While pursuing old threads on the Mormon Dialogue discussion forum, I encountered a few comments by the poster Maklelan (Daniel McClellan) on the plurality of (true) gods in the Hebrew Bible. In a thread entitled "Many Gods in the Bible,” we read:
Other Gods in the Hebrew Bible
This topic has come up a number of times in the past, but it is enlightening every time it comes up. The question is whether the authors of the Bible, in general, acknowledged or denied the existence of other gods. By gods I mean ontological deities. I do not mean humans metaphorically called gods, I mean real divine beings. I also am not concerned with whether or not there are other gods that are as powerful or more powerful than God, or that “are gods in the same sense that God is God.” I’m only concerned with whether or not the Bible acknowledges the existence of other gods. I contend that it does, and I give my argument in following. I will first point to many places where the gods are explicitly acknowledged. I will then address the scriptures that are always brought forth in an effort to establish a rubric that precludes the possibility of reading the former texts to indicate the other gods were thought to exist. I will show that a sound and thorough analysis of their grammatical and literary contexts actually shows the texts are not at all intended to deny the existence of the other gods. I will also explain the fallacious presupposition that inevitably forms the basis of all efforts to contradict these readings.
One of the first indications that multiple gods are acknowledged in the Bible is the cohortative “let us make man in our image” from Gen 1:26. God is clearly talking to someone else. Some have come up with different creative ways to explain this away, such as suggesting he is referring to another member of the Trinity, but this usage is far too rare and the context is far from supportive of such a reading. There’s also no actual reference to another member of the Trinity anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. Every one of the few instances where another member of the Trinity is suggested as the object are instances where we are simply not given any indication whatsoever of whom is being addressed. When the serpent later tempts Eve (Gen 3:5), he states that if they eat the fruit they will be “as gods, knowing good and evil.” This phrase is a merism, meaning it is intended to indicate everything between the two poles represented by “good” and “evil.” In other words, they will have all knowledge. Gods are those who know all. People often insist that Satan here is lying, but Gen 3:22 makes it clear his assertion was, according to the narrative, true. In that verse, God states that “the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil.” In Satan’s phrasing the participle “knowing” is in the plural, so it means “gods” and manifestly not “God.”
In the beginning of Genesis 6 a story is told of the “sons of God” (בני*אלהים) taking wives of the “daughters of Adam/man” and siring children which would become the “mighty men of old.” There are two possible understandings of “sons of God.” It may mean a member of the divine taxonomy, in the same way the “sons of Israel” refer to Israelites (Deut 10:6) and the “sons of the prophets” refers to the prophets (1 Kgs 20:35). According to that reading, we should translate just “gods.” On the other hand, it may refer to a specific category of second tier deities that were thought of as the actual offspring of El and his consort (Asherah). In the Ugaritic and other Syro-Palestinian literature the phrase is bn ilm, which is directly cognate to בני*אלים in Ps 29:1 and 89:7. בני*אלהים is a secondary formulation of that construction, derived from the overwhelming preference for אלהים over אלי in the Hebrew Bible. Since the “sons of God” are represented throughout the Hebrew Bible in roles and functions analogous to those of the bn elim of the Ugaritic literature (see Gen 6:2, 4; Deut 32:8–9; Job 1:6; 2:1), the latter interpretation (the offspring of El) is preferred, and the translation should be “sons of God.”
