Introduction, Purpose, Definitions and Terminology
Timelines: Jewish and Gentile Writings and Thought
Eliminating Potential Sources of Complex Monotheism
Was Jewish Complex Monotheism Borrowed from the Greeks?
The Hebrew Bible Teaches Complex Monotheism - Part 1
The Hebrew Bible Teaches Complex Monotheism - Part 2
Complex Monotheism after the Close of the Hebrew Bible
Philo Affirms Complex Monotheism in Pre-rabbinic Judaism
Criteria of Biblical Monotheism, Christianity & Pre-Rabbinic Judaism
New Testament Christianity as a Sect of Judaism
When Was Complex Monotheism First Rejected?
Simple & Complex Monotheism before the Rabbinic Period
What Separates Biblical Judaism & New Testament Christianity?
God's Sovereign Choice of Abraham & His Offspring
Summary, Conclusions, and Implications
Testing the Hypothesis that Jewish Forms of Complex Monotheism Were the Result of Borrowing from Greek Complex Monotheism
Four factors are involved in the conventional view that
Jewish Complex Monotheism was the result of borrowing from the Hellenistic
religious ideas displayed in Platonic philosophy.
The first factor concerns whether or not Greek philosophy
and various Judeo-Christian sects share similar concepts about divinity. In
this case, perhaps some of the more obvious comparisons include that Greek
philosophy and various Judeo-Christian sects share an insistence on the
unparalleled uniqueness of the Supreme Being, the use of the title Logos for a
sort of divine hypostasis, and (particularly with regard to the Trinity) the
specific enumeration of three associated divine hypostases.
The second factor concerns whether or not Jewish and
Christian communities did have cultural contact with these Hellenistic
theological ideas. Contact between Hellenistic, Jewish, and Christian
communities provides the necessary interaction for one religious group to
potentially borrow ideas from another. If there is no point of contact wherein
one group became aware of the ideas expressed by the other, then there is no
means for one group to borrow ideas from the other. While historical contact
between Hellenistic, Jewish, and Christian communities is not disputed, timing
is crucial to the question of influence.
The third factor concerns whether or not these ideas existed
in Greek philosophy prior to their presence in various Jewish and Christian
sects. If the two cultures did have contact, share similar ideas, and those
ideas are present in Hellenistic culture before Judeo-Christian culture, then
it is possible that the latter borrowed its concepts from the former.
The fourth factor concerns whether or not there are other
competing sources for the concepts in question. Are there earlier forms of
Judaism that exhibit these same views prior to the Greek or at least prior to
sufficient cultural contact with the Greek philosophy? If Greek philosophy and
Judeo-Christian Complex Monotheism have certain peculiar concepts in common while
pre-Hellenistic Judaism does not, then it is possible to suggest that later
Judeo-Christians borrowed ideas of complexity (multiplicity) of God’s selfhood
from Greek philosophy rather than inheriting it from other earlier Judaism. On
the other hand, if sufficient strands of pre-Hellenistic Judaism likewise share
these concepts, the cultural influence from Hellenism becomes more and more
unlikely and unnecessary to explain the presence of Complex Monotheism within
later Judeo-Christian views.
As we turn toward the first factor, a surprising correlation
unavoidably emerges. Previously, we noted that comparisons can be made between Greek
philosophy and various Judeo-Christian sects on the basis of their shared
insistence on a single, unparalleled Supreme Being, the use of the title Logos,
and the specific enumeration of three divine hypostases. But certainly the
first characteristic, insistence on One Supreme Being, is also shared by Simple
Monotheistic forms of Judaism.
On this question, it is necessary to familiarize ourselves
with those forms of Judaism that are strongly committed to Simple Monotheism
and reject Complex Monotheistic concepts of God. The theological perspectives
of Moses Maimonides will provide a sufficient test case.
Maimonides is a significant and influential figure in the
formation of the modern Jewish understanding of the Law (Torah.) He lived
between 1135 and 1204 AD.
