The Curse of Monotheism

In the latest fascicle of the Heythrop Journal Nathan MacDonald has published a response to Patrick Madigan's attempts to deal with monotheism's supposed disreputable psychological origins. MacDonald argues that Madigan's characterization of the origins of Israelite monotheism are flawed and reflect a sense of monotheism's problems which are not justified by the historical evidence.

Publication details: ‘Response to Patrick Madigan, “The Curse of Monotheism”’, Heythrop Journal 51 (2010), pp. 1075-1077.

The Date of Deuteronomy

In the latest fascicle of ZAW Nathan MacDonald has published a response to Juha Pakkala's argument that the earliest version of the book of Deuteronomy, the Urdeuteronomium, is to be dated to the post-exilic period. MacDonald's article examines the ten reasons that Pakkala puts forward and finds each of them wanting. He concludes that the case for a post-exilic date must be judged not proven.

Publication details: ‘Issues in the Dating of Deuteronomy: A Response to Juha Pakkala’, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 122 (2010), pp. 431–435.

DAAD Successes

We are very pleased to announce that in the academic year 2011-2012, the research team in Göttingen will be joined by two holders of fellowships from the DAAD.

Matthew Lynch is a doctoral student at Emory University where he is the final stages of writing a dissertation on monotheism in the book of Chronicles. He has already published essays in Biblica, JSOT and CBQ. He will come to Göttingen with a DAAD doctoral fellowship.

Jennifer Barbour completed her doctorate in Oxford University on Qoheleth, shortly to be published by OUP. She has most recently been Kennicott Fellow in Hebrew at Oxford and College Fellow at Harvard University. She will come to Göttingen with a DAAD post-doctoral fellowship.

Congratulations to both on this splendid achievement.

Divine Presence and Absence in the Persian Period

The first colloquium of the research group will take place on 12-15 May 2011. The subject of the colloquium is notions of divine presence and absence in the Persian period.

The papers are as follows:

Tempel, Kultbild, Priester – Überlegungen zu den Voraussetzungen für göttliche Präsenz im Alten Orient und zu den Gefahren ihrer Beeinträchtigung (Claus Ambos, Heidelberg University)

Silent Witness: The Symbolic Presence of God in the Temple Vessels in Ezra-Nehemiah (Bob Becking, Utrecht University)

Zur Präsenztheologie des Alltags: Göttliche Gegenwart für jeden und für jede (Angelika Berlejung, Leipzig University)

The Anticipated Rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple as Reflected in the Elohistic Psalter and its Background in Mesopotamian Hymn Tradition (Joel Burnett, Baylor University)

God’s Real Absence and Real Presence in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomism (Stephen Cook, Virginia Theological Seminary)

The Torah of God as God: The Exaltation of the Written Law Code in Ezra-Nehemiah (Lisbeth S. Fried, University of Michigan)

Complicating Presence: Inter-disciplinary Perspectives on a Theological Question (Trevor Hart, St Andrews University)

The Spirit of YHWH: An Overlooked Conceptualization of Divine Presence in the Persian Period (Nathan MacDonald, Göttingen University/ St Andrews University)

Multiple Imaging as Literary Aniconism in the Prophets (Jill Middlemas, Zurich University)

Multiplicity and Monotheism (Ben Sommer, Jewish Theological Seminary)

Waiting for God: Conditions for the Restoration of the Divine Presence in Ezekiel (Bill Tooman, University of St Andrews)

Nathan MacDonald receives David Noel Freedman Award

Nathan MacDonald was named as the first recipient of the Society of Biblical Literature’s David Noel Freedman Award for Excellence and Creativity in Hebrew Bible Scholarship. The award for 2011 was made for Dr MacDonald’s essay, “Ritual Innovation: The Feast of Weeks from the Covenant Code to the Temple Scroll”.

As well as leading the Sofja-Kovalevskaja Research Team at the Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Dr MacDonald is also Reader in Old Testament at the University of St Andrews, Scotland. He has published numerous books and articles on the interpretation of the Old Testament. His research has previously been recognized by a number of other international awards including an Alexander von Humboldt Research Fellowship, the John Templeton Award for Theological Promise, and the Sofja-Kovalevskaja-Preis.

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)

Review of the Conference "Der eine Gott und die Völker"

The conference at Ebernburg on the one God and the nations was a very pleasant time with a number of interesting papers and engaging discussions. The following attempts to summarize the papers, as best I can. The papers should appear in about a year's time in the biblisch-theologische Studien series.

