© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2011 DOI: 10.1163/156852711X593296

Numen 58 (2011) 674–696 brill.nl/nu

From Alexandria to Caesarea:Reassessing Origen’s Appointment to the Presbyterate

Lisa HollidayDepartment of History, Appalachian State University

1075 Anne Belk Hall, Boone, NC 28608hollidaylr@appstate.edu

AbstractThe events surrounding Origen’s relocation are more complex than has been previ-ously held. In the wake of the Severan Persecutions, as Demetrius attempted to reor-ganize the Alexandrian house-churches into a more centralized body, he naturally brought Origen’s school within this new model. This shift placed Origen more directly under the authority of the bishop, who monitored Origen’s activities. When Origen was asked to act as a representative of the Caesarean church in settling a dispute in Athens and subsequently was ordained presbyter, this raised the question of the limits of bishops’ powers: could they ordain candidates from outside their own churches? Though his theology may have been questioned, the synods following Origen’s ordina-tion focused on issues surrounding the boundaries of ecclesiastical authority.

Keywords Origen, ecclesiastical jurisdiction, early Christianity

Introduction

Few of the events of Origen’s life have attracted as much attention as his departure from Alexandria and relocation to Caesarea. Recounted briefly by Eusebius, and mentioned by later authors, the circumstances surrounding this event are far from clear. Scholars have proposed many reasons for Origen’s move, from heretical theology to book collecting for the nascent Jerusalem library.1 However, while the bulk of research

1) Cadiou 1944:302–319; Crouzel 1989:15–23; Daniélou 1955:22–23; DeFaye 1929; McGuckin 2004:5; Nautin 1977:60–1; Trigg 1983:131–140.

L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674–696 675

has focused on Origen and his activities as the sole cause for his reloca-tion, comparatively little attention has been given to other contributing factors, namely developing church structure, and the implications of Origen’s appointment to the presbyterate. Indeed, Origen’s relocation to Caesarea was connected to shifting standards of ecclesiastical author-ity and jurisdiction.

In order to evaluate this period of Origen’s life, a broad contextual approach is necessary, beginning with the impact of the Severan perse-cutions at Alexandria, which instigated a significant change in the structure of the Alexandria church. It will then be possible to explore the effects of Demetrius’ reorganization of the Alexandrian church and its effect on Origen’s activities. Then, this work will address the rela-tionship between the Palestinian and Alexandrian sees, including ques-tions of ecclesiastical authority and the nature of synods.

The Severan Persecution and Reorganization

Eusebius’ life of Origen opens with the Severan persecutions and the death of Leonides.2 While there can be little doubt that this incident had a profound impact on the young Origen, the scope and severity of

2) Historia Eccesiastica 6.1 (SC 41, herafter abbreviated h.e.). In hom. 1–14 in Ezech. 4.8.1 (Origen 2010), Origen refers to his father as a martyr, noting that he himself must lead an exemplary life in order to live up to his father’s example. Cadiou (1944:14–16) and Daniélou (1955:7) view the death of Leonides as a formative moment in Origen’s life, instilling in him at an early age a desire for martyrdom. Nau-tin considers this section part of an oral history and questions if Leonides was indeed Origen’s father (1977:32). See Crouzel (1989:5) for a contrasting view. Ultimately, however influential this event may have been, Leonides is little more than a name, but recent work by Aline Rousselle has done much to illuminate this murky period in Origen’s life. By examining various methods of executions, Rouselle proves that Leonides was a Roman citizen, though his son was not. See Rousselle 1974:222–251.According to Eusebius, Alexandria served as the center of the persecutions for Egypt, and Christians were brought from throughout Egypt and the Thebais to be interro-gated there (h.e. 6.1, SC 41). However, his account makes no attempt to describe the political foundations of the persecution. Not only did he give politics a passing glance, but he frequently confused dates and facts, as in the case of the Alexandrian prefects (Covolo 1997:41). It is more likely that while there was a persecution, it was not insti-tuted by an edict of Severus. Rather, the persecution coincided with celebrations for the tenth year of his reign. Christians, who could not have participated in the

676 L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674–696

the Severan persecutions is unknown, though the Historia Augusta claims that Severus prohibited conversion to Judaism and Christianity.3 Thus, some scholars have proposed that the persecutions were aimed at catechists in particular (Crouzel 1989:5).

The overall effect of the persecutions on the Church was far-reach-ing. While it cannot be known how many Christians went to their deaths during this time, it appears that many left Alexandria.4 Eusebius cites Clement of Alexandria and Origen as witness to the exodus of Christians from the city (h.e. 6.3.1, SC 41). Because the persecutions were not confined to a single year, this most likely took place over sev-eral years, from 202/3 c.e. to as late as the rule of the prefect Subatianus Aquila in 206 c.e. (Barnes 1968:41). Therefore, while there may have been a push to punish new converts, there is no evidence 1) that it was

festivities, found themselves targeted by local populations and local governors. Severus did not seek to stop it (Covolo 1997:43). See also Jakab 2004:152–153. 3) Hist. Aug. Severus 17.1–2. At first glance, Severus’ reported fascination with reli-gious matters lends support to the statement in the Hist. Aug. He is described as being highly concerned with his role as pontifex maximus. See also Chadwick 1993:100. He also holds that Severus instituted the persecution. However, the Hist. Aug. is a notably suspect source. Indeed, Barnes calls the edict’s grouping of Christianity and Judaism an “indubitable fiction” (Barnes 1971:40). The dating of the edict in the Hist. Aug. (199 c.e.) does not coincide with other sources that mention third century persecu-tions (202 c.e.), such as Eusebius and the Passio Perpetuaee; additionally, small out-breaks of persecutions are attested until 206 c.e.Historians have found possible echoes of the Hist. Aug. passage in Tertullian’s Ad Scap-ulam, Apologeticum, Hippolytus’ Commentarium Danielum and the Passio Perpetuaee. These sources, though dated around Severus’ reign — Ad Scapulam was written during the rule of Antoninus — refer to persecutions of Christians in Africa, but do not men-tion Severus or an edict specifically. Indeed, Tertullian describes the reign of Severus as a good one for Christians (Ad Scapulam, 4.6–7, in Frend 2004:242). See also Barnes 1971:31–7. As for Hippolytus, the Commentarium has been dated to 203 because of the persecution references in the Hist. Aug. (Barnes 1968:43). Therefore, to use it as evidence of the persecutions is circular. Lastly, the Passio Perpetuaee does not refer to an edict (Anon. 1972). For a full study of the Hist. Aug., see Syme 1971.4) However, of those who fled, most were likely Roman citizens. Rousselle suggests, and rightfully so, that those who approached Origen during the period of the persecu-tion may well have been non-citizens; the result of persecution was the spread of Christianity among this group of people. Thus, those who fled the city were likely Roman or Greek citizens, while those who remained were not (1974:233). See also Brown 1988:161.

L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674–696 677

restricted to this group, or 2) more significantly, that other Christians would have felt protected by this codicil. Thus, all Christians were affected and those that fled would have included members from all ranks of the Church, including officials.

The exodus of Christians had a significant impact on the entire Alex-andrian Christian community, particularly as it related to the reorgani-zation of the community and more significantly for Origen, his school: because so many Alexandrian Christians departed from Alexandria, the bishop Demetrius had to handle the problems these decreased numbers brought. Though Eusebius does not state it explicitly, of those who left the city, it may be argued that some of them held offices within the church. And given that the house-church model of worship was preva-lent at this time, many groups may have found themselves without a place to meet for worship or a leader.5 Under these circumstances, Demetrius’ reorganization was an attempt to bring the disparate house churches of Alexandria under centralized control. This is evidenced by Demetrius’ incorporation of Origen’s school into a new organiza-tional model.

Indeed, the first reference to the reorganization of the Alexandrian church occurs in Eusebius’ notice about Origen’s school.6 Scholars have studied Origen’s school for years, and there are many theories concern-ing its purpose, ranging from a catechetical school proper to a philo-sophical school.7 While it is clear there was catechetical instruction

5) For a fuller discussion of the structure of the Alexandrian church, see Holliday 2010. The church at Alexandria was comprised of house churches, which enjoyed a large degree of autonomy; it was very similar to the Roman Christian community in this fashion. For a contrasting view, see Stewart-Skyes 2004:415–429, who contends that the Alexandrian community was unique in its organization. 6) Eusebius gives two reasons for Origen’s teaching: first, that Origen began to teach because there was no one left in Alexandria who could, and second, Origen was asked by Demetrius to become an official teacher of the church. See also Cox 1983:97, who notes that by having Demetrius ask Origen to teach, Eusebius was attempting to create a succession list of Alexandrian teachers. 7) For further discussion, see Wilken 1984:15–30; Bardy 1937:65–90 and 1942:80–109; Scholten 1995:16–37; Boulluec 1987:403–417; Van den Hoek 1997:59–88; Bardy 1942:80–109; Daniélou 1955:14. Carikker argues that Origen was not part of the institutional church in the third century. This was Eusebius’ way of filling in gaps in his information: “Origen’s teaching was never an official activity of the Alexandrian church as an institution . . . there is no evidence . . . for a catechetical school at Alexandria

678 L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674–696

offered, the formality of this instruction is unclear. However, as he cen-tralized his control over the Alexandrian house churches, Demetrius took steps to formalize catechetical instruction, first by bringing Ori-gen’s school under his control.

That the house-church model was still in place in the late second century meant that Origen likely enjoyed a high level of independence in his activities as a Christian teacher (Lampe 2003:376–377).8 It is therefore easier to see why Demetrius might have approached Origen, than why Origen would have agreed to give up his independence.9 What did being affiliated with Demetrius bring? According to Euse-bius’ account, after agreeing to bring his school under Demetrius’ eye, Origen gained no special function, but continued to do as he always had done. Perhaps the answer rests with the goals of Demetrius: what was he trying to achieve in his reorganization?

This question can be answered by looking at the role of Heraclas in Origen’s school. At Alexandria, Eusebius suggested there were two cur-riculums at Origen’s school following Demetrius’ reorganization: Ori-gen trained the advanced students while leaving the elementary teaching to Heraclas.10 It is not clear from Eusebius just what comprised elemen-tary education under Heraclas. It is unlikely that Heraclas, himself a well-known philosopher and soon to be bishop of Alexandria, would have been satisfied with this arrangement, if such in fact was the case. Indeed, the role of Heraclas as a ‘co-instructor’ within Origen’s school has been rightfully questioned. However, this should be seen as part of

whose teachers were appointed by the bishop” (2003:77). Crouzel holds that Origen’s school was an official church institution (1989:7–8 and 19–22). Though Origen was a layman, Demetrius did give him an official appointment as head of the catechetical school. According to Wilken ‘schools’ were a “way of speaking of the intellectual and spiritual activities of the early teachers in Alexandria.” (1984:15–30.) 8) In his study of the Christian community at Rome, Lampe notes that there were different types of house-churches, the more typical being named after private hosts. However, there were also house-churches that gathered under figures like Justin Martyr (2003:376). Annewies Van den Hoek likewise suggests that these early groups gath-ered around figures like Clement and Origen were types of house-churches. 9) See also Stewart-Skyes (2004:426), who likewise contends that Demetrius brought Origen’s school under his control as a part of centralization.10) Jakab (2004:162) holds that the school was not divided but split into two separate schools.

L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674–696 679

Demetrius’ reorganization of all house churches in Alexandria, not just an act aimed at Origen alone. By affiliating Origen’s activities and school with Heraclas, who was a presbyter at the time, Demetrius brought the school under his authority.11 What Origen agreed to do was to become part of this new model of the Christian church, with more authority centralized in ecclesiastical officials. Indeed, a similar process took place at Rome; the Liber Pontificalis says that during the episcopate of Clement, Rome was divided into seven districts under the supervision of notaries.12 The bishop Fabian (236–50 c.e.) reorganized the city of Rome into seven regions, each under the supervision of dea-cons and sub-deacons; subsequent bishops further divided the city into parishes under the auspices of presbyters. This allowed for closer super-vision of all Christians in the city by the bishop.

