Sunday, July 22, 2012

Chapter Eighteen of My New Book

There is a simple reason why the Mar Saba discovery baffled contemporary scholarship.  Our inherited understanding of Christianity is flawed.  Where the Catholic tradition emphasizes the universal nature of salvation, the Alexandrian tradition was rooted in the shared intimacy between two people.  It seems the academic world was scandalized by Morton Smith's casual remark about his discovery that - "freedom from the [Mosaic] law may have resulted in completion of the spiritual union by physical union. This certainly occurred in many forms of Gnostic Christianity; how early it began there is no telling.”[1]  Yet the ridicule that was heaped upon the Columbia professor wasn't just a reflection of sexual prudishness.  His explanation is rooted in an entirely inappropriate interest in magic and magical practices.

Smith read this private instruction as evidence that Jesus offered his closest disciples a mystery rite which allowed the initiate to enter God’s heavenly kingdom and be freed from the Mosaic laws that apply in the lower world.  This is what is meant by the phrase “for Jesus [gave] him the mystery [rite] of the kingdom of God.”   According to Smith, Jesus was a magician who offered hypnotically induced experiences of union with his spirit and ascension into the kingdom of God, culminating in freedom from the Law. Yet critics notes that "the odd thing about Morton Smith’s theses is that none of them have any worthwhile support in the fragment.”  Smith seemed to acknowledge this common criticism, for he barely mentioned the secret gospel in his follow-up book, Jesus the Magician.[2]

Morton Smith can be argued to have lost interest in his discovery perhaps because he recognized it didn't support his interest in Christian magical practices.  Yet what of the physical and spiritual union with Jesus?  Smith never pursued this line of reasoning.  Perhaps he was tired of the personal attacks.  The point is that modern scholarship 'didn't go there' because it had no frame of reference.  Protestant scholars think that Christianity is only compatible with heterosexual love, Catholic scholars think heterosexual love can be tolerated by the Church.  Yet the idea that Christianity might have developed from same sex attraction through various Greek philosophical conceptions was simply a non-starter - this even though we are dealing with a very unusual cast of characters in Alexandria.

There certainly was a conscious effort to 'smooth over' the strange behaviors and practices of the Alexandrians.  A case in point is Origen's sex change operation, or perhaps more correctly his self-castration.  While Eusebius acknowledges that Origen 'did the deed' very early in his life - likely at the completion of his 'elementary studies' - he does his best to side step the understanding that Origen's sexual identity was behind Demetrius's dissatisfaction with the presbyter.

There is another account of the life of Origen which is preserved by Epiphanius a couple of generations after Eusebius's Church History which offers up a very different chronology for Origen.  Epiphanius makes clear that once Origen left Alexandria in 215 CE he never returned.  Yet note the reason for his desperate escape given by Epiphanius - 'the authorities' allegedly secured a black man to rape him.  They gave Origen a choice - sacrifice to idols or be sexually assaulted.[4]  After Origen chose to participate in the pagan religion, Epiphanius says Origen was ashamed and "not bearing the ridicule who reproached him, elected to live in Palestine, that is, in Judaea."

On arriving at Jerusalem Origen was urged by the priesthood, "as a man with such skill in exegesis and so highly educated, to speak in church" adding that he had already been a presbyter in Alexandria.  Unlike Eusebius's chronology, Epiphanius has Origen depart to the city of Tyre in modern Lebanon where "at the urgent request of many, he made the acquaintance of Ambrose, a prominent imperial official" who was certainly a Marcionite.[5]  What makes Epiphanius's story so interesting is not only that it is so completely at odds with Eusebius's chronology but that it draws attention to the holes in the Church history.  For instance, Eusebius acknowledges Ambrose as a patron but never explains his connection to Tyre.  Moreover Epiphanius says that Origen spent many years in Tyre, while the city never even comes up in Eusebius's chronology.  Nevertheless he does mention the firsthand witness of Porphyry of Tyre which lends weight to Epiphanius's testimony.[6]

We can now established that according to Epiphanius's chronology Origen did not return to Alexandria after he left in 215 CE.  Theodore of Pontus came to Caesarea in 215 and stayed until 220 or 223 CE.  Origen may have subsequently left Caesarea for Tyre.  We just don't know.  Nevertheless as our real interest in the relationship of Theodore to both Origen and Clement, the only question left is the whereabouts of Clement when he wrote the now famous letter to Theodore discovered at the Mar Saba monastery.

