Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe

Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe

Herausgegeben von

Bernd Janowski (Tübingen) • Mark S. Smith (New York) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen)

1

Nathan MacDonald

Deuteronomy and the Meaning of "Monotheism"

2nd corrected edition

Mohr Siebeck

NATHAN MACDONALD, born 1975; M. Phil, in Classical Hebrew Studies; 2002 Ph. D. in Theology; currently Lecturer in Old Testament at University of St. Andrews and Leader of the Sofja-kovalevskajaTeam at Georg-August-Universitât Gôttingen.

1st edition 2003

2nd edition 2012 (corrected)

ISBN 978-3-16-151680-1

ISSN 1611-4914 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe)

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbiblio- graphie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.

© 2012 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany.

This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher's written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems.

The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren.

Printed in Germany.

978-3-16-157850-2 Unveränderte eBook-Ausgabe 2019

Preface

The following study is a revised version of a doctoral thesis submitted to the University of Durham in September 2001 with the title, One God or One Lord? Deuteronomy and the Meaning of "Monotheism ". I am grateful to the editors of the series Forschungen zum Alten Testament, Prof. Dr Bernd Janowski and Prof. Dr Hermann Spieckermann, for accepting this work for publication.

The completion of the doctoral thesis was the culmination of many years of academic study during which time I benefited from the innumerable contribu- tions of others. First, I wish to express my thanks to the staff and faculty of the Department of Theology at Durham University. Amongst these, Rev. Dr Walter Moberly, my doctoral supervisor, takes first place. His careful thinking and deep piety have immeasurably contributed to my own reflections on the task of being a student of the Old Testament. Of him, it can truly be said that he is a teacher of the law who has been instructed in the kingdom of heaven, bringing out treasures old and new. I am also grateful to Dr Colin Crowder, Prof. Robert Hayward and Dr Stuart Weeks who have helped sharpen my thinking on various matters. I have enjoyed extended discussions with four fellow doctoral students at Durham, and I am grateful to them for their in- sights: Dr Simon Gathercole, Dr Keith Gruneberg, Sue Nicholson and Mich- ael Widmer.

My study of the Old Testament did not begin at Durham and I am grateful to those who taught me in Cambridge. During my time there I had the privi- lege of learning from Rev. Dr Andrew Mcintosh, Prof. Graham Davies, Prof.

William Horbury, Dr Geoffrey Khan and Prof. Robert Gordon. My rudimen-

tary knowledge of Old Testament can be traced back long before then, and it

is only right to express my gratitude to those who taught me at an early stage

to love Scripture and to try and embody its teaching. It is with much affection

that I mention Mrs Davies and Sister Pam, whose names are unknown in the

world of scholarship, but are written in the book of life. My earliest teachers,

who more than anyone have modelled Christian living and discipleship, and a

love for Scripture, are my parents, Malcolm and Ann MacDonald. No son

could have wished for better. They and my wife's parents, Stuart and Marga-

ret Wilson, have shown support, interest and love throughout my studies.

VI

There are many friends and colleagues in Cambridge, Durham and St And- rews who have shown an interest in my work, and with whom I have enjoyed many conversations. At Claypath United Reformed Church, Durham, I have been given the opportunity on numerous occasions to discuss my work, and to develop my own understanding of Scripture in sermons and study groups. I have particularly valued conversations with Rev. Dr Robert Fyall, Dr Scott Masson and George and Kirsty Carter. Two friends from Cambridge have been valued partners in the study of the Old Testament: Dr Peter Williams and James Palmer. In St Andrews I have benefited from conversations with many of my colleagues, including Prof. Christopher Seitz, Prof. Richard Bauckham, Prof. Alan Torrance, Prof. Bernhard Lang, Dr Louise Lawrence and Dr Mark Bredin.

Devoting three years to study is something that cannot be done without financial support. I am grateful to the Arts and Humanities Research Board for a grant during the three years of doctoral studies, and during my Masters' year at Cambridge.

Finally, I owe the greatest debt to my wife Claire. It is to her that I dedicate this volume with much affection. I am grateful for her love and support during the past years, and for maintaining an interest in, what often appeared to be, the esoteric concerns of scholarship. Over many months she has, without complaint, looked after many of the practical concerns of living so that more of my time could be dedicated to academic work. It is not possible to ade- quately express my thanks to her:

'nan ^rav irn nn«

T ~ • T " -

Nathan MacDonald

St Mary's College, St Andrews

St Andrews Day 2002

Preface to the Second, Corrected Edition

Dr. Henning Ziebritzki's news that all the copies of the first edition of Deuteronomy and the Meaning of 'Monotheism' had been sold was as wel- come as it was unexpected. No less so was his belief that there remained a demand for the book and that he would welcome a new foreword for a second, corrected edition. I am grateful to him and Mohr Siebeck for their concern to see the work remain in print, and for the readers who have found, and continue to find, value in what I have written.

Deuteronomy and the Meaning of 'Monotheism' insists on the impor- tance of locating Deuteronomy's one-God statements in the context of Israel's love towards

and

election of Israel. Consequently, it was critical of accounts where the practical implications were neglected in order to emphasize Israel's intellectual progress towards monotheism. It warned of the hermeneutical challenges of the term 'monotheism', not in order to prohibit the use of the term - which would have been a rather fu- tile gesture - but to try and encourage a hermeneutical reflectiveness on this important, but challenging, word.

Given the sharp thesis of the book, it was perhaps not surprising that re- viewers were mixed in their reception of it. Particularly striking in this respect was a strong division between reviewers from the Anglo-American world and continental Europe. British and American scholars tended to welcome the book and its thesis, even if they sometimes disagreed with parts of its argument, whilst German-speaking scholars were far more critical in their assessment of it. In its own way the book's reception is illustrative of fissures in the world of academic theology that have been widening for many decades. There are many reasons for this different re- ception. Most obviously, of course, the book was conceived and written in the United Kingdom and naturally reflects the environment of its gestation.

Beyond this, it can be observed that English-language scholarship has tended to encourage a critical attitude to intellectual paradigms. German- language scholarship, for its part, tends to show a far greater awareness of the history of the discipline and the location of new works within existing paradigms.

In relation to this, the discussion of Deuteronomy remains an area of

considerable academic activity in continental Europe - in almost sharp

VIII

contrast to the UK and North America. As a result every new book on Deuteronomy - and there have been very many in recent years - enters into a controversial and contested area. My book was no exception. The book's restriction to the final form, as part of a 'canonical' methodology was a cause for consternation. The redaction-critical development of Deu- teronomy is seen as particularly involved and great care has been taken to distinguish different compositional layers. Whilst synchronic readings of Deuteronomy have begun to appear in European scholarship, they are out- numbered by diachronic analyses and often have a rather apologetic tone.

It is almost ten years since I completed the text, and neither my own thinking nor the scholarly discussion has stood still in the intervening time.

Perhaps inevitably the book would look quite different were I to begin to write it now. An important stimulus for me in that time was the response of European reviewers such as Eckart Otto and Georg Braulik.

They were concerned that the work could be seen as driving a wedge between the text's compositional history and its final form. I appreciate now rather better this worry. Nevertheless, my own decision to utilize a final form reading reflected some concern about the way that diachronic analysis of Deuteronomy draws, at least in part, upon a sense of theological develop- ment during the seventh and sixth centuries BCE. The adoption of a final form method was in order to avoid presupposing a particular account of monotheism that could have been entailed by a diachronic account of Deuteronomy's development. What concerned me was the logical circu- larity that this could have introduced, and the prioritizing of certain kinds of issues.

