“‘Issues’ such as… inane questioning”
Are there any instances of such here?:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
How would you respond to a flat-earther?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
How would you respond to someone who asked you to prove that Donald Duck was not the creator of the universe?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
How long they have been at it now? My memory’s going…
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Why do you suppose most people have given up trying to discuss anything with you?
> I would love to hear more since I’m not very knowledgeable about either Irenaeus or Origen.
I find myself in genuine awe, this morning, at how many truly embarrassing errors I managed to squeeze into one short post. Prudence would dictate that I humbly withdraw from the conversation, which I’m pretty clearly not qualified to participate in, but here goes:
I think of Origen’s allegorical exegesis as one method of getting around the problems and absurdities of a more literal and dogmatic reading; it gives space to harmonize faith to reason (by loosening the demands of faith). Of course, he wouldn’t have put it such terms, but functionally, it let him place reason over faith as a judge. Once you can make any passage a mere metaphor, the text is no longer the actual authority.
That married to the way he was happy to use philosophy extensively in his theology–despoiling the Egyptians as he called it–and the way he set a new standard for rigorous academic study of Scripture and the fact that his aforementioned willingness to dismiss the more problematic parts of Scripture got him labeled a heretic, all that with his apophatic tendencies, and he seems like a the sort of person you would find a kindred spirit. And the contrast with Irenaeus–who did so much to form the dogmatic orthodox consensus, drawing sharp lines and insisting on strong formulae–seems to me especially clear.
> I was never a fan of allegorical re-readings of scripture.
Well, neither was I insofar as it seemed not to be objective but more an eisegesis that reflects the interpreter’s concerns rather than anything in the text.
But that also has an allure if you are trying to hold on to Scripture without committing to absurdities. Once you just accept that Scripture is meant to be read, not literally, but as a puzzle–sometimes deliberately difficult and intended to shock the reader out of complacence–it is a lot easier to reconcile it with reason. I remember, for example, once being fascinated by Jordan Peterson’s Jungian reading of Genesis; it was a lot easier for me to make it make sense read in terms of archetypes than as history. That is entirely consonant with the general modernist project: Keep the dogma and formulae, revere them as capturing something truly profound, but as capturing something truly profound in a grasping sort of way that both allows and invites a very free, and ongoing interpretation to find its real meaning.
> Please tell us more about why specifically condemned as a heretic.
I can’t help but feel like this is a trap, though I doubt you intended to set one. I am confident you know at least as much as I do about the condemnations of Origen and Origenism. The only two things I would specifically draw attention to are that Origenism seems to have gone beyond Origen himself on a number of points (like transmigration of souls), but still, Origen himself certainly held a few of the condemned propositions–like preexistence of souls and the ultimate salvation of them all.
I’m also not persuaded of those specific beliefs, but I do see how they were inspired more by philosophy than Holy Writ. I don’t subscribe to them, but I understand how they are philosophically appealing, and I see how they are at home in the world of Greek philosophy. Though I disagree with the philosophy, I admire the willingness to give philosophical conviction such a defining role in his theology, despite it having so little Biblical support, and even fighting at times with the plain meaning of Scripture.
> The appeal of Irenaeus was, I think, accompanied by liberal Catholic theologians who wanted to get back to a time before Augustine.
Yes, I suppose that if Augustine is your point of reference, Irenaeus will seem refreshingly fluid. But I feel like that would apply even more to an Origen.
Robert said
Medieval monks obsessively speculating wildly about the miraculously in-tact state of Mary’s hymen prior to, during, and forever after the birth of Jesus seems comically bizarre, but it provides a window into what may have been their own struggles…
It always irritates me that more people don’t see the private life of the mother of Christ as being none of their business.
I mentioned it to Bart once over on the Blog, and he said that people have mentioned this, but the only reference he could give me was from The Life of Brian.
I can simply skip over those who continuouly provide what seems to me “gobblegook” but Robert has to review it all to keep the forum viable. When we see him continuously finding certain bloggers’ contributions inappropriate for one reason or another and it goes on for many many years, how can we who care not feel concern for him? How can we not wish there were a solution to the problem? How can we not suggest ways to make the forum work better?
