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
Eliminating Potential Sources of Complex Monotheism
In our History of
Religions and Religious Texts Chart, we listed various religious traditions
that predated the presence of Complex Monotheism in first century Jewish sects
(such as Christians.) Prominent potentials sources for the development of
“Trinitarian-like” ideas included Hinduism, Greek philosophical religion, and
Gnosticism. These religious traditions have been suggested as possible
contributors to Complex Monotheism. A further investigation of the religious
ideas will allow us to eliminate some of these religious traditions from
consideration as the source of “Trinitarian-like” ideas.
Within later Hindu religion, a somewhat “Trinitarian-like”
concept emerged called the Trimurti. The Trimurti held that the Hindu gods
Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva were grouped together and considered to be
manifestations of a single god. However, text sources displaying this
conception date to the fourth and fifth centuries AD (that is, after 300 CE.)
trimurti
– trimurti, (Sanskrit: “three forms”) in Hinduism, triad of the three great gods
Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. Scholars consider the doctrine of the trimurti to be an attempt to reconcile different approaches
to the divine with each other and with the philosophical doctrine of ultimate
reality (brahma). The doctrine was given
classical expression in Kalidasa’s poem Kumarasambhava (“Birth of the War God”;
c. 4th–5th century ce). – Encyclopedia Britannica
Trimurti – Evolution
of the concept – The Puranic period
(c. CE 300-1200) saw the rise of
post-Vedic religion and the evolution of what R. C. Majumdar calls
"synthetic Hinduism."[6] This period had no homogeneity, and
included orthodox Brahmanism in the form of remnants of older Vedic faith
traditions, along with different sectarian religions, notably Shaivism,
Vaishnavism, and Shaktism that were within the orthodox fold yet still formed
distinct entities.[7] One of the important traits of this period is a spirit of
harmony between orthodox and sectarian forms.[8] Regarding this spirit of
reconciliation, R. C. Majumdar says
that: “Its most notable expression is to be found in the theological conception
of the Trimūrti, i.e., the manifestation of the supreme God in three forms
of Brahmā, Viṣṇu, and Śiva.... But
the attempt cannot be regarded as a great success, for Brahmā never gained
an ascendancy comparable to that of Śiva or Viṣṇu, and the
different sects often conceived the Trimūrti as really the three
manifestations of their own sectarian god, whom they regarded as Brahman or
Absolute.[9]” Maurice Winternitz notes
that there are very few places in Indian literature where the Trimurti is
mentioned.[10] The identification of Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahma as one being is
strongly emphasized in the Kūrma Purana, where in 1.6 Brahman is
worshipped as Trimurti; 1.9
especially inculcates the unity of the three gods, and 1.26 relates to the same
theme.[11] Historian A. L. Basham
explains the background of the trimurti as follows, noting Western interest in
the idea of trinity: “Early western students of Hinduism were impressed by the
parallel between the Hindu trinity and that of Christianity. In fact the
parallel is not very close, and the Hindu trinity, unlike the Holy Trinity
of Christianity, never really "caught on". All Hindu trinitarianism
tended to favor one god of the three; thus, from the context it is clear that
Kālidāsa's hymn to the Trimūrti is really addressed to
Brahmā, here looked on as the high god. The Trimūrti was in fact an artificial growth, and had little real
influence.[12]” – wikipedia.org
While parallels may be drawn the New Testament Christian
concept of the Trinity, we must be clear that the Hindu Trimurti post-dated the
New Testament and the Christian Trinitarian concept. It is therefore impossible
to suggest that the New Testament Christian concept was influenced by the Hindu
religion with regard to its conception of God. Any line of influence would have
to be from Christianity to Hinduism because early Christian evangelists (such
as Thomas the Apostle) were known to have been to India
prior to the onset of the fourth century AD which is when we find the earliest
emergence of the Hindu concept of the Trimurti.
Thomas the Apostle – Thomas
the Apostle, also called Doubting Thomas or Didymus (meaning "Twin")
was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus.
He is best known for disbelieving Jesus' resurrection when first told of it,
then proclaiming "My Lord and my God" on seeing Jesus in John 20:28. He was perhaps the only Apostle who went
outside the Roman Empire to preach the Gospel. He is also believed
to have crossed the largest area, which includes the Parthian Empire and
India.[5]…St. Thomas is traditionally believed to have sailed to India in 52 AD
to spread the Christian faith among the
Cochin Jews, the Jewish diaspora present in Kerala at the time. He is
supposed to have landed at the ancient port
of Muziris (which became extinct in
1341 AD due to a massive flood which realigned the coasts) near Kodungalloor. He then went to Palayoor (near present-day
Guruvayoor), which was a Hindu priestly community at that time. He left
Palayoor in AD 52 for the southern part of what is now Kerala State, where he established the Ezharappallikal, or "Seven and Half Churches". – wikipedia.org
Thomas
– St Thomas an Apostle, known as
Doubting Thomas. He earned his nickname by saying that he would not
believe that Christ had risen again until he had seen and touched his wounds
(John 20:24–9). According to tradition he preached in SW India. – The Oxford
Dictionary of Phrase and Fable
Saint Thomas – Saint
Thomas one of the Twelve Apostles, called Didymus. According to John, he
refused to believe in the resurrection until he saw Jesus' wounds; hence the
expression "doubting Thomas." John 11.16; 14.5;
20.24-29; 21.2. By tradition he
is said to have gone as missionary to Parthia or India. The Syriac-rite Christians of Malabar, India, whose church was established by the 3d
cent., claim St.
