3.1 Is Jeremiah present or absent?
3.6.4. Different theories on the development of monotheism
3.6.4.3 A combination of the Evolutionary and the Revolutionary models
The crux of the recent proposals entails the view that the Israelite monotheism developed progressively through several revolutionary stages as well as intermediate periods of gradual evolution. A great variety of role players and events as recorded in the OT literature are implemented to explain the process of development. The proponents mostly nominate an exilic and/or a pre-exilic stage for the fruition of a matured monotheism. In this regard, the origin and main characters and events however differ considerably.
Some scholars do not accept the Sinai experience as starting point,l or the proposal that the religion of YHWH was imported by the Joshua exodus group.2 Ahlstr6m (see Gnuse 1997:78) suggests that the reference 'Yahweh at Teman' at Kuntillet 'Atjud together with the Biblical reference to Seir (Deu 33:2; Jug 5:4), imply that YHWH was from Edomite origin. Nicholson (1986:191-217) claims that YHWH emerged from the Canaanite religion, because of the many commonalities that could be identified between the two religions.
These scholars view the early history of Israel including the pre-monarchial period as reflecting the different phases of the familial, clan and regional religions. YHWH is viewed as a god of a pantheon, or involved in a merger with El or Baal, or an offshoot of Canaanite religion to which unique divine aspects were added. Eventually YHWH absorbed the divine domain and was elevated to head of the pantheon or national high god during the monarchial period by the state religion.3
IAs proposed by Baly (1970); See Gnuse 1997:74.
2Proposed by Theissen; See Gnuse 1997:93.
3The view of Albertz, and Lohfink; see Gnuse 1997:74 and 91 respectively.
In this regard, Ahlstrom (see Gnuse 1997:78) suggests that the high god YHWH was served by assistant deities such as Asherah, Baal, Shamash (sun), and Yerach (moon), and was later elevated by Saul, then significantly by David, and later by Hezekiah and Josiah for political reasons. However, Ahlstrom (1991: 140) also states that 'normative Yahwism' was the goal of the Biblical writers, and not necessarily of the royal houses of Judah.
Elijah is nominated by some scholars as one of the first pioneers of monotheism, due to his name which means 'Yahweh is god', regarded as a merger between YHWH and El.1
Smith traces the origin of his 'Yahweh-alone' party 2to the conflict between Jezebel and the Yahwistic prophets, and suggests that they assisted in the overthrow of the Omride dynasty. The prominent role of David as the one who brought YHWH to Jerusalem to merge with Elyon, and popularised him, is acknowledged in the theories of Smith and Ahlstrom.3 The reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah in Judah are generally regarded as important revolutionary stages in the process of the development of monotheism. Saggs (1984:64ff; see Gnuse p81) acknowledges the prominent roles of Jeremiah and Deutero- Isaiah as monotheists. The latter is clearly reflected in their oracles. Smith 4 states that despite Josiah's reform effort, it is clear that Jeremiah as proponent of monotheism and his group still represented a minority group during the pre-exilic period. Keel5finds extensive iconographic evidence, which reveals continuity between the Israelite and other neighbouring ANE cultures, and therefore regards monotheism as a late development, under the leading role of Deutero-Isaiah.
The exile and post-exilic periods are generally viewed as the time of the major revolutionary breakthrough for monotheism, to which Deutero-Isaiah contributed a fair share (E.g. Smith, Keel, Saggs, Lang; see Gnuse p77, 86, 82, 90 respectively). Lang argues that monotheism arose in exile to explain the reason for Israel's destruction and also to give them hope. Saggs views the oracles of Jeremiah and Deutero-Isaiah as reacting to the Babylonian empire and its creator deity, Marduk, and not as a response
INicholson 1986:191-217; see also MahalikinGnuse p79.
2Gnuse 1997:76. Smith was the first to propose the existence of a minority Yahweh-alone party. He argues that the majority belonged to the syncretistic party.
3See Gnuse p76 and 79.
4See Gnuse p76f.
5Gnuse p86f.
based on the Mosaic tradition. Smith (for a summary of Smith's proposal see Gnuse 1997:75-77.) comments that although the cult ofYHWH is the primary concern of the OT, Biblical monotheism as presented in the OT, was not the only cult in the broader religious spectrum of Israel. The Bible and the archaeological findings give evidence of the presence of other deities and their worshipping practices. Therefore, it could be assumed that the majority of Israel were involved in a syncretistic religion. Even in the days of Jeremiah (until 580 BC) the monotheists were still a minority group. The syncretists did indeed worship YHWH as their most important deity, but they also worshipped others along with YHWH. However, in the crisis of the exile the syncretists were confronted by the Babylonian cult of idolatry. They had to make a commitment not to become involved in the foreign practices, and thus became monotheists.
Although a variety of interpretations is presented in these theories, Gnuse (1997: 105) concludes that a consensus can be sensed in the presentations. The proponents of the combined model view the process of the emergence of monotheism as "an evolutionary process, which moves through various stages of monolatrous or henotheistic intensity in the pre-exilic era to form a pure monotheism which arises in the exilic era. " However, they also accommodate the occurrences of radical revolutionary interruptions in the form of crises or conflicts in which a leader or leaders take action to boost the monotheistic religion. The exile is generally viewed as the crucial revolutionary opportunity for the final stage of the establishment of monotheism as religion of the remnant of Israel.
3.6.5Evaluation and conclusion
One of the major points of criticism which could be leveled against these theories, is the fact that the Biblical figures of Moses and Joshua disappear in their presentations. Much of the Biblical account of the history regarding the role of the ancestors, the exodus and land taking, the judges during the pre-monarchial period and the role of the kings, have been ignored or rather ascribed to the deliberate projection into the past by a minority group.
The scepticism is obvious towards parts of the OT as reliable accounts of the history of Israel or for argument's sake also of the history of the religion of Israel.
This scepticism is taken to the extreme by the approach of the so-called 'minimalists'l who claim that monotheism only started developing during the exile and the post-exilic eras and that no development of monotheism occurred during the pre-exilic period. This view is based on the assumption that the OT is an exilic and post-exilic product, created or fictionalised by the Jews in exile and beyond, even as late as the Hellenistic period after 300BC. The 'minimalists' claim that the pre-exilic history of the development of Israel's religion, which was most probably predominantly polytheistic, cannot be reconstructed from the Biblical accounts due to the fact that they represent mainly post-exilic created fiction for ideological purposes. With this approach, the OT as reliable source of information about Israel's history and religion is completely nullified and therefore unacceptable for the devoted OT theologian and the church.
On the other hand, new archaeological findings, and the accompanymg theories, necessitate the rethinking and reinterpretation of the traditional views of the process of the emergence of monotheism.It is obvious that in our world of ideas and ideologies, nothing come to us in one radical breakthrough as a given and fully developed idea or design. A period of incubation and a background of the birth and growth of an idea and several stages in the breakthrough on some levels usually precede the final stage of fruition, which is followed by stages of progressive improvements.
In the rethinking of the process of the fruition of monotheism, factors to be reconsidered are the development over a longer period (probably six centuries) with revolutionary inputs at several stages.Italso should include the background of the ANE religious world from which Israel's religion evolved and operated, the commonalities and distinctive aspects between these two religious entities, and the influential role of the exilic and post- exilic devotees. From a theological point of view, the role of the Biblical narratives and Biblical characters cannot be ignored.
The divine prophetic word as well as the interpretations and experiences of divine interventions, played a decisive role in the religious world of Israel as well as the ANE.
IThe contributions of Lemche, Thompson, Garbini, Niehr and Davies are summarised in Gnuse 1997:109- 115.
These were preserved for ages, especially in cases of fulfillment. A situation in which the Biblical sources is regarded as unreliable or as fabricated fiction, can therefore not be accepted. It rather necessitates a rethinking and reinterpretation of the hermeneutical process to accommodate the new findings and some aspects of the new theories. In terms of the popular saying of these theories, it must be emphasised that the evolutionary process of our understanding of Biblical monotheism, needs a radical revolutionary input or more to grasp the nature of the emergence of this creation in a polytheistic world.!
3.7 Other exegetical factors
Related issues which should be taken into consideration for the exegetical process and which are generally raised in the commentaries on the book of Jeremiah, are as follows:
3.7.1 The LXX text versus the MT
A remarkable difference exists between the MT and the LXX? texts of the book of Jeremiah. The LXX lacks 2700 words of the MT text, and contains 100 words lacking in the MT. The LXX is about one eighth shorter than the MT. To complicate matters, fragments of the Qumran discoveries produced evidence to the validity of both text traditions. Janzen (l973:l27f) claims that the MT shows signs of additions of names, titles and epithets and explains some of the terminology. Expansions and additions to some expressions by using parallel or related texts from elsewhere in the book of Jeremiah, as well as from outside (i.e. from the rest of the OT), are obvious. This is especially true of the prose sections, although no additions were made in the poetic sections.
I See Gnuse (1997:115) who states that the minimalists "too easily surrender the biblical text as source."
Scheffler (1998:522-533) raises important aspects for the debate between 'late-daters' (and 'minimalists'), and the traditional historical critical scholars. Kruger HAJ (1995:241-261) emphasises the importance of the sociological reading of the aT,to open up new ways for the understanding of the social processes behind theaTtexts, in order to discover the uniqueness of YHWH and its relationship to theNTmessage.
Greenstein (1999:47-58) comments that although the god of theaT may not differ substantially from the neighbouring gods, it is important to bear in mind from a theological as well as a sociological perspective, that the aTin its formulations insists on the fact that Israel worship its own God, and him alone and he is different. Human (1999:503) stresses the fact that these newly formulated theories contain many uncertainties, and therefore "the debate must go on!'
2 See Wiirthwein (1957:34ff for a discussion. Also Holladay 1989:3-8, and McKane (1986:i-xcix) who focuses on text differences and regards the LXX and other ancient versions as early witnesses to the exegesis of the Hebrew Bible. See also Epstein (1994:322-329) who argues that the debate regarding the original LXX is still open pending the discovery of more archaeological evidence.
The arrangement of the material also differs. The following may serve as examples:
chapters 46-51 of the MT follow on 25:13 to form chapters 25:14-31:44 in the LXX. The actual oracles of dooms therefore join and follow on the announcement of the dooms on the surrounding neighbours mentioned in vv8-13. Chapters 25:15-45:5 in the MT equal chapters 32:1-51:5 in the LXX.
Janzen (1973: 128) states that the former view, which considers the LXX as an abridged translation, cannot be maintained anymore. He claims that the MT presents a revised text and views the shorter LXX as authentic and authoritative.l
For the purpose of this study the MT will be regarded as the basic text for the OT and therefore the traditional canonised text of OT and Christian theology. However, the LXX version as well as the Qumran discoveries will be taken into account where applicable and when uncertainties must be resolved.
3.7.2The compilation ofthematerial
The book of Jeremiah, consisting of 52 chapters, is generally regarded as a complex composition of different material, dating from different stages from the pre-exilic, through the exilic and post-exilic eras. Carroll (1986:33-50) identifies many features as well as discrepancies which allegedly point to the fact that the book of Jeremiah represents a long history of compilation. Many editors have contributed to this end. Even Holladay (1986 and 1989) struggles to find suitable historical settings for the different oracles and narratives. The lack of historical settings, especially in the first nineteen chapters of the book, and opposed by the different names and settings given in 20-45 and 51-52,2 complicate the task of the reconstruction of the origin and history of the material.
Mowinckel's (1914) classification of the three types or genres of material, namely (1) poetry as 'A', (2) biographical material as 'B', and (3) sermonic prose as 'C', is still
I For Janzen's viewpoint see Holladay (1989:3). Others following him in this are e.g. Ackerman (1992).
Deist (1989:9-20) claims that the OT is a theological concept and therefore something different to the 'hebrew bible' or Massoretic text.
2Seitz (1989:8-13) illustrates that in these sixteen chapters more than fifty individuals can be identified. He claims that this kind of details testify against a theory which poses that they represent invented characters.
These facts were important to the compiler of the material, as well as to the audience.
regarded as a valid distinction by many commentators. He claims that there exists a remarkable resemblance between the sermonic prose (C) and Deuteronomy as well as the Deuteronomistic redaction of Kings.!
The contents of the book of Jeremiah can be divided into two parts, namely: (1) chapters 1-25, which contains mainly prophetic poetry addressed to Jerusalem and Judah; (2) chapters 26-52, which contains biographic material in prose about Jeremiah's encounters and life (ch. 26-45), prophecies of doom (mainly in poetry) against the nations (ch. 46-51), and especially Babylon (ch. 50: 1-51 :58). The book ends with a historical appendix as closure (Jer 52 = 2 Ki 24: 18-25:30 with minor differences).
In the present study, the complexity of the compilation of the material of the book of Jeremiah will be taken into account. This opens the way to more possibilities to view the different oracles and narratives against different historical settings, but especially in connection with different ideological motives and sociological readings?
3.7.3 Deuteronomistic influences
A great deal of the interpolations and additions of the book of Jeremiah is generally ascribed to Deuteronomistic influences. Of interest in this debate and for this study is the fact that the influence can be detected especially in the prose sections (Mowinckel's source C) and frequently inreferences to idolatrous practices. Many commentaries refer to the Deuteronomist and the Deuteronomistic historian/editor. Many allusions and quotations from the book of Deuterononium are indicated 3 as well as from the historical works from Josiah to Kings. The debate concerning the origin and the identity of the Deuteronomists (i.e. the group or school) produced a variety of suggestions. General consensus exists that the group played a major role in the promotion of monotheism. But who were they and when did they operate?