Does the Torah recognise the existence of other Gods?

The parashah we read yesterday features phrases which appear to recognise gods other than the God of the Torah. First, Yitro declare that “YHVH is greater than all the Elohim” then the second of the Commandments requires that “you shall have no other gods before me”. Verses such as these have led to claims in certain quarters (see link at the end) that the Torah’s system of belief is most correctly labelled “Monolatrism” – demanding belief of a single God while recognising the existence of multiple deities.

How might traditional Judaism respond to such a claim? Does the Torah’s use of the term “El” in reference to God imply any sort of recognition of ancient Canaanite religion with its pantheon of deities headed by the supreme “El” creator-god?

The Torah’s very first mention of God at the start of the Creation narrative presents Him in terminology which raises questions. “El-ohim” can be seen to contain the Canaanite term for a deity while also appearing to take on a plural form (albeit following a singular verb “bara”).

Rabbi S. R. Hirsch examines this term in the context of what is often considered to be Torah’s primary agenda – negating pagan belief and practice. R’ Hirsch notes how paganism fragments the natural world into many competing forces and phenomena, each of which is headed by some kind of deity – whose conflicts and clashes are reflected in the dynamic natural world that we encounter.

Judaism denies the existence of these numerous “Elohim”, instead ascribing the power that is attributed to them to the one God of the Torah – the God who created and controls all these numerous natural forces. Thus when Yitro, upon leaving pagan society to join the Israelites, states “YHVH is greater than all of the Elohim”, his intention could be interpreted in two ways. Has he completely renounced any belief in the efficacy of pagan deities or is he simply stating that the God who has taken the Jews out of Egypt and performed an impressive array of miracles clearly possesses greater power than other gods?

Yitro returns to his people soon after – his theological convictions can be debated. The Torah’s views on the matter are, however, far less ambiguous. The book of Devarim in particular emphasises God as being One, as well as describing Him as “YHVH is the Elohim in the heavens above and the earth below” and “there is none beside Him”.

Nevertheless repeated biblical passages, supported by archaeological evidence, make it clear that the Torah’s monotheism presented an enormous challenge to the Israelites, a challenge which a significant portion of the nation appears to have failed for much of the first Temple period. In rebuking the idolatrous Israelites, the prophets repeatedly reiterate that these gods “are vanity, a work of delusion” (Yirmeyah 10:15). Further details of the idols’ incapacity are related by the Psalmist (chap. 115) as well as in the second chapter of Habakkuk:

“What did a graven image avail that its maker has graven it? A molten image and a teacher of lies, that the maker of his work trusted in it to make dumb idols? Woe to him who says to the wood, "Awaken!"; to the dumb stone, "Arise!" Shall it teach? Behold it is overlaid with gold and silver, and no spirit is within it.”

Even for those Jews who resisted the popular allure of outright idol worship, the corrosive Canaanite influence infiltrated even mainstream Jewish practice to the extent that, for the masses, it was often difficult to differentiate between legitimate divine worship and Caananite idolatry. Radak describes, for example, how Jews were influenced by the Canaanite custom to perform sacrificial pagan rites "on high mountains and hills”, until this practice became adopted by those attempting a genuine worship of God on private altars (bamot). Malbim adds that this adopted practice led to a joint ‘shituf’ practice in which the worshippers saw no contradiction between the idea of serving a supreme God on the one hand, and mimicking pagan recognition of ‘his intermediaries’ such as Ba'al and Ashera.

This confused synthesis of monotheistic belief and polytheistic practice is perhaps most graphically demonstrated in the dramatic episode of Eliyahu on Mount Carmel. Confronting the idolatrous Northern Kingdom which was riddled with Ba'al worship, Eliyahu challenges the gathered audience:

“For how long will you skip between two opinions? If Hashem is God, follow Him, if Ba’al is God follow him”.

Eliyahu appears to be emphasising that his audience cannot claim loyalty to and “skip between” two incompatible theological beliefs. They must choose between a pure, monotheistic conception of God and pagan polytheistic worship. His audience appear, at least briefly, to have grasped this principle. Echoing Yitro’s words they solemnly declare “YHVH is the Elohim” – thereby affirming that the forces of nature deified by polytheism have no power beyond that granted by God.

Returning to the Ten Commandments, the wording mentioned above prohibiting the worship of other gods now appears to be very precise. Rather than simply outlawing idolatry the Torah says “You shall have no other gods before Me” – targeting, it would seem, the syncretic shituf of attempting to combine the Torah’s monotheism with the pagan pantheon of the Canaanites. The very same practice concerning which Eliyahu faced off against the priests of Baal in order to expunge from Israel.

While some archaeologists have argued that the significant quantity of idolatrous shrines and figurines uncovered from the First Temple period makes it unlikely that the early Israelites were prohibited from such practices, others such as William F. Albright attempt to put this in context:

"...Polytheism had a popular appeal in many ways like that of the dominant secularism of our own age. The wealth, science and aesthetic culture were lined up on the side of Canaanite religion. All the sinister fascination of the elaborate proto-sciences of magic and divination was marshaled in defense of polytheism...The extraordinary thing is that the way of Moses survived in Israel despite all of the forces drawn up against it".

