Tag Archives: Jerome

What do I do With Origen?

This is not the first time this question has been asked. Heck, the Church asked it for a couple of centuries before Justinian had him condemned in 553 at the Council of Constantinople. My perspective’s a bit different.

If you’ve been following my reading/blogging on Early Christianity posts you know that at the moment I’m reading forward from first century Christian origins (though many will say the date of the true origin is the same as for Judaism). I’m planning to do this fairly intensely until I get to Nicaea. My post-Nicaean level of knowledge is quite a bit higher so from that point I’ll be in more of a gap filling mode rather than this wholesale gobbling up of everything.

So here we have Origen. He’s prominent. He wrote from the early to the mid-3rd Century. He started his career in Alexandria and ended it in Caesarea. I should be able to go through his stuff and use him as another example of what Christians were thinking during that period, right?

Not so fast. Most of Origen’s writings come to us through early 5th century Latin translations by Rufinus of Aquileia. Rufinus has been roundly criticized by various folks, as early as his contemporary, Jerome, for mistranslation to the point of making wholesale changes to Origen’s text and completely altering his meaning.

To provide a little background, Rufinus’ Orthodoxy came into question in the late 4th century. One of the criticisms leveled against him was that he had not been a strong enough critic of Origen. There was this whole conflict between Jerome and Rufinus which I’ll need to read more on to fully discuss. I have read Claudian and he hates Rufinus passionately, though this has much more to do with Claudian being Stilicho’s panegyrist and the conflict between East and West/Arcadian and Honorius than religious reasons. 1 In any case, with his Orthodoxy still an open question, Rufinus was accused of amending Origen’s text. Jerome had access to the Greek and provided some translations of his own demonstrating these changes(these amounted to a small fraction of Rufinus’ translations).

There’s a LOT more to this but the essence is I don’t know what to do with Origen. I don’t think I can use him as an example of 3rd century Christian thought, not reliably, as what we have from him isn’t (probably) completely his own words and ideas. At the same time, Rufinus didn’t totally rewrite him so we can’t use him as an example of early 5th-century thought either.

What can be done, since Rufinus’ translation is what was handed down to posterity, is talk about Origen’s influence on Early Christianity or, more correctly, the influence of Origen-Rufinus. I can touch on this a little but as I haven’t completely gone through Jerome and Augustine (and other writings of Rufinus) I can’t assess this all that well either. In the end, I’ll probably limit myself to a single topical post on Origen’s writings, then hope to link back to them once I begin reading up on the late 4th/early 5th centuries. I’ll mention prominent concepts and areas were he got himself into trouble but the caution has to be made that it may not be that he got himself into trouble but that Rufinus got him in trouble (150 years after he died).

One area this highlights is the importance of critically analyzing sources. I think, though I have questions about my qualifications to do so, that I’ll probably put together a post on the use of sources. And for Origen, I’m going to focus less on specific ideas, as I did with Tertullian, and spend more time talking about broader concepts. I’m not terribly happy about this but I’m less happy about picking something specific which Origen talks about and say, “This is what 3rd century Christians thought.”

1 See Claudian, Against Rufinus(In Rufinum). He sprinkles criticism in elsewhere too.

Claudian, Maurice Platnauer, trans., Claudian (2 Volumes). Cambridge: Loeb Classical Library (1922).

1 Comment

Posted by on February 8, 2014 in Historiography, Religion


Tags: , , , , , ,

Friday at Kalamazoo Part I: Jerome and Virgil

NOTE: As I’m sitting at over 2000 words after reporting on the first session, I’m going to split my Friday Kalamazoo report in half. One day I really must learn discipline.

Friday dawned cool and sunny, continuing the excellent weather which largely lasted for the entire Congress. And I’d caught up on my sleep which was great. My room this year overlooked the interior Valley III courtyard so I occasionally was woken up by the sound of folks enjoying a wine social but I’ve also been next to the elevator before or had a room right over an entrance. I’ll take this, thank you very much.

After breakfast I made my way (surprise!) to the exhibit area and worked my way through the booths which I hadn’t yet visited. Generally by this time I would have pretty much completed my shopping but for some reason I was a bit slower this year. Part of it was I kept running into people to talk to which was cool. I was also a bit more selective than last year. Seems strange that it would take longer to buy fewer books but it did. Still, by the end of the morning I’d made it through all but the sellers on one side outside of the main exhibit area (for attendees, the section including Powell’s).