Demetrius’ new model also included closely monitoring members of the church, and establishing clearer lines of ecclesiastical authority relative to nearby sees. The latter is apparent in the events that ensued following Origen’s first visit to Caesarea, which occurred almost imme-diately after his return from Rome.13 While at Caesarea, the bishop Theoctistus encouraged Origen to preach before himself and other bishops in the region, including bishop Alexander of Jerusalem, even though Origen held no official office in the church.14 Citing the tradi-tion of Alexandria, Demetrius claimed that it was not acceptable to have a layman preach before bishops, and he went on to accuse the

11) See also Stewart-Skyes 2004:426–427.12) Liber Pontificalis 4, in Loomis 2006.13) h.e. 6.19.14, SC 41. Prior to the reorganization of the school, Eusebius places a trip to Rome under the episcopate of Zephyrinus (198–217 c.e.). As for Origen’s motive, Eusebius only records that Origen wanted to see the Roman church. 14) Eusebius, h.e. 6.19.16, SC 41. Origen did so, though what he discussed is unknown. This leads into another tradition about Origen that can be found in later sources, that Origen was a presbyter while at Alexandria, but was deposed by Demetrius for hereti-cal teachings. Epiphanius would date Origen’s first trip to Caesarea following this deposition, and thus attribute Demetrius’ ire to the fact that Origen, who was no longer a presbyter, preached before bishops. It is unlikely that Jerome would have let this pass if he had seen it in a source. Secondly, given that Eusebius places the impetus for the conflict between Demetrius and Origen with jealousy, he could easily have explained Origen’s loss of the presbyterate in this fashion. The tradition that Epiphanius relates therefore is doubtful. See Lyman 1997:445–451 for a fuller discussion of Epiphanius’ depiction of Origen.

680 L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674–696

bishops Theoctistus and Alexander of impropriety (h.e. 6.19.17–19, SC 41).15 Alexander’s retort cites the precedent of churches near Asia Minor as support for his actions.

Why did this event occasion such a response from Demetrius? This incident highlights Demetrius’ authority to supervise the activities of all members of the Alexandrian church, a duty that had formerly been within the scope of the presbyterate and overseers of individual house churches. Within the new model of centralized authority promoted by Demetrius, it was not acceptable for a lay member of the Alexandrian Church to preach outside of Alexandria, and Demetrius saw himself as having the right to censure this activity. By accusing the Palestinian church of inappropriate behavior, Demetrius was holding the Alexandrian standard of practice as authoritative and applicable to Palestine. How-ever, the novelty of this view is evidenced in Alexander’s response, which refused to accede to this, and offered the tradition of Palestine along with other provinces in Asia Minor, as proof that the Palestinian bish-ops were well within their rights to have Origen preach (h.e. 6.19.17–18, SC 41).16 Alexander even extended his argument beyond Palestine to the churches of Laranda, Iconium and Synada (h.e. 6.19.18, SC 41). In the Palestinian church and any church in Asia Minor, it was not an uncommon practice to have laymen preach. By inference, it was also not common practice to request the permission of another bishop before doing so.

Rather than marking the activities of the Palestinian and Asia Minor churches as somehow unusual, with Alexandria as the norm, this dis-pute reveals a changing infrastructure. As Christian communities became more centralized under the authority of a bishop, issues of the extent of the bishop’s powers naturally arose. A further and significant indicator of this change is the two synods called after Origen’s ordination. Indeed, Origen’s ordination and the events that followed involved more than the Alexandrian and Palestinian churches, but spread to include churches as far away as Rome, suggesting the matter had ramifications for all Christian communities regarding the scope of a bishop’s power.

15) See also Grant 1980:80–1, who holds that this account is constructed to parallel the story of Narcissus, who is presented as another Origen.16) Before coming to Jerusalem, Alexander had been a bishop in Asia Minor, though the exact church is unknown, and thus he was familiar with practices there.

L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674–696 681

Origen’s Ordination

Some time after his meeting with Julia Mammaea, probably around the late 220s or early 230s, Origen undertook his infamous trip to Athens. Eusebius describes the purpose for this visit simply as being related to ecclesiastical affairs.17 Jerome provides further details of the trip, noting that Origen was traveling to Greece (Jerome 1999: vir. ill. 54.3). To travel from Alexandria to Athens involved sailing past Caesarea, where Origen subsequently was ordained presbyter (Photius 1960: bibl. 118.39.42).18 Origen stayed in Greece for some time, upwards of two years.

Many historians have argued that Origen sought out the Palestinian bishops in order to gain ordination, and that they ordained him so that he could preach at Caesarea (Cadiou 1944:302–303).19 However, the issue is more complex. Beneath the lean descriptions offered by Jerome and Eusebius is the immediate cause for Origen’s trip: did he leave Alexandria with Demetrius’ knowledge? Was he in fact on official busi-ness of the Alexandrian church? Eusebius’ references to ecclesiastical affairs intimate an official capacity to his visit, as does Jerome’s notice. Given Demetrius’ reaction to Origen’s first visit to Caesarea when Ori-gen spoke before bishops, it is unlikely that Demetrius would have picked Origen as any kind of representative of the church with the authority to intervene in ecclesiastical affairs. Photius, in his summary of Pamphilus’ Apol, says that Origen left without the Bishop’s permis-sion (Photius 1960: bibl. 118.35.42). This statement deserves serious

17) Eusebius, h.e. 6.23.4, SC 41. In Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius’ h.e., he adds that Origen went to Greece to deal with some influential heretics. See Oulton 1929:150–174. 18) See also Jerome Ep. 84 to Sammachius and Oceanus, and Trigg 1983:137. For the sailing path from Alexandria to Rome, see Beebe and Casson 1983:205. Crouzel 1989:18–20 noted that this was an unusual route to take to Athens from Alexandria. Regarding Origen’s ordination, Crouzel speculated that it very well may have been forced by the bishop citing the later examples of Jerome’s brother Paulinian and Pauli-nus of Nola. Also, Origen could have been ordained because the bishops of Palestine wanted to invite him to preach again. 19) Cadiou holds that Origen was invited to Athens and went because of heresy. His subsequent ordination gave Origen the right to speak for Christians and fulfilled a desire Origen had had for some time. Daniélou 1955:45 goes further to suggest that Origen received this ordination in the hopes of being able to preach in Alexandria.

682 L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674–696

consideration. While not mentioned in Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica, this is highly plausible given the circumstances. Accounts of Origen’s earlier travels throughout the Empire follow a pattern: individuals wrote to Demetrius requesting Origen’s presence. When Origen went to Arabia to see Julia Mammaea, it was after letters requesting him had been written to Demetrius (Eusebius, h.e. 6.23.4, SC 41). Likewise, when Origen first sojourned at Caesarea, Demetrius appealed for Origen’s return through the higher ranks of the church. Eusebius says Demetrius first summoned Origen by letter, then used deacons and members of the church to persuade Origen to return to Alexandria (Eusebius, h.e. 6.19.19, SC 41). Following this pattern, if the Athenian church had sought Origen, they would have written to Demetrius. Given Demetrius’ earlier reaction to Origen’s stay in Palestine, he likely would have declined to send Origen due to his lack of office.

