Monotheism and empire [DRAFT]Gildas Hamel

Cultural Studies, Wednesday //

IntroductionThe paper reworks a question on which I gave a paper over a year ago.

It is primarily my work on a history of labor and religious representationsin Hellenistic and Roman Palestine that has led me to reflect on the history ofthe notion of monotheism. But I am also thinking about modern questions.

1Note to myself (Friday //).. This chapter on monotheism could be eventually distributed into three different chap-

ters, organized by periods: pre-state, monarchies, exile and after.. The traces of the monotheistic development have to be spelled out: effects on the

mythological material; on the relationship with the deity, especially the evolution ofthe notion of sin, the language of sin first of all, and the notion of divine mobility asapplied to the re-readings of patriarchal stories and Exodus (not only in the analysisof Ezekiel done briefly here).

. Finally the related changes one can detect in the priesthood itself, the notion oflaw and its edicting, and the temple cult: how they integrate Judah and Israel intolarger forces yet differentiate and expand Judaism much more broadly, through aninteresting mix of separation and integration (the Torah in Aramaic script, e.g., butedicted by the deity directly; example of shaatnez and embroidery at the temple?The temple as elaborator of identity.)

2For a social history of ancient Israel, see especially Kessler, The social history ofancient Israel: an introduction, translation of Kessler, Sozialgeschichte des alten Israel:eine Einführung. This is the best introduction to the history of Israel we have at thepresent, but much more can be done because of important changes in the interpretation ofthe archaeology of Israel and in the source criticism of the Bible. For a very detailed andinfluential study of the early Israelite period: Gottwald, The tribes of Yahweh : a sociologyof the religion of liberated Israel, – BCE. For a useful review of the methods usedin a social history of ancient Israel: McNutt, Reconstructing the society of ancient Israel.Albertz, “Social history of ancient Israel” is an important article. On the general state ofthe question, see: Grabbe, Ancient Israel: what do we know and how do we know it?

There is the repeated claim that monotheism is a major cause of violence andintolerance, both internal to its three major branches and external. In crudeform, the idea is that polytheism is tolerant and monotheism intolerant andfanatical. This would be the exact opposite of what has long been claimedabout monotheism, namely its leadership in matters of ethics and justice.

More fundamentally, there is a view that monotheism and its avatars con-vey a programmatic vision of the cosmos and of time as purely usable valuesand which would lead to political and ecological catastrophe. The monothe-istic faith in Yahweh, conqueror of nature and the gods, would have played abasic role in the formation of that vision.

It is true that in the Bible, in a different way from the Greek approach,nature and mythical epics of it have fallen under a radical doubt. But thiscame about because of the Yahwistic anti-mythological struggle of the th toth c. BCE, which needs to be situated within the context of the dominationof Israel and Judah by empires—Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian, thenHellenistic and Roman—whose ideological justifications took precisely thesemythical forms.

A note on vocabulary: by monotheism, a recent word, I mean a universal,exclusive belief and worship of one divinity. I also use the terms monolatry,i.e. the non-exclusive worship of one god or goddess; and polylatry as wellas polytheism, to insist on the notion of worship (or cult in the old sense).

3Hume, Schopenhauer, see Assmann, Of God and gods; Soler, La violence monothéiste;Bernat and Klawans, Religion and violence: the biblical heritage; Kirsch, God againstthe gods: the history of the war between monotheism and polytheism. Soler’s arguments aresimilar to Kirsch’s. But see Smith, God in translation.

4At least since the xixth c., and beginning already with Mendelsohn. See Kippenberg,Discovering religious history in the modern age. For a modern instance of this argument,see Berman, Created equal.

5It is not my intention at all here to defend the advantages or happy consequencesmonotheism may have had later, or go along with the highly speculative and opinionatedworks of Stark: Stark, For the glory of God: how monotheism led to reformations, science,witch-hunts, and the end of slavery; reincarnated in Stark, The victory of reason: howChristianity led to freedom, capitalism, and Western success.

6See Blenkinsopp, Isaiah – : a new translation with introduction and commentary,ca. . In other words, I develop a soteriological rather than a metaphysical view ofmonotheism, except I’m pulling it down “au ras des pâquerettes”. Side argument: the non-evolutionary reading of the origins of monotheism—meaning the idea of a pure revelation(even with a superficial history of it, a date under Ramesses II, say, or a borrowing fromAkhenaten’s anti-priestly establishment version, see Propp, Exodus - in his commentarystill. Or in Propp, “Monotheism and “Moses.””)—fuels the modern critics’ desire to seemonotheism as a problem: inexplicable and framed as a stark, radical, exclusive and extremeform of religion. With an explanation, however false: Egyptian tyranny, and god as savior,but clearly problematic in terms of historical inquiry.

I don’t think “polylatry” has any chance of getting the light of day againstidolatry, the language of early Christianity (εἰδωλολατρία, shortened later).

The questions I’m taking up, in a one-millenium chronological sweep, are:

. what form did the Yahweh cult take in the – period?

. the nature of polylatry and monolatry in the state societies of Israel andJudah in the th to th c.;

. the rise of empires in the th-th c. and responses to them;

. the development of temple and Torah under the Achaemenids (–)and the role of priests;

. a few remarks on the Hellenistic and Roman period;

This paper is meant as part of an on-going and broad search for a moreaccurate and rational description of the origins and evolution of the notionof a single, universal divinity. Much has been done on the topic in recentyears on the evolution of the idea. My own goals: partly a history of thisearly evolution, with a different accent on why it happened on the fringe ofancient Near Eastern empires, and partly and more importantly an attemptto connect the evolution of ideas of the divinity (-ies) to labor and socialstructures.

Pre-state origins or LB to IAOne may suppose a monolatrous cult of Yahweh (or Yahwoh), in the pre-stateperiod, perhaps from Southern Negev or Northern Sinai, of Midianite or Qen-

7For monolatry: Smith and Wellhausen already, ca . Montefiore in : “Mono-latry is the worship of one god; monotheism, of the one and only God” (OED). Monolatryin pre-state Israel could be attributed to the fact that there was no sufficient differentiationin the culture for more functional deities, as suggested by Weber, Ancient judaism. Thenotion and name of polylatry is borrowed from Lemaire, Naissance du monothéisme : pointde vue d’un historien.

8Note that we come to this question as moderns (perhaps post-moderns are less wont todo this) as assuming the effects of monotheism and the theologies and philosophies linked toit are natural. We assume universal claims of validity for scientific explanations. But can webe sure that these claims do not owe much to monotheistic theology? When examining theevolution of notions of divinity in the Bronze and Iron ages, aren’t we assuming the effectsthe evolution itself has had on our own consciousness?

