(22 votes, average: 4.91 out of 5)
Loading...In my last couple of posts I’ve been talking about Jewish monotheism and henotheism as a backdrop to early Christianity. And now *here* is a something almost no one in the civilized universe knows any more: even among traditional pagan religions there were sometimes movements toward monotheism, or at least evidence of serious henotheism. Here is how I discuss it in my book Triumph of Christianity, in the context of why the Christian claims about their God would not have seemed completely unprecedented.
******************************
Scholars have long known of henotheistic tendencies among ancient (pagan) philosophers, who had come to think that behind all the diversity of the world, above all the manifestations of what we know and experience, there must be one ultimate reality that makes sense of it all. This principle of unity could be understood to be the ultimate divinity, and so some philosophers stressed the “oneness” at the heart, or at the beginning, of all things.
The sense of one ultimate divinity could also be found outside the ranks of the professional philosophers, among the non-philosophical, highly religious as well. In an inscription found in the city of Oenoanda in southwest Asia Minor, modern Turkey, appears the self-declaration of a god who terms himself a mere angel in comparison with the one ultimate divine being. In response to the question of who or what is God, here is how he describes that One:
What follows is a pagan description of what appears to be the One God. By a polytheist?? Keep reading. If you can’t, join the blog and you can! Won’t cost much, every penny goes to help the needy, no downside!
Dr Ehrman,
1.Do you think the Volcanic eruption of Pompeii and Herculaneum in 79 AD would have made a greater impression on Roman citizenry about God of Israel?…(like he is vengeful and all and as we have destroyed his temple and he has destroyed our most beautiful cities?)
2.How old is the tradition of UNNAMEABLE GOD?
Regards,
Kashif
1. No, hardly anyone in the Roman world even was thinking about the God of Israel; 2. THat’s a great question: I don’t remember!
Dr Ehrman,
A few connections for you to re-consider:
1. Date of eruption of Mt. Vesuvius is 24/25th August(According to Seneca) which is almost similar to both Destruction of temples dates 29th August( similar dates for 586BC and 70AD by Josephus)
2. Scribblings on walls of House 26 “Sodom and Gomorrah” a biblical reference
3. Dio Cassius in his Roman History mentions destruction of temples of Serapis and Isis and Neptune and Jupiter Capitolinus, among others. It is almost as if some supreme God was at work.
4. As per Dio,”There were some so afraid of death that they prayed for death. Many raised their hands to the gods, and even more believed that there were NO GODS ANY LONGER and that this was the one last unending night for the world.. I believed that I was perishing with the world, and the world with me”
5. A painting of the Judgment of Solomon, deciding which of two women is the mother of the baby (1 Kings 3:16–28) found in Pompeii ruins.
6. Kosher sea food stands found in Pompeii ruins
Dr Ehrman….someone must be thinking about this connection/God Of Israel or is it just a coincidence??
Apologies for long post,
Regards
I’m not sure where you’re getting your information about Pompeii? I’m not familiar with kosher food standss there or the judgment of Solomon, but if true it would be interesting. Of coruse there were Jewish communities thorughout the Mediterranean so there would be nothing odd about it. And yes, there are lots of coincidences in teh world. Billions.
Dr Ehrman,
Following is the link to article from Biblical Archeological Society but of course what you say would be most authentic…
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-near-eastern-world/the-destruction-of-pompeii-gods-revenge/#note07r
1. My humble submission would be as why Geological (Pompeii, consecutive crop failures in Egypt and Levant etc in 100ADs) and Political (Relationships with Persian empire…similar to evolution of American culture during Cold War) impacts are not considers when studying about the most important phenomenon of Rise of Christianity in 100ADs?
Because these events in the second century do not have appeared to have affected the early Christian movement. (Though Vesvius erupted in the first century, of course)
I think if the Greco-Roman religions have survived into the modern era, people would recognise they would share many similarities with contemporary Hinduism: both are best thought of as a collection of very diverse religions rather than a single religion; both have spectrum of beliefs ranging from polytheism to monotheism to atheism (in sense of rejection of a creator God); both are characterised more by religious practices than doctrinal beliefs; both are inclusivistic rather than exclusivistic (e.g. worship of one deity does not exclude worship of another, evangelism and conversions are quite pointless); there is a plethora of deities with responsibility for various aspects of the physical realm yet they can also be viewed as manifestations of one ultimate reality. There will nonetheless be major differences: unlike pagan religions, reincarnation is central to Hindu beliefs and practices, and Hinduism has an element of ethnocentrism.
Bart, you’ve made the point before that Plato’s Socrates always speaks of God in the singular. I have not studied philosophy for 40 years, but it seems to me Plato and Aristotle might have been in some genuine philosophical sense monotheistic in that there was the One for Plato and the ‘Thought Thinking Itself’ as the one ultimate final cause for Aristotle. Thoughts?
I really don’t know. Speaking of God in teh singular occurs in otehr authors took who were definitely polytheist — e.g., Marcus Aurelius.
Indo-European studies point to there being a supreme god in Proto-Indo-European religion. His name would have been something like *Dyeus Phter, which nicely translates as “father-daylight-sky-god.” His name has been brought down to us as Jupiter (Diu Piter), Zeus (Dyeus), Tyr or Tiwaz, Dyaus, Deva and a number of other cognates. He is described as “all-seeing” and “all-knowing” (M.L. West, Indo-Euopean Poetry and Myth). He was not the only god, but it’s still a beginning of the concept.
Off- the topic Question :
Are there any non-canonical Christian books in which contain more reliable historical accounts than current canonical New Testament books?
Accounts about Jesus? No, I”m afraid not.
It seems to me that both OT Judaism and NT Christianity accepted the existence of many spiritual beings, some properly called “gods”, but said that there was only one of these spiritual beings who was the “true god” which had created all others and to which all creation owes its allegiance. As I pointed out yesterday, even the strongest “monotheistic” passage in the OT (Isaiah 40-55) can be understood as consistent with this view.
Also, I’d like to point out that, given what was said in the article, the answer to the question in the title must be, “no”, since a view which allows for the existence of multiple gods but claims supremacy for one isn’t technically “monotheistic” as far as I know.
Bart ,,, what a great, informative, interesting ,,,,,etc,,,,,,,,,,,, and even fun quality blog you constantly create. I really like it!
Thank you !
THanks!
I can’t help but wonder if Christianity had remained a Jewish sect and died aborning whether in the following centuries classical civilization itself might have eventually mutated from polytheism to a kind of monotheism? What strange hymns sung in what strange temples? Yet not strange to us because in this other world that’s all we would have ever known.
I am now very sceptical of the word “pagan”. It originally applied to someone from out of Rome (Country bumpkin), and was also used as we use the word “civilian” today. Along the way, it was “converted” to a pejorative for “not-Christian”. Or, not OUR particular group of Christians.
Yes, most scholars are uncomfortable with it too; but there doesn’t seem to be a good alternative, though lots have been suggested: “polytheists” e.g.; but that seems to assume that pagan religion was about knowing how many gods there were instead of cultic acts; polyolatry sounds too cute; unless we use something like “those who followed traditional Greek and Roman religions,” it’s a little hard to come up with something….
Dr Ehrman,
1. What is your take on “Sibylline Oracles Book 4”, copied below, as they clearly mention temple of Solomon’s destruction and “anger” of God Of Israel in return?
2. They seem important enough, to us non scholars, as early Church Fathers are also referencing it?
3. Could they give us a glimpse of what early Romans were thinking when they met the first proselytizing Jewish Christians?
4. What could be their date of writing?
“And out of Syria shall come Rome’s foremost man,
Who having burned the temple of Solyma,
And having slaughtered many of the Jews,
Shall destruction on their great broad land.
Fire shall come flashing forth in the broad heaven,
And many cities burn and men destroy,
And much black ashes shall fill the great sky,
And small drops like red earth shall fall from heaven,
Then know the anger of the God of heaven,”
Regards,
I’m not sure offhand which verses you’re quoting. The fourth oracle was originally composed, by general calculation, soon after the death of Alexander the Great (so, end of fourth century BCE); but it underwent a later redaction centuries later (end of first century CE). This part apears to be part of the redaction, a reference to the Roman troops burning the Temple in 70 CE. (The armies came from Syria)
Dr Ehrman,
As you said that Sibylline Oracles (especially Book 4) were redacted end of first century…
1.So is there a reference to Avenging God Of Israel in Roman Libraries/mind/psyche?
(The Clouds of Mt. Vesuvius were seen even in Rome as Pliny gives a detailed account.)
2. Were these books, Sibylline Oracles, important enough as they were commented by early Church fathers and to be revered by common people of 80s-90s AD?
3. The date of eruption of Mt Vesuvius is usually taken as 24th August 79 AD, (Thu, 24 August 79 AD = 9th of Elul, 3839 as per Jewish calendar) which is strikingly coincidental to exact ONE MONTH after the famous 9th of Av date(Tisha B’Av) of Destruction of temple(Both 1st and 2nd temple)…could there be a connection?
4. Elul means Harvesting so the reference could be to Hosea 8:7 “They sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind.”?
((Apologies and apologies, again and again, for being such a pest about this topic but somehow it is hard for me get around this thought that Romans or Jews/proto-Christians of 80s-90s AD would have missed out on connection between Pompeii destruction and Jerusalem’s destruction.))
regards
Most historians would almost certainly say, to all four questions: probably not. Romans certainly were not worried about the God of Israel, and there is no evidence that Christian writers commented on the Sibyl books that early.
