Volume 7, Issue 1 - Special Issue: Dynamic Unity in the Gospel of John; Guest Editor: Julie Casteigt

The aim of this collection of essays, entitled “Dynamic Unity in the Gospel of John”, is to offer the reader another path through the tradition of interpretations. First, it explores some authors who are often neglected in studies of the history of this dogma: Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–c. 215), Origen of Alexandria (c. 184–c. 253), Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329–390), Evagrius Ponticus (345–399), Albert the Great (c. 1200–1280), and Meister Eckhart (c. 1260–c. 1328). Second, it does not focus on the theological treatises, but rather on commentaries on the Gospel of John. It thereby aims to highlight the great variety of exegetical interpretations as found in biblical hermeneutics. Third, it adopts an interdisciplinary point of view by interweaving the methods proper to New-Testament studies, to patristics and to medieval philosophy. Fourth, it offers to the readers the possibility to adopt historical perspective on the exegetical tradition of these Johannine verses: both in their original context and in the history of their reception. The goal is to question the dynamics of the transfer of the idea of dynamic unity into different scholarly disciplines through various geographical, linguistic and cultural areas.

Using the tools of social geography, specifically those developed by Edward Soja, Henri Lefebvre, and Oliver Sacks, this article explores the Gospel of John’s spatial reference to place as it appears in Jesus’ Farewell Discourse (John 14–17) and the ways it uses narrative to create places for the practices and conceiving of religious identity. Although application of spatial study to John’s gospel is relatively rare in Johannine studies, it promises a great deal of insight, especially because John’s gospel is filled with numerous references to place and a rich variety of prepositional phrases. Through narrative, John offers a spatial temporalization (following Soja, a ‘thirdspace’) for audiences to inhabit and interpret the world around them. John’s Father-Son-Paraclete language of unity (which the Christian tradition has interpreted metaphysically and soteriologically without reference to time and space) creates a place for Johannine discipleship in which listeners reenact the dynamic relationship of its three divine actors. John establishes a particular mode of spatial identity by presenting Father, Son, and Paraclete, together with the narrative’s antagonists and protagonists in particular spaces with a set of behaviors associated with each location. The Johannine reference to Jesus going to prepare a place for his disciples after his death (John 13:36), and the reference to a mansion with many room (John 14:2–4) is traditionally interpreted as a reference to the afterlife or a heavenly domain. Scholars have debated whether this represents a futurist or a realized eschatological teaching. A spatial application offers new insights by viewing it from a social geographical perspective as a spatial location “in the world,” lived out locationally “in” the Paraclete, in rejection by the “world.” Metaphysical unity language refers to a narrative of rejection and suffering, which reveals the identity of Johannine believers “in but not of the world.” In this regard, John reflects sapiential themes found in the Hebrew Bible and the intertestamental period that tell of wisdom dwelling on earth and also being rejected.

This article will investigate the context – in terms of both sources (by means of influence, transformation, or contrast) and ancient reception – of the concept of the ‘dynamic unity’ of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father (expressed in John 10:38, 14:10, and 17:21) in both ‘pagan’ and Christian Middle-Platonic and Neoplatonic thinkers. The Christians include Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa, as well as Evagrius Ponticus and John Scottus Eriugena. The article will outline, in so-called ‘Middle Platonism,’ the hierarchical theology of a first and second God (and sometimes a third), and in Neoplatonism Plotinus’ three hypostases arranged in hierarchical order, which will be contrasted with Origen’s and the Cappadocians’ three divine hypostases that are equal – like those of Augustine . Thus, for Origen not only is the Son in the Father , as in a ‘pagan’ Middle and Neoplatonic scheme, but also the Father is in the Son , in a perfect reciprocity of dynamic unity. Origen subscribes to this reciprocity because, as I argue, he is no real ‘subordinationist’, but the precursor of the Nicene and Constantinopolitan line (the Cappadocians, especially Nyssen, developed and emphasized the notion of equality, bringing the three Hypostases of the Trinity to the level of Plotinus’ One, but the premises were all in Origen’s theology and his concept of the coeternity of the three Hypostases and their common divinity: Nyssen, like Athanasius, even uses Origen’s arguments in his own anti-Arian polemic, as we shall see). Origen interpreted Philo’s theology, also close to so-called Middle Platonism, in a non-subordinationistic sense, attributing to the Hypostasis of Logos/Sophia the various dynameis , such as Logos and Sophia, that Philo used most probably in a non-hypostatic sense. I shall also demonstrate how Gregory of Nyssa, significantly following Origen, in his work Against Eunomius used John 14:10a to refute the philosophical argument of Eunomius, who had a profoundly subordinationistic view of Christ with respect to the Father. Gregory’s solution is that neither the Father nor the Son are in an absolute sense, but both are in a reciprocal relation or σχέσις, what I shall present as Gregory’s own version of the ‘dynamic unity’ (in turn grounded in Origen). I shall also concentrate on the use that Gregory makes of John 17:21-23 to argue that the unity of the Father and the Son, and of all believers – and eventually all humans – in them, is substantiated by the Holy Spirit, who is seen as a bond of unity. I shall study how the notion of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father relates to the parallel statements in John 14:10, that Christ is in the disciples (and all believers) and these are in Christ – what I will call an ‘expansive’ notion of dynamic unity – and John 17:21, that just as the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, so the disciples and all believers too should become ‘one’ in the Father and the Son. Here, as I shall argue, Middle and Neoplatonic henology (or doctrine of the One) comes to the fore as a possible background and interpretive lens at the same time. I shall show how Origen joined it to the unifying force of charity-love (agape), in turn a central theme in John, and how Evagrius, performing his exegesis of these verses, interpreted henosis or unification. A coda will explore the corollary of the Divinity ‘all in all’, which is not only a central tenet of Origen’s theology, but also of that of Proclus. It will be pointed out how this concept relates to the issue of the dynamic unity within the divine.

This article studies Albert the Great’s conception of reciprocal interiority in the exposition of John 14:10: “Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own; but the Father who dwells in me does his works” (Bible quotes from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)). Firstly, the article explores how Albert the Great understands reciprocal interiority as an element of the debate concerning the equality of the Father and of the Son, who, although identical in nature, are different according to the relation, like the one who begets and the one who is begotten. Secondly, it emphasizes the metaphysical solution that Albert borrows from Greek-Arabic neoplatonism, especially from the Liber de causis , so as to refute an objection based on Aristotle’s conception of place. This cultural transfer brings to light how Albert the Great’s Super Iohannem is an innovative melting pot in which Albert imports a new framework from profane sciences, with which to interpret the Gospel of John.

Abstrakt Der Philosoph Heinrich Rombach, einer der Interpreten Meister Eckharts, hat den Vorschlag gemacht, Wechsel-Beziehungen begrifflich nicht als Beziehung von Identitäten zu verstehen, sondern statt dessen den Begriff der „Idemität“ zu benutzen, d.h. die Fassung einer Einheit in einer sich ständig rückkoppelnden Bewegung: bei sich selber sein und sich doch aus der Beziehung verstehen. Sie hat zwar ihre eigene Selbigkeit, aber als Geschehen ist sie auf andere Weise in sich differenziert. Diese Figur nennt Meister Eckhart „Unterscheidung durch Ununterschiedenheit“. Er zielt damit nicht ein Paradox an, sondern eine innere Differenzierung ohne kategorialen Außenbezug. Von Eckhart übernimmt Rombach eine Struktur, die er „vermittelte Unmittelbarkeit“ nennt. Dietmar Mieth versucht, diese Struktur der „Idemität“ in Meister Eckharts Johanneskommentar gleichsam als strukturgleiche Parallele von Wort/Sprache, Beieinandersein („apud“), Sohn/Menschwerdung/Geburt, Gerechtigkeit zu erläutern. Dabei erinnert der Johanneskommentar an verschiedenen Stellen auch an die eckhartsche Bildlehre, führt sie aber weniger aus als z.B. im Genesiskommentar, in Pauluszitaten oder in den deutschen Predigten. Umso gewichtiger ist es, auch hier die strukturgleiche Parallele zu zeigen. Zusätzlich scheint es ihm wichtig, den im Johanneskommentar verwendeten Naturbegriff genauer zu betrachten. Denn entweder bezeichnet der Naturbegriff ganz verschiedene Dinge, also die Natur Gottes, die Natur des Menschen, die Natur der christlichen Sittlichkeit, die Natur der Naturgesetze, oder er bezeichnet die Gründe der Philosophen im Unterschied oder in Korrespondenz zu den Motiven des Glaubens. D.h. es geht gar nicht um das, was wir heute mit „Natur“ im Sinne säkularer Wissenschaft assoziieren, sondern um ein Lesegerät für eine metaphorische, d.h. über ihre immanente Rekonstruktion hinausweisende, Bedeutung der Eigengesetzlichkeit der Dinge. Dies käme dem nahe, was Bernhard von Claivaux im Unterschied zum „liber revelationis“ als „liber creaturae“ bezeichnet hat, das Buch der Schöpfung im Unterschied zum Buch der Erlösung. Der Unterschied bezieht sich bei Eckhart jedoch nicht auf zwei unterschiedliche Regionen der Erkenntnis sondern auf eine Beziehung, in welcher Zwei und Eines zugleich miteinander korrespondieren.