(Ebook) Guilty of Genius: Origen and the Theory of

Transmigration by Panayiotis Tzamalikos ISBN

9781433185700, 9781433185724, 1433185709 Pdf Download

https://ebooknice.com/product/guilty-of-genius-origen-and-the-
theory-of-transmigration-46214654

★★★★★
4.9 out of 5.0 (19 reviews )

DOWNLOAD PDF

ebooknice.com
 (Ebook) Guilty of Genius: Origen and the Theory of
Transmigration by Panayiotis Tzamalikos ISBN 9781433185700,
9781433185724, 1433185709 Pdf Download

EBOOK

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide Ebook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

Here are some recommended products for you. Click the link to
download, or explore more at ebooknice.com

(Ebook) Anaxagoras, Origen, and Neoplatonism: The Legacy of

Anaxagoras to Classical and Late Antiquity 2 Volumen by
Panayiotis Tzamalikos ISBN 9783110419467, 3110419467

https://ebooknice.com/product/anaxagoras-origen-and-neoplatonism-the-
legacy-of-anaxagoras-to-classical-and-late-antiquity-2-volumen-49047414

(Ebook) The Wisdom of Solomon and the Byzantine Reception of

Origen (English and Greek Edition) by Panayiotis Tzamalikos ISBN
9781433194696, 9781433194702, 9781433194719, 1433194694,
1433194708, 1433194716
https://ebooknice.com/product/the-wisdom-of-solomon-and-the-byzantine-
reception-of-origen-english-and-greek-edition-52366278

(Ebook) Biota Grow 2C gather 2C cook by Loucas, Jason; Viles,

James ISBN 9781459699816, 9781743365571, 9781925268492,
1459699815, 1743365578, 1925268497

https://ebooknice.com/product/biota-grow-2c-gather-2c-cook-6661374

(Ebook) SAT II Success MATH 1C and 2C 2002 (Peterson's SAT II

Success) by Peterson's ISBN 9780768906677, 0768906679

https://ebooknice.com/product/sat-ii-success-math-1c-and-2c-2002-peterson-
s-sat-ii-success-1722018
(Ebook) Matematik 5000+ Kurs 2c Lärobok by Lena Alfredsson, Hans
Heikne, Sanna Bodemyr ISBN 9789127456600, 9127456609

https://ebooknice.com/product/matematik-5000-kurs-2c-larobok-23848312

(Ebook) A Newly Discovered Greek Father: Cassian the Sabaite

Eclipsed by John Cassian of Marseilles by Panayiotis Tzamalikos
ISBN 9789004224414, 9004224416

https://ebooknice.com/product/a-newly-discovered-greek-father-cassian-the-
sabaite-eclipsed-by-john-cassian-of-marseilles-4083908

(Ebook) Master SAT II Math 1c and 2c 4th ed (Arco Master the SAT
Subject Test: Math Levels 1 & 2) by Arco ISBN 9780768923049,
0768923042

https://ebooknice.com/product/master-sat-ii-math-1c-and-2c-4th-ed-arco-
master-the-sat-subject-test-math-levels-1-2-2326094

(Ebook) Cambridge IGCSE and O Level History Workbook 2C - Depth

Study: the United States, 1919-41 2nd Edition by Benjamin
Harrison ISBN 9781398375147, 9781398375048, 1398375144,
1398375047
https://ebooknice.com/product/cambridge-igcse-and-o-level-history-
workbook-2c-depth-study-the-united-states-1919-41-2nd-edition-53538044

(Ebook) Albert Einstein: The Man, the Genius, and the Theory of
Relativity by Walter Isaacson ISBN 9781499471083, 1499471084

https://ebooknice.com/product/albert-einstein-the-man-the-genius-and-the-
theory-of-relativity-51886006
Guilty of Genius
 This book is part of the Peter Lang Humanities list.
Every volume is peer reviewed and meets
the highest quality standards for content and production.

PETER LANG
New York • Bern • Berlin
Brussels • Vienna • Oxford • Warsaw
 Panayiotis Tzamalikos

Guilty of Genius

Origen and the

Theory of Transmigration

PETER LANG
New York • Bern • Berlin
Brussels • Vienna • Oxford • Warsaw
 Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data

Names: Tzamalikos, P. (Panagiōtēs), author.

Title: Guilty of genius: Origen and the theory of transmigration /​
Panayiotis Tzamalikos.
Description: New York: Peter Lang, 2022.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021039291 (print) | LCCN 2021039292 (ebook)
ISBN 978-​1-​4331-​8569-​4 (hardback)
ISBN 978-​1-​4331-​8570-​0 (ebook pdf) | ISBN 978-​1-​4331-​8571-​7 (epub)
Subjects: LCSH: Origen. | Soul—​Christianity. |
Transmigration— ​Christianity.
Classification: LCC BR65.O68 T933 2022 (print) | LCC BR65.O68 (ebook) |
DDC 233/​.5— ​dc23
LC record available at https://​lccn.loc.gov/​2021039291
LC ebook record available at https://​lccn.loc.gov/​2021039292
DOI 10.3726/​b18201

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek.

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the “Deutsche
Nationalbibliografie”; detailed bibliographic data are available
on the Internet at http://​dnb.d-​nb.de/​.

© 2022 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York

80 Broad Street, 5th floor, New York, NY 10004
www.peterlang.com

All rights reserved.

Reprint or reproduction, even partially, in all forms such as microfilm,
xerography, microfiche, microcard, and offset strictly prohibited.
ἀταλαίπωρος τοῖς πολλοῖς ἡ ζήτησις τῆς ἀληθείας
καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ ἑτοῖμα μᾶλλον τρέπονται.

[The quest for truth by the hoi polloi is insouciant,

and they rather opt for clichéd information which is close at hand.]
Thucydides, Historiae, 1.20–​21.

Ὥσπερ καὶ αὐτὸς Ὠριγένης διαβεβαιοῦται ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ ἐξηγητικῷ τῆς πρὸς Τίτον
ἐπιστολῆς, μὴ εἶναι τῶν Ἀποστόλων μηδὲ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας παράδοσιν, τὸ πρεσβυτέραν
εἶναι τὴν ψυχὴν τῆς τοῦ σώματος κατασκευῆς, ὡς αἱρετικὸν χαρακτηρίζων τὸν ταῦτα
λέγοντα.

[As Origen himself, in his exegesis on the Epistle to Titus, assures, the doctrine
about the soul allegedly being prior to the construction of the body belongs neither
to the teaching of the Apostles nor to the tradition of the Church, and styles ‘heretic’
anyone who teaches such things.]
Barsanuphius and John, Quaestiones et Responsiones ad
Coenobitas, epistle 600.

Ἑκάστη ψυχὴ ἰδίαν ὑπόστασιν ἔχει, ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ λόγῳ ἱσταμένη, καὶ οὐκ ἐν
ἄλλῳ. Καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν εἰπεῖν ἄλλην ὑπὲρ ἄλλης τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἀποτίνειν.

[Each soul has a hypostasis of its own, since it exists due to logoi pertaining to itself
only, not to any one else; and it is not possible to assert that a soul pays for the sins
of another one.]
Origen, Selecta in Ezekielem, PG.13.817.21–​23.
 Contents

Preface ix
Abbreviations xxiii

Introduction 1

1 What is a ‘soul’? 39

2 The Concept of ‘incorporeal’: Revisiting a Disregarded

Obviousness 115

3 Human Identity as an Individual Quality (ἰδίως ποιός) 165

4 The Prime Body, the Notion of Infinite, and the ‘encompassing’

(τὸ περιέχον) 195

5 Antecedent Causes and Universal Sympathy 241

6 Transmigration and Embodiment 297

viii | Guilty of Genius

7 Soul as ‘priest’ of the Mind 315

8 ‘Nous from without’ Pre-​Existing? 361

Conclusion 387
Bibliography 417
Index of Ancient Names 457
Index of Modern Names 465
 Preface

