ug describe him primarily as the great storm god: the fertility of the earth depends on the rain that this god supplies. His character is well represented on a famous stela discovered at Ugarit, which shows him standing (on mountains or clouds?) brandishing a club in his right hand and a spear in his left, the top shaped like a tree or stylized. lightning (cf. ANEP pl. 490). In one of the Baal myths, the god uses 2 clubs, clearly symbolizing thunder and lightning, to defeat Yam.
Whereas in the Ug texts Baal is regularly spoken of as the son of Dagon, a god who is otherwise only rarely mentioned there (eg, KTU 1.2.I.19; 1.5.VI.23-24 = CTA 2.I.19; 5.IV.23-24), he is also known as the son of the supreme god Il (cf. KTU 1.3.V.35; 1.4.1V.47 = CTA 3.VE.43 ; 4.IV.47 ). It is not certain how these statements will be reconciled. They might reflect divergent traditions, but it is more likely that Dagon is understood to be literally his father, and that Baal was also El’s “son” in the sense that he was El’s descendant (his grandson?), a member of the pantheon of the gods that had its ultimate origin in Him.
We now come to the consorts of Baal. In the texts of Ug, it is the goddess Anath who appears as the main consort of Baal. It is she who goes looking for him after his descent into the underworld and participates in his conflict with Mot, for example. Astarte also appears as his consort, although she is not as prominent. As we shall see, the situation is reversed in the OT: Anath appears only as Shamgar’s father’s name and vestigially in place names (Anathoth and Beth-Anath), while Astarte, his name distorted to Ashtoreth or, often, Ashtaroth (the plural form), appears frequently even though we are not told much about her. Additionally, Asherah is often paired with Baal in the Old Testament, suggesting that she is also considered Baal’s consort, a point to be discussed in more detail later. Going back to Anath, it is curious to note that she is constantly called “the virgin Anath”. It is not to be understood by this that she never had intercourse with Baal; rather, the title seems to be explained by an Egyptian reference to her as the goddess who conceives but never gives birth (Papyrus Harris).
According to the Ug texts, Baal’s abode was on Mount ṣpn, probably to be vocalized Ṣapān (some scholars call it Zaphon following the Heb vocalization). The mountain in Hittite is called Ḫazzi, hence its classical name Casius. It is located about 40 km N of Ugarit, at Jebel el-Aqra˓, 1,759 m above sea level, which is quite appropriate, the highest mountain in Syria. The mountain’s location N of Canaan explains the apparent derivation of the Heb word for “north” (ṣāpôn) from its name. Echoes of its mythological sense are found in Ps 48:3- Eng 48:2, where the term is applied to Zion, and also in Isa 14:13. There were also several places in Egypt called Baal-zephon, one of which is mentioned in connection with the Exodus deliverance in Exodus 14:2.
The god Baal in Ugaritic texts has various epithets. The most frequent are ˒al˒iyn b˓l -the victorious Baal-, rkb ˓rpt -rider of the clouds- and zbl b˓l ˒arṣ -the lord prince (Baal) of the earth-. Suggested echoes of the last two expressions in the Bible are discussed below.
Although the god Baal is mentioned in many Ug texts, one work in particular is of central importance, the Baal cycle in 6 tablets in KTU 1.1-6 (= CTA 1-6). This can be divided into three main sections: (i) the conflict between Baal and Yam (-Mar-) in KTU 1.1-2 (= CTA 1-2); (ii) the construction of the house of Baal (palace/temple) in KTU 1.3-4 (=CTA 3-4); and (iii) the conflict between Baal and Mot (“Death”) in KTU 1.5-6 (= CTA 5-6). The following is a summary of the main points presented in these 6 tablets regarding Baal.
(i) The god Yam sends messengers to him and to the assembly of the gods on Mount Ll, demanding that Baal be handed over to him. Baal refuses to be abandoned, and eventually a battle between Baal and Yam ensues. Yam at first seems victorious, but in the end Baal defeats Yam with the help of two clubs made by the craftsman god Kothar-y-Ḫasis, and Baal is proclaimed king.
(ii) A king must naturally have a palace, so the second main division is occupied to a considerable degree with the building of Baal’s palace. Anath first demands a palace for her consort from El, using threats, but is unsuccessful. Later, following the insistence of Baal and Anat, Athirat asks El to grant Baal a palace; unlike Anath, she is successful. Kothar-y-Ḫasis builds the palace, and particular interest is centered on the question of building a window for the palace, which Kothar-y-Ḫasis urges Baal. Baal first rejects him, but eventually gets the idea.
