The Unfinished Accusation: Jerome and the Falsification of Origen’s Works by Eusebius

Jerome’s writings offer a fascinating glimpse into the theological and literary controversies of early Christianity. His critiques and insinuations about the possible falsification of Origen’s works by Eusebius reveal a complex interplay of admiration, suspicion, and self-preservation. Jerome’s comments provide substantial groundwork for an accusation against Eusebius, yet he stops short of explicitly stating that Eusebius forged documents related to Origen. This blog post explores Jerome’s near-accusation, the implications of his observations, and the possible reasons he refrains from making a direct charge.

The State of Origenism According to Jerome

Jerome’s analysis of Origenism at the turn of the fifth century highlights several critical points:

1. Heretical Statements in Origen's Writings: Jerome acknowledges the presence of heretical statements within Origen’s works.
2. Two Explanations for Heretical Statements:
   • Eusebius’s View: Heretics added these statements after Origen’s time.
   • Didymus the Blind’s View: Origen himself made these statements, but they are defensible.
3. Eusebius’s Knowledge of Origen’s True Text: Eusebius purportedly understood Origen’s true thoughts so well that he could distinguish between heretical additions and Origen’s authentic teachings. Jerome suggests that Eusebius claimed to "feel" Origen’s soul and know his true intentions—ut se, sensisse confirmat.
4. Eusebius’s Relationship with Pamphilus: Jerome notes the close relationship between Eusebius and Pamphilus, indicating that they were of "one soul"—Eusebius et Pamphilus tantam inter se habuere concordiam, ut unius animae homines putes, et ab uno alter nomen acceperit. This bond implies a shared understanding and possibly shared actions.
5. Using Pamphilus’s Name: Jerome argues that a defense of Origen attributed to a martyr like Pamphilus would be unimpeachable because a martyr’s testimony is believed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Thus, using Pamphilus’s name provided a shield against criticism—ille, qui nihil aliud edidit, facilius patet calumniae.
6. Evidence from Eusebius’s Church History: Jerome points out that Book Six of Eusebius’s Church History appears almost word-for-word in the defense attributed to Pamphilus, suggesting Eusebius’s direct involvement in creating the text.

The Missing Accusation

Despite laying a solid foundation for accusing Eusebius of falsifying Origen’s works, Jerome suddenly retreats from making a direct accusation. This abrupt shift raises several intriguing questions:

• Self-Preservation: Jerome might have realized that directly accusing Eusebius could jeopardize his own standing and his work. A direct charge against such a prominent figure could have led to backlash or even censorship.
• Dependence on Sources: Jerome’s Chronicle and other works rely heavily on Eusebius’s historical writings. Accusing Eusebius of forgery might have undermined Jerome’s credibility and the value of his own works.
• Posthumous Corrections: There is a possibility that Jerome’s writings were edited after his death to soften his stance against Eusebius. Such revisions could have been made to maintain ecclesiastical harmony or protect the reputations of key historical figures.

The Groundwork for Accusation

Although Jerome stops short of an outright accusation, his writings provide substantial evidence suggesting Eusebius’s involvement in revising Origen’s works:

• Close Parallels: Jerome meticulously points out the parallels between Eusebius’s Church History and the defense attributed to Pamphilus.
• Impeccable Defense through Martyrdom: The strategic use of Pamphilus’s name to defend Origen points to deliberate efforts to protect Origen’s legacy.
• Insinuations of Forgery: Jerome’s careful language and detailed observations strongly imply that Eusebius manipulated Origen’s texts to align with post-Nicene orthodoxy.

Conclusion

Jerome’s near-accusation against Eusebius regarding the falsification of Origen’s works at Caesarea offers a compelling look into the theological and literary dynamics of early Christianity. While he stops short of a direct charge, Jerome’s detailed analysis and insinuations provide a robust framework for questioning the integrity of the texts attributed to Origen. The reasons behind Jerome’s restraint remain speculative, but his observations continue to provoke thought and debate among scholars and theologians. Through this exploration, we gain a deeper understanding of the complexities and controversies that shaped the early Christian church.