{"id":99,"date":"2026-07-08T13:27:17","date_gmt":"2026-07-08T11:27:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/?p=99"},"modified":"2026-07-08T13:29:49","modified_gmt":"2026-07-08T11:29:49","slug":"aphrodite-in-iliad-v-conclusions-part-4","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/2026\/07\/08\/aphrodite-in-iliad-v-conclusions-part-4\/","title":{"rendered":"Aphrodite in Iliad V: Conclusions [Part 4]"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

From a perspective grounded in the Aphroditology of the later Platonists, I have presented in the previous posts a symbolic exegesis of the lifting of Aeneas from battle and the wounding of Aphrodite by Diomedes in Iliad <\/em>V. This reading firstly identifies Aeneas and Aphrodite with the individual and universal Soul, respectively, through a Plotinian psychology-as-thealogy. Then, it recognizes the wounding of Aphrodite as a theurgic symbolon<\/em>, in the manner Proclus understands this term in his Commentary on Plato\u2019s Republic<\/em>: a symbol which communicates higher, ineffable and transcendent realities through their opposite. The contradictory nature of the symbolon<\/em> is where its anagogic power lies, by the tension between the symbol and that which is symbolized propelling us to contemplation. Thus, the wounding of Aphrodite, in the perspective of late Platonic Aphroditology, communicates both the union of the individual soul with her and her transcendence, being within the Proclean anagogic triad. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

With all of this said, it seems to me very apt for Van Kooten to compare the figure of Christ in the Gospel of John with that of Aphrodite in Iliad <\/em>V. Both Aphrodite and Christ play a crucial role in the soul\u2019s salvation, and the scene of their wounding carries soteriological significance. However, Van Kooten compares them in a manner which abstracts both the Homeric episode from the longue dur\u00e9e <\/em>of the allegorical tradition of reading Homer (cf. Lamberton 1986, 10-44 for the archaic, Presocratic precursors to the Neoplatonic authors discussed in this series) and the theology of Aphrodite and Eros from the whole Platonic corpus. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Concerning this latter point, he contrasts the divinity of the Johannine Christ with Eros as characterized in the speech of Diotima in Symposium<\/em> (Van Kooten 2023, 648-654), where he appears as an intermediary daimon and not a God. He essentializes this as the definitive view of Plato on Eros, when he writes that \u201cin comparison with Plato\u2019s view of the semi-divine, intermediary, daimonic status of Love, John\u2019s insistence on the full, unrestricted divinity of the god of Love \u2013 that the god is love \u2013 is really revolutionary and is a conscious modification of Platonic thought\u201d (Van Kooten 2023, 650). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The primary issue with this reading of Plato presents itself in Phaedrus <\/em>242d9, where Socrates and Phaedrus affirm that Eros is a God and is the son of Aphrodite. This section of Phaedrus <\/em>is directly quoted by Plotinus (En. <\/em>III.5.2.1-4), deepening the primary aporia<\/em> of his treatise on Eros (\u201cConcerning Eros, whether he is some God or a daimon or some affection of the soul, or some God or daimon on the one hand and an affection of the Soul on the other, and each in what manner \u2013 concerning this, it is worth examining \u2026\u201d En. <\/em>III.5.1.1-3, my translation). Van Kooten quotes from Phaedrus <\/em>242e (Van Kooten 2023, 649), but ignores the preceding affirmation, whereas Plotinus aims to offer an interpretation of Platonic Eros which holds both Phaedrus<\/em> and Diotima\u2019s speech in Symposium<\/em> as authoritative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rather than locate the axis of disagreement between the Platonic tradition and Gospel of John in the question of whether Eros is (a) God, given the exegesis of Iliad <\/em>V which I have provided, I would highlight the differences in soteriology. These differences are a direct consequence of Platonic Aphroditology and Erotics. This primary difference follows the Platonic understanding of the relationship between individual Soul and the Gods: the disincarnate Aphrodite is a feature, not a bug, of Platonic theology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ancient authors seem to have been aware that the manifestly polytheistic tradition of Platonic Erotics stood as an alternative to a Christian theology of love. Tuomo Lankila, for instance, notes that Proclus\u2019 Hymn to Aphrodite addresses her as the Er\u014dtotokos<\/em>, or the Eros-Bearer; \u201cit would be tempting to think that with this epithet Proclus is intentionally echoing and developing a parallel to the evolving Christian doctrine of Mary [as Theotokos<\/em>]\u201d (Lankila 2009, 23, footnote 8). Furthermore, Christian authors such as Evagrius and Theodoret appear to have attacked traditional Greek religion because of its overt erotic symbolism. They singled out Aphrodite, among all pagan divinities, as especially objectionable: \u201cfrom the Christian point of view, such as that of Theodoret and his contemporaries, every aspect of the enemy was concentrated in the archetypal figure of Aphrodite\u201d (Lankila 2012, 28-38).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But beyond simply the prevalence of sexual imagery and metaphor in the myths and ritual practices associated with Aphrodite and Eros, I will argue that a deeper soteriological difference between the Neoplatonic and Christian views here lies in the identification of Aphrodite with the Soul. What makes Aphrodite a savior (\u03c3\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1) in the reception of Iliad <\/em>V within the Hymns of Proclus is her identity with the Soul of the Cosmos and the causal connection this establishes between her and individual souls, whereby souls proceed from and revert to her. She is able to play the anagogic role she does because of this identification. This is made more explicit in Plotinian Aphroditology, because he directly identifies the individual Soul as a daimonic Aphrodite (En. <\/em>III.5.4.18-25; cf. VI.9.9.31), which is never disconnected from the omnipresent cosmic soul, Aphrodite Pandemos, and therefore also always united with the hypostatic and undescended Soul, Aphrodite Ourania. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is this essential connection with a higher hypostasis (\u201cfor she [the soul] is connected to the Soul in the Intelligible World and is from that Soul\u201d; En. <\/em>III.5.3.36-38, my translation) which makes possible the ascent to the first principle. This connection is indeed mediated by daimonic Eros (cf. Phaedrus <\/em>252d-253c concerning leading-gods within the chariot procession and erotic longing), which Van Kooten identifies in Symposium<\/em>, but the metaphysical framework for this mediation is the unbroken connection to and identity with the Heavenly Aphrodite and thereby with her son, Eros as a God (\u201cThis Eros leading each soul towards goodness would be the god born of the Soul above, always united with the Soul in the intelligible world, while the daimon is born of the mixed soul,\u201d En<\/em>. III.5.4.23-25). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because each and every soul is Aphrodite and therefore \u2018births\u2019 their own Eros which pushes the soul to revert back to the first principle (En. <\/em>III.5.3.36-38), the cause of the ascent to the Good is present in each and every individual Soul. This cause, Eros, is also identified by Plotinus with the One\/Good itself (En. <\/em>VI.8.15.1-2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When we compare this psychology to Plotinus\u2019 statements on Eudaimonia<\/em>, what emerges as a consequence of his Aphroditology and Erotics is a theory of universal salvation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\u201cIf, then, it is possible for a human being to have the perfect life, a human being who has this life is happy. If not, one would suppose happiness to be found among the gods, if such a life is found among them alone. So, since we are now saying that this happiness is found among human beings, we should examine how this is so. What I mean is this: it is clear also from other considerations that the fact that a human being has a perfect life does not mean that he only has a perceptual life, but rather that he has the faculty of calculative reasoning and a genuine intellect as well. But is it the case that he is one thing and this life is another? In fact, he is not a human being at all if he has this neither in potency nor in actuality, where we actually locate happiness. […] So, what is the good for this human being? In fact, it is, for him, what he possesses. And the transcendent cause of goodness in him which is good in one way, is present to him in another. Evidence for the fact that this is so is that one who is like this does not seek anything else.\u201d\n\n\n\n

