Richard Carrier

Yes. And you can see I articulated that theory earlier in the program (in my opening statement). I really do believe the first Christians believed what I argued there: that Jesus switched bodies and left his bones behind. The evidence is very strong. Only later did Christians gravitate to the idea that it was the bones that rose. In my debate with Licona (which Toto links to above) I give a large chunk of the evidence, but the thoroughly documented and detailed case will appear in a chapter I contributed to a book by Prometheus due out in Summer 2005 (Jeff Lowder and Bob Price, eds., The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave).



Indeed. I really do believe that--that is, I believe it is logically possible for the Holy Spirit to convince me that Jesus switched bodies and still lives (this is exactly what Origen argued, for example--a devout Christian of the 2nd/3rd century and the first great Christian scholar). I specifically said on the show we taped that I don't think this is probable, that Jesus didn't really switch bodies but the first Christians only thought he did, and that it was only logically possible for me to be convinced of this if I had the evidence Craig claimed I should (I think they cut most of my discussion of these qualifications, but the total edit doesn't deceive people into thinking I find it likely that the Holy Spirit will visit me).



I made a conscious choice to avoid claiming "contradictions" in so short a set. It wasn't necessary (Craig never rebutted most of my opening statement, esp. about source reliability, which was sufficient to destroy any confidence in his case), and it was a trap--if I let Craig wax apologetic about harmonizations and real witnesses never agreeing and most scholars saying X, Y, or Z and all that irrelevant nonsense, we would have wasted the entire show on details that really aren't conclusive and that are impossible for me to rebut in only three minutes of air time. I chose a simple sound-bite tactic instead: the three prongs of my opening statement, which I made sure I would stick to and return the debate to at every opportunity. That made it easier to keep the discussion on point and kept Craig from dodging the more serious issues. Curiously, Craig avoided the source problem like the plague and never returned to it--even though it was my first and strongest argument.

Notsri

Hey, Richard. This comment about Origen piqued my interest. I've read a fair portion of Origen's works in the past and don't recall him making any arguments to that effect. I was wondering if you might elaborate on it a bit.

P.S.
I enjoyed the debate. It was a very interesting discussion.

Regards,
Notsri

Richard Carrier

See the discussion in Caroline Bynum's excellent book Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity, 200-1336 (1995), though it is brief (pp. 63-71).

First, as she notes there (pp. 63-64), the treatise on the resurrection by Origen was rewritten by his Latin translator Rufinus to agree with orthodoxy. Compared to surviving fragments in the original Greek (and a rebuttal to the original by Methodius, which survives only in Slavonic translation), Rufinus changed Origen's entire treatise to argue for a resurrection of the flesh, but the original treatise made exactly the opposite argument (which agrees with Origen's arguments in other authentic treatises, like the Contra Celsum). Remember, Origen was branded a heretic in the 4th century and remains one today--so little gratitude do Christians have for their first great scholar. Notably, N. T. Wright is oblivious to this fact and treats the Rufinus text as authoritative--so poor is his scholarship sometimes.

I marshall all the best evidence for Origen's view in my chapter "The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb" to appear in Jeff Lowder and Bob Price, eds., The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave, due to release by Prometheus in summer of 2005. The context and vocabulary and intertextual markers I provide there. But if you want a quick look, see: Contra Celsum 5.18-24, 6.29, 7.32. For the material preserved by Methodius, you will have to consult Bynum (since there is no handy independent translation from the Slavonic). But in brief, the material there makes it clear Origen argued that the raised body is not the same one that died, that identity could never reside in any substance, but only in form, and that just as fish need fins and gills to survive in water, those in heaven will need new ethereal bodies, just like angels.

By the way, I believe John Philopon also shared this view, but that's a few centuries later so I haven't analyzed his view in detail.

Matthew_Green

So the name of the book was changed, eh? Why is it going to be published in the Summer of 2005? Why not right away (assuming most of the material is complete and ready for publication; it might not be)? I don't understand what's taking so long. I also read on a webpage by Peter Kirby that there are at least two views of the spiritual resurrection; the one that you endorsed (i.e. that Jesus' flesh/bones was left behind yet his new spiritual body ascended into heaven) and another one endorsed by Raymond Brown in that the flesh and blood body of Jesus was transformed into a spiritual body with nothing left over. In fact, I recall a debate between Matt Perman and Farrell Till in which Perman argued that there was a continuity between the natural body and the spiritual body (it is raised a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body). This argument about continuity led me towards Brown's view. Is there any evidence against Brown's view?

