This paper reconstructs Justin Martyr’s justification for giving evaluative priority to practical rather than theoretical activity when determining whether a human life qualifies as godlike. I argue Justin does so because he believes reason—expressed in both practical and theoretical contexts—is the location of value in human life, but that necessary limits on theoretical success mean we should look primarily to someone’s practical activities when determining the overall value of that person’s life. To show this, I first reconstruct (...) key elements of Justin’s action theory, demonstrating the centrality of reason to his understanding of practical action. Then, I show that Justin believes reason’s expression in practical contexts is valuable in two ways, first, human reason stands in a value-conferring relationship to the divine, and second, practical action is directly imitative of God's creative activity. I then argue that Justin believes God’s essence is unknowable, which provides several possible reasons to grant evaluative priority to practical rather than theoretical activity. Throughout, my analysis of Justin aims to show the intrinsic interest of Justin’s philosophical reflections while also offering a new perspective on how to interpret accounts of godlikeness in contemporaneous philosophical sources. (shrink)

This article focuses on Justin Martyr’s apologetical intent in his use of the term ‘logos’, recognizing ambiguity and word-play. The lengthy, complex discussions of Justin’s use of ‘logos’ , have neglected the apologetical aspect. The author highlights the epistemological character of Justin’s central part/whole argument. Accordingly, both the position which understands Justin affirming a general revelation that gives more than partial access to truth outside of Christ , as well as one which affirms an unbridgeable (...) chasm in knowledge of truth between Christians and unbelievers is rejected. While only Christ, as ‘logos’, gives the complete revelation of God, Justin denies that this truth was totally veiled to unbelievers; they are without excuse in unjustly persecuting Christians.”. (shrink)

Cet article examine la crédibilité et la pertinence du rôle conféré à Justin Martyr dans le dialogue interreligieux contemporain. En effet, le concept du Logos spermatikos qu’il a introduit dans la théologie chrétienne est reconnu depuis Vatican II comme la justification de l’ouverture vis-à-vis des religions non chrétiennes. En examinant le dialogue pratiqué par Justin en personne, l’auteur de cet article parvient à la conclusion que l’ouverture des chrétiens engagés dans le dialogue interreligieux contemporain va au-delà de (...) celle de Justin. (shrink)

Many scholars argue that Justin is either inconsistent or confused in his view of the Spirit in relation to the Logos. The most decisive section in this discussion is 1Apol. 33, where Justin appears to confuse the titles and unify the functions of the Logos and the Spirit. This essay argues that this apparent confusion is conditioned by Justin’s particular christological reading of Isaiah 7:14 in order to meet the demands of his own understanding of the apostolic (...) faith. The interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 is a unique case with multiple external hermeneutical pressures imposing upon his exegesis, including those coming from competing Jewish exegesis, Greco-Roman mythology, and Marcionite interpretations. At the same time, Justin reads scripture within his own Christian community. Justin’s exegesis of Isaiah 7:14 attempts to account for these external pressures by focusing upon the particular Lukan terminology of ‘Power’ rather than ‘Spirit’ in Luke 1:35, which downplays the function of the Spirit in the incarnation in order to demonstrate that the Logos has come in power. This exegetical move exposes him to binitarian allegations, but does not suggest that Justin is, in fact, a binitarian. What this suggests, however, is that in 1Apol. 33 Justin actually resists confusing the Logos and the Spirit even when a text uses the language of ‘Spirit’, because his exegetical concern is focused on the Logos coming in power. Justin’s exegetical treatment of Isaiah 7:14 and Luke 1:35 reflects the way he is reasoning through the textual and theological complexities of the christological interpretation of scripture and does not suggest that he confuses the functions of the Logos and the Spirit. (shrink)

Dans son Apologie, Justin structure son discours selon un double plan: il se prononce en faveur des chrétiens injustement haïs, mais aussi, de manière plus personnelle, comme quelqu�un qui pressent l�approche de sa condamnation et s�y prépare en assumant le rôle du sage qui, sur le point de mourir, fustige l�autorité politique, sans en craindre les conséquences. En recourant à un topos littéraire très connu dans l�Antiquité, Justin se «construit» une image de mort honorable au sein de sa (...) communauté. (shrink)

Dans les �uvres de Justin Martyr, plusieurs énoncés similaires, et parfois complexes, se présentent comme un résumé de la vie du Christ tel qu�il peut apparaître dans le Symbole des Apôtres. Ils englobent non seulement les péripéties de la vie terrestre du Christ mais aussi la mission des Apôtres, la conversion des gentils, la deuxième parousie du Christ, le règne millénaire, etc. (cf. 1 Apo. 31,7). L�Apologiste attire ainsi l�attention de ses destinataires sur la Révélation accomplie, à la (...) suite des prophéties, par le Christ et en même temps définit l�identité du chrétien orthodoxe face au christianisme diversifié de son époque, vu comme un conglomérat de sectes. Il faut dès lors souligner la nature, le sens, l�efficacité et la spécificité de telles formules d�une part et d�autre part les occasions de leur profession. (shrink)

