Article #401 1 Verbum et Ecclesia prove

(Allen 2007:3) Original Research Verbum et EcclesiaVerbum et (1938). Barr argued (Rowley 1956:48−49) Biblical and Natural .). All that is remarked on remarked is that All .). n et al et escriptive (page number not for citation purposes) : D religio

of

srael I t n ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION The Knowledge of and the Service of God cie n A philosophy

n i

Vol. 31 No. 1 Page 1 of 6 31 Vol. from

, he responded to Karl Barth’s In contrast to Aristotle, the claims made by Genesis and the rest of the Scriptures of the ancient of existence Israel the for account do even nor operation, not nature’s of principles the discover to desire a from spring world’s the explain to desire they because Israelites ancient the by affirmed not is Creator a in universe. they contrary, the On God. in belief for grounds the form not do order and existence Its order. and existence patriarchs, other the to then and race, their of founder the Abraham, to first self-, God’s in believed initiative, God’s to response a is Divine the in belief Their prophets. the to then and Jacob, and Isaac as such rather than the result of their investigation of nature’s order and origin. The thought of the Old Testament is centred in God. Yet it is nowhere attempted to prove God exists. For the For exists. God prove to attempted nowhere is it Yet God. in centred is Testament Old the of thought The God of the Old Testament is the God of experience and not of speculation. It is not because some postulate questioned more no They God. of the thought they turned to first cause that a of think men to thought led of doubts raise may philosopher The themselves. around world the of reality the questioned they than being his his on world the of reality the in belief his base to content is man plain the but things, all of reality the about experience, however illusionary the philosopher may tell him it is. So the Hebrew was content to base his belief in the on what seemed to him to be his experience of God, granted to himself or to his people, and especially on the experience of God given to the nation in the great moments of its history ... He (God) was a postulate of experience rather than thought ... No man who hears the roar of the lion near him had has who man no and lion, the as reality objective such any is there whether ask to philosophy to turn will we Where God. in believe to him allow will philosopher the whether ask to concerned is God of experience an rather than theoretical ... find atheism in the Old Testament it is a practical in philosophy of as well; many assume that no such thing exists in the popular stereotypes, Hebrew it is taken Bible. for granted that In there were radical ontological and epistemological differences between Israelite religion and Greek philosophical . Thus according to Allen (2007): (1956): The notion that natural (a)theology is alien to the Hebrew Bible has been accepted uncritically In biblical theology, it is commonplace to suggest that the Hebrew Bible does not attempt to 1995:139, Preuss 1958:37; Jacob 1957:19; (Köhler Yhwh of existence the the subject involves pointing out that only fools doubt it and adding that the nature of this doubt was practical, not theoretical (e.g. Ps 10:4; 14:1; 53:1, Zeph 12). commentaries, For what many can be biblical said on and the matter boils down to the following summary of Rowley According to popular consensus, the ancient Israelites shunned natural theology Yahweh and was based belief on revelation in and not reason. In relatively recent times, this view has come under increasing pressure as the presence of natural theology in the into Hebrew a topic Bible of sporadic has interest. In turned this article, a contribution to this discussion is made by way of placing the topic in its proper framework within the provides philosophy a of descriptive religion. introduction to In what doing will so, for it the foreseen future remain issue. a controversial philosophy’. The concept of folk-philosophy world is philosophy most dealing prominent with ancient in and/or comparative non-western philosophy cultural and worldviews. It refers to the that theologians who assumed that biblical worldviews of philosophy were were in not being absolute descriptive, opposition but under to the the influencethe Barthian of spirit aversion neo-orthodoxtowards dogmaticsnatural theology. and Neither did they themselves avoid a philosophical framework seeing that they were 1999:168). The belief that biblical motivated theology shuns philosophy completely is only by possible for scholars personalism and as long as their awareness of their own philosophical assumptions is minimal (Gnuse 2001:3). ‘semi-existentialism’ (see Barr By contrast, Barr (1994) showed that historical interpretation and biblical theology are riddled with philosophical assumptions. Natural theology is presupposed in the world behind the text of biblical stories about creation and in the logic behind the laws, prophetic discourse and wisdom. But if that is the case, the question may be asked whether the existence supposed of reasons deity for might believing not or also disbelieving be in implicit philosophy in of the religion, biblical it discourse. does Although witness to the folk-philosophies text of is religion not implicit assumptions of ancient Israelite religion. in the metaphysical To justify this seemingly outrageous claim, I would like us to consider the phenomenon of ‘folk- This denial of the role of natural theology in ancient Israelite religion is based on a theological, rather Barr James example, For religion. Israelite in ideas of development the of appropriation historical, than (1994) identifies traces of natural theology in the Hebrew Bible when, in his Theology theologies ) a ( perspectives 1 31(1), Art. 31(1), atural N ee: OpenJournals