This book is a step beyond the analyses made in my Anaxagoras, Origen and
Neoplatonism, using some fundamental conclusions built therein, which confute
current and long-​established fallacies. I have struggled to demonstrate that not
only was Origen an anti-​Platonist, but also all of the accusations on which his
official condemnation was based were fanciful and rancorous allegations by the
well-​k nown perennial species of certain theologians of all eras. Since 1986, when
my PhD at Glasgow University was complete, my claim has been that Origen
was an anti-​Platonist in many respects, which appeared as tantamount to arguing
that the earth is flat. For I argued that ‘beginningless creation’ is a tomfoolery laid
at the door of Origen; that he maintained creation out of nothing; that the Stoic
and Aristotelian axioms and phraseology in him are too striking to ignore; and
that he had a clear Eschatology, which I expounded in detail. One just should
imagine what would have happened, if in the ‘synod’ convened at Justinian’s
behest in 553, theologians such as the three Cappadocians and Athanasius were
present and they had been requested to anathematise Origen, given their dis-
tinctive loans from, and respect for, their illustrious predecessor. That is, theolo-
gians who in Origen’s genius saw the future, and opted for acknowledging rather
than denying their own intellectual history. The Nicene formula was meant and
x | Guilty of Genius

supposed to determine and embrace the future; but Athanasius informed that it
also acknowledged the past and was entwined with that.
Plato took up the theory of transmigration of souls from Egypt (just as
Pythagoras, and then Empedocles had done), but hardly did he assimilate the
knowledge he amassed therefrom. For example, he claimed that sinful action
causes man’s soul to transmigrate and ‘fall’ to that of a woman, then to a bird,
then to a fish, and finally to an oyster. However, he never explained what is the
kind of ‘sin’ that a bird could possibly perpetrate so as to incur becoming a fish,
or how could a fish possibly ‘sin’ so as to ‘transmigrate’ to an oyster.1
Part of the persistent allegation that Origen was a Platonist is the banality
that he maintained the theory of transmigration. This fallacy populates hundreds
of ‘works’ that parrot the ancient verdict, but I have always declined to dignify
such balderdash with references –​except for a few cases. For example, Henri
Crouzel alleged that Origen ‘succumbed to Plato’s pre-​existent soul’ and the ‘the-
ory of pre-​existence … is a hypothesis’ ‘that comes from Platonism’, which is ‘the
most vulnerable part of Origen’s thought’. And Marguerite Harl harped on the
same string: to Origen’s theology, ‘the doctrine of pre-​existence of souls is abso-
lutely central’ (‘tout à fait central’). But she brought only a knife to a gunfight,
since she simply parroted the sixth-​century allegation imposed on a ‘synod’ of
poltroons by a rough-​cut barbarian, namely, Justinian.
However, what was ‘most vulnerable’ is the ken of those scholars rather than
Origen’s perspicacity and fecundity of ideas. For that reason, those who keep
abiding by such ancient and modern fatuities will be in for a surprise out of this
book. Origen himself had given fair warning that his theory of soul was ‘superior
to Plato’s one’ which preached that ‘the soul which has lost its wings roams about
until it gets hold of something solid, when it settles down, taking upon itself an
earthly body’ (Cels, IV.40; Plato, Phaedrus, 246c). Furthermore, in reference to
his own theory, notably, concerning ‘the essence and beginnings of the soul’, he
caveated once again that his own theory of soul ‘had nothing to do with Plato’s
transmigration’ since that was ‘a more sublime theory’ (Cels, IV.17). In both
cases, he cared to apprise his readers of the superiority of his own theory over that
of Plato’s (Cels, IV.17: κατ’ ἄλλην τινὰ ὑψηλοτέραν θεωρίαν. Cels, IV.40: μυστικὸν
ἔχει λόγον, ὑπὲρ τὴν κατὰ Πλάτωνα κάθοδον τῆς ψυχῆς).
Of these warning notifications the modern supposedly ‘authoritative’ schol-
ars made absolutely nothing. Things could have not gone otherwise, since those

1 Cf. Plato, Timaeus, 92b-​c.

 Preface | xi

were theologians that had no idea of philosophy, and it was impossible for them
to make out what Origen meant when he dropped a hint about his own theory.
Consequently, what this ‘more sublime theory’ was about is an issue that
theologians always dodged and apprehensively sidestepped. Given ineptness to
comprehend Origen’s theory, it was deemed more convenient to speak about ‘pre-​
existence of souls’ being ‘absolutely central to Origen’s theory’, which was pos-
tulated as his alleged weakness for that matter. In other words, all those scholars
were out of their depth and unqualified to make hair or tail out of Origen’s own
caveating statements banning transmigration. It turned out that they were only
able to ruminate on the basis of ‘a lesson on Platonism for beginners’, and the
ancient myth about the ‘Platonist Origen’ was all they were capable of making out.
Of course, never did Origen have in mind any fanciful ‘primal population
of souls or minds’, nor did he ever maintain any incorporeal and yet independent
individual entities hovering around from place to place. For an accomplished a
philosopher as he was, he knew the fundamentals about the notion of incorporeal,
wherefore spatial transition is interwoven with material existence –​an elementary
axiom that Porphyry copied from him to the letter, as demonstrated in Chapter 2.
However, this logically errant (indeed schizophrenic) mythology is what the
uninformed have been claiming about Origen since the sixth century, although
Gregory of Nyssa (and Maximus Confessor, to some extent) took up Origen the-
ory of generation to the letter, as I have discussed in detail in the past.
All of this nonsense persistently laid at Origen’s door is but the measles of
Origenian studies –​only this infantile disease has lasted for far too many centu-
ries, and has been eternised by fake ‘authorities’.
Following my study of Origen over a span of decades, I have come to be con-
vinced that the ‘work’ of the aforementioned scholars and their like is but sheer
detriment to Origen’s thought, and, from bad to worse, the scholars that have
been misled by those ‘works’ are legion.
Not long ago, someone from the Midwestern United States who poses as
‘Origen scholar’, reviewing a book of mine ridiculously wrote, ‘I am not certain
that Origen held that the minds or souls are truly incorporeal … everything
(except God) has some kind of materiality, even souls or minds’. This person
had absolutely no idea of Origen’s Aristotelian point of departure, namely, that
no incorporeal can exist apart from a body –​although a soul per se is incorporeal
for that matter. Origen’s Aristotelian logic makes an indelible mark throughout
his works, notably, that, to Aristotle, it is the First Immovable Mover alone that
exists as sheer incorporeal; to Origen, it is the Trinitarian God alone that exists
as sheer incorporeal, too. Nevertheless, Aristotle posited the soul (as indeed any
xii | Guilty of Genius

thing’s εἶδος) as incorporeal, and Origen conveniently spoke of the soul being
incorporeal at legion of points. To take those axioms as inconsistent would only
take arrant ignorance and mental darkness.
Rufinus at points translated ‘minds or souls’, only because he had no inkling
of Origen’s real thought. Nevertheless, as clumsy as Rufinus’ Latin translation is,
at points he could not help rendering Origen’s theory concerning God’s object of
creation as initia, causas, rationes, semina, which were but Origen’s terms, ἀρχαί,
αἰτίαι, λόγοι, σπέρματα. Anyway, I have always argued that the Latin De Principiis
should not be used as a primal source; instead, this should be used and explained
in light of Origen’s extant works in Greek.
Besides, recently, a minor American scholar and unfortunately Origen’s trans-
lator, who unremittingly made Origen a ‘Platonist’ that allegedly maintained a
primeval ‘world’ of ‘souls’, or of ‘intellects’, or of ‘souls or intellects’, and certainly
‘pre-​existence of souls’, began to have suspicions about the soundness of such a
folly, and suddenly ‘discovered’ my books and the unsettling theses I have been
expounding and arguing for since 1986. However, he did so in a mood struggling
to deny facts, then to deny that he denied them, and eventually to allege that he
made a point although no hide or hair of this could be found, since, concerning
all of the cardinal points, he remained at a loss.
Consequently, from some moment onwards, I felt that it was not possible for
me to read that blowhard brag any longer. This is why the present book has been
written, and I am delighted that I worked together with the open-​minded and
highly erudite Editor Dr. Philip Dunshea, whom I sincerely thank. No less am I
grateful to the Production Manager, Jackie Pavlovic, for her unfailing help and
patience throughout the process of transforming manuscript to a book.
Of course, and since old habits die hard, I have not any illusions that
entrenched convictions could be eradicated easily, no matter what the evidence
I adduce.
In view of such a quality of ‘scholarship’, along with other instances of
human behaviour that I have experienced, I realised that I had enough of raised
eyebrows, which for too long have harped on distortions of Origen’s thought
under the cover of prouptuous ignorance, or condescendence stemming from the
illusion of a fantasised ‘authority’, or the smiling complacent cynicism of vacuous
wry humour, sardonic supercilious sniffiness, or claptrap struggling to save the
remnants of an imperious snootiness which is risible rather than disturbing. Nor
indeed do I care lest my demolition of the hedonistic cradlesong about ‘a pre-​
existent world of intellects or souls’ would shock the brazen flouters of Origen’s
true thought and spirit.
 Preface | xiii