Over the past century many scholars have questioned integrity and composition of Justin Martyr’s Second Apology. One frequent criticism is that Justin quotes from a variety of sources in Greco- Roman philosophy, but never once quotes scripture. As a result scholars assume that the Second Apology reveals Justin’s real indebtedness to philosophy that diverges from his broader theological and scriptural concerns expressed in his other works. This article challenges these notions by arguing that scripture is essential (...) Justin’s Second Apology and that the lack of any extended quotations of scripture is no basis to disparage his theological perspective. Careful analysis of Justin’s Second Apology demonstrates that he regularly appeals to the authority of scripture and provides numerous echoes and allusions to scriptural passages. Furthermore, in terms of his theological framework, these echoes and allusions are actually more important than mere quotations. They demonstrate that Justin does not simply quote scripture, but absorbs the scriptural content and applies it to particular theological debates and particular issues of Christian practice. (shrink)

Ethics have Iong been a neglected matter in schalarship on early Christian apologetics. However, a closer Iook at the composition of the texts of Justin Martyr teaches us how important the references to Christi an ethics actually are in the run of his argument. The external reason forthat lies in the fact that Justin wants to prove the legal proceedings against the Christians in the Roman empire to be unjust and absurd. The inner reason is that he (...) interprets Christianity as »true philosophy«: in view of the understanding of »philosophy~< in his pagan environment, this brings about fundamental ethical implications. Both his apologies and the dialogue with Trypho show how Justin employs ethical convictions as a criterio for Christian identity and as a trait of difference between Christianity and Paganism on the one hand, and between Christianity and Judaism on the other. (shrink)

The question of whether the ascended and glorified body of Christ retains the marks of the wounds first became an issue of theological importance in the fifth century with the writings of Cyril of Alexandria and it continued to be developed until the Reformation, when both Luther and Calvin rejected the idea. For the patristic and medieval theologians, the enduring reality of the wounds testify to the intimate connnection between the economy of God’s salvific work within the created order and (...) the eternal economy. It underscored God’s ongoing good intention for, and engagement with, fallen creation. However transformed in glory, the ascended Christ is not to be thought of as dehominised and the evidence of his history as the incarnate and suffering human being is not to be erased. Suffering and sinful humanity finds itself in the Son at the right hand of the Father and it can see there the evidence that the divine heart has and continues to beat with compassion for humanity in its continuing brokenness. It is the enduring presence of the marks of the wounds in heaven that testifies to the divine engagement with the sinful human condition, in both judgment and mercy, which in turn is the basis of humankind’s response of thankfulness. Résumé L’idée que le corps glorifié du Christ, lors de son Ascension, portait ou ne portait pas les stigmates de ses souffrances, devint une question théologique importante pour la première fois au ve siècle, dans les écrits de Cyrille d’Alexandrie, et continua d’être discutée jusqu’à la période de la Réforme, lorsque Luther et Calvin rejetèrent d’emblée cette idée. Aux yeux des Pères de l’Église et des théologiens de l’époque médiévale, la permanence des plaies ouvertes témoignait du rapport étroit entre l’économie salvifique de Dieu à l’intérieur d’un ordre créé et l’économie éternelle. Cela soulignait la continuité de la bienveillance de Dieu et son engagement envers la création déchue. Même glorifié, le Christ de l’Ascension ne doit pas être perçu comme non humain, et les preuves de son passage sur la terre, comme être humain ayant connu la souffrance, ne doivent pas être effacées. Une humanité pécheresse et souffrante se retrouve dans le Fils, à la droite du Père, et reconnaît la compassion du Coeur divin qui continue de battre pour l’humanité sans cesse brisée. La présence durable au ciel des plaies ouvertes témoigne de l’engagement de Dieu envers l’humanité pécheresse, dans son jugement ou sa clémence ; en retour, cet engagement s’avère être le fondement de la réponse de gratitude de l’humanité. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Justin's Apologetic PneumatologyGrayden McCashenScholars have long regarded Justin's pneumatology as "baffling."1 Even a question as fundamental as whether Justin viewed the Holy Spirit as truly distinct from the Logos has been controversial. Already in the mid nineteenth century Charles Semisch could cite a large number of writers who had "wholly or partially" suggested that Justin Martyr "made no real distinction between the Logos and (...) the Holy Spirit."2 With this "mischievous" reading Semisch vehemently disagreed;3 yet, to the present day, it remains common to characterize Justin's attempts to distinguish between the Spirit and Logos as "confused."4 The reasons for this description are well known. While, on the one hand, in a number of passages Justin numerically differentiates the Father, Son, and Spirit, assigning each a separate rank,5 still, on the other, [End Page 1135] many have averred that Justin has no logic for distinguishing between the Logos and the Holy Spirit.6 In at least one passage—one that tends to determine how Justin's pneumatology is construed—he seems to deny their distinction completely: "It is not proper to consider the Spirit and the Power which is from God as anything other than the Logos."7This statement, a comment on Luke 1:35, has frequently been cited as "the proof-text par excellence" of Justin's confusion between the Logos and the Holy Spirit.8 Samuel Lange wrote centuries ago: "This passage is decisive, and I do not see how any one, after so plain a declaration, can still say that Justin does not consider the λόγος and the πνεῦμα as one subject."9 More recently, Anthony Briggman has found here one of two instances in Justin's writing which constitute "a failure to distinguish the identity of the Spirit and the Word."10 [End Page 1136] Many scholars have reached similar conclusions,11 though there remain [End Page 1137] many others who deny that Justin's pneuma–Logos identification conflates the Logos and the Holy Spirit.12 In this centuries-old debate, key questions are often left unaddressed by both sides. On one hand, those who see a conflation of the Logos and Holy Spirit rarely demonstrate why the pneuma of 1 Apol 33.6 ought to be read as the Holy Spirit, though indeed many insist it should not be so understood. On the other hand, these other scholars have not offered a satisfactory explanation as to why Justin would write, "the pneuma is the Logos," in the first place. As a result, our understanding of the pneumatology of one of the earliest Christian thinkers who has left us a substantial body of literature remains opaque.This study offers a new reading of 1 Apol. 33.6 and a fresh evaluation of Justin's broader pneumatology in light of it. Taking 1 Apol. 33.6 as a test case, it argues that Justin's pneumatology is best understood as driven by apologetic logic operating within a triadic theological framework. Via a [End Page 1138] critical evaluation of Luke 1:35 and 1 Apol 33.6 in light of the contexts of Justin's own writings and his broader second-century milieu, the first part demonstrates that it is possible to read 1 Apol 33.6 as deliberately avoiding reference to the Holy Spirit, in which case Justin would not be explicitly or implicitly breaking the theological framework his own triadic confession implies. The second then substantiates this reading by demonstrating that apologetic reasoning leads Justin to interpret Luke's pneuma as the Logos: in so doing, Justin intentionally reads the Holy Spirit out of the text so that Luke's "Spirit" could not be construed by opponents of Christianity as a third distinct figure in the narrative who plays the role of the divine progenitor of Christ. Justin's exegesis, in other words, is designed to break any potential analogy between the Spirit's role in the Synoptic account of Christ's conception and Zeus's role impregnating mortal women in Greek myths. The third and final section briefly outlines the significance of this reading, first by situating it within Justin's broader theological perspective and then by looking... (shrink)

