Tag: Origen

From my diary

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I’m still working on Ibn Abi Usaibia.  Yesterday I started going through the .htm files exported from Abbyy Finereader, to rejoin paragraphs and add in page numbers.  I’ve so far found two pages which are out of order in the manuscript — the numerals at the bottom in pencil were clearly added after the pages became disarranged.

I’ve also been experimenting with producing a version of the images of the pages which might be uploadable to Archive.org, by converting them to black and white using ImageMagick as I was doing yesterday.  This sort of works, but requires quite a bit of manual intervention, so I have parked it for now.

This morning I went to the library and obtained a copy of Maarten Vermaseren’s Mithras: De geheimzinnige God, the original version of Mithras: the secret God, which has caused so much misinformation to circulate.  It’s physically a tiny book — indeed the title page calls it an “Elsevier pocket book”, evidently one of a series — printed on very cheap paper which has yellowed and perished, and bound so tightly that the pages are almost impossible to open, and the printed text is so close to the binding that making a photocopy is almost impossible.  The perished paper tends to tear if you simply open the book!  I suspect that if I want an electronic copy of this, I shall have to buy a copy and destroy it, by cutting the spine off, in order to scan it.  Most vexing.

But the important bit so far is that this isn’t a scholarly work at all!  It’s just a bit of popularisation, probably undertaken at the behest of a publisher, who decided the format etc.

Meanwhile the postman brought me the 2010 translation of Origen’s Homilies on Ezekiel by Thomas Scheck.  Regular readers will remember that I commissioned a translation of this work — then untranslated — back in 2009, and that it was projected as volume 2 of Ancient Texts in Translation.  Nothing much has happened on this for over a year now, as it has been awaiting some revision work.  I think I shall have to draw up a plan whereby I can get it out of the door, and so I have purchased a copy of Scheck with this in mind.  I’ll work on this in January, perhaps.

Share

From my diary

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I’m still proofing the OCR of the English translation of Ibn Abi Usaibia, and reached p.639 last night.

The translation of Methodius De lepra is creeping forward.  I prompted the translator last night, and another couple of (short) pages arrived this morning, and I have just annotated them and sent them back.  These pages from the German need to be completed by a translation of a Greek fragment.  The translator has subcontracted that bit out, so it will need to be checked.  It will be interesting to see what that is like.

But great joy — a draft translation of John the Lydian’s section on December arrived this morning.  And in fact I had no comments on it, so it is pretty much done, and all I shall have to do is pay for it and upload it.

The translator of John also sent me a comment on the “cline” issue for the Sol Serapis post.

He’s also been working on the Origen Homilies on Ezechiel book, which I do hope we will manage to get out of the door sometime.  Most of it is done, and I think both of us will be glad to draw a line under it.

Meanwhile I’ve heard nothing from Chicago University since I accepted their price for digitising Loviagin’s Russian version of Methodius.  It’s hard to believe that any institution takes a week to answer an email.  I hesitate to nag them!

One of those winter viruses laid its cold hand on me at the weekend, so I’ve been a little under the weather since.  This morning the sun came out, and, feeling rather more normal, I drove up to Cambridge and visited the university library.  I think I got the very last free car parking space there!

It’s been a while since I’ve been — my pass ran out in June.  They will only issue me a pass for 6 months, which is tiresome.  There’s some noodle in the library administration with the fidgets — every time I turn up and reapply for another 6 months, there is some extra demand for evidence of this or that or the other.  But I got through the assault course OK.

I went to have a look at Vermaseren’s Mithras: the secret god.  I’ve only ever seen extracts of this, and I was looking to see whether he gave any sources for some of the line-drawings of reliefs.  And … he doesn’t!  I have a copy on order by ILL from my local library, so I will look at this some more then.  Curiously Cambridge did not have the original Dutch version of the book, nor the German translation.

Another item that I went to look for was the German original of Manfred Clauss’ The Roman cult of Mithras.  This was indeed present, but I couldn’t make much of it — I think the virus was trying to make a comeback at that point and my head grew fuzzy.

But what I did find was Reinhold Merkelbach’s Mithras; and I also found next to it the two volumes of Mithraic Studies edited by John R. Hinnells, Turcan’s book, and a few other items.  I was impressed with Merkelbach’s book — it looked very sound.  He surveys the data about Persian Mithra, and then starts a new section for Roman Mithras and states plainly that the latter was a new cult, using systematically elements borrowed from the Iranian mythology.  That seems to me to hit the nail on the head.

Finally, a bit of vanity: I went to the catalogue and searched for my own name, to see if the Eusebius book had been added to the library.  And it had!  Off I went, to find it next to all the other editions and translations of Patristic literature, but sadly minus its beautiful dustjacket.  I felt quite indignant for a moment at the loss of what had cost me so much time and labour; but then they do the same with all their books.  Nice to see it there, anyway.

I think I shall spend some time on the sofa now.  It’s been a busy day!

Share

The colophon of the Tura papyrus of Origen Contra Celsum

Posted on by Roger Pearse

At the end of book 1 of the papyrus containing extracts of books 1 and 2 of Origen’s Contra Celsum, is an interesting note:

μετεβληθη και αντεβληθη εξ αντιγραφου των αυτου ωριγενους βιβλι[ων]

Revised and corrected from the copy of the books of Origen himself.

This is quite a statement, in a manuscript of the 7th century.  Presumably this means at Caesarea, where Origen’s library ended up.

One interesting feature of this papyrus is that two readings are given in some cases.  The editor of the papyrus, Scherer, suggests that this is because the ancient editor — presumably at Caesarea — found two readings in his sources.  In other words … we have indications of an ancient edition with a critical apparatus.  More interesting still, the two-fold reading makes its way even to the 13th century codex of Contra Celsum.

We’re all familiar with the colophons in biblical mss recording the editorial work of Pamphilus.  It’s interesting to see evidence of the same activity on other works being copied.

Share

Grafton & Williams on Origen, Eusebius and the library of Caesarea

Posted on by Roger Pearse

grafton

Wieland Wilker kindly sent me a copy of Anthony Grafton and Megan Williams, Christianity and the transformation of the book: Origen, Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea.  This arrived on Friday, and I read through it over the weekend.

The first thing to strike me was the absence of footnotes.  That’s because they had all been banished to the end.  This habit of American publishers is a nuisance to the reader.  It necessitates flipping to and fro the end of the book.  Doing so is weary; consequently it is impossible to glance at the note while reading more than once or two.

The book also places two further difficulties in the way of the critical reader. 

Firstly the numbering of the endnotes is broken up by chapter.  In order to find a note, therefore, I have to memorise both the endnote number (23) and the page on which it appears (15). 

Secondly, once you have found your note, it will not infrequently have a reference in the form “BLOGGS, 1997, p.123”.  Now unless you have memorised the bibliography, this may not take you further forward.  To get an idea of which book is being referred to — a study?  an edition? a paper? — you must then locate the bibliography, hunt through that, then return to the note, reread that now you know what the book is, and then return to your place in the book.

It’s obvious why the book is so arranged; it is very convenient and concise for the author and publisher.  But it is rather a problem for the reader.  I wish that publishers in the US would avoid these habits.

But on to the book.  Grafton’s prose style is a fluid as ever and the book slips down easily.  The view expressed is that we all owe rather more to the innovations in book design required for the Hexapla of Origen and the Chronicle of Eusebius than is generally realised.  The argument is made well, and is one that I have long wished to hear made.  The description of the Hexapla is very clear, and I read it with deep attention, while cursing my inability to glance at the bottom of the page to see the footnotes and assess the data behind the claims.

The authors  also make the valuable point that Eusebius’ innovation of verbatim quotation was itself a useful innovation.  The links that Grafton makes with the activity of renaissance scholars are also useful and interesting.

Another very useful aspect of the book was how G&W related the activity of Origen, supported by the private sponsorship of Ambrose, to the way in which freelance teachers of philosophy operated in the period.  This must be the right approach to take, and such links must be illuminating.  A letter of Origen in which he describes how Ambrose kept Origen’s nose to the grindstone in his enthusiasm was new to me, and most interesting!