Although Israel and others are occasionally referred to metaphorically as God’s son (Exod 4:24; Deut 32:6; Jer 31:9; Hos 1:10), the associated vernacular is markedly distinct from the consistent usage of bny elohim/elim, and the latter is never found in the same context of the former. The “sons of God” are not humans. They were not around to shout for joy at the creation of the earth (Job 38:7), and Gen 6:2 paints a clear contrast between the sons of God and the daughters of man. In Deut 32:8–9 we read that when the Most High divided up the sons of man, he divided the nations according to the number of the sons of God. The version with which most people are familiar today says “sons of Israel,” but this is a late change (that manuscript dates to around 1000 CE). The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint (both around 200–100 BCE) show that the text originally read “sons of God.” Genesis’ table of nations held that the nations of the earth numbered 70. Traditions from the Hellenistic period and after also pointed to 70 nations of the earth. This would mean the sons of God numbered 70. This fits perfectly with our understanding of “sons of God” as cognate with the Syro-Palestinian concept of the “sons of God,” since in that literature they also number 70. In this instance, the gods of the nations are said to have been set up over their respective nations by God himself. In other words, they were given responsibilities as gods by the God of Israel. Elsewhere in Deuteronomy, Israel’s sin regarding the other gods is described as their worship of gods that were not allotted to them (Deut 29:25). The notion that those other gods do not actually exist is not a part of that rhetoric (cf. Deut 4:19; 17:3, were the gods are astralized under Assyrian influence).
Psalm 82 is another place where a variation on this “sons of God” theme occurs (they are found in Gen 6:2, 4; Deut 32:8; Ps 29:1; 89:7; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). There they are called “sons of Elyon,” or “the Most High.” In v. 1 Yahweh is said to judge among the gods, who are neglecting their stewardships over the nations. In v. 6 God says to the gods, “I have said, you are gods, and every one of you sons of Elyon; however, you shall die as do men, and fall as any prince.” The beginnings of vv. 6 and 7 contain a construction (the combination of amarti and aken) that points to an unexpected contrast. In this case the contrast is between the divine nature of the gods and their loss of immortality. Their deaths are entirely unexpected, but God decrees it as a result of their negligence. The gods of v. 6 cannot be humans, as that would completely undo the tension of the contrast. Some people have pointed to Exodus 21 and 22 to insist that the word elohim can refer to human beings, like judges. This reading first arose in the rabbinic period, however, and has nothing to do with the original context of the verses. As numerous authors have shown since the beginning of the twentieth century, elohim does not mean judges, and Exod 21 and 22 refer either to the practice of bringing the accused before domestic images of the deities (or teraphim) to swear an oath, or the practice of bringing the accused before the main deity in the temple to do the same. The verses should be translated with “gods” or “God.” Judges is simply not supported by anything. I discuss this issue further here.
Elsewhere the gods are referred to in a manner which presupposes their existence with the simple plural elohim or the more rare elim (for instance, Exod 15:11; 18:11; Deut 10:17; 32:43 [DSS, LXX]; 33:2; Josh 22:22; Ps 86:8; 95:3; 96:4; 97:7, 9; 135:5; 136:2; Job 41:17 [English v. 25]; 1 Chr 16:25; 2 Chr 2:5; Dan 11:36). In these cases, the rhetoric would be meaningless if the other gods were considered non-existent. It’s really not impressive to say your God is better than all those non-existent entities. It’s much more impressive to say your God is the ruler over all the gods of the other nations, and that’s unquestionably the sense in the texts above.
In earlier literature, however, Yahweh was only seen as the ruler of Israel. He was not operative outside of Israel. This is made clear in texts like 1 Sam 26:19, where David is being driven out of Israel and interprets this to mean he will not be able to worship Yahweh, since he will be outside of Yahweh’s inheritance. He must worship other gods. The same is true of 2 Kgs 5:15–18 where Naaman explains that there is no god in all the earth but in Israel and then asks for cartloads of dirt to take back to his hometown so he can worship Israel’s God. The rhetoric is meant to insist that Israel’s god is the only important god, not that no other gods exist. After all, to say that there is no god in all the earth except in Israel is to say that Yahweh does not exist outside of Israel. The only place where a god exists is within the nation of Israel. This is why he must take Israelite soil home with him. In his mind, he must be on Israelite soil in order to worship Israel’s god. This doesn’t mean the gods of the nations don’t exist, but just that they’re not worthy of worship like Yahweh is. Besides, why would he reach the conclusion just from his successful healing that no other gods exist? No such notion is attested anywhere in antiquity, and it certainly isn't a requirement anywhere of conversion or anything like that in the first millennium BCE. Naaman's comments are very clearly rhetoric meant to extol Yahweh's prowess over that of the puny gods of the nations, and not to deny the existence of the other gods.
