Omne bonum a Deo, omne malum ab homine

[Aenesidemus]

What is the origin of
Omne bonum a Deo, omne malum ab homine
?

Please do not tell me that it is "a saying. " I would like to know its first appearance in literature, whether that author invented it or not. Is it in Augustine?

Thank you.

 

[Aurifex]

What is the origin of
Omne bonum a Deo, omne malum ab homine
? Is it in Augustine?

Not as such; only the first part appears in his writings, as far as I know.

Please do not tell me that it is "a saying. "

I'm not sure I follow your meaning there.

 

[Aenesidemus]

Thanks for your response. By my "Please..." I was trying to prevent some one ( intending to be helpful) saying that it is merely an anonymous saying that had been around forever. For any sentence, there is a first appearance in literature, even if we may suspect or have reason to know that somebody said it earlier, orally or in a lost work.

 

[Vergilius Amanuensis]

Salve fratres! This is my first post, so hello all. I don't think this concept originally spawns from Saint Augustine (similar sentiments may be found in Paul), but here are a couple quotations nonetheless:

"Si quis sie de Christo sive de eius ecclesia sive de quacunque alia re quae pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram non dicam si nos sed quod Paulus adiecit si angelus de caelo vobis annuntiaverit praeterquam quod in Scripturis et Evangelicis accepistis anathema sit". Or, once more: "Magnus es Domine et laudabilis valde".

Augustine, being greatly influenced by Plato and Plotinus, taught that if the Bible is just (in the 29th chapter of Jeremias, I believe) in saying that God fills Heaven and Earth, he must also contain what he fills, himself being of a finite nature and his subject not sharing this (according to Plotinus, such an ideal nature cannot fully be imparted, for this would not be an act of creation, not even of 'duplication', which is a contradiction, or anything else contextually exterior), but that all nature must draw its qualities (for Aquinas, "accidents"), insofar as those which serve to qualify and therefore define, and therefore all that exists must necessarily be good, and whatsoever may be negated essentially also be good, for that it can be negated, and suffer loss, while that which (philosophically, morally) was never whole to begin with is negated - so to speak - incidentally. Catholic theology isn't my major, admittedly, nor am I an expert in anything secundis hoc but it's centuries in development.

 

[Teofrastus]

What is the origin of Omne bonum a Deo, omne malum ab homine ?

Please do not tell me that it is "a saying. " I would like to know its first appearance in literature, whether that author invented it or not. Is it in Augustine?

Thank you.

No, the inventor is the psychologist Carl Jung (1875-1961) . He references Migne's Latin translation of Tatian, but it cannot be found there. Jung claims that it's an axiom of the church, although it is he himself who constructed this sentence. See my examination of it here:
An Assessment of the Theology of Carl Gustav Jung: Misreadings of historical texts.

 

[Laurentius]

Sorry for responding after so many years, just wanted to add that it is a saying.

 

[Teofrastus]

Sorry for responding after so many years, just wanted to add that it is a saying.

No, to all evidence, it was Jung who said it first.

 

[Laurentius]

No, to all evidence, it was Jung who said it first.

I was just joking, but does Jung being the author mean that it cannot be a saying?

 

[Teofrastus]

Jung claims that it is an axiom (or a dictum) of the Church. But it is false, because it was he who constructed it. He gives references where it cannot be found. He invented it to drive home his thesis that Christianity has laid the the blame for all evil on mankind. But the two sources which he refers to lay the blame on demons that possess men and cause destructive events. So it is a hoax. It is disgraceful, actually. This fake Latin sentence has been reproduced by other authors. False citations occur frequently.

 

[Michael Zwingli]

Please do not tell me that it is "a saying."

...the inventor is the psychologist Carl Jung...He invented it to drive home his thesis that Christianity has laid the the blame for all evil on mankind.

