Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2011 DOI: 10.

1163/156852711X593296
Numen 58 (2011) 674696 brill.nl/nu
From Alexandria to Caesarea:
Reassessing Origens Appointment to the Presbyterate
Lisa Holliday
Department of History, Appalachian State University
1075 Anne Belk Hall, Boone, NC 28608
hollidaylr@appstate.edu
Abstract
Te events surrounding Origens relocation are more complex than has been previ-
ously held. In the wake of the Severan Persecutions, as Demetrius attempted to reor-
ganize the Alexandrian house-churches into a more centralized body, he naturally
brought Origens school within this new model. Tis shift placed Origen more directly
under the authority of the bishop, who monitored Origens activities. When Origen
was asked to act as a representative of the Caesarean church in settling a dispute in
Athens and subsequently was ordained presbyter, this raised the question of the limits
of bishops powers: could they ordain candidates from outside their own churches?
Tough his theology may have been questioned, the synods following Origens ordina-
tion focused on issues surrounding the boundaries of ecclesiastical authority.
Keywords
Origen, ecclesiastical jurisdiction, early Christianity
Introduction
Few of the events of Origens life have attracted as much attention as his
departure from Alexandria and relocation to Caesarea. Recounted
briey by Eusebius, and mentioned by later authors, the circumstances
surrounding this event are far from clear. Scholars have proposed many
reasons for Origens move, from heretical theology to book collecting
for the nascent Jerusalem library.
1
However, while the bulk of research
1)
Cadiou 1944:302319; Crouzel 1989:1523; Danilou 1955:2223; DeFaye
1929; McGuckin 2004:5; Nautin 1977:601; Trigg 1983:131140.
L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674696 675
has focused on Origen and his activities as the sole cause for his reloca-
tion, comparatively little attention has been given to other contributing
factors, namely developing church structure, and the implications of
Origens appointment to the presbyterate. Indeed, Origens relocation
to Caesarea was connected to shifting standards of ecclesiastical author-
ity and jurisdiction.
In order to evaluate this period of Origens life, a broad contextual
approach is necessary, beginning with the impact of the Severan perse-
cutions at Alexandria, which instigated a signicant change in the
structure of the Alexandria church. It will then be possible to explore
the eects of Demetrius reorganization of the Alexandrian church and
its eect on Origens activities. Ten, this work will address the rela-
tionship between the Palestinian and Alexandrian sees, including ques-
tions of ecclesiastical authority and the nature of synods.
Te Severan Persecution and Reorganization
Eusebius life of Origen opens with the Severan persecutions and the
death of Leonides.
2
While there can be little doubt that this incident
had a profound impact on the young Origen, the scope and severity of
2)
Historia Eccesiastica 6.1 (SC 41, herafter abbreviated h.e.). In hom. 114 in
Ezech. 4.8.1 (Origen 2010), Origen refers to his father as a martyr, noting that he
himself must lead an exemplary life in order to live up to his fathers example. Cadiou
(1944:1416) and Danilou (1955:7) view the death of Leonides as a formative
moment in Origens life, instilling in him at an early age a desire for martyrdom. Nau-
tin considers this section part of an oral history and questions if Leonides was indeed
Origens father (1977:32). See Crouzel (1989:5) for a contrasting view. Ultimately,
however inuential this event may have been, Leonides is little more than a name, but
recent work by Aline Rousselle has done much to illuminate this murky period in
Origens life. By examining various methods of executions, Rouselle proves that
Leonides was a Roman citizen, though his son was not. See Rousselle 1974:222251.
According to Eusebius, Alexandria served as the center of the persecutions for Egypt,
and Christians were brought from throughout Egypt and the Tebais to be interro-
gated there (h.e. 6.1, SC 41). However, his account makes no attempt to describe the
political foundations of the persecution. Not only did he give politics a passing glance,
but he frequently confused dates and facts, as in the case of the Alexandrian prefects
(Covolo 1997:41). It is more likely that while there was a persecution, it was not insti-
tuted by an edict of Severus. Rather, the persecution coincided with celebrations
for the tenth year of his reign. Christians, who could not have participated in the
676 L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674696
the Severan persecutions is unknown, though the Historia Augusta
claims that Severus prohibited conversion to Judaism and Christianity.
3

Tus, some scholars have proposed that the persecutions were aimed at
catechists in particular (Crouzel 1989:5).
Te overall eect of the persecutions on the Church was far-reach-
ing. While it cannot be known how many Christians went to their
deaths during this time, it appears that many left Alexandria.
4
Eusebius
cites Clement of Alexandria and Origen as witness to the exodus of
Christians from the city (h.e. 6.3.1, SC 41). Because the persecutions
were not conned to a single year, this most likely took place over sev-
eral years, from 202/3 .. to as late as the rule of the prefect Subatianus
Aquila in 206 .. (Barnes 1968:41). Terefore, while there may have
been a push to punish new converts, there is no evidence 1) that it was
festivities, found themselves targeted by local populations and local governors. Severus
did not seek to stop it (Covolo 1997:43). See also Jakab 2004:152153.
3)
Hist. Aug. Severus 17.12. At rst glance, Severus reported fascination with reli-
gious matters lends support to the statement in the Hist. Aug. He is described as being
highly concerned with his role as pontifex maximus. See also Chadwick 1993:100. He
also holds that Severus instituted the persecution. However, the Hist. Aug. is a notably
suspect source. Indeed, Barnes calls the edicts grouping of Christianity and Judaism
an indubitable ction (Barnes 1971:40). Te dating of the edict in the Hist. Aug.
(199 ..) does not coincide with other sources that mention third century persecu-
tions (202 ..), such as Eusebius and the Passio Perpetuaee; additionally, small out-
breaks of persecutions are attested until 206 ..
Historians have found possible echoes of the Hist. Aug. passage in Tertullians Ad Scap-
ulam, Apologeticum, Hippolytus Commentarium Danielum and the Passio Perpetuaee.
Tese sources, though dated around Severus reign Ad Scapulam was written during
the rule of Antoninus refer to persecutions of Christians in Africa, but do not men-
tion Severus or an edict specically. Indeed, Tertullian describes the reign of Severus as
a good one for Christians (Ad Scapulam, 4.67, in Frend 2004:242). See also Barnes
1971:317. As for Hippolytus, the Commentarium has been dated to 203 because of
the persecution references in the Hist. Aug. (Barnes 1968:43). Terefore, to use it as
evidence of the persecutions is circular. Lastly, the Passio Perpetuaee does not refer to an
edict (Anon. 1972). For a full study of the Hist. Aug., see Syme 1971.
