It would seem to be extremely important to understand Jesus from a Jewish perspective, primarily because Jesus himself was Jewish: he was not only understood by others as being a distinctly Jewish Messiah, but apparently understood himself as a distinctly Jewish Messiah. He constantly refers to Jewish scriptures to define his identity, stakes out positions on issues that would have been irrelevant to Gentiles, and consistently finds both his opponents and adherents within the Jewish community. On the other hand, beginning with Paul, writing in the 60s AD, and continuing with the author of the Gospel of John, writing around 90 AD, there’s a clear interest in separating from the Jews. (e.g. Paul’s movement toward allowing Gentiles into Christianity; John’s continual phrase, “The Jews”).
Yet even with this separation, still an organic understanding of the faith was possible; one could still understand and discuss Christianity on its own terms. One had the Gospels as a precedent for the way in which one was to talk about Jesus, his mission, and his identity. So perhaps the worst blow to Jesus’ identity was the neo-platonic influences, which began surprisingly early, and the philosophical wars they caused. It is, after all, hard to think about Jesus being Jewish in the same breath that you consider whether he is of two natures, or of merely one nature, or of two natures thrown together in some kind of divine blender. I think it’s clear that the Church did win the war against Arius and then later the gnostics, and kept its orthodoxy, but at what cost? It seems to me the Church should never have gotten itself deeply involved with Greek philosophy at all.
After all, there is no precedent for it; there is nothing about Jesus that suggests that Greek philosophy might assist in explaining him, nothing about him that suggests that he might be the “fulfillment” of Greek philosophy, as you seem to hear all too often since Lewis. Those who envision Jesus as a spiritually gifted social critic do at least have some precedent on their side. One can say that, in addition to being God, Jesus was also the most provocative social critic ever to have lived (not to mention one of the first).
But one cannot in any way say that he was also the most brilliant Greek philosopher ever to have lived. He was not interested in philosophy. He was interested in the poor and the outcast. He may have made statements that are “metaphysical” (i.e. “I am the way, and the truth, and the life”)- but they are not statements that fit the Greek paradigm (he didn’t say, “I am the good, and the true, and the beautiful”). They only fit if we understand Jesus as the Jewish Messiah and the living Word, rather than as some sort of Greek Philosopher God, whose message about himself we will comprehend if only we know our logic and metaphysics well enough.
As Jesus doesn’t fulfill the Greek philosophers, neither does he refute them. Rather, if anything, he seems to ignore and disregards them, as if he didn’t know of their existence, or didn’t care if he knew. And yet, a host of Christian thinkers from Clement to C.S. Lewis seem absolutely bent on understanding Jesus precisely through Greek philosophy. Perhaps it would be more fitting to understand Jesus and his teaching on his own terms rather than borrowing a philosophy which, however frequented in Christian thought, is foreign and superfluous.
|
Posted at 1:37 am EST on the 28th of April 2009 by N. E. Embrey. Under Sundry, Theology There are 13 replies. |
 |
| Pontification Ad Nauseam | ||
Is a blog of developing Christian writers, their minds, and their ideas.
Copyright MMIX. All Rights Reserved by Pontification Ad Nauseam And Its Respective Contributors. Powered by Wordpress. Pontification Ad Nauseam uses advanced web technology. For the best user experience please use Safari or Firefox 3.5+. |
What hath Athens to do with Jerusalem? The same that Valhalla hath do with Jersalem. Without logic and a certain amount of philosophy, Christianity would be just blind faith. Without Christianity, logic and philosophy is destructive. With a knowledge of the pagan myths, Christians can get a greater understanding of the True Myth (I know this as a fact; I can’t read of Thor or Zeus without seeing Him Most High and knowing something new about Him). But without Christianity, the pagan myths are evil.
