The Evolution Of God Part 3

Why would some editor have invented the phrase? Was something being covered up?

Some scholars who have used the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint to reconstruct the authentic version of the verse say that "children of Israel" was stuck in as a replacement for "sons of El." 68 68 With that lost phrase restored, a verse that was cryptic suddenly makes sense: El-the most high G.o.d, With that lost phrase restored, a verse that was cryptic suddenly makes sense: El-the most high G.o.d, Elyon Elyon-divided the world's people into ethnic groups and gave one group to each of his sons. And Yahweh, one of those sons, was given the people of Jacob. Apparently at this point in Israelite history (and there's no telling how long ago this story originated) Yahweh isn't G.o.d, but just a G.o.d-and a son of G.o.d, one among many. 69 69 So how does Yahweh rise through the ranks? How does a G.o.d initially consigned to a lower level of the pantheon eventually merge with the chief G.o.d, El, and even, in a sense, supplant him? To judge by other examples of divine upward mobility in the ancient world, one likely explanation would be a s.h.i.+ft in the relative power of northern and southern Israel, of El's heartland and Yahweh's heart-land. Such an increase in southern Israel's relative power may well have been under way during the eighth century BCE-and certainly it a.s.sumed dramatic form near the end of the century, when, as we'll see in the next chapter, the north fell to a.s.syrian conquest. It was after this consolidation of power in the south that most of the Hebrew Bible was written, so southern scribes who were champions of Yahweh would have had a chance to augment his stature, and to downplay a northern, El-ocentric perspective. 70 70 It seems like a plausible scenario: El, a powerful G.o.d from the north, admits Yahweh to the lower levels of his pantheon by way of letting Yahweh's wandering people enter a political confederation-Israel-in a junior partners.h.i.+p with El's people; and ultimately it's Yahweh's name, not El's, that stays attached to Israel, thanks to a reversal of fortune: Yahweh's people get more powerful, while El's people get less so, and in fact encounter catastrophe.

But, however plausible this scenario may sound, it has problems. For example, if Jacob is a.s.sociated with the north, and hence presumably with El prior to an El-Yahweh fusion, then why, in that verse from Deuteronomy, is Yahweh the G.o.d of Jacob's people, even as El seems to remain separate from Yahweh, at the top of the pantheon? Wouldn't Jacob have entered Yahweh's fold only after the Yahweh-El fusion?

There may be no reconstruction of Israel's early history that gracefully accounts for all the odd evidence, including the description of Yahweh as a son of Elyon Elyon in the undoctored version of Deuteronomy 32 and the fusing of Yahweh and El Shaddai in Exodus 6. in the undoctored version of Deuteronomy 32 and the fusing of Yahweh and El Shaddai in Exodus 6. 71 71 As we'll see in chapter 8, the solution may lie in focusing on Israel's later history, long after its tribal confederation had congealed, long after it had evolved into a full-fledged state, complete with a king. As we'll see in chapter 8, the solution may lie in focusing on Israel's later history, long after its tribal confederation had congealed, long after it had evolved into a full-fledged state, complete with a king.

Meanwhile, whatever the truth about Yahweh's early history, there is one thing we can say with some confidence: the Bible's editors and translators have sometimes obscured it-perhaps deliberately, in an attempt to conceal evidence of early mainstream polytheism. 72 72 Yahweh's s.e.x Life (and Other Myths).

Still, enough remains visible to complicate the task of those who claim to see large and sharp differences between the Abrahamic G.o.d and other G.o.ds in the vicinity. One oft-claimed difference, for example, is that whereas the pagan G.o.ds had s.e.x lives, Yahweh didn't. "Israel's G.o.d," as Kaufmann put it, "has no s.e.xual qualities or desires." 73 73 It's true that there's no biblical ode to Yahweh that compares with the Ugaritic boast that Baal copulated with a heifer "77 times," even "88 times," or that El's p.e.n.i.s "extends like the sea." It's true that there's no biblical ode to Yahweh that compares with the Ugaritic boast that Baal copulated with a heifer "77 times," even "88 times," or that El's p.e.n.i.s "extends like the sea." 74 74 And it seems puzzling: If Yahweh eventually merged with El, and El had a s.e.x life, why didn't the postmerger Yahweh have one? Why, more specifically, didn't Yahweh inherit El's consort, the G.o.ddess Athirat? And it seems puzzling: If Yahweh eventually merged with El, and El had a s.e.x life, why didn't the postmerger Yahweh have one? Why, more specifically, didn't Yahweh inherit El's consort, the G.o.ddess Athirat?

Maybe he did. There are references in the Bible to a G.o.ddess named Asherah, and scholars have long believed that Asherah is just the Hebrew version of Athirat. 75 75 Of course, the biblical writers don't depict Asherah as G.o.d's wife-this isn't the sort of theological theme they generally championed-but rather heap disdain on her, and on the Israelites who wors.h.i.+pped her. However, in the late twentieth century, archaeologists discovered intriguing inscriptions, dating to around 800 BCE, at two different Middle Eastern sites. The inscriptions were blessings in the name not just of Yahweh but of "his Asherah." Of course, the biblical writers don't depict Asherah as G.o.d's wife-this isn't the sort of theological theme they generally championed-but rather heap disdain on her, and on the Israelites who wors.h.i.+pped her. However, in the late twentieth century, archaeologists discovered intriguing inscriptions, dating to around 800 BCE, at two different Middle Eastern sites. The inscriptions were blessings in the name not just of Yahweh but of "his Asherah." 76 76 The word "his" puts an intriguing spin on a pa.s.sage in 2 Kings reporting that, near the end of the seventh century, Asherah was spending time in Yahweh's temple. A priest who didn't favor polytheism "brought out the image of Asherah from the house of the Lord, outside Jerusalem, to the Wadi Kidron, burned it at the Wadi Kidron, beat it to dust and threw the dust of it upon the graves of the common people." The word "his" puts an intriguing spin on a pa.s.sage in 2 Kings reporting that, near the end of the seventh century, Asherah was spending time in Yahweh's temple. A priest who didn't favor polytheism "brought out the image of Asherah from the house of the Lord, outside Jerusalem, to the Wadi Kidron, burned it at the Wadi Kidron, beat it to dust and threw the dust of it upon the graves of the common people." 77 77 In the next chapter we'll see what a crucial moment in the evolution of monotheism this was. In the next chapter we'll see what a crucial moment in the evolution of monotheism this was.

The question of Yahweh's s.e.x life is part of a larger question that has high stakes: How mythological was Yahweh? Not "mythological" in the sense of not being true, but rather in the sense that Greek G.o.ds were mythological: Were there stories about Yahweh's dramatic dealings with other extraordinary beings? Did he fight some G.o.ds or demiG.o.ds and pal around with others? Was he part of a supernatural soap opera?

Many scholars have said no. Indeed, in Kaufmann's view, the "non-mythological" nature of Yahweh "is the essence of Israelite religion" and sets Israelite religion "apart from all forms of paganism," certainly including native Canaanite religion. 78 78 There is doubly bad news for those who, like Kaufmann, would hail Yahweh as a clean break from pagan myth. First, there are signs that the break wasn't so clean-that, like so much else in the history of religion, it was more evolutionary than revolutionary. Second, when you try to trace this evolution, you see that Yahweh's family tree may contain something even more scandalous than an early fusion with the Canaanite deity El. It may be that Yahweh, even while inheriting El's genes, somehow acquired genes from the most reviled of all Canaanite deities: Baal.

