Monday, May 26, 2008

Final Seland Review #5

And now, the final installment of my review of Torrey Seland's book, Strangers in the Light.


Chapter 4: The Moderate Life of the Christian Paroikoi: A Philonic Reading of 1 Pet. 2:11
Torrey delivered a version of this chapter first as a paper at a "The New Testament and Philo" conference in Eisenach in 2003. In this chapter Seland's ideal Philonic reader returns, this time to focus on the verse in 1 Peter of greatest interest to Torrey, namely, 1 Peter 2:11. How would a Philonic reader understand this verse?

Part 1
Seland thus embarks in the first part of the chapter on a journey to hone in on Philo's use of terms like παροικος and παρεπιδημος, as well as Philo's understanding of the soul. Eduard Schweizer referred to 1 Peter 2:11 as "the most strongly Hellenised ψυχη passage in the NT" (117). The reason is that the soul is here put into direct opposition to "fleshly desires" in a way characteristic of Platonic rather than OT thought.

Unsurprisingly, Philo's main sense of sojourning, of being a παροικος, has to do with the wise person being a sojourner in a physical body (e.g., Her. 267-68). Similarly, the person on a path to wisdom sojourns in the "basic studies" of a Greek education before moving on to the Law of Moses (e.g., Cong. 22).

Seland summarizes Philo's sense of the wise man as a resident alien with three basic connotations: 1) with respect to God, for the world is his, 2) with respect to the elementary studies in contrast to the Law of Moses, and 3) life of the soul in a body.

With regard to the soul, ψυχη, Seland presents a quick overview of Philo's understanding. The human soul has both a rational and irrational part. The soul's soul is the spirit (e.g. Her. 55) or the mind (Leg. 1.39). Philo can also look at the soul from a different perspective in which it consists of the mind, the spirited part, and the passions, each assigned a part of the anatomy (head, chest, abdomen).

Seland concludes by pointing out the well known difference between the anthropology of the Hebrew Bible and that of the Greek/Hellenistic philosophers. "In the Hebrew Bible, a human being does not have a soul; s/he is a soul" (127). Most NT texts maintain this sense of "soul" in the Jewish Scriptures as a reference to an entire living being.

Part 2
Torrey now runs through various words and phrases in 1 Peter 2:11 asking how a Philonic reader would likely understand them.

"aliens and exiles"
A Philonic reader would likely understand sojourning here in the third Philonic sense we mentioned above. We are strangers in this world in contrast to our true home in the heavenly world.

"to abstain from fleshly desires that war against the soul"
Eduard Schweizer has pointed out that this verse is the only place in the NT where the soul stands in antithesis to "flesh" (137). Seland briefly summarizes Philo's sense of embodiment (138-139). First, Philo sees both body and soul as created by God (I think Seland may slightly overvaluates the body in Philo here a little). Second, the body is at best a necessary evil (e.g., Leg. 3.72-73; more accurate). Third, Philo has a mostly negative view of flesh in his writings.

"desires"
Here Seland turns to Philo's explanations of the tenth commandment, where he finds desire to be the most troublesome of all the passions, which belong to the irrational part of the soul. On the one hand, Philo recognizes the inevitability of the passions. He is thus more akin to Aristotle than to the Stoics on this score. The passions must be controlled by reason (141).

Seland concludes that a Philonic reader would have no problem seeing similar issues being addressed in 1 Peter 2:11. Seland hints that he does not see this verse as a reference to our brief sojourn in the body before our souls return to heaven (145). But a Philonic reader likely would read it in this way.

Here endeth the reading. Thanks to Torrey Seland for a stimulating book. I have gained much from reading it.

4 comments:

Angie Van De Merwe said...

It is interesting that Scriptures are used here in identifying "what is Christian", because being "Christian", means being a part of the "Church"...And what, after all, defines membership in the "Church"?

I think the social scientific categories are helpful in understanding the questions...
But, I'm at a loss to understand how you defend the Philonic viewpoint as to being instructed in the "Law of Moses", as higher than the "basics" of Greek philosophy.? That presumes that Judiasm and Scripture are the epitome of "truth". How do you defend these claims to those who understand a broader context to Scripture, religion, anthropology, etc.?
The "classical period" was the period that influenced the development of Scripture, wasn't it? The "modern period" was what gave us fundamentalism...."postmodernity" returns us to the issues of diversity within unity...and this is the question for today...
How does religious exclusivism exist within a pluralistic culture? Or should we tolerate other traditions, understanding the limitations of our own tradition..understanding that man seeks understanding of the ultimate, and to worship the "ultimate" and that we see through a glass darkly.

On the other hand, how do we address the secularization of our culture?
I was watching C-Span and the debate on ID and "Americans for the separation of Church and State"...Are we free to have our religious viewpoints, because we understand that the "Why" question is not answered by the "How" question? The "What" question is not indicative of the "How" question one way or the other...And how much is the "How" question important in addressing the "Why" question...Why?

Scientific materialism (supermen) or religious fundamentalism (super apostles) is not what Christians should be about. It is about being human and identifying with humanity in all of humanity's limitations, struggles, problems, etc....and seeking where you "fit" into humanity's "world". (The Greek dichotomy between flesh/spirit versus the OT view was a good point to make.)

Angie Van De Merwe said...

The reason that the flesh/spirit dichotomy was a good point to make is that today's scientific understanding of brain/mind is at issue...is the "mind" different from the brain, if not, then we are only what we "put into our brains" and we are determined and cannot overcome any of our social environments...

Angie Van De Merwe said...

in re-reading my entries, I am not affirming Christian faith over and above Jewish faith. In fact, didn't Paul re-define Jewish faith to universalism, based on a symbolization of Jesus' life and death... The question then, is, what defines Christian faith? Is it the cult, the "nation", the "Law of Moses" or "faith"???

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Pardon my 4th comment, but I find myself rumminating on how to understand my faith. And since my faith had been the life blood of my life, it is neccessary for me to define it again along lines that are more reasonable to me at this point in my faith journey. I hope I am not being selfish here..

In understanding another's faith, we must understand how that faith is defined. Don't Palestinians still define their "right to land" on the ancient understanding of actual land? And is this right a right granted by God? Isn't this where terriorism comes from? The fundamentalist understanding of their faith and their demand for retribution in the name of God? Is retribution/restitution a "right" under their understanding of "law"? And should we be interested in "justice" as defined like this? On what basis do we adhere to their understanding? And how does that interface with our own nation's interests? And where our loyalties lie? How do we justify the modern rendition of a nation state? On the basis of order? Law (natural or social?)? And what is humanity's ultimate "good"? Life? Prosperity? Happiness???? And who are we to defend in giving these "rights"? Do terrorists or revolutionaries have any "rights"?