But Polytheism was also used for control, which is what much of the stories in Kings revolves around as well as Deuteronomy and Leviticus. For example Josiah was a reformer while his father and grandfathers as vassal states under Assyria supported and even encouraged polytheism. His Great Grandfather on the other hand was a strict Henotheist.
Josiah attempted to reform Yisrael because he was a king with the power to do so.
However, for all his rigor, his efforts died with his death, just as such efforts had stalled in Egypt and elsewhere.
Yes, and so we can see that both polytheism and henotheism were used for the same reasons, consolidation of a political and power position.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
What research I have done would suggest that the Samarian text of creation would be the earliest text supporting one supreme 'true' God.
I cannot say I'm anything but self-educated on the issue, but rather would suggest to you the source of monotheism could be this legend of ancient Sumar.
What is your opinion?
keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
On Henotheistic Trinitarianism and a Sumerian Genesis ..
Hi tes, sorry for the delay, Hope things are well with you ..
tesla writes:
What research I have done would suggest that the Samarian text of creation would be the earliest text supporting one supreme 'true' God.
I'm not saying it's not so, or even that it's not known to be so, but I'm not specifically familiar with any actual evidence to that effect tes. My understanding suggests sumerian mythology employed a polytheistic framework which empowered a trinity consisting of An (ie. Anu), Ea (ie. Enki) and Enlil at the forefront of its hierarchical pantheon.
I suppose an elastic thinker could hold a position positing this dynamic as an ancient forerunner to trinitarian monotheism.
But it would seem to be a stretch
I cannot say I'm anything but self-educated on the issue, but rather would suggest to you the source of monotheism could be this legend of ancient Sumar.
What is your opinion?
Much like yours, perhaps, it's a hodge podge of guesswork and reasoning relative to the evidence we have, the mystery created by non-recoverable evidences and the time and energy spent examining them. The Mesopotamian creation narrative tends to ascribe the various steps involved with creation to numerous rival deities.
We then find greater Babylon drawing from earlier Sumerian texts and a variance of Semites (ie. Akkadians, Assyrians, Hebrews, etc.) continuing to draw from this well spring when establishing their particular orders. Breaking with the past seems to have been perpetually difficult ..
And with the past being as inextricably bound to the existence of grand city states (which jar teaches us of, each with its separate god, sanctuary and the minor deities revolving all around them) as with polytheism - which so often seems the case, it appears history is often a matter of probability.
So then, I’m unsure who can define whether Sumerians may've syncretized polytheism into a henotheistic or monotheistic tradition, or why an opposite version of such a claim may be given. However, we've learned Sumerian deities became more anthrocentric as they underwent their transformation from nature gods towards regional gods as jar earlier asserted.
All that said, while considering an abundance of aggressive quarreling by Sumerian demi-gods may be often viewed as first cause of the initial chaos (which then gave way to order and all), I’m not convinced the Sumerian text of creation should be considered the base literature of a concrete henotheistic, monotheistic, or even monistic, tradition.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
Hi jar, hope things are well with you and yours ..
Yes, and so we can see that both polytheism and henotheism were used for the same reasons ..
Now you're cookin' with Mrs. Dash TM!
However we already knew that much, which isn’t to suggest the competing traditions shared similar dynamics (ie. while atheistic and polytheistic traditions may seem to weaken the power available to those within the priestcraft, henotheistic and monotheistic traditions may perhaps appear to strengthen the unification of national values) as much as goal sets.
Although to be sure, when it came to a sticks and stones proselytization, similar tactics were often employed.
What should prove equally interesting, if not more so, may be the various reasons practitioners who weren't being converted through destructive and malignant aggression found henotheism favorable or otherwise, regarding their respective choice of tradition when compared to other religious constructs (i.e. a/mono/poly - theism).
I would argue this an integral component to understanding the development of monotheism.
Being pressed for time as well, I digress if you feel that fodder for another topic.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : add greeting ..
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
Re: On Henotheistic Trinitarianism and a Sumerian Genesis ..
All that said, while considering an abundance of aggressive quarreling by Sumerian demi-gods may be often viewed as first cause of the initial chaos (which then gave way to order and all), I’m not convinced the Sumerian text of creation should be considered the base literature of a concrete henotheistic, monotheistic, or even monistic, tradition.
