Being confronted with a multitude of religious concepts and having
realized how difficult it is to define religion or even trace its origin, it
comes as no surprise that no religion is like the other. Even if we agree with
the often heard statement that we all believe in the same God, this same God
is understood very differently by the various religions. This claim is made
even more true when one considers the wide ethnic scope of religions and their
adherents. For instance, there are religions that include only one ethnic
group, such as the religion of Hinduism. Hinduism is basically still today the
religion of India or of Indian people living in other countries. Only a minute
minority of Hindus are of non-Indian origin. Similarly, the religion of Islam
was initially an Arab religion. Even
the conquest of other countries was not made in the attempt to convert their
inhabitants, though over the centuries in the Muslim countries of North Africa
only traces of the Christian population is left. Most of the Christians there
converted to Islam because of the subtle or overt pressure exerted by the
Muslims on these "infidels." There are also other religions, often
called primitive religions, but more appropriately tribal religions, or
non-literate religions, that serve as the religion of certain tribes or clans.
Such a tribal religion may be implied in the statement of Joshua when he said
to the Israelites: "Now if you are unwilling to serve the Lord, choose
this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served in the
region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are
living; but as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord" (Joshua
24:15). Joshua stated that the ancestors of Israel served other gods, but
claimed Yahweh for him and his family. We may assume that this kind of tribal
arrangement is the first step in humanity's religious development.
1. Prehistoric and Tribal Religions
When we turn to tribal pre-historic religions, we must go back at least
60,000 years and from there we can advance almost to the present day. This
means we can turn to the Paleolithic Era (at least from BC 100 000 onward),
the Neolithic Era (ca. BC 6000-3200), the Bronze Age (BC 3200-1200), and the
Iron Age (BC 1200-600) and eventually come back to the present. However since
prehistoric archaeology is to a large extent accidental and since its
discoveries are wordless, the cultic or ceremonial artifacts and sites, the
pictures and symbols discovered need considerable interpretation and therefore
there is a large degree of conjecture. Often conclusions are reached only by
comparing the prehistoric religious remains with parallels in contemporary
tribal religions. Having admitted
the "opaqueness" of prehistoric documents, the historian of religion
Mircea Eliade (1907-86) is certainly right when he asserts against the
skepticism of some scholars: "Homo
faber was at the same time Homo
ludens, sapiens, and religiosus."
Though not all the questions can be answered, we have some insights
into the religious practices and beliefs of these ancient people. For
instance, from the middle Paleolithic period onward, we know of human burial
sites, and from the upper Paleolithic period onward there is a growing
richness and diversity of grave goods. There was also the practice of second
burials, meaning that the bodies were cremated and the skulls were then buried
in a ritual way. In the Neolithic period we have megalithic graves, composed
of huge boulders, but do not know
whether these hero-like burials meant the emergence of an ancestor cult. In
the Middle Paleolithic period we have evidence of sacrifices at burial sites,
suggesting offerings to the dead. Only in the Neolithic period can we
ascertain human sacrifices.
When it comes to pictorial expressions,
such as cave paintings or engravings on bones, the primary subjects are
animals, while humans are rarely depicted. If they are, then often with animal
attributes, for instance with bird-like features. We have also paintings of
animals that have projectiles piercing their bodies, indicating perhaps magic
for hunting. While male statuettes are less often represented, many female
statuettes are related to fertility. In fact, goddess worship seems to be
prevalent in ancient tribal cults. Judging from the archaeological finds, we
can, for instance, say that "the religion of Old Europe was polytheistic
and dominated by female deities. The primary goddess inherited from the
Paleolithic was the Great Goddess, whose functions included the gift of life
and increase of material goods, death-wielding and decrease, and regeneration.
She was the absolute ruler of human, animal, and plant-life, and the
controller of lunar cycles and seasons. As giver of all, death wielder, and
regeneratrix, she is one and the same goddess in spite of the multiplicity of
forms in which she manifests herself."