Thomas as
their founder. – Columbia
Encyclopedia
Saint Thomas –
Saint Thomas, (born , probably Galilee—died
ad 53, Madras, India; Western feast day December 21, feast day in Roman and
Syrian Catholic churches July 3, in the Greek church October 6), one of the Twelve Apostles. His name in
Aramaic (Teʾoma) and Greek (Didymos) means “twin”; John 11:16 identifies
him as “Thomas, called the Twin.” He is called Judas Thomas (i.e., Judas the
Twin) by the Syrians...Thomas’ subsequent history is uncertain. According to the 4th-century Ecclesiastical
History of Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, he
evangelized Parthia (modern Khorāsān). Later Christian tradition says Thomas
extended his apostolate into India, where he is recognized as the founder of
the Church of the Syrian Malabar Christians, or Christians of St. Thomas. – Encyclopedia Britannica
Besides the Trimurti, Hinduism also has developed a
conception of a single God manifesting himself as different persons. However,
this Hindu concept (called an avatar) cannot be responsible for potentially
similar ideas within Hebrew Complex Monotheism for several reasons. First, evidence
of avatars as manifestations of a god within Hinduism cannot be traced prior to
the 5th century BC (400’s BC) at the earliest in the work of Panini, the
Sanskrit grammarian. The Vedas do not include the term. And a clear
presentation of the doctrine does not appear until more recent texts such as
the Bhagavad Gita which dates to around 200 BC. These dates show that the Hindu
concept of an avatar comes long after the writing of the Hebrew Bible. If the
Hebrew Bible displays a belief in one God who is manifest in more than one
hypostatic person at the same time, then these late-dating Hindu ideas cannot
be the source of Complex Monotheism in Jewish traditions.
Second, there isn’t a great deal of discussion of one god
having multiple avatars at the same time. The ability of the God to exist as
more than one person at the same time is a critical component of Complex
Monotheistic conceptions of god, particularly as Sommer defines this idea. In
Hinduism, an avatar simply refers to an earthly appearance of a particular god
at a particular time. It is not apparent that more than one such appearance
existed at the same time. There is nothing inherent to the avatar concept that
relates to the critical issue of the multiplicity of divine personhood. Rather,
an avatar is simpy a singular descent of the Hindu god to be present on earth.
avatar – avatar, Sanskrit avatāra (“descent”), in Hinduism, the incarnation of a deity in
human or animal form to counteract some particular evil in the world. The term usually refers to these 10
appearances of Vishnu: Matsya (fish), Kurma (tortoise), Varaha (boar),
Narasimha (half man, half lion), Vamana (dwarf), Parashurama (Rama with the
axe), Rama (hero of the Ramayana epic), Krishna (the divine cowherd), Buddha,
and Kalkin (the incarnation yet to come). The
number of Vishnu’s avatars is sometimes extended or their identities
changed, according to local preferences. Thus,
Krishna is in some areas elevated to the rank of a
deity and his half brother, Balarama, included as an avatar. One formulation of the doctrine is given in
the religious poem the Bhagavadgita when charioteer Lord Krishna tells Arjuna:
“Whenever there is a decline of righteousness and rise of unrighteousness then
I send forth Myself. For the protection of the
good, for the destruction of the wicked, and for the establishment of
righteousness, I come into being from age to age.” – Encyclopedia Britannica
avatar – avatar
In Hinduism, an incarnation of a god (especially Vishnu) in human or animal
form that appears on Earth to combat evil and restore virtue. In Hindu tradition, there have been nine
incarnations of Vishnu and a tenth is yet to come: these include Buddha, Krishna,
and Rama. – World Encyclopedia
avatar – In
Hinduism, an avatar, Hindustani: Sanskrit for "descent" [viz.,
from heaven to earth]) is a deliberate
descent of a deity from heaven to earth, or a descent of the Supreme Being
(i.e., Vishnu for Vaishnavites) and is mostly translated into English as
"incarnation", but more
accurately as "appearance" or "manifestation".[1][2] The
term is most often associated with Vishnu, though it has also come to be
associated with other deities.[3] Varying
lists of avatars of Vishnu appear in Hindu scriptures, including the ten
Dashavatara of the Garuda Purana and the twenty-two avatars in the Bhagavata
Purana, though the latter adds that the incarnations of Vishnu are
innumerable.[4] The avatars of Vishnu
are a primary component of Vaishnavism. An early reference to avatar, and to
avatar doctrine, is in the Bhagavad Gita.[5] Shiva and Ganesha are also
described as descending in the form of avatars....The Sanskrit noun
avatāra is derived from the verbal root tṝ
"to cross over", joined with the prefix ava "off , away ,
down". The word doesn't occur in
the Vedas, but is recorded in Pāṇini (3.3.120). Avatāra was
initially used to describe different deities, then around the 6th century CE it began to be used primarily to describe the
manifestations of Vishnu.[7] While earlier texts mention deities taking on
different forms, the Bhagavad Gita (4.5-9) is the first text to discuss the
doctrine associated with the term even though the word avatāra itself is
not mentioned.[8] The common
translation "incarnation" due to its christological implications is
somewhat misleading as the concept of avatar corresponds more closely to the
view of Docetism in Christian theology, as different from the idea of God 'in
the flesh' in mainstream Christology.[9][10] – wikipedia.org
Panini – Pāṇini; a patronymic meaning
"descendant of Paṇi") was an Ancient Indian Sanskrit grammarian
from Pushkalavati, Gandhara (modern day Charsadda,
Pakistan) (fl. 4th century BC[1][2])...Nothing
definite is known about Pāṇini's life, not even the century he
lived in. The scholarly mainstream
favours a 4th century BC floruit, corresponding to Pushkalavati, Gandhara.
