St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 55:4 (2012) 373—398

T h e Pa t r i s t i c R e c e p t i o n o f H e l l e n i c

P h i l o s o p h y

Vladimir de Beer

In his informative study of Greek Christian thought, the Patristics scholar I. P. Sheldon-Williams identified three approaches that have historically occurred in the Christian world toward “pagan” learning.1 These are (1) uncritical acceptance, as in Gnosticism; (2) outright rejection, as in the Antiochian school of biblical exegesis, the later Iconoclasts, and some forms of Protestantism; and (3) controlled appropriation, as in the Alexandrian school, the Cappadocian theologians, Dionysius the Areopagite, Maximus the Confessor, and John Scottus Eriugena. Christian philosophy, Sheldon-Williams contended, arose from the latter approach. Since uncritical acceptance of non-biblical knowledge was ruled out from the outset in the Orthodox tradition (based as it is on patristic theology), we will focus on the remaining two approaches in this essay.

Two considerations should be kept in mind throughout this discussion. In the first place, for the Hellenic2 philosophers faith was irrational, while for the patristic thinkers reason without faith becomes irrational.3 The philosophical view was enunciated par excellence by Plato in his dialogue Republic, by means of the similes of the sun, the divided line, and the cave. Reflecting Plato’s fundamental

1 I. P. Sheldon-Williams, “The Greek Christian Platonist tradition from the Cappado- cians to Maximus and Eriugena,” in The Cambridge History o f Later Greek and Early

M edieval Philosophy, ed. A. H. Armstrong (London: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 425.

2 The adjective “Hellenic” is preferable over “Greek,” since the latter is a Roman term

that has been continued by Latin Christianity and by extension the modern Western world. The classical “Greeks” always saw themselves as Hellenes and their culture as Hellenic. However, following convention we will use “Greek” when referring to the people and their language.

3 Basil Tatakis, Christian Philosophy in the Patristic and Byzantine Tradition, tr. & ed. George Dragas (Rollinsford, NH : Orthodox Research Institute, 2007), 38.

373

ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY374

distinction between the intelligible realm (to noeton) and the visible or sensible realm (to horaton), a distinction is made between infallible knowledge (episteme 0 1 gnosis) and fallible opinion (doxa). On the one hand knowledge, consisting of intelligence (noesis) and reasoning (,dianoia), pertains to the unchanging world of Forms; on the other hand opinion, which includes faith (pistis) and illusion (!eikasia), pertains to the changing world of physical things, as well as shadows and images (Book VII, Parts 5 to 7). This reasoning by Plato implies that unreasoning belief stands closer to illusion than to knowledge. The contrasting patristic conviction that faith is superior to reason could serve to partially explain the observation by the philosopher of religion Paul Ciholas that “Patristic writings reveal an extraordinary intellectual activity in their apologetic endeavours to minimize the debt of Christianity to Greek philosophy.”4

A second consideration in this regard is that the patristic response to “paganism” is characterized by a lack of unity, as again remarked by Ciholas: “It [i.e., patristic literature] either waged war on philosophy as a deadly enemy of Christianity or praised Greek philosophers as the forerunners of the Christian system.”5 Recognizing this divergence that characterizes the patristic reception of Hellenic philosophy, we will consider representatives on both sides of the spectrum.

The exception: outright rejection o f Hellenism

Among the Christian apologists of the second and third centuries, hostility toward Hellenic philosophy (and philosophy in general) is particularly evident in the writings of Tatian and Tertullian. The former wrote an Address to the Greeks, which contains a vehement attack on Hellenic thought. Tatian asserted, inter alia, that the Hellenic philosophers were utterly unoriginal and stole all their ideas from the barbarians (i.e., non-Greeks). As commented by Paul Ciholas, this un-erudite protest against Hellenic philosophy comes

4 Paul Ciholas, “Plato: the Attic Moses? Some Patristic Reactions to Platonic Philoso- phy,” The Classical W orld72A (1978), 217. http://www.jstor.org/pss/ 4349036.

5 Ciholas, Plato, 217.

375The Patristic Reception o f Hellenic Philosophy

close to religious fanaticism and virtually invalidates the major purpose of the Address, which is to demonstrate that the Christian philosophy is older than the Hellenic systems.6

The Latin theologian Tertullian also commenced his Christian apologetics with a rejection of “heathen” philosophy, but unlike Tatian he was familiar with Hellenic philosophical concepts. Due to his rejection of rationalism, or reason-based thought, Tertullian maintained that the Gospel of Christ is concerned with the non-rational levels of perception. In a famous passage he stridently differentiates between the Gospel and philosophy, representing an eloquent but unconvincing plea for their separation, as Ciholas has aptly remarked:

What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? What between heretics and Christians?... Away with all attempts to produce a motded Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic compo- sition! (On Prescription against Heretics, 5.1).7

Continuing his assault on philosophy, Tertullian argued in the Apology (46) that there was nothing in common between the philosopher and the Christian, being the student of Greece and of heaven respectively. The Latin thinker went so far as to assert that the philosophers were the patriarchs of the heretics, since everything beyond simple faith is a source for heresy.8 Providentially, not all Patristic thinkers shared the anti-philosophical stance of Tatian and Tertullian, as will be demonstrated.

Plato, Philo, and Neo-Platonism

Occupying an honorary place in the Hellenic philosophical pantheon is the towering figure of Plato, disciple of Socrates and teacher of Aristotle. Plato’s philosophy is eminently spiritual, theistic, teleological, ethical, and eschatological, as pointed out by W. S. Tyler in his late-nineteenth-century juxtaposition of Platonism and

6 Ciholas, Plato, 217.7 Ciholas, Plato, 217-18.8 Tatakis, Christian Philosophy, 47.

ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY376

Christianity.9 O f the utmost importance for the Christian religion is Platos doctrinal insistence on the priority of the spiritual: the eternal, unchanging soul is superior to the ephemeral, changing body and precedes it in time, both for the world as a whole and for human beings. It is further maintained by Plato that the highest life, which is spiritual and eternal life, is made possible by the presence of the soul, while the soul is contaminated by matter, including the physical body. Thus, both the Platonist and Christian traditions teach that the invisible things are more important than the visible things. As St Paul the Apostle wrote in his second letter to the Corinthians, “So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal” (4:18; NIV).

