Zostrianos

Religion

2008-05-01T17:18:00.000-07:00

What is religion aside from its semantic construction? What is religion aside from the religious? In a relatively reflexive manner, the insider and outsider interact within an interpretative relationship (Olson 10). Upon designating certain characteristics with religion, objective categorization of various elements assemble ‘religion’. However, when one critiques the objectivity of such a construction, a conceptual ‘a priori knowledge’ unconditioned by experience establishes universals which influence observation (Olson 6). Thus, the term religion must be understood as an individual understanding academically institutionalized.

Institutionally, religion, as an academically established study, was introduced during the late 1800’s within European universities. Within American universities, it was not until the late 1950’s until the study of religion was established. Along these lines, as a member of the Human Sciences, religion has been recognized as an academic construction. The study of religion observes and accurately examines the beliefs, behaviors and institutions of human entities rather than asserting anything about the superhuman entities of religious belief. Thus, the truth of various beliefs or behaviors is descriptive or normative. (Apple 1: What is the Academic Study of Religion)

Sociological, psychological, and anthropological views of religion cannot succeed with a religious way of interpreting religion. If the science of religion is truly scientific, the term religion would not be used with the subject. However, complex and multiform equations and definitions establish religious events and institutions. Substantial, essentialist, theological, experiential, functional, social, and individual views all offer definitions of religion (Olson 4). Thus, sacred, holy, or cultic observations consisting of beliefs and institution are established within an analytic and imaginative act of observation.

Therefore, a non-evaluative comparative method in a cross cultural study of religious beliefs, practices, and ritual of ‘ours’ and ‘theirs’ is the organization of religion (Apple 3). However, the precise etymology of the word ‘religion’ is derived from the latin words releger (to be careful, mindful) and religare (to bind together) or to pay close attention. By the pre-Christian era, an etymological relation of religio with ‘releger’; to re-trace or re-read was established. However, in other investigational writings the term ‘religio’ is used in ambiguity. (Apple 3)

However, within the categorization of the signifier, the term religion must be understood as a designated academic construction (Gill 20). When considering the holy, the sacred, and the ‘other’ which transcends religious experience, a metaphysical reality is constructed. However, within the immanent material culture of oral narratives, dance, ritual, movements, objects, and religious symbolism identifiable institution of religious culture is established (Gill 23). Human motives and means which are illustrated within events, experience, and exercises reveal an agenda and a criterion of understanding religion. However, shifting identifiers which designate religion create a difficult interpretive criterion which establishes identifiable religious elements of religiosity.

Experiences and events which underlie evaluation open one to an examination of other representatives of religious activity. Entering into objectivity allows one to accept an ingrained awareness identifiable with worldly signifiers. Such signifiers continue to link in an evaluative acceptance of evolving evidence. Such an investigation into ‘wholly other’ awareness is ever associated with outside establishments, institutions, and material organizations (Otto 111). Upon accepting ‘institutional otherness’ one escapes evaluation of individual religiosity and investigates the arrangement and opinions evident in organized religion.

Anything considered ‘ultimately other’ and existing away from intelligible apprehension are usually resembled within commandments, ritual, and obligation which create response and reaction to rules and regulations which mold and ascertain religious behavior. Authority which governs ritual and spirituality usually illuminate an illusive agenda. In the most extreme sense, erratic, neurotic, and addictive behavior illustrate goals and ambitions within the religious. However, universal outlines of rationality and sanity imposed upon goals, responsibility, and ambition reflect an outsiders observation of an insiders conviction. Thus, in regards to ‘locus classicus’ whatever one knows or believes is only acceptable within an insider/outsider operation of engagement.

Symbols, gestures, and narratives illustrating superhuman awareness, and experiences distinctly illuminate a set of religious dispositions. An identification and classification of such symbolism embodies institution. At the lowest levels of culture which one has clear knowledge, the notion of a ghost soul animating humans is deeply ingrained within the academic establishment of religion (Tylor 59). Also, queer sacramental observances and rituals in which a being seeks to get a shamanistic way of dwelling in a self-fulfilling exaltation and ecstatic divination and theosis establish religiosity (Otto 124). Auspicious recognition in which there is no capricious act is existent when an ego exists under an awakening or hovering like god, or animism (Otto 128). Thus, one must recognize the decision of adequate and inadequate definitions. An inadequate definition represses ultimate concern, a worldview, or the sacred, where an adequate definition represents a system of beliefs and practices relative to the extra-ordinary. (Smart 144)

Axis Mundi

2008-05-01T17:14:00.000-07:00

Within Mercea Eliade’s and Sigmund Freud’s essays on religion, both use opposing approaches in observing a manifestation of religion and/or the sacred. While one seems to hold an objective observation, a subjective evaluation is held otherwise. Within Eliades’ essay, axis mundi is evaluated, while within Freud’s essay, an egoic axis is examined. This recognition of a sacred axis seems to be identifiable within signs, symbols, locations, legends, and lore. However, all of these demarcations of the sacred remain mysterious and a complexity in evaluation is recognizable.

Within Eliade’s ‘Manifestation of the Sacred’, a Homogenius holiness is an orientation in which a Hierophany of ‘Hans Andere’ is investigated (Eliade:161). Similarly for Eliade, theophanies, hierophanies and various religious entities engage in erecting an ethereal or divine cosmogony of efficacy (162). However, enemies, agriculture, and unique emulations of holiness emulate holiness and an ‘alienuminous’ archytypical existence (163). In contrast to a pre-agricultural society, devoted to hunting ethos and a profane cult of preagricultural mother earth religion, a sacrilized cosmos of mysterious, yet Homo Religious signs is established (164).

In attempts of locating a “center of the world”, even the most nonreligious man extensively identifies a unique, ‘holy’, and private universe as if it were in such spots that he had received the revelation of a reality other than that in which he participates through his ordinary life. Eliade refers to a theophany or hierophany of religious man which is homogenius. An example of a holy location is evident within holy writ, ‘Draw not nigh hither” says the Lord to Moses; ‘put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground’ (Exodus 3, 5); according to Islamic tradition, the highest location on earth is the ‘ka’aba’ because “the pole star bears witness that it faces the center of Heaven, while Christians recognize Golgotha (167). All these beliefs express the same feeling, which is profoundly religious: “our world” is holy ground (168). The symbolism of the center reflects other series of cosmological images and religious beliefs. Among these, the most important are: holy sites and sanctuaries believed to be situated at the center of the world. (169)

Within the discipline of psychology, a quantitative approach was associated with psychology, behavior, cognitive psychology, whereas a qualitative approach was connected with psychodynamic schools of psychology like the psychoanalysis of language of the world (Freud:361). With such terms as id meaning ‘it’, and ego meaning, ‘I’, a super-ego represents an exaggerated self (361). Similarly, within each stage of ego a development of a psychosocial crisis that represented ego is summarized in the following way: trust/ basic mistrust (infancy); autonomy/shame and doubt (early childhood); initiative/guilty (play age); industry/inferiority (school age); identity/confusion (adolescence), intimacy/isolation (young adult); generativity/stagnation (adulthood), and integrity/despair and disgust (old age). (361)

Also, an accompaniment and an association of an almighty and all-just God, no divine world-order and no future life, will feel exempt from all obligation to obey the precepts of civilization (362). Everyone will, without inhibition or fear, follow his asocial, egoistic instincts and seek to exercise his power; Chaos, which we have banished through thousands of years of the work of civilization, will come again (362). This is because so many instinctual demands which will later be unserviceable cannot be suppressed by the rational operation of the child’s intellect but have to be tame by acts of repression, behind which, as a rule, lies the motive of anxiety of these infantile neuroses are overcome spontaneously in the course of growing up, and this is especially true of the obsessive neurosis of childhood (363).

Religion would be the universal obsessive neurosis of humanity; like the obsessive neurosis of children, it arose out of the Oedipus complex (363). In so doing, the idea forces itself upon him that religion is comparable to a childhood neurosis, and his is optimistic enough to suppose that mankind will surmount this neurotic phase, just as so many children grow out of a similar neurosis. (363)

In conclusion, in Eliade’s and Freud’s essays, Religion is recognizably within, without, and obviously, no illusion. No, an illusion it would be to suppose that religion is non-existent, or unrecognizable. Thus, such an alienuminous existence of an axis of religion is evident within Eliades and Freuds essays.

Mystery

2008-05-01T17:12:00.000-07:00

Within the Human Quest for God (where have I come from; where am I going), humankind reaches out to an infinite mystery. Concerning spiritual and theological guidance, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Basic Sixteen Documents of Vatican Council II attempt to make sense of the Mysteries of the Christian religion. In reaching out to such a Mystery, each document individually reveals the tradition and revelations which have helped humankind grapple with such a search. Ultimately, it is within such a ‘contact’ of seeking in which each document draws near to the manifestation of Mystery.

In coming together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal, each document illuminates the mystery of God and his involvement in the Church. Making known the mystery of his will (Eph 1:9), Vatican II teaches that the mysterious design of God’s wisdom is revealed in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.(Lumen Gentium, Art. II) However, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church asserts that the mystery of God is ungraspable with human representations (Cat. 42), the Church teaches that the kingdom of Christ exists as a mystery. (LG 3)

Ministering the wonderful mystery of the nature of God, the Catechism illuminates that divine nature is mysterious just as God is Mystery.(Cat. 206) Thus, even when God reveals himself, God remains a mystery beyond words, ‘if you understood him, it would not be God’.(Cat. 230) It is within such a mystery of a ‘divine’ dimension of text, words, signs, and events, in which each document engages in drawing out both literal and spiritual witness of the sacred.

Ultimately, it is in the mystery of the Will of God that the mystery of the Christian faith becomes clear. Vatican II and the Catechism each teach that it is within the Church, tradition, and scripture in which God brings to light the mystery of his Will.(Dei Verbum 98) Although, with shadows, each document teaches that within the mystery of its Lord it will not be until the end in which God’s mystery will be manifested in full light.(LG 4)

Original Sin

2008-05-01T17:11:00.000-07:00

Within the Theodicy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Catechism teaches the doctrine of ‘Original’ sin. Drawing upon the third chapter of the Creation story in Genesis, the Catechism sheds light upon the fall of humanity using the ‘drama of sin’ narrative.(Cat. 289) In drawing upon a literal/historic view of the Genesis story, the Catechism does not reflect contemporary scholarship concerning science and evolution. Thus, in the light of modern scholarship the question arises as to whether teachings of ‘Original’ sin are outdated, unintelligible, and ultimately incorrect.

Obviously there is more to evil in the world than what we cause ourselves. Aware of a conscious ‘concupiscence’ (Cat. 418), the Church teaches that humankind experiences a ‘tendency towards evil’. Furthermore, due to the evidence of evil in which one is born and to which one is attracted, man is left to question ‘Why’ evil exists.(Cat. 284) Using figurative language, but affirming a primeval event, the Catechism offers its answer in referring to an ‘original’ sinful act which took place at the beginning of history of man. Thus, the Catechism uses the Genesis story in offering answers to the fall of man, the existence of sin, and ultimately the existence of evil. (Cat. 390)

Claiming that the Catechism is bound up with literalisation and historicisation Gabriel Daly argues that the ‘Original’ sin of an ‘Adamic’ myth is not suffice in answering the questions of ‘Why’ evil is existent within the universe (Daly 97). Admitting conflicting models of Genesis and Neo-scholastic theories of evolution, Daly questions how sin can be explained in the light of evolutionary theory and existential insights.(Daly 101, 102) Thus, upon encountering a new endeavor of analysis and synthesis, Daly urges Scientific and Critical thought in rationalizing the existence of sin and evil.(Daly 102, 103) Drawing upon Biological heredity, the influence of human society, and Environmentalist theory (Daly 103) Daly recognizes extrinsic forces rather than inherent predispositions as to explaining the nature and existence of sin. (Daly 107)

Ultimately, the Catechism does not reflect contemporary scholarship, and rather it narrates a figurative, symbolic, and ancient world view. Focused on religious truths rather than scientific truths, the Catechism dwells within Creation centered spirituality. Concerning the fall/redemption spirituality of the Christian economy, a literalized myth exists as the core of the Catechisms explanation of fallen humanity.(Daly 106) However, the Catechism goes on to teach that the existence of evil and sin in which humankind exists reveals a mystery that we cannot fully understand.

Holy Scripture in the Life of the Church

2008-05-01T17:10:00.000-07:00

Within the life of the Church, Sacred Scripture offers access to the transmission of the Christ event. However, as a ‘human’ document, with a ‘human’ dimension, the Church recognizes scripture as the ‘human’ word of God. In recognition of such a human aspect of scripture, Sacred Scripture is also venerated as writings of inspired authorship.

Venerated as ‘Sacred’ Scripture, Vatican II’s Dei Verbum addresses the ‘divine’ authorship of the ‘inspired’ word of God.(DV 11,12) In recognition of such divine revelation, Dei Verbum teaches that the Christian religion should be nourished and ruled by Sacred Scripture which is living and active in the tradition of the Church (Heb 4:12).(DV 21) Thus, in striving for a better understanding of Sacred Scriptures (DV 24) Vatican II states that the Church hierarchy should immerse themselves in the scriptures by constant spiritual reading and diligent study.

Within the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Magisterium is given the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God.(Cat. 85) Noting how the Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, the Catechism teaches that the Magisterium is ultimately the servant of Sacred Scripture.(Cat. 86) In such a light, Scripture is to be read within ‘the living Tradition of the whole Church’.

Thus, through encouraging immersion in divine scriptures (Cat. 133), the Catechism teaches that ‘access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful’. Furthermore, the Church teaches that Sacred Scripture should nourish and govern the whole Christian life.(Cat. 141) In conclusion, as the Catechism teaches that all sacred scripture is but one book, and this book is Christ (Cat. 134), and as Vatican II teaches that Christ was the word made flesh (DV 2), the Church venerates divine scriptures as she venerates the Body of the Lord. (Cat. 141)

Lord's Prayer / Hail Mary

2008-05-01T17:05:00.000-07:00

Within the Catechism’s discussion about “Christian Prayer”, the ‘Hail Mary’ and the ‘Lord’s Prayer’ are outlined and explained. Concerning the urgings of the Holy Spirit, the Catechism teaches us that the exaltation of the Lordship of Jesus is espoused in both the ‘Hail Mary’ and the ‘Lord’s Prayer’. (Cat. 2681) Concerning ‘filial’ nature of our prayer, the Catechism asserts that the Church is drawn into communion with the ‘Mother of God’, and ‘Our Father’ in and through the ‘Hail Mary’, and the ‘Lord’s Prayer’. (Cat. 2672) With straightforward simplicity, the Catechism teaches how both the ‘Hail Mary’ and the ‘Lord’s Prayer’ serve as examples, invocations, and petitions unto God’s Mercy.

As the ‘hodigitria’, Mary “shows the way”, and is herself “the Sign” of the way. (Cat. 2674) Furthermore, the Catechism teaches that the prayer of the Church is sustained by the prayer of Mary and united with it in hope. (Cat. 2679) Beginning with Mary’s unique cooperation with the working of the Holy Spirit, the Churches developed their prayer to the holy Mother of God, centering it on the person of Christ manifested in his mysteries. (Cat. 2675) Thus, the Catechisms recognition of the Ave Maria illustrates Mary’s singular cooperation with the action of the Holy Spirit in magnifying with her the great things the Lord has done for her, and to entrust supplications and praises to her, the Church loves to pray in communion with the Virgin Mary. (Cat. 2682)

Concerning the Lord’s Prayer, the Catechism states that the Lord’s Prayer is the “summary of the whole Gospel”. (Cat. 2761) In response to his disciples’ request “Lord, teach us to pray” Jesus entrusted them with the ‘Our Father’. (Lk. 11:1) Furthermore, as Jesus is both the Master and Model of our Prayers, the Catechism teaches that the Spirit of the Lord gives new form to our desires; “those inner movements that animate our lives”. (Cat. 2764) On one hand, in the words of this prayer the only Son gives us the words the Father gave him. (Cat. 2775) On the other hand, as Word incarnate, he knows in his human heart the needs of his human brothers and sisters and reveals them to us. (Cat. 2765)

Divided into seven petitions, the Catechism outlines the Lord’s Prayer in such a way: Glory of the Father; Sanctification of his name; the coming of the kingdom; the fulfillment of his will; nourishment of our lives; healed of sin; and made victorious in the struggle of good over evil. (Cat. 2857) However, Jesus does not only give us a formula to mechanically repeat, rather Jesus gives us the Spirit by whom these words become in us ‘spirit and life’. (Cat. 2766) Thus, the seven petitions express the groanings of the present age, in which we cry ‘Abba! Father!’. (Cat. 2766, 2771)

As the ‘Hail Mary’ honors a submission of faith from ‘now, until the hour of our death’ (Cat. 2674), the eschatological character of the ‘Lord’s Prayer’ is quintessential in its petition and hoping for the Lord. (Cat. 2776) Wholly, the prayers of the ‘Hail Mary’ and the ‘Lord’s Prayer’ shine light upon the mission of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (Cat. 2766) As ‘Amen’ concludes each prayer: ‘So be it’, or ‘Let it be’ expresses the concluding mystery of salvation already accomplished, once for all, in Christ crucified and risen. (Cat. 2771)

Common Good

2008-05-01T17:04:00.001-07:00

Within the Catechism and Gaudium et Spes, the common good and private ownership of goods is explained. As paragraph 1905 in the Catechism instructs, in keeping with the social nature of man, the good of each individual is necessarily related to the common good. Presupposing respect for the person, the social well-being and development of the group, and peace (Cat. 1906-1908), the common good is always oriented towards the progress of persons. (Cat. 1912) Also, as outlined in the Basic Sixteen Documents of Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes mentions how the Church is obligated to extend its works toward the common good. For example, basic human needs such as: food, clothing, housing, the right freely to choose their state of life and set up a family, the right to education, work, to their good name, to respect, to proper knowledge, the right to act according to the dictates of conscience and to safeguard their privacy, and rightful freedom, including freedom of religion is intended to be protected and honored by the Church. (GS26)

With respect to the private ownership of goods, the Catechism deals with such an enterprise under the Seventh Commandment of “You Shall Not Steal”. (Cat. 2401) Noting how in the beginning God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind (Gen. 1:26-29) the Catechism teaches that such stewardship lends itself to the natural urging of a solidarity between men. Thus, in maintaining the ‘integrity of creation’, and the ‘natural law’ which follows, the Catechism encourages private ownership to the extent in which private ownership fertilizes the common good of humanity. (Cat. 2452)

As Gaudium et Spes mentions, humanity has always tried to develop its life by its own effort and ingenuity. Nowadays, it has extended and continues to extend its control over nearly all spheres of nature with the help of science and technology. (GS 33) However, although Gaudium et Spes greatly emphasizes ‘humanities’ role in attempting to control nature, Gaudium et Spes also notes how ‘individuals’ are the source, focus, and the aim of all economic and social life. Thus, Gaudium et Spes mentions how it is very important, then, to facilitate access to some ownership of external goods on the part of individuals and communities. (GS 71) However, due to income unworthy of a human being, exploitation, and other excessive economic and social differences and inequalities Gaudium et Spes notes how it is the responsibility of the Church to encourage and work towards a humane equilibrium for all peoples. (GS 66)

In conclusion, both the Catechism and Gaudium et Spes teach that common good is “the sum total of social conditions which allow everyone to reach their fulfillment”. (Cat. 1924) Also, the Catechism and Gaudium et Spes agree, “the order of things must be subordinate to the order of persons, and not the other way around”. (Cat. 1912, GS 26) Thus, as both documents teach that the dignity of the human person requires the pursuit of the common good, the Church encourages that everyone should be concerned to create and support institutions that improve the conditions of human life.

