What I've been learning about ancient paganism.

[IndigoChild5559]

I have lately been watching a series of videos by historian Richard Elliot Friedman. A couple of weeks ago, I watched his video on ancient paganism, and I've had a chance to chew on it a while. Some of the things he said, I have known for a long time, and other things were new to me. So some of what I'm going to say is borrowed from Friedman, and some of it is my original thoughts. If you want to watch the lecture that is the inspiration for this post, you can find it here:

Let's start with the fact that the Biblical portrayal of paganism as idol worship is just not correct. Psalms 135 says, "15The idols of the nations are silver and gold, the handiwork of man. 16They have a mouth but do not speak; they have eyes but do not see. 17They have ears but do not listen; neither is there any breath in their mouth." This is not accurate. The gods of these nations were not the statues, but what the statues represented. Sure there are always that minority of people who have magical thinking, and tend to ascribe powers to things that have none, but let's face it, your typical normal pagan knew very well that these statues were not gods and didn't worship them.

So then what is paganism? The old pagans were people who had an intimate relationship with nature. They did not think of a natural creature or element as a third person "it," but rather as a second person "you." And some things in nature held great power, like the storm and the ocean and the sun. These powerful things were placed in a special category. So it is more appropriate to say that the pagan gods are really those powerful things in nature.

This is why pagan languages like Sumerian or Akkadian have no word for belief. You didn't believe in the sun, you looked up into the sky and saw it there. You didn't believe in the storm, you lived through it. And of course, the next step was to form a relationship with these powers -- you wanted to make sure the storm wasn't going to blow down your house.

I was surprised to learn that many of the "names" of these gods were the same word that referred to the natural power. For example, in Canaanite, the word for sun is Shamas and the name of the sun god is Shamas. But if you consider where pagans were coming from, this makes a whole lot of sense.

Another thing I think is worth mentioning is that these gods, these natural powers, were pretty much present in all pagan pantheons. In much of the middle east, the most powerful force is the storm, so it often ended up as the highest god. And it didn't matter what name you had for him -- the different names were simply a function of different languages. If you wanted to worship the storm god, it didn't matter if you called him Ba'al, or Zeus, or En'lil, or Jupiter... They are all the wind/storm.

Now, to get even more controversial, if "god" meant a natural power, then it only made sense for emperors like Pharaoh and Caesar to be called gods, since they had power over whether you lived or died.

The second really big thing I have learned about paganism is this: that the pagan world experienced time as cyclical. This makes sense because everything in nature is cyclical: the changing of the season, the tides rising and falling, the cycle of birth and death... This is completely different from the view that time is linear. We all went to school and every teacher of history would draw a timeline on the chalkboard. The Bible was really the first human attempt to give a history in a linear fashion, and this idea shaped all future historians. In fact, we are so culturally programed to think of time as linear that I really don't think anyone today can really understand the idea of time as a circle, not even modern neo-pagans.

The big change came when the Israelite people got the idea that there was a power OUTSIDE of nature. In the pagan creation myths the natural world already existed in a primordial form (usually the wind/sky and water) and the already existing natural powers simply create FROM this, such as when Marduk the storm/wind god defeats Tiamat the goddess of the sea and forms land etc. from her body. Compare this to the Hebrew creation myth, where when God was first creating the heavens (sky) and earth, the earth was void and the ruach (usually translated as spirit, but also means breath or wind--sounding familiar?) moved upon the face of the water. So you have the same idea of the sky/wind and water, but in THIS case, they are creations of that power OUTSIDE of nature, who creates out of nothing.

In all fairness, you have to forgive the Biblical writers their misunderstanding of paganism. I mean, think of how it must have looked to them to enter pagan temples and seeing people bowing before these statues and making sacrifices there. I'm sure it certainly looked as if it were the statues that were being worshiped.