4)
However, of those who ed, most were likely Roman citizens. Rousselle suggests,
and rightfully so, that those who approached Origen during the period of the persecu-
tion may well have been non-citizens; the result of persecution was the spread of
Christianity among this group of people. Tus, those who ed the city were likely
Roman or Greek citizens, while those who remained were not (1974:233). See also
Brown 1988:161.
L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674696 677
restricted to this group, or 2) more signicantly, that other Christians
would have felt protected by this codicil. Tus, all Christians were
aected and those that ed would have included members from all
ranks of the Church, including ocials.
Te exodus of Christians had a signicant impact on the entire Alex-
andrian Christian community, particularly as it related to the reorgani-
zation of the community and more signicantly for Origen, his school:
because so many Alexandrian Christians departed from Alexandria, the
bishop Demetrius had to handle the problems these decreased numbers
brought. Tough Eusebius does not state it explicitly, of those who left
the city, it may be argued that some of them held oces within the
church. And given that the house-church model of worship was preva-
lent at this time, many groups may have found themselves without
a place to meet for worship or a leader.
5
Under these circumstances,
Demetrius reorganization was an attempt to bring the disparate house
churches of Alexandria under centralized control. Tis is evidenced
by Demetrius incorporation of Origens school into a new organiza-
tional model.
Indeed, the rst reference to the reorganization of the Alexandrian
church occurs in Eusebius notice about Origens school.
6
Scholars have
studied Origens school for years, and there are many theories concern-
ing its purpose, ranging from a catechetical school proper to a philo-
sophical school.
7
While it is clear there was catechetical instruction
5)
For a fuller discussion of the structure of the Alexandrian church, see Holliday
2010. Te church at Alexandria was comprised of house churches, which enjoyed a
large degree of autonomy; it was very similar to the Roman Christian community in
this fashion. For a contrasting view, see Stewart-Skyes 2004:415429, who contends
that the Alexandrian community was unique in its organization.
6)
Eusebius gives two reasons for Origens teaching: rst, that Origen began to teach
because there was no one left in Alexandria who could, and second, Origen was asked
by Demetrius to become an ocial teacher of the church. See also Cox 1983:97, who
notes that by having Demetrius ask Origen to teach, Eusebius was attempting to create
a succession list of Alexandrian teachers.
7)
For further discussion, see Wilken 1984:1530; Bardy 1937:6590 and 1942:80
109; Scholten 1995:1637; Boulluec 1987:403417; Van den Hoek 1997:5988;
Bardy 1942:80109; Danilou 1955:14. Carikker argues that Origen was not part of
the institutional church in the third century. Tis was Eusebius way of lling in gaps
in his information: Origens teaching was never an ocial activity of the Alexandrian
church as an institution . . . there is no evidence . . . for a catechetical school at Alexandria
678 L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674696
oered, the formality of this instruction is unclear. However, as he cen-
tralized his control over the Alexandrian house churches, Demetrius
took steps to formalize catechetical instruction, rst by bringing Ori-
gens school under his control.
Tat the house-church model was still in place in the late second
century meant that Origen likely enjoyed a high level of independence
in his activities as a Christian teacher (Lampe 2003:376377).
8
It is
therefore easier to see why Demetrius might have approached Origen,
than why Origen would have agreed to give up his independence.
9

What did being aliated with Demetrius bring? According to Euse-
bius account, after agreeing to bring his school under Demetrius eye,
Origen gained no special function, but continued to do as he always
had done. Perhaps the answer rests with the goals of Demetrius: what
was he trying to achieve in his reorganization?
Tis question can be answered by looking at the role of Heraclas in
Origens school. At Alexandria, Eusebius suggested there were two cur-
riculums at Origens school following Demetrius reorganization: Ori-
gen trained the advanced students while leaving the elementary teaching
to Heraclas.
10
It is not clear from Eusebius just what comprised elemen-
tary education under Heraclas. It is unlikely that Heraclas, himself a
well-known philosopher and soon to be bishop of Alexandria, would
have been satised with this arrangement, if such in fact was the case.
Indeed, the role of Heraclas as a co-instructor within Origens school
has been rightfully questioned. However, this should be seen as part of
whose teachers were appointed by the bishop (2003:77). Crouzel holds that Origens
school was an ocial church institution (1989:78 and 1922). Tough Origen was
a layman, Demetrius did give him an ocial appointment as head of the catechetical
school. According to Wilken schools were a way of speaking of the intellectual and
spiritual activities of the early teachers in Alexandria.

(1984:1530.)
8)
In his study of the Christian community at Rome, Lampe notes that there were
dierent types of house-churches, the more typical being named after private hosts.
However, there were also house-churches that gathered under gures like Justin Martyr
(2003:376). Annewies Van den Hoek likewise suggests that these early groups gath-
ered around gures like Clement and Origen were types of house-churches.
9)
See also Stewart-Skyes (2004:426), who likewise contends that Demetrius brought
Origens school under his control as a part of centralization.
10)
Jakab (2004:162) holds that the school was not divided but split into two separate
schools.
L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674696 679
Demetrius reorganization of all house churches in Alexandria, not just
an act aimed at Origen alone. By aliating Origens activities and
school with Heraclas, who was a presbyter at the time, Demetrius
brought the school under his authority.
11
What Origen agreed to do
was to become part of this new model of the Christian church, with
more authority centralized in ecclesiastical ocials. Indeed, a similar
process took place at Rome; the Liber Ponticalis says that during the
episcopate of Clement, Rome was divided into seven districts under the
supervision of notaries.
12
Te bishop Fabian (23650 ..) reorganized
the city of Rome into seven regions, each under the supervision of dea-
cons and sub-deacons; subsequent bishops further divided the city into
parishes under the auspices of presbyters. Tis allowed for closer super-
vision of all Christians in the city by the bishop.
Demetrius new model also included closely monitoring members of
the church, and establishing clearer lines of ecclesiastical authority
relative to nearby sees. Te latter is apparent in the events that ensued
following Origens rst visit to Caesarea, which occurred almost imme-
diately after his return from Rome.
13
While at Caesarea, the bishop
Teoctistus encouraged Origen to preach before himself and other
bishops in the region, including bishop Alexander of Jerusalem, even
though Origen held no ocial oce in the church.
14
Citing the tradi-
tion of Alexandria, Demetrius claimed that it was not acceptable to
have a layman preach before bishops, and he went on to accuse the
11)
See also Stewart-Skyes 2004:426427.
12)
Liber Ponticalis 4, in Loomis 2006.
13)
h.e. 6.19.14, SC 41. Prior to the reorganization of the school, Eusebius places a trip
to Rome under the episcopate of Zephyrinus (198217 ..). As for Origens motive,
Eusebius only records that Origen wanted to see the Roman church.
14)
Eusebius, h.e. 6.19.16, SC 41. Origen did so, though what he discussed is unknown.
Tis leads into another tradition about Origen that can be found in later sources, that
Origen was a presbyter while at Alexandria, but was deposed by Demetrius for hereti-
cal teachings. Epiphanius would date Origens rst trip to Caesarea following this
deposition, and thus attribute Demetrius ire to the fact that Origen, who was no longer
a presbyter, preached before bishops. It is unlikely that Jerome would have let this pass
if he had seen it in a source. Secondly, given that Eusebius places the impetus for the
conict between Demetrius and Origen with jealousy, he could easily have explained
Origens loss of the presbyterate in this fashion. Te tradition that Epiphanius relates
therefore is doubtful. See Lyman 1997:445451 for a fuller discussion of Epiphanius
depiction of Origen.
680 L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674696
bishops Teoctistus and Alexander of impropriety (h.e. 6.19.1719,
SC 41).
15
Alexanders retort cites the precedent of churches near Asia
Minor as support for his actions.
Why did this event occasion such a response from Demetrius? Tis
incident highlights Demetrius authority to supervise the activities of
all members of the Alexandrian church, a duty that had formerly been
within the scope of the presbyterate and overseers of individual house
churches. Within the new model of centralized authority promoted by
Demetrius, it was not acceptable for a lay member of the Alexandrian
Church to preach outside of Alexandria, and Demetrius saw himself as
having the right to censure this activity. By accusing the Palestinian
church of inappropriate behavior, Demetrius was holding the Alexandrian
standard of practice as authoritative and applicable to Palestine. How-
ever, the novelty of this view is evidenced in Alexanders response, which
refused to accede to this, and oered the tradition of Palestine along
with other provinces in Asia Minor, as proof that the Palestinian bish-
ops were well within their rights to have Origen preach (h.e. 6.19.17
18, SC 41).
16
Alexander even extended his argument beyond Palestine
to the churches of Laranda, Iconium and Synada (h.e. 6.19.18, SC 41).
In the Palestinian church and any church in Asia Minor, it was not an
uncommon practice to have laymen preach. By inference, it was also
not common practice to request the permission of another bishop
before doing so.
Rather than marking the activities of the Palestinian and Asia Minor
churches as somehow unusual, with Alexandria as the norm, this dis-
pute reveals a changing infrastructure. As Christian communities became
more centralized under the authority of a bishop, issues of the extent of
the bishops powers naturally arose. A further and signicant indicator
of this change is the two synods called after Origens ordination. Indeed,
Origens ordination and the events that followed involved more than
the Alexandrian and Palestinian churches, but spread to include
churches as far away as Rome, suggesting the matter had ramications
for all Christian communities regarding the scope of a bishops power.
15)
See also Grant 1980:801, who holds that this account is constructed to parallel
the story of Narcissus, who is presented as another Origen.
16)
Before coming to Jerusalem, Alexander had been a bishop in Asia Minor, though
the exact church is unknown, and thus he was familiar with practices there.
L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674696 681
Origens Ordination
Some time after his meeting with Julia Mammaea, probably around the
late 220s or early 230s, Origen undertook his infamous trip to Athens.
Eusebius describes the purpose for this visit simply as being related to
ecclesiastical aairs.
17
Jerome provides further details of the trip, noting
that Origen was traveling to Greece (Jerome 1999: vir. ill. 54.3).
To travel from Alexandria to Athens involved sailing past Caesarea,
where Origen subsequently was ordained presbyter (Photius 1960: bibl.
118.39.42).
18
Origen stayed in Greece for some time, upwards of
two years.
Many historians have argued that Origen sought out the Palestinian
bishops in order to gain ordination, and that they ordained him so that
he could preach at Caesarea (Cadiou 1944:302303).
19
However, the
issue is more complex. Beneath the lean descriptions oered by Jerome
and Eusebius is the immediate cause for Origens trip: did he leave
Alexandria with Demetrius knowledge? Was he in fact on ocial busi-
ness of the Alexandrian church? Eusebius references to ecclesiastical
aairs intimate an ocial capacity to his visit, as does Jeromes notice.
Given Demetrius reaction to Origens rst visit to Caesarea when Ori-
gen spoke before bishops, it is unlikely that Demetrius would have
picked Origen as any kind of representative of the church with the
authority to intervene in ecclesiastical aairs. Photius, in his summary
of Pamphilus Apol, says that Origen left without the Bishops permis-
sion (Photius 1960: bibl. 118.35.42). Tis statement deserves serious
17)
Eusebius, h.e. 6.23.4, SC 41. In Runus translation of Eusebius h.e., he adds
that Origen went to Greece to deal with some inuential heretics. See Oulton
1929:150174.
18)
See also Jerome Ep. 84 to Sammachius and Oceanus, and Trigg 1983:137. For the
sailing path from Alexandria to Rome, see Beebe and Casson 1983:205. Crouzel
1989:1820 noted that this was an unusual route to take to Athens from Alexandria.
Regarding Origens ordination, Crouzel speculated that it very well may have been
forced by the bishop citing the later examples of Jeromes brother Paulinian and Pauli-
nus of Nola. Also, Origen could have been ordained because the bishops of Palestine
wanted to invite him to preach again.
19)
Cadiou holds that Origen was invited to Athens and went because of heresy. His
subsequent ordination gave Origen the right to speak for Christians and fullled a
desire Origen had had for some time. Danilou 1955:45 goes further to suggest that
Origen received this ordination in the hopes of being able to preach in Alexandria.
682 L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674696
consideration. While not mentioned in Eusebius Historia Ecclesiastica,
this is highly plausible given the circumstances. Accounts of Origens
earlier travels throughout the Empire follow a pattern: individuals
wrote to Demetrius requesting Origens presence. When Origen went
to Arabia to see Julia Mammaea, it was after letters requesting him had
been written to Demetrius (Eusebius, h.e. 6.23.4, SC 41). Likewise,
when Origen rst sojourned at Caesarea, Demetrius appealed for
Origens return through the higher ranks of the church. Eusebius says
Demetrius rst summoned Origen by letter, then used deacons and
members of the church to persuade Origen to return to Alexandria
(Eusebius, h.e. 6.19.19, SC 41). Following this pattern, if the Athenian
church had sought Origen, they would have written to Demetrius.