Such a supreme deity at a very early stage in human religious development
would counteract the claim of a pre-deistic state at which personal gods or
demons were still unknown and only the actions of sacred powers existed,
expressed through concepts of mana
and taboo, and activated true
totems, holy objects, and magic rites.
This fairly sophisticated mastery of human destiny led Malinowski, not without
justification, to regard wizards and witches as specialists who from earliest
time onward handled the art of magic, while he claimed at the same time that
the sphere of religion had always been accessible to everyone.
We should also not forget that pre-historic religion did not suddenly
die out, but continues in today's tribal religions, be it in Africa, Asia, or
in certain parts of America. While often suppressed by official monotheistic
religions, features of these pre-historic religions still live even if only in
folklore and fairy tales. The Great Goddess can appear as fate that is
involved with childbirth and foretells the length of life, or she appears as
the White Lady who represents death. Folklore and fairy tales serve as the
corporate memory of ancient times, though now these goddesses often are
demoted to mere witches or fairies. But there is another more immediate link
with the past, especially when we look at sacred sites. In ancient Rome pagan
temples were converted to Christian churches, and at many prominent places in
Central Europe, either at rivers or at exposed hills, where one now finds
monasteries or pilgrimage churches, there were once pre-historic sanctuaries
or holy sites. We may also think of Jerusalem, where the Jebusite sanctuary
became the site for the first and the second temple, and now the Muslim Dome
of the Rock. The name of the venerated deity may change, but the location
remains the same. If there is a continuity of the people, some traces of the
earlier cults may also find their way into subsequent cults. This means there
is a continuity not only in folklore and fairy tales, but in religion itself
from the pre-historic time to the present.
It is difficult to prove that either pre-historic religion or present
tribal religions are really primitive, as often has been claimed, be it in
their mastery of this world or in the perception of human destiny. Likewise it
is difficult, if not impossible, to show a strict development common to these
earliest forms of religious expressions. It is equally unwarranted to affirm
that religion grew specifically out of magic as to claim "magic very
definitely preceded religion."
We are in a similar dilemma concerning the origin of pre-historic
"monotheism." High gods emerge in an amazing manifoldness in
pre-historic and tribal religions as creators, cultural heroes, great
goddesses, sky gods, and lords of the animals. One might not be wrong to
conclude that they represent "the highest form that abstract thinking
assumed among any aboriginal peoples."
But it is unwarranted to perceive high gods as developments of the spirits and
"souls" of animism and polydemonism, or to see in them the influence
of higher religions. Animism, polydemonism, polytheism, and the manipulation
of magic are not threatened by the appearance of high gods, as we can see in
monotheistic religions where many of these features in one way or other are
still present, especially among the adherents, even if such presence is not
officially condoned. It seems that all the concepts found in
pre-historic and tribal religions, namely high gods, mana, taboo,
magic, animism, polydemonism, and even polytheism gradually led to, and to
some extent already represent, a personal understanding of God as the governor
of human existence and of the world around us.
It is also fairly safe to maintain
that no religion prior to 800-500 B.C. was more than a tribal religion. Only
from that time span on, which the German philosopher Karl Jaspers (1883-1969)
called the pivotal age of history, can we trace the emergence of universal
religions that extend beyond their original tribal confinements. It is hardly
mere coincidence that within these barely three hundred years a Deutero-Isaiah,
a Buddha, a Lao-tsu, a Zoroaster, and even a Homer and Plato stimulated the
spiritual life of humanity. It seems that during this epoch,
modern humanity emerged. Modern humanity must have felt a solidarity in
the basic understanding of its ultimate concerns that made it break through
the tribal barriers.
2. Polytheistic Religions
Polytheistic religions, meaning the worship of several or many gods,
seem to provide a transitional
link between tribal religions and monotheism. In the history of Latin America,
Africa, Papua New Guinea and many other places, where tribal religions have
rapidly been supplanted by the Christian faith, the transition came too
abruptly. New religions, such as cargo cult and voodoo, emerged, and messianic
pretenders with a clearly polytheistic persuasion arose. Yet the concept of
polytheism arose out of the Christian tradition and was originally used to
denigrate pagan religions. For instance, Origen (185-254) talked about
"atheistic polytheism" or polytheistic atheism.
