sign in sign up
<<
Home , Speusippus

Book Reviews / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 6 (2012) 219-249 235

Plato’s and Its Heritage. Volume 1. History and Interpretation from the Old to Later and Gnosticism. Volume 2. Its Reception in Neopla- tonic, Jewish and Christian Texts/Reception in Patristic, Gnostic, and Christian Neo- platonic Texts. Edited by John D. Turner and Kevin Corrigan, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature 2010.

The two volumes “’s Parmenides and Its Heritage” collect the work of twenty- two scholars presented during the six meetings of the seminar ‘Rethinking Plato’s Parmenides and Its Platonic, Gnostic and Patristic Reception’ of the Society of Biblical Literature (2001-2006). As the title indicates, the topic of these two volumes is Plato’s Parmenides and its reception and interpretation up through late Antiquity, from the Old Academy until Dionysius the Areopagite. The topic is interesting, beyond doubt. How to understand and to interpret Plato’s Parmenides has always been a hotly disputed topic. While some readers considered it to be a logical exercise others defended the that it presents a metaphysical or theological doctrine (cf. the fijirst article by K. Corrigan which presents the wide range of interpretations). As it is impossible to summarise all the articles in detail in this review, I would like to refer to the table of contents (see below) and to the introduction by J. D. Turner and K. Corrigan which presents the topic of the volumes and of all the contributions in a detailed way. In the following I would like to give an overview of and to draw attention to some of the main topics in these two volumes. The articles included in the fijirst volume are concerned with the interpretation of the Parmenides from the Old Academy until the beginning of . This volume is intended to question the common interpretation based on that “there was no metaphysical interpretation of the Parmenides before in the third century C.E.” (Introd., p. 1). The articles in the fijirst section (Plato, From the Old Academy to ) focus on Plato himself and the Middle Platonic . The second section (Middle Platonic and Gnostic Texts) includes articles on Gnostic and Middle Platonic authors and gives particular attention to the Anonymous Commentary. The second volume is also divided into two sections. The fijirst section Parmenides( Interpretation from Plotinus to ) is a continuation of the fijirst section of the fijirst volume. This section regroups articles on Plotinus and other Neoplatonists up through Damascius and Simplicius. The second section (The Hidden Influence of the Parmenides in , , and Later Patristic Thought) is concerned with impact that the Par- menides had on the writings of Philo of Alexandria and various Christian thinkers from Clemens of Alexandria and Origen to Dionysius the Areopagite. The articles in the fijirst section of the fijirst volume show that the reception of the Parmenides before Plotinus is not at all uniform. Some articles reflect on the

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2012 DOI: 10.1163/18725473-12341244

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 06:25:55AM via free access 236 Book Reviews / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 6 (2012) 219-249 interpretation of Speusippus, Plato’s nephew, others on those of Sextus Empiri- cus, Ammonius, and Moderatus. In his article on Moderatus, Hubler criticises Dodds’ thesis that Moderatus “had anticipated the celebrated emana- tion system of Plotinus” (Hubler, Vol. I, p. 115) by showing that the passage in Simplicius on which Dodds’ thesis is based does not present Moderatus’ theory but a Neoplatonic revision of it. Although it is clear that the Parmenides was considered to be primarily, but not only, a logical exercise before Plotinus, it is also clear that the dialogue gains importance in Neoplatonism. The fijirst section of the second volume deals with Neoplatonists from Plotinus to Damascius and Simplicius who consider this dialogue to be ontological and who present diffferent interpretations of its meaning. One of the most important topics addressed in the two volumes is the Anony- mous Commentary on the Parmenides. The authorship of this commentary is dis- puted. It was attributed to by Pierre Hadot, but this attribution was questioned by other authors who suggested that the author was pre-Plotinian. The various articles in these two volumes present diffferent interpretations of authorship. Four articles by Luc Brisson comment on diffferent columns of the commentary. According to him its author is post-Plotinian. Alain Lernould dis- cusses the question of negative theology and purifijication; he agrees with Brisson in thinking that the author must be post-Plotinian. Bechtle presents some remarks on the relation between the commentary and ’s Categories. In his view, this commentary is middle Platonic. After presenting the state of the debate on the authorship of the Anonymous Commentary, following Hadot’s thesis Tuomas Rasimus argues for a Sethian Gnostic authorship. Mark Edwards analyses the use of the expression “arrêtos kai akatonomastos” suggesting a Christian background for the author (“not so much that the author was a Christian as that he occupied an intellectual hinterland [. . .] in which free trade between pagan and Christian was the norm”, Vol. 2, p. 197). The editors themselves are clearly in favour of the thesis that the author is middle Platonic, either a Gnostic or a Christian (cf. Introd., p. 12s; 18).