Holy Orders

2008-05-01T17:03:00.001-07:00

In the Catechism’s outlining of Holy Orders, concepts such as the ‘One Priesthood of Christ’, and ‘in persona Christi’ are discussed. In Doors to the Sacred, Joseph Martos notes how the established Priesthood in Catholicism traces its lineage back to the High Priesthood of Melchizedek. (Martos 403) However, with concern to the ‘One Priesthood of Christ’, the Christian tradition considers Jesus Christ to be the source of all priesthood: as the priest of the old law was a figure of Christ, the priest of the new law acts in the person of, or in persona Christi of Jesus Christ. (Cat. 1546, 1548)

Furthermore, as Christ bestowed the effects of his priesthood: "As the Father has sent me, so I send you" (Jn 20:21), Christ instituted an immersion into God by commanding others to enter his Priesthood. This reference to scripture represents the continuation of Christ’s word, command, and ‘Order’ in establishing His priesthood. (Martos 463) Furthermore, as Christ redeemed the world by a priestly act of sacrifice, so too the ordained priest, by virtue of participation in Christ’s priesthood, offers that same sacrifice. (Martos 459)

By a single offering Christ has perfected for all time those who are sanctified, that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross. However, the redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church. (Cat. 1545) The same is true of the one priesthood of Christ; it is made present through the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ’s priesthood: “Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers”. (Cat. 1545)

In conclusion, as Joseph Martos alludes to a ‘mutual’ identity of the priesthood (Martos 120), one must first examine the ‘singularity’ in which the priesthood corresponds. By virtue of sacramental consecration, the priest is not only set apart to simply perform certain functional sacramental rituals, rather, by virtue of the sacramental consecration which the priest receives, he is transformed into the sacramental ministry of Christ. (Cat. 1548) Thus, upon entering into the ‘One Priesthood of Christ’, the Priest acts ‘in persona Christi’. (Martos 459)

Catholic Priesthood

2008-05-01T17:01:00.000-07:00

In recognition of scripture, Church tradition, and contemporary Church teaching, the identity of the Catholic Priesthood has been established. In review of tradition and documentation, one recognizes the qualifications of the priesthood, the duty of the priesthood, and furthermore the theological presuppositions of the priesthood. However, in recognition of the identity of the Catholic Priesthood, identifying a ‘simple’ theological definition is difficult to establish. In its sacramental nature, the relationship between the divine and human is incredibly ‘complex’. (Montini xv) Thus, as contemporary scholars allude to a ‘mutual’ identity of the priesthood (Martos 120), one must first examine a ‘singularity’ in which the priesthood corresponds. Ultimately, it is within the grace flowing from Christ’s ministry in which a singularity of identity rather than a mutual relationship of the Priesthood exists.

In order to explain the identity of the Catholic Priesthood, the Priesthood must be viewed within its relationship with the Old Covenant. In recognition of the soteriological faith of Old Testament Israel, the Catholic Church recognizes Levitical Priesthood of the Jews. (Numbers 18) However, as the Levitical priesthood was identifiable in its lineage dating back to Levi, the established Priesthood in Catholicism traces its divine lineage back to the High Priesthood of Melchizedek. (Martos 403) In Catholicism, Jesus Christ assumes the role of High Priest once and for all as “a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek”. (Genesis 14:18, Heb. 5:6-11)

In regards to the New Covenant, it is believed that through Christ’s Priesthood, the Covenant of the Old Testament has been fulfilled. For example, the epistle to the Hebrews speaks of the priesthood of Christ in comparing his sacrificial death to the Jewish high priests’ offerings for the sins of Israel. (Hebrews 9:6-7) As Christ is the fulfillment of the priesthood of the Old Covenant, Christ reconciled man to God in a similar fashion that the priesthood of the Old Covenant reconciled Israel to God through sacrifice. However, the sacrifice that Christ offered was a complete and whole sacrifice in that it ‘eternally’ reconciled man to God. (Hebrews 10:14) The sacrificial example of Christ’s death was whole and complete in the sense that Christ offered himself, and more importantly, offered God incarnate, as the atonement of man’s sin. (Georgen 9)
For Christians, Christ had all the characteristics of the priesthood which he exercised in his observant and sacrificial life (Georgen 11). The scriptural perception of Christ's priesthood cannot, however, be taken in isolation. In attempt to establish the identity of the modern priesthood, Church tradition has outlined a notion that the priesthood consists of those whom act Alter Christus. (Greshake 29)
As Alter Christus means to say that the ministerial priest is another Christ, this is only understandable in light of understanding who Christ was and what Christ accomplished. As scripture states, Christ offered himself. (Heb 7:27) Thus, as one can only understand the significance of Christ’s ministry through what he administered, similarly, one can only understand what Christ administered if one has a theological understanding of the sacramental nature of Christ.
In attempt to investigate the various aspects of the identity of Christ, one respectively gets the impression that they are dealing with the unattainable mystery of the ‘hypostatic’ word. (Greshake 44) This primordial divinity of the incarnate nature of Christ as recorded in the New Testament reflects a state of being, that seems foreign and transcended to the state of man. However, as the incarnate word, Christ served as a mediator between man and God.(1 Tm 2:5) Thus, Priests recognize their identity to the extent that they live within the ‘imminent’ mediation of the incarnate word. (Greshake 30)
Furthermore, as Christ bestowed the effects of his priesthood: "As the Father has sent me, so I send you" (Jn 20:21), Christ instituted an immersion into God by commanding others to enter his Priesthood. This reference to scripture represents the continuation of Christ’s word, command, and ‘Order’ through establishing a priesthood. (Martos 463) Thus, upon entering into the priesthood of Christ, the priest, like Christ, also becomes an ‘instrument’ of God’s word. (Montini xiv)
Also, in obeying Christ as a sacrificial servant, the priesthood acts as a channel of Christ’s servitude. (Buechlin 47) Respectively, just as Christ redeemed the world by a priestly act of sacrifice, so too the ordained priest, by virtue of participation in Christ’s priesthood, offers that same sacrifice. (Martos 459) In regards to a ‘mutual’ identity of the Preisthood, it should be noted that the sacrificial rituals offered by the Catholic Priesthood are not distinct from that which Christ Himself offered, however these sacramental rituals are a reenactment thereof. (Power 116,117)
Thus, as Vatican II’s Presbyterorum Ordinis states, ‘the priestly office is to administer religious rites, and especially to make sacrificial offerings”, so too does the Catechism of the Catholic Church state "Holy Orders is the sacrament through which the mission entrusted by Christ to his apostles continues to be exercised in the Church". (Catechism 1536) Thus, Christ’s life is reflected as continuous within the life of the Priesthood which is immersed in the Sacraments. (Greshake 49)
It is by virtue of this sacramental consecration by which the priest enters the grace of Christ’s ministry. (Greshake 29) Through sacramental consecration, the priest enters into a spiritual unity of Christ’s ministry. (Buechlein 48) Through the priesthood which arises from the grace of Christ, the priesthood sacramentally enters into communion with God from which the ministry flows. (Buechlin 44) Thus, as the priesthood is immersed in the sacrament of Christ, the Priest also becomes a ‘living sacrament’ within the ministry of Christ. (Buechlin 42)
From scripture, and the continuing documents of the Church, one sees how the sacramental nature of the priesthood continues to represent the priesthood of Christ. Ultimately however, as priests enter the ministry of Christ, so too is Christ recognized as the High Priest of all humanity. (Hebrews 4:14) Presbyterorum Ordinis continues to state that through Holy Orders, priests are configured to Christ the Priest in such a way that they are able to act in the person of Christ. (Georgen 110) This is similar to the scripture which reads, ‘who has entered the priesthood of Christ, administers sacraments through Christ’. (1 Pet. 2:5,9)
Thus, by virtue of sacramental consecration, the priest is not only set apart to simply perform certain functional sacramental rituals, rather, by virtue of the sacramental consecration which the priest receives, he is transformed into the sacramental ministry of Christ. (Martos 459) Through sacramental consecration, the priest not only enters Christ’s mission and ministry, but the priest is also configured to Christ the Priest. (Presbyterorum Ordinis 2) Furthermore, as a Priest’s soul is marked with an indelible character (sacramentum et res) upon ordination, so too is the Priest conformed to Christ the Priest in such a way that they can act in the person of Christ the Head. (Presbyerorum 10) Thus, as Christ is the mediator of the entire priesthood before God, the ordained priest works in his person. (2 Cor. 2: 10)
Another example of the assimilation of the Priesthood into Christ is that the sacraments of ordination ‘ontologically’ change the priest (Buechlein 43). This ontological transformation reflects the spiritually transformative essence of God’s incarnate ministry through Christ. In fact, as the sacraments themselves are not only signs of salvation and grace, but spiritually transformed species, the reality of grace imbued in the material sacrament represents the incarnation and invocation of salvation. (Greshake 28) Essentially, this spiritual endowment of the sacraments represents the transformed inward nature of the priestly identity, which is an identity of grace through Christ. The imitation of Christ, or rather the assimilation into Christ’s priesthood and ministry introduces a mystical element of the sacrificial nature of Christ. (Montini xvii)
In addressing the speculative ‘mutual’ identity of the priesthood, a ‘crisis’ results in such a complimentary definition of a ‘relative’ priestly entity. However, in understanding the ‘twofold’ theological nature of Christ, one can understand the reason why such a concept of ‘mutual’ identity is associated with the Priesthood and Christ. Therefore, upon enquiry into such a ‘mutual’ identity of the priesthood, one must in some detail reflect upon the ‘twofold’ nature of Christ.
In the Gospels, Christ’s mission was to do the will of God, even though it included death. As recorded within Luke 22:42, Jesus asked God to “remove this cup” of oncoming crucifixion. However, Christ’s obedience eventually overcomes his anxiety when he states, “not what I want, but what you want.” (Mk 14:36) Vatican II reflected this aspect of the priesthood when it stated, “When he is drawn to think about his real self he turns to those deep recesses of his being where God who probes the heart awaits him, and where he himself decides his own destiny in the sight of God”. (Gaudium et Spes) As one within Christ, the priesthood experiences a similar conflict of spirit which Christ faced.
However, as Vatican II states, “nevertheless man has been wounded by sin” (Gaudium et Spes, 14), it is within this exclusive state of being wounded by sin, and being saved through grace in which the priesthood seems to be separate from Christ. Complimentary, Vatican II expresses this crisis when it states, "The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the people of our time, are the grief and anguish of the followers of Christ as well". (Gaudium et Spes, 1) Thus, as the Catholic theologian Gisbert Greshake draws upon, the ‘unpriestliness’ of the priesthood is precisely what unites all the priesthood into the fulfillment of Christ through grace. (Greshake 44)
In conclusion, the identity of the Priesthood which corresponds with scripture, Church tradition, and contemporary teaching, is rooted in the identity of the Priesthood of Christ. However, when modern scholarship recognizes a ‘mutual’ identity of the Priesthood, the singularity of Christ’s Priesthood is compromised. As Christ lived obedient, and served as the ultimate sacrifice of atonement, the High Priesthood of Christ ultimately assimilates the Catholic Priesthood into a state of grace by which there is a singularity of identity rather than a mutual relationship existent. Thus, as the priesthood is ultimately assimilated into Christ, the identity of the priesthood is ultimately an identity of Christ.

Works Cited
Buechlein, Daniel M. “The Sacramental Identity of the Ministerial Priesthood”, Priests for a New Millennium Catholic Bishops of the United States, Priests for a New Millennium Washington, D.C., United States Catholic Conference, US 2000

Flannery, Austin. Vatican Council II: Constitutions, Decrees, Declarations Costello Publishing Co, US 1996

Goergen, Donald J. Being a Priest Today, Editor: Goergen, Donald J., Liturgical Press, US. 1992

Greshake, Gisbert. The Meaning of the Christian Priesthood Christian Classics, US. 1989

Martos, Joseph. Doors to the Sacred Liguori publications, US. 2001
Montini, J.P., The Catholic priesthood: papal documents from St Pius X to Pius XII, ed. Monsignor P. Veuillot, Dublin 1957
Power, David N. “Representing Christ In Community and Sacrament”, Being a Priest Today, Editor: Goergen, Donald J., Liturgical Press, US. 1992

The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, New Revised Standard Version Michael D. Coogan, Marc Z. Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, Pheme Perkins United States: Oxford University Press, 2001

U.S. Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church Galilee Trade, US. 1995

David

2008-05-01T17:00:00.000-07:00

A historical account of the life of David is evident within Biblical as well as extra-biblical sources. Biblically, the life of David is presented within the books of First Samuel, Second Samuel, First Kings, Second Kings, First Chronicles, and the book of Psalms. These books give detailed accounts as to the relationships and wars David was involved in, the lineage and genealogy of David, and the affections of David’s heart. Complimentary, evidence of the life of David also exist within extra-biblical records. As existent within the Shishaq, Meshan, and Tel Dan Stele inscriptions, as well as archeological discoveries of ancient city ruins, evidence as to the existence of David has been uncovered. Through these books, inscriptions, and ruins, David’s life, influence, and works have been recorded, and thus revealing the heroic nature of this historic and literary figure.

In investigating the life of David through Biblical accounts, it is important to recognize how Biblical individuals, events, and the environment in which these individuals and events existed are relevant not only in their role as historic data, but also as literary devices[1]. Thus, whether viewed as historic documents of factual evidence, or as literary sources with authorative presumptions and exaggerations, a Biblical base in investigating the life of David must be examined under a critical lense.

Historically, the task of validating the Biblical historicity of David involves working between evaluating the textual artifact, and interpreting the Biblical text. When reviewing the life of David as revealed in the Bible, it is necessary to investigate the

1. Brettler, Marc Z., “Chapter 1: Defining History, Ideology and Literature” pg. 19
earliest edition of Biblical texts; the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scroll’s oldest writings about the life of David have been translated into the books of Samuel[2]. These Scrolls attributed to Samuel are dated to around 250 BCE[3]. These scrolls record David’s kingship to have been established around 1000 BCE, and commencing around 965 BCE[4]. Thus, as the book of Chronicles reveal that the Davidic monarchy lasted until around 590 BCE, it is believed that the story of David as recorded in Samuel within the Dead Sea Scrolls are dated much closer to the successors of David, than to the life of David itself.

Since no textual evidence has been recovered from around the time of David’s life, the question arises as to how such a story was maintained over the years. It is believed that an oral tradition or the transmission of an earlier document was probably the means of conveying information that might have spanned a gap of about 800 years between the life of David and the Dead Sea Scrolls that assert David’s life[5]. For this reason, viewing Biblical texts as historically factual documents need to be treated appropriately.

For example, the books of Samuel contain two different accounts that both seem to describe David's first meeting with Saul. In the first of these, Saul calls for David because David is skilled on the lyre (1 Samuel 16:21). While in the second account, Saul first meets David after David defeats Goliath (1 Samuel 17:56). Contradictions such as these serve to illuminate the likelihood that the narrative of these stories is drawn from
2-5. VanderKam, James C. “The Dead Sea Scrolls Today” pgs. 1, 30, 130-132

two different independent sources[6].
More problematic for the historic value of these biblical texts is the fact that texts, as they contemporarily exist, have been exhaustively subject to revision and redaction many times over[7]. Although it is uncertain why such revisions are made, it is possible to believe that authors put forward narratives which correlate with their own agenda[8]. Thus, while discovering original documents dated to the time of David would seem to be helpful in providing accurate information regarding the life of David, the problem still remains that these original documents would still present an authoritative bias. Archeologically, aside from ancient scrolls, city ruins dating back to the time of the kingship of David have also been recovered. Most recently, archeologists have excavated and recovered ancient traces of Jerusalem[9]. Archeologist William G. Dever, points to architectural similarities of these cities built in what would have been David's kingdom of Israel in relation to the Biblical records of architecture when evaluating the validity of the Biblical narrative[10]. As architectural evidence reveals, recovered ancient cities ruins resemble that of the infrastructure built by David as recorded in the Bible (1 Kings 9:15-16). However, Dever attributes the architecture of the cities' gates and other evidences reflecting those written in the Bible as "convergences" with the biblical portrayal, and not necessarily direct proofs of the historical accuracy of the Bible. [11]
6. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative: Intro. Pg.x
7. Aageson, James W. “In the Beginning: Critical Concepts for the Study of the Bible” pg.30
8. Brettler, Marc Z., “Chapter 1: Defining History, Ideology and Literature” pg. 13
9,10,11. Dever,William G. “What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?”pgs. 54(9),199(10),99(11)

In reconstructing a timeline in evaluating when David lived, particular genealogies as well as records of the reigns of various Hebrew kings, as contained in the books of Samuel and Kings, and repeated in Chronicles, are well-established and reliable for constructing a Biblical timeline. Thus it is said, that the consecutive reigns of these Davidic kings, each of whom is explicitly named in the Bible, form the historical “framework” of Biblical chronology, and date from around 1000 BCE to the end of the united monarchy in around 600BCE. [12]

Also, the record of the kingship of David has been confirmed by extra-biblical inscriptions[13]. Although these extra-biblical sources only provide a fragment of information into the life of David, three inscriptions are obviously relevant[14]. The first form of extra-biblical evidence for the life of David is from an Egyptian Pharaoh; the second is from a Moabite king; while the third is from an Armenian king.

