Israelite Worship and the Surrounding Culture

Introduction to the Book “A Brief History of Yahweh”

The kingdoms of Israel and Judah were by no means isolated from the cultures of neighboring peoples, including in the sphere of worship. This cultural permeability is, in fact, confirmed by the biblical texts themselves. It is therefore understandable that the divinity is presented in various—sometimes even contradictory—ways. This diversity is explained by the gradual composition of the Bible, written at different times by multiple authors.

The present work undertakes a thorough analysis of the representation of the divine in biblical texts. It highlights the variability of the identity of the god “Yahweh” across different writings, exploring the political contexts that shaped this evolution. The study demonstrates that theology, philosophy, society, and politics are intrinsically linked, and that events relating to the worship of Yahweh are closely connected to the composition and redaction of the Hebrew Bible.

The Reform of Josiah and the Role of Deuteronomy

It is no coincidence that this study opens with an examination of the major events of the monarchy of Judah, particularly during the reign of King Josiah, under the influence of his scribe, Shaphan son of Azaliah. The starting point for the transformation of Judean worship is identified in the discovery—during the restoration of the Jerusalem Temple—of a book that this study interprets as Deuteronomy. This research introduces a novel perspective by granting central importance to the figure of Shaphan, his lineage, his connection to the priestly tradition of the Shiloh priesthood in the Kingdom of Israel, and his role in formulating the reformist principles of Deuteronomy. The scribes behind this text also compiled oral traditions and preexisting writings, reorganizing them according to their own theological and ideological criteria. This reform exerted a decisive influence on the final version of the biblical texts, extending far beyond its immediate historical context.

The interpretation of this reform occupies a central place in the early chapters of this work. All subsequent developments are structured around the distinction between legitimate, recognized worship and efforts to alter it. Although the reform was abandoned following Josiah’s assassination, this study emphasizes that the cultic transformations it initiated constituted a foundational milestone in the eventual emergence, several centuries later, of what is now called Judaism. The book also examines the Israelite traditions in relation to the Judean ones, analyzing the formation of narratives arising distinctly from each of the two kingdoms. The dynastic immutability in Judah, in contrast to the monarchical instability in Israel, sheds light on a frequently overlooked phenomenon: in Israel, a king’s assassination led to a dynastic replacement, whereas in Judah, the Davidic dynasty remained intact.

This research explores the fate of kings who succeeded their predecessors in Judah following assassinations, such as Joash and Josiah, raising questions about their actual kinship ties with their predecessors. It also investigates the fate of heirs who dared to rebel against the empire, such as Hezekiah and Jehoiakim, evaluating the plausibility of the hypothesis that the empire may have appointed the son of a rebel to the throne. Moreover, in light of the archaeological research of Israel Finkelstein, the study questions the historical existence of a great unified kingdom of Israel and Judah in the 10th century BCE. In addition to archaeological data, this research presents textual and epigraphic arguments contesting the credibility of narratives concerning Saul, David, and especially Solomon as verified historical figures. It thereby highlights the process by which Judah constructed a heroic past and developed a pan-Israelite ideology.

Yahweh and El: Origins and Fusions

After presenting the historical framework, the work explores the origins of the ancient peoples of the region, the relationships between Israelites and Canaanites, and the narrative tensions pitting Israelite heroes against Judean heroes as described in the Bible. The origin of Yahweh in Edom, Midian, and northern Arabia suggests that Yahweh was a new divinity, originating from the south, far from the centers of civilization, whose worshippers joined the Israelites in Canaan, where the cult was then associated with another deity: “El.”

Other chapters examine two parallel traditions, with no continuity between them, recounting the origins of the Israelites: the Exodus tradition, linked to the god Yahweh, and the Patriarchal tradition in Canaan, centered on the god “El.” The book also analyzes the components of the great Exodus epic as it spans four books of the Pentateuch, from the escape from Egypt to the crossing of the Red Sea—an epic to which distinct legends were later added and incorporated into collective memory. Furthermore, this study demonstrates that the Exodus tradition was unaware of the Patriarchal one, and vice versa.

