Misplaced Pages

Urmonotheismus: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:54, 5 May 2019 editEditor2020 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers155,688 edits →See also: alphabetical order, not sure about these links← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:34, 20 November 2024 edit undoSimLibrarian (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users124,562 editsm dash style (MOS:DASH), rm same-section duplicate links (MOS:DUPLINK)Tag: Visual edit 
(39 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Hypothesis proposing monotheism as the original religion of humanity}}
'''''Urmonotheismus''''' (German for "] monotheism") or '''primitive monotheism''' is the hypothesis of a ] '']'', from which non-monotheistic religions degenerated. This is diametrically opposed to the evolutionary view of religion, another hypothesis which holds that religion progressed from simple forms to complex: first preanimism, then ], ], ] and finally monotheism (see ]).<ref name=Dhavamony >{{cite book | last1 = Dhavamony | first1 = Mariasusai | title = Phenomenology of religión | publisher = Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana | year = 1973 | pages = 60–64 | isbn = 88-7652-474-6}}</ref>
{{italics}}
{{Anthropology of religion}}

The term '''{{lang | de | Urmonotheismus}}''' (] for "] monotheism") or "'''primitive monotheism'''" expresses the ] of a ] '']'', from which ] ] allegedly ].<ref name="Britannica">{{cite encyclopedia |last=Smart |first= Ninian |encyclopedia=] |title=Polytheism: The nature of polytheism |url= https://www.britannica.com/topic/polytheism |date= 10 November 2020 |origyear= 26 July 1999 |publisher=] |location=] |url-status=live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20201111205729/https://www.britannica.com/topic/polytheism |archive-date=11 November 2020 |access-date= 25 April 2021 |quote= Belief in many divine beings, who typically have to be worshipped or, if malevolent, warded off with appropriate rituals, has been widespread in human cultures. Though a single evolutionary process cannot be postulated, there has been a drift in various traditions toward the unification of sacred forces under a single head, which, in a number of nonliterate 'primal' societies, has become embedded in a supreme being. Sometimes this being is a '']'' (an 'indifferent god'), regarded as having withdrawn from immediate concern with men and thought of sometimes as too exalted for men to petition. This observation led ], an Austrian anthropologist, to postulate in the early 20th century an ''Urmonotheismus'', or 'original monotheism,' which later became overlaid by polytheism. Like all other theories of religious origins, this theory is speculative and unverifiable. More promising are attempts by sociologists and social anthropologists to penetrate to the uses and significance of the gods in particular societies.}}</ref> This ] contrasts diametrically with another evolutionary view on the development of religious thought: the hypothesis that religion progressed from simple forms to complex: first pre-animism, then ], ], ], and finally monotheism.<ref name=Dhavamony >
{{cite book
| last1 = Dhavamony | first1 = Mariasusai
| title = Phenomenology of religion
| publisher = Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana
| year = 1973 | pages = 60–64 | isbn = 88-7652-474-6
| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=ALfSPvRO7DgC
| quote = The evolutionary view of the history of religions saw religion as progressing from the most simple forms like preanimism, animism, totemism to higher forms like polytheism and finally monotheism.
}}
</ref>


==History== ==History==
Scottish anthropologist ] concluded in 1898 that the idea of a high god or "All Father" existed among some of the simplest of contemporary tribes prior to Western contact.<ref name=Dhavamony/> In 1898, the Scottish anthropologist ] proposed that the idea of a ], the "high God", or "All Father" existed among some of the simplest of contemporary ]s prior to their contact with Western peoples,<ref name=Dhavamony/> and that ''Urmonotheismus'' ("primitive ]") was the original religion of humankind. This idea has parallels in the works of ] and in ].<ref>{{cite book |last=Klein |first=Reuven Chaim |year=2018 |chapter= The Genesis of Idolatry and the Guardians of Monotheism |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Dx9xDwAAQBAJ |title=God versus Gods: Judasim in the Age of Idolatry |publisher=Mosaica Press|pages=33ff |isbn= 978-1946351463 |ol=27322748M}}</ref>

