RECOVERING ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY

ON EPHESIANS FROM JEROME
JEROME includes a reference to a commentary by Origen on
Ephesians in three books in his list of Origen's works in Epistle
33.4 to Paula. He refers again to a commentary by Origen on
Ephesians in three books in the introduction to his own Commen-

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016
tary on Ephesians (PL 26, 543-4). 2 Origen's commentary has not
survived in either a Greek manuscript tradition or in a Latin
translation. This is a serious loss, for Origen ranked Ephesians
at the pinnacle of the Pauline epistles. He considered it to contain
'solid food' or mystical understanditig in contrast, for example, to
the 'milk' of 1 Corinthians. When he argued with Celsus about
the 'superior wisdom' which Paul spoke 'among the perfect',
he asked Celsus to look carefully at Paul's meaning in his
epistles to the Ephesians, the Colossians, the Thessalonians, the
Philippians, and the Romans (Cels. 3.19—20). This is not the cano-
nical order of these epistles but is the order Origen gives them
in terms of his evaluation of their contents. The epistle to the
Ephesians heads the list. The Commentary on Ephesians must have
been a reservoir of Origen's theological and spiritual thought.
Every step, therefore, that can help to recover portions of this
lost commentary of the great Alexandrian exegete is worthwhile.
In 1842, J. A. Cramer's publication of the catena commentary
on the minor Pauline epistles from the Paris manuscript Coislin
204 brought to attention a number of excerpts from Origen on
Ephesians in this catena. 5 J. A. F. Gregg collected and reedited
the comments of Origen on Ephesians in Paris Coislin 204 in
1902.6 Athos Codex Pantocrator 28 appears to contain the same

1
Sancti Eusebii Hteronymi Epistulae Pars I: Epistulae I-LXX, ed. I. Hilberg,
CSEL LIV (Vienna, 1996), p. 257.
The column numbers cited throughout this essay and printed in bold type in
the appendix are those of Vallarsi which can be found in all editions of the
commentary.
3
Horn. 1-14 in Ezech. 7.10. Cf. C. Jenkins, 'The Origen-Citations in Cramer's
Catena on 1 Corinthians', JTS, OS, 6 (1905), p. 354 (§xviii 15-16), and Jerome,
Comm. in Eph. on Eph. 5:24 (PL 26, 655).
4
Origen: Contra Celsum, trans. H Chadwick (Cambridge, 1965), pp. 139-40
5
J. A. Cramer, Catenae in Sancti Pauli Eptstolas ad Galatas, Ephesios,
Philippenses, Colossenses,Thessalomcenses. Ad Fidem Codd. MSS (Oxford, 1842;
repr. Hildesheim, 1967), pp. 100-225. On Pans Coislin 204 see K. Staab, Die
Pauluskatenen nach den handschnftlichen Quellen untersucht (Rome, 1926), pp. 53-70.
'The Commentary of Origen upon the Epistle to the Ephesians', JfTS, OS, 3
(1902), pp. 233-44, 398-420, 554-76.
© Oxford University Press 2000
[Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Vol. 51, Pt. 2, October 2000]

RECOVERING ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY 479
selections from Origen on Ephesians as Coislin 204, though
in abbreviated form. 7 K. Staab considers its text on the four
epistles Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians to
be 'im wesentlichen identisch mit dem Typus Parisinus.'
The scribe of Athos Laura 184, better known as Codex von der
Goltz, checked the biblical text of his ancient exemplar on
Ephesians against the biblical text in Origen's commentary on
Ephesians. 9 This manuscript, however, offers little help in terms
of Origenian scholia on Ephesians. Athos Laura 184 contains

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016
notices showing where each of the books in Origen's commentaries
on the Pauline epistles began. Unfortunately, it has only the notice
showing where the first book in the Ephesians commentary began.
A later scribe, who erased many references to Origen in the margins
of this codex, seems to have removed these notices from the margins
in the text of Ephesians. 10 Dr Francesco Pieri, who has recently
prepared a new critical edition of Jerome's Commentary on
Ephesians, has now undertaken the preparation of a new critical
edition of the Greek fragments of Origen on Ephesians based on
Paris Coislin 204 and Athos Pantocrator 28. 12
These Greek catena fragments are very helpful and have
provided us with the Greek text for some, at least, of Origen's
comments in his commentary on Ephesians. Most of the frag-
ments are brief, however, and show the common tendency of

See F. Deniau, 'Le commentaire de Jerome sur Ephesiens nous permet-il de
connattre celui d'Ongene?', in H. Crouzel, G. Lomiento, J. Rius-Camps (eds.),
Origeniana. Premier colloque international des etudes origennes (Montserrat, 18-21
septembre 1973), Quaderni di 'Vetera Chnstianorum' 12 (Bari, 1975), p. 163, n 1,
and K. Staab, Pauluskatenen, p. 255.
8
Ibid.
9
C. P. Bammel, 'A New Witness to the Scholia from Origen in the Codex von
der Goltz', Origeniana et Rufiniana, Vetus Latina 29 (Freiburg, 1996), pp. 137-8.
On the Codex von der Goltz, see F. von der Goltz, Eine textkritische Arbeit des
zehnten bezw sechsten Jahrhunderts, T U 2.4 (Leipzig, i8yy); Six Collations of New
Testament Manuscripts, ed. K. Lake and S. New, Harvard Theological Studies xvii
(Cambridge, Mass., 1932), pp. 141-219; J. N. Birdsall, 'The Text and Scholia of
the Codex von der Goltz and its Allies, and their bearing upon the Texts of
the Works of Origen, especially the Commentary on Romans', in H. Crouzel,
G. Lomiento, J. Rius-Camps (eds.), Origeniana. Premier colloque international des
etudes origemennes (Montserrat, 18-21 septembre 1973), Quaderni di 'Vetera
Christianorum' 12 (Ban, 1975), pp. 215-22.
10
F. von der Goltz, Eine textkritische Arbeit, p. 95.
" 'L'esegesi di Girolamo nel Commentano a Efesini Aspetti storico-esegetici e
storico-dottnnali. Testo cntico e annotazioni', Doctoral Dissertation Universita
degli Studi di Bologna, 1996/97.
I have the information concerning his work on the Greek fragments from
personal correspondence with Dr Pieri

480 RONALD E. HEINE
catenists to abbreviate the remarks that they excerpt. 13 Further-
more, the fragments do not cover all the verses in Ephesians. 14
The catenist appears to have been very conservative in relation
to Origen's speculative theological thought and has preserved
primarily grammatical and ethical comments from Origen along
with a few spiritual comments. 15
Near the end of the introduction to his commentary on
Ephesians Jerome states that he has partly followed Origen's three
books on Ephesians (ex parte secuti sumus) and that he has derived

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016
a few things (pauca) from the small commentaries on Ephesians
by Apollinarius and Didymus. 16 The catena fragments from
Origen's commentary on Ephesians make clear the extent of
Jerome's indebtedness to Origen. 17 Nearly all the fragments have
parallels in Jerome's commentary.
The controversy between Rufinus and Jerome brings to atten-
tion a few additional passages in Jerome's commentary on
Ephesians which depend on Origen's commentary but have no
parallels in the catena fragments. 18 Only those passages where
Jerome says he has used Origen on Ephesians, however, can

See R. E. Heine, 'Can the Catena Fragments of Origen's Commentary on
John be Trusted'' VC 40 (1986), pp. 118-34.
C. H. Turner noted that 'the only considerable passages which are wholly
unrepresented are Eph. 2:7-11, 3:4—11, 3:19b—4:2, 4:8-10 5:25-33 (with the
exception of two short notes on vv. 27 and 31), 6:4-8'; 'Greek Patristic
Commentaries on the Pauline Epistles', in J. Hastings (ed.), A Dictionary of the
Bible (Edinburgh, 1904), p. 494. There are, however, a number of significant single
verses or parts of verses which are omitted, such as 1:4a and 2:16 and 18.
1
Cf. C. P. Bammel, 'Die Pauluskommentare des Hieronymus: die ersten
wissenschafthchen lateinischen Bibelkommentare?' Christianesimo Latino e cultura
Greca sino al sec. IV, XXI Incontro di studiosi dell'antichita cristiana, Roma 7—9
maggio 1992, Studia Ephemeridis 'Augustinianum' 42 (Rome, 1993) p. 199.
16
PL 26, 543-4.
Gregg (JTS, 1902) cites the parallel passages in Jerome's commentary on
Ephesians in the footnotes to his edition of the catena fragments. See also
F. Deniau, 'Le commentaire de Jerome sur Ephesiens', pp. 166-8, 176-7, and
J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (New York, 1975),
pp. 145-6.
1
See 5. Eusebii Hieronymi Apologia Adversus Libros Rufim, PL 23, i.16, 2 1 - 9;
Rufini Aquileiensis Presbyten Apologiae in Sanctum Hieronymum, PL 21, 1.22-43,
ii.1-2, 28, 41-2; F. Deniau, 'Le commentaire de Jerome sur Ephesiens', pp. 168-72.
On this controversy and the role of Jerome's commentary on Ephesians in it, see
E. A. Clark, 'The Place of Jerome's Commentary on Ephesians in the Ongenist
Controversy: The Apokatastasis and Ascetic Ideals', VC 41 (1987), pp. 154-71;
idem, The Origenist Controversy. The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian
Debate (Princeton, 1992), pp. 121-51.

T U 42. p. RECOVERING ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY 481 be used with confidence to reconstruct Origen's commentary. which is one of the longer passages for which there are no parallels in the catena fragments. 2016 the introduction. Epheser.oxfordjournals. p. Deniau believes. 154. mit abdrucken soil. 'Die Pauluskommentare'.' 21 This essay builds on this known dependence of Jerome on Origen's commentary on Ephesians. 14 above. Finally. that Rufinus must have known of its existence because he had certainly read Jerome's commentary on Ephesians where Origen's work is mentioned in Downloaded from http://jts. Galater-. 3. See n. It will then provide a set of criteria for isolating Origenian material in Jerome. 'Man wird sich bei einer Gesamtausgabe der Werke des Origenes ernstlich fragen miissen. Der kirchengeschichtliche Ertrag der exegetischen Arbeiten des Origenes. it will apply these criteria to Jerome's comments on Ephesians 3:4-11. 19 'Le commentaire de Jerome sur Ephesiens'. and will argue that most of this passage has been taken over from Origen's commentary on Ephesians. ob man riicht im Anhang den Epheser-Kommentar des Hieron. pp. in his attack on Jerome. 203 and E. 187. Bammel. A. 'The Place of Jerome's Commentary on Ephesians'. Clark. 21 'Origemstisches Gut von kirchengeschichtlicher Bedeutung in den Kommentaren des Hieronymus zum Philemon-. 19 It has long been known that Jerome's Pauline commentaries are a rich source for seeking material from Origen's lost commentaries on the same epistles of Paul. 156. He thinks there is nothing in Rufinus' Apology against Jerome to assure us that Rufinus had read Origen's commentary on Ephesians. von Harnack was so convinced of the extensive dependence of Jerome on Origen in his commentary on Ephesians that he said.und Titusbrief. n. It will attempt to show how one may proceed to identify material in Jerome's commentary which derives from Origen but which has no parallels in either the Greek catena fragments or in the literature of the controversy between Jerome and Rufinus. 20 See C. p.4 (Leipzig. is not concerned to show that Jerome has used a par- ticular text of Origen but wants to show that he holds doctrines of Origen. It will first show how Jerome uses Origen in his commentary on Ephesians by looking at some examples where there are parallels in the catena fragments.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2. however. P. F. Deniau has correctly pointed out that Rufinus. 1919). . 170. These commentaries were written before the outbreak of the Origenist controversy when Jerome was still an admirer of Origen.