The first question here might be - how was the letter preserved in the library?  While many have noted that a collection of letters of Clement of Alexandria are witnessed as being present in the library of the monastery as late as the ninth century, it is also possible that the letter was preserved as part of a collection of material related to Gregory - a saint who enjoyed much greater popularity than Clement.  The most likely scenario is that Clement was writing to someone in Palestine from somewhere outside of Palestine.  Yet can we narrow down the location of the place from which he was writing?

According to the standard view of his life, Clement's tenure in Alexandria came to an abrupt end with the outbreak of a persecution against the Alexandrian Christians during the reign of the emperor Septimius Severus in 202 or 203 CE.  It is said that Clement fled the city fearing his life, perhaps never to return.  It is often suggested, based on the testimony of a letter written around 211 CE and attributed to Alexander, then bishop of Cappadocia, later of Jerusalem, that Clement found a safe haven in Cappadocia.

We see Alexander writing to the church in Antioch making reference to Clement - "my honored brothers, I have sent this letter to you by Clement, the blessed presbyter, a man virtuous and approved, whom you yourselves also know and will recognize.  Being here, in the providence and oversight of the Master, he has strengthened and built up the Church of the Lord."[7]  This letter tells us a lot more than merely connecting Clement to an extended stay in Cappadocia  As the French scholar Andre Mehat notes it established as a priest in Alexandria.[8]  As such we have found yet another parallel between Clement and Origen in Alexandria - they both held sacerdotal function within the Egyptian Church.

So if we start to reconstruct the lives of the two Church Fathers we see that Origen must have been Clement's student from the end of the reign of Commodus.  Early in the reign of Demetrius in Alexandria Clement moves to Cappadocia before being dispatched in 211 CE by Alexander.  Yet it is curious to see that Clement's host Alexander was soon also to be on the move.  According to the standard model of the lives of the Church Fathers, the translation of Alexander to Jerusalem must have taken place about 212 CE after an aged bishop Narcissus of Jerusalem requests him be his assistant. In due course Alexander would take over the bishopric and last there until the reign of Decius (250 CE).  But the sudden movement of all parties at the beginning of the reign of Caracalla is interesting.

As we head toward the year 215 CE Origen escapes from Alexandria to Palestine, and both Clement and Alexander head for Syria from Cappadocia.  Indeed perhaps even more significant is the movement of another Cappadocia Church Father, Firmilian of Caesarea.  He originally offers Origen a safe haven in Asia Minor before coming himself to see Origen in Caesarea Maritima.  Theodore, who is only a little further away in the Pontic region, also ends up in the same place at the same time.  This suggests at least that the movement of all these people from the region may well again have been coordinated.  It is an intriguing possibility to suggest that Origen's conversion of the Marcionite Ambrose in Tyre might have been the model to interpret the conversion of these Cappadocian figures.  In other words he had found a way to superficially adapt traditional teaching to the new orthodoxy developed in Rome.[9]

Clement's role in Antioch is also interesting.  Antioch becomes the end of the line for our information about the Church Father.  Most scholars will argue that there is no solid evidence to explain to us where Clement went after Antioch.  Some have said that Clement lived out his days in Jerusalem, yet there is no solid evidence for that.  Moreover some have misinterpreted a statement at the end of this section of the Church History as proof that Clement died shortly thereafter.   It would seem that we are lost in the fog as it were about information related to Clement and there is no way to get us home.

Yet this difficulty actually takes us back to a familiar theme in our study - the misuse and misinterpretation of history in Book Six of this chronicle.  While it has to be acknowledged this reference to Clement being sent to Antioch is our last explicit reference to the Church Father there is an important statement that immediately follows which we will argue should be understand as the closing statement about Clement's travels.  As it stands, it has been changed by Eusebius into a sudden and unexpected reference to Origen returning to Alexandria haphazardly inserted into a chapter that should be dealing with the life of Clement.

Immediately after citing the letter of Alexander to Origen, itself clearly from another period, making reference to Clement in the past tense, Eusebius barges into the narrative and says:

So much for these matters. But Adamantius, — for this also was a name of Origen—when Zephyrinus was bishop of Rome, visited Rome, desiring, as he himself somewhere says, to see the most ancient church of Rome.  After a short stay there he returned to Alexandria. And he performed the duties of catechetical instruction there with great zeal; Demetrius, who was bishop there at that time, urging and even entreating him to work diligently for the benefit of the brethren.[10]

The emphasized text is from Eusebius's hand.  The first provides the transition from the Letter of Alexander, the second that what is being cited from the Roman episcopal list as a reference to the visit of a certain 'Adamantius' to Rome should properly be understood as pertaining to Origen.

