Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 8

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Filon z Aleksandrii
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
Vox Patrum
|
2012
|
vol. 57
659-665
EN
Jerome, like most of the early Christian exegetes (Origen, Didymus the Blind, Hilarius of Poitiers, Ambrose, Augustine), respected Philo of Alexandria as a spe­cialist in the field of spiritual exegesis of the Old Testament and called him vir doctissimus Iudaeorum. In his letters and biblical commentaries Jerome used the knowledge on the liturgical vestments of the high priest and their symbolism that can be found in the writings of Philo. However, Jerome probably didn’t use direct­ly his biblical commentaries, but took their content through the works of Origen, in which Philo's ideas have been christianized. The admiration for the person and work of Philo, which can be compared only to that showed in the East by Didymus the Blind, resulted in St. Jerome a certain lack of criticism. In De viris inlustribus Jerome too hastily considered Philo as a thinker deserved for the development of Christianity and attributed to him the works of which he was not the author.
PL
W okresie międzytestamentalnym doszło do zwiększenia wpływu kultury helleńskiej na życie społeczne i religijne w Izraelu. Kultura ta, poprzez narzucanie pogańskich zwyczajów, doprowadziła do kontrreakcji Żydów, którzy podjęli środki mające na celu powrót do posłuszeństwa Bogu, a co za tym idzie, prawu zapisanemu w Torze. Owocem tego była dokonana w tym czasie kodyfikacja prawa szabatowego bazująca na następującym schemacie: skoro szabat oznacza przerwanie pracy, trzeba wskazać, co jest pracą. W ten sposób rozwijała się tradycja, której konsekwencją będzie redakcja Miszny, precyzująca to, co w Biblii pozostawało niedopowiedziane. Prześledzenie procesu kodyfikacji szabatowych nakazów jest istotne również z punktu widzenia działalności Jezusa, który wielokrotnie występował przeciwko przepisom Prawa w imię przywrócenia właściwego sensu instytucji szabatu.
EN
: In the intertestamental period, the Hellenistic culture increased its impact on the social and religious life in Israel and, by imposing pagan customs, finally led to a counter reaction of Jews, who undertook efforts in order to return to obedience to God and, consequently, the law set forth in the Torah. This resulted in a codification of the Shabbat law based on the following assumption: Since Shabbat means interruption of work, it needs to be defined what exactly constitutes work.In this way, a tradition developed that later resulted in the redaction of Mishnah, which made explicit what was left implicit in the Bible. Tracing the process of codification of the Shabbat rules is important also from the perspective of the activity of Jesus, who often spoke against provisions of the Law in the name of restoring the true meaning of Shabbat.
Verbum Vitae
|
2021
|
vol. 39
|
issue 3
959-977
EN
Allegorical interpretation was a hermeneutical tool often used in the writings of Medioplatonist thinkers. Originally developed in discussions of the legacy of Homer, allegoresis was used also by interpreters of the Bible and philosophical writings. The allegorists, recognizing figurative expressions in the texts they interpreted, were aware that those texts, when read literally, were obscure and sometimes even false. The aim of this paper is to analyze the strategies used to defend figurative expressions (mainly anthropomorphisms and allegories), as employed in the works of selected Medioplatonic thinkers: Philo of Alexandria (Quod Deus immutabilis sit, De somniis and De sacrificiis Abeli et Caini); Maximus of Tyre (Oration IV, XVII and XXVI); and Numenius of Apamea (Fragment 23 and 24). A historical-philosophical analysis of particular works, including interpretations of the writings of Moses, Homer and Plato, demonstrates that the defense of writings considered canonical was an important part of the interpretation carried out by the Medioplatonists. Using the comparative method, we also show that the arguments of the Medioplatonic writers contained certain interpretive features common to all of them, as well as others specific to each individually. The shared views included a skeptical approach to the intellectual and philosophical powers of the average person and, thus, a belief in the pedagogical value of figurative language and the necessity of its use in communication.
PL
Interpretacja alegoryczna była narzędziem hermeneutycznym często stosowanym w pismach myślicieli z kręgu medioplatonizmu. Pierwotnie powstała w dyskusjach nad spuścizną Homera alegoreza była wykorzystywana także przez interpretatorów Biblii oraz pism filozoficznych. Alegoreci, dostrzegający w interpretowanych tekstach wyrażenia figuratywne, byli świadomi, że przy ich dosłownym odczytaniu, są one niejasne, a czasami nawet nieprawdziwe. Celem artykułu jest analiza strategii obrony wyrażeń figuratywnych (głównie antropomorfizmów i alegorii), podjętej w utworach wybranych myślicieli medioplatońskich: Filona z Aleksandrii (Quod Deus immutabilis sit, De somniis oraz De sacrificiis Abeli et Caini), Maksyma z Tyru (Mowa IV, XVII i XXVI) oraz Numeniusza z Apamei (Fragment 23 i 24). Historyczno-filozoficzna analiza poszczególnych utworów, zawierających interpretacje pism Mojżesza, Homera i Platona, dowodzi, że obrona pism uznawanych za kanoniczne stanowiła ważny element interpretacji przeprowadzanej przez medioplatoników. Zastosowanie metody porównawczej pozwala zaś na dostrzeżenie w argumentacji medioplatońskich interpretatorów zarówno cech specyficznych dla każdego z nich, jak i elementów wspólnych, takich jak sceptyczne podejście do kompetencji intelektualnych i filozoficznych większości ludzi w poszczególnych społeczeństwach oraz przekonanie o pedagogicznej wartości języka figuratywnego i konieczności jego stosowania w komunikacji.
EN
It seems there could be no connection of the biblical truth on the subject of creation with philosophy, which has never known the idea of creation. Nonetheless, several attempts have been made to unify them. The article presents three that are most renowned: of Philo, Origen and Gregory of Nyssa. They have one important feature in common: under the influence of Platonism, all three speak of dual creation.
EN
The article describes the concept of the Logos in the understanding of divine rationality, the rationality of the world, about which ancient philosophers already wrote. The term Logos had many different meanings. Most often it meant word, reason, speech, but it also gained new meanings in Greek philosophy, and then in Judaic and Christian thought. The first to introduce the concept of the Logos into philosophy was Heraclitus of Ephesus. According to him, the Logos is the mind of the world, its law and the cosmic principle. The thought of Heraclitus was taken over by the Stoics who identified the Logos with God, with pneûma, poured out in the structures of reality. Logos in the understanding of the metaphysical principle, the principle that orders reality, was also present in eastern thought and appeared there under the concept of Tao and Brahman. The thought of the ancient Greek philosophers influenced Jewish thinkers, as exemplified by Philo of Alexandria. For Philo, the Logos are the mediator between God and the created world, the world-controlling director, an idea and a model for created reality. The concepts of the Logos were developed by Christian thought, which, referring to Greek thought, recognized Logos as a word, but emphasized that it is the incarnate Word of God and identified it with the Second Hypostasis of the Trinity of God. A specific concept of the Logos is revealed in the Prologue to the Gospel of John. The Logos is recognized there as God in whom all beings have a beginning.
PL
Artykuł opisuje koncepcję Logosu pojmowanego jako boska rozumność obecna w świecie, o której pisali już starożytni filozofowie. Termin „logos” miał wiele różnych znaczeń. Najczęściej oznaczał słowo, rozum, mowę, ale zyskiwał też nowe znaczenia w filozofii greckiej, a następnie w myśli judaistycznej i chrześcijańskiej. Pierwszym, który do filozofii wprowadził pojęcie „logosu”, był Heraklit z Efezu. Według niego Logos to rozum świata, jego prawo i kosmiczna zasada. Myśl Heraklita przejęli stoicy, utożsamiający Logos z Bogiem, który jako pneûma rozlewa się w strukturach rzeczywistości. Logos w rozumieniu pryncypium metafizycznego, czyli zasady, która porządkuje rzeczywistość, był też obecny w myśli wschodniej i występował tam pod pojęciami Tao i Brahmana. Myśl starożytnych filozofów greckich wpłynęła na myślicieli ze środowisk judaistycznych, czego przykładem jest Filon z Aleksandrii. Zdaniem Filona Logos jest pośrednikiem między Bogiem a stwarzanym światem, kierownikiem kontrolującym świat, ideą i wzorem dla rzeczywistości stwarzanej. Koncepcję Logosu rozwinęła myśl chrześcijańska, która nawiązując do myśli greckiej, uznała Logos za Słowo. Równocześnie podkreślała, że jest to wcielone Słowo Boga, tożsame z drugą hipostazą w Trójcy Świętej, w którym wszystkie byty mają swój początek. Ta szczególna koncepcja Logosu pojawia się w Hymnie o Logosie, czyli w prologu do Ewangelii Janowej.
EN
Timaeus, a dialogue of Plato regarded by scholars as “the Platonists’ Bible”, was interpreted allegorically even in the time of the Old Academy (4th century BCE). In the Hellenistic period (1st-3rd centuries CE), especially among the philosophers known as Middle Platonists, there was great debate over the theses that appear in it. The main question was whether the world was created in time or ab aeterno, and most of the Middle Platonic philosophers believed that the world must be eternal. By the first century CE, this discussion had also been joined by Jewish and Christian Platonists such as Philo of Alexandria, Clement of Alexandria and Origen. In their opinion, God, because he is unchanging but at the same time good, must not have started to operate only at the moment of the creation of the world, but before. Yet the Scriptures state that the world began to exist at a particular point in time. Therefore, Christian Platonists postulated the eternal generation or production of the world of ideas (kosmos noetos), which, since it is the world of God’s thoughts, exists ab aeterno in the Divine Logos. The concept of generatio aeterna (that is, the eternal generation of the Son by the Father), which we find in Origen’s works, is related to this ongoing discussion about the eternal nature of the world. This article aims to present the facets of this ancient debate while emphasizing the links between the arguments advanced by the Middle Platonists and those found in the various hypotheses of Origen.  
PL
Dialog Platona Timajos, uznawany przez uczonych za „Biblię Platoników”, był interpretowany alegorycznie już w Starej Akademii (IV w. przed Chr.). W epoce hellenistycznej (I–III w. po Chr.) natomiast, w kręgach filozofów zwanych medioplatonikami, toczyła się poważna dyskusja na temat tez, które w nim się pojawiają. Zasadnicza kwestia dotyczyła tego, czy świat powstał w czasie, czy też istnieje ab aeterno. Większość filozofów medioplatońskich uważała, że świat musi być odwieczny. W dyskusji tej, począwszy od I w. po Chr., uczestniczyli również platonicy żydowscy i chrześcijańscy, tacy jak Filon Aleksandryjski, Klemens Aleksandryjski i Orygenes. W ich opinii Bóg, ponieważ jest niezmienny a zarazem dobry, nie zaczął działać dopiero w momencie stworzenia świata. Pismo Święte stwierdza jednak, że świat zaczął istnieć w czasie. W związku z tym, postulowani oni odwieczne rodzenie świata idei (kosmos noetos), który jako świat myśli Boga, istnieje ab aeterno w Boskim Logosie. Koncepcja generatio aeterna (czyli odwiecznego rodzenia Syna przez Ojca), którą znajdujemy w dziełach Orygenesa, jest związana z prowadzoną w tym czasie dyskusją na temat wieczności świata. Niniejszy artykuł ma na celu przedstawienie tej dyskusji i uwypuklenie zależności, jakie zachodzą między argumentami stawianymi przez medioplatoników, a tymi, które znajdujemy w różnych hipotezach Orygenesa.
Vox Patrum
|
2017
|
vol. 67
437-475
EN
Many historians of ideas – philosophers and theologians – believe that the first thinker to introduce the concept of a positive understanding of the infinite­ness of God was Plotinus. In Greek philosophy, however, something infinite was understood as “unfinished” and therefore “imperfect”. All the same, according to many scholars, Christianity took the concept of the infiniteness of God precisely from the founder of neo-Platonism. One of the reasons for which researchers of the doctrines of the ancient world persist in this thesis even today is the fact that, in the writings of Origen – who lived at the time of Plotinus – we find the expres­sions which might give readers the impression that God’s power is finite, since God brought into existence a finite number of created beings. This article argues that this widely-held interpretation is wrong. Philo and Clement, a Jewish and a Christian thinker, both of Alexandria – from whose doctrines Origen borrowed abundantly – wrote of an infinite God before Origen did. In the surviving works of Origen, moreover, he nowhere states explicitly that God’s power is finite, although it is true that, according to him, God created a finite number of creatures. The con­troversial thesis of a finite God is found only in fragments written by ancient cri­tics of Origen’s teaching. A detailed analysis of Origen’s own original pronounce­ments on the nature, power and knowledge of God leads one to the conclusion that the fragments that have led many historians of ideas into confusion, either do not represent the views of Origen himself or present Origen’s teachings inaccu­rately. Moreover, in Origen’s surviving Greek writings, we find the term ¥peiron used in reference to God. This is precisely the term used by Greek philosophers to designate infinity. We may posit, then, that the concept of the infiniteness of God, positively understood, was born of the encounter of Greek philosophy with the Bible – that is, with the Jewish and Christian doctrines of the first centuries of the common era. Origen, who came slightly later, continued the thought of his predecessors and does not contradict them anywhere in his surviving works. What remains to be examined is the question of whether Plotinus himself made use of the work of Jewish and Christian thinkers in forming his doctrine of an infinite God, rather than those thinkers leaning on Plotinus, as is usually assumed.
Vox Patrum
|
2018
|
vol. 69
493-526
EN
The medieval dispute over the absolute and the ordered, power of God (poten­tia Dei absoluta et potentia Dei ordinata) began with a tract by Peter Damian entitled De divina omnipotentia. One of the questions posed in this work was whether God could indeed do everything, including those things that God did not in fact do. The same question, and a similar answer, appears in Origen’s work Contra Celsum: God can do everything except that which is evil. The impossibi­lity of doing evil, however, does not diminish the omnipotence of God, because evil, is by its very nature, non-being. Beyond that, Origen, in numerous statements appearing in his exegetical works, distinguishes between the absolute power of God, which is infinite, and the power of God that creates the world and operates within it, which has a certain God-given limit – that is, this power is adapted to the abilities of the creatures who receive it. The purpose of this article is to show that, in the light of the distinction of the potentia Dei absoluta and the potentia Dei or­dinata, fragments of De principiis (II 9.1 and IV 4.8), in which a finite world and finite power of God are posited, can be interpreted in a new way. Many contem­porary scholars, on the basis of these fragments, conclude that Origen inherited from the Greek philosophers a negative understanding of infinity as something imperfect, but the analysis carried out in this article shows something different. In talking about a certain range of God’s power, which is available to creatures, or in which creatures participate only partially, Origen does not actually exclude the proposition that, in God himself, power – existing in an absolute way – can be infinite.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.