Andrew Hayes takes the measure of Marcions impact on second-century Christianity through a close examination of the topics and structure of Justin Martyrs writings, especially the Dialogue with Trypho, demonstrating that Justin repeatedly described Christianity in a contra-Marcionite fashion. The chief task Justin took for himself was to seize back from Marcion the terms of Christian self-definition. Marcion is thus far more important for Justins work than the few places where he is explicitly named might suggest: they (...) reveal Justins deeper agenda of presenting Marcion as a demonic instrument. (shrink)

Cet article s�insère dans une recherche en cours sur l�ouvrage perdu de Justin Martyr contre Marcion et toutes les hérésies. Des remarques sur les �uvres conservées de Justin (Apologies, Dialogue avec Tryphon) et des comparaisons avec d�autres auteurs qui ont écrit contre les hérésies peu après lui, en premier lieu Irénée de Lyon et Tertullien, permettent d�identifier des sections de texte qui semblent bien remonter au Syntagma de Justin. En particulier, le présent article dégage une ligne (...) argumentative qui, en réfutant les objections marcionites contre la prescience du Créateur, développait le thème du libre arbitre des humains et des anges, ainsi que celui de la chute des anges rebelles, leur activité dans l�histoire du monde et leur châtiment final. (shrink)

In this essay, I evaluate the extent to which some currents in classical Christian mysticism might count as properly ‘Christian’ against the rules of faith and theological methodology of thinkers like Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr. I begin by expounding this methodology as it relates to non-Christian philosophical traditions, and from there explore the rules these thinkers offer, suggesting that the beating heart of these rules is not a string of propositions to affirm so much as it is (...) a commitment to a certain rendition of biblical narrative grammar. After exploring this grammar, I turn to a brief discussion of the foundations of Christian mysticism and the thought of Evagrius Ponticus. The aim here is to illustrate the theoretical foundations of much Christian mysticism, as well as to provide a test case to evaluate how far some prominent elements of this discourse might, or might not, cohere with the biblical narrative grammar elucidated above. I argue that there is ample room to question the legitimacy of Evagrius’s claim to properly Christian theorizing, and suggest this has serious implications for future Christian work in the philosophy of mysticism. (shrink)

This article aims to assess Anastasius of Sinai’s usage of ancient Chris-tian sources in the Hexaemeron. Close and thorough examination of his quotations from Justin Martyr, Ireneaus of Lyon, Methodius of Olympus and Eustathius of Antioch reveals that, apart from Methodius, the citations have no analogy to any of their works. On the contrary, the cited opinions appear either to have come from different authors, or to have been faked, in toto or in part, by Anastasius. The reason (...) for such a forgery lies in Anastasius’s attempt to rehabilitate the allegorical interpretation of Gen. 1-3, without being accused of Origenism. Anastasius’s witness to the ancient exegetical tradition is proven to be deliberately misleading, and therefore should not be taken at face value. (shrink)

In this article the cosmological and metaphysical dimensions of the Logos concept in the Hellenic and Patristic traditions are explored. Heraclitus initially depicted the logos as the ontological link between the One and the many, with the logos thus serving as the foundation of both rational discourse and natural law. This concept was elaborated and modified by a number of eminent Hellenic and Christian thinkers. Among them count Plato, Philo of Alexandria, the New Testament authors John and Paul, Plotinus, Athenagoras, (...) Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine of Hippo, Dionysius the Areopagite, Maximus the Confessor and John Scottus Eriugena. (shrink)

