If Socrates were to succeed in proving that justice by itself cannot but be good for the soul of its possessor, and injustice evil, he still would not be meeting Glaucon’s and Adeimantus’ challenge; for they ask him to show that justice is the greatest good of the soul, injustice its greatest evil. Further, showing this will not be sufficient unless Socrates thereby shows that the life of the man whose soul possesses justice is happier than the life of anyone whose soul is unjust. The latter is required of Socrates when Glaucon asks him to compare certain lives in terms of happiness. Glaucon envisages a just man’s life “bare of everything but justice. . . . Though doing no injustice he must have the repute of the greatest injustice . . . let him on to his course unchangeable even unto death . . . the just man will have to endure the lash, the rack, chains, the branding-iron in his eyes, and finally, after every extremity of suffering, he will be [impaled].” On the other hand, the unjust man pictured by Glaucon enjoys a position of “rule in the city, a wife from any family he chooses, and the giving of his children in marriage to whomsoever he pleases, dealings and partnerships with whom he will, and in all these transactions advantage and profit for himself,” and so forth, including a not unreasonable expectation of divine favor. Socrates has to prove that a just man whose condition is that described by Glaucon will still lead a happier life than anyone who is unjust if he is to show that, in terms of happiness, which is the Platonic criterion for the choice among lives, one ought to choose the just life. Again, if Socrates is able to show that an unjust man who enjoys the existence depicted by Glaucon is more wretched than any just man, that will suffice for choosing to reject any unjust life. As Prichard remarked, “Plato certainly did not underrate his task. Indeed, in reading his statement of it, we wonder how he ever came to think that he could execute it.
So, Plato proposes a sort of test for how to measure whether one is truly just, and whether such an individual would be “happier” in the technical Platonic sense.
Plato’s Republic was the most famous book in the ancient world, so it is not unreasonable to suppose some of its themes may have influenced Jesus and his followers, even if none of them ever read The Republic. Perhaps Jesus thought it was God’s plan for him to nobly suffer as a criminal in society’s eyes like Plato’s impaled just man, because this would demonstrate him to be truly just and thus worthy of being the Son of Man/judge of people in the new age following the apocalypse.
Jesus may have been trying to approximate the ethical standard/paradigm of the impaled, just man in book 2 of Plato’s Republic, or else there is exegetical work going on in the New Testament to model Jesus on Plato’s impaled, just man. This makes sense of such themes in Mark as the messianic secret, since such a Jesus would have to avoid even the appearance of reward for being just, such as wealth, fame, honor, etc.
Given this framework, let me suggest two ideas:
(1) Perhaps while Jesus thought he had to suffer to fulfill God’s plan (see the desperate prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane), perhaps he didn’t think he would actually have to die to fulfill it (the irony of Plato’s impaled just man is that no living person could meet the ethical paradigm, only approximate it). The desperate prayer in Gethsemane may have originally been envisioned as being granted (compare Heb. 5:7). The willingness of Jesus to die, like Isaac’s, is what answers future Israel’s sins, not the actual death.
(2) As Jesus is dying, he calls out in desperate questioning to God as to why He has abandoned him, hoping God will send Elijah to rescue him. We read in Mark:
When it was noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. 34 At three o’clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” 35 When some of the bystanders heard it, they said, “Listen, he is calling for Elijah.” 36 And someone ran, filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a stick, and gave it to him to drink, saying, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take him down.”
– So, what we seem to see in Mark is an exemplary case of the impaled/crucified just man, abandoned not only by his followers at the arrest, but even by his God who he trusted to answer the Gethsemane prayer and ultimately save him.
