Ghosts in Ancient Greece and Rome

Phantoms and Demons Interact With the Living

© Michael Streich

 Feb 15, 2009

Although ancient civilizations believed in magic and ghosts, the emerging Christian tradition differentiated ghosts as demons that disguised themselves as the dead.

Ghosts in the ancient world were an accepted part of the cosmos. Ancient literature, including the Bible, gives varying accounts of ghosts and their interactions with the living. Ghosts were associated with magic and often intertwined with demonology, such as the celebrated case in Mark’s Gospel. The strong identification of ghosts with the demonic is tied to the formation of early Christian theology that, unlike the cosmologies of ancient societies, made no provision for spectral existence.

Ghosts in Ancient Greece and Rome

The ancients strongly believed that those who died without proper burial could not cross the River Styx for at least one hundred years. According to Virgil, they were doomed to wander the banks until the years had elapsed. In Homer’s Odyssey, Odysseus, in the course of practicing a rite to safely enter Hades, spoke briefly with a ghostly warrior to whom he promised a fitting burial on his way home.

Ghosts were tied to murders and violent deaths. Suetonius, in The Twelve Caesars (34) describes how Nero arranged to have his mother killed, yet “often admitted that he was hounded by his mother’s ghost…” Suetonius also records that Nero “set Persian magicians at work to conjure up the ghost and entreat its forgiveness.”

Persians and Egyptians had long reputations for magic, divination, and the ability to deal with the supernatural.

Magic and even the assistance of gods and goddess as in the case of Odysseus were often vital. As Daniel Ogden writes, “contact with ghosts…could often be fatal to the living.” In Jean-Claude Schmitt’s detailed Ghosts in the Middle Ages, a group of ghosts carousing around a church altar suddenly attack and kill a priest who had come late at night to witness the phenomena.

Ghosts and Demons Differentiated by the Early Church

In the Gospel of Mark (5.1-20) Jesus arrived at Gerasenes and was confronted by a “man from the tombs with an unclean spirit.” In the ancient world, it was a common belief that ghosts inhabited tombs. Many of these ancient tombs lay outside the communities of the living, necropoleis containing the sarcophagi of the deceased. The man confronting Jesus was said to have “had his dwelling among the tombs” and was infected with many demons. For many reasons, ghosts could be viewed as “unclean” spirits. The differentiation with the notion of “demon” as a separate evil spirit associated with the legions of Satan is a Christian one.

The transition occurred when early Christian thinkers advanced the idea that ghosts were really demons disguised as the dead. Tertullian advances this view by pointing to the Old Testament story of the famous witch of Endor who conjures the spirit of the dead prophet Samuel on orders from Saul. Christian views held that the dead must await the final judgment in another realm. The thief on the cross had asked Jesus to remember him when he came into his “world” and was told by Jesus that he would be in paradise.

The problem with Tertullian’s interpretation is that a close reading of that text indicates sincere surprise on the part of the witch when Samuel appeared. The ghost she described was a “divine being coming up out of the earth.” That the dead lived below the earth was a universal ancient belief. Both Homer and Virgil placed the abode of the dead below the earth.

In the New Testament, death is described as “to give up the ghost” which literally means “to breathe out.” It is also translated in several passages as “giving up the spirit.” St. Paul’s “great cloud of witnesses,” i.e., those that passed on in this manner, cannot possibly be ghosts in the sense the ancient civilizations interpreted the concept of “ghost.”

Other Ghostly Haunts

Ghosts were associated with battlefields, temples, and houses where people had been murdered or committed suicide. Some have said that even today, standing in the old Roman Forum in the blanket of night, one can hear the ghosts of the past lamenting their condition and the fall of their civilization.

Sources:

Daniel Ogden, Magic, Witchcraft, and Ghosts in the Greek and Roman Worlds (Oxford University Press, 2002).

Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars (Penguin Books, 1984).

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

The copyright of the article Ghosts in Ancient Greece and Rome in Ancient History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish Ghosts in Ancient Greece and Rome in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Necropolis at Pammukale

City of the Dead

 Ancient Tombs and Burial Practices

Early Civilizations Develop Rituals Dealing with Death and Afterlife

© Michael Streich

 Mar 8, 2009

Ancient practices involving the dead varied between civilizations, yet the notion that death required ritual and planning was a universal aspect of evolving religion.