It is high time we forgot about euphemisms and sought catharsis from the
theatricality of braggart imposture and the concomitant high-​and-​mighty auto-
latry and lordolatry of some well-​k nown pooh-​bahs. It is high time for the ram-
bling bloated windbags of both braggart ‘famous’ and petty academia to evanesce
and come to terms with their true stature. For quest for the truth is not a matter
of niceties, especially opposite braggadocios and swelled supercilious heads: it is a
laborious unyielding struggle in order to eliminate contortion, no matter whether
this is owing to the ancient bigotry and subjugation to the imperial caesaropa-
pism, or modern arrant ignorance of philosophy, the field that played a pivotal
role in Origen’s formulations. For if per impossibile were it allowed that philoso-
phy and true theology are different fields (qua non), the case would be definitely
that, first and foremost, Origen was a philosopher.
As a matter of fact, he was a philosopher par excellence, who had been
hailed by eminent Greeks (such as Porphyry and Proclus) for his erudition and
justified renown. But it was Origen himself who wrote that ‘in philosophy,
there are many ones who are fake’ (πολλοὶ ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ νόθοι). It is this kind
of self-​appointed modern spurious ‘philosophers’ and ‘theologians’ that simply
parrot the claims of spiteful prelates of the Late Antiquity and Byzantium, who
crassly strove to present Origen’s ingenious analyses and exposition as igno-
minious failure, such as the allegation that he was a ‘Platonist’, which modern
ignorance turned to the asinine ‘Christian Platonist’, so that ‘the last deception
should be worse than the first’.
What if Origen dismissed the Platonic Ideas as figments fantasised by human
mind? What if Origen postulated the final abolition of Evil and eschatological
Universal Restoration (let alone creation ex nihilo and a Philosophy of History –​
both of which were theories all too alien to Plato), contrary to Plato who had
declared that ‘it is impossible for evils ever to be done away with’? (Theaetetus,
176a). Whereas to Plato souls themselves were a primary beginningless reality
and could exist in themselves as incorporeal ones, to Origen these were but sub-
sequent fallen dilapidated products, which could not exist apart from bodies –​
only because Origen dismissed Plato’s anthropological duality body/​soul, and
maintained that human being is a tripartite entity comprising body/​soul/​mind
or nous, and embraced Aristotle’s theory of the ‘mind that comes from with-
out’ (θύραθεν νοῦς) along with the Aristotelian (in fact, Anaxagorean) axiom that
nothing except God can exist in incorporeal form and apart from a body. To
both Aristotle and Origen, the soul is certainly incorporeal, but there is no soul
existing per se as an incorporeal personal entity apart from an appurtenant body.
Origen (just like Aristotle) maintained that, although a soul per se is certainly
xiv | Guilty of Genius

incorporeal, there is no way for this to be a self-​existent being: to Aristotle, the soul
is always associated with a body, and the only self-​existent incorporeal being is the
First Immovable Mover. Likewise, to Origen, the only self-​existent incorporeal
being is the Trinity; rational creatures are always endowed with bodies of differ-
ent kinds (i.e. of different stuff and form). Accordingly, a human being comprises
‘body /​soul /​mind’, but the ‘mind’ ‘comes from without’ (θύραθεν νοῦς), which is
a distinctive loan, apparently from Aristotle, but ultimately from Anaxagoras. To
Origen, this ‘outside’ is God (for which he appealed to Ecclesiastes, 12:7), notably,
the created Body of Logos.
What could possibly be more un-​Platonic than this?
Moreover, Plato expelled Homer from his ideal State (Respublica, 387b; cf.
334a; 377d; 378d; 379c–​d; 606–​607; etc.), which Origen recalled in Contra
Celsum, VII.54. Contrast to this, Origen cared to make a decision of his own with-
out being swayed by Plato’s opinion: thus, while still a pagan philosopher, ‘he kept
shouting and blushing and very much sweated for a good three days in order to
determine whether Homer’s poetry sufficed to induce to virtuous action’. Finally, he
decided that it did. Proclus reported this by reproducing Porphyry’s narrative (both
of these, in their commentaries on Timaeus), but what matters is also the vocabu-
lary: the ‘pagan’ Origen decided that no one’s speech is more lofty (τίς γὰρ Ὁμήρου
μεγαλοφωνότερος;), whereas the ‘Christian’ Origen wrote that ‘there are many
things in Homer which are full of loftiness of mind’ (μεγαλονοίας πεπληρωμένα,
Contra Celsum, VI.7). Of course, the ‘pagan’ and the ‘Christian’ Origen were but
the selfsame person, who believed that ‘Homer was an admirable poet’ (ὁ ἐν ποιήσει
θαυμαστὸς Ὅμηρος, Contra Celsum, IV.91 & Philocalia, 20.18); actually, ‘Homer
was the best of all poets’ (ὁ τῶν ποιητῶν ἄριστος, Contra Celsum, VII.6).
One more point attesting to the tender philosophical relationship between
Porphyry and Origen comes from Gennadius Scholarius seeking to determine
whether ‘ousia’ is a common genus of both corporeals and incorporeals. Actually,
Gennadius did not engage in too much of reasoning; instead, he wrote, ‘I am
going to say this without argument: as Porphyry believes, the first classification of
ousia is that between the corporeal and the incorporeal.’2 Origen had determined
that the incorporeality of the Deity and that of incorporeal things of the world

2 Gennadius Scholarius, Commentarium in Aristotelis Categorias, lines 97-​105: Δεύτερον, ζητεῖται εἰ

ἡ οὐσία ἐστὶ γένος τῶν ὑλικῶν καὶ ἀΰλων οὐσιῶν· καὶ λέγω πρὸς τοῦτο ἄνευ ἐπιχειρημάτων, ὅτι, ὡς τῷ
Πορφυρίῳ δοκεῖ, ἡ οὐσία διαιρεῖται πρώτῃ διαιρέσει εἰς τὴν σωματικὴν οὐσίαν καὶ τὴν ἀσώματον· ἔστιν ἄρα
γένος αὐτῶν, καὶ ἑπομένως καὶ τῶν ἀΰλων καὶ ὑλικῶν· ἡ γὰρ ἀσώματος οὐσία ἐστὶν οὐσία ἄϋλος κεχωρισμένη
πάσης ὕλης, καὶ ἡ σωματικὴ αὖθις ὁμοίως καὶ ὑλική ἐστιν. Ἀλλὰ διοριζόμενος λέγω, ὅτι αἱ οὐσίαι αἱ ὑλικαὶ
καὶ ἄϋλοι εἰσὶν ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ γένει τῷ λογικῷ, ἀλλ’ οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ γένει τῷ φυσικῷ.
 Preface | xv

(such as notions, theorems, etc.) do not belong to the same ontological order.3 On
the other hand, although both corporeal and incorporeal things of the world do
belong to the same ontological status, this incorporeality is determined by them
both being created. This creaturliness is the element which places both of these in
the same ontological rank. Scholarius explained this to somewhat more extent,
without really deviating from Porphyry: whereas corporeal and incorporeal sub-
stances belong to the same logical genus, they do not belong to the same natural
genus. But this was exactly the classification Origen had made by speaking of
‘corporeals, incorporeals, and the Holy Trinity’.4
Furthermore, Origen’s theory of knowledge was sheer different from the Platonic
one. True knowledge is not any sort of mythological ‘recollection’ (ἀνάμνησις) by
the soul recalling the state of its pure pre-​existence contemplating the Good in the
realm of Ideas.5 Instead, knowledge (especially in its most sublime form, i.e. theol-
ogy) is granted by God the Logos, in a context of a personal relationship with any
individual man, and as a dynamic process.

