Public Debate and Dispute Settlement Among Early Christians

In the mid-third century, Origen was among the foremost intellectual luminaries of the Greek east, held in the highest regard not only for his immense learning but also for his ascetic convictions and attainments.^[62] Deriving additional charismatic authority from his ministrations to the poor and visits to confessors in the prisons of Alexandria,^[63] this young hearer of Ammonius Saccas rapidly gained wide renown among Christians and non-Christians alike.^[64] Easily conversant and respected in both intellectual traditions, he "thought it right to examine both the opinions of the heretics, and also the claim that the philosophers make to speak concerning truth."^[65]

Origen conducted discussions and debates with an impressive cast of characters, many of whom wished to test () his knowledge of

[59] Origen, Contra Celsum 4.52. On the possible dependence of Origen on Galen, and of the two of them on Paul the Apostle, see R. M. Grant, "Paul, Galen and Origen," JTS n.s. 34 (1983), 533-36. On Origen's concern for the simplices , see, e.g., G. af Hällström, Fides simpliciorum according to Origen of Alexandria (Helsinki, 1984), esp. 23-32.

[60] The locus classicus for the notion of sermo humilis is E. Auerbach's Literary Language and its Public in Late Latin Antiquity and in the Middle Ages (London, 1965). See now a parallel discussion concerning the switch from a learned to a colloquial style of writing among Sung Confucianists in China, in D. K. Gardner, "Modes of Thinking and Modes of Discourse in the Sung: Some Thoughts on the Yü-lu ('Recorded Conversations') Texts," Journal of Asian Studies 50 (1991): 574-603.

[61] Origen could certainly speak the language of Aristotle and Chrysippus. On his use of Stoic logic, see L. Roberts, "Origen and Stoic Logic," TAPA 101 (1970), 433-44, and J. M. Rist, "The Importance of Stoic Logic in the Contra Celsum, " in H. J. Blumenthal and R. A. Markus, eds., Neoplatonism and Early Christian Thought: Essays in Honour of A. H. Armstrong (London, 1971), 64-78.

[62] Eusebius, Hist. eccl . 6.2.6-9, 6.3.9-13.

[63] Eusebius, Hist. eccl . 6.3.3-4.

[64] Eusebius, Hist. eccl . 6.3.1-3, 6.19.6. See Porphyry's unflattering remarks in Eusebius, Hist. eccl . 6.19.

[65] Eusebius, Hist. eccl . 6.19.12 (Oulton, ed., 2:60-61).

logoi .^[66] Slightly before 215, he was politely summoned to an audience with the Roman governor of Arabia, who greatly desired to exchange words with him.^[67] His growing reputation caused Julia Mamaea to bring him from Palestinian Caesarea to her court in Antioch to make trial () of his abilities.^[68] Though not certain, it is quite likely that he also held discussions with Jews during his long stay in Palestine.^[69] The Alexandrian also debated with heterodox Christians, including followers of Valentinus:^[70] Candidus, a certain Bassus,^[71] and another Valentinian named Ambrose. This last, who later persuaded Origen to commit his views to writing, was converted after being refuted () by Origen in debate.^[72]

Origen did not limit his use of logoi to debates with religious outsiders, for a full roster of his discussions with other Christians has survived. These accounts are important in that they clearly document the use of public debate as a means for restoring social order and discipline within divided Christian communities.

Origen was especially active in Roman Arabia where, on numerous occasions, he participated in "town meetings" convened to resolve disputes among Christians.^[73] One such meeting came about after Beryllus, the bishop of Bostra in Arabia, uttered statements arguing that Christ did not exist before his incarnation, occasioning great offense among other Christians.^[74] Origen was given the first chance to enter into dialogue with Beryllus (). His

[66] Eusebius, Hist. eccl . 6.18.2-4 (Oulton, ed., 2:54-55).

[67] Eusebius, Hist. eccl . 6.19.15; see T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, Mass., 1981), 83.

[68] Eusebius, Hist. eccl . 6.21.3-4.

