Iakov Levi

 

El – the Bull

 

 

 

Supplement A to The Demonization of Israel

 

As L.M.Barré has shown in “El, god of Israel--Yahweh, god of Judah and " El Defines Israel" the god El was the god of Israel, and was very differentiated from Jahveh, the god of the Judahites.

As Theodor Reik has shown[i], the original totemic beast, which became the symbol of Jahveh, was the ram, and the Jews still use his horns as a ritual instrument.

Theodor Reik was aware that the Golden Calf story conceals the traces of the struggle between two totemic beasts. Reik advances the hypothesis that the bull was the totemic beast of the Hebrews previous to their migration from Mesopotamia to Palestine. Mesopotamia is fitter to the breeding of cattle than Palestine, which - because of its semi - arid climate and landscape - fits more to the breeding of sheep.
According to Reik, when the bull was substituted by the ram, the first was demonized. Reik brings as evidence - among other considerations - that the Talmud forbids to make a Shofar out of the horns of a bull.
[ii].

 

 

According to Reik, when Moses and his god – Jahveh the Ram - let the people down delaying his return from the mountain, the Hebrews returned to their previous totemic beast - the Bull – as their Saviour. As is written: "These are your gods, Israel which brought you up out of the land of Egypt."

(Ex. 32:4).

 

However, it seems to me that the events unfolded slightly differently. The Exodus story of the Golden Calf conceals the mnemonic traces of a struggle not just only between two totemic beasts, but between two clans or groups of clans of which the two totemic beasts were the symbols. The bull was the totemic beast of the northern tribes – Ephraim Israel – and the ram was the totemic beast of the southern clans which later amalgamated into the tribe of Judah, and which were wandering in the Negev and in the Sinai before penetrating into Palestine. Both totemic beasts translated into two differentiated gods: El and Jahveh. The former god of the kingdom of Israel, and the latter god of the kingdom of Judah. Until the Exile, after which the two were incorporated into one by the new monotheistic reforms.
It seems to me that this struggle might not have occurred in the Sinai peninsula - were the northern tribes of Israel had never been wandering – but somewhere between Judea and Samaria, before – or in the process - of the formation of two separate kingdoms (Like Ahmed Osman, I dismiss the biblical version of the existence of a United Monarchy). Possibly during the tumultuous time described in the Book of Judges. The traces of the event resisted the repression and demanded to find and expression. As a compromise, they were displaced from their original context and emerged into the narrative of the wanderings between Egypt and Palestine.

As evidence that El –the bull – never ceased to exist as god of Israel until the destruction of Samaria, we can bring the fact that when Jeroboam founded his own dynasty in Israel he made two calves of gold, and put them at the two extremities of his kingdom. As is written: “ see your gods, Israel which brought you up out of the land of Egypt’ . He set the one in Bethel and the other put he in Dan.” (1Kings 12:28). The text uses the same words attributed to Aaron at the foot of the Sinai mountain, so reiterating that we are dealing with the same god.

 

The association between the golden calves made by Jeroboam and the totemic beast is made evident when “the man of God” who “came out of Judah by the word of Yahweh to Beth El”, in order to reproach Jeroboam, says: “If you will give me half your house, I will not go in with you, neither will I eat bread nor drink water in this place” (1King 13:8).

Freud has shown that eating together is part of the identification between the brotherhood horde and the assassinated father (the totem) and between themselves: “If a man shared a meal with his god he was expressing a conviction that they were of one substance; and he would never share a meal with one whom he regarded as a stranger” (Totem and Taboo IV:4). If the bull –calf was the god - totemic beast of Israel (Joseph –Ephraim), it becomes clear why the Lord (Jahveh – the Ram) commanded his messenger - who came from Judah - not to touch food or water in Beth El, in the territory of Ephraim, where they were worshipping the bull.

 

Another confirmation we find when Julius Wellhausen attributes the story of the Golden Calf in the Book of Exodus to the Eloist (E) source, which was edited in the northern Kingdom of Israel[iii].

The all elements reconnect to Ephraim, the central tribe of the northern kingdom.

 

The association calf - Ephraim – kingdom of Israel is vivid in Hosea’s words at the eve of Israel destruction by the Assyrians:

 

Let Samaria out his calf-idol! My anger burns against them! How long will it be before the are capable of purity? For this is even from Israel! The workman made it, and it is no God; Indeed, the calf of Samaria shall be broken in pieces . (Hos. 8:5-6)



Israel - very differently from Judah – lived in close relationship with the Canaanites of the fertile northern valleys and with the kings of Tyro. Lebanon and the Phoenician culture were more intimate to the Israelites than to the Judhaites. We can even say that it was the same culture. The same language, the same customs, and the same religion.
In the Psalms we can find a trace that the god of Lebanon – Israel was indeed a calf:

 

Let The voice of the Lord breaks the cedars,
the Lord breaks the cedars of Lebanon.
He makes Lebanon to skip like a calf,
and Sirion like a young ox
.(Psalms 29:5-6)

The close association between the golden calf and Joseph – father of Ephraim, Patriarch of the northern tribes and the kingdom of Israel – did not escape the medieval Rabbis. Rashi, in his comment to Ex 32:4 – quoting from Sinhedrin 80a – says: “the prophet Michah was there holding a patera on which Moses had engraved the words: ‘lift the Bull’, namely take Joseph’s bones from the Nile, throw them into the fire, and a calf will emerge from them” (The translation from Hebrew is mine).

 



 

NOTES


[i] In "The Shofar" in Ritual:Psychoanalytic Studies, Farrar & Straus, New York 1946.

I report here the copy of pp.253 -5 of the afore mentioned work. I believe that it adds a lot to the general comprehension of the issue, which is quite complicated but extreemely valuable. I hope I do not violate the copyrights of anybody. However if anyone feels otherwise, please let me know and I shall delete the copies.:

   


[ii] Op.cit., p.264

Reik’s assumption also fits Freud’s words. Dealing with the demon, Freud writes:

Concerning the evil Demon, we know that he is regarded as the antithesis of god and yet is very close to him in his nature. His history has not been so well studied as that of god; not all religions have adopted the Evil Spirit, the opponent of God, and his prototype in the life of the individual has so far remained obscure. One thing, however, is certain: gods can turn into evil demons when new gods oust them (“A Seventeenth-Century Demonological Neurosis” (1923 [1922]), in SE, vol. 19, pp.85-6.)

[iii] Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, The Meridian Library, New York 1957, p.361


Back to Home Page
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1