Freethought & Rationalism Archive

la70119 · 05-28-2012, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

.... Jerome is clearly stating here that the Senate was giving its citation of approval to the bishops' decision. Which means there had to have been one branch of Christianity that was tacitly left alone and even nurtured by the Government.

Not necessarily since Jerome is known for his embellishments to received tradition of the history of Eusebius. He was tutored and taken under the wing of Pope Damasius in the later 4th century. Pope Damasius's personal army had killed sufficient numbers of the personal armies of other people competing to become the bishop of Rome. It was a prestigous tax-exempt position in the later 4th century, and it was worth fighting for.

Jerome was a pawn.

But he is STILL referring to an action by a claque of bishops that met assent from the Roman Imperial Government! It was a pagan Government, by that time reviled by the Christians. (Interesting how opinion of the Empire changed once the criminal Constantine took over.) Jerome would have had ZERO incentive to include an Imperial Senate assent to the excommunication of Origen. The politically correct line at the time was that before the Change, Rome persecuted ALL Christians, the "orthodox" a.k.a. "catholics" especially so.

stephan huller · 05-28-2012, 12:34 AM

Indeed Jerome would eventually abandon his beloved Origen (and his friend Rufinus) for the sake of his fear of the state when Justinian denounced the Origenist monks of Palestine. Jerome was acutely aware of how best to flatter (and avoid offending) the state and its taste. It is hard to believe that Jerome would have made up the bit about Origen being condemned by the state. He was a courtier after all - a professional ass-kisser.

stephan huller · 05-28-2012, 12:40 AM

The next unanswerable question is - when were these actions taken? Notice the Church of Rome must have been in league with Demetrius.

Toto · 05-28-2012, 11:43 AM

split

stephan huller · 06-06-2012, 01:16 AM

Here is a powerful argument for Origen being born c. 172 and thus accepting the first dating of Demetrius's arrival in Alexandria 189 CE as the time in which Origen's father fell to persecution (and thus matching the theme of persecution in Clement's Second Book of Stromata written c. 193 CE) and the first mention of Origen. Eusebius says that Origen only allowed for his homilies to be recorded after he was sixty years old. Nautin calculates quite convincingly based on a reference to 'thirty years' having elapsed from the time of a great Emperor who was followed by a succession of not so great Emperors that Septimius Severus was meant. So it is that he argues that the homilies Origen delivered (and which are now recorded from the church of Caesarea were made as part of a three year liturgical cycle sometime between 238 - 241.

The point is that scholars have to throw out the 'sixty years old' statement of Eusebius even though Eusebius must have been getting his information from somewhere. All scholars agree that the early years of Origen as recorded in Eusebius are problematic. I think moving Origen back to 172 and thus 17 years of age when a student of Clement who clearly wrote the early parts of the Stromata c. 192 is important

http://books.google.com/books?id=_Pf...nautin&f=false (a summary of Nautin's arguments)

http://books.google.com/books?id=X_m...esarea&f=false (again in a different way by the same author)

This understanding also avoids positing a persecution in Alexandria during the reign of Septimius Severus to kill Origen's father which - as I have already noted elsewhere - doesn't make any sense. We know that Christians were killed by Commodus.

stephan huller · 06-06-2012, 01:27 AM

http://books.google.com/books?id=riE...andria&f=false

Origen's first trip to Palestine seems to have been around 215 CE. Is it really believable that a 30 year old youth was already this learned when meeting Alexander and the bishop of Caesarea. I don't buy it. By my reckoning he would have been 43.

mountainman · 06-06-2012, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The point is that scholars have to throw out the 'sixty years old' statement of Eusebius even though Eusebius must have been getting his information from somewhere.

How certain can scholars be that he didn't get the information from his imagination?

Quote:

All scholars agree that the early years of Origen as recorded in Eusebius are problematic. I think moving Origen back to 172 and thus 17 years of age when a student of Clement who clearly wrote the early parts of the Stromata c. 192 is important.

stephan huller · 06-06-2012, 09:43 PM

He would have done a better job if it was all from scratch. Notice that part of the narrative in Book 6 Origen is described as 'Origen' and the story of him going to Rome and then back to Alexandria he's 'Adamantius.' These are two different sources. Nautin thinks that Eusebius used two different sources to argue 'Gregory' and 'Theodore' were one and the same person. This happens all the time in ancient sources, Christian and non-Christian

mountainman · 06-07-2012, 04:53 AM

I suppose you still think that the parallel existence of Origen the Christian and Origen the Platonist in the 3rd century is inconsequential to anything, for example, dates of birth, death, teacher's name etc. It's suspicious. Eusebius is suss.

stephan huller · 06-07-2012, 08:05 AM

I have already demonstrated to you that Origen was a very common named in Egypt by means of the papyri evidence from the period. Not surprisingly crazy people don't listen to the evidence

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

05-28-2012, 12:34 AM	#12
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Indeed Jerome would eventually abandon his beloved Origen (and his friend Rufinus) for the sake of his fear of the state when Justinian denounced the Origenist monks of Palestine. Jerome was acutely aware of how best to flatter (and avoid offending) the state and its taste. It is hard to believe that Jerome would have made up the bit about Origen being condemned by the state. He was a courtier after all - a professional ass-kisser.

05-28-2012, 12:40 AM	#13
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The next unanswerable question is - when were these actions taken? Notice the Church of Rome must have been in league with Demetrius.

05-28-2012, 11:43 AM	#14
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	split

06-06-2012, 01:16 AM	#15
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Here is a powerful argument for Origen being born c. 172 and thus accepting the first dating of Demetrius's arrival in Alexandria 189 CE as the time in which Origen's father fell to persecution (and thus matching the theme of persecution in Clement's Second Book of Stromata written c. 193 CE) and the first mention of Origen. Eusebius says that Origen only allowed for his homilies to be recorded after he was sixty years old. Nautin calculates quite convincingly based on a reference to 'thirty years' having elapsed from the time of a great Emperor who was followed by a succession of not so great Emperors that Septimius Severus was meant. So it is that he argues that the homilies Origen delivered (and which are now recorded from the church of Caesarea were made as part of a three year liturgical cycle sometime between 238 - 241. The point is that scholars have to throw out the 'sixty years old' statement of Eusebius even though Eusebius must have been getting his information from somewhere. All scholars agree that the early years of Origen as recorded in Eusebius are problematic. I think moving Origen back to 172 and thus 17 years of age when a student of Clement who clearly wrote the early parts of the Stromata c. 192 is important http://books.google.com/books?id=_Pf...nautin&f=false (a summary of Nautin's arguments) http://books.google.com/books?id=X_m...esarea&f=false (again in a different way by the same author) This understanding also avoids positing a persecution in Alexandria during the reign of Septimius Severus to kill Origen's father which - as I have already noted elsewhere - doesn't make any sense. We know that Christians were killed by Commodus.

06-06-2012, 01:27 AM	#16
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	http://books.google.com/books?id=riE...andria&f=false Origen's first trip to Palestine seems to have been around 215 CE. Is it really believable that a 30 year old youth was already this learned when meeting Alexander and the bishop of Caesarea. I don't buy it. By my reckoning he would have been 43.

06-06-2012, 09:43 PM	#18
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	He would have done a better job if it was all from scratch. Notice that part of the narrative in Book 6 Origen is described as 'Origen' and the story of him going to Rome and then back to Alexandria he's 'Adamantius.' These are two different sources. Nautin thinks that Eusebius used two different sources to argue 'Gregory' and 'Theodore' were one and the same person. This happens all the time in ancient sources, Christian and non-Christian

06-07-2012, 04:53 AM	#19
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	I suppose you still think that the parallel existence of Origen the Christian and Origen the Platonist in the 3rd century is inconsequential to anything, for example, dates of birth, death, teacher's name etc. It's suspicious. Eusebius is suss.

06-07-2012, 08:05 AM	#20
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I have already demonstrated to you that Origen was a very common named in Egypt by means of the papyri evidence from the period. Not surprisingly crazy people don't listen to the evidence

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.