How did Christianity begin? The world’s largest religion developed through several stages over a long period, and surprisingly, each stage along the way can still be identified through a careful reading of the Christian scriptures. The sacred writings of the Jewish people, which Christians later came to call the Old Testament, chronicle the earliest stages in this process. The polytheism in the Old Testament reflects practices common in ancient Canaan and it is to that small patch of the Middle-east that we must turn in order to understand the origins of Christianity.

Canaan is the ancient term for the region we would today call Israel, the Palestinian territories, Lebanon, and so on. As will be shown, the ancestors of those tribes we call Jewish were originally no different from their Canaanite neighbors. How many gods did the ancient Israelites worship? Quite a few, it turns out. How do we know? The Bible (1) tells us:

“The Israelites . . . served the Baals and the Ashtoreths, and the gods of Aram, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the Ammonites and the gods of the Philistines” (Judges 10:6).

“Yet I reserve seven thousand in Israel—all whose knees have not bowed down to Baal” (1 Kings 19:18).

“Then he brought me to the entrance . . . and I saw women sitting there, mourning the god Tammuz” (Ezekiel 8:14).

Polytheistic behavior among the Israelites is not disputed. The traditional Jewish and Christian rationalization for these reports is that the people were monotheists, followers of Yahweh, who were being led astray to false, foreign gods. As will be shown, that traditional rationalization is wrong. The Israelites were not monotheists being led astray. Rather, they were polytheists just like their Canaanite neighbors.

Incidentally, do not be fooled by the beginning of Genesis, which sounds monotheistic, into thinking that the Israelites were monotheists . . . in the beginning. The Old Testament text was assembled and redacted over many centuries and the sequence of the material does not necessarily reflect the order in which it was composed. For example, most scholars believe that the first creation story (Genesis 1:1-2:3) was written long after the second creation story (Genesis 2:4-3:24).

The following are three arguments for the extensive and long-lasting polytheism of the Israelites: first, textual footprints; second, covenantal logic; and third, the emergence of omnipotence. Let’s start with textual footprints. When we look closely, we can see the evidence of early polytheistic beliefs fossilized within the Christian scriptures.

What is the name of the Old Testament god? As will be shown, the English language translations of a variety of names into “Lord” or “God” disguises a rich diversity of beliefs. Consider the following passages.

Abraham’s god first names himself: “I am God Almighty (El Shadai)” (Genesis 17:1).

Isaac says to Jacob, “May God Almighty (El Shadai) bless you” (Genesis 28:3).

The god who renames Jacob says, “I am God Almighty (El Shadai)” (Genesis 35:11).

Jacob, now Israel, says to his son, “God Almighty (El Shadai) appeared to me” (Genesis 48:3).

These are among the earliest interactions that the Biblical patriarchs – Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob – have with their god. In each case, that god is referred to as El Shadai, which means El of the Mountain or El the Mighty.

Of course, the Old Testament refers to its god with a variety of names. By itself this is not surprising. After all, the Bible is a big book, written by multiple authors, tackling difficult issues. But the fact that some of these names were also the name of another god is suspicious: El is the name of the god at the head of the Canaanite pantheon, the pantheon of deities worshipped by the Israelite’s predecessors and neighbors. It included El as the patriarch and chief deity, his wife Asherah, and their numerous offspring, including their son Baal. (2)

Aside from El Shadai, other common names for the Old Testament god are El Elyon, which means El Most High and Elohim, which is the plural of El. You read that correctly. The Old Testament refers to its allegedly monotheistic god using the plural form of El! All of these El names suggest that the god of the Hebrew patriarchs was the Canaanite god El, not Yahweh. And if they worshipped El, then presumably they believed in his pantheon and were . . . polytheists. But wait. If the patriarchs were not talking to Yahweh, then where does he come into the picture? Well, later, in Exodus.

In Exodus 6:2-3, Yahweh introduces himself to Moses with these words: “I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai, but I did not make myself known to them by my name, Yahweh.” This is one of the most surprising verses in the Bible. Here, the god in question has to go out of his way to explain that he is the same god who appeared to the patriarchs. But for some unexplained reason, he was then going by another name. That is strange, to say the least.

Confusion about the identity of a god is the last thing we would expect as part of a competent revelation. And that’s especially so if there were only one god in existence and he was in the process of educating his chosen people about the revolutionary concept of monotheism. Under those circumstances, making multiple appearances under multiple aliases would not be part of any success strategy. Notice also that there is never any explanation provided for why the patriarchs were not eligible to hear this god’s real name while Moses somehow was. The real purpose of this strange verse should by now be coming into focus. It appears to have been an editorial attempt to link two completely different traditions: an El tradition and a Yahweh tradition. (3)