Nowadays polytheism is often considered as a step in religious development
either toward monotheism or as a degeneration of monotheism. Yet polytheism is
neither a degeneration nor a religious expression on its way to monotheism.
Polytheistic religions exist in their own right and they can be very
different from each other as, for instance, Greek polytheism is from the Mayan
religion in Meso-America. But there are some characteristic features present
in most of them. While we may assume that there were polytheistic features in
pre-historical religions, we encounter polytheism primarily "in more
advanced cultures."
These cultures show an increased division of labor, social stratification and
political structures. In the past there was polytheism in the Greek city
states, in the kingdoms and empires of Sumeria, Assyria, and Babylonia, in
Mesopotamia, and in Egypt, but also in Meso-America and Peru, not to mention
India.
Diversified human activities led to a more diversified and discrete
understanding of the powers around humanity. There is a change from a more
dynamistic and demonistic understanding of transcendent powers to a more
anthropomorphic one. Humanity apparently began to distinguish more clearly
between the area of the power's responsibility and the power itself. In Greek
religion, in Shamanic religion, and to some extent even in the Israelite
religion, we detect a polydemonistic background with a plurality of
object-residing powers, and a subsequent emergence of more detached powers.
As soon as these powers were seen removed enough from the traditional
empowered objects, they were clothed in anthropomorphic gowns. In Greek
antiquity, for example, Xenophanes (ca. BC 580-ca. 490) remarked that humanity
pictures its gods according to its own likeness.
Consequently he reprimanded Homer and Hesiod for patterning the gods
too much according to human weaknesses.
Nevertheless there is a big difference between these gods and human beings,
because the gods are immortal. While humans were considered to have the
potential to attain divinity, as we see with the Roman emperors, humans and
gods are not identical. Gods can assume human shape as in the Hindu concept of
avatars or they can exist in human manifestations. But they can always slip
back into their godhead and therefore sometimes fool humans as to their real
identity. But humans and gods are also related, as the Greek poet Hesiod (ca.
BC 700) tells us when he wrote that "the gods and mortal men sprang from
one source."
Yet another Greek poet Pindar (BC 522/518-after 446) set the record straight
when he claimed: "One is the race of men, one is the race of gods, and
from one mother do we both derive our breath; yet a power that is wholly
sundered pareth us: in that the one is naught, while for the other the brazen
heaven endureth as an abode unshaken for ever more."
Like humans, gods also have their origins and their history. In contrast to
the biblical God, who is a history-making God as opposed to a God of history,
especially Greek gods have their family relations, love affairs, and
offspring.
The emergence of the godheads' distinct and anthropomorphic features
went hand in hand with their increasing specialization. This can best be
observed in Roman religion where many gods were characterized by special
adjectives, such as Jupiter, the thrower of thunder, or Fortuna, the goddess
of luck. Gods assume more and more a functional role, similar to the saints in
Roman Catholicism, where the function of one saint can differ from one region
to another. Often the multitude of gods was believed to operate under one
godhead, such as the Greek Olympic gods under Zeus, or the later Roman gods
under Jupiter, the god of the Emperor. Sometimes the cooperation of this
polytheistic high god with specialized gods resembles a monarchic or a city
type of government.
As we have seen from the fate
of the Greek philosopher Socrates and that of the early Christians this kind
of "monotheistic" polytheism was highly exclusive. If one doubted or
rejected the peculiarity of this pantheon venerated by a certain group of
people, they often counteracted through persecution or even capital
punishment. This shows us that polytheism already portrayed the factor of
exclusiveness. However, this did not introduce a static feature into
polytheistic religions. Characteristics of one god could easily be merged with
those of another god and even new gods could be introduced. The Roman Jupiter,
for instance, could be identified with the Greek Zeus, or the Roman Minerva
with the Greek Athena, and the Persian fertility goddess Magna Mater Cybele
could make its successful debut on the religious scene of imperial Rome
without her adherents facing any problems.
