PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

Happy New Year. Happy 2784.

I am now back from my vacation and have a bit more time (but not a great deal) to discuss certain hypotheses. A recent thread on book numbering and quotation has become tangled, so I decided to start anew.

As I recall, Roger Pearse has pointed out that modern scholarship owes a great debt to the style of Eusebius. As others have noted, Eusebius does cite many sources, more so, than many earlier writers.

A book has recently been published, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: Origen, Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea (or via: amazon.co.uk) which apparently discusses Eusebius' methodology. I have not had a chance to read it yet, but there is a nice review at http://tech1.dccs.upenn.edu/bmcr/2007/2007-06-41.html

It notes, "Origen's Hexapla was a unique and audacious work of scholarship which had a profound impact on his immediate successors, especially Eusebius." and "The most significant trend is certainly the exploitation of the codex form to its furthest extent: the Hexapla comprised 40 codices of 800 pages each, requiring the incredible sum of c. 150,000 denarii for both the copying and the parchment of one edition"

Importantly, the review notes about Eusebius:

Eusebius continued the editorial tradition of his mentor while at the same time experimenting with literary technologies. Once again, G-W see Eusebius' biblical tools, the Gospel Canon and Psalm Tables as dependent on Origen's experimental Hexapla, and as the culmination of three generations of Caesarean biblical scholarship (195-208)..
But Eusebius' book technologies were not his work alone. First of all, he depended on a massive personal library, built-up by Pamphilus, and expanded and maintained by himself and collaborators.11 Secondly, Eusebius employed a number of scribes and assistants, just as Origen had --though we can imagine that by Eusebius' day their number had swollen considerably. Eusebius also visited archives in the region, such as at Jerusalem (210), as well as perhaps at Edessa (HE 1.13.5). He also drew up lists of books, pinakes, according to individual authors. One of these, of Philo, survives from an eleventh-century manuscript in Vienna (211).
All of these supplementary factors demonstrate that, as G-W note, "Eusebius' workplace must have become a substantial research institution, at once an archive, a library, and a scriptorium" (215). Eusebius and Caesarea eventually received imperial support in the form of Constantine's request (after 335) for fifty ornamental bibles to be prepared for Constantinople (216-221).

It is often portrayed as a coincidence that the rise of Christianity coincides with the rise of the codex over the scroll. I think it may be less of a coincidence than people generally imagine. I did my dissertation on the relationship of technology and ideology, suggesting that changes in technology had drastic and unpredictable consequences on ideology.

There's a nice little article on scrolls and books by James Grout of the University of California, San Francisco at http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/...rollcodex.html

The roll was stored upright in a book-box or capsa, horizontally on a shelf or in a pigeonhole. If particularly valuable, it could be placed in a chest or wrapped in a protective sleeve of parchment and tied with thongs. An author's work very often would require several rolls, which would be kept in the same book-box. It was these physical limitations--the length of the papyrus roll and the number of rolls that could be stored together--that tended to define the divisions of literature.

Think about having fifty texts on scrolls in a capsa (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...RA*/Capsa.html) or container-box. Within the basket, the scrolls have no particular order. They all seem equal. Each scroll may have a beginning, middle and end, but in their totality the information has no chronological order. Any scroll may be read at any time, in any order. Think about having the same text neatly put into one codex (book) in a specific and seemingly unbreakable order. The transformation of a variable multi-theistic/information-source universe (on scrolls) to a fixed uni-theistic/information-source universe (on a book) is encapsulated in the image of the transformation of scroll information technology into book information technology. Books become the book, Gods become the God. In medieval times, when the clock was invented, the universe was visualized as a clock and God portrayed as a clockmaker.

The scroll article notes this:

Although the papyrus roll continued to be used, it was not ideal. The material, itself, was durable (Pliny marveled at having seen documents written on papyrus two-hundred years earlier) but constantly being unrolled and rolled back up again caused abrasion and, even though writing only on one side of the page reduced the problem of wear, it was inefficient and made the roll that much more cumbersome to store. Author and title were indicated at the end of the text (colophon) and so were less vulnerable to damage when the roll was rewound, but this made it more inconvenient to identify the contents (there was a tendency, too, for the titulus to fall off). Since the individual sheets of the roll were seamlessly joined, lines and columns were not uniform but varied in length and size. Nor were they marked, which made citation difficult and often inaccurate.

