Albanian and Turkish in the Greek alphabet

Quotations are from Wikipedia, "Greek alphabet".

Diacritics (dots, for the most part) may not be displayed correctly: they should be aligned with the middle, not with the right side of a letter.

"Tosk Albanian was often written using the Greek alphabet, starting in about 1500. The printing press at Moschopolis published several Albanian texts in Greek script during the 18th century. It was only in 1908 that the Monastir conference standardized a Latin orthography for both Tosk and Gheg. Greek spelling is still occasionally used for the local Albanian dialects (Arvanitika) in Greece."

There were so many variants in these alphabets, and I am not sure about which variants go together, so I will not list the characters alphabetically, but rather by groups of letters in the modern Albanian alphabet (sources: 1, 2, 3).

a e u : α ε ο ου
ë : α̩ / ε̲
i : ι / η
o : ο / ω
y : υ / ιου

Canaanite names of the planets

A problem with ascertaining the Canaanite names of the planets is that the linguistic situation of the Canaanite peoples was quite complex: except for the survival of Punic (late Phoenician) in Carthage in North Africa, Canaanite languages were gradually replaced as spoken languages by Aramaic from the time of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (911–605 BCE), although some remained in use as liturgical and literary languages (best documented in the case of Hebrew, which continued to be in some use even as a spoken language up until the modern revival). Biblical Aramaic is considered to be descended from the Imperial (Old) Aramaic of the Achaemenid Persian Empire (550-330 BCE). Later Western Aramaic languages or dialects of the region include Samaritan Aramaic, Galilaean Aramaic and Jewish and Christian Palestinian Aramaic. Later, Greek and Roman rule led to many (educated) people becoming bilingual in Aramaic and Greek.

Ugaritic is (a dialect of) the ancestor of Phoenician.

As a result, Aramaic-speakers of the region had a large variety of planetary names to choose from, namely the ancestral Canaanite ones (and Canaanite neologisms!), the Akkadian names that came with imperial rule and influence, first of Assyria, then of the Persians, either in their original form or as they were "translated" into local divine names, those specific to the Aramaic language they shared with the people surrounding them, and finally Greek. This allowed people to differentiate shades of meaning in a way difficult to imagine today and made the choice of one word over another highly dependent on context.

Arabic names of the planets

Sun
شَمْس ‎(šams) f: pre-Islamic Arabic, from common Semitic *śamš-
Moon
قَمَر ‎(qamar) m: pre-Islamic Arabic, not shared with any other Semitic languages (except where it was adopted from Arabic)

Mercury
عُطَارِد (ʿuṭārid) m: pre-Islamic Arabic, of unclear origin
† الكَاتِب (al-kātib) m: literally "scribe", a variant name in the medieval Islamic West (Andalusia and Maghreb), from traditional Babylonian-Hellenistic associations of the mercurial god with writing
Venus
الزُّهَرَة ‎(al-zuhara) f: pre-Islamic Arabic, literally "the shining one", from the root z-h-r, perhaps related to the (pagan) Hebrew name for Venus preserved in the Greek transcription ζερουα zeroua (Epiphanius, Panarion)
نَجْم الصَبَاح ‎(najm al-ṣabāh [f]) m: pre-Islamic Arabic, "morning star", lit. "star of the morning"
نَجْم الْمَسَاء (najm al-masāʾ [m]) m: pre-Islamic Arabic, "evening star", lit. "star of the evening"

Persian/Iranian names of the planets

Sun
-Xôršîd / Hôršîd, from Middle Persian Xwar(x)šēd, (indirectly) from Avestan Hvarə.xšaēta, "radiant Sun (Hvar)"
-Hûr (poetic), from the non-compound version of the same name (Old Persian Hvar)
-Mehr, from Middle Persian Mihr, from Old Persian Miθra/Mitra
-Âftâb, "sun, sunshine", from Middle Persian āftāb
-*Hormoz. See on Jupiter and the first note below.
Mercury
-Tîr, from Middle Persian Tīri, from Old Persian Tīriya; translating Syriac Nebū or late Akkadian Nabû, from earlier Akkadian Nabium
-Otâred, from Classical Arabic ʿUṭārid
Venus
-(A)nâhîd, from Middle Persian Anāhīd, from Old Persian Anahita; translating Syriac ˀEštrā / ˀEstrā, borrowed from Akkadian Ištar (or the Akkadian directly)
-Zohre, from Classical Arabic Zuhara