This passage has a number of correspondences to Plotinus\u2019 views of the ascent to Beauty via Eros. Firstly, the characterization of the \u201cperfect life\u201d as transcending perception and moving up to \u201cgenuine intellect\u201d mirrors the Plotinian reception of the ladder of Diotima (ascent from sensible beauties to intellectual beauties and finally, in I.6.6-9, the primary Beauty identical to the Good). This ladder also corresponds to the rungs of the Platonic divided line of Republic <\/em>509d-511e, which ranks \u201ccalculative reasoning and a genuine Intellect\u201d higher than belief (pistis<\/em>); contrast this with John 20:31:  <\/p>\n\n\n\n\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 <\/strong>\u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 <\/strong>\u03b6\u03c9\u1f74\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.
 
\u201cBut these are written so that you may continue to believe <\/strong>that Jesus is the Messsiah [the Christ], the Son of God, and that through believing <\/strong>you may life in his name.\u201d (NRSV)\n\n\n\n

Secondly, for someone who has completed this ascent and attained the perfect life, the Good is \u201cfor him, what he possesses. And the transcendental cause of goodness [is] in him in one way, [and] present to him in another.\u201d This identification with and presence of the Good within oneself is a perfection of desire, as \u201cone who is like this does not seek anything else\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The strong claim here, however, which I think is fair to characterize as a response to the theology of Love as propounded in the Gospels, is that to be a human being is to have \u201cin potency [or] in actuality, where we actually locate happiness\u201d. When set in erotic terms, this is to say that each soul either potentially can reach the Good through their Eros, the activity [energeia<\/em>] of their Soul, or actually has done so (cf. En.<\/em> I.6.8.25-27; Smith 2019, 79 on Plotinian \u201coptimism\u201d). Recalling that the Platonic conception of the soul is of an eternal, immortal, transmigrating, self-moving essence, there is a clear outline here for a Plotinian universalist soteriology grounded in the erotic ascent to the divine, an ascent made possible by Aphrodite Er\u014dtotokos <\/em>and potently, theurgically symbolized through her wounding in Iliad <\/em>V.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Contrast this with, again, John 20:31: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5<\/strong> \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. The subjunctive nature of the verb gives it the sense of \u2018may\u2019 or \u2018might\u2019. The addressee of John\u2019s writing \u2018may have life in his name\u2019, while the \u201cwe\u201d of Plotinus\u2019 I.4.4 has the perfect life already, either actually or potentially. In his treatise \u201cOn \u2018Potentially\u2019 and \u2018Actually\u2019\u201d, En. <\/em>II.5, Plotinus argues that any potentiality is grounded in a prior actuality. Plotinus identifies (II.5.3.30-41) the prior actuality for all potentiality of the soul \u2013 including that of eudaimonia<\/em> through the perfection of our Eros, the activity of the Soul longing for the Good \u2013 to be the higher soul which remains in the intelligible world. In other words, Aphrodite Ourania is the actuality of true and everlasting eudaimonia<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The historical reception of the Gospel has generally rejected universalist forms of soteriology. On the other hand, the Plotinian erotics affirms it unambiguously. Because Eros is a God (contrary to Van Kooten\u2019s prioritizing Symposium<\/em> over Phaedrus<\/em>) and through our identity with his Mother Aphrodite Ourania \u2013 an identity which rests on the fact that we are, essentially, immaterial souls not distinct from her as the transcendent hypostasis, Soul \u2013 each and every one of us is eternally capable of reaching eudaimonia<\/em> and s\u014dteria<\/em>: the actuality of these things already exists in the hypostasis from which all souls proceed and to which all souls revert. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

We are, in a sense, already in this final state because of the undescended Soul. Hence, Plotinus tells us in I.6.9.15-25, after telling us to \u2018never stop working on our statues\u2019 or pursuing virtue:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\u201cIf you have become this and have seen it and find yourself in a purified state, you have no impediment to becoming one in this way nor do you have something else mixed in with yourself, but you are entirely yourself, true light alone, neither measured by magnitude nor reduced by a circumscribing shape nor expanded indefinitely in magnitude but being unmeasured everywhere, as something greater than every measure and better than every quantity. If you see that you have become this, at that moment you have become sight, and you can be confident about yourself, and you have at this moment ascended here, no longer in need of someone to show you. Just open your eyes and see,<\/strong> for this alone is the eye that sees the great beauty.\u201d\n\n\n\n

To return where we and Van Kooten started, the debate in Contra Celsum <\/em>was concerning Iliad<\/em> V:340 affirming Gods do not bleed blood and John 19:34 affirming blood flowing from the side of the crucified Christ. From the Plotinian perspective, \u201ca beautiful body comes to be through its association [koin\u014dnia<\/em>] with a principle having come from divinities [thei\u014dn<\/em>]\u201d (I.6.2.27-28); the Gods are not themselves made of flesh. The immateriality of the individual soul, its difference from body and matter, makes possible the koin\u014dnia <\/em>with higher realities, of which a beautiful body is an effect. In Plotinus\u2019 view, one cannot have any eternal, lasting koin\u014dnia <\/em>with a being made of flesh and blood: Celsus\u2019 objection and reference to Homer stands, because for Plotinus the fact that the Gods did not incarnate as a mortal man makes it possible for mortal, embodied souls to ascend to their higher causes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Gerson, Lloyd P. (ed.) (2018), The Enneads<\/em>. Boys-Stones, George; Dillon, John M.; Gerson, Lloyd P.; King, R.A.H.; Smith, Andrew; Wilberding, James (trs.). (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Lamberton, Robert (1986), Homer the Theologian: Neoplatonic Allegorical Reading and the Growth of the Epic Tradition<\/em>. (Berkeley: University of California Press).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lankila, Tuomo (2009), \u201cAphrodite in Proclus\u2019 Theology\u201d. Journal for Late Antique Religion and Culture<\/em>: 3.21-43.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lankila, Tuomo (2012), \u201cProclus, Erototokos and \u2018The Great Confusion\u2019: Neoplatonist Defense of Polytheistic Piety in Early Byzantine Athens\u201d. (Doctoral Dissertation: University of Jyv\u00e4skyl\u00e4).<\/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":"

From a perspective grounded in the Aphroditology of the later Platonists, I have presented in the previous posts a symbolic exegesis of the lifting of Aeneas from battle and the wounding of Aphrodite by Diomedes in Iliad V. This reading firstly identifies Aeneas and Aphrodite with the individual and universal Soul, respectively, through a Plotinian…<\/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":[5,32,33,8,3,12,14,34],"class_list":["post-99","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-aphrodite","tag-homer","tag-iliad","tag-myth","tag-plotinus","tag-polytheism","tag-theology","tag-theurgy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99","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=99"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":102,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99\/revisions\/102"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=99"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=99"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=99"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}