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

[GoodAttention]

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.

Yes, I don't quite understand the entire reasoning of having the LXX written for a group of people who had assimilated.

I think it caused more trouble than what it worth, especially when you can't just read scripture and expect to understand everything from translations alone.

Otherwise you an advesary become a slanderer who becomes the devil, when perhaps they should have just stayed with "eye-witness" lol.

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

Unfortuantely the return to Jewish rule didn't last long and the Maccabeans became Hellenized anyway.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes, I don't quite understand the entire reasoning of having the LXX written for a group of people who had assimilated.

Well let's look at a modern analogy. My daughter had two close friends that were Muslim. Their father immigrated here before they were born. They had no knowledge of Arabic at all. They were raised Muslim, but they require an English translation.

In the identical way, Jews that lived out in the diaspora eventually lost their knowledge of Hebrew, and so were dependent on a Greek translation of the sacred texts.

I think it caused more trouble than what it worth, especially when you can't just read scripture and expect to understand everything from translations alone.

Yes, you are right. And that's why Rabbis will teach you that only the Hebrew version is the actual Torah. Translations of the Torah are helpful, but they are not the Torah.

Otherwise you an advesary become a slanderer who becomes the devil, when perhaps they should have just stayed with "eye-witness" lol.

Okay, here is where I totally lost you. LOL

Unfortuantely the return to Jewish rule didn't last long and the Maccabeans became Hellenized anyway.

I admire your commitment to understanding history. If you are speaking of Jews out in the diaspora, you would be correct about that. The impact of a Jewish empire in Judea would not have affected them.

But if you are referring to the Jews in Judea, I have to correct it. The whole Maccabean revolt was designed to kick out the Greeks and STOP Hellenization of Jews in Judea.

It is during the Maccabean era that we first find archeological evidence of widespread knowledge and observance of the Torah. (By Maccabean era, I of course mean that time AFTER the war, when we had the Hasmonean/Maccabean dynasty). They have found mikvaot (bath houses for ritual purification), stone vessels (unlike pottery, stone vessels cannot be rendered ritually impure), inscriptions containing references to religious practices, coins minted with symbols common to Jewish observance such as the menorah, lulav, and pomegranate, proto-synagogue structures, and more. The Dead Sea Scrolls, many of which were written during this time, show a deep devotion to the Jewish religion.

The Maccabean era ended in 37 CE with the ascension of Herod the Great to the throne, who extensively remodeled the Temple. As you know from the Christian gospels, Jews there during the Herodian dynasty continued to be deeply devoted to Judaism.

 

[Martin]

Is it a need for conformity, or control? We can't have people worshipping gods of their own choosing, everyone has to believe in the same thing...

 

[firedragon]

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!

The problem is, how are you sure this was not the norm since the beginning? What evidence do you have?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Is it a need for conformity, or control? We can't have people worshipping gods of their own choosing, everyone has to believe in the same thing...

It has to do with two different human instincts.

The first is that many people are born with an innate predilection to thinking everything has a right way to be done or thought. You've probably been irritated with the family member who tells you that you are washing the dishes the wrong way, or you need to start folding towels this particular way cuz your way is wrong. This is the person who thinks it is "common sense" to deliver a baby at the hospital or to put the money in the bank for a rainy day rather than go on vacation, and who expresses their disapproval of you doing things differently.

The second is our "us" versus "them" instinct." Somewhere in our evolutionary history, we simply had a better survival rate if we did not trust the stranger. Let me illustrate. You can take college students and randomly divide them into two groups. Then the groups shmooz for a while or work at a common task at opposite sides of the room. Finally, each student fills out a questionnaire. And you know what? They say their THEIR group is funnier, friendlier, smarter... IOW the results of these sorts of studies is that the ONLY thing necessary to establish bigotry is having two different groups.

I'm reminded of the Lilliputians in Gulliver's Travels, who waged war over which end of the hard boiled egg to crack first. How well Jonathan Swift captured the human condition.

 

[GoodAttention]

Well let's look at a modern analogy. My daughter had two close friends that were Muslim. Their father immigrated here before they were born. They had no knowledge of Arabic at all. They were raised Muslim, but they require an English translation.

In the identical way, Jews that lived out in the diaspora eventually lost their knowledge of Hebrew, and so were dependent on a Greek translation of the sacred texts.

Yes, you are right. And that's why Rabbis will teach you that only the Hebrew version is the actual Torah. Translations of the Torah are helpful, but they are not the Torah.

Yes I agree, and I understand the comparison.

However, I imagine for the Jewish diaspora reading the scriptures in Greek could have been quite a shock to their identity given all the observances and requirements that are within the scriptures. Adding on the historical aspect of the diaspora being enslaved and then freed at some point, to then be in a position to learn about their past, only to realize they were so far from being Jewish would have hurt like hell (IMO).

I imagine part of the reasoning for the LXX by the Hebrews was so the diaspora would consider returning to Judea, similar to the call out to the Jews at the founding of Israel?

I admire your commitment to understanding history. If you are speaking of Jews out in the diaspora, you would be correct about that. The impact of a Jewish empire in Judea would not have affected them.

But if you are referring to the Jews in Judea, I have to correct it. The whole Maccabean revolt was designed to kick out the Greeks and STOP Hellenization of Jews in Judea.

It is during the Maccabean era that we first find archeological evidence of widespread knowledge and observance of the Torah. (By Maccabean era, I of course mean that time AFTER the war, when we had the Hasmonean/Maccabean dynasty). They have found mikvaot (bath houses for ritual purification), stone vessels (unlike pottery, stone vessels cannot be rendered ritually impure), inscriptions containing references to religious practices, coins minted with symbols common to Jewish observance such as the menorah, lulav, and pomegranate, proto-synagogue structures, and more. The Dead Sea Scrolls, many of which were written during this time, show a deep devotion to the Jewish religion.

The Maccabean era ended in 37 CE with the ascension of Herod the Great to the throne, who extensively remodeled the Temple. As you know from the Christian gospels, Jews there during the Herodian dynasty continued to be deeply devoted to Judaism.

Thanks for your reply and informative words.

Yes the Maccabees were true heroes, and it is a shame their legacy didn't continue for longer. Yes, the Jews continued their traditions, some more Zealously than others at one point.

Do you have thoughts on the scriptures named Maccabees? I understand it isn't considered relevant to the Jewish canon, but was within the Christian canon.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes I agree, and I understand the comparison.

However, I imagine for the Jewish diaspora reading the scriptures in Greek could have been quite a shock to their identity given all the observances and requirements that are within the scriptures. Adding on the historical aspect of the diaspora being enslaved and then freed at some point, to then be in a position to learn about their past, only to realize they were so far from being Jewish would have hurt like hell (IMO).

This moves into territory that is just above my paygrade. I just don't have the necessary detailed knowledge to be able to form an idea on this. I'm familiar with Philo, the Jewish philosopher who sought to harmonize Jewish religious beliefs with Greek philosophy. But I don't really know how typical he was.

I imagine part of the reasoning for the LXX by the Hebrews was so the diaspora would consider returning to Judea, similar to the call out to the Jews at the founding of Israel?

I'm just not sure. The primary purpose was to revive Jewish culture and religion among the diaspora, but that doesn't necessarily mean returning to Judea. So maybe yeah, maybe no.

I can tell you I myself live in the diaspora, ane I study Torah all the time, but the odds of me moving to Israel are almost nil. With the rise of antisemitism here, I may change my mind in the future. But right now, it is not an appealing idea.

Yes the Maccabees were true heroes, and it is a shame their legacy didn't continue for longer. Yes, the Jews continued their traditions, some more Zealously than others at one point.

You say "at one point," but I'm not sure what you mean. Can you explain?

Do you have thoughts on the scriptures named Maccabees? I understand it isn't considered relevant to the Jewish canon, but was within the Christian canon.

You are correct. These books were never a part of the Jewish canon. But they are wonderful historical texts. Just as with all historical texts, they have bias and are not 100% accurate. But all things considered, they are excellent.

They are not part of the Protestant canon.
They are part of the Catholic canon.
They are part of the Eastern Orthodox canon.
They are part of the Oriental Orthodox canon.

Basically, the Septuagint was the defacto Old Testament text of the entire Christian church up until the Reformation, when the Protestant leaders removed those books referred to as the Deuterocanonicals by Catholics, or the Apocrypha by Protestants. I have never understood why Luther and the others did that. It's not like the Bible had a Table of Contents.

My own personal point of view is this: Jews don't get to tell Christians what their sacred texts should be, and Christians don't get to tell Jews what our sacred texts should be. So it really doesn't bother me that most Christians have the Maccabees in their Bible, even though they are not in mine.

