{"id":67,"date":"2026-06-25T10:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-06-25T08:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/?p=67"},"modified":"2026-06-21T14:35:43","modified_gmt":"2026-06-21T12:35:43","slug":"aphrodite-in-iliad-v-thinking-through-platonic-soteriology-with-van-kooten-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/2026\/06\/25\/aphrodite-in-iliad-v-thinking-through-platonic-soteriology-with-van-kooten-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"Aphrodite in Iliad V: Thinking through Platonic Soteriology with van Kooten [Part 1]"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In his 2022 contribution to the Festschrift f\u00fcr Reinhard Feldmeier<\/em>, George van Kooten provides an probing and insightful comparison between, on the one hand, the Johannine Christ, and on the other hand, the depiction of Aphrodite in Iliad<\/em> V and Eros in Diotima\u2019s speech in Plato\u2019s Symposium<\/em>. While disagreeing with certain interpretative moves made by van Kooten, I believe this line of comparison will prove immensely helpful in order to understand the soteriological significance of Eros and Aphrodite in a late Platonic perspective.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Van Kooten locates this axis of comparison in Contra Celsum<\/em>, wherein Celsus quotes Iliad <\/em>5:340 rhetorically concerning Christ\u2019s crucifixion as depicted in John 19:34 (Van Kooten 2022, 632-633). The crux of the issue for Celsus is that John very clearly affirms that blood (\u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03b1) flew from the side of Christ as he was pierced with a spear, whereas Homer affirms, when Aphrodite is wounded by Diomedes, that it is not blood but \u201cichor such as flows in the veins of the blessed Gods\u201d (\u1f30\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1, \u03bf\u1f37\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c1 \u03c4\u03b5 \u1fe5\u03ad\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd). Van Kooten draws attention to the author of John being aware of this Homeric backdrop and \u201cintroduc[ing] a far-reaching new idea \u2013 that of the radical incarnation of a god and his subsequent death\u201d (Van Kooten 2022, 643).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given the primary focus of his study is to discuss the ways in which the author of the Gospel responds to the received Homeric tradition, his discussion of the allegorical tradition of Homeric interpretation is limited (Van Kooten 2022, 634). This is natural, given some of the most extensive extant textual attestations of this tradition are certainly later than the composition of John. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, given the starting point of his inquiry (Origen\u2019s Contra Celsum<\/em>) and the two textual topoi<\/em> he has identified (Aphrodite in Iliad <\/em>V and Eros in Symposium<\/em>), it seems quite natural to explore the manner in which the Platonic philosophers \u2013 both contemporaries of Origen and of subsequent generations \u2013 commented on these texts. In doing so, I think that van Kooten\u2019s intuition to compare the figure of Christ with Aphrodite proves apt, though I intend to argue this is because it shows broader soteriological differences between late Platonists and the Gospel of John beyond the mere fact of Christ\u2019s incarnation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first interpretative move van Kooten makes, which the Neoplatonic allegorical tradition will largely not follow, is a thoroughly materialist reading of Homeric divinity. He states that \u201cthe piercing of the goddess Aphrodite \u2026 shows the Homeric gods as they really are, independent of their epiphanies to human beings\u201d (Van Kooten 2022, 635), and he quotes from Iliad <\/em>V. 127-132 to justify this position. Therein, Athena removes the mist from Diomedes\u2019 eyes, \u201cso that you may well discern both god and man\u201d (\u1f44\u03c6\u03c1\u02bc \u03b5\u1f56 \u03b3\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u1fc3\u03c2 \u1f20\u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u1f20\u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1). There are four problems concerning this verse as a justification for reading depictions of Iliad <\/em>V as \u201cthe gods as they really are\u201d:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. The power which Athena gives to Diomedes concerns discernment (\u03b5\u1f56 \u03b3\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u1fc3\u03c2) on the basis of sense-perception, and is therefore manifestly epiphantic. This is to say, the Gods are still appearing to Diomedes, just as any object appears through the sense of sight.\u00a0<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. It is not clear that we, the readers, are also given such a power by Athena. This follows from the first problem: if such a power is tied to sense-perception, and we are not Diomedes, then we are not perceiving what Diomedes perceives.\u00a0<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Distinctions between Gods and Men on the basis of sight elsewhere in Iliad <\/em>V are made through judgements of martial excellence and virtue. Specifically, this concerns Diomedes himself: Pandarus, speaking to Aeneas, says that \u201cAeneas, council member among the Trojan leaders clad in bronze, I think his whole appearance most resembles great Diomedes, son of Tydeus. I recognize him by his shield, his helmet, his visor and his chariot and horses. Or this could be a god \u2013 I am not sure. But if he is a man, the one I mentioned, the skillful son of Tydeus, his frenzy must have been caused by some immortal god, cloaked in a cloud, who stands there close beside him\u201d (Wilson 2023, 104) (\u0391\u1f30\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u03a4\u03c1\u03ce\u03c9\u03bd \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5 \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03bf\u03c7\u03b9\u03c4\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \/ \u03a4\u03c5\u03b4\u03b5\u0390\u03b4\u1fc3 \u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b1\u0390\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u0390\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9, \/ \u1f00\u03c3\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u1fc3, \/ \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fbd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03bf\u03c1\u03cc\u03c9\u03bd: \u03c3\u03ac\u03c6\u03b1 \u03b4\u1fbd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u1fbd \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd. \/ \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f45 \u03b3\u1fbd \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f45\u03bd \u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b1\u0390\u03c6\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03a4\u03c5\u03b4\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \/ \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f45 \u03b3\u1fbd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f04\u03b3\u03c7\u03b9 \/ \u1f15\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u1fbd \u1f00\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u03ad\u03bb\u1fc3 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f64\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \/ \u1f43\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b2\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f60\u03ba\u1f7a \u03ba\u03b9\u03c7\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u1fc3; Iliad <\/em>V.180-187)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. It is an interpretive presupposition to read \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd as \u2018a God as they really are\u2019. I think the presuppositional nature of this reading, whether conscious or not, is made clear if we juxtapose it to an alternative, daimonological approach to the text, grounded in the Neoplatonic commentary tradition.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Following 4) will involve looking at authors (Plotinus, Proclus) who are certainly applying to the Homeric text a mode of exegesis grounded in metaphysical systems which they have developed independently from reading the Iliad<\/em>. My point here, and in this broader exploration, is not to try to demonstrate \u2018Homer\u2019s original meaning\u2019 against Van Kooten\u2019s reading, but rather to point out that what appears to be the manifest meaning of the Homeric text is, in effect, already interpreted.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This is simply to make a Gramscian observation that \u2018common sense\u2019 is contingently, ideologically constructed, and that prima facie<\/em> we have no reason to presume \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd means \u2018a God as they really are\u2019 any more than we have reason to presume a daimonological reading the the Homeric texts. In fact, in Van Kooten\u2019s case, the choice of the former seems to be a clear expression of a definite ideological commitment to a narrative that Greco-Roman philosophy finds its fulfillment in incarnational Christianity (cf. Van Kooten 2022, 665 on Cicero\u2019s \u201clonging for the attribution of truly divine qualities to human beings\u201d which \u201cthe incarnation \u2026 enables\u201d). Despite this, I still think that Van Kooten is correct to juxtapose the wounding of Aphrodite with the wounding of Christ in the Gospel of John.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This series will then consist of four parts. This first part has introduced the topic. The second part will look at how Plotinian thealogy provides an interpretive framework for looking at Iliad <\/em>V quite differently from van Kooten. The third part will build on the Plotinian diairesis <\/em>of the myth by looking to Proclus\u2019 extant hymns to Aphrodite, making the theurgic potencies of the sunthemata <\/em>within Iliad <\/em>V apparent. The fourth part will provide a summary of a polytheistic, theurgic reading of the scene of Aphrodite\u2019s wounding by Diomedes and how this provides a way of thinking about theurgic Neoplatonic polytheism as providing an alternative, universalist soteriology to the (traditional interpretations of) John.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    References<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Homer (1920), Homeri Opera in five volumes<\/em>. (Oxford, Oxford University Press)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Van Kooten, George (2022), \u201cBleeding Blood, Not Ichor \u2013 Christ the \u2018Gottmensch\u2019: A Comparison of the Johannine Incarnate God of Love with Homer\u2019s Aphrodite, Plato\u2019s Daim\u014dn of Love, and Modern Discourse\u201d in Dochhorn, Jan, Hirsch-Luipold, Rainer and Tanaseanu-D\u00f6bler, Ilinca (Eds.), \u00dcber Gott: Festschrift f\u00fcr Reinhard Feldmeier zum 70. Geburtstag<\/em>. (T\u00fcbingen: Mohr Siebeck).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Wilson, Emily (Tr.) (2023), The Iliad<\/em>. (New York: W.W. Norton).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    In his 2022 contribution to the Festschrift f\u00fcr Reinhard Feldmeier, George van Kooten provides an probing and insightful comparison between, on the one hand, the Johannine Christ, and on the other hand, the depiction of Aphrodite in Iliad V and Eros in Diotima\u2019s speech in Plato\u2019s Symposium. While disagreeing with certain interpretative moves made by…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"pagelayer_contact_templates":[],"_pagelayer_content":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[5,32,33,8,12,14,34],"class_list":["post-67","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-aphrodite","tag-homer","tag-iliad","tag-myth","tag-polytheism","tag-theology","tag-theurgy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=67"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":69,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67\/revisions\/69"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}