School Basic of Sciences, Publishing. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License. © 2010. The Authors. © 2010. Licens This article is available at: http://www.ve.org.za Verbum Verbum et Ecclesia #401, 6 pages. DOI: 10.4102/ ve.v31i1.401 ‘Natural (a)theologies in Ancient Israel: Descriptive perspectives from ’, Published: 2010 Nov. 10 How to cite this article: 2010, Gericke, J.W., Dates: Received: 26 May 2010 Accepted: 2010 Aug. 18 arguments for the existence God;of atheism; atheology; biblical theology; Natural theology 1174, Vanderbijlpark 1900, 1900, Vanderbijlpark 1174, South Africa Keywords: School Basic of Sciences, Faculty Humanities, of Vaal University, North-West Triangle Campus, PO Box email: [email protected] Postal address: Correspondence to: Jacobus Gericke 1 University, North-West TriangleVaal Campus, South Africa Author: GerickeJacobus W. Affiliation: http://www.ve.org.za Original Research Gericke

taken for granted metaphysical, epistemological, ethical and and normative endeavour. In short, philosophy of religion is other assumptions that underlie the worldviews embodied in combined with the history of religion. ordinary language and myth, proverbs and songs. It comes to us in the form of philosophical presuppositions about reality, existence, life, knowledge, truth, belief, morality, etcetera, that FOLK-PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS went without saying. These presuppositions do not themselves IN ANCIENT ISRAELITE RELIGION represent conscious critical philosophical reflection by the agents holding them, even though such reflection, whether REGARDING THE NATURE AND EXISTENCE witting or not, lies in the communal past. In short, all cultures, whether living or dead, western or eastern, philosophical or OF DEITY mythological, have folk-philosophies that are implicit in their While most biblical theologians deny that the Hebrew Bible ordinary language; ancient Israel is therefore no exception. contains arguments for the existence of Yhwh, a few exceptions can be found. To be sure, these exceptions are not necessarily But there is more. Folk-philosophies can be accessed via descriptive and historical in orientation. For example, in his a philosophical analysis of a people’s religious literature, discussion of ‘The Reality of the Biblical God’, Patrick (1981:117- regardless of its genres. In other words, working with the 134) developed what he considered to be literary versions of relevant data, philosophers engaged in the clarification of the three traditional philosophical arguments for the existence of conceptual content of worldviews can derive ‘philosophy’ God. Patrick discerned what he thought could be seen as biblical from such discourse via a reconstruction of the implicit taken- varieties of the ontological argument (supposedly implicit in the for-granted worldview(s), as Ninian Smart (2008:7) notes: ‘It suspension of disbelief in reading the story), the cosmological is possible to extract a world-view from a person’s thinking argument (allegedly by rendering the world in the text as true and living, even when he or she is not mainly concerned with life) and a moral-existential argument (implicit in the way the presenting a system’. Hebrew Bible evokes an experience of the holy). Although this is interesting, Patrick’s ideas remain on the level of narrative and Given the presence of worldviews and natural theology in rhetorical criticism, not philosophical clarification. He is seeking ancient Israelite religion, we are warranted to speak of folk- to be theologically relevant at all costs and not merely concerned philosophies of religion in the Hebrew Bible. Of course, natural with historical-philosophical elucidation. theology is not necessarily to be equated with philosophy of religion, as Barr (1994) fully realised: Implicit arguments Something more has to be said to define our theme in relation to two concepts, firstly the philosophy of religion … the philosophy On the level of implicit arguments, I would like the reader to of religion is not necessarily or absolutely linked with natural imagine travelling to the biblical world in the text and sitting in theology; for example, one might pursue a philosophical approach to on a meeting of the elders at the city gate as a modern western religion while denying natural theology altogether. Nevertheless, stranger (a philosophical anthropologist, if you will). One’s role it seems that there is a common tendency in the opposite direction; is indeed like an analytic ordinary language African philosopher [?] traditional natural theology has provided much interesting as described by Hallen (1996:218-219). With reference to their matter for the philosophy of religion, for example, traditional , imagine that we could ask one of these elders ‘Why do arguments for the existence of God. And conversely the denial of you believe x?’ Here, one is looking for a reasoned justification

