Jonathan Kirsch. God Against the Gods: The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism. Viking Compass, 2004. See here to buy the book.
I enjoyed Jonathan Kirsch’s History of the End of the World (see my review here)
because I found it to be informative and intriguing, and I appreciated
Kirsch’s interaction with scholarly sources about the Book of
Revelation. I figured that I might enjoy his God Against the Gods,
as well. I wanted to learn more about paganism, ideas about the
origins of monotheism, and Akhenaton’s monotheistic crusade in Egypt. I
read some of the Amazon reviews of God Against the Gods and
saw that the book also discussed Constantine and Julian, and I was not
as interested in those topics, since I read a biography of Constantine
not long ago (see my review here). I still decided to read God Against the Gods because I thought I might learn something; plus, Kirsch is a compelling storyteller!
On the one hand, I was very disappointed by the book’s treatment of
Akhenaton and Josiah. I do not feel that I have a greater understanding
after reading the book of why these figures decided to pursue and to
promote monotheism. Some of that may be due to the paucity of primary
sources, particularly about Akhenaton, but I do feel a need to read more
about him to understand him more, and to see how his monotheism
interacted with his Egyptian context—-or at the very least to read ideas
and speculations about these things. I also did not find in Kirsch’s
book much of a description of ancient Near Eastern paganism or many
ideas about how monotheism originated.
On the other hand, I was very impressed by the sections in the book
about Constantine and Julian. Kirsch’s clear telling of the story of
Constantine placed in context some of the things that I had read in
David Potter’s biography of the man. Kirsch referred to the idea, for
example, that some people in the Roman empire had an almost monotheistic
adoration of the sun, and that this could have served as a cover for
their belief in Christianity, and Kirsch also discussed the origins of
the idea that the Roman empire should have multiple rulers. Kirsch also
portrays Julian as one who embraced paganism because of his
disillusionment with the Christians he knew, such as Constantius II, who
murdered Julian’s father; Julian’s belief that such people should not
receive cheap grace, which Julian thought that Christianity offered, but
that paganism did not; and the comfort that Julian received from pagan
philosophy during the difficult years of his life. There may have been
additional factors behind Julian’s adherence to paganism, but Kirsch’s
telling of the story of Julian really humanized the man.
Overall, I did not find what I was looking for in the book, and I
actually enjoyed the sections that I was not expecting to enjoy.
Another impressive section of the book was Kirsch’s discussion of
paganism, and his attempts to address Jewish and Christian charges that
pagans engaged in human sacrifice and had orgies. Kirsch argues that
human sacrifice came to an end in paganism a couple of centuries before
the common era, that the Romans themselves could be rather prudish when
it came to sex, that there were pagan cults that prized virginity, and
that there are other ways to account for some of the sources that
associate prostitution with worship (i.e., some pagans may have
associated with prostitutes after worship, but those prostitutes were
not necessarily associated with the cult). Kirsch is not always nuanced
in his discussion of paganism, as when he says that pagan worshipers
sought a good afterlife, or that pagans had an ethical consideration for
the poor, like the Christians did. Still, Kirsch’s section about
paganism was informative.
One may think in reading this book that Kirsch believes that
polytheism was good and that monotheism was bad, and that he wishes that
polytheism had won out. Kirsch does give that impression, for he
portrays monotheism as historically intolerant and polytheism as
tolerant, overall, of different religions and ways to worship. Kirsch
also seems to defend polytheism against charges of intolerance: he says
that a number of stories about Christian martyrdom are exaggerated, and
that there were cases in which Roman authorities actually begged
Christians to offer incense to the gods because the Roman authorities
did not want the Christians to be killed. Still, Kirsch cannot escape
the fact that even polytheism has been intolerant, as he points to
Antiochus Epiphanes, Diocletian, and even Julian, on occasion. (Julian
was not intolerant, according to Kirsch, but he did turn a blind eye
when pagans persecuted Christians.) In the end, Kirsch acknowledges the
contributions of monotheism and polytheism, hopes that they can learn
from each other, and expresses a wish that they had reached an
armistice, rather than for monotheism to have triumphed. Kirsch refers
to Constantine and Julian as people who supported tolerance for
different religions.
After reading this book, I am encouraged to read Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
which Kirsch quotes and references, and I may do that someday. I
realize that the book is dated, that some of its conclusions have been
questioned (i.e., that Rome fell due to moral reasons), and that its
biases (i.e., its arguably Enlightenment, anti-Christian bias) have been
noted. Still, I would like to read it sometime.