Indeed it would appear as the text begin. But the text changes pace when a soverign God is needed to defeat tiamat.
13. "O Marduk, thou art our avenger! 14. "We give thee sovereignty over the whole world. 15. "Sit thou down in night, be exalted in thy command. 16. "Thy weapon shall never lose its power, it shall crush thy foe. 17. "O lord, spare the life of him that putteth his trust in thee,
Marduk then makes a deal to defeat Tiamat and have his word be sovereign, and he accomplishes the task and then is called the God of all Gods (monotheism?)
The following lines are taken from the fragment K. 12,830, but their position in the text is uncertain. [He named the four quarters (of the world)], mankind [he created], [And upon] him understanding [...] [...] ... [...]
He is also given credit in the text for creation and setting "all the Gods in their province" etc. etc. most likely referring to the stars and heavenly bodies, but also being called "Son of God" and Lord of all"
We then find greater Babylon drawing from earlier Sumerian texts and a variance of Semites (ie. Akkadians, Assyrians, Hebrews, etc.) continuing to draw from this well spring when establishing their particular orders. Breaking with the past seems to have been perpetually difficult ..
But they do all appear to have like themes.
Much like yours, perhaps, it's a hodge podge of guesswork and reasoning relative to the evidence we have, the mystery created by non-recoverable evidences and the time and energy spent examining them.
Yeah, I suppose subjective analysis can only bring forth a guess without ever knowing. But it was interesting examining the earliest advanced writing system (known) and see so many consistent idea's and themes in modern religion.
Edited by tesla, : No reason given.
keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
Re: On Henotheistic Trinitarianism and a Sumerian Genesis ..
tes writes:
weary writes:
All that said, while considering an abundance of aggressive quarreling by Sumerian demi-gods may be often viewed as first cause of the initial chaos (which then gave way to order and all), I’m not convinced the Sumerian text of creation should be considered the base literature of a concrete henotheistic, monotheistic, or even monistic, tradition.
Indeed it would appear as the text begin. But the text changes pace when a soverign God is needed to defeat tiamat.
It's an interesting argument and I'm curious what the general consensus may be. Now granted, while the version of the narrative I'm presenting is bound to be more than less contemporary, it should nevertheless demonstrate a certain pattern. Consider, Marduke’s great granpappy's the initial sovereign of the pantheon, until Ea takes his place.
Finally, Aphu's great grandson appears to represent a crowning achievement. Let's rewind to the preamble of ol' Marduke's rise - the older, and one might suppose wiser, generation of gods were wanting lil' more at that point than to be nappin’ in a hammock with a soft breeze, some sunshine and a glass of lemonade.
The younger gods were much too noisy though, a downright barnyard stampede they were - bathing in revelry, what with their being out all ours of the night and all, doing who only knows what with whom. Something had to give.
After requesting several times the volume on their disco machine be turned down (to no avail), Apsu finally snaps and, with the support of his son Mummu, sets out on a vicious rampage - ignoring Tiamat’s protests all the while. And lemme tell ya ..
When them yoots caught wind that Apsu was raging pissed, they just about spot'd their pants - until Ea, crafty as he was, managed to cast a magic spell on his grampa (who just so happened to be the father of the gods - monotheism?).
At this point, with the father of the gods finally passed out in his hammock, and so, one might think content, his own grandson brazenly strips him of his splendor and might - taking the crown from grampa Aphu’s head and fitting it victoriously on his own (monotheism?).
After all, Ea ends up murdering his granpappy, while sparing Tiamat and placing Mammu in solitary. And all this is well before the evolution of Ea’s bouncing baby boy gets the gift of two faces and his final crown (monotheism?).
(And obviously before Tiamat stirs up the trouble in her mutinous revenge plot she cooks up, complete with her 11 baby monstas, to avenge Aphu at the instigation of some likeminded hoodlums - the great war that Mardy puts to an end.)
I think it fair to say we can evidence a pattern of sovereign leadership within the pantheon at different points throughout the narrative, though I’m not sure whether or not we’re perhaps justified in viewing these different occurrences of sovereignty as the seeds the of monotheism. It seems an interesting insight though.
