Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T14:11:31.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New Perspectives on the Origenist Controversy: Human Embodiment and Ascetic Strategies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Elizabeth A. Clark
Elizabeth A. Clark
Affiliation:
John Carlisle Kilgo Professor of Religion inDuke University, Durham, North Carolina. This is her presidential address delivered at the annual meeting of the American Society of church History, 29 December 1989.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The controversy over Origenism that erupted in the last years of the fourth century and the opening years of the fifth has puzzled many students of the period: no single identifiable theological issue seemed at stake. At the center of the Arian controversy lay a debate over the subordination (or nonsubordination) of the Son to the Father; in the fifth-century christological disputes Jesus' “nature” or “natures” prompted disagreement. But what was the focus of the Origenist controversy: the subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit to the Father? the “fall” of the rational creatures into bodies? the restoration of the Devil? the interpretation of resurrection from the dead?

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 59 , Issue 2 , June 1990 , pp. 145 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. For example, Jerome, Ep. 85:2–3 (CSEL 54:136–137).

2. Epiphanius, , Ep. ad Johannem Episcopum (Jerome, Ep. 51), pp. 1–2Google Scholar (CSEL 54:396–399); Jerome, Contra Joannem 10, 40, 41 (PL 23:379, 410–411); Ep. 82:4, 8 (CSEL 55:111, 114–115). Rufinus, Prologus in Apologeticum Pamphili Martyris pro Origene (CCL 20:233); Jerome, , Ep. 84:11Google Scholar (CSEL 55:133–134); Apologia 1:8–11, 13; 2:15, 23; 3:12 (CCL 79:7–11, 12, 48–49, 59–60, 83–85). Jerome, , Apologia 1:6;Google Scholar 2:11 (2); 3:14 (CCL 79:5–6, 45–46, 86–87); Rufinus, , Apologia 2:36–41Google Scholar (CCL 20:111–116).

3. Using the formula provided by network analysts, I calculate the density of Rufinus's network at 78 percent and Jeromes's at 83 percent. “Density” is defined as the number of links that actually exist among the persons in the network as a proportion of the total number of possible links. See, for example, Mitchell, J. Clyde, “The Concept and Use of Social Networks,” in Social Networks in Urban Situations: Analyses of Personal Relationships in Central African Towns, ed. Mitchell, J. Clyde (Manchester, 1969).Google Scholar I have attempted such a project in “Elite Networks and Heresy Accusations: Towards a Social Description of the Origenist Controversy,” forthcoming in Semeia.

4. See Methodius's Treatise on the Resurrection, as preserved in Epiphanius, , Panarion 64:12–62.Google Scholar

5. Especially Epiphanius, who follows Methodius. See also Dechow, Jon F., Dogma and Mysticism in Early Christianity: Epiphanius of Cyprus and the Legacy of Origen (Macon, Ga., 1988);Google ScholarHenri, Crouzel, “La Doctrine origénienne du corps ressucité,”Bulletin de Littérature Ecclesiastique 81 (1980): 175–200, 241–266.Google Scholar

6. Socrates, , Historia ecclesiastica 6:7 (PG 67:683–688);Google ScholarSozomen, , Historia ecclesiastica 8:11–11–19 (PG 67:1544–1568);Google ScholarPalladius, , Dialogus de vita S. Joannis Chrysostomi 6Google Scholar (22)-7(23) (Coleman Norton, pp. 35–38).

7. Socrates, , Historia ecclesiastica 6:7Google Scholar (PG 67:684–688).

8. Ibid., 6:7 (PG 67:685, 688).

9. That Origenism did not disappear from the Egyptian desert with their departure is revealed in fragments of two letters by Theophilus, preserved in Justinian's, Liber adversus Origenem (PG 86:967),Google Scholar one dated from the summer of 400 and the second from late 400 or early 401 on the issue of Origenist monks still present.

