Panagiotis G. Pavlos, Lars Fredrik Janby, Eyjólfur Kjalar Emilsson, and
Torstein Theodor Tollefsen (eds.), Platonism and Christian Thought in Late
Antiquity. Studies in Philosophy and Theology in Late Antiquity. London
and New York, Routledge 2019, 315 p.1
                                                                      Viktor Ilievski*

Platonism and Christian Thought in Late Antiquity (henceforward PCTLA) is
an edited volume, produced by the joint efforts of P. G. Pavlos, L. F. Janby,
E. K. Emillson and T. T. Tollefsen. The book is divided into four parts that
bear the titles “Methodologies”, “Cosmology”, “Metaphysics” and “Ethics”
respectively. Parts I, II and IV are comprised of three chapters each, while
Part III contains twice as many, i.e., six.
       Part I has its opening with Sébastien Morlet’s contribution (chap. 1),
which aims to demonstrate how some early Christian authors – starting with
Justin Martyr (cca. 100-165) and ending with Eusebius of Caesarea (cca.
260-340) – perceived the status and value of Platonism from the confines of
their own theological convictions. Beside these two luminaries, Morlet also
explores the opinions of Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria and Origen.
Unlike other early Christian authors (mentioned are Tatian, Theophilus,
Tertullian, Hippolytus) the former had somewhat positive attitude towards
Platonism and took Plato to be “the philosopher who best approached the
truth” (p. 17). Although, as mere mortals, Plato and his followers (as well
as the other “enlightened” Greek philosophers) were ultimately bound to
remain misguided, their approximations to and affinities with the Chris-
tian doctrine are explained by the conjectures that they either a) have had
access to the Scripture, or b) might have participated in the same Logos
as the Christians, or c) might have been, at moments, divinely inspired.
This chapter also offers a very neat and informative overview of what the
Christians thought were points of agreement between the Revelation and
Platonism. Christina Hoenig (chap. 2) focuses on what St. Augustine saw
as Plato´s prophecy of Christ´s divinity, incarnation and his mediating role
between the temporal and eternal realms. St. Augustine not only found an
anticipatory Christological account in the Timaeus 29c, but also, as Hoenig
discloses, utilized it in the attempt to rebut both the anti-Christian argu-
ments of some later Platonists and the Homoian (or Acacian) heresy. One of

*
  Viktor Ilievski, research fellow, Universidad Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona. Campus
UAB – Building B, Room B7/1140, 08193, Bellaterra (Cerdanyola de Vallès), España,
viktor.ilievski@uab.cat.
1
  This review has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and
innovation programme under grant agreement No 758145.

RES 11 (3/2019), p. 499-507                         DOI: 10.2478/ress-2019-0036
Book Reviews / Buchrezensionen

