Mapping Monotheism

VETUS TESTAMENTUM 64 (2014) 4768‫־‬
Vêtus
Testamentiim
BRILL brill.com/vt
Mapping Monotheism: Modes of Monotheistic

Rhetoric in the Hebrew Bible
MatthewJ. Lynch
Westminster Theological Centre
deanofstudies@wtctheology. org. uk
Abstract
Several biblical traditions give expression to Yhwh's sole divinity in ways utterly unlike
the “classic" expressions of monotheism in Deuteronomy, Deutero-Isaiah, or Jeremiah.
Priestly literature, for example, does not deny explicitly the existence of other gods, or
assert Yhwh’s sole existence. Instead, priesdy writers portray a world in which none but
Yhwh could meaningfully exist or act. While some biblical scholars have recognized this
“implicit” mode of monotheistic rhetoric, the implications of this and other modes of
monotheistic rhetoric for a broader understanding of biblical monotheism have gone
unappreciated. In this article, I create a taxonomy of various “explicit” and “implicit”
modes of monotheizing in the Hebrew Bible. Then, I consider several implications of
these diverse modes for understanding the variegated shape of biblical monotheism,
and for using the Hebrew Bible to reconstruct monotheism’s history.
Keywords
monotheism - Deutero-Isaiah - priestly literature - rhetoric
For scholars of biblical monotheism, Deutero-Isaiah frequently serves as the

prototype against which other texts are compared and evaluated in terms of
their monotheistic rigor and purity. Deutero-Isaiah denies the existence of
other gods and asserts that Yhwh is the only God, thus setting the bar for deter-
mining the degree to which the Hebrew Bible is, or is not, a monotheistic text.
Not only this, but Deutero-Isaiah allegedly provides an exilic reference point
by which to chart monotheism’s emergence in the late exilic period. Before
Deutero-Isaiah, Israel was more or less henotheistic, and afterwards, more or
less monotheistic.
© KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2014 | DOI 10.1 IHS/151ÍH5S30-12341141

48 LYNCH
However, its usefulness in marking Israel's historic “monotheistic turn" or

capturing the character of biblical monotheism becomes problematic on sev-
eral accounts. To begin, explicit monotheistic rhetoric resides primarily in Isa
44-46, and thus seems more like a rhetorical moment than a religious revo-
lution.1 Deutero-Isaiah's monotheism represents only one tradition-historical
mode of monotheistic expression, and not the Hebrew Bible's full monotheiz-
ing breadth. With the exception of one text, the bombastic monotheizing of
Deutero-Isaiah makes no appearance in Trito-Isaiah,2 and does not pervade
laterJewish literature. In addition, there are significant reasons for questioning
whether Yhwh's ontological existence (in terms of having or lacking “being”)
even concerns Deutero-Isaiah. Finally, several scholars question whether the
term monotheism sufficiently represents Deutero-Isaiah's theology.3
My purpose in this article is not to dismiss the usefulness of a text like
Deutero-Isaiah as one data point when charting the shape and development
of biblical monotheism. Instead, I want to ask whether we have sufficiently
accounted for the range of texts and rhetorical modes that inhabit Israel's
monotheistic landscape, and to challenge the use of a single reference point or
tradition-historical path for describing monotheism's emergence and attain-
ment. Stepping back from Deutero-Isaiah, therefore, I want to ask, what are
the various ways of expressing Yhwh's sole divinity in the Hebrew Bible? Further,
I want to explore a second and more important question, what are the implica-
tions of biblical variation in monotheistic rhetoric?
To address these questions, my article develops in three parts. First, I put
forward a way of conceptualizing monotheistic rhetoric that remains sensitive
to the categories and terms by which various biblical texts assert Yhwh's sole
divinity. Second, I propose a taxonomy of monotheizing modes that reside in
the Hebrew Bible. The purpose of this taxonomy is to provide a model for how
one might map the diverse phenomenon of biblical monotheism in a way that
captures the diversity of biblical literature. Third, I will draw out several impli-
cations of the taxonomy for understanding biblical monotheism.
1 On the function of monotheistic rhetoric in Deutero-Isaiah, see M. S. Smith, “The Polemic

of Biblical Monotheism: Outsider Context and Insider Referentiality in Second Isaiah,” in
Religious Polemics in Context: Papers Presented to the Second International Conference of the
Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions (USOR) held at Leiden, 2728‫ ־‬April 2000 (ed. T. L.
Hettema and A. van der Kooij; Van Gorcum, 2004), pp. 201-34.
2 Isa 64:3[4].
3 S. M. Olyan, “Is Isaiah 40-55 Really Monotheistic?” JANER 12 (2012), pp. 190-201; J. Barr,
"The Problem of Israelite Monotheism," TGUOS17 (1957-58), pp. 52-62 (5355‫ ;)־‬P. A. H. de Boer,
Second Isaiah’s Message (ots 11; Leiden: Brill, 1956), 47. The last two sources were cited
by N. MacDonald, “Monotheism and Isaiah,” in Interpreting Isaiah: Issues and Approaches
(ed. H. G. M. Williamson and D. G. Firth; Apollos, 2009), pp. 43-61 [50-51].

MAPPING MONOTHEISM 49
Conceptualizing Monotheistic Rhetoric
Anachronistic pitfalls beset any attempt to conceptualize biblical monothe-

ism, though no more so when considering monotheism than henotheism or
polytheism. So it is with a desire for a contextually sensitive approach that
I propose a preliminary, and somewhat malleable, definition of monotheis-
tic rhetoric. My decision to focus on rhetoric derives from a desire to avoid
speculation about the theological assumptions of biblical writers, focusing
instead on the theological import of their rhetorical claims. I am interested in
how monotheistic rhetoric works in context (as a proximate goal), and what
it accomplishes theologically (as an ultimate goal), but not in the underlying
beliefs of writers. Texts employing monotheistic rhetoric do not always paint
a sufficiently broad picture for one to determine with certainty that a writer's
beliefs were consistently monotheistic, just as one could not derive a mono-
theistic belief system on the basis of expressions in certain Akkadian and
Egyptian hymns that espouse the sole divinity of a given deity.4 Authors do not
always reveal their theological presuppositions;5 neither do they always hold
them consistently. They can, however, deploy rhetoric that distinguishes Yhwh
in absolute terms, even if only for a rhetorical moment.
It also deserves mention here that many biblical expressions are patently
underdetermined. They can function within, and contribute to, a henotheistic
or monotheistic system, not matter what their originating purpose or context.
Some such texts have the potential to be read as monotheistic, but might also
‫״‬fit” within non-monotheistic contexts.6 Nevertheless, such texts can form the
4 Discussed by H. Clifford, “Deutero-Isaiah and Monotheism,” in Prophecy and Prophets in

Ancient Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar {ed. J. Day; lhb/ots 531;
T & T Clark, 2010), pp. 267-89.
5 For instance, when Gideon’s father Joash says “If he [Baal] is a god/god [‫]אלהים‬, let him con-
tend for himself” (Judg 6:31) and he fails to do so, the implication is that Yhwh proves his
divinity and Baal’s non-divinity. The text does not indicate whether Yhwh and Baal were the
only possible divinities, only that Yhwh is ‫אלהים‬, a god, or simply, God. While Judg 6:31 may
have henotheistic origins, nevertheless, it could be received within a monotheistic frame-
work without modification.
6 As an example, one may take the use of ‫האלהים‬, which in certain contexts seems to mean “the
only God.” For example 2 Chr 33:13 states that after Yhwh reinstated Manasseh in Jerusalem,
he recognized that ‫“ יהוה הוא האלהים‬Yhwh, he is god/the god," a phrase used in other mono-
theistic passages in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Deut 7:9; cf. Deut 4; 1 Kgs 8,18; Isa 45). In these
texts, Yhwh is "the” God, or simply God, without any plural connotation. However, in many
cases the locution is radically underdetermined. It could mean "the god" of Israel, “the only
God," or simply, God.
VETUS TESTAMENTUM 64 (2014) 47-68

50 LYNCH
literary building blocks for the production of what, in the end, later Jewish
communities deemed a monotheistic Bible.7
Monotheistic rhetoric, I suggest, entails the expression of Yhwh’s categori-
cal supremacy, or supreme uniqueness. That is, monotheism involves locating
Yhwh in a class of his own that is uniquely distinguished from all other reality,
or at least the realities deemed threatening to Yhwh’s utter distinctiveness.8
Phrased as a question, one might ask, What are the ways that a given textforges
divisions between Yhwh and all else such that he is “one/alone”?
One might contest this definition on the grounds that it renders the term
monotheism meaningless by overextending its sense,9 when common sense
demands a “strict” definition, in which the existence of other gods is explicitly
denied. Texts adhering to this strict standard of monotheism are few, leading
some to the conclusion that monotheism is only a thin layer on an otherwise
henotheistic Bible.10 Others contend by contrast that the ‫ אלהים‬and other
divine beings pose no threat to Yhwh’s sole divinity. Michael Heiser argues
this latter position, insisting that biblical writers assumed a basic distinction
between Yhwh as ‫ אלהים‬and other ‫אלהים‬:
It would have been absurd to the biblical writer to suggest that a dear,
departed relative, now an ‫ אלהים‬in Sheol like Samuel, was on ontologi-
cal par with Yahweh and the ‫ אלהים‬in His council. But any argument
7 I thank N. MacDonald, personal conversation, for helping with this point.

