Pagan Monotheism?

[causticus]

I've gotten myself into a particular substack rabbit hole as of late. Specifically, on the topic of how "Monotheism" arose during late antiquity and how the many manifestations of this new movement interacted with the traditional cults of the Hellenic/Roman world.

The thesis of this substack author and the academics he cites is that the (once-popular) notion that "Monotheism" arose as uniquely-Judean phenomenon is simply dead wrong. In fact, according to this hypothesis, there was an indigenous "Pagan Monotheism" in and around the Eastern Mediterranean and Near East that become quite popular throughout Anatolia, Thrace, and Greece during the Roman era. The primary evidence for this is a cult that Christian church fathers referred to as the "Hypsistarians"; in reference to the object of their worship, Theos Hypsistos, which translates as, "God Most High" (sound familiar?)

Modern archeologists have found more than 300 inscriptions throughout the aforementioned geographic areas that can be linked to this cult. Some scholars in the past have claimed the Hypsistarians were simply gentile "God-fearers," i.e. Greeks and Romans who worshipped the Jewish god but were not actually a part of the Jewish community. The evidence from the inscriptions totally contradict such assertions, as we can see Hypsistarians venerating Apollo as an "Angel of God Most High." Nothing we know about their worship seems to point to them being Jews or Christians. If the Hypsistarian movement (and other similar cults) arose out of indigenous paganism then this would put to bed the once-popular notion that "God Most High" was a unique insight of the Judeans and that any religion or movement based on this concept somehow owes its origin to Judaism (the mere existence of Zoroastrianism already disproves that idea, but I do digress). Anyway, if these Hypsistarian folks poured one out for Apollo, they undoubtedly did as well for other pagan deities. To make a long story short, I think this three-part series of posts explains the hypothesis much better than I can:

https://treeofwoe.substack.com/p/the-case-for-pagan-monotheism
https://treeofwoe.substack.com/p/the-hypsistarian-church-of-god-most
https://treeofwoe.substack.com/p/the-theology-of-the-hypsistarian

This is all quite so fascinating (as least I think so), but one objection I must voice is the use of the term "Monotheism" for this movement. To me, "Monotheism" simply means the belief in one and only one god. The author however expands the definition to include systems of belief that feature a "big G" God and include many "small g" gods. I understand this reasoning. He does this for pragmatic purposes, as he wishes to make a case for "uniting the right" of religious believers of various stripes. He sees the constant online infighting between Christians and Pagans as silly and counterproductive, and that they have more beliefs and goals in common than what might seem apparent. I get his intentions and I think they come from a good place. But the idealist in me is very sketchy about muddying the definition of words for the sake of practical or political expediency. Examining the concept of Monotheism though does open up its own can of worms: Is Christianity really Monotheist? (trinity, angels, saints, ect.). Is Zoroastrianism Monotheist or Di-theist? (that religion has a whole pantheon of divinities as well).

I instead propose a more neutral term, "Megatheism," to account for belief systems which have both the big-G God and little-g gods. This creates a very big tent that can include lots of different religions, philosophies, occult theories, ect. Embracing Megatheism can theoretically put to bed all the silly back-and-forth sniping "Monotheists" and "Polytheists" like to fling at one another. By this, great thinkers and sages like Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, Cicero, Plutarch, Apollonius of Tyana, Valentinus, Marcus Aurelius, Plotinus, Porphyry, Julian the "Apostate" (among so many others), were Megatheists through and through.

One the above hypothesis as a whole, I see the Hypsistarian movement as being part and parcel of the broader (then ascendant) "Magian" culture that the German historian Oswald Spengler wrote much about. According to my own intuition-based headcanon, the original Magian "ground zero" was a region that spanned from Upper Mesopotamia to Central Anatolia. The ancient Assyrian city of Harran was a key nexus of what was then a new religious awakening. The original cultures to partake in Magianism were the Arameans, Chaldeans, Medes/Persians, Cilicians, Cappadocians, Phrygians, Thracians, Armeneans, and perhaps some other groups. The Jews were the first people to codify Magian ideas into a concrete, book-based religion, however none of the core elements of Magian spirituality originated with the Jews (they were however instrumental in spreading Magian religious sentiments around to many different locales).

One useful thing I can see coming out of this discourse is the possibility the we can finally put to bed the popular adherence to the silly idea that a single historically-marginal people had unique and exclusive access to correct ideas about the Divine and Divinity. What we do really need now is an intelligent and principled form of ecumenism; 1000 boats each going their own way does not a community make! In that sense, I believe the above substack author really does have his intentions in the right place.

