"... the abundance of sources, the detail of narrative, and particularly the range of social milieux that we know for these parts of late antiquity make ... of much broader interest. Elizabeth Clark has re-excavated and re-told the story...
more"... the abundance of sources, the detail of narrative, and particularly the range of social milieux that we know for these parts of late antiquity make ... of much broader interest. Elizabeth Clark has re-excavated and re-told the story with economy and vigor, but with an eye for the wider social implications and the longer-range doctrinal ones." James O'Donnell
Prologue to the controversy
If the Origenist controversy could be traced back to the writings of any one, other than Origen himself, then, there is much evidence that leads to his greatest student, Evagrius Ponticus. During 381 Evagrius studied under Gregory Nazianzen, Origen closest pupil, until forced to leave Constantinople joining Rufinas of Aquileia in a monastery near Jerusalem, before moving to Nitria south-east of lake Mariotis, where he lived with the wise men in the desert of Nitria and Kellia, west of the Nile delta. Although the teachings of Origen were attacked by Epiphanius of Salamis, earlier in 374, the controversy itself did not fully develop until the 390's when Evagrius published works began to be read by the Egyptian monks of Scetes.
Many of Evagrius' themes would soon become the center of the Anthropomorphic controversy: God cannot be defined or spoken of with human words, "Let what is inexplicable be worshipped in silence." The image of God is no longer accessible by man, the Divine is free from qualifying, even thoughts are inherently sinful (imaginations or visualization of God are heretical), the physical ceremony of the Eucharist is defective,and so on. There is much evidence that the Origenism which Epiphanius, Theophilus of Alexandria, and Jerome fought against at the turn of the fifth century was an extreme version iterated by Evagrius.
Historical Background
Theophilus, the Archbishop of the Great city of Alexandria, wrote in 399, a letter defending the Origenist position, to be read among the Egyptian monks. Theophilus' paschal letter objected to those who taught that God was corporal, "No, our feebleness is not God's image." At hearing this, the simple monks flocked to Alexandria, rioting in the streets, even threatening to kill Theophilus.The Patriarch quickly reversed himself, telling the monks that, "In seeing you, I behold the face of God." Theophilus' sudden switch was the catalyst for a series of events that led to the condemnation of Origen writings. The intellectual Origenist monks of the Egyptian desert did not accept Bishop Theophilus' condemnations. John Cassian and Germanus fled the controversy provoked by Theophilus, with about 300 other Origenist monks, who continued to practice their beliefs in Palestine and Syria into the sixth century when a series of events drove Origenism underground for good.
The Origenist Controversy
In her book The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate Elizabeth Clark notes the interconnection of some leading church figures during the late fourth century. She describes the direct influence the radical teachings of Evagrius to those of Pelagius and Juliun of Eclenum. This group of Origenist clergymen whose connection was not limited to reading the same books, but rather a close intellectual group made up of like minded thinkers living within a few days journey of one another. Unfortunately John Chrysostom, the great orator of Constantinople, found himself within this net with the Tall brothers, becoming guilty by association - rather than thought, to later justify his brutal dismissal from his see, going himself in exile before the whole controversy ended.
Restoration of all things
The idea, usually attributed, perhaps erroneously, to Origen. Since the soul is essentially rational, argued Origen, it will eventually be restored to the divine truth, salvation will follow. The word Origen used to describe this process of universal salvation "restoration of all things," was apokatastasis. Prompted by his idea of the pre-existence of souls, Origen may have come to view the mission of the temporal Church as "a gathering up of all lost, fallen souls into a unity resembling that which subsisted primordially." Apokatastasis, may be viewed as restoration, the culmination of gathering souls in a unity of faith.
Mystics in the Church still seeking union with God, followed Origen continued to pursue divinization, notwithstanding Church councils. But the Christian mystics were continually dogged by charges of heresy. At the same time while rejecting Apokatastasis, the Latin Church was accepting original sin, a doctrine that made it even more difficult for mystics to practice. Since Origen proposed his breaking through hope, some of the Church Fathers, including Gregory of Nyssa, and Didymus the Blind held for apokatastasis, universal restoration and salvation of all.
Controversy's Aftermath
Ultimately Emperor Justinian who provoked the condemnations of Origen was compelled to respond to this teaching through a Church council. "If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of the devils and of evil men is for a time and that there will be an end of it at some time, or that there will be a restoration [apokatastasis] of the devils and evil men, anathema sit." This condemnation, directed at those labeled "Origenists" and moved at the initiation of the Emperor Justinian, was adopted in 543 a provincial Synod in Constantinople. Hans von Balthasar charges that when writing and speaking of hell, "the great man, to whom posterity owes so much, did not do that within the limits laid down by the Gospel." Not only has the great saint (Origen) left with "the boulder of the Augustinian hell"
A Compelling review
James O'Donnell, U. of Pennsylvania, fine review stressed the importance of Professor Clark's work, "The 'Origenist controversy' is at heart the story over a very few years of a broken friendship, between Jerome and Rufinus, over the Latin translation and censorship of the writings of the abundantly learned Alexandrian theologian of the third century -- already a long-dead worthy in their time. Origen became a touchstone for questions surrounding both doctrine and the management of doctrine through texts. In the late fourth century, Latin Christianity was just acquiring for the first time a library, a collection of venerable writings beyond The Writings of scripture, that needed to be coped with somehow. Origen was too powerful to be ignored, and too dangerous to be swallowed whole.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some Thoughts on the Anthropomorphite Controversy,
The Form of God and Vision of the Glory:
Cassian tells us that in three of the four churches at Scete the priests refused to read the patriarch's letter aloud, while Socrates and Sozomen report a mob of angry ascetics converging on the patriarchal residence bent on lynching the offending prelate. Although both historians leave the reader with the impression that they would have quite liked to see Theophilus dangling from the nearest lamp-post, neither evinces any sympathy for the views of the protesting monks. The latter are portrayed rather as ignoramuses whose naivte regarding both biblical interpretation and ecclesiastical politics allows the cunning patriarch to use their anger against his enemies in the Egyptian church, notably the Origenist "Tall Brothers" and their associates. According to the historians, Theophilus redeems the situation, and possibly his life, with a single remark: "In seeing you", he tells the mob, "I behold the face of God." The answering demand that he prove his bonafides by condemning Origen provides him with the opportunity he is seeking to begin a purge of his "Origenist" opposition.
Other scholars, most notably Elizabeth Clarke, have dealt at length with Theophilus and the other players in this, the first Origenist controversy. I would like to inquire into the thinking of the protesting monks. Were they, I wonder, the simpletons our sources make them out to be? What did it mean for them to believe, as it seems they did, that God has a "human form"? What or whom did they mean by "God"? Which tradition, or traditions, might they have been drawing upon, other than, or in addition to, the obvious anthropomorphism of the scriptures? I believe that this controversy had to do with two issues: first, that the monks thought the question important because they believed that it touched on the very goal of their lives as Christian renunciates, the vision of God; and, second, that their "anthropomorphism" represented in fact a Christology of very ancient provenance, with roots in the vision tradition of pre-Christian apocalyptic and with possible parallels in the interests some rabbinic circles maintained in mystical speculation on the chariot, or merkabah, of Ezekiel 1.
[Published in Romanian, translation by I. Ica Jr., Orthodoxie (Sibiu: Deisis, 1998, 184-267.]
