London SBL

Thomas Römer and Saul Olyan have done a wonderful job in organizing a number of interesting sessions for the London SBL on the continued validity of the term monotheism in Old Testament studies.


Session 1

Chair: Thomas Römer, Université de Lausanne and Collège de France

(1) “Monotheism and Polytheism in 19th and early 20th Century Scholarship and its Impact on Modern Research” (20 minutes)
Rüdiger Schmitt, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster

The concepts of monotheism and polytheism as utilized in modern research are deeply rooted in the evolutionist paradigm of late 19th and early 20th century scholarship, which postulated a more or less linear development of religion from “savagery through barbarism to civilization” (Lewis Henry Morgan), or from polytheism to (Christian) monotheism. The paper examines the theoretical foundations of the concepts of monotheism and polytheism, in particular in the Deutsche Religionsgeschichtliche Schule, and its still strong impact on modern scholarship. It will be demonstrated that the universalistic theories of the evolutionist paradigm with its dogmatically biased views and artificial oppositions (polytheism vs. monotheism, magic vs. religion, Naturreligion vs. Offenbarungsreligion, etc.) cannot meaningfully be applied by contemporary scholarship to ancient Israelite and ancient Near Eastern religions.

(2) "Eve, Mother of All the Living (Gen 3:20): A Relic of a Mother Goddess in the Primeval History?" (20 minutes)
Michaela Bauks, Universität Koblenz

Some proposals for the etymological derivation of chawwah suggest that this verse attests a connection with Asherah as part of an ancient polytheistic tradition. The designation of Eve 'mother of all the living’ can be compared to similar epithets of Asherah as the mother-goddess. Further, the association with sacred trees and with the figure of a serpent recalls Syro-Canaanite goddesses and their fertility cult. However, these allusions do not contradict the general YHWH-centered view of the narrative. Finally, the paper will reflect on the ramifications for and against the widely recognized monotheistic concept of the Primeval History texts.

(3) “The Border Patrol: The Nature and Roles of Supernatural Intermediaries in Biblical and West Semitic Tradition” (20 minutes)
Susan Ackerman, Dartmouth College

It is a well recognized theme in Genesis 1-11 that God resists any attempt to breech the boundaries between the divine and human worlds. Thus, in Gen 3:23-24, God expels the already god-like Adam from Eden lest he eat from the tree of life and gain immortality; in Gen 6:1-4, the sons of gods’ mating with the daughters of men results in God curtailing humanity’s lifespan; and in Gen 11:1-9, God thwarts the humans’ plan to build a tower with its top in the heavens by scattering their assembly and babbling their tongues. It is perhaps less often noted, however, that in the first of these episodes, God uses supernatural intermediaries to safeguard the now off-limits Garden of Eden: “Flame” and cherubim (see, though, Ronald S. Hendel, “‘The Flame of the Whirling Sword’: A Note on Gen 3:24,” JBL 104 [1985], 671-74). Intermediate beings are likewise used elsewhere in the ancient Near East to perform analogous (albeit not identical) safeguarding functions: for example, winged bulls protected the entryways of neo-Assyrian palaces from, apparently, demonic forces. Just as a king’s palace needed this sort of protection, moreover, so did a god’s temple, and presumably from the same sort of demonic threats. This paper, drawing especially on the increasingly rich corpus of Iron Age model naoi, explores the use of such intermediary guardians in the biblical and West Semitic realm, in order to suggest that not only is monotheism an unhelpful concept within biblical studies but that our census of the biblical world’s divine beings needs to be expanded to incorporate more the supernatural safeguards who protected gods’ sanctuary spaces.

(4) “God in Genesis” (20 minutes)
Ronald Hendel, University of California, Berkeley

The term monotheism, when sufficiently qualified as a family of categories, usefully applies to the concepts of God in Genesis. The interpretive payoff of this term is evident when comparing the accounts of Creation and Flood in ancient Near Eastern sources, the J source, and the P source. I will map some of the conceptual, theological, and narratological shifts, and suggest how socio-cultural conditions and institutions may be implicated in these changes.

(5) “The Monotheism of the Priestly Code” (20 minutes)
Konrad Schmid, Universität Zürich

The Priestly texts in the Pentateuch have attracted special attention in recent scholarship on the Hebrew Bible. However, their contribution to the rise of monotheistic thinking in ancient Israel and Judah is not yet sufficiently elaborated. This paper seeks to present some of the major monotheistic arguments that the Priestly texts develop, aiming to understand them in their specific historical and sociological setting. It will focus especially on some innerbiblical exegetical features in the Priestly Code and on the Priestly “Elohim” terminology, both of which are relevant for the topic.

Discussion/Questions (30 minutes)

Session 2

Chair: Susan Ackerman, Dartmouth College

(1) “Is Isaiah 40-55 Really ‘Monotheistic’?” (20 minutes)
Saul M. Olyan, Brown University

Isaiah 40-55 is often understood as a work bearing witness clearly and unambiguously to an incipient monotheism, the monotheistic biblical work par excellence. Yet this paper will reconsider this particular understanding of Second Isaiah’s work in light of texts such as Isa 40:1-8; 40:25-26; and 51:9-11. If the evidence of Isaiah 40-55 is better explained without recourse to the concept of monotheism, why retain the concept to describe the ideology of Second Isaiah?


(2) “Yhwh, the Goddess and Evil. Is ‘Monotheism’ an Adequate Concept to Describe the Hebrew Bible's Discourses About the God of Israel?” (20 minutes)
Thomas Römer, Université de Lausanne and Collège de France

During the Persian period traditional Judahite religion underwent important changes. Influential priestly and lay groups in the Babylonian Golah and in the province of Yehud wanted to transform the former national deity into the only god of Israel and of all nations. In order to do so, they had to address the problem caused by the disappearance of a female deity traditionally associated with Yhwh and if and how the only god, Israel's savior, could be held responsible for the existence of evil forces. The Hebrew Bible contains different attempts to resolve these problems. Interestingly in both cases some "solutions" give rise to divine figures such as the personification Hokhma and the figure of Satan. In this respect it appears difficult to apply a philosophical concept of monotheism to the Hebrew Bible.


(3) “The Hebrew Bible and Emerging Monotheism” (20 minutes)
Diana Edelman, University of Sheffield

While texts that assert monotheism are very rare in the Hebrew Bible, they exist, and the collection as a whole can be characterized as a dialogue about emerging monotheism. The texts reflect a time of transition within the religious community that calls itself Israel, situated in various locations in the Persian and Hellenistic empires. A range of religious beliefs and understandings about the divine realm are included in the various books, which logically reflect the attitudes of the community members. Yet various strategies are used to instruct the audience about what should be considered “the norm” and to wean people away from Iron Age beliefs and practices to a system that ideally is monotheistic, with adapted rituals and practices that reinforce this view.

(4) “Monotheism in Biblical Studies? In Favor of a Diachronic and Nuanced Approach” (20 minutes)
André Lemaire, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes

That there are biblical texts that claim that there is only one god is obvious. Though one is tempted to interpret these “One-God" texts as monotheistic, they may also suggest monolatry. This last interpretation is particularly obvious in sentences containing the phrase "Yahweh the God of Israel". There are therefore at least two concepts of divinity in biblical texts and, moreover, some "One-God" phrases apparently meant first monolatry but were read again later on as monotheism. To understand this diversity and the problem of the use of monotheism in biblical studies, a diachronic approach to the Bible and to Israelite religion is necessary.


(5) “Beyond Monotheism – Implicit Exclusion, Exclusivity and Explicit Uniqueness” (20 minutes)
Christian Frevel, Ruhr-Universität Bochum

On the one hand, the concept of monotheism is burdened with trouble because of (a) its rootedness in the early modern era; (b) the implicit claim of systematization and the connection to a teleological development perspective; (c) an implicit apologetic truth claim; (d) diametrical opposition to polytheism; (e) the apparent unavoidable confusion of philosophical and historical approaches; and (f) the often reductionist shortcomings in the violence discourse. Thus, the concept seems inappropriate to be applied to the history of Israelite/Judahite religion. On the other hand, the term is essential in biblical studies, is most significant in the modern Western World, and has had an undisputed heuristic quality as a useful category of description for a long time. Thus, it also seems inappropriate to abandon it completely. Does this biased concept have a useful legacy or a unique explanatory potential with respect to the heterogeneous biblical evidence or the tension-filled relatedness of the biblical and historical record? This paper will opt for a reflected and differentiated use of the meta-language term “monotheism” by defining its boundaries, scope and direction of reference. Monotheism is understood as a relational concept which remains ambiguous without defining the frame of reference.

(6) “Developed and Underdeveloped Polytheism: The Evidence from the Levantine Onomastica” (20 minutes)
Rainer Albertz, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster

A close study of the theophoric elements in the Levantine onomastica of the first millennium B.C.E. reveals no opposition between monotheism and polytheism, but rather a distinction between different kinds of polytheism. The Hebrew, Ammonite and Moabite personal names show a restricted number of deities or divine epithets and seem to belong to an underdeveloped kind of polytheism, while the Aramean and Phoenician onomastica contain a considerably higher number. They obviously represent a more developed kind of polytheism. The difference seems to have to do less with beliefs of the individual family religions – they are very similar throughout the Levant – and more with the stage of development of the societies in question, and the extent of their integration in international commercial and political relations.