Given Demetrius earlier reaction to Origens stay in Palestine, he likely
would have declined to send Origen due to his lack of oce.
But what of the Caesarean church? Given that the Athenian church
should have appealed to Demetrius, and that Demetrius had no knowl-
edge of Origens trip, is it possible that Origen went to Athens as a
representative of the Caesarean church? Tis would account for the lack
of a letter to Demetrius and Origens stopover in Caesarea. Te Athe-
nian church appealed to Palestine, and the Palestinian bishops decided
to send Origen as their representative. But, did this necessitate ordina-
tion? Could Origen rather have gone to Athens as a layman?
Te answer to this question rests upon the duties of presbyters in the
third century, though what exactly presbyters did at this time is some-
what unclear. Te evidence for the activities of the presbyterate in the
early church is far from expansive. However, looking at the period from
the late rst to the early third century, there is enough information
available to make observations about the responsibilities, powers and
nature of the presbyterate.
20
Presbyters were overseers of Christians in several senses of the word.
In his letter to the Philippians, Polycarp says that presbyters not only
watch over Christians, but they help to keep Christians within the
church and to restrain them from unjust judgment. In his homilies on
Joshua, Origen notes that priests lead the church, and oversee everything
20)
Jakab (2004:183) holds there was no dierence between the presbyterate and epis-
copate in Alexandria in the second century.
L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674696 683
(7.6, SC 71).
21
Presbyters take on the sins of their congregations, but
by example they can persuade their followers not to sin themselves
(Origen, hom. 126. in Jos. 5.3.3, SC 71). Tis may also be done
through teaching, admonishing, and instructing (Origen, hom. 126.
in Jos. 8.7, SC 71).
As part of their judicial functions, presbyters are also seen in the
sources as ecclesiastical representatives. Irenaeus carried a letter from his
native Lyons to Rome (Eusebius, h.e. 5.4, SC 41). In his letter to the
Philadelphians (10), Ignatius says that presbyters have been used as
ambassadors for his church.
22
Clement of Alexandria, likewise, carried
at least one letter for the bishop Alexander to Antioch. Tus, presbyters
could be sent on ocial business of the church, whether it was to carry
a letter or to represent the church at a meeting such as synod. Given
that presbyters participated in these synods in their judicial capacity, it
may be inferred that they could be sent as representatives of a church
regarding theology.
23
Indeed, presbyters appear frequently in reference
to theological debates. Eusebius, citing an anonymous letter, recounts a
21)
See also 8.7. In Origens homilies, there are also many references to the honor of
presbyters. In the hom. 126. in Jos., he notes that in his time, being a presbyter is not
restricted to the elders, but is an honor and such men therefore, regardless of age,
occupy an honorable position within the church (hom. 126. in Jos. 16.1, SC 71). Tis
honor is enhanced if the man happens to be older. In this way, those who have superior
merits should be honored (Origen, hom. 126. in Jos. 17.2, SC 71. See also hom. 116
in Gen. 3.3.40, SC 7 bis.) Additionally, because presbyters are associated so strongly
with honor, it is no surprise that they are expected to be examples to their communi-
ties. Tey may do this a number of ways, including through acts of charity (Polycarp,
ep. 6.1, SC 10).
22)
Ignatius works have often been taken as evidence of an early mono-episcopacy in
Asia Minor. Recent works have called this into question however, questioning not only
his reconstruction of the mono-episcopacy, but also his mental state. Volp 1998:189
209 notes that Eusebius placement of Ignatius is suspect. While Eusebius dates Igna-
tius to the early second century, he could very well have lived from 160170 ..
23)
Presbyters were involved in a variety of legal matters, ranging from participating in
inquiries regarding theology to acting as ocial representatives of their churches.
Writing in the rst century, Clement of Rome says the presbyters are to be involved in
the correction of inappropriate behaviors in the manner of judges (I Clem. 57, SC
167). Tis was still practiced in the third century, as Origen noted in the hom. 126.
in Jos. 8.7, SC 71; priests were expected to admonish members of the church. See also
hom. 126. in Jos. 5.12.6, SC 71. Ignatius, in his letters to the Magnesians and Tral-
lians equates presbyters to both an assembly of apostles and to the Sanhedrin (Magn.
684 L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674696
debate that took place in Asia Minor. Te author of the letter partici-
pated in the debate which dealt with Montanus; the end result of
the inquiry was that the Montanists were cut o from that church.
Te author adds that he was asked to write down the minutes of the
debate but never did so (Eusebius, h.e. 5.16, SC 41). Hippolytus also
makes several references to such inquiries (Hippolytus 1977: Not. 1.3
and 1.6).
Tere is very little information as to how presbyters were selected:
was it through the bishop only or did the entire congregation have a say
in it? In addition, did a presbyter have to be a member of the commu-
nity he served? Clement of Alexandria, in the Paedagogus (3.11, SC 70),
states that presbyters can lay hands on others and that they can bless. In
his commentary on John (1.191, SC157), Origen notes that anointing
is a symbol of sovereignty among mortals and sometimes among the
priesthood, too. Tis may be interpreted as implying either that anoint-
ing is part of the ordination of some members of the priesthood, most
likely bishops, or that it is not performed uniformly.
24
Te Apostolic
Tradition oers that during their ordination, bishops and other presby-
ters lay hands on the new presbyter (trad. ap. 11.5759, SC 11 bis).
Tough limited, this evidence suggests nothing about having to be a
member of the community prior to ordination; also, it indicates there
is some type of approval process that took place, though whether from
other presbyters or the bishop is not clear.
Based upon what is known about the duties and ordination of pres-
byters, if Origen was to act in any capacity as a judge over matters of
theology, it was necessary for him to be an ocial representative of the
church. I propose that the Athenian church sought the advice of the
Palestinian church over a question of theology. Te Palestinian bishops
then asked Origen to go on their behalf to settle the problem. To this
end, it was necessary for Origen to be ordained. However, that he was
ordained by the Palestinian church rather than his home church of
6.1, SC 10 and Trall. 3.1, SC 10). Lastly, Polycarp mentions a presbyter who had lost
his oce and now cannot be a judge (Philad. 11.14, SC 10).
24)
Additionally, it could be taken in the context of Origens favorite metaphor, that of
Pauls inner and outer man. Anointing could be a sign of a true priest, which not all
priests share.
