History of Philosophy | 18 Middle and Neo-Platonism

[Ahanu]

Transcript:

21:13
okay so that here in these yeah Pagan middle
21:19
platonists there is emerging a distinction of beings within the Divine
21:26
God Head you
21:31
see in fact there were one or two of them who added to the Divine logos the
21:38
world Soul giving us Proto Theos deuteros
21:47
Theos and number three this is a pre Christian conception
21:56
of divine Trinity in a purely Pagan
22:04
context and it's this formulation of it
22:10
which provided a conceptual tool for the early Church in beginning to formulate the doctrine of the
22:19
Trinity

 

[Thomas]

Yes! A really interesting video!

I was uncertain for a moment, is he saying that the Trinity Doctrine is derived from Neoplatonism? No, but it uses the philosophical language of the day to explain itself – the Fathers believing that faith in God was both reasonable and rational.

A basis is stated at 16:55:
"so what begins to take shape on the horizon now, and it's on the horizon still, is a distinction between dualism, okay, dualism as in the gnostics, pantheism as in the neoplatonists, and theism as in Christian thought.

Dualism where things are formed out of eternal matter, ex materia, pantheism with things formed ex deo, out of the very substance of God, and theism with creation ex nihilo, out of nothing at all – giving rise to three very different World Views and in a real way the history of the first five six centuries of Christian thought is the history of trying to make those distinctions clearly..."

 

[Ahanu]

Transcript:

21:13
okay so that here in these yeah Pagan middle
21:19
platonists there is emerging a distinction of beings within the Divine
21:26
God Head you
21:31
see in fact there were one or two of them who added to the Divine logos the
21:38
world Soul giving us Proto Theos deuteros
21:47
Theos and number three this is a pre Christian conception
21:56
of divine Trinity in a purely Pagan
22:04
context and it's this formulation of it
22:10
which provided a conceptual tool for the early Church in beginning to formulate the doctrine of the
22:19
Trinity

Yes! A really interesting video!

I was uncertain for a moment, is he saying that the Trinity Doctrine is derived from Neoplatonism? No, but it uses the philosophical language of the day to explain itself – the Fathers believing that faith in God was both reasonable and rational.

A basis is stated at 16:55:
"so what begins to take shape on the horizon now, and it's on the horizon still, is a distinction between dualism, okay, dualism as in the gnostics, pantheism as in the neoplatonists, and theism as in Christian thought.

Dualism where things are formed out of eternal matter, ex materia, pantheism with things formed ex deo, out of the very substance of God, and theism with creation ex nihilo, out of nothing at all – giving rise to three very different World Views and in a real way the history of the first five six centuries of Christian thought is the history of trying to make those distinctions clearly..."

The video excerpt explicitly states the existence of a "pre-Christian conception of divine Trinity in a purely Pagan context" within Middle Platonism. In other words, Middle Platonism contained a proto-Trinitarian concept (Proto Theos, Deuteros Theos, etc.) that predates Christianity.

 

[Ahanu]

Yes! A really interesting video!

I was uncertain for a moment, is he saying that the Trinity Doctrine is derived from Neoplatonism? No, but it uses the philosophical language of the day to explain itself – the Fathers believing that faith in God was both reasonable and rational.

A basis is stated at 16:55:
"so what begins to take shape on the horizon now, and it's on the horizon still, is a distinction between dualism, okay, dualism as in the gnostics, pantheism as in the neoplatonists, and theism as in Christian thought.

Dualism where things are formed out of eternal matter, ex materia, pantheism with things formed ex deo, out of the very substance of God, and theism with creation ex nihilo, out of nothing at all – giving rise to three very different World Views and in a real way the history of the first five six centuries of Christian thought is the history of trying to make those distinctions clearly..."

You're not addressing the implications of the video's claims.

The speaker clearly states that Middle Platonism, before Christianity, developed a proto-Trinitarian concept - Proto Theos, Deuteros Theos, and sometimes a third (World Soul) - and that this served as a "conceptual tool" for the Church. This suggests a significant influence on the development of Christian doctrine, going beyond mere linguistic borrowing.

The speaker even explicitly says that the "philosophical basis for some sort of trinitarian view emerged before the Christian debate on the Trinity" (25:54-26:13).

 

[TheLightWithin]

Doctrinal ideas that are not self evident from the bible come from Greek philosophy.
It makes more sense now how where Christian religious doctrines come from.