In presenting his theory of the three levels of the divine, namely the One, the Intellect and the Soul, as a legitimate interpretation of Plato’s thought, Plotinus (Enn. 5.1.8) quotes from the Second Letter attributed to Plato, connecting its enigmatic statement about the king at the top of a threefold order of all things (Ep. 2.312e) with the first, second and third deductions in Plato’s Parmenides (Parm. 137c‑157b). These are taken to refer to the One, the Intellect and the Soul (...) respectively, in terms of the One simpliciter, the One‑Many and the One‑and‑Many. This paper first shows why the passage from the Second Letter, rather than any other passage from Plato’s writings, is Plotinus’ chief witness for the legitimacy of his theory of three levels of the divine as an interpretation of Plato. It then re‑examines the reception of the Second Letter (considered apocryphal by most contemporary scholars) prior to Plotinus. While Diogenes Laertius (5.56‑62) testifies to the presence of the collection of Plato’s Letters as early as the third century BC, and very likely of the Second Letter within the edition of Plato’s works by Thrasyllus around the beginning of the CE, the first unmistakable references to the passage in question do not appear before the mid‑second century AD. Its use by either Moderatus of Gades, as argued by E. R. Dodds, or a predecessor of Moderatus, possibly Thrasyllus or Posidonius, as argued by H. Tarrant, is thoroughly hypothetical and not corroborated by irrefutable evidence. The first authors known to us with certainty who quote the Second Letter are Justin Martyr (Apol. 1.60) and Apuleius (Apol. 64). The former does so because of the triadic formula, which he puts into relation with the Christian Trinity, while the latter appeals to it because it names the god of the Platonists ‘the king’. The use of the Second Letter by Valentinus and Numenius around the same time, in the context of a threefold theology, though admittedly likely, is not attested beyond any doubt. Origen testifies that Celsus quoted the Second Letter in his polemics against the Christians, Clement of Alexandria refers to the various passages of the Second Letter on several occasions and there is a single reference to it in Athenagoras. Among the Greek pagan authors before Plotinus, only Alexander of Aphrodisias quotes the passage about the king of all things in commenting upon Aristotle’s criticism of Plato’s theory of causes. Since there is no conclusive evidence of the interpretation of Plato’s Parmenides in terms of a hierarchy of metaphysical principles before Plotinus (Simplicius’ testimony about Moderatus may reflect Porphyry’s or Simplicius’ own views), the first interpretation of Plato’s Parmenides to draw on the Second Letter known to us remains that of Plotinus. (shrink)

The main objective of this text is to analyze some of the ambiguities that characterize Augustine of Hippo’s position regarding the so-called pagan culture in general and Greek philosophy in particular. As a matter of fact, the author of Confessions is situated in a mid-term, which I identify by the expression “the paradox of between”, for he does not totally embrace the position of Justin Martyr, who identifies Christian wisdom with Greek philosophy, neither does he claim the other (...) extreme position of Tertullian, who sees an antagonism or an insuperable gap between “Christian wisdom” and “pagan wisdom”, or between faith and reason. In the perspective of this paradox, three major questions will be examined: (a) the relation between philosophy and Christian religion, (b) the problem of the “platonic philosophers”, (c) the concepts of recollection and memory. (shrink)

L’oeuvre de Bardesane († 222), un philosophe chrétien gnosticisant de langue syriaque, nous est parvenue sous forme d’un traité, «Livre sur les lois des pays», et de nombreux fragments, souvent transmis par les adversaires de Bardesane et de ses disciples. Tel est le cas des quelques fragments sur la résurrection, conservés par Éphrem le Syrien († 373) dans un Discours contre Bardesane. L’analyse du texte, visant à séparer les positions de Bardesane et celles d’Éphrem, permet de proposer une nouvelle interprétation (...) de l’anthropologie bardesanite dans le contexte de sa théologie de la résurrection. Ainsi on peut noter chez lui une certaine influence de la doctrine stoïcienne de l’âme corporelle, connue également par des auteurs chrétiens du IIe siècle : surtout Tatien († 182) et Tertullien († 220). Le rapprochement avec Justin Martyr († 165) et Athénagore († 190) permet une relecture des idées de Bardesane sur la résurrection et souligne notamment son manque de références aux épîtres de Paul et la conviction que l’âme humaine est la seule concernée par le péché d’Adam et par la résurrection du Christ. (shrink)

Tertullian is often portrayed as a prescient figure who accurately anticipated the Nicene consensus about the Trinity. But when he is examined against the background of his immediate predecessors, he falls into place as a typical second-century Logos theologian. He drew especially from Theophilus of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus of Lyons. At the same time, Tertullian did introduce some important innovations. His trinitarian language of ‘substance’ and ‘person’, rooted in Stoic metaphysics, offered the church a new way (...) to be monotheistic while retaining the full deity and consubstantiality of the Word. Tertullian also significantly developed the concept of a divine oikonomia, God’s plan to create and redeem the world. The Son and Spirit are emissaries of the Father’s will—not ontologically inferior to him, yet ranked lower in the way that the sent are always subordinate to the sender. For this reason, Tertullian denied that a Father/son relationship was eternal within the Trinity, seeing it rather as a new development emerging from God’s plan to make the world. Such temporal paternity and filiation distances Tertullian from the eventual Nicene consensus, which accepted instead the eternal generation theory of Origen. While Tertullian did propose some important terms that would gain traction among the Nicene fathers, he was also marked by a subordinationist tendency that had affinities with Arianism. Tertullian’s most accurate anticipation of Nicaea was his insistence on three co-eternal and consubstantial Persons. Historical theologians need to start admitting that Tertullian was a far cry from being fully Nicene. Rather, he offered a clever but still imperfect half-step toward what would become official orthodoxy.. (shrink)

As part of the work to “transcend the dichotomy” of the “two schools” of the Russian Religious Renaissance, the study of individual theologians reveals different approaches to theological synthesis. The present paper is a study of Nicholas Afanasiev’s patristic engagement and the specifics of his approach to neo-patristics. Two ecclesiological conceptions emerged as consistent themes in his work: eucharistic ecclesiology and ecumenical theology. Afanasiev was a trained historian, and his analysis of the Fathers of the early Church—in particular Ignatius of (...) Antioch, Clement of Rome and Justin Martyr—became a catalyst of original theological insight. This was the case with his eucharistic ecclesiology and his influence on the ecumenical movement near the end of his life. The originality of his neo-patristic insight differentiated Afanasiev from other theologians of the Russian Religious Renaissance. (shrink)

In this groundbreaking, cross-disciplinary work of philosophy and biblical studies, New Testament scholar C. Kavin Rowe explores the promise and problems inherent in engaging rival philosophical claims to what is true. Juxtaposing the Roman Stoics Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius with the Christian saints Paul, Luke, and Justin Martyr, and incorporating the contemporary views of Jeffrey Stout, Alasdair McIntyre, Charles Taylor, Martha Nussbaum, Pierre Hadot, and others, the author suggests that in a world of religious pluralism there is (...) negligible gain in sampling from separate belief systems. This thought-provoking volume reconceives the relationship between ancient philosophy and emergent Christianity as a rivalry between strong traditions of life and offers powerful arguments for the exclusive commitment to a community of belief and a particular form of philosophical life as the path to existential truth. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Notes and Discussions ARISTOTLE'S ALLEGED "REVOLT" AGAINST PLATO Hermippus' most conspicuous contribution to Aristotle's biography probably was his determined effort to depict Aristotle as the founder of an original school of philosophy which was wholly independent of Plato and Platonic teachings. Among the several and, in all likelihood, fanciful stories about Aristotle he invented or propagated, the most startling was the account, subsequently widely accepted (and widely exploited by (...) the detractors of Aristotle), that after having been a disciple of Plato for a while, he seceded from the Academy and from Plato's philosophic teachings while Plato was still alive. 1 Accordingly, he owed little to Plato and to the Academy. This story, invented and propagated by an inveterate Peripatetic (Hermippus), was intended to demonstrate the original philosophic genius of Aristotle which developed in complete independence of Plato and necessitated a break with the master's teachings. In devising his argument, Hermippus might have made use of a report, found in some of Aristotle's ancient biographers, that a few brash young men (members of the Academy?) revolted against Plato and, in a spirit of independence, defiance and antagonism, attempted to start a school of their own which would rival the intellectual standing of the Academy. 2 Hermippus, it appears, subsequently identified these young "rebels" with Aristotle, a substitution convenient to Hermippus" aim to depict Aristotle as a wholly independent and totally original philosopher who owed nothing whatever to Plato and his teachings. In all likelihood, Diogenes Laertius' statement that Aristotle "seceded from the Academy while Plato was still alive," a is just an echo either of a statement made by Hermippus himself or is a conclusion drawn from the several unpleasant stories about Aristotle invented and reported by some of Aristotle's detractors. According to these derogatory stories, there existed many serious personal as well as doctrinal 4 disagreements or rifts between Plato and the Stagirite--disagreeDiogenes Laertius, V. 2. See also Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, XV. 2. 3, and ibid., XV. 2. 13 (Aristoxenus); Aelian, Varia Historia, IV. 9; Theodoretus, Graecorum Affectionum Curatio, IV. 46; St. Augustine, De Civitate Dei, VIII. 12; Philoponus, Comment. in Aristotelis Analytica Posteriora, CIAG, vol. XIII, part 3, pp. 133, 30 ft. 2 See Aelius Aristides, Oratio XLVI, 249. 10. See also note 1, supra. s Diogenes Laertius, V. 2. See also Vita Aristotelis Marciana 9; Vita Aristotelis Latina 9. 9 See, for instance, Plutarch, Adversus Coloten 14 (Moralia, III5A); Cicero, Academica I. 9. 33; Eusebius, op. cir., XV. 2, passim; Diogenes Laertius III. 37; Justin Martyr, Cohortatio ad Graecos 5 (Migne, PG. vol. VI. p. 247); Cyrillus, Contra Julianum II. 47; Proclus, [91] 92 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY ments whichmarred the relations between these two men and which were indicative of Aristotle's ingratitude, bad taste and unwarranted conceit. The report of Diogenes Laertius, in an oblique manner, may also refer to the fact that already during his active association with the Platonic Academy (367-348 B.c.), that is, in his On (the) Ideas and On the Good, Aristotle had begun to disagree with, and criticize, some of Plato's fundamental teachings. It may also, in a distorted form, refer to the following specific incident which, however, cannot be verified: According to Aristoxenus, during the absence of Plato in Syracuse (and while Heracleides of Pontus was the "acting scholarch" of the Academy),5 some unnamed young members of the Academy, or "students" or, perhaps, some "outsiders " attempted to start a rival school (within the Academy?).6 As a matter of fact, Aelian, who apparently dramatizes this incident, reports that during Plato's last years, that is, some time after Plato's return from his third and last voyage to Syracuse, a serious conflict or confrontation arose within the Academy. Aristotle, together with some of his friends, or "conspirators," we are told, harrassed and molested the aging Plato by constantly putting questions to him, by arguing with him in an insolent manner, by contradicting him on every point, and by attempting to involve him in hair-splitting dialectics. At the time Xenocrates was in Chalcedon, and Speusippus was gravely ill. Hence, neither of them could come to the succor of Plato. In... (shrink)