the upshots of St. Augustine argumentation is the claim that later Platonism
actually distorted the Master´s teachings. Christine Hecht (chap. 3) explores
Eusebius’ attitudes to Porphyry’s daemonology and oracular interpretations,
by examining the passages of the latter’s lost work Philosophia ex Oraculis,
quoted in the former’s Preparatio Evangelica. Hecht argues that Eusebius
purposefully misrepresented Porphyry’s ideas, in order to demonstrate the
superiority of the rising Christian religion over the pagan one. His strategy
boils down to the contention that Porphyry’s gods are not only not divine,
but even positively evil entities.
        Part II of the volume commences with Enrico Moro’s survey of the
Patristic reception of some eminently Greek philosophical concepts, i.e.,
those of prime matter and beginningless sensible world (chap. 4). The au-
thor acknowledges that there is a great divide between the rival (Neo)platon-
ic and Christian cosmological models, with emanationism and creationism
on the opposing sides, but also points out that the Early Church Fathers’
approach – at least on the issue of prime matter – was not as clear-cut as one
could surmise: although rejecting what they thought have been the Platonic
view, they nevertheless extensively used the notion of matter as a formless,
qualityless substratum. This chapter illuminates the reflections on matter
and creation of Origen, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose and Au-
gustine. Chapter five is authored by Eyjólfur Kjalar Emilsson and contains
a discussion on Plotinus’s stance on matter as the origin of evil. The author
delineates Plotinus’ theory of evil (as given in Enn. I.8), presents the gist of
Proclus’ criticism from De malorum subsistentia, and offers a defense of the
Plotinian position. His conclusion is that Plotinus furnished a consistent
theory of matter-evil and that at least the regular Proclean objections against
it miss the mark. Torstein Theodor Tollefsen (chap. 6) treats a question that
had been a subject of heated debates for Plato’s immediate successors and the
Middle Platonists – whether his cosmos had a beginning in time or not. By
the advent of Plotinus and the latter Neoplatonic the question was settled,
and in favour of the adherents to the allegorical reading of the Timaeus’
creation story. Tollefsen contrasts the result of this ancient dispute with the
Christian doctrine of creation in time, and, after noting that both theories
share a common denominator – i.e. the acceptance of an eternal paradigm
of the universe present in the divine nous – proceeds to explicate John Philo-
ponus’ and Maximus the Confessor’s reactions to Proclus’ arguments for the
eternity of the world.
       Part III of the volume opens with Lars Fredrik Janbi’s discussion of
St. Augustine’s reflections on the nature of number, against the backdrop of
some Neopythagorean and Neoplatonic metaphysical claims regarding the


500
                                                  Book Reviews / Buchrezensionen

same subject (chap. 7). The author establishes that Augustine’s philosophy of
number, especially in his early period, was rather penetrating. It gravitated
around the (inherited) problem of unity and multiplicity and the associated
one concerning the divide between intelligible and sensible realities. Augustine
also held that the Bible speaks of a cosmos organized by number, and even
associated the later with the figure of Christ. Daniel J. Tolan (chap. 8) brings to
the fore the similarity between Platonism and Christianity by focusing on the
notion of paradigmatic causality of the divine Ideas shared by both systems,
as well as on their common struggle against materialism and Gnosticism.
The author explores the theories of divine exemplarism as given by Plato,
Philo Judaeus, Clement, Origen, Plotinus and Athanasius, and argues that
both Platonists and Christians position the divine Ideas in the Mind of God.
His probably most provocative claim is that not only Christianity, but also
Platonism is essentially a monotheistic school of thought. Chapter 9, authored
by Panagiotis G. Pavlos, delves into the intricacies of Pseudo Dionysius’ concept
of theurgy. In it, the author argues that, despite similarities of terminology
and language (mostly borrowed from Proclus), Dionysius should not be read
Neoplatonically. This assertion is especially applicable to his theurgy, which
is radically different from the one cultivated in the Iamblichean tradition. For
Dionysius, the word “theurgy” refers “to the works of Christ in His earthly
historical presence, and … to the whole divine providential, creative … work of
God.” (p. 158). Dimitrios A. Vasilakis (chap. 10) discusses Pseudo Dionysius’
understanding of the term “hierarchy”, as developed in the latter’s Celestial
and Ecclesiastical Hierarchies. The author demonstrates that Dionysius utilizes
the word with a meaning that is different from the common one of order of
subordination and superiority; instead, with Christ as the supreme hierarch,
the hierarchical arrangement is meant to invite everyone to approach God.
Sebastian Mateiescu´s input (chap. 11) turns to the rather difficult issue of
universals, and focuses on the doctrine of immanent realism, as developed by
Maximus the Confessor. Before proceeding with Maximus, the author gives
an overview of the ancient views on universals, of the Cappadocian theory
of immanent realism, as well as of the disparate opinion of John Philoponus.
He points out that the novelty of Maximus’ theory consists in reinterpreting
the Aristotelian notion of differentia in both logical and metaphysical way
and applying the results on Christian cosmology and the dispute regarding
Christ’s two natures. Jordan Daniel Wood (chap. 12) discusses the difference
between the Platonic notion of participation (methexis), and the concept of
mutual interpenetration, or indwelling (perichōrēsis), as applied by Maximus
the Confessor to the Trinitarian dogma, as well as to his Christology and
eschatology. After dwelling for a while on Maximus’ primary source of


