IS SEXUAL IDENTITY FIXED? RESPONDING TO THE WILDFIRE MYTH OF ‘GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY’

IS SEXUAL IDENTITY FIXED? RESPONDING TO THE WILDFIRE MYTH OF ‘GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY’

A Research Paper

Presented to

Professor Daniel R. Heimbach

In partial fulfillment of the requirement for

ETH6550B Moral Foundations of Marriage & Family

Leonard O Goenaga

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

December 10, 2009

IS SEXUAL IDENTITY FIXED? RESPONDING TO THE WILDFIRE MYTH OF ‘GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY’

As a youth pastor, I am in the front lines of the culture war. The number of questions we receive, from sex to salvation, are quite diverse. Having an open question policy, a student of mine recently approached me with the following. A friend from school had made the statement that homosexuality was genetic, and thus fixed and unchanging. The friend had quoted an article from the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay-friendly activist organization within the Republican Party, as proof.[1] Within this article were numerous studies by researchers and psychologists I had never heard of. However, understanding God’s revelation on sexual morality, and the serious threat immorality poses upon both society and faith, I sought to do some research and provide my student with an answer. What I discovered was simply shocking: “contrary to what many Americans believe, there are no replicated scientific studies demonstrating that homosexuality is determined by biological or genetic factors.”[2]

From here I began to pour through the research and dig through various journals and studies, finding this statement affirmed within the scientific record. I had written these findings in a short essay and provided them to my student to share with his friend. This essay was then posted on my Facebook, with the following remarks from friends: Female 1: “The fact that you are arguing that homosexuals CHOOSE this life style is hatred in itself,” Female 1: “But the Bible says nothing against homosexuality.” Male 1: “And to think if being gay were truly a matter of choice, why would I, or any one else bother to pick it?” Male 2: “And for the record, I think Homosexuality is genetic, and there are many geneticists who believe so.”[3] In short, I was again in shock.  Why would I have received such comments? Was the evidence not studied? What assumptions were being made? Where did this claim that homosexuality was genetic come from, and how has it been absorbed so fully by the public? To answer these various questions, as well as provide a detailed exploration, I had done the following research. The claims made by such individuals needed answers, and it is the purpose of this paper to do so.

One more concern must be clearly expressed before the evidence is presented is the spirit of this research. In all things, we must have love. Our presentation must always be one of grace. However, we must not mistake this for political correctness, or a fear of man. The very motivation of love should motivate us to share knowledge with one another, regardless of one’s subjective preference. To share in a civil and well-supported manner cannot be perceived as hate simply because it brings about an opposition to emotionally attached issues. Such is the method of suppressing exchange, which is true bigotry (to simply toss the hate sticker at anyone who disagrees). Rather, a deconstruction of presuppositions must occur, and the approach to the evidence must be done with honesty. In this paper, I will explore the initial groundbreaking studies that lead to the myth of genetic homosexuality, and critique them both on scientific and moral grounds, as well as on biblical exegesis. I will argue that the idea that homosexuality is genetic and thus fixed is simply unsupportive, and contradicts the works in which the myth stems, as well as the body of scientific research. I will summarize the essential studies in which this myth arose (LeVay, Swaab & Hofman, Bailey & Pillard, and Hamer), as well as the vehicles that propagated the myths. After analyzing the source of the myth and how it spread, I will critically analyze the above individual’s work, place focus on the scientific community’s reaction, and the earlier mentioned researchers own later conclusions. Following this critical analysis, I will proceed to develop an understanding of homosexuality and it’s source of origin. When this framework is established, I will explore God’s Word on the subject, and refute contaminated readings of key topical passages. When the presentation is complete, I will conclude the paper by asking whether change possibly exists.

Sparking the Myth: Root of ‘Genetic Homosexuality’

In his study of the male brain, Dr. LeVay takes three subject groups (presumed heterosexual men, homosexual men, and women), and studies four cell groups (INAH 1, 2, 3,and 4).[4] The specific area of study is the anterior hypothalamus, which regulates male sexual behavior. Dr. LeVay takes postmortem tissue measured from the three subject groups, and finds no grave difference in the measurement of INAH 1, 2, and 4. However in INAH 3, Dr. LeVay discovers twice a difference between the amount in heterosexual men versus homosexual men, and women.

In addition to the LeVay brain studies, a second source of research studied the cell groupings in the brain and their relation to homosexuality:

The Swaab and Hofman research studied the volume of the suprachiasmatic nucleus [SCN]…in homosexual men. The SCN is a cell group located in the basal part of the brains of mammalians. It has been thought to be the principal component of the biological clock that generates and coordinates hormonal, physiological and behavioral body rhythms…it has been thought to have involvement in sex because of the varying body rhythms in sexual desire as well as the sexual changes that come with aging.[5]

The study conducted by Swaab and Hofman studied the brains of 34 subjects, divided into several groups. The first group was one of reference, consisting of eighteen males who died of various causes. The second group consisted of ten homosexuals who died of AIDS. The third group consisted of six heterosexuals who had also died of AIDS. The final group consisted of four males and four females. The study concludes: “…the human hypothalamus revealed that the volume of the…SCN in homosexual men is 1.7 times as large as that of the reference group of male subjects and contains 2.1 times as many cells.”[6]

In addition to the brain studies, a major area that contributed to the ‘genetic homosexuality’ illusion is that of twin studies. In J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard’s “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation,” research was conducted upon identical twins with the intention to show a high concordance rate (the rate at which both twins are homosexual). Their findings concluded with a 50% concordance rate for identical twins.[7] The concordance rate for non-identical rates hovered around 22%.[8] Their claim was that “the pattern of rates of homosexuality by type of relative was generally consistent with substantial genetic influence…”[9]

Complimentary to the works on brain studies and those of twins, proponents have cited gene studies by Dean Hamer. Geneticist Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute released a study by a team he led that studied genetic material on the x chromosomes of homosexual twins. Dr. Hamer states, “The goal of our work was to determine whether or not male sexual orientation is genetically influenced. We used the standard techniques of modern human genetics, namely pedigree analysis and family DNA linkage studies.”[10] Hamer’s study led him to conclude that “We have now produced evidence that one form of male homosexuality is preferentially transmitted through the material side and is genetically linked to chromosomal region Xq28…[and that it] contributes to homosexual orientation in males.”[11]

Fanning the Flames: The Media Response

Church History Exam, Imperial Church

Describe changes to the church that were the result of the new relationship with the empire under Constantine.

During the 4th century, the church had begun to experience some major changes. With the rise of Constantine, and his takeover as sole emperor, the church found itself in a reversed role. Constantine claimed that the Christian God, whom he believed to be more powerful than those of the pagans, helped him capture victory. With this, he began to enact a series of measures to promote Christianity as a public-supported religion. This all started with the Edict of Milan (313 AD), which ended the persecution of Christians.

The Church now found itself in a new position. By raising it’s position within society to one parallel to paganism, as well as removing the threat of persecution, Roman citizens flooded the Church This produced two circles of Christianity: those of the nominal nature, and those whom were truly believers. With the flooding of individuals came the competition amongst churches to swell member sizes, leading to a loss of the previous concerns of the church.

Whereas the Church had previously worked absent of the civil authorities, the church now worked alongside it. Constantine sought to flood priests with styles of worship that fitted the majesty of the empire, instead of its former humble beginnings. Priests now wore pomp attire, choirs were added, and processionals were introduced. Soon Imperial theology began to seep into the church. Three major additions were made: 1) Whereas the Church had historically seen poverty and meekness as a blessing, the flooding of Roman aristocrats produced a theology that saw riches as a blessing, 2) A new clerical aristocracy developed, 3) As seen in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea, the idea of which the early church held dear of Jesus’ return and establishment of the kingdom were swept aside, and instead focused on the idea of the church and roman empire ushering forth such a kingdom.

The combination of imperial theology, as well as the additions of nominal Christians, produced various responses by the Christian community. Four in specific: 1) Certain Christians, such as Eusebius, believed this was the climax of history, where the church and empire rose to great heights, 2) Certain Christians had seen the intrusion of the church as a perversion, and ran to the deserts to pursue lives as monks, 3) Certain Christians saw it as a heresy, and progressed to schism in the form of Donatism, and finally 4) Certain individuals recognized the threats of nominal Christianity, and decided to stay and combat them intellectually (the great Doctors of the Church). These four responses, due to Constantine’s newly created relationship, where to have profound influences on the future discussions and directions of the Church.

Describe the meanings and theological uses of ousia, physis, and hypostasis in Nicene theology.

During the first great ecumenical council, Constantine sought to call the various bishops and Christians together to 1) Develop a form of official practice and doctrine, and 2) Contain a sense of unity amongst the Christians that would further produce stability within his empire. Of great concern at this debate, was the description of the trinity. Eusebius of Nicomedia had taken Arius’ argument of Arianism, the idea that Jesus was merely a creature whom has not existed for all eternity, but was rather a creation of God, and proposed it with a sense of authority.

After stunned into the realization that this heresy contained, Alexander of Alexandria spearheaded an attack on Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia’s Arianism. Central to this attack was the drafting of the theological terms ousia, physis, and hypostasis. We may explore their definitions as follows:

1) Ousia: Is defined as the same essence or substance. In practical terms, we may finitely and imperfectly see it in the example of species. A horse compared to a kangaroo bring about two separate ousia, or essenses. In the form of the trinity, ousia helps us understanding that the same essence of the trinity expresses their divinity. This essence is that the trinity and it’s persons are eternal and infinite. Being of this essence, they exist within one another, and share the same will (Perekarisus).

2) Physis: Is defined as distinguishing characteristics. In practical terms, we may finitely and imperfectly see it as the distinguishing characteristics between a horse and a donkey. Although they may have similar characteristics (four legs, etc), they contain distinguishing ones as well (their size, speed, makeup, usages, etc). The distinguishing characteristics of God (his omnipotence, love, grace, etc), allow us to see it in comparison to us, as well as to the distinguishing characteristics amongst the God-head. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each contain distinguishing characteristics, however are still of the same essence.

3) Hypostasis: Is defined as the expressive persons. Although two horses may both be of the same species, ad contain the same physis, Buttercup and Silver are two persons. They are not one mere horse, but share in the ousia of them being horses. This helps us understanding that although the trinity shares the same essence, it contains within it three unique persons: Father, Son, and Spirit.

Describe the new relationship between the church and empire under Constantine. This includes (but is not limited to) the role the church was intended to play.

Although it is an assumption, it is not wild to believe that Constantine saw the Christian God as a powerful means of solidifying his empire. After all, he had pursued worship of the pagan God’s while claiming his status as a Christian. For this reason, some had argued that Constantine sought the fusion of Church and Empire as a means of furthering stability and control. To Constantine, the church played an important role of bringing about stability within the empire. Where previously empires had sought the favor of the God’s to bring about the glory of the empire, Constantine saw the key as the Christian God. If he could appease this God by favoring his believers, the Christians, then he could strengthen his empire.

The relationship was thus fused. The Church took up imperial characteristics. As a result, the church was to play the role of shared stability. Instead of dealing with the divisions brought from past conflicts, Constantine sought to use the potential of the church to empower his reign. In the eyes of such thinkers as Eusebius of Caesarea, the role of the church was to ride the vehicle of the empire to the heights of Christianity. The empire empowered the Church to reach levels and numbers unseen previously. Capital and numbers were established to pursue bigger churches, and wider measures. However, this brought with it several confrontations.

((BELOW IS A COPY OF THE ANSWER TO QUESTION 1, AS IT RELATES TO AND ANSWERS THE ABOVE QUESTION AND MATERIAL))

During the 4th century, the church had begun to experience some major changes. With the rise of Constantine, and his takeover as sole emperor, the church found itself in a reversed role. Constantine claimed that the Christian God, whom he believed to be more powerful than those of the pagans, helped him capture victory. With this, he began to enact a series of measures to promote Christianity as a public-supported religion. This all started with the Edict of Milan (313 AD), which ended the persecution of Christians.

The Church now found itself in a new position. By raising it’s position within society to one parallel to paganism, as well as removing the threat of persecution, Roman citizens flooded the Church This produced two circles of Christianity: those of the nominal nature, and those whom were truly believers. With the flooding of individuals came the competition amongst churches to swell member sizes, leading to a loss of the previous concerns of the church.

Whereas the Church had previously worked absent of the civil authorities, the church now worked alongside it. Constantine sought to flood priests with styles of worship that fitted the majesty of the empire, instead of its former humble beginnings. Priests now wore pomp attire, choirs were added, and processionals were introduced. Soon Imperial theology began to seep into the church. Three major additions were made: 1) Whereas the Church had historically seen poverty and meekness as a blessing, the flooding of Roman aristocrats produced a theology that saw riches as a blessing, 2) A new clerical aristocracy developed, 3) As seen in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea, the idea of which the early church held dear of Jesus’ return and establishment of the kingdom were swept aside, and instead focused on the idea of the church and roman empire ushering forth such a kingdom.

The combination of imperial theology, as well as the additions of nominal Christians, produced various responses by the Christian community. Four in specific: 1) Certain Christians, such as Eusebius, believed this was the climax of history, where the church and empire rose to great heights, 2) Certain Christians had seen the intrusion of the church as a perversion, and ran to the deserts to pursue lives as monks, 3) Certain Christians saw it as a heresy, and progressed to schism in the form of Donatism, and finally 4) Certain individuals recognized the threats of nominal Christianity, and decided to stay and combat them intellectually (the great Doctors of the Church). These four responses, due to Constantine’s newly created relationship, where to have profound influences on the future discussions and directions of the Church.

((AN ADDITION TO THE INFORMATION COPIED ABOVE))

As a result, the actions of Constantine were to greatly affect the role the church would play in the future. With the moving of the capitol to Constantinople (former Byzantium), Constantine set in order the future of the western church. The West and Rome had been sucked of its power. Only time would be needed until it was fully sacked and taken over in 410 AD. A power vacuum remained, which the Latin Western Church quickly filled. With the coming of the barbarians, and the examples of such great leaders as John Chrysostom and Ambrose, the church naturally filled the role allowed by the barbarians to facilitate order. This then grew to the latin-centered Western tradition, which found its later fruition into the modern Catholic church and the resulting Protestant reformation.

It had all started between the relationship of the Imperial Church and the Empire. If it was not for Constantine’s desire to fuse the two and strengthen his hold, history would perhaps tell a very different story.

Explain the theological and ecclesiological events leading up to the Council of Nicaea

Within the city of Alexandria during the 4th century, a theological conflict grew. The famous and well-followed presbyter, Arius, began to adhere to a doctrine that taught that the Word was not of the same essence of the Father. Instead, Arius taught that the Son was merely a creature, begotten of God, and created by him before the creation of our physical world. Alexander of Alexandria saw the heresy behind this: to deny the divinity of the Son was to deny the validity of the incarnation, which in turn meant God did not suffer for our punishment on the cross, but merely some creature. God’s wrath could not fully be revealed upon the Christ, and instead poses major problems for Christianity: If a simple creature could live sinless, why not man? Why the need of a cross to begin with, if God’s creature could merely achieve righteousness. The issue of grace is thus muddled.

This battle resumed until brought to the presence of the Roman clergy. Upon seeing this heresy, Constantine called forth the first great ecumenical counsel in 325 AD. The issue, besides solving some unified practices, was to bring about a solution to this problem: to bring about the proper and official Christianity. Eusebius of Nicomedia, a bishop who represented Arius and the Arians, defended the position in hopes that the argument, once explained, would be universally accept. The opposite occurred, and the heresy was combated. The groups unified to establish it as heresy, developing a creed (Nicene Creed), that expressed this. In addition, Constantine banished the Arian priests and bishops from their cities, further strengthening the unity of his empire and the Christian church.

Identify Arius

Arius was a famous and well-followed presbyter of Alexandria. With such a popular following established, Arius’ ideas began to grow. One which is central to Early Church conflicts, was that of his view on the nature of God. In wishing to adhere to the monotheism of Judaic tradition, Arius taught that the Word of God, the Son Jesus, was merely a creation. He taught that the Son was a created being, made before the physical creation established in Genesis. In short, the Son was not one with the father: not of the same essence. He was a separate person, a figure much like a Demi-God (Hercules). Arius had taught these teaching, and quickly found opposition from such Orthodox Christians as Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria. With the help of his secretary Athanasius, Alexandria combated this heresy, bringing it to the Roman clergy, and finally to the Christian world before the Council of Nicea. Arius, since he was not a bishop, could not argue before the Council, and instead had to rely on Eusebius of Nicomedia to further his arguments. Upon being exposed to the Christian Church, Arius and his idea of Arianism was quickly rejected. He was labeled as a heretic, condemned by the Council, and banished from his city.

Identify Athanasius

Athanasius is popularly known as the ‘black dwarf’, due to his small height and his darkened skin. However this term is quite deceptive, as Athanasius was a theological giant. A 4th century Doctor of the church, his past is rather obscure, and boasts of humble beginnings. It is believed that he was raised somewhere along the Nile in Northern Africa. Having spoken Coptic, and with his darkened skin, it is believed he came from the lower class of the Copts. Athanasius had experienced further humbling after pursuing the life of a reclusive monk. Jerome even writes about his possible contacts with Anthony. He had firmly established a relationship and popularity with the monks, which worked to his advantage as conflict found him later in life.

After experiencing the monastic lifestyle, Athanasius was accepted as the secretary under Alexander of Alexandria. It was at this time where he was heavily exposed to the heresy of Arianism, which would thus effect his theological contributions. Besides experiencing a series of four exiles and returns, boasting of such events as requesting an audience with the empire by grasping unto his horse’s reigns, Athanasius was tremendously popular with the people. We could say that two distinguishing characteristics were his disciplines monastic lifestyle, and his fiery support amongst the populace. For these reasons, it is understandable that such individuals as Eusebius of Nicomedia and the pro-arian emperor Constantius would find him as one of their most formidable enemies. These individuals would pursue his elimination, only to find him whisked away to the secrecy of the desert monks protections.

During these fiery exchanges and battles with Arianism, Athanasius wrote two important texts: Against the Gentiles, and On the Incarnation of the Word. Within these works, we find the meat of Athanasius’ contribution to the Church and theology: the incarnation.

To Athanasius, the central fact of Christianity and human history is that of the incarnation: the coming of God to walk with man. Athanasius argued that it was this very act that allowed us to have true communion with God. To deny Jesus as the incarnate God, as the Arians had done, was to lead to the conclusion that true communion was no longer possible. For this reason, a denial of the central fact of human history and Christianity, Athanasius’ fiery opposition is understandable. Using his disciplined lifestyle, and his popularity with the people, Athanasius is best known for advancing and protecting Nicene Orthodoxy via his powerful example and compelling incarnation-focused arguments.
Identify homoousios

During the great debate of Arianism vs. Trinitarians, such individuals as Athanasius found one term central: homoousios. It is defined as having the ‘same essence’. The result of this term is central to understanding the nature of the trinity. Working upon the Trinitarian hints found within scripture (baptism, etc.), homoousios expresses that the trinity shares in the same essence/substance: eternal and infinite. It is do to their same essence that allows the trinity to not merely be three separate Gods (polytheism), but a single monotheistic God that shares the same essence, yet is found in three persons. To be eternal and infinite is to reside within the same ‘space’, and as such the will of the trinity is one. This single will shows the difference between the trinity and a polytheistic concept, as polytheism contains numerous God’s containing separate wills.

Athanasius battled for this term, which we see advanced within the creed. Later, perhaps a result of his old age and a desire to see unity amongst the Church, Athanasius accepts a slight change. Certain individuals, perhaps of fear for the heresy of patrepassinism (idea that God the father came down as Jesus, not the Son), wished to use the term homoiousios (of similar essence/substance). The latter term, which Athanasius would have previously deemed heretical, seemed a fitting sacrifice for the During the great debate of Arianism vs. Trinitarians, such individuals as Athanasius found one term central: homoousios. It is defined as having the ‘same essence’. The result of this term is central to understanding the nature of the trinity. Working upon the Trinitarian hints found within scripture (baptism, etc.), homoousios expresses that the trinity shares in the same essence/substance: eternal and infinite. It is do to their same essence that allows the trinity to not merely be three separate Gods (polytheism), but a single monotheistic God that shares the same essence, yet is found in three persons. To be eternal and infinite is to reside within the same ‘space’, and as such the will of the trinity is one. This single will shows the difference between the trinity and a polytheistic concept, as polytheism contains numerous God’s containing separate wills.

Athanasius battled for this term, which we see advanced within the creed. Later, perhaps a result of his old age and a desire to see unity amongst the Church, Athanasius accepts a slight change. Certain individuals, perhaps of fear for the heresy of patrepassinism (idea that God the father came down as Jesus, not the Son), wished to use the term homoiousios (of similar essence/substance). The latter term, which Athanasius would have previously deemed heretical, seemed a fitting sacrifice for the unity of the Christian Church.

Identify Jerome

There are perhaps no other figure as comical, interesting, and profoundly influential as Jerome. It is said that Jerome was born old, hinting at the later crabbiness and grumpiness that defined his character. Not to say he was a terrible human being, but his approach was simply different.
A Church Doctor of the 4th century, Jerome was a student of Classical Latin literature. It was this literature that planted the thorn of sex addiction within his mind. Having always admired the beauty, the pornographic images contained within the latin classics was burned into his mind. As a result, Jerome sought to purge himself from it. His solution? Severe asceticism. Going as far as rejecting to bath, Jerome came to the conclusion that he needed to reject any amount of pagan literature and study from his life. To fill this void, he began an intensive study of the scriptures. This helped, and as such he believed that a study of the Hebrew, with the idea it was holy, would help even more. Finding it barbaric, Jerome continued to pursue this field. This even led to a pilgrimage that took him to Jerusalem. It was here he wished to study the ancient Hebrew in the ancient city, and it was here his dear friends Paula and her daughter followed. Paula, a rich widow, had invested heavily in monastic, and the two led twin monastic orders sharing their gender. With continuous discussions regarding scripture with Paula, he advanced his studies, until he was encouraged by a bishop and his passions to produce a version in Latin.

Having been helped by his study, and removed of his perversions, Jerome is best known for translating the bible directly from the original languages into Latin. It is a hallmark of church history: a result of Constantine’s shifting of power from the West to the East produced a cultural vacuum in the West which Latin law and philosophy filled. Latin became the lingua franca, and Jerome sought to provide a version Westerners could read. The results were profound. The Catholic Church, once developed into its Holy Roman version, even deemed Jerome’s version to be the source of authority. Translations such as the Kings James Version and others were translations from Jerome’s vulgate. The existence of the apocrypha works (Tobit, etc.), as found in the Catholic’s 77-book canon, are the result of his placement between the Old and New Testament (even though he stated they were not authoritative). Simply put, Jerome’s translation effective all of the resulting theology. The ideas of penance and purgatory possibly stemmed from Apocropha and his versions of translating, leading to specific practices in the modern Catholic church.

In addition, he served as an example to translating the bible into the vulgar language of the day. With this in mind, it is clear to see how immensely influential Jerome’s work had become.
In addition, Jerome’s work points to another specific area of interest: the rise of Latin culture, and the result it had on theological thinking. It verified the importance of the Latin, and how this tradition began deviating from the Greek. Once Rome fell in 410 AD, it is no surprise this Latin Christianity fills the power vacuum.

Identify John Chrysostom

John Chrysostom, known as the ‘Golden tongued’ or ‘Golden mouthed’, was another profoundly influential character of the 4th century church. An absolutely gifted speaker, John produced immensely dedicated followers through the merely gift of his preaching. So powerful had he become, that his mere works could spark revolutions.

With a background as a lawyer, and above all a monk, John Chrysostom was a devote and disciplined believer. The popularity of his preaching in North Africa lead to him being snuck out (of course, to prevent a riot), and sent to fill a vacancy within the bishop see of Constantinople. It was here he was to provide the contribution of his reforms. Perhaps having saturated the negativity of the imperial theological additions, the churches of Constantinople were in a decline. Clergy and bishops were often caught in the midst of affairs with ‘spiritual sisters’, as well as serious mismanagement and usage of church funds for their own luxury. John combated this with a series of reforms: 1) He demanded that bishops and clergy no longer live with ‘spiritual sisters’, 2) He called upon strict austerity amongst the clergy, 3) He oversaw a strained and closely-watched management of church funds, 4) He heavily preached that the laity remove themselves from their nominal Christian practices, and move from knowing sport’s icons to knowing their bible (he exhorted them to live righteous and holy lives).

Also a defender of Nicene Orthodoxy, he was quick to draw conflicts. The current chamberlain Eutropis had the illusion that bringing John to the city would produce some goodies. He was sorely mistaken. As a result, several clashes occurred. One, which was specifically revealing, was Eutropis’ pursuit of individuals seeking asylum from his wrath. These individuals ran to Saint Sophia, where John accepted and protected them. When Eutropis came knocking, John was quick to remind him that no bloodshed would be spilt there. The result was, that by the merely popularity and weight of his words, John’s actions led to the downfall of the wicked chamberlain. John had drew the emperor’s side, which funny enough led to Eutropis loosing power and running from those he formly persecuted to St. Sophia. As he had done earlier, John offered protection, and prevented the public from murdering him. After Eutropis believed St. Sophia couldn’t protect him, he foolishly ran away to be killed.

These conflicts continued with later with other royal officials. They ended the same: with John coming up successful against the throne. It is this contribution that we find invaluable to the early and latin church. Along with Ambrose, John Chrysostom successfully repelled efforts of the empire. His popularity, and ability to provide provision, hinted at the future of the Latin West after the barbarian invasions and the need for order (which the latin church then fills). After several struggles, John was banished to Cucusus. Here he turned to the pen, and drafted numerous worked that further angered the Arians and Throne. He was then pushed even further to a hamlet by the black sea. On his way there, he had been pushed to the limits, and neared death. He asked the soldiers to take him to a small church near the road. Here he took communion and gave perhaps his greatest and most beautiful sermon: In all things, Glory to God. He then died.

Identify Pachomius

During the 3rd century, several potential beginnings to the monastic movement are seen. In response to the persecutions of that time, individuals sought the desert for solace. The Hermit Paul and the monk Anthony are such examples. They had sought solitute in abandoned cemeteries and warehouses, seeking to further their relationship with god through simple solitude and meditation. These individuals had attracted serious respect amongst the laity and clergy, and their efforts were known well enough to provoke individuals to seek discipleship. One such example, Martin of Tours, shows the potency of such value. The topic of an extremely popular book at the time, Martin of Tours was a monk known famous for tearing his cloak in half, which he gave to a beggar and later received a vision of Jesus clothed in the cloak (‘do this to the least of these, and you do it for me’). The ragged Martin would later be appointed the bishop of tours, much to the objection of the surrounding aristocratic clergy.