9See for instance Wright, The evolution of God; similar but more encompassing andnot directly on the question of monotheism: Bellah, Religion in human evolution. Mostimportantly, the specialist writings of Mark Smith, Lemaire, Jan Assmann, etc. For a fullerbibliography, see my other paper on the topic.

ite origin, as many exegetes of Exodus traditions suggest. One may supposealso that this cult was aniconic (in the sense of being non-anthropomorphic),perhaps like the worship by Edomites of Qos, Moabites of Chemosh, Am-monites of Milcom, and even Nabateans of Dušares before the Hellenisticperiod? Was there a pantheon, a mythology and which? a paredra? Theiconographic evidence is strong but difficult to interpret. If it is accepted thatthe many images, statuettes, and some later inscriptions of the th-th c. areevidence of polytheism (that is: Yahweh as the main god of a pantheon, witha paredra, Asherah), then two explanations come to mind: either the dena-turing of a pure mosaic monotheism, or the original state of affairs as in therest of Canaanite society since the LB. It remains that monolatry is featuredin inscriptional evidence in Iron Age, at least since the end of the th c. BC:Edom, Moab, and Ammon.

Polylatry and monolatryThe next step, on the basis of the books of Samuel-Kings and more globally theso-called Deuteronomistic History—which spans the books of Joshua, Judges,Samuel and Kings—is to propose a plausible portrait of the political andreligious situations in the th-th c. kingdom of Israel. I begin with anote of caution regarding the theory of state development as applied to thearea. It is often supposed that there was a long, progressive, development ofpre-state, segmentary society such as is imagined to be LB Israel, to a fullstate society. However, the different political and cultural environment in the

10de Vaux, Histoire ancienne d’Israël, des origines à l’installation en Canaan; and manyothers discuss the issue, which doesn’t need to detain us here, since it wouldn’t affect thegeneral argument regarding the nature of this monolatrous cult about which we know nextto nothing.

11Regarding the Nabatean “God of the fathers,” see Alt, Der Gott der Väter, whoused Nabataean epigraphy to show that patriarchal narratives exhibited some affinity withNabataean tradition (hence nomadic). This has now been taken up anew by Healey,“Genesis, Isaiah and Psalms,” who argues that Nabataean sources remain useful becausethe nomadic fathers are presented as settling. He thinks aniconism, “Rechabitism” and aninchoate monotheism (monolatry?) “find echoes in Jewish religion.” Contemporary materialsused by the biblical authors in writing their own religious history?

12We have Ugaritic texts of the th-th c., which can help reconstruct or guess at aCanaanite mythology, but the main obstacles are that we don’t have their myths of creation,and the comparison is risky.

13But important consideration: why trust at all the traditions one finds in those booksfor the to period? Their existence would be due to the interests of the monarchyin the th and th c., possibly some elite, and the writers of the very end of the th and theexilic period, if not later, with much different goals.

Levant, with a history of city-states and neighboring large and ancient states,means that states, even in a weak form, may have arisen earlier than theory(or even archaeology) indicates. This possibility is neatly illustrated by thediscoveries made at Khirbet Qeiyafa, in south-west Judah, on the “border”with Philistine territory. See most recently Garfinkel and Kang, “Therelative and absolute chronology of Khirbet Qeiyafa.” The authors argue thatthis site, which was occupied for a very short period of time, is evidence of anew cultural assemblage. They argue it is the earliest level of Iron Age IIA,datable to circa – BCE (radiometry and pottery assemblage). Thestriking architectural parts are the wall, the casemates as part of the back ofthe dwellings with their back to the wall, and the absence of buildings in thecenter. Was it simply a fortress then, with a role of protection for a largerpopulation dispersed in villages around? This is key.

How does the development of social stratification in the early state ofIsrael relate to religious structures? In Mediterranean, agrarian, territorialstates, the need for security of access to land and labor led to maximizationof chances to expand. To stay put was not an option. Risk abatement aloneand need for diversification (i.e., minimization of ecological risks, essentially,

14Start with the sociological and ethnographic presuppositions held by defenders of thelow chronology (Finkelstein first of all): Kletter, “Chronology and united monarchy.”Regarding statehood vs chiefdoms: the method consisting of listing features of states andstateless societies has been called into question. See Pfoh, The emergence of Israel inancient Palestine, which is roundly criticized by Hutton in a review in RBL. If onedoesn’t go with a feature-rich definition of ancient states, can statehood be described withWeber or Gellner (check) as a monopolization of coercive power? The pages by Weber inBendix’s summary (last parts of his book) on domination and its charismatic, patrimonialand legal/rational aspects are very important in this regard, because they provide a theoryagainst which one may initiate a dynamic description of ancient states, rather than resort tolists of features: Bendix, Max Weber: an intellectual portrait. The state wasn’t a platonicentity in any case. It could remain a complex kinship-based polity (partly fictitious or not),meaning that this monopoly of power didn’t exist or was distributed broadly, even thougharistocratically. Or: the monopolization of power by fathers and a few clan heads continuedin the monarchy. This may have been the situation for a long while and was assumed to bethe case by the author(s) of the Davidic cycle of stories. Indeed, transitional explanationshave already been offered: for instance by Robert Miller (secondary complex chiefdoms); orDaniel Master (a kingship-based patrimonial state). One doesn’t have to see state and affinalrelationships as exclusive of each other, or in an mono-directional evolution. Furthermore, inregard to writing as one of the features often used to signify statehood, a scribal apparatusmay have existed early, or continued to exist in a subdued way, and was then used forlegitimation by nascent aristocracy or monarchy. The scribal aspect of ancient states isnot something necessarily created of whole new cloth in Iron Age II. On this question, seeByrne, “The refuge of scribalism in Iron I Palestine”; Sandez (?).

15Different in that respect from city-states, see Buccellati, Cities and nations of ancientSyria.

by diversification of land plots, staggered planting, variety of species, etc.)forced patriarchal societies, and the king above all, to maximize access toneighboring, diverse lands, and the labor attached to it. By attached, I meantwo things: attached to the place with its local shrines, and attached in thesense of undergoing a beginning social stratification which was in processalready in the pre-state period, through debt and bondage.

I imagine a two-track strategy was possible: external expansion, and inter-nal constitution and development by the king of a group of dependents withrestricted allegiance to him, such as outright slaves, people fallen into debtbondage, or people freed from others’ patriarchal control.

The first strategy (external) was mostly done through alliances, maritaland otherwise, and war. The access to new sources of wealth which this strat-egy provided depended upon the habitual or traditional networks of fidelityand trust that these sources of labor could continue to have locally and whichwere primarily signified or anchored through local gods and shrines (via kin-ship groups: king Achab’s marriage to Jezebel, daughter of Tyre’s priest-king,is a good example, presented negatively within the DtH). So, multiple localgods, multiple shrines even for a single god, all of this entailed a fixity whichwas part of the guarantee of fidelity of the local, socially stratified, peasantrywithout which no power could be concentrated.

