Theophilus of Alexandria and the First Origenist Controversy. Rhetoric and Power

121 Pages·2015·12.46 MB·English

by  Krastu Banev

THE OXFORD EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES series includes scholarly
Theophilus of
volumes on the thought and history of the early Christian centuries. Cov
ering a wide range of Greek, Latin, and Oriental sources, the books are of
interest to theologians, ancient historians, and specialists in the classical and Alexandria and the First
Jewish worlds.
Titles in the series include:
Origenist Controversy
Christ in the Life and Teaching of Gregory of Nazianzus
Andrew Hofer, O.P. (2013)
Ascetic Pneumatology from John Cassian to Gregory the Great
Thomas L. Humphries Jr. (2013)
Rhetoric and Power
Contemplation and Classical Christianity
A Study in Augustine
John Peter Kenney (2013)
The Canons of Our Fathers
Monastic Rules ofS henoute
KRASTU BANEV
Bentley Layton (2014)
Gregory of Nyssa's Tabernacle Imagery
in its Jewish and Christian Contexts
Ann Conway-Jones (2014)
John Chrysostom on Divine Pedagogy
The Coherence of his Theology and Preaching
David Rylaarsdam (2014)
Cyril of Alexandria's Trinitarian Theology of Scripture
Matthew R. Crawford (2014)
The Practical Christology of Philoxenos of Mabbug
David A. Michelson (2014)
Law and Legality in the Greek East
The Byzantine Canonical Tradition 381-883
David Wagschal (2014)
Debates Over the Resurrection of the Dead
Constructing Early Christian Identity
Outi Lehtipuu (2015)
The Role of Death in the Ladder ofD ivine Ascent
and the Greek Ascetic Tradition OXFORD
Jonathan L. Zecher (2015)
UNIVERSITY PRESS
OXFORD
UNIVERSITY PRESS
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6Dp,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of For Esther and for our children,
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
Liliana, Anastasia, and Symeon
© Krastu Banev 2015
The moral rights of the author have been asserted &
First Edition published in 2015 To the bright memory of my father,
Impression: 2
Krassimir Banev (1941-1996)
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2014947501
ISBN 978-0-19-872754-5
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CRa 4YY
Links to third party web sites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford,disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
Acknowledgements
This page celebrates the culmination of a journey that began in Sofia,
where my father Krassimir Banev shared with me his fascination with
the world of classical antiquity and spoke, with a moving foresight, of
something quite impossible in those communist years, namely, that I
should complete my education 'in the West: He did not live to see my
matriculation at Cambridge but I have always felt that his prayer had
been answered in my life, and it is therefore fitting that I dedicate this
book to his memory.
In Cambridge, I am particularly grateful to Dr Thomas Graumann,
who led me with alternating-and now fondly remembered-patience
and strictness through the maze of graduate research. I am also grate
ful to Metropolitan Kallistos Ware who, together with the then prin
cipal of the Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies in Cambridge,
Fr John Jillions, acted as referees for my scholarship applications to
the AHRC and Trinity College, the two organizations whose financial
assistance made my research possible. At an earlier stage of my work,
Dr Norman Russell shared with me the manuscript of his book on
Theophilus where I could consult his translations of the key sources.
The research was carried out in the University Library and the libraries
of Tyndale House and Trinity College, all in Cambridge.
It was at Durham, however, where a team of friendly and supportive
colleagues appointed me to a lectureship and granted me several re
search leaves, that I was able to complete the book.
Thanks are also due to the scholars who at various stages offered
comments on my work: Prof. Malcolm Heath, Prof. Lewis Ayres, Prof.
Lorenzo Perrone, Prof. Marcus Plested, Dr Mihail Neamtu, Dr Ste
phen Thomas, Dr Yulia Konstantinovsky, the anonymous reader, and
the publishing staff at Oxford University Press. Many thanks to Kim
Richardson for the copyediting and to Dany Christopher for his help
with the preparation of the indices. Francis Garcia and Nicholas Birch
read patiently through earlier drafts for errors of language and style.
