Niketas Siniossoglou, Plato and Theodoret: The

Christian Appropriation of Platonic Philosophy and

the Hellenic Intellectual Resistance (Cambridge:
CUP, 2008)
| 468
Shawna Ritchie, University of Calgary
The main purpose of Niketas Siniossoglous book
PlatoandTheodoret:TheChristianAppropriationofPlatonic
Philosophy and the Hellenic Intellectual Resistance is to
examine Theodoret of Cyrrhuss Graecarum Affectionum
CuratiofromtheperspectiveoftheHellenicelitestowhom
itwasaddressed.Thisbook,whichwasdevelopedfromthe
authors dissertation, attempts to address the academic
dilemma of how interpretations of ancient philosophy
should be viewed. Siniossoglou argues that Theodoret, a
lateantiquityChristianapologist,attemptedtoappropriate
PlatonicconceptsinordertodemonstratethatChristianity,
and not the Neoplatonic tradition, was the true heir of
Platonic philosophy. Siniossoglou focuses on Theodorets
work because his Curatiohas been considered one of the
best Christian replies to pagan philosophy. The book is
divided into five sections. The first examines the conflict
between Hellenism and Christianity in late antiquity. The
authorattemptstoplaceTheodoretinhiscorrecthistorical
context, primarily by asking the question of whom the
Curatio addressed. He argues that Theodorets intended
audience was those educated Hellenes, the socalled
Past Imperfect
15 (2009) | | ISSN 1711-053X | eISSN 1718-4487


Neoplatonists, who not only resisted Christianity, but also
claimedtobethedescendentsofPlatonicphilosophy.
Theauthordoesanexcellentjobofoutliningtheobjective
and direction of the book at the outset. He is clear about
whattheargumentwillbeandisconsistentthroughoutthe
book. It would have been beneficial, however, if he had
spent more time explaining who Theodoret was and why
he is important. The author seems to assume that his
significance is selfevident as the only reference he makes
isthelinequotedabove,thatTheodoretisconsideredone
of the best responses to pagan philosophy. Siniossoglou
makes a detailed case for why Theodorets intended
audience,whichwasnotexplicitlystated,wastheeducated
Hellenes and even the emperor Julian himself. Taken
together his arguments are convincing although many of
thepointsarequiteweakwhenexaminedindividually.For
example, relying on some of Theodorets letters,
Siniossoglou concludes that Theodoret was preoccupied
with the conversion of members of the educated pagan
elite (p. 42). Based on the evidence that this had been
Theodorets objective once, the author makes the
questionableleapthatthismustalsobetheobjectiveofthe
Curatio. Individual weaknesses aside, the whole of
Siniossoglousargumentarepersuasiveandhedoesagood
jobofbringinginabreadthofevidencetosupporthiscase.
The second section of the book focuses on Theodorets
attempt to demonstrate the essential monotheism of Plato
andthepolytheismoftheHellenes.Inthiswayhewasable
to argue that Christianity, with its one God, was the
philosophical descendant of Plato. The author
Past Imperfect
15 (2009) | | ISSN 1711-053X | eISSN 1718-4487

| 469


demonstrates, however, that the conflation of Plato with
monotheism, the Hellenes with polytheism, and even
Christianity with monotheism, is misguided. Additionally,
he clarifies why portraying Plato as a monotheist was
importanttoTheodoret.Thiswasbecausetheaimwasto
assimilate into JudeoChristian monotheism the
philosophical basis of any alternative version of
monotheism, rather than confront the philosophy and
practiceofpaganismasoneandthesameenemy(p.108).
This section of the book is very interesting as it
challenges the theological position of Christianity as an
essentially monotheistic religion and Hellenism as
polytheistic. The author does an excellent job of
investigatingtheseclaimsbyexploringthesemanticusage
ofthesetermsaswellaslookingathowthesereligionsare
believedbyfollowers.Heprovidesacompellingaccountfor
why Christianity cannot be considered truly monotheistic
by examining the theological implications of the trinity as
well as the role of heavenly messengers in the Christian
tradition. Although interesting, Siniossoglou spends a
disproportionateamountoftimeonthetheologicaldetails
attheexpenseofexplainingthesignificanceofthisfinding.
The central point of this section for his thesis is that
Theodoret is attempting to (a) appropriate Plato as a
monotheist, and therefore a predecessor to Christianity,
and (b) denounce the Neoplatonists as polytheists. This
important point gets relegated to the conclusion of the
chapterwithlittlediscussionordevelopment.
The third section examines the alignment in
Theodorets thought on Christian asceticism and Platos
Past Imperfect
15 (2009) | | ISSN 1711-053X | eISSN 1718-4487

| 470


views of the body as presented in the Phaedo. The main
argument is that Theodoret attempted to portray the
asceticsasthetrueheirsofPlato;however,inordertodo
this Theodoret was required to separate the concept of
askesis from its GrecoRoman social and political context
andreinterpretitaccordingtoChristiandoctrine.Thevalue
of this argument for Siniossoglou is that it demonstrates
oneofthemaintechniquesofTheodoret,namely,takinga
Platonic concept out of its original context and
reinterpretingitsoitaccordswithChristianphilosophy.In
thisway,TheodoretwasabletoincorporatePlatonicideas
intoChristianity,andabletoattacktheNeoplatonistswith
theirownvocabularywhichhadbeenreimagined.
Although the discussion of the essential difference
betweentheChristianandPlatonicconceptionsofaskesisis
interesting,itagainobscuresthecentralpoint.Siniossoglou
dedicatesalmostfortypagestothediscussionofasceticism
in order to demonstrate that Theodoret misappropriated
PlatonictermstoalignwithChristianconcepts.Thispoint,
which is quite important to the overall argument, gets a
little lost in the details of Christian ascetics with rotting
bodies that have pus and worms coming out of their feet.
Particularly so because at no point does Siniossoglou
explain why the example of askesis is the best example
Theodoretssemantictrickery.Itisunclearwhetherthisis
theonlyexample,ormerelythebestofmanyexamples.The
central point could have been emphasized more and the
detailsless.