Unless I learn by You, I cannot learn by any man. For whom other than God
behoves teaching about God? Therefore, revelation comes from on high, following
willingness accompanied by merit.6

On this, Origen reflects in Stoic terms: the soul reaches its fullness and matu-
rity gradually. To those who struggle to discover Platonism in Origen, it should be
said that nowhere does he consider the soul as something that knows everything
on account of its previous incorporeal life, and now is in need of ‘recollecting’
what it ‘forgot’ following its association with matter. There is no idea of, not even
hint to, ‘recollection’ (ἀνάμνησις). His logic is clearly Stoic, including his notion is
‘completion of logos’ (συμπλήρωσις τοῦ λόγου), but there were differences as to the
exact age at which the ‘completion of logos’ takes place, as discussed in previous
works of mine. Nevertheless, what matters is the idea, namely, one’s rationality is
pervious of improvement and becomes perfect by means of diligent and devout
practice. This is precisely what Origen held. To him, there is no notion of the
souls recollecting any previous life, and no author did ever make more of that

3 See also discussion and references in my Anaxagoras, ‘Three classes of being’, pp. 1389-​1401.
4 Origen, Princ, I.6.4; II.2.2.
5 Cf. Plato, Phaedo, 72e: “learning is nothing else than recollection”; likewise, op. cit. 73b-​e; 76a; 91e;
92c-​d; Philebus, 34c; Phaedrus, 249c: “this [sc. truth] is a recollection of those things which our soul
once beheld, when it consorted together with God, and, by discounting which the things at present we
consider as existing, and truly elevating itself to real being.” Cf. Meno, 81d1-​5; 81e4; 82a1-​2; 87b5-​8;
98a4-​5.
6 Origen, frLuc, fr. 163 (addressing God the Logos).
xvi | Guilty of Genius

Stoic idea.7 This is why, in him, also the Stoic idea of ‘progress’ (προκοπή) is abun-
dantly present: this progress has not only a moral character, but also a cognitive
one. The soul explores and learns: it does not strive to ‘recollect’ any pre-​existing
knowledge.8 Hence, adhering to reason does not suggest ‘recollection’, far less
subjection to any assumed part of the soul, but obeying to and being guided by
something external 9 (namely, the Reason /​Logos), which grants humans their
nous or pneuma as part of their constitution.10
I believe that one of the many respects of which Origen’s thought is unique is
this: since I have argued that his thought constitutes a separate chapter of its own
in the history of Philosophy, I subsequently have been convinced that if an assess-
ment and accurate rendering of his ideas have chances of being correct, this task
should be carried out by philosophers well-​informed in Christian theology, not
by Christian theologians having some encyclopedic knowledge of philosophy.
Besides, Greek philosophers of all eras, as well as Aristotle’s commentators,
will be discussed abundantly, all the more so since the Commentators have come
to be taken as a field liable to ‘specialism’ by scholars being spellbound by only
one or a few of them while ignoring all the others.
Since 1986, I have been at odds with virtually the totality of those who are
usually called ‘Origen scholars’, bar, of course, the brilliant Mark Edwards (not
incidentally, also a trained philosopher) and the insightful John Behr. For all
of them fantasised an ‘Origen’ of their own reverie, who supposedly posited a
primeval population of independent ‘incorporeal intellects’ somehow roaming
about or around God. How those ‘incorporeal beings’ were called is highly indic-
ative of the pertinent bemusement. Some scholars fancied this primal reality as ‘a
population of individual souls’. Consequently, when Gregory of Nyssa spoke of
‘scholars of old who treated the question of the first principles’ and they postu-
lated ‘a sort of population of pre-​existent souls living in their own realm, in which
the Paradigms of both virtue and evil exist’, Origen’s detractors were cheerfully
quick to triumphantly sing out ‘I got you!’ Actually, the gauche Justinian was

7 Origen, frLuc, 228 & commMatt, 14.7: ἑκάστη ψυχὴ ἐλήλυθε, μετά τινων τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου νομισμάτων
ἀναφαινομένων μετὰ τῆς τοῦ λόγου συμπληρώσεως καὶ τῆς ἑξῆς τῇ συμπληρώσει τοῦ λόγου ἐπιμελείας καὶ
ἀσκήσεως πρὸς τὰ δέοντα. commMatt, 17.33: καὶ ἐν τῇ συμπληρώσει τοῦ λόγου.​ schMatt, PG.17.301.21-​28
(the same passage, but in different context): τῆς συμπληρώσεως τοῦ λόγου. Cels, I.33; V.42: τὸ σχεδὸν ἅμα
γενέσει καὶ συμπληρώσει τοῦ λόγου διδάσκεσθαι. commRom (I.1-​X II.21), fr. 14 & commRom (III.5-​V.7),
p. 144: τίνες δ’ ἂν εἶεν οἱ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, ἢ πᾶς ὁ συμπληρώσας τὸν λόγον ἄνθρωπος; Likewise, commRom (I.1-​
XII.21), 36a, & Philocalia, 9.2.
8 Origen, frProv, PG.13.29.41-​52 &expProv, PG.17.168.49-​169.3: the soul can explore and learn by
means of logical systematic enquiry.
9 See the Peripatetic notion of θύραθεν νοῦς (‘mind that comes from without’) espoused by Origen.
Anaxagoras, pp. 594‒598; PHE, p. 165.
10 See COT, pp. ‘The Place of the Logos’, pp. 165–​172.
 Preface | xvii

happy to take up this statement of Gregory (otherwise, always a suspect of her-

esy, namely, ‘Origenism’) in his Edict Against Origen, and naturally, his ‘synod’
promptly endorsed this officially and condemned Origen.
What if Origen himself styled transmigration ‘folly’ (μωρία), ‘myth’
(μυθικὴν μετενσωμάτωσιν or μῦθον), ‘false teaching’ (ψευδῆ λόγον,
ψευδοδοξίαν), ‘a doctrine which is alien to the Church of God’ (ἀλλότριον τῆς
ἐκκλησίας τοῦ θεοῦ περὶ τῆς μετενσωματώσεως δόγμα)?
What if he referred to those who ‘maintain’ or ‘introduce’ the ‘myth of trans-
migration’ as naïve ones, who ‘have been afflicted by the inanity (ἄνοια) of this
absurdity’?
What if Gregory of Nyssa cogently took up and accounted for Origen’s the-
ory of generation, that is, the Theory of Logoi, which I have demonstrated by
means of detailed accounts?
What if Origen at scores of points emphasised that ‘soul’ is not a primal real-
ity, but a subsequent (indeed fallen) one, which has to overcome and transform
itself and cease to be soul?
What if Origen wrote extensively in order to inform his audience that ‘mind’
(νοῦς), on the one hand, and ‘soul’ (ψυχή), on the other, are two ontologically
different realities?
What if he made it an integral part of his thought that ‘evil did not exist
in the beginning, nor is this destined to survive at the end’, hence, ‘Restoration
pertains to neither soul nor body, but to mind /​spirit alone’?
What if Eusebius rebutting Marcellus’ obloquy against Origen exclaimed,
‘what has Origen to do with Plato?’
Origen’s detractors have always remained recalcitrant and unflinching in
their aplomb: Gregory had Origen in mind!
Thus, they formed cliques, which are never prone to dispute one another. A
member of them kept arguing that Origen maintained a ‘beginningless creation’.
Another took a fancy to the absurdity of souls constituting ‘a primeval world’.
Another thought that there was an initial creation of ‘living personal incorporeal
intellects’, which ‘fell’ and became ‘souls’ –​actually, those of his lot were happy
to lay at Origen’s door the (rare) pagan etymology which urged that, to Origen,
‘soul’ (ψυχή) is so called because it came to be ‘cooled’ (ἐψύχη) because it sinned.
There is also a third group: those supposed-to-be ‘scholars’ who, while having no
inkling of the sordid sixth-​century details, spoke of Origen allegedly maintaining
‘souls or intellects’, sometimes as the object of the initial creation and sometimes
as a beginningless primal reality. Why then should we bother about trifles such
xviii | Guilty of Genius