"When the Jews believed in other gods" (Elon Glad, Haaretz) here.

First posted to Facebook 23 January 2022, here.

Names of God in Biblical Criticism

Guest post by Daniel Abraham

Previous posts on the subject of Biblical Criticism – like the Judaism Reclaimed book itself – have focused primarily on how Jewish tradition and rabbinic commentaries have addressed phenomena, such as repetition and inconsistencies, which biblical scholars interpret as indications of multiple authorship of the Torah. While Judaism Reclaimed presents broader challenges from scholars such as Rabbi Dr Joshua Berman to theories of multiple authorship, it generally avoids addressing these theories in specific detail.

This week we are delighted to feature a more detailed critique of a central pillar of the Documentary Hypothesis – the claim that the use of multiple names of God in the Torah is indicative of multiple authors (as presented in Who Wrote The Bible? by Richard Elliot Friedman). Readers interested in how Jewish tradition addresses the subject of multiple names of God can visit our post here.

A CRITIQUE OF BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP: THE NAMES OF GOD AS EVIDENCE OF MULTIPLE AUTHORSHIP

Richard Elliot Friedman popularized the Documentary Hypothesis (DH) with his 1987 book Who Wrote the Bible? followed by his 2003 book The Bible with Sources Revealed. Since then, a number of new, competing models have arisen that challenge Friedman's claims. Yet Friedman still holds firm to his JEPD model which claims that each of J, E, P, and D represent a distinct author with the four sources subsequently having been woven together by Redactors.

Background

In his 2017 book Exodus, he repeats the claim that the names of God can be used as evidence for his version of the DH. The theory claims that the name YHWH does not appear in the "E" or "P" source until God reveals His name to Moses in "E" (Ex. 3:15) and in "P" (Ex. 6:3). The theory also claims that the names "Elohim" or "El" do not appear even once in the "J" source. Friedman describes how this fits so neatly with his division of the sources because these three names of God, "occur two thousand times in the Torah, and there are just three exceptions out of the two thousand."

It is crucial to bear in mind that recent years have seen a major collapse in consensus among source critics – Friedman himself concedes the broad range of competing models in the field of source criticism. As Professor David Carr explained, there was an "emergence of a debate surrounding virtually every aspect in it over the last four decades. This debate no longer is confined to questions of the date of 'J' or the existence of 'E'." Obviously, when there is a broad consensus among academics around one model, it gives much more credence to a theory than when academics' opinions are divided among a plethora of contradictory models.

Nonetheless, Friedman believes these new models "do not pay sufficient respect to the evidence and arguments of the models that they are casting off," adding, "The documentary hypothesis once held (and maybe still holds) the agreement of the majority of scholars." However, Professor Joshua Berman recently noted that, "once upon a time, nearly all Biblicists, not just these “specialists,” shared the suppositions and methodology of source criticism. But over the last generation, many have walked away from the table, not merely to pursue other interests but because they became disenchanted with the highly speculative and intuitionist nature of the source-critical enterprise." So with that introduction in mind, I want to take a look at how Friedman's theory divides up the names of God.

An Accounting of God’s Names

Even though Friedman correctly notes that the names of God appear over 2000 times in the Pentateuch, what he fails to explain is that not all of these instances are relevant to his theory. Because the theory allows for the name YHWH to be used in "E" and "P" after the third and sixth chapter of Exodus respectively, one can eliminate from his count the approximately 1,655 times that YHWH appears in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. What's more, Friedman has a peculiar rule that the name "Elohim" and “El” cannot appear in the narrative portions of "J" though it can appear in dialogue. He doesn't explain this rather arbitrary rule that he came up with which eliminates the approximately 135 instances that the name "Elohim" and 59 instances that the name "El" appear in dialogue. So rather than over 2,000 instances of the name of God fitting in his theory, what we are left with is approximately 165 instances of YHWH and 134 instances of Elohim and El in narrative portions that need to be explained.

In Genesis, where YHWH cannot appear in "E" or "P", Friedman happens to assign over half the book--approximately 821 verses--to "J" out of 1,533 total verses in Genesis. On the other hand, the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers are 3,360 verses, yet Friedman allots only 189 verses to "J", thus ensuring that "Elohim" does not appear in a narrative portion of "J". It's a very convenient division of the text to ensure God's names appear in the proper sources.

Broader Difficulties with the Documentary Hypothesis

One of the odd features of the DH is that you can make rules as you go along if they're needed to make the verses fit the theory. So, for example, Genesis 2 and 3--which Friedman labels as almost entirely "J"--have 20 instances of the phrase "YHWH Elohim" being used in narration. Yet he simply dismisses the fact that "Elohim" is being used in a narrative portion of a "J" source and says that these instances of God's name simply don't count. He explains that because the phrase "YHWH Elohim" is unique to these chapters, he's justified in making this assumption.

