Eriugena’s Christian Neoplatonism and its Sources in Patristic Philosophy and Ancient Philosophy (I) 16:00 - 18:30 Tuesday, 20th August, 2019 Room 1 Presentation type Workshop [No author data]

Discussant: Willemien Otten This workshop analyses Eriugena's Christian Platonic ideas on Theology, Cosmology, Anthropology (including Epistemology and Ethics) and their sources in Patristic philosophical theology and in ancient philosophy – two strictly interrelated, often inseparable fields. It includes world leaders in Eriugena studies; papers offer important and novel insights into Eriugena's thought and its sources.

508 Eriugena and Maximos on Divisions of Being

Andrew Louth University of Durham, Durham, United Kingdom

Abstract

The Latin title of Eriugena’s principal work Periphyseon is De divisione naturae. As he himself makes clear, by his citation from Maximos the Confessor, his notion of the division of nature is derived from, or at least inspired by, Maximos, who was himself inheriting a pattern of division or distinction from earlier writers, notably Gregory of Nyssa, whom Eriugena himself knew and had translated. The problem is: in what way is Eriugena indebted to Maximos over this central notion? The paper begins by putting Eriugena’s work, of both translation and speculative metaphysics, in context in his life and work, emphasizing Eriugena’s basic formation as a Latin, indeed Augustinian, theologian (though original in his interpretation), in terms of which his indebtedness to the Greek theology he translated is to be interpreted. Initially, it appears that the notion of division of nature was conceived of in dialectical terms, however, as Eriugena developed the notion from book II onwards, it becomes primarily metaphysical. This metaphysical turn is heralded by a citation from Maximos’ Ambigua 41. The citation is, however, truncated (deliberately, it would appear, as in his translation of the whole work the full text appears), Eriugena only taking from Maximos what he wants, and passing over Maximos’ own central concern. As a result, the notion of divisio naturae, inspired by Maximos, is very different from what Maximos had intended, and consequently Eriugena’s notion of divisio naturae cannot be regarded as Maximian. We are left with a puzzle. 89 Parallels and differences in the way Augustine and Eriugena prove themselves to be real negative theologians Paul van Geest [email protected]

Paul J.J. Prof. van Geest Tilburg University, Tilburg - Utrecht, Netherlands. Amsterdam University, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Abstract

Paul van Geest [email protected] From his Periphyseon can be deduced that John Scottus Eriugena, through his translation and study of the work of Pseudo-Dionysius and of the Cappadocian Fathers Basilus and Gregory of Nyssa, became devoted to their way of apophatic speaking about God. Before him, Augustine had also come to the understanding, reading other sources, that one could not say to God that God was good or merciful, because the predicates 'good' or 'merciful' contained too many associations with our human representation of what would be good or merciful. For both it is crucial to deny God's goodness to find - paradoxically - some of God's unimaginable 'goodness'. Nevertheless, there are important differences in the way they understand and take up the via negativa. These differences are related to the way in which they intertwine (1) negative-theological statements in their interpretation of God as Creator. Difference can also be recognized in (2) the way in which they provide the incarnation of God with an explanation in which the influence of the via negativa appears. Finally, there are also (3) differences in their negative anthropology. This contribution attempts to trace the differences in the apophatic speaking of Augustine and Eriugena back to their respective sources and their processing of these sources. 37 The Transcendence and Alterity of God in Eriugena and his Patristic Sources

Deirdre Carabine

Abstract

In this paper, I survey two of Eriugena's most important sources: Pseudo Dionysius the Areopagite and Gregory of Nyssa, and attempt a critical presentation of the theme of transcendence, and the concomitant negative theology, showing how Eriugena’s reading of Greek texts, together with his extensive reading of the Fathers of the West, culminate in a rich tapestry of thought that has compelling relevance twelve centuries after his death. In explicating the concepts of the transcendence and otherness of God, I hope to show how Eriugena's negative ontology ultimately forms the core of his understanding of, on the one hand, revelation and creation (God becoming not-God), and, on the other: the final calling of all manifestation and multiplicity into unity (not- God becoming God / not-God). In this paper I acknowledge my indebtedness to Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart’s re-reading of Gregory of Nyssa in The Beauty of the Infinite. In attempting a re-evaluation of the importance of Eriugena’s use of his patristic sources in relation to divine transcendence, my ultimate conclusion is that for Eriugena, God is always God-in-otherness, despite post-modernity’s attempt to transcend the Transcendent. 10 Betrayal and Contemplation:Judas and the Neoplatonism of John Scottus Eriugena

John Gavin College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, USA

Abstract

This paper examines Eriugena’s adoption and adaptation of Neoplatonic themes in his treatment of Judas’s betrayal at the Last Supper and in the Passion. Before looking at a particular passage from the Periphyseon, however, it considers several Neoplatonic themes in Proclus’s portrayal of the ambitious traitor Alcibiades and Pseudo-Dionysius’s own treatment of Judas. It concludes by comparing the three authors in order to demonstrate the similarities and differences in their approach to the ethical analysis of betrayal through a Neoplatonic and Christian lens.