Was Origen Condemned in 553?

Debates about Origen, "Origenism," and those influenced by, or in the shadow of either (e.g., Evagrius) have raged for centuries. Was Origen condemned, and fairly? And if so, does this extend to those influenced by him? Or was this a case of his successors and disciples getting him into trouble for their own antics and perhaps dodgy positions that Origen may or may not have shared? Attempts to answer this question turn in significant measure on the fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 553, whose acta we have in a new edition.

First released in hardback in 2009, and in September of this year in paperback, is another volume in a very welcome series from the University of Liverpool Press: Richard Price, ed., The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553: With Related Texts on the Three Chapters Controversy (2012, 384pp).

About this book the publisher tells us:

Because it condemned two of the greatest biblical scholars and commentators of the patristic era, the Council of Constantinople of 553 has long been considered the most controversial of the ecumenical councils. The council and its organizer, the Byzantine emperor Justinian, used brutality toward their opponents and the falsification of documents in order to pass decrees. However, this translation of the Council’s Acts by Richard Price reveals that the theology of the council was both opportune and constructive and its contributions to Christian unity were well-intentioned and not wholly unsuccessful. In his commentary, Price thoughtfully reevaluates material neglected by historians of the period.