Please do not tell me that it is so! If this is true, my conception of my favorite of the great triad of psychoanalytic theorists (Freud, Adler, Jung) has been tarnished. Actually, to digress a bit, and despite any invention which may have been perpetrated, I agree with his conclusion about the Christian conception of the etiology of evil, for why would mankind require a propitiation for the product of "the serpent"? Such a notion would be almost as ludicrous as Saul of Tarsus asserting that religion should be based upon some vaguely defined emotion which has been sorely misnamed "faith".

 

[Teofrastus]

Please do not tell me that it is so!

Why don't you read my article instead of whining. I concede that Jung has done much to counterwork rationalism and reductionism; but much is wrong in his psychology, which bears similarities to a New Age religion. Read my short resumé on Quora: Why isn’t Carl Jung taken seriously by present-day academic psychologists?

 

[Michael Zwingli]

I concede that Jung has done much to counterwork rationalism and reductionism; but much is wrong in his psychology, which bears similarities to a New Age religion.

Yeah, but it is Jung's interest in the meaning of symbol and mythos for the psyche which interests me. I place Freud above Jung as a psychologist and theorist; Freud was, in my opinion, one of the ten (and perhaps even of the five, along with Darwin, Einstein, et. al.) most important thinkers of not only the 20th century, but of the entire modern era. However, because of my own personal interest in symbol, myth, and representation, I love Jung more. I did not intend to appear "whiny", though...sorry if my comments made me appear so.

I am not well read in contemporary psychology, but if, as I think, the emphasis is upon behavioral therapy (a relatively quick, cheap "fix" for those who have to live and deal with psych patients, but a travesty...a tragedy for those suffering problems of the mind, in my opinion, as the treatments so classified ignore the roots of thinking disorders) then it is easy to understand why Jung's work is of but tangential interest to contemporary psychologists. I view the primary interests of Jung to be rather more theoretical in nature than those which might be of use in, say, cognitive behavioral therapy. (These comments coming not from a psychologist, now!)

I will read your writing on Quora and elsewhere, gladly! I am sure to learn a bit there.

EDIT:
I just read your Quora reply. I think it quite good; you are obviously well versed in the matter. I can disagree in no substantial point, and I especially like and agree with Tarnas' ideas about the bifurcation of Western intellectual life. Further...in my view, the stark (scientific) materialism underpinning modern thought has demeaned the life of modern man, even while it has helped to render a truer conception of our universe. Now, we know more, but we are less wise, a sentiment in support of which the events in Europe during the Second World War seem eloquently to testify. As a general process, this can be viewed, I think, as an instance of reductionism...as a reduction of all analysis to that which can be materially shown.

The only point of contention that I have is with considering psychology as a science. It is a "social science", but of course, social sciences are not really sciences, are they? (They do not employ the scientific method in any strictly quantifiable way, are not reducible to mathematical measurements and analysis, and cannot do nor be so, because of their subject matter. In the social sciences, "theory" cannot make the transition into "law", since reliably replicable experimentation is apparently not achievable.) Sigmund Freud, as a psychological theorist, and as important a theorist as he was, was not a "scientist" in the strict sense of the term. As a physicist by training, I am sure that you must agree.

 

[Teofrastus]

[...]I especially like and agree with Tarnas' ideas about the bifurcation of Western intellectual life. Further...in my view, the stark (scientific) materialism underpinning modern thought has demeaned the life of modern man, even while it has helped to render a truer conception of our universe. Now, we know more, but we are less wise, a sentiment in support of which the events in Europe during the Second World War seem eloquently to testify. As a general process, this can be viewed, I think, as an instance of reductionism...as a reduction of all analysis to that which can be materially shown. [...]

You ought to read Iain McGilchrist:
Iain McGilchrist (channelmcgilchrist.com)

 

[Michael Zwingli]

You ought to read Iain McGilchrist:
Iain McGilchrist (channelmcgilchrist.com)

I shall give it some attention.

EDIT: Say, @Teofrastus, I have well appreciated McGilchrist thus far. His take on the state of humanity at the present juncrure seems veryuch "of the moment", as if it could not have been appreciated before the present historical and climatological situations came into their present fullness of being. My friend, an aerospace engineer and poet, seems to feel likewise.