But what of the Caesarean church? Given that the Athenian church should have appealed to Demetrius, and that Demetrius had no knowl-edge of Origen’s trip, is it possible that Origen went to Athens as a representative of the Caesarean church? This would account for the lack of a letter to Demetrius and Origen’s stopover in Caesarea. The Athe-nian church appealed to Palestine, and the Palestinian bishops decided to send Origen as their representative. But, did this necessitate ordina-tion? Could Origen rather have gone to Athens as a layman?

The answer to this question rests upon the duties of presbyters in the third century, though what exactly presbyters did at this time is some-what unclear. The evidence for the activities of the presbyterate in the early church is far from expansive. However, looking at the period from the late first to the early third century, there is enough information available to make observations about the responsibilities, powers and nature of the presbyterate.20

Presbyters were overseers of Christians in several senses of the word. In his letter to the Philippians, Polycarp says that presbyters not only watch over Christians, but they help to keep Christians within the church and to restrain them from unjust judgment. In his homilies on Joshua, Origen notes that priests lead the church, and oversee everything

20) Jakab (2004:183) holds there was no difference between the presbyterate and epis-copate in Alexandria in the second century.

L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674–696 683

(7.6, SC 71).21 Presbyters take on the sins of their congregations, but by example they can persuade their followers not to sin themselves (Origen, hom. 1–26. in Jos. 5.3.3, SC 71). This may also be done through teaching, admonishing, and instructing (Origen, hom. 1–26. in Jos. 8.7, SC 71).

As part of their judicial functions, presbyters are also seen in the sources as ecclesiastical representatives. Irenaeus carried a letter from his native Lyons to Rome (Eusebius, h.e. 5.4, SC 41). In his letter to the Philadelphians (10), Ignatius says that presbyters have been used as ambassadors for his church.22 Clement of Alexandria, likewise, carried at least one letter for the bishop Alexander to Antioch. Thus, presbyters could be sent on official business of the church, whether it was to carry a letter or to represent the church at a meeting such as synod. Given that presbyters participated in these synods in their judicial capacity, it may be inferred that they could be sent as representatives of a church regarding theology.23 Indeed, presbyters appear frequently in reference to theological debates. Eusebius, citing an anonymous letter, recounts a

21) See also 8.7. In Origen’s homilies, there are also many references to the honor of presbyters. In the hom. 1–26. in Jos., he notes that in his time, being a presbyter is not restricted to the elders, but is an honor and such men therefore, regardless of age, occupy an honorable position within the church (hom. 1–26. in Jos. 16.1, SC 71). This honor is enhanced if the man happens to be older. In this way, those who have superior merits should be honored (Origen, hom. 1–26. in Jos. 17.2, SC 71. See also hom. 1–16 in Gen. 3.3.40, SC 7 bis.) Additionally, because presbyters are associated so strongly with honor, it is no surprise that they are expected to be examples to their communi-ties. They may do this a number of ways, including through acts of charity (Polycarp, ep. 6.1, SC 10). 22) Ignatius’ works have often been taken as evidence of an early mono-episcopacy in Asia Minor. Recent works have called this into question however, questioning not only his reconstruction of the mono-episcopacy, but also his mental state. Volp 1998:189–209 notes that Eusebius’ placement of Ignatius is suspect. While Eusebius dates Igna-tius to the early second century, he could very well have lived from 160–170 c.e. 23) Presbyters were involved in a variety of legal matters, ranging from participating in inquiries regarding theology to acting as official representatives of their churches. Writing in the first century, Clement of Rome says the presbyters are to be involved in the correction of inappropriate behaviors in the manner of judges (I Clem. 57, SC 167). This was still practiced in the third century, as Origen noted in the hom. 1–26. in Jos. 8.7, SC 71; priests were expected to admonish members of the church. See also hom. 1–26. in Jos. 5.12.6, SC 71. Ignatius, in his letters to the Magnesians and Tral-lians equates presbyters to both an assembly of apostles and to the Sanhedrin (Magn.

684 L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674–696

debate that took place in Asia Minor. The author of the letter partici-pated in the debate which dealt with Montanus; the end result of the inquiry was that the Montanists were cut off from that church. The author adds that he was asked to write down the minutes of the debate but never did so (Eusebius, h.e. 5.16, SC 41). Hippolytus also makes several references to such inquiries (Hippolytus 1977: Noët. 1.3 and 1.6).

There is very little information as to how presbyters were selected: was it through the bishop only or did the entire congregation have a say in it? In addition, did a presbyter have to be a member of the commu-nity he served? Clement of Alexandria, in the Paedagogus (3.11, SC 70), states that presbyters can lay hands on others and that they can bless. In his commentary on John (1.191, SC157), Origen notes that anointing is a symbol of sovereignty among mortals and sometimes among the priesthood, too. This may be interpreted as implying either that anoint-ing is part of the ordination of some members of the priesthood, most likely bishops, or that it is not performed uniformly.24 The Apostolic Tradition offers that during their ordination, bishops and other presby-ters lay hands on the new presbyter (trad. ap. 11.57–59, SC 11 bis). Though limited, this evidence suggests nothing about having to be a member of the community prior to ordination; also, it indicates there is some type of approval process that took place, though whether from other presbyters or the bishop is not clear.

Based upon what is known about the duties and ordination of pres-byters, if Origen was to act in any capacity as a judge over matters of theology, it was necessary for him to be an official representative of the church. I propose that the Athenian church sought the advice of the Palestinian church over a question of theology. The Palestinian bishops then asked Origen to go on their behalf to settle the problem. To this end, it was necessary for Origen to be ordained. However, that he was ordained by the Palestinian church rather than his home church of

6.1, SC 10 and Trall. 3.1, SC 10). Lastly, Polycarp mentions a presbyter who had lost his office and now cannot be a judge (Philad. 11.1–4, SC 10). 24) Additionally, it could be taken in the context of Origen’s favorite metaphor, that of Paul’s inner and outer man. Anointing could be a sign of a true priest, which not all priests share.

