Vid, I have considered your point that we only find polytheism in the earliest religions. But I do think that it would be rather wrong for us to make this assumption. After all, the number one comes before the number two. One would have to be aware of one god before they could be aware of the second god.
We should look before the Egyptian monotheism for evidence in this subject.
As to what was the oldest primitive religion...here is a few links to show us some things.
afrol News - World's oldest religion discovered in Botswana
HINDUISM, THE WORLD'S OLDEST RELIGION
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_on_monotheism"]Hindu views on monotheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Or, one could look a little closer to Hinduism and the influence that it possibly had over the middle east. "Om", the sound the universe makes, could be said as an expression of that which has no beginning and no end.
If Sanskrit and Hinduism are tied to the earliest known traces of religion on earth, and the oldest of the Vedic scripts contain passages of monotheism, then we must conclude that this is certainly more than just a trace of monotheism before 1000 BC.
In fact, the date 1000 BC is ridiculously late in the pondering of this question. I suspect that we would have to go back at least as far as the beginning of agriculture to determine whether monotheism was the original religion of mesopotamia. But the begining of Sanskrit writing does hint at monotheism in the earliest of the Vedas. At least hints at it, doesnt it?
And so, we can only conclude that the Gilgamesh stories of Mesopotamia would have been seen as merely recent inventions by those who knew of the Vedas (and other original religions upon which the vedas may have been based), and by a great many of the people of Ur. They knew that Marduk, Gilgamesh, etc, were much later religious inventions.
We know the Vedas today, and we know that the Vedas (oldest ones) are much older than the Gilgamesh stories. And so, this is why I suspect the Bible has portrayed this timeline of events correctly to us, and that the original religions were indeed monotheistic, but there was a devolution towards polytheism that caught on world wide and permeated all other religions.
Polytheism was the PC (politically correct) ideology of that early day, while evolution is the PC (politically correct) ideology of today, for example. If we look to this in light of religious leanings, etc.
Much like we have evolution theory of today as a devolution, back before Abraham's day, it was polytheism that was the popular devolution of that day. One could look at it like that.
I bring that up to make a point (not to start a flame war), nor do I want to talk about evolution in this thread. I just want to point out that today, if one refuses to accept evolution then they will be an outcast and a rebel from official society. And this is the proper concept to place Abraham into in order to understand Abraham. He was an ideological rebel of his day.
And so, if we look at Sanskrit and the Vedas, we see that...
A...There was a strong monotheistic tone in the oldest of the vedas.
B...There would have to have been some influence of this on Mesopotamian culture of Abrahams day.
C...The vedas themselves would have had to have been based on some earlier oral tradition.
And so, with these thoughts in mind, we can address the OP in understanding my point that God's wife was not edited out of the Bible, as this concept was never part of it to start with. And, the earliest religions were monotheistic, and so this concept would have never been part of that either. The concept was edited into religious questions with the rise of polytheism, but that wasnt the earliest state of religion. It was simply a devolution process at work.
But, back to the OP....in order to determine of God's wife was indeed edited out of the Bible, lets determine if that was ever part of it to start with.
In the oldest Vedic texts, was there a wife associated with "Om", which is the concept that has no begining and no end?
And so, we come to the realization that polytheism is an extreme devolution. It goes from the higher concept of "no begining and no end", to a lower concept of flawed, semi-powerful deities that take on the lower and lesser polytheistic characteristics. And it is an extreme shift of concept. And it does indeed match exactly the explanation that the Bible gives us for this.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things"....Romans 1:22-23
And so, since we know that the oldest of the Vedas have monotheistic tones, and also that they are oral traditions that are probably much older than 1000 years old, and predate the brief Egyptian monotheism experiment, then we can only conclude that the Biblical explanations of this are all correct. The original religion was monotheistic, but a devolution took place that led into polytheism.
Abraham rebelled against this movement, and we go from there with the story of Abraham, monotheism, and Judaism. Abraham was searching for the original, one true God.
It is interesting from a historical perspective, yes as an idea, but I don't suppose there is enough full understanding of ancient times to prove anything and hence, no point in really trying. The only goal would be to upset current religious followers who would not like the way such a claim is presented. And I would maintain that trying to draw connections with the goal of upsetting people is not a noble deed.
