A Brief Response to Ehrman on Monotheism in Isaiah

Ehrman has argued that the Hebrew Bible is primarily henotheistic with the exception of at least Isaiah, which is monotheistic. I will quote him at some length [1]:

"I need to make two general points about Jewish monotheism. The first is that not every ancient Israelite held a monotheistic view—the idea that there is only one God. Evidence for this can be seen already in the verse I quoted from the Torah above, the beginning of the Ten Commandments. Note how the commandment is worded. It does not say, 'You shall believe that there is only one God.' It says, 'You shall have no other gods before me.' This commandment, as stated, presupposes that there are other gods. But none of them is to be worshiped ahead of, or instead of, the God of Israel. As it came to be interpreted, the commandment also meant that none of these other gods was to be worshiped alongside of or even after the God of Israel. But that does not mean the other gods don’t exist. They simply are not to be worshiped. 

"This is a view that scholars have called henotheism, in distinction from the view I have thus far been calling monotheism. Monotheism is the view that there is, in fact, only one God. Henotheism is the view that there are other gods, but there is only one God who is to be worshiped. The Ten Commandments express a henotheistic view, as does the majority of the Hebrew Bible. The book of Isaiah, with its insistence that 'I alone am God, there is no other,' is monotheistic. It represents the minority view in the Hebrew Bible."

A full discussion of the various contours of Jewish monotheism and henotheism is beyond the scope of this post. My critique here will address Ehrman's insistence that God's declaration of there being "no other" requires a strict monotheism. I do not intend to provide a comprehensive theological exposition of Isaiah (or Second Isaiah, as many scholars would have it).

Ehrman is largely correct about Jewish monotheism. Chris Tilling quotes some of MacDonald's work on the subject, saying that Jewish monotheism was not "a truth to be comprehended" but rather a "relationship in which to be committed." [2] The Jewish Scriptures do not deny the existence of other gods but rather exhort the Jewish people to be committed to only one: YHWH, the God of Israel. Ehrman goes on to argue, however, that Isaiah differs from this pattern and presents a traditional monotheism.

Ehrman does not provide any evidence for his thesis apart from Isaiah 46:9 (though other texts, such as Isaiah 43:10-11, express the same idea), so it is worth providing some parallels to properly contextualize it. Here is the verse to which Ehrman is likely referring, as translated in the NRSV:

remember the former things of old;

for I am God, and there is no other;

I am God, and there is no one like me,

An initial point to be made is that Deuteronomy 4:35 contains a very similar injunction: "To you it was shown so that you would acknowledge that the Lord is God; there is no other besides him." And yet Ehrman seems to think that Deuteronomy is henotheistic (Moses certainly was, as can be seen in Deuteronomy 32:17; cf. 8-9). So if "there is no other" is not a problem for Deuteronomy's henotheism, why should we think that Isaiah is any different?

More can be said, however, when we look at Isaiah's usage of similar language in the very next chapter. Isaiah 47:8-10 is addressed to Babylon, anthropomorphized as a virgin daughter:

8 Now therefore hear this, you lover of pleasures,
who sit securely,
who say in your heart,
“I am, and there is no one besides me;
I shall not sit as a widow
or know the loss of children”—

9 both these things shall come upon you

in a moment, in one day:

the loss of children and widowhood

shall come upon you in full measure,

in spite of your many sorceries

and the great power of your enchantments.

10 You felt secure in your wickedness;

you said, “No one sees me.”

Your wisdom and your knowledge

led you astray,

and you said in your heart,

"I am, and there is no one besides me."

Unless Babylon is meant to be declaring that she is the only city on Earth, it is clear that "there is no one besides me" emphasizes the incomparability of Babylon. It does not assert that Babylon is the only one of its class or that there are no lesser cities. Another passage (and I am indebted to Michael Heiser's work for many of these references [3]) is Zephaniah 2:15, which refers to Nineveh:

Is this the exultant city that lived secure, that said to itself, “I am, and there is no one else”? What a desolation it has become, a lair for wild animals! Everyone who passes by it hisses and shakes the fist.

Nineveh is likewise not the only city in the world. In light of this, the evidence is clear: Isaiah 46:9 is "a strong affirmation of the uniqueness and incomparability of the God of Israel" [4]. The declaration can be made regardless of whether other gods exist and so does not provide evidence of the sort of discontinuity for which Ehrman is arguing. It's possible he has other evidence for his thesis that he didn't mention here. As it stands, however, it looks like Ehrman (and other scholars who agree with him) are trying to find a discrepancy where there is none. Continuity is usually a simpler explanation than discrepancy and it is certainly to be favored here.

Notes and References

[1] Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2014), 50  

[2] Chris Tilling, Paul's Divine Christology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2015), 84

[3] See Michael Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2015), 34-35

[4] Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40-55: Anchor Yale Bible, (New York: Doubleday, 2002), 224; note that Blenkinsopp says this in his discussion of Isaiah 43:10-11 rather than 46:9.