Morphology

The fem. substantive παλιγγενεσία ➚ (-σίας, -σίᾳ, -σίαν, etc.) is a nomen actionis, composed by the adverb πάλιν – perhaps an adverbial acc. from *πάλις, from a hypothetical ø degree of the root *kwel- > πελ-, whence πέλομαι ➚ (cf. Frisk, GEW 468; Chantraine, DELG 853; Neri 2018, 392) – and by -γενεσία (γένε- [*gen(h1)-] + -σί-α [*-ti-ᾰ]), i.e. an alternative form of the better-known γένεσις ➚ (-έσεως, etc.), with the proper termination of adverb + nominal root (cf. on this subject Fraenkel 1912, 60-80 and Dey 1937, 4).

Etymology

The noun παλιγγενεσία ➚ replaces, maybe in the Stoic era yet – at least according to Leisegang (1949, 139) – the older verbal form πάλιν γίγνεσθαι ➚, already attested in Plato (Phaed. 70d and 72a, Men. 81a-b), and also recorded in some testimony of Pythagoras (VS 14 A 8a), passed on by Dicaearchus (fr. 40 Mir. ap. Porph. VP 19): τὰ γενόμενά ποτε πάλιν γίνεται.

In Hesychius’ Lexicon (π 199 L.-H.), the following gloss could be read: *παλιγγενεσία· τὸ ἐκ δευτέρου ἀναγεννηθῆναι (vg1 A21), ἢ ἀνακαινισθῆναι (vg1), and the meaning of the compound – which can be understood by the sense of both members – is certainly that of the return (πάλιν ➚ = ‘back’ or ‘again’) to generation, i.e. to γένεσις ➚, and it also implies the ‘presocratic’ concept of κύκλος γενέσεως ➚, once again attributed to Pythagoras by Diog. Laert. VIII 14 (cf. Zhmud 2012, 232f.).

Testimonies

Plat. Phaed. 70c-d

παλαιὸς μὲν οὖν ἔστι τις λόγος οὗ μεμνήμεθα, ὡς εἰσὶν ἐνθένδε ἀφικόμεναι ἐκεῖ, καὶ πάλιν γε δεῦρο ἀφικνοῦνται καὶ γίγνονται ἐκ τῶν τεθνεώτων· καὶ εἰ τοῦθ’ οὕτως ἔχει, πάλιν γίγνεσθαι ἐκ τῶν ἀποθανόντων τοὺς ζῶντας, ἄλλο τι ἢ εἶεν ἂν αἱ ψυχαὶ ἡμῶν ἐκεῖ; οὐ γὰρ ἄν που πάλιν ἐγίγνοντο μὴ οὖσαι, καὶ τοῦτο ἱκανὸν τεκμήριον τοῦ ταῦτ’ εἶναι, εἰ τῷ ὄντι φανερὸν γίγνοιτο ὅτι οὐδαμόθεν ἄλλοθεν γίγνονται οἱ ζῶντες ἢ ἐκ τῶν τεθνεώτων,72aὁμολογεῖται ἄρα ἡμῖν καὶ ταύτῃ τοὺς ζῶντας ἐκ τῶν τεθνεώτων γεγονέναι οὐδὲν ἧττον ἢ τοὺς τεθνεῶτας ἐκ τῶν ζώντων, τούτου δὲ ὄντος ἱκανόν που ἐδόκει τεκμήριον εἶναι ὅτι ἀναγκαῖον τὰς τῶν τεθνεώτων ψυχὰς εἶναί που, ὅθεν δὴ πάλιν γίγνεσθαι.

Men. 81a-b

οἱ μὲν λέγοντές εἰσι τῶν ἱερέων τε καὶ τῶν ἱερειῶν ὅσοις μεμέληκε περὶ ὧν μεταχειρίζονται λόγον οἵοις τ’ εἶναι διδόναι· λέγει δὲ καὶ Πίνδαρος καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ τῶν ποιητῶν ὅσοι θεῖοί εἰσιν. ἃ δὲ λέγουσιν, ταυτί ἐστιν· ἀλλὰ σκόπει εἴ σοι δοκοῦσιν ἀληθῆ λέγειν. φασὶ γὰρ τὴν ψυχὴν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου εἶναι ἀθάνατον, καὶ τοτὲ μὲν τελευτᾶν – ὃ δὴ ἀποθνῄσκειν καλοῦσι – τοτὲ δὲ πάλιν γίγνεσθαι, ἀπόλλυσθαι δ’ οὐδέποτε· δεῖν δὴ διὰ ταῦτα ὡς ὁσιώτατα διαβιῶναι τὸν βίον.

Philo VM II 65

ταῦτα τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἀνδρῶν ἐστιν ἀριστεῖα καὶ ἆθλα, δι’ ὧν οὐ μόνον αὐτοὶ καὶ γένη σωτηρίας ἔτυχον τοὺς μεγίστους κινδύνους ἐκφυγόντες, οἳ κατὰ τὸν τῶν στοιχείων νεωτερισμὸν τοῖς πανταχοῦ πᾶσιν ἐπετειχίσθησαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ παλιγγενεσίας ἐγένοντο ἡγεμόνες καὶ δευτέρας ἀρχηγέται περιόδου,

Aet. 10,76

Βόηθος γοῦν ὁ Σιδώνιος (SVF III 7) καὶ Παναίτιος, ἄνδρες ἐν τοῖς Στωϊκοῖς δόγμασιν ἰσχυκότες, ἅτε θεόληπτοι, τὰς ἐκπυρώσεις καὶ παλιγγενεσίας καταλιπόντες πρὸς ὁσιώτερον δόγμα τὸ τῆς ἀφθαρσίας τοῦ κόσμου πάντως ηὐτομόλησαν, 14,47 (= Chrysipp. SVF II 613) καὶ μὴν οἵ γε τὰς ἐκπυρώσεις καὶ τὰς παλιγγενεσίας εἰσηγούμενοι τοῦ κόσμου νομίζουσι καὶ ὁμολογοῦσι τοὺς ἀστέρας θεοὺς εἶναι, οὓς τῷ λόγῳ διαφθείρειν οὐκ ἐρυθριῶσιν,

Leg. ad G. 325

τὸν ἐπικρεμάμενον ἀεὶ τοῦ θανάτου φόβον ἀπώσω καὶ τεθνεῶτα τῷ δέει ζωπυρήσας καθάπερ ἐκ παλιγγενεσίας ἀνήγειρας,

Post. Caini 124

περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν Λάμεχ γυναικῶν τε καὶ ἐκγόνων ἱκανῶς οἶμαι δεδηλῶσθαι· τὴν δ’ ὥσπερ παλιγγενεσίαν Ἄβελ τοῦ δολοφονηθέντος σκεψώμεθα. ἔγνω φησίν Ἀδὰμ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ Εὔαν, καὶ συλλαβοῦσα ἔτεκεν υἱόν, καὶ ἐπωνόμασε τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Σὴθ ‹λέγουσα› (add. Cohn-Wendl. ex LXX)· ἐξανέστησε γάρ μοι ὁ θεὸς σπέρμα ἕτερον ἀντὶ Ἄβελ, ὃν ἀπέκτεινε Κάιν,

De Cherub. 114s.

