CJD

Ruhan, you missed it. I was responding to your baseless and arrogant "Neo-platonism certainly did influence …," which was rightly judged by you above — 'play school' indeed. You've judged yourself.

Oh to be sure, they think they have reasons, but this school of thought has not come up with any solid conclusions on the subject. You also ought to know the folks who peddled this stuff have gone out of fashion almost seventy-five years ago (it of course takes much longer to filter down through the lay level).

This is wrong-headed on both counts:

1. Paul uses sarx to denote that place in which evil corrupts, the corruptible, sinful nature of mankind. Only on an elementary and surface level might this be construed as platonic. But for the platonists, the flesh is evil precisely because it is material. This in no way reflects Pauline thinking. For, as I mentioned above, the end-game of Pauline eschatology is a bodily resurrection on a tangible earth. The Greeks would vomit at the thought. In short, Paul's denouncement of sarx specifically refers to what he thinks is a psychological and spiritual defect, which leads people to place the creature over the Creator (cf. Rom 1).

"Spirit," then, hardly has to do with something wispy and ethereal, or whatever, over against physical matter. It has to do with the spirit of God, which is ethically loaded, not platonic. It is valued higher, yes, but not higher than things material; it is higher than things sinful. You've not got a single text from the Pauline letters that support your view.

2. Becoming "one with God," for Paul, is the same as being "in Christ." Yet no text points us in the direction of losing our distinct personality when this union takes place, nor is the Christ believed to be a mere emanation and therefore lesser than from whence he came. The Pauline letters reveal some of the highest Christology in the NT. I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to anyway.

Be clear on what the argument is: the pertinent texts do not reveal a neo-platonic influence (to the extent you wish it would).

No, we don't. Play school is fun, isn't it?

Look, I'm the one who first wrote "Of course, no thinking takes place in a vacuum. And if this guy Paul [or his 'school', if you will] was worth his salt, he would've known enough about Platonism to have an eye on it when he wrote." And I didn't mean "eye on it" as if he would exclude it. The point anyway is that he didn't need to exclude it, for the fundamental categories within which he writes are not platonic; they are first-century Palestinian Hebrew.

Best,

CJD

CJD

You were purposefully looking for false information?!

No doubt gJohn has a more Hellinized flavor, but as the author's irony often shows, he uses loaded words to assert pre-eminence. For example, the prologue of gJohn, while employing perfectly normal Greek words, becomes a polemic against certain elements of Greek thought, and we know this because it retains its fundamental Jewish presuppositions.

Just so you are in the know, "neo-platonism" in this context is entirely anachronistic. "Neo-platonism" refers to that final stage of Platonism, which finds its head in Plotinus (third century). This final stage was the dominant
philosophy in the Greco-Roman world from after the time of Plotinus (the end of the third century) to the end of the public teaching of Greek philosophy by pagans in the sixth century A.D. Neo-Platonism, of course, deeply influenced both Arabic and Jewish thought, as well as Christian thought from the later patristic period until the seventeenth century. In some cases, it even reaches down to our own day (note the current trend in the West for religionists to disparage 'the material world').

During the first century, around 80 BC, Antiochus of Ascalon revived a more dogmatic revival of Plato's teaching. Cicero was pleased with what he heard. "Middle-Platonism" refers to this movement as it came to shape by the end of the first century. This movement adopted some Stoic and Aristotelian views too (its reading of Plato was highly selective). In general, this middle group held to a kind of henotheism: god (the supreme Intelligence), and also lesser theoi and daimones (the second Intelligence and the World-Soul), and, of course, they were dualists. Evil exists because of pre-existing matter, and mankind's escape will take place when the material world is left behind.

All this can be found in any history of philosophy series.

I think if we looked beyond the surface, we'd find major inconsistencies and divergences, even when similar phrasing is used.

Best,

CJD

Ruhan

You said that I was completely incorrect, without substantiating your argument. That was my point which you missed.

Maybe in evangelical apologetic circles but not in general academia.

You are confusing influence with dictation. To say that Paul was influenced by neo-platonistic concept does not indicate that he was dictating neo-platonistic doctrines in his letters. It is also widely disputed whether Paul was referring to a physical or a spiritual resurrection. The flesh is certainly crucified and the spirit is certainly elevated in his texts.

