text:
Serviços Personalizados
Links relacionados
- Citado por Google
- Similares em Google
Verbum et Ecclesia
versão On-line ISSN 2074-7705
versão impressa ISSN 1609-9982
Verbum Eccles. (Online) vol.34 no.2 Pretoria Jan. 2013
Beyond monotheism? Some remarks and questions on conceptualising 'monotheism' in Biblical Studies
Christian FrevelI, II
IFaculty of Catholic Theology, Ruhr-Universitát Bochum, Germany
IIDepartment of Old Testament Studies, University of Pretoria, South Africa
In the first part of this article I outline serious objections against the concept of monotheism. I will ask whether the ambiguity and the problem discredit the concept of monotheism as inappropriate for Biblical Studies, or whether it calls for differentiation. In the argument following thereupon, the concept is found to be more useful to describe certain stages of the conceptual and linguistic development of Israelite religion. The term and concept of monotheism in Biblical Studies is necessary, but not sufficient, if we want to reconstruct the religious history of Israel, Judah, Yehûd and Early Judaism or Judaisms. In this article I propose categories such as implicit monotheism, intolerant monolatry, implicit exclusion, explicit uniqueness, monotheism as implication et cetera, which are especially useful if we want an accurate description of the statements. This makes the category of monotheism useful as heuristic and relational category.
In 1991 John Hayman called 'monotheism' a misused word in Jewish Studies and wrote solid considerations against it with the following tenor (Hayman 1991):
it is hardly ever appropriate to use the term monotheism to describe the Jewish idea of God, that no progress beyond the simple formulas of the Book of Deuteronomy can be discerned in Judaism before the philosophers of the Middle Ages, and that Judaism never escapes from the legacy of the battles for supremacy between Yahweh, Ba'al and El from which it emerged. (p. 2)
By focusing on the post-biblical Jewish traditions he tried to convince his audience that 'the pattern of Jewish beliefs about God remains monarchistic throughout. ... God is the sole object of worship, but he is not the only divine being' (Hayman 1991:15). The general critique towards Jewish religion from postexilic times to the Middle Ages was a threat to traditional views, but questioning the concept of biblical monotheism was not new at all. Whether the philosophical descriptor 'monotheism' matches the biblical reality at all is a well-known question in Biblical Studies. So for example, Walter Moberly entitled his paper 'How appropriate is "monotheism" as a category for biblical interpretation?' (Moberly 2004). Gregor Ahn has questioned the capability of the diametrical conceptualisation of monotheism/polytheism in religious studies as a whole. He sees some suitable advantage of the term in emic studies, but not at all in its use as an etic category: 'Als Klassifikationsmuster eines metasprachlichen Wissenschaftsdiskurses wird das Monotheismus-Polytheismus-Schema dagegen zunehmend fragwürdiger' (Ahn 2003:9).1 In sum, there are several and in some way independent threads questioning the 'monotheism'-concept of Biblical Studies. Bringing the lines together, the Society of Biblical Literature International Meeting in London 2011 held a panel discussion captioned 'The concept of monotheism: Should it have a future in Biblical Studies?', which included papers by Rainer Albertz, Bob Becking, Philip Davies, Nathan MacDonald, Diana Edelman, André Lemaire, Saul M. Olyan, Thomas Römer, Rüdiger Schmitt, Konrad Schmid, Mark S. Smith and myself.2 The following article, which stems for the largest part from my contribution to that London seminar, adds some questions and remarks to the question of appropriateness of 'monotheism' in Biblical Studies. I will relate to the discussion on monotheism in recent decades, but I do not intend here to go deeper into details of the Forschungsgeschichte [history of research] of this problem.
Can history avoid future? Monotheism as backlash
Is it the right question to ask whether the concept of monotheism should have a future in Biblical Studies? Can we ever get rid of the concept of monotheism? We should not delude ourselves by assuming that our concepts could be abandoned so easily. It is not just a decision of 'yes' and 'no'. Is it not the same with other terms and concepts which are considered to be anachronistic to the biblical world, like 'monarchy', 'state', 'class', 'nation', 'religion', et cetera? Only playing with the difference between object language and meta-language does not solve problems. It is true that monotheism is burdened with much trouble because it is rooted in the early modern era and it is also true that the term was coined as a neologism first by Henry Moore in 1660 and was used apologetically to discriminate the Christian anthropomorphic concept of God from the Deistic concept.3 Later, in the 17th century, the term 'polytheism' was added as an oppositional term to 'monotheism'. Following in some way the usage in antiquity (from Tertullian onwards), the term was in the 16th century used synonymously to idolatry (e.g. by Jean Bodin). 'Polytheism' originated in the 1st century CE in Philo's δόξα δ' ή πολύθεος [the honor of a polytheistic doctrine] (Phil. de decalogo 65) and οί πολυθειας έρασταί [the lovers of polytheism] (Phil. de mutatione nominum 205). Philo uses the term polemically to distinguish the non-Jewish religions from the Jewish concept of the First and Second Commandment.4 Contrary to 'monotheism', the term 'polytheism' has some connections to the object language level, but like monotheism, the term is not an endonym or a self-imposed term of any ancient religion in an emic perspective. It is further true that 'polytheism', which was developed against the background of a constructed 'monotheistic faith', was a polemical and apologetic term, also in its Christian usage in modern post-enlightenment times.
However, concepts can be developed further and can be transformed in modern research. Neither has 'monotheism' to denote Moore's concept nor has 'polytheism' to retain the synonymy to idolatry.5 In more recent Religious Studies, the term 'polytheism' is used neutrally to describe religions that conceive of a multiplicity of deities who act for the most part personally in respect to the world. Polytheistic religions are characterised by a structured pantheon which relates deities to each other genealogically, socially or with reference to their competencies. As regards polytheism, the accomplishment of regional, political, social, economical, et cetera integration is very important6 - polytheism is part of a 'professionalisation of religion' and a 'medium of reflection'.7 However, the term and concept keeps the odium of being (a) tributary to 'monotheism'. It remains a 'Tendenzbegriff', as Gregor Ahn has emphasised (Ahn 1993):
'Polytheismus' ist daher ein Tendenzbegriff, eine Form der Beschreibung religionsgeschichtlicher Zusammenhange, die aus einem ausschlieBlich monotheistischen Blickwinkel gewonnen ist und lediglich der Abgrenzung des monotheistischen 'Sonderfalls' aus seinem polytheistischen Umfeld dient, nicht aber darauf abzielt, die für die Anhanger dieser so beschriebenen Religionen ausschlaggebende religiose Wirklichkeit und Welterfahrung zu erfassen. (p. 6)8
Either-nor? The burden of systematisation
An implicit claim of the systematisation of 'religion' is inherent in the diametrical scheme monotheism/polytheism. The scheme pretends to encompass any religion in an either-or-decision: if it is not 'monotheistic', it has to be 'polytheistic' and vice versa. We all know that this binary scheme has caused problems in Religious Studies, because it fails in regard to many particular religions which lack 'theism'. The same holds true for the evolutionary scheme of an original and normative monotheism which later degenerated, and similarly for the assumption of an original animism which developed through a stage of polytheism into the higher, more reflective and similarly normative state of monotheism. In sum, the problems of conceptualising religions as 'monotheistic' are immense: within the history of concepts, monotheism is 'evolutionary', 'lopsided', 'Christian imperialistic', has an 'aesthetical bias' and is for the greater part 'projection' rather than description.
