Ilaria Ramelli - Theological Studies

Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 53 (2013) 117137

2013 Ilaria L. E. Ramelli

Evagrius and Gregory: Nazianzen or Nyssen? Cappadocian (and Origenian)

Influence on Evagrius

Ilaria L. E. Ramelli

VAGRIUS PONTICUS (345/6399) is one of the most outstanding Greek Patristic thinkers and ascetics in the Origenian tradition. His intellectual figure and his

thought are undergoing a reassessment,1 and rightly so. How-ever, most of this reassessment still remains to be done, especially with regard to a unitary vision of his production that overcomes the unfortunate split between his ascetic and his philosophical works (the former easily accepted, the latter deemed daringly and dangerously Origenistic), and with re-gard to his (too often misunderstood) Origenism. In order to address both questions, which are closely interrelated, it is necessary to tackle the thorny issue of Origens true thoughtas opposed to the false reconstruction of it that was made in the course of the Origenist controversy and that partially still holds todayand its exact impact on Evagrius system, as well as to investigate the possible role of the Cappadocians in the trans-mission of Origens authentic ideas to Evagrius.

Gregory of Nyssa is, among the Cappadocians and among all

1 At the very least see A. Casiday, Evagrius Ponticus (New York 2006); J.

Konstantinovsky, Evagrius Ponticus: The Making of a Gnostic (Burlington 2009); K. Corrigan, Evagrius and Gregory: Mind, Soul and Body in the 4th Century (Farnham/Burlington 2009). Corrigans attention to the Kephalaia Gnostica and the Letter to Melania or Great Letter, and his holistic approach to Evagrius thought, are commendable. The same holistic approach (i.e. without the inveterate fracture between Evagrius ascetic and philosophical works) is also used, with good reason, by Konstantinovsky and, albeit briefly, by Casi-day.

E

118 EVAGRIUS AND GREGORY: NAZIANZEN OR NYSSEN?


Patristic thinkers, the most insightful and faithful follower of Origen.2 The problem of which of the Cappadocians trans-mitted Origens thought and its interpretation to Evagriuswho surely had also a direct acquaintance with the ideas of the great Alexandrianis most relevant to the overall assessment of Evagrius intellectual heritage. For now I am primarily con-cerned with a biographical point, but, as will become obvious, this point bears directly on that core issue.

Indeed, some aspects of Evagrius life3 so far have not re-ceived from scholars the consideration they deserve. Since, however, they bear on his thought and his relationship to the thought of the Cappadocians and consequently to that of Origen himself, which is one of the most important problems in Greek Patristics, they are worth investigating. In order to do so, it will be necessary to analyse the sources critically, and when they are controversial or ambiguous to suggest interpretations that are not usually taken into account but can open up inter-esting perspectives for the reassessment of Evagrius intellectual configuration. The main sources on his life are Palladius H. Laus. 38, Socrates HE 4.23, and Sozomen HE 6.30, plus a fifth-century Coptic biography.4 As I will point out, there is one major point on which they disagree. But let us see what can be

2 A full demonstration is projected in the form of a systematic study of

Gregorys close dependence on, and creative and intelligent reception of, Origens ideas. I suspect more and more that Gregory is the Patristic philosopher and theologian who understood Origens true thought best of all and misunderstood it least of all.

3 See on his biography A. and C. Guillaumont, Evagre le Pontique, Dictionnaire de Spiritualit IV (Paris 1961) 17311744, and their Evagrius Ponticus, ReallexAntChrist 6 (1965) 10881107; biographical details also in Konstantinovsky, Evagrius 1126. Further references in the discussion below.

4 Other ancient sources, of less importance for Evagrius life, are Gregory Nazianzens testament (see below); the anonymous end-fourth-century Historia Monachorum 20.15 (p.123 Festugire); the anonymous fourth-fifth-century Apopthegmata, Alphabetical Collection s.v. Evagrius (PG 65.173); Gen-nadius Vir.ill. 11 and 17; and Jerome Ep. 133, Dial. adv. Pel. praef., Comm. in Ier. 4 praef.

ILARIA L. E. RAMELLI 119


gathered from them. According to our available sources, Evagrius was born in

Ibora in Pontus. As a son of a presbyter and , he received a good education in rhetoric, philosophy, and the liberal arts. He soon came into contact with Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus, who, according to tradition and in all probabil-ity, were the compilers of the Philocalia, the Greek anthology of key passages from Origens works.5 Evagrius is likely to have become acquainted with Origens ideas first thanks to them. He was ordained a reader by Basil. After the death of Basil, and after the death of the presbyter who was Evagrius father according to God6 and was ordained a presbyter in Arkeus by

5 Nazianzen, in his letter to Theodore (Ep. 115) that prefaces the Philo-

calia, does not state explicitly that this work was written by himself and Basil; what the letter says is that it is a of Gregory and Basil for the use of those who study the Bible, the , those who love the Logos (or the Word). The attribution to Basil and Nazianzen is found in the anony-mous prologue that follows the letter, probably posterior to the condem-nation of Origenism in the fifth century. See E. Junod, Remarques sur la composition de la Philocalie dOrigne par Basile de Csare et Grgoire de Nazianze, RHPhR 52 (1972) 149156; M. Harl and N. de Lange, Origne, Philocalie, 120, sur les critures / La Lettre Africanus sur lhistoire de Suzanne (Paris 1983) 2024. It is very probable that the tradition according to which Basil and Nazianzen were the redactors of the Philocalia is reliable, even though doubts have been raised: see E. Junod, Basile de Csare et Grgoire de Nazianze sont-ils les compilateurs de la Philocalie dOrigne? in Mmorial Dom Jean Gribomont (Rome 1988) 349360; but in his previous works Junod too accepted the traditional attribution, until his introduction to Origne: Philocalie 2127 (Paris 1976). Most scholars accept Basil and Nazianzens paternity of the Philocalia, e.g. W. Lhr, Christianity as Philos-ophy: Problems and Perspectives of an Ancient Intellectual Project, VChr 64 (2010) 160188, at 185.

6 Pallad. H.Laus. 38.2 Bartelink: , ; 38.13: . This makes it possible that the chorepiscopus was not Evagrius biological father, but his spiritual father. This point is usually not noticed or discussed in scholarship on Evagrius biography. However,



Basil himself, Evagrius then went to Constantinople to study, according to Socrates and Sozomen, with Gregory Nazianzen: He studied philosophy and was educated in sacred Scripture under the direction of Gregory, bishop of Nazianzus (Soz. HE 6.30.8). Evagrius stayed there in 379382, around the time of the ecumenical Council of 381, in which he participated as a deacon. Now, Evagrius was ordained a deacon by Nazianzen himself according to Socrates (HE 4.23.34), but, as I shall point out, Socrates testimony is contradicted by Palladius.

Socrates affirmation is followed by virtually all scholars in Evagrian studies, for instance Manlio Simonetti7 and Robert Sinkewicz, who speaks of Gregory Nazianzen as the one who ordained Evagrius and never mentions Gregory Nyssen in his biography of Evagrius;8 the same is true of Giovanni Cataldo,9 David Brakke,10 and Kevin Corrigan.11 Joel Kalvesmaki also speaks only of Gregory Nazianzen in connection with Evagrius formation, without mentioning Gregory Nyssen.12 Julia Kon-stantinovsky mentions Gregory of Nyssa only once in her ac-count of the life of Evagrius, not as the one who ordained him or was his friend or accompanied him to Egypt (see below), but ___ the possibility is interesting and suggests a possible parallel with Leonidas, Origens so-called father ( ), as Eusebius de-scribes him (HE 6.1.1). Details and arguments in I. L. E. Ramelli, Origen, Patristic Philosophy, and Christian Platonism: Re-Thinking the Christiani-sation of Hellenism, VChr 63 (2009) 217263, and Origen the Christian Middle/Neoplatonist, Journal of Early Christian History 1 (2011) 98130.

7 M. Simonetti, Letteratura cristiana antica greca e latina (Milan 1988) 287. 8 R. E. Sinkewicz, Evagrius of Pontus. The Greek Ascetic Corpus (Oxford 2003)

xviixix. 9 G. Cataldo, Vita come tensione nellantropologia di Evagrio Pontico (Bari 2007)

2223. 10 D. Brakke, Evagrius of Pontus, Talking Back: A Monastic Handbook for Com-

bating Demons (Collegeville 2009) 23. 11 Corrigan, Evagrius 2. See also G. Wassen, A Life of Evagrius of Pon-

tus, http://home.versatel.nl/chotki/a_life_of_evagrius_of_pontus.htm. 12 J. Kalvesmaki, The Epistula fidei of Evagrius of Pontus: An Answer to

Constantinople, JECS 20 (2012) 113139, at 113115.



simply in connection with the other Cappadocians: Evagrius undoubtedly also encountered Gregory of Nyssa, both in Basils Cappadocian estate and in Constantinople, although no reliable record exists of their contacts.13 This last point, in light of what I shall argue, may be questionable.