In regards to his union with Christ, you are referring to a very specific interpretation of Paul's texts. In Galatians Paul (or his school) states that "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live..." and that certainly is very similar to the neo-platonistic view of divine union.

There certainly is enough evidence that there is a level of influence and you cannot prove that there was none. It's interesting that you are so vehemently opposed to this concept and its' obvious that you are approaching this topic not from a neutral, academic perspective but rather from a Christian apologetic perspective. You simply cannot conceded that there was a possible influence.

Paul as a Romanized Jew is not writing from a Palestinian Hebrew point of view. His whole message was that of inclusion and preaching to the Gentiles and his theology is much more Hellenistic than orthodox Judaism. As you know Peter and Paul did not see eye to eye on this and the Petrine school of thought was more traditional Judaism.

Lets' just say that no man thinks in a vacuum and leave it at that.

RvV

CJD

Fine by me. But I'm hardly playing the apologist. Most scholars today — evangelical or otherwise — do not take Fairweather's or Gilbert's theses (to use them as exemplars) seriously. I am well aware that there are folks who still cling to the old ideas, but they are not (I repeat, not) in the majority.

I also take issue with your relegating me to the Christian-apologetic shelf, and I do so for one simple reason: if we were to go iota for iota over the pertinent Pauline passages, you would find yourself lacking both in argument and in knowledge. I say this because you've regurgitated nothing but old, tired and baseless propositions.

Note, too, that I didn't write "you are completely incorrect"; I wrote, "No, neo-platonism didn't influence Paul's thinking, at least not to the extent you think it did." That's eminently balanced compared to what you are accusing me of. And, given that "neo-platonism" cannot be found before the third century, this is anachronistic anyway.

Of course not. It means (to me) that he was a man of his time, influenced by the world around him. The difference is, I know (based on his undisputed writings, if that will appease) that he was a hellinized JEW. You, on the other hand, want him to be a HELLINIZED jew. This, I contend, is untenable. Yes, it's a matter of emphasis, not of blinkered apologetics (this cuts both ways, Ruhan).

Hardly. It's disputed, alright, but not "widely."

And this has absolutely nothing to do with matter on the one hand, and wispy, ethereal 'substance' on the other. Now, you're the one making assertions here; let's see some text and commentary, if you please.

First, as discussed previously, it cannot be "neo-platonic." Second, unless you can find this in some thinker or popular thought in the first century, this is emphasized in Plotinus, who didn't live until the third century. He taught that philosophy, which is a way of life, if it is genuine, will lead us to become more aware of ourselves as having, beyond ordinary human experience, an eternal existence in a divine world of living intelligence, and that we are able to share in the everlasting return of that divine whole to unity with its origin, the One or Good.

You'll have to do better than what you've done above if you think the two thoughts are correlative. In short, you'll have to show why it's not primarily a Hebraic thought. After you give it go, I'll explain what I mean.

First, I wrote "not to the extent you wish." Second, I can show it, word-by-word, methodically and clearly (I'm not in the business of "proving"; I'm in the business of helping folks learn how to read).

What I am vehemently opposed to is regurgitated ignorance. No one is neutral, so give it a rest. What I'll concede is what I already have: "That Paul was a man of his time, influenced by the world around him." The question is, how much and by whom (or what). I contend it's primarily the social construct of Pharisaical Judaism(s), one that is deeply rooted in the symbolism of the TNK.

Yes, he was. See how easy this play-school thing is?

His message of gathering in the Gentiles into the covenant was motivated by his Jewish understanding that "the time had fully come." In other words, he saw his mission as that which was to be done when YHWH sent his messiah, that is, the fulfillment of Abraham's covenant. This, I am sure you see, is replete with orthodox-Jewish baggage.

Not seeing "eye to eye" is normal and expected in everyday life. What does it mean for your argument? Not as much as you want, I gather. No doubt there were disagreements, breaking of fellowship, etc., in this fledgling band of Jesus people, and, just like today, they probably were over matters described in terms of "traditional," "liberal," and the like. But again, Paul thought he was describing the 'what now?' or outcome of traditional Judaism. To be sure, others did not agree. But notice what they're arguing about: "What of Torah now that the Christ has come?" They are not arguing about anything that resembles Platonism, Ruhan. In other words, bringing up their differences is irrelevant, unless you intend to show that the differences and contentions were more a result of some supposed platonic influence rather than differences of opinion on where and how Torah fits into the picture.