Hacking at the heart: Monotheism and violence
Following Friedrich Nietzsche, Odo Marquard and others linked the birth of modernity to the death of monotheism. Criticism of monotheism as 'monomythic' thinking and the 'praise of polytheism' seemed to form a modern 'pluralistic' alternative way of thinking (Marquard 1989:87-110). In recent debates, monotheism has furthermore become a scapegoat of modernity, as in some way in Peter Sloterdijk's argument (Sloterdijk 2009), for instance. Since David Hume and Arthur Schopenhauer, monotheism has been fraught with the insinuation that it had been responsible for religious violence or that it is even more violent than the more amicable polytheism, because of its inherent claim of exclusive truth. Jan Assmann has fostered the arguments in various publications with his 'Mosaic decision' (Assmann 2009).9 Although this has been refuted by many scholars, and although recently René Bloch has convincingly shown that Jan Assmann's argument perpetuates the apologetic discourse of antiquity (Bloch 2010), the discussion of the connection between monotheism and violence has burdened the concept all over. We may ask whether it is helpful in this situation to abandon the concept of (biblical) monotheism because it is inappropriate. There is likewise an intellectual willingness to offer resistance against the rash dismissal of the concept; or to put it in the metaphoric phrase of Peter L. Berger, when he brands modernity a 'coercion to heresy'(Berger 1992).
Conceptual differentiation as solution or as dissolution?
How can we then hold on to the concept of monotheism in Biblical Studies? There are several strategies which opt for differentiation, risking at the same time to change the concept out of recognition: We may opt for a differentiated use of the prefixes henos and monos to stress aspects of unity, oneness, singularity, singleness, absoluteness and uniqueness. Thus we may differentiate between '[h]eistheism' (a philosophical inclusive monotheism), 'henotheism' (a monotheism that does exclude other divine beings temporarily rather than principally) and 'monotheism' (a religious exclusivity of one single deity), or we can re-establish old terms or coin new, more sophisticated ones like 'kathenotheism', 'monachotheism', 'monotheiotheism' or 'idiomatotheism'. However, this is all the more misleading, as it only conceals the problem. Apart from this, these alternative terms usually do not originate in the object language, but rather in the same philosophical context as 'monotheism' and 'polytheism' do.
One may further differentiate forms of monotheism by using terminological diametrical pairs. Let me name some representative ones: inclusive/exclusive (John Peter Kenney, Klaus Koch, Ernst Axel Knauf, Mark S. Smith et al.); practical/theoretical (Werner H. Schmidt); abstract/concrete (Karl Rahner, Walter Kasper); evolutionary/revolutionary (Jan Assmann); soft/hard (John Dillon); calm/zealous monotheism (Áke V. Ström); particular/universal (Othmar Keel); implicit/explicit (Martin Leuenberger et al.); absolute/ relative (Christoph Auffarth). Without discussing the capability of each proposal, it may be helpful to differentiate the concept of monotheism and thus make it more fluent and dynamic, but it will raise questions whether the 'softer' forms of monotheism, the practical, particular or evolutionary, can be classified as monotheisms or should rather be called henotheism or monolatry.10
The concept of monolatry is most useful, because it avoids the essential or ontological radicalism of 'monotheism'. It denotes temporal or local forms of the veneration of one god without the claim of singleness in the explicit denial of the existence of other gods (Petry 2007:6f.). Monolatry avoids being a theism and is explicitly not monotheism. Thus it is merely meaningful in a polytheistic reference system, which is appropriate for any 'religion' in antiquity. If then 'monolatry' is the more appropriate concept regarding biblical religion, should there still be a future for 'monotheism' in Biblical Studies? Or should we dismiss the concept as a whole?
And the winner is ... : Monotheism as a final good
The problems in applying the concept of 'monotheism' to the religion of Israel/Judah, Yehüd or finally Early Judaism(s) are obvious, and have been multiplied and intensified by the Religionsgeschichtsschreibung [religious historiography] of the last decades. The simple development scheme from polytheism to monotheism through monolatry and 'YHWH alone' is too simple and straightforward. The situation is much more complex than that; we may recall the discussion on the distinctiveness of Israelite religion decades ago, which also fell into the trap of oversimplification. Meanwhile there is now a broad consensus in considering the religion(s) of Israel and Judah as subsets of Syro-Palestinian religions in the first millennium BCE, with a vast amount of common elements and a smaller part of remarkable distinctiveness.11 As 'monotheism' was regarded as being one of the distinctive features, the issue of monotheism was intensively discussed in comparison with the Babylonian (Marduk), Assyrian (Assur), and Syro-Palestinian religions (Baal-Schamem). There are similarities as well as differences, and thus we are left behind again with the problems of conceptualising Israelite or, better, Yehudite religion as 'monotheism'.
Hence, we have to ask ourselves what may get lost if we discard the concept of monotheism in the study of ancient Israelite religion and early Judaism(s). This question is not easy to answer. Possibly we lose or minimise (1) the awareness of the historical dimension of the overall concept 'monotheism', (2) the continuity between the religion of biblical Israel on the one hand and Judaism and Christianity on the other. (3) This will hinder the settlement of the so-called 'Abrahamic ecumene' within a comparative historical framework.12 Finally (4), with the concept of monotheism we may give up a crucial point by which the Old Testament is most relevant in modern discourses.
Be that as it may, the simplifying alternative 'yes/no' or 'useful or not' implies that 'monotheism' is a definite, delineated, solid and within the Forschungsgeschichte [history of research] unchanged concept. As I have shown above, this is not true: the concept has changed radically since its invention by Henry Moore in 1660. Meanwhile, the concept has become a useful tool for biblical scholars in the last 200 years. Yet, some of the struggle with the concept 'monotheism' is rooted in different concepts of God and monotheism in the Bible on the one hand, and systematic reflection on the other hand. The difference was put nicely by Bob Becking (2009):
the living God as witnessed in the various parts of the Hebrew Bible, does not fit very much the systematic construct of a theistic god. The Hebrew resumé makes YHWH a non-candidate for a vacancy in the theistic god department. (p. 10)
To sum up: to get rid of the term and concept is illusory. We cannot really escape 'monotheism', neither as a metalanguage concept (to identify specific kinds of statements in biblical texts), nor as legacy concept in Biblical Studies. Thus we should use in Biblical Studies, even if only to flag the religion of biblical Israel as non-monotheistic.
Let me give just one short example from the object language level: 1 Kings 8:60 is a very late verse from King Solomon's prayer: [that the Lord, he is <the> God; no one else]. [God] is no longer an abstract plural here, but has rather become a title or appellative. The LXX makes the title explicit and adds (as many Hebrew manuscripts do) the copulative: [that the Lord, the God, he is <the> God, and there is none beside]. Sven Petry writes (Petry 2007):
In 1Kön 8,60 kommt in jedem Fall ein expliziter Monotheismus zum Ausdruck, denn die bisweilen begegnende Annahme, Dtn 4,35.39 seien noch vor einem polytheistischen Hintergrund zu verstehen und meinten wie das Erste Gebot oder das Schema Dtn 6,4, dass Jhwh der einzige Gott für Israel sei, macht für 1Kön 8,30 keinen Sinn. (p. 94)
The need for categorisations, including different levels of 'monotheism', is clearly shown by Petry's statement.
Monotheism as a differentiated heuristic category
The concept 'monotheism' can be used responsibly as a heuristic category of description on the meta-language level under the following ten premises:
1. 'Monotheism' is a relational rather than an essentialist concept. We always have to define the frame of reference in which it is used. Depending on the context in which we use the concept of monotheism, there are differences in scope and content: as category of the history of religions and the description of the ancient 'religious field', as a category in linguistic contexts to classify types of propositions, in literary historical respect to label certain literary stages such as the 'monotheistic' Deutero-Isaiah against the 'polytheistic' Hosea; or finally within Theology and Religious Studies to define a certain type of religion.
2. The concept aims at description rather than identification of a particular religion. Neither 'monotheism' nor 'polytheism' is a definable type of religion ('Religionstyp') in the religious field in historical perspective. From a historical perspective, 'monotheisms' are rather temporal and/or local phenomena within polytheism.
