A sexy idea? It isn't all that uncommon for us to see arguments today that Christianity is held captive to "Western" thought not "Eastern" thought. There is a large allure and appeal to such arguments and it is particularly gaining ground in popular literature and the blogosphere. While this line of argument may be sexy it usually stems from muddled thinking and pseudo-intellectualism. Folks love to play this card when they are discussing the very notion of truth. This "Eastern" vs. "Western" thinking also comes out in the "Greek" vs. "Hebraic" thought. The basic arguments are that there is a radical dichotomy about how different cultures speak and think about concepts such as "truth". We are often told that "Western" thought has a 'static' view of truth that is "objective" and "out there" or that is corresponds to reality. It is logical and rational. In the opinion of some is propped up by Platonism (as if he was the only ancient philosopher in Western thought). In the "Eastern" or "Hebraic" model truth is more dynamic, more personal, relational, more embodied we are told. It is not objective but embraces mystery and paradox. It is high time this argument stop.
We have no problem where people point out where worldviews have wrongly been influenced by philosophical conceptions of all stripes (Col 2:2-4). Certainly, at times people can be influenced by philosophy (Greek, Roman, Enlightenment, and/or mystic) and not the Biblical text. Clearly there are a spectrum of worldviews out there and some are categorically similar to others. Yet too often 'Hebrew vs. Greek' and 'Eastern vs. Western' are used to prop of false dichotomies and draw artificial lines of distinction that have no basis in fact. (Opponents will now say I am rooted in Greek thought).
But sadly some advocates use "Hebraic" thought as a means for overruling worldviews rooted in the Biblical text. We are told we are merely reading the Bible like a Greek and we must abandon it for a more Hebraic pattern. Exegesis can be dismissed in one swoop of a brush the size of a Wooly Mammoth using arguments with holes large enough to hide a planet. This is particularly true when we are invited to embrace paradox and mystery over and against a correspondence theory of truth that holds certain views are patently and obviously false. It is considered enslavement to Greek rationalism and logic (Western thought) to still consider that a proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time. Another way this argument typically manifests itself if when we are told we must move away from 'word' based conceptions. We are told we must abandon logos-centered theology and beliefs (that are Western or Greek) in favor of mystic, experiential or embodiment theologies (i.e. more Hebraic and Eastern). This ignores that in the Old and New Testament, God's people have always been people of God's Word. God speaking in the Bible in no way minimizes the incarnation. Indeed, once the incarnation was witnessed and Christ returned to heaven the means of relating to the event was through proclamation and testimony which is nothing less than words (1 John 1:1-4).
These dichotomies are sometimes pushed by people who want to move theology or Christianity is a new direction so the old is labeled as "Greek/Western" and the new is labeled at "Hebraic/Eastern". You can find this argument by some in the emerging church like
Doug Pagitt, Rob Bell and
Peter Rollins. You can also find some of these arguments by some who advocate "open theism." We are told silly things like Greek thinking is ontological; Hebraic thinking is actualized, concrete or participatory. Greeks/Westerns focus on 'belief' statements (orthodoxy) but Eastern Hebraic thought focuses on deeds and orthopraxy. Western thought is static while Eastern thought is fluid. Greek is compartmental (or dualistic) but Hebrew is holistic.
The Problems Unpacked and Debunked... or Sifting out the Garbage.
First, we need to say men like James Barr and Moises Silva have completed debunked the notion of Greek vs. Hebraic thought
as it was applied in linguistics (see also
this from Stanley Porter pp20-40
). Old arguments assumed that at the word level you could find definition rooted in "Hebraic thought" or "Greek thought." While we should rightly acknowledge different worldviews at times
these distinctions cannot be maintained at the word level or the semantic level. One of the early books to really dive into this "Greek vs. Hebrew" mindset is
Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek by Thorleif Boman [
google books]. His approach centers on linguistics. Barr of course has thoroughly refuted this in his
Semantics of Biblical Language. In others words to say, for example, that Greeks had a judicial model and Hebrews had a participatory model based upon certain words, idiom and language features is just plain wrong. Hebrews had a law-court model and the concept of covenant was
both participatory
and legal--hence the prophets prosecute covenant lawsuits.
More examples abound: Here is a great example of the fallacy of using linguistics to prop up these thought division;
Here is another example of the word
sheol where we are told 'Hebrews did not speculate into the unknown (has this person read Second Temple Literature?) and Greeks did.