My own methodological approach would now be slightly different, for a variety of reasons. First, in Pentateuchal research as in other areas it has become clearer how interrelated the questions of the final form of the text and its compositional history are. The later forms of the text are seen as important datum in ways that were not the case for many earlier scholars doing diachronic analysis. The work of Otto, Braulik and others has been especially helpful in integrating synchronic and diachronic approaches.

Second, I would feel the need to tackle more directly some of the issues relating to specific redaction-critical proposals. For example, the commu- nis opinio that Deut 6.4 immediately preceded the instructions about cen- tralization in the Urdeuteronomium receives only passing comment in this book, albeit with an implied criticism.

This issue strikes me as consider-

1 OTTO, E., Monotheismus im Deuteronomium oder Wieviel Aufklärung es in der Alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft geben soll: Zu einem Buch von Nathan McDonald [sie], ZAR 9 (2003) 251-257; BRAULIK, G. Monotheismus im Deuteronomium: Zu Syntax, Redeform und Gotteserkenntnis in 4,32-40, ZAR 10 (2004) 169-194.

2 See below p. 72.

Preface to the Second, Corrected Edition

IX ably more problematic than has been recognized and needing rather more discussion. Thirdly, it became clear to me, especially through conversa- tions with Chris Seitz and the work of my former doctoral student Daniel Driver,

that there were various ways in which a 'canonical approach' was being understood, and that my work was situated in a particular tradition. I would now see the approach in this book as 'final form' rather than 'ca- nonical', and my own methodological instincts are now with the latter, rather than the former. What I would now recognize as a 'canonical ap- proach' is far more interested in engaging redaction critical proposals. In particular Driver's work helped me to understand better how continental scholarship was concerning itself with some of the issues to which Brevard Childs had sought to give attention in his 'canonical approach'.

Although for a number of the years since the first edition of this book appeared I have been engaged with projects with little to do with mono- theism or Deuteronomy,

some sense of how I might do things differently and how the perspectives in this book can be developed can be gained from my essay on monotheism in Isaiah.

Written for an audience broader than just Old Testament scholars, there is not the analysis of redaction-critical or other technical issues that would be appropriate in other contexts. Nev- ertheless, I try to engage recent developments in the analysis of the book's compositional history that give far more attention to the book's canonical form. This requires a reassessment of the monotheistic rhetoric in Deutero- Isaiah. I insist that the discussion of monotheism in the book of Isaiah take seriously the fact that Deutero-Isaiah did not remain isolated from the rest of the book (if it ever was in the first place), and that some account must be given for how the monotheism of chapters 40-48 relate to what pre- ceded in Isaiah 1-39 and what follows in Isaiah 56-66. When this is given due attention, it becomes far more difficult to see what sort of 'break- through to monotheism' Deutero-Isaiah actually represents.

Though I might write a somewhat different book now, there is still much that I think is valuable. The hermeneutical issues that circle around the term 'monotheism', and the existential and relational significance of biblical affirmations about

oneness are more appreciated now than when I wrote. Others have contributed to that increased reflectiveness in Old Testament scholarship, but in its own modest way Deuteronomy and the Meaning of 'Monotheism.' appears to have played a part. In addition, its

3 DRIVER, D.R. Brevard Childs, Biblical Theologian: For the Church's One Bible (FAT 11/46), Tübingen 2010.

4 My work on the symbolic uses of food and eating arose from research for this book.

See the discussion of food and memory in chapter 4 below.

5 MACDONALD, N., 'Monotheism and Isaiah', in: WILLIAMSON, H.G.M., FIRTH, D.G.

(eds.), Interpreting Isaiah: Issues and Approaches, Leicester 2009, 43-61.

X

insistence that we think more carefully about what 'monotheism' means, working inductively from the biblical text, has the potential to shift our perspective from determining when the 'breakthrough to monotheism' oc- curred to consideration of the diversity of biblical expressions of mono- theism.

The first edition was dedicated to my wife, Claire, for the love and sup- port she had shown. In the years since its publication she has continued to enrich my life - and since 2006 the lives of our children - in ways that are beyond recounting. When all other words fail, there is only 'thank you'.

Tian Tnv nm rmn Nathan MacDonald

Theologische Fakultât, Gôttingen St Martin's Day 2011

Contents

Preface v Contents XI Introduction:

Oneness and Monotheism

1. The Origin and Meaning of "Monotheism" 5

I. The Origin of "Monotheism" 6

"Monotheism " and the Materialism of Thomas Hobbes 9

"Monotheism ", Reason and Innate Ideas 11

"Monotheism " as the Primeval Religion 13

"Monotheism " and the Intellectualization of Religion 14

II. The Development of "Monotheism" 16 III. The Origin and Meaning of "Monotheism" in Modern Study of the Old Testament 21

The Late Nineteenth Century: Julius Wellhausen and Abraham Kuerten 22 The Mid-Twentieth Century: William Foxwell Albright and Yehezkel Kaufmann . . 29

Gerhard von Rad 40 The Late Twentieth Century: Kuntillet 'Ajrud and the Resulting Discussion 43

The Use of "Monotheism " in Modern Study of the Old Testament 51 IV. A Synchronic Approach to the Problem of "Monotheism" 52

John Sawyer — Monotheism as a Minority Voice 55 Ronald E. Clements - The Canon's Monotheistic Frame 56 James A. Sanders - The Bible as Monotheizing Literature 57

2 . Y H W H,

Our God,

is One: Confessing "Monotheism"

I. The Shema 60 Centrality of the Shema 60

The Translation of Deuteronomy 6.4 62 a. YHWH is our God; YHWH is one 64 b. YHWH, our God YHWH is one 65 c. YHWH, our God, is one YHWH 67

d. YHWH is our God, YHWH alone 67 e. Other Alternative Translations 68

XII

The Interpretation of Deuteronomy 6.4 71

II. The First Commandment 75 III. Deuteronomy 4.35 and 4.39 78

Translation and Significance of CTnbtri «in mrr 79 Translation and Significance of cns^O) nil? 81

IV. Deuteronomy 32.39 85 Translation and Significance of Win 86

Translation and Significance of "IE"? DTI1» I"«! 89

Excursus: Other Gods in the Song of Moses 89

Conclusion 95 V. Summary 95

3.