3. It is not based on any evolutionary, teleological, declining, or depraving scheme. The question whether polytheism or monotheism was first in religious history is an invalid question, because of a category mistake. 'Monotheism' without the opposition of 'polytheism' becomes an empty formula and does not make sense. The concept does not describe global developments in religious history, but rather local, regional and temporal peculiarities (to put it with Gladigow 1997:59, 2002:12: 'insular monotheisms').
4. Monotheism does not necessarily imply the 'singular'. From a religio-historical perspective there may be 'monotheisms', although that does not make sense in a systematic perspective.
5. Monotheism is not diametrically opposed to the concept of polytheism and is not superior in moral respect; polytheism has its own capability in theological, sociological, and historical respect. The term 'polytheism' should no longer be a bugbear or a buzzword in Biblical Studies; that means as a consequence that the Israelite/Judahite religion is not devalued by its historical polytheism. Although a religion cannot be monotheistic and polytheistic at the same time, the contrastive pair monotheism/polytheisms is not understood as encompassing the totality of religions by means of an either-or-process of logical elimination: all religions which are not monotheistic, are not necessarily polytheistic, and vice versa. In Biblical Studies both categories, 'monotheism' and 'polytheism', are more historical than systematic categories. They are applied in intrareligious respect to different phases of development rather than interreligiously to classify in principle the difference between Israelite and other religions.
6. The concept of biblical monotheism is neither inclusivistically coined nor identical with the inclusive philosophical unity-monotheism. Biblical monotheism is not the introduction of a 'true or false distinction' in general (what Assmann addressed as 'Mosaic distinction').13 Biblical monotheism rather aims at a relational truth 'for me' or 'for us' or 'for our salvation'. However, the philosophical and historical dimensions of the concept are in fact neither separated nor by any means identical.14 We must differentiate them carefully and describe the different dimensions properly in Biblical Studies. Taken into other systems of thought (Aussagesysteme), the single conclusion may be different.
7. The ancient biblical statements which we characterise as 'monotheistic' are never meant in an absolute sense. They are etic and not emic and they thus have a limited range within the frame of the ancient Near Eastern world. In all cases in which the relation of YHWH to the other gods is addressed, it is reflected neither theoretically nor systematically.
8. It is very important to keep in mind that the addressee of 'monotheistic' statements in the Bible is Israel or the one who is 'primarily' approached by the texts - not the whole world, the worshipper of other deities or the other gods and goddesses themselves. The scope of the statements is rather directed inwards than projected outwards. Their aim throughout is to convince soteriologically, not philosophically. They are all rather intra- than interreligious statements.
9. The concept of monotheism is complemented by other concepts such as 'exclusivity', 'implicit exclusion', 'explicit uniqueness' et cetera; it is not an absolute, but rather a graded, concept which avoids black and white decisions. Such fuzzy categories such as 'quasi monotheistic' (within a polytheistic frame of reference), 'implicit monotheistic', 'inclusive monotheism', et cetera make sense and can be used to describe various 'degrees' of monotheisms (within and beyond polytheism and monolatry) more properly.
10. The concept is rather useful on the level of single verses, such as statements that make linguistically the uniqueness of one god explicit by excluding other deities. As regards the whole 'religion', which is attested in the Old Testament, the concept is not applicable except - but with less certainty - to a particular time and place (e.g. the official religion in the Persian province Yehüd or Jerusalem from 450 to 350 BCE). Thus the juxtaposition of monotheistic and mythological polytheistic statements in one chapter or one book is not puzzling. On the one hand, these statements do not share the same level of argumentation. On the other hand, the 'degree of monotheism' or 'monotheistic bias' of a text depends on the emphasis which is given to the exclusiveness. Other beings which have absolutely no power over Israel are not existent, but may be addressed in mythological passages.
Monotheism matters: Some paradigmatic examples
The statement given above is a plea for differentiation and for the use of the category 'monotheism' in a contextualised and relational manner. Monotheism matters, but remains a rather limited category of description. Let us look at some of the relevant Old Testament passages to substantiate the differentiation.
Firstly, phrases such as Isaiah 43:10, 'before me no other god was formed, nor shall there be any after me' [], or Isaiah 44:8 'Is there any other god besides me? There is no other rock; I know not one' [], or Deuteronomy 4:39: 'And you shall acknowledge today and take to heart that the Lord, that he is <the> God in the heavens above and on the earth beneath; there is no other' [] as well as Isaiah 45:18; 46:9 or Deuteronomy 4:35 are monotheistic. They exclude the existence of other powers or 'factors' and their efficacy and significance explicitly. One has to keep in mind that the category of existence is not quite appropriate to Hebrew thinking, which focuses much more on 'acting' than on 'being'. The exclusiveness is expressed linguistically through [alone, none beside, no other besides], which does not allow other comparable factors, even on the level of language. Simply put: it makes the small <g> god into the big <G> God. The exclusive linguistic phrases tell these verses apart from others which do not have the additional lis fNi [and nothing/nobody else, none beside], et cetera. We may discuss whether Psalm 100:3 'Acknowledge that the Lord, he is God' [] which identifies YHWH in a nominal clause as [a god/ God] but - in contrast to Deuteronomy 4:35.39; 7:9; 2 Samuel 7:28; 1 Kings 8:60; 18:24.39; 2 Kings 19:15; Isaiah 37:16; 45:18; 1 Chronicles 17:26; 2 Chronicles 33:13; Ezra 1:3 - spares the article (cf. Jos 2:11; Jr 10:10), belongs to the monotheistic claim, too. The nations which are requested to come to Zion shall acknowledge YHWH, but de facto there is no room for any other god besides. There is but one god, YHWH, who is unique through his acts, especially the election of Israel. To make it clear: These phrases do not classify the 'religion' beyond easily as 'monotheistic', but taken alone these phrases are 'monotheistic' and different from - let us say: monolatric - statements like Deuteronomy 5:7 'you shall have no other gods besides mé[] or Jeremiah 2:28 'because your gods have become as many as your towns, O Judah' []. These statements differ because they imply a polytheistic background in which other deities are capable to act in principle. This holds true for the attribution of God's jealousy. Addressing YHWH as in Exodus 34:14 (cf. Ex 20:5; Dt 4:24; 5:9; 6:15; 32:16.21) implies at least one rival in law. The marriage metaphor as figure of the covenant and the [whoring after] as accusation of adultery makes clear that there are serious rivals. Jealousy becomes hollow without competition; thus, speaking of God's jealousy implies the possible existence of other deities.
Secondly, the categories become sometimes blurred, as for instance in Deuteronomy 10:17: 'for the Lord, your God, he is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome' [] and other formulae of incomparability (cf. Rechenmacher 2010). There are 'other gods' which are subordinated in a pantheon, a structure which sounds polytheistic - in other words is linguistically not monotheistic - but the superiority and dignity of YHWH is so paramount that there is no room left for other deities. The difference is - as in Deutero-Isaiah - categorial between creator and creature, master and slave, king and subject et cetera Deuteronomy 10:17 is implicitly monotheistic - YHWH is in fact the only sample of the generic group. One may call this 'monolatry' by principle, with the position of YHWH as not the primus inter pares within a pantheon, but rather as the only one that fits the criteria of sovereignty at all. This seems to be the basic assumption in the polemic texts which address a competition of deities ad intra. Considering YHWH as the one God which has absolute sovereignty fits for Psalm 96:4-5:
For great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised; he is to be revered above all gods. For all the gods of the peoples are idols [], but the Lord made the heavens.
Whilst the gods of the nations are worthless idols - or as the LXX calls them, δαιµόνια [demons i.e. heathen gods] - YHWH is creator of the heavens. There is no real comparability: cosmic power and efficacy stand against inefficacy that is merely materiality. This is - as it has been called above - implicit monotheism or 'mocking monotheism' in the linguistic garment of polytheism and image criticism.15 Although the gods of the nations are focused explicitly, one has to keep in mind that the polemic is addressed inwards (v. 10).