It was during the 4th century that we see a new addition to monasticism: communal monasticism. Stemming in the reaction to Constantine’s merging of Christianity and empire, individuals fled for the pureness of the deserts. One such individual, Pachomius, sought to accomplish such a lifestyle. Pursuing the monastic principles, Pachomius decided to create a communal order that would focus on shared living and contemplation. His first such effort failed, which he responded by kicking individuals out and creeping stricter rules. This produced success, and the self-sufficient monastic communities grew. Soon Pachomius found himself overseeing 9 different communities with 100+ monks per group.

An additional contribution Pachomius gave to the monastic lifestyle was that of hierarchy. He had positioned a strict hierarchy within the monastic commune, consisting of himself as the overseeing Abbot. However even in this, Pachomius was a servant to the others, and so described the hierarchy. Individuals would petition to join the order outside their establishments, where they would be tested to endure, and then accepted and implanted.

Pachomius, as well as the monastic movements in general, had a tremendous effect on the Early Church. The monastic ideal was actively sought after. We see this in the monastic experiences of Athanasius, Jerome, John Chrysostom, Augustine and others. The disciplined lifestyle was a sobering reminder and model within the nominal Christian masses that now swelled the imperial churches. The above names, whom all influenced the church tremendously, are clearly products of such an influence, and it is here that we see the value and effect of Pachomius and others.

As the 5th century approached, these monastic communities adapted in the West to serve more a function of charity amongst the poor and needy.

A Comparison Between Modern and Classical Liberalism: Is Modern Liberalism Truly Liberal?

Leonard O Goenaga

POT3302, Political Ideologies

Professor Boronat

March 9th, 2009

A Comparison Between Modern and Classical Liberalism: Is Modern Liberalism Truly Liberal?

A few days ago, Pat Buchanan, a well-known conservative commentator, released an article expressing how America is not on the path to Socialism, but is already there. With the climate of car and bank bailouts, trillion dollar stimulus plans packed with perceived liberal-programs, one is left to examine the claim seriously. Conservatives and Republicans alike have echoed the critiques of Obama as a Socialist, and echoing Rahm Emannuel’s statement that ‘we can’t let this crises go to waste’, one is left to wonder more. On what are President Obama’s policies modeled after? Are they truly socialistic? Or, are they truly of the Liberal tradition, known currently as Modern Liberalism? If so, how ‘liberal’ is this modern liberalism, and does it show any influence from the Social-Democratic movement within and abroad? This paper seeks to examine the similarities and differences between classical and modern liberalism, as well as survey the possibility of Social-Democratic thought on Modern Liberalism, and thus examine how ‘liberal’ modern liberalism actually is.

Before we can proceed to analyze any potential socialist narratives of the Obama administration, and with it this New-Left movement in modern liberalism, we must first move into defining terms. We will first start defining several traits of Liberalism as a whole, as it settled the background for Modern Liberalism’s arrival, and accommodate the majority of reference points Modern Liberals use to justify their system as essentially liberal. In our comparative analysis, we will first analyze key themes within these traditions, followed by key thinkers. To begin, we define Liberalism as a whole, as “a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties,” (Meriam-Webster). In more simplistic terms, Liberalism can be defined as the political ideology of preserving the individual’s liberty. This begs the question, what is liberty? Liberty is interchangeable with freedom, and it may be defined as “the ability to think or act as one wishes,” (Heywood 29). In other words, Liberalism attempts to first argue that the foundation of society is founded upon by a social-contract amongst individuals (see Locke’s Second Treatise), and that these individuals engage in said contract to best preserve their ability to think and act as they wish. John Locke, the father of this tradition, affirms this notion, arguing that “creatures of the same species and rank…should also be equal amongst another,” and that “every man has a property in his own person…nobody has any right to but himself,” (Locke 8, 19). Individuals are thus of prime importance (being all made in the image of God, and thus maintaining equality in design and self-ownership), both in political power (such as the establishment of a social contract and civil society), and economic pursuit (owning one’s own labor, and the freedom of pursuing the fruit of ones labor). Although such a brief attempt to summarize Liberalism is overtly not complete, we can see core themes that set the foundation for Liberalism: The Individual, Freedom, Reason, and Justice (Heywood 27). We have already established, given Locke’s argument of divine design and self-ownership that individuals are at the root of Liberalism. In addition, we have mentioned the purpose of individuals instituting government, via the social-contract, is to preserve their ability to pursue their aims and preserve their liberty. An additional foundation to this system is one’s access to reason. The individual’s ability to reason is central in engaging in society, making economic decisions, and establishing government and society. “reason…teaches mankind who will but consult it that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions,” (Locke 9). One final liberal theme of importance is the concept of justice, or “a moral standard of fairness and impartiality,” (Heywood 32). Naturally, a combination of individualism, freedom, access to reason, and the pursuit of justice leads one to devise a concept of equality amongst individuals. It is from this idea of equality, as well as a morphed idea of justice, that Modern Liberalism begins its revision.

Having analyzed the central Liberal ideas of individualism, freedom, reason, justice and equality, we may now explore the political direction it led to, known as Classical Liberalism. Before analyzing Classical Liberalism’s defining themes, it would work to our advantage to summarize the initial aims of the liberal state (having hinted to it above. In Political Ideologies, Andrew Heywood properly sums these aims of the Liberal state as being first “being created by individuals and for individuals…Second, social contract theory portrays the state as an umpire or neutral referee in society,” (Heywood 37-38). The characteristic of the government is thus a passive role, or as Locke properly sums it as a ‘night watchman’. This implies a minimist state, which both preserves one’s civil liberty (freedom from government), and protects one from the state of war (individual or foreign aggression, and governmental coercion). The Classical Liberals best wish to preserve this separation of government and the privacy and liberty of individual, both politically, socially, religiously, and economically. Society is generally atomistic, and made up of reason-driven individuals. Classical liberals believe, given the liberty of the individual, man is best designed to maximize his freedom to allow him maximized reason. This belief in the egoistical individual roots a system of economic and moral efficiency, arguing that since man is best enabled to handle his own economic and moral choices, he should be protected in-as-much as he doesn’t stumble over the boundaries of another man’s liberties. In addition, Classical Liberals believe in the existence of natural rights, found in the form of negative rights. Jefferson explained these national rights as seen in the Declaration of Independence, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” (Jefferson 3). Besides the utter importance of natural rights, and egoistical individual, Government is designed as a ‘necessary evil’. The Classical Liberal ideal is then, the least government possible, the absolute protection of natural rights, and the freedom of egoistical individuals to pursue their aims without fear of attack or coercion from governments. This leads way to an acceptance of laissez faire economic principles, as advocated by Adam Smith and David Ricardo. The Liberal political model was extended to the economic realm, where reasonably, individuals should also be free to pursue economic aims. “Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man or order of men,” (Smith 466). The economic functions best when the government governs least. Due to man’s access to reason, and egoistical individualism, Classical Liberalism sought to embrace and maximize the ideas of Adam Smith and free markets, arguing that the preservation of man’s liberty naturally meant a preservation of his economic endeavor. It from the perceived failures of a supreme laissez faire approach (the Social Darwinism of the 19th century), as well as a different understanding of justice and equality, that the schism between Classical and Modern Liberalism occurred.

Finally arrived at Modern Liberalism, we must recap our finding. In the end, Liberalism wishes to preserve the liberty of man’s actions and desires; in-so-much that they do not trample the natural rights of his/her fellow man. Liberalism advocates the individual as the center of political power and society, as well as emphasizing man’s reasonable nature, his God-given status of equal and free, and the justice of maximizing man’s individual liberty. Classical Liberalism takes from these ideas, emphasizing a passive and minimal role for government, as well as focusing on a free market laissez faire styled economy. From this, Modern Liberalism is born in the wake of grievances against the perceived discriminative nature of laissez faire economies, and a different notion of justice. These are found in the arguments that Social Darwinism and laissez faire policies do not necessarily make one free, but rather produce inequalities. In other words, the policies made individual’s access to pursuing their freedoms unequal, or as popularly proposed, the playing field in which individual access their freedoms is unfair. Maintaining the individual as primal importance, Modern Liberals thought that through using government, as seen in the 20th century in the endeavors of FDR’s New Deal, Johnson’s Great Society, and JFK’s New Frontier, society could maximize an individual’s freedom. The focus here was now individuality, or “self-fulfillment achieved through the realization through the realization of an individual’s distinctive or unique identity or qualities,” (Heywood 55). J.S. Mills, in On Liberty, attempted to emphasize the individuality and self-actualization of an individual, “the only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs,” (Mill 22). This idea of self-actualization and individuality formed the bridge into modern liberalism: the goal is to provide the environment which best allows the individuality to experience freedom, or actualize themselves. From here, thinkers such as T. H. Green advocated a review of the notion of liberty. This led to the idea of positive freedom, which were rules made not to protect an individual from government (negative rights), but to advance one’s access to fulfilling and advancing their liberty. This came into fruition within the idea of FDR, whom working within the depression, advocated for a positive role for government. The idea was to utilize the government to ‘level the playing field’, by helping the disadvantaged poor. By implementing welfare-state policies, such as social security and welfare, it was argued that the government could pull individuals from the entangled restraints of poverty and social inequality that prevented them from actualizing their liberty. As justice was earlier mentioned, Government now took the responsibility of enacting social justice, or “a fair or justifiable distribution of wealth and rewards in society,” (Heywood 33). In addition to redistributing wealth and providing social services that arguably ‘leveled the playing field’, the role of government in economics grew. In The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, economist J. M. Keynes argued that the government could take a positive role of by regulating demand via fiscal policy. Although an opposite to the ideals of classical liberalism, Keynesian economics further added to the ability of Modern Liberalism to ‘level the playing field’. We thus see the following themes within Modern Liberalism: Individuality, positive freedom, equality, welfare state, and social justice.

(click to read more)

Constitutional Precommitments, and Their Relation to Democracy: An Evaluation of Holmes and Waldron.

Leonard O Goenaga

POT4930, Constitutional Theory

Professor Fatovic

February 18th, 2009

Question 2: Constitutional Precommitments, and Their Relation to Democracy: An Evaluation of Holmes and Waldron.

For some time, Constitutional Democracy has been seen as somewhat of an oxymoron. This tension has been between Constitutionalist (such as Hayek) and Democrats (such as Shapiro), who have argued over the dangers of an unchecked democratic mob, or aristocratic preserving tendencies of a dead constitution-writing elite. This debate has long been fought between both of these sides, each claiming their system to be the best, while fretting over perceived dangers of the other. However, Stephen Holmes, in Constitutionalism and Democracy, dares to argue that these two views are not so much mutually exclusive, and that they are essentially beneficial to one another’s existence. Holmes seeks to argue that Constitutionalism preserves and protects the opportunity for democracy in the form of precommitments. These precommitments can be defined as higher laws and principles, decided during the founding stages of a nation’s creation, which organize the functions and powers of government, as well as the rights and rules of the citizenry. In such a way, precommitments may be seen as binding restrictions, found in the form of written constitutional high law, that dictate a framework for further laws, and the functioning of government and power. It is the goal of this paper to survey the ideas of Holmes, a supporter of precommitments, and Waldron, whom opposed Holmes’ ideas, and discover which of these two areas of thought best preserve the idea of Democracy.

Before discovering the ways in which Constitutionalism enables Democracy, Holmes and those whom support precommitments must answer two questions regarding the ability of one generation to bind the latter. This argument against restraint is found within Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, whom state that “the present generation has an unlimited and illimitable right to new-model the institutions under which it lives. The only consent that legitimates any form of government is ‘the consent of the living,’” (202). The trouble for Constitutionalism comes in this: how can dead generations of the past, set the rules for the present? Does it not initially seem that this process is anti-democratic? In addition, individuals who supported this view, such as Jefferson, suggest that “”only periodic and obligatory constitutional plebiscites can disenthrall the present from the past and assure every generation its proper say,” (205).

Having observed the complaints of Jefferson and Paine, we must now ask if a generation can bind the next. To answer this, we must observe first the type of contract being passed over, and the parties involved. “Rather than being presented as an exchange of promises between separate parties, modern constitutions are typically styled as frameworks which ‘we the people’ give ourselves,” (209). In other words, there are not two parties involved, but rather a single entity of the people prescribing to the established precommitments. “The present generation is bound by the decisions of its forefathers because the dead and the living constitute one people…Just like any other individual, a nation is bound by its original vows,” (208). This leads us to ask, why can one generation bind the next with such principles as constitutional precommitments? We find this in Holmes’ analysis of the inheritance of debt. “If you inherit another’s property you also inherit his debts,” (212). Perhaps conceptualizing the passing of debt improves an understanding of the individuals involved. “Whenever he accepts a bequest, a nonsigner of the original contract implicitly consents to the political conditions which make enjoyment of that property possible,” (213). The people, agreeing to this contract not with a second body, but within itself, and within the consent and contractual nature described in Locke’s second treatise, participates in the inheritance of the ‘property’ of the government. We also must ask, having established that the people constitute one body, and not contractual between two groups, if an individual can bind itself. A theological argument illuminates that one can restrain himself, while still preserving freedom. God committing himself to his own principles is a sign of His freedom. Committing to omnipotence allows omnipotence (213-214). Even Bodin understands the need for self-restraint, “by claiming that precommitment is a vehicle of royal freedom – the strategy by which a sovereign may most effectively assert his will.” (215).

Platonic and Christian Theology: A Paper Analyzing the Relationship between Platonic Thought and Christian Philosophy.

Leonard O Goenaga

Professor Boronat

POT3013

November 10, 2008

 Platonic and Christian Theology: A Paper Analyzing the Relationship between Platonic Thought and Christian Philosophy.

