“I desire to have knowledge of God and the soul. Of nothing else? No, of nothing else whatever.” Augustine wrote these words shortly after becoming a Christian in A.D. 387. To our ears they may sound close-minded, unsophisticated, or just plain stupid. Yet his words signal the emergence of a new conceptual framework in Western civilization. It is a framework (of religion based upon faith) that replaced the one fashioned by the Greeks and Romans (of philosophy based upon reason); a framework that dominated Western Civilization for a thousand years—a framework that led the West into the Dark Ages.
Born in 354 in the northern African town of Tagaste, Augustine had a Christian mother and a pagan father. His studies in Latin literature and grammar led to his becoming a teacher of rhetoric in Carthage. The unruly students there forced him to quit and go to Rome, where he opened a school of his own. Here the students behaved better, but they reneged on the payment of his fees. As a result, Augustine applied for, and got, a position as municipal professor of rhetoric in Milan. At this point his life changed dramatically.
Until this time, Augustine, in spite of his mother’s pleads and prayers, was not a Christian. Moreover, he had lived a self-indulgent life: he had a mistress, and an illegitimate son, and was, he wrote in his Confessions, “thoroughly licentious.” But in Milan Augustine came under the influence of the bishop, Saint Ambrose, who converted him to Christianity. The intellectual conversion came first, the moral conversion he found more difficult, because Augustine had trouble resisting the temptations of the flesh. “Give me chastity and continence,” he prayed, “only not yet.”
Ultimately, Augustine became the devoted Christian that he had longed to become. He gave up his professorship—and his mistress—returning with his son, Adeodatus, his mother, and some friends to Cassiciacum, a town near Milan, where he conducted seminars, attempting to work out Christian answers to philosophical questions about happiness, truth, and good and evil. Later, Augustine published the record of his seminars: The Happy Life, Against Skepticism, and Divine Providence and the Problem of Evil.
In 388 Augustine went back to Africa to his home town of Tagaste, where he established a monastery. In 392 he was ordained a priest and set up a second monastery in Hippo, a seaport town about 150 miles west of Carthage. Augustine became bishop of Hippo in 396, serving there for over thirty years. He died in 430 while the Vandals were robbing and destroying the city.
As bishop, Augustine spent much of his time combating heresies (beliefs that were not approved by Church officials). Some of these heretics (dissenters from established religious doctrine) were:
• Pelagians, who taught that human beings could attain salvation through their own efforts;
• Manicheans, who taught that two equal gods (one good and one evil) ruled the world;
• Arians, who taught that God had created a son (Jesus) who was neither eternal nor equal with the Father;
• Donatists, who taught that only the pure and holy could be members of the church.
In his battle to against these doctrines (that differed with the Christian doctrine as it had been officially accepted) Augustine composed numerous disputatious sermons, tracts, letters, and books. (The one against the Manicheans comprised thirty-three books or chapters.)
In addition to his polemics, Augustine wrote books and monographs on matters of Christian doctrine, on free will, and on the Trinity. Of his writings, 113 books, 218 letters, and over 500 sermons have survived. His most famous book, The City of God, he composed to explain why Rome fell to the Goths in 410.
Augustine, his contemporaries, Ambrose and Jerome, and Pope Gregory the Great (who came later) are called Doctors of the Church in recognition of their great influence on Christianity.
• The influence of Ambrose and Gregory came from their skill as statesmen; they established the independence of the church and its domination over secular rulers.
• Jerome’s contribution was to translate the Bible into Latin.
• But it was Augustine who had the greatest intellectual influence on Christianity. It was he who fashioned the Christian framework.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
ARIANISM
Arius (AD 250 or 256 – 336) was a Christian presbyter (an elder of the congregation in the early Christian church) from Alexandria, Egypt. His teachings about the nature of the Godhead, which emphasized the Father's Divinity over the Son, and his opposition to the Trinitarian Christology, made him a controversial figure in the Church. After Emperor Constantine legalized and formalized Christianity as the religion for the entire Roman Empire, Church officials sought to unify and clarify its theology. To do so, the Emperor convened the First Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.
Although virtually all positive writings on Arius' theology have been suppressed or destroyed, negative writings describe Arius' theology as one in which there was a time before the Son of God, where only God the Father existed. Despite concerted opposition, nontrinitarian Christian churches persisted throughout Europe and North Africa, in various Gothic and Germanic kingdoms, until suppressed by military conquest or voluntary royal conversion between the fifth and seventh centuries.
Although "Arianism" suggests that Arius was the originator of the teaching that bears his name, the debate over the Son’s precise relationship to the Father did not begin with him. This subject had been discussed for decades before he began it; Arius merely intensified the controversy and carried it to a Church-wide audience, where other "Arians" such as Eusebius of Nicomedia would prove much more influential in the long run. However, because the conflict between Arius and his foes brought the issue to the theological forefront, the doctrine he proclaimed—though not originated by him—is generally labeled as "his".
Arius taught that God the Father and the Son did not exist together eternally. He taught that Jesus did not exist before he was created by God. Thus, because Jesus was created by God, he was inferior to God. Arius and his followers appealed to Bible verses such as John 14:28 where Jesus says that the father is "greater than I."
Auxentius, a 4th-century Arian bishop of Milan, gives the clearest picture of Arian beliefs on the nature of the Trinity: God the Father ("unbegotten"), always existing, was separate from the lesser Jesus Christ ("only-begotten"), born before time began and creator of the world. The Father, working through the Son, created the Holy Spirit, who was subservient to the Son as the Son was to the Father. The Father was seen as "the only true God."
