Persecution for faith in Classical Greek times

 

Koot van Wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Visiting Professor

Kyungpook National University

Sangju Campus

South Korea

Conjoint Lecturer of Avondale College

Australia

22 March 2011

 

The concept of persecution for faith can be found in nearly every century since the beginning of man. In 399 BCE Socrates lost his life, partly because he did not believe in the traditional gods of ancient times. We would like to focus on what happened to Socrates on this aspect.

Our source was written and compiled by dr. H. Telle of the University fo South Africa. The information of dr. H. Telle overlaps the interesting information of dr. Naude on the role of Rationalism and Historical Criticism in Classical Greek periods. The reason is that the persecution of these philosophers was partly because they adhered to Rationalism and this Rationalism caused them to question the existence of the ancient gods and also caused them to use the method of historical criticism to remove miracles, legends, myths, supernatural powers from the gods and ascribe it to natural causes. From our point of view, the gods of Homer and Hesiod did not exist so that a critical view of their existence by the philosophers of the Classical Greek period lies within our domain of challenging these gods. A couple of times, this extraordinary view that the gods do not exist or exist as the common man view in line with the earlier poets like Hesiod and Homer, was held to be disturbing to the point of causing persecution of the one who held these views.

During the time of Hesiod and Homer's compositions in Greece, Isaiah wrote in Palestine what is known as the "idol satire" or in Afrikaans, "die afgod-spot". Examples are Isaiah 40:18-31; 41:6-7; 44:9-20; and 46:1-7. Modern Rationalists which are viewed dimly by us and by Seventh-day Adventism, like Eichorn in 1783 and Döderlein in 1789 and Bernard Duhm in 1892 created a deutero and trito (so Duhm) Isaiah due to vocabulary and style differences between 1-39 and 40-66. At the University of Chicago Judith Reinken investigated the vocabulary of Isaiah and concluded that "This study does not support the thesis of different authorship, nor does it support the thesis of unity of authorship". This does not solve the issue but do indicate that there are a third position of scholars who do not want to admit or deny either of the positions. Josephus cites Isaiah 44 and said that "This was known to Cyrus by his reading the book which Isaiah left behind of his prophecies" (Wars, VII.X.3 [Whiston translation]. Also in Allis 57 footnote 11). A century earlier Elijah was also making idol satire speeches in 1 Kings 18-22 on Carmel against the Baal prophets. He wanted them to dance more since their god may be in a toilet and cannot hear them.

 

Charges of asebeia = ασεβεια or impiety against philosophers

The trial of Socrates stands out as a classic example of one who died for his views about the gods. He died in 399 BCE. The official charge sheet was kept in the archives of Athens since Socrates death and later, Favorinus, a contemporary friend of Plutarch, entered the archives, saw the charge-sheet, memorized it and walked out and recounted it to Diogenes Laertius. The charge against Socrates apparently read:

"Meletus, son of Meletus, from thje deme (township) of Pitheus, did lay the following charge and did swear the following affidavit against Socrates, son of Sophroniskos, from the deme of Alopeke. Socrates commits an offence in that he does not believe in the gods whom the Polis worships, but introduces other, divine things which are new (αδικει Σωκρατης ους μεν πολις νομιζει θεους ου νομιζων ετερα δε καινα δαιμονια εισηγουμενος). And he also commits an offence in that he corrupts the youth. The penalty: death" (Diogenes Laertius II, 40).

The legal basis for this charge in 399 BCE, was a decree which was passed in 432 BCE on the motion of the seer Diopeithes. Dr. Telle explained that "before the decree only those who desecrated temples, altars, statues and other sacred objects were punishable, but afterwards also those who did not worship the gods, or, to interpret differently, those who questioned the existence of the gods and those who propagated doctrines about heavenly phenomena were brought to trial. The motives of Diopheithes were of a religious nature. As he was a fanatical adherent to the old belief, he was naturally the sworn enemy of the rationalists which was fostered by Pericles" (Telle 1977: 13).

 

Anaxagoras (Reason in conflict with Faith)

Anaxagoras was the first to be affected by the decree. He was a natural philosopher who settled in Athens about 480 BCE. Pericles liked him. Anaxagoras was a Rationalist who wanted to explain matters of faith with reason in such a way that the faith became obsolete. He explained eclipses and other meteorological phenomena, which played a large role in the art of Ancient Prophecy, in the light of physical science, and by this made the Ancient Prophets and Seers of his day angry. He did not believe that Zeus is sending thunderbolts and said it is just a fable (Telle 1977: 13).

 

Diagoras (Reason in conflict with Faith)

Diagoras made bad remarks about religion and the mysteries and as a result of the charge of asebeia = ασεβεια, he had to flee.

