Justinian, Christianity and philosophy

[Epictetus]

Why did Justinian close the schools of philosophy in 529? What threat did Greek philosophy pose to Christianity?

[Jona Lendering]

Why did Justinian close the schools of philosophy in 529? What threat did Greek philosophy pose to Christianity?

Good question!

[Paullus Scipio]

The obvious answer is that Greek philosophy was hardly compatible with strict Christian doctrine.....then or now !!

[Rumo]

David, you should check "Justinian, Malalas, and the End of Athenian Philosophical Teaching in A.D. 529" by Edward Watts in JRS vol.94 (2004)

Some points made in the article:
- the only source on this incident is Malalas, the silence of the other authors is interpreted as a relative insignificance of the event ("neither a tyrannical use of imperial power nor an attack upon a valued cultural tradition of philosophical teaching")
- the closing of Athenian school followed after a century of struggle between Athenian Neoplatonists and Christians: probably the trigger was a local complaint against a specific objectionable activity
- the final blow came in 531 with two Justinianic laws which changed the legal status of pagans, CJ 1.11.9 and 1.11.10, depriving them of financial support

The obvious answer is that Greek philosophy was hardly compatible with strict Christian doctrine.....then or now !!

Well, a good part of the Christian doctrine is Greek philosophy :lol:

[M. Demetrius]

Well, a good part of the Christian doctrine is Greek philosophy

Which parts?

[Rumo]

Which parts?

I assumed it was well-known that early Christian authors (and also some influential Hellenized Jews) had a Classical education which deeply influenced their thought, their literary creation, and the subsequent doctrines.

For one quick example, check Augustine's De Doctrina Christiana, book I. If you've read Plato, you'll probably recognize the concepts.

[M. Demetrius]

Well, truth is truth, wherever it's found, whoever says it, right?

[Jona Lendering]

The obvious answer is that Greek philosophy was hardly compatible with strict Christian doctrine

i beg to differ. Christianity had already expressed itself in the language of Greek philosophy, a process that had already started when John wrote his gospel. The fathers of the church had continued this, focusing on Neo-Platonism. Later generations preferred Aristotleanism. Of course there were tensions, but the participants in the debate always felt they could gloss them over. For a man like Synesius of Cyrene, it was a small step to become a Christian, and the Christian authorities were able to look away when Synesius announced that although he would preach on the physical resurrection, he would not personally believe in it. There was a lot of room for accomodation.

[Rumo]

Well, truth is truth, wherever it's found, whoever says it, right?

It's not just a matter of coincidence (see also Jona's excellent contribution). In his Confessions Augustine recorded his philosophy readings and how they shaped his understanding and beliefs.

[M. Demetrius]

It's not just a matter of coincidence

Well, of course not. That which is universal can be found, well, anywhere.

[Epictetus]

Thanks, Drago?. I see the Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian also discusses this.

It looks like this is fairly complicated. This little essay by James Hannam tries to downplay the closing of the school.

I suppose that the impact of Greek philosophy on Christianity during this time period is fairly well-known. Stanford University even calls St. Augustine a “Christian Neoplatonist.” I have been reading the Commentaries of Simplicius, one of the last great Neoplatonist philosophers. He who was personally impacted by Justinian’s crackdown and even went to Persia in exile.

Just as St. Augustine sounds Neoplatonist, Simplicius sounds surprisingly Christian to me. He even offers a prayer that, on the surface, one could believe came out of a Christian prayer book. Evidently there was a two-way street, a mutual exchange of ideas happening. There seemed to be more convergence instead of opposition.

So this made me wonder what was so threatening about Greek philosophy.

[M. Demetrius]

Of course, neither Philosophy nor Christianity are monolithic blocks of thought.

[Rumo]

Thanks, Drago?. I see the Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian also discusses this.

It looks like this is fairly complicated. This little essay by James Hannam tries to downplay the closing of the school.