Occurrences of Yahweh in epigraphic texts further enrich our understanding of his origins, especially through the use of his name in blessings, curses, and cultic inscriptions. The discovery of the inscriptions at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom has profoundly altered our perception of the supposed monotheism in both kingdoms and across the biblical texts. Epigraphic references to Yahweh in these documents shed light on the evolution of his attributes and his cult—from an overt polytheism to the conception of a supreme god reigning over the entire universe. The work concludes with an analysis of texts that reveal Yahweh’s anthropomorphic aspects, his representation in idol form, and evidence of popular veneration of his visual dimension. It emphasizes the influence of Persian and Greek cultures on Yahwistic worship—an influence that gradually led to the emergence of Judaism after the era of bloody sacrifices.

The Bible as a Compendium of Composite Texts

It is worth recalling a frequently overlooked fact: the Bible we hold in our hands is not a mere book, but rather a composite library. The texts it comprises belong to various literary genres and were written by a multiplicity of authors at different times, covering a period from the 8th to the 2nd century BCE. Moreover, it is rare that a single author wrote an entire book in one period. It is also essential to note that the events recounted in this library do not necessarily follow the chronological order in which they appear in the Bible. For example, the book of Genesis did not precede Deuteronomy, but rather the opposite, and the patriarchal narratives do not necessarily precede the Exodus story. Only philological analysis can establish, for instance, that the Jacob narratives were composed before those concerning Abraham, and that the story of Joseph’s ascent in Egypt reflects a reality situated at the end of the Persian period.

The varied texts composing the books of the Bible and their genres do not always correspond to the book divisions found in our printed Bibles, which are the result of codification into codex form. Among the main identifiable genres are chronicles and historical testimonies, legendary narratives, poetry and psalms, legal collections, proverbs and wisdom sayings, philosophical reflections, and moral precepts. Over time, these texts—originally lacking diacritical marks—were edited by scribes with diverse theological and political orientations, shaped by the social contexts of their time. To avoid confusion, it is crucial to first identify the literary genre of the text being studied, as well as its presumed period of composition.

During the monarchic period in Israel and Judah, one observes distinctive features defining Yahweh’s position in relation to his people and other deities, in a polytheistic context influenced by Mesopotamia and Egypt. It is important to note that the nature of worship varied over time, combining official cultic practices with popular beliefs. This does not imply the absence of specificities unique to each people and each kingdom. What gives these two kingdoms their singularity lies in the literary richness they produced, constituting an exceptional legacy to humanity, unmatched in the ancient world.

In the collective imagination, the Bible is perceived as a fundamentally monotheistic work—an assertion often taken for granted. According to this view, Yahweh is a unique and abstract god, distinct from the polytheistic pantheons of neighboring peoples and the pagan cultures of antiquity. He is seen as the god of the Judeans, who remained faithful to their faith through the centuries, resisting the beliefs of other nations. However, this axiom—like all popular narratives—constitutes a simplification of historical reality and of the insights gained through contemporary research. Moreover, the general public remains largely convinced that the origins of the Judean people match the biblical account, and that the biblical books were written in the order in which we read them today. These notions, however, significantly diverge from the current advances in literary and philological research, as well as from extrabiblical sources and archaeological discoveries. The study of figurative and sculptural representation from that period remains a taboo subject, not only for the general public but also for many scholars with conservative positions. Yet it is impossible to ignore biblical testimonies regarding the presence of statues in temples and their veneration by the populations of both kingdoms, in keeping with the widespread cultic practices of the ancient world.

The kingdoms of Israel and Judah never evolved in hermetic isolation from their surroundings. One can assert that they were fully embedded in the global culture of their time. Their traditions were influenced by the great imperial powers of antiquity—Mesopotamia and Egypt—whose impact extended to all regional cultures, thereby shaping the vassal kingdoms. Despite occasional uprisings against the empires, the scribes of both kingdoms were receptive to imperial culture and integrated several of its features into their own, including liturgy, psalmic poetry, divine myths, heroic narratives, epics, royal songs, elegies, and folk chants, among others.

