Origen and the Life of the Stars: A History of an Idea

by Alan Scott

From the days of antiquity to the time of the Middle Ages, intellectuals have widely assumed that stars were alive, a belief that gave the cosmos an important position not only in Greek religion, but also in discussions of human psychology and eschatology. In the third century AD, the Christian theologian Origen included such Hellenistic theories on the life and nature of the stars in his cosmology, a theory that would have important implications for early Christian theology. Moving through a wide range of Greek, Latin, and Oriental sources from antiquity to medieval times, this is the first thorough treatment of Origen's biblical theology. The second book in the new Oxford Early Christian Studies series, Origen and the Life of the Stars provides a new look at the roots of early Christian thought.

Genres: History, Philosophy

206 pages, Paperback

First published February 24, 1991

Reviews

[Kapo Kap]

I loved it. It walks you through cosmologies and philosophical understanding of Heaven starting from Plato, and then through Aristotle, other Hellenistic philosophers, Stoics and early Christian thinkers before it gets to Origen. This way you can see the background he was working with and how he tried to understand the world from this new Christian world view which has a benevolent God overseeing everything below and above the heavens, while building his monotheistic theology on a pagan foundation as his starting point.

So it was especially interesting for me to see Origen going about theodicy, as pagans didn't believe in any special goodness of the gods so it made sense to them that life was full of sufferings and it didn't require any explanation. While Christians, at least if they wanted to win an argument, had to explain why, if their God is so good and merciful and just, life is so full of injustices and pain? Something I think didn't survive from that ancient Christian theodicy today (at least in our commonplace understanding of evil) is the idea that even material things (including basic elements like fire, air, water, earth) are being governed by God's intermediates, like angels, stars and whatnot. And even though those are ontologically higher creatures than humans and are closer to God and much more powerful, they still allegedly have their free will independent from God and can f*ck up. So as I understood it, if today we see sufferings caused by natural disasters or deseases humans have no control over as neutral occurances that accidentally harm humans on their way without meaning to, from that Early Christian (I mean not that early, it was already 3rd century CE, when Apostolic age was in the past and Christian thought was taken over by overeducated men coming from Roman leading centers of learning) point of view it would be understood as acts of a higher intelligent entity that is bad at their job or is intentionally evil and follows Satan's orders rather than God's. Fascinating, very cool, very whimsical. Explains why people would try to cure deseases with exorcism and many more.

[Jacob Aitken]

Alan Scott sheds light on key problems in Hellenism by focusing on Origen’s view of the stars’ souls. Ancient Greece certainly discussed the possibility that the stars are alive (and we will use the phrase” alive,” “intelligence,” and “souls” interchangeably in this review) but there was no consensus.

A problem for later Platonists: if the “divine” is incorporeal, and if stars are divine, how can we see them in the heavens? Jewish and Christian thinkers exploited this weak point. The only way to respond to this criticism was to weaken the “divine claim” and see them rather as intermediate beings.

Scott argues against reading too much of any single school into Origen’s thought. While he is close to Middle Platonism, for example, he was also very familiar with Jewish Apocalypticism and Gnosticism (Scott 54).

Problem: how does the soul enter into the generative powers of the world? Phaedrus said because of evil, whereas Timeaus said because of a good demiurge. “The belief began to slowly evolve that the soul was joined to the body through the medium of an ‘astral body’” (77). This became a major theme in Platonism after Iamblichus (79). At this time Oriental sources entered Hellenistic thought, notably Mithraism, which taught that a gate corresponded to a planet (82).

However, once the idea of fate was firmly attached to the stars, and given that people have “bad luck,” many began to question whether the stars were truly benign. This meant, among other things, that the neutral “daimons” in the heavenly realms could now be seen as demons in the traditional understanding (90-93).

rigen divides the soul with a highest sense--mind (nous). This is fallen and capable of sin. There is an unfallen portion called “spirit” (pneuma). Origen is aware that many of his views are speculative, and he is not setting them forth as doctrine (122). He is “thinking out loud” in the face of very difficult problems. And compared to the current Alexandrian cosmology, Origen’s is quite restrained (124).

Are the stars alive?

Origen tentatively answered “maybe.” But before we judge him, we must see that his answers are based on terminology that both Christians and pagans accepted. For example, only rational agents are self-moving. This would appear that the stars are in some sense rational agents. But Origen was also aware of Jewish Apocalyptic and he would have been on better ground had he said that “angels move the stars.”

This really isn’t that problematic. Scientifically wrong, to be sure, but that’s all. The problem came when Origen had to account for why some stars are greater than others. And is answer, of course, was of some pre-temporal fall. And that is problematic.

Origen is actually very careful on this point. He affirms the resurrection body, but he knows, as does Paul in 1 Cor. 15, that it isn’t the same type of body we have today. But perhaps he gets in trouble with his discussions of the “astral body.” All Christians have to believe in the post-mortem existence of the soul. This is a mode of existence that isn’t bodily yet which the soul is in one place at one time.

Given both Scriptural teachings, logic, and the experiences of wise saints, we posit that the soul has an existence after death. But how does it exist? Does it recognize other souls? Surely it does. Is it omnipresent in the spiritual world? Certainly not, for not even angels (who are bodiless) are omnipresent. Therefore, there must be some sort of identifiable mode of existing that is bodiless. Origen called this an “astral body.”

Conclusion

Does Scott fully vindicate Origen? Not quite, but he does alleviate a lot of problems. Origen was very reticent about using philosophy. He didn’t innovate but rather held to established, conservative opinions in the intellectual world (even if they were wrong in hindsight). And throughout this narrative Scott gives a lucid account of how pagan cosmology developed in its self-reflection.

[Andrew]

Extremely interesting topic, would love to see how it develops later. I couldn’t put it down!