Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 10-16-2011, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I asked you to formulate a sentence to explain why finding 'Origen the Platonist' in 260 CE should raise any suspicions about Origen the Christian?

I have already formulated the sentence to be addressed.

The Duplicate Identities of Ammonius - Platonist & Christian

Mark Edwards, in Ammonius, teacher of Origen (Journal of Ecclesiastical History) in 1993 found it necessary to stress the distinction between the two "Ammonii".

Porphyry and Eusebius, antagonistic witnesses, agree that one of Origen's early tutors was called Ammonius. This was also the name of the tutor of Origen's younger contemporary Plotinus, and it has long been the fashion to argue or assume that they were pupils of the same man. Heinrich Dorrie perhaps remains alone in his view that the two men called Ammonius were distinct, a view for which I shall argue in this article, though not entirely on Dorrie's grounds.

Here is the formulated sentence as a question which you may attempt to address:

The Amazing Coincidence of a series of Duplicate Identities

Why does an examination of supposedly historical figures of the 3rd century
reveal the following (and EXTENDABLE) series of duplicate identities, same name, same DOB, same DOD:

* Ammonias the Platonist theologian (Father of Neoplatonism) and Ammonias the Christian
* Origen the Platonist theologian and Origen the Christian Theologian
* Anatolius the Platonist theologian and Anatolius the Christian BISHOP

What is a feasible explanation for this AMAZING COINCIDENCE?

stephan huller · 10-16-2011, 09:53 AM

This isn't a single sentence. It's your usual xxxxxx full of links (albeit no charts thankfully). This should be very simple. How does the discovery of one possible Origen who wasn't a Christian and lived subsequent to the existence of Origen the Christian disprove the existence of Origen the Christian given that Origen was a very common name in Egypt

mountainman · 10-16-2011, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

This isn't a single sentence.

Why does an examination of supposedly historical figures of the 3rd century
reveal the following (and EXTENDABLE) series of duplicate identities, same name, same DOB, same DOD:

* Ammonias the Platonist theologian (Father of Neoplatonism) and Ammonias the Christian
* Origen the Platonist theologian and Origen the Christian Theologian
* Anatolius the Platonist theologian and Anatolius the Christian BISHOP

is a long and complex but single sentence.

Quote:

How does the discovery of one possible Origen who wasn't a Christian and lived subsequent to the existence of Origen the Christian disprove the existence of Origen the Christian given that Origen was a very common name in Egypt

Since we ultimately are discussing historical probabily theory, the discovery of one possible Origen the Platonist who wasn't a Christian and lived subsequent to the existence of Origen the Christian does not disprove the existence of Origen the Christian given that Origen the Platonist was a very common name in Egypt.

It simply raises the eyebrow of suspicion.

Neither does the discovery of one possible Ammonius the Platonist who wasn't a Christian and lived subsequent to the existence of Ammonius the Christian disprove the existence of Ammonius the Christian given that Ammonius the Platonist was a very common name in Egypt

It simply raises the eyebrow of suspicion a little higher.

Neither does the discovery of one possible Anatolius the Platonist who wasn't a Christian and lived subsequent to the existence of Anatolius the Christian Bishop disprove the existence of Anatolius the Christian given that Anatolius the Platonist was a very common name in Egypt.

It simply raises the eyebrow of suspicion a little higher.

However my question (which I have repeated above) is not restricted to one of these strange doppelganger duplicate pairs of people wandering around in the antiquity of the 3rd century Egypt - Alexandria to be specific.

We have a series of duplicates which goes against probability of being true. Someone has therefore made a mistake somewhere in the historical reporting and narratives and sources about this epoch.

Maybe the Platonists made the mistake?
I dont think so!

mountainman · 10-16-2011, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

How does the discovery of one possible Origen who wasn't a Christian and lived subsequent to the existence of Origen the Christian disprove the existence of Origen the Christian given that Origen was a very common name in Egypt

The two Origen's were contemporaneous as were the Ammonii and Anatolii pairs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI on Origen the Christian

[
Origen (Greek: Ὠριγένης Ōrigénēs), or Origen Adamantius, 184/5–253/4,[1] was an early Christian Alexandrian scholar and theologian, and one of the most distinguished writers of the early Church. As early as the fourth century, his orthodoxy was suspect, in part because he believed in the pre-existence of souls. Today he is regarded as one of the Church Fathers.[2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI on Origen the Platonist

Origen the Pagan (early 3rd century) was a Platonist philosopher who lived in Alexandria. He was a student of Ammonius Saccas and a contemporary of Plotinus in Ammonius's philosophy school in Alexandria. He was also a contemporary of his more famous namesake, the Christian Origen of Alexandria, who may also have been educated by Ammonius Saccas.