Oh! Well given this I retract my comments about this being your weakest point. It sounded as though (to me at least) that Christianity might still be salvageable. I agree with you though; it's always possible that some divine entity (the "holy spirit") could lead me to believe that Jesus switched bodies and still lives.

I understand. And I actually agree now that you took a better approach because that's exactly what Craig would've done too! At least with this you got all your strong points in without any unecessary baggage that Craig would waste time on rebutting with silly arguments.

Matthew

Richard Carrier

At the publisher's insistence. I don't like the title they settled on. But I have a lot of complaints about Prometheus as a publisher, well beyond their handling of this book. I don't want to publicly air them, since my experience with them may be atypical or I may be subjectively assuming things I shouldn't. Suffice to say I don't think I will work for them again--unless they convince me things have changed.



Indeed. You hit on complaint number, oh, three or maybe number four (out of, oh, say, twenty or so). The whole book has been finished and ready to go for months now. The only reason they have set such a distant date is to fit it into their marketing and production cycle. I guess they run on a pretty slim budget. No other publisher I know (and my wife worked in publishing) would need so long a lead time to launch a new book--especially when they could have gotten it out exactly when The Passion of the Christ made general release. So they dropped a huge promotional ball there already (and they have dropped several others--I don't think they have anyone who knows anything about marketing over there--okay, I said I wasn't going to air my grievances, so I'll shut up now).



Correct.

Well, you could add others, e.g. the Gnostic view that literally labeled an immortal soul being saved a "resurrection", or the functionalist view that Jesus was raised metaphorically "in spirit," i.e. in the sense that his ideas animate the Church, and so on.

But the only views that fit the best evidence for the early Church at all are mine or Brown's (flesh advocates have a feeble case by comparison, as even Brown could cogently prove).

I believe Brown is wrong, but only because he missed several clues that are not in themselves obvious--until you notice them. In fact, I include (let's call it) Brownian Transformation in a footnote in my chapter as the next most viable alternative--hence I have two other chapters in that same book that provide plausible explanations for there actually being an empty tomb--one on misplacement, the other on theft.



Yes. But it is complicated, and requires a lot of background. All that is in my forthcoming chapter.

However, as a more simple example: the word "it" does not exist in the Greek of the passage you quote. One of the most common errors today in biblical interpretation is drawing conclusions that only follow on a particular English translation, and do not in fact follow from the actual grammar and vocabulary used by Paul.

The second most common error is ignoring the intertextual context. Paul's vocabulary consciously mimics that of key passages in Psalms and Hebrews concerning the apocalypse, for example, while Mark's gospel uses garment and building symbolism in a way that perfectly connects with Paul's use of garment and building symbolism, which consciously mimics OT vocabulary regarding ritual containers, etc. This sounds obscure until you see the evidence, and believe me, then it is undeniable. Once you see the actual scriptural context of the vocabulary and concepts and phrases chosen by Paul, my theory fits far better than Brown's. Likewise, my theory has known Jewish parallels, and they also employ language the same way Paul does--far more so than any transformative doctrine did. And that is the third most common error: ignoring (or missing) the wider historical-cultural context.

If you want a sneak-peak, I cover some of this evidence in the Licona-Carrier debate, which you can buy through the link above or on my author page, etc.

Notsri

So I've looked over the excerpts from Contra Celsum - thank you for those, by the way, Richard - and I'm not sure I was able to see exactly what you were referring to; that is, with all due respect, I believe you may be misreading Origen - if I understand you correctly, anyway. While he does in effect argue that the "raised body is not the same one that died," as you say, his meaning seems to be rather that the mortal body has been (or will be) raised immortal, and in that sense finds its etherealness. Origen's view would then entail the sort of transformation of qualities (rather than exchange of bodies) Craig referred to in your debate. Here are some excerpts from Origen that support this, I think.