So Love

Your God: "Monotheism" as Devoted Love

I. Loving YHWH with Heart, Soul and Might 98

"Heart", "Soul" and "Might" 98 Early Interpretations of "Heart", "Soul" and "Might" 99

II. Contexts for Loving YHWH 100 Love as Marital Imagery 100 Love as Filial Imagery 101 Love as Political Imagery 102 The Love of a Permanent Slave 103 III. Other Expressions for Loving YHWH 104 IV. Herem as an Expression of Devoted Love 108

The Purpose of the Herem Legislation 109 The Metaphorical Significance of Herem 113 The Realization of the Metaphor: Prohibition of Intermarriage 117

The Realization of the Metaphor: Destruction of Religious Paraphernalia 119

Conclusion 122 V. Summary 122

4. Recite Them: Remembering "Monotheism" 124

I. Remembering the Shema 124 The Referent of "These Words " 125 Six Concrete Instructions 128 II. Food, Land and Memory 134

In the Desert 135 On the Edge of the Land 137

Conclusion 139 III. An Enduring Song 139

Dating of the Song 140 Context of the Song in Deuteronomy 142

Contents

XIII

The Song as a Warning 145 The Song as a Summary of the Torah 145

The Unforgettable Song 147

IV. Summary 149

5. Hear O Israel. "Monotheism" and Election 151

I. Deuteronomy 7: Israel and Other Nations 153

A Holy People (7.6) 153 The Basis of Election (7.7-8) 158 The Faithful El (7.9-10) 159 II. Deuteronomy 9-10: The Golden Calf and Moses' Prayer 163

The Account of the Golden Calf (9.1-10.11) 164 Teaching about Election (10.12-11.1) 166 III. Deuteronomy 4, the Song of Moses and the Drama of Election 170

Deuteronomy 4 171 The Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32) 176

IV. Summary 180

6. Bind Them as a Sign: "Monotheism" and Idolatry 182

I. The Relationship between "Monotheism" and Idolatry 182

II. The Problem of Deuteronomy 4 185 III. The Argument of Deuteronomy 4 189

Deuteronomy 4.32—40 189 The A cknowledgement that YHWH is God 191

YHWH is God in Heaven Above and on Earth Below 192

So Keep His Decrees and Commands 201

Long Life in the Land 202 The Elements of Deuteronomy 4 203

IV. YHWH'S Presence in Deuteronomy 9-10 204 Disobedience, Presence and the Making of the Calf 204

Aaron and the Levites 205

V. Summary 206

Conclusion: Bread not Stone 209

Bibliography 223

Indexes 249

Introduction

YHWH'S Oneness and "Monotheism"

Questions of how to understand the Bible in its own right, of how to un- derstand the Bible in terms of contemporary categories, and of how to relate these perspectives are the questions of biblical interpretation.

Walter Moberly

If Moberly is correct and the salient questions of biblical interpretation are indeed the ones he outlines then this work attempts to contribute to this field.

The concerns of this thesis are the meaning and significance of

one- ness in Deuteronomy, the contemporary category of "monotheism" and the relation between the two.

The following pages are an exercise in the interpretation of the received form of the Hebrew text of Deuteronomy, and what that text has to say about

YHWH'S

oneness. It attempts to understand Deuteronomy, as far as possible, on its own terms without prior recourse to an understanding of the text's com- plex compositional history. This concern with the final form of the text places it in broad sympathy with what may be broadly described as "canonical" ap- proaches.

That is, this is not a work on archaeology, the religious history of Israel, or even source, form or redaction criticism. However, at various points the works of scholars in those areas are used. This work, therefore, reflects a belief in methodological pluralism. This is not the result of a modern fad, but a theological principle: before the parousia we all see in part. As will become apparent to those acquainted with Old Testament scholarship, the argument that is offered in this work has implications for other areas though there will not be space to explore all of them. This should not be interpreted as a form of methodological imperialism. Rather it reflects the interrelatedness of those disciplines that constitute study of the Old Testament.

The epigraph is from MOBERLY, Bible, 76. Moberly's emphasis.

1 When using the tetragrammaton I will leave it unvocalized. However, where other scholars are cited their own practice is retained.

2 What "canonical" might mean has, of course, been answered in a number of different ways. My own use of the term here is a pragmatic one. 1 wish, with this scholarly shorthand, to identify myself with a diverse set of concerns that has been associated with the term "ca- nonical" in recent scholarship.

2

The first chapter places the present work in context by considering the meaning of the term "monotheism" and the history of research upon "mono- theism" in the Old Testament.

My approach to those common introductory questions has a number of distinctive characteristics. The usual approach to the discussion of Israel's "monothesim" is to discuss the possible definitions.

Having chosen the "correct one" this is used as a yardstick for both Israel's religious history, and the work of other scholars. My suggestion is that the matter is not so simple, for the word "monotheism" frequently implies a par- ticular understanding of religious and historical description. This has implica- tions for understanding the history of research. The question is not merely what date certain scholars have offered for the origin of "monotheism" in an- cient Israel, but what particular understanding of "monotheism" informed their historical reconstruction. The chapter begins with the first use of the word "monotheism" by Henry More in 1660, not because I believe that the first use of the word in some sense determines later usage, but because, as a number of theologians have suggested, this first use shares many features with later uses. After a brief sketch of developments after More, I turn to the dis- cussion of Israelite "monotheism". My sketch of the history of research is rep- resentative, rather than exhaustive, and includes Kuenen, Wellhausen, Al- bright, Kaufmann, von Rad, Gnuse and Dietrich. I argue that most of these scholars share an understanding of "monotheism" that is only conceivable as a result of the Enlightenment. Such an understanding problematizes reading the biblical text. The chapter concludes with a consideration of the attempts by Sawyer, Clements and Sanders to solve the problem of biblical monotheism in the canonical text. An analysis of their work helps to situate my own approach to one book in the Bible which has a number of reflections on YHWH's one- ness, Deuteronomy.

The following five chapters are concerned with examining the theme of YHWH's oneness in Deuteronomy. This examination is particularly focused on

3 As is well known there is considerable controversy about the appropriate name for what is both the Jewish canon, and the first part of the Christian canon. As a member of the Chris- tian tradition I will use the term "Old Testament" in my discussions of these writings, or when interacting with other authors in the Christian tradition. When referring to the work of Jewish writers I will use the term "Jewish Bible", rather than "Miqra" or "Tanakh", the terms preferred by Jewish writers. This reflects the fact that I approach the Jewish canon, with its tradition of interpretation, as an outsider. (The increasingly popular term "Hebrew Bible" is problematic on a number of grounds, see further SEITZ, Testament.)

Even within the Christian tradition the term "Old Testament" is not unproblematic. How- ever, it appears to me that whatever the problems with the term it is better than the alterna- tives that have been offered, and further, indicates something of the continuities and disconti- nuities between the two parts of the Christian canon, which are fundamental presuppositions for Christian interpretation of the Old and New Testaments. For discussions of the issue, see

BROOK AND COLLINS (eds.), H e b r e w .

Introduction: YHWH'S Oneness and "Monotheism "

3 the framework to the lawcode, especially chapters 1-11. There are two rea- sons for this focus. First, the theme of

oneness is prominent in those chapters, and second an examination of the lawcode would entail a consider- ably larger volume.

The rich interweaving of themes in Deuteronomy makes a starting point for a study of almost any theme in the book far from self-evident. Good grounds can be given for beginning an examination of the "oneness" of

with the Shema (Deut. 6.4-9). The Shema also provides a useful organizing structure for the whole of my work and, therefore, provides the starting point for each of the exegetical chapters.

The second chapter is concerned with the confession of

oneness. It begins with the first verse of the Shema, the elusive

our God

one". The different translations of the verse are considered with the implica- tions for its meaning and significance. This verse is then considered in com- parison with other related passages in Deuteronomy: the first commandment, Deut. 4.35, 39 and 32.39. These are examined primarily with the question in mind of whether they are concerned to deny the existence of other gods.

In the third chapter the meaning and significance of the command to love

YHWH

is analysed. Deuteronomy uses a number of terms in conjunction with love to describe the nature of an appropriate response to

and each of these is examined. The nature of Israel's love for

is particularly ex- pressed in the herem command. Deuteronomy 7 is examined in order to un- derstand the manner in which the command is to be executed.

