The Complete List of Candidates for the First Monotheism

M

mojobadshah

Guest
I have put forth that the Zarathushtrian religion is the earliest candidate for the monotheistic practice for quite a while. Ever since I've only heard of two main rivals to the title come up and those are Atonism and Judaism. Would I be wrong in asserting that that is it as far as candidates for the early monotheism? Can anyone think of any other candidates for monotheism that was introduced any earlier than these?
 
So far as I understand it, the general academic consensus is that Zoroastrianism originated monostheism before both Judaism and Akhenaten's reforms.

Of course, it does depend on how strictly we're defining monotheism. :)
 
Most of the Native American belief systems are pretty well monotheistic (our secondary spirits are pretty much along the line of spirits, angels, devils). Yazdanism (a collection of Kurdic religions) and the Mari cult of the Basques (really an adrogynous figure) are also strong candidates.

Again, depends on what you mean: "having one G!d" or "having a creator G!d with an existing textual revelation".
 
Since Hunduism and Zarathustianism share in common Mitra with Mithraism, it has to be that they have originated from a common ancestor. What that is, I couldn't tell you, but if we look at the stories of each, they are very similar. The problem is that the oldest texts in existence refer to ancients even then, so how can anyone say anything of the topic which is meaningful?

I have told you that the peak of human consciousness is a state of oneness, at the same time, coming to this state was restricted to mystery schools for most of history - there are still many alive today, Freemasonry comes to mind, which teaches the transcendence of duality through ritualization which was common in all civilizations we have recorded. Truly, there is no religion which does not teach what you generalize as monotheism, and looking for the oldest isn't going to be particularly beneficial. Whatsoever helps you to attain this state should be the pursuit, not who did it first - whosoever it was is long dead, you are alive today. What is most important is who has taken it to the highest peak possible? I would have to say Advaita has taken logic to its utmost heights to this end, mind can go no higher and almost attains by accident at the peak. Now you experience that oneness, and that is the true religion.

Perhaps the man who has expressed it most concisely is Osho though, a rather modern mystic. His talks are simply beautiful, although I came upon him after already experiencing it, so I cannot say whether he is useful without prior understanding. He has been a great liberating force though, reflecting more the modern mans further freedoms, rather than remaining affected by ancient bindings. He is not for the logical, though, he speaks of the heart, that center of consciousness which watches the mind, that intelligence which is witness to the stupidity and fallibility of logic at times.
 
Good one, L! There was probably a cultural-linguistic-ethnic precursor to both the Vedas and the Avestan. Yazdanism probably can be traced back to this cultural milleaux.

Think I will do some research on the genetics of the three groups (see if they are related).
 
Well, gooolly, the Parsis and Iranian Zoroastrians are (obviously very closely connected) as are the Brahmins and Iranians. In Gujarat there is a very noticeable cross-blending between Parsi and non-Parsi. Indian and Pakistani Muslims are pretty much genetically the same as Hindus. Finally Yezidis (a sub-group of Yazadans) are more closely related to Iranians than Kurds.

So looks like there is a Zorastrian-Vedic-Yazadi ethnic relationship.
 
Good one, L! There was probably a cultural-linguistic-ethnic precursor to both the Vedas and the Avestan. Yazdanism probably can be traced back to this cultural milleaux.

Think I will do some research on the genetics of the three groups (see if they are related).

Feel free to share your findings either via PM or on the forums if you draw any insightful conclusions. The word actually means the same as religion actually did at one time: "that which causes to bind". In both Vedic and Avesta texts, he is the divinity related to contracts, but I feel this is a mistake on the part of modern interpreters. Mithraism is simply a mystery school based on this God which much of Western Philosophy has its roots in.
 
So far as I understand it, the general academic consensus is that Zoroastrianism originated monostheism before both Judaism and Akhenaten's reforms.

This has been my understanding as well. Even among non-academics. As I've mentioned before students affiliated with Catholic Church or schools appear to have been more cognizant of Zoroastrianism and one member even mentioned that Zoroaster was the first monotheist.

Of course, it does depend on how strictly we're defining monotheism.

I stand with Martin Haug that Zoroastrianism was indeed monotheism, their God and creator of the universe, Ahura Mazda, was omnipotent and responsible for having created his malfeastic adversary Angra Mainyu, And Spenta Mainyu is conceptually equivalent to the Holy Spirit in Christianity. So if one were to exclude Zoroastrianism from the gamut of monotheistic religions then one would have to exclude Judaism (because 1. strict monotheist statements do not appear in the Hebrew Bible until the Jews came into contact with the Zoroastrians and 2. afterwards there is mention of angels or spirits) Christianity, and Islam (because the Koran mentions angels or spirits as well). Also, in the end, the monotheistic traits of these "Levant" religions are resemblant enough that often times their members claim the God of these religions are essentially the same God.