Against Celsus 3.42: Against Celsus 5.23: N.B. Noting the grain/stalk metaphor (with the transformed stalk arising from the very grain that was sown), Origen's meaning must be that a similar transformation is manifested in the resurrection: the incorruptible arising from the very corruptibility that was sown; otherwise the simile fails, and the metaphor is rather irrelevant.


Commentary on the Song of Songs, 3.13: Homilies on Jeremiah, 18.4.2 (mostly preserved in Greek):
The real coups de grace come, I think, from two additional passages, each from the stenographic report called Dialogue with Heraclides (also preserved in Greek). Here they are:

Dialogue 5.10-6.5: ibid. 6.15-7.15:

Richard Carrier

Thank you for your passages, too. One of them I have to look into further. The others I'll address below. First three preliminaries:

(1) What Origen says against Celsus must be read in the context of what Methodius attacks in his treatise On the Resurrection (hence I made a point of citing that important text; now I will quote it, below).

(2) Second, the context changes between our resurrection and that of Jesus: at our resurrection, all earthly things will be burned away--so there won't be any body left behind, because the body we leave behind will be burned up at the same time. In Paul's view this would not have happened to Jesus, because the world was not burned away yet. It is possible Origen, who, unlike Paul, was saddled with defending the Gospel narratives, assumed the corpse of Jesus was also dissolved, in advance of the final apocalypse. It is hard to say, since he waffles so much on whether the narrative is to be taken literally or allegorically, or even whether the tomb was in fact empty (rather than merely lacking the presence of Jesus).

(3) We can't trust the English translations of Christians (esp. in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, or ANF) who assume Origen is agreeing with them, and thus fudge the translation to fit their assumption. In contrast, I will translate from the Greek literally below.

Ultimately, you simply have to read Bynum, and consult the text of Methodius (to my knowledge there is no English translation of the other passages Bynum doesn't herself render, but German is available I believe in Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte Bd. 27, and French in René Henry, ed., Bibliothèque vol. 5).

Even in the Contra Celsum he is pretty clear, to wit:

7.32:

There can be no mistake here: the former body is cast off, and another body donned. He immediately goes on to give an analogy:

The analogy is clear: our current bodies of flesh are like the placenta, and like the placenta will be cast aside--not changed, but discarded--while the body we put on "underneath" that placenta will serve us in our future life. In the case of birth, he means the body of flesh, which is hidden underneath the placenta. In the case of our future life, he means the spiritual body we are building within ourselves even now, which cannot be seen, but which will break out in the resurrection, leaving the flesh behind like a now-useless placenta. (n.b. Origen compares the resurrection of Jesus with the birth of Jesus in 2.69)

In 5.18-24 he says more than once that the present body is fated to be dissolved, not changed, and that we "will live not in the same fleshes" but instead our resurrection bodies will rise "from" (apo) our corpses cast into the earth--most ANF uses of the English "of" in these passages is actually "from" in the Greek and not "of." In other words, he says there happens a "sort of" (hoinonei) resurrection from our corpse, not of our corpse, just as a stalk rises "from" the seed--in both cases God provides "its own" body. Origen does not say he changes the body. This is not transformation--though it does entail that our new bodies are already growing inside us, though we can't see them (and that agrees with Paul, e.g. 2 Cor. 4:16ff.).

For instance, literally from the Greek of 5.23:

This can look like he means reanimation, which is why later scribes let it slide (he was too precise in his actual treatise on the resurrection for scribes to let that slide--but they didn't destroy all the genuine copies, since the Slavonic of Methodius preserves numerous original passages from it). But what Origen is actually saying here is that each of us has a logos (a reason, a code, an identity) inside our bodies--bodies he says will be destroyed (rot away), and that from this logos will rise a body above our decaying body.

That this is what Origen really means is clear from the other passages (where he says it is not the same body, as in 6.29 and in books 5 and 7 as above) but even more clear from Methodius (On the Resurrection 3.3.4, 3.6.7):

The first passage is unmistakable as to what Origen meant, and the second quotes him directly saying in no uncertain terms it is a relocation. The rest of the second passage secures the point, since Methodius's criticism only makes sense if Origen was arguing that a form would be stamped into a completely new body, since Methodius is saying that, since in that case there is no continuity with the prior body, it is not the same person. That could only be an argument against Origen if Origen was arguing for translocation rather than transformation.

