by netage | New Testament Tradition, Spiritual Heritage |
Michael A Rizzotti
Archaeological findings show that the earliest and the most prevalent type of artifacts discovered in Old Europe show an overwhelming concern with female symbolism. They were, in all probability, connected to some form of cultic origin or purpose.1 The discovery of sculptured images and cave paintings of female figures from numerous sites, some dating as far back as twenty five thousand years, reveals a pervasive interest in female artistic representation that suggests some form of Goddess worship. One typical example of the earliest expressions of these figurines was found in the region of Dordogne, France, it depicts a pregnant woman. These little statues, also called Venuses -named after the Roman goddess of love- outnumber their male counterparts ten to one.
These discoveries have a tremendous implication on the theories of the origin and development of the earliest forms of religious beliefs and mythological expressions. According to the archaeological data, these female cultic representations appear to have been pervasive during most of the prehistory of Old Europe. Although archaeologists and anthropologists do not agree on a single theory to explain these discoveries, they nevertheless recognize that they reveal the basis of an elaborate system of cultic life in connection with attributes associated with the goddess worship.
A great number of the figurines, though not all, are early evidence of fertility cults linked to the emergence of agriculture. The sheer abundance of these Venuses confirms nevertheless, an overwhelming feminine presence in the cultural and religious life of prehistoric cultures.
These artifacts represent a wide variety of female functions such as, maturation, menstruation, copulation, pregnancy, birth, and lactation. These goddesses came in different shapes and forms. In some instances, they are represented by animal forms like a snake or a bird. Among the water and air deities some are believed to be cosmic symbols of regeneration and life. Other cases show the figurines as faceless, nude, and corpulent. Others represent women with enormous breasts, buttocks, and protruding abdomens. While the more common ones show women in an advanced stage of pregnancy.
What is most interesting about these discoveries is the consistency and continuity with which these cults evolved from the early stages of history. Gradually, goddess’ representation developed into a complex symbolism of human needs. They presumably arose with the development of agriculture and domestication, and are believed to be responsible for the development of a more complex form of social organization.
It is during the Neolithic Revolution that we begin to see signs of humans mastering their natural environment. Slowly, the main forms of subsistence evolved from hunting and food gathering, to agriculture and the domestication of herd animals.2
Foremost, goddess artifacts have been associated with the fertility cults. Although the survival of the species must have been a central concern of the fertility cults, these goddesses were also, in a broader sense, life creators, a symbol of renewal and socio-cultural regeneration. It is probable that these symbols reflect an important stage in the evolution of symbolic representation of culture in general. As Marija Gimbutas points out, the Great Goddess is much more than a mere fertility goddess.3 She played an essential part in the development of religious symbolism and culture.
Goddess worship cannot be dispelled as only a stage in the evolutionary process, but must be recognized as a fundamental aspect of the primal representation of the human psyche, which Mircea Eliade calls archetypes.4 These discoveries demand a closer scrutiny and a greater attention. They are an indispensable key to fully understanding the past and present religious and mythological world we live in.
And as we have already outlined, gooddess profane representation has been deliberately overshadowed in the Bible. For this reason alone, the continuous study of the primal essence of her being is important. If one takes notice of the growing interest and the ever greater number of books on the subject, her obscurity may only be temporary. And if the momentum persists, we might find the key to unraveling the whole reality of human spirituality.
*
Between the fifth and fourth millennia BCE, the peaceful, sedentary and agricultural societies of Old Europe, in which the Great Goddess, it is believed, played a major role, began to endure the invasion of nomadic patriarchal tribes. The warrior mentality of the god(s) worshipers began to challenge the goddess’ dominion and they began to impose their own cults.5 One possible scenario is that, in time, none of the goddesses retained their supremacy; they were forced into subservience and cast into oblivion.
As centuries passed and as the major cultures of ancient Near East like Egypt and Sumer developed, goddess’ worship retained some its popularity as she shared equal devotion with her male counterparts. In the semi-nomadic tribes of Israel, however, the Goddess was undergoing a propaganda campaign to completely eradicate her reality from their cultic practices. Back then, women were literally and legally the property of men who submitted to the tribal rule of the God of the fathers. These laws and practices reflected the exclusion of the goddess principle from the cultic life of Israel: the God of Israel was believed to be the only superior God, no other god could be worshiped except him. In the process, monotheism thrived at the expense of other gods and goddesses.
We have seen in Genesis and all through the text of the Pentateuch how critical it became to control the progeny through the dominion of women’s fertility. The female’s sexuality had to be checked and maintained under male authority so to preserve the racial origin of the offspring. Women’s behavior was closely regulated by the patriarchal laws, in stark contrast with more ancient matrilineal cultures where life in society was ruled by the legitimacy of the mother’s offspring regardless of who the father was.
As the community life developed into more complex forms of social organization, the symbolic manifestations of the gods and goddesses evolved as well. Cosmologies became more elaborate as they reflected a more complex form of the socio-cultural life they depicted.
From the early stages of prehistory to the emergence of more developed cultures, worship of the Goddess remained more or less pervasive. Although she may have assumed different identities, her essence remained basically the same. Many such goddesses in the ancient Near East were extremely popular and could be found in the most important cultures at the dawn of history.
Among them is Asherah, a Canaanite goddess, alluded by tree symbol in Genesis.
The 1929 discovery of the Ugarit tablets in Ras Shamra, Syria, enabled scholars to decipher that Athirat, of which Asherah is a dialectical variant, is described as the wife of El, the chief god of the Ugaritic pantheon. While El is described as the God, the strong, powerful one, the father, and the creator of creatures, Athirat is portrayed as the creatress of the gods.6 As we have mentioned, El is one of the most ancient references to the Semitic God.
The presence of Asherah in the Bible has provoked considerable scholarly debate. This goddess was worshiped by the Canaanites, a people who spoke a Semitic language in the area that is commonly known today as Palestine and Israel. At different periods of Israel’s history, the goddess was also revered by the Hebrews to the great consternation of the prophets. Ample evidence of her influence is related in the Bible.
One particular episode of Israel’s history is revealing. Following the secession of the northern kingdom of Israel from the southern kingdom of Judah, during Jeroboam’s reign, Asherah was worshiped in the temple of Jerusalem as late as 586 BCE. Even Solomon, who built the temple, worshiped Asherah.7
The goddess principle is a blend of several Near Eastern goddesses: among them, the Canaanites Athirat and Astarte, the Egyptians Qudshu and Anat, as well as the Mesopotamian goddesses Inanna and Ishtar. Asherah was a giver of life and a symbol of fertility, and her cult involved some form of temple prostitution.
The extent to which this particular form of worship had influenced and penetrated Judaism can be seen in details in Biblical texts themselves.8
2 Kings 17:16 And they forsook all the commandments of the lord their God, and made for themselves molten images of two calves; and they made an Ashe’rah, and worshiped all the hosts of heaven, and served Ba’al.
*
Asherah, in the Old Testament, mostly refers to a cultic place or to objects in the form of a wooden stela representing a tree. The tree, as we have outlined, is a predominant symbol of the creation in Genesis. These upright pillars, usually carved with inscriptions, were, for the most part, symbols of human and agricultural fertility. These sculptured wooden images set in the ground next to the god Baal were located on hilltops.9
The Asherah was an important household cult. Numerous small clay figurines of nude women were found all over Palestine. They can be dated from all ages of the Israelite period. These nude clay figurines were kept for private use by the worshipers. Several of these are typical representations of Asherah shown as a woman with protruding breasts. According to this evidence, the worship of the goddess must have been popular among all segments of Hebrew society. The cult, it seems, did not meet serious opposition until the end of the Israelite monarchy.
Asherah was known to the Hebrews since the first settlement in Canaan, after the exodus. Having to depend on agriculture as a means of survival, they probably also turned to the local customs related to the fertility cults, of which Asherah was a predominant goddess.
There is no such thing as a Hebrew goddess in the Bible. There is, however, ample evidence of a strong opposition to her cult. There are numerous passages attesting to the threat that the goddess posed to Yahweh.
Among the many interesting accounts that reveal the presence of Asherah, is the episode in the royal court of Israel during the reign of King Ahab (873-852 BCE). He had married Jezebel, the daughter of the king of Sidon, in order to cement an alliance with her father. Acting under her influence, King Ahab built an altar to Baal in Samaria and made an Asherah.10 In Sidon, Asherah had been worshiped for at least five centuries prior to that. Evidence of her popularity is reflected by the number of guests that are said to have been invited at a feast. On that occasion, the king’s court was filled with 450 prophets of Baal, and 400 prophets of Asherah. The intrusion of these aliens infuriated the prophet Elijah who challenged the Baal prophets to a rain-making contest. The Canaanite god was defeated in a violent uproar led by Elijah and his people. Yahweh was vindicated. Although the account mentions the slaughter of all of Baal’s prophets, there is no word of the outcome of Asherah’s prophets. Why were they spared Yahweh’s wrath? One explanation could be that she was a popular deity among the people. Perhaps, as David Noel Freedman suggests, Yahweh defeated Baal to take Asherah as his own consort. 11
2 Kings 13:6 …the Ashe’rah also remained in Samar’ia.
Although Asherah was a predominant figure, other goddesses were also popular; among them, Astarte, also called Anat, the daughter of Asherah and El. Although Astarte is mentioned 9 times in the Bible compared to 40 times for her mother, she nevertheless surpassed her mother in popularity during certain periods of history. The name Astarte means literally the womb, and she was often called she of the womb. The name is in itself revealing. She, like her mother, was a goddess of fertility, and her brother and consort, was the symbol of male fertility. They were known as the divine couple, and as the begetters.
There are abundant archaeological discoveries that link Egyptian and Canaanite divinities. The discovery at the malachite mines of Serabit el Khadim, on the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt, reveals a similarity between the goddess’ cults in Canaan and Egypt. Numerous small relief plaques have been found in these areas on which the image of the goddess Astarte bears a very close resemblance to the Egyptian images of Isis and Hathor. The latter was also called the Lady of the Sycamore, a common representation that links the symbol of the tree to Asherah. These plaques, for the most part, were found marked with the inscription quadosh -holy. Albright observed that the Canaanite divinities might be more primitive than other forms of worship. He also noted that these Canaanite gods and goddesses have a fluidity of personality and function. In other words, these divinities can change physical shape and form, alter their relationships and identity with other divinities at will, and adopt names of other goddesses with incredible ease.12
As we explained, Yahweh emerged from a revelation in the desert. The exodus was the return to a semi-nomadic way of life similar to the herdsmanship of the Patriarchs before their move to Egypt. Furthermore, the journey toward the promised land was favorable neither for agriculture nor for the cults related to fertility, as evidenced by the manna, the food God sent from the sky. Yahweh thrived in the desert where the isolation helped to develop the fundamental precept of the opposition to other gods and Asherah.
Judg. 2:13 They forsook the lord, and served the Ba’als and the Ash’taroth.13
The worship of the goddess Asherah was reported in the scriptures as continually antagonizing Yahweh.14 The texts often refer to the deity as Ashtoreth, a derogative name that implied shame.
1 Sam. 7:3 Then Samuel said to all the house of Israel, “If you are returning to the lord with all your heart, then put away the foreign gods and the Ash’taroth from among you, and direct your heart to the lord, and serve him only, and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines.” So Israel put away the Ba’als and the Ash’taroth, and they served the lord only.
The commandment is very explicit. It does not allow the worship of any molten image or any goddess. Although the prohibition to worship any other gods does not exclusively refer to Asherah, the goddess of fertility is, without a doubt, a primal target. Was the first commandment specifically directed toward the popular goddess Asherah? One thing is certain, the goddess’ worship was a threat to Yahweh’s patriarchal precepts.
What is remarkable about Exodus is that it remains, for the people of Israel, the most sacred event, and the most sacred narrative. Everything in Judaism is centered around the text: Yahweh, Moses, the alliance, the commandments, the law, the ark, and the promised land. Most of the original religious experience stems from the revelation of Yahweh as a jealous God opposed to any other god.
Yet Judaism is not devoid of the feminine aspect of the divinity. The shekhinah is often used by the Talmudic tradition to describe a mystical presence of God. The concept eventually developed into a spiritual entity that personified a compassionate figure, mostly with feminine attributes, that sometimes argued with God in defense of the humans. The shekhinah was a mediating agent between the divine and the human. The Hebrew word shekhinah means dwelling or resting place, but it is more commonly used in the sense of presence. The word first appeared in early rabbinical literature as it referred to the divine presence in the tabernacle. It eventually came to signify God’s presence among the people of Israel.
The rabbis believe that the shekhinah had a close and privileged relationship with Moses. According to the Talmudic tradition, the feminine companion was present from his childhood through his adult life, continually communicating with him. Moses even left his wife to be closer to his shekhinah.15
The Mother of God
The Gospels herald a new era. A transition from the Old tradition to the New. The Bible’s emphasis on God of the Fathers is shifted to God the Son. The imageless features of the Father become visible in the Incarnation of the Word. The promised land of old is replaced by the quest for the kingdom of Heaven. The two kingdoms are visionary anticipations of an-other world created by the Word.
The new Christian era also inaugurates new relationships: between the divine Father and his Son, but also between the Mother of God and her child Jesus.
The Incarnation brings forth the question of the birth of Jesus. Although John the Evangelist identifies the origin of Jesus with the Word in Genesis, Matthew and Luke relate the birth of Christ to his virgin Mother. Mary’s motherhood is, henceforth, put in the foreground. In Genesis, man’s inception is shaped by divine hands, with the dust from the ground, then God breaths life into it, while the woman is an afterthought, ironically born of man’s own flesh. In Matthew and Luke, however, Mary is the matrix of the Messiah’s birth. Perhaps inconspicuously, the narratives open the door to Mary as the Mother of God, a symbolic link toward the primordial Great Mother.
Except for the birth narratives, her image is overshadowed by her son’s mission. Yet while Jesus speaks constantly of his absent Father, it is his mother who is present at the most crucial moments of his life. She conceives Jesus Christ with the spiritual intervention of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is born human through her, and divine through the Spirit; hence, the Incarnation. At Cana, Mary asks Jesus to perform his first miracle, the first of his signs, which inaugurates his public life. At his crucifixion, the culmination of her son’s mission, she witnesses her son’s whole life cycle: his birth, his mission, and his death. Her presence symbolizes her son’s sacrifice as well as hers.
It is another Mary, however, that is present at Jesus’ resurrection. It is Mary Magdalene, Jesus’ loved one, who first sees the resurrected body of Christ. Finally, at the Pentecost, both Marys and all of the other disciples are reunited and are filled with the Holy Spirit.
Mary is described, in the Gospels, as the mother of Jesus. Only later, at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD, would she gain the title of theotokos; ie, the Mother of God.
Ephesus, by a freak historical coincidence, was also the site of the most famous temples of Artemis. In Greek mythology, she was the goddess of chastity and of the hunt, similar to her Roman counterpart Diana. Although she is known as parthenos, as both maiden and virgin, she was also the goddess of childbirth. In many ways, Artemis also typifies the prehistoric archetype of the goddess of fertility and regeneration popular in Old Europe.