Those that remain, linguistic or other, are my own.
At OUp, I am indebted to Professors Gillian Clark and Andrew
Louth for accepting the manuscript for publication, and to Professor
Louth for his invaluable help during the final revision.
viii Acknowledgements
I have been greatly blessed to have been surrounded by inspiring
teachers and friends. I recall here in particular the late Fr Symeon and
Contents
the Community of St John the Baptist in Essex; my first English hosts
Hugh and Fiona Boucher in Kent; Irina Pavlovna, Dr Peter Petkoff,
and Dr Dimitri and Danae Conomos in Oxford; Dr Symeon Menne
and Dr Konstantina Maragkou, Tony and Sarah Polibiou, Nicholas Introduction: Why Study the First Origenist
and Mirona Meade, and Dr Emmanuelle Lionis-all from our 'Cam Controversy Again? 1
bridge group'; the family of Rajpal Chaudry and Dr Sunita Kumari
PART I. THEOPHILUS OF ALEXANDRIA
now in Singapore; and the Sokolov family in Durham. To these named
AND THE ORIGENIST CONTROVERSY
and to many others not named, I owe a great debt of gratitude.
My family in Bulgaria, Greece, and in England have all shown a 1. Historical Background 9
combination of compassion, understanding, patience, and love dur (a) Distant Prehistory 11
ing the years that saw the preparation of this book. My heartfelt 'thank (b) Immediate Prehistory 13
you' to each and all: 6rraro.n;apH BJ1 OT c'bPQe!
2. Theological Issues 19
(a) Theophilus' Origenism and the Evagrian Heritage 23
(b) The 'Elusive Anthropomorphites' at the time
of Theophilus 29
3. The Anti-Origenist Councils of 400 35
(a) Violence in the Desert 42
(b) The Condemnation of Origen 44
PART II. BACKGROUND FOR THE ANALYSIS
OF THEOPHILUS' RHETORIC
4. Classical Rhetoric and Christian Paideia 53
(a) Rhetoric and the Early Church 54
(b) Mass Persuasion in the Fifth Century: The Case
ofTheophilus' Festal Letters 66
(c) Jerome and Synesius on Theophilus' Letters 72
5. Classical Rhetoric: Theoretical Foundations 81
(a) Aristotle's Art ofR hetoric 83
(b) The Progymnasmata Tradition 89
( c) The Hermogenic Corpus 95
PART III. ANALYSIS OF THEOPHILUS'
RHETORIC
6. Rhetorical Proofs from Pathos, Ethos, and Logos 107
(a) Emotional Appeal 108
(b) Ethical Appeal 122
x Contents
(c) Logical Appeal 130
(d) Theophilus' Teachers 144
7. Rhetorical Proofs from Liturgy and Scripture 150 Introduction: Why Study the First Origenist
PART IV. THE MONASTIC RECEPTION Controversy Again?