Access to more land was to the advantage of the king and of close kingroups who followed the same strategy. Social stratification, through ac-cumulation of land, was reinforced by this, mainly through loan and debtmechanisms. Military actions were done in coalitions apparently, with thefirst role given to king’s troops which came from his kin group and unrelatedindividuals: this is illustrated by David’s story.

The second, internal, strategy for kings was to develop parallel networks oftrust. They would find them among foreigners (gêrim), residents (toshavim),

16Testart, L’esclave, la dette et le pouvoir: études de sociologie comparative.17The possibility of polylatry, including the paredra to Yahweh, his Asherah, needs to be

re-thought with the economic background in mind. One common explanation or interpreta-tion is that of adaptation or adoption of Asherah from Phoenician or Canaanite culture (sheis the paredra of El or consort at Ugarit, but caution is in order here not to assume a contin-uum Ugarit-Phoenicia-Canaan-Israel, however tempting for political reasons of our time).See the literature and discussion of Dt .– and parallel .–. Most recently for me,see Collins, The Bible after Babel: historical criticism in a postmodern age, chapter . Ona suggestion of Aichele (from the relegere.org blog), I should check Penchansky, Twilightof the gods: polytheism in the Hebrew Bible on the topic. At first glance, Penchansky’s bookseems imprecise, actually riddled with errors, and superficial.

18Assuming that the stories in Sam– Kgs have some value for a period preceding theexile. When did mercenaries begin to serve in ancient armies?

also among slaves, especially people threatened by debt bondage. They couldhope to attach these individuals to themselves by suspending debts, at leasttemporarily, with the kind of social laws one finds in Ex , Lev , and Dt, which they would support as part of their divinely authorized duty.

. Yahwistic reaction under the Omrides

Given this general framework, let’s look at the Yahwistic reaction under theOmrides (–).

Archaeology and textual analysis indicate that under the Omrides a richperiod of development occurred in Israel which went together with increasedsocial stratification. The situation is illustrated by the story of Naboth vine-yard in Kgs .–a, which source analysis believes to be from an early,pre- tradition.

The development of polytheism under the Omrides led to a Yahweh-centered reaction in the northern kingdom—the first struggle for an exclusivecult of Yahweh. The resistance was initially symbolized by Elijah, the bearerof a significant name: Yahw is my god. He is programmatically portrayed asa resident (the Tishbite, i.e. from Tishbeh, which is conveniently close to theroot toshav), who operates on the margins of the kingdom, according to thestory in Kgs -: near the Jordan, at the limits of Tyre, and then in theSouthern Negev.

However redacted these passages of the DtH are, we know there was alarge political reaction led by Yahwists, Jehu and his group, who eliminatedthe Omrides and founded a new dynasty. The prophets (one unnamed, Elijah,and Elisha) “cooperated with other social groups”, even though they seemdetached from any institution. They represented conservative circles, fromthe easter part of the kingdom apparently (near desertic area), where one maysurmise that the position of Yahweh was of a singular god.

19Albertz, “Social history of ancient Israel,” –.20Note on composition of Elijah story: the exilic DtrH had only the Naboth story, a

shorter Ahaziah story, and the Jehu story. Not yet the drought composition of Kgs –.These three stories pre-date . On this, see Otto, Jehu, Elia, und Elisa. Early DtHpassages were: Kgs .–; .–; .–; .– Kgs ., –, a�, ; .–;.–; .–..

21Albertz, “Social history of ancient Israel,” .22ibid., .23Whether this “retrenching,” leading to the Jehu revolt and dynasty, isolated or weak-

ened the Northern state and prevented its alliance with stronger neighbors to resist theAssyrians more successfully is suggested by some scholars. See ibid., .

There are interesting economic and social questions to ask, however, re-garding the Yahwistic prophets. How did they live? While Elijah is presentedas a poor itinerant prophet living of expedients, his successor Elisha is asubstantial landowner. Perhaps they benefited from the general economic de-velopment, in part due to the policies of their opponents, the Omrides, yetreacting to the strong social stratification which went with it.

However, the internal resistance of local elites (in Ephraim areas mostly?)is not only due to a perceived overreach by the monarchy which took theform of baalism (located in Yizreel, Samaria as capital, i.e. in a process ofex-centering). It is also due to the growing Assyrian menace and presence inthe second half of the th c. When it diminished in the early th c. (–),perhaps yahwism was seen as a potent factor in this reprieve?

This reaction would become a prominent part of the theme of social jus-tice in the continuing Yahwistic-led resistance both in Israel and Judah, andeventually in the law (Ex , Dt , Lev ) and the theological accounts ofthe monarchy up to and later. It had important consequences on the laterprophetic movement, the transmission of traditions from the north in the thc. (including Mosaic traditions of salvation), and the passage from monolatryto monotheism.

If one compares to Solon’s reforms in Athens at the beginning of the thc. BCE, it is interesting to note that the prophetic movement was playinga similar role to Solon’s, and fascinating to compare their respective poeticœuvres. Solon’s reforms, however, succeeded in tamping social stratificationdown and creating a free peasantry, or at least he is credited with doingso. He did this by decreasing the power of the aristocratic families whileredistributing wealth (debt cancellation, freeing of hektēmōroi, freeing of debt-slaves). Although the social tensions and prophetic solutions look eerily similarin –th c. Israel and Judah, the creation of a truly free peasantry couldn’thappen there because of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires.

How large were those circles? Some historians think the Yahwistic groupwas very small in Israel and Judah, right up to the Babylonian invasion. Butthe abundance of Yah-theophoric names, both in inscriptions and biblicalnames from Israel and Judah, indicates otherwise.

As I said regarding the pre-state period, the worship of Yahweh, however,may not have been of a radically alone god or at least not for everyone. In-

24This ex-centering needs to be examined and already has, presumably.25This is wholly speculative: are there any traces of this type of attitude among Aramaean

states, or in the HB?26See Woodhouse, Solon the liberator; Freeman, The work and life of Solon; with a

translation of his poems.

scriptions have been found at Kuntillet Ajrud (th-th c., northern Sinai),referring e.g. to “Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah” whose interpretationis hotly disputed. Do they indicate the existence of a relationship with thegoddess Asherah and show that Yahweh is part of a polytheistic pantheon, oris the Asherah a cultic object through which Yahweh’s power is approached?

One more word on the general situation of the Omrides. Scholars presentthe Omride syncretism as part of a system of military alliances, which isan important aspect of the expansion, since military protection against thelooming Assyrian threat or its vassal Aramean kingdoms in the th-th c. wasessential. This doesn’t change the more basic facts, to my mind, which arethat kingdoms needed to ensure ever greater access to land and labor, as wellas military forces connected with this, either by levies or special mercenaryforces.

