#monolatry

[rh35211]

Henotheism

Henotheism (Greek "one god") is a term coined by Max Müller, to mean devotion to a single primary god while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities. Müller stated that henotheism means "monotheism in principle and polytheism in fact". He made the term a center of his criticism of Western theological and religious exceptionalism (relative to Eastern religions), focusing on a cultural dogma which held "monotheism" to be both fundamentally well-defined and inherently superior to differing conceptions of God.

Variations on the term have been inclusive monotheism and monarchical polytheism, designed to differentiate differing forms of the phenomenon. Related terms are monolatrism and kathenotheism, which are typically understood as sub-types of henotheism. The latter term is an extension of "henotheism", from (kath' hena theon) —"one god at a time". Henotheism is similar but less exclusive than monolatry because a monolator worships only one god, while the henotheist may worship any within the pantheon, depending on circumstances. In some belief systems, the choice of the supreme deity within a henotheistic framework may be determined by cultural, geographical, historical or political reasons.

[robot-roadtrip-rants]

Hang on, hang on, that's just not right. I can see how you might take a monolatrous interpretation from certain parts of the Bible, but there are just as many monotheist sections. I mean for heaven's sake:

שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל ה אֱלֹקינוּ ה אֶחָֽד

"Hear O Israel, Hashem is our God, Hashem is one."

Like. That's not an ambiguous statement.

Or later on, in Psalms 115:

עֲצַבֵּיהֶם, כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב; מַעֲשֵׂה, יְדֵי אָדָם פֶּה-לָהֶם, וְלֹא יְדַבֵּרוּ; עֵינַיִם לָהֶם, וְלֹא יִרְאוּ אָזְנַיִם לָהֶם, וְלֹא יִשְׁמָעוּ; אַף לָהֶם, וְלֹא יְרִיחוּן. יְדֵיהֶם, וְלֹא יְמִישׁוּן--רַגְלֵיהֶם, וְלֹא יְהַלֵּכוּ; לֹא-יֶהְגּוּ, בִּגְרוֹנָם Their idols are of silver and gold; they are the works of the hands of men. They have mouths and do not speak; they have eyes and do not see They have ears and do not hear; they have noses and do not smell They have hands and do not touch--they have feet and do not walk; they do not speak with their throats

"LOL check out these LOSERS worshipping shiny objects, unlike US who worship the REAL deal! *Duck Hunting dog laugh*"

And then there's stories like Eliyahu challenging the priests of Baal to a god-off, where the priests can't get any response from Baal no matter what rituals they perform (1 Kings 18). You could interpret that as a monolatrous story where Hashem is just waaaaaaay more powerful than Baal, I suppose. But the story strikes me more as a demonstration of the non-existence of Baal. Just look at verses 26 and 27:

They took the bull that was given them; they prepared it, and invoked Baal by name from morning until noon, shouting, "O Baal, answer us!" But there was no sound, and none who responded; so they performed a hopping dance about the alert that had been set up. When noon came, Elijah mocked them, saying, "Shout louder! After all, he is a god. But he may be in conversation, he may be detained, or he may be on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and will wake up."

That doesn't sound like a taunt about the power of Baal. That sounds like a mockery of the Canaanite conception of gods and godhood.

I do agree with that there's a monolatrous > monotheist drift in very, very early Judaism (Israelism?). But you're talking about the Tanakh like it's a purely monolatrous book when it isn't.

hey good faith question- do you mind elaborating on judaism’s belief of g-d not being the ‘one true g-d’ and just the ‘g-d of the hebrews?

sure, but keep in mind that I wasn't raised in a religious house, so I'm not an expert and this could be inaccurate, you could wait to see if other people would elaborate in reblogs or replies.

a lot of religions have the belief that they worship the true g-d(s) and everyone else is wrong and are worshipping (a) false g-d(s). I believe Christianity works like that.

in the Tanach, there is no claim that other religions' g-ds don't exist, in fact, there are instances were miracles from other g-ds happen, but the jewish g-d is described as unique and stronger than others.

for example, in the story of The Exodus (is that how יציאת מצרים is called in english), when Moses comes to the Pharaoh for the first time to ask to release the Hebrews, he showcases Hashem's (the Jewish g-d) strength by turning his staff into a snake, the Pharaoh's magicians(?) then proceed to also turn their staffs into snakes, but Moses's snake eats theirs. the story doesn't show their g-ds as non-existent, they gave the magicians the same powers as Hashem, but the power of Hashem was stronger and thus Moses's snake won over the other snakes.

foreign worship is banned in Judaism, not because the foreign g-ds are false, but because they're not Hashem, I don't know how to explain it but that's how it works.

[ofshivelight]

this morning i started rambling about monolatry and roman religion at the end of torah study and had to harness my full willpower to make myself shut up and stop holding everybody hostage in the temple parking lot

[fdelopera]

I’m Christian but want to challenge what I’ve been taught after seeing your posts about the Old Testament having cut up the Torah to fit a different narrative. Today I was taught that the Hebrew word Elohim is the noun for God as plural and therefore evidence of the holy Trinity and Jesus & Holy Spirit been there at creation. Is that what the word Elohim actually means? Because I don’t want to be party to the Jewish faith, language and culture being butchered by blindly trusting what I was told

Hi Anon.