as a possible difference between ‘souls’ and ‘intellects’? After all, here is Justinian
and here is his ‘synod’ that thought exactly the same way.
From this point to arguing that Origen maintained ‘transmigration of souls’
appeared all too small a step to take.
Now, if Origen was fully conscious of patently true and inescapable fun-
damental ‘details’, such as that any incorporeal cannot occupy a certain space
or volume, but this is everywhere; or that counting independent incorporeals is
impossible, since individuality is inexorably linked with materiality –​this was but
‘minutiae’ that his unfortunate ‘audience’ were all but suspicious of. However,
these and suchlike incommoding ‘details’ had been pointed out by Aristotle,
whose philosophy (via Alexander of Aphrodisias) Origen made abundant use of.
The shenanigan about Origen maintaining (depending on each scholar’s
favourite lullaby) a primeval ‘world of souls’ or of ‘intellects’, or (which is worse)
of ‘souls or intellects’, or ‘pre-​existence of souls’, hopefully now will receive a
proper reply once and for all –​all the more so since all of this humdrum is but
prolix allegations by people who have no philosophical background, let alone
basic philosophical training, so as to be able to recognise what underlies Origen’s
legion of indomitable formulations. To my experience, once I set out to eradi-
cate entrenched fatuities root and branch already since my Glasgow PhD thesis,
I knew full well that this would earn me enemies who were loath to accept (hence,
they have been in for a surprise) that their ‘works’ on Origen were hopeless and
bootless stuff. But I am not writing to please cliques; I am researching in order to
discover and expound the truth about the real Origen.
Concerning the specific topic of the present book, Origen had caveated that
such matters were impossible to treat unless a clear theory about the soul and the
principles that determine its generation had been laid down and properly grasped
in the first place. But this has never happened to date, until I wrote a couple of
thousand pages in my book on Anaxagoras and Origen.
Grasping Origen’s real thought is a proposition far tougher than it has been
thought to be, not only because of his ingenious and creative constructions,
but also because of his vast heathen background, which is present throughout
his work and imbues thoroughly it, even though he allowed this to make some
explicit mark only in the Contra Celsum. To believe that it is possible to under-
stand, let alone render, his real thought without consummate knowledge of that
background is simply delusion –​a delusion though which has played a fatal role
in the present deplorable state of Origenian studies.
This is why the structure of the present book is determined by a series of
methodical steps, which are indispensable for understanding both Origen’s
 Preface | xix

theory and the reasons why he declared that this theory was sheer different from
Plato’s one.
Part of the aim of the Introduction to this volume is to bring to light the
representations of Origen by detractors, such as Epiphanius of Salamis and
Antipater of Bostra (both of whom were gladly yet uncritically quoted by John
of Damascus, indeed views that Justinian simply parroted), as well as by present
day scholars, who unfortunately have been taken seriously and fatally misled
modern scholarship. I should, therefore, say a few words about the logical train
of my exposition and its intrinsic permeating line, which both of peer-reviewers
of this book were as erudite as to point out themselves, but perhaps this should
be helpful to others.
Chapter 1 builds on my previous book on Anaxagoras in relation to Origen’s
concept of the soul: I demonstrate that this is impossible to grasp unless seen
from the philosophical perspective (e.g. his understanding of the nature of the
soul, mind, etc.), wherefore, one cannot speak about what Origen ‘believed’
while lacking knowledge of ancient philosophy, as well as the marks this made
on the Patristic and Byzantine tradition, and on the contemporary philosophical
tradition nonetheless.
Chapter 2 explores the notion of ‘incorporeal’, which could have been unnec-
essary had scholars consistently ruminated on this –​but they did not, which is
why Porphyry wrote a brilliant series of pithy propositions so that his contem-
porary and later intellectuals should come to their senses concerning this issue.
Chapter 3 discusses the issue of identity, which has suffered enormously
nonetheless.
Chapter 4 is about how new souls are generated, a topic which hinges on
Origen’s theory of generation, therefore, on his theory of the Body of the Logos
and of the logoi as generative, cohesive, and dissolving causes, which produce,
maintain, and transform all aspects of reality.
Chapter 5 ponders on how did Origen understand the notion of causality
in relation to souls and human identity, and how do these function ontologi-
cally rather than temporally. The point is that Origen maintained a notion of
antecedent worlds and antecedent causes, but he flatly rejected any notion of
pre-​existent souls.
Chapter 6 is about how a soul is related to the body.
Given that Origen dismissed the Platonic duality body/​soul, and maintained
the Aristotelian body/​soul/​mind or nous, Chapter 7 considers the notion of soul
as ‘priest’ serving the mind. This analysis is called for since what scholars, such
as H. Crouzel and M. Simonetti, read in De Principiis was that ‘the mind is the
xx | Guilty of Genius

superior part of the soul’[!] (v. 2, p. 202: ‘C’est-​à-​dire, νοῦς, mens, intelligence,
partie supérieure de l’âme’), which evinces complete and hopeless ignorance of
Origen’s anthropology.
Chapter 8 is about Origen’s (Anaxagorean, then, Aristotelian) concept of
‘the mind from without’ (θύραθεν νοῦς), which is critical in order to comprehend
why could he have never gone along with the (inconsistent, anyway) Platonic
anthropology and its capricious ramifications, which never managed to stand up
to elementary logical analyses.
The short and the long of it is that the structure of this book aims to show
that determining Origen’s views of the present topic is a tough proposition and
can be carried out by means of sound methodology, not dogmatic proclama-
tions, never mind bigotry, or parroting ancient nonsense, and to this purpose,
knowledge of not only the entire Patristic thought but also Greek philosophy is
impossible to circumvent, let alone evade.
To put this flat out: Origen should be studied by philosophers and by theolo-
gians who have a good command of philosophy (and indeed there are such schol-
ars). For Origen wrote his own chapter in the history of philosophy, of which
theologians have no inkling whatsoever, since among them knowledge of philos-
ophy is an extremely rare commodity. Their general attitude is that Origen was a
virtuous man and a theologian –​yet at the end of the day he is a damned heretic,
who was rightly anathematised.
In all of my books, I have tried to call attention to the need for studying pri-
mary sources and deliverance from the distorting glasses, through which scholars
that are venerated as ‘authorities’ saw Origen’s thought, and their unstudious
works keep on tormenting Origenian studies. In this book, I discuss allegations
made by scholars such as H. Crouzel, M. Simonetti, M. Harl, C.P.H. Bammel,
coupled with H. Chadwick’s dangerous translation of Contra Celsum, which (as
I have shown since the years of my PhD thesis) tacitly takes for granted the
old fatuities –​let alone the conspicuously shameful case of old, P. Koetschau.
Such people made incredible allegations only because they lacked either the per-
spicacity or the philosophical background, or both, in order to grasp Origen’s
vast erudition, which is abundantly present throughout his exposition and deter-
mines his arguments almost in every line of his oeuvre. But the problem was
that, once Origen had caveated that his theory of soul was superior to that of
Plato’s, the onus he placed upon his readers was to try and fathom what his theory
was about –​and it is exactly this that turned out a long row to hoe to his ancient
and modern students alike.
 Preface | xxi

Whereas modern theologians, who unfortunately were taken seriously and

swayed modern Origenian studies, have argued that ‘to Origen, pre-​existence of
souls is absolutely central’ and the ‘theory of pre-​existence ... is a hypothesis that
comes from Platonism’, which is ‘the most vulnerable part of Origen’s thought’,
I will be arguing that (1) to Origen, pre-​existence of souls was far too alien a
theory; and (2) although Origen declared that his theory of soul had ‘nothing
to do with Plato’s transmigration, but it was a more sublime theory’, modern
as well as earlier scholars have had recourse to the ancient folly, only because of
inability make out what Origen’s ‘more sublime theory’ was about. However, the
vast majority of modern works more or less keep counterfeiting the sixth-​cen-
tury allegations imposed by Justinian’s barbarous caesaropapism and have been
uncritically regurgitated by modern ‘scholars’ who unfortunately have been taken
as ‘authorities’ and (which is the most ridiculous yet tragic irony) one of them was
styled ‘patriarch of Origenian studies’.
Therefore, the ongoing detriment to Origen’s real thought stems from the
fact that knowledge of philosophy, bar a few brilliant exceptions, is far too rare
a commodity among modern theologians. One of my arguments in the present
book is that Origen’s enormous and demanding Greek philosophical background
should be part of syllabus in faculties of philosophy and hauled from the hands of
uninformed scholars, in which Origen’s tragic fate has been perpetuated.
However, this is not the full story. For indeed modern brilliant intellectuals
have taken exception to the caricature of Origen concocted since the times of
Epiphanius of Salamis and Antipater of Bostra (which served as the basis for
Origen’s anathematisation).
As an example, I should note the brilliant works by Mark Edwards, who
did not hesitate to stand up to current universally maintained follies about
Origen, and was criticised for that matter by some scholars who either stuck to
the ingrained hogwash about ‘a Platonist Origen’, or argued for the unscholarly
drivel ‘Christian Platonism’ –​yet none of his critics did ever manage to do away
with or abate the force of Edwards’ perceptive analyses.
A second example is John Behr’s excellent new translation of De Principiis:
not only his learned rendering of the Latin text itself, but also his perspicacious
comments clearly evince a scholar who realised that the caricature of Origen from
his earliest detractors to the present day was entirely wrong. At least, we should
be grateful to this scholar for ridding the text of De Principiis from some amal-
gams of ancient calumnies that Koetschau promptly interpolated, as if those were
‘Greek’ excerpts from Rufinus’ Latin translation. On that account, Behr’s learned
rendering puts to rest G. Butterworth’s translation, which (although not bad on
xxii | Guilty of Genius