ποῦ γάρ μου τὸ σῶμα πρὸ γενέσεως ἦν; ποῖ δὲ καὶ χωρήσει μεταστάντος ‹μου› (add. Cohn-Wendl.); ποῦ δὲ καὶ τοῦ δοκοῦντος ὑφεστάναι τῶν ἡλικιῶν αἱ διαφοραί; ποῦ τὸ βρέφος, ποῦ ὁ παῖς, ποῦ ‹ὁ› (ins. Richter, quod recc. Cohn-Wendl.) ἀντίπαις, ποῦ ὁ ἄρτι ἡβῶν, ποῦ τὸ μειράκιον, ὁ πρωτογένειος, ὁ νεανίας, ὁ τέλειος ἀνήρ; πόθεν δὲ ἦλθεν ἡ ψυχή, ποῖ δὲ χωρήσει, πόσον δὲ χρόνον ἡμῖν ὁμοδίαιτος ἔσται; τίς δέ ἐστι τὴν οὐσίαν, ἔχομεν εἰπεῖν; πότε δὲ καὶ ἐκτησάμεθα αὐτήν; πρὸ γενέσεως; ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὑπήρχομεν· μετὰ τὸν θάνατον; ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐσόμεθα οἱ μετὰ σωμάτων σύγκριτοι ποιοί, ἀλλ’ εἰς παλιγγενεσίαν ὁρμήσομεν οἱ μετὰ ἀσωμάτων σύγκριτοι ποιοί.

Plut. Esu carn. I 996c

καίτοι δοκεῖ παλαιότερος οὗτος ὁ λόγος εἶναι· τὰ γὰρ δὴ περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον μεμυθευμένα πάθη τοῦ διαμελισμοῦ καὶ τὰ Τιτάνων ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τολμήματα γευσαμένων τε τοῦ φόνου κολάσεις [τε τούτων] καὶ κεραυνώσεις, ᾐνιγμένος ἐστὶ μῦθος εἰς τὴν παλιγγενεσίαν· τὸ γὰρ ἐν ἡμῖν ἄλογον καὶ ἄτακτον καὶ βίαιον οὐ θεῖον ἀλλὰ δαιμονικὸν οἱ παλαιοὶ Τιτᾶνας ὠνόμασαν, [καὶ] τοῦτ’ ἔστι κολαζομένους καὶ δίκην τίνοντας, II 998c ἀλλ’ ἐὰν μὴ προσαποδείξῃ τις, ὅτι χρῶνται κοινοῖς αἱ ψυχαὶ σώμασιν ἐν ταῖς παλιγγενεσίαις καὶ τὸ νῦν λογικὸν αὖθις γίγνεται ἄλογον καὶ πάλιν ἥμερον τὸ νῦν ἄγριον, ἀλλάσσει δ’ ἡ φύσις ἅπαντα καὶ μετοικίζει “σαρκῶν ἀλλογνῶτι περιστέλλουσα χιτῶνι” (Emped. VS 31 B 126), ταῦτ’ οὐκ ἀποτρέψει τὸ ἀνήμερον, τὸ ἀκόλαστον, τὸ καὶ σώματι νόσους καὶ βαρύτητας ἐμποιοῦν καὶ ψυχὴν ἐπὶ πόλεμον ἀνομώτερον τρεπομένην διαφθεῖρον, ὅταν ἐθισθῶμεν [μὴ] αἵματος ἄνευ καὶ φόνου μὴ ξένον ἑστιᾶν, μὴ γάμον ἑορτάζειν, μὴ φίλοις συγγίγνεσθαι,

Is. 364f

Ἀργείοις δὲ βουγενὴς Διόνυσος ἐπίκλην ἐστίν· ἀνακαλοῦνται δ’ αὐτὸν ὑπὸ σαλπίγγων ἐξ ὕδατος ἐμβάλλοντες εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον ἄρνα τῷ Πυλαόχῳ· τὰς δὲ σάλπιγγας ἐν θύρσοις ἀποκρύπτουσιν, ὡς Σωκράτης ἐν τοῖς περὶ ὁσίων (fr. 5 M.) εἴρηκεν. ὁμολογεῖ δὲ καὶ τὰ Τιτανικὰ καὶ Νυκτέλια τοῖς λεγομένοις Ὀσίριδος διασπασμοῖς καὶ ταῖς ἀναβιώσεσι καὶ παλιγγενεσίαις· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰ περὶ τὰς ταφάς, 379e-f ᾗ καὶ περὶ τούτων τὰ εἰκότα διελθεῖν οὐκ ἀνάρμοστόν ἐστι· τὸ μὲν γὰρ εἰς ταῦτα τὰ ζῷα τοὺς θεοὺς τὸν Τυφῶνα δείσαντας μεταβαλεῖν, οἷον ἀποκρύπτοντας ἑαυτοὺς σώμασιν ἴβεων καὶ κυνῶν καὶ ἱεράκων, πᾶσαν ὑπερπέπαικε τερατείαν καὶ μυθολογίαν, καὶ τὸ ταῖς ψυχαῖς τῶν θανόντων ὅσαι διαμένουσιν εἰς ταῦτα μόνα γίνεσθαι τὴν παλιγγενεσίαν ὁμοίως ἄπιστον.

NT Mt. 19,28

ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ὑμεῖς οἱ ἀκολουθήσαντές μοι ἐν τῇ παλιγγενεσίᾳ, ὅταν καθίσῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπὶ θρόνου δόξης αὐτοῦ, καθήσεσθε καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐπὶ δώδεκα θρόνους κρίνοντες τὰς δώδεκα φυλὰς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ,

Tt. 3,4-7

ὅτε δὲ ἡ χρηστότης καὶ ἡ φιλανθρωπία ἐπεφάνη τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ, οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ ἃ ἐποιήσαμεν ἡμεῖς ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως πνεύματος ἁγίου, οὗ ἐξέχεεν ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς πλουσίως διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, ἵνα δικαιωθέντες τῇ ἐκείνου χάριτι κληρονόμοι γενηθῶμεν κατ’ ἐλπίδα ζωῆς αἰωνίου.

Marc. Aur. XI 1,2-3

ἔτι δὲ περιέρχεται τὸν ὅλον κόσμον καὶ τὸ περὶ αὐτὸν κενὸν καὶ τὸ σχῆμα αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς τὴν ἀπειρίαν τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐκτείνεται καὶ τὴν περιοδικὴν παλιγγενεσίαν τῶν ὅλων ἐμπεριλαμβάνει καὶ περινοεῖ καὶ θεωρεῖ ὅτι οὐδὲν νεώτερον ὄψονται οἱ μεθ’ ἡμᾶς οὐδὲ περιττότερον εἶδον οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν, ἀλλὰ τρόπον τινὰ ὁ τεσσαρακοντούτης, ἐὰν νοῦν ὁποσονοῦν ἔχῃ, πάντα τὰ γεγονότα καὶ τὰ ἐσόμενα ἑώρακε κατὰ τὸ ὁμοειδές.

Alex. Aphr. In Arist. APr. p. 180,31-36 W.

ἀληθὲς δὲ δύναταί ποτε γενέσθαι κατ’ αὐτοὺς μετὰ τὸν θάνατον τὸν Δίωνος τό “τούτου κεχώρισται ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ τὸ σώμα” δεικνυμένου Δίωνος· ἀρέσκει γὰρ αὐτοῖς τὸ μετὰ τὴν ἐκπύρωσιν πάλιν πάντα ταὐτὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ γίνεσθαι κατ’ ἀριθμόν, ὡς καὶ τὸν ἰδίως ποιὸν πάλιν τὸν αὐτὸν τῷ πρόσθεν εἶναί τε καὶ γίνεσθαι ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ κόσμῳ, ὡς ἐν τοῖς περὶ κόσμου Χρύσιππος (SVF II 624) λέγει.

