Luis Rodriguez

Phil. 2003
Professor Moreman
16 March 2015
Thesis
Judeo Christianity claims to have done away with ancient religious practices like
worshipping a variety of Gods by worshipping objects that represent those particular
deities. However, using symbols to represent different aspects of the same God has led
to the worshipping of the actual objects.
Annotated Bibliography
Barton, John, and John Muddiman. The Oxford Bible Commentary. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2001. Print.
Although this book is well over one thousand pages and is three inches thick, any
Oxford commentary is worthy of a peep. This book was no exception. In it, I found a bit
of support for my point about how Judeo Christianity was making clear that things like
divination and old practices were not the norm of the new religion. For example,
The summary of the Ephesus mission is enlivened by two dramatic
scenes that display other key attributes of Lukes portrait of Paul. Her he is
characterized as a miracle worker of such extraordinary charismatic
power (v II) that it can be transmitted via skin-contact with inanimate
objects (v. 12, Lk 8:44). Unusually in Lukes narrative, God is the subject
of the first sentence here(v.II): it is important for Luke to underline that
Pauls spiritual power does not come from himself buy is a direct divine

endorsement of his mission. The point is made in dramatic Form with the
episode of the sons of Scaeva (v. 14), interant Jewish exorcists who try
(as Simon Magus had done with Peter in 8:19) to annex this charismatic
power for themselves (v.13) This episode has a particular appositeness in
Epheseus, which was associated with certain magical formulae [...] which
had the power to ward off evil spirits. Luke makes the point clearly that
Christian miracle is totally distinct from this widespread syncretistic
activity: real evil spirits (and Luke believers[...]) respond not to names,
however exalted, but through the power of God working through his
legitimate representatives (v. 15). [...] there is a serious point being made
here, integral to Christian propaganda: As everywhere in Acts, it is the
name of the Lord Jesus, not of any missionary or apostle, that is glorified
(v17).[...] The scene may also have an exemplary function for Christian
readers: magical practice is not an option for Christian readers (vv. 18-19).
(1052)
I think this passage, although dense, supports the idea that Jews and Christians were
not interested in divination practices. And even though the divine still has direct
influence, the power of the actual objects is temporary is God given. In other words,
objects no longer retain power, thus they dont need to be worshipped.
Becking et al. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Leiden: Brill Academic
Publishers, 1999. Print.
This book contains a ton of information on anything that could be related to
mysticism in Judeo Christianity, and I mean everything. The book also makes

connections with the Hellenistic practices. I found a passage that states that the Greek
word Chriein means to rub, anoint with scented unguents or oil or to wash with colour,
to coat (Becking, 192). So, once again, there is a symbol being used to represent
something divine. Jesus is known as the anointed one, and oil itself was a great
resource back then, so theres definitely something important that oil symbolizes.
However, I also found that In early Jewish Documents, the expectation of a messiah,
i.e. a person said to be anointed, functioning as Gods agent in his definitive
intervention in the Worlds affairs in the (near) future, does not occur very often
(Becking, 194). So even though the symbol of oil is very important in this time period, it
seems that there was an attempt to limit the use of this symbol. As the book states, the
hope of divine intervention is important and even central in many writings; but God need
not engage human (or angelic) agents of deliverance and these need not be called
messiah (Becking, 194).
Damasus, Winza. Symbols in Christianity. New York: P.J. Kennedy & Sons, 1955.
Print.
With this source, I would try to show how confusion could begin to rise as a result
of so many symbols. The author questions why God would pick Sinai, mount Zion,
Horeb and other places as symbolic. Then the author argues that they were symbols to
represent a rise for humanity. They showed how man, standing erect, carries his head
up like a banner of reason (Damasus, 6). However, the book goes on and says,
The Catholic Church is drenched and soaked in symbolism- with a
generous shot of allegorism added by the playful and rationalistic middle
ages, alas- and it could not be otherwise[...] But Catholics have been to a

very great extent blinded to symbols and have lost the sense of the
analogical which would keep us aware of the basic fact that all our wordy
definitions are not even approximations of reality, but analogies. (6)
Jones, Cheslyn et al. The Study of Spirituality. New York: Oxford University Press,
1986. Web. 15 March 2015.
This book would be useful to show the Hebrew way of dealing with symbols. To
be clear, I think that it shows that even people with access to God were merely tools;
they had no powers unless God used them as a way to express his will. Indeed it may
be that the further advanced people were in the spiritual life (a term which sounds
anachronistic in Old Testament study), the greater the part intercession played in their
prayer (Jones, 50). Although someone could interpret this as more prayer equals more
power, this is not the case. One can see how this might raise confusion among
believers, because they might feel they can attain some sort of divinity through prayer,
and thats not necessarily true.
West, Edward. Outward Signs: The Language of Christian Symbolism. New York:
Walker And Company, 1989. Print.
Although this book is technically not a scholarly source, it was in the campus
library; but more importantly, it does make an interesting claim about symbols in Judeo
Christianity. For example, West asserts, Nations and peoples have always tended to
rally around a totem-either animal or bird- a creature presenting a mediator between
them and their divine ancestor, or representing the way they have wished to be seen in
the eyes of others (6). Basically, the author tries to show of the importance of symbols
from a psychoanalytic point of view. He goes on to say that [a]nother aspect of

symbolism that has to be taken very seriously is the Jungian idea that if a symbol has
been around long enough it becomes what it represents. The spiritual implications are
powerful (8). So, at least from a psychological point of view, the idea of symbols
eventually being worshipped themselves is tenable. The author drives his point by
hypothesizing about a cross that contains a tiny sliver of a religious relic. Eventually, the
entire cross gains value, even though only a tiny fraction of it contains a piece of a relic.