Baal was of course immersed deeply in myth. He did battle with Yamm, the G.o.d of the sea, and Mot, the G.o.d of death. One Ugaritic text even says that he "smote Lotan," a seven-headed "dragon." 79 79 Talk about mythological! Talk about mythological!

Then again, the Bible pays this tribute to Yahweh: "You broke the heads of the dragons in the waters. You crushed the heads of Levia-than." 80 80 And the ancient Hebrew word underlying Leviathan- And the ancient Hebrew word underlying Leviathan-Livyaton-is, so far as we can tell, just Hebrew for "Lotan"; apparently Yahweh not only slew multiheaded dragons, but slew the very multiheaded dragon that Baal slew. That same chapter of Psalms credits Yahweh with subduing the sea. 81 81 Or, perhaps, Sea: some translators capitalize the word, because underlying it is Or, perhaps, Sea: some translators capitalize the word, because underlying it is yam yam, the ancient Hebrew word for the sea G.o.d that Baal smote. 82 82 The Bible also promises, in the book of Isaiah, that Yahweh will "swallow up death forever"-and underlying "death" is the Hebrew word for Mot, the G.o.d of death with whom Baal struggled dramatically. The Bible also promises, in the book of Isaiah, that Yahweh will "swallow up death forever"-and underlying "death" is the Hebrew word for Mot, the G.o.d of death with whom Baal struggled dramatically. 83 83 So why do English translations of the Bible say "sea" instead of "Yamm" and "death" instead of "Mot"? Ancient Hebrew didn't have capital letters. When you see the Hebrew word mawet mawet in isolation, you can't say whether it is the proper noun meaning Mot or the generic noun meaning death. So the Bible's translators can take their pick, and as a rule they've picked generic nouns. But you have to wonder about this choice. In deciding whether Yahweh was "swallowing up" Mot or merely death, for example: surely it is no coincidence that in Canaanite mythology Mot was famous for "swallowing" people at the end of their lives and delivering them to "Sheol," the afterlife underworld-or that Mot had once swallowed Yahweh's rival, Baal. in isolation, you can't say whether it is the proper noun meaning Mot or the generic noun meaning death. So the Bible's translators can take their pick, and as a rule they've picked generic nouns. But you have to wonder about this choice. In deciding whether Yahweh was "swallowing up" Mot or merely death, for example: surely it is no coincidence that in Canaanite mythology Mot was famous for "swallowing" people at the end of their lives and delivering them to "Sheol," the afterlife underworld-or that Mot had once swallowed Yahweh's rival, Baal. 84 84 Or consider the Bible's puzzling reference to Yahweh's "wrath against the rivers" and his "rage against the sea." 85 85 Why would Yahweh be upset with rivers and sea? How could he blame water for flowing? Wouldn't these pa.s.sages make more sense if the Hebrew words for "rivers" and "sea" ( Why would Yahweh be upset with rivers and sea? How could he blame water for flowing? Wouldn't these pa.s.sages make more sense if the Hebrew words for "rivers" and "sea" (nahar and and yam yam) were translated as Nahar and Yamm, the supernatural beings with whom Baal had fought in such mythological fas.h.i.+on? 86 86 (Perhaps feeling a pang of conscience, the translators of the New Revised Standard Version obscurely acknowledge this possibility, with fine-print footnotes that say "or (Perhaps feeling a pang of conscience, the translators of the New Revised Standard Version obscurely acknowledge this possibility, with fine-print footnotes that say "or against River" against River" and "or and "or against Sea against Sea.") The case for a mythological translation only grows when you see how Yahweh himself appears in these pa.s.sages. He conquers the forces of nature in a chariot ("You trampled the sea with your horses"). He brandishes a bow and intimidates the moon and the sun with "the light of your arrows" and the "gleam of your flas.h.i.+ng spear." 87 87 These last two images are generally taken to refer to lightning, 88 88 and here lies yet another blurring of the line between the myths of those pagan Canaanites and the religion of ancient Israel: Yahweh, in addition to fighting the very forces of nature that Baal fights against and being himself depicted in anthropomorphic terms, as mythological G.o.ds often are, is depicted as the particular and here lies yet another blurring of the line between the myths of those pagan Canaanites and the religion of ancient Israel: Yahweh, in addition to fighting the very forces of nature that Baal fights against and being himself depicted in anthropomorphic terms, as mythological G.o.ds often are, is depicted as the particular type type of mythological G.o.d that Baal was: a storm G.o.d. In Psalm 29, Yahweh is the source of thunder and lightning: "The voice of the Lord is over the waters; the G.o.d of glory thunders.... The voice of the Lord flashes forth flames of fire." of mythological G.o.d that Baal was: a storm G.o.d. In Psalm 29, Yahweh is the source of thunder and lightning: "The voice of the Lord is over the waters; the G.o.d of glory thunders.... The voice of the Lord flashes forth flames of fire." 89 89 In 1936, H. L. Ginsberg, a lecturer at the Jewish Theological Seminary, suggested that this poem had originally been a hymn to Baal. Ginsberg's initially eccentric theory has moved toward the mainstream as evidence for it has grown. One scholar, for instance, changed all the "Yahweh"s in the poem to "Baal"s and found that the amount of alliteration grew radically. 90 90 The eminent biblical scholar Frank Moore Cross has argued that one of the keystone events of the entire Bible-the crossing of the Red Sea-has roots in Baal mythology. 91 91 He notes that this episode features, in a sense, the sea submitting to G.o.d's will, a faint echo of Baal's dominating Sea (Yamm) in battle. And certainly there is a mythic air about the account of the event in Exodus 15. Here the scene is nothing like the (probably later) account in Exodus 14 that is the one depicted in Cecil B. DeMille's He notes that this episode features, in a sense, the sea submitting to G.o.d's will, a faint echo of Baal's dominating Sea (Yamm) in battle. And certainly there is a mythic air about the account of the event in Exodus 15. Here the scene is nothing like the (probably later) account in Exodus 14 that is the one depicted in Cecil B. DeMille's The Ten Commandments; The Ten Commandments; the waters don't just part majestically at Moses's request and then reunite to drown the Egyptians. Rather, G.o.d is conspicuously, anthropomorphically, involved, and his mastery over the sea commensurately vivid: "At the blast of your nostrils the waters piled up, the floods stood up in a heap." the waters don't just part majestically at Moses's request and then reunite to drown the Egyptians. Rather, G.o.d is conspicuously, anthropomorphically, involved, and his mastery over the sea commensurately vivid: "At the blast of your nostrils the waters piled up, the floods stood up in a heap." 92 92 But, whatever the parallels between the Red Sea episode and the myths of Baal, there is one big difference. Whereas the Baal myths take place in a supernatural realm, the biblical story is fundamentally about human human history. Yes, the story is crucially shaped by intervention from on high, but the real action is on the ground. As Cross puts it, Yahweh's battles, unlike the typical Baal battle, are "particularized in place and time." A "mythic pattern" has been replaced by an "epic pattern." history. Yes, the story is crucially shaped by intervention from on high, but the real action is on the ground. As Cross puts it, Yahweh's battles, unlike the typical Baal battle, are "particularized in place and time." A "mythic pattern" has been replaced by an "epic pattern." 93 93 Hence the t.i.tle of his influential 1973 book, Hence the t.i.tle of his influential 1973 book, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic.