.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2. yet without omitting anything either of the arguments or of the illustrations. A.24 It is important to note that there is nothing in Jerome's text introducing these literal translations from Origen to indicate that anyone other than Jerome himself is speaking. reduced it to reasonable compass. Deniau. 495. He has avoided 'doctoring Origen for Western readers' as Rufinus did. p. esp n. 2016 from his commentary on Ephesians 5:28-9 where he has trans- lated Origen word for word (ipsa verba.28 and 22) Jerome sets out the way he has treated Origen's work. p. H E I N E I. 198-y.oxfordjournals.23 Even in such cases. VC 24 (1970). 5. cf. The passages translated literally are on Eph 113. Harnack. p 156. 'Origenistisches Gut'. i. 6:1-3. 50. p. Where Jerome agrees with Origen he uses Origen's thoughts as his own. i.'23 Jerome himself provides an example Downloaded from http://jts. 14.28). 'Le commentaire de Jerome sur Ephesiens'. 2:19-22. 16. 'The Influence of Origen upon St. Schatkin. 'I have read the 23 'Greek Patristic Commentaries'. Turner observes that in his Apology against Rufinus (i. p. for Origen often expresses more than one view on a text in his commentaries without choosing between them. Jerome's Commentary on Galatians'. 27 A. F. Bammel. Apol. . and 6:11. n. 'He himself either rendered the actual words. 'Le commentaire de Jerome sur Ephesiens'. 3:13. J E R O M E ' S M A N N E R O F W O R K I N G IN H I S C O M M E N T A R Y ON E P H E S I A N S C. 161-2. It is only in those few places where he disagrees with Origen's view and wants to distance himself from it that he indicates he is expressing the view of someone other than himself by introducing the pas- sage with the phrase. 174. pp. on Eph. n. 2. where the exposition was a very lengthy one.482 R O N A L D E. Doutreleau calls attention to this same procedure in Jerome's use of the commentary of Didymus on Zachariah. 413-15. 5:4. 26 S e e at n . C. Didymus says. Deniau provides a list of nine passages in Jerome's commentary which the catena fragments show to have been translated literally from Origen. P. F. pp. L. 4 6 b e l o w . 5:5. M. 1.7-14. 73. 'another says'. The same is also true in the many parallels between the catena fragments and Jerome's comments where he seems not to have translated literally but to have paraphrased Origen's thought.22.. it does not necessarily follow that the view Jerome claims for his own does not come from Origen. Cf. n. H. pp 176-7. or something similar. 166. 'Die Pauluskommentare'.or. 23 Apol.26 Jerome sometimes also takes up a first person expression in Origen's text and expresses it in the first person in his own text as if he were the person speaking.

p. Paul ( O x f o r d . 199. p.3-4). pp. PL 26. pp. SC 83 (Paris. 32 'Origenistisches Gut'. He also thinks Jerome's references to Greek non-Christian literature and mythology largely dependent on Origen (ibid. as J. Bammel. 'The Commentary of Origen'. 587. Gregg. 'But I think (Puto autem) the manner of speaking is also defective in this passage. 'The Commentary of Origen'.ii).. 29 An even clearer example occurs in Jerome's appro- priation of Origen's comment on the term au/x/xero^oi in Ephesians 5:7. 122-3). RECOVERING ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY 483 explanation in a commentary. for example. Gregg and C. 8e vofii£w) there is a sole- cism in the passage. p. pp. 34 L. in the same order and in the same way. 33 The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Souter notes. These examples from Epheseians are noted by C P. Doutreleau points out that in his commentary on Zechariah. Gregg. Vol. p. 'But I do not recall (ov /nefu'17/xai 8e aXXaxov) Downloaded from http://jts. 116-20. 117-18. pp. F. 637. Bammel. 199. Gregg. PL 26.' Jerome repeats. p.. 'I have read in a commentary. He uses the same Scriptures as Didymus does. Valentinus: PL 26. Didyme L'aveugle sur Zacharie.' Commenting on the same verse Jerome says.' In this repetition Jerome follows Origen even in an error for the term occurs also. Jerome's proven dependence on Origen from the catena fragments for his reference to the agraphon concerning 'money changers' on Ephesians 4:31 and 5:10. 'The Commentary of Origen'. 1. 151-3. 30 Gregg.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2.15—16). Agraphon. Gregg. 561 (xxv. n.47). 'But I think (. n. P 132. . Jerome often borrows his Scripture citations from the comment- ary of Didymus on Zechariah. Souter considers that all references in Jerome's Pauline commentaries to Christian personalities who preceded Origen and to their literature are derived from Origen. and for his reference to Valentinus and his doctrine of two baptisms on Ephesians 4:5.. 73. Bammel note. Doutreleau. A. 'Furthermore. p.' and Jerome echoes. in Ephesians 3:6. 40S (xin. 'The Commentary of Origen'.' and a few lines later he refers to solecisms in Paul's style. P. even fusing 28 L. 'Die Pauluskommen- tare'.32 A. 561. 73.37).31 A. p 413 (xvii.oxfordjournals. 1927). 1962). 562 (xxv. 646. 610. 34 Earliest Latin Commentaries. 2016 the term "fellow companion" used elsewhere outside the present passage. 645. 'Die Pauluskommentare'.' 28 In his remarks on Ephesians 3:3 in the catena fragments Origen says. I do not recall (Porro non tnemini alibi) that I have read the term "fellow companion" else- where except in the present passage. p. PL 26. 'The Commentary of Origen'. Origen remarks. 557 (xxn. Harnack has also noted that Jerome often cites what he has found in Origen as if he knew the original himself.

Ps. 161. Matthieu. 402—4 (ix. 1:12. 1.oxfordjournals. Eccles. Jerome's citations do not usually correspond exactly in number with those in the catena fragments. 'The Commentary of Origen'. . Io. 1 Pet. 1 Cor. 1.1-5. 130—1. on our catena fragments but on the text of Origen's commentary as was also the catenist. Princ. pp. 38 E. he says. 11:6. 3 PL 26. Brown observes that when Jerome does this in the Commentary on Matthew he 'ignores Origen's apologetic thrust against the Gnostics' since 'Gnosticism was no longer a "live" issue in Jerome's day. Eph. 1:4.37- 3 Vir Trilingus: A Study in the Biblical Exegesis of Saint Jerome (Kampen. Gal. 15:10). Bonnard observes that in his Commentary on Matthew. p. Phil. which was important to Origen against the denigrating attacks of the Gnostics on the God of the Old Testament. 6:12.484 RONALD E. P. Saint Jerome commentaire sur S. 47:9. 2. 8:21. of the theme of God's goodness. SC 242 (Pans.). 1977).org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2. E. 2. pp.4. Jerome is not dependent. Vol. 6.36 In the longer exposi- tion of Ephesians 2:1-5 eleven Scriptures occur in the same order Downloaded from http://jts. 3:21. This is because both he and the catenist were selecting what they wanted to use from Origen's text. 1 Cor. 554. 38 D.25-43). Gen. Gregg. for example. Gal. sometimes being more and sometimes less than appear there.37 These examples could be multiplied throughout Jerome's work where there are parallels in the catena fragments. 155-224). Bonnard. 10-17 I-M3 (31326 ff. 7:20).5-6. 5 A compar- ison of Jerome's commentary on Ephesians with the catena frag- ments from Origen's commentary shows that he did the same with Origen. In the relatively short passage explaining Ephesians i:7b-8a. 571-3. Comm in Mt. Gregg. Matt.9. This larger theme was important in Origen's continual polemics against Marcion and the Gnostics and occurs in many of his works 40 including the catena fragments on 3 Didyme L'aveugle. 5:17. 'The Commentary of Origen'. Jerome follows Origen's exposition and cites five of the same passages of scripture that appear in the brief catena remarks. and cites them in the same order as Origen (Luke 7:41—3. 40 See. PL 26. John 17:21. 6:26.' The theme of God's goodness was a part of the larger theme of the unity of the God of the Old and New Testaments. 1992).15-31. He draws his Scripture citations largely from Origen. 5:16. Eph. This is especially true. 2016 in both the catena fragment and Jerome's commentary (2 Cor. 6:3. Gen. Jerome sometimes takes up theological themes from Origen's Commentary on Matthew. 1. 18:13. pp 238-9 (IV.253. HEINE several Scriptures as a single text as Didymus does. of course.4.

oxfordjournals. It suggests that Jerome has provided interpreta- tions drawn from several separate sources. ibid. p p . 44 There Jerome calls attention to the variety of literary genres and then notes that Rufinus' attack has focused on his commentary on Ephesians which belongs to the genre of a commentary. 2 3 5 . Deniau does point out that Origen contributes the lion's share of the remarks in all the passages that can be compared with the catena fragments. ' T h e C o m m e n t a r y of O r i g e n ' .6 . G r e g g . shows how cautious we must be when 41 O n E p h . p. p p . on E p h . refer to any heresy in connection with the theme.42 Three of the occurrences are in passages which Deniau con- siders Jerome to have translated literally from Origen. 45 Ibid. occasionally.8 (xxxi. which the catenist does not do.35 ff. 5:9. Jerome introduces the theme of the unity of the Creator and the Father of Jesus Christ. he treats the theme of God's unity in the same pas- sage in which Origen treats it. 562 (xxv. and 663. He does not. which is Downloaded from http://jts. 4 0 7 . He notes here.13 ff. This con- clusion may be correct but it is misleading when applied to the problem of ascertaining the relationship of Jerome's commentary to Origen's. 6 4 5 . in this last instance. 43 See n .16 to show how Jerome conceived his work as a commentator.39 ff. Didymus. 173. 5 6 7 . 547. An observation of C. 44 'Le commentaire de Jerome sur Ephesiens'. pp 172-3. 24 a b o v e . 42 P L 26. Bammel. p p . ibid.8 (xii. ibid. nevertheless.). and Apollinarius. 584. P.6 (ii. that he has followed Origen. This suggests that Origen had mentioned Marcion's name and the catenist omitted it for there would be no need for Jerome to introduce the name of Marcion where Origen had not.). 41 Jerome treats the same theme in his Commentary on Ephesians in each of the same four passages in which Origen treats it. F. Deniau concludes from this that Jerome conceived of his commentary in the manner of a catena setting forth the views of others and. In his comments on Ephesians 1:3. 2:19-22.). p . 6:1—3.8 ff. RECOVERING ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY 485 Ephesians.. . F .). 2016 not a literal translation from Origen. 1:3. J.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2. and on E p h . Deniau cites Jerome's remarks about the nature of his commentary on Ephesians in his Apology against Rufinus i. however. Jerome attempts to vindicate himself by arguing that the purpose of a commentary is to explain the obscure statements of another by citing the opinions of various interpreters of the author's words so that the reader may judge which interpretation he con- siders to be true. on E p h . his own views. He does not introduce it at the same place in the text at which Origen does nor does he present it in the same way but. 43 In two of these passages Jerome mentions Marcion by name. A. as also in his preface to his com- mentary on Ephesians.

