DCHindley

In the summary of the evidence for the Marcionite text of Galatians posted in another thread, I referred to sources that were T (Tertullian), O (Origen, both original Greek and sometimes via Jerome's Latin translation of books that did not survive in Greek), and A (Dialogues of Adamantius, both original Greek and sometimes via the Latin translation of Rufinus, which he translated from a better Greek text than what has been handed down).

Generally, I can find info online and elsewhere concerning Tertullian and Origen's statements about the Marcionite versions of the Pauline epistles, but the anonymous Dialogues of Adamantius (4th century), a series of moderated debates between orthodox Adamantius and several others, including a couple Marcionites, a Bardesainist and a couple Valentinians, was much harder to find any info about.

Apparently, the only English translation is in a 1997 book that can still be purchased from book resellers as remainders or used. Now I have ordered this book, Adamantius: Dialogue on the True Faith in God (or via: amazon.co.uk), translated by Rev. R A Pretty (I didn't name the man). This Google Books preview suggests it is fairly good.

For those who would like to see the latest (1901!) critical edition of the Greek and Latin text, you can download a searchable PDF of Der Dialog des Adamantius. Peri ts eis Theon orths pistes (Hrsg. im Auftrage der Kirchenväter-Commission der Königl. Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften von W.H. van de Sande Bakhuyzen, 1901) yourself here

The most comprehensive summary available online is from an article by F W Hort in the Dictionary of Christian Biography (vol 1, A-D, 1877, pp. 39-41, and yeah I fiddled with the formatting a little - adding bullet points):

ADAMANTIUS.—

1. [Origen.] {Origen's actual name, but Origen is not the one who is featured in the Dialogue}

2. The name of the orthodox interlocutor in a Dialogue against various heresies. The author is unknown: but at an early period it was assumed that he must be identical with 'Adamantius:' for similar cases see Archelaus, Bardeisan, Caius. The next step was to suppose that by ‘Adamantius’ must be meant Origen, whose name stands at the head in some if not all MSS. and in a short Greek summary. This confusion must have taken place before 380, if a note at the end of c. 24 of the Origenian Philocalia was written by the compilers; but this is uncertain. Again Anastasius Sinaita (Hodeg. qu. 48) in the 6th century quotes the Dialogue under Origen's name. On the other hand about 453 Theodoret refers to 'Adamantius' and Origen separately among his authorities (Haer, fab. i. praef. 25). These are the only allusions to the book in ancient times.

Origen's authorship, though defended by J. R. Wetstein and others, does not merit serious discussion. Style, doctrine, and indications of date are alike conclusive. Again internal evidence gives no support to the conjecture that Origen was dramatically intended as the chief speaker under the name Adamantius; indeed the author cannot have been an admirer of Origen. But such suppositious are needless, for 'Adamantius' is a sufficiently common name. The date is approximately fixed by an allusion to the contemporary "God-fearing" emperor, who "built up what" his persecuting predecessors "pulled down, loved what they hated, and pulled down the temples and idols which they honoured" (i. p. 816 E Ru. = 282 Lom.); a description which applies to no one but Constantine in his later years (330-337; of. Heinichen on Eus. Vit. Const, iii. 54). With this period agrees the language about "the God-Word consubstantial, eternal" (i. p. 804 C Ru. = 255 Lom.), and "the Holy Trinity consubstantial and inseparable" (v. p. 871 D Ru. = 416 Lom.), which points to the recent (325) determination of Nicaea. The Dialogue moreover makes large use of the writings of Methodius, who suffered about 312 (Clinton, F. E. i. 361); chiefly his treatise On Free Will (Routh, Rel. Sac. ii. 79 ff.; Alb. Jahn, Method. Platonizans, Halle 1865, pp. 118-124), but also that On the Resurrection (Jahn 79, 87). The principal passage taken (with some abridgement) from the former work is likewise given entire by Eusebius (H. E. vii. 21 f.) as from a treatise On Matter by Maximus, a writer whom he elsewhere (H. E. v. 27) places at the end of the 2nd century; and from Eusebius it was copied into the Philocalia (I.c.), where it stands alone among genuine extracts from Origen. Routh pointed out that the Dialogue was immediately indebted not, as is usually said, to Maximus but to Methodius: we are not therefore further concerned with Maximus here. The author possibly threw his argument into a dialogue in imitation of Methodius, four at least of whose works were dialogues; though the borrowed matter retains hardly a trace of its original form in this respect. Neander's conjecture (Gnost. Syst. 206 f.) that the whole treatise is a patchwork made up of different genuine dialogues of the 3rd century, such as that said to have been held by Origen with Candidus (Hier. c. Ruf. ii. 19), has nothing to recommend it: but it is likely enough that the author made liberal use of works now lost.

