Theophilus of Alexandria and Hellenistic Philosophy II-3: Theophilus and the Origenist Crisis (End of Part II)

Last updated on: April 24, 2008 at 9:15 am by Henry Karlson

Theophilus of Alexandria and Hellenistic Philosophy II-3: Theophilus and the Origenist Crisis (End of Part II) 2008-04-24T09:15:18-05:00 Henry Karlson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Part I Part II-1

Part II-2

Probably the most important text we have by Theophilus on Origenism is his letter concerning the Alexandrian Synod of 400.[i] This is because, among other things, his accusations against Origen were fresh and he had not yet been distracted by political disputes. In it, we find several charges made against the teachings of Origen. Central to Theophilus’ concern was On First Principles, but it is clear it was not the only text he was criticizing. For the sake of accuracy, Theophilus often quoted directly from Origen’s writings, as for example when he quotes from On the Resurrection, where it says that magic, if real, is not to be considered evil or wretched, “Ars magica non mihi uidetur âlicuius rei subsistentis uocabulum, sed et, si sit, nequaquam est operis mali nec quod haberi possit contemptui.”[ii] He wanted his readers to be assured that the errors being denounced were legitimately those of Origen and not just his followers.

Theologically, the most important charge was that Origen subordinated the Son to the Father. Through his reading of Origen, Theophilus showed how he did not meet the basic requirements for Trinitarian orthodoxy. We find three separate but related criticisms concerning this point within the synodical letter. First, Origen said that the Son, in relation to us, is to be seen as the truth or “ueritas,” but when compared to the Father, he is like a lie, “patri conlatu mendacium.”[iii] Secondly, unlike the eternal reign of the Father, he believed that Christ’s kingdom will have an end, “Christi regnum finietur aliquando.”[iv] Finally, Origen suggested that our prayers should not be directed towards Christ: they should be given to the Father alone, “non debemus orare filium, sed solum patrem.”[v]

Theophilus also believed that Origen held a deficient understanding of the efficacy of Christ’s work. One way he pointed this out was by examining Origen’s beliefs about the resurrection: he claimed that Origen believed we would have perishable bodies after being resurrected from the dead.[vi] This, of course, was because Origen did not hold the body in high esteem. Rather, he believed that the body is something that will one day be discarded once it was no longer of use.[vii]

Origen’s cosmology was also criticized. Three important charges against Origen’s view of angels and demons are worthy of note. They are 1) Origen believed that all angels were, to one degree or another, fallen, and their ranking within the celestial hierarchy was based upon how great a fall they had. The greater the fall, the less rank they held.[viii] 2) Origen believed that at least some of the angels ate from the sacrifices of the Jewish temple.[ix] 3) Is a very controversial charge, for in it Theophilus said that Origen believed that “pro daemonibus quoque et spiritalibus nequitiis“, Christ would one day be crucified again.[x]

We must understand that Origen’s theodicy was based upon his peculiar notions of the cosmic fall. After our souls also had fallen from a heavenly bliss they came to be attached to earthly bodies. This theodicy, however, would make the possession of the body not something which was good, as Scripture had indicated, but rather a perversion of the original order of nature. Thus questions developed such as how could Christ come and take flesh and not be a fallen creature as well. We consistently find in Theophilus’ later writings questions surrounding this aspect of Origen’s theology.[xi] Also, Origen seemed to teach that even after returning to heaven, we could fall again once again. Thus, Theophilus wrote that Origen did not believe our salvation was securely established by Christ.[xii]

In the synodical letter of 400, Theophilus attributed some of these errors to be from how Origen mixed Christian doctrine with idolatry.[xiii] But, in a more interesting and telling description, Theophilus’ paschal letter from 402 made the connection between Origen’s teachings and Hellenistic philosophy. Origen is said to have taken on the “philosophorum pannos“ instead of the shining new and firm clothing of the Church.[xiv] Having taken these “rags of the philosophers,” Origen (and his later disciples), try to bring into the Church errors which, not only are incompatible with the Christian faith, but are outright blasphemous.