In the DH, there are a number of tools to always ensure the text fits the theory. One can simply cut out a word, a phrase, half a sentence, and whole sentences. Difficulties can be explained as the combination of "J" and "E" or as the hidden work of "R" the redactor who they say made changes to the text, even when there's no evidence backing up the division of the text in this way. And as a final resort, one you can simply say the model's rules are not working, but it must be because something happened in the editing process. Friedman does this with his claim that there are only three instances in which YHWH appears in the wrong source. However, a count reveals five instances that YHWH appears in a "E" and "P" source before Exodus 3 and 6. What's more, there are so many times that a verse with YHWH is simply excised from the middle of a "P" or "E" paragraph in order to make the theory work. The same practice occurs with removing "Elohim" from the middle of a "J" paragraph. In most cases, there's no evident reason within the rules of the theory to justify why these individual verses are removed. It's done simply to make the verses fit the model. This happens with the names of God in Genesis 19:29, 22:16, 28:12, 30:24, 31:3, 43:14, Exodus 3:4, and 19:19. A strong case can also be made against Friedman's excising five instances of YHWH from Genesis 22 as well.

Another issue is in the story of the Deluge, where the name YHWH and Elohim appear in consecutive verses a number of times. One of the prize examples of the DH is the separation of this flood story in a "P" source and a "J" source. At first glance it looks impressive. However. in Joshua Berman's recent book "Ani Maamin," he does a very convincing job showing eight major problems in dividing the story of the flood between "P" and "J" (or as he refers to it "non-P"). There's also the fact that the "J" flood story includes a number of words that are never found anywhere in "J" but which are found all over "P." This is never properly addressed. All this casts further doubt on Friedman's division of God's names into different sources.

Some Specific Challenges and Responses

There is one rather peculiar element of Genesis that provides apparent support for this theory of God's names. Throughout the Pentateuch, almost every single chapter mentions the name YHWH. Yet from Genesis 40 through Exodus 2, there is not a single mention of YHWH save for one reference in Jacob's blessing in Chapter 49. One might think this anomaly could be some sort of indication of multiple authorship of the text. Yet Friedman assigns "J", "E", and "P" sources throughout these chapters with no mention or notice of this glaring omission of the name YHWH. This lack of YHWH in these chapters makes the task of avoiding YHWH in "E" and "P" a lot easier for Friedman, as this means that around one fifth of Genesis omits YHWH.

However, this twelve chapter omission of the name YHWH can help counter another part of Friedman's theory. There is a legitimate question to be asked as to why Moses asks God what His name is, and God answers, "“Thus shall you speak to the Israelites: YHWH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you: This shall be My name forever, This My appellation for all eternity." According to Friedman, appointing this section to "E" can give a possible explanation as to why God makes this grand declaration that his name is YHWH. Friedman's answer here is that "E" has never mentioned YHWH before, and now God is finally making his name known.

However, I would suggest a different answer. The omission of YHWH for these twelve chapters does not seem to be an accident. Perhaps the Torah is conveying a gradual concealment of the divine presence as the Israelites descended into Egypt and were eventually enslaved. They may have become so enmeshed with idolatry, that the name YHWH becomes all but forgotten amongst much of the population. And this could then explain why God declares to Moses that YHWH is His name.

But then another question arises. God once again declares in Exodus 6, “I am YHWH. I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai, but I did not make Myself known to them by My name YHWH. (Ex. 6:2-3)." Why does God once again make this declaration that YHWH is his name? Friedman would answer that this proclamation of the name YHWH is due to the fact that the original "P" source had not yet revealed the name YHWH, and thus a second announcement was necessary.

However, I would suggest a different answer that is supported by the text itself. When God appears to Moses in Exodus 6, the wording in Hebrew is, " וּשְׁמִ֣י יְהוָ֔ה לֹ֥א נוֹדַ֖עְתִּי לָהֶֽם׃"--I did not make my name known to them. What exactly does נוֹדַ֖עְתִּי"I made known" mean in this context? Ezekiel 20:19 answers this question:

"אֲשֶׁ֨ר נוֹדַ֤עְתִּי אֲלֵיהֶם֙ לְעֵ֣ינֵיהֶ֔ם לְהוֹצִיאָ֖ם מֵאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם׃..." "For it was before their eyes that I had made Myself known to Israel to bring them out of the land of Egypt."

The exact same word "נוֹדַ֖עְתִּי "--"I made known"-- appears in both these verses in conjunction with the Exodus. And what this verse is likely telling us is that the Israelites were made known the meaning of God's name "before their eyes." In other words, it wasn't just hearing and learning about a new name of God. It was a deeper understanding and manifestation of this name of God that the Israelites witnessed unfolding with their very own eyes during their redemption from Egypt. Friedman's attempt to pin the meaning of this verse in Exodus on some "P" source is weak when read in context of this verse from Ezekiel.

In conclusion, Friedman's originally impressive sounding claim loses much of its credibility. Rather than the names fitting neatly into divided sources that require very little editing of the text and few exceptions to the rule, what we instead have is quite the opposite. Instead of Friedman's original claim that 2000 names of God fit his division of the text, we end up with hardly any examples of God's name that can be used to back up his claims.

Daniel Abraham is a writer and editor who has spent the last 15 years researching and answering challenges to Orthodox Judaism.

First posted to Facebook 5 July 2020, here.