I might suggest the distinct ways in which each god came to power may prove revealing as well.
tes writes:
weary writes:
We then find greater Babylon drawing from earlier Sumerian texts and a variance of Semites (ie. Akkadians, Assyrians, Hebrews, etc.) continuing to draw from this well spring when establishing their particular orders. Breaking with the past seems to have been perpetually difficult.
But they do all appear to have like themes.
For many it seems that's the case, time and time again. *There’s a sense some of the religious imagery experiencing repetition throughout separate cultures may have evolved naturally, and even independently of one another at times.
Might these phenomena be better understood as a direct consequence of anthropomorphizing god? For example ..
Once god's begun taking on human characteristics, the leap to humans becoming the children of a god(s) doesn’t seem to be a far one (i.e. Sons & Daughters of God, etc.) - perhaps a student needn't copy to arrive at these conclusions.
But it was interesting examining the earliest advanced writing system (known) and see so many consistent idea's and themes in modern religion.
Very much so, though I oft find myself enervated as the most archaic of doctrines seem to gain eternal renewal.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : *abe ..
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
Sorry jar, I made a silly interpretation of the thread initially, also thanks for providing a list of other monotheistic gods in your initial post.
Can we find a unifying theme to monotheism?
Take the Egyptian Aten, to me he just seems like Akhenaten's vanity project. The original polytheistic religion of Egypt was a carefully constructed system, it evolved slowly over the centuries to appease different power factions in Egypt, with different gods being servants to other gods to reflect the "natural order" of various groups.
To my mind Akhenaten just paved over this system for personal reasons and his monotheism/monolatry didn't really arise out of anything pre-existing.
So perhaps different cultures come to monotheism for unrelated reasons? Or perhaps I'm missing something.
The example of Aten is a good one, maybe the original Monotheist creation.
It is also a good example of what seems to have happened repeatedly throughout the area; the rise and fall of a henotheistic, perhaps even monotheistic system that later reverts back to an earlier polytheistic system.
It is certainly the first well documented example of such transition.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
The example of Aten is a good one, maybe the original Monotheist creation.
Much like citing the Aten cult as the pioneers of monotheism, there’s a common tendency to present Zoroastrianism as the earliest potential monotheistic tradition as well. However, the 1400-1300 BCE founding of the Aten cult seems to have much better support than the dates for the founding of Zoroastrianism.
There doesn’t seem to be a true scholarly consensus concerning the founding of Zoroastrianism.
Some place the date as far back as 1700-1500 BCE and others place it much, much earlier than that (i.e. 750-500 BCE), with still others placing it in the middle of the two dates. In this regard, the actual evidence supporting an early founding of Zoroastrianism, perhaps before the Aten cult, appears less persuasive.
However, the Zoroastrian beliefs are often credited with providing a strong influence over post-exilic Yuhdaism, and the dualistic nature it employs, with other subtleties, seem to be present within Yuhdaism, Catholicism, Christianity and Islam.
Jar, where do you tend to place the birth of Zoroaster, or rather the founding of Zoroastrianism?
One Love
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
Jar, where do you tend to place the birth of Zoroaster, or rather the founding of Zoroastrianism?
I don't.
The most often cited dates are around the end of the period we are discussing, and of course, it is not really a monotheistic religion, rather like the Hindu pantheon.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
The most often cited dates are around the end of the period we are discussing ..
Yes, I’ve noticed a 1400-1200 BCE trend appears to be quite popular. The common 600 BCE date appears to be based on some political myth suggesting Zoroaster was ‘258 Years From Alexander’ or something like that, with the greek myth being the actual basis for the date.
.. of course, it is not really a monotheistic religion, rather like the Hindu pantheon.
I wasn’t under the impression that was so evident.
My understanding suggests Zoroastrianism was a monotheistic tradition with a dualistic framework, originating out of ancient polytheistic Iranian traditions. The bottom line winds up much like Yuhdaism; in the same sense HaSatan performs under the authority of Yahweh, Ahura Mazda is Angra Mainyu's superior - not his equal.
The Old Iranian Religion presented a trinity of deities each bearing the title Ahura, along with minor deities known as ‘daevas’. Zoroaster is said to have proclaimed one of them - Ahura Mazda, the source of all goodness and exclusively worthy of the highest worship. He continued, modifying the status of the daewas to demons basically.
