Davide's Notes

Cf.this article on Origen in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

It is absolutely difficult to summarize Origen's fascinating thoughts, even in the form of study notes. Let's start from Origen's idea of the Trinity.

The Father is a purely spiritual mind, perfect unity, perfectly simple, without body. Note the following statement (which reminds me much of Aquinas, more on this later):

Having refuted, then, as well as we could, every notion which might suggest that we were to think of God as in any degree corporeal, we go on to say that, according to strict truth, God is incomprehensible, and incapable of being measured. For whatever be the knowledge which we are able to obtain of God, either by perception or reflection, we must of necessity believe that He is by many degrees far better than what we perceive Him to be. (De Principiis, I.I.V)

And on divine simplicity:

But God, who is the beginning of all things, is not to be regarded as a composite being, lest perchance there should be found to exist elements prior to the beginning itself, out of which everything is composed, whatever that be which is called composite.

But God is also "personal and active": so Origen posits the existence of another entity, who has always been with the Father, and upon which the Father exercises his intellectual activity. This is the Son. He is the first emanation of the Father, and can also be called the Logos, or Wisdom. The Son was always with the Father because

[Who] can suppose or believe that God the Father ever existed, even for a moment of time, without having generated this Wisdom? For in that case he must say either that God was unable to generate Wisdom before He produced her, so that He afterwards called into being her who formerly did not exist, or that He possessed the power indeed, but--what cannot be said of God without impiety--was unwilling to use it; both of which suppositions, it is patent to all, are alike absurd and impious: for they amount to this, either that God advanced from a condition of inability to one of ability, or that, although possessed of the power, He concealed it, and delayed the generation of Wisdom. (De Principiis, I.II.II)

A key point to note is the continuous generation of the Son. This continuous generation derives logically from the idea that a one-off separation implies change and therefore cannot be predicated of God.

Father and Son are clearly recognizable from the Scriptures:

For although no one is able to speak with certainty of God the Father, it is nevertheless possible for some knowledge of Him to be gained by means of the visible creation and the natural feelings of the human mind; and it is possible, moreover, for such knowledge to be confined from the sacred Scriptures. But with respect to the Son of God, although no one knoweth the Son save the Father, yet it is from sacred Scripture also that the human mind is taught how to think of the Son; and that not only from the New, but also from the Old Testament, by means of those things which, although done by the saints, are figuratively referred to Christ, and from which both His divine nature, and that human nature which was assumed by Him, may be discovered. (De Principiis, I.III.I)

Then there is the Spirit, also recognizable from the Scriptures, and who proceeds from the Son (graphically, Father -> Son -> Spirit). The Spirit directly reveals God:

We must understand, therefore, that as the Son, who alone knows the Father, reveals Him to whom He will, so the Holy Spirit, who alone searches the deep things of God, reveals God to whom He will. (De Principiis, I.III.IV)

This "to whom He will" can be more precisely characterized by saying that the power of the Father is universal; that the power of the Son corresponds to rational creatures only; and that the power of the Spirit corresponds to "the Saints". In particular, Origen says that the operation of the Holy Spirit takes place only in those "who are already turning to a better life, and walking along the way which leads to Jesus Christ, i.e., who are engaged in the performance of good actions, and who abide in God." (De Principiis, I.III.V)

See the influence of this hierarchy of salvation in Proclus, in the Liber de Causis, and in Aquinas (the latter, in the interesting article Aquinas, Pseudo-Denys, Proclus and Isaiah VI, is defined not as "the true Aristotelian" anymore, but as a "Platonized Aristotelian", or as a "Aristotelized Platonist").

Now, this procession of the Spirit does not imply for Origen that the Spirit derives his knowledge through revelation from the Son (because this would imply passing from a state of ignorance to a state of knowledge). So, we are to say, and this directly derives from the concept of unity in the Trinity, that the Holy Spirit has always been the Holy Spirit. Note how modern this statement is:

For if this were the case [of progressive knowledge of the Spirit], the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the Unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit. When we use, indeed, such terms as "always" or "was," or any other designation of time, they are not to be taken absolutely, but with due allowance; for while the significations of these words relate to time, and those subjects of which we speak are spoken of by a stretch of language as existing in time, they nevertheless surpass in their real nature all conception of the finite understanding. (De Principiis, I.III.IV)

Also note that this fits quite well with the thomistic idea of omniscience and omnipresence of God, presenting God as independent from the laws (as we perceive them at least) of space and time.

So, salvation must imply the action of the entire Trinity: first, one derives his existence from the Father; then, rational nature from the Son; and finally, holiness from the Holy Spirit.

Origen described the unity of Father, Son and Spirit using the term homoousious (same essence, or ousia); but he also says that Father, Son and Spirit differ in hypostasis (individual subsistence): in other words, they are different persons (and, as noted already, not in a merely economic sense). So these persons are eternally and really distinct; and monotheism is preserved by Origen through the ingenious explanation that Son and Spirit possess derivately all the characteristics of the deity.

The unity of the Trinity is manifested for example in the divine will: as G.L. Prestige puts it, Origen "repeats that the Father and the Son are two 'things' (pragmata) in objectivity, but one in consent and harmony and identity of purpose". Quoting directly Origen:

This [that nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or lesser] is most clearly pointed out by the Apostle Paul, when demonstrating that the power of the Trinity is one and the same, in the words, "There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; there are diversities of administrations, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God who worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit: withal." From which it most clearly follows that there is no difference in the Trinity, but that which is called the gift of the Spirit is made known through the Son, and operated by God the Father. (De Principiis, I.III.VII)

But who is really Christ? Here we need to briefly mention Origen's theory about "the fall". The creation was a collectivity of rational beings (a fixed number, not infinite; eternal, but not in time; all of them equal because there was no reason for diversity, but each one endowed with free will), and God's intention was that these rational beings would contemplate him forever. But most of them lapsed, and falled away into an existence on their own terms. The one creature that did not fall and remained with God was the soul of Christ:

That the nature, indeed, of His soul was the same as that of all others cannot be doubted otherwise it could not be called a soul were it not truly one. But since the power of choosing good and evil is within the reach of all, this soul which belonged to Christ elected to love righteousness, so that in proportion to the immensity of its love it clung to it unchangeably and inseparably, so that firmness of purpose, and immensity of affection, and an inextinguishable warmth of love, destroyed all susceptibility (sensum) for alteration and change; and that which formerly depended upon the will was changed by the power of long custom into nature; and so we must believe that there existed in Christ a human and rational soul, without supposing that it had any feeling or possibility of sin. (De Principiis, II.VI.V)

(actually the last sentence seems to contradict, the way it is expressed, the very concept of free will in the soul of Christ)

Contrast the soul of Christ with "the other souls", all of which have a various degree of understanding and ultimately of communion with God:

It seems to me that this very decay and falling away of the understanding is not the same in all, but that this conversion into a soul is carried to a greater or less degree in different instances, and that certain understandings retain something even of their former vigour, and others again either nothing or a very small amount. Whence some are found from the very commencement of their lives to be of more active intellect, others again of a slower habit of mind, and some are born wholly obtuse, and altogether incapable of instruction. (De Principiis, II.VIII.IV)

In the first book of De Principiis Origen explains with a similitude the process through which the "fallen souls" detached from God: it is as if a very skilled professional, who knows everything there is to know in his field, starts not to apply himself anymore to his job: he will progressively loose all his knowledge. In an analogous way, the creatures who progressively distanced themselves from "the divine warmth" (De Principiis, II.VIII.III) assume different forms, more and more material the farther away they move from God.

Origen is careful though to state that these are "opinions", and not necessarily theological truths:

Our statement, however, that the understanding is converted into a soul, or whatever else seems to have such a meaning, the reader must carefully consider and settle for himself, as these views are not be regarded as advanced by us in a dogmatic manner, but simply as opinions, treated in the style of investigation and discussion. (De Principiis, II.VIII.IV)

This is not the only case where Origen suggests that more investigation and discussion is needed; all the following quotations come from De Principiis:

• In regard to the Holy Spirit, it is not yet clearly known whether he is to be thought of as begotten or unbegotten, or as being himself also a Son of God or not. [from the quotation above, Origen thinks that the Spirit is unbegotted, if not else for the sake of the unity of the Trinity]
  
• In regard to the soul, whether it takes its rise from the transference of the seed, in such a way that the principle of substance of the sould may be regarded as inherent in the seminal particles of the body itself; or whether it has some other beginning, and whether this beginning is begotten or unbegotten, or at any rate whether it is imparted to the body from without or no; all this is not very clearly defined in the teaching.
  