The Cross is revelation. It reveals, not any particular thing, but God and man. It reveals who God is and in what way man is. There is a curious presentiment of this situation in Greek philosophy: Plato’s image of the crucified ‘just man.’ In Republic the great philosopher asks what is likely to be the position of a completely just man in this world. He comes to the conclusion that a man’s righteousness is only complete and guaranteed when he takes on the appearance of unrighteousness, for only then is it clear that he does not follow the opinion of men but pursues justice only for its own sake. So according to Plato the truly just man must be misunderstood and persecuted in this world; indeed Plato goes so far as to write: “They will say that our just man will be scourged, racked, fettered, will have his eyes burned out, and at last, after all manner of suffering, will be crucified.” This passage, written four hundred years before Christ, is always bound to move a Christian deeply. (Ratzinger, Introdruction to Christianity p. 292; cf. Plato, Republic, II.362a)
ONE LAST THOUGHT
In the last few posts I’ve done, I’ve been talking about how Jesus, as a crucified criminal, seems to embody the Platonic ideal of the impaled just man from book 2 of Plato’s Republic, either because Jesus was trying to direct his life events to emulate that ethical ideal from antiquity’s most famous book, The Republic, or else because the New Testament writers were using Plato’s ethical ideal of the impaled just man as a model to shape the Jesus narrative, in the way Matthew’s Jesus infancy narrative recapitulates the story of Moses, or Mark’s crucifixion narrative is patterned after Psalm 22 (there is a debate whether the crucifixion narrative is also patterned after Isaiah 53).
So, given that preamble, I just wanted to share an excerpt from Clement of Alexandria’s The Stromata to show how he thought Plato’s ethical ideal of the impaled just man from Plato’s Republic is reflected in apostolic Christian life:
Does not the apostle then plainly add the following, to show the contempt for faith in the case of the multitude? “For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as appointed to death: we are made a spectacle to the world, and to angels, and to men. Up to this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are beaten, and are feeble, and labour, working with our hands. Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we endure; being defamed, we entreat; we are become as it were the offscourings of the world.” Such also are the words of Plato in the Republic: “The just man, though stretched on the rack, though his eyes are dug out, will be happy.”
– Clement of Alexandria (153-217)The Stromata Book IV Chapter 7
P.S.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Today I would like to briefly talk a little about how this relates to the death of Socrates. Plato records Socrates’s last words as “let us offer a rooster to Asclepius” indicating Socrates was giving thanks for the poison he was receiving (pharmakon – both poison and drug/cure).
How do we explain this? Xenophon suggested Socrates thought it was better to die than experience the senility/suffering of old age. Plato had a somewhat different view. Plato’s Republic Book 2 presents the impaled just man/criminal as the ethical ideal. How could this be applied to the death of Socrates? Socrates was condemned as a criminal and executed by his society for unjust reasons. His death as a noble/just criminal served to show that his society was fundamentally unjust, and so Socrates is remembered as a martyr who died in the service of exposing the injustice/corruption of his society, to the point that the corrupt society would take a noble/just man’s life for unjust/silly reasons.
We see the same thing with the criminal Jesus. Jesus in his death as a condemned criminal by society exposed the unjust nature of his society, even to the point of that unjust society executing a just man such as Jesus for silly/unjust reasons.
The just man will have to endure
the lash
the rack
chains
the branding-iron in his eyes, and finally
he will be impaled.
= = =
It does not matter if the just man suffered this way.
We have a higher standard now: no cruel punishment.
There is nothing of value to learn from unjustly treating good men with cruel punishment. We do not want societies where good citizens are unjustly treated with cruel punishment.
Plato was not recommending that for a Constitution was he? We should not even think of such horrors.
Just to sum up, if anyone is interested, I am fascinated with Plato’s Republic and have recently have been posting on my Blog about how themes in Plato’s Republic may have influenced stories about Jesus. Educated native Greek speakers such as the writers of The New Testament would have been familiar with Plato from their education
The two topics I covered are:
(A) Jesus and The Impaled, Just Man in Book 2 Of Plato’s Republic:
(i) The Death Of Socrates, Jesus, and the Impaled, Just Man: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
(ii) Plato’s Suffering/executed Noble Man and Who Is Immoral In Mark’s Gospel?: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
The great man with a novel message has to suffer. Not only here in the Republic but also in the section dealing with the Allegory of the Cave. The one who sees is going to be lonely, isolated, alienated and it is only because of the goodness of his soul that he reenters the Cave to try to enlighten those who do not yet see, and that will be miserable because he will be laughed at and ridiculed. Likely a great trope around which to build a portrait of Jesus.
(B) Jesus And The Noble Lie of Book 3 of Plato’s Republic:
(i) Fanciful speculation about alternative explanations of the resurrection appearance claims in the Pre Pauline Corinthian Creed and in Paul ** you do not have permission to see this link **
* I have been fascinated with the Greeks for over 20 years, and wrote my MA thesis on Greek Philosophy!