 

[GoodAttention]

You say "at one point," but I'm not sure what you mean. Can you explain?

That was in reference to the Jewish Zealot movement in the first century common era, which I see as a continuation of the (their) Maccabees' rebellious spirit against the (now) Roman imposition.

You are correct. These books were never a part of the Jewish canon. But they are wonderful historical texts. Just as with all historical texts, they have bias and are not 100% accurate. But all things considered, they are excellent.

They are not part of the Protestant canon.
They are part of the Catholic canon.
They are part of the Eastern Orthodox canon.
They are part of the Oriental Orthodox canon.

Basically, the Septuagint was the defacto Old Testament text of the entire Christian church up until the Reformation, when the Protestant leaders removed those books referred to as the Deuterocanonicals by Catholics, or the Apocrypha by Protestants. I have never understood why Luther and the others did that. It's not like the Bible had a Table of Contents.

My own personal point of view is this: Jews don't get to tell Christians what their sacred texts should be, and Christians don't get to tell Jews what our sacred texts should be. So it really doesn't bother me that most Christians have the Maccabees in their Bible, even though they are not in mine.

I think what is interesting is the LXX was essentially updated to include 1 and 2 Maccabees.
Making it more interesting is whether this was from a Hebrew translation, or if they were written in Koine Greek only.
In either case, I do find their exclusion as a relevant Jewish text, but inclusion within the Christian canon to have some significance, although I'm yet to explore it.

As you say, to each their own.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That was in reference to the Jewish Zealot movement in the first century common era, which I see as a continuation of the (their) Maccabees' rebellious spirit against the (now) Roman imposition.

Oh for sure. But one could be a Zealot and be a religiously observant Jew.

I think what is interesting is the LXX was essentially updated to include 1 and 2 Maccabees.

The full list of books in the Septuagint were added over several hundred years. The Torah, which actually is a good translation, was first, some time around 270 BCE. Some scholars think that Daniel was the last book to be added. (As a comparison, Daniel and Esther were the last books to be added to the Jewish canon as well.) They say the LXX came into its final form in the 1st century CE.

1 Maccabees: around 100 BCE
2 Maccabees: around 124 BCE
3 Maccabees: dating is less certain, but around the late 2nd century to early first century BCE
4 Maccabees: somewhere around late first century to early second century CE. It was not added to the LXX until the Christian period.

Making it more interesting is whether this was from a Hebrew translation, or if they were written in Koine Greek only.
In either case, I do find their exclusion as a relevant Jewish text, but inclusion within the Christian canon to have some significance, although I'm yet to explore it.

As you say, to each their own.

1 Maccabees is believed to have been written in Hebrew or Aramaic first and then translated (the original text was lost) but the latter 3 were composed in Greek -- they are not translations. It is my understanding the textual analysts can spot a translation due to turns of phrase that are odd for that language, but common in another.

The reasons we Jews had for including some books and excluding others were varied.

Many books such as Judith or the Wisdom of Solomon were never even considered simply because they were not in Hebrew. OTOH, Esther and Daniel are primarily in Hebrew, but passages of Esther were written in Greek (they are sometimes called the Additions to Esther), and some passages of Daniel are in Aramaic. Maybe the Rabbis thought "close enough is good enough." LOL

Also, books known to be pseudepigraphal were excluded, such as Enoch. But then it turned out that later in history we learned that many books that WERE accepted are similarly pseudepigraphal, such as Daniel.

And of course the books had to be consistent with Jewish religious teaching. After all, a Jew wrote 1 Corinthians, but it was never considered for the Jewish canon. And some of the books in the Septuagint were great, but just not theologically significant, such a 1 Maccabees.

 

[ppp]

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!

Two of the monotheistic religions built empires, conquered most of the world and subjugated the inhabitants of said nations. Both religions went thru aggressive and prolonged periods where a person's value was only recognized in relation to how that person served and submitted to the religious empire under which that person suffered. As a result competing religions were ruthlessly crushed and monotheism became the standard model.

 

[ppp]

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!

Two of the monotheistic religions built empires, conquered most of the world and subjugated the inhabitants of said nations. Both religions went thru aggressive and prolonged periods where a person's value was only recognized in relation to how that person served and submitted to the religious empire under which that person suffered. As a result competing religions were ruthlessly crushed and monotheism became the standard model.