... the only way to avoid floating in a vacuum 

it won't be long now before we meet, my dear sophie. i thought you would return to the major's cabin--that's why i left all the cards from hilde's father there. that was the only way they could be delivered to her. don't worry about how she will get them. a lot can happen before june 15.

we have seen how the hellenistic philosophers recycled the ideas of earlier philosophers. some even attempted to turn their predecessors into religious prophets. plotinus came close to acclaiming plato as the savior of humanity.

but as we know, another savior was born during the period we have just been discussing--and that happened outside the greco-roman area. i refer to jesus of nazareth. in this chapter we will see how christianity gradually began to permeate the greco-roman world--more or less the same way that hilde's world has gradually begun to permeate ours.

jesus was a jew, and the jews belong to semitic culture. the greeks and the romans belong to indo-european culture. european civilization has its roots in both cultures. but before we take a closer look at the way christianity influenced greco-roman culture, we must examine these roots.

the indo-europeans

by indo-european we mean all the nations and cultures that use indo-european languages. this covers all european nations except those whose inhabitants speak one of the finno-ugrian languages (lapp, finnish, estonian, and hungarian) or basque. in addition, most indian and iranian languages belong to the indo-european family of languages.

about 4,000 years ago, the primitive indo-europeans lived in areas bordering on the black sea and the caspian sea. from there, waves of these indo-european tribes began to wander southeast into iran and india, southwest to greece, italy, and spain, westward through central europe to france and britain, northwestward to scandinavia and northward to eastern europe and russia. wherever they went, the indo-europeans assimilated with the local culture, although indo-european languages and indo-european religion came to play a dominant role.

the ancient indian veda scriptures and greek philosophy, and for that matter snorri sturluson's mythology are all written in related languages. but it is not only the languages that are related. related languages often lead to related ideas. this is why we usually speak of an indo-european "culture."

the culture of the indo-europeans was influenced most of all by their belief in many gods. this is called polytheism. the names of these gods as well as much of the religious terminology recur throughout the whole indo-european area. i'll give you a few examples:

the ancient indians worshipped the celestial god dyaus, which in sanskrit means the sky, day, heaven/ heaven. in greek this god is called zeus, in latin, jupiter (actually iov-pater, or "father heaven"), and in old norse, tyr. so the names dyaus, zeus, lov, and tyr are dialectal variants of the same word.

you probably learned that the old vikings believed in gods which they called aser. this is another word we find recurring all over the indo-european area. in sanskrit, the ancient classical language of india, the gods are called asura and in persian ahura. another word for "god" is deva in sanskrit, claeva in persian, deus in latin and tivurr in old norse.

in viking times, people also believed in a special group of fertility gods (such as niord, freyr, and freyja). these gods were referred to by a special collective name, vaner, a word that is related to the latin name for the goddess of fertility, venus. sanskrit has the related word van/, which means "desire."

there is also a clear affinity to be observed in some of the indo-european myths. in snorri's stories of the old norse gods, some of the myths are similar to the myths of india that were handed down from two to three thousand years earlier. although snorri's myths reflect the nordic environment and the indian myths reflect the indian, many of them retain traces of a common origin. we can see these traces most clearly in myths about immortal potions and the struggles of the gods against the monsters of chaos.

we can also see clear similarities in modes of thought across the indo-european cultures. a typical likeness is the way the world is seen as being the subject of a drama in which the forces of good and evil confront each other in a relentless struggle. indo-europeans have therefore often tried to "predict" how the battles between good and evil will turn out.

one could say with some truth that it was no accident that greek philosophy originated in the indo-european sphere of culture. indian, greek, and norse mythology all have obvious leanings toward a philosophic, or "speculative," view of the world.

the indo-europeans sought "insight" into the history of the world. we can even trace a particular word for "insight" or "knowledge" from one culture to another all over the indo-european world. in sanskrit it is vidya. the word is identical to the greek word idea, which was so important in plato's philosophy. from latin, we have the word video, but on roman ground the word simply means to see. for us, "i see" can mean "i understand," and in the cartoons, a light bulb can flash on above woody woodpecker's head when he gets a bright idea. (not until our own day did "seeing" become synonymous with staring at the tv screen.) in english we know the words wise and wisdom--in german, wissen (to know). norwegian has the word viten, which has the same root as the indian word vidya, the greek idea, and the latin video.

all in all, we can establish that sight was the most important of the senses for indo-europeans. the literature of indians, greeks, persians, and teutons alike was characterized by great cosmic visions. (there is that word again: "vision" comes from the latin verb "video."} it was also characteristic for indo-european culture to make pictures and sculptures of the gods and of mythical events.

