Plotinus & Irenaeus

[arnoldo]

It's interesting to gain a different perspective on how non-christians viewed the developing scriptures which later became known as the New Testament. From a Jewish perspective, it must of been frustrating to believe that Jewish texts were being reconstructed to form a heretical branch of Judaism. The proto-christians,in turn,showed equal frustration that their own texts were being reconstructed by the gnostics to further branch away from previous teachings (see Irenaeus: Against Heresies). The platonic philosophers, in turn, raged against the gnostics whom they felt were misinterpreting greek philosophy and incorporating it into their teachings. Plotinus, the Greek philosopher, and his disciple Porphyry, wrote extensively regarding this matter. Porphyry writes:

There were in Plotinus's day many Christians and others, sectarians who had abandoned the old philosophy, the followers of Adelphius and Aqullinus, who possessed a great many treatises of Alexander the Libyans. . .and others liked them and so deceived many and were themselves deceived, claiming that Plato had not even approached the depths of intellectual being.

From a non-christian perspective, the distinction between what later became known as gnostic christianity and orthodox christianity may have been nill, thus it's not clear from the passage above to which sect of Christianity Plotinus was attacking. With reference to Zoroastrianism, Porphyry did specify that their writing were contemporary written frauds with the aim of deceiving the readers of such texts. Porphyry writes,

. . I myself wrote long attacks on Zoraster. I demonstrated that the book was entirely spurious and modern, a forgery made up by the adherents of the heresy, in order to give the idea that the doctrines they had chosen to honor were those of the ancient Zoraster.

Irenaeus also makes similar claims that the writings of the gnostics were known to be written contemporaneously written material. The following are some samples of Irenaeus' writings;

. . .But the followers of Valentinus, putting away all fear, bring forward their own compositions and boast that they have more Gospels than really exist. Indeed their audacity has gone so far that they entitle their recent composition the Gospel of Truth, though it agrees in nothing with the Gospels of the apostles, and so no Gospel of theirs is free of blasphemy. For if what they produce is the Gospel of Truth, and is different from those which the apostles handed down to us, those who care to can learn how it can be shown from the Scriptures themselves that that [then] what is handed down from the apostles is not the Gospel of Truth. That those alone are true and firm, and that there can be no more Gospels than have been mentioned before, nor any fewer, I have shown by these many great arguments.

Who would've thought that Plotinus and Irenaeus would have shared equal dislike against the Gnostics?

[apostoli]

It's interesting to gain a different perspective on how non-christians viewed the developing scriptures which later became known as the New Testament. From a Jewish perspective, it must of been frustrating to believe that Jewish texts were being reconstructed to form a heretical branch of Judaism. The proto-christians,in turn,showed equal frustration that their own texts were being reconstructed by the gnostics to further branch away from previous teachings (see Irenaeus: Against Heresies). The platonic philosophers, in turn, raged against the gnostics whom they felt were misinterpreting greek philosophy and incorporating it into their teachings. Plotinus, the Greek philosopher, and his disciple Porphyry, wrote extensively regarding this matter. Porphyry writes:

There were in Plotinus's day many Christians and others, sectarians who had abandoned the old philosophy, the followers of Adelphius and Aqullinus, who possessed a great many treatises of Alexander the Libyans. . .and others liked them and so deceived many and were themselves deceived, claiming that Plato had not even approached the depths of intellectual being.

From a non-christian perspective, the distinction between what later became known as gnostic christianity and orthodox christianity may have been nill, thus it's not clear from the passage above to which sect of Christianity Plotinus was attacking. With reference to Zoroastrianism, Porphyry did specify that their writing were contemporary written frauds with the aim of deceiving the readers of such texts. Porphyry writes,

. . I myself wrote long attacks on Zoraster. I demonstrated that the book was entirely spurious and modern, a forgery made up by the adherents of the heresy, in order to give the idea that the doctrines they had chosen to honor were those of the ancient Zoraster.

The disjointed quote of Porphyry you gave comes from his "Life of Plotinus", he also wrote an extensive set of books titled "Against the Christians" (which is not extant but fragments are quoted by Eusebius.C and others). Basically, Porphyry considered all of the NT a forgery (same with Daniel). So when he refers to Christians it is everybody and anybody that identified themselves as Christians - orthodox, gnostic or whatever...as far he was concerned the were all nut jobs...especially, as in his opinion, God was unknowable and transended all things, there are other divine beings called either gods or angels, and if God is deemed a monarch then he must rule over those of the same race (other divine beings) etc etc

Here is the full quote of Porphyry so ou can see the context...

