On the 23^rd of January, 2017, I posted an Odyssey Article on Jerome and Pelagius, as well as the background controversies to the Pelagian Controversy (you can see it here). I made the claim that the Pelagian controversy was directly linked to two other controversies: the Jovinian Controversy and the Origenist Controversy. And I went on to give summaries of both of the controversies (even though I had not adequately researched them). However, I ended the article saying I would tie up any loose ends next week. Although it is not next week, I have now spent the semester researching the Origenist Controversy, and have learned more about what was at steak (and what was going on) during it. It is the point of this current paper to correct some of my remarks about it and its implications for the Pelagian Controversy.

My previous paper got many points correct. There was a phase of the Origenist Controversy which featured the dispute between Jerome and Rufinus. And, likewise, things began to take a turn for the worse when Rufinus indicated that Jerome was a part of the Origenist Cause in the preface of his translation of Origen’s Peri Archȏn. However, these are not the most important events to focus on.

Rather, the Origenist Controversy was something bigger, with bigger personalities than Jerome or Rufinus. Really, the Origenist Controversy was a controversy over the place of Origen of Alexandria’s thought in newly forged Nicene-Constantinopolitan orthodoxy. Thus, in one of my previous posts (found here), I have attempted to outline Origen’s life.

However, the controversy wasn’t over Origen on Origen’s terms. Rather, many of the criticism of Origen were actually criticisms of the contemporary Origenist teachings of the day, articulated and propagated by Evagrius of Pontus (I have published his biography here). And further, the criticisms were not over Origen’s wider of writings corpus; rather, Origen’s theology was limited to what could be found in his Peri Archȏn, Commentary on Psalm 1, and Commentary on John.

The main antagonists (or champions, if you don’t like Origen) of the controversy were Epiphanius of Salamis, Theophilus of Alexandria, and Jerome of Bethlehem. Epiphanius raised the initial concerns. In his Panarian he charged Origen with teaching a faulty Christology and anthropology. For Epiphanius, Origen should be seen as a proto-Arian: thus, he, too, was condemned at Nicaea.

Epiphanius’ nemesis in the controversy was the Bishop of Jerusalem at the time, Bishop John II (the same John who gave safe haven to Pelagius during the initial stages of the Pelagian Controversy). According to Epiphanius, John was a committed Origenist, who, too, denied the essential materiality of the body and equality in the trinity. And so, Epiphanius knew that John had to be brought back to the orthodox faith: he merely had to wait for the right opportunity.

In the meantime, Epiphanius visited the Palestinian monasteries he understood to be harboring Origenists. At the top of his list were the monasteries in Jerusalem and Bethlehem: the former run by Rufinus and his patroness, Melania the elder, and the latter run by Jerome and his patroness, Paula. Rufinus had been a none translator of Origen’s works for years. He was also friends with Evagrius Ponticus, giving him connections with the Tall Brothers of Nitria, Isidore, and even John Chrysostom, the bishop of Constantinople. Jerome had likewise been engaging in Origenist activities- as much as he would deny it later on, his commentaries contained numerous Origenist opinions, and made extensive work of Origen’s wide array of works. Both men had been educated by Didymus the Blind, the preserver of Origenism in Alexandria (who also educated the Cappadocian Fathers and Evagrius Ponticus). And so, Epiphanius knew that this was the first place to start, if one wanted to eradicate the foul stench of Origenist doctrines from the church for good.

Epiphanius’ monks visited both monasteries in early 393, requesting from both communities an official condemnation of Origen and his teachings. Jerome, eager to maintain his orthodoxy, immediately obliged, confessing both to be heretical. Rufinus, on the other hand, would not even come out to meet the party, which waited at his gate. He would not abandon the teacher he had learned so much from, whose writings were so profitable for him in his own spiritual life, so quickly. Neither of the men could understand the actions of the other. And thus the division between the two communities began.

The following year afforded Epiphanius’ occasion on which he could bring a public reprimand against Bishop John II of Jerusalem. Epiphanius visited the cathedral in Jerusalem, probably during some festival. As was John’s custom, he let the visiting bishop preach during the mass. Epiphanius took advantage of this opportunity, purposely preaching against the evil teachings of Origen and his disciples (which, by extension, would’ve been John himself!). John, sensing that Epiphanius was preaching against him in his own cathedral, sent his archdeacon to tell the elderly bishop to shut his mouth. And yet, Epiphanius, a master of rhetoric, already had the hearts of the congregation.

After the service, the congregation left, in order to walk to the Church of the Holy Cross, for another service. Here John preached a sermon against “Anthropomorphism,” the belief that God has a corporeal body (the opposite of Origen’s belief), warning his congregation of this dangerous new heresy and summarizing his fundamental orthodoxy. Epiphanius, who had maintained a good degree of self-control throughout the verbal abuse, then stood up after the sermon, acting as if he wanted to say something. In front the crowd, he told the bishop John that he was no Anthropomorphite, and that he would indeed condemn this heresy, as long as it was permitted that he should condemn its opposite, as well. (By this remark, he obviously meant Origenist theology). As the crowd jeered at Epiphanius’ apparent cleverness and John’s blunder, the first battle of the controversy came to an end. Epiphanius stayed the night at Jerome’s monastery, and disappeared by morning.

In the aftermath of the event, the monasteries had to take sides. Rufinus, whose monastery was in the Bishop’s city (Jerusalem) and had no love for Epiphanius of Salamis, sided with John II. Jerome, who had social ties with Epiphanius and had already denounced Origen as a heretic, sided with the elderly Cyprian bishop.