lastly, the indo-europeans had a cyc//c view of history. this is the belief that history goes in circles, just like the seasons of the year. there is thus no beginning and no end to history, but there are different civilizations that rise and fall in an eternal interplay between birth and death.

both of the two great oriental religions, hinduism and buddhism, are indo-european in origin. so is greek philosophy, and we can see a number of clear parallels between hinduism and buddhism on the one hand and greek philosophy on the other. even today, hinduism and buddhism are strongly imbued with philosophical reflection.

not infrequently we find in hinduism and buddhism an emphasis on the fact that the deity is present in all things (pantheism) and that man can become one with god through religious insight. (remember plotinus, sophie?) to achieve this requires the practice of deep self-communion or meditation. therefore in the orient, passivity and seclusion can be religious ideals. in ancient greece, too, there were many people who believed in an ascetic, or religiously secluded, way of life for the salvation of the soul many aspects of medieval monastic life can be traced back to beliefs dating from the greco-roman civilization.

similarly, the transmigration of the soul, or the cycle of rebirth, is a fundamental belief in many indo-european cultures. for more than 2,500 years, the ultimate purpose of life for every indian has been the release from the cycle of rebirth. plato also believed in the transmigration of the soul.

the semites

let us now turn to the semites, sophie. they belong to a completely different culture with a completely different language. the semites originated in the arabian peninsula, but they also migrated to different parts of the world. the jews lived far from their home for more than 2,000 years. semitic history and religion reached furthest away from its roots by way of christendom, although semitic culture also became widely spread via islam.

all three western religions--judaism, christianity, and islam--share a semitic background. the muslims' holy scripture, the koran, and the old testament were both written in the semitic family of languages. one of the old testament words for "god" has the same semantic root as the muslim allah. (the word "allah" means, quite simply, "god.")

when we get to christianity the picture becomes more complicated. christianity also has a semitic background, but the new testament was written in greek, and when the christian theology or creed was formulated, it was influenced by greek and latin, and thus also by hellenistic philosophy.

the indo-europeans believed in many different gods. it was just as characteristic for the semites that from earliest times they were united in their belief in one god. this is called monotheism. judaism, christianity, and islam all share the same fundamental idea that there is only one god.

the semites also had in common a linear view of history. in other words, history was seen as an ongoing line. in the beginning god created the world and that was the beginning of history. but one day history will end and that will be judgment day, when god judges the living and the dead.

the role played by history is an important feature of these three western religions. the belief is that god intervenes in the course of history--even that history exists in order that god may manifest his will in the world, just as he once led abraham to the "promised land," he leads mankind's steps through history to the day of judgment. when that day comes, all evil in the world will be destroyed.

with their strong emphasis on god's activity in the course of history, the semites were preoccupied with the writing of history for many thousands of years. and these historical roots constitute the very core of their holy scriptures.

even today the city of jerusalem is a significant religious center for jews, christians, and muslims alike. this indicates something of the common background of these three religions.

the city comprises prominent (jewish) synagogues, (christian) churches, and (islamic) mosques. it is therefore deeply tragic that jerusalem should have become a bone of contention--with people killing each other by the thousand because they cannot agree on who is to have ascendancy over this "eternal city." may the un one day succeed in making jerusalem a holy shrine for all three religions! (we shall not go any further into this more practical part of our philosophy course for the moment. we will leave it entirely to hilde's father. you must have gathered by now that he is a un observer in lebanon. to be more precise, i can reveal that he is serving as a major. if you are beginning to see some connection, that's quite as it should be. on the other hand, let's not anticipate events!)

we said that the most important of the senses for indo-europeans was sight. how important hearing was to the semitic cultures is just as interesting. it is no accident that the jewish creed begins with the words: "hear, o israel!" in the old testament we read how the people "heard" the word of the lord, and the jewish prophets usually began their sermons with the words: "thus spake jehovah (god)." "hearing" the word of god is also emphasized in christianity. the religious ceremonies of christianity, judaism, and islam are all characterized by reading aloud or "reciting."

i also mentioned that the indo-europeans always made pictorial representations or sculptures of their gods. it was just as characteristic for the semites that they never did. they were not supposed to create pictures or sculptures of god or the "deity." the old testament commands that the people shall not make any image of god. this is still law today both for judaism and islam. within islam there is moreover a general aversion to both photography and art, because people should not compete with god in "creating" anything.