• In regard to the devil and his angels and the opposing spiritual powers. the Church's teaching lays it down that these beings exist, but what they are or how they exist it has not explained very clearly. [he will propose his theory of the fall]
  
• What existed before this world, or what will exist after it, has not yet been made known openly to many, for no clear statement on the point is set forth in the Church's teaching.
• [There are] certain angels and good powers, who minister to the salvation of men; but when they were created, and what are their characteristics, no one has in any way made plain. [Origen's angelology is quite developed; since angels are souls that sinned "little", they are intimate friends of the divinity and instruct the Church, i.e. the people of God, throughout the OT; and even after Christ "some certain spiritual powers have come into a presiding office over particular nations in this world." Angels are present at baptism and at Christian assemblies; they are tasked with evangelization; and

  All of the faithful in Christ, no matter how small, are helped by an angel, and Christ says that these angels always see the face of the Father who is in heaven.

  This doctrine of the guardian angel can actually be found already in Hermas and in Clement of Alexandria.]
  
• As for the sun, moon and stars, the tradition does not clearly say whether they are living beings or without life. [here we should remember Clement of Alexandria who, in the Protrepticus, attacks Alcmaeon of Croton for believing that the stars are gods and alive, and Xenocrates for suggesting that the planets and the cosmos are eight gods. Clement, Philo and Justin all propose that God allowed the pagans to worship the heavenly bodies so that they may be spared from atheism and might have at least some knowledge of the divine. Now, while Origen denies worshipping the stars, still he believes that they are living beings. See this quotation:

  The sun also, and the moon and the rest of the heavenly bodies are living beings; and moreover, just as we men for certain sins have been enveloped in these bodies of ours, which are gross and heavy, so the lights of heaven have been given bodies of one sort or another to enable them to provide more or less light, while the demons, for greater offenses, have been clothed with real bodies.

  It would be most interesting to explore more in depth Origen's views on physics and astronomy.]
  

It seems appropriate to say a few words here about the ultimate reason for these "investigations": as Clement of Alexandria had already made patently clear, the Christian must be interested in true gnosis. That this gnosis must be practical and not just theoretical is well demonstrated by the very life of Origen. Now, for what regards the service of philosophy in this path toward gnosis, the following points can be made (taken from http://www.copticchurch.net):

• no true piety can be found in a man who despises philosophy; but, at the same time, philosophy can look "like gold which the Hebrews took from Egypt, instead of using it in establishing the Tabernacle they made the golden bull." So, philosophy must be used in the service of Christ, and must be considered as a preparatory discipline.
  
• he adopts (to some extent, see later) platonism in order to refute gnosticism, stoicism and epicureanism. There are numerous quotations from Plato's works in Contra Celsus; some of them are admired, others are refuted by Origen. And despite his platonism, Origen openly criticizes Plato from a Christian point of view for not having broken with politheism (but Plato's metaphysical system is accepted). So, human behavior is definitely important; for this reason also, Epicureanism is "philosophy's shame" with its morality of pleasure, opposed to the way of the Cross (and with its negation of Providence). Againsts stoicism, Origen believes that the divine ousia is immaterial; he also proposed human freedom.
  

As for specific neoplatonic ideas found in Origen, we can list:

• the power of the speculative mind to solve all questions through reasoning, except one: the concept of God is above reason.
• the world of ideas as opposed to the world of matter. Of utmost importance is the return of the soul, by means of knowledge, to unity with its divine source. A. Tripolitis (quoted at the copticchurch website) clearly expresses some of the differences between Origen and Plotinus (both were disciples of Ammonius Saccas):
  

  According to Plotinus, the human rational soul, which is a person's true nature, is a direct emanation of the divine essence. It is a part of the divine world, a being which exists on the lowest level of divinity and therefore in continuous and direct relationship with the divine intellect. Origen, as a Christian who was influenced by the biblical view of creation, could not accept so exalted a view of human nature, that the rational should be a part of the divine and in direct association with it. This biblical pessimism notwithstanding, he did find, through a rational interpretation of the Genesis narratives, the basis for a qualified assertion of the soul’s participation in the divine. Adhering to the Platonic doctrine of "assimilation to God," both Plotinus and Origen maintain that the world of sense is alien to the soul and a hindrance to the soul’s realization of its own true nature. Each believes that a person’s goal should be to become liberated from the things of sense and to realize one’s divine nature as logos or logikos, thus regaining one’s original status. The rational soul possesses within itself both the desire and power for communion with the divine. The attainment of perfection and the regaining of original purity is thus within the grasp of human capability.
  Both Origen and Plotinus claim that the ability and power, movement and desire, to return to God have from the beginning been implanted by God within the soul. Both Origen and Plotinus state that it is the responsibility of the individual soul to recognize the power within it and, by means of this power, to strive conscientiously to attain the world of intelligible realities.
  But it is only Origen, who holds to the soul’s unstable and changeable nature, in whose writings we find the insistence on the soul’s inability, of itself, to realize and utilize the divine power implanted within it to attain ultimate communion with God. It is important for the soul to realize and acknowledge its own limitations, that is, its instability and dependence, if it is to turn to God for that grace without which salvation is impossible.

  So, the difference between the two is fundamentally an anthropological one: for Plotinus, the human is essentially divine (philosophy and gnosis being the way through which one can achieve this insight); Origen, as a Christian, is more biblically oriented and is "less optimistic than Plotinus about the inherent goodness of human nature, but more optimistic about the possibility of eternal salvation for all created beings." J. Pelikan says, "One of the most decisive differences between a theologian and a philosopher is that the former understands himself as, in Origen's classic phrase, a man of the church, a spokesman for the Christian community."
  

For what regards epistemology or knowledge in itself, this is for Origen, as apparent from his commentaries, essentially mystical knowledge. The mystery surrounding knowledge is unveiled according to the spiritual progress made by the believer. In some sense, this reminds me of one of Paul's statements I love the most: βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι' ἐσοπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον· ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μήρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι χαθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην. (1 Cor 13:12). Beautiful εκ μηρους (literally, by division), even more beautiful επι in front of γινωσκω to express the fullness of knowledge (the fullness beyond divisions, i.e. true simplicity), together with the future middle voice (I myself will know, the individual person that I am comes forth), and the aorist passive επεγνωσθην (I have been known from the beginning, indefinite).

From the above, it is clear that soteriology is what really interests Origen. As a matter of fact, one should interpret all of Origen's views on martyrdom, human life, prayer, Scripture, and so on, in the light of his soteriology.

This soteriology is inextricably linked to his concept of free will. This is a point where the contrast between Origen's system and gnosticism is most apparent. His philosophical arguments for free will are found in book III of De Principiis. First of all, the man's rational nature is the foundation of free will:

The rational animal, however, has, in addition to its phantasial nature, also reason, which judges the phantasies, and disapproves of some and accepts others, in order that the animal may be led according to them. Therefore, since there are in the nature of reason aids towards the contemplation of virtue and vice, by following which, after beholding good and evil, we select the one and avoid the other, we are deserving of praise when we give ourselves to the practice of virtue, and censurable when we do the reverse. [...]
Now, to fall under some one of those external causes which stir up within us this phantasy or that, is confessedly not one of those things that are dependent upon ourselves; but to determine that we shall use the occurrence in this way or differently, is the prerogative of nothing else than of the reason within us, which, as occasion offers, arouses us towards efforts inciting to what is virtuous and becoming, or turns us aside to what is the reverse. [...]
To say that we are moved from without, and to put away the blame from ourselves, by declaring that we are like to pieces of wood and stones, which are dragged about by those causes that act upon them from without, is neither true nor in conformity with reason, but is the statement of him who wishes to destroy the conception of free-will. [...]
Reason, therefore, demonstrates that external events do not depend on us, but that it is our own business to use them in this way or the opposite, having received reason as a judge and an investigator of the manner in which we ought to meet those events that come from without. (De Principiis, III.I.IIIff)

It is true that the devil contends with men, "inciting and instigating men to sin". But note that there are sins that do not necessarily derive just from our having a body, i.e. from us being human.