Article #401 natural theology has commonly gone with a strong emphasis on of the sort where they might respond with ‘We believe x because revelation, and this in turn has been taken to mean that there are y’ (analogous to what is referred to as ‘philosophical sagacity’ Verbum et EcclesiaVerbum et no adequate resources for a philosophical understanding of God. in African philosophy). Of course, if ‘x’ is ‘Yhwh exists’, then ‘y’ In extreme cases, the emphasis on revelation has been taken to might be ‘because our fathers taught us Yhwh delivered us with mean that philosophical discussions of God and of religion have no a strong hand from Egypt’. This would amount to an ‘argument relevance for Christian faith whatever. from tradition’ which, while fallacious as an appeal to authority, (Barr 1994:3) whether true or not, can be seen as part of the folk-philosophical rhetoric for the justification of a belief. To be sure, it would Quite so, but technically, natural theology is still a subsection concern what is alleged to be ‘revealed’ rather than natural in analytic philosophy of religion dealing with arguments theology. Perhaps one can probe further and ask how they regarding the nature and existence of the gods without recourse know it is true. Alternatively, one might also try to understand to any special or supposedly supernatural revelation. Such what they mean when they say Yhwh is a living god and how arguments need not be explicit or formulated in philosophical they know this. The responses forthcoming might satisfy neither format or jargon. In the context of the Hebrew Bible, they will philosophical nor theological orthodox sensibilities, but this is have taken the form of taken-for-granted reasons for believing not required for a descriptive historical clarification of the folk- that Yhwh (and other gods) exists and that certain alleged philosophical arguments in ancient Israelite religion. divine beings are nothing of the sort. It will also include appeals to reason and experience in order to justify certain beliefs about the nature of deity. The question now is as follows: are Explicit arguments there examples of non-western folk-philosophical discourse There are bits and pieces of residue folk-philosophy of religion analogous to arguments in contemporary natural theology in explicit in the Hebrew Bible. These appear in what is assumed to the Hebrew Bible? The answer to this article is an unambiguous, be sufficient reasons for certain beliefs regarding the nature and albeit qualified, ‘yes’. This is in order, but how does one go about existence of Yhwh and an the obvious place to look is in wisdom demonstrating it in a hermeneutically sound manner? motifs. Wisdom motifs are also present in poetry and song. One recognised instance of such quasi-philosophical thinking In the quest for discerning folk-philosophies of Israelite religion, in the Hebrew Bible comes from the Psalter. Thus, as Davidson the task of the biblical scholar is analogous to the African (2009:33) recognised, we stumble upon (and over) a section of ethno-philosopher. It is not our place to argue normatively Psalm 94:7–12, which reads: for or against the existence of God, but rather to look for folk- philosophical reasons that went without saying and which now and they say, ‘The does not see; lie nascent in the biblical discourse. These will inform us as to the God of Jacob does not perceive.’ why the ancient Israelites themselves believed in or doubted the Understand, O dullest of the people; existence and particular nature of gods. Research for this kind fools, when will you be wise? of natural theology in biblical theology is therefore minimalist, He who planted the ear, does he not hear? descriptive and historical and not a systematic, evaluative He who formed the eye, does he not see?

2 Verbum et Ecclesia Vol. 31 No. 1 Page 2 of 6 http://www.ve.org.za (page number not for citation purposes) Article #401 3 Verbum et Ecclesia atheism atheism , meaning . broad weak (Martin 2007:1) atheos Original Research atheism involves Verbum et EcclesiaVerbum et Cambridge Companion to atheism is the explicit one who denies or disbelieves ‘ Research on skepticism found (page number not for citation purposes)

strong atheism referring to the actual denial actual the to referring atheism practical or pragmatic , the following subtle distinctions (see atheism is the absence of belief in gods atheism is silent personal disbelief. HEBREW BIBLE positive soft inter alia Coetzee & Roux 2002). Coetzee & Roux 2002). , in the sense of atheism is disbelief which has reasons for denying for reasons has which disbelief is atheism : atheism concerns particular gods while gods particular concerns atheism atheist atheism is pro-active confession and promotion of reveals, DESCRIPTIVE ATHEOLOGIES IN THE DESCRIPTIVE ATHEOLOGIES Narrow Hard Theoretical Implicit or negative Under explicit atheism a specificdeity does not exist or , non-, , but not anti-theism. concerns all gods of whatever description. atheism while that god exists while individuals simply living as if there is no god. with explicit or explicit with of a belief in gods. affirmation that godsthat belief the as such non-theism, of forms other all includes do not exist while

