{"slug":"khazarzar-origenes-de-resurrectione","id":"greek:khazarzar:khazarzar-origenes-de-resurrectione","title":"De Resurrectione","title_source":"De Resurrectione","author":"Origenes","genre":"other","date":"","tradition":"greek","coverage":"not-located","coverage_claim":{"status":"not-located","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},"publication":{"status":"machine-draft","reviewed_by":null,"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","generated":"2026-11-15T06:27:23Z","cost_usd":0.001652},"source":{"registry_id":"greek:khazarzar:khazarzar-origenes-de-resurrectione","work_id":"khazarzar-origenes-de-resurrectione","edition":"khazarzar","language":"","license":"Migne PG text (public domain); khazarzar host and the digitising project state no licence for this layer","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/Origenes_PG%2011-17/De%20Resurrectione.pdf"},"stats":{"passages":2,"english_words":336,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":1316,"commentary_units":12,"commentary_kinds":7,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":3,"work_notes":6,"external_links":0,"timeline":5},"summary":{"work":"khazarzar-origenes-de-resurrectione","abstract":"Origen's 'De Resurrectione' is a treatise defending the physical resurrection of the body against Gnostic and Platonic spiritualizing interpretations. Origen insists on the identity of the resurrected body with the earthly one, while allowing for a refined, ethereal state. The Greek original is lost; the work survives only in a Latin translation by Rufinus of Aquileia (c. 397–398), which may adapt Origen's thought to later orthodox concerns. The treatise was likely composed between 220 and 230 CE during Origen's Alexandrian period, responding to debates with Valentinian Gnostics and Platonists. It is cited by later Fathers such as Methodius of Olympus and Gregory of Nyssa, and was condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople (553).","historical_context":"The treatise was likely composed between 220 and 230 CE in Alexandria, Egypt, during Origen's most productive period. The work responds to contemporary debates with the Valentinian Gnostic Heracleon and the Platonist Celsus, though they are not explicitly named in the surviving text. The Greek original is lost; the work survives only in a Latin translation by Rufinus of Aquileia, made around 397–398 CE. Rufinus's rendering is known to be free and may adapt Origen's thought to later orthodox concerns, potentially softening or omitting passages that could be read as subordinationist or as denying the resurrection of the flesh. The work was cited by later Fathers such as Methodius of Olympus and Gregory of Nyssa, who both engage with Origen's resurrection theology. It was condemned along with other Origenist writings at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 CE. The edition provided (khazarzar) offers the Latin text without critical apparatus or manuscript collation.","significance":"The treatise is a key witness to early Christian debates on resurrection, opposing Gnostic and Platonic spiritualizing interpretations. It influenced later patristic discussions, as seen in Methodius and Gregory of Nyssa, and its condemnation at the Second Council of Constantinople (553) reflects ongoing controversies over Origen's legacy. The work's survival only in Rufinus's Latin translation raises questions about the fidelity of the text to Origen's original Greek.","timeline":[{"date":"c. 220–230 CE","event":"Composition of the Greek original by Origen in Alexandria."},{"date":"c. 397–398 CE","event":"Latin translation by Rufinus of Aquileia."},{"date":"4th–5th c.","event":"Citation by Methodius of Olympus and Gregory of Nyssa."},{"date":"553 CE","event":"Condemnation of Origenist writings at the Second Council of Constantinople."},{"date":"undated","event":"Survival of the Latin text in manuscript tradition; Greek original lost."}],"relations":[{"work":"De Resurrectione (Methodius of Olympus)","relation":"Methodius cites and critiques Origen's resurrection theology in his own treatise.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"De anima et resurrectione (Gregory of Nyssa)","relation":"Gregory engages with Origen's views on resurrection.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Contra Celsum (Origen)","relation":"Origen's response to Celsus, a Platonist critic, parallels themes in De Resurrectione.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Commentary on John (Origen)","relation":"Origen's exegesis of resurrection themes appears in this work.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Rufinus's translation of Origen's De Principiis","relation":"Rufinus similarly adapted Origen's works, raising questions about fidelity.","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[],"cautions":["The Greek original is lost; the surviving Latin translation by Rufinus may adapt Origen's thought to later orthodox concerns.","The exact date of composition is uncertain; the range 220–230 CE is a scholarly estimate.","The edition (khazarzar) lacks critical apparatus and does not indicate manuscript family or variant readings.","The treatise's attribution to Origen is secure, but the fragmentary survival limits certainty about its original content."