Then I rode the shuttle to Bernhard for Session 230, Late Antiquity I: Christianity and Culture in Western Late Antiquity. This session was one I was looking forward to and it didn’t disappoint though I ended up taking useful notes for only 3 of the 4 papers. In fact, in re-reading this, in some ways this is a lousy session report as I seem unable to keep from interjecting my own thoughts rather than just recounting the papers. I’m leaving it anyway; this is what happens when people give good papers about things I’m interested in.

This was the session which largely consisted of “topics I’m going to get to very soon.” The first paper was no exception as the Saturnalia sits on my bookshelf in the stack of things I’m going to read in the near future. For a brief summary for those less familiar with the period, the Saturnalia, authored by Macrobius around 430, is a fictional dialogue between prominent late Roman Pagans from the later 4th century on a variety of subjects. One of those subjects is Virgil and this was discussed by Eric Hutchinson of Hillsdale College in, “Literature and/as Religion: Christianity and the Reception of Virgil in Saturnalia I.”

The use of Virgil (and other classical authors) by Christians seems to have become a significant issue by the 5th century. The account by Jerome of his dream of being rejected from Heaven due to his love for Pagan Classics is probably the most famous example of Christian denunciation of ancient literature. 1 Despite this, numerous Late Antique Christians display substantial knowledge of pagan literature. Hutchinson explored an aspect of this in this paper. He opened with the basic premise I stated above; that there was an issue with how Virgil would be used by Christians. He states that Macrobius was likely a nominal Christian and that the audience for the Saturnalia would have been nominal Christians. The dialogues may have been important in helping to frame Virgil within the context of 5th century literary culture.

The principals in the dialogue over the use of Virgil are Evangelus and my old buddy Symmachus. Hutchinson provided a handout to help the audience track the discussion. Evangelus argues that Virgil is simply a poet, nothing more, and that to call him a philosopher is a gross exaggeration. Symmachus responds by calling the poem sacred and says that learned men should study it to discover its hidden truths. Hutchinson believes this fits nicely in the debate over the use of pagan literature in the fifth century. I’m looking forward to reading more on this in the future and this paper helped to define the discussion a bit. 2

Next up was Angela Kinney, currently working on the Vulgate Bible Project at Dumbarton Oaks. In fact, Volume IV of that series, for which Angela was the Editor, was released the day after K’zoo. Now if Dumbarton Oaks would just get a booth for the Exhibit Hall. Of course this would leave me poorer. Two years ago Angela gave a very good paper on hagiography I mention this merely to point out that at the time I was doing a lot of my own dead holy people reading and this year she moved into early Christianity which I happen to be reading quite a bit about at the moment. I found this to be very considerate. :)

More seriously, Angela’s paper was titled, “Virgilian Fama as Christian Courier in Jerome’s Epistles.” In this paper she explored Jerome’s portrayal of rumor in his letters and his Vulgate. She opened with a seriously cool image by J. Paul Weber, Das Gerücht, which shows rumor in the form of humanoid creatures coalescing as a mass into a serpent. Nice imagery for this paper as it’s tough to find positive portrayals of serpents in Christian literature.

Weber's Das Gerucht
Das Gerücht, Image from the J. Paul Weber Museum

Jerome uses two terms to describe unverified news; fama and rúmor. My Latin is too weak to discuss this with any real certainty however based on my reading of my dictionaries the two terms seem nearly interchangeable however Jerome uses them very differently. 3 Angela provided multiple examples showing that for Jerome, fama is used positively, rúmor negatively. Jerome’s Vulgate includes 12 instances of fama and it is always used positively while his uses of rúmor are always negative. Fama is used with Jesus’ coming or going and in Ruth 1:19 and is more along the lines of report or word, not an unsubstantiated rumor. Fama has legitimacy, rúmor does not.