Maimonides – Moses
ben-Maimon, called Maimonides and also known as…Rambam…
Hebrew acronym for "Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon"), was a preeminent medieval Jewish philosopher
and one of the greatest Torah scholars and physicians of the Middle Ages. He
was born in Córdoba, Spain
on Passover Eve, 1135, and died in Egypt
(or Tiberias) on 20th Tevet, December
12, 1204.[6] He was a rabbi, physician and philosopher in Morocco
and Egypt. –
wikipedia.org
Moses Maimonides –
Maimonides (Moses ben Maimon, 1135–1204),
a native of Spain,
is incontestably the greatest name in Jewish medieval
philosophy, but his reputation is not derived from any outstanding
originality in philosophical thought. Rather, the distinction of Maimonides, who is also the most eminent codifier of
Jewish religious law, is to be found in the vast scope of his attempt, in the Dalalat al-ha'irin (Guide of the Perplexed ),
to safeguard both religious law and philosophy (the public communication of
which would be destructive of the law) without suppressing the issues between
them and without trying to impose, on the theoretical plane, a final,
universally binding solution of the conflict. – Encyclopedia Britannica
Moses Maimonides –
or Moses ben Maimon, 1135–1204, Jewish scholar, physician, and philosopher,
the most influential Jewish thinker of the Middle Ages, b. Córdoba, Spain,
d. Cairo. He is sometimes called Rambam, from the initials of the words Rabbi
Moses ben Maimon. His organization and
systemization of the corpus of Jewish oral law, is called the Mishneh Torah [the Torah Reviewed] and
is still used as a standard compilation
of halakah. He also produced a number of
discourses on legal topics; a work on logic; a treatise on the calendar; and
several medical books, including an important work on hygiene. His great philosophical work is the Moreh Nevukhim (tr., Guide for the Perplexed, 1963), written
in Arabic, in which he explained the esoteric ideas in the Bible, formulated
a proof of the existence of God, expounded the principles of creation, and elucidated baffling metaphysical and
religious problems. The Moreh
Nevukhim, which reflects Maimonides’s great knowledge of Aristotelian
philosophy, dominated Jewish thought and
exerted a profound influence upon Christian thinkers. – Columbia Encyclopedia
H. Polano’s English translation of selections of the Talmud
has the following to say about the significance of Moses Maimonides with
respect to modern Judaism.
“Moses Maimonides,
one of the greatest of Jewish commentators, and a descendant of Rabbi Judah,
the compiler of the Mishnah, was
born in the city of Cordova, Spain,
March 30th, 1135.” – H.
Polano, the Talmud, p. 233
“Maimonides
simplified the Talmudic rules and traditions, making them clear to the
comprehension of all. He was the author
of an exhaustive work, entitled ‘Mishne Torah,’ the ‘Second Law,’ which was
eagerly copied and extensively
disseminated.” – H. Polano, the
Talmud, p. 236
The theological perspective of Maimonides constitutes a
clear commitment to the correctness of Simple Monotheism and the rejection of
Complex Monotheism. For Maimonides, the God of Israel was an incorporeal being
who was a simple, indivisible unity.
Maimonides –
Philosophy – In this theology, one attempts to describe God through negative
attributes. For instance…We should not
say that "God is One," but we can state that
"there is no multiplicity in God's being." – wikipedia.org
…Maimonides attempts
to deny the corporeality of the biblical and rabbinic God. – Benjamin D.
Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 136
The most extreme antifluidity positions are those of the
philosophers, especially Saadia and Maimonides,
who insists that monotheism is incompatible with a belief in divine embodiment,
as Moseh Halbertal and Avishai Margalit point out: “For Maimonides the belief in the oneness of God meant not merely denial
of polytheism, which is obvious, but, more important, denial of the perception
of God himself as a complex being. The description of God as one according to
Maimonides refers mainly to his own ‘simple unity.’ ‘Multiplicity’ is therefore
not only the belief in many gods, it is also an error
that concerns God himself, which may be called ‘internal polytheism.’ The
strict demand on unity implies a rejection of corporeality, which assumes that
God is divisible like any other body.” 79 – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and
the World of Ancient Israel, p. 141-142
Yochanan Muffs points
to a tension that pervades and nourishes the entire Hebrew Bible. He argues
that “the tension between the concept of
transcendence, which insists the Deity is not to be identified with the physis of the world, and radical
personalism, which insists the Deity is anthropomorphically involved in the
world, is the very source of the creative dynamism of biblical
anthropomorphism.”…(In its most extreme
forms, the tension produces a line of reasoning that leads to highly abstract
conceptions of God that deny not only divine embodiment but even divine
selfhood [e.g., in the philosophical work of Maimonides or, quite
differently, in the thought of Mordecai Kaplan].) – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 140-141
Endnote 41: …For
Maimonides, forging physical images of God represented a mistake or an
illusion; it would constitute an attempt to portray physically something that
has no physical existence. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 178-179
Let us now examine Maimonides’ concept of God using the same
factors that are used to suggest that Jewish Complex Monotheism is the result
of blending Judaism with Greek philosophical religion.
For review, four factors were relevant to the question of
whether forms of Complex Monotheism within Jewish and Christian sects were the
result of borrowing ideas from Hellenistic philosophical ideas of God. The
first factor was similarity. Did the particular form of Judaism have critical
concepts in common with Greek philosophy? The second factor was cultural
contact. Did Judaism have either direct or indirect communication with Greek
culture creating an opportunity for influence or borrowing? The third factor
was chronological. Did the Greek philosophical idea of God predate the Jewish
view under consideration? The fourth factor was competing sources. Are there
other potential, maybe even more likely, sources from which the critical
concepts might have been inherited besides Greek philosophy?
As it turns out, Moses Maimonides’ conception of God also satisfied
at least the first three of these criteria. For the sake of brevity, we will
start with the chronological factor.
First, it is clear that Greek philosophical religion
preceded Maimonides. Maimonides is a twelfth century AD figure. Greek
philosophical schools such as Platonic religions had been in existence since
the fourth century BC. Neo-Platonism’s re-articulation of Platonic religion
occurred in the third century AD.
Second, it is clear that Maimonides was not only aware of
Greek philosophical theology, but an ardent admirer of it. Because of his
affinity for Platonic philosophy, Maimonides may be considered a Jewish
scholastic. The Scholastics were medieval, Christian philosophers and religious
thinkers who sought to reconcile theology with Greek philosophy, especially
Platonic philosophies including those of Plato’s student Aristotle.
Scholasticism – As
a program, scholasticism was part of an attempt at harmonization on the part of
medieval Christians thinkers: to harmonize the various "authorities"
of their own tradition, and to reconcile
Christian theology with classical and late antique philosophy,
especially that of Aristotle but also of neoplatonism.[2]
– wikipedia.org
Maimonides –
Philosophy – Through the Guide for
the Perplexed (which was initially written in Arabic as Delalatul Ha'yreen)
and the philosophical introductions to sections of his commentaries on the
Mishna, Maimonides exerted an important
influence on the Scholastic philosophers, especially on Albert the Great,
Thomas Aquinas, and Duns Scotus. He was
himself a Jewish Scholastic. Educated more by reading the works of Arab
Muslim philosophers than by personal contact with Arabian teachers, he acquired an intimate acquaintance not
only with Arab Muslim philosophy, but with the doctrines of Aristotle.