 

[Thomas]

The video excerpt explicitly states the existence of a "pre-Christian conception of divine Trinity in a purely Pagan context" within Middle Platonism. In other words, Middle Platonism contained a proto-Trinitarian concept (Proto Theos, Deuteros Theos, etc.) that predates Christianity.

I'm not disputing that. No-one disputes that. What is the subject of much scholarly debate is the degree of dependence the Christioan formula has on the Neoplatonic formula.

Professor Holmes makes this statement at 21:47, that the Neoplatonic model is 'a pre-Christian conception ... in a purely pagan context'.

That context was the emanation theory of Neoplatonism which has the One, divine, simple and undifferentiated at the top, 'overflowing' in a series of hierarchical steps, the One, the Logos, the World Soul, and so on through the various states of being (the Great Chain of Being) to base matter at the bottom of the hierarchical ladder – a monistic and panentheistic conception – owing much to Stoic influence.

Earlier, at 15:39-59:
"Neoplatonism were pretty pantheistic when Christianity assimilated middle platonism as many Christians did. They found they had to make distinctions between God and creation which were not inherent in this Emanation Theory ..."

The question then is what distinctions were made, and why?

The answer is that the Neoplatonic model or concept does not correlate with Scripture. Either Scripture needs to be corrected to fit the Neoplatonic philosophy, of the Neoplatonic philosophy needs to be corrected in the light of the New Testament – and of the two, the New Testament was regarded as Revelation, and this indisputable.

So yes, I have no issue with Christian theologians assimilating (taking in the ideas of) Neoplatonism, but is so doing they saw the need to redefine the system in accordance with their understanding of the Biblical texts – and with regard to Trinity – the doctrine was eventually dogmatically defined as a perichoresis, a 'mutual indwelling' of the Three Persons, which was unique and quite distinct from the hierarchic understanding of the various Emanationist theories of contemporary Greek thought.

 

[Thomas]

You're not addressing the implications of the video's claims.

I think I have?

The speaker clearly states that Middle Platonism, before Christianity, developed a proto-Trinitarian concept - Proto Theos, Deuteros Theos, and sometimes a third (World Soul) - and that this served as a "conceptual tool" for the Church. This suggests a significant influence on the development of Christian doctrine, going beyond mere linguistic borrowing.

It suggests such, but then the development of doctrine has to be followed to see where the doctrine distances itself from the Neoplatonic influence. In so doing it becomes apparent that Christian theology is radically different as regards the nature of the Cosmos, the origin of creation and the nature of the relation of the Neoplatonic triune the One, the Intellect and the Soul, and the Christyian formulation of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Put another way ... how could the philosophers of the early Christian era read the words and deeds of Christ, as contained in Scripture, and explain the relationship between Father and Son (for example) ... and not draw on contemporary philosophical ideas and lexicon?

The speaker even explicitly says that the "philosophical basis for some sort of trinitarian view emerged before the Christian debate on the Trinity" (25:54-26:13).'

'philosophical basis for some sort of' – yes, again, I don't deny that – and the debates on the Trinity were framed in this language, but the acid test was whether or not that language conformed to what is said in Scripture – and where it did not, it was changed or redefined – or baptised and transfigured, one might say.

 

[Thomas]

Doctrinal ideas that are not self evident from the bible come from Greek philosophy.
It makes more sense now how where Christian religious doctrines come from.

But don't fall into the error of thinking that the source and origin of the doctrine is philosophy – all Christian doctrine is founded on Scripture as a first principle, and argued through philosophical language where appropriate.

The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy says:
"Many thinkers influential in the development of trinitarian doctrines were steeped in the thought not only of Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism, but also the Stoics, Aristotle, and other currents in Greek philosophy. Whether one sees this background as a providentially supplied and useful tool, or as an unavoidably distorting influence, those developing the doctrine saw themselves as trying to build a systematic Christian theology on the Bible while remaining faithful to earlier post-biblical tradition. Many also had the aim of showing Christianity to be consistent with the best of Greek philosophy. But even if the doctrine had a non-Christian origin, it would would not follow that it is false or unjustified; it could be, that through Philo (or whomever), God revealed the doctrine to the Christian church... " (emphasis mine)

 

[Ahanu]

Professor Holmes makes this statement at 21:47, that the Neoplatonic model is 'a pre-Christian conception ... in a purely pagan context'.