Yet polytheism can also
become monotheistic without ceasing to be polytheistic, as the German
Egyptologist Siegfried Morenz (1914-70) tells us in the case of Egypt. For
instance, "Amon, the primordial god is said to be 'the only One who made
himself into millions.' For in this case the unity of the primordial god is
nevertheless preserved by the fact that the hymnist praises the one God even
though he has developed to the point of infinite multiplicity."
We might think here also of Amenophis IV, Akhenaton (ruled as king BC 1353-1336) who left no place for the
countless deities in the Egyptian pantheon, but decreed that "the person
of the sun-god alone was deemed a worthy object of religious belief."
Besides these monotheistic trends in a clearly polytheistic religion, Morenz
also points to "Egyptian trinities ... whereby the gods were created out
of the primordial god at the decisive initial moment, and so formulating a
'trinity of becoming', comprising
the primordial One and the first pair of gods so begotten."
For Morenz this does not indicate that there was an evolution toward
monotheism in the Egyptian religion,
but this single unity expressed "was seen as that primordial 'power'
which existed before the gods and which later took individual shape."
This means that the various gods were seen as manifestations of what is
ultimately one divine principle.
This would also coincide with
the monist or non-dualist doctrines or with Mahayana Buddhism, where there is
no god or divine being, just emptiness, nothingness, and Nirvana. Yet
"all monistic ¾
even nontheistic ¾
views on the higher and more sophisticated doctrinal levels notwithstanding, a
de facto functional polytheism can
continue to exist among the masses of devout believers."
This is not only true for Hindus or the ancient Egyptians who overcame
Akhenaton's monotheism, but also for "the ordinary Buddhist (and even the
Buddhist monk) ... [who relate] to the many Buddhas and boddhisattvas that in fact constitute the Buddhist pantheon like a
polytheist to his gods." This means that ordinary people need this kind
of access to the ultimate through more accessible anthropomorphic embodiments
of the ultimate, similar to the way many
devout Roman Catholics prefer the cult of the saints for their every-day needs
to the approach of the one God.
When we come closer to our
own time, polytheism no longer seems to be compatible with the enterprising
spirit of modern humanity. It might be tempting to explain the origin of
monotheism by pointing to "founders" of world religions, such as
Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, and Zoroaster, and claim that they affirmed so
passionately the power of one god who does not tolerate any other gods, that
monotheism emerged. But we also remember the contrary evidence of Homer and
Hesiod, who decisively formed Greek polytheism, and not a monotheistic
religion. While monotheism presupposes polytheism, the latter does not always
evolve into the former. For instance, since the time of Moses Israel's
religion was highly monotheistic, but the neighbors of Israel, evidently
untouched by this monotheism, continued to favor their polytheism.
When we consider the cultural
and technological drive exhibited by those nations most clearly influenced by
monotheism, we wonder whether we can deny that we are here confronted with a
progress caused by spiritual factors. Admittedly, Greek and Roman polytheism
led to a very high cultural level too. But the intrinsic mood demonstrated by
Greek and Roman philosophy was not one of optimism, but of pessimism. Again we
must refer to Xenophanes who had already discovered that the Greek gods looked
much like deified men and that these gods were subjected to the destiny of the
world.
Stoic heroism best describes the earth‑denying yet earth‑bound
fate of humanity. The only continuity is provided by the eternal recurrence of
the same, by the ever‑moving celestial spheres. But there could not be
anything new under the sun, only reconfigurations of already existing facts.
Affirming the identity of creator, sustainer, and savior, montheism could be
much more progressive, since God not only provided the beginning, but also
sustained the present and urged humanity toward the future goal.
It is no surprise that in
many regions of the world polytheism was superseded by monotheism, be it of
the Christian or the Muslim kind. This did not mean that the host of deities
were practically abolished. While according to orthodox teaching
they no longer existed, they often recurred in subservient functions as
saints. Monotheism, too, as Israelite history shows, only gradually emerged.