NOPE! The reason G-d is sometimes called Elohim in the Tanakh is because during the First Temple period (circa 1000 – 587 BCE), many of the ancestors of the Jewish people in the Northern and Southern Kingdoms practiced polytheism.

(A reminder that the Tanakh is the Hebrew bible, and is NOT the same as the “Old Testament” in Christian bibles. Tanakh is an acronym, and stands for Torah [Instruction], Nevi’im [Prophets], Ketuvim [Writings].)

Elohim is the plural form of Eloah (G-d), and these are some of the names of G-d in Judaism. Elohim literally means “Gods” (plural).

El was the head G-d of the Northern Kingdom’s pantheon, and the Southern Kingdom of Judah incorporated El into their worship as one of the many names of G-d.

The name Elohim is a vestige of that polytheistic past.

Judaism transitioned from monolatry (worshiping one G-d without denying the existence of others) to true monotheism in the years during and directly after the Babylonian exile (597 – 538 BCE). That is largely when the Torah was edited into the form that we have today. In order to fight back against assimilation into polytheistic Babylonian society, the Jews who were held captive in Babylon consolidated all gods into one G-d. Shema Yisrael Adonai eloheinu Adonai ehad. “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.”

So Elohim being a plural word for “Gods” has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of the Holy Trinity in Christianity.

Especially because Christians are monotheists. My understanding of the Holy Trinity (please forgive me if this is incorrect) is that Christians believe that the Holy Trinity is three persons in one Godhead. Certainly, the Holy Trinity is not “three Gods” — that would be blasphemy.

(My sincere apologies to the Catholics who just read this last sentence and involuntarily cringed about the Protestants who’ve said this. I’m so sorry! I’m just trying to show that it’s a fallacy to say that the Holy Trinity somehow comes from “Elohim.”)

But there's something else here, too. Something that as a Jew, makes me uneasy about the people who are telling you these things about Elohim and the Holy Trinity.

Suggesting that Christian beliefs like the Holy Trinity can somehow be "found" in the Tanakh is antisemitic.

This is part of “supersession theory.” This antisemitic theory suggests that Christianity is somehow the "true successor" to Second Temple Judaism, which is false.

Modern Rabbinic Judaism is the true successor to Second Temple Judaism. Period.

Christianity began as an apocalyptic Jewish mystery cult in the 1st century CE, in reaction to Roman rule. One of the tactics that the Romans used to subdue the people they ruled over was a “divide and conquer” strategy, which sowed division and factionalization in the population. The Romans knew that it was easier to control a country from the outside if the people inside were at each other’s throats.

Jesus led one of many breakaway Jewish sects at the time. The Jewish people of Qumran (possibly Essenes), whose Tanakh was the “Dead Sea Scrolls,” were another sect.

Please remember that the Tanakh was compiled in the form that we have today over 500 years before Jesus lived. Some of the texts in the Tanakh were passed down orally for maybe a thousand years before that, and texts like the Song of Deborah in the Book of Judges (in the Tanakh, that’s in the Nevi’im) were first written down in Archaic Biblical Hebrew during the First Temple Period.

There is absolutely nothing of Jesus or Christianity in the Tanakh, and there is nothing in the Tanakh that in any way predicts Christianity.

Also, Christians shouldn’t use Judaism in any way to try to “legitimize” Christianity. Christianity was an offshoot of 1st century Judaism, which then incorporated a lot of Roman Pagan influence. It is its own valid religion, in all its forms and denominations.

But trying to use the Hebrew bible to give extra credence to ideas like the Holy Trinity is antisemitic.

It is a tactic used by Christian sects that want to delegitimize Judaism as a religion by claiming that Christianity was somehow “planted” in the Tanakh over 2500 years ago.

This line of thinking has led Christians to mass murder Jews in wave after wave of antisemitic violence over the last nearly 2000 years, because our continued existence as Jews challenges the notion that Christians are the “true” successors of Temple Judaism.

Again, the only successor of Temple Judaism is Rabbinic Judaism, aka Modern Judaism.

This line of thinking has also gotten Christians to force Jews to convert en masse throughout the ages. If Christians can get Jews to all convert to Christianity, then they don’t have to deal with the existential challenge to this core misapprehension about the “true” successor to Temple Judaism.

And even today, many Christians still believe that they should try to force Jews to “bend the knee” to Jesus. When I was a young teenager, a preacher who was a parent at the school I went to got me and two other Jewish students to get in his car after a field trip. After he had trapped us in his car, he spent the next two hours trying to get us to convert to Christianity. It was later explained to me that some Christians believe they get extra “points” for converting Jews. And I’m sure he viewed this act of religious and spiritual violence as something he could brag about to his congregation on Sunday.

