Urmonotheismus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term Urmonotheismus (German for "primeval monotheism") or primitive monotheism expresses the hypothesis of a monotheistic Urreligion, from which polytheistic religions allegedly degenerated.[1] This evolutionary view of religious development is diametrically opposed to another evolutionary view of religion: the hypothesis that religion progressed from simple forms to complex: first pre-animism, then animism, totemism, polytheism and finally monotheism (see Anthropology of religion).[2]

History[]

Scottish anthropologist Andrew Lang concluded in 1898 that the idea of the Supreme Being, the "high God" or "All Father" existed among some of the simplest of contemporary tribes prior to Western contact,[2] and that Urmonotheism (primitive monotheism or henotheism) that worshipped God, as opposed to a pantheon of polytheistic gods, was the original religion of mankind.

Urmonotheism was then defended by Wilhelm Schmidt (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 religions of the ancient Near East and classical antiquity.[3]

Alleged traces of primitive monotheism were located in the Assyrian deities Ashur and Marduk, and Hebrew YHWH. Monotheism in Schmidt's view is the "natural" form of theism, which was later overlaid and "degraded" by polytheism[3] after deceased ancestors' veneration became worship, and personified natural forces became worshipped as well as gods.

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 mythology, Australian aborigines and other primitive civilizations in support of his views.[4][5] 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".[6] He adds that "a being who lives in the sky, who stands behind the celestial phenomena, who must 'centralize' in himself the various manifestations [of thunder, rain, etc.] is not a personification of the sky at all".[6] 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.[7] 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.[8]

By the 1950s the academic establishment had rejected the hypothesis of primitive ethical monotheism (but not per se other proposed versions of urmonotheism) 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 theism" (Ur-Theismus, 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.[3] That said, E. E. Evans-Pritchard 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.[9]

See also[]

Notes[]

  1. ^ Smart, Ninian (10 November 2020) [26 July 1999]. "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. ^ a b 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. ^ a b c Pettazzoni, Raffaele (April 1958). "Das Ende des Urmonotheismus". Numen (in German). 5 (2).
  4. ^ High Gods in North America, 1933
  5. ^ The Origin and Growth of Religion: Facts and Theories, 1931
  6. ^ a b Schmidt, The Origin and Growth of Religion: Facts and Theories, New York: Cooper Square Publishers, 1972, page 211
  7. ^ Brandewie, Wilhelm Schmidt and the Origin of the Idea of God, Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1983, page 251
  8. ^ Brandewie, pages 44 and 119
  9. ^ Sir Edward Evans-Pritchard, Theories of Primitive Religion, New York: Oxford University Press, 1987, pages 104–105
Retrieved from ""