The Influence of Imperial Cultures

Although certain biblical texts express hostility toward Egypt, Assyria, or Babylon, it remains difficult to interpret these writings correctly without taking such references into account. By contrast, the situation is radically different with regard to Persia. What is striking is the total absence of any negative connotation concerning the Persian Empire throughout the biblical corpus, which contains only praise. The emperor Cyrus is even designated as a “messiah,” a title traditionally reserved for kings of Davidic descent (Isaiah 45:1–3). This valorization should come as no surprise: the final compilations of the texts in this biblical library were produced under Persian rule. The fear of imperial retaliation led to an attitude of submission toward Persian authorities. These, like the Assyrians and Babylonians, did not impose their cult on the dominated populations but nevertheless excluded the descendants of King Jehoiachin—Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel—thus preventing the Judeans from restoring a politico-religious hierarchy including a nassi (prince) and a high priest. Although they authorized the reconstruction of the Temple, they likely prohibited the installation of Yahweh statues in the Jerusalem sanctuary, these being perceived as symbols of sovereignty and independence. The aspiration to restore the monarchy was thus definitively suppressed—a measure that neither the Egyptians, the Assyrians, nor even the Babylonians had ever imposed on Israel or Judah.

It is also the first time that Judean or Israelite leaders bore foreign names, borrowed from the language of the Empire—names such as Sheshbazzar (shaysh-bats-tsar), Zerubbabel (a foreigner from Babylon), Ezra, or Sanballat—rather than names of local origin. The influence of the Persian Empire is also evident in the adoption of Aramaic, the administrative language used throughout the Empire. It is possible that the prophet Ezekiel, in referring to David—the ancestor of the official dynasty—not as a “king” but as a “prince,” was seeking to preserve the emperor’s prestige. The use of the royal title could have been perceived as an attempt to restore the monarchy, and therefore interpreted as an act of rebellion against the Empire: “David, My servant, shall be their prince forever” (Ezekiel 37:25). This political context is clearly reflected in versions of the biblical text dating from the Persian period.

Cultural and Regional Affiliations

A remarkable feature of the biblical library is the coexistence of contradictory traditions within its official narratives. The central element of these accounts concerns the origin of the Israelites: were they an indigenous people who emerged between Aram in the north and Philistia in the west, or a group that arrived from outside, specifically from Egypt? The ethnico-genealogical tableau presented in the Book of Genesis offers a geographical and ethnic distribution that reflects the worldview of its time. It traces the origin of the Israelites to the prestigious lineage of the “sons of Shem,” thus attributing to them a noble ancestry. However, despite the linguistic and geographical identity shared by Israelites and Canaanites, the tableau asserts that the latter descend from a less prestigious lineage—that of the “sons of Ham.” According to the authors of the ethnogenesis narrative (the origin of peoples): “The sons of Ham are: Cush, Egypt, Put, and Canaan…” (Genesis 10:6; 16–19).

Despite the negative connotations conveyed in some passages of the Pentateuch toward the Canaanites, their culture exerted a direct influence on that of the Israelites, as evidenced by numerous elements observed in both material culture and biblical literature. The Israelites were exposed to the literature and pantheon of Ugarit, in northwestern Syria, neighbors of the Sidonians, whose influence proved decisive for the language, poetry, and mythical narratives of Israel and Judah—even though this cultural debt is not explicitly acknowledged in the Bible. Culturally and linguistically, the Ugaritic literature of the 14th century BCE constitutes a foundational element in the development of biblical tradition. The authors of biblical texts were—at the very least—indirectly familiar with this ancient literary corpus, which is reflected in linguistic structures, rhetorical styles, and the adoption of heroic figures and mythical stories transmitted orally to both kingdoms. More than 400 years separate the fall of the kingdom of Ugarit from the beginning of the composition of the earliest biblical texts. Despite this chronological gap, Ugaritic literature remains an essential key to understanding the discourse on divinities in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

In addition to linguistic and paleographic proximities, family ties and kinship alliances were also established with the neighboring kingdoms. The Omride dynasty concluded diplomatic treaties with the kings of Sidon, sealed through dynastic marriages. Similarly, during Jehoshaphat’s reign, familial relations were maintained between the rulers of Israel and those of Judah. In contrast to the policy imposed by Ezra and Nehemiah, who sought to reshape the Judean population during the Persian period according to their ethnocentric vision, many biblical texts highlight kinship traditions and strong bonds between the Israelites and surrounding peoples. This is particularly evident in relations with Aram (Genesis 22–26), but also with Edom (Genesis 36:1,8,9,19,43; Deuteronomy 26:5), Ammon and Moab (Genesis 36:1,8,9,19,43), and Midian (Exodus 2:15–22). These connections show that the inhabitants of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah shared a common heritage with their neighbors.

Such kinship ties are especially emphasized by the authors of the Priestly tradition, who stress Israel and Judah’s belonging to a broader community of peoples extending from northern Syria to southern Midian, encompassing the Transjordanian peoples to the east and northern Arabia. In contrast, the Philistines of the coastal cities, whose origin lay beyond the sea, were less integrated into these kinship narratives. The biblical authors placed great emphasis on alliances and marriages with their neighbors in order to affirm that the peoples of Israel and Judah were deeply rooted in their territorial environment, despite intergenerational political rivalries. At the end of the Judean monarchy, Ezekiel reminded his audience of Jerusalem’s cultural ties with Canaan, the Hittites, and more broadly with the ancient civilizations of Western Asia: “You shall say: Thus says Yahweh Elohim to Jerusalem: By your origin and your birth you are from the land of Canaan; your father was an Amorite, and your mother a Hittite” (Ezekiel 16:3).

Reformist Historiography and Ancestral Worship

The components of the biblical library were written over a span of approximately seven centuries by scribes from both kingdoms, which accounts for the diversity—and at times, the contradictions—found within its conceptions. The canon of the Hebrew Bible is therefore neither uniform nor homogeneous. The majority of texts were modified to align with the worldview and opinions of their redactors. These modifications are often easily detectable within the text. A rigorous critical analysis requires considering the influence of two major editorial phases: the first during the reign of Josiah (640–609 BCE), and the second, known as the “Priestly” (P) edition, primarily during the Persian period.

The first is generally referred to as the “Deuteronomistic” edition and can be divided into two major phases: the first, under Josiah (Dt1), and the second, in the post-monarchic period (Dt2), from 597 BCE onwards. It is widely assumed that this second phase was developed in Babylon by the scribes of King Jehoiachin’s court, although this remains hypothetical. Deuteronomistic historiography was constructed in the context of a radical reform undertaken by Josiah in an attempt—ultimately unsuccessful—to modify and centralize the official cult, primarily for economic reasons. Rather than continuing to use the term “Deuteronomistic,” it would be more accurate to call these writers “reformists,” as this designation better captures their identity and intentions. For a long time, scholarly focus remained on this reformist perspective, at the expense of earlier realities. Yet the composition of biblical texts spans nearly seven centuries and involves authors from both kingdoms, which explains the presence of diverse, sometimes contradictory views. Far from being homogeneous, the biblical canon was continually adjusted to reflect evolving understandings of the world. These revisions are visible within the text itself and call for careful critical reading, taking into account the two major editorial periods: that of Josiah’s time and the Priestly edition during the Persian period.

This research aims to better distinguish the original core of the texts from their later modifications; it seeks, as far as possible, to reconstruct the initial state of Yahweh’s worship as it existed during the monarchic period. This is a diachronic and critical reading that examines the texts not only in their current form—shaped by successive editorial interventions—but also from a philological perspective, aiming to reconstitute their state prior to redactional alterations. This task is challenging, as the synchronic text, as fixed by a theologically and politically motivated edition, exerts such a dominant influence that it becomes difficult to escape. Another complicating factor lies in the difficulty of discarding the internal chronology of the biblical narrative, which does not correspond to the actual dating of its written composition.

The reformist redactors established the conventional chronology still in use today, creating a vast historical saga beginning with Deuteronomy, continuing through the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and culminating in Kings and Jeremiah. They also synchronized the reigns of the kings of Judah with those of Israel and constructed detailed genealogies that produced a new chronological framework. The codification of the biblical text as we know it was finalized in the 10th century CE. The redactors first fixed the order of the books within the codex, then added diacritical marks to standardize pronunciation and clarify meaning. They also subdivided the texts into sections and books, often arbitrarily, reorganizing them according to their own understanding. This process gave rise to the conventional chronology that profoundly shaped our perception of this era. Finally, the status of these texts as sacred Scriptures in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam constitutes an additional obstacle to a strictly objective approach.

