RBL 05/21/2002 Porter, Barbara Nevling, ed. One God or Many?

: Concepts of Divinity in the Ancient World Transactions of the Casco Bay Assyriological Institute 1 Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2000. Pp. ix + 350, Paperback, $25.00, ISBN 096742500X.

S. Tamar Kamionkowski Reconstructionist Rabbinical College Wyncote, PA 19095

This volume represents the culmination of the first conference of the Casco Bay Assyriological Institute, conceived and founded by Barbara Nevling Porter. The conference brought together Assyriologists, a biblicist, an Egyptologist, and a classicist to discuss conceptions of the divine as both one and many. The volume contains five papers offered by distinguished scholars followed by a discussion among the participants. In the introduction, Porter lays out the issues and gives a succinct summary of the state of the debate in each field. Although the particulars in each field are unique, a number of common questions and issues emerge. How does one define monotheism? What factors may have given rise to monotheism? In polytheistic societies, to what extent does the pantheon function as a unity? Or, did the ancients in various societies view their gods at odds with one another? In this volume, each specialist offers his or her position from within his or her own field, but the discussion that follows is a more interdisciplinary, wide-ranging exploration of concepts of divinity in the ancient world. In some cases, the essays represent restatements or further refinements of prior publications. John Baines argues that polytheism was deeply rooted and long-standing in Egyptian culture. He asserts that polytheism in Egypt was a complex institution, allowing for flexibility, change, growth, and comprehensiveness (as opposed to the rigidity of monotheism and its need to reaffirm itself over and against polytheism). The Egyptian

This review was published by RBL 2002 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

gods were assemblages of qualities, able to manifest in various ways and offering a model of fluidity. Regarding Egyptian history, Baines argues that Akhenaton did indeed attempt to impose a monolatric cult but that it did not have a significant impact upon the general population or any enduring legacy among the elite. He describes Akhenatons moves as reductive, focusing on one deity and essentially ignoring the others. Akhenatons religion was not monotheism because the pharaoh never explicitly denies the existence of other gods. It was not until the dominance of Christianity in the early centuries of the Common Era that native Egyptian religion died out. H. S. Versnel explores ways in which the Greeks found strategies to cope with the complexity of the Greek pantheon. He examines three attempts at establishing unity from plurality, three experiments in oneness. According to Versnel, polytheism operated within the world of mythology and cult, while the concept of monotheism existed in philosophy. Xenophanes embodies both monotheism and polytheism by developing a radically new concept of an overarching single God through philosophical speculation; yet he never refutes the idea of the Olympian pantheon. A study of Herodotuss use of the terms God, the God, and the Gods in Greek reveals that hoi theoi, though grammatically plural and sometimes semantically plural, is also semantically equivalent to ho theos and to theion. As with Xenophanes, Herodotus exhibits views of monotheism and polytheism side by side. An examination of the Hellenistic period reveals for Versnel that henotheism developed fully in this period with official cults to support it. In this period, we find deities competing with one another for omnipotence. The One God of the earlier period is the result of philosophical speculation and is not a personal deity, while the One God of the Hellenistic period is a mythic god who has risen in rank and is the object of worship. Simo Parpola asserts the essentially monotheistic nature of the Assyrian concept of God. He argues that the great gods were merely attributes of the only true God, Ashur. Parpola comes to this conclusion primarily from his interpretation of the Assyrian Tree and also from a study of personal names in the Assyrian period. Influenced by the medieval Jewish kabbalistic Sefirotic tree, he plots out a family tree of the great gods of Assyria that he believes the Assyrian Tree represents. At the head of the tree stands the national god, Ashur. Like parts of a tree, each god represents mutually interdependent parts of the whole, that is ultimately the god Ashur. The great gods were the limbs of the single God, just as the ministers of the Assyrian Empire were simply extensions of the king. Parpola also finds in Assyrian religion a precursor to the Holy Spirit in Mullissu, an aspect of the goddess Ishtar as well as the origins of the Trinity in the configuration of the gods Enlil, Mullissu, and Ninurta. Barbara Porters essay is, in part, a response to Parpolas claims. She examines Assyrian hymns and ritual texts for evidence of monotheism, which she defines as the belief or worship of one God to the exclusion of others. After concluding that the Assyrians show no evidence of monotheism, she asks her primary question: Did the

This review was published by RBL 2002 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

Assyrians conceive of divinity as primarily fragmented or chiefly unified? After establishing criteria for determining which texts are authentically Assyrian, she focuses on descriptions of the deities contained in takultu texts and finds a tendency not only to identify some gods with others, but also to absorb some gods into others, especially into Ashur. These texts reflect an intense focus of power on some gods, but never to the exclusion of the existence of other gods. Providing a fresh reading of the term ilu in the Ninurta hymn, she debunks previous readings of this text as monotheistic. Then she points to ritual texts that express anxiety regarding to which god one should pray. This suggests to Porter that the Assyrians were so engrossed in a polytheistic system that it was often frightening and overwhelming. Porter ends with a brief examination of three Neo-Assyrian texts that demonstrate multiplicity, where Ashur is clearly at the head, but is not alone. According to Stephen Geller, the biblical God is a plurality of conceptions because the biblical texts are themselves an assembly of primarily three traditions, each with its own thoughts about divinity. For the cultic/priestly thinkers, God is essentially a mechanical force; for wisdom thinkers, God is described as a principle; and for the covenant theologians, God is understood as a personality. It is this last conception that is the focus of Gellers essay. Biblicists have long asserted that the primary metaphors for God as personking, warrior, and protectorderive from the ancient Near East. However, Geller argues for a radically new model in which the covenantal God is not a mechanical patchwork of various features of the ancient concept of deity, but a totally new creation that reflects the picture of the earthly king projected onto the cosmic stage (285). In order to resolve the basic tensions in covenant theology between transcendence and intimacy, theologians developed a new anthropomorphism, a new divine personality. A key text that reflects this revolutionary theology is the Shema (Deut 6:4-5), which he argues is really about a new revolutionary individualism. It was this individualism that gave rise to a single God: the covenant God is the model of the self, one in principle and somehow unaffected in its core of being by circumstance, but also endlessly varied and multiple in its reaction to those circumstances (311). Readers will certainly find themselves taking issue with a number of specific assertions that each writer makes, but this is because the studies are bold, fresh, and intelligent. One must certainly appreciate the risks that scholars take when they choose to move beyond narrow investigations to look at the broader picture by synthesizing massive amounts of information. Some of these essays have already stimulated lively and intelligent debate and will certainly continue to do so. This collection of thoughtprovoking and far-reaching essays is a must for any serious student of ancient theology.

This review was published by RBL 2002 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.