Why Was Ambrose Bankrolling Origen?

[Secret Alias]

A wealthy patron named Ambrose was supposedly so drawn to Origen that he gave him massive resources to publish a great number of written works. But why? Who were the volumes written for?

Unlike other Church Fathers Origen wasn't writing 'Against' anyone (which is the usual situation). Indeed the way things were it seems was that Church Fathers basically picked fights with dead heretics to prove how bad and wrong they were. What Ambrose is doing is very different. He is asking someone else (i.e. not himself) to expound upon scripture. This was Origen's main task. But again why?

Origen isn't drawing up a tradition it seems. He's basically making stuff up. And he doesn't approach texts in a 'historical' manner where he tries to understand things from the perspective of the author, the time he lived, what he though he was doing etc. Instead texts are basically 're-interpreted' in line with some pre-existent Christian dogma with little or no regard for what the original author actually believed or thought.

It is a curious situation. There was a Catholic Church somewhere (though not in Palestine where the two men mostly lived). They clearly interpreted texts in a certain way claiming that this was what the apostles believed. Irenaeus and Justin almost always approach matters this way. Origen doesn't seem to care about the tradition of the apostles. He's making stuff up mostly out of his own imagination. Why would Ambrose pay large sums of money to basically have someone 'make stuff up' from scratch? What was in it for him?

Why didn't Ambrose simply make stuff up himself if that was what he was after? I know the answer is going to be that Origen was so brilliant that Ambrose realized that he would never be able to 'make shit up' with the same character or quality as Origen. But surely this can't be the case. Most people at this forum just plod along making shit up. No one has a monopoly on gifts like this. Ambrose must have been asking Origen to do something quite specific. But what was it? And why was it so important for him?

[StephenGoranson]

"...Origen wasn't writing 'Against' anyone..."

Origen wrote against Celsus, at the request of Ambrose.
From my article "Celsus of Pergamum...":
"...if was only _after_ Ambrose moved to Nicomedia in Bithynia in Asia that he wrote to Origen that Celsus' book was a threat to the faith of his Christian neighbors."

[Secret Alias]

If one was to take a statistical analysis of:

1. how many works have survived from Christian antiquity written 'Against' someone
and
2. compared how many works of Origen have survived Against someone the great volume of writings by Origen which are NOT against someone is something of an anomaly.

Indeed I would go so far as to argue that it was almost impossible to say anything original once you believed that the 'traditional of the apostles' (i.e. Irenaeus's imagination) was the 'be all and end all' of Church dogma.

As such, if the gospel is THE Christian document no commentary on Mark from antiquity to speak of, no commentary on Luke. Origen's Commentary on Matthew is (as I have demonstrated here before) developed from an original Commentary on a gospel harmony or Diatessaron (likely by Eusebius).

My point is that Origen is the only Church Father we see (aside from Irenaeus) who has the freedom to make stuff up. But he makes stuff up in a way that is very unusual. Irenaeus makes up stuff by saying 'they can't say X because the tradition of the apostles said Y.' It was anti-heretical. But Origen on occasion says X and contrasts it with what is reported of the heretics (let's call it Y). But he doesn't contrast the opinions of the heretics with an established doctrine of truth. Instead it is a 'made up' truth that has come from Origen's imagination (= the Holy Spirit I suppose).

But this is the way Origen and Irenaeus are the same (= they make stuff up according to the spirit). The important difference is that Irenaeus's made up stuff is stamped with a label "according to the tradition of the apostles" where as Origen's isn't. Why would Ambrose pay Origen to make stuff up but not have that stuff stamped with the "according to the tradition of the apostles" label? Who would by a knock off watch or watch a pirated movie that isn't a copy of a 'brand name' watch or movie?

[Secret Alias]

Ambrose used to have 'heretical' ideas. Origen says this in Book 5 of one of his Commentaries. Now he is being instructed into the ways of truth by a younger Origen. But Origen's 'truth' isn't according to the apostles but his own imagination. What value is this?

[Ulan]

But Origen's 'truth' isn't according to the apostles but his own imagination. What value is this?

You could ask the same question about the Pauline writings. I guess "inspiration through the spirit" had a different weight with many people of those times.