Junyan Song

This Element examines how salvation could be imagined in late antique paganism as both universal in scope and differentiated in form. Taking Iamblichus as its central case study, it argues that his theology of theurgy offers a distinctive pagan model of universal salvation. The Element shows that Iamblichus’ theurgic system is not only metaphysical but also soteriological: different souls approach different divine levels through different theurgic means. On this basis, the study develops a twofold account of salvation: vertically, as differentiated access to the divine across the range of human capacities, and horizontally, as a vision of divine manifestation across peoples, cults, and religious communities. By situating Iamblichus in conversation with broader late antique religious traditions—including Hermeticism, the Chaldean Oracles, and Orphism—as well as with later pagan Platonist developments, the Element introduces readers to a major soteriological theme in the study of religion in late antiquity. At the same time, it proposes pagan universalism as a new category for understanding a hierarchical yet comprehensive vision of salvation in late antique pagan thought.

This paper examines Damascius’ Neoplatonic interpretation of the Babylonian creation myth Enūma Eliš. It argues that Damascius rereads the mythic genealogy in philosophical terms by organizing its divine generations into ordered triadic and hierarchical structures and by positing, above the primordial opposition of Apsû and Tiamat, a prior unifying principle corresponding to the Neoplatonic One. Particular attention is given to his treatment of Mummu as an initial productive principle and to his use of Berossos’ account of primordial darkness as a possible symbolic counterpart to a pre-dual first principle. More broadly, the paper shows how late antique Neoplatonic exegesis could reshape Mesopotamian cosmogony within a metaphysical framework, thereby shedding light on a distinctive mode of cross-cultural mythological interpretation in late antiquity.

This article offers a close reading of De Mysteriis VIII 2 (261.7–262.11), where Iamblichus distinguishes the “One God” (θεὸς εἷς), who remains “unmoved” (ἀκίνητος), from “the First God and King” (ὁ πρῶτος θεὸς καὶ βασιλεύς). It argues that these two figures are best identified with Iamblichus’ two highest Ones: (1) the entirely Ineffable principle (One1) and (2) the Simple One (One2). The decisive clue is a liturgical criterion. Read alongside De Mysteriis V 9, the contrast between ἀκίνητος (261.8) and συγκινεῖται (210.3) is not merely cast in the language of rest and motion but functions as a marker of liturgical (i.e. theurgic) addressability, delineating where theurgy can—and cannot—reach. This boundary clarifies how Iamblichus distinguishes One1 from One2 by insisting that One1 remains “untouched” by any ritual linkage even while One2 can enter the economy of theurgic stirring, thereby bringing into view an often-overlooked hierarchy of theurgic accessibility. The argument is further supported by an analysis of the epithets applied to the First God and King in VIII 2 and by comparison with their usage in the Platonic tradition.