I suppose I’m saying that I disagree with you. Christianity is the center of the Logas, where everything comes together; Christianity is the great vorthus, to use Dr. Grant’s term. Christianity is where Plato and Aristotle meet and agree, where Woden and Neptune and Shiva bow and worship the God above all other gods. God redeems men, men redeem gods. (See the Silmarilion and/or the Space Trilogy for examples.)
Nathan, I didn’t make any reference whatsoever to Greek myth, or to any kind of myth, though if what you’re saying had more substance and less ridiculous rhetorical flourish, I might be inclined to make a full reply anyway.
Well I’ll be, Nick. I think I agree with you.
I was just showing that Christianity is the completion, if you will, of Greek philosophy by including with said showing how Christianity is the completion of other things as well, such as myth. I.e., just as myth can be redeemed, so can Greek philosophy.
Maybe I can explain it thusly: the world deals with extremes: “all metaphysical things are important, no material things are important”, and vice verse. Christianity puts them together: “all metaphysical things are important, all material things are important; therefore, all things are important” (which then leads to very interesting conversations about the omnipotence etc. of God and the word “Logas”). Substantial enough?
Wha’sa matter wi’ ridiculous rhetorical flourishes? Barbarians… *walks off in a huff, promising never to return. And there was much rejoicing.*
Posted for Philip, for whom the comments are not working: (None of this should be attributed to me in any way.)
This is all very fine in theory, Nick. But what you’re really saying is epistemological, and has little to do with some speculative Jewish/Greek divide. That we have to use Jewish terms for Christ; we can’t use Greek terms. (Or else you’re saying that there are not terms at all we can use for him…) The first question is, what is a Greek term? How do we know one when we see it? What defines a Jewish term? The second is: supposing we do actually draw a distinction between those terms, why can’t Jesus be defined in a Greek way?
Phil-
I’m not really talking about using Jewish terms rather than Greek terms so much as talking about discussing Jesus in a Jewish/scriptural way rather than in a Greek way. What that means is using the Jewish and early Christian distinctions, vocabulary, and trying to understand what Jesus and what he said meant in a Jewish / early Christian way, since Jesus did not, in fact, have any historical relationship with Greek philosophy, and had a deep historical relationship with Judaism and early Christianity. This is good scholarship; it ought to be good theology. That’s why we can’t define Jesus in a Greek way.
Having said that I’m not really interested in Greek vs. Jewish terms, though, there are some Greek terms I can name that have taken on importance *as a result of* an infatuation with Greek philosophy. Clement had his “gnosis”; Lewis had his “zoe and bios”; the whole Arian conflict involved a sophisticated use of the word “nature” which isn’t really anything like the way it’s used scripturally (Philippians 2:6), and is only even makes complete sense in light of Greek philosophy.
This bothers me. But what bother me more are things like the Summa Theologica, which take for granted a Greek philosophical view and assume that Jesus and his teachings must find their place within that philosophy. This is continued in Lewis, who especially in the Abolition of Man & That Hideous Strength, seems to believe that an classical view of the world goes part and parcel with Christian faith, and any modernistic philosophy is equatable with heresy and evil. Chesterton also spews forth this belief, calling Thomism (which is to say, Christian Aristotelianism) the “philosophy of common sense” and on these grounds making it a philosophy proper to Christianity, and condemning any other philosophy.
Through these thinkers and others, the strange idea that Christianity is a philosophy has taken root; that is, Christians regularly see their opponents as relativists, atheists, postmodernists, and the like. They see themselves as a philosophy in contention with other philosophies. Conversely, Jesus seems to have set up Christianity as a sort of “cult”, with beliefs, yes, but with community, ritual, prayer, and social relationship occupying positions as or more important than dogmatic beliefs. That is, I guess, what I’m really advocating, in opposition to Christianity as (Greek) philosophy.