L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674–696 685

Alexandria occasioned a significant reaction from both Demetrius and the churches throughout the empire.

Demetrius’ response to this resulted in two synods, one of which included churches from as far away as Rome while the second was regional. However, why did Origen’s ordination involve a response from churches other than Alexandria and Palestine? It seems the ques-tion of jurisdiction was a seminal concern.25 The sheer number of the churches involved in this synod strongly suggests that the actions of the Palestinian bishops were the topic, not Origen’s teachings as has been held by previous scholarship.

The First Synod

The synods that followed Origen’s ordination have occasioned much discussion, both in late antique sources and modern scholarship. Though Eusebius hints that the cause of the synods was a combination of Demetrius’ jealously and Origen’s ordination, he never clearly describes what happened during the synods or afterwards. Jerome sup-ports the theory that Origen’s ordination sparked the conflict with Demetrius, but also that Origen’s theology was problematic (Jerome 1966:33.4). He adds that after the second synod, Origen was excom-municated, as does Epiphanius (haer. 64.2–64.3; and Jerome 1966). Photius, writing some time later, holds that Origen was deprived of his office at the second synod (1960: bibl. 118.6–15). Variations of these theories define modern research into this part of Origen’s life, which holds that Origen was both condemned and banished from the Alexan-drian Church.26 However, when viewed within the context of other synods, it is likely that such could not be the case.

25) This is in contrast to Stewart-Skyes’ depiction of events, which emphasizes the role of social class in election to the presbyterate: Demetrius objected to Origen’s appoint-ment because Origen was an outsider to the inner ruling circles of the Alexandrian Church. Further, this would have allowed Origen to stand for the office of Bishop (Stewart-Skyes 2004:428).26) Nautin (1977:61), Daniélou (1955:23), Cadiou (1944:318), and Trigg (1983:140) argue that Origen was condemned and exiled from Alexandria as a result of the synods. In contrast, Crouzel 1989:22–23 holds that Demetrius presided over both synods, and

686 L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674–696

The first synod held after Origen’s ordination was a large affair that included churches from throughout the empire: Alexandria, Cyrenaica, Rome, Palestine, Syria, Arabia and Greece (Jerome 1966). Though the topic of the synod is not explicitly stated in later sources, Eusebius pro-vides a valuable clue when he says that Demetrius included Theoctistus and Alexander in his accusations following Origen’s preaching at Cae-sarea and his ordination. Though it is quite possible that the issue of Origen’s theology was brought up at the synod, was this sufficient to include both bishops?

While it is certainly feasible that Demetrius was simply incensed at the actions of the Palestinian bishops, the letters he sent following Ori-gen’s ordination were undoubtedly the catalyst for the first synod (Crouzel 1989:23). However, what Demetrius found so objectionable about Origen has been the topic of considerable inquiry.27 Generally, there are three possible explanations that have been offered: 1) the Palestinian bishops ordained Origen knowing he had castrated himself, and this was against church tradition/policy; 2) they ordained someone from another see, knowing this was outside the scope of their authority; and 3) Origen was teaching heretical theories. Concerning castration, it has been thoroughly discussed in studies on Origen (Eusebius, h.e. 6.8.4–5, SC 41).28 The centrality of this issue to the fourth century, as well as lack of any Christian commentary on it during this time, strongly suggests this is either an oral tradition or part of Eusebius’ hagiography

following the second synod, had Origen stripped of his priesthood. Jakab 2004:171 holds that Origen was deprived of his office at the second synod.27) For example, Telfer 1962:150 and Cadiou 1944:302–303 hold that Demetrius denied Origen the presbyterate. Campenhausen 1969:249 likewise contends that Ori-gen sought out the Palestinian bishops because Demetrius would not ordain him at Alexandria.28) Nautin 1977:45–57, along with other scholars, questions this entire story. First, chronologically it is out of place in Eusebius’ account. Second, he argues that it coin-cides with Eusebius’ hagiographical aims (1977:46). Regarding castration, Eusebius describes Demetrius as being at first admiring, but later he condemned the act. For the opposite view, see Crouzel 1989:9; R. P. C. Hanson concludes that Origen’s act was approved (1966:81–82).

L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674–696 687

of Origen.29 Regardless, the fact that there was not an official church stance on this makes it questionable as a cause for the synod.

This leaves the issues of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and heresy. Regard-ing the latter, based upon the scant references in the extant sources, it is impossible to rule out with certainly that Origen’s theology was not what occasioned the synod rather than issues of ecclesiastical jurisdic-tion. But, no later writers mention that Origen was ever judged hereti-cal. With the amount of anti-Origen rhetoric that peppered late antique works, it is significant that none of them reference a condemnation for heresy.

Given this, another explanation for the synod is warranted. As has been noted, Eusebius does not provide many details of the synod, and Jerome’s supplement leaves many questions unanswered. For this rea-son, the synod should be evaluated within the context of the synodal tradition in order to illustrate not only protocol for synods, but also differences between the topics discussed at local versus regional synods.

The Quartrodeciman controversy of the first and second centuries provides an excellent example of how churches handled disagreements among themselves. From Eusebius’ account, there were upwards of five councils called, including ones in Palestine, Pontus, Gaul, Mesopota-mia, and Asia Minor (h.e. 5.23, SC 41). At the council held in Pales-tine, the churches of Caesarea, Jerusalem, Tyre, and Ptolemais attended (h.e. 5.25, SC 41). In addition to these councils, churches from Greece and Rome participated. The bishops wrote a series of letters to each other, until they had come to an agreement in favor of the vernal equi-nox (h.e. 5.24, SC 41). While this was a joint effort of all churches involved, it was a binding agreement or statement of practice. When the church at Ephesus deviated from this standard, the bishop of Rome, Victor, attempted to excommunicate the church (h.e. 5.24, SC 41). However, other churches interceded on behalf of Ephesus, most nota-bly that of Gaul, who convinced Victor his actions were rash.

The Quartodeciman controversy reveals several aspects of the power of bishops relative to other bishoprics in the late second century. Firstly, councils were not presided over by one church, but were a meeting of

29) Rufinus adds that following Origen’s ordination, many praised it, and that Origen was hoping for an even higher office, namely that of bishop. Demetrius reacted strongly to this, spreading stories of Origen’s castration (Oulton 1929:162).

688 L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674–696

equals. Secondly, bishops drew up a standard of practice in the form of letters, which all churches were expected to follow. The churches that participated in this affair were loosely unified through this agreement.

In contrast, while the Quartodeciman controversy was a large affair that dealt with the practices of whole communities, regional synods were called over the actions of individuals. In Asia, several synods were held to inquire into the teachings of Montanus, which were eventually declared heretical. However, Serapion, bishop of Antioch, sent out let-ters to other churches, which had been signed by many local bishops, condemning Montanism (h.e. 5.19.14, SC 41). Eusebius records a synod called to examine the teachings of the Arabian bishop at Bostra, Beryllus, which occurred after Origen relocated to Caesarea. Beryllus had claimed that Christ did not individually exist prior to his incarna-tion (h.e. 6.33.1, SC 41). Origen, according to Eusebius, played a key role in the subsequent synod, though whether in his capacity as presbyter or as scholar is not clear. Firmilian, the bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia attended a synod regarding Novatus, though this is slightly after the time of Origen (h.e. 6.17.1, SC 41). An unknown author, cited by Eusebius, recounts a similar occurrence in Ancyra, where a heretic’s teachings were investigated though a debate (h.e. 6.16.4–5, SC 41).

The only preserved dialogue of Origen describes such a situation with Heraclides, whose views regarding the soul were called into ques-tion. It was attended not only by bishops, but also by presbyters and spectators. Twice during the meeting, bishops are asked by other bish-ops if they would be willing to sign an agreed upon statement of belief (dial. 6.5–6, SC 67).30 These debates are presented in a manner remi-niscent of philosophical debates, though there were stenographers at Origen’s debate with Heraclides and possibly at the synod concerning Beryllus. While bishops clearly were instrumental and were witnesses to the debate, the outcome of the synod was not predetermined by the bishops. Rather, bishops were attending an inquiry. The intent of the debate was twofold: to find out the nature of the questionable teachings and to correct them.

30) See also dial. 4.2, SC 67. It is important to note that the accused is expected to sign the agreed upon statement of faith in order to avoid further conflict.

L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674–696 689

Returning to the question of Origen’s theology, it is clear from letter fragments preserved in Eusebius that Origen’s theology came under close scrutiny several times in his life. It is also evident in the Apology that Origen’s Alexandrian works were quite controversial.31 However, as noted, inquiries into questionable teachings tended to be more regional: the synod following Origen’s ordination involved churches from throughout the empire. The question at hand must have been larger than Origen, likely standards for elevation to the presbyterate, and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. If the inquiry was to determine whether or not Origen’s teachings were heretical, it would seem that no accusations would have been lodged against the Palestinian bishops. However, if the main issue was to determine who was fit to hold the presbyterate and who had the right to appoint presbyters, then the accusations against Theoctistus and Alexander make sense: this was an event that had ramifications for the entire church, not just Alexandria and Palestine.

The outcome of the first synod was mixed, and a consensus was not reached. Alexandria and the Egyptian churches, along with Rome, sided together. Regarding ordination of someone from another see, it continued to be practiced after the synod. About ten years after Origen’s death, when Anatolius passed through Caesarea, Theoctenus ordained him as a presbyter. Eusebius makes no mention of any conten-tion arising because of this ordination (h.e. 7.32.21, SC 41). The case bears much in common with the circumstances of Origen’s ordination: neither was from Caesarea, but both were ordained there. Anatolius made his home at Caesarea, before he moved on to become a bishop at another church.

From this we may conclude that synods tended to be local in com-position for local issues and likewise, larger for issues that affected the

31) In Pamphilus’ apol., a large percentage of the citations he uses from Origen’s own works are taken from princ. Indeed, Pamphilus’ aim was to prove that many of the doctrines attributed to Origen did not originate with Origen, but were added later. Rufinus continues this claim in adult. (7), quoting part of a letter Origen wrote to friends at Alexandria that mentions the interpolation of his works. See also Origen, hom. 1–39 in Lc. 25.6, SC 87, for a similar claim; Prinzivalli 1999:195–213; Jakab 2004:171; Richardson 1937:50–64. Richardson holds that Origen was formally charged with heresy by Alexandria and Rome (1937:58).

690 L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674–696

entire church: if the issue at hand involved an entire church, as with the Quartodeciman controversy, synods included churches from through-out the empire. For individuals, as the case with Heraclides or Beryllus, synods were an inquiry intended to correct objectionable teachings, and they were local in nature. Additionally, it is clear that bishops took a very active role in questions of theology. However, it is important to note the manner in which they did so: through letters and participation in synods (h.e. 6.12.1–2, SC 41).32 With the exception of Victor, bishops did not act uniformly, and in the instances when they did, other bishops had the authority to check their activities. Christian communities strove to achieve a consensus. Also, regarding questions of theology and some practices, synods followed a period of letter writing among bishops.

The Egyptian Synod

In contrast to the first synod, the second synod was much more limited in its scope, involving only the churches of Egypt.33 Many contend that Origen was deposed at this synod (Photius 1960: bibl. 118.6–15).34 If Origen was deposed by the Alexandrian church, it is the first instance in the history of the Church of such an event happening. This would have been not simply a challenge to the authority of the Palestinian church by Alexandria, but an assertion of the dominance of Alexandria over Palestine. It is inconceivable that the Palestinian bishops, who were not at the synod, would have agreed to this or been bound by it. Alexandria, indeed, did not have the right to depose a church official unilaterally. Secondly, if the question of Origen’s theology was raised, this synod deviates from established methods of addressing such prob-lems: none of the extant accounts mention Origen’s presence at this synod. Nor do later sources, particularly those hostile to Origen, refer

32) One letter, to an otherwise unknown Domnus, addresses apostasy. Another letter, or possibly two, was written to Pontius and Caricus, who were churchman, though the topic of the letter is unknown.33) The second synod may be dated to the bishopric of the bishops Fabian and Heraclas.34) Cadiou 1944:318–319 and Nautin 1977:61 hold that the first synod under Dem-etrius declared Origen unworthy to be a catechist and dismissed him from Alexandria. The second synod, likewise under Demetrius, removed Origen from the priesthood.

L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674–696 691

to any kind of theological condemnation. It is likely that the issue raised at this synod was a continuation of the first synod, which recognized local authority to ordain presbyters as seen fit by individual communities.