3. 4. 5. only loosely when biblical scholars is refer to ‘practical what atheism’ they think in (as unbelief radical of phenomenon the words, other In passim). some texts very discussed (Von been has Israel ancient in skepticism) to opposed Rad 1972:65 and haphazardly (even unscientifically) in scholarly literature and it is time to bring some order and quality to the research. For this a historical and comparative philosophy of religion is required slogans and not a biblical theology repeating Barthian Atheism and atheology The term the existence of God’, is first attestedThrower from2000:1). In ancient Greek 1571the adjective onwards (cf. ‘godless’ or impious, can be traced back to the 6th century BCE when it referred only to impiety, eventually coming to denote a more intentional, active godlessness in the 5th century BCE. By then the term had acquired other meanings, such as ‘severing relations with the gods’ or ‘denying the gods, ungodly’ (Martin 2007:1). Atheism, in one form or Greek another, philosophy with however, traces predates found in the 1980). east (see Biblical Thrower theologians discussing atheism distinguish between the historical have varieties of the phenomenon failed to discerned by philosophers of religion working in the context of religious studies. A quick perusal of the Atheism Martin 2007) 1. 2. Bible because they anachronistically assumed that philosophical that assumed anachronistically they because Bible arguments for the existence of God (i.e. reasons that for Yhwh believing lives) will only count found as philosophical in if they the are form riddled with of philosophical jargon. No wonder explicit they concluded systematic is means this What Bible. Hebrew the in present is thing such no logical arguments that antiphilosophical sentiment in biblical theology is itself not in sentiments of example another yet but thinks it as historical as Barthian systematic theology intruding on biblical scholarship. It is almost anachronistically colonialist in that it only considers certain forms of post-biblical western philosophy to philosophy. In count this as matter, biblical theology would do well to learn from debates analogous to those that raged a generation ago in non-western area studies philosophy, see in philosophy (e.g. African It is an open atheism question in whether the it Hebrew is Bible. in legitimate the Hebrew Bible has to already borne this speak out to some of extent (Andersen 1999:225-257; Crenshaw 1980:1-19; Priest 1980:286). no and up dried have to seems discussion the hitherto However, attempt has been made to structure it according to the format of arguments against the existence of deity in analytic philosophy of religion. In the discussion to follow, I shall attempt to do just that. In research on ancient Israelite religion and the Hebrew Bible, the concept of atheism is considered anachronistic or used . b But Since the what can Vol. 31 No. 1 Page 3 of 6 31 Vol. ). b (Knierim 1995:51) (Knierim 1995:410)

presupposes to be inferred from the consequence consequence the from inferred be to a

of the Hebrew literature ration and were very that much intrinsic systematization, to Hebrew the beloved his of logic ... in work Hebrew at even were They embryonically. mind, and not only poetry. The post-Herder evidence forces us to reconceptualise not only our understanding of the Hebrew mind but also the criteria of the philosophy of romanticism for determining authenticity or foreignness. dialogue was an appropriate philosophical form. mentality the in element only the not far by was intuition poetic … science in the Bible. The extent to which philosophy times is in acknowledged modern as scientific, not speculative but based on the empirical disciplines and logic is mirrored in the philosophical nature of many of the biblical texts insofar as it alludes to God in the rationality of thought. What is philosophical thereby depends much more on the kind than on of the thinking, format, especially the when Geistesbeshäftigung, compared of with treatises the from format Greek philosophy on. Even there, the Socratic Because of limitation of space we can only allude to philosophical The LORD knows our thoughts, The LORD knows but an empty breath. that they are He who disciplines the nations, He who disciplines knowledge to humankind, he who teaches does he not chastise? leave of the Aristotelian dichotomy between poetry philosophy and and Plato’s negative assessment value of the latter. Biblical scholars have systematically failed to of the Hebrew the in philosophical religion of folk-philosophy of presence the discern This insight by Knierim suggests biblical theology should take what Herder did not realise was that: Knierim went further to suggest between Hebrew that (biblical) and Herder’s Greek comparisons (philosophical) thought rested on his own anthropology philosophical assumptions of rooted romanticism. in According the to Knierim (1995), not philosophical) clearly shatters the thinking stereotype as not of concerned Israelite with inferring via the nature the of the natural world. It furthermore nature confirms the of deity words of Knierim (1995): and understand, rather than to adjudicate, explain or criticise. Whatever the case, this instance is surely of the tip natural of the theology folk-philosophical iceberg (which in the behind world the text given that the Hebrew Bible’s intentions were are called) already presuppose what they whether seek the to reasoning prove. presupposed in the text world of the behind Psalm is the invalid or not is not clarify describe, to be should scholar our biblical the of objective The primary concern. multiple alternative possible explanations atheological for critiques of David about causality have Hume, fallen out the of fashion. particular In Kierkegaard addition, who realised it that ideas arguments was from design (as they allowing the precondition precondition the allowing Of course, the implicit argument behind this natural theology might be faulted for committing the fallacies of affirming presumption, the consequent and anthropomorphism (there are method of conclusion logical the from inference argue to and that ‘hunch’ a having is means it terms pre-scientific. In layman’s to the premises, that is, from the effects to More a formally supposed cause. stated, the Psalm presupposes the validity of are not backgrounds? necessarily My answer is distortive ‘Yes’ and in it of philosophical may be said terms that the underlined section intra-textual be conceptual called an abductive argument from design. Abduction is a contemplation regarding the nature now concerns of the nature of deity? the reasoning in The religious thought text. Can it be described in extra- encountered in the underlined question biblical philosophical categories that, though anachronistic This text clearly presupposes natural theological reflectionpreceding the act of penning of these ideas. How did the author as know (or thought he knew) these things without some abstract http://www.ve.org.za Natural(a)theologies in Ancient Israel Original Research Gericke

