Sökaren (“The Seeker”, Sweden)
6/1998, pp. 15-17 – translated THE
LEARNED ORIGEN NEW
FINDINGS REVEAL MANIPULATED TRANSLATIONS In 1941, 28 papyrus sheets were found in
Toura in Northern Egypt, which contained Origen’s original Greek text on
another subject: his comments to the Letter to the Romans. One could now for
the first time compare such a translation with the original, which became very
revealing. The work was done by the French scientist Jean Scherrer [2]. He
demonstrates that Rufinus has:
·
inserted
text passages which Origen didn’t have,
·
exceedingly
simplified complex text passages,
·
repositioned
text passages,
· left
passages out, which Origen had, and
· changed
text passages, in a few cases to such an extent that Rufinus’ version expressed
the opposite of what Origen had actually written. “A
personal, far-reaching and manifold intervention in the text … has taken place
… it is a mixture of authentic origenistic elements, reworked origenistic
elements and non-origenistic elements.” [2]. DID
ORIGEN TEACH REINCARNATION? We face similar difficulties when we want
to test the hypothesis, whether Origen really taught reincarnation. But here
some omissions in the text turn out to be unexpectedly helpful! What is removed
supports the hypothesis… Besides that, a few passages in the text have escaped
Rufinus’ censorship. Origen writes in Perì Archon that
we are, in a way, fallen angels. We were all there in the original creation.
But some of the entities in it – we – turned away from God in order to be able
to have experiences which are not possible to have in God’s harmonic and loving
world of light. Therefore, God put us in lower states of consciousness in a
hierarchy und Him. Those who fell to the second lowest level became souls,
which according to Origen for punishment were put in human bodies like in
prisons. The lowest level is the one of demons and adversaries. [1] WHAT
COMES AFTER DEATH? Here a third alternative is apparent
through its absence. What happens with the soul if the human being has neither
been good enough to rise nor bad enough to fall still further down? This is the
case for most of us, but it is not mentioned in the available text. It is,
however, known that Origen had written an extensive treatise on the soul, which
is lost [1]. The question will certainly have been treated there! To fit in
Origen’s system, the answer can only be one: such a soul becomes a human being
again! One may want to try to evade to the
concept of a purgatory. But it turns out that Origen’s concept of a purgatory
is different from the one of the Church, which for the first time was made a
part of the dogma at the council of Lyon in 1245. To Origen, the purgatory is
the shame, the feelings of guilt and the regret we feel inside. The insight
about all the injustice and all the bad we have done, looking back upon the
live we have left, burns like a fire in the soul. Hieronymus calls it the “fire
of conscience”. Its consequences soon show up in a new life, since our fate in
life on Earth is determined by our good and bad deeds before birth. [1] The
latter actually is a kind of karma concept! In theology, one has tried to explain
this away, making it look as if Origen meant a rebirth in a new body that
wouldn’t take place in our creation, but in a new era, in a new creation in a
future eon. Even if Rufinus’ version in a few passages may give this
impression, there will be no guarantee that this is what Origen really meant!
See above… We will here rather have to suspect cases of Rufinus’ “corrections”. THE
COUNCIL IN CONSTANTINOPLE Later research in the history of the
Church has shown that this is not the case. The first investigation was made by
Diekamp in a doctoral thesis from 1899 [3]. Later researchers of Church history
have also devoted themselves to the question [4-6]. WHAT
REALLY HAPPENED Several years later the idea arose to
call for a council in order to condemn three bishops, who had passed away long
before, as heretics for texts they had written. Non of them had anything to do
with Origen’s doctrines and it, furthermore, went against the tradition of a
council to condemn a person after his death. Pope Vigilius was against it and
was taken from Rome by force by the emperor’s soldiers. He found a refuge in a
church in Constantinople, but was arrested anew and put in a luxurious prison
in the emperor’s palace. He could escape and after a few letters in very rough
words the emperor at the end promised to not harm him, if only he would return.
Now one wanted to open the council in 553. THE
POPE DIDN’T AGREE Some days later, one gathered again, but
the pope still didn’t come. The emperor now declared the council as opened
without the pope, which also goes against the tradition for councils. At the
second last meeting his name was erased from the diptychs, which means that he
was deposed. The old man was condemned to slave work and had to drag stones in
a mine for half a year, until he gave in and confirmed the decisions of the
council in a letter to the emperor. He with no word mentioned Origen and his
doctrines [4]. He probably didn’t know about what had happened shortly before
the council was opened. The
anathemata, therefore, are not
expressed by the council and no pope has ex cathedra condemned Origen
and his doctrines. It has never been forbidden for the Christian to believe in
preexistence, and also not to believe in reincarnation. THE
FIRST ANATHEMA AGAINST ORIGEN References
The so far best
translation to a modern language of Rufinus’ version is without doubt: Origenes:
Vier Bücher über die Prinzipien, translated, commented to and in part
completed from other sources by Herwig Görgemanns and Heinrich Karpp,
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt (Germany), 2nd ed.
