The Rejection of the Epicurean Ideal of Pleasure in Late Antique Sources: not Only Misunderstandings

No disponible en català. Vegeu resum en anglèsEpicureanism was seen by its opponents, both ‘pagan’ and Christian, as the philosophy of pleasure and atheism. From the theological point of view, the accusation of atheism was incorrect, since Epicurus and the Epicureansadmitted of the existence of deities, and posited them as models of moral perfection, while denying their interest in human affairs, i. e. providence. This denial aimed at guaranteeing their imperturbability (ataraxia). From the ethical point of view, the ideal of pleasure (hedone), on which I shall concentrate here, was grossly misunderstood or distorted by the opponents of Epicureanism, who generally did not take into consideration the moderation, equilibrium, and serenity that the superior ‘catastematic pleasure’ (Epicurus’s real ideal of pleasure) involved. I shall analyse the attitude of late-antique sources, especially Christian, toward Epicureanism and its ethics. A great many of Usener’s and Arrighetti’s fragments of Epicurus indeed come from Christian late-antique authors, such as Clement, Origen, Eusebius, Lactantius, and Augustine, but other patristic authors should be added, such as Basil and Gregory of Nyssa. Even if patristic interest in Epicureanism is often critical, and sometimes imprecise or distorted, nevertheless it is tangible. I shall focus on the authors who make the most interesting use of Epicurean sources, particularly with respect to the ethical doctrine: Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, Lactantius, Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine, Gregory Nyssen, and Nazianzen, the only one who really understood and praised Epicurus’s notion of hedone. I shall also argue that the fading away of the availability and use of good sources on Epicureanism, along with the disappearance of the Epicurean school itself, brought about an impoverishment in the understanding of, and hostility to, Epicurus and Epicureanism

Religion and Science in Gregory of Nyssa: The Unity of the Creative and Scientific Logos

I have chosen to focus on Gregory of Nyssa’s approach to science, for this conference, because, among all the religious thinkers I know, he is one of the very richest theologians and mystics and, at the same time, the one most interested in science, with a positive attitude towards it. Indeed, Gregory († 394ca.) was not only one of the most outstanding theologians in Christian Patristics – a direct heir of the great philosopher, theologian and exegete Origen of Alexandria – but he was also deeply interested in science. These two aspects, theology and science, are not opposed to one another in Gregory’s thought, since both proceed from the same logos. The logos, in its most perfect form, is Christ, the Logos of God, whose full expression is found in Christian revelation (both in Scripture and, more directly, in the very Person of Jesus Christ). But it is also the same logos that has always illuminated all human intellectual achievements in philosophy and science, even among “pagans,” because it is present in every rational creature or logikon as such. Thus, to seek a rational justification and explanation – at the level of the philosophical and scientific logos – of doctrines that come from the logos of Scripture (such as the doctrine of the resurrection) is for Gregory an operation that is not only fully legitimate but also necessary on a very theoretical plane. In sum, for Gregory, science, philosophy and theology are all grounded in the logos and thus ultimately consistent with each other. This paper is one of a collection that originated in the IAHR Special Conference “Religions, Science and Technology in Cultural Contexts:  Dynamics of Change”, held at The Norwegian University of Science and Technology on March 1–2, 2012. For an overall introduction see the article by Ulrika Mårtensson, also published here

Constantine: the legal recognition of christianity and its antecendents

Ya antes de Constantino hubo intentos de invalidar los efectos del senatus consultum (35 D.C.) sobre la ilicitud del cristianismo, como parece haber hecho Galieno, aunque con un efecto parcial y temporal, y como habían intentado tal vez Adriano, Alejandro Severo y Elagabalus. Pero quien realmente invirtió los efectos de esa decisión senatorial fue Constantino, al transformar el cristianismo de una religio illicita en una religio licita en el imperio. En el presente artículo se estudian las implicaciones de ese senatus consultum, que está atestiguado no sólo en Tertuliano, sino también en un pasaje de Porfirio, además de las Actas de Apolonio. Se intenta contextualizarlo en el marco político y religioso de la era tiberiana y la relación entre Tiberio y el Senado. ------------------As Gallien seems to have done before him, but with a partial and temporary effect, and as Hadrian, Severus Alexander, and Elagabalus may have intended to do, Constantine reversed the effects of a senatus consultum from A.D. 35, transforming Christianity from a superstitio illicita to a religio licita in the empire. I study the implications of that senatus consultum, which is attested not only in Tertullian, but also in a Porphyrian passage, besides the Acts of Apollonius. I endeavour to contextualise it in the political and religious framework of the Tiberian age and the relationship between Tiberius and the Senate

The Rejection of the Epicurean Ideal of Pleasure in Late Antique Sources: not Only Misunderstandings

Epicureanism was seen by its opponents, both 'pagan' and Christian, as the philosophy of pleasure and atheism. From the theological point of view, the accusation of atheism was incorrect, since Epicurus and the Epicureansadmitted of the existence of deities, and posited them as models of moral perfection, while denying their interest in human affairs, i.e. providence. This denial aimed at guaranteeing their imperturbability (ataraxia). From the ethical point of view, the ideal of pleasure (hedone), on which I shall concentrate here, was grossly misunderstood or distorted by the opponents of Epicureanism, who generally did not take into consideration the moderation, equilibrium, and serenity that the superior 'catastematic pleasure' (Epicurus's real ideal of pleasure) involved. I shall analyse the attitude of late-antique sources, especially Christian, toward Epicureanism and its ethics. A great many of Usener's and Arrighetti's fragments of Epicurus indeed come from Christian late-antique authors, such as Clement, Origen, Eusebius, Lactantius, and Augustine, but other patristic authors should be added, such as Basil and Gregory of Nyssa. Even if patristic interest in Epicureanism is often critical, and sometimes imprecise or distorted, nevertheless it is tangible. I shall focus on the authors who make the most interesting use of Epicurean sources, particularly with respect to the ethical doctrine: Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, Lactantius, Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine, Gregory Nyssen, and Nazianzen, the only one who really understood and praised Epicurus's notion of hedone. I shall also argue that the fading away of the availability and use of good sources on Epicureanism, along with the disappearance of the Epicurean school itself, brought about an impoverishment in the understanding of, and hostility to, Epicurus and Epicureanism.O Epicurismo foi visto pelos seus oponentes, tanto pagãos quanto cristãos, como a filosofia do prazer e do ateísmo. Do ponto de vista teológico, a acusação de ateísmo era incorreta, desde que o Epicuro e os epicuristas admitiram a existência de divindades e depositaram neles os ideais de perfeição, enquanto negavam seu interesse nos negócios humanos, isto é, a providência. Esta negação visa garantir sua imperturbabilidade (ataraxia). Do ponto de vista ético, o ideal de prazer (hedone), no qual eu irei me concentrar, foi grosseiramente mal-entendido ou distorcido pelos oponentes do Epicurismo, que geralmente não consideravam a moderação, equilíbrio, e serenidade que o "Prazer Catastemático" superior (verdadeiro ideal de prazer do Epicuro) envolvia. Analisarei a atitude em fontes tardo-antigas, especialmente cristãs, a cerca do Epicuro e sua ética. Grande parte de fragmentos do Epicuro de Usener e Arrighetti na verdade são de autores cristãos tardo-antigos, como Clemente, Orígenes, Eusébio, Lactêncio, e Agostinho, mas outros autores patrísticos deveriam ser adicionados, como Basílio e Gregório de Nyssa. Mesmo se o interesse patrístico no Epicurismo fosse frequentemente de crítica, e às vezes imprecisa ou distorcida, no entanto, é tangível. Focarei nos autores que mais se interessaram no uso de documentos do Epicuro, particularmente a despeito da doutrina ética: Orígenes, Dionísio de Alexandria, Lactêncio, Ambrósio, Jerônimo e Agostinho, Gregório Nyssen, e Nazianzeno, o único que realmente entendeu e elogiou noção de hedone do Epicuro. Também argumentarei acerca do desaparecimento da disponibilidade de uso de boas fontes sobre o Epicuro, juntamente com o desaparecimento da própria escola epicurista, que provocou um empobrecimento na compreensão e na hostilidade do Epicuro e epicurismo

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

Gregory Nyssen rather than Nazianzen was a close friend of Evagrius and the likely source of his Origenism, and this supports a passage of Palladius reporting that it was Nyssen who ordained Evagrius.</p

Philo as Origen’s Declared Model: Allegorical and Historical Exegesis of Scripture

After on overview of Origen’s relations to Rabbinic exegesis, I turn to the relations between Origen and Hellenistic Judaism. I investigate how Philo and Origen use the instrument of allegory to read the Bible in the light of philosophy, but both of them react against a sheer allegorization of Scripture, which existed both in the Jewish allegorizers who preceded Philo and in ‘Gnostic’ Christian allegorizers. Even Philo and Origen, however, thought (unlike subsequent Rabbinic and Christian exegetes) that the Genesis account of creation had a special status and required to be interpreted not literally, but only allegorically. I argue for a Platonic influence on this conception and point out how Origen emphasized the Jewish antecedents to his own philosophical allegoresis of Scripture. For Origen, Philo the Jew was a much better exegete and theologian than the Christian “heretics” were

