ellauri042.html on line 705: The doctor wrote: “1850, he had his first epileptic attack with crying, amnesia, cloniform movements, foam around his mouth, and dyspnoea with weak and rapid pulsation of the heart. This first attack lasted for 15 min. The attack was followed by common exhaustion and reachievment of consciousness. 1853, he had another attack, and meanwhile, the attacks return at every end of the month”. During his Siberian years, Dostoevsky became a devout follower of the Russian Orthodox Church and a persuaded monarchist.
ellauri064.html on line 311: Thomas "Pip pip" Jeeves Horder, 1st Baron Horder, known as ‘Tommy’, was created a baronet in 1923 and Baron Horder in 1933 in recognition of his services as physician to several British monarchs and Prime Ministers, including the pro-nazi abdicate Edvard VII.
ellauri108.html on line 98: From its origins, Rastafari was intrinsically linked with Haile Selassie, the Emperor of Ethiopia from 1930 to 1974. He remains the central figure in Rastafari ideology, and although all Rastas hold him in esteem, precise interpretations of his identity differ. Understandings of how Haile Selassie relates to Jesus vary among Rastas. Many, although not all, believe that the Ethiopian monarch was the Second Coming of Jesus, legitimising this by reference to their interpretation of the nineteenth chapter of the Book of Revelation. By viewing Haile Selassie as Jesus, these Rastas also regard him as the messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, the manifestation of God in human form, and "the living God". Some perceive him as part of a Trinity, alongside God as Creator and the Holy Spirit, the latter referred to as "the Breath within the temple". Rastas who view Haile Selassie as Jesus argue that both were descendants from the royal line of the Biblical king David, while Rastas also emphasise the fact that the Makonnen dynasty, of which Haile Selassie was a member, claimed descent from the Biblical figures Solomon and the Queen of Sheba.
ellauri117.html on line 657: With regard to the Bible, Locke was very conservative. He retained the doctrine of the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. The miracles were proof of the divine nature of the biblical message. Locke was convinced that the entire content of the Bible was in agreement with human reason (The Reasonableness of Christianity, 1695). Although Locke was an advocate of tolerance, he urged the authorities not to tolerate atheism, because he thought the denial of God's existence would undermine the social order and lead to chaos. That excluded all atheistic varieties of philosophy and all attempts to deduce ethics and natural law from purely secular premises. In Locke's opinion the cosmological (i.e. primus motor) argument was valid and proved God's existence. His political thought was based on Protestant Christian views. Additionally, Locke advocated a sense of piety out of gratitude to God for giving reason to men. Locke compared the English monarchy's rule over the British people to Adam's rule over Eve in Genesis, which was appointed by God. And stands to human reason, don't it?
ellauri140.html on line 56: Book III is centred on the virtue of Chastity as embodied in Britomart, a lady knight. Resting after the events of Book II, Guyon and Arthur meet Britomart, who wins a joust with Guyon. They separate as Arthur and Guyon leave to rescue Florimell, while Britomart rescues the Redcrosse Knight. Britomart reveals to the Redcrosse Knight that she is pursuing Sir Artegall because she is destined to marry him. The Redcrosse Knight defends Artegall and they meet Merlin, who explains more carefully Britomart's destiny to found the English monarchy. Britomart leaves and fights Sir Marinell. Arthur looks for Florimell, joined later by Sir Satyrane and Britomart, and they witness and resist sexual temptation. Britomart separates them with a stick and meets Sir Scudamore, looking for his captured lady Amoret. Britomart alone is able to rescue Amoret from the wizard Busirane. Unfortunately, when they emerge from the castle Scudamore is gone. (The 1590 version with Books I–III depicts the lovers' happy reunion, but this was changed in the 1596 version which contained all sex books.)
ellauri143.html on line 782: The king, since counsellors are monarch´s eyes,
ellauri143.html on line 1027: Not though by monarch´s ears with pleasure heard.
ellauri143.html on line 1132: If monarch´s eyes o´erflow with tears for hero slain,

ellauri146.html on line 681: “We have no aristocracy of blood, and having therefore as a natural, and indeed as an inevitable thing, fashioned for ourselves an aristocracy of dollars, the display of wealth has here to take the place and perform the office of the heraldic display in monarchical countries. By a transition readily understood, and which might have been as readily foreseen, we have been brought to merge in simple show our notions of taste itself.”
