Talk:Origenist crises

Something's wrong here.

This article must acknowledge controversies around Origen that prompted the work of Pamphilus and Eusebius. That is, "First" Origenist Controversy can be misleading, as if there were no disputes before the 390s.

This entire section on the second Origenist controversy needs to be revisited. The monograph of Daniel Hombergen, The Second Origenist Controversy. A New Perspective on Cyril of Scythopolis' Monastic Biographies as Historical Sources for Sixth‐Century Origenism (Studia Anselmiana, 132.) Pontifico Ateneo S. Anselmo, 2001, 88 8139 091 4, is nowhere cited, and that absence shows, quite painfully. Three monographs published by Gabriel Bunge in 2021, 2022, and 2023 need to be taken into account as well.

The article contains this quote: "In 394, Epiphanius wrote to John of Jerusalem, again asking for Origen to be condemned, insisting that Origen's writings denigrated human sexual reproduction and accusing him of having been an Encratite." While I don't know whether Origen "denigrated human sexual reproduction," Epiphanius certainly did. I can't make out how Epiphanius could accuse Origen of denigrating human sexual reproduction when Epiphanius condemned any and all marriage of any Church office holder (who didn't put his wife aside "in his service to God"). He also insisted the idea of Mary being Joseph's wife (sexually) an unimaginable horror! He considered the alternative view to make Mary entirely other than "pure." 50.45.241.212 (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)