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.