DavidFord, you left off the rest that makes it easy to see that out of concern, I actually can’t simply skip either.
Yeah when I read Judith’s posts the first thing I think of is that she’s a “trouble-maker who trashes threads”! Ha! Somebody hereabouts is the “mayor of nonsense” (good title!) but I don’t think it’s Judith.
Robert wrote:
Yeah, I was never a fan of allegorical re-readings of scripture. A few years ago, however, I began to reconsider allegory from a more modern sociological perspective. Any reading or reception of a text, perhaps especially an allegorical reading, or any expression of belief or doctrine, may reveal something of the life-situation of the reader and her community or audience.
I think it’s useful to remember that in Origen’s day (first half of the third century) the “faith” was still in flux. There was as yet no established orthodoxy so it is not that he was allegorizing already fixed forms of thought. Origen was simply applying common Middle-Platonic Hellenistic intellectual categories to the scriptures.
> Now I suspect these were just suspect aspects of his thought process and method that allowed him to stray into what would eventually be considered heresy.
Yeah, I think that is right. I didn’t mean that he was specifically condemned for those things.
> So is it the case that Origen himself only believed in pre-existent souls but not their transmigration and reincarnation, that was only a later development within Origenism?
That is my impression, but I am not a scholar of Origen. Also, he did believe in a universal return of all souls to God.
> Yes, that is an admirable trait in a theologian. I’m guessing you wouldn’t have thought so back in the day?
I would have admired the willingness to use philosophy. I would not have accepted the idea that reason can judge Revelation, but I was occasionally relieved when I found a reputable theologian say in essence, “Revelation can’t mean that, because it would be absurd.” I suppose I was conflicted and inconsistent.
> So is it the case that Origen himself only believed in pre-existent souls but not their transmigration and reincarnation, that was only a later development within Origenism?
That is my impression, but I am not a scholar of Origen. Also, he did believe in a universal return of all souls to God.
Yes that is correct. (See his Commentary on Matthew.) His later enemies heaped “reincarnation” on him. And unfortunately some of our contemporary New Age types want to claim Origen as a fellow traveler to lands unknown.
I am not an Origen scholar. But I remember stumbling on him somewhere and wondering why the heck I had never heard of this guy?!? I wish he had won the day but I think if he had the church could not have developed into the world conquering force it became. Rigid systems of belief and practice cannot tolerate flexible categories of thought. Boundaries must not be porous but be firm and inviolable.
I would have admired the willingness to use philosophy. I would not have accepted the idea that reason can judge Revelation, but I was occasionally relieved when I found a reputable theologian say in essence, “Revelation can’t mean that, because it would be absurd.” I suppose I was conflicted and inconsistent.
I suspect Origen himself would have expressed similar attitudes. Fundamentalists hate recourse to imagination and speculation. But they’re really good at establishing inquisitions.
“Sensible thread starters requesting that insensible posts (many of yours) be moved are the ones trying to keep the forum (or at least their threads) viable”
Both the current thread and the forum are still “viable,” despite this thread’s comments 67-71 not yet being removed.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Please consider moving Comments 67 – 71 off this thread
Steefen said
Thank you Dr. Ehrman. Joseph Hoffman in 1987 did an excellent job given reviews like these two:
“A great contribution to scholarship in the study of early Christianity. The general introduction is worth the price of the book, and to have this new translation of the ancient work of Celsus is most useful and valuable.”
–J. William Angell, Wake Forest University
“Every serious student of early Christianity should give attention to Celsus….A first-rate publication with excellent, comprehensive introduction and notes.“
–Sterling M. McMurrin, University of Utah
Steve Campbell
Author of Historical Accuracy (2021)
And consider this:
dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.p0J5eDzBJBXdvuFwHRgzJA.SGHx5bpIPnHAVSaQ9hOPba0oG152JewyJLAq8gleXlg&dib_tag=se&keywords=against+celsius+henry+chadwick&qid=1792795102&s=books&sprefix=against+celsus+henry+chadwick%2Cstripbooks%2C117&sr=1-1
An excellent source
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)