Superstitious Survivals from the Ancient Past

What is superstition, anyway? According to one dictionary it is “any belief, based on fear or ignorance, that is inconsistent with the known laws of science or with what is generally considered in the particular society as true and rational; esp. such a belief in charms, omens, and the supernatural, etc.”¹ Hence superstitions are beliefs or actions that violate rational thought as conceived in a particular society—which makes superstition relative to what passes as critical thinking in a given community.

Since the rise of human reason in the 18^th century many of the superstitious survivals of antiquity have generally lost their influence in our scientific based Western culture—particularly with the rise of modern Western secular education. Yet many superstitions still survive in a kind of underground way in the modern Western world—similar to the survival of paganism in the ancient Roman world. Paganism was edged-out by Christian ascendancy around the fifth century. After 440 CE no pagans are listed among the elite of the City of Rome.² Yet the ancient religions and superstitions of the Greek and Roman worlds survived in the countryside away from the population centers of the cities, where Christianity had established itself.

            I was reminded of the fact that ancient superstitions still survive in modern society upon reading a sentence from Homer’s Iliad. In a speech Achilles made before the assembled Achaean warriors on the occasion of a pandemic caused by the God Phoebus Apollo over a slight by Agamemnon to Apollo’s priest, Chryses. The Achaeans were pondering why Apollo had sent his arrows of pestilence among them. Achilles suggested that they “should consult some seer (mantis), or priest (iereus), or interpreter of dreams (oneriopolos) to discover the cause.³

A seer in the ancient world (and in the Bible) is one who divines the future and answers other questions from various means, such as observing the flights of birds, for example.⁴ A priest in the ancient world (and in the Bible) is one who was authorized to perform the sacred rites of a religion, especially as an agent of mediation between people and God.”⁵ Oneiromancy, the interpretation of dreams, was prevalent throughout the ancient world (and in the Bible). Gods of the ancient world were thought to communicate with people through dreams (Matt 1:20-21; 2:13).

There was a prohibition of such practices in ancient Israel: there should not be found among you “anyone who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer” (Deut 18:10-12 RSV), but such figures were consulted anyway (1 Sam 9:9-12, 18-19).

These three supernatural practices still survive in modern Western society in various forms.  A psychic is a spiritual medium who answers questions dealing with matters beyond the physical world (check their availability on the internet). Priests are in the employ of certain modern religions. They are believed to have the power to mediate between God and people, particularly in the more ritualistic religious traditions (ascribing the divine presence to the elements of the Mass/Eucharist, for example). Dream interpretations are offered by psychics or mediums, who are believed to have the power to interface with the spirit world. Dream interpretation, however, has now also gone mainstream, and is a technique used by medically trained psychotherapists (hopefully not through the powers of spirits).⁶

Is Christianity’s Holy Spirit, perhaps, only another ancient superstition from the ancient past? It would seem, on the surface, that there is little difference between the ancient pagan belief that certain people communicated with and through spirit (not Holy Spirit) and Christianity’s belief that modern Christians communicate with God through Holy Spirit. Both groups access their Gods through the medium of spirit, what they both channel is a spiritual “reality,” and they are both pre-critical survivals from the ancient past.⁷ In what way is Christianity’s belief in Holy Spirit not also a survival from the ancient past? Why is it not also superstition, if pagan beliefs in spirit are superstition? If there can be one spirit (Holy Spirit), why can there not be more (pagan spirits)? Luke seemed to think so, when he described Paul as exorcising a spirit of the Pythia (Acts 16:16-18).

Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University

¹Webster’s New World College Dictionary (4^th edition, 2002), s. v. “superstition.”

²Charles Hedrick, Jr., History and Silence. Purge and Rehabilitation of Memory in Late Antiquity (Austin: University of Texas, 2000), 57.

³Homer, The Iliad, Book 1, lines 62-63.

