At the recent BYU Church History symposium “Approaching Antiquity: Joseph Smith’s Study of the Ancient World” Samuel Brown presented a paper on “The Prisca Theology in Early Mormonism.” He has given another related paper on “Prisca Theologia in the Book of Mormon.”
It seems to me that Brown is using the term Prisca Theologia in such a broad sense as to render it essentially meaningless. In its strictest sense, Prisca Theologia is a Latin phrase meaning “the old/ancient theology.” It is a technical term probably first used in the early Renaissance by Florentine scholar Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499) which refers to the belief that a lineage of ancient philosophers taught a philosophical wisdom that parallels and complements the biblical Hebrew and Christian revelations. It was fundamentally a movement by para-pagan Renaissance philosophers and magicians to attempt to legitimize and Christianize a series of pagan books that they believed contained authentic philosophical and magical wisdom. Although the list of the philosophers and texts of the Prisca Theologia varies, it generally includes Zoroaster (Chaldean Oracles), Hermes (Corpus Hermeticum), Orpheus, Pythagoras (Golden Verses) and Plato. The essence of the movement was the syncretistic Christianization of pagan philosophy, magic, astrology, alchemy, theurgy, etc.. (One can see these ideas reflected in Raphael’s marvelous painting the “School of Athens.”)
More broadly, several early Christian theologians (e.g. Clement, Origen, Augustine) also believed that contemporary (neo) Platonic philosophy was largely compatible with Christianity. Plato, through reason, taught the same truths as the biblical Prophets taught by revelation. This movement seems to have begun with the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher Philo, who attempted in his massive works to show that the Bible and Plato taught essentially the same fundamental doctrines. In another sense, the attempts of medieval scholasticism to synthesize Aristotle and Arabic philosophy with Christian theology reflect this same tendency.
Notice the essence of all of these movements is an attempt to synthesize Christianity with Greek philosophy. The broader phenomena of the search for lost ancient wisdom (e.g. seeking the Hebrew Bible and Kabbalistic knowledge), and the more narrow syncretization of Christianity with Hellenistic philosophy is not Prisca Theologia. Prisca Theologia is only one form of the attempt to synthesize pagan philosophy and Christianity. Both share the belief that pagan philosophy reveals through reason the same truths that the Bible reveals through revelation.
Be that as it may, Joseph Smith’s search for ancient lost revealed prophetic wisdom has essentially nothing to do with the the Renaissance concept of a Prisca Theologia, or even the broader movement attempting to Platonize Christianity. Joseph Smith made no claims regarding the authenticity of the pagan philosophical traditions. He did not attempt to synthesize Mormonism and Neoplatonism. Nor did he show the slightest interest in the philosophies of men, even when mingled with scripture as found among the Prisca Theologians. I’m not sure if there is any conceptual benefit that can be derived by labeling Joseph Smith’s search for lost ancient revelation Prisca Theologia.
I must agree fully with Professor Hamblin. The idea that Joseph Smith had any affinity for or even knowledge of even various sophistic efforts to see Christianity in pagan Greek philosophy is simply false. Nothing more can be said about it.
To the contrary, I thought Samuel Brown’s short piece on “Early Mormonism’s Prisca Theologia” to be right on the money, first in noting that Patristic writers used the term Prisca Theologia (= Prisca Sapientia) to explain the similarity of Greek philosophy to Christianity (beginning especially with Clement of Alexandria). That is, the so-called “Church Fathers” asserted that Adam had original truth, which had become fragmented and debased over time, and that other cultures possessed some of these fragmentary truths. Where have we heard that before?
The program of the Medici in Florence to recreate the ancient Academy of Plato, to translate the Corpus Hermeticum, and to provide a rich artistic and intellectual environment for artists and magi alike resulted in the Renaissance of the powerful ideas and arts of late antiquity – a “restoration,” if you will.
See Daniel Walker, The Ancient Theology (1972); Gerald McDermott in Trinity Journal, 23/2 (Spring 2002):77-80.
While it is certainly true that Joseph Smith knew nothing of this history of ideas, and while Matthew Black was certainly off-base suggesting that some Italian secret society communicated the PGP book of Enoch to Joseph, it is true that Joseph believed that cultures world-wide had some truth, and was not reticent in letting such truth come from whence it may – regardless of the “pagan” baggage which might be brought along with it. He thought it separable.
I don’t believe that Patristic writers ever used the term Prisca Theologia (which is Latin, not Greek). References? (The Greek equivalent is palai theologoi = “old theologians,” essentially the older philosophers.
Belief in the spread and corruption of an Adamic revelation (e.g. Abr. 1:3, 26) is not part of the Prisca Theologia. This is quite different from a belief that pagan philosophy represents a discovery of truth by reason, and that it is equivalent to, and should be merged with the Christian revelation.
My main objection is Prisca Theologia is about pagan philosophy, in which JS had no interest. If he didn’t, then he wasn’t engaged in Prisca Theologia.
Once we have seen whether Brown’s paper has adequate documentation to support his claims, and have fairly evaluated his actual arguments, we will be in a better position to decide whether so-called “paganism” is merely a fragment of original truth, and consequently whether nature itself testifies of God (Alma 30:44, Job 12:8).
I’m not arguing here about whether truth fragments are found in other religions. (Personally, I believe a great deal of truth is found in almost all world religions.) I’m arguing here as to whether Joseph believed in Prisca Theologia, which entails placing the teachings of certain Hellenistic philosophers and magicians (especially Plato, Hermes, and pseudo-Zoroaster of the Chaldean Oracles) on a par with scripture. Whatever the merits of this idea, I don’t see any evidence that JS believed this, and hence no reason to say that Joseph believed in Prisca Theologia. Misapplying names to what JS believed can only lead to confusion.