OF THEOPHILUS' RHETORIC
8. The Value of Monastic Sources 165
(a) Rhetorically Important Themes in the Apophthegmata 168
(b) The Ambiguous Place of Heresy 177
In the age of the Theodosian dynasty, when Christianity was made
9. The Image ofTheophilus in the Apophthegmata 182 the only legitimate religion of the Roman Empire, few figures were
more pivotal in the power politics of the Christian church than arch
Review of the Argument and Epilogue 192
bishop Theophilus of Alexandria (385-412). The present monograph
pioneers a contextualized literary-historical approach in offering new
Bibliography 201
insights into the life and reputation of this remarkable figure. It ex
Index of Scriptures 223
amines the Festal Letters of Theophilus and identifies the importance
General Index 225
of classical rhetorical theory as a methodological tool for the inter
pretation of relevant historical data. The discussion is focused on the
so-called First Origenist Controversy, the condemnation of Origen
in 400 in Alexandria, the punishment of his monastic followers, and
their expulsion from the Egyptian desert.1 The long historical record
which fills the time separating scholars today from these past events
is populated by friends and enemies of Origen who have bequeathed
to posterity numerous radically different accounts seeking either to
defend or to condemn him.2 As is well known, the historian Eusebius
had remembered him as an exemplary Christian who had died as a re
sult of the 'dreadful cruelties he endured for the word of Christ' during
the Decian persecution (c.251).3 In the early fifth century, however,
this positive appraisal was reversed and Origen received a formal con
demnation for heresy at a pan-Egyptian council presided over by the
archbishop Theophilus. Far from being the 'orthodox and believing
1 'First' to distinguish it from the 'Second' when Origen was again discussed, and
condemned, at the highest level in the sixth century. E. Clark, The Origenist Contro
versy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate (Princeton, NJ, 1992).
D. Hombergen, The Second Origenist Controversy: A New Perspective on Cyril of
Scythopolis' Monastic Biographies as Historical Sources for Sixth-Century Origenism
(Rome, 2001).
2 Summarized in M. Fedou, La Sagesse et Ie monde: Essai sur la christologie d'Origene
(Paris, 1995), 373-414.
3 Eusebius, The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine, trans. G. A. Wil
liamson, ed. A. Louth (London, 1989), Book 6, ch. 39.
2 Introduction Introduction 3
Christian' carefully reconstructed by modern scholars,4 Origen was questions.9 The claim here, in other words, is that later generations,
condemned here in exactly the opposite terms, as the teacher of every that of Theophilus included, had failed to understand both Origen's
theological error or, in the words of Theophilus, as the 'hydra of all quest and his answers as belonging exclusively to discussions in his
heresies'.5 own third century, when there were still large sections on the theologi
In terms of historical accuracy, Origen's condemnation presents a cal map awaiting their first cartographer. Thus, Origen had suffered at
problem of the first magnitude, as virtually all modern scholars have the hands of people engaged in a deplorably anachronistic reading of
now reached an agreement that he cannot be considered guilty of the his works. It is this lack of historical awareness that caused the con
charges raised against him after his death.6 As an illustration of the in demnation of Origen's theological explorations as incompatible with
tensity of this conviction on the part of modern defenders of Origen's the later codification of imperial orthodoxy. Yet, if it were possible
innocence, we may quote the forceful conclusion of Michel Fedou: 'He to imagine a Theophilus forgetting what Origen had actually said, it
had never presented Christ as a simple intellect ... He had never ac would not follow that those who accepted the patriarch's judgement
cepted that Christ should be considered as a creature among other had also forgotten the true words of the great teacher. Or simply put, it
creatures ... He had never preached the slightest separation between is not methodologically sound to presume that a whole generation was
Christ and the Word:7 This passionate defence is said with regard to suffering from amnesia. If the condemnation was an unjust one, why
the sixth-century accusations but Fedou's verdict on the earlier accu was it accepted? When we consider, in other words, how Theophilus
sations by Theophilus is identical, although less vigorously expressed: put the blame squarely on Origen, what we will be asking is why and
in their majority, the charges are entirely 'foreign' to the inner coher how this presentation was accepted by the fifth -century church.