Maimonides strove to reconcile Aristotelian philosophy and science with the
teachings of the Torah…The principle, which inspired his philosophical
activity, was identical with the fundamental tenet of Scholasticism: there
can be no contradiction between the truths which God has revealed, and the
findings of the human mind in science and philosophy. Maimonides primarily
relied upon the science of Aristotle and the teachings of the Talmud, commonly
finding basis in the former for the latter. In some important points, however,
he departed from the teaching of Aristotle; for instance, he rejected the
Aristotelian doctrine that God's provident care extends only to humanity, and
not to the individual. Maimonides was
led by his admiration for the neo-Platonic commentators to maintain many doctrines which the
Scholastics could not accept…. – wikipedia.org
“Hebrew literature, The
period of retrenchment, 1200–1750, Hebrew culture in western Europe – The
appearance in 1200 of the Hebrew version, translated from Arabic, of Moses Maimonides’ Moreh Nevukhim (1851–85;
The Guide of the Perplexed), which applied Neoplatonic and Aristotelian
philosophy to biblical and rabbinic theology, provoked orthodox circles
into opposition to all secular studies. As
a result of Maimonides’ work, there was a return to Neoplatonist mysticism in
a form known as Kabbala. - Britannica.com
“biblical literature…The development of biblical
exegesis and hermeneutics in Judaism – …Sa’adia ben Joseph (882–942), who
was the gaon, or head, of the Sura academy in Babylonia…”
– britannica.com
“Sa’adia ben Joseph
– (born 882, Dilaz, in al-Fayyūm, Egypt—died September 942, Sura,
Babylonia), Jewish exegete, philosopher,
and polemicist whose influence on Jewish literary and communal activities
made him one of the most important
Jewish scholars of his time…The years that followed turned out to be the
brightest in Sa’adia’s literary career. During these years he composed his
major philosophical work, Kitāb al-amānāt wa
al-itiqādāt. The objective of
this work was the harmonization of revelation and reason. In structure and
content it displays a definite influence of Greek philosophy and of the
theology of the Mu’tazilī, the rationalist sect of Islām.” –
britannica.com
Not only did Greek philosophy precede Maimonides, but
Maimonides avidly sought to reconcile Jewish theology with the ideas of Greek
philosophy, including Neo-Platonism. It should be no wonder then that a
comparison of Greek philosophy and Maimonides’ view also satisfies the factor of
conceptual similarity.
Both Maimonides and Greek philosophy emphasize the
incorporeal, immaterial nature of God as well as his simple, indivisible unity.
These two important concepts (arguably the most defining components of the
Greek philosophical view of God) are rejected by early forms of Jewish and
Christian Complex Monotheism which held that God was embodied and manifest as
more than one simultaneously-existing, divine figure.
Maimonides was led by
his admiration for the neo-Platonic commentators to maintain many doctrines which the Scholastics could not accept….
In this theology, one attempts to describe God through negative attributes. For instance…We should not say that
"God is One," but we can state that
"there is no multiplicity in God's being." – wikipedia.org
This relationship between Maimonides’ conception of the Jewish
God and the Greek philosophical concept of God is not a novel discovery.
Furthermore, the correspondence between medieval Jewish conceptions of God and
Greek philosophy is further compounded by the medieval, Jewish concept of the
shekhinah.
We have seen that Greek philosophy thought of God as
indivisible and incorporeal. And we have also seen that Greek philosophy’s
commitment to the indivisibility of God did not prohibit the existence of
hypostases, which emanate from the One, are closely associated with the One (in
proximity and likeness), and functioned as conceptual intermediaries between
the One and the physical universe.
Not only did certain medieval Jewish philosophers such as
Maimonides’ share the Greek philosophical conception of God as indivisible and
incorporeal, but the conception of the shekhinah offered by rabbinic and
medieval Judaism (2nd century AD through 12th century AD) also bears
similarities to the Platonic conception of divine emanations. Within rabbinic
and medieval Jewish thought, the shekhinah is discussed in ways that include
the idea of a divine, hypostatic manifestation that is God and yet can be
distinguished from God.