Comments

[jprussell]

I've thoroughly enjoyed Tree of Woe, and I had some good conversations with the author about this topic in a private chat.

My only quibble with your proposed "megatheism" is that it might erase some philosophically important differences (or at least, arguably important). For example, my understanding of late Platonic thought, such as that of Plotinus, is that "the One" is emphatically not "a person" in the sense that Gods are usually conceived as, and as the "God Most High" of the Hypsistarians and God the Father of the Jews and Christians definitely is. Of course, my understanding may be off, or it may be less of an important difference than it seems, but that's been my main sticking point with folks who offer something in the "megatheistic" camp.

Related, but if you haven't seen the "Physiocratic Curriculum" series of posts with recommended reading, they're quite good, and I especially recommend the metaphysics one for some further insight into where he's coming from and why he found the Hypsistarians so compelling: https://treeofwoe.substack.com/p/recommended-reading-part-iv-metaphysics

[causticus]

Yes, I agree that distinction is quite important, and one I deliberately left it out of my definition (because, inclusiveness and all).

1. When "Megatheism" goes from being mere philosophy and gets intermingled with religion, we know the common habit is for the religious sect in question to equate their god with the abstract, impersonal concept of Godhead. JMG likes to call this habit "metaphysical flattery". The human ego seems to have this tendency to want to personalize the impersonal; the human ego also likes to believe they are actually speaking to the manager whenever they make some sort of "important" skyward request or airing of grievances. Galaxy-brain philosophers know better, but once their ideas distill down to regular folk...well, we know what happens. So in practice, the Hypsistarians (like the Abrahamics) were venerating a god even if they believed it was the God they were directing their attention towards. Some inscriptions have shown the name "Zeus Hypsistos" and others have shown invocations to Helios, suggesting Him as a proxy for their big-G. So maybe we get an idea of where exactly their devotional energies were being directed. In sectarian forms of Hinduism we see one version equating Vishnu with Brahman, and other doing the same with Shiva. And then there's even some who do this with Devi. So yeah, in the same of feelgood ecumenism, I'm keeping my "Megatheism" a bit loosey-goosey.

2. I have read several parts of the "Physiocratic Curriculum" series. Very fascinating insights. Tree of Woe has assembled quite the arsenal of ideas and arguments that seem capable of swaying even the most hardened of rationalists toward entertaining the possibility that there is indeed something more out there. I do also relate quite well to his metaphysical eclecticism. I'm going to have to reread Plutarch; I do remember enjoying Moralia quite a bit. Tree of Woe recommended a book on Middle Platonists, which draws a lot from Plutarch; this has become yet another item on my reading list.

[jprussell]

0) Fair enough, that's consistent with your stated goal, and not something I have a problem with, just being pedantic :)

1) That's a good point, and I suspect it's exacerbated by folks who grew up immersed in monotheistic assumptions: why not go straight to the top where the real decisions are made? It's just philosophically a bit unsatisfying (see above note on pedantry).

2) Yeah, his synthesis really is pretty compelling. I'd love to see him write it up in a more coherent and fully fleshed out way, rather than just a guide to "read this stuff that shaped my thinking." And funnily enough, I just got The Middle Platonists with a birthday gift card because JMG or someone else on a Magic Monday recommended it recently.

[causticus]

Yeah, the more and more I mull this over, I more and more I firmly agree that the basic premise (that impersonal principles can and should be mingled with personalized objects of worship) to be a philosophical hot mess. The "God of the philosophers," i.e. the Source of All that is, is simply too far removed from human experience and understanding to be reified. It seems that any such effort to confuse or conflate the two has had strong political motivations behind it.

[illyria2001]

Reminds me of some Vodou traditions.

[causticus]

Yes, I believe the various Catholic-Pagan syncretisms could be included in my Megatheist umbrella label.

[sdi]

I'm sorry, causticus, but I dispute the premise. Every pagan pantheon I'm aware of has a big-G god, too: Zeus (to say nothing of Kronos or Uranus!), Odin, Plato's Demiurge, Plotinus' World Soul (to say nothing of the Intellect!), etc. For example, doesn't the Iliad say somewhere that Zeus is stronger than all the other gods put together? If that's not big-G, I don't know what is!

Rather, this really seems to me to be trying to fit all religions into an Abrahamic mold (or, conversely, to try to fit Abrahamic religions into a pagan mold, which works as poorly). "God," to a Jew or Christian, is not a term with the same definition as "god" to a Greek polytheist, or "kami" to a Shintoist, etc. To consider them comparable at all is to fundamentally undermine either one or the other. They have fundamentally different world models that are, in many ways, irreconcilable (though, of course, this hasn't stopped people from trying).

I remember reading a Wikipedia article years ago that included the (hilarious) line, "Arguments for or against the existence of god have been complicated by the fact that there is no widely agreed upon definition of god." I think that's the fundamental issue, that you're trying to impose a definition of god. But there is no one-size-fits-all definition of god. Indeed, Plotinus could tell you that as soon as you try to define divine realities, you've lost what you are trying to define! They're above definition.

[causticus]

Thanks for your response!

Before proceeding on addressing your objections, I think it would be helpful to provide some context (which are in the links I shared in the OP above). I'm scrutinizing the substack author's (and his sources) attempt to stretch the definition of "Monotheism" to something that is inclusive of a pantheon of "small-g gods." Here he is quoting the arguments of one of his main sources, the scholar Michael Frede:

[A]s far as the question whether there is one God or whether there are many gods is concerned, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between the Christian position and the position of Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, and their followers and thus the vast majority of philosophers in Late Antiquity.

[T]he Platonists, the Peripatetics, and the Stoics do not just believe in one highest god, they believe in something which they must take to be unique even as a god. For they call it “God” or even “the God",” as if in some crucial way it was the only thing which deserved to be called god. If, thus, they also believe that there are further beings which can be called “divine” or “god",” they must have thought that these further beings could be called “divine” only in some less strict, diminished, or derived sense. [Likewise], the Christians themselves speak not only of the one true God, but also of a plurality of beings which can be called “divine” or “god”; for instance, the un-fallen angels or redeemed and saved human beings.

This is just a small snippet; I think the rest of the argument is well presented in the article. My only real addition here was calling into question the idea that "Monotheism" would be an appropriate label for the ecumenical position being argued above.

Otherwise, I would agree that there is no one-size-fits-all definition of God or "a god" and that attempts at metaphysical ecumenism often carry imperialistic undertones. I think the project the author is seeking out may be an attempt to create an interpretatio centered around his own philosophical views, for better or worse.

[sdi]

Yeah, the second article hits exactly my real question, which is, "what's the point?" Is it spiritual illumination, or a political project? If it's the former, no amount of definitions will help you; if it's the latter, no amount of divinity will. And the author's pretty clear that his goal is the latter.

But I think of the likes of Thomas Aquinas, here: a man who devoutly spent his life codifying and upholding Christian dogma, but when he finally had a mystical experience of God, he went into seclusion and never wrote again. Or, there's old Laozi: "Those who know don't talk, those who talk don't know." Or Plotinus, "When speaking of the Absolute, it is perhaps better not to speak at all."

Basho tells us, "seek not the path of the ancients; seek that which the ancients sought," and so I think worrying overmuch about other people maybe did is a bit like a dog chasing it's tail. Why not chase something real, instead?

[causticus]

Yeah, no disagreement from me there! I was myself thinking along the lines of, "the Tao that can be named is not the Tao."

On the question of "what's the point?" the author answers it quite clearly:

Why reconstruct pagan monotheism? I have two reasons for doing so.

First, as a role-playing game designer and worldbuilder by vocation, reconstructing ancient religions is simply something I enjoy. The insights I gain from this effort will be directly useful in the continuing development of the fictional “Auran Empire” that forms the centerpiece of my role-playing game intellectual property. So, even if Tree of Woe did not exist, I would make this reconstruction for my own creative purposes.

Second, as a philosopher of the Right, I believe that reconstructing pagan monotheism can make a valuable contribution towards what Nelson Elliott calls “alt-ecumenism.” Our current religious institutions have become corrupted by the forces that they ought to oppose, and right-wingers of very different religions nowadays have more in common with each other than with the members of corrupted sects that are nominally their own. Yet all too often there is mutual antagonism between right-wing Christianity and right-wing Paganism. This must be overcome. By reconstructing pagan monotheism, I hope to demonstrate that many right-wing Christians and Pagans are ultimately worshipping the same high and holy God, and by doing so improve comity among our allies.

Clearly, a political project. But to be fair, it's arguable that every organized religion has been a political project.

[sdi]

Certainly, but that just means organized religion is downstream from culture—that is to say, it's ontologically subhuman rather than superhuman. That is to say, religion probably isn't the place to go if you want an authentic experience of divinity. Not for nothing does Manly P. Hall call it the Way of the Lonely Ones!