How the ancients viewed death and how they defined the Afterlife varied considerably through Middle Eastern and Mediterranean cultures. In some civilizations, practices and beliefs changed as their own societies declined. Treatment of the dead was a vital part of New Stone Age religious development: Mark Kishlansky refers to the discovery of human skulls at Jericho as evidence of possible early ancestor worship. [1] As views about death evolved, ancient civilizations developed their own, often elaborate, ways of bridging life with the world beyond.

Comparisons and Contrasts in Entombment

For the Etruscans, thriving in western Italy before the Roman Republic, death was a celebration and the Afterlife a continuation of the often lavish lifestyles of the wealthy. Their cities of the dead – necropoleis, were hewn out of the rocky hills. Each tomb duplicated Etruscan homes and it is from these tombs as well as the sarcophagi found therein that archaeologists have been able to present a portrait of Etruscan everyday life. Etruscan funerals featured gladiatorial “duels” to the death as part of the celebrations, a practice later inherited by the Romans that evolved into the popular public spectacles.

Like the Etruscans, Ancient Egyptians buried their wealthy dead in elaborate tombs filled with artifacts and wall paintings depicting families during everyday life. As with Etruscans, Egyptians had a positive view of the Afterlife. Both the Egyptians and the Etruscans, however, would see these positives change as their societies began to wan. The Afterlife became a place of fear, filled with evil spirits. Egyptians began to bury their deceased with the Book of the Dead, containing spells to help the departed.

Romans also buried their dead outside of city limits and every significant road or provincial city has these necropoleis. Yet Romans, in contrast, had no similar view of an Afterlife. According to Philippe Aries and Georges Duby, “No generally accepted doctrine taught that there is anything after death other than a cadaver.” [2] Romans, however, prolifically carved elaborate sarcophagi illustrating scenes from everyday life. Referring to Roman mausoleums and grave plaques, Lionel Casson comments that these markers “form one of the most fruitful sources of information we have about the Roman world.” [3]

Preparing and Remembering the Dead

It is well known that Ancient Egyptians took seventy days to prepare a pharaoh for the burial ceremony, although such elaborate preparations were not provided for the average Egyptian. Every ancient civilization, however, had methods of preparation, often designed to stop the rapid decomposition of the body. The very term “sarcophagus” comes from a Greek term referring to “flesh eating.” Heather Pringle writes that in Babylon, the important dead were often immersed in honey. [4] In most of the Ancient Near East, preparation and burial was swift.

Taken from the home within hours after death (often to avoid ill fortunes tied to the supernatural), the dead were placed in cities beyond the living, frequently with buried gifts although the purpose was not often tied to an Afterlife. Romans celebrated a “Feast of the Dead” once a year between February 13-21st. Offerings were left at graves and the dead were remembered. In Mycenaean Greece as well as Minoan Crete, early dug graves and later “chamber tombs” (tholoi) revealed elaborate burial gifts including swords.

The celebratory nature in Roman and Greek funerals may be evidenced by images of Bacchus on sarcophagi. The carefree god of wine and pleasure may have reinforced the notion that, for Romans, death was eternal sleep, and that “everything continues after everything has ceased.” A modern proverb illustrating this holds that “life is short and the grave is long.”

It is easy to see how ancient practices, later coupled with Christian ideals, shaped the modern tradition of death and the Afterlife. The combined traditions of thousands of years left an imprint that continues to define contemporary notions of life and death.

Sources:

[1] Mark Kishlansky and others, Civilization in the West 5th Ed. Vol. 1, (Longman, 2003) p 9.

[2] Philippe Aries and Georges Duby, General Editors, A History of Private Life From Pagan Rome to Byzantium (Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1987) p 219ff.

[3] Lionel Casson, Everyday Life in Ancient Rome (The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998) p 32.

[4] Heather Pringle, The Mummy Congress: Science, Obsession, and the Everlasting Dead (Hyperion, 2001) p 40.