Even when Yahweh acts in plainly mythological fas.h.i.+on-slaying a multiheaded dragon, say-the biblical reference is fleeting; there is no lengthy plotline. "Mythic imagery is abundant in the Bible," observes Mark S. Smith, yet "myth as narrative" is nearly absent. 94 94 Smith's explanation for the dearth of narrative myth involves, among other things, deletion. Smith's explanation for the dearth of narrative myth involves, among other things, deletion. 95 95 Toward the middle of the first millennium BCE, he says, mythological motifs fell out of fas.h.i.+on; Hebrew scriptures composed then depict G.o.d in less anthropomorphic form than before, and sometimes as formless. Toward the middle of the first millennium BCE, he says, mythological motifs fell out of fas.h.i.+on; Hebrew scriptures composed then depict G.o.d in less anthropomorphic form than before, and sometimes as formless. 96 96 Smith argues that during this period, when myth was frowned on, earlier texts were being edited and re-edited; maybe priests found their view of Yahweh at odds with earlier accounts of his exploits and "chose not to preserve them, thereby functionally censoring them." Smith argues that during this period, when myth was frowned on, earlier texts were being edited and re-edited; maybe priests found their view of Yahweh at odds with earlier accounts of his exploits and "chose not to preserve them, thereby functionally censoring them." 97 97 But why go to the trouble? Even if myth had grown unfas.h.i.+onable, why bother to erase memory of its previous vogue? Probably because there were great theological stakes. After all, mythological G.o.ds deal with other formidable G.o.ds and sometimes find their will thwarted; but if you're the one, all-powerful G.o.d, your will can't be thwarted! Mythology, in other words, meant polytheism. So a project to strip early mythic narrative from scripture might have been part of a larger project: reworking the scriptures to imply that from the dawn of Israelite religion Yahweh was all-powerful and worthy of exclusive devotion. (The scholar Marjo Christina Annette Korpel compared Ugaritic and biblical descriptions of the divine and found "spectacularly" similar language "where strength, honour, dignity and compa.s.sion are concerned," whereas "everything implying weakness, humiliation or desire is shunned in the Old Testament.") 98 98 This motivation would explain the kinds of mythological moments that did did survive the editing. More than once, a plotline lasts just long enough to suggest that, if a basis for polytheism ever existed, it is now gone. In Psalm 82-the aforementioned divine council scene, in which G.o.d takes his seat among other G.o.ds-the scene ends with him predicting their death; or, in one common interpretation, survive the editing. More than once, a plotline lasts just long enough to suggest that, if a basis for polytheism ever existed, it is now gone. In Psalm 82-the aforementioned divine council scene, in which G.o.d takes his seat among other G.o.ds-the scene ends with him predicting their death; or, in one common interpretation, sentencing sentencing them to death for their misdeeds. them to death for their misdeeds. 99 99 Similarly, Yahweh's encounter with the G.o.ds Sea and River lasts just long enough for him to casually subdue these pesky remnants of a bygone polytheism. Leaving that that part of Baal's legacy attached to Yahweh was theologically safe. But what about Baal's setbacks, such as being "swallowed" by Mot, the G.o.d Death? Such humiliation wouldn't befit a G.o.d worthy of exclusive devotion, and indeed the scriptures, as edited, don't show Yahweh inheriting this part of Baal's ident.i.ty. Instead, we see that promise in the book of Isaiah that eventually Yahweh will "swallow up" Mot "forever," a pointed a.s.sertion of Yahweh's superiority not just to Mot but to Baal. part of Baal's legacy attached to Yahweh was theologically safe. But what about Baal's setbacks, such as being "swallowed" by Mot, the G.o.d Death? Such humiliation wouldn't befit a G.o.d worthy of exclusive devotion, and indeed the scriptures, as edited, don't show Yahweh inheriting this part of Baal's ident.i.ty. Instead, we see that promise in the book of Isaiah that eventually Yahweh will "swallow up" Mot "forever," a pointed a.s.sertion of Yahweh's superiority not just to Mot but to Baal. 100 100 In a sense, then, the mid-first-millennium editors who in Smith's account helped to demythologize the Bible weren't bent on extirpating myth per se. Indeed, it was only later translators translators who changed Sea to sea and River to river and Death to death. The enemy, rather, was myth in which G.o.ds other than the star of the show were formidable. And since narrative holds interest only when its outcome is in doubt-that is, when there is more than one formidable character-the death of these motifs meant the death of true mythic narrative. who changed Sea to sea and River to river and Death to death. The enemy, rather, was myth in which G.o.ds other than the star of the show were formidable. And since narrative holds interest only when its outcome is in doubt-that is, when there is more than one formidable character-the death of these motifs meant the death of true mythic narrative.

This joint demise of polytheism and mythic narrative can be glimpsed, refracted, through shards of myth that remain in the Bible. A verse in the book of Habakkuk, as commonly translated, reads, "G.o.d came from... Mount Paran" and "before him went pestilence, and plague followed close behind." 101 101 But the Hebrew words underlying "pestilence" and "plague" are the words for the But the Hebrew words underlying "pestilence" and "plague" are the words for the G.o.ds G.o.ds of pestilence and plague, Deber and Resheph. of pestilence and plague, Deber and Resheph. 102 102 In the Canaanite pantheon, Deber and Resheph had been fiercely destructive, In the Canaanite pantheon, Deber and Resheph had been fiercely destructive, 103 103 but, as Smith has noted, that part of their ident.i.ty doesn't make it into the Bible. Rather, they appear as una.s.suming members of Yahweh's retinue. And later translators, by turning the names of these G.o.ds into generic nouns, converted Pestilence and Plague from minor deities to mere aspects of Yahweh's power, and abstract aspects at that. Yahweh here seems to be repeating the strategy we saw Marduk exercise in the previous chapter, moving toward monotheism through subtle conquest, a.s.similating other G.o.ds into his being. but, as Smith has noted, that part of their ident.i.ty doesn't make it into the Bible. Rather, they appear as una.s.suming members of Yahweh's retinue. And later translators, by turning the names of these G.o.ds into generic nouns, converted Pestilence and Plague from minor deities to mere aspects of Yahweh's power, and abstract aspects at that. Yahweh here seems to be repeating the strategy we saw Marduk exercise in the previous chapter, moving toward monotheism through subtle conquest, a.s.similating other G.o.ds into his being.

This pa.s.sage from Habakkuk ill.u.s.trates Smith's account of how Canaanite polytheism got streamlined into Israelite monotheism. G.o.ds that had ranked below El in the pantheon, such as Deber and Resheph, shrank in stature and eventually disappeared altogether. With the midlevel management now gone, all that was left of the downsized pantheon was a deity at the very top-now known as Yahweh-and supernatural beings at the very bottom: the divine messengers, or angels. 104 104 Cross-Fertilization.

The theologian Robert Karl Gnuse presciently observed in 1997 that "a 'paradigm s.h.i.+ft' appears to be underway," with more and more scholars acknowledging "a gradual evolution of a complex Yahwistic religion from a polytheistic past." Increasingly, "the perception of a gradual emergence of monotheism combines with an understanding that stresses Israel's intellectual continuity with the ancient world." 105 105 "Intellectual continuity"-organic connection between Israelite religion and the religions preceding it-certainly holds to the pattern we've seen in the last few chapters. G.o.ds change in character and merge with other G.o.ds and get renamed, and belief can change dramatically in the process, but you don't see whole new religions coming out of nowhere. Even the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten, who wasn't exactly averse to theological innovation, crafted his monotheism out of materials at hand: Aten, his one true G.o.d, had previously lived in a polytheistic context and first took shape as an offshoot of the sun G.o.d Re.

But intellectual continuity can be messy, and certainly was in the case of ancient Israel. The head of the Canaanite pantheon was El, and we saw reasons, early in this chapter, to think that Yahweh inherited much of El's character. 106 106 But now we've seen cause to put Yahweh in Baal's lineage as well. He is described in the language used to describe Baal, and he fights the very mythic enemies that Baal fought. (One biblical verse even seems to identify his home, Mount Zion, with Baal's home, Mount Sapan.) But now we've seen cause to put Yahweh in Baal's lineage as well. He is described in the language used to describe Baal, and he fights the very mythic enemies that Baal fought. (One biblical verse even seems to identify his home, Mount Zion, with Baal's home, Mount Sapan.) 107 107 So what's the story? How did Yahweh wind up part El and part Baal? How do we reconcile his two heritages? So what's the story? How did Yahweh wind up part El and part Baal? How do we reconcile his two heritages?

The first step is to remember that G.o.ds are products of cultural evolution, not biological evolution. In biological evolution, lines of descent are neat. You get all your traits from either one parent or two, depending on whether your species reproduces clonally or s.e.xually. Either way, once your egg cell starts to develop, your heritage is set-there is no further fiddling with your DNA. With cultural evolution, in contrast, endless cross-fertilization is possible. That's why the English language, though called "Germanic," bears a resemblance to the Romance languages. Long after Germanic tribes had settled in England, the language their descendants spoke was swapping words with the French language across the English Channel. And for that matter, the "Germanic" wellspring itself drew on several sources, famously including the Angles and the Saxons but extending to other tribes as well.

In other words: cultural evolution is fuzzy. Simple questions-such as whether Yahweh consists more more of El or of Baal-may not have an answer, much less an answer visible through the mists of antiquity. Still, the matter is worth pursuing: How did El, the cerebral chairman of the board, ever get mixed up with Baal, the terrifying storm G.o.d who is described by one scholar as a "virile dim-bulb"? of El or of Baal-may not have an answer, much less an answer visible through the mists of antiquity. Still, the matter is worth pursuing: How did El, the cerebral chairman of the board, ever get mixed up with Baal, the terrifying storm G.o.d who is described by one scholar as a "virile dim-bulb"? 108 108 And how were their ident.i.ties finally reconciled in one G.o.d? However elusive the answers, seeking them is the first step toward appreciating the great contribution made by Israelite religion to the evolution of G.o.d. And how were their ident.i.ties finally reconciled in one G.o.d? However elusive the answers, seeking them is the first step toward appreciating the great contribution made by Israelite religion to the evolution of G.o.d.

One initially puzzling aspect of the situation is that Baal, throughout the Bible, is Yahweh's rival. Bitter enmity doesn't seem like a good basis for a merger. But, actually, in cultural evolution, compet.i.tion can indeed spur convergence. Certainly that's true in modern modern cultural evolution. The reason operating systems made by Microsoft and Apple are so similar is that the two companies borrow (that's the polite term) features pioneered by the other when they prove popular. cultural evolution. The reason operating systems made by Microsoft and Apple are so similar is that the two companies borrow (that's the polite term) features pioneered by the other when they prove popular.

So too with religions. Baal's operating system had one feature that, in an ancient agricultural society, would have been the envy of any compet.i.tor who lacked it: as the storm G.o.d, Baal brought rain. 109 109 Hence, perhaps, all the atmospherics in some descriptions of Yahweh-his voice as thunder, his spear as lightning; anything Baal could do, he could do better. Hence, perhaps, all the atmospherics in some descriptions of Yahweh-his voice as thunder, his spear as lightning; anything Baal could do, he could do better. 110 110 And hence descriptions of Yahweh as a G.o.d who "rides upon the clouds"; And hence descriptions of Yahweh as a G.o.d who "rides upon the clouds"; 111 111 one of Baal's Canaan-ite nicknames was "rider of the clouds." one of Baal's Canaan-ite nicknames was "rider of the clouds."

Yet however much time Yahweh spent absorbing Baal's personality, he had to finally renounce it if he was to become the G.o.d that ancient Israel is famous for having produced: all-powerful, but not conspicuously so; the governor of nature, yet transcendent. Here we return to the biblical scene cited at the beginning of this chapter, Elijah's mountaintop encounter with a strangely elusive Yahweh in the nineteenth chapter of First Kings.

I say "strangely" elusive because only a chapter earlier, the Bible depicts a quite different Yahweh. Elijah has arranged for a public showdown between Yahweh and Baal. Yahweh devotees and Baal devotees will each prepare a bull for sacrifice and invite their G.o.d to ignite it from the heavens. Whichever G.o.d succeeds is the real G.o.d. You would think that Baal, the fearsome storm G.o.d, could toss down a lightning bolt, especially with 450 of his prophets cheering him on. But no Baal bolt is forthcoming. Yet Yahweh torches his his sacrifice even after Elijah drenches it in water! "Then the fire of the Lord fell and consumed the burnt offering, the wood, the stones, and the dust, and even licked up the water that was in the trench." sacrifice even after Elijah drenches it in water! "Then the fire of the Lord fell and consumed the burnt offering, the wood, the stones, and the dust, and even licked up the water that was in the trench." 112 112 Case closed: the people are convinced, the 450 Baal prophets are ignominiously slain, and Yahweh is triumphant. He has out-Baaled Baal-and, lest anyone miss the point, he finishes off the show with rain, Baal's supposed specialty. Case closed: the people are convinced, the 450 Baal prophets are ignominiously slain, and Yahweh is triumphant. He has out-Baaled Baal-and, lest anyone miss the point, he finishes off the show with rain, Baal's supposed specialty. 113 113 Now, with Baal vanquished, Yahweh can quit showing off, or at least cut down on it. As the biblical scholar Richard Elliott Friedman notes, this is the last time in the Hebrew Bible that G.o.d will perform a momentous miracle before a vast audience. 114 114 And the next chapter of First Kings will give us the new, subtle Yahweh, the G.o.d who is "not in the wind" and "not in the fire" and who speaks, if at all, in a "still small voice." Here, says Frank Moore Cross, begins a "new era" in Yahweh's "mode of self-disclosure." The "thunderous voice of Baal" has become "the imperceptible whisper" of Yahweh. And the next chapter of First Kings will give us the new, subtle Yahweh, the G.o.d who is "not in the wind" and "not in the fire" and who speaks, if at all, in a "still small voice." Here, says Frank Moore Cross, begins a "new era" in Yahweh's "mode of self-disclosure." The "thunderous voice of Baal" has become "the imperceptible whisper" of Yahweh. 115 115 Yahweh, having done a good enough Baal imitation to steal the show, could now elevate his act. The El in him-the chief-executive G.o.d who speaks through prophets-has outlasted the Baal in him, only in a higher form: Yahweh will become more remote than El, and eventually transcendent. Yahweh, having done a good enough Baal imitation to steal the show, could now elevate his act. The El in him-the chief-executive G.o.d who speaks through prophets-has outlasted the Baal in him, only in a higher form: Yahweh will become more remote than El, and eventually transcendent.

