DIOGENES OF BABYLON ON WHO THE DEITY IS: AËTIUS 1.7.8 MANSFELD–RUNIA RECONSIDERED

C. Vassallo
{"title":"DIOGENES OF BABYLON ON WHO THE DEITY IS: AËTIUS 1.7.8 MANSFELD–RUNIA RECONSIDERED","authors":"C. Vassallo","doi":"10.1017/S000983882200057X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In Aëtius 1.7.8 Mansfeld–Runia, Diogenes, Cleanthes and Oenopides are said to have maintained that the deity is the world-soul. However, the identity of the Diogenes whom the doxographer mentions here has long been a matter of scholarly dispute. In response to attempts to ascribe the doxa to Diogenes of Apollonia, this paper reassesses old arguments and proposes new considerations to argue that a fundamental aspect of Diogenes of Babylon's theology is at stake here.","PeriodicalId":22560,"journal":{"name":"The Classical Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Classical Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S000983882200057X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract In Aëtius 1.7.8 Mansfeld–Runia, Diogenes, Cleanthes and Oenopides are said to have maintained that the deity is the world-soul. However, the identity of the Diogenes whom the doxographer mentions here has long been a matter of scholarly dispute. In response to attempts to ascribe the doxa to Diogenes of Apollonia, this paper reassesses old arguments and proposes new considerations to argue that a fundamental aspect of Diogenes of Babylon's theology is at stake here.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
巴比伦的第欧根尼论神是谁:aËtius 1.7.8重新考虑曼斯菲尔德-鲁尼亚
在Aëtius 1.7.8中,曼斯菲尔德-鲁尼亚、第欧根尼、克里安提斯和欧诺匹德斯认为神是世界的灵魂。然而,作者在这里提到的第欧根尼的身份长期以来一直是一个学术争议的问题。为了回应将这个信条归咎于阿波罗尼亚的第欧根尼的尝试,本文重新评估了旧的论点,并提出了新的考虑,认为巴比伦的第欧根尼的神学的一个基本方面在这里受到威胁。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
PHILOSOPHY IN DIO CHRYSOSTOM, ON ANACHÔRÊSIS (ORATION 20) THE MATHEMATICAL EXAMPLE OF GNOMONS IN ARISTOTLE, PHYSICS 3.4, 203a10–16 HELOTS AT THERMOPYLAE: THE GREEK DEAD AT HERODOTUS 8.25 A SERVILE RIDDLE FROM POMPEII? (CIL 4.1877) JULIUS CAESAR AND THE LARCH: BURNING QUESTIONS AT VITRUVIUS’ DE ARCHITECTVRA 2.9.15–16 – ERRATUM
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1