So there you have paganism compared and contrasted with what would later come to be monotheism. If there are pagans in this forum, please feel free to comment, and give us your perspective. Similarly, I'd like to hear what monotheists have to say, and whether this was new for you. I'm sure that not everyone is going to love that I said the Bible makes a mistake about the essence of paganism -- and that's okay too.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I have lately been watching a series of videos by historian Richard Elliot Friedman. A couple of weeks ago, I watched his video on ancient paganism, and I've had a chance to chew on it a while. Some of the things he said, I have known for a long time, and other things were new to me. So some of what I'm going to say is borrowed from Friedman, and some of it is my original thoughts. If you want to watch the lecture that is the inspiration for this post, you can find it here:

Let's start with the fact that the Biblical portrayal of paganism as idol worship is just not correct. Psalms 135 says, "15The idols of the nations are silver and gold, the handiwork of man. 16They have a mouth but do not speak; they have eyes but do not see. 17They have ears but do not listen; neither is there any breath in their mouth." This is not accurate. The gods of these nations were not the statues, but what the statues represented. Sure there are always that minority of people who have magical thinking, and tend to ascribe powers to things that have none, but let's face it, your typical normal pagan knew very well that these statues were not gods and didn't worship them.

So then what is paganism? The old pagans were people who had an intimate relationship with nature. They did not think of a natural creature or element as a third person "it," but rather as a second person "you." And some things in nature held great power, like the storm and the ocean and the sun. These powerful things were placed in a special category. So it is more appropriate to say that the pagan gods are really those powerful things in nature.

This is why pagan languages like Sumerian or Akkadian have no word for belief. You didn't believe in the sun, you looked up into the sky and saw it there. You didn't believe in the storm, you lived through it. And of course, the next step was to form a relationship with these powers -- you wanted to make sure the storm wasn't going to blow down your house.

I was surprised to learn that many of the "names" of these gods were the same word that referred to the natural power. For example, in Canaanite, the word for sun is Shamas and the name of the sun god is Shamas. But if you consider where pagans were coming from, this makes a whole lot of sense.

Another thing I think is worth mentioning is that these gods, these natural powers, were pretty much present in all pagan pantheons. In much of the middle east, the most powerful force is the storm, so it often ended up as the highest god. And it didn't matter what name you had for him -- the different names were simply a function of different languages. If you wanted to worship the storm god, it didn't matter if you called him Ba'al, or Zeus, or En'lil, or Jupiter... They are all the wind/storm.

Now, to get even more controversial, if "god" meant a natural power, then it only made sense for emperors like Pharaoh and Caesar to be called gods, since they had power over whether you lived or died.

The second really big thing I have learned about paganism is this: that the pagan world experienced time as cyclical. This makes sense because everything in nature is cyclical: the changing of the season, the tides rising and falling, the cycle of birth and death... This is completely different from the view that time is linear. We all went to school and every teacher of history would draw a timeline on the chalkboard. The Bible was really the first human attempt to give a history in a linear fashion, and this idea shaped all future historians. In fact, we are so culturally programed to think of time as linear that I really don't think anyone today can really understand the idea of time as a circle, not even modern neo-pagans.

The big change came when the Israelite people got the idea that there was a power OUTSIDE of nature. In the pagan creation myths the natural world already existed in a primordial form (usually the wind/sky and water) and the already existing natural powers simply create FROM this, such as when Marduk the storm/wind god defeats Tiamat the goddess of the sea and forms land etc. from her body. Compare this to the Hebrew creation myth, where when God was first creating the heavens (sky) and earth, the earth was void and the ruach (usually translated as spirit, but also means breath or wind--sounding familiar?) moved upon the face of the water. So you have the same idea of the sky/wind and water, but in THIS case, they are creations of that power OUTSIDE of nature, who creates out of nothing.

In all fairness, you have to forgive the Biblical writers their misunderstanding of paganism. I mean, think of how it must have looked to them to enter pagan temples and seeing people bowing before these statues and making sacrifices there. I'm sure it certainly looked as if it were the statues that were being worshiped.

So there you have paganism compared and contrasted with what would later come to be monotheism. If there are pagans in this forum, please feel free to comment, and give us your perspective. Similarly, I'd like to hear what monotheists have to say, and whether this was new for you. I'm sure that not everyone is going to love that I said the Bible makes a mistake about the essence of paganism -- and that's okay too.

I think you might be missing the point of the definition of the word Pagan. A Pagan is similar to the Islamic word Infidel...its someone who has a belief foreign to that of the mainstream view of a group of people (in this case Christianity). I think the idea that this bible verse is calling statue worshipers pagans is probably suffering from the limitations of ancient languages verses modern English for example. Ancient Hebrew only had about 7,000 words so there are going to be issues like this. To resolve such problems, context is paramount to ensure correct understanding.

