“For what man knew at all what God was, before [H]e came?

Or do you accept the empty, silly accounts of the recognized philosophers,

some of whom said that God was fire. . .

and others water, and others some other

one of the elements created by God.” [1]

Introduction

What happened during the fourth decade of the first century CE can either be viewed as superlatively significant to human history, or simply as a basis for what would continually happen ever since. A man named Jesus who was from a small town called Nazareth in Galilee was reported to have said and done some things that shocked the religious establishment of his time. People from Galilee contemporary to Jesus were viewed as brutish, ignorant people who had a tradition of strong Jewish faith and mystics who believed that they could talk to God directly. Jesus came out of this tradition and traveled south towards Jerusalem where the people were much more Hellenized (influenced by Greek culture) and where a stricter religious order prevailed under the Pharisees and Sadducees. Jesus is reported to have cured the ill, raised the dead, and promised everlasting life through having faith in him. The reporters of this message were people who lived in Hellenic/Judaic communities that had certain views about the world, God, and heaven. The reports of this man spread to Greece, Italy, Africa, Mesopotamia, and perhaps even to India. In these places the gospel (the ancient message that the apostles were spreading throughout the known world) met with different belief systems, different religious backgrounds, and complex philosophical traditions.

At this time the Gospel was still being preached orally; no written Gospel existed to unify the belief system of Jesus’ followers after he was crucified. Therefore when any confusion arose, one could not refer to anything in writing. When this Gospel, carried by a number of different people throughout the Mediterranean world, met with these foreign traditions it conflicted, contrasted, and in some cases complemented and confirmed them. What is of interest here is what happened when the non-Christian traditions began to accept the Christian message. The philosophers, pagans, and rulers did not simply throw off their cultural garments and cloaked themselves in the Christian message—they began to interpret it. When a person interprets something, they need to base their understanding on what is already present in their mind—their philosophy, religion, and other cultural traditions. Thus the interpretation of Christianity that people developed ended up being a synthesis of the oral (and eventually scriptural) message and the various philosophical-cultural worldviews of the interpreters. The Greek interpretation will tend to show hints of Platonic dualism. The Alexandrian interpretation might include some Gnostic and Neoplatonic flavors. And an interpreter from Jerusalem may tend to be partial to a Jewish concentration on law and ritual. The fact that the Christian message experienced a variety of interpretations makes it difficult to sort through and identify how the message might have been altered or distorted during cultural interpretation.

In our analysis of the effects of Greek philosophy, Roman imperialism, and Hellenism (in general) on the development of the Roman Catholic church—its theology, ecclesiasticism, and rituals—it will be essential to look at the many theologians, philosophers, and saints who played the numerous parts in forging the Catholic world. Many interpretations would appear and many conflicts would force debate. A number of philosophical/theological traditions would appear and ‘thread’ through Christian development. Eventually a desire for unity would force some of these interpretations to be swept to the side, synthesize, or continue to create conflict even to the present.

The Roman Catholic Church was a successor to the imperialism of Rome, the esoteric philosophy of Athens, popular pagan belief, and Christianity’s Jewish monotheistic background. None of these facets of the pre-Christian world were lost in Christianisation.[2] They were simply reformed and painted over until they became part of a synthesized product of the clash of a powerful Roman world and a powerful Christian message. So the central questions are as follows: Did the power of the Greco-Roman culture overwhelm the Christian message or was the Christian message close enough to Greco-Roman ideas already as to allow an open dialogue between them? Was Christianity preserved in the Christianisation of the Roman Empire or was it altered and lost in ancient history? By looking into the records left behind we can see how the interpretive process of the church fathers, leading theologians such as Augustine and Aquinas, and heretics such as Arius may leave clues to what the church was like and how it was changed.

By outlining Christian thinkers from the first century to the middle ages we will see how the Catholic Church was formed and defined. Aristotle’s reintroduction into the European world would bring about further controversy in the late middle ages. This analysis will illustrate the major trends in Christian thought and how the philosophical and Imperial traditions of the Roman world effected the development of a unified Christian church.

The Ancient Church

The ancient world knew no separation of church and state as we do today. Philosophers did science as well as religion; they studied physics, metaphysics, gods, the afterlife, medicine, etc. Paul Tillich tells us that “philosophy had become religion, and religion had become mystical philosophy” and continues to say that this “is why Christianity had to deal with philosophy, for it was a rival religion.”[3]

Long before the times of Jesus or the Roman Empire, a man named Zoroaster, in Persia tells of the one God called Ahura-Mazda. This would begin the Persian religion, Zoroastrianism, which still survives today. Among the Israelite tribes in Palestine, the monotheistic trend also emerged with YHWH and developed a long and complex religious history. With the Torah at the center of religious life, law, and philosophy, the Jews would become an influential part of the Mediterranean world as the Romans created their empire. When the historical figure, Jesus, comes into history he is perpetuating this Judaic message of one God as the Father, and refers to himself as the ‘Son of Man.’ Jesus’ followers continued spreading his Gospel of salvation throughout the known world. It was not too long before churches would be built in cities such as Antioch, Smyrna, and Corinth.

It was Jesus that made Christianity a unique message in religious history; it is he who made the message powerful and compelling. Jesus was not just another prophet or leader. He was God incarnate. It is his divinity that gave him authority over other would-be Messiahs of the time, who were simply forgotten. The life of Jesus is known to us through various sources. Of these the most well known and perhaps oldest known are the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Each of these Gospels differs from the others in some ways but all focus on the life, acts, and teachings of the man Jesus. John’s Gospel tends to differ the most from the other three. Each of the Gospels seem to be geared towards a different ancient audience. John Romer tends to interpret this as evidence that these books were simply written in different places; that the differences are illustrations of the slight cultural differences throughout the Mediterranean world. Regardless of the reason, the Gospel was entering a complex and philosophically diverse world that would need to be addressed in different ways for it to be appreciated by different people.

John’s Gospel was written later than the other Gospels and is generally viewed as primarily interpretive. This brings the question of what kind of interpretation John would be using; what kind of man was John? It seems clear from a modern historical method of interpretation that there was significant Greek influence upon the language of John. His use of “Word” (Greek Logos) is indicative of this influence. What is unclear to us is whether he intended to use this term in the sense that Heraclitus did.[4] While the word itself means simply ‘word,’ or ‘discourse,’ Heraclitus use of the word connotes ‘law’, ‘reason,’ or ‘wisdom.’ Many theologians, aware of its Greek philosophical meaning, would read this word, logos and interpret it to mean that Jesus was the rational principle of the universe. This idea would translate into the Son of the personae/hypostases of the Trinity when the council of Nicaea would convene in 325 CE. However if this is not what John meant, then it would seem that the Hellenized theologians after John may have misinterpreted the meaning of his Gospel. It could be that John was trying to convey that Jesus was the message, or even the messenger of God. Again, it also could be that it was the Gospel, not Jesus, which was the Logos.

After Jesus’ crucifixion and believed ascension into heaven, the Apostles began to travel to different parts of the Roman Empire and beyond. Eusebius tells us that, for a while, much of the spreading of the word was limited to Judea and Samaria. It was not until Paul converted and began preaching that Christianity spread vastly outside of the Jewish eastern Mediterranean.[5] With Paul on the Christian’s side the message had a more traveled messenger. Eusebius goes on to tell us that the Apostles began to spread the word to the ends of the known world. Thomas went to Partha, Andrew to Scythia, John to Asia Minor (he would end up in Pontica), Peter went to Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia (to name a few), and finally to Rome where he was crucified.[6] In each of these places some would accept the gospel and others would not. What is important was the methods that were used to spread the word. In his speech to the Athenians, Paul does not come into the city and immediately start preaching in the marketplace about a savior from some Roman outpost who promises immortality. If he had he might not have had the impact that he did. He came to Athens and looked around, debated with the Jews, Stoics, and Epicureans, and when he was urged to talk to the group he used something in the town itself to gain attention:

Athenians, I see how extremely religious you are in every way. For as I went through the city and looked carefully at the objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it, he who is Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by human hands, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mortals life and breath and all things. . . . While God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now he commands all people everywhere to repent.”[7]

He is not advocating that the Greeks should accept a new God on top of the pantheism of Greece at the time, he is introducing the monotheistic God of Israel that cannot be represented by an idol, and is “Lord of heaven and earth.” This in fact challenges the traditional idea of polytheism and will ultimately point past henotheism and toward the monotheistic Jewish belief of which the Greek Jews were already aware.

What I find interesting is that Paul does not refer directly to Jesus Christ at all in his speech to the Athenians; he doesn’t call him ‘God’ or the ‘Son of God.’ He says; “For ‘in [God] we live and move and have our being’: as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we too are his offspring.’ Since we are God’s offspring . . .”[8] Paul is drawing on Greek tradition here very strongly by quoting the Greek poets Epimenides and Aratus.[9] He is trying to tie the Greek tradition to the message that he has brought about Jesus, but has not yet introduced the historical man, Jesus.

Within this speech Paul also talks about the resurrection, hinting at immortality with God. The promise of immortality would have been familiar to the Greek thinkers. The great philosophers of ancient Greece—Socrates, Plato, etc—had recognized that the soul was immortal. What was more significant may have been the promise of bodily resurrection. The Greeks believed in a kind of transmigration of souls—reincarnation.[10] The soul lived before the body and contained the wisdom of the Platonic world of Ideas. Bodily resurrection would have been a radical concept for the Greeks. Paul seems to use his language carefully, however, to have his words ambiguous enough as to not startle his audience with this notion. This cautiousness, while getting the Athenians to listen, also gives plenty of room for Greek interpretation.

Paul was probably the best Christian for the job of bringing Christianity to Athens; “The man was too large to have himself and his beliefs cast into a single mould, or shaped by a single circumstance.”[11] His Roman citizenship was evidence that he was familiar with the Roman world and would have given him an advantage had he run into problems with Roman authorities. Also, it seems that Paul had a better familiarity with Greek philosophical ideas than did the other Apostles. Paul could introduce his message in a way that would be somewhat philosophical, as to gain the cities intellectual attention, without conceding too much of his Christian beliefs.

Platonism was still the dominant school of thought at the time. The influences of Epicurus, the Stoics, Aristotle, Pythagoras, and a host of other Hellenic thinkers were also thriving in Athens when Paul made his speech. In the face of such a great philosophical tradition it is not surprising that Paul’s speech appeared very cautious. He very likely was aware that had he introduced too much too quickly; he might have been ignored by the very philosophical Athenians. Perhaps it was simply that he was looking for a less public audience for his gospel, which he could have found in Athens had he looked hard enough. It is more likely that he was trying to appeal to the religious character of the city without alienating the people in the marketplace with esoteric or confusing theology. It is also possible that he did offer more in his speech that is not recorded in Acts. In either case, the Athenians heard Paul—and some of the people accepted his message.

The Apostolic tradition of the 1^st and early 2^nd centuries would face a problem with certain Greek traditions that would discover Christianity through the spreading of the Gospels. The Apostles were aging and dying, leaving the second generation of Christians in charge. During the early 2^nd century Symeon, Bishop of Jerusalem, was martyred at the old age of 120, says Eusebius.[12] Until then

“the Church had remained virgin, pure and uncorrupted . . . . But when the sacred band of the apostles had in various ways reached the end of their life, and the generation of those privileged to listen with their own ears to the divine wisdom had passed on, then godless error began to take shape, through the deceit of false teachers."[13]

Gnosticism

The Greek philosophical traditions manifested themselves in more than the marketplaces and the Academy of Plato’s intellectual descendents. There were secretive groups with esoteric rituals and mythologies tucked into the Greek underworld, hidden from the commoners. During the 1^st and 2^nd centuries some of the Gnostic literature began to involve Jesus in forms of letters and non-canonical gospels. Of course some of these alternative accounts have been known through Eusebius and other Church historians since the second century. However they played little to no part in the church’s development—at least directly. Other gospels, at least 8 of significance, exist from these Gnostic groups. The canonization process, led by the bishop of Lyon and anti-Gnostic church father, Ireneus, did not accept them as true gospels. They tell us things about Jesus that the four canonical Gospels did not, and often contradict them. The most familiar to us are probably The “Gospels” of Thomas, Philip, and perhaps even Peter. Whether these documents were written by these Apostles is improbable but not altogether impossible. Most scholars do doubt that these alternative gospels are valid accounts of Jesus’ life; that they were written much later or by people who had no direct or indirect interaction with Jesus. It was common in the ancient world for authors to use names of well-known people on their documents to give them authority, so their validity is not clear. What is clear is that relatively early in church history these documents were not revered as sources of truth about Jesus by most Christians. In the fourth century Eusebius said of the Gospels of Thomas, Peter, and Matthias in particular that “none of these has any churchman of any generation ever seen fit to refer to in any of his writings.”[14] However, Clement of Alexandria did refer to some of the Gnostic literature during the 3^rd century. In fact, Clement is known for having read and cited more documents in his work than any other writer of his time. Also, Clement was a Gnostic Christian himself, so his use of Gnostic literature is not surprising at all. Nonetheless, most early church theologians were aware of the existence of such documents but chose to ignore them as not valuable to the church.

Since the alternative gospels tended to come out of the underground religious sects, collectively referred to as Gnosticism, it is important to discuss what these sects believed. Gnosticism (sometimes referred to as syncretism) is derived from the Greek word Gnosis, which means knowledge. However, the Greeks had two words for “knowledge;” episteme and gnosis. The former refers to an ‘awareness of’ or ‘perception of’ whereas the latter, gnosis, refers to an intimate or mystical knowledge of something. Paul Tillich refers to Gnosis as “knowledge through participation.”[15] Thus it is clear that there is some Platonic elements in Gnostic thought (which will be clarified below). The Gnostics varied in their beliefs and rituals, but were all secretive Greek intellectuals who claimed to have true knowledge about the metaphysical structure of the heavens and earth, the truth about creation of the physical world, and ways of reaching the divine realm of God. Stuart Holroyd, in his book, The Elements of Gnosticism, tells us that “Gnostic teachers and philosophers were individuals who produced their own literary and speculative works without having to subscribe to any particular set of beliefs.”[16] Ireneus was critical of this and sneered that they were “capable of producing a new Gospel every day.”[17] It is true that the Gnostics seemed to create gospels and other documents of Christian relevance at a high rate. From the point of view of the Gnostics, they were simply the ones who understood the significance of the Christian message while the others were missing out on the truth. This arrogance of the Gnostics made them generally disliked by the other Christian groups.

What is most significant for this discussion is the variety of Gnostic metaphysics based on the many creation myths. Although different, they all share some common elements. I will cite two examples, one general and one specific. The general story can be summed up in this way:

In the beginning there existed only the transcendent God, a male principle that existed for eternities in repose with a female principle, the Ennoia (Thought), until there emanated or was brought forth from their union the two archetypes Mind (male) and Truth (female). In turn these principles emanated others, in male-female pairs . . . known as Aeons, who collectively constituted the divine realm, known as the Pleroma, or Fullness. Of the Aeons only the first, Mind, knew and comprehended the greatness of the Father and could behold him, but the last and youngest Aeon, Sophia (Wisdom), became possessed of a passion to do so, and out of the agony of this passion and without the knowledge or consent of her male counterpart, she projected from her own being a flawed emanation.[18]

This flawed emanation is the Demiurge; commonly associated with the devil. Compare Basilides’[19] story:

Naught was, neither matter, nor substance, nor voidness of substance, nor simplicity . . . nor angel, nor god; in fine, neither anything at all for which man has ever found a name . . . Such, or rather far more removed from the power of man’s comprehension, was the state of non-being, when (if we can speak of ‘when’ in a state beyond time and space) the deity beyond being, without thinking, or feeling, or determining, or choosing, or being compelled, or desiring, willed to create universality . . . Thus the Divinity beyond being created universality beyond being[20]

Both of these stories are very different when compared to the Jewish creation story of Genesis. In fact at this point in the stories, the physical universe has not yet been created; all that has been created is the flawed emanation and the universal Seed. Basilides’ story continues in much the same way as most Gnostic creation stories:

After this, from the universal Seed and conglomeration of Seed-mixture there burst forth and came into existence the Great Ruler, the head of the sensible universe, a beauty and magnitude and potency that naught can destroy . . . Coming into existence, he raised himself aloft, and soared upward, and was borne above in all his entirety as far as the greatest Firmament. There he remained, because he thought himself lord and ruler, and a wise master-builder, he betook himself to the creation of the creatures of the universe.[21]

This Great Ruler the Gnostic associates with the Jewish God YHWH. Simon Magus’ version, while differing from Basilides’, refers to this subordinate being as the Demiurge, as most Gnostic literature does, so this is the term I will use. Among much of Gnostic literature the Demiurge is arrogant and thinks that he is the supreme God. (Interestingly enough, this is the attitude of many Gnostics when it comes to other Christians). His wicked angels rule the earth and claim to be divine and good, but were not. Some of the Gnostic myths went so far as to claim that the snake of Genesis was actually a Messenger of the true God and that what the Demiurge (who portrayed himself as God) told Adam was evil was actually divine. Thus, the Old Testament was not revered by the Gnostics because they believed that the Jews followed this Demiurge and not the true God. Jesus Christ, the source of the New Testament, was the true Messenger of God and, of course, a Gnostic messiah.

Another aspect of some Gnostic groups was asceticism. The dualism of soul and body, based on the dualism of the creation myths, is very pronounced here. In Egypt, during the first century, there were a number of ascetic groups called Therapeutae or Therapeurides. It is unclear as to whether these groups were Christians or not; Eusebius seems to think so. Whether they were Christians is not very significant if we consider that these groups were part of a Gnostic-like trend around Alexandra as early as the first century. The Gnostic Christians would inherit this and, because they viewed the body as evil, would deny it for the sake of the divine spirit of the person. One example is the Nicolaitans, led by Nicolaus, who is said to have had contempt for the flesh “never yielding to it for pleasure’s sake.” In The Apocalypse of Peter Jesus is seen on the crucifix laughing. Jesus explains:

He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But the one into whose hands and feet they drive nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me.[22]

Thus, from the point of view of the Gnostic, the true Jesus is the divine soul of God; the body is simply flesh, not worthy of reverence. There is a similarity here to Buddhism as well. In Buddhism the body is a source of suffering which can only be escaped by meditation and transcendence of the cycle of life and death, which are associated with flesh or matter. However for the Gnostic the means to transcending the body and reaching God is knowledge—Gnosis—rather than thoughtlessness as it is with the Buddhists. The idea of asceticism, while never popular, was never completely lost in Catholicism. Augustine would say that happiness is the result of righteousness and piety; any man in extreme of bodily suffering is happier than those in excess.[23] In fact, Paul often uses dualistic ways of thinking in writing his epistles:

But I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord![24]

Thus, the same dualism that appears in Gnosticism and Platonism also appears in Paul’s epistles.