In addition, just as taught in the Christian scriptures, Plato asserts unequivocally that there is one God, who is the supreme Good, and the maker and Father of all. The creation of the world according to the divine goodness is described in the dialogue Timaeus, whose striking parallels with the Genesis creation account was marvelled at by a number of eminent Church Fathers. For instance, the immortality of the lesser deities (Plato’s version of the heavenly beings in the Christian tradition) is received from the Father of all, and is dependent on his will (41 A-B). According to the Athenian thinker, God made the world by introducing order and beauty into chaotic matter, and putting into it a living, moving, and intelligent soul. Thereafter the lesser deities made man under His direction. Furthermore, Plato taught that God exercises a providential care over the world as a whole, and over every part of it. This is done mainly through the agency of the lesser deities who thus fulfil the office of angels {Laws, 905-907).

While Plato is the most influential predecessor of the Christian tradition among the Hellenic philosophers, the crucial role of transmitting the Platonist philosophy to the spiritual Way founded by Christ and His apostles was played by the Jewish thinker Philo,

9 W. S. Tyler, “Platonism and Christianity,” in Christian Classics Ethereal Library

(2004). Originally published in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia o f Religious Knowledge, Vol IX , 2 -4 , 1894. http://www.ccel.0rg/s/schafF/encyc/encyc09/htm / ii.cxxxiii.htm.

377The Patristic Reception o f Hellenic Philosophy

who lived in Alexandria around 25 BC to A D 50. Together with Plutarch, Philo is recognized as a leading representative of Middle Platonism, which is historically situated between the Old Academy founded around 386 BC by Plato and the Neo-Platonism of Plotinus and his successors. Philos work represents an intricate synthesis of Biblical theology and Hellenic philosophy.10 It should be noted that like most of the early Church (and the Orthodox Church to this day), the Alexandrian thinker used the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, the Septuagint, rather than the original. In the Septuagint the term Theos was first applied to the One God who created heaven and earth, instead of signifying divine powers as in Pre-Socratic philosophy.11 This thorough familiarity with the Greek language served Philo in good stead in his main work, On the Creation o f the World, which assumes the form of an allegorical commentary on Genesis. In Philos interpretation, Moses had employed myth, historical narrative, and ceremonial law for the expression of an inner, spiritual meaning.12 An exegetical tradition was inaugurated in this way that would be continued by many patristic theologians.

Fundamental to Philo s mediating theology is the conception of God as both immanent and transcendent: He is immanent as the personal God of the Mosaic writings, and He is transcendent as the One of the Platonists. God creates the cosmos “out of non-being” (ek me onton), and therefore the material world is not eternal but dependent on its Creator. Philo also accepts the Platonist teaching that the sensible world is an imperfect reflection of the intelligible world. The link between God and the world is declared to be the eternal realm of Ideas, which are actually the thoughts of God. Philo thus became the first thinker to identify the Platonist Ideas with

10 Henry Chadwick, “Philo and the Beginnings o f Christian Thought,” in The

Cambridge History o f Later Greek and Early M edieval Philosophy, ed. A. H. Arm- strong (London: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 137.

11 Metropolitan Hilarión Alfeyev, The Mystery o f Faith. An Introduction to the Teach- ing and Spirituality o f the Orthodox Church (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 2002), 15.

12 Chadwick, Philo, 138.

ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY378

the divine thoughts.13 This association represents an intellectual concept that would achieve lasting relevance.

Remarkably, Philo s influence would be limited to the Christian world, with the exception of the Jewish historian Josephus who borrowed from him. The writings of the great Alexandrian thinker were eventually translated into Latin and Armenian, and his philosophy was continued by prominent Christian thinkers such as Origen, Clement, and Ambrose.14 Given the tragic history of fractious and even violent relations between Jews and Christians over the past two millennia, it is perhaps not a little ironic that the beginning of Christian philosophy should be traced not to a Christian, but to a Greek-speaking Jew from North Africa.

The Patristic reception o f Platonism

As could be expected, the remarkable parallels between certain aspects of the Platonist and Christian doctrines provided a major challenge to the early Christian theologians. They responded to this challenge by means of two divergent explanations. Firstly, some of the Church Fathers strove to explain the doctrinal congruence between Platonism and Christianity by claiming that Plato had acquired his spiritual knowledge from the Jews and their Hebrew scriptures while visiting Egypt. This argument does not hold water, since there is no convincing evidence that Plato ever visited Egypt or encountered the Hebrew scriptures. Secondly, some of the patristic theologians reasoned that the divine Word, or Logos, provided illumination to sincere seekers after the truth (such as Socrates and Plato) before the incarnation of the Logos in the person of Jesus Christ. Undoubtedly, this recognition of a natural revelation through the Logos is more convincing than the previous explanation.

Plato and his pupil Aristotle had of course been familiar to the Christians of the Greek-speaking East from the beginning. Their thought eventually entered the Eastern Roman (or “Byzantine”) empire both directly and indirectly, in the latter case through

13 Chadwick, Philo, 140-42.14 Chadwick, Philo, 156.

379The Patristic Reception o f Hellenic Philosophy

Neo-Platonism.15 Among Patristic thinkers who were influenced to a greater or lesser degree by the Platonist tradition (thus including Neo-Platonism), the names of Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Theo- philus of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Methodius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine of Hippo could be counted.16 To this list should be added the ninth-century Irish philosopher John Scottus Eriugena, who, while not recognized as a patristic theologian, played a key role in the transmission of Greek patristic thought into the Latin Church of the Carolingian era. In fact, Eriugenas work represents the most important religious-philosophical link between the Greek East and the Latin West in the medieval Christian world.17 We will briefly survey aspects of Platonism that attracted these Christian thinkers.