[...]

Evidently there was a two-way street, a mutual exchange of ideas happening. There seemed to be more convergence instead of opposition.

So this made me wonder what was so threatening about Greek philosophy.

Thank you for your references.

I've read more carefully Watts' argumentation (there's a book of his available in limited preview) and his interpretation seems plausible to me.

As already mentioned, the only source is Malalas. The passage in question is 18.47 from his Chronographia.

One word which requires clarification is ??????. We don't have many attestations of it, it could refer to an animal (horse, bird) but also to dice ( see the 3rd meaning in LSJ). This later meaning can be explained by a semantic drift: both dices and the flight of the birds were interpreted to get answers about future. To be sure, in Hesychius' lexicon we have ??????????? glossed with the meaning t? ?????????? ???? ????? , suggesting the well-known practice of auspices.

One possible objection is that dice can be used for gambling as well, so how can we be sure Malalas does not refer to gambling here? Some other references to dice in CJ are 1.4.25, but more important 3.43.1. In the latter case we can see there are some monetary penalties, however light and incomparable in severity with Malalas' account of dice-throwers having their hands cut off and then paraded on camel-back (echoing a passage from Procopius' Secret History where some astrologers were whipped and paraded on camels, also). Moreover the "blasphemies" associating with this practice also supports the idea of a pagan rite, rather than simply a gambling game.
It's also worth mentioning that casting dice for lots was not uncommon in this period. In a quasi-contemporary 6th-7th century Latin divination text, Sortes Sangallenses, the dice (either a 12-sided one, or a pair of 6-sided dice) were used to get answers to a variety of queries.

With these clarifications in mind, here's Watts reading of the passage:

• During the consulship of Decius, the emperor issued a decree and sent it to Athens ordering that no one should teach philosophy nor interpret astronomy nor in any city should there be lots cast using dice; for some who cast dice had been discovered in Byzantium indulging themselves in dreadful blasphemies. Their hands were cut off and they were paraded around on camels.

At this point some may question the reliability of Malalas. True, when relating past events Malalas can be "spectacularly unreliable", however he seems to be a good witness for his times. Especially about Justinianic legislation. There are 11 references to such laws in Malalas and whenever we can link his account to a known law, it can be observed that he preserves the structure and sometimes even the wording of the original, therefore are no reasons to assume his testimony is inaccurate in this regard.

Another question is why the regulations for Athens are different from the rest of the empire? This fact seems to be related to how late Roman laws were implemented. As the laws were framed and distributed to praetorian prefects and then further to provincial governors and individual cities, this could produce variations in the text to address regional concerns. At this lowest level the laws were connected to specific actions.

As such we reach to divination as a common ground between philosophy, astronomy and dice-throwing. And while the general purpose of this law was to restrict divination (following earlier laws against divination and astrology), the version sent to Athens had a specific additional clause against teaching of philosophy and astronomy.

No such a law against divination or astrology exists in CJ, however many earlier laws were not repeated in the CJ. As the testimonies of Malalas and Procopius show, divination and astrology were imperial concerns. Justinian could have merely restated prohibitions from the existent legislation.

So what about Athens? As previously mentioned, the Athenian Neoplatonists were in conflict with Christians for almost a century. In early 6th century Hegias, the head of the school and an outspoken pagan, upset many influential Christians (and also local authorities) by performing in public pagan religious rites. Damascius, the last scholarch of this school, apparently was no man of compromise either, even if he was less ostentatious and his reformed curriculum was less apologetic and religious in content.

But also at this time the local power was slowly shifting from civic aristocracy to clergymen. As the support for the school was fading away, the Christians were waiting for opportunities to attack their political rivals, seize their properties, etc. The local complaints against Hegias, Damascius and their followers culminated in 529 when their Christian enemies found the legal opportunity presented above.

[Epictetus]

That was an excellent reply, and you've given me even more to read and consider. Laudes!