The most likely explanation for the dual traditions is that the Israelites were at one point no different than their neighbors, worshipping the Canaanite pantheon. At a later stage, a new god named Yahweh was introduced into the mix. Over time, Yahweh gained strength. Eventually Yahweh and El were fused into one, and the rest of the pantheon was demoted and ultimately rejected altogether. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that there are many Old Testament polemics against Baal but none against El. Why not? El would have been the logical target. After all, he was the head of the pantheon that would have been Yahweh’s competition. Once again, the most likely explanation for the absence of polemics against El is that he and Yahweh became one and the same. El’s attributes and elements of his biography were interwoven with those of Yahweh. As centuries passed, written references to El would have, in many cases, been modified so that the term El came to serve as a generic reference to a god or as a title, rather than indicating the name of a particular god. In parallel, Baal became a generic term for any false or foreign god. (4) But there is more to the story. What do you notice about these other well-known quotations? From the creation: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26).

From the banishment from Eden: “Now that the man has become like one of us” (Genesis 3:22).

From the Tower of Babel: “Let us go down and confound their speech” (Genesis 11:7). All three of these verses quote the god using the first person plural. This certainly sounds like polytheism. Why else would a god speak this way? Among Christians, one popular response is that the plural reflects inter-Trinitarian communication, that is, conversation among the three persons of the trinity. An alternative response is that the god is using the honorific plural, as in the “royal we.” But neither of these explanations is persuasive. If either were correct, we would expect to see this plural construction throughout the Bible. But we do not. It appears only in a few instances, only in these very old strata of the text. There is a simpler explanation for the plural pronouns. A theme common in ancient near eastern literature, such as the Enuma Elish and the Ugaritic texts, is that of a chief god presiding over a divine council or heavenly court. In these other ancient texts, the chief god engages in conversations with his fellow gods in an anthropomorphic manner. That is probably what we are seeing in these verses with the plural pronouns. In fact, there are several Biblical passages where the idea of a divine council is explicit. A review of several examples points more directly at a polytheistic world under the Canaanite god El. Consider this example: “The heavens praise your wonders, Lord (Yahweh), your faithfulness too, in the assembly of the holy ones. For who in the skies above can compare with the Lord (Yahweh)? Who is like the Lord (Yahweh) among the heavenly beings (bene ‘elim – sons of the gods)? In the council of the holy ones, God (El) is greatly feared; he is more awesome than all who surround him” (Psalm 89:5-10). This passage raises numerous questions. First, if Yahweh were a single, all-powerful deity, it would be odd to have to make the point that he is superior to other heavenly beings. This statement suggests insecurity — and insecurity suggests past rivalry. Second, who are these other heavenly beings? Perhaps this is just poetic speech. But that does not seem likely. If someone wanted to employ a metaphor to describe the exciting new idea of a monotheistic god, he would probably have emphasized what was special about such a god – namely his singularity and uniqueness. It is unlikely he would choose to situate that god in a traditional polytheistic setting, precisely that milieu which monotheism had transcended. Could these heavenly beings be angels? That is not likely. The Hebrew word for angel, malak, appears nowhere in the text. The angel rationale also raises the “problem of angels,” — namely, why would an all-powerful god need helpers? He could perform all of the angelic duties directly and effortlessly. Not only would this be simpler, but it would eliminate the drawbacks of under-performing and even mutinous helpers. Angels do not quite fit within monotheism. Their presence in Judaism and later in Christianity seems best explained as a vestige of a primitive spirit religion or of demoted members of a pantheon. Consequently, it seems simplest to see the psalmist’s passage (above) as a description of a divine council. And there are other examples: “I saw the Lord (Yahweh) sitting on his throne with all the multitudes of heaven standing around him . . . And the Lord (Yahweh) said, ‘Who will entice Ahab . . . ?’ One suggested this, and another that. Finally, a spirit (ruach) came forward . . . ‘I will entice him.’ ‘By what means?’ the Lord (Yahweh) asked. ‘I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said. ‘You will succeed in enticing him,’ said the Lord (Yahweh). ‘Go and do it.’” (1 Kings 22:19-23). Here we have a front-row seat to a discussion within the divine council. Yahweh apparently asks for suggestions, or at least volunteers, until one or other of the spirits comes forward with a plan. The others do not seem to be occupied singing his praises as angels are said to do. This seems more like a meeting of the management team. The most fascinating divine council passage gives us an insight into the very human process by which the biblical text was cobbled together. “When the Most High (‘elyon) gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel. For the Lord’s (Yahweh) portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance” (Deuteronomy 32:8-9). It is difficult to make sense of these verses. How does the number of males in Israel relate to the countries of the world? How does the concluding sentence follow from what preceded it? Comparing alternative manuscript texts provides a clue. The phrase “sons of Israel” is found in the Masoretic text (the original Hebrew wording). But there is a different phrase in the Septuagint (the Greek translation) and yet another in the Qumran text (the Dead Sea Scrolls): “bene yisrael” (sons of Israel) — Masoretic text