As early as the second century, Justin Martyr attempted to bring the Christian and Platonist teachings into harmony. Having been a Platonist before his conversion to Christianity, he was thoroughly familiar with the available works of Plato. Even after his conversion to the Christian faith he remained convinced of the continuity between Platonism and Christianity, particularly in their theology and cosmology.18 Justins unifying principle was the activity of the eternal Word, or Logos, of God among both Greeks and non-Greeks:

For not only among the Greeks did reason {Logos) prevail to condemn these things through Socrates, but also among the Barbarians were they condemned by Reason (or the Word, the Logos) Himself, who took shape, and became man, and was called Jesus Christ (First Apology, 5).19

In other words, there was a natural revelation of the Logos throughout the world before the Incarnation, which not only

15 Tatakis, Christian Philosophy, 213-14.16 Tyler, Platonism , 6.17 Wynand De Beer, The Platonist Christian Cosmology o f Origen, Augustine, and Eri-

ugena (2010), 33. http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/origen_de-beer.pdf.18 Chadwick, Philo, 160.19 Ciholas, Plato, 218.

ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY380

condemns but also saves “pagans.”20 In calling philosophers such as Heraclitus and Socrates “Christians before Christ” {First Apology, 46),21 Justin affirmed the universal activity of the Logos instead of limiting it to the biblical revelation.

Justin argued further in the Second Apology (8.13) that the teachings of Plato and the Stoics, for instance, were not alien to those of Christ, while being also not identical to the latter, since the philosophers saw partially what is related to “the seminal divine Logos” (.Spermata tou theou logon). Generally speaking, Justin asserted in his Dialogue with Trypho, those who attached their mind to philosophy were saints indeed.22 In this way Justin opened the way for a synthesis between the Gospel and rational knowledge, being the hallmark of the Greek Christian spirit. Moreover, the Greek Orthodox philosopher Basil Tatakis suggested, Justin became the first formulator of a Christian humanism that embraces all expressions of goodness, including the great lines of Hellenic philosophy.23

Regarding the creation of the world, Justin also proclaimed the agreement between Platonism and Christianity:

The Platonic dogmas are not foreign to Christianity. If we Christians say that all things were created and ordered by God, we seem to enounce a doctrine of Plato; and, between our view of the being of God and his, the article appears to make the only difference {SecondApology, XIII).24

Recognizing the parallels between the Biblical and Platonic cosmogonies, Justin strove in earnest to ascribe a Mosaic background to the Timaeus.25 Nevertheless, as observed by Paul Ciholas, “For Justin, the coming of Christ determined the limits within which Plato and Socrates were acceptable as shadowy anticipations of the presence (parousia) of the Logos among men.”26 Therefore he saw

20 Tatakis, Christian Philosophy, 28.21 Alfeyev, Mystery o f Faith, 8.22 Tatakis, Christian Philosophy, 29.23 Tatakis, Christian Philosophy, 28, 30.24 Tyler, Platonism, 1.25 Ciholas, Plato, 225.26 Ciholas, Plato, 218.

381The Patristic Reception of Hellenic Philosophy

Christianity as the only complete and certain philosophy, since it contains every good proclaimed by the others (Dialogue 2; Second Apology 13.2).

In his Hortatory Appeal to the Greeks the Christian philosopher assumes a rather more critical stance toward Hellenic philosophy, including Plato and Aristotle. These two thinkers are taken to task by Justin for their disagreements concerning God, the nature of the world, and the nature of the soul (Chapters 5 and 6). It is further suggested that Plato obtained his knowledge of the one God from the Hebrew scriptures when visiting Egypt, as well as his teaching that time was created by God together with the heavens (Chapters 22 and 33).27 Moreover, Justin pointed out a divergence between Christianity and Hellenism regarding the nature of the soul: while the Platonist anthropology holds that the human soul is immortal by nature, the Church Fathers taught that the soul is immortal by divine grace.28 As would be the case with the Greek Patristic tradition as a whole, with Justin there was no question of uncritical acceptance of Hellenism.

An Athenian contemporary of Justin, Athenagoras, also became an early Christian philosopher. He wrote his Apology around 177 for the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, who was a Stoic philosopher. In it Athenagoras admitted that the “pagan” philosophers recognized the existence of the divine Being and arrived at the truth concerning first principles. Thus Plato affirmed that the one God is also the Creator of the universe, Aristotle held that the Divine soul is not subject to motion but is the cause of motion, and the Stoics taught that God embraces in Himself all the seminal principles by which everything is produced, while His spirit pervades the whole world (Chapter 6).29 However, Athenagoras pointed out,

27 Justin Martyr, “Hortatory Appeal to the Greeks,” in The Patristic Understanding o f Creation. An Anthology o f Writings from the Church Fathers on Creation and Design, eds. William Dembski, Wayne Downs & Justin Frederick (Riesel, TX: Erasmus Press, 2008), 3 -5 ,1 0 -1 2 .

28 Chadwick, Philo, 160.29 Athenagoras, “Apology,” in The Patristic Understanding o f Creation. An Anthology

o f Writings from the Church Fathers on Creation and Design, eds. William Dembski,

ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY382

the non־ Christian philosophers arrived at different conclusions regarding God, the world, matter and so forth, because they were not enlightened by God.30 This reasoning by the Athenian thinker implies that the unaided human reason is unable to approach God—an epistemological view that would become axiomatic in patristic theology.

