The latter point—of (Neo)Platonism as a kind of unifying model that lies at the intersection of various cults—seems to fit in with Edward Butler's "polycentric polytheism" concept.
Sort of. The difference-- if I'm understanding Butler rightly-- is that I'm very much *not* a believer in "polycentrism." I think that there is one center, with many spokes.
From my part of the woods, it's difficult to fully extricate the Christian and the "pagan" currents in Catholicism, but perhaps especially in the Italic traditions.
Yes, that's right. My family was ethnically mixed-- Italian, Irish, German. My Irish/German grandmother was more or less in charge of our religious education, and she totally bought (and buys) into the Vatican II reforms-- as do her co-ethnics in Ireland and Baden-Wurtenberg, as I understand it. The hints of Italianate Catholicism that I mostly got from my grandfather are the parts I really cherish.
I suspect that non-Christians or anti-Christians do not fully understand the implications of what a life or culture that is entirely divested of the Logos and his charity will truly look like..
This is where I'm not certain.
To be sure, I totally understand what you're getting at, and it's not wrong. There are people who don't understand the reforms that Christianity brought to the world, or don't believe in them. The best way to educate them is to share the story of the conversion of the Norwegians. (I think it was Norwegians.) It seems that, after King Olaf converted, many among his noblemen wanted to remain pagan. He replied that they were welcome to do so, but that he'd heard from the gods that the human sacrifices would need to be increased, and they would not be satisfied with slaves and war captives anymore. Once you're faced with the possibility of being hung on a tree and spitted in imitation of Odin, a religion which prohibits human sacrifice starts looking very tempting!
On the other hand, have you ever read Plato's Laws? He was writing around 400 B.C., and the system of morality he proposes is, at minimum, in advance of the Old Testament. Beyond that, it ancitipates a great many of the developments of Catholic moral teaching. That includes things that I had once thought originated with Aquinas-- the definition of Love as "to will the good of another," which is the official Catholic teaching, comes from the Laws.
And weirdly, there is actually some evidence that the Old Testament was actually compiled very late, by a group of Jewish Platonists at Alexandria. This theory has been forward by a guy named Russell Gmirkin, and when you listen to him talk, his biases are obvious-- think of the typical college professor's attitude twoard Christianity and "religion" and you wont' be far off. That said, some of his evidence is compelling; you can read a review of his book "Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible" here: https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/review-russell-e-gmirkin-plato-and-creation-hebrew-bible
If Gmirkin is correct-- which I regard as unlikely, but possible-- it's possible that Christianity too was not just influenced by the Neoplatonists, but a deliberate creation of the same. Among many other things, Jesus's myth would have allowed the Neoplatonists to continue to make use of the serious magical power of the Mystery schools, while purging the popular mythology of the moral messiness that comes with Hesiod and Homer.
So I suppose I'm a bit ambivalent on this point. Again, I understand what people like Jonathan Pageau who raise the point you are here are saying, but I'm not convinced that the Logos only comes in Christian form.
I should add, I suppose, that my view is that Gmirkin has compiled very interesting evidence but that his own blindness prevents him from drawing the obvious conclusions from them. If he's right, then that just means that it's to Plato and his followers that we owe the enormous reforms usually laid at the feet of Christianity.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2023-09-07 11:35 pm (UTC)Sort of. The difference-- if I'm understanding Butler rightly-- is that I'm very much *not* a believer in "polycentrism." I think that there is one center, with many spokes.
Yes, that's right. My family was ethnically mixed-- Italian, Irish, German. My Irish/German grandmother was more or less in charge of our religious education, and she totally bought (and buys) into the Vatican II reforms-- as do her co-ethnics in Ireland and Baden-Wurtenberg, as I understand it. The hints of Italianate Catholicism that I mostly got from my grandfather are the parts I really cherish.
This is where I'm not certain.
To be sure, I totally understand what you're getting at, and it's not wrong. There are people who don't understand the reforms that Christianity brought to the world, or don't believe in them. The best way to educate them is to share the story of the conversion of the Norwegians. (I think it was Norwegians.) It seems that, after King Olaf converted, many among his noblemen wanted to remain pagan. He replied that they were welcome to do so, but that he'd heard from the gods that the human sacrifices would need to be increased, and they would not be satisfied with slaves and war captives anymore. Once you're faced with the possibility of being hung on a tree and spitted in imitation of Odin, a religion which prohibits human sacrifice starts looking very tempting!
On the other hand, have you ever read Plato's Laws? He was writing around 400 B.C., and the system of morality he proposes is, at minimum, in advance of the Old Testament. Beyond that, it ancitipates a great many of the developments of Catholic moral teaching. That includes things that I had once thought originated with Aquinas-- the definition of Love as "to will the good of another," which is the official Catholic teaching, comes from the Laws.
And weirdly, there is actually some evidence that the Old Testament was actually compiled very late, by a group of Jewish Platonists at Alexandria. This theory has been forward by a guy named Russell Gmirkin, and when you listen to him talk, his biases are obvious-- think of the typical college professor's attitude twoard Christianity and "religion" and you wont' be far off. That said, some of his evidence is compelling; you can read a review of his book "Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible" here: https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/review-russell-e-gmirkin-plato-and-creation-hebrew-bible
If Gmirkin is correct-- which I regard as unlikely, but possible-- it's possible that Christianity too was not just influenced by the Neoplatonists, but a deliberate creation of the same. Among many other things, Jesus's myth would have allowed the Neoplatonists to continue to make use of the serious magical power of the Mystery schools, while purging the popular mythology of the moral messiness that comes with Hesiod and Homer.
So I suppose I'm a bit ambivalent on this point. Again, I understand what people like Jonathan Pageau who raise the point you are here are saying, but I'm not convinced that the Logos only comes in Christian form.
I should add, I suppose, that my view is that Gmirkin has compiled very interesting evidence but that his own blindness prevents him from drawing the obvious conclusions from them. If he's right, then that just means that it's to Plato and his followers that we owe the enormous reforms usually laid at the feet of Christianity.