Despite the above, worshipping nature is still heretical in Christianity...we are told that we worship God only...no one else and nothing else. I refer you to the Cain and Abel story in Genesis...why was Cains offering rejected? Because he did not understand the reason why an offering of sheep or goat had to be made...what it represented. Supplying an offering of worship of the fruits of the field was rejected. God is not looking for worship of nature nor can nature be used to represent God...Salvation doesnt work that way.

To decide on whether or not the bible account is historical or a fairytale...i think you need to consider the fulfillment of the prophecies in the Old Testament with the New. Its pretty obvious that almost all of the biblical characters really existed, as well as places. When you start to compile the evidence, it becomes overwhelmingly in favour of the historicity of the Biblical narrative.

The only thing we cant prove is God...however, there is a bucket load of evidence to support the idea of God. Certainly enough to rationally become Christian. Faith is not a blind belief in God...Christian faith is the belief that we may be saved by the grace of God given Christ died on the cross for sin. Is Christs death sufficient for our salvation? Thats the faith bit...not whether or not God exists and created this world!

 

[SalixIncendium]

I think you might be missing the point of the definition of the word Pagan. A Pagan is similar to the Islamic word Infidel...its someone who has a belief foreign to that of the mainstream view of a group of people (in this case Christianity).

I think it's important to note that there is more than one definition of the term.

If you are talking about the common noun, pagan, your definition is correct (at least from the perspective of Abrahamic religion).

But capitalized as a proper noun, Pagan is an umbrella term that describes a follower of contemporary Paganism, which is a set of religions influenced by pre-Christian belief systems. I think these pre-Christian belief systems is what the OP is discussing.

 

[mangalavara]

To decide on whether or not the bible account is historical or a fairytale...i think you need to consider the fulfillment of the prophecies in the Old Testament with the New.

Please understand that the person you have written that to is Jewish.

 

[Augustus]

So then what is paganism? The old pagans were people who had an intimate relationship with nature. They did not think of a natural creature or element as a third person "it," but rather as a second person "you." And some things in nature held great power, like the storm and the ocean and the sun. These powerful things were placed in a special category. So it is more appropriate to say that the pagan gods are really those powerful things in nature.

The idea that paganism (at least the better known European and Mediterranean varieties) was nature worship is pretty contested to say the least.

One school of thought is that this is mostly an invention of the 19th c Romantic movement and 20th c neopaganism.

Agrarian societies obviously had connections to seasons and natural phenomena, and some gods may have been associated with natural forces, but considering this their primary focus and orientation is, at best, very disputed.

 

[mangalavara]

Agrarian societies obviously had connections to seasons and natural phenomena, and some gods may have been associated with natural forces, but considering this their primary focus and orientation is, at best, very disputed.

I agree. When looking at the contrast between major families of deities, it can be inferred that the worship of personifications of natural forces was not the central focus. In Hellenic religion, there were not only Titans but also Olympians. Nonetheless, there was some overlap between what the two families of deities were associated with.

 

[Quintessence]

Yup, that's pretty much spot on; old hat to this Pagan of two decades (and change depending on when you want to start counting). Maybe some of the stuff I go on and on about will make more sense to some folks now... haha.

 

[Spice]

There's quite a bit of Pagan in my beliefs in the sense of what you have described. Power, nature, and most definitely the life cycle, or timeline, being a spiral. It goes around and around, but also slowly forward as life evolves. Powers change, but they return, such as global warming and cooling. Waters are constantly reshaping the lands, winds moving the lands and the seas. Planets moving closer just to move apart once again. All a part of something beyond, called by me, at least, God.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I have lately been watching a series of videos by historian Richard Elliot Friedman. A couple of weeks ago, I watched his video on ancient paganism, and I've had a chance to chew on it a while. Some of the things he said, I have known for a long time, and other things were new to me. So some of what I'm going to say is borrowed from Friedman, and some of it is my original thoughts. If you want to watch the lecture that is the inspiration for this post, you can find it here:

Let's start with the fact that the Biblical portrayal of paganism as idol worship is just not correct. Psalms 135 says, "15The idols of the nations are silver and gold, the handiwork of man. 16They have a mouth but do not speak; they have eyes but do not see. 17They have ears but do not listen; neither is there any breath in their mouth." This is not accurate. The gods of these nations were not the statues, but what the statues represented. Sure there are always that minority of people who have magical thinking, and tend to ascribe powers to things that have none, but let's face it, your typical normal pagan knew very well that these statues were not gods and didn't worship them.