There was first monolatry, meaning the exclusive worship of one god only
without denying the existence of other gods. But
archeologists show us when they unearth Astarte figurines in Palestine
or replicas of the Sacred Bull, that people still paid attention to other
gods. This was also the continuous lament of the great prophets of Israel,
such as Amos or Micah. Only gradually these other gods lost out. But what was
the reason for the eventual acceptance of monotheism?
3. Monotheistic Religions
Monotheism or the faith that there is only one god is usually associated with
the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic religions, though, as we have seen,
monotheistic tendencies have long been present in human religious history.
While the theory of an original monotheism holds little credence,
"research in recent years has it made clear that a great many primal or
archaic peoples have conceptions of a high god who is creator of the world,
has supreme authority over other gods and spirits, and presides over human
morality."
We have noted that Plato stressed the unity of the good and identified it with
god understood to be perfectly good, changeless, and the maker of the best
possible world. Aristotle, too, followed him in that idea with the concept of
a prime unmoved mover. In the Egyptian religion, too, we have noticed the
emphasis on Amenophis IV to proclaim the sun disk, Aton, as the only god who
exists, naming himself as the one
devoted to Aton. Yet this kind of "monotheism" was of short
duration, since after the death of Amenophis IV, the priests again reverted to
the earlier plurality of gods.
Hinduism too is characterized by a monistic tendency in its Advita or
non-dualistic thought, where Brahman is the unifying divine principle of
everything. Also Krishna as the Avatar of Vishnu can be put forth as the
supreme god saying that "no other higher thing Whatsoever exists."
Though there is this official recognition of the one highest being, people
still worship their particularistic gods. Even Buddhism can be regarded as an
essential monism. As in Amida
Buddhism or Pure Land Buddhism, Amida Buddha or the Buddha of love is
considered supreme and is worshipped exclusively, or, as in Hinayana Buddhism,
everything is focused on Nirvana as the unifying goal of everything. We should
also think of Zoroastrianism, a
religion that had considerable impact on exilic Judaism and advocated only one
god, Ahura Mazda, as the one who is good, just, and moral, and creates only
good things. Zoroastrianism wanted to overcome the then prevalent polytheism
of its environment. But there was the dualism of
Spenta Mainyu, as the good spirit, and Angra Mainyu, as the evil
spirit, who struggled with each other throughout history until the good would
finally prevail.
Three religions are generally held to fully express monotheism:
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The latter arose against a background of
polytheism of the ancient Near East, assimilating facets of both Judaism and
Christianity, while Christianity emerged from the religion of Israel. Even in
the Israelite religion we have no strict monotheism, but only the ever more
clearer realization that there is only one God, Yahweh. The other gods do not
amount to much. For a long time the people of Israel still worshipped in the
high places and had their own idols (cf. Micah 1:5.7). Yet in Judaism we have
then an unqualified monotheism, based on the decalog where the first
commandment reads: "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the
land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods
before me" (Ex 20:2f.). The other foundation of Israelite monotheism is
the Shema Israel, the "Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord
alone" (Deut 6:4). With this affirmation "all other forms of
polytheism are excluded. There is only one
God and no other."
While the Canaanite fertility god Baal or the female fertility goddess
Asherah could be divided into several local gods or goddesses (Judg. 3:7), the
God of Israel could not be divided. God was not a local god who was confined
to a certain abode, not even to Jerusalem, as Ezekiel witnessed, when
"the God of Israel" appeared among the exiles "by the river
Chebar" (Eze 10:20). The Israelites therefore were admonished: "You
shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and
with all your might" (Deut 6:5). The Shema Israel is the basic confession
of the Jews as already Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37/38-ca. 100)
attested when he wrote: "Twice each day, at the dawn thereof and when the
hour comes for turning to repose, let all acknowledge before God the bounties
which He has bestowed on them through their deliverance from the land of
Egypt."