The last statement about the difficulty and inaccuracy of citation with scrolls, I think is important. Imagine if every time you read a chapter of a book you had to detach it from the book, then, when you are finished with it, find the book and replace it. It is easy to imagine that books would quickly have chapters missing and there would be chapters isolated from books.

Papyrus scrolls came in different sizes. It is easy to imagine that any series of books, would be divided differently when they were copied. For example a work that might originally be on ten small scrolls might be copied to five larger scrolls, or a work on five large scrolls might end up on ten smaller scrolls.

The problem with division of books has to be considered in conjunction with the problems of citation and quotation.

One can quote a phrase and passage and expect the reader to know the author. One can quote and give the author, one can quote and give the author and work, or one can quote and give the author, work, and if it has volumes numbers, the volume number too.

There is a good discussion about this in a 1995 article called "Techniques of Quotation in Clement of Alexandria. A View of Ancient Literary Working" Methods (Annewies Van Den Hoek Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 50, No. 3. (1996), pp. 223-243.Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=004...3E2.0.CO%3B2-B
Van Den Hoek notes this fact:

According to Stahlin's index, there are 1273 Pauline borrowings in
Clement… On only 28 occasions the letter from which a quotation was taken was also named…

Thus Clement quotes from Paul and cites the actual source letter of Paul only 2.2% of the time. Nearly 98% of the time he does not give the source.

But even in the rare case where we do get a quotation with a source place citation, the quotation quality can vary drastically:

As has been shown elsewhere, the distinctions in Clement's Philonic
borrowings can be considered threefold on one level and fourfold on
another. First, the various borrowings can be usefully separated into quotations, paraphrases and reminiscences. Quotations should be defined as
having a considerable degree of literality. They need not be verbatim in a modern sense, but they should follow the source to a considerable extent.
A paraphrase distinguishes itself from a quotation in that only a few words
of the original source (sometimes only one or two) are present. Reminiscences, in turn, are different from allusions by having no literal correspondences but merely resemblences in theme or thought.
There are, however, some vaguely Philonic bits in Clement that do not
fit into any of these three categories. A large number of passages are philosophical or literary commonplaces, and a new approach seems necessary
to assess them and put them in relation to the other borrowings. To deal
with the loose ends, all putative borrowings were reclassified from a slightly
different angle: namely, according to their degree of dependence on Philo.
This second method of classification consisted of four categories, rating
from A to D. Again, not too many options were permitted since that
would obstruct the clarity of the system. A meant a certain dependence
(which in the other terminology was a quotation or paraphrase); B was
probable dependence (paraphrase or reminiscence); C unprovable dependence
(reminiscence); D no dependence. The two classifications were then
brought together, partly overlapping and partly supplementing one another.

The advantage of the second system is that it also reflects the uncertainties
in the relationship between two authors, about which there had been
so much speculation over the centuries.
Much could be said about why quotations were used, what function
they had for an author, whether they added something to the argument
or if they were primarily embellishments, and what effect they had on the
reader. These are important considerations in the study of borrowings…

So, it is important to consider the nature of the quotation, as well as the nature of the citation.

In Diogenes Laertius' Eminent Lives of the Philosophers, we find a large number of citations, over a thousand. Of these, there are 75 references to book divisions or volumes of works, but only five times does he include a quotation and associate it with a volume of a work.

Now, let us discuss the question of Eusebius' works in relationship to Origen's. One question, we may investigate is if he changed - corrected/interpolated/forged - Origen's works. We know that he had access to Origen's library in Caesarea and with his own scripturium, he certainly had the ability to copy Origen's work either verbatim or with improvements.

I would first point out that I raise this issue not to condemn Eusebius' moral character; rather, it is in consideration of the fact that Origen's ideas in Eusebius' time were considered quite controversial and dangerously heretical. Eusebius certainly had an interest in changing them to fit the times.

