Canaanite pantheon and Israel's Polytheistic roots

[showmeproof]

To be clear on the Emanuel Tov reference on page 364 we find

"Scholars who frequently resort to Ugaritic documents from the second millenium BCE do so on the assumption that the language of the Bible was close to that of Ugarit in both time and character. In other words, the Ugaritic documents preserve several ancient idioms and linguistic phenomena that were not always correctly understood by the persons, who in a later period, vocalized the biblical text. From here it follows (in their opinion), that one must attempt to penetrate beyond the exegesis of the Masoretes into the original meanin of the biblical text by occasionally ignoring the vocalization of the Masoretes. This line of approach to the Ugaritic documents was developed particularly by Ginsberg*, and, in an extreme manner, by Dahood* in several theoretical studies and, to an even greater degree, in the application of his method to the biblical books themselves."

Then Tov goes through various scholars whom have used the cognate languages against the Masoretic Text, to which he credits Hummel on the Sons of Israel --> Sons of El issue.

So we do have assumptions made, but they are made based off of historical documents. Specifically biblical mythical imagery that only makes sense in light of the Ugaritic pantheon as evidenced in parallel texts.

[Mr. Anderson]

Mr. Anderson, I see that you have asserted that the evidence does not cover the findings that SMP's source states that it does--do you have any evidence for such an assertion, or do you simply reject it because it violates your theological beliefs?

The evidence does cover the findings, yet goes to far into conjecture to support it as anything other than a possibility.

The method of analysis used in Tov's book is precisely the same method used, as I mentioned before, to examine how Babylonian cultural tales descended from Sumerian tales. Incidentally, it is also the same method of analysis used to track the history of other mythic tales--examples range from

Incorrect: I know the method Tov is using in his book and his method makes no room for conjecture as I will explain in a post to ShowmeProof.

The only way in which your above statement can be considered accurate is if you are looking at Tov's arguments in isolation, with no awareness of the larger body of evidence and knowledge in which those arguments are made.

Or if your whole methodology and way of emendating it over the top of Tov's is taken into veiw. Then we can see your methodology as being faulty as to it's ability to discern truth, over a conjectured hypothisis to fit your own world view.

We use precisely the same excavation and research techniques, analytical tools, linguistic tools, comparisons of material culture, on all other investigations. Because of similar knowledge specific to the appropriate sub-region, we know (for instance) that the Greek civilization descended from the Mycenaean; we know that the Mayan civilization had a pervasive influence throughout the American southwest. Indeed, we use precisely the same disciplines to reject the assertions of the Book of Mormon.

Apples and oranges. Tracing a geneology lineage is not the same as an Ideological concept contained within the lineage. Ideas do evolve yet they dont work in the same manner nor can they pulled from another cognate language with any surity of accuracy.

There remains one question that I have asked, and that you have so far declined to answer: we use these tools on all other cultures. Why should your preferred culture be immune to analysis from these tools?

It shouldn't be looked over and hasn't. Yet that scrutiny itself must be judged, and stand to the same judgement. What I'm seeing is alot of National Enquirer type speculation going hand in hand with, "If there was another possibility and a scholar points to it as evidence that something may have occurred and is as such a fact."

are[/I] subject to rigorous critical analysis. I cannot make you believe something that you choose to refuse to believe, but your objection here is misplaced.

Many things fit the same catagory and dont suppose themselves to be factual. Perhaps you are unable to come to grips that most of what you hold dear as fact is actually more of an item of faith on your part. Conjectured and built up to support your belief system.

Precisely what presuppositions are made, and why should these presuppositions be considered false (especially as they are precisely the same "presuppositions" we use for all other cultures)?

Precisely what "blatent [sic] errors" are made? If you cannot provide evidence that there are errors, much less "blatent" errors, then I regard the above statement as the moral equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "La-la-la I can't hear you."

Science and history advance by study--not by pitching temper tantrums.

Lets just leave this here as a reminder of a pot calling a kettle black.

