The Father in the Son, the Son in the Father in the Gospel of John: Sources and Reception of Dynamic Unity in Middle and Neoplatonism, ‘Pagan’ and Christian
This article will investigate the context – in terms of both sources (by means of influence, transformation, or contrast) and ancient reception – of the concept of the ‘dynamic unity’ of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father (expressed in John 10:38, 14:10, and 17:21) in both ‘pagan’ and C...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Ramelli, Ilaria L.E. [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erschienen: |
De Gruyter ; 2020 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Umfang: |
36 |
|---|
| Reproduktion: |
Walter de Gruyter Online Zeitschriften |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Journal of the bible and its reception - Berlin : De Gruyter, 2014, 7(2020), 1 vom: 04. Juli, Seite 31-66 |
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:7 ; year:2020 ; number:1 ; day:04 ; month:07 ; pages:31-66 ; extent:36 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1515/jbr-2019-0012 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
NLEJ248049534 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLEJ248049534 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20220820035503.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 220814s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||und c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1515/jbr-2019-0012 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a articles2015-2020.pp |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLEJ248049534 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Ramelli, Ilaria L.E. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a The Father in the Son, the Son in the Father in the Gospel of John: Sources and Reception of Dynamic Unity in Middle and Neoplatonism, ‘Pagan’ and Christian |
| 264 | 1 | |b De Gruyter |c 2020 | |
| 300 | |a 36 | ||
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a This article will investigate the context – in terms of both sources (by means of influence, transformation, or contrast) and ancient reception – of the concept of the ‘dynamic unity’ of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father (expressed in John 10:38, 14:10, and 17:21) in both ‘pagan’ and Christian Middle-Platonic and Neoplatonic thinkers. The Christians include Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa, as well as Evagrius Ponticus and John Scottus Eriugena. The article will outline, in so-called ‘Middle Platonism,’ the hierarchical theology of a first and second God (and sometimes a third), and in Neoplatonism Plotinus’ three hypostases arranged in hierarchical order, which will be contrasted with Origen’s and the Cappadocians’ three divine hypostases that are equal – like those of Augustine. Thus, for Origen not only is the Son in the Father, as in a ‘pagan’ Middle and Neoplatonic scheme, but also the Father is in the Son, in a perfect reciprocity of dynamic unity. Origen subscribes to this reciprocity because, as I argue, he is no real ‘subordinationist’, but the precursor of the Nicene and Constantinopolitan line (the Cappadocians, especially Nyssen, developed and emphasized the notion of equality, bringing the three Hypostases of the Trinity to the level of Plotinus’ One, but the premises were all in Origen’s theology and his concept of the coeternity of the three Hypostases and their common divinity: Nyssen, like Athanasius, even uses Origen’s arguments in his own anti-Arian polemic, as we shall see). Origen interpreted Philo’s theology, also close to so-called Middle Platonism, in a non-subordinationistic sense, attributing to the Hypostasis of Logos/Sophia the various dynameis, such as Logos and Sophia, that Philo used most probably in a non-hypostatic sense. I shall also demonstrate how Gregory of Nyssa, significantly following Origen, in his work Against Eunomius used John 14:10a to refute the philosophical argument of Eunomius, who had a profoundly subordinationistic view of Christ with respect to the Father. Gregory’s solution is that neither the Father nor the Son are in an absolute sense, but both are in a reciprocal relation or σχέσις, what I shall present as Gregory’s own version of the ‘dynamic unity’ (in turn grounded in Origen). I shall also concentrate on the use that Gregory makes of John 17:21-23 to argue that the unity of the Father and the Son, and of all believers – and eventually all humans – in them, is substantiated by the Holy Spirit, who is seen as a bond of unity. I shall study how the notion of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father relates to the parallel statements in John 14:10, that Christ is in the disciples (and all believers) and these are in Christ – what I will call an ‘expansive’ notion of dynamic unity – and John 17:21, that just as the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, so the disciples and all believers too should become ‘one’ in the Father and the Son. Here, as I shall argue, Middle and Neoplatonic henology (or doctrine of the One) comes to the fore as a possible background and interpretive lens at the same time. I shall show how Origen joined it to the unifying force of charity-love (agape), in turn a central theme in John, and how Evagrius, performing his exegesis of these verses, interpreted henosis or unification. A coda will explore the corollary of the Divinity ‘all in all’, which is not only a central tenet of Origen’s theology, but also of that of Proclus. It will be pointed out how this concept relates to the issue of the dynamic unity within the divine. | ||
| 533 | |f Walter de Gruyter Online Zeitschriften | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Origen | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Middle and neoplatonicism | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Plotinus | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Cappadocians | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Gregory of nyssa | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Journal of the bible and its reception |d Berlin : De Gruyter, 2014 |g 7(2020), 1 vom: 04. Juli, Seite 31-66 |w (DE-627)NLEJ248235990 |w (DE-600)2764784-5 |x 2329-4434 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:7 |g year:2020 |g number:1 |g day:04 |g month:07 |g pages:31-66 |g extent:36 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1515/jbr-2019-0012 |z Deutschlandweit zugänglich |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a ZDB-1-DGR | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NL_ARTICLE | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 7 |j 2020 |e 1 |b 04 |c 07 |h 31-66 |g 36 | ||
| author_variant |
i l r il ilr |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:23294434:2020----::hfteiteoteoiteahrnhgseojhsucsnrcpinfyaiuiynide |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2020 |
| publishDate |
2020 |
| allfields |