At the outset, Artemis was the prototype of the Great Goddess. Later, her role in Greek mythology was transformed into that of a virgin. This image of the maiden or the virgin could be seen as further evidence of the patriarchal/hierarchical representation of women’s sexuality in mythology.16
The title of God’s bearer, given to Mary at Ephesus, does not confer upon her the divine attribute of goddess, even though the sacred affiliation to her Son gives her somewhat of a divine right. Although Christianity has no goddess per se, the Mother of God shares many similar attributes and functions. And despite the fact that Mary does not play a prominent role in the New Testament, her image has developed into a cult of great following and devotion. Mary’s devotion, especially if seen by non-Catholics, is, in many ways, comparable to a goddess’.
The birth narratives are the most eloquent about Mary’s identity.17 It is through these texts that she has been immortalized as the Mother of God. It is that image that is most present in our minds. Foremost, the virginal conception has been the center of important theological debates, especially with the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception defined by Pius IX in 1854.18
The virginal birth of Jesus is one among many examples of the role that virginity plays in the world of mythologies. There are other parallels to be found among founders of other religions who were also born of virgins: Buddha, Krishna, the son of Zoroaster, and, in some versions, Zoroaster himself. In Greek and Roman mythologies, heroes born to virgins are typified by Dionysos, Romulus and Remus. The concept of virginal birth can also be found in most ancient cultures like Egypt, Greece, Persia, and India. The concept is also prominent in the native North American cultures like the Inuit, the Apache, and the Navajo.
Most of the examples point to the heroes whose mothers were virgin as a sign of their greatness, but not necessarily to the virginity per se. In other words, the fact that these heroes were portrayed as being born to a virgin is a sign of their supernatural origin. In the language of myth, the supernatural quality of the heroes is attested through a virgin mother as a sign that separates them from ordinary people. In a sense, the cause of their greatness might be connected to the unique and exclusive relationship they had with their mother. The virginity may be tied to the unconditional nature of the relationship between the mother and the child. It also infers the woman’s independence and self-sufficiency in her role of mother. It suggests that the fertility is rooted in herself and is self-contained.
In mythology, there seems to be no apparent contradiction in the belief that a mother can also be a virgin. In order to understand the virginal conception, one has to see it in the light of mythological significance. As a specific form of language, myth deals in a metaphysical and metaphorical dimension. The physical world is differentiated from metaphysical as it relates to two distinct semantic realities. Such is the distinction between spiritual conception and the physical -or sexual- conception of Christ. Moreover, the word conception is equivocal. Both the physical and metaphysical sense can be implied. It allows for two types of relationships; between man and woman in procreation, and between mother and child in gestation.
The virginal conception depicts the relationship between Mother and Son as one of devotion, a unique and special spiritual bond, so to speak. It implies a dynamic revelation of the Holy Spirit by Mary in her conception of Christ. Her virginity relates more to her spiritual relationship with her Son than to a biological state or her sexual behavior with a father who remains in the background.19 In other words, between mother and child, we can speak of a pure, spiritual, and unconditional love.
Mother >child>virginity = spiritual conception
woman>man>sexual relation = physical conception
The word conception should be understood here in the context of its two meanings. First, in the spiritual sense, as the faculty of conceiving in the mind. Second, as procreation, the action of conceiving in the womb. On one hand, the Virgin Mary, through the spiritual revelation of the Holy Spirit, conceived of Christ according to tradition. In this sense, the Holy Spirit is not to be understood as the male element in the intervention, but as God’s presence which Mary acknowledges.20 On the other hand, the birth of Jesus the man is biological, historical. Here, the parthenogenesis of Jesus underlines the unique relationship between Mary and Jesus. Both conceptions make up the mystery in which the Son of man and the Son of God meet in the Incarnation of Jesus/Christ, the Son/God.
Holy Spirit > Virgin Mary > Christ = Jesus Christ
Mary’s revelation > Mary’s body > Jesus
*
Another important event in Mariology took place in 1950 when Pope Pius XII defined the dogma of the Assumption of Mary. This dogma confirms that Mary, the virgin mother of God, was taken into heaven in body and soul.
The likeness between God’s Mother and her divine Son, in the way of the nobility and dignity of body and soul -a likeness that forbids us to think of the heavenly Queen as being separated from the heavenly King- makes it entirely imperative that Mary “should be only where Christ is”.21
The epithet Queen of Heaven is a title also shared by Astarte and Asherah.22 Even though theological doctrine forbids any connection between the Virgin Mary and the pagan goddesses, it remains interesting that a similar name came up to describe the Mother of God. It just shows that the archetype of the Goddess principle is always present deep in the human psyche. If we compare some other attributes and names associated with the goddess we come up with this:
MARY ASHERA
heavenly Queen Queen of heaven
Mother of God Creator of gods
mother of Jesus fertility goddess
MARY ASTARTE
conceived in her womb Astarte, the womb
We have seen how the goddess principle has been opposed in the Old Testament and overshadowed in the New, until only a glimpse of her image could be perceived in the background. Throughout history, her epithets and names may have changed yet her essence remained the same.
The Church, in its own spiritual way, acknowledged her being since the mid-nineteenth century. In 1858, Mary appeared in Lourdes, France, where her Spirit performed numerous miracles. She appeared again in Fatima, Portugal, in 1917. And lately, visions of her being have been reported in Medugorje, Yugoslavia. Her apparitions are expressions of a deep longing for her spiritual being and are signs of spiritual as well as political change.23
________________________
1 See Marija Gimbutas, The Language of the Goddess, San Francisco, Harper and Row, 1989.
2 James Mellaart, Earliest Civilizations of the Near East, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1965.
3 Marija Gimbutas, Ibid., 316-317.
4 Mircea Eliade, Cosmos and History, New York, Harper Torchbooks, 1959.
5 The abundant discoveries of that period’s arms may help corroborate and justify such a theory.
6 A common trait of the divinities of the time is that the male gods tended to represent a reality statically, whereas their female consorts were thought of as bringing that reality into action. See William J. Fulco, SJ., The Canaanite God Resep, New Haven, American Oriental Society, 1976.
7 1 Kings 11:5; 15:13; 2 Kings 17:16f.
8 The name Asherah with the more commonly masculine plural Asherim was used in the Bible. See also Kings 18:17-19; 1 Kings 14:23; 2 Kings 13:6, 21:7, 23:6f.; Jeremiah 7:17-18; 44:17-25, etc.
9 See Raphael Patai’s chapter on Asherah in, The Hebrew Goddess, New York, Avon Books, 1978.
10 1 Kings 16:32-33; 18:19-40.
11 See David Noel Freedman’s, Yahweh of Samaria and His Asherah, in, Biblical Archeologist, December 1987, 249. In another event, the narrative describes how Asherah also escaped the Baalist massacre and the destruction of Baal’s temple in Samaria during yet another Yahwist uprising.
12 William Foxwell Albright, Archeology and the Religion of Israel, Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins Press, 1968, 71 ff.
13 Also: Judg.10:6; 1 Sam. 7:3-4; 31:10.
14 Judg. 2:13, 3:7; 1 Sam. 7:3-4.
15 The Talmud also associates the divine essence with the Spirit of God. Both expressions relate to God’s presence and closeness with his people.
16 Carol P. Christ, Symbols of Goddess and God in Feminist Theology, in, The Book of Goddess Past and Present, ed. by Carl Olson, New York, Crossroad, 1983, 231-251.
17 The Koran also makes some eloquent and reverential references to Mary (Surahs 3 and 19).
18 Pius IX, Immaculate Conception, Ineffabilis Deus, DS 2803, issued December 8, 1854, Boston, St-Paul Books and Media.
19 The narratives describe man’s participation, as portrayed by Joseph, as secondary. Mary is described as “betrothed” to Joseph, but he did not “know” her -a word used to imply sexual union. Nevertheless, Joseph, by recognizing Jesus as his child though he was not his own, became his legal father according to Jewish law.
20 In Hebrew, the word for spirit has a rather feminine connotation which corroborates, in this instance, Mary’s “spiritual” act of conceiving God.
21 Pius XII, Assumption, Munificentissimus Deus, DS 3903, issued November 1, 1950, Boston, St-Paul Books & Media, 15.
22 Merlin Stone, When God Was a Woman, San Diego, Harvest/HBJ Book, 1976, 163 ff.
23 As Karl Rahner points out, visions and apparitions must be interpreted as spiritual expressions of deep mystical feelings rather than inexplicable physical marvels. When the Church investigates the validity of such visions, for instance, it does not examine the physical evidence of the apparition but the spiritual trustworthiness of the people who experience such happenings. See, Karl Rahner’s, Visions and Prophecies, London, Burns and Oates, 1963.
by netage | New Testament Tradition, Spiritual Heritage |
Michael A Rizzotti
We have dealt with two of the persons of the Trinity in other essays. In order to complete the triune essence of God, we will now focus our attention on the Holy Spirit. Among the three, its identity is the most evanescent.
The Spirit is the most enduring epithet of God. We can find it from the first verses of Genesis to the last pages of the Book of revelation.
In the Old Testament, the Spirit is portrayed as the vitalizing force behind God’s activity. The word ruah, spirit in Hebrew, also means wind.1
The words spirit and breath are also linked in a special fashion to the creation of the world. As related in Genesis, God breathes his Spirit into man and gives him life.2 Breathing suggests the physical act of inhaling and exhaling the wind. It also depicts the inner and outer omnipresent reality of the Spirit of God in nature. As such, the life giving Spirit alludes to the unfathomable mystery of the origin of life.
The concept of a deity breathing life into man is not exclusive to Judaism and was prevalent in the ancient Near East. Similar Babylonian and Egyptian mythologies associate the breathing activity with the origin and animation of all life.
Although the Old Testament uses the epithet Spirit of God, it does not speak of the Holy Spirit per se. The appellative Spirit of God became popular in late Old Testament narratives to replace the name of God by its attributes. The epithet did not infer the idea that the Spirit was a person either. Nevertheless, the meaning of Spirit of God and Holy Spirit are synonymous, since one meaning of the word holy is “of God”. Only in the New Testament narratives did the Holy Spirit take an identity of its own.3
In the Scriptures, the Spirit of God became the inspiration given to prophets called to speak the word of God.4 In this sense, the presence of the Spirit is akin to the unfathomable ways in which the wind, of which the prophet is filled, blows in the desert. Similarly, speaking gives the un-vocalized Hebrew alphabet meaning and sense.
Ezek. 1:28 Such was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard the voice of one speaking. And he said to me “Son of man, stand upon your feet, and I will speak with you.” And when he spoke to me, the Spirit entered into me and set me upon my feet; and I heard him speaking to me.
The Spirit infuses the gift of understanding and communication. Without this gift, the prophet would not be able to understand the word or message of God: in the Spirit of the Word lies the essence of all meaning.
Similarly, Mary is filled with the presence of the Spirit and understands the full extent of the message of God in regards to the virginal conception of her son Jesus Christ.
In Isaiah, the Spirit of God is linked in a special way with the covenant. The original expectations of the Spirit of God were mainly centered on the physical strength and power of Israel, especially in the heroic exploits of war. These hopes were successively transformed into a more messianic message of salvation.
*
John the Baptist, in the Gospels, is paralleled to the prophets of the Old Testament when he acknowledges the presence of the Holy Spirit descending as a dove on Jesus at his baptism, John under-stands the presence of the Spirit of God in Jesus.
Jesus’ birth, baptism, and resurrection all share the presence of the Holy Spirit. All three are symbols of conception and re-birth. At the baptism, the Father and the Holy Spirit are present revealing the Trinity at work. They all bear witness to the power of God’s self communication as the Word becomes flesh in Jesus Christ. The Incarnation is the proof of the ongoing relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
At the baptism, the Holy Spirit is described in all four Gospels as a dove descending from heaven.6 The symbol of the dove is a privileged metaphor that describes the essence and identity of the Holy Spirit. It is a symbol rich in significance even in the Old Testament.
The doves referred to in the Scriptures are of two species: the turtledove and the young pigeon. The Hebrew word yona is a general designation for various species of doves that lived in the Middle-East.
In the Old Testament, the dove is mentioned in the flood as bringing back a “freshly plucked olive leaf” to confirm that the land is now safe and fertile again.7
A popular character of the Old Testament also bears the name Yona; i.e., Jonas. The word literally means, moaner. This is the same Jonas who was swallowed up by the whale and spit out three days later: an allegory that parallels the inside of the whale to the womb in which the hero undergoes the mythical journey of death and rebirth.
The dove is also paralleled to the sacrificial offerings. In Leviticus, the law prescribes the offering of two turtledoves or two young pigeons for a woman’s purification after childbirth.8 One bird is set aside as a burnt offering and the other for sin offering. These doves are prescribed as substitutes when the woman cannot afford the sacrifice of the more expensive lamb, further correlating the dove with the poor.
Isa. 38:14 Like a swallow or a crane I clamor,
I moan like a dove.
My eyes are weary with looking upward.
O Lord, I am oppressed; be thou my security! 9
*
In the symbolic representations of Old Europe, the dove was associated with the Goddess.10 In ancient Near East, the bird was usually identified with the chief female goddess of fertility. In the temple of Ishtar, the dove was connected to the goddess, and the prostitutes who participated in the cults were called the doves of the temple. The dove was also known to represent the goddess Aphrodite.11 We know from the writings of Homer that Athena and Hera also assumed the guise of the dove.
Because of the widespread influence of Hellenism in Palestine in Jesus’ times, the four Evangelists must have been aware that the dove was the symbol of the goddess Aphrodite. The New Testament was written in koine, a Greek language. It was commonly spoken throughout Palestine during the time the Evangelists wrote the Gospels. In light of this, might it be possible that their representation of the dove as a metaphor for the Holy Spirit was meant to suggest a connection to the goddess principle?
Mt. 10:16 …so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.12
*
The Holy Spirit’s presence at Mary’s conception of Christ inaugurates his own sacred identity.
Later, Jesus is depicted as being full of the Holy Spirit. He is led by the Spirit to the desert to fast for forty days, at the end of which period he is tempted by the devil. A parallel is made to the people of Israel’s own journey in the wilderness. When he returns to Galilee, he comes back with the power of the Spirit.
At the end of his public life, Christ tells his disciples that he will send another “Counselor” as soon as he leaves this world. The narratives use the word paraclete which is taken from the Greek parakletos meaning helper, intercessor, and advocate. This term commonly refers to the Holy Spirit. This Counselor is present at all times, ready to teach and guide into all truth. He is described as another entity with a mode of being all of his own, distinct from the Father’s and the Son’s. And although he has a life of his own, he shares the same divine substance as God.
Mt. 28:19 Go therefore make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Baptism is the most celebrated symbol of spiritual re-birth. In the quote above, Jesus’ last words give his apostles the authority to baptize in the name of the three persons of the Trinity. He also breaths on them the Holy Spirit. The same gift of life given to Adam by God at the beginning.