[Mr. Anderson]

You are wrong in stating that it is conjecture and mere assertions. What I have done in using Smith's work is provided historical reconstruction utilizing pertinent historical background in an interpreted context. This interpreted context may be conjecture to you, but it is not built off of assertions.

Your historical reconstruction as per Smith is correct. The 2 civilizations existed and had many similarities. The evidence you gave from Ugiretic text is accurate as far as that text is concerned. That emendating from that text has proven to be more useful than other methods in many instances. Yet not in all instances. Your conjectuer and assertion sentence needs some work before I can determine just what exacly you were trying to say.

So what we have on the table:
Israel was polytheistic and then later monotheistic as attested to the earliest sources vs later sources and examination of the bible itself. We have other groups in the area whom were also polytheistic and remained so, but paid tribute to a national god (such as Baal) above the others. We have mythic imagery in the bible that attributes the Israelite's god, Yahweh, with textual parallels to specific texts of the other predated religions along with the gods mentioned in their texts. How do you connect the dots? Do you argue that the dots should not be connected at all? Why in your opinion is historical background conjecture?

What do you do with the available evidence?

So what has "showmeproof" placed on the table. Would be a better lead. The earliest sources don't difinitively support any of these assertions. What you have is a sea of dots that could be connected in many differing patterns. This is the reason Tov doesn't give his own opinions as to the conjectured assertions of the scholars he qoutes.
A friend I worked with did a research project where over 3 months he had to corrispond with Tov for clarification of such points that require assertions built on conjecture, and copywrite usage for using Tovs work in his finished works on signs and varients. Tov wont go there.

Lets look at the chapter from which you qouted you Tov source. #8 titled Conjectural Emendation. --- Oh the irony. Pg.353-354 Scholars are aware of the fact that conjectural emendations are hypothetical, and, therefore, sometimes alternitive suggestions are made for emendating the text.
These conjectured emendations remain as such and haven't been given the status of varient readings.

I take the evidence you have presented and give it the same status that Tov does. As you've presented him as possibly the premeir scholar of textual criticism, I think I am standing on good ground.

This is the scrutiny that I mentioned to Technomage above and also the reason that I make a claim of his own faulty methodology in ascribing truth from his own worldview over sound scholarship. I dont think he can interpret it any other way.

As to the interpretation of the text in question in the OP there is quite a good deal of leverage to work the meaning into God's followers as the divine beings and sons of EL. As I'm sure your probably familiar with them, I wont go into them. You wanted to know how I connect the dots.
Yet I wont take my own conjecture to the point of established fact as you have I will give them an equal status and probability as your own.

[showmeproof]

Lets look at the chapter from which you qouted you Tov source. #8 titled Conjectural Emendation. --- Oh the irony. Pg.353-354 Scholars are aware of the fact that conjectural emendations are hypothetical, and, therefore, sometimes alternitive suggestions are made for emendating the text.
These conjectured emendations remain as such and haven't been given the status of varient readings.

The emendation that was referred to was the Masoretes changing SONS of GOD (EL) to Sons of ISRAEL. The earliest sources available show sons of God as in EL. We also know that the Masoretes worked in a period in which Jewish monotheism was already firmly established. It is their monotheistic bias that led them towards emending sons of El to Sons of Israel. The change back to Sons of El, as evidenced in the earliest sources, and through the use of Ugaritic texts is a FIX of an emendation, not an emendation.

[GakuseiDon]

So back to the Canaanite pantheon. This included El the creator god and father of all gods, Baal, Mot, Dagon, Ashtar, Astarte, Lotan, Melqart, Resheph, and others. These of course make appearances in the bible, but are found in Ugaritic Texts preserved in clay. Yahweh is included as well, as a son of El.

I'm not sure I understand the logic of this. The Israelites were polytheistic because the Canaanite pantheon had Yahweh as a minor deity?

Yahweh has many encounters with these characters in the bible and is said to rise above them often paralleling feats accomplished by Baal.

