The Evolution Of God Part 2

The character of G.o.ds could differ from ancient state to ancient state. Ancestral spirits or deities, though found everywhere, played an especially big role in China. And some civilizations may have had more mystical or mutable G.o.ds than others (though claims that the G.o.ds of some civilizations were more like impersonal "forces" than like anthropomorphic "beings" tend not to withstand scrutiny). 10 10 But one thing the divine in all these lands had in common was importance. Here are some observations made by scholars about various ancient civilizations. Egypt: "The cardinal features of that culture and society were determined by the existence and power of its all-pervading religious beliefs." China: "The fate of human beings was inseparable from the extra-human world." The Maya: "Everything in the Maya world was imbued, in different degrees, with an unseen power or sacred quality." The Aztecs: "Existence revolved totally around religion. There was not a single act of public or private life which was not colored by religious sentiment." Mesopotamia: "The G.o.ds constantly intervened everywhere and partic.i.p.ated in everything." But one thing the divine in all these lands had in common was importance. Here are some observations made by scholars about various ancient civilizations. Egypt: "The cardinal features of that culture and society were determined by the existence and power of its all-pervading religious beliefs." China: "The fate of human beings was inseparable from the extra-human world." The Maya: "Everything in the Maya world was imbued, in different degrees, with an unseen power or sacred quality." The Aztecs: "Existence revolved totally around religion. There was not a single act of public or private life which was not colored by religious sentiment." Mesopotamia: "The G.o.ds constantly intervened everywhere and partic.i.p.ated in everything." 11 11 That would explain why there were so many of them! In the second millennium BCE, when Mesopotamian scribes conducted a divine census, listing the G.o.ds in various Mesopotamian cities, they came up with nearly two thousand names. 12 12 The pantheon of an ancient state typically included lots of nature G.o.ds (sun, moon, storm, fertility, and so on) and G.o.ds that oversaw the ever-growing array of vocations, in particular G.o.ds for farmers, scribes, merchants, and craftsmen. Mesopotamia had G.o.ds for everything from brickmaking to brewing, and in Aztec society robbers claimed their own deity. There were also G.o.ds that defy easy categorization: the Mayan G.o.d of suicide, the Mesopotamian "Lord of Livestock Pens," the eight Egyptian deities that oversaw lungs, liver, stomach, and intestines (two G.o.ds per organ). The pantheon of an ancient state typically included lots of nature G.o.ds (sun, moon, storm, fertility, and so on) and G.o.ds that oversaw the ever-growing array of vocations, in particular G.o.ds for farmers, scribes, merchants, and craftsmen. Mesopotamia had G.o.ds for everything from brickmaking to brewing, and in Aztec society robbers claimed their own deity. There were also G.o.ds that defy easy categorization: the Mayan G.o.d of suicide, the Mesopotamian "Lord of Livestock Pens," the eight Egyptian deities that oversaw lungs, liver, stomach, and intestines (two G.o.ds per organ). 13 13 Like the G.o.ds of prehistory, these G.o.ds expected goods and services from humans, and dished out rewards or punishment accordingly. So everywhere people made sacrifices to the G.o.ds, flattered-that is, wors.h.i.+pped-them, and tended to their needs in other ways. (A Mesopotamian tablet of ritual instruction begins, "When you wash the mouth of a G.o.d...") 14 14 Everywhere the upshot was a symbiotic relations.h.i.+p between people and G.o.ds, with each having something the other needed. And everywhere-as in chiefdoms-the political leaders took the lead in mediating that relations.h.i.+p, and indeed defining the relations.h.i.+p; everywhere, religion was used by the powerful to stay powerful. Everywhere the upshot was a symbiotic relations.h.i.+p between people and G.o.ds, with each having something the other needed. And everywhere-as in chiefdoms-the political leaders took the lead in mediating that relations.h.i.+p, and indeed defining the relations.h.i.+p; everywhere, religion was used by the powerful to stay powerful. 15 15 Hence the similarity in the way scholars describe civilizations separated by an ocean. Mayan kings were "conduits through which supernatural forces were channeled into the human realm." 16 16 The Egyptian king was "the sole intermediary who could serve the G.o.ds and hence maintain the flows of energy" into the world. The Egyptian king was "the sole intermediary who could serve the G.o.ds and hence maintain the flows of energy" into the world. 17 17 Order and Chaos.

And what would happen if the king weren't there to play this role? Chaos! According to Mesopotamian cosmology, the universe had once been on the brink of chaos, but fortunately kings.h.i.+p was then invented, which meant that G.o.ds who favored order could be rallied to defeat an older generation of G.o.ds who didn't. 18 18 In Egypt the forces of chaos posed a particular threat upon the death of a king-a doctrine that no doubt worked in favor of the heir apparent and against aspiring usurpers. In Egypt the forces of chaos posed a particular threat upon the death of a king-a doctrine that no doubt worked in favor of the heir apparent and against aspiring usurpers. 19 19 The Aztecs' world was, as one scholar puts it, "fragile and tenuous... inherently unstable... liable to fall out of kilter at any moment" and plunge into "emptiness and darkness." The Aztecs' world was, as one scholar puts it, "fragile and tenuous... inherently unstable... liable to fall out of kilter at any moment" and plunge into "emptiness and darkness." 20 20 Fortunately, you could head off this fate with human sacrifice, which gave the sun enough nourishment to keep fighting its way across the sky. Fortunately, you could head off this fate with human sacrifice, which gave the sun enough nourishment to keep fighting its way across the sky. 21 21 Of course, properly sacrificing hundreds of people per month isn't the kind of job you can leave to amateurs, so leaders of church and state were vital. Of course, properly sacrificing hundreds of people per month isn't the kind of job you can leave to amateurs, so leaders of church and state were vital.

They worked hand in glove. First, the king would dispatch armies to conquer neighboring peoples and hence ama.s.s live bodies (a legitimate venture, since Aztecs were the chosen people of Huitzilopochtli, the G.o.d who had led them out of the wilderness). 22 22 The religious leaders would handle the rest, such as taking the victims to the top of the temple, ripping out their beating hearts, and rolling the corpses down the temple stairs; or (if the sacrifice was to the fire G.o.d) throwing the victims in a fire, pulling their writhing bodies out with hooks, and The religious leaders would handle the rest, such as taking the victims to the top of the temple, ripping out their beating hearts, and rolling the corpses down the temple stairs; or (if the sacrifice was to the fire G.o.d) throwing the victims in a fire, pulling their writhing bodies out with hooks, and then then tearing out their beating hearts. tearing out their beating hearts. 23 23 The good news for the victims was that they got a nice afterlife. The good news for the victims was that they got a nice afterlife. 24 24 The church-state symbiosis didn't, at all places and all times, work so harmoniously. Priests, like the rest of us, are ambitious, and sometimes their influence reached a point where power struggles with the king broke out. Still, Herbert Spencer's nineteenth-century description of early civilization-"originally church and state are undistinguished"-is not far off the mark. 25 25 Politicians and priests together controlled the sacred knowledge on which their stature and influence rested. Politicians and priests together controlled the sacred knowledge on which their stature and influence rested.

