Professors Athanassiadi and Frede bring to light the importance of paganmonotheism in late Greek antiquity
BY MARK DRAGOUMIS
AROUND Christmas time, Christians tend sometimes to re-examine their faith. Some aspects, however, are rarely questioned. One thing that has always seemed beyond reasonable doubt is the presumed abyss separating those believing in one God - Judaism, Christianity, Islam (in that chronological order) - and those believing in many. A book boldly entitled Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity (Oxford: Clarendon Press) edited by Polymnia Athanassiadi, professor of Late Antique History at Athens University and Michael Frede, professor of History of Philosophy at Oxford University, provides evidence that blurs this distinction.
The papers in this collection, one by each of the two editors, and the others by ML West (senior research fellow at All Souls College, Oxford), professor John Dillon (regius professor of Greek at Trinity College Dublin), professor Wolf Liebeschutz (professor emeritus at Nottingham University) and professor Stephen Mitchell (professor in the Department of Classics and Ancient History at the University of Wales), show that belief in various forms of monotheism was the norm rather that the exception amongst the educated elites in Hellenistic times.
In fact, Christianity, the editors state in their 'Introduction', did not convince because it was monotheistic; but rather in order to convince it had to be monotheistic, in a society which was fast moving in that direction.
This is strong stuff delivered in a relaxed, jargon-free tone, making the reader feel a participant to a thought- provoking seminar. The authors show how polytheism had always presented problems to questioning Greeks. Homer illustrates how conflict resolution among gods was achieved in the divine assemblies at Olympus under the direction of Zeus, not just a convenor and chairman but also a taker or ratifier of essential decisions - a mirror of the earthly king in council.
The emergence of Greek philosophy deeply affected the Greek gods. The Pre-Socratics started by depersonalising them. These immortal beings with humanoid passions made little sense to their inquisitive mind. Pondering on the causes of things, they opted for one cause instead of many and thus formed the abstract concept of 'the divine' (to theion). Anaximander (619-540 BC) came close to identifying 'the divine' with 'the infinite' although he never endowed this concept with consciousness, intelligence and other attributes of personhood. Xenophanes (probably 520-457) developed the concept of 'One God' even though his line reads in full 'One god, the greatest among gods and men'. This 'One God' is a mighty mind controlling matter clearly a precursor of Aristotle's 'Prime Mover'.
Intriguingly, in the Old Testament - source of every traditional monotheistic religion ever after - Yahweh introduces himself to Moses as 'the god of your fathers, the god of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob' and tells him 'you shall have no other gods but me'. He does not say 'there are no other gods but me'. Unlike the sometimes unruly Olympian assembly, however, Yahweh brooked no opposition. As ML West puts it 'the later myth of the Fallen Angels formalises the elimination from the world of all those divinities who persisted in showing independent spirit: only lackeys are left'.
Professor John Dillon distinguishes the 'hard monotheism' exemplified by the Jewish and the Islamic tradition where 'nothing more formidable than an angel is allowed to compete with the supreme and only God' from 'soft monotheism... exemplified by the intellectualised version of traditional Greek religion'. He places Christianity somewhere between the two as it inherits the jealous absolutist god of Judaism but is also, influenced by neo-Platonicism.
In fact, Jesus of Nazareth came to save the world at a time when the universality of Judaism's monotheism, clashed more and more with its restrictive concept of the Jews as 'the chosen people'. While Jews were living in tightly knit communities in the Middle East this did not matter too much. Things began to change with the dispersion of the Jews throughout the Roman Empire, at a time when most educated men derived their metaphysi cs from Plato, their ethics from the Stoics and their logic from Aristotle. This interaction provided a fertile ground for the Christian message to take root.
Plato (429-347BC) postulates in Timaeus a Demiurge (creator) who endows the world with intelligible order by applying the objectively, independently existing, 'Forms' to an equally pre-existing inert matter. Plato's disciple Plotinus (205-269 AD) advocated an inward turn for the Self that would allow supreme unity with a single immaterial and impersonal force which he identified with the 'One' (of the 6th century BC Greek philosopher Parmenidis) and the 'Good' in Plato's Republic. Christian thinkers influenced by Plotinus claimed that this notion of the 'One', referred to by the masculine pronoun, was a natural development of the Platonic 'Demiurge' that turned him into a personal God with infinite creative goodness. Interestingly, Plotinus further distinguished, between God (the first principle) and a two-part divine intellect (generator of 'Forms') of which one part is purely contemplative and another is demiurgic (creative). Neo-Platonists coming after him, named these three different divine agencies 'hypostases of the One God'. This is a close precursor of the Christian Holy Trinity composed of three uncreated persons (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) who can each be called God and love one another since and for all eternity.