Palladius account is squarely different from Socrates with regard to who was Evagrius close friend and who ordained him a deacon. For, instead of indicating Gregory Nazianzen, Palladius indicates Gregory of Nyssa. I shall analyse Palladius testimony below. First, however, it is necessary to observe that Palladius of Helenopolis report is noteworthy, for he was a personal disciple of Evagrius, unlike Socrates. He wrote a biog-raphy of Evagrius, devoting a whole chapter of his Historia Lausiaca to himas Eusebius had done with Origen, his hero, devoting almost a book to him in the Historia Ecclesiastica. Pal-ladius was an Origenian monk, and was bishop of Helenopolis in Bithynia from 400 CE. He was a supporter of John Chry-sostom (in honour and defence of whom he probably wrote the Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom),14 and an acquaintance of

13 Konstantinovsky, Evagrius Ponticus 1126. 14 Many scholars support Palladius paternity of the Dialogue. See P.

Devos, Approches de Pallade travers le Dialogue sur Chrysostome et lHistoire Lausiaque, AnalBoll 107 (1989) 243266, who bases his argument on the similarity between this Dialogue and Palladius Historia Lausiaca; N. Zeegers-Vander Vorst, A propos du Dialogue de Pallade sur la vie de Jean Chry-sostome, RHE 85 (1990) 3041; L. Dattrino, Palladio. Dialogo sulla vita di Giovanni Crisostomo (Rome 1995); E. Cattaneo, Le cause della decadenza del clero nel Dialogo sulla vita di Crisostomo di Palladio, Augustinianum 37 (1997) 333349; A. Miranda, Autorit ecclesiastica e giurisdizione civile nel Dia-logo sulla vita di Crisostomo di Palladio, Studia Patristica 49 (2002) 405423; G. D. Dunn, The Date of Innocent Is Epistula 12 and the Second Exile of John Chrysostom, GRBS 45 (2005) 155170; D. Katos, Socratic Dialogue or Courtroom Debate? Judicial Rhetoric and Stasis Theory in the Dialogue on the Life of St. John Chrysostom, VChr 61 (2007) 4269, who grounds his demonstration on the presence in the Dialogue of principles of judicial rhetoric and late antique stasis theory, well known to Palladius, and argues that he wrote it, not as a biography, but as a case for the restoration of John



the Origenian monks dubbed Tall Brothers, as well as of Evagrius, Rufinus, and Melania the Elder, all convinced Origenians. Palladius actually speaks of Evagrius as his teacher (H.Laus. 23.1). When Chrysostom was exiled, Palladius went to Rome and tried hard to have him restored to his seat, but he himself was banned, to Syene of the Thebaid in Egypt.15 He even requested that Theophilus be put on trial as responsible for the exile of John.16 The Dialogue, which is probably by him, was modelled on Platos Phaedo, notably just as was Gregory Nyssens De anima et resurrectione.17 I think it very likely that Pal-ladius had Gregory of Nyssas work in mind and was inspired by him.

In Egypt, before being elected bishop, Palladius had become acquainted with the Desert Fathers Macarius of Alexandria, and Evagrius. Remarkably, Palladius had known Evagrius per-sonally, as he himself attests (H.Laus. 12, 23, 24, 35, 38, 47), and it is in Evagrius spirit that, after his return from his own exile, ca. 418420, he wrote his Historia Lausiaca18 (in the same ___ to the diptychs as a bishop. See now D. Katos, Palladius of Helenopolis, the Origenist Advocate (Oxford 2011).

15 On those who supported John in and after his exile see M. Wallraff, Tod im Exil. Reaktionen auf die Todesnachricht des Johannes Chry-sostomos und Konstituierung einer johannitischen Opposition, in Chryso-stomosbilder in 1600 Jahren (Berlin/New York 2008) 2337.

16 John Chrysostom was accused, among other imputations, also of having invaded Theophilus jurisdiction when he received the Origenian monks, and of having been given money by Olympias, his rich deaconess. See J. Tloka, Griechische Christen, christliche Griechen (Tbingen 2005) 159160; E. D. Hunt, Palladius of Helenopolis: A Party and its Supporters in the Church of the Late Fourth Century, JThS 24 (1973) 456480.

17 A full study and commentary is provided by I. L. E. Ramelli, Gregorio di Nissa sullAnima e la Resurrezione (Milan 2007); cf. the reviews of P. Tzama-likos, VChr 62 (2008) 515523, M. J. Edwards, JEH 60 (2009) 764765, M. Herrero de Huregui, Ilu 13 (2008) 334336.

18 R. Draguet, LHistoire lausiaque: Une oeuvre crite dans lesprit dEvagre, RHE 41 (1946) 321364; 42 (1947) 549. See also N. Molinier, Ascse, contemplation et ministre daprs lHistoire Lausiaque de Pallade dHlnopolis (Bgrolles-en-Mauges 1995); and G. Frank, The Memory of the Eyes: Pilgrims to



spirit in which he very probably wrote the Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom).19 At H.Laus. 86 Palladius speaks of Evagrius in the most laudatory terms. Palladius much appreciated another faithful Origenian as well, and a friend of Evagrius: Rufinus, of whom he says that nobody was more learned or kind (98). From Palladius work, including his account of John Chry-sostoms character and trial,20 his sympathy for the Origenian tradition is transparent. What is most relevant to the present investigation is Palladius closeness to Evagrius himself, both from the biographical and from the ideological point of view.

This is why Palladius account of Evagrius closeness to Gregory of Nyssa is noteworthy. Now, Palladius in his Historia Lausiaca is clear that it was not Gregory of Nazianzus, but

___ Living Saints in Christian Late Antiquity (Berkeley 2000). According to Bunge, one of the main sources of the Historia Lausiaca was a book by Palladius him-self on the sayings and deeds of the Desert Fathers: G. Bunge, Palladiana I: Introduction aux fragments coptes de lHistoire lausiaque, StudMon 32 (1990) 79129. On the genesis of the Historia Lausiaca see K. Nickau, Eine Historia Lausiaca ohne Lausos: berlegungen zur Hypothese von Ren Draguet ber den Ursprung der Historia Lausiaca, ZAC 5 (2001) 131139. For a com-parative approach between pagan and Christian hagiography see U. Criscuolo, Biografia e agiografia fra pagani e cristiani fra il IV e il V seco-lo: le Vitae di Eunapio e la Historia Lausiaca, Salesianum 67 (2005) 771798. Edition and German transl. D. Schtz, Historia Lausiaca. Die frhen Heiligen in der Wste (Basel 1987); French transl. N. Molinier, Pallade dHlnopolis, Histoire lausiaque (Bgrolles-en-Mauges 1999).

19 This is highlighted by G. M. De Durand, Evagre le Pontique et le Dialogue sur la vie de saint Jean Chrysostome, BLE 77 (1976) 191206, at least in respect to Evagrius psychology and ethics.

20 F. van Ommeslaeghe, Que vaut le tmoignage de Pallade sur le procs de saint Jean Chrysostom? AnalBoll 95 (1977) 389414, who vin-dicates Palladius as a witness to the events anterior to Johns trial, outside Constantinople. M. Wallraff, Le conflit de Jean Chrysostome avec la cour chez les historiens ecclsiastiques grecs, in B. Pouderon and Y.-M. Duval (eds.), Lhistoriographie de lEglise des premiers sicles (Paris 2001) 361370, ob-serves that Palladius is even more favourable to John Chrysostom than Socrates is: while Socrates does not side with John in his conflict with the imperial court, Palladius does.



Gregory of Nyssa who ordained Evagrius and was a close friend of his (86: PG 34.1188C):21

, . After the death of the bishop Saint Basil, Saint Gregory, the bishop of Nyssa, a brother of the bishop Basil who enjoys the honour of the apostles, Saint Gregory I say, most wise and free from passions to the utmost degree, and illustrious for his wide-ranging learning, became friends with Evagrius and appointed him as a deacon.

Thus Gregory of Nyssa, according to Palladius, treated Evagrius with kindness and friendship, and after the death of Basil ordained Evagrius deacon.22 Palladius does not even speak of Nazianzen here, but only of Basil first, and then of Nyssen. It is impossible that an error occurred in this text and that Palladius meant Nazianzen, since he expressly states that this Gregory was the brother of Basil and was bishop of Nyssa. Moreover, Palladius was a great admirer of Gregory Nyssen and knew him well, and so was in a position to distinguish him clearly from Nazianzen. Palladius describes Gregory Nyssen in

21 I follow here Mignes text, basically the edition of J. Cotelerius, Monu-

menta ecclesiae graecae III (Paris 1686), against recensio G (ed. Bartelink), because it transmits what I believe to be the original text, as the whole of my discussion in the present essay endeavors to demonstrate.

22 Anthony Maas, Evagrius Ponticus, The Catholic Encyclopedia 5 (1909) 640, does not draw any conclusion, but says only that Evagrius was or-dained by Nyssen: Instructed by St. Gregory Nazianzen, he was ordained reader by St. Basil the Great and by St. Gregory of Nyssa (380), whom he accompanied to the Second Council of Constantinople (381). According to Palladius, who differs in his account from Socrates and Sozomen, Evagrius remained for a time as archdeacon in Constantinople, while Nectarius was patriarch (381397). Then Nyssen disappears from his account; moreover, he seems to make no distinction between Evagrius ordination as a reader and as a deacon.



the most laudatory terms for his wisdom, his ascetic life, and his glory due to the richness of his learning.

The sentence that comes immediately next in the Historia Lausiaca, namely that Gregory the bishop left Evagrius in Constantinople during the council and entrusted him to bishop Nectarius, might refer to either Nyssen or Nazianzen. Usually it is thought that it was Nazianzen who recommended Evagrius to Nectarius when he withdrew from Constantinople. But in Palladius text the immediately preceding mention of Nyssen rather than Nazianzen would make the reference to Nyssen more natural: [sc. Evagrius] , . When he left, Saint Gregory the bishop left Evagrius with the blessed bishop Nectarius at the great Council of Constantinople. For Evagrius was most skilled in dialectics against all heresies.