Trying to get Jews to convert is antisemitic and misguided, and it ignores all the rich and beautiful history of Jewish practice.

We Jews in diaspora in America and Europe have a forced immersion in Christian culture. It is everywhere around us, so we learn a lot about Christianity through osmosis. Many Jews also study early Christianity because Christianity exists as a separate religion within our Jewish history.

But I don’t see a lot of Christians studying Jewish history. Even though studying Jewish history would give you a wealth of understanding and context for your own religious traditions.

So, all of this is to say, I encourage you to study Jewish history and Jewish religious practice. Without an understanding of the thousands of years of Jewish history, it is easy to completely misinterpret the Christian bible, not to mention the Hebrew bible as well.

[thesiltverses]

So the silt verses is a polytheistic society but it's clear that plenty of people only do Monolatry, i.e. worshipping one god while accepting the existence of others. What proportion of people actually worship more than one god, whether they come as a set (like the snuff gods) or just worship multiple seemingly unrelated gods.

Well, we've definitely mentioned interconnected pantheons before (the Petropater is described explicitly as a holy trinity of fossil fuels) and we've seen a couple of characters who openly pay homage to a couple of gods at once (Sid Wright is obviously sacrificing himself to the Grindinglord but also praises the Saint Electric for the power of radio).

It's also clear that there are plenty of people, like Hayward in s1, who hold themselves emotionally at a distance from the gods as a whole and pay lip service to any of them when required.

But we wouldn't quantify that as a proportion of society or shine too much of a light on people who are 'successfully' worshipping multiple gods at once, because that would give the audience the impression that it's possible to reach a kind of safe, happy equilibrium in this world and that personal moderation and balance is the answer - when in fact, all of these things are hungering for your attention and your flesh, and all of them want to be the thing that consumes you.

[mapsontheweb]

The world of Abraham, 18th century BC.

via cartesdhistoire

Source: « Histoire universelle des Juifs », Élie Barnavi, Hachette, 1992

Abraham, the father of monotheism, is with Isaac and Jacob one of the three patriarchs who founded the Jewish people. The biblical story of Genesis describes the wanderings of the Patriarchs across the Fertile Crescent, from the mouth of the Euphrates to the land of Canaan. The Bible places the Patriarchs in space but not in time, even if we can assume that Abraham lived in the 18th century. av. AD

Judaism constitutes the first expression of monotheism, but this appearance, far from being sudden, was the result of a slow evolution. Already in Mesopotamia, each state favored one deity among the many that populated its pantheon. In Egypt, the pharaoh Akhenaten (1353-1337 BC) had decided to worship only the god Aten and to do so had launched a vast iconoclastic campaign intended to eradicate all traces of worship of the god Amon. Here we see the outline of a shift towards henotheism, namely the idea that if there are several divinities, one of them is superior to the others.

From henotheism comes monolatry, namely the fact of worshiping only one god without denying that there are others. The development of henotheism stems from a form of nationalization of the gods which was notably encouraged by the Achaemenid Persians within their empire. In the biblical story of the Exodus, the alliance that the prophet Moses concluded with Yahweh was conditioned by the latter on the fact that the people of Israel made him their sole and exclusive god and renounced honoring others, which clearly shows that the existence of other gods is then recognized.

It was only around the 6th century. av. BC that Judaism asserts itself as a monotheism, that is to say that it postulates the existence of a single and universal god and therefore considers any other religious belief to be false. The true innovation introduced by monotheism is not so much the idea of divine unity as that of exclusivity and, with it, of truth.

[aerial-jace]

Re: biblical analysis

I had a bit of a hard time when I was deconstructing coming to terms with how much I love a good Jesus metaphor

But yeah it's a book that a lot of people had be the basis of their literary development, and it's cool to see the themes pop up in other places

But you have to treat it like a book to be analyzed

I find the Bible fascinating from like a history of religion kind of perspective.

Biblical archaeology is not exactly my area but I do know a bit about it and when it's not a "Heinrich Schliemann looking for Troy with a shovel on one hand and a copy of the Illiad in the other" type of situation the Bible is an incredibly helpful tool in analysis and contextualization not only of the archaeology of the Levant but of the Near East as a whole.

I'm particularly fascinated by what close historical readings tell us about the development of Levantine religion during the time of its redaction. From Canaanite polytheism into Israelite monolatry and monotheism right down to Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity. It's such a rich source for thousands of years of extremely foundational history.

I've also been learning a lot more about Judaism recently thanks to the exposure of my Jewish mutuals and general connection to the Jumblr community on here. Hearing their perspective on these texts I was familiar with as a Christian has been really illuminating and has really opened my eyes about the VAST gulfs there exist.

I really recommend this website, Better Parables, which contextualizes the Jesus parables in its first century Jewish context and provides very interesting exegesis of them from a Jewish perspective. It's one of my current favorite Bible scholarship resources and it's really made me want to dive deeper into Jewish responses to Christian texts. I especially rally am itching to read the Jewish Anotated New Testament but I'm refraining because I do NOT need to make an unwise financial decision and buy a book like that right now.