Best,

CJD

guy_683930

This website right here is useful in deciding what kind of Platonic influence Paul had in his writings.

Beth Phillips

IMO, there is a great deal of Greek philosophical thought to be found in the NT: the omnipresence of the 'Logos' as first set forth by the pre-Socratic Heraclitus; the dualism of Platonic thought; the NT's remonstrations against Epicurianism and its reactive embracing of Stoic ideas; not to mention the similarities with the rituals of the Greek Mystery Traditions, e.g., the master washing the feet of the disciples, the symbolism of the bread and wine as body and blood, the death of the king/God to be replaced by the Son, the 3-day time period of incubation necessary in the 'death' of the old in order to achieve spiritual resurrection, etc.

But scattered thoughout the Republic, most especially Book VI, there are many similar ideas echoed in the NT, e.g., the whole idea of the philosopher king and the life of Jesus for starters---both may be born of humble birth, be very knowledgeable at a extraordinarily early age (even teaching his own teachers,) may be rebellious toward the traditions of his own people, would leave his hometown only to return to native hostility toward him. (See specifically 496b-e for some of these.)

Then there is the imagery of 'wearing a new garment' as a 'bridegroom' found in 495e, there is a parable of the sower in 497b-c, the idea of being 'born again' in 498d, of being in the 'likeness of God' is found in 501b, and of possibly being an offspring of a line of kings is in 502a-b.

There are certainly many more, and no, they are not exactly 'word for word', but many of the same ideas found in Plato (and other Greek philosophical ideas) are definately echoed in the NT. It is the whole idea of the philosopher king, however, that was so provocative to me, that I began to read the dialogues from a different perspective and realized the NT could well have been an exposition of Platontic thought.

But then...this is all just my opinion!

Beth

p.s. Oh!...and how could I possibly forget!!! The writers of the NT Gospels and the Pauline Epistles both used the same literary style of bilingual proper name wordplay as the writer of the Platonic Dialogues!

JoyJuice

What about the author of Hebrews and the idea of the Tabernacle, the Law, and in a sense when one thinks about Jesus as superior to the Tanach, in consideration of the idea of Plato's analogy of the cave where these temporal are just the foreshadow of Christ.

Ruhan

I feel that most of what we are debating is not related to this discussion and/or are pure semantics. The original question was what influence Platonic thought had on Christianity. You are arguing that "Neo-Platonism" could not have influenced Paul as it was only established in the 3rd century under Plotinus. You are technically correct, however history is not written in black and white. We did not have a line drawn in the sand by Plotinus stating that here Platonism ends and Neo-Platonism starts. There was a progression of Platonic thought which eventually culminated in Plotinus' school of thought. Some concepts found within Neo-Platonism were however established in 1st century Rome. My argument is that these influenced Paul.


Regards,

RvV

Clivedurdle

Oh no, it wasn't the Caesar's, but Platonic followers who wrote the NT! (BTW Eat drink for tomorrow we die - isn't that a parody of Epicurus?)

CJD

No. I am arguing that platonism did not exert as much of an influence on Paul as you might think. Getting all technical about neo-platonism was just a way for us to get more precise with the words we were using. I certainly understand how Plotinus' thought is a culmination of what preceded it. My argument is that these did not influence Paul to the extent some folks think it did. I think what has to be shown first is what I already mentioned above: "In short, you'll have to show why [Paul's thought] is not primarily Hebraic."

I'm not talking about the absence of Greek philosophical thought in the writings of the NT, I'm talking about how that thought ought not be over-emphasized when discerning the author's intent. In other words, Greek philosophical thought cannot be used (or rather is unable to be) to straight-jacket the writings of the NT that normally are. In practical terms, this means not starting with the notion that Paul could not have been teaching about a bodily resurrection because he was heavily influenced by platonism. He was a pharisee, one who prided himself on his zealotry and traditionalism. Thus, we should start with the TNK and how that informed his writing on this matter — not the Republic (or whatever).

Best,

CJD