Certainly Theophilus is reading into Origen’s teachings what developed out of them by subsequent Origenists.[xv] Yet, he is also clearly addressing Origen, and his perception is that one of Origen’s mistakes is that he had borrowed erroneous teachings from the philosophers. Thus it must be said that Theophilus’ complaint is not with the borrowing of philosophy, but with doing it poorly (hence, taking the worst of philosophy, that is, its rags). By looking at the different criticisms stated above, we can see how Origenistic teachings, at least concerning these points, do have parallels in Hellenistic philosophy. Origen’s theology at its base has strong ties to Platonic metaphysics.[xvi] Origen’s subordination of the Son to the Father looks extremely like Platonic theories concerning the relationship between the Logos and the First Principle.[xvii] We must remember that in Origen’s time, the Trinitarian doctrine had not been fully developed. It is understandable that, when he tried to demonstrate the relationship of the three persons with one another, that Origen would develop his Trinitarian doctrine along Platonic lines. However, this does not explain everything about Origen’s theology. For example, by saying a Christian should only pray to the Father and not to the Son, he held a belief which would not go well with the Platonists, but does go well with the monotheistic tradition from which the Church sprung (if one admits that Origen is a subordinationist).[xviii]

Origen’s theology of the resurrection clearly shows the kinds of concern someone educated within Hellenistic philosophy would have, and did have, with Christianity. Within Hellenism there is a long strain of thought, going back before Plato, which treats the body as a tomb for the soul.[xix] Plato saw death as something good. Philosophy was a preparation for death – a time when the soul will finally cast off its body.[xx] Thus, when Christianity said – to the horror of many within the classical world – that the soul would be reunited with the body, the immediate question that an educated Hellene would ask is — why? What would be the point?[xxi] There was also a strand of thought, similar to what we find in Origen, which suggested that the soul’s union with the body was an indication of some sort of fall.[xxii] Thus, not only did Christians find ridicule for their belief in the resurrection, they were also asked: if Jesus is God*,* how could he be incarnated without being tainted by it? Origen’s cosmology, with a mark of genius, tried to take all of these concerns together. He tried to create a theological system which could answer such demanding questions. His belief that the body would be perishable even after the resurrection was tied to his belief that we would one day overcome the need for a body in our spiritual ascent, or “reversion.”[xxiv] Yet, as Theophilus points out, such a view does call into question the value of the resurrection, and with it, Jesus’ incarnation. Was it, as Christianity taught, a union never to be dissolved? In this way, we can also understand why, in the writings of Theophilus, “the Eucharist is brought forward as an argument for the reality and meaningfulness of corporeal nature.”[xxv] The goodness of the material universe needed to be defended, and Theophilus was willing to bring into the discussion all that he could muster, including Christian liturgical beliefs.

Origen was, despite all of this, highly critical of philosophy (more so than, for example, Clement of Alexandria).[xxvi] Nonetheless, he was a man of his times, and he was influenced by the philosophical milieu he lived in.[xxvii] Origen, like several others before him, indicated that Christians could legitimately take views from philosophy, but only in a limited sense.[xxviii] When looking at these condemnations against Origen and how they relate to philosophy, one can still wonder what connected the theology of Origen with the anthropomorphic controversy? Elizabeth Clark quite reasonably shows us that these concerns actually came from the Origenism of the late 4th century, especially from the teachings of Evagrius.[xxix] There were two monastic spiritualities that were being developed in the desert: one, with Evagrius, following strands of Origen’s thought, sought a spirituality which slowly moved itself into a prayer that transcended the use of images and the imagination. Taking for granted that the divinity was “invisible” and “incorporeal,” Evagrian monasticism saw the ascent to the divine would require us to put off all things of the flesh behind us.[xxx] Yet, for many of the monks, who were simpler in their faith, and probably of less mental capacity, this kind of spirituality was not something they could follow. And, as we have seen, they believed it went too far because it seemed to reject the Biblical portrait of God.[xxxi]