8 This conceptualization of monotheism owes its formulation R. Bauckham’s, Jesus and
the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of
Divine Identity (Eerdmans, 2008), p. 109, though I avoid his use of the phrase “transcen-
dent uniqueness" because of its spatial connotations, and the implication that Yhwh’s
uniqueness could not be conceptualized in “imminent" terms. See similar formulations
in A. Schenker, “Le monothéisme Israelite: un dieu qui transcende le monde et les dieux,”
Bíblica 78 (1997), pp. 436-448 [438] and B. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of
Ancient Israel (Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 246*47.
9 For a discussion of the degree to which monotheistic rhetoric in the Hebrew Bible
approximates or differs from Neo-Babylonian conceptions, see M. S. Smith’s discussion of
“summodeism,” that is, theism wherein one God is a chief over a pantheon of other gods,
and those other gods are "regarded as aspects or functions of a chief god, with political
power often key to its expression” (God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse
in the Biblical World [Mohr Siebeck, 2008], p. 169).
10 See, e.g., J. Pakkala’s discussion of the Deuteronomistic History in “The Monotheism of
the Deuteronomistic History,” SJOT 21/2 (2007), pp. 159-178. Pakkala attributes only six
monotheistic passages in the Deuteronomistic History to the latest “nomistic,” or post-
nomistic, redactor (Deut 4:32-40; 7:7-11; 2 Sam 7:22-29; 1 Kgs 8:54-61; 18:21-40 and 2 Kgs
19:15-1g). Even by Pakkala’s own minimalist criteria, Deut 32:36-42 and 2 Kgs 5:1-19 should
be included.

that insists that toleration of plural ‫ אלהים‬evinces polytheism assumes

this logic.11
Heiser makes an important point here, and I will lend partial support to this per-
spective in what follows. However, I suggest that broad and strict conceptions
of Yhwh’s sole divinity are operative within the Hebrew Bible, and sometimes
contemporaneously. Some traditions seem to find problematic the notion that
one can or should even speak about other ‫ אלהים‬besides Yhwh (e.g., Ezekiel),
while others resist applying the term ‫ אלהים‬to real heavenly beings besides
Yhwh (e.g., Deutero-Isaiah), and still others emphasize the many ‫ אלהים‬that
praise Yhwh as a way of asserting his supremacy. Indeed, part of my argument
is that scholars of biblical monotheism have often failed to grapple with the
range of monotheistic rhetorical modes within the biblical corpus, and the
fact that the premises supporting assertions about Yhwh’s divine sole divin-
ity range widely and sometimes conflict. The Hebrew Bible supports “broad”
conceptions of biblical monotheism—wherein plural ‫ אלהים‬do not pose an
inherent threat to Yhwh’s sole divinity12—and “strict” conceptions—wherein
plural ‫ אלהים‬would qualify Yhwh’s sole divinity.13 Biblical perspectives on the
question of what distinguishes Yhwh, and what compromises his distinctive-
ness, range widely, even if they are unified by the common concern to distin-
guish Yhwh in absolute terms. Modes of monotheistic discourse differ among
biblical texts, and not all involve explicit reference to other deities. As 1 will
argue, some texts and traditions eliminate other deities from a given narrative
world without a “fight,” or employ other strategies for asserting Yhwh’s abso-
lute supremacy.14
It is here that explicit and implicit modes of monotheistic rhetoric
deserve consideration. After detailing these two modes and their taxonomic
sub-species, I will discuss the potential they hold for sharpening current dis-
eussions of biblical monotheism.
11 M. S. Heiser, “Does Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible Demonstrate an Evolution from
Polytheism to Monotheism in Israelite Religion?”/E'S07’ 1/1 (2012), pp. 1-24 [5].
12 Proponents of this conception include Albright, discussed in Meek, “Monotheism and
Israel,‫ ״‬p. 23; C. J. Labuschagne, The Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old Testament (pos
5; Brill, 1966), pp. 82-83; Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, from its Beginnings to the
Babylonian Exile (Tr. M. Greenberg; University of Chicago Press, i960), p. 137; Bauckham,
Jesus and the God ofIsrael, p. 108; Heiser, “Does Divine Plurality.”
13 Among many others, proponents of this conception include Meek, "Monotheism and
Israel,‫ ״‬p. 23; Olyan, “Is Isaiah 40-55 Really Monotheistic?"
14 Of course, it is also recognized that some early and late biblical texts genuinely do not fit
within my definition of monotheism.

52 LYNCH
A Taxonomy of Biblical Modes of Monotheistic Rhetoric
While several scholars have observed that biblical monotheism is not a homog-
enous phenomenon, there is still a need to account for the full range of mono-
theizing that occurs in the biblical corpus. It is toward that end that I offer the
following preliminary taxonomy of biblical modes of monotheistic rhetoric.
My goal is not simply to provide categories for texts, but rather, to highlight the
diverse means by which various biblical authors, scribes, and traditions mono-
theize, and to pursue a descriptive account of the diverse modes of monothe-
istic rhetoric that contributed to the production of biblical monotheism. It is
important to state that (a) there is potential overlap between the categories I
suggest, and (b) that asserting sole divinity is not the primary objective of each
text. My taxonomy is not exhaustive. It covers a representative set of mono-
theizing modes by which authors distinguish categorically between Yhwh
and the rest (or salient parts) of reality, and focuses on what I call explicit and
implicit modes of monotheistic rhetoric.
Explicit Modes ofMonotheistic Rhetoric

I here refer to texts that make explicit reference to divine beings (e.g.,
‫אלים‬/‫ )אלהים‬besides Yhwh and also give expression to Yhwh’s absolute
supremacy. These texts bring “the gods” onto the literary stage, sometimes to
deny their existence and sometimes not, but always in order to present Israel’s
deity as categorically supreme. Explicit modes include the following four types:
(1) Demotion or death of gods. In this first mode of monotheistic rhetoric,

writers dramatize the demotion or death of gods. Psalm 82 is the most
well-known example, has received extensive attention in secondary liter-
ature, and thus needs no further attention here.15 Jeremiah 10:11 provides
us with a future-oriented example: “This you shall tell them: The gods
15 The literature on Ps 82 is abundant. See the recent comprehensive study by P. Machinist,

“How Gods Die, Biblically and Otherwise: A Problem of Cosmic Restructuring,” in
Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism: Proceedings of a conference held
in Feb. 2007 at Princeton University (ed. B. Pongratz-Leisten; Eisenbrauns, 2011), pp. 189-
240; R. P. Gordon, “The Gods Must Die: A Theme in Isaiah and Beyond,” in Isaiah in
Context: Studies in Honour ofArte van der Kooij on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday
(ed. M. van der Meer, P. van Keulen, W. van Peursen, and B. ter Haar Romeny; VTSup, 138:
Brill, 2010), pp. 4561‫ ;־‬See also the poetic reflections of Brent A. Strawn, “The Poetics of
Psalm 82: Three Critical Notes and a Plea for the Poetic,” RB (forthcoming, 2014).