Now on to the texts which appear to argue that no other gods exist. The most common are those that say “I am/he is God and there is no other” (Deut 4:35, 39; 1 Sam 2:2; 7:22; 1 Kgs 8:60; Isa 45:5, 6, 14, 21, 22; 46:9; 1 Chr 17:20). The question is whether these texts legitimately deny the existence of other gods, or just rhetorically deny their efficacy or relevance. I find a few other text that use the same rhetoric in other contexts, and they definitely support the latter interpretation. For instance, Isa 47:8, 10 has the personified Babylon imagine in her heart, “I am and there is no other.” This hardly can be understood to mean Babylon believes herself to be the only city that exists, but that she believes herself to be the most important city, puffing herself up as a deity. She is all that matters for her constituents. Similarly, in Judg 7:14 the Midianite soldier tells his companion, “there is no other than the sword of Gideon.” Again, it doesn’t mean Gideon is the only person with a sword in all the universe, but only that he is the only one that matters. His sword is the only one they need to worry about.
This is likely the proper reading of the texts I cited above. For instance, it fits perfectly with the Shema (Deut 6:4). The statement that “Yahweh is one” doesn’t have anything to do with the existence of other gods. It simply asserts that he is all that matters for those making the proclamation. The closest analogous verse in the Hebrew Bible is Song of Songs 6:9, wherein the author claims that his dove, his undefiled, “is one; and the only one of her mother.” This does not mean that the author’s beloved is the only beloved that exists, but the only one that matters for the author. She is also the only daughter that matters for her mother. In every use of the phrase, it refers to the exclusivity of the relationship between the subject and the object, not any ontological exclusivity.
Other rhetoric is aimed at marginalizing the gods of the nations. For instance, 1 Chr 16:26 and Ps 96:5 state that the gods of the nations are elilim. This is usually translated “idols,” but it fundamentally means “worthless things” (cf. the adjective in Job 13:4; Zech 11:17). These two texts are not saying that the gods are actually just pieces of wood and stone, they’re saying that the gods are insignificant and worthless. This is comparable to numerous other texts that say that the nations and people who fight against Israel are “nothing,” “less than nothing,” and “vanity” (Isa 40:17, 23; 41:11, 12; 44:9). Compare these to Isa 41:21, which is addressed to the gods: “you are nothing, and your works less than nothing.” The rhetoric is identical. It’s not meant to deny their existence, but their relevance and potency.
Another statements from Deutero-Isaiah also merits mention, namely Isa 43:10. There the author has Yahweh say, “before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.” Readers almost always read too quickly over this verse and don’t realize that if we understand it literally then it only speaks of the situation before and after Yahweh’s reign. It makes no statement about the creation or existence of gods during Yahweh’s reign. This fits easily into rhetoric elsewhere that insists Yahweh is the creator of all the other gods (Neh 9:6, for instance, says Yahweh created the hosts of the heavens, another epithet of the gods).
As has been shown, a thorough and objective analysis of the literary contexts of the rhetoric aimed at the gods of the nations shows their existence is never denied. Rather, their relevance and potency is marginalized in exilic and post-exilic literature using hyperbolic rhetoric. That rhetoric is also used in reference to other entities, like the nations or people who craft idols. The sense is not at all that they don’t actually exist, but only that they’re irrelevant and impotent. The numerous places where the gods are acknowledged further support this reading. There is nothing in the Bible that substantiates the notion that no other gods exist. Any religious tradition that accepts the existence of angels, demons, cherubim, etc., accepts the existence of numerous gods. The notion that they’re not “gods” in the same sense that God is God actually supports my point. That would mean there are other gods, they’re just not on the same level as God, and that completely and totally contradicts the notion of monotheism (it’s more akin to monarchism or monolatry). It is equivocation to insist that there are gods and there is God, and never the twain shall meet. These are just two different ways to spell in English the exact same Hebrew word (and that word means absolutely the exact same thing, whether the god of Israel is the referent or any other god).
