Search

This essay analyses the most significant sources—some overlooked so far—on the debate on ethos and logos that was lively between “pagan” and Christian philosophers in the second century ce. Epictetus’s attribution of a behaviour based on ethos to the Christians should not be regarded as utterly negative, but should rather be connected with his teacher Musonius’s high appreciation of ethos, even over logos. Marcus Aurelius’s and Celsus’s negative attitude toward Christianity as an obstinate, irrational habit can be explained by the possible influence of Montanism, while the Syriac apology to Marcus ascribed to Melito reacts to anti-Christian accusations of irrationality by attaching logos to the Christians and a behaviour based on a bad ethos to “paganism”—the same as was done by Clement of Alexandria, one of the Christian intellectuals most committed to demonstrating the rationality of Christian belief. Literary problems related to the apology are tackled, and parallels are pointed out with both Justin and Bardaisan, two other Christian Platonists who attempted to construe Christianity as philosophy. Galen’s judgment about the Christians shows interesting parallels with, and differences from, that of Epictetus. For both intellectuals an engagement with Christian doctrines of creation is argued for (this is usually admitted in the case of Galen, but not in that of Epictetus). Another second-century anti-Christian accusation of the lack of logos is the charge of onolatry. Lucian’s attitude toward the Christians is showed to be less simplistic than generally believed: he allowed for the ascription of logos and a certain intellectual development to Christianity and its founder. But for Christians to claim that the Logos was on their side, they had to develop a theology of the Logos, which identified Jesus Christ with God’s Logos. This operation, anticipated by Philo and Hellenistic Judaism, started from the Prologue of John and was continued by Justin, most Valentinians, Clement, and especially Origen, and then by the Patristic philosophy which depended on Origen. Thanks to Origen, who was deeply respected by “pagan” philosophers too, Christianity could no longer be charged with being a religion for irrational people.

Abstract This study investigates the idea of harmony as a protological and eschatological principle in three outstanding Patristic philosophers, well steeped in the Platonic tradition: Origen, Gregory Nyssen, and Evagrius. All of them attached an extraordinary importance to harmony, homonoia, and unity in the arkhē and, even more, in the telos. This ideal is opposed to the disagreement/dispersion of rational creatures’ acts of volition after their fall and before the eventual apokatastasis. These Christian Platonists are among the strongest supporters of the final universal restoration. Their reflection on the unity-multiplicity dialectic, which parallels that between harmony and disorder/discord/dissonance, is informed by the Platonic tradition. In Gregory, the idea of harmony assumes musical connotations, especially in relation to the telos. In this connection, I examine the relationship between their notion of harmony in the arkhē and telos and Plotinus’ concept of harmony. Plotinus was well known to Gregory, the author of a Christianized version of Plato’s Phaedo in which apokatastasis is prominent. Origen, whose readings included many Middle-Platonic and Neo-Pythagorean texts, in Alexandria attended the classes of the “proto-Neoplatonist” Ammonius, who was also Plotinus’ teacher. A wide-ranging methodical investigation of the relation between Origen’s and Plotinus’ philosophical thoughts is still a notable desideratum. Finally, I concentrate on the concept of harmony in astronomy as a metaphor for intellectual harmony and apokatastasis in Patristic Platonism, especially in Evagrius’ Kephalaia Gnōstika. The noun apokatastasis was used in an astronomical sense, and employed in Stoicism for the conclusion of a cosmic cycle. Evagrius, who loved astronomical metaphors, focussed a kephalaion on a wordplay—which escaped Guillaumont and all other scholars—concerning the astronomical meaning of apokatastasis, thus embedding his theory of the eventual restoration in an allegorical framework that rests on a notion of astronomical harmony. A strong case is made in this connection that Evagrius was elaborating on Plato’s pivotal link between cosmological (astronomical) and intellectual harmony, and was aware that the Stoic theory of cosmological apokatastasis drew on Plato.