Discussion/Questions (30 minutes)

Session 3
Chair: Saul M. Olyan, Brown University

(1) “M*n*th**sm” (20 minutes)
Philip Davies, University of Sheffield

There are two aspects to this question. One is whether there is such a concept as 'monotheism' in the Bible. Should we try for a more precise description of the various conceptions of deity? The other is whether our discipline should operate within a monotheistic paradigm and continue to talk about 'God' rather than the various divine names and identities that the text presents us with. In both cases I am inclined to answer that the concept should not have a future within Biblical Studies, though the matter is complicated by the fact that so many scholars operate within the institutional climate of a seminary in which the existence of 'God' is a cultural assumption. So the whole issue of whether we can as scholars talk about 'God' (or even worse, 'G*d' ) will be contested. At the moment, however, there is not much of a contest: we all easily slip into 'God'-talk, and perhaps it is time some of us made an issue of it. Even atheists often talk about 'not believing in God' when they really mean they don't believe that gods exist!

(2) “Far Away from a Temple, but Close to God” (20 minutes)
Angelika Berlejung, Universität Leipzig and University of Stellenbosch

A plurality of concurring, cooperating or coexisting forms of religion, organized as traditional/institutional cults as well as individual patchwork-scenarios, is not a modern invention even if it is often given as a typical characteristic of the modern Western history of religion. Current concepts of religious science, e.g. Gregor Ahn’s concept of “individual religiosity” (“Individualreligiosität”) could also be fruitful for biblical studies, since they provide new models for the description of a dynamic history of religion (on a diachronic and a synchronic level) without using monotheism or polytheism as terms. On this theoretical basis Israelite religion is no longer understood as a closed, coherent system divided between the dual categories of (monotheistic) official theology/program and (polytheistic) private religious (everyday) life. The religious thoughts and actions of individuals in their reciprocal effects, interactions and integrative discourses with the programs of theologians at the Jerusalem temple are the focus of the present paper.

(3) “The End of the Monotheism Debate?” (20 minutes)
Nathan MacDonald, Universität Göttingen and University of St. Andrews

The debate about monotheism amongst Old Testament scholars has operated within a particular intellectual paradigm where questions of the origins of monotheism are primary. Monographs devoted to the subject have a particular form. They begin with Yahwism’s origins in late Bronze Age polytheism, and make their way to the exilic breakthrough of “monotheism” by way of a faded Moses, a lionized YHWH-alone movement found particularly in Elijah and classical prophecy, and the Josianic reformation. Usually with Deutero-Isaiah the triumphal procession is brought to an apparently satisfactory end. It appears that monotheism is only important in its conception and gestation. This paper will draw on recent work to question assumptions about where the monotheism debate should end.

(4) “An Obsolete Anachronism: A Plea for Avoiding the Concept of Monotheism” (20 minutes)
Bob Becking, Universiteit Utrecht

The concept ‘monotheism’ is a mere anachronism when it comes to describing the period in the history of religion in Ancient Israel when only one God was supposed to be venerated. The idea was coined first, as far as I can see, by the British Platonist Henry More around 1660. It had been part of the theistic discourse in systematic theology. This discourse alienates the image of God from the lived religion in Ancient Israel. In my opinion we should therefore abandon this term. I would propose to use the concept of monolatry for the period mentioned above.

(5) “‘Terms Limits’: Should the Term ‘Monotheism’ be Retired?” (20 minutes)
Mark S. Smith, New York University

Any question involving "should," as in the title of this session, may suggest an intellectual issue (intellectually, is the term worth keeping?) and perhaps a moral problem as well (ethically, is it right to keep it?). Given the term's relatively modern development and role in assertions of western cultural superiority, not to mention its tendency to distort the ancient data, it might seem best to drop the term. On the other hand, its familiarity outside of academic settings suggests keeping it as part of a larger academic effort to communicate to the wider society in a critical manner about religion. The term's familiarity as well as its problems arguably provide a teaching moment about religion that should not be abandoned prematurely. Many terms in the study of religion, such as "religion," are problematic, but the field continues to use them. Such terms help people enter into the discussion, but the discussion then provides an opportunity for analyzing the prejudices embedded in them and to go past the terms and their difficulties and into the cultural and religious history that informed them in the first place. This paper will explore these problems as well as the merits that the use of the term, monotheism, may arguably provide.

Discussion/Questions (30 minutes)