Socrates himself, when he states that Gregory went to Egypt with Evagrius (HE 4.23), an otherwise unattested piece of in-formation to my knowledge, may betray a source that in fact referred to Nyssen. For while Gregory Nazianzen never went to Egypt or Jerusalem after the Council of Constantinople, and indeed seems to have never left Nazianzus and Arianzus after the council,23 it is attested that after Constantinople, where he was in 381, Gregory of Nyssa in fact went to Jerusalem late in 381 and in 382 (see his Ep. 3). It is quite possible that he travelled further to Egypt with Evagrius, all the more so in that Nyssen also was in Arabia in exactly that period. This, more-over, or at least an acquaintance with Evagrius and Melanias circle, would help to explain why Gregorys De anima et resur-

23 After renouncing the bishopric of Constantinople, Gregory returned to

Nazianzus. There he administered the local church. He subsequently withdrew to his Arianzus property with the intention of devoting himself to literature, but he died there shortly after, in 390.



rectione was translated into Coptic in Egypt very soon, possibly already during Gregorys own lifetime.24 This is even more probable in light of the consideration that Gregorys De anima et resurrectione is a strong endorsement of the Origenian doctrine of apokatastasis (the eventual universal restoration of all rational creatures to God), which Evagrius himself decidedly sup-ported.25

Indeed, it was the Council of Constantinople itself, in 381, that sent Gregory of Nyssa to Arabia, to a church of that province (possibly Bostra), which was close both to Palestine and to Egypt. The goal of this mission was , for the sake of correcting them (Letter 2.12 [GNO VIII.2 17]) While he was there, Gregory also undertook a trip to Jeru-salem, exactly when Evagrius too went there. Gregory was requested to do so by those who oversee () the holy churches of Jerusalem. These were certainly close to Melania and Rufinus, whose double monastery was on the Mount of Olives. Gregorys mission was very difficult, and he even ended up being charged with heterodoxy, surely because of his Christology, which, notably, drew on Origens conception that Christ the Logos assumed not only a human body but also a human soul. It is worth noting that this was also Evagrius conception. When Gregory finally left Jerusalem, thus, he was sad (Letter 3.4).

It can therefore be hypothesised that it was Gregory of Nyssa who ordained Evagrius a deacon, and as his friend later was with him after he left Constantinople, in Palestine and perhaps in Egypt. At first, when Gregory left, he entrusted Evagrius to Nectarius, because the former could be of use in Constan-

24 See Ramelli, Gregorio di Nissa sullAnima, Appendix I; the very early

Coptic translation was fruitful there in establishing the new edition of De anima et resurrectione.

25 On Evagrius doctrine of apokatastasis, its metaphysical reasons, and its Origenian roots, see I. L. E. Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Leiden 2013), the chapter on Evagrius.



tinople for his dialectical skills. But later Evagrius too left Constantinople and may have joined Gregory of Nyssa in Palestine and in Egypt. This hypothesis would also explain the reason for the apparently odd interruption of all relationships between Evagrius and Gregory Nazianzen after the Council of Constantinople. This interruption is rightly noticed as very strange by Julia Konstantinovsky,26 but she does not attempt to explain it. Indeed, after 381, no contact seems to have taken place between Evagrius and Gregory of Nazianzus. Only Letter 46, written shortly after Evagrius arrival in Egypt, may have been addressed by him to Nazianzen, but this is uncertain, and, moreover, even if this was the case, in that letter Evagrius apologises precisely for having failed to be in contact for so long.27 Evidence of further contact is lacking; Konstantinovsky is right to deem it highly uncertain that Evagrius Letters 12 and 23 were addressed to Gregory Nazianzen.28 Now, this odd and inexplicable situation would become less so if one admits that it was Gregory of Nyssa who travelled to Palestine, and possibly Egypt, with Evagrius, while Gregory Nazianzen remained far from Evagrius, both geographically and from the epistolary point of view.

At any rate, for a while Evagrius had been the assistant of Gregory Nazianzen in Constantinople,29 received from him advanced education,30 and supported him in his fight against Arians and Pneumatomachiansthe same fight that Gregory of Nyssa also undertook. Evagrius letter On Faith, which re-

26 Konstantinovsky, Evagrius Ponticus, 14. 27 Konstantinovsky, Evagrius Ponticus 14 n.24, even wonders whether this

letter was in fact ever sent, given that it was found in the corpus of Evagrius letters and not in that of Nazianzens letters.

28 Konstantinovsky, Evagrius Ponticus 14 n.25. 29 Gregory mentions Evagrius in his testament, written in 381, as the

deacon Evagrius, who has much labored and thought things out together with me, (PG 37.393B)

30 Sozomen (HE 6.30) attests that Evagrius was educated in philosophy and Holy Scripture by Gregory Nazianzen.



flects the Trinitarian theology of all the Cappadocians to the point that it was handed down in Greek as Basils Letter 8, prob-ably stems from these years. Here Evagrius follows the Cap-padocians Trinitarian formula, , , one common essence, three individual substances, which in turn is wholly grounded in Origens Trinitarian theology and terminology.31

I think it very probable, however, that Evagrius met Gregory Nyssen as well, became a friend of his, possibly was ordained a deacon by him, and was with him in Palestine and Egypt, and surely was very well acquainted with his thought. There are close and significant convergences between Evagrius and Nyssens ideas;32 several, of course, can also be explained as common dependence on Origen. But a systematic assessment of the relationship between Evagrius thought and Nyssens, from protology to eschatology, from theology to anthropology, is still badly needed and will be, I expect, momentous and fruitful. Some help has been recently offered in an interesting study by Kevin Corrigan.33 But much still awaits to be done. A closer personal relationship between Evagrius and Gregory of Nyssa would also better explain the impressive similarities that can be found in their thought.

31 For the roots of this formula in Origen see I. L. E. Ramelli, Origens

Anti-Subordinationism and its Heritage in the Nicene and Cappadocian Line, VChrist 65 (2011) 2149, and Origen, Greek Philosophy, and the Birth of the Trinitarian Meaning of Hypostasis, HThR 105 (2012) 302350. On the Letter on Faith see P. Bettiolo, LEpistula fidei di Evagrio Pontico: temi, contesti, sviluppi (Rome 2000).

32 I point out some in The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis. However, a systematic study is needed.

33 Corrigan, Evagrius, might perhaps be seen more as a juxtaposition of these two Christian philosophers in respect to some anthropological, ascetic, and mystical themes, than as an examination of their interrelationship and of Gregorys influence on Evagrius (which means Origens influence on Evagrius as welland it must be determined which influence was direct and which was mediated by Gregory). This is not at all meant as a criticism, however. I have expressed my high appreciation of this book in n.1 above.



I agree with Konstantinovsky that Evagrius mature thought is not so close to that of the Cappadocians,34 but I would rather say that it is not so close to that of Basil and Gregory Nazianzen, while remarkably more affinities are to be found with Gregory of Nyssa, most apparently in the eschatological and the metaphysical domains. Evagrius predilection for Greg-ory Nyssen over Basil is understandable, if one considers that Nyssen was one of the most faithful and perspicacious followers of Origen (Basil and Nazianzen were too in some respects, but Nyssen was far more). And Evagrius allegiance to resolute and sometimes radical admirers of Origen such as the Tall Brothers, John of Jerusalem, Rufinus, Melania, and Palladius was strong. To Melania, Rufinus, and John, Evagrius also ad-dressed many letters, including the fundamental Letter to Melania sometimes also called Great Letterwhich was very probably addressed either to Melania herself or to Rufinus.35

34 Konstantinovsky, Evagrius Ponticus, chs. 36. 35 What is relevant to the present argument is that the addressee is an

Origenian. In one of the two Syriac manuscripts in which it is preserved, as in other letters of Evagrius extant in Armenian, the addressee is Melania the Elder. Some scholars do not accept the identification of the addressee as Melania, especially because in the Syriac text Evagrius addresses her thrice calling her my lord. Thus, some deem Rufinus a more probable ad-dressee: G. Bunge, Evagrios Pontikos, Briefe aus der Wste (Trier 1986) 194. G. Vitestam, Seconde partie du trait qui passe sous le nom de La grande lettre dvagre le Pontique Mlanie lancienne (Lund 1964) 45, also thought that the addressee was originally a man. Casiday, Evagrius 64, agrees. On the other hand, Pal-ladius repeatedly calls Melania , in the neuter form, a diminutive: in Bartelinks edition, 5.2, 9.1 (n.b. ), 10.2, 18.28, 38.8, 38.9, 46 title, 46.1, 54 title, 54.1, 54.4, 54.7, 58.2, 61 title, 61.1. Syriac translators may have understood it as a masculine. Evagrius, like his disciple Palladius, may have used to call her . Rufinus, like Me-lania and Evagrius, was a steadfast admirer of Origen; indeed this letter is intelligible only against the background of Origens ideas. Some scholars consider the address in the masculine form for a woman to be understand-able in a gnostic context, as a kind of honorific address: M. Parmentier, Evagrius of Pontus Letter to Melania, Bijdragen, tijdschrift voor filosofie en theologie 46 (1985) 238, at 56.



It is likely that Evagrius considered, and called, Gregory of Nyssa his teacher. The reference to Gregory the Just in the epilogue of Evagrius Praktikos may refer to Gregory Nazianzen, but an alternative reference to Gregory Nyssen cannot be ruled out: The high Sun of Justice shines upon us thanks to the prayers and intercession of Gregory the Just, who planted me ( ), and of the holy fathers who now water me and by the power of Christ Jesus our Lord, who has granted me growth (transl. Sinkewicz). The same Gregory the Just is mentioned by Evagrius at Gnostikos 44 on the four cardinal virtues, a topic that Gregory of Nyssa did develop.

