Why didn’t anyone think of this before?
Professor Peter Kreeft, a teacher of philosophy at the University of Boston, wrote in 2007 what we consider to be a very necessary book,
The Philosophy of Jesus. With discussions abounding today about Thomism and neo-Thomism, and “how to situate the work of Josef Ratzinger—is he a Thomist? an Augustinian? a reactionary? a liberal?” (Fr. James Schall, S.J.,
Ratzinger’s Faith and Reason, http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2008/schall_trowlandbk_may08.asp) - a more biblical foundation for philosophy (though not the customary approach) is fully in accord with the trend now to get back to the basics, to the early Church, to authenticity and a ‘deeper understanding of the Sacred Liturgy’. It does also fit right in with the neo-Thomistic trend today towards a ‘biblical Thomism’, such as pioneered in the journal,
Nova et Vetera, for example,
and found in the works of the Belgian Dominican, Fr. Servais Pinckaers. [For a useful treatment of this latter subject, see Tracey Rowland’s
Ratzinger's Faith: The Theology of Pope Benedict XVI, OUP, 2008, pp. 26-28, 149].
It also accords with the belief of some of the Fathers that pagan Greek philosophy (upon which much of St. Thomas’ own work was built) was influenced by the Bible: Saint Clement quoting Numenius: “What is Plato but Moses speaking Attic Greek?” (Stromata 1.22.150), and even, according to Saint Ambrose, Plato personally being influenced by the prophet Jeremiah in Egypt.
More precisely, in relation to Jesus and the New Testament, we have often referred to the view of Saint Bonaventure (in his treatise on the Good), so favoured by the Pope, that Jesus Christ himself was
the metaphysician par excellence. Bonaventure had rightly argued that Jesus Christ raised metaphysics to a new level. See “Metaphysics Of The Good” by Ilia Delio,
http://brightmorningstar.blog.com/2011/07/20/5206219/
So, whilst a philosophy of Jesus Christ has apparently been considered before, it does not appear to have ever been properly developed before. Why? We think because of a false western cultural predisposition (based on a faulty history and chronology) that philosophy, as we know it, arose from (and commenced only with) the Greeks.
The AMAIC has customarily traced back the very roots of Thomism, of the perennial philosophy of being, to the Old Testament Book of Exodus, the ‘I AM WHO I AM’ incident of the burning bush – a Thomism based on the Bible. Thus Frits Albers wrote about Moses in The Foundations of Our Catholic Faith (Neptune, 1981, pp. 98-99):
…. But just as Abraham a few centuries earlier had turned his back on this 'secret knowledge of Babylon' in preference to the submission to the Supernatural Light of Revelation and of True Faith in the one true God, thereby becoming 'the blessing of the Old Testament', so here Moses, by killing the Egyptian and taking up the case of the [Hebrew], showed that he too had turned his back on the mysteries of Osiris and the secret brotherhood of knowledge, in preference to the Faith of his Fathers, the Patriarchs. ….
The rejection [of Moses] by the two fighting Israelites profoundly shook Moses. Was it possible that here, in his own race, he detected ever so faintly the traces of the same thinking he had rejected himself so completely? He needed time to think, and sort himself out in a profound and prolonged meditation. 'What was wrong with the thinking of the Israelites?'
And God, who knew that in the next 40 years Moses would get an answer to this fundamental question, allowed him to come to grips with the problem. … On what Human Thinking was this towering tree of natural and supernatural beauty going to be implanted? What Philosophy was going to be the substratum … of this all-time record? A continuation of the 'right reason' that made him reject Satan's thinking encountered in the transient power of the Egyptian 'illuminati'. The day of the burning bramble bush was drawing near. And with it the day that Moses entered God's University to do a course, in what? In theology? No, in Philosophy. In the same philosophy that some 3000 years later, would take the human mind to the edge of its potential, on the testimony of later Popes.