The heading in some, perhaps all, MSS. is Against the Marcionists, a title which applies only to a small part. The summary already noticed describes the Dialogue as being "on the right faith in God," and the early translators adopted these words as a title: but it is not satisfactory. In the Greek editions the Dialogue is cut into five sections; a perverse arrangement which disguises the true structure. The MSS. (? all) with better reason divide into three dialogues, of which the former two answer to Sections I. II., and the third has three heads, (1) without a title, (2) On the Christ, (3) On the Resurrection. The last corresponds with Wetstein's Section V.: his III. and IV. are arbitrary. Properly speaking the whole Dialogue falls into two parts, A (Sections I. II.) against two Marcionists, and B (III.—V.) against a Bardesanist: each part ends with a formal judgement by the umpire. The second part is clearly divided into three heads, with transitive speeches from the umpire (849 A B Ru. = 360 f. Lom. in IV., and end of IV.). Two Valentinians are brought in to complete the discussion of the great question of the origin of evil under the first head, and a Marcionist briefly interrupts the argument of the first and third heads. When the umpire is apparently about to give his final decision, the subject of the first part is resumed by an argument with one of the Marcionists, and then the Dialogue is brought to a close in due form. On the whole it seems likely that the author began by writing the first part as an independent work, and at a later time continued it by the more composite second part, taking advantage of the opportunity to add near the end a last word on the earlier subject. There are no traces whatever of interpolation.

• In I. Adamantius a Catholic and Megethius a Marcionist agree to hold an amicable controversy before the heathen Eutropius as umpire in the presence of an audience. Each disputant states his own 'definition' of primary doctrine, Megethius declaring for three first 'principles,' the Good God, the Demiurge, and the Evil One. After a short discussion, closed by an orthodox dictum from Eutropius, Megethius proceeds to attack the authority of the canonical gospels on various grounds, and then returns to the three ‘principles,' arguing chiefly from the supposed antagonism of the Law and the Gospel.

• Here (II.) Marcus another Marcionist interposes, maintaining two 'principles' only, by identifying the Demiurge or Just God with the Evil One. The argument is mainly conducted by reference to so much of the N. T. as the Marcionists accepted. At the close Eutropius pronounces in favour of Adamantius, and prays to be himself "numbered with" "the Catholic Church."

• Marinus a Bardesanist now (III.) desires to dispute with Adamantius before the umpire. He dissents from Catholic doctrine on three heads, the creation of the devil by God, the birth of Christ from a woman, and the resurrection of the body. In one place Megethius, though at first checked by Eutropius as having had his say, strikes in to express agreement with the doctrine that the substances of good and evil are alike without beginning or end.

• Presently (IV.) Droserius declares his discontent with the arguments of Marinus and his wish to substitute "the definition of Valentinus" on the origin of evil, such definition being in fact part of the Valentinian's exposition in Methodius's Dialogue on Free Will. To this Adamantius soon opposes his own "definition," which is the orthodox reply from the same Dialogue, attributed (as we have seen) by Eusebius to Maximus. In the midst Valens another Valentinian objects to the doctrine of Droserius that matter existed prior to its qualities. At length Eutropius again decides for the teaching of the Church, and calls on Marinus to plead, if he chooses, on his second head. In the rest of the section accordingly the Bardesanist doctrine of Christ's "heavenly" body is discussed, and Eutropius gives judgement as before, bidding Marinus proceed to his third objection.

• In the last section (V.) the resurrection of the body is impugned and defended, first on physiological and then on biblical grounds. Once Megethius interrupts Adamantius to protest against his reading of 1 Cor. XV. 38 as at variance with Marcion's. The discussion is ended by a declaration of Eutropius that he has been satisfied about the resurrection, Adamantius asks to expound his own view positively, as founded on Scripture; but soon breaks off, exclaiming impatiently at the want of competent cultivation (ἁπαιδευσία) in his antagonists. Eutropius declares that want to be the cause of all worthless things (φαύλων): in it, he says, were born and bred (ᾖ συμπεφύκασι και συνήνθησαν) Megethius, Droserius and Marcus, Valens and Marinus. Once more Adamantius sets himself to refute the Marcionists' doctrine out of their own apostle St. Paul, and a short disputation with Marcus ensues. Finally, Eutropius professes himself satisfied with the arguments of Adamantius and anxious to join the Catholic Church, on which and its doctrine he pronounces an elaborate panegyric. The concluding acclamation in praise of Adamantius is probably not genuine.

The Dialogue cannot rank with the productions of the greater Fathers; yet it has considerable merits of its own. We look in vain for depth of thought or elevation of tone; but argumentative and exegetical power are by no means wanting. The heretics and their doctrines can scarcely be said to be fairly treated, and a somewhat offensive air of intellectual superiority is assumed towards them. On the other hand a genuine attempt is made to reproduce a part at least of their arguments; and there is hardly any scurrility. The controversy is to all appearance with the nameless heretics of the author's own day, not directly with the writings or original doctrines of Marcion, Bardeisan, and Valentinus. The literary merits of the work are clearness and occasionally some little vigour. As a dialogue it shews no dramatic power; indeed the language of the heathen umpire for the most part whimsically resembles that of the orthodox champion. The style is bald and unattractive; and not a few words, inflexions, and constructions belong to a rude and popular form of Greek.