but the christian churches are full of pictures of jesus and god, you are probably thinking. true enough, sophie, but this is just one example of how christendom was influenced by the greco-roman world. (in the greek orthodox church--that is, in greece and in russia-- "graven images," or sculptures and crucifixes, from bible stories are still forbidden.)

in contrast to the great religions of the orient, the three western religions emphasize that there is a distance between god and his creation. the purpose is not to be released from the cycle of rebirth, but to be redeemed from sin and blame. moreover, religious life is characterized more by prayer, sermons, and the study of the scriptures than by self-communion and meditation.

israel

i have no intention of competing with your religion teacher, sophie, but let us just make a quick summary of christianity's jewish background.

it all began when god created the world. you can read how that happened on the very first page of the bible. then mankind began to rebel against god. their punishment was not only that adam and eve were driven from the garden of eden--death also came into the world.

man's disobedience to god is a theme that runs right through the bible. if we go further on in the book of genesis we read about the flood and noah's ark. then we read that god made a covenant with abraham and his seed. this covenant--or pact--was that abraham and all his seed would keep the lord's commandments. in exchange god promised to protect all the children of abraham. this covenant was renewed when moses was given the ten commandments on mount sinai around the year 1200 b.c. at that time the israelites had long been held as slaves in egypt, but with god's help they were led back to the land of israel.

about 1,000 years before christ--and therefore long before there was anything called greek philosophy--we hear of three great kings of israel. the first was saul, then came david, and after him came solomon. now all the israelites were united in one kingdom, and under king david, especially, they experienced a period of political, military, and cultural glory.

when kings were chosen, they were anointed by the people. they thus received the title messiah, which means "the anointed one." in a religious sense kings were looked upon as a go-between between god and his people. the king could therefore also be called the "son of god" and the country could be called the "kingdom of god."

but before long israel began to lose its power and the kingdom was divided into a northern kingdom (israel) and a southern kingdom (judea). in 722 b.c. the northern kingdom was conquered by the assyrians and it lost all political and religious significance. the southern kingdom fared no better, being conquered by the babylonians in 586 b.c. its temple was destroyed and most of its people were carried off to slavery in babylon. this "babylonian captivity" lasted until 539 b.c. when the people were permitted to return to jerusalem, and the great temple was restored. but for the rest of the period before the birth of christ the jews continued to live under foreign domination.

the question jews constantly asked themselves was why the kingdom of david was destroyed and why catastrophe after catastrophe rained down on them, for god had promised to hold israel in his hand. but the people had also promised to keep god's commandments. it gradually became widely accepted that god was punishing israel for her disobedience.

from around 750 b.c. various prophets began to come forward preaching god's wrath over israel for not keeping his commandments. one day god would hold a day of judgment over israel, they said. we call prophecies like these doomsday prophecies.

in the course of time there came other prophets who preached that god would redeem a chosen few of his people and send them a "prince of peace" or a king of the house of david. he would restore the old kingdom of david and the people would have a future of prosperity.

"the people that walked in darkness will see a great light," said the prophet isaiah, and "they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined." we call prophecies like these prophecies of redemption.

to sum up: the children of israel lived happily under king david. but later on when their situation deteriorated, their prophets began to proclaim that there would one day come a new king of the house of david. this "messiah," or "son of god," would "redeem" the people, restore israel to greatness, and found a "kingdom of god."

jesus

i assume you are still with me, sophie? the key words are "messiah," "son of god," and "kingdom of god." at first it was all taken politically. in the time of jesus, there were a lot of people who imagined that there would come a new "messiah" in the sense of a political, military, and religious leader of the caliber of king david. this "savior" was thus looked upon as a national deliverer who would put an end to the suffering of the jews under roman domination.

well and good. but there were also many people who were more farsighted. for the past two hundred years there had been prophets who believed that the promised "messiah" would be the savior of the whole world. he would not simply free the israelites from a foreign yoke, he would save all mankind from sin and blame--and not least, from death. the longing for "salvation" in the sense of redemption was widespread all over the hellenistic world.

so along comes jesus of nazareth. he was not the only man ever to have come forward as the promised "messiah." jesus also uses the words "son of god," the "kingdom of god," and "redemption." in doing this he maintains the link with the old prophets. he rides into jerusalem and allows himself to be acclaimed by the crowds as the savior of the people, thus playing directly on the way the old kings were installed in a characteristic "throne accession ritual." he also allows himself to be anointed by the people. "the time is fulfilled," he says, and "the kingdom of god is at hand."

