Academic literature on the topic 'Ancient Egyptian theology'

Ibn Kātib Qayṣar's long-neglectedCommentary on the Apocalypse of Johnis a veritable treasure trove for those interested not only in the early transmission of the biblical text and its history of interpretation, but also in the way ancient definitions of prophecy and vision were reconceived in Arabic Christian theology. Written in Cairo by a thirteenth-century Egyptian author, it is one of only two large-scale medieval commentaries on Revelation produced in the Arabic language. The other such commentary was composed by a fellow Copt, Būlus al-Būshī, who was a near contemporary of Ibn Kātib Qayṣar. Together, these two works provide a compelling witness to the currency of this apocalyptic biblical text among Christians living in Islamic Egypt.

AbstractThe catechetical compilation Kitab al-Idah ("The Book of the Elucudation") of the tenth-century Coptic bishop and theologian Sawirus ibn al-Muqaffa' is one of the most frequently copied theological texts of the Arabic-speaking Coptic Church. While its first eight chapters deal with the principal doctrines and practices of the faith, Chapter Nine-omitted from the most recent printed edition of the work-must be understood against the backdrop of the flourishing speculation about supernatural beings and the afterlife that has long characterised Egyptian religion, including Coptic Christianity. In this chapter Sawirus responds to a homily, attributed to Theophilus of Alexandria, on the Angel of Death: the reason for his being granted authority over humankind, and the day of his feast. With considerable passion, Sawirus refutes this homily with arguments drawn from common sense, science, scripture and theology; for him, the cult of the Angel of Death is nothing but a ruse of Satan. However, Sawirus does not simply dismiss Egyptian Christian concern about the realm of supernatural beings. Instead, he attempts to absorb this realm more completely into the world of the Bible by summarizing or redescribing the Bible's central story as that of Christ's deception of and victory over Satan and his demonic host. While this narrative is rooted in ancient soteriological tradition, Sawirus' rendering is fresh and entertaining. The popularity of the Kitab al-Idah suggests that many generations of Egyptian Christians found it not merely entertaining, but genuinely elucidating.

Because the gnostic heresy is a social construction imposed by the early Catholics on religious people they identified as transgressors of Christianity, scholars are entertaining the idea that ancient gnostics were actually alternative Christians. While gnostics may have been made into heretics by the early Catholics, this does not erase the fact that gnostics were operating in the margins of the conventional religions with a countercultural perspective that upset and overturned everything from traditional theology, cosmogony, cosmology, anthropology, hermeneutics, scripture, religious practices, and lifestyle choices. Making the gnostic into a Christian only imposes another grand narrative on the early Christians, one which domesticates gnostic movements. Granted, the textual evidence for the interface of the gnostic and the Christian is present, but so is the interface of the gnostic and the Greek, the gnostic and the Jew, the gnostic and the Persian, and the gnostic and the Egyptian. And the interface looks to have all the signs of transgression, not conformity. Understanding the gnostic as a spiritual orientation toward a transcendent God beyond the biblical God helps us handle this kind of diversity and transgression. As such, it survives in the artifacts that gnostics and their opponents have left behind, artifacts that help orient religious seekers to make sense of their own moments of ecstasy and revelation.