"There were in his [Plotinus'] time many Christians and others, and sectarians who had abandoned the old philosophy, men of the schools of Adelphius and Aquilinus, who possessed a great many treatises of Alexander the Libyanand Philocomus and Demostratus and Lydus, and produced apocalypses by Zoroaster and Zostrianos and Nikotheos and Allogenes and Messos and other people of the kind, deceived themselves and deceiving many, alleging that Plato had not penetrated to the depths of intelligible reality. Plotinus hence often attacked their position in his lectures, and wrote the treatise to which we have given the title “Against the Gnostics”; he left it to us to assess what he passed over. Amelius went to forty volumes in writing against the book of Zostrianos. I, Porphyry, wrote a considerable number of refutations of the book of Zoroaster, which I showed to be entirely spurious and modern, made up by the sectarians to convey the impression that the doctrines which they had chosen to hold in honor were those of the ancient Zoroaster." (Porphyry, Life of Plotinus)


There is a ton of info on Porphyry and the Christian response available on the internet eg:
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/po..._fragments.htm
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...ter%22&f=false
http://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/pearson_gnostic.pdf

Irenaeus also makes similar claims that the writings of the gnostics were known to be written contemporaneously written material. The following are some samples of Irenaeus' writings;

. . .But the followers of Valentinus, putting away all fear, bring forward their own compositions and boast that they have more Gospels than really exist. Indeed their audacity has gone so far that they entitle their recent composition the Gospel of Truth, though it agrees in nothing with the Gospels of the apostles, and so no Gospel of theirs is free of blasphemy. For if what they produce is the Gospel of Truth, and is different from those which the apostles handed down to us, those who care to can learn how it can be shown from the Scriptures themselves that that [then] what is handed down from the apostles is not the Gospel of Truth. That those alone are true and firm, and that there can be no more Gospels than have been mentioned before, nor any fewer, I have shown by these many great arguments.

Who would've thought that Plotinus and Irenaeus would have shared equal dislike against the Gnostics?

As far as Porphyry was concerned all Christians were gnostic, as the NT is forever telling us we need gnosis, epignosis etc.

[arnoldo]

The disjointed quote of Porphyry you gave comes from his "Life of Plotinus", he also wrote an extensive set of books titled "Against the Christians" (which is not extant but fragments are quoted by Eusebius.C and others). Basically, Porphyry considered all of the NT a forgery (same with Daniel). So when he refers to Christians it is everybody and anybody that identified themselves as Christians - orthodox, gnostic or whatever...as far he was concerned the were all nut jobs...especially, as in his opinion, God was unknowable and transended all things, there are other divine beings called either gods or angels, and if God is deemed a monarch then he must rule over those of the same race (other divine beings) etc etc

Here is the full quote of Porphyry so ou can see the context...

"There were in his [Plotinus'] time many Christians and others, and sectarians who had abandoned the old philosophy, men of the schools of Adelphius and Aquilinus, who possessed a great many treatises of Alexander the Libyanand Philocomus and Demostratus and Lydus, and produced apocalypses by Zoroaster and Zostrianos and Nikotheos and Allogenes and Messos and other people of the kind, deceived themselves and deceiving many, alleging that Plato had not penetrated to the depths of intelligible reality. Plotinus hence often attacked their position in his lectures, and wrote the treatise to which we have given the title “Against the Gnostics”; he left it to us to assess what he passed over. Amelius went to forty volumes in writing against the book of Zostrianos. I, Porphyry, wrote a considerable number of refutations of the book of Zoroaster, which I showed to be entirely spurious and modern, made up by the sectarians to convey the impression that the doctrines which they had chosen to hold in honor were those of the ancient Zoroaster." (Porphyry, Life of Plotinus)

. . .

Your right, Plotinus or Porphyry wouldn't make any distinction between gnostics or other sects of Christianity. In the mid second century, Justin Martyr’s writings perhaps indicate an initial step to differentiate the proto-orthodox teachings from gnostics, i.e., Justin writes against Marcion and Simon. However, making a distinction between various sects of Christianity teaching doesn’t seem to be Justin’s overriding concern. On the other hand, during the late second century, Irenaeus is attempting to precisely make the distinction between various Christian sects. Still, neoplatonists and other non Christians would probably fail to see any difference between any particular sect of Christianity until close to the end of the third century.

