I have attempted to demonstrate the parallels in this blog post quite a while ago - http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2013/ ... t-one.htmlThe Dialogue of Adamantius on the Orthodox Faith in God is a mysterious and still dramatically understudied work; it depicts Adamantius (Origen's byname) as a champion of the orthodox faith engaged in a discussion with several “heretics,” from Marcionites to “Valentinians” to Bardaisanites. Since I have devoted two substantial essays to it, and a new critical edition and a commentary are being prepared, here, after briefly presenting the main problems surrounding this work, I shall limit myself to focussing on the issue of apokatastasis in it. This treatment will be all the more important in this connection, in that what Adamantius maintains corresponds (contrary to what has been claimed) to Origen's authentic thought.
This Dialogue is usually thought to have been composed in Greek by a follower of Methodius, but it was ascribed to Origen by the compilers of the Philocalia, who call it Dialogue of Origen against the Marcionites and Other Heretics, and then by Rufinus, who translated it into Latin. Rufinus's version is grounded in a Greek Vorlage that is different than the extant Greek and, as I suspect, closer to the original. A passage in the Dialogue of Adamantius is almost identical to a passage in Methodius' On Free Will. Eusebius, however (PE 7,22), ascribes this same excerpt to a work On Mat- ter by a “Maximus” who wrote under Commodus and Septimius Severus (HE 5,26,1). The Cappadocians in Philoc. 24 rightly notice a close correspondence between Eusebius's excerpt and a passage in the Dialogue of Adamantius. I have argued elsewhere that Eusebius's reference to “Maximus” might indicate an influence from Maximus of Tyre, who was a contemporary of Eusebius's “Maximus” and treated the same questions. Eusebius might have drawn Maximus's material from Origen, who might have been himself acquainted with Maximus's thought. This—which is made more probable by Evagrius's interest in Maximus of Tyre, especially in regard to prayer—could explain the reason why the same stuff is present both in Methodius and in the Dialogue. For it is not at all granted that the Dialogue depends on Methodius, as it is commonly assumed; it may be that Methodius depends on the Dialogue, which, in its original Greek redaction, might be earlier than Methodius. This could help to clarify how the same material is present under Maximus's name in Eusebius and under Origen's in the Dialogue and the Philocalia in addition to Methodius. The latter perhaps based himself, not on Eusebius, but on the actual Greek redaction or source of the Dialogue of Adamantius. This might even result from one of the public debates that Origen held in his maturity, or from the reworking of Origen's original thoughts into such a frame.
Moreover I have already noted a Samaritan source from the period make the claim that another pagan philosopher Alexander of Aphrodisias was commissioned by the Emperor to reshape Samaritanism more in keeping with Imperial monarchianism. Is it possible that this widely influential orthodox treatise was instrumental in doing the same within Christianity?