What was Origen?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

What was Origen?

Post by MrMacSon »

andrewcriddle wrote: Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:00 am
... Gershom Scholem argued that the claim by Origen that the Jews regarded the Song of Songs as esoteric (See Origen ) was based on an esoteric Jewish exegesis in which this book disclosed heavenly mysteries, this exegesis surviving in the Shiur Komah texts. (Origen himself believed that these Jewish restrictions arose from the risk that misguided people might interpret the book in a physically erotic way.) ...
.
Things like this raise for me, at least, the question or issue of whether Origen was really a Christian 'church father'; or whether he was [much] more Jewish or a peripheral-to-Judaism theological philosopher (or perhaps 'a judaizer' of Christianity).
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2311
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: What was Origen?

Post by StephenGoranson »

Perhaps of interest: Origen and the Jews: studies in Jewish-Christian relations in third-century Palestine
N. R. M. de Lange. Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 1976.
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: What was Origen?

Post by perseusomega9 »

There's also Origen the platonist philosopher from Alexandria who was contemporaneous with Origen the church father who were both students of an Ammonius, supposedly different guys lol.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen_the_Pagan
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: What was Origen?

Post by DCHindley »

perseusomega9 wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:41 am There's also Origen the platonist philosopher from Alexandria who was contemporaneous with Origen the church father who were both students of an Ammonius, supposedly different guys lol.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen_the_Pagan
Just another case of conflation, where traditions associated with a famous figure (Origen the philosopher, square in the center of the transition between Middle and Neo Platonism) becomes associated with a less well known figure (Origen of Alexandria/Caesarea, the Christian writer).

Of course, this equation was claimed by Christian leaders whose generations were several times removed from that of "their" Origen. I've taken a close look at Origen's Against Celsus a while ago, and truth be told, I cannot see any sort of deep Philosophic content there, either in the citations from Celsus' True Reason or Origen's response to it. No one seems to agree on the amount of time that passed between Celsus writing it and Origen responding to it.

My suspicion is that both Celsus and Origen were "sophists," that is, primary and secondary school teachers of their day, who were affordable to retainers and slaves of the elite. College professors of the PhD variety today would roughly correspond to the "professional" Philosophers (those that were interested in cosmology), and the elite classes would retain the real Philosophers as tutors.

Of course, real philosophers still have to support themselves, and some probably tutored Sophists-in-training in the fundamentals, along the children of the elites. I suppose that those elite students might also have tutored Sophists-in-training. This might explain how both were supposed to be tutored by a famous Philosopher, but I think that it is more likely that that detail was also transferred from the greater to the lesser. These two (Celsus and Origen the Christian) were not on the same plane as Origen the pagan Philosopher.

Clement of Alexandria seems to have been more in tune with real philosophers, particularly Philo the Judean, who develops a Judaized form of Middle Platonism).

DCH
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: What was Origen?

Post by MrMacSon »

perseusomega9 wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:41 am
There's also Origen the platonist philosopher from Alexandria who was contemporaneous with Origen the church father who were both students of an Ammonius1, supposedly different guys lol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen_the_Pagan
.
1 Ammonius Saccas -

... often referred to as one of the founders of Neoplatonism. He is mainly known as the teacher of Plotinus, whom he taught for eleven years from 232 to 243. He was undoubtedly the biggest influence on Plotinus in his development of Neoplatonism, although little is known about his own philosophical views. Later Christian writers stated that Ammonius was a Christian, but it is now generally assumed that there was a different Ammonius of Alexandria2 who wrote biblical texts ..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonius_Saccas


2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonius_ ... Christian) [modified & reproduced slightly our of order cf. the wikipedia article] -->

.
Life [of Ammonius of Alexandria ('Christian')