                                                                              501
Book Reviews / Buchrezensionen

inspiration – which is Cappadocian Trinitarian theology – Wood shows
that the disparity between methexis and perichōrēsis is indeed vast: while the
former is an asymmetric relation, the latter implies simultaneous identity,
interpenetration and distinction of the participating entities, even when those
are God and the perfected and deified human.
       The final, Fourth Part of PCTLA, commences with E. Brown
Dewhurst’s essay on the topic of knowledge of the Divine in Neoplatonism
and Christianity (chap. 13). Examining the cases of Proclus and Maximus
the Confessor, Dewhurst calls attention to the vast divergence between the
two coryphaei. Although both hold that the ability to know is rooted in the
knower’s nature, they differ on many crucial issues, like the understand-
ing of providence, apophaticism, Divine Grace, and, of course, the mediat-
ing role of Christ. Adrian Pirtea, in chapter 14, compares Porphyry’s and
Evagrius Ponticus’ theories of the origin of human passions (but also their
teachings on degrees of virtues). After examining some important aspects of
both, Pirtea points out the common elements, and concludes that they are
indeed very similar. Furthermore, he claims that Evagrius’ approach shares
Porphyry’s obvious rootedness in Platonic psychology, and that therefore it is
very likely that the former was directly influenced by the latter. Tomas Eken-
berg (chap. 15) argues that St. Augustine’s views on eudaimonia were much
more contiguous with the ancient Greek ones. However, instead of finding
Augustine’s source of inspiration in the Stoic or Peripatetic ethic, Ekenberg
turns to Epicurus. Noting the obvious discrepancies, like Augustine’s other-
worldly directedness and his belief that true happiness is not to be found in
pleasure or absence of pain, the author points out that he and Epicurus still
shares some common views. Such are the ideas that happiness is a state of
mind and the highest good, that virtue is the means to happiness, etc., which
are absent from the Stoic thought. Therefore, so far as he is a eudaemonist,
Augustine is allied to the Epicureans.
       After this somewhat longish report on its context, it is my pleasure to
state that PCTLA is indeed a fine and engaging compendium on an exciting
subject matter – the mutual relationship of Platonism and Christianity. I
also believe that at this juncture it is proper to share some thoughts on this
book that go beyond mere praise and appreciation. As complex and nuanced
the mutual social and intellectual interplay of the rising Christianity and
its pagan cultural receptacle must have been, and despite some recent cries
to the contrary,2 it seems that nowadays many scholars take very seriously
the assertion that the impact of Greek thought in general, and Neoplatonic

2
   See: Cornelia Johanna De Vogel, “Platonism and Christianity: A Mere Antagonism or a
Profound Common Ground?”, in: Vigiliae Christianae 39/1 (1985), p. 1-62.


502
                                                           Book Reviews / Buchrezensionen

in particular, on the early Christian authors was of a significant nature and
went beyond mere appropriation of philosophical lexicon.3
       Of course, there are not many theses or claims in history of ideas, or
in philosophy, that may be taken as conclusive and beyond doubt or emen-
dation. PCTLA professes to raise certain issues with regard to the above
conclusion,4 and accomplishes this task, among else, by presenting sever-
al interesting case-studies which demonstrate that beneath the superficial
similarity there lies a wide gulf of difference between the Platonist and the
Christian philosophers with regard to the usage, sense and aim of the al-
legedly shared Greek ideas and terminology. Or else, one could argue that
the volume rather explicates more precisely the modalities within which the
Platonic ideas came in contact with Christianity, and were modified by, but
also to a significant degree modified in return, the philosophical pursuits of
the early Christian thinkers.5 That much about the overall aim and scope of
the volume, as one may find them expressed in the Introduction.
       Passing on to the individual chapters, we shall proceed by following
their order of appearance in the series. I have only one, extremely minor,
comment to make on Morlet’s excellent chapter: when he lists the points of
agreement between Christianity and Plato, as identified by Origen (p. 20),
he proposes that the latter’s remark on resurrection (C. Cels. 5.21) might
have been inspired by Plato’s Myth of Er (while labeling his proposal with a
question mark, as a sign of doubt). Indeed, it seems to me that no reference

