Divine horticulture

Here are the slides from our last Lenten Lecture this year. I am running a little busy, so they are without commentary - I plan to fill it in sometimes later. 

Eco-sensitive Biblical Animism

This time we will be talking about archaic epistemology which I would call, for lack of better words, remnants of biblical animism. Animism will not be for us today a fully formed religious system; rather it will be that mode of thinking and relating to the outside world in which boundaries between divine, spiritual, human and natural (animate as well as inanimate) remain largely fluid. We will concentrate especially on how this less regimented mode of thinking can influence our understanding of the biblical text, our faith, our self-understanding and relationship to the world.

The Bible preserved only two reports of speaking animals. The biblical editorial process was driven by a developing strict monotheism which certainly led to the elimination of many other examples.
    These two instances of talking animals were not eliminated, most likely, because in these two stories the talking animals were an integral part of the narrative plot. Also both stories used talking animals (remnants of animism) in an important dogmatic (Genesis) or folkloric (Numbers) to advocate powerfully for monotheism.
    Yet the narrative itself clearly outlines constitutive aspects of a different (animistic) mentality. Animals are talking just like any other character. In the narrative this is treated as absolutely natural. Only the book of Numbers hints at some explanation in the divine command to donkey to speak. In both cases animals are the source of special knowledge (alternative mode of understanding the divine plan) which they communicate to humans.
    Even if we interpret these talking animals as a rhetorical and dramatic tools, or as a projections of a person’s own thoughts into any given animal (in fact, a kind of hallucinations) the fact that this is accepted without any substantial commentary, alarm or explanation can tell us that the narrators mind-set was different from our current most common post-enlightenment way of thinking.
  
     (A tangential comment about the role and image of snakes. Especially in medieval and post-medieval religion and culture snakes received a demonically sinister reputation. That was not the original intention of Genesis. The ancient meaning and symbolism of snakes was complex and far from being only negative - here I would like to refer to book by the professor of NT theology from Princeton James H. Charlesworth: The Good and Evil Serpent, 2010.)

    Many biblical animals were most likely "made silent" by dogmatic censorship of a lengthy editorial process, as I have mentioned earlier. But old underlying modes of perception and reflection of the world could not be completely eliminated. They are scattered throughout the biblical text very often unnoticed unless we know and recognize their broader epistemological context.
    Here is one example - most clearly stated in the myth from Ugarit. But a similar situation (inanimate objects or realities) communicating message appears in Psalms and in the Prophets, while still being hinted at in Paul’s letter to Romans. (It is actually associated with the name of this blog.)
    Clearly many realities of the world were perceived as able to communicate - share messages/information. Direct contradiction in the second half of the quotation from the Psalm (it is not word, it cannot be heard X yet their voice permeates the world and words go as far as limits of the world) outlines ancient recognition of substantially different mode of this communication.

    Among Old Testament scholars there has been long-standing recognition that certain stones, trees and springs in the Old Testament times enjoyed a special status. They were not only associated with mythical/legendary events and figures, but were often recognized as associated with local numina (spirits or deities). Here I am using just three examples. Each of them could easily be expanded, and a number of similar instances of special stones (or circles of stones), trees and springs can be mentioned.
    Archeology confirms the religious significance of stones while paleo-epigraphy and art shows stylized trees or decorated poles clearly linked with Asherah (compare this tree positioned above a lion with a goddess standing on a lion few slides earlier).
    Please note that in modern scholarship archeology is not used to provide support for any individual biblical text but helps with our general understanding of the religious and anthropological milieu.

Here are two quotations which can help us understand the mentality of an animistic religious system and its relationship to nature.
    I mentioned Lynn White and his epoch-defying article at the end of our last lecture. White's article is now almost 50 years old, yet it remains relevant. It is especially relevant in the church setting because churches have never really dealt with this challenge. White nicely outlines why an animistic world-view has a higher sensitivity towards nature. We can also begin to understand why the ascent of supranatural theism of Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and their rampant anthropocentrism, led to the degradation of nature into an object to be exploited. All three monotheistic religions separated deity from nature and created predominantly anthropocentric religious systems (preoccupied with religious teachings, worship and human relationships).
    White was a medievalist, not an anthropologist-ethnologist; his definition of animism is rather schematic. For that reason I cite the second quotation on our slide from the insightful anthropologist Irving Hallowell. It marvelously shows that our modern scientific inclination to categorize might not be an adequate method for the assessment of a different mentality. It might be true that every tree or every spring had their own numina, but they were not necessarily identical or even identically important or powerful.