Related to the “one god” question, it’s my unscholarly layman opinion that the central theme of Christian theology is that the whole purpose of humanity’s existence is the “glorification” of Jesus Christ, end of story. Seeing that according to 1Peter1:21-23 its stated that Jesus was chosen before the world was even created (which would seem to make the Adam and Eve fall an obvious setup for failure). It would also seem to me from Jesus and Paul’s statements that they don’t hold much regard for the concept of our “free will” (Matthew 11:25, Mark 4:10-12, john 12:39-40, John:6-64-65, Romans 9:18-25). We are obviously just pawns, supporting characters in the drama of life with Jesus as the leading man. I obviously wasn’t the first to think that seeing Paul’s reaction in the above quote. I know this was later taken up by Augustine, Aquinas, and Scotus, but to me all their pontification added up to “God wouldn’t ask us to do something impossible”, which doesn’t seem to help the “Many are called, but NOT chosen”. It’s a Catch-22. They insist that omniscient God loves us all, but obviously not poor Judas (to just fulfill Scripture) or the Pharisees Jesus calls “devils.”
Dr Ehrman!
I’m curious if you or someone who you could recommend has a work that deals with the God of the greek philosophers, their logos and their relationship to the Abrahamic God and Jesus (maybe Philo’s logos as well). I’m only reading through wikipedia and other non academic sources and it seems to me that they share a lot of similarities (other than the personal nature of the hebrew God and Jesus).
Also could you talk about the “bene ha elohim”? It seems that in some places they are gods themselves (Genesis 6:2 (?), Job 2:1). In Psalms 82 God “renders judgement among the gods (elohim)” who are the “sons of the most high” (ubene elyown) who seem to rule over people and will “die like mere mortals”. However in John 10:34 it seems to me that Jesus says those “gods” in Psalm 82 were the prophets or teachers (to whom the word of God came). Is this “bene ha elohim/ubene elyown” a changing concept in judaism? Where they started out as lower gods, with varying degrees of obedience to God, who later turned into human rulers in the framework of monotheism? Or the different expressions are completely different entities?
Thank you
I deal with those issues a bit in my book How Jesus Became God. Offhand I can’t think of non-scholarly books that give a full treatment. I wonder if Larry Hurtado does in his book Lord Jesus Christ? It’s been 20 years since I read it, so I don’t remember.
Yes in the OT these were inferior divine beings, angelic counsellors of God or, in Gen. 6, more like fallen angels. It does seem odd that Jesus thinks Psalm 82:6 is referring to human prophets/teachers; in context it appears to be referring to angelic beings who are punished by God and made mortal for whatever they had done wrong.
Thank you, I will check him out (your book is already on my list when I get my paycheck). I also have another question (the last one for now), I wonder if you have dwelt into the topic already.
We hear apologists say how Jesus is so much more attested than anyone else, even Plato. I see there are a lot of papyri fragment in the Oxyrhynchus findings but other than one fragment in British library (Papyrus 2993) from 3rd century BC I cant find anything about him or Socrates from BC, only fragments from the 1st century AD and a possible sculpture from BC. Could you please elaborate on comparing the historicity of Jesus to other great (or famous) figures of history? How do historians arrive to a conclusion on information about them? For example how we know whether whats written in Plato’s republic is what he originally wrote? It would be really interesting to hear such a comparison from a scholar who can give context (and to be more selfish, it would be a great argument).
Thank you
Apologists often say that to prove that the accounts of Jesus are more true, which is completely silly of course. It just means we have more copies, not that what the authors said in the originals are true. There are indeed problems with knowing what anicent authors wrote — not just the NT. Big debates,for example, about verses in Homer. But in most cases there are very few reasons for doubting that, say, the writings we have of Plato are pretty much what he wrote, even if there are changes. One difference is no one is insisting that every word has come from God, so there is less at stake in knowing if there were changes. (And of course, with all those copies of the NT, we have hundreds of thousands of changes; it’s very odd to many of us that Xn scribes were not more careful — the way Jewish and Muslim scribes were)
The quotation from Maximus of Madaura is intriguing, and makes me curious about the context in which it was written and preserved. Given that the expressed “utter certainty that there is one highest God” has echoes of Paul in Romans 1:19 and the “great and glorious father” has echoes of Luke’s version of Paul in Acts 17:28, I also wonder if Paul himself would have encountered such strands of thought among pagans during the course of his evangelism.
In the first century, would people have considered Christianity a cult or a sect?
What exactly is the difference in categorization? Thank you!
These are modern terms. A sect is usually understood to be a split-off group within a religion; the term “cult” in popular parlance refers to an extreme marginal group usually with a highly charismatic leader with strange ideas that are dangerous to people. Scholars today do not refer to marginal religious movements as “cults” because of the negative connotations. Most religous groups are “weird” and “strange” to those outside of them, so to call some of them cults and others not is not just bad form, it’s highly prejudicial and value laden.
Dr Ehrman, what was maximus’s reason for writing Augustine , Was Augustine trying to convert maximus? And that was his response? Or were they being ecumenical? Reading that snippet is kind of like eavesdropping lol
I don’t remember exactly, but my best recollection is that Maximus was highly placed and an intellectual and they were exchanging letters, probably to convince the other!
Thank you! That makes sense