[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Bill

Origen could have easily disproven Demetrius' accusation if it were not true, and it seems illogical that he wouldn't since it was the reason for refusing his ordination.

Yet my understanding is that all of this is a report from Eusebius a century later. If there was not actually a Demetrius accusation at the time then of course Origen would not go about disproving the accusation never given !

So were the Eusebius history sources themselves accurate ? The Westminster source suggests that the Commentary of Origen on Matthew 19:12 simply would not make a lot of sense if this were true, and clearly, although it is not the same type of historical account, it is far more a primary source. One evidence is a primary source (Origen) the other is an in depth historical account. The problem is that if opponents fudged the history that was passed down to Eusebius they would in fact fudge numerous components at once. That is why the primary source, even though it does not specifically discuss the issue vis a vis Origen, but simply expresses an understandable disdain for the concept, has to still be given a high place in the historical evaluation.

Now if there are primary sources from Origen discussing his physical conditions that strongly support the Eusebius account that could could be tipping evidence, maybe into the 'highly probable'. (Right now I only see "unsure, dunno" .. or less.) However what are those physical plaints ? Where and when are they written, does it come from Origen directly or Eusebius or other ? Without specifics I don't think we can make those a tipping evidence.

Shalom,
Steven