The plates are good, although the quality of images supplied by some of the institutions is risibly poor.  The book came out in 2006, at which time many manuscript libraries were waging a die-hard campaign to prevent access to their collections. I think really the page images need to be in colour, and there seems no reason technically not to do this now. 

The content of the book is mainly an essay of interpretation.  To cover the ground, the authors reply mainly on the secondary literature and reflect the consensus of US-based scholarship without too much discussion.  The breadth of the topic necessitates some such approach, indeed.  This is handled well, and there is certainly a need for such books.  The translations that are given of some texts are fresh and readable.  

But the approach also means that sometimes a view is expressed without any backing other than a scanty reference, if that.  Some of the views so skipped over are very controversial, as anything to do with christian origins tends to be.  Do we wish to be told, as fact, that the gnostics were Christians, for instance?  The apostles did not think so, the Christians did not think so, modern Christians do not think so.  This idea seems to me to reflect more the desire of the Selfish Generation to evade the moral teaching of Christianity than anything in the historical record.  But doubtless Dr. G and W just picked this nonsense up from their sources.  In view of the tendency of said Generation to promote daft ideas by incessant reiteration, we must always check whether some agenda is being promoted when we read stuff from US sources. 

Another bit struck me as unintentionally funny.  At one point the book offers as fact the theory that Demetrius, the enemy of Origen, was in fact the first Bishop of Alexandria.  This contradicts the sources, which tell us of an episcopate beginning with St. Mark.  The idea that in fact Mark created some form of presbyterate, or whatever, is of course possible; but our sources do not say so.  But G&W treat this theory as fact, with the odd result that they are forced to describe the statement of Eusebius as “the conjectures of Eusebius”.  That is, the primary source written a century later around 100 miles away is “conjectures”, while a theory contradicted by the data written 2,000 years later by someone in a culture which possesses no more than 1% of the ancient literature is fact.   Really?  That seems quite unlikely to me! 

When nonsense is offered as fact, and fact is described as conjecture, there is always a reason. To debunk the idea of a succession of bishops is a standard of anti-Catholic literature.  The agenda of those who control university appointments peeks through again.

We mustn’t pillory G&W for this sort of thing, tho.  This is what happens to any of us when we don’t stick close enough to the data, and spend too much time with the secondary literature.  Doubtless the authors repeated the stuff in good faith.

Overall verdict?  A useful book.  I imagine it is aimed at undergraduates.  It must raise the reputation of Origen and Eusebius in that audience, and also connect these authors with their late antique milieu.  Both objectives are praiseworthy.

Share

Origen and “Buddhism in Britain”

Posted on by Roger Pearse

An email has reached me, on an interesting topic:

I’m trying to establish the authenticity or inauthenticity of a purported quote attributed to Origen.  A brief English translation purportedly of Origen appears frequently in atheist polemic and on wikipedia. It reads as follows:

“The island (Britain) has long been predisposed to it (Christianity) through the doctrines of the Druids and Buddhists, who had already inculcated the doctrine of the unity of the Godhead”.

That’s it. Very short.  The underlying source of this purported quote is always the same, page 42 of ‘Buddhism in pre-Christian Britain’ by Donald A. Mackenzie, Blackie and Son Ltd, 1928. This page 42 can be viewed online here. MacKenzie provided no footnote. He said it was from Origen’s Commentary on Ezekiel, but did not cite a paragraph, nor even what edition he consulted.

The ‘quote’ doesn’t have the ring of truth to me, so I’ll be surprised if it is authentically Origen. Are you in a position to comment on the authenticity or otherwise of the purported quote?

I’d be suspicious too!  But the only way to find out is to go and look.

Origen did compose a Commentary on Ezechiel, in 25 books.  But it is lost, and only catena fragments survive.

