Did ancient, pagan religions proselytize?

Did ancient, pagan religions proselytize? That's basically a question I can't really answer. I'm thinking specifically of religions contemporary to to the Biblical Old Testament, but examples from other times and areas may be insightful too. I am not un-informed about these religions. I know something of the cult of Baal and Ugarit and something of the Egyptian pantheon. But did these religions actively seek 'converts'? Did they think their message/their god was applicable to the world?

My instincts say "no"-ish. Much of the pagan cult was focused on the locality/city state. Even where a name like "Ba'al" or later "Zeus" was used in a larger area, often there was a local distinction so the Ba'al of city A was unique from Ba'al of city B. But to the best this can do is lead to inferences.

Does anyone have evidence or anything more solid than opinion to help with this question? Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by togre

Did ancient, pagan religions proselytize? That's basically a question I can't really answer. I'm thinking specifically of religions contemporary to to the Biblical Old Testament, but examples from other times and areas may be insightful too. I am not un-informed about these religions. I know something of the cult of Baal and Ugarit and something of the Egyptian pantheon. But did these religions actively seek 'converts'? Did they think their message/their god was applicable to the world?

My instincts say "no"-ish. Much of the pagan cult was focused on the locality/city state. Even where a name like "Ba'al" or later "Zeus" was used in a larger area, often there was a local distinction so the Ba'al of city A was unique from Ba'al of city B. But to the best this can do is lead to inferences.

Does anyone have evidence or anything more solid than opinion to help with this question? Thanks!

---

I tend to agree with you. Most were defensive and locally established for that purpose. However, many sought empires, not converts from the religious point of view. Of course they were converts from the economic point of view, by force. Each individual presentation of paganism had what each considered an advantage over the other in a world of hegemonies that came and went. After Protagoras and the advent of sophistication, paganism became even more variable from place to place and currents that flourished even within the same city or thereabouts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by togre

Did ancient, pagan religions proselytize? That's basically a question I can't really answer. I'm thinking specifically of religions contemporary to to the Biblical Old Testament, but examples from other times and areas may be insightful too. I am not un-informed about these religions. I know something of the cult of Baal and Ugarit and something of the Egyptian pantheon. But did these religions actively seek 'converts'? Did they think their message/their god was applicable to the world?

My instincts say "no"-ish. Much of the pagan cult was focused on the locality/city state. Even where a name like "Ba'al" or later "Zeus" was used in a larger area, often there was a local distinction so the Ba'al of city A was unique from Ba'al of city B. But to the best this can do is lead to inferences.

Does anyone have evidence or anything more solid than opinion to help with this question? Thanks!

---

That’s a good question. The number of god cults in Greece was outstanding to say at least.
Let’s look at Dionysus cult, for example.

Quote:

---

The Hellenic world, after Alexander’s conquest, spread the cult of Dionysus internationally, to Egyptian Alexandria, where he was associated with Osiris (eventually merging with him as Serapis); to Palestine, where he was associated with the Baals, and even the Adonis of the Jews (who had Dionysus imposed on them by the Hellenes); and most far flung of all, to India, where he became associated with Shiva.
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/LX/Dio...Mysteries.html

---

Secondly, The Dionysian Mysteries are believed to have consisted of two sets of rites, the outer public rites and the secret rites. I have found that The Dionysian Mysteries largely remain just that, a mystery.
It is a big subject that requires studying in depth to answer that question.

For most of the ancient world religion and state were united in a sense, so proselytizing doesn't really become an issue into you get the development of large multicultural empires. Before then, the only religion you would likely be exposed to was that of your parents and neighbours, and any attempt at proselytizing would likely not be tolerated.

However, it is a distinctive feature of gnostic religions, like Zoroastrianism, and that whole interest in prophets thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

For most of the ancient world religion and state were united in a sense, so proselytizing doesn't really become an issue into you get the development of large multicultural empires. Before then, the only religion you would likely be exposed to was that of your parents and neighbours, and any attempt at proselytizing would likely not be tolerated.

However, it is a distinctive feature of gnostic religions, like Zoroastrianism, and that whole interest in prophets thing.

---

Hm….It depends what you mean by being united. When we look at those myths, we find the same archetypal plot that is similar from culture to culture. In that sense they were united.
However, there are difference within god cults even in Greece.

I have barely touched Zoroastrianism. Interesting that you called it Gnostic religion. I have read a couple books about Gnosticism and I have a long list of books to read but Zoroaster is not included.