[apostoli]

Hi arnoldo,

Your right, Plotinus or Porphyry wouldn't make any distinction between gnostics or other sects of Christianity. In the mid second century, Justin Martyr’s writings perhaps indicate an initial step to differentiate the proto-orthodox teachings from gnostics, i.e., Justin writes against Marcion and Simon. However, making a distinction between various sects of Christianity teaching doesn’t seem to be Justin’s overriding concern. On the other hand, during the late second century, Irenaeus is attempting to precisely make the distinction between various Christian sects. Still, neoplatonists and other non Christians would probably fail to see any difference between any particular sect of Christianity until close to the end of the third century.

The thing with Porphyry is that he is representative of pagan thought (especially in regards to their opinion of Christians) at the end of the 3rd century (234–c. 305).

Yesterday when I did a quick refresher on his opinions, it occured to me how close his arguement/s were to the extreme Arians of the 4th century (eg: Eunomius) - possibly a co-incidence of philosophical attachment (neoplatonism / stoicism).

The problem with Irenaues is because of a few gaffs based on what he understood to be an oral tradition received from A.John he becomes an unreliable witness (eg: Jesus lived to 50yo, was with the disciples to the time of Trajan and his ministry lasted only one year = Ad Her. II:22:5). Remarks like this from Irenaeus is the type of thing Porphyry used to ridicule Christians, especially their inconsistency.

Hippolytus who was a contempory of Irenaeus (give or take a couple of decades), covers the same ground and seems more a reliable witness.

Imu, the early "orthodox" had a lot of competition from competing religions which adapted to include christian thought (eg: Montanists. Encratites etc etc). Imu, in the Parthian empire there had been a messinic / buddha expectation (basically Zoastraism) that adapted and at some stage was bigger than christianity. Then there were the Mithraic soldier cult/s which may have adapted aspects of christianity (Marcus Aurelius apparently had at least one christian legion).

One thing I'ver noticed over the years those of the early church that had been trained in philosophy used their training to argue their case to fellow philosophers using a common language and method - seems logical to me.

[arnoldo]

Hi arnoldo, . . The problem with Irenaues is because of a few gaffs based on what he understood to be an oral tradition received from A.John he becomes an unreliable witness (eg: Jesus lived to 50yo, was with the disciples to the time of Trajan and his ministry lasted only one year = Ad Her. II:22:5). Remarks like this from Irenaeus is the type of thing Porphyry used to ridicule Christians, especially their inconsistency. . .

Just a minor quibble with your comment about Irenaeus. . . my understanding of Irenaeus’ writings is that the claim that Jesus was more than 30 years old upon his death is based in part on an oral tradition from some men living in the era of Trajan (not that Jesus was with the disciples to the time of Trajan). Furthermore, Irenaeus was writing against the gnostic’s belief that Jesus’s ministry lasted only one year. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[apostoli]

Hello arnoldo,

Just a minor quibble with your comment about Irenaeus. . . my understanding of Irenaeus’ writings is that the claim that Jesus was more than 30 years old upon his death is based in part on an oral tradition from some men living in the era of Trajan (not that Jesus was with the disciples to the time of Trajan).

Well I did comment that Irenaeus related "what he understood to be an oral tradition received from A.John" but I should have added that Irenaeus believed the tradition was transmitted by those who had known the apostles. Irenaeus specifically says "[Jesus] remained among them up to the times of Trajan". The core of Irenaeus' argument is that Jesus experienced all aspects of human normality from infant to old man (see below).

Here is a link to Book 2, chapter 22 so you can read Irenaeus' thesis in full and in context...
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iii.xxiii.html

The main quote most appeal to is vs5, but vs4 is also worth noting...

"For He came to save all through means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God - infants and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be “the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence, existing before all, and going before all".

Now for the controversial bit in vs5...

"Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemæus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?"

It is worthwhile noting vs6, which might indicate that Irenaeus had a skewed view of Jesus' ministry, especially his disputations with the Pharisees...

Furthermore, Irenaeus was writing against the gnostic’s belief that Jesus’s ministry lasted only one year. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

you are right in this regard. My apologies, I was working mainly from memory (a dangerous thing to do at my age ;-). In vs3 Irenaeus does point out Jesus attended 3 passovers after his baptism, so his adversaries opinion was skewed. Imo, Irenaeus was pressed to prove that Jesus died in the first month and not the twelfth month and his ministry lasted longer than one year as his opponents believed. (I'm presuming Irenaeus believed Jesus continued his ministry after the resurrection, but see vs4 "Then, at last, He came on to death itself" which implies Jesus was an old man when he died).