Functionalists and "Marxists" can have their usual argument about how exploitative the church-state axis was. Marxists can note that in Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, and Mesoamerica the corpses of kings are sometimes accompanied by dozens or even hundreds of less exalted corpses; apparently servants, consorts, and other key aides were a.s.signed to accompany the king into the hereafter. 26 26 Functionalists can reply that sacrifices, if less severe ones, were sometimes made by elites, too-such as the Aztec priests who fasted, never married, and periodically pierced their flesh with cactus spines. Functionalists can reply that sacrifices, if less severe ones, were sometimes made by elites, too-such as the Aztec priests who fasted, never married, and periodically pierced their flesh with cactus spines. 27 27 Anyone who believes that religion imposed no costs on the ruling cla.s.s need only contemplate the Mayan prewar ritual during which the king stuck a shard of volcanic gla.s.s through his p.e.n.i.s and then pulled a cord through the wound. Anyone who believes that religion imposed no costs on the ruling cla.s.s need only contemplate the Mayan prewar ritual during which the king stuck a shard of volcanic gla.s.s through his p.e.n.i.s and then pulled a cord through the wound. 28 28 Marxists can also point suspiciously to the big economic role typically played by the church, which might have large holdings in farming, trade, or finance. In an Aztec city of two hundred thousand people, a single temple employed five thousand of them. 29 29 And in some Mesopotamian cities the church owned a fourth of the land. When you find a Babylonian record of someone borrowing silver from the "priestess Amat-Shamash" and committing to "pay the Sun-G.o.d's interest," you have to wonder whether the interest rate was as low as a secular market would have offered. And in some Mesopotamian cities the church owned a fourth of the land. When you find a Babylonian record of someone borrowing silver from the "priestess Amat-Shamash" and committing to "pay the Sun-G.o.d's interest," you have to wonder whether the interest rate was as low as a secular market would have offered. 30 30 In reply, functionalists can note that Mesopotamian temples took care of orphans, widows, the poor, and the blind. 31 31 And they can add that, even if the church-state industrial complex was charging high overhead, a top-heavy industrial complex is better than no industrial complex at all. And they can add that, even if the church-state industrial complex was charging high overhead, a top-heavy industrial complex is better than no industrial complex at all.

But if you want to defend ancient religion, trying to refute the Marxist position may not be your best tack. It's probably better to adopt parts of the Marxist worldview and deploy them creatively: concede that ancient religion was largely in the service of political and economic power, then look at how changes in the structure of power, over the millennia, reshaped religious doctrine. In some ways that change was for the better. In fact, this tethering of divine logic to the terrestrial logic of politics and economics helped push religion toward moral enlightenment. It is the main reason for that crucial synergy between ethics and universalism-the main reason that the circle of moral consideration has expanded over time, beyond the bounds of tribe and race. This lofty drift of the divine can be understood only by appreciating divinity's subservience to the facts on the ground.

The Moral Compa.s.s.

Of course, for the moral circle to expand, it has to exist in the first place; there has to be a code encouraging people to treat their neighbors considerately. But there is always such a thing in human society. And in ancient states-more than in chiefdoms and much more than in hunter-gatherer societies-this code drew support from religion.

Mesopotamian G.o.ds laid out clear ethical guidelines, ranging from the general (try to help people, not harm them) to the specific (don't urinate or vomit in streams). 32 32 And, though compliance wouldn't get you to heaven, violation could get you a bit of h.e.l.l on earth: illness, death, and other problems. To this end the G.o.ds deployed an elite police corps-demonic beings who were specialists in their fields. There were demons named "Fever," "Jaundice," "Cough," and "s.h.i.+vers." There was a demon who caused epidemics and a female demon called "Extinguisher" who killed small children. And, though compliance wouldn't get you to heaven, violation could get you a bit of h.e.l.l on earth: illness, death, and other problems. To this end the G.o.ds deployed an elite police corps-demonic beings who were specialists in their fields. There were demons named "Fever," "Jaundice," "Cough," and "s.h.i.+vers." There was a demon who caused epidemics and a female demon called "Extinguisher" who killed small children. 33 33 All told, it was enough to keep a person from urinating in a stream. All told, it was enough to keep a person from urinating in a stream.

Egyptians and Mayans could get sick for telling a lie, among other sins. 34 34 Aztecs could get a skin infection for urinating on the bush that yields cocoa beans, and licentiousness could elicit penalties ranging from coughs to emaciation to a dirty liver-not to mention the death of innocent young turkeys, which would fall flat on their backs in the presence of an adulterous human. Aztecs could get a skin infection for urinating on the bush that yields cocoa beans, and licentiousness could elicit penalties ranging from coughs to emaciation to a dirty liver-not to mention the death of innocent young turkeys, which would fall flat on their backs in the presence of an adulterous human. 35 35 And if a young Aztec man fainted while piercing his p.e.n.i.s to honor the G.o.ds, it meant that he had failed to keep his virginity (though an alternative explanation comes to mind). And if a young Aztec man fainted while piercing his p.e.n.i.s to honor the G.o.ds, it meant that he had failed to keep his virginity (though an alternative explanation comes to mind). 36 36 Meanwhile, in India, the Vedic texts of the late second millennium BCE speak of punishment, via disease and other afflictions, for such ethical lapses as stealing. Meanwhile, in India, the Vedic texts of the late second millennium BCE speak of punishment, via disease and other afflictions, for such ethical lapses as stealing. 37 37 Even when ancient moral guidance involved no divine policing, it could have a religious dimension. Egypt's "Instruction of Ptahhotep," a guidebook for young men of the upper cla.s.ses, didn't back up its precepts with sanctions, but since its reputed author, Ptahhotep, had been posthumously deified, it carried more force than a self-help book. Further, it drew on such Egyptian metaphysical/religious concepts as ka ka, a person's spirit or soul. As in: "Do not malign anyone, Great or small, the ka ka abhors it." abhors it." 38 38 None of this should be surprising. Even in the Polynesian chiefdoms we saw religion starting to respond with moral sanctions to the challenge of maintaining order in a society larger and more unwieldy than a hunter-gatherer village. In ancient cities, with populations sometimes in the hundreds of thousands, the challenge had only grown. So religions that encouraged people to treat others considerately-which made for a more orderly and productive city-would have a compet.i.tive edge over religions that didn't. 39 39 The ancient depiction of G.o.ds as defending order against chaos, however politically convenient for elites, was also, in this sense, accurate. The G.o.ds-or, at least, belief in them-protected ancient civilizations from the forces of disarray that do in fact threaten complex social organizations. The ancient depiction of G.o.ds as defending order against chaos, however politically convenient for elites, was also, in this sense, accurate. The G.o.ds-or, at least, belief in them-protected ancient civilizations from the forces of disarray that do in fact threaten complex social organizations.

And here, as in the Polynesian chiefdoms, the key to preserving social order was to harness self-interest. If you wanted to avoid illness, early death, and various lesser afflictions, if you wanted to avoid divinely ordained shame, if you wanted to keep your ka ka in good working order, you had to behave in ways conducive to social cohesion, which included being nice to people in your vicinity. in good working order, you had to behave in ways conducive to social cohesion, which included being nice to people in your vicinity.