At least, that's one interpretation. It's an open question whether this stretch of the Bible can shoulder as much symbolic weight as modern interpreters have placed on it; whether its author(s) (and later editors) meant to depict a pivotal transition from old-fas.h.i.+oned, hands-on, fire-hurling G.o.d to subtle, even silent, transcendent G.o.d. (Even after this transition to a "new era," as Yahweh addresses Elijah quietly or not at all, he brings fire, an earthquake, and stone-splitting wind-not hallmarks of divine reserve.) Still, whatever this scene was meant to mean, the direction in which it points is indeed the direction in which the Bible moves. As Friedman noted in his book The Hidden Face of G.o.d The Hidden Face of G.o.d, the Bible's depictions of a vivid, dramatically interventionist Yahweh decline in frequency as the biblical narrative unfolds. It is near the beginning of the story that Yahweh is most likely to appear to people or speak to them or do widely witnessed wonders. Near the end he is less salient; indeed there is no mention of him at all in the last book of the Hebrew Bible, Esther. 116 116 Of course, the order in which the books (and chapters and verses) of the Bible appear is not the order in which they were written. But even if we look at the text in the order of its authors.h.i.+p, we see a trend (at least, if we use mainstream, though not unchallenged, views on the datings of the texts). 117 117 The early scriptures offer a hands-on, anthropomorphic G.o.d, who walks through a garden, calls out to people, makes them clothes, courteously closes up an ark before unleas.h.i.+ng a lethal flood, and drowns Egyptians by blowing on the sea (through his nose). This G.o.d smells the "pleasing odor" of burnt sacrifices. The early scriptures offer a hands-on, anthropomorphic G.o.d, who walks through a garden, calls out to people, makes them clothes, courteously closes up an ark before unleas.h.i.+ng a lethal flood, and drowns Egyptians by blowing on the sea (through his nose). This G.o.d smells the "pleasing odor" of burnt sacrifices. 118 118 In later scriptures we see less of G.o.d in the flesh, and even start to see a G.o.d with no flesh at all. The fourth chapter of Deuteronomy, apparently a product of the mid-first millennium, stresses that even when G.o.d spoke to his people they "saw no form" (and for that reason it would be a mistake to wors.h.i.+p idols that are made in "the form of any figure"). In later scriptures we see less of G.o.d in the flesh, and even start to see a G.o.d with no flesh at all. The fourth chapter of Deuteronomy, apparently a product of the mid-first millennium, stresses that even when G.o.d spoke to his people they "saw no form" (and for that reason it would be a mistake to wors.h.i.+p idols that are made in "the form of any figure"). 119 119 The evolution from a hands-on, anthropomorphic deity to a less intrusive, more abstract deity is hardly smooth. 120 120 The latter half of the first millennium saw an upsurge in apocalyptic writing replete with mythological imagery; the book of Daniel sees G.o.d as quite fleshly. ("His clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool.") The latter half of the first millennium saw an upsurge in apocalyptic writing replete with mythological imagery; the book of Daniel sees G.o.d as quite fleshly. ("His clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool.") 121 121 Still, on balance, there seems to be a trend: movement during the first millennium BCE away from an anthropomorphic polytheism toward a more abstract monotheism. Still, on balance, there seems to be a trend: movement during the first millennium BCE away from an anthropomorphic polytheism toward a more abstract monotheism.

When you appraise this trend-this erratic but directional drift from one conception of G.o.d to another-it's hard not to conclude that the traditional story of the Abrahamic G.o.d is just wrong. Full-fledged monotheism didn't, as Kaufmann argued, emerge early in Israelite history "as an insight, an original intuition." 122 122 Early Israelite religion grew out of earlier religions, "pagan" religions, just as they had done. And out of it, eventually, grew the more modern G.o.d of late Israelite religion: a single, transcendent all-powerful, all-knowing G.o.d-the G.o.d of Jews, Christians, and Muslims. It would be a G.o.d of unprecedented influence, a G.o.d that in various centuries would dominate peoples who were dominant in the world. Early Israelite religion grew out of earlier religions, "pagan" religions, just as they had done. And out of it, eventually, grew the more modern G.o.d of late Israelite religion: a single, transcendent all-powerful, all-knowing G.o.d-the G.o.d of Jews, Christians, and Muslims. It would be a G.o.d of unprecedented influence, a G.o.d that in various centuries would dominate peoples who were dominant in the world.

But the question remains: Why? Why? What forces pushed Israel toward monotheism? Only when we answer this question can we answer the question raised at the outset of this chapter: What exactly is the connection between monotheism and intolerance, between monotheism and violence? We'll take up these questions in the next chapter. But there is at least one thing we can already say about monotheism and violence. A premise shared by all who commit violence in the name of the Abrahamic G.o.d is that this G.o.d is special-the one true G.o.d. And most of these people would say his specialness was manifest in his mode of appearance: more than three millennia ago, he showed up suddenly, announced his presence, and rejected the pagan polytheism of the day. If you ask them how they know that, they're likely to say that the scriptures told them so. What forces pushed Israel toward monotheism? Only when we answer this question can we answer the question raised at the outset of this chapter: What exactly is the connection between monotheism and intolerance, between monotheism and violence? We'll take up these questions in the next chapter. But there is at least one thing we can already say about monotheism and violence. A premise shared by all who commit violence in the name of the Abrahamic G.o.d is that this G.o.d is special-the one true G.o.d. And most of these people would say his specialness was manifest in his mode of appearance: more than three millennia ago, he showed up suddenly, announced his presence, and rejected the pagan polytheism of the day. If you ask them how they know that, they're likely to say that the scriptures told them so.

In the early twentieth century, archaeology seemed to be shoring up this sort of faith. William Albright, the "father of biblical archaeology," wrote in 1940 that we were now seeing "archaeological confirmation of the general tenor of Israelite tradition." 123 123 But in the second half of the twentieth century this claim fell into doubt, and archaeologists started asking whether it wasn't grounded more in Albright's Christian faith than in scholars.h.i.+p. Increasingly, the biblical narrative sustained damage from the facts in the ground. So today, when the faithful point to scripture as proof that their G.o.d is different from all other ancient G.o.ds-that he is the one true G.o.d-any skeptic well versed in archaeology can reply: But why would anyone place their faith in a book persistently at odds with historical reality? But in the second half of the twentieth century this claim fell into doubt, and archaeologists started asking whether it wasn't grounded more in Albright's Christian faith than in scholars.h.i.+p. Increasingly, the biblical narrative sustained damage from the facts in the ground. So today, when the faithful point to scripture as proof that their G.o.d is different from all other ancient G.o.ds-that he is the one true G.o.d-any skeptic well versed in archaeology can reply: But why would anyone place their faith in a book persistently at odds with historical reality?