⁴See Charles W. Hedrick, “Prophecy, Divination and Fate,” The Fourth R 36.2 (March-April 2023), 15-18, 10. For other appearances of a seer in the Bible see 2 Sam 24:11; 2 kgs 17:13; 1 Chron 25:5; 2 Chron 9:29; Isa 29:10; Amos 7:12; Mic 3:7.

⁵Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1990), s. v. “priest.”

⁶National Library of Medicine: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3330585/

See also Charles W. Hedrick, “Does God Communicate in Dreams,” Blog: Wry Thoughts about Religion, May 16, 2013: http://blog.charleshedrick.com/2013/05/does-god-communicate-in-dreams.html?showComment=1368794635348

⁷Hedrick, “Laying on Hands, to Pass on the Holy Spirit,” Blog: Wry Thoughts about Religion, July 8, 2021: http://blog.charleshedrick.com/search?q=the+holy+spirit

The Bones of Jesus of Nazareth

Is it possible that some archaeologist one day might turn up a bone-box discovery containing the bones of Jesus of Nazareth? As always in matters of religion, the answer depends on who you ask. True Believers, who trust that the Bible always speaks Truth in matters related to faith and doctrine, will dismiss my question as ignorance of the nature and meaning of Jesus' resurrection.

The witness of all four canonical gospels is that the tomb of Jesus was found empty by the first visitors on that first Easter morning (Mark 16:4-6; Matt 28:5-6; Luke 24:2-6; John 20:3-9). The body of Jesus was gone! This is the basis for the argument that the body of Jesus was physically resuscitated and transformed, or as the writer we call Luke has it: the flesh of Jesus did not suffer corruption (Acts 2:24-32; 13:32-35).

The gospel writers double down on the physicality of the resurrection. John adds that Jesus cautions Mary not to cling to him (John 20:17)—a spirit is hardly substantial; there is nothing to cling to. Hence the caution to Mary only makes sense if Jesus' body is physical. And Jesus invites Thomas to "put out your hand and place it in my side"; spirits do not have sides (John 20:27; where the soldier had pierced his side on the cross, John 19:34)—another clue that the body of Jesus was physical and not spirit. In Matthew the women who had come to the tomb "took hold of his feet" (Matt 28:9); spirits don't have feet, but physical bodies do. Luke notes that the resurrected Jesus was given a piece of broiled fish "and he took it and ate before them" (Luke 24:39-42); spirits do not need food but bodies do.

            According to true believers, however, why would one doubt the resurrection? God can, and has done, many things more marvelous than raising Jesus from among the dead. For example, the Bible reports that God transported Elijah bodily into heaven in a chariot of fire by means of a whirlwind—body, blood, bones, calloused bunions, and all (2 Kgs 2:9-12).

            Paul, on the other hand, in discussing the concept of resurrection (1 Cor 15:35) specifically rules out a physical resurrection: the body is destined for corruption; it is only in the spirit that one may inherit eternal life (Gal 6:8). It is foolishness, Paul says, to conceive of resurrection in terms of a physical body (1 Cor 15:36-42). In short, "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable" (1 Cor 15:50). What can inherit the kingdom of God is the "spiritual body" (1 Cor 15:44), Paul argues, and that must include Jesus as well (1 Cor 15:45).

            Paul's idea of a spiritual resurrection does seem to make more sense than what is found in the gospels, but if we are transformed what happens to the old body? Paul argues that it will be changed (allagēsometha), like one changes a suit of clothes (1 Cor 15:52), and "puts on" the imperishable and immortal spirit (1 Cor 15:53-54). Nevertheless, there seems to be a continuum between the mortal and the immortal; the physical body is not divested but "further clothed" (2 Cor 5:1-4).

One of Paul's disciples, however, did not follow this last idea of the great apostle, and argued instead that "at death, the Elect are 'drawn' to heaven by the Savior (Treatise on the Resurrection, 45.34-39). The inner, spiritual self 'departs' and experiences a blessed 'absence' from the fleshly body" (Treatise on the Resurrection, 27.19-24, 35-38).¹ In other words, the resurrection is a completely spiritual event. If the writer of this treatise on the resurrection is correct, it would seem that we might yet find the bones of Jesus buried somewhere in Israel.

