Search

The theory of universal restoration (apokatastasis), the eventual eviction of evil and the purification, conversion and salvation of all rational creatures, was prominent in early Christian thinkers and present in more Patristic theologians than is commonly assumed. But, besides having philosophical, Biblical, and Jewish roots, may it have stemmed from another religion? The only suitable candidate would be Zoroastrianism. An analysis of the available sources concerning Zoroastrian eschatology shows that it is improbable that this may have influenced the Christian apokatastasis doctrine. At least, it is impossible to prove anything like this, mainly for chronological reasons. Fruitful interactions may, however, have occurred at the time of Bardaisan. This essays shows the importance of comparative religio-historical studies, and the reconceptualizing of theological doctrines into social discourse, for research into early Christianity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 FROM AUTHOR]

This essay will argue that in several - often unnoticed - respects patristic exegesis can be relevant to contemporary biblical hermeneutics and can be a source of fruitful inspiration for it. From several quarters, contemporary scholars have called for an integrative approach to biblical hermeneutics, especially one that conjoins the historico-critical method and theological hermeneutics. A similar integrative approach was already adopted by patristic exegetes in Origen's line, with their integration of historical reading and noetic exegesis, and with their hermeneutics of multiplicity that is another respect in which patristic exegesis proves highly relevant to contemporary biblical hermeneutics. The present relevance of scriptural passages is also a core principle of both patristic exegesis and contemporary hermeneutics, as well as the tenet of the unity of Scripture, which was emphasised by patristic exegetes and is to be taken into account in contemporary biblical hermeneutics with respect to the Bible as supertext. Also, philosophical investigation applied to scriptural hermeneutics is one of the most remarkable features of Origen's and his followers' hermeneutics. A reflection will thus be devoted to the relationship between philosophy and biblical hermeneutics, as well as between theology and philosophy, and a parallel will be drawn with philosophy of religion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Origen was a Christian Platonist, which his adversaries (both Christians who opposed Greek philosophy and pagan philosophers like Porphyry who saw Christianity as a non-culture) considered to be a contradictio in adiecto. His formation and teaching centred on philosophy, and his Περì αρχων in its structure was inspired not so much by earlier Christian works as by pagan philosophical works stemming from the selfsame authors as those appreciated at Ammonius' and Plotinus' schools. A close examination of all extant sources and a careful investigation of Origen's philosophical formation, readings, and works show that Origen the Neoplatonist is likely to be our Christian philosopher. The presupposition of the incompatibility between Christianity and philosophy (especially Platonism), which provoked charges against Origen as a Christian Platonist from his lifetime onward, is still at work in modern theorizations concerning the “Hellenisation of Christianity,” which are here analysed and brought into connection with the supposed necessity of distinguishing Origen the Platonist from Origen the Christian. It is not the case that a “pure” Christianity was subsequently Hellenised: the NT itself was already Hellenised to some extent, and the Christian κηρυγμα, intended for all nations and cultures, was a σκανδαλον for the Jews as well as μωρìα for the Greeks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]