Worth noting vs6 "...He did not then want much of being fifty years old and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year..."

Here is a link to an interesting article I just came across that discusses the twelve month ministry issue..."The idea that the ministry of Jesus lasted only one year has had its scattering of support through the centuries. This approach is not based on the chronological events described in the ministry of Jesus, but from one passage in Luke when Jesus repeated the words of Isaiah and proclaimed the "favorable year of the Lord." This originally suggested a ministry of only one year, but later was interpreted as the announcement of a Jubilee year."
http://doig.net/NTC15.htm

[arnoldo]

Hello arnoldo,

Well I did comment that Irenaeus related "what he understood to be an oral tradition received from A.John" but I should have added that Irenaeus believed the tradition was transmitted by those who had known the apostles. Irenaeus specifically says "[Jesus] remained among them up to the times of Trajan".

Thanks for correcting me, I had the understanding that Irenaeus said, "[John] remained among them up to the times of Trajan". Trajan, btw, was a Roman Emperor between the years 98-117 A,D.

The core of Irenaeus' argument is that Jesus experienced all aspects of human normality from infant to old man (see below). . . .

Agreed, the gnostics Irenaeus was arguing against believed Jesus only lived to the age of 30 which correlated to the 30 Aeons of greek philosophical thought. See below, A.H. Book II, Chapter 22

I have shown that the number thirty fails them in every respect; too few Æons, as they represent them, being at one time found within the Pleroma, and then again too many [to correspond with that number]. There are not, therefore, thirty Æons, nor did the Saviour come to be baptized when He was thirty years old, for this reason, that He might show forth the thirty silent Æons of their system, otherwise they must first of all separate and eject [the Saviour] Himself from the Pleroma of all. Moreover, they affirm that He suffered in the twelfth month, so that He continued to preach for one year after His baptism; and they endeavour to establish this point out of the prophet (for it is written, "To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of retribution" Isaiah 61:2), being truly blind, inasmuch as they affirm they have found out the mysteries of Bythus, yet not understanding that which is called by Isaiah the acceptable year of the Lord, nor the day of retribution. For the prophet neither speaks concerning a day which includes the space of twelve hours, nor of a year the length of which is twelve months. For even they themselves acknowledge that the prophets have very often expressed themselves in parables and allegories, and [are] not [to be understood] according to the mere sound of the words.

[apostoli]

Hello arnoldo,

Well I did comment that Irenaeus related "what he understood to be an oral tradition received from A.John" but I should have added that Irenaeus believed the tradition was transmitted by those who had known the apostles. Irenaeus specifically says "[Jesus] remained among them up to the times of Trajan".

Thanks for correcting me, I had the understanding that Irenaeus said, "[John] remained among them up to the times of Trajan". Trajan, btw, was a Roman Emperor between the years 98-117 A,D.

The natural reading would have the referee pointing to Jesus, but an alternative would be Irenaeus was ambiguously refering to John, albeit there is some provisoes...

"Modern" tradition links us to Daniel 9, so we get a chronology for prophesy of weeks and half weeks, thus the presumption that Jesus was about 33yo when he was cucified. However, there is an alternative speculation that fits into historical chronology (but buggers the half week hypothesis) whereby Jesus was around 40 to 42 when he died (about 34-36CE, the later date giving us Caiaphas & Pilate still around). But such buggers prophesy a bit, or at least our understanding of it (ie: the half week).

There are speculators that have Jesus teaching for upto ten years before his crucifixion. The common orthodox defense is why not! = The Gospels are not to be taken as historical events in chronological order but snapshots of critical moments...

Of interest, having done a minor investigation, it seems the majority of the significant early fathers favoured Jesus' ministry as lasting only 12 months (per Mt, Mk & Lk), the advent of the Gospel of John seems to have put the fly in the ointment and caused dispute. Personally, I can resolve the difference via a lead-in time and an advent time (ie: where Jesus got the full attention of the Jewish authorities = his following was a threat to them)

So maybe Irenaeus was right all along. Or at least had a bias towards Ephesus = the realm of A.John.

It is all accademic to me. From my viewpoint A.John is the only direct eye witness account of what went on (MK & Lk went on heresay, Mt, imo, is dubious as an eye witness ). Basically, I like the adventure of accademia, but live by faith & hope - something Plotinus viewed as a significant Christian defect.