who did not make the heavens and earth shall perish from the earth and
from under the heavens” (Jer 10:11).16
(2) Deriding gods as idols. In this second mode, writers deride other so-
called ‫ אלהים‬as mere idols,17 the "works of human hands.” Such texts are
well known from the highly-charged and polemical texts of Isa 4048‫־‬
(e.g., 44:15; 45:2ο).18 It is important to point out that many of these texts
direct their mockery at the nations’ presumption that their images actu-
alized divinity, possessed any sentience, or could proclaim the future.19
Nevertheless, some texts, such as Isa 44:17, 2 Kgs 19:18, and 2 Chr 32:19
argue by derivation that the "gods of the nations” are hand-made. Images
not only fail to manifest the gods; “the gods” are human constructs.
(3) Denying divinity of gods. A third explicit mode of monotheistic rheto-
ric denies the power, existence, or knowledge of other so-called deities
(Isa 40-48; Deut 4; I Kgs 8).20 Such texts are well known in discussions
of monotheism, though they are often misconstrued as if the primary
purpose of these texts was to assert the metaphysical non-existence of
other divinities. For example, Deutero-Isaiah's ontology is probably best
16 Translation mine, here and throughout, unless otherwise noted. There is a remarkable
congruence betweenjer 10:10-11 and Ps 10:16, the only other text to use the phrase ‫מלך עולם‬.
But whereas Ps 10:16 states that that Yhwh is ‫ מלך עולם‬and the nations (‫ )גדם‬would perish
(*‫ )אבד‬from his earth (‫)מארצו‬, Jer 10:10-11 states that Yhwh is ‫ מלך עולם‬before whom the
nations (‫ )גוים‬cannot stand, but that it is the gods who would perish (*‫ )אבד‬from the earth
(‫)מארעא‬.
17 Isa 40-55; Jer 10; Ps n5; 135.1 use the term ‘1idol” here in an emic sense in order to capture
the perspective of these biblical texts on so-called divine “images.”
18 In these texts, it is not divine “existence” (Wesen) may not be the main issue in these
passages, but rather, divine potency—ability to save and act.
19 As N. Levtow argues, icon parodies in the Hebrew Bible did not just underscore the
powerlessness of the nations’ deities. They also denied that the nations possessed or
conferred power through ritual. That is, icon-parodies involved attacks on the nations’
political potency, as part of a larger ancient Near Eastern practice and discourse related
to the abduction, destruction, and damage of divine images between variously opposed
groups/nations (Images of Others: Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel [bjs 11; Eisenbrauns,
2008], p. 57).
20 As in Isa 40-48, though existence is likely determined in functional, not abstract, terms.
For example, Isa 43:11 gives a glimpse at what other supposedly “non-existence” clauses
might mean: ‫“ אנכי אנכי יהוה ואין מבלעדי מושיע‬I, I am Yhwh, and there is no deliverer
besides me.” One may compare 43:11 with the shorter version of this phrase in Isa 44:8
and 45:21. Cf. also 45:21, which explains the phrase ‫"( אני יהוה ואין־עד אלהים מבלעדי‬I am
Yhwh, and there is no other god besides me”) with the statement,‫אל צדיק ומושיע אין זולתי‬
(“a righteous God and a deliverer; there is none except me”), and Isa 64:3[4].

54 LYNCH
expressed in terms of Yhwh's mono-agency (43:11) and exclusive knowl-

edge of the future (44:6-8).21
(4) gods as utterly subordinate. A fourth explicit monotheizing strategy dif-

fers from the first three in that it does not depict divine beings as threats to
Yhwh’s supremacy, but rather as enhancements. In such cases, divine beings
play completely adorational or derivative roles,22 as in the following example:
Yhwh established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over
all.
Bless Yhwh, you messengers of his, you mighty ones who do his bidding,
obedient to the very sound of his word;
Bless Yhwh, all his hosts, you ministers who accomplish his will;
Bless Yhwh, all his creations, in every place of his royal realm;
Bless Yhwh, O my soul. (Ps 103:19-22)
Though these ‫ מלאכים‬and the ‫ גבורים‬attend Yhwh’s heavenly throne, they in

no way qualify Yhwh’s absolute supremacy. This all-powerful ruler displays
his royal splendor through the many subordinate agents who “do his bidding”
and “heed his word.” They enhance the scope of Yhwh’s influence and praise-
worthiness by worshipping him and enacting his will. The avoidance of the
term ‫ אלהים‬in application to the divine beings in this passage may also be a
21 N. MacDonald, “Monotheism and Isaiah,‫ ״‬p. 51.

22 E.g., Deut 33:3; Ps 29:1-3; Ps 89:6-9 [5-8] (because the ‫ קדשים‬and ‫ בני אלים‬cannot compare
with Yhwh, they simply praise and fear him); 103:20; Rev 5:11-14. For qds as a pi. in clear
application to deities in the Northwest Semitic inscriptional evidence, see H. Donner and
W. Röllig, Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften, Vol. 1 (Otto Harassowitz, 1962), 27:12.
Cf. J. de Moor, “The Holy Ones,” in Enigmas and Images: Studies in Honor of Tryggve N. D.
Mettinger (Eisenbrauns, 2011), pp. 203-12. De Moor argues that the ‫ קדשים‬were consulted
mediators in pre-monotheistic times, but were phased out as objects of consultation
with the onset of monotheism. Though biblical evidence for de Moor’s point is thin, it
is notable that the ‫ קדשים‬also accompany Yhwh in contexts with clear monotheistic
language, note the concurrence of Yhwh’s ‫( קדשים‬typically associated with Yhwh’s divine
assembly) with an assertion of Yhwh’s sole divinity in Zech 14:5,9.
The power deferential between Yhwh and the ‫ אלים‬is more ambiguous in other texts.
See, e.g., Ps 58:2-3: “Truly, 0 gods, do you pronounce justice? Do you judge humanity
equitably? Even so, with a perverse heart you act on earth; you mete out violence (with)
your hands” (reading ‫ אלם‬for MT ‫)אלם‬.

deliberate way of preserving the utterly derivative status of Yhwh's attendants,

or protecting Yhwh's claim to the status of 23 ‫אלהים‬
Other texts make the compatibility of divine beings and monotheism
more explicit. In Neh 9:6, for instance, pray-ers assert Yhwh's sole divinity
while simultaneously marveling that he receives worship from all heavenly
divinities—demonstrating the compatibility of heavenly beings and state-
ments about Yhwh's sole divinity.
You are Yhwh, you alone! You made the heavens, even the highest heav-
ens and all their hosts [‫]צבאם‬, the earth and all upon it, the seas and
all within them. You give them all life, and the hosts of the heavens
[‫ ]וצבה השמים‬worship you. (Neh g:6)24
While Neh 9:6 emphasizes the createdness of the hosts of heaven (cf. 2 Kgs 21:5;
1 Kgs 22:19), it also expands their realm; they also occupy the “heaven of
heavens.” There are multitudes of heavenly beings, but only one Yhwh, who
alone receives all their worship and who gives all creatures life.25 Though
speaking of later Jewish literature, Larry Hurtado provides an apt description
of the role played by these heavenly hosts:
The description of the heavenly hosts as a gigantic hierarchy of many

ranks... is quite easily understood as an attempt to defend the power
and significance of Israel's God. The point of these descriptions is to say,
23 One could argue the same for Deutero-Isaiah, on the basis of Isa 40:1-8,12,25-26, and 45:12,
as discussed by Olyan, “Is Deutero-Isaiah Really Monotheistic?” p. 192. However, Deutero-
Isaiah is almost silent in its rhetoric concerning other deities, and does not give any play
to the “host” (‫)צבא‬. Olyan’s idea that the “host” possesses volition {195) goes completely
against the grain of the text. The fact that "not one [of the host] is missing" emphasizes
total subordination to the divine will and not the possibility of agency, as Olyan suggests.
It seems overly speculative to suggest that the "host” could have gone missing.
24 The monotheistic character of the phrase ‫ אתה־הוא יהוה לבדך‬is evident by comparison
with similar phrases in 2 Kgs 19:15, 19; Isa 37:16, 20; Ps 83:19; 86:10 (esp. Isa 37:20).
See discussion of Neh 9:6 in Bauckham,/esus and the God ofIsrael, 87.
25 Songs ofthe Sabbath Sacrifice is even more explicit in its summons of all ranks of heavenly
beings to praise God. Insofar as those beings derive their identity solely from praising
Yhwh, they may be deemed subsidiary and thus of a different class (e.g., 4QShirShabbd
frg. 1 coL 1.30ff ).

