The Evolution Of God Part 4

The Elijah story comes from the first book of Kings, and hence from that seven-book stretch known as the Deuteronomistic history, so called because it tells Israelite history in a way that validates the theological, moral, and legal principles laid out in the book of Deuteronomy. And what are those principles? In a word: Josiah's. This doesn't mean that the entire Deuteronomistic history was written during Josiah's time, by Josiah's scribes. (Much of it may have been, but most scholars agree that some was written before Josiah's time and some after.) It just means, at a minimum, that the history is told from the perspective of Josianic ideology; that if Josiah's scribes had had set out to write a masterful piece of propaganda-a history that authorized and sacralized Josiah's agenda-they would have come up with something broadly like the Deuteronomistic history. set out to write a masterful piece of propaganda-a history that authorized and sacralized Josiah's agenda-they would have come up with something broadly like the Deuteronomistic history.

Put yourself in their shoes. Suppose that, even as your king tried to confine devotion to Yahweh, pesky pockets of Baal devotees persisted. And suppose you were writing during times of national duress, when xenophobia had resonance-or, at least, that you were trying to marshal political support from a particularly xenophobic segment of society. Then it might help to (a) depict Baal as foreign; (b) link Baal to the conniving foreign wife of some previous king; and (c) make it a king who had a bad reputation to begin with. The scholar William Schniedewind believes that, in early stories about Ahab, told well before Josiah's time, he was notorious, but only for seizing a citizen's vineyard. Then, long after Ahab's death, some Yahweh-alone types beefed up the indictment; Ahab, it was now said (in 1 Kings), had made an idol for the wors.h.i.+p of the Israelite G.o.ddess Asherah. Later still, believes Schniedewind, Ahab was depicted as "an outright wors.h.i.+pper of Phoenician Baal"-part of a new biblical polemic that "considered any idol to be a foreign deity." 94 94 In other words, the nontrivial amount of ink spilled speculating about what motivated Elijah to oppose Ahab's Baal wors.h.i.+p may have been spilled in vain. The whole thing may be a made-up story. Near the beginning of this chapter, shortly before I spilled my share of that ink, I alluded to this possibility and said there was a sense in which it doesn't matter: a.s.suming the Elijah story true and a.s.suming it a piece of propaganda have some common implications.

In particular: either way, the drift toward monotheism is linked to a reaction against something foreign. If the Elijah story is true, then at least some of Elijah's support in his war against the Phoenician Baal came from anti-Phoenician elements. If the story is false, and took shape during some later monolatrous crusade, it presumably took shape because anti-Phoenician, and perhaps broadly xenophobic, rhetoric had a receptive audience. So too with the question of how accurately we can date various pa.s.sages in prophetic books that speak for the Yahweh-alone movement. 95 95 If Hosea's two intertwined themes-monolatry and an aversion to foreign contact-were in fact amplified or even created well after Hosea's time, there must have been something in the air that made them rhetorically symbiotic. Similarly, Zephaniah's tirades against alien nations and alien G.o.ds must coexist for a reason, regardless of when they were written down. However we date these biblical texts, however much factual accuracy we attribute to them, there is no denying the air of nationalism and even xenophobia that surrounds Yahweh's movement toward the status of the one true G.o.d. If Hosea's two intertwined themes-monolatry and an aversion to foreign contact-were in fact amplified or even created well after Hosea's time, there must have been something in the air that made them rhetorically symbiotic. Similarly, Zephaniah's tirades against alien nations and alien G.o.ds must coexist for a reason, regardless of when they were written down. However we date these biblical texts, however much factual accuracy we attribute to them, there is no denying the air of nationalism and even xenophobia that surrounds Yahweh's movement toward the status of the one true G.o.d.

In other words, even if the FP scenario is wrong at the theological level-mistaken in its claim that monolatry drew much energy from the rejection of truly foreign foreign G.o.ds-its a.n.a.lysis of Israel's political psychology is right. As a small nation buffeted by great powers, Israel often had to choose between war against potent enemies and a peace that many Israelites found humiliating. And the resultant hostility toward foreign powers was only intensified among commoners who resented the way cosmopolitan elites profited by befriending Israel's oppressors. This-the psychology of the FP scenario-is what was harnessed by the Yahweh-alone movement even if the DP scenario is right, and that movement was mainly about killing off indigenously Israelite G.o.ds to consolidate the king's power. Regardless of how accurate the Bible's labeling of all those "foreign" G.o.ds, the FP scenario and the DP scenario, between them, capture the psychological and political dynamics that got Israel from polytheism to monolatry. G.o.ds-its a.n.a.lysis of Israel's political psychology is right. As a small nation buffeted by great powers, Israel often had to choose between war against potent enemies and a peace that many Israelites found humiliating. And the resultant hostility toward foreign powers was only intensified among commoners who resented the way cosmopolitan elites profited by befriending Israel's oppressors. This-the psychology of the FP scenario-is what was harnessed by the Yahweh-alone movement even if the DP scenario is right, and that movement was mainly about killing off indigenously Israelite G.o.ds to consolidate the king's power. Regardless of how accurate the Bible's labeling of all those "foreign" G.o.ds, the FP scenario and the DP scenario, between them, capture the psychological and political dynamics that got Israel from polytheism to monolatry.

So the law of religious tolerance-or, strictly speaking, its flip side-stands vindicated: when people see themselves as playing zero-sum games with foreigners, they will be ill disposed to embrace, or perhaps even tolerate, foreign G.o.ds and religious practices. And this law stands vindicated regardless of whether the various "foreign" G.o.ds in the Bible are really foreign.

It would still be nice to know how accurate the Bible is in its depiction of these G.o.ds. Was the Deuteronomistic history - history as told from the standpoint of King Josiah and other in the Yahweh-alone movement-a straightforward, nationalist diatribe against everything that came from beyond Israel's borders? Or was it a cunning use of xenophobia, a stigmatization of things that actually came from within Israel's borders?

It no doubt had elements of both. On the one hand, the Israelites must have absorbed some truly foreign religious elements in the not-too-distant past. The chances of a small country on a.s.syria's periphery in the eighth and seventh centuries BCE not hosting a single shrine to an a.s.syrian G.o.d are about the same as the chances of a small modern country in America's sphere of influence having no McDonald's and no Starbucks. 96 96 (And the chances of no Israelites resenting those shrines are roughly the chances of no one resenting the cultural intrusion of a globally hegemonic America.) On the other hand, there's no doubt that the Deuteronomistic authors used rhetorical tricks to give G.o.ds other than Yahweh the aura of the alien. Even Asherah-who had too ample an Israelite pedigree to be called foreign outright-could be given an alien taint; the Bible refers to "prophets of Asherah, who eat at Jezebel's table." (And the chances of no Israelites resenting those shrines are roughly the chances of no one resenting the cultural intrusion of a globally hegemonic America.) On the other hand, there's no doubt that the Deuteronomistic authors used rhetorical tricks to give G.o.ds other than Yahweh the aura of the alien. Even Asherah-who had too ample an Israelite pedigree to be called foreign outright-could be given an alien taint; the Bible refers to "prophets of Asherah, who eat at Jezebel's table." 97 97 Certainly, from the outset, the Deuteronomistic history maximizes the ease with which the domestic can be stigmatized as foreign. Recall, from the previous chapter, one of Israel's founding myths, from the (Deuteronomistic) book of Joshua: that Israelites had come to the promised land from the desert and promptly conquered the natives. And recall that archaeology is now showing this story not to be true. Now note a key implication of this untrue story: that just about anything indigenous to the land of Canaan is actually alien, a remnant of the "foreign" culture that had been dispelled (but alas incompletely) 98 98 with G.o.d's blessing. with G.o.d's blessing. 99 99 The Bible often makes this implication explicit. The denunciation of celestial deities noted above-denunciation of "the abominable practices of the nations"-is actually an abridgment. The full version is "the abominable practices of the nations that the LORD drove out before the people of Israel." 100 100 This formulation is invoked again and again in Deuteronomistic writings to neutralize Yahweh's rivals. In a pa.s.sage that Josiah probably used to justify his reforms, Moses is said to have instructed the Israelites before they enter Canaan: "No one shall be found among you who... practices divination, or is a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or one who casts spells, or who consults ghosts or spirits, or who seeks oracles from the dead." And why not? Because these are the "abhorrent practices" of "these nations that you are about to dispossess." Indeed, "it is because of such abhorrent practices that the LORD your G.o.d is driving them out before you." So "when you come into the land that the LORD your G.o.d is giving you, you must not learn to imitate the abhorrent practices of those nations." This formulation is invoked again and again in Deuteronomistic writings to neutralize Yahweh's rivals. In a pa.s.sage that Josiah probably used to justify his reforms, Moses is said to have instructed the Israelites before they enter Canaan: "No one shall be found among you who... practices divination, or is a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or one who casts spells, or who consults ghosts or spirits, or who seeks oracles from the dead." And why not? Because these are the "abhorrent practices" of "these nations that you are about to dispossess." Indeed, "it is because of such abhorrent practices that the LORD your G.o.d is driving them out before you." So "when you come into the land that the LORD your G.o.d is giving you, you must not learn to imitate the abhorrent practices of those nations." 101 101 Apparently some Israelites Apparently some Israelites did did make the mistake of preserving indigenous religion; otherwise this text-surely written long after the Mosaic era, and quite possibly written in Josiah's day-wouldn't have been written at all. make the mistake of preserving indigenous religion; otherwise this text-surely written long after the Mosaic era, and quite possibly written in Josiah's day-wouldn't have been written at all.

To note the uncanny theological and political convenience of the Deuteronomistic history isn't to say that it's a product of conscious dishonesty. It probably had many authors, spanning centuries, and drew on an oral history that itself had taken shape gradually. And any anthropologist can tell you that a culture's oral history, though often based on some core truths about the past, may naturally drift toward certain biases without any one person trying consciously to steer it in that direction. One natural bias is called ethnic marking: as an ethnic group works to preserve, or initially construct, a cohesive ident.i.ty, it highlights differences between itself and nearby peoples. 102 102 As such differences get amplified and embedded in historical myth, they can amount to a ma.s.sive distortion. But that doesn't mean that any one person knowingly perpetrated the distortion. As such differences get amplified and embedded in historical myth, they can amount to a ma.s.sive distortion. But that doesn't mean that any one person knowingly perpetrated the distortion.

In this sense, Israel's founding myth-Israelites roll in from Egypt and squash natives-is a natural outgrowth of Israel's founding truth: the nation of Israel emerged from within Canaan, and there it crystallized. Recla.s.sifying indigenous Canaanite traditions as alien was part of that crystallization, part of the process by which Israel carved out an ident.i.ty against the backdrop of Middle Eastern culture. As it happens, this naturally emerging myth found synergy with emerging, intertwined realities -political ones, like the Israelites' perilous international environment and a royal imperative to centralize power, and theological ones like monolatry. And the rest is history.

The Uses of Intolerance.

And what of the larger question surrounding this inquiry? Did the evolution of monotheism, as monotheism's critics would claim, entail belligerent intolerance? Certainly the story so far-the evolution of monolatry-does nothing to refute that allegation. Intolerance is part and parcel of Josiah's politics. His aspirations were twofold: he wanted to make Judah a sinewy, centralized state and then use that muscle aggressively-for starters in the conquest of northern Israel (the Israel that had been lost to a.s.syrian aggression a century earlier), and perhaps ultimately in the conquest of lands beyond. 103 103 The fiercely nationalist streak in the Yahweh-alone movement served this expansionist aim well. For if nearby polytheistic peoples always threatened to corrupt Israelite religion, then Israelites should have no compunction about destroying them. As the Book of Deuteronomy puts it: The fiercely nationalist streak in the Yahweh-alone movement served this expansionist aim well. For if nearby polytheistic peoples always threatened to corrupt Israelite religion, then Israelites should have no compunction about destroying them. As the Book of Deuteronomy puts it: As for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your G.o.d is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihilate them-the Hitt.i.tes and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites-just as the Lord your G.o.d has commanded, so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their G.o.ds, and you thus sin against the Lord your G.o.d. As for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your G.o.d is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihilate them-the Hitt.i.tes and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites-just as the Lord your G.o.d has commanded, so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their G.o.ds, and you thus sin against the Lord your G.o.d. 104 104 Peoples that were farther away, and thus less likely to pollute the local culture, could be treated more leniently. If a distant city surrendered peacefully, then its inhabitants could live on as slaves, and if it resisted, you would "put all its males to the sword" but let the rest live, taking "as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town." 105 105 Here again, the question of how many of the G.o.ds opposed by the Yahweh-alone faction were foreign and how many were domestic doesn't really matter. Either way, the fuel Josiah drew on was nationalism. Either way, once monolatry was ascendant, its nationalist energy could be wielded against foreigners or against non-conforming Israelites. And, either way, the culminating phase of the Yahweh-alone movement does nothing to dispel the notion that Israel's drive toward monotheism was a drive toward intolerance. Slaughtering everyone in an Israelite town, slaughtering everyone in a foreign city-both are casually countenanced by the Deuteronomistic Code on grounds that the victims suffered from theological confusion. 106 106 Josiah's approach to religious tolerance was simple: foreign ideas about the divine are bad, and so are the people who embrace them. And this lethal intolerance is a natural expression of the Yahweh-alone movement's political logic. Josiah's approach to religious tolerance was simple: foreign ideas about the divine are bad, and so are the people who embrace them. And this lethal intolerance is a natural expression of the Yahweh-alone movement's political logic.

In short: if exclusive devotion to Yahweh was to become something that we today would call morally laudable, Israelite religion would have to evolve further. In fact, leaving morality aside, it would have to evolve further theologically theologically to earn its place in history. This wasn't monotheism, after all. Nothing in the Deuteronomistic texts, and nothing said by any prophets up to Josiah's time, expresses the clear belief that Yahweh to earn its place in history. This wasn't monotheism, after all. Nothing in the Deuteronomistic texts, and nothing said by any prophets up to Josiah's time, expresses the clear belief that Yahweh alone alone exists-that the G.o.ds of other peoples are mere figments of their imagination. For Israel to push beyond monolatry and embrace monotheism, something more would be needed. exists-that the G.o.ds of other peoples are mere figments of their imagination. For Israel to push beyond monolatry and embrace monotheism, something more would be needed.

It turned out to be something painful. Josiah, flush with the fighting spirit of an ardent nationalist, devoted to Yahweh and confident of Yahweh's reciprocal devotion, overplayed his hand. He met disaster on the battlefield and helped usher in what would be long remembered as the greatest calamity in the history of the Israelites. Amid the ensuing trauma, the monotheistic impulse would become palpable. Through a chain of paradox that makes sense only in retrospect, the manifest failure of single-minded devotion to Yahweh would intensify that devotion, until finally it reached a whole new level, crossing the threshold from monolatry to monotheism.

Chapter Seven.

From Monolatry to Monotheism.

King Josiah of Judah may have been the most perversely successful man in the history of the world.

On the one hand, it's hard to argue with this verdict from the scholar Marvin Sweeney: "Josiah's reform was an absolute failure." 1 1 Josiah had wanted to unify southern and northern Israel, to restore the storied greatness of the Davidic empire and do it in the name of Yahweh, covering Israel's G.o.d in greater glory. But things went awry. Josiah was killed by the Egyptians. The circ.u.mstances of his death are hazy, Josiah had wanted to unify southern and northern Israel, to restore the storied greatness of the Davidic empire and do it in the name of Yahweh, covering Israel's G.o.d in greater glory. But things went awry. Josiah was killed by the Egyptians. The circ.u.mstances of his death are hazy, 2 2 but it ushered in two decades of abject Israelite submission-first to Egypt and then to Babylon-followed by catastrophe. When King Zedekiah of Judah rebelled against the Babylonians, they captured him, killed his sons before his eyes, plucked out those eyes, then burned Yahweh's temple to the ground. And they completed a process they'd started years earlier, the transfer of Israel's upper cla.s.ses to Babylon. but it ushered in two decades of abject Israelite submission-first to Egypt and then to Babylon-followed by catastrophe. When King Zedekiah of Judah rebelled against the Babylonians, they captured him, killed his sons before his eyes, plucked out those eyes, then burned Yahweh's temple to the ground. And they completed a process they'd started years earlier, the transfer of Israel's upper cla.s.ses to Babylon. 3 3 Now, as of 586 BCE, the Babylonian exile-the most famous trauma in the story of ancient Israel-was in full swing. No doubt the Babylonians, following theological conventions of the day, took all this to signify Yahweh's humiliation at the hands of their national G.o.d, Marduk. When, decades earlier, Josiah set out to exalt Yahweh, this is not the outcome he had in mind. Now, as of 586 BCE, the Babylonian exile-the most famous trauma in the story of ancient Israel-was in full swing. No doubt the Babylonians, following theological conventions of the day, took all this to signify Yahweh's humiliation at the hands of their national G.o.d, Marduk. When, decades earlier, Josiah set out to exalt Yahweh, this is not the outcome he had in mind.

And yet, this would turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to Yahweh. Josiah's theology-wors.h.i.+p Yahweh and Yahweh alone-would not only survive and prevail, but prevail in grander, intensified form. Jews-and then Christians and then Muslims-would come to believe that the Abrahamic G.o.d was not just the only G.o.d worth wors.h.i.+pping, but the only G.o.d in existence; monolatry would evolve into monotheism. As the theologian Ralph W. Klein has observed, "Israel's exilic theologians made the most of their disaster." 4 4 Orchestrating a seismic theological revolution isn't the kind of thing you do overnight. But if there's one thing the exile gave Israelite intellectuals, it was time to mull the situation. They spent about a half century in Babylon before the Persians, having conquered the Babylonians and thus having inherited the Israelites, started sending exiles back to Jerusalem, where many Israelites had remained all along. In Jerusalem ideas shaped in the refiner's fire of exile would eventually carry the day.

Making Sense of Disaster.

It is sometimes said that the monotheistic thesis arose as a way to "make sense of" the catastrophe that had befallen Jerusalem. This is accurate but inadequate. Yes, religions have always addressed the question of why bad things happen, and yes, that is a question Israel's exilic intellectuals had plenty of cause to ponder, and yes, this pondering led eventually to monotheism. So, there is a sense in which, as some have said, exilic theology was a solution to the "problem of evil" or the "problem of suffering." But this sense is pretty misleading. After all, the "problem of evil" doesn't arise in acute form unless you believe in a single all-powerful and good G.o.d. Only if G.o.d is omnipotent does all human suffering become something he is choosing to tolerate, and only if he is wholly benevolent does this choice become something of a puzzle. And this kind of G.o.d, infinite in power and goodness, is exactly the kind of G.o.d that, so far as we can tell, didn't exist before the exile; this is the kind of G.o.d whose emergence during the exile we're trying to explain explain. Monotheism can't be the premise of the theological reflection that created it.

Besides, describing Israel's theological revolution this way - "making sense of" suffering, "pondering" the problem of evil-makes the exercise sound more abstract and philosophical, and less urgent, than such exercises were in those days. Almost certainly, the "theological discourse" that produced monotheism began as an orgy of political recriminations: different factions, with their different theologies, blaming each other for what had gone wrong.

The Bible recounts one exilic episode of finger pointing. A group of Israelites, including the prophet Jeremiah, have gone to Egypt rather than Babylon after the Babylonian conquest. There is disagreement over why things have fallen apart. Jeremiah says Yahweh has punished Israelites because so many of them were wors.h.i.+pping other G.o.ds. And if they keep it up, if they continue to "make offerings to the queen of heaven," then Yahweh will kill them all, either by sword or by famine. 5 5 The queen of heaven's devotees have a different perspective. They seem to think that the root of Israel's problems is the Jeremiahs of the world-the Yahweh-alonists. They say in unison, "We used to have plenty of food, and prospered, and saw no misfortune. From the time we stopped making offerings to the queen of heaven and pouring out libations to her, we have lacked everything and have perished by the sword and by famine." The queen of heaven's devotees have a different perspective. They seem to think that the root of Israel's problems is the Jeremiahs of the world-the Yahweh-alonists. They say in unison, "We used to have plenty of food, and prospered, and saw no misfortune. From the time we stopped making offerings to the queen of heaven and pouring out libations to her, we have lacked everything and have perished by the sword and by famine." 6 6 And they had a point! If Jeremiah was right, and wors.h.i.+pping Yahweh alone was the ticket to national greatness, how come the nation started falling apart not long after Josiah's monolatrous reforms? And note that the opening act in this national downfall was the death of Josiah himself, the nation's Yahweh-alonist-in-chief. Kind of makes you wonder about the whole premise of Yahweh-alonism-that Yahweh was a G.o.d who could and would take care of you so long as you confined your devotion to him.

How could Yahweh survive this potent rhetorical a.s.sault? With a little help from his friends. In the two decades between Josiah's death and the burning of the temple, the Yahweh-alone movement seems to have stayed active, even if it lost the political power it enjoyed while Josiah was king. 7 7 So Jeremiah was not alone: over in Babylon there were other Israelite thinkers who had staked their reputations on the notion of a strong, protective Yahweh. Some of the nation's finest minds would be seeking a theology that could reconcile Israel's catastrophe with the greatness of Israel's G.o.d. So Jeremiah was not alone: over in Babylon there were other Israelite thinkers who had staked their reputations on the notion of a strong, protective Yahweh. Some of the nation's finest minds would be seeking a theology that could reconcile Israel's catastrophe with the greatness of Israel's G.o.d.

Part of the solution was simple. Josiah may have done a thorough job of reforming Israel's official religion, but there was -in the ancient world as now-a difference between official religion and the actual beliefs of ordinary people. Though the Bible tells us that Josiah targeted "household G.o.ds," 8 8 the abundance of G.o.ddess-like figurines found by archaeologists in Israelite households suggests that, if so, he didn't wholly succeed. So Jeremiah and other monolatrists could argue that stubborn gra.s.sroots infidelity was the sin for which Yahweh punished Israel. the abundance of G.o.ddess-like figurines found by archaeologists in Israelite households suggests that, if so, he didn't wholly succeed. So Jeremiah and other monolatrists could argue that stubborn gra.s.sroots infidelity was the sin for which Yahweh punished Israel.

And then there's the fact that Josiah's successors-the several kings who appear between his death and the exile-seem not to have shared his devotion to Yahweh. If infidelity was afoot at both the royal and the gra.s.sroots levels, no wonder Yahweh didn't spring to Israel's defense!

Of course, none of this post-Josianic backsliding would explain why Josiah himself died prematurely. But here the idea of delayed justice would prove useful. Josiah had been preceded by various polytheistic kings, notably the wicked and influential Mana.s.seh. Mana.s.seh's half century of theological promiscuity ended only two years before Josiah's reign began and left too big a residue of evil for even Josiah to erase. The book of Second Kings tells us that Josiah "turned to the LORD with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his might"-but "still the LORD did not turn away from the fierceness of his great wrath, by which his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations with which Mana.s.seh had provoked him." 9 9 So far so good. These sins-epic pre-Josianic infidelity plus ongoing post-Josianic infidelity-could in theory explain why Yahweh countenanced the conquest of his people. Indeed, this became the official explanation in the Deuteronimistic history, which ends with the story of the Babylonian exile in the book of Second Kings.

Two Orders of Magnitude.

Attributing geopolitical misfortune to the wrath of your national G.o.d was nothing new in Israel, or for that matter in the Middle East broadly. 10 10 That's how the Moabites of the ninth century BCE had explained why their national G.o.d Chemosh stood by while Israel subjugated them. As King Mesha of Moab explained in the "Mesha Stele," Israel "humbled Moab many days, for Chemosh was angry at his land." That's how the Moabites of the ninth century BCE had explained why their national G.o.d Chemosh stood by while Israel subjugated them. As King Mesha of Moab explained in the "Mesha Stele," Israel "humbled Moab many days, for Chemosh was angry at his land." 11 11 Yet the Moabites didn't go on to conclude that Chemosh was the only G.o.d in existence. Nor had the Israelites been pushed to that extreme in previous attempts to explain setbacks via divine wrath. What made the Babylonian setback different? Its magnitude, in at least two senses of the word. Yet the Moabites didn't go on to conclude that Chemosh was the only G.o.d in existence. Nor had the Israelites been pushed to that extreme in previous attempts to explain setbacks via divine wrath. What made the Babylonian setback different? Its magnitude, in at least two senses of the word.

For starters, the Babylonian conquest was no pa.s.sing dustup with some small-scale polity. It wasn't like the time when, as the Bible says, Yahweh got upset with the Israelites and "sold them into the hand of King Cushan-rishathaim of Aram-naharaim; and the Israelites served Cushan-rishathaim eight years." Nor was it like the time when Yawheh "strengthened King Eglon of Moab against Israel," forcing Israel into an eighteen-year va.s.salage. 12 12 This wasn't va.s.salage, but exile, and it came not at the hands of some Canaanite tribe, but at the hands of the greatest empire within Israel's realm of awareness. This wasn't va.s.salage, but exile, and it came not at the hands of some Canaanite tribe, but at the hands of the greatest empire within Israel's realm of awareness.

This magnitude didn't push Israel's exilic thinkers inexorably toward a single, all-powerful G.o.d, but it's easy to imagine it nudging some of them in that direction. After all, any G.o.d that wields a whole empire as an instrument of reprimand must be pretty potent. This ironic logic-that the more ma.s.sively your nation is menaced, the more powerful your G.o.d must be - had surfaced back in the eighth century, as the great a.s.syrian Empire tormented all of Israel and devastated part of it. When Isaiah quoted Yahweh nonchalantly saying, "Ah, a.s.syria, the rod of my anger," he was depicting no ordinary G.o.d. 13 13 Such a G.o.d presumably had a.s.syria's imperial G.o.d, the mighty a.s.sur, in the palm of his hand. Such a G.o.d presumably had a.s.syria's imperial G.o.d, the mighty a.s.sur, in the palm of his hand.

Isaiah was writing in the relative comfort of the south-in Judah, which was beset by a.s.syrian might but not overwhelmed by it, as the northern kingdom of Ephraim was. In contrast, the seminal theological reaction to Babylonian subjugation came from people who had taken the brunt of a conquest, and who then pondered its implications as exiles living in a strange land. This is the second sense in which Israelite monotheism resulted from the "magnitude" of the Babylonian conquest: monotheistic theology was shaped by people who felt the ensuing trauma in ma.s.sive proportion. Not only had they seen their land conquered; they had seen their land disappear-and this after witnessing the destruction of the most concrete symbol of their nationhood: the temple of their national G.o.d. They now lived among people speaking a different language, wors.h.i.+pping different G.o.ds. This was a crisis not just of national security but of national ident.i.ty.

These two forms of magnitude-the momentousness of Israel's geopolitical defeat, and the depth of the psychological trauma -left two basic theological options on the table and rendered one of them unpalatable. First, the Israelites could just conclude that their G.o.d had lost a battle; Yahweh had done his best, only to lose to the mighty Marduk, imperial G.o.d of the Babylonians. But the thought of your national G.o.d losing has never been appealing (to Israelites, to Moabites, to people in general), and in this case it was just about unbearable. For if Yahweh had lost this battle, he had lost in an utterly humiliating way. His temple-his home-had been destroyed, and his people had been stolen. To think of your G.o.d as losing so abjectly was almost to think of your G.o.d as dead. And in those days, in that part of the world, thinking of your national G.o.d as dead meant thinking of your nationality as dead. Divine ident.i.ty, national ident.i.ty, and ethnic ident.i.ty were essentially inseparable.

That left option two: concluding that the outcome had been Yahweh's will. But if the outcome was Yahweh's will, then he was even stronger than had been previously evident. After all, the Babylonians had conquered the mighty a.s.syrians. If wielding a.s.syria as "the rod of my anger" was testament to Yahweh's strength, what did it mean when he did the same with a.s.syria's conquerors? According to the book of Habakkuk, Yahweh himself directed the Israelites' attention to this question as the Babylonian onslaught unfolded. "Look at the nations, and see! Be astonished! Be astounded! For a work is being done in your days that you would not believe if you were told. For I am rousing the Chaldeans [Babylonians], that fierce and impetuous nation, who march through the breadth of the earth to seize dwellings not their own.... At kings they scoff, and of rulers they make sport." 14 14 Imagine how mighty you must be to make sport of Imagine how mighty you must be to make sport of them them-to get them to unwittingly do your punis.h.i.+ng for you! Their G.o.d Marduk must be your puppet!

Hence the irony of the emergence of Israelite monotheism. As Mark Smith has observed, "Israel stands at the bottom of its political power, and it exalts its deity inversely as ruler of the whole universe." 15 15 The logic may sound perverse, but it is logic nonetheless. A G.o.d who governs the actions of the greatest known empire is a G.o.d who can govern history itself. The logic may sound perverse, but it is logic nonetheless. A G.o.d who governs the actions of the greatest known empire is a G.o.d who can govern history itself.

Yet the word "logic" is misleading in its sterility. Religion has always been an interplay between thought and feeling. By exploring the emotional texture of exilic theology, we can put a finer point on its logic. And we can also answer, finally, the question of what kind of deity the Abrahamic G.o.d was at the moment he became the one true G.o.d-the moment that G.o.d became G.o.d.

The Second Coming of Isaiah.

No biblical writer speaks more directly to these questions than the prophet Isaiah. This isn't the same Isaiah who wrote about a.s.syria's eighth-century aggression against Israel from his perch in Judah. That Isaiah, scholars now agree, is confined to the first thirty-nine chapters of the book of Isaiah. The next fifteen chapters (if not more) were written mainly during the exile, more than a century later, probably in Babylon. This other Isaiah-"Second Isaiah" or "Deutero-Isaiah"-is a s.h.i.+ning example of exile's effect on Israelite theology. Second Isaiah calls the exile "the furnace of adversity" and is unsurpa.s.sed among biblical authors in displaying the product of that furnace. 16 16 Often in the chapters of Second Isaiah, Yahweh speaks directly. He is not modest. "I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides me there is no G.o.d." "I am the Lord and besides me there is no savior." "I am the first and I am the last." "Before me no G.o.d was formed, nor shall there be any after me." "I am the Lord, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who by myself spread out the earth." "I form light and create darkness." 17 17 And so on. No wonder biblical scholars cite Second Isaiah as a landmark. After centuries of Yahweh-alone prophets who don't venture unambiguously beyond monolatry, monotheistic declarations finally come with clarity and force. And so on. No wonder biblical scholars cite Second Isaiah as a landmark. After centuries of Yahweh-alone prophets who don't venture unambiguously beyond monolatry, monotheistic declarations finally come with clarity and force.

But there is a second theme in this text that gets at least as much attention from scholars as monotheism. If Yahweh is, as Second Isaiah says, "G.o.d of the whole earth," then the question arises as to what his stance toward the whole earth will be. And what will Israel's relation to the rest of the world be after Israel's suffering ends? The answer, as commonly rendered, is inspiring. G.o.d promises that he will "bring forth justice to the nations." He is universal not just in his power, but in his concern, and this expanded sympathy gives Israel a momentous mission. Yahweh says, in a much-quoted line, "I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth." 18 18 This uplifting interpretation of Second Isaiah is popular among Christian and Jewish thinkers who acknowledge the darker side of Yahweh that, as we've seen, can be found elsewhere in the Bible. Granted, they say, Yahweh exhibits some national chauvinism and intolerance in his early history, as recounted in Joshua and Deuteronomy, but eventually he matures and we wind up with a G.o.d concerned with the welfare of all peoples. Israel, after centuries of conflict with the nations, now sets out to save them; from on high it is given the task of global enlightenment. Its worldview, you might say, pivots from zero-sum to non-zero-sum, as the world's peoples are moved from the "implacable enemies" category into the "potential converts" category.

This interpretation of Second Isaiah makes a kind of sense in light of the exile. Trauma can bring change, and often the change is commensurate with the trauma. If your car is totaled because you drove after drinking, you may vow never to drink again. If your son is killed because you drove after drinking, a whole new level of reorientation is called for: you may launch a campaign against drunk driving, and you may even decide that this campaign is your mission, your calling. Exilic thinkers in Babylon had suffered a trauma that was more like losing a son than losing a car. They needed a paradigm that could both explain their suffering and trans.m.u.te it into good, a paradigm that could forge a new religious commitment with ultimately redemptive power.

And they found it-at least according to the standard interpretation of Second Isaiah: the Israelites, having suffered for their infidelity to Yahweh, would try to keep the world's other peoples from repeating their mistake. Monotheism is thus morally universalistic from its birth, and any belligerence it has shown since is an aberration, a departure from the norm and from the design.

But a candid reading of exilic texts leads to a less heartwarming conclusion-that the universalism present at monotheism's birth may not deserve the qualifier "moral." It's true that various exilic writings envision a day when all nations will, through Israel, come into contact with Israel's G.o.d. Then again, Middle Eastern history was full of nations that wanted to bring other nations into contact with their G.o.ds, and often the form of contact they had in mind was abject submission. To acknowledge the greatness of your national G.o.d was to acknowledge the greatness-the superiority-of your nation. And so it is in Second Isaiah: G.o.d is promising that the various peoples who have tormented and enslaved Israel over the centuries will eventually get their just deserts; they'll be forced to acknowledge Israel's superiority on both a political and a theological plane.

Here, for example, is what the G.o.d of Second Isaiah tells the Israelites about Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Sabeans: They "shall come over to you and be yours, they shall follow you; they shall come over in chains and bow down to you. They will make supplication to you, saying, 'G.o.d is with you alone, and there is no other; there is no G.o.d besides him.'" 19 19 A few chapters later Yahweh tells the Israelites that "I will soon lift up my hand to the nations, and raise my signal to the peoples." A morally promising start, but it turns out the signal is going to instruct these peoples to serve the Israelites. And as for the rulers of these nations: "With their faces to the ground they shall bow down to you, and lick the dust of your feet. Then you will know that I am the Lord." And for good measure: "I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and they shall be drunk with their own blood as with wine. Then all flesh shall know that I am the Lord your Savior, and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob." 20 20 In this light, the monotheism of exilic theology appears less like a radical departure from the zero-sum thinking that helped energize monolatry, and more like its apotheosis. Second Isaiah's visions of Israel's coming dominance are in the tradition of the "oracles against the nations" that appear in pre-exilic prophetic texts of a monolatrous bent. And the zero-sum pedigree of these visions may go back further than that. The biblical scholar Rainer Albertz, in his book Israel in Exile Israel in Exile, argued that this whole genre descended from prophetic oracles centuries earlier that were preludes to actual war. 21 21 Yet Albertz, like many other interpreters of exilic theology, tries to put the nicest face possible on all this. After appraising a series of vengeful judgments in the apparently exilic text of Ezekiel, he says they "end on a surprisingly conciliatory note: the judgment of Yahweh will bring all Israel's neighbors-except Edom-to the knowledge of Yahweh." 22 22 Well, "knowledge of Yahweh" is one way of putting it; it's true that the verb "know" appears. For example, it shows up at the end of this proclamation from Ezekiel, directed by G.o.d toward the Ammonites: Because you have clapped your hands and stamped your feet and rejoiced with all the malice within you against the land of Israel, therefore I have stretched out my hand against you, and will hand you over as plunder to the nations. I will cut you off from the peoples and will make you perish out of the countries; I will destroy you. Then you shall know that I am the Lord. Because you have clapped your hands and stamped your feet and rejoiced with all the malice within you against the land of Israel, therefore I have stretched out my hand against you, and will hand you over as plunder to the nations. I will cut you off from the peoples and will make you perish out of the countries; I will destroy you. Then you shall know that I am the Lord. 23 23 In other words: you shall "know" who's boss. And so it is with the other "surprisingly conciliatory" notes in Ezekiel. Moab shall "know that I am the Lord" after he arranges for it to be conquered by a neighbor-its punishment for thinking that Israel isn't special, that "the house of Judah is like all the other nations." And as for the Philistines and Cherethites: "I will execute great vengeance on them with wrathful punishments. Then they shall know that I am the Lord, when I lay my vengeance on them." 24 24 And, Ezekiel says, Sidon (Jezebel territory) will be granted knowledge, too: They shall know that I am the Lordwhen I execute judgments in it,and manifest my holiness in it;for I will send pestilence into it,and bloodshed into its streets;and the dead shall fall in its midst,by the sword that is against it on every side.And they shall know that I am the Lord. 25 25 The "holiness" that Yahweh here promises to "manifest" brings to mind Rudolf Otto's 1917 treatise The Idea of the Holy The Idea of the Holy. As Otto showed, in ancient times the concept of the "holy" didn't have its modern implication of moral goodness. (Often in the Bible the Hebrew word translated as "holy" refers to a merely ritual purity.) Indeed, Otto argued, in its primordial form, the "holy" represented what he called the "numinous"-a sublime force that inspired terror and dread; an "aweful majesty." 26 26 The Ultimate Revenge.

How exactly was the holy force to be delivered? Did exilic monotheists imagine Israelite armies someday conquering the world? In Ezekiel, Yahweh tells the Israelites that "the nations shall know that I am the Lord... when through you I display my holiness before their eyes." 27 27 Reading this verse as a military aspiration would have made sense in the ancient Middle East: a G.o.d showed his greatness through the power of his nation. Reading this verse as a military aspiration would have made sense in the ancient Middle East: a G.o.d showed his greatness through the power of his nation.

Certainly the Israelites had spent plenty of time on the receiving end of this logic. a.s.syria, Israel's perennial persecutor, celebrated victories by capturing or destroying foreign idols, underscoring the theological truth behind martial triumph: the inferiority of foreign G.o.ds to the great G.o.d a.s.sur. An a.s.syrian inscription recording the fall of an Israelite city in the eighth century boasts, "and the G.o.ds, in which they trusted, as spoil counted." 28 28 More specifically, there was precedent for the humiliated victim of imperial conquest planning and executing a grand comeback that proceeded on both a theological and geopolitical plane: the very Babylonians who had now subjugated Israel. The a.s.syrians had laid waste to Babylon in the early seventh century, taking the statue of Marduk from his temple. Like the Israelites a century later, the Babylonians ascribed their catastrophe to their chief G.o.d's displeasure with them. And, like the Israelites, they subsequently divined that their G.o.d's favor had s.h.i.+fted back in their direction. 29 29 Indeed, he was now bent on revenge against a.s.syria, and his supernatural rage and range would be exhibited geopolitically. "Marduk, great lord, looked favorably upon me," declares King Nabopola.s.sar in a Babylonian doc.u.ment. "And to avenge Akkad... he selected me for dominion over the lands and the peoples of the lands, all of them, he placed in my hands." Indeed, he was now bent on revenge against a.s.syria, and his supernatural rage and range would be exhibited geopolitically. "Marduk, great lord, looked favorably upon me," declares King Nabopola.s.sar in a Babylonian doc.u.ment. "And to avenge Akkad... he selected me for dominion over the lands and the peoples of the lands, all of them, he placed in my hands." 30 30 Hence the Babylonians' eventual conquest of Israel-part of their G.o.d's unfolding plan of grand vengeance. Hence the Babylonians' eventual conquest of Israel-part of their G.o.d's unfolding plan of grand vengeance.

Now it was the Israelites' turn to feel vengeful. At a geopolitical level, their achievement would never-could never-match the Babylonians'. 31 31 Their vengeance would have to play out on a theological plane, where it would yield something of historic grandeur. Rainer Albertz refers to some anti-Babylonian exilic pa.s.sages as "retribution theology," Their vengeance would have to play out on a theological plane, where it would yield something of historic grandeur. Rainer Albertz refers to some anti-Babylonian exilic pa.s.sages as "retribution theology," 32 32 but the phrase could cover exilic theology more broadly, including the theology that gave life to monotheism. but the phrase could cover exilic theology more broadly, including the theology that gave life to monotheism.

The retributive impulse is universally human, almost certainly grounded in the genes of our species. 33 33 And it is deeply, often hotly, felt. But, however laden with emotion, it has an intrinsic logic, and in terms of this logic Israel's monotheism makes sense. The core of the logic is, as the Bible puts it, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth; punishment is proportional to the original transgression. And what was the magnitude of the transgression that Israel's exiles had suffered? The Babylonians hadn't just conquered their land and belittled their G.o.d. They had removed them from their land and, ostensibly, And it is deeply, often hotly, felt. But, however laden with emotion, it has an intrinsic logic, and in terms of this logic Israel's monotheism makes sense. The core of the logic is, as the Bible puts it, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth; punishment is proportional to the original transgression. And what was the magnitude of the transgression that Israel's exiles had suffered? The Babylonians hadn't just conquered their land and belittled their G.o.d. They had removed them from their land and, ostensibly, killed killed their G.o.d. Whereas a.s.syria had stripped Jerusalem's temple of its treasures, the Babylonians had destroyed the temple itself. And a G.o.d's temple was, in the ancient Middle East, literally the G.o.d's home. their G.o.d. Whereas a.s.syria had stripped Jerusalem's temple of its treasures, the Babylonians had destroyed the temple itself. And a G.o.d's temple was, in the ancient Middle East, literally the G.o.d's home. 34 34 The ultimate transgression calls for the ultimate punishment. An apt response when a people kills your G.o.d is to kill theirs -to define it out of existence. And if other nations' G.o.ds no longer exist, and if you've already decided (back in Josiah's time) that Yahweh is the only G.o.d in your your nation, then you've just segued from monolatry to monotheism. nation, then you've just segued from monolatry to monotheism.

