[ Back ] [ Home ] [ Up ] [ Next ]

Plato’s Successors

The Older Academy

Circa 347-325 B.C. 

“Plato’s successors in leading the Academy (par.61) are his nephew Speusippus (until ca. 339 b.c.), Xenocrates of Chalcedon (until ca. 314 b.c.), Polemon of Athens (until ca. 275 b.c.), and Crates of Athens (until ca. 168 b.c.).  Relying upon Plato’s unwritten doctrines, Speusippus develops a mathematical ontology.  Its principles are the One that stands beyond being and the Many that populate the beings [i.e., philosophic Monism]”  (Ricken, Philosophy of the Ancients, p. 119).

Sound familiar?  “There is one God, and that one God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  They are distinct, but not separate.... Therefore, God is everything we can conceive of and more!” (Joseph W. Tkach Sr., July 27, 1993.) 

“The realms of being are the mathematical numbers, the mathematical shapes, the soul (World-Soul), and the perceivable bodies.  They are created when the One determines and limits the Many.  The One and the Many are to be seen as analogous but different principles on each level.  Speusippus ordered the entire reality according to the “relation of genus and species, applying Plato’s method of collect and division (par. 96f) consistently”  (Ricken, Philosophy of the Ancients, p. 119).

Continuing with Ricken’s summary of the Older Academy:

“Xenocrates exercised great influence on the further development of Platonism and the Stoics.  He was the first one to order philosophy into physics, ethics, and logic.  ...Like Speusippus his ontology is oriented toward Plato’s unwritten doctrines.  The form-numbers, the mathematical, the realm of the stars, the soul, and finally the perceivable bodies underneath the moon follow the principles.  ...Taking off from the Timaeus [Plato’s dialogue on the origins and nature of the universe], Xenocrates distinguishes three cosmological causes:  the Forms as original patterns, the demiurge, and matter.  Via allegories he combines the philosophical worldview with mythical religion” (Ibid, pp. 119-120). 

Middle Platonism Circa 130 B.C. to 200 A.D.

The Pagan Origins of Jewish Monotheism

The Trinity of the One 

“...Antiochus [of Ascalon (ca. 130-68 b.c.] cannot, however be seen as the founder of Middle Platonism because the later Plato’s and the early Academy’s theory of principles is not to be found in his philosophy.  Eudorus of Alexandria [Egypt] (dec. ca. 25 b.c.) does, however, tie in with this theory.  He prepares the way for Plotinus’ monism [monotheism] and the theory of hypostases:

the One is the cause of everything, even matter.

He distinguishes between the first [One]

and

the second One. ...” (Ricken, Philosophy of the Ancients, University of Notre Dame Press, 1991, p. 229).

Sound familiar?  “There is one God, and that one God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  They are distinct, but not separate.... Therefore, God is everything we can conceive of and more!” (Joseph W. Tkach Sr., July 27, 1993.)

Philo of Alexandria

“The Hellenistic Jew Philo (ca. 25 b.c.—ca. 50 a.d.) also taught in Alexandria.  He connects Jewish monotheism with Platonic theology by means of his allegorical interpretation of the Bible, especially of Genesis.  God is the transcendent One and the cause of all being.  Matter is created.  God orders it by giving it his son, the logos, who penetrates, forms, and holds it together as a mediator of creation in the manner of the Stoic pneuma.  The divine logos is the pattern for human reason.  The forms are God’s thoughts; logos is the Form of Forms.  

“Like Philo, Plutarch of Chaeronea (ca. 45 -- ca. 125 a.d.) [a priest of Apollo], well known due to his biographies and moral works, is not a systematic thinker.  Again, like the former, he emphasized the transcendence of God.  The causes of the world which came to be in time are, tying in with the Timaeus, the demiurge, the Forms, and matter.  Plutarch recognizes a good and an evil World-Soul.  Matter is neutral.  His religious interest is revealed in an extensive demonology and teaching of reincarnation”(Ricken, Philosophy of the Ancients, University of Notre Dame Press, 1991, pp. 229-230).