These categories are functional and, although post-biblical, they Despite many biblical-theological discussions during the mid- are no more distortive than other post-biblical descriptive terms twentieth century that sought to distance Hebrew (biblical) from (e.g. religion, culture, history, etc., which has no equivalent Greek (philosophical) thinking, these are now known to have in biblical Hebrew; see Smith 2004:2). When combining the been riddled with fallacies such as essentialism, generalisation, subtle distinctions in terms of atheism with the fact that biblical stereotyping, oversimplification and caricature (Barr 1966:42). theologians have only looked at atheism relative to Yhwh, rather The history of the debate runs from Pedersen (1926-1940), than looking at other deities, the impoverished nature of the Boman (1960), Barr (1961), Tsevat (1978) to Carasik (2006). Later discussion in biblical theology becomes clear. We can no longer studies were more interested in showing that Hebrew thought be satisfied in merely debating whether the nature of atheology was just as capable of analytical reasoning as Greek philosophy in the text is either theoretical or practical atheism. All the other and suggested that the supposed differences in capabilities for categories in the classification of the varieties of unbelief need abstraction and formalisation were nothing of the sort (Barr to be brought to bear on the discussion Not enough of this kind 1994; Knierim 1995). of in-depth research exists on why the existence of Yhwh and/ or the gods were denied and no one has yet bothered to write a Secondly, the proposition translated from Hebrew into English as ‘there is no God’ could be read as a generic reference to descriptive atheology of the Hebrew Bible. divinity in general. From a purely linguistic viewpoint we could equally render the Hebrew version as ‘There are no Beside the concept of atheism, a further term of relevance gods’. In favour of opting for the latter translation is the fact is atheology. The word makes its first appearance in the 17th that the capitalisation of the word for divinity is the default century polemical literature, specifically to denote not so option given the translators’ philosophical and much anti-theology or antagonism towards theology, but their ideological interests. The translator’s monotheism differs rather arguments against the existence of God as conceived of from that found in the Psalter in the sense that they are heirs of in a particular view of deity (Mautner 2000:49). In this regard, Aquinas’s philosophical theology which denied that God was the concern today is not as in the past evaluative atheological part of a genus (Aristotelian secondary substance). This stands perspectives on the Hebrew Bible (see Gericke 2004), but rather in direct contrast to ancient Israelite meta-theistic assumptions. to offer a purely historical and descriptive account of traces of There the generic terms for divinity were used with reference atheology and atheism in the Hebrew Bible itself. My concern to Yhwh to indicate the type of being he was assumed to be – is antagonist discourse in Hebrew Bible that denies the reality even in monotheistic god-talk (see Gericke 2009:20–45). In other of Yhwh in some sense and protagonist polemical denials of the words, the Psalter’s monotheism still assume the generic sense reality of other gods. to denote a genus or species where modern translations to not believe God to be sui generis. The popular classification of the Antagonist atheological arguments atheology in the fool’s words as involving a reference to Yhwh or God makes little sense when the denial is cast in the form of The presence of antagonist atheology in the Psalter is old news. an indefinite description (no god = not a god). Personal names In this regard, virtually all commentaries on the Psalter have are out of place and it makes little sense to deny there is a god if noted the denial of god(s) in Psalms 10 and 14 (Psalm 14 is one was referring to a specific god (but, what about the others?). repeated in Psalm 53). In Psalm 10:4, we read: The wicked, in the pride of his countenance he does not seek Thirdly, we should remember that the atheology of the ‘wicked’ is not a first-hand account but a polemical caricature. What

Article #401 (His thinks:) ‘There are no gods’ gives away the game is that the psalmist claims to know what

Verbum et EcclesiaVerbum et A similar statement is found in Psalm 14:1: the fools say ‘in his heart’ (in secret) – the text itself implies The fool says in his heart: that the psalmist had no access to such knowledge. In addition, There are no gods’; the fool is depicted as ridiculously oscillating inconsistently between atheism and anti-theism when the existence of the The paraphrase of the Targum Tehillim’s rendering of Psalms 14 gods is first denied only to be followed by rebellion against and its twin 53 tried to downplay the nature of the denial with quite a specific god (Yhwh). Contrary to popular belief, this is the following elaborations: not to be explained as the result of practical atheism, but due The fool said in his heart, ‘There is no rule of God on the earth’. to the ideological interest of the author who wants to make the (Psalm 14) fool appear like an obstinate rebel as opposed to a sincerely The fool said in his heart, ‘There is no God taking retribution’. disillusioned person. It serves no rhetorical purpose to allow the (Psalm 53) fool to be recognised as somebody who discovered that the same reasons for not believing in other gods could also be applied to Many biblical theologians have followed the Targumic reading belief in the god of Israel. Thus, the conceptual inconsistencies in and have concluded that the Masoretic version presupposes the view of the fool in the Psalm (atheism vis-à-vis anti-Yahwism) only ‘practical atheism’. However, there are several problems can be accounted for on ideological-critical grounds with the with this classification. psalmist projecting his own theistic frame of reference onto the representation of the fool. In combination with ad hominem Firstly, the classification was wittingly or unwittingly arguments associating unbelief with immorality, the psalmist ideologically motivated by the need to deny the presence could discredit his opponent. This is a universal tendency in of natural atheology in the fool’s words. This is partly due religious apologetics to this day: atheists are depicted as willfully to allegiance to the popular stereotype of so-called ‘Hebrew obstinate immoral agents rejecting God when, from the latter’s thought’ as articulated by Barr (1966): point of view, there is nothing to reject.

The Greek mind is abstract, contemplative, static or harmonic, Fourthly, a bit of deconstruction is in order. By this is meant impersonal; it is dominated by certain distinctions--matter that another problem with biblical theologians’ dismissal and form, one and many, individual and collective, time and of the possibility of theoretical atheism is the fact that the timelessness, appearance and reality. The Hebrew mind is active, distinction itself in the history of religion proper is recognised concrete, dynamic, intensely personal, formed upon wholeness and not as something absolute. All practice presupposes a minimum not upon distinctions. Thus it is able to rise above, or to escape, the amount of theory even if this is subconscious or unarticulated. great distinctions which lie across Greek thought. Greek thought is No one in a religious culture is a practical atheist without what unhistorical, timeless, based on logic and system. Hebrew thought that person consciously or subconsciously to be a is historical, centred in time and movement, based in life. sufficient reason for being such. Reading between the lines of (Barr 1966:34) the descriptions of the wicked, it becomes clear that there are in

4 Verbum et Ecclesia Vol. 31 No. 1 Page 4 of 6 http://www.ve.org.za (page number not for citation purposes) Article #401 5 Verbum et Ecclesia (Ps 96:5) (Ps 97:7) existence (Ps 135:15) Original Research Verbum et EcclesiaVerbum et

(hypostatisation) charging (hypostatisation)

(page number not for citation purposes)

st bold assertions. They presuppose a religious An argument from alleged reification alleged from argument An the nations because of their alleged abstraction (abstract tendency belief or hypothetical construct) as if to it treat words, an other In entity. physical or event real concrete, a were feet, but do not walk; and they do not make a sound in their throat. For all the gods of the peoples are idols; but Yhwh made the heavens. All worshipers of images are put to shame, who make their boast in worthless idols; all gods bow down before him. The idols of the nations are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see. They have ears, but do not hear; noses, but do not smell. They have hands, but do not feel; in the text might to some extent be inferred from what is implicit. is what from inferred be extent some to might text the in What is clear is that in the psalms of the denial other of gods the involves a narrow, explicit, positive, and theoretical soft variety of atheism. From can texts like discern those above, the we arguments: following implicit protagonist atheological • Similar references to the gods of the nations as non-living objects non-living as nations the of gods the to references Similar are also found in several other atheological polemical claims: psalms with Yahwism’s own These are not ju other that know can one that granted for takes that epistemology gods are not really gods. Given that ancient Israel a came world from filled with gods and represented a mediocreentity, we can political be sure they did not reach the above atheological conclusions without some serious folk-philosophical reflection. If this is not in the text, it is because the not point of to the discuss text was folk-philosophy but to confess not faith. mean that there was This no folk-philosophy or does that it is invalid for us spelled- to explicitly of absence attempt the words, to other In reconstruct presuppositions. it based on inferences from out and systematically formulated atheological arguments here has nothing to taken are do arguments the that means merely but thinking with Hebraic any supposed practically-orientated for granted and presupposed. As such, the atheologies present Protagonist atheological arguments Protagonist Another way to discern what arguments against the reality of a god or gods were at least conceivable in ancient Israel inference from is arguments against by the existence of gods foreign to the cult of Yhwh. Yahwism’s Surely definition, these by However, could himself. Yhwh have to been antagonists applied by more anything to amount never can atheology (protagonist) own conceptions particular of denial the is, that atheism, narrow than of godhood and not the denial of godhood absolutely. Most of it comes in the form of polemics against idols. Because the texts had no overt philosophical agenda, reasons for disbelief in the present not do texts The out. spelled not are gods other of reality us with extensive discussions of arguments. Thus the as contents with antagonist and atheologies, reasoned the have data to we work with are limited to encountered bits and in pieces the incidentally course of individual were not themselves atheological. psalms whose goals Apart from the familiar Psalms 58 and 82 where the charged gods are with injustice and their death is other psalms contain atheological proclaimed, motifs. For example, a several word- search of Hebrew terms translated ‘idols’ leads one to a text like Psalm 115:4−7: (Ps 94:7) n verse 7: Vol. 31 No. 1 Page 5 of 6 31 Vol. where the failure