The first interaction between Christianity and Neo-Platonism occurred at Alexandria, where the Stoic philosopher Pantainos founded the catechetical school after his conversion to the Christian religion.31 From the second century onward Christian and Neo-Platonist thought grew together in the cultural melting pot of the great North African city, as Basil Tatakis has pointed out.32 It was in Alexandria that the last of the Middle Platonist thinkers, Ammonius Saccas, laid the foundations of Neo-Platonism—the latter philosophy to be expounded by his famous pupils Plotinus and Origen in “pagan” and Christian terms, respectively. Plotinus was convinced that a meticulous reading of Plato was sufficient to answer all questions raised by the human mind, but as an ingenious commentator he created a new philosophical school. To support his view that Plato was the main root and stem of philosophy, Plotinus defended the view that Plato and Aristotle complemented each other, especially the latter with regards to the former.33

Plotinus continued the theistic cosmology of Plato and Philo by emphasizing the radical transcendence of the Divinity. The highest reality is the One, which is the source of all beings, while itself being above the mind (nous), infinite, and super-essential.34 Moreover, Plotinus taught, since Soul breathes life into the material world, the world is a reflection of divine reality and contains beauty and perfection. Although purification (katharsis) can lead to contemplation of God, He still remains a mystery for Plotinus. In

Wayne Downs &: Justin Frederick (Riesel, TX: Erasmus Press, 2008), 20.30 Tatakis, Christian Philosophy, 26.31 Tatakis, Christian Philosophy, 23-24.32 Tatakis, Christian Philosophy, 216.33 Tatakis, Christian Philosophy, 214.34 Tatakis, Christian Philosophy, 18.

383The Patristic Reception o f Hellenic Philosophy

addition, there is a remarkable similarity between his account of the mystical ascent to the highest Being in the Enneads and the writings of the Church Fathers on ecstasy and deification.35 W ith this latter assertion, however, the Russian theologian Hilarión Alfeyev disagrees with the statement by Basil Tatakis that Neo־Platonist ecstasy and Christian deification represent divergent methods of reaching the Divine, with the former supposedly being a passive condition and the latter being an active striving.36

Many of the patristic theologians allowed Neo־Platonist idealism to imbue their thought, admiring its emphasis on the movement of the soul from the sensible to the intelligible world, and its eventual return to the mind and the One. However, the interaction between Neo-Platonism and Christianity was reciprocal; for instance, in the fourth century the Roman emperor Julian (termed “the Apostate” by the Church on account of his preference for Hellenic paganism) admired the philanthropic activity of the Christians and encouraged the “pagans” to follow their example.37

The successor of Pantainos as principal of the Alexandrian school, Clement, enunciated a conviction that would prevail among several patristic thinkers, namely that Hellenic philosophy served as preparation for the Gospel to those outside the biblical tradition. He suggested that there were two old testaments, namely the Hebrew scriptures and Hellenic philosophy, and one New Testament which accepts the waters coming from afar (Stromata 6.5). The Christian faith is grafted onto the tree of philosophy, Clement continues, and when the graft is perfect the faith grows within the tree and makes it produce fruit (Stromata 6.15).38

Clement was convinced that all wisdom and knowledge come from God, regardless of where it was found. Just as music, geometry, and astronomy prepare the mind for philosophy, so philosophy prepares the soul for theology. The Alexandrian theologian taught

35 Alfeyev, Mystery o f Faith, 7 -8 .36 Tatakis, Christian Philosophy, 18.37 Tatakis, Christian Philosophy, 215-16.38 Tatakis, Christian Philosophy, 24.

ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY384

further that Christ is the principle that unites all the fragments of knowledge.39 He wrote in the Stromata (1.5-20) that philosophy is “a sort of preliminary discipline for those who lived before the coming of Christ,” and also, “Perhaps we may say it was given to the Greeks with this special object; for philosophy was to the Greeks what the law was to the Jews—a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ.”40 In other words, philosophy prepared the way for Christ in the Hellenic world just as the Hebrew scriptures prepared the Jewish world for the coming of Christ (Stromata 1.5).41 It is therefore not surprising that Clement liberally quoted from Plato’s dialogues (notably the Republic, Laws, and Phaedo\ at times even more than from the New Testament. Taking an opposite stance to that of his contemporary Tertullian, Clement did not view the Gospel as a radical turning point, but rather “as the meeting place of what he considered to be the two greatest cultures of antiquity: Hellenism and Judaism.”42

However, in spite of his appreciative stance toward Hellenic thought, in the Stromata (at 6.39) Clement charged the Greeks with being “thieves of every scripture” (Hellenes kleptaipases grapses). As remarked by Basil Tatakis, a more profound explanation had earlier been offered by St Paul in his letter to the Romans (chapter 1, verses 19-21), where the apostle argues that the power of God has been perceived by His creatures since the creation of the world.43 In other words, instead of charging the Hellenic philosophers with stealing the scriptures of other nations, someone of Clement s intellectual stature should have recognized the natural revelation of the Logos outside of the biblical tradition.

Clement s successor as head of the Alexandrian school, Origen, continued the patristic appropriation and adaptation of Hellenic philosophy. This brilliant thinker holds an ambivalent status in the Christian world: on the one hand he is honored as the first

39 Chadwick, Philo, 168-70.40 Ciholas, Plato y 219.41 Alfeyev, Mystery o f Faith, 8.42 Ciholas, Plato, 219.43 Tatakis, Christian Philosophy, 27.

385The Patristic Reception o f Hellenic Philosophy

systematic theologian of the Church, but on the other hand he is denigrated as a heretic on account of his posthumous condemnation for perceived doctrinal errors. His output includes the first systematic exposition of Christian doctrine in his Peri Archon {On First Principles), which would achieve equally wide renown in its Latin translation titled De Principiis. This voluminous writing was intended as a comprehensive refutation of the Gnostic dualism of Marcion and his followers, being the main threat to orthodox Christianity at the time. Interpreting the Bible by means of the allegorical method that was established by Philo, Origen is regarded as the founder o f the Alexandrian theological tradition of the early Church.44 His allegorical method would be followed by many of the leading Church Fathers, both Greek and Latin.

Origen valued the Platonist philosophy as a powerful ally of Christianity, since it could provide the Church with conceptual weapons with which to ward off attacks by her opponents, such as the Neo-Platonist philosopher Celsus. As the Alexandrian theologian saw it, it was possible for true Platonists to achieve knowledge of two of the persons of the Trinity, namely the Father and the Son. However, as he wrote in On First Principles (1.11), they were unable to attain to knowledge of the Holy Spirit, since the latter was a distinctive characteristic of the Christian tradition.45 Thus Moses

ascended above all created things, and united himself to the Creator of the universe, and made known divine things with far greater clearness than Plato, or those other wise men among the Greeks and Romans, since the soul of the Hebrew prophet was indwelt by the Holy Spirit (.Against Celsus, 1.19).46

44 Williston Walker, A History o f the Christian Church (Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1959), 74-77.

45 Ciholas, Plato, 220.

46 Origen, “Against Celsus,” in The Patristic Understanding o f Creation. An Anthology

o f Writings from the Church Fathers on Creation and Design, eds. William Dembski, Wayne Downs & Justin Frederick (Riesel, TX: Erasmus Press, 2008), 136.

ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY386

Again we witness a controlled acceptance of the Hellenic philosophical tradition, in such a manner as not to do violence to the fundamentals o f Christianity.

The outstanding thinker of the early Latin-speaking Church, Augustine of Hippo, had been a Manichean before his conversion to the Christian religion. As if to confirm the congruence of certain Platonist and Christian teachings, it was through reading Neo-Platonist literature that he came to faith in the One, which is also the God of the Christians. Being unfamiliar with the Greek language, Augustine had read Plotinus in a Latin translation. The founder of Neo-Platonism would have a decisive influence on the formulation of the Christian thinker s final philosophy.47 Appreciative of worldly knowledge, Augustine acknowledged that the liberal arts are gifts from God, to be studied together with Scripture.48 However, notwithstanding his prodigious literary output in service of the Church and his tireless combat against a succession of heresies, the North African theologian has sometimes been accused of incorporating elements of Neo-Platonism into (Western) Christian doctrine.49

Augustine provided an extensive discussion of the congruence between Platonism and Christianity in Book VIII of The City o f God against the Pagans, written between 413 and 426 during the twilight of the Western Roman Empire.50 He credits the Platonist philosophers with confessing a transcendent God who created this visible world and every soul, with the rational and intellectual souls of human beings able to participate in His incorporeal light (Chapter l).51 The Latin theologian then gives a brief survey of

47 Tatakis, Christian Philosophy, 34.48 Deirdre Carabine, John Scottus Eriugena (New York: Oxford University Press,

2000), 8.49 Ciholas, Plato> 220.50 The Eastern Roman (or so-called “Byzantine”) Empire lasted until 1453, when its

capital Constantinople was captured by the Ottoman Turks. It is therefore errone- ous to claim that the Roman Empire collapsed in the fifth century, as is so often done by Western historians and others. The “Byzantine” Empire was only ever known as Roman and its citizens as Romans (see http://www.romanity.org for relevant facts).

51 Augustine, On the City o f God against the Pagans, ed. & tr. by R. W. Dyson

387The Patristic Reception o f Hellenic Philosophy

pre-Socratic thought, consisting mostly of the Ionian school founded by Thales of Miletus and the Italian school founded by Pythagoras of Samos. A direct line of transmission is posited from Thales through Anaximander through Anaximenes through Anaxagoras through Archelaus to Socrates (Chapter 2), and thus by implication to Plato. Augustine pointed out that Socrates was the first thinker to direct the entire philosophical effort toward the correction and regulation of morals. In addition, the Athenian believed that the first causes of things exist in nothing but the will of the one true and supreme God. Therefore Socrates advocated the purification of human lives through good morals, so that the mind can be elevated to the realm of eternal things and contemplate the divine light in which the causes of all created natures have their unwavering abode (Chapter 3). In this way Augustine acknowledges that Socrates was an eminent “pagan” forerunner of the Christian religion, both on the moral and doctrinal levels.

According to Augustine, Plato believed that the teaching of Socrates and his own natural talent were not sufficient for gaining the highest wisdom, and he therefore went to study first in Egypt and then with the Pythagoreans in Italy. Due to his love for Socrates, Plato made him the principal speaker in most of his dialogues (with the notable exception of the Timaeus). For the younger Athenian philosopher the pursuit of wisdom consists in both action and contemplation. This combination refers to the conduct of life and the investigation of natural causes, as expounded by Socrates and Pythagoras respectively. Augustine reasoned that Plato perfected philosophy by uniting these two parts and dividing the whole into three parts: moral, natural, and logical philosophy. The latter serves to distinguish truth from falsehood—a distinction that is required for both action and contemplation. The Platonists are credited by the Latin theologian for understanding God as the cause of existence, the ground of understanding, and the pattern for conduct—pertaining to natural, rational, and moral philosophy

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998); and for further references to this work.

ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY388

respectively (Chapter 4). In other words, for the Platonists the true God is the author of all things, the illuminator of truth, and the giver of happiness. Therefore, Augustine declared in words that echoed Clement of Alexandria, “No one has come closer to us [i.e., the Christians] than the Platonists” (Chapter 5).

In the next chapters of the City o f God (still in Book VIII) the North African theologian outlines aspects of Platonism perceived to be in harmony with Christian teachings on natural, rational, and moral philosophy. Regarding natural philosophy, the Platonists are credited with seeing that in every changeable thing the form that makes it what it is, cannot exist except from Him who exists immutably. In fact, the whole body of the world—elements, plants, animals, humans, and angels—can only exist through Him who simply is. Moreover, the Platonists have noted that the form of a body is sensible, while its life is intelligible—thus giving priority to intelligible form over sensible form. In this way, Augustine argues, the Platonists arrived at the conclusion that Primary Form does not exist in things that are mutable. Rather, the immutable Primary Form is the uncreated First Principle of things, by which all things were made. It can therefore be stated that God revealed Himself to the Platonists through created things to understand His eternal power and divinity, as the Apostle Paul wrote in his Epistle to the Romans (Chapter 6).