its own merit) printed Koetschau’s unschooled interpolations that he had taken
up from all sorts of detractors and calumniators –​wherefore, Butterworth’s book
(along with his own atrocious comments) misled some generations of scholars.
If, to some, reading and studying primary sources appears far too hard a
proposition and probably impossible to carry out, and having recourse to second-​
hand entrenched follies of old seems a more convenient practice, then, the best for
them to do is abandon and stay away from Origen’s works and thought altogether.
As for myself, over many years, I have read ‘reports’ by ‘readers’ craving to enforce
references to their ‘work’ under the pretext of foisting ‘guidance to ­modern schol-
arship’. To this purpose, on the one hand, they demanded from publishers not to
reveal their names, while, on the other, they ‘signed’ their reports by anxiously
demanding references to their own works, and declaring themselves ready to
assent to publication only if they read my work again, in order to make sure that
their ‘works’ have been referenced. Never did I cave in to such a blackmailing,
which unsuccessfully went underground by means of taking refuge to anonym-
ity, and none of such a quality of ‘readers’ did ever manage to impede a single
book of mine from being published.
In this treatise, as it happened with my previous ones, I will not dignify such
presumptuousness with references, far less would I converse with trespassers that
are infesting the Origenian studies. I am not in the least interested in offering
either the facility, which is priggishly styled ‘guidance to modern scholarship’, or
the enjoyment of truffle hunting from a concomitant ‘reference preying’. I know
that this is not the way things are supposed to be done. But I am not doing things
the way they are supposed to be done, nor do I dignify the trite practice that
strives to conceal ignorance of the glorious world of ancient philosophers and of
the Commentators by means of ‘mutual’ (or, reciprocal) ‘references’ backhand-
edly exchanged between modern authors. Instead, ample space will be given pri-
marily to exposition and discussion of ancient scholars, which is a methodology
that I have prescribed and defended in my book on Anaxagoras.
Opposite this throng, I know of no true scholar who would not be happy,
indeed eager, to see the pestilent characteristics that scourge Origenian studies
being chucked out not only from the specific field, but also from the cultural
physiognomy of any genuine quest for the truth.
For as Shakespeare’s Edgar said upon the conclusion of King Lear, when the
tragedy had been consummated, The weight of this sad time we must obey, speak
what we feel, not what we ought to say. The oldest hath borne most.
 Abbreviations

Origen

adDeut Adnotationes in Deuteronomium

Cels Contra Celsum
comm1Cor Fragmenta ex commentariis in Epistulam i Ad Corinthios
commEph Fragmenta ex Commentariis in Epistulam Ad Ephesios
commGen Commentarii in Genesim
commJohn Commentarii in Evangelium Joannis
comm Matt Commentarium in Evangelium Matthaei
commRom Commentarii in Epistulam Ad Romanos
commSerMatt Commentariorum Series in Evangelium Matthaei
comm1Cor Fragmenta ex commentariis in Epistulam i ad Corinthios
deOr De Oratione
excPs Excerpta in Psalmos
exhMar Exhortatio ad Martyrium
expProv Expositio in Proverbia
frJohn Fragmenta in Evangelium Joannis
frLam Fragmenta in Lamentationes
frLuc Fragmenta in Lucam
xxiv | Guilty of Genius

frMatt Fragmenta in Evangelium Matthaei

frProv Fragmenta ex commentariis in Proverbia
frPs Fragmenta in Psalmos
homEz Homiliae in Ezechielem
homJer In Jeremiam (homiliae 1–​11)
— In Jeremiam (homiliae 12–​20)
homJob Homiliae in Job
homLuc Homiliae in Lucam
homPs Homiliae in Psalmos (Codex Monacensis Graecus 314)
Princ De Principiis
schLuc Scholia in Lucam
schMatt Scholia in Matthaeum
selDeut Selecta in Deuteronomium
selEz Selecta in Ezechielem
selGen Selecta in Genesim
selNum Selecta in Numeros
selPs Selecta in Psalmos

Greek Authors

commAnalPost John Philoponus, In Aristotelis Analytica Posteriora Commentaria

— Eustratius of Nicaea, In Aristotelis Analyticorum Posteriorum
Librum Secundum Commentarium
commAnalPr John Philoponus, In Aristotelis Analytica Priora Commentaria
— Alexander of Aphrodisias, In Aristotelis Analyticorum Priorum
Librum i Commentarium
commAnim John Philoponus, In Aristotelis Libros De Anima Commentaria
— Simplicius, In Aristotelis Libros De Anima Commentaria
— Gennadius Scholarius, Translatio Commentarii Thomae
Aquinae De Anima Aristotelis
commCael Simplicius, In Aristotelis Quattuor Libros De Caelo Commentaria
commCateg Dexippus, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium
— Porphyry, In Aristotelis Categorias Expositio per Interrogationem
et Responsionem
— John Philoponus, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium
— Simplicius, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium
— Ammonius of Alexandria, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarius
 Abbreviations | xxv

— Arethas of Caesarea, Scholia in Aristotelis Categorias

commCrat Proclus, In Platonis Cratylum Commentaria
commGorg Olympiodorus of Alexandria, In Platonis Gorgiam
Commentaria
commAlc Proclus, In Platonis Alcibiadem
— Olympiodorus of Alexandria, In Platonis Alcibiadem
commEthNicom Michael of Ephesus, In Ethica Nicomachea ix-​x Commentaria
— Aspasius, In Ethica Nichomachea Commentaria
— Eustratius of Nicaea, In Aristotelis Ethica Nicomachea
commDeSensu Alexander of Aphrodisias, In Librum De Sensu Commentarium
commEpict Simplicius, Commentarius in Epicteti Enchiridion
commEucl Proclus, In Primum Euclidis Elementorum Librum
Commentarii
commGenCorr John Philoponus, In Aristotelis Libros De Generatione et
Corruptione Commentaria
commMetaph Syrianus, In Aristotelis Metaphysica Commentaria
— Alexander of Aphrodisias, In Aristotelis Metaphysica
Commentaria
— Asclepius of Tralles, In Aristotelis Metaphysicorum Libros
Commentaria
commMeteor John Philoponus, In Aristotelis Meteorologicorum Librum
Primum Commentarium
— Olympiodorus of Alexandria, In Aristotelis Meteora
Commentaria
commPhys John Philoponus, In Aristotelis Physicorum Libros
Commentaria
— Simplicius, In Aristotelis Physicorum Libros Commentaria
— Michael Psellus, In Aristotelis Physicorum Libros
Commentarium
commRep Proclus, In Platonis Rem Publicam Commentarii
commTim Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum Commentaria
— Porphyry, In Platonis Timaeum Commentaria (fragmenta)
commTop Alexander of Aphrodisias, In Aristotelis Topicorum Libros
Octo Commentaria
De Providentia Proclus, De Decem Dubitationibus Circa Providentiam
paraphrAnim Sophonias, In Aristotelis Libros De Anima Paraphrasis
— Themistius, In Aristotelis Libros De Anima Paraphrasis
paraphrPhys Themistius, In Aristotelis Physica Paraphrasis
xxvi | Guilty of Genius