Thirdly, I would suggest adding the category of implicitness to the explicit exclusivity claim. I will use this category in a more comprehensive manner and slightly differently to previous suggestions in a threefold way (see below). Often in Biblical Studies the term 'implicit monotheism' denotes the monotheism of the priestly code or the book of Job, in which the denial of other deities is contextually missing and where no other deities occur.16 'Monotheism' forms the background and seems to be evident. The form of 'implicitness' described above is different: propositions which are polytheistic on the linguistic surface are determined de facto by the monotheistic conviction that there is no other god (Petry 2007:9). This form of implicitness is often recognisable in the context of idol criticism. Thus we may speak of implicit monotheism in Ezekiel and Jeremiah in those parts of the books, in which other beings with supposed divinity (or the beings formerly known as gods) are mentioned but have neither power nor any sovereignty. They are by no means comparable to YHWH. If Ezekiel addresses the other gods as [abominables, monsters, abhorrent ones] and [dung, shit or crappy ones], these designations are mockery and sarcasm, which leaves not much room for existence, efficacy or realness of these materialised entities. They are objects rather than gods. The 'gods' are narrowed to their images and 'exist' merely materially. The same holds true for [vanity, wind, things that do not exist] in Jeremiah 2:5 (cf. Jr 8:19; 14:22; 16:19 and 10:8.15; 51:18), [lie, breach of faith] in Jeremiah 16:19 (cf. Jr 13:25; 10:14; 51:17) and [deception, lie] in Jeremiah 18:15 (cf. Jr 2:30; 4:30; 6:29; 46:11).
On the one hand, these statements are comprehensible only within a polytheistic frame of reference, which takes the existence of other deities into account, but on the other hand these deities are ineffective and thus inexistent. I would like to call this 'intolerant monolatry', where others speak of 'implicit monotheism' here, too. There is undoubtedly a form of implicitness, but in my view 'implicit monotheism' is a rather generic category which encompasses different forms of monotheisms:
• the implicitness of not naming other gods. The expressions emphasise the exclusivity of one God instead; they do not use explicit linguistic means to express that there exists only the one God (monotheism as implication, e.g. the priestly code)
• the implicitness of a silent self-evident concentration of one god, taking the uniqueness for granted rather than addressing it (implicit monotheism)
• the implicitness described above, in which the polemic against other deities is so strong that their existence is totally diminished (implicit exclusion).
Lastly, it is quite difficult to draw the boundaries sharply and often we have to consider the context of these statements. This can be justified in Deuteronomy 32. Again we cannot go into details here, but only look at the limits of the monotheistic-polytheistic dichotomy: At first glance Deuteronomy 32:16 'they made him jealous with strangers; with abhorrent things they provoked him' [] seems to fit in the incomparability-section, but the context of the post-exilic chapter of Deuteronomy makes it much more 'monotheistic'. Although the general date of a text is a criterion which is beyond textual observations and must not form the only argument, the context here colours the statement as more or less monotheistic. Beginning with the universality of verse 1 and the reflection of the creator who acts in history in the following verses, there is not room for much besides YHWH. Jeshurun has abandoned his creator (Dt 32:15 [he abandoned the God who made him]) and 'stirred him to jealousy with strangers or strange ones' []. To identify the [foreigners, strange ones] with 'foreigners' is less probable, not only because of Deuteronomy 32:15, but especially because of Deuteronomy 32:17: 'They sacrificed to demons which were no gods, to gods they had never known, to new ones, who came but lately, whom your fathers had never feared' [].17 Strikingly, the sacrifices are not addressed to [other gods] but to demons, which are no divine beings. Demons become prominent precisely in later post-exilic texts, such as Psalm 106:37; Isaiah 13:21; 34:14 et cetera.18 This is by no means at random, but rather a tendency that the 'gods' made way for the 'demons'. These beings are not deities, [no deities, no gods] although they are called [gods or divine beings], which were not known by the fathers. The denial of divineness implies a monotheistic claim in a polytheistic robe. The same holds true for Deuteronomy 32:21: although the monolatric concept of jealousy is used, the zeal of YHWH is directed against [the 'no gods'] and ['vanities', 'nothings'] rather than against rivals. As in Deuteronomy 32:15-17, the case is not for diachrony but rather for a blend of linguistically explicit and implicit monotheism. Taken together, Deuteronomy 32:15-17.21 seems just a little further on the way to explicit monotheism than the implicit monotheism in Jeremiah and Ezekiel: YHWH is the only one, in efficacy and thus in existence. Most explicit in denying the existence and efficacy of other deities, or to put it more bluntly, most 'monotheistic' in Deuteronomy 32 is the subtle and keen verse 39: 'See now, that I, yes I am he, and there is no god beside me' []. The more or less explicit tendency of denying the existence of other divine beings in Deuteronomy 32 - which has its strongest parallel in Deutero-Isaiah (Is 43:10; 46:4)19 - has an impact on the understanding of the crucial verse Deuteronomy 32:8, where the 'Most High' set up the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the children of Israel []. Thus Deuteronomy 32:8 cannot be regarded as a 'polytheistic window', as Konrad Schmid nicely and disparagingly has put the 'atavism'. However, the Qumran Manuscript 4QDtnJ20 has, as is generally known, [according to the number of the sons of god] and the LXX reads [according to the number of angels of God]. Attention to this point in the history of research has been consistently great and one may consider for example with Manfred Weippert the originality of the [sons of god] - reading, which is attested by the translation of the LXX (Weippert 1997:5). Nevertheless, as Konrad Schmid has convincingly shown (Schmid 2006), there is no polytheistic atavism in the [sons of god] and it is most probable that YHWH has to be identified with [the Most High, Elyon], the most high. If this is correct, Deuteronomy 32:8 shows the same tendency as the other examples from Deuteronomy 32 the background is 'monotheistic', but the chapter rather positions itself linguistically and conceptually in polytheistic terms. Thus, one has to discuss every single passage within its contextual framework and sometimes it is not easy to judge between an older polytheistic framework and an implicit background monotheism, which uses mythological language.
These examples make it quite clear that monotheism in Biblical Studies has its value far beyond numerical singularity.
In the first part of this article we have collected serious objections against the concept of monotheism. We asked whether the ambiguity and the problem discredit the concept of monotheism as inappropriate for Biblical Studies, or whether it calls for differentiation. In the following argument it was indicated that the concept is useful to describe certain stages of the conceptual and linguistic development of Israelite religion. Both term and concept of monotheism in Biblical Studies are necessary, but not sufficient, if we want to reconstruct the religious history of Israel, Judah, Yehüd and Early Judaism(s). Especially useful is to describe the (biblical) statements accurately; we proposed categories such as implicit monotheism, intolerant monolatry, implicit exclusion, explicit uniqueness, monotheism as implication et cetera. In so doing the category of monotheism can be useful as heuristic and relational category.
Anybody who considers the concept of monotheism as being so problematic that we should discard it has to designate terminological and conceptual alternatives (Heiser 2008:27). As long as we have none, the concept is heuristically valuable (Leuenberger 2010:10; Keel 2007:21). However, it remains limited: To ask whether the book of Deuteronomy, or any other biblical book, is monotheistic, is in my view not appropriate. It asks for applying a category to a textual world, which can employ monotheism only on a linguistic level. Strictly spoken, there is no monotheistic book in the Old Testament. Either there are no monotheism-like assertions which make the uniqueness explicit by excluding other deities or forces (e.g. in the book of Haggai), or these statements are flanked by polytheistic, mythological, et cetera. statements, which imply at least a plurality of divine beings. Thus, to call the Hebrew Bible monotheistic is to provide only half of the story.21 The question whether the Israelite, Judahite or Yehudite religion was monotheistic at a certain stage, may also be an invalid question. At any rate, the answer cannot be given from the textual world of the Bible, which might be in some particular parts monotheistic. Thus, as I have shown, in my view the concept of monotheism should have and will have a future in Biblical Studies, whether we dismiss it or not. We should discuss it, define it, disambiguate it, disburden it, but we should not discard it.