The fourth chapter begins with a consideration of the prescriptions in the

and Israel's obligation to be devoted to him (6.6-9). The instructions in the Shema it is argued are to be understood in concrete ways that suggest remembering the oneness of

is far more taxing than is usually allowed. The importance of remembering and the con- stant threat of forgetfulness are examined in Deuteronomy 8 and the incident with the Golden Calf in Deuteronomy 9. Finally, the Song of Moses (Deuter- onomy 32) is examined as a vehicle of remembering. Whatever the original role of the Song it now functions as an integral part of the book of Deutero- nomy, or more strongly, as a memorable summary of its central message. My examination of the Song in chapter four and five is, implicitly, a plea for the Song's reintegration into academic discourse about Deuteronomy.

The fifth chapter considers Israel as the elect people of

The nature of election is explored beginning with Deuteronomy 7 and Deuteronomy 9 -

10. The paradoxical logic of election described in those chapters finds dramatic expression in Deuteronomy 4 and the Song of Moses. In each passage the relationship between Israel's election and the confession of

YHWH'S

uniqueness is explored.

4

The sixth chapter considers the relationship between the prohibition of idolatry and the oneness of

I argue that Deuteronomy 4 not only ex- plains the relationship between the two, but also provides a rationale for the prohibition of idolatry. The chapter concludes with an examination of Deuter- onomy's account of the incident with the Golden Calf.

In the conclusion the results from the exegetical examination of Deutero- nomy are applied to modern understandings of "monotheism". It is suggested that many of the descriptions of Israelite monotheism reflect the intellectuali- zation implicit in the term "monotheism" and are strongly informed by En- lightenment ideas of God. Recognition of this allows alternative understand- ings of God's oneness, such as those from traditional Judaism and Christian- ity, to help enrich our understanding of what it means to say that

is

"one". Themes such as love towards

the demanding nature of remem-

bering

the problem of the human propensity to idolatry can again be

seen as central to Deuteronomy's affirmation that

is one.

Chapter 1

The Origin and Meaning of "Monotheism"

Among the questions relating to Israel's religious odyssey, that of the origin of monotheism is intellectually and theologically primary.

Baruch Halpern

To claim that any particular task in the area of the study of the Jewish Bible is

"intellectually and theologically primary" is surely bold. Though if the flood of books and articles on the subject is anything to go by, Halpern's judgement is less audacious than it might first appear.

Tracing Israel's religious odyssey is to venture down a well-trodden path, but one that for the moment I will avoid. Instead, I wish to proceed along a quiet byway and trace the origin of the word "monotheism".

Some justification must be given before taking a diversion, however scenic it may promise to be. This can be found in some recent observations made by certain theologians on the subject of "monotheism". D. Tracy notes that,

"'monotheism' is an Enlightenment invention that bears all the marks of En- lightenment rationalism",

and N. Lash sees the coinage of "monotheism" as part of a decisive, indeed fateful, shift in the conceptualization of religion, God and the world.

There are good grounds, therefore, for thinking that though our journey will take us far from Israel's religious odyssey, it may af- ford us some unexpected and significant vistas of familiar territory. That is, I hope that the origin of "monotheism" may be seen to have something impor- tant to say about "Israel's religious odyssey".

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term "monotheism" was coined by the Cambridge Platonist, Henry More (1614-87). We will examine the first use of "monotheism" and set it in its literary context. More's work

The epigraph is from HALPERN, "Pipes", 77.

1 As an indication of the interest in this subject, it is necessary only to note the collections of essays that have appeared since 1980: KEEL (ed.), Monotheismus; LANG (ed.), Gott; HAAG ( e d . ) , G o t t ; DIETRICH AND KLOPFENSTEIN (eds.), Ein Gott; SHANKS AND MEINHARDT ( e d s . ) , Aspects; BECKING et al., One God?.

2 TRACY, Paradox, 30.

3 LASH, "Beginning".

6

will then be placed in the wider context of the thought and controversies of the Cambridge Platonists. It would clearly be desirable to trace the history of

"monotheism" from More to the present day. Since this task would require a detailed examination of Western intellectual history and many volumes, I hope merely to make a prima facie case for my argument that the conceptuali- zation of "monotheism" reflects its Enlightenment origins. To this end a summary of J. Assmann's work on the European perception of Egypt suffices in showing the way in which "monotheism" has been understood. An exami- nation of the work of six Old Testament scholars will not only confirm the influence of this conceptualization in biblical scholarship, but also highlight some of the difficulties that are encountered when "monotheism" is used as a measure of Israel's religion. My approach to this problem will be a close reading of key texts on "oneness" in the final form of Deuteronomy. This task will be the concern of subsequent chapters, but in order to situate my ap- proach I will conclude this chapter with three different approaches to the problem of "monotheism" in the biblical text.

I. The Origin of "Monotheism"

Unlike other related "-isms", such as "atheism", "deism" and "polytheism",

"monotheism" appears to be the product of English soil, rather than a French or Latin import.

The first use of the word is found in the context of a discus- sion of "pantheism"

in Henry More's systematic presentation of the Christian

4 "Atheism" appeared in English in 1587 and "atheist" in 1571. Both words had already entered the scholarly vocabulary in Sir John Cheke's Latin translation of Plutarch's On Su- perstition (BUCKLEY, Origins, 9). Déisme and déiste were coined in 1660 and 1563 respec- tively. Polythéisme has its origins with Philo's TTOAUSEÎO but was taken out of long hiberna- tion by Jean Bodin in 1580 (SCHMIDT, Naissance, 77).

The closely related "theism" and "theist" were also coined by Cambridge men: "theism"

by More's friend and fellow Cambridge Platonist, Ralph Cudworth; "theist" by E. Martin, the Dean of Ely. For a long period of time, "theism" could not only be used as a synonym of

"deism", but also as a synonym of "monotheism" (see, for example, HUME, Religion). It could also bear the meaning it now bears, as the genus to which monotheism, polytheism, pantheism and so on belong. All three senses are found in Ralph Cudworth's The True Intel- lectual System of the Universe (1678). He can speak of "Pagan Theists [who] were both Polytheists and Monotheists" (233), and of "meer theists, or natural religionists only" (3 of Preface), whilst his only definition of a theist, as someone who asserts "One Intellectual Prin- ciple Self-Existent from Eternity, the Framer and Governor of the Whole World", sounds like a definition of a monotheist (199).

The credit for the first use of "monotheist" is incorrectly attributed to More in 1680 by OED. In fact, it can be found before that in CUDWORTH, System, 233.

5 "Pantheism" and "pantheist" were not coined until 1732 and 1705 respectively.

I. The Origin of "Monotheism"

7 gospel, The Grand Mystery of Godliness, published in 1660.

More, who spent most of his time at Christ's College, Cambridge, was "an active member of the seventeenth century intellectual community".

In his early years he cor- responded with Descartes and was one of the first to promote Cartesianism in England.

He was also the leading light of the "Cambridge Platonists".

This small, diverse group, mostly from Emmanuel College, Cambridge, shared many concerns and convictions, expressed primarily in their apologetic writ- ings. They argued for the importance of reason against the puritans, "enthusi- asts" and the empiricists; for the spiritual world against Thomas Hobbes, Baruch Spinoza and Cartesianism; for free will against the Calvinists and Hobbes; and for toleration in the fractured English society of the Civil War and Restoration.

Their debt to neo-Platonism is seen particularly in their psychological dualism and their belief in innate ideas, the immortality of the soul and the ascent of the soul to a higher realm.

In its introduction More presents the Grand Mystery as the culmination of his scholarly work.

