#monolatry

[i-love-comparative-religion]

I seriously don’t understand why more people aren’t talking more about this. I think it’s interesting!

https://academia.edu/resource/work/122323191

#AddsContext

(Academia.edu = #academic papers)

#CanaaniteReligion, #UgaritReligion, #El, #Yahweh, #polytheism, #monolatry, #monotheism, #HistoryOfReligion

[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.

[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!

[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.

[aqlstar]

the word is actually monolatry, not monoidolatry!

Copy that 👍

[weemietime]

Yeah, it isn't vague at all. Judaism started out as monolatry (maybe other shit exists but Hashem is the true guy) only because they were trying to convert people. But when we stopped proselytizing, we collectively decided to close our practices, and cultural holdovers like this no longer held relevance because Jews believe our thing and other people believe whatever else.

The prohibition of idolatry is crucial to religious Judaism. The way I tend to look at it is similar to how G-d made the Tower of Babel. He wanted different languages and cultures. And G-d most likely can violate the laws of physics, making superposition and temporal dilation trivial.

So what I gather from this is that G-d wants Jews to believe in G-d as how we envision him, and every other religion and culture believe in their god/s (yes, multiple, bc to me it's all part of that same entity whether it looks like a single object or multiple objects).

G-d tells Jews that we must worship him as a single object, but other cultures and other religions can worship their gods and their spiritual practices and beliefs how they're meant to.

Reminder that going into a conversion to Judaism with the idea that you will practice it as a syncretism with some other religion is basically like getting engaged to a monogamous woman while having a side girl that she knows nothing about so that you can eventually convince her after the marriage to allow you to be poly to "make the marriage work."

Just don't do it. It's gross and disingenuous. If you really think what you're doing is fine, go ahead and talk to your rabbi about it. See how they feel still converting you.