The copyright of the article Ancient Tombs and Burial Practices in Ancient History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish Ancient Tombs and Burial Practices in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Etruscan Sarcophogus,Vatican

 

Reformation Sunday Commemorates Luther's 95 Theses

Oct 13, 2010 Michael Streich

Reformation Sunday Recalls Luther's 95 Theses - Oswald Walser Photo Image

Traditional historical accounts teach that Martin Luther nailed the 95 Theses to the Wittenberg Church door on October 31, 1517, but questions remain.

Reformation Sunday is the 31st of October. It is the anniversary of Martin Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses nailed to the church door at Wittenberg. When October 31st falls on another weekday, Reformation Sunday is celebrated on the Sunday immediately preceding the 31st.

The history behind Reformation Sunday and the events that precipitated it are, however, a matter of controversy. Did Luther actually nail the theses to the church door? Why did he take the action on October 31st, the eve before All Saints Day?

Nailing the Ninety-Five Theses to the Wittenberg Church Door

Traditionally, historians accepted the story that Martin Luther, an Augustinian monk and professor at the University in Wittenberg, nailed ninety-five theses or points for discussion to the church door at Wittenberg.

Some scholars point out that the church contained many relics and by placing his theses on the door, people coming the following day to celebrate the All Saints Day Mass would take notice, especially since the theses focused on indulgences.

There are, however, several problems with this history. Although Wittenberg was a university town, literacy rates in Europe in 1517 were less than three percent of the total population. The assumption is that most people coming for a Mass would not have been able to read the document.

Secondly, those townsmen who could read would not have had the theological training to understand Luther’s points unless they were members of the clergy. Historian Mark Edwards comments that, “We are likely never to be able to determine whether the 95 Theses were actually posted.”

The Ninety-Five Theses Set Up a Debate on Indulgences and Purgatory

Luther’s intent was to provoke a debate within the church intelligentsia on indulgences and purgatory. As contemporary Luther scholars point out, rather than nailing the theses to the church door, Luther would have sent them to the church hierarchy, most probably Archbishop Albrecht of Maintz.

Luther’s mental inquiries regarding purgatory and indulgences, as expressed in the theses, may have also been timed to coincide with both All Saints Day and All Souls Day. These days not only honored all Christian saints, but reinforced the practice of praying for the dead.

Indeed, the indulgence sales by Johaan Tetzel that could be purchased for souls already in Purgatory led to Luther’s disgust over Tetzel’s message: “when the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs.”

Celebrating the Meaning of Reformation Sunday

Ultimately, Reformation Sunday is a reminder that faith requires frequent rejuvenation if it is to bear a vibrant witness to truth. Luther had been to Rome and witnessed the decadence and corruption that was so common during the pontificate of Julius II. Harvard historian Richard Marius writes that at the time Luther was writing the theses, he was reading Erasmus’ Julius Exclusus.

Reformation Sunday is also a challenge. The process of reformation is on-going and adaptable to a changing world. Even among Catholics, for example, few people hold to a literal Purgatory either as an extension of life or a separate sphere. Luther’s theses represented one of the first transitional events that brought the cosmology of Medieval thinking to an end and helped to define man in a more human manner.

Reformation Sunday Commemorates the Birth of Protestantism

Although scholars point out that Reformation ideology can be traced to earlier churchmen like John Huss and John Wycliffe, it was Luther who instigated the movement that split Christendom. The many branches and denominations of contemporary Protestantism exist today because one Augustinian monk in Saxony published his Ninety-Five Theses on October 31, 1517.

Sources:

Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther (Fortress Press, 1966).

Mark U. Edwards, Jr., “Martin Luther,” Reformation Europe: A Guide to Research, edited by Steven Ozment (Center for Reformation Research, 1982).

Richard Marius, Martin Luther: The Christian Between God and Death (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999).

Steven Ozment, The Age of Reform 1250-1550 (Yale University Press, 1980).

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

 

Symbolism in the Bethlehem Birth of Jesus

Nov 16, 2010 Michael Streich

Each Bethlehem Participant is Symbolic - Mike Streich Photo Image

The birth of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels symbolizes a universal society and opens the door to modern embellishment and interpretation.

The birth of Jesus as celebrated at Christmas by Christians has been interpreted in many ways. The New Testament books Matthew and Luke provide the most comprehensive, if rudimentary, versions of the Bethlehem story. Matthew focuses on the Magi or wise men from the East while Luke highlights the response and role of the shepherds. Even King Herod figures into the story, adding a distinctly political perspective to the birth of Jesus. Much of the traditional Christmas “crèche,” popularized by St. Francis of Assisi, is an embellishment. But the symbols of the Bethlehem birth still resonate.

