The MOST Slandered Man in Church History

“Malicious gossips will not inherit the Kingdom of God.” 1 Corinthians 6:10

Introduction

When a righteous man is slandered the only one who is dishonored is the accuser. The Son of God, who is no stranger to being falsely accused, promises those righteous persons who endure this treatment a great reward. (Matthew 5:11-12) So the reviler accomplishes good things for his enemy and destruction for himself. The reviler also serves another purpose: he provides the opportunity for others to defend the righteous man who is slandered, which is a great honor in God’s sight. “Whoever receives a righteous man will receive a righteous man’s reward.” (Matthew 10:41) If a man can expect a great reward for inviting a righteous man into his house, how much more so by defending his good name from vicious liars?

This brings us to the subject at hand: Origen of Alexandria. Who isn’t guilty of dragging this man’s name through the mud? The Catholic and the Orthodox and the Protestant are united against him. Although a few individuals from each camp mentioned have attempted to correct the narrative, the vast majority of people are still horribly uneducated and misinformed on the matter.

“But, really, it is the most shameful episode in the history of Christian doctrine. For one thing, to have declared any man a heretic three centuries after dying in the peace of the Church, in respect of doctrinal determinations not reached during his life, was a gross violation of all legitimate canonical order; but in Origen’s case it was especially loathsome.” David Bentley Hart, Saint Origen

In all of Christian history, no man has been more slandered than Origen. And as much as it angers me to see countless fools tarnishing the reputation of such a righteous man, I consider it a great honor to defend him. I’m not defending a faceless historical figure, but my own brother in Christ who I eagerly look forward to being with after death (if I’m counted worthy).

In this post we will debunk the many slanders against Origen.

Who was Origen?

Origen was the most famous and illustrious Church father of the third century, living from about 185 to 253 AD, and was profoundly cherished by the Churches throughout the world. In his near 70 years of life, he accomplished many wonderful things in the name of Christ, devoting his entire being to Christianity in a way that few people in the modern day could imagine. Origen never married, instead purposefully choosing a life of celibacy. His extraordinary self-discipline is matched by few,

“(Origen put) away all the incentives of youthful desires… for the greater part of the night he gave himself to the study of the Divine Scriptures. He restrained himself as much as possible… sometimes by the discipline of fasting, again by limited time for sleep. And in his zeal he never lay upon a bed, but upon the ground… With a zeal beyond his age he continued in cold and nakedness; and, going to the very extreme of poverty, he greatly astonished those about him… But he did not relax his perseverance. He is said to have walked for a number of years never wearing a shoe, and, for a great many years, to have abstained from the use of wine, and of all other things beyond his necessary food; so that he was in danger of breaking down and destroying his constitution.” Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 3

Origen was incredibly tough, enduring a very rugged and disciplined lifestyle for the sake of the faith, which contributed to him earning the following nickname: Adamantius, which means Man of Steel.

The Man of Steel was so impressive that he not only inspired several Christians to improve themselves, but also won over unbelievers to the Christian religion through his own example,

“By giving such evidences of a philosophic life to those who saw him, he aroused many of his pupils to similar zeal; so that prominent men even of the unbelieving heathen and men that followed learning and philosophy were led to his instruction.” Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 3

He wasted no time on leisure, but dedicated both day and night to the instruction of his students, diligently imparting to them the truths of the Christian faith. Origen proved himself a faithful steward of the wisdom entrusted to him, ensuring that the light of Apostolic tradition would not be dimmed in his time.

“They never took a meal together without something being read, and never went to bed until some portion of Scripture had been brought home to them by a brother’s voice. Night and day were so ordered that prayer only gave place to reading and reading to prayer.” Jerome, Ep. to Marcella 43

Origen so effectively subdued heresies in his life that he was responsible for many embracing the Apostolic faith, rescuing them from the heretical sect that they were once ensnared by. Among those whom Origen rescued from the snares of heresy, no one was as grateful as one man, named Ambrose. Feeling deeply indebted to Origen, Ambrose took it upon himself to provide all the necessary materials for the publication of his teachings. Through this generous patronage, Origen was enabled to produce a greater number of writings than any Christian who preceded him. The highest estimate of his literary works reaches a staggering total of 6,000 books!

Origen’s wisdom was so remarkable that even Bishops would happily submit to him as a teacher: Bishops were going to a non-Bishop to learn!

“He (Firmilian) was so earnestly affected toward Origen, that he urged him to come to that country for the benefit of the churches, and moreover he visited him in Judea, remaining with him for some time, for the sake of improvement in divine things. And Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, and Theoctistus, bishop of Cæsarea, attended on him constantly, as their only teacher, and allowed him to expound the Divine Scriptures, and to perform the other duties pertaining to ecclesiastical discourse.” Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 27

On one occasion, Origen was called on by the Church to go debate a Bishop who had gone rogue. The Bishop had started believing that Jesus didn’t pre-exist before becoming human, but was a human who had artificially been made God’s Son. Origen so effectively demonstrated the truth of Christ’s pre-existence that he convinced the Bishop of his error and “restored him to his former soundness of mind.”

“Origen was invited to discuss and went there for a conference in order to discover his true opinions. When he had understood Beryllus’ views, and saw that they were erroneous, he persuaded him by arguments and convinced him by demonstrations, and so brought him back to the profession of true doctrine, and restored him to his former soundness of mind.” Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 33

It’s also said that Origen was also greatly admired by the Bishop in his home of Alexandria, Demetrius.

“Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, had a high opinion of Origen and admitted him to his intimate friendship.” Photius, Bibliotheca, 118

Although a native of Alexandria, Origen’s practice of giving lectures to other churches gave him the opportunity to travel around the world. On one occasion, sometime perhaps in 231 AD, Origen journeyed to the Church in Caesarea. The leaders of the Church recognized his exceptional wisdom and devotion, and so they decided to ordain him as a Presbyter there.

“The bishops of Caesarea and Jerusalem, who were especially notable and distinguished among the bishops of Palestine, considering Origen worthy in the highest degree of the honor, ordained him a presbyter. Thereupon his fame increased greatly, and his name became renowned everywhere, and he obtained no small reputation for virtue and wisdom.” Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 8

When word reached Demetrius that Origen had been ordained a Presbyter by the authority of a foreign Bishop without his involvement, he was furious! He called for a Synod over the matter, which was attended by many Bishops and Presbyters, and although Origen had many supporters in this Synod, it was decided that it would be best for Origen to part ways with Alexandria.

“This incident changed the love of Demetrius to hate and his praise to blame. A synod of bishops and some presbyters was summoned to condemn Origen… It was decided that he must not remain in Alexandria or teach there, but that he should be allowed to retain his priesthood.” Photius, Bibliotheca, 118

From here, Origen left his home of Alexandria, and was welcomed to a new home by the Bishop of Caesarea, who gave him permission to continue his teaching there.

During times of Christian persecution, the leaders of the Church had the biggest targets on their heads. The persecutors believed that they could discourage Christian laity from remaining in the faith if they would strike down their leaders, which would usually be the Bishops. Although Origen never became a Bishop, he was nevertheless greatly admired by the Bishops, and for this reason Emperor Decius and his men targeted Origen above all other Christians. Their decision to attack Origen the most severely proves that he was the most respected and admired Christian of his day.

“But how many and how great things came upon Origen in the persecution… (Decius assaulted Origen) beyond all others against whom he contended at that time — and what and how many things he endured for the word of Christ, bonds and bodily tortures and torments under the iron collar and in the dungeon; and how for many days with his feet stretched four spaces in the stocks he bore patiently the threats of fire and whatever other things were inflicted by his enemies; and how his sufferings terminated, as his judge strove eagerly with all his might not to end his life.” Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 39

I find that those who had been famously martyred for the sake of the Apostolic faith, before Origen, were killed quickly by comparison. But in the case of Origen, the persecutors intentionally prolonged his torture for two excruciating years, hoping that he would deny the faith in that time. They did all that they could to make him betray the Christian faith, such as stretching his body on the Rack by four-spaces: the intensity of pain this would cause is unthinkable, it dislocated several of his bones and ripped his sinews with it. Why did they prolong his suffering and refuse to kill him? Because they were fully aware of the enormous impact it would have on all Christians if they could successfully make the highly respected Origen betray the faith.

His torture would have continued even longer without end if it wasn’t for the fact that Emperor Decius was killed, and succeeded by a new Emperor who ended the persecution. Upon being released from prison, Origen died from his injuries shortly thereafter. Origen once said the following when he was younger,

“For example, I intend to be a martyr… if I shall undertake the struggles, if I shall utter a good confession, if I shall bear calmly all things which are inflicted, then an angel can say, as if confirming and strengthening me: ‘Now I know that you fear God.’” Origen, Homilies on Genesis, Homily 8, Chapter 8

Righteous men know that Origen did fear God, and that his injuries causing his death make him deserving of the martyr’s crown, in addition to the crown of virginity which he had also earned.
Origen’s arrival in Paradise is where the story should end, but we know that this isn’t the case. Later in history, some criticisms began to emerge, and eventually in the late 4th century the first major campaign against Origen was spear-headed by Theophilus of Alexandria, Epiphanius of Salamis, and Jerome. This event, which has come to be known as The First Origenist Crisis, spanned 9 years, from roughly 394 to 403 AD. The final culmination occurred in The Second Origenist Crisis, in the mid 6th century, where Origen was condemned and many of his writings were destroyed.

Undignified and Jealous Attackers

Someone may wonder: why was Origen retroactively condemned long after his death instead of during his own lifetime? From my own interactions with those who despise Origen, this how they explain it: the early Church at this time was still very primitive, and it wasn’t until later on in history, when the Church was much more organized and united, that they were able to review Origen’s writings, which had previously slipped under the radar, and determine that they were heretical the whole time.

This is how it’s been explained to me by others. The flaw in this reasoning is that Origen wasn’t a man who isolated himself to a single city, but Origen was especially well-traveled and well-known throughout the Churches around the world. He traveled more than almost any other bishop in that era, from North Africa, to Palestine, Arabia, Syria, Greece, and Rome. The other flaw in this reasoning is that Origen wasn’t unpopular in the Churches, he was frequently asked by bishops in faraway cities to come help quell certain heresies, and his large school at Alexandria was visited by Christians from all around the world. There was already ample opportunity to review his teachings during his life. This explanation would only make sense if Origen was unpopular and never left some tiny city, none of which is true.

The absurdity of condemning a man long after his death has been ridiculed since the idea was first suggested, but even today many mock this embarrassing episode in history. Take, for example, the Eastern Orthodox author David Bentley Hart who said it was shameful for Origen to be declared a heretic so long after his death.

“But, really, it is the most shameful episode in the history of Christian doctrine. For one thing, to have declared any man a heretic three centuries after dying in the peace of the Church, in respect of doctrinal determinations not reached during his life, was a gross violation of all legitimate canonical order; but in Origen’s case it was especially loathsome.” David Bentley Hart, Saint Origen

Out of ignorance it’s wrongly assumed that some methodical and reasonable critique of Origen took place later in history by a more organized Church, but this is a total fiction. In reality, there’s no dignity in their analysis, only embarrassment! The culprits behind the so-called Origenist Crisis consist of petty, slanderous, envious, even murderous people who don’t even deserve to be referred to as men – because they behave like gossiping women. I very much agree with Socrates Scholasticus when he says, “I affirm that by the censure of these men, greater commendation accrues to Origen.”

Origen’s accusers were not remembered in a dignified way, but were instead remembered as being petty, jealous people. Socrates Scholasticus describes them as worthless characters who failed to become well-renowned, so they looked for fame by attacking those who were more celebrated than them.

“Worthless characters, and such as are destitute of ability to attain eminence themselves, often seek to get into notice by decrying those who excel them.” Socrates Scholasticus, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 13

We will explore the character of these men in further depth later.

Degrading Origen Strengthens Heretics

Before we begin our investigation of the later controversy, I want to first explain how horrible it is for the Church to tarnish the reputation of Origen. There isn’t a more perfect use of the phrase, “shooting yourself in the foot.” Why do we say “foot” as opposed to all other body parts? Because the foot gives stability and prevents us from falling on our face.

When the Church began attacking Origen it fell on its face. We said earlier, Origen was a renowned defender of the Apostolic faith and a destroyer of heresies in his day. It was Origen who Athanasius appealed to at the Council of Nicaea when establishing the ancient doctrine of Christ’s divinity. By smearing Origen’s reputation you strengthen the heretics that he had already defeated. The heretics can ignore any rebuke from Origen now, as if he were a corrupt judge who had wrongly convicted many criminals.

The Christian martyr named Pamphilus, who is recognized as a Saint by both the Catholics and the Orthodox, warns of this very thing in a writing dedicated entirely to defending Origen:
“By means of published books they belittle Origen, who was a teacher of the Church for so many years, who grew old in the Catholic Church, who fought so steadfastly and boldly against those heresies that were assailing the Church at that time that he undermined all the foundations of their devilish schemes… If all this cannot suffice to recall their tongue and to restrain their speech, they should have at least considered how much material for ridicule they were supplying to the pagans and the heretics, when they [the pagans and the heretics] see that those who they thought were the champions and defenders of Christian doctrine are now being silenced and refuted by their own people. Just as in a civil war, they rejoice that Origen has been attacked, a man whom they themselves were not able to attack with their own hostility.” Pamphilus, Apology for Origen, 16-17

Tension Rising

After the death of Origen, much of the Church still greatly admired him, however, controversy would slowly accumulate, although it wasn’t widespread at first. This period of time wasn’t anywhere near as intense as the later First Origenist Crisis, as Origen was still positively appealed to by many, especially throughout the Council of Nicaea where he was one of the most prominent fathers utilized to crush the Arian heresy.

However, there were some who criticized Origen at this time, such as Methodius of Olympus ( who only criticized Origen on a specific issue concerning the Resurrection). Not only does virtually everyone agree today that Methodius misunderstood Origen, but there is also evidence that Methodius, later in his life, changed his mind on Origen. However, I will address these things in greater depth later on.

In the early 300s, before Pamphilus was martyred, he composed the “Defense of Origen.” In this book he mentions how, like Methodius, many of Origen’s critics at the time were misunderstanding him because they were illiterate or that they were reading him out of context.

“Sometimes his accusers are those who do not know Greek: some are utterly ignorant of it; others, though they seem to have some competence in it, are nevertheless insufficiently qualified to undertake the task of reading his works; or, if it happens that they do indeed read them, they do not do so straight through and with sufficient learning to be able to follow the depths of his meaning. Thus they are unable to follow his pattern of discussing things from different points of view, owing to the contexts and occasions of the discussion.” Pamphilus, Defense of Origen, 13

In Origen’s writings, he will sometimes introduce beliefs or interpretations not as an endorsement of them, but rather as objects for examination and critique. Some people, who don’t take the time to read out his full thought, will mistakenly assume that Origen holds a belief that he is only analyzing or making mention of.

“On the contrary, sometimes Origen discusses things that could be said from the opposite point of view. Failing to pay attention to the fact that this is his way of carrying on his discussions, his accusers object to him regarding this doctrine as if Origen himself believed the things that he had discussed under the persona of his adversary.” Pamphilus, Defense of Origen, 173

Pamphilus also mentions an amusing account of several people who were critical of Origen unknowingly reading his writings, due to his authorship not being listed on the copy, and enjoying the words very much for as long as they don’t know that they came from Origen.

“In this connection, [his detractors] are often used to experiencing something that is laughable. For in order that their contentious presumption, or, to speak more truly, their insane prejudice, may be more easily made known, it usually happens, whether by accident or, sometimes, on purpose, that something of Origen’s is read in the hearing of his detractors as if it were from another commentator (when Origen’s name is not found in the heading of the manuscript). The reading pleases the audience and is praised and is held in all admiration for as long a time as the name of the author remains unknown. But when it becomes known that what was pleasing was from Origen, all at once it becomes displeasing, all at once the reading is said to be heretical, and the things that a little while before were being extolled to heaven, by the same voices and by the same tongue are plunged into hell.” Pamphilus, Defense of Origen, 12

Pamphilus tells us about another example of embarrassing behavior from Origen’s critics, showing their hypocrisy: many people would make a public show about denouncing Origen and then secretly read his writings so they could pass his wise insights off as their own. It would be like if some kid in school kept telling the class that you were an idiot, but when the tests are handed out he’s peering over your shoulder to copy your answers so he can look smart to everyone when he gets an A.

“They exhibit the utmost zeal [in studying Origen’s works], and they pay out sufficiently attentive effort to them. For they want to take advantage of this teacher in every way and parade themselves as his special disciples. But an opportunity comes when they now prefer to name themselves ‘teachers’ rather than ‘disciples,’ a time when the audience’s applause begins to follow. Then, if perchance someone in the audience whispers that these things that are being praised come from Origen, lest they either yield this praise to the teacher or risk being judged as blameworthy, they protest at once that Origen is estranged [from the Church].” Pamphilus, Defense of Origen, 15

Pamphilus relates many other embarrassing facts about those shameless people who were criticizing Origen at the time. However, I want to reiterate that Origen still had plenty of supporters at this time, especially throughout the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD (where he was prominently utilized to refute the Arian heresy).

First Origenist Crisis is a Joke

The First Origenist Crisis is a “Paper Tiger” if there ever was one. Before we tackle the specific accusations that were made toward Origen, it’s important that you understand the events which led to the accusations being made. Much of what we know about the event is from the writings of those involved, and the two Christian Historians – Socrates Scholasticus (380 – 439 AD) and Sozomen (400 – 450 AD) – who wrote only a few decades after it occurred. I’ll first introduce the three main aggressors toward Origen that we will focus on:

First, there is Theophilus of Alexandria: Theophilus was the Bishop of Alexandria in the late 300s/early 400s. The Christian Historians, Socrates Scholasticus and Sozomen, depict him as the instigator of the First Origenist Crisis.

Second, there is Epiphanius of Salamis: Epiphanius was the Bishop of Salamis, in Cyprus, roughly around the same time that Theophilus was Bishop of Alexandria. Socrates Scholasticus describes Epiphanius as a pawn of Theophilus, responsible for doing much of the dirty work and convening Synods to condemn Origen.

Third, there is Jerome: when Jerome turned against Origen’s legacy and joined these men in criticizing him, one of his most significant contributions was translating Origen’s books into Latin. This may seem counterintuitive at first, seeing that they would want to prevent Origen from being read, but Jerome felt it was important to use his skills as a translator to produce an unfavorable rendition of Origen’s writings to offend Latin readers.

We will also introduce two significant supporters and defenders of Origen’s legacy we will focus on as well:

First, John of Jerusalem: John was the Bishop of Jerusalem at this time, and was one of the key men of power who opposed the condemnation of Origen.

Second, Rufinus of Aquileia: Rufinus wrote works at this time defending Origen, he also translated Origen’s writings and Pamphilus’ defense of Origen in Latin to further prove his innocence and preserve his legacy.

Ironically, before the event had truly escalated, Theophilus was originally supportive of Origen, and was very good friends with the monks who studied Origen’s writings in particular. At this time, he wasn’t merely tolerant with these monks, but very supportive of them by appointing some to ecclesiastical offices and dignities.

“They were at one period beloved by Theophilus above all the other monks of Egypt; he sought their society, and frequently dwelt with them. He even conferred on Dioscorus the bishopric of Hermopolis.” Sozomen, Church History, Book 8, Chapter 12

Socrates Scholasticus records that Theophilus had originally “been at variance” with Epiphanius, apparently siding with John of Jerusalem for a while when Epiphanius had been creating conflict with him at his Church. Epiphanius had already begun criticizing Origen at this time, and when John of Jerusalem didn’t humor him, he attempted to replace John with another Bishop in Jerusalem. 

However, in Book 6 of his Church History, Socrates Scholasticus tells us the absurd and comical way in which Theophilus turned against Origen and incited a great conflict among Christians over the legacy of Origen: if you are expecting Theophilus to have reconsidered his views on Origen after having first meditated over the matter at great length – you are MISTAKEN!

Instead, Socrates describes how his change of heart was due to the threat of death over the most idiotic issue! At this time, there appeared many monks in Egypt who were convinced of the most childish and retarded opinion concerning God: they very adamantly believed that God the Father had a physical and visible body. 

“A question was at this period agitated in Egypt, which had been propounded a short time previously, namely, whether it is right to believe that God is anthropomorphic. Because they laid hold of the sacred words with simplicity and without any questioning, most of the monks of that part of the world were of this opinion; and supposed that God possessed eyes, a face, and hands, and other members of the bodily organization.” Sozomen, Church History, Book 8, Chapter 11

And although every Church father taught that God the Father didn’t have a body and that He is invisible, they had come to hate Origen in particular, because his writings were constantly used to debunk their delusions.

When these stupid men learned that Theophilus, like every Bishop before, taught that God was invisible they were in uproar and threatened to murder him. Theophilus forgot the Master’s words, “Whoever wants to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it,” (Matthew 16:25) and chose to keep his earthly life by abandoning the Apostolic teaching. He attempted to pacify these violent men by denying his own convictions and from then on openly denouncing Origen.

“With these latter Theophilus bishop of Alexandria agreed so thoroughly that in the church before all the people he inveighed against those who attributed to God a human form, expressly teaching that the Divine Being is wholly incorporeal. When the Egyptian ascetics were apprised of this, they left their monasteries and came to Alexandria; where they excited a tumult against the bishop, accusing him of impiety, and threatening to put him to death. Theophilus becoming aware of his danger, after some consideration had recourse to this expedient to extricate himself from the threatened death. Going to the monks, he in a conciliatory tone thus addressed them: ‘In seeing you, I behold the face of God.’ The utterance of this saying moderated the fury of these men and they replied: ‘If you really admit that God’s countenance is such as ours, anathematize Origen’s book; for some drawing arguments from them oppose themselves to our opinion. If you will not do this, expect to be treated by us as an impious person, and the enemy of God.’ ‘But as far as I am concerned,’ said Theophilus, ‘I will readily do what you require: and be not angry with me, for I myself also disapprove of Origen’s works, and consider those who countenance them deserving of censure.’” Socrates Scholasticus, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 7

Socrates Scholasticus describes how Epiphanius was a simple minded man, and Theophilus took advantage of that in this situation to use him to his own advantage.

“He moreover renewed his friendship with Epiphanius bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, with whom he had formerly been at variance. For Theophilus accused Epiphanius of entertaining low thoughts of God, by supposing him to have a human form. Now although Theophilus was really unchanged in sentiment, and had denounced those who thought that the divinity was human in form, yet on account of his hatred of others, he openly denied his own convictions; and he now professed to be friendly with Epiphanius, as if he had altered his mind and agreed with him in his views of God. He then managed it so that Epiphanius by letter should convene a Synod of the bishops in Cyprus, in order to condemn the writings of Origen.” Socrates Scholasticus, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 10

“Epiphanius being on account of his extraordinary piety a man of simple mind and manners was easily influenced by the letters of Theophilus: having therefore assembled a council of bishops in that island, he caused a prohibition to be therein made of the reading of Origen’s works. He also wrote to John, exhorting him to abstain from the study of Origen’s books, and to convoke a Synod for decreeing the same thing as he had done. Accordingly when Theophilus had in this way deluded Epiphanius, who was famous for his piety, seeing his design prosper according to his wish, he became more confident, and himself also assembled a great number of bishops.” Socrates Scholasticus, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 10

Sozomen concurs with Socrates, in his own Church History, and explains that it was made easier to get Epiphanius on board because he had already been harboring much hatred toward Origen.

“Theophilus wrote to Epiphanius to acquaint him that he now held the same opinions as himself, and to move attacks against the books of Origen, as the source of such nefarious dogmas. Epiphanius had long regarded the writings of Origen with peculiar aversion, and was therefore easily led to attach credit to the epistle of Theophilus.” Sozomen, Church History, Book 8, Chapter 14

Epiphanius exhausted an insane amount of time and energy into traveling around the world to ruin Origen’s reputation. Later on, Rufinus would mock Epiphanius’ insane commitment to bad-mouthing a single man by comparing his dedication to that of the Apostles preaching the Gospel to the whole world.

“After all, one of these men, who thinks that a necessity is laid upon him, like that of preaching the Gospel, to speak evil of Origen among all nations and tongues.” Rufinus, On the Falsification of the Books of Origen 15

Theophilus and Epiphanius continued to wage war against Origen’s legacy, and to stir up conflict with everyone. Throughout the First Origenist Crisis, many people turned against Origen. Socrates Scholasticus explains that some, out of respect for Epiphanius and wishing to appease him, acquiesced to his demands for Origen’s writings to be censured. However, there was still strong opposition to this movement, and there were plenty of significant and respected persons of the time who still supported Origen. For example, Theotimus, who was the Bishop of Scythia, strongly opposed Epiphanius and gave a compelling defense of Origen. Theotimus is recognized as a Saint by both the Catholic and the Orthodox, and they should both listen to what he says about Origen:

“Not long after this, at the suggestion of Theophilus, the bishop Epiphanius again came from Cyprus to Constantinople… He afterwards assembled those of the bishops who were then in the capital, and producing his copy of the synodical decree condemnatory of Origen’s works, recited it before them; not being able to assign any reason for this judgment, than that it seemed fit to Theophilus and himself to reject them. Some indeed from a reverential respect for Epiphanius subscribed the decree; but many refused to do so among whom was Theotimus bishop of Scythia, who thus addressed Epiphanius:— ‘I neither choose, Epiphanius,’ said he, ‘to insult the memory of one who ended his life piously long ago; nor dare I be guilty of so impious an act, as that of condemning what our predecessors did not reject: and especially when I know of no evil doctrine contained in Origen’s books.’ Having said this, he brought forward one of that author’s works, and reading a few passages therefrom, showed that the sentiments propounded were in perfect accordance with the orthodox faith. He then added, ‘Those who speak evil of these writings are unconsciously casting dishonor upon the sacred volume whence their principles are drawn.’ Such was the reply which Theotimus, a bishop celebrated for his piety and rectitude of life, made to Epiphanius.” Socrates Scholasticus, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 12

Epiphanius had already received much opposition from John, Bishop of Jerusalem, who refused to ever entertain his requests to condemn Origen. John was not ready to begin making up posthumous retroactive condemnations of a man who “had already been dead for 150 years” (as Rufinus says). In fact, not only was Epiphanius’ suggestion to condemn Origen turned down by those present at the meeting in Jerusalem, but they laughed in his face because it was so ridiculous.

“You cannot, I think, have forgotten what a burst of laughter, what shouts of applause ensued.” Jerome, To Pammachius Against John of Jerusalem, 11

By this time, Jerome had already allied himself with those attacking Origen. However, along with his good friend Rufinus, Jerome had previously been a student of Origen’s writings. It can’t be understated how much Jerome had formerly admired Origen. Look at him singing his praises in the following letter:

“Simply to bring to your notice our Christian man of brass, or, rather, man of steel — Origen, I mean — whose zeal for the study of Scripture has fairly earned for him this latter name. Would you learn what monuments of his genius he has left us?… So, you see, the labors of this one man have surpassed those of all previous writers, Greek and Latin. Who has ever managed to read all that he has written?… Imperial Rome consents to his condemnation, and even convenes a senate to censure him, 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 which, when once he opened his lips, made others seem dumb.” Jerome, Letter 33.3-4, 384 AD

“(Origen is) the man whom no one but an ignoramus could fail to admit to have been the greatest teacher of the church since the Apostles.” Jerome, Book of Hebrew Names

Later on, Rufinus would expose Jerome for having previously gone so far as to say that Origen was an Apostle or Prophet:

“I ask, further, what line of my Preface can be pointed to in which I have, as my accuser says, praised Origen up to the skies, or in which I have called him, as he once did, an Apostle or a Prophet, or anything of the kind.” Rufinus, Apology Against Jerome, Book 1.16

Unlike Jerome, Rufinus maintained his own respect and admiration for Origen in the face of the escalating conflict, outright rejecting petitions brought to him to condemn Origen. However, noticing that the wind was changing, Jerome had accepted the petition to condemn Origen. This brought their friendship to an end, starting a long and bitter resentment between the two of them. From then on Rufinus and Jerome would battle over the issue of Origen’s legacy in the Church.

Rufinus set out to make Origen’s writings more widely available by translating them into Latin, and many of our copies of Origen’s writings are preserved by Rufinus’ Latin translations. He set out to translate one book in particular of Origen’s, “First Principles,” and did so by first obtaining the most reliable and authentic copies he possessed. Jerome attacked Rufinus as an unreliable translator, claiming that Rufinus “cut corners” in his translation. Jerome then produced his own translation of “First Principles” with the intention of making it much less flattering toward Origen, however, this version has not survived.

Unfortunately, I have noticed that many people today, even those who both admire Origen and Rufinus, entertain a low opinion of Rufinus’ translations. There is a common belief that Rufinus treated his translations liberally, and many claim that he will outright change the books he worked on. I personally have come to believe that this claim is greatly exaggerated and blown out of proportion. Rufinus was merely mindful of the fact that sometimes books, especially those from credible and famous authors, were sometimes corrupted by heretics who wanted to give credence and legitimacy to their beliefs. If you should actually read the many Prefaces that Rufinus writes to his own translations, you’ll see that he only talks about removing dubious passages from his translations. It’s a common practice among scholars and translators to leave out suspected interpolations. Yet Rufinus outright denies the idea that he ever completely subverted or altered the meaning of a book.

“Have I ever led men to expect that I should put in anything of my own? Where can they find the words which they pretend that I have said, and on which they ground their calumnious accusations, namely, that I have removed what was bad and put good words instead, while I had translated literally all that is good?” Rufinus, Apology Against Jerome, Book 1.16

Jerome’s accusations toward Rufinus corrupting his translation of First Principles are seen as baseless by many. One Eastern Orthodox author, John Behr, writes:

“Despite much bluster, aimed at Rufinus himself, Jerome’s Apologies are, it has to be said, remarkably lacking in detail regarding the alleged errors in Rufinus’ translation.” John Behr, First Principles Introduction

However, even though Jerome’s public opinion had changed of Origen, he remained indebted to all the things he had learned from him: “Even those who kept their distance after the later ecclesiastical condemnations of his thought (such as Jerome and Cyril of Alexandria) demonstrate time after time, especially in their exegesis, that they were lifelong dedicated readers of his works.” The Westminster Handbook to Origen, Page 86 He would later admit that his own commentaries on Galatians, Ephesians, Titus, and Philemon were close copies of Origen’s own commentaries on these books.

At this point, Socrates Scholasticus describes how Theophilus became very ambitious, and cunningly took advantage of this controversy to tarnish the reputation of John Chrysostom the Bishop of Constantinople.

“In that convention, pursuing the same course as Epiphanius, he caused a like sentence of condemnation to be pronounced on the writings of Origen, who had been dead nearly two hundred years: not having this as his first object, but rather his purpose of revenge on Dioscorus and his brethren. John [Chrysostom], paying but little attention to the communications of Epiphanius and Theophilus, was intent on instructing the churches; and he flourished more and more as a preacher, but made no account of the plots which were laid against him. As soon, however, as it became apparent to every body that Theophilus was endeavoring to divest John of his bishopric, then all those who had any ill-will against John, combined in calumniating him. And thus many of the clergy, and many of those in office, and of those who had great influence at the court, believing that they had found an opportunity now of avenging themselves upon John, exerted themselves to procure the convocation of a Grand Synod at Constantinople, partly by sending letters and partly by dispatching messengers in all directions for that purpose.” Socrates Scholasticus, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 10

In 402 AD, Theophilus violently expelled the so-called Origenist monks from the monasteries of Egypt with the help of many soldiers, setting their houses on fire, which resulted in the deaths of some, including children. In particular, four brothers who were banished, referred to as the “Tall Brothers,” were famous for their strict fasting, chastity, and knowledge of the Bible. Opposed by Theophilus, the Tall Brothers fled to Constantinople where they were received by John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople. When John Chrysostom examined these men he found that their beliefs were orthodox, and sent a letter to Theophilus asking what exactly prevented these men from being received back to communion. Theophilus never responded to John Chrysostom.

“John, although he received them with kindness, and treated them with honor, and did not forbid them to pray in the church, refused to admit them to participation in the mysteries, for it was not lawful to do this before the investigation. He wrote to Theophilus, desiring him to receive them back into communion, as their sentiments concerning the Divine nature were orthodox; requesting him, if he regarded their orthodoxy as doubtful, to send someone to act as their accuser. Theophilus returned no reply to this epistle.” Sozomen, Church History, Book 8, Chapter 13

There are many among the Catholic and Orthodox circles who really love John Chrysostom, and these people should know that Theophilus weaponized this moment against John in the future. If you respect Chrysostom you should know that his hospitality toward these so-called Origenist monks played a key part when he was later deposed at the Synod of the Oak in 403 AD. 

A truly bizarre turn of events ensued after Chrysostom brought this matter to the Emperor: Theophilus was summoned to Constantinople to be judged, and that Chrysostom would preside over this trial. Theophilus would be examined for his treatment and accusations toward the monks and the Tall Brothers. Theophilus requested Epiphanius to go and convince Chrysostom to condemn the Origenists. According to some accounts, Epiphanius realized that Theophilus was merely using him for his own purposes, and so he left the capital, but died before he finished his journey home in 403 AD.

However, when Theophilus showed up, he brought with him money and gifts. He searched for all of Chrysostom’s adversaries, men who had been excommunicated by Chyrsostom for committing adultery and other sins, and brought their grievances to the authorities. Theophilus, who had been summoned to be put on trial by Chrysostom, had manipulated the situation so that Chrysostom would be put on trial by him!

“(We were) marvelling that a man who had been put on his trial, and ordered to appear at the capital on disgraceful charges, had arrived with such a numerous following of bishops, and that he had suddenly brought about such a change in the minds of the authorities, and perverted the majority of the clergy.” The Dialogue of Palladius concerning the Life of St. John Chrysostom, Chapter 8

Once John Chrysostom had been exiled and killed, Theophilus restored normal relations with the Origenist monks, and the First Origenist Crisis reached its end. Shamefully, after everything that he did, Theophilus continued to read Origen’s writings. Everyone was shocked that after all the commotion he caused over Origen, he would then turn around and casually read what he had publicly condemned.

“After these transactions, Theophilus was degraded, in every one’s estimation: but the odium attached to him was exceedingly increased by the shameless way in which he continued to read Origen’s works. And when he was asked why he thus countenanced what he had publicly condemned…” Socrates Scholasticus, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 17

This is the account of what has come to be known as the First Origenist Crisis. This wasn’t a sober and methodical inquiry conducted by dignified and honorable men, carefully examining the teachings of a man whose writings had slipped under the radar. Rather, this episode is an ignoble scandal, fraught with bloodshed, threats of violence, cowardice, personal ambition, jealousy, and slander. The very spirit that gave rise to the event is marked by wickedness, and therefore, the accusations leveled against Origen that arise from it must likewise be seen as tainted by the same corrupt source – wickedness giving birth to wickedness.

ACCUSATION: Lacked Humility

Epiphanius made several accusations against Origen for what he supposedly taught, but this accusation in particular slanders Origen’s character and personality. The claim is as follows: Origen demonstrates pride and lack of humility for speculating and addressing subjects that weren’t made clear by the Apostles.

“Origen had laboriously accomplished this entire work but he did not preserve his fame untarnished till the end, for his wealth of learning proved to be his great downfall. Precisely because of his goal of leaving none of the sacred scriptures uninterpreted he, as an allurement to sin, disguised himself and issued mortally dangerous exegeses.” Epiphanius, Panarion, 64, 3:8-9

This particular accusation is still made today by Origen’s critics. I have personally encountered many who parrot this misrepresentation, portraying Origen as presumptuous rather than as the diligent and reverent seeker of divine truth that he truly was. However, Pamphilus defends Origen by explaining that he was never dogmatic about any of these things.

“But with regard to those matters that he has shown to be not explicitly and definitively proclaimed in the Church, he prefers to make use of opinions and of the thoughts that happened to occur to him as one who was discussing and investigating such things, rather than to make use of certain and definitive assertions. That is to say, he investigates and discusses these things rather than making assertions about them. But in everything he remembers his own words that we have set forth above, when he says that that alone must be received and believed as truth which in no way is opposed to apostolic doctrines of the Church.” Pamphilus, Defense of Origen, 28

“We, however, have frequently observed that Origen speaks with a great fear of God and in all humility. This is noticeable when he begs pardon for those things that come to the mind of the investigator in the course of extended discussion and lengthy scrutiny of Scripture. In the process of explaining these things, his frequent custom is to add an admission that he is not declaring these things by a definitive pronouncement, nor is he defining them as secure dogma, but he is investigating to the best of his ability and discussing the meaning of the Scriptures. Yet he does not profess that he has completely and perfectly comprehended these things. Rather, he says that he is offering conjectures on as many subjects as possible and that he is not certain that he has attained a perfect and complete interpretation in everything. Moreover, sometimes we find that he admits that he is at a loss in many subjects on which he raises those very points that come into question; and yet he does not add solutions to these problems, but in all humility and truthfulness he is not ashamed to confess that these things are not clear to him.” Pamphilus, Apology for Origen 3

If you don’t believe Pamphilus’ testimony of Origen’s humility, then here are examples of Origen himself saying exactly what Pamphilus described.

“If our sluggishness and complete laziness did not prevent us from even approaching to ask, since our Lord and Savior challenges us to do this, we would actually turn back, considering how distant we are from the greatness of the spiritual interpretation by which the meaning of such great realities ought to be investigated.” Origen, Commentary on Genesis Preface

“But if anything profound occurs to someone in the course of the discussion, he must talk about it, to be sure, but not with complete assurance. For complete assurance is either the mark of a rash person and of one who has lost all sense of human weakness and has forgotten who he is.” Origen, Commentary on Genesis Preface

He will often end his discussion of a subject by admitting that he’s done the best he can, but he encourages anyone with a superior explanation to speak.

“As we have been able, we have carved out these explanations… We pass no judgment on those who have been able to perceive something more sacred from this text.” Origen, Homilies on Genesis, Homily 5

Pamphilus exposes the fact that while Origen possessed the humility to admit his own shortcomings, his critics would never dream about admitting their own.

“We have also heard that he often inserted what today not even the most inexperienced of all his detractors scorn to say, namely, that if anyone has spoken about or explained in a better way the passages he has discussed, that person who has spoken more correctly deserves to be listened to, rather than himself.” Pamphilus, Apology for Origen 3

What’s especially unfair about this accusation against Origen is that while men like Epiphanius accused Origen of being overly-speculative in his interpretations of Scripture, they simultaneously complained that Origen wasn’t dogmatic enough! You can’t help but sympathize with a man who is accused of being two contradictory things, both TOO dogmatic about things he knows AND not dogmatic about things he’s unsure of!

ACCUSATION: God (the Father) Doesn’t Have a Body

This is probably the most stupid accusation made against Origen, not to take away from all the other stupid accusations. Although this played a major part in the First Origenist Crisis, Origen’s critics are embarrassed to repeat this accusation today, or they’re entirely ignorant of it. It happened that in the late 300s many began to attack Origen’s legacy for the horrible crime of teaching that God the Father didn’t have a physical body.

There were several stupid people at this time who had believed something completely new in Church history: that God the Father was anthropomorphic, meaning He has a literal body. They believed God really had a face, legs, arms, the things which make up a human body.

Of all the possible charges, THIS ONE was the reason Theophilus of Alexandria turned against Origen, who played a massive part in the First Origenist Crisis. Although Theophilus originally accepted the teaching of every Christian before him (that God was invisible), after careful consideration he realized that this understanding of God was incorrect – because nothing makes you reconsider quite like being threatened with death by angry Alexandrian monks.

“When the Egyptian ascetics learned of this (that Theophilus believed God was invisible), they left their monasteries and came to Alexandria; where they excited a tumult against the bishop, accusing him of impiety, and threatening to put him to death. Theophilus becoming aware of his danger, after some consideration had recourse to this expedient to extricate himself from the threatened death. Going to the monks, he in a conciliatory tone thus addressed them: ‘In seeing you, I behold the face of God.’ The utterance of this saying moderated the fury of these men and they replied: ‘If you really admit that God’s countenance is such as ours, anathematize Origen’s book; for some drawing arguments from them oppose themselves to our opinion. If you will not do this, expect to be treated by us as an impious person, and the enemy of God.’ ‘But as far as I am concerned,’ said Theophilus, ‘I will readily do what you require: and be not angry with me, for I myself also disapprove of Origen’s works, and consider those who countenance them deserving of censure.’ Socrates Scholasticus, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 7

Unlike many other accusations, this is one that Origen really taught, but so did EVERY other Church father before the Council of Nicaea. Everyone in the early Church believed that God was invisible and incorporeal. Origen, along with all the other Church fathers before him, accepted the Apostolic teaching that the Son of God is a visible image of the invisible God. In other words, a visible picture of something that’s completely invisible.

“He is the image of the invisible God.” Colossians 1:15

“God, therefore, must not be thought of as some kind of body or as existing in a body, but he is an intellectual nature, simple, admitting within himself no addition of any kind, so that one should not believe that he has anything greater and lesser in himself, but that he is in all parts a μονάς and, so to speak, a ἑνάς. He is both the mind and the source from which the beginning of all intellectual nature, or of mind, exists. But mind, in order to move or operate, does not need a physical location, nor measurable size, nor bodily shape or color, nor does it require any other of those things at all that are proper to a body or to matter.” First Principles, Book 1, Chapter 1.6

People often assume that Christian teachings became more refined and intellectual over time, but the truth of the matter is that the most brilliant Christians were those in the very beginning.

ACCUSATION: Origen Taught Arianism

One insane allegation that Epiphanius made toward Origen was that he paved the way for the Arian heresy. The Arian heresy emerged long after Origen’s death, which denied that Jesus was begotten by the Father and falsely asserted that the Son of God was created.

“For Arius took his cue from Origen, and so did the Anomoeans who succeeded him, and the rest. For Origen claims, and at once dares, if you please, to say first that the Only-begotten Son cannot see the Father, and neither can the Spirit behold the Son… And this is his first downfall. For he does not believe that the Son is of the Father’s essence, but represents him as entirely different from the Father, and created besides. But he holds that he is called ‘Son’ by grace.” Epiphanius, Panarion, 64, 4:2-4

Not only is this allegation insane, but it’s so easily refuted! The Council of Nicaea, which directly addressed the Arian heresy, was very recent history at the time Epiphanius was alive. How was he so ignorant of the fact that Origen’s writings were regularly used as a weapon by those who opposed the Arian heresy? The Church historian, Socrates Scholasticus, writes about how when the Arian heresy emerged Origen was prominently appealed to by Basil of Cæsarea and Gregory of Nazianzus. I would like to point out that both Basil and Gregory are not only recognized by both the Catholics and Orthodox as Saints, but also recognized as Doctors by the Catholics.

“(Basil and Gregory) procured Origen’s works, and drew from them the right interpretation of the sacred Scriptures; For the fame of Origen was very great and widespread throughout the whole world at that time; after a careful perusal of the writings of that great man, they contended against the Arians with manifest advantage. And when the defenders of Arianism quoted the same author in confirmation, as they imagined, of their own views, these two confuted them, and clearly proved that their opponents did not at all understand the reasoning of Origen.” Socrates Scholasticus, Church History, Book 4, Chapter 26

And who attacked the Arian heresy more fiercely than Athanasius of Alexandria? Athanasius is also highly celebrated among the Catholic and the Orthodox as a Saint. In the same way that Basil and Gregory made great use of Origen to defend the Apostolic teaching of the trinity from the Arian heresy, Socrates tells us that Athanasius also regularly appealed to Origen.

“But Athanasius the defender of the doctrine of consubstantiality, in his Discourses against the Arians continually cites this author (Origen) as a witness of his own faith, interweaving his words with his own, and saying, ‘The most admirable and assiduous Origen,’ says he, ‘by his own testimony confirms our doctrine concerning the Son of God, affirming him to be co-eternal with the Father.’ Those therefore who load Origen with opprobrium, overlook the fact that their maledictions fall at the same time on Athanasius, the eulogist of Origen.” Socrates Scholasticus, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 13

Hear Athanasius himself tell you his opinion of the Man of Steel!

“And concerning the everlasting co-existence of the Word with the Father, and that He is not of another essence or subsistence, but proper to the Father’s, as the Bishops in the Council said, you may hear again from the labour-loving Origen also. For what he has written as if inquiring and by way of exercise, that let no one take as expressive of his own sentiments, but of parties who are contending in investigation, but what he definitely declares, that is the sentiment of the labour-loving man… See, we are proving that this view has been transmitted from father to father; but you, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, how many fathers can you assign to your phrases?” Athanasius, De Decretis, Chapter 6

As you can see, all the most respected bishops of the post-Nicene era considered Origen to be a great church father, one of the very greatest in fact – even those men who later turned against Origen out of cowardice (like Jerome)!

ACCUSATION: Origen Denied the Resurrection

By the early 300s, there were some who charged Origen with having denied the Resurrection because they had terribly misunderstood him. This claim was then invigorated by Epiphanius and Jerome in the late 300s during the First Origenist Crisis.

“Who can patiently listen to the perilous arguments of Origen when he denies the resurrection of this flesh, as he most clearly does in his book of explanations of the first psalm and in many other places?” Jerome, Letter 51.5

“He makes the resurrection of the dead a defective thing, sometimes nominally supporting it, sometimes denying it altogether, but at other times saying that there is a partial resurrection.” Epiphanius, Panarion, 64:4.10

Before Epiphanius and Jerome had continued spreading this claim, Pamphilus had already debunked it in the very early 300s. Pamphilus (who I will once again remind you is recognized as a Saint by both the Catholic and Orthodox), and who was also very intimately familiar with Origen’s writings (even possessing more material which is no longer extant), defends Origen from this attack and declares his views on the Resurrection were catholic. For those who don’t already know, all he means by catholic here is that Origen was consistent with the widespread teaching of the Church.

“Now among the other charges that they level against Origen, they record as the greatest of all that he denies the future resurrection of the dead. Yet the resurrection is assuredly proclaimed openly in the churches as a future event. It is consistent, then, that on this point as well we show by means of Origen’s own statements that his detractors, who have not refrained even from publishing writings against him on this subject, are manifest liars. Therefore, both from the books that he wrote On the Resurrection, and from other diverse works of his, we shall prove that his views were catholic on this topic also.” Pamphilus, Apology for Origen, 127

And in the following passages, taken from various works of Origen, we see him affirming the reality of the Resurrection. The people who criticized Origen on this issue had claimed that he specifically denied that this same body in which we now live will be Resurrected.

“Now the Holy Scriptures show in many ways that this entire promise of a resurrection of the dead concerns this body that is left dead. It is clarified by the very resurrection of our Lord, who is called ‘firstborn from the dead.’” Origen, On the Resurrection

“I have professed before the church my faith that at the resurrection the body which rose had been a corpse. But since our Saviour and Lord took a body, let us examine what the body was. The church alone in distinction from all the heresies that deny the resurrection confesses the resurrection of the dead body.” Origen, Dialogue with Heraclides

The detractors of Origen constructed their outrageous accusation that he denied the resurrection of our flesh upon his statements regarding the transformation of our resurrected bodies. Origen had taught that these bodies would not remain as they are now but would undergo a sublime change, becoming more spiritual in nature.

“For as the form remains the same in us from infancy until old age, even though the features appear to undergo considerable change, so one should understand that this form that now exists in us will remain the same even in the future, yet its change for the better will be very great and it will be made more glorious. For necessarily a soul that dwells in bodily places makes use of the kind of body that is fit for those places in which it lives. And just as, for instance, if we had to inhabit the waters of the sea and live there, doubtless for the nature of that environment it would seem necessary to have such a state and constitution of body of the kind that those animals have that live in water. In the same way in the present case, since a habitation in the heavens is promised, it is logical that the characteristics of the bodies must be adapted in accordance with the glory of those locations. It is not the case, however, that this first form will therefore be banished, though its change will have made it more glorious. For just as, at the Transfiguration, the form of the Lord Jesus himself, and of Moses and of Elijah, was not different from what it had been before the Transfiguration, so the form of the saints will not be different, even if it becomes much more glorious.” Origen, Commentary on Psalms (on Ps 1.5)

Although we really stress the fact that our current body will be resurrected, who is so insane as to deny that our body will be improved and made perfect? Is it so terrible to accept what the Apostles say about our body being made perfect and spiritual?

“Thus also the resurrection of the dead: it is sown in perishability, it is raised in imperishability; It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; It is sown a psychical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual.” 1 Corinthians 15:42-44

Origen teaches that our Resurrected bodies must adapt to the surrounding conditions, removing many of our present restrictions and limitations, and this transformation will enable us to live and move in the spiritual world of heaven. This isn’t to say that all matter is evil, but that matter will be refined in such a way that bodily corruption and change for the worse will no longer be possible.

“What could anyone say more plainly and clearly concerning the resurrection of the flesh? Origen has affirmed not only that the flesh will rise from the dead, but also that it will be assumed into heaven, but only if it has merited that by following the one who became the ‘firstborn from the dead’ as the first to bring the nature of his flesh into heaven.” Pamphilus, Apology for Origen, 146

How insane is it to suggest Origen denied a bodily resurrection, while simultaneously bashing him for saying God the Father has no body?

It’s ridiculous to accuse the destroyer of the Gnostics of embracing Gnosticism, but they do this because, in their view, he has committed the horrible crime of admitting that our current condition is inglorious and that matter must be improved in its quality and condition. They have this stupid notion that, even if you deny the claim that “matter is innately evil,” if you believe that matter must be improved and perfected because it’s currently in an imperfect state then you are a GNOSTIC. The Christian community became flooded with stupid people who aren’t at all intellectual. How can we expect to no longer die or age or inhabit Heaven and freely move through reality if our body isn’t made more spiritual?!

Also, Origen wasn’t alone in being accused of denying the Resurrection, but those who defended him during the Crisis, such as Rufinus and John of Jerusalem, were also accused of the same thing. Rufnius outright denies this allegation.“But we speak of a resurrection of the flesh not through certain illusions, as many slanderously report, but we believe that this very flesh in which we now live will rise again, not one kind of flesh instead of another, nor any other body than the body of this flesh.” Rufinus, Preface to Pamphilus’ Apology for Origen, 3

Methodius’ Criticisms of Origen

Before we continue addressing the other allegations, let’s remain on the subject of the Resurrection for a moment. Before Epiphanius and Jerome wrote their own criticisms of Origen’s teaching on the Resurrection, Methodius of Olympus also criticized Origen on this point sometime in the late 200s/early 300s. This is the man who Pamphilus has in mind when he says,

“But the malice of these men of whom we have spoken above has progressed to such an extent that some of them have even dared to write against him.” Pamphilus, Defense of Origen, 16

A lot of his criticisms have already been addressed in the previous chapter, but I would like to address something else Methodius said concerning the Resurrection. In a preserved section of Methodius’ book titled Discourse on the Resurrection, Methodius criticizes Origen for what he had written about the Transfiguration concerning Christ, Moses, and Elijah.

“If then, O Origen, you maintain that the resurrection of the body changed into a spiritual body is to be expected only in appearance, and put forth the vision of Moses and Elias as a most convincing proof of it; saying that they appeared after their departure from life, preserving no different appearance from that which they had from the beginning; in the same way will be the resurrection of all men. But Moses and Elias arose and appeared with this form of which you speak, before Christ suffered and rose. How then could Christ be celebrated by prophets and apostles as the first begotten of the dead? For if the Christ is believed to be the first begotten of the dead, He is the first begotten of the dead as having risen before all others. But Moses appeared to the apostles before Christ suffered, having this form in which you say the resurrection is fulfilled.” Methodius, Discourse on the Resurrection

Methodius seems to interpret Origen’s description of Moses and Elijah’s appearance in glory as a denial of Christ’s preeminence as the “firstborn of the dead.” This doesn’t make any sense. If it’s problematic for Moses and Elijah to have been seen in a glorified form, then why isn’t it problematic to have seen Christ in a glorified form here as well?

“Wherefore since His being glorified in the resurrection was akin to His transfiguration, and to the vision of His face as the sun, on this account He wishes that these things should then be spoken of by the Apostles, when He rose from the dead.” Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Book 12, Chapter 43

However, Origen’s framework allows for temporary glorification in anticipation of the ultimate resurrection. Moses and Elijah’s appearances in glorified forms at the Transfiguration were not the permanent resurrection Christ achieved. They may have received a temporary foretaste on the mountain, but Jesus is still first born because He received it permanently.

“…that it might be to them a pattern of the resurrection to come…” Origen, Commentary on John, Book 12, Chapter 42

But I’ll keep this section brief, as there’s no point in drawing it out when Methodius’ criticisms aren’t taken seriously by anyone. Not only do scholars write him off, but even some of the Orthodox, like this guy named Ambrose Andreano https://publicorthodoxy.org/2021/02/22/origen-exposes-ecclesiastical-delusions/ :

“The very first person to attempt a formal criticism of Origen was St. Methodius of Olympus, and he got pretty much nothing correct. St. Pamphilus of Caesarea refutes Methodius and shows why he did not understand the depth of Origen’s thought.”

Furthermore, in his Church History, Socrates records that Methodius may have eventually changed his mind about Origen altogether. “Methodius indeed, when he had in various places railed against Origen, afterwards as if retracting all he had previously said, expresses his admiration of the man, in a dialogue which he entitled Xenon.” Socrates Scholasticus, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 13

ACCUSATION: Origen Taught the Salvation of the Devil

One slander against Origen, which is still repeated by many today, is that he taught that Satan will be saved.

“Of one position which he strives to maintain I hardly know whether it calls for my tears or my laughter. This wonderful doctor presumes to teach that the devil will once more be what he at one time was, that he will return to his former dignity and rise again to the Kingdom of Heaven. Oh horror! That a man should be so frantic and foolish as to hold that John the Baptist, Peter, the apostle and evangelist John, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the rest of the prophets, are made co-heirs of the devil in the Kingdom of Heaven!” Jerome, Letter 51.5

“Then, in the next place, we must know that every being which is endowed with reason, and transgresses its statutes and limitations, is undoubtedly involved in sin by swerving from rectitude and justice. Every rational creature, therefore, is capable of earning praise and censure: of praise, if, in conformity to that reason which he possesses, he advance to better things; of censure, if he fall away from the plan and course of rectitude, for which reason he is justly liable to pains and penalties. And this also is to be held as applying to the devil himself, and those who are with him, and are called his angels.” First Principles, Book 1, Chapter 5.2

Origen’s chief concern in this passage is to emphasize free will, because salvation and damnation are not determined by nature. God didn’t make Satan evil by nature, but Satan chose to be wicked. Origen provides the illustration of a murderer: God made the man but didn’t make him a murderer. It was the devil’s own free choice that made him evil, and this is why he can appropriately be judged.

“Since each has the freedom of choice, each was both able and obligated to choose what is good. We must likewise hold this view of the devil himself, who is recorded to have offered resistance in the presence of the Lord Almighty and to have abandoned his proper position, in which he had been without stain, he who assuredly could have ‘persevered to the end’ in that position in which he had been from the beginning, if he had wanted.” Commentary on Titus 3

But if you still have doubt and believe that Origen taught that Satan could be saved, did you know that he outright denies the possibility, and says that not even the most crazy person would suggest such an idea?

The necessity to refute this misconception came about in the following way: Origen debated a heretic, named Candidus, and much of the debate centered around free will. Candidus argued against the existence of free will by giving the example of the Devil, he claimed that because the Devil was made to be evil this proved that nature was determined by God. Origen refuted the idea that God made Satan inherently evil, and argued that the devil’s damnation was due to his own free choice of evil, not an unchangeable fate.

“Jerome, in a later passage of the same book, gives the reader to know that Origen debated with Candidus, a Valentinian gnostic teacher, on the issue of the salvation of the devil. Candidus supported a fixed predestinarian system. Origen seems to have answered the statement that the devil was beyond salvation by arguing that if he is damned, it is only on account of his freely chosen evil, and thus he can be seen only as morally reprobate, not absolutely reprobate. This was enough, under the terms of any ancient debate, to father the idea onto Origen that he had taught the potential salvation of Satan. And this charge was used to attempt to damn his reputation by simple association with gnostic heretics.” The Westminster Handbook to Origen, Page 15-16

After the debate took place, the transcript was circulated throughout the Church, but some copies had been corrupted by the heretic that Origen had debated. Origen describes how the heretic interpolated their debate, and that some people had read in their version that Origen taught that Satan would be saved.

“For a certain author of a heresy, when a discussion was held between us in the presence of many persons and was recorded, took the document from those who had written it down. He added what he wanted to it, removed what he wanted, and changed what seemed good to him.” Origen, Letter to Friends in Alexandria

This was done by the heretic to damage Origen’s reputation, thereby demeaning the arguments he had made that undermined the heretic’s position, but Origen vehemently denies that he ever claimed that Satan will be saved.
“Let them take heed to themselves how they refuse to mark that solemn warning, which says that ‘Revilers shall not inherit the Kingdom of God,’ when they declare that I hold that [satan,] the father of wickedness and perdition (that is, the devil), and of those who are cast forth from the Kingdom of God are to be saved—a thing which no man can say, even if he has departed from his senses and is manifestly insane.” Origen, Letter to Friends in Alexandria

ACCUSATION: Origen Taught Universalism

In connection with the claim that Origen taught the salvation of Satan, many people believe that Origen taught Universalism (which is the belief that all of mankind will be saved). Although this is an extremely popular criticism of Origen today, it was a far less common grievance in the past. In fact, the original accusers of Origen never listed this as a grievance they had with him.

This issue isn’t as cut-and-dry as many are led to believe, and if you have been told that it’s as simple as Origen explicitly affirming that everyone will be saved and spared from punishment then you’ve been horribly misinformed.

First, there’s many instances where Origen says punishment isn’t temporary, but will last forever. At one time, when discussing the nature of how God judges humanity, he explains how an over-indulgence in mercy encourages others to sin because there’s no fear of punishment. In this way, he explains, that God takes the well-being of the entire world into account even when judging a single individual. His point here is that God will make an example out of some by means of punishments, like eternal fire or outer darkness, for the sake of those who would otherwise become sinful if there was no fear of punishment.

“So also God’s plan is not for just one man but for the whole world. He oversees those things which are in heaven and what is everywhere on earth. He looks then to what is fitting for the whole world and for everything that exists. He looks also, as far as possible, to what is useful for the individual, yet not if it causes the profit for the individual at the expense of the world. Due to this an eternal fire was also prepared; due to this a gehenna was made ready; due to this an outer darkness exists, whose need exists not only for the punished, but especially for the common welfare.” Origen, Homilies on Jeremiah, Homily 12.5

In the following passage, Origen says that punishments will not be temporary, but that the sinner will pay through eternal punishment.

“Therefore, sin is absolved through the penalty of death and nothing remains which the day of judgment and the penalty of eternal fire will find for this offense. But when someone ‘receives sin’ and has that with him and the penalty which is not washed away by some punishment remains and carries over, it is also with him after death; and because here he does not pay for it by a temporal punishment, there he pays by eternal punishments.” Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, Homily 14.4

And here, Origen addresses those who complain about evil people not being punished in this life. He says that the people who impatiently demand punishment in this life are incapable of inflicting punishment anywhere near as severe which God has reserved for the sinner. The reason that the punishment will be so much more severe than anything a man could inflict in this life is that, unlike here where everything is temporary, the future punishments will last forever.

“But as I said, the ignorant complain about what order there is in the divine judgments. For however much more severely they want (evil people) to be punished whose power and iniquities they lament, there is that much greater necessity that the penalties be differed, that if they are not differed, then the temporal would certainly be lighter because they would come to an end with death; but now because they are differed, it is certain that they will be eternal and last forever.” Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, Homily 14.5

Let me be clear, there are sections where the salvation of all men after extremely long punishments are discussed, however, Origen makes it clear that this hope for restoration is a suggestion rather than a doctrine, on which his informed reader must judge:

“But whether any of these orders, which live under the rule of the devil and obey his malice, will be able in some future age to be converted to goodness, through the faculty of free will which is in them, or whether persistent and inveterate wickedness might be changed, by habit, into a kind of nature, you, reader, must judge, that is, if in any way, both in these seen and temporal ages and in those unseen and eternal ages, that portion will be wholly discordant from that final unity and harmony.” Origen, First Principles, Book 1, Chapter 6.3

But I find it odd how often the Catholic and Orthodox, many of whom are so hostile toward Origen for this reason alone, have nothing to say about their own beloved Saints who taught Universalism. Look at the following double standard: 

In Origen’s case, they completely write him off: “It is true that Origen had a few doctrinal problems, the greatest being that he believed in what is known as the apokatastasis, the notion that even the damned eventually will be reconciled to God and that everyone will end up in heaven, with hell eternally empty.” (Catholic Answers, Origen’s Origin)

However, in the case of Gregory of Nyssa, a Universalist, they go to great lengths to give him the benefit of the doubt: “when taken at face value the saint seems to be contradicting himself in these passages; on the one hand he asserted the salvation of all and the complete eradication of evil, and, on the other, that the fire needed to purge evil is ‘sleepless’, i.e. everlasting. The only solution to this inconsistency is to view any allusion to universal salvation in St Gregory as an expression of God’s intention for humanity…” (Baghos, Mario (2012). “Reconsidering Apokatastasis in St Gregory of Nyssa’s On the Soul and Resurrection and the Catechetical Oration”)

And there are many other beloved bishops and doctors who also taught universalism, but the Catholics and Orthodox have chosen to focus all of their attacks on Origen.

As much as people want to analyze the exact meaning of “ages of ages” as it relates to duration of punishment, all I know is that God is the judge: God has the sole authority to determine the punishment of the sinner.

ACCUSATION: Origen Over-Indulges in Allegorical Interpretation

This particular criticism of Origen, that he taught that Scripture is allegorical, is especially popular even in the modern day. The grievance has gained a bizarre popularity, and anecdotally, I’ve encountered several critics who cite as their principal objection to Origen’s work. Take the following comment for example:

“The fact that he opened up a view that questioned the entire historical accuracy of the Bible, saying parts of the NARRATIVE itself are allegory is heresy whether you like it or not, and that is the reason why he wasn’t a church father…”

As I said, I’ve seen some people who make this out to be their main problem with Origen, this guy goes as far as saying that THIS is the reason he’s not a Church father. Epiphanius complained about this same thing in the late 300s in his book The Panarion:

“Finally, he gives an allegorical interpretation of whatever he can—Paradise, its waters, the waters above the heavens, the water under the earth. He never stops saying these ridiculous things and others like them.” Epiphanius, Panarion, 64, 4:11

And later, in the 16th century, Martin Luther also hated Origen for his allegorical interpretation:

“When I was a monk, I was a master in the use of allegories. I allegorized everything. Afterwards through the Epistle to the Romans, I came to some knowledge of Christ. I recognized then that all allegories nothing, that it’s not what Christ signifies but what Christ is that counts. Before I allegorized everything, even a chamber pot… Jerome and Origen contributed to the practice of searching only for allegories. God forgive them. In all of Origen there is not one word of Christ.” Martin Luther (LW 1967 54:46-47)

What a pompous idiot! How much better off the world would be if his writings were lost to time and fire, rather than Origen’s!

There is a common misconception today that Origen, in particular, was in some way unique by interpreting Scripture allegorically. I must clarify that when Eusebius says that Origen was a unique child for inquiring into the deep meaning of Scripture, this only makes him peculiar among laity and children, but Origen was no different than the rest of the Church fathers, either those before him or contemporary to him, in his method of allegorical interpretation. I won’t give all of the evidence for this fact here, only because I’ve already done so in my video You are Reading the OT Wrong. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yrnfv1_ubk) In this video, I prove that allegorical interpretation was a longstanding tradition which begins with Jesus Christ Himself, and that it was preserved by His apostles, and then universally preserved by the next few generations of their disciples. Allegorical interpretation was most prominent in the first 300 years, but endured even into the 8th century and beyond before falling out of popularity.

I believe the reason most people think Origen is unique in this respect is because other Church fathers before him have significantly fewer writings, and so they don’t allegorize as often as Origen does. It’s important to remember, Origen’s output of writings is unprecedented by any Church father before him. Because of this, I don’t think we should be surprised that he speaks at greater length about some subjects than his predecessors, he just had more opportunity.

We should also debunk the assertion made by many that, by interpreting Scripture allegorically, Origen denies the historical reality of the Bible. People assume this is the case because most people who talk about allegory today are really only concerned with saying that the events which the Bible describes never happened. However, it would be anachronistic to assume that this is how allegory was understood in early Christianity. Origen affirms his belief in the historical reality of the events described in the following passage:

“Let no one suspect us of saying that we think that no historical narrative in Scripture happened…” First Principles, Book 4, Chapter 3.4

A lot of the people who try to peddle allegory are motivated by a desire to deny the history of Genesis in particular, Adam and Eve being their ultimate targets to erase from existence. This is by no means the case with Origen, however, or any of the Church fathers! Origen affirms the fact all the men in Genesis really existed, including Adam!

“Moreover, concerning each of the saints who are written about in Holy Scripture and whom Scripture attests to be just and chosen by God, those who desire to be saved ought to have a certain kind of faith; for faith in God cannot be perfected unless one has even that faith by which it is believed with respect to the saints that they are saints. Now what we are saying is this. He who believes in God and accepts that his teachings are true also believes that Adam was formed as the first man. He believes that God fashioned Eve to be Adam’s wife by taking one of his ribs. He also believes that Enosh truly “hoped to call upon the name of the Lord God”; and that Enoch was translated, because he had pleased God for two hundred years after he became the father of Methusaleh. He believes that Noah received an oracle to build an ark and that he alone, together with only those who had entered with him into the ark, was saved from the flood. Likewise, he believes that Abraham merited God’s approval and showed hospitality to three men, one of whom was the Lord, when he was under the oak of Mamre. He also believes the things concerning Isaac, both the manner of his birth, that he was offered by his father, and that he merited to hear oracles from God. Moreover, he believes that when Jacob’s name was changed he received from God the name Israel. Concerning Moses he believes that he served God through signs and miracles. And he believes that Jesus son of Nun, having been heard by God, made the sun stand still over Gibeon and the moon over the valley of Helon.” Origen, Commentary on Philemon

So if Origen and the rest believed that these things really happened, then what do they mean by allegorical? The early Christians believed that the Holy Spirit influenced the authors of the Old Testament to carefully preserve and omit facts from the historical record, so as to present it in a peculiar narrative which prophetically allegorized future events concerning Jesus Christ and His Church. This means that they believed it really happened, but the reason it happened in the specific way that it did was done to signify the future accomplishments of Christ. For example, the Israelites really did miraculously win a battle because Moses stretched out his arms, but the reason it happened this way was to demonstrate the power in the sign of the cross.

(Referring back to earlier comment) This Orthodox guy’s contempt is misdirected at Origen, he should really be angry with the numerous Orthodox leaders of today who not only privately believe in Evolution, but ridicule those who believe, as Origen believed, that Adam was the first literal man created by God.

(6:56) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC2xixf_wgw&ab_channel=ProtectingVeil 

A similar accusation, I might as well address here, is that Origen was corrupted by Greek Philosophy, or that he was trying to merge Greek Philosophy with Christianity through his allegorical interpretations.

Contrary to what some people may claim, Clement and Origen did NOT introduce Greek Philosophy into Christianity. Although Origen viewed Philosophy as a useful tool to strengthen one’s reasoning abilities, and would sometimes appeal to Philosophers insofar as they aligned with Christian beliefs, Origen regularly attacks Philosophy for its shortcomings! Here he describes the Greek Philosophical Sects’ teachings as erroneous and deceptive:

“Thereafter, that nothing might be lacking from the allegorical laws, the water is turned into blood and its own blood is given to Egypt to drink. The waters of Egypt are the erring and slippery teachings of the philosophers. Since those teachings deceived some who were deficient in understanding and children in knowledge, when the cross of Christ shows the light of truth to this world, those teachings have to pay the penalty for the death of the children and the guilt of blood.” Origen, Homilies on Genesis, Homily 4.6

But if you are going to attack Origen for appealing to Greek concepts, you should extend that condemnation to several others! Why do you stop short at Origen, when you know that the Apostles adopt the Greek name, Hades, for the afterlife? Or Peter speaking of Tartarus? Why don’t you attack John for incorporating the Greek concept of the Logos into Christianity? Why don’t you attack Paul when he appeals to Greek poets? Maybe you think God should have kept His books isolated to the Hebrew language, and you think it was a mistake to adopt Greek as the language for the New Testament.

Origen and Clement will both readily admit the Philosophy was imperfect, but it did prepare Gentiles for the arrival of Christianity. Philosophy ultimately concerned the pursuit of truth, virtue, and justice. Many people were empowered by Philosophy to become more reasonable, to neglect pleasure, luxury, and to not give into irrational urges. Origen was only concerned with the qualities of Philosophy which were admirable and suitable for Christians.

“And this I maintain, having as yet entered into no investigation regarding Jesus, but still demonstrating that Moses, who is far inferior to the Lord, is, as the Discourse will show, greatly superior to your wise poets and philosophers.” Origen, Against Celsus, Book 1, Chapter 18

“But Origen cannot agree that Greek philosophy furnishes the ‘true doctrine,’ as Celsus claimed. There are certainly true doctrines to be found in Plato, but only because Plato saw something of the truth.” The Westminster Handbook to Origen, Page 172

It’s ridiculous that these people will accuse the Church fathers of being corrupted by Greek concepts, when these same people are so obviously captured by their own culture’s concepts: they are the real Syncretists, who are trying to impose modern concepts on Christianity, such as feminism and evolution.

ACCUSATION: Origen Castrated Himself

It’s bizarre that out of all the allegations, so many pick this one as their chief problem with the man. There were many rumors made about Origen after his death, and one of them was that he, in some way, castrated himself.

“At this time while Origen was conducting catechetical instruction at Alexandria, a deed was done by him which evidenced an immature and youthful mind, but at the same time gave the highest proof of faith and continence. For he took the words, “There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake,” in too literal and extreme a sense. And in order to fulfill the Saviour’s word, and at the same time to take away from the unbelievers all opportunity for scandal — for, although young, he met for the study of divine things with women as well as men, — he carried out in action the word of the Saviour. He thought that this would not be known by many of his acquaintances. But it was impossible for him, though desiring to do so, to keep such an action secret. When Demetrius, who presided over that parish, at last learned of this, he admired greatly the daring nature of the act, and as he perceived his zeal and the genuineness of his faith, he immediately exhorted him to courage, and urged him the more to continue his work of catechetical instruction.” Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 8

However, when Origen commentates on this very passage from Matthew’s Gospel, he makes no mention of ever castrating himself in his youth, only saying that anyone who would ever take such a thing literally is stupid.

“For, on the one hand, there are those who consider the third [castration] in a somatic sense, in a way that accords with the operation of the two other castrations when considered in a somatic sense. [These people] dare to hand themselves over to become a eunuch of the same kind as the first two out of a fear toward God on the one hand, but without understanding on the other. Indeed, they have submitted themselves to reproach, and perhaps shame, not only in view of those who are outsiders to the [Christian] faith, but also indeed to all who share the common opinion on basic human matters about one who (by an appearance of fear of God and an inordinate love of moderation) would produce pains and the mutilation of the body, and whatever else one might experience who hands himself over to so great a matter.” Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Book 15

And shortly after this, emphasizing the importance of avoiding a literal interpretation, he says,

“Take for another example, ‘Greet no one along the way.’ If someone does not examine closely what Jesus means when he orders this, and in his zeal for the apostolic manner of life this person greets ‘no one along the way,’ he might seem to be inhuman and stupid to those who observe him.” Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Book 15

Anyone who knows Origen’s personality knows that he is very humble and will admit his faults and shortcomings. If he had done that he would have admitted his wrong interpretation in his youth when he discussed that passage, exhorting his hearers not to make the same mistake. But all he says on the subject is that only a crazy person would interpret Jesus’ words that way.

Also, isn’t this hilarious? The claim is that Origen took Scripture too literally – ORIGEN! This is the same man who is accused of over-allegorizing the Scriptures! And the idea that this was the result of him being a naive young man is also strange to me, because Eusebius also says,

“Nor was this irksome to the boy, but he was eager and diligent in these studies. And he was not satisfied with learning what was simple and obvious in the sacred words, but sought for something more, and even at that age busied himself with deeper speculations. So that he puzzled his father with inquiries for the true meaning of the inspired Scriptures.” Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 2

I find other things very strange about this story. Origen was clearly seeking after the allegorical interpretation of Scripture even in his boyhood. There’s no indication of a reversal in his thinking. On top of that, the reason given for his castration is inconsistent. For one thing, any female students Origen had would have been veiled and supervised by an attendant, so there would have been no danger of Origen fornicating with any of these women. But on top of that, if Origen did this to avoid being accused of sexual misconduct then why does Eusebius say Origen kept his castration a secret? Did he castrate himself to give others reassurance about his celibacy, but then keep it a secret? If I castrated myself to convince you that I won’t commit sexual sins, but then never tell you and keep my castration to myself – what was the point? All pain, no gain. Where’s the logic there?

It’s very strange: Eusebius, who loved Origen, reports the story as true, but Epiphanius, who hated Origen, reports the story as a fiction. 

“It is said, however, that our Origen too contrived a measure affecting his body. For  some say that he severed a nerve so that he would not be disturbed by sexual pleasure or inflamed and aroused by carnal impulses. Others say no, but that he invented a drug to apply to his genitals and dry them up. But others venture to ascribe other inventions to him—that he discovered a medicinal plant to assist memory. And though I have no faith in the exaggerated stories about him, I have not neglected to report what is being said.” Epiphanius, Panarion 64.3.11

There were several different versions of the story that circulated around after his death, one involving it being a byproduct of a medicine he was taking for focus or something. It may have been rooted in some truth, but the version depicting a self-inflicted castration based on a misunderstanding of Christ’s words seems ridiculous. I mean, the same people who accuse Origen of interpreting Scripture allegorically too often, as if he were any different from his peers, also say that he took Christ too literally in this one respect?

I don’t believe Origen made himself a eunuch, but even if he did it would be the silliest accusation to allow yourself to be disturbed by. Let’s entertain the idea that it really happened: that means Origen did a silly thing when he was a youth which hurt no one but himself, and that he did it out of a fear of committing sexual impurity. How many centuries ago was this? Do you realize he was tortured for two years? Do you think two years was enough to make up for each testicle? Or should we continue to hate a man for an act we cannot definitively say he committed, an act which, if it really occurred, he would have paid for more than a millennium ago?

It’s a travesty that Origen, the ever-virgin, stands accused of being over-zealous in attaining sexual purity, while men like Augustine don’t even get a slap on the wrist for having illegitimate children with multiple concubines, even after his baptism! You hate Origen without cause, having double standards and perverse opinions about a righteous man. And to those of you who match this criteria, you really should be ashamed of yourself, and frankly, you weren’t deserving of a response. If you don’t even believe the rest of the accusations made against Origen, and you allowed yourself to be offended by the possibility of an otherwise perfectly orthodox teacher having undergone a painful surgery out of fear of committing any sexual sins, I have no idea what to say to you. The people who act so offended at Origen having possibly castrated himself, are probably the same people who would make excuses for that sexual deviant Ravi Zacharias. But for the sake of fulfilling the purpose of this post, I have addressed it.

Rather than disparaging Origen, it should be obvious by this point that Origen had more testicles than any of the men in his day, especially weaklings who came long after him like Theophilus of Alexandria, who buckled under pressure from wicked heretics. That man was willing to deny the faith just to save his own neck, while Origen was willing to be tortured for multiple years in the worst ways out of devotion to His Lord, and yet who is endlessly scrutinized, the coward Theophlius or the martyr and ever-virgin Origen?

After examining the facts, one may justly come to the conclusion that it wasn’t Origen after all, but rather the rest of these weak men, who were really guilty of castrating themselves.

ACCUSATION: Taught Heresies Concerning the Soul

Epiphanius also found fault with Origen for discussing the possibility that souls pre-existed before the body.

“But he has other downfalls too, which are more serious. He says that the human soul is preexistent.” Epiphanius, Panarion, 64, 4:5

While it is true that Origen spoke about this possibility in several instances, and none of Origen’s defenders deny this, the question is whether or not this belief would be considered heresy. I’m sure many will jump the gun here and shout that it is heresy, but before we address that question further, however, let’s first examine what exactly Origen said about this subject and why he believed this was the case. He addresses this subject in First Principles.

“But to arrive at a clearer understanding on these matters, we ought first to inquire after this point, whether it is allowable to suppose that they are living and rational beings; then, in the next place, whether their souls came into existence at the same time with their bodies, or seem to be anterior to them; and also whether, after the end of the world, we are to understand that they are to be released from their bodies; and whether, as we cease to live, so they also will cease from illuminating the world. Although this inquiry may seem to be somewhat bold, yet, as we are incited by the desire of ascertaining the truth as far as possible, there seems no absurdity in attempting an investigation of the subject agreeably to the grace of the Holy Spirit.”

First Principles, Book 1, Chapter 7.3

After having raised the question, he gives his evidence from the Scriptures that support this view. But I would say that one of Origen’s main reasons for analyzing this subject was to address the following question: why are some people born into horrible conditions, while others are born into very good conditions? Origen seeks to offer an explanation for why some people, from the perspective of many, seem to be favored by God before they’re even born by being born into a righteous family as opposed to a savage family.

“And now we have to ascertain whether those beings which in the course of the discussion we have discovered to possess life and reason, were endowed with a soul along with their bodies at the time mentioned in Scripture, when God made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night, and the stars also, or whether their spirit was implanted in them, not at the creation of their bodies, but from without, after they had been already made. I, for my part, suspect that the spirit was implanted in them from without; but it will be worthwhile to prove this from Scripture: for it will seem an easy matter to make the assertion on conjectural grounds, while it is more difficult to establish it by the testimony of Scripture. Now it may be established conjecturally as follows. If the soul of a man, which is certainly inferior while it remains the soul of a man, was not formed along with his body, but is proved to have been implanted strictly from without, much more must this be the case with those living beings which are called heavenly. For, as regards man, how could the soul of him, viz., Jacob, who supplanted his brother in the womb, appear to be formed along with his body? Or how could his soul, or its images, be formed along with his body, who, while lying in his mother’s womb, was filled with the Holy Ghost? I refer to John leaping in his mother’s womb, and exulting because the voice of the salutation of Mary had come to the ears of his mother Elisabeth. How could his soul and its images be formed along with his body, who, before he was created in the womb, is said to be known to God, and was sanctified by Him before his birth? Some, perhaps, may think that God fills individuals with His Holy Spirit, and bestows upon them sanctification, not on grounds of justice and according to their deserts; but undeservedly. Otherwise it would seem that God fills some with the Holy Spirit neither by judgement nor according to merits, and sanctifies them undeservedly. And how shall we avoid that word which says, ‘Is there unrighteousness with God? By no means!’ Or this, ‘Is there no respect of persons with God?’ For this is the consequence of that defence which holds that souls come to exist together with bodies. Therefore, so far as it is possible to adduce from a comparison with the condition of the human being, I think it follows that whatever reason itself and the authority of Scripture appear to show in the case of human beings, such ought much more to be held regarding celestial beings.” First Principles, Book 1, Chapter 7.4

In another place, he describes how Adam’s fall not only applies to Adam, but also to all other souls who have sinned, and that they are thrown down to earth after having lost their wings.

“For in Adam (as the Scripture says) all die, and were condemned in the likeness of Adam’s transgression, the word of God asserting this not so much of one particular individual as of the whole human race. For in the connected series of statements which appears to apply as to one particular individual, the curse pronounced upon Adam is regarded as common to all (the members of the race), and what was spoken with reference to the woman is spoken of every woman without exception. And the expulsion of the man and woman from paradise, and their being clothed with tunics of skins (which God, because of the transgression of men, made for those who had sinned), contain a certain secret and mystical doctrine (far transcending that of Plato) of the souls losing its wings, and being borne downwards to earth, until it can lay hold of some stable resting-place.” Against Celsus, Book 4, Chapter 40

But let’s return to that burning question on everyone’s mind: is this heresy? In his Commentary on Titus, Origen discusses the nature and qualifications for what is to be considered heresy.

“But there are also certain other dogmas that are not included in the apostolic traditions. You may be asking whether it is necessary to consider as heretics those who hold various opinions on these matters, or who investigate them in various ways. Consider for instance—and I mean this as an example—whether one should be considered a heretic who investigates the question of the human soul, since concerning it the Church’s rule has handed down neither that it is derived from the propagation of seed, nor that it is more honorable and more ancient than the structure of bodies. For that reason many have been unable to comprehend what their opinion should be concerning the question of the soul. Moreover, those who have seemed to hold some opinion or to discuss anything are held in suspicion by some, as men who are introducing novelties.” Origen, Commentary on Titus

“Moreover, when you yourself reflect on these matters, consider whether it is necessary rashly to define as a heretic or a churchman the one who thinks in some way, whatever it may be, about these things, or whether it is not dangerous to pronounce about him that ‘he is perverse and is sinning and is self-condemned’—this is spoken of heretics—if perchance, on the subjects that we mentioned above, he seems to introduce an opinion, whatever it may be, that sometimes sounds strange to many.” Origen, Commentary on Titus

Contrary to what you may think, heresy isn’t necessarily defined as something you personally disagree with. A heretic is someone who subverts the Apostolic teachings with new ones. But there are a handful of matters where an explicit Apostolic teaching wasn’t given, and in these cases there is allowed for personal opinion within the Church. When it comes to these specific subjects, as long as no one creates schism through dogmatic enforcement, he otherwise commits no fault. And Origen wasn’t guilty of making this a dogma, as Pamphilus says.

“Now Origen was aware that this doctrine concerning the soul is not held openly nor manifestly in the ecclesiastical proclamation. Therefore, if the words of Scripture anywhere suggested to him an occasion, or rather a pretext, for discussing it, he explored and investigated the things that occurred to his mind and he set these things before his readers for consideration and for testing. He did not openly define these things by way of dogmatic decree or rashly by the authority of his own opinion. Indeed, frequently he even adds these words: ‘if, however, the words that we have given in explanation concerning the soul seem to have some coherence or find approval.’” Pamphilus, Defense of Origen, 160

“If the Church manifestly handed down or proclaimed things that were contrary to Origen’s views, doubtless he would be deservedly censured as one who contradicted and resisted the Church’s decrees. But now, since there is diversity of opinion among all the men of the Church, and seeing that some hold one thing about the soul and others hold something else, and everyone holds different opinions, how is it that Origen should be accused rather than the others, especially since the things that are asserted by the others seem much more absurd, and these things are themselves contradictory?” Pamphilus, Defense of Origen, 166

Pamphilus then emphasizes Origen’s intention behind addressing this matter was to elucidate the manner in which God, in His perfect wisdom and justice, determines the conditions and circumstances into which a person is born.

“And some souls are even directed to a kind of savage and barbaric manner of life, where nothing humane and decent exists, and, beyond all that, where irreligious native superstitions predominate… Sometimes they are even directed to religious parents, where they receive a noble and honest upbringing, and where they likewise receive an education that is founded on reason. How then can those who defend such opinions assign to divine Providence rectitude and impartiality in dispensing and governing all things, as befits a good and just God?” Pamphilus, Defense of Origen, 167

And he goes on to rebuke anyone who would call someone a heretic over this, calling it unjust.

“Just as one would be wrong to call heretics those who hold as true either one of these opinions that we have set forth above, because nothing of certainty seems to have been manifestly spoken in the divine Scriptures about these matters, nor is it contained in the Church’s proclamation, so it is unjust to blame Origen when he discusses what seemed right to him [concerning these matters]. This is especially the case [when we consider] that in every way he preserved what chiefly had to be preserved in the Church concerning the confession of the soul: namely, he denied that there are different natures of souls; more than that, he even rebuked those who said this and defeated them with powerful arguments. But he himself confesses that all souls are of one substance and are rational and immortal, free to choose and to will, and that they will also be judged for what they have done in this life; further, he holds that they were made by God, who created and established the universe; but as to when they were made, whether together and all at once, or in an ongoing manner at each birth, what is the danger in holding to one or the other of these two opinions?” Pamphilus, Defense of Origen, 171

“Therefore, since there are no clear traditions in the apostolic proclamation concerning these matters, it is also not right to pronounce as heretics those who are in doubt and hold different views concerning the human soul and its origination and origin, especially since in the remaining standards of ecclesiastical doctrine they hold to what is correct and catholic.” Pamphilus, Defense of Origen, 172

I think that everyone should imitate Rufinus’ very measured and cautious statement on this subject, where he refuses to definitely take a side but treats all the ancient fathers with respect.
“I am next informed that some stir has been made on the question of the nature of the soul. Whether complaints on a matter of this kind ought to be entertained instead of being put aside, you must yourself decide. If, however, you desire to know my opinion on the subject, I will state it frankly. I have read a great many writers on this question, and I find that they express various opinions. Some of those whom I have read hold that the soul is infused together with the material body through the channel of the human seed; and of this they give such proofs as they can. I think that this was the opinion of Tertullian or Lactantius among the Latins, perhaps also of a few others. Others assert that God is every day making new souls, and infusing them into the bodies which have been framed in the womb; while others again believe that the souls were all made long ago, when God made all things of nothing, and that all that he now does is to plant out each soul in its body as it seems good to him. This is the opinion of Origen, and of some others of the Greeks. For myself, I declare in the presence of God that, after reading each of these opinions, I am up to the present moment unable to hold any of them as certain and absolute; the determination of the truth in this question I leave to God and to any to whom it shall please him to reveal it.” Rufinus, Apology, Chapter 6

Second Origenist Crisis is Embarrassing

We will now examine the sequence of events which came to be known as the Second Origenist Crisis, which occurred in the mid-sixth-century, and it was at this time that Origen was condemned.

However, this Second Crisis was very different from the First Origenist Crisis. This time, the controversy had less to do with Origen himself, and more so a group of monks who studied Origen’s books. 

“Justinian’s council, however, was most concerned with the so-called Origenists who developed positions cantilevered far beyond the views held by the one whose name they honored (see Origenist Crises). It is they who were obviously rejected at the council, and not necessarily Origen himself. The extant documents from the council, therefore, are far from being clear sources about his teaching.” The Westminster Handbook to Origen, Page 60

These monks had developed very peculiar beliefs loosely based on what they were reading, and those who would later condemn these same monks thought it would be good to extend their condemnation to Origen himself for having spawned these interpretations of his writings, regardless of his actual beliefs.

“But the point is, that though himself be not, yet books published under his name are, a great trial, which, abounding in many hurtful blasphemies, are both read and delighted in, not as being someone else’s, but as being believed to be his, so that, although there was no error in Origen’s original meaning, yet Origen’s authority appears to be an effectual cause in leading people to embrace error.” Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, Chapter 17

But if this is a reasonable course of action, why do we stop short at condemning Origen for being misinterpreted? Why don’t we also censure the writings of the Apostles themselves, whose writings were abused by heretics more than anyone?

But I digress, the Second Crisis began, as we said, in the 500s. The controversy erupted when Palestinian monks extrapolated strange beliefs from Origen’s writings, which Origen didn’t teach: the cause of the dispute was their belief that all souls were originally equal to Christ and that all souls will be equal to Christ again in the future. These monks became known as the Isochristoi, which means, “those who assume equality with Christ.” In 543 AD a Synod was convened where not only this group was condemned, but also Origen, who was blamed for being their leader. But, I have left out an important detail, the texts which were brought forward as Origen’s which were responsible for this belief WERE NOT written by Origen! Most of the supposed Origenist ideas that were being attacked here were actually rooted in the teachings of Evagrius Ponticus.

“Among Origen’s ascetic admirers were certain Palestinian monks who extrapolated Origen’s speculations concerning the preexistence of souls to conclude that the human spiritual intellect (nous), both at the beginning of its existence and again at the end of its spiritual ascent to God, was and would be equal to Christ. These were dubbed by their opponents the Isochristoi (those who would assume equality with Christ)… Origen is condemned because he is the leader of the Isochristoi. Objectionable texts are cited; these turn out to be those of Evagrius Ponticus.” The Westminster Handbook to Origen, Page 165-166

Later, in 553 AD, at the Second Council of Constantinople, Origen was brought up and condemned because they viewed him as the figurehead of the Isochristoi.

“After opening the Council of 553, without Vigilius’s cooperation, Justinian presented to the bishops the central issue of the Three Chapters (a general attack on Antiochene Christology, which had been resisting the Cyrilline christological standard that had been in the ascendancy since the Council of Ephesus in 431). It is clear enough, from all this confusion, that Origen was condemned at the council mainly as a figure who synopsized the sixth-century Isochristoi, who themselves were predominantly following Evagrian themes and speculations. The conciliar “condemnation,” however ill targeted, nevertheless had the immediate effect of devastating Origen’s text tradition and its reception for later Christian ages.” The Westminster Handbook to Origen, Page 166

In the present day version of the 10th Anathema of this council, Origen’s name is found, listed in the last place, as one of the heretics they condemned.

“If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books, and also all other heretics who have already been condemned and anathematized by the holy, catholic and apostolic church and by the four holy synods which have already been mentioned, and also all those who have thought or now think in the same way as the aforesaid heretics and who persist in their error even to death: let him be anathema.” Second Council of Constantinople 553 A.D., 10th Anathema

Although everyone agrees that Origen’s legacy in history suffered significant collateral damage at this council and that he was condemned along with the Isochristoi, it’s commonly believed that Origen’s name was interpolated here, and that he wasn’t listed in this 10th Anathema when it was written. The evidence for this, among other things, is that the first draft of this list of heretics, which is called the Homonoia, doesn’t feature Origen’s name. And then later, when a Bishop who didn’t participate in the Council, finally agreed to sign the condemnations, Origen’s name doesn’t appear in his version either. This has led many to believe that Origen’s name was inserted into the text by someone much later on.

“There were additional anathemata drawn up to condemn the christological deviancy of the Three Chapters, and here in the eleventh anathema one again finds the name of Origen listed (quite anachronistically) as a christological heretic. However, the same list of heretics that appears in the conciliar anathemata forms the content of Justinian’s edict (the Homonoia) which had been issued from the imperial chancery as the first draft of those anathemata. In the Homonoia (the prior text) Origen’s name does not appear at all, making it at least possible that the name of the third century theologian had been inserted into the conciliar acts retrospectively. When Vigilius, considerably later, reluctantly agreed to sign the conciliar condemnations that he had refused to attend in person, it is again noticeable that the name of Origen does not explicitly figure in his version of the anathemata texts.” The Westminster Handbook to Origen, Page 166

This is admitted by even some of the Orthodox, like David Bentley Hart who writes,

“It is true that something remembered by tradition as “Origenism” was condemned by someone in the sixth century, and that Origen was maligned as a heretic in the process; and it is also true that for well more than a millennium both those decisions were associated with the Council of 553 by what was simply accepted as the official record. But, embarrassingly, we now know, and have known for quite some time, that the record was falsified.” David Bentley Hart, Saint Origen

As stupid and ridiculous as this event was, it had a very serious long-term impact: because Origen’s reputation had been so severely maligned it discouraged many people from preserving his writings. For this reason, much of Origen’s vast library has been lost to time, which is probably the greatest crime. These shameless men have robbed the world of a goldmine.

ACCUSATION: Origen Taught Jesus was a Mere Man

A much later accusation toward Origen came sometime around 685-700 AD, when Anastasius of Sinai claimed Origen was a heretic who taught that Christ was a “mere man.”

“Then, Origen taught that Christ was merely a man…” (Anastasius of Sinai, Hodegos Chapter 20, Patrologiæ Græca 89, Page 277)

This is one of the most ridiculous allegations, because Origen annihilated this heresy in his own lifetime. How can you accuse the one who defeats the heresy of being guilty of the heresy? If you remember, this was the subject that Origen debated with a certain Bishop who had started believing Jesus was only a regular man who was artificially made God’s Son. Origen turned that man from the error of his ways, and restored him to orthodoxy. Furthermore, in his Commentary on Titus, Origen groups people who believe that Jesus was a “mere man” with the rest of the heretics.

“…or according to those who deny that he is the “firstborn,” the God “of all creation” and “the Word” and “the Wisdom,” which is “the beginning of the ways of God,” which “came into being before anything else,” “founded before the ages” and “generated before all the hills,” and who say instead that he was a mere man. Or a heretic may agree with those who indeed confess that he is God, but not that he assumed humanity, that is, a soul and earthly body. These heretics, under the pretext of ascribing greater glory to Jesus the Lord, claim that all his actions seemed to have been done rather than were truly done.” Origen, Commentary on Titus

You have to wonder how many people, who were otherwise unfamiliar with Origen, were deceived by Anastasius and convinced that Origen was some insane person who taught something this stupid.

ACCUSATION: Origen Created a Corrupt Old Testament

This accusation is probably the most modern on our list, and its specific to those Protestants who are obsessed with the King James Translation of the Scriptures. The KJV Only people really despise Origen. As far as I’m aware, Benjamin G. Wilkinson was the inventor of this narrative in the 1930s, and this is how it goes:

When the King James Translation was made in the 1600s, they based it on the manuscripts that were available to them at the time. In the years that followed, older manuscripts were discovered that translators from then on began using, and in this way the King James Version has become outdated. How is Origen involved with any of this? Because the older manuscripts which were discovered are from Alexandria. The KJV Enthusiasts took advantage of this by associating the location of these manuscripts with Origen, which was an easy way for them to cast doubt on the reliability of these manuscripts because Origen is an easy target due to his poor reputation.

Kent Hovind, an ardent defender of the KJV, attempts to convince his audience that Origen is evil because he is from Alexandria and Egypt, his proof for this being that Alexandria and Egypt are portrayed negatively in the Scriptures. 

(6:09 – 6:29) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DA8DK0u0Tw&ab_channel=DevinApplegate

Kent Hovind adopts the mindset of the Jews here, forgetting that the Jews held Jesus in suspicion for having grown up in Egypt, and that Jesus was also associated with other places with a poor reputation in addition to Egypt. Hovind is like the Pharisees who say,  “Examine the Scriptures, and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee,” (John 7:52) and like Nathaniel when he asked, “Is it possible that there can be any good thing from Nazareth?” (John 1:46)

Now, anyone who has read everything up to the present point, and has now learned very basic knowledge about Origen’s life, will know that Kent Hovind has no idea what he’s talking about when he says the following:

(5:34 – 6:10) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DA8DK0u0Tw&ab_channel=DevinApplegate

Their ridiculous and outlandish claims hinge on the listener being completely ignorant about Origen! Their intention is to cast doubt on the manuscripts which outdate their precious KJV through guilt by association. But the idea that Origen “tampered” with the New Testament text is utterly stupid. Before Origen was born, textual variants already existed of the Scriptures, but this was often due to minor copying errors. 

Aware of the slight variations that already existed, Origen undertook a massive scholarly project where he collected six versions of the Old Testament and put them side-by-side: this gigantic work was titled The Hexapla. The Hexapla was not a new version of the Bible, it was an invaluable resource which served to compare the existing Hebrew and Greek versions of the Old Testament which were popular at the time.

Hovind is blaming the guy who was trying to fix the problem as the cause of the problem! The problem of variant copies existed long before Origen was born, and they were the result of Scribes all over the world, not just Alexandria. Origen vents his frustration at Scribes who have caused these minor differences, basically calling them lazy.

“Now it is clear that many differences in the copies have come about either from the lazy indifference of certain scribes, or the misguided daring of some, of the correction of the things written, or even from those who, in their correction, added or subtracted those things according to their own opinions. The disagreement, then, in the copies of the Old Testament, we found to be cured, with God’s help, when making use of the rest of the copies as a criterion. For, with the doubtful matters in the LXX arising from the disagreement of the copies, we made a judgment from the rest of the editions, and we preserved the agreement among them, and we marked with an obelus those passages not found in the Hebrew (not daring to remove them completely), and we added other passages along with an asterisk, in order that it might be clear that we have added passages not found in the LXX from the rest of the editions in agreement with the Hebrew text. Indeed, he who so wishes may accept these things, but to one whom this matter causes offense he may do what he wishes (concerning their acceptance, or not).” Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Book 15

From the way that Hovind describes Origen, claiming he re-wrote the Scriptures and started a heretical sect, you would think he’s describing Marcion!

Also, people should begin embracing Christian vocabulary, instead of appealing to the sensibilities of carnal people and atheists. People are right to despise “cults,” according to the common understanding of the word. But I find it very annoying how self-acclaimed Christians are more afraid of this word than a word that is actually Biblical, such as “heretic.” Oftentimes when people use the word “cult” they really mean a “heretic” anyway. Hovind craftily associates Origen with “cults” and “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” to make his audience feel uncomfortable about Origen in the same way that they feel uncomfortable about the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Let me be very clear, the Jehovah’s Witnesses deserve to be mocked and despised, but they deserve ridicule because they invented NOVEL doctrines, which are called HERESIES! The use of “cult” is more so concerned with painting a group as a minority with unusual or strange doctrines, rather than being concerned with the much more pressing matter – that they have invented heresies. What I’m trying to say is this, too many people despise a group like the Jehovah’s Witnesses for the wrong reason, not for the reason that a Christian would oppose them.

Listen to Your Saints!

Finally, I want to emphasize what should have already been made clear to the observant viewer: to defend Origen’s legacy we have frequently appealed to men who are highly respected by the Catholics and Orthodox – the same Catholic and Orthodox who despise Origen. If the Cathodox will display contempt for someone who loves Origen today, how can they rationally explain why they don’t condemn their own distinguished Church historians, Saints, and Doctors who are also guilty of admiring Origen?

I don’t pretend to have any special authority, so I wouldn’t expect for the Cathodox to listen to me in particular. But if they won’t listen to those men they claim to respect (again, their Church historians, Saints, and even their Doctors!) then they have exposed themselves to be no different than the Protestant who places the importance of his own reason over that of the ancient teachers. If Origen is to be condemned, where does this place his admirer, Athansius, who is apparently loved by the Cathodox? As the historian Socrates Scholasticus says, if you people attack Origen you also attack Athanasius!

(Show following picture while reading the previous paragraph)

“Those therefore who load Origen with opprobrium, overlook the fact that their maledictions fall at the same time on Athanasius, the eulogist of Origen.” Socrates Scholasticus, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 14

I have collated the following list of men who either studied Origen’s writings and supported them, or defended his legacy from attack, throughout the centuries that followed his death. Keep in mind, as Socrates Scholasticus says, if you curse Origen then you also curse these men.

I think that this suffices to show how one should perceive Origen and his legacy. I believe that everyone who is pursuing the truth with a pure heart, not strife, will easily assent to these evident assertions.