10.1515/jbr-2019-0012 doi articles2015-2020.pp (DE-627)NLEJ248049534 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Ramelli, Ilaria L.E. verfasserin aut The Father in the Son, the Son in the Father in the Gospel of John: Sources and Reception of Dynamic Unity in Middle and Neoplatonism, ‘Pagan’ and Christian De Gruyter 2020 36 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This article will investigate the context – in terms of both sources (by means of influence, transformation, or contrast) and ancient reception – of the concept of the ‘dynamic unity’ of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father (expressed in John 10:38, 14:10, and 17:21) in both ‘pagan’ and Christian Middle-Platonic and Neoplatonic thinkers. The Christians include Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa, as well as Evagrius Ponticus and John Scottus Eriugena. The article will outline, in so-called ‘Middle Platonism,’ the hierarchical theology of a first and second God (and sometimes a third), and in Neoplatonism Plotinus’ three hypostases arranged in hierarchical order, which will be contrasted with Origen’s and the Cappadocians’ three divine hypostases that are equal – like those of Augustine. Thus, for Origen not only is the Son in the Father, as in a ‘pagan’ Middle and Neoplatonic scheme, but also the Father is in the Son, in a perfect reciprocity of dynamic unity. Origen subscribes to this reciprocity because, as I argue, he is no real ‘subordinationist’, but the precursor of the Nicene and Constantinopolitan line (the Cappadocians, especially Nyssen, developed and emphasized the notion of equality, bringing the three Hypostases of the Trinity to the level of Plotinus’ One, but the premises were all in Origen’s theology and his concept of the coeternity of the three Hypostases and their common divinity: Nyssen, like Athanasius, even uses Origen’s arguments in his own anti-Arian polemic, as we shall see). Origen interpreted Philo’s theology, also close to so-called Middle Platonism, in a non-subordinationistic sense, attributing to the Hypostasis of Logos/Sophia the various dynameis, such as Logos and Sophia, that Philo used most probably in a non-hypostatic sense. I shall also demonstrate how Gregory of Nyssa, significantly following Origen, in his work Against Eunomius used John 14:10a to refute the philosophical argument of Eunomius, who had a profoundly subordinationistic view of Christ with respect to the Father. Gregory’s solution is that neither the Father nor the Son are in an absolute sense, but both are in a reciprocal relation or σχέσις, what I shall present as Gregory’s own version of the ‘dynamic unity’ (in turn grounded in Origen). I shall also concentrate on the use that Gregory makes of John 17:21-23 to argue that the unity of the Father and the Son, and of all believers – and eventually all humans – in them, is substantiated by the Holy Spirit, who is seen as a bond of unity. I shall study how the notion of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father relates to the parallel statements in John 14:10, that Christ is in the disciples (and all believers) and these are in Christ – what I will call an ‘expansive’ notion of dynamic unity – and John 17:21, that just as the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, so the disciples and all believers too should become ‘one’ in the Father and the Son. Here, as I shall argue, Middle and Neoplatonic henology (or doctrine of the One) comes to the fore as a possible background and interpretive lens at the same time. I shall show how Origen joined it to the unifying force of charity-love (agape), in turn a central theme in John, and how Evagrius, performing his exegesis of these verses, interpreted henosis or unification. A coda will explore the corollary of the Divinity ‘all in all’, which is not only a central tenet of Origen’s theology, but also of that of Proclus. It will be pointed out how this concept relates to the issue of the dynamic unity within the divine. Walter de Gruyter Online Zeitschriften Origen Middle and neoplatonicism Plotinus Cappadocians Gregory of nyssa Enthalten in Journal of the bible and its reception Berlin : De Gruyter, 2014 7(2020), 1 vom: 04. Juli, Seite 31-66 (DE-627)NLEJ248235990 (DE-600)2764784-5 2329-4434 nnns volume:7 year:2020 number:1 day:04 month:07 pages:31-66 extent:36 https://doi.org/10.1515/jbr-2019-0012 Deutschlandweit zugänglich GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DGR GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 7 2020 1 04 07 31-66 36 |
| spelling |
10.1515/jbr-2019-0012 doi articles2015-2020.pp (DE-627)NLEJ248049534 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Ramelli, Ilaria L.E. verfasserin aut The Father in the Son, the Son in the Father in the Gospel of John: Sources and Reception of Dynamic Unity in Middle and Neoplatonism, ‘Pagan’ and Christian De Gruyter 2020 36 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This article will investigate the context – in terms of both sources (by means of influence, transformation, or contrast) and ancient reception – of the concept of the ‘dynamic unity’ of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father (expressed in John 10:38, 14:10, and 17:21) in both ‘pagan’ and Christian Middle-Platonic and Neoplatonic thinkers. The Christians include Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa, as well as Evagrius Ponticus and John Scottus Eriugena. The article will outline, in so-called ‘Middle Platonism,’ the hierarchical theology of a first and second God (and sometimes a third), and in Neoplatonism Plotinus’ three hypostases arranged in hierarchical order, which will be contrasted with Origen’s and the Cappadocians’ three divine hypostases that are equal – like those of Augustine. Thus, for Origen not only is the Son in the Father, as in a ‘pagan’ Middle and Neoplatonic scheme, but also the Father is in the Son, in a perfect reciprocity of dynamic unity. Origen subscribes to this reciprocity because, as I argue, he is no real ‘subordinationist’, but the precursor of the Nicene and Constantinopolitan line (the Cappadocians, especially Nyssen, developed and emphasized the notion of equality, bringing the three Hypostases of the Trinity to the level of Plotinus’ One, but the premises were all in Origen’s theology and his concept of the coeternity of the three Hypostases and their common divinity: Nyssen, like Athanasius, even uses Origen’s arguments in his own anti-Arian polemic, as we shall see). Origen interpreted Philo’s theology, also close to so-called Middle Platonism, in a non-subordinationistic sense, attributing to the Hypostasis of Logos/Sophia the various dynameis, such as Logos and Sophia, that Philo used most probably in a non-hypostatic sense. I shall also demonstrate how Gregory of Nyssa, significantly following Origen, in his work Against Eunomius used John 14:10a to refute the philosophical argument of Eunomius, who had a profoundly subordinationistic view of Christ with respect to the Father. Gregory’s solution is that neither the Father nor the Son are in an absolute sense, but both are in a reciprocal relation or σχέσις, what I shall present as Gregory’s own version of the ‘dynamic unity’ (in turn grounded in Origen). I shall also concentrate on the use that Gregory makes of John 17:21-23 to argue that the unity of the Father and the Son, and of all believers – and