LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

text, “native” or “ethnic” cult is the term of choice, although you will find “pagan” in many of the Suggested Readings.

The inheritance of Biblical texts in Western culture provided the raw material for criticism of the native cults, beginning with the books of the Prophets. These writers continually railed against the worship of other gods as idolatry (the worship of icons, or images). Christians utilized these texts in their literature, which contributed to the overall view that such practices created anxiety: too many gods, too many myths, too many empty rituals, and an absence of spirituality for individual salvation. It is important to note that there is no historical evidence for such “anxiety” in the ancient world. Nevertheless, there are dozens of new books that continue to explain the rise and “triumph” of Christianity in the Roman Empire based upon this theory.

      Conversion

      Conversion means moving from one religious system to another. This word often appears in histories of ancient Judaism and early Christianity. People who participated in ethnic cults had the freedom to belong to several religious associations. They did not “convert” to another group by doing so. Ancient religion was in the blood; you were born into it as part of your clan or tribe. “Conversion” in the ancient world meant a change in lifestyle (one’s daily “customs”). Greeks and Romans who wanted to become a Jew fully “converted” in this sense.

      The most famous “convert” in history is the Apostle Paul, and his “conversion on the road to Damascus.” However, this is a misnomer; at the time there was no Christian religious system to convert to. Paul himself described it as a “call” in the manner of the Prophets of Israel who were called by God for a specific mission.

      Old Testament/Jewish Scriptures

      Canon

      You will often see the texts of the Bible referred to as the “canon” of Jewish texts and the gospels as the “canonical gospels.” In Greek, “canon” was a system of measurement. Applied in this sense “canon” refers to those books that were “measured” in later decisions taken to determine which books would be listed as “Sacred Scriptures.” The Jewish books (the first half of the Bible) were canonized c. 200 ce under the auspices of a Rabbi known as Judah the Prince. The documents that became the New Testament, the gospels, and the letters of Paul took several centuries to reach agreement on the “canon,” and only began to be considered in a formal list under Constantine (c. 325 ce).

      The designation “Old Testament” is a familiar one for the Jewish books. However, it is a Christian invention that is derogatory in nature. “Testament” is a later word for the older term of “covenant.” “Covenant” simply meant a “contract” between you and your people and your god(s). Christians in the second century began claiming that the older “covenant” with Israel was no longer valid and was replaced by the “new covenant” through Jesus. This idea is known today as “supersessionism” (“superseded” by Christianity, and still resonates as an element of modern anti-Semitism).

Naming the older books the “Old Testament” implies a judgment call. For Jews, these texts are not “old” in the sense that they are no longer valid. They remain at the center of Jewish belief and life. This textbook will use the term, “Jewish Scriptures” or “the Scriptures,” when referring to the various books of this collection. Some texts refer to the New Testament as the “Christian Scriptures,” but “New Testament” is the earlier descriptor. In the first century when Christian texts referred to “the Scriptures,” it was the Jewish Scriptures that they had in mind.

      Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John are consistently designated the “canonical gospels.” This is out of place, as there was no concept of “canon” for these gospels in the first century. Between the first and third centuries there were dozens of other gospels that narrated different details and different interpretations of the teachings of Jesus. In the second century, the Church Fathers began a process of declaring which of these gospels contained “correct belief” (orthodoxy) and which were “heretical” (from the Greek haíresis, “a school of thought”). The term “canonical gospels” is relative to the later decision that included only these four gospels in the New Testament.

      The Synoptics

      From the Greek, “seen together” Mark, Matthew, and Luke are referred to as the “Synoptic Gospels.” If you laid them out side by side, these three have the same narrative structure: a ministry in the Galilee followed by one trip to Jerusalem. They also share similar teachings, parables, exorcisms, and miracle stories. By contrast, John is not only different structurally (at least three trips to Jerusalem during the ministry), but John’s Jesus is totally different from the other three (no parables, no exorcisms, “signs” stories instead of miracles).

      Faith vs. Rituals

      Any text that examines the Bible, and especially the New Testament, will encounter the English word “faith” in translation. However, it was only in the eighteenth century that “faith” was used to describe “belief” in a religious system, particularly in teachings on individual salvation. At the same time, the word “faith” also came to mean “belief” in something despite evidence to the contrary. But the ancients did not often articulate their ideas as “belief” or “faith” as we understand it. “Faith” (derived from the Greek word pistis) originally meant “loyalty,” in this case loyalty to a set of shared concepts and rituals involved in worship of a god or gods.

The great concern in the ancient world was to carry out rituals involved in the various native cults correctly. The correct rituals were understood to be handed down “by the ancestors.” In ancient Rome, if a priest or augur stumbled over the words, he had to begin again. Several books in the Jewish Scriptures describe the correct way in which to perform the rituals of the Temple cult in Jerusalem.

      Beginning with the New Testament, this focus on the rituals of non-Christians became a negative, derogatory way in which to attack both Jews and the native cults; hence the modern concept that the Jews were “legalistic” and were only concerned with “the letter of the Law.” The idea that native cults lacked “spirituality” (Christians had faith, pagans had rituals) still finds its biased way into many books on the early history of Christianity.

      Church

      In the New Testament, and particularly in the letters of Paul, you will often see the word “church.” It is translated from the Greek ecclesia, which means “assembly.” The first missionaries apparently modeled their communities on the administrative structure of older Greek city-states and Roman towns, where the term referred to the “assembly” of free citizens who made up local government. In relation to the new groups of the followers of Jesus, a better translation would be “community.” Translating this as “church” conjures up images of church buildings and institutional hierarchy. Both were part of later Christian evolution. In the earlier communities there were no “churches;” people met in each other’s houses. In each of the chapters, I will highlight other translation issues that are problematic as they arise.

      “Spirit”

      Often mentioned in association with “churches,” “spirit” is understood to be “the spirit of God” or “the spirit of Christ” (in Paul’s letters) and not the third element of the later concept of “The Trinity” (fourth century ce). This is the spirit of God that breathed life into Adam and “possessed” the Prophets of Israel. This is the “spirit” that comes upon Jesus in the gospels at his baptism (the symbol of the dove) so that he was enabled to perform miracles. English Bibles, reading back later trinitarian concepts, always translate this with capitals, “Holy Spirit.”

Скачать книгу