Reconsidering Female Figurines with a Disk from the Southern Levant and Monotheism

Koot van Wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Visiting Professor

Kyungpook National University

Sangju Campus

South Korea

Conjoint Lecturer of Avondale College

Australia

16 May 2011

David T. Sugimoto wrote a book in 2008 published at Keio University Press, in Japan on this topic. His title was slightly different, reflecting his own view and axioms he is working with. "Female Figurines with a Disk from the Southern Levant and the Formation of Monotheism". Notice the word formation.

First let me say that was honored to proofread his manuscript before publication, the figurine part. The discussion on monotheism was wisely kept from me and I can see now why. Sugimoto said about a person's baggage or bag of axioms as precondition to methodology of this science, the following:

"This difference [three viewpoints on the issue of the origin of monotheism] is largely dependent on each scholar's theoretical framework expressed in their reconstruction of the history of Israel" (D. Sugimoto 2008: 103). Very wisely outlined.

Sugimoto demarcated three major views on the origin of monotheism in Israel:

1. Biblical view by W. F. Albright, Y. Kaufmann, H. Ringgren, G. Fohrer, G. Ahlström which stated that from the beginning the religion was essentially monotheistic and worship of other gods was under the influence of Canaanite religion (Sugimoto 2008: 101).

2. Contrary view by Morton Smith (1971) and B. Lang (1981) which sees the origin of monotheism in this way that Israel was not syncretized by the influence of Canaanitism but that it was originally polytheistic just as its neighbors and that monotheism was advocated only by a small "Yahweh alone movement" or "prophetic minority". They claim that monotheism was not present until the Exile (Sugimoto 2008: 101-102).

3. The view that emphasizes the heritage of Cananite culture in Israel and the importance of the Exile in crystalizing the monotheistic concept. It claims that monarchy helped to create a kind of national god that eventually evolved into Monotheism in the Exile. It was the view Mark Smith (1990 = 2002) and J. Day (2001) (see Sugimoto 2008: 102).

Sugimoto unwind Albright's views of the role of four-room houses, collar-rimmed jars and hewn cistern in the mountain areas as non-indicative of Israelite ethnicity. And probably correctly so. But, the result is that he finally bend more to the second and third view of the origin of monotheism in Israel. That is why he is using the word formation in his title.

Seventh-day Adventism is Biblical but even more literal than Albright. A host of Adventist Archaeologists and Old Testament scholars can be listed: Leon Wood, Edwin R. Thiele, Siegfried Horn, William Shea, Lawrence Geraty, Larry Herr, Randall Younker, Richard Davidson, Michael Hasel, Daegeuk Nam, and the list can go on to include a few hundred scholars. All of them are working, not with the Albrightean chronology, which is "cut and paste adjusted chronology" but with the literal harmonized Hebrew chronology as it is given in the Hebrew consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition. It means that the Exodus was not in 1290 BCE but in 1450 BCE. For Thiele-Horn et al it was 1446 BCE, but it was actually 1450 BCE, since the date of the fourth year of Solomon was not 966 BCE but 970 BCE. That is why we can safely reject Albright's Eisodus in Canaan connections archaeologically. It is like rejecting that the French Revolution was at the time of World War II. The artifacts just does not fit archaeologically. You have to be chronologically precise and then look for archaeological connections or links. Adventists may be branded as Albrigthean only because their scholars like Horn and Running were educated by Albright, but actually they are more Thiele-Horn students, who were more careful about biblical chronology with no compromise.

Similar to Albright also the SDA scholars rejected the work of Wellhausen as pseudo-science. They refuse to work with that system and there is no room for compromise on that subject. If anyone in the SDA church compromise on this issue, they are no longer Adventists but some kind of hybrid maybe for opportunistic [honor, belonging, advantage, avoid conflict, avoid embarassment etc) purposes. One is either textual or not, there is no room for compromise, if one does not work with Wellhausen. If one do work with even slight chunks of Wellhausen's ideas, one is bound to reject cardinal elements in the Bible and end up with biblically skew theories and opinions that clash with Seventh-day Adventism. An Adventist who challenges the traditional view of inspiration and advocates something in the line of Rudolph Bultmann, is bound to be in trouble for his views and results. We are talking here about things that Sugimoto mentioned in his statement above that are causing people to be in view 1, 2, or 3. Sugimoto chose to work with a hybrid of Wellhausen's view. When a scholar mentions the word exilic deuteronomist, the yellow card is out and what follows is a row of red cards for his/her opinions on the subject.

The non-biblical view is propounded by scholars that monotheism grew from non-existence to existence. They see it that there was first polytheism and that monotheism did not originate until the Exile. The divide Isaiah up into two or three pieces with two and three in the Exilic and post-Exilic periods. Once you cut and paste the Bible and reallocate each piece to your own surmized dating system, overriding the inductive chronology of the holistic text, you are biblically at a lost for words. The scholar is bound to be in trouble by biblical scholars. There is no two ways about this.

Biblicistic? Yes, for that is the only way. Apology to James Barr and his antagonism against biblicistic scholars. It is just not biblical to follow his method but rather syncretistic and nihilistic.

Existentialism cannot take Archaeology as norm and overrides the biblical text's claims and call that the reality of the past. It is pseudo-science. It is what Albright called: artificial Hegelianism.

That is why ontology needs an outside of us norm, the biblical text, which can navigate us in our epistemology so that we set aside our own opinions, our own skepticism, our own prejudices, selfish gain, and submit by faith and belief our lives to be guided by this outside norm for harmony, understanding, reason. Because of sinboundedness of each human we have to submit our lives first for a cleansing and freeing of our reason by the Holy Spirit and in this attitude of prayer and humble submission to this outside norm, our existentialism, our reason, our thoughts begin to make better sense, not only to ourselves but to others. We affirm rather than place under suspicion the words, verses, paragraphs and chapters of the Biblical text. This is what the axioms of the Enlightenment and Rationalism could not do. This is what Wellhausen could not do.

Because Mark Smith, Morton Smith, B. Lang, John Day and others are not working with the biblical text model as guide to their ideas, they substitute it with their own reconstructions after they cut and paste with skepticism of Wellhausen the very text they set out to discuss. They first have to convince you to believe Wellhausen rather than the Holy Spirit. Then they have to tell you what the modus operandi is when you accept Wellhausen and how you should use your basket, scissor and glue to repaste the Bible. You adjust it to what you think the artifacts is saying or not saying and see, you have a newly created biblical picture of things. This biblical alteration method is not good enough for the serious Bible student.

If one reads the book on the remnant in the Old Testament by Gerhard Hasel, one does not get the impression that a remnant only originated in the Exile. The remnant was those who believed in God, had a covenant with Him, was taken care of, was the other way of two ways, one right and one wrong. The wrong existed from the beginning with Adam and Eve's fall, and since then monotheism was endangered by polytheism. The Bible is monotheistic and when it does mention polytheism with the Patriarchal fathers, it is not because it was the right way, but because it was the wrong way. The Bible does not only mention the rights of the patriarchs but also their wrongs. Polytheism was wrong and not right. If a scholar like B. Lang wants to use these texts to proof that these patriarchs were polytheists as a correct norm for that time, he misunderstood the theme of the Word of God. God does not contradict Himself. He does not allow one to do something but forbid another to do it. What He said to Moses He already said to Adam, Henoch, Noah, Abraham and all down the line. With no compromise, no alteration but with continuity. If deviations or variants cropped up, they are just that, deviations and variants and wrong, not right. This is the reason we cannot accept the notion of the evolution of monotheism in Israel. It did not evolve. It was directly communicated to Adam and Eve. God revealed Himself directly to all these people long before Moses. The Exile was not even near when this concept was revealed. Who came first, the chicken or the egg? It was monotheism first and then polytheism. That is biblical.

This is why David Sugimoto is so right in saying that a scholar's reconstruction of religious situations of various stages of Israel's history will determine his or her arguments (Sugimoto 2008: 103 footnote 49). We hope to spend more time on this topic in the light of a true analysis of the history of Israel during the Monarchal Period. This will put the figurines published by Sugimoto in a very special sequence and importance that may differ with his original findings.