The Catholic priest ] (1868–1954) defended the idea of ''Urmonotheismus'' in his work {{lang | de | Der Ursprung der Gottesidee}} (The Origin of the Idea of God), published 1912 to 1955, opposing the "Revolutionary Monotheism" approach that traces the emergence of monotheistic thought as a gradual process spanning the Bronze and Iron Age ] and ].<ref name="Pettazzoni 1958">{{cite journal |author-first= Raffaele |author-last= Pettazzoni |author-link= Raffaele Pettazzoni |date= April 1958 |title= Das Ende des Urmonotheismus |journal= ] |volume= 5 |issue= 2 |location= ] |publisher= ] |pages= 161–163 |language= German |doi= 10.2307/3269406 |jstor= 3269406 |eissn= 1568-5276 |issn= 0029-5973 |lccn= 58046229 |oclc= 50557232}}</ref> According to Schmidt, alleged traces of primitive monotheism appear in the ] ] and ], and in the ] ]. Schmidt views monotheism as the "natural" form of ], which was later overlaid and "degraded" by ] after the ] in primitive human societies, and personified ] became worshipped as well as divine beings.<ref name="Pettazzoni 1958"/>


A significant part of the work of Italian ] and historian of religion ] (1883–1959) on the ] of ] concentrated on refuting the speculative theory of "primordial monotheism" (''Urmonotheismus'') previously developed by Schmidt, and on the study of the conceptions of the Supreme Being in so-called ].<ref name="Pettazzoni 1958"/> Schmidt believed that evidence of ] existed in ], and argued that all human societies recognize the Supreme Being as a non-exclusive spiritual entity which is paramount and also opposed by other spiritual entities.<ref name="Pettazzoni 1958"/> Pettazzoni challenged Schmidt's concept of a Supreme Being as necessarily entailing monotheism.<ref name="Pettazzoni 1958"/><ref name="Gnuse 1997">{{cite book |author-last= Gnuse |author-first= Robert K. |year= 1997 |chapter= Monotheism in Ancient Israel's World |chapter-url= https://books.google.com/books?id=pBSJNDndGjwC&pg=PA138 |title= No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel |location= ] |publisher= ] |series= ] |volume=241 |pages= 138–146 |isbn=9780567374158}}</ref> Rather, Pettazzoni writes that monotheism is a recent religious development over the course of a slow revolution in ] and perhaps ].<ref name="Gnuse 1997"/> In the ], this debate is carried on by the narratives about the ] who wrangle with the ]; such scenarios serve to re-affirm both the ] of the ] in opposition to the Canaanite religion and their belief in one exclusive ] ] coexisting with lesser divine beings.<ref name="Gnuse 1997"/> (''See also'': ]).
Urmonotheism was first defended by ] (1868–1954), in his ''Der Ursprung der Gottesidee'' appearing from 1912, opposing the "Revolutionary Monotheism" approach that traces the emergence of monotheistic thought as a gradual process spanning the Bronze and Iron Age ] and ].<ref name = Pettazzoni >{{cite journal | title = Das Ende des Urmonotheismus | journal = ] |date = April 1958| first = Raffaele | last = Pettazzoni |authorlink= Raffaele Pettazzoni | volume = 5 | issue = 2 |language= German }}</ref>


