Ulan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 5:51 am
Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 4:34 pm
In the 4th and later centuries there are enormous controversies about the "Books of Origen" which are outlined under the heading of the Origenist Controversy. This crisis over the books of Origen is explained by the proposition that Eusebius subverted and "Christianised" the books of Origen, and the controversy was then all about "What did Origen actually write"? Those who had their own Platonic versions of Origen (like the Platonist school) had to compete with the elite bishops of the Nicene Church who, in well appointed scriptoria associated with the imperial libraries, had different versions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origenist_Crises
That's all nice and dandy, and those philosophical struggles are interesting in their own way (and no, Christianity had to bend several Platonic concepts drastically to fit Christian doctrine, like the statements regarding the "One" or what hypostases are, just to name two), just not for the question at hand. Origen was a very vocal proponent of the finding that the Bible is full of contradictions, including the gospels. He gives enough examples of statements in different canonical gospels that don't fit together. From this he concluded that the text doesn't tell history, but has to be read spiritually. He also proposed that the actual reason for the death penalty for Jesus was the ruckus he caused in the temple, because the other given explanations didn't make sense to him.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ohn10.html
These are topics that don't have anything to do with Platonic philosophy, and I don't quite see why anyone who wanted to establish a unified Christianity would go to such lengths to discredit the core Christian message that everything in the Bible is true as it is written.
There are many here who think that by simply reading the material attributed to Origen that they will gain expertise in what this 3rd century church father actually thought and wrote. As if they were peering directly into a time capsule that has been preserved by a process of immaculate transmission from antiquity (like the Nag Hammadi codices). I do not subscribe to such a notion. I want to know as much a I can about the history of the transmission of Origen's manuscripts from antiquity to the earliest extant manuscripts that have been identified by those who have studied this.
What supposedly motivated Origen to write?
Well it appears to be that Origen felt the need to oppose and counter the writings of the gnostic heretics. These writings are today classed as the NT apocryphal literature and the subject of the OP.
Today, under the pretext of gnosis, the heretics set themselves up against the holy Church of Christ, and multiply the volumes of their commentaries in which they pretend to interpret the evangelical and apostolic writings. If we ourselves keep silence, if we do not oppose them with true and sound doctrines, they will attract famished souls who, in the absence of healthy nourishment, will seize upon these forbidden foods which are indeed impure and abominable... In your own case, it was because you could not find masters capable of teaching you a higher doctrine, and because your love for Jesus could not abide an unreasoned and common faith, hence you formerly gave yourself up to those doctrines which subsequently you condemned and rejected, as was right.
https://www.copticchurch.net/patrology/ ... ter02.html
As such Origen is wearing his heresiological hat. He is also quite capable of removing this hat and putting on the hat encompassing the exegesis of LXX and NT scripture. But the ultimate question is whether the writings currently attributed to Origen are in fact from an historical Origen of the 3rd century or whether these writings were accumulated in the following centuries - especially the 4th century. But not limited to the 4th century. You may call me over suspicious but I see that such suspicion is warranted. I want evidence of the integrity of the transmission of Origen's manuscripts.
HIS VOLUMINOUS WRITINGS
Origen was the most prolific Christian writer of antiquity. St. Epiphanius declared that Origen had written 6000 works-scrolls of undoubted value and of varied lengths. The complete list of his writings that Eusebius added to the biography of his friend and teacher Pamphilus was lost. According to St. Jerome who used it, Origen's treatises are two thousand. St. Jerome's question, "which of us can read all that he has written?" is a sufficient testimony to the magnitude of Origen's literary works. Charles Bigg says, "The marvel is not that Origen composed so much, but that he composed so well."
The Origenistic Controversies caused most of the literary output of the great Alexandrian to disappear. The greater part of his writings has perished as a result of the violent quarrels which broke out concerning his orthodoxy. Not only the reading of his works was proscribed but even preserving any of them was considered an illegal deed.
We possess only a small remnant of his work, mostly preserved, not in the original Greek, but in Latin translations. There is a number of Latin translations. Some are made by Saint Hilary, Saint Jerome, and several others.. The greater part comes from the pen of Rufinus of Aquileia. St. Basil and St. Gregory of Nazianzus compiled an anthology (Philokalia Origenis).
https://www.copticchurch.net/patrology/ ... ter02.html
So here we have mention of those who transmitted the supposed manuscripts of Origen in the 4th century as the first port of call connecting antiquity with the presently known "earliest extant manuscripts". Elsewhere I have pointed out that St. Basil and St. Gregory of Nazianzus are responsible for the editing of Origen's works such that Origen is a witness to the circulation of the Clementine literature. Here is the citation again:
Harnack gave a very complete summary of all the literary parallels on the Patristic side, and his work is a standard of reference for those who approach the subject. He made, however, one bad mistake is supposing, as others had done, that the Recognitions were quoted by Origen, thus determining a literary terminus ad quem for their composition; and it fell to the lot of Dr. Armitage Robinson to show that the supposed reference in the Philocalia of Origen was not Origen's at all, but was to be credited to the editorial hands of Basil and Gregory.
Notes on the Clementine Romances
Author(s): Rendel Harris
Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 40, No. 3/4 (1921), pp. 125-145
Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature
Stable URL:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3259292
When we move from Basil and Gregory to Rufinus we find more troubling integrity issues.
THE LATIN TRANSLATION
The Latin translations of Origen's works, especially those by Rufinus, are not accurate. For he wanted to present his author to the Latin-speaking public and therefore did not hesitate to abridge some passages that seemed to him to be too long or to add explanations when he thought it advisable. Rufinus thought that Origen's books had been altered by heretics, and that he had the right to expurgate them... Heine has summarized Rufinus’ alteration of Origen’s text along five lines.
1. Heine suggests that Rufinus suppressed contradictory elements in Origen.
2. Rufinus attempted to restore the original thought of Origen from other texts of Origen’s works.
3. He attempted to clarify Origen’s thought where he found it obscure.
4. He admitted that he had abridged the text of Origen.
5. Rufinus translated the sense into Latin and did not give a word for word translation.
ibid
So in summary we have Christian elites of the 4th century taking the liberty of presenting all sorts of stuff that Origen may or may not have written as supposedly factual. As far as I am concerned this should set off the alarm bells on most integrity detectors.
Did Origen deny the idea that “there was a time when the Son was not”?
Roger Pearse has a blog on this here:
https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/202 ... n-was-not/
Origen anticipating & contradicting the Arian heresy 10yrs before Arius was born and 80yrs before Nicaea is Fire. “He who was a son according to the flesh came from the seed of David…According to the Spirit, however, he existed first & there was never a time when he was not.” …
It’s from Origen’s commentary on Romans 1, ch.5.
Pamphilus in his Apology (ch. 50) also quotes it in the Greek from Origen’s commentary on Hebrews.
Roger at the end attributes this to Rufinus. But blind Freddy can see the writing on the wall. Rufinus or whichever other (and possibly much later Christian scribe) has attempted to interpolate into Origen the 4th century Nicene philosophy attributed to Arius of Alexandria.
All the above is just the tip of an iceberg of historical integrity problems. What motivated all this corruption and interpolation into Origen by the Christian church industry of later centuries? I set out one possibility in the OP.