56 LYNCH
“Do you see how great our God is, who has such a vast and powerful reti-
nue to do nothing but serve him?”26
In sum, explicit modes of monotheizing give expression to Yhwh’s supremacy

by bringing the ‫ אלהים‬or divine beings into the rhetorical picture—sometimes
to deny their existence or efficacy, and sometimes, to display Yhwh’s praisewor-
thiness and preeminence.
Implicit Modes ofMonotheistic Rhetoric

Implicit modes of monotheistic rhetoric range more broadly, yet receive far
less attention in discussions of biblical monotheism. By implicit modes, I refer
to texts which deny other gods a meaningful place in the world, but lack any
mention of ‫אלוהים‬, ‫אלים‬, or the like in reference to any but Yhwh. These modes
include the following:
(1) Divine consolidation. A first mode of monotheistic rhetoric involves the

ascription to Yhwh of domains or functions otherwise allocated to multiple
deities in a non-monotheistic context. Including the functions or attributes
of other deities in Yhwh is a way of reducing or eliminating the realm of other
gods, and thereby diminishing their significance relative to Yhwh. But this pro-
cess also enhances Yhwh’s distinctive profile. William Brown captures the dual
effect of this process:
By theologically ‘engulfing’ the other deities, God became ‘a plurality of

conceptions.’ But Israel’s God did not simply become the summation of
all gods. YHWH’s differentiation also emerged in the process. Call it a pro-
cess of singularization. New divine qualities emerged not shared by any
other deity. As such, texts can refer to Yhwh’s utter uniqueness and one-
ness even though it derives, to some measure, from his absorption of the
pantheon.27
26 L. W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and AncientJewish Monotheism
(Fortress Press, 1988), p. 25; H. Bietenhard, Die himmlische Welt im Urchristentum und
Spätjudentum (wunt 2; J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1951), pp. 10142‫־‬.
27 W. P. Brown, The Seven Pillars of Creation: The Bible, Science, and the Ecology of Wonder
(Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 217; cf. M. Kister, “Some early Jewish and Christian
Exegetical Problems and the Dynamics of Monotheism,” JSJ 37/4 (2006), pp. 548-93;
C. B. Hays, “Religio-Historical Approaches: Monotheism, Method, and Mortality,” in
Method Matters: Essays on the Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of David L
Petersen (ed. J. M. LeMon and K. H. Richards; sblrbs 56; Society of Biblical Literature,
2009), pp. 169-193.

In the song of Hannah we hear that “there is none holy like Yhwh, for there
is none except you. There is no rock like our rock” (1 Sam 2:2). Then in the
exact mid-point of her song,28 Hannah states that “Yhwh brings death and
gives life, he lowers to Sheol and raises up. Yhwh impoverishes and makes rich;
he abases and he exalts” (2:6).29 In other words, Yhwh demonstrates his sole
divinity by exercising control over the totality of life and death, absorbing in
himself a range of functions otherwise distributed among various gods (e.g.,
Osiris and Horns in Egypt, or Baal and Mot in Ugarit). Yet as 2:2 emphasizes,
Yhwh emerges with a wholly unique profile.30
David Petersen observes that in the Genesis flood narrative (chs. 68‫)־‬, Yhwh
performs a variety of roles as sole sovereign—that of prosecutor, judge, court
of appeal, and executioner. Yhwh thus takes on roles played by multiple dei-
ties in ancient Near Eastern flood myths. A complex characterization of Yhwh
ensues: “Conflict concerning the flood, in Israel, exists within the deity rather
than between two opposing deities.31‫״‬
28 W Dietrich, Samuel, V0L 7,7 Sam 7-72 (Neukirchener Theologie, 2011), pp. 90-91.
29 Translation mine. Several features in v. 2 have led several scholars to the conclusion
that the phrase “for there is none except you” (‫ )כי אין בלתך‬is redactional, including the
shift to second person, the use of a prosaic particle (‫)כי‬, and variants in the LXX and
4QSama. However, LXX and (reconstructed) 4QSama both preserve the phrase, though
the former contains a plus “holy” (ούκ '¿στη ¿έγιος πλήν σου), and the MT’s ‫ כי‬is a plus.
Even if the phrase is a later addition, it demonstrates the way that a text which might
imply other deities could be repositioned within a more overtly monotheistic framework.
In other words, because 1 Sam 2 monotheized in w. 6-8 by consolidating the domains
of other deities in Yhwh, the prayer could be readily received within a monotheistic
framework. See discussions in W. Dietrich, Samuel, V0L 7,7 Sam 7-72, pp. 66-67,7684-85 ‫־‬77‫;׳‬
P. K. McCarter, /Samuel (AB 8; Doubleday, 1980), pp. 67-69; T. J. Lewis, “The Textual History
of the Song of Hannah: 1 Samuel II1-10,” VT 44/1 (1994) pp. 18-46 [esp. 20-21, 27-29].
30 For other examples, see Hays, “Religio-Historical Approaches,” pp. 169-93.
31 Petersen, “Israel and Monotheism: The Unfinished Agenda,” in Canon, Theology, and
Old Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs (ed. G. M. Tucker,
D. L. Petersen and R. R. Wilson; Fortress, 1988), pp. 92102] 107‫]־‬. Similarly, T. Frymer-
Kensky argued that Exodus portrays Yhwh’s control over fertility, rain, and health (e.g.,
Exod 23:25-27; Gen 49:25), domains often associated with female deities: "[A]s YHWH
appropriates each of these powers, the image of divine mastery emerges, with all its
consequences for the conceptualization of nature and humanity” (In the Wake of the
Goddesses: Women, Culture, and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth [The Free
Press, 1992], p. 89). Later she writes,
"In this monotheist view, all nature is one unified field. Everything is interrelated and
under the control of one deity.... there are no forces in tension and cooperation. All
of nature is unified... as manifestations of the power of one God.... All the jobs previ-
ously performed by the pantheon, all the forces exemplified by the many nature dei-
ties, now have to be performed by the One God of Israel.” (98-99).

58 LYNCH
Another example of divine consolidation comes by comparing the P and

non-P Passover accounts. The non-P account in Exodus depicts a destroying
divine being (‫ )המשחית‬separate from Yhwh (Exod 12:26), whereas the Priestly
writer portrays Yhwh taking the destroying role upon himself (Exod 12:13, using
‫)למשחית‬. As Garr states, ‫״‬In the hands of P, then, the divine Destroyer is itself
destroyed. No longer an aspect of God, it is depersonalized and demytholo-
gized out of existence.”32
(2) Animating control. Another implicit mode involves extolling Yhwh as the
one who alone controls the nations and their actions.33 Rather than incorpo-
rating deities into Yhwh’s own being, these texts assert that ostensibly inde-
pendent powers fall under Yhwh’s total control. For example, Jehoshaphat
refers to Yhwh as the un-opposable God who alone rules the nations, and in
whose hand are power and might to deliver (2 Chr 20:6; cf. 1 Chr 29:11-12). Other
texts assert Yhwh’s status as “the sovereign” (‫ )האדון‬over mighty empires that
ostensibly escape or exceed his power (Isa 10:514:24-27 ;19‫ ;־‬cf. 36:18-20).34
The foregoing modes (examples 1-2) almost necessitate other deities—or at
least the perception of other deities—as an implicit backdrop for proclaiming
Yhwh’s supremacy. For example, the Assyrian empire and the allegedly power-
ful patron A§§ur lurk behind Isaiah’s proclamation that Assyria is but a tool in
Yhwh’s hands (10:15).35 However, other implicit modes reject the category of pi.
‫ אלהים‬altogether. Especially prominent is the categorical rejection the plural
‫ אלהים‬in priestly and priestly-inspired literature (examples 3-6).
32 R. Garr, In His Image and Likeness: Humanity, Divinity, and Monotheism (schane 15;
Brill, 2003), p. 207. More controversial, though analogous, is the idea that other deities
were included as hypostatizations of Yhwh (e.g., Hab 3:5 and ‫)רשף‬. For studies on divine
hypostases, see, P. K. McCarter, “When the Gods Lose Their Temper: Divine Rage in
Ugaritic Myth and the Hypostasis of Anger in Iron Age Religion,” in Divine Wrath and
Divine Mercy in the World of Antiquity (ed. R. G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann; fat 2/33;
Mohr Siebeck, 2008), pp. 78-91; idem, "Aspects of the Religion of the Israelite Monarchy:
Biblical and Epigraphic Data,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank
Moore Cross (repr.; ed. P. D. Miller, P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride; Fortress Press, 2009),
PP· 13755‫·־‬
33 E.g., Isa 2:6-22; 10:5-19; 14:24-27; 36:18-20. See B. Levine, “Assyrian Ideology and Biblical
Monotheism,” Iraq 67 (2005), pp. 411-27 [419-23]; Hays, “Religio-Historical Approaches,‫״‬
P· 179·
34 With one exception (Mai 3:1), the appellation ‫" האדון‬the sovereign” occurs only in First
Isaiah (1:24; 3:1; 10:16,33; 19:4), and always with ‫יהוה צבאות‬
35 On the Assyrian context of 10:5-19, see P. Machinist, “Assyria and its Image in First Isaiah,”
JAOS103/4 (1983), pp. 719-37; M. Sweeney,Isaiah 1-39 (fotl 16; Eerdmans, 1996), pp. 203-10.

