Post-Hellenistic Philosophy: A Study in Its Development from the Stoics to Origen PDF
Preview Post-Hellenistic Philosophy: A Study in Its Development from the Stoics to Origen
Created on 25 September 2000 at 14.25 hours page iii Post-Hellenistic Philosophy (cid:1) A Study of its Development from the Stoics to Origen G. R. BOYS-STONES (cid:1) Created on 25 September 2000 at 14.25 hours page iv (cid:1) GreatClarendonStreet,Oxfordox26dp OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwidein Oxford NewYork Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota‹ BuenosAires Calcutta CapeTown Chennai DaresSalaam Delhi Florence HongKong Istanbul Karachi KualaLumpur Madrid Melbourne MexicoCity Mumbai Nairobi Paris Sa~oPaulo Shanghai Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto Warsaw andassociatedcompaniesinBerlin Ibadan OxfordisaregisteredtrademarkofOxfordUniversityPress intheUKandincertainothercountries PublishedintheUnitedStates byOxfordUniversityPressInc.,NewYork ãG.R.Boys-Stones2001 Firstpublished2001 Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced, storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans, withoutthepriorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress, orasexpresslypermittedbylaw,orundertermsagreedwiththeappropriate reprographicsrightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproduction outsidethescopeoftheaboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment, OxfordUniversityPress,attheaddressabove Youmustnotcirculatethisbookinanyotherbindingorcover andyoumustimposethesameconditiononanyacquirer BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData Dataavailable LibraryofCongressCataloginginPublicationData Dataavailable ISBN0–19–815264–7 TypesetbyJohnWas‹,Oxford PrintedinGreatBritain onacid-freepaperby T.J.InternationalLtd.,Padstow,Cornwall Created on 25 September 2000 at 14.25 hours page v Preface The centuries immediately following the end of the Hellenistic ageremainamurkyareainthehistoryofphilosophy.Whileagreat deal of work has been done in recent years to rehabilitate Hel- lenistic thought itself from the generally negative assessment of thenineteenthcentury,thethesisthatlaterphilosophytracesade- clineinto‘eclecticism’(cf.notleastZeller1892:vol.iv/1)retainsa programmatichold overstudies of the period.Three centuries of intellectualactivityareheldtomarkoutakindofphilosophicalno man’slandbetween theearliersystemsfromwhichtheyaretaken toderivetheirmaterial,andthegloriesof‘Neoplatonism’towhich theylookforward.EvenJohnDillon,whohasdonesomuchtomap outtheterritory(esp.Dillon1996)andtoquestiontheterm‘eclec- ticism’itself(Dillon1988),foundtheperiodinteresting‘chieflyas a prologue to Plotinus’ (Dillon 1996: p. xiv). However, if schol- arship has managed to bring the post-Aristotelian schoolswithin the pale, the possibility must exist that post-Hellenistic philoso- phycanbebroughtinsideaswell—perhaps,ultimately,thattheno man’slanditmarksoutatthedoorstepofPlotinuscanbereclaimed andthe palebroughtdownaltogether.It isthe aimof thepresent studytoexplorethatpossibility.Itlooksatpost-Hellenisticphilos- ophy,inparticularattheonedistinctiveandinfluentialmovement itproduced,namelyPlatonism,andarguesthat,inthismovement, philosophy changed for ever, and changed in a manner perhaps less visible for its very depth. For this change, I shall argue, was not one marked as such—in the first place, at least—by a radical departure from engagement with the doctrines of the Hellenistic schools; it was rather marked by a shift in the theoretical under- standingofhowphilosophyitselfshouldbedone.Thedistinction between‘Neo-’and‘Middle’Platonismisbasedonsuperficialities: therealphilosophicalrevolutionhadtakenplacebytheendofthe secondcenturyad,anditisthisrevolutionthatthestudytraces. Platonism, it hardly needs arguing, was about a return to the philosophyof Plato. Butthis returnwas the consequence,notthe basis, of a theory: the consequence, as I argue, of a theory de- Created on 25 September 2000 at 14.25 hours page vi vi Preface veloped from work originally done in the Hellenistic Stoa on the natureof mythologicalandtheological traditions. In Part I ofthe studyIexaminetheStoics’suggestionthatthesetraditionsmight preserve fragments of the philosophical outlook which obtained among the very first generations of mankind, an outlook whose