In light of the past few decades of biblical scholars.h.i.+p, skeptics can go further. The Hebrew Bible-read carefully, and in light of ancient Canaanite writings-doesn't really tell the story the faithful have said it tells to begin with; at least, it doesn't tell that story in ultimately credible form. Alongside its monotheistic plotline lies diverse evidence casting that plotline into doubt. The story is undermined not just by the facts in the ground, but by the text itself.

Of course, a believer can choose to ignore this evidence, or can strain to accommodate it, much like early astronomers who explained the patterns of planets with increasingly baroque theories rather than just concede that the Earth revolves around the Sun. But Jews, Christians, and Muslims who are spiritually hungry and intellectually serious will have to grapple with the evidence, and somehow reconcile their beliefs with it. The next step in the grappling is to figure out when and how - and above all why-Abrahamic monotheism did in fact emerge.

Chapter Six.

From Polytheism to Monolatry.

You don't meet many women named Jezebel. The name fell out of fas.h.i.+on millennia ago and never recovered. In fact, it got so loaded with bad connotations that it is now a generic pejorative. A jezebel, according to one dictionary, is "a wicked, shameless woman." 1 1 It all goes back to the biblical Jezebel. She was married to Ahab, king of Israel during the ninth century BCE. She was a vigorous champion of the Canaanite G.o.d Baal, and talked King Ahab into backing Baal. This dimmed her chances of being favorably depicted in the Bible. It all goes back to the biblical Jezebel. She was married to Ahab, king of Israel during the ninth century BCE. She was a vigorous champion of the Canaanite G.o.d Baal, and talked King Ahab into backing Baal. This dimmed her chances of being favorably depicted in the Bible.

Jezebel was a key behind-the-scenes player in the biblical story that framed the previous chapter: Yahweh beats Baal in the showdown arranged by Elijah, and then later "appears" to Elijah-invisibly, ineffably-on Mount Sinai. It was because Jezebel had so whipped up enthusiasm for Baal that Elijah scheduled this decisive face-off between the two G.o.ds in the first place. And the rest is history: with Yahweh's biggest rival subdued, and Yahweh's ident.i.ty now moving toward transcendence, Israelite religion was on the path to modern monotheism.

Or so we're told. Whether Yahweh actually did best Baal, and for that matter whether any such mountaintop showdown was even organized by Elijah, are not exactly subjects of universal agreement. The Elijah story may not have been written down until centuries after its (alleged) occurrence, and it was eventually edited by people who championed exclusive devotion to Yahweh and presumably spun the tale in that direction. 2 2 Still, the underlying conflict-Elijah's opposition to the pro-Baal policies of Jezebel and Ahab-is something many biblical scholars think is rooted in fact. And this rebellion against royally sanctioned polytheism is commonly viewed as a milestone in the fitful evolution of monotheism, an evolution that would take centuries more for its culmination. Still, the underlying conflict-Elijah's opposition to the pro-Baal policies of Jezebel and Ahab-is something many biblical scholars think is rooted in fact. And this rebellion against royally sanctioned polytheism is commonly viewed as a milestone in the fitful evolution of monotheism, an evolution that would take centuries more for its culmination.

More narrowly, the incident is taken as a milestone in the evolution of monolatry monolatry, a way station on the road to full-fledged monotheism. Elijah wasn't necessarily claiming Baal didn't exist exist (the monotheistic position), just that he didn't deserve the respect of Israelites. Some two centuries after the time of Elijah, monolatry would be the official policy of the king of the Israelites, and the wors.h.i.+p of G.o.ds other than Yahweh would be discouraged with zealous brutality. This chapter will address the question of how monolatry moved from the radical fringe to the center of Israelite politics-how the stage for full-fledged monotheism was set. (the monotheistic position), just that he didn't deserve the respect of Israelites. Some two centuries after the time of Elijah, monolatry would be the official policy of the king of the Israelites, and the wors.h.i.+p of G.o.ds other than Yahweh would be discouraged with zealous brutality. This chapter will address the question of how monolatry moved from the radical fringe to the center of Israelite politics-how the stage for full-fledged monotheism was set.

It would be nice to know for sure if the Elijah story is true. If it is, at least in its political essentials, then we start our search for monolatry's origins by asking what inspired Elijah to oppose Yahweh's rival Baal. If it is false, we start our search by asking what inspired later biblical writers to create the story-why they themselves had come to oppose the wors.h.i.+p of all G.o.ds other than Yahweh, after which they read their theology back into history.

But, as it happens, those two paths lead to roughly the same place, yielding similar conclusions about what forces made Yahweh the only G.o.d of the Israelites. The best way to see this is to just pick a path and follow it. We'll begin by a.s.suming, if only as a kind of thought experiment, that this early Bible story is true, and then move forward in the biblical narrative of Israel's unfolding theology, until we get to some episodes that are more firmly grounded in fact. Our path will eventually double back on itself, as these later episodes shed light on the authors.h.i.+p of the Elijah story. We'll then be in a position to explain the evolution of Israelite monolatry with some confidence.

But first let's make it clear-in case it isn't already-what philosophical bias will inform the enterprise. Attempts to explain changes in religious doctrine come in two basic varieties: the kind that stress the power of ideas and the kind that stress the power of material circ.u.mstance. Was Israel pushed toward monolatry, and ultimately toward monotheism, more by theological inspiration and reflection, or more by politics, economics, and other concrete social factors? To take the example at hand: What drove Elijah and his followers to heap disdain on Jezebel and on Baal? Was Jezebel loathed because of her a.s.sociation with Baal (and hence with polytheism), or was Baal loathed because of his a.s.sociation with Jezebel (and hence with whatever economic and political interests she represented)?

The Bible, of course, favors the first interpretation: Elijah and his followers, in the grip of divine truth, opposed the wors.h.i.+p of Baal, and so became the enemy of anyone who favored such wors.h.i.+p. Then again, the Bible has a natural bias in favor of the power of religious belief, the ability of ideas to shape facts on the ground. The book you're reading, in contrast, emphasizes the power of facts on the ground; it seeks to explain how the conception of G.o.d has changed in response to events on earth. So it takes seriously the possibility that, for all Elijah's religious fervor, his fight against Baal may have had mundane motivations. The theological conflict with Jezebel and her husband, Ahab, may have had as much to do with Jezebel and Ahab as with theology.

Certainly we've seen examples of mundane motivations shaping theological principles. We've seen Eskimo shamans tell sinful women that divine forgiveness depended on their having s.e.x with an Eskimo shaman. We've seen Polynesian chiefs say that people who irritated them had to be sacrificed to the G.o.ds. We've seen Sargon of Akkadia fuse Ishtar and Inanna into a single G.o.d that served his imperial ambitions. We've seen Akhenaten, the engineer of Egyptian monotheism, kill off G.o.ds whose priests he found politically threatening. Again and again we've seen the divine, or at least ideas about the divine, reshaped by the mundane. Facts on the ground-facts about power and money and other cra.s.s things-have often been the leading edge of change, with religious belief following along.