What about the Homilies on Ezechiel?  I did a search for “Britain” on the English translation of these.  The word appears only in Homily 4, chapter 1:

For when, before the arrival of Christ, did the island of Britain agree together in the worship of the one God?  When did the land of the Moors [do so]?  When [did] the whole world at once [do so]?  Now, however, by virtue of the Churches that occupy the borders of the world, the whole earth shouts with joy to the God of Israel and is capable of [performing] good [actions] according to its boundaries.

So this actually states that the island of Britain was NOT worshipping a single God before the Christians.  So… back to the Commentary.  Is it in a catena fragment, I wonder?  In 1928, I would guess that the author could only be using Migne.

In PG13, there are 60 columns of Selecta in Ezechielem, col. 767 onwards.  These undoubtedly are catena fragments, from whatever works on Ezechiel the catenist used.  I intend to get these translated, but we’re not there yet.  So… a look through the Latin side for the word “Britannia”.  And… it doesn’t seem to be there.  If anyone else wants to look, the PG13 is online here.

In the same volume, fragments from the Commentary start at col. 663.  They are VERY brief.  They do not contain it either.

So … the “quote” and “reference” look like bunk.  The book is plainly not an educated one, so the author has copied from somewhere else.  But where?

There is a JSTOR article which mentions the subject, but I can’t access it.  Can anyone?  It’s here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/498371

Searching for “Origen Britain”, I come across this 1662 text which refers to a remark in Origen about a passage in Luke 1, quoted in Homilies on Luke 6, III, 939. ed. Huet. Virtus domini salvatoris et cum his est, qui ab orbe nostro in Britannia dividuntur — The power of God our Saviour is also with those who in Britain are divided from our world.  Never trust a quote: a look at this text would be a good idea, I’m sure. These too are in PG13, col. 1801 for the homilies, and 1901 for the fragments.  Homily 6 starts in col. 1813.  And there is the quote, in col. 1816C; and the sentence continues, but no more mention of Britain.

Now into Google books.  And I come across a reference to the same idea, here (Lynn Bridgers, The American Religious Experience, 2006, p. 223).  It is that Origen tells of Buddhist missionaries in Britain.  No reference, of course!

The Dictionary of Christian Biography p.340 talks about references to Buddha in patristic texts; but no Origen on Britain.  Origen does talk about two types of Indian philosopher in Contra Celsum, somewhere.  I find this in book 1, chapter 16:

It seems, then, to be not from a love of truth, but from a spirit of hatred, that Celsus makes these statements, his object being to asperse the origin of Christianity, which is connected with Judaism. Nay, he styles the Galactophagi of Homer, and the Druids of the Gauls, and the Getae, most learned and ancient tribes, on account of the resemblance between their traditions and those of the Jews, although I know not whether any of their histories survive; but the Hebrews alone, as far as in him lies, he deprives of the honour both of antiquity and learning.

So he compares various people to the Jews; from this we presume monotheism?  Another source here says that Origen talks about Druids as monotheistic.  No reference again.

Ronald Hutton, Blood and Mistletoe: the history of the druids in Britain, p. 59 is revealing.

The other major publication of the period to mention Druids was conceived in the year in which the first edition of the Holinshed history was published; and represented another example of the influence of continental scholarship on British attitudes. In this case the scholarship concerned was embodied in the great Flemish geographer Abraham Ortelius, who visited England in 1577. He stayed with a young Westminster schoolmaster, William Camden, who was acquiring a reputation for his study of the physical remains of the British past. Ortelius was already interested in Druids, having corresponded with the Welsh historian Humphrey Llwyd over the correct identification of the island of Mona. He persuaded Camden to write a book on British antiquities which would give European scholars an enhanced sense of his nation’s importance within the ancient and early medieval worlds.33 The result was published, in Latin, in 1586, under the title of Britannia. As a work produced as a contribution to international scholarship, according to the highest standards of research, it did not make any grand claims for the Druids, or associate them with rulers such as Druiyus, Bardus and Albion. Instead it alluded briefly to them as practitioners of a heathen religion, relying firmly on ancient Roman sources.34