First, mention of David is found in an inscription of Pharaoh Shoshenq I (called Shishaq in the Bible), and is dated to around 900 BCE. This inscription dated to about forty years after David's death as recorded in the books of Kings and Chronicles. [15]
A second inscription, the Mesha Stele, attributed to the Moab dynasty around 850 BCE, also refers to the "house of David”. However, this stone in which the inscription has been scribed is partially broken. This makes the Mesha Stele less reliable as an extra-biblical account and is often ignored by archeologists and scholars alike. [16]
12. Dever, pg. 162
13. Mykytiuk, Lawrence J. “Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions” pg. 266
14. Na’aman, Nadav, “In Search of Reality Behind the Account of David’s Wars with Israel’s Neighbors” pg. 203
15. Kitchen, K. "A Possible Mention of David in the Late Tenth Century B.C.E.” pgs. 29–44
16. Jones, Floyd Nolen, “The Chronology of the Old Testament” pg. 196

This makes the Mesha Stele less reliable as an extra-biblical account and is often ignored by archeologists and scholars alike. [16]

A third mention of King David is found in an Armanean inscription of the Tel Dan Stele. The Tel Dan Stele provides extra-Biblical evidence of David's existence as well as David’s kingship and dynasty. Dated to the period from the ninth to eighth century bce and attributed to an Aramean king, the Tel Dan Stele is a record of the killing of an Israelite soldier. The Tel Dan Stele states: "I killed Yahu of the House of David”. As the inscription has been analyzed, it is accepted by a majority of scholars as confirming the existence in the 9th/8th century bce Davidic dynasty.[17]

Thus, the greatest extra-biblical evidence of King David is the Tel Dan Stele. The Tel Dan stele inscription was carved in stone during the 9th or 8th centuries BCE (Mykytiuk 110). The Tel Dan stele presents David as a king, and the founder of a dynasty called "the house of David". This inscription agrees with the Biblical presentation of David as a king who founded a dynasty called "the house of David". Thus, as extra-Biblical evidence gives credit to the existence of a King David, the question is not whether the Biblical David existed, but rather, to what extent did the many accounts, stories, and details presented about David in the Bible actually occur.

16. Jones, Floyd Nolen, “The Chronology of the Old Testament” pg. 196
17. Mykytiuk, Lawrence J. pg. 94
In the Bible, the life of David is summarized through stories, lineages, and psalms. As recorded in the Bible, David is illustrated as a shepherd, a prolific warrior, a righteous king, a musician, and a poet. Outlined as a heroic figure, the narration concerning David illuminates a man graced with success and plagued with sin. The Bible lists David’s family, descendents, and adversaries; God’s choosing of David, and God’s
promises made to David; and most significantly, David’s characteristics of righteousness and sinfulness.

Within the books of Samuel, a story is told by which God had withdrawn his favor from King Saul and sent the prophet Samuel to Jesse of Bethlehem, "for I have provided for myself a king among his sons” (1 Samuel 16). The choice of succession of Saul’s kingship fell upon David, the youngest of Jesse’s son’s. Thus, the Lord commanded the prophet Samuel, “Arise, anoint him; for this is he” (1 Samuel 16:12). David was a shepherd at this point of the story, and when David was first called upon by God he was guarding his father's sheep.

Under Saul, the Israelites were facing the army of the Philistines. While David catered to his brothers (who were with Saul), David heard that the Philistine champion (the giant warrior Goliath) had challenged the Israelites to send out their own champion to decide the outcome of the war in a single combat (1 Samuel 17:8). Upon hearing this, David volunteered for combat (1 Samuel 17:32).

Although highly unlikely that a mere shepherd would defeat a giant warrior, David insisted that he could defeat Goliath. Upon hearing this, Saul sent for David. Saul was doubtful of David’s ability, but never the less allowed David to fight the Philistine. Miracously, David defeated Goliath with a stone and a sling (1 Samuel 17:49). After David had killed Goliath, the Philistines fled, and the Israelites regained their territory.

Upon returning to Saul, David was rewarded by Saul, and Saul gave David his daughter in marriage and set him in command over his armies (1 Samuel 18:27). David was the commander over thousands of Israelite troops, and David was also successful in many battles.

David became very popular amongst the Israelites, and this popularity created jealousy and fear within Saul: "What more can he have but the kingdom?" (1 Samuel 18:8) thought Saul. Thus, Saul sought to kill David. Saul’s plots to kill David were futile, and reversely for Saul, David’s popularity amongst the Israelites grew. Even Saul’s own son, Jonathon, began to love David (1 Samuel 18). Jonathan’s love of David prompted Jonathon to tell David of his father’s plot to kill David. David thus fled, and sought refuge in the wilderness (1 Samuel 23:24).

While in the wilderness, David met an Amalekite soldier who claimed to have killed Saul (2 Samuel 1:13-16). Upon hearing this, David killed the Amalekite soldier for killing an anointed king. David mourned and sang of lament for Saul (2 Samuel 1:17-18). Interestingly, the extra-Biblical Shoshenq inscription referring to David had been retrieved from the Negev region where David sought refuge[18].

Leaving the wilderness, David went to into Judah where he was anointed as King (2 Samuel 2:4). At this time, the successor of Saul in Israel was Ish-bosheth. As David ruled the south, and Ish-bosheth ruled the north, a long war between Israel and Judah was
waged (2 Samuel 3:1). David’s southern kingdom of Judah grew stronger, while Ish
bosheth’s Israel weakened. Ish-bosheth was eventually assassinated, and David achieved rule over both Judah and Israel. Anointed King, David united Southern Judah with Northern Israel into one Kingdom (2 Samuel 8:15).

Upon uniting the Kingdom, David conquered Jerusalem as his capital (2 Samuel 5:9). David further brought the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem, with the intent of erecting a temple around the Ark (2 Samuel 15:24-29). Interestingly later in Chronicles, although David had been loyal to God, God had forbid David to build a temple during his kingship (1 Chronicles 28:3). God told David, through the prophet Nathan, that the temple was to be erected under a future generation. God did however grant a great blessing unto David. God promised David that David’s “throne shall be established for ever” (2 Samuel 7:16). Under David’s rule, David extended his kingdom into Zobah, Moab, Philistine, Edom, and Aram (2 Samuel 8:12).

David ruled over Israel for forty years (seven years in Hebron, and thirty-three

18. Kitchen, K. pg. 33

years in Jerusalem) (1 Kings 2:11). David died at an old age (unspecified) as a rich and honored king. Following David’s rule, Solomon (David’s son) assumed Kingship (1 Chronicles 23).

The origins of the lineage of David is explained in the book of Ruth (Ruth 4:18-22). This lineage draws David back to being a descendant of Judah (Genesis 28:29). As David’s lineage remains vague unto this day, Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be a descent of David (Matthew 1:1), and even in modern times, the Ethiopian King Haile Selassie has been recognized as a descent from David[19].

It is recorded that David had eight wives: Michal, Eglah, Abital, Haggith, Maachah, Abigail, Ahinoam, and Bathsheba (1Chronicles 3). David also had an unspecified number of concubine, some of which he had children with. It is recorded in 1 Chronicles, that David had 19 sons, and at least one daughter.

Aside from being a impeccable warrior, David had a corruptible soul. While married to the daughter of Saul, David infatuated with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah (whom fought in David’s army), slept with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11:3, 4). Through this act, David impregnated Batsheba, and ultimately created a very difficult situation to cleanse himself from. Thus, David placed Uriah in the front lines of battle, and commanded Uriah’s comrades to abandon Uriah in battle so he would be killed (2 Samuel 11:15).
19. Brueggemann, Walter. “Solomon” pg. 236
And so, David’s murderous scheme was achieved. Uriah was killed in battle, and David married Bathsheba and had a son (2 Samuel 11:27). Although apparently cleared of any wrong doing, the prophet Nathan spoke out against David’s actions. David was compelled to repent, but God still punished David, killing David and Bathsheba’s child (2 Samuel 12:14). After the killing of his child, David was forgiven by God, and promised that, "the Lord has put away your sin; you shall not die." (2 Samuel 12:13)

Interestingly, in this story recorded about David and Bathsheba, David's transgression against God seemed to be more a matter of having (deceitfully) murdered Uriah rather than his adultery with Bathsheba. This is important to note because of the implications “spilling blood” had in the eyes of God. God’s condemnation of David was a condemnation of David’s violent actions. And as later recorded in Chronicles, David’s violent character was reason for God to reject the erection of the temple under David’s rule.

However, although David had been violently portrayed in the Bible, David’s role was not only of war, but also of worship. Traditionally, the authorship of the Psalms is attributed to David. Since the Psalms were not written down before the 6th century BCE, nearly three hundred years after David's life, like the historic books about David, the psalms must have been transmitted orally or transmitted through earlier (undiscovered) writings for any of David’s psalms to have survived[20]. Only seventy-three of the one hundred and fifty psalms collected in the book of Psalms are actually introduced

20. Alter, Robert. “The Art of Biblical Poetry” pg. 207
attributing authorship to David. Thus the other psalms are believed to have been written by David’s choir members: Jeduthun, Asaph, and the sons of Korah. The Psalms however are not the only source of David’s poetry. For example, 2 Samuel also contains poetry of David.

As a Religious figure, David not only united the Northern kingdom of Israel and Southern kingdom of Judah, David also united the ten tribes of Israel (2 Samuel 5:1). The kingship of David allowed him to unite Israel, but proved very problematic for both David, as well as Israel. As foretold in Samuel, if the Israelites accepted a man instead of God as king over their nation, Israel would be doomed (1 Samuel 18). As king, David’s sin reflected upon his people. And thus, David’s sin is in direct opposition to the establishment of a covenant people (Israel) of God. This self rule seems to be repeatedly practiced both before David, and following his rule. This self reliance eventually led to the demise of the kingdom.

Taken into account the prophetic rebukes of an Israelite kingship, and ultimately David’s rebellion in establishing a united monarch, an ideological insurgence within the text seems to reciprocate with the rise and fall of the kingdom. Illuminating actions of disobedience on the part of David, and the overarching affect these actions had on the people, an interwoven ideological responsibility is imbedded in the text. Thus, one must consider the resulting fall and exile of the established kingdoms after David to be one of not only historic, but also ideological relevance. [21]

21. Na’aman pg. 19
This ideological bias becomes significantly more apparent when examining other historic evidence of David. For example, the inscriptions of the Egyptians, Moabites, and Armeneans never imply righteous or sinful implications of David’s rule. Historically rather than ideologically significant, the extra-Biblical inscriptions about David do not
verify the events of David; rather they only confirm David's existence and status as head
of his “House”. Also, when reflecting on the relevant co-existing inscriptions about David dated from this era, it is important to note that these inscriptions did not contain detailed information about individuals foreign to the lives of the scribe[22]. Thus, the documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls must be critically analyzed in light of a possible ideological and cultural bias of the indigenous Hebrew scribe. [23]

Historically, the Bible presents the life of David dating from around 1000 BC to 900 BC. Ideologically, the Biblical narrative presents the successes and failures of David. While extra-Biblical evidence makes it clear that the man David existed, the Bible presents a heroic figure: a shepherd, a warrior, a musician, a poet, and a king.

22. Na’aman: pg. 203
23. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. “Sage, Priest, Prophet” pg. 5

Qohelet

2008-05-01T16:58:00.000-07:00

The Qohelet is a Ketuvim writing within the Hebrew Bible (Anderson 4). As the Qohelet is a regarded as wisdom literature (Alter 63), it is presented as didactic poetry (Whybray 20). While constructed pseudo-autobiographically, the Qohelet is congruent with its Biblical context (Millar 21). Distinctive in its investigative style (Millar 21), the Qohelet represents the authors reflections upon the meaning of life. Through observation, investigation, and evaluation of the phenomenon which creates this author’s reality, the author presents the mysteries of life in relation to the realities of God.

The Hebrew word Qohelet, is translated as “to gather” (Blenkinsopp 58). Recognized as wisdom (Heb. Hokam) literature, the Qohelet refers to the wisdom gathered and/or encapsulated in the life of the sage (Heb. Hakam) (Blenkinsopp 9-10). Also, as a man, Qohelet refers to the son of David, and king over Israel in Jerusalem (Ecc: 1:1). Thus, rooted in the theistic constructs of an Israelite sage the Qohelet presents poetic words of wisdom concerning the nature of man in relation to his perception of life.

Using metaphoric figures of speech and reoccurring imagery (such as “under the sun” and “chasing after wind") are examples of the sage’s ‘symbolically conceptual construction’ of life (Blenkinsopp 2). Also, the sage’s use of descriptive terms such as “wise" and "foolish", and "righteous," and "wicked" create an ethical understanding of the author’s environment. The theistic universe is also presented with the reoccurring use of the expression "I perceived" (1:17; 2:14) the creations of Ha Elohim. (Whybray 27).

Illuminating the cyclical nature of the Qohelet, the sage begins his discourse in the affirmation that life is destroyed by the inevitability of death. As such, the Qohelet sage begins his teaching with the same reflection by which he ends his teaching: that all life is vanity. In light of this immediate description of life, the Qohelet sage advises one to make the most of life and to seize the day, for there is no way to secure the future. While the sage clearly promotes the enjoyment of life, he is unable to ascribe real, righteous, or eternal meaning to it. In light of this perceived vanity of life, the sage suggests that one should enjoy the simple pleasures of daily life. Cyclically, the author of the Qohelet comes to this conclusion in the second to last verse of the last chapter: "Vanity of vanities! All is vanity!" Thus, this work emphatically proclaims that all is "vanity".

"Vanity" is the English translation of the Hebrew term “Hebel” (Koosed 248). Associating "Vapor" or "breath-like" qualities to ‘hebel’ (Millar 1), the sage illustrates ‘enigmatic’ nature of life which hebel represents (Millar 3). As the sage emphasizes how swiftly earthly things pass away, hebel appears to be of transitory nature. Equally, this transient nature of life reflects the human inability to grasp life. Thus, the sage of the Qohelt speaks of human limitation and the frustration caused by the vast gap between God's knowledge and man’s relative ignorance. Ultimately, as described later by the sage, "All" life, which is vanity, refers to all human endeavors, knowledge, and wisdom.

Referring to nature to support his argument of the vanity of human life, the Qohelet sage draws upon the impermanence of existence. "Under the sun", which is used repeatedly by the sage, establishes the sage’s perceptions and observations of life. Using the permanence of the earth as his context, the sage observes that no one is permanent on the earth. The earth remains, but people die. As revealed later, the point is that since man is not permanent it is obvious that his work cannot be either.

The observation of the celestial in relation to the impermanence of man sets the tone and direction of Qohelet's investigation and reflection (Millar 180). The investigated God is ‘transcendent’ from the investigating sage (Whybray 7). Thus, the book creates the paradigm in which “God is in heaven, and you upon earth” (5:2).

Thus, rather introspectively, the sage begins to investigate his own life. Reflecting on his superlative wisdom (1:13), the sage notes that he had made a comprehensive study of all kinds of human activities (1:17). The sage then states that these achievements were a "unhappy business" (1:13). This grievous task by which the sage applied himself to study is graphically communicated as "chasing after wind" (2:11).

Upon evaluation of such a human quest, the sage discovered that such study was inadequate to turn up anything truly meaningful. Also, the sage notes how such accomplishment of greater wisdom had only brought him greater "grief" (1:18). Consequently, the sage relates such grievous study to be no better than "folly" (1:17).

As it is clear from verses 3 and 9 that the sage’s investigation of pleasure was exhaustive, the sage evidently pursued every pleasure available to him (2: 4-10). Thus for the sage, upon investigation of pleasure, he came to the conclusion that it held no ultimate value either (2: 1-2). That is, while it has some temporary, immediate value it does not produce anything permanent or ultimately worthwhile (2:3-11).

Next, the sage turned to an evaluation of labor, his own (2:18-20) as well as that of other people (2:21). Upon reflection, the sage evaluated what happens to the fruits of labor that accumulates over a lifetime of toil. These fruits include money, fame, and happiness. Reflecting on his labor during his lifetime (2:18), in view of what comes of it all, the sage concluded that human labor costs more vexation than it is worth (2:22-23). For the sage this meant that just as one cannot expect significant changes to come out of labour the best one can do is to enjoy its fruits and find some satisfaction in the work itself (3:12). Rather optimistically, this led the sage to make the statement that: in themselves, and rightly used, the basic things of life are sweet and good. (9:7-10)

This reflection upon the fruits of ones labour later leads the sage to designate man to take his life day by day from the hand of God (2:24-26), realizing that God has a fitting time for each thing to be done (3:1-8). The significance of this section is that man is responsible to discern the right times for the right actions; and when he does the right action according to God's time, the result is 'beautiful' (3:11)." Here, when correlated with the will of God, the sage receives life as ‘sweetness’ and ‘beauty’ rather than ‘vanity’. It is here where the sage emphasizes that one should "enjoy themselves" (3:12).

