The Rise of Monotheism: How Did One God Become the Norm?

[1213]

Not "an" adversary. THE adversary. The word is HAsatan, ha indicating a specific comparable to the English THE.

Ok, and when it is said Satan, it means the satan.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Ok, and when it is said Satan, it means the satan.

In English perhaps, but not in Hebrew. It is always HaSatan, not Satan. I do agree with you that the English Satan is referring to the same being as HaSatan.

In English, Satan is treated like a name. In Hebrew it is not a name. HaSatan means "The adversary" or "The accuser."

I suspect that you already know all of this, and that I'm just preaching to the choir.

 

[GoodAttention]

In English perhaps, but not in Hebrew. It is always HaSatan, not Satan. I do agree with you that the English Satan is referring to the same being as HaSatan.

In English, Satan is treated like a name. In Hebrew it is not a name. HaSatan means "The adversary" or "The accuser."

I suspect that you already know all of this, and that I'm just preaching to the choir.

I would throw in "eye-witness" to the mix, specifically "witness in court".

Realise I would NOT be preaching to the choir on that one.

The journey from polytheism to monotheism is a fascinating aspect of religious history, and the Bible provides an intriguing window into this transition. While many assume the Bible presents a consistent monotheistic view from the start, a closer look reveals a more nuanced progression. In the early parts of the Old Testament, we see hints of polytheistic beliefs. For instance, in Exodus 15:11, Moses asks, "Who among the gods is like you, Lord?" This suggests an acknowledgment of other deities, even if Yahweh is considered supreme. However, as we move through the biblical narrative, we see a gradual shift towards strict monotheism. This becomes particularly evident in the teachings of the prophets. Isaiah 45:5 provides a clear monotheistic declaration: "I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God."But what drove this shift? Some scholars argue it was a natural theological evolution, while others point to historical events like the Babylonian exile as catalysts for solidifying monotheistic beliefs. Interestingly, this transition wasn't unique to Judaism. Similar movements towards monotheism occurred in other cultures, such as Akhenaten's brief introduction of monotheism in ancient Egypt. So, I'm curious about your thoughts:

1. Do you see this progression in the Bible, or do you interpret it differently?
2. What factors do you think contributed to the rise of monotheism in various cultures?
3. How do you think this historical shift impacts modern religious beliefs and interfaith dialogue?

Let's explore this fascinating journey together and see what insights we can gain about the development of religious thought!

I interpret it differently.

I think the scriptures are very strict in following a current of monism from the beginning, even when faced with the "reality" of polytheism that existed during the times. I believe the "theism" is defined by Moses after Exodus, but then I haven't got that far yet.

When people say the Israelites were "polytheistic" or "monolotrous" I believe misses the point, because in my opinion they always monistic throughout.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't know that monotheism is "the norm". Or even that it is particularly common.

It is politically and perhaps doctrinarily appealling, at least for certain purposes. But I have never met a situation where monotheism seemed to make any better ethical or logical sense than the alternatives.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't know that monotheism is "the norm". Or even that it is particularly common.

IIRC, Christians and Muslims by themselves make up more than half of the population of the world and are about two thirds of all the people who practice some sort of religion.

It is politically and perhaps doctrinarily appealling, at least for certain purposes. But I have never met a situation where monotheism seemed to make any better ethical or logical sense than the alternatives.

I think it just tends to be more "portable."

In most polytheistic belief systems, gods are often associated with specific places or geographic features.

Worship of the god associated with a particular forest or mountain isn't tbat relevant when you're thousands of miles away. Having to go to, say, a particular temple on a regular basis is impractical if you're too far away.

OTOH, a monotheistic "god of everywhere" can be equally relevant anywhere. Christianity isn't tied to a particular place, so it's practical anywhere. Islam does, but it's only a once in a lifetime thing and only for those who can do it.

 

[metis]

Ok, and when it is said Satan, it means the satan.

There are some Christian theologians who tend to believe that haSatan is more symbolic than real, namely intents we may have to do that which is more evil over that which is more moral. There was a Methodist minister I knew years ago who took that position.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't know that monotheism is "the norm". Or even that it is particularly common.

It is politically and perhaps doctrinarily appealling, at least for certain purposes.

Precisely. As ancient community became increasingly hierarchical, animism evolved into henotheism which morphed into monolatry.

In her book Weavers, Scribes, and Kings; A New History of the Ancient Near East, Podany frames her subject by noting:

An unquestioning belief in the divine was the only way to account for pretty much every occurrence in one's world. The deities caused everything from dreams, to luck (or lack thereof), to thunderstorms, to the fertility of sheep, to the movement of flocks of birds. These were shared beliefs, over the entire region.​

​

Suppose a priestess had arrived in Uruk, having traveled from northern Mesopotamia, or Iran, or even Anatolia or Egypt. Even she would not have doubted the power of Inana. Back at home, this goddess probably had a different name, or she might not even have been worshipped at all, but this didn't make Inana a false deity in the mind of the visiting priestess. No gods were false; all were members of a single community of gods that extended to all lands. They could not be separated from the world they controlled, and the products of that world all existed, primarily, to satisfy their needs.​

​

For these reasons, religion, politics, society, and economy were not separate institutions in the ancient Near East; they were all bound together, because the service of the gods was all important. All the deities (taking the form of their statues) needed housing, food, drink, clothing, praise, and riches, just like very demanding humans. Everyone knew this. These were some of the central demands, not just of the belief system, but of life; all people were servants of the gods, all the time. One's role, as a human on Earth, was to serve them, placate them, provide for them, try to divine their needs, and then meet those needs, That was pretty much it.​

Here Podany is addressing the Uruk Period, which the author dates to 3500-2900 BCE. By way of comparison, Wikipedia notes:

Quasi-monotheistic claims of the existence of a universal deity date to the Late Bronze Age, with Akhenaten's Great Hymn to the Aten from the 14th century BCE.​

Monotheism was a relative newcomer, and all the more remarkable for being so.