For Philip,
Nick –
Typically, we study humans from a) an outside perspective and b) an inside perspective. Often, for instance, in looking back to determine the ‘real’ qualities of the Romans, we will look for a Roman assessment and a foreign assessment. So I don’t think we can ignore that in this case. Proper understanding of Jewish culture will require outside assessment (say, from the Greek point of view). That said, I certainly agree that Jewish culture isn’t properly understood from the other way. So I guess we’re in agreement…
Thus sayeth the Nick: “Conversely, Jesus seems to have set up Christianity as a sort of “cult”, with beliefs, yes, but with community, ritual, prayer, and social relationship occupying positions as or more important than dogmatic beliefs. That is, I guess, what I’m really advocating, in opposition to Christianity as (Greek) philosophy.”
It’s called the Local Church, and your advocation of it is thrice-worthy of praise. But saying that Greek-style philosophy and dogma shouldn’t have much to do with the Church (local or otherwise) is once-worthy of rebuttal (and I rebutted it once), so you are here twice-worthy of praise. Good job on the essay, and excellent defense of the Local Church. :-D
I’m in complete agreement with Nathan’s comments here, and I’d refer you to Lewis – who you mentioned as one of these infatuated people – who talked about the conjunction of the two hemispheres of his mind: the Priest and the Fox from TWHF. Nathan’s point about myth should be well-taken, because it’s the inexplicable Dark Side of a religion without Christ.
As for your broader point, your first paragraph is troubling. You don’t offer any evidence. I’d say Jesus is not a distinctly Jewish Messiah. He makes it quite clear that he’s coming to the Jews first because the promise was made to them first. But afterward, he has every intention of giving the Gentiles “the food”. Check out his dealings with the Gentile woman who has faith to be healed, and he says as much. Or the centurian who seems to have much reason to believe in Jesus. Those promises are extended to the Gentiles. I’m still not sure how Augustine or Aquinas (although maybe he) or Lewis fits into this category of infatuated-with-Greeks. As NTW would point out, the purpose of the Jews was to bring a light to the Gentiles. I doubt their religion is so confined that it won’t find helpful similarities among the more enlightened pagans.
Nathan:
I’ve tried here to pick out the bits of your posts that have made any sense to me and respond to them.
“Without logic and a certain amount of philosophy, Christianity would be just blind faith.”
If by philosophy, you mean THINKING about Christianity, I think that’s very helpful; however, I don’t think this Christian obsession with GREEK philosophy does anyone any good. Aristotle and Plato have been so favored in Christian theology- especially in the Catholic Church- that one could say that the church’s thought is grounded upon Greek philosophy. What I’m arguing for here is not that we stop thinking, stop philosophizing, but that we stop relying so exclusively upon a philosophy and worldview that has a merely incidental tie to Christianity. If we are to ground our thought on some worldview, let’s have it be Jewish rather than Greek, since Jesus was, in fact, Jewish rather than Greek, and thought as a Jew, rather than as a Greek, and spoke in Jewish terms, rather than Greek terms.
Now, having said that I’m not opposed to thinking about Christianity, I don’t see what’s bad about blind faith. Could you explain?
“Without Christianity, logic and philosophy is destructive.”
What do you mean?
“just as myth can be redeemed, so can Greek philosophy.”
Well, okay. I’m not really opposed to someone using Greek philosophy to understand Christianity if that’s their preference; again, what I’m arguing against is using Greek philosophy as the basis of Christian thought.
Without logic, we wouldn’t know why we trust Christ. An example: around Martin Luther’s time, the people didn’t have the logical basis to understand the Bible, allowing them to be swindled by the Roman Catholic Church with indulgences and fear of Purgatory. That’s what’s wrong with blind faith. Christ doesn’t ask for blind faith; He is constantly referring back to the Prophets, showing over and over again that He is Christ. Paul was very well educated, both in the Law as well as in the Greek philosophies and myths, which he used in Athens.
All truth is God’s Truth, so any truth found with Platonic or Aristotelian or what have you philosophies is God’s Truth.