Being quite the intellectual, Augustine, having received a prestigious academic chair within the Latin world, was oddly in internal turmoil. Having been a devout follower of Manichaeism, Augustine was moving away from the religion on the basis of a theological disagreement. In its place, Augustine pursued skepticism, only to later fall under the sway of Neoplatonism. It was here that his vehicle to Christianity, that of reason under Neoplatonic influence, would take him into the embrace of Christianity.[1] Having arrived through this vehicle of reason, Augustine was to become one of the most inspirational thinkers in Western Christianity, and would be the father of thought further developed during the medieval era. It is no wonder then, that even now, Christians freely speak of his thought as common dogma: from his concept of original sin, to his ideas of just war. The interplay between reason, Augustine’s Christianity, and his Platonic influence thus begs the question: if Augustine found immeasurable value between these two schools, what could a comparison between Christianity and Platonism provide for modern readers and practitioners? What similarities and differences do these two invaluable schools of belief and thought hold? This paper will focus on detailing and comparing Christian Theology with Platonic Philosophy, underscoring the similarities and differences between the two, and concluding with an evaluation of this assessment.

First and foremost, a discussion of the similarities between Platonic Philosophy and Christian Theology necessitates a brief summary of the nature of God. To start, God is a perfect being, containing within himself the reason for His existence, and absolute freedom. In addition, the Christian God contains various Omni-traits, as have been agreed upon by the Christian theologians of the ages. He contains within himself absolute intelligence, power, goodness, freedom, and needs no external force for His continued existence. Within this absolute freedom, we find a will that wished creation into being, with no external or internal factors forcing the creation of this world. Rather, God created the world simply because He desired to.  In addition to these characteristics, God is also a reasonable and all knowing figure, allowing humans to understand him on a rational basis, and concerning himself greatly with man’s affairs. Upon creation, God desired man to find fulfillment and completion in a loving relationship with Him. However, man, containing a free will in the image of the freedom of God, yet not containing the all-knowingness of God, could choose between entering into a genuine relationship with God (as loving presupposes choice and free will), or rejecting him. It is from this rejection of God that sin and imperfection enters the world, and it is God’s redemptive plan, through the saving powers of Grace through the salvation and revealed self-expression found within Jesus Christ (the λογοσ), that God made manifest his plan to reconnect humanity to their primal purpose: intimacy with the Father. It is from this brief summary of the Nature of God and the purpose of humanity that we build upon.

After establishing the absolute freedom and power of the Judaic-Christian God, we can now establish the Creation, and humanities relation to God. The Christian God created the world ex nihilo, or ‘out of nothing’. His purpose for creating the world is his own, and is not dependent, like the Platonic Demiurgos, on any external or internal factor. The infinite God created simply because he had the power and freedom to do so, and in this we find his purpose for doing so. Within this creation, which he deemed Good, we find the creation of Man in His image (Genesis 1:26[2], 31[3]). With the character of the Christian God established, and a general summary of creation made, we can now move to Human Nature and Man’s intended purpose.

As earlier mentioned, man’s purpose is to enter into an intimate relationship with his Creator, for a flock without a Shepard is lost. Man is lost in the sense that by following himself, his own impulses and his selfishness, man is trapped in a life of sinfulness, and sinfulness stands in opposite to the goodness and relationship God intends for Humanity. God created man with the purpose of making him in His “image and likeness” (Gen 1:26). However, Man has the ability to dedicate himself to God, or to sinful materialism. To combat man’s sinfulness, God revealed his self-expression in his son, Jesus, whom man could emulate to fulfill the above-mentioned purpose (As the Father, the Son, and the Spirit exist in a loving trinity). Through loving Christ, and modeling oneself after Him, man could fulfill his created purpose (entering into relationship with God, and modeling oneself ‘in His image’). Jesus, the Logos, is the revealed knowledge of God, and represents a physical entity that individuals can learn to and follow, in order to enter into communion with and understand God’s expression and love. This purpose and idea is personified in the Christ, and made manifest in the form of Jesus’ teachings and His sacrifice and resurrection. Jesus is thus “God’s ‘definition’ of what humanity and the world are all about,” (Komonchak 28). Jesus is the Christ destined to save humanity from their self-imposed sinfulness, and steer them on a redemptive path towards their initial intended purpose.

Another important topic on the subject of Human Nature is the element of Grace. Grace can be defined in Christian terms as the “sphere of the freely offered love-relationship between the triune God and humans,” (Komonchak 711). This is somewhat similar, as a factor for motivating good, with the Platonic concept of Eros (developed in the Phraedrus and Symposium). According to this concept, “the impulse to philosophy arises when the soul recognizes the imperfect copies of ideas present in material reality, and with longing love (Eros) strives to transcend the corporeal and reach the purity of ideal forms,” (Brauer 664). The similarity is drawn with Christianity in this: The Christian understands God to be the source of Goodness and Completion (as to the Platonist the source of Goodness is the Good and the world of transcendent ideas/Forms), and through the divine Grace of God, man’s “desire for good and the freedom to pursue it is established,” (Komonchak 711). The force that motivates the Christian to do good is the divine grace given to him by God, and he is established in a general longing for completeness via a relationship with God through the saving Christ, whereas the motivating factor for the Platonist to do good is the longing love (eros) to reach the perfection of ideals, and thus share these ideas with humanity. The Christian concept of human nature desiring divine intimacy can is similar to the Platonic longing love (eros) to connect with the world of ideas/Forms. In addition, both, as found in Christian Charity, and as found in the Republic’s Philosopher Kings and knowledge of The Good, can be forces for moral good and love in the world.

The Decline of Institutionalized Religion, and the Future of Faith in Europe.

Leonard O Goenaga

Professor Thiel

CPO3103

November 24, 2008

The Decline of Institutionalized Religion, and the Future of Faith in Europe.

 When asked to define Western European historical identity, several things come to mind: the birth of the Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, the Scientific revolution, the birthplace of democracy, the enlightenment, modernism, secularization, and others. Given the Western European innovations mentioned, many individuals look to Western Europe as a model for future states. Individuals may make the genuine error of observing an overt secularizing trend within Europe, and mistakenly deposit such a prediction for the world as a whole. They, like the Hebrew Prophets and modern Evangelists, herald the message of secularization as if a predestined destination for man. Given the standards Europe has set for much of the world, this understanding may at first sound reasonable. However, given the diversity of the world, the rise of religious fundamentalisms, and other factors, such a prophecy may be premature. With Europe’s profound religious history, as both the vehicle of Roman Catholicism and the home of the Protestant reformation, it is fascinating to find it to be the home of secularization. To ignore Western Europe as a trendsetter is asinine, and as such, a survey of the nature of Religion in Europe is warranted and rewarding. What can such a survey accomplish? Is the claim of Western Europe as secular genuine? Are the predictions that a totally secularized Europe grounded?  Are there any exceptions or revivals? This paper will survey the current state of European religious health, analyzing the trends of religious decline, the increase in secularization, and the exceptions of religious stability and growth in Europe. This paper will explore and conclude whether a possible cure for Europe’s religious sickness appears on the horizon, or whether it is plagued to continue in its trend of pluralism and secularization.

            It is interesting that when we refer to Western Europe, we speak of a division from its eastern counterpart by means of some imaginary line produced between former communist countries and the parliamentary western states. However, a more historical, and some would argue more profound, division existed way before the development of Marx’ communist ideology. This first great division between Western and Eastern Europe is an important religious one: The split between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Before an exploration of the state of religion in Europe is made, the divided identity of Europe needs clarification. From this Eastern and Western divide, with the West inheriting a Roman Catholic tradition (which later led to the reformation, with strong protestant movements in Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Scandinavian countries), and the East inheriting Orthodoxy, we receive an illuminating understanding to the continental divide, as well as certain nation-bound religious inclinations. Exactly which nations do we speak of when we refer to Eastern and Western Europe? For the West, we mean those traditionally Roman Catholic countries, including but not limited to the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the Scandinavian states, and others. For the East, we refer to nations that belong to the Orthodoxy tradition, including Romania, Bulgaria, and Russia.[1] This leaves out several countries, including those of Central Europe, which may be defined not only by its Ex-Communist identity, but also by its religious affiliations. The Central European countries of “Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and what was East Germany…[also] developed within Western Catholicism,” which may be revealing in understanding their European identities, and their similarities with the traditionally Western nations (Davie 4). Having established an understandable division of Europe on a historical level of religious traditions, we may now continue our evaluation of religion within Europe, with particular focus on the reformed countries (Protestant United Kingdom, Germany, and the Scandinavian countries), traditionally Catholic countries (Italy, France, and Poland), and interesting European religious innovations (as found by Islam, New Age, and Christian revivals in Europe).

The first assumption made in the discussion of religion in Europe, is that it is a spiritual desert. Missionaries will preach the message of the need for a spiritual awakening in the land of Luther and Calvin. Compared to the Americans, where churches are vibrant, active, and visible, Europe’s Christianity seems somewhat belittled in comparison. Many surveys have expressed the importance religion plays in individual’s lives, and in one such survey Europeans averaged 21%, compared to a hefty 90% average of individuals in Muslim nations, and around 60% for Americans in 2002 (Jenkins 27). Further still, individuals in Europe do not merely express dissatisfaction with religion through a lack of church attendance, but also out right claiming atheism, with “a survey of British respondents in 2004… [finding] only 44 percent admitting to belief in God, with 35 percent denying that belief, and 21 percent ‘don’t know,’” (Jenkins 27). In addition, France saw an increase from individuals claiming no religion grow from 11% to 34% between the years 1973 and 1944 (Jenkins 27).

This decline in the belief of God is not the only indicator of spiritual corrosion. In addition, core Christian doctrines have seen sizable declines. “In 1957, 71 percent of British respondents declared that Jesus was the Son of God, but by 2001, the figure had fallen to 38 percent,” (Jenkins 27). Another core Christian Orthodox belief has seen tremendous decline as well. Belief in the historical existence of Jesus shows a sharp decline between age groups, with 80% of those over 65 believing in the historicity of Christ, compared to only 54% of those between the ages of 18-24 (Jenkins 27).  A third leg of study that individuals point to in their arguments for a secularized Europe is that of Church attendance. Compared to about 40% of Americans who report weekly attending some place of worship, only about 20% of Europeans do the same (Jenkins 28).[2] Lower still, Britain boasts of about 15%, Germany 12%, and the Scandinavian countries below 5% (Jenkins 28). The evidence is stacked higher still, when one looks at the numbers of individuals who never attend services. “As of 2000, though, such absentees made up 60 percent of French respondents, 55 percent in Britain, and between 40 percent and 50 percent in Scandinavia and the Low Countries,” (Jenkins 28). With these statistics, it would appear that organized Christianity has taken an insignificant backseat to Europeans. Post-1975, “Britain’s churches lost around 20 percent of their adult membership,” similarly, in Germany, the Evangelical Church (EKD), has lost about half it’s membership in the last half-century (Jenkins 28). One can only conclude that within the traditionally protestant countries (Britain, Germany, Denmark, etc.), institutionalized Christianity is in a crisis, but can the same be said of their Catholic neighbors? Also, is a declined in the practice of denominational Protestantism enough to conclude a death of it, or as Grace Davie coins, do we merely find a situation of ‘believing without belonging,” (Davie 8)?

‘Jewish Stoicism’: Analyzing the Evidence of Stoic Influence in Judaic-Christian Thought

‘Jewish Stoicism’: Analyzing the Evidence of Stoic Influence in Judaic-Christian Thought, from Josephus to Paul of Tarsus.

As with any religion, there are always vigorous discussions and debates on whom influenced whom. In Judaism and Christianity it is no different, with a host of claims coming from the camps of Greek Philosophy, Zoroastrianism, Mesopotamian Polytheism, Paganism, Egyptian religion, Roman cults and more. This paper in particular will explore the potential influence of Stoicism within Judaic-Christian thought, emphasizing evidence within Jewish and Christian thinkers and writings, and conclude with a judgment as to the size of the role Stoicism played in the progression of this Judaic-Christian religious tradition.

Before we attempt to analyze the evidence of Stoicism in Judaic writing, we must first briefly define what is considered Stoic Philosophy. Stoicism originated in Athens with a man named Zeno of Citium (336-263 B.C.). This school of Hellenistic thought, which found popularity amongst the rich upper Roman classes, emphasized a moral and ordered purpose of the universe (Harris 43). Within this order, ultimate purpose and meaning was found within Reason. This ultimate Reason, in which the Stoics attempt to plug into, was identified as the Logos (Λόγός).[1] Although this paper will touch further in depth regarding the word Logos, it is an important term to underscore, because late Jewish thinkers and New Testaments writings borrow both the terminology and its Stoic usage freely. This Universal Wisdom/Reason “unifies the world and makes it intelligible to the human intellect,” (Harris 43). Man finds within himself a spark of this divine Logos, which takes a fiery-like substance, and the purpose of the Stoic is to connect to his individual reason with the source of cosmic Reason, which is done by elevating himself from worldly experiences (lust, anxiety, pain), and refining oneself bodily and intellectually to a degree of disciplined harmony with Nature (Logos).

Man, a part of this divine order, was capable of understanding it and its laws through the reason possessed by all men. Virtue depended on knowledge, and knowledge was obtained through reason. The golden rule was ‘follow nature,’ live consistently with nature, obey the universal law of nature [Logos]. (Curtis 104).

The focus of the Stoic was thus self-control, discipline, self-sufficiency, distance from emotional experiences (pain, pleasure), rational thinking, and an understanding of this cosmic-governing Nature (Logos).