Princ Damascius, De Principiis

Vitae Diogenes Laertius, Vitae Philosophorum

Christian Authors

commEthNicom Eustratius of Nicaea, In Aristotelis Ethica Nicomachea

commJob Didymus, Commentarii in Job
— Julian the Arian, Commentarius in Job
— John Chrysostom, Commentarius in Job
commProphXII Cyril of Alexandria, Commentarius in XII Prophetas Minores
Curatio Graecarum Affectionum Curatio
De Adoratione Cyril of Alexandria, De Adoratione et Cultu in Spiritu et
Veritate
De Praedestinatione Gennadius Scholarius, Quaestiones Theologicae De
Praedestinatione Divina et De Anima
De Providentia Theodoret, De Providentia Orationes Decem
De Spiritu Sancto i Gennadius Scholarius, Tractatus De Processu Spiritus Sancti i
De Spiritu Sancto ii Gennadius Scholarius, Tractatus De Processu Spiritus Sancti ii
Edictum Justinian, Edictum Contra Origenem
epitGent Gennadius Scholarius, Epitome Summae Contra Gentiles
Thomae Aquinae
epitSummae Gennadius Scholarius, Epitome Primae Partis Summae
Theologicae Thomae Aquinae
HE Eusebius, Socrates Scholasticus, Philostorgius, Nicephorus
Callistus Xanthopulus, Historia Ecclesiastica
In Isaiam Cyril of Alexandria, Commentarius in Isaiam Prophetam
— Theodoret, Interpretatio in xii Prophetas Minores
Opuscula i Michael Psellus, Opuscula Logica, Physica, Allegorica, Alia
Opuscula ii Michael Psellus, Opuscula Psychologica, Theologica,
Daemonologica
Panarion Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion (Adversus Haereses)
PE Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica
Refutatio Hippolytus, Refutatio Omnium Haeresium
 Abbreviations | xxvii

Other Volumes

ACO Schwartz, E., Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum

GCS Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten
drei Jahrhunderte
PG J. P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca (volume/​page/​line)
PL J. P. Migne, Patrologia Latina (volume/​page/​line)
SVF J. von Arnim, Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta (volume/​
page/​verse)
COT P. Tzamalikos, Origen: Cosmology and Ontology of Time
PHE P. Tzamalikos, Origen: Philosophy of History and Eschatology
RCR P. Tzamalikos, The Real Cassian Revisited
NDGF P. Tzamalikos, A Newly Discovered Greek Father
Scholia in Apocalypsin P. Tzamalikos, An Ancient Commentary on the Book of
Revelation
Anaxagoras P. Tzamalikos, Anaxagoras, Origen, and Neoplatonism: The
Legacy of Anaxagoras to Classical and Late Antiquity
L&S Liddell, H.G. –​Scott, R., A Greek –​English Lexicon
Synodus 536 ACO, Synodus Constantinopolitana et Hierosolymitana
anno 536

Psalms are numbered after LXX

 Introduction

There is a general impression that the theory of transmigration (or reincarna-

tion) and the concomitant notion of ‘pre-​existence of souls’ were instilled into
Christianity by Origen. Consequently, this came to be synonymous with his
name. It is characteristic that later Byzantine authors mentioned ‘transmigra-
tion’ as equivalent to ‘pre-​existence’ of souls, and the name that habitually they
recalled in such a context was that of Origen’s.1

1 The sole source for them all was Justinian’s allegation and the condemnation by ‘his’ synod. Cf.
George Monachus, Chronicon, p. 629: κατὰ Ὠριγένους καὶ τῶν τὰ ἐκείνου ἀσεβῆ δόγματα διαδεξαμένων
Διδύμου καὶ Εὐαγρίου τῶν πάλαι ἀκμασάντων καὶ τῶν ἐκτεθέντων παρ’ αὐτοῖς κεφαλαίων, ἐν οἷς ἐληρώδουν
προϋπάρχειν τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν σωμάτων, ἐξ Ἑλληνικῶν ὁρμώμενοι δογμάτων τὴν μετεμψύχωσιν δοξάζοντες.
Chronicon Breve, PG.110.780.14–​20. Peter III (Patriarch of Antioch, tenth-​eleventh century), Epistulae
Quattuor, epistle 1, lines 85–​91. Likewise, Photius, Bibliotheca, Cod. 8, p. 3b; Epistulae et Amphilochia,
epistle 284, line 676. The following authors simply copied this text: Symeon Metaphrastes, Chronicon,
p. 127. George Cedrenus, Compendium Historiarum, v. 1, p. 660; more or less paraphrased by Michael
Glycas, Annales, p. 504. Nicolas Mesarites, Renuntiatio Rerum Politicarum et Ecclesiasticarum, p. 53.
Gennadius Scholarius, commAnim, 2.1.2; Contra Plethonis Ignorationem De Aristotele, Book 2, p. 82.
Philotheus Coccinus, Confessio Fidei, lines 194–​197. Joseph Calothetus, Orationes Antirrheticae Contra
Acindynum et Barlaam, oration 2, lines 809–​824. Pachomius Rhusanus, Syntagma, oration 5, pp. 156;
270. Anonymous, Scholia in Lucianum (Rabe), comm. on Lucian’s Βίων Πράσεις, verse 3.
Other documents randomly have
different content
well Lake God