Of course it is significant that the original reference still does not identify the proper name of the Alexandrian official.  We have several references still in the early Roman tradition about such a visit.  In the Liber Pontificalis the name of the individual is 'Theophilus of Alexandria,' theophilus being a title of similar significance.  The difficulty of the 'Adamantius' reference goes back to the heart of our discussion of the development of this chapter from earlier material in Eusebius's Chronicles.  He obvious began with a reference to an anonymous figure and later decided to transform the reference into answer the charge that Origen was a heretic by making it appear that he reconciled with Demetrius.

Yet the fact that the original reference from the Roman episcopal list read 'Adamantius' is particularly significant here.  It reminds us of the reference to Hippolytus going to the Empress Julia Mamaea that was erased and transformed into a visit by Origen.  Then just as here  Eusebius has been dealing with someone other than Origen.  In this case the life of Clement of Alexandria was has continued since chapter 11.  We are now reaching the end of the life of Clement.  We have been told that he has been sent to Antioch with respect to a controversy that has something to do with the very topic brought up in the Letter to Theodore - a gospel written by Peter which is used by heretics in Syria.

Indeed there has to be a reason why Eusebius decides to insert a letter dealing with Antiochene affairs immediately following his reference to Clement being sent to Antioch.   It cannot be overstated that in the middle of a continuous discussion about the life of Clement (6.11 - 15) he reads a letter from the bishop of Antioch "to a certain Domninus, who, in the time of persecution, fell away from faith in Christ to the Jewish will-worship and those addressed to Pontius and Caricus, ecclesiastical men, and other letters to different persons, and still another work composed by him on the so-called Gospel of Peter."  We are told that the heresy that holds to this other gospel is called Marcian or Marcion as the material has often been mistranslated.  In either case the trail goes back to St Mark as either name means either 'of Mark' in Greek or 'those of Mark' in Aramaic.[11]

It is difficult to escape the sense that Clement was sent to Antioch to explain the gospel of Mark and its relation to a 'gospel of Peter.'  A similar 'to Theodore' related theme - the creation of a 'spiritual' gospel after Mark's literal narrative for Peter - also continues in the two chapters which follow this Antiochene visit.  Eusebius then not only makes reference to Clement visiting Antioch during the time of a controversy related to the existence of a heretical 'gospel of Peter' held by a community associated with Mark, but his references to Clement's writings also touch upon the same themes.

When we look at the sudden movement of individuals from a region of the world consistently identified as 'Marcionite' it begins to suggest that this may have been an important period of change in the history of the heretical tradition.  The longer gospel of Mark has already been identified as their most important gospel.  Clement has become the 'point man' on the controversy defending the text in front of Church officials and presumably also in private correspondences like that of to Theodore. Clement seems to have been very busy in the early third century explaining, or possibly obscuring, the original Alexandrian relationship between the two gospels of Mark.[12]

So to answer our original question - where did Clement go from Antioch? - we find a suitably answer in Francis Hitchcock's work on Clement.  He notes that "it is said that after finishing his work in Antioch, the catechist returned to his school, and died in his native city 222 AD.  This is practically all that we know of the life of one who lived in the light of the Word of life, and laboured modestly and with great success for the Church of Christ."[13]  Hitchcock position is clearly based on the correct interpretation of the material in Church History chapter 14, namely that Clement is in fact the 'Adamantius' of the Roman episcopal list rather than Origen.

It is difficult to believe that Origen would return to Alexandria after Demetrius spent so much effort trying to destroy his career.  Indeed as we have already noted, there was a synod which condemned Origen as well as a letter from the Imperial senate.  It is unthinkable that Origen would have set foot in the Imperial capitol at this time.  Nevertheless it is equally myopic to think that Origen was the only individual who carried the name 'Adamantius.'  Indeed it is the only place in Eusebius's History that the name is specifically described as belonging to Origen.

