St. Paul And Philosophy
By JOHN YOUNG
There is an opinion that St. Paul had little regard for philosophy. If we look at the Jerusalem Bible translation of his First Epistle to the Corinthians, this opinion may seem to be borne out by comments he makes. In several places we find the words philosophy or philosophers used in a derogatory way.
According to that translation Paul says that when he came to the Corinthians, “It was not with any show of oratory or philosophy. . . .” (1 Cor. 2:1). But the word philosophy is not in the original. In his speeches, “There were none of the arguments that belong to philosophy. . . .” But a literal translation of the Greek is, “I came not with words of human wisdom….” (1 Cor. 2:4).
Although the word philosophy occurs several times in the first two chapters of the Jerusalem Bible translation, it does not occur in the original Greek. St. Paul uses the word sophia, which should be translated wisdom, and has a wide meaning, being used here by Paul of a false or so-called wisdom.
So someone who assumed the Jerusalem Bible to be using the word philosophy in the sense in which we speak of philosophy and theology (in which sense philosophy is a sublime knowledge transcending all the physical sciences), and that it was an accurate translation of the original, might assume that St. Paul disapproved of this.
His famous speech in Athens occurred some years after this epistle was written, and there he uses philosophical arguments and quotes the assertion of pagan philosophers that God is close to us (Acts 17). But he had little success in Athens, and some commentators say this experience turned him away from the use of philosophical arguments when appealing to unbelievers.
An alternative claim, however, is that this speech at the Areopagus is typical of the approach of St. Paul to pagans. As he tells us, he wished to be all things to all men so as to bring them to the truth; which suggests that he would be only too willing to use rational arguments when addressing Gentiles, for they, unlike the Jews, did not accept the Old Testament.
His relative lack of success in Athens was due to the pride and superficiality of his hearers. In fact it was not that they disagreed with his reasoning, but that they became incredulous when he introduced the supernatural by proclaiming the Resurrection of Christ.
So on the (unfounded) assertion that the negative response he got in Athens influenced his approach, it should logically be assumed that from then on he downplayed the supernatural in talking to unbelievers — not that he moved away from the use of rational arguments. In fact, of course, he never downplayed the supernatural, and insisted vigorously on the reality of the Resurrection of Christ.
Several years after his visit to Athens he wrote the Epistle to the Romans, and philosophy has an important place in the first two chapters. He gives rational evidence for the existence and nature of God, and speaks of the natural moral law.
Speaking of the wrath of God against those pagans who have not accepted the evidence of His existence, he says: “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature, namely, His eternal power and Deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made” (Romans 1:20).
The Catholic Church teaches infallibly that the existence of God can be proved by reason, a teaching which is based partly on this text. As the First Vatican Council stated in 1870:
“Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the beginning and end of all things, can be known with certitude by the natural light of human reason from created things.” It then quotes from the above text of Romans.
St. Paul continues that because people did not honor God despite this evidence, but instead turned to idolatry, God gave them up to impurity. In a passage which is rarely quoted (and the quotation of which in some countries could be a criminal offense), Paul says:
“Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own person the due penalty for their error” (1:26-27).
In chapter 2 of Romans Paul compares the situation of Jews and Gentiles in relation to salvation. The question arises as to how Gentiles can be judged, for they do not have the Mosaic Law.
The Jews will be judged according to the written Law given to Moses. But what of the Gentiles? Paul explains that the law is written in the hearts of the Gentiles and their conscience accuses or excuses them. He is here appealing to the natural moral law, which is possessed even by people who don’t know of any Revelation from God.
St. Paul therefore provides a solid philosophical foundation for our fundamental beliefs, and shows how even those who have not received God’s Revelation can nevertheless have a true knowledge of God and of the moral law.
He shows how the denial of reason leads to folly and to unnatural practices in sexual matters: a truth we find verified in modern society.
In our present secular age there is skepticism about the ability of the human mind to reach fundamental truths. As a result, even many practicing Catholics think that the existence of God can’t be known with certainty from reason, and that faith is essential if we are to have that certainty. They are sometimes embarrassed when told that Vatican I taught infallibly that reason can prove God’s existence, and pronounced an anathema against those who deny this.
By divine Revelation God has given us truths far surpassing any that unaided human reason can establish, truths accepted by the supernatural virtue of faith. As St. Paul says: “We impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God….Which no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived” (1 Cor. 7-9).
But grace builds on nature, and human reason prepares for faith and safeguards it.