ellauri153.html on line 813: Many ancient customs are strange to modern readers of the Bible, especially those of us who have never lived in cultures embracing polygamy or absolute monarchy. The incident of Abishag sleeping—chastely—in David’s bed is definitely a puzzling story. We’ll start with the Scripture passage in which Abishag is brought to David:
ellauri156.html on line 493: King Solomon, author of The Ancient World in the Cinema, found the film rather slow-paced in the first half before gaining momentum, and Peck "convincing as a once-heroic monarch who must face an angry constituency and atone for his sins." He noted that this was different from other biblical epics in that the protagonist faced a religious and philosophical issue rather than the overdone military or physical crisis.
ellauri161.html on line 103: Adoptionism, also called dynamic monarchianism, is an early Christian nontrinitarian theological doctrine, which holds that Jesus was adopted as the Son of God at his baptism, his resurrection, or his ascension. Under adoptionism Jesus is currently divine and has been since his adoption, although he is not equal to the Father, per "my Father is greater than I" and as such is a kind of subordinationism. Adoptionism is sometimes, but not always, related to denial of the virgin birth of Jesus. The other early Christology is "high Christology," which is "the view that Jesus was a pre-existent divine being who became a human, did the Father’s will on earth, and then was taken back up into heaven whence he had originally come," and from where he appeared on earth.
ellauri161.html on line 903: Joseph est l'un des pères de la philosophie contre-révolutionnaire et un des critiques les plus importants des idées des Lumières. Il considère que la Révolution française représente un crime contre l'ordre naturel. Il défend le retour à une monarchie absolue. Il a influencé la pensée conservatrice et réactionnaire de manière très importante depuis le XVIIIe siècle.
ellauri161.html on line 933: Si Jean-Jacques Rousseau s'accordait également à dire que la religion était nécessaire au corps politique, il rejetait en revanche le christianisme comme étant ennemi de la république. Chez Joseph de Maistre, à l'inverse, la religion chrétienne est la plus adaptée, car elle soutient parfaitement la monarchie et se base sur la tradition, sans laquelle il est impossible que soit fondée une religion. Or, la monarchie est elle-même le régime politique le plus adapté : comme il l'affirme dans ses Considérations sur la France, la monarchie est un équilibre qui s'est constitué au fil de l'histoire. C'est un régime tempéré mais fort, et qui ne tend pas, selon lui, vers la violence, à l'inverse de la république qu'il voit comme un régime déséquilibré et instable. De plus, la monarchie est le régime qui respecte le plus ce qu'il considère comme un fait naturel : à savoir l'inégalité entre les hommes, que la monarchie intègre dans son organisation, et qui est relativisée grâce à l'égalité de tous dans leur assujettissement au roi. Pour Joseph de Maistre, la république y substitue une égalité utopique, qui ne prend pas en compte la véritable nature de l'Homme. Car ce dernier doit vivre en société, et toute société doit être structurée autour d'une hiérarchie, ce qui justifie donc l'existence d'ordres dans la société.
ellauri162.html on line 108: Louis Émile Clément Georges Bernanos (French: [ʒɔʁʒ bɛʁnanɔs]; 20 February 1888 – 5 July 1948) was a French author, and a soldier in World War I. A Roman Catholic with monarchist leanings, he was critical of elitist thought and was opposed to what he identified as defeatism. He believed this had led to France´s defeat and eventual occupation by Germany in 1940 during World War II. His two major novels "Sous le soleil de Satan" (1926) and the "Journal d’un curé de campagne" (1936) both revolve around a parish priest who combats evil and despair in the world. Most of his novels have been translated into English and frequently published in both Great Britain and the United States.
ellauri162.html on line 145: Son père, Émile Bernanos (1854-1927), est un tapissier décorateur d´origine espagnole et lorraine. Sa mère, Clémence Moreau (1855-1930), est issue d´une famille de paysans berrichons originaire de Pellevoisin, dans l´Indre. Il garde de son éducation la foi catholique et les convictions monarchistes de ses parents.
ellauri162.html on line 146: Catholique fervent et monarchiste passionné, il milite très jeune dans les rangs de l´Action française en participant aux activités des Camelots du roi pendant ses études de lettres, puis à la tête du journal L'Avant-garde de Normandie jusqu'à la Grande Guerre.
ellauri171.html on line 1031: Clearly, Jezebel acted as queen even though the Bible itself refuses her the title and its attendant respect, not to mention approval. In the biblical text, Jezebel is contrasted with and juxtaposed to the prophet Elijah, to the extent that they both form the two panels of a mirrored dyptich. She is a Baal supporter, he is a God supporter; she is a woman, he is a man; she is a foreigner, he is a native; she has monarchic power, he has prophetic power; she threatens, he flees; finally he wins, she is liquidated. The real conflict is not between Ahab (the king) and Elijah, but between Jezebel (the queen in actuality, if not in title) and Elijah. Ultimately the forces of God win; Jezebel loses. It remains to be understood why she gets such bad press.
ellauri171.html on line 1035: Perhaps she had the status of gebira “queen mother”, or of “co-regent”. At any rate, there is no doubt that the biblical and later accounts distort her portrait for several reasons, among which we can list her monarchic power, deemed unfit in a woman; her reported devotion to the Baal and Asherah cult and her objection to Elijah and other prophets of God; her education and legal know-how (shown in the Naboth affair); and her foreign origin Ultimately, the same passages that disclaim Jezebel as evil, “whoring,” and immoral are witness to her power and the need to curb it.
ellauri184.html on line 250: According to the biblical chronicle, the Tribe of Manasseh was a part of a loose confederation of Israelite tribes from after the conquest of the land by Joshua until the formation of the first Kingdom of Israel in c. 1050 BC. No central government existed, and in times of crisis the people were led by ad hoc leaders known as Judges (see Book of Judges). With the growth of the threat from Palestinian (sorry) Philistine incursions, the Israelite tribes decided to form a strong centralised monarchy to meet the challenge, and the Tribe of Manasseh joined the new kingdom with Saul as the first king. After the death of Saul, all the tribes other than Judah remained loyal to the House of Saul, but after the death of Ish-bosheth, Saul's son who succeeded him to the throne of Israel, the Tribe of Manasseh joined the other northern Israelite tribes in making Judah's king David the king of a re-united Kingdom of Israel. However, on the accession of David's grandson Rehoboam, in c. 930 BC the northern tribes split from the House of David and from Saul's tribe Benjamin to reform Israel as the Northern Kingdom. Manasseh was a member of the Northern Kingdom until the kingdom was conquered by Assyria in c. 723 BC and the population deported. From that time, the Tribe of Manasseh has been counted as one of the ten lost tribes of Israel.
ellauri190.html on line 243: By the 11th century, Kyivan Rus was a huge European power. Kyiv was bigger than London or Paris. The city had numerous buildings made of brick, including churches. It also had many private and public bathhouses, like Constantinople (and unlike Western European cities of the time). The realm, stretching from the White Sea to the north to the Black Sea to the south and from the steppes of the Don to the east to what is now eastern Poland to the west, was divided into many feudal fiefs, but the authority of the monarch in Kyiv was nonetheless absolute.
ellauri190.html on line 263: In any case, Ukraine (unlike Muscovy) remained in Europe. In the 15th century, the Great Duke of Lithuania, Yahailo, married a Polish queen Yadviga. Thus, the Great Duchy of Lithuania (which included Ukraine) and the Kingdom of Poland became one state. In the 16th century, it became known as Rzeczpospolita, from Latin Res Publica – literally, “the common affair,” or Republic. (Kozaks, inveterate democrats, did not like it.) It was a monarchy, but the monarchs were elected by a parliament, called Sejm. The country maintained close ties with Western Europe, and, unlike wimpy Muscovy, was completely independent of the Mongol autocracies like the Golden Horde.
ellauri190.html on line 279: By the end of the 17th century, the newly forming Russian Empire under Tzar Peter I established its reign over the Ukrainian lands to the east of the Dnipro river, ceding the western part of Ukraine to the Republic (which, in turn, evolved more and more into the Polish monarchy rather than the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of the old days). In 1702, a great son of Ukraine, a giant of military strategy, diplomacy, and statesmanship, Ivan Mazepa, being the Kozak leader of the eastern part of Ukraine, suppressed the uprising of Paliy on the other (Western) side of the Dnipro and added huge parts of the country to his control. It was a big step toward the unification and freedom of Ukraine. Moreover, in 1709 Mazepa joined his forces with the Swedish king Charles XII (haha, the dumb sodomist) against Tzar Peter, hoping to rid his dear mother Ukraine from slavery in the captivity of the Tzars. And again… tragically, Mazepa managed to gather less manpower than he hoped to gather, because the populist agitators slandered him in their massive propaganda campaign (no doubt, directed from Muscovy), portraying him in the eyes of the Ukrainian Kozaks as a rich aristocrat who cares nothing about the “simple people,” a clandestine Catholic (or Protestant), and overall “not really Ukrainian.” (This tragedy will repeat itself in 1918 and in 2019.) Mazepa’s loyalists were defeated together with the Swedes, and Ukraine lost her historical chance for yet another time. But third time is a charm! Nobody will blame a Jew for being on the side of the catholics!