*
The synoptic accounts end with Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. More evidence of the life of the Spirit is found in the Acts of the Apostles to fulfill the promise Jesus had made to his followers.
At the Pentecost, the additional sign of the presence and identity of the Holy Spirit manifests itself as all the disciples are gathered in an upper room where Mary the mother of Jesus is also present. Luke takes special care to mention that a group of women who followed Jesus throughout his public life, and who remained in the shadow of the male disciples, are there as well. Suddenly, a mighty wind fills the room and tongues of fire appear on every single one of them. Everybody is swiftly filled by the power of the Holy Spirit. They soon realize that they can speak in other tongues. The Paraclete vented to them the gift of communication. But most important of all, the Holy Spirit provided them with the power of Christ’s authority.
Acts. 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they wondered; and they recognized that they had been with Jesus.
*
It is through the Holy Spirit that the disciples spread the Word to small groups of ecclesiae who began to diffuse throughout Palestine and Rome.13 These early Christians, who were for the most part Jews, believed in the impending return of Christ and the imminent fall of the empire. Neither materialized.
Their faith remained steadfast despite the Roman persecution. They were unaware that unforeseeable events would soon favor their faith to expand throughout the Roman empire.
One of these events was the sudden conversion of Constantine, in 312 AD. Constantine reportedly witnessed the sight of a luminous cross in the sky. The vision had a message attached to it which read: In hoc signo vinces; e.g., With this sign you will win. He ordered that the symbol of the cross be put on all of his soldiers’ shields. The battles he fought and won afterwards strengthened his belief on the benefit of this emblem symbolizing the new faith. As soon as he became Emperor, he made Christianity the official religion of Rome.
As the Church flourished, it spread to the limits of the Roman empire and beyond. Church officials soon gathered in councils to resolve matters of faith and doctrine in order to dispel a number of heresies that were emerging among the believers. During the councils of Nicaea (325 CE) and Constantinople (382 CE), the creed of the Holy Spirit was promulgated. At these councils, the Holy Spirit was defined as the Lord, the giver of life.
___________________
1 In ancient Near East, the wind was regarded as the mysterious force associated with fertility, and the bringer of life. See Walter Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, vol.1, London, SCM Press, 1967, 46.
2 See Gen. 1:2; 2:7; 6:3; Ps. 33:6; 104:99f; 146:4; Job 12:10; 27:3; 34:14f; Ezek. 37:7-10.
3 See Yves M.J. Congar, The Word and the Spirit, San Francisco, Harper & Row Publishers, 1986; also, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, vol. 1 to 3, New York, The Seabury Press, 1983; and, Esprit de l’Homme, Esprit de Dieu, Paris, Les Editions du Cerf, 1983.
4 The Hebrew word for prophet is nabi’ which is translated into “called”. 1 Sam. 10:6; 16:14; Hos. 9:7; Ezek. 2:2; 3:12f.
5 Is. 59:21.
6 Mt. 3:16; Mk. 1:10; Lk. 3:22; Jn.1:32.
7 Gen. 8:11.
8 See also, Lk. 2:24; Lev. 1:14; 12:1-8.
9 The Old Testament links the symbol of the dove to the poor and the oppressed.
10 See, Marija Gimbutas, The Language of the Goddess, San Francisco, Harper & Row, 1989, 318-319.
11 Erwin R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, vol.8; Pagan Symbolism in Judaism, New York, Pantheon Books, 1958, 27-46.
12 Although the quote which is attributed to Jesus may appear at first hand innocuous, it is in fact an older Syrian aphorism which invocates the attributes of the God and the Goddess. See Barbara G. Walker, The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, San Francisco, Harper and Row, 1983, 252-254.
13 Which translated into assemblies or the more common churches and the Church.
14 This creed also states that the Holy Spirit spoke through the Prophets.
by netage | New Testament Tradition, Spiritual Heritage |
Michael A Rizzotti
A logical sequence to the essay God the Father brings us to the person of Jesus Christ although the concept of the Incarnation is not present in the Old Testament since any image of God is forbidden. As we have said, in Judaism the name of Yahweh is so sacred that it is not even uttered. And even though the Old and the New Testaments appear incompatible in view of this conflicting and fundamental issue, the Gospels advocate and describe a transition between the old tradition and a new one. The New Testament inaugurates an-other religious reality: that of the Son of God, the Word Incarnate.
The word Gospel is a derivative of godspel, meaning “good tidings”. The original word in Greek meant “the good news” translated from the Hebrew word bissar, meaning “herald of good tidings” or “to bring the good news of salvation”.1
None of the authors of the Gospels knew or met Jesus. Their personal account of the life of Jesus is nonetheless a revelation of their own faith in Christ. Unlike the Pentateuch, each Gospel is written by a single author. They were in all likelihood written between 60 and 90 CE.
The core of the narratives that relates the life of Jesus is made up of the three synoptic Gospels. These accounts are called synoptic because they share a common perspective; they are the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The fourth one, the Gospel of John, does not share the same chronology of Jesus’ life.2 Matthew and Luke have a richer material than Mark, and although they complement each other, they also differ in many important facts.
We will not debate here the synoptic problem of the parallels and incongruities between the texts. Instead we will focus on the fundamental themes and chronology of Jesus’ life.
In accordance with tradition, the Gospel of Matthew begins with the genealogy of Joseph, Jesus’ legal father. This most important theme of the Bible is carefully perpetuated in the first narrative. From Adam, to “the generations of Adam”, to Noah, to Shem, and to Abraham, etc…3 The evangelist establishes Joseph as the legal heir to the Fathers. Notwithstanding that Jesus is not Joseph’s biological son but his legal one.
Among the ancestors enumerated in the genealogy are the names of four women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathshebah (Uriah’s wife). One explanation for their presence in a patriarchal lineage is perhaps to make a connection between Mary’s virginal conception and the irregular nature of the union of these women with their own partners.4 For instance, Tamar took the initiative in her scandalous union with Judah. Rahab had been a prostitute but she nevertheless made it possible for Israel to enter the promised land. Ruth was responsible for an irregular union with Boaz without which there may not have been a Davidic line. And finally Uriah’s wife, Bethshebah, had an affair with David that resulted in the birth of Solomon.
In post-biblical Jewish piety, the circumstances surrounding these unconventional events were seen as the work of the Spirit of God. All these examples show the unfathomable and intriguing nature of God’s intervention in human affairs as a way to influence the course of history.
*
In Matthew, the dreams of Joseph are paralleled with Joseph (in Genesis) whose ability to read dreams brought his people into Egypt and saved them from famine. Joseph, in the New Testament, also has dreams where God tells him to flee to Egypt in order to save Jesus from the murderous hands of Herod. By bringing Jesus to Egypt, he providentially relives the experience of the people of Israel.5
Biblical typology
Old Testament sequence:
Joseph’s dreams bring his people to Egypt and save them from famine
Moses escapes from the wicked hands of the Pharaoh.
Moses delivers his people out of Egypt to the promised land.
Moses wanders forty years in the desert.
New Testament sequence:
Joseph’s dreams bri ng his family to Egypt and savehis child from Herod
Jesus escapes from the hands of the wicked Herod
Joseph leaves Egypt and comes back to Galilee
Jesus fasts forty days in the desert
As soon as the Pharaoh dies, Moses is able to return safely to Egypt. Likewise, Jesus is able to return to Nazareth as soon as Herod dies. Upon Jesus’ return from Egypt, he relives the Exodus and the coming to the promised land.
Moses’ untimely death unable him to see the promised land and the journey is completed by Joshua. The name Jesus is a nickname of Joshua. The analogy and symbolism underlined by the typologies are insightful.
The Evangelists describe the link between the Old tradition and the New. Moses didn’t live to see the promised land, Joshua did. Therefore, when Mary is told to call her son Jesus -Joshua- a new quest for the promised land has begun.
In the beginning of his journey Jesus is first led away from Bethlehem, the city of David, the King of Jews, and brought back to Galilee, the land of the Gentiles. He takes up residence in Nazareth where he begins his mission and becomes known as Jesus the Nazarene. Here the Gospels have taken up the difficult task of reconciling the Old tradition with the New in announcing the “good news” to all the people, Jews and Gentiles alike.
Jesus’ identity is best related to in terms of his relationship with his God/Father and the world. He described himself as a spiritual physician, a shepherd to his people, a divinely authorized prophet. Foremost, Jesus calls himself the Son of man. This latter epithet may have been used by Jesus as a way to describe himself simply as someone in the quality of a human being. He also described his God simply as abba or “dear father”, or dad. In this sense the relationship between him and his Father is a very personal and intimate one.
*
During Pompey’s conquest of Jerusalem in 63 BCE, the priests ruled Israel. It was under the control of the Roman emperors Anthony and Octavian that the reign of Herod the Great began (37-4 BCE). Herod was known to be tyrannical yet competent. He was subservient to Rome but harsh and violent with his people. At his death he divided his kingdom among his three sons. Rome, however, did not confer upon them the title of king. The kingdom of Judaea and the title of ethnarch was bestowed to Archelaus. The kingdom of Galilee and Perea was given to Antipas, also known as Herod the tetrarch whom Jesus called “that fox”: the one who executed John the Baptist. And finally, the north-eastern territory of the Sea of Galilee, was given to Philip with the title of tetrarch also. Of all the three sons, Archelaus was most like his father, except that he was more violent and less competent. For that reason, representatives of the Jewish aristocracy went to Rome to complain about the despotic ruler hoping that Rome would allow them to reinstate a Jewish theocracy. Augustus recognized their plea and banished Archelaus from his office but put Judaea under the status of a third-class province governed by a procurator appointed by Rome.
At that time, the territory of Judea, especially Jerusalem, was the center of Jewish worship. Jerusalem, more precisely its temple, was believed to be the heart of true Judaism. The territory outside it was considered to be unclean and impure. This was particularly the case of neighboring Galilee which was made up of a Jewish and non-Jewish population of Syrians and Greeks, still heavily influenced by Hellenism.6
The change in the political status of Judea also meant that it had to pay its taxes directly to Rome. This enraged a number of Jewish people because it was considered sacrilegious to pay tribute directly to a foreign and heathen ruler. To appease the Jews, and as a gesture of good will, Augustus decreed that synagogues were inviolable and Jews were to be exempt from appearing in court on their Sabbath.7
It was because of the foreign collection of these taxes that Judas the Galilean led a Jewish revolt against Rome in 6 CE. Although the uprising was firmly suppressed, the seeds of discontent were rooted among the radicals of the land. Rebellious ideals were further fomented by a group of Zealots that kept the spirit of revolt alive for the next two generations.
The peaceful coexistence between the procurators and the high priests went on more or less smoothly inasmuch as the high priests continued to pay the Roman representatives bribes to keep their office. It was a practice that accommodated the priests and enriched the procurators. It is not surprising that under these circumstances the high-priesthood had lost the respect of the population. Only the richest priestly families were able to retain their sacred office. Such was the case of Joseph Caiaphas (18-36 CE) who managed to keep his office despite the nomination of Poncius Pilate (26-36 CE). These arrangements, however, did not guarantee a good relationship between Rome and Judea.
It turned out that Poncius Pilate had an uncanny ability to offend Jewish susceptibility. On one occasion, in an act of deliberate spite, he had put a dedication to the Emperor on Herod’s palace. The Jewish elite was greatly insulted by it. They soon sent a deputation to Tiberius to complain about the emblem. They argued that the procurator had not put his name on the Jerusalem’s palace to honor him but simply to annoy them. Tiberius in a gesture of good will ordered the shields to be taken down.
Although Rome was firmly in control of Judaea, it shared some of its power with the clerical elite as a peaceful accommodation. The Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes, were among the priestly schools of thought ─haeresis─ which began to flourish during the Hasmonean resistance (167-164 BC).
The Pharisees believed in the written laws of Moses, but contrary to the Sadducees and the Essenes, they also believed in the oral laws handed down to them by the Fathers. They believed in the resurrection of the body for the good soul, and eternal damnation for the wicked. The name Pharisees is derived from the Greek translation of the Hebrew perushim meaning separatists, deviants, or heretics. They were called so because these people were so scrupulous about the laws and rituals that they separated themselves from the less observant masses, the ‘ammei ha-arets.8
The Sadducees were the other major group of priests that flourished in Jerusalem during Jesus’ life. They claimed to be the direct descendants of Zadok, the high priest in Solomon’s temple. They were called tseduquim. Contrary to the Pharisees, they believed that only the written laws were to be observed. This brought the Pharisees and the Sadducees in bitter conflict. In addition, the Sadducees did not share the Pharisees’ belief in the immortality of the soul nor did they believe in the resurrection of the body. Despite all their differences, they managed to coexist and the two groups shared their priestly duties in the temple. The most notorious Sadducee is Caiaphas, the high priest who took part in Jesus’ trial.
The Pharisees had come to formulate a doctrine of the two realms: render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s. In accordance to this doctrine the Pharisees tolerated that the people paid their taxes to Rome. It permitted a compromise in matters regarding the state, as long as it did not interfere with their religious affairs.
But the compromise was seen by the more radical groups as an act of treason. A group of these revolutionaries, called the Fourth Philosophy, gave the Romans and Jewish collaborators a hard time until they all committed suicide in the fortress of Masada in 73 CE.
Among the many priestly characteristics that are severely criticized by Jesus in the narrative is their scrupulous and hypocritical application of the law. The overwhelming preoccupation with purity and reward supplanted a simple and unadorned piety. The conscientious concern with legal requirements mostly void of any inward religious feelings transformed the ethical into the judicial: the moral and religious were replaced by the legal and formal. In other words, the Spirit of the law was replaced by the letter of the law and by endless litigation.
Pharisees/scribes
sacred/law vs profane/common
pietists vs masses
pure vs impure
clean vs unclean
Every single aspect of the historical, political, economical, social, and religious context in which Jesus Christ lived and died is important. Every one of these factors help to understand the development of events that led to the culmination of Jesus Christ.
As we will see, the miracles are the clearest signs of Jesus’ earthly activity. They delineate whom Jesus privileged with his presence. The miracles are the signs that separate those who were metamorphosed by his message and those who opposed it. Among his opponents were the priests and the religious elite of Jerusalem.
The Gospels recount Jesus’ mission among the people, who for the most part were outcasts. The narratives show that he directed the attention on them by performing his miracles. The narratives describe these miracles as signs.9 The narratives also use the words mighty deeds, and manifestations of power. The term power here should be understood in the sense of Jesus’ active presence among the outcasts who have no rank or standing among the principalities and powers of this world. The miracles are meant to point out the significant social condition in which the outcasts live. In this context the miracles are a banner that circumscribe Jesus’ ministry.
In the Old Testament the sign is used as the invisible active power of God. The book of Genesis shows how numerous symbols of nature are used to emphasize the sacred events in history. Similarly, in Genesis the sun and the moon are signs -symbols- for seasons, days and years, the circumcision, a sign of the covenant (Gen. 17:10), and the sign of blood on the door in Exodus heralds the pass over (Ex. 12:13). God uses signs as symbols to indicate his will to the hearer.
Isa. 7:13 And he said , “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? Therefore the lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman (or virgin) shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Imman’u-el.”10
*
The first miracle related in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke is the virginal conception. The quote of Isaiah above is an important parallel that links the virginal birth of Jesus to the Old Testament. Throughout the narratives the Evangelists take a great deal of care in legitimizing Jesus as the Messiah prophesied in the Bible. The reason for such a concern becomes clearer as Jesus is confronted by accusations from the religious elite about his origins and authority. Not only does Jesus come from Galilee, the land of the aliens and heathens, but he arrogantly questions the honesty of the priesthood. They, in return, challenge the origin of his power to perform miracles since only God can perform miracles.11
We have talked about the miracles as signs that circumscribe Jesus’ message of faith. The physical account of the cures, the exorcisms, the raising of the dead, the multiplication of the breads, all point to a violation of the laws of nature. Since all four Evangelists, each in their own way, confirm the reality of the physical aspect of the miracles in the narrative, it is impossible to fully elucidate their reality. Although the mystery involving their physical nature and origin may not be explained, these signs point to the whole purpose of Jesus’ ministry rather than the mysterious origin of his powers. In this sense, he uses the miracles to direct the attention toward a certain category of people, who for the most part, are segregated by society. His aim is to circumscribe the alien and marginal side of the religious reality.
types of miracles
1) the healings: sick, lepers, handicapped
2) exorcisms: casting out demon and evil spirits
3) feeding the hungry and poor
4) raising the dead
5) calming the storm, changing the water into wine
who benefits from the miracles
1) the forgotten: the sick, the poor, and the hungry
2) the outcasts: the lepers, the possessed
3) the helpless: the handicapped, the dead
4) the foreigners: Romans, strangers, pagans
5) the outsiders: the women, the children
If we take a close look a the list above, we can illustrate beneficiaries as the powerless: the ignored and the forgotten of society.
On the opposite side, those who reject the miracles and condemn Jesus:
Jesus’ adversaries
1) the Pharisees, the scribes, the Sadducees, the high priest Caiaphas
2) the elders, the lawyers (Lk. 11:52)
3) the crowds, and the cities (Mt. 8:34, 11:20-24)
4) the merchants in the temple
5) the Roman procurator
This list characterizes the people in political, religious or economic position of power . If we look into this classification more closely, we can detect the whole spectrum of power and hierarchy in society:
the spiritual: the high priest, Sadducees, the Pharisees
the intellectual: the Pharisees, the scribes, the lawyers
the economical: the high priest, the merchants
the political: the Roman procurator, the high priest, the crowd, the Zealots.
Hence the antagonism appears as follows:
established power clusters vs emergent communities
*
From the beginning, Jesus’ religious authority is questioned by the skeptics, setting apart those who believe and those who reject Jesus Christ. Drawing the boundaries of his Kingdom of God, Jesus’ realm is set up against the worldly powers. The antagonism becomes even more evident as it culminates with his crucifixion. The progression of events that leads to Jesus’ death unfolds quickly. On the cross, except for a few loyal followers, he is abandoned by all.
As the drama unfolds, Jesus gathers numerous followers. At the same time he is confronted by an increasing number of foes. The dividing line between them becomes clearer. His message of love widens the gap between those who believe him and those who reject him. With the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus inaugurates a new law in which love is the only requisite. This new law transcends the old one, which further antagonizes the religious elite of Jerusalem.12
Although the Evangelists take great care in legitimizing Jesus as the Messiah, the priests of Jerusalem question his authority because of his Galilean origin. From the outset Jesus is opposed by the religious authority of the priests and scribes. They are offended by Jesus’ interpretation of the law. Furthermore, he performs miracles freely on the Sabbath, breaking the law. To that effect he answers them: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath…”.13
But the priests also object to him because the Old Testament warns that only God can perform miracles. Hence, if a prophet performs “signs and wonders” he shall be put to death because the lord is testing the people to see if they are faithful to him.14
But a greater blasphemy than ignoring the Sabbath is the identity of Jesus himself. He declares himself the Son of God, “I and the Father are one”.15
Jn. 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
10:34 “Is it not written in your law, `I said, you are gods’?”
Because of this, they want to stone him. Just like they wanted to stone the adulteress that Jesus saved from their hands. They also accuse him of being a demon and a Samaritan. In other words, they associate him with the outcasts, women/prostitutes, the foreigners, and the possessed.
Jesus is accused of being:
blasphemous
possessed by a demon
a Samaritan, a Nazarene, a foreigner
The blasphemies seem to confirm the religious elite’s fears about Jesus. It also justifies their schemes to plot his death. Slowly, behind the scenes, a mischievous consensus is fomenting against him. Like Job, Jesus becomes the target of the political and religious authorities.
Mk. 3:6 The Pharisees went out, and immediately held counsel with the Hero’di-ans against him, how to destroy him. 16
*
He is not only rejected by the elite but by society as a whole.
During his passage in Gadarenes, Jesus is met by two wild demoniacs who ask him to cast their devils out and send them away among the herd of swine that could be seen close by. Jesus complies. As soon as he does, the whole herd is taken by a frenzy and jumps from a cliff into the sea to perish in the water below. With great consternation the herdsmen go to the city to report the event they just witnessed.
Mt. 8:34 And behold, all the city came out to meet Jesus; and when they saw him, they begged him to leave their neighborhood.
Not surprised by this Christ warns his disciple about society and hierarchy.
Jn. 15:18 If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.
Did the crowd chase him away because he destroyed the herd, threatening their livelihood? Apparently, the city was not ready to pay the price with their livelihood to save two poor demoniacs.
Even Jerusalem, of all cities, is typified as an example:
Mt. 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you!”
Several other cities like Nazareth are mentioned by Jesus as being blind to his message:
Mk. 6:4 “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.”
He goes even further by saying that he has seen more faith in a Roman centurion than in anybody else in Israel. 17
But this, it seems, is only a prelude to what is going to happen later when the whole vengeful crowd in Jerusalem rallies against him and demands his death. The collectivity is seen as having a power of its own, obeying its own laws of inertia. As it turns out, the mob gathered at his trial will be Jesus’ final and fatal foe.
*
The word messiah means the anointed one or the one who is consecrated by anointing for a special function among the people of God. It originally was used to describe the consecration of a king. This ritual was widespread among the cultures of the ancient Near East.18 In Judaism this function is typified by Samuel’s anointing of Saul and later of David as the king of Judah and Israel. Kingship occupied an important place in the theology of Israel. The Davidic era is the golden age of Israel. It is the time when Israel lived at the epitome of its political and religious integrity; when it had complete control over its destiny.
The peace and prosperity of the kingdom of David came to an end with the Assyrian wars (745-721 BCE). The loss of the golden era inspired among its people a longing for a another Messiah. They sought for redeemer, an heir of David, who would bring an end to the misery of foreign conquest. It would enable the people to return from their exile.19
At the root of messianism is the religious and political quest for liberation. In times of great despair, the messianic expectations increase. Messianism became the expression of spiritual consolation for a paradise lost and the hope for the return of past glory.
The pursuit of freedom from foreign influence is at the root of the messianic promise of salvation. Results of recent ethnological studies show that various forms of messianism evolve from a disastrous repercussion of foreign domination and colonialism. The ambiguous feelings of seduction and revulsion toward foreign culture is always coupled by a radical polarization. It imprints ambivalent feelings of lord-victim.
The crisis, propelled by the presence of a foreign culture, threatens the structure of belief from without. Messianism is linked to a perceived threat to the indigenous culture. A fear of loss of religious integrity and collective identity. As a result, the movement revives hopes of messianic salvation that rekindle an idealized past. It instigates a return to these original ideals in their purest form in order to bolster a strong sense of identity. The anxiety provoked by acculturation encourages the radical belief of messianic redemption, often by revolutionary means, which triggers a radical antagonism to the domination of foreign cultures. The rebellion is usually instigated by the elite who perceive the threat as an immediate danger to their own survival. Messianic movements typically nourish mythical expressions of hope. They revert to powerful images of salvation that capture the spirit of the people. The threat of assimilation by the people is then perceived as a personal threat to their own identity and survival.20
The circumstances under which Christ -the Greek equivalent for the word messiah- makes his appearance in Jerusalem are singular. The narratives describe that Jesus accepts the triumphant procession in Jerusalem riding on a donkey like the son of David on Palm Sunday. As we know, his role is not a political one, but that of a spiritual Messiah announcing a kingdom that is not of this world.21
*
Throughout the Gospels, Jesus is determined not to be manipulated by any group. He stands firm on his own unique identity. He refuses to comply to the rules set by the priests. He declines to take up the cause of the nationalist Zealots. As he said, his mission is not of this world. He rejects Satan’s offer to indulge in the riches of the world. And he spurns the idea to exploit his powerful charisma for his personal economic or political gain. He stands firm on his grounds. He declares himself to be the Son of man and the Son of God.
He applies the same determination to his fate. He knows about his oncoming death. But he will not try to change the course of destiny, though he could at any time.
At his arrest, one after the other, his disciples abandon him to his captors. Apparently, they thought Jesus to be someone else:
Lk. 24:21 …we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel.
When Jesus is betrayed by Judas, he is brought in front of the Sanhedrin where he is finally confronted by his adversaries.22
Caiaphas, the Sadducee high priest, is present among the crowd of Pharisees and scribes who have already decided on Jesus’ death. But they have a problem: they must find a way to inculpate him. At his interrogation, Jesus is questioned about his identity. He is asked if he is the Son of God, he replies that he is. He also answers them that he is the Son of man who will be at the right hand of the Power.
Upon his reply, they accuse him of blasphemy and condemn him to death. Shortly after, Jesus is sent to the procurator Pilate, in whose hands rests the political and legal authority over these matters. He states to Jesus that he is being accused by the religious elite of fomenting a revolt against Rome by telling the people not to pay their taxes. He is also accused of proclaiming himself Christ, a king. To his questions Jesus replies:
Jn. 18:36 “My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world.” Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice.” Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”
Seeing nothing wrong with Jesus, Pilate turns to the crowd and he asks them if they want to release Jesus, since it is a custom to free a prisoner during the Passover. Yet the mob demands that Barabbas, a known thief and probably a revolutionary, be released instead.
Here the parallel between Christ’s judgment and the sacrificial ritual in Leviticus 16 is compelling. The Old Testament text describes the directives for the Mosaic ritual of the Day of Atonement; to take among the flocks belonging to the people, two male goats. One to be chosen to be sacrificed as a sin-offering to Yahweh, the other as an atonement for Israel’s sins and to be set free in the wilderness as an offering to Azazel, the sins of the people having been symbolically laid upon it. Azazel is the name given to a being who opposes Yahweh. The Vulgate version of the Bible rendered the word Azazel into caper emissarius.23 Later, Luther translated the word into lediger bock meaning literally free-goat. Finally, the word was rendered into English as scapegoat: a victim who is innocently blamed or punished for the sins of others.24
The parallel suggests that Jesus is depicted as a human offering to Yahweh. While Barabbas -the name means son of the father– who is symbolized as carrying the sins of Israel, is set free to the foreign lands.
The crowds that chased him away are now gathered in Jerusalem to demand his death. They choose Barabbas rather than Christ. Jesus who promises the kingdom of God to the powerless is a danger to the established order of society. And Caiaphas, as its spokesman, explains why Christ should die:
Jn. 11:50 “You know nothing at all; you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.”
It is better to sacrifice one person for the sake of the whole society. They perpetuate the false belief that a scapegoat will solve all their problems. Jesus becomes a pharmakos, the individual kept by the Greek community as a scapegoat to sacrifice in times of social crisis. But history shows that violence begets violence. The words spoken by Caiaphas are empty words since the temple and Jerusalem will finally be destroyed in 70 CE anyhow. Yet another reason why they seek his death stems from the power of his word. They think he is fomenting political and religious upheaval. They fear he is seeking to abrogate their power.
But Jesus’ prophetic words echo an ultimate truth when he adds:
Lk. 23:34 “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”
Jesus’ crucifixion underlines the illusion of violence. Sacrifice and love are the only ways for human salvation.25
Although Jesus may be innocent of the crimes he is accused of, he is certainly not a victim. He freely agrees to his fate. He knows and understands the full extent of his decision. His consent is a crucial act of free will. He like Job, as an individual, is left alone against all the prejudice and powers of this world. He knows that the powers invested in the political, the social, the economical, and the religious, are present like a dark cloud over him. Jesus knows he has to endure his death so that his absence could be effective. So that his meaningful presence on earth may be resurrected by faith. Only then, can he be of benefit to all. Consequently, he tells his apostles that he must leave in order for his message to be fully understood:
Jn. 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away.
Only then will they understand that he is the message of hope for the powerless as the beneficiaries of his kingdom, and not those who already control the powers in their own world.
Mt. 22:16 “Teacher, we know that you are true, and teach the way of God truthfully, and care for no man; for you do not regard the position of men.”
They know that the power of the word of God is stronger than any human institution. But Jesus clearly did not entice political and economical upheaval. He took great care to share the urgency of the message of love. He introduced a new law to replace the old. He inaugurated a kingdom where women, children, the poor, the sick, the outcasts, the handicapped, the estranged, the mentally disturbed, the alien, the stranger, and the slave, all have equal access to his kingdom.
*
Jesus Christ’s death might appear as an obstacle to his ongoing mission. A timely and tragic obstruction. Far from the truth. His death is precursory to an even greater medium for his message. While on earth he communicated the word of God to the people around him, after his death Jesus embodies a new role in his resurrected body. The risen Christ becomes the ultimate and eternal medium for his message, a personal image to which all have access.
Doctrines about death and resurrection have evolved and changed in the Old Testament. According to the Bible, man is not a being composed of a body and a soul but of a soul with the vitality of the flesh. There is no duality between body and soul. Man becomes a soul when he is born, and when he dies he is a dead soul. His soul comes directly from God.26 The word soul in Hebrew means literally a living being, an animated body. Consequently, the dead in Sheol are not the soul of the dead but shadows of beings. Accordingly, they are considered powerless and weak.27 They could not come back to life.
Job 7:9 …he who goes down to Sheol does not come up;
Eccles. 3:19 For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other.
The concept evolved and became closely associated with the idea of the restoration of Israel. Particularly in times of historical distress. In Ezechiel, the resurrection of the dead bones did not imply a return from Sheol, but a return of the nation from the dead condition of exile.28
Further development of the concept occurred during the period of the Maccabeans where the belief in the resurrection is clearly expressed:
Dan. 12:2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
Later, the chief proponents of the resurrection were the Pharisees. The resurrection was applicable only to a select few like Moses, David, and to the more pious elite of their congregation.
In Christianity, the resurrection of the body became the cornerstone of its faith.
*
The Gospels share basically the same material in respect to the discovery of the empty tomb by a group of women.29 In all of the accounts, the central figure is a woman called Mary Magdalene. She is Jesus’ loved one. She is the first person who perceives the resurrected body of Christ.