Of course, sometimes the influence moves in the opposite direction. Religious beliefs, especially in the short run, can shape the political and economic landscape. It's entirely possible that Elijah had deep faith in Yahweh, and this faith inspired a political movement against Ahab and Jezebel. For that matter, the influence can move in both directions at once: maybe Elijah's motivation was wholly faith-based but some of his supporters had political or economic grievances against Jezebel and King Ahab.

In short, the whole thing is messy, and focusing exclusively on any one "prime mover" is too simple. Still, I'll argue that on balance the best way to explain the centuries-long evolution from polytheism to monolatry to monotheism is via concrete social forces. At the risk of oversimplifying: politics and economics gave us the one true G.o.d of the Abrahamic faiths.

Religious people often find this claim dispiriting, as it seems to reduce belief in a higher purpose to a mirage, an illusory reflection of the mundane. By the end of this book I'll argue that the opposite is in a sense true: that seeing facts on the ground as prime movers winds up presenting a new kind of evidence evidence for higher purpose. In any event, for now what I'm claiming is that to fathom why monotheism evolved in ancient Israel, we have to fathom the underlying politics and economics of ancient Israel. Only then can we see in what sense, if any, intolerance and belligerence are "built into" Abrahamic monotheism, and how firm a part of the Abrahamic G.o.d's character they are or aren't. for higher purpose. In any event, for now what I'm claiming is that to fathom why monotheism evolved in ancient Israel, we have to fathom the underlying politics and economics of ancient Israel. Only then can we see in what sense, if any, intolerance and belligerence are "built into" Abrahamic monotheism, and how firm a part of the Abrahamic G.o.d's character they are or aren't.

The Yahweh-Alone Party.

So, what social forces might have helped energize opposition to the policies of Ahab and Jezebel, and hence to Baal? For starters, it helps to remember that, in ancient times, when men of royal blood married foreign women, it wasn't usually on a romantic whim. It was part of foreign policy, a way to cement relations with another nation. Jezebel was the daughter of King Ethbaal, ruler of the cities of Tyre and Sidon in Phoenicia (and in modern-day Lebanon). Her marriage to Ahab had been arranged by Ahab's father, King Omri, who no doubt realized that alliance with Phoenicia gave Israel favored access to these Mediterranean port cities. And, as usual in the ancient world, alliance with a country meant treating its G.o.ds with respect. So if, as the Bible says, Ahab built an altar for Baal 3 3 in Israel's capital city, Samaria, that wasn't just some concession to his zany wife. It was part of the logic of marrying Jezebel in the first place, the theological expression of the marriage's underlying political rationale. in Israel's capital city, Samaria, that wasn't just some concession to his zany wife. It was part of the logic of marrying Jezebel in the first place, the theological expression of the marriage's underlying political rationale. 4 4 And thus had it long been. The Bible, looking back askance at the theology of King Solomon in the tenth century BCE, complains that he had hundreds of wives who "turned away his heart after other G.o.ds," inspiring official reverence for "Astarte the G.o.ddess of the Sidonians" and "Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites" and "Chemosh the abomination of Moab." But all this "evil in the sight of the Lord" 5 5 was presumably good foreign policy in the eyes of Solomon. An "internationalist" foreign policy-one emphasizing wide alliance and trade-entailed a certain respect for foreign G.o.ds. was presumably good foreign policy in the eyes of Solomon. An "internationalist" foreign policy-one emphasizing wide alliance and trade-entailed a certain respect for foreign G.o.ds.

By the same token, opponents of an internationalist policy might oppose the interfaith amity-the respect for, even embrace of, foreign G.o.ds-that abetted it. Maybe this is how Israel started down the path toward monolatry, via a backlash against internationalism. But why would someone oppose an internationalist foreign policy? In the case of Ahab's internationalism, various theories have been offered.

Maybe, for example, some local merchants suffered from Ahab's having let Phoenician traders come to Israel and muscle in on commerce. Certainly the structure of economics in those days made it easy for resentment of Phoenician traders to translate into resentment of Phoenician G.o.ds. As the biblical scholar Bernard Lang has noted, in ancient times, houses of wors.h.i.+p sometimes performed "many a task of the modern bank," and there is evidence that Phoenician traders used Baal's temple as their headquarters. 6 6 In this scenario, the tension between Ahab's and Elijah's const.i.tuencies boils down to political and economic self-interest. From Ahab's perspective, alliance with Phoenicia made sense. It not only kept Mediterranean markets open to Israel via Phoenician ports, but also steered east-west commerce through Israel, creating trade routes that Ahab could profitably control. What's more, the alliance gave Israel a strong friend in the event of military conflict with one of the region's great powers. If the price for all this was tolerating Baal and letting some Phoenician traders make money, so be it. The relations.h.i.+p with Phoenicia was win-win, and Ahab's theology expanded accordingly. But for Israelites whose livelihood was threatened by Phoenician traders, the relations.h.i.+p with Phoenicia was one-way; Phoenicians won and they lost. Their theology contracted accordingly.

This resentful-merchants theory is pretty speculative. But the general principle makes sense, and we've already seen it at work in ancient Mesopotamia and elsewhere: att.i.tudes toward a foreign G.o.d can depend on how the foreigners are perceived. If locals feel they can gain by cooperative interaction with those foreigners, they may embrace the G.o.d, or at least raise no protest when fellow citizens do. But if locals see the game as zero-sum-if they believe that their fortunes are inversely correlated with the foreigners' fortunes, that the foreigners have to lose for them to win-then their theology will probably be less inclusive. Let's call this the law of religious tolerance: people are more likely to be open to foreign G.o.ds when they see themselves playing a non-zero-sum game with foreigners-see their fortunes as positively correlated with the foreigners' fortunes, see themselves and the foreigners as, to some extent, in the same boat.

The ancient world, by linking foreign policy and theology so tightly, made this principle especially compelling, but a version of it operates in modern times, too. People who are profitably doing business with other people tend not to question their religious beliefs: live and let live.

For that matter, the basic dynamic goes beyond the question of religious tolerance to the question of tolerance in general. People naturally, without really thinking about it, judge enemies and rivals critically in various realms. If two men are pursuing the same woman, and you ask them what they think of each other's tastes-in politics, in clothes, in literature, whatever-you'll probably get some negative feedback, and it will probably be heartfelt. In contrast, people reflexively judge potential collaborators, and their beliefs, leniently. So the link between self-interest and tolerance needn't be a matter of conscious conscious calculation, a fact we'll explore below. The law of religious tolerance grows organically out of human nature. calculation, a fact we'll explore below. The law of religious tolerance grows organically out of human nature.