The following passage shows the relationship between free will, devil's temptations, and divine providence:

There are therefore manifest reasons for holding the opinion, that as in good things the human will is of itself weak to accomplish any good (for it is by divine help that it is brought to perfection in everything); so also, in things of an opposite nature we receive certain initial elements, and, as it were, seeds of sins, from those things which we use agreeably to nature; but when we have indulged them beyond what is proper, and have not resisted the first movements to intemperance, then the hostile power, seizing the occasion of this first transgression, incites and presses us hard in every way, seeking to extend our sins over a wider field, and furnishing us human beings with occasions and beginnings of sins, which these hostile powers spread far and wide, and, if possible, beyond all limits. (loc. cit.)

This concept of divine providence is intrinsecally linked to the individuality of each and every one of us:

For as the presidents of the public games do not allow the competitors to enter the lists indiscriminately or fortuitously, but after a careful examination, pairing in a most impartial consid eration either of size or age, this individual with that--boys, e.g., with boys, men with men, who are nearly related to each other either in age or strength; so also must we understand the procedure of divine providence, which arranges on most impartial principles all who descend into the struggles of this human life, according to the nature of each individual's power, which is known only to Him who alone beholds the hearts of men: so that one individual fights against one temptation of the flesh, another against a second; one is exposed to its influence for so long a period of time, another only for so long; one is tempted by the flesh to this or that indulgence, another to one of a different kind; one has to resist this or that hostile power, another has to combat two or three at the same time; or at one time this hostile influence, at another that; at some particular date having to resist one enemy, and at another a different one; being, after the performance of certain acts, exposed to one set of enemies, after others to a second. (loc. cit.)

And it is because of this "just" bestowal of divine providence that we have free will:

Now, although we have said that it is by the just judgment of God that every one is tempted according to the amount of his strength, we are not therefore to suppose that he who is tempted ought by all means to prove victorious in the struggle; in like manner as he who contends in the lists, although paired with his adversary on a just principle of arrangement, will nevertheless not necessarily prove conqueror. But unless the powers of the combatants are equal, the prize of the victor will not be justly won; nor will blame justly attach to the vanquished, because He allows us indeed to be tempted, but not "beyond what we are able:" for it is in proportion to our strength that we are tempted; and it is not written that, in temptation, He will make also a way to escape so as that we should bear it, but a way to escape so as that we should be able to bear it. But it depends upon ourselves to use either with energy or feebleness this power which He has given us. (loc. cit.)

So, in essence, all souls have in themselves free will, and all were good; but this goodness is accidental and not essential, because (once more how tomistic this seems) "God alone is good by His own nature."

The role of Christ in Origen's soteriology is well explained by this quotation of B. Drewery:

Christ became like men that they might become like Him: He made available all good things-teaching the way to God, warning of judgment, exemplifying the good life, converting, reforming, purging from evil, gladdening His followers, sowing the seed of God’s word, opening the kingdom of God to all the world, to unworthy as well as worthy, even if not to the unwilling.

This can be expressed more precisely and more strongly with the idea that salvation is realized through Atonement. And the resurrection of Christ is the source of our own resurrection.

I shall now briefly say something about Origen's interpretation of Scripture. Read K. Wear's interesting article Exegetical Theory and Practice in Origen and Bereshit Rabba. Origen explains his ideas on biblical exegesis in the fourth book of De Principiis. First of all, Scripture is to be read and interpreted within the tradition of the Church (another example of why Origen is aptly named "a man of the church"; actually this is what allows him to stop short of the excesses of the exegesis typical of the Gnostics):

Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first; and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue and published it for the converts from Judaism (Commentary on Matthew 1).

Then, Scripture is divinely inspired. If this is so, then contradictions in the Scripture cannot be but apparent:

But as (the doctrine of) providence is not at all weakened (on account of those things which are not understood) in the eyes of those who have once honestly accepted it, so neither is the divinity of Scripture, which extends to the whole of it, (lost) on account of the inability of our weakness to discover in every expression the hidden splendour of the doctrines veiled in common and unattractive phraseology. For we have the treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power of God may shine forth, and that it may not be deemed to proceed from us (who are but) human beings. (De Principiis, IV.I.VIIff - whenever possible, I try to quote from the Greek rather than from the Latin of Rufinus' translation)

The latin text explicitly also says, "Many, not understanding the Scriptures in a spiritual sense, but incorrectly, have fallen into heresies"; therefore, inconsistencies in the text are either due to our deficiencies, or to our failure to see or understand an allegorical sense in them. Now, Origen uses Scripture (Prov. 22:20-21, reading τρισσως, threefold meaning, and not, as in most translations, "thirty sayings") to explain how Scripture should be read: according to the letter, to the soul, and to the spirit:

The way, then, as it appears to us, in which we ought to deal with the Scriptures, and extract from them their meaning, is the following, which has been ascertained from the Scriptures themselves. [...]
The individual ought, then, to portray the ideas of holy Scripture in a threefold manner upon his own soul; in order that the simple man may be edified by the "flesh," as it were, of the Scripture, for so we name the obvious sense; while he who has ascended a certain way (may be edified) by the "soul," as it were. The perfect man, again, and he who resembles those spoken of by the apostle, when he says, "We speak wisdom among them that are perfect, but not the wisdom of the world, nor of the rulers of this world, who come to nought; but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God hath ordained before the ages, unto our glory," (may receive edification) from the spiritual law, which has a shadow of good things to come. For as man consists of body, and soul, and spirit, so in the same way does Scripture, which has been arranged to be given by God for the salvation of men. (loc. cit.)

Incidentally, this is an example of one of Origen's consistent principles: explaining the Bible by the Bible.

The distinction between the soulful and the literal and spiritual meanings is not very clear. Some have proposed to replace "soul" by "moral", so we would have the literal, the moral, and the spiritual sense of Scripture. In practice anyway, Origen attaches the greatest importance to the spiritual meaning; obviously this meaning is to be looked for in passages showing apparent inconsistencies or difficulties; but in general the entire Scripture should be undestood in a spiritual sense (and the fundamental reason for this is obviously that Scripture is the work of the Spirit). So that:

As there are certain passages of Scripture which do not at all contain the "corporeal" sense, as we shall show in the following (paragraphs), there are also places where we must seek only for the "soul," as it were, and "spirit" of Scripture. [...]
The word of God has arranged that certain stumbling-blocks, as it were, and offences, and impossibilities, should be introduced into the midst of the law and the history, in order that we may not, through being drawn away in all directions by the merely attractive nature of the language, either altogether fall away from the (true) doctrines, as learning nothing worthy of God, or, by not departing from the letter, come to the knowledge of nothing more divine. (loc. cit.)

But, as K. Wear says, Origen is quite liberal in applying his own guidelines:

Origen freely extends his theory in practice, regularly allowing himself to assert readings which have no such biblical foundation (cf. Homilies on Genesis 1.2). Finally, having determined an acceptable spiritual meaning for the passage in question and reapplying it to its original position within Scripture, one may set about allegorizing even those previously unproblematic passages to suit this newly attendant spiritual context.

Now, allegorism in the OT is generally meant to explain the first coming of Christ; and allegorism in the NT is meant to explain the second coming of Christ: as J. Danielou said, "a new idea comes out here: the New Testament in turn is seen as a figure of the Kingdom that is to come."

Augustine, with many others, will continue Origen's method of allegorical interpretation (actually adding the fourth level of anagogical interpretation); and this exegetical tradition will continue more or less undisputed (well, Jerome for example had something to say about Origen's methods) for many centuries, till perhaps Luther's definition of the allegorizers as "clerical jugglers performing monkey tricks" (Luther also said that "Origen's allegories are not worth so much dirt") and the first signs of the historical-critical method of exegesis.

---

Categories: Church_History

Greek

Notes

8:11

• εξηλθον, aor. act. ind. from εξ + ερχομαι, "I come out". This is actually one of the meaning of εξερχομαι; in this case perhaps more appropriate is the meaning (BDAG) "to leave a place and make an appearance at another", i.e. "appear".
  
• ηρξαντο, aor. deponent ind. from αρχομαι, "I begin" (cf. αρχη, -ης). This is the middle voice from αρχω, to be first, to rule (cf. αρχων, ruler).
  
• συζητειν, aor. act. infinite, from συζετεω; the prefix συν conveys the idea of discussion in the search.
  
