Another book with a J.SE footnote: books.google.com/…

What it's a footnote on is a bit odd

Do others agree with that?

:23823883, I agree that @WadCheber's question is on-topic. I would go further, though, and suggest that the history of Judaism is on-topic, and that therefore, straight-up "Was Judaism monolatrous in period X?" would be on-topic. ...

... I'm not as sure about answers to that question that are incompatible (that is, that the assertions are incompatible, not that what they say people believed in the past is imcompatible, though those may go together) with contemporary Jewish belief, as you out that those may not be consistent with the POV of "those who base their lives on Judaism." (I realize that this hedge is likely to be unsatisfying to WadCheber.)

@IsaacMoses yeah that's tough

but I agree with what you're saying

It's definitely not a wrong answer to say that Jews believed in polytheism in the past... Tanakh tells us that explicitly

But to say that from the very beginning Judaism was monolatrous seems inconsistent with contemporary Jewish belief

@IsaacMoses Also, why did this not ping me?

because of the comma?

@Daniel What some Jews may have believed, contrary to Judaism, is likely off-topic, since that's about Jews rather than Judaism, except insofar as it's about what Tanach tells us that some Jews believed, which is part of Judaism because it's in Tanach.

@IsaacMoses right

Actually, I'm not sure. Is the question, "Why did the Jews worship XYZ god in Tanakh?" on topic?

I think that might be an on-topic question

@Daniel Actually (speculation), I wonder if you could claim that monolatry was one of the stages of Avraham Avinu's intellectual evolution from idolatry to monotheism, as described in the Midrash. In that sense (if true), you could say that monotheism did develop out of monolatry. That's not to say (as if one could) that God's Oneness is somehow contingent or wasn't true in the past; just that our belief therein started at a certain point, perhaps before He revealed Himself to Avraham.

@Daniel Yes. Sorry.

@Daniel Of course it is. Understanding what it says in Tanach is 100% part of Judaism.

@IsaacMoses Interesting. Although that doesn't address most of the quotes in WadCheber's question

though it would address the main question (assuming it can be shown to be true)

@Daniel Oh. Right. Yes, I agree that to say that, e.g., Psalms was written on the basis of monolatry seems inconsistent with contemporary Jewish belief

... same goes for Moshe Rabbeinu, who spoke to God "face to face" (addressing the question this one's a dupe of)

@msh210 We had already met on 4 previous occasions.

What is the source in tanach that mashiyach can't die?

@TheOne Why not ask a question on the site? Anyway, you won't find an unambiguous source. The Rambam's conception of Moshiach is that after he accomplishes what he needs to, he will die, and his son will rule in his place, and so on.