mountainman

The following information has been taken from here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04039b.htm

It seems quite clear that Origen has been interpolated.
The question is this ...

Do you think it is possible that all christian references
in the works of Origen are plain and simple interpolations?



Thanks for any constructive comments.



Pete Brown

Gamera

Hard to say since neither you nor the article you cite provide the substance of Robinson's apparent argument for interpolation. The article merely states that he conclude the reference was an interpolation. We aren't give the evidence upon which he based that conclusion.

Why don't you provide it and we'll talk.

S.C.Carlson

Armitage Robinson and John Chapman (the author of the encyclopedia article) are usually considered careful scholars, so I wouldn't be surprised if their specific point hold up--that the person(s) who compiled the Philocalia using Origen as the main source added the reference to the pseudo-Clementines. In other words, the pseudo-Clementine reference is to attributed to the compiler(s) of the Philocalia, not to its main source, Origen.

Given the volume of Origen's work and its transmission apart from the Philocalia, Armitage Robison's point here really does not say anything remotely relevant about the state of Origen's text.

Stephen

steph s.

glancing at the text of de principiis, and particularly against celsus, where there is a christian-themed word every other sentence or so, i don't think you can even begin to argue that point.

mountainman

Our argument will commence with the fact that Eusebius (under Pamphilus)
essentially inherited the entire contents, and indeed probably the sole
management of the preservation of the works of Origen in the physical
library of Caesarea. Much of Origen's source material, particularly his
more recent works, would have been physically located at this library.

Our argument is that Eusebius cut his teeth either interpolating, or
creating manuscripts out of the whole cloth, in the name of Origen,
starting with de principiis. Constantine sponsored this perversion.

Moreover we have the admission of the christian historian
Rufinus, in his Epilogue to Pamphilus the Martyr's Apology for
Origen Otherwise the Book Concerning the
Adulteration of the Works of Origen.
Addressed to Macarius at Pinetum a.d. 397.

Here is the text:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=169596

Rufinus must now re-insert the christian refefrences in the
philosophy of Origen, as quoted by Pamphilus, because -
he claims - the works were interpolated by "the arians",
and do not represent christian doctrine.

In other words, it is quite consistent to believe that the
literature of Origen (and Pamphilus about Origen) contained
absolutely no references at all to the fourth century religion
Constantine called christianity, until it was perverted by
Eusebius et al.




Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

mountainman

I have not yet allocated time to go through the entire set
of Origen's work, - it is quite voluminous.

How many works of Origen's are christian(TM)-philosophy free,
and how many mention the trade marked word "christian" or
indeed reference to the NT. Can anyone provide a quick
estimate on this ratio?


Pete Brown

S.C.Carlson

You could start by looking here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/origen.html

mountainman

Thanks. From Wace's summary ...

The literature was voluminous, but was it Origen's?

We have fourth century christian historians making
a point in saying that they "corrected" Origen's doctrines
(Rufinus. translating Greek to Latin 392CE) because
they believed that Origen's work had been interpolated
by heathens.


Pete Brown

Roger Pearse

The Philocalia of Origen is an anthology from his works made by St. Basil and St. Gregory Nazianzen. How a passage from the ps.Clementine romances came into them later might be speculated, but we would need to see the passage. At all events, if someone scribbled a marginal note, it could find its way into the text.

The other passage is in the Latin translation of Origen of Matthew. All the Latin translations have been reedited, as Rufinus tells us. But it sounds as if the suggestion is that the Greek text from which it was made had been altered by Eunomian heretics; of course this sort of thing can happen.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Gamera

Let's stipulate that secondary texts like Origen's were subject to all kinds of redactions for all kinds of theological purposes. Even accepting that, it really doesn't support Pete's obsessive point that the real Origen never mentioned anything remotely Christian because Christianity was invented later by Constantine and then backed into older texts, including Origen's.

Given the density of Origen's writing as it applies to Christian references and themes, the idea that Constantine's henchmen backed Christianity into those text is somewhat absurb. Essentially they would have had to write the entire mss, since hardly a paragraph passes without Origen making a clear Christian reference.

In short this seems like a really desperate argument.