Second, Greek worldviews were not monolithic. For Plato there was Aristotle; for
Parmenides, who thought the world was only static and changeless, there was
Heraclitus who thought the world was nothing but flux and change. Most people who refer to "Greek thought" only think: "Plato" and "Parmenides".
Epicureanism, for example, was materialistic and challenged the ontology of Platonism. As another example "Cicero...held that action is superior to theoretical knowledge and thus ethics is the primary subject of philosophy" (
Dictionary of New Testament Background, p.242)--but this is exactly what is too often labeled wrongly as "Hebraic" orthopraxy against the "Greek" orthodoxy.
Pyrrho, the founder of skepticism "challenged not just the value of things but even their knowability" (
Dictionary of New Testament Background, p.242)--again 'unknowability' is wrongly labeled as 'Hebraic' as if it is never found in Greek thought. Some aspects of the
Cynics do not fall within what is considered 'Western/Greek' thought. While we may find patterns within Greek worldviews, and we might trace for example the influence of Platonism and Neo-Platonism in later centuries, good recounting of the evidence in no way warrants or supports the categorical distinction of "Western vs. Eastern" "Greek vs. Hebraic". The issues are far too complex.
Third, "Hebraic" thought is hardly as monolithic as we are lead to believe. Judaism certainly had its notion of orthodoxy and maintained rigorous beliefs--otherwise the Maccabean revolt would have gone no where but to the monastery to meditate. Consider the use of the Shema as a confession of belief [granted the Shema was not a statement of metaphysics, cf N.T. Wright
The New Testament and the People of God p.242; my discussion here p.8). However, "[s]ome Jewish writers in the later Second Temple period consciously adopted some of the Greek metaphysical language" (Richard Bauckham,
God Crucified, 8). This would be impossible if there was truly such a thing as 'Hebraic thought'.
There are all stripes of Jewish thought and varying worldviews from Qumran and late medieval mystic Judaism, to Apocalyptic Judaism, Pharisaic Judaism and Rabbinic Judaism. One can trace pagan influences in some of the mythical Judaisms despite the fact that we are told that this is a 'Hebraic way of thinking.' Some forms of Judaism were very dualistic, others were not. N.T. Wright notes 10 types of dualities--4 that were common in a Jewish worldview, 3 that were
marginal (which I take based on his evidence to mean rare but not necessary non-existent in
all Hebraic thought) and 3 that were possible [N.T. Wright
The New Testament and the People of God, pp. 252-56; see my comments
here]. A minority of Jews did for a time 'Hellenize' and conform to Greeks culture
in their worldview--although after the Maccabean revolt that was largely not the case. However it is disingenuous to appeal to "Hebraic thought" and then import mysticism as if all Jewish worldviews were mystical and denied correspondence theories of truth in order to embrace nothing but paradoxes. For example,
Kabbalah and medieval Jewish mystics, influenced by patterns of thought in their own day, are hardly normative for Judaism through the ages. To take Rabbinic thought from the 3rd to 9th century and to apply it to first century texts [
a critique Scot McKnight makes (
new link)] and then label it 'Hebraic thought' is simple wrong. Let's also not forget about Philo, who has aspects of his thought that the dualistic patterns one would have to say are both Greek and Hebrew at various points.
To summarize our points two and three, worldviews hardly fall into monolithic categories or divided across such simplistic dichotomies. Various characteristics championed as unique to one or the other can often be found on both sides of the divide depending at whose worldviews you examine. Furthermore, in good history one can show the influence of ideas across cultures; one can even characterize patterns and schools of thought. But ideas and patterns of thinking are not easily divided into sociological or ethnic categories. (Ironically no one plays the racist card when we are told Greek thought is bad). One can trace differing worldviews. However, first linguistics and language structures do not support a uniquely original way of 'Hebraic thinking' that can be particularly represented at the word level. Second, worldviews cannot not be reduced to Hebraic vs. Greek and Western vs. Eastern. The categories of thought used to identify each as unique often overlap depending on which Greek, Hebraic, Eastern or Western worldview you look at and which other worldviews you with which you compare it. There is cross fertilization. Two "Greek" worldviews might be radically different and one "Eastern" and one "Greek" worldview might share commonalities. History is far too messy and complex for such reductions.
Fourth, one area that this distinction has been wrongly applied is the notion that Israelites have a distinction concept of 'corporate personality' while Greek thought is individualistic. Certainly certain passages in Scripture denote corporate representation where a leader represents his people, and even his actions or inactions have consequences to the people. However, this is not inherently "Hebraic". For example Ezekiel 18:4, 20,21, 24 teaches individuals being held responsible. Porter has shown (Nature of Religious Language, p.36) that for example in Oedipus the King, there is a sense of corporate representation that was not alien to the Greek world. So he concludes this is an unfair contrast between Greek culture and Israelite culture.