eventually all humans – in them, is substantiated by the Holy Spirit, who is seen as a bond of unity. I shall study how the notion of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father relates to the parallel statements in John 14:10, that Christ is in the disciples (and all believers) and these are in Christ – what I will call an ‘expansive’ notion of dynamic unity – and John 17:21, that just as the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, so the disciples and all believers too should become ‘one’ in the Father and the Son. Here, as I shall argue, Middle and Neoplatonic henology (or doctrine of the One) comes to the fore as a possible background and interpretive lens at the same time. I shall show how Origen joined it to the unifying force of charity-love (agape), in turn a central theme in John, and how Evagrius, performing his exegesis of these verses, interpreted henosis or unification. A coda will explore the corollary of the Divinity ‘all in all’, which is not only a central tenet of Origen’s theology, but also of that of Proclus. It will be pointed out how this concept relates to the issue of the dynamic unity within the divine. Walter de Gruyter Online Zeitschriften Origen Middle and neoplatonicism Plotinus Cappadocians Gregory of nyssa Enthalten in Journal of the bible and its reception Berlin : De Gruyter, 2014 7(2020), 1 vom: 04. Juli, Seite 31-66 (DE-627)NLEJ248235990 (DE-600)2764784-5 2329-4434 nnns volume:7 year:2020 number:1 day:04 month:07 pages:31-66 extent:36 https://doi.org/10.1515/jbr-2019-0012 Deutschlandweit zugänglich GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DGR GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 7 2020 1 04 07 31-66 36 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1515/jbr-2019-0012 doi articles2015-2020.pp (DE-627)NLEJ248049534 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Ramelli, Ilaria L.E. verfasserin aut The Father in the Son, the Son in the Father in the Gospel of John: Sources and Reception of Dynamic Unity in Middle and Neoplatonism, ‘Pagan’ and Christian De Gruyter 2020 36 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This article will investigate the context – in terms of both sources (by means of influence, transformation, or contrast) and ancient reception – of the concept of the ‘dynamic unity’ of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father (expressed in John 10:38, 14:10, and 17:21) in both ‘pagan’ and Christian Middle-Platonic and Neoplatonic thinkers. The Christians include Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa, as well as Evagrius Ponticus and John Scottus Eriugena. The article will outline, in so-called ‘Middle Platonism,’ the hierarchical theology of a first and second God (and sometimes a third), and in Neoplatonism Plotinus’ three hypostases arranged in hierarchical order, which will be contrasted with Origen’s and the Cappadocians’ three divine hypostases that are equal – like those of Augustine. Thus, for Origen not only is the Son in the Father, as in a ‘pagan’ Middle and Neoplatonic scheme, but also the Father is in the Son, in a perfect reciprocity of dynamic unity. Origen subscribes to this reciprocity because, as I argue, he is no real ‘subordinationist’, but the precursor of the Nicene and Constantinopolitan line (the Cappadocians, especially Nyssen, developed and emphasized the notion of equality, bringing the three Hypostases of the Trinity to the level of Plotinus’ One, but the premises were all in Origen’s theology and his concept of the coeternity of the three Hypostases and their common divinity: Nyssen, like Athanasius, even uses Origen’s arguments in his own anti-Arian polemic, as we shall see). Origen interpreted Philo’s theology, also close to so-called Middle Platonism, in a non-subordinationistic sense, attributing to the Hypostasis of Logos/Sophia the various dynameis, such as Logos and Sophia, that Philo used most probably in a non-hypostatic sense. I shall also demonstrate how Gregory of Nyssa, significantly following Origen, in his work Against Eunomius used John 14:10a to refute the philosophical argument of Eunomius, who had a profoundly subordinationistic view of Christ with respect to the Father. Gregory’s solution is that neither the Father nor the Son are in an absolute sense, but both are in a reciprocal relation or σχέσις, what I shall present as Gregory’s own version of the ‘dynamic unity’ (in turn grounded in Origen). I shall also concentrate on the use that Gregory makes of John 17:21-23 to argue that the unity of the Father and the Son, and of all believers – and eventually all humans – in them, is substantiated by the Holy Spirit, who is seen as a bond of unity. I shall study how the notion of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father relates to the parallel statements in John 14:10, that Christ is in the disciples (and all believers) and these are in Christ – what I will call an ‘expansive’ notion of dynamic unity – and John 17:21, that just as the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, so the disciples and all believers too should become ‘one’ in the Father and the Son. Here, as I shall argue, Middle and Neoplatonic henology (or doctrine of the One) comes to the fore as a possible background and interpretive lens at the same time. I shall show how Origen joined it to the unifying force of charity-love (agape), in turn a central theme in John, and how Evagrius, performing his exegesis of these verses, interpreted henosis or unification. A coda will explore the corollary of the Divinity ‘all in all’, which is not only a central tenet of Origen’s theology, but also of that of Proclus. It will be pointed out how this concept relates to the issue of the dynamic unity within the divine. Walter de Gruyter Online Zeitschriften Origen Middle and neoplatonicism Plotinus Cappadocians Gregory of nyssa Enthalten in Journal of the bible and its reception Berlin : De Gruyter, 2014 7(2020), 1 vom: 04. Juli, Seite 31-66 (DE-627)NLEJ248235990 (DE-600)2764784-5 2329-4434 nnns volume:7 year:2020 number:1 day:04 month:07 pages:31-66 extent:36 https://doi.org/10.1515/jbr-2019-0012 Deutschlandweit zugänglich GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DGR GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 7 2020 1 04 07 31-66 36 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1515/jbr-2019-0012 doi articles2015-2020.pp (DE-627)NLEJ248049534 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Ramelli, Ilaria L.E. verfasserin aut The Father in the Son, the Son in the Father in the Gospel of John: Sources and Reception of Dynamic Unity in Middle and Neoplatonism, ‘Pagan’ and Christian De Gruyter 2020 36 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This article will investigate the context – in terms of both sources (by means of influence, transformation, or contrast) and ancient reception – of the concept of the ‘dynamic unity’ of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father (expressed in John 10:38, 14:10, and 17:21) in both ‘pagan’ and Christian Middle-Platonic and Neoplatonic thinkers. The Christians include Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa, as well