Contemporary to the Nanda Dynasty ruling the Gangetic plain, but a 5th or even
late 6th century BC date cannot be ruled out with certainty. – wikipedia.org
Panini – Panini , fl. c.400 BC, Indian grammarian. – Columbia
Encyclopedia
Indian philosophy
– Pāṇini, a 5th-century-bc grammarian… – Encyclopedia Britannica
Third, an avatar was not the reality of the god, but was
more of an illusion, as indicated above in the reference to Docetism.
Therefore, like the concept of Trimurti, the Hindu concept of an avatar cannot
be historically responsible for the presence of Complex Monotheistic concepts
within ancient Judaism or Christianity for reasons related to conceptual
dissimilarities and historical chronology.
Docetism – In
Christianity, docetism (from the Greek δοκέω
dokeō, "to seem") is the
belief that Jesus' physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion;
that is, Jesus only seemed to have a
physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure
spirit, and hence could not physically die. This belief treats the sentence
"the Word was made Flesh" (John 1:14)
as merely figurative. Docetism has
historically been regarded as heretical by most Christian theologians.[1][2] –
wikipedia.org
Docetism – Docetism, (from Greek dokein, “to seem”), Christian heresy and one of the earliest
Christian sectarian doctrines, affirming that Christ did not have a real or
natural body during his life on earth but only an apparent or phantom one.
Though its incipient forms are alluded to in the New Testament, such as in the
Letters of John (e.g., 1 John 4:1–3; 2 John 7), Docetism became more fully developed as an important doctrinal position
of Gnosticism, a religious dualist system of belief arising in the 2nd century
ad which held that matter was evil and the spirit good and claimed that
salvation was attained only through esoteric knowledge, or gnosis. The heresy
developed from speculations about the imperfection or essential impurity of
matter. More thoroughgoing Docetists
asserted that Christ was born without any participation of matter and that all
the acts and sufferings of his life, including the Crucifixion, were mere
appearances. They consequently denied Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension
into heaven. Milder Docetists attributed to Christ an ethereal and heavenly
body but disagreed on the degree to which it shared the real actions and
sufferings of Christ. Docetism was
attacked by all opponents of Gnosticism, especially by Bishop Ignatius of Antioch in the 2nd century. – Encyclopedia
Britannica
Docetism – Docetism
[Gr.,=to appear], early
heretical trend in Christian thought. Docetists claimed that Christ was a mere
phantasm who only seemed to live and suffer. A similar tendency to deny Jesus'
humanity appeared in the teachings of Simon Magus, Marcion, Gnosticism, and
certain phases of monarchianism. – Columbia
Encyclopedia
These historical details show that Hinduism cannot be
reasonably concluded to be the source of Complex Monotheistic concepts within
ancient Judaism or Christianity. Any supposed similarities between Hinduism and
Judeo-Christianity are either conceptual dissimilar or the Hindu concepts are
not known to exist until after the presence of Complex Monontheism within
Judeo-Christian sects.
As with Hinduism, we can also eliminate Gnosticism from our
list of potential sources for Complex Monotheism within Judeo-Christian sects
of the first century AD (and earlier.) The first reason to eliminate Gnosticism
is that the text sources for Gnosticism (such as the Apocryphon of John and the
Pistis Sophia) all emerge after the earliest Christian writings (including the
New Testament.)
“Gnosticism – The
dualistic phase was reached after the expansion of Gnosticism into the
Hellenistic world and under the influence of Platonic philosophy, from which
was borrowed the doctrine that a lower demiurge was responsible for the
creation of this world. This teaching is to be found in the Apocryphon
of John (early 2nd century) and other
documents of popular gnosis discovered
near Naj' Hammadi in upper Egypt in the 1940s and in the Pistis Sophia, a
3rd-century Gnostic work in Coptic belonging to the same school. The learned gnosis of Valentinus, Basilides (qq.v.), and their schools presupposes this popular gnosis, which, however, has been thoroughly Hellenized and Christianized and sometimes comes very
near to the views of Middle Platonism.” – Britannica.com
Second, as Segal explains in his book, early rabbinic
reactions to Complex Monotheism show that “Trinitarian-like” ideas (such as
“binitarianism,” one God who is two persons) were not Gnostic. To the contrary,
Gnostic views which in some ways may resemble Judeo-Christian conceptions of
God only emerged after the earlier Jewish and Christian concepts. Additionally,
Complex Monotheism within Gnosticism was defined by a belief that the “Two
Powers” of God were opposed to one another. This is contrasted with earlier
Judeo-Christian ideas in which the persons of God were always and completely
complimentary and cooperative with one another.
But since there is no
uniquely anti-Christian theme in the rabbinic attack, we cannot conclude
that Christians were the only offending group. One may disagree as to whether or when these groups began to compromise
monotheism, which was the force of the rabbinic criticism, since many different
positions within Judaism defended themselves with “two powers” arguments.
But the terminology itself is apt, because it tells us the categories in which
the development of Christianity was seen. It tells us that Christianity was probably one of a number of similar sects. It may
have been unique in that it identified a messianic candidate with the
manlike figure in heaven who was going to judge the world. It may also have
been unique to identify a contemporary rather than a hero of the past with an
angelic being. But the theme was not,
insofar as anyone can prove, the Christian application of a redeemer myth of a
single, Gnostic pre-existent, divine savior who was going to descend to the
earth, save those who received him, and reascend to heaven. Rather Christianity
was one among a plethora of different sects with similar scriptural traditions.
The single Gnostic pattern, if there is
one, seems to be a rather sophisticated re-understanding of the Christian
model. To summarize, the one sectarian movement within Judaism about which we
have considerable evidence is Christianity. There is warrant to believe that
“two powers” heresy was manifested in some kinds of Christianity in the first
century. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers
in Heaven, p. 218
In the midst of this work [The Gospel of Truth] we suddenly
find traditions that associate the name of God with “place” and make the divine
name both a manifestation of God and an independent hypostasis which mediates
revelation. All of this strongly suggests
that various Gnostic ideas ultimately go back to Jewish heterodox traditions where they may or may not have been
heretical in nature. The opposing configuration of deities insure that at least two (perhaps
many) independent deities were present. Therefore it seems clear that the
rabbis would have considered it heretical. When the powers were complementary –
as they seem to be in the apocalyptic literature of the first century, in some
of the Gnostic and much of the Christian literature – the independence of
the second power is a moot question. It
is often possible that the later traditions in heretical literature are the
survivals of heterodox but not necessarily heretical exegesis, brought into new
context. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers
in Heaven, p. 250-251
Therefore the
evidence is that opposition to Christian exegesis preceded opposition to
extreme Gnostic exegesis. In this case, the key factor in separating radical Gnosticism from earlier exegesis
is the negative portrayal of the demiurge. Whenever the second figure in heaven
is negative, we are dealing with a radically Gnostic system. Not until then can
we say definitively that a Gnostic heresy is present. In all the earliest
traditions, the second figure is always seen as a complementary figure,
suggesting the notion of a divine helper who carried God’s name is the basic
concept which developed into heresy, not a redeemed redeemer. – Alan F.
Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 262
The available historical material shows that Gnostic
conceptions of God arose out of existing Judeo-Christian traditions which
preceded them. Therefore, Complex Monotheism within Gnostic schools cannot be
identified as a source of “Trinitarian-like” ideas with Judeo-Christian sects
for the simple reasons that the Judeo-Christian traditions are earlier and
conceptually distinct. (The Gnostic view identified the multiple persons of God
as opposed to one another, while the Jewish and Christian sects understood the
multiple persons of God to be complementary. And the opposing view is seen as a
later outgrowth of the complementary view.)
We can see that Jewish, Christian, and Gnostic groups of the
early centuries AD all express some form of Complex Monotheism. Likewise, their
views are often traced to Greek philosophical thought. Clearly, authors like
Segal and Sommer are right to identify Gnosticism as a blending of Jewish
religious traditions (including Christianity) with Greek philosophical schools.
Gnosticism –
(Greek: gnōsis, knowledge) refers to diverse, syncretistic religious movements in antiquity consisting of various
belief systems generally united in the teaching that humans are divine souls
trapped in a material world created by an imperfect god, the demiurge;…The introduction of a distinct creator god.
This creator god is commonly referred to as the demiourgós, a technical
term literally denoting a public worker, used
in the Platonist tradition… The gnostic demiurge bears resemblance to figures
in Plato's Timaeus and Republic… Like Plato, Gnosticism presents a distinction
between the highest, unknowable "alien God" and the demiurgic
"creator" of the material…In
many Gnostic systems (and heresiologies), God is known as the Monad, the One,
The Absolute…The earliest origins of Gnosticism…include influence from Plato,
Middle Platonism and Neo-Pythagoreanism academies or schools of
thought…incorporated elements of Christianity and Platonism as it
grew...gnostics attempted "an effort towards conciliation, even
affiliation" with late antique philosophy…Gnostics borrow a lot of ideas
and terms from Platonism… - wikipedia.org
"Gnosticism – The origins of the Gnostic
world view have been sought by
scholars in…the allegorical Idealism of the Middle Platonic philosophers…It was only with the rise of Christianity,
however, that Gnostic syncretism
came to full expression…Gnostic revelation is to be distinguished…from Christian revelation, because it is not rooted in history and
transmitted by Scripture. It is rather the intuition of the mystery of the
self…This world is therefore alien to God…The Gnostic sects of the 2nd century made use of Hebrew and Christian
religious writings, employing the allegorical method to extricate
Gnostic meanings from them…The
dualistic phase was reached after the expansion of Gnosticism into the
Hellenistic world and under the influence of Platonic philosophy, from which
was borrowed the doctrine that a lower demiurge was responsible for the
creation of this world… thoroughly
Hellenized and Christianized and sometimes comes very near to the views
of Middle Platonism - Encyclopedia Britannica
In the next section of our study we will examine the
potential influence that Greek philosophy may have had on the development of
Complex Monotheism with Jewish and Christian theology.
