The Birth of Monotheism: The Rise and Disappearance of Yahwism, by Andr Lemaire.Translated and edited by Andr Lemaire and Jack MeinhardtThe Birth of Monotheism: The Rise and Disappearance of Yahwism by Andr Lemaire; AndrLemaire; Jack MeinhardtReview by: Lowell K. HandyJournal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 70, No. 2 (October 2011), pp. 354-355Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/661084 .Accessed: 28/07/2012 01:24

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journalof Near Eastern Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

354 F Journal of Near Eastern Studies

but also to the concept of Maat. Kahl suggests that attestations of the concept of Maat are evidenced at approximately the same time as the growth in im-portance of Ra/R, and he offers referential data to support this theory (pp. 5154).

Towards the end of chapter three, Kahl proposes that a reinterpretation of inscriptional evidence in light of his conclusions might be appropriate. By as-signing the emergence of the Ra/R deity to the Sec-ond Dynasty, he suggests that data concerning this god relating to later periods might be reconstructed.

He believes that in so doing this evidence will point to a clear representation of Ra/R during this Sec-ond Dynasty. A very important reconstruction of the evidence is portrayed by Kahlhe gives his own cri-tique and offers an invitation to others to critique and continue research. In speculating his hypothesis Kahl does provoke considerationjuxtaposing traditional ideas with possibility. This is definitely a volume for the established researcher; yet, this authors writing style will also stimulate interest amongst university students in the area of Eyptological study.

The Birth of Monotheism: The Rise and Disappearance of Yahwism. By Andr Lemaire. Translated and edited by Andr Lemaire and Jack Meinhardt. Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 2007. Pp. 160 + 28 figs. + 2 maps. $24.95 (cloth).reViewed bY lowell k. handY, American Theological Library Association.

This is an English translation of a French volume appearing in 2003. The work is intended as an in-troduction for the general reader to the history of ancient Judean religious thought concentrated on the deity Yahweh. For the author, Yahwism denotes the central religious ideology of biblical Israel, which this volume describes as an evolving belief system from its origins in the thirteenth century, through its adoption and institutionalization in the monarchy created by David, to its disappearance with the loss of the very use of the deitys name in the second century b.c.e. Following the work of De Vaux, Yahwism is presented as a Midianite religious tradition introduced to Moses south of the region later to be designated as Judah. A series of important persons are understood to have contributed to the historical development of the wor-ship of Yahweh. Those central to this reconstruction are Moses, Joshua, David, Elijah, Hezekiah, Josiah, Deutero-Isaiah, and Ezra.

The source materials used in this reconstruction consist of biblical narratives and archaeological arti-facts. The Bible is read, in a manner reminiscent of W. F. Albright, as providing a reliable historical re-cord when not explicitly presenting the supernatural, with admittedly late texts assumed to contain accu-rate reminiscences of much earlier times. The texts are used selectively, which is not unusual for a book intended for a lay readership, but biblical verses that

have proved intractable vexations for scholars in this subject will be missed by those readers with a back-ground in biblical religion studies. Reconstructed bib-lical texts, having become for many reliable original versions, can be brought in to bolster an argument (the popular Deut. 32:8 as reconstructed by mixing LXX and Dead Sea Scroll variants makes its appear-ance on p. 38). The dates assigned to biblical texts themselves are presented as fairly secure, much more secure than the field as a whole tends to acknowledge. Archaeological material is presented and explained in accordance with the general thesis. Thus, the numer-ous female figurines are stated, in concert with an aniconic religion, to be not goddess representations but fertility aids, toys, or something else. This position would be more reassuring, however, if the weight of alternative interpretations were taken seriously.

An introduction provides a very simplified survey of a series of related terms used throughout the work: monotheism, polytheism, monolatry, henotheism, and idolatry. The question of cultic iconography, so popular of late in the aniconism debates, is briefly ad-dressed, essentially accepting Mettingers conclusion that the religion was aniconic. However, the short description of what is meant by monotheism leaves much to be desired, and the entire arena of mes-senger deities (angels) is passed over unmentioned for the pre-Exilic period despite a literary abundance

Book Reviews F 355

of material concerned with these divine beings. In this reconstruction, the religion of Judah was poly-theistic in some form prior to the sixth century and monotheistic in some form thereafter. While Baal and Asherah are addressed as possible intrusive deities into the Israelite pantheon, numerous other divinities pos-ited for the biblical textual material are unaddressed (Shemesh, Yareah, Shalem, et al.). Interestingly, the sometimes heated discussion as to what exactly the biblical Asherah/asherah was, is resolved by assuming a sacred tree that was seen to be literally semi-divine (p. 93). The ramifications of this position for Yahwism are not then elaborated. In line with several scholars it is argued here that goddess worship essentially dis-appeared in the region during the first millennium b.c.e. (p. 62); an awareness, nonetheless, that god-desses were still being worshiped in the eighth century (p. 50) and definitely acknowledged by Judeans in Elephantine in the fifth century (p. 110) is noted. Egyptian religious polytheism is acknowledged as an influence on the pre-monarchic Yahwists and on the Jewish colony at Yeb, but archaeological evidence of Bes and Hathor in Judah and Israel between these occurrences is not remarked upon here. Astral wor-ship is presented as a Mesopotamian innovation for the region and restricted to the period from Hezekiah to the fall of Jerusalem (pp. 9798); this seems quite too neat, given verses like Exod. 20:4 and Josh. 10:12 that appear to presuppose heavenly deities among the local pantheon.

In interpreting biblical narratives concerned with official temples, it is curious that the palace temple of Solomon is deemed a central constituent of the religion of Judah while the cultic sites built by Solo-mon for other deities are deemed inconsequential. In contrast, Jezebels Baal temple is considered to be of central importance. It would seem more rational to treat all these non-Yahwistic temples in the same manner; either they are important or they are not. If they existed at all (there is currently no archaeological evidence for any of them), it would be incontrovert-able evidence for a polytheistic religion in both Israel and Judah.

It is to the credit of the work that religion in Ju-dah and Israel is not seen as static or developing as a single entity. Though Yahwism is posited as coming from Midian, it is understood to have first become

regionalized in the northern territory via the warrior Yahweh of Joshua. Incorporated into Davids Jeru-salem as part of an intentional scheme to assimilate the indigenous religious traditions and deities of his empire, Yahweh is seen to have become the main deity with a tacit acknowledgement of other deities for other peoples and an acceptance of other deities for Davids subjects. It was Elijah and the prophets who followed, culminating in Deutero-Isaiah, who pressed Yahweh as the only deity. Both Hezekiah and Josiah had major religious reformsdifferent ones, as described in Chronicles and Kings respectivelyleading directly to the post-exilic monotheism of the books title. Thus, the conflict with idols themselves was a new problem arising from the development of Yahwism as a universal religion allowing no other deities. Under Persian rule and influenced by Persian religion, Jewish theology adopted the notion of a tran-scendent god, and the very use of the name Yahweh became taboo leading through the Dead Sea Scrolls (Essene here) into the Rabbinic literature wherein the name of God was neither to be spoken nor written and Yahwism itself ceased to exist. Monotheism, however, continued. Given the use of Tigays study of names to determine the extent of Yahwism in the monarchic period, it is odd that the continued use of theophoric names throughout the Rabbinic period is not at least noted.

There are many questions about the conclusions in the work, but a few are fairly central. The problems associated with the adaptation of ideology from rul-ing empires religions by incorporated peoples are not addressed. The reality of a division between Marduk and Sin factions in the time of Nabonidus has for some time been reduced from an all-out fight for a supreme deity, to something more like an overstated propaganda ploy. That it would have precipitated a wholesale revision of Judeans religious belief (p. 105) is unlikely. The extent to which Persian religion affected Judean thought is also currently undergoing reevaluation, though the imprint seems more likely than from Naboniduss short rule. In the same line, the amount of interaction among the west-Semitic re-gional religious groups probably was vaster than here presented, and the identity of Yahwism as a unique religion in the area probably was slighter than here presented.