The specific statement about the "pre-Christian conception... in a purely pagan context" (21:47) refers to Middle Platonism, not Neoplatonism. You're obscuring the fact the proto-Trinitarian concept emerged before Neoplatonism as a distinct philosophical system.

That context was the emanation theory of Neoplatonism which has the One, divine, simple and undifferentiated at the top, 'overflowing' in a series of hierarchical steps, the One, the Logos, the World Soul, and so on through the various states of being (the Great Chain of Being) to base matter at the bottom of the hierarchical ladder – a monistic and panentheistic conception – owing much to Stoic influence.

The video focuses on the specific structure of Proto Theos, Deuteros Theos, and a third within that context as the pre-Christian element.

Earlier, at 15:39-59:
"Neoplatonism were pretty pantheistic when Christianity assimilated middle platonism as many Christians did. They found they had to make distinctions between God and creation which were not inherent in this Emanation Theory ..."

The question then is what distinctions were made, and why?

This is a separate issue from the historical claim about the pre-Christian origin and influence of the Trinity concept. You are changing the subject from the origin of the concept to the later Christian adaptations.

The answer is that the Neoplatonic model or concept does not correlate with Scripture. Either Scripture needs to be corrected to fit the Neoplatonic philosophy, of the Neoplatonic philosophy needs to be corrected in the light of the New Testament – and of the two, the New Testament was regarded as Revelation, and this indisputable.

The video does not suggest that Scripture needs to be "corrected" to fit Neoplatonism. The point is that existing philosophical frameworks, like Middle Platonism, influenced how early Christians interpreted and articulated their understanding of Scripture. The speaker is making a historical observation about influence.

So yes, I have no issue with Christian theologians assimilating (taking in the ideas of) Neoplatonism, but is so doing they saw the need to redefine the system in accordance with their understanding of the Biblical texts – and with regard to Trinity – the doctrine was eventually dogmatically defined as a perichoresis, a 'mutual indwelling' of the Three Persons, which was unique and quite distinct from the hierarchic understanding of the various Emanationist theories of contemporary Greek thought.

Again, you are conflating Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism. The video's primary claim about pre-Christian influence concerns Middle Platonism. What you have written here does not erase the earlier influence of Middle Platonic thought on the very idea of multiple divine persons within a single divine being. Even if the Christian understanding of the Trinity is distinct in some ways, the initial conceptual framework was present in Middle Platonism.

 

[Ahanu]

I think I have?

No, you haven't.

Addressing the implications means acknowledging the significance of a pre-existing concept influencing the very formulation of Christian doctrine. You keep shifting the focus to later refinements and distinctions.

It suggests such, but then the development of doctrine has to be followed to see where the doctrine distances itself from the Neoplatonic influence. In so doing it becomes apparent that Christian theology is radically different as regards the nature of the Cosmos, the origin of creation and the nature of the relation of the Neoplatonic triune the One, the Intellect and the Soul, and the Christyian formulation of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The point of the video is about the initial influence of a pre-existing conceptual framework. Even if the Christian doctrine distances itself later, the initial framework—the idea of multiple divine entities—was present in Middle Platonism before Christianity.

Put another way ... how could the philosophers of the early Christian era read the words and deeds of Christ, as contained in Scripture, and explain the relationship between Father and Son (for example) ... and not draw on contemporary philosophical ideas and lexicon?

'philosophical basis for some sort of' – yes, again, I don't deny that – and the debates on the Trinity were framed in this language, but the acid test was whether or not that language conformed to what is said in Scripture – and where it did not, it was changed or redefined – or baptised and transfigured, one might say.

You are stating the obvious while avoiding the specific point about Middle Platonism's proto-Trinitarian concept.

 

[Ahanu]

But don't fall into the error of thinking that the source and origin of the doctrine is philosophy – all Christian doctrine is founded on Scripture as a first principle, and argued through philosophical language where appropriate.

The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy says:
"Many thinkers influential in the development of trinitarian doctrines were steeped in the thought not only of Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism, but also the Stoics, Aristotle, and other currents in Greek philosophy. Whether one sees this background as a providentially supplied and useful tool, or as an unavoidably distorting influence, those developing the doctrine saw themselves as trying to build a systematic Christian theology on the Bible while remaining faithful to earlier post-biblical tradition. Many also had the aim of showing Christianity to be consistent with the best of Greek philosophy. But even if the doctrine had a non-Christian origin, it would would not follow that it is false or unjustified; it could be, that through Philo (or whomever), God revealed the doctrine to the Christian church... " (emphasis mine)

So many influential thinkers were "steeped in the thought not only of Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism, but also the Stoics, Aristotle, and other currents in Greek philosophy." It's not just about using "philosophical language"; it's about using philosophical concepts and ways of reasoning to understand and explain Scripture. That's the point.

