Psalms that use mythological language
to describe how God is greater than all the other deities presumes an early
view that other deities actually exist. They, too, are likely to be preexilic.
Psalm 82:1, for example, speaks of God taking his place in a divine council,
holding judgment in the midst of other deities; it then describes how God
(Elohim) demotes these gods (elohim) for their lack of justice and compassion
(verses 2-7). Psalm 29 also starts with God in a heavenly council: here he is
to be both praised and feared as he brings about a storm. Several verses have
correspondences with various references to Ba’al Hadad, the Canaanite storm
deity. See, for example, verses 1 and 3: “Ascribe to the Lord, O heavenly
beings, ascribe to the Lord glory and strength. . . . The voice of the Lord is
over the waters, the God of glory thunders, the Lord, overmighty waters.”
Thunder is also represented as the voice
of Baal in the Ugaritic texts (KTU2 1.4:VII:29-31). The voice
of God’s thunder is heard seven times in this psalm; Baal also appears “seven
times” in the lightning and “eight times” in the thunder, and he, too, is
seated enthroned over the waters. For example, in KTU2
1.101:1-4 Baal is the one who brings about
3b šb t. brqm. [[.t]]
. . . seven lightnings . . .
4 tmnt. ‘iṣr r’t. ‘s. brq.y [] Eight storehouses of thunder.
The shaft of lightning.
In the same way, several hymns
celebrate God’s world rule by comparing him with other deities and declaring
him sovereign over them. This again suggests sometime before the more
monotheistic faith of the Persian period. Psalms 95:4 (“The Lord . . . is a
great king above all gods”), 96:4 (“The Lord . . .is to be feared above all
gods”), and 97:9 (“You are exalted far above all gods”) are typical examples. (Susan
Gillingham, “The Psalms and Poems of the Hebrew Bible,” in The Hebrew Bible:
A Critical Companion, ed. John Barton [Princeton: Princeton University Press,
2016], 208-9)
On Exo 20:3//Deut
5:7 and 6:4:
The Decalogue’s wording does not deny
the existence of “other gods”; it merely directs Israelites to have no relationship
with them. The Shema’s language is obscure: What does it mean to say that “the
LORD is one”? According to some modern scholars, this line merely asserts that
the God of Israel does not subdivide into local manifestations in the way many
ancient Near Eastern deities did. In Mesopotamia there was a goddess Ishtar of
Nineveh, an Ishtar of Arbela, and an Ishtar of Carchemish; in Canaan, there
were dozens of local Baal-Hadads; but, the Shema tells us, the LORD, the God of
Israel, exists only in a single manifestation. Even if one rejects this interpretation
of Deuteronomy 6:4, understanding it instead to mean “The LORD is our God, the
LORD alone,” this verse may teach not that no other gods exist, but that they
are not Israel’s deity. Further, in the Hebrew original the Shema, like the Decalogue,
speaks not of “the LORD” but of “Yhwh,” which is the personal name of the God
of Israel. The use of a name to refer to this deity suggests that there may be
other deities out there; names are necessary when we talk about a particular member
of a larger class. In allowing for the possibility that additional heavenly
beings exist, these two verses are not alone. The Hebrew Bible often refers to
heavenly creatures other than Yhwh, calling them “gods” (Genesis 6:2; Psalms
29:1, 82:6, 86:8, 89:7; Job 1:6), “angels” (Numbers 20:16; 2 Samuel 24:16; 1
Kings 13:18; Zechariah 1:11-12; Psalm 78:49; Job 33:23), and “the council of
holy ones” (Psalm 89:6-8). (Benjamin D. Dommer, “Monotheism,” in The Hebrew
Bible: A Critical Companion, ed. John Barton [Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 2016], 239-40)
Poor Evidence for Biblical Monotheism
Some biblical texts seem at first glance
to present Yhwh as genuinely unique and thus to exemplify monotheism. “Who is
like you among the gods, Yhwh? Who is like you, exalted in holiness,
acknowledged as awesome, performing wonders?” Moses and the Israelites sing at
the shore of the Reed Sea (exodus 15:11; cf. 1 Kings 8:23; Isaiah 40:18; Jeremiah
10:6-7; Psalms 35:10, 71:19, 89:9). Such a verse sounds tailor-made to
exemplify monotheism as I have defined it, since it posits an essential distinction
between Yhwh and all other heavenly beings. Indeed, this line appears in the
daily liturgy of rabbinic Judaism, where it functions in a genuinely monotheistic
way. But a line such as this does not always function in that way. Other
ancient peoples (for example, in Sumerian and Akkadian liturgical texts) also
laud various gods as incomparable. This is the case not only in prayers to the
heads of the pantheons such as Ashur in Assyria and Marduk in Babylon but in
prayers to other gods and goddesses as well. Consequently, we cannot cite
verses such as Exodus 15:11 as proof of early monotheism in Israel. Such a
verse would have been recited by a monotheistic monolatrist, by a polytheistic
monolatrist, or even by a nonmonolatrous polytheist.
The same may be said of biblical texts
that stress Yhwh’s kingship over the gods (such as Psalms 47:2-3, 95:3-5, and
96:4-5) and perhaps even those that maintain that Yhwh assigned other gods
their roles (Deuteronomy 4:19; Deuteronomy 32:8-9 as preserved in the Dead Sea
Scrolls and the Septuagint). These passages stress Yhwh’s power in contrast to
the relative weakness of other deities. Additional passages require other gods
to praise the one true God (see Psalms 29:1-2, 103:20-22, 148:1-3). But similar
lines occur regarding high gods of polytheistic pantheons. Thus in the
Babylonian creation epic known as Enuma Elish the gods themselves praise
Marduk as unrivaled and supreme (4:3-15). One might want to take the description
of Marduk in these lines literally and therefore suggest that Marduk is being
raised to the short of level we associated with a monotheistic God. However,
earlier in Enuma Elish the goddess Tiamat had spoken of Qingu in nearly identical
terms when she acclaimed hi king of the gods in 1:153-58. Qingu’s command,
which Tiamat claimed was unchangeable, did not in fact endure: like Tiamat, he
died at the hand of Marduk. That the gods’ guarantee of eternal power to Marduk
is phrased in the same language as Tiamat’s short-lived guarantee to Qingu
suggests that we should read this sort of language with a grain of salt. This
language is an exaggerated form of praise for whatever deity happened to be on
the throne. As a result, we cannot be sure that similar lines from the book of
Psalms and Deuteronomy are intended to posit an essential distinction between
Yhwh and other gods of the short that Hermann Cohen and Yehezkel Kaufmann
require for their definition of monotheism. (Ibid., 253-54)
Deuteronomy 32:8
The Song of Moses in Deut. 32:8
contains a scribal intervention, the aim of which was to render this poetic
description of Israel’s coming into being as the Lord’s special people in a
more theologically acceptable way. The verse speaks of the Most High organizing
the division of peoples within their various territories, fixing their boundaries
“according to the number of the sons of Israel” (= M). A different form of v.
8b, “according to the number of the sons of God,” occurs in Qumran (4QDeutj).
This is also the reading of a section of the Greek tradition: “sons of God.” M’s
reading, “sons of Israel,” is generally accepted as a later theological correction,
a textual intervention aimed at avoiding any possible hint of polytheism or suggestion
that the Lord was simply one of the lesser gods in a pantheon presided over by “the
Most High.” Only JPS follows M—“He fixed the boundaries of peoples in relation to
Israel’s numbers”—without further comment. By contrast, the remaining three
modern translations adopt the reading of 4QDeutj and G, in varying formulations.
NRSV renders it as “the number of the gods,” REB has “the number of the sons of
God,” and NABRE reads “the number of the divine beings.” All three include a
footnote explaining the origin of their preferred reading. (Carmel McCarthy, “Textual
Criticism and Biblical Translation,” in The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Companion,
ed. John Barton [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016], 551-52)
