19criticism is at least partially applicable to Western Christianity, pertaining notably to thelatter’s dualistic anthropology.
The Patristic reception of AristotleIn addition to the Patristic theologians who are conventionally viewed as assimilating andmodifying concepts from Platonist philosophy, such as the thinkers mentioned in the previoussection, there were other Church Fathers who are perceived by some authors as standingcloser to Aristotle. Among the latter theologians count Leontius of Byzantium, John ofDamascus, and Gregory Palamas.
In the early sixth century Leontius adapted Aristotelianlogic to Christian metaphysics. He thus became the pioneer of ‘Byzantine’ scholastic philosophy to express Christian truths logically and scientifically.
His ‘Orthodox scholastic’approach would be continued by John of Damascus, notably in his celebrated work titled
Anexact exposition of the Orthodox faith
.One of the most ingenious Patristic theologians, Maximus the Confessor, employed a varietyof concepts from both the Neo-Platonist and Aristotelian traditions. For instance, he wasinfluenced by Aristotle’s metaphysical theories of time and eternity, and motion and rest.
physis
) and end, or purpose (
telos
).
However, in the exposition of his theology the Confessor is indebted mainlyto Neo-Platonism with its triadic structuring of reality on all levels. Maximus thus depicted acosmos consisting of the triad
ousia, dynamis,
and
energeia
, applicable to both beings andGod: existing by nature (
ousia
), the ability to act (
dynamis
), and the accomplished action(
energeia
). Out of the divine power the intelligible world is created as the triad being (
toeinai
), well-being (
to eu einai
), and eternal being (
to aei einai
). Finally the sensible worldarises as the triad becoming (
genesis
), motion (
kinesis
), and rest (
stasis
).
With his scheme of becoming, motion, and rest on the sensible level, Maximus reversed Origen’s triad of rest,motion, and becoming. Remarkably, the Confessor thus came closer to Hellenic philosophy
66
Yannaras,
Elements of Faith
, 62-63.
67
Archbishop Lazar Puhalo,
“The External Philosophy”: The Fathers and Platonism
(2010).http://www.clarion-journal.com/files/platon.pdf.
68
Tatakis,
Christian Philosophy
, 238.
69
Sheldon-Williams,
Greek Christian
, 492.
70
John O’Meara,
Eriugena
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), 73.
71
Sheldon-Williams,
Greek Christian
, 492-496.
20than Origen did, since in Neo-Platonism the final purpose of the human soul is rest within thehighest hypostasis of the Godhead, the One.
72
It has been noted by a leading Orthodox theologian of the twentieth century, Father GeorgesFlorovsky, that the Greek Patristic theologians were closer to Aristotle than to Plato in theirunderstanding of the relationship between the human soul and the body. Aristotle understood better than any of the Greek philosophers the empirical wholeness of human existence, andthus empirical existence and the human personality took on an importance for him that couldnot be detached from the eternal elements of the soul. Therefore the Stagyrite philosopherrejected the Platonist doctrine of a transmigration of souls to other bodies, although he nevercame to attribute an immortal dimension to the person.
73
The Greek Fathers, according toFather Georges, eventually established a kind of synthesis between Aristotle’s notion of themortal unity of body and soul on the one hand, and the impersonal and eternal
nous
of Platoon the other. As correctly remarked by Father Gregory Telepneff and Bishop Chrysostomos,this Patristic synthesis entails a rejection of body-soul dualism, since the life of the material body and its sensible faculties acquire a referent in the eternal or divine realm.
ConclusionWhile being deeply conscious of the Patristic debt to Hellenic thought, to the extent that he posited the existence of a Greek Christian Platonist tradition that stretched from theCappadocians to Maximus and Eriugena, Sheldon-Williams followed the example of theChurch Fathers in not hesitating to point out notions in Hellenic philosophy that wereirreconcilable with the Christian revelation. These are: (i) the eternity of the cosmos, (ii) thedivinity of the human soul, and (iii) the view of the soul as substantially different from the body and in need of release from it as from something evil.
75
While limitations of space donot permit us to dwell on these points in any detail, it should be remarked that these Hellenicdoctrines became more subtle and nuanced by the time of the later Neo-Platonists such asIamblichus and Proclus, so that their divergence from Christian theology appear less marked
72
Edward Moore,
The Golden Road to Unlimited Devotion: The Christian Neo-Platonism ofSt Maximus Confessor
(2003), 5-7. http://www.isns.us/emoore.htm.
73
Fr Gregory Telepneff & Bishop Chrysostomos, “The Transformation of HellenisticThought on the Cosmos and Man in the Greek Fathers”,
The Patristic and Byzantine Review
,1990, IX, 8. http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/hellenistic_thought.aspx.
74
Telepneff & Chrysostomos,
Transformation
, 8-9.
75
Sheldon-Williams,
Greek Christian
, 426.
21and even reconcilable (see for instance the work of the Orthodox scholar Edward Moore inthis regard).In his assessment of the interaction between Hellenism and Christianity, the Orthodoxtheologian Hilarion Alfeyev (also a Metropolitan in the Russian Orthodox Church) pointedout that some of the notable representatives of ancient philosophy moved beyond polytheismand arrived at the truth of the one God. Thus Plato, Philo, and the Neo-Platonists postulated asingle Author of the Universe, whom Plato in the
Timaeus
refers to as the Creator, Father,God and Demiurge. Concomitantly with his theistic cosmology, Plato recognised a higherReason (the Logos), while the gods fulfil roles similar to the angels in the monotheisticreligions, since the Demiurge created them and issues orders to them. As remarked byMetropolitan Hilarion, the Logos was originally conceived as the eternal cosmic law, whichfor Philo and the Neo-Platonists also became the divine creative force mediating between Godand the world.
76
Ultimately, some of the Hellenic philosophers came very close to the truths finally revealed inChristianity, as Metropolitan Hilarion observed. These include the doctrines of the one Godwho is the Creator of world, the divine Logos, the Holy Trinity (for example in Plotinus’ threedivine hypostases), the contemplative vision of God, and the ultimate deification (
theosis
) ofthe human person. It is therefore not surprising that prominent Church Fathers such as Justin,Clement, and the Cappadocians thought highly of philosophy. The Patristic debt to Hellenic philosophy is strikingly confirmed by the fact that in ancient Christian churches there wereimages of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle next to the saints and martyrs, as forerunners of theincarnated Truth.
Let us as Orthodox Christians of the third millennium therefore continueto honour these great Hellenic thinkers for their lasting contributions to Christian thought,while not losing sight of their points of divergence from the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ.Vladimir de BeerBristol, 12/25 March 2012Feast of St Symeon the New Teologian
76
Alfeyev,
Mystery of Faith
, 7.
77
Alfeyev,
Mystery of Faith
, 8-9.