[a-witch-in-endor]

Three Jewish Commonwealths: Reflections on Religion

Today has been Yom Ha’atzma’ut, or Israel’s Independence Day. I’ve been thinking about what it means to live within a historical period while able to reflect on past time periods, and my “thinking out loud” (or: via tumblr post) on that has turned into this slightly unhinged text on the history of religious development in the three Jewish Commonwealths. I have no excuse. Just lots of thoughts. Feel free to join me on a meandering path through religious history...

Please note: my expertise is religious studies, not in modern politics. If you have a unique perspective or expertise in politics, I’m generally happy to chat (recently met a previous head of the Shin Bet; it was intense; I was interested and frightened), but at this point I have learned Too Much and it is all falling out of my ears, so I won’t be engaging much with political discussions. 

The First Jewish Commonwealth: ???? BCE - 586 BCE 

When and how did the First Jewish Commonwealth come about? The truth is: we don’t really know. 

The earliest potential reference to Israel is the Merneptah Stele (1213 BCE - 1203 BCE). It’s absolutely gorgeous! Behold!

https://www.worldhistory.org/image/9384/stele-of-merenptah/

Does it refer to Israel? Maybe. I’d err on the side of “probably”. The hieroglyphs do lend to being read as “Israel”, and the context would make sense. But there are alternative readings, and it’s an unusually early reference. For comparison, David (second king of United Israel, after what the Bible reports to be a long period of “Judges” [read: tribal chieftans]) looks to be around at 1000 BCE. 

And here is the recent discovery at Mount Ebal in Hebrew, which parallels almost absurdly well with a Torah story, which is dated to around 1200 BCE.

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/inscriptions/mt_ebal_inscription/

So let’s assume that we’re unsure about the stele but happy with the tablets. The tablets tell us a few things: worship of the God of Israel was already in place (note: it does not tell us the extent, just the existence); Hebrew literacy had begun; the Torah story of the curses of Mt Ebal have some kind of historical basis. 

The Jewish cultural narrative is that the Israelites were slaves in Egypt, escaped with Divine aid, spent 40 years in the wilderness, and ended up in the Holy Land (where some of their ancestors had previously been but had left due to famine). It’s a great story. In terms of its historicity, it’s unclear. Until recently, archaeologists were tending toward being minimalists and stating that basically nothing was historically accurate up to, really, the reign of King David. It turns out, some hats do need to be eaten (due to things like the stele and tablets above), but they can keep some of their hats.

In terms of historical evidence outside archaeology, there are some fun linguistic and historical-social reasons to assume that at least some of the people who would come to call themselves Israelites had an experience of slavery in Egypt. For more on this, I recommend Richard Elliot Freidman’s “The Exodus” (biblical scholar; thesis: a small group went through slavery and came to Israel, introduced their monotheism/monolatry, and the story became part of the cultural narrative) and Jan Assman’s “Moses the Egyptian: the Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism” (egyptologist; thesis: the short-lived monotheistic/monolatric cult of Pharaoh Akhenaten influenced Jewish, and therefore monotheistic, history). 

(Also, by-the-by, they’re both wonderful guys as well as fascinating scholars.) 

What we do know is: there was a monotheistic cult (or perhaps a monolatric cult) who worshipped what we now recognise as “God” with a capital G. There was a certain amount of theological messiness with Canaanite polytheism (inasmuch as polytheism really exists, which is a rant for another day). The lines between the two are very blurry indeed, which indicates that much of what we now think of as “Israelite” religion was really a development within “Canaanite” religion. Genetically speaking, we know that “Israelites” and “Canaanites” were really the same people. So it’s a safe assumption, when one adds the archaeology and the genetics and the linguistics all together, to see the development of the Israelite religion as internal to the Land of Canaan/Israel, as well as pondering how/when/to whom an exodus from Egypt really occurred. 

That’s a short note on the origins of Israel. By the time we get to King David, we’re more comfortably in Israelite history, though how united his reign really was remains unclear. But we do know that, however united it might have been under his son King Solomon, it was not destined to remain that way. 

The Time of Two Kingdoms: The Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Judah

The good news is that we’re in more solid territory, archaeologically speaking. 

The bad news is that the kingdom split asunder. The Southern Kingdom had, in Jerusalem, the Holy Temple (known herein as the First Temple, which is spoiler-y, I suppose). The First Temple was the central place of worship for the monotheistic cult, but it was in constant battle with bamot, or “high places”, where Israelites would worship God (with a capital G) in ways that were, um, a little idolatrous according to the Temple cult. 

In the Northern Kingdom, more bamot were built. According to the biblical narrative (which, at this point in biblical literature, is mostly dry history with a good helping of Polemic Against the North), King Jeroboam I (first king of the Northern Kingdom of Israel) built two particular sanctuaries at Beth El and Dan, in which he placed two golden calves for worship. Cows were certainly an important religious symbol, and golden calves have an, um, historical... thread... in Israelite religion, so it’s entirely possible it played out this way. I’ve been to the ruins of Dan and the sanctuary there, which fit pretty well with what the biblical narrative describes. Beth El is a lot trickier to identify, and if it has been found (which is arguable), it doesn’t really seem to align as well. 

