|
 |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||
 |
|
||||
|
|||||
Christian Roots - II |
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
The Bible as we have it is a troubling text, much 'overwritten' (stories changed to suit political purposes. Perhaps the most glaring is the Book of Acts) and corrupted. But it is possible to apprehend Truth within it. The Christisn idea that the Bible is the inspired 'Word of God' is actually quite a recent idea in Christian history, and did not become popular until the 19th century in reaction to the onslaughts of modern science. A literal interpretation of the text is a disastrous mistake, as evidenced by the paranoia and embattled defensiveness of Fundamentalism. The commonalities and fatal errors of the fundamentalist stance in the three "Book" religions are thoroughly examined by Karen Armstrong in her book, The Battle for God. Fundamentalism breeds violence because it stems from the insecurity that shook Western religion to the core in its reaction to modernity. Atheism in the Christian world was unheard of as little as 300 years ago. How has Christianity responded to discoveries in the physical and biological sciences, in archaeology and history? Not well, to say the least. Fundamentalism is a 'fall back' posture, a refusal to even debate the issues raised by modernity. 'The separation of Church and state', the rejection of theocracy, where a few interpret the faith for all, must be strenuously advocated, all over the world. It may challenge some Christians' faith to accept the fact that everything from the 'hanged god' to the Virgin Mary is a restatement, though innacurate, of the Egyptian Solar cult. But I believe it is still possible in this day and age to consider oneself a Christian. For from the very beginning, there have been vocal defenders of the 'true Church' who have sought to preserve the essential integrity of the teachings. The Gnostic Gospels, and Adam Eve and Serpent by Elaine Pagels are two crucial texts. They are full of information about the valaint efforts of early Christians to prevent the 'Romanization' of their faith. The Romans took the Hebrew Christian teachings and fashioned them into a state religion that justified imperial politics. The Book of Romans is an instructive example of the conflict between 'those of James', the 'brother of Yeshua' and the Pauline camp. Paul was, after all, a Roman collaborator, and there is little reason to believe he did not remain one all his life, though he eventually did run afoul of the government. Imperialist governments are nothing if not fickle. A crucial book that took me over a year to read is James: the Brother of Jesus, by Robert Eisenman, a Dead Sea Scrolls scholar, who gives a compelling picture of the early Jamesian "Christians", those anti-imperialist freedom fighters and monastic wilderness dwellers, who preached a gospel of resistance to thr Roman occupation alongside a mystic understanding of 'the standing man', the Messiah with roots deep in the Hebrew tradition. One small example: Eisenman goes on for many pages carefully proving to my satisfaction that Jesus would NEVER have sat to eat with a Roman taz collector, and certainly not with a 'prostitute', since that was the name they gave to the Herodian women, like onewho killed one husband only to marry another more influential in Roman circles. These Jewish collaborators who held the whip to keep their own people in bondage to the Romans were strongly resisted by the freedom fighters of whom Jesus was the public voice. The Sicarii was a group of political assassins intent on underming Roman rule. The most famous of these of course was Judas Iscariot ('of the Sicarii') the supposed 'betrayer' of Jesus. And I might add that the picture Eisenman paints of the the orthodox Nararite Essenes (not 'Jesus of Nazareth' you see, but 'Jesus the Nazarite') bears a striking resemblance to the ideal of the 'Rastaman'. Like the Rasta, these men and women drew heavily from the Hebrew prophets.   Copyright © 2003 rootsie.com |
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|||||