Her name is revealing. Mary was from Magdala -hence Magdalene- a city situated on the west bank of the Sea of Galilee, about 20 km north of Nazareth. The word also means tower or fortress.30
But what is most peculiar is the time at which she gains more prominence in the Gospels. The narrative recounts the presence of this group of women who have been following Jesus during the greater part of his public life but who have been overshadowed by the more predominant group of male disciples. Only here, and at a very crucial moment, are the women finally recognized as followers in the same manner as their male counterparts.31
We would like to introduce at this point the role of the metaphor in terms of symbolic significance:
John 10:9 I am the door ─gate
John 14:6 I am the way
It might be implied that Jesus uses the metaphor to reveal his message.
Mat 16:18 You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my community ─Church
Jesus tells Simon that he is a rock ─peter literally means rock─ and he will be known as the rock on which Jesus will build his community.
The last supper is where Jesus shares his last meal, breaks the bread and drinks from the sacred cup. The scene is the center of the whole Catholic faith. And the Eucharist is a sacrament that faithful Catholics partake in Church with the holy communion. At the Last Supper Jesus shares the bread and wine with his apostles and says these words.
Mark 14: 22-24 This is my body…This is my blood
The metaphor is a figure of speech that implies a shift in meaning and a spiritual code. A break in the normal use of language. Simultaneously breaking with the normal social conventions and religious practices. Simply put, the metaphorical interpretation of the Gospels could be considered as a keystone behind the last supper. What the cup holds is not wine but the metaphorical sacrificial blood.
Furthermore, if Simon is the metaphorical the rock on which Jesus will build his Church, then Mary of Magdala, who was the first to witness the risen Lord, is to be considered the tower that will be built on that rock ─foundation. In addition, the name Madgal-eder also appears in Micah (4:8-10) and refers symbolically to a tower or stronghold of the flock. Mary Magdalene then, will stand on the rock as the stronghold for all future Christian communities.
The account also refers to the angels that appear to both male and female apostles. The apparition is also paralleled to the annunciation. Jesus’ birth in Mary’s womb is the counterpart to Mary’s presence in front of the empty tomb. Birth and death are privileged symbols of life and regeneration. Here, they become kindred to the resurrection of Christ.
Christ’s death also signifies the sudden emptiness in the followers’ lives. The physical absence of their Master leaves them powerless and lost. Yet as soon as the news of the empty tomb reaches them, they are filled with hope.
The message from the angels fulfills the prediction about his return:
Hos. 6:2 After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.
Jesus is the bodily proof that God is accessible to us as a person. It is as a person that he was able to establish relationships with his followers. He became the Word in order to communicate his will directly to the world.
With his resurrected body Jesus becomes the medium par excellence. His death is no longer an obstacle to his ongoing message. With his risen body Christ’s message is not limited by the boundaries of time or space. Although his death abruptly ends his physical presence on earth, the heavenly body is eternally present, accessible to all at all times.
Jesus’ resurrected body, however, is not the restoration of a previous condition in the flesh, but a transformation of a radical kind. Not to be confused with the decaying nature of the physical body. Christ’s resurrection is not a return to a former condition, but the passage to a totally new one. With his new condition he is given the title of Lord. A sovereign state free from the tyranny of the powers of the world that have persecuted, condemned and crucified Jesus. And as stated in Encyclical letter Mystici Corporis by Pius XII, the Church, or the assembly of believers, is the Body of Christ.
Paul in 1 Corinthians distinguishes the physical body from the spiritual body. The first is a body and mortal, the second has a body but is spiritual. He also correlates the body to the idea of image. Both are related to the identifiable essence of Jesus Christ.
1 Cor 15:49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
The image of this identifiable body is no longer indistinguishable among the crowd but lives above us, in heaven. His resurrected body becomes the mark of a new spiritual identity. And through his Ascension Jesus Christ, in his heavenly body, rises to the full view of all. It becomes the ultimate miracle, the greatest of all visible signs.
That he has risen from the dead is a victory over the state of remaining in the shadow of nothingness. Therefore, the former condition of the dead, described as the meaningless state of the shadows of the powerless, is transcended with the resurrection.
The presence of the angel standing outside the tomb is further evidence of the good news about Christ’s heavenly condition. The angels, from the Hebrew mal’akh which means messenger, are an additional link to the Old Testament. The angels were messengers of the Lord to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses.32 Similarly, the angel becomes the medium of Christ the Lord to his followers.
*
Like Job, he was abandoned by all, even God. Defender of the outcasts, he dies like one himself. Both typify the innocent servant who suffers for the sake of truth. Job’s suffering enables him to see God, while Jesus dies to be with God.
Jesus Christ is the prototype of a new humanity.
Like Job, he is a scapegoat singled out by society. This isolation enables Job to have a vision of God he could not conceive before. On the other hand, Jesus is God because he gave his life for that truth. Love and knowledge about God is now accessible through him. His resurrected body is a visible sign, the door to his realm. It enables the powerless to have access to the power of God despite the entrenched powers of the world.
Although Jesus is loved by many, his adversaries are plenty. At the end, they overcome him. Even though he chastised the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, he did not condemn their religion. As much as he opposed the merchants in the temple, he did not oppose commerce. He complained about the unfaithfulness of the cities, but he did not repudiate social order. He simply proclaimed that the powers of this world have no jurisdiction over his realm. His people obey a different set of laws and are governed by the power of love.
Jn. 13:13 You call me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him.
The real purpose of the miracle of the resurrection relies on teaching the message of love thy neighbor to all nations to be part of the Mystical Body of Christ; the Church.
Mt. 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”
_______________
1 Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1; etc.
2 Paul Feine, Johannes Behm, and reedited by Werner Georg Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament, New York, Abington Press, 1966.
3 Mt. 1:1-16; Gen. 5:1-31; 10:1-32; 11:10-31.
4 The second explanation, made popular by Luther, interprets the inclusion of these four women as the symbolic presence of foreigners -Gentiles or persons associated with Gentiles in Bethshibah’s case- in God’s plan.
5 Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, New York, Images Books, 1979.
6 Emil Schurer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus, New York, Schocken Books, 1971.
7 F. F. Bruce, Israel And The Nations, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1963.
8 In the New Testament the Pharisees are also identified as the scribes and the sages; Mat. 2:4; 21:15; 23:15. See Ellis Rivkin, What Crucified Jesus?, London, SCM Press Ltd, 1986.
9 J. T. Maertens, La Structure des Récits de Miracles dans les Synoptiques, in, Sciences Religieuses/ Religious Studies, 6/3, (1976-77), 253-266.
10 The young woman can also be rendered into “virgin”.
11 Deut. 13:1-11.
12 Mt. 5:1-48; Lk. 6:20-49.
13 Mk. 2:27.
14 Deut. 13:1-13.
15 Jn. 10:30.
16 The Herodians were political functionaries influential in the court of Herod Antipas.
17 Mt. 8:10.
18 In Is. 45:1, the persian king Cyrus is addressed by Yahweh as “his anointed”. See also; Jg. 9:8,15; 1 Sam. 10:1, 2Sam. 2:4; 5:3.
19 Is. 9:1-6; 2 Sam. 7:16; Is. 55:3-5.
20 The Islamic Revolution in Iran is a case in point. Here are some additional references on messianism: W. Muhlmann, Messianismes Révolutionnaires du Tièrs-Monde, Paris, Gallimard, 1968; G. Devereux, Ethnopsychanalyse Complémentariste, Paris, Flamarion, 1972, and by the same author, Essais D’Ethnopsychiatrie Générale, Paris, Gallimard, 1970; also the interesting book by, F. Laplantine, L’Ethnopsychiatrie, Paris, Editions Universitaires, Paris, 1973, and his other work, Les Trois Voix de l’Imaginaire, Paris, Editions Universitaires, 1974.
21 Mk. 14: 61-65; Dan. 7:13.
22 There is a parallel here between Judas his disciple and the historical Judas the Galilean, the notorious nationalist.
23 René Girard, The Scapegoat, Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986.
24 The Tindale Oxford Dictionary.
25 “In future, all violence will reveal what Christ’s Passion revealed, the foolish genesis of bloodstained idols and the false gods of religion, politics, and ideologies. The murderers remain convinced of the worthiness of their sacrifices. They, too, know not what they do and we must forgive them. The time has come for us to forgive one another. If we wait any longer there will not be time enough”. In Rene Girard’s, The Scapegoat, Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986, 212.
26 Gen. 2:7; Num. 23:10.
27 Isa. 14:9-11; 26:14; Ps. 88; Job 26:5.
28 Ezek. 37:1-14.
29 The message is directed to Mary who is described in the narrative as the woman from whom Jesus had cast out seven demons (Lk. 8:2). We can make another parallel with Proverbs 9:13-18 where the dead condition and the crazy woman may be linked here with Mary Magdalene.
30 Jean Daniélou, La Résurrection, Paris, Seuil, 1969, 11.
31 Lk. 8:2-4; Mk. 15:40-41.
32 Gen. 18:1; 24:7; 31:11; Ex. 3:2.
by netage | Modern Aspect of Myth, Mediaspeak & Spirituality |
Michael A Rizzotti
The years that followed the advent of the Internet brought a renewed interest in Teilhard de Chardins’ work. It stemmed from his vision of the “noosphere“, or the “mind layer” hovering the earth that he first described in 1922. When his work was first published, he was mostly regarded as a visionary but esoteric writer. His books were mostly read by the intellectual elite of the time, he had nevertheless become a popular icon. The advent of the Internet somehow confirms his vision of the outcome of a global “planetisation”.
The way and speed in which the Net has swept the planet has caught everybody by surprise. Today, the Net is taken for granted and an essential part of our lives. Yet, we don’t fully understand the repercussions on our culture and way of living.
In light of the author’s vision, and the advent of the Internet, we should be living at a “convergence“, or a rebound in terms of human energy, leading us a step closer toward the point Omega. As a consequence, the Net has made Teilhard’s thinking more relevant today then at any other time in the past. Yet, further studies and discussion are needed to fully understand his writings. They are necessary to dispel any misconceptions about his thinking. We will begin with some introductory notes, and more importantly, we will dwell on some fundamental concepts that are essential to fully understand his “scientific memoir” entitled “The Phenomenon of Man”.
Biographical notes
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was born on May 1st 1881 in the small town of Sarcenat in the Auvergne, a region of France mostly known for its city of Vichy. At the early age of ten he entered a Jesuit boarding school where he devoted himself to the fields of geology and mineralogy. He was so impressed by the intellectual discipline of his teachers that he decided to join the Jesuit order at eighteen. The next thirteen years would be spent between studying philosophy in Jersey, teaching in Cairo, studying theology in Sussex, all the while pursuing a deeper competence in geology and paleontology.
1912 turned out to be a landmark year for the young student. He was ordained priest and he read Henri Bergson’s (1859-1941) Evolution Creatrice. The book would be a critical influence on Teilhard’s thinking as it set his lifelong interest on the subject of evolution. It explains human existence in terms of a creative evolution. Bergson describes the mind as pure energy, a “vital force” or élan vital, which is responsible for all organic evolution. The author emphasized the importance of intuition over intellect and held to the idea of two opposing currents of inert matter in conflict with organic life as the “vital force” that strives toward free creative action. For his literary and intellectual work Bergson was awarded the Nobel Prize in literature in 1927.
After spending several years abroad studying and teaching Teilhard returned to Paris to pursue his geological studies and started working for Marcellin Boule, the leading French pre-historian and archeologist at the Institute of Human Paleontology at the Museum of Natural History. It is there that he met his lifelong friend and colleague Abbe Breuil who shared his interest in evolution.
World War I put a halt to his studies. As a priest he took part as stretcher-bearer and received the Military Medal and the Legion of Honor. The misery of war further strengthened his religious convictions and confirmed his vocation. It also reinforced his professional goals and soon after the war he embarked on a geological career with special emphasis on paleontology.
After the war he was designated Professor of Geology at the Catholic Institute of Paris and in 1922 he took his Doctorate at the Sorbonne. In 1923 he left for Mongolia on a paleontology mission for one year on behalf of the Museum of Natural History. Although his lectures were popular among the students, when he returned to the Institute he found out that he was forbidden to teach. Some of his ideas on original sin and evolution were considered unorthodox by his religious superiors. In 1926 he returned to China as an adviser to the Geological Survey of China and undertook many expeditions, one of which unearthed the skull of the Peking man (Sinanthropus pekinensis).
The outbreak of World War II prevented him from returning to Paris to undertake an appointment as the Director of the Laboratory of Advanced Studies in Geology and Paleontology. The next six years of isolation spent in China were to become critical in developing and maturing his “dangerous thoughts” that were to be expounded in Le Phénomène Humain. Upon his return to France in 1946 he immersed himself completely in intellectual research and in 1947 suffered a serious heart attack.
After he recovered he went back to Paris to find out that he was forbidden to write about any philosophical subjects. A further setback came in 1948 when he was forbidden to put forth his candidacy as Professor at the College de France, the highest position he could aspire. But his biggest blow came in 1950 when the Church denied him the permission to publish Le Groupe Zoologique Humain (a different version of Le Phénomène Humain).
His presence in France had become increasingly difficult for him and in 1951 he finally accepted an invitation that was made to him a few years earlier by the Viking Foundation (later called the Wenner-Gren Foundation) and moved to New York. The Foundation sponsored two of his trips to South Africa to study first hand the discovery of Australopithecus. He also participated in the important work on paleontology and archeology on the hominid evolution. He spent the last four years of his life at a quiet and secure shelter of the foundation. He died on Easter Day April 10th 1955 in New York city.
The Priest and the Scientist
The Church never gave him the permission to publish any of his books during his lifetime as they were considered to be too controversial. Teilhard was chagrined by the refusal but accepted the decision stoically. Being a Jesuit, he had made an additional vow of obedience to the Pope in addition to the priestly vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. The main reasons for the Church’s refusal was the fear that his work would be misunderstood. The Church’s reluctance appeared to be justified when in 1952 a reprint from l’ Agence française de presse was published in a San Francisco newspaper that stated that “The God of Père Teilhard is a God immanent to the evolution of the world”. Teilhard protested vigorously at this faulty reductionism of his work that ignored the core idea of transcendence that is so essential to his thinking.
His works were finally published shortly after his death since the permission to publish only applies to living writers. In 1955, 500 copies of Le Phénomène Humain was published. Most of the book was written between 1938-40 and it was finally revised and completed in 1947-48. The English version was published in 1959 with a valuable introduction by his friend and peer Julian Huxley.
The book was translated in English into “The Phenomenon of Man”. One doesn’t have to be fluent in French to note the major distinction between the original title and the translation. We have no way of knowing what Teilhard would have thought of juxtaposing “human” with “man”. The author was well known for his sensitivity and it seems reasonable to think that he must have waded the distinction between the terms and would have opted, as he did in French, for the term “human” to appear in the title.