AbstractIn summary, both Celsus and Origen were confronted with dilemmas. On the one hand, Celsus had to demonstrate that the Christians erred in leaving Judaism and that the Jews provide a credible anti-Christian witness; but, at the same time, he had to denigrate Judaism. In effect, Celsus asked the Christians why they had severed themselves religiously from the Jews if, indeed, they claimed continuity with Judaism, and why they had severed themselves socially from the pagans, inasmuch as they were predominantly of pagan origin. On the other hand, Origen's dilemma was that the only way that he could establish Christianity's legitimacy was to give it a historical basis by demonstrating continuity with Judaism; and yet, the raison d'être of Christianity was, paradoxically, its break with Judaism. Indeed, this is precisely the kind of ambivalence toward Judaism which characterizes so much of early Christian thought. It is not that Celsus is such a lover of the Jews that he apparently abstains from repeating the vilest canards against the Jews, though by his day, in the second century, there were a number of writers, such as Numenius, who genuinely admired the Jews' wisdom. Rather, it would seem, he felt that he would lose in credibility if he exaggerated the case against the Jews. However, when it came to the connection between the Jews and the Christians, whereas Celsus had sought to undermine the national legitimacy of the Christians by insisting that Christianity was a new religion which had severed its links with Judaism, Origen might have gone the way of the Marcionites in severing all links with Judaism and with the Hebrew Scriptures, but he realized that the result of such an approach would have been to fall prey to the charges of Celsus that Christianity was an upstart religion. Consequently, Origen felt that it was particularly important to establish the legitimacy of the Jewish people, with whom the Christians claimed to have a direct link. Christological theology was not of paramount concern to Celsus in his polemic; rather the attack focused upon Jesus the innovator, whose religion lacks respectability because it has no continuity in tradition. Manetho and his successors, as summarized in Josephus' treatise Against Apion, had charged Moses with being a rebel, a perverter of traditional Egyptian religion and customs; similarly, Celsus alleged, Jesus was a rebel, a perverter of traditional Jewish religion and customs. The Christians were, moreover, particularly suspect because they met in secret associations and hence would seem to constitute a danger to the state. By maximizing the common heritage and beliefs of Judaism and Christianity and by minimizing the issues that separated them Origen sought to blunt these attacks. Toward this end Origen found Josephus' treatise Against Apion, the original title of which, apparently, was Concerning the Antiquity of the Jews, useful, particularly in establishing the antiquity and wisdom of the Jews and of Moses (a particularly effective argument inasmuch as the Romans felt so self-conscious about their own recent appearance on the scene of history), in defending the Jews against the charges of unoriginality, of undue credulity, of appealing to uneducated and stupid people, of hatred of mankind, and of atheism, as well as in explaining the apparently degraded state of the Jews. When he departs from Josephus, as he does in dating Moses in the very beginning of civilization, he does so for purposes of argumentation, since Apion, with whose work Celsus was acquainted, imputed such an early date to the Exodus. Again, just as Origen was confronted with a dilemma as to which attitude to adopt toward the Jews, so was he confronted with a similar dilemma in connection with the Egyptians. On the one hand, the Egyptians had a reputation for antiquity and wisdom that was unrivalled in antiquity; on the other hand, the Jews had revolted against the Egyptians; and as the historic heirs of the Jews the Christians were thus associated with rebels. Origen adopts Josephus' argument that the Jews cannot have been a seditious multitude of Egyptians since, if so, they would not have regarded the Egyptian ways so lightly. In a novel argument, Origen then adds that the Jews have an antiquity of their own, as seen by the fact that even non-Jews seek to attain miracles by invoking the names of Abraham and his descendants. Furthermore, since both Celsus and Origen had such a profound respect for Plato, it is important to note that Origen repeats Josephus' view that Plato had been deeply influenced by the Bible; indeed, he adds to Josephus by noting that he was influenced not only by the Torah but also by the Hebrew prophets and not only in the Republic but also in the Symposium, the Phaedrus, the Timaeus, and the Phaedo. Origen goes further than Josephus in answering certain charges made by Celsus that had not been made by the anti-Jewish writers cited by Josephus. In particular, he felt especially sensitive to Celsus' charge that Moses was a charlatan and an impostor, sorcerer, and magician, especially since a similar charge had apparently been made against Jesus. Of course, we must not discount the possibility that rhetoric led both Celsus, in his defense of Egyptian wisdom, and Origen, in his defense of Jewish laws, to champion views that they might not otherwise have held. In both cases they seem to be forced to embrace these views only because of the necessity of assuming that "the more ancient something is, the better." It is surprising to find how sophisticated Origen is. Ultimately, his Hellenic education in general and Platonic training in particular made him a formidable foe of Celsus and a more subtle apologist than Josephus, even if he does depend on much of the latter's work. This is particularly clear when one compares Origen's use of Josephus and more generally his defense of the antiquity and wisdom of ancient Judaism with that of Eusebius in the following century in his apologies directed toward pagans.38

This article raises a question from the assertions that Mark’s memories of his martyrdom can provide an alternative theology for the African Independent Churches (AICs). Can there be a link with the Gospel of Mark from the African perspective? The AICs have been contending with matters of faith and culture, which bear a strong presence in their theology. Much has happened in attempting to answer the questions relating to their faith. This article tries to create an alternative narrative for the makeup of such theology. An interview with Bishop Markos has been a key factor in the founding of such a possibility. To Markos, St Mark, the Egyptian Coptic Church and the ancient Christian experience with their popes and bishops will inform such a theology. They were proud of their linear and orthodox connection to the times of Jesus Christ’s earthly ministry two thousand years ago. Egypt and Alexandria—as situated in Africa—have compelled me to test such an allegation. Markos is the author of several books, and he has travelled extensively on the African continent in an attempt to understand the AICs. He introduced and discussed the relationship between Pope Shenouda III and the AICs for the formation of the Organisation of African Independent Churches (OAIC). This essay is an exploration of oral tradition. The Africans’ claiming a connection with early Christianity through the Coptic Church has triggered a curiosity to perform more research.

Tanken med denna uppsats är att utifrån ett idéhistoriskt perspektiv försöka belysa fundamentet och framväxten av den kristna koptiska kyrkan i Egypten. Med hänsyn tagen till såväl den sociokulturella och teologiska som politiska historien är mitt syfte att framgent kunna presentera vilka komponenter det är som kan ha bidragit till dess ecclesiala institution vars uttryck manifesteras genom liturgiska riter, symbola samt trosföreställning.