Harranian names of the planets

The Harranian pagans (whose Hellenistic Syrian religion survived until perhaps the 11th century CE) associated the weekdays with the planetary deities, and according to an Arabic source (al-Nadīm, Fihrist 9.1), they used some Akkadian-Syriac and some Greek names for them.

Sun

"Helios": That the sun's Greek name was used in this Syrian town argues against the stereotype of "oriental" sun worship spreading west.

Moon

"Sin": It is unsurprising that the moon god, whose cult centre the city had been for millenia, continued to be called by the Akkadian name Sîn (from earler Akkadian Su'en), even as the inhabitants spoke Syriac/Aramaic. Syriac-speakers were more likely to adopt foreign-language divine names into their language than the Greeks were (who tended much more to "translate" them). The Syriac name, Sahr(a), may have been used side by side with the Akkadian, as was (perhaps still is) done by the Mandaeans.

More detailed interpretations of RV 1.164.46

Interpretations of Ṛgveda 1.164.46

(Responses)

Sanskrit (whole text):
"indraṃ mitraṃ varuṇamaghnimāhuratho divyaḥ sa suparṇo gharutmān
ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadantyaghniṃ yamaṃ mātariśvānamāhuḥ"

English translation (whole text):
"They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmān.
To what is [o]ne, sages give many a title—they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan."

Bruce Duffy, "Use of RV 1.164.46 to resolve contradictory statements in the Rigveda":
"Max Müller identified and classified under the heading of Henotheism the phenomena in the Ṛgveda where different gods are either described as being the supreme god or are described as having the same divine attributes as other gods. This paper looks at the possibility that these contradictory statements about the gods could be resolved if the verses they occur in were interpreted according to what is said in RV 1.164.46. I have chosen verse 46 because it is one of the few verses in the Ṛgveda that appears to make a direct statement about what poets really had in mind when they were composing the hymns. [...] I translate verse 46 as essentially saying that when the poets of the Ṛgveda talk about gods like Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agní, Yama, Mātariśvan, and the like, they are really talking about what is 'one' [...]. Karl F. Geldner identifies the 'one' of verse 46 as being 'The undeveloped and the immediate precursor to the concept of Brahman in the all-one-teaching of the Upaniṣads.' If Geldner is correct about this then the possible implications of what verse 46 has to say would take on far greater significance in relation to how any hymn in the Ṛgveda, that talks bout gods like those mentioned in verse 46, should really be seen as referring to the 'one', it would also mean that the 'one' of verse 46 should really be seen as a god who is the precursor to the Brahman of the Upaniṣads. That is to Brahman of the Upaniṣads who the authors of those texts proclaim to be the one and only real god of the Vedic cosmos. In order to help determine whether the statement made in the Ṛgveda can be used to help resolve contradictory statements made in the Ṛgveda about the gods [...] this paper will present for comparision statements from three verses of the Ṛgveda and from three verses of the Upaniṣads." (p.1-2)

God/gods

(Sidebranch of this thread)

@EPButler But *dyḗws/*deywós, ho theos/theoi, Tengri/tengri, ISvara/deva, El/elohim, Allah/ʾālihah, all similar but contingent, different.

— Ludwig (@MaiLudwig) 5. Dezember 2016

@EPButler None of them equate to God/gods, which, in Christian-based usage, is acknowledged to be paradoxical. In Hindu usage, not so.