The Basilidian Trinity of Gnosticism Circa 138 - 161 A.D. 

“Clement of Alexandria (Stomata 7.17) says that Basilides, from whom the Basilidians took their name, arose under Hadrian (A.D. 117-138) and continued under Antoninus Pius (138-161); Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses 1.24.1) and Eusebius (Church History 4.7.3) place him in Alexandria.  ...According to Clement [of Alexandria], the hypothesis advanced by Basilides was that the soul that has sinned in a previous existence is punished by suffering in this life,... Basilides taught that there is an unborn and nameless Father, from whom proceeded by emanation a whole series of principalities and angels, who occupy 365 heavens.... The chief of these angels is thought to be the God of the Jews.  This God desired to make the other nations subject to his own people; hence the other nations resisted him and were at enmity with his nation.  The Father, therefore, sent his first-begotten Nous (... “mind”) --who is called Christ....He did not suffer death....Simon of Cyrene, who bore his cross, was transformed to look like him, and was crucified....Jesus received the form of Simon...Then he ascended, invisibly, to him who sent him” (Finegan, Myth & Mystery, pp. 222-223).

“...Basilides [also] taught that there was a time when there was nothing.  Since there was nothing.  God himself was “nonexistent.”  Then the nonexistent God made a nonexistent universe out of what was nonexistent.  He “hypostatized” or caused to subsist a certain single seed that contained in itself the entire mixture of all the seeds of the universe.  In the seed was a threefold sonship, in every respect of the same substance with the nonexistent God.  Of this threefold sonship, one portion was composed of fine particles, one of coarse particles, and one was in need of cleansing.  The fine portion ascended to the nonexistent one, being drawn, as is each being in its own way, by his exceedingly great beauty and loveliness.  The coarse portion was not able to hurry upward, and therefore equipped itself with the Holy Spirit like a wing.  But the Holy Spirit was not of the same substance as the sonship, and so was eventually left behind by this second ascending portion of sonship.  Thereupon the Holy Spirit became a firmament between the hypersosmos and the cosmos, that is, between the supermundane realm and the universe.  The third portion of the sonship, which needed cleansing, remained meanwhile in the great heap of the mixture of the seeds of the universe, where it both conferred and received benefits” (Finegan, Myth & Mystery, pp. 223-224).

“At this point there was begotten from the cosmic seed-mixture the Great Archon, the Head of the universe, who is of inexpressible beauty, magnitude, and power.  He rose to the firmament, did not suppose that there was anything beyond, and did not know that the sonship remaining in the seed-mixture was wiser than he; therefore he considered himself the wise architect and proceeded to create every part of the universe.  He begot a son, wiser than himself, and seated him at his right hand.  The Archon may also be called the Demiurge (..., “craftsman, maker, creator”), and the place of his throne is called the Ogdoad (the Eight).  Another Archon then arose out of the seed-mixture.  His place is called the Hebdomad (the Seven).  He also made a son who was wiser than himself.  The whole universe was now finished, as well as the hypercosmic things, but the third sonship that had been left in the seed-mixture still needed to be reinstated above.  So the gospel came into the universe...” (Finegan, Myth & Mystery, p. 224).

“Albinus (second century a.d.) and Apuleius of Madura (born ca. 123 a.d.) are attributed, according to several scholars, to a common school founded by Gaius, the teacher of Albinus.  Albinus’ Didaskalikos (Outline of Platonic Philosophy) combines Platonic with Aristotelian and Stoic teachings.  He recognizes two triads:  matter, Forms, and the first God that corresponds to the Timaeus’ demiurge; and the first God [God the Theos or Father], whose ineffability he emphasizes, the Intelligence [the Logos or Son], and the World-Soul [the Pneuma or the Holy Spirit].  Albinus distinguishes a twofold concept of Forms.  The immaterial (Platonic) Forms are God’s thoughts; their copies are (Aristotelian) forms bound to matter.  Clearer than in Albinus, Plotinus’ theory of hypostases is anticipated by Apuleius’ triad (De dogmate Platonis) ‘first God, Intelligence and Forms, Soul.’  Here as in Plotinus the original forms are clearly assigned to the second principle”  (Ricken, Philosophy of the Ancients, p. 230).