However, the observation of the benefits of aligning man’s works with the timing of God, is reciprocally reviewed in light of man’s actions not align with the God’s time. This, for the sage, is a description of man’s inability to fully comprehend the plans of God (3:14-15). For the sage, man’s inability to fully comprehend what is best for oneself (as they do not know what the future holds) (3:11), is parallel with man’s inability to understand the plan of God.

In regards to righteousness and wickedness (7:15-29), the sage observes that the righteous sometimes do not receive a reward in this life, while the wicked prosper. However, the sage institutes that it is still better to live righteously. This advocation of a righteous, ‘golden mean’ (Whybray 120), of human behavior is in light of the idea that just because God does not consistently punish the wicked (7: 17) that it is all right to abandonment of moral standards.

While chapter eight begins with illustrating the precepts of wisdom (8:1), it ends in showing that wisdom has its imitations. Reflecting on wisdom, the sage observes that wise man behaves appropriately in the presence of his king, He keeps his oath of allegiance that he has made before God (8:2), and he does not resign or revolt against the king (8:3). Upon reflecting on the limits of wisdom, the sage emphasizes how man is ignorant because God has not revealed many things. However, the sage’s emphasis that the remaining mysteries of life (8:16-17) must not diminish human joy (9:1-9) or prevent one from working with all our might (9:10—11:6), as the sage states: "one does not know" (9:1).

In confrontation of such a blissful ignorance, chapter nine presents the message that the reason “no one knows” is because “no one can handle” the vast extent of truth (Whybray 140). For the sage, this vastness of truth includes the uncertainty of life amidst death. As the sage emphasized in 9:2-10 the fact that a righteous person could not be more certain of his or her future than the wicked, the sage uses ‘death’ as an ultimate equalizer. In 9:11-10:11 the sage also uses the death to show how the wise cannot be any more certain of his or her earthly future than the fool. Death is not only a certainty which neither the wise nor the fool can know the timing of, but as known by God, death is all part of God’s plan which neither the wise nor the fool can know.

As the sage advises, this uncertainty of the coming end should be treated cautiously. For the sage, this cautious approach to life, is also reason for responsible living (12: 1-7). This advice offers a sobering reminder to youth who follow their desires with a reminder that God will judge all eventually. Also, as the sage recognized God's judgments before death (7:17), the sage noted "To older people it may seem to be too risky to advise a young person to walk in the ways of his heart and the sight of his eyes”. This precaution foreshadows the expanded ideas of the sage in regards to advancing old age and death.

Within chapter twelve, the Qohelet is full of figures of speech that picture old age and death. The sage likened the evil days of old age approaching like a rainstorm (12:2-3) as it leaves the vessel of life fearful and uncertain. Also, alluding to the broken "golden bowl" and “silver cord”, the sage uses imagery which represents the immediacy and uncertainty in which death will come. When man dies, and lets go of the "silver cord", it unwinds, catches, and snaps; and the golden bowl attached crashes. This figurative example not only represents the immediacy and unexpected coming of death, it also emphasizes the value and fragile nature of life.

Within these sobering didactics, the sage repeats his original thesis (12:8; 1:2) and offers advice in light of life's realities (12:13-14). In between these statements he sets forth his source of authoritative wisdom (12:9-12). The phrase "these collections" (12:11) refers to other wise sayings. It is assumed that all these wise sayings come from God, as "Beyond this" (12:12) refers to ‘beyond’ the wisdom literature that God had revealed. Thus, in regards to life after death, the sage leaves this mystery unto God.

In conclusion, the Qohelet contains a sage’s observation, investigation, and evaluation of life. Key to understanding the reasoning of this sage is to understand the perspective from which he spoke. Qohelet's intent in his writing is to point out the limits and mysteries of life. In light of these mysteries however, the Qohelet sage advises that man "Fear God and keep his commandments” (12:13).

Works Cited

Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Poetry Basic Books, US. 1985.

Anderson, Bernhard W. Understanding the Old Testament Pearson Hall, US. 1998

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Sage, Priest, Prophet Westminster John Knox Press (UK), 1995

Koosed, Jennifer. “Decomposing Qohelet” in Yvonne Sherwood (ed) Derrida’s Bible Palgrame Macmillan, US 2004

Millar, Douglas B. Symbol and Rhetoric in Ecclesiastes Society of Biblical Literature, US. 2002

The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, New Revised Standard Version Michael D. Coogan, Marc Z. Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, Pheme Perkins United States: Oxford University Press, 2001

Whybray, R.N. The New Century Commentary: Ecclesiastes Eerdmans Publishing, US. 1989

Zimmermann, Frank. Inner World of Qohelt Ktav Publishing House, US. 1973

Torat Aynayeem

2008-05-01T16:56:00.000-07:00

Torat Aynayeem

“And now write for yourselves these words, and teach them to your children.”
Deuteronomy 31:19

In honor of its 75th Anniversary, Edmonton’s Beth Shalom Synagogue is engaging in a year long journey of creating a Sefer Torah. The event entitled, Torat Aynayeem, gives the congregation a unique opportunity of fulfilling the 613th Mitzvah: to write a Sefer Torah. In order to fulfill one’s Halakhic duty, as well as to strengthen the congregation, Beth Shalom is actively engaging itself in being consumed within the Torah.

Earlier this semester, upon commencing my ‘Introduction to Judaism’ course, Dr. Landy offered all of the students in the class the opportunity of writing a research essay or conducting a field report in regards to their own personal interest in Judaism. With an interest in the scribal arts, I was inclined to research the role of the scribe within Judaism. I decided to approach Dr. Landy in regards to writing such an essay, and in turn, Dr. Landy advised that I read Moshe Idel’s ‘Absorbing Perfections’ and Gershom Scholem’s ‘Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism’ in order to get a better understanding of the mystical nature of the Torah and its relationship with the Jewish scribe (Sofer). After investing the mystical nature of the Torah through textual resources, I decided to once again visit Dr. Landy in order to help narrow the focus of my research. Dr. Landy informed me of Beth Shalom’s upcoming Torat Aynayeem event, in which the congregation was setting out to write its own Sefer Torah, and suggested that I contact Beth Shalom in regards to learning more.

Thus, one weekday afternoon I decided to visit Beth Shalom synagogue in hopes of learning more about Torat Aynayeem. I was kindly welcomed and invited to look around in their library. After spending awhile checking out their various texts on Kabbalah and the Torah, the secretary invited me into the office and gave me a very informative pamphlet with information in regards to the event. The Secretary also advised that I check out Beth Shalom’s website in order to learn more about the event. Throughout this field report I continued to feel overwhelmingly welcomed and accommodated with information and help in regards to learning more about Torat Aynayeem.

Within Beth Shalom’s website (http://www.bethshalomedmonton.org/), and within Beth Shalom’s ‘Seeing the Future through our Past’ pamphlet, I was able to gain an understanding of some of the principle aspects of the event. Information regarding the dates of the ceremonies in which the New York based Sofer, Neil Yerman, would visit Beth Shalom, as well as information about Menachem Binit, a Torah scribe in Israel, whom would write the remainder of Beth Shalom’s Torah was provided.

Connecting the dynamics of Beth Shalom’s 21st century Sefer experience with the event upon Mount Sinai 3500 years ago, Torat Aynayeem serves to celebrate the evolution of a community established 75 years ago with the community established among Beth Shalom’s Biblical ancestors. Thus, Torat Aynayeem represents not only a historical, but also a spiritual link in the chain of tradition, which engages the individual and the community in immersing themselves within the Torah.

After visiting Beth Shalom, I once again met with Dr. Landy whom further encouraged me to contact Beth Shalom’s Rabbi Kunin, in regards to learning more about Torat Aynayeem. Writing Rabbi Kunin proved to be a rewarding experience as he was quick to reply. Rabbi Kunin suggested we arrange a time when we could meet so I could get a one on one opportunity to learn more about the event. Preparing to meet the Rabbi, I wrote out various questions in regards to the nature of the Torah and its production. I was interested in the 'halakah'/'mitzvah' of the event (fulfilling the 613th commandment), the ‘safrut'/'regulations' of the Torah's production, and in particular, I was interested in the auspicious meaning of the 70 Eyes of Aynayeem, and what this number and symbolism represent.

Upon meeting with Rabbi Kunin, relatively a week or so later, I was amazed to learn that I would have the opportunity to listen to a lecture given by the visiting Sofer, Neil Yerman. Sofer Yerman provided an insurmountable amount of information in regards to the journey of scribal engagement Beth Shalom was to experience. Consequentially, I also had the opportunity to witness Neil, as well as many of the members of Beth Shalom write in the Torah. Accompanied by prayers and song, Neil provided an insightful perspective into the scribal tradition of writing a Sefer Torah.

Neil Yerman began his presentation by addressing the Goose feathers which would be used in scripting the Sefer Torah (although he had noted American Wild Turkey feathers were equally valid). Neil Yerman then went on to describe the daily activities of the scribe. Sofer Yerman stressed that meditation, prayer, and contemplation, coupled with mitzvah, cutting the quills, and preparing the parchment were all part of a 2 hour preparation necessary for the scribe to mentally and spiritually connect with the text.

Thus, Sofer Yerman explained that the tasks before a day of writing are a complete dedication of oneself to the traditions and history of Judaism. In consideration of the interaction a Sofer encounters during scribal engagement, when setting out the order of the day, the Sofer must establish with whom they will be communicating with during their emersion within the text. Yerman also noted that even the solitary Sofer was in communion with various ‘beings’ during the scribal excercise. Thus, upon alluding to the supernatural reality which surrounds the scribal practice, Sofer Yerman addressed the assembly and asked, ‘with whom will you be communicating’.

Noting how the last commandment of the Torah, the 613th (although arguably not the exact amount), is to ‘write these teachings and teach them to your children’, Yerman explained how he understand such a commandment. In emphasis of writing the words of the Torah, and putting the words of the Torah in the children Israel’s mouths, one should know all the rules, statutes, and ordinances of the 304 805 hand written letters so well that the stories which these letters compose should be just ready to come out in teaching. Drawing upon the reality that Beth Shalom’s Sefer Torah will include every single letter that is existent within the oldest surviving Torah in Alexanderia Egypt (some 1400 years old), Yerman emphasized how one should consider that what they would write in the Torah that day would be considerably different than anything they would have written in the past.

In emphasis of such an acute awareness, Sofer Yerman explained how the letters which have survived 3300 years since Sinai, and which are still on the lips of Israel, survived by the millions of peoples and thousands of generations whom preserved these teachings for others. After Sofer Yerman had related the scribal event to an ancient history, Yerman quickly added how the congregation should write even for children who were being born that morning.

Yerman explained, as had been taught for many generations, and by many sages, that ‘for one who has written one letter in the Torah it is as if they have written the whole Torah themselves’. Yerman explained that this is true because of the sanctity of the Torah, and how if one letter is missing, it is not a true Torah. Thus, without the congregation’s contribution, Beth Shalom’s Sefer Torah would not be a whole, living Torah. Thus, the congregational act of writing a Torah serves as a connection between future generations and all those whom have went before.

Then, writing on a scrap piece of paper, Sofer Yerman wrote the name ‘Amelek’ and then continued to blot it out. This act of blotting out the name ‘Amelek’ has ritual significance as it relates to blotting out all the enemies of Israel throughout all time (Deut: 25:15); as well as blotting out anger, resentment, bias, and prejudice within one’s own heart. Thus, as the Sofer is commanded to love (Deut. 6:5, ‘and you shall love’), a Sofer must always write with love and thanksgiving to God for teaching one’s hands to write the letters of Torah.

Also, Sofer Yerman explained that it is a scribal rule that if one writes the Holy Name, the Tetragrammaton, absent mindedly, or without the appropriate blessing, one would have to rewrite the word. Relating the experience of writing to the sharing of breath that was given to Adam and Eve, in scripting the Holy Name without vowels, one is honoring the divine breath and alluding to the reverence one must have in saying the Holy Name. Sofer Yerman then explained how some scribes actually sing out every letter of the Torah while they are writing, while many other scribes reverently write in silence.

Drawing upon such a scribal journey, Sofer Yerman recognized that when one is approaching the end of the Torah, one is always looking ahead to the beginning. Similarly, when one writes a single letter of the Torah, ‘et’ for example, one must recognize that even though the letter ‘et’ in and of itself might seem like it has no meaning or translation, ‘et’ symbolically signifies ones journey within the Torah. As ‘et’ represents the first and last letters of the ‘alephet’, ‘et’ symbolically represents the generations of the past and future for whom the Torah is written.

This ability to link generations through the Torah experience is deeply significant in the sense that the congregational engagement in writing is an act of honoring Biblical ancestors. Yerman stressed that such connections are deep and the connections are in the millions. Yerman reminded everyone that Biblical history would not be possible if even one single letter is missing from the Torah. Thus, like the Jewish characters within the Bible, the Hebrew letters are ‘ancient beings’ encountered anew by the community as they are written.

At the end of the lecture, Neil Yerman invited men and women, young and old, to engage in writing a letter in the Torah. As Sofer Yerman guided the hand of the new scribe, members wrote their experience, prayers, and reverence into Beth Shalom’s Scroll. Neil Yerman concluded the ceremony by explaining that the Life of the Torah will teach for centuries, and included in ‘Her’ teachings will be an inherent blessing for all who have contributed to the spirit and knowledge of the Torah. Thus, it is from Beth Shalom’s heart, to ‘Her’ heart, to the hearts of all of Israel in which a blessing is shared.

In regards to the auspicious title of Torat Aynayeem (Seventy Eyes of the Torah), following Yerman’s lecture, I approached Rabbi Kunin in order to learn what such a title means. Rabbi Kunin explained that the Hebrew letter ‘ayin’ equates to the number 70 and represents aynayeem, one’s eyes, and the letter ‘hay’ equates to the number 5 and represents the 5 books of Torah. Thus, as Torat Aynayeem celebrates the 75th anniversary of Beth Shalom, Torat Aynayeem also allows one an opportunity to look back on where the congregation has been and to look ahead to where it is going; all through the eyes of the Torah.

In conclusion, drawing upon my interest in Sofer practice, Torat Aynayeem not only allowed me to learn more about the necessary preparations, prescribed rituals, and religious significance of writing a Torah, it also allowed me to learn about the ancient connections and sustaining spirituality which maintains such a Jewish legacy. Neil Yerman’s lecture really helped me develop a better understanding concerning the meaning the Torah in regards to its relationship with the individual, the congregation, and the ancestry from which it evolved. Engaging the congregation to connect with the past, present, and future through writing, Torat Aynayeem not only serves to bring together the community of Beth Shalom, it also serves to bring together the entire community of ‘spirits’ and ‘beings’ within Judaism.

Scriptural Syncretism

2008-05-01T16:55:00.000-07:00

Scriptural Syncretism

The Qur'an is the sacred text of Islam. Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the revealed word of God. Muslims regard the Qur’an as God's final revelation to humankind and view it as possessing the divine presence of God (Nasr 9). Contextually, the Qur’an also refers to other scripture which has presented prophets and religions revealing the existence of God. Thus, in revelation of these extra-Qur’anic scriptures, the Qur’an is a syncretic record of revelation.

As the Qur’an reflects, the Qur'an is the revealed recitation of God to Mohammed. Revealed to Mohammed over a period of twenty-three years, the Qur’an was handed down to Mohammed from God through the angel Gabriel. Contextually, within the Qur’an itself, an onslaught of refrences to other prophets, scriptures, and religions are made. The Qur’an considers the monotheistic faiths that preceded it, Judaism and Christianity in particular, to be true in their original form. However, the Qur’an also states that the religions of Judaism and Christianity have been corrupted as their followers have turned away from their sacred texts (5:43). Thus, within this poly-prophetic/scriptural/religious text, the Qur’an installs Islam as the only true path for following the will of God.

As the Qur’an states; "None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar (2:106), the Qur’an serves as another scripture containing the word of God. As the Quran refers unto itself as "discernment", it claims that it upholds that which is truth in the Bible and rejects what is falsehood.

And We have sent down to you (O Muhammad) the Book (this Qur'an) in truth, confirming and discerning the Scripture that came before it. (5:48)

Some believe that Qur'an and Bible have the same source and that any differences from absolute similarities would mean that the previous message had been corrupted (Ayoub 15). However, this commonly held belief about the corruption of the Biblical text is not supported by the Qur'an itself. Nowhere within the Qur'an is there a distinguishment between the Zabur and the Biblical Psalms of David, or between the Taurat and the Pentateuch, or between the Injil and the New Testament. It never advocates that the original books of the Prophets associated with Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus have been lost or have been textually distorted. The Qur’an asserts that the books to which it refers remain in the possession of the Jews and Christians, and continuing to be the authoritative holy scripture as:

“there is none who can change His words"
(6:115)

Thus, like the monotheistic message of pre-Quranic texts, the Qur’an maintains a message of Taweed. In Islam, Taweed signifies the unity of God. Dualistically, opposed to Taweed is shirk, which means "division" (this commonly refers to idolatry). In profession of taweed, and in opposition to shirk, the Qur’an states:

Say: He, Allah, is One. Allah is He on Whom all depend. He begets not, nor is He begotten. And none is like Him. (112:1-4)

It is interesting how a text with such a profession of Monotheism can attest to other prophets, scriptures, and religions. Contextually, the Qur’an makes reference to at least twenty-four prophets other than Mohammad (Adam, Enoch, Noah, Hud, Shelah, Abraham, Lot, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Job, Shoaib, Moses, Aaron, Ezekiel, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Jonah, Zecharias, John, and Jesus). The Qur’an also refers to at least four scriptures other than the Qur’an (The Prophetic Writings of Abraham, Taurat, Zabur, Injil), and at least two other religions apologetic to one God (Judaism and Christianity).

We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to other prophets from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam). (3:84).

As scripture, the Qur’an is authoritative and a source of discernment by which all other scripture should be judged.

It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion of judgment between right and wrong. (3:3)
As the Qur’an frequently references Christianity and Judaism, the Qur’an regards this diversity of religions as created by Allah:

For every one of you did We appoint a law and a way, and if Allah had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another; to Allah is your return, of all (of you) (5:48).

Like the message of the Bible, the message of the Qur'an has been formulated in strong opposition to polytheism and idolatry. This is evident in its frequent assertion against polytheistic religions in stating "there is no god except He." Furthermore, the Qur’an states that to associate anything or anyone with God is an unforgivable sin.

“Verily, God does not forgive the ascribing of divinity to aught beside Him”
(4:116)

The Qur’an focuses on the similarities between the beliefs of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism stressing the universality of revelation and seeing each religious scripture as a reflection of the same truth. The Qur’an goes even so far as to confirm other scripture:

In truth We have sent the Quran to you, confirming all the previous heavenly books that were revealed before you and bearing witness to them. (5:48)

However, other Qur’anic examples stress the differences between Islam and the Judeo-Christian community. These examples stress the obligation of Muslims community holding beliefs like the necessity of bringing unbelievers back to the "Straight Path" of Islam. In the Qur’an, calling one back unto their faith, and in return being rejected upon such a request, is a way in which Muslims find distinction.

Say, 'People of the Book! come to a proposition which is the same for us and you - that we should worship none but Allah. ' If they turn away, say, 'Bear witness that we are Muslims.'(3:64)

In regards to other religions, the Quran holds Christians and Jews in high regard. In regards to Christianity, the Qur’an states:

You will find the people most affectionate in those who say, 'We are Christians.' That is because they are not arrogant. (5:82)

However, within surah 112, the Qur’an states that God neither begets nor is begotten. Thus, as the Qur’an alludes to: any Christian belief in the divine sonship of Jesus is a perversion of the nature of God. Also, another Qur’anic allusion is the bases that any Christian belief that Jesus was also God incarnate is also heretical. The Qur’an further emphasizes how attributing Jesus with such characteristics is in fact implying beliefs which Jesus himself rejected.

The Messiah Jesus son of Mary was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him; so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not "Trinity": desist! It will be better for you: for Allah is One: Glory be to Him! (far exalted is He) above having a son.

The followers of Jesus went astray by worshipping Jesus as God and belief of the doctrine Trinity.
(4:171)

Indeed, they have disbelieved who have said: “God is the Messiah (Jesus), son of Mary”. Jesus said: “Worship God, my Lord and your Lord”
(5:72)

In regards to Judaism, the Quran recognizes Jews holding fast to true submission. As the Qur’an states:

They recite Allah's Signs throughout the night, and they prostrate themselves before the Lord. They enjoin the right and forbid the wrong, and compete in doing good. They are among the salihun. You will not be denied the reward for any good thing you do. Allah knows those who fear God.
(3:113-115)

Also according to the Qur'an, Moses preached the pure Islamic doctrine (Ibrahim 34). However, the Qur’an states that the Jews like the followers of Moses have strayed from strict monotheism. A Qur’anic example of this is how like the followers of Moses perversely worshipped the Golden Calf, so to have Jews followed other Gods.

As the Qur’an holds Christians and Jews in high regard, the Qur’an also extends inclusiveness towards the Sabeans and Mandeans:

Those with Faith (Sabeans and Mandeans) who have Faith in Allah and the Last Day and act rightly, will have their reward with their Lord. They will feel no fear and will know no sorrow. (2:62).

As the Qur'an draws upon similarities between those with faith and Muslims, the Qur’an also distinguishes Muslims and those with true faith, from polytheists or idolaters. However inclusive the Qur’an is towards those whom belief in one God, the Qur’an does not profess the same degree of tolerance towards polytheists. Thus, the Qur’an states:

Those who reject his message, when the truth of the message has reached them, are promised to be doomed to a fiery hell on the Day of Judgement (29:68)

Although it might seem that God is intolerable of unbelievers, the Qur'an teaches that God has sent prophets to other peoples, foreign to the Abrahamic prophetic tradition, revealing the true religion of Islam. Thus, the Qur'an states:

And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know. (9:6)

As the Qur’an states: Your Lord knows best who is misguided from His way (16:125), the Qur’an presents an omniscient God. Equally, this Qur’anic passage presents not only an omniscient God, but also an omniscient God who rewards the humble regardless of religion. The conformation of true submission to God seems to lie in the humility of man, which only God can see. Thus, the Qur’an not only illustrates a level of equality for man aside from religious traditions, the Qur’an also honours man aside from religious affiliation:

O Mankind, Truly, the most honored of you in God's sight is the greatest of you in piety. God is All-Knowing, All-Aware. (49:13)

In conclusion, the Qur’an seems to present itself as the “final testament” within it’s scriptural syncretism. Presenting Islam as a monotheistic religion, it is important to recognize the unity of religion which the Qur’an also presents. The Qur’an makes it apparent that God has not revealed His essence in opposition to previous religions, but through many prophets, scriptures, and religions God has expressed the same fundamental truth. Thus, the Qur’an reveals:

'Our God and your God are one and we submit to Him.'
(29:46)

Vedic Astrology

2008-05-01T16:53:00.000-07:00

Science of Light
In Sanskrit, Jyotisha means the “Science of Light” (Vijnanananda 1). Recognized as the eye of the Vedas [1], Jyotisha represents the light of knowledge and the light of wisdom [2]. Penetrating a causal universe, Jyotisha provides insight into the relationship between the celestial universe of the cosmos and the terrestrial universe of man. Addressing the metaphysic aspects of Vedic Astrology, Jyotisha provides a cosmic illustration of a karmic universe.
Historically, Jyotisha is the oldest known system of astrology [3]. The origins of Jyotisha can be traced back to the ancient Vedic civilizations of Northern India [4]. Although Jyotisha is recorded within Vedantic Scriptures (many manuscripts and translations dating back over 4000 years) (Flood 37), it is believed that Indian Astrology has been examined as long as 2000 years previous to its Vedic history(4000 BCE) (Stone 10). As mentioned within the Rig Veda, references of Jyotisha were also provided in the classical Indian epics of the Ramayana and the Mahabarata (Stone 11).
Predating Vedic revelation, Brahmins led the way as the primary practitioners of Jyotisha (Stone 139). It is believed that Brahmanic knowledge of Jyotisha was later developed by Hindu Rishis who critically observed the heavens to formulate the cosmological framework in which Jyotisha is practiced. Observing the heavens, while in a state of superconsciousness [5], these Rishis were exposed to an intuitive vision which allowed them to cognize causality with a vast cosmic scope.
Footnotes 1-5: Within the introduction of Vijnanananda, Swami. The Brihajjatakam of Varaha Mihira
As Jyotisha recognizes the cosmos as an interdependent phenomena; transmitting, not originating in causality; the universe in which one exists does not instigate, but rather indicates karma which influences and animates the universe. In this manner of causality, both earthly and heavenly phenomena exist. Thus, Jyotisha juxtaposes celestial order with earthly events, and furthermore juxtaposes human activities and disciplines within a heavenly framework.
Demonstrating the Vedic understanding of universal interdependence, as an interrelated discipline, Jyotisha utilizes aspects of astronomy, psychology, and religion which play a role in determining the cosmos, the mind, and the soul (Vijnanananda 1). Thus, Jyotisha is, at its ‘root’, guided by the Vedic quest for Paravidya (supreme knowledge) in relation to Aparavidya (knowledge of relative truths) (Stone 241). For the individual, the awareness of the inter-relatedness of all phenomena allows one to perceive one’s life in the context of the causal whole of a karmic universe.
In its interconnected relationship of the micro and macro cosmic universe in which one exists, Jyotisha is inseparable from the Hindu concept of Yoga (Stone 141). Within Hinduism, Jyotisha not only refers to the active interrelated nature of the heavens, but it also refers to the relationship between heavenly activities and the observations, activities, and disciplines of man. Thus, as understanding, interpreting, and organizing knowledge based upon celestial observations helps one understand the nature of the cosmos, observations of the heavens complimentarily help one understand the nature of man. However, within the context of such a yogic experience, these celestial occurrences do not govern fate, rather, these occurrences are merely revelatory of a universal ‘Oneness’ of all destiny. (Perinbanayagam 89)
Conventional Vedic Astrology
Siddhanta (Stone 300) represents the conventional astronomic science of Jyotisha. Formulaically, Vedic astrology uses a Sidereal Zodiac (in which stars are considered to be the fixed background) (Lieber 121). Thus, in order to determine the positioning of celestial bodies accurately, Jyotisha refers to the fixed background of the Sidereal Zodiac as its reference. Furthermore, as the Sidereal Zodiac uses the ecliptic of the earth extended into space, this fixed background establishes an order and a framework from which all cosmic occurrences can refer.
In recognition of a Sidereal Zodiac as its astrological frame; divisions, sections, and segments of such a framework are established in order to observe various celestial occurrences. Reciprocally, these divisions are decisively identified, distinguished, and described by the occurrences existent within each. Rashis (signs), Grahas (celestial bodies), Bhavas (Houses), and Nakshatras (Lunar Cycles) represent these divisions and the various celestial components of each.

As mentioned above, Siddhanta is based on these four celestial factors:
1. Rashis (Perinbanayagam 100): Within the fixed background of the Sidereal Zodiac, 12 equal sections called Rashis are allotted. These Rashis, or twelve divisions of the Zodiac are similar to the ‘Signs’ of Western astrology’s division of the ‘Tropical Zodiac (which uses its ecliptic divisions based upon the earth’s relationship to the position of the sun). (Vijnanananda 9)
2. The Nakshatras (Perinbanayagam 108): Nakshatras are subdivisions of the Rashis into smaller equal segments marked by fixed stars. The so-called fixed stars themselves move too, but their motion with respect to nearer celestial bodies is very short (relative to the fixed background established from Earth). In dividing the 12 Rishis into 27 Nakshatras, several new and more acute occurrences can be identified. The Nakshatras are used to pick auspicious times of the day or month for various human activities, as well as to provide insight into the motivations and guiding characteristics of such activities.
3. Grahas (Perinbanayagam 91): Graha is generally translated as a celestial body. Each Graha is uniquely related to various aspects of human life.
4. Bhava (Perinbanayagam 113): Similar to the division of the Zodiac into twelve Rashis, so too is the Zodiac divided into twelve Bhavas. Bhavas, like the Rashis, are divisions in space, extending out vertically from any particular point on the Earth's surface, and ‘housing’ the Grahas within their segment of space.
As astrological observations are relative to fixed celestial points, so too do astrological interpretations vary in relation to the variances of these celestial points. Thus, the multitude of possible combinations of celestial signs, bodies, and houses account for a variety of emotional, physical, and psychological experiences (Stone 120).
Furthermore, in mentioning the relationship between celestial occurrences and human life, one cannot neglect the relationship astrology has with human health. "Medical Astrology" (Lieber 65) is an integral a part of Jyotisha. Celestial bodies, the divisions of the zodiac, nodes, stars, and the interrelationship of each are associated with physiology and further analyzed in assistance of diagnosis and treatment of illness.
Conclusion
Conventionally, Jyotisha is an astronomic science rooted in a cosmology based upon observation. Theoretically, as Jyotisha represents the interrelated nature of Hindu science and Hindu religion, Jyotisha also represents the interrelationship between the heavens and man. Thus, as Jyotisha is not only a formulaic representation of the celestial, Jyotisha is also a theoretical witness of a karmic universe.

Works Cited

Flood, Gavin. An Introduction to Hinduism Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom. 1996

Lieber, Arnold L. Lunar Effect Anchor Press, United States. 1978

Michaels, Axel. Hinduism: Past and Present Orient Longman, India. 2005

Perinbanayagam, R.S. The Karmic Theater University of Massachusetts Press, United States. 1982

Stone, Anthony Philip. Hindu Astrology: Myths, Symbols, and Realities Select Books, India. 1981

Vijnanananda, Swami. The Brihajjatakam of Varaha Mihira Panini Office, India. 1912

The Holy Teachings of Vimalakirti

2008-05-01T16:52:00.000-07:00

The Holy Teachings of Vimalakirti is a Mahayana Scripture about boddhisattvas and disciples of the Buddha. Vimalakirti is presented as a layperson who lived in the Indian city of Vaisali. Although presented as a lay-householder, Vimalakirti seems to be a rather paradoxical character. Through countless examples, this sutra describes Vimalakirti’s wisdom to be greater than the disciples and boddhisatvas. Thus this sutra states, “although Vimalakirti mixed in all crowds, he was respected as foremost of all”. I find it very interesting that this story presents a layperson in such a way. It makes me think that whomever wrote this sutra was truly attempting to turn monastic Buddhism on its head.
This sutra presents Vimalakirti as a rather elusive character. Although elusive, due to his social life, as well as his teaching techniques, the character of Vimalakirti reminded me of the character of Jesus. Like Jesus, whom mixed amongst the gentiles (although God’s chosen people were the Jews), Vimalakirti presents teachings that appear to be paradoxical to his contemporary Buddhist world. Quite different from Jesus though, is the metaphysical philosophies Vimalakirti presents. When Vimalakirti addresses existence, Vimalakirti engages in a rhetorical discussion with Manjusri in order to get at the root of concepts which create reality. By dissecting these concepts, Vimalakirti gets to a baselessness of all things (which makes constructions of existence difficult to assert). In addressing emptiness, Vimalakirti empties his house before he is visited by Manjusri. Vimalakirti does this to rid Manjusri and Vimalakirti from any distractions during their conversation. Vimalakirti once again engages in dialogue with Manjusri by which, similar to the baselessness of concepts, Vimalakirti distinguishes the ultimate emptiness of concepts. Vimalakirti’s also states that as “the ‘concept’ is itself empty, emptiness cannot construct emptiness”.
As Vimalakirti has already made concepts and fomulative constructions of these concepts illusive, Vimalakirti goes one step further by presenting the theory of nonduality. In addressing the meaning of nonduality, Vimalakirti engages in a Q&A session with thirty-two Boddhisattva’s. It is not until the thirty-second bodhisattva (Manjusri) is addressed until a suitable answer as to “what is nonduality” is declared: to express nothing, to say nothing, to explain nothing, to announce nothing, to indicate nothing, and to designate nothing - that is the entrance into non-duality. Complementarily, Vimalakirti presents this theory of nondualism by remaining silent.

As Vimalakirti turns previous conceptions of Buddhism on their head, the teachings of Vimalakirti also reevaluates the conception of dharma. Vimalakirti states that dharma is ultimately without formulation and without verbalization. Vimalakirti even goes as far as to say that whomever states "suffering should be recognized, origination should be eliminated, cessation should be realized, and the path should be practiced," is not interested in the dharma but is interested in verbalization. I found this to be the most interesting part of the book because it puts forward an ‘ineffable’, non-verbalized, and somewhat ‘inconceivable’ notion of liberation.

In conclusion, the teachings of Vimalakirti are not only presented through theories verbalized by Vimalakirti, but also through Vimalakirti putting theses theories into practice. The teachings of Vimalakirti truly illustrate Vimalakirti’s ability to illuminate theories through actualization, and thus, illuminate a hidden meaning into preconceived conceptions of Buddhist teachings.

Semiotic Upaya

2008-05-01T16:50:00.000-07:00

Semiotic Upaya

Within the Diamond Sutra, the Holy Teaching of Vimalakirti, and the Wisdom of Nagarjuna, issues concerning the application of language are addressed. While the Diamond Sutra and the Holy Teaching of Vimalakirti present an ineffability of language in regards to the wisdom of the Buddha, Nagarjuna presents a deconstruction of language in expressing the message of the Buddha. Ultimately within all three texts, language is presented as reliant designation.[1]

While each of these texts present discourses, dialogues, and silence in regards to transmitting the ‘prajnaparamita’[1] of the Buddha, integral to these modes of transmission is ‘semiotic Upaya’. As semiotics refers to the process of identification (of the identified by the identifier), Upaya refers to the means of identification. Thus, in investigating concepts such as dependence and reliance, ‘semiotic upaya’ refers to the designation of language to address reality.

Within these Mahayana texts, semiotic ideas are reflected upon in two ways. One, semiotics is recognized as the association of names and terms in classifying reality (Hayes 19); and two, semiotics is recognized in the deconstruction of such names and classifications (Hayes 19).

In the case of linguistic semiotics, these texts illustrate how linguistics are both

1. Dunne, J.D. Selections from Wisdom pg.15
2. Conze, Edward. “The Development of Prajñāpāramitā Thought” In particular his seventh stage recognition of upayakausalya prajnaparamita

conceptual and instrumental[3]. Conceptually, it recognizes linguistics as creating realities perceived through the categorization and conceptualization of perceptual data through semantic articulation. Instrumentally, language is a systematic manipulation of linguistic signs, put into practice, in order to bring language beyond its limits. When these texts refer to the Upaya of the Buddha, Upaya is recognized as skilful in the extent by which it illustrates a void of absolutes, but necessary in order to help humans to attain a truth transcending language[4].

Within the Diamond Sutra[5], the Buddha this recognizes this transcendence when he points out how mind-made references are not the independently existing objects. Thus, objects of the mind remain beyond explanation, and thus one should recognize all objects with a non-discriminatory approach. This non-discriminatory approach must be taken in light of semiotics. The Buddha seems to allude to the problematic nature of semiotics, and in particular linguistics.

This Sutra refers to ‘names’ and ‘signs’ as wrongly conceived notions of classification. This classification leads to a comprehension of an apparent reality which actually exists independent of its ‘classification’. As the Buddha taught that names, signs, and further more labels are mere illusive descriptions, it is easy to understand how an object is not what it is ‘classified’ as. Furthermore, names and signs which are associated with objects allude to a nature of an object which exists independent of
3,4: Cobb, John B. Beyond Dialogue, pg.127
5: Conze. Trans.

semantic classification.
Classification, and more specifically ‘association’ of names with objects creates ignorance and deception of the objects true nature. Thus, as the Buddha taught, something which has been falsely identified is both the supposed and the not supposed. As the role of this Sutra is to expound on the perfection of wisdom, this sutra teaches of the ignorance of attachment, and in particular within this sutra, the attachment of names to demark what something is or is not. Within the Holy Teachings of Vimalakirti[6], Vimalakirti addresses semiotics in regards to epistemology and metaphysics. Thus, Vimalakirti engages in a rhetorical discussion with Manjusri in order to get at the root of concepts which create reality. By dissecting these concepts, Vimalakirti gets to a baselessness of all things (which makes constructions of existence difficult to assert). In addressing emptiness, Vimalakirti once again engages in dialogue with Manjusri by which, similar to the baselessness of concepts, Vimalakirti distinguishes the ultimate emptiness of concepts. Vimalakirti’s also states that as “the ‘concept’ is itself empty, emptiness cannot construct emptiness”.
As Vimalakirti has already made concepts and fomulative constructions of these concepts illusive, Vimalakirti goes one step further by presenting the theory of
nonduality. In addressing the meaning of nonduality, Vimalakirti engages in a Q&A
6: Thurman, Robert A. F. The Holy Teaching of Vimalakirti

session with thirty-two Boddhisattva’s. It is not until the thirty-second bodhisattva (Manjusri) is addressed until a suitable answer as to “what is nonduality” is declared: to
express nothing, to say nothing, to explain nothing, to announce nothing, to indicate nothing, and to designate nothing - that is the entrance into non-duality. Complementarily, Vimalakirti presents this theory of nondualism by remaining silent.

As Vimalakirti deconstructs and separates concepts from conceptualized, Vimalakirti also reevaluates the conception of dharma. Vimalakirti states that dharma is ultimately without formulation and without verbalization. Vimalakirti even goes as far as to say that whomever states "suffering should be recognized, origination should be eliminated, cessation should be realized, and the path should be practiced," is not interested in the dharma but is interested in verbalization. This illustrates an ‘ineffable’, non-verbalized, and somewhat ‘inconceivable’ message of the Buddha.

Thus, the Upaya of Vimalakirti is presented through theories verbalized by Vimalakirti, as well as through putting theses theories into practice. The teachings of Vimalakirti truly illustrate Vimalakirti’s ‘skillful’ ability to illuminate theories through actualization, and thus, illuminate a hidden meaning into preconceived conceptions.

Within the interpretation of the message of Nagarjuna, as has been formulated within the Madhyamic tradition, Nagarjuna attempts to articulate emptiness which transcends the categories of 'existence’ and ‘non-existence’[7]. Within Yogacara
7. Dunne, J.D. Distinguishing the Middle and the Extremes

epistemology, the mind is said to be all that exists, and the world is the result of the articulating activity of the mind[8]. Thus, as the conceptual is an articulation,
so to the ordinary world is nothing else than an interpretation of language. However, Nagarjuna recognizes how ultimately external reality is non existent, therefore any verbal designation remains ambivalent[9]. Thus, Nagarjuna recognizes the erroneous view which conceives of essential nature being dependent upon verbal designation (prajnapti)[10].

Cosmologically semiotic, Nagarjuna’s conception of the external world is no more than "semiotically real" in its conceptual sense[11]. To sketch this semiotic cosmology, Nagarjuna refers to emptiness. For Nagarjuna, since there is no way to talk about the "objective reality" of emptiness, the conception of emptiness is a reality in so much as it is semiotically articulated[12].

This interpretation of emptiness illustrates the relationship between the ultimate existence of phenomena and the conventional emptiness of phenomena. Thus, when Nagarjuna analyzes prajnaparamita he creates the Madhyamika position constituting a middle path of interpretating and comprehending existence (Iida 251). As a consequence, he argues, all phenomena exist interdependently and conventionally. Most importantly, the text identifies two truths: an ultimate reality (the emptiness of phenomena of any essence); and a conventional reality (the interdependence of things) (Iida 253).

Within the philosophies of Nagarjuna, Nagarjuna systematically expands upon the
established doctrine of Yogacara when stating: the words of ordinary language are related
8-10: King, Richard. Early Yogacara: Philosophy East & West Vol. 44 Issue 4
11,12: Issues of Semiotics- within the intro of Merrel, Floyd. Signs Becoming Signs pg.x
to superficial aspects of phenomena, conditioned by fallacious attachment to wrong ideas (Iida 264). Thus, Nagarjuna created a distinction between the external world and the signs conveying it.

Similarily, in regards to the ultimate nature of the external world, Nagarjuna states
that all phenomena are empty (sunyata) of essence[13]. Nagarjuna argues that emptiness is not another essence, but rather is the complete absence of anything that could be an essence. This creates the idea that "emptiness" is an independent phenomenon. However, as emptiness can be explained in regards to what it is not, emptiness itself becomes dependent upon it’s own “suchness”[14].

In fact, the very act of referring to an entity or emptiness necessitates its identity. In order to refer to the entity that has just been declared, one must refer to it as an 'entity’ (compared to a ‘non-entity’). Also, one cannot help but to attempt to explain the nature of emptiness in reference to the “empty”. Necessarily this involves an implicit affirmation of that emptiness as ‘empty’.

In conclusion, it appears that semiotics, no matter how skillfully applied or deconstructed can establish essential independence. However, this is precisely the wisdom of the Buddha. Through intermittences of silence and explanations of interdependence, the Buddha skillfully presents a semiotic message of reliant designation[15].

13,14: Dunne, J.D. Distinguishing the Middle and the Extremes
15. Dunne, J.D. Selections from Wisdom pg.15
Works Cited

Cobb, John B. Beyond Dialogue Fortress Press, US. 1982

Conze, Edward. “The Development of Prajñāpāramitā Thought.” University of South Carolina Press, US. 1968

Conze. The Diamond Sutra Religious Studies 442 Mahāyāna Course Bibliography

Dunne, J.D. Selections from Wisdom [Nagarjua] Root Verses on the Madhyamaka Unpublished Manuscript, 2001
Dunne, J.D. Distinguishing the Middle and the Extremes Religious Studies 442 Mahāyāna Course Bibliography
Hayes, Richard P. Dignaga on the Interpretation of Signs Kluwer Academic Press, UK.1988

Iida, Shotaro. Reason and Emptiness: A Study in Logic and Mysticism Hokuseido Press, Japan. 1980

King, Richard. Early Yogacara: Philosophy East & West Vol. 44 Issue 4 University of Hawaii Press, US.

Merrel, Floyd. Signs Becoming Signs. Indiana University Press, US. 1991.

Thurman, Robert A. F. The Holy Teaching of Vimalakirti Pennsylvania State University Press, US. 1994

Egyptian Creation

2008-05-01T16:49:00.001-07:00

As is the case with most creation stories, the ancient Egyptians created stories to try to explain their place in the cosmos. Their understanding of the cosmic order was from direct observation of nature. Therefore their creation stories concern themselves with gods of nature; the earth, the sky, the sun, the moon, the stars, and of course, the Nile river. Since creation is an impossible act without a Creator, ancient Egyptian creation stories also give life to the creative entity, Atum.
.Since the Nile river, with its annual floods played a critical role in this cosmic order. It should come as no surprise to find water the fundamental element in the Egyptians ideas of creation. For the Egyptians to watch the flooding of their land would have been like watching an earthly model of their ideas of a watery creation.
. . . . In the beginning there was only water, a chaos of water. This water, the Egyptians called Nu. It was out of Nu that everything began. As with the Nile, each year the flooding no doubt caused chaos to all creatures living on the land, so this represents Nu. Eventually the floods would recede and out of the chaos of water would emerge a hill of dry land, one at first, then more. On this first dry hilltop, on the first day, came the first sunrise. So that is how the ancient Egyptians explain the beginning of all things.
.Not surprisingly, the sun was also among the most important elements in the Egyptians lives and therefore had an important role as a creator god. The Creator’s names and attributes varied greatly. As the rising sun, his name was Khepri, the great scarab beetle, who was seen as a winged solar-disk of the eastern horizon. As the sun climbed toward mid-day it was called Ra, great and strong. When the sun set in the west it was known as Atum the old man. The sun was also said to be an egg laid daily by Geb, when he took the form of a goose.
To the ancient Egyptians the moon was an element of darkness which battled the sun an element of light. This battle of darkness and light was pinnacle in the duality which surrounded ancient Egyptian life. As an attribute of the god Atum, the moon represented his left eye while his right eye was the sun. Seth, a lunar god, struggles with the sun god Atum, and is seen as a god of darkness doing constant battle with the god of light. This battle between darkness and light is found in the cosmological make up of the ancient Egyptian creation story.
To the Egyptians the sky was a goddess called Nut. She was often shown as a cow standing over the earth with her eyes being the sun and the moon. She is kept from falling to earth by Shu, who was the god of air and wind. As a heavenly cow, she gave birth to the sun daily. The sun would ride across Nut's star covered belly, which was a great cosmic ocean. Then as evening fell, Nut would swallow the sun creating darkness. Nut is also pictured as a giant sow, suckling many piglets. These piglets represented the stars, which she swallowed each morning before dawn. Beneath her stretched the ocean, in the center of which lay her husband Geb, the earth-god. He is often seen leaning on one elbow, with a knee bent toward the sky, this is representitive of the mountains and valleys of the earth. Green vegetation would sprout from Geb's brown or red body.

AtumThe Creator.
In the beginning there was only watery chaos, called Nu. Out of these chaotic waters rose Atum. It is believed that he created himself, using his thoughts and will. In the watery chaos, Atum found no place on which to stand. In the place where he first appeared, he created a dry hill. This hill was said to be the spot on which a temple of ancient Egypt was built. In this interpretation, Atum may represent the fertile, life giving hills left behind by the receding waters of the Nile's annual flood. In this ancient Egyptian context, Atum identifies with the sun god Ra. By this time, Atum’s emergence on the dry hill can be interpreted as the coming of light into the darkness of Nu.
Atum’s next act was to create more gods. Because he was all alone in the world, without a mate, Atum made a union with his shadow. This unusual way of procreating offspring was not considered strange to the Egyptians. Atum, regarded as a bisexual god, was sometimes called the 'Great He-She’. The Egyptians were thus able to present Atum as the one and only creative force in the universe.
According to ancient Egypt’s stories of creation, Atum's children habitat was on a dry hill. In some cases, Atum stayed in the waters of Nu to create his son and daughter. He gave birth to his son by spitting him out. His daughter he vomited. Shu represented the air and Tefnut was a goddess of water. Shu and Tefnut continued the act of creation by establishing a social order. To this order Shu contributed the 'principles of Life', while Tefnut contributed the 'principles of order'.
After some time, Shu and Tefnut became separated from their father and lost in the watery chaos of Nu. Atum; had only one eye, which was removable. Atum removed the eye and sent it in search of his children. In time they returned with the eye. At this reunion Atum wept tears joy, where these tears hit the ground, men grew. Now Atum was ready to create the world. So Shu and Tefnut became the parents of Geb, the earth and Nut, the sky.

Ra Un Nefer Amen I, Metu Neter. Khamit Corp. Brooklyn, New York
Byron E. Shafer, “Egyptian Mythology” http://www.touregypt.net/gods1.htm
“Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths”
Byron E. Shafer, “From Religion in Ancient Egypt” www.touregypt.net/ featurestories/creation.htm
Fischer, Henry George, “The Origin of Egyptian Hieroglyphs”, http://www.mythome.org/creategy.html

Yoruba

2008-05-01T16:47:00.000-07:00

As with most religions, Yoruba religion divides the cosmos into two realms of existence: the spiritual world and the natural world. The spiritual world is the abode of supernatural forces such as Olodumare (the Yoruba High God), the Orisa (all the Yoruba divinities), the Ajogun (anti-gods or the malevolent supernatural powers), the Aje (who are translated inadequately into English as "witches"), and the ancestors. The natural world is composed of humans, animals and plants. Spiritual beings visit the natural world regularly. And through divination, sacrifice and spirit possession, natural beings can also partake in the spiritual world occasionally. The spiritual and natural worlds are, therefore, interdependent.
At first, the Yoruba cosmos might appear to be like that of Christianity and Islam. Orun is somewhat equivalent to heaven, and Aye is somewhat equivalent to this world. What is more, Yoruba theology also has a place in the supernatural world comparable to hell, namely, Orun-Apaadi. Indeed a host of scholars of Yoruba theology have compared and re-interpreted Yoruba theological accounts of the cosmos and its inhabitants in such a way that Yoruba theology is not distinguishable from that of Christianity. Consider, for instance, the following claims of Bolaji Idowu, one of the most cited scholars on Yoruba theology:
The creation of the earth was completed in four days; the fifth day was therefore set apart for the worship of the Deity and for rest. (Idowu, 1962, p. 20.)

It would seem that when the world began, everyone could travel to heaven and back as he wished and that all could have immediate, direct contact with Olodumare. The oral traditions say that heaven was very near to the earth, so near that one could stretch up one’s hand and touch it. There was a kind of Golden Age, or a Garden-of-Eden period. Then something happened, and a giddy, frustrating, extensive space occurred between heaven and earth. The story of what happened is variously told. One story is that a greedy person helped himself to too much food from the heaven; another that a woman with a dirty hand touched the unsoiled face of heaven. The motif is all one--man sinned against the Lord of Heaven and there was immediately raised a barrier which cut him off from the unrestricted bliss of heaven. The privilege of free intercourse, of man taking the bounty of heaven as he liked, disappeared. (Idowu, 1966, p.22.)
Idowu claims to be describing Yoruba theology as presented in the Ifa Literary Corpus, the sacred text of Yoruba religion. Indeed, he quotes extensively from the Ifa Corpus. But unfortunately, to any Ifa priest, Idowu’s translations and re-interpretations would be representative of anything but Yoruba theology.
Consider for instance the first quotation above from Idowu. In a footnote reference to his claims that in Yoruba theology the Deity created the world in four days, Idowu states:
It appears that, originally, the sacred day of each divinity came round every fifth day, and it is possible that the same sacred day was observed for them all. This would be based on the belief that the creation of the earth was completed in four days. There is a saying, "To Ifa belongs today, to Ifa belongs tomorrow, to Ifa belongs the day after tomorrow, to Ifa belongs the four days in which the Oriya created the earth".
This so-called saying of Idowu is actually an excerpt from a poem contained within Ogunda Meji, which is the ninth book the Ifa Literary Corpus. As some of the theological ideas contained in this poem will become important later on in this paper; included is the full text of the poem.

