History of Philosophy | 18 Middle and Neo-Platonism

[Ahanu]

It's not one or t'other, it's a two-way street and it requires a careful reading, as scholars like Ramelli show.

This better reflects the historical reality than the assertion that "the Christian belief in the Trinity is something independent of Greek philosophy."

 

[Ahanu]

Whereas Illaria Ramelli argues, in her Origen’s Anti-Subordinationism and its Heritage in the Nicene and Cappadocian Line two significant points:
1: Origen was not, as commonly supposed, a subordinationist, and
2: That his influence on the Cappadocian Fathers in their Trinitarian formulation is, in Gregory at least, there in every line.

Aren't you concerned about reviews regarding Ramelli's scholarship, which has been described as containing fundamental methodological flaws due to a pattern of misrepresentation, fabrication of evidence, and so on?

A Review of Ilaria Ramelli’s History of the ‘Apokatastasis Doctrine’: A Critical Assessment of Evidence from before Origen by JP

According to some critics, she routinely cites phrases and supposed "glosses" in patristic texts that simply do not exist. She "glossed" a non-existent phrase in Basil, attributes imaginary interpretations to Theodore and Gregory of Nyssa based on absent textual elements, and even makes up entire clauses out of thin air in her translations of Origen.

A review of Ramelli's translation work in Megathread on Ilaria Ramelli's Translation Work

Critics note that despite offering hundreds of references and translations, her work lacks any meaningful engagement with the broader contexts essential to sound exegesis: "One major thing I immediately noticed in my analysis is that, because Ramelli offers so many hundreds of individual references and translations, she basically never offers any actual contextual analysis of any particular passage she mentions. There’s virtually no engagement with the various contexts that other scholars look at when they offer deep exegetical analysis of their own."

A review of Ilaria Ramelli’s History of the ‘Apokatastasis Doctrine’: A Critical Assessment of Evidence from before Origen by Nils Arne Pedersen

Her errors, according to Nils Arne Pedersen, stem from fundamental methodological flaws, including a failure to analyze word meanings within their proper contexts.

A review of Terms for Eternity by Helen M. Keizer

"The study under review presents much and rich material that allows one to come to these conclusions, but weakness of method, a leaning on unwarranted assumptions, an equivocal formulation of outcomes, and numerous erroneous details unfortunately make it an unreliable guide."

 

[Thomas]

I realise that that is what you believe..

..but it can't be proved.

What can't be proved?

It's interesting that you think we can know more about Origen now, than they all did
back in the day.

LOL, I never said that.

No, not accused of heresy due to confusion .. a political mess, yes!

How much do you actually know about Origen?

 

[Ahanu]

Whereas Illaria Ramelli argues, in her Origen’s Anti-Subordinationism and its Heritage in the Nicene and Cappadocian Line two significant points:
1: Origen was not, as commonly supposed, a subordinationist, and
2: That his influence on the Cappadocian Fathers in their Trinitarian formulation is, in Gregory at least, there in every line.

A review of Ilaria Ramelli’s History of the ‘Apokatastasis Doctrine’: A Critical Assessment of Evidence from before Origen by Nils Arne Pedersen

"As regards the Christian literature before Origen—which is the subject of this article—Ramelli’s history of the ‘Apokatastasis doctrine’ suffers under a methodological problem: an inclination to refrain from distinguishing between early ideas and later patristic concepts and interpretations, and even a tendency to paint the relation between early and later ideas with teleological phrases. As regards semantics, Ramelli and Konstan do not always seek the meaning of words in the context in which they are used, but in particular there is a lack of acribia. Hence their conclusions are not convincing.