Two papers concerned themselves with the relationship between Israel and the nations in the Old Testament: Deuteronomy (Rüterswörden) and Chronicles (Grätz). Rüterswörden’s paper differentiated helpfully between different foreign nations – the current inhabitants of the land and the surrounding nations, in relation to the latter the nokri and ger were discussed. Provocatively Rüterswörden suggested that Deut 4.5-8 was a Hellenistic addition, comparing the claim about Yhwh’s closeness to Israel through prayer to the Letter of Aristeas. Grätz observed that the book of Chronicle’s view of other nations was more positive than in other Old Testament texts, such as Ezra or Nehemiah. The foreign ancestresses of the Israelite tribes are mentioned unapologetically (more). Through selective citation of the psalms and Deutero-Isaiah the temple is given a programmatic role vis-à-vis the whole earth as a place for the worship of all nations.

Two papers discussed non-biblical materials: Pseudo-Philo (Vogel) and Dionysius of Halilkarnassos (Pausch). Vogel examined Israel in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. Pseudo-Philo creates a history that contains both Israel’s past and the eschatological future. Within it Israel is representative of the nations. Pausch’s paper examined the historiographical work of Dionysius of Halikarnassos and his attempt to identify the Romans as an example of Greek culture. Pausch examined how and why Dionysius constructed such an argument and asked whether his readers would have been convinced. Though an interesting and engaging paper, it was not easy to see how the paper contributed to the conference theme.

Finally, two papers discussed the New Testament: Luke-Acts (Jeska) and the Pauline Writings (Wilk). Jeska argued that Luke utilized the ideas of the Greco-Roman hero cult as part of his strategy to convince pagans. Despite their wonder-working the apostles were not apotheosized. Jesus is not metamorphized, nor does he have a grave. He is seen by Stephen exalted to the right hand of God. Luke’s Christology is subordinate for Jesus is not pre-existent, receives no cultic worship and does nothing without God’s initative. Thus in his attempt to convince Jews and Greeks, Luke mediates between heathen and Jewish ideas of deity. Wilk offered a comprehensive view of Paul’s perception of historical events with a particular focus on Romans 9-11. History is the stage on which the one true God shows his divinity through his deeds. With the Scriptures to hand Paul can make sense of the successes and failures of the Gospel as well as his own suffering.

The next and final conference in this series is to be held in March 2011 with the theme monotheism and the future of the world.

Review Article of Halpern, From Gods to God

A number of Baruch Halpern's essays have recently been collected together in one volume: From Gods to God: The Dynamics of Iron Age Cosmologies (FAT, 63; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). Written with verve, wit and erudition, this is an impressive set of studies that profitably cross numerous disciplinary boundaries. Not only does this volume helpfully bring together essays published in disparate contexts, but it also allows the reader to gain a vision of Halpern's overall understanding of the historical developments in the late Iron Age. The title rather nicely summarizes Halpern's long-standing concern to plot the development from Gods to God. This larger vision is filled with problems which I seek to explore in a review article

Meeting of the Group: Der eine Gott und die Völker. Transformationsprozesse im biblischen Gottesbild zwischen Exklusion und Inklusion

The next meeting of the group "Der eine Gott und die Völker. Transformationsprozesse im biblischen Gottesbild zwischen Exklusion und Inklusion" will be 8-10 March in the beautiful location of Ebernburg, Bad Münster am Stein, a castle with strong Reformation connections.

The theme of the meeting is "Der eine Gott und die Geschichte der Völker"
The following speakers are addressing the meeting:
Udo Rüterswörden (Bonn), Israel und die Völker im Deuteronomium
Sebastien Grätz (Mainz), Gott und die Völker im Spiegel des Chronistischen Geschichtswerkes
Manuel Vogel (Jena), Israel als Mitte der Geschichte inmitten seiner Geschichte nach dem Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (PsPhilo=)
Dennis Pausch (Gießen), "Älter und echter griechisch als dieses wird man wohl kein Volk finden!" Dionysius von Halikarnassos und seine "interpretatio graeca" der römischen Geschichte
Joachim Jeska (Münster), Der Vermittler Lukas: Zur Rede von dem einen Gott unter Griechen, Römern und Juden
Floran Wilk (Göttingen), Rühmen und Seufzen: Zur paulinischen Deutung geschichtlicher Prozesse und Erfahrungen im Horizont des Bekenntnisses zu dem einen Gott.