But what about people in other cities, other states, other societies-people with different beliefs, different skin colors? Was there any reason not to malign them them, or not to steal their land or kill them? Why would religion encourage expanding expanding the circle of moral consideration? Where would this divine inspiration come from? From the facts on the ground. the circle of moral consideration? Where would this divine inspiration come from? From the facts on the ground.

G.o.ds as Geopolitical Lubricant.

Mesopotamia at the beginning of history was a melange of city-states. Most city-states had a central temple devoted to a single, dominant G.o.d-Enlil in Nippur, Enki in Eridu. 40 40 Occasionally a city had two major G.o.ds, as in Uruk, where An shared top billing with Inanna, his reliably gratifying consort. Occasionally a city had two major G.o.ds, as in Uruk, where An shared top billing with Inanna, his reliably gratifying consort. 41 41 Each temple also had its minor G.o.ds-the major G.o.ds' relatives, advisers, and other helpers. Each temple also had its minor G.o.ds-the major G.o.ds' relatives, advisers, and other helpers.

These cities weren't yet unified under a single regional government. But by the beginning of the third millennium, they had come into contact with one another through some combination of trade and war. As mutual awareness dawned, they faced a question that has often faced states pushed together by a shrinking world: How would they feel about one another's G.o.ds? How would they handle competing claims about religious truth?

The answer, so far as we can tell, was: quite graciously, in part because they didn't see the claims as compet.i.tive. These people were polytheists. For a polytheist there is no limit on the number of possible G.o.ds and thus no natural compulsion, upon encountering another people, to contest the existence of their G.o.ds. What's more, if you have a fruitful relations.h.i.+p with those people-if you trade with them, or join them in military alliance-it might be worth your while to go beyond tolerance and actually affirm your belief in their G.o.ds. And maybe they'll reciprocate.

This is what seems to have happened in early Mesopotamia: the chief G.o.ds of the different cities coalesced into a regionally accepted pantheon. Indeed, it was not just a pantheon but a clan. The G.o.ds of different cities were related to each other by blood, and as the millennium wore on, the cities came to agree on the details of the family tree. 42 42 There was a rough division of labor among the G.o.ds. One city's chief G.o.d represented the sun, another represented the power in grain, another (Inanna, naturally) represented love, and so on. Since everyone in Mesopotamia needed the sun, grain, and love, this meant that, as the archaeologist W. G. Lambert put it, "Each community depended for its livelihood on most, if not all, of the deities of the country." 43 43 In short, as Mesopotamian cities became enmeshed in a web of reciprocal reliance-needing one another as trade partners and sometimes as military allies-this real-world interdependence was precisely reflected at the level of the divine. And, in this act of reflection, the G.o.ds had taken a step toward universalism, expanding their domain from a single city to Mesopotamia writ large. The grain G.o.d, however provincial it had once been, now cast its blessings on Mesopotamian grain in general. Religion sometimes seems like an impediment to international harmony in a shrinking world, but apparently it doesn't have to be.

Of course, we can describe all this more cynically. Suppose you are king of a city and you want to trade with another city's king. You know that his local stature is tied to the stature of his city's chief G.o.d; as king he maintains the G.o.d's temple, which is thus a kind of showcase for him as well as for the G.o.d. What's more, the temple's priests are major economic players, and may control some of the intercity trade you'd like a piece of. So the last thing you want to do is start disrespecting that G.o.d, and the first thing you want to do is embrace it. Thus theological open-mindedness can boil down to economic self-interest. Because both parties in a trade can benefit from it-because economic interaction is "non-zero-sum"- two once-alien G.o.ds may find common ground. So too with military alliance or any other non-zero-sum game that one king wants to play with another: interfaith harmony can emerge from enlightened self-interest.

This doesn't mean such harmony is a result of conscious calculation. Self-interest can bias our beliefs in subtle ways, and there is evidence that some ancient kings genuinely believed in the foreign G.o.ds they embraced. Nor does this mean that religious sentiment was a mere "epiphenomenon"-something that reflected political and economic reality and never influenced it. Early Mesopotamia, lacking unified governance, was bound by what Lambert calls a "unity of culture," 44 44 and much of the unifying force of that culture probably came from the power of religious belief. In an age when people feared G.o.ds and desperately sought their favor, an intercity pantheon of G.o.ds that divided labor among themselves must have strengthened emotional bonds among cities. Whether or not you believe that the emotional power of religion truly emanates from the divine, the power itself is real. and much of the unifying force of that culture probably came from the power of religious belief. In an age when people feared G.o.ds and desperately sought their favor, an intercity pantheon of G.o.ds that divided labor among themselves must have strengthened emotional bonds among cities. Whether or not you believe that the emotional power of religion truly emanates from the divine, the power itself is real.

Early International Law.

Religion's role in easing relations among polities hasn't been confined to state-level societies. Polynesians sometimes voyaged abroad for ceremonies at "international" temples. 45 45 But it is when social evolution reaches the state level that G.o.ds start to sponsor something worthy of the name "international law." Here is an excerpt from a second-millennium BCE peace treaty between Egypt and the Hitt.i.tes: But it is when social evolution reaches the state level that G.o.ds start to sponsor something worthy of the name "international law." Here is an excerpt from a second-millennium BCE peace treaty between Egypt and the Hitt.i.tes: He who shall not observe all these words written upon this silver tablet of the land of the Hatti and of the land of Egypt, may the thousand G.o.ds of the land of the Hatti and the thousand G.o.ds of the land of Egypt destroy his house, his country, and his servants... but he who shall keep these words which are on the tablet of silver, whether he be Hitt.i.te or Egyptian, and shall not neglect them, may the thousand G.o.ds of the land of the Hatti and the thousand G.o.ds of the land of Egypt make him to be in good health and long life, as also his houses, his country and his servants. He who shall not observe all these words written upon this silver tablet of the land of the Hatti and of the land of Egypt, may the thousand G.o.ds of the land of the Hatti and the thousand G.o.ds of the land of Egypt destroy his house, his country, and his servants... but he who shall keep these words which are on the tablet of silver, whether he be Hitt.i.te or Egyptian, and shall not neglect them, may the thousand G.o.ds of the land of the Hatti and the thousand G.o.ds of the land of Egypt make him to be in good health and long life, as also his houses, his country and his servants.