The encyclopedia, in its full context, explicitly acknowledges the significant influence of pre-Christian philosophical traditions, including Philo's use of Middle Platonic concepts, and even raises the possibility of divine revelation through non-Christian sources. You completely ignore the following from the encyclopedia: "But even if the doctrine had a non-Christian origin, it would not follow that it is false or unjustified; it could be, that through Philo (or whomever), God revealed the doctrine to the Christian church."

 

[Thomas]

The specific statement about the "pre-Christian conception... in a purely pagan context" (21:47) refers to Middle Platonism, not Neoplatonism.

OK ... I fear we'll end up walking round in circles here ... I agree with everything Prof. Holmes is saying, and you still seem to take issue?

Professor Holmes was a Christian and seems to have no difficulty in accepting a pre-Christian intimations of the Holy Trinity, and nor do I.

When I started my BA, my Course Director, knowing my inclination towards Christian Neoplatonism said:
"Christianity is Hebrew Revelation in light of the Greek philosophical Tradition."

I have no problem declaring that philosophical speculation is not necessarily invalidated by Revelation, nor do I have any issue with the Fathers assimilating Greek philosophy into their theology when it can be seen to accord to Scripture.

The only proviso I make is that Doctrine is founded on and shaped by Scripture and explained philosophically, not the other way round.

 

[Ahanu]

OK ... I fear we'll end up walking round in circles here ... I agree with everything Prof. Holmes is saying, and you still seem to take issue?

In circles we go.

Remember your first post, @Thomas?

Yes! A really interesting video!

I was uncertain for a moment, is he saying that the Trinity Doctrine is derived from Neoplatonism? No, but it uses the philosophical language of the day to explain itself – the Fathers believing that faith in God was both reasonable and rational.

A basis is stated at 16:55:
"so what begins to take shape on the horizon now, and it's on the horizon still, is a distinction between dualism, okay, dualism as in the gnostics, pantheism as in the neoplatonists, and theism as in Christian thought.

Dualism where things are formed out of eternal matter, ex materia, pantheism with things formed ex deo, out of the very substance of God, and theism with creation ex nihilo, out of nothing at all – giving rise to three very different World Views and in a real way the history of the first five six centuries of Christian thought is the history of trying to make those distinctions clearly..."

By focusing on the idea that the Church Fathers used the "philosophical language of the day" to explain the Trinity, you're pretty much downplaying the possibility of a deeper conceptual influence here.

I'm not disputing that. No-one disputes that. What is the subject of much scholarly debate is the degree of dependence the Christioan formula has on the Neoplatonic formula.

Professor Holmes makes this statement at 21:47, that the Neoplatonic model is 'a pre-Christian conception ... in a purely pagan context'.

That context was the emanation theory of Neoplatonism which has the One, divine, simple and undifferentiated at the top, 'overflowing' in a series of hierarchical steps, the One, the Logos, the World Soul, and so on through the various states of being (the Great Chain of Being) to base matter at the bottom of the hierarchical ladder – a monistic and panentheistic conception – owing much to Stoic influence.

Earlier, at 15:39-59:
"Neoplatonism were pretty pantheistic when Christianity assimilated middle platonism as many Christians did. They found they had to make distinctions between God and creation which were not inherent in this Emanation Theory ..."

The question then is what distinctions were made, and why?

The answer is that the Neoplatonic model or concept does not correlate with Scripture. Either Scripture needs to be corrected to fit the Neoplatonic philosophy, of the Neoplatonic philosophy needs to be corrected in the light of the New Testament – and of the two, the New Testament was regarded as Revelation, and this indisputable.

So yes, I have no issue with Christian theologians assimilating (taking in the ideas of) Neoplatonism, but is so doing they saw the need to redefine the system in accordance with their understanding of the Biblical texts – and with regard to Trinity – the doctrine was eventually dogmatically defined as a perichoresis, a 'mutual indwelling' of the Three Persons, which was unique and quite distinct from the hierarchic understanding of the various Emanationist theories of contemporary Greek thought.

