Philologischhistorische Klasse 1 6 , — Kahil, L. Kondis, I. Apo tin istoria, tin techni ke ti logotechnia. Green, M. Skinner edd. Textual and Philosophical Issues Cambridge, Mass. Luniak, I. Accedit corollarium criticum atque exegeticum ad Ovidianam Sapphus epistulam. Martin, R. Lardinois edd. The Newest Sappho: P. Obbink and P. GC Inv. Myakin, T. Mller, M. Nagy, Gr. Leiden, — Neri, C.
Studi di filologia greca e latina II, 9— Nilsson, M. Obbink, D. Prodi, E. Sironi, Fr. Spencer, N. West, M. The prologue to the Gospel according to John is one of the most philosophical texts of the New Testament, as it contains frequent transversal references connecting Platonism, Judaism and Christianity in the early centuries, whether it be to defend or refute it. To refute this connection, for example, starting from the.
Zamora Calvo, www. But the exegetic problem lies in discovering whether the way in which Amelius goes about commenting the passage from John demonstrates a position for or against Christianity. Nevertheless, it is difficult to answer this question, as it requires a reconsideration of the notion of logos based on the Neoplatonic re-interpretation of Amelius. Amelius, senior disciple of Plotinus Among the disciples of Plotinus with whom Porphyry maintained close links, we must include Amelius c.stocunisirsio.cf
Drag to reposition
He was the oldest and most faithful of the friends and disciples of Plotinus in Rome and devoted himself to defending the doctrine of his teacher. He was to remain with his teacher for twenty-four years until , a year before his death, when he retired to Apamea in Syria. When the Greek philosophers, probably from Athens, accused Plotinus of plagiarising the doctrines of Numenius, the Stoic Platonist Tryphon informed Amelius, who wrote his book On the doctrinal difference between Plotinus and Numenius, which he dedicated to Porphyry using the name, i.
Porphyry, Contra Christianos, fr. See infra n. The diptych formed by the Praeparatio 15 books and the Demonstratio Evangelica 20 books, of which only the first ten are conserved, along with some fragments of Book XV constitute the most extensive Christian apologetics in the whole of antiquity cf. Morlet , 7— The great apologetics of the Praeparatio is widely known and studied,15 as it contains a large number of pagan, Jewish and Christian citations of Cf. Porphyry, VPlot. Within a context of anti-pagan polemics, the main aim of the Praeparatio is to demonstrate the solidity of the Christian truth exposed in the Bible and make it easier to understand for those who are not Christians, but pagans in origin and training.
After references to Philo of Alexandria, Plato and Plotinus, Eusebius approaches the position of Numenius, which he links to the central thesis on the three kings of the universe, exposed in the Second Letter, attributed to Plato.
ProZ.com term search
Nieto Ibez, Madrid, The clearly apocryphal Second Letter exercised an essential function for the Neoplatonists, who recognised in the doctrine of the three kings the doctrine of the three hypostases: the One, the Intellect, the Soul. On the three gods of Numenius, see Mller Dillon , 30—31; see also German trans. Bhm , — Amelius was familiar with the Christian literature of the time, but his interpretation was influenced by the Orphic poems, the Chaldean oracles, and the Gnostics cf.
Dillon , 37— In his Life of Plotinus, 16, Porphyry tells us that the two gnostic apocalypses — the platonizing treatises Zostrianos and Allogenes, and perhaps also a version of Marsanes — circulated in the philosophical seminar imparted by Plotinus in Rome in the years —, and that the Zostrianos in particular was scrupulously criticised by Amelius. Both Theodoret of Cyrus c.
Андромаха (Russian Edition)
AD — c. Saffrey and Westerink , V. On this quote from Heraclitus, see Tarn , 6—7, n. However, with this description Amelius goes further than the author of the libri Platonicorum, referred to by Augustine in his Confessions VII. Drrie , 79 [, ]. From a cosmic-cosmological perspective, Brisson , — considers that Amelius identifies the logos of St.
John with the Neoplatonic world soul; Dillon , 36—37 , on the other hand, prefers to keep the logos separate, as an emanation of the demiurgic intellect, passing through the world soul to the sphere of matter. Thus, the logos is the instrument of the higher God, which constitutes its prime cause. In this sense, for Amelius the logos is the second cause and this is the formal cause ' , the efficient cause ' and the material cause of what comes to be cf.
Brisson, , — Thanks to the logos, through it, absolutely all things have come to exist. The logos generates life and being everywhere. Additionally, as these same Gnostics maintained that Plato had not plumbed the depths of the intelligible essence, Plotinus wrote the treatise Against the Gnostics Ennead II. In this approach, for his re-interpretation of the logos, Amelius may have come across a heterodox reading of the prologue to the Gospel of John, for example such as that proposed by Paul of Samosata Bishop of Antioch from to , who seems to have rejected the incarnation of the logos in the strict sense of the term.
Henry , From a Neoplatonic viewpoint, Amelius also makes this comparison, earlier than the Bishop of Hippo. The three demiurgic intellects In the metaphysical architecture of Amelius we find the triad of Plotinus — One, Intellect, Soul —, but interpreted through a specific Neoplatonic approach. First, Proclus Diadochus examines the opinions of the most ancient exegetes, focusing on the most innovative arguments about the text.
Brisson , This first demiurge, which corresponds to the first intellect, is the one who has desired, because it has produced only of its own volition I. This is the second cause, the true demiurge, because, in contrast to the first who desires, this second demiurge calculates I. This third nos produces and understands the infinity of souls.
For Plotinus, the amphibious soul between the two worlds generates matter and projects the logoi onto it, enabling the generation of the sensible world cf. Santa Cruz , 39— However, as matter is generated as the final term of the processional display, the evils of the world are inevitable cf.
Amelius seems to coincide with his teacher on this point, but he is more influenced by the Stoics, as he had been the disciple of Lysimachus the Stoic prior to joining the school of Plotinus in Rome. The proodic logos generates the lower realities of the soul Enn.
The demiurgic intellect provides the soul with the logoi Enn. Perhaps the third demiurgic intellect may comprehend the existence of evil, and hence recognise its different manifestations in the sensible world. See Proclus, in Ti. Baltzly , Tarrant , — ; Mller , 10— Amelius makes the Demiurge triple and says that there are three Intellects and three Kings, one who is, one who has, one who sees. The third too is the Intelligible in him, for every Intellect is the same as the Intelligible that is coupled with him, but he has the Intellect in the second and he sees the Intellect that is first, for the greater the separation the feebler the possession.
He assumes, then, that these three Intellects and Demiurges are [to be  identified with] the three Kings in Plato Ep. Theodorus of Asine c. Later, for almost twenty years he followed the teachings of Iamblichus in his school in Apamea in Syria; cf. Eunapius, Vitae sophistarum V. Saffrey and Westerink , II. Although he does not posit a supreme One above the triad, Numenius is clearly a precursor of the Syrian school. On Moderatus of Gades, see Zamora Calvo And why was he placed on the cross, and had to suffer, and was punished with another penalty?
And what is the didactic purpose of the cross? His position as respects the question of the Christ-logos seems to lie between that of Plotinus and that of Amelius cf. Porphyry is frontally opposed to the adventures which an incorporeal being such as the logos cannot undergo. More daring in his interpretation than his fellow-student, Amelius uses the same ammunition provided by the Christians he is battling against.