The Chaldean Oracles of Julian the Chaldaean

Rome Circa 150-160 A.D. 

“In the time of Antoninus Pius (A.D. 138-161) [Pope and Bishop of Rome] and Marcus Aurelius (161-180) [Stoic Emperor of Rome] Julian the Chaldaean (from his Mesopotamian homeland) and his son Julian the Theurgist (..., meaning “worker of divine things”) taught in Rome.  Their doctrines are set forth in the so-called Chaldaean Oracles, which are known in many fragments quoted by Proclus (A.D. 410-485) and others, chiefly of the Neoplatonic school, no doubt because of recognized affinities in thought [see Hans Lewy, Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy: Mysticism, Magic, and Platonism in the Later Roman Empire]. 

In the Chaldaean Oracles there is much about the sun, the planetary spheres, and the like, which probably reflects Persian, Babylonian, and Syrian backgrounds.  There is agreement with Plato in such items as Father (pater) for the name of the Supreme Being (e.g., Plato, Timaeus 28c), the supreme place of intuitive knowledge (see Plato, Republic 508d: “When [the soul] is firmly fixed on the domain where truth and reality shine resplendent it apprehends and knows them”), and the conception of the “leading up” ... of the soul through the heavens (see Republic 515e, 517b, 521b, 521c, where Plato used the same and related terms for the soul’s ascent to the contemplation of pure being).

In connection with the “leading up” of the soul there were evidently also rites of initiation in the Chaldaean mysteries.  In his Commentary on Plato’s Republic Proclus states that his teacher Syrianos said that the rites of sacrifice offered by Achilles at the funeral pyre of Patroclos (in the Iliad 23.192-225) “imitate” ... the “immortalization of the soul” ...performed by the Chaldaean theurgists” (Finegan, Myth & Mystery, pp.202-203).

Atticus, the Demiurge and the Evil World-Soul (176 A.D.) 

“Whereas Albinus assumes a fundamental correspondence between Plato and Aristotle, Atticus (around 176 a.d.) is an orthodox Platonist who sharply criticizes Aristotle and all attempts of harmonizing him with Plato.  Aristotle denied the immateriality and the immortality of the soul, probably with his teaching of entelechy (par. 168).  Aristotle’s theology of the unmoved mover does not admit providence and is thus a form of atheism.  In his Timaeus interpretation Atticus assumes an uncreated matter that is held in chaotic motion by the evil World-Soul.  The demiurge gives the Forms to matter and intelligence to the evil World-Soul”  (Ricken, Philosophy of the Ancients, p. 230).

The Trinity of Pythagoras

“Authors and pseudoepigraphs that stem from the Pythagorean tradition reveal similarities with the Middle Platonism.  Moderatus of Gnades (first century a.d.) claims that Plato, Aristotle, and the early Academy stole all of their most important teachings from Pythagoras.  According to him there is a first, a second, and a third One [monotheism]. 

The first One is beyond ousia, or being;

the second [One] is to be equated with the Forms;

the third [One], the Soul, participates in the first and second.”  (Ricken, Philosophy of the Ancients, pp. 230-231).

Sound familiar?  “There is one God, and that one God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  They are distinct, but not separate.... Therefore, God is everything we can conceive of and more!” (Joseph W. Tkach, Sr., July 27, 1993.)

The Pagan Philosopher Numenius

A Trinitarian Catholic Father 

“Nicomachus of Gerasa (second century a.d.) equates numbers and deities in his Arithmetic Theology.  Numenius’ (second century a.d.) proximity to Plotinus is testified to by Plotinus being accused of plagiarizing his works (Porphyrios, Vita Plot., par.82).  Theology, Numenius claims in his work On the Good, must originate back beyond Plato to Pythagoras and integrate the teachings of the Brahman, the Jews, magicians, and Egyptians (Fr. 1a).  Plato is nothing other than an “attic speaking Moses” (Fr. 8).  Numenius’ first god is only related to itself.  The second and third gods are only two different functions of the next hypostasis [again, philosophic Monotheism—a Monotheistic Trinity].  It contemplates the Forms in the first god, and it combines with matter in order to give the Forms to it, and in doing so loses its unity (Fr. 11)”  (Ricken, Philosophy of the Ancients, p. 231).

