From Johannes Richter @jgmrichter
This brings the
episode of the golden calf into perspective. Are there any precursors to the
idea of man as the image of God?
Replying to Johannes Richter @jgmrichter
I guess that you
are asking if there is a significant history of the idea of man as the image of God before
Christianity, and the doctrine of the incarnation? Yes there is, and it is a
very old idea. In Egypt, the Pharaoh was understood to be the Divine on earth –
he could be understood to reflect many aspects of divinity – for example, when
represented as the destroyer of Egypt’s enemies, he was depicted in the form of
the God Montu, wielding a club. But he could be any of the other gods in the divine
pantheon, according to circumstance.
In Mesopotamia they had the same essential
notion, that the king represented the perfect man, and was ‘the very image of
the God’ (I quoted from some Assyrian letters which illustrate that this was
the contemporary understanding – see 'Standing in the Place of Ea'). There are a
number of parodies of this idea which appear in the Old Testament, as a consequence
of the Hebrew exposure to Mesopotamian ideas while in exile in Babylon. I wrote
about this in ‘The Idea of Being in Israel’.
This isn’t a way
of thinking which was necessarily drawn from the east, though there are clear parallels. The Romans developed an
imperial cult around their emperors from the end of the Republic onwards. Effectively
the emperors were worshipped either as semi-divine, or as actually divine
(sometimes hard to tell the difference). They could be elevated to divine
status after death, even if no-one was sure of their actual status while alive.
[Quotation from 'Knowledge and Belief in Israel']
As discussed elsewhere in The Sacred History
of Being, in Greece and Mesopotamia divine images functioned as a part of a
complex system, a chain of images of Being, to enable intellectual access to
the most difficult of all images which might be apprehended by man or god: the
one true thing, which is the nature of reality itself, and the source of all
knowledge.
Over time, the polytheistic show was entirely removed
in Israel. The monotheism which emerged in Israel was necessarily no longer about
access to knowledge of the divine and its apprehension - a mental discipline -
but about belief.
Replying to @Rotorvator
Excellent. Do you
unpack the last sentence somewhere? The idea that belief was merely mental
assent is unfortunately common.
Replying to Johannes Richter @jgmrichter
I’ve talked about
this a lot, and in various places. I distinguish between belief (doxa, or opinion)
and faith (pistis). Belief serves societal and political functions. Faith is
not so much about what is believed, but is about the necessity that the due
observances are conducted. In early Judaism for example, the scope for observance was
gradually narrowed, to the point where only the priests in the temple in
Jerusalem could perform ritual. Everybody else had to make do with a simple altar
of earth. This was about political and social power. I talk about this in ‘The
Idea of Being in Israel’, and there is a separate article on the blog called ‘Distinguishing
Belief and Faith’.
If religion is about the acquisition of knowledge of divine
things, but is subsequently transformed into a social and political construction
which enforces what you are to believe, then that religion has ceased to serve
its proper function. It has fallen away from both the importance of regular
observance, and the very idea that such observance opens a connection with the
divine, and reinforces the connection between man and the Divine.
Replying to @Rotorvator
PS where do you
discuss it? [the ontological argument]
Replying to Johannes
Richter @jgmrichter
…. I spent fifty
pages discussing the progress of the ontological argument [in The Sacred
History of Being]. I think it is a dead thing now. Though in the way of things,
it may take a hundred years for this critical demolition to be taken on board.
Replying to @Rotorvator
That's the
weakness of arguments; they shuffle bits of information around as if it changes
something. I was just curious whether you know the book (by David Bentley Hart) since it
comprehensively tries to stake down the conceptual space the (classical) idea
of God occupies.
Replying to Johannes
Richter @jgmrichter
I’m particularly
interested in the contrast between conceptions of the Divine in antiquity, and
conceptions from the middle ages onwards. They are quite different, and a lot
of ideas have simply disappeared from later argument. I know what you mean when
you refer to the classical idea of God, but I would refer to that ‘classical’
idea as ‘the standard ontological argument’. It is less than a thousand years
old. Since I study classical philosophers from fifteen hundred years earlier
than that, to refer to such an idea of God as ‘classical’ would just court confusion
and misunderstanding.
Of course we don’t
have clear formal argument about the Divine from the Classical or the
Mesopotamian worlds. But close study of what they wrote does make it possible to
figure out what they understood by the Divine. The ancient conception is far
more subtle and sophisticated than the standard ontological argument. The
modern world prefers a simpler idea of God.
The whole idea of
constructing a form of argument which provides a rational basis for religious
belief (which is how Alvin Plantinga views its function), is self-contradictory, and an absurdity.
Replying to @Rotorvator
Thanks. DBH gives
an overview of scholastic theology and includes perspectives from quite a few
other traditions. Tough reading but we'll worth the time.
Replying to Johannes Richter @jgmrichter
Thanks for the pointer to DBH's book.
***
No comments:
Post a Comment