'Monotheism inevitable but wasn't a break with antiquity'

Monotheism, which rose in the Middle East in the first century after Christ, was a "decisive moral and ethical" revolution that transformed the world and was almost an inevitable stage in human history. But, it did not represent a break with the classical era, say experts.

However, India was an exception to this development, said noted historian Tom Holland at a session "The End of Antiquity and the Rise of Monotheism" at the Jaipur Literature Festival 2015. "India is suited for this discussion as it is a place where the old gods were not banished."

"We read the 'Iliad' and about the deities like Apollo and Athena but not for any spiritual insight unlike Krishna in the 'Mahabharat'," said Holland, adding that west of Jaisalmer, there is nowhere you find a multiplicity of gods till the temple of Aryan war goddess Anahita in Iran, which is abandoned.

"In Damascus, a pagan temple was made a church and then a mosque, and also in Athens, the Parthenon, a shrine to the goddess Athena, became a church, then a mosque and now a sterile monument. Likewise the Pantheon in Rome," he said.

What accomplished this "millennial change" was the rise of Christianity, Rabbinical Judaism and then Islam, said Holland, who has written about the period in "Millennium: The End of the World and the Forging of Christendom", and "In the Shadow of the Sword: The Battle for Global Empire and the End of the Ancient World".

"It was a decisive moral and ethical revolution in human history," he said, adding historians sought to know how this came about as they cannot believe the religious reason that it was what the deity had ordained.

"There is a Darwinian explanation - it (monotheism) worked and offered the people what they wanted. For example, Christianity offered dignity to the lower classes, the slaves... a sense of universal brotherhood," said Holland.

"It gave a sense of identity, underpinned the fundamental basics of daily life and the church was the essence of the welfare state, while the networks that were formed were those that emperors could also respect," he said, adding this was the reason why Roman Emperor Constantine made it the state religion and his successors followed the policy.

"Even when Julian the Apostate tried to reintroduce polytheism, he had to ensure these attributes were replicated," he said.

Holland contended that the new religion was not only for the poor masses but also for the elite since the "identification with an universal god, meant they could also be universal autocrats". But Christianity was actually many Christianities, "not a single construct but rather points on a bandwidth" and it was actually fashioned as a single orthodoxy by emperors between the fourth and sixth centuries.

"This also had an effect on Judaism. There is a tendency to see Christianity as the daughter of Judaism but they were more like rival siblings. Judaism now acquired a written law to set the boundaries of the religion with rabbis terming it the inheritance of scriptures from the law of Moses," he said.

It was in the sixth century that the two religions became exclusively separate and when Islam rose, there is a problem for historians to see it as a continuit, he added.

Barry Flood, a professor at the New York University's Institute of Fine Arts, said the period of the rise of Islam is "complicated" as there is a lack of sources and the available material evidence and texts offer a range of interpretations.

"There is a big problem with determining Islam's relation with Judaism and Christianity. 30-40 years back, scholars saw late antiquity ending with the coming of Islam but now experts see it as a continuum," he said.

Holland attributed the monotheistic religions' success to the way they evolved though their adherents say they were "eternal".

"Religions are not abstract identities but a dialogue between people and a range of text and beliefs," he said.

(Vikas Datta can be contacted at [email protected])