I know a little bit about Norse paganism. It seems like it was a local phenomenon as everyone practiced the same rituals. As there was no other alternative or faith competition, so everyone worshiped in the same way.

OrphanPip said:
However, it is a distinctive feature of gnostic religions, like Zoroastrianism, and that whole interest in prophets thing.

This makes sense that the phenomenon known as proselytizing did not occur until the advent of organized religion. To proselytize, you need to sell something- so the religion has to be evolved on some level, such as rituals, religious doctrine, leaders, temples and even a written text. It particularly make sense with the arrival of prophets, because again, they have something to sell; the prophet's word.

Interesting question- I'll follow this thread.

I agree that it is an interesting question.

Like the Mesopotamian empires, Ancient Egypt was an illustration of theocratic power. Like the Mesopotamian empires, Ancient Egypt was a theocracy supported by the subjugation of the lower classes whose agricultural labor enabled the comfortable lifestyle of the priests. There, priesthood ruled and adumbrated royalty.

Quote:

---

In Greece oligarchies and tyrannies, meaning "ruled by a few”, ruled in this way until Ancient Greek democracy emerged around the 6'th century B. C. Tyranny existed as a widespread political arrangement for much of Greece, Asia Minor and even reaching as far as Sicily. The oligarchs were formed from a select group of the wealthiest citizens of the state, who had most of the powers usually given to a monarch. Although these powers were dispersed amongst them, the oligarchic power was notably totalitarian.

Oligarchies and tyrannies, meaning "ruled by a few”, ruled in this way until Ancient Greek democracy emerged around the 6'th century B. C. But democracy began as an expanded version of the original oligarchy as all women, slaves and foreigners were excluded from democracy. This new political system required a complex set of laws in order to keep this complicated social structure organized. The birth of Western philosophy occurred in Miletus with the philosopher and thinker Thales, and early literary output, such as the Homeric epics and the poetry of Hesiod, began in Ionia. Archaic Period solidified the Greeks' religion, mythology and founding history.
http://www.ancientgreece.com/s/ArchaicPeriod/

---

The Roman oligarchs infiltrated the cults, which were then reformulated into a hierarchical structure and assimilated into the Roman state as the Bacchanalia. It may have been during this latter incarnation of the cult's evolution that stories of ritual violence, including murder, made their way to the floors of the Roman Senate.

Quote:

---

BacchanaliaThe notoriety of these festivals, where many kinds of crimes and political conspiracies were supposed to be planned, led to a decree by the Senate in 186 BC — the so-called Senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus, inscribed on a bronze tablet discovered in Calabria (1640), now in Vienna — by which the Bacchanalia were prohibited throughout all Italy except in special cases that required specific approval by the Senate.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus

---

The many cults is actually an attempt to unification. Instead of "converting", the cults absorved each other, so they could be all the same. That was massively used by Christianism as well. Considering in many places the figure of monarch was divine, you can bet that they considered part of the deal, a little bit of faith.

The go, preache about your god in the european region is pretty much christian (Hebrews are pagans, they are also limited to a single region, and of course, since it is very hard to be born a hebrew when you are not, they aren't much into converting either), much helped by the fact they had no central region, city, governament, etc.

For Budhism, there was temples, schools, traveling monks to grant the difusion of the faith. Hinduism had the social structure, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

The many cults is actually an attempt to unification. Instead of "converting", the cults absorved each other, so they could be all the same. That was massively used by Christianism as well. Considering in many places the figure of monarch was divine, you can bet that they considered part of the deal, a little bit of faith.

The go, preache about your god in the european region is pretty much christian (Hebrews are pagans, they are also limited to a single region, and of course, since it is very hard to be born a hebrew when you are not, they aren't much into converting either), much helped by the fact they had no central region, city, governament, etc.

For Budhism, there was temples, schools, traveling monks to grant the difusion of the faith. Hinduism had the social structure, etc.

---

You need to investigate the Diaspora which came about as a result of Alexander's conquest and protected the Jews and their commerce throughout the land. It was not until later that the Romans infiltrated the Greeks and caused undue and destructive problems.

What does the mediterran diaspora has to do with the simple facts Hebrews are pagans, they are restricted to an small area in the sense the original topic suggested, (there was vikings registers even as far as America, this imply they are not restricted to a small area?), that to conversion is not the focus of a religion that is based on "racial heritage")? Keep in mind, the jewish religion still a minority even today conversion of great masses is not an issue, rather the heritage, unlike their "sons", Islamism and Christianism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

What does the mediterran diaspora has to do with the simple facts Hebrews are pagans, they are restricted to an small area in the sense the original topic suggested, (there was vikings registers even as far as America, this imply they are not restricted to a small area?), that to conversion is not the focus of a religion that is based on "racial heritage")? Keep in mind, the jewish religion still a minority even today conversion of great masses is not an issue, rather the heritage, unlike their "sons", Islamism and Christianism.