Neoplatonism Circa 200 - 600 A.D.

Ammonius Saccas

175-250 A.D.

Founder of Neoplatonism

“The founder of Neoplatonism is considered to be Ammonius Saccas (c. A.D. 175-250), who was a teacher of philosophy at Alexandria [Egypt].  ...Along with Plotinus a Neoplatonist named Origen and the Christian writer Origen (Eusebius, Church History 6.19.6) were also hearers of Ammonius Saccas.  Their teacher required of them that they should not disclose his revelations, and Ammonius Saccas left no writings of his own, so little is directly known of him and his doctrines.  It is evident, however, that he was of great influence upon Plotinus, who became the first major writer of Neoplatonic doctrine”  (Finegan, Myth & Mystery, p. 179).

Origen

Neoplatonism And the Chaldean Numenius 

“In Egypt, Origen (c.  A.D. 185-254), who became the head of the Christian catechetical school at Alexandria, was, according to Porphyry (quoted by Eusebius, Church History 6.19-1-14), at one time a hearer of Ammonius Saccas, and was continually studying Plato and busying himself with the writings of Numenius (a Syrian philosopher [and early Catholic Church Father] who also influenced Plotinus) [Numenius was a Chaldean by birth] and other Greek philosophers.  While Origen (to be distinguished from a contemporary Neoplatonist of the same name) was not officially a Neoplatonist [officially he was a Stoic philosopher], he entertained many similar views—due to the influence of which Greek Christianity was always more Neoplatonic than Latin Christianity” (Finegan, Myth & Mystery, p. 180).

“Neoplatonism is the dominating philosophy of the late ancient period.  From the last decades of the third century a.d. Plato and Aristotle are handed down and commented on by Neoplatonists.  Until the beginning of the nineteenth century Plato was interpreted for the most part Neoplatonically.  Beginning with apologetics in the second century up to the recovery of Aristotle since the middle of the twelfth century Christian philosophy and theology are influence by Middle and Neoplatonism.  Neoplatonism is connected with Stoicism by its religious interest.  Especially the Stoic concept of logos is integrated into the Platonic system.  Plotinus’ philosophy, especially the teaching of the three hypostases—namely, the One, the Intelligence, and the Soul [this is the basic Monotheism of Joseph Tkach]-- had the way prepared for it by Middle Platonism beginning in the first century b.c., which ties in with the later Plato’s and the early Academy’s theory of principles as well as with the Timaeus’ creation myth.  Neoplatonism, and along with it ancient philosophy, ends in the West with the closing of the Academy in Athens by Emperor Justinian I in the year 529 [a.d.] and in the East with the Arabian conquest of Alexandria in the year 642 [a.d.]” (Ibid, page 227).

Sound familiar?  “There is one God, and that one God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  They are distinct, but not separate....Therefore, God is everything we can conceive of and more!” (Joseph W. Tkach Sr., July 27, 1993.)

Plotinus The Chaldean 205-270 A.D.

Interpreter of Plato

“.... Plotinus was born in 205 b.c. A.D.; place of birth and nation are unknown.  When twenty-eight years old he turned to philosophy and found a teacher in Ammonius Saccas, who impressed him so much that he stayed with him eleven years.  We know about Ammonius only that he maintained the immateriality of the soul and the fundamental correspondence between Plato and Aristotle.  In 243 Plotinus joined Emperor Gordian III’s Persian expedition in order to become acquainted with Persian and Indian philosophies.  This information has caused a discussion about whether oriental influences can be found in Plotinus’ philosophy.  This is to be denied; Plotinus stands in the Greek tradition.  In the beginning of 244 Gordian was murdered in Mesopotamia.  Plotinus then went to Rome, and there he began to give lectures at the age of forty.  ...To precisely this demonic man [reports Porphyry of Plotinus’ religiousness], when he rose to the first transcendent God on the path that Plato described in the Symposium, appeared the God who has no shape or form and is enthroned above the Intelligence and the whole intelligible world [...] it was namely his goal and target to be close to and one with the God that is above all; during the time that I was with him he attained this goal four times due to his ineffable power” (chap.23)” (Ricken, Philosophy of The Ancients,  pp. 232-233).