The second volume from the meetings was published recently. My review of it can be found at the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures.

Is Genesis 1 a Polemic?

Since the discovery of Mesopotamian creation stories at the end of the nineteenth century it has been common in scholarship to view Genesis 1 as ‘polemic’. With Enuma Elish in one hand and Genesis 1 in another, it is not difficult to weave a compelling narrative with the priestly writer as a monotheistic satirist. It makes for a good lecture or tutorial, and is something of a bastion against fundamentalist readings of Genesis 1 (e.g. see Robert P. Gordon’s recent essay in the Wenham FS).

Yet Genesis 1 does not read like polemic, and it is hard to imagine a student doing so without first being told to read Enuma Elish. After all, when the proto-history of Genesis 1-11 wants to be polemical it lays it on pretty thick, as the tower of Babel story shows.

The time is certainly ripe then for Jan Gertz’s recent article in ZThK entitled, ‘Antibabylonische Polemik im priesterlichen Schöpfungsbericht?’ (‘Antibabylonian Polemic in the priestly creation story?’). There are many aspects of Gertz’s argument, but let us examine that favourite example of ‘polemic’ in Genesis 1: the creation of the celestial luminaries. Drawing on recent discussion of ancient astronomical knowledge, Gertz argues that the creation of the sun, moon and stars reflects P’s reception of the latest Mesopotamian knowledge in these areas. His language of ‘greater’ and ‘lesser’ lights reflects the abstract descriptive language found throughout Genesis 1. If you want to find polemic here you have to read it in, as commentators frequently have. For Gertz we are better to speak of Genesis 1 as ‘Wissenschaftsprosa’ (‘scientific prose’).

In many respects this takes us back to the disagreement between Gunkel and Wellhausen over Genesis 1. Is Genesis 1 ‘faded myth’ or ‘cosmogonic theory’? Fewer and fewer scholars appeal to Chaoskampf as a way of illuminating the first three verses of Genesis 1, and Gertz’s proposal removes the last planks of Gunkel’s shaky structure.

Religious practice: who, where, what? Modes of religious practice as modes of religion.

One of the papers discussed at the OTSEM conference in Göttingen was Anne Katrine Gudme’s ‘Modes of Religion: An Alternative to ‘Popular/Official’ Religion’. She has been inspired by Stanley K. Stowers (Brown University) who developed an idea of ‘modes of religion’, based on cognitive theory, focusing on religion as a ‘human cognitive-practical phenomenon’. His work on this is still to be published, but Gudme got acquainted with his ideas through attending conference papers (one paper, although not for circulation, is available at the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies).

Gudme’s aim with her paper is to get beyond the binary distinction between popular (or mass) and official (or elite) religion. Stowers and Gudme distinguish two types of religion: religion of everyday social exchange and religion of the literate cultural producer. The former involves the gods as person-like agents with whom people interact. These interactions are localized at particular places and times. Such practices are not systematized, but exist because they ‘work’ at a specific place. This mode is loaded with uncertainty about the practices and their effectiveness. Because they seem to work they receive a certain measure of (empirical) credibility.

The second type, the religion of the literate cultural producer, hides its location in time and place and aims to produce generalized and universal knowledge applicable in all places and times with a more abstract (or general) idea of the divine. Still, also this mode is also about personal religion. On the one hand, this second mode includes a group which advocates a kind of religion less focused on self and more on establishing true beliefs and uprightness. On the other hand, a less entrepreneurial group also belongs to this mode. These scribes serve the needs of others, a king or a patron, and deal with the meanings of rituals. Writing as such is not distinctive, as votive inscriptions can be part of the first mode.

Both modes can have a so-called ‘overlay’ (two additional modes) in which they receive political dimensions. For the first mode this is the institutionalization of everyday religion, for example in a temple cult; the second mode’s political overlay (not discussed by Gudme) happens when the state (or possibly another body) recognizes the literate specialist religion (Stowers refers to political reception of Paul and its institutionalization; note that in the case of the Old Testament temple and royal authorities are much closer to the writers).