ellauri213.html on line 375: The settlement of modern-day Kaliningrad was founded in 1255 on the site of the ancient Old Prussian settlement Twangste by the Teutonic Knights during the Northern Crusades, and was named Königsberg in honor of King Ottokar II of Bohemia. A Baltic port city, it successively became the capital of the State of the Teutonic Order, the Duchy of Prussia (1525–1701) and East Prussia. Königsberg remained the coronation city of the Prussian monarchy, though the capital was moved to Berlin in 1701. From 1454 to 1455 the city under the name of Królewiec belonged to the Kingdom of Poland, and from 1466 to 1657 it was a Polish fief.
ellauri245.html on line 633: In the 20th century Burundi had three main indigenous ethnic groups: Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa. The area was colonised by the German Empire in the late 1800s and administered as a portion of German East Africa. In Burundi and neighboring Rwanda to the north, the Germans maintained indirect rule, leaving local social structures intact. Under this system, the Tutsi minority generally enjoyed its historically high status as aristocrats, whereas the Hutus occupied the bottom of the social structure. Princely and monarchal rulers belonged to a unique ethnic group, Ganwa, though over time the political salience of this distinction declined and the category was subsumed by the Tutsi grouping. During World War I, Belgian troops from the Belgian Congo occupied Burundi and Rwanda. In 1919, under the auspices of the nascent League of Nations, Belgium was given the "responsibility" of administering "Ruanda-Urundi" as a mandated territory. Though obligated to promote social progress in the territory, the Belgians did not alter the local power structures. Following World War II, the United Nations was formed and Ruanda-Urundi became a trust territory under Belgian administration, which required the Belgians to politically "edducate the locals and make them really fit", to prepare them for independence.
ellauri249.html on line 92: Afghan insurgents began to receive massive amounts of support through aid, finance and military training in neighbouring Pakistan with significant help from the United States and United Kingdom. They were also heavily financed by China and the Arab monarchies in the Persian Gulf.
ellauri256.html on line 362: The girls were under the constant care of a governess. They became fluent in German and French, learned to play the piano and studied at a grammar school. It was there that at the age of 13, Lilya met her future husband, Osip Brik: in the wake of the revolutionary anti-monarchist unrest of 1905, Lilya began to attend political education clubs, one of which was headed by Osip, the son of a jewelry merchant.
ellauri267.html on line 1393: Sebastião was one of the most extraordinary monarchs that Portugal ever produced. Ascending the throne in an atmosphere of great emotion, he was widely acclaimed as the answer to his subjects’ prayers and a prince who would save his country’s independence. Two decades later, he achieved precisely the opposite, dying heroically but unnecessarily on the distant North African battlefield of Al-Ksar al-Kabir on 4 August 1578, leaving no heir to succeed him. The collection concludes with studies under the heading of 'historiography and problems of interpretation', on Britain's Charles III and his boxer Camilla, and on Vasco da Gama's reputation for violence.
ellauri322.html on line 364: the King of Denmark is the most absolute monarch in Europe. Suuret ulosottomiehet ovat enimmäkseen Kööpenhaminan aatelisia, jotka ovat samanlaisia paskiaisia kuin kaikkialla.
ellauri370.html on line 52: Esther's maiden name was Hadassah, meaning Myrtle. Although the details of the setting are entirely plausible and the story may even have some basis in actual events, there is general agreement among scholars that the book of Esther is a work of fiction. Persian kings did not marry outside of seven Persian noble families, making it unlikely that there was a Jewish queen Esther. Further, the name Ahasuerus can be translated to Xerxes, as both derive from the Persian Khshayārsha. Ahasuerus as described in the Book of Esther is usually identified in modern sources to refer to Xerxes I, who ruled between 486 and 465 BCE, as it is to this monarch that the events described in Esther are thought to fit the most closely. Xerxes I's queen was Amestris, further highlighting the fictitious nature of the story.
ellauri448.html on line 112: James's queen, Anne of Denmark, gave birth to seven children who survived beyond birth, of whom three reached adulthood. Charles I was tried, convicted, and executed for high treason in January 1649. The monarchy was abolished and the Commonwealth of England was established as a republic. The monarchy was restored in 1660, with Charles's son Charles II as king. The Charleses did not raise the royal standard overmuch.
ellauri448.html on line 116: Cromwell forcibly disbanded the Rump Parliament in 1653, thereby establishing the Protectorate with himself as Lord Protector. Upon his death in 1658, he was briefly succeeded by his ineffective son, Richard. Parliament was reinstated, and the monarchy was restored to Charles I's eldest son, Charles II, in 1660.
ellauri448.html on line 118: Charles Stuart was "a man of contradictions and controversy." Some argued that the King was a dynamic man of conscience, but others thought Charles "the most incompetent monarch of England since Henry VI", or even  "the worst king we have had since the Middle Ages".
ellauri477.html on line 315: Mainio vallankumous (the Glorious Revolution) was the deposition of King James II in November 1688. He was replaced by his daughter Mary II and her Dutch husband, James's nephew William III of Orange. The two ruled as joint monarchs of England, Scotland, and Ireland until Mary's death in 1694, when William became ruler in his own right. Jacobitism, the political movement that aimed to restore the exiled James or his descendants of the House of Stuart to the throne, persisted into the late 18th century. Jakobiitteja ei pie sekottaa jakobiineihin jotka oli Robespierren aikaisia vasemmistoliberaaleja.
ellauri477.html on line 317: The most radical act of the 1688 Revolution was a "contract" between ruler and people, replacing the Stuart ideology of divine right. While this was a victory for the Whigs, other pieces of legislation were proposed by the Tories, often with moderate Whig support, designed to protect the Anglican establishment from being undermined by future monarchs, including the Calvinist William. The Declaration of Right was a tactical compromise, setting out where James had failed, and establishing the rights of English citizens, without agreeing their cause or offering solutions. In December 1689, this was incorporated into the Bill of Rights.
ellauri499.html on line 78: This historical reconstruction proposes that YHWH—a deity firmly rooted in the central Israelite hill country during the Iron Age—only formally became Israel’s god during the ninth century BCE, when Samaria’s Omride kings deliberately modeled the local deity YHWH on the more popular Levantine warrior storm-god Baal(-šamêm). Furthermore, I argue that YHWH only officially became Judah’s patron god and the primary deity of the Jerusalem temple under the direct influence of Omride Israel’s YHWistic political-religious reforms. Ultimately, I conclude that Baal worship was traditional in ancient Israelite and Judahite religion down to the end of the monarchic period, at which point small circles of Judahite scribes began to advocate "historically innovative" monopoöistic political-religious ideologies pitting the Israelite deity YHWH against the allegedly “foreign” god Baal.
ellauri499.html on line 84: I conclude that Baal worship was traditional in ancient Israelite and Judahite religion down to the end of the monarchic period, at which point small circles of Judahite scribes began to advocate "historically innovative" monopolistic political-religious ideologies pitting the Israelite deity YHWH against the allegedly “foreign” god Baal.
ellauri499.html on line 96: Adopting this perspective, I conclude that: (1) Baal worship was traditional to ancient Israelite and Judahite religion down to the end of the monarchic period; (2) YHWH’s cult cannot be said to have originated historically in Bronze Age Arabia—as the reigning “Midianite-Kenite Hypothesis” maintains—but is rooted in the central Israelite hill country in the Iron Age (cf. the “Berlin Hy- pothesis”); (3) YHWH cannot clearly be said to have originated as a storm god, as many scholars maintain, but especially appears to have taken on storm-god features under Baal’s infuence in the Iron II period; (4) YHWH became Israel’s representative god under the patronage of Samaria’s ninth-century Omride kings, who seem to have modeled YHWH on the more popular Levantine deity Baal(-šamêm); (5) YHWH’s associations with the deep south are to be connected to political and economic expansion into the Egyptian Sinai during the ninth and eighth centuries; (6) YHWH officially became Judah’s patron god and the primary deity of the Jerusalem temple under the direct infuence of Omride Israel’s YHWistic political-religious reforms; (7) Jerusalemite YHWism further developed distinctive YHWistic traditions that reflect and respond to Judah’s specifc social-political economy and political-religious history; and (8) the Hebrew Bible’s Baal polemics largely derive from limited Judahite scribal circles in the late monarchic and post-monarchic periods that advocated newly invented insidious political-religious ideologies.