The ground had been prepared for it by More's earlier works, An Antidote Against Atheisme (1653), in which he had proved the ex- istence of God, and The Immortality of the Soul (1659), in which he had shown that the soul was immortal.

Building upon these earlier foundations More sought to show in the Grand Mystery,

that there is no Article of the Christian Faith, nor any particular miracle happening to or done by our Saviour or to be done by him, mentioned in the Gospels or any where else in the New Tes- tament, but I have given so solid and rational account thereof, that I am confident that no man that has the use of his Understanding

6 MORE, G r a n d Mystery.

7 LlCHTENSTEIN, Henry More, 11.

8 More particularly admired the ability of Descartes' mechanistic ideas to describe the physical world. He firmly believed, however, in the limits of Descartes' materialism, par- ticularly its failure to incorporate the spiritual world, which More believed had some substan- tial existence. He also believed, unlike Descartes, that animals had souls. It was Descartes' failure to incorporate More's suggestions that led to More's growing hostility to Cartesian- ism. For the relationship between More and Descartes, see HALL, Henry More, 146-167.

9 There are two useful anthologies of the Platonists' work: CRAGG (ed.), Cambridge Pla- tonists; PATRIDES (ed.), Cambridge Platonists.

10 For an introduction to the Platonists, see PATRIDES, "Aiery Hills"; CASSIRER, Platonic Renaissance. For the location of the Platonists in their age, and the importance of this task, see CASSIRER, Platonic Renaissance, 42-85.

11 This most prolific of the Platonists was, in fact, to write far more, despite his claim to be "not onely free from, but incapable of the common disease of this Scripturient Age"

(MORE, Grand Mystery, 12).

1 2 MORE, G r a n d Mystery, viii.

8 Chapter 1: Origin and Meaning of "Monotheism "

shall be able ever to pretend any Reason against Christian Relig- ion.

More's work is arranged in four parts, in which he demonstrates the obscu- rity, the intelligibility, the truthfulness and the usefulness of the mystery of the gospel. In his section on the gospel's intelligibility More begins by sum- marizing the propositions that he had already shown to be reasonable in An Antidote Against Atheisme and The Immortality of the Soul. First among these is the existence of God, whom More had shown to be an "omnipotent, omnis- cient and infinitely Benign Spirit".

Other matters that can be perceived by a reasonable person are the existence of good and evil spirits, that good will eventually triumph and that the time of man will come to an end, in which men will be delivered and drawn up into the "divine life".

The "divine life", the life regulated by faith, is not, however, the present reality. This is a consequence of the Fall. When Adam and Eve transgressed, humankind fell into the world of sensuality, the "animal life".

Humanity became dominated by animal instincts and the senses. This obsession with the material, to the detriment of the spiritual, expressed itself in idolatry. Prior to the coming of Christ, this was the lot of humanity.

The religions of the time before Christ, and outside of the Christian world, were divided by More into five categories. First, there are those who are polytheists. Since the worship of many gods is incompatible with his defini- tion of God as the supreme Spirit, More regarded them as equivalent to athe- ists. Second, there are those who claim to worship the sun alone. As the wor- ship of something material, it betrayed its affinities with the "animal life".

Further, Descartes had convinced More that there was more than one Sun in the universe, and thus sun-worshippers were no more than polytheists. Third, there are "pantheists". It is at this point that the first known use of "monothe- ism" is found. More argues that,

to make the World God, is to make no God at all; and therefore this kind of Monotheisme of the Heathen is as rank Atheism as their Polytheisme was proved to be before.

The attribution of deity to the world clearly collided with More's definition of God as a Spirit. Fourth, there are those who worship an eternal, spiritual be-

13 MORE, Grand Mystery, ix.

14 MORE, Grand Mystery, 34.

15 These are almost identical to the notions Lord Herbert of Cherbury claimed to be rea- sonable and to command universal assent, see HuTTON, Lord Herbert, 20-23.

16 HARRISON, "Religion", 44, argues that the "animal life" is an important concept for the Cambridge Platonists which is often ignored.

17 MORE, Grand Mystery, 62.

/. The Origin of "Monotheism "

9

ing. They worship the one God through various names and attributes, and by means of idols. In The Divine Dialogues, More makes Cuphophron argue similarly:

This cannot be deny'd, Euistor, but that the barbarous Nations did religious Worship to innumerable Objects of the kind, but not as to the supreme Power of all, (which was the primary or ultimate Object of all their Adoration) but rather as to Images and Symbols of that Ultimate Object.

This refined form of paganism with its worship of a spiritual God is much more acceptable, in More's eyes, than polytheism, sun worship or "panthe- ism". However, whatever its qualities it was not without its failings. It char- acterized very few pagans, was tainted with idolatry and was probably derived from the more enlightened Judaism. Finally, there are the Jews, whose sensual religious festivals show that they too were obsessed with the "animal life".

Their religion had no idolatry however, and was given by God. It also had the types of Christ which were understood in a spiritual sense by Moses, although most of Israel did not understand their meaning.

"Monotheism " and the Materialism of Thomas Hobbes

The first impression made by More's work is the ambitious nature of his scholarship. He attempts to create a universal typology of religions. The limits of the scholarship of his day is clearly demonstrated, though, by an interaction with the beliefs of only the ancient Greeks and Egyptians. Despite this More is aware that there were many other religions in the world, which in his time were in the process of being discovered by Europe. Thus, he assures his reader that he could have selected examples of his types of religion from the recently accumulated evidence about religions in "Arabia, Persia, India, China, Tartary, Germany, Scythia, Guinea, Aethiopia...Virginia, Mexico, Peru and Brasilia".

As P. Harrison has shown in his "Religion" and the Re- ligions in the English Enlightenment the first steps towards a science of re- ligion occurred in the seventeenth century, rather than the nineteenth century.

The nineteenth century though was to put the science of religion upon a much sounder footing for "while much comparison of 'religions' took place in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, most of it was motivated not by any deep interest in the religious faith of other peoples, but by the desire to score points from theological adversaries".

1 8 MORE, Divine Dialogues, 401.

1 9 MORE, Grand Mystery, 73.

2 0 HARRISON, "Religion", 146.

10

The use of other religions as a polemical foil is particularly evident in More's typology. More's classification of non-Christian religion can be re- duced to just two categories. First, there are two deficient forms of "mono- theism", Judaism and enlightened paganism. This qualified acceptance pro- vided More with a theodicy against those who regarded the divine providence, which had restricted knowledge of the Christian faith to only a small part of the human race, as arbitrary and unjust. Second, there are those who are athe- ists. More's argument that both polytheism and pantheism are variant forms of atheism is both interesting and unexpected. Two reasons explain this rather curious movement. First, More had already shown the fallacy of atheism in his An Antidote Against Atheisme. Reducing polytheism and pantheism to atheism was an effective strategy for speedy dismissal. Secondly, as More's curt disposal of them shows, his real opponent was neither polytheism nor pantheism, but atheism.

Amongst More and his contemporaries, "there was a widespread convic- tion that the atheists were at the gates",

and that this was the greatest danger facing the Church.

In England, More and the other Cambridge Platonists were the chief apologists for the Christian religion and against atheism. What the Platonists and their contemporaries meant by "atheism" was the doctrine of materialism. Thus, More's friend and fellow Platonist, Ralph Cudworth, wrote that those,

who derive all things from Senseless Matter, as the First Original, and deny that there is any Conscious Understanding Being Self- existent or Unmade, are those that are properly called AtheistsP In contrast the Platonists believed in the existence of a spiritual world along- side the physical. More believed in the existence of God, angels, demons, ghosts, other spiritual beings and the souls of human beings. In his world even animals had souls. Where the "atheists" saw a purely material universe, More saw a universe overflowing with souls.

The danger of materialism is clearly spelled out by More. In the Grand Mystery he writes that,

the first and most fundamental mistake of lapsed Mankind [is] that they make Body or Matter the only true Jehovah, the only true Es-

2 1 BUCKLEY, O r i g i n s , 6 8 . 2 2 PATRIDES, "Aiery Hills", 25.

2 3 CUDWORTH, S y s t e m , 1 9 5 .

2 4 Perhaps unsurprisingly, More was greatly interested in the supernatural. Demonstrating the existence of evil spirits, angels or ghosts would, in More's eyes, have provided evidence for a spiritual world, and thus God. More became increasingly interested in these matters in his latter years, see HALL, Henry More, 128-145.

Source Index

I. Ugarit

KTU 1.4

vi.46 91

KTU 1.23

14 155

KTU 1.5

v. 1 7 - 1 8 68

II. Old Testament

Genesis

I . 1 - 2 . 4 1.2 2.1 10 1 0 . 1 5 - 1 8 10.32

I I . 1 11.6 11.28

12.2 12.3 13.7 14.18 14.19 15.16 15.19-21 16.12 17.20 1 8 . 1 6 - 1 9 . 2 9 18.16 18.18 18.19 19.9 19.12 19.28

196 76 197 9 0

112 9 0 6 9 6 9 7 5 - 7 6 174 174 112 91 195 110 112 7 6 - 7 7

174 170 76

174 170 73 8 3 - 8 4 76

21.18

22

22.1 22.12 24.3 25.18 27.38 31.26 32.22 34.3 34.30 35.11 39.11 41.33 41.39 43.3 43.6 46.3 46.15 46.22 46.25 46.26 46.27 47.9

174 211 136 136 195 7 6 - 7 7 69 144 77 106 112 174 83 175 175 144 8 3 - 8 4 174

66 66 66 66

6 6 , 9 0

66

250 Source Index

Exodus 32.11-13 164

3 87 32.13 166

3.8 112 32.25 179

3.14 64, 87 33.2 112

3.17 112 33.15-16 113

7-14 81 33.19 77

10.3 138 34 112-113

12.7 133 34.6-7 160, 162, 179

12.46 69 34.6 66, 77

13.1-10 125 34.7 161

13.5 112 34.11 112-113

13.9 131 34.15-16 113, 119

13.11-16 125 34.16 118

13.16 131 34.17-26 113

17.1-7 107 36.9 66

19 189, 192-193 36.15 66

19.5 154 38.10 66

19.6 153 38.11 66

19.11 192 38.12 66

19.18 194 38.14 66

19.20 192 38.15 66

19.21 144

19.23 144 Leviticus

20.3 76,212 11 196

20.4 183 16.29 135

20.5-6 160 16.31 135

20.5 183 23.27 135

20.6 100 23.29 135

20.11 195 23.32 135

20.18 194 25.46 103

20.20 105, 202 26 146

20.21 194 26.41 167

21.2-6 103

21.6 103 Numbers

22.30 153-154 1 66

23 112-113 2.9 66

23.23 112 2.16 66

24.16 194 2.24 66

26.2 66 2.31 66

26.8 66 3.4 75-76

27.12 66 3.22 66

27.14 66 3.39 66

27.15 66 6.22-27 132

27.16 66 7 66

27.18 66 12.3 135

28.30 129,132 13.29 112

31.18 69 14.12 174

32-34 73, 164 14.18 160

32 165 15.37-41 60

32.10 174 20.1-13 165

II. Old Testament 251

21.11 76 4.5 61, 126, 186, 189, 193,

21.20 76 198

23.28 76 4.6-8 186-187, 191-192,

24.16 91 200-202, 207

26.43 66 4.6 173-175, 191, 199-200

29.7 135 4.7 69, 173-174, 188, 191,

35.7 66 199

4.8 61, 173-174, 191, 199

Deuteronomy 4.9-31 175, 186, 189, 197

1 116 4.9-14 175, 186-187, 191,

1.1-4.43 185 194,196-197

1.1 126, 185 4.9 187, 194

1.8 159, 166, 193 4.10 105, 126, 138, 194-

1.10 158 195,202

1.11 166 4.11 188, 194-195, 204

1.13 175 4.12 194, 204

1.17 69, 168 4.13 126, 128, 176, 188,

1.21 105, 193 204

1.25 74 4.14 61, 126, 187, 198,

1.26 136-137 201-202

1.31 101 4.15-22 175, 186-187, 196-197

1.35 159, 166 4.15 194,204

1.37 165, 205 4.16-18 196-197

1.41 74 4.16 137, 145, 196, 204

1.43 136-137 4.19-20 91, 145-146, 171-173,

2-3 109, 116 175-176, 192

2.10-12 112 4.19 96, 105, 172-173, 196-

2.20-23 112 197

2.24 193 4.20 152, 166, 186-187,

2.25 173 190-191

2.30 190 4.21-22 187, 197-198, 206

2.31 193 4.21 165,205

2.34 109 4.23-31 175-176, 191-192,

3.2 105 197, 202

3.3 109 4.23 175, 186, 187

3.11 112 4.24 106-107, 146, 175,

3.22 105 186, 187, 194-195,204

3.24 106, 192 4.25 137, 145-146, 204

3.26-27 205 4.26-28 187

3.26 165 4.26 144-145, 176, 195,201

4 3,4, 78-79, 86, 95, 4.27 173

153, 170, 181, 185-207 4.28 105-106, 201-202

4.1-8 174-175, 186, 189, 4.29-31 187, 191,200-201

191-193,201 4.29 98

4.1 61-62, 126, 174, 187, 4.31 106-107, 175-176,

189-190, 193, 202 181, 188-189, 204

4.2 126, 128, 187 4.32-40 171,174-175, 186-

4.3 107, 174, 186-187, 201 189, 191-192

4.4 106, 186-187, 201-202 4.32-35 171-172, 190-192,

194, 202,207

252 Source Index

4.32 69, 172, 174, 186-188, 6 72, 97, 110

190-191, 195 6.1-11.32 61,85

4.33 69, 171, 191, 194-195, 6.1-3 61

204 6.1 61, 126, 202

4.34 69, 152, 171, 173-174, 6.2 105, 128

188, 190-191 6.3 62, 103, 166

4.35 3, 34, 59-60, 65, 78-85, 6.4-9 3,60-62,95, 108-109,

95, 152, 168, 172, 180, 125

189-190, 192, 194, 209 6.4-5 60, 73, 127-128, 133

4.36-39 171-172, 190 6.4 59-75, 78, 95, 98, 125,

4.36 126, 174, 189, 191-194, 127, 151, 193,210

200, 202,204 6.5 62, 64, 72-75, 85, 97-

4.37 152, 166-167, 171, 174, 100, 104,210-211

190-191,201 6.6-9 3,60, 62, 105, 124-

4.38 171, 173-174, 190-191, 125, 127-128, 133-

201 134, 149-150, 182

4.39 3, 34, 59-60, 65, 78-85, 6.6 126-129, 149

95, 152, 168, 172, 180, 6.7 127-130 189-190, 193, 195, 202, 6.8 103, 130-133

209 6.9 132-133, 151

4.40 98, 103, 128, 171-172, 6.10-25 108

174, 190,202 6.10-19 106, 108, 123, 202

4.44-28.68 170, 193 6.10-11 105

4.45 61-62, 126 6.10 159

5 204 6.11 115

5.1 61-62, 126, 193 6.12-19 104-105

5.4 204 6.12 134

5.5 126, 195,204 6.13 105-106

5.6-21 61, 185 6.14 72, 106-107, 119, 173

5.6 75-77, 95 6.15 106-107, 146

5.7 59, 75, 183 6.17-19 111

5.8 183 6.17-18 107

5.9-10 62, 160-161, 183 6.17 61, 128

5.9 105-107, 146, 194 6.18 103,159

5.10 61, 100 6.20-25 73-74, 105, 147

5.11 106 6.20 61

5.16 103 6.23 159

5.22 126, 204 6.24 103, 105, 119

5.23-27 61, 195 6.25 61

5.23 204 7-11 111

5.24 69, 74, 204 7 97, 100, 108-122, 139,

5.25 74, 204 164, 166, 168, 180

5.26 69, 204 7.1-6 50

5.27-6.3 61 7.1-5 113, 121

5.27 74 7.1-2 111, 119

5.28-31 61 7.1 112, 173

5.29 61, 103, 105 7.2 109, 113-115

5.31 61, 126, 201 7.4 105, 107, 113, 119, 153

5.32-33 61 7.5 113, 118-119, 121

5.33 103, 128 7.6-11 113, 172

/ / . Old Testament 253

7.6-10 109

7.6-8 152-153, 158-159, 162-163

7.6 121, 152-154, 156, 173

7.7 152,173

7.8 160, 162, 166-167

7.9-11 190

7.9 59,61,65,80-81,98,

100, 106-107, 109, 145, 152, 159-163, 166, 168, 179-180

7.10 159-162, 165-166,

176,178-179 7.11 61, 162, 166, 172

7.12 159

7.13 159

7.14 173

7.16 105, 115, 173

IM 173

7.18-9.7 135

7.19 173

7.21 106-107, 168

7.22 111, 173

7.25-26 121-122

7.25 115, 122, 145

7.26 121, 145

8 3, 105, 110, 134-139,

146

8.1 61, 128, 135-137, 159 8.2-5 102, 135, 137, 147,

149, 163, 169

8.2 61, 135

8.3 135-136, 138

8.5 98, 101, 136, 138, 163, 213

8.6 98, 105, 135

8.10 139

8.11 105, 128, 135

8.14 105,135

8.15-16 107

8.15 145-146

8.17 139

8.18 135, 139, 159, 190 8.19 105, 107, 135, 144

8.20 137, 173

9-10 3,73, 153, 163-166, 185,204-206

9 3, 137

9.1-8 163, 165

9.1-3 112

9.1 62, 137, 163, 173, 193

9.3 98, 204

9.4-5 117

9.5 110, 117, 159

9.6 137, 164, 167

9.7 137, 165

9.8 165,206

9.9-11 204

9.9 135, 164

9.10 69, 126, 164, 204

9.11 164

9.12 128, 137, 145,204

9.13 137, 167

9.14 173-174

9.15 146, 164, 204

9.16 128, 137

9.17 204-205

9.18-19 165

9.18 135, 138, 146, 164

9.20 165,205

9.21 164,204-205

9.22-24 164-165

9.23 136-137, 165

9.24 137, 165

9.25-29 137, 164-166, 181, 186, 204

9.25 164-166

9.26 145, 204

9.28 146, 178

9.29 145, 166

10.1-5 204, 206

10.2 126

10.4 126, 164, 204

10.6 165,205

10.6-9 165,205

10.8 190

10.10-11 165

10.10 164-165,204

10.11 159, 166

10.12-11.1 163-164, 166-167, 172,214

10.12 98, 100, 105, 167 10.13 103, 128, 167 10.14-16 166-167

10.14 195

10.15 152, 173

10.16 137, 167-168

10.17 59, 80, 106-107, 152, 168, 180

10.17-19 121, 166-169, 190

254 Source Index

10.18 169 13.15 121-122, 145

10.19 98, 167, 169-170 13.16-17 115-116

10.20-11.1 167 13.18 159

10.20 105-106 13.19 128

10.21 167 14 139

10.22 90, 158, 167 14.1-2 121,154

11.1-2 102 14.1 101, 118, 155

11.1 100 14.2 152, 154, 173

11.8 61,98, 128 14.3-21 154-155

11.9 159 14.3 121

11.13 98, 100, 105, 128 14.7 155

11.13-21 60, 125 14.10 155

11.14 119 14.19 155

11.16 105 14.20 121

11.18-21 125 14.21 154-155

11.18 126-127, 129 14.29 169

11.19 129 15.5 61, 128

11.21 159 15.6 173

11.22-25 111 15.9 199

11.22 61, 100, 106, 128 15.12-18 103-104

11.23 173 15.15 127

11.26 193 15.16 103

11.27 128 17.1 121,145

11.28 106-107, 128, 137, 146 17.3 105, 114, 173, 176

11.32 61 17.4 121, 145

12 63,71-72, 108, 113, 17.6 69

139, 188,219 17.14 173

12.1-4 119 17.19 105

12.1 61, 119 17.20 61

12.4 119 18.9 121, 145

12.14 128 18.12 121, 145

12.15 167 18.16 74

12.25 103 19.1 173

12.28 103, 127-128 19.8 159

12.29 173 19.9 61, 100, 128

12.29-31 119 19.13 103

12.30 105, 119 19.15 69

12.31 119, 121, 145 20.3 62, 105, 193

13 115-117, 119-120, 20.10-18 114, 117

122, 155 20.10-14 114

13.1 119, 126, 128 20.15-18 114

13.3 100, 105-107 20.15 173

13.4 98, 102 20.16-17 115

13.5 61,105-107 20.16 109, 167, 173

13.6 118, 128 20.17-18 119

13.7 105-106 20.17 112, 119

13.8 173 20.18 121

13.11 118 21.10-14 117-118

13.13-19 122 21.10 117

13.14 105-106, 118 21.13 118

II. Old Testament 255

21.14 171 28.15 128

21.16 76 28.20-24 146

21.18-20 62 28.20 119

21.23 69 28.25 146, 157

22.5 121 28.26 146

22.7 103 28.36 105-106

22.29 171 28.37 157, 173

23 118 28.47 105, 171

23.3 118 28.50 115

23.8 118 28.58 105

23.19 121 28.62 158

23.22 161 28.64 105-106, 173

24.4 145 28.65 173

24.15 199 29.1-30.10 111, 142, 144

24.17 169 29.1-2 137

24.18 127-128 29.3 137, 149

24.19 169 29.4-5 119, 149

24.21 169 29.5 81, 138, 150, 169,213

24.22 128 29.6 169

25.16 121 29.12 68, 159

25.18 69 29.15 173

25.22 127 29.17 105

26.3 159 29.22 177

26.5-10 147 29.23 173

26.5 173-174 29.25-26 91

26.12 169 29.25 91,96, 105-106, 173,

26.13 61 176

26.14 69 29.26 145-146

26.15 159 29.27 190

26.16 61,98 30.1-10 147

26.17-19 152, 156-157,214 30.1 173

26.17 61,68, 156 30.2 98, 128

26.18 152, 154, 156 30.3 173

26.19 156-157, 173 30.6 98, 100, 167,211

27.1 61, 128 30.8 128

27.4 128 30.10 98

27.9 62, 193 30.11-14 199

27.10 98, 128 30.11 61, 128

27.15 121 30.14 128, 147

27.19 169 30.15 193

28 106, 146 30.16 100, 128

28.1-14 157 30.17 105

28.1 128, 173 30.19 144-145

28.9-10 157, 175 30.20 100, 106, 159

28.9 152 31-32 142-143

28.10 173 31 139, 143

28.11 159, 166 31.3 173

28.12 173 31.5 61

28.13 128 31.6 105

28.14 105, 107, 128 31.7-8 144

256 Source Index

31.7 159 32.23-24 146

31.8 105 32.24 146

31.9 142, 144 32.25 146

31.10-13 142, 144 32.26 177

31.12 105 32.27 146,178

31.13 105 32.28-43 177-179

31.14-23 139,142-146 32.28-29 177

31.16 176 32.30 88, 146, 148

31.19 126, 147 32.31 88, 148

31.20 105, 176 32.32-33 177

31.21 136,147-148 32.34-35 178

31.22 126 32.36-42 146-147

31.23 144 32.36 88, 145, 148-149, 178

31.24-27 142, 144 32.37-38 85

31.24 142, 144 32.37 88, 148

31.26-29 136 32.39-42 85

31.26 144 32.39 3, 34, 59-60, 75, 85-89,

31.28-30 142, 144 95, 139, 146, 148-149-

31.28 144-145 150, 178, 180, 193

31.29 145-146 32.40-43 145

31.30 148 32.41 162, 179

32 3, 95-96, 101, 139- 32.42 179

149, 170-171, 176-181 32.43 85, 90,92-94, 148,

32.1 145 178-179, 181

32.3 89 32.44-47 127, 142, 144, 147

32.4 88, 106-107, 145, 148, 32.46 144

176 32.49 76

32.5 91, 145, 148, 176 33.1 69, 80

32.6 91, 148, 177 33.3 173

32.7 148, 176 33.26 59, 89

32.8-9 90-91,94, 145-146, 33.27 68-69

173, 176, 180 33.29 94

32.8 90-91, 148 34.1 76

32.9 152, 166, 176 34.5 136

32.10-18 101, 146, 177

32.10 148 Joshua

32.11 91, 148 1.8 130

32.12 89, 92 2.11 195

32.13 145, 148 3.10 112

32.14 148 5.1 112

32.15 88, 148 6.16-19 122

32.16 121, 135, 146 7 122

32.16-39 94 7.21 122

32.17 106, 146 9 114

32.18 88,91, 106, 148 9.1 112

32.19-27 146, 177 9.16-27 114

32.19 91, 146, 148 9.18 114

32.20 91, 148, 177 9.21-27 114

32.21 92, 106, 140, 146, 11.3 112

32.23-32 148 11.13-14 109

11. Old Testament

11.20 115 15.23 76

12.8 112 19.6-7 102

15.8 76 20.2 106

18.14 76 22.7 199

18.16 76 22.32 81

22.5 98

22.34 80 1 Kings

23 144 2.4 98

23.14 98 3.12 175

24.11 112 3.28 175

24.19 211 5.15 102

6.3 76

Judges 8.23 195

1.4 112 8.43 157, 19!

1.5 112 8.48 98

2.1-2 113 8.52 199

3.5 112 8.60 80, 82-1

11.24 55,212 9.7 77

15.18 199 9.20 112

16.3 76 10.9 175

16.28 199 11.2 106

20.40 116 11.7 76

21.22 115 12.28-33 120

12.31 120

1 Samuel 13.2 66, 120

1.9 133 13.33-34 120

2.2 82 14.8 98

4 140 17.20-21 199

7.3 98 18 64, 80

10.22 83-84 18.21 80

11 140 18.28 155

12.17-18 199 18.36 80

12.20 98 18.37 80

12.24 98 18.39 80

15 115 22.7 83-84

15.22 115 22.8 83-84

16.11 83-84

18.8 83-84 2 Kings

18.16 102 4.6 83-84

21.10 81 10.31 98

26.1 76 13.23 77

27.12 103 16.7 104

17.18 77

2 Samuel 17.23 77

2.24 76 17.32 120

6.2 157 18.4 119

7.22 82 19.15 70, 80

7.23 72, 132, 152,216 19.19 70, 80

7.28 80 20.11 199

15.18 77 22 120

258 Source Index

23 119-121 51.2 69-70, 7

23.3 98 52.12 86

23.5 120 52.6 86

23.9 120 55.11 136

23.20 120 57.1 129

23.25 62, 73,98-99, 101, 57.8 133

120 57.11 129

23.27 77 58.3 135

24.3 77 58.5 135

63.19 157

Isaiah 65.3 76-77

1.10 177

1.17 169 Jeremiah

3.9 177 2.2 107

5.1-7 177 2.25 107

5.4 83-84 4.4 167

6.3 66 6.7 77

10.2 169 7.5 169

11.3-4 169 7.10 157

23.10 83 7.11 157

37.16 80 7.14-15 77

40.5 157 7.14 157

41.4 86, 88 7.30 157

41.20 157 9.25 167

42.25 129 10.1-16 122

43.10 86 10.20 83

43.11 82, 86 12.11 129

43.13 86 13.11 156

43.22 199 14.9 157

43.25 86 15.1 77

44.5 132 16.19 96

44.6 82 22.13 169

44.8 82 23.39 77

45.5 82-83 25.29 157

45.6 82-83 29.12 199

45.14 82-83 29.13 98, 200

45.18 82-83 31.28 161

45.21 81-83 31.31-34 149

45.22 83 31.32 104

45.23 136 32.18 160-161

46.4 86-87 32.28-41 73

46.9 81-83, 85 32.31 77

47.7 129 32.34 157

47.8 81,83-84 32.41 98

47.10 81,83-84 33.9 156

48.3 136 34.8-16 103

48.12 86 34.15 157

48.15 86 36.32 83

49.7 159 38.9 83

49.16 132 48.2 83

II. Old Testament

259

49.7 49.12 52.3 Ezekiel 9.4-6

18.2 20.27 21.4 23.38 32.10 33.24 36.37 37.22 39.21 44.7-9

83 86 77

132 161 83 157 83 77 69-70, 73 83 69-70 157 167

Habakkuk 3.3 Zephaniah 2.15 3.9 Zechariah 14.4 14.9 Malachi 1.11 2.2 2.14 3.17

218

81,83-84 64

76

64, 66, 69-70

96 129 104 154 Hosea

1.4 2.7 2.15 5.6 5.14 13.4 Joel 1.19 2.12 2.13 2.27 Arnos

1.9 1.11 6.10 8.4 Jonah

1.6 1.14 2.3 3.8 4.2 Micah 6.8 Nahum

1.2-3 2.2

120 107 107 200 86-87 82

199 98

160 82-83

116 116

83-84 120

199 199 199 199 160, 162

167, 169

160 76-77

Psalms 1 1.2 2.4 3.5 8.3 9.20

11.4 14.1 15 18.7 18.32 20.10 21.13 24 24.10 27.4 27.7 28.1 29.1-2 35.13 61.3 63.9 63.12 64.4 72.1-4 73.25 74.9 82 86.10 86.12 86.15 89.6-9

130 130 195 199 120 77 195 85 133 199 82 199 76-77 133 80 211 199 199 94 135 199 106 106 129 169 89,211 83 162,170 70 98 160 94