We may think of Elizabeth Nietzsche who edited her brother Frederick's works to make them more appealing to her favorite party (the German National Sociatlists); passages in which Frederick had praised Jews and denounced anti-semites were removed. This was done even after thousands of copies of the original works were in circulation, and it was largely successful in painting Nietzsche as an anti-semite for over half a century. We may well imagine that if the Nazis had triumphed in World War II that the original editions would have been destroyed and only the censored ones would exist.

However, we may also consider that Eusebius may have been quite faithful and loyal to a man he deeply admired and preserved his work as accurately as he could.

We find in the extant works of Origen, about fifteen times where he appears to quote an author and give a location for the author's work within a volume.
Most of these are citations from Hebrew scriptures, such as the Third book of Kings or Second book of Chronicles. When we eliminate references to Hebrew scriptures, we find he refers to only four authors in passages where Origen quotes and cites a work with a volume number. These authors are 1) Josephus, 2) Phlegon, 3) Numenius the Pythagorean and 4) Herodotus.

What is amazing is that two of these four references are extremely controversial and have been questioned as forgeries. The references to Josephus are right in the middle of the TF controversy and the reference to Phlegon is right in the middle of the dating of Jesus' death controversy.

Let us examine these four cases, one at a time. Lets start by examining the reference to Herodotus

Case One: Herodotus

(Celsus 3:26):
This account he appears to have taken from Pindar and Herodotus. It will be sufficient, however, at present to quote the statement of the latter writer from the fourth book of his histories, which is to the following effect: "Of what country Aristeas, , who made these verses, was, has already been mentioned, and I shall now relate the account I heard of him in Proconnesus and Cyzicus. They say that Aristeas, who was inferior to none of the citizens by birth, entering into a fuller's shop in Proconnesus, died suddenly, and that the fuller, having closed his workshop, went to acquaint the relatives of the deceased. When the report had spread through the city that Aristeas was dead, a certain Cyzicenian, arriving from Artace, fell into a dispute with those who made the report, affirming that he had met and conversed with him on his way to Cyzicus, and he vehemently disputed the truth of the report; but the relations of the deceased went to the fuller's shop, taking with them what was necessary for the purpose of carrying the body away; but when the house was opened, Aristeas was not to be seen, either dead or alive. They say that afterwards, in the seventh year, he appeared in Proconnesus, composed those verses which by the Greeks are now called Arimaspian, and having composed them, disappeared a second time. Such is the story current in these cities. But these things I know happened to the Metapontines in Italy 340 years after the second disappearance of Aristeas, as I discovered by computation in Proconnesus and Metapontium. The Metapontines say that Aristeas himself, having appeared in their country, exhorted them to erect an altar to Apollo, and to place near it a statue beating the name of Aristeas the Proconnesian; for he said that Apollo had visited their country only of all the Italians, and that he himself, who was now Aristeas, accompanied him; and that when he accompanied the god he was a crow; and after saying this he vanished. And the Metapontines say they sent to Delphi to inquire of the god what the apparition of the man meant; but the Pythian bade them obey the apparition, and if they obeyed it would conduce to their benefit. They accordingly, having received this answer, fulfilled the injunctions. And now, a statue beating the name of Aristeas is placed near the image of Apollo, and around it laurels are planted: the image is placed in the public square. Thus much concerning Aristeas."

This is a rather long and precise quote of Herodotus. It is the only long quote from Origen of Herodotus, but other than that, there is nothing unusual about it. Eusebius does mention Aristeas in passing at the beginning of "Against Hierocles" and quotes at least once directly from book two of Herodotus. We should note that the passage bears on the historicity of Jesus, as it cites a story of a divinely sent character who dies, his body disappears, and he makes several after-death appearances. There is no strong reason to believe it was not from Origen.

Case Two -- Numenius
Here are Origen's two citations of Numenius the Pythagorean:

(Celsus 4:51)
I know, moreover, that Numenius the Pythagorean--a surpassingly excellent expounder of Plato, and who held a foremost place as a teacher of the doctrines of Pythagoras--in many of his works quotes from the writings of Moses and the prophets, and applies to the passages in question a not improbable allegorical meaning, as in his work called Epops, and in those which treat of "Numbers" and of "Place." And in the third book of his dissertation on The Good, he quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name--and gives it an allegorical signification, whether successfully or the reverse I may state on another occasion. He relates also the account respecting Moses, and Jannes, and Jambres.