This isn't to say that monotheism followed from retributive logic as rigorously as four follows from two plus two. After all, Babylon was the only nation that had inflicted the infinite indignity of destroying Yahweh's home-and, obviously, there were a lot of non-Babylonian G.o.ds that had to disappear before monotheism could arrive. On the other hand, the exilic oracles against the nations suggest that, though the Babylonian conquest was the finest example of indignities emanating from abroad, there were so many other examples that they were starting to blur together. There is a sense of humiliation so ma.s.sive that counterbalancing it would require Yahweh's elevation to unprecedented heights-which meant the demotion of the world's other G.o.ds to unprecedented depths, perilously near the subsistence level. Monotheism was, among other things, the ultimate revenge.

The Ultimate Salvation.

But revenge wasn't the only motivating force in exilic theology. What about Yahweh's promise, in Second Isaiah, to bring salvation to the ends of the earth? There must be something something to that, right? to that, right?

Kind of. Calling the exilic G.o.d "universalist" is accurate in a carefully defined sense of the word. Yes, Second Isaiah sees Yahweh as the G.o.d of all peoples. But that doesn't mean G.o.d felt equally devoted devoted to all peoples. The biblical scholar Harry Orlinsky, among the first to dispute the standard, sunnily internationalist interpretation of Second Isaiah and various other parts of the Bible, put it this way: "The to all peoples. The biblical scholar Harry Orlinsky, among the first to dispute the standard, sunnily internationalist interpretation of Second Isaiah and various other parts of the Bible, put it this way: "The national national G.o.d of biblical Israel is a G.o.d of biblical Israel is a universal universal G.o.d, but not an G.o.d, but not an international international G.o.d"-because Israel enjoys a unique covenant with him. G.o.d"-because Israel enjoys a unique covenant with him. 35 35 Indeed, in Orlinsky's view, Israel would be a "light unto the nations" largely in the sense of advertising this fact. "Israel will dazzle the nations," he wrote, by "her G.o.d-given triumph and restoration; the whole world will behold this single beacon that is G.o.d's sole covenanted people. Israel will serve the world at large as the example of G.o.d's loyalty and omnipotence." Indeed, in Orlinsky's view, Israel would be a "light unto the nations" largely in the sense of advertising this fact. "Israel will dazzle the nations," he wrote, by "her G.o.d-given triumph and restoration; the whole world will behold this single beacon that is G.o.d's sole covenanted people. Israel will serve the world at large as the example of G.o.d's loyalty and omnipotence." 36 36 This isn't to say that Yahweh had no obligations to the peoples of the world. As Orlinsky notes, murder and brutality anywhere on earth were "contrary to G.o.d's ordered universe." Ultimately, then, the imposition of his will would be good news for peace-loving people everywhere. As First Isaiah had famously dreamed, G.o.d shall judge between the nations, shall judge between the nations,and shall arbitrate for many peoples;they shall beat their swords into plowshares,and their spears into pruning hooks;nation shall not lift up sword against nation,neither shall they learn war any more. 37 37 So, even if no nation can expect the kind of divine devotion Israel will get, Yahweh can still sincerely say, in Second Isaiah, that, as he prepares to bring justice to the nations, "the coastlands wait for me, and for my arms they hope." 38 38 Still, phase one in the plan to bring order to the world was to punish those who threatened the order-which, at the moment, was all of Israel's enemies. The exilic G.o.d was rather like a prosecutor whose ultimate goal of bringing justice to society entails the short-term goal of bringing criminals to justice. It's just that in this case criminals const.i.tuted most of the known world.

If the prosecutor's short-term goal-retributive justice-is key to understanding the evolution of monotheism, the longer-term goal of world order illuminates another major dimension of exilic theology: national salvation. Humans have various ways of coping with extended stress, and one is the antic.i.p.ation of a better time. Here, as with retribution, there is often a kind of symmetry: the more intense the stress and the more hopeless the situation, the more fabulous the coming times that are antic.i.p.ated. In extreme form, the result is apocalypticism-revelations of a day of salvation, often at the end of time, when long-delayed justice is finally delivered.

Apocalyptic thinking is most famously a.s.sociated with early Christianity, but variants of it have surfaced in many times and places under broadly similar circ.u.mstances. Hence the Melanesian "cargo cults" of the early twentieth century. In response to European subjugation, native prophets envisioned a day of salvation when the symbols of colonial power-the docks and airstrips where goods were loaded for trade-would reverse their meaning: cargo would arrive from the G.o.ds or from sacred ancestors, ushering in a time of blessing; the political tables would turn, as whites now found themselves at the bottom of the hierarchy and life for the Melanesians got cushy.

Similarly, for ancient Israelites, Yahweh's final judgment would bring not just the joy of retribution, but the comfort of salvation-"salvation" in the mundane sense of freedom from affliction. With G.o.d having laid down his law globally, Israel wouldn't have to worry about invading armies anymore. On Judgment Day, when "the makers of idols go in confusion together," Israel would be "saved by the Lord with everlasting salvation; you shall not be put to shame or confounded to all eternity." At long last the Israelites would "come to Zion with singing; everlasting joy shall be upon their heads; they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away." 39 39 No doubt this theology-a theology of monotheistic salvation-got a boost when, near the end of the sixth century, the exiles did did return to Zion. True, they didn't do it by conquest, as some had no doubt imagined. But they did it in a way that sustained the logic behind monotheism. Persia conquered Babylonia, and Cyrus, Persia's leader, sent the Israelites home. Consider the implication: Yahweh not only controlled the empire that had conquered the a.s.syrian Empire; he controlled the empire that had conquered the empire that had conquered the a.s.syrian Empire. return to Zion. True, they didn't do it by conquest, as some had no doubt imagined. But they did it in a way that sustained the logic behind monotheism. Persia conquered Babylonia, and Cyrus, Persia's leader, sent the Israelites home. Consider the implication: Yahweh not only controlled the empire that had conquered the a.s.syrian Empire; he controlled the empire that had conquered the empire that had conquered the a.s.syrian Empire.