Contemporary Judaism truly developed only after the abandonment of sacrificial worship. More precisely, Judaism became more structured around the commandments (mitzvot) of the Shulchan Aruch, written in the 16th century, than around the laws of the Pentateuch. This evolution should not surprise us. It is important to question why we tend to assume that monotheism originates in the Hebrew Bible. This perception stems from the reformist project articulated in Deuteronomy and recopied over the centuries. Because the image of Yahweh is inextricably linked to this reform, the central chapters of this study will focus primarily on a philological analysis of the texts describing the nature of Yahweh’s cult before the implementation—or failure—of this reform, rather than adhering excessively to the ideology of a reform that ultimately failed. The Deuteronomistic foundations are, however, essential to understanding the Israelite and Judean cult, the emergence of monotheism, and the formation of the Jewish religion. It is worth noting that before the failure of the Diaspora Revolt in North Africa in 107 CE, the term “Judeans” was more commonly used than “Jews.”

Thanks to a better understanding of the emergence of the region’s great empires—Egypt, Sumer, Akkad, Babylon, Assyria, Persia, the Hittites, Ugarit, Ebla, Mari, and Greece—our interpretation of the biblical text has significantly deepened. Apart from the Omride period, neither the relatively modest kingdom of Judah nor the more powerful kingdom of Israel truly enjoyed complete political independence, as both were generally under imperial domination. The only period of genuine autonomy was the brief Hasmonean dynasty. From a geocultural standpoint, Israel exhibited stronger affinities with peripheral kingdoms such as Aram or the Sidonian cities governed by Tyre. Judah, on the other hand, more closely resembled the later-established Transjordanian kingdoms—Moab, Ammon, and Edom—characterized by modest development and relatively rudimentary structures.

Literary Genres and Oral Traditions in the Biblical Texts

Modern critical research on the Bible underwent a decisive turning point in the 19th century through the work of Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette, Julius Wellhausen, Albrecht Alt, and Martin Noth. Their analyses led to the identification of two major editions of the biblical text: the Deuteronomistic edition and the Priestly edition. They also hypothesized the existence of two other sources of the Torah: the Yahwist source (J), which uses the divine name YHWH, and the Elohist source (E), which employs the generic term Elohim. However, despite decades of scholarly effort, this hypothesis has generated numerous inconsistencies and ambiguities, without producing conclusive results. It therefore seems preferable to abandon this model in favor of criteria better suited to a diachronic classification of the texts.

A more pertinent approach is that proposed by Hermann Gunkel, based on the typology of literary genres. This method offers an initial classification of texts according to their forms: folktales, myths, legends, poems, psalms, laments, folk songs, laws, ritual codes, chronicles, and accounts of events. Folktales often follow narrative archetypes familiar to the audience, such as: the shepherd who becomes a hero; the encounter with women drawing water at a well; maidens abducted in vineyards; husbands presenting their wives as sisters to escape a monarch; betrayed brothers; the theft of the birthright; virgins offered as votive sacrifices; unions between gods and human daughters; or fathers blindly obeying divine commands.

These tales and myths do not necessarily provide factual knowledge about periods predating writing, but they inform us about the social, cultural, or imagined realities specific to the time of their composition. Narratives, psalms, hymns, and other compositions played a major role in annual or daily temple rituals, circulating orally for generations and undergoing slight adaptations to suit different audiences. The time span between their oral composition and their written transcription could be significant. The same applies to folk songs, wisdom proverbs, and legends, some of which originated long before they were put into writing.

Beyond the importance of the reformist edition toward the end of the kingdom of Judah, it is crucial to consider the original texts that the reformist scribes sought to rework. In addition to a diachronic approach, classification by literary genre is essential. Even more decisive is the epistemological approach, which reveals the conflicts between contradictory oral traditions that scribes incorporated into the written text. Examples include the Exodus tradition versus that of the Patriarchs; Jacob the Israelite versus Abraham the Judean; Moses versus Aaron; the priestly line of Eli of Shiloh versus that of Zadok; Shiloh versus Bethel; or more broadly, Israelite traditions versus Judean ones. This methodology combines genre classification, analysis of oral traditions, and differentiation between editorial layers (reformist and priestly).