The Dialogue was printed first in Latin, translated from a single MS. by John Pic, at Paris in 1556. Another version, paraphrastic in character, by Lawrence Humphrey one of the Zurich refugees, from a MS. lent by Froben, is dated Basel 1557, but appeared first, according to Wetstein, in the Basel Origen of 1571. It was reprinted by Genebrard (ii. 533 ff.), along with a third translation by Perion (i. 497 ff.), in his Paris Origen of 1574. The first Greek edition, containing likewise Origen's Exhortation to Martyrdom and Epistle to Africanus, is due to J. R. Wetstein the younger, Basel 1674. It has a version and copious notes, which supply some good illustrations as well as abundance of worthless matter. Wetstein followed a Basel MS., probably that used by Humphrey, and obtained some information from Hyde about an Oxford MS. (see below). The Dialogue was included by De la Rue in his great edition of Origen, Paris 1733 (i. 800-872): he somewhat improved the text with the help of four MSS., Vatic. 1089, two at Paris (evidently Reg. 56, 219), and one belonging to T. Gale, now at Trinity College, Cambridge, a modern copy of an Oxford MS., evidently Bodl. Gr. Misc. 25 (ol. 2040). De la Rue is followed by the later reprints of Origen's works. Besides these five MSS. others are said to exist at Dublin (288) and Venice (496). Trinity College, Cambridge, possesses a copy of Reg. 56, with various readings and supplements from Reg. 1219, made at Paris for Isaac Voss.

The Dialogue has shared the neglect which usually befals works unfortunate enough to be known as 'spurious.' For both text and illustration it needs and deserves a good edition. [H.] { = F. W. Hort}

DCH

stephan huller

I think Adamantius was a title rather than a name - are there people named Adamantius before Christianity? I think it all comes down to why Origen was called Adamantius. My guess is that it was because the perfected Christian was understood to have restored the original 'adamantine' quality of Adam in Paradise:

My guess is that others were also called Adamantius. If you look carefully at Eusebius's account of Origen the way he introduces Origen as 'Adamantius' is strange. Almost as if he were drawing from a source that says 'Adamantius' went to Rome and Eusebius identified Origen as that Adamantius.

I have no idea where the Dialogues of Adamantius originated but Osrhoene (because the presence of the follower of Bardasain) or Alexandria are the two likeliest possibilities IMO.

Roger Pearse

I am told the reason that Origen was named "Adamantius" -- "man of steel" -- was the sheer quantity of his output, and the effort that must have been involved in writing them. I am likewise told that Jerome wrote "Who could read all that Origen wrote?" Of course in those days Origen's works were extant complete, rather than the small quantity now known.

Roger Pearse

Thank you, DCH, for an interesting post. I have been interested in this work also, but I have never seen a translation. Hort's words are useful - thank you for transcribing them.

I think it highlights how awkward it is, when an interesting work is offline and -- thanks to copyright -- likely to remain so.

DCHindley

I happened upon a 2009 blog post in which you said you planned to write the author to see if the translation could be posted online.

I take it, if you got around to it, the answer was "no"?

DCH

Roger Pearse

Oops. So I did. I had long forgotten about it.

I must have thought better of writing to Dr Pretty, on investigation. I can see from the Google books preview that the copyright is owned by Peeters of Leuven, not the translator. I don't know anything about Peeters, good or bad, but most firms don't allow stuff online.

The Mahar translation is now here:

http://www.marcionite-scripture.info/dialogues.htm

I don't know if the translator is still around.

DCHindley

I'm sure Stephan will let us know that he chatted with Jon just last night ...

Unfortunately, Mahar has translated one section out of two that deal with Marcionite scripture (sect 1 but not section 5), and section two would also illustrate how differences of opinion existed within Marcionite circles regarding "first principals." How can one interpret the differences between the Marcionite and Orthodox versions of Paul's letters unless we know what supposedly influenced the Marcionites in the first place.

As for Pretty's book, note that despite its critical sophistication, it came out as a mass market paperback. Weird!

DCH

stephan huller

No but I will say that when I lived in Toronto Mahar did send me a much more comprehensive translation that he did of the whole book. Note - Mahar did not do everything (from memory) but chose any passage that he thought had something do with Marcion. He also sent me tons of documents. His own notes comparing the various readings of passages as they appear in the writings of the Church Fathers, a French translation of Eznik pertaining to Marcion with Danny's attempts at French translation (I just did them myself). He was really into this stuff but I think he's been busy with other stuff. Haven't heard from him in over two years.

DCHindley

My dad used to say "... the other day" for anything that happened from a day to years before. You have my permission to say "I just spoke to Danny the other day and he said ...".

DCH

Roger Pearse

<excitement> Any chance of a copy?

All the best,

Roger Pearse