Finally, these are all the verses that use the word "god" and mention deities other than Yhwh:
Gen 3:5; 22; 6:2, 4; 31:3, 32; 35:2, 4; Exod 12:12; 15:11; 18:11; 20:3, 23; 22:20; 23:13, 24, 32, 33; 32:1, 4, 8, 23, 31; 34:14, 15, 16, 17; Lev 19:4; Num 25:2; 33:4; Deut 3:24; 4:7, 28; 5:7; 6:14; 7:4, 16, 25; 8:19; 10:17; 11:16, 28; 12:2, 3, 30, 31; 13:2, 6, 7, 13; 17:3; 18:20; 20:18; 28:14, 36, 64; 29:18, 26; 31:16, 18, 20; 32:12, 17, 21, 37, 39; Josh 23:7, 16; 24:2, 14, 15, 16, 2, 23; Judg 2:3, 12, 17, 19; 3:6; 5:8; 6:10, 31; 9:27; 10:6, 13, 14, 16; 11:24; 16:23, 24; 17:5; 18:24;1 Sam 4:8; 5:7; 6:5; 7:3; 8:8; 17:43; 26:19; 28:13; 2 Sam 7:23; 1 Kgs 9:6, 9; 10:24; 11:2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 33; 12:28; 14:19; 18:24, 25, 27; 19:2; 20:10, 23, 28; 2 Kgs 1:2, 3, 6, 16; 17:7, 26, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 38; 18:33, 34, 35; 19:12, 18, 19, 37; Isa 9:6; 14:13; 21:9; 31:3; 36:18, 19, 20; 37:12, 19, 38; 41:23; 42:17; 43:10, 12; 44:10, 15, 17; 45:20; 46:6; Jer 2:11, 28; 5:7, 19; 7:6, 9; 10:11; 11:10, 12, 13; 13:10; 16:11, 13, 20; 22:9; 25:6; 35:15; 43:12, 13; 46:25; 48:35; Ezek28:2, 9; Hos 3:1; 13:4; 14:3; Amos 5:26; 8:14; Jonah 1:5; Mic 4:5; 7:18; Zeph 2:11; Nah 1:14; Hab 1:11; Mal 2:11, 15; Ps 29:1; 44:20; 77:13; 81:9; 82:1, 6; 86:8; 89:6, 7; 95:3; 96:4, 5; 97:7, 9; 135:5; 136:2; 138:1; Ruth 1:15; Dan 1:2; 2:11, 47; 3:12, 14, 15, 18, 25, 28, 29; 4:8, 9, 18; 5:4, 11, 14, 23; 6:7, 12; 11:8, 36, 37, 38, 39; Ezra 1:7; 1 Chr 5:25; 10:10; 14:12; 16:25, 26; 2 Chr 2:5; 7:19, 22; 25:14, 15, 20; 28:23, 25; 32:13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21; 33:15
Additionally, in a thread entitled “Isaiah 43:10,” Daniel reproduces an email from Thomas Stark (author of The Human Faces of God) on 2 Kgs 3:27:
That 2 Kings 3:27 is a rare biblical concession to the reality of the power of other deities is a position held by many scholars. In my opinion, the human sacrifice to Chemosh provides an adequate justification, in the mind of the writer of the episode, for Israel's (=Yahweh's) defeat. The passage clearly shows that the biblical author assumed the efficacy of human sacrifice, at least its efficacy to other gods, and thus the human sacrifice functions in the narrative as a "trump card." Yahweh would have won were it not for the sacrifice of Mesha's son, a petition for aid that Chemosh answered.
Hans-Peter Müller reads this passage as conceding that Chemosh was mighty in spite of Yahweh's promise. "Mesha, in a critical situation of battle, offered his son on the wall of his city, the consequence of which was that the wrath of Chemosh began to destroy Israel instantly; nowhere else is the mighty activity of a foreign god conceded in such an unrestrained manner." ("Chemosh," Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, 189.)
Mark S. Smith concurs: "The passage attributes to the Moabite side a victory generated through a religious act on the part of the Moabites themselves. In short, the passage implicitly recognizes divine power apart from the Israelite national god. Given the Bible's rejection of other gods, this passage with its implicit act of cross-cultural recognition would appear to stand out. However, if such a passage is contextualized in its Iron Age setting when such a view of national gods was more common, the passage seems less remarkable." (Smith, God in Translation, 118.)
Susan Niditch concurs also, writing that the juxtaposition in 2 Kings 3:20-27 of Yahweh's miracles in the battle and Chemosh's response to Mesha's sacrifice implies "that the power of human sacrifice offered in war may counter the power of God-sent, prophetically predicted miracles." (Niditch, War in the Hebrew Bible, 145.)
Jon D. Levenson joins their ranks, arguing that the implications of the wrath of Chemosh is "more serious" than the question of Israel's own proximity to West Semitic human sacrifice ideologies. He writes that "the implication is clear: Mesha's sacrifice worked. By immolating his first-born son and heir apparent, the king of Moab was able to turn the tide of battle and force the Israelites to retreat. Rationalistic commentators conjure up a panic in the camp of the Israelites as the latter learn of this horrid act. But the term qesep indicates a force external to the people involved. More likely, therefore, is the supposition that the author saw Mesha's sacrifice of his first-born son as having a profound effect upon the deity to whom it was offered, in this case presumably the Moabite national deity Chemosh. . . . The theology of warfare in the biblical world indicates that at least indirectly, the deity must be seen as lying behind the event. For it was he rather than any earthly figure who determined the outcome of battle, so that when Mesha's sortie failed, he knew that he was not standing in the deity's favor. Given the extremity of the situation, only an extreme act of devotion could turn the tide, and none surpasses a royal father's immolation of 'his first-born son, who was to succeed him as king' (2 Kgs 3:27). The failure of the sortie of v 26 was, in Mesha's eyes, the deity's way of telling him that he was at last exercising his claim on the first-born. The sudden Israelite retreat in v 27 is proof that Mesha's theological interpretation of the situation was not in error." (Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son, 15, 17).
This position is also held by Christopher A. Rollston, as articulated in his recently published commentary on the book of Kings. He also taught as much in his Introduction to the Hebrew Bible courses.
These are just a few of the numerous scholars who have articulated this position in print. Of course, the number of those who hold this view and have not published on the matter is no doubt far greater. The scholarly consensus is that prior to the Babylonian exile, Israel and Judea did not entertain a dualistic cosmology (Yahweh versus "other gods" = good versus evil), but rather a monistic cosmology, which they shared with their neighbors. In the monistic cosmology, each god is legitimately appointed over his or her own nation, and this is the proper order of things. There are tiers in the pantheon, and each member has an allotted role and function. This is the cosmology reflected very clearly in Deut 32:8-9. That Yahweh boasted to be greater than the other gods is just part of the standard theology; all the national deities did that. Within this paradigm, trying to argue that Yahweh is established over the other gods would be like trying to argue for the superiority of one sports team over another. These boasts reflect either imperial aspirations on the part of the various nations, or else imperial realities, as with Assyria, Babylon, Persia, etc. (Israel's own imperial aspirations--e.g., Zech 14--were never in fact realized.) At any rate, the central point here is that each deity has his or her (in the West Semitic world, generally "his") own domain. Within that domain, the deity's power was in its proper place. Outside of that domain, it was diminished. Within this worldview, it is hardly surprising to see that Chemosh defeated Yahweh, since Chemosh had the home-court advantage.
That Israel and Judea operated under a monistic cosmology during the period in question is common knowledge among critical scholars and represents the firm consensus, excepting some (though certainly not all) Evangelical scholars who have an investment in pushing Israel's monotheism back as far as possible into Israel's early history. Thus, the challenge to find a "single scholar" who would be willing to recognize that 2 Kings 3:27 indicates that Chemosh beat Yahweh is not much of a challenge. That would be the natural reading of the text to a plenitude of scholars working in the guild, which is also why so many commentators take this reading for granted.
Hopefully, a certain Protestant apologist won’t repeat the false claim they have made previously, viz., that I invented these quotes from the MAD board out of whole cloth, especially as they are still available on the threads (the MAD board switched software causing some comments to be lost in many threads).