4 for his argument. employed the 'problems and solutions' approach of the classical commentary tradition in his commentary on Ephesians. and Apelles together. This dissertation came to my attention after I had already written this article. he argues. A. 298—9. Layton has argued persuasively in a doctoral dissertation that. draws up no specific list of criteria for indentifying Ongenian material but makes various remarks throughout the article that pertain to such criteria. even where he has not. 'it is likely that Jerome composed the entire commentary solely by reference to Origen. II. This manner of working on Origen's part.oxfordjournals. Harnack. gave Jerome the opportunity to appear to be citing the views of various commentators whereas he drew all the views. C. 'Origen as a Reader of Paul: A Study of the Commentary on Ephesians'. 116-25. 205-6. she observes. Layton finds this most evident in the use of questions and answers in Origen's text and in the divi- sion of lemmata to conform to a particular question.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2. pp. from Origen. F. despite his Downloaded from http://jts. and the literature of the controversy between Jerome and Rufinus as criteria. Layton has shown that Jerome's exegetical approach to the epistle relies on Origen. 'Origemstisches Gut'. the form is often latent in his text. Ph. 197-8. pp. such as the naming of Valentinus. 4 Ibid. See ch. has not always preserved this form but.46 Most recently R. 1096. pp. dissertation University of Virginia. The Earliest Latin Commentaries. 201-302. cf. H. Jerome. pp. treats only the remark in Jerome's preface to the Ephesians commentary about using Origen's com- mentaria. pp. pp. 494. Turner. Deniau.'47 Most significantly. lists the kinds of material found in Jerome which he thinks come from Origen. he demonstrates from the catena fragments. however. C R I T E R I A FOR R E C O G N I Z I N G ORIGEN'S M A T E R I A L IN J E R O M E ' S COMMENTARY ON EPHESIANS The criteria I suggest here are based on the working methods of Jerome I have discussed in §1 and on observations others have made of Jerome's methods. 141-68. in fact. is not treated specifically in the dissertation.49 They are for identifying material in Jerome for which there is no parallel in the catena fragments 46 'Die Pauluskommentare'.. Origen. D. parallels in the catena fragments. She notes that Origen regularly presented more than one view on a text and that a comparison between Jerome's commentary and the catena fragments shows Jerome repeating the different interpretations from Origen. Souter. 'Le commentaire de Jerome .486 RONALD E HEINE Jerome claims to be citing views from two or more interpreters. 2016 claim to the contrary concerning multiple sources. p. The passage I analyse. Marcion. I have attempted to take Layton's work into account in what follows at those points where it relates directly to my arguments. A. 'Greek Patristic Commentaries'.

. he may have para- phrased him in others. The use of the same arguments as Origen to argue for an interpretation. see also L Doutreleau. so Ibid. These criteria can point us to the thought of Origen but not to his actual words as F. and given the extensiveness of his dependence on Origen that a comparison with sur Ephesiens'. The citation of Greek non-Biblical Christian literature used by Origen in other works. and the provision of multiple solutions to a problem. Layton does not provide a list of criteria. The more criteria that converge on a single passage. 7. A connection with a context of Origen which can be shown from the catena fragments. however. The expression of views or interpretations which can be demonstrated from other works of Origen to be his character- istic views or interpretations. The same exegetical procedure as used by Origen. He also makes use of the criteria I have listed as 3 and 4 in the following list. 5. 2016 2. The following criteria point to Origen rather than Jerome when they appear in the text of Jerome's commentary on Ephesians: 1. the focus on philological problems in the text. but works especially with identifying the presence of the 'problems and solutions' technique in Jerome's commentary. Jerome may have translated Origen literally in some places. Deniau also observes. 175- 51 Ibid. RECOVERING ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY 487 and which Jerome does not identify as Origenian in his Apology against Rufinus. 3. He may have abridged and rearranged some materials and he may occasionally contribute a remark of his own. The use of the same Scriptures as Origen to argue for or to illustrate an interpretation. pp 174-5. Reference to historical problems such as persecution and martyrdom which were urgent concerns in the first half of the third century but not in the second half of the fourth. 8. Given Jerome's statement that he is drawing on Origen's commentary on Ephesians.. The discussion of theological issues which were important in the first half of the third century but which had been settled and had passed into the background by the second half of the fourth century..org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2. 4. of course.oxfordjournals. particularly the use of the 'problems and solutions' technique. Didyme L'aveugle. R. 6. provides a list of seven criteria for identifying Origenian material in Jerome's commentary. p. p. the higher the probability that Origen is the source of the material. Downloaded from http://jts. 1. 129.

§7). §2) and identified by a reference to Jerome's Apology. p. Jerome then comments on the general contents of Ephesians. §5 . Jerome identifies some of his remarks on Ephesians 3:1 as the view of Origen in his Apology against Rufinus i. §1-5. Both the remarks immediately preceding our passage and those immediately follow- ing it have parallels in the catena fragments which I indicate by the italicized words in the translation of the comments on Ephesians 3:1-4 and 3:12 in the Appendix (App. Downloaded from http://jts. 408 (xiii. I have provided a complete translation of Jerome's comment- ary on Ephesians 3:1—12 in the Appendix as a basis for the discus- sion which follows and refer to the paragraph numbers in this translation in the form (App. J E R O M E A N D O R I G E N ON E P H E S I A N S 3:4-11 I begin by noting that Jerome's comments on this passage are set in a clearly Origenian context (see §11. The catenist writes ' " I n the few words" which are "before" these it is truly possible for the one who has read carefully to discover the "revelation" of the holy "mystery which has been made known" to Paul. Jerome's paraphrase in italics in App. In the preface to book one Jerome refers to the mysteries in the epistle in relation to Paul's ministry at Ephesus described in Acts 19. §5). Further.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2.' 52 Jerome's initial comment on Ephesians 3:4 either follow Paul's text about reading the preceding words or allude back to the preceding state- ment of Origen cited above about discovering the mystery made known to Paul by reading Paul's previous brief remarks.25. the probability is very high that in passages where various criteria in this list apply we have comments from Origen's commentary on Ephesians before us which Jerome has either translated or paraphrased. cf.oxfordjournals. The very brief comments on Ephesians 3:4 may be linked directly to the last comment of Origen attested in the catena frag- ment on Ephesians 3:1-3. 'We have repeated all these things to show why the Apostle has heaped up obscure ideas and mysteries unknown to the ages in this epistle above all others and has Gregg. namely that no epistle of Paul contains so many mysteries. 24-5). 'This is what we said in the preface. HEINE the catena fragments demonstrates.8). is so wrapped in hidden meanings which the apostle also boasts that he knows and briefly hints at so that we might pore very carefully over what he has written' (App. These are also set in italics in the Appendix (App.16-17). 2016 III.488 RONALD E.

7). p . Ephesians 3 . in G. . §6).' 53 R. 541—2). has shown the cohesion of the argument in these prefaces. in Downloaded from http://jts. 54 R L a y t o n .-3-7 Jerome's discussion of Ephesians 3:5-7 is structured by two questions. Jerome's first step in answering the first question is to cite passages from the Old and New Testaments which show that the patriarchs and prophets predicted the advent of Christ and the calling of the Gentiles (App. §§10—15)? The two questions correspond to Ephesians 3:5 and 3:6—7 respectively. Further analysis of the arguments in the preface leads Layton to conclude that 'Jerome's argumentum as a whole' in the preface 'derives from Origen's commentary. therefore. L e Boulluec (eds. §§6—9)? (2) What is this mystery which was not revealed previously as it is now (App. except- ing. Actes du Colloquium Origenianum Sextum. which are demons. This cohesion. It is significant. 3 0 3 . Layton thinks.' 54 There is a good basis. 498. which suggests Origen's 'problems and solutions' tech- nique (see §11. Origemana Sexta. which would have to be Origen. p . or composed it himself. p p . 1995). 2016 a careful analysis of Jerome's prefaces to books one and three.3 0 . P.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2. 633-4). however. what they were previously and how they have been overthrown and destroyed after the advent of Christ' (PL 26. (1) How was the mystery of Christ unknown to other generations (App. This was a common early Chris- tian theme.oxfordjournals. RECOVERING ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY 489 taught about the dominion of sacred powers and contrary powers. cf. Layton. the personal remarks of Jerome at the beginning and end of the preface to book one and the references to his friends in that to book three. Chantilly. of course. what they are capable of. shows that Jerome has not put the prefaces together from various sources but has either drawn on a single source.). for suspecting that Jerome's comment on Ephesians 3:4 has been lifted from Origen's comments on this verse. 507. Bammel considers the prefaces of Jerome's Pauline com- mentaries 'to be substantially based on Origen. ' O r i g e n as a Reader of Paul'. In his preface to book three Jerome alludes back to these remarks and says that he has shown in the preface to book one that 'the blessed apostle wrote to no other church in such a mystical manner' (PL 26. 30 aout-3 septembre 1993 ( L e u v e n . He must anticipate the answer to the second question in order to answer the first but he reserves the major discussion of the mystery for question two. that Jerome begins with 53 ' O r i g e n ' s Pauline Prefaces and the Chronology of his Pauline Commentaries'. D o n v a l and A. C. Origene el la Bible/ Origen and the Bible.

I ask how Paul now says that what was not known to other generations has been revealed to the apostles of Christ' (App. 55 Cf. as I will show later. is developed and is clearly the favoured solution (App. The latter is a greater knowledge because it is seen with the eyes whereas the prophet only recognized what is to come 'in the spirit'. for example. et quasi ahenato sensu suo prophetabant. §7). poses a subordinate question. The distinction is that between the knowledge that the prophet has of what he prophesies and the knowledge that the one who sees the fulfilment of the prophecy has of what was prophesied. He meant only that the patriarchs and prophets perceived what was to come less clearly than the saints and apostles now perceive it as a consequence of the revelation in Christ. Origen's discussion of the prophecy of Caiaphas in Jo. Jerome does not pursue this suggestion either to confirm or to reject it but simply offers it as a possibility. q u i a non. The second possibility.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2. Did the Old Testament personalities who spoke of Christ and the calling of the Gentiles know that of which they spoke or were they speaking Downloaded from http://jts. 2016 in ecstasy as Montanus claimed prophets spoke (App. The first possibility is that Paul spoke very precisely and made a distinction between 'the sons of men' and 'the sons of God' based on Psalm 81:6. Abraham 'saw my day and was glad'. 'If they understood. §7). quid dicerent. These two preliminary steps set the stage for the focal problem perceived in Ephesians 3:5. prophetae nesciebant. in Rom.' 56 See. The Old Testament texts that Jerome cites show that the patri- archs and prophets spoke of Christ and the calling of the Gentiles. Comm. ' I n q u o t a m e n s i m u l e t lllud o s t e n d i t u r . for.490 RONALD E. however. §7)?ss The view that they spoke in ecstasy without understanding what they said is dismissed without discussion on the basis of 1 Corinthians 14:32. 28. this is also the Scripture with which Origen begins to prove the same point in his argument for the unity of the old and new revelations. Those who spoke of such mysteries in the Old Testament belonged to the sons of God who had 'received the spirit of adop- tion' (App. Paul did not intend to make a general statement that the mystery of God was unknown to former generations. ut aliqui putant. The answer to that question is approached in the typical style of Origen by presenting alternative solutions (see §11-7 above). This recognition. §7).6. 8.98-191. HEINE John 8:56. . then. O r i g e n .

