What was Origen?

[andrewcriddle]

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).

Numenius on the evidence of Porphyry and Proclus is generally understood as being familiar with Mithraism, (In both cases the evidence is slightly problematic I am taking the astrological material in Cave of the Nymphs as all (or almost all) coming from Numenius (or his colleague Cronius) and not just the explicit citations and I am taking the references in Proclus to Numenius and astrological mysteries as meaning Numenius and Mithraism.)

If Numenius was familiar with Mithraism, then a 1st century CE date is unlikely.

Andrew Criddle

EDITED TO ADD

Cronius is a rare name. If Cronius the colleague of Numenius is the Cronius to whom Lucian dedicated the Passing of Peregrinus then this would confirm a mid 2nd century date for Numenius.

[Leucius Charinus]

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.

There is a 3rd duplicate in the mapping between the 3rd century academies of the Christians and the Platonists. Besides the two Ammonii and the two Origens there appears to be two Anatolii - Anatolius of Alexandria (the Platonist) and Anatolius the Christian Bishop.


NOTES:

In 1973 John M. Dillon in Iamblichi Chalcidensis in Platonis dialogos commentariorum fragmenta argued that "there is no chronological reason why the Bishop of Laodicea could not have been the teacher of Iamblichus".

Between 1987 and 2001, in Arius: heresy and tradition Rowan Williams states that he had increasing doubt over the question of identity. "However, the suggestion that Anatolius, Iamblichus' teacher, is to be identified with the Christian bishop Anatolius of Laodicaea is one that I adopted over-enthusiastically; it is stated as fact (p.196: [Arius knew something of Anatolius, and even of his great pupil Iamblichus]), when it is at best conjecture, and a conjecture regarded very sceptically indeed by several well-qualified judges. I still find it attractive, but must admit to more doubts than in 1987.".

In 2002, a Bryn Mawr Classical Review reported that John Dillon "abandons the idea that the teacher of Iamblichus was a certain Anatolius who taught Peripatetic philosophy in Alexandria in the 260s and later on became bishop of Laodicea in Syria."

In a revised edition 2002 of ARIUS: Heresy & Tradition, Rowan Williams revises his previous opinions on Anatolius, with the summary:

"The suggestion that Anatolius, Iamblichus' teacher, is to identified with the Christian Bishop Anatolius of Laodicaea ... is a conjecture regarded very skeptically indeed by several well qualified judges." p.262

[billd89]

In addition to those suspicious duplicates, 'Porphyry' frankly (tellingly?) addresses manipulative, dissimulating, disinformative, propagandistic 'axe-grinding' in his own work:

Plotinus fequently attacked their position ... the Gnostics: he left to us of the circle the task ... I myself have shown on many counts that [X] is spurious and modern, concocted by the sectaries in order to pretend that the doctrines ... were those of the ancient...

"Mirror, mirror..." look what's reflected. An attack, spurious, concocted by a sectarian, to pretend all these doctrinal loose-ends can be tied up historically? Well then: Red Flags.

A whiff of 5th century literary fraud, perhaps. (I've identified a harmless 21st C. example, here.) I reject most 'conspiracy thinking' but also know that sometimes it is necessary to ask harder questions and to seriously doubt.

Your mileage may vary.

So I put anything from the writings of 'Porphyry' in the same category of historical fiction as the Historia Augusta (and I still believe there is useful data in the H.A.): 'Porphyry' needs independent confirmation! I trust Origen over 'Porphyry' in every discrepancy, as in this case of the likely Numenius Duplicate.

[Leucius Charinus]

In addition to those suspicious duplicates, 'Porphyry' frankly (tellingly?) addresses manipulative, dissimulating, disinformative, propagandistic 'axe-grinding' in his own work:

Plotinus fequently attacked their position ... the Gnostics: he left to us of the circle the task ... I myself have shown on many counts that [X] is spurious and modern, concocted by the sectaries in order to pretend that the doctrines ... were those of the ancient...

"Mirror, mirror..." look what's reflected. An attack, spurious, concocted by a sectarian, to pretend all these doctrinal loose-ends can be tied up historically? Well then: Red Flags.

A whiff of 5th century literary fraud, perhaps.

Yes perhaps indeed. Along with the fabrication of a great deal of heresiological narratives. Why stop with the fabrication of martyrology, hagiography, the cult of the saints and martyrs and the gloriously successful Holy Relic trade?

I tend to regard Porphyry's “Life of Plotinus” (Chapter 16) as an interpolation. When this section 16 is removed from the text, there is a smooth flow of narrative between sections 15 and 17. The Nicene Church industry variously both preserved and/or supposedly consigned to the flames, the literature of Porphyry. They also forged literature in the name of Porphyry. It is therefore suggested that “Life of Plotinus” (16) be referred to as the Testimonium Porphyrianum.

... this case of the likely Numenius Duplicate.

That's interesting. So you reckon there's a 4th duplicate in Numenius?