Schmidt's hypothesis was controversially discussed during much of the first half of the 20th century. In the 1930s, Schmidt adduced evidence from ] and ], ], and other primitive civilizations in support of his views.<ref>''High Gods in North America'', 1933</ref><ref>''The Origin and Growth of Religion: Facts and Theories'', 1931</ref> He also responded to his critics. For instance, he rejected Pettazzoni's claim that the ] were merely a dim personification or embodiment of the physical sky, writing in ''The Origin and Growth of Religion'': "The outlines of the Supreme Being become dim only among later peoples".<ref name="Schmidt 1972, page 211">
Alleged traces of primitive monotheism were located in the deities Assyrian ] and ], and Hebrew ]. Monotheism in Schmidt's view is the "natural" form of theism, which was later overlaid and "degraded" by ].<ref name = Pettazzoni/>
{{cite book
|last1 = Schmidt
|first1 = Wilhelm
|author-link1 = Wilhelm Schmidt (linguist)
|translator-last1 = Rose
|translator-first1 = H. J.
|translator-link1 = H. J. Rose
|year = 1972
|orig-date = 1931
|title = The Origin and Growth of Religion: Facts and Theories
|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=LgHXAAAAMAAJ
|series = Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series
|location = New York
|publisher = Cooper Square Publishers
|page = 211
|isbn = 9780815404088
|access-date = 1 April 2023
}}
</ref> Schmidt adds that "a being who lives in the sky, who stands behind the celestial phenomena, who must 'centralize' in himself the various manifestations is not a personification of the sky at all".<ref name="Schmidt 1972, page 211"/> According to Ernest Brandewie in ''Wilhelm Schmidt and the Origin of the Idea of God'', Schmidt also claims that Pettazzoni fails to study Schmidt's work seriously and often relies on incorrect translations of Schmidt's German.<ref>
{{cite book
|last1 = Brandewie
|first1 = Ernest
|year = 1983
|title = Wilhelm Schmidt and the Origin of the Idea of God
|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=zetKAAAAYAAJ
|series = Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series
|location = Lanham, Maryland
|publisher = University Press of America
|isbn = 9780819133632
|access-date = 1 April 2023
|page = 251
}}
</ref> Brandewie also says Pettazzoni's definition of primitive ethical monotheism is an "arbitrary" straw-man argument, but he says Schmidt went too far when he claimed that such ethical monotheism was the earliest religious idea.<ref>Brandewie, pages 44 and 119</ref>


According to Pettazzoni's analysis, Schmidt confused science and ], as Pettazzoni writes in the booklet ''The supreme being in primitive religions'' (1957). For Pettazzoni, the idea of a god in primitive religions is not an ] concept independent of historical contexts; there is only the historical context, which arises from varying existential conditions within each type of human society. It is only within that societal context that the idea of God can satisfy, hence the Supreme Being does not exist ''a priori''. Therefore, one finds the Supreme Being defined variously as the one who sends the ], as the protector of the ], or even as a life-giver associated with the ] and ] in ]—unique historical contexts that each give rise to their own particular conception of a Supreme Being. Pettazzoni argues that religion must be conceived first and foremost as a ], conditioned by historical, cultural, and social contexts, with unique influence on other social and cultural realities within the same human society that produced it.
Schmidt's hypothesis was controversially discussed during much of the first half of the 20th century. In the 1930s, Schmidt adduced evidence from ], Australian aborigines and other primitive civilizations in support of his views.<ref>''High Gods in North America'', 1933</ref><ref>"The Origin and Growth of Religion: Facts and Theories," 1931</ref> He also responded to his critics. For instance, he rejected Rafael Pettazzoni's claim that the sky gods were merely a dim personification or embodiment of the physical sky, writing in "The Origin and Growth of Religion": "The outlines of the Supreme Being become dim only among later peoples".<ref name="Schmidt 1972, page 211">Schmidt, "The Origin and Growth of Religion: Facts and Theories," New York: Cooper Square Publishers, 1972, page 211</ref> He adds that "a being who lives in the sky, who stands behind the celestial phenomena, who must 'centralize' in himself the various manifestations is not a personification of the sky at all".<ref name="Schmidt 1972, page 211"/> According to Ernest Brandewie in ''Wilhelm Schmidt and the Origin of the Idea of God'', Schmidt also claims that Pettazzoni fails to study Schmidt's work seriously and often relies on incorrect translations of Schmidt's German.<ref>Brandewie, ''Wilhelm Schmidt and the Origin of the Idea of God'', Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1983, page 251</ref> Brandewie also says Pettazzoni's definition of primitive ethical monotheism is an "arbitrary" straw-man argument, but he says Schmidt went too far when he claimed that such ethical monotheism was the earliest religious idea.<ref>Brandewie, pages 44 and 119</ref>