Until recently, the narratives concerning the reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon were regarded as indisputable historical facts. Their narrative power was such that their authenticity seemed unquestionable. Descriptions of valor and magnificence at court were assumed to be authentic, presumed to have been written by royal scribes at the time of the events. Today, it is clear that these narratives—prominent in the Book of Kings—rightly raise doubts regarding their historicity, particularly in view of the development of writing in 10th-century Israelite and Judean societies. In my view, their composition could not have occurred before the late 8th century BCE. Prior to this, it is difficult to imagine the existence of conditions favorable to the production of sophisticated historical or literary texts: a state structure, a hierarchical society, and a developed administration — elements absent from the kingdoms of Israel and Judah before the end of the 8th century.

Only after this period does one observe a trend toward the production of more elaborate works. It is also at this time that figures such as the “writing prophets” — Amos, Hosea, Isaiah son of Amoz, Zephaniah, and Micah of Moresheth — began recording their words on scrolls. In contrast, popular prophecy remained essentially oral, as illustrated by the narratives concerning Elisha, Elijah, Micaiah son of Imlah, or Ahijah the Shilonite. The dissemination of texts and the existence of a reading public are key factors in dating them. One may also argue that properly historical texts only took shape with the widespread use of writing, no earlier than the 8th century BCE. This applies particularly to the field of historiography, although earlier evidence of writing skills in neighboring kingdoms indirectly sheds light on the events in Israel and Judah. Today, we possess the tools to analyze ancient texts and examine their relationship to historical reality.

The Ideological Construction of the Exile
It is timely to consider the exile of the inhabitants of the kingdom of Israel following the Assyrian capture of Samaria in 722 BCE, the exile of the Judeans after Hezekiah’s rebellion in 701 BCE, and the one that followed the Babylonian conquest in 586 BCE. The Assyrians, the Babylonians, and later the Romans after the destruction of Jerusalem adopted a highly selective deportation policy aimed at preventing rebellion. They primarily targeted members of the royal family and elites who might challenge imperial authority. Skilled specialists were also deported to meet the empire’s needs. In truth, the empire had no interest in ruining its provinces; on the contrary, it preferred them to prosper in order to increase tax revenues.

After Israel’s annexation and its integration as an Assyrian province, its inhabitants were not dispersed, and there was no need to relocate them to distant, imaginary lands. Despite the suppression of the monarchy, the Israelites continued to prosper, and the privileges gained during the monarchical period were not abolished. This is evidenced by the Wadi Daliyeh archives (332–450 BCE), even though our knowledge remains limited, as the final biblical redactors lived in Jerusalem, not in Samaria, Bethel, or Shechem. Nevertheless, despite the lack of sources, it seems clear that the Israelites experienced a period of prosperity under the Persian, Greek, and Roman empires. After the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, the Israelite regions of Samaria, Galilee, and the Golan experienced notable economic and cultural growth. However, the Judean re-reading of the Bible carried out by reformers has distorted our understanding of Israel’s history and development, making a thorough reassessment of these issues necessary.

In the early stages of critical biblical research, various historiographical approaches were considered for studying ancient Israel. Many scholars viewed the so-called “exilic” period as a foundational starting point for their analyses. For them, the texts written by exiles in Babylonia represented a central milestone for understanding the Bible and should be regarded as its core. The royal period, which is actually the true heart of this history, was labeled as “pre-exilic.” Consequently, the Persian period was termed “post-exilic.”

In reality, the term “exile” primarily refers to an elitist minority—mainly scribes—who rewrote history from an exilic perspective, creating the illusion that the entire population had been deported and the land nearly emptied of its inhabitants. This elite deliberately ignored the population that remained, often describing them as hostile and unfairly portraying them in a negative light. Contemporary scholarship has been influenced by this perspective, adopting it as a framework for analyzing earlier or later periods. In fact, this idealization of the concept of exile has been perpetuated by certain Israeli scholars. It stems from an ideological construction shaped by the trauma of Jewish exile and its impact on modern history and the study of religions. This focus on the exile of the two kingdoms has given Israel and Judah — and Judaism itself — an extraterritorial dimension. In my view, historiographical approaches should be grounded in the geocultural context of Western Asia, where these kingdoms emerged, rather than in ideological constructions derived from religious representations of exile.