Origen is mentioned three times in Porphyry's Life of Plotinus,[1] where he is treated much more kindly than the Christian Origen, whom Porphyry disliked.[2] He is also mentioned several times by Proclus, and it is clear that Origen's fellow students Plotinus and Longinus treated him with respect

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI on Ammonius the Christian

Ammonius of Alexandria was a Christian philosopher who lived in the 3rd century. He is not to be confused with Ammonius Saccas, the Neoplatonist philosopher, also from Alexandria.

Eusebius, who is followed by Jerome, asserted that Ammonius was born a Christian, and remained faithful to Christianity throughout his life. He wrote that Ammonius produced several scholarly works, most notably The Harmony of Moses and Jesus.[1] Eusebius also wrote that Ammonius composed a synopsis of the four canonical gospels, traditionally assumed to be the Ammonian Sections, now known as the Eusebian Canons.[2]

Eusebius attacks Porphyry for saying that Ammonius apostatized early in his life and left no writings behind him, but Eusebius was presumably confusing Ammonius with the Neoplatonist of the same name.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI on Ammonius the Platonist

Ammonius Saccas (3rd century AD) (Ancient Greek: Ἀμμώνιος Σακκᾶς) was a Greek philosopher from Alexandria who was often referred to as one of the founders of Neoplatonism. He is mainly known as the teacher of Plotinus, whom he taught for eleven years from 232 to 243. He was undoubtably the biggest influence on Plotinus in his development of Neoplatonism, although little is known about his own philosophical views. Later Christian writers stated that Ammonius was a Christian, but it is now generally assumed that there was a different Ammonius of Alexandria who wrote biblical texts.

Genuine duplicates (same name, date of birth and date of death, profession, etc) do happen in history.

But when the duplication is not single, but a series that can be mapped from one lineage to another lineage then isn't it entirely reasonable (on the basis of probability alone) to suspect there has been some sort of "mistake"?

The Christians have preserved a history of the 3rd century in which Ammonius, Origen and Anatolius were very important Christian theologians from Alexandria. However the Platonists have also preserved a history of the 3rd century in which Ammonius, Origen and Anatolius were very important Platonic theologians from Alexandria.

Does anyone see the problem with this?

stephan huller · 10-17-2011, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Why does an examination of supposedly historical figures of the 3rd century
reveal the following (and EXTENDABLE) series of duplicate identities, same name, same DOB, same DOD:

* Ammonias the Platonist theologian (Father of Neoplatonism) and Ammonias the Christian
* Origen the Platonist theologian and Origen the Christian Theologian
* Anatolius the Platonist theologian and Anatolius the Christian BISHOP
is a long and complex but single sentence.

But this isn't an argument. It's just a confusing accusation which you pile one on top of the other in order to make your case for a massive and illogical forgery. You haven't presented so much as one proof that there wasn't a Christian named Origen who wrote all the works ascribed to him. At least come up with a sentence which explains why Origen the Christian never existed.

mountainman · 10-17-2011, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

Why does an examination of supposedly historical figures of the 3rd century
reveal the following (and EXTENDABLE) series of duplicate identities, same name, same DOB, same DOD:

* Ammonias the Platonist theologian (Father of Neoplatonism) and Ammonias the Christian
* Origen the Platonist theologian and Origen the Christian Theologian
* Anatolius the Platonist theologian and Anatolius the Christian BISHOP
is a long and complex but single sentence.

But this isn't an argument.

It is a question about the evidence before us.

Quote:

It's just a confusing accusation .....

Academic scholarship on the disambiguation of the two Ammonii seems to me to be the oldest and richest example to examine. The result of this scholarship has been the disambiguation of two distinct and separate Ammonii, one from the lineage of the Christians, and one from the lineage of the Platonists. (Ammonius is regarded as the "Father of Neoplatonism"). Consequently the evidence has been analysed to provide a solution with not one but two distinct historical figures.