ence of Origen's thought. 8 When trying to explain the root cause of This question has not been examined by scholars, whose approaches
the various accusations, Fedou attributed it to the 'forgetfulness' on have been too narrowly fixated on Theophilus' tainted reputation. Gi
the part of his accusers; they no longer knew how to read Origen's useppe Lazzati and Agostino Favale, for example, who authored the
works as the exercises of a 'researcher' engaging in new ways with new first scholarly biographies of Theophilus in the twentieth century,
both dismissed his anti -Origenist efforts as political machinations
on the part of an evil church leader.lo Their conclusions rehearse the
old argument of one of Theophilus' fifth-century opponents, Palla
dius of Helenopolis, who called him a~upaAAa~ ('weathercock').l1 This
4 J. Quasten, Patrology, 3 vols (Utrecht, 1962), vol. 2, 40: 'It was Origen's destiny to appellation, as Demetrios Katos has recently shown, was part of a
be a sign of contradiction during his lifetime as well as after his death. There is hardly
carefully constructed forensic argument intended to slander the pa
anyone who made so many friends or so many enemies. True, he committed errors, but
no one can doubt but that he always wanted to be an orthodox and believing Christian: triarch's character and portray his whole career as aimed solely at his
5 Theophilus, Festal Letter of 402: 'Sciant igitur se huius sollemnitatis alienos non
posse celebrare nobiscum domincam passionem, qui Origenem-ut loquar aliquid de
fabulis poetarum-hydram omnium sequuntur haereseon et erroris se habere mag
istrum et principem gloriantur: preserved in Jerome's Latin translation as Ep. 98:9; in
1. Hilberg (ed.), Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi epistulae, vol. 2, CSEL 55 (Vienna, 1912), 193. 9 Fedou, La Sagesse et Ie monde, 383: 'Sans doute avait-on pour une part oubHe que,
N. Russell, Theophilus ofA lexandria (London, 2007),124. Unless otherwise indicated, sur certaines questions encore debattues dans la premiere moitie du IIIe siecle, l'auteur
throughout the monograph I have used his translations, which are referenced as ET in du Peri ArchOn n'avait pas pretendu apporter des conclusions definitives mais avait
Russell, Theophilus. seulement voulu proposer des hypotheses de recherche:
6 For a recapitulation oft his development, see H. Crouzel, 'Les Condamnations sub 10 G. Lazzati, Teofilo diUessandria (Milan, 1935),82: 'La lotta conclusa, possiamo
ies par Origene et sa doctrine: in U. Kiihneweg (ed.), Origeniana septima (Leuven, dire che Ie armi di Teofilo ottennero ottimi risultati ed esse rimangono testimonianza
1999),311-15. sicura del carattere del nostro ... Ci voleva infatti una mente ricca di risorse quale e
7 Fedou, La Sagesse et Ie monde, 391: 'Jamais celui-ci [Le. OrigenJ n'avait presente Ie quella del nostro per far dire ad Origene simili enormita: Two decades later, the patri
Christ comme un simple intellect ... Jamais il n'avait admis que Ie Christ flit considere arch's arguments were again rejected as simply 'interessate deduzione polemiche aliene
comme une creature parmi d'autres ... Jamais il n'avait etabli la moindre separation alIa mente di Origene: A. Favale, Teofilo d'Alessandria (Turin, 1958), 183.
entre Ie Christ et Ie Verbe: 11 Greek text in Palladius, Dialogus de vita Joannis Chrysostomi (Cambridge, 1928),
8 Fedou, La Sagesse et Ie monde, 383: 'etrangeres a sa pensee profonde'. 6. ET in R. T. Meyer, Dialogue on the Life ofS t. John Chrysostom (New York, 1985),41.