— Ludwig (@MaiLudwig) 5. Dezember 2016

Monotheizing Readings of Polycentric Polytheism

An alternative list of the "major religious groups" of the world

I do not claim that the figures given are particularly accurate or up-to-date, or that the groups listed are anything near comprehensive for this range of group size. I (largely) use figures given in Wikipedia, and the point of this list is to demonstrate that Wikipedia's list of "major religious groups by world population" is only one way of presenting the data, irrespective of the quality of that data (which is probably miserable).
Atheists and agnostics are not included because many "non-religious" people in surveys are practitioners of non-institutional traditions.
Polytheistic groups are given in bold type.

Sunni Islam (1.37 billion), internally diverse (from Salafis to Sufis), proselytizing
     Also the framework of "folk" traditions
Roman Catholicism (1.27 billion), proselytizing
     Eastern Rite (70 million)
     Also the framework of "folk" traditions
Chinese polytheism (1.04 billion), internally diverse
     Includes Daoism, Shenism/"Folk religion", Confucianism
Hinduism (966 million), internally highly diverse (partly non-exclusive memberships), some groups proselytizing
     Vaishnavism (640 million), internally diverse
     Shaivism (252 million), internally diverse
     Shaktism (30 million), internally diverse
Protestant Christians (420 million), internally highly diverse (exclusive memberships)
Independent Christians (330 million), internally highly diverse (exclusive memberships)
Orthodox Christians (275 million), internally highly diverse
Mahayana Buddhism (263 million), internally highly diverse (exclusive memberships)
     Also the framework of ethnic polytheistic traditions
Shia Islam (154-200 million), internally highly diverse (exclusive memberships), some groups proselytizing
Theravada Buddhism (177 million), internally diverse
     Also the framework of ethnic polytheistic traditions
Asian polytheisms (147 million), umbrella (!)
     (Includes Vietnamese and Korean polytheism)
     Many Asian polytheisms have overlap in membership with Buddhism
Japanese polytheism (Shinto) (100 million)
African/Afro-American polytheisms (100 million), umbrella (!)
     Yoruba, Fon, Ewe and Bantu religions have ties to various Afro-American religions
     Many of these polytheisms have overlap in membership with Christianity/Islam
Anglican Christians (87 million)
Falun Gong (80-100 million), proselytizing
"New religionists" (63 million)
Vietnamese polytheism (40 million)
"Marginal" Christians (35 million)
Vajrayana Buddhism (28+ million)
     Tibetan Buddhism (28 million), internally diverse (exclusive memberships)
     Shingon Buddhism (?)
     Also the framework of ethnic polytheistic traditions
Sikhism (28 million)
Judaism (17 million), internally highly diverse (exclusive memberships)
Ahmadiyya Islam (10-20 million), proselytizing
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (15 million), proselytizing
Korean polytheism (5-15 million)
     This figure does not include practitioners who are members of institutional religions!
Spiritism (13 million)
Alevites (8-10 million)
Jehovah's Witnesses (8 million), proselytizing
Caodaism (5-9 million), proselytizing
Jainism (4.2 million)
Tenrikyō (4 million), proselytizing

"Pagan Monotheism"

"In 1999 Athanassiadi, Frede and their colleagues re-examined the ‘trend towards monotheism’, already emphasised in studies from the first half of the twentieth century, which wittingly or unwittingly followed the direction of Christian apologetic argument in late antiquity." (Nicole Belayche, "Deus deum... summorum maximus (Apuleius): ritual expressions of distinction in the divine world in the imperial period", in One God. Pagan Monotheism in the Roman Empire, p.141-142)

I'm not sure whether Belayche means to say that only the early 20th century or also the more recent literature propagating the existence of "pagan monotheism" in late antiquity follows Christian ideology, but in light of her view that many religious practices subsumed under this category should rather be associated with "an intrinsic quality of polytheism, which was pluralist and capable of organising the pantheon according to hierarchies that varied according to the contexts" (Belayche, p.166), she might mean the latter. It would be easy to substantiate the claim at any rate*, as much of the "The case for pagan monotheism in Greek and Graeco-Roman antiquity," as Michael Frede puts it in the title of his article in the same volume, rests on the judgements of Christian writers like Augustine, and on accepting the force of Augustine's argument—that if the pagan philosophers were consistent, they would see that their position already amounts to monotheism, and they should therefore cease to worship anyone but God and convert to Christianity.

"These essays articulate intelligently and clearly what St. Augustine himself knew so well: 'if the pagans mean that the gods are immortal, but, at the same time, created by the supreme God and that they are blessed, not by themselves, but through adhering to him who made them, then their meaning is the same as ours, whatever title they use . . . the fact that they give the name 'gods' to creatures who are immortal and blessed in the above sense, there is here no dispute between us' (De Civitate Dei, IX.23)." (D. V. Meconi, review of P. Athanassiadi and M. Frede, "Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity")

Translating the concept of Īśvara in Indian philosophy

It has become a cliché to ask whether Buddhism is a philosophy or a religion. It is usually framed as something like:

Buddhism is considered a religion.
But Buddhism does not claim the existence of any god(s).
(Religions claim the existence of god[s].)
Therefore Buddhism is not a religion, but a philosophy.

This is wrong. Buddhism is not atheistic, as it is often said, but nirīśvara, without a belief in (an) Īśvara or Lord, i.e. a highest god/deva who has some sort of ontological primacy. This does not always amount to being the first cause of all things ([the/an] Īśvara is only one of many independently existing entities in Yoga; in different systems of Vedānta, he is identical to or secondary to Brahman). Buddhism does accept the existence of devas, gods, as an important part of the world. If a god is anything that is worshipped, the Buddha and other Bodhisattvas may also be regarded as gods in analytical terms.

The problem is that nirīśvara is misleadingly translated as "atheistic", seśvara (with a belief in [an] Īśvara) as "theistic", and Īśvara as "God". Superficially, this may not seem problematic, as a highest, ontologically primary god does seem more or less the equivalent of the Abrahamic God. But the divergences are significant enough for the terminology to be essentially incorrect. Of the Abrahamic God, it may be rightly said, in Islamic terms, that "There is no god but God", since "god" is usually understood to mean a very powerful sentient entity deserving of worship, and God is regarded as by definition the only such entity. The Īśvara, on the other hand, is usually considered to be one and unique, but he is not the only deva, and neither Īśvara nor devas are the only recipients of worship in most Indian religion, be it Hindu, Buddhist or Jain, even though there are in all of these traditions some who discourage such worship. (The case is different for Sikhism, of course).

Some uses and meanings of the word "theology"

This is not a comprehensive list, just a very, very rough overview, a first look at the issue. It grew out of my comments on a post by Galina Krasskova.

4th century BCE

The first known use of "theologia" (but hardly its first use, it is likely to have been in more or less common usage) is in Plato, who means mythological poetry by it. The same usage is present in Aristotle, who however also uses the adjective "theologikos" to (metaphorically) characterize metaphysics. "Theologos" means mythological poet.
On this question, cf. Richard Bodéüs, Aristotle and the Theology of Living Immortals, pp. 73ff

"Theologia" is not listed in the index to the Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta; it was apparently not used by the early Stoics.

3rd and 2nd century BCE

The material here is dispersed through citations and doxographies, as few philosophical works from the period survive intact, and so it is harder to do word searches etc. I have not looked at the period in detail for this reason, but the sense of "theologia" that is evident in Christian writers (not considered here) and in Iamblichus ("the science of deity"), as well as a corresponding sense of the verb "theologeô" (and its participle, "theologoumenon") must have developed in this time.