The Silence of Archaeology and the Interpretation of Texts
In the collective imagination, archaeology is often perceived as an infallible science whose discoveries alone can confirm or refute textual and historical hypotheses. Although the discipline flourished in Israel during the 1980s, it remains above all a valuable tool for historians. However, the presence or absence of material remains alone cannot resolve historiographical debates. In the controversy over 10th-century BCE archaeological sites, archaeology may shed light on certain points, but also leaves room for interpretation. The questions at stake can only be answered through historical research based on diachronic textual analysis and the study of inscriptions found in situ. This necessitates the use of disciplines such as linguistics, literary genre analysis, anthropology, and religious studies.

In general, only comparative research based on imperial cultures can clarify certain obscure biblical passages. This is why scholars like Israel Finkelstein and Oded Lipschits, from the Department of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University, favor a philological rather than an archaeological approach. With a few exceptions, I refrain from relying on traditional exegetical interpretations, unlike some scholars. While rabbinic exegesis has played an important role since the Middle Ages, it cannot fill the gaps that modern research has yet to address. Similarly, the use of Midrashic literature in Israel hampers contemporary research methodology by introducing a field that is alien to it.

The separation between these two domains is particularly crucial from a pedagogical standpoint, as the majority of students in biblical studies today arrive at university steeped in midrashim and religious traditions, which impairs their ability to approach the text critically and impartially. The weight of prayers, liturgical recitations from the Torah, folk songs, and proverbs constitutes an obstacle to a neutral, pressure-free reading—essential for the diachronic analysis of texts. Even the Book of Chronicles, written during the Persian period, cannot provide reliable information about events from the much earlier royal period.

The Visual Representation of Yahweh
The visual representation of Yahweh in his dwelling in Jerusalem and in numerous temples in both kingdoms constitutes a central theme in the biblical texts. It is essential to distinguish the textual versions elaborated by the Deuteronomic reformers, who unsuccessfully sought to eliminate and downplay in their writings the physical presence of Yahweh statues and other deities in places of worship. The fundamental beliefs of the populations of Judah and Israel did not differ from those of surrounding societies, as they required a tangible effigy to venerate—one before which they could bow, offer incense, gifts, and sacrifices. Religious processions and festivals could not take place without statues and cultic objects embodying the deity.

Visual representations of Yahweh or other gods are abundantly attested on seals, cylinders, paintings, and sculptures unearthed at archaeological sites in both kingdoms, as well as in the antiquities trade. This study does not aim to analyze popular beliefs about the deity but rather to explore the concept of Yahweh within its historical environment and historiographic contexts, through its occurrences in various biblical texts across their stages of composition.

In this research, I have deliberately avoided using terminology derived from the religious or theological domain. I have exclusively favored a historical and political vocabulary. For the monarchic and post-monarchic periods, I have chosen to structure the chronology according to the great imperial powers that dominated the region: the Egyptian era (or the Amarna period), the Assyrian period, the Babylonian period, the Persian period, the Greek period, etc. Furthermore, those who continue to use expressions such as “the time of the Flood,” “the time of the Patriarchs,” “the time of Moses,” “the time of the Judges,” “the time of the Conquest,” “the time of Joshua,” “the return to Zion,” or “the wilderness wanderings,” reveal a lack of engagement with the advances of contemporary research, contenting themselves with rephrasing the biblical text without questioning its historicity. It is surprising that many researchers, whether religious or secular, do not deem it necessary to use the proper name “Yahweh” in their work or public lectures, still preferring the theological substitute “Adonai.”

Terminology and Chronology
Some scholars make extensive efforts to demonstrate, with a wealth of arguments, the historical implausibility of the patriarchal narratives, the Exodus, or the creation myths. Their arguments are undoubtedly valid, but is it truly necessary to prove what is already self-evident: namely, that legends, myths, and epic tales belong not to the domain of history but to that of literature? It is futile to hunt for inconsistencies and anachronisms within them. It would be akin to a scholar attempting to prove that the Grimm Brothers’ fairy tales or the legends of King Arthur are not historical accounts. The same applies to the narratives found in the books of Judges and Joshua, which might initially appear to be chronicles, but are in fact epic tales of bravery, likely transmitted during lively storytelling sessions under the stars.