[69] On Origen's dealings with Jews and rabbis, see Origen, Contra Celsum 1.45, 1.55; and N. de Lange, Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in Third-Century Palestine (Cambridge, 1976), 89-102.

[70] On the way in which some of Origen's opponents managed to avoid direct debate with him simply. by rewriting his works and then disseminating their own versions, see Rufinus, De adulteratione librorum Origenous 7 (CCSL 20:11-12).

[71] The debate with Candidus is referred to in Jerome, Adversus Rufinum 2.19; the one with Bassus in Origen's Epistula ad Africanum in PG 11:49A.

[72] Eusebius, Hist. eccl . 6.18.1 (Oulton, ed., 2:54-55): "Ambrose, who held the views of the heresy of Valentinus, was refuted by the truth as presented by Origen, and, as if his mind were illuminated by light, gave his adhesion to the true doctrine as taught by the church." Origen, according to Jerome, Ep . 92.4.1, wrote Libri in resurrectionis "quos scripsit ad Ambrosium dialecticum morem imitans disputandi, in quo sciscitatio est et responsio " (emphasis mine).

[73] On the established custom of inviting foreign arbitrators to settle disputes in and among the Greek city-states, see L. Robert, "Les juges étrangers dans la cité grecque," in his Opera Minora Selecta (Amsterdam, 1989), 5:137-54.

[74] Eusebius, Hist. eccl . 6.33.2.

goal, according to Eusebius, was "to discover what were his opinions, and when he knew what it was that he asserted, he corrected what was unorthodox, and, persuading him by reasoning, established him in the truth as to the doctrine, and restored him to his former sound opinion."^[75]

The Caesarean Eusebius claimed to have seen the actual acta recording the discussions () between the two men.^[76] From these and other documents, Pamphilius of Caesarea and Eusebius together edited a volume of dialektoi Origenous , of which all but one have perished. Though Origen's debate with Beryllus is not extant, we possess unearthed papyri recording a similar encounter unattested in Eusebius' work.

Once more, the location was Roman Arabia. Around 245, a regional synod was convoked in response to a disturbance () caused by the controversial christological doctrine promoted by a local bishop named Heracleides.^[77] Heracleides' dissident theological stance rocked the community, threatening to introduce changes into the congregation's beloved and traditional eucharistic prayer, and brought about considerable social turmoil among the Christians.^[78]

Origen was once again called in. As arbitrator, he instituted an anakrisis , a cross-examination of the disputing parties aimed at establishing the facts of the case alluded to on the papyri.^[79] The preliminary and auxiliary nature of this procedure may explain why the exchanges were not recorded. Origen may also have judged it prudent to exclude from the written acta a negotiation held in private, behind stage as it were, so that during the preliminary meeting itself all sides could enjoy the widest latitude in explaining, discussing, and compromising without fear of public disgrace. Otherwise, existing differences might even become more entrenched as protagonists, equating the accommodation of opposing views with public defeat, hardened their positions with defiance.

Much more ceremonial in nature, the public discussions that took place before the assembled congregation comprised the official acta of

[75] Eusebius, Hist. eccl . 6.33.2 (Oulton, ed., 2:86-87).

[76] Eusebius, Hist. eccl . 6.33.3; also Jerome, De viris illustribus 66 (PL 23:705).

[77] Relevant text and discussion in J. Scherer, ed., Entretien d'Origène avec Héaclide , SC 67 (Paris, 1960); editio princeps in J. Scherer, ed., Entretien d'Origène avec Héraclide et les évêques ses collègues, sur te Père, le Fils, et l'âme , Publications de la Société Fouad I de Papyrologie, Textes et Documents 9 (Cairo, 1949). Some emendations are offered by R. Merkelbach in "Textkritische Bemerkungen zur 'Debatte des Origenes mit Herakleidas,'" ZPE 3 (1968): 192-96.

[78] Origen, Dialogus 4.17 (Scherer, ed., 62-63).