Som uppsats betraktat är den deskriptiv med inslag av argumenterande karaktär. Det innebär att det förekommer komparabla reflektioner i syftet att teologiskt kunna presentera om det ur ett koptiskt inifrånperspektiv finns någon icke-kristen faktor i trosföreställningen vars dignitet i så fall skulle kunna vara den sammanhållande länken för deras syn på den egna tron. På grund av detta är det nödgat att dels göra några historiska nedslag i den fornegyptiska religionen för att utröna vilka element det är som kan ha fått en kristen överbyggnad, och dels om den egyptiska mytologiska samt kosmologiska världen ligger till grund för delar av den koptisk kristna filosofin.

Slutsatsen jag kom fram till är att det fornegyptiska arvet spelar som förväntat en stor roll. Kopterna är stolta över sitt ursprung och lever i en miljö vilken i allra högsta grad fortfarande vittnar om det forntida egyptiska imperiets storhet. Det förefaller också som så att den östra kyrkan, Alexandrinska kyrkan, uppbar en ledande funktion i framväxten av kristendomen. Problematiken som sedermera uppstod handlade om Kristi natur och substans vilket ledde till att koptiska kyrkan ställde sig utanför mötet i Kalcedon 451. Främsta orsaken till detta är i mina ögon den polemiska synen på begreppet ”The Mother of God” – Theotokos visavi Christotokos. Den Koptiska kyrkans största bidrag till kristenheten är kloster och munkväsendet samt tidegärden.

Huvudfrågan i den här uppsatsen är på vilket sätt som konsten speglar religionen i Egypten under Det mellersta riket. Uppsatsen börjar med att beskriva när Det mellersta riket skulle ha ägt rum, vilket dock är lite osäkert, då årtalen kan variera något mellan olika författare. Vidare, vill jag ge en inblick i hur den egyptiska konsten bör tolkas, då detta inte är på samma sätt som vi västerlänningar, idag, ofta tolkar konst utifrån dess yttre skönhet och helhet. Sedan följer en beskrivning av hur religionen förmodligen uppstod kring Nilen och inspirerade det religiösa livet, då denna flod var livsviktig och källan till att livet över huvud taget gick att leva i Egypten. Detta stycke inrymmer också skapelsemyten, gudar och ritualer. I stycket, som jag kallar ”Kungen”, beskrivs vilken ställning kungen hade ur ett religiöst perspektiv, då mycket av konsten man har funnit har varit avbildningar av kungar. Hur konsten beskriver det ovannämnda och symboliserar religionen påvisas i nästa stycke, som följs av hur religion och konst har förändrats från det Gamla riket till det Nya riket.

Uppsatsförfattaren har senare bytt efternamn till "Lindgren".

Among many remarkable claims, Mormon founder Joseph Smith reported that he had translated ancient scriptures. He dictated the Book of Mormon, an American Bible from metal plates associated with Native antiquity; directly rewrote the King James Bible; and produced a scripture, derived from Egyptian funerary papyri, that he called the Book of Abraham. Smith and his followers used the term “translation” to describe the genesis of these English texts, which remain canonical for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Most commenters see these scriptures as merely linguistic objects; the central and controversial question has been whether Smith’s English texts are literal translations of extant source documents. On closer inspection, though, his translations are far more metaphysical than linguistic. These translations express a nonordinary power of language to connect people across barriers of space and time. Within these metaphysical scriptures, Smith expounded a theology of human deification that he also termed “translation.” This one word thus referred to a scripture capable of mediating between the living and the dead and to the transformation of humans into divine beings. Joseph Smith’s projects of metaphysical translation place Mormonism at a productive edge of tense transitions later associated with secular modernity, a modernity challenged by the very existence of the Latter-day Saints. Smith’s translations and the theology that supported them illuminate the power and vulnerability of his critique of American culture in transition as they set the stage for two more centuries of cultural change.

Heuristically evoking Thoth, an ancient Egyptian god of wisdom, architecture, crafts, and “science,” this chapter explores the ways anthropologists work to immure their discipline from its banished other, theology. Asking readers to imagine a proverbial “geodesic dome” housing anthropodom—anthropology constructed as a secular science—it discusses five types of “panes” that anthropologists “lay” in constructing their “home.” Derived from anthropology’s biographical and disciplinary registers, these panes safeguard anthropology from the threatening “theosphere” in order to secure its secular reason and its membership in the modern university. Pitting itself against theology grants anthropology a certain unity and identity, defining “what it is” by claiming “what it is not.”

As life approaches expectancy and senescence actualizes, the regenerative capacity of the vital organs and their functionality is reduced. Such a reality gives rise the need to identify with a better purpose in life. Religion and spirituality assume a central role in the wellness and healthcare in such circumstances. Although societies and civilizations differ in their religious and spiritual orientations, all peoples everywhere ascribe to some God or gods. The globalization of religion was initiated sometime between the late Bronze Age and late classical antiquity. The pivotal point was characterized by a conversion from polytheism, or primary religions as practiced by the Ancient Egyptians; Phoenicians; Babylonians; Greek; and Romans on the one hand, to monotheism—secondary religions characterized by the worship of one supreme God. Religion and spirituality has now become the one and remaining source of solace for the terminally ill.