At the very least, then, we have to reassess Hadot’s theory and the role of the Sethian Gnostics in the development of Neoplatonism, since the evidence shows that it was the Sethian Gnostics rather than Porphyry who were the innovators. Is such a thesis really defensible? Certainly, the preponderance of evidence supports it. Furthermore, if it is possible for Victorinus or Plotinus to read Gnostic texts and not become Gnostics, then it is even more plausi- ble for a Gnostic of considerable sophistication, and perhaps with intimate of a school such as that of Plotinus, to write a commentary for a

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 06:25:55AM via free access Book Reviews / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 6 (2012) 219-249 237

diffferent ‘Platonic’ audience on a work of crucial importance to both groups. (Introd., p. 12s)

The problem is that to demonstrate that someone was, from his intellectual back- ground, capable of writing such a treatise does not prove that he did write it. And—as Edwards says—the textual basis for the argument remains problematic as we cannot be sure that the Coptic version of the Zostrianus found in Nag Ham- madi is completely identical with the Greek text Plotinus criticised; it may be the translation of a revised version (cf. Edwards, Vol. II, p. 195). However, the editors are completely right in saying that further scholars working on this topic have to take into account what has been presented here. Though the question is by no means revolved, the interpretations, the parallels and similarities, the dependen- cies presented here advance our knowledge on this commentary. The articles in the second section of the second volume discuss the presence of the Parmenides in Philo of Alexandria and in Christian authors from Clemens of Alexandria to Dionysius the Areopagite. In most of the authors (except Diony- sius) there is no, or hardly any, evidence for a reception of the Parmenides, no interpretations, references or quotations. The that might seem to be linked to the Parmenides are probably no more than references to the Platonic tradition in general, to common Platonic notions. Dionysius the Areopagite however devel- ops his own interpretation of the second part of the Parmenides, a negative theol- ogy that fijinally overrules the validity of the law of Non-Contradiction in theology. I would like to conclude with some remarks on the negative and positive aspects of the volume. The order of the articles is not always convincing. Perhaps the two rival sub- titles of the second volume are still a residue of the problems of ordering the articles. For instance, the second section of the fijirst volume regroups articles on Gnostic authors, the Chaldean Oracles and on the Anonymous Commentary. There are however many articles on this commentary included in other sections. Why are Luc Brisson’s articles (commentaries on diffferent columns) divided? And why is Tuomas Rasimus’ article included in the second volume and not in the fijirst? A volume presenting the reception of Plato’s Parmenides cannot be com- plete. But why is Proclus missing? He is mentioned in many articles, of course, but no article deals with him directly. Though our knowledge on middle Platonism has improved, and the work on the texts found in Nag Hammadi has enlarged our knowledge on Gnosticism, there is still much we do not know. Comparatively few texts are extant, and very often the dating of the texts is disputed. Therefore the authors and editors often speak of ‘suggestions,’ ‘speculations’ etc., there are hypotheses and probabilities,

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 06:25:55AM via free access 238 Book Reviews / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 6 (2012) 219-249 but no defijinite proof. This might seem unsatisfactory at fijirst sight and sometimes dangerous as, for example, in the following sentence:

If Mozart could write the Magic Flute, then a Sethian Gnostic could have writ- ten a lemmatic commentary on the Parmenides. (Intro., p. 12).

However, there is no doubt that the speculations and suggestions increase our knowledge and that no one working on these topics should ignore them. One great advantage of the volumes is that they oppose a sharp separation of Philosophy from Religion, which represents a widespread opinion:

Scholars have typically tried to separate Platonism from Gnosticism just as they have also tried to distinguish rational philosophy from irrational religion. (Intro., p. 6)

The two volumes support the idea that such a strict separation is impossible and not fruitful, that it is not only impossible to understand the Gnostic, Jewish and Christian authors without the knowledge of the philosophical tradition, but that our knowledge of philosophy increases if we include in it the views from the his- tory of Gnosticism and Christianity. There are a few slips, but nothing grave, no need to mention them in detail. The two volumes may be used separately, the introduction is included in both volumes and each volume has its own subject-name-index, an index locorum and a bibliography.