The Symbolic Role of the Bethlehem Shepherds

Shepherds were people of the land, pastoral, and associated with the oldest profession in the ancient world, perhaps even predating agriculture. This is alluded to in Genesis. Abel was a “keeper of sheep” (Genesis 4.2) and pleased God while his older brother, Cain, was involved in agricultural pursuits. Both brothers offered a sacrifice. Abel’s was pleasing and accepted; Cain’s was not.

This story from the Old Testament demonstrates that from earliest times, God, or whatever creator force or being was being placated, preferred the role of the shepherd. In Psalm 23, a Psalm of David – himself a shepherd who rose to be king, the reader is reminded that the “Lord is my shepherd.” This same divine shepherd used his “rod and staff” to “comfort” or protect.

The shepherds who came to the manger in Luke had been visited by angels – a heavenly ensemble that celebrated the birth of the Messiah. They represented the ordinary people, the hard working masses. Being a shepherd was no easy task; it was difficult work and demanded the attention of the shepherd around the clock.

King Herod and the Political Perspective

Herod was a very paranoid ruler. When the wise men from the east came to him inquiring about the birth of a new king, he became concerned and called advisers to discern where this possible usurper was to be born. From Old Testament prophetic literature, they interpreted the birth of the long awaited Messiah.

But the wise men, after finding Jesus, never returned to Herod. Warned in a dream, they returned to Persia after leaving their gifts. The wise men or Magi are symbolic of several things: hidden knowledge, intellectual knowledge, philosophy, and the search for truth.

They based their quest, significantly, on a star. Charles B. William’s translation of the New Testament refers to them as “stargazers.” The New American Standard Bible calls them Magi. They were definitely not “kings” and no actual number is given. Their names are of Medieval origin.

Future Political Perspectives on Jesus

Jesus was no Henry David Thoreau who refused to pay taxes in support of the Mexican-American War. In Matthew 22.15ff he responded to the Roman poll tax by saying, “Pay Caesar, therefore, what belongs to Caesar, and pay God what belongs to God.” The 16th Century Reformer Martin Luther used this text to differentiate between church and state.

In Matthew 17.24ff, Jesus actually pays the temple tax, but not out of the funds held by his Apostles. The coin is retrieved from a fish by Simon Peter. It can be argued that by paying the imperial and local taxes, Jesus separated God’s kingdom from the kingdom of man (separation of church and state) and even, indirectly, accepted the rule of Rome.

When before Pilate at his trial, the people of Jerusalem clamored for the release of Barabbas, a man of action, over the meek and shepherdly Jesus. Yet the Jewish forces of insurrection, identified with men like Barabbas, would be destroyed while the humble “good shepherd” (John 10.11-14) would found a mighty and global religious movement.

Symbolism of the Magi or Wise Men from the East

Whatever their number, these travelers represent the hidden knowledge of the ancient world, the esoteric ideals that Rome associated with the many “mystery cults.” Their pedigree predated Rome and their deeper understanding was universally respected. They relied on astronomy and astrology, focusing on a particular star to guide them.

They never questioned the humble and decidedly poor conditions associated with the birth of Jesus. Ancient history was full of such tales. Sargon the Great was floated down the Euphrates River in a basket as a baby, retrieved, and forged the first Mesopotamian Empire. The same can be said of the legends about Moses. Cyrus the Great was brought up from birth by humble peasants, according to the Greek historian Herodotus. Why should this child in Bethlehem be any different?

The Bethlehem Birth of Jesus as Symbolic of all Mankind

Each participant in the Bethlehem story reflects an aspect of humankind. Joseph was a carpenter, a skilled craftsman. Mary was the vulnerable birth mother whose strength rested in her faith, supplied by angelic guidance.

The Shepherds represented the hard working peasants while the wise men symbolized knowledge and learning. Herod, the arch-villain in this story, was the duplicitous politician, willing to kill any potential claimant to his throne.

Almost two thousand years have sanitized the Bethlehem story. The animals in the manger – not specified in any account, are docile, recognizing the Creator made flesh. Hymns and stories embellish the story. The very date of the Bethlehem birth, December 24th, is highly improbable.