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000531,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:27:23Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Patrologia Graeca text (khazarzar mirror)","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/Origenes_PG%2011-17/De%20Resurrectione.pdf"}],"checks":{"work":"khazarzar-origenes-de-resurrectione","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":2,"translated":2,"commentary_passages":2,"commentary_units":12,"english_words":336,"source_letters":1316,"commentary_kinds":7},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The treatise argues for the physical resurrection of the body against Gnostic and Platonic spiritualizing interpretations. Origen insists on the identity of the resurrected body with the earthly one, while allowing for a refined, ethereal state.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The Greek original is lost; the work survives only in a Latin translation by Rufinus of Aquileia (c. 397–398). Rufinus’s rendering is known to be free and may adapt Origen’s thought to later orthodox concerns.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Composed likely between 220 and 230 CE, during Origen’s Alexandrian period. The treatise responds to contemporary debates with the Valentinian Gnostic Heracleon and the Platonist Celsus, though not explicitly named in the surviving text.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Cited by later Fathers such as Methodius of Olympus and Gregory of Nyssa, who both engage with Origen’s resurrection theology. The work was condemned along with other Origenist writings at the Second Council of Constantinople (553).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"Rufinus’s Latin translation may soften or omit passages that could be read as subordinationist or as denying the resurrection of the flesh. The reader cannot assume the Greek original said exactly what the Latin says.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This edition (khazarzar) provides the Latin text without a critical apparatus or collation of manuscripts. It does not indicate which manuscript family underlies the text, nor does it record variant readings from other witnesses.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"derived_work_notes":[{"kind":"coverage","severity":"info","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},{"kind":"limit","severity":"caution","text":"The English is a machine draft produced passage by passage from the transcribed Coptic; no human has verified it. The commentary is model-written and cites only keys the pipeline could resolve."},{"kind":"register","severity":"info","text":"Register: other in ancient Greek; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 2 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: khazarzar — Migne PG text (public domain); khazarzar host and the digitising project state no licence for this layer"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":2},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"Περὶ τοῦ Λαζάρου καὶ τοῦ πλουσίου ἀπορεῖσθαι δύναται· τῶν μὲν ἁπλουστέρων οἰομένων ταῦτα λελέχθαι, ὡς ἀμφοτέρων μετὰ τῶν σωμάτων λαμβανόντων τὰ ἄξια τῶν τῷ βίῳ πεπραγμένων· τῶν δὲ ἀκριβεστέρων, ἐπεὶ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν οὐδεὶς ἐν βίῳ καταλείπεται, οὐκ ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει οἰομένων ταῦτα γεγονέναι· λέγει γὰρ ὁ πλούσιος, ὅτι «πέντε ἀδελφοὺς ἔχω, καὶ ἵνα μὴ ἔλθωσιν εἰς τὸν τόπον τοῦτον τῆς βασάνου, πέμψον Λάζαρον ἀπαγγέλλοντα αὐτοῖς τὰ ἐνταῦθα·» καὶ διὰ τούτων ζητούντων τὴν γλῶσσαν, καὶ τὸν δάκτυλον, καὶ τοὺς κόλπους Ἀβραὰμ, καὶ τὴν ἀνάκλισιν. Καὶ τάχα τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἅμα τῇ ἀπαλλαγῇ σχῆμα ὁμοειδὲς ὂν τῷ παχεῖ καὶ γηΐνῳ σώματι δύναται οὕτως λαμβάνεσθαι. Εἴ ποτε γοῦν ἱστόρηταί τις τῶν κεκοιμημένων φαινόμενος, ὅμοιος ἑώραται τῷ ὅτε τὴν σάρκα εἶχε σχήματι. Εἶτα· Ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ Σαμουὴλ φαινόμενος, ὡς δῆλόν ἐστιν, ὁρατὸς ὢν, παρίστησιν ὅτι σῶμα περιέκειτο· μάλιστα ἐὰν ἀναγκασθῶμεν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποδείξεων τὴν οὐσίαν τῆς ψυχῆς ἀσώματον εἶναι καὶ ταύτην ἀποφήνασθαι. Ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ κολαζόμενος πλούσιος, καὶ ὁ ἐν κόλποις Ἀβραὰμ πένης ἀναπαυόμενος, πρὸ τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ Σωτῆρος καὶ πρὸ τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πρὸ τῆς ἀναστάσεως λεγόμενοι ὁ μὲν ἐν ᾅδου κολάζεσθαι, ὁ δὲ ἐν κόλποις Ἀβραὰμ ἀναπαύεσθαι, διδάσκουσιν ὅτι καὶ νῦν τῇ ἀπαλλαγῇ σώματι χρῆται ἡ ψυχή. Ἐκ τῶν Μεθοδίου. Φράσας (Ὠριγένης) ἀποφήνασθαι τὸν Κύριον, ὡς «οἱ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τευξόμενοι ἔσονται τότε ὡς ἄγγελοι,» ἔνθα πειράζουσιν αὐτὸν οἱ Σαδδουκαῖοι, ἐπέφερεν·","english":"Concerning Lazarus and the rich man, one may be perplexed: the simpler ones think these things have been said as though both receive, along with their bodies, the rewards for what they have done in life; but the more precise ones, since after the resurrection no one is left in life, do not think these things happened at the resurrection. For the rich man says, \"I have five brothers, and so that they may not come to this place of torment, send Lazarus to report to them what is here.