In looking at how Theophilus portrayed Origen, we can see a hint of his own relationship with Hellenistic philosophy. While there is another piece of evidence which we need to explore next, it is fitting to consider how carefully worded Theophilus’ criticism of Origen was — of how Theophilus said it was the rags of philosophy that Origen had used for his theology. This would suggest that Theophilus, like many Christians, would not find a difficulty in adapting certain aspects of philosophy for Christian theology, but, following de Vogel’s model, would require an extremely critical adaptation in order to make sure what was received truly fits with Christian theology. While Origen followed this model as well, Theophilus might respond that Origen and his followers were not as critical as they needed to be. This, surprisingly enough, is supported by Jerome, who, in a letter of praise, compliments Theophilus’ use of philosophy and rhetoric in his condemnation of Origen.[xxxii] Yet, this is still too simplistic an answer, and does not really explain the situation. For when we look into what happened after the Origenistic crisis, when he ordained his friend Synesius of Cyrene, we fill get a greater understanding of Theophilus, and it will raise questions about what he found acceptable and unacceptable within Hellenism.

Footnotes

[i] Because, outside of fragments, the text we have of this letter comes from Jerome’s Latin translation, I will be citing the letter as it is found in the collection of Jerome’s letters. To connect the letters which I will use with the years in which they were written, Jerome’s Epistle 92= Theophilus’ Synodical Letter of 400; Jerome’s Epistle 96 = Theophilus Ep. Paschalis 401; Jerome’s Epistle 98= Theophilus Ep. Paschalis 402.
[ii] Jerome, Epistle 92 (CSEL 55, 152).
[iii] Jerome, Epistle 92 (CSEL 55, 148-149).
[iv] Jerome, Epistle 92 (CSEL 55, 149).
[v] Jerome, Epistle 92 (CSEL 55, 149).
[vi] That is, “resurgens corpus non solum corruptible sed mortale erit,“ Jerome, Epistle 92 (CSEL 55, 149).
[vii] See Paul Crego, “Theodoret of Kyros on the Relationship of the Body and the Soul Before Birth,” in Greek Orthodox Theological Review 41, no.1 (1996):25 to see how this continues to be criticized in current theological research.
[viii] Jerome, Epistle 92 (CSEL 55, 149).
[ix] Jerome, Epistle 92 (CSEL 55, 149-150).
[x] Jerome, Epistle 92 (CSEL 55, 152).
[xi] For example, if the body is to be seen as something evil, how could marriage and reproduction be considered good, as Paul had written in the Scriptures? To this Theophilus said, “audiat nos cum Paulo suis auribus inclamentes: honorabiles nuptiae et cubile inmaculatum. Et quomodo inmaculatum, si anima uitiis sordidata carne circumdatur ?” Jerome, Epistle 96 (CSEL 55, 178). This theme was central in Theophilus subsequent criticisms of Origen. Scripture attests to the goodness of the created order, and with it, of reproduction. If the soul has to fall in order to join with the body, how can reproduction be good, or why would God command it in Genesis? See Jerome, Epistle 100 (CSEL 55, 225-226).
[xii] Jerome, Epistle 96 (CSEL 55, 167).
[xiii] Jerome, Epistle 92 (CSEL 55, 153).
[xiv] Jerome, Epistle 98 (CSEL 55, 193-194).
[xv] Thus, Elizabeth Clark makes the point that with many of Theophilus’ criticisms were “veiled references to Evagrius,” Clark, Origenist, 7. This is not too surprising, since the opponents which Theophilus had in mind, the Tall Brothers, were at one time associates of Evagrius. It is also very important to note that when this controversy started, Evagrius was already dead.
[xvi] About this Henry Chadwick writes, “He takes for granted the Platonist’s conception of the metaphysical structure of the world..,” Henry Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966), 111.
[xvii] For a discussion of Middle Platonic thought on the “One,” the Logos, and the World Soul and their relationships to each other, see John M. Dillon, The Middle Platonists: 80 B.C. to A.D. 220. (Rev. ed. Ithica, New York: Cornell University Press, 1996), 45 – 49.
[xviii] Especially in the Platonic Academy of Athens we see the philosophical development of the Platonic hierarchy of being into a hierarchy of mediation. Probably the most succinct example of this is found in Iamblichus’ On the Mysteries. Even though Iamblichus wrote after Origen, and they disagreed on the question of mediation, we can still see how Theophilus’ concerns with Origen were also concerns Christians could have with elements of Athenian Neoplatonic philosophy. Thus, condemning Origen for stating angels were fed from the altar of the Temple could also be a not-so-veiled attack on Iamblichus’ defense of paganism. Criticizing the value of magic certain serves as a criticism of theurgy. See A.A. Barb, “The Survival of Magic Arts,” in The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century (ed. Arnaldo Momoigliano: Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), 114 – 116.