There is another theory about what inspired opposition to Ahab and Jezebel, and hence to Baal. In allying with Phoenicia, Israel was turning its back on another potent polity-a.s.syria, to its northeast. Indeed, a.s.syria's menacing power was one thing the Phoenician alliance was presumably meant to neutralize. As Lang notes, there was probably an Israelite faction that favored alliance with a.s.syria instead of Phoenicia. Certainly such a faction prevailed some years after Ahab's death: King Jehu, who took the throne by coup d'etat, would court a.s.syria's favor and thus redirect Israelite foreign policy. It's probably no coincidence that, according to the Bible, Jehu would also kill every Baal wors.h.i.+pper in Israel, destroy Baal's temple, and replace it with a latrine. 7 7 So maybe Elijah drew support from pro-a.s.syrian Israelites. In that event, the hatred of Baal evinced by Ahab's enemies may have been matched by their warmth toward the a.s.syrian G.o.d a.s.sur-a fact that the Bible's monotheistic editors, for all we know, left on the cutting-room floor. In other words, it's quite possible that many Elijah backers were just as polytheistic as Ahab and Jezebel, and merely disagreed with them about which G.o.ds were worth wors.h.i.+pping. Even so, the moral of the underlying story would remain the same: people tolerate, even embrace, the theologies of foreigners to the extent that they see the possibility of mutual gain through collaboration.

Of course, if the traditional interpretation is right, and Elijah's coalition was monolatrous, devoted to the wors.h.i.+p of Yahweh alone, alone, then a pro-a.s.syrian faction with an affinity for a.s.syrian G.o.ds wouldn't fit into the coalition. And at some point in Israelite history, some such "Yahweh-alone" movement (as the historian Morton Smith dubbed it) then a pro-a.s.syrian faction with an affinity for a.s.syrian G.o.ds wouldn't fit into the coalition. And at some point in Israelite history, some such "Yahweh-alone" movement (as the historian Morton Smith dubbed it) 8 8 must have taken shape. This movement, by definition, would have rejected the wors.h.i.+p of all G.o.ds of foreign origin. So if the preference of one ally of Israel over another entailed the active embrace of that ally's G.o.ds, then this preference wouldn't make sense as part of the Yahweh-alone movement's motivation. A skepticism about international alliance in general would be more like it. must have taken shape. This movement, by definition, would have rejected the wors.h.i.+p of all G.o.ds of foreign origin. So if the preference of one ally of Israel over another entailed the active embrace of that ally's G.o.ds, then this preference wouldn't make sense as part of the Yahweh-alone movement's motivation. A skepticism about international alliance in general would be more like it.

The First Clear-Cut Monolatrist.

With that in mind, let's fast-forward to a time when there is more evidence that the Yahweh-alone message has has found voice. In the eighth century BCE, long after Jezebel was dead, the prophet Hosea appeared, and his thoughts were committed to writing, apparently during his lifetime or shortly thereafter. found voice. In the eighth century BCE, long after Jezebel was dead, the prophet Hosea appeared, and his thoughts were committed to writing, apparently during his lifetime or shortly thereafter. 9 9 Though his text was subject to later editing, many scholars think its core message solidified not long after his death, so that it's fair to speak of a "Hosean" theology that reflects a strand of Israelite thought somewhere around the end of the eighth century BCE. Though his text was subject to later editing, many scholars think its core message solidified not long after his death, so that it's fair to speak of a "Hosean" theology that reflects a strand of Israelite thought somewhere around the end of the eighth century BCE. 10 10 Certainly many more scholars think this than think that the Elijah story is true as told. In any event, as with the Elijah story, we'll proceed for now on the a.s.sumption that the biblical record is roughly accurate: we'll see in the book of Hosea a man named Hosea whose thoughts say something about the time in which he lived. Certainly many more scholars think this than think that the Elijah story is true as told. In any event, as with the Elijah story, we'll proceed for now on the a.s.sumption that the biblical record is roughly accurate: we'll see in the book of Hosea a man named Hosea whose thoughts say something about the time in which he lived.

Hosea is sometimes read as a monotheist, but there's no reason to think he was anything more than monolatrous. He never denies the existence of G.o.ds other than Yahweh, and he never says foreigners shouldn't wors.h.i.+p them. 11 11 When he insists that Israelites should "know" no G.o.d but Yahweh, he doesn't mean "know" in the modern sense of "be aware of." The underlying Hebrew word meant something more like "be faithful to." It was used in treaties to express the loyalty of a va.s.sal nation. When he insists that Israelites should "know" no G.o.d but Yahweh, he doesn't mean "know" in the modern sense of "be aware of." The underlying Hebrew word meant something more like "be faithful to." It was used in treaties to express the loyalty of a va.s.sal nation. 12 12 Still, that sense of "know" does qualify Hosea as a full-fledged monolatrist. When he quotes Yahweh saying, "[Y]ou know no G.o.d but me, and besides me there is no savior," 13 13 he is expressing the Yahweh-alone party line. He may also be making intellectual history, laying down a template for one of the most famous lines in the Bible. The first of the Ten Commandments-"You shall have no other G.o.ds before me" (another monolatrous verse often read as monotheistic)-probably comes from post-Hosean times. he is expressing the Yahweh-alone party line. He may also be making intellectual history, laying down a template for one of the most famous lines in the Bible. The first of the Ten Commandments-"You shall have no other G.o.ds before me" (another monolatrous verse often read as monotheistic)-probably comes from post-Hosean times. 14 14 So does Hosea exhibit what the above logic suggests a monolatrist might exhibit: a certain skepticism of alliance in general? You might say. He repeatedly mentions two great powers, a.s.syria and Egypt, and never in a favorable light. He stresses the futility of alliance between either of these powers and "Ephraim"-the northern kingdom of Israel, where he lived. (Greater Israel is at this point divided into two states, a northern one called Ephraim or Israel and a southern one called Judah.) "a.s.syria shall not save us," he says, and as for negotiating with Egyptian leaders, this is just "babbling in the land of Egypt." Ephraim's leaders are "silly and without sense; they call upon Egypt, they go to a.s.syria." 15 15 Part of Hosea's resistance to alliances seems to be grounded in their frequently demeaning terms. Because Israel is a small state wedged between great powers, "alliance" often amounts to va.s.salage. When the book of Hosea complains that Ephraim's leaders "make a treaty with a.s.syria, and oil is carried to Egypt," 16 16 it is talking not about selling oil to Egypt, but about giving it to Egypt as tribute. it is talking not about selling oil to Egypt, but about giving it to Egypt as tribute.

Still, great powers aren't the only problem. 17 17 Hosea, as the biblical scholar Marvin Sweeney has written, shows "hostility to foreign involvement in general." Hosea, as the biblical scholar Marvin Sweeney has written, shows "hostility to foreign involvement in general." 18 18 Indeed, the suspicion of foreign nations is so diffuse as to verge on xenophobia. Hosea writes, "Ephraim mixes himself with the peoples.... Foreigners devour his strength, but he does not know it." And "Israel is swallowed up; now... among the nations as a useless vessel." Indeed, the suspicion of foreign nations is so diffuse as to verge on xenophobia. Hosea writes, "Ephraim mixes himself with the peoples.... Foreigners devour his strength, but he does not know it." And "Israel is swallowed up; now... among the nations as a useless vessel." 19 19 Presumably the logic of Ahab, Solomon, and other kings who had pursued an internationalist foreign policy was that immersion in the larger world could make Israel richer. Hosea takes the opposite view. He sees an increasingly poor Israel whose poverty is only deepened by international forces. "The standing grain has no heads, it shall yield no meal;