As the years passed, and the book went through successive, and ever enlarged, editions, Camden’s attitude to them changed. He still confined his authorities to the classical sources that represented ‘genuine’ history, but quoted these at greater length and more favourably to the Druids. The process culminated in 1610, when the final and biggest version of the book was translated into English. It had turned, after all, into a patriotic work intended primarily for a domestic market. The ancient sources on which he relied for information on Druids, especially Caesar, were quoted at length and lightly trimmed to highlight the passages that dealt with the Druids’ learning and social importance. Most impressive, he quoted two early Christian writers, Tertullian and Origen, as saying that they had predisposed the British to receive the Christian faith, by acknowledging only one god.35 Here was the claim that German and French writers had been making for them over the past hundred years, apparently anchored in real ancient texts and contextualized specifically in the Druidic homeland of Britain.

Actually, Camden only had one witness, because Tertullian merely boasted that by his time, under the later Roman Empire, even some of the (remote) British had adopted Christianity. It was Origen who apparently provided the testimony, and he did not mention Druids as such; rather, as Camden read him, he stated that the British had believed in a single god before the coming of Christ, and it could be reasonably inferred from this that the Druids had been responsible for that belief. Camden had, however, made a classic mistranslation. He had not realized that Origen had been posing a rhetorical question: that of whether, before the coming of Christ, peoples as marginal as the British and the Berbers had believed in one deity. The implied answer was clearly negative, allowing Origen to proceed to his point, which was that, by his time in the third century, Christianity had carried that message even to these far-flung regions.36 Camden’s knowledge of Greek, or that of his informant, had not been up to the understanding of the passage. Later in the seventeenth century other scholars spotted the mistake,37 but it was embedded in a work of huge popularity and influence, justly respected for the generally high quality of its erudition and research.

The preview on Google books does not allow me to check the references; but here, clearly, is the source of the story; and it is a bad story.

Can anyone access Blood and Mistletoe?  And what an excellent source this book is!

Update (7th May 2021): A kind reader has supplied me with the pages from Blood and Mistletoe, and I can now obtain the references.  These are on p.431:

33. Stuart Piggott, ‘William Camden and the “Britannia” ’, Proceedings of the British Academy 37 (1951), 199–217.
34. William Camden, Britannia (London, 1586), 11.
35. Camden, Britannia, trans. Philemon Holland (London, 1610), 4, 12–14, 68, 149.
36. Origen, Homiliae in Ezechielem, ed. Marcel Borrett (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1989), No. IV, ch. 1, lines 154–6.
37. Such as Selden (for whom see below) and Edward Stillingfleet, Originae britannicae (London, 1685), 5.

Camden’s 1610 English version appeared under the title of: Britain, or a Chorographicall Description of the most flourishing Kingdomes, England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the Ilands adjoyning, out of the depth of Antiquitie.  It is not that easy to find online.  A transcription here gives us the following quote:

But to this purpose maketh especially that which erewhile I alleged out of Tertullian, as also that which Origen recordeth how the Britans with one consent embraced the Faith, and made way themselves unto God by meanes of the Druidae, who alwaies did beat upon this article of beleefe, that there was but one God. And verily of great moment and importance is that with me, that Gildas, after he had mentioned the rebellion of Boodicia and treated of the revenge thereof,…

The Origen quote is in the Sources Chrétiennes 352, p.162-5.  From this it can be found on p.130 f. of the excellent 2014 text and translation by Mischa Hooker of Origen: Homilies on Ezekiel, which is online at Archive.org here.  From homily 4, chapter 6:

Confitentur et miserabiles Iudaei haec de Christi praesentia praedicari, sed stulte ignorant personam, cum videant impleta quae dicta sunt. Quando enim terra Britanniae ante adventum Christi in unius Dei consensit religionem, quando terra Maurorum, quando totus semel orbis? Nunc vero propter Ecclesias, quae mundi limites tenent, universa terra cum laetitia clamat ad Deum Istrahel et capax est bonorum secundum fines suos.