3
    See, e.g., Abraham J. Malherbe, Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early
Christianity, Collected Essays 1959-2012, Leiden, Brill 2014; Christopher Stead, Doctrine
and Philosophy in Early Christianity: Arius, Athanasius, Augustine, Aldershot, Ashgate 2000.
4
   See “Introduction”, p. 1-2. The editors choose to talk about “transformations” of Platonic
ideas effectuated by the early Christian thinkers, instead of “transmission” or “influence” of
the former on the latter.
5
    Needless to say, I do not deny the obvious, namely that the Platonic material was tho-
roughly reevaluated, reinterpreted and integrated into the novel Christian ontology before
being appropriated to a certain degree. In other words, I do not reject the assertion that
“[w]e can … not speak of uniform transmission from Platonism to Christianity …” (“In-
troduction” p. 2, emphasis added), or even that there never was “Christian Platonism” per se
(see p. 10), in the sense of uncritical acceptance of Platonic doctrine by the Christians; nev­
ertheless, there is little doubt in my mind that certain Christian luminaries owed a debt to
their Platonic predecessors so considerable, that it might be rightfully characterized as “direct
influence”. Such was, I dare say, the intellectual relation between Dionysius and Proclus, to
point out only one of the most obvious cases. Regarding the same point, John Dillon, having
primarily Clement and Origen in mind, is adamant: “On one system of paramount impor-
tance Platonism had a most powerful influence, that of Christianity”. See: John M. Dillon,
Middle Platonists: 80 B.C. to A.D. 220, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press 1996, p. 396. I
also believe that certain passages and chapters included in PCTLA may be used in support of
the aforesaid. Be that as it may, this humble text is a book review, not a polemical rejoinder,
and I shall therefore let the matter rest and proceed with my exposition.


                                                                                            503
Book Reviews / Buchrezensionen

to the Myth has been intended there; if anything, Origen might have had
in mind Plato’s “perfect year” (Timaeus 39d), and some rather unorthodox
interpretations of the notion.
        As for Chapter 2, it might have been useful for the readers if the
author had emphasized that the actual purport of the Timaeus 29c is pre-
dominantly epistemological, as well as that the distinction between the two
different accounts (logoi) and their respective ontological objects presented
there has its origin in the Republic 510a-b. The passage, of course, has noth-
ing to do with Christ.
        A single remark is due on Chapter 4 as well. Namely, the author would
have done no harm if he had mentioned that the term “prime mater (prōtē
hylē)”, although (at least conceptually) probably traceable all the way back to
Plato’s Timaeus and its Receptacle, actually owes its existence to Aristotle.6
Of course, whether Aristotle actually subscribed to the doctrine of prime
matter remains a matter of controversy.7
        Chapter 5 represents a valiant attempt to defend Plotinus’ theory of
evil against Proclus’ objections, and the author makes the best possible case
on this difficult task. Still, a couple of rather minor remarks are in order.
First, although the statement that the problem of evil “[f ]irst presents itself
with full force in Stoicism” (p. 78) is widely accepted among scholars, it
could be argued that there is sufficient material in Plato’s dialogues to dem-
onstrate that already he had a solid grasp on the issue, as well as that he came
up with some well-thought-out answers (e.g., Theaetetus 176a-b, Republic
379c1–7, 617d1-e5, substantial portions of the Timaeus, Laws 903b–905d);
so much so, that many of the Stoic solutions to the problem are possibly
traceable back to him.8 Second, on p. 85 the author writes: “Plotinus does
not use these exact phrases, ‘the cause of badness’ or ‘the principle of bad-
ness’…”. This does not seem to be entirely correct: a) in I.8.3.3-12 Plotinus
proposes that the evil, which is a specific kind of non-being, belongs to
sensible objects either accidentally, or as their principle, or as one of their ele-
ments – while in the remainder of the text he makes it crystal clear that op-
tion one and three are not viable; b) a very strong indication to the same ef-
fect is given in I.3.8.20-24, as well as in I.8.3.35-40, where the hypokeimenon
of all badness is designated as primary evil and evil-in-itself (kakon prōton