The Gnostics accepted Jesus into their esoteric compilation of ideas when he was introduced to them. What is particularly interesting is when the Christian message began to supercede the other Gnostic traditions to create a Christian-centered Gnosticism. What would emerge would be a Gnostic Christianity with its own views on interpretation and christology and theology. Jesus would be associated with the divine realm, even with the first Aeon, Mind. The Devil is the Demiurge who tries to use the body of Jesus, in fact of all people, to conquer the divine realm. This view of Christianity would find a home in Northern Africa and have significant influence on later Christian thought. The Gnostics thought that they were the true Christians with the correct Christian message. This Gnostic Christian movement would reach its pinnacle during the 3^rd century, in Persia.

In the area of the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers, a religion began to take hold in small, non-proselytizing communities. They were known as the Mandaeans, for the Aramaic word manda, which means knowledge. Thus, the Mandaeans were essentially Gnostics. Although the names differ from the Greek versions, their creation stories are the same as the Gnostics of the Greek world. Baptism and death—the journey of the soul—were emphasized among the Mandaeans. In 216 CE, a man named Mani was born and raised in a community that was probably Mandaean. He would grow up and create the Manichaean religion, which was the most successful of the Gnostic movements.

Manichaeism differed from the other Gnostic movements in that it was neither secretive nor very esoteric—it was an open religious movement for all to join. Mani recognized religious figures such as Zoroaster, the Buddha, and Jesus as recipients of revelations from the true God, not the false god of Moses. Further, he included himself as another of these recipients, as “the apostle to of the true God, in the land of Babel.”[25] In a familiar fashion, Mani was arrested by the Zoroastrian priesthood and killed for his religious unorthodoxy. During middle of the 3^rd century Manichaeism came into direct conflict with Christianity in the Mediterranean world, becoming its greatest competitor. Inheriting its mythology from the Mandaeans, the Manichaeans were very similar to the Gnostics. To Mani, Jesus was a Messenger; a created divine being whose purpose it is to help bring the God of Light back into control over the ruler of the realm of Darkness. This ruler, according to Manichaean mythology, waged war on the God of Light, in part by using light to create Adam and Eve, and helped to induce the fall of man. Also significant is the fact that Mani associates Jesus with the serpent in the story of Genesis.[26] Mani believed that his is the true meaning of the Christian message. The other Christian groups erred, thought Mani, by concentrating on a historical person and not the divine Messenger and his many incarnations—including Mani.

Philo of Alexandria led the Gnostic charge in Northern Africa and influenced a line of Gnostic Christians from Clement of Alexandria, to Origen and his pupil Eusebius. In Alexandria a seed was planted that would grow and thrive in one of the greatest centers of Greek-Christian culture of the ancient world. This tradition would view Jesus as primarily divine; “He is God, it is not likely that He learned even one more thing” after his baptism, during which he was made perfect.[27] This is similar to the christological doctrine that the church would eventually accept at the Council of Nicaea and the Synod at Constantinople. It would play a part in Catholicism’s christological development during the 4^th century. Despite the Gnostic influence that resonated with the it, the Catholic Church, while admiring Clement of Alexandria’s “richness of thought, regrets some of the Gnostic developments of that thought.”[28]

Clement was a complex and esoteric thinker, in Gnostic fashion, so he was commonly not understood even by other theologians. His effect on later theology would be apparent in the development of Roman Christian doctrine in the fourth century. As the Christian historian, Tollinton, said “whoever invites interest in Clement of Alexandria pleads, directly or indirectly, the cause of hellenism in Christianity’”[29] Hellenism—here referring to Gnosticism—would carry influence in Christian theology particularly in the East. This would conflict with western Christian thought later.

The canonical Gospels do not offer a clear answer to the question of what Jesus was. Jesus himself is attributed to have said that all “things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”[30] Jesus was the way to God, only through the Son could anyone reach knowledge of the Father. The relationship of Jesus to God described here is not complete, however. John opens his Gospel with this: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This invites the interpretation of divinity of Jesus that was not as explicit in the other Gospels. David K. Rensberger’s introduction to John’s Gospel[31] associates this kind of language describing Jesus with some of the Gnostic texts, as well as some of the Qumran texts—also known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is interesting because John’s essential message, Christ’s divinity, was shared by the Gnostic Christians who were generally considered heretical by the Roman Church. The dualism of the Gnostics, which was also shared by the Platonists and Greeks, from whom John got the word logos, seems to have been an ancient Christian idea. Early Catholic theologians fought against Gnostic thinking while accepting some of its ideas, like dualism, at the same time.

The Apostolic Tradition and the development of Catholicism

The Apostolic tradition that dominated the first and second centuries was an attempt to continue the lifestyle of Jesus and his followers. There was neither scripture to fall back on nor any central authority—save the Holy Spirit—to depend on. What they did have was some form of the Apostle’s Creed, probably not documented, and a few letters and “handbooks.” Some of the earliest documents include The Doctrina, The Didache, and the Letter of Barnabas.

The Doctrina is a short guide of lifestyle that emphasizes a dualistic worldview. In this sense it seems very Gnostic in its mythology and theology. The dualism is centered on the opposition of good and evil, illustrated in the two angels, one right and one wrong. [32] This is very similar to the Manichaean dualism by which Augustine would later be influenced. This Gnostic Christian theology would prevail until then and continue to influence Christian thinking. Even to this day there is a sense of the Devil being somehow opposed to God despite the fact that Augustine, whose ideas dominated the Catholic Church for much of its history, rejected this idea after his conversion. The Doctrina emphasized the ethical teachings of Jesus, including the command to love God and the Golden Rule. Beside the Doctrina was the Didache, which was composed a short while later. This document was used as ‘handbook’ that regulated early church rites and practices and reflected similar sentiments as the Doctrina.

The Letter of Barnabas may have been written by the Biblical character or it could have been written by someone else using his name. Considering that it is dated c. 130 CE the latter choice is more likely. Despite this, the document is particularly interesting because of its allegorical method of interpretation of the Old Testament. Remember that Philo introduced this Gnostic method to Alexandria. This is significant because if it turns out that this document is an authentic representation of early Christian thought, then it might suggest that the Romans had altered the older traditions of the church. Once again, as we saw in the Doctrina, there are Manichaean/Gnostic elements to the thought in this letter. The letter reads at one point that the “Jew’s literal understanding of their Law was the work of a wicked angel, who deceived them.” [33] The canonization process of the Catholic Church would ultimately accept the Old Testament (in fact, the title “Old Testament” is a Christian one—it is old in comparison with the “New Testament”). The literal interpretation of the Old Testament laws remains as something that Christianity has tended to downplay in comparison with the New Testament. The new covenant with God, through Jesus, is based on love and not law and the Old Testament is commonly interpreted allegorically by Christians.

There is also the curious Address of Diognetus. Scholars are in dispute as to whether this document is from the third century or a forgery from the Renaissance. Either way the document is interesting in that it has a very strong emphasis on dualism, in both a Manichaean and Platonic sense. Christians “remain on earth, but they are citizens of heaven”[34] is simply one example of how similar the thinking of the author of this document was to Gnostic thought. There is a strong tension between the body and soul as well as the world and God that is not present in Medieval Christianity.

“The flesh hates the soul and wars against it, though it is done no wrong, because it is hindered from enjoying its pleasures; the world hates Christians too, though [they are] done no wrong, because they oppose its pleasures.”[35]

If this is an ancient document it is just another example of the strong sense of dualism among the early Christians. If, however, it is a forgery made during the Renaissance, then it is a very significant example of how these dualistic ideas survived the Catholic Church’s persecution. Either way it is significant to this study because it demonstrates the Platonic/Manichaean influence upon Christian philosophy.