Fifth, some Eastern thought has a correspondence theory of truth.
There are pattern of 'Eastern thought' that hold firmly to a concept of truth that correlates to reality with an 'objective' right and wrong. This brings me to an excellent point made by Harold Netland, and my initial motivation for posting. His essay "
One Lord and Savior for All? Jesus Christ and Religious Diversity."
He summarizes the contention that people make:
It is sometimes said that this way of thinking about religious beliefs—that religious beliefs, like other propositions, are true or false, and that two contradictory beliefs cannot both be true—is merely a “Western” way of understanding religion and that “Eastern” religions do not approach religion in this manner. Rational approaches to religion that emphasize logical consistency depend upon “Western logic,” and other religions are not necessarily limited by such logical constraints. Therefore, it is said, the problem of conflicting truth claims is really a pseudo-problem, since it relies upon logical assumptions that not all religions share. (p.14)
He responds:
Although this perspective is fairly common, it is inadequate and very misleading. First, there is the empirical or factual question whether “Western thought” emphasizes rationality and logical consistency and whether “Eastern thought” rejects rational approaches to religion. What exactly is “Western” or “Eastern” thought?These are not monolithic entities but rather are broad abstractions that refer to large collections of people who display enormous diversity in thought. It is true that many people in Europe and North America do emphasize the importance of reason and logical consistency, but many others do not. Particularly in religious practice and the academic study of religion, many in the West today reject rational and logical principles, maintaining that religious “truth” somehow transcends rational categories. Similarly, there are religious traditions in Asia, such as certain forms of Hinduism, Buddhism (especially Zen), and Daoism, which do reject dependence on rational principles in the pursuit of religious “truth.” But many other religious traditions, especially in India and to some extent in China, are highly rational and emphasize the importance of logical consistency in belief.
Consider, for example, the comments of the Sri Lankan Buddhist scholar K. N. Jayatilleke. After arguing that the Buddha actually embraced the correspondence theory of truth, he asserts that for Buddhists inconsistency is a criterion of falsehood:
Although correspondence with fact is considered to be the essential characteristic of truth, consistency or coherence is also held to be a criterion. In contrast, inconsistency is a criterion of falsehood. In arguing with his opponents, the Buddha often shows that their theories lead to inconsistencies or contradictions, thereby demonstrating that they are false, using what is known as the Socratic method. . . . This means that truth must be consistent. Therefore, when a number of theories with regard to the nature of man and his destiny in the universe contradict each other, they cannot all be true, though they could all be false if none of them correspond with fact.
Similarly, the Japanese Buddhist scholar Hajime Nakamura claims,
"Gotama was described as one who reasoned according to the truth rather than on the basis of the authority of the Vedas or tradition. Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism have accepted two standards for the truth of a statement: it must be in accord with the [Buddhist] scriptures and must be proved true by reasoning. No Buddhist is expected to believe anything which does not meet these two tests."
Thus, it simply is not the case that “Eastern thought” in general rejects rational principles such as the principle of non-contradiction. (Emphasis mine; pp.15-16)
Of course, when it comes to writing of the New Testament, its worldview is clearly not Gnostic or Platonic [often wrongly labeled 'Western'/'Greek'] but neither does it buy into a worldview that is based on Iranian "Zoroastrianism" [which is from the Ancient Near East]. Certainly Paul has a background as a Jewish Pharisee. The NT at points uses the OT similarly to Second Temple Judaism. One can argue that Hebrews and Philo share certain similarities. Yet, adoption is a metaphor that has more parallels to Greek practice and especially Roman law than to Jewish thought (although this is debated particularly in J.M. Scott's excellent work
Adoption as Sons of God). Of course, Paul's background and worldview is based first of the Old Testament and second on Second Temple Judaism not Greek philosophy. Paul's spirit/flesh is a dualism--particularly an eschatological dualism but not a metaphysical one. Thus it is clearly not Platonic or Gnostic in its worldview. But Paul also resisted thinking about asceticism and festival days in the "Hebraic" patterns too (Col. 2:16-23). Certainly Paul tells us that when confronted with the cross Jews demanded signs and Greek demand wisdom--yet his purpose is to contrast unbelief (both Jew and Gentile) with belief. Both Jewish worldviews and Gentile worldview reject the message of Christ crucified. One thought pattern is not inherently better than another. Indeed Hebrews tells us that we are not to think of Christ as an exalted angelic figure, figures which were pretty common in first century Jewish literature.