6
   See: Phys. 192a31, 193a10, 193a29; Met. 1014b32, 1017a5, 1029a20-26, 1044a23, etc.
7
   See, e.g., Howard M. Robinson, “Prime Matter in Aristotle”, in: Phronesis 19/2 (1974),
p. 168-188; William Charlton, “Prime Matter: A Rejoinder”, in: Phronesis 28/2 (1983), p.
197-211.
8
   See: Viktor Ilievski, “Stoic Influences on Plotinus’ Theodicy?”, in: ELPIS filozófiatudomá-
nyi folyóirat. Special issue: The Stoic tradition, 19/2 (2018).


504
                                                       Book Reviews / Buchrezensionen

kai kath’ hauto kakon); c) the same goes for I.8.4.12-14, where Plotinus asks
what is it that produces evil in the soul, as well as how is it connected with
the former’s principle and cause (archē kai aition), which is, of course, matter.
       In chapter 7, p. 119-120, Augustine’s early identification of the origin
of evil with the indefinite dyad is mentioned, for which Manichean and
Neopythagorean influences are deduced. I would dare to propose cautiously
a much earlier source for this theory, which would be Aristotle: Augustine
seems to have been acquainted with Aristotle’s work, and the latter was the
first philosopher who put in writing that Plato took the One and the Indefi-
nite Dyad to be the respective origins of good and evil.9
       As far as the otherwise well-written and informative Chapter 8 is con-
cerned, I would object to the following points: the author’s use of the phrase
“Platonic orthodoxy” (pp. 130, 136, 141, 142) does not seem fully justi-
fied. The doctrines of the Old Academy, of the Skeptical one, of the Mid-
dle Platonists and the Neoplatonists, were all characterized by sometimes
substantial philosophical differences; even the members of a same divide,
naturally, used to disagree on many issues–like the cases of, e.g., transmi-
gration or theurgy in Neoplatonism demonstrate. To be fair, the particular
doctrine of the Form’ relation to nous presented in this chapter seem to have
been a widely accepted one since the very early stages of the development of
Platonism,10 but the author does not make it absolutely clear that “Platonic
orthodoxy” refers exclusively to it. Another rather bold statement is that Pla-
tonism and Christianity shared the commitment to monotheism (pp. 129,
130, 142). Of course, one could argue that certain aspects of Plato’s theism
are in affinity with the Judeo-Christian vision of God;11 however, this is far
from a common trait of Platonism: e.g., Plutarch’s ontology could be la-
beled as dualistic, while Plotinus was obviously professing monism, and not
monotheism. Finally, it should be mentioned that the statement “[b]oth or-
thodox Christianity and Platonism maintain that the archetype of creation is
internal to the highest principle…” (p. 142) does not fully correspond to the
factual state of affairs. As for Plato himself, we cannot be sure; the Middle
Platonists did hold this opinion, and so far as they are concerned, the above
claim is true; Plotinus and the Neoplatonists, however, put the Paradigm
within nous, the second hypostasis, above which the One sovereignly reigns.

9
   See: Met. 988a8-16. In this, he was followed by his disciple Theophrastus (Met. 11b3-5),
as well as by the members of the Old Academy.
10
    See J. M. Dillon, Alcinous: The Handbook of Platonism. Oxford, Oxford University Press
1993, p. 94-95.
11
    See: A. E. Taylor, “The ‘Polytheism’ of Plato: An Apologia”, in: Mind 47/186 (1983), p.
180-199.