There existed a shift in thinking with the letters of Clement of Rome and Ignatius. Clement of Rome was writing as early as 95 CE (around the same time as John’s Gospel and Revelation). He emphasized God’s oneness (but not specifically a unity of three personae as we will see later at Nicaea and Constantinople), child-like simplicity (which was also emphasized by Clement of Alexandria), love of truth, faith, self-control, and purity. These were all ideas that were common to the early church. Ignatius, born around 50 CE and survived to at least 98 CE (if not to 117 CE which some scholars have proposed). Although he wrote very early in Christian history his ‘Catholicism’ was very strong. Cardinal Newman would say of him much later; “The whole system of Catholic doctrine may be discovered, at least in outline, not to say in parts filled up, in the course of his seven epistles.”[36] Ignatius stood as a link between the Apostles and the Fathers of the church. It is from Ignatius’ thinking that the Roman church would form, as opposed to some of the more Gnostic Christian thinkers. Before the Roman Church was defined. Both Ignatian and Gnostic forms of Christianity existed with significant strength. These were the two dominant interpretations of the Christian message that would conflict in the development of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Romans would prefer Ignatius because of his emphasis on centrality and ecclesiastic hierarchy of the church. It was with him that the term “Catholic Church” was first used. Ignatius thought that the church was divinely established. The issue that arises here for many Christians is what is meant by ‘church.’ The word ‘church’ is etymologically related to the word ‘ecclesiastic’. Today the two words are almost synonymous in the Catholic Church. Ignatius probably didn’t mean by the word ‘church,’ the collective body of believers equal under God. He probably meant a hierarchically structured institution with the salvation of human souls as its end. He believed that this church was the only church of God and to cut oneself off from it was to cut oneself off from God. This concept would carry through to Augustine’s idea of evil as being without God, or separation from God. Ignatius wrote that this hierarchy of the church was actually instituted by Jesus Christ himself. Further, (and this idea would carry all the way through history to Vatican II) the church was infallible: “we must look upon the bishop as the Lord himself.”[37] This is similar to what Clement of Alexandria said—the Gnostic idea that Jesus became divine through his actions. Many Gnostic-influenced Christians believed that any saint could become divine as Jesus had. This was evident in Eusebius’ view of the emperor Constantine as Christ-like. Ignatius also emphasized the primacy of the See of Rome and the denunciation of the Protestant doctrine of private judgement in religious matters. He gave sole religious authority to a divinely established, centralized, hierarchical, and infallible church.

The Apostle’s Creed:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,

the Creator of heaven and earth,

and in Jesus Christ,

His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,

born of the Virgin Mary,

suffered under Pontius Pilate,

was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven

and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,

whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,

the holy catholic church,

the communion of saints,

the forgiveness of sins,

the resurrection of the body,

and life everlasting.

Amen.[38]

The Apostles’ Creed was probably not always like the Creed that exists today; there is sufficient evidence to support the belief that the Creed was altered by theologians during the third and fourth centuries. Tertullian provides three variations of the Old Roman Creed from c. 200 CE.[39]

De Virg. Vel., 1	Adv. Prax., 2 Adv. Prax.,2	De Praecept., 13 and 26
(1) Believing in one God Almighty, maker of the world,	(1) We believe one only God,	(1) I believe in one God, maker of the world,
(2) and His Son, Jesus Christ,	(2) and the son of God Jesus Christ,	(2) the Word, called His Son, Jesus Christ,
(3) born of the Virgin Mary,	(3) born of the Virgin,	(3) by the Spirit and power of God the Father made flesh in Mary's womb, and born of her
(4) crucified under Pontius Pilate,	(4) Him suffered died, and buried,	(4) fastened to a cross.
(5) on the third day brought to life from the dead,	(5) brought back to life,	(5) He rose the third day,
(6) received in heaven,	(6) taken again into heaven,	(6) was caught up into heaven,
(7) sitting now at the right hand of the Father,	(7) sits at the right hand of the Father,	(7) set at the right hand of the Father,
(8) will come to judge the living and the dead	(8) will come to judge the living and the dead	(8) will come with glory to take the good into life eternal, and condemn the wicked to perpetual fire,
N/A	(9) who has sent from the Father the Holy Ghost.	(9) sent the vicarious power of His Holy Spirit,
N/A	N/A	(10) to govern believers (In this passage articles 9 and 10 precede 8)
N/A	N/A	N/A
(12) through resurrection of the flesh.	N/A	(12) restoration of the flesh.

Some of the differences from these earlier forms of the Creed and the current Apostle’s Creed are the lack of emphasis on Jesus’ ‘only’ Sonship. Also, and most outstanding, is the dissimilarity of the 10^th and complete lack of the 11^th articles in the ancient versions. In the contemporary Creed it reads, beginning with the 9^th article; “I believe in . . . (9) The Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints (10) The forgiveness of sins,. . .” This part did not exist in ancient times, which is not surprising considering these are some of the ideas that the very centralized Roman Empire would want to emphasize about its religion. Further, when the Apostles Creed was finished, the 6^th and 7^th articles were combined, the following shifted down a number, and the last was added: “and life everlasting. Amen.” All of this is evidence that there was some revision of the Apostle’s Creed by the Roman Catholic Church in its early years.

It is clear that the very early church did not write much, and depended on oral preaching and memory. The fact is that we have nothing Christian documented until at least 20-30 years after Jesus’ crucifixion. These documents, the canonical Gospels (perhaps some of the non-canonical gospels were written around the same time), contain elements of the Apostle’s Creed but not the creed itself. It seems that the Creed, or some very early form of it, was memorized and used mostly during rituals such as baptism. It does not seem that it was used as a theological treatise of any kind, as it would with the Roman Church. The idea of having a theology clearly defined and agreed upon was a very Greek idea, which also made it a Roman idea because Romans borrowed many things from Greek culture.

The empire was also very centralized and legalistic. The pagan religion of Rome, before Christianity was intimately related to the government—somewhat theocratic in nature. One of the issues for the Roman Empire during the persecutions against Christianity was that “no one could be regarded by the Romans as a god unless by vote and decree of the senate.”[40] Thus, Jesus could not be a god unless Rome said that he was. Because Christianity seemed to challenge Roman authority by refusal to sacrifice to the emperor or to Romans gods, they were viewed as a threat to Roman order. This caused problems for Christians within the Roman Empire when the persecutions of Deicius and Diocletian were instituted during the 3^rd century. (Deicius made it obligatory to sacrifice “on pain of death” in the Imperial edict of 250 CE). Also, Roman citizenship meant that a person had certain rights that non-citizens did not have. The Roman Church would adopt this mentality as well; when the empire converted to Christianity it would begin to persecute, making life for the pagans, specifically Gnostics, very difficult.

Although Paul Tillich claims that “The Catholic Church was ready around the year A.D. 300,”[41] I believe that this is not completely true. Catholic theology would continue to develop throughout the 4^th and 5^th centuries. During the early 4^th century the Roman Empire under Constantine desired there to be unity within the church, so he called councils to decide what was going to be Christian doctrine. With doctrine clearly defined it would be easier to identify heretics who were a danger to the now Christian empire, much in the same way as the edict of Deicius in 250 CE which was designed to distinguish Roman from Christian in order to destroy the Christian threat. The Roman Catholic Church would inherit the same methods that Rome had used to persecute Christians less than 100 years before Rome’s Christianisation.

The first major council of this sort was the Council of Nicaea. It was primarily an attempt by the Roman Empire to unify the church so that it could be easily administrated. The Nicene Creed itself was not unlike the first half of the Apostles creed. The first line of the Creed reads: “We believe in one God, the Father almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible”[42] The phrase, “invisible things,” Paul Tillich interprets as being the Platonic “ideas.”[43] There is also some expansion on the definition of Jesus as “the only begotten Son of God: begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten not made; Being of one substance with the Father . . ..”[44] This last part is where the controversy lay for the council. On this point—that of Jesus Christ being of the same substance with the Father—not all Christians were in agreement.

The theology that Rome would accept was what Paul Tillich calls “Monarchian” and this is how the Nicene Creed and Catholic doctrine would form. Dionysius, the Pope in Rome during the Council, declared that “[t]wo things must be preserved: the divine trias and the holy message of the monarchy.” God the Father was the same substance as the Logos, which adopted or became Jesus the man. This choice presents the christological problem for the theologians at Nicaea. The Nicene Creed described a christology saying that “God as Father (or as Logos or Spirit) used the man Jesus of Nazareth, begetting, inspiring, and adopting him as his Son.”[45] This doctrine is what is referred to by the Greek term homoousios—meaning that the Father and Son are of the same substance. This would eventually translate into the trinity once the Holy Spirit was included in this one substance, three personae. This doctrine reflects the western orientation of the Roman theology. In the East a hierarchical style of thinking was more popular.

The Greeks were often hierarchical thinkers. This can be illustrated by Neoplatonic thought or even Plato himself with his hierarchy of government in The Republic. This hierarchy allowed some Christian thinkers to determine that Jesus Christ was subordinate to God the Father. A divine being, created by God, transformed itself into a man who we know as Jesus. Thus, Jesus Christ is not the same (Greek homo) but similar (Greek homoi) in substance to the Father—hence the anti-Nicene term homoiousia. Arius adopted this line of thought and argued against the Western Monarchian and homoousian thought at Nicaea. Thus, the conflict was over an iota, a single Greek letter that was dividing the homoousians from the homoiousians. After the council, Arius and his followers were condemned by the Catholic Church by the last section of the Nicene Creed.

Arius was from Alexandria and he followed from the Gnostic tradition that he inherited from Clement of Alexandria through Origen. But Origen himself may not have followed Arius in his theology had he still been alive at the time. Origen taught that the eternal Logos united itself completely with the eternal soul of Jesus the man (keep in mind that all souls are eternal for Origen). For Origen this mystical union of the soul with the eternal Logos can be emulated by all saints, and thus this divinity is not reserved for Jesus alone. This was a very Gnostic Christian doctrine that may have led to Arius’ thinking. Within the Origenistic school of thought a split occurred not long before the Council of Nicaea. The left-wing Origenists stated that the Logos was not eternal but created by God while the right argued that the Logos was eternal. The left-wing is in fact the school that influenced Arius and his heresy.