As an illustration I used a black, palm size, pebble - it is a stone with multiple stories. 1) I remember when I picked it up in 2007 near World’s End Park in Pennsylvania on a spring Saturday trip with my family. It brings back personal memories. 2) But at the same time I know it is a pebble formed of Pennsylvania black coal - it carries the story of early 20th century mining and families who used to live there in now abandoned towns. 3) It also carries an even older history of the Carboniferous geological era hundreds of millions of years ago, when this stone was a lump of peat and fern leaves. These are just three stories of this stone. There  might be more - 4) We brought this stone with us from our previous home. It moved with us from Binghamton to NYC. 5) And now I bring it to this lecture as an illustration and it shared some of its history with us. You might say, it is I who is speaking on behalf of the inert stone and responsible for the message. I simply learned all of it and pulled all this information together, because I became curious about this stone. And purely objectively you are right. But cannot it be claimed that I became sensitive to these diverse stories and shared them with you on behalf of that stone? “Of course, stones are not alive, but some are!”

Lynn White in the mentioned article blamed western medieval Christianity for the objectification of nature which fostered its ruthless exploitation and eventually led us to our ecological crisis.
    I am convinced that this process has much deeper roots growing from anthropocentric supranatural monotheism (religious ideology which started to appear in Judaic tradition in the early Hellenistic period). This quotation from Josephus Flavius shows ruthless monotheistic propaganda on its worst. I wrote about this particular incident in an earlier blog.
    Augurs did not claim that a bird knew the future, but that the future could be discerned from bird’s behaviour. Josephus is recording (approvingly) anti-divination propaganda which at the end carried the day but was offensively simplistic, manipulative, and ruthless towards nature.
    Of course in a similar mode you could disprove roosters’ ability to predict daybreak by killing all of them. But that would be an obviously stupid argument. We enjoy cock-crowing (most of the time :-) just like we rely on police dogs to find searched stuff etc...
    In the end we are dependent on nature, on plants and animals to feed us. Without harmony with nature we cannot survive, we cannot separate ourselves from the rest of nature. And any religion which spreads such delusion needs to be overcome and replaced if we and the rest of the planet are to survive. As Lynn White wrote, we really need a new religion, we need a new deep mode of thinking about ourselves, nature and God. A large part of this new religion can consist in returning to a time before mechanistic and anthropocentric monotheism took over our faith. In this slide this anthopocentric monotheism is represented by Josephus, but in our faith tradition it is more fully represented by final editorial stages of the Tenach (the Old Testament).

We can share many misgivings and hesitations about postmodernism, but it is having a clear impact on our thinking. It is broadening our perspective and introduces new layers of imagination, creativity and playfulness together with a greater appreciation for natural phenomena and our human responsibility for the broad environment. Here I am presenting one of my beloved artists and architects and a prophet of a postmodern way of living. Hundertwasser was known to work with recycled and reclaimed materials. He was known for his rejection of prefabricated industrial engineering, for his respect and celebration of nature and for his love of specific decorativeness. He intentionally did not work with rulers; an uneven, naturally undulating sidewalk was to him “melody for the feet”. He marvelously demonstrates that ecology does not mean dull, grim, boring or fascist. In our world we need more Friedensreichs (Realms of freedom).

P.S. 2014-06-02 - I have just discovered an interesting article by Swedish Anthropologist Alf Hornborg: Animism, fetishism, and objectivism as strategies for knowing (or not knowing) the world. Alf presents very interesting insights, I personally would trace the beginning of objectivism to the shift towards ideological monotheism. 

Biblical Co-Creatress and (new) eco-theology

We continue our series of Lenten Lectures dedicated to eco-theology.
       This time we will examine ancient biological metaphors of creation and how they can inform and shape our own faith, world view and our living.

Many faithful Judeo-Christians would be mightily surprised by archaeological finds in Palestine (The Holy Land of our faiths). The sheer volume, and broad distribution of religious artifacts in Palestine clearly demonstrate that a strict biblical monotheism was wishful thinking and most likely a literary fiction projected back into history. Two years ago we looked into it in more detail in our Lenten Lectures on Biblical Polytheism (for instance How many Gods Made up God? or Did YHWH have a wife?).
       On this slide I want to highlight the use of the “Omega” symbol representing the womb as the beginning of life (with different fertility amulets). A similar omega symbol, probably representing an end-of-life womb (as a stone relief for a headrest) appears also in Jerusalem Tombs of Late Iron Age.
(Unfortunately I do not have time to go into a detailed discussion of the iconography of fertility goddesses - please refer to “Gods, Goddesses and Images of God in Ancient Israel” by Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger. Fortress 1998.)

These two biblical texts, one from the book of Job and one from a Psalm (Wisdom Psalm in origin) clarify similar thinking about the mythical (symbolical) womb at both extremes of life’s journey.
     Two other artifacts with fertility iconography only confirm their continuous presence in Iron Age Palestine.

A similar theme of the beginning and end of life appears in Genesis 3:19. One is almost tantalized to replace dust with their names (You are Adam (Earthling) and to Adamah (Earth) you will return.) This mytho-poetic statement is immediately followed with the naming of Eve - and her name is explained as “a mother of all living.” Shortly afterwards - after conceiving with Adam and giving birth to Cain (almost a homophone with “begetting” a few words later) Eve is making a very unclear statement about “begetting a man with the LORD”. This text is clearly broken and damaged (most likely on purpose). Yet, we can still suspect behind it some substantial mythical narrative. Adam is from Earth (Adamah), Eve is the Mother of all Living. She is begetting man(/kind) with YHWH (originally there even might be another deity and the name YHWH was inserted here later).

Bronze age cylinder seal depicts an paradisal garden scene, a goddess in the form of a tree (of life) flanked by ibexes, a naked goddess with a worshiper, a seraph guarding the scene while buffalo, lion and a deer recline together at the bottom.

Quotation from Sirach confirms that the theme of womb at the beginning and at the end persisted through the intertestamental period.

In Proverbs 8 we have another powerful allusion to a female character (personification of Wisdom) present at the time of creation. Most likely her identification as “Wisdom” is only secondary - She might originally be the goddess Asherah. It is possible that this goddess was born of the god, became the god’s partner and assisted at creation (with some obstetrical allusions) , the vocabulary of the closing paragraph especially hints that she begat with the god and gave birth to mankind. This text is probably the clearest example of the goddess co-creatress in the bible. Some other aspects and possible interpretations and translations of this text are included in several older entries on this blog: Did YHWH have a wife? and Lady Wisdom.

Here are two other allusions to creation in the context of the womb and the giving birth, from the book of Job. Both are followed in a similar fashion by astrological references.
From Ugaritic texts we know about the daughters of Baal named Pdry and Ṭly. They are named Cloudy - a daughter of Dawn, and Dewy - a daughter of Cloud (For instance in KTU 1.3.i.24f)
We can observe the close proximity of Cosmogony (creation of the world) and Theogony (procreation of gods).

In 1966 Lynn White presented a lecture and in 1967 published in the journal Science a famous article "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis" (The article has somehow slow and dated opening paragraphs but second half is still worthy of reading even almost 50 years on!) In this article White blamed the early medieval Christian understanding of the Creation Story for fostering the mentality which eventually led to the modern ecological crisis.
    White writes “What we do about ecology depends on our ideas of the man-nature relationships. More science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecological crisis until we find a new religion, or rethink our old one.”
    I believe that White is correct in his analysis that the Medieval Christian reception of the Creation Story created a mentality which led us to the current ecological trouble. White believes that a return to Franciscan piety and mentality might be our best ecological crisis strategy.
    I am convinced, that we need to go even further. The best strategy might be to undo the anthropocentric theistic dogmatism and re-discover and re-integrate the aspects of  the original (unadulterated) creation stories in all their diversity.
    In our last two lectures we have been attempting to “re-think our old creation stories”, peel out the medieval and modern misconceptions of creation stories and look for inspiration at their very sources. We witnessed that the original biblical creation stories were diverse, rich and very sensitive to the outside world. The Ancient Creation stories shared a different, gentler and more eco-sensitive world-view.
    Our ecological problem came with zealous monotheistic dogmatism, when God was artificially separated from nature, nature was objectified, and humans were lifted above it. I think it is time to consider undoing this religious aberration, and rediscover or at least heighten our sensitivity to a more organic religion at the source of the biblical creation stories.