Before Hellenistic influence is discussed regarding Josephus and others, it is worth mentioning when the two cultures came into contact. Although it is suggested that they may have been in trade as early as the 7^th century B.C., it isn’t until 332 B.C. that Alexander the Great conquers the Orient, thus bringing the two cultures close enough to spur cultural exchanges and conversations (Brunschwig & Lloyd 873). From this conquering, the Jews were mostly required to learn the Greek language, as well as adjust to the pressure of Hellenistic culture. From here, we are given an idea of the interchange and communication in which Josephus and others later took part. Josephus himself was a 1^st century Jewish thinker, apologist, and historian who gave important historical accounts of the destruction of the temple and other 1^st century events. Some of his most famous works include The Jewish War (75 A.D.) and Antiquities of the Jews (94 A.D.).

Our first sign of Stoic influence found within the writings of Josephus is in his comparisons of Jewish sects to schools of Greek Philosophy, where he compares the Pharisees to the Stoic School (Life 12) and the Essenes to the Pythadorean model (Ant 15.371) (Felman 190). In comparing the Pharisees to the Stoic school, and having arrived within the Pharisaic camp after trying the others, it wouldn’t be an error to suggest that this connection offers evidence of Josephus’ favorability towards Stoicism (Felman 190). With this Pharisee-Stoic connection drawn, we can now pursue evidence of Stoic ideas in his writings, by focusing next with his redressing of the story of Isaac’s attempted sacrifice, his perspective of Moses as a Stoic sage, and his view of law and authority.

The first proposed evidence of Josephus’ Stoic leanings is in his redressing of Abraham’s attempted sacrifice of Isaac. Knowing that his Stoic-inclined audience would find action out of ‘blind-faith’ unfavorable, Josephus redresses his telling of the story as depicting Abraham “in the guise of a kind of Stoic philosopher, who reasons that ‘all that befell His [G-d’s] favored ones’ was ordained by his providence (προνοιασ) (Ant 1.225),” (Felman 194). The Greek word προνοι[2] is itself a Stoic term, in which Josephus uses 74+ times in the first half of Antiquities (Felman 194).

A second source of Stoic influence is in Josephus’ presentation of Moses as a Stoic sage in Antiquities 2.229. Here we find Josephus complimenting Moses as being “remarkable for his ‘contempt for toils’ (πονων καταφρονησει) (Ant. 2.229), a typically Stoic phrase,” (Felman 194). In addition to the Stoic attitude of despising toils, Josephus explains that Moses’ “emphasis on law (νομοσ[3]) is in accord with the Stoic view that regarded νομοσ as the expression of the cosmos and that viewed man as a κοσμοπολιτησ[4] who must order his life in accordance with universal law,” (Felman 194). From Josephus’ comparison of his Pharisee sect as similar to that of the Stoic school, to his redressing of Abraham’s sacrifice, to his usage of key Stoic terms and ideas with Moses, it is clear that in his attempts to target a Greek-cultured audience, Josephus’ understanding and explanation of scripture carried a Stoic influence and tone.

In addition to Josephus, a second Hellenized Jewish thinker who displayed Stoic influence was Philo. Philo Judaeus was a Hellenistic Jewish scholar writing in the 1^st century from Alexandria. Although Philo included in his work similar Stoic views of matter, death and God, what is most important in our comparison is the inclusion of Greek Wisdom and Hebrew religion in his Philosophy, “which he sought to fuse and harmonize by means of the art of allegory that he had learned from the Stoics,” (Toy, Siegfried & Lauterbach 1). In traditional Stoic fashion, Philo examined the Hebrew bible with a philosophical lens, dividing it between a literal understanding that focused on human need, and the allegorical sense that needed a special understanding (Toy, Siegfried & Lauterbach 1).  As the Sage brought about union with his individual logos (reason) to the supreme Logos (Nature), Philo advocated an understanding of this allegorical level of the Hebrew Bible in which to achieve Wisdom. One of these most important philosophical ideas is that of the afore-mentioned Logos, and how Philo attempts to reconcile Hellenistic logic and reason with the wisdom and revelation of Hebrew scripture.

Probably influenced by the author of Wisdom of Solomon, “Philo used the Hebrew concept of Wisdom as the creative intermediary between the transcendent Creator and the material creation,” (Harris 219-220). Philo as well focused on borrowing the very Stoic Greek term of Logos to explain this understanding. Although there exists a separate word for wisdom in Greek (σοφια, so-phi-a), Philo’s usage of Logos instead emphasizes his Stoic influence.  “Philo’s interpretation can be illustrated by an allegorical reading of Genesis 1, in which God’s first act is to speak—to create the Word (Logos)—by which power the Cosmos is born.” (Harris 219-220). Although Philo also emphasized Stoic ideas of virtue, cosmology and other ideas, the usage of the Greek Logos as personified by the allegorical reading of the Hebrew tradition of Wisdom (as found in Proverbs), is our most distinctive and valuable Stoic idea. With it, Philo attempts to package Logos as initiating with Yahweh and His word. By coming to an understanding of the allegorical level of the Hebrew Bible, one can use this gained knowledge to connect with God (true Cosmic Reason & Wisdom), fulfilling one’s purpose of the Stoic concept of becoming a complete rational being. In this scenario and understanding, Logos (God’s word) acts as the intermediary that brings one to ultimate Reason (and Wisdom). As this paper will further develop, this concept of Logos is also central in identifying Stoic influences in the Apocryphal work of the Wisdom of Solomon and the writings of John.

Although it is easy to find Stoic and Hellenistic influences with late Jewish thinkers (post 300 B.C.), it is increasingly more difficult to find, if any, Stoic influence within the writings of the Hebrew Bible. This is understandable, given a lack of intellectual and cultural communication between the two camps pre-Alexander’s conquests. The Hebrews themselves are interesting in their distinctive and internal culture, and although signs of trading between the Greek and Hebrews were evident as early as 700 B.C., the two don’t engage in an intellectual and cultural exchange until after Alexander the Great’s conquests. After this point, we find such Jewish Hellenized writers as Philo, Ben Sira, Josephus and others trying to communicate the message of Hebrew revelation in Hellenized terminology. In addition, we find apocryphal writings around this time that either attempt to communicate Hebrew ideas in Stoic terminology, or simply show Stoic influence. With Scholars dating a majority of the Hebrew texts before the 3^rd century, and without any in-depth exchange besides mundane trade between the two, the Hebrew identity pre-Alexander remained intact and special. This is extremely important in understanding the influence Stoicism brought to Judaism. Books from the Hebrew Bible may contain some ideas that can be stretched to appear Stoic, as is the case with the constant personification of Wisdom as found in Proverbs 8:22-30, but this is more so a case of internal progression of Hebrew ideas than a borrowing of the Stoic concept of Logos. For that reason we must admit that Stoic ideas, with their relative absence in early and middle Judaism, account for no real influence on the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament, a.k.a. Tanakh). The value then, is in taking this introverted Hebrew tradition, and comparing it with ideas promoted by Christianity and late Jewish thinkers. With that in mind, we will now analyze Stoic influence in the later Apocryphal writings, and after analyzing Stoic influence in Christianity, we will conclude with a summary of Stoicisms role in Judaic and Early Christian thought.

Although timing and the relative independence of Jewish literature from Hellenized influence was a real factor that kept the Hebrew Bible distinct and original, the same cannot be said of the works of the Apocrypha. These documents were written, usually by an anonymous author claiming authorship of great Hebrew thinkers (Saul, David, Solomon, etc.), after Israel was conquered by Alexander the Great around 332 B.C. For this reason of timing, Hellenized ideas were present, possible and popular. The first of two apocryphal works worth mentioning because of their possible Stoic influence is the Wisdom of Solomon. Wisdom of Solomon is an apocryphal work written probably by an Alexandrian Jew in Egypt. The writing’s purpose appears to be the attempted synthesis of Greek ideas with Hebrew history and religious thought, as made evident by a familiarity and usage of Greek philosophical concepts (Harris & Platzner 357).[5]

In Wisdom of Solomon, the author attempts “to demonstrate Judaism’s ethical and religious superiority” by arguing that “his tradition offers a view of the world history and divine justice that will appeal to the moral and rational Gentile.” (Harris Platzner 357).  In the second to last chapter of the book, he continued this attempt by drawing contrasts to the popular idea of Wisdom in Greek thought and the Hebrew tradition. “He describes Wisdom as God’s ‘all-powerful word’ leaping down ‘from heaven, from the royal throne,’ to take up residence in a ‘land that was doomed.’… This cosmic figure ‘touched the heaven while standing on the earth,’ linking the realms of matter and spirit,”[6] (Harris & Platzner 358). This concept of divine word is reflective of the Logos comparisons drawn by Philo about a century or so after the Wisdom of Solomon. It is interesting to note that this idea of personified wisdom, linking the spiritual and physical world, is similar to the notion of divine cosmic reason, Logos, found in Stoic philosophy and the writings of Philo Judaeus. It is also interesting to follow these similarities to the later writings of John in his self-named Gospel in the New Testament.

Like the Wisdom of Solomon, 4 Maccabees also remains as an apocryphal work. Unlike the previous three historical Maccabean books, this one takes a philosophical tone that attempts to argue how reason rules over the passion of the body. The author uses distinctly Greek vocabulary, style, and Stoic ideas in his explanation of reason and it’s role, yet also borrows distinctly Hebrew ideas of Wisdom and the root of true knowledge as being found in the “Torah and absolute fidelity to its principles,” (Harris & Platzner 375).[7]

The author of the book uses the example of the Jewish people’s faithfulness under the oppressive rule of Antiochus IV to argue how the Jewish people’s reason (their understanding of the Torah), allowed them to control the physical desire to disobey their Hebrew traditions and submit to their oppressive ruler. The evidence of the Stoic idea of suppressing one’s emotional desires and anxieties, in this case the desire to toss aside truth and survive physically, is clearly reflective of the Stoic idea of controlling one’s passions and desires. In addition, the author “demonstrates the values of Stoic qualities (duty, endurance, self-control, and service to family and state) through their application to the lives of such biblical models of faith as Joseph (2:2-3), Moses (2:17), Jacob (2:19), David (3:6-18), and the martyrs of the Maccabean period (Chs. 5-17),” (Harris & Platzner 374). In the end, the author makes the case that the Greek virtues are mere devices used to explain the true reality of wisdom known to the Jews’ through God and the Torah (17:19-18-24).  To the author, Yahweh is this true source of wisdom and virtue.

Having explored different Jewish authors, the Old Testament, and Jewish Apocrypha, our discussion of Stoic influence in late Judaism would only find completion by exploring its influence with Jewish Christian thinkers, and evidence of Stoicism in New Testament writings. First amongst these Jewish converts to Christianity, and one of the most important thinkers of Early Christianity, is that of Paul of Tarsus. Paul’s interaction with Stoics is even directly referenced in Acts 17:18-34, where Paul engages in debate with Stoics and Epicureans. Although this experience is nothing to explain Stoic influence on Paul’s thinking, he does provide Stoic tones in several of his writings and ideas. One idea in particular is his concept of “self-discipline or the ability to endure want or plenty,” that he echoes in Phil. 4:11-14 (Harris 44). This idea was extremely popular and commonplace amongst Stoic thinkers and Roman upper-classmen, and it is no stretch to assume that Paul expressed such influence in this letter.[8]

In the letter to Galatians, Paul defensively explains the concept of Christ-given freedom against the Church of Galatia’s abuse.[9] In Galatians, Paul conjures forth a definition of Freedom similar to that of Stoic teaching. “Quoting lists of vices and virtues typical of Stoic ethical teaching, the apostle notes that the Spirit will enable believers to transcend their natural selfishness and to act generously (Galatians 5:13-26).” (Harris 336).[10] [11]

A third Stoic influence that Paul potentially elicits is the “Stoic view that the state exists to maintain public order and punish wrongdoing,” (Harris 343-344).  In Romans 13, “Paul argues that the Roman Empire is a ‘divine institution,’ ” (Harris 343-344).  The Stoics, especially those of the Upper-Roman classes, carried the view that adhering to the Nature of government was part of the goal of the Stoic, and this idea provides additional evidence that Paul used a similar justification of government that the Romans used “as a rationalization of the need to live under oppressive rule,” (Curtis 104).[12]

Our second source of potential Stoic influence in found in the Apostle John. As mentioned previously, Logos plays a significant point in relating the ideas of Stoic thought with the early Christian writing and late Judaic ideas. The clearest example of Logos’ important usage is found in the opening of the Gospel of John, where John relates a pre-human Christ to creative word (divine wisdom, cosmic reason), and thus explains how God uses this Logos, that is personified as Christ, to bring the world into existence (Harris 219).[13] [14] “In the Greek philosophical tradition, Logos is also a divine concept, the principle of cosmic Reason that gives order and coherence to the otherwise chaotic world, making it accessible to human intellect,” (Harris 219). However John may not have only borrowed from the Hellenistic philosophical usage, as there exists a strong Hebrew tradition of wisdom as an accompanying force that aided Yahweh in the world’s creation (Harris & Platzner 300).[15] To add to this, it is also undeniable that the beginning of the Gospel of John echoes the beginning of Genesis, “which records that God created simply by speaking (e.g. ‘Let there be light’ in v. 3). That is, God created by means of his word,” (NIV 1721). Even as this Hebrew wisdom tradition continued to grow throughout late Judaism, it is undeniable that the Stoic idea of Logos, or a divine reason that sustained and ordered the universe, played a substantial role in influencing later Jewish and Christian philosophies.[16]

After having analyzed the potential influence of Stoicism with late Jewish thinkers, Jewish works of the Apocrypha, and early Christian authors, one is left judging the weight of influence Stoicism had. Although it is undeniable these different Jewish authors and thinkers clearly borrowed Stoic terminology and language, it is debatable whether this reflects clear Stoic influence, or simply a method used to communicate the revelation of the Bible and Yahweh to a Greek audience. Regardless of whether they were inwardly influenced or whether they merely spoke the Stoic language of their times, one is forced to compare the fundamentals of Stoicism with those of Judaism and Christianity, and arrive to a conclusion. Having mentioned the relative isolation and authenticity of Hebrew ideas, given the time and lack of intellectual exchanges between Greeks and Jews, one is left analyzing Judaic-Christian fundamental ideas such as Man, God, and Human nature to determine the relative size of Stoic influence. Firstly, in Judaic-Christian thought, Man is made in the image of God, but he is not identical with God. However in Stoicism the primal substance is this fiery Logos (Stub 219).  This exists in both ‘God’ and man, and both are identical. Man is God and God is man, or as Seneca says, “Reason is nothing else than a part of the divine spirit immersed in the human body,”[17] (Stub 219).  However, in the New Testament and the Hebrew bible nowhere is man explained in such divine terms. His humbled status to a personal God is merely reinforced, while Stoics attempt to explain man’s equal synthesis with this impersonal Logos. In addition to the contrasting nature of God, and the identity of man, we also find a vast difference in the idea of human nature. To Paul, man is desperately wicked (Rom. 5:12-21 & 1 Cor. 15:22), yet as explained above, to the Stoic it is divine (Stub 220). “The essence of the whole Stoic ethic is to live according to nature; the essence of the Christian ethic of the New Testament [and the Judaic Laws found in the Hebrew Bible] is to live according to the supernatural. Therefore, whatever apparent agreement there may be in terminology, the fundamental aims and ideal are different,” (Stub 221).