(Celsus 5.57)
Accounts of this kind we have read in the writings of Chrysippus of Soli, and also some things of the same kind relating to Pythagoras; as well as in some of the more recent writers who lived a very short time ago, as in the treatise of Plutarch of Chaeronea "on the Soul," and in the second book of the work of Numenius the Pythagorean on the "Incorruptibility of the Soul."

Eusebius also quotes and cites the same author and he also lists the volume number.

Preparatio (9:7.1)
Also from the Pythagorean philosopher himself, I mean Numenius, I will quote as follows from his first book On the Good:
[NUMENIUS] 8 'But when one has spoken upon this point, and sealed it by the testimonies of Plato, it will be necessary to go back and connect it with the precepts of Pythagoras, and to appeal to the nations of good repute, bringing forward their rites and doctrines, and their institutions which are formed in agreement with those of Plato, all that the Brachmans, and Jews, and Magi, and Egyptians arranged.'

Preparatio (9.8) Also in his third book the same author makes mention of Moses, speaking as follows: 9
'And next in order came Jannes and Jambres, Egyptian sacred scribes, men judged to have no superiors in the practice of magic, at the time when the Jews were being driven out of Egypt.
'So then these were the men chosen by the people of Egypt as fit to stand beside Musaeus, who led forth the Jews, a man who was most powerful in prayer to God; and of the plagues which Musaeus brought upon Egypt, these men showed themselves able to disperse the most violent.'
Now by these words Numenius bears witness both to the marvellous wonders performed by Moses, and to Moses himself as having been beloved of God.

E.H. Gifford, in his introduction to the "Preparatio," notes that "Numenius the Neo-Pythagorean is known almost exclusively from the long and numerous extracts preserved by Eusebius." (http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eu...e_00_intro.htm)

Here we have a strong link between Eusebius and Origen. Origen quotes an obscure author approvingly and so does Eusebius. But they both also take the trouble to point to the volume of the book where the quoted material may be found. This may be explained as Eusebius reading Origen, going to the source text and later imitating Origen and doing him one better by directly quoting Numenius, or it may be explained by Eusebius interpolating into Origen a reference to something in one of his favorite authors.

Case Three: Phlegon

(Celsus, 2:14) Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Christ a knowledge of future events, though falling into confusion about some things which refer to Peter, as if they referred to Jesus, but also testified that the result corresponded to his predictions…

(2:33) And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose kingship Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon too, I think, has written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles.

(2:49) He imagines also that both the earthquake and the darkness were an invention; but regarding these, we have in the preceding pages, made our defence, according to our ability, adducing the testimony of Phlegon, who relates that these events took place at the time when our Saviour suffered.

Compare with Jerome’s translation of Eusebius’ Chronicle:

Jesus Christ, according to the prophecies which had been foretold about him beforehand, came to his passion in the eighteenth year of Tiberius, at which time also we find these things written verbatim in other commentaries of the gentiles, that an eclipse of the sun happened, Bithynia was shaken by earthquake, and in the city of Nicaea many buildings collapsed, all of which agree with what occurred in the passion of the savior. Indeed Phlegon, who is an excellent calculator of Olympiads, also writes about these things, writing thus in his thirteenth book:

In the fourth year, however, of Olympiad 202, an eclipse of the sun happened, greater and more excellent than any that had happened before it; at the sixth hour, day turned into dark night, so that the stars were seen in the sky, and an earthquake in Bithynia toppled many buildings of the city of Nicaea. These things [are according to] the aforementioned man.

Again, we have a quote and citation by Origen and a quote and citation by Eusebius of the same passage.