(3) Re-defining ,elöhtm. Closely related to #3 is the process of repurposing

of the category ‫ אלהים‬with Yhwh as its sole referent. The ‫ אלהים‬are no longer
the threatening deities of other nations, or even the supporting members of
Yhwh’s ceaseless choir. Rather, Yhwh is the only ‫אלהים‬. Konrad Schmid and
several others have argued that the priestly history first brought together
the ancestral and exodus traditions, such that the god of the exodus became
equated with the “gods of the fathers.”36 For the priestly writer, Schmid argues,
‫ אלהים‬becomes a proper name instead of a genus. Whereas in Deutero-Isaiah
‫ אלהים‬is a ‫״‬generic designation,37‫ ״‬in Ps,‫ אלהים‬becomes a way of speaking only
about Yhwh. He is ‫אלהים‬.
More problematic is Schmid’s and others’ contention that P advances an
“inclusive monotheism,” wherein all ‫ אלהים‬are manifestations of the one God.
According to Schmid, Ps included the gods of the nations in the one category
‫אלהים‬, such that any foreign deity could be worshipped as a legitimate mani-
festation of the one God. If “the only God coincides with the category ‘gods’,
then it is a logical consequence that all other gods are included in this notion
of God (capitalized). Others may worship him as Zeus or Ahuramazda, but
actually, it is just God.”38
36 K. Schmid, “Differenzierungen und Konzeptualisierungen der Einheit Gottes in der

Religions- und Literaturgeschichte Israels: Methodische, religionsgeschichtliche und
exegetische Aspekte zur neueren Diskussion um den sogenannten ,Monotheismus‘ im
antiken Israel," in Der eine Gott und die Götter: Polytheismus und Monotheismus im antiken
Israel (ed. M. Oeming and K. Schmid; AThANT; Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2003),
pp. 11-38 [30-35]. Cf. idem, “Der Gott der Väter und der Gott des Exodus. Inklusive und
partikulare Theologie am Beginn des Alten Testaments," Glaube und Lernen 16 (2001),
pp. 116-125.
37 Schmid, "Differenzierungen," p. 35. It deserves mention, however, that Deutero-Isaiah only
uses ‫ אל‬in reference to actual non-Yahwistic entities (44:10), which it further redefines as
non-sentient images. Deutero-Isaiah reserves ‫ אלהים‬for Yhwh alone, and does use ‫אלהים‬
as a category denied to any other being. To say that there are “no other gods” underscores
the fact that Yhwh is the only member of the category ‫אלהים‬, though Schmid is correct to
observe that in P,‫ אלהים‬is a name for Israel’s/the cosmic deity.
38 Schmid, “The Quest for ‘God‫׳‬: Monotheistic Arguments in the Priestly Texts of the Hebrew
Bible," in Reconsidering Revolutionary Monotheism, p. 285. C. Nihan argues similarly,
“[according to] the inclusive version of monotheism advocated by P... all the nations
turn out to worship the same God, Yahweh, even though only Israel is aware of it” (From
Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book ofLeviticus [FAT 2/25;
Mohr Siebeck, 2007], p. 386). Cf. E. A. Knauf, who claims that in priestly supplements
(“sub-priesterschriftlichen Texten") “wird die Identifizierung Jhwhs mit Göttern anderer
Menschen weitergeführt (Gen 16,13f; 20,33), ausgehend von der in der Perserzeit beliebten
Benennung des eigenen Gottes als “Himmelsgott‫—״‬denn so nannten die herrschenden

60 LYNCH
However, PS never includes what it perceives to be non-Israelite deities in

the category 39.‫ אלהים‬Instead, Ps collates various Israelite traditions about
‫אל‬, which, P seems to assume, are not truly other deities or manifestations but
multiple names for the same deity ‫אלהים‬, who further specifies his identity
to Moses as !‫יהוד‬. The gods of Israel's ancestors have no independent profiles
according to P. Thus, P consolidates Israel’s traditions; he does not universalize
divinity.
In addition, P never suggests that the One True ‫ אלהים‬is known by the
nations through the medium of other gods. Rather, it is through God’s law
(Gen 9) or his elect people (Gen 17, 20) that the nations come to experience
or know ‫אלהים‬, albeit in nascent form. In other words, ‫ אלהים‬serves as a way
of referring to this nascent knowledge of God possessed by the nations, but
never through the medium of their own divinities. In contrast to this nascent
knowledge of ‫ אלהים‬stands the more precise revealed character of Yhwh given
to Moses (Exod 6).
In short, I suggest that P’s monotheistic rhetoric consists of singularizing
‫ אלהים‬and of leaving no meaningful room for other deities, and not in vali-
dating other deities as proxies for Yhwh/Elohim. Despite these criticisms of
Schmid's argument, the notion that in P ‫ אלהים‬is no longer a generic designa-
tion is correct.
(4) Avoiding ‫אלהים‬. Another implicit mode of monotheistic rhetoric emerges
from a close look at the book of Ezekiel. In this book, priestly-influenced tra-
dents also refuse the designation of ‫ אלהים‬for other divinities, and employ
derisive terms such as the “highly pejorative gillûlîm‫( ״‬idol-images).40 While
Deutero-Isaiah affirms Yhwh’s sole divinity through idol and idol-maker polem-
ics, and through “sole existence” clauses (e.g., ‫)אין עוד‬, John Kutsko argues,
Ezekiel “appears to struggle with the very use of the term !ëlôhîm.”41 Similarly,
Isaiah 1-35 studiously avoids ‫ אלהים‬and employs only the dysphemistic ‫אלילים‬
Perser auch ihren Ahuramazda. Subpriesterlich wäre die Gleichsetzung von Yhwh
mit Zeus oder auch Baal keineswegs notwendigerweise als Abfall oder Götzendienst
zu qualifizieren" {‫״‬Ist die Erste Bibel monotheistisch?” in Der eine Gott und die Götter:
Polytheismus und Monotheismus im antiken Israel [ AThANT 82; M. Oeming and K. Schmid
eds.; Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2003], pp. 39-48 [40,43]).
39 The exception, noted by Schmid, is the use of Ebhim in reference to the “gods of Egypt"
(‫ )אלהי מצרים‬defeated by Yhwh (Exod 12:12).
40 J. F. Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel
(bjsucsd 7; Eisenbrauns, 2000), p. 38.
41 Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, p. 38. Thus, he never employs ‫ אלהים‬in reference to
idols or pagan deities. Instead, Ezekiel employs a diverse vocabulary of substitute terms
that deride idols' presumption to divinity (38). On Ezekiel’s monotheism, see also S. Petry,