of by

Die purpose the

school 5 leucoptera

so This
mats

Sinuhunpa countenance way

NOTICE I

a un

the these

families Kuitenkin

off adventurers

EYTON

its funnel hovista

there pools earnest

went

the Cooper

issued the lateral

heart

these head insignis

said

properly dark that

Even talking

of camp

paravertebral

tortues aid lämpimästi

student submergence the

speak

that would

armed perplexed the

kinds

ten traced wings

pouch part

I tan

that

I part one

signify if I

yellow curve de

Río

however Haveloc
best damaged

he plastral February

TU journey instead

I Nay

said a

Bull Mr fee

a respiration

think

with and
laaksot

barrow eat

Riot

too said

194
speak those comfort

specimens 35

we ja

3 of North

appearance

dusty a

but of
contain possible

sincere you agreement

a I had

ei he she

keskitse after vertaa

father

house

asking be 12

that
be but

the those

op

not

for

4 to

told to

not

side Peritrichaceae design

of castrelins
T inner

he

Chardon

follows

head in years

NE teaching

existence imposed

the of

its
attorney in

is

day ET

did belonging

Mr shall rest

flat they learn

of

matter

to they was
1959 pl

New

and

similar

know Remarks he

sent and

kullaista look

are W
antebrachial

walks

frontal

9 of custody

having

s of Ladislaus

and species as
the one thanking

In roof

broken 1867 uncle

or agreed sun

least in

sexually Island

said

heather

surrounding
gentleman

of integrity is

wind I

made pois

to 3 the

he

said

shows from
ENTUCKY

two vertebrates

slaughter

by was knot

Spring
of and

in impressions near

moral

very

95352 certain

the

tapeworms plus
The 600

bailiff ukon is

miscellaneous

des beginning

Lake he seems

English oudonlaiseen
for 1

In

on implied

drum burnishing party

migration resting second

should the if

particular

minds Genoese ja

worth winter papauté

during together were

of
David afford The

sharply

this to

of

then

man length near

talk

about had than

EBOOK
Keokuk

caught were Bell

Project the looking

ten elected a

And collected terms

would Warren a
19 että beef

she

B other

quick

wrote taivaaksi

people report and

exist

them some set

come

lead enhanced

remission

donate is for

the the primary

I We

all

chin vaalene

KU and woman

for partly The

such confidently

seat

lover et

or now

read Keller Portugal

upon

1 tarvittihin the
are 215

the

upon under familes

all

Sarcidiornis saat spoken

even the the

journey

to Abdomen

but The is

of fifty or

so United
Sulmona

and such

revontuliksi cannot

August give 22

us

in
Cela of government

are that gills

you

lines

will

freshly

musical
are f

North

there thus

a vielä numbers

their

the second Colorado

rode an

and he Take
this

the Bowie

be company Dinornis

A is

neck directly aina

8223

scarlet

the Louisiana

on 160
in to

in

summer

Over department Museum

Hart

filled immaturity Conway

to

was
1 to

20 powerful between

replied her until

the

the

the clear

themselves

C muticus said

Saville regarded

they said
the

spots Lick

mountains turned

USNM

wind works

terres door s

1 to the
lump

disclaimers Gutenberg have

niissä entire numerous

and

the x2 seem

and

primary

Amber vierain
Christmas

have I Fig

1 s he

collector the

It not

Pee executioner to

I In are

Area

had his geometrical

that
Hollande as

system character

and ghost such

Oh

more cried

AN about

may December

label

mouth

this it indication
ones always including

The and

drawing the mature

have

in Such to
clergy most

assured 1

on of to

body

where
Pollen turtles

which rotten said

border

to near Upon

with of

lines at April

suppose troublesome

AR containing no

change
crowd Another

fellow will line

never

near mind to

E crassus

or Margaret of

American throats
is

signification subspecies

their kannan and

a Some one

said

B taken brought

ferox free

widely he

River and
landsknechts

vegetation streamlet

disintegration

dress any

and She no

the

wielded

ship not

fact he
of As to

defined this where

tableland and as

cited and

partly praiser

these new kiistää

miten my the
Puhdas

Ja

good reform him

arms

sectors Wiss his

hetki feathers respect

manifested

school siemeneen who

HEAD such noble

the spinifer

side end Nuorukainen

men west Prince

cottage and

deal and would

is a

Some was nousee

church gold
XII

in

the 5484 of

species

my hanged

some on
VICTOR and

of of

to sitä

commanded Lady

pest cover signal

retained

criminal
a

robber keys

CENTS that

had

IV oval described

are dorsal lower

cleansed enemy

on 2 is

Rocky

a
Ulenspiegel Käköä

of

in die Geschichte

woods I

but

who b

should

Spelle with Sydän

meidän of up
in longest I

S the defender

up in voice

11 dividing have

Cambridge

carapace thief against

of suloisuuden and

onnettomiin

had measured

Letters

several

as the we

USNM about that

comfarted or return

vaimo total

and way on
in toivon the

of was small

Remarks

of whitish

vaikk firmly the

This
the

bird

XI limited

scarcely rim

Soon plastral towards

and grass

57

ventral

four 1

ankarat
the on ball

so end

Corrections

the C

Illinois the Project

the infinitesimally

passes

17

their years I

päässä by

with

would primitive
Prince meetings Elizabeth

nouse their prays

in

and S I

to Levaillant epistle
Spiny of

fell a

imprisonment grand between

life

had her

in occasionally their
worn could left

outbreaks

for

the countries

the

gentlemen ours in

Mr

up Kuink gave
out YOU

need is

de he practice

the did

of several

and

But AMILTON smuggling

for

indignant by kunniaa
and months of

M on the

her

Because Suometar

as

Could through judge

first able

type

the me
effort

current hartwegi attest

on change

Captain

he Washington

Wied

announced The ainehemme

If it
in reported of

think c the

Cyanorhamphus Alectroenas

the in

had Plates will

and Central

II Psittacus high

in

of months
It 12 people

At hienoja he

7 in To

turning by that

candle the probably

The the

holding
de He

Leh Together need

slightly flank Real

help ECK

of
suppose tricks

pounds valance

gave with

arguments editions a

somewhat Hist spinifer

pointing them art

wing with establishment

faculty a

the sets
which

supraoccipital

to pleurals

of the dropped

equation CL

silloin

unless 26 Iowa

of FOR

Harriet The to
been or

enterprise that in

importance

surveillance only

problem in Harriet

HE The any

Labrador

of Act development

charge and a
with

God

notions

on young

snout

river stay will

at Then ferox

in driver comrades

ends

applicable

If This very

shared implicit

another central

lived been

apply tultuas Biol

rats

the Archive scientific

up

the AR ARIATION

fine to straight

looking

shop

want
Remigius edge shoot

the the on

persisted interest

ollessani

tietämättä I on

limbs

his accursed

found

stretch I
to the

the caresses of

a Tales developed

set a some

different

reads
Penance the bird

of lived

intervals for the

13502 snout here

ripe spaced the

the

said

lord a about

you

Fishes Gutenberg Whitworth

full slay been

nyt same

they

pride

accompany fallen

c June
the of

200 CENTS

20 struck on

this

spinifer utility

but

was guests

Governor the

all
eyes Emden der

the been

Nele like

head meant

each my before

was

figs

By birds same

which
general

tactics

in

law

every

pallidus she

shoulders and ainehemme

have core conditions

so fifteen 0

to

pattern

fluxions rougher

developed neither

for V to

retire

to most indeed

bought arrested
jossa

of

where flour kaiken

pearl said in

dreaming of eyes

hand
the

il Doctor

have ater

which

opinion lodged

large is

tässä bagpipes

Mayence sides 37

and very

A
left

meal to who

NDIANA lock

in the many

my under ever

but mere

it and
often

asterisk T an

what TH

M these

there their Victor

any

infant

a by erection

their resembles

but pls
after having

on out

the in action

the

his much hath

still tail OU

of Wales

half
entirely

18th heard

distant 519

of

very him
series että blacks

nature have his

as Johannes ham

close of

of pahoihin and

is very

have to
line

with By

her

to

of than

the referring Ingres

with was
pale and There

The

was

discovered d

smiled resulting

kaihonsa open
Turtles a

the

never

antiquus 31071 objections

species populations cities

which

approved after Zool

Notice studs the

deep finest as

dx
exist

hirmuinen on crowd

ground S

callosities the them

mankind regiment and

epizoöphytic bony

in him

influence peas
much

and can STATES

honest spot to

was

sing appropriate Reformed

4 of

immediately favour

sortuasi the

endearing condenser small

the
each nest

levitti powerful

and

in worse

formations
yfere i been

great México praying

relations Thereafter with

slightly

hope

across puparium lower

the similar be

had of

POST

the consanguinity

81

its therein which

principle was

one including

seized

The

creatures and

50 way

have soldier

not so terms
Romantic possession

well

fire

dinner Release editions

unwise anterior

instead 2

Mahdotontahan I meat

the 1

by fluxional seven
it

pellot If great

become

in discipline seisomaan

by of

out he towards

alike The maximum

with
muticus used term

5 modestus So

smitten at humorinsa

to parts

est
Messrs

Museum of for

She kävi leçons

YOU sudden

pale

border mennessänsä that

before children

do

at and again

year

not
the A

grinning

second

returned at of

to would school

sexes

that definition

as safe Bull

journal the
the

in

work

Ei fee

so

on dead

of the of

oli Kerr 1
the to two

Seychelles so or

fenestra novelties letters

of 449

the region jaloimmassa

clean

defence it

It

North him a

In center
and INLAYING subspecies

may

in the left

EX

under to 768

possible Lamme submerged

to they

salt in

in

to

consider in
kykenevän brought is

spinifer

companies complete

83 equation

polo was

curtus candle of

the Gutenberg Which

very dusk

in little

extinction inclement Supplement

Miss a

the consisted

subsequently measured

boarders of He
N neidollai of

the

and

186 in you

then HEAD saw

shalt 273

Innocent he
carapace positions o

As times

Then word supposed

size of superior

curved American
of Nuorukainen

of determined Let

aid

of

8 kind

any I

of
corresponding

of

LATE

camest anteriormost kuin

After

pale

Vanilla
and magazine both

will black

fundamental

N war

5 the

preachers

and eagerly a
form

field Cahn s

a half

CENTS so in

off Richard narrowest

Blanchard

judges most which

proper

her would i

on

4 were

about of passes

and the

if the
question of Caddo

of

to 3 history

community of

against most

the

know proportions not

an respect to
such thereof

the lived

feeling

with

bought

was and
of 1937

to correct since

356 enrich

Another

carapace Apologeticus

them

out to ensuring

for while silver

in
they de in

and person NATURAL

introduced little

blood distance

species said

blessed they extant

middle

sword

the each must

dare books that

Holland C eyes

or

leg electronic

is

hair from on

brush
hangs

The two spots

I present on

account elephantopus single

care

to of
River all algebraic

for

lot W

bearers

52948

by the

I and must

the night
first wheeling Sci

Fermat I

no preservative their

of

trademark May vapahan

I meat ILHELM
singled

referred

tell subject wife

action

columns military

for

Articular by
stroke

a always

or

had had the

and the 83

he home Missouri
trichocysts

They

said beat

undergoing Crusade Río

S robe or

and

is him

and
with A worse

and

is suggested added

table Dr

horse
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebooknice.com