[79] The preliminary interrogation by a presiding magistrate is well-attested in archaic and classical Athens, Sparta, and Rome; see D. M. MacDowell, The Law in Classical Athens (Ithaca, N.Y., 1978), 239-42, and E. M. Carawan, "Erotesis : Interrogation in the Courts of Fourth-Century Athens," GRBS 24 (1983): 209-26, esp. 211-12n. 10.

the synod. The exchanges followed the model of an interview rather than that of an agonistic debate, and Origen, like the Socrates of Platonic dialogues, gently yet firmly pressed Heracleides to express and defend his own controversial views. The prevailing tone was that of a friendly conversation: the sincere goodwill demonstrated by Origen and his respondents recalls the intimate collegiality of Plutarch's dialogues. An instance of this bonhomie was Heracleides' behavior after he was maneuvered by Origen into saying that the Son was "different from the Father" and hence a second god, a claim that profoundly shocked his audience. Realizing that he had been neatly refuted, he courteously conceded defeat, agreed to never again raise the tricky theological question of christology, and subscribed to () Origen's preferred doctrinal formula before the assembled bishops and laity.^[80]

The next segment of the papyri describes a session, equally congenial, in which Origen responded to questions from others. The tenor was that of a revered teacher dispensing wisdom to respectful disciples. At the end of the session, these Christians pronounced their complete satisfaction with Origen's views and subscribed to his formulation just as Heracleides had earlier. The process of mending shattered solidarity continued. Origen called on the assembled congregation () to witness and act as guarantor of the outcome of these discussions.^[81] That Origen was successful in using the vehicle of a public debate to resolve a divisive religious conflict (which could not fail to have social ramifications as well) may be credited to his conciliatory posture and to the deferential attitudes of the other protagonists, who yielded to Origen's demonstration of the truth without intransigence.

Around 247, Origen once again played the key role at a local Christian synod, this one convened to examine the belief that the human soul dissipates at death and reconstitutes at the general resurrection, a view causing commotion within the Christian community. Origen again successfully employed the public debate as a forum for Christian dispute settlement:

When a synod of no small dimensions was then assembled together, Origen was again invited, and there opened a discussion in public () on the subject in question, with such power that he changed the opinions of those who had formerly been deluded.^[82]

[80] Origen, Dialogus 4.21 (Scherer, ed., 62-63).

[81] Origen, Dialogus 4.28-5.7 (Scherer, ed., 62-65).

[82] Eusebius, Hist. eccl . 6.37.1 (Oulton, ed., 2:90-91). On Origen's views on the correction of errors in others, see Le Boulluec, La notion d'hérésie dans la littérature grecque , 2:535-38.

In his repeated attempts to reconcile divided Christian communities, Origen never took for granted an ideal, apostolic consensus omnium among Christians; instead, he saw unity as the fruit of constant vigilance. Refuting an accusation by Celsus, Origen confessed with refreshing candor that Christians had never been, even from the beginning, "of one mind." This admission, he said, should occasion no scandal, for "anyone who criticizes Christianity on account of the sects might also criticize the teaching of Socrates; for from his instruction many schools have come into being, whose adherents do not hold the same opinion."^[83] When Origen claimed for Christianity the name of philosophy, it was not just to garner prestige but to appropriate the indulgence accorded philosophical sects. Also, Origen wished to represent Christianity as another philosophical secta because his own circle operated in some respects as philosophical groups did. Origen's disciple Gregory Thaumaturgus lectured as a philosopher would, freely entertaining questions from his audience and debating with pagan intellectual agonistikos in an eristic fashion.^[84]

Broadly speaking, the influence of rational logoi and persuasion extended even to the conciliar proceedings of early Christians. Our discussion concerning Origen suggests that the position of third-century Christians as merely one religious and social group among many enabled relatively unauthoritarian and unregulated colloquia to be used successfully to air and settle internal differences.

This fundamental aspect of pre-Constantinian Christian debates is epitomized by an encounter between Dionysius of Alexandria (d. 264), Origen's pupil, and the Christians in the Arsinoite nome. While bishop of Alexandria, Dionysius received word of a spreading millenarian movement in the Fayum. Upon his arrival at the site of the disturbance, he made inquiries and discovered that the millenarian expectations of the local Christians were justified on the basis of the writings of a Bishop Nepos, whose work on the Revelation of John allegedly inspired wide-

[83] Origen, Contra Celsum 3.11 (Chadwick, ed., 134-35). Celsus' argument is as follows: "But since they have spread to become a multitude, they are divided and rent asunder, and each wants to have his own party . . ." (Contra Celsum 3.12; Chadwick, ed., 135). For Origen's analysis of Christian factionalism, see Le Boulluec, La notion d'hérésie dans la littérature grecque , esp. 2: 504-7.

spread eschatological hopes.^[85] Accordingly, Dionysius arranged for a public debate between himself and the local Christians, the account of which was given by Eusebius, who narrated it from Dionysius' perspective:

When I came to the nome of Arsinoë, where, as thou knowest, this doctrine had long been prevalent, so that schisms and defections of whole churches had taken place, I called together the presbyters and teachers of the brethren in the villages (there were present also such of the brethren as wished), and I urged them to hold the examination of the question publicly (). And when they brought me this book as some invincible weapon and rampart, I sat with them and for three successive days from morn till night attempted to correct what had been written.^[86]

The debate focused not on the merit of millenarian expectations, which had presumably been the prime cause of offense, but on the authorship of the Revelation of John.^[87] In other words, immediate social concerns were addressed in exegetical terms. Dionysius, using scholarly skills dearly attributable to his training by Origen, was able to convince the leaders of the local movement that the text in question was not written by the disciple John and therefore did not deserve the serious consideration the Fayumite Christians were giving it. Yet such an outcome was only possible because Dionysius' debaters abided by the rules of debate that he had set down. The bishop recalled:

On that occasion I conceived the greatest admiration for the brethren, their firmness, love of truth, facility in following an argument, and intelligence, as we propounded in order () and with forbearance () the questions (), the difficulties () raised and the points of agreement (); on the one hand refusing to cling obstinately () and at all costs (even though they were manifestly wrong) to opinions once held; and on the other hand not shirking the counter-arguments (), but as far as possible attempting to grapple with the questions in hand and master them. Nor, if convinced by reason, were we ashamed to change our opinions and give our assent; but conscientiously and unfeignedly and with hearts laid open to God we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the holy Scriptures ().^[88]

[85] Eusebius, Hist. eccl . 7.24.6. See now a discussion of this episode in D. M. Frankfurter, Elijah in Upper Egypt: The Apocalypse of Elijah and Early Egyptian Christianity , Studies in Antiquity and Christianity 7 (Minneapolis, 1993), ch. 10.

[86] Eusebius, Hist. eccl . 7.24.6-7 (Oulton, ed., 2:194-95).

[87] On a fruitful sociological interpretation of early Christian millenarianism and the Book of Revelation, see Gager, Kingdom and Community , 20-65.

[88] Eusebius, Hist. eccl . 7.24.8 (Oulton, ed., 2:194-95).

This ideal scenario for a debate lasting three successive days was sustained by a common trust in scriptural authorities, by mutual adherence to a code of civility, and by the forswearing of intransigence, so that points of contention could be addressed by questions and answers in an orderly fashion. Dionysius was rewarded for his patient, noncoercive approach to durable consensus with his debaters' open admiration and promise of cooperation:

In the end the leader and introducer of this teaching, Coracion, as he was called, in the hearing of all the brethren present, assented, and testified to us that he would no longer adhere to it, nor discourse upon it, nor mention nor teach it, since he had been sufficiently convinced by the contrary arguments. And as to the rest of the brethren, some rejoiced at the joint conference, and the mutual deference and unanimity which all displayed.^[89]

Aside from this happy ending, a suspiciously satisfactory closure to the story, we do not know whether Dionysius' exegetical debate was successful in quelling what appeared to be a widespread millenarian movement. Dionysius himself harbored enough residual concern to compose On Divine Promises , a work designed to counter Nepos' arguments once and for all, because

if he [Nepos] were present and putting forward his opinions merely in words, conversation, without writing, would be sufficient, persuading and instructing by question and answer () 'them that oppose themselves.' But when a book is published . . . then we are compelled to argue with Nepos as if he were present.^[90]

