ORIGINS OF A MONOTHEISTIC WORLDVIEW AMONG THE ANCIENT ISRAELITES by Isa ...

44 Pages·2015·0.16 MB·English

ORIGINS OF A MONOTHEISTIC WORLDVIEW AMONG THE ANCIENT ISRAELITES

by

Isa Hanswille

A Senior Honors Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of
The University of Utah
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Honors Degree in Bachelor of Arts

In

The Department of Religious Studies

Approved:

____________________________ ____________________________
Brandon Peterson Maeera Shreiber
Thesis Faculty Supervisor Director, Religious Studies Program

___________________________ ____________________________
Honors Faculty Advisor Name Sylvia D. Torti, PhD
Honors Faculty Advisor Dean, Honors College

April 2015
Copyright © 2015
All Rights Reserved
ABSTRACT

The early Israelites, like all of their closest Ancient Near Eastern neighbors, began their
journey as a people with the worship of a pantheon full of gods. However, as the books of the
Hebrew Bible progress chronologically, a shift in thinking occurs toward an alternate worldview.
Proscriptions against worshipping other deities and statements of Yahweh’s preeminence, both
foundations of monolatry, shift into expressions of his sole divinity and universalism as the one
god of the entire creation. In an effort to potentially explain this trajectory of thought, this study
suggests that one of the main reasons monotheism evolved in Israel was the existence of pressure
and eventual conquest by the Assyrian and Babylonian Empires. Not only did the new
monotheistic religion of the Israelites differentiate them from their powerful oppressors, it also
provided them with the solace that they were a chosen people who covenanted with the one true
god. Monotheism therefore was the result of a centuries-long process among a people who strove
to elevate themselves in the face of hard times. Therefore, the research suggests that two events
ushered in the specific monotheism that has come to be associated with the Hebrew Bible: the
Assyrian conquest of 722 B.C.E. and the Babylonian Captivity that began in 587 B.C.E.

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ii
INTRODUCTION 1
THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS 4
WHERE DID THE ISRAELITES COME FROM? 7
BORROWED STORIES FROM ASSYRIA 12
AND BABYLON

ANCIENT ISRAELITE CONCEPTS OF DIVINITY 18
YAHWEH AS SUPREME DEITY 23
MARGINALIZATION AND COVENANT: 25
A PRECEDENT FOR MONOLATRY

ASSYRIAN DESTRUCTION OF THE NORTHERN 28
KINGDOM OF ISRAEL

ISRAEL IN TRANSITION 30
SCRIPTURES ADVOCATING PURE MONOTHEISM 32
THE BABYLONIAN EXILE AND POST-EXILIC SCRIPTURE 34
CONCLUSIONS 36
BIBLIOGRAPHY 38

iii
INTRODUCTION
This project began simply as a study aimed at comparing Hebrew biblical writings to
ancient myths from the Near East. The first eleven chapters of Genesis alone hold many
“borrowed” stories and cosmological ideas from Israel’s neighbors: precedents for the creation
account (Gen. 1-2:3), the creation of human beings (Gen. 2:3-7), the Garden of Eden (2:10-3:24),
the flood (6:11-9:29), and the tower of Babel (11:1-10) can alone be found in ancient Assyrian and
Babylonian texts. However, upon diving further into the literature on the subject, the similarities
between these Near Eastern cultures could be explained in large part due to the proximity of the
nations.
Two portions of the Hebrew Bible, the Yahwist (J) and Elohist (E) sources, were composed
between 922 and 722 B.C.E., when the Northern Kingdom of Israel fell to the Assyrians. Shortly
thereafter, an editor compiled the two different sources into one document in Judah, the Southern
Kingdom which remained untouched by Assyria. The Priestly source (P) was developed in
Jerusalem not long after J and E were redacted, and the Deuteronomic source (D) took complete
formation during the Babylonian Exile that began in 587 B.C.E.1 Thus, during the time that the
Hebrew Bible as we know it today was taking shape, Israel and Judah were under foreign influence
from their Assyrian and Babylonian neighbors. This condition certainly can account for the
ostensible similarities seen between the texts, similarities that will be explored in depth later in
this analysis.
The truth of the matter is that the Hebrew Bible and its scribes did not exist immune from
the influences of the outside world. In fact, being surrounded by such powerful cultures, it would
be nearly impossible for the biblical authors to not borrow ideas, conceptualizations and stories

1 Richard E. Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View into the Five Books of Moses (New York,
New York: HarperOne, 2003), 3-6.
1
from their surroundings. This point can further be seen by a quick outlook on the world today. In
the global economy that we live in, exchanges of people, ideas, and states of mind are
commonplace. We also have seen a great move towards Westernization and Americanization – a
move that some cultures recognize and attempt to thwart in order to retain their cultural integrity.
The widespread availability of technology has created a global economy in which this trade of
ideologies and even ways of life are increasingly effortless, especially with the rise of social media
platforms. Naturally, the civilizations of the Ancient Near East did not have these modern luxuries,
nor could they impose their cultural ways on others in the same thorough manner that is possible
today. Yet due to the relative proximity of the civilizations that controlled the area, cultural sharing
was inevitable. According to Rosenbaum, “Israel’s location made it a magnet for spreading
ideas.”2 Rosenbaum also notes that trade first arose in the area, at a rudimentary level, around
7,000 years ago. After this an evolution in trade occurred, with international trade between major
players occurring between 3000 and 2000 B.C.E.3 and donkeys being replaced by camels as
caravan animals around 1100 B.C.E.4 With such a long trading history in the area, we can see the
close connections that these cultures had and thus the overwhelming influence that the major
powers exerted on their smaller counterparts.
Against this backdrop, one question that remains largely unanswered and has been the
subject of much literature is that of biblical monotheism. Canaanites (people living in the same
geographic area as early Israelites), Assyrians, Babylonians, and ancient Egyptians all were
polytheistic people. Each had their own pantheon of gods, with many of the deities shared between
the pantheons of multiple cultures under different names. A Judean pantheon even existed and is

2 Stanley Rosenbaum, Understanding Biblical Israel: A Reexamination of the Origins of Monotheism (Macon,
Georgia: Mercer University Press, 2002), 44.
3 Rosenbaum, 43.
4 Rosenbaum, 142. 
2
evident within the Hebrew Bible, as suggested by Mark S. Smith.5 This divine council imagery,
the idea of a grouping of gods headed off by one supreme deity, was prevalent in the cosmologies
of every one of the major Near Eastern civilizations at the time and can be seen in the Hebrew
Bible as early on as in Genesis 1:26. With these similar ontological beginnings, why then did
biblical monotheism emerge and develop only in Judean texts?6 Why did the authors of the Hebrew
Bible gradually shift from polytheistic beginnings when this religious viewpoint was in fact
predominant at the time?
The current survey attempts to address and answer these questions by looking at the
historical developments in Israel and Judah in relation to two major Near Eastern powers of the
time: Assyria and Babylonia. Both of these cultures were flourishing empires at one point or
another in history and enacted thorough influence over the region of the Near East. The Hebrew
Bible itself makes numerous mention of Assyria and Babylonia. This essay proposes that the
reason why monotheism began developing only in Israel and Judah is because these people lived