but here is a very important point: jesus distinguished himself from the other "messiahs" by stating clearly that he was not a military or political rebel. his mission was much greater. he preached salvation and god's forgiveness for everyone. to the people he met on his way he said "your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake."

handing out the "remission of sins" in this way was totally unheard of. and what was even worse, he addressed god as "father" (abba). this was absolutely un-precedented in the jewish community at that time. it was therefore not long before there arose a wave of protest against him among the scribes.

so here was the situation: a great many people at the time of jesus were waiting for a messiah who would reestablish the kingdom of god with a great flourish of trumpets (in other words, with fire and sword). the expression "kingdom of god" was indeed a recurring theme in the preachings of jesus--but in a much broader sense. jesus said that the "kingdom of god" is loving thy neighbor, compassion for the weak and the poor, and forgiveness of those who have erred.

this was a dramatic shift in the meaning of an age-old expression with warlike overtones. people were expecting a military leader who would soon proclaim the establishment of the kingdom of god, and along comes jesus in kirtle and sandals telling them that the kingdom of god-- or the "new covenant"--is that you must "love thy neighbor as thyself." but that was not all, sophie, he also said that we must love our enemies. when they strike us, we must not retaliate; we must even turn the other cheek. and we must forgive--not seven times but seventy times seven.

jesus himself demonstrated that he was not above talking to harlots, corrupt usurers, and the politically subversive. but he went even further: he said that a good-for-nothing who has squandered all his father's inheritance-- or a humble publican who has pocketed official funds-- is righteous before god when he repents and prays for forgiveness, so great is god's mercy.

but hang on--he went a step further: jesus said that such sinners were more righteous in the eyes of god and more deserving of god's forgiveness than the spotless pharisees who went around flaunting their virtue.

jesus pointed out that nobody can earn god's mercy. we cannot redeem ourselves (as many of the greeks believed). the severe ethical demands made by jesus in the sermon on the mount were not only to teach what the will of god meant, but also to show that no man is righteous in the eyes of god. god's mercy is boundless, but we have to turn to god and pray for his forgiveness.

i shall leave a more thorough study of jesus and his teachings to your religion teacher. he will have quite a task. i hope he will succeed in showing what an excep-tional man jesus was. in an ingenious way he used the language of his time to give the old war cries a totally new and broader content. it's not surprising that he ended on the cross. his radical tidings of redemption were at odds with so many interests and power factors that he had to be removed.

when we talked about socrates, we saw how dangerous it could be to appeal to people's reason. with jesus we see how dangerous it can be to demand unconditional brotherly love and unconditional forgiveness. even in the world of today we can see how mighty powers can come apart at the seams when confronted with simple demands for peace, love, food for the poor, and amnesty for the enemies of the state.

you may recall how incensed plato was that the most righteous man in athens had to forfeit his life. according to christian teachings, jesus was the only righteous person who ever lived. nevertheless he was condemned to death. christians say he died for the sake of humanity. this is what christians usually call the "passion" of christ jesus was the "suffering servant" who bore the sins of humanity in order that we could be "atoned" and saved from god's wrath.

paul

a few days after jesus had been crucified and buried, rumors spread that he had risen from the grave. he thereby proved that he was no ordinary man. he truly was the "son of god."

we could say that the christian church was founded on easter morning with the rumors of the resurrection of jesus. this is already established by paul: "and if christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain and your faith is also vain."

now all mankind could hope for the resurrection of the body, for it was to save us that jesus was crucified. but, dear sophie, remember that from a jewish point of view there was no question of the "immortality of the soul" or any form of "transmigration"; that was a greek--and therefore an indo-european--thought. according to christianity there is nothing in man--no "soul," for example-- that is in itself immortal. although the christian church believes in the "resurrection of the body and eternal life," it is by god's miracle that we are saved from death and "damnation." it is neither through our own merit nor through any natural--or innate--ability.

so the early christians began to preach the "glad tidings" of salvation through faith in jesus christ. through his mediation, the "kingdom of god" was about to be-come a reality. now the entire world could be won for christ. (the word "christ" is a greek translation of the hebrew word "messiah," the anointed one.)

a few years after the death of jesus, the pharisee paul converted to christianity. through his many missionary journeys across the whole of the greco-roman world he made christianity a worldwide religion. we hear of this in the acts of the apostles. paul's preaching and guidance for the christians is known to us from the many epistles written by him to the early christian congregations.

he then turns up in athens. he wanders straight into the city square of the philosophic capital. and it is said that "his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry." he visited the jewish synagogue in athens and conversed with epicurean and stoic philosophers. they took him up to the areopagos hill and asked him: "may we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? for thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean."

can you imagine it, sophie? a jew suddenly appears in the athenian marketplace and starts talking about a savior who was hung on a cross and later rose from the grave. even from this visit of paul in athens we sense a coming collision between greek philosophy and the doctrine of christian redemption. but paul clearly succeeds in getting the athenians to listen to him. from the areopa-gos--and beneath the proud temples of the acropolis-- he makes the following speech:

"ye men of athens, i perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. for as i passed by, and beheld your devotions, i found an altar with this inscription, to the unknown god. whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare i unto you.

god that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things. and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the lord, if haply they might feel after him and find him, though he be not far from every one of us. for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, for we are also his offspring. forasmuch then as we are the offspring of god, we ought not to think that the godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. and the times of this ignorance god winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent:

because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given as-surance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead."

paul in athens, sophie! christianity has begun to penetrate the greco-roman world as something else, something completely different from epicurean, stoic, or neoplatonic philosophy. but paul nevertheless finds some common ground in this culture. he emphasizes that the search for god is natural to all men. this was not new to the greeks. but what was new in paul's preaching is that god has also revealed himself to mankind and has in truth reached out to them. so he is no longer a "philosophic god" that people can approach with their understanding. neither is he "an image of gold or silver or stone"--there were plenty of those both on the acropolis and down in the marketplace! he is a god that "dwelleth not in temples made with hands." he is a personal god who intervenes in the course of history and dies on the cross for the sake of mankind.

when paul had made his speech on the areopagos, we read in the acts of the apostles, some mocked him for what he said about the resurrection from the dead. but others said: "we will hear thee again of this matter." there were also some who followed paul and began to believe in christianity. one of them, it is worth noting, was a woman named damaris. women were amongst the most fervent converts to christianity.

so paul continued his missionary activities. a few decades after the death of jesus, christian congregations were already established in all the important greek and roman cities--in athens, in rome, in alexandria, in ephesos, and in corinth. in the space of three to four hundred years, the entire hellenistic world had become christian.

the creed

it was not only as a missionary that paul came to have a fundamental significance for christianity. he also had great influence within the christian congregations. there was a widespread need for spiritual guidance.

one important question in the early years after jesus was whether non-jews could become christians without first becoming jews. should a greek, for instance, observe the dietary laws? paul believed it to be unnecessary. christianity was more than a jewish sect. it addressed itself to everybody in a universal message of salvation. the "old covenant" between god and israel had been replaced by the "new covenant" which jesus had established between god and mankind.

however, christianity was not the only religion at that time. we have seen how hellenism was influenced by a fusion of religions. it was thus vitally necessary for the church to step forward with a concise summary of the christian doctrine, both in order to distance itself from other religions and to prevent schisms within the christian church. therefore the first creed was established, summing up the central christian "dogmas" or tenets.

one such central tenet was that jesus was both god and man. he was not the "son of god" on the strength of his actions alone. he was god himself. but he was also a "true man" who had shared the misfortunes of mankind and actually suffered on the cross.

this may sound like a contradiction. but the message of the church was precisely that god became man. jesus was not a "demigod" (which was half man, half god). belief in such "demigods" was quite widespread in greek and hellenistic religions. the church taught that jesus was "perfect god, perfect man."

postscript

let me try to say a few words about how all this hangs together, my dear sophie. as christianity makes its entry into the greco-roman world we are witnessing a dramatic meeting of two cultures. we are also seeing one of history's great cultural revolutions.

we are about to step out of antiquity. almost one thousand years have passed since the days of the early greek philosophers. ahead of us we have the christian middle ages, which also lasted for about a thousand years.

the german poet goethe once said that "he who cannot draw on three thousand years is living from hand to mouth." i don't want you to end up in such a sad state. i will do what i can to acquaint you with your historical roots. it is the only way to become a human being. it is the only way to become more than a naked ape. it is the only way to avoid floating in a vacuum.

"it is the only way to become a human being. it is the only way to become more than a naked ape ..."

sophie sat for a while staring into the garden through the little holes in the hedge. she was beginning to understand why it was so important to know about her historical roots. it had certainly been important to the children of israel.

she herself was just an ordinary person. but if she knew her historical roots, she would be a little less ordinary.

she would not be living on this planet for more than a few years. but if the history of mankind was her own history, in a way she was thousands of years old.