Even earlier, in the third millennium BCE, divinity and international law were intersecting in the Mesopotamian city-states. A clay cylinder describes the laying of a boundary marker between two Mesopotamian city-states, Lagash and Umma. "Enlil, the king of all the lands and the father of all the G.o.ds, marked out a boundary for the G.o.d of Lagash and the G.o.d of Umma by his decree. The king of Kish measured it out in accordance with the word of the G.o.d of legal settlements, and erected a stone boundary marker there." 46 46 Divine authority wasn't always enough. In fact, this very decree was violated by the king of Umma, who was then punished by the army of Lagash (or, as the historical record has it, by the G.o.d of Lagash through through the army of Lagash). But often these agreements were respected because an especially potent city-state a.s.sumed the job of arbiter and, if necessary, enforcer. the army of Lagash). But often these agreements were respected because an especially potent city-state a.s.sumed the job of arbiter and, if necessary, enforcer. 47 47 Here, again, divinity would evolve to reflect and reinforce geopolitical logic. The elevation of a city-state to regional hegemony generally meant the elevation of its G.o.d in the regional Mesopotamian pantheon. Here, again, divinity would evolve to reflect and reinforce geopolitical logic. The elevation of a city-state to regional hegemony generally meant the elevation of its G.o.d in the regional Mesopotamian pantheon. 48 48 So too on a more local level: a big city's deity would outrank the deities of outlying towns in its sphere of influence. As the archaeologists C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky and Jeremy Sabloff have written, a "theologically informed ideal" sustained a "divinely sanctioned equilibrium" among Mesopotamian communities. So too on a more local level: a big city's deity would outrank the deities of outlying towns in its sphere of influence. As the archaeologists C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky and Jeremy Sabloff have written, a "theologically informed ideal" sustained a "divinely sanctioned equilibrium" among Mesopotamian communities. 49 49 "Divinely sanctioned equilibrium" has a nice sound to it, but there is a nasty underside. Mesopotamia's regional equilibrium rested on the shoulders of dominant city-states, which often established their dominance the old-fas.h.i.+oned way: by killing lots of people. War was a big part of life in the ancient world, and in allocating blame for it, we would be remiss in not mentioning the G.o.ds. As H. W. F. Saggs has observed, "everywhere the divine will was the formal justification for war." 50 50 And dominance, once established, didn't just mean selflessly a.s.suming the burden of upholding regional equilibrium; it often meant exacting tribute from lesser states. And dominance, once established, didn't just mean selflessly a.s.suming the burden of upholding regional equilibrium; it often meant exacting tribute from lesser states.

If there is any redeeming the ancient G.o.ds for the slaughter and extortion they sponsored, it lies in the breadth of the ensuing calm. The Mesopotamian equilibrium, even if punctuated by violent s.h.i.+fts of power, lubricated trade and other forms of contact, thus nurturing the sinews of practical interdependence that are often the leading edge of intercultural tolerance and divine universalism.

As the third millennium BCE pa.s.sed, this approach to regional order-a loose league organized around a regional hegemon - would give way to something firmer: a regional state, centrally run. Like so much geopolitical change, this would come via conquest. And like much ancient conquest, it would wind up expanding the realm of potential interdependence.

It would also demonstrate anew the adaptive malleability of the divine. Just as the G.o.ds had evolved to sustain the loose unity of southern Mesopotamian city-states in the early third millennium BCE, they would evolve to sponsor a broader Mesopotamian unity in the late third millennium BCE. And they would do so by virtue of something that may sound surprising: in the ancient world conquerors-the great ones, at least-were less inclined to smash the idols of their vanquished foes than to wors.h.i.+p them.

Sargon Expands the Realm.

Around 2350 BCE, Sargon of Akkade became Mesopotamia's first great conqueror. In trying to subjugate southern Mesopotamia from his base in the north, he was taking on a major challenge in multiculturalism. Southern Mesopotamia was ethnically and linguistically Sumerian, whereas Sargon was a foreigner who spoke Akkadian, a Semitic tongue. (Here "Semitic" means not Jewish, but rather belonging to the language family from which both Hebrew and Arabic evolved.) Fortunately Sargon was a theologically flexible man. Though Akkadian G.o.ds had helped him subdue the Sumerians, this didn't mean the Sumerian G.o.ds were his enemies. In the city of Nippur, he got local priests to agree with him that his victory had been the will of the eminent Sumerian G.o.d Enlil (a judgment that may have been encouraged by the display of Nippur's deposed king in a neck-stock). 51 51 There was also rea.s.suring news for devotees of the Sumerian sky G.o.d An: Sargon, it turned out, was An's brother-in-law! There was also rea.s.suring news for devotees of the Sumerian sky G.o.d An: Sargon, it turned out, was An's brother-in-law! 52 52 And then there was Sargon's elaborate courts.h.i.+p of the Sumerian G.o.ddess Inanna. Though she wasn't exactly known for resisting the entreaties of men, Sargon didn't take any chances. His eloquent daughter Enheduanna-whom he'd installed as a high priestess at Ur, a religious center of Sumeria-set about writing hymns in praise of Inanna. Enheduanna pulled out all the stops: "Great queen of queens, issued from the holy womb... omniscient sage... sustenance of the mult.i.tudes... senior queen of the heavenly foundations and zenith.... How supreme you are over the great G.o.ds." 53 53 But not so supreme that she got to keep her name. Ishtar was an Akkadian G.o.ddess of long standing, and Sargon, in affirming the divinely sanctioned unity of his Akkadian-Sumerian empire, a.s.serted that Ishtar and Inanna were actually the same deity. 54 54 So why use two names? Hereafter Inanna, while retaining her essential traits, would be known as Ishtar. So why use two names? Hereafter Inanna, while retaining her essential traits, would be known as Ishtar. 55 55 The melding of religious beliefs or concepts-"syncretism"-is a common way to forge cultural unity in the wake of conquest, and often, as here, what gets melded is the G.o.ds themselves. Of course, when two cultures fuse, some of their G.o.ds may not match up. Sumerian G.o.ds with no rough Akkadian counterpart entered Akkadian culture either under their Sumerian names (Enlil, for example) or some Akkadian variation thereon (An became Anu). 56 56 But one way or another, most G.o.ds of the vanquished Sumerians survived, either with their ident.i.ties wholly intact or via fusion with an Akkadian G.o.d. This divine durability was common amid ancient warfare. (The Aztecs, who routinized conquest, built a special temple for imported G.o.ds.) But one way or another, most G.o.ds of the vanquished Sumerians survived, either with their ident.i.ties wholly intact or via fusion with an Akkadian G.o.d. This divine durability was common amid ancient warfare. (The Aztecs, who routinized conquest, built a special temple for imported G.o.ds.) 57 57 One scholar has said of the waves of invasion that swept the Middle East in the second millennium BCE, "Conquered G.o.ds rarely, if ever, were ousted." One scholar has said of the waves of invasion that swept the Middle East in the second millennium BCE, "Conquered G.o.ds rarely, if ever, were ousted." 58 58 So too in the first millennium. Alexander the Great, in bringing much of the known world under Greek control, would extol the G.o.ds whose land he grabbed. And Alexander's native G.o.ds would receive the same pragmatic courtesy when Greece found itself on the other side of conquest. That's why you can map the Greek pantheon onto the Roman pantheon by changing the names-Aphrodite to Venus, Zeus to Jupiter, and so on. In the polytheistic ancient world, a savvy conqueror was a theologically flexible conqueror. Once the fighting is over, and you've got an empire to run, there's no sense starting needless squabbles.

You can look at the convenient malleability of polytheism in two ways. On the one hand, it was a handy tool for ruthless imperialists -an opiate, as Marx might say, of newly subdued ma.s.ses. On the other hand, it was an elixir of intercultural amity. However ruthless the conquerors, however selfish their ambitions, in the long run they drew more and more peoples, over larger and larger areas, into economic and cultural exchange.