This appears to leave Zoroastrianism as polytheistic as Yuhdaism perhaps, and much less so than the trinitarian doctrines of Catholicism and Christianity might suggest (especially so, providing we indict the increase in authority and power, and general elevated role we find assigned to HaSatan).
The tradition itself suggests Zoroaster proclaimed Ahura Mazda alone as the uncreated God. In this sense, this idea of polytheism could be viewed as a misunderstanding of the philosophical nature of the dualism inherent in the Zoroastrian tradition (monotheistic dualism), finally leaving even post-zoroastrian polytheism as a product of decadence.
Granted, you're probably correct.
However, what leads you to believe Zoroastrianism is polytheistic; the relation it holds with the Vedas or something?
One Love
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
.. what leads you to believe Zoroastrianism is polytheistic; the relation it holds with the Vedas or something?
The fact that there is one good god, Mazda, that is confounded by all the evil gods.
Kinda like there's one good god, Yahweh, confronted by evil HaSatan & his minions who’ve established enough power to terrorize and viciously murder the good god’s son (who’s actually the god)? With that reasoning (evil competition equals non-monotheistic) we may as well lump Christianity in with all henotheistic traditions and label them polytheism, no?
As far as I know, it’s not that there is only one good god in Zoroastrianism, but rather there is ‘one god and he is good’.
Again, Angra Mainyu is viewed as an evil spirit and the daewas simply demons which mirrors HaSatan and his band of merry henchmen. So then, does allowing the existence of evil or competing gods imply polytheism or somehow negate henotheism and monotheism?
That doesn’t seem to be the case regarding the finds at Migdol or even with Paul in the latter testaments.
jar writes:
weary writes:
Yes, I’ve noticed a 1400-1200 BCE trend appears to be quite popular. The common 600 BCE date appears to be based on some political myth suggesting Zoroaster was ‘258 Years From Alexander’ or something like that, with the greek myth being the actual basis for the date.
I personally think the 600 dates are more reasonable than any 1400 dates.
I tend to leave the myths to the myth makers, yet I haven’t found much evidence supporting the 1700-1400 BCE tradition.
However, I stumbled across a few journal articles describing how the customs established within Zoroastrian literature go a certain length towards placing their authorship with what we have come to learn of the culture during 1200-1000 BCE.
One Love
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
Take the Egyptian Aten, to me he just seems like Akhenaten's vanity project. The original polytheistic religion of Egypt was a carefully constructed system, it evolved slowly over the centuries to appease different power factions in Egypt, with different gods being servants to other gods to reflect the "natural order" of various groups.
To my mind Akhenaten just paved over this system for personal reasons and his monotheism/monolatry didn't really arise out of anything pre-existing.
So perhaps different cultures come to monotheism for unrelated reasons? Or perhaps I'm missing something.
It’s common to find evidence of strong political shifts and an increase in the relevance of the priestcraft within socio-political structures where monotheism takes place. This particular example’s ability to demonstrate how Akhenaten began raising the profile of the relatively unimportant Aten cult at the outset of his reign makes it a good one.
Within three years, we find he had temples to the Aten constructed in the Temple of Amun at Karnak (the only real threat to the Aten as being the former head of the Egyptian pantheon) and construction of the GemPaAten complete in Thebes ..
Both very determined feats.
After serving up some healthy portions of iconoclastic rage against other temples of Amun, Akhenaten is using the Great Temple at Amarna less than ten years after taking power and Aten’s basically the only god left in official Egyptian worship.
With seemingly clear goals, the transition and availability of power to the suddenly exalted priestcraft is dramatically increased and a show of royal power and proximity to the Aten is established through various processionals.
And we learn the Aten cult’s seemingly good fortune takes a turn for the worse shortly after the death of Akhenaten. His son Tutankhaten is pressured by the former preists (of Amun) to return to orthodoxy and mend his father’s heresies.
Finally, the Aten tradition constructed by Akhenaten is relegated to the dust bins of history as the old centers of worship are reimbursed out of the royal treasury itself. I agree with jar about your take on the development of this tradition.
The economic, political and social structures of a theocracy become relatively pliable under the auspices of a newly forming monotheistic tradition. Monotheism seems to offer a simplified drawing board approach to the community values of those practicing the faith and appears to maintain strong potential to define or redefine a culture in ways like these.
One Love
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
™ Version 4.2