Abstract (summary):The study concludes that the term habbaal in the OT is not a uniformly understood proper noun but a title, “the baal”, that had distinct uses in the north and the south. In northern sources, “the baal” refers to the Phoenician storm deity introduced by the Omrides—likely understood by them to be a form of Yahweh but a figure rejected by the prophets as foreign. The related term, “the baals”, is used separately in the DH as a collective for gods of which the Deuteronomist disapproved. In the south, polemics against “the baal” do not generally contain the allusions to storm or fertility present in northern sources. For the most part, when the southern prophets of the 7th century and onward speak against “the baal” they attack a figure unlike that found in narratives like 1 Kings 17-19. This deity is centred in Jerusalem, honoured with human sacrifice and fragrant meal offerings, and is intimately associated with “the baals” or “the Host”. The one feature that “the baal” in southern writing and “the baal” in northern writing share in common is the fact that the people appear to have understood the title as referring to a figure compatible or identical with Yahweh. The connection of this Baal with human sacrifice at Tophet as well as his identification with “the Molek” points toward a chthonic character for this deity.In the post-exilic period, cultic danger came not from a dynastically sponsored cult but in the gods of the peoples with whom Israel rubbed shoulders in the territory of Judah. For this reason, it is not surprising to find that the Chronicler sometimes uses “the baals” where the DH made reference to “the baal”. In order to provide a relevant message to this new situation the Chronicler, in his own work and often in his reuse of Kings, changed “the baal” to “the baals”. In so doing, he took the warnings given to earlier generations and updated them for use in his own time.