Charles W. Hedrick

Professor Emeritus

Missouri State University

¹Malcolm Peel, "The Treatise on the Resurrection," in Harold Attridge, ed., Nag Hammadi Codex I (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 142.

Are there Degrees of Spirituality?

This is not a question that I can answer. In my view a person's spirituality is an inner attitude; it is not a foreign supplemental addition to oneself. One can evaluate spirituality in terms of exterior social behavior after defining what is meant by "religious," but that is not quite the same thing as studying a mental state or stance toward something. The inner mental state or stance of spirituality is never available for direct study; instead, only the stated claims of those polled about spirituality may be analyzed.

 

            The Apostle Paul, however, thought there were degrees to spirituality, and from the perspective of nascent Christianity he described the scale this way:

 

But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as fleshly, as babes in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food; for you were not ready for it; and even yet you are not ready, for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not still of the flesh and behaving just like ordinary people? For when one says, "I belong to Paul," and another, "I belong to Apollos," are you not just ordinary people? (1 Cor 3:1-4)

 

The degree scale that Paul establishes is at its lowest end "ordinary fleshly people" (or babes in Christ) and at its highest end "spiritual people." I suppose that the designations fleshly/spiritual would come together at the midpoint halfway through the scale. Paul is able to distinguish these two extremes, however, only in terms of human behaviors and he gives his readers an example.  Ordinary fleshly people act jealously and create strife (1 Cor 3:3). Presumably the spiritual people at the upper end of the scale would act just the opposite; that is, spiritual people would be characterized by trust and they would create harmony. But perhaps we should use his words as to how spiritual people behave:

 

The fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. (Gal 5:22-23 RSV)

 

On the other hand, the behaviors to which the flesh (what Paul regards as human lower nature) leads are:

 

fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissention, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and such things." (Gal 5:19-21 RSV

 

            Does "spirituality," however defined, improve the species Homo sapiens?  Again, it is not a question that can be answered for two reasons: 1. It will depend on how you define "improvement." For example, some may think spiritual improvement means being less formally "religious" (however defined), since they might regard religiosity as a holdover from the superstitious period of humanity's primitive past; and 2. Since "spirituality" is a personal attitude (that is, how one regards oneself or how one is regarded by others), we can never analyze the degree of one's spirituality directly. We can only know how we regard ourselves and what we claim about someone else—and our self claims and what others claim about us may disagree.

 

            Suppose, however, "spirituality" were defined in terms of stated concepts of the Divine—that is to say how has the species Homo sapiens described the Gods it serves? Have concepts of God evolved or devolved? My theory is that spiritual people are more apt to conceive a more ethically respectable God; spiritual people would scarcely serve a flawed Deity. The more ethically their Gods behave; the keener must be the spiritual sense of those believing in such Gods.

 

            I do see specific indicators of gradual change in the representation of Deity by the species Homo sapiens. The overlapping changes are not uniform throughout the world and have been occurring over millions of years.

 

1.   The ascription of Divinity to the primal forces of nature (Primitive period).

2.   Polytheism and anthropomorphism (Classical Greek and Roman period).

3.   Monotheism and Spirit (Judeo-Christian period).

4.   Panentheism: God is in everything and everything is in God (Post-Enlightenment).

 

Whether this represents an evolution that makes our species more spiritual or whether it is a devolution that makes our species less spiritual, is a subjective judgment, however, and will be answered according to one's personal faith.

 

Charles W. Hedrick

Professor Emeritus

Missouri State University

From where does our Sense of the Divine come?