The Southern Kingdom fluctuates in terms of religious practice, but seems to stick more clearly to what we would recognise from biblical literature. However, to be clear, this is because the Southern Kingdom of Judah is where most of the biblical literature gets written, and even when it doesn’t get written there, it usually gets edited there. So take its aspersion on the North with a grain of kosher salt. 

The North Falls: 722 BCE

The Northern Kingdom eventually falls to the Neo-Assyrian Empire. The entire land was divided into tribal settlements even when it was “United”. The North consists of Ten Tribes. The South is mostly just Judah, which is where it got its name. Therefore, when the Northern Kingdom of Israel was dispersed, we mostly lost ten whole tribes. It’s a huge upset to Israelite history, and certainly to the history of religious development in the area. The Southern relationship with the Temple tightens. Whatever was going on in the North, religiously, is understood by the Southern Kingdom to have been their downfall. 

(Note: some groups claim to be part of the Ten Northern Tribes. Most famously, Ethiopian Jews have an oral history of descent from the Tribe of Dan. While we don’t know the historicity of that claim, the Ethiopian Jewish community is old af, with whispers of their existence reaching the mainstream Jewish community as early as the 9th Century CE, so it’s certainly plausible. Most Ethiopian Jews now live in the Modern State of Israel, having arrived under the Law of Return after fleeing persecution. Their experience is a mixed bag; better than Ethiopia, and with much love of the Holy Land, but Israel retains a racism problem that is having a significant impact on their ability to thrive.)

The First Exile: 586ish BCE - 538ish BCE

We’re in safer hands now, historically speaking. Israel is enough of an entity that not only are they popping up everywhere archaeologically, but the story of the exile itself is recorded (above is a pretty cuneiform tablet referencing the exile, from 580ish BCE, in the Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin). 

The Babylonian Exile began and ended in stages, which means that while we do know when things occurred, it’s harder to define when the exile actually began and ended. For the Israelites, this meant life without access to a) the Holy Land, which the entire religion was built on, and b) the Holy Temple, where worship occurred. In this time, we see the first seedlings of religious practice being community-based in a way that wasn’t, um, arguably idolatrous according to the Temple cult. We might call this the beginning of the era of synagogues. 

The seeds of messianic redemption are born in a pre-exile world, and probably sustain the Jews through the First Exile. The idea is messy and contradictory, but it boils down to: God will bring us home. Jeremiah tells the exiles to pray for the country in which they reside (which is the basis of the Prayer for the Country that Jews still do in synagogues today). 

Why did this exile happen (historically) and why did the exiles think it happened? Largely, the First Exile was due to a game of politics. The kingdoms were small and needed to make allies, and variously become vassals of other states, and sometimes made decisions that were obviously poor in the grand scheme of history but weren’t so obviously poor at the time. The story retained in the South would be mixed explanations about turning against God: idolatry, lack of trust, trying to play games with empires instead of just trusting that God would protect, etc.

But what really bothers me about it is: if the North and South had managed to be consistent allies with one another, or perhaps not split in the first place, they probably would have been in a much stronger position. But it seems they were constantly squabbling with one another, including (but not limited to) royal assassinations. And in a sea filled with bigger, more dangerous fish, it probably doomed them more than a little. 

Return From Exile (Thanks to Cyrus the Messiah): 538ish BCE

Big picture history: the Neo-Assyrian Empire went caput, giving a brief period of terrifying political vacuum (at which point the Southern Kingdom of Judah kept changing its mind on allies and betting on the wrong horses), leading to the rise of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. The Assyrians had scattered the Northern Kingdom of Israel (722 BCE). The Babylonians then exiled the Southern Kingdom of Judah (destruction of the First Temple was 586 BCE). Then the Babylonians fell to the Persians, and we came to the reign of the only non-Jewish king referred to as a moshiach (messiah) in biblical literature: Cyrus the Great. 

We love him. Why? Because Cyrus had some weirdly forward-thinking views about religion, and he sent the Jews home and supported the rebuilding of the Holy Temple.

The Cyrus Cylinder details how Cyrus was in the practice of sending peoples home and restored shrines. We stan one (1) Achaemenidian Emperor. 

The Second Jewish Commonwealth: 586ish BCE - 70 CE

Second Temple Judaism was a slightly different creature. The Israelites had now survived being uprooted from the sacred land and had to deal with what it meant to, well, replant themselves on it. This is the period in which the prophets of old drew their last breaths and a more textual Judaism came to be. 

Some scholars argue that this is when the religion developed from monolatry (the worship of one god, but the belief that many exist) to monotheism (the belief that there is only one God). Honestly, I am decreasingly convinced that any of these labels reflect religious reality anyway, so take what you want from that. However, the idea that the experience of being away from the land belonging to the local god could develop into the concept that there truly is only One God is, in itself, fascinating as a development. 