Sargon had carried Mesopotamia closer than ever to universalism, extending the reach of Sumerian G.o.ds beyond their southern home-land and across a cultural divide. This was still nothing like the simple, streamlined, monotheistic universalism that would eventually emerge in the Abrahamic lineage: one G.o.d that governs all of humankind. But even back in Mesopotamia in the third millennium BCE, when polytheism was demonstrating its geopolitical potential, there were forces moving theology closer to monotheism.

Toward Monotheism.

All along, the tendency of the divine to track the political had applied not just to politics between Mesopotamian city-states but to politics within them. And within them, the political order was vertical. Unlike hunter-gatherer societies, the city-states had clear leaders.h.i.+p. And, as in chiefdoms, the leaders.h.i.+p was hierarchical-but more elaborately and bureaucratically so.

As on earth, so it is in heaven. Not only did the city-states and, later, the whole region, typically have a single, head G.o.d (sometimes a G.o.d that was called called a king); this major G.o.d had subordinate G.o.ds that plainly reflected a royal court. A Mesopotamian doc.u.ment from the second millennium BCE lists G.o.ds with t.i.tles such as valet, head chef, head shepherd, gardener, amba.s.sador, vizier, grand vizier, aide-de-camp, steward, secretary, sentinel, gatekeeper, bailiff, and hairdresser. a king); this major G.o.d had subordinate G.o.ds that plainly reflected a royal court. A Mesopotamian doc.u.ment from the second millennium BCE lists G.o.ds with t.i.tles such as valet, head chef, head shepherd, gardener, amba.s.sador, vizier, grand vizier, aide-de-camp, steward, secretary, sentinel, gatekeeper, bailiff, and hairdresser. 59 59 And a Mesopotamian narrative has Enki-himself a subordinate of the great Enlil-appointing one G.o.d "inspector of ca.n.a.ls" and putting another in charge of justice. And a Mesopotamian narrative has Enki-himself a subordinate of the great Enlil-appointing one G.o.d "inspector of ca.n.a.ls" and putting another in charge of justice. 60 60 In Egypt, too, the pantheon developed some semblance of hierarchy. 61 61 And in China of the Shang era, the G.o.d of heaven seems to have run the show, supervising the G.o.ds of wind, of rain, of rivers, mountains, and so on. And in China of the Shang era, the G.o.d of heaven seems to have run the show, supervising the G.o.ds of wind, of rain, of rivers, mountains, and so on. 62 62 But nowhere was the hierarchical tendency clearer than in Mesopotamia, or as well doc.u.mented. There, as the historian Jean Bottero describes it, a "simple incoherent gathering" of G.o.ds, at the dawn of civilization, had become "through centuries of evolution, mythological reflections and calculations, a true organization of supernatural power... which dominated people as the structured earthly royal authority dominated its subjects." But nowhere was the hierarchical tendency clearer than in Mesopotamia, or as well doc.u.mented. There, as the historian Jean Bottero describes it, a "simple incoherent gathering" of G.o.ds, at the dawn of civilization, had become "through centuries of evolution, mythological reflections and calculations, a true organization of supernatural power... which dominated people as the structured earthly royal authority dominated its subjects." 63 63 The resulting "pyramid of powers," as Bottero calls it, was itself a kind of step toward monotheism. Enlil, during his days at the top of the pyramid, was called "the great and powerful ruler who dominates Heaven and Earth, who knows all and understands all." 64 64 To be sure, such pa.s.sages may overstate the consensus of the day: Mesopotamian writers, like writers in some other polytheistic societies, tend to exalt whichever G.o.d they happen to be addressing, somewhat as people focus their flattery on the person they're talking to. Still, there was a theological trend afoot, a trend toward concentrated majesty, and Enlil's successor as chief of the Mesopotamian pantheon would carry it to new heights, bringing Mesopotamia closer to modern western religious thought. To be sure, such pa.s.sages may overstate the consensus of the day: Mesopotamian writers, like writers in some other polytheistic societies, tend to exalt whichever G.o.d they happen to be addressing, somewhat as people focus their flattery on the person they're talking to. Still, there was a theological trend afoot, a trend toward concentrated majesty, and Enlil's successor as chief of the Mesopotamian pantheon would carry it to new heights, bringing Mesopotamia closer to modern western religious thought.

The One and Only Marduk.

That successor was Marduk. Marduk was a formidable figure. For example, "His heart is a kettle-drum" and "His p.e.n.i.s is a snake" that yields sperm made of gold. 65 65 But these testaments appear only after Marduk has achieved greatness, and he didn't do this by himself. A key supporter was the Babylonian king Hammurabi, who entered the scene in the early second millennium, centuries after the Akkadian empire established by Sargon had come and gone, in an age when Mesopotamia was again politically fragmented. But these testaments appear only after Marduk has achieved greatness, and he didn't do this by himself. A key supporter was the Babylonian king Hammurabi, who entered the scene in the early second millennium, centuries after the Akkadian empire established by Sargon had come and gone, in an age when Mesopotamia was again politically fragmented.

Hammurabi is famous for producing one of the first legal codes of the ancient world. Today law is sometimes thought of as an alternative to religion-secular rules of the road, enforced by police, with no need for supernatural support. But in ancient states, domestic law, like international law, drew strength from the G.o.ds.

For starters, Hammurabi was divinely authorized to make laws. As the opening pa.s.sages of his law code note, Anu and Enlil, the two senior G.o.ds in the Mesopotamian pantheon, had chosen Hammurabi as king to "bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers." 66 66 By the end of the code, some thirty G.o.ds have been cited, By the end of the code, some thirty G.o.ds have been cited, 67 67 and in some cases they play a judicial role-as when a suspect is thrown into a river to see if the river G.o.d will seize him, thus signifying guilt (posthumously). and in some cases they play a judicial role-as when a suspect is thrown into a river to see if the river G.o.d will seize him, thus signifying guilt (posthumously). 68 68 But none of these G.o.ds gets the kind of treatment Marduk gets in the code's opening pa.s.sages. There Anu and Enlil declare Marduk a "great" G.o.d and a.s.sign him "dominion over earthly man." But none of these G.o.ds gets the kind of treatment Marduk gets in the code's opening pa.s.sages. There Anu and Enlil declare Marduk a "great" G.o.d and a.s.sign him "dominion over earthly man." 69 69 What a fortuitous development for Hammurabi himself! Marduk was G.o.d of the city of Babylon, Hammurabi's base, and Hammurabi hoped to extend Babylon's control over all of Mesopotamia. 70 70 It couldn't hurt for Mesopotamia's greatest G.o.ds to roll out the red carpet and extend Marduk's domain well beyond the city limits. Even so, Hammurabi didn't reach his highest aspirations; he died without ever ruling all of Mesopotamia. But in ensuing centuries Babylon did dominate Mesopotamia, and, not coincidentally, Marduk eventually became head of the Mesopotamian pantheon, displacing Enlil. It couldn't hurt for Mesopotamia's greatest G.o.ds to roll out the red carpet and extend Marduk's domain well beyond the city limits. Even so, Hammurabi didn't reach his highest aspirations; he died without ever ruling all of Mesopotamia. But in ensuing centuries Babylon did dominate Mesopotamia, and, not coincidentally, Marduk eventually became head of the Mesopotamian pantheon, displacing Enlil. 71 71 Marduk's champions didn't stop at claiming his supremacy. In a major theological development, the other G.o.ds of the pantheon were demoted from being Marduk's subordinates to being mere aspects of him. Thus Adad-once known as the G.o.d of rain-was now "Marduk of rain." Nabu, the G.o.d of accounting, became "Marduk of accounting." 72 72 Or, to look at things from Marduk's perspective, as another text did in addressing Marduk: "Nabu, holder of the tablet stylus, is your skill." Or, to look at things from Marduk's perspective, as another text did in addressing Marduk: "Nabu, holder of the tablet stylus, is your skill." 73 73 And so on, down the line; Mesopotamia's major G.o.ds got swallowed up by Marduk, one by one. And so on, down the line; Mesopotamia's major G.o.ds got swallowed up by Marduk, one by one.