4 Introduction Introduction 5
own personal gain, in terms of both political ambition and monetary ideology and power were combined in the hands of single men to pro
reward.12 Palladius was ultimately very successful in shaping histori duce the most hideous results. Yet, research into twentieth-century
IS
cal memory and his argument has travelled unchecked through the totalitarian leadership is not content with simplifying explanations of
centuries. Theophilus has been described in similar terms in English the kind that 'evil men' do 'evil deeds'. Rather, the need to investigate
scholarship beginning with Edward Gibbon, who labelled him 'the the reasons behind the support that totalitarian leaders received from
perpetual enemy of peace and virtue, a bold, bad man, whose hands their own people is generally acknowledged. In the same way, the cur
were alternately polluted with gold and with blood: 13 More recently, rents defining the social and political climate ofTheophilus' time pro
he has been portrayed as 'the artful and violent patriarch of Alexan vide the necessary backdrop for the apparent 'success' of his actions. If
dria' a sorry figure of a bishop' (Johannes Quasten);14 as 'a man of huge in the study of twentieth -century totalitarian regimes, where we see a
ambition, eager to enforce his authority by whatever means he could' similar identification of ideology and power, the importance of 'mass
{Owen Chadwick).15 These remarks are echoed in Jerome's English manipulation' has been fully realized, in the period under discussion
biographer, John Kelly, who although recognizing the patriarch's there is a clear need for a study that will focus on Theophilus' use of
anti-Origenist letters as 'magnificently eloquent in their indictment rhetorical argumentation. Beside a somewhat instinctive drive against
of Origenism: still dismissed them because 'the theses selected were the man, what all negative assessments of Theophilus have in common
often absurdly distorted: 16 For Elizabeth Clark, his campaign against is a marked reserve to address with appropriate rigour the question
Origenism was merely 'a foil for his political machinations:17 which is central to the present inquiry, namely why such a 'distorted'
Set in the context of the emerging new alliance between the impe presentation of Origen was constructed in the first place, and why it
rium of Rome and the sacerdotium of the church-where bishops were could find any reception in the fifth-century church.
called to exercise the immense powers conferred on the church by the The investigation which follows is made possible by scholarly ad
new imperial legislation of Theodosius I {379-95)-the charges of vances on several fronts. These include, firstly, a renewed awareness
evil-natured leadership, mass amnesia, and wilful miscarriage of jus of the rhetorical character of our sources;19 secondly, a more accu
tice raised against Theophilus and his generation acquire some partic rate appraisal of the relationships between monks and bishops as the
ularly grim qualities. More than just a testimony of the evil character emerging leaders in the late antique city;20 and, thirdly, a more refined
of a church leader, they seem to foretell the first dark steps of a totali presentation of the intrinsic complexity of early Egyptian monasti
tarian shadow creeping over the lives of many a generation to come. cism.21 Above all, however, my analysis draws on the seminal contribu
Indeed, it has been suggested that the spell cast by this shadow has tions of Norman Russell, to whose labours we are indebted for the first
continued even until our own days with the Nazi 'experiment: where ever complete presentation and translation of the works ofTheophilus
22
in a single volume. In assessing the overall agenda of the patriarch,
Russell has mounted a convincing argument for a consistent policy
12 On Palladius' hostile attitude towards Theophilus, see D. Katos, Palladius of Hel
lenopolis (Oxford, 2011), and D. Katos, 'Socratic Dialogue or Courtroom Debate? Ju
dicial Rhetoric and Stasis Theory in the Dialogue on the Life of St. John Chrysostom: 18 C. Mango, Byzantium: The Empire ofN ew Rome (New York, 1980), 135.
Vigiliae Christianae, 6111 (2007): 42-69. The accusation of simony with which Pal 19 On this key development, see now Katos, Palladius.
ladius crowns the argument in his Dialogue is discussed by S. Acerbi, 'Palladio contro 20 Programmatic here remains the earlier work of P. Rousseau, Ascetics, Authority,
Teofilo: Una testimonianza sull' episcopato del tempo attraverso un' accusa di simonia, and the Church in the Age of Jerome and Cassian (Oxford, 1978). Recent discussions
Vescovi e pastori in epoca teodosiana (Rome, 1997), vol. 2, 371-81. in: E. Rebillard and C. Sotinel (eds), Leveque dans la cite du IVe au Ve siecle: Image et
13 E. Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (2nd edn 1776, repro Lon- autorite (Rome, 1998); M. F. Patrucco, 'Bishops and Monks in Late Antique SOciety:
don, 1993), vol. 1, 103. ZeitschriJt fur Antikes Christentum, 8/2 (2004): 332-45.
14 Quasten, Patrology, vol. 3, 100-6. 21 For collections of seminal articles, see E. Wipszycka, Etudes sur Ie christianisme
15 O. Chadwick, John Cassian, 2nd edn (Cambridge, 1968), 34. dans I'Egypte de l'antiquite tardive (Rome, 1996); J. Goehring, Ascetics, Society, and the
16 J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (London, 1975),261. Desert: Studies in Early Egyptian Monasticism (Harrisburg, 1999); as well as the papers
Kelly's Theophilus was also 'powerful, ambitious, and entirely ruthless, more interested presented at the 2011 Oxford Patristic Conference, in S. Rubenson (ed.), Early Monas
in power politics than in dogmatic trutn, 243. ticism and Classical Paideia (Leuven, 2013).
17 Clark, The Origenist Controversy, 9,105-20. 22 Russell, Theophilus ofA lexandria.
6 Introduction
aimed at harnessing the energy of the monastic movement to serve
the wider need of the church.23 In what follows, I shall build upon this
argument by means of a detailed examination of what I see as the two
key ingredients in the pastoral polemic of the archbishop-masterly
use of the conventions of Hellenistic oratory, and in -depth knowledge
Part I
of current monastic ideas-both of which, I will argue, were vital for
securing the eventual acceptance of Origen's condemnation.
The monograph is divided into four parts. The first will introduce
Theophilus of Alexandria and the
the background by highlighting the fact that prior to Theophilus' com
ing to the historical scene the legacy of Origen had already become a Origenist Controversy
prize topic for debate. The patriarch's pre-eminence here comes from
the fact that he was the first to succeed in persuading the church as
a whole to agree to his reservations. The pages that follow will seek
to explain how this aggressively negative interpretation could acquire
the status of universally accepted position. The second and the third
parts will advance the main hypothesis of the research, namely that
the wide circulation and overt rhetorical composition of Theophilus'
anti-Origenist letters allow for a new reading of these documents as a
form of 'mass media' unique for its time. The rhetorical analysis here
will focus on Theophilus' letter to Epiphanius in 400 and the Synodal
Letter after Origen's condemnation at the Nitrian synod of 400, as well
as the three main Festal Letters for the years 401,402, and 404 respec
tively which cover the subsequent controversy.24 As we shall see in the
final (fourth) part, these documents offer a strong basis for the claim
that the eventual acceptance of the condemnation of Origen should be
related to the success with which the patriarch had managed to meet
the expectations of his audience, and especially of the monks who in
this case formed such an important majority.
23 N. Russell, 'Theophilus and Cyril of Alexandria on the Divine Image: A Consist
ent Episcopal Policy towards the Origenism of the Desert?: in L. Perrone (ed.), Orige-
~" niana octava (Leuven, 2003), 939-46. N. Russell, 'Bishops and Charismatics in Early
Christian Egypt: in J. Behr, A. Louth, and D. EConomos (eds), Abba: The Tradition of
Orthodoxy in the West: Festschrift for Bishop Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia (Crestwood,
N.Y., 2003), 99-110. N. Russell, 'Theophilus of Alexandria as a Forensic Practitioner:
Studia Patristica, 50 (2011), 235-43.
24 On the corpus ofTheophilus, see the entries 2580-684 in M. Geerard (ed.), Clavis
patrum graecorum, vol. 2 (Turnhout, 1974), and the updates in vol. 6: Supplementum
(1998). The key anti-Origenist letters have reached us in Jerome's translations with only
a few fragments of the original Greek, in Jerome, Epistulae 90, 92, 96, 98, 100, Latin text
in Hilberg (ed.), CSEL 55,143-5,147-55,159-81,185-211,213-32. ET and commen
tary in Russell, Theophilus, 89-159. On Jerome's role as a translator, see Chapter 4 (c).