(human-made deities)42 when referring to other divinities. In fact, First Isaiah

uses ‫ אלילים‬far more than any other book in the Hebrew Bible. Its use of this
term seems to derive from its conviction that ‫ אלהים‬befits none but Israel's
god. There are but two exceptional cases in which the term ‫ אלהים‬appears in
reference to other deities. The first is likely part of a Deutero-Isaian redaction,43
and the second is part of a quotation from Isaiah’s opponents.44
(5) Monotheistic reality. Through a fifth implicit mode, writers eliminate
other deities from the “reality picture” of a given text.45 Though such texts
are difficult to delineate with precision, I refer here to texts that paint a suf-
ficiently broad picture of the world that the absence of other deities and the
supremacy of Yhwh become noticeable or “natural.” Genesis 1 provides an
example case. Genesis 1 has long been characterized as monotheistic, offering
what Mark Smith calls a “monotheistic vision of reality." That is, Genesis 1 envi-
sions a world in which no other gods are in view,46 and in which God’s absolute
supremacy finds expression. As such, the “the deep"(‫תהום‬// ti’amtum, later
tâmtum 1:2)47 or “sea monsters” (1:21 ;‫ )התנינם‬refer not to divine opponents, but
Die Entgrenzung Yhwhs: Monolatrie, Bilderverbot und Monotheismus im Deuteronomium,

in Deuterojesaja und im Ezechielbuch (FAT 2/27; Mohr Siebeck, 2007), pp. 377-78.
42 Ten of the eighteen biblical occurrences of ‫ אלילים‬are in First Isaiah: Isa 2:8,18, 20 (x2);
10:10,11; 19:1,3; 31:7 (x2). The precise meaning and etymology of ‫ אלילים‬is uncertain, though
it seems to be an acoustic play on ‫אלהים‬.
43 Isaiah 21:9 reports that the “images of her gods”:(‫ )פסילי אלהיה‬would be smashed and
threshed by Yhwh. However, this passage is likely a Deutero-Isaian insertion because it
reports the demise of Babylon, and because Deutero-Isaiah frequently employs the closely
related term for image (‫)פסל‬. That is, it follows Deutero-Isaiah's mode of monotheizing by
associating the ‫ אלהים‬with “images.” While First Isaiah certainly prefers the cognate ‫פסיל‬
(10:10; 21:g; 30:22), the term also occurs in Deutero-Isaiah (42:8).
44 Isaiah 8:19. In this text, the prophet quotes those who advocate consulting the dead
(‫)המתים‬, or ‫( אלהים‬cf. 1 Sam 28:13). It is only Isaiah’s opponents who refer to ‫אלהים‬.
45 Priestly literature provides an example of this approach. See, e.g., Smith’s discussion of
Gen 1 in The Memoirs of God. History, Memory, and the Experience of the Divine in Ancient
Israel (Fortress Press, 2004); idem, The priestly vision of Genesis 1 (Fortress, 2010).
46 See Smith, Priestly Vision; idem, Origins, 167-72; Garr, In His Own Image, 20140‫ ;־‬K. L.
Sparks, “‘Entuna Elish’ and Priestly Mimesis: Elite Emulation in Nascent Judaism," JBL
126/4 (2007), pp. 625-48 [631]; R. Schmitt, “The Problem of Magic and Monotheism in
the Book of Leviticus," JHS 8/11 (2008), pp. 1-12; L. Waterman, “Cosmogonic Affinities in
Genesis 1:2,” AJSL 43 (1927), pp. 177-84 [177].
47 See discussion by B. Alster, “Tiamat,” in DDD, 867-869. Several scholars have criticized
the connection between ‫ תהום‬tëhôm and the Akkadian ti’ämat because ‫ תהום‬appears as
a masculine in Hebrew, and the Hebrew h is an illogical development from Akkadian
glottal stop ’. See D. T. Tsumura, Creation and Destruction: A Reappraisal of the Chaoskampf

62 LYNCH
to non-threatening aspects of the pre-ordered or ordered world.48 As Smith

states, “In Genesis 1, creation is no longer primarily a conflict; it is the result
not of two wills in conflict but of One Will expressing the word issuing in the
good creation.49‫״‬
(6) De-divinizing the gods. Priestly legal texts occasionally employ designa-
tions otherwise associated with heavenly beings to refer to mundane or other
non-divine realities. Randall Garr offers an example of this process in the
priestly legal literature of Exodus:
Theory in the Old Testament (Eisenbrauns, 2005), pp. 36-37; J. M. Sasson, “Time... To
Begin,” in "Sha'arei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East
presented to Shemaryahu Talmon (Eisenbrauns, 1992), pp. 183-94 [188-89]; J. C. Gertz,
“Antibabylonische Polemik im priesterlichen Schöpfungsbericht? ZThK 106 (2009),
PP· !37141] 55‫ ■]־‬Nevertheless, thm and thmt do appear as divinized cosmological terms
in the West Semitic context, which may have mediated the Akkadian myths (Smith,
Priestly Vision, pp. 69 and 239, nos. 185-87). See John Day, God's Conflict with the Dragon
and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament (University of Cambridge
Oriental Publications 35; University Press, 1985), pp. 49-56. Notably, Day maintains that it
is “unlikely that Gen. 1 is dependent on Enuma elish at all” (51). However, thm and thmt do
not typically appear as hostile opponents (e.g., κτυ 1.3 III 25; 1.3 IV17; 1.1 III 14; 1.17 VI12.
The only possible exception is κτυ 1.92.5). Genesis 1 either intentionally undercuts the
divinity in these “deeps,” or simply includes them as necessary components of an ANE
cosmology (Gen 1:2); cf. R. S. Watson, Chaos Uncreated: A Reassessment of the Theme of
"Chaos’’in the Hebrew Bible [bzaw 341; Walter de Gruyter, 2005], p. 271). Watson also notes
God’s control over the ‫ תהום‬in Gen 7:11.
48 Other scholars have claimed that the author of Genesis 1 used the depersonalized terms
“greater light” (‫ )הגדל המאור‬and “lesser light” (‫ )המאור הקטן‬in 1:16 in order to avoid any
suggestion that the sun and moon were divine. However, it would be strange for Genesis
1:16 to employ ‫כוכבים‬, which also carried divine connotations (F. Lelli, “Stars ‫כוכבים‬,” in
DDD, pp. 809-15), while avoiding the potential divinization of heavenly bodies. Moreover,
as Gertz points out, the use of “greater light” and “lesser light” were familiar ways of refer-
ring to the sun and moon in Egyptian and Mesopotamian texts, e.g., in Kisir-Assur’s com-
mentary on the Enuma Elish (J. C. Gertz, “Antibabylonische Polemik im priesterlichen
Schöpfungsbericht? ZThK 106 (2009), pp. 137-55 [148 fh. 33,150,155]). Cf. A. Livingstone,
Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea (SAA3; Helsinki, 1989), pp. 99-102; E. Frahm, Origins
ofInterpretation. An Introduction to Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries (Guides
to the Mesopotamian Textual Records; Ugarit-Verlag, 2009).
49 Smith, Origins, p. 169. The configuration of monotheism in Gen 1 pertains to God’s
relationship with all creation—not the nations or other gods—and gives expression to
God’s utter power and uncontested rule over creation. God and creation are in distinct
categories. In short, Genesis 1 conveys what Smith calls a “monotheistic poetics.”

Whereas God’s council disappears [in Gen 1], another set of nonmalevo-
lent divine beings has left distinct traces in the subsequent Priestly nar-
rative. They too were once God’s assistants. They too are now deposed,
depersonalized, demythologized, and deprived of any vitality whatso-
ever. And they too specifically express the ‘kingly deity.‫ ׳‬These beings are
the Cherubim.50
The Cherubim persist in two forms in P, they are the protective beings over the
ark and two-dimensional designs on the tabernacle curtains:
In their Priestly incarnation, then, the Cherubim have been converted

from angelic assistants to symbolic ornamentation.... In the Priestly tra-
dition, these Cherubim are ossified symbols of a God enthroned amidst
royal splendor in his earthly sanctuary.51
(7) Substituting for the gods. Several texts and text corpora substitute humans
or idols for deities through text or tradition alteration. For example, while Ps
29:1 summons the ‫ בני אלים‬to render Yhwh glory and might,52 Ps 96, which
clearly draws from Ps 29, calls upon the ‫ משפחות עמים‬to render Yhwh glory
and might (v.7), thus eliminating the ‫ בני אלים‬from this text tradition.53
50 Garr, In His Own Image, p. 216.

