Ads


David Bentley Hart

view all featured authors »

The Desire of the Nations

Apuleius’s Metamorphoses (The Golden Ass) has been prized down the centuries chiefly as a whimsical, slightly grotesque, and occasionally ribald burlesque, but it is also perhaps the single most illuminating text we possess in regard to the spiritual disquietudes and aspirations of the late antique world. In fact, when one reaches its final chapters, one discovers that below the ludicrous surface of the tale lies a strangely moving religious allegory; and the climax of the story includes one of the most devout and beautiful expressions of faith in a benevolent and provident divine savior in all of ancient literature, not excepting the Christian texts.

Lucius, the narrator and protagonist of the tale, who has been transformed by magic into an ass and endured almost a year of tribulations in that form, wakes one night near the sea at Corinth and, seeing the full moon above him, purifies himself in the tide and then prays to this radiant “goddess” for deliverance from his sufferings, addressing her as Regina caeli (Queen of Heaven), as well as Ceres, Celestial Venus, Ephesian Diana, and terrible Proserpina.

He then falls asleep and the goddess visits him in a dream, rising out of the sea in all her unearthly beauty. Wrapped about her, knotted at one shoulder, she wears a black cloak covered with the coruscating images of stars and the moon at mid-month.

“Moved by your supplications,” she tells Lucius, “I am come to you—I the begetter of everything in nature, mistress of all the elements, firstborn of the ages, the supreme deity, queen of the souls of the dead, first among all those in heaven, the one singular form of all gods and goddesses, who by my will superintend the shining summits of heaven, the wholesome breezes of the sea, and the pitiable silences of the underworld—I whose single divinity is venerated throughout the world under a multitude of aspects.” She then reveals to him that, however she is invoked, her true name is Queen Isis.

She promises him that, on the next day, she will restore him to his human form with the assistance of one of her priests, whom she is at that very moment also visiting in a dream. She then charges Lucius to remember that hereafter he is dedicated to her service, until the day of his death. But she assures him that, under her guidance, his will be a blessed and a glorious life and that, once his days reach their appointed term—a term which she, incidentally, has the power to extend—and he descends to the dead, he will see her shining among the shadows of Acheron and reigning in the Stygian firmament, and she will bring him into the Elysian Fields, where he will often find himself a grateful beneficiary of her gifts.

On the next day, during public festivities celebrated in her honor, the goddess does as she has promised. The priest she visited in the night then exhorts Lucius, newly restored to human form and clothed in the white garment of one of the votaries of Isis, to “join with joyous tread in the triumph of the goddess who has saved you. Let the irreligious see, and let them both see and recognize their error.”

Lucius is persuaded, but before he enters the great procession the priest advises him further: “That you may be yet securer and safer, enlist in this holy army, to which only lately you have been sworn in, and dedicate yourself now in service to our religion and submit voluntarily to the yoke of its ministry. For, when you have begun to serve the goddess, then you will feel fully the fruit of your liberty.”

Ultimately, after a period of doubt regarding his own ability to observe the rule of sacerdotal chastity, Lucius seeks initiation as a priest in the mysteries of Isis. He does not divulge any details of his induction into the mysteries, but he does speak of the experience in a series of startling images: he draws near the very border of death, he says, and places a foot on Proserpina’s threshold, and is ravished through the elements, and sees the sun shining in its full glory at midnight.

After the rites have been concluded, he must at last reluctantly leave her temple; but before he goes he falls down before the image of Isis and utters one of the most extraordinarily fervent prayers to be found anywhere in ancient literature:


O You, the truly holy and eternal redemptrix of the human race, be ever generous to the mortals whom you cherish, bestowing a mother’s sweet love upon the miserable in their times of trial. Neither day nor night nor a single moment, however small, is devoid of your blessings, for you protect men at sea and on land, and you chase away life’s storms by stretching forth your saving right hand, wherewith also you unwind the inextricably tangled weave of fate, and calm Fortune’s tempests, and restrain the baneful courses of the stars. The gods above worship you, the gods below venerate you, you turn the earth, you give the sun its light, you rule the world, you trample down hell. It is you whom the stars obey, you for whom the seasons return, you in whom the gods rejoice, and you whom the elements serve. At your bidding, winds blow, clouds nourish the earth, seeds sprout, and harvests swell. At your majesty, the birds traversing the heavens, the beasts wandering the mountains, the serpents lurking in their lairs, and the monsters swimming the sea tremble.

He closes with his own promises.


But from my soul I can lift up only meager praises, and from my inheritance I can offer only poor sacrifices; my voice does not have sufficient power to utter how I feel before your majesty, and neither would a thousand mouths with a thousand tongues, even if they could continue speaking tirelessly and forever. Hence I shall, however poor I am, do what a truly religious man can: I shall think upon your divine aspects and your most holy power and keep them ever guarded in the secret places of my heart.