“.... Plotinus unified the elements of Middle Platonic philosophy into an organic unity due to his own personal experience.  He utilizes the language of the Platonic-Aristotelian metaphysics in order to portray his own mystical experience with these means.  It follows from the combination of metaphysics and mysticism that Plotinus’ philosophy combines two perspectives with each other.  On the one hand he stands in the tradition of Greek cosmology.  Like the pre-Socratics and Aristotle, he inquires into the first causes in the universe.  The path to God for him is an ascent in the series of causes.  The other perspective consists in this ascent simultaneously being the path to oneself, into the heart of one’s soul.  The three hypostases—Soul, Intelligence, and the One—are found not only in the cosmos but also in individual human beings.  One can certainly find intimations for this perspective in Plato and Aristotle, but it is only expressly developed by Plotinus for the first time, who thus prepares the way for idealism.  For Plotinus cosmology and metaphysical psychology are only two different ways of looking at one and the same reality” (Ricken, Philosophy of The Ancients, p. 234).

“.... The soul is “what something is”: it is what a human being is, its human beingness, its form.  As such it is primary being in a first sense when compared with matter and the composite substance.  At the same time the form of visible substances that the soul perceives is the cause of beauty”  (Ricken, Philosophy of The Ancients, p. 235).

“.... The Intelligence is not form but is rather the producer of all forms.  Plotinus compares the soul with the matter and the Intelligence with the artist.  The soul possesses, as we saw, the undivided forms.  It can only know because it is capable of grasping the individual, distinct forms.  The intelligence is the original unity in which the forms are not yet distinct from each other.  Differentiation only begins when it imprints them on the soul, as the artist does to matter” (Ricken, Philosophy of The Ancients,  p. 237).

“The Intelligence does not create the cosmos in the same manner as an artist or craftsman does a product.  The latter deliberate and decide to produce something.  The Intelligence, however, creates the cosmos as necessarily as the sun does light or an object produces its reflection or shadow.  From this it follows that the cosmos is eternal like the Intelligence” (Ricken, Philosophy of The Ancients,  p. 238).

“Not only being beautiful but also being the One is a transcendental predicate of being according to Plotinus.  “All being,” work VI, 9 The Good (The One) begins, which we shall follow initially, “is a being through the One. ...The Intelligence is being in the proper sense; it is the entirety of being.  Being is conceived of from the perspective of predication.  It can be said what being is, and this assertion reveals a plurality in any case.  Therefore the One cannot be a being.  It is eidosless and is in this sense nothingness.  ...The One is neither a something nor a being.  It does not fall under the categories of quantity or quality.  It is neither moving nor at rest, neither in space nor in time. When we say that it is the cause of everything, we are not saying what it is in itself; we are merely uttering an assertion about our relation to the One. 

“But how do we have access to it nonetheless?  It is the last point of retreat to which all life acts return and in which they come together such as “everything depends on it, looking up to which everything lives and thinks; for it is the cause of life, thought, and being” (I, 6, $33).  “For all things aspire to it, they drive toward it, forced by their natures, as if they intuited that they could not be without it.  ...The rising forth of the Intelligence from the One corresponds to that of light from the sun.  Like the sun’s light, the Intelligence is the expression of the perfection of the One.  Light is necessarily there as long as the sun exists.  Thus the Intelligence and the Soul are eternal and necessary like the One.  But just as the light cannot be without the sun, the Intelligence and the Soul cannot be without the One.  The Intelligence has the faculty of love in addition to that of thinking.  Thinking can only grasp what is in the Intelligence.  Only love is capable of touching the Good that lies beyond the Intelligence (VI, 7, $273).  This encounter cannot be achieved due to one’s own power alone; human beings can only prepare themselves and wait until it appears (V, 5, $53).  Then the Soul becomes one with the One “by having the midpoints touch.”  The union is no viewing “but rather another mode of sight: moving out of oneself, making oneself simple and sacrificing”(VI, 9, $71-76) “ (Ricken, Philosophy of The Ancients, pp. 239-242).