Angela also provided examples from Jerome’s epistles. Unfortunately, I don’t have all of his letters in Latin however examples she gave were from CXXX.6 when news of Demetrius’ virginity spread through the world. I do have letter LXXVII in Latin and in LXXVII.11, word of Fabiola’s death is spread by, “Et iam fama volans, tanti praenuntia luctus” bringing crowds to her funeral to praise her. This is a quote from Virgil where fama is the Roman Goddess of Rumor. 4 Interestingly, in the same letter at LXXVII.8 Jerome uses rumor to describe the crowd’s belief that barbarians were about to attack Jerusalem.

This paper really interested me. Jerome is an interesting fellow all on his own and someone I’m not as familiar with as Augustine. Here he seems to be trying to use language to portray sanctified rumor in a different way from the reports which had no religious meaning. There are some implications here for Jerome’s use of language which I probably only halfway perceive. And despite his prior account in letter XXII of his dream, he was quite willing to use classical literature to make a point. This was a good, well presented paper with a clear focus. I enjoyed it.

More Jerome was in store in the form of a paper by Amy Oh of the University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign, “Vigilantius, Jerome, and Biblical Exegesis.” The focus of this paper is over a piece of the conflict between Jerome and Vigilantius. Oh began by providing an overview of this, explaining how initially we find Jerome and Vigilantius friends, or at least friendly when the latter carries a letter of Jerome’s to Paulinus of Nola. This soon changed. Vigilantius apparently accused Jerome of Origenism and Jerome struck back, firmly at first and then really hard.

One particular aspect of this involved a story from the Book of Daniel where a stone is cut from a mountain without hands and strikes a statue, destroying it. This story had often been interpreted as a sign of Christ’s virgin birth where the stone is Christ, the mountain is God, the statue is the Devil (or the barrier to Heaven) and the stone being cut without hands signifies the virgin birth. However Vigilantius, according to Jerome, stated that the mountain was the Devil.

Vigilantius’ interpretation had some precedent. Oh provided a useful handout which showed that Ambrose called mountains the Devil’s kingdom and that Origen believes Zechariah describes the Devil as a mountain. However for Jerome, Vigilantius’ made a huge error as the mountain should be God the Father Almighty, not the Devil.

Oh discussed the possible reasons for this harsh response. She believes that as Jerome had only recently rejected Origen he may have been sensitive to this accusation. For myself, and I mentioned this to her after her paper, I wonder if Jerome may have sensed some dualism in Vigilantius’ interpretation. I’m not up enough on the evolution of Manichaeism and other dualist sects to be definitive about this however even then they believed in a good spiritual portion of the world and an evil matter portion of the world. Would Jerome have sensed this in Vigilantius’ story? Or maybe he was just mad, particularly as he had previously recommended him to Paulinus. Whatever the case, it helped give us one of Jerome’s more well-known (and abusive) pieces a few years later, the Contra Vigilantium. Another good paper and it pointed out some specifics of the Jerome-Vigilantius conflict I hadn’t thought about before.

I took very few notes for the final paper so I’ll leave it alone. In looking at my notes I have a feeling I was so psyched about the prior two papers that I was expanding on them rather than paying attention to what I should have. At least there are a bunch of boxes, circles and arrows in my notes, which I usually don’t do until when I review things later.

So even though I didn’t pay proper attention to one of the papers, I thought this was a very good session. I enjoyed it, learned quite a bit, and after returning home I started flipping through my Vulgate and reading quite a bit of Virgil and Jerome.

NOTE 2: I’m having a bit of trouble figuring out images in WordPress, mainly that when I post an image I’m getting the full image, not a thumbnail. I’ve looked through the settings and help topics and am coming up blank. Is this a theme thing or am I just missing something? Any help with this would be appreciated. If necessary I can write the img src thumbnail-link-to-large-image html code (which I used to know how to do and can probably figure out again) but that seems clunky.

1 See Jerome, Ep. XXII.30. One of the things I’m interested in finding out more about is how influential this dream account was. It gets repeated quite a bit, but the classics keep being used and IIRC, Jerome even quotes from them after he wrote this letter. (A re-reading of Jerome’s Letters is in my “to do in the near future” list.)

2 I think it’s important to note for those a bit newer to this topic that Macrobius was writing a half-century after the protagonists in his dialogue were active. The Saturnalia should not be considered to represent how these individuals actually behaved/spoke but how Macrobius believes it is reasonable for them to have spoken when faced with the issues he presents them. I expect at some point to post something on Late Antique Christian use of Latin Literature once I’ve read more on it. It’s a very interesting topic, not just that this literature was used but why, for example, Virgil largely replaced Homer in the “epic poem” category. This is part of the reason I’ve kept my comments brief for this paper.

3 I’m basing this statement on a perusal of dictionaries, not my, ahem, fluency in the language. I happen to have 16 books on Latin, including 7 dictionaries. Definitions for Fama and rúmor have in common hearsay, common talk, general opinion and rumor. My two Cassell’s (one published in 1959, the other in 1977) both include tradition and report while the older includes intelligence in the definition for Fama. My Smith’s Smaller Latin-English Dictionary (1968) also includes report and tradition. Rúmor is almost exclusively unverified opinion though Smith’s does include reputation. Interestingly, the definitions for rúmor and fama are nearly identical in my Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin by Stelten (1995) with both definitions including report, fame and rumor while fama includes reputation and rúmor includes hearsay and popular opinion. It appears that some uses may have used fama as Jerome does but more commonly it and rúmor are synonymous. They seem split on whether it should be spelled rūmor or rúmor. I’m going with the latter because the page I pulled it from said that rūmor may not be visible in some browsers.

4 I have the Loeb edition of Jerome’s letters which translates this to, “Flying Rumour heralding such woe.” The quote comes from Virgil’s Aeneid XI.139.


Posted by on May 30, 2012 in Conferences, Religion


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Semi-Random Thoughts: Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine and Books

Now that I’m removing pain-killers from my diet I find myself wanting to post more (this may end tomorrow when I find out how much I have waiting for me at work) but I’m still having some issues sitting for long periods which is having an impact on my finishing more technical stuff such as my Cameron review. This may actually be a good thing in the long run as I’ve been scribbling notes on a pad while reclining but it’s not doing much for getting the post out. When I’m doing serious work, I perform at my best sitting upright, balanced, focused on my computer, keyboard and whatever references I’ve surrounded myself with. I don’t consider a post such as my recent one on Ambrose to be completely non-formal but it was based on, mostly, one reference and composed more of my impressions than a load of facts. For much of it I was leaning back with my keyboard on my lap. So today I’m going to throw out a few things that I’m looking into and hope I don’t bore everyone to death.

As I began looking into my Christianity reading project I decided to begin by reading a bit more on Jerome, Ambrose and Augustine, then work backwards. I’m now thinking this is the wrong approach. The primary impacts of these three are on what came after rather than their output reflecting what came before. My very rough idea of these impacts could be summed up as; Augustine impacting future doctrine; Ambrose impacting Church organization and the role of the bishop and; Jerome impacting asceticism. I am certain that the previous sentence is an extreme oversimplification however I also think there’s some truth at its core. In many ways Jerome may be the most interesting as he was something of a contemporary fringe figure who gained importance as time went on. I’m afraid that once I start reading him I’ll find myself following up with all the stuff I have on asceticism, monasticism, desert fathers, etc. This is fine but it’s not the “start at the beginning of the 5th century and work backwards” method I originally had planned.

I’ve read a bit on each of these and have more on my shelves. The question I’m asking myself at the moment is how much of their source material; their writings, letters, sermons, etc., should I read? For Jerome and Ambrose this may not be that big of a deal. There’s a good amount of source material out there but not so much that I can’t go through a fairly high percentage of it. Augustine is another issue. I’ve read his Confessions and City of God. The first seven volumes of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series consists of his material. This is several thousand pages. How much of this do I need to read? (I don’t expect an answer here) I imagine that On Christian Doctrine, his various works on will and grace, and his stuff against the Donatists will be on my list. What about On the Soul, On Patience, On Virginity, etc.? I’ll figure it out. Hopefully I won’t figure wrongly.

Kudos to my friends who are getting smarter (see footnote 1 for details). This year several of my gifts have been cards for booksellers. Yesterday I used a couple of them to order some Symmachus and Libanius. I have two more which I’m going to hold off on using for a bit but at this moment I’m looking at Macrobius’ Saturnalia and Emperor Julian. I have to come up with some pretty distinct thank-you’s so they remember this for next year. Or maybe I just need to schedule major surgery every year around Christmas.


Posted by on January 8, 2012 in Blogology, Books, Religion


Tags: , , , , ,