David DeMarco

This article argues for Plotinian influence on Basil’s
. It is composed of two major sections. The first section discusses three major flaws in John Rist’s “Basil’s ‘Neoplatonism’: Its Background and Nature,” namely: 1) the problems with Rist’s focus on the peculiar features of Plotinus, 2) Rist’s overestimation of the effect of Nicaea on the reception of Platonic ideas by Christians, 3) the lack of evidence regarding both Basil’s time in Athens and the assumption that post-Plotinian Platonism is too pagan to be of interest to Basil. The second section examines three passages from Basil’s
, namely, 1,7, 2,2, and 2,7. The first passage exhibits clear indirect, though not direct, or exclusively Plotinian influence. The second example reveals a shared idea that most likely derives from Plotinus due to other contextual aspects. The final passage shows a close relation between Basil and Plotinus, in which the differences are better explained by the different goals of the authors rather than by the lack of contact and dependence on common material.

This theological and philological commentary provides a detailed description of Augustine’s argument and reveals the areas where Augustine misrepresents or oversimplifies Porphyry’s thought in the Deregressu animae and other works.
This work establishes a new foundation for any future work on Porphyry’s Deregressu animae. Via comparison with Porphyry’s extant Greek works and fragments, the commentary sheds light on seven key topics in Augustine’s presentation:
1) the ‘spiritual soul,’
2) the nature of theurgy,
3) the report that Porphyry attributes passsiones to the gods,
4) the coherence of the De regressu animae with Porphyry’s other works, in particular his De philosophia ex oraculis and Epistula ad Anebontem,
5) the report on the purifying principia,
6) Porphyry’s views on reincarnation, and
7) the universal way of salvation.

This article deals with the intellectual relationship between Basil of Caesarea and his younger brother Gregory of Nyssa as seen in their two treatments of the six days of creation. The analysis first examines how Gregory himself in his
portrays the relationship of the two works. This leads to the conclusion that Gregory uses an agricultural analogy to present himself as subordinate and inferior to Basil, but still somewhat independent. The next section examines both Basil’s and Gregory’s treatments of Gen 1:1 as an example of where Gregory has expanded on Basil’s ideas and his self-presentation is generally accurate. The final section looks at Gregory’s discussion of the upper waters, where Gregory undermines Basil’s interpretation while at the same time seeking to cover his tracks rhetorically. Here Gregory shows a stronger preference than Basil for allegory and certain interpretations of Origen. In sum, it becomes clear that Gregory not only builds on Basil’s ideas, but also diverges from Basil more significantly than he would have us believe.