                                                                                      505
Book Reviews / Buchrezensionen

       In his erudite contribution (chap. 9), Pavlos writes the following with
respect to Dionysius’ “Neoplatonism”: “[a] vocabulary, a linguistic quiver
does not bear any a priori qualification. It is just a language. And, indeed,
Greek language, which supplies the Neoplatonic vocabulary, is a common
achievement of Late Antique culture shared by people who may well ad-
here to different traditions…” (p. 152). Now, the author is right in claim-
ing that the adoption of Neoplatonic vocabulary does not make Dionysius
a Neoplatonist; he also makes a strong case and clearly demonstrates that
the above quotation is applicable to Dionysius’ alleged appropriation of the
Iamblichean term “theurgy”. Nevertheless, the same is not valid for the Dio-
nysian corpus as a whole. Once again, he cannot and should not be labeled
as anything else except a Christian thinker, but it must be acknowledged that
his dependence on Proclus goes far beyond mere linguistic borrowings; it is
true that the appropriated material was Christianised and thus heavily trans-
formed, but that does not beat the fact that Dionysius used to paraphrase
and include into his writings sometimes substantial chunks of Proclus’ texts
and Neoplatonic ideas, as undeniably proven by several scholars.12
       Chapter 11 is a fine take on the theory of universals and its implica-
tion on Christology and Christian cosmogony, and I would have only a sin-
gle marginal remark to make. On p. 212, the author discusses the doctrine of
being as the-capacity-to-act-and-be-acted-upon – found in the Gigantoma-
chia section of Plato’s Sophist – and lists Aristotle and the Neoplatonists as
its heirs. It should be noted, however, that those most affected both by this
particular idea and the whole Sophist section, were probably the Stoics, who
remain unmentioned in the chapter.13
       Finally, in Chapter 15, p. 284 (and fn. 19), Ekenberg expresses his
doubts whether the Epicurean hēdonē is supposed to arise exclusively from
the indulgence in bodily pleasures and seems to leave the question open. I beg
to submit that for the founder of the school, the answer to this query was in
the negative. Epicurus states explicitly in his Letter to Menoecues 131.8-132.6:

12
    See, e.g. Istvan Perzel, “Pseudo-Dionysius and the Platonic Theology: A Preliminary
Study”, in: Alain-Philippe Segonds, Carlos Steel (eds.), Proclus et la Theologie Platonicienne,
Leuven, Leuven University Press 2000. It seems to me that my little comment is not very
much divorced from what Vasilakis writes in Chapter 10, p. 181 of PCTLA: “Dionysius is a
Christian author, but his philosophical background is pagan Neoplatonism. A fundamental
scheme he has critically borrowed from the Neoplatonists … is the triad of immanence,
procession and reversion.” etc.
13
    An excellent overview and discussion of the arguments for (and against) the Stoic appro-
priation of the ideas elaborated in the Sophist is given in John Sellars, “Stoic Ontology and
Plato’s Sophist”, in: Verity Harte, et al. (eds.), Aristotle and the Stoics Reading Plato, London,
Institute of Classical Studies 2011.


506
                                                       Book Reviews / Buchrezensionen

       So when we say that pleasure is the end, we do not mean the pleas­
       ures of the dissipated and those that consist in having a good time
       … but freedom from pain in the body and from disturbance in the
       soul. For what produces the pleasant life is not continuous drink-
       ing and parties or pederasty or womanizing or the enjoyment of
       fish and the other dishes of an expensive table, but sober reasoning
       … which banishes the opinions that beset souls with the greatest
       confusion.14
In conclusion, PCTLA is a highly informative and rich book. The individual
chapters, dedicated to various relevant issues, generally manage to fulfill the
aims set in their introductory paragraphs and provide a glimpse into the
exciting times of philosophical debates that shaped Christianity as we know
it. The work as a whole succeeds in shedding, so to say, new light on old
questions, but also on some less explored subjects, and thus promises to
remain an interesting and informative reading for students and scholars of
both Early Christianity and Late Platonism, as well as for historians of ideas
in general.




14
    As translated by Anthony A. Long, Davis N. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers, Volume
I, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1987, p. 114, emphasis added.


                                                                                      507