Over a month ago, I published my second article on the controversies which made up much of the background of the Pelagian Controversy. Since then, I have had much time to read and reflect, which, I must confess, has been very profitable. Because of this, then, I hope that this current article can be kind of a re-hashing and processing article for what we have learned thus far.

The best thing that ever happened to my research of the Pelagian Controversy was my accidental stumbling onto Robert F. Evans’ very progressive little book, Pelagius: Inquiries and Reappraisals.[1] Though some of his research is out of date, the basic thrust of the book (and quite a bit of the information in it) is still relevant to current research in the Pelagian Controversy- in fact, Evans’ influence on modern-day Pelagian Controversy research is felt exponentially, especially in the work of Peter Brown, Gerald Bonner, Elizabeth Clark, and David G. Hunter. Evans’ book was the catalyst for an exponential change in direction in this field: his approach to the controversy was characterized by an insistence on viewing the developments primarily from the point of view the disagreements between Jerome and Pelagius, instead of Augustine and Pelagius.

Furthermore, Evans proposed that we should take Jerome’s polemics against Pelagius, that he is a disciple of Origen and Jovinian, more seriously than current scholarship was inclined to at that time. As Evans astutely pointed out, if there were no connection between these accusations and reality, Jerome’s polemic would lose the majority of its invective. No- there had to be some connection between Pelagius and the two preceding controversies. The second and third chapters in his book attempt to prove the connection (skillfully, albeit with limited scope), and they were the primary catalyst for my own investigation into the Origenist and Jovinian Controversies.

For my work on the Origenist Controversy, I attempted to study a healthy mixture of primary and secondary sources. The primary sources I used were Origen’s Peri Archȏn[2] and selections of his Commentary on John,[3] the Prakktikos[4]and Sentences on Prayer[5] of Evagrius of Pontus, Epiphanius’ Letter to John of Jerusalem[6]and his section on Origen in his Panarion,[7] Theophilus of Alexandria’s Synodal Letter to Palestine and Cyprus,[8] Jerome’s Letter to Pammachius Against John of Jerusalem[9] and Epistle 84.[10] The secondary sources I used were Joseph Trigg’s Origen: The Bible and Philosophy in the Third Century Church,[11] Elizabeth Clarks’ The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate,[12] J.N.D. Kelly’s very helpful biography of Jerome,[13] Krastu Banev’s sympathetic work on Theophilus of Alexandria,[14] along with Stuart Hill’s brilliant history of the post-Nicene era.[15] Clark’s research was probably the most helpful of the bunch (when paired with Trigg’s analysis of Origen’s thought), since she examined primary sources in detail and explicitly linked the controversy to the Pelagian controversy in her book. My only regret in my research of the controversy is that I did not have enough time to find copies of Theophilus’ Pascal Letters of 401 and 402, and I did not have enough time to read the famous correspondences between Jerome and Rufinus in the early 400s. However, I hope to return to these works, though I did read the highlights of them in Clark’s research.

The results of this research were, without a doubt, fruitful for my research into the Pelagian Controversy. The anti-heretical work done by Epiphanius of Salamis, Theophilus of Alexandria, and Jerome of Stridon is paramount for the Pelagian Controversy. These men destroyed the barriers Origen had erected against the Gnostic Dualists (first the Valentinians and the Marcionites, in the latter days the Manicheans), leaving the question of theodicy and evil unanswerable for Christians in the Origenist tradition. This, coupled with Rufinus’ translations of Origen and their dispersion to the Latin West is responsible for the questions of the nature of evil and theodicy that would motivate Augustine and Pelagius to come up with their respective solutions to the problem. Furthermore, it is this discussion of Origen and evil that introduces the question of the origin of the soul to the Latin West, which will likewise be taken up by Pelagius and Augustine (the latter, however, will refuse to make a firm decision).

There are likewise strong links between the translations of Origen and the theology of Pelagius. It is a well-known fact that Pelagius based much of his Commentary on Romans on Rufinus’ translation of Origen’s Commentary on Romans, and there is no doubt that Pelagius would have been sympathetic to Rufinus’ translation of the third book of Origen’s Peri Archȏn, On Free Will.