Beauty and Diversity of Biblical Cosmogonies

For centuries even millennia, western religious tradition (Judeo-Christianity) has been stricken by a particularly vicious form of anthropocentrism. Religion and theology were viewed from solely human or human-divine perspective and both human and divine were separated from the rest of environment.
     In the last decade, both in Europe as well as in North America, we have witnessed an emergence of a new theological stream called “ecological hermeneutics” and often abbreviated as “eco-hermeneutics”. It attempts to correct this egotistic anthropocentrism of western religious tradition by re-reading ancient religious texts paying special attention to ancient integration or religion and environment.
     This year via our Lenten Lectures we want to participate in this new theological development and discourse.

On this slide four main modes (metaphors) are used to talk about creation in the Ancient Near East. All these models (metaphors) reflect human experiences with creating, generating and organizing activities. Creation stories are modeled on the observed natural or societal processes of creation.
Biological creation happens by the means of growing, germinating, hatching from an egg, or through sexual activity of different kind.
The name for the Industrial category is not derived from modern industry but from the original Latin meaning “diligent effort” “skilled work”. Under this category, creation is compared to skilled work, for instance the work of an metallurgist, or a potter.
Military creation is modeled on combat, the vanquishing, conquering and organizing (reorganizing) of the domain of the conquered enemy. A classical example is known among student of religion under its German name as Chaoskampf - "War (with forces) of Chaos". World of order (Cosmos) is created by conquering and reorganising disorder (Chaos). 
Linguistic (autocratic) creation is derived from an experience with political/monarchic models of government. In developing or developed societies the rule and authority is exercised by means of the word (kings or priests ruled by giving commands, bureaucratic societies create written rules and laws)
With each category in this list we proceed from the most organic to higher societal models (requiring higher levels of societal organization)

The most widely known creation story is probably the one recorded in the first chapters of Genesis right at the beginning of the Jewish and Christian Bible.
     For more than a century it has been known that the creation narrative in Genesis consists of two independent creation stories (Creation in 6 days and Creation in the Garden). It is even possible that the first creation story (creation is six days) contains in its first two verses a third creation story - a classical example of Chaoskampf (overcoming the Chaos in the form of the formless void and the dark bottomless deep).
      The creation of the world in 7 days (six days of work and the seventh day of rest) has strong liturgical features (repetitive formulas).
      The creation of Adam in the Garden has strong features of industrial creation - Adam is shaped from dust and the verb used has a manufacturing, a pottery-making background.

This industrial metaphor of creation is nicely and more fully expressed in several other biblical passages and has a close parallel in Egyptian iconography and mythology (Egyptian royalty was viewed as created on the potter’s wheel by the god Khmun).

Similar motif appears also in the New Testament and with the development of new technology is utilized even in post-biblical gnostic literature.

Indeed biblical creation stories are not limited to the first two chapters of Genesis, nor they are limited to the Old Testament. On this slide we present some well expressed examples of Creation Stories from different parts of the New Testament.

This is my attempt at a graphic rendition of Ancient Near East Cosmology (world view) recreating it from different biblical fragments (quotations - many more exist, which are not included). This world view was fluent, contained substantial inconsistencies and logical contradictions yet represented a widely shared narrative.  

Now I would like to concentrate on two less known biblical cosmogonies (creation stories) one from Psalm 104 and one from the book of Job.

The whole of Psalm 104 is one great poetic creation story with many mythical references and a cosmology which closely corresponds to the preceding slide.
I would also like to highlight a special feature of many of these ANE creation stories which consists of a continuous divine care for creation, especially animals. The God of these creation stories is certainly not a god of deists, this god almost resembles underlying and sustaining principle of life. Especially in Psalm 104:27-30 God shares many characteristics which are in our modern discourse associated with the principles of biological evolution.

Now Cosmogony from the book of Job:

Another extensive and exquisite creation story of the Hebrew Bible is preserved right towards the end of the book of Job (Job 38 and 39). The Omnipotence and omniscience of God is being demonstrated with the help of an extensive rendition of a creation story.
     This Creation Story (just like the rest of the book of Job) is adorned with many beautiful poetic metaphors (many of them are archaic and mythical in their origins). And again in Job 38:39-39:4 we can observe the continuous gentle, even moving care of God for creation. Just as almost all ancient deities had their special sacred animals or plants, in this early monotheism (not yet alienated to nature) all creatures enjoy this special relationship - the list in Job or in Psalm 104 is almost certainly Pars Pro Toto.