Many contemporary writers misunderstand early Christian views on philosophy because they identify the critical stances of the ante-Nicene fathers toward specific pagan philosophical schools with a general negative stance toward reason itself. Dariusz Karlowicz's Socrates and Other Saints demonstrates why this identification is false. The question of the extent of humanity's natural knowledge cannot be reduced to the question of faith's relationship to the historical manifestations of philosophy among the Ancients. Karlowicz closely reads the writings of Justin Martyr, (...) Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and others to demonstrate this point. He also builds upon Pierre Hadot's thesis that ancient philosophy is not primarily theory but a "way of life" taught by sages, which aimed at happiness through participation in the divine. The fact that pagan philosophers falsely described humanity's telos did not mean that the spiritual practices they developed could not be helpful in the Christian pilgrimage. As it turns out, the ancient Christian writers traditionally considered to be enemies of philosophy actually borrowed from her much more than we think-and perhaps more than they admitted. -- back cover. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Primacy of Christ: The Patristic Patrimony in Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's Analogy in Theology by Vincent C. AnyamaRoland MillarePrimacy of Christ: The Patristic Patrimony in Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's Analogy in Theology by Vincent C. Anyama (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2021), xii + 263 pp.In the famous dispute between Erich Przywara and Karl Barth, Przywara held the view that the analogy of being is the "formal principle of Catholic thought," whereas (...) Barth maintained the position that the analogy of being is the "invention of the Antichrist." The recent work of Fr. Vincent Anyama presents how the theology of Joseph Ratzinger, with this emphasis on the primacy of Christ, under the influence of the Church Fathers, contributes to the discussion revolving around the role of analogy within theology. Gottlieb Söhngen, one of Ratzinger's mentors and teachers, had appeased Barth with his argument of a Christocentric "analogia entis within an analogia fidei" (2–3). Anyama argues that Ratzinger has taken up the mantle of his mentor in appropriating his Christocentric synthesis of the analogy of faith and reason via his study of Augustine. The unique contribution of Anyama's work is that his study of Ratzinger takes the reader beyond the typical presentation of Ratzinger as an Augustinian and Bonaventurian theologian. Anyama's work engages the patristic influence of Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Tyconius, Justin Martyr, and Maximus the Confessor in addition to the significance of Augustine in Ratzinger's theology.Anyama's study is concerned with addressing Ratzingerian scholarship in two different areas. First, he wants to address what is an inadequate assessment of the patristic influence upon Ratzinger's theology in the scholarship of Peter Fletcher and Peter Kucer. Second, he intends to address varying questions relating to Ratzinger's use of analogy in the work of Peter McGregor, Justin Kizewski, Peter Kucer, and Gabino Bilbaco (235). Anyama explicitly notes that he relies upon a "hermeneutic of continuity" that is limited to the continuity between the patristic heritage and Ratzinger's theology (13). Anyama limits the scope of his study on Ratzinger's use of analogy by adopting the patristic categories utilized by Justin Kizekski in work God-Talk: (1) faith and reason, (2) image and participation, and (3) God-talk (12). These categories will frame the structure for part two of the book (chapters 3–5), whereas the first part of the book (chapters 1–2) focuses on the general patristic understanding of analogy and the Church Fathers quoted by Ratzinger.Jesus Christ is the Incarnation of the logos of the Father. The Church Fathers use "wisdom" and logos in reference to both philosophy and the Christian faith. In the thought of Origin, Christ is the one unique Logos, [End Page 307] who is both the source and ultimate end of the many words (logoi) of natural reason (26). As the eternal Logos, Jesus Christ is the consummate Image, whereas the human person is an "image of the Image" via the rational soul in the theology of Clement of Alexandria (33–34). This line of patristic thought will become important later on in Anyama's work as he addresses the theme of the primacy of Christ within Ratzinger's thought. Creation in the image of God is distinct from the notion of likeness to God within much of patristic thought. In the thought of Irenaeus and other Fathers, likeness is "understood as assimilation of creatures into God," which is a participation of the creature in the life of God via the gift of grace and the life of the Spirit (46–47). The notions used by the Fathers, which are underscored by Anyama, are the identification of reason as "seeds of wisdom" (Origen) and "Seeds of the Word" (Justin Martyr). The analogy between pre-Christian philosophy and the Christian faith will be a frequent theme in the writings of Ratzinger, who will begin his inaugural lecture at the University of Bonn with an insightful reflection upon the God of philosophy and the God of faith.When Anyama begins the second part of the book, he focuses on the thought of Bonaventure because of the prominent influence he... (shrink)

This paper traces the philosophical sources of one of the central Christian doctrines concerning deity-the doctrine of the Trinity - from the classical Greek period through to Justin Martyr (114¬ 165 C.E.). A key figure in this continuous line of thought is the Greek Middle Platonic philosopher Numenius of Apamea (fl. ca 150 C.EJ, who followed the Platonic tradition of Xenocrates of Chalcedon (d. 314 B.C.E.).