51 Garr, In His Own Image, pp. 217-18. Garr's use of “angelic” is anachronistic, but his point
nevertheless stands.
52 Note that the process of demotion is also evident already within the manuscript
tradition of Ps 29. Several Mss of Ps 29:1 have ‫( אילים‬mighty ones) for ‫אלים‬. LXX 29:1
(28:1) preserves ‫ אילים‬as “young rams” υιούς κριών, but also preserves the Heb. ‫בני אלים‬
“sons of gods” with υϊοΐ θεού, yielding, “Bring to the Lord, 0 sons of God, bring to the
Lord young rams, bring to the Lord gloiy and honor.” The LXX translation thus re-presents
the divine council in human terms, restricts the sense of ‫ אלים‬to one deity, and appears
to preserve a reduplicated Hebrew original, which contained ‫ (בני אלים‬or ‫ )בני אל‬and
(‫)אילים‬. Cf. MT Deut 32:8 with LXX and 4QDeut¡ 32:8; cf. also the substitutions which
occur in Deut 32:43 and Ps 99:2. See L. K. Handy, ed., Psalm 29 Through Time and Tradition
(Princeton Theological Monograph Series 110; Pickwick, 2009).
53 Note that the process of demotion is also evident already within the manuscript tradition
of Ps 29. Several Mss of Ps 29:1 have ‫( אילים‬mighty ones) for ‫אלים‬. LXX 29:1 (28:1) preserves
an original ‫ אילים‬as υιούς κριών “young rams”, but also preserves the Heb. ‫" בני אלים‬sons
of gods" in the sg. with υιοί θεού, yielding, "Bring to the Lord, 0 sons of God, bring to
the Lord young rams, bring to the Lord glory and honor.” The LXX clearly re-presents the
divine council in human terms. Cf. MT Deut 32:8 with LXX and 4QDeut¡ 32:8; cf. also the
substitutions which occur in Deut 32:43 and Ps 99:2. See Handy, ed., Psalm 29 Through
Time and Tradition.

64 LYNCH
In addition, some books in the LXX replace the ‫( אלהים‬or ‫ )אלהין‬with ε’ίδωλοι
or other non-divinities. This tendency to substitute other terms for “gods” is
especially pronounced in the OG Daniel, which translates ‫אלהים‬/‫ אלהץ‬as
ειδωλοι when referring to pagan deities,54 and on one occasion renders ‫אלהיו‬
‫ בית‬as τφ εΐδωλίω αυτού (“his idol house”; 1:2). Such replacements occur only
in the mouth of Jews, narrator, or even Chaldean opponents (1:2; 3:12; 3:18; 5:4;
5:23), but not in Nebuchadnezzar’s mouth (3:14).55 As Sharon Pace Jeansonne
points out, “The Greek Bible preserves no other instance of εϊδωλον for ‫אלה‬,
[though] it is found for ‫ ”אליה‬in several texts.56 Other books in the Septuagint
exhibit analogous tendencies,57 though an underlying theological Tendenz is
54 Dan 11:8 does not follow this tendency (cf. also 11:36-37), though it likely derives from a
different translator.
55 It is possible that the subject matter itself determined the choice by the Septuagint
translator, e.g., when referring to Nebuchadnezzar's statue, yet this does not explain 3:14.
56 It is important, however, that for Jeansonne, there is no theological Tendenz evident in
the replacement of ‫ אלהים‬with εϊδωλοι on the basis of (a) Dan 3:14 and 11:36-37, where
the OG preserves εϊδωλοι, and because (b) of the exceptions noted above, wherein the
LXX translator renders ‫( אליה‬though not ‫ )אלה‬with ειδωλοι (Num 25:2; 1 Sam 17:43; 1 Kgs
11:2,8,33; and Isa 37:19) (The Old Greek Translation ofDaniel 7-12 [cbqms 19; The Catholic
Biblical Association of America, 1988], pp. 63-64,131-33). However, (a) in Dan 3:14,‫אלהים‬
(θεοί) appears in the mouth of Nebuchadnezzar, and then the three Jews refer to them as
εϊδωλοι in 3:18. Also, (b) none of the precedents she cites exhibit a consistent pattern, with
the exception of 1 Kgs 11. In any case, her argument does not eliminate the possibility of
a theological Tendenz in those other texts. Finally, (c) Jeansonne acknowledges that OG
Dan 1-6 is either the work of a different translator than LXX Dan 1-7, or the translator had
a Vorlage that varied from our texus receptus (1). Therefore, the exceptions she cites in
11:36-37 (and we can add 11:8) appear to follow a different practice. See also A. McCrystall,
“Studies in the Old Greek Translation of Daniel” (Ph.D. diss., Oxford University, 1980),
pp. 5-6; M. Delcor, “Un cas de traduction Targumique’ dé la LXX à propos de la statue
en a de Dan. III,” Textus 7 (1969), pp. 30-35. Cf. also O. Munnich, “Text massorétique et
Septante dans le livre de Daniel” in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship
between theMasoretic Text and the Hebrew Base ofthe Septuagint Reconsidered (ed. Adrian
Schenker; SBLSCS 52; Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), pp. 93-120.
57 For possible monotheizing tendencies within the LXX Isa, see J. Schaper, “God and the
Gods: Pagan Deities and Religious Concepts in the Old Greek of Isaiah,” in Genesis, Isaiah
and Psabns: A Festschrift to Honour Professor John Emerton for his Eightieth Birthday
(ed. K. J. Dell, Graham Davies, and Yee Von Koh; VTSup 135; Brill, 2010), pp. 135-52; On LXX
Deut, see D. O. McClellan, “What is a Deity in LXX Deuteronomy,” 12/2/2010, http://twu.
academia.edu/DanielOMcClellan/Papers/355666/What_is_Deity_in_LXX_Deuteronomy:
Accessed 13/04/2012.
For discussions of possible monotheizing tendencies in the Septuagint more generally,
see D. W. Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter (hnt 21;

not always apparent. Other texts, however, seem to move in the opposite direc-
tion. For example, LXX Ps 95:5(=MT 96:5) translates ‫ אלילים‬as δαιμόνια, a term
that re‫־‬enlivens what were otherwise “hand-made gods” in the MT, though
within a different cosmological—and arguably, monotheistic—framework in
which δαιμόνια opposed Yhwh.58
(8) Ascription of total supremacy. Finally, several texts enumerate the dis-
tinct features or qualities of Yhwh in such a way as to render him the absolute
sovereign.591 Chr 29:11-12 attributes to Yhwh
the utmost greatness, power, distinction, eminence, and splendor,60

indeed, all that is in heaven and earth. To you, Yhwh, belong the kingdom,
and the preeminence as ruler over all·, and all wealth and honor are from
your presence, and you rule over all·, and strength and power are in your
hand, and it is in your power to exalt and strengthen all.
Like the noun ‫כל‬, repeated 10 times in this prayer (w. 10-19),"‫ה‬, used with each
attribute in the first line underscores Yhwh’s total possession of supreme quali-
ties. All greatness, power, distinction, eminence and splendor belong to Yhwh,
as well as “the kingdom.” As William Johnstone states of this text, “One senses
that David is struggling with the furthest limits of human speech as he piles up
the attributes and the synonyms.61‫ ״‬In short, within the rhetorical world of this
text, there is simply no room for other deities, since Yhwh possesses all quali-
ties, functions, and powers proper to divinity.
Undoubtedly, other modes could be added to this taxonomy, though for the
purposes of this study, the examples demonstrate a range of rhetorical modes
by which biblical writers gave expression to Yhwh’s sole divinity.
J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1966), pp. 302-20; M. Rösel, “Towards a Theology of the
Septuagint’,” in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the GreekJew-
ish Scriptures (ed. W. Kraus and R. G. Wooden; SBLSCS 53; Society of Biblical Literature,
2006), pp. 239-52, esp. 245.
58 Cf. LXX Deut 32:17, which compares ‫שדים‬/ δαιμόνια with ‫לא אלה‬/ ού θεω and
‫אלהים לא ידעום‬/ θεοΐς οΐς ούκ ν)δεισαν.
59 E.g., 1 Chr 29:10-12.
60 The translation “the utmost” comes from the presence of definite articles with the abstract
nouns, which in context denotes Yhwh’s worthiness of all supreme qualities. On the use
of a definite article for marking a distinctive class, or superlative, see Williams, §88; IBHS,
13.6a; 14.5c.
61 Johnstone, 1 Chronicles-2 Chronicles g: Israel’s Place Among the Nations, Vol. 1 of 7 and
2 Chronicles (JSOTSup 253; Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), p. 287.