Lets look at a few bible verses to see this interaction.
Exodus 6:2-3
God also said to Moses, “I am the Lord. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty (El Shaddai) but by my name the Lord (YHWH) I did not make myself known to them.”
Deuteronomy 32:7-9
“Remember the days of old; consider the generations long past. Ask your father and he will tell you, your elders, and they will explain to you; When the Most High (El Eloyn) gave the nations their inheritance, when he set up the boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of God (EL). For the Lord’s (YWHY) portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance.”
Psalm 89:6-10...

To summarize: There is much evidence that the Israelites were originally polytheistic and Yahweh was only one of the gods in their pantheon, but being their national god he became the prominent figure and eventually the only one to survive in the Israelite tradition due largely to both foreign and domestic political pressure. Israelite religion is a product of its neighbor's religion and changed over time...cultural evolution in action.

There is much to talk about here, and I welcome discussion. Again, please bring in some of your own sources as well to enrich the topic.

I think it is important not to import modern meanings into the text. Paul called Satan "god of this world" -- was Paul being polytheistic or Monolatristic? You might say yes -- after all, Paul does use the word for "god", but I think you would be wrong to do so.

A pantheon is a group of gods who are more or less on equal footing. Now, I personally don't think that the Bible is anything but a fascinating cultural artifact, but if you are going to use the Bible, then I'd say that the Bible has God as the creator of everything from the start, a key requirement for monotheism. The gods weren't involved in creation. There is no pantheon in the Bible that I can see, only "dissenter gods". What were called "gods" in the OT were referred to as demons by the time of Paul. They still believed that they existed, maybe even referred to them as "gods", but it would be difficult to describe the Jews of the time as anything other than monotheists. If you look at Deut 32 again, you see this spelled out that the "gods" were in fact demons:

Deu 32:16 They provoked Him to jealousy with foreign gods; with abominations they provoked Him to anger.
Deu 32:17 They sacrificed to demons, not to God, To gods they did not know, To new gods, new arrivals that your fathers did not fear.

I do get what you are saying. It is very interesting how religions develop. But I've yet to see anything showing the Israelites being polytheists. I agree that they probably developed out of a polytheistic society, so might well have been polytheists themselves initially. But I'd like to see evidence for this. Pointing to the Canaanite pantheon doesn't tell us what those Israelites who took up worship of Yahweh were thinking.

[showmeproof]

I'm not sure I understand the logic of this. The Israelites were polytheistic because the Canaanite pantheon had Yahweh as a minor deity?


I think it is important not to import modern meanings into the text. Paul called Satan "god of this world" -- was Paul being polytheistic or Monolatristic? You might say yes -- after all, Paul does use the word for "god", but I think you would be wrong to do so.

A pantheon is a group of gods who are more or less on equal footing. Now, I personally don't think that the Bible is anything but a fascinating cultural artifact, but if you are going to use the Bible, then I'd say that the Bible has God as the creator of everything from the start, a key requirement for monotheism. The gods weren't involved in creation. There is no pantheon in the Bible that I can see, only "dissenter gods". What were called "gods" in the OT were referred to as demons by the time of Paul. They still believed that they existed, maybe even referred to them as "gods", but it would be difficult to describe the Jews of the time as anything other than monotheists. If you look at Deut 32 again, you see this spelled out that the "gods" were in fact demons:

Deu 32:16 They provoked Him to jealousy with foreign gods; with abominations they provoked Him to anger.
Deu 32:17 They sacrificed to demons, not to God, To gods they did not know, To new gods, new arrivals that your fathers did not fear.

I do get what you are saying. It is very interesting how religions develop. But I've yet to see anything showing the Israelites being polytheists. I agree that they probably developed out of a polytheistic society, so might well have been polytheists themselves initially. But I'd like to see evidence for this. Pointing to the Canaanite pantheon doesn't tell us what those Israelites who took up worship of Yahweh were thinking.

1) A pantheon is hierarchical, not egalitarian.

2) The bible was not written in order we see it.