By the 1950s the academic establishment had rejected the hypothesis of primitive ethical monotheism, so the proponents of Schmidt's "Vienna school" rephrased his ideas to the effect that while ancient cultures may not have known "true monotheism", they at least show evidence for "original ]" (''Ur-Theismus'', as opposed to non-theistic ]), with a concept of ''Hochgott'' ("High God", as opposed to ''Eingott'' "Single God"). ] in the light of this have moved away from postulating a "memory of revelation" in pre-Christian religions, replacing it with an "inkling of redemption" or ] unconsciously anticipating monotheism.<ref name = Pettazzoni/> That said, ] noted in ''Theories of Primitive Religion'', first published in 1962, that most anthropologists have abandoned all evolutionary schemes like Schmidt and Pettazzoni's for the historical development of religion, adding that they have also found monotheistic beliefs existing side-by-side with other religious beliefs.<ref>Sir Edward Evans-Pritchard, ''Theories of Primitive Religion'', New York: Oxford University Press, 1987, pages 104–105 By the 1950s, the academic establishment had rejected the hypothesis of primitive ethical monotheism (but not ''per se'' other proposed versions of ''Urmonotheismus''), and the proponents of Schmidt's "Vienna school" rephrased his ideas to the effect that while ancient cultures may not have known "true monotheism", they at least show evidence for "original ]" (''Urtheismus'', as opposed to non-theistic ]), with a concept of ''Hochgott'' ("High God", as opposed to ''Eingott'' "Single God") – in effect, ], which acknowledged the Supreme Being but also various lesser gods.{{cn|date=April 2023}} ] in the light of this have moved away from postulating a "memory of ]" in pre-Christian religions, replacing it with an "inkling of ]" or ] unconsciously anticipating monotheism.<ref name="Pettazzoni 1958"/>{{qn|date=April 2023}} That said, ] noted in ''Theories of Primitive Religion'', first published in 1962, that most ] have abandoned all evolutionary schemes (such as Schmidt's or Pettazzoni's) for the historical development of religion, adding that they have also found monotheistic beliefs existing side-by-side with other religious beliefs.<ref>
Sir Edward Evans-Pritchard, ''Theories of Primitive Religion'', New York: Oxford University Press, 1987, pages 104–105
</ref> </ref>


==See also== ==See also==
* ]
⚫ * ]
** ]
⚫ * ]
* ] ** ]
** ]
* ]
** ]
** '']''
** ]
** ]
* ]
⚫ * '']''
* ]
⚫ * '']''
* ]
** ]
** ]
** ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


==Notes== ==Notes==

Latest revision as of 07:34, 20 November 2024

Hypothesis proposing monotheism as the original religion of humanity

Part of a series on
Anthropology of religion
Basic concepts
Case studies
Magic
Ritual
Revitalization movements
Related articles
Major theorists
Journals
Religions
Ethnic and folk religions
Buddhism
Christianity
Hinduism
Islam
Judaism
Jainism
Sikhism
Social and cultural anthropology

The term Urmonotheismus (German for "primeval monotheism") or "primitive monotheism" expresses the hypothesis of a monotheistic Urreligion, from which polytheistic religions allegedly degenerated. This evolutionary view of religious development contrasts diametrically with another evolutionary view on the development of religious thought: the hypothesis that religion progressed from simple forms to complex: first pre-animism, then animism, totemism, polytheism, and finally monotheism.

History

In 1898, the Scottish anthropologist Andrew Lang proposed that the idea of a Supreme Being, the "high God", or "All Father" existed among some of the simplest of contemporary tribes prior to their contact with Western peoples, and that Urmonotheismus ("primitive monotheism") was the original religion of humankind. This idea has parallels in the works of Tertullian and in rabbinic literature.