Deuteronomy 18:2 and Psalm 15:5 to mean that they are 'joint heirs of Christ' and that the inherit- ance is the Lord himself (App. This is an Origenian inter- pretation. §10). syllables.' etc. The statement that the Gentiles are 'joint heirs' is interpreted. there are a diversity of gifts' (App. This is based on the third possibility which points to the diversity of gifts and the diversity of things known. 1-13 in Ex 1. Jerome begins with a critique of Paul's style which. 13:17) which also poses the problem of an inferior revelation to the saints of the Old Testament (App. 'What is this mystery which was not revealed previously as it is now?' (App. He then turns to the second possibility which distinguishes between knowing in the spirit and knowing by sight.oxfordjournals. for Origen often critiques Paul's style and also holds the view of inspiration that is expressed in the assertion that 'individual words. that 'the Gentiles are joint heirs. 2016 Solomon and Moses in the Old Testament. 'On the other hand. §9). Comm. §8).1. §10) The answer is given in verse six. Horn. for example. 'makes an indecorous Latin sentence. §9). suggesting a third pos- sibility one 'must say that in the same way that all faces are not alike so neither are hearts and. §9). Jerome blends the second and third possibilities in his conclusion to the discussion of Ephesians 3:5. Origen. 5. in Rom. The second question that structures Jerome's discussion of Ephesians 3:5—7 moves the discussion on to verses six and seven.1. according to the apostle. tittles and punctuation marks in the divine Scriptures are full of meaning. This is not an unquestionable conclusion. however. the holy men of old also knew but not as the apostles on whom rested the necessity of preaching' (App.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2. RECOVERING ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY 491 Jerome then introduces Luke 10:24 (=Matt. He develops this last possibility first by noting the diversity of gifts discussed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12 and then by contrasting the diversity of subjects discussed by Downloaded from http://jts. .' 57 It may be that Jerome has simply added the adjectives 'Latin' and 'Greek' to Origen's comments. He argues that one must either apply the same solution to this saying of Jesus or. It appears in the catena fragments on Ephesians 1:18 See.' One might think that this whole discussion of style and inspiration must come from Jerome since he refers to his 'Latin' sentence. in virtue of the favorableness of time and the preaching of the gospel the apostles have known the mystery of Christ more completely. he says. by means of Romans 8:17. The blending occurs in his recognition that 'the patriarchs and prophets had some things which the apostles did not have' (App. For indeed.

to confirm their doctrine drag in. 18:7. Second. just as we speak of heirs of estates and heirs of houses.3. He discusses this particular problem in his Commentary on Romans (10. 16:25-6. 1:10. Jerome returns abruptly to the question of the relation- ship between the old revelation and the new which was the focal point of the discussion of Ephesians 3:5.45-50). 18:2). and to have spoken in ecstasy. along with the present testimony. Here Jerome qualifies speaking in ecstasy with 'as it were' (quasi). 'The Commentary of Origen'. There are two strong suggestions that Jerome is drawing on Origen in the passage quoted. HEINE where two of the same three Scriptures also appear to support the interpretation (see §11. 4)- But you will ask if God himself is also 'the inheritance of the saints' even as (the phrase) 'heirs of God' (Rom. also this which is found in many manu- scripts to the Romans. so that. 2 Tim. §15) It may be that a different group is being considered here from those introduced in conjunction with the name of Montanus earlier. passim). The discussion then turns to Ephesians 3:7 in relation to which Jerome notes that Paul's humility is indicated 'when he claims that the gospel of which he is a minister was not of his own merit but the grace of God' (App.oxfordjournals. the allusion to the manuscript problem concerning Romans 16:25-6 is typical of Origen's way of working (see §11-7). 'Now to him who is able to strengthen you accord- ing to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret from eternal times but now revealed through the prophetic Scriptures and the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ' and the rest.492 RONALD E. 2016 inheritance' (Dt. There the question was one of actually speaking in ecstasy. First. 'You shall not give the sons of Levi an allotment among their brothers because I am their portion. so we should also understand 'the heirs of God. §14).58 Jerome next argues for the diversity and unity of the church on the basis of Paul's analogy of the human body in 1 Corinthians 12 and asserts that unity is assured on the basis of the term 'copart- ners' (App. Finally. applying (the word) inheritance to the pieces of property. App. as it were. Those who want the prophets not to have understood what they said. Jerome's answer to the objection based on Romans 16:25—6 is that the mystery was not kept secret from those who were announ- cing it but from the Gentiles to whom it would later be revealed.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2. 'The Lord is their Downloaded from http://jts.' And the law which says. (Rom. says the Lord' (Jos. .43). the blending of Gregg. 1 Tim. §§11-13). pertains indeed to such a meaning. p. and elsewhere. 6:14. 8:17) is understood. 399 (ix.

H.6. 60 Let those.oxfordjournals. Marcion had placed this issue in centre stage but he and his followers were not the only ones who raised the question. F. 10. The dis- cussion of Ephesians 3:5—7. 6:14 or 2 T i m . RECOVERING ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY 493 i Timothy 6:14 or 2 Timothy 1:10 with Romans 16:25-6 is characteristic of Origen as we will see later (see §11. 6:14 has ' L o r d ' . therefore.6 becomes clear. §15) The reference to those who do not 'desire to know' the prophets but are 'intent on the gospel alone' is a key reference for locating this discussion historically. R o m . 1:10 has 'Saviour'. and Comm in Rom.4). 1 T i m . 6:14 has the order 'Jesus Christ'.S-11 (from Origen's commentary on Psalm 50). He would hardly have appealed to a section of Scripture that he had excised from the biblical text. 16.' and who drag in Romans 16:25-6. 1:10. 6 : 2 5 . for there he has 'Saviour' instead of ' L o r d ' 60 H e r e the significance of the blending of 1 T i m .43. n o has 'Christ Jesus'. point out the influence of 1 T i m . 1 T i m . 6 : 2 5 . who neither understand the prophets nor desire to know them. 1893). Origenes vier Biicher von den Prinzipien. to refer to Marcion. . in the example I cite from the Philocalia above. p. 61 'Origenistisches G u t ' . 110 has been blended with Rom. 6:14. in Rom. 157. add the advent of Jesus Christ. 61 This is an attractive suggestion but I think it cannot be correct because Origen tells us that Marcion had removed this section from the epistle to the Romans. Deniau thinks that 2 Tim. know Downloaded from http://jts. however. n.1). 17. Harnack took the slightly earlier refer- ence to 'those who want the prophets not to have understood what they said and to have spoken in ecstasy. 695. I will argue in what follows for a context for this discussion other than that provided by Marcion. Jerome concludes the discussion of Ephesians 3:5—7 by empha- sizing once again the unity of the old revelation and the new.6 speaks only of the prophetic Scriptures T h e verses in 1 and 2 T i m . Origen clearly uses 2 T i m . 2016 that they do not know the mystery of Christ which was unknown to all the Gentiles from eternal times. The question of the unity of revelation was an issue of great importance in the early third century but not in the latter part of the fourth (see §11. Robinson. Gorgemanns and H. 1985). as it were. 'Le commentaire de Jerome sur Ephesiens'. It must be noted as well that the mystery of our faith cannot be revealed except through the prophetic Scriptures and the advent of Christ. A. p. 16:25-6. 174. treats a theological problem of Origen's time not Jerome's. n. however. whereas 2 T i m . whereas 2 T i m . Texte zur Forschung 24 ( D a r m s t a d t . 1:10 with R o m . It is clear that the question of the relation of the old revelation to the new is the overarching issue that fuels the discussion of Ephesians 3:5-7.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2. 27. Karpp. Deniau. in other words. but assert that they are intent on the gospel alone. Add to Deniau's list of references J. p. (App. The Philocaha of Origen (Cambridge. 62 Comm. 35.

Origen claims in addition that Heracleon 'truly disdains what is called the Old Testament. Pagels. 52. Heracleon had taken John the Baptist's statement that he was unworthy to loose the thong of Christ's shoe to indicate the Demiurge's inferiority to Christ. Comm. in Rom.194—200. There are three major discussions of the issue discussed here in the extant works of Origen..43. has pointed out that Heracleon understands John the Baptist to be a repre- sentative of the creator God of the Old Testament whom the Gnostics designated the Demiurge. could not have spoken of this God for the Demiurge was ignorant of him. Further. Origen. in.117. Io. implying that there is no disjuncture between the God of the Old Testa- ment and of the New nor is there a disjuncture in the revelation in the two Testaments. 13. Origen never explicitly identifies the significance of this distinction in his discussion. The discussion of the relation between the revelation given to Downloaded from http://jts.' 66 When we consider Origen's argu- ment against Heracleon on John 1:18 in this context it becomes clear that Heracleon must have argued that John 1:18 speaks of the Gnostic unknown God and have concluded that John the Bap- tist. as a representative of the Demiurge. 64 This fact and its significance for our argument become clearer in Origen's later debate with Heracleon over the meaning of John 1:26—7. 'He is already present. H. 1973). 2016 Moses and the prophets and that given to the apostles occurs first in Origen's Commentary on John in the context of Origen's attempt to prove against the gnostic Heracleon that John 1:18 should be included with the words of John the Baptist beginning in John 1:15 and not be ascribed to the disciple who wrote the Gospel. 63 I shall concentrate on that in the Commentary on John. Book 6.15-31 which is the fullest discussion. 54. pp.oxfordjournals. HEINE Are there parallel discussions of this problem elsewhere in Origen's treatises? Like all writers who produce large amounts of work Origen tended to repeat himself and provide very similar discussions wherever the same theme occurred. 66 Io. however.15-31.. Heracleon ascribed John 1:18 to the disciple of Jesus who wrote the Gospel of John rather than to John the Baptist who preceded Io. 64 The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis • Heracleon's Commentary on John (Nashville. E. . 6.494 RONALD E. Origen counters that Christ 'was always among men' and that he was in such men as Isaiah and David.301-19.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2. 6. Consequently. 6. and is manifest to all of you' implying that a new revelation of the unknown God was now in process. Heracleon had said on these verses.

through whom 'all things were made' (italics mine). t r a n s . R. Commentary on the Gospel according to John. 6 . . Origen's concluding remarks show that the primary concern in his argument with Heracleon's interpretation of John 1:18 is parallel to that in Jerome's discussion of Ephesians 3:5—7 (App. minimize the gift given to the fathers and the prophets from God through Christ. 3 1 . Origen's remarks make clear how widespread and important the issue of the relation between the old revelation and the new was in the early third century. They may have been influenced by Gnostic teachings but did not go so far as to denigrate the God of the Old Testament or to recognize another higher God. iyXo). E . in the fantasy of glorifying Christ's sojourn. p. 2016 We have spent time . Origen's overall approach to this problem and some of the Scriptures he considered important to interpret in relation to it can also be shown to be parallel to Jerome's approach and related Scriptures. The second group appears to be Christians not considered heretical but considered to err in their view of the relation of the old revela- tion to the new. examining these matters at greater length because some.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2.. 68 This is followed. Origen launches a lengthy rebuttal to prove the unity between the old revelation in Moses and the prophets and the new revela- tion in Christ and consequently also to prove the unity of God..57 The first group to which Origen refers is clearly the Gnostics. 6. FOTC 80 (Washington. again like Jerome. The theological problem perceived as critical in Jerome's discussion of Ephesians 3:5—7 is a problem of the early third century and it is a problem which Origen addressed. not daring to go so far as this in their argu- ment. like Jerome's noted above. 68 Jo. Origen's first step. RECOVERING ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY 495 Jesus and represented the Demiurge of the Old Testament. Did the ancients understand the things they spoke about Christ? Origen regularly answered this question by quoting Proverbs 16:23 a s it appears in the Septuagint. 177. by the question of understanding. Origen begins by citing John 8:56 to prove this point. Others. Books 1-10. and have fashioned another God who is greater. because of the unexamined nature of their teachings. was to show that things related to Christ's advent had been made known by the patriarchs and prophets. Like Jerome. H e i n e . say that the apostles were much wiser than the fathers and the prophets. §§7-9. Origen.15-20.oxfordjournals. 15)- Downloaded from http://jts. If 'a wise man shall understand the words from his own mouth and shall bear knowledge on his lips' we must either declare rashly that the 67 lo.