ThefourthsectionlooksatTheodoretstreatmentof
the cosmological and eschatological myths in Platos
Past Imperfect
15 (2009) | | ISSN 1711-053X | eISSN 1718-4487

| 471


Timaeus,theGorgias,andtheRepublic.Siniossoglouargues
that Theodoret followed the apologetic technique of
selectively appropriating those Platonic myths that can be
interpreted in accordance with Christian doctrine. For
example,TheodoretreliedontheMythofErintheRepublic
asevidencethatPlatobelievedinaheavenandhell,similar
to Christianity. The central argument of this section,
however,isthatTheodoretonlymadetheseconnectionsby
isolating Platonic myths from their larger philosophical
context and through selective interpretation. Theodoret
determinedthatonlythemythsthatcoincidewithChristian
doctrine are true while all that do not are Platonic
fallacies. The implication of this selective technique for
Siniossoglou is that this interpretation of Platonic myth
resulted in a disunited and inconsistent Platonic
philosophy. The essential point is that Theodoret, in
attempting to align Platonic myth with Christian doctrine,
misrepresented Plato beyond recognition. The connection
therefore is extremely problematic and demonstrates the
philosophicaldifficultyforlaterChristianswhoreliedupon
Theodoretsinterpretation.

Siniossoglou does an excellent job in this section of

articulatingtheNeoplatonicinterpretationofPlatonicmyth
and comparing that to Theodorets interpretation. He
demonstrateswiththeuseofexamplesanddiscussionthat
Theodoret had a specific agenda in interpreting Platonic
myth. Specifically he demonstrates that Theodorets
purpose was to discredit mythological pluralism
(Polymythos),thusenhancingtheauthorityandexclusivity
oftheBible(Monomythos)(p.187).Toputitanotherway,
Past Imperfect
15 (2009) | | ISSN 1711-053X | eISSN 1718-4487

| 472


Theodoret aimed to turn myth into dogma. This section
would have been stronger if Siniossoglou had explained
exactlyhowTheodoretsselectiveinterpretationofPlatonic
myth resulted in philosophical contradiction, rather than
just stating that it did. The author presumes that the
Platoniccontradictionsareselfevidentwhenperhapsthey
are not. Additionally, Siniossoglou assumes that a
discordantPlatonicphilosophyisnecessarilybad,whichis
perhaps a valid assumption, but his case would have been
strongerifhehadarticulatedthephilosophicalimplications
ofsuchdiscordance.
Thefinalsectionexaminesthepoliticalimplications
of JudeoChristian monotheism. He argues that Theodoret
drew an essential comparison between polytheism and
anarchy,andmonotheismandthestrengthoftheChristian
empire.TheodoretsawintheChristianizedEmpirethefirst
stages of the kingdom of god which was promised in
Jewish prophecies. This would result, he believed, in the
end of warfare and the beginning of an age of peace. This
was only possible, however, with the influence of the
Church. Theodoret argued that Christianity had succeeded
wherepaganRomehadfailed,assuch,itwasnecessaryfor
emperors and citizens alike to align under the banner of
Christianity. As justification for this claim, Siniossoglou
argues that Theodoret attempted to draw a connection
between Jewish tradition and Plato, in order to show that
theChristianizationoftheRomanEmpirewasanextension
of Platonic philosophy not accomplished by the
Neoplatonists. Siniossoglou concludes this section with a
discussion of Theodorets perspectives on law and society
Past Imperfect
15 (2009) | | ISSN 1711-053X | eISSN 1718-4487

| 473


andconcludesthathispositionwascontradictorybecause
Theodoret attempted to justify slavery, tyranny and social
injusticeasselfinducedpunishmentswhilearguingforthe
triumphofthepeaceofChristianity.
Thissectionprovidesaniceconclusiontotheoverall
argument as it demonstrates the significance of
Theodoretsworkbothhistoricallyandphilosophically.Itis
unclear, however, what the conclusion of this section,
which examines Theodorets perspectives on society,
contributes to this goal. Examining Theodorets
perspectives on slavery and tyranny does not appear to
contributeanythingtothebroaderimplicationsofhiswork
and actually comes across as Siniossoglous chance to do
someTheodoretbashing.Thisissueaside,thefinalsection
of the book does an excellent job of summarizing the
implicationsofTheodoretstechniquesthatwereexamined
indetailthroughoutthebook.
Overall, Siniossoglou has done well with this book.
The work is meticulously researched and incorporates
insights from multiple disciplines including theology,
philosophy,history,andmore.Hesucceededinexamininga
complextopicwiththedetailandintellectualrigorwhichit
deserves while simultaneously maintaining an interesting
and engaging read through his writing style, excellent
organization, and consistency of argument. Perhaps most
importantly,Siniossogloumakesacasefortheimportance
of examining interpretations of Platonic philosophy. He
demonstrates the problems that can be associated with
relying on interpretations, which may have their own
objectives. These insights will recommend this book to
Past Imperfect
15 (2009) | | ISSN 1711-053X | eISSN 1718-4487

| 474


anyone interested in Christian theology, particularly the
influenceoftheapologetictradition,Platonicphilosophy,or
thedevelopmentoftheWesternintellectualtradition.

| 475

Past Imperfect
15 (2009) | | ISSN 1711-053X | eISSN 1718-4487