One of the major problems that Christians need to address today is how one is supposed to reconcile the apparent disparity between the way God is portrayed in the Old Testament and how he is portrayed in the New Testament. How does one reconcile that in the Old Testament, God commits infanticide and wills Israel to commit genocide whereas in the New Testament the Son of God, Jesus Christ, commands us to turn the other cheek and to love our enemies? How does one reconcile that in the Old Testament God wrathfully punishes Israel and the world’s sins, but in the New Testament, Jesus Christ takes on our sins and our sufferings and humbles himself to the point of dying on a cross to conquer death and open Eternal Life to us?
One of the things I'm passionate about is tracing the half-life, so to say, of Alexandrian exegesis in the west. Because John Cassian (who was a disciple of Evagrios) settled in Gaul after the expulsion of the Nitrian monks; Jerome and Rufinus made influential latin translations of Origen (a reader of which was Augustine); Hilary of Potiers studied under the Cappadocians, themselves, during his exile; Nyssen's texts became gradually available, being used by Benedictine Monastics for their own piety; John Scotus translated Nyssen, Pseudo-Denys, and Maximos for the court of Charles the Bald; and so on, into the more widespread renaissance and reformation, when latin critical editions of eastern fathers began to appear more widely, due to the work of the humanists, chiefly Erasmus (who was a well-known lover of Origen over Augustine). And then there is the post-reformation thinkers, pietists and such, that latched on to medieval and eastern concepts of deification--and Romantics who used neoplatonic metaphysics against the french philosophes... Not to go on too long, but just to make the observation: in some sense, all of the "happenings" in Western History have been stimulated by this tradition that you've written so lovely about here!
I’d love to hear more about this. I have less knowledge of the West and just knew about Jerome and Rufinus (and then Jerome after their split) and about how aristotle came to the West with scholastics and the rest of classical Greek philosophy and more of the Eastern father’s with the rise of humanism. Lately, I’ve been trying to understand what really happened between the fall of Rome in the 5th century and then the rise of Charlemagne in the 9th. It seems like this was responsible largely for this sort of break between East and West and then the West in a way was catching back up as texts became available. I have post in mind largely about the benefits of regathering around the Eastern Fathers of the 4th through sixth centuries for dialogue between east and west and just general metaphysical speculation because of the freeness with which the East (and for a bit the West) was able to draw on all the resources of Greek philosophy. I find that Maximus the Confessor brought together the best synthesis, drawing on the stoic understanding of the Logos to complete the neo-platonic / Aristotelian synthesis in respect to Christ, essentially making the first fully Chrisocentric metaphysics. I am still astounded by his vision. It’s a tower that will never be fully climbed perhaps. But now I’m going on. Anyway, maybe we could talk some time. You can message me in private and we can talk more too.
Throughly enjoyed this!!
Great discussion--and great use of Nyssen!
One of the things I'm passionate about is tracing the half-life, so to say, of Alexandrian exegesis in the west. Because John Cassian (who was a disciple of Evagrios) settled in Gaul after the expulsion of the Nitrian monks; Jerome and Rufinus made influential latin translations of Origen (a reader of which was Augustine); Hilary of Potiers studied under the Cappadocians, themselves, during his exile; Nyssen's texts became gradually available, being used by Benedictine Monastics for their own piety; John Scotus translated Nyssen, Pseudo-Denys, and Maximos for the court of Charles the Bald; and so on, into the more widespread renaissance and reformation, when latin critical editions of eastern fathers began to appear more widely, due to the work of the humanists, chiefly Erasmus (who was a well-known lover of Origen over Augustine). And then there is the post-reformation thinkers, pietists and such, that latched on to medieval and eastern concepts of deification--and Romantics who used neoplatonic metaphysics against the french philosophes... Not to go on too long, but just to make the observation: in some sense, all of the "happenings" in Western History have been stimulated by this tradition that you've written so lovely about here!
I’d love to hear more about this. I have less knowledge of the West and just knew about Jerome and Rufinus (and then Jerome after their split) and about how aristotle came to the West with scholastics and the rest of classical Greek philosophy and more of the Eastern father’s with the rise of humanism. Lately, I’ve been trying to understand what really happened between the fall of Rome in the 5th century and then the rise of Charlemagne in the 9th. It seems like this was responsible largely for this sort of break between East and West and then the West in a way was catching back up as texts became available. I have post in mind largely about the benefits of regathering around the Eastern Fathers of the 4th through sixth centuries for dialogue between east and west and just general metaphysical speculation because of the freeness with which the East (and for a bit the West) was able to draw on all the resources of Greek philosophy. I find that Maximus the Confessor brought together the best synthesis, drawing on the stoic understanding of the Logos to complete the neo-platonic / Aristotelian synthesis in respect to Christ, essentially making the first fully Chrisocentric metaphysics. I am still astounded by his vision. It’s a tower that will never be fully climbed perhaps. But now I’m going on. Anyway, maybe we could talk some time. You can message me in private and we can talk more too.