The Mythology of the Enlightenment in the reading of the Bible (Part I)
In this series I examine the legitimacy of the concept of monotheism as a way of understanding the bible. The first post concentrates on a case study from Deuteronomy.
As some long-time readers may remember, in recent years I have been thinking quite a bit about the issue of monotheism. My initial confusion came specifically from reading texts from German Idealism that I found did not reflect the Bible as I read and know it. Later, after some time, I was also exposed to the field of biblical criticism, from Wellhausen, Kaufmann, Albright, Kuenen, to Sawyer and others who essentially perpetuated the preconceptions I found in German Idealism.
However, I am not a biblical scholar. In the broadest definition of my occupation, one can find philosophy and theology. This fact required me to find a biblical scholar who more or less reflects my position—that there is actually no monotheistic tone or even developmental seeds anticipating monotheism in the Bible—which seemed trivial to me. In this brief essay, I will attempt to present the central argument of Nathan MacDonald in his book "Deuteronomy and the Meaning of 'Monotheism'" (2003). He not only did the blessed textual work around the Book of Deuteronomy but also did what I have been doing over the years: approaching and clarifying the intellectual history of the concept of monotheism in the modern era.
Monotheism can be interpreted in several ways—which MacDonald reviews with admirable diligence—ranging from the thinnest version, namely, monotheism is simply the belief that there is only one god in the world, to the thickest version according to which monotheism is a developmental stage in humanity that includes the embryo or the blossoming of concepts like universalism, human rights, and other related notions. This is why this discussion should, at least in my opinion, interest people who do not consider themselves religious.
In what might seem strange to us, the history of Enlightenment concepts revolved around questions of how history works. It was based, among other things, on assumptions such as that there are achievements of human development from which one cannot go backward, with the example of monotheism itself being no less than paradigmatic in this context.
Since I intend to write a little here myself about the history of the concept of monotheism from ancient times to the modern era, I will spare you similar work that MacDonald does. What I want to do here is primarily to lay the groundwork for understanding that it is not at all trivial that the Bible, as we know it, contains any reference to something like monotheism.
Monotheism as an Intellectualist Conception
MacDonald, like most discussions on the subject, begins his discussion with the formation of the concept of monotheism, with the first use of the term made by the philosopher Henry More (1614-1687). If I quote MacDonald's quote, there is nothing mythological about the first use of the term, but it is indeed true that often the first use of a term contains quite a few associations that appear with the last use of the term.
More uses the term "monotheism" to distinguish the correct object of belief from the materialistic doctrines that began to become prevalent throughout Europe around the same time. More distinguishes monotheism as belief in one supreme spiritual god. The term "spiritual" should be understood here primarily as opposed to the materialism of the new atomistic doctrines. These were based on a concept that was foreign to the times when the Bible was written, of nature enclosed within a mechanistic system of laws.
Materialists are those who constitute the true opposite of monotheists, and they are called by More "atheists."[1] Accordingly, More classifies the various religions into additional categories.
Polytheism, in his view, characterized most nations before the coming of Jesus. Polytheism is essentially an expression of the human fall from Eden: if in Eden humans believed in the pure monotheistic faith, then from the moment they fell to earth, humans began to believe in all kinds of different "material" entities. More associates polytheists with the supergroup of atheists.
More then classifies those who believed in one god, but in a god like "the sun"—these, from his perspective, continue to belong to the category of atheists. His first use of the term monotheism comes specifically as a contrast to the last category of atheists: pantheism, those who turned the world into God. Pantheists are in fact the atheists par excellence against whom the monotheist needs to argue.
Within the category of monotheism, More distinguished those pagans who used different symbols, names, and rituals as different modes of worship for the supreme spiritual god as the most lowly residents that could be admitted to the promised monotheistic land. In More's view, this group of pagans was too immersed in sensual pleasures.
After them, of course, are the Jews, who are indeed supreme monotheists, and accordingly, they are not attached to a false religion, but their religion is entirely devoted to the bestial and sensual instincts of humans. Only with Christianity, which also marked the spiritual turning point in the believers' personality, can one begin to speak of pure monotheism.
What is interesting is that despite the apologetic context in which More's discussions were written, we are actually offered here for the first time a typology of religions that has more or less taken root to this day. Another point worth noting in More's discussion is that he presents to us the first time in which systematic reliance on ethnography known to us is used to establish a worldview according to which once all of humanity was monotheistic (as mentioned), and after the fall, humanity is waiting again to return to the embrace of the perfect state of Eden, where everyone believes in the supreme spiritual god.
In any case, we see that there begins to form in More—and MacDonald expands to other figures from this circle as well—a conception of monotheism as something that characterizes the intellect as opposed to instinct or sensuality. The order of the discussion revolves mainly around the idea that religiosity is a matter of propositions that faithfully reflect or not the nature of the universe.
More and his companions actually present a rather radical conception according to which they fully embrace the reason conception of the philosophers from the seventeenth century, but oppose the conclusions they drew from it. Part of the opposition is through the creation of a typological theory of human religions that is supposed to be universal.
For example, More assures his readers that even in the context of China—about which reports were just beginning to reach Europe—his conceptions are up-to-date and valid. The attempt to outline such a universal history, in which monotheism appears as a new stage in the cognitive conception of humanity that does not allow a return, in fact especially characterizes most of the modern biblical scholars mentioned above.
However, it is very difficult to think of the Bible as the harbinger of a philosophical discussion that wonders how many divine entities exist in the world. Not only because significant parts of the Bible are demonstrably monolatrist or henotheistic, and thus actually recognize the existence of other gods besides the biblical God, but also because it seems that the struggle against idolatry is not fundamentally an intellectual struggle, and the unity of God that is indeed heralded in parts of the book of "Deuteronomy," for example, is not a matter of counting, but of uniqueness.