Eusebius...asserted that Ammonius was born a Christian, and remained faithful to Christianity throughout his life. He wrote that Ammonius produced several scholarly works, most notably The Harmony of Moses and Jesus [see Eusebius Hist eccl Bk IV, chapter XIX, Circumstances Related of Origen]. Eusebius also wrote that Ammonius composed a synopsis of the four canonical gospels, traditionally assumed to be the Ammonian Sections, now known as the Eusebian Canons or [the 'Eusebian sections' or 'apparatus'] ...
  • ... in which he started with the text of Matthew and copied along parallel events. However there are no extant copies of the harmony of Ammonius and it is only known from a single reference in the letter of Eusebius to Carpianus [the Epistula ad Carpianum].
Eusebius attacks Porphyry for saying that Ammonius apostatized early in his life and left no writings behind him, but Porphyry was presumably confusing Ammonius with the Neoplatonist of the same name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonius_ ... Christian)


3 Authorship [of the Ammonian Sections, aka the Eusebian canons/ sections or Eusebian Apparatus]

... Now it is believed that the work of Ammonius was restricted to what Eusebius of Caesarea (265-340) states...in his letter to Carpianus, Epistula ad Carpianum, namely, that he placed the parallel passages of the last three Gospels alongside the text of Matthew, and the sections traditionally credited to Ammonius are now ascribed to Eusebius, who was always credited with the final form of the tables.


The Eusebian Tables

The Harmony of Ammonius [supposedly] suggested to Eusebius, as he [says] in his letter, the idea of drawing up ten tables (kanones) in which the sections in question were so classified as to show at a glance where each Gospel agreed with or differed from the others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebian_ ... Authorship
.



DCHindley wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 2:41 pm
Just another case of conflation, where traditions associated with a famous figure (Origen the philosopher, square in the center of the transition between Middle and Neo Platonism) becomes associated with a less well known figure (Origen of Alexandria/Caesarea, the Christian writer) ... .
or maybe a case of splitting an entity; or borrowing aspects of him and adding bits to make a second entity, as may have happened with Ammonius.

and/or perhaps attribution, as may be the case of the Ammonian Sections
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: What was Origen?

Post by andrewcriddle »

Digeser and some other modern scholars, identify the pagan and Christian Origens.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: What was Origen?

Post by MrMacSon »

andrewcriddle wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:48 pm Digeser and some other modern scholars, identify the pagan and Christian Origens.

Andrew Criddle
Cheers Andrew. It seems Digeser identifies 'them' as one -


| Chapter One

The Usefulness of Borderlands Concepts in Ancient History

The Case of Origen as Monster

Elizabeth DePalma Digeser


[in Globalizing Borderlands Studies in Europe and North America, John W.I. Lee, Michael North, editors; U of Nebraska Press, 2016]


... If the Latin term monstrum denotes a traitorous transgressor of boundaries-especiallyinb theological matters_then it easily describes Origen of Alexandria. Origen participated in Hellene (i.e., "pagan") Platonist and Christian communities during the first half of the third century, but he later found himself branded a traitor by members of both groups, in part because he brought into each group what they saw as impious and false theological ideas [p.15] ...

[p.17 - ]
... we might these two groups of people to congregate separately and neatly along ideological grounds, divided by their conceptions of Jesus of Nazareth.

But...such lines are artificial dividers. Not only are they always imposed upon populations ranged across the territory those who draw them would divide, but the populations themselves are also rarely static and routinely cross 'the border' ... [yet] Origen...seems to define a borderland between Hellenes and Christians ...

Applying the model of a conceptual borderland to the study of ancient religious groups is not entirely new in itself, for [Daniel] Boyarin has already argued that many people occupied such a conceptual space "between" Christian and Judaism, even as late as the fourth century ...


Digeser refers to scholars "tendencies to unreflectively perpetuate dichotomies asserted by the winning side in ancient religious debates", then, p.18 -

The case of Origen demonstrates that terms such as "Christian" and "pagan" when used by modern scholars do not map neatly onto the habits and thoughts of ancient people.

... seeing instead the conceptual borderland in which a hybrid figure like Origen flourished allows a much more nuanced understanding of religious life and practice in late antiquity ... Origen's experience indicates a certain segment of Roman-educated scholarly society changed from being pluralistic or ecumenical to being one in which identifies became increasingly polarized ...


Digeser then suggests became a local power-broker, and, p.19, that, -


... Origen's career unfolded in the borderland between two groups who were fashioning their identities in opposition to one another-without perhaps there being very many truly salient differences between them ...

