by
Damien F. Mackey
The
writings of “Plato”, whoever he may have been, were undoubtedly influenced
by
Hebrew wisdom. Here we consider some likenesses to the Book of Job,
for
instance, before passing on to the Book of Daniel.
Introduction
To presume to
translocate so-called ‘Greek’ philosophy, to Babylonia, or to Egypt, or to
Palestine, are moves that are probably not going to go down well with many. A
reader immediately responded to an early effort of mine along these lines
(e-mail of 25 March 2010):
…. I have not had much of an
introduction before to your other theses on the identities of various
historical personages. I must admit to being somewhat sceptical of the Plato
theory. I think you would need more than a few parallelisms to make such a
case. I think the historical evidence would be in favor of the fact that Plato
and Aristotle were living breathing Greeks, the latter being Alexander’s tutor
in Macedonia ….
In an article
written at this time I had supported:
(i) St. Clement of
Alexandria’s view that Plato’s writings took their inspiration from the Hebrew
Moses, and
(ii) St. Ambrose’s belief that
Plato had learned from the prophet Jeremiah in Egypt; a belief that was
initially taken up by St. Augustine, who added that
(iii) Greek philosophy
generally derived from the Jewish Scriptures.
And, though St.
Augustine later retracted his acceptance of St. Ambrose’s view, realising that
it was chronologically impossible for Jeremiah (c. 600 BC) to have met Plato
anywhere, considering the c. 400 BC date customarily assigned to Plato, I had,
on the other hand, looked to turn this around by challenging the conventional
dates, and by proposing an identification of the original Plato as Baruch, a
Jew, the young priest-scribe contemporaneous with Jeremiah.
This reconstruction
- which I have not been able properly to develop – would have, if it had proved
legitimate, enabled me to take the testimony of the Fathers a positive step
further. From the Book of Jeremiah we learned that Jeremiah and Baruch went
together to Egypt.
Whilst it does
not appear to be likely that we may tie together Daniel and Baruch (I have
thought about it), the one whom we know as “Plato” - a ‘composite’ character,
anyway, according to my estimation - may have both Daniel and Baruch likenesses
and aspects.
Baruch, after
all, is sometimes considered to have been another great sage of antiquity,
Zoroaster.
Later I learned
that St. Justin Martyr had, even earlier than the above-mentioned Church
Fathers, espoused this view of the Greek philosophers borrowing from the
biblical Hebrews. And Justin Martyr too, had, like Plato, written an Apology,
in Justin’s case also apparently (like Plato) in regard to a martyrdom.
Plato Stole his ideas from Moses: True or False ….
The belief that the
philosophers of Greece, including Plato and Aristotle, plagiarized certain of
their teaching from Moses and the Hebrew prophets is an argument used by
Christian Apologists of Gentile background who lived in the first four
centuries of Christians. Three key figures who presented this thesis are Justin
Martyr “The most important second century apologist” {50. Grant 1973}, Titus
Flavius Clemens known as Clement of Alexandria "the illustrious head of
the Catechetical School at Alexandria at the close of the second century, was
originally a pagan philosopher" (11, Robert 1857) and is renowned as being
possibly the teacher of Origen. He was born either in Alexandria or Athens
{Epiphs Haer, xxii.6}. Our final giant who supports this thesis is Eusebius of
Caesarea known as the father of Church history. Each of these in their defense
of the Christian faith presented some form of the thesis that the philosophers
of Greece learned from the prophets of Israel. Our interest in this paper is on
the arguments of the earliest of these writers, Justin Martyr. He represents
the position of Christian apology in the middle of the second century, as
opposed to the later Clement of Alexandria and the even later Eusebius of
Caesarea.
In light of the stature and the
credibility of these three Church Fathers even if the idea that Plato learned
from Moses seems far fetched we would do well to take a closer look at the
argument and the evidence presented by such men of stature. Justin was a
philosopher who came from a pagan background. He issued from Shechem in
Palestine. He was a marvelous scholar in his own right well read and well
qualified to make informed judgments in the arena of philosophy.
Our purpose is to briefly look
at the theses presented by Justin Martyr and to try to discern the plausibility
of the thesis.
Justin Martyr and the line
Plato took from Moses.
Justin Martyr was a prolific
second century Apologist. He was born in Flavia Neapolis (Shechem) in Samaria.
Well known for the local Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim and a temple built
by Hadrian to Zeus Hypsistos. He later passed through Stoicism and the way of
Aristotle’s disciples the Peripatetics and was rejected as unqualified to study
Pythagoreanism and finally he met a Platonist with whom he advanced in his
studies. To him the goal of Platonism was "the vision of God". One
day he met a Christian on the beach and was converted to the faith. He did not
become a priest or bishop but took to teaching and defending the faith.
Text
He wrote many works and many
more bear his name. However modern scholarship has judged that of the many
works that bear his name only three are considered genuine. These are 2
Apologies and the Dialogue with the Jew Trypho. They are preserved in one
manuscript of the year 1364 (Cod Par, gr. 450).
Language
Justin wrote in Greek, and
right in the middle of the period of philosophy called Middle Platonism. The
book in which he outlines his thesis that Moses and the prophets were a source
for the Greek Philosophers is his first
Apology. It is dated to 155-157 BC [sic] and was addressed to
"The Emperor Titus Aelius Hadrianus Antonius Pius Caesar Augustus, and the
sons Verissimus, philosopher, philosopher, and Lucius" Grant (52, 1973).
Context
Grant (1973) believes the
reason which triggered the Apology was the martyrdom of Polycarp in 156 AD and
the injustice of it during the bishopric of Anicetus. Even as this martyrdom
and its report may have spurred Justin on to write so it had been that it was on
seeing the fortitude of the Christian martyrs which had disposed him favorably
towards the faith (Ap 2.12.1). ….
In the Apology 1 Justin gives
the reason for his writing
“I, Justin, the son of Priscus
and grandson of Bacchius, natives of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, present this
address and petition on behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated
and wantonly abused; my self being one of them" (Apology 1 chap).
The Apology 1 is divided into
60 chapters. The translation we are using is that of the Ante Nicene Fathers
and can be seen at www.
ccel.org The topics
covered are many. He starts in chapter 2 by demanding justice, he requires that
before the Christians are condemned they should be given a fair trial to see if
they have committed any crimes or not. They should not be condemned merely for
being Christian. He covers many subjects including: the accusation Christians
were Atheists, faith in God; the Kingdom of Christ; God’s service; demonic
teachings; Christ's teachings and heathen analogies to it; non Christian
worship; magic; exposing children, the Hebrew prophets and their prophecies
about Christ, types of prophetic words from the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit. This brings us to about chapter 38. At this point Justin begins to
cover the issue of determinism and free will. He argues that although the
future was prophesied it does not mean every thing is determined according to
fate and man has no responsibility for he has no choice. Rather he points to
Moses revealing God's choice to Adam "Behold before thy face are good and
evil: choose the good”. (Apol 1 44) And he quotes lsaiah's appeal to Israel to
wash and be clean and the consequences of doing so or not doing so. The
consequences of disobedience are that the sword would devour Israel. Justin
picks up on the statement regarding the sword and argues that it is not a
literal sword which is referred to but “the sword of God is a fire, of which
those who choose to do wickedly will become the fuel” (Apol 1 44). Justin
having appealed to Moses and Isaiah as a warning to the Roman rulers now
appeals to one with whom they are more familiar, Plato the philosopher, to
support his case that man is free to choose good or evil. It is here that
Justin makes a most interesting and intriguing statement rallying Plato to the
side of Moses and Isaiah, in the eyes of the sons of the Emperor whom he calls
philosophers.
And so, too, Plato, when he
says, “The blame is his who chooses, and God is blameless” took this from the
prophet Moses and uttered it.
For Moses is more ancient than
all the Greek writers. And whatever both philosophers and poets have said
concerning the immortality of the soul, or punishments after death, or
contemplation of things heavenly, or doctrines of the like kind, they have
received such suggestions from the prophets as have enabled them to understand
and interpret these things. And hence there seem to be seeds of truth among all
men; but they are charged with not accurately understanding [the truth] when
they assert contradictories.
….
He appears to be making the
claim that Plato who has “exerted a greater influence over human thought than
any other individual with the possible exception of Aristotle” (Demos, 1927.vi}
was dependent for his understanding of freewill and responsibility on Moses.
The saying "the blame is his who chooses, and God is blameless (Aitia
helomenou Theos d' anaios) {Joann. Mdcccxlii,224}" was taken from Moses by
Plato and uttered it {eipe}".
[End of quotes]
I shall continue
with this commentary later in this series, when I come to discuss one of
Plato’s famous Myths.
Plato and Likely Borrowings
from the Book of Job
There can be a
similarity in thought between Plato and the Jewish sages, but not always a
similarity in tone. Compared with the intense atmosphere of the drama of the
Book of Job, for instance, Plato’s Republic, and his other dialogues,
such as the Protagoras, brilliant as they are, come across sometimes
as a bit like a gentlemen’s discussion over a glass of port.
W. Guthrie may
have captured something of this general tone in his Introduction to Plato.
Protagoras and Meno (Penguin, 1968), when he wrote (p. 20):
… a feature of the
conversation which cannot fail to strike a reader is its unbroken urbanity and
good temper. The keynote is courtesy and forbearance, though these are not
always forthcoming without a struggle. Socrates is constantly on the alert for
the signs of displeasure on the part of Protagoras, and when he detects them,
is careful not to press his point, and the dialogue ends with mutual
expressions of esteem. ….
[End
of quote]
Compare this
gentlemanly tone with e.g. Job’s ‘How long will you torment me, and break me in
pieces with words? These ten times you have cast reproach upon me; are you not
ashamed to wrong me?’ (19:1-3), and Eliphaz’s accusations of the holy man: ‘Is
not your wickedness great? There is no end to your iniquities [which supposed
types of injustice on the part of Job Eliphaz then proceeds to itemise]’
(22:5).
In Plato’s
dialogues, by contrast, we get pages and pages of the following sort of
amicable discussion taken from the Republic (Bk. 2, 368-369):
[Socrates] ‘Justice can be a
characteristic of an individual or of a community, can it not?’
[Adeimantus] ‘Yes’.
[Socrates] ‘And a community is
larger than an individual?’
[Adeimantus] ‘It is”.
[Socrates] ‘We may therefore
find that the amount of justice in the larger entity is greater, and so easier
to recognize. I accordingly propose that we start our enquiry …’.
[Adeimantus] ‘That seems a
good idea’, he agreed.
….
Though
Protagoras is a famous Sophist, whose maxim “Man is the measure of all things,
of those that are that they are, and of those that are not that they are not”
(Plato’s Theaetetus 152), I have often quoted in a philosophical
context {– and also in my article}:
The Futile Aspiration to Make ‘Man the Measure of All
Things’
this Protagoras
may actually be based upon - according to my new estimation of things - the
elderly Eliphaz of the Book of Job. Whilst Eliphaz was by no means a Sophist
along the Greek lines, he was, like Protagoras with Socrates, largely opposed
to his opponent’s point of view. And so, whilst the God-fearing Eliphaz would
never have uttered anything so radical or atheistic as “man is the measure of
all things”, he was however opposed to the very Job who had, in his discussion
of wisdom, spoken of God as ‘apportioning out by measure’ all the things that
He had created (Job 28:12, 13, 25).
Now, whilst
Protagoras would be but a pale ghost of the biblical Eliphaz, some of the
original (as I suspect) lustre does still manage to shine through - as with
Protagoras’s claim that knowledge or wisdom was the highest thing in life
(Protagoras 352C, D) (cf. Eliphaz in Job 22:1-2). And Guthrie adds that
Protagoras “would repudiate as scornfully as Socrates the almost bestial type
of hedonism advocated by Callicles, who says that what nature means by fair and
right is for the strong man to let his desires grow as big as possible and have
the means of everlastingly satisfying them” (op. cit., p. 22).
Eliphaz was
later re-invented (I think) as Protagoras the Sophist from Abdera, as a perfect
foil to Socrates (with Job’s other friends also perhaps emerging in the Greek
versions re-cast as Sophists). Protagoras stated that, somewhat like Eliphaz,
he was old enough to be the father of any of them. “Indeed I am getting on in
life now – so far as age goes I might be the father of any one of you …” (Protagoras
317 C). That Eliphaz was old is indicated by the fact that he was the first to
address Job and that he also refered to men older than Job’s father (Job
15:10). Now, just as Fr. R. MacKenzie (S.J.) in his commentary on “Job”, in The
Jerome Biblical Commentary, tells of Eliphaz’s esteem for, and courtesy
towards, Job (31:23):
Eliphaz is presumably the
oldest of the three and therefore the wisest; he is certainly the most
courteous and the most eloquent. He has a genuine esteem for Job and is deeply
sorry for him. He knows the advice to give him, the wisdom that lays down what
he must do to receive relief from his sufferings.
[End of quote],
so does Guthrie,
reciprocally (I suggest), say: “Protagoras – whom [Socrates] regards with
genuine admiration and liking” (op. cit., p. 22).
But, again, just
as the righteous Job had scandalised his friends by his levity, according to
St. Thomas Aquinas (“Literal Exposition on Job”, 42:1-10), “And here one should
consider that Elihu had sinned out of inexperience whereas Job had sinned out
of levity, and so neither of them had sinned gravely”, so does Guthrie use this
very same word, “levity”, in the context of an apparent flaw in the character
of Socrates (ibid., p. 18):
There is one feature of the
Protagoras which cannot fail to puzzle, if not exasperate, a reader: the
behaviour of Socrates. At times he treats the discussion with such levity, and
at other times with such unscrupulousness, that Wilamowitz felt bound to
conclude that the dialogue could only have been written in his lifetime. This,
he wrote, is the human being whom Plato knew; only after he had suffered a
martyr’s death did the need assert itself to idealize his character.
[End of quote]
Job’s tendency
towards levity had apparently survived right down into the Greek era.
Admittedly, the Greek version does get much nastier in the case of
Thrasymachus, and even more so with Callicles in the Gorgias, but in
the Republic at least it never rises to the dramatic pitch of Job’s
dialogues with his three friends. Here is that least friendly of the debaters,
Thrasymachus, at his nastiest (Republic, Bk. I, 341):
[Socrates] Well, said I, ‘so
you think I’m malicious, do you Thrasymachus?’
[Thrasymachus] ‘I certainly
do’.
[Socrates] ‘You think my
questions were deliberately framed to distort your argument?’
[Thrasymachus] ‘I know
perfectly well they were. But they won’t get you anywhere; you can’t fool me,
and if you don’t you won’t be able to crush me in argument’.
[Socrates] ‘My dear chap, I
wouldn’t dream of trying’, I said ….
Socrates and
Plato are similarly (like the Sophists) watered down entities by comparison
with the Middle Eastern originals. Such is how the Hebrew Scriptures end up
when filtered through the Greeks, [and, in the case of Plato, perhaps through
the Egyptians and Babylonians before the Greeks, hence a double filtering].
Even then, it is doubtful whether the finely filtered version of Plato that we
now have could have been written by pagan Greeks. At least some of it seems to
belong clearly to the Christian era, e.g. “The just man … will be scourged,
tortured, and imprisoned … and after enduring every humiliation he will be
crucified” (Republic, Bk. 2, 362).
I submit that
this statement would not likely have been written prior to the Gospels.
“Plato and
Porphyry each made certain statements which might have brought them both to
become Christians if they had exchanged them with one another”, wrote St.
Augustine (City of God, XXII, 27).
What is clear is
that the writings of Plato as we now have them had reached an impressive level
of excellence and unparalleled literary sophistication.
Thus we read in The
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Macmillan and Free Press, 1967, V. 6), article
“Plato” (p. 332):
Plato As a Writer
Greek prose reached its
highest peak in the writings of Plato. His flexibility, his rich vocabulary,
his easy colloquialism, and his high rhetoric, his humor, irony, pathos,
gravity, bluntness, delicacy and occasional ferocity, his mastery of metaphor,
simile and myth, his swift delineation of character – his combination of these
and other qualities put him beyond rivalry. …
[End of quote]
Much may be owed here, however, to
the Hebrew books, such as Job, which appears to have exerted a heavy influence
upon Greek literature. See for example my series:
Similarities to The
Odyssey of the Books of Job and Tobit
and:
