Ἅγιος ὁ Θεός, Ἅγιος ἰσχυρός, Ἅγιος ἀθάνατος, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶςKatholikon

Library › Origen › Dialogue with Heraclides

Dialogue with Heraclides

Origen, tr. Chadwick, 1954

d1

EARLY IN AUGUST 1941 THE BRITISH ARMY HAD some caves cleared of rubbish at Tura, south of Cairo, to make a store for ammunition. This led the discovery of a small library of works, written on papyrus, by Origen and Didymus the blind. The papyri appear to have been written late in the sixth century. Both Origen and Didymus were condemned as heretical at Justinian’s Council of Constantinople in 553, and it is very possible that the cache was made in consequence of the resulting proscription. Of the works of Origen the most important is the only one so far published, the Dialogue with Heraclides. The present translation is made from the splendid edition produced by the French papyrologist M. Jean Scherer. Nothing was previously known of the existence of this work. No work of Origen is more obviously authentic.

The Dialogue consists of the minutes of a discussion held at a synod of bishops summoned to discuss the opinions of a certain Bishop Heraclides whose orthodoxy has been called in question. No indication is given of the place and date, and it seems that some preliminary matter is missing at the beginning. Perhaps other parts of the discussion did not interest the sixth-century copyist so much as the part in which Origen played the leading role.

Origen frequently took part in theological disputations. He disputed with Jewish Rabbis on a number of occasions.1 Eusebius of Caesarea had before him the minutes of a discussion, held some time between 238 and 244 with Beryllus, Bishop of Bostra in Arabia, whose monotheistic theology led him to deny the pre-existence and independent hypostasis of the Son. Origen won over Beryllus to his own more pluralistic doctrine of God.2 Eusebius also mentions another “synod of no small dimensions” in Arabia to which Origen was invited to debate with some who taught that the soul dies with the body at death and only comes to life with the body at the resurrection.3 Similar questions are ventilated in the Dialogue with Heraclides, but it would be risky to identify our Dialogue with the debate of the Arabian synod. This Arabian synod may with more probability be identified, if at all, with Origen’s discussion with “the other Heraclides and Celer his predecessor” mentioned in the Dialogue with Heraclides (below, p. 444). Origen says that at this earlier debate controversy had become so acute that he had almost withdrawn altogether. But his opponent had eventually come round to his view.

Origen’s fame brought him frequent invitations to go and explain to other churches the finer points of theology. On one occasion it led to serious trouble. About A.D. 229 he was invited to Greece to dispute with a certain Valentinian named Candidus; it was when he was on his way there that he was ordained presbyter at Caesarea in Palestine.4 Candidus defended the Valentinian doctrine that salvation and damnation are determined by nature, not by will; and to prove his point, he observed that the devil was wholly wicked and could not be saved. Origen replied that if the devil fell by his own free will, it must at least be possible for him to choose right and to be saved.5 A garbled version of the debate was published by Candidus. The imputation to Origen of the doctrine that the devil will be saved caused no little consternation at Alexandria, where Bishop Demetrius was already vexed by his ordination at Caesarea. He evidently wrote an angry letter to Palestine. The Palestinian bishops hastily wrote to Origen at Athens telling him of the general consternation and asking for an authentic copy of the dispute with Candidus. Formal censure was passed upon Origen at Alexandria, though the bishops of Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia, and Achaea (the scene of his recent visit) significantly refused to agree to the sentence.6 We have substantial fragments of an impassioned letter written by Origen to his friends at Alexandria, in which with crushing irony (similar in tone to that used about Demetrius at the beginning of the sixth book of the Commentary on St. John) he observes that he would not revile the devil any more than the bishops who have condemned him.7 Such unfortunate experiences explain the caution shown by Origen in the conference with Heraclides.

It is not impossible that the bishop Demetrius mentioned in the Dialogue with Heraclides is none other than the Bishop of Alexandria; if so, the Dialogue must be earlier than A.D. 230. It is also possible that “the beloved Dionysius” is the future Bishop of Alexandria. But this is not really probable. The Maximus of the Dialogue may be the successor of Beryllus of Bostra, who took part in the Origenist synod at Antioch at 268 which condemned Paul of Samosata. If so, the Dialogue must be placed later in Origen’s career, and occurred at a synod in Arabia. The later date has received more support, and seems to be more likely.

The Dialogue with Heraclides is concerned with three main subjects. The chief concern of the synod was the orthodoxy of Bishop Heraclides, and the synod is evidently held in his church. The bishops did not, perhaps, trust their own powers to deal with such advanced theological questions, and called in Origen to help them. Just as at Antioch in A.D. 268 the presbyter Malchion is asked to conduct the cross-examination of Paul of Samosata, so Origen questions Heraclides; it is he who determines the form in which the questions are put, so that Heraclides finds himself arguing on Origen’s ground. We cannot tell how he would have expressed his theology if he had been left to himself. The laity are present in the church, as also they were at Antioch in 268.

Heraclides begins by assuring the synod that he too is ready to agree to the Logos theology of the Fourth Gospel (John 1:1–3). It seems that in the immediately preceding discussion, not copied by the scribe, this text has been quoted against him. He follows this with a credal statement. It is now time for Origen to begin his cross-examination, which is designed to elicit from Heraclides a confession of the pre-existence and independent existence of the Son.

The theology of the Greek apologists is marked by a strong emphasis on the independent hypostasis of the Son in relation to the Father. Justin Martyr had spoken of the Son as “another God.” From the last decade of the second century the Logos theology of the apologists met with strong opposition from those who felt that it was incompatible with monotheism. Two courses were open to the critics. Either they could say that Jesus was God without qualification; the person of Christ is the person of God; if Christ suffered, then God suffered. Or they could say that Jesus was a man like other men, but indwelt by the spirit of God to a unique degree. The former view was later known in the East as Sabellianism, in the West as Patripassianism. The latter view is usually called Adoptianism by modern writers (it has no ancient equivalent title). Origen’s theology, as set forth to Heraclides, is intended to steer a middle course between Scylla and Charybdis. The one party, he says, abolishes the distinct personality of the Son in relation to the Father, and thus virtually does away with the Father as well, since if the Son is not distinct the Father cannot be Father. The other party denies the deity of Christ. Only the doctrine that the Logos is both separate from and one with the Father avoids heresy. It is clear that for Origen the independence of the Son is theologically prior to his oneness with the Father. He begins by thinking of two Gods and then tries to explain how they are one, never vice versa. In other writings he does not shrink any more than in the Dialogue with Heraclides from affirming that there are two Gods, though as here he usually adds some qualifying phrase.8 He pursues Heraclides with politely relentless questioning until he has to agree, despite all his reluctance, that there are two Gods. Heraclides at once adds: “The power is one.”9 And even Origen deems it wise to take the edge off his sharply ditheistic statement so scandalous to the brethren.

The controversy in Heraclides’ church seems to have centred on the prayers used at the eucharist. Origen appeals to the universal usage of the Church to make offering to God through Jesus Christ. This is no double offering to two Gods, but “to God through God.” The theology of prayer here implied is set forth at greater length in Origen’s treatise on Prayer.10 Here he insists that the church of Heraclides must show its unity with all other churches by adhering to the customary, agreed formulas of prayer. If it fails to do so, “it will give rise to fresh disputes.”11

In the second section of the Dialogue Origen turns to deal with an objection raised, it appears, at some earlier stage of the conference by Maximus, concerning the Christological implications of the Logos doctrine. If Jesus Christ is God in his very essence (οὐσιωδῶς), what is to be said of the reality of his body and in particular of his death? Could the body of God become a corpse?12 Origen states his beliefs: If the body of Christ did not truly die and rise again, it cuts at the root of the Church’s faith in the resurrection of believers.13 Maximus is asked if he is satisfied (the text is again corrupt, but this seems to be required by the context). Maximus’ reply shows a fear, significant for the atmosphere of the synod, lest the fact of his raising a question may impugn his reputation for orthodoxy. His question is only a request for information: “I need the help of my brother and instruction on this point.” The difficulty about Origen’s view, as he sees it, is this. Jesus said: “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” The divine nature returned to the Father. What power, then, was it which opened the tomb and raised up the flesh?

Origen replies by appealing to the Pauline trichotomy of I Thess. 5:23: “May God sanctify your spirit and your soul and your body.” The spirit Jesus committed to the Father was not the Holy Spirit, but his human spirit. For the Logos took to himself the entire constitution of man, body, soul, and spirit. “The whole man would not have been saved unless he had taken upon him the whole man”—a sentence which anticipates the standard anti-Apollinarian argument of the fourth century. Thus Christ’s human body, soul, and spirit were separated at the Passion. The spirit was temporarily entrusted to the Father, the soul descended to Hades, the body remained in the tomb. They were reunited shortly after the Resurrection, though not at the actual moment of the Resurrection as is proved by the words to Mary Magdalene (John 20:17): “Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to the Father.” He did not wish her to touch him before he had reclaimed the spirit left in temporary deposit with the Father. He appeared to his disciples after all three elements of his humanity had been reunited.

Origen has now said his say on all the questions of doctrine which had been the immediate subject of controversy in Heraclides’ church. After a homily on the equal importance of orthodoxy and right conduct, he invites questions on any other points of theology.

The question is put by Dionysius: “Is the soul the blood?” From the text in Lev. 17:11, “The soul of all flesh is blood,” supported by Deut. 12:23, some were evidently drawing the conclusion that the soul was material, and was corrupted with the body in the grave.14 … He is most reluctant to speak, especially with uninstructed laymen present, lest he should be casting his pearls before swine. His lengthy reply (so long that some of his audience cease to pay attention in their impatience) is that Scripture often uses physical terms to describe spiritual realities. Therefore, “blood” in the Leviticus text cannot possibly mean blood. A certain Bishop Philip has been absent and so has missed Origen’s discourse. As he enters the synod, Bishop Demetrius summarizes the debate for him: “Brother Origen teaches that the soul is immortal.” The implication, which is not lost on Origen, is that he is suspected of being more a Platonist than a truly Biblical theologian in his doctrine of the soul. He answers that his appeal is not to the Greeks but to the Scripture. … …

Origen ends with a final peroration, similar in tone to the Exhortation to Martyrdom.

The text of the Dialogue with Heraclides is edited with a French translation, introduction, and notes by Jean Scherer: Entretien d’Origène avec Héraclide et les évêques, ses collègues sur le Père, le Fils, et l’Âme (Cairo, 1949).

For discussions of the text consult the following: B. Capelle, “L’Entretien d’Origène avec Héraclide,” in The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, II (1951), pp. 143–157; H. C. Puech, “Les nouveaux écrits d’Origène et de Didyme découverts à Toura,” in Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses, XXXI (1951), pp. 293–329; J. Crehan, “The Dialektos of Origen and John 20:17,” in Theological Studies, XI (1950), pp. 368–372; B. Capelle, “Origène et l’oblation à faire au Père par le Fils, d’après le papyrus de Toura,” in Revue d’histoire Ecclésiastique XLVII (1952), pp. 163–171; G. Kretschmar, “Origenes und die Araber,” in Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche L (1953), pp. 258–279.

For reviews of Scherer’s edition see G. W. H. Lampe in Journal of Theological Studies, New Series, I (1950), pp. 105–107; L. Früchtel in Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1950, cols. 504–506 (with some venturesome emendations of the text); A. D. Nock in American Journal of Archaeology, LV (1951), pp. 283–284.

The fundamental paper on the Toura find as a whole is that of O. Guéraud, “Note préliminaire sur les papyrus d’Origène découverts à Toura,” in Revue de l’histoire des religions, CXXXI (1946), pp. 85–108.

In the present translation the page numbers of Scherer’s edition of the Greek text are noted in the margin.

Notes

  1. Cf. Origen, contra Celsum, I, 45, with my note thereon.
  2. Eusebius, H.E., VI, 33. The minutes were also known to Jerome, (de Vir. Inl., 60). They also contained some discussion of the soul of Christ, but to what purpose is not clear (Socrates, H.E., III, 7:6).
  3. Eusebius, H.E., VI, 37.
  4. Eusebius, H.E., VI, 8:4; 23:4; Jerome, de Vir. Inl., 54; Pamphilus, ap. Photius, Bibl., 118. See above, p. 175.
  5. Origen elsewhere expresses this view: cf. de Princ., III, 6:5; I, 6:3; Comm. in Ep. ad Titum (V, 290, Lommatzsch). Rufinus has reshaped Comm. in. Ep. ad Rom., VIII, 8 (VII, 247, Lommatzsch), to give explicit denial of the possibility.
  6. Jerome, Ep., 33:5.
  7. Sources: Rufinus, de Adulteratione librorum Origenis (P.G., XVII, 624–626), with the corrections of Jerome, Apol. adv. Rufin., II, 18–19. Photius (Bibl., 118) summarizes the account of Demetrius’ condemnation of Origen given by Pamphilus’ Apology. The tendency of Pamphilus is to play down doctrinal issues, and to make it appear that Demetrius’ ground of complaint was the irregularity of Origen’s ordination (a) as having been done in Palestine without his consent, (b) as being contrary to church law, prohibiting the ordination of the mutilated. The same tendency is clear in Eusebius (H.E., VI, 8:4–5), who says that Demetrius was envious of Origen’s fame and so objected to the technical validity of his ordination. Jerome, writing before he joined the anti-Origenist camp, similarly says that the censure passed upon Origen at Rome was “not on account of any doctrinal innovation, not for any heresy, as rabid dogs are now alleging against him, but because they could not endure the magnificence of his eloquence and knowledge” (Ep. 33:5). The majority of modern writers have accepted the thesis of Pamphilus and Eusebius that Demetrius’ condemnation was based not on a doctrinal issue but on mere matters of church discipline. The evidence of Rufinus and Jerome’s Apology seems clearly to tell against it. Cf. C. C. Richardson, “The Condemnation of Origen,” in Church History, VI (1937), pp. 50–64.
  8. Cf. Origen, de Oratione, XV, 1; contra Celsum, V, 39; VI, 61; VII, 57; Comm. In Ev. Jo., II, 2; X, 37 (21).
  9. The language is reminiscent of Hippolytus who uses the same phrase to qualify ditheistic statements; contra Noetum, 7, 11 (Schwartz, pp. 10, 24; 13, 3).
  10. See contra Celsum, V, 4–5; VIII, 26; and Prof. Oulton’s notes on de Oratione, XV–XVI (above, pp. 346–48). It is noteworthy that Paul of Samosata disapproved of prayer to Christ (Eusebius, H.E., VII, 30:10). E. C. Ratcliff (J.T.S., XXX (1929), pp. 23–32, cited by A. D. Nock, Amer. Journ. Arch., LV (1951), 284) argues that originally the East Syrian eucharistic liturgy was addressed to Christ, not the Father.
  11. This is the general sense of a passage which is badly corrupted and was unintelligible to the original scribe.
  12. The connection of thought at this point in the Dialogue is not immediately obvious; the view expressed above seems to be the simplest interpretation.
  13. Similar insistence on the reality of Christ’s material body as necessary for human salvation in Origen’s Commentary on Galatians, cited in Pamphilus’ Apology (XXIV, 365 ff., Lommatzsch).
  14. Similar beliefs were refuted by Origen at the Arabian synod mentioned by Eusebius (H.E., VI, 37) though we are not told that the Leviticus text played any part in the discussion there. For a comparable discussion, cf. Tertullian, de Anima, 53.

Contents ·