Likewise in Praktikos 89, a relatively long chapter, Evagrius expounds the tripartition of the soul according to Plato, with the relevant virtues that are proper to each part of the soul, crowned by justice which is a virtue of the whole soul. Inter-estingly, however, he does not attribute this doctrine to Plato at all, but rather to our wise teacher ( ). It is usually assumed that this unnamed teacher is Gregory of Nazianzus, for instance by Antoine and Claire Guillaumont, followed by Columba Stewartwho however admits that it is unlikely that Gregory Nazianzen transmitted this doctrine to Evagrius, but does not propose alternative solu-tions.36 In light of what I have argued, it is more probable that Evagrius meant Gregory of Nyssa, who used this doctrine ex-tensively in his De anima et resurrectione and elsewhere. And I have suggested above that Gregorys De anima et resurrectione was circulated in Egypt, and soon translated into Coptic, thanks precisely to the influence of Evagrius there. Evagrius sympathy for this dialogue was certainly much facilitated by its defence of the doctrine of apokatastasis, which Evagrius too upheld.

Evagrius arrived at the Egyptian desert via Palestine, where he belonged to the circle of Melania and Rufinus. A relation-

36 Antoine and Claire Guillaumont, Evagre le Pontique. Trait pratique ou Le moine (Paris 1971) 680689; Columba Stewart, Monastic Attitudes toward Philosophy and Philosophers, Studia Patristica 47 (2010) 21327, at 324.



ship with the wife of a high functionary led him to depart from Constantinople, as is well known (a novelistic account is pro-vided by Sozomen HE 6.3037 and an even more detailed version is in Palladius H.Laus. 38.37); he arrived at Jerusalem (382 CE), where he frequented the Origenian, and pro-Nicene, Melania the Elder in her double monastery, where Rufinus also was. They had settled there in 380. Melania definitely con-firmed Evagrius in monastic lifewhether he had already been a monk earlier or notand gave him the monastic clothing herself according to Palladius: -, he had his clothes changed [sc. to monastic attire] by Melania herself (H.Laus. 38.9 = PG 34.1194A). This is plaus-ible, given that Melania directed the double monastery. It is even more certain that she influenced Evagrius choice of the Egyptian desert as the place where he would spend the rest of his life, first Nitria, a cenobitic environment, and then Kellia, a hermitic place, where Evagrius practiced an extreme form of asceticism (383399).

In Egypt Evagrius was a disciple of Macarius of Alexandria (394) and especially of Macarius the Egyptian, called the Great, who was converted to asceticism by St. Anthony him-self, founded Scetis, and was also a supporter of the Origenian

37 In Constantinople, an acquaintanceship he had formed with a certain

lady excited the jealousy of her husband, who plotted his death. While the plot was about to be carried forward into deed, God sent him, while sleep-ing, a fearful and saving vision in a dream. It appeared to him that he had been arrested in the act of committing some crime, and that he was bound hand and foot in irons. As he was being led before the magistrates to receive the sentence of condemnation, a man who held in his hand the book of the Holy Gospels addressed him, and promised to deliver him from his bonds, and confirmed this with an oath, provided he would quit the city. Evagrius touched the book, and made oath that he would do so. Immediately his chains appeared to fall off, and he awoke. He was convinced by this divine dream, and fled the danger. He resolved to devote himself to a life of asceticism and proceeded from Constantinople to Jerusalem.



doctrine of apokatastasis.38 Near Alexandria Evagrius may also have visited Didymus the Blind, the faithful Origenian whom bishop Athanasius appointed head of the Alexandrian Didaska-leion. Evagrius had disciples himself, among whom were Pal-ladius and Cassian,39 and many pilgrim visitors. He refused the episcopate at Thmuis that Theophilus of Alexandria offered him.40 In 399 he passed away just in time, shortly before Theophilus Paschal letter against anthropomorphism: this arose from a revolt by the simpler, anti-Origenian and anthro-pomorphising monks which alarmed Theophilus and induced his U-turn against the Origenians. This rather opportunistic move led him to persecute Evagrius fellow-monks in Nitria and Kellia, and in particular Evagrius friendsthe Origenian Tall Brothers, the monks Ammonius, Euthymius, Eusebius, and Dioscorus. Palladius mentions them together with Evagrius when he speaks of those belonging to the circle of Saints Ammonius and Evagrius (H.Laus. 24.2). He probably is referring to the same people when he mentions Evagrius community (H.Laus. 33) and the circle of St. Evagrius

38 The former seems to be mentioned by Evagrius in 33 and 37 and Antirrheticus 4.23, 4.58, 8.26. In Pract. 9394, instead, the reference seems to be to the latter; Sinkewicz, however, refers Pract. 94 to Macarius of Alexandria as well: Evagrius of Pontus xix. As for St. Anthony and Macarius and their adhesion to the doctrine of apokatastasis see my The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, the chapter devoted to Anthony.

39 For a reconsideration of the person and the works of Cassian, however, see now P. Tzamalikos, The Real Cassian Revisited: Monastic Life, Greek Paideia, and Origenism in the Sixth Century (Leiden 2012), and A Newly Discovered Greek Father: Cassian the Sabaite eclipsed by John Cassian of Marseilles (Leiden 2012).

40 Evagrius, a monk, tended to privilege the spiritual authority deriving from inspiration, prayer, learning, teaching, and miracles, over and against that which comes from ecclesiastical hierarchy: see C. Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition (Berkeley 2005) 5699; for the derivation of these ideas from Origen see E. dal Co-volo, Sacerdozio dei fedeli, gerarchia della santit e gerarchia ministeriale in alcune omelie di Origene, in Origeniana VIII (Leuven 2003) 605612; I. Ramelli, Theosebia: A Presbyter of the Catholic Church, Journal of Fem-inist Studies in Religion 26.2 (2010) 79102.



(H.Laus. 35). Evagrius himself attests that he was with Am-monius when they visited John of Lycopolis in the Thebaid desert (Antirrh. 6.16). Chased by Theophilus from Egypt, the Tall Brothers would be received by the aforementioned John Chrysostom. Much is known of their vicissitudes, once again thanks to Palladius (besides Socrates and Sozomen).

I judge that Palladius is a more reliable source than Socrates when it comes to the relationship between Evagrius and Gregory of Nyssa: not only because Palladius, unlike Socrates, was personally acquainted with Evagrius and is a first-hand source, not only because Socrates wrote his information on Evagrius and Gregory Nazianzen some forty years after Evagrius death, but above all because Socrates seems to be much better informed on Gregory Nazianzen than on Gregory Nyssen. This is clear from HE 4.26. After devoting one whole chapter to Didymus the Blind (4.25), Origens admirer and fol-lower, and before devoting another whole chapter to Gregory Thaumaturgus (4.27), Origens disciple and the author of a thanksgiving oration in honour of Origen himself, in HE 4.26 he focuses on the other great Origenian and anti-Arian authors of that time: the Cappadocians. But instead of speaking of the most Origenian of them, Gregory Nyssen, unquestionably the closest of all the Cappadocians to Origens authentic ideas, Socrates spends almost the entire chapter on Basil and Gregory Nazianzen (4.26.126), as though he knew rather little of Gregory of Nyssa after all. Indeed, only in the very end of his treatment of Basil (4.26.2627) does Socrates introduce two brothers of his: Peter, who is said to have embraced the monastic life, imitating Basil himself, and Gregory, who is said to have chosen to teach rhetoric ( - [sc. ], Gregory in his zeal embraced the life of a teacher of rhetoric). This is correct, but it refers to a rather short phase of Gregorys life, before his adhesion to the ascetic life and his episcopate. Socrates is uninterested in, or incapable of, offering more comprehensive details concerning Gregorys life and intellectual place. He adds only a very brief notice regarding Gregorys works, but



here he merely lists the Apologia in Hexameron (clearly on ac-count of its connection with Basils own Hexameron), his Oratio funebris in Meletium episcopum, and other orations or, more generally, works, of different kinds ( -). From this report, Socrates would seem to know nothing of Gregorys own opting for the ascetic life, of his ecclesiastical career as a bishop, of his anti-Arianism, and his predilection for Origen, as well as all of his theological works. Only a funeral oration of his is mentioned, plus his continuation and defence of Basils In Hexameron.

What must be remarked in this connection is that Gregory Nyssen was even more Origenian than Nazianzen and Basil were, and that this would have been a very attractive aspect to highlight for the strongly philo-Origenian Socrates, all the more so in this sequence of chapters on the Origenians Didy-mus, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and the Cappadocians. But if Socrates does not even mention this, and if he barely says any-thing of Gregory of Nyssa, while allotting incomparably more room to Basil and Nazianzen, there must be a reason for this apparent oddity. Either he had almost no information available to him concerning Nyssen, or he was hostile to him for some reason that escapes us but has nothing to do with Origen. Socrates does not even say that Gregory was bishop of Nyssa; he never calls him Nyssen, but only refers to him as Gregory, the brother of Basil, both in the aforementioned passage and at the end of HE 4.2627. In the latter passage Socrates is summarising the various Gregories related to Origen, in order to avoid confusion: thus, he mentions Gregory Thaumaturgus, the disciple of Origen, then Nazianzen, and finally (4.27.7)nothing else about Nys-sen, not even the name of his episcopal see.

However, Socrates did know, at least, that Gregory was the bishop of Nyssa. Indeed, he mentions him in two other pas-sages, albeit again only incidentally. In one, HE 5.9, he speaks of the death of Meletius, bishop of Antioch, and repeats that Gregory, the brother of Basil, delivered a funeral oration for him. Note that this is one of the only two works of Gregory Nyssen that Socrates names in HE 4.2627. The other passage,



HE 5.8, is the only one in which Socrates refers to Gregorys bishopric. He is speaking of the Council of Constantinople in 381, and observes that Gregory Nazianzen returned to Nazian-zus after renouncing his see in Constantinople (5.8.11). Soon after, Socrates treats of the patriarchal territorial divisions established at that council: Nectarius, he records, was assigned Constantinople and Thrace; Helladius, the successor of Basil, received the Pontic diocese; and then the mention of Gregory: , , , Gregory of Nyssa, Basils brother, received this town in Cappadocia (5.8.15). This is the only point in all of his work in which Socrates cites Nyssa as the bishopric of Gregory.

