Gerald Bray’s Athens and Jerusalem– Part Eleven

Last updated on: April 15, 2025 at 1:10 am by Ben Witherington

Gerald Bray’s Athens and Jerusalem– Part Eleven 2025-04-05T12:18:49-04:00 Ben Witherington

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

The Latin phrase ‘ars longa, vita brevis’– art is long but life is short is a maxim that especially came true during the Renaissance when artists such as Raphael, Michelangelo, and Da Vinci, all of whom professed to be Christians, began to offer art that emphasized the full humanity of their subjects (cf. e.g. Michelangelo’s David). The Renaissance had arrived and with it various Greek scholars who had moved from a dying Byzantium to Rome and elsewhere in Italy. And so the Greek works of Plato became more accessible to Latin speakers, through translation. It needs to be understood that Latin had long since been the official language of the church, which led to the peculiar circumstance of the Bible just being translated and studied in Latin in the West. Even Martin Luther only learned Greek in order to translate the NT into Latin! But the tide was about to turn with the arrival of Greek scholars in Italy, and the arise of the ad’ fontes’ movement— lets get back to the original languages, including Hebrew and Greek (see my Sola Scriptura about all this).

The art went so far as to portray pagans and Christians together, for instance in the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, where you find the OT prophets juxtaposed with the Sibyls, or consider Raphael’s famous painting of the school of Athens, where Plato and Aristotle are central, but we get various other Greek philosopher and even Athena and Apollo are portrayed overseeing the whole scene. And this painting was commissioned by the Pope, and still today hangs in the Vatican. The recovery of the ancient philosophies, and the permission to study their thought in Latin, led to the rise of the study of the Greek and Latin classics in schools across Europe, in addition to theology. One notices the fixation on the beauty of the human form, both male and female, and in general on beauty of whatever sort. For some, it was already becoming true that ‘beauty is truth…’ if not the reverse of that maxim. As Bray notes, by contrast, the NT says nothing about the appearance of Jesus, or the Twelve— nothing. Indeed, early commentators were apt to apply Isa. 53.2 to Jesus ‘he had no form or comeliness that that we should look at him, no beauty that we should desire him’. Beauty of character and personality was not what those Renaissance artists were portraying. Christianity was not about a striving after beauty, or even after God, but rather obedience to God’s revelation, as Bray says. The main thing humanism of that period could not fully come to grips with was sin, sin and evil.

What happened in 1516 when Erasmus published his Greek NT, is that gradually it produced an enormous countering reaction. There is some irony in all this because Erasmus was using some late Greek manuscripts to produce his Greek NT, whereas Jerome writing 1000 years earlier had access to far more ancient manuscripts of both the Hebrew and the Greek portions of the Bible and so at various points his Latin translation was closer to the original than Erasmus’ Greek text, but on the other hand the latter was also often closer to the original than the Vulgate. It was a complex situation. But the Roman church was forced to declare that the Vulgate was the correct version of the Bible and the only one to be used to determine correct doctrine. As Bray laments “It was an absurd decision but it put an effective end to creative Biblical research in the Roman Catholic church, which did not fully recover for four centuries.” (p. 148), In fact it was only in my lifetime when Vatican 2 happened that real recovery began. In the 50s, my wife was still attending Mass, held only in Latin, with Bible readings in Latin as well.

There is no need to rehearse the Reformation with its changes, which Bray does good justice to, since I’ve already talked at length about that in my essay on the development of the Bible, and in Sola Scriptura. As science was beginning to come to the fore, Aristoteleanism was increasingly shown to have its weaknesses, not the least of which was its inability to explain motion– if the Prime Mover could move other things, how could he not also be involved in motion. Why did not the movement of the heavenly bodies always follow a strict circular path? When Copernicus and Kepler, and Galileo began to change the earth centered view of the universe and noted the elliptical orbits of the planets (unlike Aristotle’s perfect circular orbits), and it was Galileo in his 1610 publication Starry Messenger, that put the nail in the Ptolemaic and Aristotelean coffin in regard the nature of the universe and the motion of the heavenly bodies. But it was only in 1623 that Galileo published his tour de force demolition of Aristotle and Ptolemy’s vision of the universe and its movements in his Dialogue concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Galileo was placed under house arrest, and his book could not be published in Italian, but fortunately it was secretly shipped out to Holland where it was printed in Holland. The cat had been let out of the bag, and the Reformers admired Galileo for resisting the pressure of the pope on this issue.

When the Catholic Church was shown to be wrong in upholding Aristotle’s and Ptolemy’s view of the universe, this opened to the door to the questioning of the church on other issues, and in fact opened the door in due course to Unitarianism a sort of deism. It was rather like opening Pandora’s box, and it led to various Presbyterian churches in Europe becoming Unitarian, and then in America too, including Harvard Divinity school, which had originally been founded to train evangelical ministers. In 1833, the state of Massachusetts disentangled itself from endorsing a state religion (in this case Congregationalism, and then Unitarianism). What happened over time, was the gradual disaffiliation of governments from state religion in most regards, leading to the extreme idea of the separation of church and state, which in turn ended up meaning the separation of any sort of religion and the state. This was seen in some places as a bridge too far, but the result was in most of the West freedom of religion (which sometimes meant freedom from religion). Today we see reactions to this for instance, in India, which was supposed to be a modern democracy with freedom of religion but increasingly had a government that supports and promotes Hinduism.

It is hard to give an exact date when the religious and philosophical attitude in the West changed away from a specifically more Christian (and Aristotelean) orientation, but many scholars say it happened around 1700— before the American and French Revolutions. This change has sometimes been called the Enlightenment. “In the space of one generation, the European mind went from one in which religious questions were of fundamental importance and shaped the framework of discussion for everything else to one in which religion was shunted to the sidelines, to be replaced by the cult of human reason and science (however broadly that might be defined).” (p. 172).

The remained of this book chronicles the decline of Christian influence in almost all public spheres including in the realm of science, and the response to that decline in various ways. Gradually the light dawned on Christians that the Biblical truth cannot be forced on people, only witness and persuasion can achieve the desired end. Freedom of discussion, far from endangering the truth, makes embracing the Biblical witness even more possible and plausible, but the approach has to be ‘faith seeking understanding’. It also requires a recognition that all truth of whatever sort is God’s truth, and if it is indeed truth, it will not contradict, but rather comport with Biblical truth. But this in turn requires understanding what the actual subject matter of the Bible is and is not. The Bible is not a scientific textbook foisted on a pre-scientific group of people. It does not teach cosmology, geology, chemistry and so many other sciences. It’s subject matter is theology,ethics, salvation history and spiritual formation. We do not turn to the Bible to learn the shape or age of the earth, nor how to repair our cars, and so much more. Amen and Amen.

In a final post, I will deal with Brays conclusions, but for now I will just say, Bray’s book is the best survey I know of, of the troubled history of the development of theology and philosophy and deserves to be on the shelf of every thinking Christian who cares about these matters.

History and Religion

Education and Religion

Uncategorized

Apres moi

la deluge.

Previous Post

April 14, 2025

Gerald Bray's Athens and Jerusalem-- Part Ten

Next Post

April 16, 2025 Grald Bray's Athens and Jerusalem-- Part Sixteen

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz