by
This article follows up my theme that the Church
Fathers were right about the Hebrew origins of mainstream Greek philosophy.
Introduction
In previous articles I have 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 have, on the other hand, looked
to turn this around by challenging the conventional dates.
From the Book of Jeremiah we learn that Jeremiah
and Baruch went together to Egypt. So this Baruch, whom tradition also
identifies as Zoroaster, would be a possible candidate to consider for St.
Ambrose ‘Plato who was contemporaneous with Jeremiah in Egypt’.
Again, much of Plato’s most famous work, The Republic, with its themes
of justice and righteousness, could have arisen, I
suggest, from the intense dialogues of the books of Jeremiah and Job of
identical themes. I shall discuss this further below.
Saint Justin Martyr
Moreover, St. Justin Martyr had, even earlier than
the above-mentioned Church Fathers, espoused the 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. So we read
(http://beityahuwah.blogspot.com/2005/08/plato-stole-his-ideas-from-):
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.
My comment: I would like to take this a stage further. Just
as I have argued in my
Solomon and
Sheba
that the supposed Athenian statesman and lawgiver, Solon, was in fact a
Greek appropriation of Israel’s wise lawgiver, Solomon, so do I believe that
the primary ‘Ionian’ and ‘Greek’ philosophers of antiquity were actually Greek
appropriations of Hebrew sages and prophets. Regarding the supposed “Father of
Philosophy”, Thales, for instance, see my:
and, for Pythagoras:
Hebrew Foundations of Pythagoras
Now, getting back to the Church Fathers:
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.
My comment on this section: If the great Plato is to be restored as
a biblical sage, as I think eventually he must be, then this would be not so
much a case of Greeks plagiarising the Scriptures as of a biblical wise man
(the original Plato) keeping alive the Mosaïc Law and Tradition.
The article continues with a biography of Justin Martyr:
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 and was addressed to “The
Emperor Titus Aelius Hadrianus Antonius Pius Caesar Augustus, and the sons
Verissimus, philosopher, philosopher, and Lucius” Grant (52, 1973).
My comment: I would seriously contest these conventional
dates for Imperial Rome, given my view that the so-called ‘First’ and ‘Second’
Jewish revolts against Rome, separated by more than half a century, were the
one and same revolt of 70 AD. See my:
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 son of the
Emperor whom he calls philosophers.
The article continues with the writings of Justin Martyr:
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 everything 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 son 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 quote]
Plato and Job
The combined story of Job and his alter
ego, Tobias, son of Tobit
Job’s Life
and Times
has had a profound influence upon worldwide literature, both ancient and
modern. To give just one example, see my:
And, as already implied, I believe that this biblical story has also had a
huge influence upon ancient (supposedly Greco-Roman) philosophy, which, however,
significantly alters the original version. For, whilst there can be a
similarity in thought between Plato and, for example, the Book of Job, the tone
may be quite different. Plato’s Republic,
and his other dialogues such as Protagoras
and Meno, brilliant
though they may be in places, when compared with the intense atmosphere of the
drama of the Book of Job, 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, emphasis added):
… 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]
Now compare this gentlemanly tone with 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 way of complete contrast, we get pages and pages
of the following sort of amicable discussion as 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. ….
Protagoras, the well-known Sophist, is famous for his 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), a
philosophy that has its severe limitations:
The Futile Aspiration to Make ‘Man the Measure of All
Things’
https://www.academia.edu/8494268/The_Futile_Aspiration_to_Make_Man_the_Measure_of_All_Things_
However, this maxim may actually be, according to my estimation, based
upon the philosophy of the elderly Eliphaz of the Book of Job. For his possible
identity in the Book of Tobit, see my:
https://www.academia.edu/12159726/Friends_of_the_Prophet_Job._Part_One_Eliphaz_the_Temanite
Though 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).
Whilst Protagoras is but a pale ghost of the biblical Eliphaz, some of
the original lustre does still manage to shine through, nonetheless, 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, Job-Tobias’s father-in-law according to my reconstructions,
appears, from this, to have later been re-invented 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,
somewhat like Eliphaz, that 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 is the first to address Job and that he also refers 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 [the young] 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 Plato’s 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 Egypt 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” (The Republic, Bk. 2, 362).
I submit that this statement would not likely have
been written prior to the Gospels.