The Bible generally describes the Judeo-Christian God as tangible essence existing somewhere in space and time as part of our universe—essentially an entity of the world.  The modern Christian church perpetuates that concept of God in its hymns, sermons, liturgy, prayers, etc.  In the most ethical biblical concepts of God, however, God is far less like we are—that is, like another inhabitant of our physical universe, only more powerful. There are at least two concepts of God in the Bible that mostly bypass the general view: in 1Kings 19:12 God is conceived as "a still small voice"; and in John 4:24 God is described as "spirit."

 

               Spirit may still be tangible, however; depending on how it is conceived.  If spirit is conceived as an entity that takes up space, like visible steam from a tea kettle, or the nearly invisible vapor arising from a heated substance, or the taste left in the rum cake when the "spirits" have evaporated, then it is tangible. If spirit is not left-over taste, or vaporous mist—or something barely visible to the naked eye; that is, if spirit does not leave an image on the retina of the eye, what is it?

 

               I would suppose that God, as intangible spirit, is likely a denizen of a parallel spirit(ual) universe, a complex that does not occupy space and time. In this case, God is not a part of the physical universe, but "over there" in the spirit(ual) universe, along with other invisible spirits (good, evil, and unclean), demons, devils, Satan, and other spiritual forces, such as angels, the Prince of the Power of the Air (Ephesians 2:2), the Principalities and Powers in heavenly places (Eph 3:10), the world rulers of the present darkness (Eph 6:12), the spiritual hosts of wickedness in heavenly places (Eph 6:12), angels, principalities, powers (Romans 8:38), etc.

 

               I prefer the description in 1Kings 19:12.  This description rejects the dramatic physical manifestations of God, such as wind, seismic convulsions, and fire (1 Kings 19:9-13).  God is conceived, for good or ill, as no more or less than a particular sense or awareness of a divine small voice, whether in the mind or vibrating on the ear drum is unclear.  It is once stated that Elijah "heard" the voice (19:13), but people "hear" voices and even carry on conversations—in the mind, in dreams, in "visions" without the voices resonating on the ear drum.  Twice the voice is not "heard," but simply "there" (19:12), "and a voice came to him" (19:13)—that is to say, "an awareness" of a voice.  Being sensed, the Divine is always incomplete and imperfect; it does not exist over apart from us, but perhaps arises from within us.

 

               We all sense the Divine differently—whether it is a divine righteousness that must be appeased (sensed by Paul), or a divine emptiness (sensed by Ecclesiastes), or a divine legalism (sensed by "Moses"), or a divine capriciousness (sensed by Job), or the sense of the sacredness of all life (sensed by Albert Schweitzer).  In sensing and experiencing the Divine, we do not have the same sense or experience. Consider the sense of the Divine projected in the mystical Orthodox tradition or the philosophical Roman Catholic tradition, or the charismatic Assemblies of God tradition, or the emotional fundamentalist Baptist tradition.  The difference of religious experience is most marked when the various international religions of the world are considered; Buddhist, Shinto, Hindu, Taoism, and Islamic traditions provide striking testimony as to how diverse religious experiences can be.

 

               Whence have come those fleeting impulses that have led out in such startlingly different religious experiences?  Are they "sent" to us from "out there"?  That is, have they come from that parallel invisible universe of the Spirit and not from within us?  There is no critical answer to this question. All the evidence is anecdotal and testimonial.  It consists only of the experiences claimed by those who believe in and attest to the parallel universe.  There is nothing to analyze except their confessions and anecdotal experiences—not even a fleeting image on the eye's retina.

 

               Is it possible that our various senses of the Divine arise from within each of us? That is, the impulses come not from "out there" but from somewhere in the cortex of the human brain, or they are built into our DNA.  If that is the case, some of us would seem to be hard-wired either to receive Divine impulses or more probably to create a sense of the Divine.

 

               In the final analysis, the question of whence originates the sense of the Divine is unanswerable, but then the answer may not matter at all.  In the long run, human beings are better for having sensed the Divine—however imperfectly so.  The difficulty lies in vetting what people claim to experience as the Divine; I recall that Paul thought Satan could "disguise himself as an angel of light" (2 Corinthians 11:13-15).  The warning is inevitable: be wary of those who claim to have a definitive knowledge of the Divine.