\" And through these things they seek the tongue, the finger, the bosom of Abraham, and the reclining. And perhaps the form of the soul, at the moment of departure, being of the same form as the dense and earthly body, can be understood in this way. At any rate, if someone who has fallen asleep is ever seen appearing, he is seen in the same form as when he had flesh. Then: But Samuel also, appearing, as is evident, being visible, shows that he was clothed with a body; especially if we are compelled by the proofs to declare the substance of the soul to be incorporeal and to deny this. But also the rich man being punished, and the poor man resting in the bosom of Abraham, before the coming of the Savior and before the end of the age, and therefore before the resurrection, are said, the one to be punished in Hades, the other to rest in the bosom of Abraham, teaching that even now, at the departure, the soul uses a body. From the works of Methodius. Having spoken (Origen) to declare the Lord as saying, \"Those who will attain the resurrection will then be as angels,\" where the Sadducees test him, he added:","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Περὶ τοῦ Λαζάρου καὶ τοῦ πλουσίου","severity":"info","text":"The parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31) is the subject of Origen's exegetical perplexity, as he debates whether its events occur before or after the resurrection.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"σχῆμα","severity":"info","text":"σχῆμα ('form' or 'shape') here denotes the soul's post-mortem appearance, which Origen suggests is isomorphic to the dense earthly body, a key concept in his anthropology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Σαμουὴλ φαινόμενος","severity":"info","text":"The reference to Samuel appearing (cf. 1 Sam 28:11-14) invokes the story of Saul and the Witch of Endor, used by Origen to argue that the soul retains a visible, body-like form after death.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Ἐκ τῶν Μεθοδίου","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'From the works of Methodius' indicates that this passage is preserved as a citation by Methodius of Olympus, a critic of Origen, in his own treatise on resurrection.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Εἶτα","severity":"info","text":"The particle Εἶτα ('Then') marks a transition in Origen's argument, moving from the Lazarus parable to the example of Samuel's apparition as further evidence for the soul's embodied state.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀποφήνασθαι","severity":"caution","text":"The verb ἀποφήνασθαι ('to declare') is ambiguous: it may mean Origen asserted the angelic state of the resurrected, or that he merely reported the Lord's saying; the fragmentary context leaves the exact claim unclear.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'ἀποφήνασθαι τὸν Κύριον' could mean Origen declared the Lord's saying or that the Lord himself declared; the Coptic context does not resolve the agent.","The reference to 'the tongue, the finger, the bosom of Abraham, and the reclining' is obscure, possibly alluding to specific details in the Lazarus parable or to allegorical interpretations now lost."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"«Οἱ δὲ ἄγγελοι ἐκτὸς ὄντες σαρκὸς ἐν μακαριότητος ἀκρότητι, διὰ τοῦτο καὶ δόξης εἰσί· καὶ ἡμᾶς δὲ ἄρα ἐξισάζεσθαι μέλλοντας ἀγγέλοις ἀνάγκη δὴ σαρκῶν ὡσαύτως ἐκείνοις γυμνοὺς ἔσεσθαι δεῖν.»","english":"The angels, being without flesh in the utmost blessedness, are for this reason also in glory; and we, therefore, who are to be made equal to the angels, must necessarily be stripped of flesh, just as they are.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Οἱ δὲ ἄγγελοι ἐκτὸς ὄντες σαρκὸς","severity":"info","text":"Origen argues that angels are without flesh and in supreme blessedness, and that humans, who are to become equal to angels, must likewise be stripped of flesh.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"glossary","lemma":"ἐξισάζεσθαι","severity":"info","text":"The verb ἐξισάζεσθαι (to be made equal) echoes the promise of angelic assimilation in early Christian eschatology, a key theme in Origen's soteriology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀγγέλοις","severity":"info","text":"The notion of becoming equal to angels recalls Matthew 22:30 and Luke 20:36, where resurrection life is angelic, though Origen here applies it to the interim state.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"σαρκῶν γυμνοὺς","severity":"info","text":"Origen's insistence on fleshlessness after resurrection counters contemporary literalist interpretations of bodily reward, as seen in the preceding Lazarus discussion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"διὰ τοῦτο ... καὶ ... δέ","severity":"info","text":"The argument moves from angelic condition (διὰ τοῦτο) to human necessity (καὶ ... δέ), forming a logical syllogism: angels are fleshless, so humans must be too.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"ἀνάγκη δὴ σαρκῶν ὡσαύτως ἐκείνοις γυμνοὺς ἔσεσθαι δεῖν","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase is grammatically redundant (ἀνάγκη ... δεῖν), possibly a scribal gloss or conflation; the sense is clear but the text may be corrupt.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'ἀνάγκη δὴ σαρκῶν ὡσαύτως ἐκείνοις γυμνοὺς ἔσεσθαι δεῖν' is pleonastic; the reading taken is that Origen asserts necessity of fleshlessness, but the exact syntax may reflect scribal intervention."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}