Department of Philosophy, Classics, History of Art and Ideas

The Faculty of Humanities

Platonism and Christian Thought

in Late Antiquity

International Workshop in Oslo

on the Philosophy of Late Antiquity

Workshop Booklet

December 1-3, 2016

University of Oslo
Platonism and Christian Thought
in Late Antiquity

International Workshop in Oslo

on the Philosophy of Late Antiquity

Workshop Booklet

December 1-3, 2016

University of Oslo

2
 Contents

1. The Workshop page 4

2. Practical Information page 6

3. Workshop Programme page 12

4. Abstracts page 16

5. List of Participants page 40

Front Page:
: Sophocles, Plato, Aristoteles, Pythagoras
16th century fresco in Resurrection of Jesus Church, Sucevita Monastery, Romania.
Bob Gibbons / Alamy Stock Photo

3
1. The Workshop

The aim of this Workshop is to bring together scholars at an early career

stage for presenting papers on the encounter between Platonism and
Christian thought in Late Antiquity. The influence of Platonism on
Christian thought in this period is widely recognised to have been
profound. Numerous studies have brought new knowledge both about
Platonic ontology and ethics as well as on Christian metaphysics and
anthropology, showing how a number of Christian writers engaged with
Platonism in their endeavours to deepen and systematize the Christian
doctrine and faith.

Over the past three decades, the Department of Philosophy at the

University of Oslo has become a pioneer in the research on the History of
Philosophy. A number of researchers in ancient philosophy at our
Department, consisting of internationally renowned scholars, senior
researchers, as well as Ph.D. students, have Neoplatonism and Christian
thought as their field of expertise.

The Workshop examines essential philosophical topics in Late Antique

thought, embracing interdisciplinary approaches to Platonism and
Christianity. The papers draw on a wide range of disciplines, philosophy,
theology, patristics, and history of ideas, and can be grouped in the
following categories:

I. Porphyry of Tyre and Christianity

II. Augustine and Christian Neoplatonism
III. The question of Evil
IV. St. Maximus the Confessor and Christian apophaticism
V. Selection of topics on Platonism and Christian thought

4
The Workshop Committee would like to express its gratitude to the
Department of Philosophy, Classics, History of Art and Ideas of the
University of Oslo for the generous funding of the Workshop. Moreover,
the members of the Committee wish to extend their acknowledgements to
the Society for Ancient Philosophy at UiO, for promoting the event, and to
the Publishing Houses that have offered their publications with a sizeable
discount: Brepols Publishers, Cambridge University Press, James Clarke
and Co. and Lutterworth Press, Oxford University Press, and Routledge
Taylor and Francis Group.

The Workshop Committee

5
2. Practical Information

I. Travel directions and tickets

a. From the Airport to the University of Oslo

Most international flights arrive at Oslo International Airport Gardermoen
(OSL). There are several ways of getting from the airport to the city centre
of Oslo. We recommend the following:

i) The airport express train (Flytoget), which will bring you to Oslo city
centre in between 19 and 22 minutes.
or
ii) The regular regional trains (NSB), which likewise transport you to the
city centre of Oslo. These run sligthly less often and might take a couple of
minutes more time, but are less expensive.

If you are travelling directly from the Airport to the Workshop, we

recommend that you get off the train at Oslo Sentralstasjon, or,
alternatively, at Nationaltheatret stasjon, and then take the metro (T-
Bane) from one of these stations to the university campus. Both Oslo
sentralstasjon and Nationaltheatret stasjon are served by all metro lines.
From there, you can get to the main campus of the University of Oslo at
Blindern by the following metro services: line 4 (Vestli via
Majorstuen), line 5 (Ringen via Majorstuen) and line 5
(Sognsvann). Please make sure that you are on the platform in
westbound direction (direction Vest). The main campus of the University
of Oslo has two metro stations, Blindern and Forskningsparken (see
map). Of these two, you are recommended to disembark at Blindern, as it
is closer to the venue of the Workshop. The journey from Oslo
International Airport to the University of Oslo should take between 45 and
60 minutes.

6
b. From the University of Oslo to the Hotel
If you are a participant from abroad, you have been booked at the
Scandic Holberg hotel. The hotel address is Holbergs plass 1. The hotel
is located 700 metres from the Nationaltheatret stasjon (a map with
directions can be found on the hotel's website, see link below). Check-in at
the hotel is from 14h00.
If you arrive on the 1st of December, you may wish to travel directly to the
University of Oslo from the Airport, as the Workshop is scheduled to begin
at 13h00 (the Workshop Registration is open from 12h00). You are
welcome to bring your luggage to the Workshop venue, where we will be
able to store the luggage in a stockroom until the end of the day's
programme.

Later, you can easily get from the University of Oslo to the Scandic
Holberg hotel by taking tram 17 (towards terminus Sinsen-Grefsen) or
18 (towards terminus Ljabru), which departs from the tram stop
Universitetet Blindern and stops at the Holbergs plass.
Alternatively, you can get from the University of Oslo to the Scandic
Holberg hotel by metro. You may prefer Blindern metro station since it
is the one closer to the venue of the Workshop. In order to get from
Blindern to the city centre of Oslo, where the hotel is located, you can use
one of the following metro lines: line 4 (Bergkrystallen), line 5 (Vestli
via Majorstuen) and line 5 (Ringen via Majorstuen). Please make
sure that you are on platform 1, direction Sentrum. We recommend that
you disembark at the Nationaltheatret metro station.

c. From the Hotel to the University of Oslo

You can easily get from the Scandic Holberg hotel to the University of Oslo
by taking tram 17 or 18 (towards terminus Rikshospitalet), which
depart from the tram stop Holbergs plass and stop at Universitetet
Blindern (on Niels Henrik Abels vei, see map below). The journey from
Holbergs plass to the venue should take ca. 15 minutes.

7
d. From the Airport to the Hotel
We have been notified that some of our participants arrive in Oslo a few
days in advance of the Workshop and have booked at the Scandic Holberg
hotel. For those who wish to travel directly from the airport to the hotel,
we recommend taking the train from Oslo International Airport to
Nationaltheatret stasjon, which is nearby the hotel.

e. Tickets
For the journey Oslo International Airport Oslo Sentralstasjon, a single
ticket with the Airport express train (Flytoget) costs 180 NOK, while a
single ticket with the regular regional train (NSB) is priced at 92 NOK. For
all public transport with Ruter# in Oslo (metro, tram, and bus), the fare
for a single ticket is 32 NOK, for a 24h ticket 90 NOK, while a 7-day ticket
costs 240 NOK. The 7-day ticket may be expedient for your purposes if
you follow the Workshop programme (counting a minimum of 8 one-way
journeys, from 01.12. to 04.12.), and will also entitle you to a discount with
the regular regional train. Please note that it is not possible to buy tickets
on trams and metros. You will need to purchase a ticket in advance at one
of the following sales outlets: i) The kiosks Narvesen, 7-Eleven, or Deli De
Luca; ii) Ruters Customer Service Centre and Service Points (available at
Oslo International Airport in the arrivals hall); iii) NSBs staffed train
stations, or at a ticket machine at one of the Ruter# stations. All tickets
must be validated before use. (All prices as of 14.11.2016).

II. Venue: Georg Morgenstiernes Hus, Blindern Campus

The venue of the Workshop is Georg Morgenstiernes hus, which

houses the Department of Philosophy, Classics, History of Art and Ideas.
The address is Blindernveien 31, entry from Moltke Moes vei. The
Workshop takes place in Arne Nss Auditorium on Thursday, and in GM
Meeting Room 452 on Friday and Saturday.

8
III. Map

The map shows the main campus of the University of Oslo, Blindern,
where the venue of the Workshop is located (Georg Morgenstiernes hus):

9
IV. Meals

The Committee would like to invite the participants to take part in the
meals that are offered by the Workshop. They include:
Lunch on Friday 2nd of December.
Lunch on Saturday 3rd of December.
Farewell dinner 20ho0 on Saturday 3rd of December at Olympen
Restaurant (Grnlandsleiret 15, see link below). All metro lines in
direction east (st) from Nationaltheatret metro station stop at
Grnland metro station, which is located 250 metres from Olympen.

If you have any dietary requirements or allergies, please let us know as

soon as possible, in case you have not already notified us.

We also inform that bookings at the Scandic Holberg hotel include

breakfast. Please check with the hotel for breakfast hours.

There are several cafeterias at the Blindern university campus. The most
popular cafeteria, Frederikke, is located on the second floor of the
Frederikke building (see map). The building also houses a ramen
restaurant and a bakery. For coffee, we recommend either the Valentin
kaffebar at Georg Morgenstiernes hus or the Georg kaffebar at Georg
Sverdrups hus (see map).

V. Useful Links

- University of Oslo: (http://www.uio.no/english/)

- Faculty of Humanities: (https://www.hf.uio.no/english/)
- Department of Philosophy, Classics, History of Art and Ideas:
(http://www.hf.uio.no/ifikk/english/)
- New Masters Programme option in Ancient Philosophy:
(http://www.uio.no/english/studies/programmes/philosophy-
master/programme-options/ancient-philosophy/index.html)

10
- International Workshop Platonism and Christian Thought in Late Antiquity:
(http://www.hf.uio.no/ifikk/english/research/news-and-
events/events/conferences/2016/platonism-and-christian-thought-in-
late-antiquity.html)
- Oslo International Airport: (https://avinor.no/en/airport/oslo-airport/)
- NSB Regional train: (https://www.nsb.no/en/frontpage)
- Oslo Airport Express train: (http://flytoget.no/flytoget_eng/)
- Public Transportation in Oslo (Metro, tram, bus): www.ruter.no
- Scandic Holberg Hotel:
(https://www.scandichotels.no/hotell/norge/oslo/scandic-holberg)
- Weather forecast Norwegian Meteorological Institute: (http://www.yr.no)
- Visit Norway The Official Travel Guide to Norway:
(https://www.visitnorway.com/?lang=primary)
- Visit Oslo The Official Travel Guide to Oslo: (http://www.visitoslo.com/en/)
- Olympen: (http://www.olympen.no) (in Norwegian)

11
3. Workshop Programme
Thursday, 1st, 2016
Arrival in Norway and Oslo

12.00 13.00: Arrival at the Department of Philosophy,

Classics, History of Art and Ideas [IFIKK]
Workshop Registration: Arne Nss Auditorium (GM 103)

Arne Nss Auditorium (GM 103)

13.00 13.10: - Welcome address by the Head of IFIKK
Professor Mathilde Skoie
- Welcome on behalf of the Society for Ancient Philosophy
Professor yvind Rabbs
- Welcome address on behalf of the Workshop Committee
Professor Torstein Theodor Tollefsen

Workshop Session I, Chair: Lars Fredrik Janby

13.10 13.50: Sebastien Morlet, University of Sorbonne Paris IV
The Harmony of Christianity and Platonic Philosophy
from Justin Martyr to Eusebius
13:50 14:30: Samuel Pomeroy, KU Leuven
Those Loving Controversy: John Chrysostom as
a Witness to Porphyrys Contra Christianos
14:30 14.50: Coffee Break
14.50 15.30: Christine Hecht, University of Tbingen
Porphyrys demons as a threat for the Christians
15.30 16.10: Adrian Pirtea, Free University of Berlin
Two Fountains Which Gush Out By Natures Impulse
Porphyry and Evagrius on Pleasure, Pain
and the Souls Passions
16.10 16.20: Coffee Break
16.20 17.00: Alex Petkas, Princeton University
Local Identity, Ritual and Christian Platonism
in Synesiuss Hymn 1

17:00: End of 1st Day

12
Friday, December 2nd, 2016
Meeting Room 452 (GM 452)

Workshop Session II, Chair: Samuel Pomeroy

09.00 09.40: Eyjlfur Kjalar Emilsson, University of Oslo
Matter as Evil in Plotinus
09.40 10.20: Enrico Moro, University of Padua
Augustine and Plotinus on corporeal Matter
10.20 10.40: Coffee Break
10.40 11.20: Tomas Ekenberg, University of Uppsala
Augustine on Eudaimonia as Life Project
and Object of Desire
11:20 12.00: Christina Maria Hoenig, University of Pittsburgh
Augustine and the Timaeus
12.00 12.40: Lars Fredrik Janby, University of Oslo
Porphyry and Varro?
Another look at Augustine's encyclopedic programme

12.40 13.30: Lunch

Workshop Session III, Chair: Christina Maria Hoenig

13.30 14.10: Joshua Robinson, Durham University
Creation and Emanation: What is the Difference?
14.10 14.50: Lampros Alexopoulos, Open University of Cyprus
The theory of non-existence of matter in Plotinus,
Porphyry and Gregory of Nyssa
14.50 15.10: Coffee Break
15.10 15.50: Mareike Hauer, KU Leuven
Philoponus on Differentiae
15.50 16.30: Daniel Tolan, Cambridge University
Platos , Philos ,
and the Hermeneutics of the Arian controversy
16.30 17.00: Discussion Announcements

17.00: End of 2nd Day

13
Saturday, December 3rd, 2016
Meeting Room 452 (GM 452)
Workshop Session IV, Chair: Emma Brown Dewhurst
09.30 10.10: Mark Scott, Thorneloe University at Laurentian
Origens Theological Story about God and Evil:
A Platonist or Christian Theodicy?
10.10 10.50: Narve Strand, University of Oslo
Knowing Right, Doing Wrong:
Augustines Case for the Will
10.50 11.10: Coffee Break
11.10 11.50: Silvia Gullino, University of Padua
The Propathe as Exemplum of Evil
in Evagrius Ponticus thought
11.50 12.30: Dimitrios Vasilakis, LMU Munich
Neoplatonic Descent:
A Proclean Analysis with a Dionysian Counterexample
12.30 13.20: Lunch

Workshop Session V, Chair: Panagiotis G. Pavlos

13.20 14.00: Emma Brown Dewhurst, Durham University
Knowledge as a Relationship of Impossibility and
Intimacy in Maximus the Confessor
14.00 14.40: Jordan Wood, Boston College
Creation as Incarnation: the metaphysical peculiarity of
the logoi in Maximus Confessor
14.40 15.10: Coffee Break
15.10 15.50: Jonathan Bieler, University of Zurich
Either or? Apophaticism and Cataphaticism
in Maximus the Confessors thought
15.50 16.30: Sebastian Mateiescu, University of Bucharest
The Doctrine of Immanent Realism
in Maximus the Confessor
16.30 17.00: Discussion Conclusions
17.00: End of 3rd and last Day

14
Sunday, December 4th, 2016

Free time in Oslo

Departures

15
4. Abstracts
(In alphabetical order)

Lampros Alexopoulos (Open University of Cyprus): The theory of non-

existence of matter in Plotinus, Porphyry and Gregory of Nyssa

In his Apologia in Hexaemeron Gregory of Nyssa interpreted the biblical

narrative of the book of Genesis under the light of a highly sophisticated
scientific and philosophical apparatus. In an effort to refute rival ideas of a
matter co-eternal with God, he depicts Gods creative work in terms of a
creative process, where the different intelligible qualities are combined in
order to form the matter. What is significant about Gregorys exegesis is
the fact that he considers matter as a mere concept. As he puts it, material
bodies are actually constituted of purely intelligible components, i.e. the
qualities (). Hence, if one abstracts the qualities that characterize
a material object, then nothing remains. The idea of the total rejection of
matter, however, was not a novelty that was introduced by the
Cappadocian Father. Plotinus in his Enn. II, 4 had already defended the
Aristotelian idea of an incorporeal , in an effort to conceive reality as
constructed exclusively of forms, while Porphyry in the same line of
thought designated matter as a genuine not-being, deprived of any
qualitative and quantitative determination. What then is the relationship
between Gregorys conception to that of Plotinus and Porphyry?

In this paper I propose to determine whether Gregory was acquainted with

the work of Plotinus and Porphyry. By exploring both conjectures and
objectives of the neo-platonic and Christian cosmology, I will try to
demonstrate whether Gregory found in the Platonic idealism of Plotinus
and Porphyry a valuable argument for his own theological purposes, or
whether his Christian interpretation of the incorporeal comprises a
surprising and intriguing conception about the origin of matter.

16
Jonathan Bieler (Universitt Zrich): Either or? Apophaticism and
Cataphaticism in Maximus the Confessors thought

Apophaticism seems as old as Plato himself, who famously declared in

Timaios 28c3-5 that finding the Creator and Father of all things is
laborious and, having found him, communicating him to all is impossible.
Nevertheless, Plato attempts to describe him: just as the cosmos is good
and beautiful so also its Creator is good (29a2-3). Christians could easily
relate to Platos account of Gods goodness and transcendence as they had
come to believe in Christ, the Son of God, who in his love for humanity
became man, while remaining God. The late Patristic thinker Maximus the
Confessor imbibed the Platonic tradition through the theology of Ps-
Dionysius, who in a Neoplatonic fashion stressed the transcendence and
unity of a still Christian God, whose creation and revelation in Christ is
marked both by a revelation and a concealment of himself. Maximus,
along with Ps-Dionysius and Gregory of Nazianzen, frequently makes clear
that God cannot be known in his essence merely the fact of his existence
is truly accessible for human reason. Solely the combination of these two
statements about God, one negative, the other affirmative, is for Maximus
the proper way to speak about God. Thus, sheer Apophaticism is not the
pinnacle of Maximus theology as one may be tempted to think, but in
Maximus view only the harmonious albeit paradoxical interweaving of
negative and positive theology accounts for Gods transcendence over
against human thought as well as his true revelation in the cosmos,
scripture and Christ. The bringing together of seemingly opposite things,
like positive and negative methods in theology, constitutes the very
trademark that saturates Gods revelation of his abiding transcendence.
Thus, in Maximus theology there is no simple Apophaticism; rather, his
Christian theology displays the interpenetration of Gods transcendence
and goodness, which I would like to explore further.

17
Emma Brown Dewhurst (Durham University): Knowledge as a
Relationship of Impossibility and Intimacy in Maximus the Confessor

In a 2001 paper Demetrios Bathrellos outlines the similarities and

differences between Maximus the Confessors and Proclus views on
human knowledge of the divine. Bathrellos primary point is that Maximus
does not understand knowledge as purely a rational, intellectual activity,
but also as freedom, relationship, and love. I wish to expand on this
thesis to point out the way that absence of full human comprehension of
God is also about freedom, relationship, and love.

In this paper I look at Maximus apophatic understanding of human

knowledge of God as ever-moving rest ( ) (Ad Thal. 59).
Drawing on Maximus Ambiguum 7 and Mystagogia, I look at the
unreachableness of the divine, meaning that recognition of sin, ascetic
practice, and willingness to receive grace become essential to knowing
God more fully. Human inability to ever fully comprehend God means that
even in the intimacy of full communion, there is always a deepening
relationship. Complete knowledge of God is something that will forever
elude humanity, even in theosis, but this need not be a source of distress.
Rather, we can think of the differences between creation and Creator as
one that respects the freedom of humanity, whilst always offering it the
possibility of deeper relation and love.

I finish by suggesting that perhaps one of the differences in the way that
Maximus conceives of knowledge as compared to Proclus, is that it is the
search for knowledge of God that is more important than the possession of
absolute knowledge. The impossibility of full knowledge of God for the
human is not a lesser quality of our nature but a divine extension of
freedom in creating that which is other than Himself. It is an invitation of
love, and never a statement of deficiency.

18
Tomas Ekenberg (Uppsala Universitet): Augustine on Eudaimonia as
Life Project and Object of Desire

Recent scholarship has done much to clarify the extent to which Augustine
engages with Stoic and (Neo)Platonic thought in his moral psychology and
his metaphysics, but on the overall question of the place of happiness in
ethics and how Augustine's views on moral psychology connects with his
views on value there is still work to be done. For while scholars are quick
to point out affinities between Augustine and the ancients in the details,
there are profound disagreements with respect to the bigger picture, and
in particular with respect to his basic outlook on moral philosophy as a
whole and the question whether he should be labeled a eudaimonist or
not.

As an interpretative device, I will introduce a distinction between two

conceptions of eudaimonism, to be defined in due course. One kind
Augustine rejects (type I) and one kind he accepts (type II). This
apparently cumbersome approach is primarily justified by two major
interpretational complications. First, there is the question of Augustine's
interpretative stance vis-a-vis his predecessors. In order to clarify his
position we need to clarify his (as well as our own) understanding of the
ancient views with which he engages. For instance remarkably
Augustine considers the disagreement between Stoics and Peripatetics
over the value of external goods as merely verbal. This reading differs
from most. Secondly, there is the delicate question of development in his
thought over the course of his career.

By first placing Augustine's axiological and moral-psychological views

within the context of immediate philosophical influences Ambrose and
Cicero, I attempt a new approach to the question in which ways Augustine
may and the ways he may not be called an advocate of eudaimonism.

19
Eyjlfur Kjalar Emilsson (Universitetet i Oslo): Matter as Evil in
Plotinus

Plotinus holds that matter is absolute evil and he also holds that matter is
a part of the emanation from the Good (the One). He also maintains that
matter, as absolute evil, is inert, without any power, but yet is responsible
for what is bad in others, including human souls. These claims may smack
of contradiction on two scores: How can the Good be the cause of evil and
still be the Good? And how can something inert be the cause of evil in
other things? How can it be a cause at all? These claims were contested
already in antiquity, most notably by Plotinus fellow-Platonist thinker
Proclus, and there is still controversy and uncertainty about them. In this
paper I shall defend Plotinus view on both of these points.

20
Silvia Gullino (Universit di Padova): The Propathe as exemplum of
Evil in Evagrius Ponticus thought

Evagrius Ponticus thought - Greek monk also called Evagrius the Solitary
(345-399 AD) - can be interesting in order to examine the Christian
treatment of the pathe in relation to the capital sins.

In fact, this philosopher devoted himself, among other things, to the

encoding of the spiritual exercises necessary to fight with the emotions.
But he was, above all, the author of a Practical Treatise, in which
theorized in detail the deadly sins, inquiring about what Origen, following
the Stoics, had called "first movement" and trying to determine the best
way to achieve apatheia.

In particular, Evagrius identified the existence of eight thoughts

(logismoi), who attacked the man: the thought of the throat
(gastrimargia), of fornication (porneia), avarice (philargyria), anxiety
(lype), anger (orge), listless depression (akedia), vanity or conceit
(kenodoxia) and pride (hyperephania). In Later Christian thinkers these
eight thoughts flowed to the seven Sins, encoded after a series of
adjustments.

The eight logismoi of Evagrius were connected to the pathe. But these
logismoi were not considered pathe tout court, as evidenced by their being
called by him bad logismoi or propathe.

The purpose of my paper is to examine the treatment of pathe and capital

sins in Evagrius Ponticus, in order to emphasize how he, distinguishing
between pathe and propathe, wanted to distinguish two kinds of evil.

21
Mareike Hauer (KU Leuven / Universitt zu Kln): Philoponus on
differentiae

The question of the categorial status of the differentia has been a highly
debated topic among Neoplatonic commentators on Aristotles Categories
and received much attention in their commentaries. This urge to clarify
the categorical status of differentiae was caused by Aristotles remarks on
differentiae in the Categories which, according to the commentators, on
the one hand, suggest that differentiae are not accidents and, on the other
hand, appear to distinguish differentiae from substances. As most of the
Neoplatonic commentators on Aristotles Categories understood
Aristotles categorial scheme to be complete and exhaustive, they tried to
find a way to integrate the differentiae in Aristotles categorial scheme, i.e.
the distinction between substance and accident. In his Commentary on
Aristotles Categories, Philoponus follows his teacher Ammonius and
classifies the differentiae as substances. Moreover, he explicitly describes
them as universal substances. This description is interesting because it
connects Philoponus conception of differentiae with his understanding of
universal substances. In my presentation I want to analyze the ontological
implications of Philoponus conception of differentiae as universal
substances and I want to argue that his discussion of differentiae also
sheds light on his conception of universals in the Categories, especially on
the question as to whether Philoponus acknowledges both post rem and in
re universals in the Categories or only post rem universals, as he does in
his later theological works.

22
Christine Hecht (Universitt Tbingen): Porphyrys demons as a threat
for the Christians

The focus of my current Postdoctoral project is on the interaction between

Christians and pagan philosophers in the 3rd and 4th century AD. In
particular, I am currently preparing a translation and commentary of
Porphyrys Philosophia ex oraculis haurienda, which is mainly preserved
in Eusebius of Caesareas Praeparatio Evangelica (PE). One of the major
questions is to what extent Porphyrys text reacts to Christians as a group
which represents an increasing threat to the State. Furthermore, I am also
examining the context of Eusebiuss citations of the fragments of the
Philosophia ex oraculis haurienda in order to discover to what extent
Eusebius perceives Porphyry as a threat.

The Platonist introduces his text as a way of salvation (303F. Smith) and it
seems to be an alternative to Christian salvation. In my presentation, I will
consider whether the Philosophia ex oraculis haurienda as a whole can be
understood as an anti-Christian text. Therefore, I will look at the
representation of the demons in Eusebius and Porphyry, which is an
important issue of the PE (esp. PE IV and V; Porph. Philos. ex orac. e.g.
326-329 F. Smith). Is Porphyrys concept of demons anti-Christian or is
Eusebius just making it appear anti-Christian?

23
Christina Maria Hoenig (University of Pittsburgh): Augustine and the
Timaeus

I propose to show how significantly Augustines creation theory was

defined and shaped by his engagement with Platonism, in particular with
Platos Timaeus: both indirectly, through his exposure to previous
Neoplatonic and Christian exegesis, and directly, through his access of
Ciceros Latin translation of the dialogue.

From the early centuries of the dogmatist tradition onwards, Platonists

had difficulties in establishing a clear-cut position on the creators
transcendence in the context of the creation narrative. This difficulty was
encapsulated in the relationship between the intelligible and sensible
realms, between and (Tim. 27d6) or and
(Tim. 29c3). In what manner could ontological divide be bridged so as to
allow for the intelligible realm to have a decisive impact upon our material
world while, at the same time, preserving its transcedence? I shall
examine the echoes of Plato Timaeus in Augustines writings and show
how the author re-interpreted passages of the dialogue as a sacramentum,
a revelation and an assertion of the Christian faith. The keywords of the
Timaean creation theory: time and eternity, becoming and being, belief
and truth, are employed by Augustine in such a way as to produce a
coherent Christian metaphysical doctrine that solves the difficulties
thrown up by centuries of Platonic exegesis.

I shall conclude that, to Augustine, Plato anticipated aspects of the

Christian doctrine with astonishing accuracy; nevertheless, lacking the
mediatory effort of Christ that was necessary to arrive at the Christian
truth, the Greek philosopher was unable to attain true wisdom and
remained removed from god. As a witness to century-old interpretational
controversies, a highly developed Christian exegetical stance was received
by Augustine who, in a systematic fashion, streamlined a Christian
creation theory that was to exert decisive influence on medieval and
modern scholarship.

24
Lars Fredrik Janby (Universitetet i Oslo): Porphyry and Varro? Another
look at Augustine's encyclopedic programme

Scholarship is today divided on the question of which sources Augustine

drew on when composing his encyclopedic outline in book II of De ordine.
While the more common scholarly opinion still is that Varro served as the
source of his encyclopedic programme, Ilsetraut Hadot created a stir in
1984 by proposing the hypothesis that the main source rather was a lost
Neoplatonic treatise likely to be Porphyry , going to the lengths of
rejecting any influence from Varro on the philosophical edifice that
underlies Augustines outline.

This paper revisits that problem by discussing the evidence in favour of

Porphyry, which I suggest is an interesting path to pursue, given what I
take to be the distinct Neoplatonic edifice in Augustines encyclopedic
programme. Despite the relative attention given to Hadots hypothesis,
not much has been done to examine the claim in more detail. Firstly, the
paper assesses what little is known of Porphyrys writings on the liberal
arts. While Hadots hypothesis certainly has gained some recognition, the
status of the liberal arts in Porphyrys thought has remained somewhat
unclear. Secondly, I bring up the internal evidence in Augustines early
writings apart from De ordine that may speak in favour of Porphyry as the
source. While I do not think that it is possible to give a final answer to the
question, I believe there is evidence that at least does corroborate Hadots
hypothesis. Finally, the paper argues for the case that Augustines
encyclopedic outline could have been the result of a convergence of
sources, taking into account both the evidence in favour of Varro and that
which suggests either Porphyry or an unknown Neoplatonic work.

25
Sebastian Mateiescu (Universitatea din Bucureti): The Doctrine of
Immanent Realism in Maximus the Confessor

Starting with Porphyry and the subsequent commentators of his famous

Isagoge, the doctrine of universals in the particulars had become a
common theory among Neoplatonic and Byzantine thinkers. The assumed
view among scholars is that it represents a Neoplatonic reading of
Aristotles theory of forms in matter, which can be dubbed Immanent
Realism (C. Erismann). Recent scholarship came up with strong
arguments for placing the contributions of Maximus the Confessor (c.
580-662) under the same umbrella (C. Erismann, T. Tollefsen, J.
Zachhuber). The argument often revolves around Maximus portrayal of
ontological dependence of universals on particulars: Had the particulars
been destroyed, the universals would perish altogether, conjectured
Maximus in line with other Patristic authorities. Yet, this rationale makes
a case just for half the thesis of Immanent Realism: it explains the
immanence of universals but leaves untouched the realism issue.

This paper aims to bridge this gap by proposing that Maximus realism of
universals is based on the realism about the powers (dunameis) which
characterize each being. I shall take as a starting point Ambiguum 5,
which gives us the tools to reason about the reality of the human essence
of Christ. Among others, this chapter describes dunamis as being
constitutive ( ) and properly and
primarily characteristic of nature (
) apart from which there is only nonbeing (Amb. 5, PG 91, 1048A-B,
transl. N. Constas, p. 33). Among these important features of dunamis
which will be further documented with other fragments from Ambigua
and the antimonothelite writings by Maximus, the last one is particularly
important. I shall argue that it represents Platos criterion for the priority-
in-being, which can be formalized as follows: x is prior to y if y cannot be
without x and not vice versa. According to this principle, dunamis would
be prior in being to energeia and implicitly to the particulars which

26
manifest actual activities for dunamis can be without an energeia, but not
vice versa. I shall argue that this Platonic principle, handed in to Maximus
through Dionysios the Areopagite, lies at the core of Maximus realism
about universals.

27
Sebastien Morlet (Universit ParisSorbonne): The Harmony of
Christianity and Platonic Philosophy from Justin Martyr to Eusebius

The aim of this paper is not to illustrate the influence of platonism on

early Christian thought, but to concentrate on the Christian reflexion on
the question of harmony (symphnia) or disagreement (diaphnia)
of Christian thought and Platonism, from Justin Martyr, who is the first
Christian to deal explicitly with this topic, to Eusebius of Caesarea, who
made the first preserved systematic comparison between Plato and
Scriptures in the Praeparatio Evangelica, 11-13. The paper will show that
this topic was a major aspect of Christian reflexion on philosophy, but also
on the nature of truth and wisdom. It will help understand, not how such
or such aspect of platonism influenced Christian thought, but how the first
Christians themselves saw and conceptualized their position towards
Platonism. It will illustrate, among other things, how this reflexion on the
harmony with Platonism grew in parallel with a reflexion on the
harmony inside the Bible and was part of a symphonic conception of
truth which was explicitly formulated by Clement of Alexandria, but which
continued to be influential in Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea.

28
Enrico Moro (Universit di Padova): Augustine and Plotinus on
corporeal Matter

The concept of matter undoubtedly occupies a prominent position within

Augustine of Hippos thought, as evidenced by the large number of
occurrences of the Latin lemmas materia and materies in his whole
production (about 400!). Despite this, no monograph is yet available
specifically dedicated to this concept, which so far has been studied only in
partial and mostly dated contributions. One of the most important and
controversial issues concerning this argument is the influence of the
Platonic and Neo-Platonic reflection on the Augustinian conception. On
the one hand, scholars recognize that Augustine employs conceptual
elements derived both by Platos Timaeus (known in Ciceros partial
translation) and its Plotinian reinterpretation (its very likely that
Augustine read Plotinus treatise on matter); on the other hand, they
differently evaluate Augustines attitude toward Platonic and Plotinian
thought in terms of total detachment or, vice versa, of gradual
appropriation. Within this broad field of investigation, the paper aims to
focus specifically on the question of the influence of Plotinus toward
Augustinian conception of corporeal matter, in order to highlight the
major tangency points and the most significant differences between the
two thinkers. The following topics will be covered: the relationship
between the concept of matter and the notions of form, privation, mass,
non-being; the epistemological status of formless matter; the ontological
positivity of matter and its ethical and metaphysical implications.

29
Alex Petkas (Princeton University): Local Identity, Ritual, and Christian
Platonism in Synesiuss Hymn 1

Synesius of Cyrenes first Hymn is by far his longest (over 730 lines) and
contains his most extended treatment of the Neoplatonic psychic tragedy.
But in this paper I argue that it is a far more Christian document than has
been hitherto realized. To begin with I defend the unity of the poem
against recent attempts (Baldi 2011) to revive the analyst school
originally represented by Wilamowitz (1907). I argue that the hymn not
only passingly refers to its authors baptism as Cameron (1993) pointed
out, but can be read as much more intimately connected with that event
than has yet been noticed. The poem contains sustained and vivid
autobiographical elements (e.g. vv.428-495) and refers to Synesius
embassy mission to Constantinople (ca. 397-400); it furthermore figures
its performance context as coinciding with his return home to Cyrenaica.
The poem portrays this spatial journey, I argue, as coinciding with a
political renunciation, and one of the works chief purposes is to depict
this political-spatial journey as constituting a spiritual transformation of
the soul of the hymnist. If my proposal for the hymn is correct, it can be
seen as a striking example of a Christian baptismal poem so thoughly
interpreted in Neoplatonic concepts as to have convinced the majority of
prior commentators that it had little to do specifically with Christianity.
The poem seems furthermore to be an excellent case for examining the
performative aspects of late antique poetry, and therefore for the popular
reception of Platonism in late antique Christianity: internal evidence
suggests a (semi-) public performance, perhaps at the baptism. This also
may allow us to add this event to the list of more famous late antique
renunciations - despite all of the very substantial and interesting
dissimilarities between Synesius and the likes of Paulinus, Augustine,
Gregory of Nazianzus.

30
Adrian Pirtea (Freie Universitt Berlin): Two Fountains Which Gush
Out By Natures Impulse Porphyry and Evagrius on Pleasure, Pain, and
the Souls Passions

This paper explores the possible connections between Porphyry of Tyres

philosophical ethics and the ascetical theology of Evagrius Ponticus (d.
399). I will specifically look at the theory of the souls passions
(pathemata) as expounded by the two authors and address the question of
structural similarity and/or direct influence between them. Even if the
style of Evagrius is at times obscure and seemingly unsystematic, a close
reading of his works reveals a highly developed theory of the passions, in
which the author not only defines and classifies them, but also attempts to
unveil their psychological and spiritual origins. Moreover, Evagrius goes
on to reconstruct a causal chain linking sense-perception, pleasure, pain,
memory, desire, and finally the souls sinful dispositions. As is well-
known, Evagrius intense preoccupation with the nature and origin of
passions stems from his interest in achieving the state of impassibility
apatheia, a concept best known for its central role in Stoic ethics.
However, I will argue that the main source behind the Evagrian theory of
passions and impassibility is not of Stoic, but of Platonic origin, and that it
particularly resembles the ethical philosophy of Plotinus and Porphyry, as
reflected e.g. in the Enneads, in Porphyrys Sentences and De abstinentia.
Because of the long-lasting influence the Evagrian writings exerted on
Christian monastic literature, a study of their philosophical background
might contribute to a better understanding of certain key concepts and
ideas in Christian ascetical theory and practice.

31
Samuel Pomeroy (KU Leuven): Those Loving Controversy: John
Chrysostom as a Witness to Porphyrys Contra Christianos

The studies of GOULET, MORLET, BOULNOIS, and RIEDWEG inform

BECKERs newly published (2016) edition, commentary, and translation
of Porphyrys elusive Contra Christianos (= CC). These authors have
established a methodology for assessing the relative value of possible
witnesses to CC. BECKER accordingly divides his edition into three
sections: fragments which are I) references to specific books of CC; II)
attributed to Porphyry and align with his general objections; III) dubious.

GOULET and MORLET focus on the witnesses to CCs critique of Gen. 2.9,
2.16-17, 3.1-5, 3.14, and 3.22 (BECKER II-III), with Chrysostoms In Gen.
hom. (= IGH) among them. In this paper, I raise the possibility that texts
from IGH 12-17 (PG 53.108147) witness CCs critique of five other texts:
Gen. 3.7b, 3.7c, 3.8, 3.14-15, 3.18. These fragments of Chrysostom were
not studied by GOULET or MORLET, and thus were not considered for
BECKERs edition.

First, I show that IGH, preached in a contiguous series during Lent 388
C.E., attests to known Porphyrian critiques of Gen. 2-3. In particular, both
Chrysostoms unidentified interlocutors and Porphyry use Gen. 2.9, 16-17
(tree of knowledge of good and evil) to expose narrative incoherence and
impute the vice of envy to the creator.

Then, I demonstrate that Chrysostom uses similar introductory formulas

to represent unidentified interlocutors (arrogant commentators; those
loving controversy) who also apply the same thematic critiques to five
previously unconsidered Gen. 3 texts, which are examined in turn.

Finally, risks are assessed: Titus of Bostras Contra Manichaeos may be

Chrysostoms source, especially for Gen. 3.7-8. In conclusion, it is likely
that Chrysostom composed IGH 1217 with systematic reference to CC,
either as a literary source or in adoption of its critiques by paraphrase.

32
Joshua Robinson (Durham University): Creation and Emanation: What
is the Difference?

It is typically assumed that creation and emanation are opposing or

incompatible doctrines. This assumption, however, often seems to involve
some misunderstanding of the two doctrines, and rarely do statements of
this opposition offer clear definitions of the supposedly opposing
positions. This paper is an attempt to re-examine the nature and extent of
this opposition. I begin from an initial rough description of creation as
the immediate, universal production of all beings from nothing by divine
will, such that the world has not always existed and of emanation as the
mediated procession of all beings from the One by mere being, such that
the world always has existed. I proceed to examine one by one a series of
oppositions that are presumed in these descriptions: (1) an opposition
between from nothing and from God; (2) an opposition between
immediate production and mediated production (wherein the One or God
is only indirectly the cause of all things besides its first effect, e.g.
Intellect); (3) an opposition between production ex tempore and
production ab aeterno; (4) an opposition between production by will and
production by mere being. My examination also aims to be attentive to
several other related issues: the role of emanative metaphors in both
Christian and neoplatonic sources; the role that reflection on divine
begetting plays in leading Christians to distinguish their belief from that of
neoplatonists; the crucial background of the competing interpretations of
the Timaeus; the use by both Christians and neoplatonists of the Platonic
notion of the self-communicating Good; implications of both causal
theories for apophatic theology, and of apophatic theology for both causal
theories. I will pursue my comparison of creation and emanation with
reference to a variety of sources, but with special reference to Proclus
Elements of Theology, Nicholas of Methones Refutation of this text, and
the works of Dionysius the Areopagite.

33
Mark Scott (Thorneloe University at Laurentian): Origens Theological
Story about God and Evil: A Platonist or Christian Theodicy?

Origen of Alexandria (185-254 CE) dominated the theological landscape of

Late Antiquity. Scholars rank him alongside Augustine and Aquinas in his
intellectual capacity and literary output, as well as his formative influence
on the history of Christian thought. Despite these accolades, he was and
remains a controversial figure because of his application of Platonic modes
of thought to his theological enterprise. The question thus arose: was
Origen a Platonist who contaminated the purity of Christian theology with
a foreign metaphysical system, or a Christian who utilizes philosophy to
illuminate theology? Which was the driving force in his thought: Plato or
Jesus? Origens treatment of the problem of evil vividly illustrates these
questions and highlights the problem of his complex, complicated
relationship to Platonism.
Theodicy, or the logical attempt to reconcile divine goodness and
omnipotence with the ubiquitous reality of evil, occupied Origen
throughout his life. Although he does not employ the term theodicy, his
cosmology and soteriology function as a theodicy that tells the story of the
fall and rise of rational souls within the context of Gods providential care
of the universe where souls exercise real freedom that has personal and
cosmic consequences. In my paper, I will outline Origens treatment of the
problem of evil and demonstrate how it fuses theological and
philosophical themes, which illustrates the perennial problem of Origens
relationship to Platonism. As one scholar has noted: The idea of theodicy
occupies a good deal of space in Origens work and establishes a clear
relationship between his theology and the contemporary systems of
Middle Platonism (Hans von Campenhausen, The Fathers of the Greek
Church, 45). I will trace this relationship as it relates to his theodicy and
the broader question of his identity.

34
Narve Strand (Universitetet i Oslo): Knowing Right, Doing Wrong:
Augustine's Case for the Will

Most people would say knowing and doing arent the same thing. Its
possible, they think, to know what its best to do but fail through lack of
strength (weakness of will) or by simply refusing to do it, willing the
worse course of action instead (bad will). This non-identity between
knowing and doing means positing will as a third root- element in ethical
theory, and the notion of bad will above all is key in our ordinary practices
of morality and justice. Talk of holding someone responsible, blaming or
punishing them for deliberate wrong-doing (deception, crime), hardly
makes sense without it. Plato is explicit in rejecting this standard view
(Prot. 352Bff.), which leads him to a revisionist picture of our ethical
practices.

Augustine draws on both in conceptualizing the will. He comes to the

ordinary notion of will via the Platonic idea of the insubstantial nature of
evil (Milan). Being able to say something about how bad action is brought
about by our will ("deficient causality") not only loosens the grip of cruder
forms of ethical determinism (Manichaeism). It allows us to talk about the
will as a principle of all human action. His positive take on the wills
choice between good and bad (liberum arbitrium) owes much more to a
thinker like Alexander of Aphrodisias (autexousion). Yet, Augustine is
quick to limit its real-world use. That he sticks to Plato's identity between
knowing and doing as a normative ideal is also clear. Hes lead to develop
a non-standard picture of will and our ethical practices in the end too
therefore. Though making room for weakness of will, he agrees with Plato
were not free, here and now, to choose between the better and worse
course of action. Ill end by gauging his key philosophical argument for
this stance (will is unfree qua emotion).

35
Daniel Tolan (Cambridge University): Platos , Philos
, and the Hermeneutics of the Arian controversy

By reading the Arian controversy through the lens of Platonism one finds
that the question of a created , the contention of Arius, can be
understood as a particular hermeneutical approach to the Platonic
tradition. Most notably, the hermeneutical rift between Nicean and non-
Nicean Christianity pivots on whether one ought to read Platos Timaeus
and Philo of Alexandrias Opificio Mundi literally or allegorically.

This paper argues that Nicean Christianity, wherein the is

unoriginate, can be understood as an allegorical reading of these texts.
This hermeneutic renders Platos Demiurge as , the
line held by orthodox Platonists, and sets the foundation for the doctrine
of the unoriginate . In opposition to this understanding, it is argued
that the Metaphysical approach of Arius represents a literal reading of
Platonism, which posits the Living Animal as a separate entity from the
Demiurge, and, consequently, posits Philos , or , as
a separate entity from God. This literal reading of the Platonic tradition
develops naturally into the thought of Arius.

While it intuitively seems easier to understand how a created leads

to a greater degree of divine transcendence, history tells us that it is
actually in orthodox Platonism, wherein the Second Hypostasis is
understood as , that one finds the most fervent
champions of the notion of an . Accordingly, once the
comparison between Nicean and non-Nicean Christianity is set up with
literal and non-literal readings of the Platonic tradition, a reflection will be
given on what it means for God to be . The paper will conclude
with a reminder that the doctrine of an God is, historically,
found as the ground upon which both orthodox Platonism and orthodox
Christianity stand, doctrines such as divine simplicity and impassibility
flowing from Gods status as beyond-being.

36
Dimitrios Vasilakis (LMU Mnchen): Neoplatonic Descent: A Proclean
Analysis with a Dionysian Counterexample

This paper explores the difference between the providential descent in

Neoplatonism and Christianity. Neoplatonic representative is an excerpt
from Proclus Commentary on the First Alcibiades, where a parallel with
ancient Greek mythology is drawn: Socrates providential love for
Alcibiades is compared to Hercules descent to Hades in order to save
Theseus. This image recalls not only the return of the illumined
philosopher back to the Cave (from Platos Republic), but also the
hagiographical depiction of Christs Resurrection qua Descent to Hades.
After a painstaking examination of relevant propositions from the
Elements of Theology, as well as the Alcibiades Commentary it is shown
that although descent need not be connected with any Fall, the ideal case
of providence, that of the gods, entails no descent qua coordination with
the recipients of providence. It is only entities lower in the hierarchy, such
as souls, that descent to the realm of becoming in order to provide for it.
While the Incarnation, the paradigmatic case of providential descent,
involves Christ, i.e. God Himself, Socrates is only a mediator, (like
Symposiums eros) although he might be exceptionally providential for
Alcibiades. The paper closes with an illustration of the Christian
counterpart from (pseudo-)Dionysius 8th Epistle. In its very end it is
recounted that Carpos had the following vision: above him stood Christ
and below, in a chasm, two sinners were suffering. While he rejoiced in the
just punishment of the sinners, Christ did not. He literally descended from
his throne in order give His hand to the sinners and help them go out of
the chasm. We recall again the icon of the Resurrection and the Republics
philosopher-ruler. However, while in Plato the Sun remained where he/it
was, in Dionysius case it is the Sun of Righteousness who breaks the
hierarchy by going down to Hades.

37
Jordan Wood (Boston College): Creation as Incarnation: the
metaphysical peculiarity of the logoi in Maximus Confessor

Maximuss doctrine of the logoi has attracted scholarly attention for some
time now (Dalmais, Balthasar, Sherwood, Larchet, Perl, Blowers,
Tollefsen). Andrew Louth calls it a lonely meteorite in the history of
philosophical theology.1 But there are antecedents Platonic (Philo,
Plotinus, Ammonius) and patristic (Origen, Evagrius, Dionysius). Though
some have noted the originality of Maximuss logoi, two features require
more study: [1] Maximian logoi are not exemplarist Ideas, but are the way
existents participate the divine activities; [2] the relation between logoi
and Logos is neither one of participation nor of the inner perfection of a
nature as with Plotinuss Intellect (Enn. VI.2 [43] 21) but that of the
Logoss own hypostatic procession as the power of every creature,
universal to particular, to be what it is (Amb 7). The logoi describe a
procession from the One to the Many that is not strictly emanative (since
the One Logos is consubstantial with the Father).

I argue that the logoi doctrine is how Maximus careful inscribes the
Neochalcedonian logic of Incarnation into the very act of creation. The
logoi are the Words kenotic self- identification with the whole of created
nature. By the principle of condescension He expands His own
hypostasis (Amb 33) so that Being itself might be (CT 1.49-50). The
historical Incarnation has disclosed this more primal sort of genesis (Amb
41): the Words hypostatic identity is what grounds the infinite natural
difference between created and uncreated nature. Hypostatic union
grounds the generation of opposites (Amb 5). In Christ the Logos
generated a particular human nature precisely by becoming identical to it
(Ep. 15). Christ is a microcosm of how the whole cosmos came to be. By
the principle of hypostasis this union was always the ground and goal
of creation (QThal 60).

1
Louth, . The Reception of Dionysius in the Byzantine World, Re-Thinking Dionysius the Areopagite, p. 63.

38
Maximuss metaphysics are therefore a christological transformation of
Neoplatonic participatory metaphysics. He certainly doesnt negate
participation between various strata of nature. But the beginning and the
end of creation exceed the logic of participation precisely because
hypostatic union whether of two natures (Christ) or of Persons (Trinity)
exceeds nature itself. The logoi are the Words ecstatic condescension to
become what He is not by nature finite and their fulfillment in
creaturely deification effects an actual perichoretic union between Divine
and human hypostases. Deification is not only the perfection of the
image of God into likeness, so that we remain a mere simulacrum,
but rather if such an idea is not too onerous for some to bear we
become the Lord Himself (Amb 21). Creations actualization really is
divine Incarnation: .

39
5. List of Participants
Alexopoulos, Lampros: lampros.alexopoulos@ouc.ac.cy
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Open University of Cyprus
Lampros Alexopoulos is Adjunct Tutor for Ancient and Byzantine Philosophy in the
Programme of Studies in Hellenic Culture, at the Open University of Cyprus. He holds
a Ph.D. in Theology from the Department of Theology at the Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki.

Bieler, Jonathan: jonathan.bieler@theol.uzh.ch

Department of Theology, University of Zurich - Switzerland
Jonathan Bieler is a Teaching Assistant in the Department of Church History and the
History of Theology from the Old Church up to the Reformation at the University of
Zurich. He is writing a Dissertation on the correlation in form and content between
Maximus the Confessor's Trinitarian Theology, Anthropology and Christology. Further
he worked on Thomas Aquinas, Hans Urs von Balthasar and Origen and is interested
in Platonism and the role it played in Antique Christianity along with the reception of
Aristotle in Philosophy and Patristic authors.

Brown Dewhurst, Emma: emma.brown.dewhurst@outlook.com

Department of Theology, Durham University UK
Emma Brown Dewhurst is a Ph.D. student in Theology at Durham University. She
studies St. Maximus the Confessor' cosmic theology as a basis for human coexistence,
with reference to virtue ethics and contemporary anarchist theory. She holds an MA in
Theology from the University of Edinburgh. Her other research interests include the
theology of Gregory of Nyssa, and rethinking the importance of Greek Patristic
theologians as a resource for contemporary ethics.

Ekenberg, Tomas: tomas.ekenberg@filosofi.uu.se

Department of Philosophy, University of Uppsala - Sweden
Tomas Ekenberg is a Docent of Theoretical Philosophy and a researcher at the
University of Uppsala, from where he also received his Ph.D., in 2005. His research
interests include late ancient and early medieval ethics and philosophy of religion, and
he has focused in particular on how certain metaphysical assumptions play themselves
out in philosophical anthropology and in theorizing about action, rationality, and the
will.

Emilsson, Eyjlfur Kjalar: e.k.emilsson@ifikk.uio.no

Department of Philosophy, University of Oslo Norway
Eyjlfur Kjalar Emilsson is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oslo. His
research interests include topics in metaphysics and ethics in the ancient and late
ancient classical philosophical tradition. He is the author of three monographs and
numerous articles on ancient philosophy, Plotinus in particular.

Gullino, Silvia: silviagullino1981@gmail.com

Department of Philosophy, University of Padua Italy
Silvia Gullino is Research Fellow in Ancient Philosophy at the University of Padua
whence she received her Ph.D. in Philosophy. Her main themes of research are
Aristotle and the Aristotelian tradition.

40
Hauer, Mareike: mareike.hauer@kuleuven.be
Department of Philosophy, KU Leuven Belgium
Mareike Hauer is a Ph.D. student at KU Leuven, Belgium, and a research associate at
the Thomas-Institute, University of Cologne, Germany. Her research focuses on
Simplicius and the Neoplatonic commentary tradition. She is currently finalizing her
dissertation on the explanation of qualitative properties in Simplicius' Commentary on
Aristotle's Categories.

Hecht, Christine: christine.hecht@uni-tuebingen.de

Department of Philosophy, University of Tbingen Germany
Christine Hecht is currently working on a postdoctoral project in the Collaborative
Research Center 923 at the University of Tbingen. Her research focuses on the
interaction between Christians and pagan philosophers in the 3rd and 4th century AD.
She is currently preparing a translation a commentary of Porphyrys Philosophia ex
oraculis haurienda and De imaginibus. She received her Ph.D. from Tbingen in 2015
with a thesis on the classic poets Euripides, Agathon, Choirilos of Samos, Timothy of
Miletus and the artist Zeuxis, writing under the patronage of Archelaos.

Hoenig, Christina Maria: CMH159@pitt.edu

Department of Classics, University of Pittsburgh USA
Christina Maria Hoenig is Assistant Professor at the Department of Classics, at the
University of Pittsburg. Her research focuses on the Roman and Greek philosophical
writers from the 1st century BC to Late Antiquity, while its larger part concentrates on
the Latin Platonic tradition, especially on topics in natural philosophy and
epistemology. She is also interested in the Greek commentators on Plato and Aristotle.
She holds a Ph.D. in Classics from Cambridge University.

Janby, Lars Fredrik: l.f.janby@ifikk.uio.no

Department of Philosophy, University of Oslo Norway
Lars Fredrik Janby holds a Ph.D. from the University of Oslo. His main research
interest is Latin Christian writers in Late Antiquity, focusing in particular on
Augustine's early thought.

Mateiescu, Sebastian: sebastian.mateiescu@gmail.com

Department of Philosophy, University of Bucharest - Romania
Sebastian Mateiescu has held research positions at the University of Lausanne and is
now working as Associate Lecturer at the University of Bucharest. His main interest
are Early Christianity, Late Antiquity, Byzantine Studies, Maximus the Confessor and
he is now preparing a book manuscript on logic and ontology in Maximus the
Confessor. His last publication is "Counting Natures and Hypostases: St Maximus the
Confessor on the Role of Number in Christology" forthcoming in Studia Patristica.

Morlet, Sbastien: Sebastien.Morlet@paris-sorbonne.fr

University of Sorbonne, Paris IV - France
Sebastien Morlet is Matre de confrences (Associate Professor) at the University Paris
IV-Sorbonne. His research interests include Late antique literature and patristics, and
he especially focuses on polemical works (pagan versus Christians, Christians versus
pagans, Christians versus Jews). His recent work involves two essays on the
relationships of Christianity and Hellenism (Christianisme et philosophie, les

41
premires confrontations, Paris, 2014; Les chrtiens et la culture, Paris, 2016). He is
preparing a new edition of Porphyry's fragments against the Christians, to be
published in the Collection des Universits de France. He is directing, with Pr. Lorenzo
Perrone, an international commentary on Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica (first
volume published in 2012). He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Paris-Sorbonne
(La Dmonstration vanglique d'Eusbe de Csare. Etude sur l'apologtique
chrtienne l'poque de Constantin).

Moro, Enrico: enrilux@gmail.com

Department of Philosophy, University of Padua - Italy
Dr. Enrico Moro earned his Doctorate in Philosophy from the Universit degli Studi di
Padova (2015) with the thesis: Il concetto di materia nei commentari alla Genesi di
Agostino, under the direction of Prof. Giovanni Catapano. He is currently a Research
Fellow at University of Padua and, in collaboration with Prof. Giovanni Catapano, he is
preparing a new Italian translation of Augustines exegetical Commentaries on Genesis
and the edition of the volume 41 (2016) of Medioevo. Rivista di Storia della Filosofia
medieval. As of Novevember 2015, he has been appointed Cultore della materia in
Medieval Philosophy (s.s.d. M-FIL/08).

Pavlos, Panagiotis G.: panagiotis.pavlos@ifikk.uio.no

Department of Philosophy, University of Oslo Norway
Panagiotis Pavlos is a doctoral research fellow at the University of Oslo. His research
focuses on Late Antique metaphysics and the early Christian philosophical tradition.
His doctoral work is on The Concept of Aptitude in Late Antique and Early Christian
thought. He holds a Masters degree in Ancient Philosophy from the Aristotle
University of Thessaloniki.

Petkas, Alexander: apetkas@gmail.com

Department of Classics, Princeton University, New Jersey USA
Alex Petkas is finishing his Ph.D. in Classics at Princeton University this academic
year, working on 'ethos' in the epistolary collection of Synesius of Cyrene. His research
interests are in the Greek rhetorical tradition and the cultural history of philosophy,
especially in Late Antiquity.

Pirtea, Adrian: adrianpirtea@gmail.com

Free University of Berlin Germany
Adrian Pirtea is a Ph.D. student at the Institute for Greek and Latin Philology of the
Freie Universitt Berlin. He specializes in Byzantine Studies. His main research
interests focus on Late Antique Christian asceticism and mysticism, Greek and Syriac.

Pomeroy, Samuel: samuel.pomeroy@kuleuven.be

Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, KU Leuven Belgium
Samuel Pomeroy is a Ph.D. researcher and FWO fellow in the unit History of Church
and Theology at the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, KU Leuven. He has an
M.Litt in Biblical Studies from the University of St Andrews, and a BA in Philosophy
from Baylor University, TX, USA. His doctoral dissertation, supervised by Johan
Leemans, is an investigation into the sources of John Chrysostoms Homiliae in
Genesim.

42
Robinson, Joshua: joshua.robinson@durham.ac.uk
Department of Theology and Religion, Durham University UK
Joshua Robinson is COFUND Junior Research Fellow at Durham University. He
received his Ph.D. from the Medieval Institute at the University of Notre Dame.

Scott, Mark: Mscott4@laurentian.ca

Department of Religious Studies, Thorneloe University at Laurentian - Canada
Dr. Mark Scott is an Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at Thorneloe University in
Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. He received his Ph.D. in theology and early Christianity
from Harvard University through the Committee for the Study of Religion, his M.A.R.
(Theology) from Yale Divinity School, and his B.A. (Honours) in Religious Studies
from McMaster University. He is the author of Pathways in Theodicy: An
Introduction to the Problem of Evil (Fortress Press, 2015) and Journey Back to God:
Origen on the Problem of Evil (OUP, 2012, [paperback: 2015]). He has published
articles in Harvard Theological Review, Journal of Religion, Journal of Early
Christian Studies, Theology Today, and elsewhere. His research interests include
theology, philosophy of religion, early Christianity, religion and literature, and religion
and culture.

Strand, Narve: nstrand9@gmail.com

Department of Philosophy, University of Oslo Norway
Narve Strand is a researcher in ancient philosophy at the University of Oslo. His
research focuses on philosophy of mind and action theory. In particular, he is
interested in will and its link to first-person experience and ethical practices. He's a
former Fulbright fellow. He holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Boston College.

Tolan, Daniel: djt57@cam.ac.uk

Clare College, Cambridge University UK
Daniel Tolan is a Ph.D. student in the Faculty of Divinity at Cambridge University,
where he is writing a dissertation on Origen's . His research interest is
primarily in the reception of Ancient Philosophy in Late Antiquity by both the
Christian and Pagan traditions. His MPhil dissertation at Cambridge was on Plotinus.
He has also earned an MA from Yale and a BA from St. Michael's College, Vt.

Tollefsen, Torstein Theodor: torstein.tollefsen@ifikk.uio.no

Department of Philosophy, University of Oslo - Norway
Torstein Theodor Tollefsen is Professor of Philosophy at the Univeristy of Oslo. A
revised version of his doctoral thesis The Christocentric Cosmology of St Maximus the
Confessor (2000) defended at UiO, was published by Oxford Early Christian Studies
(2008). Tollefsen works on ancient philosophy (Plato, Aristotle) and the philosophy of
Late Antiquity (Neoplatonism). His general philosophical interests are in the fields of
metaphysics, ontology, and philosophy of religion. However, his main interest is in the
philosophy of the Greek Church fathers within the period of 300-900. He focuses on
metaphysics and cosmology, spirituality and the philosophy and theology of the icon,
while he works on the Cappadocian fathers, Dionysius the Areopagite, Maximus the
Confessor, John Damascene, and Theodore the Studite.

43
Vasilakis, Dimitrios: dimitrios.vasilakis86@gmail.com
Department of Philosophy, Ludwig Maximilian University Munich Germany
Dimitrios A. Vasilakis is Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeider in LMU, Munich (Lehrstuhl
fr Sptantike und Arabische Philosophie). His research interests include ancient
Greek philosophy, especially Neoplatonic philosophy and its reception in the Orthodox
East (Byzantium and Modern-Greece), as well as music. He took his Ph.D. from Kings
College London with a thesis entitled Neoplatonic Love: the Metaphysics of Eros in
Plotinus, Proclus and the pseudo-Dionysius (2014).

Wood, Jordan: woodgh@bc.edu

Boston College, Massachusetts USA
Jordan Daniel Wood is a Ph.D. student in Historical Theology at Boston College. He
holds an M.A. in the same from Saint Louis University. His research interests focus on
how Christian metaphysics shaped and was shaped by the mysteries of Incarnation
and Trinity in patristic thought, especially that of St. Maximus the Confessor. He also
courts abiding interests in Christian universalism, philosophical retrievals of negative
theology, modern nihilism, and exotheology.

Workshop Committee:

Eyjlfur Kjalar Emilsson

Lars Fredrik Janby
Panagiotis G. Pavlos
Torstein Theodor Tollefsen

Contact:

Panagiotis G. Pavlos
panagiotis.pavlos@ifikk.uio.no

44
 The International Workshop
Platonism and Christian Thought in Late Antiquity
is generously funded by the Department of Philosophy, Classics, History of Art and Ideas,
and is promoted by the Society for Ancient Philosophy, at UiO.

Postal address: P.O. Box 1020 Blindern, 0315 Oslo

E-mail: late-antiquity@ifikk.uio.no / oslo.lateantiquity@gmail.com
www.hf.uio.no/ifikk/english/research/news-and-
events/events/conferences/2016/platonism-and-christian-thought-in-late-antiquity.html
Phone: + 47 22 84 55 53
Fax: + 47 22 85 75 51

45