L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674696 685
Alexandria occasioned a signicant reaction from both Demetrius and
the churches throughout the empire.
Demetrius response to this resulted in two synods, one of which
included churches from as far away as Rome while the second was
regional. However, why did Origens ordination involve a response
from churches other than Alexandria and Palestine? It seems the ques-
tion of jurisdiction was a seminal concern.
25
Te sheer number of the
churches involved in this synod strongly suggests that the actions of the
Palestinian bishops were the topic, not Origens teachings as has been
held by previous scholarship.
Te First Synod
Te synods that followed Origens ordination have occasioned much
discussion, both in late antique sources and modern scholarship.
Tough Eusebius hints that the cause of the synods was a combination
of Demetrius jealously and Origens ordination, he never clearly
describes what happened during the synods or afterwards. Jerome sup-
ports the theory that Origens ordination sparked the conict with
Demetrius, but also that Origens theology was problematic (Jerome
1966:33.4). He adds that after the second synod, Origen was excom-
municated, as does Epiphanius (haer. 64.264.3; and Jerome 1966).
Photius, writing some time later, holds that Origen was deprived of his
oce at the second synod (1960: bibl. 118.615). Variations of these
theories dene modern research into this part of Origens life, which
holds that Origen was both condemned and banished from the Alexan-
drian Church.
26
However, when viewed within the context of other
synods, it is likely that such could not be the case.
25)
Tis is in contrast to Stewart-Skyes depiction of events, which emphasizes the role
of social class in election to the presbyterate: Demetrius objected to Origens appoint-
ment because Origen was an outsider to the inner ruling circles of the Alexandrian
Church. Further, this would have allowed Origen to stand for the oce of Bishop
(Stewart-Skyes 2004:428).
26)
Nautin (1977:61), Danilou (1955:23), Cadiou (1944:318), and Trigg (1983:140)
argue that Origen was condemned and exiled from Alexandria as a result of the synods.
In contrast, Crouzel 1989:2223 holds that Demetrius presided over both synods, and
686 L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674696
Te rst synod held after Origens ordination was a large aair that
included churches from throughout the empire: Alexandria, Cyrenaica,
Rome, Palestine, Syria, Arabia and Greece (Jerome 1966). Tough the
topic of the synod is not explicitly stated in later sources, Eusebius pro-
vides a valuable clue when he says that Demetrius included Teoctistus
and Alexander in his accusations following Origens preaching at Cae-
sarea and his ordination. Tough it is quite possible that the issue of
Origens theology was brought up at the synod, was this sucient to
include both bishops?
While it is certainly feasible that Demetrius was simply incensed at
the actions of the Palestinian bishops, the letters he sent following Ori-
gens ordination were undoubtedly the catalyst for the rst synod
(Crouzel 1989:23). However, what Demetrius found so objectionable
about Origen has been the topic of considerable inquiry.
27
Generally,
there are three possible explanations that have been oered: 1) the
Palestinian bishops ordained Origen knowing he had castrated himself,
and this was against church tradition/policy; 2) they ordained someone
from another see, knowing this was outside the scope of their authority;
and 3) Origen was teaching heretical theories. Concerning castration,
it has been thoroughly discussed in studies on Origen (Eusebius, h.e.
6.8.45, SC 41).
28
Te centrality of this issue to the fourth century, as
well as lack of any Christian commentary on it during this time, strongly
suggests this is either an oral tradition or part of Eusebius hagiography
following the second synod, had Origen stripped of his priesthood. Jakab 2004:171
holds that Origen was deprived of his oce at the second synod.
27)
For example, Telfer 1962:150 and Cadiou 1944:302303 hold that Demetrius
denied Origen the presbyterate. Campenhausen 1969:249 likewise contends that Ori-
gen sought out the Palestinian bishops because Demetrius would not ordain him at
Alexandria.
28)
Nautin 1977:4557, along with other scholars, questions this entire story. First,
chronologically it is out of place in Eusebius account. Second, he argues that it coin-
cides with Eusebius hagiographical aims (1977:46). Regarding castration, Eusebius
describes Demetrius as being at rst admiring, but later he condemned the act. For the
opposite view, see Crouzel 1989:9; R. P. C. Hanson concludes that Origens act was
approved (1966:8182).
L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674696 687
of Origen.
29
Regardless, the fact that there was not an ocial church
stance on this makes it questionable as a cause for the synod.
Tis leaves the issues of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and heresy. Regard-
ing the latter, based upon the scant references in the extant sources, it is
impossible to rule out with certainly that Origens theology was not
what occasioned the synod rather than issues of ecclesiastical jurisdic-
tion. But, no later writers mention that Origen was ever judged hereti-
cal. With the amount of anti-Origen rhetoric that peppered late antique
works, it is signicant that none of them reference a condemnation for
heresy.
Given this, another explanation for the synod is warranted. As has
been noted, Eusebius does not provide many details of the synod, and
Jeromes supplement leaves many questions unanswered. For this rea-
son, the synod should be evaluated within the context of the synodal
tradition in order to illustrate not only protocol for synods, but also
dierences between the topics discussed at local versus regional synods.
Te Quartrodeciman controversy of the rst and second centuries
provides an excellent example of how churches handled disagreements
among themselves. From Eusebius account, there were upwards of ve
councils called, including ones in Palestine, Pontus, Gaul, Mesopota-
mia, and Asia Minor (h.e. 5.23, SC 41). At the council held in Pales-
tine, the churches of Caesarea, Jerusalem, Tyre, and Ptolemais attended
(h.e. 5.25, SC 41). In addition to these councils, churches from Greece
and Rome participated. Te bishops wrote a series of letters to each
other, until they had come to an agreement in favor of the vernal equi-
nox (h.e. 5.24, SC 41). While this was a joint eort of all churches
involved, it was a binding agreement or statement of practice. When
the church at Ephesus deviated from this standard, the bishop of Rome,
Victor, attempted to excommunicate the church (h.e. 5.24, SC 41).
However, other churches interceded on behalf of Ephesus, most nota-
bly that of Gaul, who convinced Victor his actions were rash.
Te Quartodeciman controversy reveals several aspects of the power
of bishops relative to other bishoprics in the late second century. Firstly,
councils were not presided over by one church, but were a meeting of
29)
Runus adds that following Origens ordination, many praised it, and that Origen
was hoping for an even higher oce, namely that of bishop. Demetrius reacted strongly
to this, spreading stories of Origens castration (Oulton 1929:162).