There may be several reasons for these errors. One may lie in the circumstance that there exists a strong theological interest in a revisionist historiography which makes ancient Christianity look more like modern mainstream Christianity in Western Europe, Canada, and parts of the USA. Undoubtedly Ramelli’s (and Konstan’s) semantic arguments are rooted in a universalistic tradition, and similar arguments have also formerly been raised by universalists and annihilationists, as they are themselves aware.57

It remains an open question whether Ramelli’s history of the ‘Apokatastasis doctrine’ is more well-founded as regards the Christian literature after Origen. Unsystematic research has at least revealed another example of a lack of acribia: Ramelli ascribes a universalistic passage to Titus of Bostra’s Contra Manichaeos which has been known to belong to Serapion of Thmuis’ Adversus Manichaeos since 1894, and there are very strong reasons to assume that she has uncritically copied one of Hanson’s dated books.58."

 

[Thomas]

Aren't you concerned about reviews regarding Ramelli's scholarship, which has been described as containing fundamental methodological flaws due to a pattern of misrepresentation, fabrication of evidence, and so on?

Well I take that on board, and bear it in mind ... so while I look to scholars like Fredriksen and Ramelli, Hart and Ehrman, for their scholarship and their insight, I have not built a theology or my faith on their work alone ... I always reference back to Scripture and to what seems right and proper and just ...

But we have to admit a certain partisan leaning to our scholars of choice.

Like the Fathers, no scholar is infallible. Where they are all in accord, one can safely take that proposition 'to the bank', as the saying goes ... where they differ, we have to tread our way cautiously, but acknowledge, in the end, we lean on our own convictions.

My benchmark in all this is St Maximus the Confessor, for his 'corrections' of both Origen and Plato.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Although this video is very long, I thought I'd add it here for reference, and also in the Broaching the Trinity thread.
I really think the way Dan McClellan explores the patristic thought and the development of the trinitarian idea to be very edifying and informative.
This video involves Dan replying to someone else's video, and offering more information and explanation, so that's the commentary you see.

 

[Ahanu]

Although this video is very long, I thought I'd add it here for reference, and also in the Broaching the Trinity thread.
I really think the way Dan McClellan explores the patristic thought and the development of the trinitarian idea to be very edifying and informative.
This video involves Dan replying to someone else's video, and offering more information and explanation, so that's the commentary you see.

McClellan critiques the interpreter for failing to explain Justin's explicit view of the Logos as "another God below the Creator God." He also speaks of a functional unity rather than ontological unity in Justin's writings (e.g., "fire kindling fire"). The concept of the Logos as "another God" (heteros theos) is deeply rooted in Middle Platonic philosophy.

 

[Ahanu]

Although this video is very long, I thought I'd add it here for reference, and also in the Broaching the Trinity thread.
I really think the way Dan McClellan explores the patristic thought and the development of the trinitarian idea to be very edifying and informative.
This video involves Dan replying to someone else's video, and offering more information and explanation, so that's the commentary you see.

McClellan critiques the interpreter for failing to explain Justin's explicit view of the Logos as "another God below the Creator God." He also speaks of a functional unity rather than ontological unity in Justin's writings (e.g., "fire kindling fire"). The concept of the Logos as "another God" (heteros theos) is deeply rooted in Middle Platonic philosophy.

Notes from Paula Fredriksen related to the topic:

"For Philo, further, the Jewish god’s logos was a “second god” (QG 2.62) as, similarly, was Jesus for Justin (heteros theos, Dial. 59.1).13

Fluid terminology marks Justin’s usage, too: in this same passage, he refers to Jesus as angelos, and shortly later as God the Father’s creative Logos (Dial. 61.1). Christ in other words is Justin’s go-between god, showing up in history, as the highest, “nameless” god never would (1 Apol. 63, cf. 60)."

 

[Ahanu]

His critique of interpretations that retroject Nicene Trinitarianism onto Justin serves as an important reminder: avoid anachronism in historical theology.

 

[TheLightWithin]

McClellan critiques the interpreter for failing to explain Justin's explicit view of the Logos as "another God below the Creator God." He also speaks of a functional unity rather than ontological unity in Justin's writings (e.g., "fire kindling fire"). The concept of the Logos as "another God" (heteros theos) is deeply rooted in Middle Platonic philosophy.

Do you think his critiques are accurate and fair, or not so much?