Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 07-19-2008, 09:42 PM

Pachomius is said to have thrown into the water a book of Origen's which he found, and would have thrown it in the fire. How do we explain the reported actions of Pachomius in relation to the "works of Origen"?

Better yet, open a thread called "What was the Origenist Controversy and how is it explained today"? Be prepared to discuss the fourth century Rufinus's Epilogue to "Pamphilus the Martyr's Apology for Origen", otherwise
known as "the Book Concerning the Adulteration of the Works of Origen.". Here we find the Greek to Latin translator, peer of Jerome, presents and includes a separate document - a Letter written by Origen disclosing the activity of Heretics in his day, and in his writings at that time who were not preserving the historical truth.

Be prepared to meet "The Tall Brothers" of the fourth century, and to examine candidly the possible reasons why a book of Origen, innoculously carried from an ancient find into a 4th and 5th century "christian monastery" would cause such pandimonium, commotion and intrigue.

Eusebius could not possibly have written Origen's new testament literature and Origen's "contributions for christian posterity". Could he indeed have done so? This simple hypothesis actually explains the entire Origenist controversy. The real historical Origen was a prolific commentator on the literature of his time, but the literature of his time, just as in the literature in the time of Philostratus, did not contain the new testament.

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 07-19-2008, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

But I am sure that the powers of these Patriarchs grew progressively during the second and third centuries.

1 - So far, I have no evidence to put forward in support of my thesis.

2 - Archaeological citations cannot bring any direct support to or against the idea that the power of the patriarchs of the most important towns of the empire grew progressively during the second and third century. This increase of power is connected with the increase of the Christian population, and also with the multiplication of Christian sects, which is another aspect of the question.

It follows from your point 1, the the actual existence of christians during the second and third centuries is - at this point - necessarily conjectural. Sorry to quibble.

Quote:

3 - Irenaeus ("Adv. Haereses", IV, xxx, 1) points out that Christians were employed at this period [pope Victor I (189-199)] as officials of the imperial Court. Among these officials was the imperial freedman Prosenes, whose gravestone and epitaph have been preserved (De Rossi, "Inscriptiones christ. urbis Romae", I, 9, no. 5). You have mentioned this inscription.

The name of de Rossi does not necessarily inspire faith in archaeological inscriptions, and the inscriptions and papyrii and other bits and pieces tendered in support of this elusive prenicaean christian origins is similarly entirely questionable, on a citation by citation basis.

Quote:

4 - "Otherwise, why should I believe your surety?"
You believe what you want, and put aside what you don't want to believe. I am not a Patriarch !

Then we are two students, which is as it should be.
The inscription ... "Know thyself" springs to mind.

Best wishes,

Pete

PhilosopherJay · 07-20-2008, 05:40 PM

Hi Huon,

I guess we are at an impasse.

Does anyone have any evidence that either Rome could appoint or veto Bishops of other cities before 325 C.E., or that Alexandria could appoint or veto Bishops of Rome?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

First of all, I do not buy the idea that Constantine "created" or "started" the Catholic Church in the 4th century. My thesis is the ordinary thesis :

Constantine received the precious help of the Catholic Church between 305 (resignation of Diocletian) and 324-325 (battles of Andrinople and Chrysopolis 324) and later, he paid his debts.

Rome was not at the time of Nicaea (325) "the" capital of Christianity. Rome was one of the capitals of Christianity, alongside with Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, and later (381) Constantinople.

Around 325 :

The Bishop of Alexandria supervises the Bishops of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis.
The Bishop of Rome supervises the Bishops of Italy, Gaul, Spain, Britain, Belgica, Germania, Noricum, Pannonia, Dacia, and North Africa (Carthage).
The Bishop of Antioch supervises the Bishops of Asia, except probably that of Constantinople.
The Bishop of Jerusalem supervises nothing except himself, he is just respected because "Jerusalem".

But I am sure that the powers of these Patriarchs grew progressively during the second and third centuries.

yalla · 07-21-2008, 12:43 AM

Quote:

3 - Irenaeus ("Adv. Haereses", IV, xxx, 1) points out that Christians were employed at this period [pope Victor I (189-199)] as officials of the imperial Court. Among these officials was the imperial freedman Prosenes, whose gravestone and epitaph have been preserved (De Rossi, "Inscriptiones christ. urbis Romae", I, 9, no. 5).

Interestingly when I googled for Prosenes I got this

http://www.umich.edu/~classics/progr...l/db/D002.html

which translates the inscription as :
"To Marcus Aurelius, freedman of the Augusti , Prosenes, a cubiculo of Augustus, procurator of the treasuries , procurator of the private fortune of the emperor , procurator of the munera , procurator of the wines , appointed by the divine Commodus, at court . The freedmen decorated this sarcophagus for their most pious patron who deserved well of them at their own expense.
Prosenes was received amongst the gods five days before the nones of [Ma]y (or [Jul]y) at Sa[me on Cephalle]nia, in the consulship of Praesens and Extricatus (who were consuls for the second time) returning to the city from the expedition. Ampelius the freedman wrote this."

Note the word "gods", ie plural.
Would this be likely to refer to a Christian?

youngalexander · 07-21-2008, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

Interestingly when I googled for Prosenes I got this

http://www.umich.edu/~classics/progr...l/db/D002.html

which translates the inscription as :
"To Marcus Aurelius, freedman of the Augusti , Prosenes, a cubiculo of Augustus, procurator of the treasuries , procurator of the private fortune of the emperor , procurator of the munera , procurator of the wines , appointed by the divine Commodus, at court . The freedmen decorated this sarcophagus for their most pious patron who deserved well of them at their own expense.
Prosenes was received amongst the gods five days before the nones of [Ma]y (or [Jul]y) at Sa[me on Cephalle]nia, in the consulship of Praesens and Extricatus (who were consuls for the second time) returning to the city from the expedition. Ampelius the freedman wrote this."

Note the word "gods", ie plural.
Would this be likely to refer to a Christian?

Some comments by Peter Lampe From Paul to Valentinus Ch30 Marcus Aurelius Prosenes and Other Members of Caesar's Familia, pg330.

Quote:

Ampelius commissioned the second inscription that is peculiar... in an unusual place not intended for an inscription.
...
"Receptus ad deum" was never used by pagans; but similar expressions are found in Christian inscriptions of a later period
...
Prosenes was buried in a sarcophagus and not placed in an urn. Burial, not cremation, was cherished by the Christians (for example, Minucius Felix, Oct. 34.10) ...

There is an entire argument for Christian life & death here.

youngalexander · 07-21-2008, 03:11 AM

and of course Is the Prosenes inscription necessarily "christian"?

yalla · 07-21-2008, 05:03 AM

So, assuming the translation I found is accurate and the inscription is Christian, who are the gods which it refers to?
Why plural?

Huon · 07-21-2008, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

So, assuming the translation I found is accurate and the inscription is Christian, who are the gods which it refers to?
Why plural?

I found a photograph of the sarcophagus of Prosenes here :

http://www.giardinodivenere.it/weblo.../apr-2007.html

“PROSENES. RECEPTUS. AD. DEUM
V NON .. RTIUS. SA … NIA.PRAESENTE
ET. EXTRICATO. REGRE…IEN.IN.URBE
AB.EXP… ITIONIBUS.SCRIPSIT.
AMPELIUS. LIB “

"Receptus ad deum" is clearly singular. It is not "receptus ad deos". This is basic latin.

Huon · 07-21-2008, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Huon,

I guess we are at an impasse.

Does anyone have any evidence that either Rome could appoint or veto Bishops of other cities before 325 C.E., or that Alexandria could appoint or veto Bishops of Rome?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Victor, bishop of Rome (189 ?-199 ?) could call a meeting of Italian bishops at Rome, which is the earliest Roman synod known. The subject was the date of the celebration of Easter. Eusebius Church History Book V Chapters 23, 24, 25.
We have letters of Bishop Cyprian of Carthage to the bishops of Rome around 250 (Fabian, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephen) concerning Novatian and his followers. It seems (to me, at least) that these bishops of Rome were not in a situation to dictate anything to anybody.

I do not know any example of appointment of a bishop of Alexandria by a bishop of Rome, (or vice-versa), before 325.

Clivedurdle · 07-21-2008, 09:58 AM

Quote:

To Marcus Aurelius, freedman of the Augusti , Prosenes, a cubiculo of Augustus, procurator of the treasuries , procurator of the private fortune of the emperor , procurator of the munera , procurator of the wines , appointed by the divine Commodus, at court . The freedmen decorated this sarcophagus for their most pious patron who deserved well of them at their own expense.
Prosenes was received amongst the gods five days before the nones of [Ma]y (or [Jul]y) at Sa[me on Cephalle]nia, in the consulship of Praesens and Extricatus (who were consuls for the second time) returning to the city from the expedition. Ampelius the freedman wrote this."

I know I am a bear of little brain, but surely someone who looked after the Emperor's treasure is being welcomed into the presence of his emperor god after his death?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-19-2008, 09:42 PM	#21
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Pachomius is said to have thrown into the water a book of Origen's which he found, and would have thrown it in the fire. How do we explain the reported actions of Pachomius in relation to the "works of Origen"? Better yet, open a thread called "What was the Origenist Controversy and how is it explained today"? Be prepared to discuss the fourth century Rufinus's Epilogue to "Pamphilus the Martyr's Apology for Origen", otherwise known as "the Book Concerning the Adulteration of the Works of Origen.". Here we find the Greek to Latin translator, peer of Jerome, presents and includes a separate document - a Letter written by Origen disclosing the activity of Heretics in his day, and in his writings at that time who were not preserving the historical truth. Be prepared to meet "The Tall Brothers" of the fourth century, and to examine candidly the possible reasons why a book of Origen, innoculously carried from an ancient find into a 4th and 5th century "christian monastery" would cause such pandimonium, commotion and intrigue. Eusebius could not possibly have written Origen's new testament literature and Origen's "contributions for christian posterity". Could he indeed have done so? This simple hypothesis actually explains the entire Origenist controversy. The real historical Origen was a prolific commentator on the literature of his time, but the literature of his time, just as in the literature in the time of Philostratus, did not contain the new testament. Best wishes, Pete

07-21-2008, 03:11 AM	#26
youngalexander Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Mornington Peninsula Posts: 1,306	and of course Is the Prosenes inscription necessarily "christian"?

07-21-2008, 05:03 AM	#27
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	So, assuming the translation I found is accurate and the inscription is Christian, who are the gods which it refers to? Why plural?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.