[However, I myself can imagine a theory that could have been put forth in this debate: God (male) and the Holy Spirit (female) married. They decided to have a son on earth who would be both human and divine; so God impregnated the Holy Spirit; then the Holy Spirit went into the womb of the virgin Mary, through whom Jesus was delivered as both human and Divine.]
Of all the various disagreements within the Christian Church, the Arian controversy has held the greatest force and power of theological and political conflict, with the possible exception of the Protestant Reformation. The conflict between Arian’s beliefs (nontrinitarianism) and Tertullian’s beliefs (trinitarianism) was the first major doctrinal confrontation in the Church after the legalization of Christianity by the Roman Emperor Constantine I.
Such a deep controversy within the Church could not have materialized in the 3rd and 4th centuries without some significant historical influences providing the basis for the Arian doctrines. Of the roughly three hundred bishops in attendance at the Council of Nicea, the majority of them signed the Nicene Creed, which officially established the doctrine of the trinity for the Church. However, to minimize the extent of Arianism ignores the fact that extremely prominent Emperors such as Constantius II, and Valens were Arians, as well as prominent Gothic, Vandal and Lombard warlords both before and after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and that none of these groups was out of the mainstream of the Roman Empire in the 4th century. However, after the Nicene Creed officially settled the debate with a great majority holding to the Trinitarian position, the Arian position was officially declared to be heterodox—that is, not in agreement with accepted beliefs.
While Arianism continued to for several decades even within the family of the Emperor, the Imperial nobility, and higher-ranking clergy, in the end it was Trinitarianism which prevailed in the Roman Empire at the end of the 4th century.
Although virtually all positive writings on Arius' theology have been suppressed or destroyed, negative writings describe Arius' theology as one in which there was a time before the Son of God, where only God the Father existed. Despite concerted opposition, nontrinitarian Christian churches persisted throughout Europe and North Africa, in various Gothic and Germanic kingdoms, until suppressed by military conquest or voluntary royal conversion between the fifth and seventh centuries.
Although "Arianism" suggests that Arius was the originator of the teaching that bears his name, the debate over the Son’s precise relationship to the Father did not begin with him. This subject had been discussed for decades before he began it; Arius merely intensified the controversy and carried it to a Church-wide audience, where other "Arians" such as Eusebius of Nicomedia would prove much more influential in the long run. However, because the conflict between Arius and his foes brought the issue to the theological forefront, the doctrine he proclaimed—though not originated by him—is generally labeled as "his".
Arius taught that God the Father and the Son did not exist together eternally. He taught that Jesus did not exist before he was created by God. Thus, because Jesus was created by God, he was inferior to God. Arius and his followers appealed to Bible verses such as John 14:28 where Jesus says that the father is "greater than I."
Auxentius, a 4th-century Arian bishop of Milan, gives the clearest picture of Arian beliefs on the nature of the Trinity: God the Father ("unbegotten"), always existing, was separate from the lesser Jesus Christ ("only-begotten"), born before time began and creator of the world. The Father, working through the Son, created the Holy Spirit, who was subservient to the Son as the Son was to the Father. The Father was seen as "the only true God."
[However, I myself can imagine a theory that could have been put forth in this debate: God (male) and the Holy Spirit (female) married. They decided to have a son on earth who would be both human and divine; so God impregnated the Holy Spirit; then the Holy Spirit went into the womb of the virgin Mary, through whom Jesus was delivered as both human and Divine.]
Of all the various disagreements within the Christian Church, the Arian controversy has held the greatest force and power of theological and political conflict, with the possible exception of the Protestant Reformation. The conflict between Arian’s beliefs (nontrinitarianism) and Tertullian’s beliefs (trinitarianism) was the first major doctrinal confrontation in the Church after the legalization of Christianity by the Roman Emperor Constantine I.
Such a deep controversy within the Church could not have materialized in the 3rd and 4th centuries without some significant historical influences providing the basis for the Arian doctrines. Of the roughly three hundred bishops in attendance at the Council of Nicea, the majority of them signed the Nicene Creed, which officially established the doctrine of the trinity for the Church. However, to minimize the extent of Arianism ignores the fact that extremely prominent Emperors such as Constantius II, and Valens were Arians, as well as prominent Gothic, Vandal and Lombard warlords both before and after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and that none of these groups was out of the mainstream of the Roman Empire in the 4th century. However, after the Nicene Creed officially settled the debate with a great majority holding to the Trinitarian position, the Arian position was officially declared to be heterodox—that is, not in agreement with accepted beliefs.
While Arianism continued to for several decades even within the family of the Emperor, the Imperial nobility, and higher-ranking clergy, in the end it was Trinitarianism which prevailed in the Roman Empire at the end of the 4th century.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
TERTULLIAN
Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, anglicised as Tertullian (ca. 160 – ca. 220 A.D.)[1], was a prolific early Christian author from Carthage in the Roman province of Africa. He is the first Christian author to produce an extensive corpus of Latin Christian literature. He also was a notable early Christian apologist and a polemicist against heresy. Tertullian has been called "the father of Latin Christianity". According to church tradition, he was raised in Carthage and was thought to be the son of a Roman centurion, a trained lawyer, and an ordained priest. These assertions rely on the accounts of Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, II, ii. 4, and Jerome's De viris illustribus (On famous men) chapter 53.