Here is our summary: Although Ancient Near Eastern Cosmogonies (Creation Stories) were anthropocentric in their origins, their nature and their intentions (composed by humans, using human experience as a source for metaphors, and composed to inform human religion and worldview) they preserved some deep and important insights.
     Ancient cosmology clearly expressed a notion that the habitable world (in its form of a bubble positioned in between the split primordial waters) was a limited, closed environment. The Cosmos (realm of order) was just a small space surrounded on all sides with threatening waters of Chaos. It was clear that human action should promote order and avoid introducing elements of chaos. God (or the heads of the pantheons) was/were the ultimate protector/s against the flood and the keeper of the floodgates of Chaos. Existential recognition and general awareness of the fact that the world ecosystem is not limitless is only slowly reaching the minds of modern people.
     Further, from the theological point of view - creation stories even in their monotheistic biblical reworking make it clear that God is not separated from the universe; to the contrary, God remains intrinsically engaged in this world. Again, theology is only slowly recognizing the wisdom of these ancient texts, that our relatively recent philosophical separation of God from nature is artificial, idolatrous and harmful for our faith and our environment. All of nature is the collection of God’s sacred animals and plants. Thoughtless harming of any of creatures is like shooting Artemis’ deer in her sacred forest.

Mytho-Logic of Empty Tomb

This is my opening thesis which I would like to defend, illustrate and expand in this lecture.

The Mosaic in the St. Mark Basilica in Venice is a clear illustration of that powerful  mytho-poetic imagery of the story of the empty tomb. The resurrected Christ (still with crucifixion wounds!) tramples on the personified Hades (who is bound), the gate of netherworld is broken, its lock and keys useless. Jesus is pulling/resurrecting  Adam (and Eve) surrounded by other OT figures such as David and Solomon (two figures with crowns at the right side).

This is how the ancient tomb looked. Newer development allowed for a more efficient use of space. 
Tombs were expensive to make and were often shared by large families of clans. Ossuaries were boxes for bones after the body decomposed.

This is the historically oldest known preserved story (and first ever mention!) about the empty tomb of Jesus as translated by NRSV. It dates to the early 8th decade of the Common Era.

The diagonal red line in this slide represent the time axis of the early Common Era. Upper left side contains some events from the history of the texts which later became part of the NT canon. Lower right side represent some events important for early church and their relation to the passage of time.

After the Easter Event, the first disciples struggled to find words to describe or even think about their experience. For them it was a completely new experience without the precedence and without adequate vocabulary. The first attempt to express their experience consisted in simple acclamations such as “Jesus is Lord” KURIOS IESUS! And the like. Later, the disciples developed simple statements or formulas such as “Son of God Formula” stating that the crucified Jesus was the Son of God. “Self Giving Formula” Jesus died for us, and the “Pistis formula” which is quoted on this slide.
     The Easter Event had several parallel and simultaneous ways in which it was being described as:
1) Inspiration (the disciples felt a gift of spirit and they lost fear) the Pentecost tradition was originally closely associated with the Easter event.
2) Exaltation (The Crucified was lifted up to the divine presence, became Son of God etc.) Ascension was also originally closely associated with the Easter event.
3) Resurrection (The presence of the crucified was felt and experienced - the inter-testamental Jewish political justice concept of resurrection was used to explain this aspect)
4) Only quite late in the process it was it also described in an archetypal/mythical way (this would be the story of an Empty Tomb)

The traditional Orthodox depiction of the Ressurection (H ANASTASIS). Venetian mosaic actually took inspiration from the broadly established orthodox mode of depicting the resurrection.

These three slides represent outlines of the resurrection story as narrated in biblical and extrabiblical gospels. We can observe uncertainty about the number and identity of women. Gradual addition of male characters to compensate for legal untrustworthiness of women in patriarchal society. Development in the presence and moving of the stone. Changes in numbers and roles of angelic figures, introduction of the guards and attempt to explain their silence. Similarly we can observe slowly creeping in antijudaism of the early church which is absent from the earliest accounts.