Aristotle, on the other hand, rejected the objective reality of Plato's 'Forms' but accepted that these participated (were immanent) in the things of this world. He reaches his own concept of 'the God' (o Theos in the singular) in a more roundabout way than Plato. He argues in his Metaphysics that since time does not have a beginning or an end, it must be moving in a circle. This never ending motion, however, can only be logically explained by postulating a cause for it that must perforce not be subject to it. This 'Prime Mover', however, turns out to be at first glance more of a principle than a person. Nonetheless when Aristotle compares his God to a general commanding his army he seems to endow him with some kind of individuality.
Man can acquire knowledge of the 'divine', Aristotle concluded, by a process of abstracting the 'universals' from sensible things, ie by deducing them from the sense-data through the application of a reasoning process. In this way Aristotle opened the way for the study of nature and its laws. He further concluded that man, 'a political animal', could achieve this intellectual project only within a rational man-made society whose institutions would embody, so to speak, the 'universal' laws of the cosmic order. The prevailing political doctrine in the years of Christ was that where Greece had failed with its minuscule city-states, Rome was to succeed in extending the rational order over the whole imperial world. This was accepted by the Christians.
According to Cicero, who identified freedom as the submission to natural (ie 'divine') justice, the gods as such were superfluous and therefore all cults could be allowed as innocent pastimes as long as they did not interfere with the administration of justice. Thus Alexander Severus, Roman Emperor from 222-235 AD felt, for instance, no incongruity in including Christ among the many other gods he worshipped in his private chapel.
The Roman world was thus ready, or at least not a priori averse, to welcome a monotheistic creed strong on human solidarity and promising salvation to everyone irrespective of race, origin, sex or class. The fact that Jesus relinquished Jewish exclusiveness for the sake of spreading his message world-wide explains both Christianity's universal appeal across all boundaries and its failure to make any significant inroads amongst the Jews themselves, proud of the privileged status conferred to them by Moses. There was also considerable freedom of expression under the Romans that created a common intellectual background throughout the Empire. A book written in Greek - by then the lingua franca of all educated people - such as the New Testament could be understood by most educated people in the Mediterranean area. Christianity used Greek to spread the good word (evangelion or gospel).
The letters of St Paul (written in 49 or 50 AD), the Gospels (of which the latest was John's, written between 90 and 100 AD) as well as the whole New Testament (including the 'Acts of the Apostles' and the 'Book of Revelations') were written in Greek. Matthew, a Jew named Levy before his conversion, wrote, according to Origen, the first Gospel around 40 AD in Aramaic - a western branch of the Semitic group of languages. This Gospel is said to have been translated later into Greek by none other than James, brother of Jesus. As for Christ who started life as a humble carpenter, he never wrote a word himself. He addressed the crowds only in Aramaic from which his message was afterwards translated into Greek. Christ's message was thus expressed in a language whose basic concepts and theories were familiar to the intellectuals of the oikoumene or orbis terrarum that formed the Greco-Roman world. Stoicism was important in this respect.
Stoic ethics aiming at achieving 'apatheia', ie lack of passions such as fear, greed, grief and joy that disturb the soul proved of great use to the Christians. Zeno who created the Stoic school in Athens in the 4th century BC after the death of Aristotle had taught his students to keep the body's cravings in check so that the mind could be free to contemplate higher realities. The Stoics held that even slaves could be happy if by ensuring complete self-mastery of mind over body they lived 'in accordance with nature'. The Christians had only to change this last sentence into 'in accordance with the will of God' to find a ready audience conditioned by Stoic doctrines. St Paul, well versed in Greek thought and fluent speaker of the language, used Stoic notions such as asceticism, humility, harmony and the brotherhood of man in addressing the Athenians. In a nutshell, the Christians felt that the cult of reason they had inherited from the Greeks could be identified with God.
The Prologue of the Gospel according to John presents Jesus as 'Logos' - a term meaning in Greek both reason and discourse that was translated into English as 'the Word' in the famous phrase 'In the beginning was the Word'. This was a brilliant move because its appeal was immediate and widespread. The Platonists found it easy to conceive of a 'Logos' as the principle mediating between a transcendent God and his created order. Christian thinkers wishing to consolidate continuity with the Greek philosophical tradition asserted that 'Logos' had been present in all religions and philosophies as 'seminal Logos' ('Logos spermatikos'), which only achieved its full form in Christ. In ancient icons Socrates and Plato are depicted amongst the redeemed whom Christ leads forth from the underworld upon his storming of Hades.
