Neoplatonism And Gnosticism

In recent decades our view of Gnosticism has been revolutionized by the discovery of a Coptic Gnostic library at Nag-Hammadi, Egypt. Currently, Gnosticism is seen as a phenomenon extending far beyond Christianity and displaying a strong Platonic influence. The opposition between the two systems was certainly not as sharp as Plotinus claimed. Where, why, and how the ideological lines were drawn is discussed in the light of the new historical evidence.

At least two modern conferences within Hellenic philosophy fields of study have been held in order to address what Plotinus stated in his tract Against the Gnostics and whom he was addressing it to, in order to separate and clarify the events and persons involved in the origin of the term "Gnostic". From the dialogue, it appears that the word had an origin in the Platonic and Hellenistic tradition long before the group calling themselves "Gnostics"--or the group covered under the modern term "Gnosticism"--ever appeared. It would seem that this shift from Platonic to Gnostic usage has led many people to confusion. The strategy of sectarians taking Greek terms from philosophical contexts and re-applying them to religious contexts was popular in Christianity, the Cult of Isis and other ancient religious contexts including Hermetic ones (see Alexander of Abonutichus for an example).Plotinus and the Neoplatonists viewed Gnosticism as a form of heresy or sectarianism to the Pythagorean and Platonic philosophy of the Mediterranean and Middle East. He accused them of using senseless jargon and being overly dramatic and insolent in their distortion of Plato's ontology." Plotinus attacks his opponents as untraditional, irrational and immoral and arrogant. He also attacks them as elitist and blasphemous to Plato for the Gnostics despising the material world and its maker.The Neoplatonic movement (though Plotinus would have simply referred to himself as a philosopher of Plato) seems to be motivated by the desire of Plotinus to revive the pagan philosophical tradition. Plotinus was not claiming to innovate with the Enneads, but to clarify aspects of the works of Plato that he considered misrepresented or misunderstood. Plotinus does not claim to be an innovator, but rather a communicator of a tradition. Plotinus referred to tradition as a way to interpret Plato's intentions. Because the teachings of Plato were for members of the academy rather than the general public, it was easy for outsiders to misunderstand Plato's meaning. However, Plotinus attempted to clarify how the philosophers of the academy had not arrived at the same conclusions (such as misotheism or dystheism of the creator God as an answer to the problem of evil) as the targets of his criticism.

In recent decades our view of Gnosticism has been revolutionized by the discovery of a Coptic Gnostic library at Nag-Hammadi, Egypt. Currently, Gnosticism is seen as a phenomenon extending far beyond Christianity and displaying a strong Platonic influence. The opposition between the two systems was certainly not as sharp as Plotinus claimed. Where, why, and how the ideological lines were drawn is discussed in the light of the new historical evidence.

Neoplatonism, a development of Plato's metaphysical and religious teaching, whose best-known representatives were Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus and Proclus, was the dominant philosophical school of the later Roman Empire and has been a major influence of European and Near Eastern thought and culture ever since. Yet the school's philosophy is only now coming to be studied in detail by historians of philosophy, largely because of the difficulty of the Neoplatonists' writings and the lack of a good summary exposition. This defect has been remedied in this, the first full-length study of the school by a single author to appear for over half a century. Lloyd P. Gerson's new Foreword sets that contribution in context; he also provides an up-dated Bibliography.

The point of view put forth in the following pages differs greatly from the common perspective according to which the treatises 30 to 33 constitute a single work, a Großschrift, and this single work, Plotinus’ essential response to the Gnostics. Our perspective is that of an ongoing discussions with his “Gnostic”—yet Platonizing—friends, which started early in his writings (at least treatise 6), developed into what we could call a Großzyklus (treatises 27 to 39), and went on in later treatises as well (e. g. 47-48, 51).

This Festschrift honors the life and work of John D. Turner (Charles J. Mach University Professor of Classics and History at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln) on the occasion of his 75th birthday. Professor Turner’s work has been of profound importance for the study of the interaction between Greek philosophy and Gnosticism in late antiquity. This volume contains essays by international scholars on a broad range of topics that deal with Sethian, Valentinian and other early Christian thought, as well as with Platonism and Neoplatonism, and offer a variety of perspectives spanning intellectual history, Greek and Coptic philology, and the study of religions.

In the second and third centuries A.D. Alexandria was the meeting-point of three distinct cultural streams, namely the Jewish-Alexandrine philosophy, Platonism, and Gnosticism, all of which had an influence on Alexandrine orthodox Christianity. Starting from the assumption that the thought of a Christian Father like Clement of Alexandria cannot be fully understood without taking this influence into account, the author examines in detail Clement's close dependence on the Jewish-Alexandrine philosophy, Middle Platonism, Neoplatonism, and Gnosticism in such matters as his attitude towards Greek philosophy, ethics, his views on 'pistis' and 'gnosis', cosmology and theology. Particular attention has been paid to the Gnostic texts from Nag-Hammadi so far published.