Our expectations, when an indigenous religion is uprooted from the land, might be that the development is a) defensive (a scramble to keep the culture and practices alive, sometimes to the point of adapting in opposition to the surrounding culture), b) inwardly assimilative (not always deliberately, the beliefs/culture/practices of the surroundings become part of the indigenous religion), and c) outwardly assimilative (not always deliberately, the beliefs/culture/practices of the indigenous group become part of the surroundings). If we agree with the scholars who claim that monotheism was a development of exile, we have quite a bizarre example of religious development which fits under none of those categories. 

(Super interested in examples of other indigenous cultures developing in exile in a way that doesn’t fit a, b, or c. Do reach out if you know of any.)

But the newly-returned exiles aren’t safe. Yehud/Judea is still a teeny thing without much political power. It goes through phases of vassalhood, independence, and occupation (famously by the Greeks, who then got booted out in a rebellion, which you might know as the Story of Chanukah). 

The Second Temple Mark I was a bit plain compared to the First Temple, but became absolutely glorious when restructured under the reign of Herod. However, it never quite gains complete centrality. The reason now is less to do with alternative worship (such as the bamot of old), but rather to do with groups like the Pharisees (a group devoted to the working classes, interested in literacy and learning, and... you know, law and stuff, we stan) and the Essenes (who say “fuck it, everything’s corrupt, let’s go to the wilderness and not have babies for some reason”). 

Messianism/redemption theology continues to develop, now utilising the previous exile-and-return as a model for what will happen in the future, too. Various messianic figures pop up, famously including Bar Kokhba (a military leader who led a rebellion aimed at Jewish independence from Roman occupation). He turns out to be one of the most influential messianic figures, because the failure of his great revolt led to...

The Second Exile: 70 CE - 1948 CE?

The Romans eventually got tired of the people they were occupying fighting back and decided to squash all future rebellion through... well, murder, destruction, and exile. The Second Temple was destroyed. Due to the seeds planted by the Pharisees (regarding Jewish practice of individuals and communities being able to exist outside of the Temple-based system), Rabbinic Judaism is able to grow from the ashes of the Temple. It was not a guarantee that Judaism could survive at all, but thanks to the rabbinic movement and the fact that the Jews had survived one exile, Judaism struggled forward. 

Why did this exile happen and how was it understood? Historically, we can point to the constant occupations and empires. But the rabbis have woven different narratives alongside the politics: it happened because of sinat chinam, they said; “baseless hatred” between Jews. Or it happened because leaders were so interested in harsh justice and forgot that mercy has always been a part of the law. Either way, the surviving story is less interested in the evil of the Roman Empire and more interested in how our values and actions on an individual level spin out of control and affect the whole world. It’s a slightly less theological explanation. While the First Exile was due to “God is punishing us”, the Second Exile is understood more along the lines of “we caused this with our actions and values”. 

The Second Exile stretches long and far. Empires fall, as they are wont to, and other empires colonise and capture and conflict with one another. Jews spread out farther than ever before, but whenever they set down roots anywhere, expulsion is a constant threat. 

Christianity develops out of a mixture of Judaism and Hellenism, based on the cult following of a messianic figure, and crawls to a position of power and then starts running in the way it spreads. Islam is birthed by a single central leader with inspiration from both Christianity and Judaism and is immediately on the move and spreading. Christian and Islamic political entities conflict with one another. Things are generally worse for Jews in Christendom and pogroms are a semi-constant threat. Ashkenazi Jews, as a result, become more religiously defensive (see point a above) and develop a firmer view of the law. Rule under Islamic empires is usually better, but maintains a level of hostility, such as special taxes being levied and not being allowed to be physically “above Muslims”. 

The messianic dream continues to develop; the idea that “God will take us home” remains a deep and important thread in Jewish religion and liturgy. Jewish languages develop out of Hebrew and relationship with the outside world, such as Judeo-Arabic and Yiddish. Jews suspicious of the outside world tend to be more entrenched in messianic ideals. 

The Enlightenment seems like a positive thing for Jewish life in exile; many Jews get increasingly comfortable with life in exile. Some are more suspicious, due to events such as the Dreyfus Affair, and start to deliberately move the messianic dream into a potential political reality, now referred to as Zionism. The messianic dream becomes a political goal to end exile. 

Big picture history: The land is captured and colonised and recaptured time and time again. For a very brief version, it goes (deep breath): Roman Empire into Byzantine Empire, conquered by the Arab Caliphate (7th Century), conquered by the Fatimid Caliphate (10th Century), some skirmishes with the Byzantines wanting things back, into the Crusades where it went back and forth for centuries (no fun at all, do not recommend, zero stars), then the Mongols turned up and were ultimately defeated by the Egyptian Mamluks (13th Century), who were then conquered by the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire (16th Century), who were then defeated by the British (20th Century). Phew.