 

Charles W. Hedrick

Professor Emeritus

Missouri State University

Is it Possible to be Spiritual without being Religious?

Clearly the answer to my question depends on what one means by spiritual and religious.  In contemporary Christianity the question has become important as the numbers of those associated with the "church alumni association" continue to rise.  In a 1999 Gallup poll three in ten Americans claimed that they were spiritual but not religious.  They were asked "do you think of spirituality more in a personal and individual sense or more in terms of organized religion and church doctrine?"  Almost three-quarters picked the personal and individual response.  In a January 2002 poll 50% described themselves as religious, while 33% claimed to be spiritual but not religious.  A poll conducted by Newsweek and Beliefnet in 2005 reported a lower percentage (24%) claiming to be spiritual.  In the Gallup poll when they defined spirituality they did it without any reference to God or a higher authority.  Among other things answers that defined being spiritual were having calmness in one's life and living in a way that is pleasing to oneself.

            The words religious and spiritual are used in the New Testament and suggest something other than simply "organized religion" (religious) and "personal and individual attitudes" (spiritual).  The words religion and religious are rare in the New Testament, but in Greek antiquity their cognates are fairly common.  In general, being religious is showing devotion to a transcendent power through cultic practice, which corresponds somewhat to the idea of "organized religion," although modern Christian "cultic" practice and what occurred in ancient Greek and Roman temples is quite different.

            In the New Testament the term "religious" appears only once; it is used of persons who are able to control their tongues (in Greek antiquity it carries the idea of "god fearing" or "pious").  Those who cannot control their tongues have a worthless religion (James 1:26; compare 3:1-12).  That is to say, what they do in their formal worship in showing devotion to a transcendent power is worthless unless they look after orphans and widows in their affliction and keep themselves from the negative influences of the world (James 1:27).  Hence, a religious person is someone whose worship is defined in terms of what we might call service to others; in James it is regarded as the only kind of cultic practice that is "pure and undefiled."

            The specific term "spiritual" with reference to certain people is used primarily in the letters of Paul.  The specific term "spiritual" is used to characterize the nature of the abilities with which God endows certain persons (1 Corinthians 12:4-11, 28-31).  These abilities are given mystically through a divine spirit, and are considered mystically endowed gifts.  They were not natural abilities with which a person is endowed at birth, which can be developed through one's own human powers.  Paul thought of himself as a source of certain spiritual gifts that he could impart to others (Romans 1:11).  Hence he was a spiritual person and apparently not the only one (1 Corinthians 2:12-3:3).  Others also thought of themselves as "spiritual" (1 Corinthians 14:37).  A spiritual person was endowed with a spiritual gift for the common good (1 Corinthians 12:7), and hence was a helper of others through their spiritual gifts (Romans 1:11; 1 Corinthians 9:11; Galatians 6:1).

            People in the 21st century who describe themselves as spiritual but not religious would not have been understood by a follower of Jesus in the first century, since in the ancient idiom both terms are closely related.  It may also be true that many today who describe themselves as religious would not be understood by followers of Jesus in the first century for the same reason.  The term "spiritual" in the sense of the answers given to the pollsters in 2003 and later seem to suggest the idea of having no involvement with anything relating to transcendent power, mysticism, or being a source of aid to others.  In today's vernacular to be "spiritual" apparently means being wrapped up in oneself.  It does not even suggest such things as meditation, mystical trance, contemplation, or thinking about matters beyond one's own self, something Paul would clearly not have understood (Romans 8:6-7).

Can one be spiritual without being religious?  Like so many other things in life, it depends on how one defines the terms.  How do you define the terms "religious" and "spiritual"?

 

Charles W. Hedrick

Professor Emeritus

Missouri State University