Porphyry The Chaldean 232-305 A.D. 

“Porphyry (A.D. 232-305), born in Syria and disciple of Plotinus in Rome, was the editor and biographer of Plotinus, and the author of a polemic Against the Christians (condemned to be burned by the emperor Theodosius II in A.D. 435) and of other works, including an introduction (Isagoge) to and commentary on Aristotle’s Categories.  Due to the influence of this last work Aristotle became the accepted logician of Neoplatonism, as Plato was the accepted theologian.  Augustine cites another work by Porphyry under the title Philosophy from Oracles (perhaps the same work as On the Return of the Soul).  Augustine feels that Porphyry improves upon both Plato and Plotinus in that Porphyry holds that human souls return only into human bodies (not those of animals) and that at last “the purified soul returns to the Father, that it may never more be entangled in the polluting contact with evil” (City of God 10:30; 12.20).

“In Auxiliaries to the Perception of Intelligibles, Porphyry writes about soul and body in a way reminiscent of the words of the Orphic hymn to Death about “the vivid folds by which the soul, attracting body holds” (p. l74): ‘ That which nature binds, nature also dissolves; and that which the soul binds, the soul likewise dissolves.  Nature, indeed, bound the body to the soul, but the soul binds herself to the body. Nature therefore liberates the body from the soul; but the soul liberates herself from the body.  Hence there is a twofold death:  the one, indeed, universally known in which the body is liberated from the soul; but the other peculiar to philosophers, in which the soul is liberated from the body; nor does the one always attend the other ‘ “ (Finegan, Myth & Mystery, p. 179).

Iamblichus The Chaldean 250-325 A.D.     

“Iamblichus (c. A.D. 250-325) was born at one of the towns named Chalcis in Syria, studied under Porphyry, and afterward returned to Syria to establish his own school (at either Apamea or Daphne, both near Antioch).  He was the author of commentaries on Aristotle and Plato, and of many other books, some extant, some known only in fragments or from references.  Of his work it has been said that “he began the attempt to build upon a Neoplatonic basis a complete and coherent theology encompassing all the rites, myths and divinities of later syncretistic paganism” (Finegan, Myth & Mystery, Baker Book House, 1989, p. 181).

Iamblichus and Pythagoras Worshippers of the Sun 

“... in his Life of Pythagoras Iamblichus says that Pythagoras ‘divinely healed and purified the soul, resuscitated and saved its divine part, and conducted to the intelligible its divine eye, which, as Plato says [Republic 527d-e], is better worth saving than ten thousand corporeal eyes; for by looking through this alone, when it is strengthened and clarified by appropriate aids, the truth pertaining to all beings is perceived’ “ (Finegan, Myth & Mystery, p. 181).

“The school of Neoplatonism founded by Iamblichus in Syria was later moved to Pergamum [headquarters for the Chaldean Mysteries], and one of its leaders, Maximus of Smyrna, was the chosen master of the emperor Julian (A.D. 361-363; see p. 210), who was converted from Christianity to Neoplatonism and thus, from the Christian point of view, called the “apostate.”  Probably also to be identified with the Pergamene school was Sallust, whose On the Gods and the World may have been prepared for Julian.  In this world Sallust distinguishes four kinds of myth in which symbolic thought is embodied (theological, psychological, natural, and mixed), and makes it plain that it is only to speak after common custom if “we call the orb of the sun and its rays the Sun itself.”  After the death of Julian, and with the restoration of Christianity as the state religion, the Pergamene school came to an end” (Finegan, Myth & Mystery, pp. 183-184).

[ Back ] [ Home ] [ Up ] [ Next ]