[arnoldo]

. . .
It is all accademic to me. From my viewpoint A.John is the only direct eye witness account of what went on (MK & Lk went on heresay, Mt, imo, is dubious as an eye witness ). Basically, I like the adventure of accademia, but live by faith & hope - something Plotinus viewed as a significant Christian defect.

The Apostle Paul addresses this christian "defect" in the following verse:

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

The Gnostics, perhaps in attempt to appear more wise, and less deficient, tried to incorporate greek philosophical thought into their doctrine. Ultimately, the gnostics were themselves accused of being defective by neo-platonists such as Plotinus. In The Six Ennands, Plotinus writes against a key gnostic concept, the demiurge, in the following writings.

Only one other tenet of theirs will be mentioned before passing the matter; it is one which surpasses all the rest in sheer folly, if that is the word.

They first maintain that the Soul and a certain “Wisdom” [Sophia] declined and entered this lower sphere though they leave us in doubt of whether the movement originated in Soul
or in this Sophia of theirs, or whether the two are the same to them — then they tell us that the other Souls came down in the descent and that these members of Sophia took to themselves bodies, human bodies, for example. Yet in the same breath, that very Soul which was the occasion of descent to the others is declared not to have descended. “It knew no decline,” but merely illuminated the darkness in such a way that an image of it was formed upon the Matter. Then, they shape an image of that image somewhere below — through the medium of Matter or of Materiality or whatever else of many names they choose to give it in their frequent change of terms, invented to darken their doctrine — and so they bring into being what they call the Creator or Demiurge, then this lower is severed from his Mother [Sophia] and becomes the author of the Kosmos down to the latest of the succession of images constituting it.

Such is the blasphemy of one of their writers.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/plotinus/enneads.html

The gnostics faced the daunting challenge of defending their doctrine from the proto-orthodox Christians and Greek Philosophers they borrowed their concepts from. Ultimately, this challenge proved insurmountable for the gnostics as evidenced by the gradual decline of adherents subscribing to gnostic philosophy.

[apostoli]

Hi arnoldo,

Thanks for the scripture cite...

In The Six Ennands, Plotinus writes against a key gnostic concept, the demiurge...

The "the demiurge" concept is evident in pre-christian Jewish thought eg: Philo's second god by whom God caused the creation. We even have the concept in the NT eg: John 1:3, Col 1:16; Heb 1:3. So nothing inventive on the part of the "gnostics" in that regard, it is their other paraphernalia that draws criticism (not to mention their inconsitency)

Wiki has an acceptable article on the various demiurge concepts that were once around...worth a read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge

[arnoldo]

Hi arnoldo,

Thanks for the scripture cite...

The "the demiurge" concept is evident in pre-christian Jewish thought eg: Philo's second god by whom God caused the creation. We even have the concept in the NT eg: John 1:3, Col 1:16; Heb 1:3. So nothing inventive on the part of the "gnostics" in that regard, it is their other paraphernalia that draws criticism (not to mention their inconsitency)

Wiki has an acceptable article on the various demiurge concepts that were once around...worth a read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge

You are absolutely correct in pointing out that "the demiurge" was evident in pre-christian Jewish thought. What was inventive on the part of the christian gnostics was to identify the demiurge as the god of the old testament. Besides attacking the gnostic concept of the demiurge, Plotinus elsewhere questions their belief that the creator of the cosmos, and the cosmos itself, is evil.

[apostoli]

You are absolutely correct in pointing out that "the demiurge" was evident in pre-christian Jewish thought.

The interesting thing is that in early Jewish thought YHWH per se was not God absolute ie: was the Memra of God (aramaic targums) = the Word of God (John 1:1) = the angel/messenger of YHWH. We find in Exodus Moses asking the Memra of God not to send an angel but for he himself to guide them.

What was inventive on the part of the christian gnostics was to identify the demiurge as the god of the old testament.

In wisdom theology it wasn't a unique idea.

Besides attacking the gnostic concept of the demiurge, Plotinus elsewhere questions their belief that the creator of the cosmos, and the cosmos itself, is evil.

Now we have the crux of the Christian issue! From Genesis 1 we learn that all that was created was good. The issue with the gnostics was all that was created was bad/defected - their justification for how evil entered into the world. The orthodox opinion is freewill for humans, survival instinct for animals.