174. 175.' Origen then quotes Ephesians 3:5-6 and says the reason Paul said this was that 'it was not revealed to many' (italics mine). 6. See also Origen. jfn. n. 73 I b i d . §7). Comm. also related to Romans 16:25-6. He sometimes understands it to mean that the words of prophets can be understood and explained only by prophets. p. 1—10. ibid.oxfordjournals. 352-4 takes note of Jerome's discussion of prophetic inspiration in his commentary on Ephesians in relation to his discussion of the same in the prologue to the commentary on Isaiah.496 R O N A L D E.' or admit that the prophets were wise because they have received what is correct and true and have understood 'the words from their own mouth' and borne knowledge on their lips. via an allusion to Proverbs 16:23. since the one who also taught the apostles revealed the unspeakable mysteries of religion to them. R. E Heine. 6. 6.26. 13. 1—13 in Ex.25. t r . 10. 354. p . E . tr. in Rom. L'exegese de saint Jerome d'apres son ' Commentmre sur Isaie' (Paris. R. 6 . pp.43 lo.' He begins by quoting the same blend of Romans 16:25-6 with 1 Timothy 6:4 that we noted in Jerome above.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2. Horn. 4. if they have not understood 'the words from their own mouth. 1985). P Jay. This leads. Io. 2 4 . ibid.21. 74 I b i d . 19B-20A) Jerome uses Prov. 16:23 as it appears in the LXX along with 1 Cor.316 70 In the prologue to his commentary on Isaiah (PL 24. Origen's argument occurs in fuller form in his Commentary on Romans where he says that the prophets knew that of which they spoke but that they did not reveal the mystery universally (vulgo) until Io.70 There are no extant texts of Origen where he uses 1 Corinthians 14:32 to make precisely this point though one of his applications of this verse might lend Downloaded from http://jts.. H e i n e .5. 71 Origen then comes to the focal point of his discussion of the problem. 'I wish to prove that those who have been perfected in former generations have known no less than the things which were revealed to the apostles by Christ. . 1—10. 153) that Jerome is very likely following his Ongenian source for his discussion in Ephesians. 14:32 to argue that the prophets did not speak in ecstasy as Montanus and his prophetesses said. 74 Jerome's argument. Jerome uses i Corinthians 14:32 rather than Proverbs 16:23 t 0 show that the prophets understood the things they said and did not speak in ecstasy (App. and suggests (p. Comm. t o the conclusion that 'the prophets knew the things which have been made mani- fest to the apostles. jfn. 174. Comm. §15). p . H E I N E prophets were not wise. that the mystery was not kept secret from those who were announcing it but from the Gentiles to whom it would later be revealed closely resembles this (App. 2016 itself to such a use.

13. §9). The apostles.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2.10. 78 See Io. cf. in his argument in the Commentary on John.43. have seen this fulfilled 'with their own eyes. Origen explains the distinction Paul makes between what was formerly revealed and what has now been revealed by suggesting two different ways of understanding 'revealed'. 10. §8).315. The prophets knew about the inclusion of the Gentiles referred to in Downloaded from http://jts. 6. RECOVERING ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY 497 the Word became flesh at which time the mystery was made known to all the Gentiles for the obedience of faith. §§7.oxfordjournals. that it most likely comes from Origen. . The intention of my argument has not been to show that Jerome was dependent on Origen's discussion in book six of his Commentary on John. The first proposed a distinction between the phrases 'sons of men' and 'sons of God' based on Psalm 81:6 (App.' 76 This is the same argument that Jerome uses as his primary explana- tion of the distinction between the old revelation and the new (App. on the other hand. 266. 9). 20. Horn.27-8. The other proposal Jerome makes for solving the problem is that of a diversity of gifts based on 1 Corinthians 12 (App. 5 Next. 76 Io. I have found nothing resembling this in Origen with respect to the prob- lem of the unity of the old and new revelations. Perhaps Jerome took this argument over from one of his other two sources. 11. Something can be said to be revealed when it is understood or. §7). The two suggestions made by Jerome for solving the problem of the relation of the old revelation to the new posed in Ephesians 3:5-7 for which I have found no exact parallel in Origen are the first and the last. if it is a prophecy. Io.' 'They understood the events no more than the fathers and the prophets' but they have perceived the truth 'through the completed event. 6.29. 1-16 in Lev. Immediately after this explanation Origen points out that Matthew 13:17 should be interpreted in this same way. Jerome does the same except that he uses the Lukan parallel (Luke 10:24) to Matthew 13:17 (App. book six. but to show how Origen treated the problem of the relation of the old revelation to the new and to suggest 75 Comm in Rom. 9. This so closely resembles the kind of distinctions Origen often makes and resembles the distinction he sometimes uses Psalm 81:6 to make.242. 2016 Ephesians 3:6 so far as understanding goes.2. The way that the inter- pretation is developed differs between the two but the same point is made in the exposition. it can be said to be revealed when its fulfilment is complete.

This is supported by references to Galatians 1:4 and Ephesians 2:7. Downloaded from http://jts.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2.498 RONALD E. 'the mystery hidden from the ages in God'. The 'problems and solutions' technique of Origen is again apparent (see §11-7) and two problems are noted. at least. is briefer. the riches which were unsearchable by human understand- ing have been revealed by God so that they are now perceived. A temporal understanding of 'ages' is implicit in the first two answers. Three possibilities are suggested (App. The third possibility shifts the focus to the phrase 'the mystery hidden from the ages' and sug- gests a different way of understanding the term 'ages'. This answer is further distinguished from the first by suggesting that the riches themselves continue to be unsearchable and secret and are known only by the grace of God. HEINE how he probably treated the same subject in his Commentary on Ephesians. §17)? The second part of this question is not answered specifically but the key phrase. First. nevertheless. The third possibility suggests that 'ages' may refer to 'all the spiritual and rational creatures which were in the ages' and were ignorant of the mystery. The first two are based on two different ways of understanding the terms 'unsearchable' and 'secret'. Ephesians 3:8-g Paul's words in Ephesians 3:8—9 do not raise the kind of theo- logical issues that Ephesians 3:5-7 raised. He first identifies the problem of Paul's truthfulness in his claim to be the least of the saints if he. The commentary. 2016 consequently. why has Paul proclaimed it to the Gentiles (App. The second problem involves Ephesians 3:8b~9. also greater than all. if the mystery has been hidden from the ages in God. the statement in Ephesians 3:9 that locates the mystery of Christ 'in the God who created all things' is used to prove the unity of the God of the Old Testament and the New against Marcion and Valentinus (App. Psalm 30:20 is cited in connection with this argument. How can the riches of Christ be unsearchable if they are preached to the people? Or. §18). .oxfordjournals. of his discussion from Origen's Commentary on Ephesians. Second. Finally. 19). §§17. The problem is solved by joining a loose combination of Matthew 20:26 and Mark 9:35 with 1 Corinthians 4:9 and 1 Corinthians 15:10 to show how Paul was weaker than all and. was still worthy to be an apostle (App. the riches which previously were unsearchable have been revealed after the Lord's passion. The many similarities between Origen's treatment of this topic and Jerome's treatment of it in his comments on Ephesians 3:5—7 suggest that Jerome has taken over the bulk. §16). is blended with the 'unsearchable riches of Christ' in answering the first part. therefore.

The latter discussion is extant in the Greek catena fragments on Ephesians.7). §18).' is cited to show 'that the Aeons are a creation. The most striking similarity is the joining of the saying of Jesus concerning the necessity of being last in order to be first (Mark 9:35. The first trace of Origen which I point out occurs in the discus- sion of the unity of the God of the Old and New Testaments and the mentioning of Marcion and Valentinus specifically in conjunc- Downloaded from http://jts. traces of Origen to be found here also. Then Hebrews 1:3. The intervening statement which links the two passages is also similar in Jerome and Origen. 3. 20:26-7) with 1 Corinthians 4:9 in relation to Paul (App. 4. Matt. Galatians 1:4 is cited to show that 'the present Aeon (Age) is an evil living being.oxfordjournals.). Third. The discussion there concerns the meaning of the phrase 'the Aeon (Age) of this world'. §§17. RECOVERING ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY 499 Indications of Jerome's dependence on Origen for his remarks on these two verses are not as strong as those for the preceding three verses but there are. §16). Origen joins these Scriptures in relation to Paul in his eighth homily on Jeremiah.4). Four of the eight criteria provided in §11 above appear in this discussion (§11. . identical with "the ruler of the power of the spirit of the air"'. §19) resembles a definition that Origen gives to 'ages' in his discussion of Ephesians 2:2. p. Gregg. and the three possibilities for interpreting Ephesians 3:9 (App. nevertheless. 19) suggest Origen's exegetical procedure of providing multiple answers to an exegetical problem (§11.3). Second. 2016 tion with this problem (App.168 ft. I place his remarks parallel to Jerome's remarks on Ephesians 3:8. the suggestion that 'ages' may mean 'the spiritual and rational creatures which were in the ages' and the citation of Galatians 1:4 to support this view (App.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2. 403 (ix. Origen's 'problems and solutions' technique structures the exegesis. 7). one of whom can rebelliously have become evil and be said to be the "Aeon (Age) of this world"'. 'The Commentary of Origen'. This discussion and that pro- vided by Jerome as his third possibility for explaining Ephesians 3:9 belong to the same world of thought (§11.1. The fourth trace of Origen which I find in Jerome's discussion concerns his use of some of the same Scriptures that Origen uses to interpret or complement one another to make similar points (§11. 'through whom he made the Aeons (Ages).1). I have already referred to the similar use of Galatians 1:4 to define the meaning of 'aeon' or 'age'. This had relevance in Origen's lifetime but not in Jerome's (§11.

Origen also cites Jesus' saying that 'the last shall be first' (Matt.? Deus nos apostolos novissimos ostendit iiriBavaTlovs. 'The Commentary of Origen'. Ephesians 3:10—11 Jerome's exposition of Ephesians 3:10-11 focuses on the phrase 'the manifold wisdom of God'.500 RONALD E. in his discussion of Ephesians 1:8-9 m the catena fragments. These principalities and powers are the good powers which serve God and not the evil powers of Ephesians 2:2 (App. This is not the same Scripture that appears in Jerome's comments on Ephesians 3:8 but it is very similar and shows that Origen made a connection between Jesus' teaching about the first and the last and Ephesians 3:8. . a. Jer. 'Ongen-Citations'. Cf. Downloaded from http://jts. HEINE ORIGEN JEROME <P-qaiv 6 acoT-rjp " ' O BeXwv iv vjiiv elvai Loquitur Dommus in Evangelio ad •npojTos carat navTcov eoxaros " discipulos: Qui vult in vobis major esse 'ET7]PT]O€V ravTijv TT)V kvToXr/v flavXos. App. §21). §16). §20)..2-8).81 The fact that this wisdom has been revealed to the principalities and powers is taken to mean that the cross of Christ was for them as well as for humans. quasi morti destinatos (PL 26. TOUJ operecomplebat. p. 6 8ebs rjna.). Finally. §17).oxfordjournals.4). The Church. fiat omnium minor qui vult esse primus Koi TJV eaxaros iv TOVTCO JW Koafiw 816 sit omnium novissimus. 592. Quod Paulus t/rqoiv "AOKW yap. (Horn. 406 (xii. §16). dicens:Puto enimquia OLTTOOTOXOVS kox&Tovs aTT€&et£ev. does not possess 'a simple faith' but a C. p. 20:16) in this discussion of 1 Corinthians 4:9. 360 (xx. Origen uses Psalm 30:20 much like Jerome uses it in his discussion of Ephesians 3:9 (App. therefore. 8. Origen raises the ques- tion of Paul's truthfulness in what he says in Ephesians 3:8.4 ff. The Church has now revealed this hidden wisdom not only to the Gentiles but also to the princip- alities and powers in heaven. He says that he did not mean that he was the 'least' in holiness for then he would not have been speaking the truth. Gregg. . 2016 Origen uses Ephesians 3:8 to interpret the meaning of 'last' in 1 Corinthians 4:9 in the catena fragments on 1 Corinthians as Jerome uses 1 Corinthians 4:9 to interpret the meaning of 'least' in Ephesians 3:8 (App.. Jenkins. as revealer of this hidden wisdom.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2. It is these heavenly powers who express their amazement in Isaiah 63:1 and Psalm 23:8 when they see 'God returning to heaven with a body' (App. Like Jerome.

241-5. 7 ( P G 17. 10-17.38). modified. 84 Origen refers to the amazement of the heavenly powers on seeing this by citing Isaiah 61:3 either alone 85 or in conjunction with Psalm 23:8 as Jerome does here (App. 6 0 0 A . 1-16 in Lev. 6. i. 4). 7 ( P G 17. and joins two scriptural texts which Origen uses in con- junction with one another to indicate the revelation of the mystery to the heavenly powers (§11-3. §§22-3).154—5. §21). Jerome repeats here in brief form the conclusion he reached in Downloaded from http://jts. 84 Jo. . Horn. See also Jo.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2. Orig. Christ is the ' "great high priest" who offered himself as the sacrifice offered once for all not for humans alone but also for every spiritual being'. 1-10. Horn. pp.86 Jo. 1. Horn. 'it would be strange to declare that he tasted death for human sins but not further also for any other creature in addi- tion to humans which happened to be in sins. Ong.4. 28. 10. 2016 his exegesis of Ephesians 3:5-7 concerning the Church's under- standing of God's 'ancient plan of the ages' but extends it beyond the patriarchs and prophets to include also the principalities and powers (App. 1-16 in Lev. §§20—1). 1:22 a n d 2:17 (Apol. 9. Comm. in Rom. Comm.284. is attested in various places in Origen's works. That the cross of Christ was effective not only for humans but for all rational heavenly beings as well is a characteristic doctrine in Origen's theological system.oxfordjournals. E. 3 . This entire exposition moves within the framework of Origen's thought except. 13. of course.B ) 86 Jo 6. §23). 85 Pamphili Apol. the remarks about the Arians. trans. I pointed out above in discussing Ephesians 3:5-7 that this was Origen's answer to the problem of the superiority of the new revelation to the old. For Origen. Rufinus twice accuses Jerome of holding this Origenist doctrine in his Commentary on Ephesians. 1.10. R. Comm.19. 85-6. 6 0 0 A . 5.3. 83 In h i s attack on J e r o m e ' s exposition of E p h . 16. The discus- sion concludes with a somewhat confused application against the Arians of the understanding that wisdom was made in Christ (App. 6. 83 The view that Christ took his body of our flesh to heaven after the completion of his work on earth (App. but not in relation to the passage under discussion though it provides an additional parallel case. 413. 1. which Jerome connects with the revelation of God's plan to the heavenly powers.2.5. Heine. for instance for the stars since not even the stars are absolutely pure before God as we have read in Job'.288. RECOVERING ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY 501 'manifold and multifarious wisdom' (App.288. The Church's understanding is superior because the plan has been brought to its completion and 'we see it'. Pamphili Apol. 9.255-7. Furthermore.Jn. 1-39 in Lk. §21). in Mt. 2 .B ) .

'My Lord and Saviour'. 2016 John.9. having been introduced by means of these things. Jerome's conclusion to his list of contrasts. tr. And perhaps for this reason the holy prophecies proclaim him here as servant and there as son. Comm. . In his Commentary on Downloaded from http://jts..' For. §22). 1.502 RONALD E. But this very statement is false if we should take it that he was born of the seed of David in the case of his more divine power. is in harmony with Origen's discussion of 1 Corinthians 1:20—5 at the conclusion of his eighth homily on Jeremiah.14. Origen concludes. p.3.' is true. Opposite statements concerning our Lord.21—3.42-5. Io. so far as the literal meaning is concerned. lo.6. He is man insofar as he is capable of death.. God's whole work in Christ on earth is his foolish- ness. §22). on the one hand. the statement. 1. He is called servant because of the 'form of a servant' and because he is 'of the seed of David' but son in accordance with his power as firstborn. 88 Finally. God's foolishness is sufficient for that for 'the foolishness of God is wiser than men' (1 Cor. Origen argues there that it is not God's wisdom which overcomes the wisdom of the world and shows it to be foolishness. 89 Horn.. HEINE Jerome's comments contrasting 'simple faith' and the 'manifold and multifarious wisdom' of the Church reflect Origen's perennial concern to relate these two subjects and to correct the view held by the majority that the Christian faith is simple and rests on a literal understanding of the biblical message. 'has taken up all the opposite things that by the opposites he might destroy their opposites and we might be made strong from the weakness of Jesus and wise from the foolishness of God and. 4. 260. 'He was not born of David. 87 The series of con- trasts Jerome lists. 4. more obscure than this wisdom which God "has made in Christ Jesus our Lord?" ' (App. suggests that those addressed focus on the simple story of the earthly Jesus and miss the mystery of the heavenly being. So it is true to say that he is man and that he is not man. beginning with 'You consider the cradle of Christ. Pref. 8. for he was appointed son of God in power. Origen contrasts the divine and human in Christ in a way that is similar but not exactly parallel to the series of contrasts that Jerome provides (App.. 1—10. 3.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2. 'What is wiser than this foolishness. 9. 'He was born of David.' 9 Origen makes a subtle and 87 See Princ. Jer.2. if we understand his material part. not man insofar as he is more divine than man. R.oxfordjournals. E Heine. are true: 'He was born of David' and. §21). look equally at heaven' (App. we might be able to ascend to the wisdom and power of God which is Christ Jesus to whom belongs glory and power forever. 10. 1:25). Jn.

This rapidity could explain the disjuncture in meaning between what I take to be Origen's comments about the wisdom of God made in Christ and the anti-Arian comments tacked on because they refer to the origin of wisdom. §23). 1 (Cambridge. 1970). In this discussion he distinguishes between Christ himself who is the true 'wisdom of God' and the working out of God's redemptive plan in Christ which he calls God's 'foolishness' here. 4 applies <j times. 586). 3. . 91 See H. The conclusion that Jerome adds concerning the Arians. 8). and 8 applies twice. 2016 What.18 ff. The Cambridge History of the Bible.oxfordjournals. especially. Downloaded from http://jts. In the preface to book two of the commentary Jerome refers to the rapidity with which he was working. Sparks. 5. See also Cels. 4.92 The whole exegesis is framed by material dependent on Origen both preceding and following it as the catena fragments show. 3 47 far another non-Christological definition which Origen gives to the 'wisdom of God' in 1 Cor 1. Jerome's words about the 'wisdom which God "has made in Christ Jesus our Lord" ' refer to is God's plan which is apparent foolishness and not to Christ himself as the 'wisdom of God'. both of whom were strong opponents of Arianism. Ackroyd and C. F. in P. or made the comments himself.1. Vol. R. 7. RECOVERING ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY 503 important distinction in this discussion. on Proverbs 8:22. however. 5 applies once. understands 'wisdom' in its Christological sense based on Proverbs 8:22 (App. He usually understands 'wisdom' as one of the titles of the pre-existent Christ based. This shift in meaning may further suggest that the preceding discussion came from Origen and not Jerome and that Jerome did not grasp the precise meaning that Origen intended for the phrase the 'wisdom of God' in the discussion. Evans (eds ). sometimes completing as many as a thousand lines a day (PL 26. F. CONCLUSION I have found six of the eight criteria I listed above to apply to Jerome's exegesis of Ephesians 3:4-11 (§11. 3 applies 8 times. Whether he took these comments over from Apollinarius or Didymus. D. P.953&- Criterion 1 applies twice. 'Jerome as Biblical Scholar'. it seems to me. the mean- ing of the phrase the 'wisdom' which has 'been made in Christ' has shifted from the meaning which it had in the previous discus- sion.90 This is in harmony with the understanding of God's plan and wisdom that Jerome presents in his list of contrasts and his concluding remarks about the 'wisdom which God "has made in Christ Jesus our Lord'".org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2. 7 applies several times.

that we have recovered Origen's actual words but rather that we know the main lines of his thought on these verses in Ephesians. HEINE Most of the discussion of Ephesians 3:5-7 is concerned with the early third century problem of the relation of the new revelation to the old. 2016 that Origen uses them. The exegetical procedures overall are the same as Origen's customary ways of working. . IF INDEED YOU HAVE HEARD O F T H E DISPENSATION OF T H E GRACE OF GOD GIVEN 93 See notes 11 and 2 above. Pieri) 93 There are parallels in the Greek catena fragments for the comments on Ephesians 3:1-3 and 3:12 in the translation which follows.oxfordjournals. I have added paragraph numbers in parentheses to make references in the essay more precise. BOOK II (Translated from the text of F. and once he uses the same argument Origen uses to establish an interpretation. APPENDIX JEROME: COMMENTARY ON EPHESIANS. Given the fact that we know that Jerome was dictating his Commentary on Ephesians with Origen's Commentary on Ephesians open before him and that he was a great admirer of Origen at the time he was composing it. some of which were charac- teristic and controversial views of Origen. Eph. Eight interpretations are presented which can be identified as interpretations favoured by Origen. these findings suggest very strongly that the exegesis of Ephesians 3:4—11 found in Jerome's Commentary on Ephesians was derived from Origen's commentary. The italicized words in these passages are the material which the catena fragments show that Jerome has taken over from Origen. The problem of the unity of the God of the Old and New Testaments in association with Marcion and Valentinus is introduced in the conclusion of the exegesis of Ephesians 3:8-9. I have placed those remarks which clearly do not come from Origen in square brackets throughout the translation. of course.504 RONALD E. Nine different Scrip- tures or combinations of Scriptures are used in the same way Downloaded from http://jts. manner of working and situation. This does not mean. There is very little in Jerome's entire exegesis of Ephesians 3:4—11 which could not have come from Origen and much that parallels Origen's thought. 3:1-4 FOR T H I S REASON I PAUL AM T H E PRISONER O F JESUS C H R I S T ON BEHALF O F YOU G E N T I L E S .org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2.

org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2. For he did not say. . the mystery was made known to me in revelation. the prisoner of Jesus Christ on behalf of you Gentiles. For instead of that which he ought to say. 1 . namely that Paul was predestined before his birth and sanctified from the womb of his mother to preach to the Gentiles (Gal. But if someone can also show that the apostle was perfect and has not com- mitted grammatical errors according to the coherence of the language and manner of speaking. he says. because many passages refer to this body as the prison of the soul in which it is held as in an enclosed cell. 1:15). RECOVERING ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY 505 TO ME FOR YOU. (2) But Paul's being the prisoner of Jesus Christ for the Gentiles can also be understood of his martyrdom because when he had been thrown into prison at Rome.oxfordjournals.-23) so that his preaching among the Gentiles might be finished com- pletely (see Jerome. 11:6). however. For this reason I Paul. we say that Paul is confined by the fetters of the body and could not return and be with Christ (Phil. The meaning can be rendered as follows: For this reason I Paul the prisoner of Jesus Christ and a prisoner for you who are from the Gentiles have made known the mys- tery that I might pass it on also to you just as I have said 587 a little earlier in this same epistle. 'For this reason I Paul the prisoner. introduce another meaning in this passage. Or. But you ought to hear of the dispensation of the grace of God which has been given to me for you who are from the Gentiles for whom also I am the prisoner of Jesus Christ. JUST AS I WROTE ABOVE IN A FEW WORDS. the Colossians and the Philip- pians (as) we have shown in another place. have made known the mystery just as I wrote above in a few words. ACCORDINGLY BY READING (THEM) YOU CAN COMPREHEND MY UNDERSTANDING IN THE MYSTERY OF CHRIST. Apol. perhaps. Some. namely. for this reason I Paul have done this or that or have taught this or that but while the thought remains up in the air he has passed over to other matters. Unless. perhaps. as you can read and understand. and later accepted the bonds of flesh. 'although untrained in speech but not in knowledge' (2 Cor. (3) But I think that the manner of speaking is also defective in this passage. then listen to that person instead. i. 2016 which answers to it.25). excusing in him that which even he himself has confessed when he says. he sent this epistle at the same time that he wrote to Philemon.' etc. (1) To what extent does the phrase.' pertain to the sequence of the discourse and the structure of the language which pre- cedes it? Although we searched very diligently we could find nothing Downloaded from http://jts. THAT THE MYSTERY WAS MADE KNOWN TO ME IN REVELATION. 'For this reason I Paul am the prisoner of Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles. we should seek the order of meaning in the clause rather than the order of the words.

For he himself also says to the Corinthians. some small part of which he has touched slightly in his discourse. 3:15). This is what we said in the preface when we remarked that no epistle of Paul contains so many mysteries and is so wrapped in hidden meanings which the apostle boasts that he knows and briefly hints at so that we might pore very carefully over what he has written.506 RONALD E. by reading them. as to indicate modestly what he is passing over in silence. Eph. therefore. and the other prophets ignorant of it or not? Scripture relates that the advent of Christ and the calling of the Gentiles . who could not render a hyperbaton and round off a period.' For truly if anyone will contemplate the preceding (words) of this epistle. BELONGING TO THE SAME BODY. 3:5-7 AND TO OTHER GENERATIONS IT WAS NOT MADE KNOWN TO THE SONS OF MEN AS IT HAS NOW BEEN REVEALED TO HIS HOLY APOSTLES AND PROPHETS IN THE SPIRIT.oxfordjournals. Accordingly. unless he had preached him in the power of God and not in the wisdom of speech. 'And when I came to you. 2:1). you can comprehend my understanding or wisdom in the mystery of Christ. I came not in Downloaded from http://jts. brothers. lacking the polish of rhetorical speech. (6) It seems necessary to re-examine rather thoroughly how the mystery of Christ. he would never have been able to bring the whole world to faith in Christ. THAT THE GENTILES ARE JOINT HEIRS. Were Abraham. boldly claims wisdom for himself and says. 2016 the excellence of speech or wisdom 588 announcing to you the testimony of God' (1 Cor. the proper arrangement of words. AND ARE COPARTNERS OF THE PROMISE IN CHRIST THROUGH THE GOSPEL OF WHICH I WAS MADE A MINISTER ACCORDING TO THE GIFT OF GOD'S GRACE WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN TO ME ACCORDING TO THE OPERATION OF HIS POWER.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2. 2:4-5). (5) He. was unknown to other generations. Jacob. And again. which the apostle related partially above. 'That the mystery was made known to me in revelation just as I wrote above in a few words. who committed solecisms in speech. Moses.HEINE (4) But whenever we note solecisms or similar things we do not defame the apostle as ill-willed people make accusations but rather we are defenders of the apostle because as a Hebrew of the Hebrews (Phil. Isaiah. he says. not so much to bring forth everything which he knew. and the grace of eloquence. he will see mysteries revealed in it. that your faith might not be in human wisdom but in the power of God' (1 Cor. 'And my speech and my preaching were not in the persuasive words of wisdom but in the demonstration of the Spirit and power.

saw his day and rejoiced (John 8:56) and it was said to him. and appears too violent and forced. Either. (7) It must. RECOVERING ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY 507 were predicted by these very people. because these. considered the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt (Heb. 'Visit this vineyard and perfect that which your right hand planted. therefore. on the basis of the preposition em (super) which begins the clause in question. one must answer that Paul has testified cautiously and distinctly that the mystery was unknown to the sons of men. 79:18). Moses. of course. 79:15—16). And again. 21:28). 'Let your hand be upon the man of your right hand and upon the son of man whom you have confirmed for yourself (Ps. 79:15 which. to whom it is said. 2016 Gentiles will hope' (Rom. And even more clearly of the people of Israel and of our Lord the Saviour. to whom the patriarchs and prophets belonged. The dispensation of his body is also indicated in the words which follow. 'I said. 589 And Isaiah says. .oxfordjournals.1 iSe. Or. in fact. You are gods and sons of the Most High (Ps.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2. 15:12). 'Behold a virgin will conceive and will give birth' (Isa. And that the list not grow long. 11:26). in the LXX. they understood by all means that which they spoke. Abraham. if this is not accepted. if this is impious inasmuch as the spirit of prophets is subject to prophets (1 Cor. 7:14). then. I ask how Paul now says that what was not known to other generations has been revealed to the apostles of Christ. And Jacob says prophetically of him who is to arise from Judah. 'And all the families of the Gentiles shall worship before him' (Ps. 'All the Gentiles will serve him' (Ps. let it suffice to cite a few verses from the Psalms. 'And he will be the expectation of the Gentiles' (Gen. the statement will be transformed so that it says that Paul has not said in a definite and general manner that the mystery of the Lord was not known at all to other generations but that the ancient patri- archs and prophets did not know it in the manner in which it has now been revealed to his saints and apostles. 'He will be the rod of Jesse. eiripXeijiov k£ ovpavoii KO. 14:32). in him the Downloaded from http://jts. knew the mystery of God. For it is one thing to recognize in the spirit the things that are to come and another to 94 I have supplied this verb from the second clause of Ps. 71:11). And if they understood. and (look) upon the son whom you have confirmed for yourself (Ps. who will arise to rule the Gentiles. reads. And elsewhere. either be accepted in accordance with Montanus that the patriarchs and prophets spoke in ecstasy and did not know what they said or. 49:10). not to the sons of God. 'All the Gentiles will be blessed in your seed' (Gen. 22:18). too. who have received the spirit of adoption. 81:6).

another various kinds of tongues. there are a diversity of gifts. 'God has taught me wisdom. 50:8). 'Are you wiser than Daniel?' (Ezek. likewise. This one is wise. of the nature of beasts and birds and plants so that they should treat (subjects) . 28:3). There was no one like you before you and no one similar to you will arise after you' (1 Kings 3:11-12). boasts of knowledge of hidden mysteries when he says. For all have not likewise spoken. following Solomon's example. because it is one thing to hold something in the hands and another to see what will be in advance in the spirit. HEINE discern them when the work has been completed. This is also why John is said to be greater than all the prophets (Luke 7:28).oxfordjournals. Solomon also says confidently of himself.' David. behold I have performed your word and I have given you a judicious and wise heart. They desired. One has prophecy. or we must say that in the same way that all faces are not alike so neither are hearts and. 'Because you have asked this thing from me and you did not ask for many days for yourself nor did you request riches nor the lives of your enemies but you asked that you might understand and attend to judgement. according to the apostle. the lamb of God. that one faithful. 2016 (Luke 10:24). 'You have made known to me the uncertain and hidden things of your wisdom' (Ps. 'Behold.508 RONALD E. But if they did not know the things which were to come. that one is intent on simple faith alone (1 Cor. then. (8) One can also explain the following saying in the same way. 12:4-10. this one has the capacity to understand secrets. that interpretation must be held of which we have already spoken above. I have known the understanding of holy things. and to hear what you hear and they did not hear' Downloaded from http://jts. no doubt. how could they desire those things of which they were completely ignorant? We read in the books of the Kings that the Lord 590 promises to Solomon in a dream and says. He saw with his eyes him of whom the others had prophesied and pointed to him with his finger saying. And God says through the prophet to him who prided himself in wisdom. (9) Either. 'Many prophets and just men desired to see what you see and they did not see. 28).org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2. (and) governances. another the gift of healing. helps. behold him who takes away the sins of the world' (John 1:29). Now how can anyone think that a mystery has been revealed to the apostles of Christ of which Solomon was ignorant when Solomon was wiser than all the apostles? This divine testimony applies also to the patriarchs in retrospect. to see and hear these things which they knew would be in the future. that the patriarchs and prophets were ignorant of the mystery of Christ as now revealed to the apostles.