In this time, the holy site of the Temple (”Temple Mount”, or Mount Moriah) has been the site of the First Temple (destroyed by the Babylonians), the site of the Second Temple (destroyed by the Romans), the site of Al-Aqsa Mosque / the Dome of the Rock (still there), and, briefly, an Augustinian Church (I admittedly do not know how they did this, but I imagine they just turned up and said “this is a church now”). 

Back to the exile itself: one third of all Jews were murdered in the 20th Century in the Sho’ah. (We’ve just about recovered those raw numbers at this point, but the world population has gone from 2 billion to 8 billion in that time - so in reality, we’re a quarter of what we should be.) The British were occupying a land with some significant violence occurring and no living empire to give it back to, and they overpromised to get allies. A mess was made. The UN made a half-hearted suggestion about trying to fulfill two promises at once, and we get to...

The Third Jewish Commonwealth (1948 CE - present)

I’m going to make an assumption here that you know some of this story already, and we’re treading into “modern politics” land, which is neither my forte nor my interest. In short: Everything was a mess when the British left. Israel declared independence. The Nakba. The war, then another war, then another war. There have been small glimmers of hope and then everything has crashed back to being terrible again. 

Religiously, the establishment of the Third Jewish Commonwealth has had a really interesting impact on self-definition. Did exile end with 1948? Some say yes; we’re now in diaspora rather than exile. Some say no; there might be a Law of Return, but with the state of the State, it’s hardly true that all Jews feel safe returning, and there’s no reason to think of diaspora as meaningfully different to exile. This brings up questions of Jewish identity worldwide. Are we a people exiled or a people redeemed? Is it possible to be neither of those things? Do we understand the establishment of the State in the kind of theological terms we understood the return from Babylonian Exile, or does the fact that we ultimately drew our understanding of the Second Exile from naturalistic/value-based/human causes mean that we see the “end of the exile” in the same ways?

There are no good answers to the above questions. Communities and individuals are split. On the one hand, it’s miraculous. On the other hand, it’s really, really not. 

In general, something that I think is religiously fascinating about Take Three is that the Jewish population is split between the very religious and the very secular. The middle path, what I might call Mainstream Judaism (from mainstream Orthodoxy through to Reform Judaism) barely exists at all. But what divides the Chareidim (ultra-religious) from the Chilonim (secular) is not a matter of Jewish identity or relationship with the land; it’s just a difference in whether or not religion matters. The answers appear to be “absolutely yes” and “absolutely no”, without much room for anything between. There is a kind of symbiotic relationship between the two sides, but they are very much two sides.

That there is such secularism is of course partly due to living in the modern world. But it also tells of a whole new relationship to the land. Chilonim still identify with the ancestral homeland, still see it as sacred in a sense, but don’t tie this sanctity to God. 

Why is the middle missing? Why has mainstream Judaism failed to get a foothold in the Third Jewish Commonwealth? It’s not for lack of trying. I’m at a bit of a loss as to why this would be the case. Looking back to Take One and Take Two, I can see how the development in the area led to the religious/political groups, but I’m at a loss for this one. Perhaps it’s about the impact of politics requiring people to take more extreme stances. Perhaps the trend is toward secularism, but the Chareidim just have so many babies that it bucks the trend. Perhaps middle-of-the-road Judaism is only appealing in exile/diaspora. 

And that brings me to the end of my musings. This has been on my mind because Israel’s democracy is currently under internal threat, which I find interesting in comparison to the First and Second Jewish Commonwealths. As Kohelet would say: there’s nothing new under the sun. 

[macla539ac]

Shamanism > Polytheism > Henotheism > Monolatry > Monotheism > "My heart is pure"

[mercurycore]

okay i'm starting to think that monolatry is the right path for me. it makes more sense to me that multiple entities exist in different places around the world. as long as i only worship big g God, i think i should be fine. i simply will just respect the presence of other spiritual beings as i move through life.

[bestworstcase]

like fundamentally rwby as a narrative is not antitheist. it’s a critique of christian-style monotheism (or monolatry if you want to be more precise) with the god of light’s evil being rooted in his determination to set himself up as a capital-g God, his and his brother’s consequent abdication of their responsibilities as gods, and the immense unfolding devastation this has caused; part of the healing process necessarily involves the restoration of the small-g god as a quantifiable social role and equal participant in the practice of religion. modern humans are spiritually whole and fulfilled in ways that ancient humans were not because the monolatrous hegemony enforced by the god of light was irrevocably shattered by salem through her deaths and resurrections. this is like. the beating heart of the story

[jasontoddiefor]

1 for the asks?

1. What fic of yours would you recommend to someone who had never read any of your work? (In other words, what do you think is the best introduction to your fics?)

Probably monolatry of the angry (take blood now)!

It has all things I’d consider identifying of my my writing i.e. worldbuilding, complicated relationships to parenthood, the theme of change, funky character relationships bordering on codependency, and politics!

It’s a very niche fic, but it hits most of my vibes so I’d recommend that!

Though, if we’re going by current fandom deeper than the ink truly is my love letter to fix-it’s.

Ask me a writing question!