Shekhinah –
Shekhinah (Heb., ‘dwelling’). The divine
presence as described in Jewish literature. The Shekhinah is sometimes used to
refer to God himself, but generally it signifies God's presence in this world. It
is frequently associated with light. Later
Jewish philosophers were concerned to avoid anthropomorphism and therefore
tended to maintain that the Shekhinah does not refer to God himself, but is an
independent created intermediary. Thus Saadiah Gaon argued that the Shekhinah
is the same as the glory of God which was seen by the prophets in visions.
– The Concise Oxford Dictionary of
World Religions
Rabbinic Literature:
Multiple Conceptions of Shekhinah – Several
scholars note the importance of a passage in a late rabbinic text, Midrash Mishle to Proverbs 22.29, in
which the shekhinah stands before God
and pleads, successfully, on behalf of King Solomon (who would otherwise
have been denied a share in the world-to-come). As Peter Schafer notes in his discussion of this text, “In depicting
the Shekhinah as standing up before God and speaking to Him, the Midrash goes
very far in its dramatic and bold personification. As a matter of fact, it
draws a clear distinction between God and His Shekhinah: the Shekhinah has
become a “persona” different and distinct from God.” This case is not unique;
there are other late midrashic texts in which the shekhinah achieves a measure of distinction from God. 19 Yet this distinction is extremely loose or
fleeting. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and
the World of Ancient Israel, p. 126-128
Endnote 8: On the relationship between the terms, see
further Goldberg, Untersuchungen,
468-70, who points out that the rabbis use shekhinah
in place of kabod only when the
latter term is used in the sense of the Godhead that has entered the sanctuary
or that reveals itself – that is, in the concrete sense that the term has in priestly
texts in the Hebrew Bible. The
identification of the rabbinic shekhinah
with the biblical kabod is already
suggested by medieval Jewish philosophers who, however, regarded it as a
created being separate from God. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 252
Endnote 22: Already medieval
Jewish philosophers debate whether the shekhinah
is identical with God or a created being; – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient
Israel, p. 254
There may be perhaps some shifting of the Jewish concept of
the shekhinah between the writings of the earlier rabbinic period and the
writings of medieval, Jewish philosophers. However, when taken together it is
apparent that rabbinic and Jewish medieval concepts of God included an
indivisible God along with what was often understood as a separate, created,
intermediary hypostasis between God and the world.
As another example of blending between Jewish and Greek
thought on the topic of God, Segal cites the first-century Jewish philosopher Philo.
As Segal explains, Philo demonstrates the conceptual overlap suggested between
Greek philosophy’s idea of divine emanations (like the Logos) and rabbinic and
medieval Jewish view of the shekhinah.
For Philo, “place” is
an important concept which may have three different meanings…The second
corresponds to the logos, the
hypostasized intelligence of God, and the third corresponds to God himself.
Although he defines the terms philosophically, Philo’s terminology bears striking
resemblance to the early rabbinic designation MQWM for God. His concept of logos is similar to the rabbinic
doctrine of God’s Shekhinah, each of
which is often used to explain the same difficult scriptures. When “place”
refers to something divine revealed to man, as it did in the passage above, for
Philo, it may mean God’s image, His logos.
It is, in fact, impossible for man to see God and live (Ex. 33:20). However,
Moses and the elders see the image of God or everything “that is behind me”
(Ex. 33:23). These are equivalent to the logos
which as a second God can also be given the title “Lord” (kyrios = YHWH.) This doctrine, which allows that the “place” is a
divine creature called Lord, cannot strike us as innocent… – Alan F. Segal,
Two Powers in Heaven, p. 161-162
When we include the Jewish concept of the shekhinah within
our discussion, we can see an even greater degree of correspondence between
Platonic philosophy and medieval Jewish thought about God. Both medieval Jewish
thought and Greek philosophy understood God to be incorporeal. And despite
their commitments to the indivisible nature of God, both allowed for hypostatic
emanations of God’s presence that were somehow uniquely associated with God and
yet also distinct beings from God. For the Greeks, this was the Divine Mind (or
Logos) and the World Soul. For the Jews, this was the shekhina.
