Pagan History

The "theory" of Pagan Monotheism

From the introduction to the book "Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity

"The seminar [on "Pagan Monotheism] arose out of our dissatisfaction with what we take to be a misconception ... that in the Graeco-Roman world ... Christianity, in the tradition of of Jewish monotheism, succeeded in replacing invariably polytheistic systems of religious belief with a monotheistic creed. By contrast it is our view that monotheism ... was increasingly widespread by the time of late antiquity, certainly among the educated and in particular in the Greek east. And we are inclined to attribute much of the success of Christianity in that world to its advocacy of a way of seeing things, of thinking and acting, which it shared with a growing number of pagans ....

"Another even more important cause of our dissatisfaction is a general attitude associated with the above, reflecting the simple unqualified belief that, in being converted to Christianity, pagans were induced to reject their polytheism in favor of a monotheistic religion. This approach, which ultimately derives from the Christian Apologists of late antiquity, emphasizes the differences between Christianity and paganism in a stark and simplistic way which makes one overlook the very substantial similarities between the two...."

Please note two points in the above quote. First, we are to believe that Pagans in late antiquity (at least the smart ones) did not view conversion to Christianity as the abondonment of the belief in many Gods and the conversion to belief in only one God. We are further to believe that this supposedly erroneous idea stems from Christian Apologists (notice how not only are Christians capitalized, where "pagans" are not - but Christian Apologists are doubly capitalized). Compare this claim with the words of Celsus and Libanius featured in the center part of this page.

The second point to note is that in the section that I have emphasized, Frede and Athanassiadi reveal perhaps more than they had intended. To what end do they wish to minimize the differences between Christianity and Paganism, and simultaneously minimize the role of violence and coercion in the "success" of Christianity? Are we supposed to believe that the "success" of Christianity was merely the inevitable conclusion of an evolutionary process that had already "succeeded" in weaning more sophisticated Pagans away from their Gods? It could certainly be interpreted that way.

It is not uncommon for modern day "Christian Apologists" to promote the idea that there was nothing whatsoever unseemly in Christianity's rise to prominence and power. According to this version everyone rather suddenly realized the inherent advantages of Christianity and voluntarily abandoned all other religions en masse. Unfortunately for this line of reasoning there exists incontrovertible historical evidence for a sustained violent campaign against all religions other than Christianity. Surprisingly, Frede and Athanassiadi appear to be working hard to provide aid and comfort to a blatantly ideological point of view - a point of view that above all else wishes to explain away the reign of intolerance ushered in by the ascendancy of Christendom.

Slouching Towards Monotheism, or, The "Highest" God as Missing Link?

The contemporary proponents of the "Pagan Monotheism" meme explicitly adopt an "evolutionary" model for their version of how Christianity triumphed. According to this evolutionary model there was a long slow process by which Paganism became incrementally transformed into Christianity. A key psychological component to this model is that during the time when the transition took place it was almost imperceptible - and that only looking back at Late Antiquity from a great historical distance does it appear (naively, according to this point of view) that there was a sharp break with the past when all of the Old Gods were overthrown and the God of the Christians replaced Them.

Nowhere is this underlying point of view stated more openly than in the essay "The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans, Jews and Christians" by Stephen Mitchel. Here is what Mitchel tells us about his perspective in this essay:

" The cult of Theos Hypsistos and the monotheistic conceptions of a widespread and popular religious culture were the seed-bed into which Jewish and Christian theology could readily be planted. Without them the transformation of ancient patterns of belief from pagan polytheism to the predominantly monotheistic systems of Judaism, Christianity and Islam would not only have been far less tidy and unidirectional than it was, it might not have occurred at all." [Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity, p. 128]

Key to understanding any explanation is understanding what it attempts to explain. What does Mitchell's explanation explain? In Mitchell's own words it explains the "tidyness" and "unidirectionality" of the "transformation" of the ancient world that only left three religions standing: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The explanation rests on the assumption that this "transformation" came about by peaceful persuasion and the voluntary abandonment of polytheism as a first step toward the eventual embrace of the "big three" religions. Mitchell claims that the cult of Theos Hypsistos provides a kind of missing link in a gradual process of evolutionary change.

But what is the reason for assuming from the start that the "transformation" was a slow, gradual, voluntary process? Wasn't there, in fact, more than a little bit of "untidiness"? Weren't there laws proscribing the worship of the old Gods? At whom were these laws directed? No one? Wasn't there some unpleasantness in Alexandria concerning some old statue in an old building? Didn't Justinian find it necessary, after two hundred years of Christian rule, to turn up the heat on the Pagans?

Come to think of it, Mitchel's "new" theory sounds strangely like a Catholic Encyclopedia article written in 1910, which states, in part:

"It seems probable that the native Cappadocian cult of Zeus Sabazios was deliberately merged in the cult of Jahve Sabaoth practised by the numerous and intellectually predominant Jewish colonies, and that associations (sodalicia, thiasoi) of strict monotheists were formed, who fraternized with the Jews, but considered themselves free from the Mosaic Law. The importance and exalted ideas of these associations can be gathered from the fact that when someone asked Apollo of Klaros whether the Hypsistos alone was without beginning and end, he answered: "He is the Lord of all, self-originated, self-produced, ruling all things in some ineffable way, encompassing the heavens, spreading out the earth, riding on the waves of the sea; mixing fire with water, soil with air, and earth with fire; of winter, summer, autumn, and spring, causing the changes in their season, leading all things towards the light and settling their fate in harmonious order." The existence of these Hypsistarians must have been partially responsible for the astounding swiftness of the spread of Christianity in Asia Minor...." [see the full article here]

Personally I have nothing against religiously informed scholarship. I just think that it should not try to masquerade as anything other than what it is.

Pagan Monotheism???

Celsus on Monotheism versus Polytheism (from On the True Doctrine)

"Yet without rational cause the goatherds and shepherds followed Moses, who taught them that there was but one God - deluded, apparently, by his rather naive beliefs - and caused them to forsake their natural inclinations to credit the existence of many Gods. For our part, we acknowledge the many: Mnemosyne, who gave birth to the Muses by Zeus; Themis, Mother of the Hours; and so on. Yet those goatherds and shepherds came to believe in one God and called him the Most High - Adonai, the Heavenly One - or sometimes Sabaoth, or whatsoever - and came to discredit all other Gods....

"The Christians ignore the good offices of the Dioscori, of Herakles, Asclepios and of Dionysus, and say that these are not Gods because they were humans in the first place. Yet they profess belief in a phantom god who appeared only to members of his little club, and then, so it seems, merely as a kind of ghost."

Krishna Dancing With the Women of Vrindivan

When the women of Vrindivan (Krishna's "hometown") all came out one moonlit night to dance with Lord Krishna, according the the sacred text called the Bhagavata Purana, Krishna assumed as many forms as there were women and danced with all of them simultaneously. The effect was that "each woman thought he was at her side only."

Krishna is just one of the 10 major avatars of Vishnu - the Supreme God of Hinduism. Of course the God Shiva is also the Supreme God of Hinduism. And Hinduism also has a Supreme Goddess, who is is more powerful than all of the Gods (including Shiva and Vishnu) put together. The Supreme Goddess is often referred to as Reality itself.

But how can there be more than one Supreme God - not to mention a Supreme Goddess, as well? Good question. Throughout the history of Hinduism there has been an ongoing debate over who is the real Supreme God: Vishnu or Shiva? One time it is said that a great Hindu sage was able to transport himself to Heaven, where he intended to put the question directly to Vishnu.

But when the sage made it up to Heaven, Vishnu was busy performing a religious ceremony - so the sage waited patiently for Vishnu to finish. When He was done, Vishnu apologized for keeping the sage waiting. Vishnu explained that He had been performing the ceremony in honor of the Supreme God, Shiva.

So the sage went over to the Himalaya mountains - where Shiva lives. The sage wanted to verify that Shiva was really the Supreme God. When the sage found Shiva - He was deep in meditation. So the sage waited patiently until Shiva was finished meditating. Finally Shiva opened His eyes - He immediately apologized for keeping the sage waiting. Shiva explained that He had been meditating upon the lotus feet of the Supreme God, Vishnu.

But we mustn't forget the Great Goddess of Hinduism Maha Devi, who also has many different forms in which She can manifest. One of the most important of these forms is Kali. Kali, in turn, also has many different forms in which She can manifest. There are ten especially important forms of Kali known as the Mahavidyas. Just to make things intersting - Kali is herself one of these 10 Mahavidyas!

Who's On First?

Everyone knows that Jupiter was the Supreme God of the Roman pantheon and that Zeus was the Supreme God of the Greek pantheon. Well, sort of. Before Jupiter there had of course been Saturnus - and before Zeus there had of course been Kronos. The Greeks didn't even stop there - even before Kronos there had been Ouranos.

Closer inspection reveals what everyone already knows about ancient Paganism. Different groups of people had different "Supreme" Gods - and that behind every "Supreme" God there were always other Gods who were even older. In some places Venus/Aphrodite was the Supreme Deity, while in other places it might be Her husband, Vulcan/Hephaestos. In Phrygia the Supreme Deity was a Goddess called Matar. In addition there was a strong tendency towards "solar cults" in which the Sun and/or some Deity associated with the Sun, is viewed as the "Supreme" Deity. But both Zeus and Jupiter were associated not with the Sun, but with the planet Jupiter. The "Supreme" Deity of Germanic religions, Odin, is associated with the planet Mercury. As already mentioned, some people viewed Mars as "Supreme" and others Venus.

To some the Pagan fondness for not only a seemingly infinite variety of Gods - but also a constantly changing and evolving Theology - is just too, well, complicated. Or so it would seem. Like an engineer who looks at a river and immediately starts envisioning dams and canals and dikes - a certain type person views Paganism as being in desperate need of radical simplification. But since Socrates, and probably well before, Pagans (including especially the well-educated and the philosophically inclined) have insisted that it is not for the Gods to conform to our limited understanding. It is rather for humans to strive, as Pagans have always done, to understand the Gods, the Cosmos and especially our own selves - just as they (we!) are. Where simplifications are introduced they should be seen for what they are - and they should conform to Einstein's dictum to make things as simple as possible - but no simpler.

The fact is that ancient Pagans developed sophisticated, dynamic and complex (one is tempted to say "non-linear") theories about their Gods. The crude and simplistic idea of "one and only one God" was viewed with derision and scorn. And Christians, in turn, viewed belief in multiple Gods with often violent hostility. One of the reasons for the intermittent persecutions of Christians was that the Christians had the habit of committing violent criminal acts against Pagan holy places and sacred objects. This behavior became far more widespread once Christians had the backing of the Roman state - a fact which is thoroughly documented in Eberhard Sauer's important book The Archeology of Religious Hatred.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but - far from being more sophisticated or more philosophically advanced than polytheism, one could argue, and many have done so, that monotheism is simplistic in the extreme. While it is understandable for Christians to fondly view their religion as a great spiritual and intellectual step forward, a mountain of circumstantial evidence indicates that monotheism is ideally suited for the uneducated, the simple-minded, the easily led and those who lack imagination and intellectual curiosity. Monotheism has also proven beyond a doubt to be the theology of choice for those who are inclined to religious fundamentalism of the most violently intolerant variety. And far from being a barely noticeable incremental (and completely voluntary - perhaps even eagerly welcomed!) step in a long smooth evolutionary process, the "rise" of Christianity was clearly a discontinuous break with the past, and one that could only be accomplished through sustained violent coercion - a fact that is now widely recognized and thoroughly documented by a growing chorus of scholars.

From Libanius' Upon Avenging Julian

"The Gods are concerned about men even when they are dead, and They would wish men still alive to show concern for Them, too. Were it not so, They would never have translated those They admired to the Islands of the Blest, nor would They have honored their bones with oracles, as They did with those of Orestes and Theseus. And now, I believe, the Gods in Their assemblies have taken note of Julian's fate and his neglect after death, and they are indignant and call upon each other to avenge him. If Hector deserved to be lamented by Zeus because of his many sacrifices, if Zeus is accused by Athena during the wanderings of Odysseus for neglecting a man who had sacrificed to Him, what were the remarks They made about Julian, do you think, since he in ten years offered more sacrifices than all the rest of the Greeks put together?

"He it was who divided up his life into preoccupations for the state and devotion to the altars, associating with Gods in countless initiations, mourning for our desecrated Temples, while ever mourning was all that he could do, but then, when the opportunity came, taking up arms for them. He restored the ruined Temples to their places, and he restored their ritual to them and all others: he brought back, as it were from exile, sacrifice and libation, and renewed the festivals that had fallen into abeyance. He did away with the danger that was attached to the worship of the higher powers, never allowed his intellect to be diverted form consideration of the Gods, dispersed the mist that enveloped so many, and would have done the same for us all, had he not been untimely taken from us.

"Zeus is concerned for him, an Emperor for an emperor, as One of His own craft: Athena, Zeus' daughter, also because of his gifts of intellect: Hermes because of his oratory of every kind: the Muses because of his poetry: Artemis, because of his continence, and Ares because of his valour in war."

From Libanius' Funeral Oration for Julian

"First of all, as I have said, he restored piety, as it were, from exile. Some Temples he built, others he restored, while he furnished others with statues. People who had built houses for themselves with stones of the Temples began to contribute money. You might have seen pillars carried by boat or by wagon for our plundered Gods. Everywhere there were altars, fire, blood offerings, fat and smoke: the mystic ritual was performed, seers were freed from fear, and on the the mountain tops were pipings and processions, and the same ox served as worship for the Gods and a feast for men.

"But since it was not easy for the emperor to go from the palace to the Temples every day, and yet continued intercourse with the Gods is a matter of the greatest moment, a Temple to the God who governs the day was built in the middle of the palace, and he took part in His mysteries, initiated and in turn initating. He also set up altars to all the Gods separately, and his first task on rising from bed was to associate with our Lords by means of sacrifice, in which he was more assiduous even than Nicias. So far did he extend the limits of the his zeal in this matter, since he desired first to restore the lost rituals once again to their original position, and secondly to add fresh ones to the traditional rites."