When the term is used by Theodore of Pontus it is clear that it refers to the one soul that is shared by two male initiates.  It represents the impassable nature of Christ which connected Jesus to the disciple who was crucified in his place in Jerusalem:

[f]or example the salamander, the animal which can despise the flame, and adamant when it is struck by iron (not phantasmal and docetic, as we said) remain impassible.  Absbestos, too, remains whole when it takes fire upon itself, suffering no harm from its association with fire.[14]

Indeed a careful reading of this material reveals that it too is associated with yet another contemporary figure named Adamantius.  For there is a famous anti-Marcionite dialogue associated with an individual of the same name which reuses Theodore's discussion with Theopompus word for word.

In these 'Dialogues' we find an anonymous figure called 'Adamantius' debating a follower of the heretic Bardesanes named Marinus over the exact same question in the correspondence between Theodore and Theopompus - the impassibility of God during the crucifixion.  Marinus asks 'Adamantius' "when the man was suffering [on the cross] was the Word present at the same time or not?" 'Adamantius's response here is identical with Theodore's to Theopompus on the exact same question:

Permit me first to answer Marinus' question, then let him put forward his explanation. The Word of God was present with the man, but He suffered no injury, just as adamant remains sound when it is struck by iron, and on the contrary, causes injury to the very thing meant to injure it. Again, asbestos, when it is consigned to the fire, remains unbroken and unspoiled, without any damage.  Nor is the fire, when cut by a sword, divided, for the dense flame runs back on itself and remains indivisible. If, then, material substances exert their strength against other substances and cannot be consumed, much more surely did the Word of God, e being of an impassible and unchangeable nature, remain impassible, and absorbed the sufferings (for the crucified man)[15]

We see now that the Dialogue takes the material from the writings of Theodore of Pontus (= Gregory Thaumaturgus) and passes them off as being associated with a figure named 'Adamantius.'

The upshot of all of this of course is that Adamantius was not an exclusive name that Origen held on his own but rather something which was used to identify the substance of the soul shared by two yoked males in the Alexandrian tradition.  Not only was Origen called 'Adamantius' but undoubtedly also Clement, his male partner.  Theodore also must have been called 'Adamantius' and Athenodorus too.  They all shared an 'adamantine' soul - the very essence of Jesus - which displayed in the conclusion of the secret gospel of Mark.

Indeed as we have already noted in a previous chapter the discussion in to Theopompus and now the Dialogues of Adamantius too seem to come right out of the pages of Irenaeus discussion of 'secret Mark.'  Not only does Irenaeus identify the heretics who used this gospel to have held that "that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered" on the cross but moreover like Theodore that this impassible Christ was "manifested as a transfigured man."[16] "These men do," as Irenaeus goes on to note "understand that Christ was one and Jesus another; and they teach that there was not one Christ, but many. And if they speak of them as united, they do again separate them: for they show that one did indeed undergo sufferings, but that the other remained impassible."[17]

This is the essence of the Alexandrian tradition - together Clement and Origen, Theodore and Athendorus were Christ.  Not surprisingly too Clement himself speaks of the Carpocratians who abused the secret gospel of Mark in similar terms.  They are described as 'partners (koinwnoi) in sexual freedom, these brothers in lustfulness, who pervert the Savior’s words.' (Strom 3.4), false 'partners in the name' (Strom 4.4).  When they come together in what is clearly described as a counterfeit heterosexual union we hear a similar use of the terminology. 'The wise woman,' writes Clement must 'first choose to persuade her husband to be her partner (koinwnon) in what is conducive to happiness.' (Strom 4.19)  Indeed to come to the proper understanding, Clement says the woman must see that "God is her helper and partner ... making Him the leader and guide of all her actions." (Strom 4.20)  We are at the brink of understanding that secret relationship.

[1] (Morton Smith, The Secret Gospel, p. 94, The Secret Gospel: The Discovery and Interpretation of the Secret Gospel according to Mark. New York: Harper & Row, 1973).
[4] Epiphanius  Before his escape, Epiphanius tells us that Origen was persecuted by the pagans "It is said that he suffered a great deal for the holy word of the faith and the name of Christ, and indeed was often dragged around the city, insulted, and subjected to excruciating tortures"  In a story which seems to have been borrowed from or appropriated the later cult of St Mark, Origenis said to have had his head shaved and left on the steps of the temple of their idol which they call the Serapeum, and ordered him to hand out palm branches to those who went up the stairs to worship the idol. (The priests of their idols take this posture.) (5) Taking the branches he cried out without fear or hesitation, with loud voice and a bold mind, "Come get Christ's branch, not the idol's!" And many accounts of his brave deeds are handed down to us by the ancients.  "With diabolical malice the workers of iniquity thought of mistreating him sexually and making that his punishment, and they secured a black to abuse his body. But Origen could not bear even the thought of this devil's work, and shouted  that if these were his choices he would rather sacrifice. Certainly, as is widely reported, he did not do this willingly either. But since he had agreed do to it at all, he heaped incense on his hands and dumped it on the altar fire. Thus he was excluded from a martyr's status at that time by the confessors and martyrs who were his judges, and was expelled from the church."  This appears to be a variation on the story of Origen's pupil Potimiaena, who is threatened with rape by gladiators, answers defiandy, and is put to death, Eus. HE 6.5.1-5.  The material related to agreeing to make sacrifices to pagan gods derives from Pierius of Alexandria.
[6] It is also interesting that Ambrose is mentioned in both accounts, but Eusebius refuses to identify his city of origin.[2]  Perhaps even more significant is the fact that both Eusebius and Epiphanius mention the manufacture of the Hexapla - an edition of the Old Testament with at least six different versions of the material - in the same breath as the introduction of Ambrose.  Origen was certainly in Palestine immediately following his escape from Alexandria.[3]  Yet Epiphanius's account just makes more sense than Eusebius's with respect to Ambrose providing the stenographers who would eventually record his Old Testament homilies when he was sixty years of age.  This is perhaps why no less than an authority as Photius of Constantinople rejects the Eusebius chronology in this period and argues that the residence at Tyre "is the truer account." (Phil. 118) To this end, while Eusebius won't directly tell us where Ambrose and Origen became friends we can figure it out quite easily.  His narrative about Ambrose appears in chaper 17 and in the lengthy chapter that follows he cites material from the pagan philosopher Porphyry of Tyre who saw Origen in his city when he was about fourteen presumably.  Since we know that Porphyry was born abour 234 CE this means that Origen was likely in the city around 248 CE which in turn suggests - given Epiphanius's statement that he was there for at least twenty eight years.  Given that Jerome says that Origen was buried at Tyre after his death in 253 CE, it would stand to reason that he came to Ambrose at Tyre around 225 CE.[4]
[7] (Church History 6.11.6)
[12] Eusebius in the next two chapters deals with the writings of Clement and concludes with yet another statement that dovetails with what appears in the Letter to Theodore.  We are told that in his last and greatest work, the Hypotyposes Clement explains the composition of the two gospels "the Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.  When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel." The subject matter, the language and the specific terminology here is exactly reminiscent of the Letter to Theodore.  In that letter Clement tells Theodore "As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected." The only thing that separates this 'more spiritual' gospel which Clement confesses to Theodore is 'secret Mark' from the 'spiritual' gospel in the Hypotyposeis is the name 'John.'  Indeed it is only because this gospel written by 'John' appears after all the other gospels that scholars think of our familiar gospel according to John.  Yet does it really make sense to suppose that the description here fits that text which bears little or no relation to the gospel of Mark?  For immediately after describing the contents of the gospel Mark wrote for Peter, Clement says "perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the gospel (= the gospel Mark wrote for Peter), being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel." Clement is saying in no uncertain terms that this 'John' read the gospel of Mark that Peter "neither directly forbade nor encouraged" and decided to depart from strictly reporting the facts and composed a spiritual gospel.  The exact same idea appears in the Letter to Theodore only with the action attributed to Mark.  Now in that letter Clement gives as an aside to Theodore that "when they (the heretics) put forward their falsifications, should one concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath."  In other words, Clement instructs Theodore to say that the 'more spiritual' gospel is by someone else.  Isn't this exactly what Clement is doing here in the Hypotyposeis. Most people date the Hypotyposeis to an indefinite period in the early third century.  It is very curious then that Clement goes to Antioch to deal with the discovery of a heretical gospel associated with Peter by a group devoted to Mark and then at the very same time reference the attempt someone who is not Mark to make the 'gospel of Mark' more spiritual?  Indeed this is not the end of the controversy.  It is very interesting that Origen's is said to have been starting to work on a Commentary on the Gospel of John before fleeing Alexandria.  The work we have now under that name was created in a much later period and has little or nothing to do with the original. More significant again is the rejection of For Marcion, rejecting the entire Gospel, yea rather, cutting himself off from the Gospel, boasts that he has part in the [blessings of] the Gospel.(4) Others, again (the Montanists), that they may set at nought the gift of the Spirit, which in the latter times has been, by the good pleasure of the Father, poured out upon the human race, do not admit that aspect [of the evangelical dispensation] presented by John's Gospel, in which the Lord promised that He would send the Paraclete;(5) but set aside at once both the Gospel and the prophetic Spirit. Wretched men indeed! who wish to be pseudo- prophets, forsooth, but who set aside the gift of prophecy from the Church; acting like those (the Encratitae)(6) who, on account of such as come in hypocrisy, hold themselves aloof from the communion of the brethren. We must conclude, moreover, that these men (the Montanists) can not admit the Apostle Paul either. For, in his Epistle to the Corinthians,(7) he speaks expressly of prophetical gifts, and recognises men and women prophesying in the Church. Sinning, therefore, in all these particulars, against the Spirit of God,(8) they fall into the irremissible sin. "But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains. Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified."
[14] It was Clement not Origen who ventured to Rome to meet Zephyrinus c. 217 CE.[9]  This is obviously the original context of the material in the Church History.  The reason the words 'for this also was a name of Origen' were added to the text was because later Origenists wanted to demonstrate that Origen was perfectly submissive and agreeable to the bishop.[10]  There were other known 'Adamantius' figures in the third century.  A treatise from the third century - the Dialogue of the True Faith - is explicitly ascribed to an Adamantius who can't be Origen.  Eusebius apparently identified this individual as a certain Maximus and this is certainly correct.  The text in turn was copied or ascribed to the late third century Church Father Methodius and also 'Adamantius.'[11]  The thing to keep in mind is that Adamantius was an originally Alexandrian title rather than a proper name which ultimately meant something like 'impassable.'
[15] The fifth century Theodore of Cyrrhus twice explicitly identifies Adamantius as someone other than Origen.  The tenth century Byzantine scholar Photius notes that he learned from the last bishop of Jerusalem under Byzantine rule - "Sophronius informs us 'that another is Origen the Ancient, and another after him, named Adamantius'"
[16] It should be evident that Origen was not the only 'Adamantos' if he ever was so-called. Clement uses the terminology as does Basilides before him "The adherents of Basilides are in the habit of calling the passions appendages: saying that these are in essence certain spirits attached to the rational soul, through some original perturbation and confusion; and that, again, other bastard and heterogeneous natures of spirits grow on to them, like that of the wolf, the ape, the lion, the goat, whose properties showing themselves around the soul, they say, assimilate the lusts of the soul to the likeness of the animals. For they imitate the actions of those whose properties they bear. And not only are they associated with the impulses and perceptions of the irrational animals, but they affect the motions and the beauties of plants, on account of their bearing also the properties of plants attached to them. They have also the properties of a particular state, as the hardness of steel. But against this dogma we shall argue subsequently, when we treat of the soul. At present this only needs to be pointed out, that man, according to Basilides, preserves the appearance of a wooden horse, according to the poetic myth, embracing as he does in one body a host of such different spirits. [2.20]" Even Eusebius who only uses the title 'Adamantos' once to describe Clement's trip to Rome and return to Alexandria c. 216 CE, uses the term 'adamant' to describe the perfected catechumen.  He writes at the end of the Church History "who has founded a nation which of old was not even heard of, but which now is not concealed in some corner of the earth, but is spread abroad everywhere under the sun? Who has so fortified his soldiers with the arms of piety that their souls, being firmer than adamant, shine brilliantly in the contests with their opponents?" (Church History 10.4.19)  Indeed the narrative makes absolutely no sense as an Origen story.  How can Origen be the Adamantius who returns to Alexandria to establish Heraclas as his 'partner' when a little later (Church History 6.26) Eusebius looks back at this same story and says that "it was in the tenth year of the above-mentioned reign that Origen removed from Alexandria to Cæsarea, and leaves (kataleipei) Heraclas the catechetical school in that city."  Why would Eusebius say that he left the church to Heraclas in 215 CE but then claim he returned a few years later, took over his old duties found that he didn't have enough time for contemplation and then "divided the multitude and from those whom he knew well, he selected Heraclas"?  Clearly if it was Origen who left Heraclas behind to govern the Church, Origen can't be the 'Adamantius' summoned by Demetrius who took a second look and then chose Heraclas to be his associate.  When Origen left Alexandria he was only an elementary instructor and so did not have the authority to make Heraclas a 'partner.' Clement was the occultated 'Papa' (= Pope).

Email with comments or questions.

Stephan Huller's Observations by Stephan Huller
is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.