• πειραζοντες, part. pres. act. from πειραζω, "I tempt". It is interesting that the root is from πειρω, in the sense of "to pierce" as if to test.
• A simple rule to create a part. pres.act. is to remember the part. pres. of to be, i.e. ων, ουσα, ον, and then apply it to the present stem of the verb: in this case πειραζων, πειραζουσα, πειραζον.
  

8:12

• αναστεναξας, aor. act. part. from αναστεναζω, "I sigh deeply". Regular first aorist.
  
• let's review once more the rules to form an aor. act. part.:
• for weak aorists, add -σας, -σασα, -σαν to the present stem. This is very easy to remember, as we have the σ typical of the aorist. Example: λυω, ind. aor. ελυσα, part. aor. λυσας, λυσασα, λυσαν. If there is no σ in the ind. aor., do not put it in the part. aor. either, e.g. μενθ, ind. aor. εμεινα, part. aor. μεινας, μεινασα, μειναν.
  
• for strong aorists, we don't have the typical σ, so we use just the aorist ind. stem, but as if we were forming a present participle. Example: λαμβανω, ind. aor. ελαβον, part. aor. λαβων, λαβουσα, λαβον.
• ει δοθησεται, the verb is fut. pass. ind. from διδωμι, "I give", interesting use of ει to express a strong negation (a Jewish idiom); cf. for another example Heb 4:5, ει εισελευσονται εις την καταπαυσιν μου, "they shall not (never) enter my rest".
• Note the μι verb; root *δο, normal duplication of initial stem letter + iota in the present (διδωμι), regular future δωσω (from the root), imp. εδιδουν (from the present), kappa aorist εδωκα, perfect with epsilon instead of iota in the reduplication δεδωκα, subj. pres. διδω, subj. aor. δω (no redup.)
  

8:13

• αφεις, aor. act. part. from αφιμι, "I leave" (in this case, as this verb has a wide semantic latitude). Fut. αφησω, aor. αφηκα.
• εμβας, aor. act. part. from εμβαινω, "I go into".
• The pres. part. would be εμβαιν + ο + ντ + ες (following Mounce's rule, present stem + connecting vowel + morpheme + case endings, alternatively see the simple rule explained in the notes for 8:11), i.e. εμβαινων, εμβαινουσα, εμβαινον. For what regards the aor. part. (aor. ind. is εμ+εβην), it is εμβας, εμβασα, εμβαν.
  
• απηλθεν, aor. act. ind. from απ+ερχομαι, "I come, depart". ερχομαι has fut. ελευσομαι, aor. ηλθον (or ηλθα), perfect εληλυθα.

8:14

• επελαθοντο, aor. ind. deponent from επ+ιλανθανομαι, "I forget"; the aor. is επελαθομεν.
• Time to review the aorist ind. deponent: its terminations are those of the imperfect deponent (or, in Mounce's terminology, the secondary endings middle/passive), i.e. -μεν, -υ, -το, -μεθα, -σθε, -ντο; e.g. γινομαι, aor. ind. εγενομεν, εγενου, εγενετο, εγενομεθα, εγενεσθε, εγενοντο.
• ει μη, except (literally "if not").

8:15

• διεστελλετο, imp. ind. dep. from διαστελλομαι, "I order", aor. διεστειλαμεν. Note the imperfect. Interesting association of Herod (bad politics) and of the Pharisees (bad theology).
  
• ορατε, imperative present act. from οραω, "I discern clearly". The terminations for the imperative act. are very simple: ορα, ορατω, ορατε, ορατωσαν. In the passive the τ of the active changes to σθ, i.e. -ν, -σθω, -σθε, -σθωσαν.
  

8:16

• διελογιζοντο, imp. act. dep. from διαλεγομαι, "I discuss".

8:17

• νοειτε, present act. ind., from νοεω, "I grasp or comprehend something on the basis of careful thought", normally translated as "perceive".
• συνιετε, present act. ind., from συνιημι, "I understand". This is a -μι verb, but (BDAG) in the NT it is only clearly found in its -μι form in Acts 7:25 with συνιεναι (inf.). The meaning is "to have an intelligent grasp of something that challenges one's thinking or practice" (e.g. Mt 13:51, συνηκατε ταυτα παντα; have you understood all these things?)
  
• πεπωρωμενην, part. perf. pass. from πωροω, "I harden". Aor. ind. act. (weak) επωρωσα, perf. act. πεπωρωκα. The "hardening" is in the NT only meant in figurative sense, to "cause to have difficulty in understanding".
  

My translation

¹¹The Pharisees appeared and began to question him, tempting him: they were seeking from him a sign from heaven.
¹²Sighing deeply in his spirit he said, Why does this generation seek a sign? In truth, I tell you, no sign will ever be given to this generation.
¹³And he left them, then entered the boat, and again he went to the other side.
¹⁴Now the disciples had forgotten to take loaves with them, and they only had one loaf of bread on the boat.
¹⁵And he repeatedly ordered them, saying, Be watchful! Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the leaven of Herod!
¹⁶And (better: but) between them they kept on discussing that they did not have bread.
¹⁷When Jesus knew that, he said: Why do you keep on discussing on the fact that you do not have bread? Don't you understand nor perceive yet? Do you have your heart hardened?
¹⁸You have eyes: don't you see? You have ears: don't you hear? And don't you remember?
¹⁹When I broke the five breads for the 5000, how many small baskets full of pieces did you collect? They reply: Twelve.
²⁰And when I broke the seven breads for the 4000, how many large baskets full of pieces did you collect? They replied: Seven.
²¹And he repeatedly said to them, Do you still not understand?

Greek

Notes

8:1

• εν + D (εκειναις ταις ημεραις)
• πολλου οχλου, gen. abs: could be understood in temporal sense ("when there was a large moltitude"), or in causal sense ("because there was a large moltitude"). Remember that in general the subordinate clause in the genitive absolute could have a temporal (when), causal (because), concessive (although), or conditional (if) sense.
  
• εχοντων, present participle active from εχω, gen. abs., plural because οχλος is a collective noun
• φαγωσιν, aorist subjunctive active from εσθιω; this is a deliberative subj. The use of subjunctive here points to a real question being asked by the crowd, "what will we eat?", with uncertainty about the answer (remember that subj. is the mood of possibility). Cf. for a similarity Matt 6:31, τι φαγωμεν; "what will we eat?" (in the indicative, though; note deponent form in the future) Aorist subjunctive is often used in substitution to indicative future, and in general subjunctive emphasizes the kind of action rather than time (so, the emphasis is on the fact that they had nothing to eat, not that at that point in time they were without food).
• Remember that the aorist subjunctive active is formed from the aorist indicative (w/o the augment) and the subjunctive endings, -ω, -ῃς, -ῃ, -ωμεν, -ητε, -ωσι(ν) (here the aor. ind. is εφαγον). Τhey are actually the "lengthened form" of the present indicative endings -ο, -ες, -ε, -ομεν, -ετε, -ουσιν; for deponent verbs also lengthen the appropriate pres. indicative endings, e.g. δεχομαι ("I receive"), ind. aor. εδεξαμην, subj. pres. δεχωμαι, subj. aor. δεξωμαι; for subj. aor. passive: start quite obviously from aor. indicative passive and lenghten the ind. pres. active (careful! not passive) endings, e.g. ind. pres. act. γραφω, ind. aor. act. εγραψα, subj. pres. act. γραφω (γραφῃς, γραφῃ, etc), subj. aor. act. γραψω, ind. pres. passive γραφομαι, ind. aor. passive εγραφην (watch out: no θ in the ind. aor. passive here), subj. pres. passive γραφωμαι, subj. aor. passive γραφω (NB identical here to ind. pres. act., but then γραφῃς, γραφη, γραφωμεν, γραφητε, γραφωσιν, i.e. identical to subj. pres. act.).
  
• προσκαλεσαμενος, aorist participle middle deponent from προσκαλεομαι, "I summon" (προς + καλεω). This is an aorist participle: the action of the participle precedes the action of the main verb, so "he summoned the disciples and then said".

8:2

• σπλαγχνιζομαι, present deponent indicative, "I feel sympathy", followed by επι + A, where the accusative suggests active involvement toward the crowd. It is interesting that the verb is from σπλαγχνον, the inward parts, the viscera. Hence we have a psychological aspect as if to say, "this thing [of them not having to anything to eat] moves me down to my bowels", where bowels is "the seat and source of love" (BDAG), cf. Luke 1:78, δια σπλαγχνα ελεους θεου ημον, "through/because of the affectionate mercy of our God" or, as the Vulgate has it, "per viscera misericordiae Dei nostri".
• προσμενουσιν, present active indicative from προς+μενω + D. προς suggests a reinforcement of the verb μενω, i.e. something like adhere to, be with.
  
• εχουσιν, present active indicative from εχω
• φαγωσιν, see 8:1

8:3

• απολυσω, aorist active subjunctive from απολυω, dismiss; subjunctive because εαν is followed by the subj. The aorist here implies as usual a one-off action rather than a repeated one (as would be the case for the present).
  
• νηστεις, from νηστις, -ιος, from νη (neg.) + εδω, fasting.
• εκλυθησονται, future passive indicative, from εκλυω, passive with active sense, literally "set free" (εκ + λυω); in this case, metaphorically, to dissolve, i.e. to grow weak, or faint. Note the θ typical of (some) future and aorist ind. passive and the σ typical of the future (e.g. fut. ind. pass. εκλυθησομαι).
  
• τινες γαρ αυτων, because some of them.
• μακροθεν, "from far away", usual suffix θεν ("from") attached to μακρος, "far". απο is pleonastic.
  
• ηκασιν, perfect active indicative from ηκω, "I come", in place of the expected ηκουσιν. The perfect tense emphasizes a completed action the effects of which are felt even at the present (of the narrative).

8:4

• απεκριθησαι, aorist middle deponent indicative, from αποκρινομαι, "I answer" (to a preceding question or point)
• οτι, signals here direct speech
• ποθεν, "from where", again θεν + που
• δυνησεται, future middle deponent indicative, from δυναμαι, "I am able"
• χορτασαι, aorist active infinitive from χορταζω, "I feed"

8:5

• ηρωτα, imperfect active indicative, from ερωταω, "I ask".
• ειπαν, aorist active indicative, from λεγω, "I say"; remember: the aorist of this verb can take both weak or strong terminations, i.e. ειπον or ειπα.

8:6

• παραγγελλει, present active indicative, from παρ + αγγελλω, "I give command". This is obviously an historic present (e.g. the Textus Receptus has παρηγγειλεν, aorist).
• αναπεσειν, infinitive aorist active from αναπιπτω (the infinitive present active would be αναπιπτειν; remember that the aorist of πιπτω is επεσον or επεσα). πιπτω literally means "to fall", here ανα changes the meaning to "fall upon something", or "lie down", and specifically here to sit down in order to eat (the classical use would be to "lean while reclining at a meal").
• λαβων, aorist active participle, from λαμβανω, "I take". Remember that the aorist active participle is the aorist indicative w/o augment plus: -ας, -ασα, -αν for the weak form (a sigma is then normally present, e.g. λυω, aor. present ελυσα, aor. part. λυσας, λυσασα, λυσαν) or -ων, -ουσα, -ον for the strong form (as in this case, e.g. λαμβανω, aor. present ελαβον, aor. part. λαβων, λαβουσα, λαβον)
• ευκαριστησας, aorist active participle from ευκαριστεω, "I give thanks". See above for the formation of aorist active participles.
• εκλασεν, aorist active indicative from κλαω (perfectly "regular" weak verb, aor. participle κλασας), "I break". In the NT only used for breaking the bread. Do not confuse κλαω with κλαιω ("I cry").
• εδιδου, imperfect active indicative, from διδωμι, "I give".
  
• παρατιθωσιν, aorist active subjunctive (follows ινα), from παρατιθημι, "I deposit". From παρα + τιθημι, "I place". The participle of τιθημι is τιθεις, -εισα, -εν; the (strong) aorist is εθηκα (see παρεθηκαν, immediately following), with aorist participle θεις, -εισα, -θεν.

8:7

• ειχον, imperfect active indicative, from εχω, "I have". Remember the totally regular future active indicative εξω.
• ευλογησας, aorist active participle, from ευλογεω, "I bless".
• ειπεν, aorist active indicative, from λεγω (cf. 8:5).  Remember that the imperfect is the regular ελεγεν.
• παρατιθεναι, present active infinitive, from παρατιθημι, "I deposit".

8:8

• εφαγον, aorist active indicative, from εσθιω, "I eat" (cf. 8:1). εσθιω, fut. deponent φαγομαι, aor. εφαγον.
• εχορτασθαν, aorist passive indicative, from χορταζω, "I feed" (cf. 8:4); note the θ typical of the aor. (and fut.) ind. passive (εχορτασθην, εχορτασθης, etc)
• ηραν, aor. ind. act. from αιρω, "I lift up"
• περισσευματα κλασματων, pieces that were left, περισσυεμα, -ατος, το is "what remains" with the idea of superabundance, cf. περι in the sense of beyond; κλασμα, -ατος, το is "fragment, piece", clearly from κλαω, "I break".
• σπυριδας, from σπυρις, -ιδος, η, basket, specifically to collect lunch remains here but generically a basket, cf. Acts 9:25 where Paul is lowered εν σπυριδι.

8:9

• ησαν, imp. ind. act. from ειμι
• φαγοντες, aor. part. act. from εσθιω, "I eat". Aor. part. because it is obviously taken from the aor ind. (and not, say, from the pres. ind.).
• τετρακισχιλιοι, literally 4 times one thousand; one thousand is χιλιοι, remember chiliasm or millenarism.

8:10

• εμβας, aor. part. act. from εμβαινω, "I enter into", cf. εν + βαινω. Aor. ind. act. εμεβην.
• μερη, A pl. from μερος, -ους, το, "part", but in the plural "region, district".

My translation

¹In those days, since there was again a great number of people with nothing to eat, he summoned the disciples and said to them:
²I am deeply moved by this crowd, because they have been with me for three days already, and have nothing  to eat;
³and if I now let them go fasting to their homes, they will faint on their way: for some of them have come from very far away places.
⁴His disciples then replied, From where will one be able to feed bread to these people, here, in the desert?
⁵And he was asking, How many loaves do you have? They replied: Seven.
⁶He then commanded the crowd to sit down on the ground; and having taken the seven loaves and given thanks he broke them, and kept handing them to his disciples, so that they could distribute them. And they distributed them to the crowd.
⁷They were also having a few small fish; and having blessed them, Jesus said to give these to the crowd as well.
⁸The people ate and were filled; and seven baskets of leftovers were collected.
⁹There were about four thousand people; Jesus then dismissed them,
¹⁰and shortly, having entered into the boat with his disciples, he went to the region of Dalmanutha.

I shall try to map here some interesting facts of the life of Origen, as told by some textbooks or introductions (mainly Schaff's History of the Christian Church, the introduction to the Early Church Fathers collection, and Wace), with the original texts from which those facts are derived.

This is always a useful exercise; it reminds me of when in High School, some 24 years ago (!), my professor of Italian Literature taught us to watch out for those books that recount "the fable of literature" rather than stimulating students (or scholars) to go and look up the original texts for themselves.

Eusebius, HE VI, is our main source for the life of Origen. Cf. also Jerome, De Viribus Illustris, Photius, Bibliotheca, Gregory Thaumaturgus, The Oration and Panegyric Addressed to Origen (other sources are quoted below).

Summary Notes	Original Sources
Born in Alexandria in 185, baptized in childhood; his father Leonides (who became a martyr) and the famous Clement gave him a learned education, as a Christian.	For the doctrine of Christ was taught to Origen by his parents (HE VI.XIX.10) Among [those martyrized during the persecution under Severus] was Leonides, who was called the father of Origen, and who was beheaded while his son was still young. (HE VI.I.1) For even then [when his father was about to be martyrized] he had stored up no small resources in the words of the faith, having been trained in the Divine Scriptures from childhood. And he had not studied them with indifference, for his father, besides giving him the usual liberal education, had made them a matter of no secondary importance. First of all, before inducting him into the Greek sciences, he drilled him in sacred studies, requiring him to learn and recite every day. Nor was this irksome to the boy, but he was eager and diligent in these studies. And he was not satisfied with learning what was simple and obvious in the sacred words, but sought for something more, and even at that age busied himself with deeper speculations. (HE VI.II.7-8) Having been instructed in the sciences of the Greeks by his father, he devoted him after his death more assiduously and exclusively to the study of literature, so that he obtained considerable preparation in philology and was able not long after the death of his father, by devoting himself to that subject, to earn a compensation amply sufficient for his needs at his age. (HE VI.II.14) Clement having succeeded Pantaenus, had charge at that time of the catechetical instruction in Alexandria, so that Origen also, while still a boy, was one of his pupils. (HE VI.VI.1)
In 203 (18 years old) he was nominated by the bishop Demetrius president of the cathechetical school of Alexandria1 (which was before him chaired by Clement);	He was in his eighteenth year when he took charge of the catechetical school. (HE VI.III.3) But when he saw yet more coming to him for instruction, and the catechetical school had been entrusted to him alone by Demetrius, who presided over the church, he considered the teaching of grammatical science inconsistent with training in divine subjects, and forthwith he gave up his grammatical school as unprofitable and a hindrance to sacred learning. (HE VI.III.8) Afterwards appointed by Demetrius, bishop of this city, successor to the presbyter Clement, he flourished many years. (Jerome, De Vir. Ill. LIV)
to prepare for this post he studied gnosticism and Greek philosophy; the latter he studied for a while under Ammonius Saccas (the Ammonius teacher of Plotinus, perhaps).	For this man [i.e. Origen], having been a hearer of Ammonius, who had attained the greatest proficiency in philosophy of any in our day, derived much benefit from his teacher in the knowledge of the sciences; but as to the correct choice of life, he pursued a course opposite to his. (HE VI.XIX; Eusebius is reporting here the opinion of Porphyry, who was against Origen and probably wrongly depicts Ammonius as a Christian) "When I devoted myself to the word, and the fame of my proficiency went abroad, and when heretics and persons conversant with Grecian learning, and particularly with philosophy, came to me, it seemed necessary that I should examine the doctrines of the heretics, and what the philosophers say concerning the truth." (HE VI.XIX.12, here it is Origen who speaks) For he [i.e. Origen] asserted further that there could be no genuine piety towards the Lord of all in the man who despised this gift of philosophy,-a gift which man alone of all the creatures of the earth has been deemed honourable and worthy enough to possess, and one which every man whatsoever, be he wise or be he ignorant, reasonably embraces, who has not utterly lost the power of thought by some mad distraction of mind. He asserted, then, as I have said, that it was not possible (to speak correctly) for any one to be truly pious who did not philosophize. (Gregory Thaumaturgus, To Origen, Argument VI) For he deemed it right for us to study philosophy in such wise. that we should read with utmost diligence all that has been written, both by the philosophers and by the poets of old, rejecting nothing, and repudiating nothing (for, indeed, we did not yet possess the power of critical discernment), except only the productions of the atheists, who, in their conceits, lapse from the general intelligence of man, and deny that there is either a God or a providence. (Gregory Thaumaturgus, To Origen, Argument XIII)
He castrated himself in this period.2	He took the words, "There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake," in too literal and extreme a sense. And in order to fulfill the Saviour's word, and at the same time to take away from the unbelievers all opportunity for scandal,-for, although young, he met for the study of divine things with women as well as men,-he carried out in action the word of the Saviour. (HE VI.VIII.1) When Demetrius, who presided over that parish, at last learned of this, he admired greatly the daring nature of the act, and as he perceived his zeal and the genuineness of his faith, he immediately exhorted him to courage, and urged him the more to continue his work of catechetical instruction. Such was he at that time. But soon afterward, seeing that he was prospering, and becoming great and distinguished among all men, the same Demetrius, overcome by human weakness, wrote of his deed as most foolish to the bishops throughout the world. (HE VI.VIII.3-4)
He learned Hebrew3	So earnest and assiduous was Origen's research into the divine words that he learned the Hebrew language, and procured as his own the original Hebrew Scriptures which were in the hands of the Jews. (HE VI.XVI.1) Contrary to the spirit of his time, and of his people, he learned the Hebrew language (De Vir. Ill. LIV)
and travelled to Rome (211), where he met Hippolytus (he probably sided with Hippolytus in his controversy with Zephyrinus and Callistus)	Hippolytus wrote [...] an exhortation On the praise of our Lord and Saviour. in which he indicates that he is speaking in the church in the presence of Origen. (De Vir. Ill. LXI)
and also to Arabia.	While he was still at Alexandria, a soldier came and delivered a letter from the governor of Arabia to Demetrius, bishop of the parish, and to the prefect of Egypt who was in office at that time, requesting that they would with all speed send Origen to him for an interview. (HE VI.XIX.15)
He had to flee to Palestine in 216 after Caracalla visited Alexandria and directed a bloody persecution against his inhabitants, esp. the literary members of the community.	But sometime after a considerable war broke out in the city, and he departed from Alexandria. And thinking that it would be unsafe for him to remain in Egypt, he went to Palestine and abode in Caesarea. (HE VI.XIX.16) Now Antoninus [i.e. Caracalla], in spite of the immense affection which he professed to cherish for Alexander, all but utterly destroyed the whole population of Alexander's city. For, hearing that he was ill-spoken of and ridiculed by them for various reasons, not the least of which was the murder of his brother, he set out for Alexandria, concealing his wrath and pretending that he longed to see them. [...] And, to pass over the details of the calamities that then befell the wretched city, he slaughtered so many persons that he did not even venture to say anything about their number, but wrote to the senate that it was of no interest how many of them or who had died, since all had deserved to suffer this fate. (Dio Cassius, Roman History LXXVIII.22)
So he went to his friend Bishop Alexander of Jerusalem, and afterwards to Caesarea, where he received an honourable welcome from Bishop Theoctistus. Here is when Demetrius became angry when Origen started, as a layman, to preach in churches, and ordered him to return immediately to Alexandria (which Origen did).	While there the bishops of the church in that country requested him to preach and expound the Scriptures publicly, although he had not yet been ordained as presbyter. (HE VI.XIX.16) But Demetrius sent for him by letter, and urged him through members and deacons of the church to return to Alexandria. So he returned and resumed his accustomed duties. (HE VI.XIX.19)
Actually the palestinian bishops replied that laymen had already preached in churches before.4	"He [i.e. Demetrius; Alexander and Theoctistus are speaking here] has stated in his letter that such a thing was never heard of before, neither has hitherto taken place, that laymen should preach in the presence of bishops. I know not how he comes to say what is plainly untrue. For whenever persons able to instruct the brethren are found, they are exhorted by the holy bishops to preach to the people. Thus in Laranda, Euelpis by Neon; and in Iconium, Paulinus by Celsus; and in Synada, Theodorus by Atticus, our blessed brethren. And probably this has been done in other places unknown to us." (HE VI.XIX.17-18)
Then there were happy and very productive years in Alexandria, when he was sponsored by the wealthy Ambrosius.	Ambrosius, at first a Marcionite but afterwards set right by Origen, was deacon in the church, and gloriously distinguished as confessor of the Lord. To him, together with Protoctetus the presbyter, the book of Origen, On martyrdom was written. Aided by his industry, funds, and perseverance, Origen dictated a great number of volumes. (De Vir. Ill. LXVI) At that time Origen began his commentaries on the Divine Scriptures, being urged thereto by Ambrose, who employed innumerable incentives, not only exhorting him by word, but also furnishing abundant means. (HE VI.XXIII.1)
But in 228 Origen was called to Greece possibly to assist in the eradication of heretic thought. He passed throught Palestine, where (in Caesarea) Alexander and Theoctistus ordained him priest.	At this time Origen was sent to Greece on account of a pressing necessity in connection with ecclesiastical affairs, and went through Palestine, and was ordained as presbyter in Caesarea by the bishops of that country. (HE VI.XXIII.4) When he had already reached middle life, on account of the churches of Achaia, which were torn with many heresies, he was journeying to Athens, by way of Palestine, under the authority of an ecclesiastical letter, and having been ordained presbyter by Theoctistus and Alexander, bishops of Caesarea and Jerusalem, he offended Demetrius. (De Vir. Ill. LIV) Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, had a high opinion of Origen and admitted him to his intimate friendship. But when Origen was about to leave for Athens without the permission of the bishop, he was ordained by Theotecnus, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, contrary to the rule of the Church, with the approval of Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem. (Photius, cod. 118 - it does not look very reasonable that Demetrius did not want Origen to leave for Athens, if we can trust Eusebius or Jerome)