As far as moral philosophy is concerned, Augustine continues, the Platonists distinguish things conceived by the mind from those that impress upon the senses, without detracting from the reality of the latter. Moreover, the God who created all things is declared by them to be the light of our minds, by which we learn all things (Chapter 7). Regarding moral philosophy, the Latin theologian points out that the Platonists have asserted happiness to be found not in the enjoyment of body or mind, but in the enjoyment of God. In other words, humans should be enjoying God as the eye enjoys light. According to Plato, the highest good is to live according to virtue, which is only possible through an imitation of God. Thus for Plato, Augustine concludes, to practice philosophy is to love God—

389The Patristic Reception o f Hellenic Philosophy

the true and highest good is God, and therefore the philosopher should be a lover of God (Chapter 8).

Mentioning the Platonists, the Ionians, and the Pythagoreans, Augustine declared that those philosophers who held that God is the author of all created things, the light by which things are known, and the good for the sake of which things are done, come nearest to the truth of the Christian faith (Chapter 9). While the Apostle Paul warned Christians against deceit through philosophy (Col 2:8), he also recognised the natural revelation of God among “pagans” (Rom 1:19) and made positive references to “pagan” Greek authors in his famous Athenian speech (Acts 17:28). Therefore the Apostle s warning against philosophy could not be applicable to the Platonists in general, since it was their philosophy that provided the conceptual background for the New Testament writers to formulate those philosophical statements.52 The North African theologian preferred the Platonists to all other philosophers because by knowing God they have discovered the cause of the universe, the light for truth, and the fount o f our happiness:

To the extent that the Platonists agree with us, however, that there is one God, the Author of this universe, Who is not only above every bodily thing, being incorporeal, but also, being incorruptible above all souls, and is our first principle, our light and our good: in this respect, we place them above all others (Chapter 10).

As far as cosmology is concerned, Augustine suggested that a study of the Timaeus indicated that Plato was familiar with the writings of Moses. However, he refutes the early Christian view (as expounded among others by Justin, Clement, Origen, Eusebius, and Cyril) that Plato had read the Hebrew scriptures or heard the prophet Jeremiah while he was in Egypt, since the known chronology makes this impossible. To explain the parallels between Genesis and the Timaeus, the Latin theologian suggested that the Athenian philosopher might have studied the Hebrew scriptures with the aid of an interpreter. Augustine was above all struck by the angel’s words

52 Ciholas, Plato, 221.

ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY390

to Moses, “I am who I am”—which means that God truly is because He is immutable. This implies that created things are mutable and have no being of their own, being “...a view which Plato vehemently held and most diligently commended” (Chapter 11).

In the conclusion of his survey of the congruence between Platonism and Christianity, Augustine draws attention to the fact that the most distinguished philosophers of recent times have called themselves not Academics or Peripatetics, but Platonists—for example, Plotinus, Iamblichus, and Porphyry. However, although believing in the one true God, Plato and his followers held that sacred rites should be performed in honor of many gods. This aspect of the Platonist teaching is clearly at odds with the Christian religion, Augustine pointed out (Chapter 12). The Latin theologian was also deeply aware that Neo-Platonism remained ignorant of sin and grace, while Christianity offers an effective method of salvation.53

Nevertheless, in Book XI of the City o f God Plato is credited by Augustine for recognizing that the creation of the universe made God elated with joy, so to speak, since the completed creative act fully met with its Maker s approval. This insight led Plato to declare (in the Timaeus, 29D-30A) that the most sufficient reason for the creation of the world is that good works might be made by a good God (Chapter 21). Furthermore, in Book XII attention is drawn to the teaching of the Athenian philosopher that the world is based on numerical principles (a notion that was derived from the Pythagoreans). Likewise Scripture declares that God has ordered all things in number, and measure, and weight. Therefore, the Latin theologian argues, all number is known to God, whose understanding is infinite (Chapter 19).

In spite of his admiration for Plato and the Platonists, Augustine at times showed signs of discomfort when discussing these thinkers, notably in Book X of the City o f God. For instance, in Chapter 3 the Platonists are taken to task for worshipping both good and bad angels, even though they knew that God is the Creator of the universe. Later in the same book, in Chapter 29, Augustine charges

53 Tatakis, Christian Philosophy, 36.

391The Patristic Reception of Hellenic Philosophy

the Platonists with being ashamed of the incarnation of Jesus Christ, due to their ungodliness. Moreover, in Book XII the Platonists teachings on the creation of bodies by the lesser gods (i.e., angels) and on the reincarnation of souls that had lived intemperate or dishonorable lives are strongly condemned by Augustine (Chapter 27). As commented by Paul Ciholas, this uneasiness on the part of the leading Latin theologian “betrays his tacit recognition that Platonism and Neo-Platonism cannot be lightly dismissed because of their religious insights concerning God.”54 It is perhaps not surprising that a man who was both a devout Christian and a profound thinker should experience a measure of intellectual discord when faced with the Biblical witness and Hellenic philosophy, thus striving earnestly to establish a measure of concord between these traditions.

The most powerful synthesis of Neo-Platonism and Christianity was formulated by the author writing under the nom-de-plume of Dionysius the Areopagite, about whose life nothing definite is known. Judging by similarities in concepts and terminology it is possible that he was a disciple of the Neo-Platonist philosopher Proclus, who died in 485. Facilitating the Dionysian synthesis of Neo-Platonism and Christianity is the fact that both are thoroughly theocentric. In addition, the cosmologies of both depict a double movement of beings: a departure {proodos) from the first principle (mone), and a subsequent return (epistrophe) to it.55

However, while drinking deeply from the Neo-Platonist cup, Dionysius used its philosophy to defend the Christian religion against the “pagan” Greeks, as remarked by Basil Tatakis.56 W ith his writings such as the Divine Names and the Mystical Theology (containing his kataphatic and apophatic theology, respectively), Dionysius became the father of Orthodox Christian mysticism. His depiction of the earthly hierarchy of the Church as an image of the heavenly hierarchy and a likeness of the archetype clearly

54 Ciholas, Plato, 221.55 Tatakis, Christian Philosophy, 101, 104.56 Tatakis, Christian Philosophy, 104.

ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY392

shows the Platonist inheritance of the Areopagite. It could be stated that Dionysius clothed the Christian image with Neo־Platonist decorations.57

