Thread by @JoelBaden

#Deuteronomy 6:1-4

The Shema, part 1

“Hear O Israel, the Lord is our god, the Lord is one” - that’s how I was taught this verse (6:4) growing up. And I was also taught that this was a, if not the, major expression of monotheism in the Bible. Alas…

This is one of the (many) verses that really suffers when the name of Israel’s god, YHWH, is rendered as a title, “the Lord.” What’s lost is the very specific, very non-monotheistic sentiment here: of all the gods - and every nation has one - YHWH is ours.

It’s almost the very opposite of what I, and I think many people, are taught. People concentrate on the second half, but the first half is where the real money is. We know all the other national gods of Israel’s neighbors. What would Moab say? “Chemosh is our god.”

So what about the second half? Doesn’t “YHWH is one” mean “the only one?” No - if “is one” is even a decent translation. Here are two reasonable options for understanding this phrase.

1. It could mean not “YHWH is one,” but, as also often rendered, “YHWH alone,” which sort of just reinforces the first half. It’s a basic expression of D’s desire for devoted worship of YHWH and obedience to YHWH’s laws. Don’t follow other gods. Like in the Ten Commandments.

This option is appealing in part because it conforms to the general ancient near eastern vassal treaty pattern that D follows basically throughout. Imagine D as a treaty between a conquering king and a defeated state, and substitute “the king” for YHWH everywhere.

This little trick works a ridiculously high percentage of the time. Suddenly it seems so obvious: you’re obligated to this sovereign, king or YHWH, and so obviously you can’t go around being loyal to other kings, or deities. And that’s the simple, non-monotheistic, message here.

2. Alternatively, it could be “YHWH is one,” in which case the best option is to understand it as part of D’s other big concern, which is the centralization of the Israelite cult. We aren’t there quite yet, but this will be a big, big deal for D.

Here, the oneness of YHWH doesn’t have to do with singularity among other deities, but rather with singularity within Israel itself. When sanctuaries are imagined as divine homes, places where the deity manifests, then many sanctuaries means multiple manifestations, at once.

That’s how you get a YHWH who resides in the north - “YHWH of Samaria” - and a YHWH who resides in the south - “YHWH of Teman,” as we have attested in inscriptions from ancient Israel. D is having none of it. One sanctuary, one manifestation of YHWH.

I’ll admit that I lean more toward the first option, but I’m fine with the second too - and the language is ambiguous enough to support either. The key is that both possibilities work within the larger purposes of D: these are contextual readings.

What makes the monotheistic rendering of the verse so annoying (to me!) is that it’s entirely removed from its context, and then often used to dictate what that context should mean, rather than the other way around.

The Shema is part of D - it’s one sentence out of hundreds. It has no claim to primacy, either chronologically or ideologically. It’s given a higher status by tradition, and within that tradition has taken on a different meaning. That’s all fine - but shouldn’t be read back in.