where the fact that evil that fact the where : 55:20b where we read of people vox populi whether moral or natural seem to befall both the righteous and the wicked (thus an early argument from evil). An implicit argument from divine absence of any deity to act in certain events seemed to suggest that there is no god. orders cosmic amoral from argument An … of (what is high) they speak. They have set their mouth against the heavens, And they say: ‘How does a god know? And is there knowledge in the Most High?’ such as have no changes (keep no law), and fear no gods. And they say: ‘Yah will not see, neither will the god of Jacob give heed.’ In sum then, motivated antagonist by appeals to irreligious atheologies experience and conceptual appear dilemmas in theistic truth claims. to have been • hypothetical antagonist atheological arguments been operational in the might have • the sake of the argument, in the sense that atheist philosophers of religion today still speak of God only in the sense of referring to the concept. Whatever the reality behind the the antagonists caricature of views may be, then, perhaps the following alleged divine governance of the world. Note that the scepticism the that Note world. the of governance divine alleged with regard to what Yhwh can know, need not be taken as the no has which one but god a is there that admittance antagonist’s for Yhwh, to reference a be well might it again Once knowledge. From these texts it would seem that there were some people in ancient Israel who thought long and hard about the concept of deity and found certain divine attributes incoherent either or conceptually not the properties thereof not instantiated in Consider also the reads: atheological arguments in Psalm 73:10−11 which reference to implicit antagonist natural antagonist atheology is associated with immorality. One such example comes from Psalm Why did these people believe this? What is it about the world and human experience that offered what was sufficient reason for natural assumed atheology? We cannot say for to sure, be but additional inferences may be drawn from other texts where to the opponent’s antagonist atheological perspective i to the opponent’s antagonist atheological perspective how the Psalmists references to antagonist divine atheological in belief a beliefs of absence the of charges with coupled often are judgment or retribution. Consider the wicked who argument deny God in Psalm against 94. First there the is the reference of deity were taken for granted? To be expected sure, it can that hardly be the psalmists platform for their ideas; the psalmists must be inferred from the would give their second-hand caricature. opponents In this regard, a it is interesting to note classification of the denial of the gods in Psalm 14 as an instance an as 14 Psalm in gods the of denial the of classification and incomplete. is both oversimplified atheism’ only of ‘practical The remaining question now is: If existence the the against arguments atheism which presupposed of theory the some fool has said to involve the actual denial that gods exist and not merely gods. the absence of belief in In sum then, it would seem that the popular scholarly it would seem that we atheism in that are the denial is alleged dealing to be private. with Moreover, it soft is positive and rather than negative atheism in that not the atheology is hard of what we find in the fool’sdenial. Aside from the theoretical or practical distinction, commentators will also have to indicate what other formats description, of the from that, said atheism be may it example, is For atheology. present in the antagonist’s unbelief concern arguments related to divine absence and evil. to divine absence and arguments related unbelief concern Fifthly, a more pedantic incompleteness of remark ‘practical atheism’ is as the in full classification order to show the fact reasons for their unbelief. As we shall see, these reasons for http://www.ve.org.za Natural(a)theologies in Ancient Israel Original Research Gericke