This cognitive approach to modes of religion which centres on the practice helpfully notes that so-called ‘popular’ religion (i.e. religion of everyday social exchange) was practiced by both the elite and ordinary of society (as Gudme illustrated with Jeremiah 44:21). If the religion practiced by officials becomes prescribed religion (which is helpfully seen to be the politicized version of the religion of the cultural producer) it is not far from being so-called ‘official’ religion. If the normative element of the second mode would bring them so close, we should still not return to the old binary opposition (or a new opposition between practical and intellectual). Gudme tries to avoid this for Ancient Israel by proposing that the Hebrew Bible came into existence as the product of ‘of the religious practices of the literate cultural producers’. Although the distinction between the modes focuses on writing, the question arises whether the production of images initially involves a similar distinction, whereas the ‘use’ of images might diminish the distinction between the two modes.

Stowers made his proposal to understand sacrificial practices and also Gudme makes the first mode an object of study (in her project on votive inscriptions). It is to be applauded that more light is shed on the nature of (ancient) religious practices, as it provides a solution for an important epistemological problem by touching on the relation between our written sources and the ancient practices. As such, “these modes can provide useful contexts for thinking about ancient ritual.” (so Stowers). This focus on understanding ritual, however, limits the application of the new model. It would be proper to acknowledge this focus on practice and therefore speak about modes of religious practice instead of modes of religion.

This initial epistemological issue may be dealt with satisfactorily, but obviously questions about religion remain which touch on other elements than who practices what. We may magnify the practice, but we will always need to reflect on context. Including more aspects of agent and location in our attempts to approach ancient religion may help us find ways of comprehension. We may find us challenged to consider the relevance of e.g., scale in group (individual, family, people), in value (of tools or gifts involved), in geography (the area involved in an event and the proliferation of the practice); kinds of people (function; age; gender; elite: literate; powerful; agricultural, juridical and other needs; etc.); form of transmission (habits, customs, oral tradition, images, or written scripture); normativity; and ideas about the divine (nature – culture, level of abstraction) to construct modes of religion benefiting from these modes of religious practice (rather than modes of religion!), as presented by Stowers and Gudme.

Taking into account different of the above mentioned factors may assist understanding and comparison (aware of the danger how categories generalize), as this invites us to consider religion at different levels of abstraction (concepts which foster different practices in different contexts), on different geographical levels (e.g. the proliferation of a certain type of god and local differentiation in regard to the other factors), etc. Such an approach to religion will also show how much the different modes of religious practice interact, partly peacefully, but also in tension with each other. What the king practices as head of the royal family or even as head of a clan or tribe may be similar to what men do in their own households, but still both may be criticized by literate specialists, for instance for issues related purity, value, divine concepts, or improper gender role. Another example: How would fit Michal’s critique of David dancing in front of the ark fit the modes of religious practice and the above sketched parameters for modes of religion? And if 2 Samuel 6 is only taken as a literate expression, what does it convey?

Cosmology - Cosmogony - Creation

As if the offerings from the Transendence-Immanence Symposium, the Graduiertenkolleg and the regular OT seminar were not enough, there is also an interesting series of lectures being arranged by Prof. Dr Andreas Grünschloß and Dr Rainer Hirsch-Luipold. Their primary focus is somewhat later, but the topics are important for any consideration of early forms of Jewish monotheism.

19. October 2009 · Kosmologie - Kosmogonie - Schöpfung. Entwicklung der Grundkonzepte im griechischen Denken
Herwig Görgemanns (Heidelberg)

26. October 2009 · Gott als Schöpfer in biblisch-theologischer Perspektive
Hermann Spieckermann / Reinhard Feldmeier (Göttingen)

02. November 2009 · Mesopotamien
Annette Zgoll (Göttingen)

09. November 2009 - Panel zu anderskulturellen »Brechungen«: Vedische Religion, Mesoamerika, Präastronautik
Bertram Schmitz (Hannover), Gordon Whittaker & Andreas Grünschloß (Göttingen)

16. November 2009 · Gnostische Mythen / Manichäismus
Kurt Rudolph (Marburg) · Wolf B. Oerter (Prag)

23. November 2009 · Woher kommt das Böse? Platonische Kosmogonie bei Plutarch
Fabienne Jourdan (Paris)

30. November 2009 · Spätantike Demiurgie-Polemik
Jan Opsomer (Köln)

07. December 2009 · Chaldaeische Orakel
Helmut Seng (Konstanz)

14. December 2009 · Mose oder Platon? Die Stellung der christlichen Kosmologie innerhalb der antiken kosmologischen Debatte
Charlotte Köckert (Heidelberg)

11. January 2010 · Bardaisan. A Syrian Interpretation of Genesis in the light of Middle Platonism and the Johannine Prologue
Ilaria Ramelli (Mailand)