Without Christianity, logic etc is destructive. Most tyrants in history seem to either be very insane or exceedingly sane. Take Hitler: he was brilliant with logic in proving that the Aryan race was the best, that Germans deserved the world, that sort of thing. There was a problem: that logic was not based on the Gospel (though he used Christian symbolism, such as the word “Fuhrer (sp?)” (“God the Father”) and the use of the Swastika (a style of the Cross)), nor really on common sense. So he was insanely sane, if that makes any sense.
“Without logic, we wouldn’t know why we trust Christ.”
Again, why is it a problem not to know why you trust Jesus?
“An example: around Martin Luther’s time, the people didn’t have the logical basis to understand the Bible, allowing them to be swindled by the Roman Catholic Church with indulgences and fear of Purgatory. That’s what’s wrong with blind faith.”
That’s kind of a touchy subject… ostensibly, though, it was members of the RCC rather than the RCC itself doing the swindling, right? Also, the problem here arose because people trusted what those who were selling the indulgences, not because they had blind faith in Jesus, so this actually doesn’t hold water as an argument against blind faith in Jesus.
“Christ doesn’t ask for blind faith; He is constantly referring back to the Prophets, showing over and over again that He is Christ.”
Strictly, that’s not logic; unless you mean by “logic” something that I’m unfamiliar with. I’ve always thought that logic had to do with deductive inference and syllogisms… are you using a different definition?
“Paul was very well educated, both in the Law as well as in the Greek philosophies and myths, which he used in Athens.”
Simply because one follower of Jesus was educated in Greek philosophy doesn’t actually mean that Greek philosophy should form the basis of Christian theology, does it?
“Without Christianity, logic etc is destructive… Take Hitler: he was brilliant with logic in proving that the Aryan race was the best, that Germans deserved the world, that sort of thing.”
Again, I’m not sure what you mean by “logic”- can you show me something that Hitler said or wrote to prove that the Aryan race was better and that the Germans destroyed the world that effectively employs logic?
I don’t think you’ve even touched on two main points throughout all this, which are (1) that Christian theology ought not to be based on Greek philosophy, and (2) that theology and worldview shouldn’t supersede ritual, community, or practice in the church.
John:
“Nathan’s point about myth should be well-taken, because it’s the inexplicable Dark Side of a religion without Christ.”
This post is not about myth. I’m not talking about religion without Christ. I’m not talking about any religion other than Christianity, and my topic within Christianity is Greek philosophy as it relates to Christian theology. Nathan may have an excellent point (that myth without Christ is fallen), but I’m peeved because it’s not directly relevant to my argument.
“He makes it quite clear that he’s coming to the Jews first because the promise was made to them first. But afterward, he has every intention of giving the Gentiles “the food”. Check out his dealings with the Gentile woman who has faith to be healed, and he says as much. Or the centurian who seems to have much reason to believe in Jesus. Those promises are extended to the Gentiles.”
I’m not disputing that; my point here is that Jesus’ thought is Jewish, rather than Greek. He draws on Jewish scriptures, talks in Jewish terms, and his disciples are Jewish. He lives and acts in the Jewish community, and though he extends himself and his discipleship to the Gentiles, he is not a Gentile himself. So in considering and discussing Jesus and his teaching, we would do well to base ourselves on Jewish thought, rather than Gentile thought. This doesn’t mean Gentile thinking is without merit; it merely means that we should let our tools be appropriate to our subject. Our subject is Jewish, therefore our tools ought to be based on Jewish thought.
“I doubt their religion is so confined that it won’t find helpful similarities among the more enlightened pagans.”
Helpful similarities, certainly. Yet again, I repeat, I don’t think Greek philosophy is itself harmful; I merely think that since Jesus’ thinking and teaching was based on Jewish thinking and Jewish teaching, and since he taught largely to the Jewish community, and since he spoke in words and phrases and ways that would only be fully understandable at that time to a Jew, we must therefore base our Christian theology on Jewish thought rather than Greek thought. This is largely what N.T. Wright has done, and I greatly admire him for it.