The claim that the New Testament was created by philosopher kings is also mentioned here:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I bought a book on philosopher king after reading the article:
Philosopher-Kings: The Argument of Plato’s Republic by C.D.C. Reeve
Chapter 4 is Politics where 4.7 is Philosopher-Kings.
Educated native Greek speakers such as the writers of The New Testament would have been familiar with Plato from their education.
This seems to be the tacit assumption on the part of a lot of folks but how certain is this?
The writers of the New Testament were writing in Koine, not Epic Greek. Not the same thing by a country mile. I know of no evidence that Plato (or Homer) was translated into Koine. Koine was the lingua franca of this age. Is it really being claimed that non-ethnic greeks were being given a classic greek education merely to learn koine? Really? I would like o see some evidence for this.
But its not enduring the lash, the rack, chains and impaling that makes the man just. He is just regardless. The lash the rack etc are a test of happiness. Does the fact the man is just make him happier than the unjust man regardless of life circumstances no matter how extreme the contrast?
The passion of christ isnt modeled on this.
A really interesting discussion! Thank you, John 76. Isn’t it the case that both Plato and Isaiah were both profoundly interested in the concept of righteousness or justness? Perhaps they both had deep insights (inspiration?) about what ultimate justness or righteousness would actually mean. Perhaps Jesus had the same insight and inspiration and somehow knew that he must ‘fulfil all righteousness’ (Mat 3:15). Perhaps the Markian ‘messianic secret’ was a genuine strand of Jesus’s ‘secret teaching’ keeping this from outsiders so that he would be despised and rejected (Isa 53:3)? Jesus may have been aware of Plato’s impaled man, but you can bet your bottom dollar, he was aware of the suffering servant of Isaiah 53! I have recently posted a topic with 3 questions I want to ask Jesus. Q3 was my most vexing one: Did you know you were going to be crucified [and die]? If so, then when? I said that if Jesus didn’t know, then his mission was a failure (even to him) and I would feel I needed to turn my face way like Judas and despise him Isaiah 53:3. Even at the last moment, one could interpret his Eloi Eloi lama sabactheni as a desperate cry, but if you were in on the ‘messianic secret’, then you might realise he was quoting the opener of Psalm 22, which ends with ‘Asssah’ …maybe equivalent to John’s Tetelestae – it is complete or finished [ie ‘all righteousness’ has now been fulfilled]. (I have this crazy theory that Jesus actually recited the whole of Psalm 22 on the cross, but different folk heard different bits!). The dichotomy set up by Jesus life and death is that we have a choice either to turn our faces away and despise Jesus for being a failure, or to accept the ‘messianic secret’ – ‘it was all in the plan’ and ‘it pleased the LORD to bruise him’ and Jesus really did know his destiny. Is there really a middle ground?
Isaiah 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? :2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. :3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. :4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. :5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. :6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. :7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth [ie he didn’t defend himself]. :8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. :9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. :10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him [it was all in the plan]; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. :11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. :12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
The Suffering Servant is Israel. The association between Isaiah 53 and Jesus is purely a Christian invention. Before Christianity the concept of the Messiah was triumphalist. It was only after Jesus’ death that the idea that the Messiah had to suffer and die was invented. This reinterpretation is the point of the gospel of Mark. Putting the first line of Psalm 22 on Jesus’ lips at the crucifixion was an act of literature and theology, not history.
Isaiah 41:8-9
But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my friend; you whom I took from the ends of the earth, and called from its farthest corners, saying to you, “You are my servant, I have chosen you and not cast you off.”
Isaiah 44:1
But now hear, O Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen!
Isaiah 44:21
Remember these things, O Jacob, and Israel, for you are my servant; I formed you; you are my servant; O Israel, you will not be forgotten by me.
Isaiah 45:4
For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen, I called you by your name, I name you, though you do not know me.
Isaiah 48:20
Go out from Babylon, flee from Chaldea, declare this with a shout of joy, proclaim it, send it out to the end of the earth; say, “The Lord has redeemed his servant Jacob!”
Isaiah 49:3
And he said to me, “You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.”