In his “warning” at the beginning of Le Phénomène Humain Teilhard states the scopes and limits of his book. As he explains, his “scientific memoir” is not about theology nor metaphysics, but should be seen as an “introduction” to the human phenomenon, the phenomenon of which “man” is at its center but with a particular concern about the “Whole” phenomenon that transcends “man”. The term “man” should be understood here as the process of being human. To describe the “Whole” Teilhard warns that he has undertaken two fundamental options. The first, is the primary importance given to the soul and thought to the fabric of the Universe. The second, is the biological value attributed to the Social Reality around us. The preeminent significance being the interrelation of the spiritual effect of the Human Being in Nature and the biological effect of organic nature in Humanity.
Teilhard was a priest and a scientist. More precisely a Jesuit and a paleontologist in addition to being a geologist. Two outlooks that permeate his book. As it happens one can clearly see the scientist outlining the course evolution in his writing. On the other hand, it is the priest that speaks about Christ being the beginning, the center and the final goal of all things. For him the key to evolution is the presence and action of God on the world, more precisely the presence and action of Christ. As he wrote to a friend in 1936, “my chief interest in life has been to bring about in some way a plainer disclosing of God in the world.” And it is the intellectual, i.e. the Jesuit, that tries to reconcile science and religion with concepts of “hominisation”, “cosmogenesis”, “planetisation”, “noogenesis” and “point Omega”.
Teilhard was a true Jesuit. The order founded by Saint Ignace of Loyola, a former soldier who after being wounded in battle became a priest and founded the order known as the Society of Jesus (S.J.) to help the Church contain the spread of the Reformation with its own Counter-Reformation. As stated earlier, the order has an additional vow of obedience to the Pope. The society is also known as the Soldiers of Christ, and is widely regarded as the Church’s intellectual elite, a claim readily disputed by the Dominicans.
It is the Soldier of Christ that speaks in his writings. The Catholic foot soldier who is trying to reconcile his love of Christ and his love of science. This point is tantamount and must be kept in mind to clearly understand Teilhard. One of the biggest error in interpreting his thought is to give more importance to the scientist than to the priest. Consequently it is the Christian, more precisely the Catholic, a “hyper-Catholic” as he liked to call himself, that speaks in his books. As such Christ is the “Alfa”, the center and the “Omega” of the whole human phenomenon, which he describes as “Le Milieu Divin”. The latter is the title of a book that was translated into “The Divine Milieu”. Again the English translation does not convey the essence of the original title. In French the word “milieu” means center, but it also means environment in which Christ is the center and the whole.
As we have mentioned Teilhard was a true Catholic. The word comes from the Greek katholicos (kata, by + holos, whole) which means “universal” and must be understood in that sense. The term must not be confused with the oxymoron of Roman Catholic that is mostly used in the U.S. Furthermore, Teilhard called himself a “hyper-Catholic” in the sense that he was a true believer in the Universality of the Church. Here again, the Church must be viewed not as the visible and physical body of the Church of Rome, but the invisible and living assembly of faithful who believe in the Universal principles embodied by Jesus-Christ. Although the Church of Rome is the guardian of tradition and doctrine and the administrative agency in charge of the visible body of the hierarchy, the Church of which Teilhard is concerned, is the mystical body of Christ; the Living Church.
by netage | Media, Internet and Spirituality, Modern Aspect of Myth, Ideology & Religion, Mediaspeak & Spirituality |
Michael Rizzotti
In an earlier study on the dedication of Quebec’s monuments, I realized that these civil events revealed interesting details about the mythical edification of society as a whole.1 Consequently, I chose to expand my field of research to include at least one of the major U.S. monuments. My goal in doing this is to reveal how the process of dedication of the Washington National Monument, in Washington D.C. is kindred to American civil religion and how it is a mythological showcase of the U.S.’ ideological foundation. As we shall see, the dedication of monuments is a privileged ritual that discloses the consecration of American civil religion in society.2 By the same token, these ceremonials reveal how America’s most celebrated political hero yields a mythological significance of primal importance.3
I will take a close look at two aspects of the inauguration: the ritual and the mythical. The first deals with the festivities of the ceremony that act as an introduction to the orators and their speeches. The second relates to the content of the speeches themselves which eulogize, better yet, mythologize the hero to whom the monument is dedicated.
At the inauguration, the hero whose identity is immortalized in the stone is literally consecrated by the monument. The people who congregate for the ceremony recreate a time of vital significance in history. By the same token, the audience -the elected representatives of society as a whole- endorses the hero as a national figure who is chosen as a prototype of American political foundation. By their presence they acknowledge the hero’s meaningful legacy to history.
As I have described elsewhere, the discovery and foundation of a new territory has a mythological significance. The first to discover a new land, or the first president of a new political reality is a primal event of historical and mythological significance. His name and his role in American history has a unique place above all other historical figures and events.
Thus, the Washington National Monument was erected to celebrate the primordial in the United States’ history, similar in fashion to the erection of temples and sacred buildings dedicated for the most sacred purposes. In that respect, the Monument becomes central in American history. To use Mircea Eliade’s words, the Monument becomes an axis mundi.4 The axis from which everything began and from where everything flows. As such, the Washington National Monument symbolizes the beginning of the nation’s political history built at the center of the political power of the United States of America.
The type of monument chosen is fitting. Nothing could have better represented the hero’s grandeur. No monument could have been more adequate to express how central the hero is to American history and politics. Moreover, the shaft could not have been more appropriate to symbolize the idea of the center, order and hierarchy.
The type of structure and the site were specifically chosen to reflect a symbolic and mythical expression. The people responsible for this task were concerned about finding the most appropriate place.
It may be here remarked, with reference to the site selected for the Monument, that the foundations were laid but a short distance to the east of the meridian line run, at the instance of the President Jefferson, by Nicholas King, surveyor, October 15, 1804…This line, by the president’s instructions, passed through the center of the White House, and where it intersected a line due east and west through the center of the Capitol a small monument or pyramid of stones was placed…5
The center yields an important symbolic significance in most mythologies. As a sacred space it stands apart from the ordinariness of its surrounding. In the world of mythology, the axis mundi is represented in different forms: a tree, a mountain, a ladder, or a pillar. Yet they all symbolize the communication between the two cosmic arenas: heaven and earth, and the center and its periphery.
Similarly, the Holy of Holies was at the center of the temple of Jerusalem, also considered to be at the center of the world. In Greek mythology, the shrine of Apollo at Delphi was also declared the earth’s center. For Islam, the Muslim Dome of the Rock is the sacred place from where the prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven.6
*
In its proportions the ratios of the dimensions of the several parts of the ancient Egyptian obelisk have been carefully followed.7
These remarks by Col. Thomas Lincoln Casey, chief engineer in charge of the Monument, were made to reveal that it was to be a larger replica of an Egyptian obelisk -an erected stone carved into a four sided pillar crowned with a small pyramid called the pyramidion. The Washington Monument is a much larger replica than the original obelisks found in Egypt. These were made out of a single block of rock, whereas the capital’s structure is made of 36,000 blocks of stone.
The Egyptians usually erected the obelisks in pairs in front of Egyptian temples. They were believed to be sacred. Scholars are still uncertain about their specific use or function. Obelisks are nevertheless a unique symbol of Egyptian culture. Romans were so fascinated by the pillars that they moved several of them to Rome.
In ancient Egypt, the pyramidion that crowned the monolith was probably covered with gold to reflect the sun’s rays.8 The pyramidion, in all likelihood, also crowned the great pyramids of Egypt. Technically, the obelisk symbolizes a ray of light emanating from the sun. The pointed pillars were perhaps relevant symbols of light and life, and the daily course of the sun as opposed to the pyramids that were symbols of darkness and death, and the setting sun. The earliest obelisks are believed to have been erected in the 4th dynasty (circa 2613-2494 BC). No examples from that era remain today.
In the late 19th century, the government of Egypt gave one of the two Ramses’ obelisks ornating the Luxor temple to France where it stands in Paris’ Place de la Concorde. Two other obelisks were shipped to England and to the United States. Both were taken from Heliopolis. They were dedicated to Thutmose III and bear the inscriptions and legends of two pharaohs: Thutmose III, and Ramses II (1304-1237 BC). One stands on the Thames’ embankment, in London, the other is in Central Park, in New York City.
The connection between the Washington National Monument and the gift from Egypt is, to say the least, a suitable symbol of the continuity between an ancient civilization and an emerging one.
History of the Monument
The Washington National Monument Society was founded in 1833 because Congress did not keep its promise to erect a monument deserving of the national hero. Several unsuccessful attempts were made to collect the necessary funds before the Society took over. And it was not until 1884 that the Monument was finally completed.
In 1853, Congress appropriated $50,000 for the erection of an equestrian statue of George Washington. It was unveiled on February 22nd 1860 in the east park of the Capitol. The Society viewed the statue as unworthy of the national hero and persevered to build a monument equal in stature to George Washington.
In 1835, two years after the foundation of the Society, its first president, John Marshall, died and was replaced by the ex-president of the United States, James Madison. Upon the death of James Madison, the Society amended its constitution so that the president in office became ex-officio president of the Society. Andrew Jackson was the first to honor this function under the newly amended constitution.
On the 4th of July 1848, the first cornerstone was laid. To celebrate the occasion a ceremony was organized.
By January 1853, the Monument had risen 126 feet above ground.
On March 8th, 1854, a block of marble sent by Pope Pius IX as a tribute to George Washington and America that was to be part of the giant structure, was stolen.9 The suspicion quickly pointed toward a group known as the Know-Nothings. A secretive anti-Catholic political movement.10 The group had frequently expressed in the daily press the view that the stone sent by the Roman Catholic Church should not be part of the Monument. The theft enraged the Catholics in the U.S. and abroad. It also alienated part of the population from the funding of the Monument.
The Society subsequently fell at the hands of a narrow political faction influenced by the Know-Nothings. It practically froze the progress of the Society toward the funding and construction of the Monument. Finally, in February of 1859 the Society decided to end its internal stalemate and adopted a new charter to eliminate any opposition to the completion of their project.
One year later, the Civil War further delayed progress in the construction. And the poor state of the economy slowed the collection of funds.
Not until 1879 did the construction of the obelisk finally resumed. It was largely due to the interest of the Masonic Order and other organizations like the Odd Fellows, the Knights of Pythias, the Independent Order of Red Men, the Temperance, and other fraternal bodies. But the success of the enterprise was mostly owed to the special interest of the Masonic Order who supervised the completion of the Monument.
The interruption left a visible scar at the level of the work stoppage due to the use of a slightly lighter marble supplied by different quarries.
On December 6th, 1884, the giant structure was finally completed. The last piece of stone was put atop the marble shaft measuring ~ 555 feet and 5 inches.
On February 21st, 1885, the Capitol proceeded to the dedication of the Washington National Monument. All of the capital’s dignitaries were present as Rev. Henderson Suter said a prayer at the beginning of the ceremonies. Shortly after, a Masonic function took place at the base of the Monument, followed by the address of the Grand Master Mason, Myron M. Parker. The dedication was completed by the oration of Hon. Robert C. Winthrop.
It shouldn’t come as a surprise to see the Grand Master Mason at the laying of the cornerstone and later at the inauguration of the Monument. The organization played a sizable part in the collection of the funds to build the structure. But there is another reason for the brotherhood’s interest in the building and their overwhelming presence at the ceremonies. George Washington was himself a Freemason.
The dedication
The great show that is the dedication enables us to unveil how the mythical and the ritual work hand in hand in the building of the national identity. The greater the hero, the larger the ceremony, and the bigger the monument. The rank and stature of dignitaries is also akin to the grandeur of the hero. Everything is planned carefully. The order of the march, the sequence of the orators, the speeches, the music, and the dramatic display of the festivities. But the most important feature of the dedication are the speeches themselves. The orators have put forth their best rhetoric abilities to eulogize the hero in all his glory.
Appropriately enough, the first president of the United States of America and the origins of rhetoric have something in common: democracy.
The first rules of rhetoric appear to have begun in Syracuse, circa 500 BC. When exiles returned to their homeland after being dispossessed of their property by a despotic ruler, they had no written records to prove the ownership of their property to the new government. In order to solve the disputes, a newly democratic system of debate was devised where verbal claims of ownership could be settled. To help the litigants improve their persuasiveness, teachers, some of them Sophists, developed rules of elocution and persuasiveness. As a result, a new discipline was born: rhetoric. The term comes from the Greek word rhema which was later translated into Latin as verbum, meaning word.11
The discipline eventually evolved into the science of speaking effectively so to persuade an audience. At about the same time that the Monument was being built, rhetoric was being dropped from the cursus studiorum in the colleges of Europe. In the second half of the XIXth century, classical rhetoric lost its appeal in the schools as a general discipline. Lately, however, there has been a resurgence of interest in the subject.12
*
Although the Monument is a visible structure that everyone can see, the dramatic effect of the ceremony cannot be reproduced. The only thing that remains for us is an account of the festivities and the record of the speeches. Frederich Harvey’s account in History of the Washington National Monument and Washington Monument Society, published in 1903, holds tremendous value for our study. And although the speeches are devoid of the rhetorical effect of the delivery, their content is a valuable data for analysis. The book reveals the important aspects of the ritualization and mythologizing process of the image of the First President and the Founding Father of the United States of America.
The primal function of rhetoric is to make a speech as convincing as possible, making the content plausible and believable. Yet the ultimate purpose is to convince the audience to believe in the sacred validity of the Founding Father. To achieve these goals the Romans had three principles of elocution: docere, delectare, and movere: namely, to teach, to captivate, and to move the audience.
These functions are also applied to the sermon, from the Latin sermo meaning to talk. Similarly, Rabbis use their rhetorical abilities to instruct the law. The Koran is most efficient and most beautiful when it is read aloud. In Zen Buddhism, the verbal use of paradox, or koans, is most enchanting when spoken. And the elocution of the Tao te Ching of Taoism is considered to be the most beautiful form of expression of the Chinese language. Furthermore, Jesus Christ did not write his message, he proclaimed it. The kerygma of the Word is most effective when it is preached. It is quintessential in the propagation of faith. Similarly, political speeches are essential in the promulgation of ideology.
Hence, the word is used to promote and edify a reality in the mind of the people who listen.
Today, the mass-media applies similar techniques in advertising to influence their audience.
The speeches
Harvey’s document accounts for two ceremonies. The first, at the beginning, at the laying of the first cornerstone, and the second, at the completion of the superstructure. Both are equal in importance, yet are 37 years apart.
The first ceremony was celebrated on the 4th of July 1848. For the occasion, the president of the United States, James K. Polk, and dignitaries of the capital were present, as well as Senators, Representatives of Congress, the Military, delegations from the States, and several Indian tribes. In addition, 15,000 to 20,000 spectators were all gathered for the festivities. On that day, the initial stone, a block of marble weighing twenty-four thousand five hundred pounds, was laid.