So then what is paganism? The old pagans were people who had an intimate relationship with nature. They did not think of a natural creature or element as a third person "it," but rather as a second person "you." And some things in nature held great power, like the storm and the ocean and the sun. These powerful things were placed in a special category. So it is more appropriate to say that the pagan gods are really those powerful things in nature.

This is why pagan languages like Sumerian or Akkadian have no word for belief. You didn't believe in the sun, you looked up into the sky and saw it there. You didn't believe in the storm, you lived through it. And of course, the next step was to form a relationship with these powers -- you wanted to make sure the storm wasn't going to blow down your house.

I was surprised to learn that many of the "names" of these gods were the same word that referred to the natural power. For example, in Canaanite, the word for sun is Shamas and the name of the sun god is Shamas. But if you consider where pagans were coming from, this makes a whole lot of sense.

Another thing I think is worth mentioning is that these gods, these natural powers, were pretty much present in all pagan pantheons. In much of the middle east, the most powerful force is the storm, so it often ended up as the highest god. And it didn't matter what name you had for him -- the different names were simply a function of different languages. If you wanted to worship the storm god, it didn't matter if you called him Ba'al, or Zeus, or En'lil, or Jupiter... They are all the wind/storm.

Now, to get even more controversial, if "god" meant a natural power, then it only made sense for emperors like Pharaoh and Caesar to be called gods, since they had power over whether you lived or died.

The second really big thing I have learned about paganism is this: that the pagan world experienced time as cyclical. This makes sense because everything in nature is cyclical: the changing of the season, the tides rising and falling, the cycle of birth and death... This is completely different from the view that time is linear. We all went to school and every teacher of history would draw a timeline on the chalkboard. The Bible was really the first human attempt to give a history in a linear fashion, and this idea shaped all future historians. In fact, we are so culturally programed to think of time as linear that I really don't think anyone today can really understand the idea of time as a circle, not even modern neo-pagans.

The big change came when the Israelite people got the idea that there was a power OUTSIDE of nature. In the pagan creation myths the natural world already existed in a primordial form (usually the wind/sky and water) and the already existing natural powers simply create FROM this, such as when Marduk the storm/wind god defeats Tiamat the goddess of the sea and forms land etc. from her body. Compare this to the Hebrew creation myth, where when God was first creating the heavens (sky) and earth, the earth was void and the ruach (usually translated as spirit, but also means breath or wind--sounding familiar?) moved upon the face of the water. So you have the same idea of the sky/wind and water, but in THIS case, they are creations of that power OUTSIDE of nature, who creates out of nothing.

In all fairness, you have to forgive the Biblical writers their misunderstanding of paganism. I mean, think of how it must have looked to them to enter pagan temples and seeing people bowing before these statues and making sacrifices there. I'm sure it certainly looked as if it were the statues that were being worshiped.

So there you have paganism compared and contrasted with what would later come to be monotheism. If there are pagans in this forum, please feel free to comment, and give us your perspective. Similarly, I'd like to hear what monotheists have to say, and whether this was new for you. I'm sure that not everyone is going to love that I said the Bible makes a mistake about the essence of paganism -- and that's okay too.

It's not only about aspects of Nature (with an uppercase "N", denoting all of reality and our relation to it), but its also about worship of our Ancestors. I pray to my mother and other Ancestors as well as the Gods. I keep a shrine to her, with her ashes on it, and various things that remind me of her as well as pictures.

Worshipping and making offerings to one's Ancestors is viewed as keeping their spirits alive (or vital) and content, and is one of the most important aspects of Paganism. Our loved ones who have gone before us still care for us deeply and watch over us. They become deities of a sort themselves when it comes to their family. The Norse viewed female Ancestors with particular importance and they were referred to as Dísir, and had their own festival, and were also associated with fate.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Please understand that the person you have written that to is Jewish.

They should be intimately familiar with pagan and Paganism

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

They should be intimately familiar with pagan and Paganism

Meaning what?

 

[Harel13]

your typical normal pagan knew very well that these statues were not gods and didn't worship them.

Are you sure about that? I can't debate here, but here are a couple of things to think about:

a. What we know of the mythology of the ancient Middle Eastern pagan religions comes from texts and average literacy rates at the time were not high. The priests may have known the deep theology but what did the commoners know?

b. There are a couple of places in Tanach that demonstrate that the prophets were quite aware that the statues weren't thought to be the gods themselves. So another thing to think about is why does Tanach typically depict pagan cult as as being literal statue, stone and tree worship?

 

[Quintessence]

a. What we know of the mythology of the ancient Middle Eastern pagan religions comes from texts and average literacy rates at the time were not high. The priests may have known the deep theology but what did the commoners know?

It's not really "deep theology" to understand you are dependent on nature and recognize forces of nature as higher powers, though. It's sort of intuitively obvious to most humans, even today. Pagan theology is much more simple and straightforward in part because the gods are readily observed in daily life. It's why I sometimes get a bit put off by talk about "believing in" the gods. That's a really weird way to put it... I'm just gonna point at the Sun in the sky and... yeah, I don't really "believe in" that, it's just kind of there haha. But if it's night or indoors you might have a statue representing Sun that you can use as a focus for worship. There's no mistaking a statue of Sun for Sun.

 

[Harel13]

It's not really "deep theology" to understand you are dependent on nature and recognize forces of nature as higher powers, though. It's sort of intuitively obvious to most humans, even today. Pagan theology is much more simple and straightforward in part because the gods are readily observed in daily life. It's why I sometimes get a bit put off by talk about "believing in" the gods. That's a really weird way to put it... I'm just gonna point at the Sun in the sky and... yeah, I don't really "believe in" that, it's just kind of there haha. But if it's night or indoors you might have a statue representing Sun that you can use as a focus for worship. There's no mistaking a statue of Sun for Sun.

You're literate, they weren't. I'm not saying they were dumb, I'm saying that modern people may be imposing modern sensibilities on people we don't know all that much about based on what the scribes believed. I don't want to instigate a debate here, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Quintessence]

You're literate, they weren't. I'm not saying they were dumb, I'm saying that modern people may be imposing modern sensibilities on people we don't know all that much about based on what the scribes believed. I don't want to instigate a debate here, so I'll leave it at that.

Yes, I'm aware - it doesn't take modern language or sensibilities to look at the world around you, then be awe-inspired by it and recognize your dependency on it. Have you read books like "Spell of the Sensuous" by David Abrams? I would strongly recommend, because it gets at what I'm talking about here as well as directly addresses how alphabetic language and literacy relate to this.

The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a…

Winner of the International Lannan Literary Award for N…

www.goodreads.com

 

[Spice]

You're literate, they weren't. I'm not saying they were dumb, I'm saying that modern people may be imposing modern sensibilities on people we don't know all that much about based on what the scribes believed. I don't want to instigate a debate here, so I'll leave it at that.

I'm not implying they had more knowledge than modern man, but I believe they probably had much more active analytical thinking and executive functioning. Modern brains are becoming lazy, IMO, thanks to technology and lack of personal need.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There are a couple of places in Tanach that demonstrate that the prophets were quite aware that the statues weren't thought to be the gods themselves. So another thing to think about is why does Tanach typically depict pagan cult as as being literal statue, stone and tree worship?

Go on. What do you think the answer to that is?

 

[Harel13]

Go on. What do you think the answer to that is?

I've been thinking about it for a few years now, but I can only speculate. In my opinion, though the prophets were well aware of a more complex pagan theology, they preferred to depict pagan worship as something less intellectual so as to further delegitimize it. In the few places that the prophets allude to knowledge of complex pagan theology, there was a particular necessity for that in. But in general, they pushed for delegitimization, and this is one of the routes they chose.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I've been thinking about it for a few years now, but I can only speculate. In my opinion, though the prophets were well aware of a more complex pagan theology, they preferred to depict pagan worship as something less intellectual so as to further delegitimize it. In the few places that the prophets allude to knowledge of complex pagan theology, there was a particular necessity for that in. But in general, they pushed for delegitimization, and this is one of the routes they chose.

That is a very interesting idea, and I'm glad you shared it. In order for me to make up my mind about it, I would have to examine the verses that indicate this. I will keep my eyes open.