as Evagrius Ponticus and John Scottus Eriugena. The article will outline, in so-called ‘Middle Platonism,’ the hierarchical theology of a first and second God (and sometimes a third), and in Neoplatonism Plotinus’ three hypostases arranged in hierarchical order, which will be contrasted with Origen’s and the Cappadocians’ three divine hypostases that are equal – like those of Augustine. Thus, for Origen not only is the Son in the Father, as in a ‘pagan’ Middle and Neoplatonic scheme, but also the Father is in the Son, in a perfect reciprocity of dynamic unity. Origen subscribes to this reciprocity because, as I argue, he is no real ‘subordinationist’, but the precursor of the Nicene and Constantinopolitan line (the Cappadocians, especially Nyssen, developed and emphasized the notion of equality, bringing the three Hypostases of the Trinity to the level of Plotinus’ One, but the premises were all in Origen’s theology and his concept of the coeternity of the three Hypostases and their common divinity: Nyssen, like Athanasius, even uses Origen’s arguments in his own anti-Arian polemic, as we shall see). Origen interpreted Philo’s theology, also close to so-called Middle Platonism, in a non-subordinationistic sense, attributing to the Hypostasis of Logos/Sophia the various dynameis, such as Logos and Sophia, that Philo used most probably in a non-hypostatic sense. I shall also demonstrate how Gregory of Nyssa, significantly following Origen, in his work Against Eunomius used John 14:10a to refute the philosophical argument of Eunomius, who had a profoundly subordinationistic view of Christ with respect to the Father. Gregory’s solution is that neither the Father nor the Son are in an absolute sense, but both are in a reciprocal relation or σχέσις, what I shall present as Gregory’s own version of the ‘dynamic unity’ (in turn grounded in Origen). I shall also concentrate on the use that Gregory makes of John 17:21-23 to argue that the unity of the Father and the Son, and of all believers – and eventually all humans – in them, is substantiated by the Holy Spirit, who is seen as a bond of unity. I shall study how the notion of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father relates to the parallel statements in John 14:10, that Christ is in the disciples (and all believers) and these are in Christ – what I will call an ‘expansive’ notion of dynamic unity – and John 17:21, that just as the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, so the disciples and all believers too should become ‘one’ in the Father and the Son. Here, as I shall argue, Middle and Neoplatonic henology (or doctrine of the One) comes to the fore as a possible background and interpretive lens at the same time. I shall show how Origen joined it to the unifying force of charity-love (agape), in turn a central theme in John, and how Evagrius, performing his exegesis of these verses, interpreted henosis or unification. A coda will explore the corollary of the Divinity ‘all in all’, which is not only a central tenet of Origen’s theology, but also of that of Proclus. It will be pointed out how this concept relates to the issue of the dynamic unity within the divine. Walter de Gruyter Online Zeitschriften Origen Middle and neoplatonicism Plotinus Cappadocians Gregory of nyssa Enthalten in Journal of the bible and its reception Berlin : De Gruyter, 2014 7(2020), 1 vom: 04. Juli, Seite 31-66 (DE-627)NLEJ248235990 (DE-600)2764784-5 2329-4434 nnns volume:7 year:2020 number:1 day:04 month:07 pages:31-66 extent:36 https://doi.org/10.1515/jbr-2019-0012 Deutschlandweit zugänglich GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DGR GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 7 2020 1 04 07 31-66 36 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1515/jbr-2019-0012 doi articles2015-2020.pp (DE-627)NLEJ248049534 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Ramelli, Ilaria L.E. verfasserin aut The Father in the Son, the Son in the Father in the Gospel of John: Sources and Reception of Dynamic Unity in Middle and Neoplatonism, ‘Pagan’ and Christian De Gruyter 2020 36 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This article will investigate the context – in terms of both sources (by means of influence, transformation, or contrast) and ancient reception – of the concept of the ‘dynamic unity’ of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father (expressed in John 10:38, 14:10, and 17:21) in both ‘pagan’ and Christian Middle-Platonic and Neoplatonic thinkers. The Christians include Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa, as well as Evagrius Ponticus and John Scottus Eriugena. The article will outline, in so-called ‘Middle Platonism,’ the hierarchical theology of a first and second God (and sometimes a third), and in Neoplatonism Plotinus’ three hypostases arranged in hierarchical order, which will be contrasted with Origen’s and the Cappadocians’ three divine hypostases that are equal – like those of Augustine. Thus, for Origen not only is the Son in the Father, as in a ‘pagan’ Middle and Neoplatonic scheme, but also the Father is in the Son, in a perfect reciprocity of dynamic unity. Origen subscribes to this reciprocity because, as I argue, he is no real ‘subordinationist’, but the precursor of the Nicene and Constantinopolitan line (the Cappadocians, especially Nyssen, developed and emphasized the notion of equality, bringing the three Hypostases of the Trinity to the level of Plotinus’ One, but the premises were all in Origen’s theology and his concept of the coeternity of the three Hypostases and their common divinity: Nyssen, like Athanasius, even uses Origen’s arguments in his own anti-Arian polemic, as we shall see). Origen interpreted Philo’s theology, also close to so-called Middle Platonism, in a non-subordinationistic sense, attributing to the Hypostasis of Logos/Sophia the various dynameis, such as Logos and Sophia, that Philo used most probably in a non-hypostatic sense. I shall also demonstrate how Gregory of Nyssa, significantly following Origen, in his work Against Eunomius used John 14:10a to refute the philosophical argument of Eunomius, who had a profoundly subordinationistic view of Christ with respect to the Father. Gregory’s solution is that neither the Father nor the Son are in an absolute sense, but both are in a reciprocal relation or σχέσις, what I shall present as Gregory’s own version of the ‘dynamic unity’ (in turn grounded in Origen). I shall also concentrate on the use that Gregory makes of John 17:21-23 to argue that the unity of the Father and the Son, and of all believers – and eventually all humans – in them, is substantiated by the Holy Spirit, who is seen as a bond of unity. I shall study how the notion of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father relates to the parallel statements in John 14:10, that Christ is in the disciples (and all believers) and these are in Christ – what I will call an ‘expansive’ notion of dynamic unity – and John 17:21, that just as the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, so the disciples and all believers too should become ‘one’ in the Father and the Son. Here, as I shall argue, Middle and Neoplatonic henology (or doctrine of the One) comes to the fore as a possible background and interpretive lens at the same time. I shall show how Origen joined it to the unifying force of charity-love (agape), in turn a central theme in John, and how Evagrius, performing his exegesis of these verses, interpreted henosis or unification. A coda will explore the corollary of the Divinity ‘all in all’, which is not only a central tenet of Origen’s theology, but also of that of Proclus. It will be pointed out how this concept relates to the issue of the dynamic unity within the divine. Walter de Gruyter Online Zeitschriften Origen Middle and neoplatonicism Plotinus Cappadocians Gregory of nyssa Enthalten in Journal of the bible and its reception Berlin : De Gruyter, 2014 7(2020), 1 vom: 04. Juli, Seite 31-66 (DE-627)NLEJ248235990 (DE-600)2764784-5 2329-4434 nnns volume:7 year:2020 number:1 day:04 month:07 pages:31-66 extent:36 https://doi.org/10.1515/jbr-2019-0012 Deutschlandweit zugänglich GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DGR GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 7 2020 1 04 07 31-66 36 |
| source |
Enthalten in Journal of the bible and its reception 7(2020), 1 vom: 04. Juli, Seite 31-66 volume:7 year:2020 number:1 day:04 month:07 pages:31-66 extent:36 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Journal of the bible and its reception 7(2020), 1 vom: 04. Juli, Seite 31-66 volume:7 year:2020 number:1 day:04 month:07 pages:31-66 extent:36 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Origen Middle and neoplatonicism Plotinus Cappadocians Gregory of nyssa |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Journal of the bible and its reception |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Ramelli, Ilaria L.E. @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2020-07-04T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
NLEJ248235990 |
| id |
NLEJ248049534 |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">NLEJ248049534</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20220820035503.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">220814s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||und c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1515/jbr-2019-0012</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">articles2015-2020.pp</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)NLEJ248049534</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ramelli, Ilaria L.E.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">The Father in the Son, the Son in the Father in the Gospel of John: Sources and Reception of Dynamic Unity in Middle and Neoplatonism, ‘Pagan’ and Christian</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="b">De Gruyter</subfield><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">36</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">This article will investigate the context – in terms of both sources (by means of influence, transformation, or contrast) and ancient reception – of the concept of the ‘dynamic unity’ of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father (expressed in John 10:38, 14:10, and 17:21) in both ‘pagan’ and Christian Middle-Platonic and Neoplatonic thinkers. The Christians include Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa, as well as Evagrius Ponticus and John Scottus Eriugena. The article will outline, in so-called ‘Middle Platonism,’ the hierarchical theology of a first and second God (and sometimes a third), and in Neoplatonism Plotinus’ three hypostases arranged in hierarchical order, which will be contrasted with Origen’s and the Cappadocians’ three divine hypostases that are equal – like those of Augustine. Thus, for Origen not only is the Son in the Father, as in a ‘pagan’ Middle and Neoplatonic scheme, but also the Father is in the Son, in a perfect reciprocity of dynamic unity. Origen subscribes to this reciprocity because, as I argue, he is no real ‘subordinationist’, but the precursor of the Nicene and Constantinopolitan line (the Cappadocians, especially Nyssen, developed and emphasized the notion of equality, bringing the three Hypostases of the Trinity to the level of Plotinus’ One, but the premises were all in Origen’s theology and his concept of the coeternity of the three Hypostases and their common divinity: Nyssen, like Athanasius, even uses Origen’s arguments in his own anti-Arian polemic, as we shall see). Origen interpreted Philo’s theology, also close to so-called Middle Platonism, in a non-subordinationistic sense, attributing to the Hypostasis of Logos/Sophia the various dynameis, such as Logos and Sophia, that Philo used most probably in a non-hypostatic sense. I shall also demonstrate how Gregory of Nyssa, significantly following Origen, in his work Against Eunomius used John 14:10a to refute the philosophical argument of Eunomius, who had a profoundly subordinationistic view of Christ with respect to the Father. Gregory’s solution is that neither the Father nor the Son are in an absolute sense, but both are in a reciprocal relation or σχέσις, what I shall present as Gregory’s own version of the ‘dynamic unity’ (in turn grounded in Origen). I shall also concentrate on the use that Gregory makes of John 17:21-23 to argue that the unity of the Father and the Son, and of all believers – and eventually all humans – in them, is substantiated by the Holy Spirit, who is seen as a bond of unity. I shall study how the notion of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father relates to the parallel statements in John 14:10, that Christ is in the disciples (and all believers) and these are in Christ – what I will call an ‘expansive’ notion of dynamic unity – and John 17:21, that just as the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, so the disciples and all believers too should become ‘one’ in the Father and the Son. Here, as I shall argue, Middle and Neoplatonic henology (or doctrine of the One) comes to the fore as a possible background and interpretive lens at the same time. I shall show how Origen joined it to the unifying force of charity-love (agape), in turn a central theme in John, and how Evagrius, performing his exegesis of these verses, interpreted henosis or unification. A coda will explore the corollary of the Divinity ‘all in all’, which is not only a central tenet of Origen’s theology, but also of that of Proclus. It will be pointed out how this concept relates to the issue of the dynamic unity within the divine.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="533" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="f">Walter de Gruyter Online Zeitschriften</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Origen</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Middle and neoplatonicism</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Plotinus</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Cappadocians</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Gregory of nyssa</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of the bible and its reception</subfield><subfield code="d">Berlin : De Gruyter, 2014</subfield><subfield code="g">7(2020), 1 vom: 04. Juli, Seite 31-66</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)NLEJ248235990</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2764784-5</subfield><subfield code="x">2329-4434</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:7</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:04</subfield><subfield code="g">month:07</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:31-66</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:36</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1515/jbr-2019-0012</subfield><subfield code="z">Deutschlandweit zugänglich</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ZDB-1-DGR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_NL_ARTICLE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">7</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">04</subfield><subfield code="c">07</subfield><subfield code="h">31-66</subfield><subfield code="g">36</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| series2 |
Walter de Gruyter Online Zeitschriften |
| author |
Ramelli, Ilaria L.E. |
| spellingShingle |
Ramelli, Ilaria L.E. misc Origen misc Middle and neoplatonicism misc Plotinus misc Cappadocians misc Gregory of nyssa The Father in the Son, the Son in the Father in the Gospel of John: Sources and Reception of Dynamic Unity in Middle and Neoplatonism, ‘Pagan’ and Christian |
| authorStr |
Ramelli, Ilaria L.E. |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)NLEJ248235990 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
NL |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
2329-4434 |
| topic_title |
The Father in the Son, the Son in the Father in the Gospel of John: Sources and Reception of Dynamic Unity in Middle and Neoplatonism, ‘Pagan’ and Christian Origen Middle and neoplatonicism Plotinus Cappadocians Gregory of nyssa |
| publisher |
De Gruyter |
| publisherStr |
De Gruyter |
| topic |
misc Origen misc Middle and neoplatonicism misc Plotinus misc Cappadocians misc Gregory of nyssa |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc Origen misc Middle and neoplatonicism misc Plotinus misc Cappadocians misc Gregory of nyssa |
| topic_browse |
misc Origen misc Middle and neoplatonicism misc Plotinus misc Cappadocians misc Gregory of nyssa |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Journal of the bible and its reception |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
NLEJ248235990 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Journal of the bible and its reception |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)NLEJ248235990 (DE-600)2764784-5 |
| title |
The Father in the Son, the Son in the Father in the Gospel of John: Sources and Reception of Dynamic Unity in Middle and Neoplatonism, ‘Pagan’ and Christian |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)NLEJ248049534 |
| title_full |
The Father in the Son, the Son in the Father in the Gospel of John: Sources and Reception of Dynamic Unity in Middle and Neoplatonism, ‘Pagan’ and Christian |
| author_sort |
Ramelli, Ilaria L.E. |
| journal |
Journal of the bible and its reception |
| journalStr |
Journal of the bible and its reception |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2020 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
31 |
| author_browse |
Ramelli, Ilaria L.E. |
| container_volume |
7 |
| physical |
36 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Ramelli, Ilaria L.E. |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1515/jbr-2019-0012 |
| title_sort |
the father in the son, the son in the father in the gospel of john: sources and reception of dynamic unity in middle and neoplatonism, ‘pagan’ and christian |
| title_auth |
The Father in the Son, the Son in the Father in the Gospel of John: Sources and Reception of Dynamic Unity in Middle and Neoplatonism, ‘Pagan’ and Christian |
| abstract |
This article will investigate the context – in terms of both sources (by means of influence, transformation, or contrast) and ancient reception – of the concept of the ‘dynamic unity’ of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father (expressed in John 10:38, 14:10, and 17:21) in both ‘pagan’ and Christian Middle-Platonic and Neoplatonic thinkers. The Christians include Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa, as well as Evagrius Ponticus and John Scottus Eriugena. The article will outline, in so-called ‘Middle Platonism,’ the hierarchical theology of a first and second God (and sometimes a third), and in Neoplatonism Plotinus’ three hypostases arranged in hierarchical order, which will be contrasted with Origen’s and the Cappadocians’ three divine hypostases that are equal – like those of Augustine. Thus, for Origen not only is the Son in the Father, as in a ‘pagan’ Middle and Neoplatonic scheme, but also the Father is in the Son, in a perfect reciprocity of dynamic unity. Origen subscribes to this reciprocity because, as I argue, he is no real ‘subordinationist’, but the precursor of the Nicene and Constantinopolitan line (the Cappadocians, especially Nyssen, developed and emphasized the notion of equality, bringing the three Hypostases of the Trinity to the level of Plotinus’ One, but the premises were all in Origen’s theology and his concept of the coeternity of the three Hypostases and their common divinity: Nyssen, like Athanasius, even uses Origen’s arguments in his own anti-Arian polemic, as we shall see). Origen interpreted Philo’s theology, also close to so-called Middle Platonism, in a non-subordinationistic sense, attributing to the Hypostasis of Logos/Sophia the various dynameis, such as Logos and Sophia, that Philo used most probably in a non-hypostatic sense. I shall also demonstrate how Gregory of Nyssa, significantly following Origen, in his work Against Eunomius used John 14:10a to refute the philosophical argument of Eunomius, who had a profoundly subordinationistic view of Christ with respect to the Father. Gregory’s solution is that neither the Father nor the Son are in an absolute sense, but both are in a reciprocal relation or σχέσις, what I shall present as Gregory’s own version of the ‘dynamic unity’ (in turn grounded in Origen). I shall also concentrate on the use that Gregory makes of John 17:21-23 to argue that the unity of the Father and the Son, and of all believers – and eventually all humans – in them, is substantiated by the Holy Spirit, who is seen as a bond of unity. I shall study how the notion of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father relates to the parallel statements in John 14:10, that Christ is in the disciples (and all believers) and these are in Christ – what I will call an ‘expansive’ notion of dynamic unity – and John 17:21, that just as the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, so the disciples and all believers too should become ‘one’ in the Father and the Son. Here, as I shall argue, Middle and Neoplatonic henology (or doctrine of the One) comes to the fore as a possible background and interpretive lens at the same time. I shall show how Origen joined it to the unifying force of charity-love (agape), in turn a central theme in John, and how Evagrius, performing his exegesis of these verses, interpreted henosis or unification. A coda will explore the corollary of the Divinity ‘all in all’, which is not only a central tenet of Origen’s theology, but also of that of Proclus. It will be pointed out how this concept relates to the issue of the dynamic unity within the divine. |
| abstractGer |
This article will investigate the context – in terms of both sources (by means of influence, transformation, or contrast) and ancient reception – of the concept of the ‘dynamic unity’ of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father (expressed in John 10:38, 14:10, and 17:21) in both ‘pagan’ and Christian Middle-Platonic and Neoplatonic thinkers. The Christians include Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa, as well as Evagrius Ponticus and John Scottus Eriugena. The article will outline, in so-called ‘Middle Platonism,’ the hierarchical theology of a first and second God (and sometimes a third), and in Neoplatonism Plotinus’ three hypostases arranged in hierarchical order, which will be contrasted with Origen’s and the Cappadocians’ three divine hypostases that are equal – like those of Augustine. Thus, for Origen not only is the Son in the Father, as in a ‘pagan’ Middle and Neoplatonic scheme, but also the Father is in the Son, in a perfect reciprocity of dynamic unity. Origen subscribes to this reciprocity because, as I argue, he is no real ‘subordinationist’, but the precursor of the Nicene and Constantinopolitan line (the Cappadocians, especially Nyssen, developed and emphasized the notion of equality, bringing the three Hypostases of the Trinity to the level of Plotinus’ One, but the premises were all in Origen’s theology and his concept of the coeternity of the three Hypostases and their common divinity: Nyssen, like Athanasius, even uses Origen’s arguments in his own anti-Arian polemic, as we shall see). Origen interpreted Philo’s theology, also close to so-called Middle Platonism, in a non-subordinationistic sense, attributing to the Hypostasis of Logos/Sophia the various dynameis, such as Logos and Sophia, that Philo used most probably in a non-hypostatic sense. I shall also demonstrate how Gregory of Nyssa, significantly following Origen, in his work Against Eunomius used John 14:10a to refute the philosophical argument of Eunomius, who had a profoundly subordinationistic view of Christ with respect to the Father. Gregory’s solution is that neither the Father nor the Son are in an absolute sense, but both are in a reciprocal relation or σχέσις, what I shall present as Gregory’s own version of the ‘dynamic unity’ (in turn grounded in Origen). I shall also concentrate on the use that Gregory makes of John 17:21-23 to argue that the unity of the Father and the Son, and of all believers – and eventually all humans – in them, is substantiated by the Holy Spirit, who is seen as a bond of unity. I shall study how the notion of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father relates to the parallel statements in John 14:10, that Christ is in the disciples (and all believers) and these are in Christ – what I will call an ‘expansive’ notion of dynamic unity – and John 17:21, that just as the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, so the disciples and all believers too should become ‘one’ in the Father and the Son. Here, as I shall argue, Middle and Neoplatonic henology (or doctrine of the One) comes to the fore as a possible background and interpretive lens at the same time. I shall show how Origen joined it to the unifying force of charity-love (agape), in turn a central theme in John, and how Evagrius, performing his exegesis of these verses, interpreted henosis or unification. A coda will explore the corollary of the Divinity ‘all in all’, which is not only a central tenet of Origen’s theology, but also of that of Proclus. It will be pointed out how this concept relates to the issue of the dynamic unity within the divine. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
This article will investigate the context – in terms of both sources (by means of influence, transformation, or contrast) and ancient reception – of the concept of the ‘dynamic unity’ of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father (expressed in John 10:38, 14:10, and 17:21) in both ‘pagan’ and Christian Middle-Platonic and Neoplatonic thinkers. The Christians include Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa, as well as Evagrius Ponticus and John Scottus Eriugena. The article will outline, in so-called ‘Middle Platonism,’ the hierarchical theology of a first and second God (and sometimes a third), and in Neoplatonism Plotinus’ three hypostases arranged in hierarchical order, which will be contrasted with Origen’s and the Cappadocians’ three divine hypostases that are equal – like those of Augustine. Thus, for Origen not only is the Son in the Father, as in a ‘pagan’ Middle and Neoplatonic scheme, but also the Father is in the Son, in a perfect reciprocity of dynamic unity. Origen subscribes to this reciprocity because, as I argue, he is no real ‘subordinationist’, but the precursor of the Nicene and Constantinopolitan line (the Cappadocians, especially Nyssen, developed and emphasized the notion of equality, bringing the three Hypostases of the Trinity to the level of Plotinus’ One, but the premises were all in Origen’s theology and his concept of the coeternity of the three Hypostases and their common divinity: Nyssen, like Athanasius, even uses Origen’s arguments in his own anti-Arian polemic, as we shall see). Origen interpreted Philo’s theology, also close to so-called Middle Platonism, in a non-subordinationistic sense, attributing to the Hypostasis of Logos/Sophia the various dynameis, such as Logos and Sophia, that Philo used most probably in a non-hypostatic sense. I shall also demonstrate how Gregory of Nyssa, significantly following Origen, in his work Against Eunomius used John 14:10a to refute the philosophical argument of Eunomius, who had a profoundly subordinationistic view of Christ with respect to the Father. Gregory’s solution is that neither the Father nor the Son are in an absolute sense, but both are in a reciprocal relation or σχέσις, what I shall present as Gregory’s own version of the ‘dynamic unity’ (in turn grounded in Origen). I shall also concentrate on the use that Gregory makes of John 17:21-23 to argue that the unity of the Father and the Son, and of all believers – and eventually all humans – in them, is substantiated by the Holy Spirit, who is seen as a bond of unity. I shall study how the notion of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father relates to the parallel statements in John 14:10, that Christ is in the disciples (and all believers) and these are in Christ – what I will call an ‘expansive’ notion of dynamic unity – and John 17:21, that just as the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, so the disciples and all believers too should become ‘one’ in the Father and the Son. Here, as I shall argue, Middle and Neoplatonic henology (or doctrine of the One) comes to the fore as a possible background and interpretive lens at the same time. I shall show how Origen joined it to the unifying force of charity-love (agape), in turn a central theme in John, and how Evagrius, performing his exegesis of these verses, interpreted henosis or unification. A coda will explore the corollary of the Divinity ‘all in all’, which is not only a central tenet of Origen’s theology, but also of that of Proclus. It will be pointed out how this concept relates to the issue of the dynamic unity within the divine. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DGR GBV_NL_ARTICLE |
| container_issue |
1 |
| title_short |
The Father in the Son, the Son in the Father in the Gospel of John: Sources and Reception of Dynamic Unity in Middle and Neoplatonism, ‘Pagan’ and Christian |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1515/jbr-2019-0012 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| ppnlink |
NLEJ248235990 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1515/jbr-2019-0012 |
| up_date |
2024-07-05T22:26:48.867Z |
| _version_ |
1803779738304512000 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">NLEJ248049534</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20220820035503.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">220814s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||und c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1515/jbr-2019-0012</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">articles2015-2020.pp</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)NLEJ248049534</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ramelli, Ilaria L.E.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">The Father in the Son, the Son in the Father in the Gospel of John: Sources and Reception of Dynamic Unity in Middle and Neoplatonism, ‘Pagan’ and Christian</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="b">De Gruyter</subfield><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">36</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">This article will investigate the context – in terms of both sources (by means of influence, transformation, or contrast) and ancient reception – of the concept of the ‘dynamic unity’ of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father (expressed in John 10:38, 14:10, and 17:21) in both ‘pagan’ and Christian Middle-Platonic and Neoplatonic thinkers. The Christians include Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa, as well as Evagrius Ponticus and John Scottus Eriugena. The article will outline, in so-called ‘Middle Platonism,’ the hierarchical theology of a first and second God (and sometimes a third), and in Neoplatonism Plotinus’ three hypostases arranged in hierarchical order, which will be contrasted with Origen’s and the Cappadocians’ three divine hypostases that are equal – like those of Augustine. Thus, for Origen not only is the Son in the Father, as in a ‘pagan’ Middle and Neoplatonic scheme, but also the Father is in the Son, in a perfect reciprocity of dynamic unity. Origen subscribes to this reciprocity because, as I argue, he is no real ‘subordinationist’, but the precursor of the Nicene and Constantinopolitan line (the Cappadocians, especially Nyssen, developed and emphasized the notion of equality, bringing the three Hypostases of the Trinity to the level of Plotinus’ One, but the premises were all in Origen’s theology and his concept of the coeternity of the three Hypostases and their common divinity: Nyssen, like Athanasius, even uses Origen’s arguments in his own anti-Arian polemic, as we shall see). Origen interpreted Philo’s theology, also close to so-called Middle Platonism, in a non-subordinationistic sense, attributing to the Hypostasis of Logos/Sophia the various dynameis, such as Logos and Sophia, that Philo used most probably in a non-hypostatic sense. I shall also demonstrate how Gregory of Nyssa, significantly following Origen, in his work Against Eunomius used John 14:10a to refute the philosophical argument of Eunomius, who had a profoundly subordinationistic view of Christ with respect to the Father. Gregory’s solution is that neither the Father nor the Son are in an absolute sense, but both are in a reciprocal relation or σχέσις, what I shall present as Gregory’s own version of the ‘dynamic unity’ (in turn grounded in Origen). I shall also concentrate on the use that Gregory makes of John 17:21-23 to argue that the unity of the Father and the Son, and of all believers – and eventually all humans – in them, is substantiated by the Holy Spirit, who is seen as a bond of unity. I shall study how the notion of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father relates to the parallel statements in John 14:10, that Christ is in the disciples (and all believers) and these are in Christ – what I will call an ‘expansive’ notion of dynamic unity – and John 17:21, that just as the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, so the disciples and all believers too should become ‘one’ in the Father and the Son. Here, as I shall argue, Middle and Neoplatonic henology (or doctrine of the One) comes to the fore as a possible background and interpretive lens at the same time. I shall show how Origen joined it to the unifying force of charity-love (agape), in turn a central theme in John, and how Evagrius, performing his exegesis of these verses, interpreted henosis or unification. A coda will explore the corollary of the Divinity ‘all in all’, which is not only a central tenet of Origen’s theology, but also of that of Proclus. It will be pointed out how this concept relates to the issue of the dynamic unity within the divine.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="533" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="f">Walter de Gruyter Online Zeitschriften</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Origen</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Middle and neoplatonicism</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Plotinus</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Cappadocians</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Gregory of nyssa</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of the bible and its reception</subfield><subfield code="d">Berlin : De Gruyter, 2014</subfield><subfield code="g">7(2020), 1 vom: 04. Juli, Seite 31-66</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)NLEJ248235990</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2764784-5</subfield><subfield code="x">2329-4434</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:7</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:04</subfield><subfield code="g">month:07</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:31-66</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:36</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1515/jbr-2019-0012</subfield><subfield code="z">Deutschlandweit zugänglich</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ZDB-1-DGR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_NL_ARTICLE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">7</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">04</subfield><subfield code="c">07</subfield><subfield code="h">31-66</subfield><subfield code="g">36</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.399008 |