Scholars disagree over how big a step toward monotheism this was, and over its main cause. 74 74 Some explanations are in the spirit of Edward Tylor, who believed that the s.h.i.+ft from polytheism to monotheism was part of a natural drift toward scientific rationalism. Thus, the series of Mesopotamian G.o.d-lists that impose growing hierarchy on the pantheon were not just reflections of hierarchical government, but fruits of the human quest for intellectual order and unity of explanation. When Marduk absorbed the functions of other G.o.ds, he became a kind of grand unified theory of nature. Some explanations are in the spirit of Edward Tylor, who believed that the s.h.i.+ft from polytheism to monotheism was part of a natural drift toward scientific rationalism. Thus, the series of Mesopotamian G.o.d-lists that impose growing hierarchy on the pantheon were not just reflections of hierarchical government, but fruits of the human quest for intellectual order and unity of explanation. When Marduk absorbed the functions of other G.o.ds, he became a kind of grand unified theory of nature.

In some scenarios, this intellectual drift was technologically abetted. If, for example, irrigation and new storage techniques and better state planning helped insulate humanity from the whims of nature, then the idea of a bunch of willful, unpredictable nature G.o.ds might seem less plausible. 75 75 And, though scientific inquiry didn't exactly s.h.i.+ft into high gear in the ancient world, it may have started taking a bit of mystery out of the universe, further eroding the intellectual need for such G.o.ds. Mesopotamians long attributed lunar eclipse to demons, and would beat drums to disperse them, but then, during the first millennium BCE, Babylonian astronomer-priests found that eclipses were precisely predictable, demonic whims notwithstanding. And, though scientific inquiry didn't exactly s.h.i.+ft into high gear in the ancient world, it may have started taking a bit of mystery out of the universe, further eroding the intellectual need for such G.o.ds. Mesopotamians long attributed lunar eclipse to demons, and would beat drums to disperse them, but then, during the first millennium BCE, Babylonian astronomer-priests found that eclipses were precisely predictable, demonic whims notwithstanding. 76 76 The hallowed drum-beating ritual lived on-but then again, so do many religious customs whose rationales have collapsed. (An early Scandinavian precursor of the Christmas tree was also a demon disperser.) The hallowed drum-beating ritual lived on-but then again, so do many religious customs whose rationales have collapsed. (An early Scandinavian precursor of the Christmas tree was also a demon disperser.) In contrast to these "intellectualist" explanations of the trend toward monotheism is the sheerly political explanation: For Babylonians bent on ruling Mesopotamia forever, what better theological weapon than to reduce Marduk's would-be rivals to parts of his anatomy? Or, to put it less cynically: For Babylonians who want to suffuse all of Mesopotamia in multicultural amity and understanding, what better social cement than a single G.o.d that encompa.s.ses all G.o.ds?

Whatever the explanation for the Mesopotamians' increasingly unified conception of the divine, the trend didn't carry the day. Marduk was eventually forced into a power-sharing arrangement with another major G.o.d. Still, it had been Mesopotamia's closest approach yet to a universalist monotheism. Indeed, the logic of the monotheism and of the universalism were intertwined. If the point of Marduk's evolution toward monotheism was political-to unify an ethnically diverse region-then presumably he would cast his net wide enough to encompa.s.s these ethnicities. And he sure did. According to the Mesopotamian cla.s.sic Epic of Creation Epic of Creation, he had "sovereignty over the whole world." And naturally so, since "He named the four quarters of the world; mankind he created." There are hints that he not only ruled all of humankind, but was favorably disposed toward it: "Wide is his heart, broad is his compa.s.sion." (Although-make no mistake-he would "subdue the disobedient.") 77 77 True Monotheism.

Meanwhile, over in Egypt, a G.o.d had come even closer than Marduk to universalistic monotheism. His story ill.u.s.trates how different the roads to monotheism can be.

Marduk's bid to become the one true G.o.d had been pursued with some grace and diplomatic tact. True, other G.o.ds in the pantheon had to submit to him and even eventually-as they say in the corporate world-merge with him on unfavorable terms. But he didn't deny their prior existence or their venerable legitimacy; indeed, he drew on their legitimacy. In the Epic of Creation Epic of Creation, it is they who a.s.semble at a feast and (after some heavy drinking) anoint him their new leader, vowing that "none among the G.o.ds shall transgress thy boundary." 78 78 Egypt's experiment with monotheism was more abrupt and involved less bonhomie. It was the divine equivalent of a coup d'e tat-and not a bloodless one. Egypt's experiment with monotheism was more abrupt and involved less bonhomie. It was the divine equivalent of a coup d'e tat-and not a bloodless one.

The coup was engineered in the fourteenth century BCE by an enigmatic and eccentric pharaoh known as Amenhotep IV. Whether the pharaoh was driven more by religious zeal or political plotting depends on which scholar you talk to, but few deny the relevance of the political situation he inherited upon ascending the throne, or of the theology with which that situation was intertwined.