Tertullian, a lawyer and presbyter of the third century Church in Carthage, was the first to use the word "Trinity" when he put forth the theory that the Son and the Spirit participate in the being of God, but all are of one being of substance with the Father. Though conservative, he did originate and advance new theology to the early Church. Besides being famous for being the first extant Latin writer to use the term Trinity (Latin trinitas), he was also famous for giving the first extant formal exposition of a Trinitarian theology. Other Latin formulations that first appear in his work are "three Persons, one Substance" as the Latin "tres Personae, una Substantia" (itself from the Koine Greek "treis Hypostases, Homoousios"). While Paul of Tarsus, the man who could rightfully be considered the true founder of Christianity, did formulate many of its doctrines, that of the Trinity was not among them. He did, however, lay the groundwork for such when he put forth the idea of Jesus being a "divine Son." After all, a Son does need a Father, and what about a vehicle for God's revelations to man? In essence, Paul named the principal players, but it was the later Church people who put the matter together.
When controversy over the matter of the Trinity blew up in 318 between two church men from Alexandria - Arius, the deacon, and Alexander, his bishop - Emperor Constantine stepped into the fray. Although Christian dogma was a complete mystery to him, he did realize that a unified church was necessary for a strong kingdom. When negotiation failed to settle the dispute, Constantine called for the first ecumenical council in Church history in order to settle the matter once and for all. Six weeks after the 300 bishops first gathered at Nicea in 325, the doctrine of the Trinity was hammered out. The God of the Christians was now seen as having three essences, or natures, in the form of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
The matter was far from settled, however, despite high hopes for such on the part of Constantine. Arius and the new bishop of Alexandria, a man named Athanasius, began arguing over the matter even as the Nicene Creed was being signed; "Arianism" became a catch-word from that time onward for anyone who did not hold to the doctrine of the Trinity.
It wasn't until 451, at the Council of Chalcedon that, with the approval of the Pope, the Nicene/Constantinople Creed was set as authoritative. Debate on the matter was no longer tolerated; to speak out against the Trinity was now considered blasphemy, and such earned stiff sentences that ranged from mutilation to death. Christians now turned on Christians, maiming and slaughtering thousands because of a difference of opinion.
Tertullian later converted to Montanism. Montanism was an early Christian movement of the early 2nd century, named after its founder Montanus. It originated at Hierapolis where Papias was bishop and flourished throughout the region of Phrygia, leading to the movement being referred to as Cataphrygian (meaning it was "from Phrygia") or simply as "Phrygians". It spread rapidly to other regions in the Roman Empire at a time before Christianity was generally tolerated or legal. Although orthodox Nicene Christianity prevailed against Montanism within a few generations, labeling it a heresy, the sect persisted in some isolated places into the 8th century. Some people have drawn parallels between Montanism and modern Pentecostalism (which some call Neo-Montanism). Some modern writers have suggested that some of its emphasis on direct, ecstatic personal presence of the Holy Spirit bears resemblance to all forms of Pentecostalism. “It [Montanism] claimed to be a religion of the Holy Spirit and was marked by ecstatic outbursts which it regarded as the only true form of Christianity.” While there may be some similarities between Montanism and modern Pentecostalism, there does not appear to be any historical link between the two, as most Pentecostals claim authenticity based on the New Testament Book of Acts (chapter 2). There is also a similarity to spiritualism. The most widely known Montanist was undoubtedly Tertullian, who was the foremost Latin church writer before he converted to Montanism. Tertullian, a onetime champion of orthodox belief, believed that the new prophecy was genuine and began to fall out of step with the orthodox Christianity. He began to call it "the church of a lot of bishops" (On Modesty). Although the ideas he created were very abstract, he was always moved by practical considerations to make his case clear and irresistible. It was partly this element which gave to his writings a formative influence upon the theology of the post-Nicene period in the West.
Tertullian, a lawyer and presbyter of the third century Church in Carthage, was the first to use the word "Trinity" when he put forth the theory that the Son and the Spirit participate in the being of God, but all are of one being of substance with the Father. Though conservative, he did originate and advance new theology to the early Church. Besides being famous for being the first extant Latin writer to use the term Trinity (Latin trinitas), he was also famous for giving the first extant formal exposition of a Trinitarian theology. Other Latin formulations that first appear in his work are "three Persons, one Substance" as the Latin "tres Personae, una Substantia" (itself from the Koine Greek "treis Hypostases, Homoousios"). While Paul of Tarsus, the man who could rightfully be considered the true founder of Christianity, did formulate many of its doctrines, that of the Trinity was not among them. He did, however, lay the groundwork for such when he put forth the idea of Jesus being a "divine Son." After all, a Son does need a Father, and what about a vehicle for God's revelations to man? In essence, Paul named the principal players, but it was the later Church people who put the matter together.
When controversy over the matter of the Trinity blew up in 318 between two church men from Alexandria - Arius, the deacon, and Alexander, his bishop - Emperor Constantine stepped into the fray. Although Christian dogma was a complete mystery to him, he did realize that a unified church was necessary for a strong kingdom. When negotiation failed to settle the dispute, Constantine called for the first ecumenical council in Church history in order to settle the matter once and for all. Six weeks after the 300 bishops first gathered at Nicea in 325, the doctrine of the Trinity was hammered out. The God of the Christians was now seen as having three essences, or natures, in the form of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
The matter was far from settled, however, despite high hopes for such on the part of Constantine. Arius and the new bishop of Alexandria, a man named Athanasius, began arguing over the matter even as the Nicene Creed was being signed; "Arianism" became a catch-word from that time onward for anyone who did not hold to the doctrine of the Trinity.