10. Cassian reports that the letters arrived at Epiphany, to announce the dates for Lent, and Easter, : Conlationes 10:2Google Scholar (SC 54:75). Drioton, Etienne, “La Discussion d'un moine anthropomorphite Audien avec le patriarche Théophile d'Alexandrie en l'année 399,” Revue de l'Orient Chrétien, 2d ser., 10 (1915–1917):92–100, 113–128.Google Scholar

11. John, Cassian, Conlationes 10:2Google Scholar(SC 54:76); 10:3 (SC 54:76).

12. See note 10 above.

13. Drioton, , “La Discussion,” p. 94.Google Scholar

14. Ibid.; pp. 95–96; 96–100; 114–115.

15. See the course of the debate in Drioton, , “La Discussion,” pp. 97–100, 113, 127.Google Scholar

16. For summaries, see Opitz, H. G., “Theophilos von Alexandrien,” Pauly-Wissowa, , eds., Real-Encyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 5A. 2 (1934): 2151;Google ScholarGeffcken, Johannes, The Last Days of Greco-Roman Paganism, trans. MacCormack, Sabine (Oxford, 1978), pp. 170–174.Google Scholar

17. On Evagrius's relation to Gregory of Nazianzen, see Palladius, , Historia Lausiaca 38:2Google Scholar (Butler 2:117); Socrates, , Historta ecclestastica 4:23Google Scholar (PG 67:516; Evagrius cites a saying of Gregory at 520); Sozomen, , Historia ecclesiastica 6:30Google Scholar (PG 67:1584). See discussion in Bunge, Gabriel, ed., Evagrios Pontikos, Briefe aus der Wüste (Trier, 1986), pp. 24–28;Google ScholarO'Laughlin, Michael W., “Origenism in the Desert: Anthropology and Integration in Evagrius Ponticus” (Th.D. diss., Harvard University, 1987), pp. 10–14, 20–28.Google Scholar On the reassignment of “Basil's” Epistle 8 to Evagrius, see Melcher's, RobertDer 8. Brief des hl. Basilius, ein Werk des Evagrius Pontikus (Münster i. W., 1923).Google ScholarPalladius, , Historia Laustaca 38 (Butler, 2:119–120).Google Scholar

18. Greek text of Sentences for a Nun edited by Gressmann, Hugo in TU 39:4 (1913), pp. 146–151.Google Scholar For the argument that the work was addressed to Melania the Elder, see Muyldermans, Joseph, ed., Evagrana Syriaca. Textes inédits du Brztsh Museum et de la Vaticane (Louvain, 1952), p. 30.Google Scholar

19. The two versions of the Syriac text, with French translations, are printed in PO 28:1. For discussion, see Antoine, Guillaumont in Les “Kephalaia Gnostzca”d'Evagre le Pontique et l'histoire de L'Origénisme chez les Grecs et chez les Syriens (Paris, 1962), pp. 120–123.Google Scholar The Letter to Melania is preserved in two parts. Only the first part was known to Frankenberg and published by him in his edition of the Syriac translations of Evagrius's writings (Euagrius Ponticus. Abhandlungen der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, philologisch-historische Klasse, , n.s. 13, 2 (Berlin, 1912), pp. 612–619.Google Scholar The second part of the Letter was published (Syriac text, French translation) by Vitestam, Gösta, “Seconde Partie du traité, qui passe sous le nom de ‘Le Grand Lettre d'Evagre le Pontique a Mélanie l'Ancienne,’,‘” Scripta Minora 1963–1964(Lund, 1964), pp. 3–29.Google Scholar The entire letter in English translation, with commentary, was published by Parmentier, Martin, “Evagrius of Pontus'‘Letter to Melania,’“ Bijdragen tijdschrift voorfilosofie en theologie 46 (1985): 2–38.Google Scholar See also Guillaumont, , Les “Kephalaia Gnostica,” pp. 140–159.Google Scholar

20. Ponticus, Evagrius, Epistula fidei 3Google Scholar (PG 32:249); compare Kephalaia Gnostica Supplementurn 19 (Frankenberg, pp. 438–439):Google Scholar “difference”can pertain only to things with bodies; Kephalaia Gnostica 1:2; 5:62 (PO 28:17, 203): “opposition” comes from qualities, which pertain to the body and to creatures.