Divine supremacy in the Ancient Near East

Even many who have no preference for worship of YHWH alone over Canaanite polytheism tend to repeat the Hebrew Bibe's characterization of Canaanite gods as foreign to Judaean (and/or Israelite) religion. For example, the non-denominational History in the Bible podcast (episode 1.44 The House of Omri: Pinnacle of Power) calls the priests of the Ba‘alîm and of ’Ăšêrāh in the famous story of 1 Kings 18 "foreign":

1 Kings 18 ("Complete Jewish Bible" translation)
17 When Ach’av saw Eliyahu, Ach’av said to him, “Is it really you, you troubler of Isra’el?”
18 He answered, “I haven’t troubled Isra’el, you have, you and your father’s house, by abandoning Adonai's mitzvot [YHWH's commands] and following the ba‘alim [plural of Ba‘al].
19 Now order all Isra’el to assemble before me on Mount Karmel, along with the 450 prophets of Ba‘al and the 400 prophets of the asherah [hā-’ăšêrāh] who eat at Izevel’s table.”
20 Ach’av sent word to all the people of Isra’el and assembled the prophets together on Mount Karmel.
21 Eliyahu stepped forward before all the people and said, “How long are you going to jump back and forth between two positions? If Adonai [YHWH] is God [hā-’ĕlōhîm, "the god"], follow him; but if it’s Ba‘al, follow him!” The people answered him not a word.
22 Then Eliyahu said to the people, “I, I alone, am the only prophet of Adonai [YHWH] who is left, while Ba‘al’s prophets number 450.
23 Let them give us two young bulls, and they can choose the bull they want for themselves. Then let them cut it in pieces and lay it on the wood but put no fire under it. I will prepare the other bull, lay it on the wood and put no fire under it.
24 Then, you, call on the name of your god [’ĕlōhêkěm]; and I will call on the name of Adonai [YHWH]; and the God [hā-’ĕlōhîm, "the god"] who answers with fire, let him be God [hā-’ĕlōhîm, "the god"]!” All the people answered, “Good idea! Agreed!”

25-35 (The other priests do not succeed.)

36 Then, when it came time for offering the evening offering, Eliyahu the prophet approached and said, “Adonai, God [YHWH ’Ělōhîm, "god/God"] of Avraham, Yitz’chak and Isra’el, let it be known today that you are God [’Ělōhîm, "god/God"] in Isra’el, and that I am your servant, and that I have done all these things at your word.
37 Hear me, Adonai [YHWH], hear me, so that this people may know that you, Adonai [YHWH], are God [hā-’ĕlōhîm, "the god"], and that you are turning their hearts back to you.”
38 Then the fire of Adonai [YHWH] fell. It consumed the burnt offering, the wood, the stones and the dust; and it licked up the water in the trench.
39 When all the people saw it, they fell on their faces and said, “Adonai is God [YHWH, hūʾ hā-’ĕlōhîm, "YHWH, he (is) the god"]! Adonai is God!”
40 Eliyahu said to them, “Seize the prophets of Ba‘al! Don’t let one of them escape!” They seized them; and Eliyahu brought them down to Vadi Kishon and killed them there.

It's clear from the text, however, that there are not really multiple religions, focussed on different gods, with open-minded people tolerating each other's religions. Rather, Eliyahu (Elijah) is proposing something that his fellows are not ready to accept: that either the god he is priest of is "the god", or one of the deities they follow. Whether the story has any basis in historical events (I would guess probably not), the idea promoted by the text, which would come much later to be called monotheism, is historical, and it was an innovation at the time.