... that Origen's monsterization happened well after his death suggests that circumstances had changed for the groups who came to see his identity as menacing ... both groups condemned him for celebrating traits from the "other side", the two groups...had become deeply embroiled in a struggle for hegemony that also involved complex negotiations and definitions of identity ...


Digeser notes Origen peaked under the Severan emperors "who attempted to restrict Jewish and Christian proselytising" [and Digeser later noted that Origen got into trouble for encouraging such proselytising], and -

... the two most detailed sources about Origen's life and behaviour are porphyry of Tyre, the late third-century Hellene Platonist most upset by Origen's behaviour, and Eusebius of Caesarea...who struggled at the cusp of the fourth century to defend Origen, his intellectual ancestor, both from Christians attacking his theology as well as from Porphyry's diatribe ...

... Origen [w]as a man who...moved rather easily among Platonist and Aristotelian philosophical students of early third-century Alexandria, as well as among Christian teachers, scholars, and students, whom he did not recognise as being of like mind ...

[p.21 - ]
... We can easily see the influence of Origen's eclectic philosophical training in one of his first books, On First Principles ...[applying] figural exegesis popular among Alexandrian stoics ... exegesis promoted in Ammonius [Saccas]'s school, and he articulates a Christian theology deeply indebted to a Platonist metaphysics. In short, Origen used the exegetical tools developed in Ammonius's classroom to do for Christian scripture what Plotinus would later do for the teachings of Plato ...

p.22 -
Porphyry praise[d] Origen where his Platonist education [led] him to get Christian theology right--for example, in denying the resurrection of the flesh (a tenet of faith among many Christians). On the other hand, Porphyry criticizes Origen for "living like a Christian, contrary to the law," despite his education as a Hellene (Porph. ap. Eus., HE 6.19.7).


pp.25-26 (where Andrew's link takes us) -

...for a long time scholars split Origen into two 'purer' men, the ''pagan'' Origen the Platonist and the "Christian" Origen of Alexandria (who coincidentally flourished at the same time, in the same place, and knew the same people) ...

The mistaken division of Origen into two people, a Platonist and a Christian, as well as the belief in dichotomous groups of pagans and Christians meant for a long time the role of the real, 'hybrid Origen' within the late Platonist community was poorly understood [despite] the tendency to dichotomize [him] ...


pp. 27-28 -

.. a borderlands approach to the study of men like Origen, a heterodox [supposedly] Christian theologian...helps us see past the old category mistakes ... and it allows us a more nuanced view of the religious terrain of Mediterranean antiquity. The life of Origen, then, provides a case study of a young man who occupied a kind of intellectual no-man's-land, steeping himself in the philosophy of an Alexandrian Platonist teacher and devoting himself to answering open questions in Christian Scripture by applying what he'd learned ...

[previously - p. 24 - Digeser had referred to Porphyry having issues with what he saw as Origen's "mistaken reading of texts taken as Scripture ... the way that the Hebrew Bible was used to prophesy and elucidate events of the Gospels".]

The reception of Origen's teachings in the late third century is a case study of a different sort ...
.

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: What was Origen?

Post by DCHindley »

My understanding was that Origen got on the "bad boy" list for accepting the Platonic idea of the transmigration (recycling) of souls, which in his view allowed the material world to act as a refiner's fire, successively raising the individual soul - even that of the Devil - up to a plane which allows it to unify with God.

Transmigration of souls was a Platonic common-place, connected with the unity of the World Soul and the individual souls within it. Origen could have picked that idea up anywhere.

In the 4th century, Christians were very interested in Platonism as they tried to develop Christian doctrine into a "philosophy." They were, IIRC, interested in the same issues as Philo did as he modified Platonism to allow for the Creator (= Judean God) to be identical with the One.

If we are to see a semi-Christian-Pagan Origen becoming separated into two men, I wonder if we shouldn't see what was done with Julius Africanus, who is identified with both a Christian and a Pagan personality.

DCH
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: What was Origen?

Post by DCHindley »

andrewcriddle wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:48 pm Digeser and some other modern scholars, identify the pagan and Christian Origens.