Dr. Wiebke-Marie Stock Martin Buber Society of Fellows The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel [email protected]

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 06:25:55AM via free access Book Reviews / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 6 (2012) 219-249 239

Table of Contents Volume I Section 1: Plato, from the Old Academy to Middle Platonism

1. The Place of the Parmenides in Plato’s Thought and in the Subsequent Tradition (Kevin Corrigan) 2. Speusippus’s Neutral Conception of the One and Plato’s Parmenides (Gerald Bechtle) 3. The Fragment of Speusippus in Column I of the Anonymous Commentary on the Parmenides (Luc Brisson) 4. Speusippus and the Ontological Interpretation of the Parmenides ( John Dillon) 5. The Indefijinite Dyad in ’s Report Adversus( Mathematicos 10.248- 283) and Plato’s Parmenides (Thomas Szlezák) 6. Plato and Parmenides in Agreement: Ammonius’s Praise of God as One-Being in Plutarch’s The Et At Delphi (Zlatko Pleše) 7. Moderatus, E. R. Dodds, and the Development of Neoplatonist Emanation ( J. Noel Hubler)

Section 2: Middle Platonic and Gnostic Texts

8. The Platonizing Sethian Treatises, Marius Victorinus’s Philosophical Sources, and Pre-Plotinian Parmenides Commentaries ( John D. Turner) 9. Is There a Gnostic “Henological” Speculation? ( Johanna Brankaer) 10. The Greek Text behind the Parallel Sections in Zostrianos and Marius Victorinus (Volker Henning Drecoll) 11. The Chaldean Oracles and the of the Sethian Platonizing Treatises ( John D. Turner) 12. A Criticism of the Chaldean Oracles and of the Gnostics in Columns IX and X of the Anonymous Commentary on the Parmenides (Luc Brisson) 13. The Anonymous Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides and Aristotle’s Categories: Some Preliminary Remarks (Gerald Bechtle) 14. Negative Theology and Radical Conceptual Purifijication in the Anonymous Com- mentary on Plato’s Parmenides (Alain Lernould) 15. A Criticism of Numenius in the Last Columns (XI-XIV) of the Anonymous Commen- tary on the Parmenides (Luc Brisson)

Volume II Section 1: Parmenides Interpretation from Plotinus to Damascius

1. Plotinus and the Parmenides: Problems of Interpretation (Matthias Vorwerk) 2. Plotinus and the Hypotheses of the Second Part of Plato’s Parmenides (Kevin Corrigan) 3. The Reception of the Parmenides before Proclus (Luc Brisson) 4. Is Porphyry the Source Used by Marius Victorinus? (Volker Henning Drecoll)

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 06:25:55AM via free access 240 Book Reviews / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 6 (2012) 219-249

5. Porphyry and the Gnostics: Reassessing Pierre Hadot’s Thesis in Light of the Sec- ond- and Third-Century Sethian Treatises (Tuomas Rasimus) 6. Columns VII-VIII of the Anonymous Commentary on the Parmenides: Vestiges of a Logical Interpretation (Luc Brisson) 7. ’s Interpretation of the Parmenides’ Third Hypothesis ( John M. Finamore) 8. ’s Exegesis of the Second Hypothesis of the Parmenides: The Architecture of the Intelligible Universe Revealed ( John M. Dillon) 9. Damascius on the Third Hypothesis of the Parmenides (Sara Ahbel-Rappe) 10. Metaphysicizing the Aristotelian Categories: Two References to the Parmenides in Simplicius’s Commentary on the Categories (75,6 and 291,2 Kalbfleisch) (Gerald Bechtle)

Section 2: The Hidden Influence of the Parmenides in Philo, Origen, and Later Patristic Thought

11. Early Alexandrian Theology and Plato’s Parmenides (David T. Runia) 12. Christians and the Parmenides (Mark Edwards) 13. Origen’s Platonism: Questions and Caveats (Mark Edwards) 14. Plato’s Parmenides among the Cappadocian Fathers: The Problem of a Possible Influence or the Meaning of a Lack? ( Jean Reynard) 15. The Importance of the Parmenides for Trinitarian Theology in the Third and Fourth Centuries C.E. (Kevin Corrigan) 16. Pseudo-Dionysius, the Parmenides, and the Problem of Contradiction (Andrew Radde-Gallwitz)

Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 06:25:55AM via free access