Case Four -- Josephus

All quotes in this section may be found on Roger Pearce’s Tertullian website (http://tinyurl.com/yvvqoc)

anf04-55.htm:Origen, Against Celsus, Book I, chapter 16
For any one who chooses may read what Flavius Josephus has recorded in his two books, On the Antiquity of the Jews, where he brings together a great collection of writers, who bear witness to the antiquity of the Jewish people;

anf04-58.htm:Origen, Against Celsus, Book IV, Chapter 11
And any one who likes may peruse the two books of Flavius Josephus on the antiquities of the Jews, in order that he may see in what way Moses was more ancient than those who asserted that floods and conflagrations take place in the world after long intervals of time; which statement Celsus alleges the Jews and Christians to have misunderstood, and, not comprehending what was said about a conflagration, to have declared that "God will descend, bringing fire like a torturer."

(Note that Origen has twice named "Antiquities of the Jews" as having two books when he apparently means "Against Apion" Note also that he does not cite which book the quotes may be found in, only that Josephus wrote two books.

anf04-55.htm:Origen, Against Celsus, Book I, Chapter 47
I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless-being, although against his will, not far from the truth-that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),-the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure.

In another quote by Origen in his Commentary on St. Matthew, the number of books written by Josephus is given.
And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.

The following authors quote or cite Josephus, according to Pearce’s website, but do not give book numbers. 1)Irenaeus, 2)Theophilus, 3) Clement, 4) Tertullian, 5)Minucius Felix, 6) Hyppolitus, 7) Methodius, 8) Anatolius of Alexandria,
We may add another writer to this list, Pseudo-Hegisippus, De excidio urbis Hierosolymitanae (http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2...egesippus.html)

Of ten pre-Eusebean authors who mention Jospehus, nine do not cite the volume number when they quote/mention Josephus. Eusebius follows the pattern of Origen and does site the volume number and in another passage follows Origen by citing the total number of books of Josephus.

We know that Eusebius points to the eighteenth book of Josephus all three times that he mentions the TF (Demonstratio evangelica 3.5), "the evidence of the Hebrew Josephus as well, who in the eighteenth chapter of The Archaeology of the Jews, in his record of the times of Pilate, mentions our Saviour in these words:" Historia ecclesiastica 1.11-7-8. "He relates these things in the eighteenth book of the Antiquities, where he
writes of John in the following words:... And he makes mention of our Saviour in the same work" and Theophania 5.43, "the Hebrew witness Josephus; who, in the Eighteenth Book of his Antiquities of the Jews."


The more interesting passage is this where he give the number twenty as the total number of books of Eusebius as Origen did:

(H.E. 3.9) 3. He wrote the whole of the Antiquities of the Jews in twenty books, and a history of the war with the Romans which took place in his time, in seven books. He himself testifies that the latter work was not only written in Greek, but that it was also translated by himself into his native tongue. He is worthy of credit here because of his truthfulness in other matters.

4. There are extant also two other books of his which are worth reading. They treat of the antiquity of the Jews, and in them he replies to Apion the Grammarian, who had at that time written a treatise against the Jews, and also to others who had attempted to vilify the hereditary institutions of the Jewish people.

Note that Eusebius not only follows Origen in citing the eighteenth book and twenty book total of Josephus which no other author had done, he, like Origen tells us about two other books written by Josephus and does not get the name "Against Apion". Like Origen, he calls it Antiquities/Antiquity of the Jews.

Summary:

Outside of Hebrew Scriptures, we rarely find references to volume numbers in Origen. There are only four authors that he quotes and then produces volume numbers for them: Josephus, Phlegon, Numerius and Herodotus. Eusebius quotes and produces the same volume numbers for three of the four. In each of the three cases, Origen doesn't actually quote passages but makes a reference to material in it, while in all three passages Eusebius does directly quote. We can suggest two hypotheses to explain this:

1) Eusebius read about the passages in Origen, read them himself and then quoted them directly in his work.

2) Eusebius came across the passages in his own research. He forged material in the three sources to fit his ideology. He put in references to the same forged passages when copying Origen's works in his scriptorium.
The Herodotus quotation does not fit this pattern as Herodotus' books were too well known by this time to forge anything into them. This case may be taken as the one time that Origen did mention a volume number outside of the Hebrew Scriptures.

To test the second hypothesis, we should look for other times that Eusebius mentions volume number and quotes texts. We should be able to find references, but not direct quotes, to the same material and the same use of volume numbers in other authors that Eusebius is familiar with.