Andrew Criddle
Hello Andrew,

I have read an article by Matthew R Crawford, 'Ammonius of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, & the Origins of Gospels Scholarship' (NTS 61-1, Jan 2015, pp 1-29) which cites E. D. Digeser approvingly (I think you may have initially brought this to my attention), and who sees Ammonius as a strong and (almost too) brilliant Christian teacher throughout his life, despite what Eusebius quotes Plotinus as saying about him, that he fell away from his Christian upbringing.

Now I was following R T Wallis (Neoplatonism, 1972):
Of the teaching of Ammonius, who wrote nothing (cf. V. Pl. 20), very little is known, though many imaginative conjectures have been made, and we cannot therefore say exactly why he impressed Plotinus, though we may guess that he surpassed his rivals both in intellectual power and in putting his philosophy into practice.1

A quotation from Porphyry in the Church historian Eusebius (EH vi. 19) states that he had been brought up a Christian, but later abandoned Christianity, and that the Christian theologian Origen (a.d. 185-254) was one of his pupils.

Doubts are, however, raised about this information by inaccuracies both in the passage and in Eusebius’ comments thereon, and by the presence among Ammonius’ pupils of a pagan Origen, who seems, along with Plotinus and an otherwise unknown Erennius, to have belonged to the school’s inner circle (V. Pl. 3. 24-35). The only point that seems certain is that the two Origens were different people, but divergent opinions persist concerning the remainder of our information.

Nor is it possible to reconstruct Ammonius’ doctrine by comparing Plotinus’ teaching with that of the Christian Origen, even if the latter was really Ammonius’ pupil, for the two have little in common that is not also found in the Middle Platonists.

But on the (doubtful) assumption that the late Neoplatonist Hierocles’ statement is correct that Ammonius maintained the agreement of Plato and Aristotle (Photius Bibl. 461A; cf. p. 143), he will have differed on at least this point from Plotinus, whose criticisms of Aristotle we have observed.

We know in any case of disagreements between Ammonius’ pagan pupils, for the pagan Origen regarded Intelligence as the highest principle and rejected Plotinus’ One (Proclus PT n. 4. 90), while the title of one of his writings, ‘That the King is the Only Creator’ (V. Pl. 3. 32), is plausibly interpreted as a polemic against Plotinus’ hierarchy of Hypostases.

Doctrinal disagreements are also attested between Plotinus and the only other pagan pupil of Ammonius of whose teaching we know anything. This was Longinus, the learned literary critic who in later life became the minister of Queen Zenobia of Palmyra, and to whom an erroneous tradition has ascribed the treatise On the Sublime. Plotinus described Longinus as a ‘scholar, but not a philosopher’ (V. PL 14. 18-20)

1 Cf. further Dodds’ discussion in Entretiens Hardt V, pp. 24-32, where earlier theories are critically examined.[formatting is, as always, mine]
John Dillon, The Middle Platonists (1977, 1996, pp. 380-383) is even more sceptical that Ammonius had only one student named Origen:
[380] G. AMMONIUS SACCAS [classified as a Neopythagorean among the Middle Platonists]

It is fitting to end this chapter, and with it the body of this book, with a survey of what we know of Ammonius Saccas, the teacher of Plotinus. Once again it must be said that we know almost nothing of him, and efforts to reconstruct the content of his teaching in any significant detail have repeatedly met with shipwreck.1

Let us begin with the testimony of Porphyry, in his Life of Plotinus (ch. 3):

At twenty-seven he (Plotinus) was caught by a passion for philosophy. He was directed to the most highly-reputed professors to be found at Alexandria; but he used to come home from their lectures saddened and discouraged. A friend to whom he opened his heart divined his temperamental craving and suggested Ammonius, whom he had not yet tried. Plotinus went, heard a lecture, and exclaimed to his comrade, ‘This was the man I was looking for!’ From that day he followed Ammonius continuously, and under his guidance made such progress in philosophy that he became eager to investigate that practised among the Persians and that perfected by the Indians.

What may we gather from this? First, I think, that Ammonius was not a member of the philosophical establishment. Porphyry (ap. Eus. HE vi 19, 7) says that he was bom and brought up a Christian, but renounced that creed on coming into contact with philosophy. One did not come upon him in the normal academic round, but had to be put on to him, almost initiated into his circle. Secondly, extended study with Ammonius led at least one pupil to desire to know more of the wisdom of Persia and of India. There is much here, it seems to me, that is reminiscent of Numenius, and it is not unreasonable to suppose, from the fact-that Numenius was a major influence upon Plotinus and his followers (as well as being highly respected by Origen the Christian, another pupil of Ammonius), that Ammonius served as the intermediary. Obviously, too, philosophy with Ammonius was a much more exciting activity than attending the lectures of the established professors. Porphyry (V. Plot. 14) talks of Plotinus’ employing Ammonius’ nous (technique?) in the exegesis of texts, by contrast with the normal method. This tells us something, but it is not quite clear what. At any rate, it looks as if, in the person of Ammonius, Plotinus came into contact with the ‘Neopythagorean underground’.

We know of a number of other pupils of Ammonius, Herennius, Origen the Platonist, Origen the Christian (so these two are customarily distinguished by those who do not cling to the belief that they were the same person), and Longinus. The first two are attested by Porphyry in the passage above-mentioned, the third by Eusebius (HE vi 19), who is basing himself on Porphyry. If Eusebius has not got his lines crossed here—and there are many who believe that he has— Origen the Christian will have studied with Ammonius a good twenty years before Plotinus, in the first decade of the third century, whereas Plotinus studied with him from A.D. 231-42. Ammonius must then have been bom not much later than 170, and is thus removed not far, if at all, from the lifetime of Numenius. About Longinus we learn a certain amount from his own testimony, quoted by Porphyry in ss. 19-20 of his Life of Plotinus. He may fairly rank as the last ‘regular’ Middle Platonist—a most civilized and learned man, but not an original philosopher of any significance.

What Ammonius taught his pupils it is not, unfortunately, possible to establish. The information presented by Nemesius of Emesa (Nat. Horn. ch. 2) that he believed in the immortality of the soul, is of very little interest; the only interesting thing is that he is here reported as adopting a Numenian argument (= Fr. 4b) in favour of immortality. Rather unexpectedly, in view of Plotinus’ own attitude, he is attested by the Neoplatonist Hierocles (ap. Photius Bibl. 461 a) as maintaining the agreement of Plato and Aristotle. This would put him at odds with the official Platonist school, at least if the influence of Atticus was still felt, and, it would seem with Numenius, who made a sharp distinction between Plato and Aristotle at least in his survey of the Academy (Fr. 24,1.68). But Hierocles is an unreliable witness. He may have confused Ammonius Saccas with a contemporary Peripatetic Ammonius (Longin, ap. Porph. V. Plot. 20). Plotinus, of course, is critical of Aristotle, but Porphyry re-establishes harmony between the two philosophers, although with Aristotle in a subordinate position.

Attempts have been made to abstract a common and distinctive body of doctrine from a comparison of Plotinus’ Enneads and Origen’s De Principiis (his most Platonist work). This was a good idea, but it does not in fact lead to the discovery of any distinctive doctrines. For one thing, Origen’s God is still an Intellect, and rules the world through his Logos. In general, Origen’s Platonism is based on Philo rather than any more recent influence. That the supreme principle remained for Ammonius an Intellect may also be indicated by the fact that Origen the Platonist composed a work entitled ‘That the King is the Sole Creator’ (Porph. V.Plot. ch. 3), which seems to imply that the supreme principle is active and demiurgic, and presumably a nous of some sort. The Plotinian concept of a supranoetic One cannot, therefore, plausibly be attributed to Ammonius, nor is there any evidence connecting him with the Plotinian system of hypostases, despite the various prefigurations of these theories that are dimly discernible in the Neopythagorean tradition.