Different is Jeromes entry devoted to Gregory of Nyssa, written ca. 392 (the year of publication of his De viris illustribus). Although it is a very short entry, both Gregorys episcopate at Nyssa and one of his major doctrinal works, Contra Eunomium, are mentioned with prominence, in addition to the reference to many other works that Gregory had written and was still writing (he died shortly after the completion of De viris il-lustribus): Gregorius, Nyssenus episcopus, frater Basilii Caesariensis, ante paucos annos mihi et Gregorio Nazianzeno Contra Eunomium legit libros, qui et multa alia scripsisse et scribere dicitur (128). Jerome gives the impression of not having read the other numerous works by Gregory, but he surely was acquainted with his Contra Eu-nomium: some years before the completion of De viris illustribus Jerome, as he says here, directly met Gregory of Nyssa, who even read to him and to Gregory Nazianzen together his books Contra Eunomium. This must have happened in 381 in Constan-tinople, on the occasion of the council, when Evagrius also was there. Gregory indeed composed his books against Eunomius between 380 and 383.

The relationship between Gregory Nyssen and Evagrius may easily go back to Gregorys stay in Ibora, Evagrius birthplace, in Hellenopontus, shortly before the Council of Constan-tinople, from late 379 into 380. After the death of their bishop Araxius, the inhabitants of Ibora asked Gregory to come and supervise the election of a new bishop. Gregorys intervention



was crucial, especially because of the controversy with the Arians. It was essential to have a pro-Nicene bishop, and Nys-sen would have provided for this (see his Letter 19.12 [GNO VIII.2 66]). Moreover, Ibora was close to Annesi, the seat of Basils and Macrinas monasteries. Gregory considered Ibora as belonging to his own jurisdiction as bishop of Nyssa (In XL Mart. II, GNO X.1 166). Nyssen went to Ibora, where Evagrius was the son of a member of the local clergy, stayed there, and provided for the election of bishop Pansophius, who, shortly afterwards, participated in the Constantinople council.

In this council, in which Evagrius participated as well in his capacity as deacon, and during which Nazianzen withdrew from the episcopate of Constantinople, Gregory of Nyssa surely played an important role, very probably even more important than that of Nazianzen himself, who encountered such harsh opposition as to be forced to resign. His theological weight was certainly remarkable, and even from an institutional point of view Nyssen was considered to be important. Indeed, in the list of bishops with whom one had to be in communion in order to be considered orthodoxa list indicated by the emperor Theo-dosius himself in the edict which imposed adherence to the Council for any Christian (Cod.Theod. 16.1.3)Gregory of Nyssa was included for the diocese of Pontus, along with Helladius of Caesarea, the successor of Basil, and Otreius of Melitene. Nazianzen, instead, seems to have criticised Theo-dosius edict.41 It is possible that Gregory Nyssen was present also at the Constantinople council in 382, though improbable given the aforementioned trips, and he certainly participated in the Constantinople council in 383, a colloquium under the patronage of Theodosius, where he delivered his oration De

41 F. Gautier, A propos du tmoignage de Grgoire de Nazianze sur le

concile de Constantinople (mai-juillet 381) aux vers 17501755 du De uita sua, REAug 51 (2005) 6776, demonstrates that Gregorys criticism of the teachings () of the council on the Spirit in fact refer to Theo-dosius edict of 10 January 381 (Cod.Theod. 16.5.6).



deitate Filii et Spiritus Sancti and confronted Arians, Eunomians, and Macedonians.42

The close relationship between Evagrius and Gregory of Nyssa which Palladius reports (their friendship and Evagrius ordination as a deacon by Gregory Nyssen) and which the source of Socrates suggests (their possible going together to Egypt after Constantinople), along with the very probable connection between Evagrius and the remarkably early spread of Nyssens Origenian work De anima et resurrectione in Egypt, bears on Evagrius thought and his relationship with the thought of the Cappadocians and, as a consequence, of Origen himselfall the more so in that Gregory of Nyssa is the most insightful and faithful follower of Origen, the one who best grasped Origens true thought. For reasons that will be ex-pounded in a future study, I suspect that Gregory Nyssen in fact played a fundamental role in transmitting Origens true ideas to Evagrius, i.e. not simply Origens textswhich Evagrius read directly on his ownbut especially an inter-pretation of Origens thought that was the closest to Origens authentic ideas. This issue is clearly crucial to an overall assess-ment of Evagrius thought, in which it is pivotal to investigate the impact of Origen on Evagrius system, as well as to exam-ine the possible role of the Cappadocians in the transmission of Origens true thought to Evagrius. September, 2012 Catholic University of Milan & Durham Univeristy, UK [email protected] & [email protected]

42 On this colloquium and its participants see A. M. Ritter, Das Konzil

von Konstantinopel und sein Symbol (Gttingen 1965) 227.

Ilaria Ramelli

The Stoic Doctrine of Oikeiosis and itsTransformation in Christian Platonism

Abstract: I investigate how, through which channels, and with what adapta-tions the Stoic doctrine of oikeiosis was received and transformed by the twomain Patristic philosophers, Origen of Alexandria and Gregory Nyssen. I alsoendeavour to assess how much Gregorys oikeiosis theory owes to Origen agreat deal, I suspect. In sum, it is Origen who Christianised the doctrine, butGregory seems to have identified apokatastasis as the Godheads oikeiosis or re-appropriation of all beings, which belong to it. I contend that these ChristianPlatonists and other early Christian sources can help to clarify the Stoic oikeio-sis doctrine itself, which poses substantial problems and which they received.They even present the technical vocabulary of oikeiosis, which in Hieroclesnon-technical circles passage is absent (and this has raised concerns). There-fore, it is useful to consider their texts when assessing the oikeiosis doctrine atleast in Stoicism.

Keywords: oikeiosis doctrine, Stoicism, Patristic Philosophy, Origen, GregoryNyssen, Philo, Clement, Hierocles

Ramelli, Ilaria: Sacred Heart University Largo A. Gemelli 1 Gregorianum III Piano,MILAN 20123, Italy; E-mail: [email protected] & [email protected]

The First Christian Reception of Oikeiosis:The New Testament

The reception of the trans-school1 doctrine of oikeiosis in early Christian authorsbegan very early. While there were different theories of oikeiosis in differentphilosophical schools in antiquity, for instance a Peripatetic and a Stoic theory,it seems to me that Christian receptions focused most on the Stoic doctrine of

DOI 10.1515/apeiron-2012-0063 apeiron 2014; 47(1): 116140

1 Especially Radice [17] has argued that this doctrine is far from being only Stoic. See also thereview by Ramelli [20]. There is a huge bibliography on oikeiosis and especially on the Stoic so-called social oikeiosis (and even the legitimacy of this category), which I shall not repeat here.It can be found, for instance, in Ramelli [34] and [37].

Brought to you by | provisional accountUnauthenticated | 129.10.52.112Download Date | 4/6/14 12:38 PM

oikeiosis, probably for its orientation to the social sphere,2 its relation to moralvalues and kathekonta, and its application to human-divine relations, as I shallpoint out. Even though it is Origen of Alexandria and his follower Gregory ofNyssa who made the most of oikeiosis in their Christian adaptations, at least areception of some aspects seems to be already detectable in the New Testament.

In particular I found this in a writer steeped in Hellenistic moral philosophysuch as the author of the so-called Pastoral Epistles (first half of the II cent.),3

who displays remarkable affinities with ample portions of the conceptions andwork of Hierocles the Stoic, probably roughly contemporary with him.4 Espe-cially the necessity of the contraction of circles in interpersonal relationshipsin 1 Tim 5:12 bears striking similarities with Hierocles treatment. Hierocles,who was active around the middle of the second century CE or somewhat ear-lier, concerned himself with Stoic ethics and wrote both Elements of Ethics, pre-served in a papyrus (Pap. Berolinensis 9780), and a work On Appropriate Acts,which may have included sections on marriage and household managementexcerpted by Stobaeus as the rest of the treatise on kathekonta or appropriateacts. A title Philosophical Discourses is also attested by the Suda for Hierocles,although it is unclear whether it refers to yet another work of his or may beidentifiable with one of the aforementioned writings. The Elements and the Sto-baean excerpts on appropriate acts are probably two distinct works; the Ele-ments appear to be intended for the Stoic school: they have a systematic charac-ter and employ a specialized language; the work On Appropriate Acts was moreliterary and addressed a larger public, as it includes precepts on marriage andhousehold management. But these works are deeply interrelated and the latterbegins where the former ends: the Elements treat the Stoic theory of oikeiosis,from its beginning in the individual (human or animal) at birth to the develop-ments of the so-called social oikeiosis, which is proper to humans: the socialdimension of oikeiosis entails ethical values, among which kathekonta, appro-priate acts, which belong to preferable adiaphora, are prominent: preciselythese are treated in Hierocles Stobaean excerpts. Here, several classes of inter-personal relations are dealt with, each involving specific appropriate acts.5

2 This more developed aspect of oikeiosis flanked the more basic aspect, which can be dubbedpreservative oikeiosis. See Aoiz [1] and Doyle [8].3 Or at least of 1 Timothy and Titus. Chances are that 2 Timothy goes back to Paul himself (e.g.according to Jerome Murphy OConnor and Michael Gourgues). But I do not enter this debate,which is irrelevant to the present investigation since I am presently concerned only with 1 Ti-mothy.4 Ramelli [34].5 The link between kathekonta and oikeiosis seems clear in Cicero, Fin. 3.7.23 (SVF III 186),where the officia translation of are derived from the principia naturae and the