As the Bethlehem monastery decided that their bishop was more and more heretical, Epiphanius counseled them against having too close of ties with the Jerusalem bishopric. Eventually, the monastery would not accept a priest from John, because they were afraid that he would likewise fall into the trap of John’s Origenism. However, still needing the holy sacrament, and unwilling to perform the actions required himself, Jerome decided to let Epiphanius ordain his brother, Paulinianus, to perform the necessary priestly functions.

John was furious. This was a complete violation of the canons of Nicaea and his legal authority. The move by Epiphanius was an exertion of authority outside of his respective jurisdiction- to John, the event appeared as if Cyprus was taking control of Bethlehem (which, to John’s credit, the whole event probably was). And so, John excommunicated the entire Bethlehem community, denying them the privilege of even entering the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. He likewise asked Rufinus Tyrannius (not Rufinus of Aquileia) to have Jerome and his friends expelled from Palestine.

The controversy, it was safe to say, was getting out of hand. And into this mess walks Theophilus of Alexandria, bishop of Alexandria (and avid reader of Origen). Theophilus, in an attempt to mediate between Cyprus, Bethlehem, and Jerusalem, sent his favorite aristocrat, Isidore of Alexandria, to mediate between the parties. However, some letters written by Isidore to John II made it into the hands of Jerome, and they ruined the whole gesture: Isidore was an Origenist, and he sympathized with John’s cause. And so, the controversy in Palestine raged on.

It is around this time that Theophilus of Alexandria attempted to make Isidore the bishop of Constantinople. Unfortunately, though he was blackmailed into removing Isidore’s name, instead ordaining himself John Chrysostom, who would be doomed to exile and condemnation not long after the resolution of the events in Palestine.

Peace was finally restored in Palestine, if only momentarily, because of a metaphorical olive branch offered to Jerome by John. John conceded that he would allow the Bethlehem community to return to fellowship with Jerusalem, as long as they agreed to recognize his canonical authority (as dictated by the councils). Jerome agreed, and, for at least a brief time, the two monastic communities and bishopric were all in one accord.

Meanwhile, things were beginning to heat up in Egypt. Theophilus of Alexandria, avid Origenist, had written a festal letter to the communities of monks in Alexandria and Nitria concerning the invisible, incorporeality of God. God was not a man, Theophilus reminded them. Rather, the descriptions of God in the Old Testament were only metaphors, not to be taken literally.

Disturbed by these teachings (and possibly by their eucharistic implications), the monks of Nitria and Alexandria rose up in revolt against their canonical bishop. Alarmed by the riots his letter incited, and possibly because of a genuine conversion from Origenism, Theophilus placated the monks by assuring them that he thought that God had a real body, especially the body of the church. The fuss made had wider implications, however- Theophilus became the personality that had Origen and his theology condemned by a synod in Nitria in 400 c.e. This opinion was sent to the bishop of Rome, who likewise condemned Origen and his doctrines; Emperor Honorius would back up his bishop’s decision, criminalizing the possession and reading of Origen’s works. In July of that same year, Theophilus would oversee the dissolution of the Nitrian Origenist communities, as Imperial troops burned their monasteries and libraries to the ground. Over 300 Origenist monks were displaced, immigrating to Palestine, Constantinople, Rome, and Gaul, accordingly.

Among those that were dispersed were the Tall Brothers, the leading Origenist figures in the desert. They had originally been led by Evagrius, who had died the year previous to the outbreak of the controversy, and were financed by the wealthy Isidore of Alexandria (who likewise fled with them). They immigrated to Constantinople, where they were received by the bishop there, John Chrysostom. This would prove the downfall of the golden-tongued bishop, who four years later was condemned as an Origenist (by the engineering of Theophilus) at the Synod of the Oak.

Backtracking a little, in 397 c.e., the controversy in Palestine reawakened, as Rufinus connected Jerome to Origenism in the preface of his (Rufinus’) translation of the first two books of Peri Archȏn. Jerome was mortified that his name was being dragged through the mud (though, perhaps, justly), and lashed out against Rufinus and Origen publicly. With the condemnation of Origen and his writings in 400, Rufinus was summoned to Rome to explain his heretical views. Rufinus, however, responded in his Apology, where he still made a case for Jerome’s implicit Origenism. Jerome responded a year later, not having even read Rufinus’ work, with two volumes of Apologia Adversus Rufinus, only finally reading Rufinus’ work as he began his third volume. Rufinus responded with another work, which Jerome apparently ignored.

The rest of the decade saw Rufinus translating Origen’s commentaries (especially important is his Commentary on Romans), and Jerome dragging Rufinus’ name through the mud whenever the opportunity presented itself.

It is only with bitterness and anger that the Origenist Controversy came to a close. In 407, Rufinus took his leave of Palestine, departing permanently for Rome. Once Rufinus ceased his translations, Jerome was left for a few years of peace and study, before being reawakened one last time by the great heresiarch, the monk Pelagius, in 414 c.e. Evagrius Ponticus had died in 399, a year before the conflict erupted. Epiphanius died soon after in 403. John Chrysostom likewise perished the same year Rufinus had departed for Rome. And by 412, Theophilus of Alexandria was also in the ground.

By the time of Pelagius’ arrival in Palestine, the only original characters still living were John II, bishop of Jerusalem, and Jerome. Both were veterans to a long feud which had ripped apart the Palestinian and Egyptian religious landscape. And now, with the arrival of Pelagius, they were to be reawakened to yet another controversy: the controversy which would prove to be their greatest and last. However, for now, we must come to an end, leaving the rest of our historical examination for another day.