WI: Abrahamic Religions were Monolatrist
- Thread starter Peppe
- Start date
My understanding is that early Hebrews actually were monolatrist; monotheism was a later development.
It seems eventually it would be hard to keep people in the flock. If people acknowledged there were other gods it would be very easy/tempting to stray to them. With pure monotheism it's really believe in God or believe in nothing, which is not easy for most people.
What about a situation where the other gods are acknowledged but also seen as inferior (sort of henotheism). If all Abrahamic religions are like this, it would have to start with the concept that the God of the Jews is greater than all of the other little-g gods, but that those other gods still exist and do stuff (presumably on the big G's sufferance). As has been pointed out, there's some evidence that this might have been the case initially. People might wonder why the other gods are allowed to do things that are often detrimental, but this really becomes part of the greater "Problem of Evil" philosophical debate.
After Christianity arrives on the scene, the extension of this idea would be that Christ has to be greater than all of the other gods by virtue of being the Son of (big G) God. If there's a little less orthodoxy you might be able to set up a kind of a "propaganda campaign". Basically, wherever (in this case) Christianity goes, it's acknowledged that sure, Odin or Jupiter or Lugh is great, but their powers don't compare to the power of Christ. I'm thinking something like the stories of Sun Wu Kong and the Buddha, where no matter what the Monkey King does, the Buddha counters it without even really lifting a finger. As Christianity starts getting a foothold in some new land, the Christian bards become "inspired" to tell folks the tales about how Christ, say, set Thor three tasks and each how time Thor thinks he won, but then there's some reveal that shows that Christ is smarter and more powerful. It might be enough to keep butts in pews.
The main question with the above scenario would be how Christ's "extracurricular" activities are viewed by the church (assuming the church still forms more or less the way it did in OTL). Would all stories be treated as equally true (as long as they don't contradict some baseline tenets)? Or would the church declare a set of "official" stories (Gospels) but allow for the idea that the other tales of more questionable veracity may have happened or are allowable as informative/inspirational but not necessarily part of the "main" story. I'm thinking that this might not actually be all that different from stories of the lives of saints and the Christian folk tales that sort of act as "additional material".
Not sure how things would develop for Islam in a scenario like this. Mohammed doesn't claim to be God, a god, or even the Son of God. Then again, Buddha doesn't claim to be a god, either. Isn't there some teaching in Buddhism that Buddha is on a higher plane than the gods? And/or that a man may reach a higher plane than the gods by following the right path? Something like that might work for Islam - there are gods but they aren't necessarily better than men. You can be better than all of these gods by following Islam.
This is all more or less off the top of my head, I haven't looked up any sources. Religious and/or philosophical arguments are always contentious, so sorry if I am getting anything fundamentally wrong. Critique is always welcome.
After Christianity arrives on the scene, the extension of this idea would be that Christ has to be greater than all of the other gods by virtue of being the Son of (big G) God. If there's a little less orthodoxy you might be able to set up a kind of a "propaganda campaign". Basically, wherever (in this case) Christianity goes, it's acknowledged that sure, Odin or Jupiter or Lugh is great, but their powers don't compare to the power of Christ. I'm thinking something like the stories of Sun Wu Kong and the Buddha, where no matter what the Monkey King does, the Buddha counters it without even really lifting a finger. As Christianity starts getting a foothold in some new land, the Christian bards become "inspired" to tell folks the tales about how Christ, say, set Thor three tasks and each how time Thor thinks he won, but then there's some reveal that shows that Christ is smarter and more powerful. It might be enough to keep butts in pews.
The main question with the above scenario would be how Christ's "extracurricular" activities are viewed by the church (assuming the church still forms more or less the way it did in OTL). Would all stories be treated as equally true (as long as they don't contradict some baseline tenets)? Or would the church declare a set of "official" stories (Gospels) but allow for the idea that the other tales of more questionable veracity may have happened or are allowable as informative/inspirational but not necessarily part of the "main" story. I'm thinking that this might not actually be all that different from stories of the lives of saints and the Christian folk tales that sort of act as "additional material".
Not sure how things would develop for Islam in a scenario like this. Mohammed doesn't claim to be God, a god, or even the Son of God. Then again, Buddha doesn't claim to be a god, either. Isn't there some teaching in Buddhism that Buddha is on a higher plane than the gods? And/or that a man may reach a higher plane than the gods by following the right path? Something like that might work for Islam - there are gods but they aren't necessarily better than men. You can be better than all of these gods by following Islam.
This is all more or less off the top of my head, I haven't looked up any sources. Religious and/or philosophical arguments are always contentious, so sorry if I am getting anything fundamentally wrong. Critique is always welcome.
Then not much changes compared to OTL. Chistianization in Medieval Europe generally created situation, where peasants just added Jesus and Virgin Mary to their pantheons, but even educated people and members of clergy often acknowledged existence of other deities. For example German bishop Thietmar of Merseburg (975-1018) in his chronicle put no doubt in existence of deities worshipped by Slavic pagans, he just regarded them as evil.
If we get to something resembling OTL Rome ITTL, then Jews and/or Christians probably won't be persecuted nearly as much. Also there is likely to be a trend toward identifying Greco-Roman gods with angels, etc. Mars might be conflated with the Archangel Michael, for example.
Maybe the old God's are made higher spirits serving God's will like the Valar of Illuvatar.
Somebody write a story about it
You can make a fake religions about it
The early hebrews kinda of belived this and this to an extent early chirstians where kinda of did to saying the gods of other religions did in fact exist just that they where demons not gods
So it really depends on how the view of the lesser gods be a neutral positive or negative one I can't say .
So it really depends on how the view of the lesser gods be a neutral positive or negative one I can't say .
Yeah I mean Romans didn't have any problem with mystery cults so long as they participated on the public festivity to the gods and emperor
As mentioned chirstian writers belived that the pagan gods where just demons
Heck even the bible does
"to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. "
So its no really monolatrist at least not imo these are not lesser gods they are demons pretending to be gods to decieve.
I say it does change since what would the view on the gods be
Evil like the demons pretending to be gods
Neutral ?
Or good that despite been inferior they still serve the great god .
danteheadman
Banned
So the OTL Romans, in doing their interpretatio Romana, believed that the Jewish god was, alternatively, Dionysus or Saturn. And Jesus was likewise conflated by the Romans with Helios / Sol Invictus.
A henotheistic Judaism is probably out of the question by the Roman era. But a henotheistic Christianity isn't necessarily, I don't think, given how various pagan deities were absorbed as Saints (see Bridget). So I'd imagine that a would probably lean into those ideas, especially the conflation of YHWH with Saturn and would elevate Jesus to Jupiterian status. And that Roman ecumenicism of "all your gods are really our gods with different names" could be used to further that "propaganda campaign" you suggested.
Islam might be entirely butterflied away. Or it might lean even harder into strict monotheism, condemning Christians as not "People of the Book". It depends.
eehhh *wiggles hand*. I would be very hesitant to use the term worship when it comes to the Saints. The original language the Gospels were written was Greek and that was the Lingua Franca (Lingua Graecia?) of the Mediterranean and as such would have been spoken by the Apostles and the Early church. The term that is translated as worship from the Greek when used in reference to God is different from the word used in reference to the Saints. I can't remember the exact term but the word in referral to the Saints would probably be more accurately translated as something along the lines of 'giving due honor' as is in holding in high esteem for their closeness to God in due to their imputed Sanctity in life.
The term used to refer to God is far more in keeping with what we nowadays would associate with the word Worship. English fucks up again I think.
Last edited: