Skip to content

Athens and Jerusalem Redux

Daniel H. Spencer

Forum Philosophicum June 22, 2023 DOI: 10.35765/forphil.2023.2801.06 (opens in new tab)

Study at a glance

AI-extracted from the abstract
Characteristics Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed
Key points Argues that the rules of faith of Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr center on a commitment to a 'biblical narrative grammar' rather than a set of propositions. Using Evagrius Ponticus as a test case, the author contends there is ample room to question the legitimacy of Evagrius's claim to properly Christian theorizing, with implications for future Christian work in the philosophy of mysticism.

Abstract

In this essay, I evaluate the extent to which some currents in classical Christian mysticism might count as properly ‘Christian’ against the rules of faith and theological methodology of thinkers like Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr. I begin by expounding this methodology as it relates to non-Christian philosophical traditions, and from there explore the rules these thinkers offer, suggesting that the beating heart of these rules is not a string of propositions to affirm so much as it is a commitment to a certain rendition of biblical narrative grammar. After exploring this grammar, I turn to a brief discussion of the foundations of Christian mysticism and the thought of Evagrius Ponticus. The aim here is to illustrate the theoretical foundations of much Christian mysticism, as well as to provide a test case to evaluate how far some prominent elements of this discourse might, or might not, cohere with the biblical narrative grammar elucidated above. I argue that there is ample room to question the legitimacy of Evagrius’s claim to properly Christian theorizing, and suggest this has serious implications for future Christian work in the philosophy of mysticism.