All human beings desire to become better. But “better” is unintelligible without a “best” and what is best is divine. Thus, human endeavor is a quest to become more like a god. This is the argument of James Bernard Murphy’s book, Deification in Classical Greek Philosophy and the Bible. Murphy considers deification in Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle claiming that “what gives the thought of Plato and Aristotle its unity and majestic sweep is the vision of an ascent to the divine” (17). He also considers the Bible along with the Greek texts. This exciting and learned book offers a coherent framework for reading both Greek philosophy and the Scriptures as pedagogies of ascent. More radically, it recaptures deification as a central—if not the central—task of philosophy.
In the introduction, the author explains the central argument of the book and his general approach to the texts. He is careful to explain that his purpose is not to prove the existence of any particular divinity, but rather to expound the implications of the truth that human beings seek to transcend the limits of their current existence and that divinity acts “as the ultimate standard for practical reasoning” (4). He explains how each of the objects of his study: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and the Bible relates to the task of deification. Despite its concision, the introduction serves as an excellent summary of various interpretive approaches to the texts and the citations represent a broad field of schools.
The chapter that follows, “Theology as Anthropology, Anthropology as Theology,” fleshes out some of the broad claims of the introduction. The author deftly explains how even otherwise secular philosophy cannot escape the quest for the divine. Feuerbach and Sartre, while rejecting theology, nonetheless elevate anthropology to a form of theology and understand the human person in terms of divine aspiration to transcend limits. This line of argumentation allows Murphy to define philosophy within a kind of religious framework: “Philosophy turns out to pursue religious goals of wisdom, virtue, and transcendence—but with its own distinctive methods. Philosophy is the pursuit of salvation by logical means” (37). Acknowledging that the comparison between Athens and Jerusalem frequently acts as a cipher for various types of philosophical and religious disputes through the ages, the author shows that the mode in which he has cast philosophy breaks this mold, “The quest for deification is what unites Athens and Jerusalem; the different paths toward god are what divide them” (44). In focusing on deification, the author sets the stage for a more fruitful comparison between classical Greek philosophers and the Bible.
The second chapter of the book, “Heroic Deification in Ancient Greek Religion,” is particularly rich and serves many purposes. Most importantly, it serves the author’s main argument by demonstrating the falsity of a common belief that Greek philosophy represents the triumph of reason over religious practice. This chapter shows how deeply Greek religion informs Greek philosophy even as the latter develops or purifies the former. Murphy traces the development of Greek religion from the pre-Homeric to Socratic periods and explains the importance of the Orphic cults in this development. Finally, the chapter serves the wider argument of the book by showing how Greek religion “holds in tension the nearness and remoteness of the gods” by analyzing the power and immortality of the gods (69). The power of the gods shows their difference in degree from humans while their immortality shows their difference in kind. This chapter represents an important contribution in its own right and provides an excellent overview of the relationship between Greek religion and philosophy.
In chapter three, “Ironic Deification in Socrates,” Murphy explains Socrates’s “cosmic irony,” his conviction about the chasm between divine and human wisdom. At the same time, drawing from Apology and Symposium, Murphy points to a tension in the person of Socrates between the Apollonian and the Dionysian. On the one hand, Socrates as an Apollonian figure solemnly respects the chasm between humans and gods. On the other hand, his person acts as a Dionysian encounter with godlike virtue. In this very tension, Socrates offers his interlocutors an ironic form of deification. Chapter three thus presents a compelling portrait of Socrates rooted both in the relevant texts and in a deep understanding of the Socratic project.
In the following chapter, “Civic Deification in Plato,” the author argues that many disputes—some dating to antiquity—over the nature of Plato’s metaphysics stem from a misunderstanding of Plato’s project. Plato’s intent is not to create a “science of the god.” Rather, Plato invites his readers into a “theio-logy,” a science of becoming divine. The author identifies three distinct “theiologies” in the Platonic corpus: “metaphysical, toward the form of the good; cosmological, toward divine reason; and religious, toward piety and holiness” (140). This ambitious chapter does not merely provide a well-thought out antidote to a rationalistic take on Plato; it also advances a weighty hermeneutic for reading the Platonic corpus. Plato’s fundamental work, the author persuasively argues, is to offer his readers pedagogies of ascent by which they might become better in their emulation of the best.
In chapter five, “Developmental Deification in Aristotle,” the author explains how Aristotle’s theology differs from that of Plato’s, most notably with respect to his very conception of god. Aristotle’s god is marked by a life of divine leisure. The author proceeds to explain how Aristotelian deification follows patterns of movement from potency to act toward the highest things in the cosmic hierarchy. On Aristotle’s account, the contemplative life—the life which most closely conforms to a life of divine leisure—occupies a space above political and pleasure-seeking lives, but the author also explains how the contemplative nonetheless serves the ends of politics analogously to the god who indirectly governs the cosmos.
The chapter on Aristotle precedes the penultimate chapter six, “Deification as Intimacy with God in the Bible.” Writing on deification in the Bible proves to be a challenge given that the very first book, Genesis, narrates the fall of Adam and Eve as a result of their desire to try and be like God. The author explains that the problem is not the desire of Adam and Eve to be like God, but their pride in thinking that they can obtain the object of their desire without God. The Bible also tells of the Incarnation, God taking on human flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, precisely so human beings might become like God. As the author explains, while God taking on human flesh enables humans to share in the divine life, humans too must suffer as Christ did. Thus, the Biblical path to deification resides not in the path of pride, but the path of humility and love of God and neighbor.
This work covers quite a bit of ground in a few chapters. The sixth chapter, especially, could consist of multiple volumes. But the present volume is not meant to be an exhaustive interpretation of the many works and figures discussed. Rather, it provides a fruitful hermeneutic through which one can read classical Greek works and the Bible with much profit. The scholarly apparatus in this text is impressive and instructive. The author’s arguments, though they deal with a vast subject matter, are tight and well-considered. Most importantly, the present volume constitutes a tool through which one might approach ancient texts in such a way that one becomes better.