1
Historical Background
Before we embark on our exploration of the fate of Origen at the hands of
the patriarch Theophilus, we must review the background to the Origen
ist Controversy before the end of the fourth century. This is needed be
cause during the long period starting in Origen's lifetime (c.185-c.251)
and up until the first synodal condemnation, which he was to receive
from his own Alexandrian church in 400, a number of voices had been
raised alternately to accuse and to defend him. I turn my attention to
these early voices for two main reasons, rhetorical and historical. My first
aim will be to demonstrate that the matter of Origen was inescapably
rhetorical from the start. This will be argued with reference to the foren
sic structure of the earlier debates involving the genre of apologia. My
contention here will be that by the end of the fourth century the matter
of Origen had become a prize rhetorical tapas. Once this is established, I
shall turn to the evaluation of the role of the patriarch Theophilus, who
took it upon himself to assess and reinvest a large portion of this inherit
ance into the fortunes of his own fifth -century church. Here I shall be
pursuing my second, historical, aim to show that there were genuine the
ological and pastoral concerns propelling Theophilus into action. This
combination of historical and rhetorical evidence will allow us to grasp
more fully the role played by the archbishop both as an important ec
clesiasticalleader and, as scholarship especially by Norman Russell has
recently demonstrated, an experienced practitioner of forensic rhetoric
in his own right. 1 As the discussion progresses, these initial findings will
become the springboard for the analysis of Theophilus' letters, which
will provide a key to the rhetorical relevance of his arguments.
1 Russell, 'Theophilus of Alexandria as a Forensic Practitioner', Russell's argument
develops the important inSights of Caroline Humfress, Orthodoxy and the Courts (Ox
ford,2007),
10 Theophilus and the Origenist Controversy Historical Background 11
We begin by revisiting the list of Theophilus' anti-Origenist prede charged rhetorical context in which we have to situate the condem
cessors. The only condemnation that Origen received in his lifetime nation by Theophilus, in whose time the debates centre on issues of
was in relation to his ordination to the priesthood by the bishops The doctrine, the detail of the irregularity of Origen's ordination being no
octistus of Caesarea and Alexander of Jerusalem. All sources agree longer mentioned. I I
that while Origen was not accused of any doctrinal heresy, he was Thus before Theophilus steps on to the scene, we can divide the
reprimanded on disciplinary grounds, the issue being that he had ac prehistory to the controversy into two parts:I2 the first dealing with
cepted to be ordained abroad without the consent of his own bishop, the debates prior to 393 (the beginning of the inquisitorial legacy of
Demetrius of Alexandria, who consequently defrocked him.2 Attacks Epiphanius), and the second examining the role of the Cypriot bishop
on issues of doctrine began in the early fourth century, from which
during the years 393-9 and its effects on the Palestine ofJohn ofJeru
time we have two lists of accusations, from Peter of Alexandria3 and
salem, Rufinus, and Jerome. In what follows we shall revisit the main
4
Methodius of Olympus. Pamphilus and Eusebius wrote in defence,s
turning points in these earlier stages by paying special attention to the
as well as the author of the anonymous Apology mentioned by Pho
rhetorical structure of the debates. As we go along, I shall retain a pref
tius.6 Then came the attacks by Eustathius of Antioch,7 Epiphanius,8 erence for calling Origen the magister, or the common teacher. This is
and the later Jerome,9 countered by the defence of Rufinus.Io These
because the exclusive focus of these later debates on his work confirms
lists of names indicate a sequence of transformations which take place
Origen's role as a 'progenitor' of orthodox doctrine for all parties con
in the succession of debates over Origen's heritage. An attentive read I3
cerned right up to, and including, Theophilus of Alexandria.
ing of each one of them would show the important role played by rhe
torical conventions that inform and condition the pronouncements
of the chief protagonists. When taken all together, they provide the
(A) DISTANT PREHISTORY
2 Eusebius, HE, 6, 8, 4-5; Jerome, Ep. 33 (Jerome still pro-Origenist at the time);
Photius, Bibl., 118 [Bekker, 92a-93a] quoting from a lost chapter from Pamphilus' Apo The first real tensions over Origen's legacy begin with Methodius of
logia pro Origene; in R. Henry (ed.), Photius, Bibliotheque, vol. 2.