 

[Tamino]

How would you suggest we refer to it? What word - or large number of words - should be used that would also be (somewhat) readily understood? I don't particularly like the moniker "Western" to describe these things either, but it's how things are talked about in my culture and by scholars. For better and for worse.

On the his topic... There's a fairly new book:
Naoise Mac Sweeney: The West - A new history of an old idea

I haven't read it yet but it was recommended to me recently and I plan on buying it.

 

[LuisDantas]

IIRC, Christians and Muslims by themselves make up more than half of the population of the world and are about two thirds of all the people who practice some sort of religion.

Thanks for pointing that out. I failed to emphasize that this is true, yet no warranty for monotheism being somehow particularly common.

Why? Because Christianity and Islam are doctrines. We know that they are widely taught and widely demanded.

We do not know that those who adhere to them (usually with questionable degrees of choice) actually believe in monotheism.

Most have no doubt learned to say that they do. Not the same thing.

I think it just tends to be more "portable."

In most polytheistic belief systems, gods are often associated with specific places or geographic features.

Worship of the god associated with a particular forest or mountain isn't tbat relevant when you're thousands of miles away. Having to go to, say, a particular temple on a regular basis is impractical if you're too far away.

OTOH, a monotheistic "god of everywhere" can be equally relevant anywhere. Christianity isn't tied to a particular place, so it's practical anywhere. Islam does, but it's only a once in a lifetime thing and only for those who can do it.

True enough.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I would throw in "eye-witness" to the mix, specifically "witness in court".

Realise I would NOT be preaching to the choir on that one.

All my remarks (or at least the ones you quoted) were about the Hebrew word HaSatan. What does that have to do with eye witnesses?

 

[GoodAttention]

All my remarks (or at least the ones you quoted) were about the Hebrew word HaSatan. What does that have to do with eye witnesses?

I will withdraw my statement I don’t recall sorry.

 

[1213]

In English perhaps, but not in Hebrew. It is always HaSatan, not Satan. I do agree with you that the English Satan is referring to the same being as HaSatan.

In English, Satan is treated like a name. In Hebrew it is not a name. HaSatan means "The adversary" or "The accuser."

I suspect that you already know all of this, and that I'm just preaching to the choir.

I think that is a good point, although I think little trivial. I don't think it really makes any meaningful difference. Because it is "the", it can be seen as a proper name. It is referring to the specific satan. But, maybe the satan would like to be called with some other name.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I will withdraw my statement I don’t recall sorry.

No worries

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I think that is a good point, although I think little trivial. I don't think it really makes any meaningful difference. Because it is "the", it can be seen as a proper name. It is referring to the specific satan. But, maybe the satan would like to be called with some other name.

I suppose that there are those circumstances where a noun with a definite article might be used as a nickname. For example, Elvis Presley has a nickname "The King." That's definitely in your favor. In my favor, we all understand those nicknames to be merely nicknames, not their real names. Most Christians are completely unaware that HaSatan means the adversary. They think Satan is his actual name. So... we are both right LOL. Love it!

 

[GoodAttention]

I suppose that there are those circumstances where a noun with a definite article might be used as a nickname. For example, Elvis Presley has a nickname "The King." That's definitely in your favor. In my favor, we all understand those nicknames to be merely nicknames, not their real names. Most Christians are completely unaware that HaSatan means the adversary. They think Satan is his actual name. So... we are both right LOL. Love it!

The Septuagint translations HaSat'an to diabolos, which should have be translated as "slanderer".

Not sure if the "d" was capitalized in later editions, but in any case it is clear the English translations were doing more than just translating which, as Eminem, said "they created a monster!".

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The Septuagint translations HaSat'an to diabolos, which should have be translated as "slanderer".

Not sure if the "d" was capitalized in later editions, but in any case it is clear the English translations were doing more than just translating which, as Eminem, said "they created a monster!".

Interesing information. However, unlike you, the LXX is utterly irrelevant to me. It's one of a gazillion translations.

 

[GoodAttention]

Interesing information. However, unlike you, the LXX is utterly irrelevant to me. It's one of a gazillion translations.

Depends what you consider relevant.

From your comments I never doubted one iota any relevance to you of the LXX, except potentially an ancestoral one.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Depends what you consider relevant.

From your comments I never doubted one iota any relevance to you of the LXX, except potentially an ancestoral one.

Ancestral? I have no Greek ancestry at all. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you?

 

[GoodAttention]

Ancestral? I have no Greek ancestry at all. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you?

No you understood me correctly, I was merely curious.

I would have used the label Hellenic Jews though?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No you understood me correctly, I was merely curious.

I would have used the label Hellenic Jews though?

A Hellenized Jew was a Jew who had assimilated Greek culture. Many Jews out in the diaspora, such as Alexandria, had Hellenized. Most no longer knew Hebrew, and so sadly were dependent on a not so good translation into Greek, the LXX. However, just as with ALL translations, this was never put on par with the Hebrew text.

You know, it is worth mentioning that the entire Maccabean war was fought to end Hellenization in Judea.