The man who popularised 'Logos' within the Jewish monotheistic context was a contemporary of Jesus Christ named Philo of Alexandria (30 BC - 50 AD) who belonged to the large colony of Hellenised, exclusively Greek speaking Jews, who had even their own sacred book translated into Greek (the Septuagint) to keep contact with their religion. Philo, a scholar who tried to synthesise Judaism with Plato and Stoicism insisted that Plato's ideal world of 'forms' was a reflection of the mind of God. He even applied the Stoic concept of 'Logos', to any of several mediators between God and man such as angels, Moses, Abraham and even the Jewish high priest. John's identification of 'Logos' with Jesus was much in this tradition but Philo would never have countenanced the Incarnation. Also Philo, deeply influenced by the Stoics' disparagement of the emotions, would never have accepted an all too human Jesus displaying the full gamut of human frailties.
Some of the earliest leaders of the Christian movement (which became a church only after the second century)) advised the followers of Jesus to shun pagan books lest they became influenced by them. Clement of Alexandria - born in Athens in 150 AD of pagan parents and a scholar of Greek philosophy when he was converted - thought that this was a deeply flawed attitude. For Clement, Jesus of Nazareth was certainly the incarnation of the eternal 'Logos', a divine principle active in human history since its very beginning and capable of inspiring Gentiles and Jews alike to heed the teachings of the Gospels. In effect, he explained, it was through the use of this complex, opaque and sometimes confusing, all-embracing concept of 'Logos' - as used by pre-Christian thinkers - and its subsequent transmutation into the active revelatory principle of a personal God existing even before the creation of the world, that Jesus was 'Hellenised'. It was the use of 'Logos' that allowed the Christians to link their 'true religion' with the various forms of 'natural religion' propagated by doctrines outside Christianity. It was only his close association with Origen that barred his way to sainthood. Origen (184 - 254 AD) born in Alexandria of Christian parents was one of the teachers at Clement's 'Catechetical School of Alexandria' and succeeded him as head of the 'School' in AD 203. In his lifetime, Origen was recognised as an outstanding Christian scholar but he was also attacked by some Christians who accused him of diluting the Gospels with too much pagan philosophy. He claimed that with the tools of reason as perfected by the Greek philosophers, one could arrive at the truth found in scripture. He also claimed that God had put obstacles in the way of knowledge on purpose to make humans use their minds to attain the Gospel truth. His writings, of which only a fraction survives, filled around six thousand rolls which kept busy a staff of seven slave secretaries, provided to him by a wealthy Christian named Ambrose. His denial of carnal resurrection led to his posthumous condemnation in 553 AD by the Council of Constantinople.
Not everybody, however, was a Helleniser amongst the early Christians. Tertullian (160-240 AD) for instance, son of a Roman centurion born in Carthage and the first Christian to write in Latin, came to see Greece as the enemy of religion. 'What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem, the Academy with the Church?' he asked.
Greek influence on budding Christianity was pervasive not only on dogma and ethics but also on liturgy (borrowing from Hellenistic mystery religions), customs (carnivals before the beginning of the Lenten season), architecture, ecclesiastical art, symbolism and even iconography. All this, however, did not cut much ice with the rank and file of the early Christians, increasingly persecuted by the Roman state because they refused to accept the divinity of the Emperor and to perform the sacrifices imposed on everybody by law. They went to their martyrdom strong in their simple faith and in high spirits expecting to reap the rewards in the afterlife promised to them by their priests.
Believing firmly that the coming of the Kingdom of God was imminent, an early Christian would shun meat ('food offered to idols'), the theatre ('mostly pagan mythology'), pagan art and literature, military service (containing regulations clearly connected with the Emperor cult), sporting events (taking place in a pagan cultic milieu), the sex culture of the pagan world (such as the sexual exploitation of female slaves in Roman households), the circus with its pornographic shows, gladiatorial fights, lascivious dances, the use of narcotics, polygamy, divorce, gluttony, intemperance, luxury in clothing and excesses of all kinds that were part of the Roman way of life. The persecuted Christians found a myriad of ways to keep pure of the sinful 'seculus' (the things of the century) and close to what they saw as Christianity's eternal truths. When the persecutions ended with the edict of Milan in 313 AD by the joint Emperors Licinius and Constantine the Great, the triumphant Church forged a new, more relaxed relationship with philosophy and became vulnerable to heresy and splits. This, however, is another story to quote Rudyard Kipling...
Ironically, just a few hours ago I picked up a pamphlet on "neopaganism" at the Apostoliki Diakonia bookstore in Athens, and they have a 5 page outline of all the ancient philosophers who criticized the ancient pagan ways, and alluded to principles that would eventually make Christianity accepted in the Hellenic world. The same stuff as above, basically...