5 See Mark S. Smith, The Memoirs of God: History, Memory, and the Experience of the Divine in Ancient Israel
(Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2004).
6 While monotheism was exclusive to Hebrews in pre-Christian times, the example of Egypt should be noted. V.
Nikiprowetsky states: “From the beginning, the Egyptians recognized a great god, separate from all the others, and
Egyptian wisdom literature seems to have come so close to the notion of one God that it is tempting at times to see it
as a true precedent of monotheism. In reality, the Egyptian great god is not an only God, but rather a collection of all
the gods – the divine, or an abstract divinity, along the lines of the theos of the Greek philosophers. The real
problem that the Egyptian religion poses with regard to monotheism is exemplified in the religion of Amarnia. Its
religion of Aton, the solar disc, represents the result of a process that began with the reign of Tuthmosis IV and
reached its pinnacle during the co-reign of Amenophis III and his son Akhenaten. This development was not without
its political aspects: it represented an attempt by the Pharaoh to free himself from the tutelage of the all-powerful
clergy of Thebes. On the religious level, it resulted in an abrupt split with the past under the reign of Akhenaten. The
new religion was aniconic, just as Yahwism was to become in its maturity. It did not allow any figurative portrayal
of the deity other than his symbol – a solar disc from which light radiates, each ray of light ending with a human
hand that holds the hieroglyph for 'life.' The god Aton was different from the Mesopotamian supreme gods who had
absorbed the other deities through a henotheistic process. He was also not simply an ancient national god – Seth,
Horus, Amun, or Re – under another name. His power extended to all nations and to the entire universe, and he
would not tolerate any other deity. This jealous exclusivism is reminiscent of the personality of Yahweh. It is not
certain that Akhenaten eliminated all the other gods of Egypt and in particular the god Re, and this doubt alone
prevents us from affirming that the religion of Amarnia represents the first historical incarnation of monotheism.”
See V. Nikiprowetsky, “Ethical Monotheism,” Daedalus 104:2 (1975), 74.

3
in the shadow of other powerful empires for the entirety of their existence. Specifically, the two
events which propelled and then solidified a unique Hebrew religious tradition were (1) the
Assyrian conquest of the Northern Kingdom in 722 B.C.E. and (2) the Babylonian Captivity of the
sixth century B.C.E. The new monotheistic religion was therefore the result of centuries of
religious development on the part of a people influenced by foreign ruling powers. By forging this
new theological identity within the constructs of the Ancient Near East, the Hebrews could set
themselves apart from and elevate themselves over their oppressors. In essence, a major factor for
the development of monotheism was the necessity of forming a unique cultural identity.
In order to fully understand this cultural identity, it is first necessary to consider how the
Hebrew Bible as we know it today was compiled during pre-Christian times.

THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS
Prior to the academic formulation of the documentary hypothesis, the assumption was that
the books of the Hebrew Bible were written as the events in them occurred. The one exception to
this rule was that Moses wrote the Torah, Genesis through Deuteronomy, centuries after some of
the events took place. Many believers still adhere to this tradition, but in the academic study of
biblical literature too many discrepancies arise for this to be true. Therefore, in the late nineteenth
century Julius Wellhausen, a noted biblical scholar, determined a new schematic for the origins of
the biblical texts. In his magnum opus Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (1883) he proposed
that instead of being written during the times of Moses, the books of the Torah were actually
compiled later from the works of four separate authors. Scholars since his time have taken this
idea and delved deeper into it: over the past 130 years, the hypothesis has evolved and stood up
4
against opposition, remaining strong and becoming a fundamental aspect of the study of biblical
literature.
The current belief among scholars is that the Torah was formed using four ancient sources
which were later compiled and edited together to make what we now know as the first five books
of Moses. The first source we will discuss is known as the J source which was brought together in
southern Judah. This source is given the name “J” because it uses the name Yahweh (which is
written Jahwe in German) in reference to God. J is the main source used to tell the most well-
known Bible stories such as the Garden of Eden, the great flood, and the tower of Babel. The J
source is also a commentary on the lives of Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Jacob, and Joseph.7
The second source that makes up the documentary hypothesis is known as the E source,
compiled in the Northern Kingdom of Israel. The E source derives its name from the use of Elohim
instead of Yahweh in reference to deity. The source is not used until midway through the story of
Abraham, perhaps demonstrating that the first part of the source is missing. In some ways E
matches J in terms of content, but in other ways it differs. It also includes stories that are not present
in the J source such as Abraham’s sacrifice of his son Isaac. The E source is similar to the J source
in recounting many of the same stories such as the lives and dealings of the patriarchs.8 There are
however inconsistencies with J such as in the story of Joseph in Genesis. Genesis 37:21-22, taken
from the E source, tells of how Reuben saves Joseph from death. However, in Genesis 37:26-27,
Judah is the one who saves Joseph. This demonstrates a clear distinction between the two sources,
as Genesis 37:26-27 is a portion of the J source, written in the Southern Kingdom of Judah.9
Depending on where the source was compiled slight differences exist between biblical stories

7 Friedman, 3.
8 Ibid., 4.
9 Ibid., see footnote, 94. 
5
which show often conflicting worldviews. The J and E sources were first redacted when the
Assyrian empire took control of Israel beginning in 722 B.C.E.
The priestly source, known as P, differs stylistically from the previous two in terms of
language and content. Found primarily in Exodus, Numbers, and Leviticus, P utilizes several
distinct phrases. “Gathered to his people,” “be fruitful and multiply” and the word “congregation”
occur in priestly writing eleven, twelve, and over one hundred times in the Torah, respectively.10
Numerical inclusions were seemingly of much importance to the priestly source, as dates, ages,
and measurements are not found in E, J, or D. P also limits contact with God to those holding the
Aaronic priesthood. In this telling, only they have access to the Urim and Thummim and only
proper sacrifice on their part can absolve the people of sins. The tabernacle figures predominantly
into P’s work, mentioned over two hundred times in the text and only three times in E. P’s
conception of God himself also differs from the other sources. Here, God functions primarily as
divine justice, lacking the level of mercy apparent in the other sources.11
The final source used in the creation of Torah is the D source, of which Deuteronomy
primarily consists. D is small part of the Deuteronomic History (Dtr) which was compiled at the
time of King Josiah in 622 B.C.E. (Dtr1) and during the exile in Babylon after 587 B.C.E. (Dtr2).12
We know D is a later text again primarily from style and content. For example, in Deut. 6:5 Moses
says “love Yahweh, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.”
In 2 Kings 23:25, Josiah turned to Yahweh “with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his
might.” These are the only two places that this expression can be found in the Hebrew Bible. In
Deuteronomy 17:8-10 Moses explains that if there is a tough judicial decision to make, one should

10 Ibid., 4, 9.
11 Ibid., 11-12.
12 Ibid., 5.
6
go “up to the place that the Lord your God will choose” to ask for counsel from Levitical priests
and the judge. The only king known to do this in the Deuteronomic History is Josiah in 2 Kings
22:13.13
Finally, these sources were organized and structured at an unspecified date into the books
of Torah that exist today by a person (or persons) called the Redactor (R).

WHERE DID THE ISRAELITES COME FROM?
Looking back across the centuries, it is difficult to trace the exact heritage of the Israelite
people. Therefore, many theories have arisen claiming to explain the origins of the group. Below
is a discussion of each of the most prominent theories over the years and how they often fall short.
Similarly, as modern scholars cannot know for certain who settled those Canaanite highlands over
3,000 years ago, the authors of the J and E sources of the Hebrew Bible could not either.
Accordingly they relied upon stories of exodus from Egypt to explain their origins – stories which
set the very foundation of Israel within the greater narrative of a powerful nation. As such, even
Israel’s ontological story was written in relation to a major Near Eastern power.
According to the biblical story, God told Abraham that he would be the father of many
nations (Genesis 17:5), including Israel. This revelation is fulfilled through Abraham’s grandson
Jacob, whose name God changes to Israel in Genesis 35:10. Israel’s sons and grandsons then
constitute the Twelve Tribes of Israel and the whole family – “seventy souls” – all go into Egypt
(Exodus 1:1-5). While there, the Israelite nation develops in both number and strength, and as a
result of this the new Egyptian pharaoh begins to worry about his dominance. He therefore enslaves
the entire population (Exodus 1:8-14). Biblical accounts state that the nation was enslaved for 400-

13 Ibid., 24.  
7