Arius was opposed by the majority of theologians at the Council, but perhaps most of all by Athanasius. For him and similar theologians the primary issue was salvation. Athanasius in particular was concerned that only God could provide salvation, not a demi-god or other creature as we saw with Arianism. For Athanasius salvation was possible only if “the son of God was made man in Jesus so that we might become God.”[46] To Athanasius, Arius was a pagan and therefore not a true Christian. As many of the Athanasians believed, the “victory of Arianism would have made Christianity only one of many possible religions.”[47] Because Arius viewed Jesus as a half-god, his flavor of Christian theology may have allowed for the continuation of pagan ideas within the church. This is not something that the church wanted. Constantine was very clear that he wanted a unity of Christian churches. Any room for the persistence of fragmentation in the church would have to be discarded. Arius had to go.

The Nicene Creed was not the final say on this issue, however. The Eastern Churches began to find increasing difficulty with the new Creed. The influences of Plato and Neoplatonism on their thinking were causing conflicts with the Nicene condemnations. Christian “forms of Platonism which might look like . . . the subordinationism of Arius were increasingly impossible for orthodox Christians”[48] Further, the unity achieved made Christianity a state religion. The politics of the Empire were influencing and interfering with the Christian Church’s development in a very Western manner. This was mostly due to the Roman ideal of monarchy of which Constantine was in support. This Monarchianism conflicted with Greek concepts of Democracy as well as Rebublicanism formulated by Plato in his Republic. It was not much of an issue for the Hellenic theologians that the Creed was more philosophical than Biblical because the Eastern churches were influenced so heavily by philosophical methodology and language. This was, however, an issue in Jerusalem and other centers that were still trying to emphasize the Jewish/Biblical origins of Christianity. The tension between Eastern and Western theology became more apparent as time went by until another meeting on the issue would occur—this time at the center of the Empire since the fall of Rome—Constantinople.

In 381 CE the Synod of Constantinople issued an update on the Nicene decision. The condemnation at the end of the Nicene Creed did not appear this time. The language was changed in such a way as to allow for homoousia and homoiousia to come together. But still the Arian position was considered heretical by most thinkers. The Subordinationalism of Christ was swept aside and the absolute divinity of the Spirit of Christ was indoctrinated. This was not to say that the Catholic Church accepted the Gnostic conception of Christ. The Church still emphasized the historical figure and his suffering on the cross that the Gnostics tried to de-emphasize. With the Synod of Constantinople, the Catholic trinity was formulated. Plato may have influenced the idea of a trinity through his description of a person divided into three parts, body, mind, and spirit, which was referred to as the tripartite soul. Here we have a tripartite Deity consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Cappadocian theologians—Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Basil the Great—would help define this concept during the 4^th century using some new terms such as divinity, essence (ousia), nature (physis), and three substances (hypostaseis), properties (idiotetes), and persons (personae).[49] Of course, these are Greek words, commonly used by Greek philosophers, to create a very Greek sounding definition of trinity.

The divinity is one essence or nature in three forms, three independent realities. All three have the same will, the same nature and essence. Nevertheless, the number three is real: each of the three has its special characteristics or properties. The Father has the property of being ungenerated; he is from eternity to eternity. The Son has the characteristic of being generated. The spirit has the characteristic of proceeding from the Father and the Son. But these characteristics are not differences in the divine essence, but only in their relations to each other[50]

With this the Eastern churches could continue in their theological methods without running into as much conflict with the West. Of course the disintegration of the Western Empire would contribute to the tolerance of Eastern ideas. This way of looking at the trinity was very philosophical, as were the three Cappadocian theologians. Their Gnosticism was also very Platonic. John Rist assures us that Gregory of Nyssa, for example, “is certainly a Platonist if a Platonist is one who emphasizes an ontological distinction between the sensible and the intelligible, and holds that the power of erôs leads man back to God.”[51]

Plato and Neoplatonism

Andrew Martin Fairbairn fantasizes about what the two greatest Greek philosophers might have done with such a religious message as Christianity:

“It were but an idle fancy were we to ask what would have happened had this [Christian] idea fallen into the hands of Plato and Aristotle rather than into those of John and Paul; only this much is certain, it would have done even more for them and their immortality than they could have achieved for it. If Plato would have clothed it in a pomp of diction more congruous to its innate grandeur. If Aristotle would have analyzed it with infinite subtlety and explained it with incomparable lucidity, it on its side would have enabled the one to delineate a richer, a more humane, and more practicable society than he has imagined . . . and the other to define a higher good and find a more potent and palpable ethical motive than he was able to discover.”[52]

The assumption here is that the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle are compatible with the Christian message. St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas certainly would agree with that notion as they both were heavily influenced by these Greek philosophers—Augustine by Plato and Aquinas by Aristotle. Of course it may also be that by the time of Augustine, and therefore by the time of Thomas Aquinas, Christianity was so Hellenized that they would be forced into making this evaluation.

Plato’s influence is illustrated by his popularity throughout philosophical history. Much of his work seems political in nature—particularly The Republic—but there is a very strong emphasis on metaphysics in Plato’s work the helped shape European philosophy after Plato. Plato’s fundamental dualism was common in the ancient Hellenic world. The Platonic philosophy would be used as a basis for much of Christian philosophy throughout the middle ages and was a model for the way that many people still view the world today. John Rist says of Eusebius; “he gives us an opportunity to imagine what effects Plotinian metaphysics might have been able to produce within Christianity had not the Council of Nicaea intervened.”[53] Because of the similarity between many ancient Christians and Plato in terms of metaphysics—already discussed somewhat in terms of Gnosticism—it is important to study the relationship between Platonic metaphysics and ancient Christianity since they shared a common dualistic worldview. The relation between Gnosticism and Platonism is emphasized here as well. In early Christian times the Platonic Christian would tend to agree on many points with the Gnostic Christian.

Aristotle did not have much influence upon the Christian church in later ancient and early to middle Medieval times because his work, with exception of a few logical works, translated by Boethius, would be lost to the West. The rest of Aristotle’s works would later turn up again through the Arabs, Averroes and Avicenna, who utilized his philosophy through the 10^th-12^th centuries. Of the Greek tradition, it was the Platonist school that was influencing the minds of Christians. But as more ideas would develop in the Hellenic world the Academy would begin to expand upon the teachings of their master, Plato. Stoic, Epicurean, and Aristotelian ideas would merge into a very influential school of thought now known to us as Neoplatonism. The most well known thinker that we now know of as a Neoplatonic was Plotinus, who lived during the latter half of the third century. Others, including Porphyry and Iamblichus would also be influential among the Gnostic-Christian community earlier.

Neoplatonism, simply referred to as Platonism in ancient times, continued Platonic thought and “by the time of Plotinus some form of Platonism was the intellectual air of most ancient society, to be breathed by Christians and pagans alike”[54] This intellectual air was what gave life to the Gnostic way of thinking. It was Platonism that fueled thinkers such as Philo and his Gnostic school in Alexandria and the growth of Manichaeism as well. Augustine would later say “those Platonist philosophers excel all others in reputation and authority, just because they are nearer to the truth then the rest, even though they are a long way from it.”[55] Augustine’s reverence for Plato and his descendent philosophers is obvious and would help shape Christian metaphysics. But before we can look more closely into the influence of Platonism upon Christianity, the Platonism of Plotinus should be discussed.

The dualism of Plotinus was very similar to that of Plato. What Plotinus did was soften the soul-body (metaphysical) dualism of Plato and to create a kind of “moral dualism.”[56] The body and soul are not mixed, but are metaphysically separated.[57] The intellect and the associated transcendent world of Platonic Ideas are “good” while the body is “evil.” This is almost identical to the Gnostic idea of the divine realm verses the created world of the Demiurge. There is not as much emphasis in Plotinus’ work that the transcendent or intellectual world is more real or is in any way the source of particulars, such as the body—although he did hold that this was the case, being a Platonist. Ignatius would say that “you are made of flesh and spirit”[58] which seems somewhat Platonic as well, but perhaps more Aristotelian. This dualism is also present in Christian scripture. Paul commonly uses dualistic language (as discussed above) in his writings. The metaphysics that were understood by Plato/Plotinus were also understood by the Roman citizen Saul of Tarsus—later known as Paul. Paul says in Romans 7:25 “So then, with my mind I am a slave to the law of God, but with my flesh I am a slave to the law of sin.”

But with Paul, interestingly we find an opposition of laws. One is not presented as more real in a metaphysical sense as with Plato but, perhaps, in a moral sense, as it was with the Neoplatonists. Plotinus did not live until the 3^rd century, so the earlier developments in Neoplatonism seems to have had a more direct influence on the 1st century CE than did classical Platonism—perhaps Iamblichus. Ignatius, who was generally anti-Gnostic, curiously said that those “who are of the flesh cannot do spiritual things, nor can those who are spiritual do the things of the flesh. . . . But even what you do in the flesh is spiritual, for you do everything in union with Jesus Christ.”[59] This trend would continue with Augustine and his attempt to deny the ontological or metaphysical dualism of his Manichaean background.