Porph. VP 19 (ap. Dicaearch. fr. 41 Mir. = Pyth. VS 14 A 8a)

ἃ μὲν οὖν ἔλεγε τοῖς συνοῦσιν οὐδὲ εἷς ἔχει φράσαι βεβαίως· καὶ γὰρ οὐχ ἡ τυχοῦσα ἦν παρ’ αὐτοῖς σιωπή. μάλιστα μέντοι γνώριμα παρὰ πᾶσιν ἐγένετο πρῶτον μὲν ὡς ἀθάνατον εἶναι φησὶ τὴν ψυχήν, εἶτα μεταβάλλουσαν εἰς ἄλλα γένη ζῴων, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ὅτι κατὰ περιόδους τινὰς τὰ γενόμενά ποτε πάλιν γίνεται, νέον δ’ οὐδὲν ἁπλῶς ἔστι, καὶ ὅτι πάντα τὰ γινόμενα ἔμψυχα ὁμογενῆ δεῖ νομίζειν. φέρεται γὰρ εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα τὰ δόγματα πρῶτος κομίσαι ταῦτα Πυθαγόρας.

Serv. ad Verg. Aen. 3,68

Pythagoras vero non μετεμψύχωσιν, sed παλιγγενεσίαν esse dicit, hoc est redire, sed post tempus.

Nem. Nat. hom. 2 p. 116,3s. Matth.

Κρόνιος (fr. 12 Leem.) μὲν γὰρ ἐν τῷ περὶ παλιγγενεσίας (οὕτω δὲ καλεῖ τὴν μετενσωμάτωσιν) λογικὰς πάσας εἶναι βούλεται, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ Θεόδωρος ὁ Πλατωνικὸς ἐν τῷ ὅτι ἡ ψυχὴ πάντα τὰ εἴδη ἐστί, καὶ Πορφύριος ὁμοίως· Ἰάμβλιχος δὲ τὴν ἐναντίαν τούτοις δραμὼν κατ’ εἶδος ζῴων ψυχῆς εἶδος εἶναι λέγει, ἤγουν εἴδη διάφορα.

Simpl. In Arist. Ph. p. 886,11 D. (= Chrysipp. SVF II 627)

τοῦτο δὲ τὸ ζήτημα τῇ τῶν Στωικῶν ἐστι μᾶλλον ἁρμόττον παλιγγενεσίᾳ· λέγοντες γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι τὸν αὐτὸν ἐμὲ πάλιν γίνεσθαι ἐν τῇ παλιγγενεσίᾳ, ζητοῦσιν εἰκότως πότερον εἷς εἰμι τῷ ἀριθμῷ ὁ νῦν καὶ τότε, διὰ τὸ τῇ οὐσίᾳ εἶναι ὁ αὐτός, ἢ τῇ κατατάξει τῇ εἰς ἄλλην καὶ ἄλλην κοσμοποιΐαν διαφοροῦμαι.

schol. Soph. El. 62 p. 118 X. (= Suda η 88 A.)

Πυθαγόρας καθείρξας ἑαυτὸν ἐν ὑπογείῳ λογοποιεῖν ἐκέλευσε τὴν μητέρα ὡς ἄρα τεθνηκὼς ἔοι. καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐπιφανεὶς περὶ παλιγγενεσίας καὶ τῶν καθ’ ᾍδου τινὰ ἐτερατεύετο, διηγούμενος πρὸς τοὺς ζῶντας περὶ τῶν οἰκείων, οἷς ἐν ᾍδου συντετυχηκέναι ἔλεγεν.

Catalogue of occurences

• Plat. Men. 81a-b, Phaed. 70c-d and 72a
• Philo VM II 65, Aet. 10,76 (= Boeth. Sid. SVF III 613) and 14,47 (= Chrysipp. SVF II 613), Leg. ad G. 325, Post. Caini 124 and Cherub. 114
• Plut. Esu carn. I 996c and II 998c, Is. 364f and 379e-f
• NT Mt. 19,28 and Tt. 3,5
• Marc. Aur. XI 1,2-3
• CH 3,3 and 13,1
• Alex. Aphr. In Arist. APr. p. 180,33-36 W.
• Porph. VP 19 (= Dicaearch. fr. 40 Mir. = Pythag. VS 14 A 8a)
• Serv. ad Verg. Aen. 3,68
• Nem. theol. Nat. hom. 2,35,4s. ➚
• Simpl. In Arist. Ph. p. 886,11 D. (= Chrysipp. SVF II 627)
• schol. Soph. El. 62 p. 118 X.

Discussion/interpretation

1)Plato. Even before taking into account the sources, it is fitting to consider the use of the verb πάλιν γίγνεσθαι, from which the nomen actionis will effectively originate: used three times by Plato, in the Phaedo (70c-d, 72a) and the Meno (81a-b), it pertains to the act of “begetting anew” of the souls, through a process which – according to Plato (vd. Phaed. 70d), again – would be typical of a doctrine described in a no better defined παλαιὸς λόγος. Following Plato’s proper usage of this ‘ancient’ λόγος, concerning the pre-platonic (above all theogonic) myths, it is very likely that the above-mentioned notice of the παλαιὸς λόγος is referred to Orphism and actually to the anthropogonic and aetiologic (concerning eschatology) myth of Dionysus’ dismemberment and devouring, carried out by the Titans: it is the same myth which intends to illustrate the origin of both humankind, from the hashes of the Titans themselves (struck with lightning by Zeus), and primordial guilt, innate to humanity as titanic offspring.

If, in Phaed. 70d-72a, it seems to be no eschatological or anti-somatic feature – thus linked to the catharsis of the soul from the body-prison – as, on the contrary, it is more explicitly inferred by other passages (cf. Plat. Crat. 400b-c, Gorg. 492e-f), Plato’s intention indeed is that to logically demonstrate, in conformity with the coincidentia oppositorum, the immortality of the soul, even implied by the Orphics. So, it is probable that the platonic πάλιν γίγνεσθαι has to be considered as a link to the cathartic process of souls, which, during their purifying iter – if not yet ready to achieve beatitude (alongside Persephone) – are compelled to be inputted again into the cycle of rebirths, to expiate their original guilt. Despite the two doctrines, described in Crat. 400b-c and in Gorg. 492e-f, and on the other hand in Phaed. 70d-72a, could seem distinct, as if it might be presumed a more Orphic doctrine (of the σῶμα/σῆμα, indeed), and another of a more Pythagorean kind (without eschatological nor anti-somatic implications), it is also true that Plato (Phaed. 70d) clearly asserts that he has already previously mentioned (in Phaedo itself) the παλαιὸς λόγος, about which he is going to speak again – παλαιὸς μὲν οὖν ἔστι τις λόγος οὗ μεμνήμεθα – and in fact, in 69c, the Orphic catharsis is unquestionably brought up.

It is therefore unlikely that this Heraclitean kind of demonstration of the soul’s immortality (in Plat. Phaed. 70d-72a) conceals another doctrine: the παλαιὸς λόγος – often quoted concerning ancient myths – only pertains the anthropogonic and eschatological myth of the Orphics; if it might be supposed that this παλαιὸς λόγος has to be linked to a different form of religiosity, it would be possible to think of Eleusinian myths and rites (well known by Plato), but they – even though very familiar with the idea of the cyclicity of nature – do not provide for any cycle of the souls, in eschatological terms. The ultimate aim of the initiate is in fact the attainment of the beatitude in Hades – as opposed to the oblivion and shadow, threatened by the Olympian religiosity – but with no reference to a “return to generation” of souls.

To sum up, it is plausible that Plato used the verb πάλιν γίγνεσθαι, so that he might mention the cycle of rebirths as the destiny of souls not yet reserving the full bliss of the overworld, and therefore reintroduced into generation and a new body: Plutarch (Esu carn. 996c) – defining it as a παλαιὸς λόγος – also asserted that the dismemberment of Zagreus was a myth of palingenesis, ᾐνιγμένος ἐστὶ μῦθος εἰς τὴν παλιγγενεσίαν (cf. infra). The πάλιν γίγνεσθαι is thus an aspect not in contrast, but complementary to the already Orphic doctrine of the σῶμα/σῆμα.