Competing interests
The author declares that he has no financial or personal relationship(s) that may have inappropriately influenced him in writing this article.
Ahn, G., 1993, 'Monotheismus - Polytheismus', in M. Dietrich & O. Loretz (eds.), Mesopotamica - Ugaritica - Biblica, pp. 1-24, Butzon & Bercker, Kevelaer. [ Links ]
Ahn, G., 2003, 'Monotheismus und Polytheismus als religionswissenschaftliche Kategorie?', in M. Oeming & K. Schmid (eds.), Der eine Gott und die Götter, pp. 1-10, Theologischer Verlag, Zurich. [ Links ]
Assmann, J., 2009, The Price of Monotheism, Stanford University Press, Stanford. [ Links ]
Auffarth, C., 1993, 'Henotheismus/Monolatrie', in H. Cancik, B. Gladigow & M.S. Laubscher (eds.), Handbuch religionswissenschaftlicher Grundbegriffe, pp. 104-105, Kohlhammer, Stuttgart. [ Links ]
Becking, B., 2009, 'The Boundaries of Israelite Monotheism', in A.-M. Korte & M. de Haardt (eds.), The Boundaries of Monotheism, pp. 9-27, Brill, Leiden. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004173163.i-250.5 [ Links ]
Berger, P.L., 1992, Der Zwang zur Haresie, Herder Verlag, Freiburg. [ Links ]
Bloch, R., 2010, 'Polytheismus und Monotheismus in der Antike', in R. Bloch, S. Häberli & R.C. Schwinges (eds.), Fremdbilder-Selbstbilder, pp. 5-24, Schwabe Verlag, Basel. [ Links ]
Coogan, M.D., 1987, 'Canaanite Religions and Lineage', in P.D. Miller, P.D. Hanson & S.D. Mc Bride (eds.), Ancient Israelite Religion, pp. 115-124, Fortress Press, Philadelphia. [ Links ]
Frevel, C., 2007, 'Einer für alle?', in R. Althaus, K. Lüdicke & M. Pulte (eds.), Kirchenrecht und Theologie im Leben der Kirche, pp. 503-524, Ludgerus Verlag, Essen. [ Links ]
Frey-Anthes, H., 2007, Unheilsmachte undSchutzgenien, Antiwesen und Grenzganger, Academic Press Fribourg, Fribourg. [ Links ]
Gladigow, B., 1997, 'Polytheismus' [Polytheism], Zeitschrift für Religionswissenschaft 5, 59-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/0026.59 [ Links ]
Gladigow, B., 2002, 'Polytheismus und Monotheismus', in M. Krebernik & J. van Oorschot (eds.), Polytheismus und Monotheismus in den Religionen des Vorderen Orients, pp. 3-20, Ugarit-Verlag, Munster. [ Links ]
Hayman, P., 1991, 'Monotheism - A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?', Journal of Jewish Studies 42(2), 1-15. [ Links ]
Heiser, M.S., 2008, 'Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism?', Bulletin for Biblical Research 18(1), 1-30. Hess, R.D., 2007, Israelite Religions, Baker, Grand Rapids. [ Links ]
Hülsewiesche, R., 1984, 'Monotheismus II', in J. Ritter, K. Gründer & G. Gabriel (eds.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, vol. 6, pp. 142-146, Schwabe Verlag, Basel. [ Links ]
Keel, O., 2007, Die Geschichte Jerusalems und die Entstehung des Monotheismus, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen. [ Links ]
Keiser, T., 2005, 'The Song of Moses: A Basis for Isaiah's Prophecy', Vetus Testamentum 55, 486-500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853305774651923 [ Links ]
Lanczkowski, G., 1989, 'Polytheismus', in J. Ritter, K. Gründer & G. Gabriel (eds.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, vol. 7, p. 1087, Schwabe Verlag, Basel. [ Links ]
Leuenberger, M., 2010, Ich bin Jhwh und keiner sonst. Der exklusive Monotheismus des Kyros-Orakels Jes 45,1-7, Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, Stuttgart. [ Links ]
MacDonald, N., 2003, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of Monotheism, Mohr, Tübingen. [ Links ]
MacDonald, N., 2004, 'The Origin of Monotheism', in L.T. Stuckenbruck & W.E. North (eds.), Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism, pp. 204-215, T & T Clark, London. [ Links ]
Marquard, O., 1989, 'In Praise of Polytheism', in O. Marquard (ed.), Farewell to Matters of Principle, pp. 87-110, Oxford University Press, Oxford. [ Links ]
Moberly, R.W.L., 2004, 'How appropriate is "monotheism" as a category for biblical interpretation?', in L.T. Stuckenbruck & W.E. North (eds.), Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism, pp. 216-234, T & T Clark, London. [ Links ]
Peri, C., 2005, 'The Construction of Biblical Monotheism', Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 19, 135-142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09018320510032484 [ Links ]
Petry, S., 2007, Die Entgrenzung JHWHs: Monolatrie, Bilderverbot und Monotheismus im Deuteronomium, in Deuterojesaja und im Ezechielbuch, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen. [ Links ]
Rechenmacher, H., 2010, 'Unvergleichlichkeit und Ausschlietëlichkeit Jahwes', in C. Diller, K. Olason & R. Rothenbusch (eds.), Studien zu Psalmen und Propheten, pp. 237-250, Herder Verlag, Freiburg. [ Links ]
Sloterdijk, P., 2009, God's Zeal, Polity Press, Cambridge. [ Links ]
Schmidt, W.H. & Graupner, A. & Delkurt, H., 1993, Die Zehn Gebote im Rahmen alttestamentlicher Ethik, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt. [ Links ]
Schmid, K., 2003, 'Differenzierungen und Konzeptualisierungen der Einheit Gottes in der Religions- und Literaturgeschichte Israels', in M. Oeming & K. Schmid, Der eine Gott und die Götter, pp. 11-38, Theologischer Verlag, Zürich. [ Links ]
Schmid, K., 2006, 'Gibt es "Reste hebráischen Heidentums" im Alten Testament?', in A. Wagner (ed.), Primare und sekundare Religion als Kategorie der Religionsgeschichte des Alten Testaments, pp. 105-120, de Gruyter, Berlin. [ Links ]
Smith, M.S., 2010, God in translation. Deities in cross-cultural discourse in the Biblical world. Second edition, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen. [ Links ]
Stolz, F., 1996, Einführung in den biblischen Monotheismus, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt. [ Links ]
Taschner, J., 2007, 'Dieses Lied wird seinen Nachkommen nicht aus dem Kopf gehen. Dt 31:21)', in G. Steins & E. Ballhorn (eds.), Der Bibelkanon in der Bibelauslegung, pp. 189-197, Kohlhammer, Stuttgart. [ Links ]
Weippert, M., 1997, Jahwe und die anderen Götter. Studien zur Religionsgeschichte des antiken Israel in ihrem syrisch-palastinischen Kontext, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen. [ Links ]
Zenger, E., 1994, 'Das Weltenkönigtum des Gottes Israels (Ps 90-106)', in N. Lohfink & E. Zenger (eds.), Der Gott Israels und die Völker. Untersuchungen zum Jesajabuch und zu den Psalmen, pp. 151-178, Katholisches Bibelwerk, Stuttgart. [ Links ]
Christian Frevel
Lehrstuhl für Altes Testament
Katholisch-Theologische Fakultát
Gebáude GA, Etage 7, Raum 149, Universitátsstr
150, D-44780 Bochum
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Received: 29 Oct. 2012
Accepted: 21 Mar. 2013
Published: 20 Sept. 2013
1.Ahn (2003:9) and already Ahn (1993:1-24).
2.I would like to thank the Kate Hamburger Kolleg at the Ruhr-Universitát Bochum who provided me with many opportunities to deal with the topic of monotheism in religious studies and supported my own focus on this subject.
3.For the history of the term 'monotheism', see Hülsewiesche (1984:142-146); Assmann (2009:31-35); MacDonald (2003, 2004).
4.See further Lanczkowski (1989:1087).
5.See the famous polemic of Y. Amit in her review on Nathan MacDonald: 'The argument that the biblical concept of monotheism differs from later use of the same term reminds me of the argument that modern democracy differs from ancient Greek democracy. No one expects these concepts to be identical. Terms and concepts change through the ages, and although biblical morality is unlike modern Western morality, it does not mean that there was no morality in ancient Israel' (Review of Biblical Literature 7/2005 http://www.bookreviews.org, July 5th 2012).
6.Cf. Gladigow (1997:62).
7.Gladigow (2002:10-11). Polytheistic religions do not exclude but may even integrate 'insular monotheisms', as Gladigow calls it.
8.Regarding the Christian bias which associates the term with immorality and sin, see Gladigow (1997:60); Gladigow (2002:5).
9.There is a broad discussion of Assmann's book(s); see for example my essay Frevel (2007).
10.For the use of these terms see Auffarth (1993). Sometimes the concept of monolatry is called 'inclusive monotheism' (e.g. Smith 2010:165).
11.See in the beginning of the debate Coogan (1987:115) and recently Hess (2007:14f.).
12.See Stolz (1996:14): 'Wenn die Vergleichbarkeit nicht mehr durch einfache Begriffe expliziert werden kann, so hat dies in einer komplexeren Weise zu geschehen. Verzichtet man völlig auf die Explikation des Vergleichsinstrumentariums, so werden unkontrollierbare Vergleichsmechanismen wirksam.'
13.Just besides: in my view the greatest trouble in the Assmann-debate is the permutation of categories: truth vs. efficacy/salvation, incomparableness vs. singleness, memory vs. history, interreligious vs. intrareligious et cetera.
14.Rechenmacher goes in the same direction but oversteps the mark: 'Der theoretische Aspekt steht also nicht in Konkurrenz zum soteriologischen, sondern ist dessen unverzichtbares Teilmoment' (Rechenmacher 2010:244).
15.It does not matter here whether Psalm 96 is an addition to the first exilic composition of the YHWH-kingship psalms (Zenger 1994) or part of an original later composition.
16.See for instance Schmidt, Graupner and Delkurt (1993:44).
17.The verb III which is translated from the οίδα in LXX is used only in Deuteronomy 32:17 and sounds like , the goat-demons or satyrs (Lv 17:7; 2 Chr 11:15; Is 34:14), which changes the tenor into a harsh polemic against the fathers.
18.See the additional evidence from the LXX Psalm 90:6; 96:5; Isaiah 13:21; 34:14; 65:3; Bar 4:7.35 and most prominently the Book of Tobit (Frey-Anthes 2007).
19.See Taschner (2007:192) who identifies much more textual parallels, though not all of them are convincing, for example Deuteronomy 32:8-9 shall parallel Isaiah 42:6-7. Taschner labels Deuteronomy 32 as 'Kompendium der Schriftprophetie' (192); Keiser (2005:488-489).
20.DJD XIV, 90 with plate XXIII, Frg. 34.
21.See (especially the latter part of the quotation) Peri (2005:139): 'The Old Testament is in fact the first document of Jewish monotheism, or, more properly, the first attested act of the building of Jewish monotheism.'


text:
Sync Two or More Macs
SyncTogether is perfect for people who move between two or more Macs, such as a MacBook and an iMac. Easily keep contacts, calendars, notes, Apple Mail account settings and more in sync between your Macs to have access to
What's New in SyncTogether
- Snow Leopard compatibility.
Requirements for SyncTogether
- Mac OS X 10.4 or later
- Local Area Network (LAN) connection between shared Macs or for remote syncs the user must know the physical IP address of all the computers being synchronized and have Internet access.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
A Teacher's POV: Robotics in a STEM Classroom
I'd like to welcome a new section to our blog called Teacher's POV (Point of View) that will allow guest bloggers who are teachers, mentors, and coaches to share some of the lessons they have learned while teaching robotics. Our first guest blogger is a good friend to the ROBOTC family, Jason McKenna, a K-8 Gifted Support Teacher in the Hopewell Area School District outside of Pittsburgh, PA. He has been kind enough to put together some blogs about his experiences teaching robotics.
As teachers, we are constantly looking for ways to make the subjects that we are teaching relevant. Students are always asking when they will ever use a particular concept, or how what they are learning applies to a real life scenario. Admittedly, teachers sometimes have a hard time answering those questions.
Thankfully, teaching Robotics and computer programming puts those questions to rest. Because technology is so ubiquitous in students' lives, students will immediately see the benefits of learning how to program. Moreover, Robotics is the perfect platform to show the application of math and science concepts to everyday scenarios.
In addition to all of that stuff that we educators like to talk about, students just have fun programming a robot to do something. Add in the allure of some competition, and you have yourself a pretty engaged classroom.
With that in mind, I decided to have my 8th grade students participate in a line following car race. Students were to program their robots to follow a line as fast as possible. Of course, the trick is the robot has to stay on the line. While following a black line, the robot has to decide (using a light sensor) if it is on the black line or on the white part of the mat. For the competition, the students added some PID concepts to their line following. As many of you already know, PID is used in many control systems, from your car, to your homes, to large scale factories. The students and I discussed how PID is basically a control system that tries to calculate an error and make adjustments to a control system based upon that error. The robot calculates an error (how far it is off the black line) and then makes adjustments to the motor speed based upon the error. That is what makes it proportional: the movement is based upon the error. Large error equals a large correction whereas a smaller error creates a smaller correction.
The students were able to apply some of the concepts they are currently learning in Algebra to their program. For example, they are utilizing the slope intercept formula (y=mx+b) to find their turn. Y is the turn distance, x is the light sensor reading (the error), and m is the change in y (maximum and minimum turning power) divided by the change in x (maximum and minimum light sensor reading). Students get to apply an important math concept to a fun and engaging scenario that has real-world applications.
The students then decided that they wanted to see what would happen with two light sensors. The students adjusted their code, conducted some iterative testing, and surveyed their results.
In conclusion, one really sees how Robotics and ROBOTC meld perfectly with the goals of a STEM classroom. Really, the only limitation is a teacher's (and students') imagination.
– Jason McKenna
Thank you Jason! If you are a teacher who would like to share your experiences on our blog, send us an email to firstname.lastname@example.com.
Top Images – Code designed by Brennan Novak, Teacher designed by Juan Pablo Bravo, and Robot designed by Simon Child all from The Noun Project.


text:
If there's anything we can all agree on, it's the fact that the current political season is chock-full of lies and deception. And unfortunately, there are also plenty of lies out there when it comes to boats. Chances are, at one time or another someone told you one of these three falsehoods; let's lay them to rest, right now.Boats have lots and lots of wiring connections. Don't believe lie number one, or those connections are bound for failure.
Lie #1: The best way to connect two wires on a boat is by soldering. This claim may have some merit on dry land, but not on a boat. The reason is vibrations; while solder does make a strong connection, it also makes a brittle one. No big deal, when that connection is hanging behind drywall or connected to a light fixture in your living room ceiling. But on a boat, the constant movement is going to cause the solder to break sooner rather than later. For this reason, crimp connections are always superior in the marine world.
