Michael Hansen and Dr. David Paulsen, Philosphy

In this project I intended to establish what doctrinal evolution can be seen in the Judeo-Christian tradition between the Second Temple period and the Post-Apostolic age. My hope was to document significant movements in theological attitudes that can be attributed, at least in part, to Greek philosophy.

Scholars have often claimed that Jewish and Christian thought became heavily impacted by Greek philosophy.1 This model draws substance from the historic narrative, as Israel underwent various occupations. Israel‟s Babylonian captivity offers a convenient starting point, marked by the destruction of Solomon‟s temple in Jerusalem. Eventually Cyrus the Persian ended Israel‟s Babylonian captivity, which led to a second temple being built in Jerusalem. During this Second Temple period Jewish theology would also return to somewhat normal activity (although it would diversify during this period, seeing Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and other religious groupings). When the Greek Empire gained control over the region, Greek philosophy accompanied the expansion. Jewish communities often resisted Greek influences in the political, cultural, and religious spheres, with varying degrees of success. Comparable circumstances continued through the end of the Second Temple period in 70 C.E under Roman rule. Thus, the religious literature of this period chronicles the theological struggles of Judeo-Christian theology with Greek influences prior to the Post-Apostolic age. Scholars have searched these documents alongside Greek philosophy to better understand the religious collision. However, they notice an increase in the frequency of similarities in the Post-Apostolic age in the writing of the early Christian Church Fathers.

My research project was aimed toward remedying a deficiency in current Mormon scholarship, which has often failed to detail specific intrusions and interactions of Greek Philosophy into Post-Apostolic doctrines. Although Greek intrusion is a common indictment used by Mormon scholars to explain certain Classical Christian doctrines, the claim often stops at pointing out a list of similarities between Plato‟s philosophy and the writings of the Post-Apostolic Church Fathers. Although there are many doctrines available to illustrate these Greek philosophic inroads into Judeo-Christian thought (e.g., divine simplicity, timelessness, immutability, and others of the same kind), I should note that the Greek influence model is not without its nuances. For example, the doctrine of creation ex nihilo (i.e., out of nothing) appears to be a Post-Apostolic departure from Greek philosophy, which maintained creation ex materia (i.e., organization of matter). In this case, Apostolic Christianity shared a common perspective with Greek philosophy, while the Post-Apostolic doctrines moved.

For these reasons, I anticipated that divine incorporeality would manifest the clearest and most dramatic evidence for Greek influence on Post-Apostolic doctrine, since “the notion of the deity as a fully spiritual being, without body, would have been totally incomprehensible to the ancient Hebrew,” which slowly began to be overturned by Greek influences.2 In order to establish this doctrinal drift, I selected a wide sampling of representative theological literature that treats divine embodiment. In retrospect I may have revised my selections to represent different or wider ranges of the theological community, but I think that the line developed in my research remains instructive for charting attitudes toward divine embodiment.

I first contrasted the view of deity for the Enochian Jews with that of Philo of Alexandria (a Hellenized Jew). The Enochian Jews are responsible for the pseudepigraphal books of Enoch, which explain Enoch‟s tour through the heavens and eventual encounter with the Most High God. God‟s embodiment in these texts is undeniable, including explicit descriptions of his human features, which is typical of pre-Greek theology during the period.3 In contrast, Philo of Alexandria embraced Greek philosophy and rejected divine embodiment. One of Philo‟s most radical denials of divine embodiment is found in chapter 27 of his De Confusione Linguarum, where he denies God‟s ability to exist as a material being located in space. These two sources presented the clear tension between traditional Second Temple theology and new accommodations for Greek philosophical concepts.

I then investigated Post-Apostolic doctrines on divine embodiment seen in the writings of Saints Augustine and Gregory of Nyssa, who both felt comfortable framing their theology within the Greek Neoplatonism of their era. Augustine encountered Greek philosophy early on, as he explains, “when I read those books of the Platonists I was taught by them to seek incorporeal truth” (Confessions 7. 20). As a result, Augustine would deny God‟s embodiment to maintain consistency with some of his Greek philosophical underpinnings. Gregory of Nyssa did the same, as he “drew from [Plato‟s Timaes] one of his most fundamental distinctions, that between a nature that was „material and perceptible by the senses,‟ shared by humanity with the physical world, and a nature that was „rationally intelligible and nonmaterial‟ shared by humanity with God and the angels.”4 These Post-Apostolic writings characterize the Greek philosophical influence on the theology of divine embodiment that would continue for centuries. Nevertheless, my research could only treat a small portion of the available literature. There are still countless volumes to search for increasingly detailed accounts of the evolution of the Judeo-Christian doctrine on divine embodiment.

References

1. As for non LDS scholars, one need not look far within process theology or the openness movement to come across such claims. See Charles Hartshorne, Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984. Also see Clark Pinnock, Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God’s Openness, Paternoster, Carlisle UK/Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 2001. For a selection of Mormon scholars holding this claim, one need only consult the FARMS review of books 11, 2.
2. Hermann Gunkel, “Influence of Babylonian Mythology Upon the Creation Story,” in Bernhard W. Andersonn (edd.), Creation in the Old Testament (Issues in Religion and Theology 6; Philadelphia: Fortress Press and London: SPCK, 1984) 29, translated by Charles A. Muenchow from Schopfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit (1895).
3. Consider these representative verses from 2 Enoch that imply divine embodiment: “And in the midst (of them was) the tree of life, at that place where the Lord takes a rest when he goes into paradise” (8:3). God‟s ability to rest as he enters paradise implies his literal embodiment. “I saw the face of the Lord, like iron made burning hot in a fire |and| brought out, and it emits sparks and is incandescent. Thus even I saw the face of the Lord. But the face of the lord is not to be talked about” (22:1). This description is not found in the [A] account of 2 Enoch, which reflects the embarrassment and redaction of later scribes at such a blatant anthropomorphism. “And the Lord, with his own mouth, said to me, „Be brave, Enoch! Don‟t be frightened! Stand up, and stand in front of my face forever‟” (22:5). The Lord is described with a literal mouth and owning a place for embodied mortals to sit in front of his face.
4. Pelican, Jaroslav. Christianity and Classical Culture, 20.