Throughout, Methodius quotes Origen arguing that it is absurd to believe our same bodies will rise, because our bodies aren't even the same bodies from one day to the next. Only the form that is pressed into each substance retains identity, Origen argues, which he says is the only way to make sense of the fact that Peter and Paul were the same men in old age as in youth--given the fact that for all we know not a single atom in their body remains the same from youth to old age. For this reason, there is no ground to complain when form is pressed into a completely new material.

This is notable because all the other Church Fathers who write treatises on the resurrection go out of their way to respond to this objection in order to justify the doctrine that the same bodies rise--but Origen does exactly the opposite and argues not only that the same bodies do not and need not rise, but that such an idea was in fact absurd, because of the very arguments the other Church Fathers struggled to answer, but that Origen accepted (Bynum covers this debate well).

Now to your passages: Against Celsus 3.42 is about the incarnated body--the body Jesus had before he died, not the resurrection body. See the context being set up in 3.41: Celsus is saying Jesus could not have been God when he lived on earth because gods cannot have mortal bodies; Origen says God can do what he wants, and in this case infused the mortal body with his spirit, and so changed the qualities of the mortal flesh of Jesus. Then in 3.42, Origen goes on to discuss why Jesus was not impure (i.e. tainted by sin) despite donning flesh. Celsus then says "Okay, if changing qualities makes you God, then isn't (e.g.) Hercules also a God?" To which Origen replies by saying Hercules (etc.) did nothing great that indicated he was divine. The analogy in both cases is to the acts of Jesus in life. The fact that Hercules was not a God until his resurrection is acknowledged, when Origen refers to him "casting aside" his mortal body (not changing it). But, of course, Jesus was God before his resurrection, so we can draw no conclusions here about his resurrection.

On 5.23, it is so common of us city folk to miss what agrarian peoples take as common knowledge: the seed does not become a plant--if you have ever done a lot of gardening, you should have had occasion to pull the dead husk off of a growing sprout. Agrarian societies are entirely geared around this activity earlier in the game: it is called separating the wheat from the chaff. Origin is saying that the body of flesh is like the husk (which is what you see when you plant a seed), and the logos inside us from which the resurrection body grows is the kernel hidden inside that seed, now sprouting into a plant. The husk is cast aside--as is the placenta, and the body of flesh.

The Commentary on the Song of Songs, at least section 3.13, does not exist in Greek as far as I can tell. I believe it only appears in Latin translation (I think of Jerome no less, a rabid antiorigenist), so the reliability of the text is questionable, which is why I never considered it to begin with. But now that you've provided a specific passage I will look further into it in more detail. Nevertheless, the passage you quote is ambiguous as to what is meant, and until I examine the original text I don't see it contradicting what Origen elsewhere says. To raise bodies can be to Origen raising the new body that comes from the logos within us.

The Homilies on Jeremiah, 18.4.2 begins "Here they say this can illuminate the details concerning the resurrection. For if..." and then your quote follows. So this does not necessarily represent Origen's opinion, but someone else's. I'll look into it further, however, to see what Origen typically means when he refers to "they" in that work.

As for the Dialogue with Heraclides, I am quite certain that is not a stenograph of any actual meeting. No one wrote down the minutes to meetings in the high Greek style of a Platonic dialogue. And most dialogues from antiquity are fiction. Plato has Socrates speak in dialogues, and scholars agree many of the views Socrates defends there are Plato's, not Socrates'. A quick glance at the Greek leads me to doubt Origen wrote this dialogue, but I need to examine the matter further. I have a research trip scheduled a week from now and I'll put this on the top of my list.

Until then, note that, as the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says, Origenism was characterized by the "denial of the identity between the mortal and the resurrection bodies" (s.v. "Origenism," p. 1195), so a dialogue that depicts a character named Origen (after the manner of Socrates) defending exactly the opposite view sounds much more like a standard antiorigenist tactic (the same way Rufinus changed the text of his De Pricipiis to agree with orthodoxy). It is notable, too, that this Dialogue seems to have appeared in the 6th century, precisely when a new Origenist heresy arose that the Church had to stamp out.

