The Invention of God

The Invention of God by Thomas Romer

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2NK50TNUF75IF?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

This book recounts a textual/archeological exploration into the development of the Jewish idea of God. This book updates a previous book I read on the subject. It also adds insights that are oftentimes stunning. For example, it is commonplace to say that no one has known how to pronounce the name of God YHWH since the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD when no one had any cause to enter the Holy of Holies and pronounce the name of God. Romer disputes this by pointing to theophoric names which end with “yah.” In fact, the word “alleluja” incorporates a shortened form of the name of God in the last syllable in a word that means, essentially, “Praise Yah.”

To make a long story short, Romer argues that YHWH started as a war god in the area of Sinai. Romer does not accept the notion that there was Moses who led the “exodus” from Egypt. He thinks that the ancient Israelites had been there all along, although there could have been some immigration from or through the Sinai. Romer sees archeological evidence for YHWH among the Shasu populations engaged in copper and gold mining. Romer notes that the Torah indicates that Moses did not know the name of the God of Israel until he learns the name in Midian and obtains the assistance of a priest of Midian. This plus various ambiguous references to “Yah” in Egyptian documents supports Romer's argument for an origin of YHWH outside of Israel.

Romer argues that tribes who were the precursor to the House of David brought YHWH into Israel as their house god. At that time, YHWH had the status of a “Baal” a local war god. The Most High God in Israel was El. YHWH was seen as a son of El. In Deuteronomy 32:8, El seems to a lot Israel to YHWH as his part of the world.

Romer next argues that El was displaced by, and eventually submerged into, YHWH when the House of David assumed power and made Jerusalem its capital. Romer believes that David and Solomon are also fictional creations. He accepts the historicity of the kings of the dual monarchy. In Romer's recounting, the stories of Israel backsliding into polytheism were not so much about backsliding as they were about the way things were, namely, YHWH had a wife goddess, Asterath: YHWH was worshipped in local cultic locations; there was no monotheism, and, certainly, no Pentateuch.

Romer believes that there was a statue to YHWH in the temple in Jerusalem. The commandment that there should be no other gods before him, meant that in the temple, no statue of another god should be located in the direction where the stature of YHWH faced. Romer finds evidence of the statue in the Temple in Isaiah:

“The text of Isaiah 6 suggests that the dĕḇîr (the part of the temple where the god resides) of the Temple of Jerusalem contained a throne with a statue of Yhwh, perhaps represented in the manner of El enthroned and surrounded by cherubim and seraphim.

Römer, Thomas. The Invention of God . Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition.

Read his argument. I found this persuasive since it explained what Isaiah was talking about in what is an otherwise incredibly psychedelic vision.


This statue was subsequently taken to Babylon as part of the spoils of Jerusalem. Romer explains:

“One can observe, though, that at the end of the books of Kings great emphasis is placed on the deportation of the “utensils (kĕlê) of the temple” to Babylon (2 Kings 25:14–15). One might speculate whether this very general term could not include one or several cult statues, all the more so given that the text of Isaiah 52:11 speaks of the return from Babylon of those who bear the kĕlê Yhwh: “Depart, depart, come out from there! Do not touch anything impure. Come out from the midst of Babylon! Purify yourselves, you who carry the utensils of Yhwh (kĕlê Yhwh)!” The expression used here is peculiar; the more usual formulation would have been “utensils of the house of Yhwh.” Further evidence in favor of the view that the statue of Yhwh had been deported along with other utensils can perhaps be found in the description given in Ezekiel 10:18–19 of the departure of the glory of Yhwh from the Temple and city of Jerusalem: “The glory of Yhwh departed from the threshold of the temple; it stood above the cherubim. So the cherubim opened their wings and raised themselves from the earth. Before my eyes the wheels came out at the same time.”44 This vision takes up again the motif of the deity standing on a cherub. Verse 4 in fact speaks of a single cherub (“the glory of Yhwh raised itself above the kĕrûḇ on the threshold of the House”),45 whereas verse 18 mentions cherubim in the plural and alludes perhaps to the throne flanked by cherubim on which the god is seated. The composition of Ezekiel 10 is a vexed question and we shall simply mention that it certainly does not have only one author.46 Suffice it to say that the two iconographic motifs just mentioned are traditionally associated with a statue of the god located above the cherubim. In Ezekiel and elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, the statue has been replaced by the kāḇôd, the glory of god. However, the text in Ezekiel retains some traces that point to a deportation of a statue of Yhwh by the Babylonians.

Römer, Thomas. The Invention of God . Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition.

That's pretty murky.

Romer argues for an understanding that there were substantial differences in the cult of YHWH in the northern and southern kingdoms.

“Some specialists in biblical studies think that the cult of Yhwh in Judah was in effect very different from that of Israel: the Yhwh of Israel was worshipped rather on the model of Baal, that is, as a god of storms and fertility, whereas in the south, he had incorporated the traits of the old sun god who was the tutelary deity of Jerusalem. This picture needs qualification—rather than strict opposition, it is more likely that there were differences in relative emphasis between the cult in the north and in the south.

Römer, Thomas. The Invention of God . Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition.

There is evidence in archeological remains - inscriptions and statues - and in the text of the Bible that suggests the statue of YHWH might have been the form of a bull:

“The same narrative then recounts that Jeroboam, after having founded his own kingdom among the tribes of the north, constructed two sanctuaries, at Bethel and at Dan, where he set up boviform statues representing the god who had led the Israelites out of Egypt. (28) The king Jeroboam took counsel and had made two calves of gold and said to the people: “You have gone up too often to Jerusalem; these are your gods, Israel, who have brought you out of the land of Egypt.” (29) He set up one in Bethel and one in Dan (30)—this was his sin. The people marched in procession before one [of the calves] as far as Dan.