truthcouldbeindependentlyestablished.InChapters1–2Iexam- inethebasisforthisbeliefintheearlyStoa,andinChapter3,the increasinglysophisticatedmethodsdevelopedbythelaterStoicsfor isolating‘original’philosophicalmaterialfromthetraditionswhich preservedit. Oneofthemostimportantofthesemethodswasthe cross-cultural comparison of theological traditions—an approach whichcalledforfurtherinvestigationintothepurityandantiquity of thetraditions with which it worked.As evidenceforthe devel- opment of interest in these questions, I lookin Chapters 4 and 5 at the way it is reflected in the Hellenistic debate between Greek andJewish intellectuals overthe age andstatus ofJewish culture, andarguethattheissueofJewishantiquityaroseasathemeinthe polemicitinvolvesonlyinthelightoftheworkofthelaterStoics. In Part II I turn to the Platonists themselves. They,I argue in Chapter 6, adopted the Stoics’ beliefs concerning the survival of ancient, privilegedwisdom,andtheirmethodsforextractingit as well. But what madethePlatonists Platonists was theiradditional beliefthatPlatohadalreadymadeuseofjustthiskindofapproach himself. Plato’s philosophy represented, they believed, a full and successful reconstruction and articulation of the primitive, privi- leged wisdom of early man—and that is why Plato came to stand as an authority for them. But if Plato’s authority is explained on thebasisofhissourcesandmethod,thetruthofhisphilosophyis also madeplausibleby the Platonists throughan accountof post- Platonichistory.InChapter7Ishowthat,workingfromtheexplo- sionofphilosophicaldisagreementanddebateafter Plato’s death, institutionalizedinthe foundationofa numberofdi·erentphilo- sophicalschools,thePlatonistsarguedthatweshouldnot(withthe Sceptics) suspend judgement over where the truth lay at all; but rather conclude that a returnto the study of Plato might provide themostpromisingroutetodiscoveringit.Thedi¶cultiesanddis- agreements amongschoolswhich had divergedfrom the teaching of Plato only made it more plausible that Plato had been right in thefirstplace. Finally,Iarguethat themodelswhichdefinedthePlatonist ap- Created on 25 September 2000 at 14.25 hours page vii Preface vii proachtophilosophywereadoptedbyChristianthinkersofthelater first and early second centuries ad, and shaped the emergence of ChristianityasaforceinWesternphilosophy.Needingtorespond toPlatonistclaimsthatthedissensionwithinChristianitycouldbe explained by their own divergence from the ancient tradition in- heritedthroughPlato,theChristiansusedthePlatonists’owntools todevelopthenotionsof‘orthodoxy’and‘heresy’bywhicha‘true’ andunifiedChristiantraditioncouldbedistinguishedfromthedis- sensionitlaterattracted.Furthermore,byarguingthatChristianity wasinphilosophicalcontinuitywithHebrewthought(astheapol- ogists of the second century started to do), ‘orthodox’ Christians wereabletolayclaimtoaHebraeo-Christiantraditionwhichwas olderinitsturnthananypagantradition.Indeed,theyarguedthat the traditional theologies of the pagans themselves must now be viewedaslateranddecadento·shootsoftheirown.Butallofthis leavestheChristiansonefurther question,exploredinChapter9: if traditionalpagantheologyisto beexplainedas acorruptdiver- gence from Hebraeo-Christian thought, how did it come to give rise to the more positive tradition of Classical Greek philosophy? SinceitwasaxiomatictotheargumentusedbytheChristiansthat divergent traditions could only tend to the worse, the improve- ments apparent in the work of the philosophers were in need of explanation. The answer o·ered by the Christians was that, one way or another, pagan philosophy also depended for its existence onthepriorexistenceandsuperiortruthoftheChristiantradition: that it was, forexample, sparkedintobeing bycontact duringthe Classical periodwith HebrewScripture.Thisexplainsthe much- maligned‘dependencytheme’(as onecommentator hascalled it); but,crucially,itexplainswhyoneshouldnotallowthepositivede- velopments within pagan philosophyto blind one to the essential weaknessofitsapproach.Thesametraitswhichhadledthepagans todivergefromtheoriginaltraditionledtheirphilosopherstodis- putealloveragaintheinsightstheyhadgainedfromtheHebrews, andtofallonceagainintoadisagreementwhichshowedthat,ifthe truthwasdiscernibleatall,itmustliewithinorthodoxChristianity. Havingdescribedwhatiscontainedinthisstudy,Ishouldsaya