Lie #2: Stainless-steel props are better than aluminum props. When it comes to performance, yes, stainless props will add a MPH or two to cruise and top-end. But there are times when aluminum is the "better" choice. Aluminum gives much easier than stainless, and if you strike a solid object, that give is likely to save your engine from damage. For this reason, boats that regularly run aground or are used in areas where there's lots of flotsam are better off when rigged with aluminum. Added bonus: aluminum props are a lot easier (and thus less expensive) to fix.
Lie #3: If you live in an area that may drop below freezing during the winter, you need to run anitfreeze through your outboard. This one's an out-and-out lie that some unscrupulous mechanics tell to make more money. Truth be told, when an outboard is tilted down all of the water drains out. There's no need for antifreeze, because nothing remains in the engine that could freeze up. But since a lot of boaters don't realize this, boat shops run by people with loose morals will sometimes charge their customers for the "service" of running antifreeze through the engine. If you use a mechanic who's done this to you in the past, find someone new – and tell that guy he ought to go into politics.


text:
Harry Styles of One Direction Gets Hit by a Shoe
Here's a video whose YouTube plays should increase exponentially and you'd be able to trace the IP address back to Taylor Swift. Her ex, One Direction's Harry Styles, got hit in the groin with a shoe while performing in concert in Glasgow, Scotland.
Check the 27-second mark of this video, where he gets cracked.
Styles, dressed in a suit, doubled over in pain and laid on the ground. It looked like he was playing, at first. He was incredibly slow getting up and had to walk it off and stretch it out.
The Directioner that tossed that footwear must have thrown it with serious force because the singer looked like he was in major pain. No doubt Swift had a chuckle at that.


text:
As zice ca e eTech modificata.
Cod: Selectaţi tot
phpBB style name: Hestia
Based on style: subsilver2
Original author: Tom Beddard ( http://www.subBlue.com/ )
Modified by: stsoftware ( http://www.aliencore/ )
NOTE: This page was generated by phpBB, the free open-source bulletin board package.
The phpBB Group is not responsible for the content of this page and forum. For more information
about phpBB please visit http://www.phpbb.com


text:
Bluffton's Oscar J. Frazier Park will host Dixie Youth Softball's Traditional Ponytails World Series this month.
Opening ceremonies for the 12-and-under tournament will be held July 26, with play scheduled for July 27-31.
The County Channel will broadcast all of the games and stream them online.
"We are honored to have been selected again to host such a large athletic event," Beaufort County Parks and Leisure Services director Scott Marshall said in a news release. "The last World Series event hosted in Beaufort County introduced thousands of new visitors to the Lowcountry and was a boost to our local economy."
With PALS hosting the event, the Buckwalter Recreation Center will be closed to the public July 26 and will be open noon to 6 p.m. July 29 to Aug. 2.
More than 200 volunteers, plus the Beaufort PALS and grounds staffs, will be needed for the event. Last year, many volunteers came from the University of South Carolina Beaufort.
County officials said USCB volunteers are expected again this year, but more volunteers are needed. Volunteers can contact Shannon Loper at email@example.com or 255-6684.


text:
Welcome to Intern Horrors, the weekly feature wherein interns and the people who exploit them write in to complain about each other (or confess their own sins). This week: befouling USA Today's bathrooms, our most boorish intern yet, and more.
Mike starts us off with the story of how he lost his internship:
I started working for a newspapers online sports webpage. I was in charge of updating late-ending games and reworking Associate Press game stories to the newspapers specific style. The office was rigtht outside Washington DC and the newspapers name phonetically spelled went something like you-ess-ay today. Anyways, it was a later shift about 7pm to 2am that I worked and there were maybe five other people on the same floor working that late. Anyways, one night, a particularly late NBA game is going on, and I find myself to be the very last person to leave the office. Before, I do, I feel an impending bowel movement, so I make my way, to the one bathroom that is on the floor. Its a relativly small bathroom, one stall and one urinal. I do my business, clean up, and congratulate myself on my creation. Upon flushing, the brown and green mess starts moving up towards me, not down the drain as I expect ... I quickly rush to find a plunger, there is none, I search frantically for the spigot to turn off the water, there is none, and before I know it, water is rushing over the edge of the bowl, and filling the small room. In my panic, I call maintenance, noone picks up, and I head back into the can with about a dozen newspapers, which for whatever reason, I've decided that if I can cover it up, it a) wont smell, and b)wont be noticeable as it festers overnight. I hurriedly head back to school and vow that I will never tell a living soul about this escapade. The next day, my internship coordinator calls to me my office, and asks how the internship is going. I tell her its going swimmingly, and she says, that the company called and asked that I not return to work the next day. Turns out the managing editor was visiting the next day, went to use the restroom, found the shitfilled room covered with newspapers, and my employee ID sitting on the counter. After videotape review, they determined I was the last one in the building ,and the last one to use the can, and that my services were no longer needed. Made for an awkward handshake at the end to say the least.
I interned at a large multi-national firm with an office in the south and we had another intern that might have been the worst intern ever. Besides fun stuff like falling asleep on the job and hitting on random 16 year old girls in the airport in front of our bosses, he released such gems as telling one of our supervisors his wife was "spent" after she had their first child (in reference to her vag), practicing pickup lines on a supervisor such as "hey, wanna f*ck", and while on a site visit, changing clothes in a conference room at the end of a meeting into a wife beater and cutoff jorts (yes, jean shorts) for the flight home.
More stories surface annually about this douche.
Daulerio scolds me several times a week for wearing cut-off shorts. But mine are corduroy.
/Way different.
My company had an intern last year that had, for lack of a better term, a cleft foot. The kid looked like a fat, stumpy version of carrot top and always tried to engage me in music-oriented conversations that would somehow end with him telling me how much he really respected Frank Zappa as an artist. Oh right, the cleft foot. He had the heaviest and subsequently the noisiest walk I have ever heard and/or witnessed in my life. It went something like 'STOMP...DRRAAAGGG...STOMP....DRAAAGGG', which, believe me, if you work in an office environment like mine, where you generally want to stab yourself in the neck with a bic pen more often than not, this does not tend to prevent anyones already paper thin sanity from steadying out. Needless to say, I avoided this intern like the plague all summer until his time was up, thinking I could just wait it out. I didn't realize that my boss had hired him back to intern again during his winter break. This kid ruined two seasons for me. And whereas before I was indifferent towards Frank Zappa, now I want to find his grave and spit on it.
An intern that makes one hate Frank Zappa has to be a shitty intern.
Finally Alan has a story where everything works out better than the end of an episode of Entourage:
In the summer of 2001 I was able to land a highly desirable Silicon Valley internship. In exchange for my services as an intern, this small internet security company would pay for my room and board at an area university so that I could begin some post graduate work.
I had recently graduated from a Big Ten university with a degree in Marketing, so one of my first duties for the company was to create and deploy a marketing survey. The goal of the survey was to target this new/small company's current customers to investigate if clients were aware of the full product offering. I put together a text book marketing survey. Fucking boring. After receiving a list of clients I emailed my survey (mostly to high ranking executives). And like all marketing surveys I suspect each email was deleted within minutes of its arrival...
It took about a week of no responses for the rest of the office to start busting my balls about not being able to compel ANY feedback. In response to the teasing I decided to create an alternate survey. I put together a survey with bikini-clad women in between questions. It had animated shaking boobs as the bullet points. Maxim models on the headers and footers. And the survey closed with a full page shot of a woman's butt with the phrase "Dont be an ass, fill out my survey" across the bottom. I emailed the survey to my new male co-workers and fellow interns - everyone got a laugh. You can see where this is going...
