This page is referenced by:

• 1 2019-02-04T05:11:39-08:00 Monotheistic 12 Chapter 3.4 plain 2019-03-24T17:22:09-07:00

  The term “polytheism” derives from a Greek word, πολυϑεΐα, that appears very differently in usage between Aeschylus (writing in the 5^th/6^thcenturies BCE) and Philo of Alexandria (writing between the first centuries BCE and CE.)¹ The former seems to use the term in a particular literal sense of the word, with regard to religious objects dedicated to multiple (associated) deities² In contrast, Philo of Alexandria appears to use the term polemically to condemn non-Jewish “idol worship.”³ Not surprisingly, the adaptation of the word to Jean Bodin’s Démonomanie des sorciers in the 16^thcentury CE appears to be directly inspired by Philo of Alexandria’s usage.⁴ The term monotheism seems to have been coined in English in the 17^thcentury by Henry More in An Explanation of The Grand Mystery of Godliness.⁵ In the second chapter of Book III (under a general heading of “The Pagan Evasion of Polytheism”), More quotes Plutarch’s “Isis and Osiris” in order to offer veiled argument against Unitarian theological movement.⁶ He writes, 

  Lastly, The Ægyptians, a people more infamous for Polytheism and variety of Religions then any nation under the cope of Heaven…the Priests reserving the knowledge of the Unity for the Object of their worship as Arcanum only belonging to themselves….But that This One Object of Worship was not the true God, but the Material World, the very figure they make use of does most naturally intimate; and I have noted above that Mundus and Jupiter in the Pagan Philosophy is one and the same. And Plutarch speaks expresly concerning the Ægyptians…That they account the World or Universe to be the same with the prime God or First Cause of all things. Him the Ægyptians worshipped under the name of Serapis….From which Hypothesis is most easily understood what is meant by that Enigmatical Inscription in the Temple of Sais in Ægypt…I am all that was, and is, and is to come, and my veil no mortall ever did yet uncover. A venerable Riddle under which there lyes not one grane of Truth, unless there be nothing but modified matter in Being. But thus to make the World God, is to make no God at all; and therefore this Kinde of Monotheisme of the Heathen is as rank Atheisme as their Polytheisme was proved to be before.⁷

  More’s antagonistic text reflects the polemical history of the terminology with which he has chosen to deploy his multiple attacks. It is important to understand the way More coins the term “Monotheisme” in order to further the use of “Atheisme” and “Polytheisme” in his argument. This history of usage for these terms reveals that “polytheism” and “monotheism,” as they have been adapted or invented in the modern period are, put simply, “fightin’ words.”

  In order to understand the function of these terms as such, consider some of the points made in this chapter concerning “the fight:”

  1. The archaeological histories of the religions centered around YHWH and Ahura Mazda are told, in large part, through epigraphic sources that provide evidence of (and appear to have been created as a result of) hostile encounters with other societies.
  2. The geographic mobility and spread of these religions appear to have resulted in more of these encounters, more regularly (in some cases more permanently).
  3. The perspectives of peoples encountered, with regard to the relationship between their political, cultural, “ethnic,” and “religious” identities, may have been very different from the worshippers of Ahura Mazda and YHWH.
  4. Social mobility, and the potential for joining these religions, seems to have spread these religions beyond the societies in which they were generated. If this process had effects (on encounters) that reflect anything of Christian and Muslim proselytization throughout history, this may have resulted in hostilities that were ultimately short-lived due to conversion or conflict.
  5. A few of the building blocks comprising these (and other) religions deemed monotheistic, identified by Assmann, included “looking down on other religions as pagan” as part of an understanding of “incompatibility of Truth concepts” with other religions.
  6. The incorporation of “ethnic” and religious enemies in the narratives of the Avestan and Hebrew texts points to the potential role of encounters with the “Other” in identity development.
  7. In the background of these encounters are biological and cultural evolutionary processes that blindly privilege developments and societies that can outcompete one another for survival. This also highlights the fact that these religions have survived into the 21^stcentury.
  8. Finally, it is important to recall the lessons of the four cases studies of religions deemed monotheistic. They show how important the process of deeming has been, and continues to be, to the formation of identity and figuration of the “pagan,” the “incompatible,” or the “Other.”

  The polemical terms “polytheism” and “monotheism” appear to have been born in “the fight” and developed specifically for it. They function to mark out, via processes of “deeming,” who is in (friend) and who is out (foe). Although the intention may be less polemic, usage of these terms as shorthand, for the incompatible differences between religions deemed polytheistic and those deemed monotheistic, continues in and outside of the academy in the 21^stcentury.

  This discussion has identified a number of tools, terminology included, used by religions deemed monotheistic in this competition for survival. These may be easier for many people in the modern world to identify and understand because they are the tools that appear to be winning “the fight.” If this chapter has given the impression that religions deemed monotheistic invented, and remain in control of, the language of discourse regarding the difference between this “new” type of religion and the “old” it is because this appears to be the case. Using the word “competition” instead of “fight” emphasizes the chronological scale on which this contest is unfolding. This competition is undergirded by processes of natural and cultural selection that will, inevitably, make “old” the category of religions deemed monotheistic at some point. The next chapter will examine the social contexts within which the religions centered around YHWH and Ahura Mazda developed the building blocks that have made these religions fit for competition.

   

  ---

  ¹ Etienne Balibar, Secularism and Cosmopolitanism (New York: Columbia University Press, 2018), 71–72.

  ² Balibar, 71–72.

  ³ Almut Hintze, “Monotheism the Zoroastrian Way,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 24, no. 02 (April 2014): 226.

  ⁴ Frevel, “Beyond Monotheism?,” 2.

  ⁵ Ahn Gregor, “Monotheismus,” Metzler Lexikon Religion: Gegenwart, Alltag, Medien 2 (1999): 482.

  ⁶ Balibar, Secularism and Cosmopolitanism, 76.

  ⁷ Henry More, An Explanation of the Grand Mystery of Godliness, or, A True and Faithfull Representation of the Everlasting Gospel of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Onely Begotten Son of God and Sovereign over Men and Angels by H. More ..., Early English Books, 1641-1700 / 114:03 (London : Printed by J. Flesher for W. Morden ..., 1660., 1660), 61–62.