It wasn't until 451, at the Council of Chalcedon that, with the approval of the Pope, the Nicene/Constantinople Creed was set as authoritative. Debate on the matter was no longer tolerated; to speak out against the Trinity was now considered blasphemy, and such earned stiff sentences that ranged from mutilation to death. Christians now turned on Christians, maiming and slaughtering thousands because of a difference of opinion.
Tertullian later converted to Montanism. Montanism was an early Christian movement of the early 2nd century, named after its founder Montanus. It originated at Hierapolis where Papias was bishop and flourished throughout the region of Phrygia, leading to the movement being referred to as Cataphrygian (meaning it was "from Phrygia") or simply as "Phrygians". It spread rapidly to other regions in the Roman Empire at a time before Christianity was generally tolerated or legal. Although orthodox Nicene Christianity prevailed against Montanism within a few generations, labeling it a heresy, the sect persisted in some isolated places into the 8th century. Some people have drawn parallels between Montanism and modern Pentecostalism (which some call Neo-Montanism). Some modern writers have suggested that some of its emphasis on direct, ecstatic personal presence of the Holy Spirit bears resemblance to all forms of Pentecostalism. “It [Montanism] claimed to be a religion of the Holy Spirit and was marked by ecstatic outbursts which it regarded as the only true form of Christianity.” While there may be some similarities between Montanism and modern Pentecostalism, there does not appear to be any historical link between the two, as most Pentecostals claim authenticity based on the New Testament Book of Acts (chapter 2). There is also a similarity to spiritualism. The most widely known Montanist was undoubtedly Tertullian, who was the foremost Latin church writer before he converted to Montanism. Tertullian, a onetime champion of orthodox belief, believed that the new prophecy was genuine and began to fall out of step with the orthodox Christianity. He began to call it "the church of a lot of bishops" (On Modesty). Although the ideas he created were very abstract, he was always moved by practical considerations to make his case clear and irresistible. It was partly this element which gave to his writings a formative influence upon the theology of the post-Nicene period in the West.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Origins of Christianity
Christianity originated in the first century. According to Acts 11:19 and 11:26 in the New Testament, Jesus' followers were first called Christians by non-Christians in the city of Antioch, where they had fled and settled after early persecutions in Judea. After Jesus' death, early Christian doctrine was taught by Paul of Tarsus and the apostles.
Jesus, a descendant of Judah, is reported to have declared himself to be the long awaited Messiah (John 8:23-24, John 14:11), but this claim was rejected by the people generally considered to be the Jewish authorities (Matthew 26:63-64). He was executed by the Romans around the year 30. The formal charge cited in his execution was leading a rebellion (Luke 23:1-5): he was called the "King of the Jews" by Pontius Pilate (John 19:19-22, Luke 16:8) on the titulus crucis or statement of the charge hung over the condemned on the cross. The Gospels indicate that the Roman charge was actually an attempt to appease the Jewish authorities, although some scholars argue that it was an ordinary Roman trial of a rebel. After his crucifixion, his apostles and other followers claimed that Jesus rose from the dead, and set out to preach the new message.
The apostles are believed by most Christians to have written some of the New Testament's Gospels and Epistles; however, many of the New Testament's twenty-seven books were written by Paul of Tarsus. Twelve Epistles name him as writer, and some traditions also credit him as the writer of the book of Hebrews.
Undoubtedly, Paul was the principal missionary of the Christian message to the Gentile world. The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are stated as having been written by Luke, whom many believe to have been under Paul's direct influence. Acts cites Paul as a student of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), a leading figure amongst the Jewish Sanhedrin (Acts 5:34-40) and a noteworthy authority in his own right (Acts 28:16-22) considering that the Jews of Rome sought his opinion on Christianity.
Jesus, a descendant of Judah, is reported to have declared himself to be the long awaited Messiah (John 8:23-24, John 14:11), but this claim was rejected by the people generally considered to be the Jewish authorities (Matthew 26:63-64). He was executed by the Romans around the year 30. The formal charge cited in his execution was leading a rebellion (Luke 23:1-5): he was called the "King of the Jews" by Pontius Pilate (John 19:19-22, Luke 16:8) on the titulus crucis or statement of the charge hung over the condemned on the cross. The Gospels indicate that the Roman charge was actually an attempt to appease the Jewish authorities, although some scholars argue that it was an ordinary Roman trial of a rebel. After his crucifixion, his apostles and other followers claimed that Jesus rose from the dead, and set out to preach the new message.
The apostles are believed by most Christians to have written some of the New Testament's Gospels and Epistles; however, many of the New Testament's twenty-seven books were written by Paul of Tarsus. Twelve Epistles name him as writer, and some traditions also credit him as the writer of the book of Hebrews.
Undoubtedly, Paul was the principal missionary of the Christian message to the Gentile world. The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are stated as having been written by Luke, whom many believe to have been under Paul's direct influence. Acts cites Paul as a student of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), a leading figure amongst the Jewish Sanhedrin (Acts 5:34-40) and a noteworthy authority in his own right (Acts 28:16-22) considering that the Jews of Rome sought his opinion on Christianity.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA
Philo (born 10 – 15 BC, Alexandria — died AD 45 – 50, Alexandria) was a Greek-speaking Jewish philosopher. He was a leader of the Jewish community of Alexandria. He led a delegation to the emperor, Caligula (c. AD 40), to ask that Jews not be forced to worship him. His writings provide the clearest view of this development of Judaism in the Diaspora. His philosophy was influenced by Plato, Aristotle, the Neo-Pythagoreans, the Cynics, and Stoicism. In his view of God, Philo was original in insisting on an individual Providence with the ability to suspend the laws of nature, in contrast to the prevailing Greek view of a universal Providence which is itself subject to the laws of nature. As the first to attempt to synthesize revealed faith and philosophic reason, he occupies a unique position in the history of philosophy. He is regarded as the most important representative of Hellenistic Judaism and a forerunner of Christian theology.