I have told you that the peak of human consciousness is a state of oneness, at the same time, coming to this state was restricted to mystery schools for most of history - there are still many alive today, Freemasonry comes to mind, which teaches the transcendence of duality through ritualization which was common in all civilizations we have recorded. Truly, there is no religion which does not teach what you generalize as monotheism, and looking for the oldest isn't going to be particularly beneficial. Whatsoever helps you to attain this state should be the pursuit, not who did it first - whosoever it was is long dead, you are alive today.

I appreciate embracive culture, but in this case I do believe that it is important to understand who came up with the idea of monotheism first. For one thing religion and cultural heritage is tied to a communities identity and is about authority structures in a world where a cultural battle is being waged between "biopirates" and "fakelorists" and the real thing. There is a certain kind of truth to the fact that the ancient Aryans first conceived of God and not the Jews, the Christians, or the Muslims.

Well, gooolly, the Parsis and Iranian Zoroastrians are (obviously very closely connected) as are the Brahmins and Iranians. In Gujarat there is a very noticeable cross-blending between Parsi and non-Parsi. Indian and Pakistani Muslims are pretty much genetically the same as Hindus. Finally Yezidis (a sub-group of Yazadans) are more closely related to Iranians than Kurds.

So looks like there is a Zorastrian-Vedic-Yazadi ethnic relationship.

The difference between the Zartushtis of Iran and those of Gujarat is that the former have maintained the Aryan language whereas the latter gave up the Aryan language apart from the Avestan language which they use for liturgical purposes. But the Zartushtis or Iran, the Parsis, the Yezidi Kurds and the non-Yezidi Kurds all play an important part in the preservation of the Aryan cultural heritage.

Speaking of Mithraism and the Zoroastrian-Vedic-Yazadi you may want to look into the religion mentioned in this article:

"Abstract: According to the present article the first Iranian prophet who laid the foundation for sun worship (Mitraism) was called Mehabad. Abad Bozorg (the big Abad), who was a pious ruler in Iranovich was born 3593 years before the birth of Prophet Zoroaster. He laid the foundation of monotheism or divine worship and a constitution based on justice which was known as Mitradad." - Zarathushtra; The First Monotheist Prophet (CAIS)
The following article has some citations relating to the topic... I was already familiar with some of Wallis Budge statements about ancient monotheism in Egypt:

The Concept of Monotheism Since Ancient Times

Vedic monotheism:

http://www.asvattha.org/Data/Article021.pdf

Coomaraswamy - Vedic "Monotheism"

I've heard this before. That it was really monotheism, praise of the "father or sky god" that preceded polytheism. The interesting thing is that people oftentimes regard Zaratushtra as having been a reformer of religion in the sense that he brought about monotheism, but some authors on the subject have depicted quite a different picture implying that monotheism existed long before Zarthushtra, but began to devolve into polytheistic idol worship, and saw Zarathushtra as more of a restorer of the good religion than a reformer. As far back as the Irano-Aryans can recall they have been monotheists whereas the Hindus, Greeks, Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Armenian, Baltaic, Slavic, and Albanian mythology consists of polytheism before their conversion to Christianity or Islam.
 
There's one additional book I'd recommend:

The Vedic Experience Mantramanjari by Raimundo Panikkar. Panikkar was a Roman Catholic priest and Professor of Religious Studies at UC Santa Barbara.
 


I've heard this before. That it was really monotheism, praise of the "father or sky god" that preceded polytheism. The interesting thing is that people oftentimes regard Zarathustra as having been a reformer of religion in the sense that he brought about monotheism, but some authors on the subject have depicted quite a different picture implying that monotheism existed long before Zarathustra, but began to devolve into polytheistic idol worship, and saw Zarathustra as more of a restorer of the good religion than a reformer. As far back as the Irano-Aryans can recall they have been monotheists whereas the Hindus, Greeks, Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Armenian, Baltaic, Slavic, and Albanian mythology consists of polytheism before their conversion to Christianity or Islam.
Mojobadshaw
exquisite creature