The Test Case of "Shema"
After gaining some healthy skepticism at least towards the term monotheism through a closer look at its historical origin, it seems to me that we are ripe to try to approach the biblical text anew and try to clarify whether the verses that we naturally read against the background of modern conceptualization might need to be read differently.
Let's see what MacDonald does with a rather distinct test case, the verse that Jews recite in the morning and evening, "Shema." Unfortunately, since this is just a post, those interested in a more complete review of the "monotheistic" verses in the Book of Deuteronomy and their interpretation are invited to consult MacDonald's book, or alternatively, those interested can also find an expansion by him and others of his methodology to the later prophets.[2]
First, MacDonald begins his analysis with a review of four possibilities for reading the verse:
(1) YHWH (is) our God; YHWH (is) one.
(2) YHWH, our God; YHWH (is) one.
(3) YHWH, our God, (is) YHWH one [=numerically].
(4) YHWH (is our God), YHWH alone [=by himself].
Each of these interpretations has been defended in the literature, and for now, we'll leave the interesting grammatical discussion aside. The essence of the matter is that MacDonald seeks to show that the fourth interpretation is the interpretation that comes closest to the context in which the text is rooted, despite his identification of several problems with this interpretation as well. To support it, he brings a known parallel to this verse from the Song of Songs (chapter 6, verses 8-9):
(8) שִׁשִּׁ֥ים הֵ֨מָּה֙ מְלָכ֔וֹת,
וּשְׁמֹנִ֖ים פִּֽילַגְשִׁ֑ים,
וַֽעֲלָמ֖וֹת אֵ֥ין מִסְפָּֽר.
(9) אַחַ֥ת הִיא֙ יֽוֹנָתִ֣י תַמָּתִ֔י,
אַחַ֥ת הִיא֙ לְאִמָּ֔הּ,
בָּרָ֥ה הִ֖יא לְיֽוֹלַדְתָּ֑הּ.
רָא֤וּהָ בָנוֹת֙ וַֽיְאַשְּׁר֔וּהָ,
מְלָכ֥וֹת וּפִֽילַגְשִׁ֖ים וַֽיְהַלְלֽוּהָ.
["There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and maidens without number. My dove, my perfect one, is the only one, the only one of her mother, the favorite of the one who bore her. The maidens saw her and called her happy; the queens and concubines also, and they praised her." (NRSV)]
One of the things that makes this parallel convincing is the context in which the Shema Israel appears. The immediate context of the Shema, both in the Book of Deuteronomy and in the Jewish prayer order, is "and you shall love..." This is about the oneness, uniqueness, and perfection of the beloved. According to this interpretation, what is offered to us in this verse is actually not a denial of the existence of other gods, just as the Assembly of Israel is not the only nation. What is offered to us in the Shema is a declaration of love from the people of Israel to YHWH. More importantly, as MacDonald emphasizes, the parallel allows us to see that we are not just dealing with a subjective feeling without grounding in reality, but with some quality in the beloved that can be identified even without the direct relationship.
Repetition and Thought
After briefly perusing the test case, let's return to an interesting feature that MacDonald repeatedly emphasizes. Following theologian Gerard von Rad (1901-1971), MacDonald notes that one of the main reasons why the historiosophical readings of monotheism don't really work with the biblical text is that historiosophical thinking assumes that monotheism is a stage that has been achieved and from which one cannot retreat. Faith, trust, becomes a matter of theoretical belief. The greatest sin is no longer betrayal of the covenant with God, but at most ignorance about the metaphysical state of affairs that prevails in the world, or some atavism in relation to historical development par excellence.
In short, the Israelites are required to recite the Shema declaration every morning and evening. The prophets urge the Israelites to remember. The Israelites are constantly forgetting, to their shame. This implies that the activity discussed here of love for God is not just passive retention in memory of the belief of how the world looks, but an activity that requires special and ongoing effort. It seems that even the political interpretation, according to which God is the absolute authority (for example, in Kaufmann), does not do justice to the depth of the act of love required here, which requires constant and public repetition. A repetition that, among the kings of Israel, the Bible testifies only to Josiah as having achieved.
Sources of Monotheism
MacDonald's book is worth more extensive engagement. For those interested in expansions, I have attached where they can be found. The discussion of von Rad's distinctions is also an interesting engagement that requires expansion, because although I think it comes closer to the biblical text, the influences of Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and Bultmann are noticeable in it. In the next posts in this specific series, I will want to deal not only with the intellectual sources of the concept of modern monotheism, a discussion whose heterogeneity alone is fascinating, but to return to sources in Judaism and Christianity that do seem to affirm a monotheism of one kind or another. I hope you will stay with me for the next posts on the subject.
[1] Perhaps it is a subtle historical irony that the first appearances of the term 'atheism' in conceptual use, for example in Plato's Laws, referred primarily to disbelief in the gods of the polis, an accusation that later rolled against the Jews and then against the Christians—that is, those who deny the existence of the many gods in late Hellenistic literature.
[2] Monotheism in Late Prophetic and Early Apocalyptic literature, eds., Nathan MacDonald and Ken Brown, Moht Siebeck 2014; see specifically MacDonald's article there. For those interested, there is also an expansion on this research trend: Loren T. Stuckenbruck, Wendy E. S. North, Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism, London 2004, 204-216; Ballentine, D. S. (2022). "Monotheism" and the Hebrew Bible. Religion Compass, 16(1), Article e12425.