18:2) and elsewhere. 'is your inheritance' (Deut. And just as we must believe that the patriarchs and prophets had some things Downloaded from http://jts. indeed. it would be possible to suspect some conflict in the one body on the basis of the two terms above. (13) Now. belonging to the same body. RECOVERING ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY 509 from the cedar in Lebanon to the hyssop which comes out of the wall (i Kings 4:33). (11) The Gentiles. and they rejoice and feel pain recipro- cally. Indeed. i.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2. syllables. so. ears. what we think is better.e. It is written in another passage. and are copartners of the promise in Christ through the gospel of which' Paul 'was made a minister according to the gift of God's grace which has been given to' him 'according to the opera- tion of his power'. are joint heirs with Israel or. belly. But all disagreement has .' it says. 'heirs of God and joint heirs of Christ' (Rom. 8:17). I know that the juxtaposition of the ideas of his chain of thought. On the other hand. nevertheless. 'joint heirs and belonging to the same body'. 'the Lord is my portion and my inheritance' (Ps. 'the Lord. hands. in virtue of the favourableness of time and the preaching of the gospel the apostles have known the mystery of Christ more completely. eyes. 'joint heirs. feet. therefore. (12) Moreover. and copartners. tittles. although those who believe in Christ have different gifts. that 'the Gentiles are joint heirs. It is not that some possession is divided between us but that the Lord himself is our inheritance and possession. 'belonging to the same body' means that just as there are many members in one body. I5(i6):5). and knees and. they have been brought together into the one body of the church. for example. we wish to be in greater danger in the arrangement and order of words than in understanding.' makes an indecorous [Latin] sen- tence. are joint heirs with Christ so that God is our inheritance and we are joint heirs of Christ. the holy men of old also knew but not as the apostles on whom rested the necessity of preaching. belonging to the same body. 25:40). by which he says. 33:11). But because it is so in the [Greek] text and individual words. although they are in one body.oxfordjournals. (10) 591 But what is this mystery which was not revealed to other generations as it is now? Obviously it is that which follows. perhaps Solomon did not see all the kinds of sacrificial beasts and (ways) of worshipping God in the way that Moses did nor did the Lord speak to him face to face (Exod. they have their differences. on the other hand. 2016 which the apostles did not have so. For indeed. and punctuation marks in the divine Scriptures are full of meaning. Neither did Solomon have nor under- stand so massive an apparatus of vessels whose pattern the Lord showed Moses on the mountain (Exod.

org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2. therefore.oxfordjournals. For he also knew that he had been a persecutor and had devastated Christ's Downloaded from http://jts. 6:14. THE LEAST OF ALL THE SAINTS. On the basis of this humility the charge of arrogance is completely excluded. to show that it is God's grace and not his own merit. To these we must briefly respond that the mystery of Christ had been kept secret in times past not among those who were announcing that it was to be but among all the Gentiles to whom it was afterwards revealed. And it must be noted as well that the mystery of our faith cannot be revealed except through the prophetic Scriptures and the advent of Christ. HAS BEEN GIVEN THIS GRACE TO PREACH THE UNSEARCHABLE RICHES OF CHRIST AMONG THE GENTILES AND TO ENLIGHTEN ALL IN RESPECT TO WHAT IS THE DISPENSATION OF THE MYSTERY WHICH HAS BEEN HIDDEN FROM THE AGES IN GOD WHO CREATED ALL THINGS. Eph. know that they do not know the mystery of Christ which was unknown to all the Gentiles from eternal times. 1 Tim. (14) Furthermore. 'through the gospel of which I was made a minister according to the gift of grace which has been given to me according to the operation of his power'. 'and copartners of the promise in Christ Jesus'. to confirm their doctrine drag in. HEINE been completely eliminated on the basis of the addition. among those who were . 2 Tim. who neither under- stand the prophets nor desire to know them but assert that they are intent on the gospel alone. for example.510 RONALD E. along with the present testimony. 'Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret from eternal times but now revealed through the prophetic Scriptures and the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ' and the rest (Rom. also this which is found in many manuscripts to the Romans. 3:8-9 TO ME. 2016 Church. For where there is one copartnership all things are in common. a humble disciple who claims that the gospel of which he is a minister was not of his own merit but the grace of God would never be puffed up with presumptuous words. (16) I do not think that the apostle Paul had decided in the priv- acy of his own mind that he should say that he really was the least among all the saints. Some think he should be reprehended for his claim that a mystery has been revealed to himself which had been unknown to the patriarchs 592 and prophets. 16:25. 1:10). as it were. Paul adds beautifully. (15) Those who want the prophets not to have understood what they said and to have spoken in ecstasy. To be sure. Let those.

yet not I but the grace of God is with me' (1 Cor. (17) If the riches of Christ are unsearchable. greater. therefore. was one and the maker of the invisible world another? They say that this one is just (and) that one. they have been revealed. he did not fall short of the worthiness of an apostle. after the passion of the Lord. The Lord says to his disciples in the Gospel. Proof. RECOVERING ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY 511 in Ephesus or Corinth or Thessalonica or who had believed in the whole world. The riches were previously unsearch- able and now. 4:9). 'Whoever wishes to be great among you must become least of all and whoever wishes to be first must be last Downloaded from http://jts. Or perhaps the things which were unsearchable by human nature itself have been perceived by God's revelation of them. The Psalmist testifies that the riches of Christ are unsearchable when. I know not whom since he is always unknown. he says. it is the offence of lying to have one thing hidden in the heart and to utter another thing in speech. must be found that Paul truly was the least among all the saints and that. 593 'For I. Among all those. 'have laboured more than all of them. 20:26-7). this grace has been given to him to preach the unsearchable riches of Christ among the Gentiles and to teach the dispensation of the mystery which has been hidden from the ages in God who created all things. are to be under- stood in a twofold manner. for what reason is it brought forth to the Gentiles by Paul? 'Unsearchable' and 'hidden'. Because of this humility. 'For I think that God has shown us apostles last. who desired to be weak because of Christ. 'How infinite is the multitude of your goodness which you have hidden for those who fear you' (Ps. 30:20). that is the visible world. Although the secret was made known to you. Where are Marcion and Valentinus and all the heretics who assert that the maker of the world. Even though it is an indication of humility to call himself the least of all the saints. continues none the less to be unsearchable. therefore. speaking to this same Christ. It is another to be totally unable to understand by one's own dili- gence but by God's grace to know that which. . Paul fulfilled this in action saying.oxfordjournals. there- fore. (18) These riches of his goodness had been hidden from all previous ages in God who is the creator of all things. seeing that he is the least of all the saints. once you know it and even make it known to others. nevertheless. 15:10).org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2. it is as great in you as it was formerly. 2016 of all' (Matt.' he says. It is one thing to attain by one's own curiosity to a secret which ceases to be unsearchable as soon as it has been learned. however. as if appointed for death' (1 Cor. how are they preached among the people? If the mystery has been hidden from the ages in God. the apostle Paul was weaker and.

therefore. HEINE alone is good who is the Father of Christ. the secret itself has been revealed to him that the manifold wisdom of God. was not only for us but was also for the angels and all the powers in heaven and revealed the mystery which they did not previously know. which was formerly established according to the ancient plan of the ages (and) is now seen to have been consummated in Christ.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2. that is. the manifold wisdom of God [which is expressed by the Greek word TTOXVTTOIKLXOS and. is proclaimed to be the creator of all things. Eph. The cross of Christ. 1:4). From this it is demonstrated that the God of the New Testament and of the Old Testament is the same. in fact. in whom the mystery of Christ had been hidden from all previous ages. therefore. 594 namely that the ages themselves were ignorant of it.oxfordjournals. because he means to all who were to be in the ages to come. should be made manifest not only to the Gentiles but also to the princip- alities and powers through the Church. We know what God formerly determined in his mind would be and has now been accomplished on the basis of the fact that we see it. 2016 those who live in the age. And in another place he says. . 'that he might deliver us from this present wicked age' (Gal. if the manifold wisdom of God which has now been revealed to them through the Church was unknown to the principalities and powers in heavenly places which we ought to understand as saints and ministers of God (although some interpret them as the prince of the air (Eph. as I thus say. all the spiritual and rational creatures which were in the ages. is called multi- farious] has now been revealed through the Church to both prin- cipalities and powers. 'that he might show in the ages to come' (Eph. 2:7). 2:2) and his angels) by how much more was it unknown to the patriarchs and prophets whom we have shown above not to have been ignorant of the mystery of Christ but not to have known it as the apostles. (20) According to the gift of God's grace which has been given to the apostle that he might preach the unsearchable riches of Christ and teach the mystery among the Gentiles which had been unknown from the ages. As Paul speaks to the Galatians and says. is frequently taken for Downloaded from http://jts. Behold God. Age. (19) Now the mystery hidden from the ages can also be under- stood in another way.512 RONALD E. (21) Indeed. 3:10-11 T H A T T H E MANIFOLD WISDOM OF GOD M I G H T BECOME KNOWN NOW TO T H E PRINCIPALI- T I E S AND POWERS IN HEAVENLY PLACES T H R O U G H T H E CHURCH ACCORDING TO T H E PLAN O F T H E AGES WHICH HE MADE IN CHRIST JESUS OUR LORD. Moreover.

give us boldness with God even as they give us access so that our understand- ing approaches him. And. He is immersed in the waters but a dove. The Pharisees are ignorant of him but a star points him out (Matt. What is wiser than this foolishness. (24) Nothing can so offer us boldness with God and purity of conscience of which it is said. 'is foolish to men' (1 Cor. that in the Church there is a simple faith but a manifold and multifarious wisdom so that not only is it diverse but it is distinct in its great variety. RECOVERING ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY 513 Accordingly.] wisdom. wisdom. These things. (22) Let us not think. based on the order and connection of the words. therefore. 3:16-17). more distinct than this variety.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2. as also the npoOeais [that is 'plan'. she has been created according to them. 3:12 IN WHOM WE HAVE BOLDNESS AND ACCESS IN CONFIDENCE T H R O U G H T H E FAITH IN HIM. 2:2ff). more obscure than this wisdom which God 'has made in Christ Jesus our Lord'? (23) For although. 2:16). He is bap- tized by a servant but the voice of God is heard thundering from above (Matt. how is she said to have been established and created?] Eph. 63:1) And in another passage. truth. But if she was born. 8:22-3 LXX). diligently contemplates him. 'Who is this who comes from Edom with scarlet garments from Bosra so beautiful in his bright robe?' (Isa.oxfordjournals.' indeed. 3:16). which we have represented in the neuter gender with the Latin word propositum. He comes to the passion and he fears the suffering. assumes and . descends (Matt. nevertheless. ' / / our conscience does not condemn us we have confidence with God' (1 John 3:21) except the Word. (and) justice which are all understood to be in Christ (1 Cor. or rather the Spirit in a dove. 23:8). 1:25). he is the king of glory' (Ps. at the same time. You consider Downloaded from http://jts. You look at the infant crying in swaddling clothes but listen. 'The wisdom of God. Herod persecutes him but the magi worship him (Matt. resounds to a greater extent than the others as 'having been made' in Christ. he wants the cup to pass him by and he censures Peter because he feared the cup (Matt. 'Who is this king of glory? The Lord of the powers. 16:21-3). look equally at heaven (Luke 2:7-14). therefore. 1:30). 2016 the cradle of Christ. [But if wisdom is said to have been made in Christ in accordance with the mystical meanings the Arians understand falsely that she is glorified with respect to that testimony in which wisdom says that she has been created and brought forth and established at the beginning of the ways of God (Prov. at any rate. they are amazed at God returning to heaven 595 with a body and say. to the angels' praise (Luke 2:7—14). she could not have been born. many can understand the Church also 'to have been made'. 2 6:3/-9.

RONALD E. We not only have access but that the access itself might be firmer. HEINE . Lord' (Ps. procures a certain colour and splendour. whoever can understand wisdom believes in Christ as Wisdom. does all things with reason and order believes in Christ as Downloaded from http://jts. as it were.514 RONALD E. whoever has understood truth believes in Christ as Truth. Whoever. It is not necessary to say more since the necessity of speaking of Christ in a similar manner has often rested on me. 4:7). 2016 Word and Reason. from the rays of the sun. and says. The principle and origin of this boldness and access is faith in Christ. of light. we have it in confidence.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2. therefore. therefore. HEINE appropriates something of his majesty in itself.oxfordjournals. (25) It is great. whoever has lived justly believes in him as Justice. 'The light of your countenance 596 is signed upon us. not only that we have boldness but also that we have it in confidence.