There is the possibility that Origen was excommunicated from the Alexandrian church.35 However, there are few instances of excommuni-cation during the period in question. Shortly after gaining the bishop-ric, Callistus excommunicated Sabellius because of questionable orthodoxy (Hippolytus 1997: haer. 9.7). Allowing for ire, Hippolytus records that Callistus’ school was open to those who had been con-demned by other churches and sects.36 By relaxing disciplinary policies, Callistus was trying to extend the authority of the episcopate and cen-tralize more power in himself.37 It may be argued then, that along with the communal changes Callistus instituted for his immediate commu-nity, his excommunication of Sabellius was likewise unique to his com-munity, and not considered binding by other Christian groups at Rome. However, Callistus’ attempts at reforming the Roman church were met with opposition during his own lifetime, as exemplified by Hippolytus.

There are few other examples of bishops who attempted to excom-municate members for heresy. Apolinarius was invited to speak before a community in Asia Minor that was divided over Montanism; shortly thereafter, the community rejected Montanist teachings and excom-municated those who followed them (h.e. 5.16.10, SC 41). During the episcopate of Hyginus in Rome, the community cut off communion with Cerdo (h.e. 4.11.1–3, SC 41). Later under Victor, there were three incidents of excommunication from his Roman community, including the church of Ephesus during the Quartrodeciman controversy. Victor is said to have excommunicated a certain Theodotus the cobbler for teaching that Christ was a man (h.e. 5.28.6, SC 41).

Questions of sin and penance were matters considered by the entire Christian community; it is reasonable to assume that excommunication

35) Regarding the possibility that the bishop of Alexandria had the power to excom-municate members of his church without the approval of Alexandria house churches and presbyters, see Holliday (2010).36) Hippolytus 1997: haer. 9.6. Brent (1999:310) takes this entire account as evidence that Callistus was attempting to reorganize the Roman church under the monoepiscopacy.37) Brent (1999:315–320) notes that Callistus was claiming the right to absolve over the other presbyters in other house groups.

692 L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674–696

would be a community decision as well. Indeed, keeping in mind the fragmented nature of Christian communities during this period, the cooperation of all local groups would be necessary to make an excom-munication effective. Given that the bishop does not control the church by decree, such agreement could only be reached through a consensus of the community. Since house churches were still the norm for Chris-tian worship, it would have been difficult for bishops to excommuni-cate members entirely from large communities like those of Rome and Alexandria; they could exclude them from their own church, but in order to cut someone off from all the Christian groups in the city required a community consensus. The same holds true for Alexandria: the theory that Origen was excommunicated by Demetrius or Heraclas alone is unlikely.38 It is possible that the Alexandrian community excom-municated Origen, but it would have taken a community consensus. This raises several possibilities: 1) Origen was excommunicated from Heraclas’ church, but not all of Alexandria; 2) the Alexandrian commu-nity excommunicated Origen; or 3) Origen was never excommunicated.

Additionally, if Origen was excommunicated, it was not in per-petuum. Thus, Dionysius the Great corresponded freely with Origen.39 However, the nature of excommunication during this time may have

38) See Holliday (2010) for a fuller discussion of the powers of the Bishop in the third century. Origen himself is critical of the Bishop’s authority to judge, emphasizing the church leaders themselves must be righteous in order to do so. See also comm. in Mt. 1–17 12.14, SC 162; hom. 1–26 in Jos. 7.6, SC 71; and hom. 1–39 in Lc. 13.5–6, SC 87. Origen (2009: hom. 1–28 in Num. 4.3.1–4.3.4) discusses the intellectual qual-ifications of priests, noting that they should strive to be regarded as holy and rational. See also hom. 1–28 in Num. 5.1.2 and 10.3.3.39) Origen (2010: hom. 1–14 in Ezech. 10.1.4) discusses priests and deacons who have lost their positions within the church, noting that it is disgraceful and dishonorable. He condemns deposed officeholders who challenge their dismissal by creating contro-versy in their respective churches. In contrast, he praises those who accept their dis-missal. In light of the questionable events surrounding Origen’s relocation to Alexandria, this passage could be taken as supporting the theory that Origen was deposed. However, Origen is discussing Ezekiel 16:52–3 and begins this section by talking about loss of honor in a public context, namely citizens who are exiled from their city-states and government officials who lose their positions (Origen 2010:10.1.3). He next moves to discuss the ecclesiastical corollary of this, loss of church office. Ori-gen supports the idea that those who create stumbling blocks for the church should be

L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674–696 693

differed from when Eusebius and Jerome wrote. Perhaps Origen was not recognized as a representative of the Caesarean church, though not deprived of his office. Egyptian bishops would not have been able to revoke an office granted by another church, but they could have chosen not to recognize it. Rather, this may have been an instance, indeed the first instance, of a bishop refusing to recognize the authority of other bishops to make appointments to ecclesiastical offices based on the supremacy of the Alexandrian tradition.

Conclusion

The results of the synods are as murky as their details. While the topics and outcomes are open to interpretation, the above analysis suggests that: the first synod involved issues relevant to all Christian communi-ties, and the fact that Theoctistus and Alexander were included in Demetrius’ accusations intimates that these issues may well have been questions of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Additionally, the second synod was likely devoted to a continuation of the events of the first synod and did not raise new issues. It is unlikely, given the precedent and proce-dure of other inquiries into heresies, that Origen’s theology was raised at this synod. If it was, this synod is unique. Based upon previous inqui-ries, Origen should have been present at the Egyptian synod, his teach-ings examined and an attempt made to come to a satisfactory theological agreement. Ultimately, the events surrounding Origen’s relocation are more complex than has been previously held, and the two synods called over Origen’s ordination represent some of the first instances in which churches came together to address these issues.

References

Unless otherwise noted, all references to ancient sources are to the Sources Chrétiennes editions published in Paris since 1942 by Les Éditions du Cerf. Citations give the volume number after the abbreviation SC.

removed. See hom. 1–14 in Ezech. 10.4, SC 321; hom. 1–16 in Lev. 4.8.4, SC 286; and Origen 2009: hom. 1–28 in Num. 7.1.2.

