Neo-Platonism and Orthodoxy

"And first of all, willing to show me how thou dost resist the proud, but give grace to the humble (James 4:6),' and how mercifully thou hast made known to men the way of humility in that thy Word 'was made flesh and dwelt among men (John 1:14),' thou didst procure for me, through one inflated with the most monstrous pride, certain books of the Platonists, translated from Greek into Latin. And therein I found, not indeed in the same words, but to the selfsame effect, enforced by many and various reasons that 'in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.' That which was made by him is 'life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shined in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.' Furthermore, I read that the soul of man, though it 'bears witness to the light,' yet itself 'is not the light; but the Word of God, being God, is that true light that lights every man who comes into the world.' And further, that 'he was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.' But that 'he came unto his own, and his own received him not. And as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believed on his name (John 1:11-12)' --this I did not find there."
Book VII, ch. ix, 13

When asked to describe my personal journey "home," I find I periodically receive strange looks mentioning the profound impact of Plato's Republic, and, to a lesser extent, a number of his other dialogues (namely Phaedo, but mostly for different reasons). Provided the history of Christianity and the impact of neo-Platonism of both Jewish and gentile thinkers in the first-century AD and onward, such a statement should not seem particularly odd. It is impossible to ignore the obvious connections between the theology of St. John and the Greeks; indeed, while the words may not be the same, the general idea is in fact, arguably, present. Socrates was indeed correct, but he simply was lacking in grace.

I would be a horrible liar if I said the Republic -- or any of Plato's works -- had no effect on my conversion to Christianity, especially with regards to the philosophical aspect of it. Plato brought forth Philo, and Philo (with the assistance of Judaism) brought forth the Fathers -- and we all know (presumably) who they are! Reading the Republic was -- for all intesive purposes -- the cause of the scales falling away from my eyes. I could see! Sure, St. Aquinas was relatively convincing with his Five Proofs and Descartes was dandy, but there could not compare. Everything -- even if it was just for but one moment -- made sense. Why dwell in the cave?

Part of the issue here, I think, is a greater one. One of the products of the Protestant reformation, it would seem, is essentially a very limited understanding of "inspired texts." The Bible is interpreted alone, not simply because it says so (which, by the way, it does not), but in part because the "personal" interpretation led by the Holy Spirit is superior. There is, hence, little room for Patristic commentary -- at least depending on the sect, as this appears to be a phenomena that is much more apparent in fundementalist Evangelical or non-denomination sects -- as this place is, alas, taken over by the guidence of the Holy Spirit. But, why the timidness? We could think back to Cardinal Newman's quotation concerning the matter, but I think much of it has to do with a certain closemindness. Christ is God, Christianity is true, and I have a personal relationship with Christ: What more do I need?

There is, by no means, anything wrong with extracanonical texts, and these can indeed serve some sort of purpose while interpreting the Bible. To claim otherwise, I believe, would be rather ignorant. One cannot read the Gospel of John without some basic working understanding of the usage of the term "logos" in Hellinistic philosophy nor can one truly appreciate the dynamics within the later Christian community without some understanding of the impact Hellinistic philosophy had upon the Church Fathers. Given as much, is it particularly "startling" that one could be brought to Christianity through neo-Platonic thought, especially such a text as the Republic? Where can the allegory of the cave take us? What of Socrates' understanding of injustic and -- I use this term loosely -- "sin?" etc. The parallels are certainly enough to produce some sort of interest.

So let us ask ourselves: "What is Plato but Moses speaking Attic?" Let us not forget this highly valuble source.