Mark Stone

“Indeed, the first thing to be noticed is the complexity of the notions of apokatastasis that Clement received, as they were already present in various traditions with which he was acquainted:

– the idea of ἀποκατάστασις in Stoic philosophy, which was characterized by necessity and an infinite repetition;
– the notion of eschatological universal ἀποκατάστασις as described in Peter's speech in the Acts of the Apostles, who connects it with the return of Christ and with comfort and consolation coming from God;
– the "Gnostic" (and especially "Valentinian") concept of ἀποκατάστασις which was generally neither holistic [e.g., denied physicality] nor universal;
– the notion of an eschatological intercession of the just and of the salvation of the damned from the "river of fire" in the Apocalypse of Peter, which Clement considered to be divinely inspired;
– Irenaeus's concept of ἀνακεφαλαίωσις [recapitulation] and of ἀναστασις-ἀποκατάστασις, which Clement very probably knew;
– Bardaisan's clear concept of the eventual universal ἀποκατάστασις in which, thanks to instruction, "the fools will be persuaded," "the lacks will be filled," and "there will be safety and peace, as a gift of the Lord of all natures" (a concept that Clement may indeed have known);
– the eschatological notion of ἀποκατάστασις as a return to unity in Pantaenus, a notion that Clement knew very well and indeed is preserved precisely by him (whatever its exact formulation by Pantaenus himself was). (pp. 119-120)”
― Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena

“Supporters of apokatastasis in roughly chronological order:

- [c. 30-105] Apostle Paul and various NT authors
- [c. 80-150] Scattered likely references among Apostolic Fathers
o Ignatius
o Justin Martyr
o Tatian
o Theophilus of Antioch (explicit references)
- [130-202] Irenaeus
- [c. 150-200] Pantaenus of Alexandria
- [150-215] Clement of Alexandria
- [154-222] Bardaisan of Edessa
- [c. 184-253] Origen (including The Dialogue of Adamantius)
- [♱ 265] Dionysius of Alexandria
- [265-280] Theognustus
- [c. 250-300] Hieracas
- [♱ c. 309] Pierius
- [♱ c. 309] St Pamphilus Martyr
- [♱ c. 311] Methodius of Olympus
- [251-306] St. Anthony
- [c. 260-340] Eusebius
- [c. 270-340] St. Macrina the Elder
- [conv. 355] Gaius Marius Victorinus (converted at very old age)
- [300-368] Hilary of Poitiers
- [c. 296-373] Athanasius of Alexandria
- [♱ c. 374] Marcellus of Ancrya
- [♱378] Titus of Basra/Bostra
- [c. 329-379] Basil the Cappadocian
- [327-379] St. Macrina the Younger
- [♱387] Cyril of Jerusalem (possibly)
- [c. 300-388] Paulinus, bishop of Tyre and then Antioch
- [c. 329-390] Gregory Nazianzen
- [♱ c. 390] Apollinaris of Laodicaea
- [♱ c. 390] Diodore of Tarsus
- [330-390] Gregory of Nyssa
- [c. 310/13-395/8] Didymus the Blind of Alexandria
- [333-397] Ambrose of Milan
- [345-399] Evagrius Ponticus
- [♱407] Theotimus of Scythia
- [350-428] Theodore of Mopsuestia
- [c. 360-400] Rufinus
- [350-410] Asterius of Amaseia
- [347-420] St. Jerome
- [354-430] St. Augustine (early, anti-Manichean phase)
- [363-430] Palladius
- [360-435] John Cassian
- [373-414] Synesius of Cyrene
- [376-444] Cyril of Alexandria
- [500s] John of Caesarea
- [♱520] Aeneas of Gaza
- [♱523] Philoxenus of Mabbug
- [475-525] Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite
- [♱543] Stephen Bar Sudhaili
- [580-662] St. Maximus the Confessor
- [♱ c. 700] St. Isaac of Nineveh
- [c. 620-705] Anastasius of Sinai
- [c. 690-780] St. John of Dalyatha
- [710/13-c. 780] Joseph Hazzaya
- [813-903] Moses Bar Kepha
- [815-877] Johannes Scotus Eriugena”
― Ilaria Ramelli

“If we are able to read stereotypical language of the Bible in reference to suffering -- and particularly the suffering involved in siege warfare -- as a measure not so much of the historical details of the disaster or catastrophe, but rather as a measure of the emotional, social, and obviously therefore spiritual impact of the disaster (after all, this is religious literature), then our analysis of a good deal of biblical literature in relation to the exile would need to be rethought. Stereotypical literature of suffering is not literature that can somehow be 'decoded' to mean that the exiles actually lived in Babylonian comfort. (p. 104)”
― Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, A Biblical Theology of Exile

“The assessment of the impact of the Babylonian exile must make far more use of nonbiblical documents, archaeological reports, and a far more imaginative use of biblical texts read in the light of what we know about refugee studies, disaster studies, postcolonialist reflections, and sociologies of trauma. (p. 33)”
― Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, A Biblical Theology of Exile