It's not until this post that you inform us that you agree Middle Platonism had a pre-Christian proto-Trinitarian concept.

But there's still a problem: While Scripture was undoubtedly important, the interpretation of Scripture was also influenced by existing philosophical frameworks.

Think about the assertion that the baptismal formula ("in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit") somehow proves the Trinity. The formula itself only suggests a triad, not necessarily the specific doctrine of the Trinity as it later developed, as is rightly pointed out in the discussion with Khalil Andani here:

Here the speaker critiques the tendency to read the full-blown doctrine of the Trinity into the baptismal formula, calling it "tremendous over interpretation." The doctrine of the Trinity owes more to later theological reflection (influenced by philosophy) than to the plain meaning of the biblical text itself.

I think I have?


It suggests such, but then the development of doctrine has to be followed to see where the doctrine distances itself from the Neoplatonic influence. In so doing it becomes apparent that Christian theology is radically different as regards the nature of the Cosmos, the origin of creation and the nature of the relation of the Neoplatonic triune the One, the Intellect and the Soul, and the Christyian formulation of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Put another way ... how could the philosophers of the early Christian era read the words and deeds of Christ, as contained in Scripture, and explain the relationship between Father and Son (for example) ... and not draw on contemporary philosophical ideas and lexicon?


'philosophical basis for some sort of' – yes, again, I don't deny that – and the debates on the Trinity were framed in this language, but the acid test was whether or not that language conformed to what is said in Scripture – and where it did not, it was changed or redefined – or baptised and transfigured, one might say.

All you're doing is minimizing the significance of philosophical influence by emphasizing the later divergences in Christian theology.

OK ... I fear we'll end up walking round in circles here ... I agree with everything Prof. Holmes is saying, and you still seem to take issue?

Professor Holmes was a Christian and seems to have no difficulty in accepting a pre-Christian intimations of the Holy Trinity, and nor do I.

When I started my BA, my Course Director, knowing my inclination towards Christian Neoplatonism said:
"Christianity is Hebrew Revelation in light of the Greek philosophical Tradition."

I have no problem declaring that philosophical speculation is not necessarily invalidated by Revelation, nor do I have any issue with the Fathers assimilating Greek philosophy into their theology when it can be seen to accord to Scripture.

The only proviso I make is that Doctrine is founded on and shaped by Scripture and explained philosophically, not the other way round.

Yep. You've downplayed the significance of Middle Platonic influence the entire time. Professor Holmes's Christian faith is irrelevant to the argument.

Scripture is central to Christian theology. However, the interpretation of Scripture is not a vacuum. Existing philosophical frameworks could have influenced how early Christians understood and interpreted biblical texts. Your statement ("Founded on and Shaped by Scripture") ignores this main point. You seem to picture early Christians reading Scripture and directly deriving doctrines from it, without any external intellectual baggage.

We end up walking around in circles here because your argument is circular in nature: Christian doctrine is based on Scripture; therefore, any apparent similarities to other philosophies are merely superficial. You acknowledge the pre-Christian existence of the proto-Trinitarian concept in Middle Platonism and the use of contemporary philosophical ideas by early Christians, yet you simultaneously insist that Scripture is interpreted independently of any philosophical influence. You have some sort of passive receptive understanding of how early Christians used pre-existing philosophical frameworks in their assimilation. You're essentially saying: "Doctrine comes from Scripture, therefore Scripture is interpreted independently of philosophy." But the question is how Scripture is interpreted in the first place.

 

[Thomas]

In circles we go.

Yes. I think there is no actual hard line between our two positions, there is a kind of fuzzy middle ground we're both dancing around, in view of our own theo/philosophical stances.

By focusing on the idea that the Church Fathers used the "philosophical language of the day" to explain the Trinity, you're pretty much downplaying the possibility of a deeper conceptual influence here.

I don't think I am. I'm simply saying what are the foundational influences here, and to me that is Scripture. They looked to philosophy to explain what they believed Scripturally.

The Trinity is a doctrine that originates in Scripture. Theology is an attempt to explain it. Greek philosophy was utilised in that task, and utilised substantially, but the doctrine does not originate with Greek philosophy, nor does it end in a Greek philosophical understanding.

Likewise, the Christian belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is independent of philosophy. The doctrinal definition, that the two natures, human and divine, coexist in the one Person, in a hypostatic union, obviously draws on Greek philosophy ... but the belief was there before the reasoning of it, and without that term, they'd have had to invent it, or find another analogous reference.