Constantine: the legal recognition of christianity and its antecendents

Ya antes de Constantino hubo intentos de invalidar los efectos del senatus consultum (35 D.C.) sobre la ilicitud del cristianismo, como parece haber hecho Galieno, aunque con un efecto parcial y temporal, y como habían intentado tal vez Adriano, Alejandro Severo y Elagabalus. Pero quien realmente invirtió los efectos de esa decisión senatorial fue Constantino, al transformar el cristianismo de una religio illicita en una religio licita en el imperio. En el presente artículo se estudian las implicaciones de ese senatus consultum, que está atestiguado no sólo en Tertuliano, sino también en un pasaje de Porfirio, además de las Actas de Apolonio. Se intenta contextualizarlo en el marco político y religioso de la era tiberiana y la relación entre Tiberio y el Senado. ------------------As Gallien seems to have done before him, but with a partial and temporary effect, and as Hadrian, Severus Alexander, and Elagabalus may have intended to do, Constantine reversed the effects of a senatus consultum from A.D. 35, transforming Christianity from a superstitio illicita to a religio licita in the empire. I study the implications of that senatus consultum, which is attested not only in Tertullian, but also in a Porphyrian passage, besides the Acts of Apollonius. I endeavour to contextualise it in the political and religious framework of the Tiberian age and the relationship between Tiberius and the Senate

The Rejection of the Epicurean Ideal of Pleasure in Late Antique Sources: not Only Misunderstandings

Epicureanism was seen by its opponents, both 'pagan' and Christian, as the philosophy of pleasure and atheism. From the theological point of view, the accusation of atheism was incorrect, since Epicurus and the Epicureansadmitted of the existence of deities, and posited them as models of moral perfection, while denying their interest in human affairs, i.e. providence. This denial aimed at guaranteeing their imperturbability (ataraxia). From the ethical point of view, the ideal of pleasure (hedone), on which I shall concentrate here, was grossly misunderstood or distorted by the opponents of Epicureanism, who generally did not take into consideration the moderation, equilibrium, and serenity that the superior 'catastematic pleasure' (Epicurus's real ideal of pleasure) involved. I shall analyse the attitude of late-antique sources, especially Christian, toward Epicureanism and its ethics. A great many of Usener's and Arrighetti's fragments of Epicurus indeed come from Christian late-antique authors, such as Clement, Origen, Eusebius, Lactantius, and Augustine, but other patristic authors should be added, such as Basil and Gregory of Nyssa. Even if patristic interest in Epicureanism is often critical, and sometimes imprecise or distorted, nevertheless it is tangible. I shall focus on the authors who make the most interesting use of Epicurean sources, particularly with respect to the ethical doctrine: Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, Lactantius, Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine, Gregory Nyssen, and Nazianzen, the only one who really understood and praised Epicurus's notion of hedone. I shall also argue that the fading away of the availability and use of good sources on Epicureanism, along with the disappearance of the Epicurean school itself, brought about an impoverishment in the understanding of, and hostility to, Epicurus and Epicureanism.O Epicurismo foi visto pelos seus oponentes, tanto pagãos quanto cristãos, como a filosofia do prazer e do ateísmo. Do ponto de vista teológico, a acusação de ateísmo era incorreta, desde que o Epicuro e os epicuristas admitiram a existência de divindades e depositaram neles os ideais de perfeição, enquanto negavam seu interesse nos negócios humanos, isto é, a providência. Esta negação visa garantir sua imperturbabilidade (ataraxia). Do ponto de vista ético, o ideal de prazer (hedone), no qual eu irei me concentrar, foi grosseiramente mal-entendido ou distorcido pelos oponentes do Epicurismo, que geralmente não consideravam a moderação, equilíbrio, e serenidade que o "Prazer Catastemático" superior (verdadeiro ideal de prazer do Epicuro) envolvia. Analisarei a atitude em fontes tardo-antigas, especialmente cristãs, a cerca do Epicuro e sua ética. Grande parte de fragmentos do Epicuro de Usener e Arrighetti na verdade são de autores cristãos tardo-antigos, como Clemente, Orígenes, Eusébio, Lactêncio, e Agostinho, mas outros autores patrísticos deveriam ser adicionados, como Basílio e Gregório de Nyssa. Mesmo se o interesse patrístico no Epicurismo fosse frequentemente de crítica, e às vezes imprecisa ou distorcida, no entanto, é tangível. Focarei nos autores que mais se interessaram no uso de documentos do Epicuro, particularmente a despeito da doutrina ética: Orígenes, Dionísio de Alexandria, Lactêncio, Ambrósio, Jerônimo e Agostinho, Gregório Nyssen, e Nazianzeno, o único que realmente entendeu e elogiou noção de hedone do Epicuro. Também argumentarei acerca do desaparecimento da disponibilidade de uso de boas fontes sobre o Epicuro, juntamente com o desaparecimento da própria escola epicurista, que provocou um empobrecimento na compreensão e na hostilidade do Epicuro e epicurismo