mountainman

What do you make of the "Origenist Controversies" of the 4th and 5th centuries?

Wasn't Pachomius reported to have thrown a book of Origen's into the Nile River?

What of Rufinus's explicit work concerning the "Adulteration of the Works of Origen", where Rufinus manages to find c.400 CE and cite an original letter of Origen complaining that the heretics in his day were altering his writings? O dear. O dear. O dear.

What about the great concerns (pandemonium?) that spread around 4th and 5th century monasteries, when a "Book of Origen" was presented at the gates?

Who was Origen?

How do we know?

Isn't it Origen's LXX Greek translation that was used in the earliest "Bibles"?

Dont we first need to disambiguate two Origens - the one a "christian" the other a platonist?

But perhaps "christian history" professionals dont need to worry about this disambiguation.

Which Origen was the origin of which works?

stephan huller

mountainman

You know, I start a post about a topic that obvious can't work with your unusual interpretation of the evidence. I don't know why you continually stick your fourth century conspiracy theory in this thread. It's like a vegetarian joining a caveman diet forum. People would eventually ask 'what are you doing here?'

I welcome any hard evidence that things aren't the way they appear they are at a forum devoted to that topic. You bring up all these tangential issues related to Origen but no hard evidence that Origen didn't exist.

Indeed I wonder why the fourth century conspirators would want to create an Alexandria eunuch heretic like Origen. But again I want to hear about this at another thread. Please. I am resisting my natural inclinations here.

Soyez gentil.

Toto

Fixed things.

mountainman

Stephan huller,

For the sake of <<Bilbo Baggins>> (insert your favorite deity here) I am certainly not arguing that Origen did not exist. You continue to utterly misrepresent my claims, which are that Origen did exist and that he was the author of certain books in the 3rd century. In fact if you read what I have written you may discern that my argument follows the facts that we need to be ultimately mindful that there may have been two Origens.

I am consequently NOT arguing that Origen did not exist.

I supplied a very small list of critical questions related to two issues:

(1) events relating to the "Origenist Controversy" of the 4th and 5th centuries at which time the books of Origen were being disputed for some reason by many people. I asked you what you knew about this. I wonder if many readers are aware of this controversy?

(2) and the apparently duplicated appearance of two Origen's in the 3rd century. Not only does Origen require disambiguation from another Origen, but his "spiritual teracher" Ammonias Saccas suffers from the same curious problem. There are others similarly effected, from the lineage of the neoplatonic teachers and students of the 3rd century.

These questions directly relate to original OP, because they illicit direct ancient historical evidence from that specific 4th century epoch when the literature of Origen was used openly and publically (via Eusebius et al) as a precedent for "Christian Commentary". I fail to see how certain people in this forum refuse to countenance the history of the 4th century when dealing with the chronological assessment of the saga of "Christian Origins" and "Christian Origens".

Whatever books Origen originally wrote in the 3rd century became an empire wide controversy in the 4th century. Unless we investigate the 4th and 5th century controversy itself, which made Origen's name famous, how are we to understand the original Origen? Would someone please let me know if they see any alternatives. Thanks.

avi

I like it. Thanks, Stephan. Even better, in my opinion, as one who is remarkably uninformed, would be a link or two, to that evidence....
Which controversies. I have no idea which controversies these could be.....
Sorry, Pete, I do not understand.
1. Controversy = xyz, then
2. but, or, AND, xyz is related to s.h.'s "evidence", how?

I cannot understand (perhaps because I am daft) what does throwing a book into a river have to do with anything?

Rufinus--> a link would be good, but even better, in my opinion, would be to explain how this character Rufinus, whoever he may have been, relates to Origen.

With regard to interpolation, Tertullian of course, also noted that many people had altered his writings, if I recall correctly from one of several posts by aa5874, regarding this point....

Well, this appears to me, to be a perfectly reasonable question, with regard to the OP--> re: EVIDENCE.

That is why a couple of LINKS would have been providential. So far as an uninformed guy like me is concerned, our knowledge of Origen is fundamentally driven by the writings of Eusebius. If that is incorrect, then, please, enlighten me. One or two links will suffice.

Certainly, I do not accept the proposition, that these two questions of mountainman equate to a presupposition that Origen was a concoction of Constantine, as this comment seems to imply:

But, I am sorry to be so disagreeable all the time, I don't view these two questions as part of a fourth century conspiracy theory. I see them as very appropriate to the issue, raised in the OP: let me rewrite, again:

Fine, so this is now a thread asking for EVIDENCE, about the existence of Origen.

In that context, then, what is so obnoxious about these two questions? Pete asked them, yes, but, they are the same two questions about which every member of this forum ought to be inquiring.

Who was Origen, and how do we know this? We need some links to evidence of his writing, documented before Eusebius, i.e. before 300 CE.

avi

mountainman

I am currently working my way through the data on the "Origenist Controversies"

In short there is a fair bit of evidence that there was some large scale controversy surrounding the books which were purported to have been written by Origen, whoever Origen really was. When I come across a succinct summary I will post it.


It seems that the books of Origen were being severely disputed, and the books turning up were some sort of "bad news". So Pachomius, to resolve the dispute perhaps, threw the book of Origen into the Nile. I dont know precisely why he did this, but it must have had something to do with the contraversial nature of the forces interplaying about the books of Origen at that specific time in history. I am wading through the references.


I have made some notes at this page. Essentially this Rufinus is an orthodox christian source operative around the time of Jerome, at the end of thr 4th century, and responsible for translations from Greek to Latin, of a number of key works.

The key text to have a look at is this:

Rufinus's Epilogue to Pamphilus the Martyr's Apology for Origen

otherwise known as

the Book Concerning the Adulteration of the Works of Origen.

Addressed to Macarius at Pinetum a.d. 397.

Which books did Origen author? IMO it is critically important to attempt to get some understanding about the great controversy over the books of Origen which took place in the 4th and 5th centuries. The WIKI page shows that the 3rd century Origen needs disambiguation. Its a real can of worms avi. And its worms all the way down, since the same disambiguation is required for the earlier historical figure of Ammonias Saccas. My suspicions about all these "duplicates in the figures of history" are outlined in my notes at this page.

avi

Thank you, Pete, well written.

I see that I have a lot of reading to catch up on.....

avi