Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Title: Re: Monotheism was: "admittedly syncretistic..

Dear Jonathan,

From this post of yours and from earlier posts I realize that you engage in a sound critical scholarship in an intelligent way. I try to do the same. However, that is not allways easy because several dilemmas arise. The most pressing one, as I see it, is that in scientific research "God" as a *factor* must a priori be excluded. We cannot seek recourse in something metaphysical ("God") if we are doing scientific research. The problem, however, is that we research documents that not only speak about God, but where several authors explicitly say that they were inspired by God. So how can we do an intelligent research on documents that are claimed to be rooted in something that we a priori exclude?

Next year I will publish a thesis based on an analysis of the 80.000 finite and infinite verbs in the Tanach and the DSS, where I propose a completely new understanding of the verbal system of Classical Hebrew. In this research I have completely avoided the problem mentioned above, but it becomes acute when the question of monotheism is at stake.

After pondering on the situation for a long time I have taken the position that I strictly have to follow critical scientific methodology, but that I, at the same time must take a critical stand towards critical scholarship. This does not necessarily mean that I sneak God in through the backdoor, but rather that I do not exclude the possibility that some, or all the documents of the Tanach are different from other earlier and contemporaneous documents. Thus God is not a factor that is a variable in the scientific research, but at the same time the claims that the documents are a result of work of a "God" in a way is held open. Even though the position that the documents of the Tanach are just like other documents is strictly scientific, it is just as dogmatic (and religious) as the opposite viewpoint of God's inspiration.

What has lead me to take this position is my own hermeneutical circle that has been at work in my study over many years of ancient documents. For instance, I contiually work with Accadian documents, and have translated the Atrahasis into Norwegiean in a series of acncient Holy writings. In this book I listed 24 different passages in the Gilgamesh/Atrahasis which are almost completely parallel to bassages in Genesis. The laws of probability definitely speaks against the documents having originated independently. But what is the relationship? Most scholars would say that Genesis has adopted thoughts from an Accadian original; and this is a fine example of scholarship that is too critical, or even unbalanced, Because, how can they know? The fact that cuneiform tablets, that are easily preserved, are older than Hebrew documents of a more vulnerable material, say very little. However, for me, after a study of many years, it is clear that there is an enormeous quality difference between the Accadian accounts of the creation/flood  and the Genesis account.The Babylonian gods are clearly the invention of men, having all the degraded characteristics of men ##., while my judgement is that the God in the Genesis account is  of a completely different nature. Therefore, I see no reason to postulate that Genesis has adopted Accadian material; it is more logical to me that that both accounts stem from a common source, but with different final products as a result.

Some years ago we read the laws of Hammurapi in class and it bacame evident for the students how different these are from the laws in the Pentateuch, even though there are similarities as well. So it seems to me that there generally is a clear quality difference between the Hebrew documents of the Tanach and other documents of antiquity. Therefore I, at the outset, do not a priori deny the claims of the Hebrew writers as to when their accounts where written and the origin of their information. But these should rather be scrutinized without a priori judgements.

It seems to me that something like a dogmatic religion has been built up around modern critical scholarship. Noth's theory of a deuteronomistic history etc and many other speculative hypotheses have almost been elevated to data, while the truth is that hard facts regarding when the different books were written and who were the writers are completely lacking. For instance,in my linguistic analysis of the participles of the Tanach I found a use which was uniform throughout the book of Isaiah but almost non-existent in other books. I will not say that this proves that there was one author of the books, but the evidence for two or three authors is very weak indeed. The great problem of modern critical scholarship are not all the unfounded assumptions on which it builds, but rather that many researchers are not aware of the fact that the very foundation is lacking. I fully respect your methodology and your position, but with all respect I propose alternatives.

As to my position, I am very positive to the text of the Hebrew documents, because of all the single data I have found to be of a higher quality that that of contemporaneous documents. It is my impression that the concept of God in the Tanach is sublime and elevated, in stark contrast to that of other nations around. Your interpretations regarding the divine suzerain and polytheism are possible but hardly the only alternative. I see no conflict between Isaiah 41-- and Exodus 20 because the subject is addressed from different angles. Isaiah does not deny the existence of the $EDIM, but he points out to those who think that carved images have intrinsic life and power that this is a false view. And similarly, the writer of Exodus does not say that the carved images have life and power. In view of the sublime descriptions of the one Creator I take the implication of the writer of Exodus of other living gods to refer to the $EDIM.

As I understand the NT, the Christian writers had this view as well. Regarding idols Paul wrote:

1Cor. 8:4 -6 (NIB)  So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one.

5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"),

6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Paul denies that an idol is anything, and the same he does in verse 19 below, but then he continues in verse 20 and tells that behind the lifless images are the $EDIM the false gods. These views, therefore, are not mutually exclusive.

1Cor. 10:19-20 Do I mean then that a sacrifice offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything?