One of the most brilliant Patristic thinkers, Maximus the Confessor, was also the first important commentator on Dionysius. To this Greek monk the essence of the Christian religion is its historical existence. Maximus thus accepted the Neo-Platonism of Dionysius in such a way that historicity is not sacrificed to mystical essence. Nevertheless, as remarked by Basil Tatakis, Neo-Platonism (through Dionysius) aided the expression of Christian mysticism in the same degree as Aristotelian logic aided Christian reason to elaborate the Christian dogma.58

Around the time of the transition from late antiquity to the early Middle Ages an important divergence became noticeable between Eastern and Western Christianity, as pointed out by the Russian Orthodox thinker George Fedotov. On the one hand, a balance of Hellenic culture, the natural order, and the Christian gospel was preserved in Orthodoxy. On the other hand, the Latin West became neutral toward the natural world and hostile toward classical culture, as is evident from the writings of Jerome, for example.59 We have already mentioned the hostility toward “pagan” learning by Jerome s Latin predecessors Tatian and Tertullian. Lamentably, it was not only the Western Church that underwent this cultural change, since in the year 529 the Eastern Roman emperor Justinian placed the “pagan” Academy in Athens under state control. W ith this move he effectively strangled Hellenic culture in the empire and reinforced the forces of obscurantism that were hostile toward Classical culture.

Philosophically speaking, the basic difference between the Greek East and the Latin West is that in the former Aristotelian elements came to be added to a tradition rich in Platonism, while the Western Church came to be dominated by Aristotle. Eventually a purely

57 Tatakis, Christian Philosophy, 101-3 ,105.58 Tatakis, Christian Philosophy, 106.5 9 Myroslaw Tataryn, Augustin e and Russian Orthodoxy: A Twentieth Century Dialogue

(Lanham, MD: International Scholars Publications, 2000), 64-65.

393The Patristic Reception o f Hellenic Philosophy

rationalist philosophy prevailed in Latin Christianity, as Basil Tatakis has remarked. The inevitable culmination of this process would be medieval scholasticism, with its rationalistic legalism. On the other hand, in Orthodoxy the mysticism of Plato has been balanced by the rationalism of Aristotle.60

A further divergence that appeared at an early stage between Latin and Greek Christianity is that the former had a preference for practical matters (being the heir to Roman legalism), while in the Eastern Church theoretical matters were predominant. Thus in Orthodoxy to “think rightly” has always been characteristic of the faith.61 Interestingly, injthe Western Church the Latin language dominated for almost 15 centuries before national literatures developed, while in the Eastern Church a number of new literatures soon came into being, such as Aramaic, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic,62 and later Slavonic.63

By the ninth century the divergence between Latin and Greek Christianity had become marked, in no small measure due to the project by Charlemagne to establish a differentiated cultural base for his new Germanic empire.64 However, working at the court of the Frankish king Charles the Bald at that time, the Irish-born scholar John Scottus Eriugena continued the Eastern Christian integration of Hellenic philosophy with the Gospel and the natural order. Following his translations of important Greek Patristic texts (including the complete Dionysian corpus) into Latin, Eriugena wrote a cosmological masterpiece named the Periphyseon and subtitled “On the division of nature.” This work represents a grand synthesis of Platonist philosophy and Greek and Latin Christian theology, and in its five books the Irish-Carolingian

60 Tatakis, Christian Philosophy, 239.61 Tatakis, Christian Philosophy, 47-48 .62 Although the Goths were a Germanic people, they were evangelized in the fourth

century by Bishop Ulfilas, who hailed from Greek-speaking Cappadocia and devised the Gothic alphabet in order to translate the Bible from Greek into Gothic.

63 Tatakis, Christian Philosophy, 49.64 Christos Yannaras, Elements o f Faith. An Introduction to Orthodox Theology, tr. Keith

Schramm (Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1991), 154-57.

ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY394

thinker masterfully depicted the whole of reality as a theophany, or manifestation of God.

O f cardinal importance in the process of divine creation is the role of the primordial causes (causae primordiales), the notion of which entails Eriugenas synthesis of the Platonist Ideas and the Greek patristic energies of God. Furthermore, all of the created order (both intelligible and sensible) partakes in the Neo-Platonist double movement of a procession (exitus) from God and a return (reditus) to God. Eriugena reasoned that the link between the procession of all things out of God and the return of all things to God is Christ, the cosmic Logos. Thus, as with his Latin and Greek predecessors, the Irishman did not hesitate to adapt “pagan” thought according to his Christian beliefs.

A rather critical view of the relation between Platonism and Christianity came from the radical German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who wrote that Christianity is Platonism for the masses (.Beyond Good and Evil, preface). One of Nietzsches eminent philosophical successors, Martin Heidegger, argued that from Plato onward a chasm was torn open between the real Being somewhere up there and the merely apparent beings here below. In this chasm Christian doctrine would situate itself, reinterpreting “the below” as the created and “the above” as the Creator. W ith this conceptual weaponry Christianity then proceeded to combat Hellenic antiquity as “pagan.”65 While both Nietzsche and Heidegger were guilty of over-simplification in this regard, being unfamiliar with Eastern Christian thought, their criticism is at least partially applicable to Western Christianity, pertaining notably to the latter s dualistic anthropology.66

The Patristic reception o f Aristotle

In addition to the Patristic theologians who are conventionally viewed as assimilating and modifying concepts from Platonist

65 Martin Heidegger, Introduction to Metaphysics, tr. Gregory Fried & Richard Polt (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000), 111.

66 Yannaras, Elements o f Faith, 62-63.

395The Patristic Reception o f Hellenic Philosophy

philosophy, such as the thinkers mentioned in the previous section, there were other Church Fathers who are perceived by some authors as standing closer to Aristotle. Among the latter theologians count

67.Leontius of Byzantium, John of Damascus, and Gregory Palamas In the early sixth century Leontius adapted Aristotelian logic to Christian metaphysics. He thus became the pioneer of “Byzantine”

scholastic philosophy to express Christian truths logically and scientifically.68 His “Orthodox scholastic” approach would be continued by John of Damascus, notably in his celebrated work titled An Exact Exposition o f the Orthodox Faith.

