The termUrmonotheismus (German for "primeval monotheism") or "primitive monotheism" expresses thehypothesis of amonotheisticUrreligion, from whichpolytheisticreligions allegedlydegenerated.[1][2][3] Thisevolutionary view of religious development contrasts diametrically with another evolutionary view on the development of religious thought: the hypothesis that religion progressed from simple forms to complex: first pre-animism, thenanimism,totemism,polytheism, and finally monotheism.[2][3][4]
In 1898, the Scottish anthropologistAndrew Lang proposed that the idea of aSupreme Being (the "High God" or "All Father") existed among some of the simplest of contemporarytribal societies prior to their contact withWestern peoples,[2][3][4] and thatUrmonotheismus ("primitivemonotheism") was the original religion of humankind.[2] This idea has parallels in the works ofTertullian and inrabbinic literature.[5]
The Catholic priestWilhelm Schmidt (1868–1954) defended the idea ofUrmonotheismus in his workDer Ursprung der Gottesidee (The Origin of the Idea of God), published 1912 to 1955, opposing the "revolutionary monotheism" approach that traces the emergence of monotheistic thought as a gradual process spanning the Bronze and Iron Agereligions of the ancient Near East andClassical antiquity.[2][6] According to Schmidt, alleged traces of primitive monotheism appear in theAssyro-Babylonian deitiesAshur andMarduk, and in theAncient Hebrew godYahweh. Schmidt views monotheism as the "natural" form oftheism,[2] which was later overlaid and "degraded" bypolytheism after thedeceased ancestors became objects of worship in primitive human societies,[2] and personifiednatural forces became worshipped as well as divine beings.[6]
A significant part of the work of Italiananthropologist and historian of religionRaffaele Pettazzoni (1883–1959) on thestudy ofancient religions concentrated on refuting the speculative theory of "primordial monotheism" (Urmonotheismus) previously developed by Schmidt, and on the study of the conceptions of the Supreme Being in so-called"primitive" religions.[2][6] Schmidt believed that evidence ofmonotheism existed intribal societies, and argued that all human societies recognize the Supreme Being as a non-exclusive spiritual entity which is paramount and also opposed by other spiritual entities.[6] Pettazzoni challenged Schmidt's concept of a Supreme Being as necessarily entailing monotheism.[6][7] Rather, Pettazzoni writes that monotheism is a recent religious development over the course of a slow revolution inpolytheism and perhapshenotheism.[7] In theHebrew Bible, this debate is carried on by the narratives about theOld Testament prophets who wrangle with theCanaanite gods; such scenarios serve to re-affirm both theethical monotheism of theIsraelites in opposition to the Canaanite religion and their belief in one exclusivetranscendentdeity coexisting with lesser divine beings.[7] (See also:God in Abrahamic religions).
Schmidt's hypothesis was controversially discussed during much of the first half of the 20th century.[2] In the 1930s, Schmidt adduced evidence fromNative American religion andmythology,Australian Aboriginal religion and mythology, and other primitive civilizations in support of his views.[2][8][9] He also responded to his critics. For instance, he rejected Pettazzoni's claim that thesky gods were merely a dim personification or embodiment of the physical sky, writing inThe Origin and Growth of Religion: "The outlines of the Supreme Being become dim only among later peoples".[10] Schmidt added that "a being who lives in the sky, who stands behind the celestial phenomena, who must "centralize" in himself the various manifestations [of thunder, rain, etc.] is not a personification of the sky at all".[10] According to Ernest Brandewie inWilhelm Schmidt and the Origin of the Idea of God (1983), Schmidt claimed that Pettazzoni fails to study Schmidt's work seriously and often relies on incorrect translations of Schmidt's German.[11] Brandewie also says Pettazzoni's definition of primitive ethical monotheism is an "arbitrary"straw-man argument, but he says Schmidt went too far when he claimed that such ethical monotheism was the earliest religious idea.[12]
According to Pettazzoni's analysis, Schmidtconfused science with theology, as Pettazzoni writes in the bookletThe supreme being in primitive religions (1957).[2] For Pettazzoni, the idea of a god in primitive religions is not ana priori concept independent of historical contexts; there is only the historical context, which arises from varying existential conditions within each type ofhuman society.[2][3] It is only within that societal context that the idea of God can satisfy, hence the Supreme Being does not exista priori.[3] Therefore, one finds the Supreme Being defined variously as the one who sends therain, as the protector of thehunt, or even as a life-giver associated with thesoil andharvest inagrarian societies—unique historical contexts that each give rise to their own particular conception of a Supreme Being.[3] Pettazzoni argues that religion must be conceived first and foremost as ahistorical product, conditioned by historical, cultural, and social contexts, with unique influence on other social and cultural realities within the same human society that produced it.[2][3]
By the 1950s, the academic establishment had rejected the hypothesis of primitive ethical monotheism (but notper se other proposed versions ofUrmonotheismus), and the proponents of Schmidt's "Vienna school" rephrased his ideas to the effect that while ancient cultures may not have known "true monotheism", they at least show evidence for "originaltheism" (Urtheismus, as opposed to non-theisticanimism), with a concept ofHochgott ("High God", as opposed toEingott "Single God")—in effect,henotheism, which acknowledged the Supreme Being but also various lesser gods.[2]Christian apologetics in the light of this have moved away from postulating a "memory ofrevelation" in pre-Christian religions, replacing it with an "inkling ofredemption" orvirtuous paganism unconsciously anticipating monotheism.[6] That said,E. E. Evans-Pritchard noted inTheories of Primitive Religion, first published in 1962, that mostanthropologists have abandoned all evolutionary schemes (such as Schmidt's or Pettazzoni's) for the historical development of religion, adding that they have also found monotheistic beliefs existing side-by-side with other religious beliefs.[13]
Belief in manydivine beings, who typically have to be worshipped or, if malevolent, warded off with appropriate rituals, has been widespread inhuman cultures. Though a singleevolutionary process cannot be postulated, there has been a drift in various traditions toward the unification of sacred forces under a single head, which, in a number of nonliterate "primal" societies, has become embedded in asupreme being. Sometimes this being is adeus otiosus (an "indifferent god"), regarded as having withdrawn from immediate concern with men and thought of sometimes as too exalted for men to petition. This observation ledWilhelm Schmidt, an Austrian anthropologist, to postulate in the early 20th century anUrmonotheismus, or "original monotheism", which later became overlaid by polytheism. Like all other theories of religious origins, this theory isspeculative andunverifiable. More promising are attempts bysociologists andsocial anthropologists to penetrate to the uses and significance of the gods in particular societies.
The evolutionary view of the history of religions saw religion as progressing from the most simple forms like preanimism, animism, totemism to higher forms like polytheism and finally monotheism.