And what is at the centre of this course? … The Existence of Absolutes. When God revealed His Name to Moses, He did not give it in the theological definition and Revelation of the Blessed Trinity, but in the philosophical definition, the one, clear human thinking can come to, without the Supernatural Light of Revelation of the New Testament. In stating His Name as "I am: 'I am'", God revealed to Moses that He is 'Being'. He is all there is. He is perpetual 'to be'. He is Absolute Existence. 'Tell the sons of Israel 'I am' sends you',' He tells Moses. And on that foundation, the knowledge of Absolute Existence, Absolute Holiness, Absolute Truth, and Absolute Goodness and Forgiveness Moses sets out on the great adventure of his life … and all the world's future destiny. The same as Satan, and his seed, have embarked on their own destiny of ruin by denying the Absolute Existence, and with the shallow knowledge of secret societies and the socalled 'illuminati', have made themselves out as rulers of this world. And we can safely say that, if this is the thinking that God required in the man who was to lead His people out of slavery into the Promised Land, and if this is the thinking God wanted passed on to every Jew in preparation of the full Revelation in His Son, then this thinking will always lie at the foundation not only of human greatness, but also at the foundation of human sanctity. ….
[End of quote]
But some have even discerned in this Sinai revelation of God’s Name a hint also of the Trinity, as we are going to read. For faith and reason are necessary together. Thus, according to John Paul II: “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves” (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2) (Fides et ratio. Opening words). Faith and reason together: there ought not to be the one without the other. According to Tracey Rowland, Pope Benedict XVI believes that: ‘Faith without reason ends in fideism, but reason without faith ends in nihilism'. (Op. cit., Intro., p. 5). So, both ‘wings’ - both engines if you like - are necessary if the reality is to remain aloft. It reminds one of the story of the two-engined airplane after one of its engines had failed. “What are we going to do if the other engine fails”?, asked the co-pilot. “If the other engine fails”, said the captain, “we’ll be up here forever”.
Now that’s getting a bit too airborne! Fr. Peter Little (S.J.) used to say the very same thing (‘you’re getting a bit airborne’) if he thought that one’s speculation was beginning to lose touch with reality.
And so in the Exodus account of Moses and the Burning Bush some have discerned, apart from a philosophical basis (reason), a veiled reference also to the Holy Trinity (Faith). Regarding this, we read in an article, “The Trinity in the Old Testament” (
http://godcares4u.org/Word.htm), this interesting observation (bold print added):
.... A few years ago a Christian TV show had a Rabbi on discussing issues regarding modern day Israel. At the end of the show, the Christian host suddenly turned to the Rabbi and asked him what was the primary reason for Jews not accepting Jesus. Without hesitation, the Rabbi replied, "The Trinity." To this Rabbi and other faithful Jews, the Trinity equates to be more than one God. Add to this the general confusion of most Christians on this subject and you have a major stumbling block for witnessing to Jews. So does the Trinity exist in the Old Testament? To Christians, the obvious answer is: it must since God does not change. The Shema [‘Hear, [O] Israel’] is not evidence against the Trinity, but support for It. The word translated 'one' in Deuteronomy 6:4 is the same word used in Genesis 2:24 to indicate that a man shall leave his parents and become 'one' flesh with his wife. Obviously a man and a woman are two persons who become one by becoming unified. And there are other proofs of this unique aspect of God, the most obvious of which is the plural word Elohim, translated Us, in the creation story of Genesis 1:26: "Let Us make man in Our image."
But is there a more direct reference to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
Before the advent of Christ, God was referred to as the God of 'Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.' The Lord Himself specified this designation when He addressed Moses from the burning bush. Why did He not just say the 'Father, Son, and Holy Spirit'? If He had, Moses might have replied - who?
God identified Himself in a way Moses could understand, as the God of his fathers, the covenant God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But was there a message in this designation that speaks of the Trinity? In the Bible, prophecy is not limited to the utterings of God's prophets. Prophecy is woven into the events and lives of the people of the Bible as 'types' of things to come. This designation of the Lord as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was completely accurate, but it was also a type, a clue, of the yet to be revealed true nature of God. As we examine these names person by person, the Trinity in the Old Testament becomes clear.
Abraham was the great father of the Israelites. Of all the descendants of Noah, Abraham was chosen by God to be the one through whom the Messiah would come. His children would become the chosen people of God. God's covenant with him promised to make him the 'father of many nations' - this is the meaning of the name Abraham. .... Whenever you think of Abraham, you think of 'father,' like the children's song "Father Abraham." Abraham represented the 'Father' of the Trinity.
Next is Isaac, the son of promise. The Lord showed Abraham the stars of heaven and told him "So shall your descendants be" (Gen. 15:5). These descendants would come through the promised son even though Abraham and Sarah were well beyond the years of childbearing. It was Isaac, beloved by his parents even more because of his miraculous birth, that the Lord instructed Abraham to slay in the ultimate test of faith (Gen. 22:2). Genesis Chapter 22 is filled with prophetic references to the crucifixion of Jesus. For these reasons, and many more, we conclude that Isaac's name was a type of the Son in the Trinity.
In the Old Testament name of God, Jacob's name takes the position of the Holy Spirit. Jacob's life demonstrates the new birth and the transforming power of the Holy Spirit. His birth name, Jacob, means 'supplanter' or literally 'heel-catcher'. Before his birth, he wrestles with his brother in the womb. Born second, holding his brother's heel, he later deceives both his brother and his father to receive the first-born blessing. In one of the strangest accounts in the Bible, the night before a reunion with his brother, Jacob wrestles again, this time with God. In a type of reenactment of his experience in the womb, once again, Jacob holds on, this time to God rather than a man. He asks nGod for a blessing, but before it can be given, Jacob must be changed. This is represented by a name change, from Jacob whose name indicates deception, to Israel, a name that means 'God rules'. Jacob is blessed, and in Genesis 32:30 most translations quote Jacob as saying, "my life is preserved" - a better interpretation would be "my soul is delivered." Jacob's life pictures the new birth, when we are born of the Spirit (John - Chapter 3). This explains Jacob's position as the third person named in the Old Testament name of God, the position of the Holy Spirit. ....
[End of quote]
So it may well be that both the theological and the philosophical definitions of God were represented at Sinai.
In the last two decades the AMAIC has - basing itself on Church Fathers such as Clement and Ambrose - advanced Frits Albers’ correct line of thought of tracing philosophical foundations back to the Bible by shifting Thomism’s perceived pagan Greek (mainly Aristotelian) sources right back to Israel, to the Bible. We have boldly taken further the intuitions of some of the Church Fathers about the biblical basis of ‘Greek’ philosophy by arguing that the most famous of the supposedly ‘Ionian Greek’ and ‘mainland Greek’ philosophers and sages (like Thales, Solon, Socrates and Plato) were in fact Greek appropriations of famous biblical sages and holy men.
In short, we have proposed that the name ‘Thales’, belonging to the very ‘Father of Philosophy’ (as Thales is known), is actually an Egyptian name, from Ptah, and that Thales himself - who is said to have absent-mindedly fallen into a well and who measured one of the pyramids - was in fact the sage and genius of Egypt’s Old Kingdom, Ptah-hotep and Imhotep, who was in turn the patriarch Joseph in Egypt. Joseph did not actually fall into a well, but was thrown into one (Genesis 37:24). Indeed, he measured and built a pyramid, the Step Pyramid of Saqqara, a material icon of his father Jacob’s vision of a staircase to heaven. And the wise ruler Solon, a supposed Athenian, whose laws have been found to be strikingly Jewish (biblical) [Edwin M. Yamauchi, "Two reformers compared: Solon of Athens and Nehemiah of Jerusalem," Bible world. New York: KTAV, 1980. pp. 269-292], was simply a Greek appropriation of King Solomon. Archaeology shows no sophisticated Athenian culture for the time of Solon (c. 600 BC). “The first incontrovertible ‘fixed point’ in Greek [archaeological] chronology is the Parthenon, begun in 447 [BC, conventional dating]” (James, P., Centuries of Darkness, Jonathan Cape, 1991, p. 97). And Plato, we have argued, was based on the prophet Daniel in his guise as Balatu (an abbreviation of Belteshazzar) in Babylon. The realisation of this, the Israelite origins of human wisdom and philosophy (for ‘salvation is of the Jews’, John 4:22), we urge, must inevitably lead to a complete re-writing of the history of ancient philosophy.
The Hebrew wisdom would have filtered through to the Greeks last, only after having passed through pagan Canaanite-Phoenicia (entrepôts such as Ugarit, Byblos and Tyre) in the west, or Babylon in the east, then on to the Ionian Greeks in the north, or south, to Alexandria, and lastly to the mainland Greeks. It later evolved into the more systematised form of philosophy that we know today, though not necessarily even then at the hands of Greeks. For example, the Maccabean Jewish priest, Aristobulus (2 Maccabees 1:10), was supposed to have written a book on philosophy, arguing, for the benefit of the Macedonian ‘Greeks’ - most notably king Ptolemy himself – “that the essentials of Greek philosophy and metaphysics were derived from Jewish sources. Aristobulus maintained that not only the oldest [supposedly] Grecian poets, Homer, Hesiod, Orpheus, etc., but also the most celebrated Greek thinkers, especially Plato [sic], had acquired most of their wisdom from Jewish sages and ancient Hebrew texts”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristobulus_of_Paneas Aristobulus is one possible candidate for ‘Aristotle’ (another being Plato himself, under his name
Aristocles):
properly identifying ‘Aristotle’ being essential for Thomism.
Now Professor Peter Kreeft has added an exciting new dimension to all of this, the philosophy of Jesus. Without our yet having read his book, however, we would anticipate that, before such a project can be undertaken satisfactorily, the biblical basis of BC philosophy will need to be properly grasped. For any satisfactory study of Jesus Christ requires a familiarity with the Old Testament, without which Jesus himself cannot be understood – though He, in turn, makes the Old Testament at last fully intelligible, “giving it a new interpretation” (Jesus of Nazareth, p. 136).
A philosophy of Jesus is also right in line with our efforts to write Jesus Christ into history, as The Alpha and the Omega (another of those I AM’s. Revelation 22:13). We have commenced a revised history of the world, entitled:
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA. A Revision of BC and AD TimeThis ambitious project got off to a flying start with our quickly completing a basic history from Adam to, say, the beginning of Nebuchednezzar II (a sweep of some 3500 years), with an underlying revised archaeology. The only real ‘hole’ in the project was historically finding the four kings of Mesopotamia (Amraphel, Chedorlaomer and company – Amraphel has often been wrongly identified with the great Hammurabi of Babylon, but it is in fact in the latter’s records that we find historical reference to Chedorlaomer as a pilferer of a bygone era) whom Abram encountered and defeated (Genesis 14:1-17), and whom we had previously mis-identified. That problem has since apparently been solved. We envisage an extra volume now to deal with the era of Jesus Christ, then a third volume (which was formerly to be Volume Two) for a reconstruction of AD time, if it ever gets written.
Perhaps someone will also eventually attempt a Science of Jesus Christ. Something along these lines was most earnestly desired by Saint Maximilian Kolbe (it is 70 years since his death), who had hoped himself to have been the author of it. (Surely a focal point of such a Science would be the Shroud of Turin, that has baffled the combined efforts of scientists of every expertise and so demands a new science). St. Maximilian would have been the first to have appreciated that anything pertaining to a true representation of Jesus Christ must needs be reflected in and through Mary, the ‘Mirror of Justice’ (Speculum Justitiae). [For a brilliant Kolbean article on the necessary transformation into Mary, written by Fr. Peter Damian Fehlner, see: http://www.motherofallpeoples.com/Articles/General_Mariology/consecration-and-transubstantiation-into-the-immaculate.html | | | |
Obviously any early efforts towards a philosophy, or a history, or a science, of Jesus Christ, cannot be taken as the last word on so daunting an enterprise. And that brings us back to Professor Kreeft’s book which has been both applauded as an idea and criticised for its apparent inadequacies. Again, that such a first effort might have its shortcomings is quite to be expected. Anyway, on pp. 40-41 we are going to take a look at one such critique of the professor’s book.