On the whole it seems best to view Ammonius as little more than a charismatic purveyor of Numenian Neopythagoreanism (though they may have differed on the attitude to be taken up towards Aristotelian-ism). Whether Ammonius preserved Numenius’ radical dualism is not clear, but as this is a tendency from which we see Plotinus progressively emancipating himself, it is probable that he did. The great respect that he generated in his pupils for the wisdom of the East is also in line with Numenius. The remarkable compact which three of his pupils, Plotinus, Origen and Herennius, made (and afterwards broke) not to divulge any of the doctrines which their master had revealed to them (Porph. loc. cit.) need be no more than a traditional Pythagorean attitude taken with unusual seriousness.

1 See for instance the article of H. Langerbeck, ‘The Philosophy of Ammonius Saccas’, JHS 77 (1957) and the comments thereon of Dodds in Les Sources de Plotin.
DCH
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Numenius, c.50 AD? Reset!

Post by billd89 »

Numenius is typically dated c.160 AD, very uncertainly. There is nothing that proves exactly when he lived - mid 2nd C AD is just assumed by most scholars. Another Late Date!

(I have similar misgivings about the conventional dating of Moderatus.)

N.'s God-Concept is suspiciously close to that of the elderly Therapeutae c.5 BC, when Philo attended as a student and recalled in DVC (c.15 AD). Philo claims their antiquity; the 'Therapeutae' should have been established earlier as a cult/ school/ philosophy c.75-50 BC. To a presumably international audience (Romans) he also speaks matter of factly about the elder Therapeuts' God-Concept - it is neither radical nor novel in 15 AD.

*Recall that Josephus (90 AD) called the Essenes "Pythagoreans". Pythagoreanism probably arrived in Palestine c.200 BC, so a Judaic Pythagorean cult taken root in Alexandria c.250 BC is no great stretch of the imagination. The point is: Philo's Therapeutae had a God-Concept that was not 'new' in c.25 BC.

To express an almost identical God Concept, Numenius was either contemporary w/ or preceeding the Therapeutae, who disappeared c.38 AD. Given the high probability Numenius either studied at Alexandria or with an itinerant Alexandrian Therapeut teacher, c.25 BC-25 AD, it follows Numenius lived not earlier than 50 BC-25 AD and not later than 25-100 AD.

Consider the implication of the logical Time-Frame here:

IF (Scenario 1), N. taught his God-Concept in Rome 100 AD, then N. should be derivative of Alexandrian Pythagoreanism by 300-350 years. **100 AD is probably Too Late to be considered 'original philosophy' or innovative, obviously.**

IF (Scenario 2), N. taught his God-Concept in Rome c.25 AD, then N. should be approximately current (viz. a generation behind) w/ Alexandrian Pythagoreans as Philo described them. **Numenius could be credited with modifications to Alexandrian (Jewish) philosophy as smthg both novel and influential, c.25-50 AD.**

Because the mostly geriatric Therapeutae were dispersed c.38 AD, their influence on other Diaspora cities and philosophical circles ended before 75 AD. Terminus. In Antiquity, the avant-garde becomes old school in two or three generations. So their own students might have taught their religious philosophy to some acclaim, but beyond that, it wasn't 'newsworthy' 100 years later.

With total familiarity, Origen (c.245 AD) describes Numenius as an institutional author, likely 150-200 years older. See Frr. 1c and 10=Cels. IV.51.1; see Link
On Moses: ‘And I know also the works of Numenius the Pythagorean who in many places in his writings sets forth the words of Moses and the prophets, and not unconvincingly allegorises them, as in the so-called 'Epops', and in 'Concerning Number', and in the book 'Concerning Place'. And in the third book 'Concerning the Good' he sets out a story about Jesus also, without mentioning his name, and allegorizes it. Whether successfully or unsuccessfully it remains for another time to say. He also sets out the story abut Moses and Jannes and Jambres.’

Numenius was a Jewish Allegorist? Hmm! It's quite interesting IF he (ex-Jew?) wrote a book on the Christos phenomenon c.50-75 AD. But that would have been a very timely topic for a philosophical Jew or Jewish proselyte c.25 AD. On the contrary - against the bogus Late Date - I find it very hard to believe a book 'on Jesus (but NOT naming Him)' was written by a famous Judaic philosopher c.160 AD, became known 100 yrs later, then disappeared. I would add: intense interest in Jannes and Jambres lore better fits the early period, also (not Late 2nd C AD).
Post Reply