3) The Pentateuch has many doublets and sometimes triplets of stories and are interwoven through redaction.

4) Although certain verses are still arguable to which source they belong, it is widely accepted amongst scholars that a J, E, P, and D source are distinguishable within the Pentateuch, along with a couple of redactors. There is argument to which order and dating should be attributed these sources, but the J source is a southern tradition of J, E the northern traditions of Israel (J&E could have been concurrent traditions that were interwoven under a united monarchy), P a priestly source (some like Welhausen put P before D, yet others like Friedman put P after D), and D the Deutronomistic source (attributed to Josiah's time).

5) Deuteronomy is a text specifically set out to villanize the other gods that were worshiped in Israel. In order to do this it has to confront the fact that the Israelites were polytheistic. The core of Deuteronomy is believed to be the sacred texts found by Hilkiah the high priest during Josiah's reign.

6) By 400 B.C. Israel was largely if not solely monotheistic. By time Paul is around he had only known monotheism.

7) The evidence is in the texts of the bible and the Ugaritic texts which predate the biblical texts. read back through the thread because much evidence has already been given.

The bible itself acknowledges the fact that Yahweh did not initially reveal himself to the patriarchs as Yahweh, but rather El Shaddai. Shaddai is translated as Almighty, but may have a lot to do with mountains (most gods of that time inhabited mountain tops). El is the head of the Canaanite pantheon.

[showmeproof]

For those who are interested:

On another forum, this topic had been discussed in great detail (and much more succinctly than I have here) by a poster named Leolaia. Her treatment of Canaanite pantheon, Yahweh's theophany, the Bible's use of mythic imagery and Ugarit is quite extensive and very very well done.



I

[showmeproof]

Quick correction from the OP. The Shasu are not mentioned on the Mernetaph stele, but rather on the Moabite stone. The Mernetaph stele is the earliest Egyptian reference to a specific people known as the Israelites, and speaks of the pharaoh's triumph over them "Israel's seed is not". He mistakenly thought he wiped them out.

The Shasu are however thought to be nomads of the levant. Many scholars reject the idea that they are the one and same Israelites due to their depiction on the steele being incongruent with Hebrew attire, and culture. However, other scholars argue the Shasu from Yhw indicates a possible influence (by assimilation?) on the Hebrews whom were originally also nomads from the Levant. The import of the Moabite stone is that it is one of the earliest sources of a reference to Yhw, and in the context used it is a place (which could be named after a god).

Just wanted to make sure I addressed this error.

[showmeproof]

I've already mentioned the mythic imagery in Deuteronomy 32, however I'd now like to turn to The Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 33 which is cross referenced to Jacob's blessing of his sons in Genesis 49. This is possibly a much earlier written poem included in the later final form of Deuteronomy. In this poem, Moses, I will not here argue against a Mosaic authorship, blesses the tribes of Israel. Mythic imagery is pervasive in this text. Now to be clear, when one uses mythic imagery it does not mean that they subscribe to the original context of the myth, but rather that they are influenced by this myth and work it into their theology.

First, God (Elohim) is depicted as coming from Sinai, Seir, and Paran. This puts the origin of these traditions in the southern levant just northeast of the Red Sea.

Of particular interest, to me at least, is the blessings given to both Jeshurun, and Israel. "There is no one like the God of Jeshurun, who rides the clouds in his majesty." This bit of mythic imagery, god as a rider of the clouds is echoed often, not only in the bible, but throughout the levant. Most notably rider of the clouds is an epithet of Baal. Here I am not suggesting that Yahweh=Baal or vice versa, but rather that the people of this area had many of the same conceptualizations of the power of God.

Of Israel, he says "Blessed are you, O Israel! Who is like you a people saved by the Lord (YHWH)? He is your shield and helper and your glorious sword." Yhwh here is depicted as a warrior god, a wielder of the sword.

Now compare this to the punishment Yhwh is said to bring throughout Ezekiel 14:21, Jeremiah 15:3, and Revelations 6:1-8. The four severe judgments, the four forms of destruction, and the four horsemen respectively.