Protagoras (411 BCE) (Reason in conflict with Faith)

Similarly to Anaxagoras, also the sophist Protagoras had to flee. The cause of the problem with Protagoras was the philosophical treatise that started with the words:

"Concerning the gods, it is impossible for me to know, neither that they exist, nor that they do not exist, nor, also, what form they have; for there are many stumbling-blocks which prevent knowledge of these things, namely, the obscurity of the manner and the shortness of human life" (Diels - Kranz, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker Vol. II [Berlin: 1951]: 80 (74), B4, op. cit. dr. Telle 1977: 13).

Three other philosophers also suffered by this degree, Aristotle, Theophrastus and Stilpo, all three examples of Reason in conflict with Faith.

 

Hebrew religious faithful persecuted in Babylon and Persia as precursor to the Greek sufferings (Faith in conflict with Faith)

We should bring to the table of evidence the decrees of Nebuchadnezzar making the image in Daniel 4 and asking the friends of Daniel in the early part of the sixth century BCE to kneel down, which they rejected to do. It was a conflict between two faiths. The faithful refused and were thrown into a burning oven but miraculously saved.

Then there is the case of Daniel (Daniel 6) been thrown into the lion's den under Daniel the Mede(?) in 539/8 BCE because he prayed to his God three times a day at his house. Also because of a decree designed to single out faithful people. It is a conflict between two faiths.

Babylonian persecution in 590 BCE, Persian persecution in 539/8 BCE and then the examples of Greek persecution beginning in 432 BCE and carried out long after Socrates in 399 BCE also against other philosophers.

 

ασεβεια in earlier Homeric times and Classical Greek times compared

Dr. Telle pointed out that it is strange to find atheism classified and dealt with under the concept of persecution for impiety or ασεβεια.

Bruno Snell wrote that "The [Christian] idea of belief, always supposes the possibility of unbelief. The belief or credo postulates a false or heretical belief with which it contrasts. The belief is thus bound to a dogma for which, or against which, one fights. In Greek religion nothing like this existed. For the Greek, his gods were so natural and self-evident, that it never entered his mind that other nations could have another 'belief' or other gods" (B. Snell, 'Der Glaube an die olympischen Götter' in Entdeckung des Geistes 3rd edition, [Hamburg 1955: 448]). He continued with Herodotus that "when Herodotus visited Egypt and there became acquanted with the Egyptian gods, he realized that there too were to be found his native gods Apollo, Dionysus and Artemis - only under different names" (Snell, 1955: 448).

For Herodotus the concept meant "to worship a god in a way sanctified by custom and legalised by the state" = νομιζειν θεον = τα νομιζομενα πραττειν. The decree expected that one had to refrain from actions that were manifestly ασεβεια i.e sacrilege or desecration and also expected that the person participated in the official religious ceremonies (Telle 1977: 14). But, Xenophon, in defense of Socrates, said that he always brought the customary offerings to the gods of the polis (Xenophon, Apol., 10-11; Mem. I,2).

It is only during the Peloponnesian War that we hear of charges against "theoretic" atheism (Telle 1977: 15). It was during this period that the sentiments of Rationalism also grew and the populist concept of those days after the Peloponnesian war that the doctrines of the philosophers of natural science and the Sophists was the cause of the catastrophe of 404 BCE. In order to regain the favor of the gods, these Rationalistic doctrines had to be suppressed.

The difficulty we have with Plato and interpreting his philosophical writings is that he wrote dialogues and not philosophical treatises. Just the same as in a live dialogue there is no systematic way in which aspects are treated. Plato makes Socrates argue with four different interlocutors at a time and each one is a level higher than the previous one. One must realize on which level the conversation moves, in order to understand what Plato wants to convey (Telle 1977: 17).

 

Summary (Past Reason-Faith and Faith-Faith conflicts and future Reason-Faith and Faith-Faith conflicts)

In summary we learn that in Jewish persecutions under Babylonian and Persian periods, the issue was faith against faith. With the Rationalistic philosophers in the Greek Classical Greek Period, the issue was reason against faith. We can suggest that the philosophers of the Classical Greek period were right in complaining about the gods of the Greeks since they were human creations in ancient times. They did not exist in fact. But the fundamental difference with the persecution of the Jews is that they could not do something that was against specific commands by Yahweh of the Jews. Pluralism and ecumenism was not acceptable to the Jews under Daniel and the Babylonians were offended to the point of legal persecution. They created a national persecution society. The Persians did the same with Daniel in 539 BCE and it qualifies also as a national persecution society. The Greeks also created this national persecution society. We do not have space here to investigate whether the Romans created a national persecution society directed on the issue of atheism or impiety but we know that the successor of the Romans, the Holy Roman empire did create a global persecution society for those who did not adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church. The Secular-Constitutional Empire of the USA and its allies are similarly imposing a pluralistic, ecumenical adherence which eventually may evolve into a cultic fanaticism that forces loyalty to the point of persecution for dissenters.