21. Evagrius Ponticus, De octo vitiosis cogitationibus (PG 40:1275).

22. Ponticus, Evagrius, Epistuta fidei 8Google Scholar (PG 32:261); Kephalaia Gnostica 6:20, 85; 1:58; 2:77; 3:66, 68; 6:58,81 (PO 28:225, 253, 45, 91, 125, 241, 251).

23. Ponticus, Evagrius, Epistula ad Melaniam 4 (Frankenberg, pp. 616–617; Parmentier, p. 12)Google Scholar. Ibid., 5; 6 (Frankenberg, pp. 616–617, 618–619; Parmentier, pp. 11–12, 12–13); compare these ideas to those in Kephalaia Gnostica 2:17, a sentence that Guillaumont thinks formed the basis for Anathema 14 of the Fifth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople (PO 28:67).

24. Ponticus, Evagrius, Epistula ad Melantam 9, 4, 6 (Frankenberg, pp. 614–615, 618–619;Google Scholar Parmentier, pp. 16–17, 11, 12).

25. Ponticus, Evagrius, Kephataia Gnostica 4:60;Google Scholar 62 (PO 28:163); 4:86 (PO 28:173); 4:34 (PO 28:231); 2:77; 3:66 (PO 28:91, 125).

26. For an analysis of the two Syriac versions, see Guillaumont, , Les “Kephalaia Gnostica,”esp. pp. 24–30;Google Scholar see also pp. 23–32, 166–170, 333–335.

27. Ponticus, Evagrius, Kephalaia Gnostica 4:85Google Scholar (PO 28:253).

28. Ponticus, Evagrius, Epistula ad Melaniam 9 (Parmentier, pp. 16–17,Google Scholar based on British Museum Ms. Add. 17192). Ibid., 4 (Frankenberg, pp. 614–615; Parmentier, p. 11). Ibid., 6 (Frankenberg, pp. 618–619; Parmentier, p. 12).

29. Ponticus, Evagrius, Kephalaia Gnostica 6:34Google Scholar (PO 28:231).

30. Ponticus, Evagrius, Scholia in Ecclesiasten 1:11Google Scholar (Sch. 3) (Géhin, Paul, “Un Nouvel Inédit d'Evagre le Pontique: son Commentaire de l'Ecclésiaste,” Byzantion 49 [1979]: 197).Google Scholar

31. Ponticus, Evagrius, Peri tōn oktō logismōn (Ethiopian version) 2 (Spies, pp. 220–221);Google Scholar compare De octo spinitibus malitiae 8 (PG 79:1153)Google Scholar (comparison of the avaricious man with the “idolmaker”).

32. Cassian, John, Conlationes 5 (SC 42:188–217);Google Scholar see also Hausherr, Irénée, “L'Origine de la théorie orientale des huit péchés capitaux,” Orientalia Chrzstiana 30 (1933): 165–166; 167–171.Google Scholar

33. Ibid., p. 171. Compare Evagrius, Ponticus, Skemmata 41–43Google Scholar (Muyldermans, , “Evagriana: Note Additionelle A,” p. 378).Google Scholar

34. Ponticus, Evagrius, De diversis malignis cogitationibus 1 (PG 79:1200);Google ScholarAntirrhetecus 2:48, 49 (Frankenberg, pp. 490–491); Practicus 15 (SC 171:536); De octo spiritibus malitiae 4 (PG 79:1148).Google Scholar

35. Ponticus, Evagrius, De diversis mahgnzs cogztationibus 1 (PG 79:1201).Google Scholar

36. Ponticus, Evagrius, De perfectione 16Google Scholar (Muyldermans, , “Evagre le Pontique, Les Capita Cognoscstiva” [Syriac, p. 102;Google Scholar French, p. 106]).

