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.