Re: Christianity's debt to the Greeks
Maybe so Spartan, but I worry that we too may lay down our inheritance just like the Jews did 2000 years ago ( though they started downhill long before that ). The katastasi in GR, the way I see it, is a katrakilo straight over the cliff. I don't need to go into details bec I think everyone who's been there has witnessed things and all who haven't knows someone who has been and heard.
I still believe though that the 5% who are holding firm there make up for the 95% who aren't. That's the quality of the Greek Orthodox faithful who hold the fort.
stefanako
Unregistered User
(6/23/03 3:45 am) Reply
Re: Christianity's debt to the Greeks
funny how christianity has been around way before christ...
Re: Christianity's debt to the Greeks
Plutonas, hate to break it to you but Jesus was a Jew.
Quote:Plutonas:
What does Christ's ethnicity have to do with anything? The point is that Christ's teachings had NOTHING to do with the barbaric dogmas of Judaism. However, Christ's teachings were always compatible with ancient Greek philosophical (namely Socratic/Platonic) thought.
Christs's ethnicity has everything to do with it. Christianity came from Judaism. The Jews believe in the Old Testament, and Christ came to earth to complete and clarify the laws of God by giving us the New Testament as well. As Christians, we work with both the Old and New Testament (they're both in the Bible).
This is basic knowledge stuff.. I'm kind of surprised that you've missed this important part in history.
Quote:Plutonas:
I'm aware of all of this, but I disagree. Out teachings, our faith, our Orthodox dogma is not based on Judaic or rabbinical teachings. The Old Testement is viewed by the Orthodox Church through the context of the New Testament. In other words, it's only importance is giving a historical "background" to the New Testament, to the coming of Christ. Nothing more.
acheritou Registered User
Posts: 1
(8/3/03 9:10 pm) Reply
Greek religion
Jews needed Christ as a 'Messiah'. He came and they did not want to know.
He called them 'Devil worshippers'.
The Ancient, Byzantine and Modern "Greek" language was needed to interpret all the Hebrew Aramaic text into Greek then to Latin then to English French German Russian etc.
Without Greece, Christinanity would be as lost as islam is now.
I thank you.
Nicolas Dimitris
PHD
egeec Registered User
Posts: 1
(8/10/03 2:18 am) Reply
Greek religion
Greetings to all of you in the forum.
Bible says, that the first nation to turn over to the Christianity on European Continent is Macedonian Nation in Salonika (Thessaloniki) with help from St. Paul.
You never mentioned that in your forums...strange...WHY?
You are confused in an ever narrowing world....
.... "Plutonas, hate to break it to you but Jesus was a Jew".....
You are completely lost, and seriously need to re-examine what happened within the last 400 years. According to scholars, the term 'Jew' was never even mentioned in the original Greek Texts.... making the term Jew itself meaningless. The original Greek texts claim Jesus to be a 'Judean', from the land of Judea. Judaism is based on TALMUDISM, and the Talmud (if you are going to affiliate Judaism with Christianity), claims Jesus to be born a non-Jew.
.... "Christs's ethnicity has everything to do with it"....
You are greatly confused, and are trying to identify Jesus with the Demiurge (or the Old Testament God). The Jewish/Muslim Messiah has CLEARLY not come yet (who is indeed the Demiurge), and this is why Jesus was not accepted by them. "We come from God, those who hear our words are of God.... those who don't, aren't". It's clear to everyone reading this thread, who kept Jesus' spirit alive within men and women.....
.... "Christianity came from Judaism. The Jews believe in the Old Testament, and Christ came to earth to complete and clarify the laws of God by giving us the New Testament as well"....
Indeed it did come from Judaism, which makes Christianity wrong. As far as Christ coming to clarify the laws of Moses.... that is wrong. You are blind, and are apart of a false dogma. For Christ said himself, "when you abandon jealousy, you will find the kingdom".... and yet the Old Testament God, the same God that you imply that Jesus was affirming, boldly and arrogntly admits, "I am a jealoud God". Kind of contradicting, don't you think.....
.... "As Christians, we work with both the Old and New Testament (they're both in the Bible)"....
The Bible? Do you really think that the earliest Christians intended it to become systematic? A once fluent belief, has sadly succumbed to dogma.... all because of Emperor Constantine. Don't forget, Constantine also dismissed other writings indeed written by the other disciples (which contradicted Judaism by the way, which is now labeled the 'apocrypha'). I guess you're implying that Constantine was inspired by the divine to take such action, right...
.... "This is basic knowledge stuff.. I'm kind of surprised that you've missed this important part in history"....
Sadly, it is you who have missed it. You believe what you are told by the Pontiff, and clearly accept their word as you're faith. In the eyes of both Jesus and Socrates, indeed, you are a "blind man, being led by the blind"....
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies