Pagan Monotheism?
Mar. 17th, 2024 09:53 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
causticusI'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.
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.
(no subject)
Date: 2024-03-18 02:23 am (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2024-03-23 12:46 am (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2024-03-24 07:08 pm (UTC)