Continued from page 1
In Roman times, crucifixion was a very popular way of putting criminals to death. Before
time of Christ, cross was merely two pieces of wood nailed together; it was something very profane used to crucify mere men, nothing more, nothing less. However, with Christ’s death, a transformation, or dialectic of sacred, occurred: ordinary cross became a holy object by infusion of supernatural. No symbol manages to bring divinity close to humanity as figure of savior-god, divinity who shared in mankind’s sufferings, died and rose from grave to redeem them.14 When one looks closer at crucifixion, Jesus was by all means not considered sacred by Romans and Jews alike. Even while on cross, he was still, in theory, a mere man being punished for a crime. So how did cross become such a powerful symbol of sacred? When did this dialectic of sacred take place?
And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment curtain of temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and rocks split. The tombs broke open and bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. When centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, “Surely he was Son of God!” [Matthew 27:50-54]15
It seems as though above quote, coupled with Jesus’ proclaimed resurrection, caused simple profane cross to be transformed into most sacred symbol of Christianity. And myth, story of crucifixion, makes material symbol of cross even more sacred by bringing it to life. Symbols and myths rarely exist in isolation. They seem to always be part of larger symbol systems. Ever since cross was declared symbol of divine, it has been carved into walls, worn as jewelry, or put on display in churches all over world. It’s gestures like these that give cross its universality: when people see cross, most know sacred symbolic nature of it. In this way cross, even crucifixion, is personified and stories about it and its “adventures” come to expression in myth.16 And to take it further, we hear claims that Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection defeated death. Christians would see cross in general as a symbol that has truly defeated death. For Eliade, it has defeated profane. Now on to Eliade’s theory of escapism. For archaic believers, events of ordinary profane life, daily rounds of labor and struggle, are things they desperately wish to escape. They would rather be in perfect realm of sacred. This is most insistent and heartfelt ache in soul of all archaic peoples: to return to that point when world began. A constant theme of archaic ritual and myth is desire to occupy world as it came from Creator’s hands-fresh, innocent, and strong. These believers long for permanence and perfection, as well as escape from their sorrows. In profane life, existence is drab and primitives have to deal with empty routines and daily irritations. Through symbol and myth, they reach back to moment of perfection when life starts over, full of promise and hope. 17 Eliade would interpret crucifixion in same light. While attending a church service on Good Friday, Christians immerse themselves in myth of Jesus’ death by performing rituals pertaining to cross. These rituals transport observer to time when Christ actually died, taking them out of troubles and trials of present day and reliving events that brought promise of hope and joy.18 This would be considered ultimate form of escapism. With Eliade, however, I don’t believe he would interpret this escapism as something negative, like Marx would. Obviously Eliade doesn’t consider religion an illusion.
The interpretations of Marx and Eliade hold many truths for me, and although I will defend Marx to end I don’t think Eliade was necessarily wrong. The idea of sacred and profane makes perfect sense: a cross is simply a cross until something supernatural is attached to it. It is then regarded as holy and is seen in a whole new light. When people observe cross, most know what story is attached to it and it’s this myth that brings cross to life and gives meaning to what was once considered something profane. He does make me wonder, however, if his study and theory of myths has roots in his past.
With ruinous events of 1930s, Eliade and rest of ‘new generation’ became casualties of history. Small wonder that he displays little enthusiasm for retelling and hence reliving his own anguish.19
Perhaps his theories helped him deal with, even escape, his own history in world, to escape his pain? There comes a time when a person must deal with and eventually accept his own reality, and escaping to a beginning, a time of innocence, doesn’t help.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.Web Site 2.Seven Theories of Religion, 141 3.Marx on Religion, 167 4.Seven Theories of Religion, 141-142 5.Marx on Religion, 8 6.Ibid, 173 7.Seven Theories of Religion, 142-143 8.Marx on Religion, 185 9.Seven Theories of Religion, 138, 142 10.The NIV Study Bible, 1444-1445, 1584 11.Seven Theories of Religion, 163-164 12.Ibid, 165-167 13.Ibid, 169-170 14.Ibid, 170, 172 15.The NIV Study Bible, 1485 16.Seven Theories of Religion, 176 17.Ibid, 179-180 18.Four Theories of Religion, 75 19.Ibid, 78
REFERENCES
1. "Marx on Religion." edited by John Raines. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2002.
2. Barker, Kenneth, ed. The NIV Study Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995.
3. Pals, Daniel L. "Religion as Alienation: Karl Marx." In Seven Theories of Religion, 138-42. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
4. Pals, Daniel L. "The Reality of Sacred: Mircea Eliade." In Seven Theories of Religion, 163-80. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
5. Strenski, Ivan. Four Theories of Myth in Twentieth Century History. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa Press.
6. www.faithnet.org.
About the Author Kathy Simcox, Columbus, Ohio, United States hrdude28@hotmail.com