In terms of religious development in that period, I subscribe to Albertz’swords:

it was a very specific political, social, and religious historical constella-tion during the ninth century BCE, when Israel experienced the transi-tion from an ‘early’ to a ‘mature state’, which pushed Israel’s religiousdevelopment in the direction of monolatry and monotheism. ()

Empire, Israel, Judah, and neighborsIsrael’s strategy seems similar to that of neighboring Aramean states, whereasJudah’s was much more like that of Edom, Moab, Ammon, i.e. monolatrywithout need for ditheism or polylatry. But the fact that Israel and Judahshared Yahweh as their main god, led to a peculiar dynamics when empiresweighed in at the end of the th c. BCE and in the th.

When considering the events engulfing Israel in and Judah in ,one may wonder about the long-term effect of the early loss of Israel’s polit-ical entity to Assyria, and its aftermath for the southern kingdom of Judah.

27See Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, goddesses, and images of God in ancient Israel,–, with full discussion of the possibilities.

28Were there mercenaries at that time? Or are the writers assuming the permanence ofa contemporary (Persian?) aspect of war?

29Cf. Weber’s passages on the ecological reasons which would explain the monolatry ofdesert or marginal social groups. This could be true also of small agrarian groups: perhapsthe demographic question is important in this regard (meaning, the modestry of populationnumbers, for which see Broshi and Finkelstein, “The population of Palestine in Iron AgeII”), as well as the type of niche agriculture that was practiced in these areas?

What was the long-term effect of the fairly rapid transformation of the im-perial political situation in Mesopotamia and the Levant, with Assyria beingremembered as having seen its gods submitting to those of Babylonia, andthese in turn submitting to those (quite different) from Persia? Taking thesechanges in consideration makes it easier to explain why Judah alone, andnot Aramaean, northern Israelite, Philistine, or Moabite populations, came tosuch an understanding of their ethnic god.

. The standard, age-old, explanation for defeat or for historical catastro-phe was that the god or gods had become angry with the people andmust be propitiated by one or another rite, such as sacrifices, even hu-man sacrifices. This is the impression one gathers from the Moabitestone as well as from much biblical and extra-biblical evidence.

. In the case of Israel, in the th c. tradition as we have seen, this widely-held explanation of royal and/or people’s failures was focussed on Yah-weh.

. Assyrian kings were not content with dominating their vassals but werein need of a guaranteed, regular tribute. They also held to the fictionthat the conquered people’s god/s gave them the victory.

. The defeat in of northern Israel was naturally enough seen in com-peting Judah as a divine punishment for a variety of sins, especiallypolytheism but also related failures of social justice. The normal in-ternal explanation of failure, prepared by the Yahwistic reaction of theth-th c., transmitted to Judah by refugees from Israel at the endof the th c., was reinforced by the competition that existed betweenthe closely related yet different kingdoms. One supposes that at thattime, this was the main reason for collecting some prophetic traditionsto which later would the names of Amos, Hosea, Micah, and Isaiah beattached. From the southern, Judaean point of view, the causes of thefailure of the northern kingdom of Israel were obvious. It was a failure

30Or the king? Is this explanation ever given, or again is the royal interest so powerfulthat this explanation can’t be suggested?

31The critically inverted biblical stories on Balaam in Numbers – and Elijah in Kings – (“inverted” for the latter: I mean by this that the story gives us a later –exilicand post-exilic– writer’s notion of what kings were expecting a prophet to do).

32This seems true of the Assyrians and later the Persians, but perhaps not of the Baby-lonians. Check further.

33Role of northern prophets in this?

to worship Yahweh alone in the correct way, and failure to be just andmerciful.

. The Assyrian pressure on Judah and its neighboring kingdoms continuedthroughout the th c., however, causing great anxiety, uncertainty, andeconomic pressure for the people. Neutrality was impossible, quite as thebook of Jeremy would illustrate in an even more difficult situation. Thesame god Yahweh who had “abandoned” Israel out of anger, accordingto the natural explanation of the time, was also the god of Judah, andits will was a cipher that prophets were to announce and interpret.Because of its smaller population and the Assyrian pressure almost untilthe end of the th c., Judahite kings were not in a position to spread riskand diversify. The situation called for defensive, survivalist’s measures.The king’s interest, from Hezekiah to Josiah, was to assert control overresources and to maximize their power. This explains their radicalposition regarding local shrines. The unity of cult at the Jerusalemtemple, the centrality of this city for the royal house, and the eminenceof the Jerusalem priesthood were asserted against competing interests,those of local shrines with their priests, and local kinship networks.

The reinforcement of social laws concerning limits on debt, return ofproperty, and relief from bondage also made sense from the monarchy’spoint of view. By correcting the social inequities brought about bydebt and bondage, king Josiah and perhaps Hezekiah before him couldclaim credit (i.e. divinely protected authority) for enacting the laws(=justice) and furthermore implicitly claim fidelity and attachment to

34Why the DtH presents only the beginning and the end of the long series of kings ofJudah more favorably, in a kind of large chiastic structure (David and Solomon vs Hezekiahand Josiah), as noted by scholars, is puzzling. Check further.

35Ironically, one cannot help thinking that the centralization of wealth and cult made theconquest by Babylonians more efficient. The larger question regards the social ideals invokedor suggested by early prophets. Greater equality and decrease of social stratification wouldlead to much more dispersion of wealth, hence be less attractive for organized aggressiveempires, though not for raiders. But this is imagining history, which is precisely whatprophets and their redactors were doing.

36But social justice, incorporated into Dt .–, wasn’t applied in Jerusalem, Jeremiah.– claims (Jeremiah of Anatot).

37See Dt esp., but also Lev and Ex.38Critical establishment and reinforcement of early monarchies come from this access

to indebted labor and bonded labor, and loyalty networks beyond the kin networks. SeeTestart, L’esclave, la dette et le pouvoir: études de sociologie comparative. This wouldbe true even if the goal that was sought was that of a free peasantry therefore capable ofarming and defending itself, a bit like the hoplites of ancient Athens.

himself of all those detached by circumstances from their local networksby loss of land or liberty.

This would later be memorialized in the form of a divine revelation, ina scroll (a first edition of the Deuteronomy), a more exact revelation ofthe laws and of a covenant with its god (an old idea) reframing the roleof kings, justice, and Jerusalem. Proper cult and the exercise of socialjustice might avoid the repeat of , , etc.

The upshot of all of this is that there was a reinforcement of monolatryunder kings Hezekiah and Josiah in the th c. There is good reasonto believe there was a Judahite, Josianic reform (perhaps already un-der Hezekiah, according to the so-called Deuteronomistic History: seeAlbertz, A history of Israelite religion in the Old Testament period,:–. It was in the interest of the monarchy to do this reform, tocircumvent affine and local networks, to reinforce its control and accessto economic and military resources (Yahweh as warlord). The elimina-tion of local shrines made sense in this context, especially because of theAssyrian danger.