2) Pre-platonic and Pythagorean testimonies. Despite the occurrences of the verb πάλιν γίγνεσθαι are above all platonic, it is very probable that its usage was already widespread (cf. Casadio 1991, 122), and that Plato had taken it from other Orphic-Pythagorean lores. Riedweg (2007, 121), indeed, was sure enough that the only doctrine attributable to Pythagoras was the transmigration of souls, and also that this belief had been handed down by Pherekydes of Syros (VI sec. BC): the many testimonies of the alleged discipleship of Pythagoras at the Syrius – I think, first of all (but not only), of Aristox. fr. 14 W. and Dicaearch. fr. 34 W. (= Pherekyd. Syr. VS 7 A 1, 4 = frr. 26 e 29c Sch.) – would be in fact indications of a doctrinal similarity, which can be truly found in the faith on transmigration of the soul, of that Pherekydes would have previously written: vd. Pherecyd. Syr. A 5 = fr. 7 Sch. ap. Cic. Tusc. I 16,38, A 5= fr. 86b Sch. ap. Apon. V 23 e A 2 = fr. 2 Sch. ap. Suda φ 214 A., e inoltre B 6s. = frr. 87s. Sch. ap. Porph. Gaur. 2,2 (= Num. fr. 36 Des Places) e Antr. 31 (I refer particularly to Schibli 1990, 12f. and West 1971, 2).

Of course, it is not astonishing that, despite the neutrality of the verb πάλιν γίγνεσθαι – which, by itself, means “begetting anew” – Plato brought it up in the field of Orphic eschatology, but the idea of the return to genesis, without moral nor anti-somatic implications, could be attributed to Pythagoras: he, according to Diogenes Laertius (VIII 4), believed in the κύκλος ἀνάγκης of the souls, but in this case not intended to expiation of primordial guilt (cf. e.g. Vegetti 1994, 84-88 and Tortorelli Ghidini 2006, 20f.). The idea of the eschatological κύκλος might also be read in the lamina aurea of Thuri (vd. Orph. fr. 32 IVc K. = 488,5 B. = 4 [A 65] C.), though it is a κύκλος, in this case, βαρυπενθὴς ἀργαλέος, which has to be avoided, indeed (the verb used is ἐκπέτομαι, ‘to fly away’, not casually). It must not be ruled out the possibility that Diog. Laert. l.c., linking Pythagoras to the belief in the κύκλος ἀνάγκης, misunderstood the Pythagorean doctrine and, as a consequence, he would have ascribed to it this eschatological lore, instead proper of the Orphism: cf. e.g. Orph. frr. 224 K. = 388 B. = 4 [B 65] C. ἀμειβομένη ψυχὴ κατὰ κύκλα χρόνοιο, e 20 K. = 467,4 B. = 4 [A 44] C.

Another occurrence of the verb πάλιν γίγνεσθαι is attested in the Neoplatonic Porphyry, who, in his Vita Pithagorae (19), ascribes to the Samian philosopher (cf. VS 14 A 8a) a doctrine on the cyclicity not only of souls – for which they are therefore immortal, and they can transmigrate in other animal species (since every living being has to be considered of the same nature) – but also of time. Despite his models, influenced by the Orphic-Platonic eschatology, Porphyry (l.c.) does not hint at any anti-somatic teaching, and he attributes this doctrine to Pythagoras, quoting a testimony that dates back to Dicaearchus (vd. frr. 40f. Mir., and cf. Burkert 1972, 122f.; White 2001, 212f. e n. 38; contra esp. Lévy 1926, 51).

This (alleged) Pythagorean doctrine on souls’ cyclicity as a consequence of the same cyclicity of time may be also read in Eudemus (fr. 88 W.), and it refers to the Pythagorean image that specifically Heraclides Ponticus – truly interested in this doctrine on the soul of Pythagoras – had contributed to shape. The passage of Porphyry (l.c.), above mentioned, is also coherent with some Aristotelian testimonies (An. 407b 20-30 = Pyth. VS 58 B 39, 414a 22-25 = B 34), where – speaking about no-better defined Πυθαγορικοὶ μύθοι (B 39), or οἱ Πυθαγορείοι (B 34) – Aristotle argued about the ancient Pythagorean doctrine on transmigration, as described in Poprh. l.c., i.e. Dicaearch. fr. 41 M., because it nullified his theory of soul as ἐντελέχεια: vd. e.g. An. 412a 27 (cf. in merito Alesse 2000, 402-406).

If the verb πάλιν γίγνεσθαι firstly signified the return to life by re-incorporation (as probably divulged by the Pythagorean circle), then it had been used in order to exhaustively explain the sense of evil in the world, since, according to the Orphic dualism of body and soul, the return to flesh is cause and evidence of an innate guilt, which has to be truly expiated through ‘palingenesis’ (on this subject, Dodds 1951, 150-152 is still valid): Plato, in his Phaedo, might have drawn the meaning of πάλιν γίγνεσθαι from this specific contest.

It is also highly probable that the palingenetic Pythagorean doctrine must not have been associated with expiation and catharsis, but with the chance of attaining, in the next life, a condition closer to semi-divinity and full wisdom, solely thanks to reincarnations: the journey to the hypogean realm (of Hades) is thus the sapiential itinerary par excellence, and that might be also well deduced by the platonic (in Crat. 404b) para-etymology, which evokes an otherworldly conception already present in Parmenides, e.g. VS 28 B 2 (cf. Cerri 1995, 458-467 and Viscardi 2014, 146-157). In this regard, in the scholium to Sophocles’ Electra (62 p. 118 X. = Suda η 88 A.) the term παλιγγενεσία ➚ is read in the merit of what Pythagoras would have learned after he had come back from a hypogeic space, very similar to the underground chamber of the Herodotean Zalmoxis (II 95,4s.): Πυθαγόρας καθείρξας ἑαυτὸν ἐν ὑπογείῳ λογοποιεῖν ἐκέλευσε τὴν μητέρα ὡς ἄρα τεθνηκὼς ἔοι. καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐπιφανεὶς περὶ παλιγγενεσίας. The scholium also has evident affinities with both the parody of the Pythagorean iter to Hades, narrated by Hermyppus (fr. 20 W. = FGrHist. 1026 F 24) and with the tradition of Heraclides Ponticus (fr. 89 W.), that refers the previous incarnations of Pythagoras (cf. Lévy 1926, 37-40; Burkert 1972, 138 and n. 100, 156 and n. 200; Coscia 2017, 142).

As evidence of a possible Pythagorean doctrine, as distinct from the πάλιν γίγνεσθαι which Plato wrote about (see above), it is notable an account by Servius (ad Verg. Aen. 3,68), where he specifies that Pythagoras spoke of παλιγγενεσία ➚, and not of μετεμψύχωσις. The author seems to prove his knowledge of, and perhaps even to recognise, a clear distinction between palingenesis and metempsychosis, while this last term was firstly attested in Diodorus Siculus, X 6,1 (cf. Casadio 1991, 122). If Plato used the verb πάλιν γίγνεσθαι to refer to the Orphic doctrine of expiation through the return to the body and generation, and although the same eschatology was then expressed by the terms μετεμψύχωσις or μετενσωμάτωσις – a term (the latter) even later, dating back to the 2nd century AD (cf. p. 123) – it is certainly noteworthy that a precise distinction is made here between the re-injection of the soul into the body, which still pertains to the ethical-moral sphere (pro meritis vitae prioris), and the more ‘neutral’ palingenesis, hoc est – to use Servius’ own words – redire, sed post tempus. Servius likely drew the term παλιγγενεσία ➚ not from late Platonism, but rather from Stoicism, since he placed the Stoic doctrine on the immortality of the soul between the Pythagorean παλιγγενεσία ➚ and the Platonic μετεμψύχωσις, defining it as a sort of crasis of them (cf. Pellizzari 2003, 150). What is thus surprising is the need to specify a distinction between the two terms, when they were often treated as synonyms. Cronius (fr. 12 Leem. ap. Nem. Nat. hom. p. 116,3f. Matth.) wrote a volume Περὶ παλιγγενεσία ➚, where the faith in the immortality of souls was strongly influenced by Numenius of Apamea (see Dillon 2010, 423f.), who considered transmigration to be a real misfortune (think about Num. fr. 48 Des Places). It is therefore understandable that Nemesius (l.c.) interpreted Cronius’ παλιγγενεσία ➚ as μετενσωμάτωσις – ἐν τῷ περὶ παλιγγενεσίας (οὕτω δὲ καλεῖ τὴν μετενσωμάτωσιν) – a term with anti-somatic connotations and links to the Origenian tradition (cf. Casadio 1991, 123).

3) Stoic occurrences. Stoicism uses the term παλιγγενεσία ➚ only concerning cosmology and the cyclical nature of the world, which precisely ‘regenerates’ itself as a result of its own ‘conflagration’ (ἐκπύρωσις). The very first occurrences of the nomen actionis παλιγγενεσία ➚ date back to Philo Alexandrinus, who, in De aeternitate mundi (14,47), quotes Chrysippus (SVF II 613), referring to the Stoics as “proponents of the ecpyrosis and palingenesis of the world”, and, in De vita Mosis (II 65), gives evidence of drawing the concept of ‘palingenesis’ from a Stoic context (cf. Dey 1937, 8f.). Although he assimilated much of the palingenetic doctrine, Philo – for religious reasons (cf. Pohlenz 1967, 201) – did not share the idea of the cyclical nature of the cosmos at all, since he was convinced of the ex nihilo creation of the world, or rather its formation from a pre-existing matter, thus interpreting the Jewish God platonically as the Demiurge and biblically as the Creator (cf. Reale 1994, 45-51). In this regard, also consider Ph. Aet. 10.76 ap. SVF III 7 τὰς ἐκπυρώσεις καὶ παλιγγενεσίας ➚: here the doctrine of cyclicity is rejected by Boethius Sidonius and Panetius, who took the side of what, according to Philo, was the ‘more pious’ (ὁσιώτερον) doctrine of the incorruptibility of the world (cf. Dey 1937, 10).

Marcus Aurelius (XI 1.2f. ), who picks up on Stoic philosophy, speaking of the rational soul, re-proposes an already ancient liaison between the cyclical nature of the soul and that of the cosmos, insofar as the revolutions of the soul are an integral part of the macroscopic revolutions of the world itself, and he makes it very clear how the theme of παλιγγενεσία ➚ is also intertwined with that of wisdom and memory, since (according to the philosopher) the sensible forty-year-old man may be able to recognise past and future events, thanks to their conformity: καὶ περινοεῖ καὶ θεωρεῖ ὅτι οὐδὲν νεώτερον ὄψονται οἱ μεθ’ ἡμᾶς οὺδὲ περιττότερον εἶδον οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν.

In his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics (p. 886,11 D.), Simplicius quotes the Stoics (cf. Chrysipp. SVF II 627), regarding their palingenetic doctrine: in palingenesis (παλιγγενεσία ➚, scil. of the world) individuals get to become themselves again (τὸν αὐτὸν ἐμὲ πάλιν γίνεσθαι). Once again thanks to Simplicius (In Ph. p. 732,23 D.), the above-mentioned testimony of Eudemus (fr. 88 W.), from which it might be inferred that the Peripatetic – and Aristotle (also think of Dicaearch. fr. 40 Mir.) – had to know a doctrine of a cosmic palingenesis, very similar to the one found in Stoic testimonies, which he attributed to Pythagoras. In the field of Aristotelian commentaries, an interesting passage by Alexander of Aphrodisias (In Arist. Apr. p. 180,31-36 W.) bears witness to the use, in Chrysippus (SVF II 624), of the verb πάλιν γίγνεσθαι, regarding the regeneration both of the cosmos and of the very quality of the individual in the regenerated world: this use of the verb – reflecting Platonic dictation – probably goes back to the original text of Chrysippus, since, after Philo of Alexandria, the occurrences of the verbal form are decidedly less frequent.

It is also clear that the first Stoicism (of Zeno, e.g.) might have undergone the influence of Heraclitus (cf., for instance, VS 22 B 65, 67 and 90), although it had not inherited his lexis: B 65 (ap. Plut. E ap. Delph. 388e) in fact betrays the Stoic exegesis of the χρησμοσύνη as διακόσμησις and of the Heraclitean κόρος as ἐκπύρωσις (cf. Pohlenz 1967, 149 n. 7). However, there do not seem to be any occurrences of the term παλιγγενεσία ➚, nor in its verbal form πάλιν γίγνεσθαι, that could be traced back to Heraclitus – who rather prefers to write of ‘exchange’ (ἀνταμοιβή) of fire – where it is instead repeatedly attested for Pythagoras.

4) Philo of Alexandria and Plutarch. Some information that Philo offered on Stoicism should not be misleading: as for the notion of the cosmic παλιγγενεσία ➚, Philo did not share it at all – and he indeed rejected it altogether (see above) – and, more generally, it is worth pointing out that the meaning of the Philonian παλιγγενεσία ➚ is truly peculiar, and it is therefore complex to trace its precedents, since there might be found in it traces both of Greek (mysteric, as well as Platonic or Stoic spies), and of biblical-Judaic culture: in short, it might be assumed that Philo had a good knowledge of both cultures, so that he read the Scriptures in allegorical terms, through the filter of Greek philosophy (cf. Reale-Radice 2011, passim). In the Legatio ad Gaium (325), the word παλιγγενεσία ➚ takes on a meaning almost foreign to the discourse on the soul, but it is closer to the Stoic one on the regeneration of the cosmos, as well as in the De vita Mosis (II 65), in which Noah and his family are “leaders of the regeneration” (παλιγγενεσίας ➚ … ἡγημόνες) of the precisely renewed world after the Flood (cf. also Alex. Invent. cruc. LXXXVII/3 p. 4024.22 M.).

The concept of re-incorporation seems to be closer to the use of παλιγγενεσία ➚, found in Philo Post. Caini 124, where the biblical episode of Seth’s birth is taken up: after Abel’s death, it is interpreted as the “return to life” of his brother, murdered by Cain (τὴν δ’ ὥσπερ παλιγγενεσίαν Ἄβελ τοῦ δολοφονηθέντος). But Genesis (4,1-16), just recalled, is also susceptible to allegoresis, so that Abel is the rational soul, which tends to ascend to God and the incorporeal, and Cain is the irrational part of the soul, instead anchored to matter; according to the Philonian allegoresis, Seth – para-etymologically ‘irrigation’ (Σὴθ ἑρμηνεύεται ποτισμός) – would thus be the sprout which, according to the divine will, shall lead the soul to regeneration, i.e. to the incorporeal and the full contemplation of God (cf. esp. Burnett 1984, 467).

This peculiar meaning of the word παλιγγενεσία ➚ could be also deduced from another Philonian occurrence: in De Cherubim (114), following some questions on human eschatology and the origin of the soul, Philo answers that – once again according to God’s will – humankind’s destiny is to access to palingenesis, to become indeed a being no longer qualified by the composition of bodies (εἰς παλιγγενεσίαν ὁρμήσομεν οἱ μετὰ ἀσωμάτων σύγκριτοι ποιοί). So, it might be inferred not only that the παλιγγενεσία ➚ is proper of the (rational) soul – deprived and indeed released from the body – but also that it signified, based on Philo, the access to the immaterial divinity (i.e. to God) granted to the virtuous and immortal soul: this is a theory which, in these terms, is found neither in Greek nor in Judaic culture, though, to some extents, indebted to both of them (cf. pp. 452-467, passim).

Since, in Philo (who the first occurrences belong to), the meaning of the nomen actionis is opposite to the Greek one – because the verb πάλιν γίγνεσθαι was in fact meant to signify the return to regeneration and especially to the body, both in its more neutral (i.e. Pythagorean) acceptation and of course in its anti-somatic (Orphic and Platonic) one – the a-somatic character of the Philonian παλιγγενεσία ➚ seems to derive from the Judaic component, that in this case reworks, according to its own needs, the Greek lexis related to the semantic field of the return to life (cf. e.g. Baretta 2014, 74 and n. 9 for the relevant bibliography). In Philo’s lexis, the word παλιγγενεσία ➚ signifies therefore the permanent reborn of the soul, but in a status of incorporeal existence: ἀσώματος e ἄποιος, as it might be read in Cherub. 114.

Given both Platonic and Stoic influences, it is difficult, however, to determine the matrix of Plutarch’s παλιγγενεσία ➚. Although Philo is included among the Alexandrian Platonists, the occurrences of the term παλιγγενεσία ➚, in his case, are mostly to be ascribed to a Stoic influence, since they refer to the doctrine of the cyclical nature of the cosmos (see above). Plutarch, on the other hand, in the two occurrences in the De esu carnium (996c and 998c) makes explicit reference to the traditionally Pythagorean and Orphic norm of abstaining from eating animal flesh: in 996c, the μῦθος of the dismemberment of Dionysus-Zagreus “refers in enigmatic terms to palingenesis”, and the myth of the παλιγγενεσία ➚ is the same παλαιότερος λόγος (cited shortly before by Plutarch himself) of clear Platonic origin (see above; cf. Casadio 1991, 132-134); in 998c, the context is similar – since Plutarch still writes about the doctrine of the immortality of the soul – but it is doubtful and controversial whether the author, in the light of this passage, believed in the regeneration of souls or not: from the Plutarch's text – ἀλλ’ ἐὰν μὴ προσαποδείξῃ τις, ὅτι χρῶνται κοινοῖς αἱ ψυχαὶ σώμασιν ἐν ταῖς παλιγγενεσίαις (κτλ.) – indeed, it seems that the demonstration of such a doctrine is impossible (cf. Tsekourakis 1987, 380-383, and also Inglese-Santese 1999, 224f. ad l.; contra esp. Casadio, l.c.).

However, other occurrences of the term παλιγγενεσία ➚ may clarify its meaning in Plutarch, and thus show how he used it as an ante litteram historian of religions: in Is. 379e-f, Plutarch rejected the idea that the belief in the transmigration of souls in the bodies of animals was at the bottom of Egyptian theriomorphism; and, in 364f, once again associates παλιγγενεσία ➚ with the Orphic myth of Dionysus and the Titans (cf. Griffiths 1970, 434 and 545 ad ll.). This proves Casadio (1991, 132) right when he argued Plutarch’s dependence – at least concerning the semantic field of the doctrine on the soul – on the Platonic tradition, but his belief in the Orphic-Platonic dualism of σῶμα/σῆμα, i.e. in the body as the prison of the soul, remains doubtful: such an anti-somantic tendency does not seem to belong to Plutarch and, indeed, in the Περὶ/Υπὲρ κάλλους (fr. 144 Sandb. ap. Stob. IV 21.12) he argued that soul and body have their virtues, in both cases not to be disregarded (cf. Dillon 2010, 235f.).

5) Judeo-Christian palingenesis and baptism. From Judaic literature, which was nourished by Greek philosophy and lexis, the term παλιγγενεσία ➚ spread into the Christian sphere. In the Septuagint (in Jb. 14,14) we read the verb πάλιν γίγνεσθαι and it probably derives from the Platonic text, since it is a translation that precedes the first occurrence of the nomen actionis: Job asks God if it is possible to return to life after death, ὑπομενῶ ἕως ἂν πάλιν γένωμαι (cf. the commentary of Jo. Chrys. Fragm. in Jb. LXIV p. 600.32 M. τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν παλιγγενεσίας).

Josephus Flavius (AJ XI 3.9), and especially Philo Alexandrinus (see above), contributed to the dissemination of the term, which passed from the speculative context of Greek thought to the Jewish tradition, where it served to express the eschatological motif and turn of the regeneration of the world (cf. in particular Oberlinner 1999, III 218). The influence of sapiential literature, e.g. of the Corpus Hermeticum (3,3 and esp. 13,1), should not be overlooked: here παλιγγενεσία ➚ – a term now derived from the Greek mysteric context and with a religious meaning (cf. Dey 1937, 31) – indicates the ultimate apocryphal doctrine, which the disciple and son Tat (Toth) wants to learn from his father Hermes Trismegistus, in order to gain access to salvation (cf. CH 13).

The majority of occurrences of παλιγγενεσία ➚, in the corpus of Christian literature, occur in connection with τὸ λουτρὸν (τῆς παλιγγενεσίας ➚), that is the lavacrum resurrectionis, indicating the baptism, and thus the rebirth – albeit in earthly life – of the individual in Christ. In Matthew (19,28), however, the term appears for the first time to express the eschatological renewal, triggered by the final arrival of the Son of Man (cf. Dey 1937, 30s.): ὑμεῖς οἱ ἀκολουθήσαντές μοι ἐν τῇ παλιγγενεσία ➚ (cf. Orig. Exhort. ad martyr. 14.10 Koets., Bas. Caes. Adv. Eunom. XXIX p. 709,1 M., Jo. Chrys. In Mt. LVIII p. 609,41). Although Mt. 19,27 and 29f. derive on the whole from Mc. 10:28-31, the logion of Mt. 19,28 originates from Q – though this is difficult to reconstruct (cf. Gnilka 1991, II 253-255) – and is a specifically Matthian insertion (cf. in fact Lc. 22,28-30). Even the specific use of the term παλιγγενεσία ➚ is here an innovation of Matthew, and refers in particular to the Jewish conception of the regeneration of the world, to be understood as a new divine creation (cf. p. 257, and Oberlinner 1999, III 217).

While the second Christian generation expresses, through the Greek lexis, a concept proper to Judaic eschatology, in the contemporary literature of the Pastoral Epistles, and in particular in Titus (3,5), παλιγγενεσία ➚ (in the genitive) is now associated with the soteriological bath, with τὸ λουτρόν – διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας ➚ – and takes up the typically Christian baptismal theology: apart from the historical-religious precedents, the baptismal conception of Paul of Tarsus shares the doctrine of renewal, also in the more traditionally mysteric aspect of the return to life after the experience of death: cf. e.g. Rom. 6,4 συνετάφημεν οὖν αὐτῷ διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος εἰς τὸν θάνατον (cf. Iacono 1934, 373-376). In the post-Pauline literature, the baptismal theology then undergoes a linguistic formalisation, coming considerably closer to the semantic area of παλιγγενεσία ➚ (cf. p. 372): cf., for example, Jo. 3,3-8 γενννηθῆναι ἄνωθεν, I Petr. 1,3 ἀναγεννάω (cf. p. 219), or consider the later testimony of Didymus Caecus (Trin. XXXIX p. 676,4 M.), in his commentary on the Epistle of Titus: ἀναγενννήσας ἡμᾶς διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας ➚, κτλ. (cf. Hesych. π 199 L.-H.).

The whole passage from Tt. 3,5f. – κατὰ τὸ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως πνεύματος ἁγίου, οὗ ἐξέχεεν ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς πλουσίως διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν – has been taken up by different quotations, which now also represents the majority of the occurrences of the term παλιγγενεσία ➚ in the wide corpus of Christian exegetical literature: see Athanas. theol. Quest. ad Antioch. Ducem XXVIII pp. 584,5 and 588,10 M., Sanct. trinit. p. 1209,32 (= Dialog. duo contra Maced. p. 1305,10), Jo. Chrys. Ep. ad Tt. LXII pp. 692,14, 18 and 694,34, Sanct. Pentec. L p. 458,8, Theodoret. Interpr. in Ps. LXXX pp. 1688,40, 1740,11 and 1808,37, Expl. in Cant. Canticorum LXXXI pp. 105,37 and 137,15, Interpr. in XIV ep. sanct. Paul. LXXXII p. 868,35, Jo. Dam. Comm. in ep. Paul. XCV p. 1029,21.

To sum up, it is clear that the formula λουτρὸν παλιγγενεσίας ➚ gets functioning to convey the baptismal theology, as firstly expressed in the Pauline circle, and that – from this contest – it has propagated in the Christian exegesis: cf. esp. Orig. In evang. Jo. fr. 36,32 Preusch. λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας ➚, ὃ καὶ βάπτισμα θεῖον ὀνομάζεται, Euseb. Comm. in Ps. XXIII p. 653,19, or p. 1288,30 περὶ τῆς ἐκ βαπτίσματος παλιγγενεσίας ➚, Jo. Chrys. In sanct. Jo. praecurs. L p. 803,54 δέχομαι τὸ βάπτισμα τοῦτο, ἵνα παράσχω τοῖς ἐμοῖς μαθηταῖς τῆς παλιγγενεσίας ➚ τὸ βάπτισμα, and also Theodoret. Interpr. in Ez. LXXXI p. 1184,17 ὕδωρ δε καθαρὸν τὸ τῆς παλιγγενεσίας ➚ ὠνόμασεν ὕδωρ (λουτρόν π. = ὕδωρ π., cf. infra). In short, it is no coincidence that the “bath of regeneration” is mostly cited as a means, or end, to the attainment of salvation and deliverance from sins:

• διὰ (τοῦ) λουτροῦ (τῆς) παλιγγενεσίας in Euseb. Comm. in Ps. XXIII pp. 276,3 Migne, 568,53, 1025,40, 1048,34, 1101,57 and 1361,36, Athanas. theol. Ep. ad quatt. Serp. XXVI pp. 537,21, Expos. in Ps. XXVII p. 161,18, Sanct. trinit. XXVIII p. 1229, Jo. Chrys. Ad illum. catech. XLIX p. 228,15, In princ. Act. LI p. 108,51, In Ge. LIII p. 374,6, Hom. de capto Eutr. LII p. 406,38, Expos. in Ps. LV p. 96,8, In Jo. LIX pp. 146,13 and 161,52, In ep. ad Galat. LXI p. 617,17, Cyr. Al. Ep. pasch. LXXVII p. 425,5, Expos. in Ps. LXIX pp. 865,35 and 1093,2, Theodoret. Interpr. in Ps. LXXX p. 1636,3, Procop. Gazien. In Cant. Canticorum p. 1605,41, Olympiod. Comm. in Eccles. XCIII p. 508,41, Comm. in Je. XCIII p. 693,29, Jo. Dam. Comm. in ep. Paul. XCV pp. 445,16 and 512,7, Enc. in sanct. Jo. Chrys. XCVI p. 769,23;
• διὰ τῆς τοῦ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας in Euseb. Comm. in Ps. p. 1332,37, Jo. Chrys. In ep. ad Rom. LX p. 541,57, [Jo. Chrys.] In Ps. LV p. 674,42, Theodoret. Interpr. in Ps. LXXX pp. 881,45, 1024,29, 1293,27, 1317,44, 1340,19, 1365,9, 1420,23, 1584,42, Interpr. in XII proph. min. LXXXI pp. 1568,5 and 1857,36, Interpr. in XIV ep. in sanct. Pauli LXXXII p. 96,18, Procop. Gazien. Comm. in Is. p. 2697,12, Olympiod. Comm. in Eccles. XCIII p. 588,37;
• διὰ τῆς τοῦ ὕδατος παλιγγενεσίας in Theodoret. Interpr. in Ezechiel. LXXXI p. 821,19 (see also ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος τῆς παλιγγενεσίας in Jo. Chrys. Fragm. in Jb. LXIV p. 616,27);
• διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως πνεύματος ἁγίου (from Tt. 3,5) in Euseb. Comm. in Ps. XXIII p. 217,20; Athanas. theol. Sanct. Trin. XXVIII p. 1234, Did. Caec. Trin. XXXIX p. 676,4, Bas. Caes. Adv. Eunom. XXIX p. 725,49, Jo. Chrys. Ad illum. catech. XLIX p. 225,44, In Jo. LIX p. 93,27, In ep. II ad Corinth. LXI p. 475,4, [Jo. Chrys.] In Ps. LV pp. 642,68 and 667,58, Theodoret. Interpr. in Ps. LXXX pp. 1688,40, 1740,11, 1808,37, Expl. in Cant. Canticorum LXXXI p. 137,15, Jo. Dam. Comm. in ep. Pauli XCV p. 733,30; see also διὰ τοῦ πνευματικοῦ λουτροῦ τῆς παλιγγενεσίας in Hyppol. Comm. in Da. p. 382,24 Lef. (and ἡ δὲ πνευματικὴ γέννησις ἡ διὰ τοῦ λουτροῦ τῆς παλιγγενεσίας in Olympiod. Comm. in Ec. XCIII p. 508,41);
• διὰ τὸ τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ παλιγγενεσίας μυστήριον, ἀναβιβάζει τὸν διὰ λουτροῦ γεγεννημένον in Euseb. Suppl. ad quaest. ad Steph. XII p. 960,13 (= Quaest. evang. ad Steph. p. 893,45), ἡ διὰ τοῦ θείου λουτροῦ … προσερχομένη· … ταύτην παλιγγενεσίαν καλοῦμεν in Athanas. theol. Vita sanct. synclet. XXVIII p. 1544,31;
• ἐν τῷ λουτρῷ τῆς παλιγγενεσίας in Euseb. Comm. in Ps. XXIII p. 276,34, Jo. Chrys. Expos. in Ps. LV p. 210,9, In ep. I ad Corinth. LXI p. 349,10;
• ἐπὶ (τῆς τοῦ) λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας in Euseb. Comm. in Ps. XXIII pp. 653,16 and 1377,21;
• ἐπὶ τῇ τοῦ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίᾳ in Bas. Caes. Adv. Eunom. XXIX p. 720,14;
• μετὰ τὸ λουτρὸν τῆς παλιγγενεσίας in Jo. Chrys. In Mt. LVII p. 280,52;
• πρὸ τῆς παλιγγενεσίας λουτροῦ in Euseb. Comm. in Ps. XXIV p. 29,23.

Below, other occurrences of τὸ λουτρόν + (τῆς) παλιγγενεσίας (in gen.):

• (τὸ) λουτρὸν (τῆς) παλιγγενεσίας in Euseb. Comm. in Ps. XXIII p. 653,19 Migne, Athans. theol. In illud: qui dixerit verbum in filium XXVI p. 653,10, Sabbat et circumcis. XXVIII p. 141,1, Grag. Naz. In sanct. bapt. XXXVI p. 361,46, Jo. Chrys. Ad illum. catech. XLIX pp. 225,43 and 227,16, In illud: ne timueritis LV p. 517,26, In ep. ad Rom. LX p. 635,31, In ep. I ad Corinth. LXI p. 68,3, In ep. ad Hebr. LXIII p. 177,8, Fragm. in Jer LXIV p. 984,5., [Jo. Chrys.] In sec. dom. advent. LIX p. 623,52, Ecl. I-XLVIII LXIII p. 875,61, Olympiod. Comm. in Je. XCIII p. 721,53; τὸ τῆς παλιγγενεσίας λουτρόν in Greg. Nyss. Iis qui bapt. diff. XLVI p. 429,33 and Enc. in martyr. p. 781,43; τῆς τὸ λουτρὸν παλιγγενεσίας in Jo. Chrys. In ep. II ad Corinth. LXI pp. 402,52 and 404,17; τὸ λουτρὸν κτίσμα λέγεται τὸ τῆς παλιγγενεσίας in [Jo. Chrys.] In illud: si qua in Christo nova creatura LXIV p. 30,48; τὸ τῆς παλιγγενεσίας ὕδωρ in Theodoret. Interpr. in Ps. LXXX p. 1025,47;
• τοῦ λουτροῦ τῆς παλιγγενεσίας in Orig. In Je. 16,5,24 Klost, Procop. Gazien. In Cant. Canticorum p. 1697,6 M. (= Comm. in Is. p. 1853,2 M.), Olympiod. Comm. in Je. XCIII p. 657,33;
• (τῷ) λουτρῷ (τῆς) παλιγγενεσίας in [Jo. Chrys.] In illud: si qua in Christo nova creatura LXIV p. 33,22, Cyr. Al. Adorat. et cult. in spirit. et verit. LXVIII p. 448,52; τῷ τῆς παλιγγενεσίας λουτρῷ in Cyr. Al. Glaphyr. in Pentateuch. LXIX p. 325,7 (and see also τῷ τῆς παλιγγενεσίας ὕδατι on p. 585,17);
• τῆς διὰ τοῦ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας in Theodoret. Expl. in Cant. Canticorum LXXXI p. 105,37.

Bibliography

The works of the Fathers of the Church and Christian authors are cited by J. P. Migne, Patrologia cursus completus. Series Graeca, I-CLXI, Paris 1856-1866. The entries from ThGL (VI 79f.) and the Enciclopedia Filosofica, (ed.) I. Ramelli, VIII (2006) 8247f., have been also consulted.

Alesse 2000 = F. A., La dottrina pitagorica della metempsicosi nel De anima di Aristotele, in M. Tortorelli-A. Storchi Marino-A. Visconti (edd.), Tra Orfeo e Pitagora. Origini e incontri di culture nell’antichità. «Atti dei Seminari Napoletani 1996-1998», Napoli 2000, 397-412.

Baretta 2014 = M. B., Filone, il De vita Mosis e le sue fonti, «SCO» LX (2014) 73-97.

Burkert 1972 = W. B., Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism, Engl. transl. Cambridge, Mass. 1972 (or. ed. Stuttgart 1977).

Burnett 1984 = F.W. B., Philo on immortality. A thematic study of Philo’s concept of παλιγγενεσία, «CBQ» XLVI/3 (1984) 447-470.

Casadio 1991 = G. C., La metempsicosi tra Orfeo e Pitagora, in P. Borgeaud (ed.), Orphisme et Orphée. En l’honneur de Jean Rudhardt, Genève 1991, 119-155.

Cerri 1995 = G. C., Cosmologia dell’Ade in Omero, Esiodo e Parmenide, «PP» L/3-4 (1995) 437-467.

Chantraine, DELG = P. C., Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Histoire des mots (avec un Supplément sous la direction de: Alain Blanc, Charles de Lamberterie, Jean-Louis Perpillou), Paris 19992 (19681).

Coscia 2017 = A. C., L’antro sottoterra. Catabasi e riti di immortalizzazione da Pitagora ad Aristea di Proconneso, in A. Maiuri (ed.), Antrum. Riti e simbologie delle grotte nel Mediterraneo antico, Brescia 2017, 127-172.

Dey 1937 = J. D., Παλιγγενεσία. Ein Beitrag zur Klärung der religions-geshichtlichen Bedeutung von Tit 3,5, Münster 1937.

Dillon 2010 = J. D., I Medioplatonici. Uno studio sul Platonismo, Milano 2010 (ed. or. Duckworth-London 19771, 19962).

Dodds 1951 = E.R. D., The Greeks and the Irrational, Berkley-Los Angeles 1951.

Fraenkel 1912 = D.M.E. F., Zur Geschichte der Verbalnomina auf -σιο, -σια. Eine wortgeschichtliche Untersuchung, in «Ztsch. vgl. Spr.» XLV (1912) 160-180. Frisk, GEW = H. F., Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg 1960-1972.

Gnilka 1991 = J. G., Commentario teologico del Nuovo Testamento. Il Vangelo di Matteo, I-II, trad. it. Brescia 1991 (or. ed. Freiburg im Breisgau 1988).

Iacono 1934 = V. I., La παλιγγενεσία in S. Paolo e nell’ambiente pagano, «Biblica» XV/2-3 (1934) 369-398.

Inglese-Santese 1999 = L. I-G. S., Plutarco. Il cibarsi di carne, Napoli 1999.

Leisegang 1949 = H. L., Palingenesia, in RE XVIII3 (1949) 139-148.

Lévy 1926 = I. L., Recherches sur les sources de la légende de Pythagore, Leroux 1926.

Neri 2018 = C. N.(-G. Alvoni-R. Batisti-M. Olivieri), Methodos, Firenze 2018.

Oberlinner 1999 = L. O., Commento teologico del Nuovo Testamento. Le lettere pastorali, III. La lettera a Tito, Brescia 1999 (or. ed. Freiburg im Breisgau 1996).

Pellizzari 2003 = A. P., Servio. Storia, cultura e istituzioni nell’opera di un grammatico tardoantico, Firenze 2003.

Pohlenz 1967 = M. P., La Stoa. Storia di un movimento spirituale, I-II, trad. it. Firenze 1967 (or. ed. Göttingen 1959).

Reale 1994 = G. R., Saggio introduttivo L’itinerario a Dio in Filone di Alessandrino, in Filone. L’erede delle cose divine, Milano 1994, 5-60.

Reale-Radice 2011 = G. R-R. R., La genesi e la natura della filosofia mosaica, in Filone di Alessandria. Tutti i trattati del Commentario allegorico alla Bibbia, Milano 20112 (20051), XV-CXI.

Riedweg 2007 = C. R., Pitagora. Vita, dottrina e influenza, trad. it. Milano 2007 (or. ed. München 2002).

Schibli 1990 = H.S. S., Pherekydes of Syros, Oxford 19902 (19831).

Tortorelli Ghidini 2006 = M. T.G., Figli della terra e del cielo stellato. Testi orfici con traduzione e commento, Napoli 2006.

Tsekourakis 1987 = D. T., Pythagoreanism or platonism and ancient medicine? The reasons for vegetarianism in Plutarch’s Moralia, in «Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. Philosophie (Historische Einleitung; Platonismus)» XXXVI/1 (1987) 366-393.

Vegetti 1994 = M. V., L’etica degli antichi, Roma-Bari 1994.

Viscardi 2014 = G.P. V., Erro lungo la casa dall’ampia porta di Hades. Configurazioni mitiche dello spazio oltremondano nella rappresentazione greca: il cosmo di Hades come luogo di negoziazione di significati, «SMSR» LXXX/1 (2014) 135-157.

West 1993 = M.L. W., Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient, Oxford 1971.

White 2001 = S.A. W., Principes Sapientiae: Dicaearchus’ biography of philosophy, in W.W. Fortenbaugh-E. Schütrumpf (edd.), Dicaearchus of Messana. Text, Translation and Discussion, London-New York 2001.

Zhmud 2012 = L. Z., Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans, Engl. transl. Oxford 2012 (ed. or. St. Petersburg 1994).