With Plotinus, as it was with Plato, the Soul is immortal, “giving out something of itself but itself taking nothing from without except for what it receives from the Existents prior to itself from which Existents, in that they are nobler, it cannot be sundered.” and continues to say, “the soul is the man”[60] While essentially Platonic, Plotinus seems to add something here that Plato did not seem to imply. The soul is not itself a Form or Idea with Plotinus; the soul receives from the Existents (perhaps synonymous with Form or Idea), which are prior to the soul. Also, since the soul is not mixed with the body there is not a simple metaphysical dualism but a hierarchy. This is what differentiates the Platonist from the Plotinian—the idea of complex hierarchy.

This hierarchy was described by Plotinus in terms of three principles. The first is God, the Creator, The Transcendent One, what Paul Tillich calls the “eternal ground.”[61] Plotinus uses some of the vocabulary of Aristotle here in describing this first principle as the Prime Mover; “There must be some nature which, having life primally, shall be of necessity indestructible, immortal, as the source to all else that lives. . . ."[62] However, this is not intended to be a discussion of causes in a physical sense as Aristotle would discuss, but a spiritual sense; so it is Platonic. The Second Principle is what Plotinus calls Spirit or mind (Greek nous); “self intuition of the eternal”[63] It acts as an intermediary between God and our particular soul, which is the Third Principle. Here we see the three parts of Plato’s tripartite soul laid out in a hierarchy—very different from the Catholic idea of trinity.

I discussed above that the Eastern theologians during the Council of Nicaea were hierarchical in thinking; the Gnostic/Neoplatonist influence on these theologians is why. These theologians were conflicting with the Nicene Creed which was more Monarchian due to Marcellus’ influence primarily.[64] The Monarchianism of the West—‘Monarchian’ being related to our word ‘monarch’—wanted to say that there was one God. Since they wanted Jesus to be God, they had to equate the Father and Son. Remember that the Catholic Church would also develop an ecclesiastical hierarchy, if not a Divine one, that was inspired in part by Ignatius. Ignatius was very Western in terms of his thinking but he was born in Syria, in the East and under significant Hellenistic influence. Thus, it seems that all of these perspectives did come together, through Ignatius, Marcellus (who was the champion of Monarchianism), and others, to form a unified church. This unity of doctrine was best illustrated by St. Augustine of Hippo in the late fourth and early fifth centuries.

Augustine—Shift to the Middle Ages

The Gnostics and Arians were officially heretical by 325 CE and were actively persecuted by the church. However this would not prevent many Gnostics and pagans from surviving the Ecumenical Councils and Synods of the Catholic Church. There were Gnostic schools throughout North Africa and pagan believers throughout the empire for centuries after Nicaea. Constantine’s goal, to unify the church until “all irreligion passed into oblivion”[65] would not be so easy. From Persia, Manichaeanism would influence many thinkers and continue to cause conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. The dualistic point of view that was so prevalent in Manichaean thought conflicted with what had become Christian metaphysics.

In a city called Thagaste, Aurelius Augustinus was born to a Christian mother and a pagan father in 354 CE. He was encouraged by his father to think about many ways of seeing the world but would eventually end up following his mother to the Christian perspective. Augustine studied rhetoric and some philosophy before he became a Christian after moving to Milan to work with St. Ambrose. His Manichaean background, which occupied 9 years of his life, would influence his later Christian thinking.

Symmachus was the Prefect of Rome in 384 and a colleague of Augustine. Symmachus was a professed pagan and was involved in a debate with St. Ambrose over whether the Altar of Victory (the Roman god associated with Jupiter and Mars) should remain in the senate House in Rome. The Altar was originally removed by Constantine’s father, Constantius and was subsequently replaced and removed several times up until 408 CE. When Symmachus “recommended Augustine for appointment to the office of Master of Rhetoric at the Imperial Court, then at Milan, the See of Ambrose”[66] in 384, the Altar was not there. Symmachus’ choice of recommendation here is curious. Perhaps it was an attempt at pagan strategy to get a pagan thinker—a very talented pagan thinker—into the midst of the very Christian Court of Milan. If this is the case then this plan ultimately backfired. Eventually Augustine would be convinced by Ambrose and convert to the Roman flavor of Christianity. From there he would outwardly reject the Manichaean “heresy” and the associated dualism. However, Symmachus may have reason to smile because Augustine’s earlier influences would shape the Catholic theology that he would help define.

Augustine simply continued in the tradition of using older philosophical and religious ideas to formulate Christian theology. Perhaps no theologian had as much of an impact on the Church as did Augustine. For centuries after his life, Augustinian ideas dominated the Catholic Church. It would not be until the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, armed with Aristotle, that Augustine’s influence would be seriously questioned. Augustine’s conversion needed a resting-place, a philosophical model to rest this new message on; this would be Platonism. Of course, Augustine would not simply adopt Platonism in itself, but merely as a model for his Christian theology. However, Augustine would not find Platonism without flaw:

“Hence when Augustine, still not a Christian, was convinced by Ambrose and others of the existence of a spiritual universe, where could he turn but to the Platonists . . . that a perceived flaw in the account of that very erôs which is so essential to Platonism was also to provide a key to his understanding that, if Platonism had one flaw, it could have many”[67]

Where Augustine thought that Platonism fell short was not the metaphysics itself, but in its inability to provide means to reach God. Augustine’s problem was how to get to the Platonic intelligible world. It is not clear to what extent, but there is definitely a similarity between the Christian conception of heaven, defined by Augustine, and the intelligible realm of Plato. By using this Platonic intelligible realm “Neoplatonism could describe, metaphysically, something of the “end” for man, but it failed to provide the means”[68] This is where Christianity stepped in and where Augustine’s Platonism ceased. “It was “Augustine’s belief that Christianity can subsume Platonism, but that the Platonism it subsumes is part of the essence of Christianity.”[69] By using Platonism, as a “necessary halfway house”[70] to Christianity, Augustine was able to retain his dualistic method of thinking that he inherits from his Manichaean influences. Ambrose, who argued (Manichaeanly?) that the body is a garment to be shed when ascending to God, also helped Augustine resolve the Manichaean difficulties with the Old Testament.[71] Despite the fact that Augustine repudiates his Manichaean background, he will continue, while developing his Catholic theology, to be a dualistic thinker. Augustine would create “a Platonism of his own, while retaining important Platonian themes . . . when he found they could be harmonized with Scripture and Catholic tradition.”[72]

Rather than continuing to think of the world as having a conflict between opposing powers, one good and one evil, he will dichotomize God and nothingness. This idea is more Neoplatonic than Platonic. With Plato the reality of the universe exists in the realm of Ideas/Forms. This is essentially what Augustine calls God, who is the greatest of all invisible things.[73] The world is the greatest of visible things, but is not opposed to God, it is simply less God-like. The soul, like in Neoplatonian thought, is a kind of intermediary between the potential for divinity and evil. The soul has the attribute of will, which gives it the ability to make choices. Therefore, the soul can become an agent of evil if it is corrupted by sin; for “sin was conceived as a sort of impersonal and diabolical counterpart of God, able to maintain itself against him, with a kingdom of its own.”[74] Here is evidence of the continuation of his dualistic thinking that he supposedly refuted. It is true that Augustine denied the dualism of Good and evil, but not that he discontinued dualistic thinking altogether. Evil, thought Augustine, was actually “nothing real,” simply negative, a negation of being, and especially of God”[75] or a “deficiency.”[76]

Another place where Augustine’s thinking reflects Neoplatonian influence is with the doctrine of creation. Because the Old Testament was part of the Christian Canon that Augustine accepted as truth (“The Bible never lies”[77]) he accepted ex nihilo creation of the world by God. This idea conflicted with Greek thinkers from great antiquity, in that they believed the cosmos was eternal, never having been created. Augustine replies to this idea by accusing the “questioners” as being “far away from the truth, and effected by the deadly madness of impiety.”[78] Plotinus, although a philosophical descendent of those who thought the cosmos to be eternal, seemed to view the First Principle—God—as the Creator. (As the 2^nd and 3^rd centuries rolled on the Neoplatonists seemed to agree, or at least concede, to a few Christian concepts as well as to influence Christian thought. For example while early Platonist did not believe that grace was necessary, later Platonists did). It is clear that Plotinus’ conception was at least similar to the Christian idea; “Even on the absurd supposition that the potentially existent brings itself to actuality, it must be looking to some Term, and that must be no potentiality but actual.”[79] But whether Plotinus viewed this Term as a transcendent creator God in the same way as the Israelites and Christians did is unclear.