Thoughts on In Our Time's "Baltic Crusades" episode

Link to the episode

1. Why "Baltic Crusades" and not "Resistance to the Baltic Crusades"?

This might seem facetious, but the discussion does start with the perspective of "Christianity". Much criticism is made of the methods—albeit not of the proselytising goal—of crusade, but we are told a story about Catholic Christians. We get a picture of the state of Catholic Christianity right at the beginning, even though its history is much more familiar to the majority of listeners than that of the pagan Balts. Catholic Christians are presented as having agency and motivation, as having a history, while the pagans are timeless, featureless, passive. Even trade in the region is described as trade done by Christians, and nothing is said of Baltic participation in or exclusion from that trade, and if actions of pagans are described, it is usually accepting baptism. Aleks Pluskowski protests that "we're effectively dealing with the continuation of a culture over the last thousand or so years. Obviously not timeless, there had been lots of changes," but that is a merely academic point if the programme does not reflect this insight; he is given a mere three minutes (6:12-9:18) to describe the pre-Christian culture and history, and while he does give a sketch that is acceptable, it is extremely brief and unspecific (compare the somewhat extended discussion of Christian theology of war, for example).
Pluskowski notes that we largely have to rely on Christian portrayals, but says nothing about in what ways they are misleading, and does not mention the large quantities of folk songs that were later collected and are an important source for the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European religion. Towards the end of the programme, it is said that pre-Christian practice survived on the fringes up until the early 19th century (33:15 and before), but nothing is said of its continuation under Christian leitkultur as folklore, or the influence it had on local Christian beliefs and practices.

What I would have focussed on is something that is mentioned only in the summing up:

Nora Berend (39:27-39:57): "I think the shorter-term consequences actually led to the development of a pagan state in Europe, which is quite interesting, that is Lithuania, which became a united realm and created, probably on the model of Christianity, a kind of pagan religion that was much more centralised. Although that was short-lived, I still think that's an interesting consequence."

Reading "God" into Hinduism

Even the Jesuit missionary Robert de Nobili, whom Francis X. Clooney ("Hindu God, Christian God. How Reason Helps Break Down the Boundaries between Religions", Oxford 2001), somewhat distastefully in my opinion, presents as a sort of model for "interreligious theological conversation", asked: "Who could ever doubt that there is a Sovereign Lord of all things who is at the same time their ultimate cause?" Many, of course, have doubted this, or thought that the "Sovereign Lord" is not also the "ultimate cause", or that there is no one cause. My point, however, is that even those people who agree that there is "a Sovereign Lord" do not, by this agreement, assent to a belief in the same entity. Easily they could doubt that there is the Sovereign Lord whose name is God and whom de Nobili professed.

It is true enough that they can on the basis of their agreement have a debate about the Sovereign Lord. "The Sovereign Lord is great," one of the agreers may say, and the other may reply, "No, the Sovereign Lord is without size." But do they differ because they have variant opinions about the same entity, or because they consider different entities as the Sovereign Lord? If their cosmologies differ sufficiently, it will even become pointless to ask this question, because, except from a privileged position (i.e. the worldview of the one making the judgement), there is no way to judge which the actual entities they are talking about are. So, significantly, they are talking about some entity qua "Sovereign Lord", with the entity's identity neither central nor easy to establish.

Take it, for example, that both are talking about the god Śiva. In that case, it seems clear that, if the entity exists, one of them is more correct in his account of it. But the first agreer might counter, "What is without size is not Śiva." In that case, from the first agreer's point of view, they are talking about different entities, one Śiva and the other without size; from the second's, they are talking about the same entity, but one of them has a defective understanding of it. There are not just the levels of real entities, on the one hand, and descriptions, on the other, but also an intermediate one, where the mapping of descriptions to entities is negotiated; and the picture is further complicated because the real entities are not immediately accessible, but must be assumed and described, so that descriptions are effectively mapped onto other descriptions.

Or take it that they are talking about two different gods, and shift their conversation to this topic. "Śiva is the Sovereign Lord," says the first, and the second, "No, Viṣṇu is the Sovereign Lord." A third agreer will object to their disagreement and tell them that they are referring to the same god, Harihara, by different name; the next will differ slightly, saying that the difference between Śiva and Viṣṇu is real enough, yet they are both aspects of Harihara. Now the first agreer may say, "I disagree. Śiva is the Sovereign Lord, and Viṣṇu is inferior to him." The second agreer will say the opposite. Another Hindu who has listened to the whole conversation might think, for one reason or another, that arguing about which god is greater is pointless; so might a Buddhist, who thinks that any Bodhisattva is greater than the gods anyway; while a Christian might sum up the whole discussion as "They disagree about the name of God."

The intellectual erasure of polytheism