Römer, Thomas. The Invention of God . Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition.

And:

“Similarly, in the book of Hosea, which criticizes the worship of the bull and of Yhwh as a baal, Yhwh is compared in chapter 6 to the rising of the sun: “(3) Let us know, let us seek to know Yhwh; his coming is established like that of the dawn.” And the original text of verse 5 compares the divine judgments of Yhwh to light itself.36 So we have in place a conception of Yhwh that combines the traits of a storm god with the attributes of a solar deity.

Römer, Thomas. The Invention of God . Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition.

In Jerusalem, it could have been in the form of a seated man:

“Although it would have been anathema to the editors of the Bible, and also is anathema to certain theologians, Yhwh had a parhedros, the goddess Asherah, who was also called the “Queen of Heaven.” It is also likely that there was a statue of Yhwh in the Temple of Jerusalem, perhaps of a Yhwh seated on a throne of cherubim, like El at Ugarit.

Römer, Thomas. The Invention of God . Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition.

If you have ever wondered, as I have, how the Israelites could have gone off the rails so quickly at Sinai to worship a “golden calf,” this makes a lot of sense. The golden calf was a recollection at a later time - after the Babylonian Captivity - of earlier worship practices prior to the Captivity.

Of course, it was the Babylonian Captivity that changed everything. Jewish exiles constructed a monotheistic religion and wrote the texts we now call the Torah. To be fair, Romer gives due credit to King Josiah's reforms:

“Even though the reforms of Josiah, or rather of his counselors, were not lastingly established, they were one of the most historically important moments in the evolution of the cult of Yhwh. From that time on, Yhwh became “one” god (not yet unique, but singular), and Jerusalem became the only place in which his sacrificial cult could be legitimately practiced. This new vision of Yhwh also began to manifest itself in an abundant literature that became the origin of the biblical corpus, and that was edited by the members of groups who supported Josiah's religious changes.

Römer, Thomas. The Invention of God . Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition.

It was Josiah, of course, who “discovered” the forgotten book of the law, apparently, Deuteronomy, which required the centralization of worship in Jerusalem. Romer points out that the rediscovery of lost texts have been a traditional way for reformers to justify their reforms. Romer also points out the ambiguities of Josiah's “monotheism:

“The original version of Deuteronomy was not found during works on the temple, but rather was written in order to promote the ideas behind Josiah's reforms. It opened with the affirmation that can be found in chapter 6 of the version of the book that has come down to us: Šĕmaʿ yiśrāʾēl yhwh ʾĕlōhēnû yhwh ʾeḥād. After the call to listen (“Hear O Israel”) the rest of phrase can be translated in different ways: “Yhwh, our god, Yhwh is unique,” or “Yhwh, our god, Yhwh alone,” or “Yhwh, our god is the one Yhwh.” The most plausible way to read it is to take this nominal proposition as being comprised of two distinct assertions: “Yhwh is our god” and “Yhwh is ONE.” These two assertions are easily understandable in the context of the reforms of Josiah: Yhwh is the (only) god of Israel and he is one—that is, there is only the Yhwh of Jerusalem, but there is no Yhwh of Samaria, Yhwh of Temān, Yhwh of Bethel, and so on. The claim that Yhwh is “one” corresponds to the fact that there is only one place where he has a legitimate cult, as Deuteronomy goes on to explain, notably in chapter 12. The opening of the original version continued: “(4) Hear, Israel! Yhwh is our god, Yhwh is ONE. (5) You shall love Yhwh your god with all your heart, with all your being, with all your strength.” These verses are clearly connected to the reforms of Josiah. First of all, the notice in 2 Kings 23:25 that gives a final appreciation of Josiah's reign claims that he was the only king who exactly satisfied the prescriptions of Deuteronomy 6:4–5: “There was no king before him who came back to Yhwh as he did with all his heart, all his being and all his strength.”

Römer, Thomas. The Invention of God . Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition.

So, the proclamation of the “oneness” of YHWH may have been intended as a denial of any YHWH outside of the YHWH of Jerusalem, rather than a statement that there is only one god.

Thus, far, Romer's arguments have been fairly strong. He supports his evidence with references to archeology and texts that seem solid. Sometimes it seems like he's making a leap from saying that something “might” be true to adopting it as the premise for later arguments. However, at this point, I have to wonder how this revolution happened. Did no one notice that an entire mythology about Moses, the Conquest, Abraham, etc. had been invented? Where did the stories of David and Solomon come from? Were there no dissenters from the imposition of monotheism on the country? No polytheist prophets? No prophets of the “YHWH is a storm god” variety left behind their prophecies condemning foreign novelties? That just doesn't seem likely.

This is an educational and fascinating read. If you are a believer, your understanding of the scriptures will grow as new insights are understood. But I still have a problem with a revolution that happened so quickly, so completely, so radically, and which left no evidence of a struggle behind. There's a lot to be said for Romer's version, but I think the truth is more complicated still.

A lot of what is going on here is that Romer knows the Canaanite background, which he reads onto the evidence. Sometimes this leads to some fascinating insights, but it will have the tendency to dissolve whatever was unique about the ancient Hebrew religion, assuming that its uniqueness did not appear virtually fully formed in the sixth century.

This is a readable and interesting book. If you fear to have your faith tested or your understanding of pre-Exilic Jewish history threatened, then it might not be a book for you.