---

You are right. It has nothing to do with the simple facts. It has to do with a lot more complicated facts. Plus in a sense, Christianism could be viewed as the sons of Esdra, but that's simplistic. Definitely Islamics cannot and will never fit being sons of the Jews. They go all the way back to very old times. The Kaba in Mecca was no Jewish property but rather shareholding.

Actually, I would disagree with the characterization of the (Old Testament) Jewish religion as 'pagan.' In fact what spurred my initial question was a study group discussion of Psalm 47. There are portions of this psalm that speak to the universal (vs. local) nature of the LORD and the desire and anticipation that nations (plural) will worship him. This lead to the comment that consistently throughout the Old Testament (the Law, Prophets and Writings) the Lord is treated as the God over all the world (in contrast to a local God). Furthermore, there is the anticipation that the Gentile (non-Jew) will join with the Jews in worshiping him and being blessed by him.

In fact I question whether those who draw a sharp distinction between the Old and New Testament are truly aware of the content of either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by togre

Actually, I would disagree with the characterization of the (Old Testament) Jewish religion as 'pagan.' In fact what spurred my initial question was a study group discussion of Psalm 47. There are portions of this psalm that speak to the universal (vs. local) nature of the LORD and the desire and anticipation that nations (plural) will worship him. This lead to the comment that consistently throughout the Old Testament (the Law, Prophets and Writings) the Lord is treated as the God over all the world (in contrast to a local God). Furthermore, there is the anticipation that the Gentile (non-Jew) will join with the Jews in worshiping him and being blessed by him.

In fact I question whether those who draw a sharp distinction between the Old and New Testament are truly aware of the content of either.

---

I agree with what you are saying. To me the old testament is humorous galore, while the new one is markedly different and solemn, serious, except very indirectly, since Superstar could be a funny trick. But I would agree that to call the Jews pagan, in the midst of all the contrast, is lack of information. It's like going to a doctor that focuses on one symtom and makes it cause. Not uncommon.

Hebrews are pagans. Pure and simply. They were never a cultural center of the world to be a metropolitan religion, a small realm in the margim of other centers (Be it Rome, Babylon, Persians or Egypts). They still somehow like this (of course, the entire world shifted to big cities, so the term pagan is not good for any religion) because Jewish is not Christianism and Christianism is a religion founded inside a metropolis.

The Diaspora is irrelevant. They were moving all around mediterranean region, as minor group, but their entire story is related to a single region and even a single descendency. You cann't became a jew easily, they are closed in their group. Like it was pointed: all "pagans" were spread in Meditarrenean region, not just them. There is passages about universal nature of the deity in every single religious text, but one cann't deny the fact that early christians started to slipt to the jewish sects when the argument was about the conversion of more people and the payment or not of the tribute to a central temple.

And telling the lord is treated as the jewish god is called the Lord in all the world because in the text that writen in a single region, barelly read beyond them, is hilarious. He was a minor deity, jewish a minor religion until Christianism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

Hebrews are pagans. Pure and simply. They were never a cultural center of the world to be a metropolitan religion, a small realm in the margim of other centers (Be it Rome, Babylon, Persians or Egypts). They still somehow like this (of course, the entire world shifted to big cities, so the term pagan is not good for any religion) because Jewish is not Christianism and Christianism is a religion founded inside a metropolis.

The Diaspora is irrelevant. They were moving all around mediterranean region, as minor group, but their entire story is related to a single region and even a single descendency. You cann't became a jew easily, they are closed in their group. Like it was pointed: all "pagans" were spread in Meditarrenean region, not just them. There is passages about universal nature of the deity in every single religious text, but one cann't deny the fact that early christians started to slipt to the jewish sects when the argument was about the conversion of more people and the payment or not of the tribute to a central temple.

And telling the lord is treated as the jewish god is called the Lord in all the world because in the text that writen in a single region, barelly read beyond them, is hilarious. He was a minor deity, jewish a minor religion until Christianism.

---

Ha! It was such a minor religion that the Romans thought it appropriate and imperative to incorporate the old testament in Christianism. Hocus-pocus!!