Rodney Stark , in his books on the history of Gyd & religion
has suggested just this
that the "one Gyd" (the Mono-) has always been around , since
the beginning of human self-awareness
(that Monotheism precedes Animism & Polytheism)
& that all other Mono-s are rediscoveries or reforms of
this aboriginal Mono-

this Mono- is a once-powerful high Creator-god
which now moves to the background (semi-retires
becomes like background radiation leftover from the Big-Bang)
& lets the (Animistic) spirits or (Polytheistic) forces take center-stage
(dynamic energies which relate more directly to people's everyday lives
multiple , "poly-" kinds of energy)

with Judaism & Christianity & Islam , this is actually happening too
the large-raft of their followers feeling more comfortable dealing with
angels & saints & clerics than
dealing with the Mono- , directly
(even Axial-Age Brahmanism devolving into modern polyglot Hinduism
Brahman feeling to humble folk , too Deistically remote to be approachable)

the awesome aboriginal Creator-god feeling static
feeling far-away & impersonal

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

the first intimation of a Mono- might originally have been
(& for Stark , probably was) articulated by
some hunter-gatherer shaman 40,000-odd years ago

thus , if u are going to make this "Monotheism" discussion meaningful
u will first have to delimit "Monotheism" down to some pragmatic criterion

(like saying , who discovered America ?
there have been stories about Welsh sailors or Chinese or Polynesians
been solid archeological evidence dug-up on Newfoundland of Norse settlements
& u cannot forget the 3 different waves of "Native"-Americans across
the Bering-Sea-ice-bridge , but pragmatically
this answer is still "Columbus" & the Europeans
because their "discovery" has been built-upon , deep into the present-day)

so
which Mono-
was pragmatically Mono- ?
which Mono- built a lasting Monotheism ?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

by this (pragmatic) criterion , i'd have to say
(either it hasn't happened yet , or)
Judaism

a concept hinted-at much earlier in Israelite history , but
not forged into something hard & real until Babylon (the captivity)

Gyd , disconnected
from a physical-place or a traditional-culture

(& , Gyd
before Judaism got all "poly"ed-up by
dualistic-Zoroastrianism or idealistic-Hellenism)

one Gyd (not a flurry nor a committee of deities) actively
engaged in the world

changing this world

 

so
which Mono-
was pragmatically Mono- ?
which Mono- built a lasting Monotheism ?


I grew up celebrating Christmas and my understanding growing up had been that Judaism was where the monotheistic genesis began, having developed into Christian monotheism, and in turn Muslim monotheism. It wasn't until after high school that I was first exposed to the religion of the 3 wisemen, Zoroastrianism. So I have pretty good notions of both worlds Abrahamic and Zoroastrian and though I notice most authors on religion don't make a point of who "invented" monotheism the combined weight of all the evidence archeological, linguistic, and religio-history points to the Zoroastrians as the inventors of monotheism. Zoroastrianism was WIDESPREAD during the Persian Empire (an important detail that historians appear to have glossed over). The Jewish or Israelite presence was minute and lacked solidarity during this period. Splinter Zoroastrian Magian religions rose up throughout the empire. Evidence of "strict statement" of monotheism does not appear in biblical sources until after the Jews had come into contact with the Persian Zoroastrians.

As far as monotheism before then, I think its interesting, but everything is left to hypothesis. Its analogous to the Proto-languages and cultures. They may or may not have existed. People have tried to argue that religions such Hinduism, and Atonism, and others were monotheistic, and I can see why, but there is a difference between looking at a few statements that appear monotheistic within the context of a composition or religion, and consistent statements of monotheism throughout.




by this (pragmatic) criterion , i'd have to say
(either it hasn't happened yet , or)
Judaism


a concept hinted-at much earlier in Israelite history , but
not forged into something hard & real until Babylon (the captivity)

Gyd , disconnected
from a physical-place or a traditional-culture

(& , Gyd
before Judaism got all "poly"ed-up by
dualistic-Zoroastrianism or idealistic-Hellenism)

one Gyd (not a flurry nor a committee of deities) actively
engaged in the world

changing this world


Judaism was henothistic before the Jews came into contact with the Zoroastrians. The first strict statement of monotheism can be found in redactions of Deuteronomy which were made around the same period Deutero-Isaiah was written. The same intertestimentary material that this strict statement of monotheism can be found includes this "polytheism" that you speak of, with the mention of angels. But angels do not share divine status with God, just as men do not speaking in context of the literature.

And like I said, I stand with Martin Huag, that in the similar to how Yahweh was responsible for both good and evil Ahura Mazda was responsible for Spenta Mainyu "the Holy Spirit" and Angra Mainyu "the Hostile Spirit," but I get the feeling that the Zoroastrians had been thinking about their version of monotheism a lot longer than the Jews had been because really Ahura Mazda initially created two spirits THEN one of them, Angra Mainyu, CHOSE evil (just as men were created with free will to choose between good and evil) which sort of renders Ahura Mazda independent of the evil in the world and all good. It also looks like the Jews realized this fact and this Zoroastrian idea of a "benevolent God" and an "an angel that falls from heaven" (a concept that's not mentioned in either Old or New Testament other the Ethopian Cannon which was attest long after the Jews had come into contact with the Persians) because these ideas influenced Christianity and medieval Christian belief systems. And IN THE END there is no dualism in the context of the Avesta. Ahura Mazda or God renders the Angra Mainyu, the devil, impotent and cleanses the world of evil.