1985.
Jean Scherrer: Le
Commentaire d'Origéne sur Rom. III.5-V,7, Institut Français d'Archéologie
Orientale, Cairo, 1952.
Franz Diekamp:
Die
origenistischen Streitigkeiten im sechsten Jahrhundert und das fünfte
allgemeine Concil, Aschendorff, Münster, 1899.
Charles Joseph Hefele
and H. Leclercq: Histoire des Conciles, Letouzey et Ané, Paris, part II,
2nd section, 1908, pp. 1182-1196 and part III, 1st
section, 1909, pp. 1-132.
Fritz in
Dictionnaire
de la Théologie Catholique, band 3, 1st part, Letouzey et
Ané, Paris, 1938, col.. 1580-1585. Ferdinand Prat in
The
Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. XI. pp. 311-312, ed. by Ch. Herbermann, Appleton,
New York, 1913. Debate
ORIGEN
and the
reincarnation concept
By Jan Erik Sigdell
The
Church was founded in its present form at the Council of Nicaea in 325. One,
therefore, distinguishes between pre- and postnicaean fathers of the Church.
Origen (195 - 253 or 254) was on of the foremost of the former and one of the
most learned persons of his time. His more than 2000 writings were all burnt,
most of them towards the end of the 6th century. What we have left
are only a few fragments of original texts in Greek, some quotations stated by
his opponents and Latin translations. The most important text in this context
is Perì Archon, which was translated by Rufinus (approx. 345 – approx.
410). There are also some rests left of Hieronymus’ (340 – 419 or 420)
translation to the same language, but hardly one piece of the original text.
Rufinus
openly admits himself in his preface that he, like his predecessor Hieronymus,
has “corrected” the text according to the dogma of the Church [1]. The excuse
for his censorship and intervention is said to be that heretics and persons of
bad intention would have manipulated the Greek text, which Rufinus had.
Rufinus, therefore, claims to have “restored” the text in its “original
condition”. We will soon see how that is… First, it is clear that any positive
statement by Origen about reincarnation – if there were any – will obviously
have been “corrected” by Rufinus.
Origen was repeatedly criticized already
by contemporary opponents for teaching reincarnation, while his original
writings still existed. With the texts we have to day, which are herewith
proven to be manipulated, there is no basis for rejecting the suggestions that
Origen would have taught it, even though the Church likes to do that. What to
such a degree is valid for Rufinus’ version of the comments to the Letter to
the Romans will no doubt be valid to about the same degree for Perì Archon
and the other indirectly handed-down texts by Origen, which we have still to
day.
What
happens, according to Origen, when a human being dies? If it has been good enough,
the soul can rise to a higher level where it no more has a physical body. If it
has been bad enough, it may fall to the lowest level, to that of the demons. In
the latter case, some prefer to rather enter animal bodies. [1]
Another
of the theses of the Church, which has also been strongly questioned by the
research by theology itself, is the one of officially having condemned the
doctrine of preexistence – i.e. that the soul would have existed before birth –
at the council of Constantinople in 553. The condemnation of Origen’s theses
about this is not found in versions of the documents of the council, except in
one only. It was found in Vienna at the end of the 18th century. A
separate sheet contained anathemata against Origen and one, therefore, assumed
that these would have been expressed by the council.
The
image, which emerges, is as follows. In 543, i.e. 10 years earlier, emperor
Justinian in a letter to the patriarch Menas ordered to call for a meeting of a
local permanent synod, synodos endemousa, in order to formulate
anathemata against origenistic theses. Justinian himself lists a number of anathemata
in the letter and at the meeting, which took place the same year, a similar set
of anathemata was adopted. The latter are the same as the ones found in Vienna.
But
the pope didn’t come to the opening session. While waiting, the emperor took
out the 10 years old anathemata against Origen, probably written anew but with
the same content, and requested the signatures of the bishops. Since it would
mean danger of life to resist the emperor, most of them will have added their
names without being much convinced. The council was not opened, since
the pope had stayed away.
The
first anathema has a peculiar formulation: “If anyone asserts the fabulous
preexistence of the soul before birth, and with it the monstrous restoration
that follows from it, he is anathema.” For “restoration” the Greek text has the
word apokatástasis, which in theology normally refers to restoration of
God’s creation in its original wonderful order, at which all souls reunite with
God. But this cannot be meant with a “monstrous” (teratodi) restoration!
So what, then, was meant? Maybe the restoration of a new body for the soul?
Maybe reincarnation without mentioning it by name? This would really be
“monstrous” to the Church… Here may be another piece of evidence that Origen
really taught reincarnation. Or in any case preexistence, which the anathemata
concern in the first place.