Platonism and Christianity

Brother Dave writes,

I'm re-reading Boethius' Consolation. Boethius does have a foot in Athens and one in Jerusalem, it seems to me. Now you sir are a Christian, and argue your positions in a blog subtitled Footnotes to Plato . . . .  Would it be fair to refer to you, as I would to Boethius, as a Christian Platonist?

As for whether I am a Platonist,  all of us who uphold the Western (Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman) tradition are Platonists broadly construed if Alfred North Whitehead is right in his observation that:

The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.  I do not mean the systematic scheme of thought which scholars have doubtfully extracted from his writings.  I allude to the wealth of general ideas scattered through them.  [. . .] Thus in one sense by stating my belief that the train of thought in these lectures is Platonic, I am doing no more than expressing the hope that it falls within the European tradition. (Process and Reality, Corrected Edition, The Free Press, 1978, p. 39)

So in that general sense I am a Platonist.  And I also like the modesty conveyed by "footnotes to Plato."  Some say the whole of philosophy is a battle between Plato and Aristotle.  That is not bad as simplifications go, and if you forced me to choose, I would throw in my lot with Plato and the Platonists.  So that is a more specific sense in which I provide "footnotes to Plato." 

As for Platonism and Christianity, you could refer to me fairly as a Christian Platonist. But what does that come to?

Part of what it means for me is that a de-Hellenized Christianity is of no interest.  Christianity is a type of monotheism. The monotheistic claim is not merely that there is one god as opposed to many gods.  Monotheism as I see it overturns the entire pantheon; it does not reduce its membership to one god, the tribal god of the Jews. Monotheism does of course imply that there is exactly one God, but it also implies that God is the One, and that therefore God is unique, and indeed uniquely unique.  To understand that you will have to follow the link and study the entry to which it leads. Now if God is uniquely unique, then God is not a being among beings, but Being itself.  He is not an ens among entia, but esse: ipsum esse subsistens.  Kein Seiendes, sondern das Sein selbst.

Now we are well up into the Platonic stratosphere. Jerusalem needs Athens if theism is not to degenerate into a tribal mythology. (That Athens needs Jerusalem is also true, but not my present theme.)

I don't believe I am saying anything different from what Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict  XVI) says in his Introduction to Christianity (Ignatius, 2004, orig. publ. in German in 1968).  Here is one relevant quotation among several:

The Christian faith opted, we have seen, against the gods of the various religions and in favor of the God of the philosophers, that is, against the myth of custom and in favor of the truth of Being itself and nothing else. (142) 

Writing of the unity of belief and thought, Ratzinger tells us that

. . . the Fathers of the Church believed that they had discovered here the deepest unity between philosophy and faith, Plato and Moses, the Greek mind and the biblical mind. (118)

Plato and Moses!  The God of the philosophers and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are one and the same.

The problematic is rich and many-sided. More later.

Comments

[Tom]

Dr. BV,

I've seen you refer to the God of the OT as tribal or sectarian before. I think I understand why you say this. It is peculiar that such a unique and absolute being would concern himself so intimately with one people group. But of course, the standard reply will be that Israel's prominence is merely instrumental for the salvation of mankind in general. Nevertheless, referring to God as tribal rubs me the wrong way since it seems like a 'character flaw' of some sort. And I've also just never thought of God in those terms.

But maybe you don't intend 'tribal' to be a flaw on God's part? Someone might say, "So what if the God of the OT acts like a tribal God? It's God's prerogative to favour whomever he wishes and to bring to prominence whomever he wants in order to further his ends". That certain aspects of the bible offend our modern-day egalitarian sensibilities matters very little to God.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on this matter.

[Lindsay Wheeler]

I refer all and sundry to Prof. Jerry Dell Ehrlich's book, Plato's Gift to Christianity where he lays out that Plato laid the intellectual groundwork and ideas for Christianity. Plato is really the Intellectual founder of Christianity.

A second witness is my teacher Archimandrite Boniface Luykx who said "Christianity Hellenized". This before Ehrlich produced his book. Fr. Luykx was first a Norbertine priest who became a Catholic Ukranian uniate.

And I have a paper that shows the linkage between Plato and Christ, "Christ the Logos, Font of Greek Philosophy"
https://www.academia.edu/1619469/

Philosophy is derived from Nature---and the Cosmos was made thru Jesus Christ. (all references are in the paper.)

Plato's teacher was Socrates and Socrates was an adherent, disciple and admirer of the Spartans. It is not Athens that is the home of Greek philosophy---but Sparta. Socrates said so in the Protagoras. Why was Socrates barefoot for which was a Spartan custom---not Ionian? Platonic philosophy is really Doric philosophy. I see Aristotle as a philosopher---but as a Technician of Metaphysics. He was a doctor. Sparta not Athens is where Plato came to have philosophy. Philosophy is a Doric thing.

[Brother Dave]

Did Jesus know that God is simple?

[BV]

Bro Dave,

No, he wasn't a philosopher. That great intellect, G. W. Bush, was manifestly mistaken on this point.

[BV]

Tom,

My point wasn't that God is tribal, but that our conception of God ought not be tribal. Now the Psalms are very rich and very deep; I've read them with Benedictine monks at a monastery of theirs in the high desert of New Mexico. But I get the distinct impression from many of the Psalms that the god of the Jews is a projection of their tribalism who serves an immanent function and whom they invoke to smite their enemies, etc. The impression of God conveyed at EX 3, 14 is what get me to sit up and take notice. HE WHO IS is no tribal god.

[Tom]

Dr. BV,

Understood. So, you would say that the Jewish conception of God is, at times, tribal. But God himself is not tribal. I would agree. But in so far as the OT is the inspired word of God (let's assume), how do we pry apart the Jewish conception from the truth about what God actually is? In other words, if we accept the OT as inspired then how do we reject the tribalistic aspects of it? That is the issue I'm struggling with.

[BV]

Tom,

This may help: https://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2018/12/is-everything-in-the-bible-literally-true.html

[Tom]

Great, thanks!