Another thought that I've been meaning to bring up is that speaking in terms of the non-Judaean or Greco-Roman world-view before Christianity the Greco-Romans had accepted Zoroaster, himself, "the son of Ahuramazda" to have lived 5000 years before Xerxes invasion (6000 BC). It wasn't until Christianity or Judeo-Christianity subdued the west that this world-view began to change replacing and give presidence to Judeo-Christian religious timelines over there own preconceived historical timelines.
 
So although scholars have found this date of 6000 years BC for Zoroaster "absurd" there is a sort of truth in that the pre-Christian societies had accepted this date as reasonable until their religious egos took over.
 

Mojobadshah
exquisite creature

it's been awhile since i looked into Zoroastrianism
(Zoroaster usually being acknowledged as the first
of the great Axial Age thinkers , circa 600-700bce)

i have long been aware of the Zoroastrian influence
on late Hebrew writings (during the Persian period
an influence continuing-on thru the Greek & Roman periods)

but i have never considered Zoroastrianism as monotheism
(due to its apparent light-versus-darkness fierce-dualism)
but this may be something i should start to rethink ( ? )

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

trouble is , the question of "monotheism" (to me) has long seemed
a matter of semantics , a fruitless intellectual exercise

monotheism (implicitly) proposes a cosmology
a cosmology with one god , & no other divine-beings

but "cosmology" (as far as i am concerned) is idolatry , &
has no valid place within religion (within any religion ! )

(the only "cosmology" which i personally ascribe to , is a
secular picture-of-reality , one which is critical & science-based)

what is religious (to me) in , say "Judaic monotheism" is
the hard results of this belief , the religion's moral & spiritual character

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

every polytheistic people have a "contract" (a covenant)
between the local-patron deity & the people who worship it
the people sing regular praise to & make blood sacrifices to this deity
in exchange for this deity providing protection & prosperity to the people

this is the "standard contract" in the ancient agrarian world
(no fine-print , no legal mumbo-jumbo) , a straight-deal
& everybody understands the terms of this deal
& this "everybody" includes the ancient Israelites , but

the Israelites are a rebellious people
(with perhaps residual memory of tribal times
of personal egalitarian small-group bonds , prior to
mass-society's temple & kingship bonds) , &
the Hebrew prophets begin to ask for a "new contract"
(not a "straight-deal" , but ... )

a 2-prong contract
1. to love Gyd with all u'r heart & with all u'r soul & with all u'r strength
2. to love u'r neighbor as u'r self
(& to do both with no expectation of reward
to do both , solely derived from righteous love)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

okay , Indian ascetics & Chinese literati rebel
against the agrarian "straight-deal" , too
(at about the same time , circa 2500ya) , seeking
a religion based-upon ethics & compassion

& they do so without lurching toward monotheism
(same morality , different spirituality) , but
what is brand-new about this Hebrew 2-prong covenant
is not the monotheism itself , but what (instead) is the direct end-product
is the direct result , of Hebrew monotheism

righteous love

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thomas L. Thompson (in The Mythic Past , pages 375-397)
points out that all the old polytheisms (from Babylon to Egypt to Greece)
during the 1st millennium-bce , are moving toward
a kind of practical-monotheism anyway

cosmologically , there is nothing all that unique
in what the Hebrews (or , for that matter
what the Persians) are beginning to believe

living in a large commerce-based empire (like the Babylonian Empire)
one nation's fertility god becomes exchangeable with another nation's fertility god
("different name but same god") , & eventually every pantheon's
chief-god ("high god" like Marduk with his "50 names") takes upon-himself
each of the "attributes" of more & more of the lesser gods
till the point where this top-god is , de facto all the gods in one

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

so , which religion is the first "monotheism" ?
(the answer could be "Mardukism" as easily as anything else)

that is why , to me
this is all a moot question (an academic exercise)

u (rather) have to look to
a religion's effect (long-term effect) within the conduct of its believers

& this is demonstrable (imperfectly so , but nonetheless demonstrable)
within Judaism & Christianity & Islam down thru the centuries

righteous love
(ethics & compassion)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

not mythology but long-term results in the practice of believers
a real sea-change from polytheistic temple-god worship
worship where the ultimate-end is no longer "protection" & "prosperity"

i would , Mojobadshah
be very curious to know what brand-new "covenant"
Zoroaster offers Persia , & in what ways (2700ya) this
changes how believers behave (lasting down thru the ages)

(something i , sadly
know next to nothing about)

what exactly (morally & spiritually) did Zoroaster's "monotheism" actually produce ? ?

 
Back
Top