Augustine was convinced that it was Platonic tradition that “these worlds . . . are created by the action of God”[80] Moreover, he was convinced that Plato had some knowledge of the Jewish scriptures, which influenced his philosophy. While it is indeed possible that Plato ran into the Jewish creation story during his travels, it seems unlikely. There are two similarities I want to illuminate here that exist between Plato/Plotinus and Genesis. First, Plotinus says “God was actually delighted when the whole scheme of things was finished, and rejoiced in the created world.”[81] This is very similar to Genesis; “God saw everything that he had made, and indeed it was very good.”[82] Second, there seems to be a similarity between Platonic Idealism—the world as reflections of a transcendent realm—and Genesis—where man was created in the image of God. Plotinus says, “for to admire a representation is to admire the original upon which it was made.”[83] And again, Genesis: ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness . . .”[84]

When Augustine discusses creation he expands on it in a way that neither tradition does so explicitly. It is as if he had been trying to reconcile the conflict between the idea of an eternal cosmos and a created one. To begin with, he recognizes what has been discussed above concerning the Platonic concepts: “God created nothing in ignorance . . . it is evident that if God created knowingly, he created things which he already knew.”[85] Augustine thought it absurd to say that there is space outside of the cosmos or time before the creation.[86] In reference to the opening of Genesis, Augustine says, “there can be no doubt that the world was not created in time but with time.”[87] There is, of course, a hint of Aristotle in all of this. Although much of Aristotle’s writings were absent from Augustine, he was not absent from Plotinus. Whatever influences reached Augustine’s thought probably came through the Neoplatonian tradition, which relied on some of Aristotle’s ideas. If we were to jump through history a few centuries we would find Aristotle again in Christian philosophy. The expansion of the Moslems into North Africa and Spain brought Aristotle’s writings back to Europe.

After Augustine’s death there was a decline in philosophical speculation and the value of pagan literature was de-emphasized. This trend in highlighted by the closing of Plato’s Academy in 529 CE by the emperor Justinian. In the same year St. Benedict begins his monastic order—the Benedictine order. The 7^th and 8^th centuries were uneventful in terms of Christian theological development. In the 9^th century Charlemagne began to re-institute educational programs through the cathedral, monastic school, and offices of the village priest. It was at this time that the Trivium (grammer logic, and rhetoric) and the quadrivium (arithmatic, geometry, astronomy, and music) came to make up the 7 liberal arts of the Medieval period. These were the same 7 liberal arts that the Greeks and Romans used in antiquity, now consecrated by the Catholic Church.[88]

The establishment of the 7 liberal arts made some theologians uncomfortable because it made them afraid that these sciences would threaten the mysteriousness of the world. Lefranc demonstrated his cautiousness to not lose sight of the Bible when exploring logic when he reproached his student, Anselm, when he began “writing theological treatises without even quoting Holy Scripture. Anselm was responsible, in part, for the reutilization of dialectics, or logic, in the Medieval period. He is best known for his ontological argument for the existence of God. The argument begins; “Now we believe that You [God] are something than which nothing greater can be thought.”[89] It can also be conceived as existing in reality, which is greater than existing just in thought. Therefore, thought Anselm, God exists. Critiques of the argument developed almost immediately, specifically from a monk by the name of Guanilo.[90] He wished to say that just conceiving of something does not give it existence in reality, to which Anselm responded by saying that God is unique in being greater than anything we can think of, which an island (the example of Guanilo in his critique) is not. Thus the logical argumentation of the Greeks continued in Medieval times. As it can easily be seen, the philosophy of these theologians is still very rationalistic, very Platonic. Truth about reality comes about through thinking, not through observing.

When Aristotle was rediscovered in the early 13^th century by Albert the Great who, recognizing the genius of his work, had Aristotle translated to Latin. For a while he made little impact on the church as a whole and was regarded as insignificant, even conflicting. When Aristotle was finally accepted by the church it was through St. Thomas Aquinas, who would argue that Aristotle’s philosophy was extremely valuable to the church, evident in the fact that he would utilize Aristotle in his own philosophy.

The Late Middle Ages—St. Thomas Aquinas

One of the fundamental problems of the philosophy of religion was developed when . . . Plato and Aristotle . . . met again and continued their eternal conversation, a conversation which will never cease in the history of human thought because they represent points of view which are always valid and which are always in conflict with each other. We have the more mystical point of view in Plato, Augustine, Bonaventure, and the Franciscans, and the more rational, empirical point of view in the line from Aristotle to Thomas Aquinas.[91]

When Aristotle was brought into church circles there was an almost immediate negative response to his thinking. The Church to this point was very Platonic, therefore very rationalistic, and the empiricism of Aristotle was considered almost heretical as anti-Aristotelians moved to have Aristotle condemned. However they would not be able to succeed in condemning Aristotle until after St. Thomas Aquinas was already dead.

Thomas was born in Aquino, near Naples, in 1224 or 1225. He was educated while still young by Benedictine monks of Monte Cassino and eventually at the University of Naples.[92] He was teaching by 1256 at a number of places—Including Paris and Rome—and was a man of startling intelligence; ‘he had committed the entire Bible to memory and was able to dictate to six or seven secretaries at one time.”[93] His systematic thinking is reminiscent of Aristotle who was a great influence on him, probably due to the fact that he was a student of Albert the Great who was the leading Aristotelian of the time. Hence, the “eternal conversation” of Plato and Aristotle continues 1500 years after it began, this time under the ecclesiastical structure of the Catholic Church.

Aristotle had a problem with Plato’s philosophy. He didn’t understand how we ‘participate’ in the Forms. He thought that observation had to come first rather than thought. Aristotle did not refute that we know things in some universal or general way, as Plato thought with his Forms, but he also thought that we know particular things, through empirical means; that we use our senses first. Aristotle recognizes a distinction of the body and soul, but these two substances or things are part of man. There is no longer a sense that “the soul is the man” as Plotinus said, but that man is something composed of soul and body.[94] For Plato, the person was essentially spirit, something immaterial, while Aristotle saw man as being an intellectual creature of body and soul.

What Aristotle thought, so probably did Aquinas. To highlight a few points where Thomas reflects Aristotle, we can recognize that Aristotle saw matter as inert in itself. The life that some material beings have is due to the presence of a soul. Aquinas thought so as well. In fact, most of what Aquinas said in terms of the soul, his “5 ways,” and man’s relation to God is based on Aristotelian ideas. However, Thomas was not completely Aristotelian, however. Thomas thought that there are two ways to know God. One is through intellect and the other is through faith of the revelations of the Christian Scriptures. Thomas wrote that “[o]ne who accepts Christian revelation as true will no doubt be influenced by that fact as he goes about his philosophical work.”[95] Thus, it is clear that while evaluating Aristotle he was christening him. What Aquinas gained from Aristotle that would reshape Christian thinking was the systematic and empirical method of philosophical analysis that Aristotle used. This would revolutionize Catholicism, once indoctrinated, and encourage empirical methods of learning in Europe. This, I believe, played some small part at least in the development of the physical sciences a few centuries after Thomas lived.

What Thomas commonly did, while still alive, was to evaluate the works of Aristotle lesson-by-lesson, section-by-section, sometimes line-by-line, until we get writings such as “Definition of Soul. On Aristotle’s De Anima.” Thomas first gives us the section of Aristotle that he will critique, then goes on to critique it. He goes about this by clarifying the terminology and expanding upon what he thinks Aristotle meant. In these works he is interpreting what Aristotle says from a Christian point of view, as he admits he must do as a Christian.

In his very large work, Summa theologiae, he addresses a number of issues in a very systematic way. In the “First Part of the Second Part” he is addressing man’s ultimate end. The issue is broken down into 5 questions, which are themselves broken down to 8 articles—which are themselves questions to be answered in three parts; the initial answer, a “on the contrary” response, and a response, which ends up giving his answer with 3 additions to clarify the issue. This methodology is, perhaps, more vigorous than even Aristotle might have employed and is very different from anything that the Platonic thinkers used. Thomas disliked the Platonic theologians; as Aristotle critiqued his teacher, Plato, Thomas Aquinas would critique his predecessor, Augustine. Thomas’ disapproval of Augustinian theology is epitomized by his sudden exclamation while dining with King St. Louis IX; “I have it!” he yelled slamming his fists on the table, and continued to say, “At last I can beat the Manichaens!”[96] Thus it seems that Thomas was also convinced that Augustine was very influenced by his Manichaean background, because he refers to the Augustinians as “Manichaens.” The remainder of Thomas’ life was spent wrapped up in contemplation. Unfortunately for us he wrote nothing about his realization while dining with Louis IX so we are not sure what he realized. He confided in a friend that the thoughts he was having ever since that experience made everything he had written seem like straw.[97]

Augustine himself was a very disorganized theologian who needed to go back near the end of his life and take back anything contradictory or false that he wrote before. Thomas Aquinas seemed much too organized a thinker to have said anything negative about his work in a similar matter. Any more analysis of the relationship between Aristotle and Aquinas seems, in light of how Thomas’ life ended, to be extraneous. What is significant to understand is that the Platonic theology that did develop during the Medieval period was only as secure while Aristotle was not around to question it. Once Thomas Aquinas introduced Aristotle into the church, it would never be the same.

Unfortunately for Thomas, the church did not accept his work during his lifetime. He died in 1274 in an accident, leaving his work unfinished. The anti-Aristotelians finally “succeeded in having a final ecclesiastical condemnation issued in 1277 against a mixed bag of propositions, authentically Aristotelian or presumed to be so.”[98] Although Thomas was not mentioned by name, it was clear that his theology was being rejected without his ability to defend it. This would not last as the 14^th century would see the canonization of St. Thomas despite the prevalence of the Franciscans, Duns Scotus and William of Ockham. With the conversation between Plato and Aristotle rekindled, the Catholic Church would have plenty to argue over for the next couple of centuries. Augustinianism would begin to blend with Aristotelianism and the path towards the “modern” period would be paved. The influences of Greco-Roman ideas would not cease to grasp Christian Europe for hundreds of years to come. Rene Descartes would continue in Augustinian-Anselmian rationalism, Baruch Spinoza would show elements of Stoic influences in his Monism, George Berkeley would reflect Aristotelian empiricism, and so on, and so on, . . .