The following is a newspaper excerpt that describes the mood of the festivities:
The day was fine. The rain had laid the dust and infused a delicious freshness in the air. The procession was extensive and beautiful…When the lengthened procession had reached the site of the Monument they were joined by a whole cortege of ladies and gentlemen; and we are free to say we never beheld so magnificent a spectacle.13
The whole setting has a central goal: to focus the attention on the speeches that recreate the life and image of the hero who is the object of the celebration. These eulogies, also called panegyric, have for their sole purpose to glorify and consecrate the Founding Father. The rhetorical function is to influence the audience to collectively hail the national hero.
The whole gathering is besieged by the sacredness of the event. As the speeches affect the crowd, the crowd in return collectively sanctions the message. In the process, the image of George Washington is mythically anointed as a primordial hero, vital to the nation’s identity. As the Monument that stands erected toward the heavens in the background, the orators proclaim the hero a primordial symbol, visible to all.
The man is the monument; the monument is America.14
The ceremony began with a prayer delivered by Rev. Mr. McJilton. In it he outlined the purpose of the dedication: “We plant in earth the shaft that points to heaven”. A tribute to the man who was the instrument of God in the fight for freedom. The Reverend also disclosed his concern for peace. He expressed his apprehension about the union. And he condemned the “savages of the wilderness” as an obstacle to the free exploitation of the “unknown treasures” and “limitless territory to the industry and enterprise of man”.
The Reverend also mentioned “Thy church” without reference to any specific creed, except that it is “of a certain faith”. He concluded by asking the blessings and mediation of Jesus Christ, “our most blessed Lord and Saviour. Amen.”
The prayer was followed by an oration from Honorable Robert C. Winthrop, Speaker of the House of Representatives. It is the main speech of the ceremonial. Winthrop was presumably a man of renowned oratorical skills since he was to be invited to the dedication 37 years later.
the setting….America
the hero……..Washington, Father of his Country
the quest…….Liberty and Independence
the obstacle…treacherous enemies
the mentor…..Divine Providence
the outcome…the Republic and its Constitution
His speech is similar in content and in tone to the Reverend’s eulogy. He repeated and expanded on the same themes, most of which are summarized in the thematic outline above.
The first category relates to the origin of the American nation and its politics, of which George Washington is the chief protagonist. The New World is the stage for the hero’s actions which were guided by Divine Providence: they led to the Revolution and the Constitution of the United States of America. In his quality of first president, he is hailed as the original founder, the Father of his Country.
The elocution refers to the General by different designations, several of which have already been mentioned. Other titles point to the more ethereal quality of the man: The idol, the favorite of heaven who yielded a magic power and majestic authority.
His star has been seen in every sky, and wise men everywhere have done it homage.15
The hero’s quest outlines a desire for Liberty and Independence. Washington is the embodiment of these goals in the midst of the colonial struggle.
The obstacles to his pursuit are referred to as the foreign powers, the wilderness, the heathen Indians, and the treacherous enemies that he victoriously overcomes by his personal prowess.
The mentor is depicted as the Providence, the Great Spirit, and the Divine Hand that guides the illustrious hero at all times.
The outcome is stated as:
He has built his own monument. We, and those who come after us in successive generations, are its appointed, its privileged guardians. This widespread Republic is the true monument to Washington. Maintain its Independence. Uphold its Constitution. Preserve its Union. Defend its liberty.16
As soon as the Honorable Robert C. Winthrop finished his eulogy, he was followed on the podium by Mr. Benjamin B. French Esq., Grand Master of the Masonic fraternity of the District of Columbia, who began by saying:
Why have we assembled here to-day (sic)? What means this immense crowd around us? For what, beneath a July sun, on this anniversary of the birthday of a nation, has this vast multitude come up, as came Israel of old to the dedication of the Temple of the Lord?16
The rest of the speech reiterates the same themes that we have outlined above, with the exception of stressing the fact that the first president was a Freemason.
After his speech, he descended to the cornerstone and performed a Masonic ceremony at the laying of it.
*
The dedication, unlike the festivities at the laying of the first cornerstone, were performed at two locations. It all began at the foot of the Monument and continued in a long procession toward the Capitol into the Hall of the House of Representatives.
The first part of the festivities began at 11 o’clock on February the 21st, 1885. The celebrations took place in the presence of a great number of visitors from all parts of the country. The chairman of the Commission, Hon. John Sherman, presided over the order of the proceedings while the band played on. The first to step on the podium was Rev. Henderson Suter who said a prayer. He was followed by Dr. James who read a speech written by W.W. Corcoran.18 Then, Myron Parker, the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia, performed his Masonic ceremonies and delivered his address. He was followed by the engineer of the joint commission, Col. Thomas L. Casey, who made some remarks about the construction of the giant structure before he delivered the Monument to the president of the United States. Finally, President Chester A. Arthur gave a very brief speech dedicating the Monument to the “immortal name and memory of George Washington”.19
Surprisingly, the dedication was not as elaborate as the laying of the cornerstone. The most interesting part is the peculiar Masonic ceremony performed by Myron M. Parker: the Most Worshipful Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of the District of Columbia. The brief example below illustrates the dialogue used by the members of the order for their ritual:
GRAND MASTER. Right Worshipful Deputy Grand Master,
what is the proper implement of your office?
DEPUTY GRAND MASTER. The square, Most Worshipful.
GRAND MASTER. What are its moral and Masonic uses?
DEPUTY GRAND MASTER. To square our actions by square
virtue, and prove our work when finished.
GRAND MASTER. Have you applied the square to the
obelisk, and is the work square?
DEPUTY GRAND MASTER. I have, and I find the corners to
be square; the workmen have done their duty…20
After the ritual, the Grand Master gave his address. In it, he described how George Washington was a most distinguished brethren who had openly expressed his love and devotion for the Order throughout his life.
*
As the first part of the festivities ended, the crowd followed the dignitaries in a procession to the Capitol, clearly visible at a distance. They were escorted by the Army and the Navy. The parade is described as being imposing.
At the Capitol, all the dignitaries were gathered in the Hall of the House of Representatives for the official dedication. The president of the Senate, Hon. George F. Edmunds, presided. He called the assembly to order. He introduced the Rev. S. A. Wallis who offered a prayer.
Then, Hon. John D. Long, a representative from Massachusetts, was introduced. He read an oration written by the same Hon. Robert C. Winthrop who had delivered a speech at the opening ceremonies, thirty seven years earlier. He was unable to attend due to illness.
In between the orations, lively music was performed by the United States Marine Band.
The content of Winthrop’s address is basically the same as the earlier one. The veneration given to the immortal name of Washington can be singly noted:
The glory of Columbus can never be eclipsed, never approached, till our New World shall require a fresh discovery; and the glory of Washington will remain unique and peerless until American Independence shall require to be again achieved, or the foundations of Constitutional Liberty to be laid anew.21
It was followed by a speech from Hon. John W. Daniel, of Virginia, who rendered an “eloquent” oration. He described with verve the great qualities of the national hero:
…the genius of Washington was as full-orbed and luminous as the god of day in his zenith.22
He explained to the assembly that the glorious hero was full of his ancestors’ qualities of a “higher and manlier trait of the Anglo-Saxon”.
The proceedings came to a close. At the end of which a short benediction was pronounced by Rev. John A. Lindsay D.D., chaplain of the House of Representatives.
The blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, be among you and remain with you always. Amen.23
The image of George Washington
The mere mention of the name George Washington can easily stir lively feelings of pride and patriotism in the hearts of Americans. These emotions are hard to explain and describe. Yet the devotion is tangible. Men have died and killed for these feelings. They are at the core of what it means to be American.
The hero’s image unleashes patriotic sentiments that are a powerful source of pride and national identity. With George Washington, the image is immortalized in the monumental stone. The mortal man has been set apart to be consecrated. The ordinary being is transcended into an immortal hero erected at the political center of the U.S. He is literally consecrated as the symbol of America’s political identity. His symbolic image has eclipsed the mundane reality of his being. The mortal has been separated from the immortal which is embodied in the Monument.
The symbolic reality of the Founding Father has overlapped the historical into the mythical. With the dedication he has been consecrated as more than man. The heroic and mythical aspects of the figure have transcended and supplanted the historical. As a consequence, Washington’s name suggests not only images of the hero but a reality bigger than life, an unfathomable entity: the center of political power of the United States of America and the content of an entire cosmology. And the Monument is its metaphor.
*
Soon after Washington’s death, in 1799, at about the same time that the Monument was being commissioned, a great deal of attention by the country’s elite was focused on the image of the first president. His death swiftly buried criticism concerning any misgivings about his life as a general, and as a president. He soon became the subject of a nationwide movement of eulogies meant to aggrandize his personal standing. As the nation made its first steps toward finding its national identity, George Washington became more and more the focus of a country-wide image making campaign.
Numerous books were written about his exemplary life: The Life of Washington, written by Mason Locke Weems of Dumfries, Virginia, is a typical example of the myth-maker of that era.24 The movement lasted throughout the century and Weems’ book became the prototype for many other biographies that deified the Father hero. Soon, George Washington was not only described as a father figure, but as “more than man”, and as an “immortal Olympian”. His image transcended that of national hero to become in many ways that of a mythical “Father”. Authors and orators were not content to merely extol his image above all other heroes, some even compared Washington to Christ and his mother to the Virgin Mary.25
Among the vast number of biographies of the era, especially those written before 1855, one could easily be led to believe that Washington was a demigod who descended on earth with the sole purpose of creating a new country and freeing its people, and then returned to heaven as soon as his mission was accomplished.26
The Apotheosis of Washington, a fresco painted by Constantino Brumidi in 1865 on the ceiling of the dome in the rotunda of the Capitol Building is another good example of the deification of the national hero.
The views outlined above show how the mythical and historical processes work hand in hand in the edification of a national identity, and how the boundaries between the two are blurred. These processes were further endorsed by a collective appropriation and recognition of the American hero. The cultural identification set the standards for a social consensus that became central to the development of the country’s identity. As such, the mythologizing of George Washington played a central role in the integration of the American political reality.
Washington the Freemason
The ceremonies we have described are revealing in many ways. At both festivities a representative of the Freemasonry was present to honor their illustrious brethren. Not unusual, since the brotherhood played a substantial part in the funding of the structure. But the Monument is also a great architectural salute to the Masons themselves. It is a worthy tribute to the first president of the United States who was also a brethren.
George Washington was the first, but not the last, president to be a Freemason. Several past presidents of the United States have been Freemasons, from George Washington to Ronald Reagan, as well as 9 signers of the Declaration of Independence and 13 signers of the Constitution.27
In addition, many other heroes of the American Revolution were also Masons; Paul Revere and John Hancock are only two examples. Benjamin Franklin was also a leader of the Freemasonry in Pennsylvania, and published the first Masonic book in America in 1734.
*
To fully understand the foundations of America’s mythical process, a few words about the origin of the elusive brotherhood are in order.
It evolved from the stonemason guilds of England and Scotland. When the major building projects -mostly churches and cathedrals of Europe- came to an end, several stonemasons who did not practice their skills any longer stayed on in the fraternal association and formed lodges, the name given to their basic unit. The first lodges were founded in London, England, in the late XVIIIth century. It is at that epoch that architecture acquired a more metaphorical sense. The grandiose stone buildings began to symbolize human structures, reflecting an ideal humanity built to the glory of the Great Architect of the Universe.
More legendary stories attribute the origin of Masonry to the Garden of Eden. While other versions link its beginning to the building of the pyramids of Egypt, and to Hiram Abif, King Salomon’s Master Architect, the legendary builder of the first temple of Jerusalem.
Currently, there are more than ~6 million Freemasons in the world.28 Most of them live in the U.S. and Canada. As a nonsectarian and nonpolitical association, the fraternity appeals to a wide cross section of the male population. They believe in a Supreme Being and emphasize the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. Freemasons are said to admit in their rank men of every nationality, religion, and political persuasion. In order to join, a new member must be introduced by an existing brethren.
Most of the operations and activities of the Society are shrouded by an aura of mystery. Most of it results from the oath of secrecy they must make in regards to the identity of its members.
The early American brotherhood was able to survive an anti-Masonic wave following the abduction and possible murder of Captain William Morgan in 1826. Morgan had planned to publish an article about Masonic secret dealings. Evidence of his murder was linked to the Masons. The public outcry against the organization lasted 10 years and slowly boiled down afterward.
During World War II, the Masons were outlawed and dispersed by Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco. After the war, they soon regained their popularity in non-communist countries, particularly, the United States.
Among its most popular members: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Henry Ford, Charles A. Lindbergh, Irving Berling, Gen. Douglas McArthur, John Wayne, J. Edgar Hoover, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan.
Because of its Anglo-Saxon origins, nineteenth century Masonry in the U.S. might convey the idea that the order was predominantly male, white, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant. But a closer look at a cross-section of its members reveals that a more accurate description would be: a white, generally non-Catholic, male organization. In San Francisco of last century, for instance, most of the Jewish adult male population belonged to the brotherhood. Which prompted an anonymous Jewish brethren to write, in 1865, in the San Francisco’s Hebrew:
If there be any religious system more closely connected with the institution [of Masonry] than others, it is Judaism.29
Although the order claims to be open to all races and all religions, the American lodges refused to initiate any Americans of African descent as a brethren and rejected the legitimacy of any of their Masonic lodges. In 1775, the Grand Lodge of England instigated the first lodge of Americans of African descent in Boston, which eventually assumed the status of grand lodge.
During the time the Monument was built, the organization was mostly a middle class order that mirrored the mores and mentality of the epoch: piety, sobriety, moral responsibility, thrift, and industry. In many respects, it exemplified the Protestant ethic at its best.
The raison d’être of the brotherhood was to promote charity, equality, fraternity, morality, and faith in the Supreme Being. It supplied its members with a sense of fraternity, prestige, and occasionally financial aid. It also provided business connections and networking. On a national level, Masons claimed among its members presidents, senators, and other dignitaries who established the rules for accessibility in the political arena.
The fraternity’s activities however were not entirely reclusive and esoteric. The order also participated in social events. A typical example here is the role they played in the ceremonies at the inauguration of the Washington Monument. Another example of their social acceptance and popularity is further evidenced by their participation at the laying of the cornerstone of the Statue of Liberty, in 1885.
Sociologically, the Masonry reflected the craze for associations, brotherhoods, fraternities, and women’s clubs that became prominent throughout the country during the second part of the nineteenth century.30 Between July and September of 1874, over two hundred pledges were received by societies and organizations from every part of the country to help fund the construction of the Monument. The trend underlined an important facet of the American social fabric of that era.
The social disruption brought about by industrialization and massive immigration had a major impact on the political institutions of Washington D.C. During these social changes, a great number of Protestant churches were affected by the transition. The development of the scientific vision of the world, brought forth by the Darwinian evolutionary theories, challenged some fundamental beliefs and tenets of the Christian faith. Fraternities like the Masonry provided its members with a network of sanctuaries for Old Testament precepts.