“aggelon theou” (angels of god) – Septuagint text

“bene elohim” (sons of elohim) – Qumran text Of the three versions of the text, the Qumran, having been buried for the last 2,000 years, is the least likely to have been tampered with, and hence most likely to reflect the original intention. As discussed earlier, Elyon is a traditional title for El as he presides over the Ugaritic pantheon. (5) If we accept the Qumran text and read Elohim as another variant for El, then the passage can be re-written as: “When El gave the nations their inheritance . . . he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of his sons. For Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance.” Now, the passage makes sense: humankind is divided up according to the number of gods, described as El’s sons. El assigns all the gods (sons) a country. Yahweh, one of the gods subordinate to El, gets his chosen people of Israel. In this polytheistic setting, Yahweh was only one among many. This interpretation is given support by the following fact: according to the Ugaritic texts, El had seventy sons. (6) And according to Genesis 10, there were seventy countries in the world. So the number of El’s sons matches perfectly the number of countries in the world. This particular textual footprint points to a period during which Yahweh had joined the pantheon, but had not yet acceded to the top position. Of course, traditionalists will proffer Old Testament verses in support of their contention that the Israelites were monotheists all along. They may quote, for example, Deuteronomy 4:35, which reads, “Yahweh alone is god (elohim), there is none beside Him.” Other examples include 2 Kings 19:15, 2 Samuel 7:22, Deuteronomy 4:13. But critical readers of the Old Testament will not be surprised to find that it contains contradictions. Against the monotheistic verses above, we may counterpose polytheistic verses such as Exodus 18:11, which reads, “Now I know that the Lord (Yahweh) is greater than all other gods (elohim).” Other examples include Exodus 15:11, Deuteronomy 10:17, and Psalm 95:3. A cacophony of viewpoints is precisely what we would expect to find in a batch of writings composed over many centuries by fallible human beings. But if monotheism had been a constant belief among the Jews, we would expect to see constant references to it, not a jumble of contradictions. Why are there so few passages trumpeting monotheism? Monotheism was revolutionary – arguably the most important idea in history – the foundation of Israel’s entire identity and its gift to the planet. The paucity of monotheistic statements and the presence of polytheistic ones suggest a long twilight of polytheistic belief within the culture. Later editors would make adjustments but they could never eradicate the footprints of the earlier stage. Let’s turn to the second reason for supposing that the Israelites were polytheists: covenantal logic. The idea of covenant is one of the central ideas in the Old Testament. But it makes more sense in a polytheistic than in a monotheistic context. Recall that, in the Mosaic covenant, the people forswear other gods in exchange for Yahweh’s favor. But what other gods would the people need to forswear? Again, this suggests a polytheistic setting. Check out the wording of the first commandment: “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3). It does not say that other gods don’t exist. On the contrary, it presupposes the existence of rival gods.

A competitive context explains why Yahweh has to resort to offering incentives. A monotheistic god would not have to negotiate. If there were only one god, people would have no alternative: that god could simply dictate terms. Finally, it seems implausible that a monotheistic god would choose to favor one people over others. If he existed, he could communicate with, and bestow blessings upon, all the people on earth simultaneously. Favoritism toward one group appears to be completely arbitrary, and hence immoral. (And their god did favor them: the people of Moses were given the “land of milk and honey” and received supernatural assistance in exterminating its former occupants.) This rationing of the god’s favor leads to the third reason for supposing that the early Israelites were polytheistic: the Old Testament god was not omnipotent. Notice that because polytheistic gods are not alone, no one of them can be omnipotent. If one were omnipotent, that would leave no power for the others. Hence omnipotence can only emerge with monotheism. And the Old Testament attests to the limited powers of its god in several instances. Let’s review two examples. The first example involves the Israelites’ attempts to complete the conquest of the “promised land.” As discussed earlier, Yahweh assisted the Israelites in the slaughter of many rival peoples. But not every battle ended in victory. Specifically, Yahweh was no match for iron-age technology: “The Lord was with the men of Judah . . . but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron” (Judges 1:19). In other words, the all-powerful creator of the cosmos got licked by some guys with iron chariots. The second example is less well known. The prophet Elisha had predicted that the Israelites would defeat the Moabites. During the battle which followed, Mesha, the king of Moab, sacrificed his son to their god Chemosh. “The king of Moab . . . took his firstborn son . . . and offered him as a sacrifice.” Following this, the Moabites defeated the Israelites. “The fury against Israel was great; they withdrew . . .” (2 Kings 3:26-27). So, as a result of this sacrifice to the Moabite god Chemosh, Yahweh and the Israelites were defeated. These two examples illustrate the early view of Yahweh as just one of many divine authorities, and hence not the sole repository of celestial power. In summary, we have reviewed three reasons to believe that the early Israelites were polytheists: textual footprints, covenantal logic, and emerging omnipotence. The evidence suggests that the early Israelites were an indigenous Canaanite people with beliefs indistinguishable from those of their neighbors.