One of the most ingenious patristic theologians, Maximus the Confessor, employed a variety of concepts from both the Neo-Platonist and Aristotelian traditions. For instance, he was influenced by Aristotle s metaphysical theories of time and eternity, and motion and rest.69 In addition, Maximus often employed Aristotelian concepts such as nature {physis) and end, or purpose

,(telos)7° However, in the exposition of his theology the Confessor is indebted mainly to Neo-Platonism with its triadic structuring of reality on all levels. Maximus thus depicted a cosmos consisting of the triad ousia, dynamis, and energeia, applicable to both beings and God: existing by nature (ousia), the ability to act [dynamis), and the accomplished action [energeia). Out of the divine power the intelligible world is created as the triad being [to einai), well-being

and eternal being [to aei einai). Finally the sensible י([to eu einai world arises as the triad becoming [genesis), motion [kinesis), and rest [stasis)?1 W ith his scheme of becoming, motion, and rest on the sensible level, Maximus reversed Origen s triad of rest, motion, and becoming. Remarkably, the Confessor thus came closer to

Platonism the־ Hellenic philosophy than Origen did, since in Neo

67 Archbishop Lazar Puhalo, “The External Philosophy”: The Fathers and Platonism

(2010.) http : / / www.clarion-journal.com/files/platon.pdf..238 ,68 Tatakis, Christian Philosophy

.492 ,69 Sheldon-Williams, Greek Christian.73 (,1988 ,70 John O ’Meara, Eriugena (Oxford: Clarendon Press

.4 9 2 -9 6 ,71 Sheldon-Williams, Greek Christian

ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY396

final purpose of the human soul is rest within the highest hypostasis of the Godhead, the One.72

It has been noted by a leading Orthodox theologian of the twentieth century, Father Georges Florovsky, that the Greek patristic theologians were closer to Aristotle than to Plato in their understanding of the relationship between the human soul and the body. Aristotle understood better than any of the Greek philosophers the empirical wholeness of human existence, and thus empirical existence and the human personality took on an importance for him that could not be detached from the eternal elements of the soul. Therefore the Stagyrite philosopher rejected the Platonist doctrine of a transmigration of souls to other bodies, although he never came to attribute an immortal dimension to the person.73 The Greek Fathers, according to Father Georges, eventually established a kind of synthesis between Aristotle’s notion of the mortal unity of body and soul on the one hand, and the impersonal and eternal nous of Plato on the other. As correctly remarked by Father Gregory TelepnefF and Bishop Chrysostomos, this Patristic synthesis entails a rejection of body-soul dualism, since the life of the material body and its sensible faculties acquire a referent in the eternal or divine realm.74

Conclusion

While being deeply conscious of the patristic debt to Hellenic thought, to the extent that he posited the existence of a Greek Christian Platonist tradition that stretched from the Cappadocians to Maximus and Eriugena, Sheldon-Williams followed the example of the Church Fathers in not hesitating to point out notions in Hellenic philosophy that were irreconcilable with the Christian revelation. These are: (1) the eternity of the cosmos, (2) the divinity

72 Edward Moore, The Golden Road to Unlimited Devotion: The Christian Neo- Platonism o f St Maximus Confessor (2003), 5 -7 . http://www.isns.us/emoore.htm.

73 Fr Gregory TelepnefF &c Bishop Chrysostomos, “The Transformation o f Hellenistic

Thought on the Cosmos and Man in the Greek Fathers,” The Patristic and Byzantine Review IX (1990): 8. http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/hellenistic_thought.aspx.

74 Ibid., 8 -9 .

397The Patristic Reception o f Hellenic Philosophy

of the human soul, and (3) the view of the soul as substantially different from the body and in need of release from it as from something evil.75 While limitations of space do not permit us to dwell on these points in any detail, it should be remarked that these Hellenic doctrines became more subtle and nuanced by the time of the later Neo־Platonists such as Iamblichus and Proclus, so that their divergence from Christian theology appear less marked and even reconcilable (see for instance the work of the Orthodox scholar Edward Moore in this regard).

In his assessment of the interaction between Hellenism and Christianity, the Orthodox theologian Hilarión Alfeyev (also a Metropolitan in the Russian Orthodox Church) pointed out that some of the notable representatives of ancient philosophy moved beyond polytheism and arrived at the truth of the one God. Thus Plato, Philo, and the Neo-Platonists postulated a single Author of the Universe, whom Plato in the Timaeus refers to as the Creator, Father, God, and Demiurge. Concomitantly with his theistic cosmology, Plato recognized a higher Reason (the Logos), while the gods fulfil roles similar to the angels in the monotheistic religions, since the Demiurge created them and issues orders to them. As remarked by Metropolitan Hilarión, the Logos was originally conceived as the eternal cosmic law, which for Philo and the Neo-Platonists also became the divine creative force mediating between God and the world.76

Ultimately, some of the Hellenic philosophers came very close to the truths finally revealed in Christianity, as Metropolitan Hilarión observed. These include the doctrines of the one God who is the Creator of world, the divine Logos, the Holy Trinity (for example in Plotinus’ three divine hypostases), the contemplative vision of God, and the ultimate deification (theosis) of the human person. It is therefore not surprising that prominent Church Fathers such as Justin, Clement, and the Cappadocians thought highly of philosophy. The patristic debt to Hellenic philosophy is strikingly

75 Sheldon-Williams, Greek Christian, 426.76 Alfeyev, Mystery o f Faith, 7.

ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY398

confirmed by the fact that in ancient Christian churches there were images of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle next to the saints and martyrs, as forerunners of the incarnated Truth.77 Let us as Orthodox Christians of the third millennium therefore continue to honor these great Hellenic thinkers for their lasting contributions to Christian thought, while not losing sight of their points of divergence from the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ.

77 Alfeyev, Mystery o f Faith, 8 -9 .

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(sV express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder( s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of ajournai typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.