WI: Abrahamic Religions Remain Monolatrist

Monolatrism is the belief that many gods exist, but the worship of one god. Early Judaism accepted the idea of other gods existing, but that they were lesser gods to one God. This fell away into pure monotheism. But what if, rather than being monotheist, Judaism, Christianity and Islam were up to the present monolatrist?
 
That is an academic view that the religious adherents of the three religions you described don't adhere to.

You need to look at the theology and not what secular archaeologists and theorists say to understand this.

Christianity wouldn't be Christiantity if it was monolatrist. Christ is the absolute centre of Christianity. Now some Christian theologians have acknowledged the existence of pagan "gods"-they are considered demons.

Islam is similar-one God, one prophet, one law.

Now if you believe Judaism was monolatrist Christianity and Islam would never have existed to begin with.
 
There's enough remaining Biblical references to justify this without necessarily changing the text of the Bible very much. The First Commandment ("have no other gods before me" rather than something like "I am the only true god") is just the most obvious of those.

Of course, this means changes from at least the Maccabean period onward, given that by then beliefs had firmly moved into "the only true god" motif.

In a strict sense, this would probably butterfly Christianity and Islam, but it wouldn't necessarily stop something like them arising.

Semi-random thought: this would make something like Gnosticism much more appealling.
 
That is an academic view that the religious adherents of the three religions you described don't adhere to.

You need to look at the theology and not what secular archaeologists and theorists say to understand this.

Christianity wouldn't be Christiantity if it was monolatrist. Christ is the absolute centre of Christianity. Now some Christian theologians have acknowledged the existence of pagan "gods"-they are considered demons.

Islam is similar-one God, one prophet, one law.

Now if you believe Judaism was monolatrist Christianity and Islam would never have existed to begin with.

I'm either confused or in disagreement (likely both) in regards to your interpretation. Christianity and Islam could be Christianity and Islam even with this view, albeit changed. But there is no reason they could not exist, as monolatrism is not so wholly inconsistent to the dogma that it is impossible to cope. Variations on religion has existed for centuries. Modern Christianity evolved from Roman Catholic dogma, but it is not like different interpretations and sects existed which were Christian, but held widely different views concerning Jesus. Gnostic Christianity, for example, considered the idea that the God of the Old Testament was wholly different from the God of the New Testament; that the former had created the material world, and was jealous and spiteful, whereas the latter was the God of good and created Jesus, who was not a physical man but a being which only resembled a physical man. Earlier Christians disagreed with the idea of a Holy Trinity, where there were three faces of God and that Christ had always existed, instead believing that Jesus was the son of God, created by God, and was therefore a servant of and subservient to God. And yet despite these vastly different interpretations, they were still Christians.

Judaism existed as polytheistic, but worshiping Yahweh as the superior god, and transitioning to worshiping him as the only God. It would be a Christianity where Christ is a son of or some aspect of the superior God, while other gods who are lesser do exist. Islam would be Muhammad as a prophet of that God, but with other gods who are lesser existing. Which actually does bring to mind the theological question of whether a creation of the superior God or a prophet of that superior God is equal to, greater than, or lesser than other lesser gods. It also brings to mind demigods as we saw from the Greek pantheon, for that matter. If you mean that the latter two religions could be butterflied away, potentially. And other branches and successors could evolve instead. However, for the ease of this discussion, we are assuming they do come into being, albeit in the context of a different form of Judaism in the context of it's time, in relation to Christianity, and therefore a modified Christianity in the context of it's time, in relation to Islam.
 
It's unlikely that the big three of today would be exactly the same (they would really be other religions entirely), but it's far from impossible for an abrahamic of shoot to do this.

A wanked Manichaeism for instance would be this, and an Islam equivalent that could form in such a TL may also as a result be this.

That or, somehow the gnostic variants of the abrahamic religions become dominant.
 
The 'gods' referred to in the Old Testament are either idols (which God warns people are not to be worshipped or venerated ('have no other gods before me')), or in some cases possibly demons (e.g. the magicians of Egypt and possibly Baal as well).
 
The evidence that this was the case in the past is pretty strong (the name Israel even hints at it). But if it's kept the butterflies would probably get rid of Christianity - unless you assume that one of them is exactly correct, and that regardless of butterflies, the Messiah will be born and do His thang.
 
The 'gods' referred to in the Old Testament are either idols (which God warns people are not to be worshipped or venerated ('have no other gods before me')), or in some cases possibly demons (e.g. the magicians of Egypt and possibly Baal as well).

"You shall have no other gods before me" is a give away. It isn't an assertion of a lone God surrounded by false gods, but of a supreme God surrounded by a world of other gods, an a defense against them as beings not to be worshiped at least with the reverence shown to Jehovah. They were gods that were later explained as false gods, idols, demons, and so forth as the beliefs evolved. No offense is intended, but that is a change of meaning after the fact. Should there be a personal religious aversion to that, one can explain it as early Israelites not being fully aware of the revelation of a single, almighty God until later. And the explanation further can be those other gods indeed did not exist and were inventions of humans, and the only true being was an almighty God. Should that be an issue, this can be moved to Chat. The evidence, however, is that early Judaism was not monotheistic. Even if you disregard that, it remains a discussion about the concept of the Abrahamic faiths existing with a belief that there are other gods, but they are not to be worshiped because it offends the almighty God of their faiths, and that God is the almighty. To reiterate, if that is an issue, this can be moved to Chat. Or frankly, it can be closed and I have no hard feelings concerning that. This is meant purely as a historical discussion, and not a spiritual or personal discussion. From a personal prospect, should one hold beliefs and convictions, it would be a matter of the revelation of the truth of God to mankind remaining misconstrued by humanity in this timeline. It is a discussion more interested in how Abrahamic faiths with this concept in their belief systems would evolve in relation to the Roman Empire, for example.
 
Last edited:
It isn't an assertion of a lone God surrounded by false gods, but of a supreme God surrounded by a world of other gods

Well, the word used is 'Elohim', which usually refers to the God of Abraham, but can also refer simply to human beings with authority ('Ye are gods'). So it could be interpreted either way.

The evidence, however, is that early Judaism was not monotheistic

Well, that is indeed supported in the various books of the Old Testament. The general trend was 'going well; period of polytheism; bad stuff; returning to monotheism; going well'. So that evidence is certainly in line with the events recorded.

if that is an issue, this can be moved to Chat.

Nah, it's not an issue for me. I was just making the comment to underline the fact that it is difficult to maintain the idea of multiple gods if one takes into account the whole of the Jewish scriptures.

My own take on the topic is that a significant monolatrist sect within Judaism would inevitably cause a schism at some point. At the very least, a division similar to that between the Pharisees and Saducees would take place. Assuming that Christianity would still arise in some form (as a rule in TLs I assume that the Messiah would still come at some point in time, given my own religious beliefs, though even for those who do not share them it is reasonable to assume that a similar figure to Jesus Christ could arise at some point), it too will struggle with the division, probably influencing the development of the early Church to a greater degree than any other factor. Monolatrist Christians would be far more accepted in Roman society, given Rome's usual attitude to religions other than their own (acceptance in return for respect for the Roman pantheon). Monolatrism may hold that Yahweh is superior to other gods, but it does open the way towards a more conventional polytheism. It's even possible that the monolatrists might cooperate with the Roman authorities to attempt to suppress or persecute monotheistic Christians who would refuse to make offering to the Roman gods.

Islam is a different case, given that unlike Christianity it did not arise directly from the Old Testament and is heavily influence by Arabic culture. It is very reasonable to hypothesise that a religion similar to Islam (i.e. some Judeo-Christian tenets + Arab tradition + other stuff) could take hold, or perhaps that a sect of Christianity could spread to the peninsular. Whether that sect would be monotheistic or monolatrist would be interesting.

I'd also be interested to hear what people think might happen when monolatrist Christian-equivalents/Muslim-equivalents meet the Persian Zoroastrians, and also the Hindus of India. A sect of Christianity that accepted those gods as real might simply be subsumed into any openly polytheistic religion, depending upon how fervent the monlatrists are when it comes to the supremacy of Yahweh. They might simply become a sort of 'Cult of Yahweh' within other religions, that accepts all the gods but pays special attention to Yahweh.

Note: When I use 'Yahweh' I mean the Judeo-Christian God of OTL.
 
If there is one thing we can draw from this conversation, it is that Monolatrist/Henotheist Abrahamism would be a damn good concept for a timeline.
 
A Judaism that maintained more of a monolatrist "we worship one god among many" approach would probably ultimately blend pretty indistinguishably into the broader world of mystery cults and localized religion in the Hellenic era, assuming butterflies were kept to a minimum. Being subsumed into this broader world would probably not do the religion any favors in terms of maintaining it's distinct identity.
 
Top