When he returned to Alexandria in 230 he found Demetrius incensed against him. In 231 Demetrius participated to a synod of Egyptian bishops and Alexandrian presbyters, who declared Origen unworthy to hold the office of teacher, and expelled him from Alexandria.	This incident [i.e. the fact that Origen had been ordained priest in Palestine] changed the love of Demetrius to hate and his praise to blame. A synod of bishops and some presbyters was summoned to condemn Origen. According to Pamphilus [who wrote the Defence of Origen, lost except for Book I, available in a translation made by Rufinus], it was decided that he must not remain in Alexandria or teach there, but that he should be allowed to retain his priesthood. (Photius, cod. 118)
But then Demetrius summoned a second synod5, in which the bishops alone were permitted to vote, and by their suffrages Origen was degraded from the office of presbyter, and intimation of this sentence was ordered to be made by encyclical letter to the various Churches. The validity of the sentence was recognised by all of them, with the exception of those in Palestine, Phoenicia, Arabia, and Achaia. So Origen left Alexandria and settled at Caesarea, where he stayed for almost 25 years.	He [i.e. Origen] offended Demetrius, who was so wildly enraged at him that he wrote everywhere to injure his reputation. (De Vir. Ill. LIV) But Demetrius and some Egyptian bishops, with the assent of those who had formerly supported him, also deprived him of his sacred office. After he had been banished from Alexandria, Theotecnus, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, welcomed him, allowed him to live at Caesarea, and gave him permission to preach. (Photius, cod. 118) We proceeded as far as the fifth volume in spite of the obstacles presented by the storm in Alexandria, and spoke what was given us to speak, for Jesus rebuked the winds and the waves of the sea. We emerged from the storm, we were brought out of Egypt, that God delivering us who led His people forth from there. Then, when the enemy assailed us with all bitterness by his new writings, so directly hostile to the Gospel, and stirred up against us all the winds of wickedness in Egypt, I felt that reason called me rather to stand fist for the conflict, and to save the higher part in me, lest evil counsels should succeed in directing the storm so as to overwhelm my soul, rather to do this than to finish my work at an unsuitable season, before my mind had recovered its calm. Indeed, the ready writers who usually attended me brought my work to a stand by failing to appear to take down my words. [...] And be assured that it is with great readiness that I now make this second beginning and enter on my sixth volume, because what I wrote before at Alexandria has not, I know not by what chance, been brought with me.(Origen, Commentary on John, VI) So, you see, the labors of this one man [i.e. Origen] have surpassed those of all previous writers, Greek and Latin. Who has ever managed to read all that he has written? Yet what reward have his exertions brought him? He stands condemned by his bishop, Demetrius, only the bishops of Palestine, Arabia, Phenicia, and Achaia dissenting. Imperial Rome consents to his condemnation, and even convenes a senate to censure him, not-as the rabid hounds who now pursue him cry-because of the novelty or heterodoxy of his doctrines, but because men could not tolerate the incomparable eloquence and knowledge which, when once he opened his lips, made others seem dumb. (Jerome, Ep. XXXIII.4) The object of the whole letter [written by Origen, and translated by Rufinus] is to assail Demetrius the Pontiff of Alexandria, and to inveigh against the bishops throughout the world, and to tell them that their excommunication of him is invalid; he says further that he has no intention of retorting their evil speaking; indeed he is so much afraid of evil speaking that he does not dare to speak evil even of the devil; insomuch that he gave occasion to Candidus an adherent of the errors of Valentinian to represent him falsely as saying that the devil is of such a nature as could be saved. [...] "Why need I [Origen is speaking here] speak of the language in which the prophets constantly threaten and reprove the pastors, elders, the priests and the princes? These things you can of yourselves without my aid draw out from the Holy Scriptures, and you may clearly see that it may well be the present time of which it is said `Trust not in your friends, and do not hope in princes,'" [...] "Now, because through the fear of God we are careful not to utter maledictions against any one" (Jerome, Apology for himself against the books of Rufinus, II.XVIII)
Even if Demetrius died the year after Origen left for Caesarea, and even if Origen's pupil Heraclas succeeded him, Origen did not return to Alexandria, and contributed instead to raise the reputation of the theological school of Caesarea6. One of his disciples was Gregory Thaumaturgus.	It was in the tenth year of the above-mentioned reign [of Alexander Severus, i.e. in 231] that Origen removed from Alexandria to Caesarea, leaving the charge of the catechetical school in that city to Heraclas. Not long afterward Demetrius, bishop of the church of Alexandria, died [i.e. in 232, as Demetrius began his episcopate in 189, cf. HE V.XX.4], having held the office for forty-three full years, and Heraclas succeeded him. (HE VI.XXVI.1) While Origen was carrying on his customary duties in Caesarea, many pupils came to him not only from the vicinity, but also from other countries. Among these Theodorus, the same that was distinguished among the bishops of our day under the name of Gregory, and his brother Athenodorus, we know to have been especially celebrated. (HE VI.XXX.1)
But then the persecution of the emperor Maximin started7. So Origen had to flee to Caesarea in Cappadocia (Kayseri), where he remained for 2 years. He lived in the house of Juliana, heir of Symmachus, the ebionite translator of the Septuagint. From her Origen obtained several mss., which had belonged to Symmachus.	The Roman emperor, Alexander, having finished his reign in thirteen years [i.e. in 235], was succeeded by Maximinus Caesar. On account of his hatred toward the household of Alexander, which contained many believers, he began a persecution, commanding that only the rulers of the churches should be put to death, as responsible for the Gospel teaching. (HE VI.XXVIII.1) How great the glory of Origen was, appears from the fact that Firmilianus, bishop of Caesarea, with all the Cappadocian bishops, sought a visit from him, and entertained him for a long while. (De Vir. Ill. LIV) AGAIN there was a certain Juliana, a virgin of Caesarea in Cappadocia, said to be very learned and most faithful. When Origen the writer fled from the uprising of the pagans she received him, and supported him for two years at her own cost and waited on him. I found this written in a very old book of verses, in which had been written by Origen's hand: "I found this book at the house of Juliana the virgin at Caesarea, when I was hidden by her. She used to say that she had received it from Symmachus himself, the Jewish interpreter." (Palladius, The Lausiac History, LXIV) Commentaries of Symmachus are still extant in which he appears to support this heresy [of the Ebionites] by attacking the Gospel of Matthew. Origen states that he obtained these and other commentaries of Symmachus on the Scriptures from a certain Juliana, who, he says, received the books by inheritance from Symmachus himself. (HE VI.XVII.1)
After Maximin died, he returned to Caesarea in Palestine, and in Palestine he visited some of the places mentioned in the Scriptures to better support his studies. He then went to Athens, and then to Bostra in Arabia.	We have visited the places to enquire as to the footsteps of Jesus and His disciples, and of the prophets. (Origen, Commentary on John, VI.XXIV) Being at that time in Athens, he finished his work on Ezekiel and commenced his Commentaries on the Song of Songs, which he carried forward to the fifth book. After his return to Caesarea, he completed these also, ten books in number. (HE VI.XXXII.1) Beryllus, whom we mentioned recently as bishop of Bostra in Arabia, turned aside from the ecclesiastical standard and attempted to introduce ideas foreign to the faith. He dared to assert that our Saviour and Lord did not pre-exist in a distinct form of being of his own before his abode among men, and that he does not possess a divinity of his own, but only that of the Father dwelling in him. Many bishops carried on investigations and discussions with him on this matter, and Origen having been invited with the others, went down at first for a conference with him to ascertain his real opinion. But when he understood his views, and perceived that they were erroneous, having persuaded him by argument, and convinced him by demonstration, he brought him back to the true doctrine, and restored him to his former sound opinion. (HE VI.XXXIII.1-2)
But in 249 the Decian persecution8 broke, he was imprisoned at Tyre (why he was at Tyre we don't know), and was made to suffer great cruelties by his persecutors. Although he survived his imprisonment, his body was so weakened by his sufferings, that he died at Tyre in 254, 69 years old.	But how many and how great things came upon Origen in the persecution [of Decius], and what was their final result,-as the demon of evil marshaled all his forces, and fought against the man with his utmost craft and power, assaulting him beyond all others against whom he contended at that time,-and what and how many things he endured for the word of Christ, bondsand bodily tortures and torments under the iron collar and in the dungeon; and how for many days with his feet stretched four spaces in the stocks he bore patiently the threats of fire and whatever other things were inflicted by his enemies; and how his sufferings terminated, as his judge strove eagerly with all his might not to end his life; and what words he left after these things, full of comfort to those needing aid, a great many of his epistles show with truth and accuracy. (HE VI.XXXIX.5; the letters Eusebius is referring to are no longer extant) Pamphilus the martyr and many others who have written an accurate account of Origen, as given by those who knew him, assert that he quitted this life by a glorious martyrdom at Caesarea during the cruel persecution of the Christians by the emperor Decius. (Photius, cod. 118 - this contradicts what Eusebius says, and seems a later tradition) When Decius had reigned not quite two years, he was slain with his children, and Gallus succeeded him. At this time Origen died, being sixty-nine years of age. (HE VIII.I) It is now almost one hundred and fifty years since Origen died at Tyre. (Jerome, Ep. LXXXIV to Pammachius and Oceanus, VI - this letter was written in 400) Haec [Tyrus] et Origenis corpus occultat sicut oculata fide etiam hodie licet inspicere (William of Tyre, Hist. XIII.1)

Notes:

1. To appreciate Origen's attitude toward learning and teaching:

   Watch this only, brethren, that no one of you be found not only not speaking or meditating wisdom, but even hating and opposing those who pursue the study of wisdom. The ignorant, among other faults, have this worst fault of all, that of regarding those who have devoted themselves to the word and teaching as vain and useless; they prefer their own ignorange to the study and toil of the learned, and by changing titles they call the exercises of the teachers verbiage, but their own unteachableness or ignorance, simplicity. (Homilies on Psalm XXXVI.5.1)
   

   And this excerpt from the farewell address written by his disciple Gregory says a lot about his pedogical method (not very common in my own experience, I must sadly say):

   In suchwise, then, and with such a disposition did he receive us at first; and surveying us, as it were, with a husbandman's skill, and gauging us thoroughly, and not confining his notice to those things only which are patent to the eye of all, and which are looked upon in open light, but penetrating into us more deeply, and probing what is most inward in us, he put us to the question, and made propositions to us, and listened to us in our replies; and whenever he thereby detected anything in us not wholly fruitless and profitless and waste, he set about clearing the soil, and turning it up and irrigating it, and putting all things in movement, and brought his whole skill and care to bear on us, and wrought upon our mind. And thorns and thistles, and every kind of wild herb or plant which our mind (so unregulated and precipitate in its own action) yielded and produced in its uncultured luxuriance and native wildness, he cut out and thoroughly removed by the processes of refutation and prohibition; sometimes assailing us in the genuine Socratic fashion, and again upsetting us by his argumentation whenever he saw us getting restive under him, [...] And when he had made us adaptable, and had prepared us successfully for the reception of the words of truth, then, further, as though we were now a soil well wrought and soft, and ready to impart growth to the seeds cast into it, he dealt liberally with us, and sowed the good seed in season, and attended to all the other cares of the good husbandry, each in its own proper season. (Gregory the Thaumaturgus, To Origen, Argument VII)

2. This act does seem against civil law: cf. Suetonius, Vita Domitianii, VII:

   Multa etiam in communi rerum usu novavit: [...] castrari mares vetuit.

   I can't help noticing the not-so-benevolent comment by Dio Cassius that Domitian himself "entertained a passion for a eunuch named Earinus, nevertheless, since Titus also had shown a great fondness for eunuchs, in order to insult his memory, he forbade that any person in the Roman Empire should thereafter be castrated.", in Dio Cassius, Roman History LXVII.2.
   Cf. also Justin, 1 Apology, XXIX:

   And that you may understand that promiscuous intercourse is not one of our mysteries, one of our number a short time ago presented to Felix the governor in Alexandria a petition, craving that permission might be given to a surgeon to make him an eunuch. For the surgeons there said that they were forbidden to do this without the permission of the governor. And when Felix absolutely refused to sign such a permission, the youth remained single, and was satisfied with his own approving conscience, and the approval of those who thought as he did.

   Cf. of course also the first canon of the Council of Nicea.
   The act is condemned by Deut 23:1, "No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD", which on the other hand is in constrast to Isa 56:4-5:

   For thus says the LORD,
   "To the eunuchs who keep My sabbaths,
   And choose what pleases Me,
   And hold fast My covenant,
   To them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial,
   And a name better than that of sons and daughters;
   I will give them an everlasting name which will not be cut off.

   It is interesting that Clement, with which Origen was certainly familiar (as noted already), writes that the followers of Basilides explain Matt. 19:11-12 saying that

   Qui autem regni sempiterni gratia seipsos castrarunt, id ad declinandas, inquiunt, conjugii molestias fecerunt, quod procurandae rei familiaris onus ac sollicitudinem timerent. (Stromata, III.I)

   Clement himself explains that when it is said that eunuchs should not enter the assembly of God as in Deut 23:1, this must be understood in a spiritual way, to mean that

   Eunuchus ergo, non qui per vim excisas habet partes, sed nec qui caelebs est, dictus est, sed qui non gignit veritatem. (Stromata III.XV)

   And, even more strongly, he says that

   a true eunuch is not one who is unable, but one who is unwilling, to indulge in pleasure. (Paedagogus, III.IV)

3. Scholars are not sure to what extent Origen had a real mastery of Hebrew. The Jewish Encyclopedia says that Origen might have been in touch with the patriarch Judah II and with Hoshaiah, the "father of the Mishnah":

   There are more examples in the Talmud to justify the assertion that Hoshaiah as the representative of Judaism was in constant touch with the early Christians at Cæsarea, and particularly with Origen, who was ordained presbyter at Cæsarea in 228, and who in 231 opened a philosophical and theological school which was attended by persons from all parts, anxious to hear his interpretation of the Scriptures. Origen died in 254 at Tyre, so that his last twenty-five years were spent in the region in which most of the Amoraim lived. The "philosopher" whom the latter mention as controverting Hoshaiah's Biblical interpretations was doubtless Origen himself or one of his students. The influence brought to bear by Hoshaiah and others probably induced Origen to formulate the doctrine of the different degrees of dignity in the Trinity, for which Origen was accused as a heretic.

4. Perhaps Demetrius had in mind Justin, 1 Apology LXVII:

   And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.

   with the understanding that the president could not be a layman.
5. Some of the possible reasons for Demetrius to behave the way he did:
   
• jealousy or interference on the part of the bishops of another diocese
• heterodox character of some of Origen’s opinions (the Stromata and De Principiis had already been published)
• the act of the Palestinian bishops was contrary to the Church law of the time (hence Demetrius was justified) - but how is it possible that the palestinian bishops and Origen himself ignored this?
• his self-inflicted mutilation rendered him unsuitable for the office - but there is no indication that the two synods summoned by Demetrius refer to this.
6. Origen wrote the Hexapla at Caesarea; among Origen's disciples were Pamphilus and Gregory Thaumaturgus. Basil the Great and Jerome studied or worked there, Eusebius himself was from Caesarea (he was a disciple of Pamphilus).
7. This is the same persecution in which Hyppolitus and Pontian were banished to the mines of Sardinia. There are sadly no extant works from Origen telling us something about this persecution (Eusebius says in HE VI.XXVIII.1 that Origen refers to it in the "twenty-second book of his Commentaries on John, and in several epistles"). Maximinus did not enjoy an excellent reputation:

   senatus eum tantum timuit, ut vota in templis publice privatimque mulieres etiam cum suis liberis facerent, ne ille umquam urbem Romam videret. udiebant enim alios in crucem sublatos, alios animalibus nuper occisis inclusos (!), alios feris obiectos, alios fustibus elisos, atque omnia haec sine dilectu dignitatis, cum videretur disciplinam velle regere militarem, cuius exemplo civilia etiam corrigere voluit. quod non convenit principi qui velit diligi. erat enim ei persuasum nisi crudelitate imperium non teneri. simul et verebatur ne propter humilitatem generis barbarici a nobilitate contemneretur. [...] tantum valet conscientia degeneris animi. (Historia Augusta, Maximini Duo, VIII)

8. Origen was apparently in contact with the emperor Philip: Eusebius says in HE VI.XXXVI.3 that he wrote letters to the emperor and to his wife Severa. This friendship might have made him an obvious target for Decius, Philip's successor.
   

---

Categories: Church_History