In conclusion, it is clear, given the Hebrew’s early cultural isolation from the Greeks, that the Jews were given ample time to develop distinctly Judaic ideas (personal God, human nature, personified wisdom, sinfulness, the fall of man, revelation, etc.). Given this authentically Jewish source, the later Jewish writers (Philo & Josephus), as well as early Christianity (John, Paul, etc.), are centrally grounded within these original Jewish ideas. Although we find clear evidence of Stoic language and influence, it is arguably more a product of the Hellenized language of their days, than a force that influenced Judaic-Christian fundamentals. Rather, it would appear that these Judaic-Christian forces brought their authentically Jewish roots and presented them in such a way as would appeal to their Stoic-leaning audiences (Philo and his personified wisdom, John and his Logos personified as Christ). We may then conclude, that although late Judaism and early Christianity clearly borrowed Stoic ideas and language, it is more so a product of their environments and efforts at communication, then a glimpse into the foundations of their core beliefs.

Works Cited

Harris, Stephen L. The New Testament A Students Introduction. Sacramento, McGraw-Hill, 2002. 

 

Harris, Stephen L, and Platzner, Robert L. The Old Testament An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible. Sacramento, McGraw-Hill, 2003.

 

Feldman, Louis H. Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible. University of California Press, 1998

 

Nussbaum, Martha C. (1997). Kant and Stoic Cosmopolitanism. The Journal of Political Philosophy, Volume 5, Nr 1, pp. 1-25

 

Holy Bible. New International Version Archaeology Study Bible. Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2005.

Toy, Crawford Howell. Siegfried, Carl. Lauterbach, Jacob Zallel. “Philo Judaeus.” Jewish

Encyclopedia. September 29 2008. <http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=281&letter=P>

Curtis, Michael. The Great Political Theories Volume 1. New York, Avon Books, 1981.

Greek New Testament. Greek NT: WH / NA27 / UBS4. <http://biblos.com/john/1-1.htm>

Stob, Ralph. “Stoicism and Christianity.” JSTOR. The Classical Journal, Vol. 30, No. 4. The

 

Classical Association of Middle West and South Inc, 1935. September 29 2008. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/3290087?seq=2>

---

[1] The Greek word Logos has two meanings: first is its normal Greek translation as ‘words’, and second its Philosophical and Stoic translation as “cosmic wisdom” (Harris 43).

[2] Pronounced ‘pro-noi-as’, and means God’s providence and the source of utopia, similar to that of Nature or Logos. Heavily used by the Stoics.

[3] Pronounced ‘no-mos’

[4] Κοσμοπολιτησ derives from the Greek words for Cosmos (κοσμοσ) and City (πολισ), emphasizing a person as being a citizen of the world. This concept was heavily emphasized and grown within Stoic thought, stating that individuals “dwells[ed] in two communities – the local community of our birth, and the community of human argument and aspiration” (Nussbaum 1-25).

[5] Wisd. Of Sol. 8:7, 19-20; 12:1)

[6] Wisd. Of Sol. 18:15),”

[7] 4 Maccabees 1:15-17

[8] “11I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. 12I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. 13I can do everything through him who gives me strength. 14Yet it was good of you to share in my troubles.” (NIV Phi. 4:11-14).

[9] They were accused of practicing antinomianism, which was using the new spiritual freedom to indulge any desire and appetite.

[10]“16So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature.” (Galatians 5:16)

 

 

[11] “22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.” (Galatians 5:22-23)

[12] “1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.” (Romans 13:1-2)

[13] ¹In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (NIV John 1:1)

[14] “εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος” (John 1:1)

[15] Wisdom is personified as a female in Proverbs 8:22-31

[16] The idea of Logos was initiated in Greek thought by the Philosopher Heraclitus (born 540 B.C.) He used it to mean ‘an ordering principle for the universe’.

[17] Seneca, Ep. xlvi, 12

FIU Judiciary

Student Government Judicial Branch:

The purpose of the Student Judiciary is to uphold the dignity of the FIU Student Constitution. This section of student government is made up of a Chief Justice and four confirmed Justices (which includes an Assoc. Chief Justice and an Assoc. Parliamentarian). The Student Judiciary works as a High Court to determine whether actions taken by the SGC (Student Governing Council) are within the boundaries set by the Constitution. In addition, the Student Judiciary works to maintain the constitutionality of Senate legislation and bylaws.

The Student Judiciary also serves as a neutral and impartial internal standards board for the SGC members, and protects proper division of SGA powers between branches (Executive, Legislative, & Judicial).

Similar to the United State’s Supreme Court, the Student Judiciary remains the chief agent for interpretation of the SGA Constitution, as well as a legal aid to the SGC regarding issues of interpretation. In addition, the Chief Justice serves as the SGC’s Parliamentarian to aid in questions and concerns regarding Parliamentary Procedure.

Judiciary Mission:

Our mission is to aid in the fulfillment and enrichment of the SGA Mission statement, by preserving the dignity of the Student Constitution, its intended separation of powers, and the impartiality and honesty of its Court.

The Judiciary:

Leonard O Goenaga
Chief Justice, SGC-UP
LGoen001@fiu.edu

Juan S. Gil
Associate Chief Justice, SGC-UP
Juan.Gil1@fiu.edu

Saul Perez
Justice & Associate Parliamentarian, SGC-UP
SPere040@fiu.edu

Luis F. Robayo
Justice, SGC-UP

Greg Boulos
Justice, SGC-UP

Complaints & Grievances:

As stated in the Constitution, the Student Judiciary serves as a High Court in hearing complaints regarding the Constitution & SGC Members. The Court cannot initiate action by itself, and as such Students and SGC members are encouraged to file complaints regarding unconstitutional actions by SGC members and legislation.

Feel free to drop by the SGC-UP Office, GC 211 or email the Chief Justice at LGoen001@fiu.edu with such grievances. Grounds for complaints and removal can be found in Article VII of the SGA Constitution.

Downloadable Documents:

Student Constitution
Student Bylaws
Roberts Rules of Order (Public Domain, 1915) (http://books.google.com/books?id=ND8sAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=roberts+rules+of+order&as_brr=1)
Parliamentary Procedure

http://parliamentarians.org/

On Dating Luke & Acts, and It’s Synoptic Consequence

Leonard O Goenaga

Professor Larson

REL3250

12 April 2008

On Dating Luke-Acts, and It’s Synoptic Consequence

When looking at the dating of the New Testament Documents, we are quickly approached by scholarly presuppositions. In analyzing why certain critical scholars may be inclined to favor later dates, the first reason that would come to mind is, as a liberal biblical critic, one may be trying to find a way to shake the historicity and reliability of Gospel claims. By no means is this an over-all claim of critical scholarship and scholars in general, but due to the existence of a bias in human nature, it’s understandable that some scholars may overlook internal and external evidences for the pursuit of a conclusion that agrees with their presuppositions against Christianity’s claims; or they may solely find agreements to their previous biblical conclusions. The reason why they would seek to separate the writing of the documents to the life of the original disciples has to do with the concept of the Gospels containing mythology. Some of these scholars enter the dating arena with the notion that the gospels contain a degree of mythology (miracles, virgin birth, resurrection, etc), and because of this they date the books with an innate bias for later dates. Sadly, some scholars build from this bias when the reverse should be attempted. Many of these biblical critic’s arguments rely on the fact that the window between the disciple’s lifetime, and the drafting of the documents, is so extensive that time allowed certain ‘myths’ to develop surrounding Jesus. This then allows them to analyze certain scriptural claims in light of mystified information, and thus oversee certain crucial Christian and biblical statements. From here, the scholars conclude that “the writers created the events contained, rather than reported them.” On the other side, certain scholars hold biases seeking out early dates to the documents, as this further strengthens the tenets to their arguments, and the reliability of the Gospels themselves. With these two opposing views, and the importance not only behind the dates, but the ramifications dating itself brings to their opposing arguments, we can understand how important it is to explore the possibility of dating the Gospels.

Of these Gospels, conservative scholars in particular have championed one as the historical narrative, and its author as the biblical historian himself. This is none-other than Luke the Physician, and his writings of Luke-Acts. In analyzing Luke-Acts we will get a feel for both the dating and historicity of the Gospel documents, and thus come to a conclusion regarding the conservative and liberal scholarly traditions. This paper will explore the possibility of dating Luke-Acts, and will conclude as later argued and illuminated through various professionals and their observations, that the traditional dating estimate is most accurate, while the critical argument for a second century date results from ignored internal and external evidences.

The date the books of the New Testament were written is a very important question to both Scholars and Christians. The time in which these documents were drafted gives us an idea of the reliability of the texts themselves, and the ability to bypass an argument of Jesus-mythology in favor of actual witness-based accounts. This paper will argue the above thesis of the dating of Luke-Acts in the following format: First we will analyze the arguments and conclusions of some of the world’s best scholars, apologists, and historians. This list includes the observations of Roman historian Colin J. Hemer, the statements of the ending of Acts and Paul & Prophecy from Adolf Harnack, and the arguments of historicity and special local knowledge by Norman Geisler. After analyzing these three individuals and their argumentation, we will then analyze the conclusions of an ex-liberal biblical scholar, William F. Albright, and the conclusion of a biblical critic and a leader in the “God is Dead” movement, John A. T. Robinson. After observing the conclusions these two renowned individuals came to, we will go into the internal and external methods of dating Luke-Acts by analyzing early Greek citations, and the numerous early Greek manuscripts. After analyzing these external evidences of Greek manuscripts and citations, we will quickly review the arguments made by critics, and where their assumptions fail. We will finally finish off with the summarized conclusions of the above-mentioned scholars, historians, and apologists, and weigh whether the internal & external evidences and the various arguments favor the traditional or critical date.

We can start analyzing the dating of Luke-Acts by taking into account their single authorship. For the sake of this papers focus, we will take for granted that Luke and Acts had the same author. Also tradition has given the authorship to Luke the Physician, and whether or not we take this for granted, this paper shall focus more on the date written then by who it was written by. However, dating will also bilaterally illuminate the issue of authorship, as the question of dating can roughly aid the decision by the timeframe in which the documents were written. As Ernest F. Scott mentioned, “if the book can be dated at any time within the first century, there is every inclination that Luke was its author.” If the conservative estimates are true, and the date finds itself within the first century, then the traditional application of Luke as the author holds more ground, and if the dating seems to find itself in the second century, then the authorship by Luke becomes impossible and can be cast aside without any further exploration. Acts 1:1 initially claims to be part of another document, which potentially refers to Luke as its “former account”. Also, “the destiny (‘Theophilus’), style, and vocabulary of the two books betray a common author.” In addition to the two having the same author, we can further conclude that by dating Acts we may automatically assume Luke to have an earlier date, as Acts claims to be a later second portion of another document, with this first portion being Luke (Acts 1:1). With the long-standing and accurate position of the two having the same authorship, we can now start analyzing the dates of the documents as a whole.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, which represents at best the viewpoint of the Catholic Church and that of apostolic tradition, argues that the date of Luke-Acts is reliable on the time in which Paul dwelt peaceably in Rome. Acknowledging that Acts ends abruptly, and that Acts gives only two verses to explain the two years of relative peace Paul had preaching the Gospel in Rome, the Catholic Church suggests that these two quiet years were a time St. Luke spent drafting the Book of Acts. St. Luke then quickly terminates his work due to some emergency, concluding with the result of the abrupt end to the document of Acts. For this reason, the Catholic Encyclopedia suggests that the “date of the completion of Acts is therefore dependent on the date of St. Paul’s Roman captivity. Writers are quite concordant in placing the date of Paul’s coming to Rome in the year 62; hence the year 64 is the most probable date for the Acts.”