The theology had one hallmark of an emerging monotheism: the dominance of the divine firmament by a single G.o.d, Amun. Amun had grown in power after championing a series of Egyptian military campaigns and getting credit for the ensuing victories. Vast wealth and landholdings had flowed into Amun's temples-which meant, in practical terms, that the priests of Amun, who presumably had themselves favored these wars, were now powerful, overseeing a commercial empire involving mining, manufacturing, and trade. 79 79 How serious a threat this conglomerate posed to the new pharaoh's power is unknown, but certainly a young man who a.s.sumed leaders.h.i.+p upon the premature death of his father, as Amenhotep IV did, could be excused for feeling insecure. 80 80 The appellations that had been given to Amun-king of the G.o.ds, prince of princes-were not something he would have found rea.s.suring. Nor was the occasional suggestion that Amun might not just outrank other G.o.ds but absorb them, Marduk style. The appellations that had been given to Amun-king of the G.o.ds, prince of princes-were not something he would have found rea.s.suring. Nor was the occasional suggestion that Amun might not just outrank other G.o.ds but absorb them, Marduk style. 81 81 In subduing Amun, the new pharaoh drew obliquely on the legacy of the venerable G.o.d Re. Re had at times been a.s.sociated with a simple icon-a solar disc with two arms, known as Aten, which meant "disc." 82 82 The sun-disc, which seems originally to have represented Re's luminous energy, had subsequently carved out a role as an independent deity, and in fact had won the favor of the young pharaoh's father, Amenhotep III. The sun-disc, which seems originally to have represented Re's luminous energy, had subsequently carved out a role as an independent deity, and in fact had won the favor of the young pharaoh's father, Amenhotep III. 83 83 Now Amenhotep IV gave Aten a promotion, elevating him from garden-variety deity to "he who decrees life"; he who "created the earth"; he who "built himself by himself"; he whose "sunbeams mean sight for all that he has created." Now Amenhotep IV gave Aten a promotion, elevating him from garden-variety deity to "he who decrees life"; he who "created the earth"; he who "built himself by himself"; he whose "sunbeams mean sight for all that he has created." 84 84 Did this mean that Aten was even greater than Amun? You might say. The pharaoh had Amun's name erased wherever it appeared. People with names containing "Amun" had to change them. And as for the once powerful high priest of Amun, his last known feat during Amenhotep IV's reign is being dispatched to fetch stone from a quarry. 85 85 Amun was hardly alone in being targeted for extinction. The word "G.o.ds" was erased from some texts and its use discontinued, for now there was one true G.o.d. 86 86 The former G.o.ds weren't even extended the courtesy that Marduk had offered the Mesopotamian deities he supplanted-absorption into the newly supreme being; they were just said to have "ceased," and their priesthoods were dissolved. The former G.o.ds weren't even extended the courtesy that Marduk had offered the Mesopotamian deities he supplanted-absorption into the newly supreme being; they were just said to have "ceased," and their priesthoods were dissolved. 87 87 The pharaoh built a big city in Aten's honor, named it Akhetaten ("Horizon of Aten"), and moved the capital there. He renamed himself Akhenaten ("Helper of Aten"), appointed himself Aten's high priest, declared himself Aten's son, and was praised accordingly: "O beautiful child of the Sun-disc"-a sun-disc that, the king's courtiers observed, "has exalted the name of no other king." The pharaoh built a big city in Aten's honor, named it Akhetaten ("Horizon of Aten"), and moved the capital there. He renamed himself Akhenaten ("Helper of Aten"), appointed himself Aten's high priest, declared himself Aten's son, and was praised accordingly: "O beautiful child of the Sun-disc"-a sun-disc that, the king's courtiers observed, "has exalted the name of no other king." 88 88 Whereas Marduk, after absorbing Mesopotamia's major G.o.ds, had kept a few deities around as spouse and servants, Aten, at the height of his power, stood alone in the divine firmament, a clear foreshadowing of the Hebrew G.o.d, Yahweh. And as for Yahweh's famous universalism: Aten had created human beings, and he took care of them-all of them. As the Great Hymn to Aten put it: of them. As the Great Hymn to Aten put it: You set every man in his place, You set every man in his place,You supply their needs...Their tongues are diverse in speech,And their characters likewise;Their skins are distinct,For you have distinguished the peoples. 89 89 Roots of Moral Progress.

But this interracial universalism wasn't wholly new, and Aten doesn't deserve the lion's share of credit. Oddly, more credit should go to his deposed rival Amun. The wars sponsored by Amun had not only made his priests rich and thus threatened the pharaoh's power, but also, as wars of conquest often do, expanded economic and cultural horizons. From conquered territories came foreign slaves as well as foreign elites, who would receive an Egyptian education before returning home to help administer colonies. The Egyptian language absorbed foreign words, the economy foreign goods, and the pantheon foreign G.o.ds, just as Egyptian G.o.ds now moved into conquered lands. 90 90 The new cosmopolitanism didn't magically erase the racism and xenophobia of Egypt's insular past, but it made a dent. While some foreign G.o.ds were adopted as sons or daughters by Egyptian G.o.ds, some foreign human beings, including slaves, married into Egyptian families and saw their socioeconomic status rise. Egyptian literature, which had once depicted alien lands as alienating and foreigners as contemptible, now featured Egyptian heroes who went abroad, married foreigners, and settled down. 91 91 So Akhenaten, in making Aten the one true G.o.d not just of Egyptians, but of all humankind, was just reflecting his times. In the imperial Egypt of the day, observes Egyptologist Donald Redford, cosmopolitanism was in the air. "It was this universalist sentiment that Akhenaten fell heir to and developed within the context of his monotheism." 92 92 Indeed, it turns out that Aten's predecessor Amun had Indeed, it turns out that Aten's predecessor Amun had also also created all humankind and defined the races. created all humankind and defined the races. 93 93 One hymn spoke of his concern for the well-being of "Asiatics" (which meant Mesopotamians and others east of Egypt). One hymn spoke of his concern for the well-being of "Asiatics" (which meant Mesopotamians and others east of Egypt). 94 94 And, in a text probably composed before Akhenaten's time, an Egyptian G.o.d is said to "protect the souls" of the four known "races" of humankind: Asiatics, Egyptians, Libyans, and blacks (Nubians, to the south). And, in a text probably composed before Akhenaten's time, an Egyptian G.o.d is said to "protect the souls" of the four known "races" of humankind: Asiatics, Egyptians, Libyans, and blacks (Nubians, to the south). 95 95 All four are depicted in the land of the dead, the "underworld," where they are promised a blessed afterlife. All four are depicted in the land of the dead, the "underworld," where they are promised a blessed afterlife. 96 96 Egypt's empire wouldn't last forever, and cosmopolitanism would wax and wane. But the drift toward intercultural connection would continue, if fitfully, for it was driven ultimately by technological evolution. The same advances in transportation and communication that had made large empires feasible would, combined with advances in manufacture, bring more and more peoples into contact with one another. To be sure, the contact would often be hostile, and that hostility would be reflected in both religious doctrines and moral att.i.tudes. In the century after Akhenaten's reign, an Egyptian poet has a warring king saying to Amun, the very G.o.d who had once fretted over the welfare of Asiatics: "What are these Asiatics to thee, Amun? Wretches that know not G.o.d." 97 97 Still, by this time in the history of the ancient Middle East, two principles had revealed themselves.

First, the basic thrust of technological evolution would make it harder and harder to ignore the existence of other peoples. This long-run pattern is reflected in the evolution of the Egyptian language, as a.n.a.lyzed by the Egyptologist Siegfried Morenz. A word that in the mid-third millennium BCE meant "an Egyptian"-and was used to distinguish Egyptians from suspect and perhaps subhuman inhabitants of nearby lands-had by the mid-second millennium come to mean "a human being," and was being applied even to prisoners of war destined for slavery. 98 98 Second, the relations.h.i.+p of your G.o.ds to the G.o.ds of other peoples would often depend on your economic and political relations.h.i.+p to those peoples. Trade and other relations.h.i.+ps from which both parties can benefit-non-zero-sum relations.h.i.+ps-could lead your G.o.d to care for their welfare, and might even lead you to embrace their G.o.ds; either way, a non-zero-sum relations.h.i.+p would likely involve your conceding the basic humanity of these people and extending them at least some moral consideration. Of course, war and other forms of antagonism could foster a theology of intolerance and a morality of indifference, or worse. If there is any redemption for war, it lies in what sometimes followed, as a conqueror now drew diverse lands into an economic and political whole, and theology and morality expanded accordingly. On balance, through the rhythm of trade and war, the scope of non-zero-sumness grew. This boded well for the expansion of the circle of moral consideration.