The Shema Israel is also attached to
the right doorpost of Jewish houses where it is contained in a small metal
cylinder written on parchment, and certain hours of prayer are bound in the
phylactery on the forehead and on the left arm. It is not only the memory of
what God has done for the Israelites that makes this creed so important for
Judaism. The unity of the Godhead as the creator, preserver, and redeemer
distinguishes God from the created. The Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria
(d. ca. 45 AD), concludes his treatise On
the Creation of the World that Moses (i.e., the Pentateuch) taught us that
the
Deity has a real being and existence; …
God
is one; …
the
world was created;
the
world also which was thus created is one, since also the Creator is one; …
God
exerts his providence for the benefit of the world.
Once the plurality of holy powers and beings was understood to be
absorbed into only one God, it facilitated the worship of only one God, since
none of the gods or holy powers could claim to be neglected. Moreover, it
opened the possibility of a thoroughgoing desacralization of the world, since
the world was at the most considered as God's residence.
It certainly could not be equated with his being. The world was
understood as created by God and no longer experienced as something sacred in
its own right. People could now dare to subdue the earth and all the powers
contained therein. The one God is the divine originator and grantor of all
facets of life. This meant that the God who provides this life also supervises
its present course and establishes its final goal. Nothing equated with change
is divine and therefore God too cannot be associated with transitoriness. God
can sovereignly decree the movement of history toward a final goal envisioned
by God. History is now freed from
a cyclic pessimism prevalent in the polytheistic religions of Greece and
India, a pessimism engendered by the great wheel of existence or the seasonal
rhythm of birth and decay. History is endowed with divinely sanctioned linear
progressiveness. In other words, monotheism ensuing from the cradle of the
Israelite religion enables history to have a definite starting-point, a
definite course, and a definite goal. But monotheism has no built in mechanism
that would necessarily lead to an upward slanting progression in which
humanity plays a dominant role. If the one God assumes too much the position
of an all-determining power through which each facet of human life is ruled
and if God refuses to endow human activities with responsible freedom, then
monotheism can also lead to human passivity.
So Paul Radin, Primitive Religion, 266. We agree with Radin that religion cannot be
understood apart from life and from the vicissitudes of the economic order
in which it is so intimately embedded. Yet we wonder whether Radin's
approach does justice to the religions of the primitives. Radin is still
tempted to relegate primitive religion to an archaic phenomenon of the
past. The question here is of eminent importance, whether certain cultures
and societies allow only for certain religious phenomena or whether
religious phenomena might in part be responsible for a specific
development of cultures and societies. If the latter is true as, for
instance, Max Weber on a sociological level and, to some extent, E. E.
Evans‑Pritchard, Theories of
Primitive Religion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965), 112, on a
religious anthropological level assert, then religious phenomena may also
in part "transcend" the cultures and societies in which they
appear. Therefore Mircea Eliade is right when he mentions that, whatever
their contribution to the advance of science and technology might have
been, the real genius of the primitives was not expressed on this level. "Their creativity was expressed almost exclusively on
the religious plane." Mircea Eliade, "On Understanding Primitive Religions," in Glaube,
Geist, Geschichte. Festschrift für Ernst Benz zum 60. Geburtstage am 17.
November 1967, ed. by Gerhard Müller and Winfried Zeller (Leiden: E.
J. Brill, 1967), 504.
Zwi Werblowsky, "Polytheism," in The
Encyclopedia of Religion, 11:436.
Xenophanes (21:13), in Kathleen Freeman, Ancilla
to the Pre‑Socratic Philosophers, 22. Xenophanes (22:23 and 24)
himself suggests abandoning the idea of gods and believing in just one God
who sets everything in motion and who is "not at all like mortals in
body or in mind." However, his notion does not yet imply monotheism.
Cf. Kathleen Freeman, The
Pre‑Socratic Philosophers. A Companion to Diels, "Fragmente der
Vorsokratiker" (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1956), 97-99.