20 No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons.

My understanding, therefore, is that the Tanach and the NT both promote monotheism and nothing but monotheism. There is one supreme God, YHWH, and he has a heavenly family of Sons who are called "angels" and who occationally are called "gods". However, the designation "gods" does not make this group a "pantheon" of gods in the henotheistic sense, but they are viewed as YHWH's heavenly family, just as men who worship YHWH are his earthly family. So while I fully endorse the scientific methodology of critical scholarship, I argue in favor of being critical to critical scholarship as well, and for alternative understandings.

## After the destruction of mankind the goddess Nintu wept because she was hungry for lack of sacrifices from manking, and she thirsted for beer, because no human any longer supplied her with that drink. (Atrahasis tablet 3).

Regards

Rolf

Rolf Furuli

University of Oslo

 

> Dear Rolf,
> Your monotheistic interpretation of the "Shema" is one I
> can subscribe to.
> Note also the monotheistic statements in Deut. 4 "You have been
> shown to
> know that YHWH is God..there is no other but Him" , "And
> you shall know
> today, and you shall put it into your heart, that YHWH our
> God...there is
> none besides him".
> Note the similar statements in Is. 44. In both passages, there is a
> clear
> denial of the existence of other gods, thus leading to the definition
> of
> monotheism as the worship of one God, denying the existence of other
> gods.
>
> Henotheism, on the other hand, is the worship of one God, without
> denying
> the existence of other gods. This  is evident in the Ten
> Commandments, both
> in Exodus 20 and Deut. 5: "I am YHWH your God, who brought you
> out of Egypt
> from the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods besides
> me." Here
> there is no nullification of the existence of other gods, but a
> prohibition
> of worshipping them.
>
> In the past, much was made of Akhenaton's religion and its
> possible
> influence on the Israelites.But the religion of Akhenaton was lacking
> the
> idea of the divine suzerain, who makes a treaty - i.e., covenant -
> with his
> human vassals.One of the major stipulations of every ANE suzerainty
> treaty,
> after the self-presentation of the suzerain with all his titles, and
> the
> history of his relationship with the vassal, is the demand for
> absolute
> loyality to him, the suzerain. Does any other ANE religion involve
> such a
> concept?
>
> The only possibility I can see for the origins of such an idea, if it
> is not
> purely Israelite, is the worship of Baal Berith in Shechem, where,
> according
> to Josh. 24, the Israelites made a covenant with YHWH.
>
> Sincerely,
> Jonathan
>
> ---
> Jonathan D. Safren
> Dept. of Biblical Studies
> Beit Berl College
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rolf Furuli" <r.j.furuli AT east.uio.no>
> To: "Biblical Hebrew"
> <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 12:40 PM
> Subject: Monotheism was: "admittedly syncretistic..
>
>
> >
> > Dear Jonathan,
> >
> > As to the concept "monotheism" it depends on what you
> mean. In 2.
> > Corinthians 4:4 (New Testament) we read about "the god
> (QEOS) of this age"
> > who is identified as Satan. The
> writer and his audience believed in the
> > *existence* of many  gods, but
> they did not worship them; so these
> > Christians neither advocated
> polytheism or henotheism. To abandon
> > monotheism one must, as I understand the concept, both believe
> in and
> > worship more than one god.
> >
> > I find exactly the same situation in the Pentateuch. The
> commandment
> > against )E:LOHIM )A:XERIM in Exodus 20:2 implies that other
> (living) gods
> > existed, but it need not necessarily imply polytheism. In
> Deutronomy 32:17
> > and Psalm 106:36,37 the writers
> tell that behind the carved images were
> > living gods, the $EDIM. We find
> exactly the same thought in 1 Corinthians
> > 8:5,6 and 10:20 where the Greek equivalent DAIMONIOIS is
> found.
> >
> > I am not aware of a single passage in the Pentateuch where the
> writer
> > writes in favor of polytheism or henotheism (even though angels
> are called
> > "gods" both in the Tanach and in the NT (Psalm 8:6-
> Hebrews 2:7, Psalm
> > 97:7; 138:1), or where he himself implies that he has abandoned
> monotheism
> > and in reality is a polytheist.
> >
> > I believe that one of the most important sides of the Shema of
> Deuteronomy
> > 6:4 is that it is directed against polytheism , because the most
> natural
> > translation of YHWH )E:LOHENU YHWH )EXFD is not. "YHWH our
> God is one."
> but
> > rather "YHWH our God is one YHWH:" The _expression_
> "one YHWH" can be
> > directed against Ba`al Peor, Ba`al Berit, YHWH Shomron, YHWH
> Tema etc. So
> > the writer wants to stress: There is just one YHWH for us.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Rolf
> >
> > Rolf Furuli
> > University of Oslo
> >
> >
> > >In view of all the studies on ANE suzerainty treaties, does
> anyone still
> > >seriously claim that the Ten Commandments are
> monotheistic?
> > >Jonathan D. Safren
> > >Dept. of Biblical Studies
> > >Beit Berl College
> > >