66 LYNCH
Implications of the Taxonomy
On the basis of this preliminary taxonomy, several comments are in order.

First, the level at which monotheizing happens is diverse. These include scribal
changes, tradition-historical changes, translation changes (e.g., LXX Daniel), as
well as literature-specific modes (e.g., Deuteronomistic vs. Priestly).
Second, varying degrees of intentionality may be present among the
examples discussed in the taxonomy, though it is often difficult to determine
with certainty. While a few texts might argue for a monotheistic conception
of Yhwh, many seem to argue on the basis of monotheistic conceptions to
address a more specific situation. For instance, Chronicles assumes and asserts
Yhwh's supremacy, but argues that Yhwh's supremacy was manifest in Yehud.62
Likewise, the Book of Job asserts Yhwh's utter supremacy, but wrestles with
the implications of Yhwh's supremacy.63 In these latter cases, monotheism is a
theological implication and assertion of texts, but not manifestly part of their
rhetorical agenda.
Third, and relatedly, it is important to reemphasize that not all texts reveal
the theology or ideology that they presuppose. Our ability to detect monothe-
ism is limited to contextual clues, and become especially difficult in texts with
limited contexts. As such, it must be acknowledged when language is under-
determined, and the fact that the same rhetoric could, in some cases, function
within monotheistic or a henotheistic frameworks. For example, the divine
council is an enormously flexible category that could be repurposed within a
polytheistic, henotheistic, or monotheistic framework, as evident from its con-
tinual use in Ugaritic texts through the Second Temple period and beyond.64
Fourth, the ‫ אלהים‬and other divine beings play varying roles within texts
that we might deem monotheistic. Some texts tolerate the existence of other
divine beings while others seem to find them problematic. Some deny their
existence while employing the generic category ‫אלהים‬, while others dispense
with the category altogether. Still others require the ‫ אלהים‬as an implicit foil
for asserting Yhwh's mono-agency (e.g., people might give praise to other dei-
ties, but such would be senseless), or express the idea that the ‫ אלהים‬will one
day fade away, even if they presently exist. Since the absence of divinities, or
62 Discussed in M. J. Lynch, Monotheism and Institutions in the Book of Chronicles: Temple,

Priesthood, and Kingship in Post-Exilic Perspective (FAT II; Mohr Siebeck, forthcoming).
63 Thanks to K. Brown, personal conversation, for this example, and for helping me frame
this distinction.
64 M. S. Heiser, “The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Noncanonical Second Temple
Jewish Literature,” (PhD diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2004).

the absence of all references to divinities, is not the sine qua non for all forms of
monotheistic rhetoric, then the grounds for determining deities’ statuses rela-
tive to Yhwh needs to be considered on a case by case basis, with the possibil-
ity of diachronic and tradition-specific variation in view. It is conceivable that
what one author perceives as a way of augmenting divine supremacy, another
perceives as a threat. Thus, scribal and tradition-historical changes that, for
example, eliminate references to ‫ אלהים‬do not necessarily represent a “purer”
conception of Yhwh's absolute supremacy.
In scholarly discussions, there seems to be a tendency to superimpose ill-
suiting consistency on the biblical material—either for the sake of a static
picture, in which other divine beings were never a threat, or for the sake of a
developmental schema, wherein denying other gods became accepted as the
primary (or “strictest”) form of monotheistic rhetoric. It seems that neither
is the case. Instead, biblical monotheism includes traditions with conflicting
positions on whether the ‫ אלהים‬or divine beings threaten Yhwh’s absolute
supremacy, and conflicting conceptions of the criteria by which Yhwh is abso-
lutely supreme.
Fifth, and relatedly, it is worth considering ways that texts might keep gods
“in the system” for rhetorical purposes, and then turn around to deny them for
related purposes. The rhetoric of some texts might allow gods to "exist” and
then “disappear” to underscore Yhwh’s absolute supremacy. There are several
texts in the Hebrew Bible where both rhetorical moves occur in close proxim-
ity (2 Sam 7:22//1 Chr 17:20; Ps 86:8,10; Isa 46:9; cf. Ps 97:7; Neh 9:6). In effect,
these texts coordinate two rhetorical forms of monotheizing to achieve one
unified purpose—exalting Yhwh.
Sixth, implicit and explicit modes of monotheistic rhetoric are not restricted
to one period or literature type, and are not all genetically related. Thus, any
endeavor to trace monotheism’s history needs to account for its manifold
expressions and multiple points of emergence across various historical peri-
ods. Generalizing claims, for instance, about the lack of monotheism in the
late-Monarchic or exilic periods are thus unsatisfactory unless supported
by evidence that the full range of monotheizing modes are absent in those
specified periods. It is entirely plausible that various modes of monotheizing
appeared and even disappeared at various times.
Accordingly, it is worth noting that one distinct mode of monotheistic dis-
course did not come to dominate monotheistic Judaism, thus complicating our
ability to trace earlier periods in monotheism’s history. There was contempo-
raneous use of the divine council motif, idol-polemic rhetoric, denial clauses,
“one-God” language, and even an explosion in the number of divine figures,
such that one cannot work backward on the basis on one mode of monotheism

68 LYNCH
to a single point of origin or to a unified monotheistic movement. One would

need to argue on the basis of a much more complex range of modes, and for a
rise, fall, and leveling off of all modes. Otherwise, we can only trace the emer-
gence and disappearance of certain ways of talking about Yhwh's categorical
supremacy, without capturing the text's rich diversity.65 Of course, the Bible’s
complex redactional history already renders the use of its literature problem-
atic for any such reconstruction.
Seventh," because the various texts do not all agree on the general terms
by which Yhwh is categorically supreme (Ezekiel doesn’t monotheize like
Deutero-Isaiah), prioritizing one body of literature as a benchmark for mono-
theism’s emergence misrepresents the complex rhetorical forms in which
monotheism emerged, and terms like “pure” do little to distinguish the degree
to which a given text asserts Yhwh’s supremacy. Deutero-Isaiah is only useful
for tracing the development of a certain mode of monotheizing, and only as
one data point in a larger and highly variegated history of monotheism.66
In sum, by working with a flexible definition of monotheism, resisting the
imposition of uniformity in a static or developmental sense, and considering
the diverse modes of monotheistic rhetoric that emerge in the Hebrew Bible,
we move closer to mapping the Bible’s broad and rugged monotheistic terrain.
65 What one might be able to trace is the diffusion of Yahwism based on the absence of
worship to other deities in the late Persian-Hellenistic periods.
66 While a tradition like P may perceive a threat to Yhwh’s sole divinity in the notion of
a divine council surrounding Yhwh, another, like Nehemiah or 4QShirShabbd (4Q403)
may perceive Yhwh's accompanying ‫ אלהים‬as a means of enhancing Yhwh’s sole
praiseworthiness.

License and Permissible Use Notice
These materials are provided to you by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) in
accordance with the terms of ATLA's agreements with the copyright holder or authorized distributor of
the materials, as applicable. In some cases, ATLA may be the copyright holder of these materials.
You may download, print, and share these materials for your individual use as may be permitted by the
applicable agreements among the copyright holder, distributors, licensors, licensees, and users of these
materials (including, for example, any agreements entered into by the institution or other organization
from which you obtained these materials) and in accordance with the fair use principles of United States
and international copyright and other applicable laws. You may not, for example, copy or email these
materials to multiple web sites or publicly post, distribute for commercial purposes, modify, or create
derivative works of these materials without the copyright holder's express prior written permission.
Please contact the copyright holder if you would like to request permission to use these materials, or
any part of these materials, in any manner or for any use not permitted by the agreements described
above or the fair use provisions of United States and international copyright and other applicable laws.
For information regarding the identity of the copyright holder, refer to the copyright information in
these materials, if available, or contact ATLA at products@atla.com.
Except as otherwise specified, Copyright © 2016 American Theological Library Association.

Mapping Monotheism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mapping Monotheism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VETUS TESTAMENTUM 64 (2014) 4768‫־‬