DEFINING RELIGIOUS PRACTICE AND DEFINING RELIGIOUS PRACTICE

Constructions of identity are largely textual and linguistic in nature. They take place in the sphere of language, in what people say and write and how they think about themselves and others. In the sphere of practice, however, they are far less visible. As Barth noted long ago, practice and behaviour are often shared across the boundaries of ethnic difference that human discourses seek to construct. Practice, and religious practice in particular, will often be the site of syncretism: the normal mixed and undifferentiated state that exists prior to attempts to create pure traditions and identities. As Lieu has shown for the religious situation of the early empire, however strongly Christian leaders and authoritative texts sought to create clear-cut religious identities, these were often undermined in actual life and practice. Jews, Christians and even sometimes adherents of Graeco-Roman religions acted in the same ways, ‘observed common practices’ and felt affinity towards each other. As other recent studies have shown, the theos hupsistos inscriptions from second- and third-century Asia Minor and cultic lamps from fourth-century Corinth give little indication of the religious allegiance of the users and show little concern with defining distinct religious identities. Religious practices do not have to be totally antithetical to identity construction and could potentially be particularly good markers of identity because of their public and visible nature – by doing something that everyone can see, you can clearly show your allegiance to one religious identity rather than another.