In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

269 reason within the bounds of religion Assmann, Cohen, and the Possibilities of Monotheism robert erlewine recent years have witnessed many actions, often violent and xenophobic, explicitly rooted in monotheistic intolerance. Perhaps, then, it should not be surprising that many secular-minded critics view monotheistic religions as not much more than intractable problems for democratic societies. indeed, for such critics, the respective ages and histories of these traditions are not to be esteemed. rather, these religions are simply primitive, and so they require domestication (or annihilation) by liberal values. Looking around the world today, one often wonders if it is even possible for modern sensibilities to be reconciled, or even to coexist, with the abrahamic monotheisms and their non-rational notions of election and revelation?1 Jan assmann is perhaps the most prominent secularist critic of monotheism in europe today. assmann has enjoyed a rather remarkable career as a prolific egyptologist, cultural historian, and theorist of memory. his recent work as a critic of monotheism is predicated upon his (in)famous notion of the of the “mosaic distinction” (die Mosaische Unterscheidung). The mosaic distinction, which assmann claims serves as the structural foundation of the abrahamic monotheisms, is a radical notion of truth that sets itself in opposition to other belief systems or notions of truth; the monotheisms are “counter-religions,” defining themselves by opposing others.2 The mosaic distinction manifests itself by declaring other religions as false and idolatrous, coding their adherents not only as delusional but also as sinful and wicked. The locus classicus—though not origin—of the mosaic distinction, according to assmann, is the hebrew bible.3 This claim has brought his work not uncontroversially into the ambit of Jewish studies.4 While critics have charged assmann with antisemitism, his work continues to be widely read and influential, at least in part, because it captures a certain secularist, cosmopolitan sensibility quite pervasive in the academy. in this chapter i will explore his work on monotheism both because it merits careful study in and of itself and because ironically much of its evidence is quite similar 10 270 | Robert Erlewine to that used by hermann cohen (1842–1918) in his arguments about the ethical nature of monotheism. yet although both assmann and cohen emphasize the role of textuality in the development of monotheism, assmann finds it to be the source of violence toward outsiders, while cohen believes it provides the means for overcoming violence and hostility toward the other. by juxtaposing cohen’s work with assmann’s, i seek to problematize the univocally negative valence that assmann ascribes to the mosaic distinction. assmann: The mosaic distinction and scripture Jan assmann is no mere advocate of religious tolerance; he seeks to extirpate the very causes of religious intolerance in the monotheistic traditions. Where many political theorists seek to ground tolerance on a political basis, in mutual recognition or in the demand to view one’s self from the eyes of the other, assmann thinks religious and thus political tolerance requires a metaphysical grounding. he states, “all religions are equally removed from the truth, which we never possess , and for which we can only strive.”5 on this basis, or with this end in sight, assmann seeks to bring to light and thus treat the historical moments in which the confluence of belief in the absolute truth of holy texts and the hatred of the nonbeliever emerges. When assmann claims that “[t]he capacity to historicize and relativize one’s own position is the precondition of all true tolerance,”6 he does not mean this only in a political sense, in terms of what is required for coexistence or political legitimacy. he is also providing a clue about the inner turmoil of the West. This turmoil stems from the legacy of the abrahamic monotheisms, which find themselves at odds with this egalitarian metaphysical foundation and the sensibilities that derive therefrom. The monotheisms are not merely one iteration of some abstract category “religion,” but rather they bring something new with them into the world, something that is dangerous and ultimately incompatible with modernity. The “world-altering innovation” that monotheism introduces according to assmann is, as i have already mentioned, the mosaic distinction, namely, “the distinction between true and false in religion that underlies more specific distinctions such as Jews and gentiles, christians and pagans, muslims and unbelievers.”7 more specifically, the intolerance of monotheistic religions has its root in their negative and antagonistic notion of truth. The monotheisms, that is, the...

Share