Likewise, the Christian belief in the 'real presence' in the Eucharist is independent of philosophy, but it employs Aristotelian language – transubstantiation, substance, accidents, and indeed what it is to be 'real', to reason that belief.

It's not until this post that you inform us that you agree Middle Platonism had a pre-Christian proto-Trinitarian concept.

Here I suppose it's a matter of semantics.

'Proto-Trinitarian' suggests to me that left to its own devices, this 'proto-Trinitarian concept' (proto as in 'first', 'early', 'primitive' or 'inchoate') would mature into the 4th century doctrine. It didn't, I'd say it matured in Plotinus – a different direction.

The Church Fathers were faced with the problem of reasoning/rationalising a tri-personal monotheism as presented in Scripture. If it were not there, they'd have no reason to engage with Plato in the first place.

But there's still a problem: While Scripture was undoubtedly important, the interpretation of Scripture was also influenced by existing philosophical frameworks.

Quite ... but that interpretation had to be consistent with Scripture. Middle Platonism in its totality is not.

Think about the assertion that the baptismal formula ("in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit") somehow proves the Trinity.

It proves a triune, 'in the name of', which puts the three named in some sort of relation, which is tricky in light of the Decalogue which forbids false or indeed any other gods ...

The formula itself only suggests a triad, not necessarily the specific doctrine of the Trinity as it later developed, as is rightly pointed out in the discussion with Khalil Andani here:

I don't dispute that, it's common to Christian theology. Hence the high regard the Church has for the Cappadocian Fathers of the 4th century who were so influential in shaping Trinitarian theology.

Here the speaker critiques the tendency to read the full-blown doctrine of the Trinity into the baptismal formula, calling it "tremendous over interpretation."

Quite. and I'd agree with him.

The doctrine of the Trinity owes more to later theological reflection (influenced by philosophy) than to the plain meaning of the biblical text itself.

Here, I disagree with your emphasis.

The tri-personal Godhead is not 'plain' in Scripture, but it is entirely absent in Plato – you can't argue the Christian Trinity from Plato.

I believe what is more evident is that their theological insight is the reshaping of philosophical doctrines in the light of biblical revelation – that the Bible is their primary text. That they owed a debt to philosophy for providing ideas and the lexical tools is without doubt or question, but the outcome of their reflections were doctrines far removed from the philosophical sources.

All you're doing is minimizing the significance of philosophical influence by emphasizing the later divergences in Christian theology.

I'm not minimising it at all, just not maximising it.

Scripture is central to Christian theology. However, the interpretation of Scripture is not a vacuum.

Agreed.

Existing philosophical frameworks could have influenced how early Christians understood and interpreted biblical texts.

Agreed.

Your statement ("Founded on and Shaped by Scripture") ignores this main point.

No it doesn't, it places the point in its proper relation.

We end up walking around in circles here because your argument is circular in nature: Christian doctrine is based on Scripture; therefore, any apparent similarities to other philosophies are merely superficial.

That's not my argument, that's a rather partisan presentation of it.

... yet you simultaneously insist that Scripture is interpreted independently of any philosophical influence.

Nope. I acknowledge the influences, as does Clement, among others, but they did not determines outcomes.

And clearly there need to be some a priori sense of a triune for the Platonic triune to be an influence.

You're essentially saying: "Doctrine comes from Scripture, therefore Scripture is interpreted independently of philosophy." But the question is how Scripture is interpreted in the first place.

I think my position is more nuanced than you allow.

The Trinity is afirmed without recourse to Plato.

The Christian belief in the Trinity is something independent of Greek philosophy. That such a belief is reasonable and rational means it has to be presented in philosophical language – and Platonism is the most useful, because it contains a speculation about the Divine that although is not entirely right, it's not entirely wrong.

 

[TheLightWithin]

'Proto-Trinitarian' suggests to me that left to its own devices, this 'proto-Trinitarian concept' (proto as in 'first', 'early', 'primitive' or 'inchoate') would mature into the 4th century doctrine. It didn't, I'd say it matured in Plotinus – a different direction.

Which suggests that the current doctrine isn't inevitable but could be different?
Also what little I know about Plotinus -- wasn't he somebody who believed in an indivisible one? Therefore more Unitarian?
Was his work about Christian doctrine or not? I don't remember his time period (I need to look up)

 

[TheLightWithin]

The Church Fathers were faced with the problem of reasoning/rationalising a tri-personal monotheism as presented in Scripture. If it were not there, they'd have no reason to engage with Plato in the first place.

More precisely, a hint of something that could make people develop ideas about a trinity is there
Also hints of things or outright statements that would make you assume unity is there
Also hints of things that could make you think a binity (is that the word?) is there

It does make me wonder why something so important was made so cryptic and putting people in a position of having to do an awful lot of work to sort it out and and awful lot of fighting -- like a grandparent who leaves a sketchy will or something.

This all contributes to my general doubts about the infallibility of written texts, and whether the interpretation is being done right at all.

 

[Thomas]

Which suggests that the current doctrine isn't inevitable but could be different?

Well inevitable in its fundamentals, the question of how the Father, Son and Spirit relate to each other, as stated and implied in Scripture.

But I have been looking at the Aramaic term 'memra', which means 'word', but is closely associated with God 'the memra of God' in the Targums seems to suggest aan autonomous agency akin to our 'Word' or 'Logos' in John ... in short, what would have happened if John had said "In the beginning was the Memra, and the Memra was with God, and the Memra was God" (John 1:1).

Rather my point was the Platonic triune doesn't possess enough significant markers to call it 'proto-Trinitarian'.

Where the ideas do coincide is when theologians, seeking ways to explain or demonstrate the belief in a coessential Father-Son-Holy Spirit is both reasonable and rational (as much as any discussion of the nature of the Divine can be), looked to Platonism as a beneficial framework to begin to construct a coherent theory.

"That it is especially with the Platonists that we must carry on our disputations on matters of theology, their opinions being preferable to those of all other philosophers." – Augustine of Hippo, City of God, VIII,5.

Plotinus’ (204–270) had a triune of the One, Intellect, and Soul, the latter two emanating from the One, being "the One and not the One; they are the one because they are from it; they are not the One, because it endowed them with what they have while remaining by itself" (Enneads, 85). Plotinus uses terms such as hypostases and describes their sameness by homoousios, terms from the philosophical lexicon that the Fathers used in formulating doctrinal definitions, and which in the case of the latter caused such a stink at Nicaea in 325.

Augustine says that he and others of his day believed the Neoplatonists had some awareness of the persons of the Trinity (Confessions VIII.3; City of God X.23).

+++

Enshrined in the Platonism of Plotinus is the mystical ascent of “the alone to the alone”, that absolute simplicity of the One, the source and origin of all, in a cascade of necessary emanations, a triune of the One, the Intellect and the World Soul, and to which everything must necessarily return.

Christianity reveals God as a personal Tri-unity that creates ex nihilo as an utterly free and gratuitous act, and furthermore deigned to enter history as an incarnate, flesh-and-blood being.

Stated as such, the two are irreconcilable.

+++

Further, in the Trinity, God is one ousia (essence) in three hypostases (for simplicity's sake, 'persons'), as opposed to the Platonic doctrine of the absolute simplicity of the One.

Historically, attempts at overcoming the apparent opposition of Christianity's Tri-unity to an utter simplicity of the One inescapably lapse into some manner of heresy – be it modal Sabellianism, hierarchic Arianism, or a flat denial of the Tri-unity itself, Unitarianism.

+++

Here we have a philosophical problem – that of 'the one and the many'.

How do we account for individuality of beings, grounded in the transcendence of the Christian God or the Platonic One, without reducing God to simply the ontological first among the many within the created order (pantheism), or the negation of creation in light of the infinite difference, which opens up a chasm between what God is and what all other beings are (deism).

The key, as many theologians currently declare, is that God, the One, is perfectly one and yet simultaneously relational.

Christianity – Catholicism and Orthodoxy – has strayed somewhat from that vision. The first signs, as I read them, occur around the end of the first millennium (we'd have to go into Sacramental theology to tackle that one – too big a divergence, I fear), but gathered pace from then on, and took further catastrophic steps away with the (anti-mystical) Reformation.

Somwe argue, and I would agree, that to recover a mystical, metaphysically-coherent contemplation of the nature of the Trinity is to look once more not at those sources that fed into the discourse in the first place – Platonism – and revive that dialogue anew.

Such being the case, an investigation of the Enneads of Plotinus will show how a metaphysical intimations of the Trinity are there, as well as how Plotinus’s philosophical framework and lexicon provides a set of principles that can be 'fleshed out', 'embodied' or indeed dare I say 'transfigured' by the Doctrine of the Trinity.