So what became of Aten, who in the fourteenth century BCE was the clearest example of universalist monotheism to date? Within decades of his promotion to one-and-only G.o.d, he would fall from grace. Apparently, alienating the most powerful priests in Egypt was not a recipe for eternal life. Even if you're a G.o.d, you'll need well-placed terrestrial allies to pull off such a social revolution. With the death of Akhenaten, Aten lost his least dispensable friend.

Some people claim that Aten nonetheless changed the world forever. Sigmund Freud, in his book Moses and Monotheism Moses and Monotheism, suggested that Moses was in Egypt during Aten's reign and then carried this idea of monotheism toward Canaan, where it would launch Judeo-Christian civilization.

As we'll see, this isn't the most plausible explanation for monotheism's emergence in ancient Israel. Indeed, it turns out that Marduk had more to do with that emergence than Aten. Many centuries after Marduk failed to carry Middle Eastern civilization over the threshold to lasting monotheism, he helped push push Middle Eastern civilization over that threshold. He would confront and defeat, even humiliate, a G.o.d of ancient Israel, and the Israelites would respond by creating a monotheism of their own. Middle Eastern civilization over that threshold. He would confront and defeat, even humiliate, a G.o.d of ancient Israel, and the Israelites would respond by creating a monotheism of their own.

II.

THE EMERGENCE OF ABRAHAMIC MONOTHEISM.

For who in the skies can be compared to the Lord? Whom among the heavenly beings is like the Lord, a G.o.d feared in the council of the holy ones, great and terrible above all that are round about him? - Psalm 89:6 - Psalm 89:6There is no other G.o.d besides me, a righteous G.o.d and a Savior; there is no one besides me. Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am G.o.d, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness a word that shall not return: "To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear." - Isaiah 45:213 - Isaiah 45:213

Chapter Five.

Polytheism, the Religion of Ancient Israel.

The Hebrew Bible-what Christians call the Old Testament-records a memorable experience that the prophet Elijah had on Mount Sinai. G.o.d had told Elijah to stand there and wait for an encounter with the divine. Then "there was a great wind, so strong that it was splitting mountains and breaking rocks in pieces before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire; and after the fire a sound of sheer silence." 1 1 These last few words-"a sound of sheer silence"-are sometimes translated as "a still small voice." But, either way, you get the picture: the Hebrew G.o.d, Yahweh, for all the atmospherics surrounding him, was elusive. These last few words-"a sound of sheer silence"-are sometimes translated as "a still small voice." But, either way, you get the picture: the Hebrew G.o.d, Yahweh, for all the atmospherics surrounding him, was elusive.

This episode, from the first book of Kings, is often cited as a landmark in the history of religion. In "primitive" polytheism, the forces of nature may be inhabited by the G.o.ds, or loosely equated with them. But in the monotheism that was taking shape in the Middle East, there would be more distance between nature and divinity. "Unlike the pagan deities, Yahweh was not in any of the forces of nature but in a realm apart," wrote Karen Armstrong about Elijah's peak experience in her book A History of G.o.d A History of G.o.d. 2 2 The Bible's cla.s.sic pagan deity was Baal, wors.h.i.+pped by the much-derided Canaanites and, at times, by deluded Israelites who had strayed from devotion to Yahweh. Baal, as a fertility G.o.d, was sometimes called the Lord of Rain and Dew. 3 3 Yahweh, in contrast, was the Lord of nothing in particular-and of everything; he was the ultimate source of nature's power, but he didn't micromanage it; he was as much chairman of the board as chief executive. Yahweh, in contrast, was the Lord of nothing in particular-and of everything; he was the ultimate source of nature's power, but he didn't micromanage it; he was as much chairman of the board as chief executive.

This kind of G.o.d is often described as more modern than pagan, Baal-like G.o.ds, more compatible with a scientific worldview. After all, looking for mechanistic laws of nature wouldn't make much sense if, as the pagans of Elijah's day believed, nature was animated by the ever changing moods of various G.o.ds. There's more room for scientific principles to hold sway if there's just one G.o.d, sitting somewhere above the fray-capable of intervening on special occasions, maybe, but typically presiding over a universe of lawful regularity.

"Transcendent" is a term some scholars use to describe this G.o.d, while others prefer "remote" or "hidden." 4 4 In any event, this is a G.o.d that, while less conspicuous than the pagan G.o.ds, is more powerful. As the biblical scholar Yehezkel Kaufmann put it in his monumental eight-volume work In any event, this is a G.o.d that, while less conspicuous than the pagan G.o.ds, is more powerful. As the biblical scholar Yehezkel Kaufmann put it in his monumental eight-volume work History of Israelite Religion History of Israelite Religion, "Yahweh does not live in the processes of nature; he controls them." 5 5 Kaufmann, writing in the middle of the twentieth century, saw this and other distinctive traits of Yahweh as evidence that the Hebrew G.o.d had been more revolutionary than evolutionary. He rejected the idea that Israelite religion was "an organic outgrowth of the religious milieu" of the Middle East. Rather, the religion of Yahweh was "an original creation of the people of Israel. It was absolutely different from anything the pagan world ever knew." 6 6 Whether Yahweh indeed took shape in such splendid isolation-and whether he took shape as early as Kaufmann and other traditionalists would have it-is an issue to which we'll return. Meanwhile, it's important to stress that, however "modern" this "transcendent" G.o.d may have been, the Yahweh of Elijah's time still didn't possess what many people would call a modern moral moral sensibility. For example, he wasn't very tolerant of alternative theological perspectives. In that episode in First Kings, G.o.d uses his "still small voice" to instruct Elijah on how to get every Baal wors.h.i.+pper in the vicinity killed. Then, a chapter later, after some Syrians express doubt about the Hebrew G.o.d's power, Yahweh underscores their confusion by producing 127,000 dead Syrians. sensibility. For example, he wasn't very tolerant of alternative theological perspectives. In that episode in First Kings, G.o.d uses his "still small voice" to instruct Elijah on how to get every Baal wors.h.i.+pper in the vicinity killed. Then, a chapter later, after some Syrians express doubt about the Hebrew G.o.d's power, Yahweh underscores their confusion by producing 127,000 dead Syrians. 7 7 This G.o.d may have spoken softly, but he carried a big stick. This G.o.d may have spoken softly, but he carried a big stick.

This is of course a common complaint about the monotheism that emerged in the Middle East-that its theology bred belligerent intolerance. Some even see this as an intrinsic property of monotheism; whereas polytheism leaves room for the validity of other peoples' G.o.ds, ardent monotheists, according to this indictment, are allergic to peaceful coexistence.

If that's true, it's momentously unfortunate. Christians and Muslims, like Jews, trace their G.o.d back to the G.o.d that, according to the Bible, revealed himself to Abraham in the second millennium BCE. These three Abrahamic religions have more than three billion adherents, a little over half of the world's population. And, though all three groups claim the same lineage for their G.o.d, they don't alwa