The text critical (more precisely tradition criticism) approach is further supported by the historical context and archeology of crucifixion as we discussed in the previous lecture. Minor inconsistencies in this explanation only strengthen it.
     As we stated in our opening thesis: The story of an opened and empty tomb is ahistorical, (unconcern about matters of history). On the other hand the historical-critical method can help us describe and interpret its emergence and gradual development.
     The story’s original function was kerygmatic (sharing the message). Its popularity grew from powerful symbolism and its veracity is that of mythical metaphors and deep spiritual archetypes.

Crucifixions - Scandal of Brutal Empires

This simple sentence covers great personal tragedy as well as tragedy of civilization seduced to terrorize its members into obedience.

Based on archeological records as well as testimonies, aggression, brutality and violence have always been part of human nature and are well documented in primitive societies. Nevertheless only the emergence of large empires saw the development of brutality and violence into a complex calculated system. Large empires used violence and fear of violence as an important tool to control and govern large territories with diverse populations. The Neoassyrian Empire can serve as one of the early and extreme examples of the systemic use of state terrorism for the purpose of governance.

Assyrian depictions of hunting scenes or battle scenes were extremely realistic and also brutal. Accounts of their form of governance were built on fear and terror. Anything interpreted as disloyalty was severely punished.

Here are just some details from the famous bas-relief of the siege of the Judean city of Lachish. Impalement or skinning alive were “proudly” depicted in gory detail. Impalement is conducted or attended most likely by Greek mercenaries.

The biblical testimony as well as other ancient sources attest that the Persian empire was built on a more tolerant, pluralistic and mostly benevolent model. This situation, nevertheless, changed quickly when the hegemony of the empire was challenged. In need of exercising control, it quickly reverted to use of more violent and tested tool of dehumanizing terror.

In this lecture I also use well-known pieces of art. Here Mark Chagall depicts and prophetically anticipates the upcoming unspeakable persecution of Jews in the Ukraine and Western Russia.

Report of the Seleucid persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes.

Unfortunately crucifixion was not used only by large empires to terrorize subjugated and difficult-to-rule populations. It became expedient way to treat and terrorize people into obedience. This slide presents an example of the use of crucifixion to terrorize political opponents within one society.

Here is an biblical example, where David is implicated in reverting to this hideous practice. And the highlighted gloss tries to explain and also shift responsibility on outsiders. Although certain features of the story seem to be quite old, the crucifixion points to the Persian, perhaps even Hellenistic period of the authorship of the saga of the unified monarchy of David and Solomon (As text-critically suggested by John Van Seters and from the perspective of Near Eastern Archeology by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

Crucifixion was widely used by Romans to govern subjugated and rebelling nations. These two texts report the same incident; one time Josephus speaks about crucifixion, the next time he uses a more indirect and circumspect way of speaking about it. Clearly direct references to “crucifixion”are like the tip of an iceberg. Crucifixion should be often suspected even though it is not directly mentioned.

Josephus Flavius describes the siege of Jerusalem and highlights utilitarian (unable to keep them in camp) as well terrorizing (to instill fear) reasons for this gruesome form of execution. And even if we control for his notorious propensity to exaggerate, the total number of crucified during the six-month-long siege was undoubtedly large.

Roman taste for large exemplary and punitive (terrorizing) execution during or after suppressed rebellion is probably best documented in the aftermath of the Third Servile War, the famous Spartacus uprising. Again, numbers might be exaggerated although the distance between Rome and Cappua on Via Appia was about  120 miles or almost 200 km (that would mean a cross every 33 meters on one side or if both sides of the road were used, every 60 meters).

With so many reported executions by crucifixion throughout ancient history, it is surprising that there is only one known skeletal remains of a crucified person. Even if we control for all the variables (not all crucifixion would leave skeletal traces, not all traces might be recognized and discovered etc) this discrepancy remains quite great. This absence of skeletal remains actually confirms the testimony of our few written sources which are describing crucifixion as an execution which resulted in the absence of a proper burial. The absence of proper burial was to ancient sensitivities substantial part of disgrace and horror of this type of execution.

Within the context of Roman civilization this worship of a crucified person was a direct affront of everything this civilization wanted to represent and achieve. It had to be considered as a direct subversion of the very structure of Roman society. It would be similar to the worship of an officially condemned serious criminal or terrorist in our times. It was indeed a peaceful, none the less radical, dangerous and in the end very effective rebellion against the oppressive brutality and alienation of Roman civilization.