Members-only podcast episode
Ammonius, Origen, and Plotinus: Exploring an Enigma
This is a special podcast episode for SHWEP members only
Already a member? Log in here to view this episode
[Corrigenda: There are a few blunders in this episode. First of all, we say that Origen never cites Clement of Alexandria by name. This is wrong; he does so quite a bit. God knows where we got that from. Secondly, we misrepresent Guy Stroumsa’s trip to Mar Saba to see the Letter to Theodore MS: he did make the trip and did see the MS, but not in the company of Morton Smith. Apologies.]
We love riddles. Now, the particular historical riddle expounded in this special episode won’t be for everyone, but for the hardcore lovers of late-antique esotericism, the problem of whether or not Origen the esoteric Christian philosopher was the same guy as Origen, Plotinus’ fellow-student of Ammonius Saccas, is a deeply juicy question. Thus this special episode discussing the main evidence.
As it emerges in the discussion of said evidence, said evidence is so vexing, so baffling, so finely-tuned to create controversy for ever, that it can only have been made that way by design.
Featuring the return of Rupert and Steve.
Works Cited in this Episode:
Primary:
On Ammonius ‘Sakkas’:
- Nickname: Ammianus Marcellinus 22.16: Saccas Ammonius Plotini magister; Theodoret, Cur. 6.60-73. Cf. Suda, s.v. Origenes.
- Porphyry says Ammonius, the teacher of Origen, was raised a Christian but later recanted, which Eusebius denies: H.E: 6.19.10: τῷ τε γὰρ Ὠριγένει τὰ τῆς κατὰ Χριστὸν διδασκαλίας ἐκ προγόνων ἐσῴζετο, ὡς καὶ τὰ τῆς πρόσθεν ἱστορίας ἐδήλου, τῷ τε Ἀμμωνίῳ τὰ τῆς ἐνθέου φιλοσοφίας ἀκέραια καὶ ἀδιάπτωτα καὶ μέχρις ἐσχάτης τοῦ βίου διέμενεν τελευτῆς, ὥς που καὶ οἱ τἀνδρὸς εἰς ἔτι νῦν μαρτυροῦσι πόνοι, δἰ ὧν κατέλιπε συγγραμμάτων παρὰ τοῖς πλείστοις εὐδοκιμοῦντος, ὥσπερ οὖν καὶ ὁ ἐπιγεγραμμένος Περὶ τῆς Μωυσέως καὶ Ἰησοῦ συμφωνίας καὶ ὅσοι ἄλλοι παρὰ τοῖς φιλοκάλοις εὕρηνται.
- Ammonius Sakkas interested in harmonising Plato and Aristotle: Hierocles of Alexandria, De providentia, ap. Photius Bibl. 214, esp. 172a, 173a.
Longinus on Origen:
- A Platonist who wrote little except the On Daimones (ap. Porph. Plot. 20, 36 ff.).
- Two Ammonii, one a Platonist (mentioned alongside the name Origen) and one a Peripatetic: ap. Porph. Plot. 20.
Porphyry:
- Origen the hated Christian wrote lots of stuff: ap. Eus. HE. 6,19,5.
- Origen, Plotinus’ fellow student, composed only two writings (Plot. 3, 30-32). His work That the King is the only Maker, appeared either under the emperor Gallienus or, as some would have it, dedicated to the emperor Gallienus (ἐπὶ Γαλιήνου).
- Origen the Christian’s teacher, Ammonius, ‘attained the greatest proficiency in philosophy of any in our day’. Porph. ap. Euseb. H.E. 6.19.6.
- Ammonius, Plotinus’ teacher, wrote nothing: Plot. 20.25-9 and 36-47.
- The emperor Gallienus confers with Plotinus about founding Platonopolis: Plot. 12.
- Cf. Plot. 14 and 20 for other Origen refs.
Secondary:
- Henri Crouzel. Origene et la philosophie. Paris, 1962.
- Dörrie 1955, see below.
- Mark Julian Edwards. Origen Against Plato. Ashgate, Aldershot, 2002, we cite pp. 54-55.
- Freudenthal, Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumwissenschaft Band I,2, Ammonius 14.
- Pierre Nautin. Origene. Sa vie et son oeuvre. Paris, 1977, we cite pp. 200-201.
- Schwyzer 1983 (see below). We cite p. 22.
- Henricus Valesius. Eusebii Pamphili, Socratis scholastici … &c. Christian Gerlach & Simon Beckenstein, Moguntiae (Mainz), 1672. We cite the notes to 6,19,6.
Recommended Reading:
Two Ammonii, Two Origens:
- H. Dörrie. Ammonios, der Lehrer Plotins. Hermes, 83:439–77, 1955 [two Ammonii the only way of accounting for all the evidence].
- Mark Edwards. Ammonius, Teacher of Origen. The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 44(2):169–81, 199 [argues that O. the Christian was taught by the Peripatetic Ammonius mentioned by Longinus ap. Porph. Plot.].
One Ammonius, Two Origens (this is by far the majority position or undefended assumption. We give a few representative examples of the many flavours this formulation can take, but there are very many more):
- Armstrong. Plotinus: Enneads. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2003. Greek text based on Henry & Schwyzer (1951-73), with translation and introduction by A.H. Armstrong. 7 vols., n. 1 to Vol. I, pp. 10-11.
- Hans-Rudolph Schwyzer. Ammonios Sakkas, der Lehrer Plotins. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen, 1983.
- K.O. Weber. Origenes der Neuplatoniker. Zetemata, 27, 1962.
One Ammonius, One Origen:
- Ilaria L.E. Ramelli. Origen and the Platonic Tradition. Religions, 8(21), 2017.
- Idem. Origen, Patristic Philosophy, and Christian Platonism: Re-Thinking the Christianisation of Hellenism. Vigiliæ Christianæ, 63(3):217–63, 2009.
Thomas Kiefer
September 24, 2021
Dear Rupert,
Why did you have to take:
–Posidonius’ On Ocean (sigh)
–Zeno’s Republic (ancient gender-equal communism no less!)
–Everything by Chrysippus (come on, man, throw us a bone here)
–Aristotle’s dialogues (did you have to take all of them?) AND his lost works on the Pythagoreans (our last chance for legit material before it merged with Platonism) AND why did you have to trash most of Steve’s rescue efforts of the esoteric works on their way to the present?
–and so much other cool stuff?
We are very lucky to have all of Plato and Plotinus at least, so thanks for sparing that.
Sincerely,
Thomas K.
Earl Fontainelle
September 24, 2021
One wonders whether Rupert is the more powerful of the two. But some new Porphyry has just emerged in Syriac, so Steve is still in the fight!
Still, until we have all of Parmenides and Empedocles I’m with you: Rupert needs to calm down.
Eemil Matias Pohjalainen
February 19, 2024
A weird piece of evidence provided by Steve from the later platonists which is in my opinion worth noticing is in Proclus’ Commentary on Timaeus where he discusses how a certain Origen has interpreted the text. Surely an interpretation of the Timaeus would have been mentioned by Porphyry among his works in the Life of Plotinus, but alas this is an argument from silence, and we can not really draw conclusions from it.
Earl Fontainelle
February 21, 2024
Thanks for yet another piece of evidence. If you have the Proclus reference to hand, please post it here.
Eemil Matias Pohjalainen
February 23, 2024
Proclus is referring to the views of “Origen” quite frequently throughout the Commentary’s first book (doubtlessly getting his material from Porphyry’s Commentary), here are some quotations though (from the translation of Harold Tarrant):
“Origenes agreed that Plato is taking care over the grace of his writing, not however because he is aiming at pleasure, but in the course of using this comparison for the presentation of what he felt.” (61)
“Others interpret it as a conflict of daemons, with some being better and others worse, the one side superior in numbers, the other in power, with the one being victorious and the other vanquished, as Origenes supposed.” (77)
“Origenes claimed that the narrative [of Atlantis] had been invented, and to this extent he agreed with Numenius’ party, but not that it had been invented in the interests of artificial pleasure, like Longinus.” (83.25)
Tarrant brings up how Origen’s “That The King Is the Only Maker” could be an interpretative work on the Timaeus where the Demiurge is treated as the King of All from the pseudo-Platonic Second Letter. Also worth noting is how the quotation of Origen discussing the battle of Atlantis could possibly derive from his “On Daemons”. These could possibly explain away the lack of Timaeus-Commentary in Porphyry’s account of his works, but this is of course mere speculation. I do think that the reports of Origen in Proclus point to a two Origens direction though, as we are getting a fair amount of testimonia regarding his thought that is missing from the Christian counterpart.
Earl Fontainelle
February 25, 2024
Thanks. I agree with your thoughts, and that it does pull in a two-Origens direction. But then we are left with the Two Ammonii Problem.