Even the miserable Jews admit that these things are proclaimed concerning the presence of the Christ, but they foolishly disregard his person, although they see that what was said has been fulfilled. For when, before the arrival of Christ, did the land of Britain agree together in the worship of the one God? When did the land of the Moors do so? When did the whole world at once do so? Now, however, by virtue of the churches that occupy the borders of the world, the whole earth shouts with joy to the God of Israel and is capable of performing good actions according to its boundaries.

And this, of course, is the same quotation that we started with, showing that Britain did NOT worship one god until the Christians came.

Share

Patristic witnesses to speaking in tongues

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I’ve had an email from Charles Sullivan, another patristic enthusiast, who has dedicated the last 20 years to going through Migne and locating every possible reference in the fathers to speaking in tongues.  He’s been translating them, and intends to publish A history of the gift of tongues, once he’s worked over all the texts. It was an email from him concerning Origen on 1 Corinthians that led me to look into this obscure text last week. 

I asked him how he went about his search.  The answer was interesting enough that I thought I would reproduce it:

This whole project began in the 1980s before the internet took off and before I had kids and needed to concentrate solely on making money for 20 years. During this time, I recreationally began to visually scan every page of MPG until volume 135, looking especially in the Latin text for key words. When I found some semblance of key words, I photocopied the pages to translate later. With Latin authors I haven’t been so detailed but I have used MPL and whatever other sources I can find. The resources in Latin are much easier to find and access than the Greek Fathers, so this part has not been much of a problem. Secondly, I went through them all, prioritizing and eliminating pages for translation. Third, because the internet was so young and flaky at the time, I built my own dictionary, grammar and bibliographical database in Filemaker to resource all my finds and keep up with everything.  I still use this. After these steps, I translate the pertinent passages.

My approach to translating is published on Scribd, 
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8484290/Translation-Tips-on-the-Greek-Church-Fathers

… I felt initially overwhelmed at the task of translating the Greek Church Fathers and understanding how MPG works. I don’t feel that way anymore, but it was painful. This was overcome in large part due to the help of Perseus, Google and many websites willing to publish manuscripts, texts and resources on the web. If these were not available, people like myself could not accomplish anything within this realm.

I am looking forward to the day when the open-source internet phenomenon, which has opened up the Jewish community and their ancient texts, will meander down into the vestibules of the Christian community.

The excellent translation tips I have remarked on before.  I also asked him who he was aiming his book at.  His reply was probably too modest:

It is for an academic audience who has a little, but not a great knowledge of Church Fathers and possess a good knowledge of the controversial Biblical texts. 

A 2,500 word or so summary will be available for free on the internet. The final book will be available for purchase on the ScribD website. I am not sure what to do with the print rights yet. Still too busy translating though I can feel that I am getting very close. Chrysostom and John of Damascus are the only big translations left for me to do. 

I think that there can be little doubt that Dr. Sullivan is a hero; someone who is doing something truly original, at a very serious level.  I particularly admire anyone who takes the PG, volume by volume, and works through it.

I hope that he will allow me to see a draft when it is ready.  It seems to me that we’re actually looking at a source book, or something like that, which deserves formal academic publication.  Comments on this, and also on any parallel work that’s been done, would be most welcome.

Share

C.H.Turner on Origen’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Editions of the fragments of Origen’s commentaries on Ephesians and 1 Corinthians were published from the catenas in early issues of the Journal of Theological Studies.  Unfortunately the editors chose not to include translations, thereby guaranteeing oblivion to their work.

In JTS 10 C. H. Turner commented on some of the newly published texts:

Certain it is that these commentaries [on Ephesians and 1 Corinthians] contain many interesting things which appear so far to have escaped the notice of Church historians.  A reference to the inconsistencies between the duty of a Christian and the duty of a soldier (on I Cor. v I I) has escaped even Harnack’s encyclopaedic knowledge of early Christian literature. The summary of the Eucharistic service as the ‘invocation of the name of God and of Christ and of the Holy Spirit over the elements (on I Cor. vii 5) is absent from Mr Brightman’s collection of liturgical passages from the Egyptian fathers. And I myself, when writing on Patristic commentaries on St Paul (in the supplementary volume to Hastings’s Dictionary of the Bible p. 489), ought to have cited Origen’s distinct allusions to a predecessor or predecessors in the exegesis of the same epistle: … (on I Cor. vii 24), … (on I Cor. ix 20).