What is now especially striking about Lucius’s prayer, quite apart from its sheer ardor, is how perfectly its inventory of the goddess’ powers and blessings combines elements of what we might almost call the theological, the Mariological, and the Christological—or, at least, the matrological and the soteriological. Isis creates and nourishes and sustains; Isis cares and loves and protects and provides; Isis defeats death and hell; Isis saves.

And Lucius learns all of this in a moment of revelation and personal conversion, an experience of the profoundest inner transformation, of which his outer transformation from beast to man turns out to have been a comic symbol. And the new life upon which he has now embarked becomes actual for him only through a sacramental initiation that carries him beyond the power of death, borne up by the grace of divine and omnipotent love.

Some Christians, it is my experience, become terribly anxious when confronted by the similarities between the language of Christianity in the early centuries and that of many of the pagan devotions of late antiquity (just as certain of Christianity’s cultured despisers rejoice in them). And, of course, some of the more primitivist strains of Protestantism have historically take these similarities as proof of something corrupt and even perhaps diabolical in the Catholic forms of Christian belief and observance.

Whatever the case, it is simply a fact that neither in the intensity of its piety, nor in the spiritual longings it answered, nor even in its liturgical and sacramental conventions, did Christianity bring something entirely novel into the world. As early as the late first century, Christianity was in very many places—morphologically, but also in its dogma—a “mystery religion” of a sort known throughout the empire, offering salvation through sacramental initiation into a corporate association and sacramental devotion to a savior deity.

And it would be pointless to deny that, say, the iconography of Isis and Osiris might conceivably have influenced later Christian iconography of Mary and Christ, or that something of the ancient reverence for the Magna Mater deorum lived on in Christian veneration of the Mater Dei—radically transformed perhaps, redeemed if one likes, flowering into a new kind of devotional beauty, but springing up from the same roots of spiritual longing and imagination.

I mention all this now because I happened to be in the U.K. this last week, at the book festival in Hay-on-Wye, and met a man who had written a book supposedly “exposing” Christianity as a collection of borrowings from paganism, and therefore as clearly false. I pointed out to him, not really very gently, that such books had been written hundreds of times before, and that even the best of them proved nothing of any interest other than the obvious truth that Christianity’s earliest religious forms were not wholly alien to the culture in which they took shape. He, however, insisted that he had proved the case against the Christian religion with unanswerable finality. I insisted in turn that I needed a cup of coffee and left him to himself.

The gospel entered the ancient world at a time of tremendous religious plurality and spiritual ferment: an age of religious anxiety, when mystery religions, Orphic cults, Gnosticisms, and innumerable devotional sects multiplied uncontrollably and continuously throughout the empire. And I suppose one can look at the issue from either direction. One can gaze backward and conclude that the rise of Christianity was simply the accidental evolutionary consequence of the cultural forces of a certain period and nothing else.

But one might also conclude that Christianity endured, spread, and ultimately succeeded in large part because it provided an answer to seemingly unanswerable cultural and spiritual dilemmas, and addressed certain perennial human yearnings with perhaps unrivalled power. What one thinks that says about the gospel, however, is all very much a matter of what one understands nature, culture, and history to be.

David Bentley Hart is contributing editor of First Things. His most recent book is Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies (Yale University Press). His other “On the Square” articles can be found here.

Comments:

6.3.2011 | 9:11am
A.M. says:
Gives one a glimpse of what the Jewish people also were being tempted with , in the false goddess worship and reprimands for same from God who chose them to help the world to be able to grasp the truth when it was to be revealed , in the 'fulness of time ' !

These so called mythologies also can help to see how the deciever tries hard , focusing esp. on important truths - goddess worship , to lead away from the truth of incarnation through a human being , a woman , thus to indirectly damage the truth of human dignity , which is what the enemy did in The Garden, with the lie of how The Father does not love us that much !


'He has seen the lowliness of His Handmaid ..He has scattered the proud ..' - words of The Woman who saw what human nature is , compared to the majesty of God ..and what God was going to do , to the proud who thought that they had His children in its hold , through these legends and lies and magic , with its attendant evils of greed and hatred , wars and immorality .

The evil one tried to get even The Son of God to worship it , promising the riches of the world , in the falsehood of forgetting who God is and to whom all belong !

May we be graced to invoke with trust Name of Yeshua and that of Mother Mary , gentle , full of grace whose glory subsists in who The Son is and whose role, as a human , is said to be more intolerable to the enemy !