688 L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674696
equals. Secondly, bishops drew up a standard of practice in the form of
letters, which all churches were expected to follow. Te churches that
participated in this aair were loosely unied through this agreement.
In contrast, while the Quartodeciman controversy was a large aair
that dealt with the practices of whole communities, regional synods
were called over the actions of individuals. In Asia, several synods were
held to inquire into the teachings of Montanus, which were eventually
declared heretical. However, Serapion, bishop of Antioch, sent out let-
ters to other churches, which had been signed by many local bishops,
condemning Montanism (h.e. 5.19.14, SC 41). Eusebius records a
synod called to examine the teachings of the Arabian bishop at Bostra,
Beryllus, which occurred after Origen relocated to Caesarea. Beryllus
had claimed that Christ did not individually exist prior to his incarna-
tion (h.e. 6.33.1, SC 41). Origen, according to Eusebius, played a
key role in the subsequent synod, though whether in his capacity
as presbyter or as scholar is not clear. Firmilian, the bishop of Caesarea
in Cappadocia attended a synod regarding Novatus, though this is
slightly after the time of Origen (h.e. 6.17.1, SC 41). An unknown
author, cited by Eusebius, recounts a similar occurrence in Ancyra,
where a heretics teachings were investigated though a debate (h.e.
6.16.45, SC 41).
Te only preserved dialogue of Origen describes such a situation
with Heraclides, whose views regarding the soul were called into ques-
tion. It was attended not only by bishops, but also by presbyters and
spectators. Twice during the meeting, bishops are asked by other bish-
ops if they would be willing to sign an agreed upon statement of belief
(dial. 6.56, SC 67).
30
Tese debates are presented in a manner remi-
niscent of philosophical debates, though there were stenographers at
Origens debate with Heraclides and possibly at the synod concerning
Beryllus. While bishops clearly were instrumental and were witnesses to
the debate, the outcome of the synod was not predetermined by the
bishops. Rather, bishops were attending an inquiry. Te intent of the
debate was twofold: to nd out the nature of the questionable teachings
and to correct them.
30)
See also dial. 4.2, SC 67. It is important to note that the accused is expected to sign
the agreed upon statement of faith in order to avoid further conict.
L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674696 689
Returning to the question of Origens theology, it is clear from letter
fragments preserved in Eusebius that Origens theology came under
close scrutiny several times in his life. It is also evident in the Apology
that Origens Alexandrian works were quite controversial.
31
However, as
noted, inquiries into questionable teachings tended to be more regional:
the synod following Origens ordination involved churches from
throughout the empire. Te question at hand must have been larger
than Origen, likely standards for elevation to the presbyterate, and
ecclesiastical jurisdiction. If the inquiry was to determine whether or
not Origens teachings were heretical, it would seem that no accusations
would have been lodged against the Palestinian bishops. However, if
the main issue was to determine who was t to hold the presbyterate
and who had the right to appoint presbyters, then the accusations
against Teoctistus and Alexander make sense: this was an event
that had ramications for the entire church, not just Alexandria and
Palestine.
Te outcome of the rst synod was mixed, and a consensus was not
reached. Alexandria and the Egyptian churches, along with Rome,
sided together. Regarding ordination of someone from another see, it
continued to be practiced after the synod. About ten years after
Origens death, when Anatolius passed through Caesarea, Teoctenus
ordained him as a presbyter.

Eusebius makes no mention of any conten-
tion arising because of this ordination (h.e. 7.32.21, SC 41). Te case
bears much in common with the circumstances of Origens ordination:
neither was from Caesarea, but both were ordained there. Anatolius
made his home at Caesarea, before he moved on to become a bishop at
another church.
From this we may conclude that synods tended to be local in com-
position for local issues and likewise, larger for issues that aected the
31)
In Pamphilus apol., a large percentage of the citations he uses from Origens own
works are taken from princ. Indeed, Pamphilus aim was to prove that many of the
doctrines attributed to Origen did not originate with Origen, but were added later.
Runus continues this claim in adult. (7), quoting part of a letter Origen wrote to
friends at Alexandria that mentions the interpolation of his works. See also Origen,
hom. 139 in Lc. 25.6, SC 87, for a similar claim; Prinzivalli 1999:195213; Jakab
2004:171; Richardson 1937:5064. Richardson holds that Origen was formally
charged with heresy by Alexandria and Rome (1937:58).
690 L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674696
entire church: if the issue at hand involved an entire church, as with the
Quartodeciman controversy, synods included churches from through-
out the empire. For individuals, as the case with Heraclides or Beryllus,
synods were an inquiry intended to correct objectionable teachings,
and they were local in nature. Additionally, it is clear that bishops took
a very active role in questions of theology. However, it is important to
note the manner in which they did so: through letters and participation
in synods (h.e. 6.12.12, SC 41).
32
With the exception of Victor,
bishops did not act uniformly, and in the instances when they did,
other bishops had the authority to check their activities. Christian
communities strove to achieve a consensus. Also, regarding questions of
theology and some practices, synods followed a period of letter writing
among bishops.
Te Egyptian Synod
In contrast to the rst synod, the second synod was much more limited
in its scope, involving only the churches of Egypt.
33
Many contend that
Origen was deposed at this synod (Photius 1960: bibl. 118.615).
34

If Origen was deposed by the Alexandrian church, it is the rst instance
in the history of the Church of such an event happening. Tis would
have been not simply a challenge to the authority of the Palestinian
church by Alexandria, but an assertion of the dominance of Alexandria
over Palestine. It is inconceivable that the Palestinian bishops, who were
not at the synod, would have agreed to this or been bound by it.
Alexandria, indeed, did not have the right to depose a church ocial
unilaterally. Secondly, if the question of Origens theology was raised,
this synod deviates from established methods of addressing such prob-
lems: none of the extant accounts mention Origens presence at this
synod. Nor do later sources, particularly those hostile to Origen, refer
32)
One letter, to an otherwise unknown Domnus, addresses apostasy. Another letter,
or possibly two, was written to Pontius and Caricus, who were churchman, though the
topic of the letter is unknown.
33)
Te second synod may be dated to the bishopric of the bishops Fabian and Heraclas.
34)
Cadiou 1944:318319 and Nautin 1977:61 hold that the rst synod under Dem-
etrius declared Origen unworthy to be a catechist and dismissed him from Alexandria.
Te second synod, likewise under Demetrius, removed Origen from the priesthood.
L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674696 691
to any kind of theological condemnation. It is likely that the issue raised
at this synod was a continuation of the rst synod, which recognized
local authority to ordain presbyters as seen t by individual communities.