Ifa-is-the-master-of-today,Ifa-is-the-master-of-tomorrow.Ifa-is-the-master-of-the-day-after-tomorrow-as-well.Orunmila-is-the-master-of-all-the-four-days-(of-the-week)-established-here- on-earth-by-the-divinities.[6]
5
Ifa divination was performed for Orunmila,On the day that all the malevolent supernatural powersWere repeatedly haunting his householdDeath, Disease, Loss, Paralysis, AfflictionWere all glancing at Orunmila
10
They were saying thatOne day they will succeed in killing himOrunmila then set down his divination instruments to consult his Orí. Ogunda Meji was divined. He was advised to offer sacrifice.
15
He offered the sacrifice.After he had completed this sacrificeHis Orí provided protective shielding for him.Death could no longer kill him,Nor could Disease afflict him.
20
He was dancingHe was rejoicing.He was singing the praises of his Ifa priests,His Ifa priests were singing the praises of Ifa.[9]He opened his mouth slightly
25
Joyous Ifa songs came out of his mouth.He stretched his legs,He found himself dancing.He said this is exactlyHow his priests delightfully predicts with Ifá:
30
"Ifa-is-the-master-of-today,Ifa-is-the-master-of-tomorrow.Ifa-is-the-master-of-the-day-after-tomorrow-as-well.Orunmila-is-the-master-of-all-the-four-days-(of-the-week)-established-here-on-earth-by-the-divinities.Ifa divination was performed for Orunmila,
35
On the day that all the malevolent supernatural powersWere repeatedly haunting his householdThe day Death comes looking for me,Ifa, spread out and provide shielding for me,Just as ewe pla spreads out to shield oori,
40
Just as a big river spreads out to shield the sands of its bedOn the day Disease comes looking for me, Ifa, spread out and provide shielding for me,Just as ewe pla spreads out to shield oori,Just as a big river spreads out to shield the sands of its bed
45
The day all the malevolent supernatural forces come looking for me,Ifa, spread out and provide shielding for me,Just as ewe pla spreads out to shield oori,Just as a big river spreads out to shield the sands of its bedIt is Etipon-ola[11] that spreads out to shield the soil,
50
Ifa, spread out and provide shielding for me,Just as ewe pla spreads out to shield oori,Just as a big river spreads out to shield the sands of its bed"
The first thing to note about this poem is that it makes no reference whatsoever to creation of the earth, much less to of days of creation. The only reference to creation here is the number of days within the Yoruba week. Hence the poem is of very limited relevance to the Yoruba creation story. The phrase: "Ifa l’o ni ‘jo merin Oriya da’le aiye" which is translated as: "To Ifa belongs the four days in which the Orisa created the earth", has nothing to do with creation. Rather the phrase means something like: "To Ifa belongs the four days established here on earth by the Oriya".
But this phrase is not alone in the Christianization of Yoruba theology. In discussing Olodumare (also known as Olorun), the Yoruba High God, and Obatala (one of the major divinities of Yoruba religion), Benjamin Ray also claims that:
Yoruba myths say that Olorun (whose name means "Lord or Owner of the Sky") delegated the task of creating the world to one of his sons, Obatala. (Ray, 1976, p.53.)
There are many flaws within this one sentence. First, the source of Ray’s assertion that Olodumare is male is a complete mystery. In all Ifa poems, Olodumare is gender neutral. The fact of the matter is that, taken all together, Ifa poems suggest that Olodumare is, in essence, a spiritual entity; as such, describing Olodumare as male (or female) is inappropriate. Since Olodumare lacks gender and corporeality, Olodumare is better described as an "It."
Second and most importantly, although Ray is quite correct in claiming that the task of creating this world was assigned to Obatala, he is in error to refer to Obatala as Olodumare’s son. Although Obatala, just as the other gods, is lesser than Olodumare, it is quite clear from Ifa poems that three divinities have always co-existed with Olodumare. These are Obatala, Ifa, and Eyu.
This also means that power relations in the Yoruba supernatural world are completely different from those in Christian theology. The best way to understand power in the Yoruba supernatural world is to distinguish between existential and functional hierarchies. In the existential hierarchy, we can identify four levels of chronological/existential superiority:
Level 1: Olodumare, Obatala, Ifa and Eyu.
Level 2: The other divinities; the Ajogun (i.e., evil supernatural forces--we can
call them anti-gods); the Aje (often improperly translated as ‘witches‘).
Level 3: Humans; plants and animals.
Level 4: The ancestors.
In the functional hierarchy, Olodumare is undoubtedly supreme as the chief executive. Olodumare is the final arbiter in all functional issues in the Yoruba cosmos. Nonetheless, one should not say of Olodumare that: "He is creator" "He is king", "He is Omnipotent", "He is All-wise, All-knowing, All-seeing" (Idowu, 1966, pp.39-41), thereby equating Olodumare’s role with that of the Christian God.
Olodumare in Yoruba theology cannot be all-knowing because Olodumare frequently consults Ifa (i.e., the god of wisdom) for knowledge and advice through divination. Olodumare cannot be the creator if by this we mean to suggest that Olodumare alone created everything else. As we have seen, Olodumare did not create Obatala, Eyu and Ifa as these three have always co-existed with Olodumare. Moreover, when it comes to the creation of humans and the world, it is quite clear from Ifa poems that there was a division of labor among Olodumare, two other divinities, and a third spiritual entity who is not regarded as a divinity. It was Ogun who fashioned skeletons, Obatala molded forms and shapes, and Olodumare imparted the breath of life. Also, there is Ajala, an entity who is not regarded as a divinity, but who molds the Ori (i.e., "inner-heads") of humans. Ori is the principle of "destiny" in the sense that it embodies each individual’s potentialities for success and/or failure on earth.
Moreover, when it comes to day-to-day administration of Aye (the natural world) and Orun (the supernatural world), Olodumare has delegated responsibility to the divinities. This is precisely why the Yoruba do not often pray to Olodumare. They do not worship, offer sacrifices, nor build temples for Olodumare. Indeed, in terms of the day-to-day administration of the cosmos, Eyu, who functions as the universal policeman, is the most important divinity.
Scholars such as Bolaji Idowu and Benjamin Ray also give the impression that the Orun of Yorùbá theology is somewhat equivalent to the heaven of Christian theology. This is not quite so. First of all, Orun, (often improperly translated as heaven) is divided into two parts: Orun Oke (i.e., Orun above) and Orun Odo (Orun below). Only three supernatural entities reside at Orun Oke: these are Olodumare (the Yoruba High God), Orannfe, and, Bango (the god of thunder and lightning). Orun Oke as the name suggests is located above in the skies, while Orun Odo is located inside the earth’s crust. All the other supernatural entities (ancestors, the other divinities, the Ajogun, etc., including Olodumare, who resides in Orun above) reside at Orun Odo.
But the differences do not end here. There are also many differences between the Christian and Yoruba conceptions of evil. All evil in Anglo-Christian theology ultimately derives from one source, Satan. All evil acts, deeds, etc., ultimately result from the fact that Satan has a supernatural ability to overcome, persuade or entice humans into improper conduct. But in Yoruba religion, evil does not emanate from one source. Evil emanates from the evil supernatural forces called the Ajogun. There are two hundred plus one of these forces in the cosmos. These forces are all separate and distinct entitles, and as such they are individually responsible for a specific type of evil. The Ajogun have eight warlords: Iku (death); Arun (Disease); Ofo (Loss); Egba (Paralysis); Oran (Big-trouble); Epe (Curse); Ewon (Imprisonment); Eye (Afflictions). Hence, one can engage in some linguistic license and claim that, while Christian theology has a mono-demonic conception of evil, Yoruba religion has a poly-demonic conception of evil.
One final point to note about the Yoruba cosmos is that the Yoruba do not regard the spiritual world as a place that is so far removed from the natural world that humans can gain access to it only after death. These two realms of existence are interdependent in the sense that there is constant communication between the two worlds. It is the constant inter-relationship between these two realms that the Yoruba finds its’ spiritual authenticity.

Abiodun R. 2000. Preface. In A History of Art in Africa, eds. R. Abiodun, M.B. Visona, R. Poynor, H.M. Cole, M.D. Harris. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River.
Horton, R. 1967. African Traditional Thought and Western Science. Africa 38: 50-71 and 155-87.
Idowu, B. 1962. Olodumare: God in Yoruba Belief. Longmans: Lagos.
Mbiti, J. 1969. African Religions and Philosophy. Heinemann: London.
Ray, B. 1976. African Religions: Symbol, Ritual, and Community. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs.

Zande

2008-05-01T16:46:00.000-07:00

The modern Sudan is situated in the ancient civilisation of Nubia,
bordering the Red Sea, between Egypt and Eritrea, and located in Northern Africa. It is the largest country by area in Africa. Geographicly, the Sudan is located in the extremes of varying sandy desert to tropical forest. Population wise, there is an estimated 26 million people living in the Sudan. Of the 26 million, seventy percent are Muslim, five percent are Christian, while twenty-five percent are of indigineous faith. Of the twenty-five percent of indigineous religious practitioners, the Azande people exist.
The word Sande, meaning “the earth”, is the root of Azande, meaning “the people who possess much land”. The Azande dwell in savanna forest, where they cultivate the soil, raising a variety of plants, and where they also hunt and fish. It is here, where the Azande have survived as a people for a long period of time in a hostile and difficult environment, and it is here where the Azande have developed a complex society, rich in religious custom.
Among the Azande, the supreme god is Onyame. Onyame could be referred to as the sky-god. This one supreme god, Onyame, the sky god, is given credit of creating the world. Also, Onyame created all spiritual entities beneath him in a pantheon of lesser gods and spirits, particularly ancestor spirits. These lesser gods, spirits, and ancestors act as Onyame’s intermediaries with man. The Abosom (lesser gods) were created by Onyame to act on his behalf and were given certain powers to carry out that mission; while the Nsamanfo (ancestors) are the custodians of the laws, customs, and traditions. Although Onyame is considered the sky god, in which his matters are that of the heavens, Onyame’s terrestrial functions is providing protection to the people.
Onyame sent his children to earth to confer his beliefs upon it. These bore the names of what are now rivers and lakes, revered and worshiped as containing the power and the spirit of the great Creator. Ancestor spirits resided in the stools the Azande had used in their lifetime. Stools were thus part of an Azande’s life spirit and greatly honoured. Their designs were hierarchical; certain types were reserved for the holders of specific high offices. The religion of the Azande focuses on the worship and reverence of ancestors. In the Azande religion, the Gods and the spirits of the ancestors are always present.
Ritualistically, the Azande religion has a god concept, but Onyame is not central in their common rituals. For example, the Azande honored the earth goddess in the annual Adae ceremony. This ceremony is held on Thursdays. Thursday is the natal day of the earth goddess and work on that day was prohibited, otherwise misfortune would result. Also, Azande hunters recieve guidance by consulting termites. First they would go to a termite hill, and then ask their questions. For instance, a hunter might inquire, "Will evil spirits steer the beasts into, or away from my traps?" Then the hunter would poke two sticks into a termite hill and leave it for a day. If one stick was eaten that was a yes, if the other stick was eaten that was a no. If the termites ate both sticks it was an emphatic "yes", and when the termites ate neither stick it was an emphatic "no".
The Azande also practice, and celebrate marriage, and circumcision ritually. Azande marriage is not a sudden act but rather a culmination of a long cumulative series of events. Marriages took place by payment of a bride-price, traditionally in iron spears, to the bride's family. In regards to circumcision, boys assemble in a hut and the operation is performed with ceremony. The boys sleep in seclusion for about two months. Before the circumcision is healed, the boys go naked, until the final preparation for the circumcision dance had been made. After circumcision, a boy is recognized as a person old enough to have sexual intercourse and his adult status is acknowledged.
Death is another transitional phase in Azande religion, which is marked by ritual and belief. The Azande believe that at death, their souls joins the totem of their clan. The Azande say “Death has always a cause, and no man dies without a reason”. When a person dies, a portion of one finger nail and one toe nail and some hair are always removed before burial. These are used to find out who has bewitched the deceased
Among the Azande, witchcraft is considered to be a major danger. They believe that witchcraft can be inherited and that a person can be a witch, causing others harm, without realising her or his influence. Because of this danger, effective means of diagnosing witchcraft are, for them, vital. One method is through the use of an oracle. The most important being, benge, a poison which is fed to baby chickens. The chick's death or survival provides the oracle's answer. Azande also use benge to judge other evidence in a court before a chief.
Witchcraft, magic, and divination are major features of social life, and are part of daily existence. Everyone is potentially a witch for some of the time, although only a few people can be said to be habitual witches. The Azande believe that any hatred or dislike of one person by another, however slight, is a potential cause for witchcraft. Thus, a person with an ill-temperment, perhaps physically deformed or mutilated, and who is jealous or otherwise spiteful, is widely suspected of being a witch.
The Azande believe that all bad luck – illness, misfortune, accident, death – is caused by witchcraft. They do not conceive of a world in which luck, accident or misfortune have non-supernatural causes. All bad events have a supernatural origin. Thus every misfortune that befalls an individual is cause for determining who has bewitched you. To minimize the likelihood of being bewitched, an individual may attempt to conform as closely as possible to ideal Azande moral and social behavior. The Azande believe that witches may do them harm by performing magic rites with bad medicines.
Witch-doctors, who sell magical services are commonplace in the Azande, and their magic generally takes the form of whistles, amulets, charms or the like. The Azande produce numerous statuettes called yanda, whose magic powers favour, among other things, success in hunting and fertility in initiates. The appearance of yanda is often the result of the statue being used in ritual practices.
In sum, it is best said that Azande is not a static religion. Located in the hostile and difficult environment of the Sudan, the Azande have survived as a people for a long period of time. Azande religion, by providing a common foundation of ritual, belief, and practice, provide a strong set of principles for indigenous Sudan society.

Bibliography

Evans-Pritchard, E.E. 1971. The Azande. Oxford. Clarendon

E.E. Evans-Pritchard, 1937. Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande. Faber and Faber, London

“Azande” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azande

“Sudan” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan

“Azande Religion” http://www.africangold.co.za/pages/Stories/yanda.htm

Celtic Paganism

2008-05-01T16:44:00.000-07:00

Ancient Celtic Paganism: A Vision of Gods and Goddesses

Upon investigating the supernatural reality that the Celts endured, it is necessary to somewhat overlook the myths to see what lies behind them. It is essential to find when and from where the myths originated and how true the storytellers, or narrators, really are. The Celtic gods and goddesses, in such an early mythological time defined as “ ‘a period when beings lived or events happened such as one no longer sees in our days’ ” (Sjoestedt 1994: 2), require much analysis. A diverse collection of documents, literature and archaeology pave the way to our understanding of the ancient mythology of the Celts. However, these traces lack a sense of closure, leaving the investigation into the nature of these gods and goddesses raw and incomplete. The evidence of the Celtic deities exists in various forms, but the information that we have collected leaves unanswered questions. For instance, in analysing the recorded documents left behind by the Greeks and Romans, we are called to cast some doubt on how closely the Celtic religious rites paralleled those of their classical neighbours. We survey recorded religious practices with apprehension, as we are not truly sure that the Celts too worshipped family gods and a mass of deities who covered all aspects of life.1 How do we know that we are not just reading materials reflecting the Graeco-Roman myths? Is it not plausible that these Greek and Roman writers installed some bias, leaning towards their mythological ideas, within their testimony? The speculation surrounding all of the varied pieces of evidence is just. From the abundance of evidence, though, we can be sure that the Celts believed in a multiplicity of deities. It is apparent that the existence of gods and goddesses in Celtic society was quite a serious affair and an everyday business. However, when focusing on the exact nature of such gods and goddesses, it seems only fair to attempt to construct an overview of the character of each deity. Reconstructing the evidence might be too hopeful because the conclusions would come from mere ignorance and be partially based on what we still do not know. From here we can only address the different types of evidence that piece together the very nature of the Celtic gods and goddesses, but the mixed and slightly unreliable evidence is certainly not easy to sort.
The literary evidence for the existence of deities in Celtic religion is one source that reveals the character of the individual gods and goddesses. There exist two main bodies of literature evidence. One major body is vernacular written sources in Irish and Welsh. The most acknowledged Irish piece contains a collection of prose tales, known as the Ulster Cycle.2 Within these epic stories, the heroes swear not by God but by the gods of their tribes. However, many early mythic stories, such as the Irish Ulster Cycle, were not compiled until the medieval age. As a result, “Opinion is divided as to whether these texts contain substantial material derived from oral tradition or whether they were a creation of the medieval monastic authors” (Green 1997: 24). Other Irish stories frequently refer to the three goddesses of battle and death.3 These stories detail the nature of the gods and offer some explanation concerning their roles in Celtic society. Many stories that come down through Irish tradition make numerous references to ‘Lugh’, whose Irish meaning is ‘shining light’. This worldly god was worshipped by Celtic peoples in Ireland, Gaul and Spain.1 From its Irish translation, this god has been derived as a sun god, yet its precise nature is unknown. Other Irish references to Celtic deities include the ‘Book of Invasions’ and the ‘History of Races’.3 Regarding the mythological world as a whole, one Irish piece of work even suggests that gods were neither worshipped or sacrificed but were simply supernatural beings with magical powers.4 Such a belief only adds to the difficulty of tracking the deity’s true character; more possibilities cause a greater chance of mistaken identity. Welsh material on the whole has been less abundant. Much of the Welsh literary materials have been recorded in the form of oral tales, so they are poorly documented. Overall, the Irish and Welsh material evidence that has been recorded as Celtic literature merely names certain gods. Descriptions of gods are often vague and need more elaboration. Thus, an evaluation of their precise nature would entail assumptions and mixed interpretations as there is but little tangible evidence to consume.
Furthermore, we need to take caution when asserting the time frame in which the works were recorded. When looking at the context of the evidence, some disturbing factors are noticeable. First, the works lack any connection to La Tene, which was a significant ritual burial that laid a foundation for many of the Celtic beliefs in religion and mythology. Second, there is “proof that the background to these tales was earlier than the introduction of Christianity in the fifth century AD” (Green 1993: 15). This statement implies that the period in which the literature was written was pre-Celtic mythology and so is likely to be out of its realm. Likewise, other Irish and Welsh materials appear to have been compiled too late, such as the Ulster Cycle. This era of post-Celtic mythology would inevitably challenge any beliefs that came before its time. Thus the Celtic literature could be ignorant of the actual beliefs of the people about whom they wrote. The descriptions from the pre and post mythological era would most likely compare and contrast, leading to more confusion about the true nature of the Celtic deities. Finally, it is important to take note that the Irish materials focused mostly on the Irish society, leaving out religious beliefs coming from the Celts in Britain and Gaul.5 In a sense, the Irish materials cannot be comprehensive because they could leave out vital information pertaining to gods and goddesses in other areas. Although these sacred tales may be misleading or vague, the Irish and Welsh did have one advantage: the work was composed by a Celtic heritage – those of Irish and Welsh decent. Therefore, this category of evidence can be considered more ‘direct’ compared with other resources that are completely second-hand.
The other major body of literature that falls under the category of second-hand evidence is contemporary literature written by Graeco-Romans. The Celt’s Mediterranean neighbours passed on many sources of evidence in writing.6 These classical authors were very explicit in their descriptions of gods and goddesses. Some major Graeco-Roman authors include Caesar, Strabo, Pomporius Mela, Pliny, Athenaeus, Tacitus, Dio Cassius, Diodorus Siculus, Ammianus Marcellinus and Lucan.7 Although this evidence carries more weight with its detailed inscriptions and manuscripts, these classical writers could have held biases spurred by personal beliefs. We have to take into account that these works are not necessarily factual recordings; they were not designed as proofs for the reader. We should recognise that the authors themselves probably acknowledged cultural differences and created their own perspectives. Hence, the Graeco-Roman authors are not completely reliable, as too many judgements on Celtic mythology prevail in their testimony.
In addition to the cultural differences that could lead to personal biases, there is also the speculation of a cultural ignorance and misinterpretation on behalf of the Romans and Greeks. “Observers from the Greek and Roman world commented on the traditions, cults and rituals of their northern, ‘barbarian’ neighbours. Their testimony has the value of contemporaneity but it has inherent problems of bias, distortion, misunderstanding and omission” (Green 1993: 8). Moreover, some authors would intertwine religious identities by using the Roman names of gods for the Celtic gods. Mixing the names and attributions could lead to confusion about what exactly defined each Celtic deity. Furthermore, the author’s religion was based on an entirely different belief system. The Celtic religion was less sophisticated than the Greek and Roman traditions. Henceforth, when reading about the Celtic deities from classical commentators, it is possible that their descriptions were based not on the framework of the Celtic world but on that of the author’s world – the Graeco-Roman.8 Thus Mediterranean authors offered little insight into the specific nature of divine beings in Celtic society, and even that cannot be fully credited.
The final attempt to elaborate on the higher powers in Celtic Paganism comes from archaeological evidence. “The main category of evidence which pertains directly to the pagan Celtic period is that of archaeology, the study of the material culture of Celtic religion: sanctuaries and sacred space; burial customs; ritual behaviour; epigraphy; and iconography” (Green 1993: 12). Pieces of evidence frequently came in the form of inscribed altars. Dedications or offerings like these would provide the names of Celtic gods and goddesses. Most of the offerings to Celtic deities, however, offered little explanation of the nature of these gods. Names were given, yet the inscriptions lacked any detailed information about the attributions of the gods. “Where the name alone survives on an inscription it is difficult to determine the attribution of that deity, although some indication may be provided from a philological interpretation of the name itself” (Chadwick 1997: 156). Moreover, the complete meaning that a ritual offering implied was unknown, making it hard to establish any representation or symbolisation given by the gods. Pictures that accompanied the inscripted names could provide clues; however, the subsequent interpretations would again vary with each observer. As is common in the world of art, one artist’s perception of an illustration can differ completely from another’s.
Like any archaeological discoveries, there appears to be difficulties involved with both interpretation and lack of article discovered. First, archaeologists can deal only with what has survived. When there is not enough to conclude, then the words behave more like an hypothesis that has yet to be tested and probably never will. It is possible to study the artefacts further and search for parallels in time or context, but the outcome can never be certain. Second, one’s belief is another person’s disbelief in the world of archaeological evidence. Thus, the archaeological evidence into the nature of Celtic gods and goddesses are merely deductions, or conclusions that breach a closure. The information is highly uncertain, which makes it highly unreliable too. Judgements lead this crusade of discovered archaeological proof, so we can never be completely confident. In the end, we can only offer thoughts on the substantive archaeological evidence that we have collected. This will in turn provide an extremely speculative construction of Celtic mythology, but it will, at least, shed some light on the mysterious underlying world of Celtic gods and goddesses.
In summary, exploring the world of the Celtic gods and goddesses has been covered in three areas: Irish and Welsh vernacular literature, Graeco-Roman literature, and archaeology. The amount of evidence is substantial enough to evaluate the nature of the Celtic gods and goddesses. However, our conclusions may not be accurate. We need to exercise some caution in our use of all three of the sources for Celtic mythology. Each compartment of proof has its flaws. While the archaeological evidence does not contain any predisposition inherent in the literary sources, it does contain interpretations that are variable. The literary materials and the archaeological evidence have a great risk of error because of too much speculation. In the absence of sound evidence that could support the true nature of Celtic gods and goddesses, we are left to assume what we think they represented in Celtic society. It is easy to assess that the mythology of the Celts is difficult to interpret, therefore, it is not easy to evaluate the nature of early Celtic gods and goddesses. “What we lack (because of the virtual non-literacy of Iron Age Celts) is written testimony from the Celts themselves” (Green 1997: 24).

Works Cited
Chadwick, Nora. The Celts. England (1997) Penguin Books.
Cunliffe, Barry. The Ancient Celts. England (1997) Oxford.
Dowden, Ken. Religion and the Romans. England (1992) Bristol Classical Press.
Green, Miranda Jane. Celtic Myths. England (1993) British Museum Press.
Green, Miranda Jane. Exploring the World of the Druids. England (1997) Thames and Hudson.
Green, Miranda Jane. The Gods of the Celts. United States of America (1993) Alan Sutton.
James, Simon. Exploring the World of the Celts. England (1993) Thames and Hudson.
Powell, T.G.E. The Celts. England (1994) Thames and Hudson.
Rankin, David. Celts and the Classical World. United States of America (1996) Routledge.
Sjoestedt, Marie-Louise. Gods and Heroes of the Celts. Ireland (1994) Four Courts Press Ltd.

Midewiwin

2008-05-01T16:42:00.000-07:00

Identifying Elements of Midewiwin Religiosity

Upon examination of the ‘Mystic’, ‘Grand Medicine Society’ of the Ojibwa, various elements of religiosity can be identified (Vescey 174). In regards to its recognition of sacred narratives, esoteric knowledge, and ritual practice; the religiosity of the Midewiwin is rooted in ancestral belief (Vescey 117). In recognition of this ancestral origin, and in light of its ritual complexity, the Midewiwin exist and operate within an ancient cosmological structure (Landes 21). Developed within a Post-Contact social setting (Angel 10), Midewiwin represents a religious tradition which has survived attempts of Euro-North American religious assimilation, and in turn, has developed its own unique system of religious beliefs and practices which have incorporated ancient teachings into a new context.

The first historical mentioning of the Midewiwin is found within the 17th century writings of the French fur traders (Hickerson 418). The origins of the Midewiwin society, however, most certainly predate this time. Arising from traditional Ojibwa beliefs and practices, Midewiwin took form among the Chequamegon sometime after their migration to Lake Superior’s southern shore in the late 1600’s (Vescey 174).

Developed in the Aadizookaanaag, ‘sacred narratives’ of the Anishinabe, early Ojibwa knew who they were, where they had come from, and how they fit into the world (Angel 3). These Aadizookaanaag explained the birth of the mythic figure Nanabozho, the originator of Midewiwin, and creator of a ‘new earth’ (Vescey 94). From Nanabozho the Ojibwa learned to communicate with other Manito spirits, as well as how to respectfully interact with the world around them (Angel 4). Furthermore, Nanabozho introduced various rituals and ceremonies which conveyed the spirit world to the Midewiwin. (Vescey 177)

As these ‘sacred narratives’ describe the Ojibwa migration from the land of their Anishinabe ancestors (Angel 4), these Aadizookaanaag tales situate the Midewiwin within an extended historical framework. Religiously, these Aadizookaanaag tales provide an outline of the beliefs and ceremonies of the Midewiwin (Vescey 184). Thus, it is from these ‘sacred narratives’, and the ancestral nature of the transmission of these narratives, from which Midewiwin religiosity has developed. (Ramsey 68)

Thus, within the spiritual traditions passed down by oral tradition under the Anishinabe, as preserved by Midewiwin elders, a creation narrative, as well as a recounting of the origins of religious rites, rituals, and ceremonies is outlined. Such religious beliefs and rituals were very important to the Ojibwa because of the sense of identity it provided for the Midewiwin. However, as Euro-North American society exerted increasing pressure on the Ojibwa to give up their ‘traditional’ beliefs, Midewiwin practitioners were forced to go ‘underground’ with their reverent activities (Angel 15).

The religious classification of ‘Midewiwin’ is derived from the Algonquian language of the Ojibwa (Angel 7). Although, some modern scholars believe that the term ‘mide’ refers to the sound resonance produced by the Mide drum (Angel 5), the Algonquian roots of ‘Mide’ means ‘mystic’, while ‘Midewiwin’ is translated to mean ‘Mystical doings’ (Landes 3,4). However, as ‘Mide’ has been further translated and interpreted to mean, ‘shaman’, ‘medicine man’, or ‘ultimate other’ (Angel 6), so too has the term ‘Midewiwin’ come to mean ‘Grand Medicine Society’(Vescey 174). As a result of such identification and classification, Midewiwin has come to exemplify ‘Indian religion’ to Euro-North Americans (Angel 6).

Geographically, the Midewiwin originated amongst the Upper Great Lakes area of North America, and later spread through the northern prairies, and eastern subarctic (Vescey 7). Although Midewiwin is recognized within various aboriginal groups (Abenaki, Ottawa, Potawatomi, Sioux, and the Winnebago) (Vescey 8), Midewiwin is primarily practiced amongst the Ojibwa. Current theories claim the Ojibwa possibly descended from the Hopewell People whom migrated across North American (Vescey 8). Historically, the land inhabited by the Ojibwa stretched from the east coast of North America all the way to the prairies by way of lake and river routes. (Vescey 8)

Existing within such a geographic location, an environmental setting which experienced the extremes of every season greatly influenced the formation of Ojibwa community (Yarnell 144). Similarly, these environmental extremes introduced ‘colour’ to Midewiwin mythology and religion (Lande 6). As these environmental features were embodied as Manitos, the psychological characteristics of the Mide whom interacted with the Manito spirit, were complimentarily influenced by their natural surroundings (Landes 34).

Incorporated from Anishinabe religious tradition, the ultimate source of existence for the Midewiwin is derived from spiritual beings called ‘Manitos’(Vescey 4). The Manitos lived within the terrestrial universe of man, and as living beings, acted under the same motivations as humans (Brey 206). The most important Manitos were the ‘Four Winds’, the ‘Thunderbirds’, the Windigo, and ‘Nanabozho’ (Landes 47-50).

In respect to Anishinabe beliefs, Manitos upheld human health and granted medicine (Landes 54). Thus, as medical concerns were integral aspects of the Manito, so too were they concerns of the religious specialists and diviners of the Manito spirit (Hickerson 681). As the Midewiwin incorporated the ritual components of their traditional Anishnabe ancestors, so too did they honour the Manitos through sacrificial offerings and respect. (Vescey 178)

Similar to their belief in the Manito spirits, the Midewiwin’s cosmological theories of creation, evolution, sustenance, and life after death reflect the spiritual beliefs of their Anishinabe ancestors (Landes 31). However, unique to the Midewiwin is the recognition of Nanabozho as their religious founder, intercessor, and mediator (Vescey 101). Independent from its ancestral roots, the Midewiwin recognize a Supreme Creator, as well as numerous Manitos. (Vescey 174)

According to Mide legend, the Midewiwin came into existence when the Nanabozho saw the helpless condition of the Anishinabe (Vescey 177). In recognition of the suffering Anishinabe, Nanabozho desired to give the Anishinabe means to protect themselves from hunger and disease (Vescey 111). As the Anishinabe lived with an acute awareness of this conflict, the Midewiwn went even further in relating these experiences of suffering with evil, and healing with good (Landes 42). Furthermore, the Midewiwin also associated physiological and psychological illnesses and cures with spiritual entities. For example, Midewiwin belief associates all sickness with Windigo (the mythological giant cannibalistic skeleton of ice) (Landes 11), while curing rituals were associated with the mythic hero Nehnehbush. (Landes 22)

The identity of the mythic hero Nehnehbush is revealed in the legend of the Great White Rabbit (Landes 22). Nehnehbush, the Great White Rabbit, communicated with people through an Otter (which subsequently became a sacred Manito). The legend continues with Nehnehbush giving the Otter sacred knowledge in order to cure the sick. Through ritual, the Otter administer this sacred knowledge of Nehnehbush to the Anishinabe. Adopted by the Midewiwin, and in reverence of such a legend, ritual items such as Otter pelts were used as sacred curing items in healing rituals. (Landes 24)

Consequentially, curing rites involved the evocation of numerous Manitos (Landes 72), as well as the utilization of curing rites and rituals these Manitos offered (Vescey 185). Thus, rites of healing (through the process of a vision quest) were associated with the Thunder Manito; Tcisaki (divining) was a curing rite for those who were poisoned; a naming ceremony was another curing technique for those suffering from mental afflictions; while undergoing a sun dance provided another major curing technique (Landes 47-50). While vision quests, naming ceremonies, divination, and ritual self sacrifice were incorporated by Mide shaman in attempt to discover and invoke healing (Landes 54), ceremonially, the Mide would continually remove and immerse themselves from their community in order to access the help of the Manitos. (Brehm 691)

Recognizing such a distinction from the rest of the community, the Midewiwin consisted of various divisions of practitioners who were designated to various levels of individual and societal healing (Vescey 179). This division in healing is representative of the various forms of shamans, priests, and spiritual healers. The "nanandawi" or medicine man, "tcisaki" or male diviner, "nanandawi" or medicine man, ‘meda" or family healer, and the "wabeno" or guide are various examples of the divisions of the Mide. (Landes 47)

Thus, initiation schools and degrees of Midewiwin rites developed in order to utilize the entire breadth of Midewiwin knowledge and assistance. The Midewiwin possessed as many as sixteen degrees of membership, and initiation took place in four stages (Vescey 181). Members advanced from one degree to another by making offerings to the older members of the institution and by undergoing an initiation ceremonies consisting of moral instructions as well as lessons in the names and uses of medicines (Landes 55). Instruction into higher degrees involved encountering the healing mysteries of rare plants and herbs (Densmore 322,323). Representatively, initiation among the Midewiwin is divided into earth grades (medicinal/herbal specialists) (Angel 165), and sky grades (mediums/diviners). (Landes 60)

Traditionally, upon initiation specific items such as shells and birch bark scrolls were utilized in religious practice. In specific, the numerous ceremonial objects used by the Midewiwin not only served, but also represented principle sources of Midewiwin belief. It is within these ritual objects in which one can identify Midewiwin ceremonialism.

For centuries, the Midewiwin have preserved the teachings of their ancestors in birch-bark scrolls (Landes 223). These Wiigwaas (birchbark scrolls) (Angel 11) were used to pass along knowledge and information, as transmitted through oral tradition, in a form of written scripture (Vescey 184). These scrolls incorporated ancient theology and history into contemporary Mide consciousness. (Vescey 184)

The events of initiation ceremonies were recorded in line drawings on bark scrolls, which served as mnemonic devices to those who were initiated to decipher them (Landes 224). These scrolls have presented a representation of their ancient beliefs in a pictographic language and religious system (Vescey 186). Written on birch bark, teachings, degrees, initiations, and ceremonies are illustrated. (Vescey 184)

Wiigwaas writings enabled the Mide to memorize complex ideas and preserve ancient histories and legends for following generations (Angel 140). These complex writings also included astronomy, mapping, family lineage, songs, and migration routes (Vescey 184). As these scrolls give a detailed account of Ojibwa migration, these scrolls also indicate the discovery of another sacred item, the Miigis shell. (Vescey 184).

The Miigis shell is revered, and is used within Midewiwin ceremonies (Landes 73). The healing properties of the Miigis shell are explained within Midewiwin legend (Landes 236). Respectively, during a curing or initiation ceremony, an initiate or patient is ‘shot’ with the Miigis shell (Landes 38). The patient then spits the shell out of his/her mouth at the end of the ceremony as an indication that supernatural had been carried into their bodies. (Angel 69)

The sacred Migiis shells (cypraea moneta) used by the Midewiwin, have been found in various areas of North America (Vescey 183). Since the Migis is not native to North America, their prevalence of the Migiis shell in Midewiwin ceremony is a mystery. However, it is believed that these shells had been introduced by French fur traders who would have came in contact with the cypraea moneta in French Polynesia. (Dewdney 71)

In response to the development of the17th century fur trade, small hunting communities developed, and further served as the focal point of community (Vescey 11). Within such a societal structure, property and wealth was shared with the close family (Landes 15). Religiously serving these small communities, the Midewiwin existed as a small institution of initiation and training. (Vescey 182)

As established within the extended spiritual heritage of the Anishinabe, the Midewiwin reflects an awareness of a multinational aboriginal heritage. In relationship with its neighbors, Midewiwin religiosity was accepted, and furthermore served as a unifying element among different aboriginal groups (Hickerson 418). However, in relation to the Euro-North American Settlers, the Midewiwin adopted codes of secrecy in order to keep their religious practices from being assimilated. (Angel 13)

Religious differences between Midewiwin and Christian traditions are evident within creation myths to theories of the afterlife (Vescey 178,188). Also considerably different from Judeo-Christian consciousness is the significance that dreams and visions have within Midewiwin spirituality. The Midewiwin stress ‘independence from dreams and visions’ in order to develop a reliance on inherited knowledge, as a means of developing spirituality (Angel 10). Furthermore, Elders went so far as to prevent adherents in presenting their visionary experiences warning, ‘you will forfeit the vision by talking about it with others. (Landes 9)

Thus, due to the awareness of Christian encroachment, the roles, initiation rites, and ceremonial objects of the Midewiwin began to be secretly practiced and observed, and thus viewed as ‘cultic’ by outsiders (Angel 11). Adopting secret codes, certain ceremonial objects and practices were never exposed to public view (Vescey 174). However, as Midewiwin ceremonies were becoming highly complex in their secretive nature, the Midewiwin emphasized that its central duty was healing. (Angel 12)

While many scholars have argued that the Midewiwin is a ‘crisis cult’ (Angel 13), upon investigation it becomes obvious that the Midewiwin is a religious tradition rooted in ancestral belief. Incorporating ancient beliefs into a new context, the religious identity of the Midewiwin is evident within rites, rituals, and ceremonialism honoring ancient wisdom and sacred narratives. However, due to the esoteric nature of the ancestral religion which it preserves, the exact nature of the Midewiwin was, and continues to be shrouded in mystery.

Works cited:

Angel, Michael. Preserving the Sacred: Historical Perspectives on the Ojibwa Midewiwin University of Manitoba Press, CA. 2002

Bray, Martha Coleman. The Journals of Joseph N. Nicollete Minnesota Historical Society, US. 1970

Brehm, Victoria. ‘The Metamorphoses of an Ojibwa Manido’ American Literature Vol. 68, No. 4, 1996

Densmore, Frances. Uses of Plants by the Chippewa Indians Bureau of American Ethonology, US. 1926

Dewdney, Selwyn. The Sacred Scrolls of the Southern Ojibwa University of Toronto, Canada. 1975

Hickerson, Harold. ‘Notes on the Post-Contact Origin of the Midewiwin’ Ethnohistory Vol. 9, No. 4, 1962

Landes, Ruth. Ojibwa Religion and the Midewiwin University of Wisconsin Press, US. 1968

Ramsey, Jarold. ‘Review of Basil Johnson’s Ojibwa Heritage’ The Journal of American Folklore Vol. 93, No. 367, 1980

Vescey, Christopher. Traditional Ojibwa Religion American Philosophical Society, US. 1983

Yarnell, Richard. Aboriginal Relationships between Culture and Plant Life in the Upper Great Lakes Region University of Michigan, US. 1964