Both Jewish Complex Monotheism and Jewish Simple Monotheism share
an insistence that there is only one Supreme Being, an idea also shared by
Greek philosophy. But while Complex Monotheism shared the term Logos and perhaps the concept of
multiple divine hypostases with the Greeks, it rejected the central Greek
insistence on God’s absolute indivisibility and placed these hypostases within
rather than outside the Supreme Being as the Greeks had done. It also rejected
the Greek denial of God’s embodiment or corporeality. In contrast, the Jewish
Simple Monotheism of the medieval period embraced both of these central Greek
tenets.
In this sense, the similarities between Complex Monotheism
and Greek philosophy emerge as superficial, involving shared terminology
applied to diametrically opposed concepts. On the other hand, the similarities
between Simple Monotheism and Greek philosophy are not superficial, but substantial,
entailing the very core of the conceptual model. Consequently, if the charge is
raised that certain outgrowths of Jewish thought have been influenced by Greek
philosophy, it would appear that the evidence against the Simple Monotheism of
the rabbinic and particularly medieval Judaism is far more incriminating than
the merely skin-deep case against Complex Monotheism.
There are two ways that we can contrast Judeo-Christian
Complex Monotheism with medieval, Jewish Simple Monotheism in regards to their
potential incorporation of Greek philosophical religion.
First, while Judeo-Christian Complex Monotheism may bear
some external resemblance to the terminology used with regard to divine beings
in Greek philosophy, it rejects other key components of the Greek philosophical
view including God’s incorporeal nature and his utter indivisibility. If
similarity is used to signal adoption of an idea from Greek philosophical
religion, then dissimilarity signals an aversion to adopting ideas from Greek
philosophical religion. Therefore, these dissimilarities demonstrate that
Jewish and Christian Complex Monotheism exhibits at least some sign of
ideological reticence and resistance to the incorporation of Greek
philosophical teachings about God.
The same cannot be said of medieval Jewish thinkers such as
Maimonides who have an expressed attraction to and admiration for Greek
philosophy and whose theologies do not express any significant conceptual
departure from it. The rabbinic and medieval discussion of concepts such as the
shekhinah make it difficult to distinguish their view from Greek philosophy’s
belief in both an indivisible, incorporeal God and divine, hypostatic emanations
of that God.
Second, it is clear that the great, medieval Jewish
philosophers like Maimonides highly regarded Greek thought, including
Neo-Platonism. This admiration serves to provide a strong explanation for the
number of apparent correspondences between the medieval Jewish view of God and
the Greek philosophical view of God. In other words, the medieval Jewish view
is similar to the Greek philosophical view of God because leading medieval,
Jewish theologians favored Greek philosophical
religious concepts. This preference led them to incorporate Greek philosophical
concepts into their understanding of Jewish religious teaching.
In this respect, the preference for Greek philosophy among
medieval Jewish theologians provides yet another difference from Complex
Monotheism within ancient Jewish sects. Medieval Jewish theologians like
Maimonides exhibit a clear fondness for Greek philosophy. However, the earliest
forms of Complex Monotheism within Jewish sects (such as the New Testament
followers of Jesus) do not include the same inclination towards Gentile
philosophy.
On the contrary, New Testament texts articulate an aversion
to Greek philosophy and Hellenistic wisdom. When considering this, it is
important to keep in mind two facts. The New Testament texts were written by
Jews in the first century AD. And these texts clearly display a form of Complex
Monotheism.
At the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, the two major sects of
Judaism were the Pharisees and the Sadducees. In contrast to the Pharisees, the
Sadducees were known for having been thoroughly influenced by Greek culture.
Sadducees, In Literature
- Saadducees, if not in name, at
least in their Epicurean views as
opposed to the saints, are depicted also in the Book of Wisdom (i. 16-ii. 22), where the Hellenistic nobility, which
occupied high positions likewise in Alexandria, is addressed. – Jewishencyclopedia.com
Sadducees - They espoused the hellenizing tendencies
of the Asmonean princes in which they were strongly opposed by the Pharisees...
- www.newadvent.org (the Catholic Encyclopeedia)
Sadducee - They came under the influence of Hellenism...
– Encyclopedia Britannica
The New Testament epistle entitled 1 Corinthians was written
by Paul. Paul was trained as a Pharisee.
Saint Paul the
Apostle – Paul was a Greek-speaking Jew from Asia Minor…Although the exact date of his birth
is unknown, he was active as a missionary in the 40s
and 50s of the 1st century ad. From this it may be inferred that he was born
about the same time as Jesus (c. 4 bc) or a little
later. He was converted to faith in
Jesus Christ about ad 33, and he died, probably in Rome, circa ad 62–64. Until about the midpoint
of his life, Paul was a member of the Pharisees, a religious party that emerged
during the later Second Temple period. What little is known about Paul
the Pharisee reflects the character of the Pharisaic movement. Pharisees
believed in life after death, which was one of Paul’s deepest
convictions…Pharisees were very careful students of the Hebrew Bible, and Paul
was able to quote extensively from the Greek translation. – Encyclopedia
Britannica
Acts 21:40
And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with
the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake
unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying, 22:1 Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make
now unto you. 2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to
them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,) 3 I am verily a man which
am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the
feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the
fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
Acts 26:1 Then
Agrippa said unto Paul, Thou art permitted to speak for thyself. Then Paul stretched forth the hand, and
answered for himself: 2 I think myself happy, king Agrippa, because I shall
answer for myself this day before thee touching all the things whereof I am
accused of the Jews: 3 Especially because I know thee to be expert in all
customs and questions which are among the Jews: wherefore I beseech thee to
hear me patiently. 4 My manner of life
from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews; 5 Which knew me from the beginning, if they would
testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.
Philippians 3:5
Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel,
of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
Unlike the Sadducees and their tendency toward Greek
culture, Paul iterates in his first letter to the Corinthians that, in his
understanding, the Christian message was not based on the wisdom of the world.
Here Paul uses the Greek word “sophia” (“wisdom”) to contrast God’s truth with
the wisdom that was available in the Greco-Roman world that surrounded
first-century Judaism.
1 Corinthians 2:1
And I, brethren, when I came to you,
came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom (4678),
declaring unto you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined not to know any
thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. 3 And I was with you in
weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom
(4678), but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: 5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom
(4678) of men, but in the power of God. 6 Howbeit we speak wisdom (4678)
among them that are perfect: yet not
the wisdom (4678) of this world, nor of the
princes of this world, that come to nought:
Later in 1 Corinthians 3, Paul again states that the wisdom
of the Greek world was foolishness to God.
1 Corinthians 3:19
For the wisdom (4678) of this world is
foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own
craftiness.
Like 1 Corinthians, Paul states in Colossians 2 that the
Christian faith is opposed to worldly philosophy (“philosophia,” Strong’s
concordance number 5385.)
Colossians 2:4 And this I say, lest any man should beguile
you with enticing words. 5 For though I be absent
in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order,
and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ. 6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
7 Rooted and built up in him, and
stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with
thanksgiving. 8 Beware lest any man
spoil you through philosophy (5385) and vain deceit, after the tradition of
men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
5385 philosophia
from 5386; TDNT-9:172,1269; n f
AV-philosophy 1; 1
1) love of wisdom
1a) used either of zeal for or skill in
any art or science, any branch of knowledge. Used once in the NT of the
The Greek word Paul uses in Colossians 2:8 (philosophia,
5385) is derived from the Greek word “philosophos” which is used by Paul’s
associate Luke in Acts 17:18 to refer to Greek philosophical schools including
the Epicureans and the Stoics.
Acts 17:18
Then certain philosophers (5386) of the
Epicureans, and of the Stoics, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other
some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto
them Jesus, and the resurrection.
5386 philosophos
from 5384 and 4680;
TDNT-9:172,1269; n m
AV-philosopher 1; 1
These New Testament passages provide evidence that that Jews
like Paul who were trained in the Pharisaic traditions in the climate of
first-century Judaism objected to Greek philosophy. (Although rabbinic Judaism
traces its origins to the Pharisees, as seen in earlier references to Jewish
Scholasticism, by the medieval period the disposition regarding Greek
philosophy had become one of admiration.) Yet despite their repudiation of
Greek philosophy, New Testament Jews like Paul express no inherent aversion to
Complex Monotheism. And their theologies possess clear distinction from Greek
philosophical ideas about God. (For New Testament Jews, God was embodied and he
was not indivisible. Rather he was one God who was more than one person:
Father, Word, and Holy Spirit.)
More importantly, as we can see from the New Testament
quotes above, the leading New Testament Jewish figures and authors like Paul were
familiar with Greek philosophy. Consequently, they would have been aware of any
similarities between their form of Jewish Complex Monotheism and Greek
philosophy. Yet they confidently proclaimed that their religious ideas were not
based on Greek philosophy and the theological ideas of the Gentile world at a
time when critics could easily and publicly have refuted this claim. We can
contrast this with the paramount medieval Jewish thinker, Maimonides. Unlike the
Jewish, Complex Monotheist Paul, Maimonides lived and wrote over a millennium
removed from the Pharisees of the New Testament period. Additionally,
Maimonides exhibits a clear preference for Greek philosophical thought. And he expresses
ideas that are not just superficially similar to Greek philosophy but which are
actually conceptually similar to Greek philosophy on a fundamental level.
(Interestingly enough, due to the strong correspondence
between the conceptions of God in Platonism and medieval Jewish philosophers
who exhibit a high regard for Greek thought, it is entirely reasonable to
identify such medieval Jewish views as Hellenistic in character despite their
distance in time. Moreover, any form of Judaism which follows the Jewish,
medieval, philosophical conceptions of God can also be identified as
Hellenistic Judaism. Such an ideological identification would be at least as
justified, perhaps even more so, than the common application of Hellenistic
Judaism to forms of Judaism expressing Complex Monotheism.)
For these reasons, superficial similarities might initially suggest
that Jewish and Christian Complex Monotheism borrowed from Greek philosophy based
on shared terminology, a closer inspection reveals that the terms were defined
and applied in diametrically different ways by these groups. Furthermore, a deeper
investigation shows that it is far more reasonable to suggest that the Simple
Monotheism of medieval Judaism was heavily influenced in its view of God by
Greek philosophy.
To be fair, those who have an appreciation for Maimonides’
view may defend the medieval Jewish views by claiming that, despite its
conceptual similarities with Greek philosophy, the medieval Jewish concept of
God didn’t come from the Greeks. To the contrary, it may be insisted that the
Simple Monotheism exhibited by medieval Jewish theology are the continuation of
longstanding, ancient traditions which were truly Jewish, and not Greek in origin.
This explanation is worth examining and considering. However, to be fair, the
same defense could be raised for the far more superficial similarities found
within Jewish Complex Monotheism and Greek philosophy.
In order to further determine if borrowing occurred and
exactly who was borrowing from who, we need to include
additional factors in our examination. In this regard, the best way to
determine which Jewish view of God is most authentically Jewish,
is to identify which Jewish views of God existed prior to the appearance of
similar concepts with Greek philosophy. This historical investigation will
allow us to determine which aspects of Greek philosophy were blended into
Jewish views to create a novel Jewish view (and alternately which aspects of
Greek philosophy simply mirrored or perhaps borrowed views that were already present
in earlier Judaism). In other words, such an investigation will allow us to
determine which Jewish view (Simple Monotheism or Complex Monotheism) is a
result of incorporating Platonic philosophies.