Why did monotheism supplant polytheism so dramatically?

[warandwar]

Surprised no one's mentioned this, but transitions to agrarian, centralized societies brought about rule-giving creator gods.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Surprised no one's mentioned this, but transitions to agrarian, centralized societies brought about rule-giving creator gods.

Because it's obviously false.

[warandwar]

Surprised no one's mentioned this, but transitions to agrarian, centralized societies brought about rule-giving creator gods.

Because it's obviously false.

I guess it's more animism -> polytheism with this, but it definitely laid the groundwork for monotheism.

[Famous Mortimer]

ouside the subcontinent

I know you're not referencing Hinduism specifically, but I think it's important to point out that Hinduism started out as polytheistic, as seen early on in the Rigveda, where they just assigned gods to everything that existed in nature, but as time went on it has become more monotheistic as generally accepted religous philosophy (AFAIK) says all these gods are merely expression of one true God.


So while the polytheistic cultural and worship traditions are kept alive, it's not 100% accurate to describe Hinduism as polytheistic. Panentheism is probably a better term to encapsulate it, but polytheistic and atheistic interpretations are not unheard of.

Why did Hinduism go from polytheism to more monotheistic teachings, as the world in general did? I have no idea. Sorry! I read a totally unsupported claim somewhere else that it might be because people are lazy as hell and monotheism is "easier".

Did you mean henotheistic, by chance?  

No. He did not.

He's talking about how some Hindus believe Brahman, the universal spirit, is the only real god. Other gods like Vishnu and Ganesha do not actually exist, they are merely symbolic of/metaphors for Brahman. Or possibly they exist but only as aspects of Brahman, in which case that could still be argued as a form of monotheism, at least as much as belief in the Christian Trinity is monotheism.

It's my understanding though that such belief is mostly prevalent among Western oriented Hindu apologists, who are embarrassed by traditional Hinduism. Really, most Indian Hindus are totally polytheists. Although I suppose you might call many of these traditional Hindu polytheists as henotheists. Although the vast majority of polytheists throughout history have likely been henotheists.

[angus]

Surprised no one's mentioned this, but transitions to agrarian, centralized societies brought about rule-giving creator gods.

Because it's obviously false.

damn, you're contrarian.  Okay, but I thought it sounded somewhat reasonable.

The first religions were probably atheistic.  Animal spirits and ancestor worship was sufficient for gatherers and nomads.  Volcanoes got angry and the volcanoes themselves need appeasement to stop blowing up.  Then, at some point people got sophisticated and assigned to the volcano a name and a symbolic avatar.  Eventually, there are many such avatars.  Some just want you to pour a little chicha on the ground, but others require that the still-beating hearts from brave captives be removed with obsidian knives. 

Eventually Cortés shows up and centralizes everything.  Instant monotheism.  (sorry, I couldn't resist. 

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Surprised no one's mentioned this, but transitions to agrarian, centralized societies brought about rule-giving creator gods.

Because it's obviously false.

I guess it's more animism -> polytheism with this, but it definitely laid the groundwork for monotheism.

You are making at least one distinction a lot finer than it should be.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm not certain that we should call the Abrahamic religions monotheistic. I think it would be more accurate to call them monolatristic as traditional Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all acknowledge the existence of other supernatural beings who desire to be worshipped by Man yet are inferior to the solitary creator deity that is the only acceptable recipient of human adoration in those religions.

Indeed, I would say that the dualism that pervades the Abrahamic religions are an important element of their popularity. It lets there be a scapegoat other than either Man or God to blame for the existence of evil.

[angus]

I think it would be more accurate to call them monolatristic

Fair enough.  "Thou shalt not worship other gods before me" isn't exactly the same as "Thou shalt not pretend that there are any other gods."

Indeed, I would say that the dualism that pervades the Abrahamic religions are an important element of their popularity....

That, and the fact that a band of nomadic early Hebrew-speaking tribesmen happened upon Zoroastrians, rather than, say, Aztecs or Hindus, about four millenia ago.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Indeed, I would say that the dualism that pervades the Abrahamic religions are an important element of their popularity....

That, and the fact that a band of nomadic early Hebrew-speaking tribesmen happened upon Zoroastrians, rather than, say, Aztecs or Hindus, about four millenia ago.

Isn't that what the Book of Mormon is all about?  The contact with proto-Zoroastrianism happened mainly during the exile period of two and a half millennia ago which is also when the Book of Mormon says some members of the Ten Tribes came to the Americas IIRC.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Indeed, I would say that the dualism that pervades the Abrahamic religions are an important element of their popularity....

That, and the fact that a band of nomadic early Hebrew-speaking tribesmen happened upon Zoroastrians, rather than, say, Aztecs or Hindus, about four millenia ago.

According to my Hebrew Bible professor, the idea that ancient Israelite religion derived from Zoroastrianism in any significant way has fallen out of fashion among people who study these things.

[DC Al Fine]

Indeed, I would say that the dualism that pervades the Abrahamic religions are an important element of their popularity....

That, and the fact that a band of nomadic early Hebrew-speaking tribesmen happened upon Zoroastrians, rather than, say, Aztecs or Hindus, about four millenia ago.

According to my Hebrew Bible professor, the idea that ancient Israelite religion derived from Zoroastrianism in any significant way has fallen out of fashion among people who study these things.

I can second that. That's not the most up to date scholarship, at least that I've seen in my reading.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Not that I'm in any way qualified to speak on the subject, but to chime in here, one of my professors last term for a religious studies course mentioned that there was a transition in religious during some like millenia-long period in the BC's where-in the focus of religion came to be upon a "fallen world" that would need to be redeemed by religion. This theory was referred to as the "Axial Age". It seems a number of the religions that rose form this were monotheistic, or at least more organized and moralistic, than their predecessors. The theory rested on things like increased travel between different civilizations and the diffusion of religious ideas, leading to a common theme emerging in newer or changed religions across Asia.

That's about all I can say on the subject.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Indeed, I would say that the dualism that pervades the Abrahamic religions are an important element of their popularity....

That, and the fact that a band of nomadic early Hebrew-speaking tribesmen happened upon Zoroastrians, rather than, say, Aztecs or Hindus, about four millenia ago.

According to my Hebrew Bible professor, the idea that ancient Israelite religion derived from Zoroastrianism in any significant way has fallen out of fashion among people who study these things.

I'll agree that "derived" would be too strong a claim, especially for Zoroastrianism itself instead of the broader spectrum of Mazdaic theology. But there really is no denying the development of dualistic interpretations of the existing Hebraic theology during the Exilic period which I think remains best explained by contact with the Mazdaic religion of the Persians during the exile.

[angus]

Indeed, I would say that the dualism that pervades the Abrahamic religions are an important element of their popularity....

That, and the fact that a band of nomadic early Hebrew-speaking tribesmen happened upon Zoroastrians, rather than, say, Aztecs or Hindus, about four millenia ago.

Isn't that what the Book of Mormon is all about?  The contact with proto-Zoroastrianism happened mainly during the exile period of two and a half millennia ago which is also when the Book of Mormon says some members of the Ten Tribes came to the Americas IIRC.

Well, maybe.  I've read only bits of it.  I actually have it in hardbound version.  That's what they used to give away in the late 80s.  They'd ring the bell and I'd snuff out my spliff and excitedly wonder who it was, only to learn that it was a couple of young men, about my age, giving out books.  In hardcover.  I could never resist hardcover books, no matter the subject, so I'd put on a pot of strong coffee and offer it to them, to no avail.  Anyway, yes, they add some of the American peoples to the mix in their book.  

I agree that we should not say that the monotheistic traditions inferred here do not necessarily claim to be derived from Zoroaster.  I don't think anyone is claiming that they are, but to discount the Big Z wold be remiss, I think.  I'll leave the definitive word to you, as clearly you have thought about this more than I, but it has always seemed rather obvious to me that the influence is self-evident.

[Хahar 🤔]

ouside the subcontinent

I know you're not referencing Hinduism specifically, but I think it's important to point out that Hinduism started out as polytheistic, as seen early on in the Rigveda, where they just assigned gods to everything that existed in nature, but as time went on it has become more monotheistic as generally accepted religous philosophy (AFAIK) says all these gods are merely expression of one true God.

So while the polytheistic cultural and worship traditions are kept alive, it's not 100% accurate to describe Hinduism as polytheistic. Panentheism is probably a better term to encapsulate it, but polytheistic and atheistic interpretations are not unheard of.

Why did Hinduism go from polytheism to more monotheistic teachings, as the world in general did? I have no idea. Sorry! I read a totally unsupported claim somewhere else that it might be because people are lazy as hell and monotheism is "easier".

The notion of Hinduism as fundamentally monotheistic is, basically, a response to Western religion.

[Famous Mortimer]

Indeed, I would say that the dualism that pervades the Abrahamic religions are an important element of their popularity....

That, and the fact that a band of nomadic early Hebrew-speaking tribesmen happened upon Zoroastrians, rather than, say, Aztecs or Hindus, about four millenia ago.

According to my Hebrew Bible professor, the idea that ancient Israelite religion derived from Zoroastrianism in any significant way has fallen out of fashion among people who study these things.

I'll agree that "derived" would be too strong a claim, especially for Zoroastrianism itself instead of the broader spectrum of Mazdaic theology. But there really is no denying the development of dualistic interpretations of the existing Hebraic theology during the Exilic period which I think remains best explained by contact with the Mazdaic religion of the Persians during the exile.

The Book of Esther literally says that God talked to the Persian emperor and the Persian emperor recognized Him as God. It makes no claim that the emperor converted to Judaism, there's no other historical record that says the Persian emperor converted to Judaism. The only thing to conclude is that the exile era Hebrews and the Zoroastrians considered their Gods basically the same.