Philo’s account of the proceedings with the emperor survives in the treatise entitled Legatio ad Gaium.This remarkable document almost certainly tells less than the whole story about why friction arose between Jews and Greeks in Alexandria. But it provides an interesting portrait of the emperor, Caligula, and his attitude toward the problem of Jews and emperor worship. Whether through boredom at the length of the delegation's pleas or through genuine conviction, he observed of the Jews' refusal to worship him as a god, "I think that these people are not so much criminals as lunatics in not believing that I have been given a divine nature." The delegation, which had been understandably alarmed when Caligula brought up the question of emperor worship in his opening remarks, was heartily relieved when his concluding statement suggested merely pity and condescension rather than ill will.
Philo's major writings, however, consist largely of moral treatises and philosophical-theological essays on topics of scriptural interest. As a religious believer, he was convinced that the truth of things was to be found ultimately in the teachings of Moses; as a philosopher, he felt a need to express this truth in terms that were intelligible to a world imbued with the ideas of Greek philosophy. His works consequently suggest frequent tension between an attempt to interpret the Scriptures in the light of Greek philosophy and an attempt to criticize Greek philosophy in the light of scriptural truth.
The latter is particularly clear in Philo's doctrine of God. For Philo the believer, God is the only reality that is eternal; He is also totally "other" and unknowable. His providence is "individual,” manifesting itself in direct intervention in the universe, with suspension, if need be, of laws of nature for the benefit of meritorious individuals. Of His own goodwill, He endows the human soul with immortality. These views were strongly contrasted by Philo with Greek views, such as those found in Plato's Phaedo and Timaeus, in which both matter and the Ideas are said to be coeternal with God; Providence is said to be manifested in the basic laws of nature, and the human soul is said to be of its very nature immortal. In other words, Philo asserted that the human soul never dies.
Nonnegotiable dogma aside, however, Philo was more than willing to use the thought forms of Greek philosophy on those many matters on which honest disagreement among believers seemed to him allowable. The Greek philosophy in question is a philosophic eclecticism drawn from many sources. His stress on the symbolic importance of certain numbers suggests contemporary neo-Pythagorean influence. The views that causality is fourfold, that virtue lies in a mean, that God is to be seen as the prime mover of the universe, show the clear influence of Aristotle.
The spirit of Plato emerges clearly in Philo's general acceptance of notions such as the theory of Ideas, and the belief that the body is a tomb or prison, that life for man should be a process of purification from the material, that cosmic matter preceded the formation of the cosmos, and that the existence of God can be inferred from the structure and operations of the universe. The influence of stoicism emerges in his doctrines of man's "unqualified" free will, of the need to live in accord with nature, of the need to live free from passion, and of the "indifference" of what is beyond one's power.
Philo was one of the main philosophers of the transition period from Platonism to Neoplatonism. Philo is a representative of middle-Platonic philosophy, which combines Platonic doctrine with ideas of the Stoics and the Neo-Pythagoreans. In his writings, he endeavors to reconcile the world-view of Platonic philosophy with the principles of the Bible, and thereby pioneered in the attempt to forge a synthesis between Greek philosophy and Judaism. In his interpretation of Scripture, Philo seems to have adhered to its "spiritual" rather than to its literal truth. Thus the literal idea of a 6-day creation is rejected, and the story of Adam's rib is written off as mythical.
Philo's thought is of a deep religious and mystic character. According to Philo, God is a completely transcendent entity. Although God is beyond human apprehension, man must constantly strive to know Him. The logos, the Word of God, is the wisdom of God, different from God, yet not separate from Him. The logos is the force through which the world was created and it mediates between God and man. Following Plato, Philo distinguishes between the transient, material world and the eternal, spiritual world. Man, a creature composed of body and soul, partakes of both worlds and thus is given the possibility of choosing between them. The Church Fathers were greatly influenced by Philo's thought, including his allegorical mode of interpretation of the Bible and his doctrine of the logos, and they preserved his writings. The primary example in the Christian Bible (NIV), verses 1–18:
1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2. He was with God in the beginning.
3. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
6. There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.
10. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13. children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
14. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15. John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " 16. From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18. No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
Although the Church Fathers were anti-Jewish in attitude, they were responsible for the preservation of the writings of the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher, Philo, who nearly fell into oblivion among the Jews. Philo's Logos (God's word) represents God's emanation, His active reason. However, with the Church Fathers this concept developed into the hypostasis (the substance, essence, or underlying reality) represented in the Godhead's third person as Holy Spirit and in the incarnation of God becoming man in JESUS, the pre-existent Christ. Such modes of thought illustrate the influence of Hellenistic Judaism (Philo) in the development of Christianity. At the same time, they stand in direct opposition to normative Judaism, to which the speculations of the Church Fathers and the Church councils remained completely alien.
Philo’s account of the proceedings with the emperor survives in the treatise entitled Legatio ad Gaium.This remarkable document almost certainly tells less than the whole story about why friction arose between Jews and Greeks in Alexandria. But it provides an interesting portrait of the emperor, Caligula, and his attitude toward the problem of Jews and emperor worship. Whether through boredom at the length of the delegation's pleas or through genuine conviction, he observed of the Jews' refusal to worship him as a god, "I think that these people are not so much criminals as lunatics in not believing that I have been given a divine nature." The delegation, which had been understandably alarmed when Caligula brought up the question of emperor worship in his opening remarks, was heartily relieved when his concluding statement suggested merely pity and condescension rather than ill will.
Philo's major writings, however, consist largely of moral treatises and philosophical-theological essays on topics of scriptural interest. As a religious believer, he was convinced that the truth of things was to be found ultimately in the teachings of Moses; as a philosopher, he felt a need to express this truth in terms that were intelligible to a world imbued with the ideas of Greek philosophy. His works consequently suggest frequent tension between an attempt to interpret the Scriptures in the light of Greek philosophy and an attempt to criticize Greek philosophy in the light of scriptural truth.
The latter is particularly clear in Philo's doctrine of God. For Philo the believer, God is the only reality that is eternal; He is also totally "other" and unknowable. His providence is "individual,” manifesting itself in direct intervention in the universe, with suspension, if need be, of laws of nature for the benefit of meritorious individuals. Of His own goodwill, He endows the human soul with immortality. These views were strongly contrasted by Philo with Greek views, such as those found in Plato's Phaedo and Timaeus, in which both matter and the Ideas are said to be coeternal with God; Providence is said to be manifested in the basic laws of nature, and the human soul is said to be of its very nature immortal. In other words, Philo asserted that the human soul never dies.
Nonnegotiable dogma aside, however, Philo was more than willing to use the thought forms of Greek philosophy on those many matters on which honest disagreement among believers seemed to him allowable. The Greek philosophy in question is a philosophic eclecticism drawn from many sources. His stress on the symbolic importance of certain numbers suggests contemporary neo-Pythagorean influence. The views that causality is fourfold, that virtue lies in a mean, that God is to be seen as the prime mover of the universe, show the clear influence of Aristotle.
The spirit of Plato emerges clearly in Philo's general acceptance of notions such as the theory of Ideas, and the belief that the body is a tomb or prison, that life for man should be a process of purification from the material, that cosmic matter preceded the formation of the cosmos, and that the existence of God can be inferred from the structure and operations of the universe. The influence of stoicism emerges in his doctrines of man's "unqualified" free will, of the need to live in accord with nature, of the need to live free from passion, and of the "indifference" of what is beyond one's power.
Philo was one of the main philosophers of the transition period from Platonism to Neoplatonism. Philo is a representative of middle-Platonic philosophy, which combines Platonic doctrine with ideas of the Stoics and the Neo-Pythagoreans. In his writings, he endeavors to reconcile the world-view of Platonic philosophy with the principles of the Bible, and thereby pioneered in the attempt to forge a synthesis between Greek philosophy and Judaism. In his interpretation of Scripture, Philo seems to have adhered to its "spiritual" rather than to its literal truth. Thus the literal idea of a 6-day creation is rejected, and the story of Adam's rib is written off as mythical.
Philo's thought is of a deep religious and mystic character. According to Philo, God is a completely transcendent entity. Although God is beyond human apprehension, man must constantly strive to know Him. The logos, the Word of God, is the wisdom of God, different from God, yet not separate from Him. The logos is the force through which the world was created and it mediates between God and man. Following Plato, Philo distinguishes between the transient, material world and the eternal, spiritual world. Man, a creature composed of body and soul, partakes of both worlds and thus is given the possibility of choosing between them. The Church Fathers were greatly influenced by Philo's thought, including his allegorical mode of interpretation of the Bible and his doctrine of the logos, and they preserved his writings. The primary example in the Christian Bible (NIV), verses 1–18:
1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2. He was with God in the beginning.
3. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
6. There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.
10. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13. children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
14. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15. John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " 16. From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18. No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
Although the Church Fathers were anti-Jewish in attitude, they were responsible for the preservation of the writings of the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher, Philo, who nearly fell into oblivion among the Jews. Philo's Logos (God's word) represents God's emanation, His active reason. However, with the Church Fathers this concept developed into the hypostasis (the substance, essence, or underlying reality) represented in the Godhead's third person as Holy Spirit and in the incarnation of God becoming man in JESUS, the pre-existent Christ. Such modes of thought illustrate the influence of Hellenistic Judaism (Philo) in the development of Christianity. At the same time, they stand in direct opposition to normative Judaism, to which the speculations of the Church Fathers and the Church councils remained completely alien.
The key influences on Philo’s philosophy were Plato, Aristotle, the Neo-Pythagoreans, the Cynics, and the Stoics. Philo’s basic philosophic outlook is Platonic, so much so that Jerome and other Church Fathers quote the apparently widespread saying: “Either Plato philonizes or Philo platonizes.”
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
ECLECTICISM
As you may have noticed by now, the Ancient Greeks had many great ideas—many of which, although contradictory, were pertinent in some respects. “Eclecticism,” which, in Greek, means “to choose,” is the selection of elements from different systems of thought, without regard to possible contradictions between the systems. Eclecticism differs from syncretism, which tries to combine various systems while resolving conflicts. Many Ancient Roman philosophers, especially Cicero, and the Neoplatonists were known for eclecticism.
Eclecticism is a conceptual approach that does not hold rigidly to a single philosophical school or set of assumptions, but instead draws upon multiple theories, styles, or ideas to gain complementary insights into a subject, or applies different theories in particular cases.
The name, eclecticism, was first generally used in the first century BCE. Stoicism and Epicureanism had made the search for pure truth subordinate to the attainment of practical virtue and happiness. Skepticism had denied that pure truth was possible to discover. Eclecticism sought to reach by selection the highest possible degree of probability—understanding that it is hopeless to seek absolute truth.
In Greek philosophy, the best known Eclectics were the Stoic’s Panaetius, Posidonius. The New Academic (Neoplatonists), Carnaedes (155 BCE.) and Philo of Larissa (75 BCE.), were also eclectics. Among the Romans, Cicero, whose cast of mind made him always doubtful and uncertain of his own attitude, was thoroughly eclectic, uniting the Peripatetic, Stoic, and New Academic doctrines, and seeking the probable. The same general line was followed by Varro, and in the next century the Stoic Seneca propounded a philosophical system largely based on eclecticism.
Panaetius (c.185–109 BC), of Rhodes, was a Greek Stoic philosopher. In c.144 he went to Rome. He also traveled to Egypt and Asia. After his return c.138 he divided his time between Rome and Athens. In 129 he succeeded Antipater as head of the Stoic school in Athens, and there he died. He adapted Stoic doctrine to fit Roman ideals, dwelling on the active virtues of magnanimity and benevolence rather than the passive virtues of indifference to misfortune and danger and of avoiding wrongdoing; he emphasized the subordination of private ambition to the good of the state, conformity to the same standard of virtue in public and private life, and the suppression of self-indulgence. He was a powerful influence on Roman thought.
Posīdōnius (c.135–c.50 BC), of Apamea in Syria, historian, scientist, and philosopher, spent most of his life at Rhodes and became head of the Stoic school there. He was a polymath (a person of great or varied learning) who epitomized the learning of the Hellenistic age and transmitted some part of it to the Roman world. For several years he studied philosophy under Panaetius at Athens.
Philo of Larissa (160-c. 80 BC) was the last undisputed head of the Academy of Athens (which was founded by Plato, about 387 BC). Philo studied under a pupil of Carneades, before succeeding Clitomachus as head of the Academy in 110/109 BC. Around 88 BC he left Athens for Rome, effectively ending the Academy. He maintained the sceptical doctrines of Carneades, modified by the admission of those things that deserve some kind of confidence as a basis of action. His claim that this scepticism represented the true legacy of Plato prompted the break from the Academy by Antiochus that gave rise to Middle Platonism. Philo's most distinguished pupil and disciple was Cicero.
In the late period of Greek philosophy there appears an eclectic system consisting of a compromise between the Neo-Pythagoreans and the various Platonic sects. Still another school is that of Philo Iudaeus, who at Alexandria, in the first century CE. interpreted the Old Testament allegorically, and tried to harmonize it with selected doctrines of Greek philosophy. Neo-Platonism, the last product of Greek speculation, was also a fusion of Greek philosophy with eastern religion. Its chief representatives were Plotinus (230 CE.), Porphyrius (275 CE.), Iamblichus (300 CE.), and Proclus (450 CE.). The desire of this school was to attain right relations between God and humans, and was thus religious.
Eclecticism is a conceptual approach that does not hold rigidly to a single philosophical school or set of assumptions, but instead draws upon multiple theories, styles, or ideas to gain complementary insights into a subject, or applies different theories in particular cases.
The name, eclecticism, was first generally used in the first century BCE. Stoicism and Epicureanism had made the search for pure truth subordinate to the attainment of practical virtue and happiness. Skepticism had denied that pure truth was possible to discover. Eclecticism sought to reach by selection the highest possible degree of probability—understanding that it is hopeless to seek absolute truth.
In Greek philosophy, the best known Eclectics were the Stoic’s Panaetius, Posidonius. The New Academic (Neoplatonists), Carnaedes (155 BCE.) and Philo of Larissa (75 BCE.), were also eclectics. Among the Romans, Cicero, whose cast of mind made him always doubtful and uncertain of his own attitude, was thoroughly eclectic, uniting the Peripatetic, Stoic, and New Academic doctrines, and seeking the probable. The same general line was followed by Varro, and in the next century the Stoic Seneca propounded a philosophical system largely based on eclecticism.
Panaetius (c.185–109 BC), of Rhodes, was a Greek Stoic philosopher. In c.144 he went to Rome. He also traveled to Egypt and Asia. After his return c.138 he divided his time between Rome and Athens. In 129 he succeeded Antipater as head of the Stoic school in Athens, and there he died. He adapted Stoic doctrine to fit Roman ideals, dwelling on the active virtues of magnanimity and benevolence rather than the passive virtues of indifference to misfortune and danger and of avoiding wrongdoing; he emphasized the subordination of private ambition to the good of the state, conformity to the same standard of virtue in public and private life, and the suppression of self-indulgence. He was a powerful influence on Roman thought.
Posīdōnius (c.135–c.50 BC), of Apamea in Syria, historian, scientist, and philosopher, spent most of his life at Rhodes and became head of the Stoic school there. He was a polymath (a person of great or varied learning) who epitomized the learning of the Hellenistic age and transmitted some part of it to the Roman world. For several years he studied philosophy under Panaetius at Athens.