Abstract I argue that, paradoxically, Augustine embraced much of Origen’s system, especially in his anti-Manichaean polemic, exactly when he was convinced that he did not know his thought. The most remarkable point in his initial adherence to Origen’s ideas regards the apokatastasis doctrine, which he later condemned as heretical and felt the need to recant in his Retractationes (Second Thoughts). I point out many other elements of contact concerning philosophical arguments and Biblical exegesis, which the early Augustine drew from Origen and have escaped scholars who have investigated the Origen-Augustine relationship. With this I shall hopefully add an important piece to the study of Origen’s influence on Western Patristics. I thus explain how Augustine used Origen’s thought in defense of Christian orthodoxy against the Manichaean “heresy,” whereas, after he was informed about Origen’s thought by Horosius and Jerome, he began to find it heretical and condemned it, especially in De civitate Dei (The City of God) and De haeresibus (On Heresies), where he shows that he was misinformed about it. A remarkable role in this transformation was played by Augustine’s ­anti-Pelagian polemic: several of his expressions of blame directed against Origen’s ideas are found in his anti-Pelagian works. Another notable factor was Augustine’s ignorance of the important semantic distinction between αἰώνιος and ἀΐδιος, which got lost in the translation of both with aeternus. Moreover, I endeavor to clarify the ways and sources through which Augustine came to know Origen’s true thought when he did adhere to it, probably without being aware that it was Origen’s.

Nyssen’s arguments in In Illud: Tunc et Ipse Filius entirely derive from Origen (probably also passing through Marcellus of Ancyra and Eusebius). Origen’s influence, theoretical and exegetical, is evident in every passage, from the argumentative pillars down to the tiniest details of exegesis. Gregory’s close dependence on Origen in his anti-subordinationism, within his polemic against ‘Arianism,’ confirms that Origen was not the forerunner of ‘Arianism,’ as he was depicted in the Origenistic controversy and is often still regarded to be, but the main inspirer of the Cappadocians, especially Nyssen, in what became Trinitarian orthodoxy. Origen inspired Marcellus, who was anti-Arian, Eusebius, who in fact was no ‘Arian,’ Athanasius, the champion of anti-Arianism, and the Cappadocians. I argue extensively that Origen’s Trinitarian heritage is found, not in Arianism, but in Nyssen, Athanasius, Eusebius, and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan line, on the basis of a painstaking analysis of his works (always with attention to their reliability in relation to Greek original, translations, and fragments) and of Pamphilus, Eusebius, Athanasius, and other revealing testimonies, pagan and Christian. The origin of the µοοσιος formula is also investigated in this connection. Further interesting insights will emerge concerning Eusebius and his first report of what exactly happened at Nicaea.

Paul's statement that God will be all in all and other NT and OT passages are taken by Origen and by Gregory of Nyssa as the scriptural basis of their eschatological doctrine of apokatastasis and eventual universal salvation. At the same time, their doctrine rests (1) on philosophical arguments mainly deriving from Platonism (Gregory's De anima et resurrectione is deeply influenced by Platonism both in form and in content, and so is Origen, although both are Christians first and Platonists second), and (2) on the allegorical exegesis of Scripture, another heritage of Hellenistic culture: Origen was very well acquainted with the Stoic and Platonic allegorical interpretations of Greek myths.

This chapter sets out to show how new, remarkable discoveries, especially in the linguistic and intertextual fields, which stem from intensive research the author has been conducting for over two decades into this Pauline pseudepigraphon, lead to a profound reassessment of this document and its composite nature. It begins from the linguistic point of view. The most interesting discoveries concern the nature and distribution of Graecisms in this pseudepigraphon and its bilingualism. The pseudepigraphical correspondence between the Stoic philosopher Seneca and St. Paul has been handed down in Latin, in many manuscripts of Seneca. Letter XIV is the only letter in the pseudepigraphon that suggests that Seneca "converted" to Christianity. The legend of Seneca's conversion was probably inspired by this very letter, which depicts him as auctor Christi Iesu at court. Keywords: bilingualism; Christianity; Graecism; Pauline pseudepigraphon; Seneca; St. Paul