Having explored the traditional date and the conclusion of the Catholic Church, we may now analyze the various arguments of scholars, historians, and apologists. In the last two hundred years following the enlightenment, the critical analysis of the New Testament has been extremely popular. It hasn’t been until recently, with the focused tool of Archaeology, that the traditional claims of Christianity have been strengthened. During this time of Biblical Criticism, there has been a series of Roman Historians that have argued against the Critic’s claims; instead advocating for the reliability of early-authored dates. One Roman Historian in particular is that of Colin J. Hemer. While the critics toyed with positioning the date of Luke-Acts sometime in the 2^nd century, Hemer offered a list of seventeen arguments favoring the early placement of Luke-Acts within the traditional dating sphere of A.D. 62. Although all of Hemer’s seventeen claims carry powerful weight, a few in particular will be discussed here for the purposes of time and their ability to bring the most powerful of Hemer’s claims:

1. There is no mention in Acts of the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, an unlikely omission, given the content, if it had already occurred.

2. There is no hint of the outbreak of the Jewish War in A.D. 66, or any drastic or specific deterioration of the relations between Romans and Jews, which implies it was written before that time.

5. There is no hint of the death of James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. 62 recorded by Josephus. (Antiquities 20.9.1.200)

7. The prominence and authority of the Sadducees in Acts belongs to the Pre-70 era, before the collapse of their political cooperation with Rome.

16. The ending of the book of Acts. Luke does not continue Paul’s story at the end of the two years of Acts 28:30. ‘The mention of this defined period implies a terminal point, at least impending.’ He adds, ‘It may be argued simply that Luke had brought the narrative up to date at the time of writing, the final note being added at the conclusion of the two years’

In agreement with the arguments of Roman historian is the scholar Adolf Harnack. In his book On Dating Acts and the Synoptic Gospels, Adolf Harnack also argues for an early dating of Luke-Acts. One point Harnack brings up regarding Luke and his detailing of Paul’s journey to Rome, is that “Throughout eight whole chapters St Luke keeps his readers intensely interested in the progress of the trial of St Paul, simply that he may in the end completely disappoint them — they learn nothing of the final result of the trial!” In addition to this odd void in the narrative, Harnack then goes on to mention how “in the last half of the book the trial of St Paul has become the subject which overshadows all others, and that it is against all the laws of psychology to suppose that the author could have been so much master of himself as to suppress the account of the result of the trial, because, according to the general plan of his work, its mention was not necessary.” Why exactly would the author of Acts detail the adventures of Paul’s missionary journeys, and then focus on his arrest and trial, only to end the book without any mention of his death around 64-67? Harnack argues that:

The more clearly we see that the trial of St Paul, and above all his appeal to Caesar, is the chief subject of the last quarter of the Acts, the more hopeless does it appear that we can explain why the narrative breaks off as it does… It is no use to struggle against this conclusion. If St Luke, in the year 80, 90, or 100, wrote thus he was not simply a blundering but an absolutely incomprehensible historian!

In addition to this striking absence of the mentioning of his death, nowhere in the book of Acts do we find any hint or presupposed notion of Paul’s Death, which is something the author would have surely attempted with the writing style of the day. Harnack concludes his argument on the basis of the narrative ending of Acts by stating that “the concluding verses of the Acts of the Apostles, taken in conjunction with the absence of any reference in the book to the result of the trial of St Paul and to his martyrdom, make it in the highest degree probable that the work was written at a time when St Paul’s trial in Rome had not yet come to an end.”

A second argument that Harnack brings up in his book is that of Paul and prophecy. In Acts chapter 20:25, and 38, the author quotes Paul as telling his Asiatic friends that they would not see his face again. However, if his second imprisonment is taken as a historical event, this directly contradicts the letter of 2 Timothy 4, where Paul came back to Asia. With the conflicting accounts of the prophecy in Acts 20:25, and the second arrest of 2 Timothy 4, Harnack argues that “it cannot be imagined that St Luke would have reported the prophecy or would have placed it in the mouth of St Paul.” Simply stated, if the prophecy in Acts 20 was contradicted in a second arrest and visit, and with someone so keen on using accurate prophecies as Luke, the contradiction is strong evidence and testimony for an earlier date. Harnack concludes this Paul & Prophecy argument by saying if “on the assumption that the Apostle was released from his first captivity, the passage Acts xx. 25 affords strong testimony that St Luke wrote previously to that release.”

Having analyzed the internal historical observations of the Roman historian Hemer and the scholar Harnack, and their insights on narrative voids, which become illogical given the context of Luke-Act’s, we may now analyze the observations of the world renown apologists, Normal Geisler. In his Baker Apologetics Encyclopedia, Geisler illuminates the issue of dating by targeting the historical and geological information that only a local with specialized knowledge could contain, as well as the general historicity of the account. “Luke manifests an incredible array of knowledge of local places, names, conditions, customs, and circumstances that befits an eyewitness contemporary recording the time and events. Acts 13-28, covering Paul’s travels, particularly shows intimate knowledge of local circumstances.” World-renowned Apologist and author, Norman Geisler, offers a list of 43 different historical finds that, through archaeology and historical methods, have affirmed certain specialized claims from the book of Acts. These 43 different historical affirmations not only show the amount of historical accuracy found in Acts, but also information that only someone who personally visited all these locations could have known. The argument that such details could have been identified during the second century is incredibly timid, as the amount of specialized and local knowledge behind the assorted facts necessitates a first-hand experience of the travels and events; something Luke had as a companion of Paul. This focus on the author actually traveling to these areas further sheds light on a Luke-authorship of the text, and a general authorship during the time of Paul’s travels (once again pointing back to the traditional date of A.D. 62). Although time and space will not require me to list all 43 examples Geisler uses, I will provide six of Geisler’s examples that I believe highlight the detail of first-hand knowledge required, which then underscore Acts as having an author from the traditional date of Paul’s travels (A.D. 62):

Exp 1: “The Proper river port, Perga, for a ship crossing from Cyprus,” (13:13)

Exp 2: “The proper port, Attalia, for returning travelers (14:25)

Exp 3: “The correct route from the Cilician Gates (16:1)”

Exp 4: The proper locations where travelers would spend successive nights on this journey (17:1).”

Exp 5: “The correct explanation that sea travel is the most convenient way to reach Athens in the summer with favoring east winds (17:14)

Exp 6: “The permanent stationing of a Roman cohort in the Fortress Antonia to suppress disturbances at festival times (21:31). The flight of steps used by guards (21:31, 35).

In the end, Norman Geisler concludes by telling us that the historicity and accuracy of the traditional date is found in two pieces of evidence. The first is that “nothing like this amount of detailed confirmation exists for another book from antiquity.” Geisler argues that this record of detail not only confirms the data given by the earliest Christian’s belief in the life and death of Jesus, but also that the accuracy and historicity of Luke-Acts confirms the message given in the other Gospels. Secondly, he concludes that the “best evidence is that this material was composed by A.D. 60, only twenty-seven years after the death of Jesus.” Thus, Geisler argues and concludes that the narrow gap in which it was written, as according to the traditional date in the 60’s, gives no room for the development of myth, and thus confirms the truths stated in the previous gospels and the documents themselves.

In addition to the various arguments made by the previously discussed individuals, the conclusions and comments of two other renowned scholars are worth mentioning. The first of these two is none-other than William F. Albright, a former liberal scholar who sides with the early dating of the Gospels. In his book, Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, Albright concludes that “We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today.” In addition to this conclusion, Albright also comments in his article “Toward a More Conservative View” that “every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the first century (very probably sometime between about A.D. 50 and 75).”

In addition to William F. Albright, a second former critic is worth mentioning. John A. T. Robinson is a leader of the “Death of God” movement, and who wrote the book Redating the New Testament. In this revolutionary book, “Robinson places Matthew at 40 to after 60, Mark at about 45 to 60, Luke at before 57 to after 60, and John at from before 40 to after 65.” The ramifications for these extremely early dates by an extremely critical skeptic is that all Gospels were composed within the lifetime of those who witnessed Jesus birth, death, and resurrection, which further add credibility to their accounts.

In addition to the various arguments given by the above-mentioned individuals, we may also analyze the external citations of the Gospels in early Greek manuscripts, and thus affirm the reliability of an earlier date.

Of the four Gospels alone there are 19,368 citations by the church fathers from the late first century on. This includes 268 by Justin Martyr (100-165), 1038 by Irenaeus (active in the late second century), 1017 by Clement of Alexandria (ca. 155-ca. 220), 9231 by Origen (ca. 185-ca. 254), 3822 by Tertullian (ca. 160s-ca. 220), (ca. 160s-ca. 220), 734 by Hippolytus (d. ca. 236), and 3258 by Eusebius (ca. 265-ca.339)… between 110 and 150 Polycarp quoted from all four gospels, Acts, and most of Paul’s epistles. Shepherd of Hermas (115-140) cited Matthew, Mark, Acts, 1 Corinthians, and other books. Didache (120-150) referred to Matthew, Luke, 1 Corinthians, and other books.

What exactly do these citations show? They argue in favor of an earlier date sometime before the end of the first century, as time would have been necessary for these outside citations to find their way towards penmanship. This was not the day of UPS and the Postal Service, and as such, the massive amounts of citations from early church leaders and other individuals argue in favor of an earlier date in which this massive throng of documents could have the time to be circulated.

One other remarkable thing about the New Testament is the relatively small time gap between the drafting of the Gospel documents and the earliest manuscript copies of the New Testament we have discovered. “No other book from the ancient world has as small a time gap between composition and earliest manuscript copies as the New Testament.” The Bodmer Papyri, containing whole books, are available from around 200 A.D. Most of the New Testament can also be found in the Chester Beatty Papyri manuscripts, which are available around 250 A.D. Another interesting manuscript, which deems mentioning, is that of the John Rylands papyri (P52), which contains fragments of John’s Gospel. This manuscript was found in Egypt and is dated around 117-138 A.D. Given the time it would take to circulate to Egypt, the John Rylands papyri would mean that John must have been written within the 1^st century. In addition to the remarkable early arrivals and editions of Greek manuscript copies, Jose O’Callahan has recently claimed to identify nine fragments from the caves of Qumran with New Testament texts. Although his finds are highly contested, the implication of his observations are enormous if shown accurate, as it would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these early editions of the Gospels found in fragments 7Q6, 7Q15, 7Q5, 7Q7, and 7Q6 conclude them as dated well before the ending of the first century.

If Acts were written by the traditional date of 62 A.D., then it would offer great historical value to the claims made within the Gospels. We could also say that the Gospels in general are dependent on the date of Acts, for if Acts is proved to have an earlier date, the Synoptic Gospels must be dated before that of Acts. In addition, if it were written around this time, it would also have been within the time frame of witnesses who viewed firsthand Jesus’ claims, and these witnesses could have also been the individuals Luke could have interviewed while writing his Gospel. In addition, this date fits within the lifetime of Luke, giving further credibility to the possibility of his authorship, and “If Acts was written by Luke, the companion of the apostle Paul, it brings us right to the apostolic circle, those who participated in the events reported.” If written by or before A.D. 62, we have the historical value of the Gospel, the potential 1^st-person witnesses, the apostolic perspective, and the timeframe of Luke’s lifetime. If shown to be historically accurate, this would all add further credibility to the Christian claims of the birth, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, further supporting the miracles and ascension of Jesus as an actual and not mythological event. This is why the topic of dating Luke-Acts alone is so important to the backbone of Christian Doctrine and its claimed truths. We could also claim that the dating of Luke-Acts becomes the standard by which we date Matthew, Mark, and Luke, for neither of them could have been drafted after Acts.

Having discussed the various arguments and evidences in favor of the early traditional date, we will now analyze and shortly refute general critiques of an early date. One problem that we find with the estimates offered by different biblical critics is their efforts of dating Luke-Acts in attachment to the other synoptic Gospels. They tend to ignore certain internal evidences that we previously illuminated and instead focus on dating Luke-Acts relative to other gospel accounts. Ernest F. Scott isn’t that far off in his observations, and makes astute claims regarding Luke the Physician’s role in the gospel (siding with a usage of a Lukan diary as source-material), but he commits the above mentioned grievance by placing the dating of Luke-Acts around 90 A.D., because “the author is unacquainted with Matthew’s work, and may have written a little earlier, but more probably just about the same date.” Scott should not commit the error of dating Luke-Acts in terms defined by Matthew, but should instead use the high degree of historicity of Luke-Acts to aid in dating Matthew. Although Ernest F. Scott is by no means far off in his dating, the credibility and historical data of Luke makes it a better standard in which to date the other synoptic Gospels, which in turn Luke’s material confirms. In Raymond E. Brown’s An Introduction to the New Testament, he makes roughly the same mistake, arguing that if “Luke used Mark is most plausible from internal evidence; and if Mark is to be dated in the period 68-73, a date earlier than 80 for Luke is unlikely.” Although the usage of Mark by Luke is internally evident, this problem fades away when the date of Mark is found to be earlier than previously stated, and the reasonable argument for the early dating of Acts further pushes back all the previous Gospels (including Mark). Even when we understand the validity of dating Acts early as credible, the Gospel of Mark has compelling arguments in favor of an early-authored date by such scholars as Harnack and Maurenbrecher. The combined arguments of Luke-Acts being the standard by which the other documents should be dated (due to it’s historicity), and the strong arguments for earlier dating of Mark, result with the repudiation of opposing critique’s by Scott, Brown, and other scholars.