Olympus, whose treatise On the Resurrection included a selection of
3 A later legend, this book of Acts has been used to reconstruct the anti-Origenist I4
attitudes at the time. What is explicitly attacked is Origen's alleged denial of the resur Origenist propositions with the purpose of refuting them. In the
rection body as identical with the present body. See discussion in J. F. Dechow, Dogma process of his counter-argumentation, however, Methodius has been
and Mysticism in Early Christianity: Epiphanius of Cyprus and the Legacy of Origen accused of misinterpreting the views of the magister.Is In so doing
(Leuven,1988),108.
Cf. L. G. Patterson, Methodius of Olympus: Divine Sovereignty, Human Freedom
4 Theophilus does mention a condemnation ofOrigen by his predecessor at Alex
and Life in Christ (Washington, DC, 1997), chs 5 and 6. 11
andria Heraclas but again only on doctrinal grounds. Greek text in J. Declerck, 'Theo
5 Pamphilus and Eusebius of Caesaria, Apologia pro Origene (interpretatione phile d'Alexandrie contre Origene: Nouveaux fragments de l'E pistula Synodalis Prima
RufinO. Apologie pour Origene. Texte critique, traduction et notes par R. Amacker (CPG 2595): Byzantion, 54 (1984): 503. ET in Russell, Theophilus, 92. On Theophilus'
et E. Junod, SC 464 (Paris, 2002),1-10.
use of this reference for the construction of his own rhetorical ethos, see Chapter 6 (b).
Possibly by Didymus or one of his circle, cf. Photius, Bibl. 117 [Bekker, 91 b-92a l;
6 For fuller accounts of the historical background, without in-depth analysis of
in R. Henry (ed.), Photius, Bibliotheque (Paris, 1959-77 [1991 index vol. by J. Schamp l), the1 2r hetorical character of the sources, see Dechow, Dogma and Mysticism in Early
vol. 2, 89-90.
Christianity. For the period preceding 393 and Epiphanius' activity, see J. F. Dechow,
De engasrimytho contra Origenem (PG 18:613A-673C). A. Jahn, Des H. Eus
7 'The Heresy Charges against Origen, in L. Lies (ed.), Origeniana quarta (Innsbruck,
tathius Erzbischops von Antiochien: Beurtheilung des Origenes, betreffend die Auffssung
1987), 112-22. These are now superseded by Clark, The Origenist Controversy. Italian
der Wahrsagerin 1. Kon. (Sam.) 28 und die bezugliche Homilie des Origenes, Texte und
contributions of note include M. Simonetti, 'La controversia origeniana: Caratteri et
Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, vol. 2/4 (Leipzig, 1886).
significato: Augustinianum, 26 (1986): 7-31. Simonetti's views are further developed in
Ancoratus, 49, 1-75, 8; Haer. 64 (esp. 64, 4.3-11, seven charges), Jerome, Ep.
8 E. Prinzivalli, Magister Ecclesiae (Rome, 2002).
51 :4 -7 (list of eight charges).
M. Edwards, Catholicity and Heresy in the Early Church (Farnham, 2009), 8.
Contra Ioannem, 7 (PL 23:376B-377 A-repetition of Epiphanius' eight charges), 13
Ep. 96 1:2, Ep. 84:5. 14 Cf. discussion in Prinzivalli, Magister Ecclesiae, 85-104.
Pamphilus and Eusebius of Caesaria, Apologia pro Origene, I, 4-10, 13, 16-19, 15 J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (London and New York, 2000), 471ff.
10 H. Crouzel, 'Origen, in A. Di Berardino (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Early Church (Cam
23-36,38-43.IL2~46-~ bridge, 1992),622-4.