I agree about the triumphalist conception of the messiah before Christianity and I accept that the suffering messiah based on Isaiah 53 may not have been a concept in Judaism at all before Jesus. In retrospect, I think Chapter 53 can be applied to both Israel and Israel’s King (Messiah). I certainly think that the very early Christians applied it to Jesus. I also think it likely that Jesus applied it to himself. However, we will probably never know. 🙂
As for putting the first line of Psalm 22 on Jesus’ lips at the crucifixion being an act of literature and theology, not history, again I would ask you how you know that? By the criterion of embarassment, ‘my God, my God why has thou forsaken me’ would not be the verse of that Psalm I would choose to fit in with a pre-destined ‘lamb of God’ theology.
It is nonsense to think Plato was any influence on Jesus at all, and his very substantial influence on Christianity came long after Jesus’ death.
People often assume influence where none exists, because of the modern worship of individual creative genius, which didn’t exist in the ancient world. We assume there must be some person who came up with an original idea that everybody else responds to (our version of Plato’s Demiurge). But that isn’t how it works. Ideas occur independently to many people in many places in many times–just as species that look and behave the same emerge independently of each other through convergent evolution. It works the same way with ideas as it does with organisms.
There are many parallels between the deaths of Socrates and Jesus–are we supposed to assume Jesus was emulating Socrates, or Socrates was anticipating Jesus? The truth is, those who dissent from the norms of society often die unpleasant deaths. Some are remembered for this. Their deaths become mythologized (Socrates was not sitting there calmly discussing philosophy while the hemlock was dissolving his innards–Plato, who wasn’t there, made all that up, and did a damn fine job of it). They become symbols and representatives of ideas they themselves never had. Martyrdom isn’t under copyright, and nobody has a monopoly on self-sacrifice.
Jesus spoke Aramaic and Hebrew. He had enough time, maybe, to get a good knowledge of Jewish religious literature–that alone would have been a very difficult thing for him to achieve. Many who came after him were better educated, some certainly would have read Plato–and many other Greek philosophers. But they refracted everything they read through the Jewish sensibilities of Jesus.
This argument doesn’t hold water. It’s yet another attempt to deny Jesus’ originality–but forgets that all the supposed influences people bring up had influences of their own. Nobody ever does anything alone.
Neurotheologian said
As for putting the first line of Psalm 22 on Jesus’ lips at the crucifixion being an act of literature and theology, not history, again I would ask you how you know that? By the criterion of embarassment, ‘my God, my God why has thou forsaken me’ would not be the verse of that Psalm I would choose to fit in with a pre-destined ‘lamb of God’ theology.
I’m not claiming absolute knowledge merely the interpretation that seems most probable. None of the gospel writers would have had the slightest idea what Jesus said, if anything, while he was being crucified. So in each of their depictions they place on his lips sayings that reflect their particular theological concerns. It seems clear from several passages in his gospel that Mark is writing to and for a community that had endured some level of suffering and even persecution. (Many scholars think that Mark was at least begun in the afterglow of the Neronic persecution in Rome.)
So, what is Psalm 22 about? It begins with a cry of despair by one who is suffering and through the course of the Psalm it works through this suffering to a state of comfort and even triumph. Mark’s audience would have known this so by placing the first line on Jesus’ lips he invites his audience to interpret the crucifixion in light of this process from despair to triumph. As I said this is literature, the first century equivalent of hypertext. Mark was quite a craftsman. Of course you can go to the depictions of the crucifixion in the other gospels and compare how what they have Jesus say on the cross reflects the theological concerns of these gospels as well.
I doubt anyone being crucified was in much shape to actually hold a conversation.
A conversation, no–but he wouldn’t have been silent. And while I think all his male disciples had fled, nobody would have paid much need to his female followers, who could have approached the cross.
It is possible Mark put those words in his mouth–but because they create the impression Jesus was in doubt of his mission (as of course he would have been), I think they do represent a memory of things he really did say on the cross. The Doctrine of Dissimilarity can be applied with some efficacy here.
People do get crucified for religious purposes today. They are able to speak while hanging on the cross. The difference, I believe, is that they are given platforms to stand on, to relieve the pressure. Jesus wouldn’t have had that, but he would have been able to temporarily lift himself up, long enough for some final words–and he’d have wanted a few.
In trying to pare away what’s been added, sometimes we run the risk of paring away what was originally there.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)