After having analyzed the various arguments of Hemer, Harnack, and Geisler, the observations of renowned scholars Albright and Robinson, the external and internal evidences of early Greek manuscripts and citations, and the refutation of several critiques, we can now come to the conclusion on whether this paper confirms an earlier date. However, before this paper comes to it’s own affirmation, the added weight of the conclusions of authoritative individuals are once more warranted. Norman Geisler concludes that: “The historicity of the book of Acts is confirmed by overwhelming evidence. Nothing like this amount of detailed confirmation exists for another book from antiquity.” D. A. Carson concludes that: “the evidence for an early date seems more convincing than that of a later time, and while it comes short of complete proof, it should be accepted.” William F. Albright concludes that: “We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today.” The combined conclusions of these individuals and that of the previous mentioned scholars are conclusive: by the proposed arguments, observations, and evidence, Luke-Acts clearly favor an earlier date sometime around 62 A.D.

In conclusion, we can safely say that Acts’ early date of authorship is not only supported by overwhelming evidence, but that this evidence adds greater weight to the claims of the life, death, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus as not mythological events fictionalized by later writers, but as actual historical claims recorded within the peer-reviewed generation of first person witnesses and first person apostles. The later dating and the argument of mythology simply hold no ground, and leave no other reason not to conclude that the earlier traditional dating of 62 A.D. is reasonably and historically warranted.

Works Cited

Albright, William F. Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands. New York: Biblical Colloquium, 1955.

- – -. “Toward a More Conservative View.” Christianity Today (Jan. 1963).

Breen, A. E. “Acts of the Apostles.” NewAdvent Catholic Encyclopedia. Catholic Church, John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York. 14 Apr. 2008 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01117a.htm>.

Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Doubleday, Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, 1997.

Carson, D. A., Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.

Harnack, Adolf V., and John R. Wilkinson. The Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1911. Books.Google.com. 10 Apr. 2008 <http://books.google.com/books?id=SmZLAAAAIAAJ&printsec= frontcover&dq=DATE+OF+THE+ACTS+AND+OF+THE+SYNOPTIC+GOSPELS#PPP9,M1>.

Hemer, Colin J., and Conrad H. Gempf. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. N.p.: J.C.B. Mohr, 1989.

Josephus, Flavius, and William Whinston. The Complete Works of Josephus. Boston: Thompson & Thomas, 1901.

Scott, Ernest Findlay. The Literature of the New Testament. New York: Columbia University Press, 1963.

 

---

 

[1] Norman Geisler, Baker’s Apologetic Encyclopedia, 528

Ernest F. Scott, The Literature of the New Testament , 77, “That two writings are by the same hand might have been gathered from their many similarities of language and outlook, but it is placed beyond all question by the opening verse of Acts, in which the author refers to his previous work and dedicates the second, like the first, to his friend Theophilus,”

Scott 89; “Our dear friend Luke, the doctor, and Demas send greetings.” (NIV Col. 4:14). “Paul, as we know, was subject to sudden attacks of illness, due apparently to some form of epilepsy, and the company of a physician in his travels would be valuable to him.”

Scott 91

Norman Geisler, Baker’s Apologetic Encyclopedia, 528

Ernest F. Scott, The Literature of the New Testament, 7,7, “The two works must be taken together before we can form a right estimate of the purpose of Luke’s Gospel, as well as of its date and authorship.”

A. E. Breen, NewAdvent Catholic Encyclopedia, “Acts of the Apostles”, 1

Breen 1

Flavius Josephus, The Complete Works of Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.200 “Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:,”

Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, 383

Hemer 387

Norman Geisler, Baker’s Apologetic Encyclopedia, 5

Adolf V. Harnack, The Date of the Acts of the Synoptic Gospels, 95

Harnack 96

Paul’s first three Missionary Journeys are found in Acts 13-14 (1^st), 15:36-18:22 (2^nd), 18:23-21:16 (3^rd), and his arrest and trial are found in Acts 21:17-28:31

Harnack 97

Harnack 97

Harnack 98, “There is no doubt that directly after the death of the Apostles legends grew up which included prophecies of their martyrdom. Concerning St Peter we know of two (St John xxi., 2 Peter i.), and St Paul himself gave expression to forebodings of his violent death. How, then, could a chronicler of the character of St Luke have overlooked this if St Paul had already attained to the crown of martyrdom!”

Harnack 99

New International Version, Archaeology Study Bible Acts 10:15, “ ‘Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again,’ ”

Adolf V. Harnack, The Date of the Acts of the Synoptic Gospels, 102

Harnack 102

Norman Geisler, Baker’s Apologetic Encyclopedia, 7

Ernest F. Scott, The Literature of the New Testament, 80 “That Luke had something to do with the authorship of Acts is certain, for in a series of passages the first person plural is used, indicating that the writer was himself in Paul’s company.” (Scott 89) “After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia,’ (NIV Acts 16:10).

Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28; 16

Norman Geisler, Baker’s Apologetic Encyclopedia, 7-8

Geisler 8

Geisler 8

William F. Albright, Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, 136

William F. Albright, “Toward a More Conservative View,” 3

The Death of God movement was his Liberal Theological efforts to denounce the ancient view of God as living in some material heaven, and thus abandoning him as a Cosmic Supremo. See his books Honest to God (1963), and Exploration into God.

Norman Geisler, Baker’s Apologetic Encyclopedia, 529

Geisler 529-530

Geisler 530

Geisler 530

Geisler 533

Text	Fragment	Approx. date
Mark 4:28	7Q6	AD 50
Mark 6:48	7Q15	AD ?
Mark 6:52, 53	7Q5	AD 50
Mark 12:17	7Q7	AD 50
Acts 27:38	7Q6	AD 60+
Rom. 55:11, 12	7Q9	AD 70+
1 Timothy 3:16, 4:1-3	7Q4	AD 70+
2 Peter 1:15	7Q10	AD 70+
James 1:23, 24	7Q8	AD 70+

 

Geisler 5

Geisler 5

Ernest F. Scott, The Literature of the New Testament, 92

Scott 76

Raymond Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, 273

D. A. Carson, An Introduction to the New Testament, 117, “if Mark is earlier than critics allow, Luke may also be earlier than they say. Both Mark and Luke were in the group associated with Paul, so it is probable that Luke obtained a copy of Mark’s gospel quite early,”

One good well-researched source for an early dating of Mark is found in the NIV Archaeology Bible, and the NIV Study Bible. John Wenham did extensive work on the early dating of Mark in his Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. Two other scholars previously mentioned who have shared this approach are William F. Albright and John A. T. Robinson.

Adolf V. Harnack, The Date of the Acts of the Synoptic Gospels, 91, Also Maurenbrecher In his work Von Nazareth nach Golgotha, concludes that the early dating for Mark is not only well reasoned, but “that no weighty objection can be raised against a date of about 60 A.D. for the gospel of St Mark — a date which is necessarily presupposed by the earlier dating of the Lukan writings,”

Norman Geisler, Baker’s Apologetic Encyclopedia, 8

D. A. Carson, An Introduction to the New Testament, 117

William F. Albright, Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, 136

Norman Geisler, Baker’s Apologetic Encyclopedia, 8, “Julius Muller (1801-1878) challenged the scholars of his day to produce even one example in which an historical event developed many mythological elements within one generation (Muller, 29). None exist.”

 

 

The Evolution of Laissez Faire: Defining ‘Let Be’ Economics and Politics from Thomas Jefferson to Modern Libertarians.

Leonard O Goenaga

Question 2: The Evolution of Laissez Faire: Defining ‘Let Be’ Economics and Politics from Thomas Jefferson to Modern Libertarians.

I. Intro

· Opening Statement: Defining Laissez Faire

· Thesis Statement

II. Outline

III. Body

· Laissez Faire in the 18^th Century

o Thought 1: The Founding: Thomas Jefferson (18^th Century)

§ Thomas Jefferson

ú Declaration of Independence

ú First Inaugural Address (1801)

· Laissez Faire in the 19^th Century

o Thought 2: Free Labor: Abraham Lincoln (19^th Century)

§ Lincoln’s letters

o Thought 3: Social Darwinists (19^th Century)

§ Herbert Spencer

§ Andrew Carnegie, “The Gospel of Wealth”

§ William Graham Sumner, What the Social Classes Owe Each Other

· Laissez Faire in the 20^th Century

o Thought 4: Progressive Backlash and the Mixed Economy (20^th Century)

§ The Decline of American Laissez Faire

§ Progressivism

§ Wilson, FDR & Croley

o Thought 5: Defense of Laissez Faire (20^th Century)

§ Milton Friedman

§ Ayn Rand & Objectivisim

IV. Summary

· Summary statement of areas of Thought.

· Laissez Faire and the future of the 21^st Century

o Thought 6: The Future of Laissez Faire: Conservative and Libertarian Movements (21^st Century)

§ Reagan Conservatism

§ Ron Paul & the Young Libertarian Movement

V. Conclusion

· Restated Thesis

· Concluding Statements

Traditionally, laissez faire is coined from a French phrase meaning, “allow to do”. It is known to represent a strain of economic and political thought that calls for minimal government intervention in the private sector, characterized by a ‘hands off’ approach by the government, in hopes of having private sector solutions for private sector problems. Although the original source of the phrase is disputed, the first sign of its usage is claimed to be from the Marquis d’Argenson, whom claimed “Laissez faire,” in his 1736 Memoires (Keynes, II). Whatever the source, and there are several claims to it, laissez faire has been popularized throughout the ages. It has specifically been heralded as a rallying cry for different political groups and leaders throughout American history, from founders such as Jefferson, to current political leaders such as Ron Paul. It is this evolution of the term, and the continual passage of its importance from generation to generation, that this paper will explore. This paper will follow the passage of the torch of laissez faire throughout the 18^th, 19^th, 20^th and 21^st centuries, focusing on how it has been seen at the Union’s founding (Jefferson), the Free Labor movement (Lincoln), the Social Darwinist period (Spencer, Carnegie, Sumner), the Progressive backlash (FDR, Croly, Wilson), the revival of laissez faire in the 20^th century (Friedman, Rand), and finally conclude with an analysis of laissez faire’s future.

During the nation’s founding, few had such effect on the development of this new government than Thomas Jefferson. Having been an important thinker, and the writer of the Declaration of Independence itself, Jefferson makes a good starting point in our exploration of laissez faire. Perhaps Jefferson best exemplifies the goal of laissez faire in the statement “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” (Dolbeare 49). It is this Jeffersonian emphasis on the individual that makes laissez faire possible, and the quote itself hints at greater free-market sources: such as political theorist John Locke. The tradition of Jeffersonianism is grounded in the idea of sacred individualism, or the importance of preserving the individual as having precedence over government. This involved the establishment of individual rights, individual responsibility, and civic participation. This liberal individual-focus is perhaps where we can best draw Jefferson’s connection with laissez faire. Free markets themselves cannot function with a weighted understanding of the importance of the individual. As Jeffersonianism calls for a rejection of big government, so does laissez faire. The two stand on similar soil, necessitating both a small government and individual responsibility to properly function. It is no wonder that in various writings do we find elements characteristic of laissez faire. In his First Inaugural Address (1801), we find several portions emulating free-market ideas. One in particular perhaps best summarizes Jefferson’s tone: “a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities,” (Dolbeare 151). The element of laissez faire found within the quote speaks for itself. This tone of free-market and individual-focus continues throughout Jeffersonian thought, and with the close association between Jeffersonianism and laissez faire, one will likely find them joined at the hip throughout their political evolution.

Next in line within the progression of laissez faire minded thinking is Abraham Lincoln. It is of interest that again, we find Jeffersonian ideals standing side by side with those of free market capitalism. Lincoln appears to have been incredibly influenced by Jefferson’s notions of individual liberty and freedom in the form of the Free Labor movement. It is of no surprise, given the ideals set in Jeffersonianism that someone like Lincoln would take them to their logical conclusions, which resulted with the emancipation of the slaves. This newfound freedom is also easily associated with laissez faire principles. One may wish to argue that a government stepping in to force the emancipation of slaves upon its member states appears to be interventionalist, and thus anti-laissez faire, but I would disagree. Laissez faire principles imply a genuine equality amongst the labor force. The ideals of a ‘hands off’ economic approached it rooted upon the principle that men are equal in their ability to work, create, and compete. A general air of freedom scents the ideas of laissez faire, as it necessitates a freedom from government interference, and freedom of the individual to work. Thus, I would argue that a government allowing such an institution as slavery, which clearly degrades an economic atmosphere of free competition, is a government intervening upon the market. Following this line of reasoning, I am inclined to see Lincoln in agreement. Lincoln argued that the Constitution was to be regarded as the law of the Union, while the Declaration to be it’s guiding spirit. We’ve already expressed the laissez faire qualities of Jefferson, the document’s author, and knowing a genuine Jeffersonian spirit existing within Lincoln (see Letter to Boston Republicans 1859), we see further ground for a laissez faire friendly mindset. Within Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address (1865), we are given a hint of his laissez faire convictions. The dilemma is the argument of possibly deporting black laborers, in fear that this newfound group would overrun white laborer’s occupations. In a true laissez faire fashion, Lincoln rejects any government interference, responding that to “reduce the supply of black labor, by colonizing the black laborer out of the country, and, by precisely so much, you increase the demand for, and wages of, white labor,” (Dolbeare 246). Lincoln states that occupation levels will remain the same, and shares derived theoretical principles of wages shared by classical liberals. Instead of advocating that the government step in and assure public anxiety, Lincoln calls for the market to run it’s own course, rejecting any intervention amongst the newly liberated workforce. Clearly, this hints at laissez faire presuppositions. What then, is the importance of Abraham Lincoln in the discussion of laissez faire? Most importantly, Lincoln took the necessity of freedom needed by laissez faire, and advocated by Jeffersonianism, to its logical conclusion and beyond social traditions such as slavery, resulting with a freed workforce that brought the actual laborers closer to the ideals stressed in free market capitalism. It would be difficult to relate laissez faire to free market capitalism, if the laborers in the market are hardly free.