The Stoic Doctrine of Oikeiosis 117


One of these sections is devoted to appropriate behaviour toward parents;others describe appropriate behaviour toward the gods, ones country, onessiblings, and ones spouse. In Hierocles famous image of the concentric circles,oikeiosis is applied to wider and wider groups of others, beginning with theappropriation of ones self and passing through ones family and ones city, upto the whole of humanity.6 Around ones mind, conceived of as the centre, thereruns a series of ever wider concentric circles, beginning with that representingones own body, then the circles representing ones parents, siblings, spouseand children, and on to more remote relatives, and then to members of thesame deme and tribe, to fellow citizens, to those who belong to the same peopleor ethnos, until one arrives at the widest circle, that of humanity. The width ofthe circles and their distance from the centre constitute the standard by whichto measure the intensity of ones ties, and therefore of ones appropriate acts,toward people. Thus, the oikeiosis theory became closely related to that ofkathekonta, the appropriate acts toward several categories of persons.7

In this connection, I pointed out elsewhere8 the fundamental question ofthe need, indicated by Hierocles, to perform a kind of contraction of circles,that is, to reduce as much as possible the distance from each circle to the nextone out, so to create the closest possible oikeiosis, even going so far as to em-ploy the onomastic stratagem of designating others by names appropriate to adegree of relationship one step closer to us than that which characterizes themin reality. A similar purpose seems to motivate as well the assimilation of ourfeelings toward various categories of others to those due to ones father andmother. Hierocles is aware of the impossibility of maintaining toward the wholehuman race, or even just large groups of people, the same goodwill that onefeels toward the dearest persons: this is why he has to excogitate strategies forthe contraction of circles. Now this is the same problem as emerges in 1 Ti-

conciliatio translation of of the human being with what is according to nature(ibid. 20; cf. SVF III 188; 492; 498). On Ciceros reception of Stoic oikeiosis see Corso de Estrada[7].6 See Ramelli [37].7 The Stobaean excerpts on marriage show especially well the connection between the doc-trine of kathekonta and that of oikeiosis as theorized in the papyrus. It is meaningful that inAriuss epitome of Stoic ethics the only occurrence of the oikeiosis terminology is found in rela-tion to the marriage theme (SVF III 611): for the it is appropriate () to marryand have children. I suspect here corresponds to . This suggests a convergencebetween the doctrine of oikeiosis and the valuing of kathekonta in the Stoic reflection on mar-riage. This is exactly what is found in Hierocles.8 In my commentary, Ramelli [34] and more in depth in [40] and [44].

118 Ilaria Ramelli


mothy, with the very same examples.9 The presence of the same instance inHierocles and 1 Timothy indicates that either the author of the letter knewHierocles passage on the circles or both of them relied on the same Hellenisticmoral philosophy lore, and specifically the realm of ethics that has to do withthe doctrine of oikeiosis.

Philo and Clement

Lvy studied the philosophical reception of oikeiosis in Philo:10 albeit heavilydepending on Stoic ethics, Philo refused to base ethics on the principle of oi-keiosis. Lvys explanation seems sound: Being both a Platonist and a Jew, itwas impossible for him to admit that ethics had roots in an instinctive impulsecommon to both man and the realm of all animated beings (147). Philo, how-ever, adapted the notion of oikeiosis to his transcendent worldview and used itin the context of the relationship between humans and the divinity (De opif. m.145146), something that Clement, Origen and Gregory of Nyssa who were allacquainted with Philo would do as well.

In the late II and early III century, an influence of the notion of oikeiosis onClement of Alexandria can indeed be observed. It is a simple application of theconcept of oikeiosis to the relationship between a human and God: by virtue ofits free choice, a human can make itself familiar with God by adhering tovirtue, i.e. the commandment of God or alienate itself from God, by choosingevil, the opposite of God-the Good:

To love ones enemies does not mean to love evil, or impiety, or adultery, or theft, butthe thief, the impious, the adulterous, and not in that he sins and with this or that ac-tion stains the name of human being, but in that he is a human and a creature of God.Sinning is in the act, not in the being; therefore it is not a work of God. Sinners arecalled the enemies of God precisely because they have made themselves enemies of thecommandments, which they have disobeyed, just as those who have obeyed them arecalled friends of God. Their denomination comes to the latter from familiarity with God,and to the former from alienation from God, and both familiarity and alienation dependon a free choice (Strom. 4.13.9394; see also Strom. 1.1.4.1).

Clements passage must be understood within his polemic against Gnostic(Valentinian) predestinationism, which was undertaken by Origen too. In their

9 On the broader question of the influence of Stoicism on the New Testament see at least Rasi-musEngberg-PedersenDunderberg [45], 1140; Ramelli [23], [29] and [30]; more widely Ru-nesson [46].10 Lvy [15], 146149.



view, the Gnostic position undermined free choice. This is why Clement insiststhat oikeiosis to God or alienation from God its opposite depend on a freechoice. Origen too will. Though, while Clements adaptation of the doctrine ofoikeiosis is rather episodic and cannot amount to an elaboration of a Christianphilosophical doctrine of oikeiosis, Origen, followed by Gregory Nyssen, willprovide such an elaboration, as I set out to show.

What is important to remark from the viewpoint of history of philosophy isthat Christian Platonists of the IIIV centuries and other very early Christiansources such as the author of 1 Timothy can help to clarify the Stoic doctrine ofoikeiosis, which they received and transformed. They even present the technicalvocabulary of oikeiosis, which in Hierocles non-technical circles passage is ab-sent and this has raised concerns as to the real presence of this doctrine inthat passage.11 Therefore, it is useful to consider their texts, too, when assessingthe oikeiosis doctrine.

Origen

Philos and Clements concept of oikeiosis to God was developed by Origen. Inhis day, Stoic sources were still available;12 moreover, Stoic motifs were ab-sorbed in what is called Middle Platonism. Thus, e.g., Somos [50] observed thatOrigen drew materials from Stoic and Aristotelian logic that had already beenincluded in Middle-Platonic works. There is also evidence of direct knowledgeof both Stoicism and Aristotelianism on his part.13 But Origens philosophy isespecially close to Middle Platonism, which had already combined Platonismwith Stoic traits; Origen the Christian philosopher and Origen the Neoplatonistmay even have been one and the same person.14 Anyway, Origen, far more sys-tematically than Clement had done, achieved a synthesis between Platonismand Christianity, producing Christian Platonism.

Whole passages from Origen, such as Princ. 3.1.4, are considered to repro-duce Stoic thought, to the point that they have been included by Arnim in SVF.Like Clement, who derived plenty of materials from Musonius,15 Origen too

11 See for instance Andrea Piatesi, Deconstructing Social Oikeiosis. In First Canadian Collo-quium in Ancient Philosophy, Edmonton, 3.5.5.2012, forthcoming.12 See Betegh [3] on the transmission of philosophical texts from the first century BCE to thesecond CE.13 See Runia [47], 7, and Ramelli [42].14 So Ramelli [32]; further arguments in [39].15 See Ramelli [30].

120 Ilaria Ramelli


knew this Roman Stoic, as well as the Stoic allegorists Cornutus and Chaere-mon. From Musonius and Epictetus he inherited the use of ,16

which is paramount in his polemic against Valentinian predestinationism, andfrom Cornutus and Chaeremon the allegorical method or so says Porphyry,who deliberately omitted Philo and Clement as Origens antecedents in this en-deavour.17 Origens reading of Epictetus surely also deepened his knowledge ofthe Stoic theory of oikeiosis.18 Though, there is evidence that Origen elaboratedsome notions, such as the ethical concepts of and first movements,independently.19 And while relying on the Stoic principle of , hedid not deem it sufficient, as is clear from his methodological statement inPrinc. 4.1.1: In our investigation into these questions, we are not happy withkoinai ennoiai and the evidence of our eyes, but we also base ourselves on whatwe believe to be divine Scripture, the so-called Old and New Testaments, as anevident proof of what has been said, and thus we seek to confirm our faith withreason.

A systematic search of the TLG returned more than 300 occurrences of - and related terms just in Origens extant Greek works, which is but afraction of his production. Of course, not all of these occurrences are related tothe oikeiosis doctrine; is also used as a possessive adjective denotingown,20 or in the meaning of appropriate, fitting, or proper to.21 More specificuses are those related to

(1) the oikeiosis of rational beings to God, and(2) the notion of apokatastasis as oikeiosis.It is not accidental that this technical use of the terminology and concept of

oikeiosis is found in the more philosophical and scholarly works of Origen such as Contra Celsum and his Commentaries on John, Romans, and Matthew,but most of all Contra Celsum, a discussion with a Middle Platonist ratherthan in his homilies, extemporaneous debates, and other works that addresseda philosophically uncultivated public. This suggests that in Contra Celsum andat least the Commentary on John Origen expected his philosophically cultivatedreaders to grasp the broadly Stoic resonance of the concept of oikeiosis.

Use (1), that of the oikeiosis of rational beings to God, was already found inClement, as I pointed out. In Philo, Clement and Origen the notion of oikeiosis

16 See Bugr [4], 626.17 See Ramelli [38].18 On this theory in Epictetus see Salles [48].19 See Guly [12]. See also Graver [11].20 E.g., Comm. Io. 13.50.331.21 E.g., Comm. Io. 6.36.181.



to God surely also resonates with the Platonic ideal of assimilation to God( ) X,22 though an influence of the Stoic notion of oikeiosis to God isprobable, given these thinkers close acquaintance with Stoic thought. Indeedthe notion of oikeiosis to God in Stoicism is especially evident in imperial Stoi-cism,23 with which Philo, Clement and Origen were definitely familiar to thepoint that Clement borrowed whole segments from Musonius, and Origen wasaccused of having picked up his Biblical allegoresis from Cornutus and Chaere-mon (Porph. ap. Eus. HE 6.19.48). The idea of of oikeiosis to God can be re-garded as an adaptation of the bond posited by the Stoics between each humanand the divinity/-ies, on the basis of the common possession of the logos. Eventhe ties that link the whole of humanity were motivated by the common pater-nity of Zeus/Jupiter, the mythological and allegorical counterpart of all humanssharing in the logos.24 At the same time, Roman Stoics such as Musonius alsoemphasized the voluntary effort that the moral subject must make to attain like-ness with God through the adhesion to the moral law (the law of Zeus/God).25

This means becoming sympsephoi with God, choosing and deciding in harmonywith God. Musonius was very well known to Clement, who, as I have men-tioned, cited long excerpts from his diatribes. Clement, like him but on ac-count of his anti-Gnostic polemic stressed the element of voluntary engage-ment in the acquisition of oikeiosis with God.

This is an aspect that Origen too underscores. Oikeiosis to God is not a mat-ter of sharing the divine nature Origen, the Christian Platonist, maintainedGods transcendence against Stoic immanentism but of free will: (Comm. in Rom. IXII Cat. 25).One way to become oikeioi to God is therefore through faith. Origen insists thathumans must become oikeioi with God; they have to familiarise themselves() to God. In CC 3.5 he indicates a means of reaching this effect: hewants to heal the whole rational nature by means of (Christian) philosophy, themedicine that comes from the Logos, Christ, and thereby wants to render it oi-keion to God, who is the creator of all.26 In fact, not Origen himself, but Christ-Logos-Physician performs this. The true teacher, indeed, is Gods Logos, whocan make oikeion to God whomever lives according to God, i.e. following Gods

22 n which see at least Sedley [49].23 As documented in Ramelli [18] and [21].24 See Ramelli [18], [19], [21], and [22] with complete documentation.25 Ramelli [19], [25].26 . The same passage is re-ported in Philoc. 18.24.

122 Ilaria Ramelli


law, following virtue (CC 1.30).27 It is no accident that Origen made ethics de-pendent on Christ, identified with justice and all virtues (and here, too, one cansee a trace of the Stoic doctrine of the akolouthia of all virtues).28 Therefore, onecan gather that faith, philosophy, and life in virtue are paths that lead to oikeio-sis with God. Origen actually tended to understand them as forming a singlepath, under the guidance of Christ-Logos. Indeed, he declares, people shouldendeavour to make themselves oikeioi ( ) with God in allways, and among the ways he lists in CC 8.4 there are chosen words, deeds,and thoughts.

Becoming oikeioi with God is the same as becoming oikeioi with Christ, allthe more in that oikeiosis with God passes through Christ-Logos (Hom. Luc. 35p. 206.1629). Those who become oikeioi with Christ are symbolized, not by themasses, whom Jesus abandons when he goes home, but by his disciples, whoremain with him at home, qua intimates, and to whom Jesus explains the hid-den meanings of his parables. Origen is here deploying the wordplay betweeno, to make oneself familiar with, and , home (Comm. Matth.10.1).30 In Comm. Matth. 11.4 Origen remarks that Jesus bestows on those whobehave according to God the names of his own relatives, and those who aremost intimate ( ), such as his mother andhis brothers. Origen is reading in the Gospel the very same onomastic stratagemthat Hierocles had suggested in support of his contraction of circles in the fra-mework of his interpretation of the oikeiosis doctrine. It is not to be ruled outthat Origen was acquainted with Hierocles works, which were composed inGreek only a few decades before his lifetime.

Origen, who always grounds every philosophical argument of his in Scrip-ture, seeks a Scriptural foundation of the notion of oikeiosis with God, and hefinds it in Eph 2:19: Thus, you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but fel-low citizens of the saints and oikeioi of God (Fr. I Cor. 16).31 In Eph 2:19 oikeioi

27 , .28 A specific work will be devoted to Origens ethics and its philosophical foundations.29 , .30 , [] , , - .31 . On the Pauline motif of heaven as the Christians homeland and itsStoic counterparts see Ramelli [23]; in Phil 3:20 is correctly rendered citizenship



of God means familiar with God and/or members of Gods household.32 Origensees in this passage a confirmation of his own Christianized elaboration on oi-keiosis.

In order to acquire oikeiois with God, virtue is necessary: It is impossible tomake oneself familiar [] with God in any other way but ascendingto him by means of temperance (CC 4.26).33 Indeed, God is oikeios with thesaints, such as the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the Holy Spiritis oikeion with the prophets; this is why God can be called the God of Abra-ham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the Spirit the spirit of Elias, Isaiah, etc. (Comm. inIo. 6.11.68).34 Origen refers to such persons in CC 3.56 when he mentions thosewho are familiar with God ( ) and in CC 8.61 when hespeaks of all those who make themselves oikeioi with God ( ), as well as in Comm. in Io. 2.3.32, when he speaks of hu-man beings who are oikeioi with God, in that they are parts of the Father (o , ).

It is interesting to point out here a parallel between Origen and Plotinusand a difference between the two of them and earlier Middle Platonists. Whilephilosophers such as Alcinous and Plutarch tended to situate oikeiosis in theinferior faculties of the soul,35 Plotinus identifies the souls oikeiosis with thecontemplation of the Nous/Intellect (Enn. 4.8.8; 3.8.6.2125). The soul of thephilosopher must familiarize () its own vision with the object of this vi-sion (Enn. 3.8.6.1419). In the Nous, these two things are one and the same,not thanks to oikeiosis [ ], as is the case in the perfect soul, but byessence, since in the Nous to be and to think are one and the same thing (Enn.3.8.8.68). Due to its intimacy with the Nous, when the soul comes to know, itturns out to be proper and familiar to it, (Enn. 3.8.6.21).

In this light of human oikeiosis with God Sel. Ps. PG 12.1656.7 too must beread, where Origen quotes Gods words in Scripture, You are gods, and I amthe God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob and explains that this is due to

(cittadinanza) by Jossa [14], 144145. Origen highlights this also in Fr. Io. 36, where he identi-fies Gods Kingdom with the state of those who live according to Gods laws.32 On the Pauline idea of entering Gods household see Burke [5]. Of course Origen had thePauline metaphor in mind.33 M , .34 E , , , - .35 See Caballero [6], esp. 105107.

124 Ilaria Ramelli


Gods great love for them and great oikeiosis or familiarity with them.36 Hereoikeiosis does not not simply imply belonging to ones household, but it is ex-plicitly associated with love (), and a great love, so to denote an affec-tive bond. Precisely because of his strong love, God makes human weakness hisown, appropriating it ( ), as an adult whospeaks like an infant to a small child.37

The main form of Gods appropriation of human weakness is of course in-dividuated in Christs inhumanation. The reciprocal aspect of this is humansoikeiosis with Christ, which passes through their purification from evil. Christhimself performs this purification and enables the aforementioned oikeiosis(CC 4.27).38 Indeed, to make humans oikeioi with God, Christ-Logos makes themoikeioi with all virtues, which, as I have mentioned, are the Logos itself (CC 8.1,where the notion of oikeiosis is associated with that of friendship/affection,39). As the agent of humanitys oikeiosis with God, Christ-Logos brings allto the telos, the perfect end (CC 7.17).40 By means of his inhumanation, inwhich divinity and humanity join, Christ has made the human being oikeioswith the divine power (Or. 26.4).41 Christ performs oikeiosis, but the humanbeing must actively want this and, by means of his or her own words,thoughts, and deeds, in all ways, endeavour to become familiar to the supremeDeity and be unified with it through Christ (CC 8.64).42 What is oikeion for thehuman being is the truth of God; every human must endeavour to reach it, butit is God who is the guide (Sel. Ps. PG 12.1269.48).43 The telos of the human

36 .37 , , .38 T .39 T , , .40 , . The link between oikeiosis to Christ and soteriologyis also established in Comm. Matt. 11.17: . The taskof the Logos is to save intelligent people. But since Christ-Logos came to save also the lostsheep of the house of Israel, after the intelligent he also saves the others.41 T .42 .43 .



being is to return to what is proper and familiar to it. This X return is a restora-tion or apokatastasis.

Indeed, the second specific adaptation of the notion of oikeiosis in Origenconsists in his presentation of apokatastasis or restoration as oikeiosis. Origen isthe most important theoriser of the doctrine of apokatastasis as universal re-storation and salvation, and in his theorization he engaged in an active discus-sion of the Stoic concept of apokatastasis.44 Stoic apokatastasis, indeed, is verydifferent from Origens own notion of apokatastasis, especially because of itsnecessitarianism and the infinity of the recurrence of cosmic cycles that it pre-supposes. This difference was underscored by Origen himself.45 In Stoic cosmol-ogy, apokatastasis indicates the periodical repetition of a cosmic cycle (SVF2.599, 2.623, 2.625), based on aeons or great years that return again and againand are identical, or almost identical, to one another. The same persons willexist in each aeon, and these will behave in the same ways, and will make thesame choices, and the same events will happen. This succession of aeons isdetermined by periodical conflagrations in which everything is resolved intofire, i.e. aether or Logos or pneuma identified with Zeus, the supreme but im-manent divinity , in order to expand again into a new whole. Origen overtlyattacked Stoic apokatastasis on several occasions, e.g. in CC 4.12, 4.6768, 5.20,and Princ. 2.3, for the two following reasons. (1) The Stoics postulated an infi-nite series of aeons, while Origen posited an end of all aeons precisely at theeventual apokatastasis, which will be one and only one, absolutely eternal, andwill put an end to every time and every aeon. For example, in Princ. 2.3.5 Origenaffirms the end of all aeons, coinciding with apokatastasis, when all will be nomore in an aeon, but God will be all in all.46 In 3.1, just as in Comm. in Io. 13.3,Origen already envisaged a stage in which there will be no aeon any more. (2)The Stoics thought that in each aeon everything would happen in the very sameway as in all the others, while Origen thought of the aeons as different from oneanother, in that they are the theatre of the moral and spiritual development ofrational creatures. Thus, for example, in CC 4.12 and 4.6768, Origen rejects theStoic theory in that it denies human free will, and in Princ. 2.3.4 likewise ac-cuses the Stoic notion of apokatastasis of taking away human free will and re-sponsibility.

In this case it is not simply the transformation of Stoic recurrence intoChristian resurrection, magisterially studied by Jaap Mansfeld,47 but its profound

44 See Ramelli [36].45 Discussion in Ramelli [43] with full analysis of Origens criticism of Stoic apokatastasis.46 1 Cor 15:28.47 Mansfeld [16].

126 Ilaria Ramelli


metamorphosis into Christian restoration or apokatastasis, that is, not simplythe resurrection of the body, but the restoration of the soul to the Good and theend of any purifying punishment in the beyond.48 Now, Origens concept ofapokatastasis as oikeiosis essentially consists in the idea that being restored(apokatastasis) is being brought back to familiarity (oikeiosis) with God(CC 4.6).49 This familiarity was broken by the fall, when rational creatures firstchose evil, but it will be restored, thanks to Christ-Logos. All rational creatures,in Origens view, will be restored to their original condition of freedom fromevil.

The best expression of Origens description of apokatastasis as oikeiosis isfound in Hom. Ier. 14.18, when he states that apokatastasis is a restoration towhat is proper and familiar (oikeion) to someone: .50 What is most oikeion to the human being what the Stoics called - is the Good, God, to the point that in Hom. Ier. 18.9 Origen takesover Gods statement in an apocryphal book of Ezekiel: I am closer [] tothem than their skin tunic, that is, their mortal body. The eventual apokatasta-sis a great mystery of salvation will be a return to the Good. This is whyOrigen claims that Gods words in Jeremiah, I will restore you, are the covertexpression of a mystery, that of universal restoration ( ). Origen explains that nobody isrestored into any place or state unless one has once been in that state, becauserestoration is a return to a state that is proper to a person ( , ). The examples that follow illustrate this principle; for instance, if onehas a limb displaced, the physician tries to restore it to its right place, where itbelongs. Humans belong in the Good; they will be restored to their once they are completely liberated from evil.

In relation to the medical example chosen by Origen to illustrate his doc-trine of apokatastasis as a return to ones oikeia, it is important to note theinfluence of medical authors on Origen an influence that I have detected alsoin the case of his concept of hypostasis as individual substance and that hasbeen recognised in the case of Galen.51 In a medical author who lived before

48 Though resurrection and restoration will be closely related by Gregory of Nyssa, who de-scribed the resurrection as the restoration of humanity to its original condition but he meantthe resurrection-restoration of both soul and body. See Ramelli [43], chapter on Nyssen.49 .50 See Ramelli [43], Ch. 1.51 See Ramelli [41] and, for Galens influence on Origen, Barnes [2]. That Galen was well knownin Alexandria already to Clement is argued on the basis of good evidence by Havrda [13].



Origen the notion of apokatastasis as oikeiosis is adumbrated, in Apolloniusscommentary on Hippocrates De articulis, 30.38 (first century BCE first CE): Itis necessary to bring about the restoration [] of the above-men-tioned limb in the following way (cf. 10.37: the tension in the right directionproduces the restoration [] of the limbs to their original place).Since illness is against nature, restoration to health can be said to be the re-storation into a state that is according to nature: - (8.18). This idea returns in the description of apokatastasis as the re-turn to the original spiritual health after spiritual illness due to evil by theOrigenian Evagrius (KG 1.4041): There was a time when evil did not exist, andthere will be a time when it will no more exist If death comes after life, andillness after health, it is clear that also evil comes after virtue. For evil is the deathand illness of the soul, but virtue comes before. The soul will be restored tovirtue and good, its original state. For the Good is its .

The notion of apokatastasis as oikeiosis also emerges in Philoc. 22.10, whereapokatastasis, through instruction, is declared to be to the restoration of what isoikeion to someone;52 in Schol. Matth. PG 17.296.45, where apokatastasis is de-scribed as ones restoration to ones own rank, the condition that is originallyproper to him or her ( ),53 so that in Ori-gens view even demons will return to their original angelic state; and in Sel. Ps.PG 12.1176.5, where the concept of turning back is glossed with that of restora-tion or apokatastasis to familiarity ().54 In Sel. Ps. PG 12.1481.53 oikeio-sis is related to the final henosis and theosis, i.e. union with God and deifica-tion, the culmination of apokatastasis in Origens view.55

In the process of restoration, according to Origen, a crucial role is playedby the theology of the image. Its principle is the creation of the human beingin the image of God (Gen 1: 2627); this image can be blurred by evil, but nevercancelled, and it can always be restored to its pureness. In Origens opinion, allhumans will fully recover Gods image in the eventual apokatastasis. Given Ori-

52 , , -, .53 Cf. Comm. Rom. (1.112.21, Cat.) 1, line 114: - = Philoc. 25.4.46-48: .54 , , . Apokatastasis implies salvation.The connection between oikeiosis and salvation also emerges in Comm. Io. 6.47.246: .55 , .

128 Ilaria Ramelli


gens description of apokatastasis as oikeiosis, it is not surprising that the theol-ogy of the image also plays a role in a persons oikeiosis in CC 8.18.56

Humans will fully recover their only through a process ofrestoration, after a more or less severe alienation from it due to evil. The Divi-nity, on the contrary, is never alienated from itself and is its own . Indeed, in Fr. Io. 13 Origen remarks that the Divinity is oikeion to itselfand thinks of itself, being both the subject and the object and the very activityof thinking. This, per se, is nothing typically Christian; the specific Christianfactor that Origen adds is the element of relationality within the divine Persons:the Son is the object of the Fathers thinking and in turn thinks of the Fatherand knows the Father.57 What underlies this description is the Sons oikeiosiswith the Father, which is made explicit in Fr. Io. 14, where the Scriptural expres-sion that the Son is on the lap of the Father is said to indicate the Sons famil-iarity with the Father.58 This is an oikeiosis by nature within the divine nature,which in Fr. Io. 50 Origen depicts as a relationship of love ( = -):59 but in Origens perspective humans, thanks to Christ-Logos, can acquirefamiliarity with God as well, as a revisitation and Christianization of the Stoictheme of human beings oikeiosis with God by virtue of the shared logos.

Gregory Nyssen

Nyssen, one of the most philosophically minded Christian Fathers, took up andfurther developed Origens Christianized concept of oikeiosis. The extent of hisdirect knowledge of Stoic texts on which he could also draw will be assessedbelow. It is clear that Gregory was able to fully and creatively integrate thistheory in his Christian thought, which was chiefly influenced by the Platonictradition and by Origens Christian philosophy. Lexical statistics themselves arerevealing. In his writings, the occurrences of terms related to oikeiosis are over

56 , , , - .57 A -, . .58 E - .59 O . - .



three hundreds, and those of over twenty. And oikeiosis is crucial notonly to Gregorys terminology, but also to his philosophy.

One remarkable feature of Gregorys Christianisation of the oikeiosis doc-trine but not new vis--vis Origen is that he revisits the Stoic doctrine of allhumans relation to the divinity in the light of Christian theology and of theGenesis account of creation. Gregory applies the oikeiosis theory to his coreanthropological doctrine, the theology of the image, which is grounded in hisinterpretation of Gen 1:26. This is a doctrine which, along with many others, heshares with his main inspirer, Origen (see above on Origens theology of theimage). Gregorys idea is that all humans are an image of God, and preciselythe fact of being an image of God, and thus endowed with the divine beauty, isthe prton oikeion of every human creature. In An. 89CD Gregory can declarethat the souls own beauty is oikeion i.e., familiar and of the same nature toGods beauty, so that the soul can contemplate the one through the other, asthrough a mirror and an image. In this way, Gregory like Origen before him theologizes the Stoic notion of prton oikeion, the gist of the Stoic theory ofoikeiosis, by positing that the first thing which is closest and most familiar andproper to each human is the Godhead, of which each human is the image. Heremay lie a reminiscence of Platos discussion of the proton philon in the Lysis,where it is maintained that each person through friendship seeks the Good shelacks but feels as proper. The proton philon is the Good, the Absolute. AlthoughGregory never has in any declination (and, while he uses as o, he does not seem to use in this sense), the reminiscence ofPlatos conception is likely to be at work in his mind: for Gregory, Platos protonphilon is surely God qua Absolute Good.

The image of God that every human bears, which was clear and luminousat the beginning of creation, has been blurred by sin, but it will be fully recov-ered, mainly thanks to Christs assumption of humanity. Indeed, since, in Gre-gorys view, just as in Origens, the end of all things will be similar to andeven better than60 the beginning, the proton oikeion of each human will berecovered in all its purity and beauty in the end, after the purification of eachone, which will precede the universal apokatastasis (the restoration of all ra-tional creatures after their liberation from evil). For all will recover the beautythat is proper [] to them (fifteenth Homily on the Song of Songs GNO VI439.18). Here, with Gregory is simply introducing a variant of o,61 asis clear from a parallel in his Mort. GNO IX 42.20 (= 11 Lozza), where Gregory

60 See Ramelli [26], integrative essay 1; Ramelli [24] and [27].61 Clement Paed. 3.1 also uses as a synonym of : Truth calls what is proper famil-iar.

130 Ilaria Ramelli


describes the restoration (apokatastasis) in

Ilaria Ramelli - Theological Studies

Documents

Transcript of Ilaria Ramelli - Theological Studies