wordaboutwhatisomitted.Idonot,onthewhole,discussevidence laterthanthelatethirdcenturyad—or,morespecifically,laterthan the Platonist Porphyry,or Origenin the chapterson Christianity. Thesetwo thinkersseem tome convenientresting-pointsintheir Created on 25 September 2000 at 14.25 hours page viii viii Preface respectivetraditions;andthetheoryIdiscusshasbeensu¶ciently establishedbythispointforittobeneithernecessarynorprofitable to extend the investigation further. But a word is also needed on thescopeofmydiscussionofearlierPlatonismaswell,fromwhich severalfamiliar nameswill befoundto beabsent.It is part ofmy argument that Platonism should not be defined primarily by its doctrines, but rather by its methodology(in the context of which its doctrinal development can then be understood). For this rea- son,IconcentrateawayfromPlatonistswhoareonlyknowntous throughdoxographicalfragmentsorworks:thisistheexcuseIof- ferfortheabsencehereoffiguressuchasAlbinus,Alcinous,Gaius, andApuleius.Iamencouragedinfocusingmyattentionelsewhere (inparticularonCelsus,Plutarch, Atticus,andNumenius,aswell as, to a lesser extent, on Plotinus and Porphyry) not just by this theoretical consideration, but also by the failure of doxographical approaches to Platonism which have deployed these thinkers on the front line of their evidence—one thinks in particular of the now discredited theory which traced Platonism from Antiochus of Ascalon, through Arius Didymus, to Gaius and the school at- tributed to him (cf. Chapter 6 below, esp. n. 2). Quite generally, in fact, this study does not aim to be comprehensive; but it does aim tostart uncoveringthe kindofstructuresinterms ofwhich a comprehensiveinvestigationmightoperate. I have accumulated many debts of gratitude in preparing this study:first of all to the President andFellows of the British Aca- demy, for the Post-Doctoral Junior Research Fellowship which allowed me to start it; and to the President and Fellows of Cor- pus Christi College, Oxford, for the concurrent award of a non- stipendiary Junior Research Fellowship which gave me the ideal environmentforthe workitinvolved.Thebookcontainsmaterial thathasbeenairedinpapersvariouslypresentedtoseminarsinOx- ford,Bristol,and(thankstothegenerousinvitationandhospitality of Karin Blomqvist) Lund Universities. I am especially grateful for the attempts made to steer me away from error by Michael Frede, Charles Brittain, Myles Burnyeat, John Dillon, Ian Kidd, DavidLevene,BenMorison,DavidSedley,R.McL.Wilson;and theanonymousreadersatOxfordUniversityPress. May2000 G.B.-S. Created on 25 September 2000 at 14.25 hours page ix Contents Abbreviations 000 PartI.AncientWisdom:StoicExegesis 1. TheOutlookofPrimitiveMan:BeginningsofaTheory 000 2. TheRecoveryofPrimitiveWisdominEarlyStoicism 000 3. PrimitiveWisdomandStoicExegesisafterPosidonius 000 4. AntiquityinGreeco-EgyptianAntisemitism 000 5. AntiquityinJewishApologetic 000 PartII:AncientTradition:Post-HellenisticPhilosophy 6. TheAuthorityofPlatoandPrimitiveWisdom 000 7. DivergenceandDisagreement:ThePlatonistAlternative toScepticism 000 8. TheInventionofHebraeo-ChristianOrthodoxy 000 9. The‘DependencyTheme’ 000 References 000 IndexofPassages 000 GeneralIndex 000 Created on 25 September 2000 at 14.25 hours page x Abbreviations AA Josephus,AgainstApion ANRW H. Temporini and W.Haase (eds.), Aufstiegund Nieder- gang der ro•mischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im SpiegelderneuerenForschung(Berlin:deGruyter,1972– ) DK H.DielsandW.Kranz,DieFragmentederVorsokratiker, 6thedn.(3vols.;DublinandZurich:Weidmann:1954) D.L. DiogenesLaertius,LivesofthePhilosophers FGrH F.Jacoby,DieFragmentedergriechischenHistoriker(3vols.; Berlin:Weidmann,1926–30) EK L.EdelsteinandI.G.Kidd,Posidonius,i.TheFragments, 2ndedn.(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1989) PHP Galen,PlacitaHippocratisetPlatonis=OntheDoctrinesof HippocratesandPlato RE G.Wissowaetal.(eds.),PaulysReal-Encyclopa•diederclas- sischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1894–1978) Schu•rer Schu•rer(1973–87) S.E.,M.,PH Sextus Empiricus, Adversus mathematicos=Against the Professors, Pyrrhoneae hypotyposes=Outlines of Pyrrhon- ism Stern Stern(1974–84) SVF Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, ed. J. von Arnim (3 vols.; Stuttgart:Teubner,1903–24);vol.iv(indexes)byM.Adler
The list of books you might like