As Yahweh put it in the Bible, Cyrus's "right hand I have grasped to subdue nations before him." Yahweh explained to Cyrus that he would bring him success on the battlefield, "so that you may know that it is I, the Lord, the G.o.d of Israel, who call you by your name. For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen, I call you by your name." 40 40 (Cyrus's own recollection-or at least one of his official recollections-differed. On a clay cylinder discovered in 1879, he said he had been called to conquer Babylon and lands beyond by the Babylonian G.o.d Marduk, "the great lord" whom he would now wors.h.i.+p faithfully.) (Cyrus's own recollection-or at least one of his official recollections-differed. On a clay cylinder discovered in 1879, he said he had been called to conquer Babylon and lands beyond by the Babylonian G.o.d Marduk, "the great lord" whom he would now wors.h.i.+p faithfully.) 41 41 In the end, then, the logic behind monotheism was pretty simple, given the natural mind-set of Israel's exilic intellectuals. Yahweh's honor, and Israel's pride, could be salvaged only by intellectual extremes. If the Babylonian conquest didn't didn't signify Yahweh's disgrace, if Yahweh signify Yahweh's disgrace, if Yahweh wasn't wasn't a weakling among G.o.ds, then he must have orchestrated Israel's calamity-and orchestrating a calamity of that magnitude came close to implying the orchestration of history itself, which would leave room for little if any autonomy on the part of other G.o.ds. Besides, if Yahweh, in the course of this orchestration, were to conspicuously reclaim his dignity, the G.o.ds of Israel's oppressors would have to see their dignity, hence their power, drop near the vanis.h.i.+ng point anyway. What's more, if Yahweh could deliver what the Israelites so wanted to count on-a coming day of salvation, a peace forever unperturbed -then his mastery of the world would have to be complete and eternal. For in the absence of such international control, as the last two centuries of the Israelites' history seemed to show, the world would keep bringing trouble to Israel. a weakling among G.o.ds, then he must have orchestrated Israel's calamity-and orchestrating a calamity of that magnitude came close to implying the orchestration of history itself, which would leave room for little if any autonomy on the part of other G.o.ds. Besides, if Yahweh, in the course of this orchestration, were to conspicuously reclaim his dignity, the G.o.ds of Israel's oppressors would have to see their dignity, hence their power, drop near the vanis.h.i.+ng point anyway. What's more, if Yahweh could deliver what the Israelites so wanted to count on-a coming day of salvation, a peace forever unperturbed -then his mastery of the world would have to be complete and eternal. For in the absence of such international control, as the last two centuries of the Israelites' history seemed to show, the world would keep bringing trouble to Israel.

The implication-that ultimately all G.o.ds other than Yahweh must have essentially no power-doesn't add up to monotheism per se. You can imagine Israelite thinkers thoroughly emasculating these G.o.ds without killing them. Still, the theological logic of Israel's exile, a logic that was only natural under the circ.u.mstances, makes the appearance of the monotheistic impulse in Second Isaiah and other exilic texts unsurprising.

But Is It Monotheism?

There is a reason why I just referred to the appearance of "the monotheistic impulse" and not of "monotheism." 42 42 Mixed in with the monotheistic exclamations in exilic writings is the occasional phrase that sounds not so monotheistic. For example, Second Isaiah depicts Babylon's fall at Cyrus's hands by reference to Bel (another name for Marduk) and his son Nebo: "Bel bows down, Nebo stoops," and they "themselves go into captivity" Mixed in with the monotheistic exclamations in exilic writings is the occasional phrase that sounds not so monotheistic. For example, Second Isaiah depicts Babylon's fall at Cyrus's hands by reference to Bel (another name for Marduk) and his son Nebo: "Bel bows down, Nebo stoops," and they "themselves go into captivity" 43 43 (which, actually, they didn't, owing to Cyrus's wise policy of embracing or at least tolerating the G.o.ds of conquered lands). For that matter, if you reread Second Isaiah's various monotheistic declarations cited above, and subst.i.tute "Yahweh" for "the Lord"-which is how the original texts read-some of them lose a bit of monotheistic l.u.s.ter. (which, actually, they didn't, owing to Cyrus's wise policy of embracing or at least tolerating the G.o.ds of conquered lands). For that matter, if you reread Second Isaiah's various monotheistic declarations cited above, and subst.i.tute "Yahweh" for "the Lord"-which is how the original texts read-some of them lose a bit of monotheistic l.u.s.ter.

Further, we know almost nothing about actual religious practice during the exile, and there is little clear evidence of monotheistic practice for centuries after after the exile. In fact, in the book of Malachi, apparently written well after the exile, G.o.d speaks to a Jewish audience that seems skeptical of his universal jurisdiction. Just wait, he says, until he punishes the Edomites, "the people with whom the Lord is angry forever." Then "your own eyes shall see this, and you shall say, Great is the Lord beyond the borders of Israel!" the exile. In fact, in the book of Malachi, apparently written well after the exile, G.o.d speaks to a Jewish audience that seems skeptical of his universal jurisdiction. Just wait, he says, until he punishes the Edomites, "the people with whom the Lord is angry forever." Then "your own eyes shall see this, and you shall say, Great is the Lord beyond the borders of Israel!" 44 44 Given how little is known about Jewish religion in the centuries after the first exilic glimmers of monotheistic thought, it is hard to say what closed the deal: Why did Second Isaiah's vision, among the several visions that no doubt competed for airtime during the exile, prevail and then endure? How did Israel spend centuries near polytheistic peoples and yet stay true to its monotheistic creed?

For one thing, the political psychology that had fostered monotheism reappeared at various times in the ensuring centuries. The relative autonomy that Israel seems to have enjoyed under Persian rule didn't last forever. After Alexander the Great's conquest of Palestine in 332 BCE, successive Greek-speaking rulers were in charge, and they finally got oppressive enough to trigger a revolt. The fight for independence strengthened the time-honored political impetus behind Yahweh-alonism: a nationalist resentment of G.o.ds with a foreign lineage (and, further, of Jewish elites who fraternized with hegemonic foreigners). Indeed, the climactic provocation of Jewish revolt was an attempt to put a statue of Zeus in the Jerusalem temple. And presumably the success of the revolt, which led to a period of independence from 142 BCE to 63 BCE, affirmed the theology behind the revolt.

Monotheism as a Philosophy.

Greeks may have nourished Israel's monotheism at a less political, more cerebral, level as well. Long before Alexander conquered Palestine, the monotheistic hypothesis had occurred to Greek thinkers. 45 45 And, though Israel's reaction to Greek governance was finally one of rejection, there was in the meanwhile much mixing of Jewish and Greek culture. And, though Israel's reaction to Greek governance was finally one of rejection, there was in the meanwhile much mixing of Jewish and Greek culture.

Greek monotheism grew out of one of Greece's great cultural aspirations: the rational refinement of religious ideas. Some credit the Greeks with inventing theology in the strict sense of the word (though religion had always been subject to a kind of rational guidance, as when Israelite thinkers adjusted theology to their exilic predicame