Sword, famine, beasts, and pestilence. Do these have equivalents in the levant pantheon? Resheph is a god that is associated with pestilence many times associated closely with Deber (plague). Mot is the god of death, but is also associated with beasts of the wild. In an interchange with Baal Mot informs a messenger that his hunger is like a lion in the wilderness...and Mot ends up devouring Baal.

Do we find reason to associate any of these as part of Yhwh's retinue (google Yahweh's retinue)? In Habakkuk 3 both Deber and Resheph are said to go before him.

What of other mythological references to Leviathan a beast of the sea?

[guacamole]

The study of comparative mythology is often the case of overstating the case. Borrowings of course occur, but that sycretism flows both ways. When cultures encounter each other, the assimilated culture is just as likely to leave a lasting impression on the conqueror as the conqueror is on the assimilated. Two neighboring cultures that do not devour each other often give each other gods or cultural practices and as neurotic as religious people can be, they are often eager to adopt new and foreign gods. I question the so-called proof of Yahweh as part of the Canaanite pantheon proving that the Israelites were polytheistic and indebted to the Canaanites because there are other times when cultures have absorbed local deities into their pantheons. A good history on the evolution of Greek polytheism that shows how localized divinities became incorporated into a dominate pantheon will indicate exactly why comparative mythicists overstate the case. In other words, imho, unless someone has clear documentary unambiguous proof that the Israelites didn't have Yahweh before the rest of the "Canaanites", then it's speculation--as the term is commonly used. Try to be as skeptical toward scholars that want to reconstruct hints of the divine feminine out of commonly used poetic tropes as you are toward scripture.

fwiw,
guaca.

[showmeproof]

The study of comparative mythology is often the case of overstating the case. Borrowings of course occur, but that sycretism flows both ways. When cultures encounter each other, the assimilated culture is just as likely to leave a lasting impression on the conqueror as the conqueror is on the assimilated. Two neighboring cultures that do not devour each other often give each other gods or cultural practices and as neurotic as religious people can be, they are often eager to adopt new and foreign gods. I question the so-called proof of Yahweh as part of the Canaanite pantheon proving that the Israelites were polytheistic and indebted to the Canaanites because there are other times when cultures have absorbed local deities into their pantheons. A good history on the evolution of Greek polytheism that shows how localized divinities became incorporated into a dominate pantheon will indicate exactly why comparative mythicists overstate the case. In other words, imho, unless someone has clear documentary unambiguous proof that the Israelites didn't have Yahweh before the rest of the "Canaanites", then it's speculation--as the term is commonly used. Try to be as skeptical toward scholars that want to reconstruct hints of the divine feminine out of commonly used poetic tropes as you are from scripture.

fwiw,
guaca.

YHWH is depicted as a son of el, Israel being his alloted inheritance in the Bible itself. For those who would like to dispute this reading of Deuteronomy 32 I would challenge them that if Yahweh is the head god at the divine council why does he have an allotted inheritance? Whom would he be inheriting Israel from...himself? You don't inherit things you create. Why is Els son's numbered to seventy, and the number of the nations in Genesis 10 add to 70 in the Table of Nations? Not forgetting the equivocating of El Elyon with YWHW in Exodus 6.

What about the cases of Yahweh and his Asherah? Asherah as you remember is the consort of El the head of the Canaanite pantheon...why would there be references to YWHY with Asherah if YWHY didn't overtake El in the Pantheon in Israel. If YHWH was always separate why does he get El's consort? These inscriptions are found in Kuntillet 'Arjud, and Khirbet el-Qom as late as the 8th century B.C.

Ugarit texts date to the 13th century B.C. establishing the divine council and the sons of El.

Now for you apologists @ Reasonable Faith WLC invited a guest poster Dr. Hess to elaborate on this issue. Hess spends a large proportion of his post saying how el need not be a proper noun (which is true), and then spends time addressing how EL is equivocated with YHWH. What he does not do is spend anytime addressing where El is indeed a proper noun.