The great influx of immigrants disrupted the basis of a stable social order inaugurated by the Anglo-Saxon elite, of which George Washington was promoted as a symbol. Hence, the brotherhood was a male political haven against the foreign invasion that threatened the nation at its foundation. It gave its members a sense of cohesion against the constant changes and chaos of the outside world. But mostly, the organization was a stronghold to promote true Americanism.31
The order relied on a national network of loyal members, some of whom were among the most powerful men in the country. These ramifications made it an effective hierarchy. To protect their efficiency as a group, and to keep the higher hierarchy from public scrutiny, the new members were sworn to secrecy of its rituals. Yet the fraternity was not so much preoccupied with any esoteric purpose inasmuch as to keep from public view a number of secret procedures, signs, and passwords used in the rituals which brought the brethren step by step one echelon closer to the “light”.
The oath of secrecy also enforced among the members a sense of cohesion and fraternity which inspired unity and the idea of belonging. It also delineated and separated their sacred internal male world from the profane and chaotic world outside. The brethren, in other words, set themselves apart from the uninitiated masses.
The ritual of initiation gave the brethren a sense of election, while the boundaries of the Masonic temple reinforced the separation between the inside and the outside world. The temple morally and physically edified a sacred asylum against the non-initiated profane world.
*
At the outset the brotherhood view the Roman Catholic Church with suspicion. The distrust was equally shared by the Holy See in Rome. The mutual distrust is but a distant echo of the split brought about by the Reformation and counter Reformation. The ensuing religious antagonism in Europe explains the scope of the animosity between Catholics and Protestants that continued to thrive in North America.
On April 20th, 1884, less than a year before the inauguration of the Monument, Pope Leo XIII issued the Encyclical Humanum Genus, condemning Freemasonry.32 The Papal letter criticized the brotherhood for “rising up against God Himself” and “despoiling the nations of Christendom”. The Pope further argued that the reason for the brotherhood’s obsession with the secrecy of its members was devised to hide the insidious designs of its leaders so to escape any retribution. Not surprisingly, Freemasonry was increasingly seen as a danger and a challenge to the Church’s authority in a politically troubled Italy. They were suspected of secretly fomenting to infiltrate all political ranks in order to promote secular ideas and finally to unseat the Church of its political powers.33
It is during the XIXth century that a schism between the regular and the irregular Masonry lodges appeared. The first, which were not condemned by the Church, upheld the reference of “the Great Architect of the Universe” -God. They did not get involved in politics, respected all faiths and churches, and were not secretive.34 The second group, however, deleted the reference to “the Great Architect of the Universe”, it called for the ruin of the papacy and the Church in Italy. In France, it was responsible for the anti-clerical laws of the Third Republic. It even proclaimed its Masonry as “the Counter Church”. It is this secretive type of Masonry that was condemned by the Church.
The Masons’ ample involvement in the funding as well as at the inauguration of the Monument provides proof of their extensive influence on American politics as a whole. The project embodied a conviction in the American way of life of which George Washington is the prototype. They made sure that the erected structure laid the foundation for a healthy Americanism so to endure the onslaught of any moral degeneracy from the chaotic world outside. The man, the Monument, the brethren, stand visibly erect at the center of the capital and point at all these ideals.
As we have seen, the distinction between the purely secular, the mythical, and the religious is blurred in the process of the edification of the Monument of George Washington. The mythical preempted and transcended any divisions between any strict religious denominations and political factions in society to become a supra-religious reality. A religion above all other religions, an American civil religion.
C. Moody Plummer of the Trestleboard was only more extreme than most when he declared Protestantism itself to be a religion of warring sects “as intolerant often of each other as human action can be,” while Masonry was “the only religion which can become universal and is [therefore] true religion.”35
American civil religion
The term civil religion comes from the work of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the social contract.36 Robert N. Bellah applied the title to the American political arena to outline the religious content of the inaugural speeches delivered by American presidents.37
The idea of an American civil religion first came to his attention with John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address on January 20, 1961. He noticed that his address was full of religious references to God and the nation, described in very idyllic form. He also noticed that most of the past presidents’ inaugural speeches had the same type of references: a call for devotion to the nation described in its ideal form, where the divine Providence plays a guiding role in shaping the destiny of the United States of America.
Four statutes of the J.F.K. inaugural speech:
a) The right to independence: “Laws of Nature and
Nature’s God”.
b) All “are endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable Rights”.
c) God is witness to America’s good will: “The Supreme
Judge of the world for the rectitude of our
intentions”.
d) The U.S. reliance on God’s Providence: “a firm
reliance on the protection of divine Providence”.
Except for the references that allude directly to a biblical God, Bellah observes that the content of most speeches do not advocate any particular religious creed. There is no specific mention of Jesus Christ or Yahweh, for instance, since the purpose of the discourses is to form a consensus and represent the multicultural aspect of the society to which they are addressed.38
Yet Bellah notes that among the first presidents many also use references to the Bible. Especially to suggest a connection between the New World and Israel, the Exodus, the Chosen People, the promised land and the New Jerusalem. These analogies, in the context of a predominantly Protestant background of the first presidents, were inevitable.
Although Bellah acknowledges the connections with Judeo-Christian tenets, he carefully dispels any suggestions that American civil religion has any doctrinal Christian content, or is a substitute for Christianity. He contends that civil religion has a different role than religion, since it is specifically political. As such, it appeals to all the people of all backgrounds. To Bellah, American civil religion is an understanding of the American experience in terms of a “transcendent ethical vision”.39 This interpretation of the universal and transcendental is only meaningful if made in relation to the origin and destiny of the U.S. political model of freedom and democracy. Bellah further points out that the God of civil religion is a God of order and freedom rather than of love and forgiveness. It is a God mostly concerned with the history and destiny of the United States.
The American civil religion attracted a great deal of attention among the intellectuals of the nineteen seventies. Despite Bellah’s success there was plenty of criticism, most of which was directed at the author’s definition of religion. Especially questionable was the universal validity of its meaning. In this respect, a more appropriate term to describe it is Paul Tillich’s definition of quasi-religion.40
Most of the Founding Fathers had a Christian background, more specifically, Protestant, since most of them emigrated from Europe. With this in mind, the American civil definition of religion is limited by these cultural and geographical parameters. This view of religion, for instance, ignores the aboriginal cultures that were present at the time of the foundation of this nation. It makes the natives conspicuously invisible.41 Furthermore, there is no mention of the cultures brought by the Americans of African descent.42
American civil religion, as outlined by Bellah, is a supra-political institution predominantly concerned with Judeo-Christian precepts. The historical foundations and later developments edified and maintained the image of George Washington as the prototype of the American civil religion. This ethical model and the hierarchy of political power was set at the beginning. The American New Order originated by the Founding Fathers was appropriately sustained to preserve their sacred power, as illustrated by the number of presidents since Washington who have been Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, and white. That premise was consecrated at the outset by the inauguration of the George Washington National Monument, the primal model of the presidency. The only exception is John Kennedy, a Catholic.
To that effect, the Latin saying captures the essence of rule of politics, cujus regio, ejus religio: the religion of the rulers becomes the creed of the land.
As we have seen, myth plays a considerable part in the evolution and integration of ideology. The power behind the language of myth is to define, confine, and control the scope of the national identity. By the same token, it shapes a meaningful consensus in culture and society.
American civil religion, as it relies on its governmental institutions and on the presidency, in terms of the charisma of the office, embodies and fulfills in many respects the same function as religion. As Bellah observed: “The answer is that the separation of church and state has not denied the political realm of a religious dimension.”43 This remark introduces yet another very complex point of contention: the separation of church and state. Bellah brings up the question briefly but does not clarify the issue. No doubt there is a danger, more so today because of the effective use of mass-media in the creation of a national consensus. But also because the religious and the political may be identified or confused as a single and legitimate reality by a greater number of people living in a secularized world. As a consequence, the State becomes the only unquestionable source of economical power and political truth. This theological truth is amply suggested by the symbol that epitomizes the relation between Freemasonry, politics, the economy, and civil religion in America.
1$ IN GOD WE TRUST 1$
On one side of the dollar bill we have the portrait of our celebrated hero. On the other side, a symbol of Freemasonry: the pyramid crowned by the all-seeing-eye inside the pyramidion. The latter also represents the zenith of political power overseeing the pyramidal order of hierarchy. And at the center of the bill is the caption that embraces the ultimate icon of American civil religion.
_________________
1 I turned my attention to this subject in my Masters’ thesis entitled: Interpretation Religieuse de l’Origine Mythique de la Nationalite: L’Inauguration de Monuments Nationaux (1840-1900), Montreal, UQAM, 1978.
2 Robert N. Bellah, The Broken Covenant: American Civil Religion in Time of Trial, New York, Seabury Press, 1975; and Beyond Belief; Essays on Religion in a Post-Traditional World, New York, Harper & Row, 1970.
3 The whole ceremony is related in Frederick Harvey’s, ed., History of the Washington National Monument & Washington National Monument Society, Washington D.C., Government Printing Office, 1903.
4 Mircea Eliade, Cosmos and History, New York, Harper & Row, 1959, 12.
5 Idid. F. Harvey, 43. Taken from the National Geographic Magazine, vol. 6, 149.
6 In myths, the hill and the mountain are important places where the earth and the heavens meet. It is where the divine greet the human, where the above touch the below, and the sacred and the profane converge.
7 Ibid. F. Harvey, 224.
8 For more about the obelisks of Egypt see Labib Habachi’s, The Obelisks of Egypt, Cairo, American University in Cairo Press, 1984.
9 The same year the Immaculate Conception became an article of faith.
10 The movement also fought unsuccessfully to minimize the anti-slavery sentiments of that time.
11 Rhetoric was later developed by Aristotle in works like Rhetoric and Topics. It eventually became the means of putting into practice, especially with the help of argumentation, the wisdom one acquires in philosophy. Later, the art was most skillfully applied by the Roman master orator and statesman Cicero, as described in his De Oratore (55 BC). In the first century ad, rhetoric became the subject of an important educational treatise entitled Instituto oratoria by the Roman Quintinllian. It evolved until the middle of the XIXth century into a major educational discipline and one of the seven liberal arts. But, as the last century faded, rhetoric as a “general” science was slowly being supplanted by the increasingly popular natural sciences. See Walter J. Ong, Orality and Literacy, New York, Methuen, 1982, and, Rhetoric, Romance, and Technology, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1971.
12 See Paul Ricoeur, The Rule of Metaphor, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1977.
13 Ibid. F. Harvey, 46.
14 Marcus Cunliffe, George Washington, Man and Monument, Boston, Little, Brown Co., 1958, 213.
15 Ibid. F. Harvey, 126.
16 Ibid. F. Harvey, 130.
17 Ibid. F. Harvey, 136.
18 The speech is not included in Harvey’s book.
19 Ibid. F. Harvey, 104-105. For some unknown reason the president’s dedication was overshadowed by the other addresses.
20 Ibid. F. Harvey, 214.
21 Ibid. F. Harvey, 252.
22 Ibid. F. Harvey, 278.
23 Ibid. F. Harvey, 285.
24 Mason Locke Weems, The Life of Washington, ed. Marcus Cunliffe, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1962.
25 Bernard Mayo, Myths and Men, Athens, University of Georgia Press, 1959, 33, and the whole chapter on Washington, 25-49.
26 William A. Bryan, George Washington in American Literature, 1775-1865, New York, Columbia University Press, 1952, 118. Also, Richard V. Pierard & Robert D. Linder, Civil Religion & the Presidency, Grand Rapids, Academie Books, 1988.
27 They are: George Washington, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, James Knox Polk, James Buchanan, Andrew Jonhson, James A. Garfield, William McKinley, both Roosevelts, William H. Taft, Warren G. Harding, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon Jonhson, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.
28 In 1964 the Masonic Order enrolled about 1 out of every 12 men in the U.S.
29 “Perhaps the most surprising representatives in the Masonic non-evangelical alliance were the large number of Jews. In Gilded-Age San Francisco, Jews comprised 12% of the brotherhood’s membership, about the same proportion which they formed in the city’s adult, white, male, non-catholic population as a whole. Considering the strictly Protestant origins of Freemasonry, this high proportion of Jewish members is extraordinary.” Carl Guarneri, and David Alvarez, ed., Religion and Society in the American West, New York, University Press, 1987. p.240.
30 Between 1880 and 1900, more than 460 associations were formed in the U.S.
31 See the book by Lynn Dumenil, Freemasonry and American Culture, 1880-1930, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1984, 70.
32 Leo XIII, Humanum Genus, April 20th 1884, in, The Papal Encyclicals, 1878-1903, Raleigh, McGrath Publishing C., 1981, 91-101. He was not the only Pope to condemn the brotherhood. Others were: Benedict XIV, Pius VII, Pius VIII, Gregory XVI, Pius IX. The Catholic Church was not the only denomination in the U.S. to warn against lodge affiliation. Among them: the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the Christian Reformed Church, Church of the Brethren, Assemblies of God, Society of Friends (Quakers), Mennonites, Church of the Nazarene, Jehovah’s Witnesses, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), United Brethren, Wesleyan, the Free Methodist churches, and the Seventh-day Adventist Church. General Booth of the Salvation Army also condemned the organization. Finally, in 1874, the National Christian Association coordinated a Protestant opposition to secret societies. However, the ban was not strictly enforced.
33 These hostilities go back even farther in time; as early as 1738, Pope Clement XII had already threatened to excommunicate anyone belonging to the order.
34 In Great Britain, the “regular” Masonry scrupulously obeys a law requiring it to provide its membership list to Justice.
35 Ibid. Carl Guarneri, 236.
36 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, in, The Essential Rousseau, New York, New American Library, 1974.
37 Robert N. Bellah, Beyond Belief, New York, Harper & Row, 1970, 168-189.
38 George Washington’s first inaugural address of April 30, 1789 alludes to God as the “Almighty Being”. It is a good example of his deist Masonic interpretation of the divinity.
39 Robert N. Bellah, The Broken Covenant, New York, A Crossroad Book, 1975, 142.
40 Paul Tillich distinguishes pseudo from quasi-religion. The first is an intended and deceptive similarity with religion, whereas the second indicates a genuine similarity which is not necessarily intended. See, Christianity and the Encounter of the World Religions, New York, Columbia University Press, 1963, 5f.
41 Charles H. Long, Civil Rights, Civil Religion: Visible People and Invisible People, in, American Civil Religion, ed. by Russel E. Richey and Donald G. Jones, New York, Harper Forum Books, 1974.
42 Appropriately labeled by Ralph Ellison as the “Invisible Man”. Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man, New York, Vintage Books, 1972.
43 Robert N. Bellah, Beyond Belief, New York, Haper & Row, 1970, 171.
Archaeological findings show that the earliest and the most prevalent type of artifacts discovered in Old Europe show an overwhelming concern with female symbolism. They were, in all probability, connected to some form of cultic origin or purpose.1 The discovery of sculptured images and cave paintings of female figures from numerous sites, some dating as far back as twenty five thousand years, reveals a pervasive interest in female artistic representation that suggests some form of Goddess worship. One typical example of the earliest expressions of these figurines was found in the region of Dordogne, France, it depicts a pregnant woman. These little statues, also called Venuses -named after the Roman goddess of love- outnumber their male counterparts ten to one.