In my view, the use of expressions such as “Northern Kingdom” and “Southern Kingdom” to refer respectively to Israel and Judah is misleading. Since the existence of a unified kingdom has been called into question, it seems inappropriate to continue using terms that the biblical authors themselves did not employ. These expressions imply that the two kingdoms were originally a single political entity that later split, which is not consistent with current historical understanding.

Furthermore, some scholars fail to distinguish between Israelites and Judeans, resorting to the anachronistic and pejorative term “Hebrews,” which was used only by Egyptians and Philistines in narratives concerning early royal-era conflicts. Similarly, the names of the tribes and their eponymous ancestors—derived from tales or legendary traditions—were crafted as etymological and typological explanations for place names that were originally purely geographical. In other words, it was not the descendants of Jacob who gave their names to the tribes, but rather the populations of various regions who invented mythical ancestors to justify the origins of those names.

The number twelve, assigned to the tribes, is also symbolic or typological in nature. This figure sometimes fluctuates between ten and twelve depending on whether the tribes of Levi and Simeon are included. In some cases, Manasseh and Ephraim are absent from tribal lists, replaced by a reference to the lineage of Joseph. In the Song of Deborah, Judah is not mentioned; instead of Manasseh we find Makir, and in place of Gad, Gilead appears. The mention of tribes in such texts reflects the image of a still-nomadic society, prior to the monarchic period. It reveals a form of nostalgia among the writers, who idealized pastoral life in contrast to the sedentary urban existence of the bourgeoisie. This longing for a rural lifestyle and the relative disdain for urban society is evident in the prophecies of Jeremiah (30:6–7), Amos (3:15; 6:1–2), Isaiah (chapter 7), and Micah (2:2).

In this study, I have drawn a distinction between what current scholarship terms polytheism—a system based on rituals including blood sacrifices performed on altars—and the notion of religion structured around dogmatic principles of faith. Beyond their respective definitions, these concepts correspond to distinct historical periods in human development. The era of ancient polytheism gradually faded, primarily due to the abandonment of blood sacrifices in temples. Today’s religions are in fact extraterritorial and emerged with the spread of belief in a single, universal, and abstract deity. Nevertheless, this transition was complex. The era of sacrifices did not truly come to an end until after the Christianization of the ancient world in the early sixth century, following the conquest of Carthage. The evolution from polytheism to dogmatic religion unfolded progressively, from the reign of Constantine (306–337) to that of Justinian (483–565).

In Judaism, sacrificial practices largely ceased with the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple by the Roman emperor Titus in 70 CE. However, one could also argue that the emergence of a distinct Jewish identity—separate from Judean identity—began with the translation of biblical books into Greek in Alexandria. At that time, many Hellenistic intellectuals from diverse backgrounds chose to adopt Judean culture, along with its literary heritage and customs. This process of cultural appropriation unfolded gradually, intensifying during the controversies between Christian and Hellenistic thinkers, which could only have taken place after the translation of the biblical texts and the repression of the Diaspora Revolt in 117 CE.

In Persian Zoroastrianism, sacrificial rites are relatively absent, a characteristic that later influenced the emergence of Judaism. The term religion, meaning “law” in Persian, appears only five times in the Bible, and exclusively in the books of Esther and Daniel—both written during the Persian period. Although Judaism is not based on dogmas, unlike Christianity and Islam, and has always resisted any attempt at dogmatization, it is nevertheless recognized as a religion. Beyond this distinction, it is evident that the ancient so-called polytheistic cults were steeped in popular beliefs, while the monotheistic religions that succeeded them were compelled to incorporate various rituals of pagan origin.

This work is primarily intended for an educated audience interested in the historical-critical study of the Bible. Despite its scholarly rigor, some in-depth discussions on controversial topics have been deliberately omitted. It is worth recalling that the original texts were not punctuated when first written, and it was not until the tenth century CE that the codifiers of the Masorah introduced diacritical marks to guide interpretation. The central subject of this work is the history of the Israelite cult during the monarchic and post-monarchic periods. It serves, to some extent, as an introduction to biblical historiography and to the history of ancient Israel. One might say that the history of YHWH in the Bible is also the history of his kingdom and of its literary production.