Two Ancient Worldviews Part Three
Jeffrey Thayne
This post and Friday’s post may appear extremely oversimplified to some philosophers or historians. The actual history of events and ideas is much more complex and nuanced than what I present here; therefore, while the ideas in this post are one possible interpretation of historical events, they are certainly not the only interpretation. I present it in oversimplified form for instructive and introductory purposes and also because I do not wish the post to be too long.
Greek Philosophy
In my post, “Greek and Hebrew Intellectual Traditions,” I explained that the ancient Greeks typically divided the world between things that change and things that don’t. The things that don’t change were necessarily incorporeal, non-localized, universal, etc.; this is because anything that has a physical component and a spatial-temporal location is subject to change. The Greeks believed that the most unchanging things were the most fundamental reality; any change in this world is necessarily a reflection of a more fundamental unchanging reality. Most importantly, abstract, universal principles give order and consistency to the world of physical things and events. We, as physical beings, belong in the world of change and flux.
This dichotomy between Being (things that don’t change) and Becoming (things that change) separated the ideal from the material. Therefore the world of ideas is inaccessible except through the one faculty we have that does not change: reason. Reason, to the Greeks, is our eye to the world of ideas. Below is an illustration of this division of reality:
Hellenized Christianity
At the commencement of the Great Apostasy, Christian scholars began to accommodate Christian doctrine into Greek philosophy. Dallin H. Oaks explains:
From … the writings of churchmen and philosophers there came a synthesis of Greek philosophy and Christian doctrine in which the orthodox Christians of that day lost the fulness of truth about the nature of God and the Godhead. The consequences persist in the various creeds of Christianity, which declare a Godhead of only one being and which describe that single being or God as “incomprehensible” and “without body, parts, or passions.”
In the process of what we call the Apostasy, the tangible, personal God described in the Old and New Testaments was replaced by the abstract, incomprehensible deity defined by compromise with the speculative principles of Greek philosophy. The received language of the Bible remained, but the so-called “hidden meanings” of scriptural words were now explained in the vocabulary of a philosophy alien to their origins. In the language of that philosophy, God the Father ceased to be a Father in any but an allegorical sense. He ceased to exist as a comprehensible and compassionate being. And the separate identity of his Only Begotten Son was swallowed up in a philosophical abstraction that attempted to define a common substance and an incomprehensible relationship.1
For example, passages that were meant to explain God’s honesty or reliability (e.g., Num. 23:19 or Mal. 3:6) were reinterpreted by those with a Greek background as referring to the familiar notion of static ideals. The plain meaning revealed by prophets was replaced with the “hidden meaning” already deduced long ago by philosophers. Greek-influenced converts approached the scriptures expecting the idea of God they already had, and they found in some scriptures exactly what they were looking for.
It is clear, however, that the personal, embodied, and creative God who revealed truth through conversation with man did not fit into either of the two categories in the Greek dichotomy of being vs. becoming. In order to find God’s place in this philosophical setup, scholars had to reinvent God, and define Him as something He wasn’t. In order to be the source of order and consistency in the universe, the Christian God had to be placed in the Being category of the Being vs. Becoming dichotomy. In order to fit there, He could no longer be an embodied, personal, interactive God, but rather an incorporeal, abstract, and unchangeable entity. Neal A. Maxwell describes:
[A] force was at work [during the Apostasy]: the cultural Hellenizing of Christianity. Wrote Will Durant in The Story of Civilization, “The Greek language, having reigned for centuries over philosophy, became the vehicle of Christian literature and ritual.” The errant grooves earlier used in defining deity were already there and were so easy to slide into.
Another scholar concluded: “It was impossible for Greeks, … with an education which penetrated their whole nature, to receive or to retain Christianity in its primitive simplicity.”2
One of the consequences of this integration of Greek philosophy with Christian doctrine is the birth of natural theology, sometimes called rational theology. According to Wikipedia, “Natural theology is that part of the philosophy of religion dealing with attempts to prove the existence of God and other divine attributes purely philosophically, that is, without recourse to any special or supposedly supernatural revelation.”1 Because God was an incorporeal abstraction, He was at least partly accessible by human reason. It is true that the union of Greek philosophy and Christianity did result in a kind of mysticism in which God was, in some ways, inherently incomprehensible to the human intellect; however, theologians began to rely more heavily on reason for their knowledge of God. Maxwell explains,
Reason, the Greek philosophical tradition, dominated, then supplanted, reliance on revelation, an outcome probably hastened by well-intentioned Christians wishing to bring their beliefs into the mainstream of contemporary culture.2
Below is an illustration of the result:
In my next post, I will review how the doctrines of the Restoration invite us to reconsider the assumptions we’ve inherited from Greek philosophy. If we maintain the Greek philosophical assumption that the ultimate source of order in the universe must be incorporeal, abstract universals, then we are led to some very strange notions about the nature of God when confronted with the doctrines of the Restoration. If, however, we can transcend our Greek worldview and consider alternate ways of interpreting the scriptures (which I believe may be more true to the original intent of the prophets who wrote them, given that Greek philosophy has acted as a significant distortive to gospel truth), we may discover that the doctrines of the Restoration can act as a corrective to some of the Hellenistic influences in our modern day society.
Continued in “Hellenized Mormonism.”
Notes
1. Dallin H. Oaks, “Apostasy and Restoration,” Ensign, May 1995, p. 84.
2. Neal A. Maxwell, “From the Beginning,” Ensign, Nov. 1993, p. 18. Citations in order are: Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, part 3: Caesar and Christ (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1944), p. 595; see Robert M. Grant, Gods and the One God (Philadelphia: Westminster Press), p. 75–81, 152–58; and Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity (Gloucester, Mass: Peter Smith, reprinted 1970), p. 49.
Jeff Thayne
Nathan Richardson
15 Comments
July 28, 2008 at 11:57 pm
I’m liking this series, Jeff.
You should check out this post on Mormon Metaphysics: http://www.libertypages.com/cgw/2008/07/28/truth-vs-truth/
July 29, 2008 at 3:45 am
Thanks Dennis! I too enjoyed that article.
July 29, 2008 at 4:34 pm
I’d be somewhat careful. Jewish religion was already heavily Hellenized before the rise of Christianity and the NT makes reference to a lot. (i.e. Paul and the Stoics, and John and the logos)
Also don’t make the mistake of equating Platonism in its various guises with Greek Philosophy. The dominant form of Greek philosophy at the time of Christ was Stoicism which was largely materialistic. Platonism made its comeback later.
July 29, 2008 at 5:09 pm
I’ve read about the Hellenization of Judaism, largely during the 100s BC, during the Greek empire, right? That interests me, because when you read the New Testament, you can feel that it’s a different culture from the one described in, say, Judges or Kings. I wonder if that’s partly why.
I think Jeff’s main reference is to that trend of Greek philosophy that has most largely influenced Western culture and education today. It would be interesting to learn more about Stoicism and consider how things might be different if it had caught on more than Platonism.
BTW, Clark, I liked your Truth v. Truth post!
July 29, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Thanks, Nathan, for the clarification. In this post, I am indeed referring to a particular strand of Greek philosophy that did influence Christianity during the centuries following Christ’s death.
There are many strands of Greek philosophy… Epicureanism, for example, has a very different flavor than Platonism, and I will certainly speak more on that in later posts. Thanks for bringing to my attention the need to be more particular about which strand of Greek philosophy I refer to!
July 29, 2008 at 11:13 pm
This conversation makes me think of Daniel Robinson’s Intellectual History of Psychology.
Have you read that, Jeff? If not, I definitely recommend it for you.
July 29, 2008 at 11:17 pm
I am in the middle of it right now.
I also just finished listening to a 60-lecture series by Daniel Robinson on the History of Psychology, and am now 10 lectures into his series on the history of philosophy.
In other words, I am saturated in Daniel Robinson right now.
July 30, 2008 at 3:42 am
Stoicism is interesting, especially if you’re familiar with Orson Pratt’s speculations. There are many similarities although God for the Stoics was the whole universe of which we were a part.
The main influence of Hellenistic thought on Christianity came via Augustine who was a neoPlatonist. But one can’t downplay the significance of the one innovation against the pagans – the idea of creation ex nihilo. I’d argue it is that which is most constitutive of the theological aspect of the apostasy. Yet that is where Christianity was most innovative and most in conflict with Hellenism.
Jeffery is certainly right though that the attitude in Greek philosophy (of all kinds) was to questions of absolutes whereas in Hebrew culture and to a degree historic Christianity events were in time and tied to a place. The incarnate God as Christ being the obvious example. That was completely anathema to the Greek philosophical way of thinking. The other example is creation. Yet there, as with creation ex nihilo Mormons are actually closer to the Hellenistic view with our idea of an infinite past and a pre-existence. The Christians of what we’d term the apostasy have an absolute beginning to existence with an absolute place and time. There is an end and beginning to space and time.
However with regards to omniscience and omnipotence Hellenistic thinking ruled and God as first cause or “a greater than which can not be conceived” becomes the object of focus.
July 30, 2008 at 3:49 am
Nathan, after the exile the problem of the Jews in the OT: fidelity and monotheism is pretty much gone. However after Alexander conquers Palestine many Jews want strongly to become Hellenized. This affects their thinking but there are even accounts of people doing surgery on themselves to reattach foreskin so as to “uncircumcize” themselves. An other source of tension were the gymnasiums. The Greeks did their athletics in the nude. The gym in Jerusalem could actually be seen from the temple and the site of men wrestling in the nude was very offensive.
It really is a quite interesting period of time. Not just for what was going on in Jerusalem but also because Jews moved around the empire (and it later became the Roman empire somewhat after the quick collapse of Alexander’s empire after his death) So you end up with Alexandria becoming a big hot spot for Jewish intellectualism.
The classic Hellenized Jew of this era is Philo and his writings are rather important for understanding early Christianity.
The other thing of import in this era is syncretic versions of Judaism with elements of Greek and Egyptian influence. This is significant for understanding the Book of Abraham (IMO) since the papyri actually date to the Roman period of control.
Mormon apologists have also noted that Jews had temples outside of Jerusalem in the Greek conquest period and perhaps in the early Roman period as well.
July 30, 2008 at 7:09 am
Good stuff! I look forward to your next installment!
July 30, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Clark: After the exile the problem of the Jews in the OT: fidelity and monotheism is pretty much gone.
The Jews after the exile were polytheists? You mean idol worship, or accomodating foreign gods into their worship? Wasn’t that around even before the exile?
When I was reading the OT, it seemed to me that after the exile, they finally became consistent in not worshiping idols. It seems like they finally began adhering to the law of Moses, but their new problem was misunderstanding the purpose of their monotheistic worship. I’m likely missing a lot, though, because I’ve only read it once.
July 30, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Typo. That should have read “fidelity and monotheism as problems were pretty much gone.” My bad. The idea being that the problems of most of the narrative of the OT wasn’t the problem in the Greek and Roman periods. The culture had changed significantly.
July 31, 2008 at 3:39 am
If the author of this post had had a clearer understanding of the essence of Greek philosophical thought, he would have arrived at a different conclusion than that which he presents.
In short, the main point of the article is that Greek philosophy has made Christianity abstract, by removing the personal God that it offered with the abstract, distant God of the philosophers.
Yet, a careful analysis of philosophical thought reveals an entirly different picture.
Some have mentioned that there existed different schools of philosphy. If Christianity has taken some aspects of many of these schools, saying that these philosophies shaped and transformed Christian thought goes a step too far. There remain a gap between Christianity and ancient philosophy that cannot be filled.
There is first the fact that most of the Gospels and Epistles were written in Greek–therefore borrowing Greek concepts to express Christian terms. Removing the Greek influence from Christianity thus equates to removing its very foundation, the language in which it was first written.
When John the Theologian wrote that “In the beginning was the logos,” he expresses a purely Chrsitian concept in the Greek philosophical language, but with a meaning changed from its original meaning. Unless we deny John the title of Apsotle–which is apostasy–we cannot reject the fact that Christianity was EXPRESSED IN, and not transformed by, Greek philosophical concepts.
The writings of the early apologists–Justin Martyr in particular, and later the Capadocian Fathers–reveal what exactly many found that was similar between the various philosophical schools and the new religion.
In Justin’s account, Christian revelation came at the end of a long road for the search of the divine life. The Martyr had tried all the schools–Epicureanism, Aristotelism, and, finally, Platonism, in which he satyed until his convertion–but none of these (except Platonism, up to a certain extent) satisfied his desire until he converted to Christianity.
The Capadocian Fathers, especially Basil the Great, favored and supported the study of philosophy, provided it was the good aspect of it. His famous analogy compares the Christian student to the bee, which chooses the nectar of flowers carefully. This analogy reveals that the early Christian fathers held ancient philosophy in respect, but did not necessarily accept everything, and had to sort the good out of the bad.
The reason why so many Greek speaking (and not an insignificant number of Latin speaking) Christians held philosophy in such high respect was precisely because of the SIMILARITIES between the two.
Plato, most particularly, was called by them a Chrisitian before Christ. In his dialogues, particularly the Republic, he emphasizes that the goal of human life is “to be like God, as far as man can attain the divine likeness” (X:613).
To many a philosopher, man’s goal is to regain a certain divine likeness. It is no wonder, then, why so many accepted the Christ’s message that through Him, man may regain his divinity lost after the Fall.
There is nothing abstract in the philosophical message of the Greeks, contrary to what that author of the post affirms. The God of the Ancients may not be the God that Christ reveals, but he was a living reality nonetheless. This is why the philosophers could affirm with as much conviction as Plato that rendering oneself in the likeness of the divine was an attainable goal.
One does not marvel and build an entire philosophy, much less a way of life, upon abstract concepts.
I would like to remind that Gregory Vlastos called Greek philosophy a form of theology–for such was its object. Seeing the Greek philosophical tradition as the forerunner of modern abstract rationalism is precisely the mistake of the West. There is nothing in philosophy that resembles Western science. Greek thought and Christian thought are much closer to each other than any of them is to western rationalism. And it is the same, in fact, of all philosophical traditions, Buddhism, etc. All share in divine truth, in that it is their object to guide men who do not know Christ to a life as perfect as possible.
If the early, hellenized Christians, had inherited an abstract philosophy from the Greeks, then how can you explain the artistic forms that it produced, the icons, the architecture, the chants, and the writings of the Fathers? Anyone reading the writings of the Fathers with care will see how much the Spirit of life was the inspiration of these holy men. Abstraction is no fertile ground for artistic creativity.
July 31, 2008 at 4:09 am
Sylvain,
Do you believe that the form of Christianity expressed in the post-apostolic creeds (such as those formed at the council of Nicaea) is the same Christianity taught by the Savior Jesus Christ?
Central to our faith as Latter-day Saints is the belief that, shortly after the death of the apostles, the teachings and writings of Christian scholars strayed from the original teachings of the Savior. Part of the drift from revealed truth involved the incorporation of philosophy with Christian doctrine.
Sylvain: When John the Theologian wrote that “In the beginning was the logos,” he expresses a purely Chrsitian concept in the Greek philosophical language, but with a meaning changed from its original meaning.
I agree with you here. John was certainly using the language of the Greeks, but he gave a new meaning to the words. One of the shocking truths of the Christian message is that Logos—the source of order and consistency in the universe—had a name, and lived on the earth at a specific place and time, and could shake your hand. This is far removed from the traditional thinking of Greek philosophers.
I hope my readers do not believe that I don’t find any good in Greek philosophy. I do believe, however, that the rational pursuits of the Greek philosophers differ in many ways from the revealed truths of the Gospel. Particularly, their reliance on reason and the absence of prophetic revelation certainly hindered their progress in the pursuit of Truth.
August 1, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Indeed, and as you said, the pursuit of truth differed in its approach. But the main difference, as you also said, is not so much the approach–rational or else–as the fact that the peoples living before the Incarnation did not know the name of the Christ.
But making of Greek philosophy an abstract, rational endeavor, as we make of everything now, is a mistake in which we should be careful not to fall. Saying that philosophy was a rational, abstract search is itself the conclusion of a rational analysis of the philosophers. This cannot work, because they did not have the rationalism of which we are speaking. There is nothing more remote from modern rationalism than ancient philosophical thought.
Accusing early, Greek Christianity of falling into abstraction and rationalism makes no sense if we ourselves begin to use our reason to change Christianity into what seems to us better, to remove this, or add that, a book or else, because it seems closer to what we think was the original faith.
Let us accept the fact that the Church Fathers (in particular, but not only themselves) removed Christianity from its Apostolic origins. Why not, then, as some non- or formerly-Christian persons are now seeking to advance, affirming that Christianity is as much a product of Paul as it is of Christ, that Paul introduced certain things that Christ did not do, therefore, why not dismiss Paul as well? And since Jesus spoke Aramaic and was jewish, why would we not all become jewish ourselves?
Modern trends to “purify” Christianity lead to eventual catastrophe, for it ignores the Tradition handed down to us by the Apostles through the Spirit. It is of this Tradition that all, the Apostles, Paul, the Fathers, monks, etc. shared.
If the early Christian writers indeed worshipped an abstract, removed God, then how do we explain the immense passion for theological issues and tremendous changes that the Roman-medieval world underwent? How do we explain the artistic achievements commissioned by entire cities, kings, and emperors to worship an abstract God? How do we explain the living writings of the Fathers? How could an entire civilization last for 2000 years based on an abstract divinity?
If Christianity had become cold and abstract, how could St. Augustine write so profoundly on God in the way that he did? How could have he become the first to write with such a personal insight and acquaintance of God?
It is precisely these trends of analyzing Christianity rationally–Jesus did or did not do this or that–that has lead to much of current atheism.
Being a Christian is not to remodel Christianity into what we believe it was at one point in the past. It is to live by the Spirit. What the Fathers, Apostolic and others, have left us is a testimony of their encounter with the living Christ. It is this Life that the philosophers sought, and touched upon. It is this search for the true Life that they recorded, not an analytical, cold scientific account of it.
All the icons, writings, chants of the Church create awe of the divine and holy fear, all to give birth to Love, they witness to the divine presence in all of Creation. This is what the philosophers understood, paving the way for Christianity.