. Yet, ca. bce, in , , and subsequent incursions, the samekind of “punishing” war and defeat happened to Judaeans, at the handsof Babylonia. The political situation was complex as Babylonia hadjust recently taken power over Assyria. The question surely must have

39[This is to be developed further] But note: law not issued by kings in Exodus. Also:DtH doesn’t talk about the social angle, only the cultic aspect. Check Kings.

40On the history of the Deuteronomy, see especially van der Toorn, Scribal culture andthe making of the Hebrew Bible: four editions of the book, between – and – or so? Re-garding the writing of the Bible, dating of it, and other possibilities, see Schniedewind, Howthe Bible became a book. About Dt and DH, see also Römer, The so-called Deuteronomistichistory: a sociological, historical, and literary introduction. A single exilic redactor-authorof the Deuteronomistic history, from Dt to Kings, or several? With a foundation legend in Kgs –. And the Deuteronomistic History, not just a “library” being constituted inthe Neo-Babylonian period, as “crisis” literature, a guide to history: Römer, pp. –.Judges invented, Joshua, Samuel, Kings, considerably enlarged. But was there cult central-ization in the th c. (Knauf thinks not)? Bethel temple, and Garizim built as soon as Bethelsuppressed in the early th c. But what were the conditions of writing? Scribes attached totemples in Bethel, Babylon: tent of meeting?

41Why would it have been invented, since it was so easy to charge all the kings for beingwrong. And above all: Josiah failed, so it is difficult to maintain that he didn’t do some kindof reform that is so highly prized afterwards and continued. The authors, probably Judahitepriests, elites, and elders, had an interest in portraying the reasons for a failed monarchy,but without going as far as other critics. Their portrait of the initiators, from Joshuah toDavid and Solomon, and the end, with a charge against Menahem, makes sense. Note alsothe fact this DtH doesn’t mention social laws.

been: How could this catastrophe happen, when the people and a kinglike Josiah had tried to change their behavior? At the same time, per-haps, the fact that imperial masters and defeated peoples changed withinabout years (Assyria/ Babylonia; Israel/ Judah) meant that thelogic at work was deeper than just a single ethnic god being angry with“his” people. This kind of “stereoscopic” view of history (Israel/Judahand Assyria/Babylonia) was not available to other neighboring subjectpeoples such as the Philistines, Moab, Ammon, Edom, or the Arameankingdoms of Syria.The thought occurred to some Judaeans and Israelites that Yahweh,who was not simply interested in his cult but also justice, and who hadused two great powers in turn, both well connected with their own divineworld, must have been greater than all of them, in spite of appearances orrather on account of them. He may have had a greater cosmic, powerful,yet more hidden (and therefore more powerful) role than he was creditedwith before.

ExileDuring the “second” exile, i.e. from - on, the transplanted parts of theJudaean population (a few thousands only in different areas of Babylonia) nowhad a more complex explanation for their situation. They accepted the Dt-framed premise that they were being punished, but they also saw themselvesas an instrument of the divine will now projected more broadly (and with arapidly developing idea of time and history leading soon to a complex, coded,i.e. apocalyptic, view of it). The end of the Jerusalem temple (which—asseen above—had developed only recently as a single cultic center and becauseof the external events had become already the royal, priestly, and propheticcenter for Judah) was not the end of all this history, but surreptitiously hid, incounter intuitive fashion, the hope for a new beginning. This, I think, led tothe reworking of the Isaiah view of the divinity, revised and reinforced also in

42Or at least this is how the DtH presents the story. A highly critical view of the wholemonarchic period, with two positive ends (only in Judah): David and Hezekiah/Josiah. Seeother footnote on the topic.

43The attraction of “qualities” borrowed from other gods, especially the great gods oftheir environment, by “translation” or “convergence,” to their own divinity could have beena longer process both in Israel and Judah, as is argued especially by Smith, The early historyof God; Smith, God in translation.

44See already in Ezekiel, the final battle against Gog.

Ezekiel. The divinity’s agency in history was now presented as much widerbut cryptic. It acquired mobility, as imperial power itself, be it Assyrian,Babylonian, or Persian, as well as the military units this power used, alsobecame quite fluid.

[Note: It has been argued that a trend towards monotheism—meaningstrict monotheism—already existed as a minority voice in the th c. SeeFrevel, “Wovon reden die Deuteronomisten?” (check). See Stavrakopoulouand Barton, Religious diversity in ancient Israel and Judah (check). Thispoint of view has to be analyzed in detail to see if it holds.]

. Ezekiel

Among the many revolutionary ideas present in the book of Ezekiel, I see thefollowing three as important in a history of monotheism:

. First of all, the divinity was presented as radically mobile, and this intwo ways. In the first vision at the beginning of the book (Ez ), re-markably set in a location in exile, the enthronement of the divinity isa reworking of the massive architectural features that Assyrian, Baby-lonian, or imitative kinglets of the East used to base and reinforce theirhold on the population. What is striking about these structures, bethey the Ishtar Gate of Babylon, the Assyrian or Babylonian statues ofkings, bulls, lions, and strange mythological creatures, or the reliefs ofthe Apadana in Persepolis, is their imposing, massive presence. Theywere designed to strike the imagination by their weight, their inamovibil-ity or immutability. The flying chariot and the luminous, airy “glory”of the vision is a way to say that true glory (weighty, as the root kavodhas it) is other than these massive structures.Secondly, we have the withdrawing from the temple by the divinity inEz – (and its return in ch. ). The abandonment of their temples,temporarily or not, is a feature of Near Eastern religions. But here,it is presented as accompanying the people in their exile to Babylon(.: “Therefore say: Thus says the Lord GOD: Though I removedthem far away among the nations, and though I scattered them amongthe countries, yet I have been a sanctuary to them for a little while

45Itself actually the first prophetic book, in the sense of a finished collection.46Nimrud: Ashurbanipal II’s seat in the th c. BC. Apadana: name of the great audience

hall at Persepolis and Susa where Persian kings received tribute from all the nations in theAchaemenid empire. First half of th c. BCE.

47See literature on this question.

[or: to some extent] in the countries where they have gone.”). So, thenotion of divine mobility permits an extensive revision of monarchic andimperial structures. It also makes virtue out of necessity: meaningthat what happened to the divinity in Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzaris transformed by Ezekiel’s vision into something that preceded it.

This change in the notion of the divinity correlated with a change inthe notion of justice. Without sanctuary, without kings, and with adeity who is both mobile (therefore potentially closer) and more tran-scendent, justice becomes more broadly defined and more sui generis.Failures to pursue this justice constituted now a greater part (arguably)of failure in imitatio Dei, and sin a more personalized rebellion, ratherthan a collection of various breaches and transgressions that involve thewhole community. [This is where the account of social justice givenby Berman goes wrong: by not anchoring his explanation of the broad-ened, admittedly revolutionary concept of social justice in the historicalprocess, he misses the boat almost entirely: Berman, Created equal;and the discussion of that book in: Olyan, “In conversation with J. A.Berman”]

. The law or Torah began to be seen as given directly by the divinity,not only guaranteed by it as was normally done in law codes issued bykings. Attached to this re-directing of authority behind the law was

48Imitation of Assyrian and Babylonian Weltanschauung? Also: remember, aspect ofpunitive, retributive justice still kept up.

49This notion of the mobility of the divinity was widely adopted eventually and for in-stance used ironically in the late-DtH story of Naaman the Syrian in Kgs , who takestwo mule-loads of good Israelite earth back to Damascus so he can properly worship, on hisancestral land, this Yahweh who cured him through Elisha.

50Write a paragraph or page on how the notion developed.51Yet, the throne: “like a throne” (Ezekiel): the “like” is the part that preoccupies

us, since the throne itself was the standard mark of kinship and that of the “reigning”gods, unsurprisingly. Even empty, in the first temple (?), on top of griffin-like creatures(the tamed cherubs, ,כרובים which I presume come from the notion of kings needing to beshown protecting their people and therefore conquering wild animals, as on the Persian bas-reliefs?). So, Ezekiel, as I understand it, is not letting go of this imagery that he knows fromJerusalem and even in a more grandiose fashion from Babylon (and other places perhaps),but he questions it because its similar use in Babylonia, as monumentalized support of anempire itself of short duration, must be discontinued and “evaporated.” Real power is notwhere one expects it to be, Ezekiel is saying. It cannot be transposed but needs to be literallyexploded or levitated and leveraged (the Ezekielian moves need to be examined further).

52Large evidentiary set for this. See Assmann on this: Assmann, Of God and gods,from among many authors. Or Liverani, Israel’s history and the history of Israel, –,especially the latter. This would be the place again to compare the publishing of Torah as

a change in the control of writing and the repeating of the words. Andso, the notion of justice as directly dependent on the divinity—ratherthan on kings—meant that individual responsibility was redefined. Fur-thermore, a questioning of the Deuteronomist’s view of history cameinto being in exile. By which I mean: the collective punishment aspectof the Deuteronomist’s explanation of history could not be acceptedwholesale by those exiles who felt they were trying to purify their livesin accordance precisely with the Deuteronomist’s view).

. Finally, there was the hope of a restoration, a return, on a new ba-sis. In the Torah of Ezekiel, chapters ff., both the role of the king,significantly called prince, and the physical location of the “prince’s por-tion,” became reduced, as signs of demotion (and corollary: power of thepriests?).

Second phase of ethnogenesis, or the real one. Two important things mustbe remembered in discussing this phase. One, the majority of the people re-mained where they were, especially the peasantry obviously. So, the wordsexile and post-exile do not quite describe the situation for the majority ofthe people. Colonialism as suggested by Gottwald and others? Or just moreneutrally: foreign domination. Secondly, while it is easy to portray Ezra-Nehemiah’s reforms negatively or as the product of great political pressure,especially about the ethnic composition of the people, it is important to re-member that their definition goes (for the first time?) beyond the usual lineagemapping.

In a situation of exile, in the mosaic-like Babylonian and Persian empires,Judaeans—and also Israelites (because of the sharing of traditions?)—had torespond to the dynamics of assimilation and identity. The Judaeans knew

directly emanating from the divinity with the solution in Athens of similar social problemscaused by aristocratic families (but not because of the same externalities: no empire). Solon’sreform also does away with kings as intermediaries, at about the same time (beginning of thc.), for similar reasons, and with similar further editing and ideologizing by later democratsin the fifth c.? The danger of tyranny is omni-present, but consistently fought by theEupatridai and other leading families. And of course no theocracy or kings. But, mostimportantly, an interesting, toned down, appeal to divine authority in the enacting of justlaws, at least in the fragmentary poems of Solon we have. Much more research needs to bedone on this very important, structurally similar, ancient society, and the small number ofpossible political solutions mapped out more systematically.

53See Assmann, Of God and gods.54See Pleins, “Territory and Temple.”

the dangers of assimilation as did all ancient peoples. For Judaeans, their“portable”, sophisticated, and deepening explanation for the troubles in theirhistory allowed them to wait and see. Their collected and reframed tradi-tions, including those behind Genesis, now provided an experience as well asan explanation of their suffering and its origins, that the appealing stories ofNineveh and Babylon did not and could not provide. It had become crystalclear by the th century that the explanatory and incantatory power and at-traction that these imperially adopted stories may have had was considerablyweakened by the fact that these empires and their religious frameworks weretransitory and were replaced eventually by quite a different master, Cyrus.

In parallel with their political re-adaptation, they engaged in a full re-writing of their mythological traditions and ethnic origins, relation to the land,and reasons for mobility. All of this came not from a putative nomadism atthe beginning of the story, framed as a consequence of an earliest fault andCain murder. The end was placed at the beginning.

Under Persia. Kings or priests?

Two major events occurred in the Achaemenid period: the decision to rebuildthe temple (without competitor), and the editing of a version of the Torah, theLaw. Judaea was then a very small, impoverished province of the “Beyond-the-Rivers” satrapy, while many Judaeans (now Jews) were dispersed through theempire, e.g. as soldiers in Egypt. Why did the Achaemenid administrationpermit (encourage) the temple, the priests and the editing of the law? Oneanswer would be to follow Deutero-Isaiah and attest to the benevolence andtolerance of Cyrus and heirs, contrasted with the earlier cruelty of Babylonia,itself properly punished by Cyrus.

In reality, the Achaemenid policy made great sense in a far-flung empireand there is evidence it was systematic. In the particular agrarian society weare looking at in Juda, it was impossible to estimate and control the “surplus”without the cooperation of local authorities, in this case most often the priests

55Assimilation could be forced by the overlords, as it would be for northern Israel,where some limited transfers of population happened. The Judaeans indeed would ac-cuse Samarians—the heirs to the northern Israelite kingdom—of having been a “motley”population of transferred people without recognizable god: “goyim”.

56See article by Wright, “The commemoration of defeat and the formation of a nationin the Hebrew Bible,” on the importance, in terms of imperial recognition, of this choice.

57See Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander: A history of the Persian empire.

and levites, whose own livelihood depended upon their proximity to the peoplein villages and towns.

The priestly leadership, with the scribes and levites (here stories of long,difficult negotiations), found themselves in charge after the eventual completecollapse of the monarchy. As leaders, however, they were in a precariousor contradictory situation, as they were effectively both the instruments ofthe tributary empire at the same time as the definers of what would come tobe seen as Judaism, primarily marked by a Torah which spelled out the cultin extensive detail, demanded holiness from the people, including a by nowclearly defined call to social justice and protection of the poor.

. Nehemiah

Nehemiah .– is an example of the complexity of the situation. He isportrayed responding to a broad popular outcry triggered by situations ofextreme poverty caused by “their Jewish kin.” They are hungry, have to pledgetheir property and even their persons in debt bondage. He brings “chargesagainst the nobles and officials,” and forces them in an assembly of the peopleto restore fields, vineyards, orchards, houses, as well as interest on money andproduce.

The usual understanding of Neh .– is that it reflects a crisis susceptibleof various explanations: vastly increased interest rates? or rather, an increasedsocial stratification, since in an empire, the breaks on local accumulation wereless necessary from the king’s point of view? Was there really a crisis, orrather, wasn’t this a particularly difficult moment of what was the normalsituation, i.e., the dynamics of debt and cancellation (partial usually) whichwas systematically practiced in the whole area. In this text, the priestlyleadership defends the people (as brothers), and this not as kings of course butas reminders or representatives of divine law. Furthermore, it is possible thatthe collapse of the Judaean monarchy deprived society of a useful, correctivemechanism and amplified an old demand for debt cancellation, leading toterms guided by the Exodus theology of liberation. The priests clearly sidedwith the people in exile. See Lev .: “The land is mine. You are withme but immigrants and hosts.” The sceptic wonders if they claimed more

58Reasons: the Josianic reforms and the priests’ activities, as well as the prophets’. Onthe latter, notice the distinctly scribal aspects in Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

59Again, the reason has to do partly with risk abatement, partly with the impossibilityof predicting outcomes in the short term.

authority precisely because of their divinely-commanded intervention, as thekings of old?

In any case, in Nehemiah, as in Dt, we have strong echoes of Judahitesand Judaean / Jews as brothers: times in Neh , times in Dt. Withsome scholars, I think it was not a utopia, given the evidence it is an an-cient, common practice in the whole culturally related area. Yet I note, insomewhat hard-nosed fashion, that it was actually necessary, and potentiallyuseful for the Persian king. Its main reason was as follows. The impossibilityof measuring harvests in advance and properly estimating the coming product,and therefore tithes and taxes, meant that a high premium was put on de-fault, with systematic abatements, formulated in religious terms, which madeancient kings look generous—saviors and fathers as their coinage had it—andled to an expectation of “fidelity” in return. Demonstrations of fidelity wereexpected in material form and failures to do so harshly dealt with.

Hellenistic and Roman periodsA few considerations on the bce to ce period. It can be shown thatthe temple and Torah did protect people (or were believed and expected to)against the encroachments of tributary kingdoms or empires. One exampleis the desire for purity, attached to the notion of holiness, itself achieved ornegotiated in worship at the temple, and translating into the dynamics ofpurity and impurity which regulated daily activities: that is, work environ-ment, family structure, contacts with foreigners, relationships in the town’smarket, etc. The temple-guaranteed holiness (see Levitical code of holiness)

60Nehemiah, reportedly, didn’t take advantage of his position. See the analysis byWright, Rebuilding identity, –, showing this passage in Neh has been insertedlater, which reinforces the ideological interpretation of it.

61Bodi, Israël et Juda à l’ombre des Babyloniens et des Perses, .62Regarding the freeing from debts (immediate according to this text): what is the origin

of the fixed-term idea in the sabbatical year and the Jubilee? It existed in Hammurabi code (freedom of slaves for debts in the fourth year). But the andurārum Akkadian customwas usually without fixed term. The word meant return to a state of origin and was usuallypracticed upon the king’s accession. ibid., proposes that a certain proclamation ofandurārum in Mari (d mill), of the traditional kind apparently, is “très intéressante pourl’idéologie de la guerre et de la justice.” I disagree. It’s much more interesting in what itreveals ot the state and kingship’s interests, as well as the real structure of labor and debtsystems.

63Many examples of this in Assyrian texts. But the Hellenistic and Roman texts, eventhe architecture, could provide ample proof of the phenomenon also.

64Concrete examples would necessitate an analysis of the use of individual ossuaries, stonevessels, sha’atnez rules, miqva’ot. To take the last mentioned item: archaeology of the early

could act as a break on multiple economic encroachments by imperial forces(in land and debt contracts, money usage and banking operations, culturaland religious aspects attached to them, etc.).

But the temple, when in the hands of the Herods (or the Oniads and Has-moneans before in the Hellenistic period), was being enlarged and beautifiedto signify the power of an unnamable, invisible, universal divinity. Preciselyin the same measure, it was being used and abused by kings and the highpriestly families who served at the king’s pleasure and ultimately obeyed thedistant designs of the Roman empire, i.e. the extraction of to tal-ents of silver per year. The glaring misuse led to many messianic movements,including Jesus’, and the ruin of the temple by the Romans in CE. Anotherphase of the monotheistic idea then began.

ConclusionI suggest there is ) no straight line of development from polylatry to mono-latry, ) or (even less so) from Mosaic monotheism to polytheism (-latry),and back to monotheism. The evidence can only fit a more complex storyand doesn’t compel one to see a progressively refined monotheism as a neces-sary outcome. I hope I have shown, though, that much of the monotheisticdevelopment is shaped by the need to resist larger forces.

I would like to suggest also that there is a red thread running throughthe history of monotheism, which is that of fidelity: first to one’s lineage orkinship, then beyond to those hidden (widow and orphan, bonded servants),doing the work, as social stratification increased from the th century on,and finally to a broader, even more distant and concealed, yet connectedsource of life (the no name of the exploited in the fully stratified societies ofimperial Persia, Hellenistic kingdoms, and Rome). This fidelity was hiddenbut assumed, counted upon, and militarily enforced.

Is the kind of representation of the divinity we encounter in the secondtemple period, as a completely unrepresentable and unpronounceable “name”,connected with this aspect? Did the ineffability of this name, or its cautious

Roman period, as well as texts, show that purity baths were part of requirements relatedto the production of oil and wine. Together with the particular rules governing containers,one may imagine a complex system ultimately based on the temple that helped prevent ordelay foreign, and therefore imperial encroachments.

65Yes, but faith (fidelity), hope, compassion, and love are veiled, from historian’sperspective.

66On the forms ineffability took in writing, see the detailed analysis by Lemaire, Thebirth of monotheism.

use, point towards the impossibility to see the real source of one’s being beyondthe evermore complex social articulations of the time? Or, on the contrary, didit represent a necessarily hidden, unquestionable cosmic and political order?

The present sketch of the beginning of monotheism meant to suggest thatin the first millenium BC, the development of the economy, relationships be-yond biology, more complex technological articulations, and cultural devel-opments themselves, all contributed to making individuals more remote fromthe sources of their life. Their life and reproduction of it was not any moreat the kinship, village, or even national, level but there was a horizon be-yond which, they claimed through their scripture, everything once “hidden”or simply invisible (נעלם) became a structured world and eternity .(עלם)

BibliographyAlbertz, R. A history of Israelite religion in the Old Testament period.

Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, .. “Social history of ancient Israel.” Proceedings of the British Academy

(): –.Alt, A. Der Gott der Väter: ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte der israelitischen

Religion. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament. Folge, Heft . (Der ganzen Sammlung, Heft ). Stuttgart: W. Kohlham-mer, .

Assmann, J. Of God and gods: Egypt, Israel, and the rise of monotheism.Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, .

Bellah, R. N. Religion in human evolution: from the Paleolithic to the AxialAge. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, .

Bendix, R. Max Weber: an intellectual portrait. nd ed. Berkeley: Universityof California Press, .

Berman, J. Created equal: how the Bible broke with ancient political thought.Oxford: Oxford University Press, .

Bernat, D. A., and J. Klawans. Religion and violence: the biblical heritage.Vol. . Recent research in Biblical studies. Sheffield: Sheffield PhoenixPress, .

Blenkinsopp, J. Isaiah – : a new translation with introduction and com-mentary. xvii, . New York: Doubleday, .

67Kurosawa’s Kagemusha leads me to think about this ambiguity. Who or what is thereal source of authority and well-being? The Shogun or the poor wretch?

68On this word, see Jenni, “Das Wort ‘ōlām ,” and Jenni, “Das Wort ‘ōlām .”

Bodi, D. Israël et Juda à l’ombre des Babyloniens et des Perses. Paris: DeBoccard, .

Briant, P. From Cyrus to Alexander: A history of the Persian empire. Trans-lated by P. T. Daniels. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, .

Broshi, M., and I. Finkelstein. “The population of Palestine in Iron AgeII.” BASOR (): –.

Buccellati, G. Cities and nations of ancient Syria; an essay on politicalinstitutions with special reference to the Israelite kingdoms. Rome: Istitutodi Studi del Vicino Oriente, Università di Roma, .

Byrne, R. “The refuge of scribalism in Iron I Palestine.” BASOR ():–.

Collins, J. J. The Bible after Babel: historical criticism in a postmodern age.Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., .

De Vaux, R. Histoire ancienne d’Israël, des origines à l’installation en Canaan.Paris, Gabalda, .

Freeman, K. The work and life of Solon; with a translation of his poems.New York: Arno Press, ().

Frevel, C. “Wovon reden die Deuteronomisten? Anmerkungen zu religions-geschichlichem Gehalt, Fiktionalität und literarischen Funktionen deutero-nomistischer Kultnotizen.” In Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke:Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”–Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten, edited by M. Witte et al.,–. BZAW . Berlin: De Gruyter, .

Garfinkel, Y., and H.-G. Kang. “The relative and absolute chronology ofKhirbet Qeiyafa: very Late Iron Age I or very Early Iron Age IIA?” IEJ (): –.

Gottwald, N. K. The tribes of Yahweh : a sociology of the religion of liberatedIsrael, – BCE. xlix, . Sheffield, England: Sheffield AcademicPress, .

Grabbe, L. L. Ancient Israel: what do we know and how do we know it?London: T&T Clark, .

Healey, J. F. “The Nabataean ‘God of the Fathers’.” In Genesis, Isaiah andPsalms: a festschrift to honour Professor John Emerton for his eightiethbirthday, edited by K. J. Dell, G. Davies, and Y. V. Koh, –. Leiden:Brill, .

Jenni, E. “Das Wort, ‘ōlām im Alten Testament.” ZAW (–): –.

. “Das Wort, ‘ōlām im Alten Testament.” ZAW (–): –.Keel, O., and C. Uehlinger. Gods, goddesses, and images of God in ancient

Israel. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, .

Kessler, R. Sozialgeschichte des alten Israel: eine Einführung. Darmstadt:Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, .

. The social history of ancient Israel: an introduction. Minneapolis,MN: Fortress Press, .

Kippenberg, H. G. Discovering religious history in the modern age. Prince-ton: Princeton University Press, .

Kirsch, J. God against the gods: the history of the war between monotheismand polytheism. New York: Viking, .

Kletter, R. “Chronology and united monarchy.” ZDPV (): –.Lemaire, A. Naissance du monothéisme : point de vue d’un historien. Paris:

Bayard, .. The birth of monotheism: the rise and disappearance of Yahwism.

Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, .Liverani, M. Israel’s history and the history of Israel. London: Equinox,

.McNutt, P. M. Reconstructing the society of ancient Israel. Louisville, Ky.:

Westminster John Knox Press, .Olyan, S. “In conversation with J. A. Berman, Created equal: how the Bible

broke with ancient political thought.” JHS , no. a (): –.Otto, S. Jehu, Elia, und Elisa: die Erzählung von der Jehu-Revolution und

die Komposition der Elia-Elisa-Erzählungen. Vol. . Beiträge zur Wis-senschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, .

Penchansky, D. Twilight of the gods: polytheism in the Hebrew Bible. Louisville,Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, .

Pfoh, E. The emergence of Israel in ancient Palestine. London: Equinox,.

Pleins, J. D. “Territory and Temple.” Chap. in The social visions of theHebrew Bible. A theological introduction, –. Louisville, Ky: West-minster John Knox Press, .

Propp, W. H. Exodus -: a new translation with introduction and com-mentary. Vol. A. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, .

. “Monotheism and “Moses.” The problem of early Israelite religion.”Ugarit-Forschungen (): –.

Römer, T. The so-called Deuteronomistic history: a sociological, historical,and literary introduction. London: T & T Clark, .

Schniedewind, W. M. How the Bible became a book: the textualization ofancient Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, .

Smith, M. S. God in translation: deities in cross-cultural discourse in thebiblical world. Forschungen zum Alten Testament . Tübingen: MohrSiebeck, .

Smith, M. S. The early history of God. Yahweh and the other deities in ancientIsrael. San Francisco: Harper & Row, .

Soler, J. La violence monothéiste. Paris: Fallois, .Stark, R. For the glory of God: how monotheism led to reformations, science,

witch-hunts, and the end of slavery. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton UniversityPress, .

. The victory of reason: how Christianity led to freedom, capitalism,and Western success. st ed. New York: Random House, .

Stavrakopoulou, F., and J. Barton. Religious diversity in ancient Israeland Judah. London: T & T Clark, .

Testart, A. L’esclave, la dette et le pouvoir: études de sociologie comparative.Paris: Errance, .

Van der Toorn, K. Scribal culture and the making of the Hebrew Bible. Cam-bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, .

Weber, M. Ancient judaism. Edited by H. Gerth and D. Martindale. NewYork: The Free Press, .

Woodhouse, W. J. Solon the liberator. A study of the agrarian problem inAttika in the seventh century. New York: Octagon Books, .

Wright, J. L. Rebuilding identity; the Nehemiah-memoir and its earliestreaders. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, .

. “The commemoration of defeat and the formation of a nation in theHebrew Bible.” Prooftexts (): –.

Wright, R. The evolution of God. New York: Little, Brown, .