In his 2002 book, The Closing of theWesternMind,historianCharles Freeman indicts Christianity for abolishing the Greek philosophical tradition in the Western world. According to Freeman, this “closing of the Western mind” was owing to three factors: “the attack on Greekphilosophy by Paul, the adoption of Platonism by Christian theologians, and enforcement of orthodoxy by emperors desperate to keep good order.” However, Freemanappearstohaveoverlooked some important historical facts.
Freeman says that Paul “is the obvious starting point” because “his condemnation of logic and philosophy is so violent, . . . and the rejection of traditional philosophy . . . . is so marked in the Christian tradition.” So, and to wit, I will start my interaction with Freeman and Paul. Unfortunately, Freeman seems to misrepresent Paul from the outset, stating that not only does Paul declare war on Greek philosophy, “he appears to have known virtually nothing of the Greek philosophical tradition he condemned.” Unfortunately, Freeman fails to defend this bold statement, and his position ultimately seems untenable. Philosopher Moyer Hubbard writes; Those who are familiar with firstcentury Hellenistic philosophy often observe that Paul, too, seems to have been highly familiar with it. His is a dialogical form of argumentation (especially in Romans), revealing that he knew the themes of [Greek philosophy’s] discourse. Contrary to Freeman’sassertion,thereiscompelling evidence that Paul did indeed have a significant understanding of the Greek philosophical tradition.
Furthermore, it seems that Freeman, the secular historian, occasionally ventures into inaccurate biblical exegesis, with the Colossians 2:8 text serving as an exemplar. In the passage, Paul writes, “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.” On the mere surface, it appears that Freeman may have a point in that Paul does seem to condemn philosophy. However, a couple of facts bring Paul’s apparent condemnation of philosophy into proper context.
First, Freeman fails to provide an adequate definition of philosophy. In the time of Paul and in context, the discipline of “philosophy” had to do with all the theories of God, the world, and the meaning of life, and it was taught in Jewish and pagan schools in Greek cities. This means that Paul’s mind has a much looser and broader definition of philosophy than Freeman is forcing upon him. The Jewish historian Josephus and philosopher Philo saw both “biblical teaching and Jewish piety as a kind of philosophy.” Even Christian JustinMartyrconsidersChristianity to be a type of philosophy. That is precisely the point; Paul’s “attack” in Colossians 2:8 is not specifically focused on the Greek rational tradition; instead, he is actually attacking a particular kind of religious speculation. In short, and contrary toFreeman’spresentation,Pauldoes not view “philosophy” as being narrowly limited to Greek philosophy.
Secondly, the issue at hand in Colossae is not corrupting pressure from traditional Greek philosophy being exerted upon the church, but was actually a “form of Jewish thought being presented as a ‘philosophy’ by Jewish apologists.” Radically contrary to the gospel, Merkabah mysticism held that salvation was found in the “ascent of the soul from earth, through the spheres of the hostile planet-angels and rulers of the cosmos, and its return to its divine home in the ‘fullness’ of God’s light, a return which, to the Gnostic’s mind, signified Redemption.’” The evidence that Paul is addressing this particular “philosophy” is compelling. Paul warns against “human tradition” that are contrived “according to the elemental spirits of the world” (Col. 2:8) along with the “asceticism and the worship of angels,” and “visions” (Col. 2:18); and to “regulations” set by “the elemental spirits of the world” whom you have died to in Christ (Col. 2:20), and “self-made religion” having “the appearance of wisdom” (Col. 2:23).
There is little doubt that in the context of Colossians 2:8ff, Paul is not “violently” condemning “the Greek rational tradition” as Freeman charges, but is rather specifically condemning the efforts of Jewish apologists who are enticing the Colossian Jewish Christians to turn away from Christianity, and to return to an age-old Merkabah mysticism. It appears Freeman has completely misunderstood the passage in Colossians chapter two. Rather than being hostile toward philosophy, Paul himself was known to have relied upon elements of the Greek rational methodology in crafting his own logical arguments. To be sure, Paul’s reliance upon the Greek tradition to make his point is overtly obvious in his argument for the resurrection ofthedeadin1Corinthians 15 and in his engagement with the Athenian philosophers recorded in The Acts of the Apostles.
In 1 Corinthians 15, for example, Paul presents a logical argument in the classic style by simply presenting premises that lead to a definite conclusion. When allowed to engage with the philosophers of Athens at the Areopagus, Paul once again structures his argument based on the Greek tradition of rational and logical discourse. To be sure, Paul’s understanding and appreciation of the Greek tradition are on full display as he incorporates quotations from two Greek philosophers into his own argument. Given this evidence from the historical records, as Freeman attempts, it can hardly be said that Paul knew “virtually nothing of the Greek philosophical tradition that he condemned.” Nor can one rightly argue that Paul “declared war on the Greek rational tradition.”
Join us next time as we continue to look at Freeman’s work in search of clues to answer the question: Is God dead?
Gloria in excelsis Deo! Ty B. Kerley, DMin., is an ordained minister who teaches Christian apologetics, and relief preaches in Southern Oklahoma. Dr. Kerley and his wife Vicki are members of the Waurika church of Christ, and live in Ardmore. You can contact him at: dr.kerley@isGoddead.com.