The Catholic priest Wilhelm Schmidt (1868–1954) defended the idea of Urmonotheismus in his work Der Ursprung der Gottesidee (The Origin of the Idea of God), published 1912 to 1955, opposing the "Revolutionary Monotheism" approach that traces the emergence of monotheistic thought as a gradual process spanning the Bronze and Iron Age religions of the ancient Near East and Classical antiquity. According to Schmidt, alleged traces of primitive monotheism appear in the Assyro-Babylonian deities Ashur and Marduk, and in the Ancient Hebrew god Yahweh. Schmidt views monotheism as the "natural" form of theism, which was later overlaid and "degraded" by polytheism after the deceased ancestors became objects of worship in primitive human societies, and personified natural forces became worshipped as well as divine beings.

A significant part of the work of Italian anthropologist and historian of religion Raffaele Pettazzoni (1883–1959) on the study of ancient religions concentrated on refuting the speculative theory of "primordial monotheism" (Urmonotheismus) previously developed by Schmidt, and on the study of the conceptions of the Supreme Being in so-called "primitive" religions. Schmidt believed that evidence of monotheism existed in tribal societies, and argued that all human societies recognize the Supreme Being as a non-exclusive spiritual entity which is paramount and also opposed by other spiritual entities. Pettazzoni challenged Schmidt's concept of a Supreme Being as necessarily entailing monotheism. Rather, Pettazzoni writes that monotheism is a recent religious development over the course of a slow revolution in polytheism and perhaps henotheism. In the Hebrew Bible, this debate is carried on by the narratives about the Old Testament prophets who wrangle with the Canaanite gods; such scenarios serve to re-affirm both the ethical monotheism of the Israelites in opposition to the Canaanite religion and their belief in one exclusive transcendent deity coexisting with lesser divine beings. (See also: God in Abrahamic religions).

Schmidt's hypothesis was controversially discussed during much of the first half of the 20th century. In the 1930s, Schmidt adduced evidence from Native American religion and mythology, Australian Aboriginal religion and mythology, and other primitive civilizations in support of his views. He also responded to his critics. For instance, he rejected Pettazzoni's claim that the sky gods were merely a dim personification or embodiment of the physical sky, writing in The Origin and Growth of Religion: "The outlines of the Supreme Being become dim only among later peoples". Schmidt adds that "a being who lives in the sky, who stands behind the celestial phenomena, who must 'centralize' in himself the various manifestations is not a personification of the sky at all". According to Ernest Brandewie in Wilhelm Schmidt and the Origin of the Idea of God, Schmidt also claims that Pettazzoni fails to study Schmidt's work seriously and often relies on incorrect translations of Schmidt's German. Brandewie also says Pettazzoni's definition of primitive ethical monotheism is an "arbitrary" straw-man argument, but he says Schmidt went too far when he claimed that such ethical monotheism was the earliest religious idea.

According to Pettazzoni's analysis, Schmidt confused science and theology, as Pettazzoni writes in the booklet The supreme being in primitive religions (1957). For Pettazzoni, the idea of a god in primitive religions is not an a priori concept independent of historical contexts; there is only the historical context, which arises from varying existential conditions within each type of human society. It is only within that societal context that the idea of God can satisfy, hence the Supreme Being does not exist a priori. Therefore, one finds the Supreme Being defined variously as the one who sends the rain, as the protector of the hunt, or even as a life-giver associated with the soil and harvest in agrarian societies—unique historical contexts that each give rise to their own particular conception of a Supreme Being. Pettazzoni argues that religion must be conceived first and foremost as a historical product, conditioned by historical, cultural, and social contexts, with unique influence on other social and cultural realities within the same human society that produced it.