Greek Philosophical
Religion, Ancient Semitic Religion, and Complex Monotheism
We have already seen that Gnosticism cannot be the source of
Complex Monotheism in Judeo-Christian traditions. If we want to evaluate
whether Greek philosophical religion contributed to the formation of Complex
Monotheism within Jewish sectarian groups such as the Christians we need to
first become familiar with the Greek philosophical conception of God. We will
examine the Greek philosophical conception of God as it was offered by the
Stoics and the Platonists (including the Neo-Platonists.)
To investigate the possibility that Judeo-Christian Complex
Monotheism resulted from incorporating Greek ideas we must first become
familiar with Greek philosophical religion and its view of God.
Greek Complex Monotheism is expressed through the
philosophical religious schools beginning in the late 5th and early 4th
centuries BC. Prior to this, Greek religion during the Archaic (800-480 BC) and
Classical (circa 480-323 BC) periods was effectively what we may call Simple
Polytheism. In contrast to Simple Monotheism, Simple Polytheists believed in
more than one god. However, like Simple Monotheists, Simple Polytheists
believed that the gods were exactly like men. Each god was only one person. A
single god did not exist as more than one hypostasis (person) at a time.
The first item worth noting is that these dates are too late
for Greek philosophy to be the source of the Complex Monotheism that Sommer
identifies in the earliest portions of the Hebrew bible. This makes Hebrew
Complex Monotheism an independent phenomenon, at least from Greek influence.
And this fact, in turn, presents us with a rather easy choice. If Complex
Monotheism existed in both Hebrew religion and Greek philosophy
prior to Christianity, the fact that Christianity originated as a Jewish sect
in Judaea makes it unlikely and unnecessary to suggest
Greek religion as the source of Christian Complex Monotheism. The Christian
view is much more readily and naturally explicable as originating within
Judaism.
But there is more to be gleaned from the contrast between
Simple Polytheism and Complex Monotheism. And Sommer provides some insight into
these historical facts in his book, The
Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel. As Sommer explains below,
unlike their philosophically-minded, fourth century successors, archaic Greek
theologians did not think that a single God could simultaneously exist as
multiple, divine, hypostatic persons. Rather, only philosophical forms of Greek
religion like Neo-Platonism (in the third century AD) express a view of God in
which one God can be manifest in more than one divine hypostasis. Sommer
contrasts the archaic and classic Greek concept of the divine self with the
concept common to the ancestors and local contemporaries of Biblical Israel
(which, to some extent, was mirrored in Greek philosophy centuries later.)
Unlike their Greek contemporaries, the ancient Semitic
peoples of the early biblical period, thought of God’s self as fluid in a way
that believed a single god could exist as more than one simultaneously-present
self or person.
Religious thinkers of
the ancient Near East viewed gods and goddesses as radically
unlike human beings in ways that may seem baffling to people in the
contemporary Western world. In the eyes of Babylonians, Assyrians,
Canaanites, Arameans, and Egyptians, a
single deity could exist simultaneously in several bodies. Further, a deity could have a fragmented or
ill-defined self, for gods were not fully distinct from each other, at least
not all of the time. (By “a self,” I mean a discrete conscious entity that is
conscious of its discrete nature.) We can contrast this perspective with
another one, which is evident in data from archaic and classical Greece. Greek
culture provides no evidence that multiple objects could contain the presence
of a particular deity at any one moment. Ancient Greek religion furthermore
maintained that deities’ selves were consistently distinct from each other.
Each cultures’
perception of gods’ bodies, then reflects its understanding of gods’ selves.
These two ways of perceiving divinity present us with two types of answers to
the question, “Are deities fundamentally similar to humans or fundamentally
different from them?” For the Greeks, a god, like human being, had a discrete
body and a discrete self. For ancient Near Eastern religions, gods could have
multiple bodies and fluid selves. Greek
religion assumed a basic resemblance between mortals and immortals in this
respect, whereas ancient Near Eastern religions posited a radical contrast
between them. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and
the World of Ancient Israel, p. 12
Polytheism and the
Fluidity of Divine Personhood – What stands behind this conception of the
divine in its distinction from the human? One
might be tempted initially to suggest that what I have described here is
characteristic of (perhaps even the salient characteristic of) a polytheistic
system. Yet counterexamples belie this suggestion. To be sure, the phenomenon I
discuss here can be found in other polytheistic religions of the ancient Near
East. Nearly identical conceptions can be found in the culture of ancient Egypt. Evidence for the fragmentation and
overlap of divine selves is especially strong there…Nevertheless, this sort of fluidity is not prominent in
the polytheistic religion of archaic and classical Greece. Thus we can note a striking contrast
between those polytheistic systems that emphasize fluidity (such as those of Mesopotamia and Canaan) and
those which do not articulate this notion (such as that of ancient Greece). Fluidity in Classical Greece? – Before
moving on to ponder the implications of the conclusion that the polarity
“fluidity vs. nonfluidity” is not the same as the polarity “polytheism vs.
monotheism,” I need to devote some attention to evidence that might appear to
suggest that archaic and classical Greek religion does in fact display notions
of divine fluidity and multiplicity. The
discussion that follows refers to archaic and classical Greek religion. I
do not address Minoan-Mycenaean religion on the one hand or Hellenistic and
late antique religions on the other. In
the latter especially the fluidity model can be detected (for example in
neo-Platonism) – perhaps due to the influence of Near Eastern, especially Egyptian,
religions. (1) In classical mythology, a god might alter his or her bodily
form…but he does not seem to have more than one body... – Benjamin D.
Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World
of Ancient Israel, p. 30
The transformation of divine bodies in classical sources are
therefore different in quantity but not quality from the changes that occur in
a human body. My body today has a shape somewhat different from the shape
it had twenty years ago, and my head is covered with less hair…in classical religion both gods and humans
seem to have a single body that metamorphoses, whether slowly or suddenly,
partially or radically. The deities of the ancient Near East, on the other
hand, differ fundamentally from humans, in that their physical presence can abide
in many locations at once. (2) Various scholars suggest that cult images in
ancient Greece were receptacles or vessels of divine
presence, and not merely aesthetic representations or decorations. In fact,
however, no archaic or classical Greek source I know of describes these statues
as embodiments of divinity, even though the statues in question were regarded
as deeply sacred and even otherworldly. These statues constitute what Mircea Eliade calls a hierophany (an object touched by
divinity), but such a statue is neither a theophany
(the arrival of the god in a particular location) nor an incarnation (the bodily presence of a
diety). It is worthwhile to examine in greater detail the evidence of these
statues and the distinction between hierophany on the one hand and incarnation
or theophany on the other…Rather, the hierophany has been touched by
divinity, so that it has become distinguished from the profane and is able to
connect the mundane to the realm of divine power. A hierophany is not necessarily an incarnation. The ancient Greek
statues in question were merely, the former, whereas the Mesopotamian salmus were the latter….As Walter Burket
plainly puts it, “There are no magical rites to give life to the cult image as
in Babylon.” The classicist Tanja Scheer in particular stresses the importance of
this point: “It is altogether highly conspicuous that Greek sources never
report what took place at the erection of a new divine image. One never
finds indications that a particular and consistent ritual was undertaken during
these occasions or shortly after them. One never finds that some something had
to take place that distinguished itself in any respect from regular religious
festival rites…The absence of rituals of
consecration that could attest to the attempt to bind the divinity in its image
in a lasting manner is a fact that cannot be overstressed.” Scheer further notes that Hellenistic and
especially Roman evidence for such rituals does exist, which, she points out,
has led many scholars to assume that such a ritual also occurred in archaic and
classical Greece. In fact, the consistent absence of any such rituals in the abundant
archaic and classical texts themselves rules out this possibility. –
Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 31-33
In sum, archaic and
classical Greek literature and ritual practice do not articulate a notion of
multiplicity of divine embodiment or fluidity of divine selfhood. As
Jean-Pierre Vernant puts it, “For the
Greeks, the divine world…gathers together a multiplicity of particular
divine figures, with each having its place…In short, each one has an individual
identity. Individual identity has two aspects: a name and a body…Like human beings, the gods have proper
names. Like them too, gods have bodies – that is to say, a set of specific
characteristics that make them recognizable by differentiating them from the
other supernatural Powers with whom they are associated.” As we have seen, one cannot make this statement about the deities of Mesopotamia and Canaan, for
they did not have the same sort of bodies possessed by humans, and they were
not always differentiated from other supernatural powers or deities. The fluid
notions of divinity with which we are concerned are at home in some polytheistic
cultures but not others. The
Conceptual Roots of Fluidity – What we find, then, in the ancient Near Eastern
texts and ceremonies examined here – but not in the texts and ceremonies of
archaic and classical Greece – needs to be explained not by a polarity between
polytheism and monotheism but by a second polarity involving differing
conceptions of divinity. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 35-36
Endnote 84: Similarly, we saw at the end of Chapter 1 that the gods of archaic and classical Greece had nonfluid selves and only a single
body, but this did not render the religion of the Greeks monotheistic.
Archaic and Classical Greek religion did not have a complex
view of a god’s selfhood. Therefore, any contribution the Greeks may have made
to the development of Complex Monotheism came from their philosophical
religion. As we have seen, Greek philosophical religion roughly began after the
Classic Period of Greece with men like Plato and Zeno.
Plato – (born 428/427 bce, Athens, Greece—died 348/347, Athens), Greek philosopher, who with his
teacher Socrates and his student
Aristotle laid the philosophical foundations of Western culture. –
Encyclopedia Britannica
Stoicism –
Stoicism, school of philosophy founded
by Zeno of Citium (in Cyprus)
c.300 BC – Columbia Encyclopedia
Stoicism –
Inspired by the teaching of Socrates and Diogenes of Sinope, Stoicism was founded at Athens by Zeno of Citium c. 300 bc and was influential throughout the Greco-Roman world
until at least ad 200. – Encyclopedia Britannica
It is important to note that forms of Complex Monotheism
that are present in Greek philosophical literature come after the writing of
the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament.) In other words, the religion of the Hebrew
Bible came before the emergence of Complex Monotheism in Greek philosophical
religion. We will return to this important historical fact as we proceed with
our study.
In order to understand any potential role Greek
philosophical religion may have played in the formation of Complex Monotheism
within Judeo-Christian sects, we need to also become familiar with the specific
tenets of Greek philosophical religion itself. We can study the Hellenistic
philosophical religion by looking at the beliefs of major Greek schools of
thought such as Platonism and Stoicism. Important sources of information about
Platonic philosophy include the third century AD formulation of Platonism
called Neo-Platonism.
Platonism and Neo-Platonism both trace their doctrines to
Plato and both are considered to be forms of dynamic pantheism. In Platonic
religion, God was referred to as the One or Monad. From the One (or Monad)
emanated a divine hypostasis identified as the Logos. However, the One itself was understood as a unitary simplicity which
contained no division.
Neoplatonism - The One - The primeval Source of Being is the One and
the Infinite, as opposed to the many and the finite…Neoplatonism may be described as a species of dynamic panentheism.
Directly or indirectly, everything is brought forth by the "One." In
it all things, so far as they have being, are divine, and God is all in all.
- wikipedia.org
Platonism –
Neoplatonism is the modern name given to the form of Platonism developed by
Plotinus in the 3rd century ce…But the
leading ideas in the thought of philosophers who can properly be described as
Neoplatonists seem always to have included the following: 1. There is a plurality of levels of being,
arranged in hierarchical descending order, the last and lowest comprising the
physical universe, which exists in time and space and is perceptible to the
senses. 2. Each level of being is derived from its superior, a derivation
that is not a process in time or space…5. Degrees
of being are also degrees of unity; as one goes down the scale of being there
is greater multiplicity, more separateness, and increasing limitation until the
atomic individualization of the spatiotemporal world is reached. 6. The highest level of being, and through
it all of what in any sense exists, derives from the ultimate principle, which
is absolutely free from determinations and limitations and utterly transcends
any conceivable reality, so that it may be said to be “beyond being.” Because
it has no limitations, it has no
division, attributes, or qualifications; it cannot really be named, or even
properly described as being, but may be called
“the One” to designate its complete simplicity…As far as is known, the
originator of this distinctive kind of Platonism was Plotinus (205–270 ce). – Encyclopedia Britannica
Neoplatonism –
Neoplatonism, ancient mystical
philosophy based on the doctrines of Plato…At the center of the order is the One, an incomprehensible,
all-sufficient unity. By the process
of emanation the One gives rise to the Divine Mind or Logos [word], which
contains all the forms, or living intelligences, of individuals. The content of
the Divine Mind, therefore, constitutes a multiple reflection of the unitary perfection of the One. Below
the divine mind is the World Soul, which links the intellectual and material
worlds. These three transcendent
realities, or hypostases (the One, the Divine Mind, and the World
Soul) support the finite and visible world, which includes individuals and
matter. Plotinus sometimes compared the One to a fountain, from which
overflowed the lower levels of reality. – Columbia
Encyclopedia
Henosis - In Platonism, and especially Neoplatonism,
the goal of Henosis (Ancient Greek: ἕνωσις
"unity, oneness") is union with what is fundamental in reality: the One (Τὸ Ἕν), the Source or Monad. - wikipedia.org
Monad (Greek
philosophy) - Monad (from Greek μονάς monas,
"unit" from μόνος monos,
"alone"),[2] according to the Pythagoreans, was a term for God or the first being, or the totality of all beings, Monad being the source or the One meaning
without division. - wikipedia.org
Logos – in Greek philosophy and theology, the
divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and
meaning. Though the concept defined by the term logos is found in Greek,
Indian, Egyptian, and Persian philosophical and theological systems…The idea of the logos in Greek thought
harks back at least to the 6th-century-bc philosopher Heracleitus, who
discerned in the cosmic process a logos analogous to
the reasoning power in man. Later, the Stoics, philosophers who followed the teachings of the thinker Zeno of Citium
(4th–3rd century bc), defined the logos as an active
rational and spiritual principle that permeated all reality. They called the
logos providence, nature, god, and
the soul of the universe… – Encyclopedia Britannica
Greek philosophical religion thought of God as an
indivisible, completely simple, utterly singular, unified entity known as the
One or Monad. However, there also existed hypostatic beings who
emanated from the One. Among these hypostases was the Logos, which was thought
of as a rational principle, force, or fire and not necessarily as a personal
being. In the third century AD, Neo-Platonism placed the Logos within a group
of three divine hypostases. While the quantity may be similar to the Trinity,
we must keep in mind that the Neo-Platonic grouping of hypostases into three
came centuries after New Testament and early Christian writers described the
Trinity. (In addition, there is the question of whether the Greek philosophical
Logos was itself related to or post-dated the figure of the Word of God in
ancient Hebrew Complex Monotheism.)
An important additional feature of the Greek philosophical
understanding of God was the incorporeal nature of the One. For Greek
philosophers, God was immaterial and was far removed from matter and the
physical world. The existence of the One was above and beyond material
existence. The One did not have a body. As a result, Platonism taught that
mankind should likewise escape our bodily, material existence.
Plato, The
earlier dialogues, Metaphysical
foundation of Plato's doctrine: ‘Phaedo’ – The object of the Phaedo is to
justify belief in the immortality of the soul by showing that it follows from a
fundamental metaphysical doctrine (the theory of Ideas, or the doctrine of
Forms), which seems to afford a rational clue to the structure of the universe.
Socrates' soul is identical with Socrates himself: the survival of his soul is the survival of Socrates—in a purified
state. For his life has been spent
in trying to liberate the soul from dependence on the body. In life, the body
is always interfering with the soul's activity. Its appetites and passions
interrupt the pursuit of wisdom and goodness. There are four arguments for
thinking that the soul survives death. First, there is a belief that the soul
has a succession of many lives. The processes of nature in general are
cyclical; and it is reasonable to suppose that this cyclicity applies to the
case of dying and coming to life.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe
Edition
But more importantly, the quote below describes Plato’s
model of the universe in which the physical world is the lowest level of being and the One is the highest level of being
defined by existence that is non-spatial and devoid of any limitations, characteristics,
or parts, especially any that can be perceived by the senses. It is also
noteworthy that Plato’s One is a form of Simple Monotheism as reflected by the
closing line, which explains that the term “the One” is meant to “designate its
complete simplicity” that is free from all “divisions, attributes, or
qualifications.” Plato’s “One” is by definition non-corporeal, Simple
Monotheism.
"Platonism - Neoplatonism began as a
complex (and in some ways ambiguous) philosophy and grew vigorously in a
variety of forms over a long period; it is therefore not easy to generalize
about it. But the leading ideas in the
thought of philosophers who can properly be described as Neoplatonists seem
always to have included the following: 1. There is a plurality of levels of being, arranged in hierarchical
descending order, the last and lowest comprising the physical universe, which
exists in time and space and is perceptible to the senses…6. The highest level of being, and through it
all of what in any sense exists, derives from the ultimate principle, which is
absolutely free from determinations and limitations and utterly transcends any
conceivable reality, so that it may be said to be 'beyond being.' Because
it has no limitations, it has no division, attributes, or qualifications; it cannot really be named, or even properly
described as being, but may be called 'the One' to designate its complete
simplicity." – Britannica.com
Plotinus was the
leading figure in Neo-Platonism’s recapturing of Plato’s philosophical
religion in the third century AD.
Plotinus –
Plotinus, (born 205 ce, Lyco, or Lycopolis,
Egypt?—died 270, Campania),
ancient philosopher, the centre of an influential circle of intellectuals and
men of letters in 3rd-century Rome,
who is regarded by modern scholars as
the founder of the Neoplatonic school of philosophy. – Encyclopedia
Britannica
As Plotinus understood it, Platonism taught that matter was
the lowest level of existence, the Platonic concept of God (the One) was the
highest.
Monotheism
– Plotinus (c. 205–269 CE) developed a mystical-philosophical form of
monotheism. He believed in a supreme, transcendent reality known as the One out
of which all other things emanate in descending, hierarchical order: from
the Intellect (nous ), to the Soul (psyche ), and finally to matter. – International Encyclopedia of the Social
Sciences, encyclopedia.com
Neoplatonism – Neoplatonism,
ancient mystical philosophy based on the
doctrines of Plato…At the center of
the order is the One, an incomprehensible, all-sufficient unity. By the process
of emanation the One gives rise to the Divine Mind or Logos [word], which
contains all the forms, or living intelligences, of individuals. The content of
the Divine Mind, therefore, constitutes a
multiple reflection of the unitary perfection of the One. Below the divine mind
is the World Soul, which links the
intellectual and material worlds. These three transcendent realities, or
hypostases (the One, the Divine Mind, and the World Soul) support the finite and visible world, which
includes individuals and matter. Plotinus sometimes compared the One to a
fountain, from which overflowed the
lower levels of reality. – Columbia
Encyclopedia
The concept of an immaterial, bodiless God was the second of
two ways in which Platonic philosophy understood the One to differ from all
else. First, the world was matter. God was immaterial. Second, the One was an
indivisible unity unlike everything else which was fragmented and separated.
These then are the chief features of the Greek philosophical conception of God.
God was bodiless (incorporeal) and immaterial. God was an indivisible, simple
unity. And there were hypostatic emanations of God including the Logos.
We can see that Platonic philosophic religion does at least
contain some conceptions that seem to be similar to ideas exhibited by the
Complex Monotheism of some first-century Jewish sects such as the Christians.
Specifically, both Platonic philosophy and Jewish Complex Monotheism assert
concepts that can be labeled with the term hypostasis. However, it must be
noted that for Plato, these hypostases were not within the One, in which case
the One would cease to be a complete simplicity free from discernable divisions
and attributes. For Plato, the Logos is another level of being that exists as
an emanation out from and separate from the One (at least to the same extent
that anything can be deemed separate in a pantheistic/panentheistic model). Likewise,
the World Soul is also “below” rather than within the One.
We can now examine the possibility that Jewish forms of
Complex Monotheism were the result of borrowing from Greek philosophical
religions.
As we proceed we must likewise keep in mind Sommer’s
demonstration that the multiplicity or oneness of God’s self is a separate and
categorically different issue than the question of how many gods exist
(polytheism or monotheism.) A polytheistic religion can view any single god as
existing in more than one, simultaneously-existing, hypostatic persons. Or,
alternatively, a polytheistic religion can view any single god as inherently
existing as only one person at all times. Semitic and Canaanite religions of
the Near East exhibit the first kind of polytheism
during the Biblical Period (2000-400 BC). For convenience, we will call the
kind of polytheism that is exhibited by the Canaanite and Semitic peoples
Complex Polytheism in order to denote the multiplicity they ascribed to a god’s
self and personhood. On the other hand, archaic and classical Greek religion of
the same period, though polytheistic, believed that each god was only one
person. We will continue to refer to this type of polytheistic religion, Simple
Polytheism.
As we have already examined briefly, these same conceptual
options regarding the selfhood of God are available for monotheistic religions.
Monotheistic religions can conceptually be either simple or complex. They can
believe that the one, true God’s self is inherently singular and indivisible.
Or, they can conceive of the one, true God’s self in terms of a multiplicity or
plurality of simultaneously-existing, hypostatic persons. We will continue to
explore these theological conceptions and issues in greater detail as we
proceed.