It is interesting how the best preachers preached while refusing the “genre” of preaching. I see this division working only under the assumption that there’s normal wisodm, on the one hand, the one we would acquire from interacting with worldly things and abnormal wisdom, on the other, the one which is the consequence of interacting with God. The former is the philosophical knowledge of the wise, knowledge which is true by virtue of how Existence in fact is; the latter is the providential knowledge of the blessed, knowledge which is true by virtue of how God in fact is. So it’s interesting how preachers from both sides care to dismiss them being preachers of one side.
How you have felt, O men of Athens, at hearing the speeches of my accusers, I cannot tell; but I know that their persuasive words almost made me forget who I was - such was the effect of them; and yet they have hardly spoken a word of truth. But many as their falsehoods were, there was one of them which quite amazed me; - I mean when they told you to be upon your guard, and not to let yourselves be deceived by the force of my eloquence. They ought to have been ashamed of saying this, because they were sure to be detected as soon as I opened my lips and displayed my deficiency; they certainly did appear to be most shameless in saying this, unless by the force of eloquence they mean the force of truth; for then I do indeed admit that I am eloquent. But in how different a way from theirs!
Well, as I was saying, they have hardly uttered a word, or not more than a word, of truth; but you shall hear from me the whole truth: not, however, delivered after their manner, in a set oration duly ornamented with words and phrases. No indeed! but I shall use the words and arguments which occur to me at the moment; for I am certain that this is right, and that at my time of life I ought not to be appearing before you, O men of Athens, in the character of a juvenile orator - let no one expect this of me. And I must beg of you to grant me one favor, which is this - If you hear me using the same words in my defence which I have been in the habit of using, and which most of you may have heard in the agora, and at the tables of the money-changers, or anywhere else, I would ask you not to be surprised at this, and not to interrupt me. For I am more than seventy years of age, and this is the first time that I have ever appeared in a court of law, and I am quite a stranger to the ways of the place; and therefore I would have you regard me as if I were really a stranger, whom you would excuse if he spoke in his native tongue, and after the fashion of his country; - that I think is not an unfair request. Never mind the manner, which may or may not be good; but think only of the justice of my cause, and give heed to that: let the judge decide justly and the speaker speak truly.
Plato – Socrate’s Defense
And I, brethren, when I came unto you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. We speak wisdom, however, among them that are fullgrown: yet a wisdom not of this world, nor of the rulers of this world, who are coming to nought: but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, even the wisdom that hath been hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds unto our glory: which none of the rulers of this world hath known: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory: but as it is written,
Things which eye saw not, and ear heard not,
And which entered not into the heart of man,
Whatsoever things God prepared for them that love him.But unto us God revealed them through the Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For who among men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the man, which is in him? even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God. But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God; that we might know the things that were freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual words. Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, and he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians
Is this not simply a rhetorical tactic? By claiming you are simply telling the truth and not using persuasive oratory the listener lowers their guard and is more open to hearing what is being said. We have all experienced being convinced of something that later we see was irrational. A sales speech gets a hold on us emotionally and we buy something that later we realize we do not want or need. By saying you are not doing this it puts us on the same side, seeking the truth rather than adversaries as in a debate.
ReplyDeleteI wonder (as did Kierkegaard) if there are really two sides here. Paul argues man can only hope to glimpse the divine beyond man's artifices through the demi-divine Christ's mortal weakness. And Plato argues Socrates can only offer glimpses of divine truth in dialectic with mortal folly.
ReplyDeleteAnd then of course there's the parallel Col. Jessup motiff, "I could tell you the truth, but then you'll have to kill me."
@Don
ReplyDeleteIt depends, of course, on what you mean by rhetorical tactic. But I think it is never "simply" a rhetorical tactic: assuming it is, there are so many complicated questions that need answer (Why is it attempted? In what way can it be effective? Is it reasonable? etc.) that the ease of the identification becomes insignificant.
@Sven
I don't think that is the case - although I know of writers who, rightfully up to a point, draw a direct line between the Platonic and the christian divine. Sure, in some sense both systems are "looking up" as it were. But the reasons for doing that, the method of doing that and the nature of what they expect to find is fundamentally different. It is also why I don't think there's much gain in observing the continuity between the Hellenistic and the early christian systems of thought: the same, not that I deny the similarities between the two.
It's true I tend to boil things down too much and ignore finer points. It struck me as the country lawyer saying "I'm just a country lawyer. I don't know much about this or that but the simple truth is ___" If you get sucked in you are disarmed. Now, on the other hand maybe the speaker is just after the simple truth. If that's the case listen with all your heart because he is sharing his wisdom.
ReplyDelete"a direct line between the Platonic and the christian divine"
ReplyDeleteDivine is probably the wrong word, as the parallel isn't theological. Perhaps "ideal." Universal, eternal, flawless and unworldly truth.
Indeed.
ReplyDelete