[thetwistedrope]

Just out of curiosity, what are Kemetics' thoughts on Amon, Amenhotep, and Amenhotep forcing monotheism on Egypt for a while and basically trying to erase the ntrw?

i'm guessing these names aren't fully right because i see amenhotep twice. but the mention of monotheism makes me think you're referencing amarna and akhenaten

tbh, amarna isn't monotheism, its a really hardcore form of monolatry, which is to say that the ntrw didn't disappear, they just all packed into one entity, for better or worse. it's a really interesting experimental phase of the religion and the only authors to make amarna remotely interesting to me were Alison Roberts and Kemp.

kemp has been/was the main overseer for the amarna dig, so he knows the amarna material probably better than anyone else, and he swears its not monotheistic in nature. Roberts talks about how the amarna phase is more monolatric than monotheistic, and really breaks down the entire era in a way i've not seen many other egyptologists do. she even breaks down the shift in art style and everything.

from a religious standpoint, i don't really have much druthers about it either way, like, i think that seti and ramses coulda fkn dialed it back a bit. i personally really dislike the reaction that the NK had to the amarna situation, but like it's all whatever to me. it's very clear that the amarna style was not sustainable, and the idea that you need to go through one (rich) dude can just die in a fire as far as i'm concerned. akhenaten had some problems he needed to work through, that much is certain.

i'm more grumpy that akhenaten did a rubbish job of actually running the country and that ppl suffered for it, but that's rich ppl for you.

but yeah, the amarna "heresy" was not monotheism. i wish popular media would change that narrative because its absolutely wrong, but you know. christianity gonna christianity ig.

[shatar-aethelwynn]

Listening to a presentation and people need to remember that henotheism and monolatry are concepts that exist.

For those who don't know, neither of these are monotheism. Henotheism is the worship of one diety as supreme without claiming that the others don't exist. Monolotry is the worship of one deity exclusively without denying the existence of other deities.

[a-god-in-ruins-rises]

Don't you think the Judeo-Christian tradition deserves some recognition for some things? Like monotheism and charity and social justice and the ending of human sacrifice? Wouldn't you agree that these are good developments that are unique to the Judeo-Christian tradition? Even you say you believe in one ultimate God. Your pagan ancestors didn't believe that. That idea comes from us.

oh boy. this is a big topic(s).

no. i don't think the "judeo-christian tradition" deserves recognition for any of those things. other things maybe. but not any of the things you listed.

monotheism is a dubious term. and it's even more dubious if either christianity or judaism fit the bill. you bring up the fact that i believe in one "ultimate god" as if that's all that is required to qualify as monotheism. and maybe it is. different people have different opinions of what monotheism means. some people distinguish between montheism and monolatry and henotheism. but in any case, the holding up of one divine being above all those is a phenomenon that has independently developed multiple times. but again, this is a complicated topic. we can debate what monotheism is and how it applies to historical religions all day.

charity? oof. this is a huge myth i see all the time. i have no idea where this comes from. it's seriously so absurd and arrogant to think that jews and christians just single-handedly invented the idea of charity. greco-roman philosophy is /littered/ with discourse about charity, generosity, altruism, philanthropy, clemency, liberality, magnanimity, etc. maybe you'll notice that these are all greek and latin words. because they were greek and roman values. and not only did they /discuss/ the philosophy of these ideas (which, by the way, i think is a superior justification than "my holy book says it's good") but they also had /extensive/ policies and institutions in place to put these ideas into practice.

they had free/subsidized public healthcare, free/subsidized grain doles, debt forgiveness, euergetism, the liturgy, the alimenta, temple-sponsored public banquets, private charity, patron-client relationships, associations/collegia, state-sponsored festivals, land distribution, etc. and there's probably other shit i can't recall.

was poverty still an issue? sure. as it has been throughout history. but the point is that christians weren't uniquely concerned with the issue.

hell, even the rigveda, the oldest religious text in history, says "bounteous is he who gives unto the beggar who comes to him in want of food."

and then your claims about social justice and ending human sacrifice are equally ridiculous. the greco-romans were definitely concerned with justice and that includes social justice. again, this is a topic that is heavily discussed throughout greco-roman philosophy. and human sacrifice was banned 100 years before jesus even existed. and it was already so rare by then that it was basically just a symbolic act. how brave of christians to adopt the same social attitude toward human sacrifice (general opposition) that their surrounding society had. as for the jews/israelites, they had plenty of human sacrifice in their history as well. biblically and extrabiblically.

which is whatever to me. i'm not particularly offended by human sacrifice. i've discussed this elsewhere though. it's natural and understandable. i'm just saying that being opposed to human sacrifice isn't a uniquely "judeo-christian" thing. it seems like it's just the natural tendency of civilized cultures. whereas human sacrifice seems to be a natural tendency in primitive cultures.

i think that covers everything.

[torahtot]

מי כמוך באלים ה' is such a weird phrase. was monolatry still around at that point or did it come from earlier and get rewritten as a new makabi phrase in jewish tradition ?