Furthermore, the research gave me a glimpse into the role the Roman Aristocracy played in religious controversies, as the patron of Rufinus would likewise endorse Pelagius (Melania the Elder and Paulinus of Nola) and the bishop who defended Rufinus would likewise defend Pelagius (John of Jerusalem).

Now, however, I am moving on to the Jovinian Controversy. The primary sources I am investigating currently are Jerome’s Against Jovinian, Augustine’s Good of Marriage and Holy Virginity, and Pelagius’ On Marriage. The Secondary material I have been investigating is David G. Hunter’s Marriage, Celibacy, and Heresy in Ancient Christianity: the Jovinian Controversy,[16] supplemented by Peter Brown’s article on The Roman Aristocracy[17] and Michele Salzman’s The Making of a Christian Aristocracy: Social and Religious Change in the Western Roman Empire.[18] It is my hope that this controversy will propel me into the beginning phases of the Pelagian Controversy, since it contains the first glimpses of Pelagius and will make for a nice transition into his biography and work.

This means, however, that over the next few weeks, I will be writing less articles on Origen and the Origenist Controversy and more articles on Jovinian and the Jovinian Controversy. Whereas the change of subject matter is exciting- I am getting closer to the Pelagian Controversy!- I should say that throughout the subsequent weeks, we should remember what we have learned in the Origenist Controversy, and not expect for the problems to become simpler as we turn to the Jovinian Controversy. Rather, the problems will most likely deepen and the nuances will become more apparent. As we finally get a glimpse of our heresiarch, things should only get more complicated. I am adding a socio-political level of nuance to our historical-dogmatic study- hopefully the time I spend understanding the Jovinian Controversy and the Roman Aristocracy will be beneficial for the rest of the work that there is to be done.

[1] Robert F. Evans, Pelagius: Inquiries and Reappraisals, (Eugene: WIPF & Stock, 1968).

[2] Origen, On First Principles. Trans. G.W. Butterworth. Eds. John C. Cavadini and Henri De Lubac. (Holy Cross: Ave Maria, 2013).

[3] Origen, Commentary on John. Trans. by Allan Menzies. In vol. 10 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers, eds. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 10 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1969).

[4] Evagrius of Pontus, The Praktikos and Chapters on Prayer. Trans. John Eudes Bamberger. (Tappist: Cistercian Publications, 1972).

[5] Ibid.

[6] Jerome, Epistle 51.

[7] Epiphanius of Salamis, The Panarion vols. II and III. Trans. Frank Williams. Eds. Johannes van Oort and Einar Thomassen. (Boston: Brill, 2013).

[8] Jerome, Epistle 92.

[9] Jerome, To Pammachius Against John of Jerusalem. Trans. W.H. Fremantle, G. Lewis, and W.G. Martley. In vol. 6 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2. Eds. by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. 14 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1954).

[10] Jerome, Epistle 84.

[11] Joseph Wilson Trigg, Origen: The Bible and Philosophy in the Third Century Church, (John Atlanta: Knox Press, 1983).

[12] Elizabeth A. Clark, The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate, (Princeton University Press: New Jersey, 1992).

[13] J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies, (Gerald Duckworth and Co: London, 1975).

[14] Krastu Banev, Theophilus of Alexandria and the First Origenist Controversy: Rhetoric and Power, (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2015).

[15] Stuart G. Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church: A Companion to A New Eusebius and Creeds, Councils and Controversies, (SPCK: London, 2000).

[16] David G. Hunter, Marriage, Celibacy, and Heresy in Ancient Christianity, Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2007). Hunter’s text is invaluable for its evaluation of primary sources (such as Ambrose and Siricius’ writings on asceticism), evaluation of the Encratist tradition, and his reconstruction of Jovinian’s theology from the writings of Jerome.

[17] Peter Brown, “The Patrons of Pelagius: The Roman Aristocracy Between East and West” in the Journal of Theological Studies (1970) XXI (1): 56-72.

[18] Michele Renee Salzman, The Making of a Christian Aristocracy: Social and Religious Change in the Western Roman Empire, (Harvard University Press: Cambridge, 2004).