If the lair in its cleverness has seen far ahead , our Father is Wisdom who too has seen far ahead , to our needs !
6.3.2011 | 12:11pm
Samn! says:
This anxiety over parallels between paganism and Christianity is peculiarly modern, and illustrates the difference between the way modern and pre-modern Christians viewed history. In late antiquity and the middle ages, a common apologetic genre, at least in the oriental Christian languages, consisted of catenae of 'pagan prophecies of Christ', taken from (mostly spurious) quotes from the philosophers, oracles, hermetic texts, words attributed to Zoroaster, and the like...
6.3.2011 | 12:22pm
Mick Leahy says:
Rather than assuming Christianity to be simply an evolutionary development from all the mystery religions, orphic cults, gnosticisms and so on, that existed at the time of the Coming of Our Lord, perhaps all these sects were a spiritual heralding of the Truth about to happen, perhaps reflecting, in a wholly-inadequate way of course, a rejection of the old paganism, and a longing for something more Real. It would be interesting, though undoubtedly impossible, to know how many of the people in these sects embraced Christianity, and how quickly. I feel the vast majority of them who heard the Gospel would have instantly converted, realising a fulfillment of their earlier beliefs. CS Lewis is very enlightening about this, if I remember correctly.
6.3.2011 | 12:33pm
Chuck says:
Given the way these things got mixed back then, it would be safe to say that the Isis cult was heavily influenced by Christianity.
6.3.2011 | 1:18pm
Forthcoming translation by Sarah Ruden of "The Golden Ass":

http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300154771
6.3.2011 | 2:43pm
Fred says:
It baffles me that any believer would view the similarities between certain forms of paganism and certain elements of Christianity with anxiety or that atheists would view them with triumphalism. I ran across a similar phenomenon when I taught the Epic of Gilgamesh in the buckle of the Bible Belt. The flood story in Genesis is clearly an adaptation of the Sumerian flood story. Many of my students noticed the similarities and concluded that the Sumerians must have got the story from the Bible. When I pointed out that the Epic of Gigamesh was written more than a millenium before the Bible and was probably an oral tradition for at least a few centuries before that, I was met with disbelief and hostility. I tried pointing out the differences between the two stories, differences that, to me, clearly show the ethical superiority of Hebrew religion to Sumerian, but to no avail. They continued to believe that I was trying to "impose atheism" on them and continued to disbelieve that Gilgamesh predated the Bible or that the Hebrews adapted a Sumerian myth. All I can say, even now, is that if your faith can't stand up to the truth, the problem is not the truth.
6.3.2011 | 2:54pm
555dragec says:
It would be interesting, though undoubtedly impossible, to know how many of the people in these sects embraced Christianity, and how quickly. I feel the vast majority of them who heard the Gospel would have instantly converted, realising a fulfillment of their earlier beliefs
6.3.2011 | 4:12pm
Steve says:
As a high school theology teacher, I appreciate Fred's story. Many of my students have picked up on this triumphalism of modern atheism. In our more frustrated moments, my colleagues and I like to joke that we wish our students could at least be faithful pagans so that we could have some sort of fertile ground to sow the seeds of the Gospel. Even the barbarians were ready to be converted, whereas our students come from a cultural and spiritual wasteland.
6.3.2011 | 6:55pm
toknow says:
Agreed. It is amazing how people from different sects are easily attracted to Christianity. Though i would not agree that the rise of Christianity was a evolutionary consequence.
6.4.2011 | 3:07am
Johnny says:
I've never understood the critique leveled by the formal athiests of the day. Of course the form of Christianity was in the conventions of its day. What would the alternative be? A metalanguage devoid of the particularities of the hellenistic world? How well would that have been received, if it were even possible. The crux of the matter is that the content of Christianity is radically different than that of the pagan religions.
6.4.2011 | 7:25am
Mark VA says:
I believe that those who call themselves Christian, should shun neither history or other sciences in a misguided effort to protect their beliefs - if they ever feel such a need. When done with integrity, that is without any agendas other than an honest search for truth, these human endeavours can only deepen and stimulate one's faith, not harm it. Granted however, that here one must be able to separate the chaff of agendas from the grains of truth.

One the other hand, if a faith feels the need to be ahistorical to keep itself together, then the problem is perhaps with the roots of that faith.
6.4.2011 | 9:35am
Seth says:
Would it be accurate to say that the main problem Fred's students have is their a priori commitment to Biblical literalism? For surely there would be a problem if Genesis purported to be a thoroughgoing literal history, yet the events described were described a millennium ago in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

With regards to the Old Testament, the atheist's "many parallels with paganism" charge seems to carry weight only if one accepts Biblical literalism.
6.4.2011 | 12:08pm
I do mean to get around to the Golden Ass someday. Having read maybe a fifth of the way into it once, I recall the general moral disorder and the telling fact that a character named Socrates is brutally snuffed off quite early on. Just this brief glimpse of a tired-out and decadent Greece helps one grasp why it was ready for the gospel.