One more example, the phrase "in him we live and move and have our being" in Acts 17:28. This could be taken as what some like Doug Pagitt might consider the 'story of the embedded God' (cf. Listening to the Beliefs of the Emerging Church pp.119-143, esp. 135). In fact, Doug Pagitt advocates moving from "Greek thought" of the gap between God and creation and rethinking the Creator-creature distinction. This would be to move from Greek thought (dichotomy) to Hebraic thought (integration). However the problems are multiple. (1) Acts 17:28 is a quote from Greek thought! (2) Paul applies it but clearly in non-pantheistic ways (cf. Bruce, Acts, 338-40). Indeed, the Stoics held that 'god' was the "immanent ordering principle" that is "very different from a transcendent Creator, outside and distinct from the world" (Dictionary of New Testament Background 1140). Epicureans believed all creation was falling particles (which sounds very similar to Pagitt's discussion of Einstein's theory of relativity for a reason to dismiss God as wholly other, Listening, p.140-42). But Pagitt argues that this Creator-creature distinction is Greek and embodiment is Hebraic--integrated and holistic. We simple point out that pantheism is native in Greek worldviews and Eastern worldviews (not however is most Judaic worldviews--cf. N.T. Wright New Testament and the People of God, p.252-54 on the its belief in theological/ontological dualism and theological/cosmological dualism [i.e. Creator-creature distinction]). In short, in Acts 17, Paul borrows Greek poets as a point of identity but shoots an arrow that strikes right at the heart of the Greek worldviews. Our point is that when we recognize the Greek quote from Epimenides 'in him we live and move and have our being' often typifies what people now label a 'Hebraic worldview,' we begin to see the distinctions and dichotomies are unhinged. Continual reliance on them is both shoddy argumentation and an effort to turn things topsy turvy.
We are not denying that there are differing worldviews simply that they do not define themselves into nice categories of Greek vs. Hebrew or Western vs. Eastern. We are not denying that to varying degrees Augustine, Origen and others were at times influenced by the world around them. That being said Enlightenment philosophy as a whole project (including the hyper-enlightenment of postmodernism) has no place for metaphysics. To Plato and the Greeks they say "We're not in Kansas anymore." To my point, we are simply denying false dichotomies and whole scale rejections based on labels falsely applied [to some this would make me 'Hebraic' =)]. There are characteristics common both and there are ways that are typically labeled "Eastern/Hebraic" that can be found on the Greek/Western side of the divided and vice versa.
Conclusion: Arguments that rely upon dichotomies between "Greek and Hebrew" or "Eastern and Western" may look sexy but there is more of dame folly to them than lady wisdom. They are often nothing more than power plays. And at the end of the day, the appeal that we embrace more "Eastern" or "Hebraic" thinking often is a ploy to lead us further from the Biblical text. Indeed, such arguments are elitist in that one worldview is categorically superior than the other. So "Eastern" and "Hebraic" always trumps "Western" and "Greek". This is not to deny that certain Greek worldviews certainly lead us away from the Biblical text but to point out that certain "Eastern" and "Hebraic" views so championed as mystical, non-rational, apophatic, and exclusively experiential lead us from the same text into another direction. The road to destruction is broad with many byways--it is not exclusively 'Greek' and 'Western'.
It high time we reject such shoddy argumentation and see it for what it is--the use of smoke and mirrors to mislead. It may look sexy, it often appears sophisticated and intellectual, when in fact it is nothing more than pseudo-intellectualism based on debunked Enlightenment theories of the 19th century. Such pseudo-intellectualism, naive dichotomies, simplistic abstractions and reductionist if not pompass appeals to "Greek vs. Hebrew" does nothing to further serious argumentation nor do they reflect carefully weighed conclusions. They mask ignorance of the complexities of Greek and Hebrew, Western and Eastern worldviews. They ignore obvious similiarities, patterns and cross fertilization. It is nothing more than a ring in a pigs snout. Sadly, particularly on the internet but also in some popular literature such arguments are still used as if they are the gold standard. Like the Sirens, it may sing sweetly to us and allure us but it is time we lash ourselves to the deck and plug our ears. This island paradise of naive dichotomies is covered with nothing but rocky shores of disaster for our boat.
Posts