A few days went by and my boss (A young 30s California guy named Eric) suggested I start calling clients to see if I could get some responses. Like any intern I hit the phones hard. I was actually able to start extracting usable info after a while. I put some reports together and it seemed we were getting somewhere. Because I seemed to be doing a good job, Eric came to me with a list of the company's top 5 clients. These clients were responsible for a significant portion of the small companys business. My task was simple - extract marketing info from these elite customers just as I had done with the others. So what does my dumb ass do? Yep, I emailed the survey. Having not thought I was ever going to use the survey again, I had saved the "Dont be an ass survey" over the original. I attached the survey, hit send and immediately my heart sank. I tried every Outlook recall bullshit thing I could think of. It was hopeless. The email was sent. I sat in my cubical for about 10 minutes. Called my girlfriend (back in the Midwest) to tell her I'd be coming home soon - that I'd just been fired... I walked over to Eric's office - he was standing talking to another person. I said "Eric, you might want to sit down". I was fucking with this guy's career afterwards; I wanted to be able to get a running start if he decided to beat the shit out of me. I said, "you remember that Dont be an ass survey" I did as a joke? He turned so red, but not Im-about-to-murder-you-Red, but like REALLY nervous-red. He couldnt speak. He just said "No?... No?" almost questioning how he cold ever be in this situation. He very politely asked me to take the rest of the day off. With my tail between my legs I walked out the door, called a cab (since I carpooled to work) and went back to my dorm to start packing. I had been graduated from college for less than a month and had already single handedly sunk a small Silicon Valley company.
The next day I walked into the office to discover my fate. Much to my surprise they decided to keep me. Unbelievable. I was ecstatic. In the days following my acceptance back to the office my task was to reach out to all the clients my offensive survey might have reached and BEG for forgiveness - explain that I was a bullshit intern and that my stupidity should not be a reflection on this small company. It wasnt that bad. A few people refused to take my calls, which I was fine with – I had no experience talking to executives. One guy said he understood the spirit with which it was done, did not find it funny, but was very understanding. Another executive said he thought it was hilarious and responded to the survey in full. A lady executive was appalled and I imagine her displeasure with my survey likely cost the company significant business. But these calls and emails to repair my survey's damage were my job – I felt like a punching bag, but it was my penance.
Unfortunately, I discovered what most fuck-ups discover when they dont get fired - I was the running office joke. Everywhere I went inside the office I could hear the chuckles. I was introduced to all subsequent employees as "The guy that sent the survey". It was kind of awful, but at least they were paying for me to live in California. Two weeks after this whole ordeal I was walking toward the front door and saw the company owner/founder/CEO (Tom) parking his car and walking towards the entrance. I had met him on my first day, the company was his life, his masterpiece, and I was the guy that shit all over it. I wanted to turn around so bad, but I was already in the lobby and it would be too obvious. We made eye contact through the window and I started to get pretty nervous. Sure enough we cross paths in the front portion of the lobby and I could feel the office's eyes on us. Hoping he might mix me up with another intern I just said hello and tried to walk past. But he stopped to meet me so I felt obligated to stop. He looked me right in the eye and with a big smile said – "When are you going to do a Don't be a Boob campaign? You are hilarious man. We haven't had this kind of contact with our customers since we started." I think I shit my pants. Coolest guy ever. I will never forget his forgiveness – the dude should have probably stabbed me.
Have you been summarily humiliated during an internship? Summarily humiliated by your intern? Send in your story; subject line: Intern Horrors.


text:
Monday, March 8, 2010
Memory Monday: The Need for Speed
But going fast was different. I was always a passenger – a passive participant – in these escapades, so I did not technically engage in speeding, but I certainly encouraged it.
My earliest memory of the thrill of high speed was a Sunday morning when my older brother Don had been assigned to drive me to Sunday School. My father did not attend church, and my mother attended only occasionally, but she felt that I should get some exposure to Sunday School. Most of our older cars up to this point had been wheezy, unreliable old heaps, but the Edsel was the first new car my family had ever purchased. And the speedometer went up to 120.
"Let's do 100," said my brother with a grin. My five-old-brain could not do the time/distance/speed thing, but I like the idea of such a big number. I could only grin and nod in agreement.
The Edsel could not accelerate very fast, but I guess it got to 100 by the end of the block we were on. It felt fast. I don't remember anything that happened at Sunday School that day. Mrs. Mohring and my friend Leslie probably wondered why I was so quiet and could not stop grinning.
The grin probably did not disappear when I got home, which aroused Mom's curiosity.
"What have you been up to?"
"Nothing." Grinning. I was actually dying to tell her, because I was proud of how daring Don and I had been, but I knew I had to keep quiet. Don had bestowed a great privilege on me and had treated me like a grown-up (I thought) by entrusting me with a secret. Mom tried several more times, but for once I was able to keep from spilling the beans. Supper was a challenge; every time Don's eyes and mine met, we had to quickly look down at our plates to keep from betraying our amusement.
My next big experience with speed was on my Uncle Bill's motorcycle. He let me ride behind him on the condition that I hold on tight. I held on for dear life. I could barely keep my eyes open to see the world as it passed us by, the wind stung my eyes so. But I could feel that wind whipping my hair until it stood out from my head like Medusa's snakes, and it felt glorious. Besides, 70 or so on a motorcycle was equivalent to 100 in an Edsel, sensation-wise.
Uncle Bill could hardly talk when we stopped and he took me off the motorcycle, he was laughing so hard. "Boy, ain't you a sight," he wheezed. "I bet you never gone so fast in your life." I didn't mention the 100 mph adventure with my brother, out of consideration both for my brother's trust and for my Uncle Bill's pride at having shown me what "fast" is.
Mom had to spend extra time trying to get the tangles out of my hair that night.
While my introduction to that high-speed thrill at the hands of male relatives had been done covertly, there were acceptable ways to continue to enjoy it with my mother's blessing. Well, perhaps blessing is too strong a word; she didn't object.
The proper vehicle was any of the roller coaster rides at carnivals and amusement parks. I loved roller coasters with a love that was hard to contain, and never really wanted to ride any other ride or enjoy any other amusement. Disneyland was a mixed blessing; there were only 4 D tickets (it was the D ticket, wasn't it?); the rest of my time had to be wasted using up the other useless tickets.
Nothing else ever really approached the keen enjoyment of that thrill. Occasionally, on a family trip in the Edsel, we might approach a respectable speed with my father at the wheel. We always used to joke that he knew two speeds: 70 mph and stop. My mother's watchful presence usually held Daddy's speeding instincts in check, but we did go pretty fast on the open highways. In a car with no air conditioning during hot summer days in Southern California, the natural reaction of dogs and children is to face the wind to relieve the heat as much as possible. And that is what our poodle Pierre and I did, his black moptop head sticking out the front right side and my (then) red head sticking out behind him from the back seat. If I closed my eyes, I could pretend the car was going 100 miles per hour.
The motorcycle, with two of its admirers
See also:
Memory Monday: Our Edsel
Billy Jack Brinlee, 1934-2010
6 comments:
I feel the wind in my face and my hair is a tangled mess!ReplyDelete
Great post!
- AnonymousMarch 8, 2010 at 3:58 PM
What a great post, and the picture gave me such a giggle! You have some great memories to share.ReplyDelete
What fun! A friend of mine had an Edsel (probably the only one in Scotland) and it was more like being on a ship than in a car. Thanks for the entertaining postReplyDelete
Great post-I felt like I was holding on the back of that bike too : ) When I was young-I liked speed-and roller coasters/rides. Now I'm such a chicken!! I'm scared to even look at the roller coasters-and forget about speeding in a car-no way. I guess I lost my need for speed!ReplyDelete
Carol - Ah, you understand!ReplyDelete
Wendy - Glad to give you a giggle on Monday!
SG - Goodness, an Edsel in Scotland; I'd love to see that. BTW, my daughter is in Scotland right now on spring break!
Tipper - I'm not such a speeder anymore, either. I think I would need to switch to contact lenses from glasses to get back to the roller coaster thing.
What fun memories, Greta. I don't do heights well, but I do love speed. I can't remember my first experience going fast. I still think, the faster the better, especially if it's not behind a windshield!ReplyDelete