But symbols satisfy everyday people that long for a spiritual dimension in their lives. Christmas in July or August is a commercial stunt, although it might be closer to the truth. The Bethlehem birth of Jesus offers a wide array of symbolic meanings, good and evil characters, and the starting point of Christianity.

Sources:

• Herbert Lockyer, All the Trades and Occupations of the Bible (Zondervan, 1969)
• New American Standard Bible (The Lockman Foundation, 1963)
• Charles B. Williams, The New Testament in the Language of the People (Moody Press, 1963)

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

 

Causes of the Hundred Years War in 1337

Oct 29, 2010 Michael Streich

Causes of the Hundred Years War - Mike Streich Photo

While an immediate cause of the Hundred Years War was Philip VI's confiscation of Gascony, the chief cause involved Edward III's claim to the French throne.

The Hundred Years’ War began in 1337 after many years of struggle between England and France. The immediate cause of the war was tied to the region of Gascony, confiscated in 1337 by French king Philip VI on the basis that Edward III of England, who had a hereditary legal right to the land, had not shown him proper homage. Other reasons, however, formed the foundation of conflict, chief of which was Edward himself as a potential claimant to the French throne.

French and English Conflicts over Commercial Interests

The English in the early 14th Century still controlled large sections of France, including the wealthy Aquitaine. Revenues from this province alone dwarfed all internal English taxation. Ships leaving the Aquitaine, however, were subject to naval attacks by French pirates. In reprisal, English pirates attacked French shipping.

Another cause of friction involved Flanders and the English woolen industry. Export duties represented large revenue sums for the English king.

In the years before the war, unrest in Flanders between the wealthy merchants and the artisans and craftsmen resulted in the Count of Flanders turning to the French king for help. The English sensed that France was attempting to tamper with the lucrative wool industry at England’s expense.

Philip VI Sends Assistance to the Scots

Another immediate cause of conflict involved Edward III’s continued attempts to subdue the Scots, a struggle that had been in progress for many years. Philip VI encouraged French knights to travel to Scotland and assist the enemies of Edward.

Edward III Becomes a Credible Rival for the French Throne in 1328

Edward III was the son of Edward II and his French wife, Isabella. Edward II died in 1327 during a power struggle between Isabella and her lover, Roger Mortimer. In 1330, at the age of eighteen, Edward III arrested his mother, executed Mortimer, and began his rule. It was through Isabella, however, that Edward’s claim to the French throne rested.

Isabella was the daughter of French King Philip IV who died in 1314. Of his three sons, only Louis X conceived a male heir. The child died in 1316, the same year Louis X died. Neither Philip V nor Charles IV – who died in 1328, produced male heirs.

In the 14th Century, it was inconceivable that a woman could rule. Thus, with Isabella ineligible, the only other legitimate male heir in 1328 was her son who also happened to be Edward III, King of England.

The French Turn to Philip VI of the House of Valois

Philip VI was the nephew of Philip IV through Charles, Count of Valois. The French nobility had no intentions of honoring Edward’s claim. Chosen as King of France in 1328, Philip not only became the rival of Edward III, but insofar as some of Edward’s French land claims like Gascony, his lord under the old Feudal customs. It was on this basis that Philip confiscated Gascony in 1337.

Unlike Edward III, Philip lacked leadership skills and demonstrated a heightened paranoia about everyone around him. He enjoyed the pomp of court life and frivolous entertainment. Philip was wholly inadequate in the task of carrying on a war against Edward who was loved by his people and was a superb soldier and leader.

The Hundred Years’ War Decided who Controlled France

Spanning most of the ill-fated 14th-Century, the Hundred Years’ War ultimately decided who controlled France. By the time the series of battles ended, few recalled the causes of the war and Western Europe was changed dramatically from an age of chivalry to a pre-modern society.

Sources:

• Christopher Allmand, The Hundred Years War: England and France at War c. 1300-c. 1450 (Cambridge University Press, 1988)
• Desmond Seward, The Hundred Years War: The English in France, 1337-1453 (Atheneum, 1978)
• Jonathan Sumption, The Hundred Years War I: Trial by Battle (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990)

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.