See:

http://www.comparativereligion.com/anathemas.html

For the charges of heresy against Origen, esp. the fifteen anathemas of the Council of Constantinople of 553, esp. Anathema 10 and 11 (emphasis added):

There are misunderstandings here, of course, since Origen meant by spirit a substance, not an immaterial state--the immaterial state is held by a naked soul, which is not a spirit in Origen's vocabulary. Likewise, most scholars suspect he never claimed it would be spherical (at least, such a claim can't be found in his extant writings). I suspect it may have been a later deduction by his enemies from his comparing our future bodies with the bodies of stars.

Notsri

::raising white flag:: Very compelling stuff, Richard; even more so after encountering the discussion of this very topic in the apologies of both Rufinus and Jerome, as well as in some of the latter's additional works (e.g., Jerome writes in Against John of Jerusalem 1.7: "[Origen] most openly denies the resurrection of the flesh and the bodily structure...both in his explanation of the first Psalm, and in many other of his treatises"; cf. ibid. 1.25-27). Also--and perhaps you're already aware of this; I wasn't til recently, of course--Epiphanius, Origen's fervid fourth-century opponent from Salamis, touches on the subject in the Panarion, even quoting Methodius' treatise at length (64.12.1-64.62.14). (Apparently it was Epiphanius' influence on Jerome that caused the latter to turn on Origen himself.)


Right--only the Latin remains; but the matter is perhaps even worse than your reckoning: it's extant only in Rufinus' Latin.


This came to my attention, too--after I posted, unfortunately. Nevertheless, it is interesting, and perhaps somewhat suggestive, that Origen never openly censures the proponents of that particular view in the homily. On the contrary, he seems rather to lend a degree of tacit approval: Bearing in mind that the individuals ("they") whose opinion he quotes are those who "have contemplated and understood these passages [Jer. 18:3-4] more simply" (18.4.2), and that his own interpretations would of course reflect in contrast a deeper sort of exegesis, Origen states earlier in 18.4.1: And then Origen goes on to give a (their) "superficial" interpretation of 18:3-4, which, again, goes without the least animadversion, and then later (18.7) ties a portion of the same text into his own, "deeper" interpretation--"both can be helped since the same thing to one is a spring, but to the other is a well."


To address the latter point first, it is unlikely that Origen penned the work himself, as you correctly surmised. Robert Daly, who translated the work for the Ancient Christian Writers series, even notes that the Dialogue was Coming specifically to the question of stenography, though, Eusebius notes in Ecclesiastical History 6.23.2, that Origen had in fact been vouchsafed seven stenographers, plus a handful of copyists as well; and all thanks to his benefactor, Ambrosius (cf. Epiphanius, Panarion 64.3.4). So it seems plausible that one or more of these amanuenses could've recorded this particular dialogue. Furthermore, that there were other dialogues from Origen, as well as synodal reports in particular (as in Dialogue with Heraclides), committed to writing, is known, e.g., from Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. 6.36.1): And from Jerome (Apology 2.19): And again from Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. 6.33.3): (Also, it seems possible if not likely that the Origenian pretender who composed the Dialogue On the True Faith in God (Dialogus de recta in Deum fide), had an existing genre from Origen's works in mind.)

In any event, Daly calls the Dialogue's general content "highly typical, even 'vintage' Origen."

Richard Carrier

Wow! You've sent more interesting stuff. Thanks!

Before I get to that, a brief report on my research trip:

I wasn't able to check The Commentary on the Song of Songs any further, since all the copies in my area (five in all) are checked out until kingdom come. I don't know why there is such a sudden rush on that obscure commentary. I can't even find the original Latin--it is not even in Migne. So I will have to investigate that more some other time.

The Homilies on Jeremiah, 18.4.2 is clearly not expressing Origen's opinion. It starts "Each person according to his capacity understands the Scriptures. One takes the sense from them more superficially, as if from the surface level of a spring. Another draws up more deeply as from a well...For me this [Jer. 18:5-6] is a preface to the future discussion about the clay receptacle which fell from the hand of the potter and was molded anew. Some have contemplated and understood these passages more simply. I will present for you the doctrine of those and the discussion. After this if we have something deeper, we will discuss this also. They say this can illuminate the details concerning the resurrection. For if... [your quote] ...Let this discussion also have [our] thanks. But ... Let us see that this passage concerning the house of the potter does not refer to certain matters concerning one person, but to two nations." [then he elaborates his opinion from there; on Origen's apparent "approval" of the simple interpretation, see below.]

I found a very old (and not very good) English translation of part of Methodius against Origen, and also found that some relevant material is still extant in Greek in the Bibliotheca of Photius (cod. 234). Cf. Ante-Nicene Library, vol. 14 ("The Writings of Methodius"), esp. pp. 139-73 (and most esp. pp. 153, 163, 167-68, 171). Some examples:

Adam was given "coats of skins" by the Devil (a metaphor for the body) so that "all that was evil in him might die in the dissolution of the body" (pp. 154-55); Origen contrasts earthly from heavenly and "angelic" substances and of the latter Methodius says "of such a nature, and consisting of such things, Origen has shown that the body of man shall be which shall rise, which he also said would be spiritual" (p. 167); "this human form, as according to him useless, shall wholly disappear" (p. 167); "Origen, therefore, thinks that the same flesh will not be restored to the soul, but that the form of each [person], according to the appearance by which the flesh is now distinguished, shall arise stamped upon another, spiritual body, so that everyone will again appear the same in form" (p. 168); and since the body is fluid even in life and never the same body anyway, "it is necessary that the resurrection should be only that of the form" (ibid.); "Origen, you maintain that the resurrection of the body changed into a spiritual body is to be expected only in appearance" (i.e. without continuity, i.e. not as a transformation; ibid.); Origen used the appearance of Moses at the transfiguration as proof that we will have different bodies (since the corpse of Moses is supposedly still interred on earth), Methodius attacks this argument by claiming it contradicts Paul's assertion that Christ was the first to rise, and that Origen's view is not a "rising" since the soul is never without a body (which is not true--Methodius is misunderstanding or misrepresenting Origen's view, since Origen did believe the soul would be naked for a time), then Methodius goes on at length to argue against Origen that you cannot separate form from its material as Origen wants, so our flesh must rise; whereas Origen says "the body in which the form was stamped shall be destroyed" (p. 170) and replaced with a "spiritual body" which is not "the original substance, but a certain resemblance of it, fashioned in an ethereal body. If, however, it is not the same form, nor yet the body which arises, then it is another in place of the first. For that which is like, being different from that which it resembles, cannot be that very first thing in accordance with which it was made" (ibid.; this is a diff. translation from the one I used above, which I got from Richard Sorabji, but that's a long story); Origen argued that the resurrection narrative in Ezekiel was an allegory for Israel (this actually agrees with the Rabbinical view, but that's also another story), and Methodius attacks this and argues it really does describe our resurrection (p. 171).

As for the Dialogue with Heraclides, the text is apparently in bad shape. As the translator Daly notes, "the original scribe, in a number of places, obviously did not understand or report clearly" and "a second or third hand has made additions or emendations." Daly naively thinks this is because it is a stenograph, but that is extremely implausible--the text is in high Greek style, and is a Platonic dialogue. It could not be a stenograph. No one could write that fast back then anyway--they didn't exactly have Bick quickerclickers.

The sloppiness Daly observes is more recognizable as the product of extensive scribal tampering (as evidenced by the fact that we caught the tampering in mid-process as other scribes continued to attempt to tamper with the text). So I don't see how we can trust this text at all. Since Origen would never have said "they eliminate the salvation of the human body by saying that the body of the savior is spiritual" (7) we can be certain this dialogue has been altered to portray Origen as denying what he otherwise so universally affirms--that (by transformation or not) the body of the risen savior was spiritual, exactly as ours will be.

In contrast, the scribes tampered little in this dialogue with Origen's subsequent discourse on the "two men" (the inner and outer), which clearly dovetails with his view that we will rise in spiritual bodies (though the scribal meddlers were too dense to figure that out). See sections 16-28, esp. 24, where Origen exhorting us to endure martyrdom declares "Therefore let us take up the battle, therefore let us take up the struggle, groaning at being in the body, not as if, once in the tomb, we will be back in the body, but (persuaded that) we will be set free and will exchange our body for something more spiritual, destined as we are to be dissolved and be with Christ." Even if one interprets this as transformation (the verb used can mean either), it still contradicts what the scribes made Origen say earlier.



I did not know this passage. Nice! Note also Jerome's 84th epistle, where he relates his frustrating debates with Origenists, and in particular his (rather revealing) disgust with Origenist women asserting feminist ideas of equality in the afterlife on account of the fact that their current bodies will be destroyed (and so their sexual features will not be continued in the resurrected life, and they will therefore be the equals of men! Jerome was having none of that--orthodox Christians would not stand for it, and insisted women will remain subject to men in the future life).



No, I had not examined that material before. I'll check it out.



"Helped," yes--because if it saves their soul, all is well. In other words, Origen says this is okay, for simple folk--but then says this is not what the passage is actually about. Hence in the Contra Celsum, indeed when discussing the nature of the resurrection, Origen explains (5.19):

Thus, there is a gospel for the simpleton, and a gospel for the mature, which is concealed from the simpleton because it might turn him away from the faith and thus away from salvation. And here, the "secret" meaning is exactly the one Origen advocates: that we switch bodies. Therefore, the "simpleton's" meaning must be that he gets his old body back--which is false, but it won't hurt the simpleton to believe it.



I am sure some of the material in it was Origen's--but certainly it was heavily edited by someone else (actually, several other people). I believe it is known that Origen wrote numerous Platonic dialogues--none have survived (except this fragment).



I think you are mistaking what Eusebius is talking about--these are not stenographers, but secretaries and scribes for staffing his library and helping him compose (and publish) his books (in particular, his commentaries, which he did not want to write because it was such a bother--that's why so many secretaries were provided, so they could relieve each other, and Origen didn't have to cramp his own hand).

For example, Origen would probably rattle off what he wanted written, a few sentences at a time, then pause to let the scribe catch up, perhaps check what the scribe wrote down and call for corrections, and so on. This was a common method of book composition in the ancient world. And in epistle writing, by the way--Paul's epistles are full of explicit references to the fact that Paul is not writing some of the letters, but dictating them. The same method came to be used in book houses at least by the middle ages, and many of our mss. show evidence of phonovocal errors, proving that books would be copied en masse by one man reading aloud and numerous scribes writing down what he reads--but obviously at a maddeningly slow pace. Remember, these guys are using quills with inkwells, on rough papyrus. I've actually tried it. I have also used the other known method (stylus on wax). There is no way in heaven or earth anyone can do this and keep up even with a slow speaker. So there is no way anyone could have stenographed an actual meeting of bishops--nor would bishops give elaborate orations in high Platonic style at such a meeting. Note, too, that Greek shorthand was not invented until the Byzantine era (9th century). There was a Greek cursive, but it could not be written in wax, so the delay of keeping a quill inked would still intervene--and besides that, if you expected to actually read what you wrote, you still could not scribble as fast as people spoke.



No doubt. Plato invented the dialogue genre--but they were by no means stenographs of actual meetings between Socrates and his friends and opponents--and not only that, but more reflected what Plato wanted to say than what Socrates or anyone else actually said. The dialogue became a Christian form of literature at least as early as Felix, though it was already toyed with by Justin a few decades earlier.

Synodal reports are not dialogues, but decrees (see Acts 15:23ff. for the earliest known example). The case of Beryllus does not mention stenographs, but accounts (one could certainly write down after the fact an account of what happened--this is, after all, what Xenophon tried to do for the discussions of Socrates--but that is, again, not a stenograph, and certainly open to meddling by what the author wants to have been said). Even where Eusebius mentions scribes taking down the lectures of Origen, this may refer to Origen dictating to a secretary (in the slow, careful manner above), or what happened (without his permission) to Quintillian: students attending his same lectures several times, and thus taking more and more notes on the same lecture each time, and then publishing a collation of these. Again, not comparable to scribbling down every word of a one-time synodal meeting.



A lot of it certainly is. Now that I've examined the whole text, in translation and in Greek, there is a lot that is surely from Origen himself there. But the one particular section you quoted from does not look like Origen in Greek style--it is actually substantially inferior in clarity and quality (Origen wrote a very excellent, complex Greek, which if a lesser light tried to imitate it, would only end up confusing--as Daly admits the text often is).