Academic scholarship on the disambiguation of the two Origens is much more recent than that for the Ammonii as far as I have researched the matter. I have provided references and citations as required to substantiate the state of the evidence. Here AGAIN with Origen, the evidence has been analysed to provide a solution with not one but two distinct historical figures

Academic scholarship on the disambiguation of the two Anatolii is very recent but I have cited the references.

This series of what appears to be DUPLICATE IDENTITIES has been drawn from academic scholarship's analysis of the evidence.

I reject the claim that this is a confusing accusation.

It's a question about the evidence for Christ's sake !

Quote:

which you pile one on top of the other in order to make your case for a massive and illogical forgery.

When are you going to comment on the SERIES of evidence presented?

Quote:

You haven't presented so much as one proof that there wasn't a Christian named Origen who wrote all the works ascribed to him. At least come up with a sentence which explains why Origen the Christian never existed.

You asked for my argument in a single sentence. I gave you a single sentence in the form of a question which admittedly was complex but there is no indication from your response that you have read the entire sentence though to the end.

The evidence shows that we have a SERIES of 3 or 4 duplicate historical figures (not only just dear old Origen for Christ's sake!) busily conducting their business affairs, martyrdoms, and bold earnest writings in the 3rd century of the common era. This seems a very shadowy century on the surface of the evidence. It is very unusual for a series of duplications to be an historical reality.

That we are dealing with a series and not one or two duplicate identies is only as recent as this centuries scholarship and academic analysis. (Rowan Williams et al). However Porphyry stands in the wings as an example of what appears to be a 4th duplicate identity in the lineage of Platonists producing very important and well known Christian (or Christianized) manuscripts.

My question again is simple. How do we explain the incredible coincidence of this pattern of evidence?

mountainman · 10-17-2011, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

If you could tighten your argument around the Origen/Ammonius (Christian) and Origen/Ammonius (Platonist) relationships, I for one would be eager to read more.

The arguments are not mine they are the arguments of academic scholars. The novelty here is that I am gathering these into a series which exceeds just these two pairs, to consider three and then four examples.

Start with the Ammonius pair.
The scholarship is the oldest.
It is not my scholarship.
I have cited references.

mountainman · 10-18-2011, 11:20 PM

Much scholarly debate has surrounded the identity and number of Origens and Ammonii named in these texts, a debate that F. M. Schroeder has characterized as "prosopographical schizophrenia" ("Ammonius Saccas," ANRW II.36.1: 504).

"Read it also to the Gentiles": the displacement and recasting of the philosopher in the Vita Antonii

The following from Footnote # 31 ....

Quote:

(31) Vit. Plot. 3. See John Dillon, The Middle Platonists: A Study of Platonism, 80 B.C. to A.D. 220 (London: Duckworth, 1977): "It looks as if, in the person of Ammonius, Plotinus came into contact with the 'Neopythagorean underground'" (381). Porphyry reports that the treatises of Numenius the Platonist were read aloud and discussed in Plotinus's lectures: "But it was far from his way to follow any of these authors blindly; he took a personal, original view, applying Ammonius' method to the investigation of every problem" (Vit. Plot. 14). Some of Plotinus's critics even accused him of plagiarizing Numenius, a charge vehemently rebuked by his students. Amelius, who had worked extensively on the works of Numenius while studying with Plotinus, defended his teacher from these charges with a work titled The Difference between the Doctrines" of Plotinus and Numenius (Vit. Plot. 17). At His't. eccl. 6.19.5-8, Eusebius cites the testimony of Porphyry, who wrote in his polemic against Origen in his lost work Against the Christians, that Origen had been an "auditor" ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]) of Ammonius. In the same passage, Porphyry also remarks that Origen, "the very man whom I happened to meet when I was very young," was well-read in the major works of Greek philosophy, including Plato and Numenius. He admits that Ammonius had been a Christian but had abandoned this way for the philosophical life, a claim that Eusebius rejects (6.19.9-10). Porphyry further contrasts Ammonius and Origen: whereas Ammonius had been raised as a Christian but abandoned Christianity for wisdom and philosophy, Origen, who had been educated in Greek learning, continued to cling to Christianity, thereby negating any claim he might have to the pedigree of Ammonius.

Much scholarly debate has surrounded the identity and number of Origens and Ammonii named in these texts, a debate that F. M. Schroeder has characterized as "prosopographical schizophrenia" ("Ammonius Saccas," ANRW II.36.1: 504).

In a classic treatment of the question, H. Dorrie ("Ammonios, der Lehrer Plotins," Hermes" 83 [1955]: 439-477) argued that there were two Ammonii in question, one the teacher of Plotinus, the other a teacher of Origen, whom Porphyry had confused.

M. Edwards, who follows Dorrie ("Ammonius, Teacher of Origen," Journal of Ecclesiastical History 44:2 [April 1993]: 169181), identifies the Ammonius who taught Origen with an otherwise unknown Alexandria Peripatetic named in Vit. Plot. 20.

I do not think the evidence necessitates such a distinction, pace Dorrie and Edwards. While it must be admitted that the evidence is somewhat inconclusive, there has been a tendency to multiply the number of people bearing the same names within a relatively small circle of intellectuals as a way to avoid mixing Greek (read, pagan) and Christian teachers and students. What we seem to have in this textual debate between Porphyry and Eusebius are the claims of the intellectual heirs of Ammonius (Porphyry through Plotinus, and Eusebius through Origen) to the direction and ownership of the philosophical renewal.

mountainman · 10-19-2011, 06:10 PM

Hey stephan,

In an earlier post somewhere else you mentioned a soccer ball.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

It's just a foolishly desperate way of developing arguments.

There were undoubtedly many Origen's living at the time of Origen the Christian. The fact that you might have discovered one of them proves nothing.

That is not the claim

This argument is one via probability theory

Textual criticism of the asserted text of ancient manuscripts which no longer exist is not the only methodology of analysis available to ancient historians. We have seen Carrier champion Bayesian theory, which is basically probability theory, and can be applied in determining probabilistic analysis of the evidence.

I have reduced the question of the OP down to a single statement:

Why does an examination of supposedly historical figures of the 3rd century
reveal the following (and EXTENDABLE) series of duplicate identities, same name, same DOB, same DOD:

* Ammonias the Platonist theologian (Father of Neoplatonism) and Ammonias the Christian
* Origen the Platonist theologian and Origen the Christian Theologian
* Anatolius the Platonist theologian and Anatolius the Christian BISHOP

On the Science discussion board I have posted an analogous problem involving the scenario of finding duplicate football players P1, P2, P3 etc
with the same name, DOB and city of residence.

probability of distinct duplicate (name, DOB, suburb) football players in teams A & B

We may separately discuss the appropriateness of this analogy and whether it needs to be modified to better match the data as we have it.

If such a scenario exists in our historical records then my claim is that it is an amazing coincidence, far too amazing to be just coincidental, and we should discuss then possible causes.

The response indicates that for the first three duplicates where
P1 = Ammonius
P2 = Origen
P3 = Anatolius

the odds exceed a million to one.

Quote:

....... this can't be chance.

To summarise for all readers new to this question posed about not just the two Origens and the two Ammonii in the 3rd century, but a series of identities after these first two (p3, P4, etc). The probability aspect of having these duplicated identities in the historical record is being examined in a THEORETICAL manner by probability theory.

stephan huller · 10-19-2011, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Why does an examination of supposedly historical figures of the 3rd century
reveal the following (and EXTENDABLE) series of duplicate identities, same name, same DOB, same DOD:

This is so funny. Let's see how much bullshit you can cram into a sentence:

'supposedly historical figures' - if they aren't historical how do they have the same DOB and DOD (see below)

'same' name - as the name Ammonius comes from the god Ammon and Origen comes from the god Horus and both men are associated with Egypt, it shouldn't be surprising that both names are quite popular AND THEY ARE (as I have already demonstrated in the case of Origen). Let's agree that Origen was probably the ancient Egyptian equivalent of the English name 'Richard.'

'same DOB' - really? I don't know what year Origen the Christian was born far less the other losers. How you get a 'date of birth' is incredible for one Origen let alone the other.

'same DOD' - again no one knows when Origen the Christian died not even you Pete let alone the other figures.

It is so strange to try and disprove Origen the Christian by assuming that he has the same DOB and DOD as someone we know nothing about other than a scrap of paper. It's almost as intelligent as punching the first guy you meet at a bar after finding out your wife has been cheating on you.

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

10-16-2011, 09:53 AM	#32
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	This isn't a single sentence. It's your usual xxxxxx full of links (albeit no charts thankfully). This should be very simple. How does the discovery of one possible Origen who wasn't a Christian and lived subsequent to the existence of Origen the Christian disprove the existence of Origen the Christian given that Origen was a very common name in Egypt

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.