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Toward an East–West Ultramontane Polyphony:On Dogma, Ecclesial Unity, and the FilioqueThomas Joseph White O.P.The book that the contributors to this symposium have commented upon with graciousness and remarkable intellectual acuity is a work consisting of four parts. There are four main claims to the book associated with these four parts, each of which is divided into sub-themes. Thus, one can denote a number of inevitably controversial ideas advanced by (...) the book. In clarifying the nature of these claims, I can initially respond to some of the main points advanced by various of the helpful review essays in this symposium.Framing the Argument of the BookThe first part of the work posits that there is a fundamental developmental continuity between Old and New Testament revelation, wherein God is revealed first to Israel as the one Creator, and subsequently in Jesus Christ as three distinct persons, the eternal Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.1 This revelation is in turn received in the pre-Nicene era of the early Church, principally under a twofold conceptual format, according firstly to a model of God as a single transcendent subject of wisdom who sends his Word into the world in human nature, and inspires the prophets by his Spirit (the apologists' monotheistic model, exemplified by Justin Martyr) and, secondly, to [End Page 569] a model of economic Trinitarian activity, of the Father, Son and Spirit, who are each divine and one in being, active in sacred history (Irenaeus).2 Nicene Trinitarian authors sought in various ways to find a deeper concordance of the two approaches, one of which emphasized more the immanent unity of God (potentially tending toward a danger of Sabellianism) and the other of which emphasized real distinction of persons active in the economy (potentially tending toward the danger of subordinationism).3 Pro-Nicene figures like Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Augustine, among others, paved the way for a mature doctrine of immanent Trinitarian life, in which God was understood to be characterized, mysteriously, by eternal processions of the Word and the Spirit who originate from the Father, and receive from him the plenitude of their deity or divine nature, and thus are equally and identically the one God.4 God is mysteriously three persons who are truly one both in essence and being.The second part of the book is concerned with the theological exploration of what it means to speak of God as one, and of the divine nature of God. This determination of Christian theological wisdom stems from a threefold exigency: first, to uncover the inner unity of revelation itself, as indeed the Israelite revelation of the divine unity and the oneness of God the transcendent Creator is thematic to both Testaments;5 second, to consider the preconditions of Nicene orthodoxy, as indeed the claim that the three persons in God are one in essence or nature presupposes that there is a nature of God that is one common to the three persons;6 third, to consider what must be said about the inner life of God as truth and love, as a precondition for thinking about the processional life of the Word and Spirit, who are immanent distinct persons in God who receive and possess this fullness of life but who do not divide this one eternal life in God or cause it to evolve due to their relational proceeding.7I argue that a consideration of God's nature as simple, perfect, good, eternal, immutable, and so forth is essential to any theology that takes the biblical revelation of the unity and transcendence of God seriously, and therefore confesses the revelation of the Trinity integrally.8 Furthermore, regarding [End Page 570] the apophatic contours of this form of reflection, I hold that it is precisely in order to guarantee the kind of circumspect avoidance of "non-biblical speculation" about positive knowledge of God outside of Christ that it is necessary to qualify rightly how God is not identifiable with creation and thus remains unknown in his inner divine nature and eternal life apart from and outside of his divine self-disclosure in the revelation of the Old and New Testaments. Philosophical... (shrink)

In this article I consider George Berkeley's Alciphron from the standpoint of the literary techniques and rhetorical procedures employed, as evidence for placing this composition within the tradition of Christian apologetic rhetoric. The argument develops around three main issues: 1) Berkeley's employment of the traditional rhetorical tool of attacking his opponents using their own weapons; 2) Berkeley's resort to a perennial tradition of pre‐Christian or non‐Christian wisdom, in order to validate his Christian‐theistic claims; and 3) Berkeley's ‘argument from utility’ . (...) These three theses are discussed in light of the history of Christian apologetic rhetoric, with references to the works of St. Augustine, St. Justin Martyr, Origen, St. Thomas Aquinas and other Christian authors. (shrink)

Several treatises have come down to us from Christian antiquity devoted to the defence of the dogma of the resurrection of the flesh. Such works are mutually connected by evident similarities in the content and often by literary dependence. The treatise On the resurrection attributed to Justin Martyr is preserved almost exclusively in the Sacra Parallela. This has been used as a source by different authors, e.g. Tertullian and Methodius of Olympus. According to the optimistic viewpoint of recent (...) scholars, the text which is included in the Sacra Parallela represents nearly the totality of the original text. However, this article, by combining the text of Tertullian and Methodius of Olympus, aims to reconstruct some now lost passages of περὶ ἀναστάσεως which are devoted to biblical exegesis or which demonstrate the resurrection of the flesh on the basis of philosophical thought. (shrink)

The Platonic tradition in Western philosophy is not just one of many equally central traditions. It is so much THE central one that the very existence and survival of Western civilization depends on it. It is like the Confucian tradition in Chinese culture, or the monotheistic tradition in religion, or the human rights tradition in politics. In the first of his eight lectures, Peter Kreeft defines Platonism and its "Big Idea," the idea of a transcendent reality that the history of (...) philosophy has labeled "Platonic Ideas" or Platonic Forms. In the second lecture, he briefly explores Plato's two basic predecessors or sources, myth and Socrates; and then looks at 12 applications of the Forms in Plato's own dialogues. The third lecture covers the three most important modifications or additions to Plato himself in the Platonic tradition: Aristotle, Plotinus, and Augustine, each of whom gave the Forms a new metaphysical address. The fourth lecture explores six Christian Platonists, three in the New Testament and three philosophers, Justin Martyr, Bonaventure, and Aquinas. The next three lectures explore the consequences of the modern abandoning of Platonism, beginning with William of Ockham's Nominalism, as the source of nearly all modern philosophical errors, and its results in the Empiricism of Locke and Hume, the so-called Copernican Revolution in philosophy in Kant, the so-called "analytic philosophy," which still dominates English and American philosophy departments. In the sixth essays, Kreeft looks at 13 influential kinds of positivism or reductionism in modern thought: in method, history, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, sociology, politics, logics, linguistics, sex, psychology, and theology, exemplified by Descartes, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Marx, Kant, Comte, Rousseau, Rawls, Ayer, Derrida, Freud, Skimmer, Nietzsche, and Sartre. Lecture 7 looks at the results of abandoning the Platonic tradition in ethics, the values vacuum, or nihilism, in Ecclesiastes, Pascal, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoi, Marcel, and Buber. In the last lecture, Kreeft looks at some experiential evidence for Platonism, doors out of the cave that are still open, signals of transcendence. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Philosophy after ChristJohn O'CallaghanConsider the words of Justin Martyr written in the middle of the second century after the birth of Christ and after Justin's conversion to Christianity:Philosophy is indeed one's greatest possession, and is most precious in the sight of God, to whom it alone leads us and to whom it unites us, and in truth they who have applied themselves to philosophy are holy (...) men.1In addition to the praise heaped upon the philosophers, among whom Justin had counted himself before his conversion,2 the text is one of the earliest pieces of evidence for the historical reality of Christian intellectual engagement with pagan or secular philosophy. Whether that engagement proved spiritually fruitful or sterile in any particular age or any particular tradition of philosophy, Christian intellectuals have often sought out engagement with philosophy as an inherent task of the intellectual life of the Church, in order to pursue and develop the understanding of Christian revelation and the mode of life informed by it. One lasting result of the impetus represented by Justin is to be found even now in the normative requirement in Catholic education that, at a certain stage of development, anyone who receives a [End Page 49] serious Catholic education must be introduced to serious philosophical reflection on where we came from, what we are, and where we are born to go.In addition, one of the general points John Henry Newman made in The Idea of a University is that the human mind looks for unity in the diversity of intellectual disciplines it pursues. In search of this unity, it seeks a kind of primary discipline that takes into account the truths discovered throughout the other disciplines as it seeks to understand what it can of the whole of reality, not just its parts. But Newman also pointed out that, in the absence of such a unifying discipline, practitioners of each particular discipline will often claim for their particular discipline the prize of being primary—of being the discipline by which all others must be understood and judged.3Take classical and modern physics. A familiar claim of some physicists, but even more so of non-physicist physicalists, is that physics is the fundamental intellectual discipline for understanding what is real. All reality, living reality, historical reality, moral reality, indeed perhaps even literary reality, must be reduced to reality as described by the physicists or rejected as unreal or epiphenomenal, or in a kinder, gentler vein, non-reductively emergent and supervenient. Whichever position is taken, whether reduction, non-reductive emergence, or epiphenomenalism, the thought is that the real work of the really real is done by reality as described by physics, either in its actual contemporary state or, more likely, in an idealized future state always on the horizon of where physics presently is. We are really atoms spinning ceaselessly in the void, mostly empty space, the warp and woof of a four-dimensional space-time manifold, or congeries of strings in an even more bizarre thirteen-dimensional manifold, or whatever was said most recently to surpass what was said before that by the leading physicists in California or Cambridge.However, anyone who has actually practiced physics knows that, even when uttered by a physicist, these are not claims of physics, but about physics. What prompts them is the sense that there is no intellectual discipline other than contemporary physics itself that can both understand the achievements of physics and integrate them into a larger intellectual comprehension of reality as a whole. These claims about physics nicely display Newman's point about the way in which a particular discipline, in the absence of a larger more comprehensive discipline, can take on an importance for its practitioners well beyond its disciplinary limits. [End Page 50]In the case of physics, if a more comprehensive unifying discipline is not to be found, this attitude is not entirely unjustified, for Newman's point is partly Aristotelian. Aristotle had pointed out that, if one cannot show that unchangeable, and thus non-physical beings, exist, then what Aristotle called "first philosophy" would just be physics as he understood it, the science of... (shrink)

This article examines the notion of providence in the thought of St Justin martyr. First, it is shown the relevance of the question for St Justin, since it was an important topic in his time. Secondly, the comparison to the philosophical context provides a more complete view of St Justin’s position. Thirdly, the notion of providence is considered in the whole of St Justins’ thought. So, the author can conclude that Christian philosophy requires a particular providence (...) which nevertheless allows human and angelic free will. The history of salvation plays also an essential role in the understanding of providence, because some past and future facts (such as original sin or Incarnation) condition the choices of providence at the present. (shrink)

Among the corpus of extant Greek works attributed to Gregory the Wonder-worker is a little treatise about the soul addressed to a certain Tatian. A fragment of the same work, which is missing its introductory preface, appears among the works of Maximus the Confessor. In addition, there are two manuscripts of a Syriac translation that also lack the introductory preface. One of these Syriac manuscripts was found at St. Catherine’s at Mt. Sinai and dates from the seventh century, which indicates (...) that the attribution of the work to such a late figure as Maximus the Confessor is incorrect. Yet the work, which I shall call De animafor the purpose of this inquiry, does not exhibit many obvious linguistic parallels with the admittedly quite small extant corpus of Greek works that are securely attributed to Gregory. Moreover, no early external evidence confirms that Gregory indeed wrote a treatise on the soul. In several of the Greek manuscripts as well as in the Syriac manuscripts the work remains unattributed to any author. In this paper I shall argue that: 1. earlier arguments that De anima depends on Nemenius of Emesa’s De natura hominis are dubious 2. the work displays some linguistic parallels with the extant works of Justin Martyr, which may suggest that it was directed at Justin’s student, Tatian the Syrian, either by Justin himself or by another student of Justin. (shrink)