ellauri499.html on line 122: Many scholars also interpret the biblical story of Jeroboam I’s installation of bull-calf icons at Dan and Bethel (not Samaria) as a programmatic attempt to consolidate Israel’s political-religious identity  in opposition to the political claims and religious traditions of the Davidic monarchy and its YHWistic temple in Jerusalem.
ellauri499.html on line 141:

However, the Hebrew Bible’s partisan portrayal of Ahab— judged the worst king in Israel’s history by the Judean editors of the books of Kings (1 Kgs 16:30; cf. 1 Kgs 21:25–26)—and his son Ahaziah as unrepentant Baal worshipers cannot be taken at face value, serving as it does late Judahite political and religious interests.

While some scholars argue that the Baal polemics in the Elijah cycle contain traces of early Israelite tradition, the writers who composed and edited the biblical material in the books of Kings about the Omrides’ worship of Baal clearly were Judean scribes active in the post-monarchic period, hundreds of years af- ter the events portrayed.
ellauri499.html on line 159: 2 Kings 8:26 (cf. 2 Chr 22:2) states that Omri’s granddaughter Athaliah married the Judahite King J(eh)oram, and their son Ahaziah—named after his Israelite royal uncle Ahaziah?—is said to have ruled in Jerusalem for one year before his death, after which his widow, Ahab’s daughter, "Conspiracy! Conspiracy!" Athaliah, claimed the monarchic prerogative of ruling Judah for the next seven years (so 2 Kings 11).
ellauri499.html on line 161: In sum, Judah’s political subordination to Israel may have had a strong impact on Jerusalemite royal political theology. It may be, then, that Jerusalem’s Davidic monarchs first installed YHWH as their divine patron in connection with, or under the infuence of, the Omrides’ elevation of YHWH to the position of Israel’s kingdom god.
ellauri499.html on line 165: Those who ideologically opposed Baal’s worship in Judah—particularly the “deuteronomistic” scribal circles responsible for the composition, editing, and transmission of the books of Kings, Jeremiah, and Hosea—were "religious innovators," who likely remained in the minority until the post-monarchic period.
ellauri499.html on line 177: Opposition to Baal veneration in Judah may have arisen in small pockets of upper-class Judahite society as a political-religious effort to differentiate the politics of Judahite worship of YHWH from that of the northern Israelite YHWH cult, with its links to Lebanon and Syria. In the early to mid-eighth century, Jeroboam II appears to have placed YHWistic calf icons evoking the exodus in royal sanctuaries at Bethel and Dan(?) in an effort to further concentrate monarchic power in Samaria, which already had a calf icon emblemizing YHWH.
ellauri499.html on line 181: The destruction of the kingdom of Israel in 722/720 by the Assyrians, together with Sennacherib’s failed siege against Jerusalem in 701, likely only served to consolidate this new brand of Judahite YHWism, the proponents of which— perhaps best exemplifed by the post-monarchic authors of the Baal polemics in the Elijah cycle—probably remained in the minority until sometime after Judah’s defeat by the Babylonians in  587-586.
ellauri499.html on line 297: An earlier passage had made Shechem the scene of Joshua's covenant between all the tribes of Israel and "El Yahweh, our god of Israel" and a later one describes it as the location of the "House of El Berith". Big fat hairy difference. It is thus unclear whether the false worship of the "Baʿalim" being decried is the worship of a new idol or rites and teachings placing Yahweh as a mere local god within a larger pantheon. The Hebrew Scriptures record the worship of Baʿal threatening Israel from the time of the Judges until the monarchy, but it may just have North-South politics masquerading as religious heresy.

Throughout all the stories of Judges the popular faith in YHWH/Baal runs like alternating current. This faith raises the judges, and inspires poets, prophets, and Nazirites. ... Worship of Baals and Ashtoreths has been schematically interspersed between these chapters. No trace of a vital, popular belief in any specifically foreign gods can be detected in the stories. Baal prophets were identified snd eliminated in Israel centuries later; but during the age of the judges when Israel is supposed to have been most deeply affected by the religion of Canaan, there are no Baal priests or prophets to speak of, nor any other intimation of any trouble from polytheism in Israel’s life, while the Deuteronomist and the present form of Jeremiah phrase the Judahite godnapping as struggle about monolatry or monotheism against henotheism or polytheism.
ellauri501.html on line 580: