Here's a rough and ready translation from the German of a choice part from the end of Kurt Flasch's "Meister Eckhart" that I think nicely catches the polemical thrust of his argument about attempts to place Eckhart's use of Arabic sources within scholasticism or mysticism

Reading through this book again I find myself sympathetic to the thrust of his polemical argument about the need to situate Eckhart's philosophy within a particular Peripatetic trajectory among the German Dominicans

But I feel that he does so by offering a highly selective reading of Albert, Dietrich and Eckhart--one that ignores some of the writings that challenge his central thesis.

But his whole argument is also based on a *single* citation of Averroes by Eckhart in the commentary on John which he understands to be the key to Eckhart's thought about unification (when read against Dietrich and Aquinas).

The argument ultimately rests or falls on this claim and I'm not sure it is as compelling as Flasch thinks it is. To my mind, the same problem is handled more competently and convincingly by Burkhard Mojsisch in his earlier "Meister Eckhart: Analogy, Univocity, Unity."

The latter work also has the advantage of sidestepping some of the more overtly polemical framing of Flasch, such as the rigid anti-Thomist stance he assumes which he sees also in Dietrich and Eckhart.

Divergence from Thomas' arguments and claims is consistently framed by Flasch as a *critique* of Thomism.

Mojsisch, on the other hand, recognizes that Eckhart is situated at a moment when "Albertist" and "Thomist" positions are being contested among German Dominicans and that the Meister does creative work with both tendencies in German Dominican thought.

(One should add here that "Albertism" and "Thomism" weren't constituted yet as specific "schools" for the interpretation of Aristotle. That only occurs at the end of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth century by Masters of Arts at Paris and Cologne).

(So if Flasch is right that Eckhart is *not* a Thomist it wouldn't be quite right to call him an "Albertist" either, although the latter heuristically names some of Eckhart's Aristotelian commitments better than the former).