it exposes the error of treating as a ‘real thing’ something Crenshaw, J.L., 1980, ‘The Birth of Skepticism in Ancient Israel,’ which is not a real thing, but merely an idea. in Divine Helmsman: Studies on God’s Control of Human Events, • An argument from the alleged pathetic fallacy where the nations Presented to Lou H. Silberman, James L. Crenshaw, and Samuel are said to attribute to an inanimate object the characteristics Sandmel (eds.), pp. 1−19, KTAV, New York. of animate ones. Davidson, A.B., 1904, Theology of the Old Testament, T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh. Yahwistic protagonist atheologies are therefore stereotypically Gericke, J.W., 2004, Does Yhwh exist? The Case against realism in explicit or positive, narrow, strong, hard and theoretical. There is no Old Testament theology, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Depart. reason to believe that antagonists could not have applied the of Old Testament Studies, University of Pretoria, South same argument to the god of Israel. What is interesting from the Africa. above, however, is how in the Psalms, from where many A Philosophical Analysis of ?אל Gericke, J.W., 2009, ‘What is an would like to exorcise all philosophical concerns, we find the The Concept of Generic Godhood in The Hebrew Bible’, Old core data clusters for ontological presupposition reconstruction. Testament Essays 22/1, 20−45. To be sure, many of the atheological arguments are nascent, Gnuse, R., 1980, The Critic of Biblical Theologians: A Review of the atheism narrow – yet such ideas would become the staple James Barr’s The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament of atheologies in later deutero-canonical texts like the Letter Perspective - Book Review, BTB (Summer, 2001), viewed from of Jeremiah (6th chapter) and the Wisdom of Solomon (chapters http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0LAL/is_2_31/ 12−15). ai_94332330/pg_3/ Hallen, B., 1996, ‘Analytic Philosophy and Traditional Thought: CONCLUSION A Critique of Robert Horton’, in P. English & M.K. Kalumba, African Philosophy: A Classical Approach, n.p., Prentice Hall Traces of natural (a)theology are not altogether absent from International, London. the Hebrew Bible. Interestingly, the folk-philosophy of religion Edmund J., 1958, Theology of the Old Testament, transl. seems to be best attested in poetic texts involving some or A. Heathcote & P.J. Allcock, Hodder & Stoughton, other polemical remark or reflection. These texts do not contain London. fully formulated arguments for or against the existence of Knierim, R.P., 1995, The Task of Old Testament Theology – Method deity but they do provide traces of bits and pieces of implicit and Cases, William B. Eerdmans, Cambridge. folk-philosophies of religion nascent in the presuppositions Köhler, L., 1957, Old Testament Theology, transl. A.S. Todd, James underlying sufficient reasons for holding to a specific ontological Clark Co. Ltd., Cambridge. belief in the particular textual tradition. While in the past the Martin, M., 2007, The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, biblical theological evasion of this particular locus in analytic philosophy of religion has been popular due to influence from Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Barthian dogmatics, the prospect of more in-depth research Mautner, T., 2000, The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy, Blackwell, involving a historical and descriptive ethno-philosophical London. clarification of ancient Israelite religion’s own folk natural Patrick, D., 1982, The Rendering of God in the Old Testament, OBT (a)theologies is now a real live option. 10, Fortress Press, Philadelphia. Patrick, D., 1999, The Rhetoric of Revelation in the Hebrew Bible, OBT 22, Fortress Press, Minneapolis. BIBLIOGRAPHY Pedersen, J., 1926−40, Israel: It’s Life and Culture, volumes 1-IV, Oxford University Press, London. Article #401 Allen, D., 2007, Philosophy for Understanding Theology, John Knox Preuss, H.D., 1995, Old Testament Theology, transl. Leo G Perdue, Press, Louisville, Westminster. Verbum et EcclesiaVerbum et John Knox Press, London. Anderson, W.H.U., 1999, ‘What is Scepticism and Can It Be Priest, J.F., 1968, ‘Humanism, Skepticism and Pessimism in Found in The Hebrew Bible?’ Scandinavian Journal of the Old Ancient Israel’, JAAR 36, 311−326. Testament: An International Journal of Nordic Theology, 13/2, Rowley, H.H., 1956, The Faith of Israel: Aspects of Old Testament 225−257. Thought, SCM Press Ltd, London. Barr, J., 1961, The Semantics of Biblical Language, Oxford University Smart, N., 2008. World Philosophies, Routledge, New Press, London. York Barr, J., 1966, Old and New in Interpretation, SCM Press, London. Smith, M., 2004, The Memoirs of God Memoirs of God: History, Barr, J., 1994, Biblical Faith and Natural Theology, The Gifford Memory and Experience of the Divine in Ancient Israel, Fortress lectures for 1991, delivered in the University of Edinburgh, Press, Augsburg. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Taylor, J., 1854, The Whole Works of the Right Rev. Jeremy Taylor, Barr, J., 1999, The Concept of Biblical Theology. An Old Testament Brown, Green & Longman, London. Perspective, Fortress Press, Philadelphia. Thrower, J., 1980, The Alternative Tradition: Religion and The Boman, T., 1960, Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek, transl. Rejection of Religion in the Ancient World, Walter de Gruyter, Jules E Moreau, W.W. Norton, New York. Berlin. Carasik, M., 2006, Theologies of The Mind In Biblical Israel, Thrower, J., 2000, Western Atheism: A Short History, Prometheus Studies in Biblical Literature 85, Peter Lang, New York. Books, New York. Clines, D.J.A., 1995,. Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers Tzevat, M., 1978, An Aspect of Biblical Thought: Deductive and Readers of the Hebrew Bible, Sheffield Academic Press, Explanation (Hebrew), Shenaton 3, 53−58. SheffielCoetzee, P.H. & Roux, A.P.J., 2002, Philosophy from Von Rad, G., 1972, Wisdom in Israel, SCM Press, London. Africa – A Text with Readings, 2nd edn., Oxford University Press, Cape Town.

6 Verbum et Ecclesia Vol. 31 No. 1 Page 6 of 6 http://www.ve.org.za (page number not for citation purposes)