37. Evagrius, Ponticus, De diversis malignis cogitationibus 22 (PG 79:1225);Google ScholarRerum monachatturn rationes 4 (PG 40:1256).Google Scholar

38. Ponticus, Evagrius, Praticus 7 (SC 171:508–510);Google ScholarAntirrheticus 1:19, 33, 44, 56, 59 (Frankenberg, pp. 476–477, 478–479, 480–481, 482–483); Practicus 13 (SC 171:528).

39. Ponticus, Evagrius, Antirrheticus 2:49Google Scholar (Frankenberg, pp. 490–491); 7:1 (Frankenberg, p. 530); Practicus 14 (SC 171:532; De octo vitiosis cogitationibus (PG 40:1275).

40. Matthew 4:1–11; compare Luke 4:1–13. Evagrius provides scriptural passages with which to ward off each of the eight evil logismoi in his Antirrheticus.

41. A “scientific” theory accompanies the latter: demons gravitate to water. See Antirrheticus 2:22 (Frankenberg, pp. 488–489);Google ScholarDe humilitate (Muyldermans, , Evagriana Syriaca [Syriac, p. 112;Google Scholar French, p. 148]).

42. Ponticus, Evagrius, Epistulam ad Melaniam 7 (Parmentier, p. 14).Google Scholar

43. Evagrius Ponticus, De jejunio 8 (Muyldermans, , Evagriana Syriaca [Syriac, p. 116;Google Scholar French, p. 151]).

44. That one passion leads to another is a central aspect of Evagrius's teaching on the passions: De diversis malignis cogitationibus 1 (PG 79:1200);Google ScholarSententiae ad monachos 11 (TU 39:4, p. 154).Google Scholar

45. Ponticus, Evagrius, De perfectione 14 (Muyldermans, “Les Capita cognoscitiva” [Syriac, p. 105; French, p. 105])Google Scholar.

46. Ponticus, Evagrius, Practicus 15 (SC 171:536); Ep. 55, 3 (Frankenberg, pp. 602–603;Google Scholar Bunge, Briefe, p. 270).

47. Palladius, , Historia Lausiaca 38:11 (Butler 2:121).Google Scholar

48. Ponticus, Evagrius, in Cod. Paris. Graec. 913,Google Scholar no. 16 (Muyldermans, , “Evagriana: Note Additionelle A,” p. 375);Google ScholarKephalaia Gnostica 2:4 (PO 28:61, 63); compare Kephalaia Gnostica 2:6 (PO 28:63).

49. Ponticus, Evagrius, Kephalaia Gnostica 5:15Google Scholar (PO 28:183).

50. Guillaumont, , Les “Kephalaza Gnostica,” p. 61.Google Scholar

51. Epiphanius, , Ancoratus 116Google Scholar (GCS 25:144); 63 (GCS 25:75–76).

52. Dechow, , Dogma, pp. 248–251, 265–270.Google Scholar

53. Epiphanius, , Ancoratus 55, 58, 62 (GCS 25:64–65, 67–68, 74–75).Google Scholar Origen's fullest discussion of the “tunics of skins” is in his Commentary on Genesis, on verse 3:21 (PG 12:101). Epiphanius, , Ancoratus 87 (GCS 25:107–108).Google Scholar

54. Epiphanius, , Panarion 64, 4, 5 (GCS 312:409–410, 415);Google Scholar compare Origen, De principiis 1:1:1, 1:6, 1:8, 2:6 (GCS 22:16–17, 20–23, 24–26, 34–37). On Origen's use and understanding of ktisma, see Dechow, , Dogma, pp. 281–284.Google Scholar

55. Epiphanius, , Panarion 64:4Google Scholar (GCS 312:411–412). See Dechow, , Dogma, pp. 297–301.Google ScholarEpiphanius, , Panarion 64:17, 23Google Scholar (PG 41:1097); text differs from GCS.