18. January 2010 · Stoic Cosmology and New Testament Theology
Troels Engberg-Pedersen (Kopenhagen)

25. January 2010 · Rabbinisches Judentum und frühe jüdische Mystik
Hans-Jürgen Becker (Göttingen)

01. February 2010 · Kosmologie und Schöpfung in Koran und Prophetenüberlieferung: eine Herausforderung für Muslime in der Moderne
Martin Riexinger (Göttingen)

Göttingen OT Seminar Winter Semester 2009/10

The regular OT seminar programme continues in Göttingen in addition to the activities of the Graduiertenkolleg and its various guest lectures

13 Nov Dr. Christoph Berner: “Das Ende der Priesterschrift? Erwägungen zum Quellencharakter von P in Gen 37 - Ex 14”

27 Nov Christoph Hilmes: “Babel und die babylonische Gola im hebräischen und griechischen Jeremiabuch”

11 Dec Guest Lecture: Prof. Leong Seow (Princeton)

8 Jan Qumran: Inschrift “Vision of Gabriel”

15 Jan Dr. Anja Klein: “Die Zwillingspsalmen Ps 135+136”

29 Jan René Enzenauer

Monotheism – Polytheism Graduiertenkolleg Guest Lectures

The monotheism-polytheism Graduiertenkolleg meets regularly to discuss work in progress by doctoral students of the Kolleg. In addition, there are a number of guest lecturers this semester.

2 Nov Prof. M. Tanret: “Die sumerische Götting Uttu, „nur“ eine Webergöttin?”
Dr. Michael Segal: “Seventy Years and Seventy Weeks: Daniel 9 and its Chronological Conception of the Exile and the Persian Period”

10 Nov Prof. Fischer, “Schicksal in AT und NT”

24 Nov PD Dr. Mirko Novák, “Die Mesopotamische Stadt: Von der „Sumerischen Tempelstadt“ zur „Assyrischen Königsresidenz“?”

25 Nov Prof. Russel Fuller, “Die Entwicklung des Kanons der Kleinen Propheten: Der Nachweis der Handschriften” (T0.136)

1 Dec PD Dr. Mirko Novák, “Stadt–Palast–Tempel. Weltbilder im urbanen Raum Mesopotamiens am Beispiel von Uruk, Ninive und Babylon”

7 Dec Jonathan Ben Dov, How did the Calender become a Factor in Defining National Identity? A View from the Bible to Early Judaism

11 Dec Prof. Leong Seow, “Reflections on the History of Consequences in the Book of Job”

14-18 Dec Prof. Frans Wiggermann, “Ikonographie-Woche”

15 Dec Juha Pakkala: “Why the Judean Cult Reforms Probably Never Took Place”

16 Dec Prof. Frans Wiggermann: “Gods and Symbols: Zababa, Enlil, Dumuzi”

3 Jan Prof. Joan Goodnick Westernholz

Symposium on Immanence and Transcendence in Antiquity

Today and tomorrow the latest symposium of the Monotheism-Polytheism Graduiertenkolleg will be concerned with the question of transcendence and immanence.

Johannes Zachhuber, Oxford: “Transzendenz und Immanenz als Interpretationskategorien antiken Denkens im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert”
Anna Clark, Oxford: “Imperial Divine Qualities”
Walther Sallaberger, Munich: “Natur und Kultur im Spiegel des mesopotamischen Pantheons”
Jula Wildberger, Paris: “Göttliche Immanenz und Person in der Stoa”
Jens Halfwassen, Heidelberg: “Transzendenz als Grundmotiv der antiken Metaphysik”
Stefan Alkier, Frankfurt: “Machtfragen. Theologie und Kosmologie der Johannesapokalypse”
Jean Louis Ska, Rom: “Herrlichkeit Gottes im Alten Testament”
Kianoosh Rezania, Göttingen, “Immanenz und Transzendenz im Zoroastrismus: Ihre Absenz, ihre Nachbarkonzepte und ihre Entwicklung”
Antonio Loprieno, Basel: “Götterbilder-Gottesbilder-Weltbilder. Evolutionstheorie und Kulturwissenschaft am Beispiel ägyptischer Todesvorstellungen”
Todd Lawson, Toronto: “Transendence and Immanence in the Quran. A Critique of Categories”

In my view this symposium is very welcome. The categories of immanence and transcendence are frequently deployed in biblical scholarship with little consideration of their potential limitations or problems.

