Neoplatonism and Islamic Thought, and: Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, and: Neoplatonism and Jewish Thought (review)

170 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 33:1 JANUARY 1995 merit in number in the phrase "men whose 'soul is perfected' "--an immense philosophic issue is at stake, though in the passage it appears that Davidson intends for men to have a single soul each; and footnote 3 on page 1~7 has a diacritical mark in the second word in the title of Ghazali's Maq~id al-Falasifawhich makes the letter a ~Od rather than the sfn that it should be. TERENCE KLEVEN Memorial UniversityofNewfoundland Parviz Morewedge, editor. Neoplatonismand Islamic Thought. Studies in Neoplatonism: Ancient and Modern, Vol. 5- Albany: SUNY Press, 1992, Pp. x + ~67. Paper $16.95. Richard T. Wallis, editor. Neoplatonismand Gnosticism. Studies in Neoplatonism: Ancient and Modern, VoL 6. Albany: SUNY Press, 1999. Pp. xi + 531. Paper, $19.95. Lenn E. Goodman, editor. NeoplatonismandJewish Thought. Studies in Neoplatonism: Ancient and Modern, Vol. 7- Albany: SUNY Press, 1992. Pp. xiii + 454. Paper, $18.95. Neoplatonism in Jewish and Islamic thought rests on the recognized influence of later Greek philosophy. Neoplatonism and Gnosticism were direct adversaries at the time of Plotinus. These studies are most useful, because since the Renaissance, enthusiasts have grouped Neoplatonism indiscriminately with Hermeticism, Gnosticism, Kabbalism and Sufism. There is a genuine problem with labels and substance that these books help to clarify. Though the nonspecialist reader may be overwhelmed by the multitude of concepts about intangibles, all three volumes provide a sound reference to the weighty distinctions that exist between these systems of thought and within them. The articles on NeoplatonismandIslamicThoughtand NeoplatonismandJewish Thought are organized best. They are clustered thematically (Islamic)or historically (Jewish).The editorial introductions supply informative summaries. The articles on Neoplatonismand Gnosticism(editing was completed by J. Bregman after the untimely death of R. Wallis) are not arranged in any obvious order, and the introductions do not mention them in particular. All three have indices (from seven to twenty-two pages). As R. T. Wallis lucidly put it in Neoplatonismand Gnosticism(3), the Nag Hammadi papyri open the controversial question of Neoplatonism admitting Gnostic influence, and whether Neoplatonism developed in reaction to Gnosticism. The articles address the difficult task of distinguishing Gnosticisms with varying degrees of comprehensiveness . A. H. Armstrong, "Dualism: Platonic, Gnostic, and Christian," well analyzes dualism either as two independent principles, or as one principle derived and dependent on the first. The difference between Neoplatonism and Gnosticism he finds in the splitting of the upper from the lower world: the Gnostics maintained it, the Hellenists bridged it. On this theme, J. Dillon, "Pleromaand Noetic World," ingeniously employs as litmus test the concept of a nonmaterial, spiritual or intelligible world parallel to the physical one, as its paradigm. He uses it on Philo, and detects that it "forms no part of BOOK REVIEWS 171 Jewish thought." He then tries it on various Gnostics and finds it likewise wanting, but with some noteworthy exceptions. Many articles concentrate on identifying Plotinus' Gnostic adversaries, though not all take into account the Nag Hammadi texts. J. Pepin provides a detailed study of the terminology and speculates on the interesting similarity between Hippolitus' source on the Docetists and the Chaldaean Oracles. There are also descriptions of Gnostic or Hermetic texts, such as of the Latin Asclepius (S. Gersh). R. Mortley (" 'The Name of the Father is the Son' ") investigates the ontological implications of the late-antiquity theories of naming. On the possible effect of Gnosticism on Neoplatonism, several articles accept that the favor shown to Chaldaean Oracles and theurgy indicates a concession or reaction to orientalism. For example, J. P. Anton ("Theourgia-Demiourgia") maintains in discrete contexts (15, 23, 24, ~5) that "the controversy between philosophy and poetry was lost" and philosophy was defeated by its "new opponent.., religion." But surely tension between logosand raythosgoes back to the Presocratics, and philosophy and religion were hardly antithetical even in Aristotle and Plato. Is not the new element the emphasis on scripture and uniqueness of revelation? On the other hand, in the articles sympathetic to Iamblichean mysticism, a query ought to have been cast over the provenance of the "Chaldaean" Oracles. All primary evidence about them is limited to Porphyry and later Neoplatonists: how...