56. See Crouzel, , “Doctrine origénienne,” pp. 241–257;Google Scholar followed by Dechow, , Dogma, pp. 373–384.Google Scholar

57. The letter is preserved in Latin translation by Jerome, (Ep. 51) (CSEL 54:395–412).Google Scholar

58. Epiphanius, , Epistula ad Johannem Episcopum (Jerome, Ep. 51) 4 (CSEL 54:402).Google Scholar

59. Epiphanius, , Panarion 66:56;Google Scholar 67:1; 2; 6 (GCS 372:92, 133–134. 138).

60. Jerome, , Adversus Jovinianum 1:5 (PL 23:225–226).Google Scholar

61. Epiphanius, , Epistula ad Johannem Episcopum (Jerome, Ep. 51) 4 (CSEL 54:402).Google Scholar

62. Ibid., 1 (CSEL 54:396–397).

63. Jerome, , Adversus Jovinianum 1:3Google Scholar (PL 23:223); 1:16 (PL 23:246).

64. Socrates, , Historia ecclesiastica 6:17Google Scholar (PG 67:716).

65. Theophilus, , Synodica epistula (Jerome, Ep. 92) 2 (CSEL 55:149);Google ScholarEpistula paschalis (401) (Jerome, Ep. 96) 5; 7 (CSEL 55:162–163, 164–165). Theophilus, Synodica epistula (Jerome, Ep. 92) 2 (CSEL 55:149); Epistula paschatis (401) (Jerome, Ep. 96) 8 (CSEL 55:165). Theophilus, Synodica epistula (Jerome, Ep. 92) 2 (CSEL 55:149), citing De oratione 15; Epistula paschalis (401) (Jerome, Ep. 96) 13 (CSEL 55:172): how is this to conquer the empire of death, Theophilus asks? Theophilus, Fragment 2, Epistula synodalis prima (Declerck, “Théophile,” pp. 505–506 [Greek]; pp. 506–507 [French]); Epistula paschalis (401) (Jerome, Ep. 96) 17 (CSEL 55:177); Epistula paschalis (402) (Jerome, Ep. 98) 10, 12 (CSEL 55:194–195).

66. Theophilus, Epistula paschalis (401) (Jerome, , Ep. 96) 18 (CSEL 55:177–179).Google Scholar

67. Theophilus, Epistula paschalis (401) (Jerome, , Ep. 96), 19 (CSEL 55:179);Google Scholar 20 (CSEL 55:180).

68. Theophilus, Epistula paschalis (404) (Jerome, , Ep. 100) 12 (CSEL 55:225–226).Google Scholar

69. Marcel Richard, “Nouveaux Fragments de Théophile d'Alexandrie,” Nachrichten dei Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen (1975), pp. 2, 58.Google Scholar

70. Theophilus, Fragment 11 (Richard, , “Nouveaux Fragments,” p. 65).Google Scholar

71. Theophilus, Epistula paschalis (401) (Jerome, Ep. 96) 18, and Epistula paschalis (404) (Jerome, , Ep. 100) 12 (CSEL 55:177–179, 225–226).Google Scholar

72. Especially in his Apologia contra Hieronymum; text in CCL 20:37–123.

73. Jerome, , Ep. 61:2Google Scholar (CSEL 54:577).

74. Jerome, , Ep. 48 (49):2Google Scholar (CSEL 54:347).

75. Jerome, , Adversus Jovinianum 1:3Google Scholar (PL 23:224); 1:3 (PL 23:223); 1:4 (PL 23:225); 1:8 (PL 23:231); 1:15 (PL 23:245); 1:8 (PL 23:232); 1:33 (PL 23:267); 2:31 (PL 23:342–343).

76. Ibid., 2:18 (PL 23:326–327); 2:21, 33, 35 (PL 23:329, 345, 349); 2:18 (PL 23:326); 2:23 (PL 23:333); 2:25 (PL 23:336); 2:33 (PL 23:344).

77. Ibid., 2:32 (PL 23:344).

78. Ibid., 2:27 (PL 23:338); see Genesis 28:12.

79. Text in CCL 76.

80. Jerome, , In lonam (CCL 76:407–408,Google Scholar on Jonah 3:6–9).

81. Jerome, , Ep. 84:7Google Scholar (CSEL 55:129).

82. Jerome, , Apologia 2:12 (SC 303:134).Google Scholar

83. Brown, Peter, The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York, 1988), p. 380.Google Scholar