Note further the information about Ophites (on xii 3), about Montanists (on xiv 34), about heretics who used the Creed (on xv 20), about parts of the Old Testament unsuitable for Church lessons (on xiv 7, 8), about a Pauline citation found in Aquila and the other interpreters but not in the LXX text (on xiv 21 ), about Apollos being bishop of Corinth (on xvi 12).

Any fragments of the original Greek of Origen’s work on the New Testament are worth all that we can devote to them of loving and patient study.

They do sound interesting, don’t they!  If I didn’t have so much on the go already, I might be tempted to commission a translation.

Share

Origen on 1 Corinthians

Posted on by Roger Pearse

My attention has been drawn to the remains of Origen’s Homilies on 1 Corinthians.  These are not in Migne, but appear in a number of volumes in the Journal of Theological Studies.  Manuel Crespo has kindly pointed out to me that there are a total of five articles published by Jenkins in the JTS, plus another by C.H.Turner:

  • ORIGEN-CITATIONS, THE, IN CRAMER’S CATENA ON I “Corinthians”; Jenkins, C., Rev. Journal of Theological Studies 6 (1905) p.113 (4 pages)  (JTS6 is online here).
  • ORIGEN ON I CORINTHIANS, Jenkins, C., Rev. Journal of Theological Studies 9 (1908) p.231 (17 pages)
  • ORIGEN ON I CORINTHIANS. Jenkins, C., Rev. Journal of Theological Studies 9 (1908) p.353 (20 pages)
  • ORIGEN ON I CORINTHIANS. Jenkins, C., Rev. Journal of Theological Studies 9 (1908) p.500 (15 pages) (JTS9 is online here).
  • ORIGEN ON I CORINTHIANS. IV. Jenkins, Claude, Rev. Journal of Theological Studies 10 (1909) p.29 (22 pages)
  • ORIGEN’S COMMENTARY ON I CORINTHIANS, NOTES ON THE TEXT OF. Turner, C. H., Journal of Theological Studies 10 (1909) p.270 (7 pages)

 Interesting indeed!  More when I have read through this material.

Context of all of this?  Well, 1 Corinthians is where Paul talks about speaking in tongues.  Wouldn’t it be interesting to know what Origen says about this?

Share

The anathemas against Origen at the 2nd Council of Constantinople

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I’m going through my filing cabinet, turning photocopies into PDF’s and throwing away the paper.  While doing so, I’m coming across all sorts of things that I haven’t seen for years.  One of these is some pages of Norman Tanner’s edition of the Decrees of the ecumenical councils (1990).  This is the sort of thing that I dearly wish was online.  But a note in the preface caught my eye:

Our purpose in editing the texts has been to present all the decrees of the councils and only the decrees. For this reason some very important texts have had to be omitted, for example the anathemas against Origen formerly attributed (erroneously) to Constantinople II, or the charges on which pope Honorius was condemned (as these relate to the acts, not the decrees, of Constantinople III), or the profession of faith of pope Hormisdas which was a condition of admittance required of the council fathers at Constantinople IV, but does not appear to have been formally approved by the council.

Now I was under the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the Council of Constantinople held by Justinian had condemned Origenism, and perhaps anathematised Origen himself, depending on some text-critical questions.  To pronounce a man anathema 300 years after he died in the peace of the church, and died moreover from the effects of torture in confessing Christ, would be morally wrong of course.

Unfortunately I don’t have the relevant pages of Tanner, and I don’t know the facts.  Would someone better informed on this council than myself care to comment?

Share

More progress on translating Origen’s Homilies on Ezekiel

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The first 5 chapters of homily 1 are now translated and in my hands, together with catena fragments, and the first 2 chapters are pretty much finished.  I’ve paid the translator for the latter, which is nice as well; it feels like we’re underway.

Share