694 L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674–696

Anonymous. 1972. Passio Perpetuae 1–2 in The Acts of the Christian Martyrs Trans. Herbert Musurillo. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

———. 2006. The Scriptores Historiae Augustae. Trans. David Magie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bardy, Gustave. 1937. “Aux Origines de l’Ecole D’Alexandrie.” Recherches de science religiuse 27:65–90.

———. 1942. “Pour l’histoire de l’Ecole d’ Alexandrie.” Revue Biblique (1942):80–109.Barnes, T. D. 1968. “Legislation against the Christians.” The Journal of Roman Studies,

58(1&2):35–50.———. 1971. Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study. Oxford: Claredon Press.le Boulluec, Alain. 1987. ‘École d’Alexandrie: De quelques aventures d’un concept

historiographique.” In Mélanges offerts au P. Claude Mondésert. Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 403–417.

Beebe, H. Keith and Lionel Casson. (1983). “Caesarea Maritima: Its Strategic and Political Significance to Rome.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 42(3).

Brent, Allen. 1999. The Imperial Cult and the Development of Church Order: Concepts and Images of Authority in Paganism and Early Christianity before the Age of Cyprian. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

Brown, Peter. 1988. The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity. New York: Columbia University Press.

Cadiou, René. 1944. Origen: His Life at Alexandria. Trans. John Southwell. St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co.

Campenhausen, Hans von. 1969. Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church in the First Three Centuries. Trans J. A. Baker. London: Adam and Charles Black.

Carikker, Andrew. 2003. The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea. Leiden and Boston: Brill.Chadwick, Henry. 1993. The Early Church. London: Oxford University Press.Covolo, Enrico dal. 1997. I Severi e il Cristianesimo. Las Roma.Cox, Patricia. 1983. Biography in Late Antiquity: A Quest for the Holy Man. Berkeley:

University of California Press.Crouzel, Henri. 1989. Origen. Trans. A. S. Worrall. San Francisco: Harper & Row

Publishers.Daniélou, Jean. 1955. Origen. Trans. Walter Mitchell. New York: Sheed and Ward.DeFaye, Eugene. 1929. Origen and His Work. Trans. Fred Rothwell. New York: Columbia

University Press.Frend, W. H. C. 2004. Martyrdom and Persecution. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.Grant, Robert M. 1980. Eusebius as Church Historian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Hanson, R. P. C. 1966. “A Note on Origen’s Self Mutilation” Vigiliae Christianae

20(2):81–82.Hippolytus. 1977. Contra Noetum, 1.3 and 1.6. Translated and edited by Robert

Butterworth. London: Heythrop Monographs.———. 1997. Refutation of all Heresies. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5 Grand Rapids:

W. M. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674–696 695

Holliday, Lisa. 2010. “Excommunicatum: The Monoepiscopate, the 3rd Century Church and Origen.” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 21(1).

Jakab, Attila. 2004. Ecclesia Alexandrina. Berne: Peter Lang.Jerome. 1966. Ep. 33 Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesi-

asticorum Latinorum, ed. Isidorus Hilberg v1. Vindobonae: Verlag der Öseterre-ichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

———. 1999. On Illustrious Men. Translated by Thomas Halton. Fathers of the Church 100. Washington: Catholic University Press.

Lampe, Peter. 2003. From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries. Translated by Michael Steinhauser. Edited by Marshall D. Johnson. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Loomis, Louise Ropes. 2006. The Book of the Popes (Liber Pontificalis): to the Pontificate of Gregory I. Merchantville: Evolution Publishing.

Lyman, J. Rebecca. 1997. “The Making of a Heretic: The Life of Origen in Epipha-nius’ Panarion 64.” Studia Patristica. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 445–451.

McGuckin, John, ed. 2004. The Westminster Handbook to Origen. Louisville and London: Westminster John Knox Press.

Nautin, Pierre. 1977. Origène: Sa Vie et son Oeuvre. Paris: Beauchesne.Origen 2009. Homilies on Numbers. Trans. Thomas P. Scheck. Ancient Christian Texts.

Downers Grove: IVP Academic.———. 2010. Homilies on Ezekiel. Trans. Thomas P. Scheck. Ancient Christian Writers

62. Mahwah: The Newman Press. Oulton, J. 1929. “Rufinus’s Translation of the Church History of Eusebius” Journal of

Theological Studies 30:150–174.Pamphilus. 2010. Apology for Origen. Trans. Thomas P. Scheck. Fathers of the Church

120. Washington: Catholic University Press.Photius. 1960. Bibliotheca. ed. René Henry, Bibliothèque, tome 2. Paris: Société

d’Édition Les Belles Lettres. Prinzivalli, E. 1999. “The Controversy about Origen before Epiphanius.” In

W.A. Binert and U. Kühneweg (eds.), Origeniana Septima Origenes in den Ausein-andersetzungen des 4. Jahrhunderts, Leuven: Leuven University Press, 195–213.

Richardson, Cyril. 1937. “The Condemnation of Origen.” Church History 6.1:50–64.Rousselle, Aline. 1974. “La Persécution des Chrétiens à Alexandrie au III siècle.” Revue

historique de droit français et étranger (1974):222–51.Rufinus. 2010. The Falsification of the Books of Origen. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck.

Fathers of the Church 120. Washington: Catholic University Press.Scholten, Clemens. 1995. “Die alexandrinische Katechetenschule.” Jahrbuch fur Antike

und Christentum 38:16–37.Syme, Ronald. 1971. Emperors and Biography: Studies in the Historia Augusta. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.Stewart-Skyes, Alistair. 2004. “Origen, Demetrius, and the Alexandrian Presbyters.”

St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 48(4):415–29.Telfer, William. 1962. The Office of the Bishop. London: Darton, Longman and Todd,

1962.

696 L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674–696

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

Van den Hoek, Annewies. 1997. “The ‘catechetical’ school of early Christian Alexan-dria and its Philonic Heritage.” Harvard Theological Review 90:59–88.

Volp, Ulrich. 1998. “Liturgical Authority Reconsidered: Remarks on the Bishop’s Role in Pre-Constantine Worship.” In Bronwen Neil, Geoffry Dunn and Laurence Cross (eds.), Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church, v. 3: Liturgy and Life, Minnesota: Liturgical Press: 189–209,

Wilken, Robert. 1984. “Alexandria: A School for Training in Virtue.” In Patrick Henry (ed.), Schools of Thought in the Christian Tradition, Philadelphia: Fortress Press.