Philo of Larissa (160-c. 80 BC) was the last undisputed head of the Academy of Athens (which was founded by Plato, about 387 BC). Philo studied under a pupil of Carneades, before succeeding Clitomachus as head of the Academy in 110/109 BC. Around 88 BC he left Athens for Rome, effectively ending the Academy. He maintained the sceptical doctrines of Carneades, modified by the admission of those things that deserve some kind of confidence as a basis of action. His claim that this scepticism represented the true legacy of Plato prompted the break from the Academy by Antiochus that gave rise to Middle Platonism. Philo's most distinguished pupil and disciple was Cicero.
In the late period of Greek philosophy there appears an eclectic system consisting of a compromise between the Neo-Pythagoreans and the various Platonic sects. Still another school is that of Philo Iudaeus, who at Alexandria, in the first century CE. interpreted the Old Testament allegorically, and tried to harmonize it with selected doctrines of Greek philosophy. Neo-Platonism, the last product of Greek speculation, was also a fusion of Greek philosophy with eastern religion. Its chief representatives were Plotinus (230 CE.), Porphyrius (275 CE.), Iamblichus (300 CE.), and Proclus (450 CE.). The desire of this school was to attain right relations between God and humans, and was thus religious.
Friday, October 1, 2010
CARNEADES THE SKEPTIC
Carneades (ca. 213-ca. 128 B.C.) was a Greek philosopher of the third school of academic skepticism. His combination of skepticism and empiricism can now be seen to have remarkable affinities with a good deal of post-Renaissance Western philosophy. He was the first of the philosophers to pronounce the failure of metaphysicians who endeavored to discover rational meanings in religious beliefs. By the time of 159 BC he had started to refute all previous dogmatic doctrines, especially Stoicism, and even the Epicureans whom previous skeptics had spared. As head of the Academy, he was one of three philosophers sent to Rome in 155 BC where his lectures on the uncertainty of justice caused consternation among the leading politicians. He left no writings and many of his opinions are known only via his successor Clitomachus. He seems to have doubted the ability, not just of the senses but of reason too, in acquiring truth. His skepticism was, however, moderated by the belief that we can, nevertheless, ascertain probabilities of truth, to enable us to live and act correctly.
The Stoics used cognitive impressions as the basis by which truth could be perceived. Carneades argued that a cognitive impression could be in error because there were instances where entirely different objects or circumstances, such as identical twins or a mirror image, could produce identical cognitive impressions. In such cases, the only way to avoid error would be to suspend judgment. The Stoic counter-argument was that, without cognitive impressions, human beings would have no basis for making inquiries or acting. Carneades replied that such a basis could be found in “probable impressions.” Certain sense impressions would appear to be more convincing than others. If a sense impression is sufficiently convincing, and if it correlates with other relevant impressions, it can be used as a basis for action. There may be occasions when the sense impression is not accurate. When an important decision is to be made, particularly one relating to happiness, further inquiries can be made to verify the validity of the sense impression. In every instance, however, we are not dealing with absolute certainty; at best, however, we may experience 100% probability given a definite number of trials of experience; and, the greater the number of trials with the same outcomes, the stronger the grounds for belief; any and every counterexample would nonetheless weaken the grounds for belief.
To prove his point about the inability to determine absolute, unconditional truth, he demonstrated with great effect the logic of skepticism by delivering two contradictory orations on justice. One of these praised some justice, as a virtue grounded in nature; the other praised some injustice, on grounds of benevolent expediency. Although I don’t have any example from Carneades, I can think of many on my own. For example, it is unjust to take an old man’s cane; imagine, however, that a boy had fallen off a cliff and was holding onto a branch that was not only slightly out of your reach but also about to break from his weight; suppose further that you saw a cane that belonged to an old man, and despite not asking for permission to use it (which is unjust), you took the cane and used it to save the boys life. I don’t imagine that any reasonable person would disagree that in such a situation, such an injustice was good—especially if the old man in this story was not around to be asked for his permission to use his cane.
The Stoics used cognitive impressions as the basis by which truth could be perceived. Carneades argued that a cognitive impression could be in error because there were instances where entirely different objects or circumstances, such as identical twins or a mirror image, could produce identical cognitive impressions. In such cases, the only way to avoid error would be to suspend judgment. The Stoic counter-argument was that, without cognitive impressions, human beings would have no basis for making inquiries or acting. Carneades replied that such a basis could be found in “probable impressions.” Certain sense impressions would appear to be more convincing than others. If a sense impression is sufficiently convincing, and if it correlates with other relevant impressions, it can be used as a basis for action. There may be occasions when the sense impression is not accurate. When an important decision is to be made, particularly one relating to happiness, further inquiries can be made to verify the validity of the sense impression. In every instance, however, we are not dealing with absolute certainty; at best, however, we may experience 100% probability given a definite number of trials of experience; and, the greater the number of trials with the same outcomes, the stronger the grounds for belief; any and every counterexample would nonetheless weaken the grounds for belief.
To prove his point about the inability to determine absolute, unconditional truth, he demonstrated with great effect the logic of skepticism by delivering two contradictory orations on justice. One of these praised some justice, as a virtue grounded in nature; the other praised some injustice, on grounds of benevolent expediency. Although I don’t have any example from Carneades, I can think of many on my own. For example, it is unjust to take an old man’s cane; imagine, however, that a boy had fallen off a cliff and was holding onto a branch that was not only slightly out of your reach but also about to break from his weight; suppose further that you saw a cane that belonged to an old man, and despite not asking for permission to use it (which is unjust), you took the cane and used it to save the boys life. I don’t imagine that any reasonable person would disagree that in such a situation, such an injustice was good—especially if the old man in this story was not around to be asked for his permission to use his cane.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