But let us conclude here by saying that a Philosophy of Jesus Christ can in no way diminish Thomism, since Jesus Christ, the Logos, is the very source of wisdom, including the Thomistic wisdom.
| Or perhaps, now, paraphrasing the prophet Zechariah (9:13), we should begin to exalt the words of the Hebrews over the words of Greece, by substituting Logos | |
with the Hebrew word and concept, DABAR
| דבר | of arguably fuller meaning and presumably as would have been used by the Galilean Saint John himself.[For more on this, see our article “‘Western Logic’ and the Logos’” (pp. 42-44)].Thus we read in a Net article: |
Logos, Rema & Dabar
.... The Hebrew word dabar referred to the ‘hinterground’ or background. For instance the back-side of the tabernacle, the holy of holies was called the debir.
Moving from the Hebrew language to Greek, John had two words he could use to convey the meaning of dabar. The word has a twofold significance. When it speaks of the inner reality or meaning of a thing, it is translated as logos. But it can also refer to a thing, an event or a piece, and this is then translated as rema. The word history in Greek is remata. Dabar speaks about an event with a background of meaning! There is a Hebrew saying: where word and event coincide, there is truth. Can you see where this is going!
The event of Christ made known the inner reality, the mystery, the authentic thought of God. The concept of the tabernacle, the meeting place in which God and man met, was realised in the event of Christ. “The Word became flesh and tabernacled in us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” The holy of holies, the Word that was in the bosom of the Father, has become a living event and in so doing has made known the inner reality of the Father. The meaning of God’s being, coincided with the event of Christ and truth was displayed in all its glory. ….
http://hearhim.net/wordpress/2010/10/20/logos-rema-dabar/
Here now is a critical review of Professor Kreeft’s book, The Philosophy of Jesus (St. Augustine's Press, 2007), by Dr Matthew Del Nevo, Senior Lecturer in Theology and Christian Spirituality Broken Bay Institute, Pennant Hills, New South Wales (Australia). Whilst Dr. Nevo considers that Kreeft’s is a highly interesting idea, he does not necessarily think that the author has fully done justice to the subject - quite possible since it is only a beginning. This is very much a new field of scholarly enquiry, at least in today’s climate:
Jesus as a Jewish Philosopher
by Matthew Del Nevo
This is a popularly written book about the philosophy of Jesus rather than the Jesus of philosophy — at least that is the intention. The book scopes the philosophy of Jesus in terms of the primary questions of ontology, epistemology, anthropology and ethics, respectively: What is being? What can I know? Who is man? What ought I to do?
The style is very direct, and what is lost in subtlety is gained in clarity. The book gets off to a good start but increasingly confuses the philosophy of Jesus with the theology of the Catholic Church as represented by recent official documentation. The book is divided into four sections aligned with the four prime questions. There is a subject index and a scriptural index.
So what does Kreeft make of Jesus' philosophy?
First of all Kreeft makes it clear that he does not occupy that ostensibly neutral or supposedly objective position struck up by many in philosophy of religions discourse. Kreeft's presumption in writing about Jesus' philosophy from a Christian point of view is not apologetic or polemical, rather he understands, rightly in this reader's view, that Jesus' teaching and person (like Socrates') present matters of intellectual substance that have to be engaged philosophically if they are to be engaged properly. He believes that Jesus' philosophy is not only of historical philosophical importance in the history of ideas, but still has a critical relevancy today. As a Christian he is in a good position to expound this, just as someone who knows the Greek is in a better position to expound Plato.
On Jesus' metaphysics or ontology in Chapter 1 Kreeft rightly accentuates its Jewishness and in this regard the uniqueness of the Jewish take on reality in which God, world and humankind are seen as ontologically other and not merged, submerged or seen as intrinsic to one another. It is a philosophy of otherness and difference. Kreeft could have been more definite about this point. The threefold difference of God, world and humankind demarcates Jewish reality from pagan reality which does not mark the ontological otherness of these three so absolutely, if at all. The Jewish take on reality is different from that of other religions and non-religions (pantheism, panentheism, henotheism, ontologism, atheism, prophetism etc.), and Kreeft touches on this.
Kreeft tends to describe Jesus' metaphysics theologically rather than out of the Jewish world of Jesus.
Kreeft speaks of a metaphysics of love, but this does not capture the links back, in rabbinic thought, between God, world and humankind which can be encapsulated by naming Creation, Revelation and Redemption, as Rosenzweig has famously put it: Jesus has both a teaching on these links back and a personal stance that is re-creative, redemptive and revelatory. It is in this kind of metaphysical context that Jesus speaks of love. Kreeft argues his case for Jesus' metaphysics of love from the Name of God, but he is incorrect in saying that Jesus calling God 'abba' (father, papa) was revolutionary. It is not in the Hebrew Scriptures as such, although the Fatherhood of God is, but speaking to God familiarly as abba was common in rabbinic tradition.
What is revolutionary about Jesus' philosophy is that he said you did not have to be Jewish to speak to God like this, or even religious!
Kreeft rightly asserts that everything else follows from Jesus' metaphysics. In epistemology, what we must know is ourselves, the world and God. There are degrees of knowledge and the key is wisdom. Again Jesus not only taught in the Jewish wisdom tradition but personified it. As Kierkegaard wrote in Practice in Christianity, 'the only explanation of truth is to be it.' Jesus' philosophy is in that sense 'existential'. Our knowledge will increase with our sanctification of the Name of God, and of the world and of ourselves. Kreeft rightly refers to prayer as an important key to knowledge, allowing us to draw close and relate to that which we need to know, rather than just to 'know about'.
Jesus' anthropology revolves around the imago Dei, the instruction that we are made in the image and likeness of God. Each person is infinitely other than God, but bears God's image and likeness in one major respect: each human person is absolutely one and only. Upon this is founded human dignity. Jesus' anthropology is one which seeks to serve human dignity and increase it upon the face of the earth, for God's glory.
Jesus' ethics revolves around the imitatio Dei, the imitation of God, which in Christianity becomes the imitation of Christ. Kreeft argues that we have to be 'little Christs', which I take it has to do with becoming all that God has called us to be, individually and as a people of God. The idea is that we each need to be personally responsible for our share in collective destiny, which is with God, to 'mend the world' (tikkun olam). Jesus' own philosophy was to do the Father's will, which he did, and which he enjoined us to do, and in which prayer and personal wholeness is the key to knowledge and true freedom.
In the second half of the book, in these chapters on anthropology and ethics, Kreeft's tendency to move from the philosophy of Jesus to the theology of the Church, becomes more pronounced. This shift will lose many readers not predisposed in like manner to Kreeft. The problem goes back to Chapter 1 on metaphysics which gets a little lost in a Thomistic interpretation of the Creed, which is an anachronistic discussion. But this kind of anachronism is stepped up in Chapter 3 on Jesus' anthropology. This chapter starts with the idea of Jesus as perfect Man and perfect God, which is Greek philosophy, not Jesus' philosophy. Kreeft then takes up the anthropological question in terms of the Socratic dictum, 'know thyself'.
This chapter shifts into apologetics with a justification of Mary as the Mother of God, Catholic dogma rather than Jesus' philosophy. Chapter 4 on Jesus' ethics also shifts over into apologetics with an argument that ends with the assertion that, 'we are to worship the Eucharist'; again, Catholic dogma, rather than Jesus' philosophy.
Traditionally Catholic Christians have taught that philosophy is a 'handmaid' to philosophy. This is preferable to the Protestant response which was to try and expunge philosophy from theology, which gave them ideology. ….
© Matthew Del Nevo 2007
E-mail:
mdelnevo@bbi.catholic.edu.au