Also what little I know about Plotinus -- wasn't he somebody who believed in an indivisible one? Therefore more Unitarian?

I don't think we can say that, as Unitarianism is specifically Christian based.

Was his work about Christian doctrine or not? I don't remember his time period (I need to look up)

Nope. He was the culmination of Platonism.

 

[Ahanu]

Nope. I acknowledge the influences, as does Clement, among others, but they did not determines outcomes.

The Christian belief in the Trinity is something independent of Greek philosophy.

It's also about the process of getting there, not just outcomes.

How can the Christian belief in the Trinity be independent and influenced at the same time?

And clearly there need to be some a priori sense of a triune for the Platonic triune to be an influence.

You say there needs to be an a priori sense of a triune for influence to occur. However, influence doesn't require pre-existing identical concepts. The final outcome can be distinct from the initial influence.

Reading your comments, you seem to imply that the doctrine of the Trinity sprang fully formed from Scripture. But we know that influential early Christian thinkers like Justin Martyr, while clearly influenced by Platonic thought, didn't articulate a fully formed Trinitarian doctrine.

You claim the Trinity is independent of Greek philosophy. But how do you explain Justin Martyr? His writings describe a hierarchical Godhead, with a subordinate Logos/Son. This is a clear example of a Christian thinker using Platonic philosophical categories to understand and articulate his faith. How can you claim "independence" when we see such clear evidence of philosophical influence?

If someone like Justin, writing in the mid-2nd century, needed these philosophical tools to articulate his understanding of Christ, how likely is it that the first Jewish followers of Christ, with their Aramaic language and Jewish worldview, would have arrived at the complex doctrine of the Trinity?

Rather my point was the Platonic triune doesn't possess enough significant markers to call it 'proto-Trinitarian'.

If Platonic triads are not sufficiently "proto-Trinitarian," then what would constitute a "proto-Trinitarian" concept in your view?

The pagan triad is hierarchical, while the Christian Trinity emphasizes co-equality. This difference doesn't negate the possibility of influence. Early Christian understandings of the Trinity were also sometimes hierarchical (e.g., in Justin Martyr). The doctrine of co-equality developed later.

Anyway, this particular argument is unimportant.

The initial excerpt I cited in post #1 clearly states that this pagan triad served as a conceptual tool for the early Church in formulating the doctrine of the Trinity. This admits philosophical influence. This contradicts your claim that the Trinity is essentially independent of Greek philosophy.

 

[Thomas]

Anyway, this particular argument is unimportant.

The initial excerpt I cited in post #1 clearly states that this pagan triad served as a conceptual tool for the early Church in formulating the doctrine of the Trinity.

Yes. As I have said, and others before me, "When the Fathers think, they Platonise."

This admits philosophical influence.

OK

This contradicts your claim that the Trinity is essentially independent of Greek philosophy.

Well, a Trinitarian doctrine would have emerged from the contemplation of Scripture regardless of Plato, and would have expressed a harmony of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as different 'persons' nevertheless the same in essence.

The Fathers reason the validity of the doctrine from philosophy, they believe the doctrine from Scripture.

 

[Ahanu]

Yes. As I have said, and others before me, "When the Fathers think, they Platonise."

That phrase makes it sound like Platonism was just a stylistic choice.

Well, a Trinitarian doctrine would have emerged from the contemplation of Scripture regardless of Plato,

That's a hypothetical claim. The reality is that early Christian thinkers did engage with Platonic philosophy, and their writings clearly show the influence of those ideas on their understanding of God and Christ. You can't simply assert that the doctrine would have emerged "regardless" of Plato when the historical record shows otherwise. Early Christian thinkers, like Justin Martyr, did use Platonic categories to articulate their understanding of God and Christ. This shows us that philosophical ideas were influential in a conceptual sense, influencing not just how they thought, but what they thought.

and would have expressed a harmony of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as different 'persons' nevertheless the same in essence.

The Fathers reason the validity of the doctrine from philosophy, they believe the doctrine from Scripture.

It's not about choosing between Scripture and philosophy. Even something as seemingly straightforward as the term "Son of God" could have been interpreted differently depending on one's philosophical background.

Justin Martyr's writings provide a clear example of the interplay between Scripture and philosophy. His concept of the Logos as a "second God," subordinate to the Father, clearly draws on Middle Platonic ideas about a hierarchical divine realm.