When it emerged that social and religious differences between Christians could be adequately addressed with a public debate based on the interpretation of sacred texts, the written word assumed greater importance. This common textual focus rendered the debates exercises in competitive scriptural exegesis, and as such they could be conducted on terms of parity, without any invocation of hierarchical authority or threats of compulsion.^[91]

Dionysius. was unable to attend the Council of Antioch in 264, convened to examine the teachings of Paul of Samosata, an influential

[89] Eusebius, Hist. eccl . 7.24.9 (Oulton, ed., 2:194-97). On the significance of deference in a traditional society, see J. G. A. Pocock, "The Classical Theory of Deference," AHR 81 (1976), 516-23.

[90] Eusebius, Hist. eccl . 7.24.5 (Oulton', ed., 2:192-93).

[91] On the sovereignty of early Christian congregations, see, e.g., C. Vogel, "Primalialité et synodalité dans l'église locale durant la periode anténicéenne," in M. Simon, ed., Aspects de l'orthodoxie: Structure et spiritualité (Paris, 1982), 53-66.

Christian and relative of Zenobia of Palmyra.^[92] According to Eusebius, Paul's theological position proposing the unity of God and the humanity of Christ had become cause for controversy.^[93] Prominent Christians, led by Firmilian of Caesarea, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Maximus of Bostra (an interlocutor in Origen's discussion with Heracleides), and others, set out in separate interviews to ascertain Paul's views and to persuade him of his error.^[94] The absent Dionysius articulated his own opinions in a writing that was read aloud in public, a practice foreshadowing subsequent Christian conciliar procedures (see ch. 7).

Yet despite the combined strength of the opposition, Paul was able to hold his own in the debates until Malchion, a priest and head of the paideuterion , the civic school of rhetoric, of Antioch, intervened and succeeded in formally securing Paul's defeat.^[95] It is not easy to discover from Eusebius' very abbreviated account how Malchion was able to accomplish what numerous prominent bishops had failed to do. The explanation for Malchion's success has traditionally been sought in the genitive absolute phrase episemeioumenon tachugraphon , which suggests that Malchion effected Paul's upset with the help of the stenographers he brought in to record the debate. This reading of the passage has recently been disputed by Marcel Richard, whose arguments remain inconclusive.^[96] He points out that the traditional supposition leaves unaddressed the question of how the incorporation of stenographers into the debate turned the table in Malchion's favor, and he further argues that notarii in the third century scarcely enjoyed the prominence they were to have in later centuries.^[97] Yet, at a minimum, a staff of shorthand writers implied ecclesiastical wealth, rich private patronage, or the interested support of secular elites. I suggest that the very introduction of stenographers was itself decisive, for they kept verbatim records with which debaters were able to point out their opponents' inconsistencies, and without which an effective elenchos or refutation would have been much more difficult to secure. In a fragment from an eleventh-century manu-

[92] See F. G. B. Millar, "Paul of Samosata, Zenobia and Aurelian: The Church, Local Culture and Political Allegiance in Third-century Syria," JRS 61 (1971), 1-17.

[93] Eusebius, Hist. eccl . 7.27.1.

[94] Eusebius, Hist. eccl . 7.28.1-2. Compare this procedure with the informal interviews of Christian leaders with Bishop Beryllus in Eusebius, Hist. eccl . 6.33.2.

[95] Eusebius, Hist. eccl . 7.29.2. See also Theodoret, Haereticarum fabularum compendium 2.8 (PG 83:396B).'

[96] The traditional interpretation has been challenged by M. Richard, "Malchion et Paul de Samosate: Le témoignage d'Eusèbe de Césarée," Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 35 (1959): 325-38; he offers a different reading of the passage based on a dose study of the key terms used by Eusebius.

[97] Richard, "Malchion et Paul de Samosate," 328-29.

script that purports to refer to the exchanges between Paul and Malchion, Malchion recalled a previous statement by Paul in building his own argument, a tactic most effective when used in concert with "undeniable" records of the debate.^[98]