Tere is the possibility that Origen was excommunicated from the
Alexandrian church.
35
However, there are few instances of excommuni-
cation during the period in question. Shortly after gaining the bishop-
ric, Callistus excommunicated Sabellius because of questionable
orthodoxy (Hippolytus 1997: haer. 9.7). Allowing for ire, Hippolytus
records that Callistus school was open to those who had been con-
demned by other churches and sects.
36
By relaxing disciplinary policies,
Callistus was trying to extend the authority of the episcopate and cen-
tralize more power in himself.
37
It may be argued then, that along with
the communal changes Callistus instituted for his immediate commu-
nity, his excommunication of Sabellius was likewise unique to his com-
munity, and not considered binding by other Christian groups at Rome.
However, Callistus attempts at reforming the Roman church were met
with opposition during his own lifetime, as exemplied by Hippolytus.
Tere are few other examples of bishops who attempted to excom-
municate members for heresy. Apolinarius was invited to speak before
a community in Asia Minor that was divided over Montanism; shortly
thereafter, the community rejected Montanist teachings and excom-
municated those who followed them (h.e. 5.16.10, SC 41). During the
episcopate of Hyginus in Rome, the community cut o communion
with Cerdo (h.e. 4.11.13, SC 41). Later under Victor, there were three
incidents of excommunication from his Roman community, including
the church of Ephesus during the Quartrodeciman controversy. Victor
is said to have excommunicated a certain Teodotus the cobbler for
teaching that Christ was a man (h.e. 5.28.6, SC 41).
Questions of sin and penance were matters considered by the entire
Christian community; it is reasonable to assume that excommunication
35)
Regarding the possibility that the bishop of Alexandria had the power to excom-
municate members of his church without the approval of Alexandria house churches
and presbyters, see Holliday (2010).
36)
Hippolytus 1997: haer. 9.6. Brent (1999:310) takes this entire account as evidence that
Callistus was attempting to reorganize the Roman church under the monoepiscopacy.
37)
Brent (1999:315320) notes that Callistus was claiming the right to absolve over
the other presbyters in other house groups.
692 L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674696
would be a community decision as well. Indeed, keeping in mind the
fragmented nature of Christian communities during this period, the
cooperation of all local groups would be necessary to make an excom-
munication eective. Given that the bishop does not control the church
by decree, such agreement could only be reached through a consensus
of the community. Since house churches were still the norm for Chris-
tian worship, it would have been dicult for bishops to excommuni-
cate members entirely from large communities like those of Rome and
Alexandria; they could exclude them from their own church, but in
order to cut someone o from all the Christian groups in the city
required a community consensus. Te same holds true for Alexandria:
the theory that Origen was excommunicated by Demetrius or Heraclas
alone is unlikely.
38
It is possible that the Alexandrian community excom-
municated Origen, but it would have taken a community consensus.
Tis raises several possibilities: 1) Origen was excommunicated from
Heraclas church, but not all of Alexandria; 2) the Alexandrian commu-
nity excommunicated Origen; or 3) Origen was never excommunicated.
Additionally, if Origen was excommunicated, it was not in per-
petuum. Tus, Dionysius the Great corresponded freely with Origen.
39

However, the nature of excommunication during this time may have
38)
See Holliday (2010) for a fuller discussion of the powers of the Bishop in the third
century. Origen himself is critical of the Bishops authority to judge, emphasizing the
church leaders themselves must be righteous in order to do so. See also comm. in
Mt. 117 12.14, SC 162; hom. 126 in Jos. 7.6, SC 71; and hom. 139 in Lc. 13.56,
SC 87. Origen (2009: hom. 128 in Num. 4.3.14.3.4) discusses the intellectual qual-
ications of priests, noting that they should strive to be regarded as holy and rational.
See also hom. 128 in Num. 5.1.2 and 10.3.3.
39)
Origen (2010: hom. 114 in Ezech. 10.1.4) discusses priests and deacons who have
lost their positions within the church, noting that it is disgraceful and dishonorable.
He condemns deposed oceholders who challenge their dismissal by creating contro-
versy in their respective churches. In contrast, he praises those who accept their dis-
missal. In light of the questionable events surrounding Origens relocation to
Alexandria, this passage could be taken as supporting the theory that Origen was
deposed. However, Origen is discussing Ezekiel 16:523 and begins this section by
talking about loss of honor in a public context, namely citizens who are exiled from
their city-states and government ocials who lose their positions (Origen 2010:10.1.3).
He next moves to discuss the ecclesiastical corollary of this, loss of church oce. Ori-
gen supports the idea that those who create stumbling blocks for the church should be
L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674696 693
diered from when Eusebius and Jerome wrote. Perhaps Origen was
not recognized as a representative of the Caesarean church, though not
deprived of his oce. Egyptian bishops would not have been able to
revoke an oce granted by another church, but they could have chosen
not to recognize it. Rather, this may have been an instance, indeed the
rst instance, of a bishop refusing to recognize the authority of other
bishops to make appointments to ecclesiastical oces based on the
supremacy of the Alexandrian tradition.
Conclusion
Te results of the synods are as murky as their details. While the topics
and outcomes are open to interpretation, the above analysis suggests
that: the rst synod involved issues relevant to all Christian communi-
ties, and the fact that Teoctistus and Alexander were included in
Demetrius accusations intimates that these issues may well have been
questions of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Additionally, the second synod
was likely devoted to a continuation of the events of the rst synod and
did not raise new issues. It is unlikely, given the precedent and proce-
dure of other inquiries into heresies, that Origens theology was raised
at this synod. If it was, this synod is unique. Based upon previous inqui-
ries, Origen should have been present at the Egyptian synod, his teach-
ings examined and an attempt made to come to a satisfactory
theological agreement. Ultimately, the events surrounding Origens
relocation are more complex than has been previously held, and the
two synods called over Origens ordination represent some of the rst
instances in which churches came together to address these issues.
References
Unless otherwise noted, all references to ancient sources are to the Sources Chrtiennes
editions published in Paris since 1942 by Les ditions du Cerf. Citations give the
volume number after the abbreviation SC.
removed. See hom. 114 in Ezech. 10.4, SC 321; hom. 116 in Lev. 4.8.4, SC 286; and
Origen 2009: hom. 128 in Num. 7.1.2.
694 L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674696
Anonymous. 1972. Passio Perpetuae 12 in Te Acts of the Christian Martyrs Trans.
Herbert Musurillo. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
. 2006. Te Scriptores Historiae Augustae. Trans. David Magie. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bardy, Gustave. 1937. Aux Origines de lEcole DAlexandrie. Recherches de science
religiuse 27:6590.
. 1942. Pour lhistoire de lEcole d Alexandrie. Revue Biblique (1942):80109.
Barnes, T. D. 1968. Legislation against the Christians. Te Journal of Roman Studies,
58(1&2):3550.
. 1971. Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study. Oxford: Claredon Press.
le Boulluec, Alain. 1987. cole dAlexandrie: De quelques aventures dun concept
historiographique. In Mlanges oerts au P. Claude Mondsert. Paris: Les Editions
du Cerf, 403417.
Beebe, H. Keith and Lionel Casson. (1983). Caesarea Maritima: Its Strategic and
Political Signicance to Rome. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 42(3).
Brent, Allen. 1999. Te Imperial Cult and the Development of Church Order: Concepts
and Images of Authority in Paganism and Early Christianity before the Age of Cyprian.
Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Brown, Peter. 1988. Te Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in
Early Christianity. New York: Columbia University Press.
Cadiou, Ren. 1944. Origen: His Life at Alexandria. Trans. John Southwell. St. Louis:
B. Herder Book Co.
Campenhausen, Hans von. 1969. Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the
Church in the First Tree Centuries. Trans J. A. Baker. London: Adam and Charles
Black.
Carikker, Andrew. 2003. Te Library of Eusebius of Caesarea. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Chadwick, Henry. 1993. Te Early Church. London: Oxford University Press.
Covolo, Enrico dal. 1997. I Severi e il Cristianesimo. Las Roma.
Cox, Patricia. 1983. Biography in Late Antiquity: A Quest for the Holy Man. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Crouzel, Henri. 1989. Origen. Trans. A. S. Worrall. San Francisco: Harper & Row
Publishers.
Danilou, Jean. 1955. Origen. Trans. Walter Mitchell. New York: Sheed and Ward.
DeFaye, Eugene. 1929. Origen and His Work. Trans. Fred Rothwell. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Frend, W. H. C. 2004. Martyrdom and Persecution. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Grant, Robert M. 1980. Eusebius as Church Historian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hanson, R. P. C. 1966. A Note on Origens Self Mutilation Vigiliae Christianae
20(2):8182.
Hippolytus. 1977. Contra Noetum, 1.3 and 1.6. Translated and edited by Robert
Butterworth. London: Heythrop Monographs.
. 1997. Refutation of all Heresies. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5 Grand Rapids:
W. M. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674696 695
Holliday, Lisa. 2010. Excommunicatum: Te Monoepiscopate, the 3rd Century
Church and Origen. Acta Patristica et Byzantina 21(1).
Jakab, Attila. 2004. Ecclesia Alexandrina. Berne: Peter Lang.
Jerome. 1966. Ep. 33 Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesi-
asticorum Latinorum, ed. Isidorus Hilberg v1. Vindobonae: Verlag der seterre-
ichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
. 1999. On Illustrious Men. Translated by Tomas Halton. Fathers of the Church
100. Washington: Catholic University Press.
Lampe, Peter. 2003. From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two
Centuries. Translated by Michael Steinhauser. Edited by Marshall D. Johnson.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Loomis, Louise Ropes. 2006. Te Book of the Popes (Liber Ponticalis): to the Ponticate
of Gregory I. Merchantville: Evolution Publishing.
Lyman, J. Rebecca. 1997. Te Making of a Heretic: Te Life of Origen in Epipha-
nius Panarion 64. Studia Patristica. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 445451.
McGuckin, John, ed. 2004. Te Westminster Handbook to Origen. Louisville and
London: Westminster John Knox Press.
Nautin, Pierre. 1977. Origne: Sa Vie et son Oeuvre. Paris: Beauchesne.
Origen 2009. Homilies on Numbers. Trans. Tomas P. Scheck. Ancient Christian Texts.
Downers Grove: IVP Academic.
. 2010. Homilies on Ezekiel. Trans. Tomas P. Scheck. Ancient Christian Writers
62. Mahwah: Te Newman Press.
Oulton, J. 1929. Runuss Translation of the Church History of Eusebius Journal of
Teological Studies 30:150174.
Pamphilus. 2010. Apology for Origen. Trans. Tomas P. Scheck. Fathers of the Church
120. Washington: Catholic University Press.
Photius. 1960. Bibliotheca. ed. Ren Henry, Bibliothque, tome 2. Paris: Socit
ddition Les Belles Lettres.
Prinzivalli, E. 1999. Te Controversy about Origen before Epiphanius. In
W.A. Binert and U. Khneweg (eds.), Origeniana Septima Origenes in den Ausein-
andersetzungen des 4. Jahrhunderts, Leuven: Leuven University Press, 195213.
Richardson, Cyril. 1937. Te Condemnation of Origen. Church History 6.1:5064.
Rousselle, Aline. 1974. La Perscution des Chrtiens Alexandrie au III sicle. Revue
historique de droit franais et tranger (1974):22251.
Runus. 2010. Te Falsication of the Books of Origen. Translated by Tomas P. Scheck.
Fathers of the Church 120. Washington: Catholic University Press.
Scholten, Clemens. 1995. Die alexandrinische Katechetenschule. Jahrbuch fur Antike
und Christentum 38:1637.
Syme, Ronald. 1971. Emperors and Biography: Studies in the Historia Augusta. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Stewart-Skyes, Alistair. 2004. Origen, Demetrius, and the Alexandrian Presbyters.
St. Vladimirs Teological Quarterly 48(4):41529.
Telfer, William. 1962. Te Oce of the Bishop. London: Darton, Longman and Todd,
1962.
696 L. Holliday / Numen 58 (2011) 674696
Trigg, Joseph Wilson. 1983. Origen: Te Bible and Philosophy in the Tird Century
Church. Atlanta: John Knox Press.
Van den Hoek, Annewies. 1997. Te catechetical school of early Christian Alexan-
dria and its Philonic Heritage. Harvard Teological Review 90:5988.
Volp, Ulrich. 1998. Liturgical Authority Reconsidered: Remarks on the Bishops Role
in Pre-Constantine Worship. In Bronwen Neil, Geory Dunn and Laurence
Cross (eds.), Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church, v. 3: Liturgy and Life,
Minnesota: Liturgical Press: 189209,
Wilken, Robert. 1984. Alexandria: A School for Training in Virtue. In Patrick Henry
(ed.), Schools of Tought in the Christian Tradition, Philadelphia: Fortress Press.