The relatively infrequent use of volume numbers along with quotations in antiquity outside of Eusebius would make this a legitimate test. We would also have to quantify the number of times quotations are used with volume numbers in Eusebius versus other authors.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

mountainman

Thanks for this collection of sources and analyses Philospher Jay!
In an earlier thread I had asked the question ....
From which century was the codex widely used?

Your work here serves to commence the answering of this question,
so I am now grateful for having a place to start the research.
Not being one to allow an opportunity to pass, I'd like to offer
in response one single quotation from the Nag Hammadi Codex
number 6, the first text -- "The Acts of Peter and the Twelve
Apostles" .............................. TAOPATTA


Indicating at least that both Peter and Lithargoel
carried around not scrolls, but codices.

For what this may be worth.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

PhilosopherJay

Hi Pete,

βύβλος (byblos) was another word for papyrus in Greek. It could also refer to scrolls, so unfortunately, I do not think the reference to codex or scrolls can be determined in the text by the use of the word book.


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Incidentally, in reference to the four cases I mentioned in the above post about Origen using book numbers, I now think that he is only quoting from Celsus when he uses the number of Herodotus. Celsus quotes Herodotus in other places, so I think it is probable that he is doing it here too. Celsus would not have expected his readers to be so familiar with Herodotus that they would know about Aristeas from a simple mention of his name. Therefore, he would logically have quoted and cited the passage in Herodotus to demonstrate the point he was making. Origen simply repeats the citation from Herodotus as he finds it in Celsus.

This leaves us with only the three cases where Origen summarize s a quotation and cites a number of a non-scripture book. It is most coincidental that Eusebius cites the same volume, but gives a quotation and not a summary in his own works in all three cases.

The thing is that books were analogous to chapters in scroll information technology. People may know which book a particular quote comes from, but they hardly bother to memorize the chapter number of the passage. I can tell you that Prospero talked about the vanishing of cloud-capped towers in Shakespeare's "Tempest", but I could not tell you which act and scene it occurred in without looking it up. I would have to be motivated to get up and look it up. If Origen did bother to look it up, why did he not bother to quote the passsage, instead of summarizing it? On the other hand, if Eusebius had made up the passage and inserted it into the original text, we can imagine him remembering very well where he had inserted it, but needing only to summarize what he had interpolated.

mountainman

Hi Jay,

Have you examined the nature of the "Origenist Controversies"
towards the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth
centuries?

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

PhilosopherJay

Hi Mountainman,

I know the basics but I have not studied it in detail. Apparently, Origen gave allegorical interpretations to a great deal of the Old and New Testament texts. A more literal-minded crowd succeeded him in power in the church hierarchy and strongly denounced his heretical tendencies. Eusebius really liked Origen's writings and defended Origen as best he could, but when push came to shove, he folded.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

mountainman

Hi Philosopher Jay,

I have written up some notes on Origen.

Essentially I see him as the "donor" of the Greek Hebrew Texts,
and much erudite commentary on these texts. Eusebius inherited
the Hexapla and all the erudite Hebrew Bible scholarship, in the
Greek, from Origen.

The question in my mind is whether Origen in fact authored
any work himself with respect of the New Testament texts,
and whether this possibility alone is sufficient to provide an
explanation for various "Origenist COntroversies" in the later
centuries.

These controversies over the writings of Origen iwere claims
that Origen's writings had been "perverted by heretics".

A letter by Origen himself, noting the activity of heretics
in his time is presented by Rufinus, in the best of faith and
the established Eusebian tradition of quoting documents
from past centuries. The letter makes an interesting
study in itself.

Rufinus was the dude who copped the job of
translating at least part of the greek of the
contents of the Scriptorium of Eusebius into
Latin at the end of the fourth century.

He doesn't seem too happy a soul.
Rufinus and (was it?) Jerome disagreed
over a few trivial issues.

Walking into a monastery in the fifth century with a work
of Origen caused all sorts of commotion. The works of
Origen were hot property and hard to reconcile. Various
works were considered "heretical".


Best wishes,


Pete Brown