For more on the use of El please consult Marvin Pope's El in the Ugaritic Texts.

Hess makes a point about Deuteronomy 32:8 where MT has the translation as Sons of Israel, whereas you have to go to the Septuagint LXX to get Angles of God. What he does not mention is the Qumran scrolls where it is unabashedly Sons of God. He spends no time addressing how the Masoretes presupposed monotheism and that may have played into their translation. And also my point about if Yahweh's portion is Israel, the question as to whom is doing the apportioning still stands.

[guacamole]

[Now for you apologists @ Reasonable Faith WLC invited a guest poster Dr. Hess to elaborate on this issue. Hess spends a large proportion of his post saying how el need not be a proper noun (which is true), and then spends time addressing how EL is equivocated with YHWH. What he does not do is spend anytime addressing where El is indeed a proper noun.

The sticking point is that you can't always tell. Ancient manuscripts did not always preserve such niceties as as we have, like capitalization, to show proper noun usage.

Whatever anyone has to say about it, theories on Israelite polytheism are not uniform or non-controversial. And it isn't merely the conservative Christians and Jews who says so. It's impossible to determine if a site like Kuntillet Ajrud is an extraordinary site, or a typical site, if it reflected religion in the main stream or in the fringe. In addition, the very meaning of Asherah is still up for debate. Don't get tied up in one theory bud.

fwiw,
guaca.

[showmeproof]

The sticking point is that you can't always tell. Ancient manuscripts did not always preserve such niceties as as we have, like capitalization, to show proper noun usage.

Whatever anyone has to say about it, theories on Israelite polytheism are not uniform or non-controversial. And it isn't merely the conservative Christians and Jews who says so. It's impossible to determine if a site like Kuntillet Ajrud is an extraordinary site, or a typical site, if it reflected religion in the main stream or in the fringe. In addition, the very meaning of Asherah is still up for debate. Don't get tied up in one theory bud.

fwiw,
guaca.

There are indeed cases were you can distinguish where El is a proper noun. The bible spends a great deal of time rebuking polytheism...why would this need to have been done if polytheism wasn't a problem? Show me scholars which find Israelite polytheism to be controversial. Your assertion needs backing up.
You are quite right that we are not sure if Kuntillet 'Arjud is representative or not, but we are sure that there are many references to Yahweh of Samaria, or Yahweh of _________ (insert biblical Tel here). This shows that it was common place to localize gods. Even if Kuntillet 'Arjud is on the fringe, the whole point is to show the cultural evolution of religion (which includes the fringe). Is there one form of Christianity today, or are there many denominations...are some on the fringe, do any of them necessarily reflect the Christianity of 2000 years ago?

Just to quote from the Harvard link on Kuntillet 'Arjud:
" Several shallow wells dug at the foot of the hill provided one of the only permanent water sources in this arid region."
" [Kuntillet 'Arjud is] a kind of a wayside shrine that, due to its location, was related to the royal journeys to Elath and Ezion-Geber, and perhaps also to pilgrimages to southern Sinai."

The very meaning of Asherah is up for debate?? Please expound upon this.

[seanD]

There are indeed cases were you can distinguish where El is a proper noun. The bible spends a great deal of time rebuking polytheism...why would this need to have been done if polytheism wasn't a problem? Show me scholars which find Israelite polytheism to be controversial. Your assertion needs backing up.
You are quite right that we are not sure if Kuntillet 'Arjud is representative or not, but we are sure that there are many references to Yahweh of Samaria, or Yahweh of _________ (insert biblical Tel here). This shows that it was common place to localize gods. Even if Kuntillet 'Arjud is on the fringe, the whole point is to show the cultural evolution of religion (which includes the fringe). Is there one form of Christianity today, or are there many denominations...are some on the fringe, do any of them necessarily reflect the Christianity of 2000 years ago?

Just to quote from the Harvard link on Kuntillet 'Arjud:
" Several shallow wells dug at the foot of the hill provided one of the only permanent water sources in this arid region."
" [Kuntillet 'Arjud is] a kind of a wayside shrine that, due to its location, was related to the royal journeys to Elath and Ezion-Geber, and perhaps also to pilgrimages to southern Sinai."

The very meaning of Asherah is up for debate?? Please expound upon this.

The problem is the "evolution" as you call it doesn't seem to fit into how religions evolve. The natural course starts as monotheistic and ends up polytheistic -- from simple to complex. You just pointed out how Christianity started out homogenized and broke up into many different sects and beliefs as time went on. This is the natural course. To me, belief in God looks more like it started out as a homogenized belief in a one true God, followed by different streams of truth that flowed out in different directions after the fall, which evolved into many untruths, yet each retaining some of the core truth within. Then after hundreds of years later, God picked one of those streams, which was Abraham, and began to steer them back onto the true path which would become Judaism, and as a result we see monotheism forming in Abraham and his descendants once again. Then after Moses dies, monotheism once again morphs into polytheism, but then many hundreds of years later once again miraculously morphs back into monotheism. This doesn't look like a natural course of evolution. It looks like God dealing with the Israelites throughout a course of rejection, punishment, and redemption over and over, which is how the bible portrays the history of the Jews. It actually amazes me how God was able to preserve monotheism from Abraham to the time of Jesus, in spite of the fact that the Israelites were subjected to an amalgamation of different cultural beliefs and theocratic systems over and over again. One might look at it as nothing short of a miracle.

[showmeproof]

The problem is the "evolution" as you call it doesn't seem to fit into how religions evolve. The natural course starts as monotheistic and ends up polytheistic -- from simple to complex. You just pointed out how Christianity started out homogenized and broke up into many different sects and beliefs as time went on. This is the natural course. To me, belief in God looks more like it started out as a homogenized belief in a one true God, followed by different streams of truth that flowed out in different directions after the fall, which evolved into many untruths, yet each retaining some of the core truth within. Then after hundreds of years later, God picked one of those streams, which was Abraham, and began to steer them back onto the true path which would become Judaism, and as a result we see monotheism forming in Abraham and his descendants once again. Then after Moses dies, monotheism once again morphs into polytheism, but then many hundreds of years later once again miraculously morphs back into monotheism. This doesn't look like a natural course of evolution. It looks like God dealing with the Israelites throughout a course of rejection, punishment, and redemption over and over, which is how the bible portrays the history of the Jews. It actually amazes me how God was able to preserve monotheism from Abraham to the time of Jesus, in spite of the fact that the Israelites were subjected to an amalgamation of different cultural beliefs and theocratic systems over and over again. One might look at it as nothing short of a miracle.

1) you are welcome to believe anything you want

However, Polytheism came prior to monotheism. What do you use to support the claim that monotheism was the 'original' state? You neglect the fact of convergence; religions popped up all over the world not only in the Levant area. Animism and ancestor worship are the earliest we have evidence of, then anthropomorphised polytheism and the last guy on the scene is monotheism. The first monotheism was a monotheism by fiat from Ahkenaten...at least the first recorded monotheism.

Religion is often structured just as the culture in which it originates. The tribes of the Levant area had assemblies made up of patriarchs, and we see assemblies of god in that area. Later YHWH is viewed as a King ruling over all. The transition from wandering nomads to settled city states to borderline empires with kings is visible in the literature from the Bible. Likewise the political strife and warfare of a culture is often combined with a cosmic battle between the opponents gods. This is also evident in the literature of the Bible. Interestingly the times in which monotheism is rallied for in Israelite history it is by fiat from a king such as Hezekiah and Josiah.

As for your claim about there being a original Christianity, you may be right...it was a sect of Jews who thought Jesus fulfilled the return of an anointed one of YHWH from the line of David, however thought that the kingdom he would rule over would be not of this world. Christianity came out of Judaism; cultural evolution in action. The first Christians probably resisted being called Christians as they were really Jews; Jews on the fringe of Judaism.