OTSEM in Göttingen

The annual meeting of OTSEM begins today and runs until Wednesday. This is a meeting of graduate students, post-docs and faculty in Old Testament from Scandinavian institutions and the university of Göttingen. This year Oxford are joining for the first time. As well as two keynote addresses (R. Smend, “Wellhausen as OT scholar”; J. Barton, “Law and Narrative in the Pentateuch”), there are also papers by the doctoral students and post-docs.

There is a great deal of good material, but of particular interest are:

Francis Borchardt (Helsinki), Letter of Aristeas 1-40 and Judean National Identity

Gunnar Magnus Eidsvåg (SMT Stavanger), Samaritans in LXX Amos 6

Anne Katrine Gudme (Copenhagen), Modes of Religion: An Alternative to ‘Popular’/‘Official’ Religion

Hanne Løland (MF Oslo), Wishing for Death of Fighting for Life? Death Wish as Negotiating Strategy in the Hebrew Bible

Juha Pakkala (Helsinki), The Date of the Oldest Edition of Deuteronomy

Harald Samuel (Göttingen), From Priest to Patriarch: Genealogical Speculation around Levi

Ruth Sauerwein (Göttingen), A Few Observations on the Title “Man of God” in the Elisha Cycle

Peter Skippervold (Oslo), A Tradition of Interactive Learning in the Hebrew Bible?

Ola Wikander (Lund), Drought, Death and the Sun in Ugarit and Ancient Israel

Launch at SBL

There will be a formal launch of the Early Jewish Monotheism(s) project at the annual meeting of the SBL in New Orleans. Friends of the University of Göttingen, Humboldtians and those interested in the research project are warmly invited to attend the reception at 9pm, November 23rd 2009 in Orleans/Rosalie/St Claude in the JW Marriott New Orleans.

Apply for a Doctoral Studentship

We are currently seeking applications for three doctoral studentships for study at the University of Göttingen within the larger project of Unity and Diversity in Early Jewish Monotheisms. The project focuses on the different forms that monotheistic belief and practice took in the exilic and Persian periods with an emphasis on the relevant biblical texts. Click here to read the description and application information.

Coining Monotheism

The coin which is the ‘logo’ of our project website well illustrates the variety of factors involved in the emergence of Jewish monotheisms. This unique coin (catalogued as TC 242.5 in the British Museum) from Israel/Palestine bears traces of the Persian Empire in slow decline and of Greek and Phoenician trade. There is no published coin similar to TC 242.5 in diameter, weight, artistic quality and image. In spite of the uniqueness of the coin, its authenticity is beyond doubt. The depiction of a seated deity on the coin indicates something of the religion and iconic practice of the people designing, authorising, and using the coin. An artefact like this perplexes in a context often assumed to refrain from images, especially from anthropomorphic representations of God. It raises various questions including: is the coin inscribed YHW(H)? What deity would be anthropomorphically depicted? What does the various imagery mean? How does the imagery fit into the context of Jewish aniconism?

Click here to read the entire article.

P's Gordian Knot

The priestly material (P) is widely recognized to be monotheistic. But where should one begin when seeking to analyze P’s theology? This is no idle question, but draws us deeply into the problems of determining the extent of P and the definition of monotheism.

In a perceptive analysis of the first volume of Jacob Milgrom’s impressive Leviticus commentary, Rolf Rendtorff articulated a sense of disorientation in reading Milgrom’s work. For historical-critical scholarship P means primarily the narrative thread, which parallels the non-priestly parts of the Pentateuch. For Milgrom P means Leviticus, and one seeks for P’s theology there. There is not even a backward glance to the other parts of P in the Pentateuch.

Milgrom is clear about the monotheism of Leviticus, but this book is not easily equated with monotheism, especially since monotheism has often been characterized as ethical, often as a contrast to ritualistic (still Gnuse). Milgrom deploys Yehezkel Kaufmann’s tendentious contrast between pagan and Israelite religion to bring Leviticus and monotheism into shape. Konrad Schmid’s exposition of P’s monotheism, on the other hand, begins – and virtually ends with – an exposition of P’s creation account in Genesis 1. This would accord with the sense that for P the primeval history presents the paradigm for the world. To understand P we need only make sense of this cosmic blueprint (cf. Lohfink).

So, how can we draw these different senses of priestly theology together? The solution of much recent redaction-critical scholarship has been to see the end of the priestly Grundschrift (Pg) with the completion of the Tabernacle in Exodus 25-40. But is this not just a case of cutting the Gordian knot?