[xix] N. Clayton Groy, “Hellenistic Philosophers and the Preaching of the Resurrection (Acts 17:18, 32),” Novum Testamentum 39, no. 1 (1997): 29.
[xx] Nicholas P. Vassiliades, “The Mystery of Death,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 29, no.3 (1984): 270.
[xxi] Porphyry, a contemporary of Origen, leaves us one of many ways this question was asked. “For what purpose should God intervene in this way, completely and arbitrarily overturning a course of events that had always been held good – namely, the plan ordained by him at the beginning….? ” Porphyry, Porphyry’s Against the Christians: The Literary Remains (ed. and trans. R. Joseph Hoffman; Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1994), 90.
[xxii] Platonists struggled with this; they tried to find a way to explain our existence in the world without agreeing with the gnostics, because they disagreed with the gnostic suggestion that the universe was evil. John Dillon explains what this meant to Plotinus. “Plotinus, for instance, though he does give us in one tractate (4.8; and cf. 5.1.1) a rather vivid portrayal of the fall of the soul, also argues both elsewhere and in the same tractate, that the world has developed to its present state by a natural progression. There is nothing actually wrong. Since the first principle, the One, is supremely perfect, anything it produces, must, since must be different from it, necessarily be ‘worse’ that it, and the process of creation once begun […] must proceed through all possible stages of inferiority to the ultimate depth nonbeing, which is unformed Matter,” John Dillon, “The Descent of the Soul in Middle Platonic and Gnostic Theory,” in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, Volume 1 (ed. B. Layton; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1980), 357.
[xxiii] Celsus asked this question in the following way. “A god who comes down to men undergoes change – a change from good to bad; from beautiful to shameful; from happiness to misfortune; from what is perfect to what is wicked. Now what sort of a god would chose to change like that ?” Celsus, Celsus, On the True Doctrine: A Discourse Against the Christians (trans. R. Joseph Hoffman; New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 78.
[xxiv] For a thorough discussion on the spiritual circuit – procession and reversion, and the possibility of a transformation of the body into spirit, see A.C. Lloyd, The Anatomy of Neoplatonism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990; repr. 1998), 123 – 139.
[xxv] Clark, Origenist, 113.
[xxvi] Henry Chadwick thus tells us, “Origen always writes as a member of a martyr church, and his attitude towards pagan philosophy and culture is less sympathetic than Clement’s, passing at times into ice-cold disparagement. For Clement Plato enjoyed high authority. In Origen’s eyes he enjoyed none whatever. Origen recognized, of course, that Plato had said many wise things, and that his dialogues contain much that is true. But with Origen one feels that he believed it to be true almost despite Plato, not because of him,” Henry Chadwick, The Early Church (London: Pelican Books, 1967; repr., London: Penguin Books, 1990), 100-101.
[xxvii] Chadwick, Early Christian Thought, 111.
[xxviii] Origen compared the Christian use of pagan philosophy to the ransacking of Egyptian treasures by the Israelites in the Exodus. See Origen, A Letter from Origen to Gregory 2 (ANF 4).
[xxix] See Clark, Origenist, 61 – 63. Also, in the very opening of On First Principles, we find Origen rejecting the idea that God is corporeal.
[xxx] “The worship experience cherished by the Egyptian monks was that of mystic contemplation and the vision of God, achieved by stringent self-mortification in order to free the spirit from all distractions of earthly concerns and entanglements in sensual delights so that it might occupy itself fully with heavenly things […] Such mystical worship presupposed a conception of God as utterly alien to all material and earthly things, totally invisible, immaterial, unbegotten, ineffable, and, of course, incorporeal.” Shepherd, “The Anthropomorphic Controversy,” 265-6.
[xxxi] “No doubt, there were in Egypt also rustic monks who were addicted to literal interpretation of Scriptural images – simplicitate rustica, in the phrase of St. Jerome, which refers, however, to the situation in Palestine,” Florovsky, “Theophilus of Alexandria and Apa Aphou of Pemdje,” 306.
[xxxii] “In principiis philosopharis et generaliter agens, dum omnes erudis, unum iugulas; in reliquis autem, quod uel difficillimum est, rhetoricae eloquentiae iungis philosophum et Demosthenen atque Platonem nobis consocias,” Jerome, Epistle 96 (CSEL 55, 212).

Previous Post

April 23, 2008

Quote of the Week: Jean-Marie Cardinal Lustiger

Next Post

April 24, 2008 Judge Says Breastfeeding Causes Abuse

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2019 A Consistent Ethic of Life Aaron Weldon Abortion absurdity Abuse Scandal Academics Adoption Advent Africa agreement/disagreement with Church teaching Alexander Schmemann Alexham Alterity America Amnesty International Anarchism angels Anglicanism Animals Annual Statistics Anthony Anxietas Apocalyptic Apophatic Appalachia Aquinas Art Atheism Atonement Augustine Authority Baptism Beauty Bible biblical criticism biblical scholarship Bioethics Bishops Black Catholics Black Theology Blackadder Blogs Books Breastfeeding Brett Salkeld Buddhism Bush administration Byzantine Catholic Calvinism Canada Canon Law Capital Punishment Capitalism Caryll Houselander Catholic Blog Awards Catholic Blogging Catholic League Catholic Social Teaching Catholic Worker Movement Catholicity CFL Charity Children Chris West Christ and Culture Christian Democracy Christian Unity Christmas Christology Church Church Doctrine Church History Climate Change Cohabitation Colbert Collegiality Communion Communism Comparative Theology Competition Conferences conscience conscience rights Consequentialism Consistent Life Ethics Consumerism Contraception Contrition Conversion Converts Coptic COVID-19 Creation Critical Thinking Cross Cuba Culture Culture of Death Culture of Life Darfur David Cruz-Uribe David Wheeler-Reed Death Death Penalty Democracy Demons Desert Fathers Devil Dialogue dignity Disability Disarmament discernment Discipleship discrimination Dissent Distributism Division Doctrine Domestic Church Dorothy Day Double Effect Doubt Down syndrome Driving Early Church Easter Eastern Churches Ecclesiology Economics Economy Ecumenism Education El Salvador Election Election 2020 Ellul Embryonic Stem Cell Research Empire Energy Enlighenment Environmentalism Ephraim Radner Episcopal Church epistemology Equality Eschatology Ethics Eucharist Europe Euthanasia Evangelization Evil Evolution Excommunication F.X. Durrwell Facism Facts Fair Trade Faith Family Fashion Feddie Feminism Feminist theology Fertility Fetal Rights Fiction Film Finances First Things flags Folk Religion Food Foreign Affairs Forgiveness Frank Sheed Free Speech Freedom gay & lesbian persons Genocide George W. Bush George Weigel Gerald L. Campbell Girard/Mimetic Theory Global Warming Globalization Gnosticism Good Friday Grace Gratitude Greed Grey Cup 2009 Guadalupe Guest Post Guest Posts Gun Control Gustave Martelet Habitat for Humanity Hans Urs von Balthasar Harry Potter Hate Speech Health Health Care Healthcare Heather King Hebrew Bible Henri de Lubac Henry Karlson Herbert McCabe Heresy HHS Mandate Controversy History Holidays Holiness Holy Spirit Homiletics Homily Homosexuality Hope Hospitality How Far Can We Go? How Far Can We Go? Human Person Human Rights Humanae Vitae Humility Humor Hunger Hunting Identity Idolatry Ignacio Ellacuría Imagination Immigration In Memoriam Income Inequality Inculturation Indigenous People Individualism Inklings Intellect Interdependence Internet Interpretation Interviews Introduction Iraq War Islam Israel Jain James Alison James Martin Jazz Jesus Christ Jews Joe Biden Joe Hargrave Johann Baptist Metz John Allen John Henry Newman John Paul II John the Baptist John XXIII Jonathan Josef Pieper Joseph (the husband of Mary) Joseph Bernardin Joseph Ratzinger Josh Brumfield Journals Joy Judgment Just War Justice Kari Lundgren Karl Rahner Katerina Ivanovna Kenya Keynes Kingdom of God Kyle R. Cupp Labor Language Latin America Law Leanne Ogasawara Legion of Christ Leisure Lent Liberalism Liberation Theology Libertarianism Libya Lies Life life & dignity & responsibility of the human person Literature Little Way Liturgical music Liturgical Year Liturgy Living Simply Living Wage Local Church Lombard Lord of the Rings Louis Dupre Love M.Z. Magic Magisterium Mark DeFrancisis Mark Gordon Marriage Martin Luther Martin Luther King Jr. Martyrdom Marxism Mary Masculinity Matt Talbot Matthew Fish Matthew Levering McCain Media Memorial Day Mennonites Mental Illness mercy Michael Iafrate Middle East militarism Miroslav Volf Mitt Romney Modesty Moral Theology Morality Mormonism Morning's Minion Mother Teresa Music Muslims Natalie Nate Wildermuth Nationalism Native Americans Nature Nazis Neuhaus New Evangelization New York City News NFP nihilism Nonviolence Not Abortion Nova's Ordo Nuclear weapons Nuns Obama Occult Old Age Opus Dei Ordination ordination of women original sin Orthodoxy Oscar Romero Other Voices Pacifism Palestine Palin Papacy Papal Peace Messages Papal Social Encyclicals Particular Affections Partisanship Patriotism Paul Paul Ryan Paul VI Peace Pentimento persecution Personalism Phantastes Philosophy PKD Planned Parenthood Pluralism Poetry Policraticus Politcal Apathy Politics Poll Pope Benedict XVI Pope Francis Pope John Paul II Pope Leo XIV Population Postcolonialsim Poverty Power Prayer Preaching Predictions Predictions for 2012 President Barack Obama priestly formation & discernment Pro-Life Progress Prophetic Witness Proportionalism Public Diplomacy Public Policy Question Quotes Rachel Maddow Racism Radical Catholic Mom Radical Catholicism Raymund Schwager Real Catholic TV Real Presence Reconciliation Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange Religion religious freedom Responsibility Ressourcement Resurrection Rick Garnett Ridiculous Crap You Never Thought You'd See Robert Barron Roe v. Wade Roman Curia Rome Russia Sacraments Saints Salvation History Sam Harris Sam Rocha Same-sex Marriage Saskatchewan Roughriders Satire School of the Americas Science Scripture Seamless Garment Second Vatican Council Seeing Sex sexual violence Sexuality Sia Sin social justice Social Security Socialism Society of Jesus Sofia Loves Wisdom Solidarity Sophia soteriology Soutenus Spirituality Sports St. Dismas St. Joseph Stanley Hauerwas Statistics Stimulus Suffering Sunday Reflections Supernatural Supreme Court Symbolism Syria Taxing Technology Terrorism The State The Tea Party The Trump Administration Theological Anthropology Theology Theotokos Thomas Merton Throwaway Culture Tim Muldoon Tim Riley Tim Tebow Time Titian Tolkien Torture Toys Trade Traditionalism Transgender Transportation Transubstantiation Trinity Truth TV U.S. Affairs Uncategorized Unions unity among people who disagree US Catholicism USCCB Usury Utilitarianism Utopia Valentine's Day Vatican Vatican II Veterans Vicarious Suffering Video Violence Virgin Mary Vocations Voluntary Associations Voluntary Poverty Voting Vox Nova vox nova blog war War and Peace War Strategy Wealth Weirdness Welfare state Women Women Priests Work Woundedness Youth

Select a Month June 2026 May 2025 February 2025 January 2025 July 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 July 2023 March 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 November 2021 September 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does "Bethsaida" mean in Hebrew?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Place of Bread God’s Dwelling City of Refuge House of Fishing