BTW, DBH fans, over on the FT blog Postmodern Conservative, I've got a series developing now on iconic rock songs, considered retrospectively from a pomocon perspective. I'm not sure Dylan, U2, and the Zombies have a thing to do with Hart's work, but there you are.
6.4.2011 | 2:52pm
Fred says:
@Johnny, "The crux of the matter is that the content of Christianity is radically different than that of the pagan religions." Yes! That's exactly what I was trying to tell my students. Very few of them were atheists, but they were the flip side, fundamentalist Christians who adhered to a narrow Biblical literalism. I'm not sure which is worse for the faith, atheist materialist cultural elites or aggressively ignorant fundamentalists who give them a strawman with which to attack all Christianity.
6.4.2011 | 4:23pm
Ben Embry says:
I think the blog posters are missing a vital point of the article. I don't think the point has to do with seeking out the hayseeds of the world who do or do not endorse the truthfulness of other religions. Rather, the point is to raise the question in our minds to consider our own view of "nature, history and culture". As you see the world, does the entrance of Jesus Christ make a difference? and if so, what is that difference? Or, is your view of the world such that it doesn't matter much if Jesus did or did not come? Is Lucius's religion sufficient for your world? Or are you still glad that Jesus came, even though Christianity shares some common ground with other religions?

Even with all the other religions, do you think the world still needs Jesus? And if you do, why? That is the implied question. Because, see, frequently Hart gets called a lousy moralist because he moves deeper into the gospel than natural justice allows. Or his wit gets misunderstood. Or he says something about the proper place on earth for longing for that which is not earthly, and people don't sense the realness of the object of the longing. At least, the bloggers often do not.

So I think that Hart is denying us in this article the throw-away wit and the extended Gogolian descriptions and the brief autobiographical indulgences- all the things we readers love- to raise within us this one question: As you consider your world, do you see that Jesus' gospel turns it inside out and heals it in ways unmatched by anything else? Or, does your understanding of "nature, history and culture" prevent you from seeing this?
6.5.2011 | 1:02am
J. Lawson says:
I am also a high school teacher, and I have surveyed students several times involving topics relating to life, religion, choices...and I was also amazed at the alarming rate of students who accept, embrace, and encourage atheism. Is it a reflection of more independent thinking, or a lowered level of morality through society?
6.5.2011 | 5:31pm
pentamom says:
Fred's students needn't jettison a belief in biblical historicity (a term I prefer to literalism) -- they simply need to consider the fact that Moses and the progenitor of Gilgamesh were both writing about something that happened in ancient memory, albeit with different views of the matter in mind. So what if the Babylonians wrote it down first? I'm surprised this conclusion didn't occur naturally to them -- isn't it the conclusion any of us would come to if we were greeted with differing reports of an event we believed to have happened, both dated after the time it was purported to have happened? Do southern histories of the Civil War trouble our faith in later-dated northern histories to the extent that we believe that someone is trying to tell us the war didn't happen?
6.5.2011 | 10:21pm
Phen375 says:
I do not think that atheism is a product of a lowered level of morality, but a product of time, simply because students and other lose their belief in the gospel due to our technological enhancement and development.
6.7.2011 | 12:30pm
I have a suspicion who might have been the man at Hay-on-Wye...though those who promulgate the "pagan borrowing" thesis proliferate like tadpoles these days. I've prepared specific essays on their claims at http://www.tektonics.org/copycathub.html -- the one on Mithra gets over 1500 visits a month, so this is clearly a major issue out there.
6.8.2011 | 3:16pm
If Christianity borrows from dozens of "pagan" traditions - then note, that might be an argument in favor of it. It is eclectic, and manages to put together dozens of major viable traditions.

Indeed, current scholarship believes that Christianity is a sort of Hellenistic, Platonistic combination, of many "ANE" or Ancient Middle East cultures.
7.13.2011 | 4:35am
May we be graced to invoke with trust Name of Yeshua and that of Mother Mary , gentle , full of grace whose glory subsists in who The Son is and whose role, as a human , is said to be more intolerable to the enemy ! Even with all the other religions, do you think the world still needs Jesus? And if you do, why? That is the implied question. Because, see, frequently Hart gets called a lousy moralist because he moves deeper into the gospel than natural justice allows. Or his wit gets misunderstood. Or he says something about the proper place on earth for longing for that which is not earthly, and people don't sense the realness of the object of the longing. At least, the bloggers often do not.
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact