Building on nearly thirty years of research, Ilaria Ramelli analyzes the pseudepigraphic Seneca-Paul correspondence. Drawing on non-literary Greek and Latin letters from the first centuries CE, she offers new insights into intertextuality, Graecisms, reception history, and early Christian philosophical discourse.

Philosophical and religious voices in the imperial period and Late Antiquity emphasized individual responsibility and free will, including, from the early Christian side, anti-“Gnostic” (and later anti-Manichean) defenses of free will against determinism. This essay concentrates on the rather neglected author Bardaisan, who rejected the deterministic astrological arguments maintained by Stoics, “Gnostics,” and “Chaldeans,” and, like Origen, argued that human free will, as a gift of God, is not influenced by stars and zodiacal configurations at one’s birth but depends on one’s intellect (“ethical intellectualism”). New convergences between their ideas are pointed out, as well as Bardaisan’s novel argument against “climatic” astrological determinism and its influence on later Christian authors. The essay investigates the impact that Bardaisan’s antideterministic ideas exerted—sometimes without being recognized—in Late Antiquity and the ways in which his novel argument against climatic astrological determinism was received and reused. A network of reception that is ultimately closely linked to Bardaisan thus emerges.

The condition of being a slave in antiquity, marked by “social death” and “the permanent, violent domination of natally alienated and generally dishonored persons,”1 was so miserable as to be excluded from the ancient ideal of happiness (εὐδαιμονία): “How can a man be happy when he must serve someone as a slave [δουλεύειν]?” says Callicles to Socrates (Plato, Gorg. 491E). Families in the Greco-Roman world often included slaves,2 although manumission in the Roman world was more frequent than once thought.3

This article investigates mystic apophaticism in a set of Greek Patristic theologians, profoundly informed by philosophy, especially imperial Platonism: Clement, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and Pseudo-Dionysius. Both the terminology and the argumentative structure will be examined in each author and important connections among themselves and with ‘pagan’ Neoplatonists (including Plotinus, Porphyry, and Proclus) will be drawn. The reciprocal interrelations among epoptics, ἔρως and ἀγάπη, epektasis, and ἐπιστροφή and ἀποκατάστασις will be pointed out. The article will argue for the intended double-reference strategy to both ‘pagan’ and Christian Platonism, as well as Dionysius’ veiled response to Porphyry qua accuser of Origen, and the meaning of the charge, levelled against Dionysius himself, of “making unholy use of Greek things”—which is what ‘pagans’ had already charged Origen with. Dionysius retorted, “it is the Greeks who make unholy use of godly things to attack God!”, and this is again what Origen had responded.

This chapter first investigates the meaning of ‘revelation’ in ancient Christianity and ancient non-Jewish and non-Christian religions, especially in ‘pagan’ Platonism of the early imperial period. ‘Revelation’ was characterised by the stress on authoritative sources of revealed knowledge (e.g., the Bible, the Chaldaean Oracles). The objective is to argue that ‘pagan’ Platonists faithful to Plato (and commenting just on Plato) cannot be simplistically opposed to Jewish or Christian Platonists faithful to the Bible (and commenting exclusively on the Bible). The chapter examines how philosophical allegoresis was applied by Stoics and Platonists – ‘pagan’, Jewish, and Christian Platonists – to their authoritative texts and revelations. This study provides an accurate examination of the conceptual and methodological intersections between the works of ‘pagan’ and Christian Platonists, and points to cases that break the binary between ‘pagan’ commentaries on ‘pagan’ authoritative texts and Christian commentaries on Scripture. It will also suggest that Amelius commented on the Prologue of John in light of his previous knowledge of Origen’s Commentary.

This article will first point out that St Gregory of Nyssa supported the doctrine of apokatastasis or universal restoration as grounded in Christ and in defence of Christian "orthodoxy" against Arian tendencies-as Origen, his great inspirer, had done against "Gnosticism". In light of this, the reason why Gregory's doctrine of apokatastasis was never condemned by the Church (differently from the case of Origen) will be asked, and several potential answers, which reinforce one another, will be offered. Finally, the essay will highlight the role of Gregory as a touchstone of orthodoxy.