Conclusion

From Christianity’s conception it was surrounded by Greek and Roman, Platonic, Gnostic, Stoic, Epicurean, and Judaic ideas. As the philosophers of these ways of thinking received the message of Christianity they would synthesize, whether consciously or unconsciously, the gospel with their own ideas. Many differing interpretations and theological estimations would appear and conflict with one another. The early Christian Church that was centered on Roman ideas of monarchy would gain more authority because it would ultimately be the Roman Imperial power that would define the Catholic Church. This is not to say that all of the other churches were forgotten; they were either absorbed or considered heretical initially but they also influenced how the Church would continue to form. Sometimes, in such cases as the Mandaeans who existed up until the early 20^th century, the heretical pagan religions survived Christian persecution, but most groups were stamped out. The Manichaeans no longer exist as a threat to the church, at least as an outside influence, after the 5^th century. The allegorical method of interpretation that Philo introduced to Alexandria was not an issue until the reformation, and there are no Nicolaitans anywhere anymore. But Platonism was never lost, Aristotle was never lost, nor was the Arian influence. We still think dualistically in much the same way as Augustine or Plato did and we have continued to teach Greek philosophy even after the closing of the Academy in 529 CE. The Catholic Church still uses the same Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed (although it was slightly altered in Constantinople in 381). It is very evident that the Greek and Roman world had a significant amount of influence upon the developing Christian Church. Roman Catholic theology was forged under the authority of the Emperor—centering the Church where the empire was centered. When the empire collapsed the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Church took the place of the empire and acted as a government. Had the Church not been influenced by Roman legalism and Imperial structure this probably would not have been possible. It is very possible that, had not the empire capitulated, the Christian Church would have developed along more Jewish or Manichaean lines. Since it was adopted by the Romans, it developed the way that it did. Along with the philosophical theology influenced by Greece, the Catholic Church was definitely a Greco-Roman Church— perhaps even Christian.

In closing, I would like to restate and respond to the questions that were asked in introduction. The first question was this; Did the power of the Greco-Roman culture overwhelm the Christian message or was the Christian message close enough to Greco-Roman ideas already as to allow an open dialogue between them? Although I believe that the Greco-Roman culture did ultimately overpower the church, I think that the message that the Apostle’s were carrying was compatible with the ideas that prevailed at the time. Therefore when Augustine recognized the truth of Platonism, despite its imperfections, he was recognizing this point. This leads us into the other question; was Christianity preserved in the Christianisation of the Roman Empire or was it altered and lost in ancient history? This question is more difficult to evaluate. Given the fact that some of the canonical scripture agrees with some of what existed in the Roman Empire before Jesus, it seems that Christianity was preserved somewhat, if not completely. On the other hand we cannot overlook the great number of alternative Christian interpretations that were wiped out—specifically Gnostic Christianity. Although some Gnostic elements have survived, the vast majority of Gnostic thought was eradicated in the Catholic Church. Manichaeism exists only in the documents that prove that it ever existed. The answer to the question depends, therefore, on whether the Roman brand of Christianity was the intended version by Jesus. If not, then Christianity may have been lost to the Catholics, only to be rediscovered hundreds of years later.

---

[1] “Address of Diognetus.” Goodspeed, Edgar J., The Apostolic Fathers: An American Translation (New York 1950), 280.

[2] cf. Brown, Peter, Authority and the Sacred: Aspects of Christianisation of the Roman World (New York 1995), 3.

[3] Tillich, Paul. A History of Christian Thought. Ed. Carl E. Braaten. (New York, 1968), 50.

[4] Cf. Hakim, Albert B. Historical Introduction to Philosophy (Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997), 9 and 16-17

[5] Eusebius, History of the Church (London 1989), 37.

[6] Eusebius, 65

[7] Acts, 17:16-30. All Bible passages will be from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

[8] Acts, 29-29.

[9] Cf. The footnote for Acts 17.29 in the HarperCollins Study Bible.

[10] Cf. Graham, Marilyn Grace, On Reincarnation: The Gospel according to Paul. An Interpretive Matrix Explaining Romans. (Miami 1998), 36-44. Although she is concentrating on the common acceptance of reincarnation by the Greeks and Jews, specifically Paul, whose was a Pharisaic Jew before his conversion, this discussion is relevant to the discussion at hand.

[11] Fairbairn, Andrew martin, The Philosophy of the Christian Religion (New York, 1902), 462.

[12] Cf. 95.

[13] Eusebius, 95.

[14] Eusebius, 89.

[15] Tillich, 33.

[16] Holroyd Stuart. The Elements of Gnosticism.(Rockport 1994), 3

[17] Holroyd, 2

[18] Holroyd, 4

[19] Whether this is the same Basilides that Eusebius refers to in his History (p. 184) is not clear.

[20] Holroyd, 42.

[21] Holroyd, 43.

[22] Holroyd, 28.

[23] Cf. Augustine, City of God (Penguin Classics: London, 1984),443

[24] Rom. 7:23-25

[25] Holroyd, 53.

[26] Cf. Holroyd 57-61 for more detail of the Manichaean mythology.

[27] Wood, Simon P. (trans.) Clement of Alexandria, Christ the Educator (Washington D.C. ?), 25.

[28] Wood, vi. The Catholic position was not very sympathetic to Gnostic perspectives and failed to label Clement himself a heretic because they did not fully understand his theology—they had little idea of what he was talking about so they left him alone.

[29] Clement of Alexandria, xi

[30] Mt 11:27

[31] Meeks, Wayne A. (ed). The HarperCollins Study Bible, NRSV (1993), p. 2011.

[32] “The Doctrina.” Goodspeed, 5.

[33] “The Letter of Barnabas.” Goodspeed, 19.

[34] “Address of Diognetus.” Goodspeed, 275.

[35] “Address of Diognetus.” Goodspeed, 279.

[36] “St. Ignatius of Antioch.” Catholic Encyclodepia. (On-line) (http://www.csn.net/advent/cathen/07644a.htm, 11/15/99), 5

[37] Goodspeed, 209.

[38] “The Apostle’s Creed” Theology on the Web. (on-line) (http://www.dma.org/~thawes/Creeds/apostles_creed.html 1/31/00)

[39] This table has been adopted from the Catholic Encyclopedia. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01629a.htm. The numbers denote where the corresponding articles of the current Creed are found.

[40] Eusebius, 38. Eusebius is quoting the Christian Tertullian here.

[41] Tillich, 49.

[42] “The Creed of Nicaea” (On-line). http://dmapub.dma.org/~thawes/Creeds/nicene.html. 1/31/00.

[43] Tillich, 71

[44] “The Creed of Nicaea” (On-line). http://dmapub.dma.org/~thawes/Creeds/nicene.html. 1/31/00.

[45] Tillich, 80.

[46] Tillich, 70.

[47] Tillich, 72.

[48] Rist, John, “Plotinus and Christian philosophy.” The Cambridge companion to Plotinus (Cambridge 1996), 392.

[49] Cf. Tillich 77

[50] Tillich, 77.

[51] Rist, 399.

[52] Fairbairn, Andrew Martin, The Philosophy of the Christian Religion (New York, 1902), 460.

[53] Rist, 396.

[54] Rist, 387.

[55] Augustine, City of God, 434.

[56] Cf. Rist, John, 391

[57] Cf. Plotinus, The Six Enneads, trans. MacKenna, Stephen and B.S. page (Chicago, 1952), 1

[58] Goodspeed, 233.

[59] Goodspeed, 209.

[60] Plotinus, 191.

[61] Cf. Tillich, 74.

[62] Plotinus, 198.

[63] Tillich, 52.

[64] Cf. Tillich 74

[65] Eusebius, 332

[66] Augustine, City of God, xi.

[67] Rist, 405.

[68] Rist, 408

[69] Rist, 406.

[70] Rist, 400.

[71] Cf. Rist, 400.

[72] Rist, 406.

[73] Augustine, 432.

[74] Fairbairn, 100.

[75] Fairbairn, 100.

[76] Augustine, 438.

[77] Augustine, 435

[78] Augustine, 432.?

[79] Plotinus, 197. Cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics, 195b for a similar analysis.

[80] Augustine, 434.

[81] Plotinus, 243. Cf. Plato, Timaeus 37c

[82] Gen. 1:31.

[83] Plotinus, 243. Cf. Tim. 37.

[84] Gen.1:26.

[85] Augustine,

[86] This is actually the title, paraphrased, of Book XI.6.5.

[87] Augustine, 436.

[88] Hakim, 220

[89] St. Anselm, “The ‘Ontological Argument’ for the Existence of God.” Hakim, 223-224.

[90] Hakim, 221.

[91] Tillich, 141.

[92] Hakim, 245.

[93] Hakim, 246.

[94] Cf. Thomas Aquinas, “Treatise on Man” and Aristotle, De Anima

[95] Aquinas, Selected Writings (Penguin Classics: London 1998), xiv.

[96] Hakim, 246.

[97] Hakim, 246

[98] Hakim, 245.