(iii) The 3d section refers to the conflict between Baal and Mot. Mot uses threats to bring Baal, along with his accompanying weather phenomena, to the underworld, which is Mot’s realm. This duly occurs and a period of dryness takes hold of the land. He and Anath engage in a ritual of lamentation over Baal’s demise. Athirat nominates Athtar to be king instead of Baal, but he is not tall enough to sit on Baal’s throne, so he is descended from him. There is a scene where Anath destroys Mot, the various verbs used suggesting that she is treating him like corn. He then has a dream in which he sees the fertility of the land restored, giving him confidence that Baal is now alive again. Baal strikes down the sons of Athirat and ascends to his throne. We then read that in the seventh year Mot complains about his fate at the hands of Baal, and a scene follows in which Baal and Mot fight each other. After the intervention of Shapash (the sun goddess), Mot concedes defeat.
One problem concerns the relationship between Baal’s conflict with Yam and the creation of the world. In the OT we find the conflict with the waters associated with the creation of the world on several occasions (cf. Ps 74:12-17; 89:10-15 – Eng 89:9-14, etc.). Similarly, in the Babylonian Enuma elish text, Marduk’s defeat of the sea monster Tiamat is related to the creation of the world. No such conflict occurs in the Baal-Yam text, but the OT and Babylonian parallels nonetheless cause some scholars to assume this connection. There does not seem to be room in our Ug Baal-Yam text for an account of the creation of the world, although it is possible that there was also an early conflict between Baal and Anath on the one hand and Yam, Leviathan, etc. on the other, that it was a prelude to El’s creation of the world. Various Ug texts may allude to this (KTU 1.3.III.39-46; 1.5.I.1-3; 1.82.1-3; 1.83.3-10 = CTA 3.IIID.36-43; 5.I.1-3; UT 1001.1-3; 1003.3-10; cf. KTU 1.6.VI.51-53 = CTA 6.VI.50-52).
There has been much debate as to whether the Baal cycle, and in particular the Baal-Mot cycle, reflects the seasonal cycle of an ordinary agricultural year or a seven-year (sabbatical) cycle. The main proponent of a seasonal cyclical interpretation of the entire epic of Baal is JC de Moor (1971), who compares the allusions in the various sections with current climatic conditions known in Syria today. However, there are a number of objections to the details of de Moor’s thesis, such as his rearrangement of the tablets so that the first 3 are read in the sequence 3, 1, 2. Thus, tablet 3 is related to fall, tablets 1 and 2 for winter, tablets 4 and 5 for spring, and tablet 6 for summer. However, de Moor’s rearrangement creates a problem in relation to the construction of the house of Baal, which de Moor has to assume was started, then abandoned, and only later completed. Another problem is that de Moor sometimes advocates novel and controversial translations, e.g. Eg ṣḥrr “to be powder-colored” instead of “to be hot”.
However, it would be wrong to reject all seasonal elements at work. The crucial passage concerns Anath’s destruction of Mot, where he is clearly treating it like corn. Why would a whole series of agricultural images be used if, as some suppose, we simply have an image of destruction and nothing else? We read that Anath seized the divine Mot, split it with a blade, fanned it with a sieve, burned it with fire, ground it with millstones, planted it in a field. . . “(KTU 1.6.II.30-35 = CTA6.II.30-35). From this it would seem that Mot symbolizes maize in some way, clearly indicating a seasonal rather than a sabbatical cycle. There would be no maize to be symbolized in a period of famine as presupposed by the view of the Sabbath cycle and, in any case, nothing else in the text suggests a famine. How, then, to understand the reference to the “seventh year” (KTU 1.6.V.8-9 = CTA 6 .v.8-9)? This is not entirely clear, but proponents of a sabbatical rather than a seasonal interpretation of the Baal-Mot cycle seem to overlook the fact that the destruction of Mot and the resurrection of Baal take place only after “months” have passed (cf. KTU 1.6.II.26-27 = CTA 6.II.26-27) and that the reference to the seventh year occurs after this. Therefore, the text it clearly does not say that Baal is in the underworld for 7 years (Compare Hadad text, KTU 1.12.II.44-45 = CTA 12.II.45-46, and Aqhat text, KTU 1.19.I.42 -44 = CTA 19.I.42- 44, where Baal does disappear for 7 or 8 years.)
A much discussed topic is the relationship between Baal and El. Is Baal in conflict with El or are the two gods in harmony? The latter would seem to be closer to the truth, although there are signs of tension. The extreme claim, made, for example, by MH Pope (1955: 27-32), Baal deposed El, on the dethronement analogy…