By the 1950s, the academic establishment had rejected the hypothesis of primitive ethical monotheism (but not per se other proposed versions of Urmonotheismus), and the proponents of Schmidt's "Vienna school" rephrased his ideas to the effect that while ancient cultures may not have known "true monotheism", they at least show evidence for "original theism" (Urtheismus, as opposed to non-theistic animism), with a concept of Hochgott ("High God", as opposed to Eingott "Single God") – in effect, henotheism, which acknowledged the Supreme Being but also various lesser gods. Christian apologetics in the light of this have moved away from postulating a "memory of revelation" in pre-Christian religions, replacing it with an "inkling of redemption" or virtuous paganism unconsciously anticipating monotheism. That said, E. E. Evans-Pritchard noted in Theories of Primitive Religion, first published in 1962, that most anthropologists have abandoned all evolutionary schemes (such as Schmidt's or Pettazzoni's) for the historical development of religion, adding that they have also found monotheistic beliefs existing side-by-side with other religious beliefs.

See also

Notes

  1. Smart, Ninian (10 November 2020) . "Polytheism: The nature of polytheism". Encyclopædia Britannica. Edinburgh: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Archived from the original on 11 November 2020. Retrieved 25 April 2021. Belief in many divine beings, who typically have to be worshipped or, if malevolent, warded off with appropriate rituals, has been widespread in human cultures. Though a single evolutionary process cannot be postulated, there has been a drift in various traditions toward the unification of sacred forces under a single head, which, in a number of nonliterate 'primal' societies, has become embedded in a supreme being. Sometimes this being is a deus otiosus (an 'indifferent god'), regarded as having withdrawn from immediate concern with men and thought of sometimes as too exalted for men to petition. This observation led Wilhelm Schmidt, an Austrian anthropologist, to postulate in the early 20th century an Urmonotheismus, or 'original monotheism,' which later became overlaid by polytheism. Like all other theories of religious origins, this theory is speculative and unverifiable. More promising are attempts by sociologists and social anthropologists to penetrate to the uses and significance of the gods in particular societies.
  2. ^ Dhavamony, Mariasusai (1973). Phenomenology of religion. Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana. pp. 60–64. ISBN 88-7652-474-6. The evolutionary view of the history of religions saw religion as progressing from the most simple forms like preanimism, animism, totemism to higher forms like polytheism and finally monotheism.
  3. Klein, Reuven Chaim (2018). "The Genesis of Idolatry and the Guardians of Monotheism". God versus Gods: Judasim in the Age of Idolatry. Mosaica Press. pp. 33ff. ISBN 978-1946351463. OL 27322748M.
  4. ^ Pettazzoni, Raffaele (April 1958). "Das Ende des Urmonotheismus". Numen (in German). 5 (2). Leiden: Brill Publishers: 161–163. doi:10.2307/3269406. eISSN 1568-5276. ISSN 0029-5973. JSTOR 3269406. LCCN 58046229. OCLC 50557232.
  5. ^ Gnuse, Robert K. (1997). "Monotheism in Ancient Israel's World". No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series. Vol. 241. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. pp. 138–146. ISBN 9780567374158.
  6. High Gods in North America, 1933
  7. The Origin and Growth of Religion: Facts and Theories, 1931
  8. ^ Schmidt, Wilhelm (1972) . The Origin and Growth of Religion: Facts and Theories. Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series. Translated by Rose, H. J. New York: Cooper Square Publishers. p. 211. ISBN 9780815404088. Retrieved 1 April 2023.
  9. Brandewie, Ernest (1983). Wilhelm Schmidt and the Origin of the Idea of God. Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America. p. 251. ISBN 9780819133632. Retrieved 1 April 2023.
  10. Brandewie, pages 44 and 119
  11. Sir Edward Evans-Pritchard, Theories of Primitive Religion, New York: Oxford University Press, 1987, pages 104–105
Theology
Conceptions of God
Theism
Forms
Concepts
Singular god
theologies
By faith
Concepts
God as
Trinitarianism
Eschatology
By religion
Feminist
Other concepts
Names of God in
By faith
Christian
Hindu
Islamic
Jewish
Pagan
Religion portal
Categories: