Christianity and Judaismin Antiquity

CHnnles KaNNBNGIESSER, SenIr,s EpIron ORIGENOF ALEXANDRTA

VolumeI
His World andHis Legacy

Editedby Charles.
Kannengiesser
ancl
William L. Petersen

Universityof NotreDamePress
 CONTENTS
Preface vll

I. The World of Sacred Scripture

Copyright@ 1988by
Universityof NotreDamePress Origen's Old Testament Text: The Transmission History
NotreDame,Indiana46556 of the Septuagintto the Third Century, C.E.
All RightsReserved Eugene Ulrich 3

The Text of the Gospelsin Origen's Commentarieson

John and Matthew
Williarn L. Petersen 34

Origen in the Scholar'sDen: A Rationale for the

Hexapla
IohnWright 48

Straw Dogs and Scholarly Ecumenism: The Appropriate

Jewish Background for the Study of Origen
Roger Broolcs 63

Origen, the Rabbis, and the Bible: Toward a Picture of

Judaism and Christianity in Third-Centwy
Caesarea
PauI M. Blowers 96
OrigenandtheSensusLiteralis
CharlesJ. Scalise 1t7
Libr ary of Congress Catalog ing - in- Publicat ion D ata

OrigenofAlexandria:hisworldandhislegacy/editedbyCharles AllegoryandSpiritualObservance in Origen's

Kannengiesser andWilliam L. Petersen' Discussions of theSabbath
p. cm. - (ChristianityandJudaismin antiquity;1) Daniel f . Nodes 130
PapersfromtheorigenColloquyheldattheUniversityofNotre
Dame,APr.1l-13'1986. Divine Deceptionandthe Truthfulnessof Scripture
ISBN0-268-01501-5 JosephW.Trigg 147
l. Origen-congresses' Charles'II' Petersen'
I' Kannengiesser'
william iu*."n"", 1950-.ilI. Origencolloquy(1986:University
PoeticWords,AbysmalWords: Reflectionson Origen's
of NotreDame)IV. Series'
8R1720.07075 1988 Hermeneutics
270.1'092'44c19 88-40319 Patricia CoxMiller 165

Manufacturedin the United Statesof America

f.E[HA]'lt*::MORlAllLIBRARY
THE I'AKE
T]NIV.OF $"T.h{ARYOF
 II. Spirituality--Philosophy--Theology 179

OrigenianUnderstandingof Matyrdom andIts Biblical
Framework
PanulaBright
The Role of Prayerin Origen'sHomilies
Daniel Sheerin
Looking on the Lighc SomeRemarkson the Imageryof
Light in the First Chapterof thePeri Archon
JohnDillon
Divine Trinity andthe Structureof Peri Arclnn
CharlesKannengiesser
Sacrificein Origenin theLight of PhilonicModels
JeanLqorte
ChurchAs the Bodv of Christ
- L .
PREFACE
180
This collectionof papersresultsfrom the Origen Colloquy held at
theUniversityof NotreDame,Indianaon April 11-13,1986.
2N
Owing to the large variety of topics presented,we could not include
all the papersdeliveredat the Colloquy within the limits imposedby the
2t5 presentvolume. The key-noteaddressby Henri Crouzel,S.J.hasappearedin
the Fall, 1988issueof TheologicalStudies.
231 The Colloquy, Oigen of Alexandria: His World and His Legacy,
wasconceivedasa properlyAmericancelebrationof theeighteenthcentennial
254 of Origen'sbirth. It was sponsoredby the Departmentof Theologyat the
University of Notre Dame.

VerDiiD.Vei:rbiugge-
The Placeof SaintsandSinnersAfter Death
w A specialword of ilranksfor the preparationof this volume is due to
ColleenMcEvoy-Smith,PaulBlowers,andJonBailey.

LawrenceR. Hennessey 295

CharlesKannengiesser
MosesandJesusin ContraCelsumT. 1,-25:Ethics, William L. Petersen
HistoryandJewish-Christian
Eirenicsin
Origen'sTheology
PeterJ. Gorday 313
OrigenandEarly ChristianPluralism: The Contextof
His Eschatology
JonF. Dechow 337
Elementsof FourthCenturyOrigenism: The
Anthropologyof EvagriusPonticusandIts
Sources
Miclnel O'Laughlin 357

vl vll
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Broscs Bulletin of the IntemationalOrganizationfor

SeptuagintandCognateStudies
BLE Bulletin de lindratureeccldsiastique
CCSL Corpuschristianorum,serieslatina
CPG Clavis patrumgraecorum
GCS* Die griechischenchristlichenSchriftsteller I. The World of Sacred
HTR
derersfendreiJahrhunderte
llarvard TheologicalReview
Scripture
JQR JewishQuarterlyReview
JTS Journalof TheologicalStudies
LThK Lexikon fiir Theologieund Kirche
NovT Novum Testamentum
NTS New Testament Studies
PG Parologia graeca
PL Patrologialatina
PO Parologia orientalis
RB ReweBiblique
R S P h T h Revuedessciencesphilosophiqueset th€ologiques
sc Sourceschrdtiennes
StPatr Studiapatristica
SVF Stoicorumvet€rumfragmenta
TU Texteund Untersuchungen
vc Vigiliae christianae
Z,IKG Zeitschrift ftir Kirchengeschichte
zNw Zeitschrift fiir die neulestamentliche
Wissenschaft
* Volume numbersfrom the writings of Origencited in the critical
editionsof the GCSarethoseof OrigenesWerke andnot the general
series.
 ORIGEN'SOLD TESTALEI',{TTEXT:
TIM TRANSMISSIONHISTORY OF TIIE SEPTUAGINTTO
THE THIRD CENTIJRY, C.E"

EugeneUlrich
Univenity of Notre Dame

Origen is still commemorated1800yearsafter his birth, and one of

the many reasonsis the Hexaplawhich he composed-his monumentalwork
striving toward exactnessin the text of the Old Testamentscriptures.l As
Bigg hasnoted,Origen was perhaps"the first who distinctly saw that for the

lThat is, the Jewish translation of their scriptures into Greek, the
Septuagint,which the early Christian church accepted. "Old Teshment" is
usedpredominantlyin this article insofar as it reflects Origen'sposition and
denotesthe wider canon of scripture. For the most recent comprehensive
study of the Septuagint,see SidneyJellicoe, The Septuagintand Modern
Srrdy (Oxford: Clarendon,1968);this supplements,rather than replaces,the
still valuable 1902 work by H. B. Swete,An Introduction to the Old
Testamentin Greekrev. by R. R. Ottley (New York Ktav, 1968). For a
highly useful study concerningthe relationshipof the Septuagintto the
HebrewBible and the use of it in OT textualcriticism, seeEmanuelTov,
The Text-Critical Use of the Septwgint in Biblical Research,Jerusalem
Biblical Studies 3 (Jerusalem:Simor, 1981). For bibliography on the
Septuagint,see SebastianP. Brock, C. T. Fritsch, and S. Jellicoe, eds.,A
Classified Bibliography of the Septuagint, Arbeiten zur Literatur und
Geschichtedes hellenistischenJudentums6 (Leiden: Brill, 1973); for
subsequent bibliography,seethe "R@ordof Work" in the annualBulletin of
theInternational Orgutizatianfor Septuagintand CognateStudies.
 EUGENEULRICH
theologian,whatevermaybe [t]relimmediateobject,controversy,edification,
or doctrine,the prime necessityis a soundtext."2 ThoughOrigenmay have
"*te first" to seethis,
beenthe first Christian,he wasnot, as Bigg suggested,
for he clearlyfollowedandbuilt on the work of a long line of Jewishtextual
however,doespoint in the right direction: in
scholars.3Bigg'sstatement,
order to understandOrigencorrectly,just as it, is necessary
to know his
andphilosophicalcontext,andhis religious
historicalcontext,his educational
and theologicalcontext,so too is it necessary-sinceOrigen and his works
wereso thoroughlyrootedin the Bible-to know thecharacter,the evolving
character,of thebiblical text which he used.
The purposeof this articleis to providea focuson the natureof the
Old Testamenttext used by Origen. What would "the OT text," the
Septuagint,havelookedlike in Origen'sday? What wasthe characterof the
text that Origen would have picked up and begunto use when he started
on "the OT
reading,prayingover,preachingfrom, andwriting commentaries
text"?
That questionnecessarilyrequiresa diachronicperspective,for the
biblicaltext whichOrigenusedwastheproductof a historicalprocess.But
this is a complexundertaking,if for no othe.rreason,becauseOrigenhimself
significantlychangedthe shapeof that text. Origcn primarily used"the
Septuagint,"and what later theologians,such as Eusebius,Jerome,or
2Cited by Jellicoe (septuagint, 101) trom The Origins of
Christianity,ed. T. B. Strong (Oxford, 1909)423.
3Not only did Origenfill his hexaplariccolumnswith the contentof
the recensions of Aquila and Theodotion,but his methodswere similar to
theirs; seeD. Barth6lemy,Les devanciersd'Aquila, Supplementsto Vetus
Testamentum10 (Leiden:Brill, 1963); and K. G. O'Connell,"Greek
Versions(Minor)," TheInterpieter'sDictionary of the^Bible,supplementary
volume(Nashville:Abingdon,1976) 377-381.
OLDTESTAMENT
ORIGEN'S TEXT
Pamphiluswould think of as "the Septuaginttext" lookednoticeablydifferent
from "the Septuaginttext" which Origen first took in hand. We should
presume,for example,that "the Septuaginttext" of Jeremiah,or Psalms,or
Daniel cited by Origen early in his careerwould readdifferently from "the
Septuaginttext" cited by Origen late in his career,becausehe devoteda
substantialamountof time to re-editingthat "Septuaginttext."
the characterof "Origen'sOld Testamenttext"
Thus,understanding
meansunderstanding
fte origins and developmentsthat formed it. Indeed,
thereareseveralmorecomplicatingfactors,eachof which needsits trajectory
carefullycharted. The first concemsthe transmissionof the text during the
centuryor two after Origen. The oldestextensiveMSS of the Septuagint
which are extant are dated in the fourth centruy, at least.a century after
Origen, so that we cannot always be certain that our "Septuaginttext"
correspondsto that of his day (either in its pre-Origenicor post-Origenic
form).
The secondcomplicatingfactorconcernsthe transmission
of thetext
during the centuriesbeforeOrigen. Numerouschangesand numeroustypes
of change,both intentionaland unintentional,buffetedthe Septuaginton its
joumey from JewishAlexandriain r.hethird and secondcenturiesB.C.E.,to
Christiancirclesin Egypt and Palestinein the third centuryof the common
JewishandChristianera.
 EUGENEULRICH
prior to the
A third complicatingfactor, only rarely suspected4
discoveryof the Qumranscrolls,is the shapeof the Hebrewtext of which the
Septuagintwas a translation.For a numberof booksthe variationin the
Hebrewtext5was as significantas that in the Greektext betweenthe second
centuryB.C.E.andthelatelirst centuryC.E.
Thus,my goalis to studysomeaspects
of thetext of theGreekOld
Testamentand of Origen'suseof it. But sincethat text is an evolvingtext,
we must first consider its origins and character,secondly its early
ALagarde(Anmerkungenzur griechischen Ubersetzungder
Proverbienfueipzig: 186313) hadalreadyformedandelaboratedtheprinciple,
summarizedby Jellicoe(Septuagint,6):"In a choicebetweenalternative
readingspreferenceis to be given...toonewhichrepresentsa Hebreworiginal
otherthan MT." It is regrettablethat many modernscholars,in religious
loyalty to the MT, havefailed to pay sufficientattentionto this empirical
principle, especiallysince it has been amply confirmedby the Qumran
Lcxtualcvidcncc.
5Cf., e.g., S. R. Driver, Noteson the Hebrew Text and the
Topographyof theBaoksof Samuel,2ded. (Oxford:Clarendon,1913); F.
M. Cross,"The Evolutionof a Theoryof Local Texts,"1972 Proceedings:
/OSCSandPseudepigrapha, ed.R. A. Kraft (Missoula:Scholars,1972)108-
L26: D. Barth6lemy,Les devanciers[n.3 above],and "Origdneet le textede
I'Ancien Testament,"Epektasis,Mdlangespatristiquesofferts au Cardinal
lean Danidlaf (Paris:Beauchesne, 1972)247-261,esp.p.252; repr. in D.
Barthdlemy,Etudesd'histoiredu textede I'AncienTestament, Orbis biblicus
et orientalis21 (Fribourg,Suisse:EdidonsUniversitaires,1978) 203-217;
S. Talmon,"The TextualStudyof the Bible-A New Outlook,"Qumranand
the History of the Biblical Text, ed. F. M. Cross and S. Talmon
(Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity,1975)32I-400; E. Tov, "TheLiterary
History of the Book of Jeremiahin the Light of Its Textual History,"
Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, ed. J. Tigay @hiladelphia:
University of Pennsylvania,1985) 211-237; J. Trebolle, "Redaction,
Recension, and Midrashin the Booksof Kings,"BIOSCS15 (1984)L2-35;
E. Ulrich, The Qumran Text of Samueland fosephus, Harvard Semitic
Monographs19 (Missoula:Scholars,1978),ancl "Characteristicsand
Limitationsof the Old Latin Translationof the Septuagint,"La Septuaginta
(V Congresode la /OSCS),(Textosy
en la investigaci6ncontempordnea
Estudios<<CardenalCisneros>> 34,ed.N. Ferndndez Marcos(Madrid:Instituo
<AriasMontano>C.S.I.C.,1985)67-80.
OLDTFJTAMENTTEXT
ORIGEN'S
transmissionhistory,and then thirdly someaspectsof Origen,his Hexapla,
and his useof fte "Septuagint"text.
L The OriginsandCharacterof theOld Greeklbxt
DEFIMTIOM
At the outsetit is importantto sort out the variousentitiesfor
which we usethe term "Septuagint"and to clarify our termsfor them. There
is no fully acceptabledefinition or consistent usage for the term
"Septuagint."6The term originally designatedthe pristinetranslationof the
Torah (only the first five books of the Hebrew Bible) by the seventy
(septuaginta)or seventy-twoelderscommissionedto go from Jerusalemto
Alexandriafor thatpurpose-but all this as narratedin theLetter of Aristeas.
But theLeuer of Aristeasis legendaryin contentand,thoughepistolaryin
form, is really "a propagandawork."7 Thus, historically,we cannot
documentany "72 elders"who weretheoriginaltranslatorsof theTorahnor,
a fortiori, of the entire HebrewBible. But the term "Septuagint"in its
strictestusagerefersonly to LhePentateuch
and only to the originalGreek
translationof it.
By extension,however,it legitimatelySdesignatesthe original
6swete, Introduction, g-!0; Kraft in E. Tov and R. A. Kraft,
"Septuagint,"The Interpreter'EDictionary of the Bible, supplementary
volume(Nashville:Abingdon,1976)807-815,esp.811,
TJellicoe,Septuagint,3O;cf. P. Kahle,The Cairo Geniza,2ded.,
(Oxford: Blackwell, 1959) 21I; and J. Wm Wevers,"An Apologiafor
Septuagint BIOSCS18 (1935)16-38,esp.t6-19.
Studies,"
8Justinis probablythe first Christianro use the term (Dialogue
wilh Trypho lxviii.T) in extantmaterial,and his contextshowsrhatthe term
is alreadybeing usedin a way that includesIsaiahand extendsto the whole
OT; seeJellicoe, Septuagint,4l-42;cf. Swere,Introduction,p.9,n.1.
 EUGENEULRICH
Greek translationof the entire Old Testament,including both the books later
acceptedas the Hebrew Bible and the Apocryphal or Deutero'Canonical
books. But it is excessiveelasticity when the term is stretchedfurther to
mean "the Greek Old Testament,"i.e., any Greek form of the OT without
regardto specificGreektextualtradition.
More accuratetermswouldbe:
(l) the Old Greekfor the original, single,or singly-influential,
translationof eachdifferentbook (manywritersnow use"theOld Greek"asa
confinedto
termpreferableto "Septuagint,"since"the OG" is not necessarily
the Pentateuch,and since it clearly distinguishesfrom later forms of the
Greektext);9
Q) the early Greektext(s)for the gradually-evolvingforms which
developedfrom that original translation;
(3) the early recensionsof Proto-Theodotion(and perhaps
andpossiblyof others("Quinta,"etc.);10
Theodotion),Aquila, Symmachus,
(4) theHexaplaricrecensionfor the text which Origenproducedin
his fifth column,"o"' (= ); and
(5) the Lucianic recensionfor the fourth-centuryAntiochene
recensionof certainbooks.11
is "tle text
The ideal objectof the questfor many Septuagintalists
as it left the handof the [original]nanslator,"or eventhe Hebrewtext behind
9seeE. Tov andR. A. Kraft, "septuagint"[n. 6 above].
10seeBarthdlemy,l*s devqnciers[n.3 above]; O'Connell,"Greek
Versions(Minor)" [n.3]; andsectionII.below.
1lsee n. 3l below. The "Proto-Lucianic"text traditionmay belong
to the secondor third categoryabove.
ORIGEN'SOLD TESTAMENTTDff
the LXX.12 But the practicalobject of the quest,that soughtby the
Gdttingencriticaleditions,is the oldestrecoverable
text of eachbook,and
thiswouldbe called"theOld Greek."13
This leads us to the final, and for the study of Origen and other
ancientwritersa very important,distinction: the distinctionbetweenthe text
of theOld Greekas the originalJewishtranslationof the HebrewScriptures,
and the text of the GreekOld Testamentas the living Bible of the on-going
church during the early Christian centuries. The former signals the
translation'simportanceas a witness, in fact one of the most important
witnesses,to the eady Hebrewtext. The latter signalsthe text'simportance
as the living scripturesof the developingchurch. Theseare two different
focuses,the Greek OT at two different points in its history, serving two
purposes.
differenthistorical-theological
The two focusescanbe clearlyexemplifiedby theworksof Emanuel
Tov andMargueriteHarl. Tov'sbook is entitledTheText-CriticalUseof the
in BibticatResearch,l4andhis aim is to understand
Septuagint theLXX and
to use a retroversionof iq whereverand insofaras this be possible,as a
witnessto a form of the Hebrewtext-a witnesswhich predatesextensive
HebrewMS documentation
of the OT. Thus,he studiesthe LXX to seehow
it can help us get furtherand morereliably back to earlieror superiorforms
of the Hebrew Bible. Harl's project of a French translationof the LXX
focuseson the useof scripturein theearlychurchandenvisionsthat:
l2SeeJellicoe'sfirst andlast pages(Septuagint,1,359).
l3SeeKraft, "septuagint"[n. 6 above]811.
l4Seen.l above.
10 EUGEMULRICH
la Septantesera prise pour elle-mOme,non pas comme une
traductionmaiscommeun texteau sensplein du terme: le textede
et delEglise ancienne,le textetel
la Bible du Judaismehelldnistique
qu'il fut lu par des lecteursqui n'avaientaucunement
recoursd
un textequi s'explique
I'originalh6breupourtenterde le comprendre,
ir I'intdrieurdu systdmc grecde son6poque.15
linguistique
From the perspectiveof Origen,both focusesare necessary,for one of his
goals was to restot'e"the translationof the Seventy," and anotherwas to
oxplainand expoundthe scripturaltext of his church. Therefore,we must
look at the original Septuagint,and the developedtext which Origen used,
and thus the interveningevolutionaryprocesswhich producedthe text he
used.
ORIGINS:THEDATA FROMEARLYMANUSCRIPTS
SEPTUAGINT AND
QUOTATIONS
Rather than beginning with the Letter of Aristeas, which is
legendarymaterial,I tttink thatit is preferableto beginwith Septuagintal
MS
evidenceand with quotationsof the Septuagintby ancientauthors. The
evidenceusuallycircdis thefollowing:16
l5M. Harl BIOSCS 13 (1980)7. hofessor Harl is awareof the
difficulties: "Un premiertravailestd'6tab1ir
le cataloguede cesdifficult6s,de
les 6tudier,de proposerdes solutions. Il faudranotammentdeciderquelle
tradition textuellede la Septanteon choisirade traduire,faute de pouvoir
rendrecomptede la plualitd des6rar textuels"(p. 8).
16see,e.g.,Swete,I ntroduction, 369-380,andJellicoe,Septuagint,
231-239. With all the advancesin LXX researchover the pastdecades,
however,this evidenceshouldbe closelyrestudied;see,e.9.,the following
note.
ORIGEN'SOLD TESTAMENTTEXT lt
.Demetriusthe Hellenistquotesthe GreekGenesisin the late third
centuryB.C.E.
.Eupolemos,a HellenisticJewish historlan of the mid-second
centuryB.C.E.,basesa partof his narrativeon theGrgekChronicles.lT
.The Prologueof Ben Sira,writtenshortlyafter132B.c.E.,refersto
"the law . . ., the prophccies,and the rest.of the beoks" which had been
franslated.
.The JohnRylandsLibrary of Manchesterhassmallpapyrusscraps
of the GreekDeuteronomy,dated(by C. H. Roberts)to the secondcentury
B.C.E.
.Papyrus Fouad 266, also containing small portions of
Deuteronomy,
comesfrom thelate secondor earlyfirst centuryB.C.E.
.Qumranhasyieldedfive earlyGreekMSSof Genesis-Deut€ronomy:
4QLXXLeva (hte secondcenturyB.C.E.),TQLX)Gxod (ca. 100B.C.E.),
4QLXXLevb and4QLXXNum (probablyfirst centuryB.C.E.or the opening
yearsof the first C.E.),and 4QLXXDeut,l8 in additionto the GreekMinor
Prophetsscrollanda fragmentof theLetterof Jeremiah.
17seethecautionalreadyexpressed by Montgomery(A Critical and
ExegeticalCommentary on the Book of Daniel ,ICC lEdinburgh:T. & T.
Clark, 1927138): "On rather scanryevidence,that the Jewishhistorian
Eupolemus,c. 150B.C. (text given by Swete,1nt.,370= Eus.,Praep., ix,
31) knew G of 2 g11.9l2tt., Torrey holds,p. 82, thatrhe OGr. tr. of Ch.-
Ezr.-Neh.(containing2 Esd.)existedby themiddleof the2d cent."
18seeC. H. Roberts,quotedin P. Kahle,The Cairo Geniza,223;
and E. Ulrich, "The GreekManuscriptsof the Pentateuch from eumrdn,
IncludingNewly-Identified Fragmenbof Deureronomy (4eLXXDeut)i' D e
Septuaginta:Studiesin I'lonour af John Wiltiam Weverson his Sixty-Fifth
Birthday,ed. A. Pietersma andC. Cox (Mississauga, Ont.:SenUen,tg84)
'71-82.
The dcrivativedatein Jcllicoe,Septuagint,276, shouldread:".. .
assigned to thelatesecontl[not "thc latefirst"] or the first centuryB.C.or the
early first.A.D." I shoultlstressthat the palaeographically assigneddates
quotedabovefor the GrcckMSSat Qumranareroughand preliminaryand
needmorethoroughanalysis.
t2 EUGENEULRICH
.Papyrus967 is an early third centuryc.E. Ms containingportions
of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Esther.l9 For Daniel,this MS displaysa "pre-
hexaplaric"text, i.e., a text which is a developedform of the OG, such as
Origenwould haveusedasa basisfor the "o"' column,but which showsno
admixtureof elementsfrom the Hexapla. In this case,967is for the most
part very closeto whatOrigenlistedas Lhe"o'" text of Daniel (andclearlyat
variancewith the Theodotionictext which becameuniversallyused and
displacedthe older "o"' text); but it doesnot yet havethe demonstrably
Origenianhexaplaricchangesandadditionstakenfrom the Theodotionictext
which are now found in the singleextantGreekwitnessto Origen'srevised
"o'" text,MS 88.
The conclusionsindicatedby the evidencefrom manuscriptsand
citationsarethat tlte Torahwastranslatedby t}telate third centuryB.C.E.and
probablyby ca. 250, that the Former Prophetswere translatedbefore the
middle of the secondcenturyB.C.E.and probablyby ca. 200 becausethey
would havebeentranslatedprior to Chronicleswhich wascirculatingby the
mid-secondcenturyB.C.E. The LatterProphetswould very likely havebeen
translatedat the sametime as theFormerProphets,andof theWritings many
books would very likely have been translatedabout the same time as
Chronicles.
19For bibliographic information on the several volumes, see S.
Pace, "The Suatigraphyof the Text of Daniel and the Questionof
TheologicalTendenzin theOld Greek""BIOSCS17 (1984)15-35,esp.pp.
18-19andn. 9; seealsonow S. PaceJeansonne, TheOld GreekTranslation
of Daniel 7-12, Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 19
(Washington:CatholicBiblicalAssociation, 1988)11.
ORIGEN'S
OLD TESTAMENT
TDff 13
SEPTUAGINT
ORIGINS:HYTOTHESES
TheLetter of Aristeaspurportsto be a letterwritten in the mid-third
century B.C.E., sent by Aristeasto his brotherPhilocrates,describingthe
eventssunoundingthe original translationof the HebrewTorah into Greek
for the Ptolemaicking's library. It was takenat face value as historicalas
early as Philo, and continuedto be takenas suchby Josephus,early church
writers suchas Jerome,and othersall throughthe centuriesuntil 1705. The
questionof L)O( origins wasconsideredanswered,indeednarratedin detail,by
theLetter of Aristeas. Jellicoetracesthe transmissionhistory2Oof the
Letter, includingthe steadyembellishmentas it went from handto hand, all
connectedwith the inspiredand authoritativecharacterof the LXX as the
Greekform of God'sword to Israel.
But in 1705Hody studiedthe letteranddeclaredit legendary.John
Wm. Wevers has recently presenteda current view concerningit, again
emphasizingthat it is legendaryin character,and that "it would be
methodologically
soundnot to acceptanythingstatedin theLetter thatcannot
be substantiated
elsewhcre."2l
Sincelate in the 191.h
cenrury,Lagarde'stheoryof LXX origins has
held sway,exceptfor a brief periodwhcnthc influentialfigure of paul Kahle
propoundeda diamerricallyopposedtheory. Lagarderhoughtthat the
widespreadvariationin our extantMSSlcd us backto threemajorrecensions
of the Greek text, differentiatedgeographically; and behind those three
recensionsone could arrive at a singletranslationof the HebrewBible ino
Greek.
2oJellicoe,Septuagint,38-47.
21"An Apologiafor SeptuaginrStudies,"BIOSCS tg (19g5)
16-
38, esp.17.
I4 EUGENEULRICH
Kahle, in contrast,thought that the Septuagintarose as did the
targumim-froma plethoraof individuallyproducedpartialranslations,which
after a periodof multiplication,weresupplantedby a singletranslationnow
endorsedby rabbinicdecisionasbeingauthoritative.In 1915he claimedthat
the letter, though fictionally set in t}te third century B.C.E., was actually
written aspropagandato assurethe outcomefor one sideof a conflict over the
authorityof competingGreekiextsin tlrelatesecondcentuy 8.c.8?2
Thus,Lagardesawan originalsingletranslationgraduallybranching
out both chronologicallyand geographically,whereasKahle saw many
targumimbeing displacedby a singlestandardranslation. Lagarde'sview,
however,appea$confirmedby nearlya centuryof multifacetedresearchby a
wide spectrumof Septuagintalspecialistsand by the dataavailablefrom the
Qumranand othervery earlyMSS,whereasKahle'sview finds no supportin
detailedresearchby Septuagintalists.23
There remain two scho.olsof thoughton the degreeof intentional
fidelity in the OG translations:one, lhat the translatorsgenerallyintended
andattemptedto renderin theGreeklanguagewhat theyperceivedto be said
in the Hebreworiginal; the other,.thatthe tanslatorsviewed themselvesas
in a certain measurefree to adapt the original meaningto conform with
contemporaryhismricalknowledgeor theologicalTendenz.Thoughthe case
differs from book to book, I think that in generalthe former describesthe
situationmoreaccuratelv.24
22P.Kattle,"Untersuchungen zur GeschichtedesPenlateuchtextes,"
TheologischeStudienand Kritiken 88 (Gotha,l9L5) 399439, esp. 410-26;'
andThe Cairo Geniza,212.
23Cf.Jellicoe, Septuagint,6l-63.
24Contrast,e.g., the'articlesof Trebolle and van der Kooij in
BIOSCS15 (1982)12-35,36-50. For an exampleof disproofof theTendenz
hypothesis,seeS. Pace,BIOSCS 17 (1984)15-35.It shouldbe notedthat
ORIGEN'SOLD TESTAMENTTEXT 15
SUMMARY
was translatedsta{ing neart}e mid-third
The OG of the Pentateuch
centuryB.c.E., the last of the books(e.g.,Daniel)being ranslatedprobably
by the late secondor early first century B.c.E. Thus the OG of the
PentateuchantedatedOrigen by about450-500yearsand the latest of the
booksby about300 years.
The earliestnearly-completecodicesof the GreekBible datefrom the
fourth (Vaticanus)and fifth (Alexandrinusand Sinaiticus)centuriesC.E.,a
centuryor two after Origen. But fragmentaryMSS arepreservedas far back
as the secondcenturyB.C.E.,and quotationsby HellenisticJewishauthors
apparentlydocumentthe GreekGenesisas far back as the late third century
B.C.E.
Lagarde'sview that the presentvariationin LXX MSS is traceable
recensionsto a singleoriginal translationreceives
backthroughthreeancient.
confirmationby nearlya centuryof extensiveresearchby a wide spectrumof
Septuagintalspecialistsandby the dataavailablefrom the Qumranandother
veryearlyMSS.
For eachbiblical book thereseemsto be an originaltranslationfrom
the Hebrew into Greek. The translations,however,display differing
andthuseachbook'stranslationshouldbe presumedto
translationtechniques,
derivefrom a differenttranslator.
the issueis not whetherthe translationis "literal" or "free"; we find both
literal and free styles of translationin both "faithful" and "interpre[ative"
translations.The questionis: do the translatorsattemptto reproducein
Greekthe meaningtheyfind alreadyin the text,or do theyfeel freeto change
the original meaningin light of new or currentideas,whetherliterary,
historical,cultural,or theological,
or whedrerprivateor communal?
i6 EUGENEULRICH
Though it is often not done, one must carefully considerthe
relationshipof the Old Greek translationto its Hebrew Vorlage. Not
infrequently,differencesfrom theMT eitherin individualwordsor phrasesor
even in the form of the larger book (e.g., Jeremiah2slaredue not to
theologicalTendenzbut to faithful translationfrom a differentHebrewparent
text.
Thus, as far as we can tell, originally the OG would have beena
collectionof papyrusor leatherscrolls,eachnormallycontainingonebiblical
book, eachapparentlytranslatedby a differenttranslator,and all (or many)
attemptingto reproducein Greekthe intendedmeaningof the Hebrewtext
(Masoretic,Qumran,or other)from whichit hadbeentranslated.
II. The Transmissionof the Early GreekText up to theHexapla
The collectionof scrollsproducedfrom the mid-thirdto the early
first centuriesB.C.E.,containingthe originalGreektranslationsfrom varying
Hebrew texts of &e scriptures,traverseda somewhatcomplex history of
knowledgeof which is essentialfor understanding
transmission, the work of
Origen-a historypartiallychartable,mostlylost in the darknessof thepast.
We do not, and Origen did not, haveextant for any book what
anyonewould considertheoriginal form of thattranslation.All manuscripts
display a considerableamount of textual development-certainly
unintentionalchanges,suchas the well-known panoplyof errors,but also
intentional changes,such as clarifications, revisions, doublets, and
harmonizations.
25seeE. Tov, "TheLiteraryHistory,"[n. 5 above].
ORICEN'SOLD TESTAMENTTEXT T7
Moreover,for somebooks,we no longer have even the changed,
corrupted,anddevelopedcopiesof the OG. In thesecasesall our extantMS
evidenceis traceableonly to a laterrecensionwhich eitherby chanceor by
consciousdecisionsupplantedthe original Greek. The Book of Daniel
furnishesan examplein which this loss and supplantationwas complete,
except for one manuscript,MS 88, the single extant Greek witnessto
Origen's"o"'text26
With regardto the HebrewVorlageor p:uenttext, the transmission
historybecomessimplified: the evidencesuggeststhat therewereno variant
HebrewMSSgeneratingfurther Greekvariantsdue specifically to correction
toward Hebrew readingsat variancewith the MT after approximatelythe
beginning of the secondcentury C.E. The Hebrew scrolls found at
Murabbacat,datedprior to 135 c.E., conform very closely to the MT and
indicate that the rabbinic bible was already standardizedboth in general
contentsandin consonantal
textby the SecondJewishRevolt.
A number of additional sourceshelp illuminate parts of the
transmission
historyof lhe early Greektext. Studyof sourcessuchas the
VetusLatina,27quomtionsof the HebrewBible or ttreLXX in the NT and in
JewishanclChristianauthorsin antiquity,and ancientbiblical manuscripts
providesus with windowson thepast,enablingus to glimpsewhattheearly
Greektext lookedlike in certainplacesandspecificpointsin time.
26Seethe descriplionofPapyrus967 insectionI, above.
27seeE. Ulrich, "The Old Latin Translationof the LXX and the
HebrewScrollsfrom Qumran,"1980ProceedingsIOSCS-Vienna: The
Hebrew and Greek Textsof Samuel,ed. E. Tov (Jerusalem:Academon,
1980)121-165; and J. Trebolle,"From the'Old I-arin'rhroughthe'Old
Greek'to the 'Old Hebrew'(2 Kings 10:23-25),"Textus1l (1984)17-36.
18 EUGENEULRICH
RegardingLhedevanciersd'Aquila,as Barth6lemytermsthem,the
of Aquila, we should not take the hexaplaricorder as a
predecessors
chronologicalindicator. The text which circulated under the label
"Theodouon"can moreaccuratelybe labelled"Proto-Theodotion";
i.e.,the
that text was donearoundthe
main systematicrevisionwhich characterizes
turn of the era, early enoughto influencepossiblyPhilo, the NT, and
Justin.28
For Proto-Theodotion,Aquila, and Symmachus,it is importantto
stressthat thesewere not new franslationsfrom the Hebrewbut recensions,
the
i.e., systematicrevisions,of earlierGreektexts. For Proto-Theodotion,
OG (but alreadyin developedform) was usedas the basic text, and it was
revisedaccordingto definiteprinciples.Theprinciplesoperativein theProto-
Theodotionicrecensioninvolve bringing the early Greek text into much
closer conformity with the RabbinicHebrewText (the consonantaltext
which would laterbecomethe vocalized"Masoretic"Text). This conformity
embracedboth quantitativeand qualitativeaspects.Quantitatively,material
in the Greeknot found in tlrerabbinicbible wasexcised,and materialin the
Hebrewnot matchedby the Greekwas filled in. Qualitatively,therewas
on muchgrcater,muchmoreliteral,fidelity to the detailsof the
insistence
Hebrewtexfi lexically, Greekroots wcro matchedmuch moreconsistently
and mechanicallywith Hebrewroots, even if someviolence was done to
meaning; and the syntaxof the Greek,alreadyawashwitlt semiticisms,was
forcedinto evengreaterconformityto the syntaxof the Hebrew,evenif some
syntacticviolenceoccurred.
28seeP. Katz,Philo'sBibte (Cambridge,1950) 12,102-103,Il4-
l2l; Jellicoe,Septuagint,S.3-94;and P. Katz, "Justin'sOld Testament
quotationsand the Greek Dodekapropheten Scroll," Studia Patistica l/l
(Berlin, 1957) 343-353.
ORIGEN'SOLD TESTAMENTTEXT 19
Aquila's recensionwas basedon Proto-Theodotionbut carriedthe
systematicrevisionof Proto-Theodotion
to evenfurtier levelsof mechanical
conformity toward the rabbinic text of the secondcentury C.E. Aquila's
recensionis so systematicthat JosephReiderand Nigel Turner wereable to
compile An Index to Aquila,2gwhich gives the Greekequivalentsusedby
Aquila for the Hebrewrootsin thebiblical text.
aboutwhom little is known,30produceda recension
Symmachus,
also basedon Proto-Theodotion
but aimedat goodGreekstyle. Variantsin
which "the Three" (q' q' 0) agreeagainstthe OG usuallysignalwords
revised in the Proto-Theodotionicrecensionand adoptedbut not further
revisedby Aquila andSymmachus.
Thus, the task of tracingthe transmissionof the Greek OT during
the earlyrabbinicandearly churchperiodis a multifacetedtask,for that text
differedfor eachcenturyandfor eachgeographical
region.31Book by book,
Z9Vfsup 12: Leiden: Brill, 1966. Since 1968 a seriesof
dissertations[see n. 32 below] have also beenproduced,exploringand
chartingthe recensionaldevelopmentsof the Proto-Theodotion,or Kaige,
recension.
30seeJellicoe, Septuagint,
g4-gg.
31Cf.tl. Dcirie, "Zur Geschichteder Septuaginta im Jahrhundert
Konstantins,"ZNW 39 (1940)57-110. P. A. de Lagarde(ed.,Librorum
VeterisTestamentiCanonicorumPars Prior Graeci [G0ttingen,1883])
attemptedbut failedto dererminethe Lucianictext of fourth-centuryAntioch.
N. Fern6ndezMarcos has recentlycontributedto this endeavorthrough
Theod.oreti
_cyrensisQuaestionesin octateuchum:editio critica, Textosy
Estudios<<Cardenal Cisneros>> 17, ed.N. FerndndezMarcos y'1979);
A. S6enz-
Badillos (Madrid: Insrituto <<AriasMontano>>C.S.I.C., and
Theodoreticyrensis Quaestiones in Regeset Paralipomena:editio Lritica,
rextos y Estudios<CardenalCisneros>> 32, eA.N. Fern6ndezMarcosv J. R.
Busto Saiz (Madrid: Insriruro<<Arias Monrano>C.S.I.C.,t9g4). Thj same
chronologicaland geographicaldiversity obtains fbr the OIO Larin; cf.
Ulrich, "Characteristics"
[n. 5 above]68-70,80.
20 EUCEMULRICH OLD TESTAMENT
ORIGEN'S TDff 2T

we are leamingthe detailedcharacteristicsof theOld Greek,the developments Hebrew; (2) whether the Hexapla contained a column with Hebrew

within the eady Greek texts, and the characteristicsof the subsequent characters; and (3) an evaluation of Origen's hexaplaric labors as a

recensions.32 contribuliono the historyof the GreekBible.

Finally, to envisionthe "Septuagint"text which would have been (l) First, Origen'sallegedknowledgeor useof Hebrewcenterson

availableto Origenin theearly third centuryonecan studyCodexVaticanus threeareas: (a) his Hebrewtutor(s); (b) references[o "the Hebrew"in his

or Papyrus967. Both are codicescontainingall or many of the biblical writings; and (c) the first column of the Hexapla. Let me beginby stating

books, inscribedin uncial script, with a text that is pre-hexaplaric. Both what would be a minimalistpositionon thesethreepoints:

havenumerouserrors,andboth displayexpansions
clearlyattributableto the (a') PerhapsOrigenknew no Hebrew or very little Hebrew,so little

vulnerabilitiesinherent in the processof transmissionhistory. The that it was virtually non-functioning. (b') When Origen speaksof "the

"Septuagint"text, in varying forms, was the text usedin the churches; the Hebrew," the basis of his knowledge is the Greek versions of Aquila,

textsof Aquila, Symmachus,Theodotion,and others(suchas "Quinla" and Symmachus,and Theodotion,i.e., the Hebrewindirectly, as witnessedby

"Sexla"),mostlyknown to be Jewishandmorecloselybasedon the Hebrew, literal Greekrenditions,not the Hebrewtexl itself in Hebrewscript.33 1g';

wouldalsoby now havebeenavailable. The extantHexaplaricMS fragmentscontainno Hebrewcolumn,perhaps

becausethere never was a "first" column wldch containedthe Hebrew

III. SomeAspecbof Origenand hisFlexapla Lomovebeyondthis minimalistposition,

characters.34One is hardpressed
but let us seewhatcanbe established
or plausiblyconjectured.

So Origenbeganwith the orclinary,somewhatconupted,somewhat (a') EusebiussaysthatOrigentook greatpainsto learnHebrewand

developed,koine Greek text of his day (called "the Translationof the hadcopiesof the Jewishscripturesin the Hebrewscript.35Jeromemakesa

andhe produceda text which wasneither

Seventy"or simply "Septuaginta"), similar assertion.36Now this may be atrributedto the panegyricstyle of

the original Old Greektranslationnor the purified, inspired"Translationof Eusebiusand Jerome;butjust becausethey are waxing eloquentabouttheir

the Seventy." hero,that doesnot meantlat what they say is false,it simply meansthat we

In this third sectionI would like to bring a Septuagintalist's

eye to
33Barthdlemy,"Origbne"
focus on three aspectsof Origen and his work: (1) whetherOrigen knew [n. 5 above], 254; pierre Nautin,
Origine: Savie et soneuvre (ChristianismeAntique l; Paris:Beauchesne,
1977],337.
32In additionto the G0ttingenLXX editionsby R. Hanhart,J. Wm. 34Nautin,Origdne, 303,312,337,andpassim.
Wevers, and J. Ziegler, for recent monographsdealing with Exodus
(O'Connell,Sanderson), Joshua(Greenspoon), Judges(Bodine),Samuel 35l'list.Ecct. vi.l6; secalsoSwete,Introduction,59.
(Ulrich), Kings (Shenkel,Trebolle),Isaiah(van der Kooij), Jeremiah(Tov),
and Daniel (Schmitt,PaceJeansonne), seethe annualbibliographic"Record 36DeViris llt., 54; seealsoSwete,Introduction,59.
of Work" inBIOSCS.
 22 EUGENEULRICH
cannotipsodictoconsiderthe stalemenls
accuratewithoutfurtherverification.
On the one hand,it is quite possiblethat OrigenlearnedsomeHebrewboth
from "his secondteacherin Scripture...,the unnamed'Hebrew,'son of a
rabbi,earlierconvertedto Chrisrianityin Palestine
i'37 andlaterfrom learned
Jewsthroughdirectconversationor debate.on the otherhand,that remains
nebulous,and it is only possibleto detrermine
whetherhe knew Hebrewand
how muchhe knew throughhis actualusesof it in specificwritings.
(b") To what specificallyis Origenreferringin his commenraries,
homilies, etc. when he speaksof "the Hebrew"? when he relatesthe
Christian"OT" [o "the Hebrew"? I have not found any loci where Origen
uses Hebrew38in sucha way that he is free of possibledependence
on a
Greelt intermediary, such as Aquila or the Greek transcription of the
Hebrew,39or possibledependence on well-knownearly christian tradition,
such as the discussionof Isa 7:14 by Justin, Irenaeus,Tertullian,and
others.4o
on the conrrary,origen canbc seenreferringto the Hebrewat least
once4l wherehis argumentfoundersbecause
the Hebrewof the Masoretic
textusreceprasis otherthanhe says; and it seemsunlikely that we may
appealto a Hebrewdifferent from the Masoretic,becausethe contextdemands
3TKannengiesser,
unpublishedCJA seminarnotes,p.2. SeeNautin,
Origine, p. 347 and 417, where he refers impliciily to Origen'i
aufobiographical
notein theLetter to Africanus II.
38Aho Barth6lemy("Origdne,"254)saysthatOrigen"se
compone
toujourscommes'il ignoraitI'h6breu."
39Cf.Nautin Origtne,337.
,
40Cf.garthdlemy,"Origdne,"250.
4lCont.Cels.,I.34. I am gratefulto JeffreyOschwald pointing
for
out thisexampleto me.
ORIGEN'SOLD TESTAMENT TEXT
preciselythe word found in the MT.42 The passageunderdiscussionis
rsaiahT:14,andtheHebrewquotedis "Aalma"[=iD)v ] which'of course,
doesoccurin Isaiah7:14. Origenarguesthat the word "Aalma" heremeans
"virgin" and not simply "youngwoman." For support,he appealsto Deut
22:23-26,a legal text in which the point centersspecificallyon a virgin.
Origen says that."the word Aaltna, which the Septuaginttranslatedby
'parthenos'(virgin) and others [i.e., Aquila and Theodotion]by 'neanis'
(young woman),also occurs,so they say, in Deuteronomyappliedto a
virgin,"43 and he proceedsto quote the full text of Deuteronomy.
Immediately,one suspectsthatOrigen'squalifier"so they say" indicatest}rat
he is gettinghis argumentsecond-hand.And yet, onewould think that such
point asthe virgin-
an indefatigablescholarai O.ig"n on sucha much-argued
motherof Christ would certainlyhavecheckedthe passagein Hebrewif he
couldhave. Had he doneso,he wouldhaveseenthat "Aalma"doesnot occur
but ra&er nacr[ah] (youth)andtherequiredbefilah (virgin).
in thatpassage,
But it is the presupposition
here,not specificallyOrigen'sknowledgeof
Hebrew, which emergesas problematic: Origen was not sufficiently
"indefatigabls"-39leastnot at this point. For even if Origen knew no
Hebrew,had he, aspresupposecl,
madethc effort !o consultevenlhe Greek
transliteration,
he woultl havefoundthat his argumentfrom Deuteronomy
was baseless.Thus,eventhis argumentwherehe errs with regardto the
42e,quick checkof the unpublishedscrollsfrom
^. QumranCave4
tmds [hat,as for the publishedMSSfrom the othercaves,Deut 22:23-26is
not preserved.But evenif it were,onewouldnot expectthatit would display
nbSy as a variant,sincen5)nf is necessary for the legalpoint made
therein.
43Cont.Cels.,I.34.
z.+ EUGEMULRICH
Hebrew does not prove that he did not know Hebrew, but rather that he
simplydid not checkhis sotuces,in Hebrewor in Greektransliteration.
In sum, one could conjecturefrom the evidenceand the lack of it
that Origenmay possiblyhavelearnedsomeHebrewat sometime, but that
his lack of display of that knowledgequite probably points to at most a
modicum of acquired Hebrew, and that his Hebrew was virtually non-
functioning.
(c") If Origen'sknowledgeof the Hebrewlanguageis in serious
doubt,that would seemto lend supportto Nautin and castseriousdoubtas
well on whetherhis Hexaplaconlaineda "first" columnin the Hebrewscript,
andto this we now turn.
(2) Secondly,then, was tiere in the Hexaplaa column written in
the Hebrew script? It is with regard to the Hebrew column of the Hexapla
that the minimalist position stated above, echoing Nautinja seemsloo
minimal to me. The Mercati fragmentsof the "Hexapla,"the Ambrosian
palimpsestO 39 sup.i5 contain no Hebrew column, nor do the other
Hexaplaric remains.46 Does this prove,however,that there never was a
4Nautin, Origdne,303,3L2,337, andpassim.
45GiovanniMercati, ed.,Psalterii HexapliReliquiae...,ParsPrima:
Codex RescriptusBybliothecaeAmbrosianaeO 39 sup. phototypice
expressuset transcriptas(Vatican City, 1958). Seealso B. M. Metzger,
Manuscriptsof theGreekBible: An Introductionto GreekPalaeography (Ilew
York: OxfordUniversity,1981)pl. 30 andpp. 108-109;andE. Wtirthwein,
The Text of the Old Testament,v. E. R. Rhodes (GrandRapids,MI:
Eerdmans,L979)pI.34 and,pp. 188-189. For fuller discussionseeJellicoe,
130-133.
Septuagint,
46SeeNautin, Origine,303-309. F. Field (ed.,Origenis
Hexaplorumquae supersuntsive veteruminlerprelum Graecumin totutt
Vetus Testamentum fragmenta,2 vbls. [Oxford,1875] 1. XIv-Xv) lists
someexampleswhich conhin a Hebrewcolumn,but he doesnot give the
source,andthusit is difficult to ascertainwhethertherearein fact remainsof
theHexaplawhichpreservetheHebrewcolumn.
ORIGEN'SOLD TESTAMENTTEXT 25
"first" columnwhich containedthe Hebrewcharacters?Barth6lemy,having
publishedhis articleprior to Nautin'sbook, assumeswith the majorityof
scholarsthat therewasa Hebrewcolumn.47My colleagueJohnWrighCSis
convincedby Nautin,but I am not.
Beginningwith the data,we note that the ninth- or tenth-centuy
Mercati MS has as its initial column the transliterationof the Hebrew in
Greek characters,followed by Aquila, Symmachus,the "o'," and a fifth
column,customarilylabelled"Theodotion"but in PsalmsprobablyQuinta.
The side marginsare preserved,and it. appearscertain that there was no
column with Hebrew charactersprior to the transliterationcolumn in this
manuscript. Similady, the other threesynoplicfragmentswith excerptsof
the Hexapla(the marginalnotesin AmbrosiancodexB 106,the Cambridge
fragment.from the Cairo Geniza,and the VaticancodexBarberinus549;49
containno columnin theHebrewscript.
Starting from a different angle, it appears that the Greek
transliterationcolumn was clearly an elementof the original Hexapla. It,
with or without the Flebrewfirst column,is thekey to the verticalformat of
the Hexapla.It is implausiblethat tle Greektransliterationwould havebeen
addedlatcr by Origenor addedto Origen'swork betweenthe third andeighth
centurieshadit not beenthcrefrom thestart. Thequestionis whetherorigen
alsohada columnwith theHebrewtext in Hebrewcharacters
which preceded
thetransliteration.
47Barth6lemy,
"Origdne,"255.
48seeJ. W. Wright'spaperin this volume.
49SeeNautin Oigine,303-309.
,
26 EUGENEULRICH
Nautin baseshis assertionthat thcre was no column in the Hebrew
scripton theformatof the four preservcdHexaplaricfragmenlsanda crifique
of Eusebius'description.sOBut, turning first to Eusebius,Nautin'scritique
doesnot disproveEusebius. Nautin admits that Eusebiushad seentle
Hexapla,sl and quotesEusebius'statementthat Origen had learnedthe
Hebrewlanguageandhadacquiredpersonalcopiesof theJewishscripturesin
Hebrew characters.S2The statementthat Origenhad tearnedthe Hebrew
languagemay well be eulogizingpraise,foundedor unfounded;but the
shtementaboutcopiesof theHebrewscripturessoundsmorelike a statement
of fact, a descriptionof somethingEusebiushad seenin the libary at
Caesarea.
Nautin saysthat Eusebius"manifestlywants to give a complete
descriptionbut makesno mentionof a columncontainingHebrewcharacters"
(314); thus,he concludes,thereexistsdno suchcolumn.
Now Nautin is correct that in this passageEusebiusdoes not
explicitly statethat ilrerewas a column with Hebrewcharactersas the first
50bia., 303-309(Hexaplaricfragments)and 311-316(Eusebius).
Nautin beginshis chapteron the Hexapla(303) with a descriptionwhich
omitsthis column. He prepareshis reader:"On observera qu'il n'existepasde
colonnecontenantI'h6breuen caractdreshdbraiques, ce qui concordetout b
fait, nousle verrons,avecle tdmoignaged'Eusdbe"(305). And after his
discussion of Eusebius (311-316) he discountsEpiphanius'testimony: "Mais
il est contreditpar celui d'Eusdbe . ., qui mentionneune seulecolonne
d'h6breu, (320).
cellede la translitt6ration"
51"Eusdbe qu'il trouvaitdansla bibliothdque
a regarddlcs synopscs
(ibid.,3l2), and "Eusbbe
de C6sar6e" avaituneconnaissance directede la
(320).
synopse"
52"...qu'il acquit personnellement
les Ecritures prototypes
conservdes hdbreuxeux-m0mes..."
chezlesJuifset ecritesaveclescharactdres
(Ibid.,3i2; npurortnow: airoTs EppaTuv orotyeb6 ypa$ds Hist.
Eccl. vi.l6).
OLD TESTAMENT
ORIGEN'S TEXT 27
column of the Hexapla. He is also probably correct that rf's Eppaiav
o4percoeug meansthe Greek transliteration. But though he makesthe
curiousremark(causingone to wonderwhatpresupposition
lies behind)that
the LXX comesonly in the third rank gmongthe four Greekversions(305),
he does not bring to our attentionthat Eusebiusdoes not describethe
columnsin order but is contentto mentionthe LXX in one phrase,but the
versionsof Aquila, Symmachus,and Theodotiontogetherin a separate
phrase. Nor does he bring to our attention that Eusebiusmentions rrfls
E\paiuv anp€Luo€oEafter,not before,theotherGreekversions.
In my view, just as Eusebiusspokeof the LXX and "the Three" in
one naturalway of speaking,but not in a precisedescriptionorder, so he
began this passageby speakingof Origen's Hebrew bible "in Hebrew
andimmediatelycontinueddescribing-without havingprecisely
characters"
statedthattie Hebrewwasinscribedin the first column-the otherelements
of the Hexapla. Eusebiusis patently not giving the type of precise
descriptionrequiredto supportthe weight of Nautin'sconclusion. Put
anotherway: why is it possibleto concludethat,sinceEusebiusmakesno
explicit mendonof a columncontainingHebrewcharacters,thereforethere
existedno suchcolumn,if one is not.preparedto say that, sinceEusebius
explicitly mentionsthe LXX in one phrasebut the versionsof Aquila,
Symmachus, and Theodotiontogetherin a separatephrase,thereforethe
columnsof the Hexaplawerepreciselyin theorderhe described?
Nautin'swell-intentionedcross-examination
appearsmorerigorous
thanEusebius'wordswere meantto bear. At the level of concepts,Nautin
has elaboratedone provocative, perhapspossible reconstruction
of the
Hexapla. But at the level of judgment,he has not at
all provedthat the
traditionurl
(ancientandmodem)reconstruction is incorrect,nor hasheproven
thathis is correct;eachofhis conclusions needs
still to be tested.
28 EUGENEULRICH
Turning now to Nautin'sassessment of the Mercati MS, before
consideringhis judgmentit is importantto stateexplicitly,as Nautin does
not in his openingtreatmentof the MS, that the Mercati MS is not t&e
Hexaplabut a ninth- or tenth-centurycopyof excerptsfrom the Hexapla. In
fact, our earliestfragmentsof the Hcxapladateonly from the eighthcentury,
500 yearsafter Origen. We shouldexpectthereto be very few Christians
after origen and before the date of the four surviving fragmentsof the
Hexapla who could transcribethe Hebrew column,53and it would be
extremelyunlikely that for eachinstanceof copyingduring those500 years
therewas someonewho both knew Hebrewand saw a needto preservethe
Hebrewcolumn.
Furthermore,I am not at all sure that all four fragmentssupport
Nautin'sconclusion. The 12th century (or later) marginalnotesin the
Ambrosiancodex B 106 lisr 5 columns(the Greek transliterarion,rhen
presumably
Aquila, Symmacus,
the Septuagint,
and Theodotionor euinta);
but prior to the Greektransliterationcolumn thereare four points arranged,
accordingto Nautin, in a diamondshape. Mercati wonderedwhetherthese
points would not havebeenput in placeof the Hebrewletters; but Nautin
saysthat "This suplnsitionhasno foundationsinceEusebiushimselfdid not
find the column in Hebrew characters. . . and furthermore [rhe Mercati
fragmentl doesnot have it. Thesefour points can have no other function
than to mark the beginningof the citationor to signalthe useof Hebrew
words."54
53Jero*e was one of the few Christianauthorsafter Origen
and
beforethe 12thcenturywho studiedHebrew.
54Naurin,
OrigCne,306-307,
n.5.
ORIGEN'SOLD TESTAMENTTEXT 29
However,Nautin'sargumentdoesnot hold up. Againstthe three
partsof his slatemenfifirst, I havearguedabovethat Nautin hasnot proved
that Eusebiusdid not seea Hebrewcolumnin the Hexapla; secondly,the
absenceof the Hebrcw column in the ninth- or tenth-centuryMercati copy
doesnot provethat.the third-centuryHexapladid not havea Hebrewcolumn;
and thirdly, the scribe'sfour points do, I would agree,signal the use of
Hebrewwords; but I wouldassumethatthesesignalledHebrewwordswere
in the Hebrewscript from the first column,wherein fact the points are
properlyplaced. In contrast,Nautin, if his argumentis to be consistent,
apparentlyzrsumesthat these"Hebrewwords" are the Greektransliterationin
what is traditionallyconsideredthe "second"column. This point, however,
must remainunresolveduntil it can be determined,from other usagein the
MS or elsewhere,whetherthe four pointssubstitutefor wordsin the Hebrew
script,seen,not copied,but their presencemarked, or whetherthey simply
indicate that the following words which were copied are foreign words,
thoughwritten in Greekscript.
Thus,for Nautin'sdenialof theHebrewcolumnon the basistheMS
evidence,(a) I quesrionhis dau on oneof the four MSS,and (b) I think
that lhe 500-yearhiatus betweenorigen and the preservedfragments
neuFalizeshis evidence,for one would not,expectchristianseitherto have
beenable,or to havealwayswanted,to copy the column with the Hebrew
script. Nautin has arguedthe casefor one possiblereconstruction
of the
Hexapla,but in my view he hasnot provedrhatthe traditionalreconstruction
is wrong,andI still fin<Imyselfholdingthetraditional
understanding.
I would also point out that it may weil be thar none of the four
fragmentsarereally copiesof "tle Hexapla"but
simplyexcerpts,or copiesof
excerpts,from the Hexapla. Threeof the four are from
the psalms,and the
citationin vatican codexBarberinus549 is a ciradon
of one verseexcerpted
30 EUGEMULRICH
from the Hexapla(Er niv t{arkof)-only a citationfrom Hosea11:1,in
connection,as it itself says,with Matthew'squotationof it in his Infancy
Narrative. The Hoseausageis clearlyChristian,and the Psalmsusagemay
very well havebeen. Thus, a minimalist interpretationhere would be that
the Greek columnsof the Hexaplaof Psalmswere copied and used,and
excerptswere occasionallymadefrom a copy of the Hexaplafor Christian
exegeticalpurposes.
Be that as it may, from a larger perspectivethe point of the Hebrew
column may be of little consequence,
if Origen did not know or use the
Hebrew. I think that,whetherOrigen'sHexaplacontaineda Hebrewcolumn
or not, the transliterationcolumnaroseearlieras a columnin parallelwith a
columncontainingtheHebrewcharacters.Origenborrowedandplacedin his
Hexaplaeitherthe Hebrewtext and the transcription(thetraditionalview) or
simply the transcription(Nautin'sview). It is quite conceivablerhatOrigen
borroweda Jewishsourcewhich alreadyhadin parallelcolumnstheHebrew,
a Greektransliteration,
and Aquila'sexactlycorresponding
version-and
possiblyevenSymmachus'
versionas well for intelligibility or elegantstyle.
The picturewhich emergesis that Origenwasconfrontgdwith MSS
of the GreekBible usedby the churchwhich disagreedwith eachotler, and
that he was confrontedby argumentation(live or literary) with Jewswhose
Bible differed significantlyfrom trat of the church,andhe hadenoughbalance
to understandthat the Hebrew had a certain priority, So he took "the
Hebrew" (probablyin Hebrew script and also in Greek transliteration,
possiblyonly the latter),Aquila, Symmachus,
Theodotion,and whatever
othertrc\ooert wereavailableplus tlre "Septuagint"in forms thencurrentin
Alexandriaor Palestine,and had his copyistsand calligraphers(probably
includingHebrew)compilea work which he in his extantwritings doesnot,
but which Eusebiusdoes,call "the Hexapla." In is fifth columnhe produced
ORIGEN'SOLD TESTAMENTTEXT 3l
"the Hexaplaricrecension"a revisededition of the "Septuagint,"with the
quantitativechangesmarkedby the Aristarchiansymbols,with thequaliutive
changesincluding transposedword order not marked,and ineluctablywith
somecopyists'errors.
(3) Thirdly and finally, what evaluationdo we renderconcerning
Origen'sHexaplain relationto the transmissionhistory of the GreekBible?
From Driver55to Barthdlemy,thejudgmenthasbeennegative.Barthdlemy
even usesthe word "catastrophique,"
and notesthat for us to arrive at the
original OG, "il nousfaut commencerpar purifier le texte de la Septantede
toutecontaminal,ion "56
ltexaplaire....
The key to the problem engendered
by the Hexaplais that by
Origen'stime the rabbinicHebrewBible hadbeenstandardized
and therewasa
generalassumptionthat it wastle "HebraicaVeritas." Origenassumedthat
wasidenticalto that
the singleHebrewtext-typeusedby his contemporaries
from which "theLXX" hadbeentranslated.Deviationsof the Greekfrom the
Hebrewwereconsideredproblemsor infidelitiesin the Greek. It is precisely
in Origen'scarryingout of his objectivethathe obscuredandlost most: it is
in his changingtheGreek"back"towardagreement
with therabbinictext that
he lost, somedmesforever,manysuperiorreadingsand many attestationsto
varianttraditions.
Nautin and Trigg5Tthink that Origenshouldnot be blamed. They
ratherblamehis foltowerswho did not maintainhis critical standards.But
hereagain,I mustdisagree.Origendcserveshigh marksfor industry,good
55S.n. Driver,"Noles" 5 above]xliii.
[n.
s6Barthdlemy"Origdne,"247.
,
57Nautin,Origine,359-361; J. W. Trigg,Origen: TheBibteand
rhtbsophy in the Third-centuryChurch (Atlanta:JohnKnox, 1983)85.
 EUGENEULRICH ORIGEN'S TEXT
OLDTESTAMENT JJ

intentions,and perhapsthe higheststandardsconceivableand achievablein text into greaterconformity with the rabbinic Hebrew Text of the third
his era. But he did not achievethe "incorruptaet inmaculataseptuaginta century,so that diatoguecontinuedto be possible. A principalachievement
interpretumtranslatio"as claimedby Jerome.58Neitherdid he achievethe of the GreekOld
wasthat he bolsteredChristianconfidencein the soundness
original Old Greek translation,in the senseof ttre goal of the moderntext Testamentthey used,and this shouldbe reckoneda significantmilestonein
critic; on the contrary,he movedfurther away. Nor did he producea text theChristianizationof ttreHebrewBible.59
which would long standas a purified text for the Easternchurches(in his
senseof conforming to the Hebrew). Nor did he even have the luck to
bequeatha very useful tool for the modernscholar-in that it is scarcely
preserved,
andwhatis preserved
is confusedly
preserved.
What is the differencebetwecnthe HexaplaricSeptuagintand the
Septuagint
which we usetoday? The Gdttingencriticaleditions,and even
Rahlfs'handedition,haveau.cmptcdto purily the text of any hexaplaric
influence,andtheCambridgeSeptuagint
chooses
Vaticanus
asits diplomatic
text preciselybecauseit is largelypre-hexaplaric.Is this "purification"good
and desirable? The textual critic, attemptingto drive further back toward
earlierand "superior"forms of the Hebrewbiblical text, would assent.One
seekingthe bible of the early churchmay perhapsstartby dissenting,but
would soonhaveto agreel.hatOrigenmovedthe bible away from the form
that the churchhadpreviouslyknown and producedyet anotherform of the
varying LXX manuscripttradition-a form which, soon afterwardsat the
handof Lucian,spawncdfuturediffusionin the transmission
history.
On the positiveside,Origenwas the pioneerof biblical rextual
criticismfor theChristiantradition. He alsopioneeredthepathof integration
of critical scholarshipwith theologyand spiriruality. He did achievethe
removalof a numberof mistakesfrom the text,andhe broughttheChristian

58E pistula CVl, 2.2,Sancti E usebii Flieronymi Epistulae II, CSEL

59This final idea and a significant amounr of clarificarion
55, ed.I. Hilberg (Vienna,l9l2)248-249. -
throughout this paper I owe ro Jeffrey OJchwald's insighrful discussion.

TIIE TEXT OF TIIE GOSPEIS IN ORIGEN'S
COMMEI\ITARIESON JOHN AI{D IT,IATTIIEW
William L. Petersen
University of Nore Dame
Writing in 1928, Kirsopp Lake, Robert Blake and Silva New
observedthat "perhapsthe most important piece of work which remains is
the double ask of collecting and studying the quotations from the other
'fhis
Gospelsin Origen and Eusebius."l is becausethe evidenceof Paristic
writers "is always the guiding starof the textual critic in his effort to localise
anddateatexL"Z
Since the time of Griesbach,classification of the gospel text used
by Origen hasbeenattempted.3Origen is a particularly attractivesubjectfor
lK. Lake, R. Blake and S. New, "The C-aesaeanText of the Gospel
of Mark,"HTRZI (1928),277.
2tbid,25g.
3see the survey of researchesin Kwang-Wan Kim, The Matthean
Text of Origen in His Conmentary on Matthew, unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation,Univ. of Chicago (1946), 13541. In addition !o the other
studies cited in this article, reference should be made to P. Koetschau,
"Beitrlge zur Textkritik von Origenes'Johanneskommentar," TU 28,2(1905)
and E. Klos0ermannand E. Benz, "Zur Uberlieferungder lvlatthAuserkldrung
desOrigenes ," TIJ|47,2 (L932).
TTIETEXTOFTHEGOSPEIS 35
investigation for three reasons. First, he is an early father, whose literary
output coincideswith the beginning of the third century. Second,he is
regardedas the first Christian text critic, whose interest in the text is
evidencedby his Hexaplc, commentariesand literary/textual observations.4
Third, the nvo cities in which Origen lived and wrole, Alexandria (from his
(c. 232-25314
C.E.),are,coincidentally,
birth until 231-2C.E.) andCaesarea
the presumedhomesof two of the major text types of the New Testament:
ilre Alexandrian,andtheCaesarean.
Erwin Preuschen,in the inroduction !o his 1903 GCS edition of
Origen'sCommentaryon John, investigatedOrigen'st€xt type. His findings
dismayedhim:
Es war wohl die schlechtesteAuskunft, auf die man iiberhaupt
verfallen konnte, wenn man annahm,dassOrigenessich bei seinen
Ciaten an keine Textform gebundenhabe,sondemwahllos bald der
und bald der Auloritlt gefolgt sei.s
Further work on Origen's lext was done by B.H. Stree0er,in his
l9Z study which brought ttre Caesareantext !o light: The Fottr Gospels.6
Relying on the variantsnotedby Preuschen,Streeterfound, from the field of
4g.V[ Metzger, "Explicit Referencesin the Works of Origen to
Yariant Readingsin New Testamentldanuscripts" in Biblical and Patistic
St:tdiesin Meiary of Robert Pierce Casey,j. Neville Birdsall and R.W.
l nomson,edd.(Freiburg,1963),78-95.
5E. Preuschen,OrigenesWerkeN, Der lolanneskonunentar GCS
-
l0 (Leipzig, 1903),p. xci.
68.H. Sneeter,The Four Gospels,A Studyof Origins (London,
r9?A\.
 36 WILLIAMPETERSEN
24 variants identified by Preuschen,what he thought were significant
agreementswith his CaesareantexlT This position was refined by Kirsopp
Lake, Robert Blake and Silva New, in their exposition of "The Caesarean
Text of the Gospelof lvlark," publishedrn theHamard TheologicalReview
of 1928.8 Noting that only the first five (not twelve) books of the
Convnentaryhad beenauthoredin Alexandria,9th"y examinedthe citations
more closely, and cameEothe conclusionthat after chaptertwelve in lvlark
(which was,coincidentally,aboutBk. XII nthe Commentary),Origen's
text
of IVIarkbecamepredominatelyC-aesarean.
Their conclusionis accuratelyreflected in Sir Frederick Kenyon's
The Textof tlrc GreekBible:
Origen may haveusedthe Caesareantext beforehe left Alexandria;
. . . he certainly used the Alexandrian lext on his first arrival at
Caesarea; and . . . for the rest of his life at Caesareahe certainly
usedthe Caesarean
texllo
This statement"certainly" reminds one of the worried Roman of
antiquity who, not knowing which religion was "true," joined them all.
Kenyon's statement,which reflects the position of Lake, Blake and New,
7lbid.,g6-toz.
snrnzt eg2l),2074u.
9origen, Comm. Io., YI.2.8; see the commentsand analysisof
I:ke, BlakeandNew,259-261.
loF.G. Kenygn, The Text of tltc GreekBible, rev. and aug. A.W.
Adams(London,19753),l9l.
THETEXTOFTHEGOSPEI.S 37
leavesvirtually every possibility open, in essencesaying nothing, while
appearingto say something.
The publication of Klostermann'sedition of Origen's Contmentary
on Matthew in 1935permitted the fint comparativesnrdiesof Origen'stext
in the two cities. R.V.G. Taskerpublishedtwo studies,including collations,
Cornn.lo. (ogging 13
one on Bks. I and II of the Alexandrian-authored
variants), and one on Kloslermann'sedition of the Caesarean-authored
Comm.Mr. (logging 73 variants).Il The "iresistible" conclusionwas that
in Bks. I and II of the Comm. Io., Oigen was "using a predominantly
Neunal (= Alexandrian) text."l2 In Caesarea,Tasker'sfindings on the
Comm. Mt. supported the conclusionsof Lake, Blake and New's
investigationinto Origen'stext of Mark it was Caesarean.
After the SecondWorld War, Kwang-WanKim wrote a dissertation
on the Mattheantext in the Comm.Mt.,l3 and published the results in two
Comm. Ml., Kim's
articles.l4 While limited to the Caesarean-authored
work is significant, for il notedone of the obstaclesin categorizingOrigen's
text type, and, under the supervisionof E.C. Colwell, used the "Method of
Multiple Attestation" (a predecessorof the Claremont Profile Method) to
resolve the issue. The problem is best seenin an example. ln his Comtn.
11R.V.G.Tasker,"The Text of the FourthGospelUsedby Origen
in his Commentaryon John," JTS 37 (1936), t46-55; idem, "The Text of
St. MatttrewUsed by Origen in his Commentaryon St. Matthew,",ffS 38
(1937),ffi_$.
l2lbid., "Foulth Gospel,"149.
l3Ki*, ThcMattheanTextof Origen.
14K. W. Kim, "The ldattheanText of Origen in his Commenulry
on Mafthew,"JBL 68 (1949), 125-39;idem, "Codices1582, 1739, and
Origen,"JBL69 (1950),167-175.
 38 WILLIAMPEIERSEN
Io.II.?.V4, Origen interpolatesdxotetv beforedroulra in Mr 11.15. This
agre,eswith lt CLZ in the Alexandriantext; e flfl3 in the Caesarean
text; syrc lat in the Western text; and W syrn.h M(ehrheitstext) in the
Koine @yzantinel textl5 But it is omitted (that is, againstOrigen'sreading)
in: B in the Alexandrian; 700 in the Caesarean; and D /c syrs in the
Wes8ern0ext. How does one decide from which family Origen took the
reading? lvlajor witnessesin eachof the families supportthe reading; major
witnessesin threeof the families also dissentfrom the reading.
Kim resolved this problem by logging the variants, their support,
and only then seeingwith which Origen agreed. If they were dominantly
Western,for example,then Origen'sreadingwas Western. Kim found that
MSS f and 1582were closestto the 120variang he notedin Origen'stext of
lvlatthewin the Caesarean-authored
Comm.Mt. SinceOrigen did not follow
9, the premier "Caesarean"witness, Kim was loath to call Origen's text
Caesarean,even though many text critics would lump thesetwo MSS in
with the Caesareanwitnesses.
The next enquirerinto Origen's t€xt type was Gordon D. Fee. His
fust study was limited to the fourth chapterof John, and he conluded that
"Origen'stext of John4 is a lrimary' Neutral.'16 A secondstudyof the text
of Luke in Origen's treatise On Prayer and the Comm. /o. indicated that
Origen'stext was "very closeto p75g in the gospels."l7
lsFamily membenhip was determinedon the basisof B. Metzger's
classification,The Text of tlw NewTestonent(Oxford, 19682r,212-219.
l6G.O. Fee, "The Text of John in Origen and Cyril of Alexandria,"
Bibtica 52 (Lg7l),370. Fee's"primary" Neural groupconsiss of p66 075
BC.
l7ldem, "Origen's Text of the New Testamentand the Text of
Egypt," NTS28 (1982),358;by "gospels,"FeemustmeanLuke, for that is
the scopeof this study. Seealso Fee's"p75,n66 and Origen: The Myth of
THETHffOFTTIEGOSPEIS 39
The most recent work has been indirect, in that it focusedon the
text of Serapionof Thmuis. Following Fee'slead, and againstthe findings
of earlier researchers,Alexander Globe concludedthat Serapion'stext was
similar 0oOrigen's,which he called "Neutral" (= p66075g 31.18
The snrdyin handis intendedo clarify theseissues,or, failing that,
!o presentmore da0afor analysis. One of the failings of the work of earlier
researchersis the small number of passagescollated. Preuschennotr'd 24
variants; Tasker logged 86; Kim, 120. Our study involved complete
collationsof largeportionsof two commentaries,which logged 379 variants.
Further, given the movement of Origen from Alexandria to Caesarea,a
collation of works from bottr cities should make possible a comparisonof
the text type Origen usedin thesetwo cities. Any shift in Origen'stext type
shouldbecomeimmediatelyapparcnt.Heretofore,only Taskerhasmadesuch
a comparison.
From Origen's Alexandrian period, the first five books of his
Conanentaryon John were selected.l9 Origen himself statesthat thesewere
wriuen in Alexandria(Coran. /o. VI.8); they are datedbetween2?i and229
C.E. From Origen'sCaesareanperiod, books X and XI of his Comnuntary
on Matthew were selecled.2OThis work datesfrom circa 244 C.E,. These
Early Textual Recensionin Alexandria," in New Dimensions in New
TestarnentStudy, ed.R.N. Longeneckerand M.C. Tenney(GrandRapids,
MI, 1974), 19-45; idem, "Codex Sinaiticus in the Gospel of John: A
Contribution!o Methodologyin EstablishingTextual Relationships,"NTS
15(1968-9),2344.
l8"Serapion of Thmuis as Witness to the Gospel Text Used by
Origenin Caesarea,"
NovT 26 (Lg84),97-127.
lgorigene, Cornmentairesur S. Jean, /, ed. C. Blanc, SC 120
@aris,1966).
zuorigene, Commentairesur l'Evangileselon Matthieu,l, ed. R.
Girod, SC 162@aris,1970).
40 WILLIAMPETERSEN
commentarieswere selectedbecausethey afford severaladvantages.First,
they are availablein the original Greek,not a Iatin translation. Second,the
manuscripttradition is identical: the most ancientcopy of both is the same
MS, Monacensisgraecus191. The MS datesfrom the twelfth or thirteenth
of this archetype. Finally, excellent
century; other MSS are descendants
new editionsof both works are availablein the seriesSourcesChr6tiennes.2l
While limitations of space prevent presentationof the actual
collations here, exampleswill be given to illustrate the type of variants
found, along with exampleswhich point out some of the pitfalls one
encountersin attemptingto concludewhich text family Origen favored (or
used)at any given locationor date.
A few words must be said about method,for in patristic works it is
difficult to define what constitutesa gospel quotation(as opposedto an
allusion or echo)or where the quotationbeginsand ends. To circumvent
theseproblems, only obvious quotationswere collated. Where Origen
appearedfo havedeliberatelyreorderedthe texL or alteredit (deletinga proper
name,for example,becausethe namewas alreadyin the sentencewhich
introducesthe quotation),the passagewas ignored.22 Further,short two or
2lon the dating of Monacensis:E. Preuschen , OrigenesWerkeIV,
GCS 10, p. ix; that Monacensisis the archetypefor the other MSS in
Comm. Io., p. xl. E. Klostermann,Origenes Werke X, Origenes
MatthduserkliirungI, GCS 40 (Leipzig, 1935)calls it "unabhlngig" from the
next oldest MS of the Comm.Mt., I4th-century CantabrigiensisColl. S.
Trinit. 194 (p. viif.).
22An examplecanbestillustratethe problem: at Conun.Io. X.2I,
the text in the gospelruns, "Jesussaid, 'Destroythis temple . . ' " (Jn.
2.19). Origenomits the "Jesussaid" introduction.For a fuller treatmentof
the problemsinvolved, and methodsfor solution,see,W. L. Petersen,ffte
Diatessaron and Ephrem Syrus as Sources of Romanos the Melodist
(Louvain,1985),pp. 55-59.
TI{E TEXT OF THE GOSPEI.S 4l
threeword quotationswereexcluded,for, especiallyin suchbrief snippetsof
text, it is hard to tell if one has a real quotation or only an echo. Finally,
variantsunattestedin the apparatusof our collation base(the 26& edition of
Nestle-Aland'sNavurn TestamentumGraece)and H.F. von Soden'sDie
Schriften des Neuen Testamcntshave been excluded,for they cannot help
locateOrigen'stext type.
AlthoughKim's study,usingthe "Methodof Multiple Atlestation,"
attemptedto resolve the problems of simple collation as a mode of fixing
Origen'sassociationwith a particulartextualfamily, his methodis still not
totally reliable. Observingdgreementswith a particular text family can be
misleading,for Origen may also be going againstmajor representativesof
with 1 and 1582,but
that sametext family (e.g.,Kim's finding of agreement
against 9). Therefore, it is necessaryto record both agreementsand
with a text family.
disagreements
In our study, therefore,three setsof figures are presentedfor each
collation: agreemenB,disagreements,and singular agreements--thatis,
agreementswhich are unique in that they are between Origen and the
represeniativesof a ingle text family.
For the Commentaryon Jolu, pennedin Alexandria, 148quotations
were isolated. From them, 34 attestedvariantswere found. The table below
setsout the raw numberof agreements(N=), disagreements
and singular
agreements, (Vo=)for each.
aswell aspercentages
42 WILLIAMPETERSEN TTIETEXTOFTHEGOSPEIJ 43

ALEX. CAESAR. WESTERN KOINE

Agreements: ALEX. CAESAR. WESTERN KOINE
N: 21 20 23 18 Agreements:
7o- .61 .59 .68 '53 |rf= 31 47 31 34
Disagreements: Vo= .50 .75 .50 .54
|r[= 24 22 18 2l Disagreements:
7o= .70 .65 .53 .62 ]r[= 39 28 38 36
Singularagreements:
-3 Vo- .63 .45 .61 .58
fr[= 2 4 2 Singularagreements:
Vo= .n .18 .36 .18 |r[= 2 8 5r
Vo= .13 .50 .31 .06
to a differentdivisor)
(therewere ll singularagreements,leading (therewere 16 singularagrcements,leading
to adifferent divisor)

In raw numhrs, agfeementsbetweenOrigen and the first three text families
are vfutually identical. In a sample of this size, the difference is not
significant. The Koine is clearly not a major influence. Regardingthe
disagreements,Origen's reading is contradictBd equally as often by the
and Koine texts. It is interesting,howevet,
Alexandrian,asby the Caesarean
to note that thefeweJt numbr of contradictions comes from the Western
texl When we turn to the "singular agreements,"that is agleementsunique
to a single textual family,23 thereare more with the Westerntext than with
any other family, although the sample size is too small to speak of
statistically significant differences. Be that as it may, it is neverthelessa
confirmationof the Westerntext'sfewer numberof disagreements.
Commentaryon Matthew,23l
Turning to the Caesarean-authored
quotationswereisolated;62 wereparalleledin theapparatuses.The datais as
follows:
In this case,Origen'sagreementswith the Alexandrian,Westernand
Koine texts are statistically undifferentiated. The agreementswith the
Caesareantext are, however,significantly higher. A similar pattern is o be
foundin the disagreements:
thereare fewerbetweenOrigenand theCaesarean
text. Finally, in singularagreements,the Caesareanis againobviously more
significant
In reflecting upon thesefindings, severalobservationscan be made.
First, the higher agreementswith the Caesareantext in the Caesarean-
authored Comm. Mt. is rather to be expected. But it is interesting 0onote
that in the Alexandrian-authored
Connn.Io., the major families (excluding
the Koine, which is of little import) are virtually equal. Indeed,if, basedon
our collations, one were to give preferenceto any of the families in this
Alexandrian-authoredwork, it would be difficult not to point to the Western
texu it has the most agreements,fewest disagreements,and most singular
agreemenb.24

24These singular agreementswith the Western text are not

23It must be pointed out that our basis for determining such
superficial,either:
"singularagreements"(aswell.as "agreements" and "disagreements") is, of
proicribed by the rangeof listed
witnesses in the critical appamtuses. l. Comm.Io.IL74: &rq I Flaofinplon with syts.cat Mt.
course, 12.32
Hence,it is acknowledgedas incompleteand inaccurate,eventhough it uses
2. Comm.Io. l.5O: omit Cv fipiv ris ildAet flptv with
the mostcompleteandbestdataavailabletoday.
s)rs.cc eatLk.?t4.32.
44 WILLIAMPETERSEN TTIETEXTOFTHEGOSPEIS 45

In both works, the type of variantsis often trivial. While there are ganted that when quoting the passagea third time (also inX.2327 ) Origen
does give the full reading. One is prtzzled, however, by the deliberate
significant variants,25 more often than not the variant is one of style or
word order. Thesebespeakarbitrary stylistic improvements,and usually are allegorization of the "boat," which Origen omits two of three times. Why

of minor import for locating a text type. Someexamplesare: allegorizea difficult readingwhich is not presentin one'stext?
The only solution which suggestsitself is that the citations in

AtComm.Io.l.lg (apudMt 23.8): x)t1hfite I raA(o4te Origen's works may have been "Vulgatized" by later scribes,28 that is,

At Conun.Io.I.68 (apudMt. 26.13):dv I tdv brought into conformity with a later "standard"text. This would explain the

AtComm.Io.Il.ll6(apudMk. 12.26):rot I rfis absencein two lemmata of the very lectio dfficilior which Origen is

AtComm.Io.II.2l5 (apudJn.1.27): tyd d€rcs I d{rcs tyd attemptingto allegorize away. The later scribessubstitutedtheir "standard

At Conm. Mt. X.l (apudMr 13.36):+ atroil post otxlav text," in two places,thus removing the readingOrigen knew, but did not

At Comm.Mt. X.l4 (apudMt. 13.52:&xBdMet I rpoS(pet revisethe commentaryitself, or, inexplicably, the third lemma.
'Iatdvqs atrtl I a{nt| If this suggestionis correct, then it raises questionsabout the
AtComm.MIX.2I (apudMt. l4A):6
6 'Iatdnnp reliability of our nvelfth or thirteenthcentury MS of the commentrriesand,
lv[k. 8.6):
AtComm. Mt.XI.1'6 (apudMr 15.22lharmonization consequently,the validity of conclusionsbasedon collationsof their Biblical

rcardg I Setvrfrs texts, Rufinus'prefacen Pei archon,in which he admitsrewriting Origen

at points, is a clear precedentfor revisionsand "corrections"of Origen's

Thereis one ratherminor variantwhich, however,when takenin the works.

conlsxt of Origen'saccompanyingcommentary,raisesgrave questionsabout The results of our investigation confirm the findings of Preuschen

the integrityof the text transmitted.WhenquotingMt. 14.13,Origentwice in somerespects.29 While in Alexandria,thereis no discernibletendencyto

trLolqt,having Jesusdve2loip4oev cls favour one text type over another. Perhapsthe most striking feature is the
omits the difficult reading tv
€p11tov r6trov, rather than dveTdpqoev treT1ev tv rAottp elg €pqttov
rdrov. It is omitted at Comm. Mt. X.23 and XI.5. What is striking is 27tbid.,p. 256,lines 38-9.
that Origen specifically speaksof the boat, and allegorizesit later inX.23: 28On "Vulgatization,"seePetersen,The Diatessaron,26, zgf 34,
,
6td tr€Aerrat tv rAotqt, rowtorat n{ oQtart.26 Now, it must be Aso Tasker,"St. Matthew": "Therswasa tendencyto correctthe text of
1l;
the Fathersin order to bring their biblical quotationsinto line with the
standardized
Byzantinetext" (64).
25S.", for example,thoselistedin theprecedingnote.
29our findings parallela brief remarkfound in an anonymousnotice
,
26In R. Girod'sedition (supra,n. I2), the omissionsare localedat (probably by D. Leon Sanders)of Preuschen'sedition in the "Bulletin"
secdonof RB, n.s. 1 (1904),298.
p.252,lined 1-3 (X.23)andp. 288,line 20 (K.5). The full reading(with
tv r)tottp)is given atp.252,lines9-10 (X.23).
46 WILLIAMPETERSEN TTIETEXTOFTHEGOSPEI.S 47

slight prominenceof [he Western text, but this must be mitigated by imposing the arbitrary boundariesof modern text types on the subtle
rememberingthat: eclecticismof the gospeltext usedby secondandthird cenhrrywriters.

its dateof origin musthavebeenextremelyearly, perhapsbeforethe

middle of the secondcentury. Marcion, Tatian,Justin, henaeus,
Hippolytus, Ternrllian,and Cyprian all makeuseto a greateror less
extentof a Westernform of the text.30

It may well be that this most ancient text form, the Westerntext, was a
(the?)major manifestationof the gospeltext in Alexandriaat the time Origen
wrote there,and that what scholarsnow call the "Alexandrian" texl is indeed
whatPeterConson,professorat Berlin, calledit in 1892:

Der distillierte Text den die Modernenaus einigen griechischen

Uncialengewonnenhaben,...istnur ein Spiegelbildeiner willkiirlich
1
fixierten RecensiondesviertenJahrhunderts.3

Oncein Caesarea,more readingsfrom the Caesareantext appearin Origen's

text doesnot displacethe other
writings. Even then,however,the C-aesarean
textual families in Origen'swritings. Rather, it becomesfirst among what,
in Alexandria, at least, had been equals. This servesto remind the present-
day scholar of the evolving natureof the Biblical !ext, and the dangersof

3oMetzger,Text, I32.

3lQuotedby J. Rendell{arris, Four LecturesOn the WesternTefr

of the New Testament(London, 1894),p. vii. One should not ignore the
opinion of C.R. Gregory that tl and B "would suit very well as a pair of the
fifty manuscriptswritten at Caesareafor Constantinethe Great" Ql345, The
Canonand Text of the New Testament(New York, 1907). This is basedon
Eusebius,Vit. Constant.,IV.36. Seealso Metzger,Text,7,

ORIGEN IN TIIE SCHOLAR'SDEN:
A RATIONALE FOR TIIE IIEXAPLA
JohnWright
Univenity of Notre Dame
From all indicationsOrigen'sHexaplawas one of the most massive
textual projectsin the history of the text of the HebrewBible.l Yet for all of
is magnitude,it remains shroudedin mystery. It seemsto have suffered
destructionwith the library in Caesareain the Islamic conquestof the region
without ever being copied in full. The work itself, while referred to by
Origen in his extantwritings, is nevergiven a nameby him, nor describedby
him in a thoroughand consistentmanneras we might desire.2 The matteris
further complicatedby inconsistenciesbetweenthe descriptionsof the work
A versionof this paperwas given in the CJA Seminaron January
15, 1986. I benefitedgreatlyfrom the discussionand suggestionsby the
faculty andsnrdentsandhaveincorporatedmanyof theminto 0repaper.
lHenry Sweteestimatedits size as 6500 pags, basedupon the size
of Codex Vaticanus. Even this approximation, however, seems to
underestimatethe bulk of the Hexapla,as will be arguedbelow. SeeH.
Swete, An Intoduction to the Old Testamentin Greek (Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversity, I9n), 74.
2I wil discussthesepassagesin further detail below.
ORIGEN IN TIIE SCHOI.AR'SDEN 49
and the few remains that we actually possess.3 In short, there is little
concerningthe Hexapla that is sfaightforward and unproblematic. We are
thereforeforcedto deal in the realmofprobability andreasonedspeculationin
undertakinga historicalreconstructionof this massivework.
In light of theseuncertainties,it is not surprisingto discovera wide
rangeof answersto the questionof why Origen wrote the Hexaplain the first
place. The extrememagnitudeof the work, which seemsto have 0aken
fifteen years !o complete, raises this question with some urgency. What
rationalepossessed
Origen to devotethe energyand effort to composesucha
work? Various scholarshave arrived at diverse answersto this question,
ranging from a Hebrew primera to the restorationof the text of the LXX,
meaninga "purified" LXX, revisedto the MT radition.S I will arguein this
paperthat the rationalefor the project was to form a compilation of tex$ that
might be easily comparedfor a variety of detailedexegeticalwork, foremost
3this is most obvious in the lack of asterisksand obeli in the
Mercati fragments.
4SeeH. Orlinsky,"The ColumnarOrderof the Hexapla,"
uIeR(n.s.)
27 (1936-37):137-149.
5The most recentpresentationof this position p.
is Nautin in his
QVSdne:Savie et sonoeuvie@aris: Beauchesnd, 1977):303-361, especially
344'353. other scholarswho haveheld this view incluie H. Swere,rn" oa
Testamentin Greek and s. Jellicoe, The septuagint and Modern study
(oxford: oxford universiry, 1968),74-146.bttreicunent positionson the
ij.u-".*g S. P. Brock, "origen'sAims asa Text critic of the bld restament,"
S,t4!? Patrisica l0 (1970):215-2tBand D. Barrh€lemy,"Origenet Ie texre
oe I'Ancien Testament,"Etudesd'histoire du texte de l'Anc{enTestamcnt
(?A::213). Brock arguesttrat Origen composedttre Hexapla
for apotogeric
reasons-toprotect the Churchagainstpolemicsby the Jews. BarthdGmy
ar€ues
zuJ). As$at Q{S-encompiled the Hexaplaas "an amplecollecrion of data" (p.
will becomeimmediatelyapparent,althoughdiffering in many
details with Barthdlemy'sargumeni,1nyulrimaresyripathiesarE wirh his
position.
50 JOHNWRIGIIT
of which was the possibility of esablishing a corected text of the Old
Testament. To support this position, I will examine three facets of the
evidence for the Hexapla: (l) the structtue and form of the work; (2)
Origen'sown statementsconcerningthe work; and (3) the basetext usedby
Origen n his Homilies on Jeremiah md his evaluation of textual variants
within thesehomilies.
The Stmctne and Form of the Hexapla
Two works, a recent strrdy by P. Nautin6 and an older study by I.
Soisalon-Soininen,Tcontributegeatly to our understandingof the strucnre
and form of the Hexapla-Nautin in regardsto the work's basic strucnre and
Soisalon-Soininenon the mechanicsthat producedthe LXX column of the
Hexapla Theseworls will form the basisfor the following discussion.
P. Nautin devotesnearly a seventhof his work on Origen to the
Hexapla Through a critical examinationof the data,he convincingly dispels
the radition of a column of Hebrew charactersand establishesthe seven
column format of the Hexaplaas follows (in order): a Greek tanscription of
the MI, Aquila, Symmachus,the LXX text (with aslerisksand obeli),
Theodotian,followed by the fifth and sixth versionsthat were recoveredby
Origen.S
6Nautin,OrigCrw,especially
pp. 303-333.
Tnmari Soisalon-Soininert,
Der Clnrakter der AsterisiertenZwiitze
in der Septuagint(Helsinki, 1959). Soisalon-Soininensummarizeshis
conclusionson pp. 193-196.
8Nau[in,Oigdne, p. 321.
ORIGEN IN TIIE SCHOI.AR'SDEN 5l
How were thesecolumnsconstnrcted? According o Eusebiusand
confirmedby the Mercati fragments,Origen arrangedthe columnsin "cola"--
"small units of meaning of which each, correspondingto a Hebrew word,
occupiesa line in a mannerthat the reader,in surveyinga line in the different
columns,seeshow the sameword wasrenderedin the different translations."9
Such an arrangementwas ideal for a comparisonof all the versionsand the
constructionof the column that hasreceivedthe most acention-the critically
markedlyLXX column.
There is a dangerof narrowing the questionof the rationale of the
Hexaplato the rationale of the L)O( alone.lo While the Hexaplacontained
six more columns that we may not disregardin examing Origen'srationale
for the Hexapla,we cannotdisputethe cenrality of the LXX column for the
Hexapla"
As is well tnown, in this column Origen markedthe MT additions
!o the L)O( with asterisksand LXX segmentsnot in the MT, with obeli. He
borrowedttresecritical markingsfrom the ancientAlexandriangrammarians.
The asterisksmarkedadditions that merited close attention, while the obeli
denigratedthe worttr of a reading.ll Soisalon-soininenhas studiedOrigen's
9lbid.,p. 314.
thnis narrowing pervadesthe secondaryliterature. This
is largely
9o: a prigel's own sratem-entsthat refer !o this column, ttre significance
-the oi
this column for the transmissionof the text of the LXX, and late 19th
centurycritical reconstructionof this column by F. Field.
1lS.eg
r!
Qsagrees lwete , The Old Testamentin Greek, pp.70-71. Barth6lemy
with this, but in the Contm.in Matt., Origen statesthat he uses
ooelrsb@ausehe doesnot "dareto l€move" the longerLXX passages entirely
(Comm. in Matt. XV, l4). This implies that brigen saw th-e
obeli as
lesseningthe worth of a passageasin the Alexandrian
fammarians.
52 JOHNWRIGIIT
utilization of these signs with interesting and relevant results for this
paper.l2
discoversthat Field s critically reconstructedLXX
Soisalon-Soininen
column of the Hexapla employs asterisks and obeli in an extremely
mechanicalfashion. The critical markingsare characterizedby a technical-
translational nature, with great concern to arrive at a word-for-word
betweenthe MT and LXX in regardsto length. Such a
correspondence
detailedcomparison"extendsofteninto the smallestgrammaticalfeatures."l3
In the asteriskedsections,Origendoesnot translatedirectly from any Hebrew
text, but employs the otler versions,with Theodotian(the column that
followed the LXX column)the most prominent.l4 This minuteattention!o
an exact word-for-word correspondence,
however,results in a linguistically
coarsetranslation,often even to the point that an incongruenceis found
betweentheold text and theadditions.l5
Yet despitethis carefulattentionandcomparisonto the texts,Origen
largely disregardsvariants. He doesnot alter the LXX text, exceptwherehe
saw freely translatedsectionsas possibleadditionsor omissions. We may
seethis purely mechanicalprocessthat producedthe LXX column as a direct
l2Soisalon-Soininenworks with Field's critical edition of the
septuagintalcolumn, and may assumegreaterstability in the accuracyof the
currentplacementof the critical signsthan is possible. The main lines of his
findings, though, are establishedwith sufficient strength to make this
inconsequentialfor thepurposesof this paper.
I 35oisalon-Soininen,
Der Clar akterdcr Asterisierten,p. 105.
l4lbid., p. ro7.
lslbid., pp. 193-194.Suchan approachalsobroughtextremehavoc
uponthe history of theLXX text.
DEN
ORIGENINTIIESCHOI.AR'S 53
result of the cola-formatthat facilitated comparisonand as a key to the
rationalefor the entire work.
What are the implications of this structureand form of the Hexapla
for Origen'srationale? First, the cola structurewould seemto demanda
codex,rather than a scroll, and imply that Swete'sestimateof 6500 pages
the sizeof the projeci.tu rn" Hexapla
may havesignificantly underestimated
would not havebeena readily portablework, with easyreferenceto a passage
in a public debatelTor for liturgical use. Origen'sprivate scholar'sden,
wherehe preparedhis homiliesand commentaries,
or might want to checka
passagefor a treatiseor a dispute,seemsa muchmore likely setting.
The structureand form of the Hexaplaalso reveal that the rationale
was not to restorethe LXX-column to the pristinepurity of the MT. First,
Origencould haveaccomplishedthis task without the botherof writing out
t}te other versions,thus shorteninghis task immensely. Second,the fifth and
sixth versions (if not also Symmachusand Theodotion) would become
entirely superfluousfor this purpose. Yet the fact of the matter is that
Origen includedall availableversionsin a format wherebyhe might achievea
comparativeanalysisof the versionsat a glance. Third, Origen,tlrough his
usesof the Alexandriansigns,did move towardsforcing the LXX into the
MT's mold; but he stoppedshort of dropping or adding sectionswithout
l6The cola-form would take more spacethan continuouswiting
becauseof the gapsto set the columnsaparl SeeMercati fragmentsfor the
extentof the spacesucha format would demand.
l7This would seemto discreditBrock'sview that the Hexaplawas
written for public disputeswith the Jews. The Hexaplacould be usedto
Preparefor debatesin checkingvariouspassages, but the awkwardnessof its
bulk would seem to prohibit irs employmentwithin a live debate. In
addition to this, sucha rationalewould not demandthat Origen compile the
completeHebrew Bible; conroverted passages,especiallythosethat carried
specialimport for Christians,would havesufficed.
54 JOHNWRIGTIT
notice. Most importantly, though,he did not changethe wording of the
LXX where it varied from the MT. A rationale!o "reslore" the LXX to the
"true" text--theMT of the Jews--woulddemandthe harmonizationof variants
between the two versions.l8 The structureand form of the Hexapla made
such a harmonizationpossible,but it left the decisionsopen for the scholar
to evaluate as he had occasion. The format of the work would geatly
faciliate this process.
The structue and form of the Hexaplasuggestthat the rationalefor
the project was to form a compilation of texts that might be comparedeasily
in detail. From its location in a "study" or a library,l9 Origen had an
invaluableresourcefor homilies,scholarlyworks, or evenfor preparationfor
public disputes. His exegeticaloptionswere opened!o the maximum degree
throughthe structureand form of the Hexapla.
Origenk Statemenbon the RatbnahfortheHenpla
Origen'sstatementsin Ad AfricanumandhisCommentdry on
Matthew usually form the point of entry into the discussionof the rationale
for the Hexapla. From this perspective,the scholar then progressesto the
structureand form of the Hexapla,usually concentratingon the LXX column.
By reversing this method, it becomespossible to accomplish two matters:
(1) Our preunderstandingof the stalementsare broadenedby the structureof
lSSweteassertedthat Origen "tacitly corrected" the LXX as a key
point in his argumentfor his "restoration"view of the rationale for the
Hexapla. Soisalon-Soininen,of course,had not conducledhis study at the
time of Swete'swmk. SeeSwete,The Old Testament in Greek,p.68.
l9The Hexaplaseemsto havemadeits way evenorallyto the library
at CaesareawhereEusebiusexaminedit later andcoipiedthe LXX column.
ORIGEN IN THE SCHOI..AR'SDEN 55
the Hexaplaitself; and (2) We may read the lexts morecritically and account
for the diversity in Origen'stwo sta[ements.
His Comrnentaryon Matthew containsthe locus for the restoration-
of-the-LXX view for the purpose of the Hexapla. Again, Origen openly
statesthat he has, "with God's help, devised to heal the divergencein the
texts of the Old Testament,using the remaining versions as a criterion
fxptrfpup-1" (Comm. in Matt 15, 14). In contrastto Ad Africanum, the
asterisksand obeli now con0ainedilorial significance,with the Hebrew text
grantedmore authority than the LXX. He udlizes the obeli becausehe does
not "dare" to drop thosepassages,
even thoughthey do not correspondto the
Hebrewtexl
The Hexapla could serve this function well for Origen. Yet, as I
haveargued,there wereeasiermethodsavailableto him and sucha rationale
does not explain severalaspectsof the structureand form of the Hexapla.
Thus,thesestatements:resuspectasa rationalefor the whole work.
We may discoverthe function of thesestatementsin the context of
the Comtn.in Mau. The descriptionof the Hexaplafunctions !o aid Origen
in explaining the divergencesbetweenthe Gospelsin the story of the "Rich
Young ldan/Ruler"(lvlatt 19:16-22;Matk lO:17-22;and Luke 18:18-23;.20
This, then, functions to supporta textual emendationthat Origen makes in
his exegesison ldatthew. This useof the referenceto the Hexaplatherefore
functions to support a particular interpretation of lvlatthew. We may not
generalizeitto tlw rationalefor the Hexapla.
20the d.ivergencethat draws Origen'sattentionis
. that Matthew has
Jes-ujrespondto the young man as "If you wish to be perfect," while Mark
anoLuke readdifferentlv.
56 JOHNWRICTIT
Ad Africanwnprovidesthe locus for the apologetic-against-the-Jews
view for the purposeof the Hexapla.2l Indeed, Origen emphasizesan
apologetic rationale for the work, and the Jews figure prominently in his
polemic. But the apologeticextendsfurther thantheJewsand includes"those
who seek a starting point, who wish to slander the average lbeliever] by
appearingto denounceit [the LXX] amongthe commonpeople." Origen's
concem here (as throughoutAd Africanum) is to defend the LXX against
claimsby others,of whom the Jewsarethe major adversaries.Origendid not
write ttris sectionas a rationalefor the Hexapla;the Hexapla,however,with
its useas a tool for apologetics,expecially for comparativepurposes,ideally
fit the momentaryneedof Origento defendthe LXX againstits critics.
This interpre0ationis strengthenedby Origen'smention of the obeli
and asterisks. Rather than weighing the worth of the readingsof the LXX
(with the LXX being weighedless)as in Comm.in Matt., here they were
said to have beenemployedonly "for the sakeof distinction" (Ad. Afr' IV).
He thus protects the LXX from any criticism that might be inherent in the
Hexapla itself. It is thus important not to transfer the apologetic use
describedn Ad Africanum ta therationalefor the Hexaplaitself. While the
work could easily facilitate this apologetic work of Origen, its rationale
a b'roaderaim.
encompassed
These "classical" referencesto Origen's own statementson the
Hexapla, therefore,are of limited value in discovering the rationale for the
entire work Yet' Ad Africanutn, immediatelyprecedingthe mentioningof
the polemical useof the Hexapla,he describ€sa more generalpurposeto his
texnnl endeavors:
2lsee Brock, "Origen'sAims asa Text Critic."
DEN
ORIGENINTI{ESCHOI..A,R'S 57
And I do not say these things with hesitation to search also the
Jewish Scriptures,and to comparethem to all of ours, and to
observethe differencesin them. Because,if it is not burdensometo
say, we have worked much on this to the extent of our strengtl,
seekingfteir sensein all the versionsandtheir differences.We have
sought the interpretationof the LXX much more . . . (Ad. Afr.
D0.
The descriptiongiven here accordsexactly with the implications of the
structureand form of the Hexapla discussedabove. Origen describeshis
endeavorsas a comparisonin order to discover the differencesbetweenthe
texts. This processis for general exegeticalpurposes: to understandthe
meaningof the versions,with special emphasison the LXX. The data
discoveredcould then be usedin a variety of ways, including apologetical;
nonetheless,the basicpurposeof the Hexaplawas the generalunderstanding
of all availableversionsof the Old Testament.It remainsto be seenif this is
consistentwith Origens actualpracticein the Honilies on Jeremiah.
Oriien's Evaluationof Textual Variants mthe Homiticson feremiah
Origen's utilization of the text of Jeremiahin his Homilies on
reremiahprovides indirect insight into the rationalefor the Hexapla. These
homilies, still surviving in Greek,22would provide ample opportunity for
origen to use his Hexapla,due to the vast differencebetweenthe LXX and
229nte\9, Homdliessur J6r6mie,2
rr.- - Vols. Traductionpar pierre
uusson et Pierre Nautin. Edition, Introduction, et Notes par piene Nautin
(Paris: Les tiditions du Cerf, l9g3i.
58 JOHNWRIGHT DEN
ORIOENINTIIESCHOLAR'S 59

MT texts.23 I will examinefirst the basetext of the homilies and then Origen: rdsav r4v fpfuqv

review tle evaluationof the variantsby Origen. LXX: rdoav ip€pnv

Pierre Nautin appealsto the basetext of the Homilies on feremiah MT: Dl\il'5)

as supportfor his restorationview of the purposeof the Hexapla. On the Origen: \terdleoa pvrrqg(6pevog

basisof the t€xt of Jer 2O:2-6in Hom XIX, Nautinarguesthat Origen'sBible LXX: 6rcr(treoa puxnTpt(6pevog
MT: rb tv5 n5:
was not the LXX, but "the text revisedafter the other versionsthat he had
establishedin constructingthe Hexapla."24This holds true for Jet 20:2-6. In thesethreeinstances,fhe two more significantreadingsfollow Origen =

Nautin errs, however,in ascribingnormativestatusto the exception. A LXX + MT, while the mere addition of an article showsOrigen = MT *

revisedLXX text doesnot even remain consistentthroughoutall of Hom LXX. This "mixed text" continuesthroughoutthe remainingthree versesof

XIX, as in vv. 7-11 the text largely follows the LXX version25againstthe the passagefor the homily. We may find this non-revisionalnature of

MT. As evidencefor this, I will presentthe threevariantsfound in v. 7: Origen'sbasetext the remainingversesof this homily, or for that matter,in

Origen: trpdrnoas xai i6uvdo0qs any homily; it is dramatically apparent,however, in Hom IX where he

LXX: trpdnyoas rai fi6uvdo04s follows the shorterLXX text in omitting the expansionof w. 7-8. Thus,

MT: 5:rnr \lnpln the whole text for this homily has not beenconsistentlyrevised towardsthe
MT via the versions,but witnessesto the mixed natureof the Septuagintal
text that Origenhad at his disposalin Caesarea.
RatherthanOrigen'stext of Jer 20:2-6,Nautin shouldhavechosen
23the LXX text of Jeremiahis lfth shorterthan the MT, with a a more representativeportion of the text that Origen used. His text of Jer
transpositionof a major section. A comparisonof the LXX wittt 4QJerhas 3:6-10,the textualbasisfor HomIY, providessuchapassage.We may
indicatedthat the LXX mostlikely representsa shorterHebrewVorlageof the
book. For detaileddiscussionsof the text of Jeremiah,seeJ. G. Janzen, characterizethe text as basically following the LXX while displaying
Studiesin the Text of Jeremiah(Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard University, indicationsof an assimilationtowardsthe MT, but also containingisolated
1973) and E. Tov, The SeptuagintTranslation of feremiah and Baruch
(Missoula: ScholarsPress,1976). Tov hassummarized an evaluationof the idiosyncrasies.I would like to give v. 8 as an exampleof this text:
Qumran, LXX, and MT texts in his "Some Aspectsof the Textual and
Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah,"in Le Liwe de fdrimie, pp. f45-
167 (Leuven: UniversityPress,1981). Origen: 6t.6rt nepi ndvruv oiv rard,et$0q tv ots
24Nautin, Origine, p. 345. This view is also given by Nautin in lporydro
his "Introduction"in Homilies sur firdmie, p' 116. LXX: &drt rcpi rdvruv 6v rare\fipQfi4 [€v ots
25gy tn" Septuagintaltext of Jeremiah,I mean the critically €ltotydrol
reconstructedtext of the Gdttingen edition, edited by Joseph Ziegler,
Ieremias (G0ttingen: VandenhoeckandRuprecht,1957).
MI: nDSl '1lr/8 n].Tlr-5:-5y ..':
60 JOHNWRIGHT DEN
SCHOLAR'S
ORIGENINTTIE 6T

Origen: fi raroucta ro0 Topafi), t€anfuraAa dwnv Origen, in adoptingthis text, is consciousof the differencesbetween
'IopafiA rcai t{arfuret)ta dvrilv
LXX: f1 xarowla ro0 the LXX and the MT. [n seven,possibly eight instances,he discusses
MT: n\nn5u/ SXltlz. nfU/D variants between the LXX and the "remaining versions."28 He treats the
Origen: xai €6ura airfr fuBAlov drooraolou €It ras variants in two different manners. On the one hand, Origen evaluatesthe
Xetpas oirfis variants !o establish the superior reading, either due to an error in
LXX: xai€\aflrca atrfi BtBtrtov drooraotov Eansmission(e.g., XV 5, 16-17)or to the homileticalvalue of the variant
']5b n8
MT: n\58 i1\nn\"1) ]rx] (XVI 5, 17-25). On the other hand, he at times embracesboth readings,
'Iot6a
Origen: xai o{x edo%en i do{vkros providingexegeticalcommentson each(e.g.,)ilV 3,6-8). His comparison
'Iol6a
LXX: xai ohx e$o\thn f1 do{vkros of the versions,obviously facilitated by the Hexapla,leaveshis options open
MT: nn]n8 i]'T]i-]\ n-l)f ilH']\ 85'l
andhe takesadvantageof this wide gamut
The implications of the dataprovidedby the Homilies on Jeremiah
While this versecontainsmoreuniqueOrigenicreadingsthan usual,it clearly are entirely consistentwith our findings above. Origen doesnot emergeas a
showsthat the text usedby Origen has not beenrevised towardsthe lvIT.26 thorough "purifier" of the LXX text. The Hexaplaprovides the opportunity
Thus, while the text he useddoeswitnessthe gradualprocessof assimilation for such a move, and he does opt for it on occasion. But more
of the LXX towards the MT in isolatedinstances,it is not sufficient to fundamentally,he operateswith the LXX versionof his church and usesthe
hypothesizea revision of the text by Origen. Rather,we may explain the comparativeHexaplaric daa for a wide rangeof exegeticalresources. The
data be,stby concluding that Origen usedas a basetext in his Homilies on biblical text is a mine for divine treasuresfor the skilled miner, and the
Jeremiah a Septuagintaltext that was circulating within the church in Hexaplaincreasedthe availability of goldendivine nuggets.
Caesarea,a text that was typical of Septuagintaltexts of that time in a
modestdegreeof assimilationtowardsthe lvlT.27 Condusion

26tris is not to say that Origen'stext neverfollows the MT against

the LXX. One of the many examplesmay be found in Hom VII on the text I havearguedthat Origen'srationalefor the Hexaplawas to obtain a
of Jer5:19: compilationof biblical texts for comparativeanalysisthat would increasehis
Origen: dv|' 6v €yrcaretrtrer€ pe rcai t\odtetoare 1eots undershndingof the various versions and would provide an exegetical
tr(pots
LXX: dv|' tlv 46ov)te0oare kcitg d)Jorptots 28Thecleanreferences
MT: "l)) \n5}{ 'r'Tfynl \n'r}{ Dnfly '11/8f !o variantsarefoundin VIII l,17-21;XIV 3,
l:S; IV 6, 13-18;XVI 5, 17ff;XVI 10, l-5, XVIII6, 74-85;andXj< 5, t6-
'4.
27seeEugeneUlrich, "Origen'sOld TestamentText," in this ln Hom.XlX 12,l0-I2 Origenrefers!o a phrasefound in the Mf, but
not in the LXX. It is not clear,however,whetherOrigen merely mentions
volume. the phraseitself of referso the fact that it is addedin ne frff.
62 JOHNWRIGHT

resourcefor a wide rangeof applications. Suchan interpretationaccountsfor

the toal structureand form of the Hexaplaandthe diverserationalesgiven by
Origen himself. It is further confirmedby his useof the biblical text and his
evaluationof texuralvariantsin tlla-Homilies on Jeremiah.
This rationalerevealsOrigen asa transitionalfigure in the history of
the biblical text. St. Jeromemay provide a foil to him at tttis point. It is STRAW DOGSAI\D SCHOI.ARLY ECI.JMEi..{ISM:
anachronisticto readinto OrigenJetome'scompleteconcemfor the lrcbraitas TIIE APPROPRIATEJEWTSHBACKGROTJND
veritas. On the one hand,Origen standswith the ancient scribal practiceof FOR TIIE STIJDYOF ORIGEN
adding doublets into the sacredtext in order 0opreservethe most complete
RogerBrooks
version of the text29 and the Qumran community'spractice of maintaining
Univenity of Notre Dame
different versionsof the samebook in their library. Sucha practicedoesnot
demand,or evendesire,the stictly controlledstandardizationthat Jeromedid. HeavenandEartharenot humane
On the other hand,Origen representsa significant st€ptowardsthe complete They regardall thingsas sfrawdogs;
standadizationof the sacredtext throughhis employmentof the critical signs The sageis not humane
with their evaluativeconnotationsand his usageof the versionsto establish
He regardsall peopleas strawdogs.
superiorreadings.Here he is a precursorto Jerome,and preparedthe way for
Jerome'stranslationprojectof the Old Tesamentfrom Hebrewinto Latin. -The Way of Lao Tzu,5

In its own way, therefore,the HexaplarepresenBthe capstoneof the

scribalpracticesof the Ancient Near Eastand the beginningof the processof
The world of third-century Caesarea,in which Origen lived and
standardizationresultingin the Gdttingenedition of the Septuaginl It stands
wrote, we may imagine as a seriesof concentric (or at least overlapping)
as a monument!o the ut[er seriousnessand thoroughnesswith which Origen
circles of culture. In this picture, Origen himself standsat the centerof the
approachedhis exegeticaltask and the impact ttrat he has made,even 1800
yearsafter his birth.

This paper took shape ,rs a presentationto the Christianily and

29see S. Talmon, "Double Readings in the Massoretic Text,"
Textus1 (1960): 144-184.
Juoarsmin Andquity Seminarat the University of Notre Dame. My thanks
g-o to the seminar's coordinator for 1985-1986,Professor Charles
Kannengiesser,who encouragedme along the way, and to eachof the other
participantswho kindly added their criticisms and suggestions. I also
Eratefully acknowledgethe help I receive from my leacher,ProfessorJacob
Neusner,whoseadvicecontinuesto guidemy studies.
& ROGERBROOKS
circles. Ringing aroundhim would be the early Christianworld, with its
institutionsand social net*orks.l A still largercircle of culturemight take
into accountthe Greco-Romansettingin which Origen thrived.2 Finally,
cutting acrossthesevariousconcentriccirclesis the bandof Jewishcultwe so
prominentand availableto Origen,both in Alexandria,and to a greaterext€nt
?
in Caesarea.-To usethe wordsof Nicholasde Lange:
lSee, for example,Wayne Meeks, First (lrban Christians: Sociat
World of the ApostlePazl (New l{aven: Yale University Press,1983),pp.
51-139.
2The Greco-Romansetting of Caesareais describedfully in Lee
Levine, CaesareaUndcr RomanRule (-eiden: EJ. BriU, 1975). Seealso
Martin Goodman,State and Societyin Roman Galilee. A.D. 132-212
(Totawa,N.J.: RowmanandAllanheld,1983).
3On Jewish life in Alexandria, seeVictor Tcherikover,Hellenistic
Civilizationand the,/ews@hiladelphia:JewishPublicationSociety,1961),
pp, 272-285;on Judaismin Caesarea,seeLevine, Caesarea, and Mary
Smallwood, The Jews Under RomanRule (I*iden: E.J. Brill, 1981),pp.
516-579.
ANDSCHOLARLYECUMENISM
STRAWDOGS 65
Origen stands, historically, in the transition period, when the
Christian symbolismhad already becomehighly developed,but
before the triumph of Christianity hadbrought about the final break
betweenthe ChristianandJewishtraditions.4
Origenand theJewsinModem Scholarship
Somerecentstudieshavefocusedtheir attentionneitheron Origen's
role of leadershipwithin the Christian community, both as writer and
presbyter,nor on Origen as memberof the educatedelite in theseprovincial
."nr"rr.5 Instead,they have aimed at the intersectingcultural context,
namely, Judaism in the late-secondand early-third centuries. These
investigationsproceedfrom two types of motivations. The first is factual:
Origen's Conta Celswncontainsreferencesto JewsandJudaicpractice,and
Christianity, of courseevidencesa historical affinity with, and similarity to,
Judaism. Thus in theseworks we read suggestionsthat the Iuollos to whom
OrigenreferredprobablywasHillel, the secondsonof thePatriarchGamaliel;
4NicholasR. de Lange, Origen and the lews: Studiesin Jewish-
Clvistian Relations in Third-CenturyPalestine (Cambridge:Cambridge
University Press,1976),p. 116. Further discussionof the emergingsplit
betweenJewishand Christian communitiesmay be found in Robeft Wilken,
Iohn Chrysostomand the Jews (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1983),pp. 29-33,68-79.Wilken seesthe split asoccupyingseveralhundred
yearsandcontinuingwell into the fourth cen$ry.
5see,e.g.,de Lange, Oigen,and BietenhardCaescrea,Origerrcsund
.. ,
le Juden(Berlin:W. Kohlhamma,1974). On Origen'sbiography,seeJean
uanidlou,OrigCne(Paris:La TableRonde,1948),pp. 19-64;Piene Naurin,
vngene: sa vie et son oeuvre@aris:Beauchesne, 1977);RendCadiou,la
jeunesseD, origcne : histoire de
l, 6cole d'Alexandrie aa debut du III osiicle
(Paris:Beaucheine,1935).
66 ROGERBROOKS
of Jewsmustbe understoodto refer !o
or that someof Origen'sdiscussions
Rabbi Hoshaya,an important Talmudic sage reported to have lived in
around230i or again,we may havethe admissionthat while such
Caesarea
identifications in particular presentus with extremedifficulty, still they
remaingencrally suggestive.6
The secondinfluence stems from the recent movement toward
improvedJewish and Christianrelations. Once again, I cite Nicholas de
Lange,now from the closingparagraphof his book:
At a time when the Churchand Synagoguefind tlemselvesdrawing
closer togetheronce more in the face of a new paganism,it is
edifying and instructive to contemplatean era when, despite
powerful antagonisms,Jews and Christians could live in close
harmonyandderivemutualbenefitfrom their intercourse.T
This scholarlyecumenism,as I havetermedit, hasled academicsto
many interestingavenuesof study-not just of Origen, but also with regardto
the study of the other Church Fathers,of Christianity and Judaism in
antiquity, and of PaulineChristianity. Consider,for example,WayneMeeks'
instructive but short chapteron Urban Judaism,or Robert Wilken's study of
Jewishand Christian interactionin Antioch.8 Eachof thesestudiestakes
6Theseparticularexamplescomefrom de Lange, Origen, pp. 89-
r02.
7DeLange,Origen,p.135.
8Meeks, First Urban Christians, pp. 32-39; Wilken, John
Chrysostom.
STRAWDOGSANDSCHOLARLYECI.JMENISM 67
seriouslythe diversity of Judaismin shapingttreearly Christianworld.
Yet in the recentstudiesof Origen and the Jews,a relatively simple-
minded ttreory of cultural diffusion seemsto underlie the fascination with
Jewishprirtice in Caesarea.WhetherJudaismand Christianity represented
or theenemiesof a commonfoe--
competingschoolsof thoughtin Caesarea,
two groups,it is claimed,sharedmanyaspectsof
namely,the pagans--these
life. The one scholarlygiven is that thereexisteda large areaof common
gound betweenJewsand Christians,"especially when the two groupswere
facedwittr similar atracksby pagans.'9
This type of studyproceedsfrom an intimateknowledgeof Origen's
own works, and isolatesthemesand issuesto investigatein Judaism. The
scholarsearchesRabbinicliteranre for corroborationof Origen's depictionof
Jewish institutions and ideas,and, I hastento add, such confirmation is
1n
readily found.'" For example,de Lange cliaimsthat inquiry into Rabbinic
interpretationof the Hebrew Bible provides a central and profitable way of
Origen's useof Scripture. One shouldalso look for Jewish
understanding
views on topics like Law, Election, and Messiah.ll Furthermore,the
scholar must compare Origen's statementson institutions like the
9DeLange,Origen,p. ll.
l0While other types of Jewish literature from the first several
centuriesoften are invokedin thesediscussions,aftemptsto confirm Origen's
depictionof Jewish institutionsin Caesareain the mid-third century turn
almostexclusively to conSemporaneous Rabbinic literature, in particular, the
l almud of the Land of Israel (under formation perhapsas early as 275 C.8 .,
redactedprobablybetween350 and 400; seeLouis I. Rabinowitz,"Talmud,
Jerusalem,"in Encyclopaedia Judaica(Jerusalem: Keter, 1973),Vol. 15,pp.
772-779\.
llsee deLange,Origen,pp.78-102.
68 ROGERBROOKS
Pariarchateand Jewishsectswith the depictionof thosesameinstinrtionsin
Rabbinicsources.
Such study producesuseful results. De Lange's book (which he
himself terms preliminary) teems with information necessaryto a full
understandingof Origen's writings and interests. Yet we must also seethe
problem posedby this simple method. For in such work, one side of the
dialoguesetsthe entire scholarlyagenda. Origendiscussedonly someof the
issuesof interest to Jews during his era. It is misleading to look at only
thoseissuesin the Jewishworld of the late-secondand early-third centuries.
To statethe samething from the other side:Jewishliteratue from the early-
and mid-third cennry containsessay-lengthdiscussionson manytopicsnever
evenmentionedby Origen.l2 If *" ignorethis data,we overlookimportant
evidenceregardingthe Jewish sphereof life in which Origen lived. We
glimpseonly bis andpiecesof Judaism,takenftom hereand there,which add
up to a distortedview of this imporAnt context.
What might serveas a remedyto this one-sidedvision? Our goal
shouldbe to ask what Judaismlooked like, in the period at hand,witlnut the
framework suppliedby Origen. Here, however,we encountera vexing
problem: whenceshall we derive information regardingthe Jewsand Jewish
practicesin the Land of Israel during the third-century? Jewish writings of
the late secondand early third centuries,as I indicated, constitute one
commonsourceof data. Early Rabbinic literature--in particular the Talmud
l2For example,the Mishnahand the Toseftafocus in a detailedway
upon the mannerin which liquids can qluse food to becomesubjectto ritual
uncleanness (seeLev. ll:!4,37-38; Tractatetvlakhshirin);as I showbelow,
however,Origen's Homilies to lcviticus nevermentionsuchrules. If our
interestremainsonly in Origen and topics he mentions,we miss a crucial
featureof Rabbinicliterature.
STRAWDOGSAND SCHOLARLYECUMENISM 69
of the Land of Israel--is taken0orepresenta movementof Jewsemerging,in
the third century, into the forefront of Jewishlife.l3 Yet nascentRabbinism
did not immediately supplantall other forms of Jewishlife. In third-century
Caesarea,we surely would find goups of Jewsfor whom apocalyptichopes
still burned;or for whom Philo's synthesisof Judaismand Greco-Roman
philosophy still proved thoroughly convincing.l4 On ,h" other side, we
must not assumethat whatevermay be found in the Talmud of the [.and of
Israel, compiled between350 and 400, indicatesaccuratelythe Rabbinic
synthesis100 or more yearsearlier,as it existedin Origen's own day and
15
age.'" Theseconcernspoint out the needfor historical review: we must see
the Land of Israel in a cont€xt larger thanjust the secondand third centuries
in orderto understandtheJudaism(s)of that time.
l3Such a view is problematic,for it ignores severalfine details:
even if the Rabbinic movementproducedits first documentsno earlier than
200 C.E., still, we know of Rabbinic figures who flourished at least 150
yearsearlier (compareGamaliel,mentionedin Acts 5:35 and the Phariseesof
the Synoptic Gospels). So this movementmust be studied with an eye
toward a much longer spanof time than the 35 yearssincethe appearanceof
the Mishnah.
l4See Levine, Caesarea, for information on Caesareaas a
cosmopolitancenter with various,competingforms of Judaism;see also
Wilken, John Chrysostom,pp. 55-65.
l5one possibletouchstonefor suchcomparisonsmight be found in
the so-called'Caesarean Tractates"of the Talmudof the Land of Israel(the
threepars of TractateNezikin: BabaQamma,Baba Mesia, and BabaBatra).
See Saul Lieberman, Talmudah shcl Kisrin, Supplementto Tarbiz 2:4
(1931), pp.9-2O,for the claim that thesethreeparts of the Talmud derive
from Caesareaitself and were probablycomposedbetween275 and300 C.E.
On the dating of other parts of Rabbinic literature, see Moshe D. Herr,
'Midreshei
Halakhah,' in EncyclopaediaJudaica,Vol. II, pp.152l-1523;
f.dem, "Tosefta," Vol. XV, pp. iZg:-tZAS; see also fphiaim Urbach,
*Mishnah,"
Vol. XII, pp. 93-109, and Louis I. Rabinowitz, "Talmud,
Jerusalem,"Vol XV, pp.1lZ-Zll.
70 ROGERBROOKS
Th Land oflsrael underRomanRule
In painting Jewishhistory leadingup to the third century,let me
first sketcha gladuallossofJewish sovereigntyover two centuries.l6In 64
and then(upon
B.C.E.,Romeinstitutedprovincialrule over Syria-Palestina,
Jewish request)formally annexedthe Land of Israel one year later; we also
havethe fall of Jerusalemin 37 B.C.E.,and the corresponding
decimationof
the judiciary (forty five judges are reported by Josephusto have been
executed)under the authority of the provincial governor,Herod;I7 in 70
C.E., Rome put down an attemptedgrasp at self-rule, in the process
desroying the Temple in Jerusalemand forever changingthe face of Jewish
life. Similarly, in 135 C.E., the Romansdefeatedanotherrebellion, now
underthe leadershipof the Messiah,SimeonBar Kokhba. And during this
same period of time, the Romans appointed a Patriarch, their local
representative,who, despitethe fact that he wielded someindependentpower,
nonetheless
wasa signof continuingRomandominanceover theJews.
In addition to thesepolitical and military events,we might also
point to heavy increasesin Roman taxation and confiscation of land,
especiallyafter the imposition of direct Romanrule of the province of Judea
1R
in 6 C.E.,'" and then again after the persecutionsand rebellions in
l6See SeanFreyne, Galilee
from Alemnder the Great to Hadrian
(Nore Dame:University of Nore DamePress,1980),pp. 57ff.
l7For the date of Jerusalem'sfall, see Smallwood,Jews Under
Roman Rule, pp. 565-567;seeIdem, pp. 63-64,for the persecutionof the
judicrary.
l8Seelbid.,pp. 119,150-151.
STRAWDOGSANDSCHOLARLYECUMENISM 7I
in 135C.E.19
Alexandriain 115-l17C.E.andin Palestine
By rehearsingtheseeventsI hope to point out the long processof
Romandomination,which in somercspectsreacheda headnearthe middle or
end of the secondcentury. Yet theseeventsarenot the only featuresfor us to
keep in mind when asking about Judaismat the beginning of the third
century. For we must also take accountof the recentflurry of messianic
movementsin Judaism,between150B.C.E. and 150C.E'. We may look at
the Samaritans,with their annointedHigh Priest offering sacrificesat Mount
Gerizim and rheir eschatologicalprophet, tnetalvb;2o the Essenesat Qumnn
with their proto-messianicfigure, the Teacherof Righteousn"rr," Christian
Judaism,with its proclaimedannointedSon of God;22or the messianic
19SeeGoodman,RomnnGalilee,pp. 146ff.
20SeeJamesPurvis,TheSamaritanPentateuchand the Origins of
theSamaritanSect(Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,1968),p. 89, and
Richard J. Coggins,Samaritansand Jews: The Origins of Sanwritanism
Reconsidered (Atlanta:JohnKnox Press,1975),on the Samaritansand their
high priest.
21seeGezaVermes, Qwnran in Perspective@hiladelphia:Fortress
Press,1981),pp. 185-186,on the Teacherof Righteousness
as a messianic
figure.
22As a sidelight, I note that for Origen and other Palestinian
Christianslike him, we mustrecognizethe different natureof their Messianic
movementfrom the earlierJewishmessianism.The rapid influx of gentile
convertshad two profound effects: first, it seemsto have kept Christianity
alive in era of declinrngJewishMessianism,and second,it servedto separate
Christianityfrom Judaism. Of course,we must be careful not to seetoo
sharp a break between these two communities. Outsiders saw Jews and
Chrisriansas similar or the samelarger people. In the sameway, we have
evidenceof social interchangesbetweenthe nvo groups well into the fifth
9entury.Origenhimself"was consciousof addressing on Sundaysomewho
hadbeento synagogue thepreviousday" (deLange,Origen,p. 36; cf. p. 93).
72 ROGERBROOKS
general,Bar Kokhba,proclaimedby Rabbi Aqiba23 By 150C.E.,theresult
in eachcasewas the same. None of thesemovementshad producedany real
consensusin the Jewish world. None of these messianicfigures had
succeededin bringing about meaningful changesin the social situation or
political structurein which the peopleof Israel found itself.
Origen's birth in 185 C.E, and his move to Caesareaaround230
C.E.,placedhim wholly within this historicalandculnral contcxt. Jew and
Christianalike lived in the aftermathof the political sruggles betweenRome
and the Judeanprovince.% When we ask what type of JudaismOrigenknew,
we point first to a country and populus governedby foreigners,though
perhapsat a time of tolerationconditionedby uttrervictory.
A RabbinicResponse:The Mshnah
To return to our main inqurry, we ask: how did the Jewishwodd
react and respond to these two and one-half centuries of ever-increasing
control by Rome? The major cultural creationof this era must be seenas the
23SeePeter Schf,fer, Der Bar-Kokhba-Aufstand:Studien zum
zweitenjiidischenKrieg gegenRom (fiibingen: J.C.B.Mohr, 1981),pp. 55-
72; YigalYadin, Bar Kokhba:TheRediscoveryof tlv LegendaryHero of the
SecondJewishRevoltagainstRome(New York RandomHouse,1971),pp.
172-183; and Emil Schiirer, A History of tln Jewish People in the Age of
Iesus Christ (175 B.C. - A.D. 135),Revisedand Edited by Geza Vermes,
FergusMillar, and ldatthew Black, @dinburgh:T&T Clark, 1973),Vol. I,
pp.534-557,for moreon Bar Kokhba'smessianicclaims.
24see Goodman,Roman Galilee, pp. 135'174; Stuart Miller,
Studiesin tlw History and Traditionsof Sepplwris(Leiden:E.J.Brill, 1984);
Daniel Sperber,RomanPalestine:200'400. I. Money and Prices @amat
Gan: Bar Ilan University Press,1974);II. TheLand (RamatGan: Bar Ilan
Universityhess, 1978).
STRAWDOGSANDSCHOLARLYECUMENISM 73
Mishnah. This law code (togetherwith its supplement,the Tosefta) is the
only surviving literary evidenceof any type ofJudaism that was produced
during Origen's lifetime. So if we wish 0oknow aboutJewishreactionto
tlese events,we must turn our attention, first, to this earliest documentof
the Rabbinicrou"*"nt.25 What doesthe Mshnah, redactedat the end of
the secondcentury,tell us aboutthe settingofJudaism in the late-secondand
early-thirdcenruries?
In terms of its content,the Mishnahis conditionedby two main
issues. First, the Mishnahpresentsa view of the wodd far removedfrom the
Jewishmessianicmovementsttrathadprecededit26 TheMishnahcontains
25Two other bits of Jewishliteratureare sometimesheld to stem
from this era. The first, Liber AntiquitatumBiblicarurn indeedwasranslated
ino Latin in the third century,but was composedperhapsone-hundredyears
earlier; second,we havemystical texts,suchas the Heikhalot literatureor the
book S/ricnr Qomah. In both cases,recentscholarshipassertsthesebooks to
havebeenredactedand editedonly centurieslater; seePeterSh6fer,Synopse
zur HeikhalotLiteratur (Tiibingen:J.C.B. Mohr, 1981)and IMartinCohen,
Shicur Qomah:Liturgy and Theurgyin Pre-KabbalisticJewishMysticism
(Washington,D.C.: University Pressof America, 1983),pp. 66-67). This
being the case,we must point to the Mishnah as an attemptby someJewsto
summarize,in a new and fresh book, their reactionsto their recent history.
But the pauciry of other typesof literatureneednot blind us of two facts: (1)
otherJudaismsarelikely to haveremainedon the sceneduring this part of the
third century, if not expressingthemselvesanew in literature; (2) yet other
forms of Judaism,it is likely, might perfectly well reflect the situationin
Palestineduring the era in question,even if they produce tangible literary
remainsonly quite a bit later. While I find necessaryfurther study of these
otherpossibleJewishcontextsfor the study of Origen, still, I believe we ,tre
wanantedin placing a good deal of emphasison the one gloup of Jewsfrom
the early third century who did producea new book, namely the Rabbiswho
stoodbehindthe Mishnah.
26For this charucterizationof the Mishnah as essentially non-
Messianic,seeJacobNeusner,Messiahin Context:Teleologyin Foimntive
Judaism,Foundationsof FormativeJudaism,Vol. I @hiladilphia:Fortress
Press,1984),pp. 17-53.
74 ROGERBROOKS
only two explicit referenceso the Messiahin its entire 64 traccates(some
1200pp. in the new English ranslation). Furthermore,thosetwo references
to the Messiahoccur merely as parts of lists of ordinary matters. M. Sotah
9:9-15mentionsthe "footslepsof the Messiah"in a list of tragiceventsthat
led to the moral decline of the Israelites. The other reference,M. Berakhot
1:5, is to the messianicage; again,this mention appearsroutinely in a short
explanationof why Jewsincludea paragraphregardingthe exodusfrom Egypt
in their daily liturgy. In and of themselves,"the daysof the Messiah"hardly
figure as crucial eventsin the holy life of Israel, as explicitly depictedin the
Mishnah.
For the most part, however,the Mishnah'smessagemust be seenas
a reaction to Rome's lakeover of God's Holy Land, the Land of Israel.
Throughout the various trac0ales,one uncoversthe assertionthat although
seeminglydefiled, the Land of Israel remains holy; although seemingly
possessed
by Rome,the Land of Isael remainsthe exclusivepropertyof God;
althoughseeminglygovernedandruled by Rome,the peopleof Israelremains
eternallysubjectto God's sovereignty.Within the Mishnah,thesevarious
points are made by invoking the Priestly Code of Leviticus, with its
emphasison order, holiness,regularity, and proper atlention to thosenatural
categoriesestablishedby God at creation.2T
So the Mishnah formed a two prongedpolemic, one side negative,
one side positive. Its framersignored the messianicand apocalyptic styles
that had character2edcenturiesof Jewish writings. At the sametime, the
2TExamplesmay be found throughoutthe six major Divisions of
the Mishnah. For a specific instanceof this sustainedpolemic, seeRoger
Brooks, Supportfor the Poor in tlw Mishnaic Law of Agriculture: Tractate
Peah,BrownJudaicSnrdies43 (Chico:ScholarsPress,1983),pp. L-I2.
ANDSCHOLARLYECUMEMSM
STRAWDOGS 75
Mishnah's authorslooked back to a different age of Jewish history, one in
which everythingseemedin place. They skippedback over 700 yearso the
regulations found in Leviticus, and took as their base the principles
underlying that priestly work of law. In the Mishnah, the earliestRabbinic
authors emphasizedorder, not chaos; holiness,not defilement; and the
Israelites'power,not helplessness.28
This review of Jewish hisiory and this brief look at the Mishnah
shouldhelp us graspthe Rabbinicworld at the beginningof the third century.
But anotler, larger problem remains before our pursuit of the Jewish
backgroundappropriateto the studyof Origen. How may we avoid the useof
cat€goriesto look at Judaismthat are not inEinsic to Judaism? How do we
isolatethosecategoriesthat ruly representRabbinicthought?
The problem is acute. Onward from GeorgeFoot Moore, the great
syslematicianof Jewish thought,many prominent scholarsof Judaismhave
aryuedthat one cannotextracttheologyfrom Judaism. Rabbinic literature,it
hasbeenclaimed,simply doesnot allow that type of analysis. In Moore's
own words:
Judaism,in the centurieswith which we areconcerned,had no body
of articulatedandsystematized
docrine suchaswe underscand
by the
nametheology.29
28For this reconstruction,see Jacob Neusner,Judaism: The
Evidenceof the Mishnaft(Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress,l98l), pp.
2r7-229.
29ceorge Foot Moore, Judaism in the Age of the Tannaim
(cambridge:FlarvardUniversityPress,1927),Vol. I, p.357.
76 ROGERBRMKS
This seemingly strange notion, that Judaism has no theology,
emergesfrom a particulartheoryof the formation of Rabbinic literature. The
Mishnah,it hasbeenargued,containsthe recordof many centuriesof ad lnc
judgments handeddown to satisfy particularjuridical situationsas they
u-r".'o Sincetheselawsareoccasionalandad lpminem,rheycannotaddup
to a cohesive theology at all, let alone on topics that are essentially
Christian. In other words, since the Mishnah reports legal rulings as they
happened,we shouldnot expectthe text to provide us with sustainedessays,
but ratherwith a merelegalrecord.
The work of Jacob Neusner,in ludaism: the Evidence of the
Mishnah, may give us reasonfor hope. Neusneradoptsa quite different
interpretive scheme. He seesthe Mishnah not as a mererecord of hundreds
and thousandsof decisions;rather, Neusneremploys Hegel's tripartite
hisorical framework !o understandthe creationof the Mshnah: Rabbinism
emergedftom a long period of Messianichope(Ihesis: the severalmessianic
movementsI alluded to above,but especiallythe Bar Kokhba Revolt); this
then followed by failure and disappointrnent(Antithesis: the two wars with
Rome,finally endingin the defeatof the Messiah'sarmy), all culminating in
the redactionof ttre Mshnah (Synthesis:a holy book, meantto reflect upon--
and move beyond--Israel'scurrentsituation1.3lFor Neusner,the Mishnah
containsa set of extendedessays,combining various 0opicswith particular
formulary patterns,meantto arguein behalf of crucial poins of the Rabbinic
3hnis theory of the formation of the Mishnah pervadesalmost all
scholarshipprior to the 1970's. SeeJacobNeusner,Ed., TheModern Study
of theMishnalr(Leiden:EJ. Brill, 1973).
3lSee Jacob Neusner,Iudaisrn in Society: The Evidenceof the
Yerushalmi(Chicago:Universityof Chicagohess, 1983),pp.19-25.
ANDSCHOLARLYECUMENISM
STRAWDOGS 77
world view.32 A, N"orner lays things out, then, the Mishnah constitutes
the Rabbis' reactionto their history.
Rabbinic SystematicTheologt The l*gacy of the Mishnah
The Mishnah had a profound effect upon Judaismin the third and
later centuries. First, seeing the Mishnah as an independentset of essays
making the Rabbis' own points necessarilyraised severalquestions:Who is
telling me this? Why? On whose authority?33 ln context, the next
Rabbinic documentsall took up this problem. Sifra, Sifre, and Leviticus
Rabbah, tlree works of Scriptural exegesis from the third through nfth
.34
centuries,"- eachaimed at glounding the Mishnah's rules in Scripture. Far
from mere exercises in prooftexting, these books ried to establish the
absoluteScriptural authority of the Mishn"h.35 Th"n in the fourth century,
the Talmud of the Land of Israel took as one of its starting points the
32seeJacobNeusner,A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities
(Leiden:EJ. Brill, 1977),Vols. XXI andXXU.
33We should recall that the Rabbinic movementmade its first real
pitch for authority at this point in time, not earlier. Thus the openinglines
of TractateAbot, "Moses receivedtorah at Sinai, and passedit on to Joshua,
...whopassedit on to Hillel and Shammai,"ought to be seenas an attempt
to justify the authoritative stanceof the Mishnah. See Jacob Neusner,A
History of the Mishnaic law of Danages (Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1975),Vol. IV.
34Forthesedaies,seeHermannL. Strack,Einleitung inTalmtd tnd
Midrasch, Revisedand Editedby Giinter S[emberger,(Munich: C.H. Beck,
re82).
35see,for example,Neusner,MishnaicLaw of Puritles, Vol. VII,
which discus5ssin detail the relationshipbetweenthe Mishnahand Sifra.
78 ROGERBROOKS
problem of relating the Mishnahto Scripn re.36
In similar fashion thesedocumentsalso attemptedto deal with the
Mishnah'snon-messianicattitude. One major problemleft open for these
successivegenerationswas how to integratethe Mishnah's strong teleology
of holiness with an appropriateamount of messianism. This interplay
betweenSanctificationand Salvationservedas one of the primary foci of the
Talmudof the Land of Israelandof the Talmudof Babylonia.3T
But the legacy of the Mishnah extendedfurther than to these
problems taken up by the immediately succeedinggeneralions. For the
Judaismproducedin this era, accordingto such scholarsas GeorgeFoot
Moore, GershomScholem,and EphraimUrbach,was somehownormative
?r
for 1600years.-- Thesethinkers seethis long period in one way or another
as a unity, showing only small amountsof cultural and intellectual change.
Rabbinic thought, from its inception to the advent of modemity, formed a
single,largerconceptualwhole.
What could thesescholarspossiblyhavemeantby their insistence
that Rabbinic culture continued uninterruptedfrom 200 C.E. to 1800?
Clearly, their view is calturally inaccurate: we easily may documenta wide
365oNeusner, in f udaismin Society,pp. 78-79,andtn The Talmud
of the Land of Israel: A Preliminary Translation, Vol. 35: Introduction:
Taxonomy(Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress,1983),pp. 52-56.
37seeNeusner,Messiahin Context,pp.79-130,167-231.
38Neusner'swork hasshownwithout doubt that we cannotspeakof
the Mishnah's Judaism as "normative," as Moore or Urbach wish.
Nonetheless,as Neusner himself points out, "Rabbinic Judaism," as it
emergedfrom the Mishnah and on through the Talmuds, becamethe state
constitutionof the Jewishpeople. See.JacobNeusner,The Way of Torah,
Third Edition (Belmont,CA: Wadsworth,IgTg),pp.12-16.
STRAWDOGSANDSCHOLARLYECUMENISM 79
variety of cultures in the period at hand. Synchronically,considerthe vast
differences,in the secondand third centuries,betweenJewsin Palestineand
thosein Babylonia. Or, diachronically,considerttrevariety of culturesbefore
and after ttre Arab conquestaround 640. The assertionof an unintemrpted
Jewish culture is also intellectually problematic. The claim that such
movementsas JewishPhilosophyand JewishMysticism worked themselves
out principally within the confinesof the Rabbinic systemis true, but beside
the point. For we must just as soonpoint out that thesetwo syst€msshared
scarcelya singleaspectof their world views.
In what way can we speakof the legacyof the Mishnah as a single,
unifiedwhole?
This documentrepresentsthe best effors of the Rabbis to compose
essays(or at leastconnecteddiscourses)on a variety of topics, topics chosen
not to represent everything in Scripture,39 bo, to divide life into its
componentparts as the Rabbis themselvessaw things. The Mishnah
thereforecomprisedthe frst documentof Rabbinic SystematicTheology.
Certainly the Mishnah and early Rabbinism knew of no such categoriesas
Providence,Miracles,Election,Messiah,Prayer,Worship, Free Will, Sin,
Repentance,Evil, Immortality, or Angelology. On these categoriesof
Christian systematics,Rabbinic literature has nothing but episodic and
scatteredaorn*"n,..4o But if by systematictheologywe meansustained,
39seeNeusner
, Judaism:Mishnah,pp. 167-I72, 217-229.
40Thesecommentsmay be gatheredtogetherand arrangedinto
chapters,as Moore and Urbachhave done. But we must realize that such
c-ategories
are totally foreign to the Rabbinic systemtheseauthorsattemptto
describe. For a full critique of this methodology,seeNeusner,Judaism:
Mishnah,pp. 5-14.
80 ROCERBROOKS
rational discourse on God, his relationship to humans, and his
communicationsto them, then the Mishnah certainly constitutesJudaism's
41
first systematics.-' And if we turn o the categoriesutilized by the Rabbis
who composedthe Mishnah,we will find their theology.
The Mshnah's SystematicCategonies
and individual trac[ates
Wittroutreferenceto all of the sub-categories
of the Mishnah, let us look at the six major divisions of the Mishnaic law,
and lay out the basicquestionsposedby the Mishnah.
I. TERACIM:TTIE DIVISION OF AGRICULTLIRE:
How doesGod's ownershipof theLand of Israelaffect Israelites'use
of that Land and its produce? [A samplesub-division: Demai,
dealing with buying and selling produce in a doubtfully tithed
status.l
II. MOCED: TI{E DIVISION OF APPOINTED TIMES:
How doesGod's interactionwith Israel in his0oryserveto orient the
calendar, marking out special times requiring special actions by
Israelites? [Samplesub-division:Shabbat, spelling out various
asp€ctsof Sabbathlaw andobservance.l
IIl. NASHIM: TIIE DIVISION OFWOMEN:
How doesthe specialsanctitydemandedof Israelitesby God affect
their relationshipswith that "most dangerousof creatures,"woman?
4lFor this definition, see Louis Jacobs, "Theology," in
ludaica, Vol. 15,pp. 1103-1110.
Encyclopaedia
ANDSCHOLARLYECUMENISM
STRAWDOGS 8I
lSample sub-division: Ketubot, specifying rules for transfer of
womanfrom fatherto husband-l
IV. NEVAN: TIIE DIVISION OF DAMAGES:
How doesthe unity andequality of God's holy peopleIsraeldemand
special action in business,government,and day-o-day dealings?
BabaQanatu,on torts;BabaMesia,on civil
[Samplesub-divisions:
law; BabaBarr4, on prcpertylaw.l
V. QODASHIM: THE DMSION OF HOLY THINGS:
How doesthe worship of God demandspecialaction in the Temple,
God's holy locus? [Samplesub-division:Zebahhn,concerningthe
variousproceduresfor animalsacrifice.l
YI. TOHOROT: TIB,DIVISION OF PURITIES:
How does extending the holiness required in God's Temple to
everydaylife demandspecialaffentionto all aspectsof life vis-ri-vis
cultic purity? [Sample sub-divisions: Tohorot, on sourcesof
andMiqvacot,on modesof purification.l
uncleanness,
This Rabbinic effort to select which topics to talk about--a task
undertakenduring the entireperiodfrom before70 until about l85--succeeded
beyondthe mere details of the Mishnah's rules. For the categoriesset up in
the Mishnah becamethe categoriesfor all later Rabbinics. Early Rabbinic
documentssuchasfre Tosefta(ca. 300), the Talmudof the Land of Israel(ca.
350400), and the Talmud of Babylonia(ca. 450-600)eachorganizedtheir
quite independentdiscussionsaround the opics dealt with in the Mishnah.
This is true to such an extent that these documents,despite their diverse
interesisand intents, all are commonly describedas "commentaries"to the
Mishnah. Similarly, ttre greatRabbiniclaw codesof Medieval times--thatof
g2 ROGERBROOKS ANDSCHOLARLYECUMENISM
STRAWDOGS 83

Rabbi Isaac Al-Fasi and, to a degree,those of Maimonides and Joseph (Yoma)--andalso discussthe functioning of the cult throughoutthe year
A'
Caro*'--each systematicallytake up a variety of topics and sub-topicsflrst (Tacanit, Hagigah, andSheqalim). Finally, severaltractatesdeal with the

dealt wittr in the Mishnah. homeand village during thesesamefestivals(Slubbat, Erubin,Besah, and

In order to show this continuityand developmentin action,let me M{edQatan).

discuss two separateexamples,one an entire Division of the Mishnah How did this Mishnaic expositionof festival law set the agendafor

(Moced, Appointed Times), and the other a single tractate (TractatePeah, later Rabbinic work? To begin with, the secondgeneration of Rabbinic

Poor-Relief). documents--theTosefa and the Talmuds*all usedprecisely thesecategories

Within the Mishnah,as I have indicaled,the Division of Appointed and carried forward the overall point that the home must provide the mirror

Times claims that the home and village, on holidays,attain a measureof imageof the now lost Temple. Similarly, the later law codestook their cues

holiness,just as the Temple would have on those samedays. Now the from the Mishnaic law, addingtheir own developmentshereand there. Thus,

Mishnah's authorsknew that the home was not the sameas the Temple; for example,ldaimonidescalledBook III of his Misln eh Torah "kmtnim" --

hencehome and village were deemedto be not an exact parallel to the Times--andcoveredwithin it eachof the topics found in the Division of

Temple,but rather its mirror i*ug".43 On the festivals,Israelitesat home AppointedTimes,in the orderpresentedfirst in the Mishnah. At the broadest

and in the village were governedby rules preciselyoppositeof thosethat had levels, then, the Mishnah's Divisions determinedthe shapeof Rabbinic

ruled the cult that the Israelitesno longer possessed.Within this larger thinking.

scheme,therefore, the Division presentstwo types of essays,(1) those Let us now hrrn to a secondexample,an individual tractate,Tractate

dealing wittr the maintenanceof holinessduring the festival Temple service, Peah-Support for the Poor. The Mishnah,a in a break with the scattered

and (2) thosedealing with attaininga measureof holinessin the homeduring andepisodicapproachfound in Scripture,introducedthe subjectofpoor-relief

thesespecial times. Individual nacates go over the ground of many of the as a category appropriate for separateand full exposition. In the later

festivals found in the Hebrew Bible-Passover (Pesahin), Tabernacles documents,thinkerscontinued!o define,refine, and developthe laws, rights,

(Sukkot), the New Year (Rosft Hashanah), and the Day of Atonement and obligations incumbantupon wealthy farmers. And theselater thinkers
addedto this topic when they felt it necessary.For inslance,charity did not
form part of the Mishnaic sys0emof poor-support,which was conceivedonly
42I note, of course, that such later law codes contained other
influences and interests. So, for example,while Maimonides formally as a part of the systemof tithes. Since charitablegifts could not be seenas
objects to the categoricalschemeof the Mishnah, he replacesit with a
conceptual-topicalschemequite akin o that of the Rabbis' first document.
SeeIsadorTwersky,Introductionto theCodeof Maimonides:MislnehTorah
(New l{aven: Yale University Press,1980),pp. 238-310.
44For the Mishnaic and Toseftan texts here described,seeBrooks,
43Onthis point, seeNeusner,Judaism:Mishnah,pp. 182-188. SupportforthePoor,pp. 15G156.
 84 ROGERBROOKS
agriculturaldues,the Mishnah'sauthorsexcludedthemfrom discussionin the
setting of TractatePeah. Yet within a few generations,someattention was
paid to this opic as part of the discussionof poor-support. In the Tosefta
(about 3m C.E.) and in the Talmud of the Land of Israel (350400), charity
formed a minor, but nonethelessessentialpart of the discussionof poor-
relief. And by the thirteenth century, in ldaimonides' code of Jewish Law,
charity occupiedseveralchaptersof this discusrion.4sEven on a tractate-by-
tractate basis, therefore, I think it fair to say that the Mishnah's legacy--
RabbinicSystematicTheology-is long-lived indeed.
So to review, in the second through fourth centuries the Rabbis
arended!o recenthistory by systematizingand organizingJewishthought. I
have already explained how three centuriesof Roman domination over the
Land of Israel helpedto form the contentand messageof the Mishnah, with
its assertionthat God aloneruled sovereignover the Iand; and later Rabbinic
literature-the early Midrash compilations and the Talmuds--endorsedthis
statement,to the extent that suchbooks took the Mishnah as the constitution
of the Jewishnation @oweverremovedfrom power it might havebeen). The
Jews' stuationas a defeatedpeople forced them o retreat into a syst€matic
never-neverland, in which Romeplayedlittle or no part whatsoever. But
their circumstancealso led them !o createreal and lasting social strucfirres,
within which they could live under Rome, yet apart from the Empire.
Rabbisemergedas leaders,if not quite political figures; ttnough their books,
the Rabbispurportedto gurdethe daily routine of the Jews in all its aspects
45DespitelMaimonides'statedrejection of the categorical scheme
presentedin the Mishnah, note that one of his broad "concept-topics",
narnely,pmr-relief, clearly reflectsTractatePeahin both the Mishnahand ttre
Talmud of ttp Land of Israel. SeeTwerSky,Introduction to Mishneh Torah,
pp.265-?-66,274.
STRAWDOGS A}.IDSCHOLARLYECT'MENBM 85
(hence their focus both on "secular" and 'teligious" topics). By the
beginningof the third cenury, thesesameRabbishad esablishedinsdnrtions
of learning, the Rabbinic academies. Set throughout lower Galilee, these
schools are represenledas having strongly defined networks of authority,
teachersand students sitting in assignedseatsthat indicated their merits
within the emergingRabbinale,studyinga commoncurriculum, working out
an ordere4ordainedlivelihmd.tr
JudaismunderRomandominationandtaxationfacedno crisis; it did
not die away. On the conEary,under the tutalegeof the Rabbis,the Jewsof
the second,third, and fourth centuriesprosperedand produced literary
monumenBthat remain formative for Jews inlo our own day-the Mishnah
andthe Talmud. TheseJewscreatedttresocialinstinrtions--theRabbinateand
the academy--thatsustainedtheir nation then and now. In place of the
Templeas the locusof worldly power and authority,they createda religion of
tlre mind, in which the paramountvirtue was found in study of the Mishnah's
variousrules regardingttreTemplecult andpropermaintenanceof its purity-
in short, through study of Torah they reconstructedthe wodd taken away
from them. Jewsfacedthe encounterwith Romansubjugationand won their
battle.
OrigenandRabbinism
We now must inquire about the appropriateJewish backgroundfor
understandingOrigen. To poseadirect question:how muchdid Origenreally
know about the emerging Rabbinic synthesisand sys0emin its own right?
a6See Goodman,Romtn Galilee, pp. 32-33,75-81.
86 ROGERBROOKS
We must immediately move beyond the few details of exegesisand lore
known to Origen (found mostly inthe Contra Celsurn),which havebeen so
ably cataloguedby severalwriters. My interestlies not so much in Origen's
depiction of the abstract religion, piety, and ethics of Judaism. That
information hardly is definitive of the only Judaismabout which we have
firm evidenceslemming from Origen's day. Rather, to use the words of
FrankPorter(importedftom anothercontext),
We should look for more [information] about the Mishnah itself,
about its systematicarrangementof the laws, its methods of
argumentand of bringing customand fadition into connectionwith
the written law, and more of its actual contents and the total
character of those actual rules of life, that "uniformity of
observance"which constitutedthe distinction of the Judaismof the
Rabbis.47
Origen's Peri Archon representsone logical stafting point for this
investigation. For just as the Mishnah's categorieswere taken by later
RabbinicJewsasa basisfor their own Judaicthought,so tooPeri Archon, rn
retrospect,may be seenas "the first Christian syslem of theology and the
first manual of dogma.'y'8 A, on" of the frst systematiciansof Christian
doctrine,Origen setout the broadcategoriesthat formed the starringpoint for
47FnrkC. Porter,"Review of GF. Moore,Jud.aism,"in Journal of
Religion 8 (January1928),p.42.
48JohannesQuasten,Patrology, 3 Vols. (Utrecht-Antwerp:
Spectrum,1966),Vol. II, p. 57..
ANDSCHOLARLYECI.'MENISM
STRAWDOGS 87
much of later Christianthought. I find this formal parallel suggestive:in
this period of time, both Christianity and Judaismproducedthe systemsthat
would later becomenormative and definitive of the movements,and these
systemswere composedby officials who led schoolsof disciples in the
of the HebrewBible.
properinterpretationandunderstanding
In other words, the formation and establishmentof the Christianand
Judaic movementsin the secondthrough fourth centuriestook place under
commonhistorical circumsances,within the samebackyard. Alexandriaand
Caesareaduring the third century were vibrant and cosmopolitancentersof
Greco-Romanculture and influence. One can scarcelyimagine life within
thosecities without the constant,dull tlrobbing of Roman domination over
both peopleswith a claim to Israeliteheritage,the Rabbisand the Christians.
Is it any wonder,then, that thesetwo groupsbuilt similar edificeswithin
which to protect and nurture their fledgling movements?The academyand
school,acting alongparallel lines, eachprovidedrefugein the HebrewBible,
tle commonScriptureof Jewsand Christians;and eachemerginggroup had
taken up the challengeof the day by claiming that their traditions included
not just the ancient texts, but also new and innovative interpretations,
explanations,and expansions. Whether the move was to the documentsof
the New Testamentand the eady Church Fathers,on the one side, or to the
Mishnah, Midrash compilations,and Talmuds, on the other, these two
communitiesconfronted their concretehistorical situation and, with an eye
toward tradition, forged a new reality. So we ought to look toward Peri
Archon, the system createdbyOrigen at the beginning of the third century.
Herewe hopeto find subsantiveindicationsof Origen'sunderstandingfor the
Judaicsystemconstructedat preciselythe sametime.
But evena quick glanceshowsthat Pei Archon, in its structureand
contents,bearsno resemblance
to, or knowledgeof, formativeRabbinism.
gg ROGERBROOKS STRAWDOGSAND SCHOLARLYECUMEMSM 89
Considerthe major sectionsof Origen'sdo.ut.ntt49 The entirely different characterof this work from the Mishnah
implies a prima facie claim that the two sharenothing but their systematic

FIRST E)POSITION (Parts1:1 - 2:3): natures! And that is certainlyunderstandable.For the overall purpos of Peri

- On the Natureof God, Christ, and Holy Spirit Archon--namely, exposition of God's relationship with the world, in

- On RationalNatues particularthe myst€ryof the Trinity that pervadesall creationand revelation-

- TheWorld andIs Creatures is as different from the aim of the Mishnaic systemas we might imagine.

SECONDE)GOSITION (Parts2:4- 4:3): Similarly, the contentof Peri Archon is far removedfrom that of the

- One God of Creation,Law, andApostles Mishnah. For the Rabbis,the Temple and its proper servicewithin the cult

- Christ Jesusbegoften,incarnate remaineda crucial issuelong after the Templehad beendestroyed. Thus the

- Holy Spirit greatestpart of the Mishnahand other early Rabbinicliteraturedealt directly

- Souls:their substance,merits,punishmentsand rewards with the maintenanceof the cult (the Divisions of Holy Things and Purities),

- FreeWill andChoice its agricultural dues (the Division of Agriculture), and the impact of its

- Origins of Sin and Souls required holiness upon the Israelite home and village (the Divisions of

- Angelic Natureandthe Origin of the competingpowers AppointedTimes,Women,andDamages).In answerto Romandomination,

- World: BeginningandEnd the Temple--symbolof God's ownershipand sovereigntyover the Land

- Scriptures:ObviousandHiddenMeanings (although no longer standing)-was to be the focus of every aspectof daily

RECAPITULATION @art4:4):
- Trinity exceedsall comprehension
- Mystery of the Trinity in Creation
- RationalCreaturesmustparticipatein the Trinity
- natureof Father,Son,Holy Spirit eternal
- Father,with Sonand Holy Spirit, standsalonein his knowledge
49For this outline of Peri Archon, I rely upon Charles
Kannengiesser, "Divine Trinity andthe Stnrctureof Pert Archon " deliveredat
the Origen Colloquium, University of Notre Dame, April 12, 1986, and
publishedin this volume.
life. For Origen, by contrast, the problems that followed upon the
destructionof the Templewerenot clearly in sight (asthey hadbeenfor some
earlier Christians, like the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews). Instead,
Origen's interest lay in setting forth the allegorical and spiritual dimensions
of Scripture;he urged an understandingof the Biblical tradition not as law,
but asspirit; all waspackagedasan allegory,far from a legal undenanding.
For Origen, this spiritual understandingof Scripture stood in sharp
contrast to the "literal" or "historical" interpretationthat characterized
"Jewish" readingof the Bible. But did Origen specifically intend to exclude
the type of discussionone would find in the Mishnah,in which the reality of
thelaw found in the HebrewBible remainedan absolutefact?
The answer[o this questionleadsus away from Peri Archontoa
90 ROCERBROOKS STRAW DOGS AND SCHOLARLY ECUMENISM 9r
preliminary examinationof Origen's own discussionsof Scripture. In example, be regardedas impure? What if it were the body of a
particular, I turn to hisHomilies on Leviticus.S0A, I explainedabove,this prophet? What if it were the body of a patriarch or even that of

book, with its priestly concernsfor order and sanctification, provided the Abrahamhimself? Furthermore,what if one ouched bones:will he
vision for much of the Mishnaic law. Did Origen's discussionsof l-eviticus- be impure? What if he touches the bones of Elisha, which
-either in their depiction of Jewish exegesisor in their own spiritual resuscitatethe dead? Will whoevertouchesthem be impure? And
interpretations--showany familiarity on Origen's part with the substanceof do the prophet's own bonesrender impure even that personwhom
nascentRabbinism? they resusci[atefrom the dead? You seehow incoherentthis Jewish
To begin, I note that Origen's homilies addressedonly five passages interpretationis!51
within all of Leviticus that haveany relevantmalerial within the Mishnah:
Note ttrat Origen shows no knowledge of the Rabbinic systemof
LEVIfiCUS HOMILIES MISHNAH TOPIC corpseuncleanness,found in the Division of Purities. Missing, for example,
4:2-26 2:I Horayot1:3-5 Sin Offerings as in MishnahTractateOhalot:
is any referenceto the spreadof uncleanness,
5:2-3 3:24 Shebucot2:5,3:5 CorpseUncleanness we find no discussionof the "tent of uncleanness"that surroundsa dead
l2:l-7 8:24 Keritot 6:9 ChildbirthPurification person; no porrayal of the uncleannessitself filling the entire room like

l3:2 8:5 Negacim6:8,9:2 Irprosy somesort of thick gas. Neither doesOrigen mention the various types and
25:29-31 15:1-3 Arakhin9:5-7 PropertyRedemption fully spelledout in TractateKelim: in the Rabbinic
severitiesof uncleanness,
syst€m,humanbone carriesa lower level of uncleanness
than a corpseicelf,

Furthermore,in only one of thesecases,that concerningcorpseuncleanness, andanimalboneis not deemeduncleanat all!

did Origen explicitly mention the interpretation of the Jews. Thus in his In providing the'Tewish understanding"of corpseuncleanness
andin

discussionof Lev. 5:1-16,Origensaid: pointing out the inconsistenciesin Jewish practice, Origen showedhimself

Among the Jews, observanceof this law [regarding corpse
uncleannesslis quite unbecoming and useless. Why should
someonewho had louched a dead animal or a human corpse, for
50seet"tarcelBorret,OrigCne:Hontlies sw le Ldvitiqze,Vols.I-[,
in SC, Nos. 286-287(Paris:Les Editions du Cerf: 198f).
Sllbid., Vol. I, p. 128;Homily III,3:
- Haecquidem apudludaeosindecentersatiset inutiliter observantur.
-immundus
Ut quid enim habeatur,qui contigerit, verbi causa, animal
moftuum aut corpus hominis defuncti? Quid si prophetaecorpus sit? Quid
st patriarchaevel etiam ipsius Abrahaecorpus? Quid si et ossacontigerit,
immunduserit? Quid si HelisaeiossaconiingaLquaemorruumsuscitant?
tmmunduserit ille, qui contingit,et immundumfaciuntossaprophetaeetiam
rllum ipsum,quema mortiussuscitant?Vide quaminconvenienssit iudaica
rntelligentia-
92 ROGERBROOKS
STRAWDOGS
ANDSCHOLARLYECUMEMSM 93
rather ignorant of the Rabbinic system,both in is details and as a whole.
explanation of their meaning "according !o history;" but in this literal
Instead,Origen imputed to the Jews merely a straightforwardreading of
interpretation, he simply repeatsand paraphrasesthe variou, l"*r.52 No
Scripture. In his view, Judaicpracticewas simply "Old Testament"law,
attemptwasmade0ounderstandtheselaws in the settingof Jewishpracticeor
actedout directly and without change. This of coursergnoresall thoseplaces
understanding.In his own spiritual exegesis,however,Origen imputesa far
whereRabbinicinterpretationof the laws of uncleanness
innovatedandadded
different meaningto theseverses.For him, the discussionof "houses"is
to the Biblical law, as well as thoseplaceswhere the Rabbis simply ignored
somethingof a "highly mystical" nature, not referring to real es0ateat all.
Biblical law. The Jewswere Origen's "straw dogs"--hehad no attachmentto
Instead,"house" here refers to the credit one builds up in Heavenfor good
them,and sacrificedthem asa setup for his own allegorical undersandingof
works and a pure heart Since,through one's sins, one might have to "sell"
Scripnre.
this house-that is, sin might causea personto lose someof the heavenly
So much for Origen's discussionof 'Tewish int€rpretation." In two
credit he has built up-the divine legislator has provided a meansthrough
other of the passagesI listed, regardingproperty redemptionrights and
which each person may "repurchase"his divine house--thatis, through
childbirth purification, Origenreferredto the'literal" or "historical" senseof
repentanceandgmd worksonemay againacquiremerit
the Scriptural verses. In both of thesecases,however,Origen's "literal
Perusalof the remainingpassagesof Leviticus that both Origen and
inlerpretation" bore no resemblanceto Rabbinic interpretationasreflectedin
the Rabbis dealt with leads to similar conclusions: in these casesOrigen
the Rabbinic legal systemof the Mishnah.
rarely even referred to the literal, historical, or Jewish understandingof the
To make this point, let me discussone of thesecasesby comparing
law at hand. And when, as in the casesI have discussed,Origen did us a
the Mishnah'sand Origen'streatrnentof Lev. 25:29-31,which discusses
the
discussion of the literal senseof a passageto set up his allegorical
rights a personhas !o redeema househe has sold. Within the Mishnah, the
understanding,he did so without any referenceto prevailing Rabbinic
passageis seenas providing propertyrights for individuals: for one full year
understandingof his day. In no case within Irviticus do we find Origen
after selling real estate,accordingto the Mshnah's readingof Leviticus, the
commentingulxln versesthat underlay portions of the Mishnah and at the
seller has the right to recantand repurchasehis property. This overall point
sametime reflecting anything akin to the Rabbinic undentanding of those
standswithin the Mishnah's concern for maintaining the status quo in
venes.
propertytransfers--since
God aloneowns the Land of Israel and divided it
Furtherevidenceemergeswhen we considerthe informationmissing
evenly among the Israelite tribes, Jews must take pains to allow anyone to
in Origen's writings. Many, many parts of Leviticus are treatedin Mishnah,
regain control of property he sold to raise cash. This assures,for the most
but thenlead nowherein Origen. A simple-mindedexamplemakesthe point:
part" that no Israelite will be unfairly deprivedof his portion of the Land and
its product.
origen begins his treatment of these verses by providing an 52lbid.,Vol.II, pp.25L-257;Homily xV, l-2.
94 ROGERBROOKS
the Mishnahand the Tosefta in Tractatelvlakhshirin,focus in a detailedway
upon the mannerin which liquids can causefood to becomesubjectto ritual
uncleanness(see Lev. ll:34,37-38); but Origen's homilies do not even
touch upon this passage,which provides the basis for a whole tractate of
Mshnaic law and for an interestingessayon the effectsof humanintention.
The result of a sraightforward reading of Origen's Homilies on
Leviticusis sriking: Origen's schooland the Rabbinic academiesmay have
prosperedin the samecity; studentsin eachmay have discussedportions of
the Bible togetheCOrigen himself may evenhavestudiedsomeHebrewwith
a Rabbi; Origen and the Rabbis may have produced paraflel systemsto
regulatelife underthe RomanEmpire. Nevertheless,a wrning bell ought to
sound. The Jewish backgroundand culture available to Origen throughout
his life seems0o have been remarkably superficial. Certainly Origen had
somefamiliarity with a few scrapsof Jewish exegesis-he knew some fine
details of Rabbinic Sabbathlaw, for e""rp1".53 Yet, on the whole Origen
simply had no understandingof the Rabbinic movementgaining prominence
aroundhim.
Why then do we find in recent literature such an emphasis on
Origen's knowledge of and intercourse with Jews? I think this to be a
misguidedapplication of scholarly ecumenism. Writing about Christian
thoughtand hermeneuticsin *re post-Holocaustera,Glenn Earley hassated
that the fresh look at Judaismand Christianity in their formative ageshas
beenqpunedonby
. . (1) the ever-increasing
knowledgeof the Sitz-im-Lebenof the
53seede Lange,Origen,pp.3940.
STRAWDOGSA}ID SCHOLARLYECUMENISM 95
earliestcommunitiesof Jesus-followersand the natureof the change
of thesecommunitiesfrom Jewishsectto Gentile Church,and (2)
the urgent needto work out the relation of the Church to the Jewish
Peopleafter the Holocaust. In fact, it is the latter--the similarity of
the concernsin the church's presenthorizon to the concernsof . . .
lthe early Christian worldl-which hasenabled. . . [the scholar] o
cut through the sedimental layers of reinterpretation !o frnd the
answerta our problemin the very termsin which, [for example]'
Paul worked out the answero lus problem.54
In an attempt !o lay the foundations for modern rapprochement
betweenJews and Christians,scholarshave renderedfar too positive an
evaluationof Origen's relationship to, and reliance upon, Rabbinism. Let
me recall onceagain the words that closeNicholas de Iange's study: ". . . if
is instructiveto contemplate4n era whcn, despitepowerful antagonisms,
Jews and Christians could live in close lwrnuny and derive mutual beneJit
fr orn tlvir intercourse."
This imageof harmoniousinterchangeand sharedknowledgemasks
the raw, sometimesbitter polemicsthat characterizedOrigen's relationswith
the Jews. Sucha view sits alop our studiesof Origen like the Emperor's
new clothes; but we needonly take anotherlook to realize the naked tuth:
Origen probably knew a few Jews; he probably studieda bit of Jewish law
and lore hereand there;but he lnew little of the Rabbinic systemof thought
within which thosefew detailsresided.
54see Glenn David Earley, "The Radical HermeneuticalShift in
Post-HolocaustChristianThought,"in Jourral of Ecu,menical
Studies,Yol.
18,No. 1, Winter 1981,pp. 1632.

ORIGEN, TIM RABBIS,AND TIIE BIBLE:
TO\ryARDA PICTTJREOF JTJDAISMAI\D
CHRISTIAMTY IN THIRD.CET{TI]RYCAESAREA
Paul M. Blowers
Univenity of Nofte Dame
A seriesof excellentrecentmonographshave helped to illuminate
origen's relation o the Judaismof his time. In the most exhaustivestudy o
date, Nicholas de Lange has exposedabundant,if sometimesepisodic,
evidenceof origen's conlactswith Jewishinstitutionsand raditions.l other
studieshave enhancedour knowledgeof the social and religious hisory of
third-centuryPalestine,the period of origen's lenurein caesarea.2I wish in
this brief paperto standbackfor a momentandobservethe broaderhistorical
lCf. N. R. M. de l,ange,Origen and the Jews: Studiesin Jewish-
Christian Relations in Third-Century Palestine, Cambridge Oriental
Publications25 (Cambridge,1976);alsoH. Bietenhard,Caesarea,Origenes
und die Juden(Snngart,1974'1;G. Sgherri,Chiesae Siragoga nelle opire di
Origene,Studiaparistica mediolanensia13 (Milan, 1982).
zCt.l-.Levine, CaesareaunderRomanRzle,Studiesin Judaismin
Late Antiquity 7 (Leiden,1975),especial.ly
chaps.4-7;R. Kimelman,Rabbi
Yohananof Tiberias: Aspectsof the Social and Religious History of Third-
CenturyPalestine(diss.,Yale University, 1977);M. Goodman,Stateand
Socieryin RomunGalilee,A. D. 132-212(Torowa,N. J., 1983).
THERABBIS,A}.IDTTIEBIBLE
ORTGEN, 97
spectrum of Origen's connection with Judaism. How "typical" is his
confrontationwith the Jewsof the patternsof Jewish-Christianrelationswe
seeemergingin the second,third, and fourth centuries?Conversely,how can
these larger patterns help to fill in our picture of the encounter between
OrigenandtheJewsin Caesarea?
Researchon Origen's contactswith Judaismhas proceededin the
shadowof a larger debateon the actual extent of Judaism'simpact on the
emergingChurchin late antiquity. Numerousscholarshavefollowed lMarcel
Simon'sbasic position that Judaismcontinued!o be a vital force, rivaling
the Church in Palestineand the cities of the Diaspora well beyond the
disastrousBar KochbaRevolt of 132-135C. E.3 Only recently,however,
David Rokeah has revived Adolf Harnack'soriginal thesis that Jewish
proselytismdisappearedaltogetherafter Bar Kochba- The Jewsaccordingly
becamepassive"middlemen"in the prevailing conflict betweenChristianity
and paganism,4and Christianpolemic adversusJudreoJ degeneratedmerely
into edifying propagandafor the Church.5 Rokeahcites Origen'sContra
Celsum,with is theoreticaldefenseof Judaism,and reticence!o censurethe
3Cf. U. Simon,VerusIsracl: Etudc surles relations entre chrdtiens
etjuifs dansl'empireromain(135425),2nd.ed.(Paris,1964);morerecently,
int. al. R. L. Wilken, John Chrysostomand the Jews: Rhetoricand Reality
in the Late Fourth Century,The Transformationof the ClassicalHeritage4
(Berkeley,1983);H. Drijvers, "Jewsand Christiansat Edessa,"Journal of
JewishStudies36 (1985): 88-102. Seealso Y. Baer, "Istrael,the Christian
Church, and the RomanEmpire from the Time of SeptimiusSeverusto the
Edict of Tolerationof A. D. 3I3," Scripta hierosolymitana7 (1961): 79-
r49.
acf. O. Rokeah,fews, Pagansand Christiansin Conf,liu, Studia
Post-Biblica33 (Jerusalem
andLeiden,1982),pp. 47ff,78.
5lbid., pp. 47, 65-76-
98 PAI.JLBI,OV/ERS
Jews,asevidencettratthe Synagogueno longerhinderedthe Churchsdesigns
on the paganworld.6
Were the Jews in fact only harmless bystanderslurking in the
backgroundof Origen's ministry in Caesarea?Scatteredevidencefrom his
Caesareanwritings, including the Contra Celsum,point to a more dynamic
pattern of Christian-Jewishrelations in third-century Palestine. Common
a tacit competitionwhich occasionallygave
interestsand frontiersengendered
way to open strife. I will examine here three interrelated fronts of this
conienlion: (1) Origen'spersonalcontactswith the rabbis; (2) the wider
missionaryconflict betweenChurch and Synagoguein Palestine;and (3)
Origen'sexegetical-homileticdispuutionswith the rabbis.
L wisdom lQpdvaors) and way of life ($tos). . ."lr Origen had heard of
Origen'sallusionsto his private magister lubraeus, and !o other
JewishChristiansand Jewswho assistedhim in his biblical scholarship,are,
along with his testimony to various contempomry Jewish traditions and
institutions,well-documentedelsewhereand neednot be coveredhere.7 The
turning-point in Origen's relation with Judaism was his relocation in
Caesareaaround 233, at a time when Caesareanand Galileanrabbinism was
just beginning to reach the zenith of its power. He founded his school
within only a few yearsof the academyof R. Hoshayain Caesarea,which
helpedto train someof the greatesthalakhistsin third-centuryPalestine: R.
6lbid.,w.69-71.
7Cf. C. Bardy,"Irs traditionsjuives dansI'euwe d'Origbne,"RB 34
(1925): 221-223;de Lange, Origen and the fews,pp. 15-37. Seealso S.
Krauss, "The Jews in the Works of the Church Fathers,"JQR 5 (1983):
139ff(on Origen).
ORIGEN,THERABBIS,A}.IDTIIE BIBLE 99
Yohananof Tiberias, R. Eliezar b. Pedat,and Resh Laqish.8 Origen may
have come acrossone or more of this elite group in his discussionswith
"men whom the Jewsallege to be sages"(ot kyopfuu napd 'Iov6atot's
o6Qot).9
Rabbinic sourcesconfirm that Tannaiticandearly Amoraic rabbisin
Palestinebore certainraits of late antiquepopularphilosophers,a fact which
Morton Smith has noted of first+entury Pharisees.l0 Origen himself used
Josephus'description of the Phariseesas philosophersto characterizethe
rabbis of his own time: they are "the pre-eminentrank (rdfis) and school
(atpeors) in Judaism,professinga well-balancedlifestyle and precision in
interpreting the law and prophets"; though "brash and ostentatious",they
"separatethemselvesfrom the entire Jewish nation, as surpassingin their
certain esoteric practices within rabbinic academies.l2 He had probably
8Cf. Levine, Caesarea,p. 88.
9c. cers.1.45,ccs r.95.3f;ibid. 1.55,ccs 1.106.3f; ibid. 1.56,
GCS 1.107.27f;ibid. 2.31,GCS 1.f59.1f.(GCSreferences includevolume
number in the Origenes Werke, page, and where appropriate, lines.
Translationsof primary textsare my own unlessotherwisenoted).
10Cf. U. Smith, "PalestinianJudaismin ttre First Century," repr.
in Essaysin Graeco-Romanand Related Talmudic Literature (New York,
1977),pp. 195-196.
LIComm.in foann., ftag.34, GCS 4.510.2-8.Cf. Josephus,
Eell.
2.162-166;Ant. l8.II-17 .
I2Ci Comm. in Cant. Prol., GCS 8.62.22-30,where Origen
specifically mentions how certain texts of scripture, the so-called
Sevrepaloett, were withheld from immature students,who were to be
initialed in thesewritings only by the sages.
100 PAI.]LBI,OWERS
observedfirst-hand the schoolof R. Hoshayain Caesarea,which was more
than a sedentaryinstifirtion, havingdistinct asceticfeatures.l3
The rabbis are known in some cases to have exploited this
philosophicalrepute. Not only did Greek ethical and philosophical idioms
influencemoral discoursewithin certainTannaiticcircles,l4 but somerabbis
actively soughta larger hearingfor their teachings.Writes lvlartin Goodman,
"As Greekphilosopherswereexpect€dto teachpracticalethicsasphysicians
of souls rather than impractical tleorisers, so the rabbis meted out moral
advice in the midrashthey deliveredto the wider public on Sabbaths."l5
They alsoengagedpagansandChristiansin public debates.
The rabbinic literature unfortunately never affords details of the
rabbis'encounterswith variousminim (heretics),but it doesreport ceriain
instanceswhere the rabbisconfutedChristian "philosophs"(philosophers)
and other epiqursim ("Epicureans")who distortedscriptureor questioned
Israel's election. These derisive labels, far from suggestingan anti-
philosophical attitude on the pafi of the rabbis, were aimed at branding the
opponentspetty sophists in comparison with the erudite sages.l6 R.
Gamaliel II (early secondcentury) reportedly confronted a "philosopher",
l3lndeed, its precursorsincluded the "open-air" academiesin
Palestine,teaching groups meeting in everything from marketplacesto
vineyards,"touring" academieslike that of R. Gamaliel(ToseftaPesahim
2.16), andthe like. Seethe discussionof M. Goodman,Stateand Society,
pp. 76ff; also the study of S. Krauss, "Outdoor Teaching in Talmudic
Times,"Iownal of JewishStudies1 (19a849): 82-84.
14Cf.J. Goldin, "A PhilosophicalSessionin a TannaiteAcademy,"
Traditio2r (1965): L-21.
L5State p.74.
and Society,
l6cf. Gotdin, "A PhilosophicalSession
," p.20-21.
ORIGEN, THE RABBIS, AT{DTIIE BIBLE 101
probably a gentile Christian,perhapsa Eainedorator,l7 who cited Yahweh's
"withdrawal" in Hosea 5:6 in order to dispute Israel's election.l8 R.
Yohanan, Origen's contemporaryfrom Tiberias, warned against gentile as
well as Jewish"Epicureans"who wreakedhavocon the Torah.l9 Another
celebrated pericope2orecords how R. Hoshaya,Origen's major Jewish
answereda "philosopher's"queryaboutcircumcision.
counterpartin Caesarea,
If circumcision was so precious,why did God createAdam uncircumcised?
R. Hoshaya respondedthat all of God's hexaemeralcreations needed
perfecting, and circumcision was conducive to man'sperfection. Wilhelm
Bacher, the great rabbinics scholar, surmised a century ago that this
philosopherwas Origen himself contendingwith R. Hoshaya.2l Yet this
particular derogation of circumcision is found earlier in Justin,22and was
probablya stock argumentin Christianpolemic againstJewishobservances.
It is little surprise,then, that Origen too should boast to Celsusof
his victories in debatewith the sages,often pitting his knowledge of their
teachingsagainst Celsus'Jewish persona.23 Someof his confrontations
l7This is T. Herford's view in Cttistianity in Talmtd and Midrash
(London,1903;repr. ed.,New York, 1975),p. 148.
lSMidrash Ps. 10.8; cf. B. Yebamot 102b. See also Genesis
Rabbah1.9;B. Shabbat116a. Referencesto the BabylonianTalmudarecited
under"B" andspecifictractate;thoseto the Talmudof theLand of Israelunder
"J" andspecifictractate).
r9B. Sanhedrin3Sb.
2oGenesis
Rabbah11.6.
2lW. Bacher, "The ChurchFather,Origen, and Rabbi Hoshaya,"
IQR3 (1891):357-3ffi.
22Ct.oiat. c. Trypho19,PG 6.5r6C.
23Cf.int.al. C, Ce\s.2.31,GCS 1.r59.1-5.
 102 PAI.JLBI,OV/ERS
with the rabbis were probably informal discussionsin private,24but others
were public debates or symposia before an audience, focusing on
interpretationsof scripture,the miraclesof Jesusand Moses,and the like.r
Lee Levine notes that Caesarea,like other Graeco-Romancities, had a
meeting-placefor religious controversieswhere the Bible, New Testament,
and other.Jewishand Christian0extswere depositedfor easyreference.26
Such debaiesno doubt played an important role in securing the popular
appealand intellecaralintegrity of JudaismandChristianity in late antiquity.
Origen respectedthe skills of his rabbinic opponentsenough!o be
concerned that Christians might shame themselves in these public
disputes.2T Perhapshe composedthe Hexaplain part for the purposeof
controverting the sageson the text of scripture.2S At any raie, he leaves
little doubt that the Jewish scholarswere a force to be reckoned with if
Christianity was successfully to appropriate the Hebrew Bible. We may
reasonablyassumethat Origen himself was no weakling in debate. His
inquiries into the Hebrew languagemay well have scandalizedthe rabbis in
view of the CaesareanJewish laity's ostensibleignoranceof Hebrew;29
zacf. np. ad Afi.6, PG 11.618.
25Notably,C. Cels.1.45,GCS 1.95.3-5.
26cresar"o,pp.82-83.
nnp. ad4r. 5, PG 11.608-61A.
28SoarguesS. P. Brock, "Origen's Aims as a Textual Critic of the
Old Tesament,"StPatr 10 CIU 107;Berlin, 1970),pp. 215-218.
29The Shemawas reqited in Greek in at least one of Caesarea's
synagoguesbecausethe congregantsdid not readHebrew (cf. J. Sota l.2lb).
On the extensiveuseof GreekamongJewsin hellenizedtownslike Caesarea,
seeS. Lieberman,Greekin Jqvish Palestine,2nd. ed.(New York, 1965),pp.
37-59. Notably,Liebermansuggests(pp.2,39) that the rabbisin townslike
ORIGEN,THERABBIS,ANIDTTIEBIBLE 103
moreover, his ability 0o cite biblical texts at will, and his lnowledge of
certain Jewish haggadictraditions, would very well have impressedJewish
and non-Jewishaudiencesalike. PerhapsOrigen, amongothers,inspired R.
Yohanan'spoignant remark that "a gentile who studiesthe Torah deserves
capial punishment."3o
IL
Retgious debatesover sharedscripnres wereonly the ounrard sign
of an implicit competition,andbroadercoincidenceof interests,betweenthe
Churchand the Synagoguein the secondand third centuries. Marcel Simon
arguesthat if Judaismhad not beenproselytizingin this period, this conflict
would have been merely "un lutte toule th€orique, livresque et stdrile
controverseautour des textes sacr6s";if proselytizing, Judaism would
constitute"un rival v6riable et dangereux"to Christianity.3t t'tnon hasof
coursevigorously arguedfor the la$er, insisting that early lladrianic banson
circumcisinggentilesneverextinguishedthe Jewishmission.He contends
that rabbinic dicta favorable to proselytism presume its reality, and that
epigraphicalallusions, patristic references,and Constantiniancounter-
measuresadequatelyattest its persistencewell into the fourth century.32
Caesareapreachedin Aramaicbut illusrated passagesin Greekfor the sakeof
the townspeople.Yet Levine (Caesarea,p. 198,n.174) rightly arguesthat
Aramaic preachingwould be hard to imagine in Caesarea,where, not only
was the Shemarecitedin Greek,but the speakerfrequenlyaddressedgentiles
as well asJews.
3oB.Sanhedrin58b.
3rVernsIsrael,p.315.
32lbid.,pp.323-35r.
104 PAI.JLBI,OWERS
David RokeahdeniesSimon'sconclusions,and cites, amongother things,
selectnegativecommentsof the rabbis aboutproselyttzing.33In reality, the
rabbis'stalementsvary greatlyin this period,indicatinga constantalbrnation
between the desire for expansion and disillusionment with unfaithful
converts.34
For our purposes,it is especially significant that in third-century
Galilee, R. Yohanan and other leading sagessought stricter regulation of
ritual entry requirements (i.e., circumcision and baptism),35but still
encouragedJewishmissionaryactivities.36 Origenhimself complainedof
JudaizingChristiansbeing lured to the synagogueby Jewishmissionaries,3T
and portrayedthe successof Christian proselytismprecisely in terms of the
Jewswere probablyincited
spiritual Israel usurpingthe camal.38 Caesarean
33Jews,Christiansand,Pagansin Conflict,pp.4243.
34seethe relevanttextsgatheredby B. Bamberger,Proselytismin
the TalmudicPeriod,rev. ed.(New York, 1968),pp. 149-173.
35B..yebamot46a.
36Cf. int. al. R. Yohananin B. Nedarim 32a. Seealso M. Avi-
Yonah,TheJewsunderRomanandByzantineRnle(New York, 1976),p. 82,
who observes that all of R. Yohanan's outstanding pupils endorsed
proselytism. Independenttestimonyof Jewishproselytismspecifically in
Caesareais offered in a funeraryinscriptionmentioninga particularconvertto
Judaism: Mepoptov rqs rpooovAqrov prpoorTtrurouf Aorn rcat
Ilapryyoptov Eqgaptorotna, as recordedby B. Lifshitz in his "Inscriptions
glequesde Cdsardeen Palestine(Caesarea RB 68 (1961): 115-
Palaestinae),"
116(no.2).
37Hom. in Matt 16, GCS LI.2g-31.
38Cf. Hom. in Luc.5, GCS 9.87.2,4-88.3:Nunc autem populi
credentiwnacceduntad.finemJesu,et angeli,quibru creditaefuerant ecclesiac,
roborati praesentiaSalvatorismiltos adducuntproselytos,ut congregentwin
omni orbe conventiculachristianorum. Qunpropter consurgentes laudemus
Dominumetfiamus pro carnali Israhel spiritwlis Israhel.
ORIGEN,THERABBIS,ANDTHEBIBLE 105
by competition with Christian missionariesfor the samepool of potential
converts.39
The competitionfor proselytesgaverise to an ideologicalexchange
as well. ClassicargumentsadversusJudaeoswere probably leveled in just
this context"the destructionof the Templeand dispersionof the Jewsbeing
seenas divine punishmentfor the executionof Jesus.40Origen mentioneda
Jewish responseto such allegationsfrom a debatewith the sagesover the
ServantSongsin Isaiah: Israel'schastisement diasporawere a
and subsequent
providential meansfor her !o make proselytesof the nations.4l This very
rationale was espousedby R. Eliezar b. Pedat,a Galilean contemporaryof
Origen, and secondedby R. Yohanm.az fnerabbis took the offensetoo at
times. R. Yohananwas probably reacting to Christian notions of original
sin when he insistedthat the gentiles("idolaters")were contaminatedonly by
not having participatedin the lawgiving at Sinai,43for which he apparently
prescribedproselytism as the solution.# Confrontedby Christian attempts
to spiritualizethe Law, therabbisassertedthe eternaland universallybinding
39Onthis massof potentialproselytes,cf. Hom. in JesuNave 9.9,
GCS7.354-355.
a0cf. int. al. C. Cels.2.8, GCS 1.134-135;ibid. 4.22, GCS
1.291-292. Seealso Sgherri,Chiesae Sinagoga,pp. 78-L32; Kimelman,
Rabbi Yohanan,pp. 26-27 I.
4rc. cels.r.55,ccs r.106.5-8.
428.PesahimSTb.
439. Shabbat l45b-l46at =B. Yebamot 103b. See also the
discussionof this passagein Kimelman, Rabbi Yolanan, pp.255-256.
4See above,note 34.
106 PAI.JLBI,OIWERS
validity of rhemitzvot.45A missionaryuniversalismthrived on both sides:
if Christianity was a moral leavenand "army of piety" quietly undergirding
the imperial orderi6 Judaismwasa stabilizing "hedgeto the world".47
The actualmissionarysuccessof the Churchand the Synagogueof
coursedependedon variousfactors. Judaismenjoyedthegreaterantiquityand
an ancient moral code that accordedwell with the paganxowal dvwrct.
Certain of its customswere venerableand inspiring, and Origen knew this
when he complainedof JudaizingChristianswho persistedin hand-washing
before mealsjS attending synagoguej9 and observingPassover.50Yet
Origen was also well awarethat theserituds could be a stumbling block to
pagans.sl Christianity could in turn appealto the simplicity of faith in
Jesusand the universalneedfor moral regeneration.52Origen maintainedin
his Cornmentaryon Romans that Israel believed only after observing
Yahweh'smiracles, but Abraham (the prootype of believers) had the truly
a5cf.l. AbodaZaraL.l.4k, citedby Levine,Caesarea,p. 84 and
209,n.251.
46Ct.C. Cels.8.73-74,GCS2.290-291;alsoibid. 3.50-61passim.
47R.YohananinExodusRabbah2.5.
48comm.in Mau.11.8,GCS 10.47.5-6.
49Hom. in Lev.5.8, GCS 6.349.4; Sel.in Exod. 12.46,PG
12.285;Hom. in Jer.12.13,GCS6.100.
50Hom.in Jer.12.13, GCS 6.99-100. On the appealof Jewish
traditionsand customsto JudaizingChristiansin an analogouscontext in
fourth-centuryAntioch, seeWilken, Iohn Chrysostomand tlrc Jews,p.66-
94.
5l1f. Comm.in Rom.2.ll, PG 14.897A: Ridiculaetiam ipsis
gentibusfiunt.
52c. cets. r.9-ll, Gcs r.61-64.
ORIGEN,THERABBIS,A}.IDT}IE BIBLE r07
virtuous faith which demandedno such wonders.53 Yet Resh Laqish
similarly laudedgentileproselytcsto Judaismas dearerto God thanIsrael at
Sinai, becausethey had not wihessed the miraculoussignson the mountain,
piety.54
but wereconvertedthroughspontaneous
Perhaps,however, the singulady most important instrument in
luring proselytesboth to Judaismand to Christianity continued to be their
shared treasure: scripture, the Hebrew Bible in Greek recensions.5s A
number of second-century rabbinic allusions suggest that gentiles
contemplating conversion to Judaism busied themselveswith reading
scripture,and expressedtheir reservationsto Jewish friends whoseanswers
were oflen determinative.S6SifreDeuterononrytells of a "philosopher"who
was martyred for protesting the burning of the Torah scroll (presumably
during the Bar Kochba war).57 Though sophisticatedpaganssometimes
Origen still recordedin the third
derided scriptureas crude or distas0eful,58
S3co*rn. in Rom.,frag. 6.1 (ed.J. Scherer,Caito, 1957),pp.I82,
184.
S4TanhumaB. and N. Lek Leka 6, selected and quoted by
Bamberger,Proselytisrn,p. 155.
55On the use of Greek recensionsfor Jewish proselytism, see
Simon,VerusIsrael, pp. 348-351.On the importanceof scriptrnein general
in the early Christian mission,seeW. H. C. Frend, "The Missions of the
Early Church 180-700A. D., " in MiscellaneaHistoriae Ecclesiasticae3
(Louvain,1970),pp. 4-5.
56seethe relevantevidenceadducedand assessed by I. Heinemann,
"The Attitude of the Ancient World toward Judaism,"Review of Religion 4
(1940): 387-388.
5TSifreDeut.307.4.
58Cf. e. g. Amobius,Adv. gentes1.58,CSEL 4.39.8ff; and Celsus
in C. Cels.6.49-65 (againstthe Mosaic cosmogony);ibid. 7.1-26 (against
theOTprophecies).
108 PAI.JLBI.OWERS
century that the Church convertedsoulsprincipally "throughreadingsof the
Bible and explanationof the readings"(6r' dtnyw,topdmtv ral dltd tiv
els rd dvayvdopara 6uTyfoeos).59 IsaakHeinemannhasreasonably
concludedthat convertsboth to Judaismand to Christianity "were won less
through dogmasand rites than through Scripture,to which other religions in
antiquity, both official and mystery,had nothingcomparable!o oppose."60
Jews and Christians,nevertheless,were not the only ones using
scripture for proselytism. Gnostic and ldarcionite sects in Palestine also
soughtadherents,and exploited the popularity and availability of the Bible.
Already in the secondcentury,the so-called"two powers"hereticshadbegun
to show their headsin Palestine,raising exegeticalquestionsabout the unity
of the Godhead,theodicy, and the like. Caesareanand Galilean rabbis
championed the cause of biblical orthodoxy, propounding rules of
monotheisticexegesisfor sensitivepassageslike Genesis l:26-27.6L
IVlarcionismwas a commonenemyof Christianity and Judaism,attackedby
Origen in his homites,62by R. Yohanan,63and later in the third centuryby
R. Abbahu of Caesarea.64 Alan Segal'sobservationabout the rabbis'
5ec.cets.3.5o,
ccs r.u6.r7-r9.
50"TheAttitude of the Ancient World," p. 388.
61Cf.n. YohananinB. Sanhedrin3Sb.
62Cf.int al. Hom. in Luc.16, GCS 9.108;Hom. in Num. 7.1,
GCS 7.38. On one occasion,Origen actually borrowed from a Jewish
midrashto refute an exegesisof Apelles concerningthe dimensionsof Noah's
ark QIom. in Gen.2.2, GCS6.280.
63Cf.Exodus Rabbah 13.3; and Kimelman,Rabbi Yolwnan, pp.
r79-r82.
54seeS. Lachs, 'Rabbi Abbahuand the Minim," JQR 60 (1969):
209tt.
ORIGEN,THERABBIS,A}ID TIIE BIBLE 109
dilemma with these sectscould also apply to Origen's: "Although the
answersto the hereticswereworkedout by the academies,the questionsmust
have been raised in relation to Bible-readingand by groups who were
interestedin hearingthe JewishBible expounded."65
m
This wider missionary struggle between the Church and the
Synagoguein Palestine,in which scripturedoubtlessplayed a crucial role,
intensified their rival claims to the Bible and its legitimate interpretation.66
Christian-Jewish confrontations in this period were therefore more than
rivial or bookish disputasover tlte scriptures;they were genuinestruggles
for credibility. Newly ordained and burdened in Caesareawith the
responsibilities of a preacher,Origen took Jewish exegesisto task in his
commentariesand homilies. Despitehis deeperappreciationfor the rabbinic
hermeneutics,he perpetuatedthe "myth of Jewishliteralism",6Tas de Lange
has called it, becauseit continued!o be an effective rhetorical reductio ad
absurdumwith which o opposeJudaism.
65Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about
Christianity and Gnosticism, Studiesin Judaismin Late Antiquity 25
(Leiden,1977),p. I54.
66On the centrality of biblical intepretationin Christian-Jewish
exchangesthroughoutlate antiquity, seethe recentstudiesof M. Simon, "Le
Bible dans les premiO.rescontroversesenre juifs et chrdtiens,"in Le rnonde
grec ancien et la Bible, ed. ClaudeMond6sert,Bible de tout les temps 1
Q*it, 1984), pp.107-125; also J. Maier, Iiidische Auseindersetzungmit
dem Christentumin der Antike, Eftrege der Forschung 177 (Darmitadt,
1982).
67Cf.De princ.4.3.2,GCS 5.326;C. Cels.2.4-6,GCS 1.130-
I32; mdde Lange,Origenand theJews,p.82-83.
110 PATJLBI.CIU/ER.S
Origen persistentlyrefused,for example,to admit any rationale at
all for the literal interpreation of the ceremonial laws. He was aware of
curent Jewishlalaklroh which sotight to revise Sabbathregulationsso as to
makethem more practicablein exlenuatingcircumstances.He refuted such
qualificationsas endlesslybothersome: the wearingof one kind of sandala
burden, another nol, ad infinitem.6S With similar bluntnesshe arguedthat
the impossibility of Jews making their paschal offerings in the Temple
(Deuteronomy f6:6f) after its destruction was adequategfounds for
discontinuing all such rinrals.69 Though many Jewsadmirably studied ttre
Torah from infancy to old age,70their literalist teachingswere nothing but
"mytlrs and rubbish" (y00ot xal hfpot)7l without the higher (Christian)
interpretationof the Iaw.
Origen likewise warnedagainstthe Jews'literalism in interpreting
the prophets: "The prophetsalso do not limit the meaningof their sayings
to the obvious history and to the text and lener of thelaw."1z Yet in one of
his debateswith the rabbis,the sagesthemselvesinterpretedIsaiah'sServant
68Deprinc. 4.3.2, GCS5.326.
69comrn.in Rom.2.13,rc 14.906ff. For a fuller discussionof
suchargumenB,seede lange, Origenand tlrc Jews,pp.89-102;Bietenhard,
Caesarea,Oigenes md die luden, p. 48-9.
10comm. in Rom. 2.14, PG 14.915C: Videmus plurimos
Judaeorutnab infantia usqred sercctutemsemperdiscentes.
1lC. Cets.2.5, GCs 1.132.12.on Jewish"fables"(pr10o),see
alsoHom. in Gen.6.3,GCS 6,69ft;Hom. in Exod.5.1,GCS 6.184;i/am.
in Lev.3.3,GCS6.306.
72C. Cels.2.6, GcS L.132.25-27. The ranslation here is H.
Chadwick'sfrom his magisterialOrigen: Contra Celsrnt (Cambridge,1953;
rev.ed.,L965'),p.71.
OR]GEN,THERABBIS,A}ID T}IE BIBLE lll
Songsallegorically, rendering the Servantas the whole people of Isael.73
Origen'sresponsewas predictable: ttreir allegory simply did not fit. Rather
than confuting an allegorical interpreation as such,he resortedmerely to an
ad lnminem argumenu "Why is this man said to have been led !o death
becauseof the iniquities of the peopleof God, if he is not different from the
people of God?"74 Rhetorically speaking,the rabbis failed !o take the
prophecy"literally" enough. The rabbiscould, ofcourse, respondin kind.
Origen mentioneda Jewishresponse!o anotherprophecyusedby Christians
as a pivotal Chrisological testimonium: Tnhuiah 9:9-10. GrantedJesus'
entry into Jerusalem"on an ass",when did he ever "cut off' the "chariot from
Ephraim", the "war horsefrom Jerusalem",or the "battlebow"? Why indeed
did he haveto ride ino Jerusalemat all, when thejoumey was so shont?75
One other aspectof theseongoing exegeticaldispuations in third-
century Palestine has only recently been examined closely: Origen's
exchangeswith rabbis over the Songof Songs. The Songhad beenelevated
by the sagesto a kind of "nationalistode on the chosenness
of Israel",76and
its interpretation had become a veritable battleground for Jewish and
Christian claims to divine election. Here there was an initial consensuson
the peshat (plain sense) of the texu for the rabbis, the allegorical
interprecationof the Song was the only possiblepeshat,11 a love song
73bic. 1.55,ccs t.106.
74mid.GCS r.106.23-2, trans.Chadwick,p. 51.
15comm.in foann.10.27,GCS4.lggff ,cited by de Lange,Origen
and theJews,p. 100.
765. Baton,A Socialand PoliticatHistory of tlrc Jews, vol.2,2nd,
ed. (New York, 1952),p. 145.
77Y. Muffs, "Joy and Love as Metaphorical Expressions of
Willingness and Spontaneityin Cuneiform, Ancient Hebrew, and Related
t12 PAT.JLBI.,OWERS
betweenGod and Israel; for Origen it was an allegory of Christ'smarriageto
his Church.
Building on Ephraim Urbach'searlier work, ReuvenKimelman has
demonstrateda thoroughgoingcross-fertilizationin Origen's exegetical
disputationswith R. Yohanan.T8In Song l:2, for example,R. Yohanan
found that the mystical "kiss" of God was destinedfor Israel at Sinai,79and
to obviate the potential anthropomorphism,he inhoduced ingo his exegesis
an angelic mediator who kissed the Holy One.80 Origen counteredby
claiming that the "kiss" was Christ's and intended for the Church; he
downplayedthe meditorial role of an angel, assertingthat angelsmerely
brought down the Law to the Church (cf. Galatians3:19).81 Origen's
equationsof Bridegroom=ChristandBride=.Church,
which denigratedtheidea
of the kiss being a mediation of the Torah, in hrn niggered R. Yohanan's
attemptto show ttrat God gave the commandmentsdirectly at Sinai,82with
Literatures,"in Christianity, Judaism and Other Graeco-RomanCults 3,
Studiesin Judaismin Late Anriquity 11 (Leiden, 1975),p. 2t; cited by R.
Kimelman, Rabbi Yohanan,p.239, n. 1. Origen himself, of course,was
aware of the esotericesteemin which the rabbis held the Song as a source-
book for allegorical and mystical speculation (cf. Comm. in Cant. prol.,
GCS 8.62.22-30).
78Cf. g. E. Urbach, "The Homiletical Interpretationsof the Sages
and the Expositions of Origen on Canticles, and the Jewish-Christian
Disputation,"Scriptahierosolymitan a 22 (L97l): 247-275; R. Kimelman,
"Rabbi YohananandOrigen on the Songof Songs: A Third-CenturyJewish-
Christian Disputation," HTR 73 (1980): 567-595(=ch. 6 of Kimelman's
dissertation,Rabbi Yohanan,cited above,note2 and,passim).
79Cf. Urbach, "The Homiletical Inlerpretations,"p. 254.
8o,Song
of SongsRabbah 1.2.2..
SLComm.
in Cant.1, GCS 8.90.
S2Pesikta
Rabbati2l.5, quotedby Kimelman,"Rabbiyohananand
Origen,"W.575-576.
ORICEN,THERABBIS,ANDTIIE BIBLE 113
Mosesplaying the role of an arrangerof the rendezvousbetweenYahwehand
Israel.83 Other examplesnotwithstanding,& this exchangewill suffice to
show that in the debateover the Song,Origen refutedthe rabbispreciselyby
attempting to best their allegories. He in no way underestimatedthe
profundity or the appealof the rabbis' homilies. In fact, in his sermonson
Ezekiel, as David Halperin has discovered,Origen actually exploited the
colorful Sinai and ascensionimagery of Galilean rabbis' Pentecosthomilies
in order o embellishhis own preaching.8s
The disputeover the Songof Songsclearly showsthat Origen was
capableof enteringinto extensiveand sophisticatedexegeticalconEoversies
with the rabbis. The upshotwas nonethelessthe same. His aim was not to
attack any certain mode of Jewish exegesis,but to undermine the entire
Jewish claim to the authoritativeinterpretationof the Bible. In his disputes
with the rabbis, there was no shared,highly articulated languageabout the
methodof renderingtexts. Suchdebatesthrived on rhetorical srategies and
ad hoc arguments. For the samereasons,therefore,that he dismissedthe
literal interpretation of Jewish laws, Origen rejected the rabbis' allegorical
exegesesor tied to outstrip them. In so doing, he te.stifiedO the skill of the
83,Sang
RabbahL.2.3.
of Songs
84fimelman ("Rabbi Yohananand Origen," pp.574-595)finds no
-
less than five "topics" of this ongoing disputation on Song l:l-6: a
covenantmediatedby Mosesvs. one negotiatedby him; the NT vs. the oral
lorah as "superseding"scripture; Christ vs. Abraham; the heavenly vs. the
earftly Jerusalem;and Israelbeingrepudiatedvs. Israelbeingdisciplined,.
85see David Halperin, "Origen, Ezekiel's Merkabah, and
the
Ascensionof Moses,"ChurchHistory 50 (1981): 26I-275.
T14 PAI.JLBI,OV/ERS
rabbinic preacherswho, like himself, addressedthe concreteneedsof a
religiouscommunity.86
w.
Becauseorigen's allusionsto his contactswith rabbinic Judaismare
fairly scatteredand episodic, we are hard-pressed!o fill in the gaps in his
picture of the Christian-Jewishencounterin third-century Caesarea. The
rabbis he debatedpublicly and in his preaching--notto mention thoseJews
who assistedhim privately8T--areelusive figures neverclearly identified by
Origen. By comparing Origen's evidencewith parallel rabbinic traditions,
and with analogousdevelopmentsin Christian-Jewishrelations throughout
this period, his confrontation with Judaismbegtns to take shape. We see
Judaismnot only as a resourcein Origen's scholarly backgtound,but as a
vibrant rival community in the foregroundof his commentairesand homilies
composedinCaesarea.
Indeed, the Jews in Origen's purview did not stand idly by in
Christianity's ongoing engagementwith the pagan world. Inspired by a
snong rabbinateof scholarsand preacherswith their own missionaryvision,
the Jewsof Caesarea,as in the Diasporacities, were very much in the thick
of current religious controversies. As IIan Drijvers emphasizesin a recent
studyof their relationsin EdessaJews,Christians,and pagansdid not live in
someidyllic isolation in the setting of an ancient !own, where most of life
was lived in public and privacy was almost unheardof. Their mutual
86As Levine no0es(Ccesarea, p.102), the Caesareanrabbis in
particularweredistinguishedby their heavyinvolvementin preachingand the
practicalaffairs of synagoguelife.
87Seeabove,note7.
ORIGEN,THERABBIS,AI{D TTTE
BIBLE 115
ideological conflicg arosewithin the context of daily experience,where, in
the ancientworld, religious behaviorwaspreciselya matterof public conduct
informedby the standardsof a radition.E8
Origen'sown interactionwift the rabbisfollowed, in someresp@ts,
the pattern of disputesof popular philosophersin lale antiquity. In private,
of coune, their relations could be rather peaceable,even convivial, Origen
researchingthoseJewishtraditionswhich would enrich his own scholanhip,
and at times openly admitting his curiosity--a remarkable,albeit naiVe
curiosity8g--aboutrabbinic hermeneutics.Theologically, too, he could extol
the ancient and venerable "Jewish" sagesand prophes for their reliative
proximity o the spiritual truth,90and assessthe positive place of Judaismin
the unfolding hislory of salvation,in a way unprecedenledamid strong the
Christian antipathy toward Judaismin his time. Such is the aspect of
Origen's relationship with Judaismwhich is atlpical in its ancient conlext,
and which brings the admirationof moderncritics anxiousto find in him a
model for sholarlyinterchangebenveenChristiansandJewstoday.9l
88SeeDri.lvers,"JewsandChristiansin Edessa,"p. 89.
89oneis remindedhereof the passagein Sel.inps. (pG 12.10808-
C) in which Origen concurswith "the Hebrew" that the whole of scripture
mysteriouslyresemblesa single housewith a numberof locked rooms. By
eachroom is a key, but not the one fitting that r@m, suchthat the exegeteb
task is to match keys with rooms and thereby gain accessto the Bible
rnn€rmostsecrets. origen admiredthe rabbis' senseof the mysticat depthof
scripture,and sometimesborrowedisolatedpiecesof haggadali,but he did not
venture'beyondhis means,into the labyrinth of rabbinic hermeneutics.
noCf., in particular C. Cels. 7.7ff andthe study p.
- , , of Gordayin
this volume,"MosesandJesusin contracelsum 7.1-2s: dttrics,History and
JewishChristianEirenics in Origen'sTheology,"
91I am thinking here principally of de Lange, in the Afterword
to
his Origenand tlrcJews,p. 135.
116 PAULBLOV/ERS

Yet, from most indications, Origen's scholarly and theological

interest in Judaismdid not betray itself openly in his public dispositon
toward the Jews. Here Origen's debateswith the rabbis over the Bible
presentedless a scholarly exchangeof ideas than a platform for mutual ORIGEN AND THE SENSUS LITERALIS
disclaimers. Origen's anti-Jewish maneuversin his homilies and
commentariesreflect just this sameinflexibility. Therewas no questionhere CharlesJ. Scalise
SouthemBaptistTheologicalSeminary
of negotiation in these "philosophers"'debates. The rabbis' exegetical
argumentshad to be dismissedin toto becauseJudaismcontinuedto be a
viable threat to the Christian mission, a live option for those seekingto be
Origen's allegorical exegesispresentsa major difficulty to the
faithful to the radition of the Bible. In this adamantpublic posturetoward
modemreader.Fantasticallegory--simplyincredibleexegesisto moderneyes-
Judaism,Origen remainedindeedquite typical of the pafternsof Christian-
-appqus in the midst of biblically-grounded,textually sensitive,historically
Jewishrelationsin late antiquity.
perceptive interpretation. One has the impression that Hanson'sdramatic
characterizationof "exegeticalsuicide"l may not be too far from the mark in
dascribingtheseallegoricalflights of fancy.
This brief paperanemptsto take a first step towardsunderstanding
Origen'sallegoricalexegesisby examininghis useof the senszsliteralis n
its hermeneuticalcontexL The paperarguesthat Origen'sdepreciationof the
literal senseof Scripturecontributesto a loss of hermeneuticalconrol in his
exegesis. Thus, Origen's rather rigid view of the sensus literalis is a
significantfactor underlyinghis allegoricalinterpretationof Scripture.

lRp.C. Hanson,Allegory and Event (London: SCM press,1959),

p. 258.
 118 CHARLES SCALISE
The Problem of Defining "Senszs Literalis"
RaymondBrown has offered the following modern definition of
sensusliteralis: "The sensewhich the humanauthor directly intendedand
which his words convey."2 In defendingthis definition, Brown cites Origen
as the classicexampleof the consequences
of rejectingthis view:
. . . the intention of the authorand the senseconveyedby the words
cannot be separated. Such a separationhas been responsiblefor
what historically has been one of the great confusions about the
literal sense. . . . Many of the Church Fathers, e.g., Origen,
thoughtthat the literal sensewas what the words said independently
of the author'sintent. Thus were Christ spokenof as "the lion of
Judah," the literal sensefor theseFatherswould be ttrat he was an
animal. That is why some of them rejectedthe literal senseof
Scripore.3
Brown's modem definition of sezszsliteralis reflects the exclusive
focus of post-Enlightenmenthistorical critical scholarship upon the
intentionality of the human author.4 This view, however, has also
2RaymondE. Brown, "The Literal Senseof Scripture," in The
ferome Biblical Commentary,ed. RaymondBrown, JosephFitzmeyer,and
JeromeMurphy @nglewoodCliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall,1968),p. 606.
3lbid.,p. 607.
4Cf. Hans Frei's detailed chronicling of the developmentof this
emphasisupon the author's intention in Tlw Eclipse of Biblical Narrative
(New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1974). Of course,earlier exegetes(e.g.,
Hugh of St. Victor, Lutler, and especiallyCalvin with his sEessupon the
mens auctor, also place significant emphasisupon recovering the author's
intentionality. Yet their stressupon the intentionality of the human author
ORIGEN AND TIM SENSUSLITERALIS 119
increasinglycome underattack as too nanow and sterile by a wide rangeof
crtitics.5
A most helpful correctiveto Brown's historical critical definition is
provided by RaphaelL@we's work on the peshat or "plain sense"in early
Jewish exegesis.6 Loewe has shown that the verbpeslat in Aramic and in
rabbinic Hebrewhasthe meaningof "explain" with "authority" as its "cen8al
notion."7 Thus, the noanpeshat denotes"authorilativeteaching,"8rather
is never incompatibleor even in major tensionwith the divine authorshipof
Scripture,in contrasto the post-Enlightenmentsituation. This changefrom
"pre-critical" to critical biblical scholarship reflects a major shift in the
understandingof the inspiration of Scripture, which has been greatly
influencedby the critical challengeo raditional assumptionsconcerningthe
identity of the humanauthorsof the Bible.
SDavidC. Steinmetz,"The Superiorityof Pre-CriticalExegesis,"
TheologyToday37 (1980-81),27-38,offers a controversialcritique from a
historical point of view. For a balancedcritique and exegeticalmodel from
the point of view of the new literary criticism see R. Alan Culpepper,
Anatomyof the Fourth Gospel: A Studyin Literary Design @hiladelphia:
Forness,1983).
6RaphaelLoewe, "The ?lain' Meaningof the Scripturein Early
JewishExegesis,"Papersof tlrcInstituteof lewish SmdiesLondon,ed.J. G.
Weiss(Jerusalem:MagnesPress,1964),Vol. I, pp. 140-185.Loewepoints
out that the fundamentalmeaning of peshat in Hebrew is "!o slrip [a
garmentl,Foperly toflauen it by so doing," with the meaning"makea raid"
as a metaphoricalextension. Also, via the cognalelanguagespeshat comes
to mean"extend"or "stretchout" in later rabbinicHebrew(ibid., p. 155).
7lbid.,pp. 155-160.
8lbid., pp. 155-160.For furtherexplanationof loewe's view in the
context of Christian exegesisand its application to a canonicalapproachto
biblical studiesseeBrevardS. Childs;'iThe',SenstsLiteralis'of Scripture:
An Ancient and Modern Problem,"Beitriige zur AlttestonentlicheTlrcologie,
Festschriftftir Waltlrcr Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag,ed. Herbert Donner,
Robert Hanhart, and Rudolph Smend (G0ttingen: Vandenhoeckund
Ruprecht,1977),pp. 80-93. FoflowingL@we, Childs maintainsthat, "The
peshat is that familiar and traditional teachingof Scripture which was
recognizedby the community as authoritative" (p. 8l), and concludesthat,
r20 CHARLES SCALISE
than the commonly acceptedtextbook definition of "that sraightforward
simple exegesiswhich corresponds0othe meaningintendedby its author."9
It is Loewe'sview of the ancientJewishdefinition of peshat, rather than
Brown's modernpost-Enlightenment
definition of the literal sense,which
shouldbe used to critique Origen'sunderstandingof the sensusliteralis,
especially since Origen had ample opportunity o be exposedto rabbinic
Jewishexegesisduring his yearsat Caesarea(c.231-255).
Origen's Depreciation of the "Sszst J Literalis"
During the ancient period of Christian history the fundamental
distinction which shapesthe senss literalis of Scripure is that of "the letter
and the spirit." The origin of the distinctionbetween"the,letter and the
spirit" in Christian theology may be found in Paul's contrastof theseterms
in Romans2:29 and 7:6 and especiallyin 2 Corinthians3:6. As Origen
explainshis view of the two sensesof the law,10 he shows how Paul's
distinctionbetween"letter andspirit" underlieshis exegesis:
"In 0ermsof classicalChristiantheology,there can be no genuinesensus
literalis apartfrom a commitmentto canon"(p. 93).
9Childs, SensusLiteralis, p. 81. A clear senseof the "usual
textbook explanation" may be gained by consulting Wilhelm Bacher's
sfandardwork, Die ExegetischeTermirclogiederJudisclrcnTraditionsliteratur
(1905;rpt. Hildesheim: GeorgOlms, 1965). Examiningthe useof peshat
in the Tannaiticperiod, Bacherstates,"mit peshat ist dann das einfache,
einmaligeRecitiren verstanden"(i, p. 86). For a similar definition from the
Amoraicperiod,seePartii, pp. 170-173.
l0Origen's interpretationof the Old Testamentlaw is one of his
major exegeticalachievement3. For a detailed exposition see Hanson,
Allegory, pp. 288-310. Also, cf. Jean Danidlou, Origen, trans. Walter
Mitche[ (New York SheedandWar4 195D,pp. 139-173.
ORIGEN AND TIIE SENSUSLNERALIS r2l
We maintain that the law has a nvofold interpretation 16 v6pog
6r.tn6s tor*l, one literal ttr4s f\rovl ud the other spiritual
lTpos Sdwtav) ... and it is not so much we as God speaking
in one of the prophes lEzekiel 20:25], who described the law
literally understmdas'judgmentsthat arenot good'and'stafutesthat
are not good'; and in the sameprophet [cf. Ezek. 20:19-V11Godis
representedas saying that the law spiritually understood is
'judgmens that aregood' and 'statutesthat aregood.' The prophetis
obviously not makingconEadictorystat€mentsin the samepassage.
It is consistentwith this whenPaul [2 Cor. 3:6] also saysthat'the
letter kills,' which is the equivalentof literal interpretation;whereas
'the spirit gives life' which means the same as the spiritual
interpretation.ll
Though Origen takesPaul'scontrastbetween"the letter and the
spirit" and Paul'suseof allegoryas scripturalpoins of departure,his view of
"the letter and the spirit" dramatically alters the Pauline perspective. For
Paul, the "historical pattern"of the Old Testamentstory is preserved,evenin
the few placeswherean allegoricalapproachis explicitly used(e.g.,the story
of Sarahand Hagarin Gal. 4:22-261.12For Origen,however,thoughmuch
llHenry Chadwick,Eans.,Origen: Conta Celsum(Cambridge:
-
Cambridge Univ. Press,1965),VII, ?-0,p.411. GCS2, p. 171. Also found
in Caroli Delarueand Caroli VincenteDelarue, eds.,Origenis Opera Omnia,
in PG ll.tzt49.
12K. J. Woollcombe, "The Biblical Origins and Patristic
-
Developmentof Typology," in Essayson Typology(Naperville,Ill.: Alec
R. Allenson, 1957),p.53. Otherinstancesof Pauline"allegory"which are
significantfor Origen include I Cor. 9:9-10 @aul'ssymbolicinterpretation
of the law requiring the unmuzzling of oxen treading grain; see quotation
t22 CHARLES SCALISE
of the Scripture is viewed as historical, the historicity of Scripture is itself
unimportant;what mattersis the spiritual meaningof Scriptrnedevelopedby
the methodof allegory.l3
ln De Principiis origen makeshis famous distinction of the three
sensesof Scripture.l4 Origen seemsto have derived this method of
interpretationfrom Philo,ls ttroughthis has been sometimesdisputed.l6
Origen first distinguishesbetweenliteral and non-literal senses("the bare
below), 1 Cor. l0: 14 (theRed Seacrossingandbaptism), CoL2:L7 (thelaw
as a ihado* of things to come), and Eph. 5:32 (marriagein Genesisand
Christ and the church). For a good discussionof Origen's use of theseand
other inner biblical interpretationssee M. F. Wiles, "Origen as Biblical
Scholar,"Tlrc CambridgeHistory of tlrc Bible, Vol.I, ed. P. R. Ackroyd and
C. F. Evans(Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Press,1970),pp. 465466.
13AsHanson(Allegory,p. 2S0)commens,for Origen,"History . .
. is meaninglessunlessa parableis derived from it, unlessit is madeinto an
allegory." For a detailed discussionof issuesrelated to the historicity of
Scripnrrein Origen,seeHanson,Allegory,pp. 258-288.
14As Hanson wryly notes, "The fact that Origen divided the
interpretationof Scripture into three sensesis almost as well known as the
fact that Caesardivided Gaul into threeprts" (Ibid., p. 237).
l5garry AustrynWolfson, ThePhilosophyof the ChurchFathers,
Vol.I, Faith, Trinity, Incarnation,3rd Ed., revised(Cambridge,Mass':
HarvardUniv. Press,19?0),pp. 57'ffi,62. Wolfson especiallypoints to
Origen's"direct referenc,e"in Contra CelsumVII, 20, quotedabove,to Philo's
tnofold senseof the law.
l6For example,R. M. Grant partially disagreeswith this view,
instead holding that Origen's most extreme allegorical views_are "not
Philonic, but dJrived fronr,Origen'sstudiesof Greek gmmmar and rhetoric"
(R. M. Grant"TlrcLetter and the Spirir [London: S.P.C.K.'1957]'p. 101).
Nevertheless,Dani{lou'sanalysisof Origen'sallegoryof the Ark (Genesis
Homity 1I) clearly demonstralesOrigen's dependenceupon Philo, down to
someof the specificdetailsof his exegesis(JeanDani6lou,From Slwdowsto
Reality,rans. nom WulstandHibberd flondon: Bums and Oates,1960],pp.
103-112).
ORIGEN AND TIIE SENSUSI.ITERALIS r23
letter [zo tlnAov ypQtlta]" and "the spiritualsense[rci mreuparrca1"1.L1
The nonliteral senseis subsequentlydivided into "moral" and "spiritual"
senses,thus yielding threelevels. ThoughOrigen appeals0oProverbs22:20-
2l (as ranslated in the Septuagint--rploo(b) 18for scripnral supportof his
threefold methodof interpretation,it is Greek anthropologywhich provides
his pimary groundfor argument:
For just as man consistsof body lotlparogl, soul [/uxfs], and
spurtpnteipa.ros), so in the sameway lriv atrov rpdrovl, does
the Scripturewhich hasbeenprepared[otrowltokioa] by God to
be given for man'ssalvation.l9
Often in the actual practice of exegesisOrigen's three levels are collapsed
back ino two: the literal (bodily) and the spiritual.2o
Origen holds a rigid, narow view of the literal level of
interpretation.2l He rather disparaginglyrefers to the literal senseof
17G.W. Butterworth,nans.Origen On First Principles, (London:
S.P.C.K.,
1936),IV,2,2,p.72. PG 11 0V,9),360.
l8seeG. Kittel, eA.,BibliaHebroica,thfud
ed.,p. 1181.
l9Butterworth,Firsf Principles,lY,2,4,p.276. PG 11 (IV, ii),
365. Cf. also Origen'semphasison the harmonyor concord (wpQuvta) ot
botly,soul,and spirit inhis Commentaryon Matthew,XIV, 3 (Johnpafick,
trans.,"Origen'sCommentaryon the Gospelof Matthew,"TheAnte-Nicene
:gllers, v.9, 3rd ed., ed. A. Menzies[New York CharlesScribner'sSons,
18991, p.496. cCS 10,p.228).
2o\Viles,"Origen," pp.467468. Also, N. R. M.
de Iange, Origen
and ilteJews(Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. press,1976),p. 109.
2lU. f. Wiles offers the following analysis: "Despite
the grear
rangeof his intellecuralgifs Origen was totally lacking in poetic sensitivity.
The literal senseof Scrfrture is"for nim the literally iite"if *eaning of the
I2,4 CHARLES SCALISE
Scriptureas "obvious QrpdXettov), concedingits necessity,"so that the
simple man [dil,otoreposl may be edified by what we all the flesh
Ioapcdsl of Scripture."22 Arigen graphically depictsthe literal sensein his
first homily on Leviticus:
I myself think that the priest removesthe hide "of the calf' offered
as a "whole burnt offering" and pulls away the skin with which its
limbs are covered. He who removesthe veil of the letter fvelamen
litterail from the word of God uncoversits interior parts which are
membersof spirinralunderstanding.B
words. When the Psalmistdeclaresthat God's truth 'reachesto the clouds,'
Origen feels constrainedto saythat the cloudscannotbe intendedliterally in
sucha saying; they must be interpretedspiritually of thosewho are obedient
o theword of God. The literal interpretationof.7s,h.4:10 would imply that
God had sevenbodily eyes"(Wiles, "Origen," p. a7Q. In contrast,Henri de
Lubac attemptsto distinguish betwen "the letter" and "lileral meaning" in
Origen'sinterpreration. "The leEer"is describedas "a sort of sterilizedliteral
meaning,sripped of the spiritual potencieswhich lie, like seeds,within it"
(Hemi de Lubac, The Sourcesof Revelation,mns. Luke G. ONeill [New
York Herder and Herder, 19681,p. l8). Such a view unnecessarily
complicales Origen's contrastingexegetical levels, proliferating categories
which Origen doesnot seemto acknowledgeand which are not warrantedby
his actualexposition.
22Butterworth,F irst Principles, IV, 2, 4, pp. 275 -276. PG, I I (IV,
Il), 364. Grant perceptivelymakesthe important point that for Origen,
"Condemningliteralism doesnot involve condemningliteralists" (Grzit,The
Letter, p. 90). Wiles suggeststhat a distinction shouldbe madebetweenthe
literalism of "simple unintellectual believers," which Origen tolerates,and
that of "others of a Judaizing tendency,' which he bitterly opposes(Wiles,
"Origen,"p. a72).
23Leviticus Homily I, 4. Gary W. Barkley, Eans., "Origen's
Homilies on lzviticus: An AnnotatedTranslation"(Ph. D. dissertation,The
SouthernBaptist Theological Seminary, 1984),pp. 32-33. PG 12,409.
Also, while expoundingI-eviticus 6:25, Origen declaresthat, "Unlesswe take
all thesewords in another sense[alia sensu'J than the literal text flitterae
tenusl shows,as we alreadysaidoften, whenthey arereadin thechurch,they
ORIGEN AND TIIE SENSUSLITERAI.IS r25
In De Principiis Origen portrays literal interpretation of Scripture for the
multinrdesas analogousto Paul's"unmuzzledoxen" Feadingcorn! "Is it for
the oxen tlnt God is concerned?Doeshe not speakentirely for our sake?" (1
Cor. 9:9-10).2 CoOhasgiven the Scriptureso that peoplemay discoverits
spiritwl meaning,ratherthan its literal one.
For Origen "all [Scripture] has a spiritual meaning [ro
rvevparw6zl but not all a bodily meaning [rri oapanrc6v]."25 So,
Origen claims that there are passagesof Scripture which "make no literal
senseat all tro ot4nnxiv otfuFi7 thus requiring the readerto
E2govot'1,"
seekonly the moral and spiritual meaningsof the words.26 To take one
simple instance2Tfrom Genesis1, Origen asks,
will presentmore an obstacleand ruin fsubversioneml of the Christian
religion than an exhortation and edification" (Leviticus Homily V,l.
Barkley,Levirtcus,pp.100-101. rc 12,447).
24Butterworth,
First Principles,IV,2,6,p.279.PG 11 (ry, 12),
368. Cf. Deuteronomy25:4 for the Old Testamentlaw o which Paul is
referring.
SButterworth, FirstPrinciples,Iv, 3, 5, p.297. PG ll (IV, 20),
385. De Langeraces Origen'sview that everyword of Scripturehasa deeper
meaningback through Aquila's Greek version to the rabbinic exegesisof
Akiba (deLange,Jews,pp.107,1l0-l I l).
26Butterworth,First Principles,IV, 2, 5, pp. 277-278. PG I 1 (IV,
l2), 365.
27Ranson(Altegory,pp.239-241)providesan extensivelisting of
-
thesepassagesin Origen's writing. Hanson also suggeststhat Origen's
opposition!o eschalologicalliteralism, especiallymillenarianism,plays a
major role in his oppositionto literal exegesis(R.P.C.Hanson,"giblical
Exegesisin the Early Church,"Tln CambridgeHistory of theBible,vol.l,
99. P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans [Cambridge: CambridgeUniv. hess,
19701, p.418).
 r25 CHARLES SCALISE
Now what man of intelligence fwfrv €2guv]will believe that the
firsl second,and third day, and the eveningand ttremoming existed
without the sun,moon,and stars?28
Moreover, Origen holds that the Word "has arranged for certain
stumbling blocks loxdv6aAa)" in the literal senseof Scripture,with the
primry purposeof leadingreadersto seekthe higher,mystical wisdomD and
with the secondarypurposeof "concealingfxp0{ntf" the higherdoctrinefrom
"thosewho were unableto endurethe burdenof investigatingmattersof such
importance."30 Origen maintainsthat the compositionof Scriptureinvolved
a processof occasionally "weaving in" mystical meaningsin the form of
28Butterworth,First Principles,Iv,3, l, p. 288. pG ll (IV,
16),
376-377.
29Butterworth,First Principles,lV,Z,g,p.285. pG ll (ry, l5),
373. CharlesBigg notesthe influence of Origen'spersonalhistory upon his
exegeticalmethodand his strongdesireto movebyond the literal sense: "If
we compare what he [Origen] says in De Pincipids, where he reats the
command about the two coats as purely figurative, with the passionate
asceticismof his youth, we seehow the letter had beeno him in very truth .
. . a stumblingblock' (CharlesBigg, Tltc Clvistian Platonistsof Alemndria
[Oxford: ClarendonPress,1913],p.177). lnhisCommentaryon Matthew
Origen evengoesso far as o speakof "the repentancefuerdrctavl from the
letter unto the spirit" (Patrick, "Matthew,nAnte-NiceneFathers X, 15, p.
423. GCS 10,X, 14,p. 18).
30Buttenvorth,First Principles,Iv,2, 8, p.2U. PG 11 (IV, l4),
373. Bigg characterize,s
this as the "rule of Reserve"or "Economy," in both
Celementof Alexandria and Origen (Bigg, Platonists, pp. 178-184;cf.
Contra Celsum,m,52-53. Chadwick,Contra Celsum,pp. 164-165. GCS
l, pp. 248-249). Hanson declares that this "method of Reserve" moves
Origen towards"an almostGnosticview" @P.C. Hanson,Origen'sDoctine
of Tradition [London: S.P.C.K.,1954],p.77).
ORTGENAND TIIE SENSUSI.ITERALIS t27
eventswhich did not correspondto the even[sof history.31 As he contends
rn Homilies on Genesis, "I have often said already that in these stories
hisory is not being narraledlnanunturf, but mysteriesare interwoven
lnrysteria contextunturl."32
OnceOrigen hasdecidedthat a passageof Scriptureshouldbe taken
allegorically in order to be understoodat all, he haslittle patiencewith other
interpreters who want to defend the literal senseof the text. A classical
exampleof this situation occurs inhis Commentaryon John where Origen
ridicules Heracleonand "many others" for taking John 4:35 ("There are yet
four months and the harvestcomes") in a literal sense.33It is certainly
ironical o see Origen at0acka speculativeGnostic like Heracleon for not
being mystical (dvdyeo*ar) enough!
In an overview of Origen'sliteral useof Scripturern De Principiis,
Gary Barkley observes that Origen frequently resorts to a method of
prooftexting.34 Prooftextingexegesiswas,of course,quite commonin early
3lButterworth, First Principles,lV, 2, 9, p. 286. Migne,PG ll
(IV, tr5), 376. Grant (The Letter, pp. 95-96) points to Strabo'sview of
HomericpoetryandAristotle s Poeticsasearlierclassicalparallels.
32Genesis Homily X, 4. Ronald E. Heine, trans., Origen:
Homilies on Genesis and Exodus, The Fathers of the Church, v. 7l
(Washington,D.C.: The Catholic Univ. of AmericaPress,1982),p. 164.
Cf. FredericW. Faner, History of Interpretarion (London: MacMillan and
Co., 1886),p. 198.
33Origen, Commentary on John, XIII, 40, 41. Carl Moss,
"Origen's Commentary on John, Book XIII: A Translation with
Annotations" (Ph. D. dissertation, The Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary,1982),pp. 111-112(e,specialy n. 109). GCS4, pp.26-267. Ct
also Origen'scritique in XIII, 53, of Heracleon'sinterpretationof John 4:42
(Moss,Jolut,p.l50. GCS4,p.283\.
34cary Barkley,"AllegoryandTypologyin Origen'sDePincipiis,"
inThc RoIe of Institutional Forms in tlrc Early Christiqn Mission, ed.E.

r28 CHARLES SCAf,ISE
Christianity, especially in regard !o Messianic ideas. Numerousexamples
may be found in the useof the Old Testamentin the New. Early Christianity
probably derived this method from Jewish exegesis(e.g., the Habakkuk
pesherfrom Qumran1.35
For Origen literal prooftexting was often "a first line of defence
against heretics."36 Yet due !o the rigid ffErownessof his definition of the
sensw literalis, the polemical utility of ttris literal level for Origen is soon
exhausted.He quickly moveson to useeither the moral and spiritual senses
of Scripture or rational argumentand philosophical speculationagainsthis
opponents. ln De Principiis, fot example, Origen begins by arguing that
God is light and so qmnot have a body at all (literally prooftexting I John
l:5). Then in the same paragraph(shifting to the spiritual sense)he
immediately goes on !o arguethat in I John 1:5 light is symbolic of God's
"spiritual power." He even asks,"For can we possibly think that becauseit
is termedlight, it is like the light of our sun?"37 Thus, Origen's overly
nanow view of the sensusliteeralis forceshim o abandonthis primary level
as sq)n aspossiblein the questfor spirinral meaning.
Conclusion
This paper has sought !o examine Origen's understandingof the
Jerurrsliteralis of Scripturein its hermeneuticalcontext. It hasbeenargued
Glenn Hinson (Unpublished seminar papers, The Southern Baptist
TheologicalSeminary,Fall, 1981),pp. 9-13.
35Cf. Hanson,"Exegesis,npp. 412413.
36Barkley,Atlegory,p. 13.
3TButteworth,FirstPrinciples,I,1, 1, p. 7. PG ll, Lzl.
ORIGEN AND TIIE SENSUSI,ITERALIS r29
that Origen'sdegeciation of the literal senseof Scripturecontributesto a loss
of hermeneuticalcontrol in his exegesis,which in turn underlies his
speculativeallegcical exegesis.
Origen's rigid, narrow view of the sensrs literalis should be
contrastedto andcorrectedby a mce communallyestablishedand canonically
groundednotion of the first level of meaningof Scripure, as exemplified by
the Jewishpeshat of his time. For Origen'sdepreciationof the sezsus
literalis--often to the point of woodenliteralism and disparagement--drives
him to abandontoo quicHy the grammaticaland historical sensesof the text
as possibilities in themselvesfor "spiritual meaning." The text loses its
capacity to exercise hermeneuticalcontrol over interpretation through its
literal sense.
A revitalizedunderstandingof the sensrsliteralis of Scripture,which
seeksto unite grammatical,historical, and theological meaningsat the
primary textual level, is an urgentneedof contemporaryexegesis.The recent
crisis in the historical-critical approach to modern biblical study and the
current ferment in biblical theology point to the urgent need for such an
exegeticalmodel. A renewalof the senszsliterslis may function aspart of a
"preparartoevangelica"that will enableScripure to be heardagainclearly as
the Word of God in this age.
 ALLEGORY AND SPIRITUAL OBSERVANCE 131

allowedhim to presentthe
elementof Jewishtradition,Sabbathobservance
Christianfaith as the fulfillment ralher than the repudiationof JewishLaw,
and this on every level of meaningthat the Sabbathhad for him. On the
literal level, althoughhe refusedto acceptthe notion that Christianscould
ALLEGORY AND SPIRITUAL OBSERVANCE
justly dividetheirloyalty betwecnchurchandsynagogue,
he foundit possible
IN ORIGEN'S DISCUSSIONSOF THE SABBATH
to defendthe Jewishtraditionof sabbathworshipwhen occasionspresented
themselves.On the higherlevelsof meaning,his positivediscussions
are
Daniel J. Nodes
Old College, Reno manifold. There is the Sabbaththat one observesby being at rest from
immorality and worldly cares,which appliesequally to Christian,Jew and
pagan,andequallyto any day of the week. On a still higherplane,the truly

on the Sabbathreflectthe
Someof Origen'sindividualobservations spiritualSabbathallows the individualto experiencea personalreunionwith
heat of an anti-Jewishpolemist,othersgive off the chill of one who is God in a way that.transfersthe idea of observanceto the scopeof eternity.

but his collectiveattitudetowardthe

with the old dispensation,
unconcerned Ultimately, thereis the eschatologicalSabbath,that heavenlyrest to follow

Sabbathis neither hostile nor indifferent.l Perhapsmore than any other the completionof this world, a hopecommonto rabbinic literatureand the
New Testament.2 In this context Origen interpretsthe sabbathlaw as a
Researchin the preparationof this paperwasfacilitatedby a Travel promiseof the ultimatespiritualcommunionof all rationalcreation.
to CollectionsGrantfrom theNationalEndowmentfor the Humanities.
His commentarythusforms a progressionof meaningwhich in sum
lstudies of Origenhaveshownconsiderable interestin his attitude contributesto a reappropriationand consequentrevalidationof the sabbath
towardJewishraditions. In thepastdecade,the scholarshipon this topic has
been enhancedespeciallyby two books: Hans Bietenhard,, Caesarea,
Origenes,unddieJuden (Snrttgart,1974),andNicholasdeLange,Origenand
the fews, (Cambridge,1976). Both works makeprogressin developinga LMidrash on Psalms commentst " 'And he restedon the seventh
clearerpicture of Origen'srelationshipto Jewish tradition as well as his
approachesto the Old Testament.We are now in an excellentposition to
day.' God'sday is a thousand years,as in Ps.90:4: 'Fora thousand yearsin
thy sightarebut as yesterday.'Justas we observeeveryseventhyearas a
reexaminein derailOrigen'sattitudeloward specificelementsof that tradition.
sabbaticalyear, even so will God observea Sabbaticalyear which will
It is importantto rememberthe statedintentionof de Lange'swork in this
regard (p. ix), as a contributionto renewedstudy of Origen'srole in the
consistof a thousand years.Thuswe read,'And thereshallbe onedaywhich
shallbe known as the Lord's,not day, not night;but it shallcometo pass,
Christianappropriationof theJewishtadition.
thatat eveningtime thereshallbe light' {Zech.14:7). The futureworld and
The following studiesmade during the samedecadeby
the resurrectionof the deadare rcferredto here,and Lhelight which the
Jewishscholarsalsoaddressthequestionof Origen'suseof rabbinicexegesis:
E. Urbach,"HomileticalIntepretationsof the Sagesand the Expositionsof
almightyhid awayfor r.herighteousfrom rhebeginning, asit iJ wrirten,,And
U-odsaw the light, that it wasgood'(1:4). . . . This refersto the world (the
Origen on the Canticles,and the Jewish-ChristianDisputation," Scripta
Hereafter)which is all Sabbath." (Ciredin M. Kasher,Encyclopediaof
hierosolymitana22 (1971):247-275;R. Kimelman,"RabbiYohananand
Biblical Exegesis,vol. 1, p. 8l). Cf. Heb.4.9: "Thereremainsth-erefore i
Origen on the Song the Songs: A Third-Century Jewish-Christian
Disputation,"HTR 73 (1980):567-595. Sabbathrestfor rhepeopleof God."
r32 DA}.IIELNODES
Eadition. Moreover, it revealsin a most concentratedform the interpretive
processandhierarchyof valuesthat werethe guiding principlesof his general
approachto the Jewish heritage. His discussionson this topic reveal a
deailed familiarity with the Jewishheritage,familiarity that centerson but is
not restrictedto what canbe learnedftom the Scriptures.Sabbathobservance
is, after all, groundedin the whole Torah, both written and oral. Even when
Origen'sdiscussionsappearin writings whosemain purposeis other than to
improve Jewish-Christianrelations,they addressa wide variety of topics
whosepositive interpretationsfor both Christiansand Jewsare often brought
out. It is the purposeof this study to examinethosepositive interpretations,
which give excellent testimony to his ability to appropria[ethe Jewish
tradition.
Among Origen'sobservationson the Sabbaththere are, of course,
straightforward polemics addressingthis radition of worship in negative
terms. One suchpassage,so frequentlycited that it presentsa distortedview
of his overall attitude, arguesfor the divine preference,even from Old
Testamenttimes,for the forthcomingChristianlord's day.3 He refersin this
passageto the accountof God's provision of mannato the Hebrewsduring
the Exodusfrom Egypt. On the Sabbathnonewas to be collected. Instea( a
double amount was to be brought in on the day of preparation. God first
beganto provide mannafor the chosenpeopleon the Lord's day and on the
seventhday it ceased. firis cessationis a sign of God's preferencefor the
Lords Day:
Let the Jewsunderstandthat eventhen the Lords day waspreferred
to the Jewish Sabbath,that even then it was indicated that on their
3In his brief treatmentof Origen on the Sabbath,N. R. M. de
Lange,Origen and theJews,quotesthe passageat length (pp. 93-94).
ALLEGORY AT.IDSPIRITUAL OBSERVA}ICE r33
Sabbathnone of God'sglace descendedto them ftom heaven,none
of the heavenlybread,which is the word of God, cameto them. For
the prophetalso sayselsewhere: (Osee3.4) "For many days the
sonsof Israel will sit without a king, without a prince, without a
prophet,without a sacrifice,without a priest." But on our Iord's
day ttrelnrd alwaysrainsdown mannafrom heaven.4
Similarly, Origen attemptsto demonstratethe historical end of
Sabbathobservancewith the coming of John the Baptist. He observesthat
'day of rest," marking the resurrectionof Christ, is celebrated
the Christian
on the first day of the week, acknowledgingthe new dispensation,not
deriving from the Jewishsabbath:
It is not possiblethat the Savior'srest, which causedthoseafter his
death to be molded by his death, and therefore also by the
Resurrection,a rest that is after the Sabbath,shouldhave comeinto
existencefrom the seventhday of our God.5
In spite of these and similar claims, however, we observethat
Origen did not adhereto the principle that the Lord's Day is unrelatedto the
sabbathtradition. Although in theory the Lord's Day replacedthe Sabbath,it
did not actually do so for many Christiansof the third century, and in
opposing the practice of attending both church and synagogue,Origen
himself respondedby invoking the sabbathlaw. He did this with the aid of
4Hom. in Ex.7.5,PG 14.34546. All translationsof primary and
secondarysourcesare thoseof thepresentauthorunlessothenvisenoted"
Scomm.in hoh.2.27,GCS4.91.
 134 DANIELNODES
Philonic metaphor,by interpretingthe word of Scripturethat is sharedduring
the worship as the Sabbattrmeal. To hearandreceivethe word in both places
is thereforeto transgressthe law that prohibits the eating of the sabbathmeal
in more than one house@x. 12.46):
If you eat the word of God in one house,namely in the church,and
then leave it on the opinion that you are madea partakerof God in
the synagogue,although the law says "in one houseit is to be
eaten,"you do not eatin onehouse.6
similarly, he directs the law against those who would discuss in the
synagoguewhat they leamedin the church:
"And you shall not take from the flesh and carry it out of the
house." It is not permittedto teachthe Church'sword outsidethe
Church,just as you are not to take meatoutsidethe house.T
The context enablesorigen to makeuseof sabbathlaw in a somewhatnaive
yet positive way. The metaphor mainrains the validity of the old
dispensation'slaw in the support of the new dispensation'spractice of
worshiping in a new place on a new day. Atthough origen surely was not
preparedto invoke this law in the reversedirection and to suggestthat the
sabbathmeal must be eatenonly in the synagogue,his line of reasoningdoes
establish a positive link with the sabbath tradition, employing and
revalidatingratherthanabandoningthe law.
6selectain Ex.PG 12.286.
7mia.
ALLEGORY AND SPIRITUAL OBSERVANCE 135
The opportunityto respondto CelsusenabledOrigento defendthe
literal Sabbathin a less naive way. The scriptural accountof the Creator's
rest from all his works on the primordial first Sabbath,the seventhday of
creation,provided the topic. In the courseof a counterattackon Celsus'
efforts to ridicule the biblical creation account,Origen takes issue, for
example,with the philosopher'sdisdainfor the mentionof God'srest as a
childish anthropomorphism:
the meaningof the words: "And God endedon
Not understanding
the sixth day his works which he had made,and ceasedon the
seventhday from all his works which he had made..." [Celsus]
makes the remark "Indeed after this he is weary like a very bad
workman who standsin need of rest to refresh himself!" for he
knows nothing of the Sabbathday and rest of God which follows
the completion of the wodd's creation and which lasts for the
duration of the world, and on which all thosewill keepfestival with
God who have done all their works in their six days, and who
becausethey haveomittednone of their duties,will ascendto the
andassemblyof righteousandblessedbeings.8
contemplation
In this passageaccusingCelsusof ignoranceof the Sabbathday as a human
institutionbearinga spiritualpromise,to which, it is claimed,the accountof
God'srest in Genesisis in reality pointing, Origen is able to avoid defending
a literal view of the creationstory, which he was averseto do, and is instead
able to defend the pious institution of the day of rest and to suggestthe
higher meaningthat is in direct relation to the creationaccount.
8cels.6.6r,Gcs 2.131-32; ANF4.601.
trans.,
136 DA}{IELNODES
Here Origen shouldhave beenequippedto make observationsthat
would still haverefutedCelsus'only chargein this passage,namelythat the
notion of God's resting is inappropriate,but which would also have
repudiatedthe institution of the sabbathrest had he chosento do so. The
most elmentaryknowledgeof Hebrew would haveenabledhim to point, for
example,to the Hebrewversionof Gn. 2.2; "And on the seventhday God
finished(E.V.)". This versetroubledtheRabbisbecauseit carriedwith it the
potential for understandingthat God did in fact perform work on the ffust
sabbath.9 Origen'srelianceon the Septuagint,which describesGod's
completionof creationon the sixth day, is consistentwith his view of that
translationas an inspired text, but his apparentdisregardof the Hebrew
a readinessto avoidcastingunnecessary
readingin this contextalsosuggests
suspicionon the institution of literal sabbathobservance.l0 Jerome,by
contrast, gave a fully hostile reaction to the Jewish Sabbath in his
commentaryon the Hebrewtext of Genesis2.2:
For "the sixth day" the Hebrewhas "the seventhday." And so we
confoundthe Jewswho glory in the idlenessof the Sabbath,because
even at that time the Sabbathwas broken becauseGod worked on
9Theproblemof God restingoccupiedthe minds of previous[pre-
'l
9th centuryl generations.Philo as well as the RabbisexplainedI I I ltz and
hlrl as causativeverbs." (J. Rosenthal,"Hiwi Al-Balkhi: A Comparative
Study,"JOR 38 (1947-48),333.By Hiwi's time the useof the accountof
God'srest againstJudaismwascommonto Jewishheretics,suchas Hiwi, as
well as Gnostics and Christians. In earlier times the Rabbis faced the
difficulty in a numberof creativeways. Seethe entriesunderGN. 2.2-2.3n
TheEncyclopediaof Biblical Excgesis.
10SeeSidneyJellicoe,TheSeptuagintand Modern Srzdy (Oxford,
1968),p. 102,and R.C.P.Ilanson,Allegory and Event (London,1959),
pp. 166-78.
ALLEGORY A}ID SPIRITUAL OBSERVANCE r37
the Sabbath,completinghis works on that day and evenblessing
the day itself,becauseon it he completedall things.ll
The Rabbis, also in reaction to the ambiguity of God s activity on the
seventhday in the Hebrew,had felt it necessaryto offer severaldefensesin
order to upholdthe validity of sabbathobservance
in light of Gn. 2.2. One
typical defensearguedthat God createdon tlte seventhday only in the sense
that he createdthe Sabbathrest itself: "What did the world lack [but] the
Sabbath[rest]".12
The Rabbis were also aware of the problemsinherent in what was
Celsus'only real charge;the notion of God'srest. To explain the passage,
therefore,they stressedthat Gn. 2.2 doesnot mean that God ceased,for
example,from causingnaturalphenomenato occur,suchas the rains,tides,
or the exchangeof day and night.l3 They alsopoint, as in this passage,to
the "works"of justicewhichGodalwaysperforms:
Althoughyou read: "Becausethat on it he restedfrom all his work
which God createdto make,"He restedfrom his work of [creating]
his world, but not from the work of the wicked and the work of the
righteous,for he workswith the formerandwith the latter.l4
lLHebr.
Quaes.in Lib. Gn 2.Z,CCSL72, pt. 1:4.
l2cn. r.I0,9,The MidrashRabbah,trans.Freedmanand Simon,
vol. 1, (London, 1939),p. 78. All subsequent
citationsare takenfrom this
edition.
r3cf. Gr. r. 11,5 (p. 84).
14bid. 11, 1o (p. 86).
138 DA}{IELNODES
Weknow thatin the ContraCelswnOrigenconsciouslysidestepped the issue
of God'swork on the Sabbath,for it is a themewhich he had alreadyusedin
the commentbry on Matthew and the commentary on Numbers. In
respondingto Celsus'chargehe put all his efforts insteadupon reinforcing
the practiceof sabbathobservance,patternedafter the divine rest, insofar as
actualreligious worship is concerned,the practiceon which his own spiritual
interpretationsof the Sabbathhadto be based.
Where the purposesof exhortation to piety prevail, Origen's
discussionsdo makeuseof thosesamerabbinicalobservationson the sabbath
rest which he avoidedin the reply to Celsus. He is eagerto observe,as the
Rabbisdo, that althoughGod is saidto haverestedon the primordial sabbath'
he did not rest from his works of justice. Accordingly, Origen adds that as
the New Testamentshows Jesusalso performing works of justice on the
Sabbath,we, in imitation of him and his heavenlyfather, ought to cease
from all worldly works while we continueto perfrom works of justice. The
SeriesCommentaryon Matthewmakesthe following observation:
God in six days made the works of the world and restedon the
Sabbath. He restedfrom the works of the world which he beganto
make. The works of justice, however,he always doesand will do
without end. Now the racesof men did dl the works of the world
before the coming of Christ and no one rested from them,
collectedlykeepinga Sabbattrfrom goodworks. But our Lord came
and broughtus our Sabbath,his own, so that just as he restedon
the Sabbathftom the works of the world but did not rest from the
works of justice, so also let us throughhim observethe Sabbath
ALLEGORY AND SPIRITUAL OBSERVANCE 139
from worldly, camal, and harmful works, but let us alwaysperform
works of justice.15
Here Origen gives to the sabbathobservancea moral significanceas
a rest from sin, and he usesthe imageof the good work from which God
never rests,and which Christ performedequally on the Sabbathas on other
days, as a figure of what the transformedSabbathshould signify. In this
context, therefore, in considering literal observancesupplantedby moral
observance,he has again made use of an interpretationto emphasizethe
moral meaningof the Sabbaththat is amenable,on that level, to Jewish
teaching.
Moreover, Origen'sspiritual interpretation,in which the individual
soul'sapproachto the knowledgeof God becomesthe central theme,can be
witnessedin a passagefrom his Commentaryon Matthew inspiredby the
accountof Christ'stransfigurationbeforePeter,James,and John,which is
linked to the notion of the Sabbathbecauseit took place "after six dayshad
passed"(Matt.17.1):
For after one haspassedthe six days,as we said,he will celebratea
new Sabbath,overwhelmedwith joy upon the lofty mountain,
becausehe hasseenJesusransfigured beforehim.16
origen reactsto the accountin Matthew of the ransfigurationof Jesusby
connectingthe six daysprior to Jesus'journey to the mountainwith the six
daysof spiritual journey ttratprecedethe Sabbath.This interpretationresults
r1comm. Ser.45 GCS t t, pt. 2, p. 90.
L6Comm.
in Mt. 12.36,GCS l0.l5l-52.
 DA}IIELNODES
140
in a nansfigurationof the sabbathidea in its own right into a spiritual
sabbaththat marks the culmination of a gradual processof individual
disassociationfrom ttre materialworld. It is indeeda Christianinterpretation,
but its emphasison the individual experience--onseeingthe Eansformed
Jesus"apart"-places emphasisneitheron the communalaspectsof Christian
worshipnor on that of the Jews. Origen'sconsumingpurposeis to employ
the concept of the sabbathin an individually positive way, devoid of
animosity.
we have thus far witnessedorigen use three different levels of
meaning,a literal, a moral, and a spiritual. His most overt referencein his
writings to various meaningsof sabbathobservancesuggeststhat there are
only thesethree levels. Commentingon Exodus 16:23-30,"Tomorrow is
the Sabbath,a holy rest (day) unto the Lord,' etc.,he writes:
I set forth what is said about the Sabbath,first accordingto the
nakedwords,in orderthat they might seewhatthe letter means.
He follows this with a level addressingmoral concerns:
Then accordingto the spiritual understanding,accordingto which I
would say that the day of the Sabbathweighs upon the just man to
negatethe works of the world, who glorifies God and lives in peace:
nor does he go away from the place in which he stood, doubtless
from Christ, nor doeshe light a fire by sinning, nor does he carry
loads. Every sin is a load heavierthana mountain.
Then thereis the level that canbestbe describedasthe contemplative:
ALLEGORY AND SPIRITUAL OBSERVANCE 14l
Another explanationof the Sabbathis (Heb. 4.9) ,,Thereremainsan
observationof the Sabbathfor the peopleof God. a holy and sacred
rest. Truly, he who has done all his works is held worthy of this
Sabbath,being at leisure for no other thing than for contemplating
truth andwisdom.l7
This discussionof the variousmeaningsof the sabbathis consonant
with what he saysabout the various meaningsof Scriptureitself,lt and yet,
despitethe abundantscholarlyrecognitionof his referencesto threelevels of
meaningin Scripture,thereis disagreementover what origen meantby these
levels.l9 Three decadesago, this difficulty led cardinal de Lubac to
demonstratethat origen was the sponsorof two different three-fold classes:
one that includesa literal or historical level, a moral level, and a mystical or
spiritual level; and anotherclass that contains ostensibly thesesamethree
elementsarrangedas historical,mystical,and moral. The differencebetween
tlese patternswas seen,however,to lie not only in the ordering, but in the
17seLin Ex. pG 12:290.
l8see Ptinc. 4.2A: Hom. in Nu.9.7, andHom.
in Lv. 5J-5.g.
tnt. W. Trigg agreesthat what is usually
termedthe ,,moral,,lsvel
is wheredifficulty arises: "The Bible, origen argued,containsthreelevels of
meaning,correspondingto the three-foldFautne (andplatonic) division of a
person.inro body, gogl, and spirit. The bodily level of scripture, the
bare
Ierter' is pn.nalty helpful as it standsto meet the needsof the more simple.
'r'ne
psychic level, correspondi,ng to the soul, is for thosemaking progressin
perfection. It is lnrd to say-whalorige! rntlerstood thislevel
iJkiining to
be. someschotarstave.tatrcntle p$chic tevet n i" in"i tiiii iiiipr"t"r,
of the Bible called the "moral tevil b7interpretation, the level at which
the
ten providesguidancefor conduct,but therbis no goodreaEonto think
that
of it in that way. Theactuat exampteOrigen gaveof psychic
YLr!-? lP.flht
rnterpretation indicates tlat origen consideredthe psych{c levil'a non_
r2tstical philisophy in the Third-
c enturyC \yel o{ gl.le-sory."origen: Tttc Bibte and
hurch (Atlanta,I 983), pp. 125-26. Bmphasisminej.
t42 DANIELNODES
very natureof the moral element. In the first case,the moral sensemay be
saidto concerngeneralettricalprinciples. In the second,it relatesdirectlyto
the work of Christandhis redemptionof soulsthroughhis church:
In the first caseOrigendrawsfrom the sacredtext diverse"morals"
which may containnothingthat is specificallyChristian,containing
no referenceto the mysteryof Christ. It is ttris that we have the
habit of calling, with a word that is not very suitable,in fact even
contraryto the ancientusage,his "allegorism." In the secondcase,
it is only after he makesreferenceto the mysteryof Christ and in
relation to it, that he comesto the spiritual explanation...Inthis
secondcase, Origen'sexegesis,related entirely to the anima
credentis,to the animafidelis, to the anima ecclesiastica,or the
anima in Ecclesia,is thereforeentfuelyChristianboth in form and
content,both in its resultsand its sources.20
The sectionfrom Origen'sCommentaryon Exodusgiven abovecorresponds
to de Lubac'sfirst grouping,as do all the individualexamplesgiven thusfar
in this study. Even if one were to argue that the passagefrom the
Commentaryon Exoduscontainstwo distinct parts,one of truly general
morality ("The Sabbathweighsupon thejust manto negatethe worksof the
world, who glorifies God and lives in peace")and one that is specifically
Christian("nor doeshe go away from the placein which he stood,namely
from Christ"),neitherpart would fit thedescriptionof de Lubac'sothermoral
aspectis missing. But the rangeof Origen's
level becausethe ecclesiastical
discussionof the Sabbathalsoincludesa level of meaningakin to that sense,
20Henride Lubac,Exdgisemidi|vale: Les quatresensde l'Eciture
(Paris,1959),p.203.
ALLEGORY AND SPIRITUAL OBSERVANCE r43
a communal,ecclesiastical
addinga fourth to our list, which emphasizes type
of spirinralobservance.
This fourth level of sabbathobservancereturns to the subject of
communalworship, the principle of the first level of interpretation. Only
now the eschatologicalcontextenlargesthe idea of communalobservance
into a Sabbathwhosemeaningachievesits fulfillment in the futue.2l This
level also gives Origen the opportunityfully to incorporateinto this topic
one of his most inspiring as well as controversialteachings,that of the
universalcommunionof saintsat the end of time. And while this, the true
Sabbath,is still to come,it will be, for Origen,the culminationin eternity
which the living community,God'sfaithful on earth,have
of the observances
beencelgbratingin a continuousradition. Introducingthis theme,Origen
drawsonceagainon rabbinicaldiscussionof God'sown continuationof work
on the Sabbath,and this time he makesreferenceto it not to supporthis
individual, spiritual interpretationbut rather to demonstratethat any sabbath
must ultimatelyremainincompleteso long as God is working in
observance
his care of the material world. Origen again adds to this the accountof
Christ'swork on the Sabbath,an importantissuein the New Testament,to
showfurtherthat the true Sabbathdoesnot belongto this age:
The observationof the true Sabbathis beyondthis world becauseit
is written in Genesisthat(Gn.2.2): "Godrestedon the Sabbathday
from all his works,"andwe seethatthat did not happenthen,on the
2lThis description of Origen's scriptural exegesis, with its two
distinct moral levels, reveals an affinity between Origen and Clement, his
immediate predecessor,who openly writes of four distinct levels according to
a similar though not identical pattern: first, the literal; second, as displaying
a type; third, as establishing a command for the moral life; and fourth, as
giving a prophecy (Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 1.27).
r44 DA}IIELNODES
ALLEGORY AND SPIRITUAL OBSERVAI{CE 145

seventhday of creation,and that it is not happeningnow. For we

for a discussionof the otherthreelevels immediatelyprecedeshis exhortation
seethat God always works, and there is no Sabbathon which God
to look toward that final and only true Sabbath:
doesnot work, on which he doesnot bring forth the sun upon the
good and the wicked, and rains upon the just and unjust, on which
Let us seewhat kind of observationof the Sabbaththereought to be
he doesnot bring forth the hay upon the mountainsand the grassfor
for a Christian. On the day of the Sabbath,one must do noneof the
the domestic animals that obey man, on which he does not afflict
works of the world. If thereforeyou ceasefrom all secularworks
and heal, draw down into hell and lead back, on which he doesnot
and do nothing worldly, but have leisurefor spiritual works, you
slay and causeto live. When the Jewspersecutedhim for working
conveneat the church,you offer the earto divine readingsand tracts,
andcuring on the Sabbath,our Lord answeredthem,accordrngto the
and you think aboutheavenlythings,you have concernaboutthe
Gospels(John 5.17): "My father is still working and I am
future, you havebeforeyour eyesthejudgment that is to come,you
working." Showingthroughthesethingsthat in no Sabbathof this
do not haveconcernfor presentand visible things, but for invisible
agedoesGod restfrom the careof the world andfrom the provisions
and future things. This is observanceof the Christian Sabbath.But
of the humanrace. For indeedhe madecreationfrom the beginning,
the Jews too had to observe these things. . . . Whoever therefore
and brought forth matter, as much as he as the creator of the
ceasesfrom the works of the world'and has leisure for spiritual
universeknew would sufficefor the creationof the world.
things, that is the one who makessacrificeof the Sabbathand a
Thereforethe true Sabbathwill be lthat day] on which God
feastday of Sabbattrs.On the Sabbatheachone sits in his place and
restsfrom all his works, the future age,then when pain and sadness,
does not go forth from it. What thereforeis the spiritual place of
and lamentationwill vanishand God will be all and in all.22
the soul? Justice is his place, and truth, wisdom, holiness,and
everythingttratis Christ. Out of this placeit is not necessary
to go
This view of the eternalSabbathrepresentsthe last word in Origen's
to keep the true Sabbathand completethe feast day in sacrificesof
theology,in which the ultimatereunion wittr God is realized,the final stepin
Sabbaths.23
the processof salvation. We witnesstlat processin eachof Origen'sfour
levels of Sabbathobservance,which leavesthe physical sense,movesto the
In this one passagehe usesall the levelsof observationwe haveheardhim
level of abstractmorality, then to the individual spirit, and lastly to the
useelsewhere.It meansphysical,communalworshipin a church. It means
spiritual community. Forceful testimony that Origen thought in terms of
ceasingfrom the works of the world. And it meansremaining at.home
this progressionis providedby the very passageftom his homily just quoted,
spiritually, that is to say, remaining in ftuth, wisdom, and holiness,and

22&om.in Num.23.4,GSC 7.215-16.

23lbid.
t46 DANIELNODES
"everything that is Christ." We witness Origen's fiemendousefforts to
translatethe validity of the literal meaningof Sabbathobservanceinto moral,
intellectual,and spiritual realities.
In closing, let us considerthe developmentof the resulting fourfold
meaning of the sabbath in origen with referenceto two tensionsthat
penneateall of his witings: namely,the tensionbetweenthe physicaland
the spiritual on the one hand, and the tension between the worship of the
churchand the spirinral experienceof the individual believeron the other. In
essence,there are only theselevels of interpretation,the physical and the
spiritual, andthereare only two modesof Sabbathobservance,the communal
and the individual. Simply stated,Origen'sfour levels suggestthe various
combinationsof these elements. The first level interprets the Sabbath
observanceas it appliesto the literal, communalaspectsof worship. The
secondlevel focuseson the temporal,worldly observancewith referenceto
the individual. The third level marksa view in termsof the individual in the
spiritual scopeof eternity, and the fourth level focuseson the true and
ultimate spiritual community. This hierarchybrings us full circle. Any
suggestion,therefore, that Origen devalued the tradition of communal
worship in favor of individual spiritual experiencemust be qualified, for in
his discussionsof the new and eternalSabbath,what awaitsthe individual
spiritual pilgrim at the end of his journey is a full, glorious renunion in
unendingspiritual observance,together,in holy community.
DI\IINE DECEP|ION AND
THE TRUTIIFT]LNESSOF SCRIITURE
JoscphW. Trigg
FallsChurch,Va
Origen'stwentiethhomily on Jeremiahdealswilh Jeremiah2A:7-12,
an intenselylyrical confessionin which Jeremiahvoicedhis personalagony
at the rejectionof his prophecy. This is a translationof the Septuaginttext
on which Origenpreached:
Thouhasdeceivedme,O Lord, andI wasdeceived('HndnTodg pe
rtpte rai firarfi1r1v). Thou art strongerthan I, and thou has
prevailed.I havebecomea laughingstock.
Eachday I continue!o
be mocked. So theyshall laughat my bitter word. I shall call upon
(dkotay
breachof covenantand wretchedness xai raAanrupld
€ntrcaA(oopat). For the word of God has becomefor me a
reproachand a derisionall the day long. And I said, 'I shall not
mentionhim, or speakany morc in his name.' Thereis in my heart
asit werea burningfire, smolderingin my bones,andI am afflicted
throughout,and I cannotbear it, sinceI haveheardthe slanderof
many,whisperingon everyside,'Conspire,conspireagainsthim,
all of us his friends.Watchhis acLions,
andhe will be deceived,and
we canobservehim and takeour revengeon him.' But lhe Lord is
 DIVIMDECEPTION r49
148 JOSEPHTRIC'G

me andwere as we haveoftcn said,for the sakeof those

Let our reminiscenses,
with me like a dreadwarrior,thereforetheypersecuted
be spreadout
reading them unrestrainedlyor inexperiencedly,
unable to understand,they were greatly ashamedand did not
as their nameimplies,passingcontinuallyfrom one
variegatedly,
their dishonor,which will not be forgottenforever. For
comprehend
another
matterto another,hinting at one thing while demonstrating
theLordiswithme,approvingtherighteousthings,knowingthe
(rai trepov ptv rt xari riv etppitv rdv triyav p4vtoma,
reinsandhearts.
tvfieurv{peua 6; dMo rL). . .. The quilts of reminiscences
thereforecontributeto the expressionof the truth for the personwho
For origen, the divine deceptionof which Jeremiahspokeexplains
justifies a is able to seekwith reason(rQ otq) re (nrdtv perd A6yov).2
the need for allegorical interpretationof the Bible and
correspondingdeceptionon the part of those who interpret the Bible.
himself of divinedeception,whichplaces
An echoof Origen'sunderstanding
heachingon divinedeceptionrequireddelicacy,but Origenconsidered
between
it in a revealing lighq occurs in the celebratedcorrespondence
obligated,as a pastor,to do so. In this case,origen felt a need to reach
Augustineand Jerome.3 Augustine'schief concernin that conespondence
personslike his pafon Ambrosius,who foundGnosticismattractivebecause
was with Jerome'sinterpretation,in his Commenlaryon Galatians,of the
he "could not acceptan irrationalandignorantfaith (pa Qtpotv rqv dToyov
dornv)."l Thus Origen neededto hint at a higher truth confrontationbetweenPeterandPaul,recountedin Galatians2, wherePaul
xai litaruciv
"rebuked Peter to his face" for withdrawing under pressurefrom table
aboutGod'sbehaviorin order to counterthe Gnostics,who taughtthat the
fellowshipwith gentileChristians. In order to mitigatethe scandalof a
crudeand savageGod of the simplewas an inferior deity to the loving God
confrontationbetweonthe two mostreveredApostles,Jeromehadadoptedan
and Fatherof JesusChrist. Origen could not, however,be entirely openin
of God heldby the simple,if for interpretationwhich he claimedo find in the tenthbook of Origen's(now no
presentinghis criticismof the understanding
longer extant)Stromata. In that interpretationPaul and Peterdeliberately
no other reasonthan becausethe simple,at their stageof progressin the
ttrattle Jewishlaw wasno
simulateda confrontationin order!o demonstrate
christian life, neededto be motivatedby fear of a wrathful God. Origen's
longerapplicableto Gentiles.Augustinecould not acceptthis interprecation,
methodfor meetingthe needsof advancedas well as simple hearersis, I
which struck him as implying deceptionon the part of the ApostlePaul, a
intendto show,tle methodhis probablementor,Clementof Alexandria,set
deceptionbad enoughin itself but compounded
in this caseby perjury,since
forth in his programfor theSromata:

2Clementof Alexandria,Stromata4.2. All translationsareby the

authorunlessotherwisenoted.

3Seethe edition of tre correspondence

in Florileqium Patisticum
lSee Gunnaraf Hlillstrcim,Fidis SimpliciorumAccording to Origen 12, ed.J. Schmidand the discussionin J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome: His Lift,
of Alexandria (Helsinki: SocielasScientiarumFennica, 1984), esp' pp'5/.' Wri ti ngs, and Controversles(London,Duckworth: I975), pp. 263-72.
69.
150 JOSEPHTRIGG
Paul had written eadier in the letter "In what I am writing to you, before
God,I do not lie!" (Gal.1:20).
Conceivably, Augustine wrote his treatise On Lying, which
establishedas normativein our ethical tradition an absoluteprohibition of
lying, out of an interestpiqued by this encounterwith Origen'sview.
Augustine,in his objectionto Jerome'sOrigenistinterpretadon,appeals[o a
Westerntradition of interpretationof Galatiansthat goesback to Cyprian.4
He might havealso cited lrenaeus,who accusedthe Gnosticsof makingthe
Apostleshypocritesby interpretingtheir works as if they on occasionmade
use of the medicinallie. Truth excludeslying as darknessexcludeslight,
Irenaeustaught,so that the Apostles,who were disciplesof JesusChrist,
who is Truth, could not haveemployedlies.5 Augustine'scontroversywith
Jeromevividly illuslratesthe differencebetweenhis understandingof the
truthfulnessof scriptureandOrigen's.
The interprehtionJeromecited appearsin none of Origen'sextant
works, but it is entirely plausible. We might expectOrigen to find Peter's
sincePeter,as the "rock" upon whom
waffling at Antioch embarrassing,
Christ foundedhis church,was the image of the ideal spiritual man.6
4Augustine,Letter 82.?A.
5Neque discipul ejus alium quemdamDeum nominarent,aut
Dominumvocarentpraetereum,qui vereessefDeuset Dominusomnium:
quemadmodum quoniamApostoli
dicunt hi, qui sunt vanissimisophistae,
cum hypocrisifeceruntdoctrinamsecundumaudientiumcapacitatem, et
responsionessecundum interrogantiumsuspiciones,caecis caeca
confabulantes secundum cascitatem ipsorum,languentibusautemsecundum
languoremipsorum, et errantibussecundumerroremeorum (Irenaeus,
Adversusllaereses1.5.2).Et Apostoliautemdiscipuliveritatisexsistentes,
extraomnemendacium sunt: non cnim communicat mendacium veritati,
luci; sedpracsentia
alteriusexcluditalterum
sicutnon communicattenebrac
(rbid.,i.5.1).
6SeeOrigen,Commentary
on Matthewl0 andContraCelsum6.77.
DiViNEDECEPTION 151
Furthermore,the exerciseof reserve,if not ounightdeception,wasconsistent
of Paul. In his homilieson Leviticus, Origen
willt Origen'sunders[anding
comparedt"heApostlePaulto thehigh priestchanginghis robe.
It must be observedthat the priestemploysone set of vestments
whenhe is administeringthe sacrificeandanotherwhenhe goesout
before the people. Paul, who was a very knowledgeableand
experiencedpriest,did this also. When he was in the companyof
the perfect,as if in the Holy of Holies androbedin the garmentof
perfection,he said: "Yet amongthe perfectwe do impart wisdom,
althoughit is not a wisdomof this age,or of therulersof this age,
who aredoomedto passaway. But we imparta secretandhidden
wisdomof God,"which "noneof therulersof this ageunderstood
. . . for, if they had, rhey would not have crucifiedthe Lord of
Glory" (1 Cor. 2:6-8). But later,as if goingout beforethepeople,
he changeshis garmentandtakesanother,muchinferior to it. What
did he say? "I judgedit expcdient,"
hesaid"to knownothingamong
you saveJesusChrist,andhim crucifiecl"(I Cor.2:2).7
In anotherhomily on Leviticus,Origenspokeof how Apostlesdo not "cast
pearlsbeforeswine" (Matt. 7:6), an actionwhich symbolizestalking about
inappropriate
mattersbeforethe simple. In orderto avoiddoingso, theywear
the priestly "lincn breeches"@x. 28:42),the symbolof chastity,so asnot !o
"engender
Christ"(Gal.4:19)amongtheunworl.hy.8
/Origen,Ilomilieson Leviticus4.6.
8lbid., 6.6 On "casl.ingpearlsbeforeswine" see also Origen,
Dialoguewith lleracleides148-50andConta Celsum5.29.
 DIVINEDECEPTION 153
JOSEPHTRIGG
r52
andperdvota as appliedto God, all wordsopento Marcionitecriticism,as
In Homily 20 the deceptionPeterand Paul alledgedlyemployedat
well as Adyos, In the caseof wrath or anger and repentance,we must
Antioch hasits foundationin lhe divinedeceptionof "Thouhastdeceivedme'
rationalefor such recognizetheequivocalcharacterof languageaboutGod if we areto maintain
o Lord, andI wasdeceived."origen'sargumentprovidesa
In the process' our belief in the worthinessof God. Origenrejectsthenotionthat Godcould
deceptionon God'spart and on the part of humanteachers'
be angryor repentin the commonlyacceptedsenseof the word. For us to be
origenhimselfhintedatonethingwhiledemonstratinganother.The
angry is a bad thing, and for us to repent,while good,implies that we had
discussionofourpassageactuallybeginsinthenineteenthhomilyon
the entire actedimproperlybeforewe repented.ll
Jeremiah,toward the end of which origen quotedand discussed
It is crucial, in intcrpretingOrigen'sthoughthere,to determine
pericope.Therehesetsuptheproblem:wasJercmiahtellingthetruth'as
permittedto whetheror not divine deccptioninvolves an intentionon God's part to
we oughtto expectof a prophct,or washe lying,as we arenot
God did human
deceive.ls dranf an equivocalword whenappliedto God because
say? Grantedthat he was speakingthe truth, we must assumethat
deceptioninvolves such an intention but divine deceptiondoes not?
indeed deceivehim. origen comparesGod's deceptionto the deception
Certainlythe useof "wrath"and "repentance"
as analogies,
both of which
practicedon small childrenin order to educatetlremand finds examplesof
imply defectson Gocl'spart,suggestsuchan interpretation,if we assumelhat
suchpedagogicaldeceptionin the Bible'sthreatsof futurepunishment.g
it is necessarilybad at all timesto intenddeception.Thus we might assume
In the twentiethhomily origen establishesthe propriety of divine
that divine deceptionis simply a necessary
resullof the incapacityof human
deceptionandexaminesitsimplications.Thehomilybeginswitha
languageto depictGod. Henri de Lubac madethat assumptionin an article
discussionof the equivocalcharacterof languageaboutGod' which Origen
quotes,without on this text, presenting,as Origen'sposition,the view that what may appear
describesin termsof Aristotle'scategories,from which he
of "l'infirmitd congdnitalede
to be divinedeceptionis entirelya consequcnce
attribution,thedefinitionof "equivocal"(6pdw1tos)."Thingsareequivocally
la connaissancehumainellz Origen may have intendedto leave this
named,whentheyhavethenameonlyincommon,thedefinition(or
impression,but.we cannotacceptit as the definitive expressionof his
beingdifferent."l0The simplewill fail to understand
of essence)
starement
to thought. Rather,Origenhints that divine deceptionis deliberate.One such
that wordshavedifferentmeaningswhenappliedto God. It is necessary
hint is thatOrigenneverexplicitly says,ashe doesin thecaseof "wrath"and
point out this equivocalcharacterofbiblical langaugein orderto confutethe
"repentance,"
that deceptionis necessarilyunworthyof God; all he claimsis
heretics,who use it as evidenceagainstthe God of the old Testament.
6pytf,
Origencitesasexamplesof suchequivocallanguagethe words^v1titg, 11bid.

l2Hcnri de Lubac, "Tu tn'as tromp6,Seigncur,le commentaire

gorigen,Homilieson Jeremiah19'15'
d'OrigbnesurJdrdmie20.7"in Henri<leLubac Rechirchesdanstafoi: Trois
4tudessur OrigAne,saint Anselmeet la philosophiechrdtienne@alJrs:
1Olbia.,20.1,citing.Airstotle,Categories1, tr' HaroldP' Cookein Beauchesne, tglr, p. 24.
LoebClassicalLibrarY325,P.13.
154 JOSEPHTRIGG DIVINEDECEPTION r55

that divine deceptionis "of anothersort," trepoyewfs from our deception. Origen comparesthis tradition with anotherfrom the samesoruce
Anotherhint is fhat Origencites God's"word" as anothercaseof equivocal which comparesthe two occasionsin the Book of Isaiahwherethe prophet
languageaboutGod. We arc left to decidefor ourselveswhetherthe useof receivesa call. In Isaiah 6 the prophet eagerly respondsto the divine
"deception"in connectionwith God necessarilyimplies a moral defecton question,"Whom shallI send,and'whowill go for us?"with the words"Here
God's part, as in the caseof "wralh" and "repenhnce,"or if it is morally I am, sendms." He receivesa messageof God'sjudgmentagainsthis own
neutxallike "word". If God'sdeceptioncan be deliberate,how doesit differ
andanger. Later, in
people,a messageto be receivedwith incomprehension
from ours? How is drarfi equivocal? The one way that Origen actually
the fortiethchapter,Isaiahhears"A voice saidcry," but oncebumedis twice
claims that divine deceptiondiffers from our deceptionis that it always "WhatshallI cry?"14
shy;heresponds
benefitsthe onedeceived.
Origen expresseshis concern,not simply to passon this tradition,
This is the point of the Jewishstoryp00og,involving intentional
but to employ it fruitfully. In doing so, he brings forward two classical
whichOrigenusesin orderto introducetheconcept.God
divinedeception,
topoi wheredeceptionis permissible,a fatherdeceivinghis children and a
doesnot rule as a tyrant.but as a king. He desires,not to compel,but to
physiciandeceivinghis patient.l5 The fatherdeceiveshis sonby concealing
so thatthoseoverwhomhe rcignswill do his will voluntarilyand
persuade,
his affectionwhile disciplininghim, so that the child will do the right thing
not by compulsion.God hada prophecyof judgmcntfor Jeremiahto make
out of fear.16 The physiciandeceivesthe patientby hiding the scalpel
againsthis own people.God knew,however,thatalthoughJeremiahwould
beneatha spongeor a bitter medicinein honey,so thatthepatientmay accept
not willingly prophecyagainsthis own people,he would haveno qualms
neededtreatmenthe otherwisewoulclrefuse.Godactslike thephysician,who
aboutprophecyingagainstotherpeople. God,therefore,deceivedJeremiah.
hidesthe bitter in the sweet,whenhe allowspeopleto believethat they can
He saysto him, "Takefrom my hand the cup of this unmixedwine, and
expect to attain a heavenlyrest at their death if all they do is avoid
makeall the nationsto whomI sendyou drink from it." Jeremiahunderstood committingthe notoriouslywicked sins of idolatry and fornication,hiding
God to be asking him to makeall the other nationsdrink from the cup of from them the cleansingpunishmentthey must undergofor suchsins as
wil.houtimaginingthat his own would be the
God'swrathandpunishment, gossip and overindulgence. If God did not do this, Origen argues,the
first nationto drink from it. Havingacceptedthecup,herealizedhe hadbeen
drink from it."
deceivedwhenGod saicl,"And you shall first makeJerusalem
14bio.
of one mission,but he endedup
He acceptedthe cup with the expectation
with another.l3 l5lbid., 20.3 SeealsoOrigen,Contra Celsum4.l8. For classical
examples,seePlato,Republic2.382cand 3.389b;Xenophon,Memorabilia
4.2.17;andMaximusof Tyre,LecturesI3.3.

16bid. Seealso Origcn,Ilomilies on Exodus1.2, where

Origen
13O.igen, Homilies on Jeremiah 20.2. comparesGod to a schoolmaster
who cmploysthe sameruse.
156 JOSEPH
TRICG
DiVINEDECEPTION r57
majorityof believerswould loseall hopeandmakeno effort to maintaineven
What is that highertruth? De Lubachasarguedlhat the illusion
a modestlevel of morality.lT Origen then offers an exampleof divine
from which the unfortunatepersonsOrigen refers to had disembarrassed
deception.What he is doing,he admits,may be risky. (Presumablythe risk
themselveswas simply a grossand superficialrepresentation
of divine
is that he may undeceivepersonswho arebeneficiallydeceived.)A widow
punishment,a reprcsentation
tJrat,presumablywould involvereal wormsand
may havethe mistakenbelief that shewill be damnedif sheremarries,and
real fire.20 However,Origen,in the next lines of the homily, alludesto
thereforeremaincelibate. Surely,given the preferabilityof celibacyto the
Romans2:4, statingthat the personsin question"presumeuponthe richesof
marriedstate,this is a beneficialdeception.lS
thegoodness
of Godanduponhis forbearanceandpatience(rai fis dvoXfis
Origen contraststhe putativelybeneficialdeceptionof the celibate
*d ,is parcpo0upiag)."The words "forbearance"and "patience"would
widow to the bad effec[sof a prematureawareness
of the truth. Somewho
seemto indicatethat the truth in questionis that the punishments
after death
have "found out the truth aboutpunishmentand have supposedlypassed
pennanent.It is easyto seehow most Christians,who
are not necessarily
beyond deception" (eip6vreg ro nepi ro),rioeug d\n1is rcai
still needto be inspiredto do good by fear, sincethey havenot attainedto
6teA06vres 6fi0ev ra rfis dndn1g1,havefallen into a worsemannerof
love as a motivation,2lmight,if awareof God'sultimatesalvificpurpose,
life. It would be better for them if they still believedlirerally in such
put off until afterdeatha purificationtheyshouldbeginin their
misguidedly
Biblical textsas "their worm doesnot die anil their fire is not quenched"and
earthlylife. Origendrawsthe moral ftat, while we oughtvigilantly to avoid
"they shall be an abhorrenceto all flesh" (Is. 66:24)and "the chaff will be
being deceivedby Satan,we ought to lower our guard toward divine
bumed with unquenchablefire" (Matt. 3:12).19 This statement,under
deception,if we arecertainthatGod is speakingto us,becausesuchdeception
scrutiny,providesan exampleof Origen'sown deceptiveness.Although
will alwaysbenefitus.22 This is the quality that makesdivine deception
Origenstatesthat thosewho have"foundout the truth aboutpunishment"
(repoyeufig and languageabout it equivocal. So concludesOrigen's
haveonly "supposedly(6fi0ev)passedbeyonddeceprion,"his sr,atement,
in
discussion
of theverse,"Thouhastdeceivedme,O Lord, andI wasdeceived."
the contextof a discussionof the beneficialeffectsof divine deception,does
In his discussionof the rest of the pericopefrom JeremiahOrigen
not follow logically unlessorigen believedthat such personshad indeed
justifies humandeceptionfor similarly beneficialpurposes.The Jewish
glimpseda highertruthbchindthedeceprivewordsof rhebiblical passages
he
tradition he had receivedwent on [o relate how Jeremiahhimself used
quoted,which,of courseOrigenhimselfdid not acceptasliterally true.
deception.Jeremiahlived in an extremelysinful time, so sinful that theexile

17Ibirt. 20DeLubac,"Tu m'astrompd,Seigneur,"

p. 45.
18mio.
zo.+. 21SeeOrigen, ContraCelsum5.16andllomilies on Genesist.4.
19mio. 22)rigen, II omiIie.gon Jeremiah20.4.
158 JOSEPHTRIGG
andcaptivityoccurredthen. Becausethepeoplemockedwhenhe said"Thus
saith the Lord," JeremiahpresentedGod's word deceptively. Ratherthan
putting for,wardthe oracleshe hadreceivedastheLord'sword, he offeredthem
as his own words. That is why the book of Jeremiah,in Hebrew,begins
"The words of Jeremiah,fhe son of Hilkiah," insteadof "The word of the
Lord to Jeremiah,the son of Hilkiah," as the Septuaginthas it. Origen, in
this caseasin others,preferstheHebrewreadingto the Septuagnt.23
Origenthenrecountshow he himselfemployedbeneficialdeception:
And we ourselvesdo suchthingswhenit appearsuseful(rai f,rze?g
to?' 6re romira). Wheneverwe addresswordsto pagansin order
to lead them to the faith, if we seethat they havebeenprejudiced
againstChristianityand despisethe nameand hateto hearit, just
becauseit is the teachingof Christians,we act as if we were
presentinga useful teachingthat is not Christian,but when the
teachinghasbeenestablished
accordingto the besrof our ability,
andwe deemit possibleto acquirethelistenerfor our party,sincehe
has not just beenlisteningindifferentlyto what has beensaid to
him, then we confessthat our praiseworthyteachingis Christian
doctrine. In thatcasewe do somethingsimilarto whatJeremiahdid
whenhe said "Hearmy words,ftose of Jeremiah,"insteadof "Thus
saiththe Lord."%
Arguably, Origen'sSocraticmethodof teachingwas itself pervasively
deceptive.Accordingto the studentwho wrote theSpeechof Appreciation,
z3raid.,
zo.s.
Z4taid.
DIVINEDECET'ION 159
Origenoften deliberalelyconcealedhis true opinion aboutphilosophical
his studentsto exercisetheir own logical
doctrinesin order to encourage
capacities.25
verse,"I shallcall uponbreachof
The interpretationofa subsequent
covenantand wretchedness"(tikofav rcai ra),anruptav €nraA€oouat),
providesanotherexampleof laudablehumandeceptioncouchedin deceptive
as if calling upon
terms. To call uponbreachof covenantandwretchedness,
God. soundssinful. However,if we madecovenantswickedly, we should
indeedcall uponbreachof covenant,andsucha breachof covenantwill entail
"sinceslraitis theway andnarrowthe gatethat leadsto etemal
wretchedness,
life," as opposedto the wide andeasyway that leadsto destruction.Judith,
who agreedto sleepwith Holophernes,but broke her covenantwith him,
rightly "called upon breach of covenant."26 Origen is less than
Judith'ssituation;he makesit soundas if she
in presenting
straightforward
simplyrefusedto slecpwith Holophcrncsalter heedlesslyagreeeingto do so.
Inquiring minds, familiar with lhe story, will recognizethat Judith's
to slcepwith Holophcmesis, in fact,part of a carefullyplanned
agreement
deception in his assassination.
thatculminates
A bit later on, Origen discussedthe words, "There is as it were a
fire, shut up in my bones." Origen interpres this as the fire of repentance
which Jeremiahfeelsimmediatelyupon havingsaid, "I shall not mention
him, or speakany morein his name." In the courseof his interpretationof
this part of the lament, Origen says "The word is about to be audacious
(M€Mer. rt 6 A6yos roApdv) and I do not know if it will be useful to
somesectionsof the congregation."He lhendescribesthe fire of repentance,
25GregoryThaumaturgus, Speech of Appr eciation 7.103-06.
26origen,Homilieson Jeremiah20.7.
160 JOSEPHTRICG DIVIMDECEPTION 161

which burns in the heart,and which is necessaryfor the cleansingof sin.

suitablefor the simple-mindedbelieverswho needelementarywords
Thosewho experiencerepentance
immediatelyuponsinningreceivethat fire
which come down to their own level (rd pi dpp6(ovrq roig
in this life, but thosewho do not do so will experienceit in a way that will
dr)lo{orepou rnoretouot rai 6eoptvo6 rfis dnAovor€pas
be far morepainful in the life !o comethanthe sensiblefires of any earthlv
tv \6yo6 otrovoptag atvtEao1at), in order that we may not
torturer.2T
seemto allow Celsus'attack to passwithout refutation when he
aboutOrigen'sinterpretation?perhapsit is
Whatcould be audacious
saysWhenGod.apptiesthefire like a cook.Z9
audaciousto speakaboutthe necessary
purificationt0 come,sincesuchtalk
might causeordinarychristiansto lose hcart. It is alsoaudacious,however,
This is not an isolatedpassage.It is consistentwith Origen'streatmentof
to talk about the fires which await sinnersin the afterlife as spiritual and
eternalpunishmentelsewherein his homilies,his allegorizationof "eternal
purificatoryrathertian physicalandpenal. rn on Firstprinciples origen
fire" and other punishmentsof the afterlife, which Origen presentsas
describesthe "etemalfirs" asthc fire of conscience.This is interpretedasthe
beneficialto thosepunished,in On First Principlesand his suggestionthat
purgatorialfire of I cor. 3:12,a verseLowhich origen refersin this homily
the Greeek word atoivtot may refer only to the presentataiv in his
and dealswith in somedelail earlier in the series.28In the homily Origen
Commentaryon Romans.3o
leavesthe questionopen whetheror not,thesefires are permanent,but, in
Origen, in his discussionof divine chastisement
that closesthe
doing so, he is concealinghis own opinionthat theyare not. This we can
homily, must havebeenexercisingdeccption,"hinl.ingat one thing while
tell from a revealingpassage
in theContraCelsum:
sayinganother."He interpretstheparablcsof the unforgivingservantandof
the rich man and Lazarusas statementsaboutpunishmentin the afterlife.
The Logos,accommodating
himselfto what,is appropriateto the
He suggeststhat the "torturers"to whom the servantis deliveredand the
masseswho will read the Bible (oirovoltoripevog 6' 6 )6yos
tormentof the rich manin Hadesrepresenta stateof divinepurgationbefore
d.pp6(ovra rAf1eow €vrevfopivors rrt ypa6fr), wisely urrers
purgation by the Logos, who "tries the reins and hearts." Origen's
threateningwords with a hidden meaningto frighten peoplewho
juxtapositionof the two texts is significant. The unjust servantis handed
cannotin any otherway turn from the flood of iniquities,Evenso,
over to torturers"until he shouldpay all his debt,"implying that his tonnent
however,the observantperson(6 rnp6r) will find an indicationof
is temporary.By interpretingthe parableo[ the rich manandLazarusin the
the end for whiclr thc painsand threatsare inflictedon thosewho
suffer.. . .We havebecncompelledto hint at truthswhich are not Z9Origen,Contra Celsum,tr. Henry Chadwick(Cambridge:The
UniversityPress,1965),p.276.
27rcid.,zo.g. 30SeeOrigen, Flontilieson Exodtrs6.6,On FirstPrinciptes2.10.6-
8, and Commentaryon Romans5.5, as well as Commentaryon fohn
28miO.20.3and16.5-6.SeeOrigen,On Firstprinciples,Z.S.4-5.
19.r3.82.
r62 JOSEPHTRIGG
samecontext,Origenimplies that the rich man'stormentis also temporary.
He states: "That rich man was not,worthy to be given to him who ries the
heartsandreins;thereforehe wastorturedby many. Whetheror not he might
be ableto undergoit lateris a questionI reservefor someonewho cananswer
it (f)mepov 6i el rcai txeevos roAro rdoslet rI pn, 6 \uvdpevog:
tfera((ru)."31 Having providedan exampleof God's acting like a
physicianwho hidesthe biuer in the sweetearlierin the homily, Origennow
provides,for "the personwho is able to seekwith reason",the balancing
examplewhereGod acts like the father who hidesthe sweetin the bitter,
when he allows the simple to believe in literal and everlastingfires of
judgment.
The first substantive
chapterin Henri de Lubac'sepochalstudyof
Origen'sbiblical interpretation,lTistoire
et esprit,is entitled"Griefscontre
Origdne." Are we to add a new accusation,
one which de Lubac himself
endeavored
to obviate,that of systematicduplicity on Origen'spart? On the
basisof our studyof the twentiethhomily on Jeremiah,we mustconclude
that Origen considereddeliberatedeceptiona part of God's strategyfor
winningbackerringsouls. We mustalsoconcludethathe considered
such
deceptionacceptableon thepart of spiritualChristiansin their dealingswith
simplebelieversand employedit himself. I wish to suggestfour responses
to theseconclusions.
(1) In discussing
divinedeception,
we mustdistinguish"Futh"from
"truthfulness."This is a point which SisselaBok makesin her excellent
book, Lying: Moral Choicein Public and Private Lift, which is helpful in
clarifying issuesinvolvedhere.32Bok beginsher studyby separating"truth"
3lorigen, Ilomilies on J eremiah 20.9.
32sissela Bok, Lying: Moral Choic.ein Public and Private Life
(New York: Random House, 1978).
DIVINEDECEPTION r63
issuefrom "trulhfulness"
as an epistemological as a moralissue. A typical
dodgefor liars, Bok asscrts,is to claim that,sinceit is impossibleto arrive
at absoluteEuth,their own truthfulnessis of small moment. In our case,the
equivocalcharacterof languageaboutGorl is an epistemologicalissue;the
intentionto deceiveis a moral issue. Origen,perhapsdeliberately,confuses
the two by openinghis homily with a discussionof theequivocalcharacterof
moraljustificationfor such
divine language,but he doesprovidca reasonable
deception,is alwaysbeneficialcharacter.God canpresumablybe trustedtro
know whenit is in our bestintcrestto be deceived,
whetherdivinedeception
is indeedcompatiblcwith hurnanfreeclom, is a
as Origenseemsto assume,
more difficult issue,but not to the point hcre. It is when he usesdivine
deceptionto justify deceptionon the part of falliblehumanbeingsthat the
issue becomesmorally problematical. Unfortunately,becauseof the
philosphicalconfusionwhich surroundsthe issue,this is a questionwhich
Origen doesnot address,althoughthe implicationis that the spiritual man
participates
in divinedeception.
(2) We should,by Origen'saccount,expectdeceptionin scripture;
the wordsof the Bible, takenliterally,are not alwaystrue,and ftere is no
reasonthey shouldbe. Origen'sdiscussion
of divinedeceptiondoesindeed
constitute,in de Lubac'swords,"a theoryof divineallegorisation."Given
his concernwith the Bible'sliteraltruthfulness,
Augustinewasindeedon to
somethingwhenhc questioned
Jeromc'sOrigenistinterpretationof Galatians.
(3) Deceptionis admissiblein the spiritualinterpretation
of the
Bible. We must,therefore,readOrigenasOrigenreadthe Bible. This does
not meanthatwe cansimplyreadinto Origenany out-of-theway speculation
we would like to. When Origen expresslydeniesthat he holds an opinion
and neverindicatesotherwise,we must takehim at his word. Nevertheless.
L& JOSEPHTRIGC

we must pay close attentionto what Origen actually says,and follow

carefullythe logic of his argumentsand the implicationsof the analogieshe
drawsand the scripturaltexts he cites. He does leave hints of his real
position while suggestinganotherto edity the simple or to avert tleir
suspicions.
(4) Most imporlantly,wo mustnot condemnOrigen'sduplicity,but
POETIC WORDS,ABYSMAL WORDS:
it sympathetically,
understand in his own terms. Althoughhe wasa resolute
REFLECTIONSON ORIGEN'SHERMENEUTICS
opponentof heresy,Origcn'sprimarycommitmentwas to the Bible as an
instrumentfor personalLransformation;
truth, for Origen, is not factual
PatriciaCox Miller
informationbut savingknowledge.Augustine'sprimary commitment,on SyracuseUniversity
the other hand,at leastin his yearsas a bishop,was to the Bible as an
instrumentfor maintaininginstitutionalintegrity. It is, I contend,
unfortunatethat Augustine'sfrankly inerrantistapproachcameto dominate In an essayentitled"Is therea Fish in tltis Text?,"the literary critic
the Westerntradition,and it may be held responsiblefor many of the Robert Scholesreflectsupon an anecdoteby Ezra Pound that dealswith a
difficultieswhich still plaguebiblical hermeneutics.We must nor assume particularkind of relationshipbetweena writer, writing, and what.is written
naively that a respectfor the literal senseis compatible with a modern about. Hereis thc anecdote.
approachto the Bible. Augusline had a great concernfor the literal
truthfulnessof the Bible and,arguably,a bettersenseof historythanOrigen, No man is equippedfor modernthinking until he has
but his approach!o the Bible caneasilyleadto a sterileinerrantism.It is no of Agassizandthefish:
undersoodtheanecdote
accidentthatB. B. Warfield,thefatherof Fundamentalism,
wasa distinguised A post-graduatestudent equipped with honours and
scholarof Augustine. Augustineraisesthe point in his lettersto Jerome diplomaswent to Agassizto receivsthe final and finishingtouches.
that,if the Bible containsuntruths,it cannotbe usedto confoundheretics. The greatmanofferedhim a smallfish andtold him to describeir
How might Origenhaverespondcd?I suggestthat he would say that we student:"That'sonly a sunfish."
Post-graduate
shouldreadtheBible andarguefrom it ashe did. We should,in otherwords, Agassiz: "I know that. Write a descriptionof it."
readtheBible asHenri de Lubacwisely recommended
ttratwe readOrigen,by After a few minutes the student returned with the
massiveutilizationof theavailabletexts. descriptionof the IchthusHeliodiplodokus,or whatevertermis used
to concealthe commonsunfishfrom vulgar knowledge,family of
Heliichthinkerus,elc., asfound in textbooksof the subject.
Agassizagaintold the studentto describethe fish.
166 PATRICIA COX MILLER
The studentproduceda four-pageessay. Agassizthen told
him to look at the fish. At the end of threeweeksthe fish was in an
advancedstageof decomposition,but the studentknew something
aboutit.l
Underlying this anecdoteby Poundare storiesby studentsin the
mid-nineteenthcenturywho actually experiencedsuchritual initiations at the
handsof the biologist Louis Agassiz. Into what were they being initiated?
Scholespoints out that, in the paradigmenshrinedby Agassiz,there is a
strongpresumptionthat we learnby looking and that, further,we live in "a
real and solid world in a perfectly transparentlanguage"which is thusable to
communicatethat world "as it really is." Yet, as Scholesgoeson to remark,
"To 'speakthe fish' as a biologist or a fishermanor a poet is to speakin a
particular discourse."2 Oil.,post-graduatefriend with his rotten fish was
being initiated into a specificdiscourse,a structurewithin which he could
"see"thefish.
Scholes,however,wonderswhetler the studentknew that he was
being initiated into a conceptualframework,that nothing canbe " 'seen'apart
from the conceptthat givesit status." He arguesthat it is time--indeed,past
time--to abandonthe uncritical assumptionthat has informed Western
thinking and writing, which is that "a completeself confrontsa solid world,
perceiving it directly and accurately,always capableof capturingit perfectly
in a transparentlanguage."3 "The way to seethe fish and to write the fish,"
lRobert Scholes,"Is Therea Fish in this Text?," in On Slgns,ed.
by Marshall Blonsky (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Universiry Press,
1985),p. 309.
2lbid.,p. 310.
3miO.,pp. 315,310.
POETICWORDS,ABYSMALWORDS t67
railler, "is fitst !o seehow one'sdiscoursewrites the fish. And the way to see
one discourseis to seemore than one. To write the fish in many modesis
finally to seethat one will nevercatchthe fishin any one discourse."4
I have stayedwith this fish for some time becauseI think that,
or not, the fish and structuresofperception that one brings o
decomposed
bear upon it may function as figures for one of the focal points of Origen's
hermeneuticalwork. The problem of looking-that is, of interpretation-was
centralto his writing, and it is that problemthat I wish to address.
on interpretationis double-edged.To use the
Scholes'perspective
termsin the title of this essay,a text offers to an interpreterboth abysmal
and poeticpossibilities,abysmalas in the GreekdBuooog,without bottom,
no end to meaning,no chanceof catchingthe ftsh, yet also poeticas in the
Greekrolqotg, a working relationshipwith words that disclosesnot only
multiple dimensions of the fish but also multiple dimensions of the
interpreter'sstancetowardthe fish.
"Abysmal" and "poetic" are not really two different kinds of
interpretation;rather thesetermsindicate how the mood of ttre interpreteris
valencedwhen faced with "the often problematicalprocessof meaning
multiple things simultaneouslywith one word."5 Origen'sapproachto his
fish, theBible, showsawareness quqligy,theabysmaland
of the double-edged
poeticdimensionsof any interpretativeact.
Origen's awarenessof ro(nots, of the imaginative working of
Biblical words, is evident in the opening sentenceof his first Homily on
Exodus: "I think eachword of divine scriptureis like a seedwhosenahneis
4lbid.,p. 318.
5Maureen Quilligan, The Language of Altegory: Defining the
Genre(lthaca: CornellUniversityPress,1979),p. 26.
168 PATRICIA COX MILLER
to multiply diffusely. . . . Its increaseis proportionateto the diligent labor
of the skillful farmer or the fertility of the earth."6 Words are alive,
explosive,diffuse-but only if they fall on the fertile gtound of a mind alive
to multiple meaning. In a changeof metaphor,Origen remarks in his
Commentaryon Matthew that words act as goads,proddingthe beast,the
interpreter, to move in the nuancedworld that they offer.T In yet another
changeof metaphor,Origen pictureswords in his Commcntaryon the Song
of Songsas beguiling and seductive,inflaming their readerwith desire.8 In
the Philocalia, words are shepherds;in the Homilies on Genesisthey are
springs;in theHomilies on the Songof Songsthey are, simply, mysteries.9
Yet underwhatevermetaphorOrigen discusseswords--agricultural,erotic,
bestial-it seemsclearthat wordsare active,trat ttrereis a play or an energy
packedinto language. The interpreter'stask is to let words speak,not to
6origen, Homilies on Exodus l.l , in Origen: Homilies on
Genesisand Exodus,nans.by RonaldE. Heine,The Fathersof the Church,
vol. 7l (Washington,D.C.: The CatholicUniversityof AmericaPress,
1982),p. 227.
]Origgn, Commenta.ry on Matthew2, in Philocalia 6.1, Origine
Philocalie,l--20, Sur Les EcritureJ,trans.by MargueriteHarl, SC 302
(Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1983),p. 309. SeeHarl's discussionof this
passage on p. 316.
8In his Commentaryon the Song of Songs,Origen has offered a
sustainedfiguration of the Bridegroomas word. This word smiteswith
passionate love andflirts with, beguiles,andseducesthe Bride,a figure for a
text's reader. Seethe discussionof this figuration in Patricia Cox Miller,
"'Pleasureof the Text, Text of Pleasure': Eros and Languagein Origen's
Commentaryon the Songof Songs,"Journal of the AmericanAcaaemyof
Religion54 (Summer,1986).
gorigen,
Philocalia 6.1 (t{arl, p. 309);Homilies on Genesis13
(Heine,pp. 185-95);Homilieson the Song of Songsl.4,in OrigCne:
Homilies sur le Cantiquedes Cantiques,trans.by Dom Olivier Rousseau,
SC 37 (Paris:lcs Edirionsdu Cerf, 1966),p. 81.
POETICWORDS, ABYSMAL WORDS 169
perform an exegeticaldissectionupon tlem. It is a questionof interpretative
attitude,as expressed,for example,by tle philosopherMartin Heidegger:
"Words are not terms,and thus are not like bucketsand kegsftom which we
scoopa contentthat is there. Words are wellspringsthat are found and dug
up in the telling, wellspringsthat must be found and dug up againand again,
that easilycavein, but that at timesalsowell up whenleastexpected."lo
The interpreteris not, however,merely a passiveobserverwho
watchesas meaningwells up out of language. There is work to be done. In
one of his most extendedfigures for interpretativelabor, Origen showsIsaac
dwelling at the wells of vision.ll As a type of the interpreteras well as a
type of Christ, Isaacdigs the wells of vision and doesnot merely dwell there.
Actually Isaacis re-diggingthe wells of his father,which hadbeenfilled in
by enviousPhilistines.l2 As Heideggernoted,words are well-springsthat
must be found and dug up again and again, for our ability as interpretersto
dwell in the mobile realm of figureseasilycavesin, blockedand chokedby
the wish for an end, for a word to end all words, for a final truth that will
makethingsclear,for the hopethat,as a poet saidironically, "They will get
it sraight one day at the Sorbonne."l3 Isaackept on digging--indeed,his
digging was his dwelling. On this point Origenis uncompromising:just as
languageis agonistic,so loo is interpretativeactivity.
l0Martin Heidegger,WhatIs Called Thinking?,trans.by J. Glenn
Gray (New York HarperandRow, 1968),p. 130.
llorigen, Homilieson Genesist3 (Heine,pp. 185-195).
l2lbid., r2.4(Heine,pp.180-181).
l3wallace Stevens,"Notes Toward A SupremeFiction," in
The
CollectedPoemsof WallaceStevens(New York Afrea A. Knopf, 1977),
p. 406.
 170 PATRICIA COX MILLER
In his commentaryon the story of the Wirch of Endor in I Samuel,
Origensaysthat thereis "a greatsruggle (dftv) in the languageof God."14
Biblical texts are agonisticbecausethe literal works on the pageare figures,
icons that hold a plenitudeof meaning. Thus the literal quality of every text
is metaphoric,and the interpreter'stask is !o "wake up what is useful in all
the icons."l5 In Origen'sview the Bible is a "textecrypt6," as Marguerile
Harl hasput it, and its wordsare radical metaphors,or catachreses,
which are
"violent, forced,or abusive"usesof a word "to namesomethingwhich has
no literal name."16Wordsareviolent;so alsois interpretation.
We have just heard one of Origen's forceful descriptions of
interpretativework: to wake up what is useful in the icons, to give a jolt to
a slumberingword which will not willingly discloseits dreams,its interior
visions. Elsewhereorigen resortsto more violent images. ln his Homilies
on Genesis,origen takesthe christ of the Gospelsas his model interpreter.
More specifically, it is the story of the feedingof the five thousandwith just
a few loavesof bread that engageshis interest. "Notice that the Lord in the
Gospelsbreaks a few loaves,and notice how many tlousand people he
refreshes.. . . while the loavesare whole, no one is filled nor do the loaves
themselvesappearto be increased.'l7 As origen goeson to say, the loaves
l4origen, De Engastrimutho4, in Origenes, Eustathius
von
Antiochienund Gregor von Nyssa iiber die Hexe von Endor, Kleine Texte
91t ^9d.by Erich Klostermann(Bonn: A. Marcus & E. Weber's Verlag,
r9r2).
lSlbid., 2.
16Harl,"Introduction"OrigCne: Philocalie,p. 135;on catachresis
seeJ. Hillis Miller, "Stevens'Rockand Criticism as Cure," The Georgia
Review30 (Spring,1976),p. 28 and Harl, ibid., p. 129.
l7Origen,Homilieson Genesis12 (Heine,p. 182).
POETICWORDS,ABYSMAL W.ORDS t7l
are the words of Scripture,which must be broken, "crumbledinto pieces. . .
unlessthe letter hasbeendiscussedand broken into little pieces,its meaning
cannot reach everyone."l8 Like the Christ who broke the loaves, the
interpreterbreak the word, rendingits letlersin the serviceof meaning.
In the Philocalia, Origen offers yet another image of the
interpretative process. And once again the Christ is the paradigm of the
interpreter.Scriptureas a whole,saysOrigen,is "the musicalinstrumentof
God, letting a singlemelodybe heardby way of different sounds."l9 The
maestroof this symphonicproductionis the Christ, the Word which can hear
harmonyin discord,identity in difference. The humaninterpreterworks
exactlyin this way, playing the discordantnotesso that the harmonymight
becomeapparent. The presidingfigure for all this is astonishinglystrong:
David played the lyre to appeasethe evil spirit of Saul.2o Although he does
not spell out the ramifications of this image, its place in the musical setting
is clear: as David, the interpreterappeasesevil spirits, the words themselves,
sincehis musicalability consists,accordingto Origen,in smitingor striking
the cords at the appropriatemomenL2l Striking and smiting, ttre interpreter
approachesan equally adversarialtext. The musicalmetaphorwould be quite
beguiling, lulling one to sleep,had Origen not revealedits foundationin
differenceanddiscord.
Finally there is Origen'swell-known metaphorof interpretationin
De Principiis, where words are likened to a field in which treasureis buried.
l8lbid.,pp. 182-183.
lgorigen, Philocalia 6.2 (Harl,p. 3l l).
2olbia.
21Seethediscussion
by tlarl, Origlne: Phitocalie,p.32t.
r72 PATRICIA COX MILLER
One knows that the treasureis there, but how to expose it? Using a
metaphorof hell, Origensays: "Thesetreasures
requirefor their discovering
the help of God, who aloneis able to break in piecesthe gatesof brass'that
concealthem and to burst the iron barsthat are uponthe gates..."22"God,"
in this case,is the descendent
Christharrowinghell, who is in his turn image
for the interpreterwhose work is one of breaking and ftansgression.23
Howeverpolysemoustheir potential,words are gatesof brassthat must be
brokenby active interpretation;unlessso engaged,they remainlike iron bars.
The problem,however,is this: how, exactly,doesthe interpretergo about
his violent taskwhile still respectingthe depthsof meaningin words?
The refusalof words to reveal their depthseasily is an agonyfor the
interpreter. Languageis not transparentto meaning;on the contrary, as
Origennotesoften,Biblical languageis frequentlyopaque.The letters--that
is, t}teliteral words on the page--aresometimesabsurdand they presentthe
reader with conundrums.24 As Harl has pointed out, for Origen the
"semantichabits" of the Christ as Word, as languageitself, are obscure,
2zorigen,De Principiis4.3.11,in Origen: On First Principles,
trans.by G. W. Butterworth(New York HarperandRow, 1966),p.3A6.
23origen also speaksaboutChrist as a transgressorof boundariesin
De Engastrimutho.For a discussionseePatriciaCox, "OrigenandtheWitch
of Endor: Towardan IconoclasticTypology,"Anglican TheologicalReview
66 (April, 1984):137-147.
24Onthe literal absurdityof someBiblical words, seeOrigen,De
Principiis 4.3.5 andPhilocalia 2. In his Commentaryon fohn, Origen
remarksthat the intention of Biblical authorswas "to speakthe truth at once
spiritually and bodily when that was feasible";but it was not alwayspossible
(text andEanslationin Origine: Comnrentaire
sur Saintfean,4 vols.,trans.
Cecile Blanc lParis: Les Editions du Cerf, 1966-1982),2:395). Seethe
discussionof this issuein Harl, "Introduction"to Origdne: Philocalie,pp.
94-100.
POETICWORDS,ABYSMAL WORDS 173
enigmatic, ambiguous,riddling, dark.25 Words may indeedreveal what
Origen calls "the depthsof the wisdom of God,"26but do they not also
concealthosedepthsaswell? Is there,in otherwords,a "bottom",an end to
the poetic displayof verbalpolysemy?
Witl sucha question,we begin to slide into the abysmalaspectof
interpretation,with its quandaryconcerningnot only whetherone can catch
thefish, but whetherthereis a fish to be caughtat all. In his work Against
Celsus,Origenremarksthat "the gospelso desireswise men amongbelievers
that, in order to exercisethe understandingofhearers,it hasexpressedcertain
truthsin enigmaticforms, and somein the so-calleddark sayings,someby
parables,and others by problems."27 In view of such statements,Harl
arguesthat becauseit is preciselythoseobscurepassages
of the Bible that
give accessto wisdom,the paradoxicalfact is that for Origenwisdomarises
from the silence of the text.28 Interpretationis foundedon the refusal of
speech! Suchsilenceis relatedto anotherpassagein Against Celsuswhere
Origendevelopsan extendedimagecomparingthe unlnowability of God with
Biblical texts: the obscurantistwordsof the Bible are like the "greatdeep"
tlat coversGod like a garment,like the darknessthat is God's hiding-place,
like the "depth of the knowledgeof the Father."29 Is therea God in this
text?
25MargueriteHarl, "Origdneet la S6mantiquedu LangageBiblique,"
VC 26:t6t-187:.
26origen,De Principiis4.3.4 (Butterworth,p. 296).
27Oigen, AgainstCelsus3.45,in Origen: Contra
Celsum,tlans.
uerry Chadwick(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversirypress,1965),pp. 159-
160.
28Harl,Origine: Philocalie,p.460.
29Origen,AgainstCelsus6.17(Chadwick,pp. 330-331).
r74 PATRICIA COX MILLER
One way to look at this question from Origen's perspectiveis to
examinehis famous commentin the fnst Homily on the Songof Songs.
The bride beholdsthe Bridegroom;and He, as soonas shehas seen
Him, goesaway. He doesthis frequentlythroughoutthe Song;and
that is somethingnobodycan understandwho has not sufferedit
himself. God is my witness that I have often perceived the
Bridegroomdrawing nearme and being most intenselypresentwith
me; then suddenlyHe has withdrawn and I could not find Him,
though I soughtto do so. I long, therefore,for Him to comeagain,
and sometimesHe doesso. Then, when He has appearedand I lay
hold of Him, He slips away oncemore; and,when He hasso slipped
away, my searchfor Him beginsanew.30
This statementhas typically beenusedto show Origen as a mystic--or,in
Dodds' phrase,a "mystic mumqu!."3l The soul is the Bride longing for
mystical union wittr the Christ as Bridegroom. Thereis, however,another
way to understandthis statement,for in both the Commentary and.the
Homilieson the Songof SongsOrigendevelopsa pictureof the Bridegroom
asLogos--as
langrrags--who
woos,entices,andseduces
theBride,a figurefor
a readeror interpreterof texts.32 In this case,Origen'slament about the
30Origen,Homilies on the Song of Songsl.7,in Origen: The
Songof Songs,Commentaryand HomilieJ,trans.by R. P. Lawson,Ancient
ChristianWriters 26 (New York NewmanPress,1956),pp. 279-280.
319. n. Dodds,Pagan and Christian in an Age of AnxieO (New
York W. W. Norton,1970),.p.98.
32Seenote8.
POETICWORDS, ABYSMAL WORDS 175
disappearingBridegroom, more presentwhen he is absent,can be read as
hermeneuticalcomment. The word that slips away at the momentwhen one
thinks that one has "liaid hold of it," only to return with promise of renewed
meaning,and so on ad irfinitzm, forms a precisepicture of the deferral of
final meaningcharacteristicof the interpretelsabyss. \\e Logos@ridegroom
works to de-centeror defer the interpreter's tidy structuresof meaning in
consonancewith the poeticcharacterof words,aswe haveseen.
'the world is unableto
Origen wrote in the Philocalia that if "
containthe booksthat would be written' Un.2I:251concerningthe divinity
of Jesus,it is not becauseof the number of books but becauseof the
greatnessof the realities which can't be said in human language."33
Ironically, Origen useswords in order to say that he can't use words! The
irony of this kind of statementhas been called in contemporary literary
criticism by a Frenchphrase,miseen abyme. Mise en abymeis a "namefor
the enigmaof the nameless,"an "impasseof languagewhich is that however
hard one tries to fix a word in a single senseit remainsindeterminable,
uncannilyresistingattemptsto end its movement."34The paradoxof the
miseen abymeis that "without the productionof someschema,someicon,
there can be no glimpse of the abyss, no vertigo of the underlying
nothingness.Any suchschema,however,both opensthe chasm,crealesit or
revealsit, and at the sametime fills it up, coversit over by namingit, gives
the groundlessa ground, the bottomlessa bottom."35 Any word at once
crea.tes
the "ground" of meaning,namesit "properly," so to speak,revealsthe
33origen,Philocalia I 5.19 (Harl, pp. a37-438).
34Miller,"Stevens'Rock,"
p. 11.
35bid., p. t2.
r76 PATRICIA COX MILLER
ground,and coversit over. What is the interpreterto do in the face of this
abysmalparadox?
Origen'sresponseto the silenceand the absenceat the centerof
words is allegory, that interpretativestrategymost appropriateto his abysmal
In the fragmenton I Cor. 2.I3,he says: "It is
interpretativeconsciousness.
by examiningtogetherthis and that word and by reuniting thosethat are
similar that the senseof Scripture reveals itself, as one might say."36
Anyonewho is familiar with the first book of Origen'sCommentaryon John
knows what this procedureis: all the namesof the Christ as Logos and
Wisdom are assembledand becomesuccessivemetaphorsfor eachother.37
The "ground,"the Christ, is named,but no one namesuffices;eachin turn
becomesthe figure for yet another"ground" in a constantdisplacementof
termsthat one moderncritic hascalledthe "lateraldance"of allegory.38 This
lateral danceis "an incessantmovementfrom one displacedfigural point to
anotler," an attempt to find the final figure, the trope of fropes.39 Origen
describesallegory's lateral dance thus: as soon as the interpreter "has
discovereda small fragmentof what he is seeking,he again seesother things
36origen, fragmenton I Cor. 2.13, citel in Harl, Origlne:
Philocalie,p.143.
3Torigenfollows a similarprocedurein De Principiis1.2 and4.4.1-
2.
381. Hillis Miller, "Fiction and Repetition: Tess of the
d'Urbervilles," in Forms of Modern British Fiction, ed. Alan Warren
Friedman(Austin: University of TexasPress,1975),p. 68. See also
Miller's "Stevens'Rock,"pp. 18-19,and thediscussionof Miller's conceptof
"lateral dance" in Vincent Leitch, Deconstructive Criticism (New York:
ColumbiaUniversityPress,1983),pp. 190-197.
39Leitch,Deconstructive
Criticism,p.191.
POETIC WORDS, ABYSMAL WORDS r77
that must be soughtfor, and if in turn he comesto know these,he will again
seearising out of them many more things ttrat demandinvestigation."4o
In Origen'shandsthis interpretativesmtegy is a kind of repetition,
an "interplayof opaquelysimilar things,opaquein the senseof riddling."4l
The "similar words" that Origen unitesas he interpretstexts are opaquely
similar; for how, logically, can one really say that "way," "door," "light,"
"shepherd,"and so on are "similar," exceptinsofar as they are all frguresthat
both cover and revealthe silenceand absenceof God? Origen'sword for this
aspectof allegory--this"other-saying"-ismet al ep sis: "Eansposition,"
"alternation,""succession,""tho use of one word for another."42Not only
his work, but suchscholarsas Crouzeland llarl
doesOrigenso characterize
havenoted about his work its operationby glissement--thesliding of words
into other words characteristicof his handling of a text's meaning.43 Thus,
for example,in the passagefrom the Philocalic concerningthe Christ as
is displacedby thepeacemaker,who is displacedby the
musician,the maestrro
shepherd.Only throughsuchdisplacementor deferralor discordcanmeaning
appear.
What, then, is allegory? As one critic has suggested,allegory
names an exegetical perspectivewhich affirms "the possibility of an
40origen,De Principiis4.3.14(Butterworrh,p. 311).
alJ. Hillis Miller, Fiction and Repetition: Seven Engtish Novels
(Cambridge:Ilarvard UniversityPress,1982),p. 8.
42see the discusionof this word, with many texts, by Harl,
Origine: P hilocalie,pp.133-135.
43Harl,
'Connaissance Origdne: Philocalie,p.3l2; Henri Crouzel,OrigAne
et la
Mystique'(Paris:Descl6ede Brouwer,1961),p. 58.
178 PATRICIA COX MILLER

a polysemy,inherentin the very wordson the page."4 But there

otherness,
is moreto allegorythanthis: in the handsof suchan interpreteras Origen,
allegory is the nameof interpretationas such,providedthat one brings to
interpretation the kind of poetic and abysmal recognitions that Origen
of theperceptualstructuresthatonebrings
so well. Consciousness
expressed
to words entails the recognitionthat all writing is allegory, a fall into a
poeticabyss.
The critical stancethat allegorynameshasbeenwell expressed
by
II. Spirituality--Philosophy--
VincentIritch: "Readinguncoversand confrontsa languagethat vacillates
Theology
uncontrollablybetweenthe promiseof referentialmeaningand the rhetorical
subversionof that promise. Truth is permanentlytireatened. A disruptive
tropologicallanguageendlesslyrepeatsthat threat. Whateverwisdom the
languageof the text offers is underminedthrough a continuousslide or
displacementfrom figure to substitutefigure."45 Recall the subversive
endlesslythreateninglossof meaning,yet
activity of the Logos-Bridegroom,
at the sametime promisingit! Abysmal and poetic at once,the Christ as
logos is for Origen a figure for allegoryitself, both in the Biblical text as
well as in lexts that displacethat text by interpretingit. The Logos bestowed
on Origen tle hermeneuticawarenessthat we havebeen exploring here. As
Origen's Agassiz, the word initiated him not only into looking, but into
abouthis stancetowardlooking. The gift of Logosto Origen,
consciousness
andhis gift to us, is allegory,a poeticsof the abyss.

44MaureenQuilligan, The Languageof Atlegory: Deftning the

Genre(Ithaca: Comell UniversityPress,1979),p. 26.
45leitch, DeconstructiveCriticism,p. 184.

ORIGENIAN UNDERSTANDING OF MARTYRDOM
AND ITS BIBLICAL FRAMEWORK
PamelaBright
ConcordiaUniversity, Montreal
Introduction
The title of thepaperis indicative of two underlyingquestions,
1. What characterizes
the specificallyOrigenianconceptof
martyrdom?
2. What is the role of scripturein the developmentand the
elucidationof this concept?
Methodologically,I shall concentrateon the treatise,An Exhortation
to Martyrdom,but shall draw upon other Origenianworks to test both the
consistency
of the conceptandof its Biblical framing.
The paperwill consider:
I. Thegenre,sEuctureandcontentofthetreatise.
[. The functionof dominantbiblical images.
trL An analysis of the specifically Origenian concept of
martyrdomin relation to its Biblical frame.
It will be argued that Origbn's understanding of martyrdom is
elaboratedwithin a soteriology that is, at once, eucharistic, ecclesial,
eschaologicaland,aboveall, Christological.
ORIGENIAN UNDERSTA}.IDINGOF I{ARTYRDOM 181
Theseare the very elementsthat characterizethe martyr literatureof
the early Christian communities.l Origen standsfirmly within that tradition.
But what makesfor the specifically Origenian conceptof martyrdom is the
way in which theseelementsare woven into a systematicwhole, focussing
upon martyrdom as a "specialkind of death' (rd t6tus rdv tv paprvptqt
ildvarov),z a death"for religion" (tntp e1oeBetas).3
It is in this context of martyrdom as an act of pure worship that
Origen developsthe conceptof martyrdomas a privileged momentin which
salvationis recognized,celebratedwith thanksgiving,and sharedwith others
in union with the saving death of Christ, in fulfillment of "the entire
citizenshipof thegospel(X[)."
I. Genre, Structure and Content
GENRE
TheExhortationis a work of Origen'smaturity. Written in the mid-
230's,during the persecutionsof Maximin and the overthrow of the Severan
dynasty,thework is oneofhis rale "occasional"pieces,in this caseaddressed
to his friend and patron,Ambrose,and to hotoctetus,a priestof Caesarea.4
Rich in contentand intensein emotion,the treatiseis the fruit of long years
of prayerfulreflection.
lSeeSectionIII.
ZExhortatioad martyriuml, GCS I.47.1. An Englishtranslation
of the text is provided by Rowan Greer in Origen: An Exhortation to
lI_artyrdom,Prayer & SelectedWorlcs,
Classicsof WesternSpirituality(New
York, 1979).
3mia.v, ccs 1.6.26.
4Eusebius,ChurchHistory, 6:28.
r82 PAMEI-{BRIGIIT ORIGENIAN UNDERSTANDINGOF MARTYRDOM 183

As an "exhortation,"the work is often classifiedamongthe spiritual assertsthat this is no ordinary contest,no ordinary death (V). It is reserved
writings of the early church rather than among thoseof more immediaoe for "thoseof God'sportion"(V).
theological interest. Neverthelessthis text affords significant insights into
Origen'ssoteriology-whatmight be termedhis "psychic"view of salvation. . . . the only peopleto join the contestfor true religion is the
In it we find echoesof the theory of the transformationof the "psyche"into chosenrace, the royal priesthood,tlre holy nation, the people for
"nous"in his commenton ML 16:%[,theparadoxical"losing" and "saving" his own possession
(V). 1 Pet2:9;Ex 19:6;Is 43:20-21.
of the sout "If we wish to saveour soul in order to get it back better than a
soul let us loseit by our martyrdom"(XD.5 It is the privilege of the martyr to make the "holy proclamation" of
But it is not enough to mine the text for citations illustrating salvation,"Thanksbe to God throughJesusChrist our Lord" Rom. 7:25
Origen'sthinking on various aspectsof theology. I would argue that the @).
Exhortation not only fulfills its immediate purpose of providing 2. In VI-XI Origen arguesagainstthosewho would suggestany
encouragement
to his friendsin their "presentstraits"(LI), but is a finely- form of expediencyor compromisewith idolatry, or with anythingthat would
honedwork elaboratinga theologicalreflection on maftyrdomwhich calls for disFactfrom the fullnessof the martyr'sconfessionof faith in the true God.
careful attentionto the structureand the contentof the work as a whole. By sucha confession,onebelongs"letally to God andto life with Him, and
nearHim, as thosewho will join in communionwith His only BegottenSon
STRUCTI.'RE
ANDCONTENT
andHis fellows"(X[).7
The argumentof the Exhortation moves forward in a kind of
3. XII-XVII forms a literary inclusion,framedby the relation of
insistentrhythm with passagesof dramaticurgencyalternatingwith other
martyrdom to the "agreementsabout religion" [al rcpi 1eooepelag
sectionsmorereflective,evendidacticin tone.
ow%txod in baptism(XVII):8
Broadly,the text may be dividedinto sevensections,distinguished
by thesechangesin tone, the announcement
of a new topic, or by literary
. . . amongour agreements
with God wasthe entirecitizenshipof
devicessuchasinclusions.
the Gospelwhich says,"If anyonewould comeafter me, let him
l. Introduction. I-Y describesthe termsof the conlestto which the
deny himself and takeup his crossand follow me. . . (XII)
martyrs are called. Weaving his argument around the prophetic
announcementof "affliction upon affliction" and "hopeupon hops,"6 Origen

5Cf.Hom. in LucamXXXVI;
Qe Principiis II 8:3.
7ct Heb.3:+.

6Is.28:9-tt, LXx. 8ccsr.ro.rs.

184 PAMELABRIGI{T
. . . what must be said of thosewho by denyingmakenull
andvoid theagreements
they madewith God, andwho run backto
Satan,whom theyrenouncedwhenthey werebaptised?(XVID
The renunciationsin the "agreements"
entail the following of Jesus
in whom we have a greatHigh Priestwho haspassedthroughthe heavens,
Heb.4:14, and following him,
. . . you will passthroughthe heavens,climbing abovenot only
the earth and eart}t'smysteries,but also abovethe heavensand
their mysteriesCXID.
4. In XVIII-XXVI Origenannounces
the summonsto tlre contest
in the sight of the whole cosmos(XVIII). He calls upon the exampleof the
martfs of 2 ldaccabeeswho died "for truereligion" (XXII, XXUD.
I think it extremely useful for what lies aheadto tell the story I
have summarizedfrom scriptureso that we may seehow much
power againstthe harshestsufferingsand the deepesttorturesthere
is in religion and in the spell of love for God . . . (XXV[)
5. In XXVtrI-XXX Origenfurther developsthe priestly characterof
this "perfectionin martyrdom"(XXV[I). The martyr at the thresholdof
eternity offers up the "cup of salvation." It is a "cup" of thanksgiving,as
well asa "cup" of expiation"for themany":
ORIGENIAN UNDERSTANDINGOF IVIARTYRDOM 185
. . . who elseis the blamelesspriest offering a blamelesssacrifice
than the personwho holds fast to his confession,and fulfils every
requirementtheaccountof martyrdomdemands?
CX)OQ
6. In XXI-)GVI Origen developsa series of exhortationsto
perserverence
in this "presentwinter," and warningsagainstthe slightest
compromise.
You mustkeepin mind that you cannothear,"The winter is past"
(Cant.2:11), any other way than by enteringinto this contest
with all your strengthand might and main CXXD.
He concludesthe sectionwith a reflection of the argumentsof those
who regardthe offering of burnt sacrificeto the demandor invocationof their
namesas mattersof indifferenceCXLV,)CVD.
7. Conclusion. In XLVI-LI a final exhorlation is made to be true
to the inner "yearningfor true religion and fellowship with him"9 instilled by
our maker; to withstand the wintry blasts QOVII); to receive the word of
God, "bear fruit, keep the work to the end by endurance,bearinga hundred-
fold" QOD().
Typically, for Origenthe climax is couchedin Chrisologicallerms.
The "preciousblood of the martyrs" cries to God. This "specialkind of
death"is an "exaltation"in the Johanninesenseof the death/exaltationof
Jesus(Jn. 12: 32; 2119).
9rpds airdv ehoe\etas ral rotvuvtag,ad Mart. XLVII, GCS
r.43.2-3.
186 PAMELABRIGTIT
II. The function of the dominant biblical images
The question of the role of scripture in the thought of Origen
belongsto the largerquestionofthe relationshipofphilosophyand theology
in the framingof his thought. The presentstudyis too narrowto attemptto
draw inferencesin sucha complexarea,but it may be usefulto observehow
scripturefunctions within tlte confinesof a particular topic and within a
specifictreatise.
The Exhortation is a veritabletissueof biblical material-Jiterally
hundredsof direct quotations,let aloneallusionsand conflatedtexts. But
what is of particularsignificancefrom the point of view of the questionof
thefunction of the scriptural texts is to observehow the argumentis woven
arounda numberof dominantimages,e.g. the "cup," and that this image
becomesa focus for a network of texts, the exegesisof which forms the
frameworkof the theologicalconsideration.
THECUPOFSALVATION
Origen begins a considerationof the significanceof martyrdom in
XXVIII with the imageof the "cup of salvation."Drawing attentionto the
perplexity expressedby the Psalmist,"What shall I give back to the Lord for
all his bountyto me?"@s. 116:12),he notesthe immediateresponse,"I will
takeup thecup of salvationandcall uponthe nameof thel"ord" (v. 13).
That the "cup" mentionedhere is to be interpretedas martyrdomis
clear,he argues,from the consistentuseof "cup" as imagefor martyrdomin
the Gospelnaratives. Origenpoints to Mk. 10:38("Are you able to drink
the cup that I am to drink?") and to the "cup" in the prayerofJesus in the
garden,("Father,if it be possible,removethis cup from me." lvlk. 14:36;
Mt.26:39).
ORICENIAN UNDERSTAIIDING OF IvIARTYRDOM r87
Finally, he arguesthat this is indeed the senseintendedby the
Psalmist,as demonstrated vsrse,"Preciousin the sight of
by the subsequent
theLord is the deathof his saints"(v. 15).
In the Homily on Leviticus, 2i2, when commenting on the
eucharisticofferings, Origen notesthat the sacrificeof salvationis offered by
thoseawareof their own salvation. This point is madeclearerin the lines of
the argumentinthe Exhortation.Martyrdomis theday of salvation,
. . . and God saysthrough the prophet, "In an acceptabletime I
haveheardyou, and on the day of salvationI havehelpedyou."
What other time, then, is more acceptablethan when for piety
toward God in Christ we are led in processionbefore the world . .
What otherday is so much a day of salvationas the one when
we gain suchadeliverance.. . ? QOII)
Again in theExhortation, speakingof the desirefor "deliverance"
from the earthlybody, Origencomments:
Who amongthosewho groan in this tabernaclebecausethey are
weighed down by the comrptible body will not first give thanks
saying: "Who shalldeliverme from thisbody of deatl?" He sees
that by his confessionhe has beendeliveredfrom the body of
deathand with holy lips will cry: Thanksbe to God through
JesusChristour Lord!" (I[)
The "holy proclamation"of thanksgivingis witnessedto constantly
in the martyr literatureof the early church. we hearit as cyprian receives
188 PAMEI*A,BRIGTIT
the death sentence. The Marryrdom of Polycarp records the prayer of the
martyr bishop of Smyrna:
. . . I bless theebecauseyou havedeemedme worthy of this day
and hour to take my part in the numberof ttre martyrs,in the cup
of Christ . . . for this and everything I praise you, I bless you, I
glorify you, through the eternal High Priest, your beloved
servant.. .10
In Origen, this eucharisticaspectof martyrdomis set within his
broaderperspectiveof Christian perfection for the whole of life to be lived
eucharistically. In the Exhortation, he speaksof this daily interior
martyrdom,
"Daily" he pouredout his "soul" by himself, rebuking it again
and againfor being sorrowful and disquietedin its weakness,and
saying, "I will enter the place of the marvelloustabernacleup to
the house of God, with the voice of rejoicing and of the
thanksgivingof a festal sound"(III).
However, while all are called to live (and die) eucharistically,yet,
accordingto Origen, it is especiallythe martyr, in that "preciousdeath,"who
performs the priestly act of the offering of the "sacrifice of salvation."
Commentingon Ps. 116,Origen claims that the saint, searchingout "what
he can do for the Lord in return for everythinghe hasobtainedfrom him . . .
10C.Richardson,Early Chistian Fathers, Library of Christian
ClassicsI, (New York, 1953),p. 154.
ORIGENIAN UNDERSTA}.IDINGOF MARTYRDOM 189
finds that nothing else can be given to God from a person of high purpose
that will so balancehis benefitsasperfectionin martyrdom"(XXVIID.
At that "acceptabletime," on that "day of salvation,"Q(LI[) in vivid
of the gift of salvation(Hom.Lev.2:2), themartyris privilegedo
awareness
utter the "holy proclamauon"- "Thanksbe to God!" (I[; XXVIID.
''MIMSTERINGFORGTVENESS''
The image of the "cup" leadsto a secondconsideration,martyrdom
as expiationfor sin. Sressingagainthe evangelicalsourceof his exegesis,
Origennotesthat the sameversethat spokeof martyrdomas a "cup," now
speaksof it in termsof a "baptism." "Ate you able to drink the cup that I
drink or to be baptizedwith the baptismwith which I am baptised?" (Mk.
10:38).
Considerwell whetherbaptismby martyrdom,just as the Savior's
brought cleansingto the world, may not also serveto cleanse
many. For just as thosewho servedthe altar accordingto the
Law of Mosesthought they were ministering forgivenessof sins
to the peopleby the blood of goatsandbulls so also the soulsof
thosewho havebeenbeheadedfor their witnessto Jesusdo not
servethe heavenlyalar in vain and ministerforgivenessof sinsto
thosewho pray ffXX).
The final commentin XXX links this conceptof martyrdomas a
"ministry at the heavenly altar" to the Christological theme dominating the
Epistle to the Hebrews--thesacrificial deathof Jesusimaged as the entry of
the High Priest into the sanctuaryon Yom Kippur.
190 PAMELABRIGIIT
Origen'sunderstandingof the atoning characterof martyrdomis
witnessedin a numberof his writings. In his Homily on Leviticus 2l4,he
includesmartyrdomamongthe seven"remissionsfor sin." lnthe Homily on
Numbers 10:2, he speaksof the martyrs as precious victims of the
propitiationfor sinners.ll TheExhortatian,itself,concludeswith a reference
to the expiationof martyrdom:
. . . and perhapsjust as we havebeenredeemedby the precious
blood of Jesus,who receivedthe Name above every name,so
somewill be redeemedby the preciousblood of the martyrs. . .
(L).
At the beginningof the Exhortation, Origen had insistedthat
martyrdom was the prerogativeof the true believer: ". . . lhe only people to
join the contestfor true religion is the chosenrace,the royal priesthood,tle
holy nation,the peoplefor his own possession" (V). Thus martyrdomis an
act of true worship and priestly in character.The imageof the ',cup" thus
introducesthe "priestly" aspectof the Origenianconceptof martyrdomin
terms of the offerings of the "sacrifice of salvation"--thethanksgiving
sacrifice,and of the sin offering.
TIIE JOURNEY/ASCENT
OFTHESOUL
The "day of salvation"on which tle "cup" is offeredis alsothe day
of the glorious departurefrom this world, when the painful following of the
crucified Jesusis transformedinto the ascentthrough the heavensin the
companyof the greatHigh Priest(IIeb. 4:14).
llSee also Hom. on John 6:54.
ORIGENIAN UNDERSTANDINGOF MARTYRDOM 191
. . . and if you do not shrink from what following him meansyou
will passthroughthe heavens,climbing abovenot only earthand
earth'smysteries,but also abovethe heavensand their mysteries
Qm).
The Exhortation is filled with Biblical allusions, depicting
martyrdom as a "journey/ascent"of the soul, so characteristically an
Origeniantheme.
"Deliveredftom the body of death"([I), the martyr hearsnot the
commandto Abraham, "Come out of your land," but "Come out of the
whole earth"(V). Losing,yet, paradoxically,savingthe soul for the sakeof
the Gospel(XII), the martyr climbs the heavens(XIII)' "teturning like an
eagleto the houseof the master"(XV). In suffering, "travelling the narrow
and hard way of winter," the martyr hearsthe voice of the Beloved,"Arise,
andcomeaway . . . the winteris past"CXXD. "You go in processionbearing
the crossof Jesusand following him . . . and he is with you !o show you the
way to the Paradiseof God, past the cherubim,the flaming sword to the tree
of life" (XXXVD. The Word of God, "living and active,sharperthan any
two-edgedsword" now drawsa sword "betweenthe imageof the manof dust
and the imageof the man of heaven"so that "by takingour heavenlypart at
this time, he may later makeus entfuelyheavenly,if we are worthy of not
remainingcut in two" (XXXVII).l2
Just as the image of the "cup of salvation"is the referentaround
which Origendevelopsthe conceptof the priestlyaspectsof martyrdom,in
the Biblical imagesof thejourney/ascent,
the eschatological
dimensionsare
l2Heb.4:2; I Cor t5:47.
 192 PAMELABRICHI
explored. Within this eschatologicalperspective,two elementscan be
discerned,first the emphasison the salvationof the soul--a "psychic"
soteriology--and
secondly,therelationbetweenmartyrdomand"gnosis,"
The drama of the "return of the soul" dominates Origen's
eschatologyand leaves its imprint on his concept of martyrdom. As
"foreignersfrom the body" (XLVII) and "true Hebrewsin exile from our
homeland"(XXXil), we zueencouragedto look upon martyrdomas the
blessedmomentof separation,not only from the earthly body, but also from
every corporealthing (III). This concentrationon the salvationof the soul
altogethersubordinatesthe eschatologicalexpectationof the resurrectionof
the body--socentralin the expressionsof faith of the early church--andwhen
he doesmakesucha referenceit is phrasedin the "spiritualized"languageof 1
Corinthians 15, ". . that later he may make us entirely heavenly"
QofivrD.
The secondelementof Origen'seschaiologicalview of martyr.domis
its relationshipto "gnosis"--therevelationof mysteries.
. . . it is clearthatjust as eachone of our membersis constituted
by natureto preservea relation properto it, the eyesin relation to
what is intelligible and to God who transcendsthe intelligible
order . . . why do we hesitatero put off the perishablebody . . .
By the true and unceasingLight of knowledgeour mindswill be
enlightenedto gazeupon what is by nature to be seenin that
Light with eyesilluminedby theLord'scommandment
()OVD.
Exploring the "deeperinsights"of Is. 43:3-4 in the conrextof the
ransomgiven for our soul in the "most preciousblood" of Christ, Origen
ORIGENIANUNDERSTA}IDINGOFMARTYRDOM I93
bids the martyr to hastento Christ, and being receivedas a friend, "face to
face,""beyondthe enigmas,"beyondthe "thirdheavens,"
. . . you will consequentlyknow more and grcater things than the
unspeakablewords tlen revealedto Paul, after which he came
down from the thAd heaven.But you will not comedown if you
take up your crossand follow Jesuswhom we have as a great
High Priest who haspassedthroughtlte heavens. . . CXm)
TTIEEPISTLETOTHEHEBREWS
Again and again,at the points of intersectionof all theselines of
propitiatory, eschatological--thereoccurs a
argumentation--eucharistic,
constantbiblical image,the High Priestof theEpistleto theHebrews.
The great High Priest,the revealerof the heavenlymysteries,the
priestandvictim offeringhis own "mostpreciousblood" for theremissionof
the sins of "the many" is the obviousfocus for the variouslines of thought
asOrigen contemplatesthe meaningof Christianmartyrdom.
At the beginningof the discussionof the function of the biblical
material in the Exhortation, attention was drawn to the richnessof the
scriptural content in the treatise, not only in direct citation, but also
allusions. This richnessis further enhancedby the wide rangeof the biblical
lexts over which Origen'sthoughtroamsso freely-an obviouswitnessto the
long years devoted to the exposition of scripture. However in the
developmentof the variousaspectsof his teachingon martyrdom,this paper
has suggestedthat certainimageshavebeen vehiclesfor his reflection. I
would suggestthat the significanceof the Epistle to the Hebrewsfor the
Exhortation lies not so much in the frequencyof its citation--thoughthis is
considerable--butin its function within the text. Its function lies both in
194 PAMEI.-A,BRIGTIT ORICENIAN I-INDERSTANDINGOF N4ARTYRDOM 195

providing a focus for the lines of thoughtdevelopedin the imagesof the
"cup" and the "ascent"of Christ, the High Priest,as well as in providing a
generalambiancefor the fteatrnentof the topic. It is this ambiancethat
distinguishesOrigen'streatmentof martyrdomwithin the martyr literature of
the early church.
III. The Origenian Concept of Martyrdom and its Biblicat
Frame
THETRADUIONALASPECTS
An important aspectof the Origenian conceptof martyrdom is the
degreeto which it sharesthe raditional featuresof the martyr literatureof the
very early Christian communities.
The Exhortatlaz presentsthe familiar image of the contestwith the
triumphal witnessof the "noble athletes"(I) setagainsta backdropof cosmic
proportions:
setting up sturdy pillars . . . to draw upon themselvesthe attacks
of the Evil One.13
Again, in the long section(XX-XXVID Origen recountsthe exploits
of the Maccabeanmartyrs,Eleazar,and the mother and her sevensons,2
Macc. 7: 18-42. This inclusion demonstratesonce again the church's
enthusiasmfor this materid as well as the rootednessof its understandingof
martyrdom in the eschatologicalaspectsof such writings as the Maccabees
andtheWisdomof Solomon.
Origen's concept of martyrdom shares the eucharistic and
Christological characterof the early literature. The eucharisticovertonesof
the narrativeof Polycarp'sdeathhave alreadybeennoted,l4 and the petition
of Ignatiusis justly famous:
I am the wheat of God, and let me be glound by the teeth of wild
beasts,that I may be found the pure breadof God.15

A greattheate is filled wittr spectatorsto watch your contestsand

The Christologicalfocus of Origen'sconceptof martyrdomis also
your summonsto martyrdom. . . the whole world . . . the angels
sharedby the early literature. That martyrdom is "true discipleship" and a
of the left and the right . . . all thoseof God'sportion . . . those
form of Christ-likeness
is evidentin the Letter of the Lyon community. The
of the other portions . . . the floods . . . the mountains. . . the
youngadvocate,Vettius Apagathus,was only too glad "to lay down his life
trees. . . the powersbelow . . .(XVIID.
for his fellow Christian"(I John 3:16) for he was a true disciple of Christ,

We hear the sameheightenedlanguageand sensethe dramatic

interplay of cosmic forcesin theLetter of the Martyrs of Lyon half a century
13 Charles Kannengiesser,ed., Pamela Bright, trans., EarIy
before: Christian Spirituality @hiladelphia,1986),39.

l4suprapage188.
The Adversary hurtled down in full force . . . taking the field
L5Ep.to Romans4.
againsthim was the Graceof God protectingthe weak . . . and
T96 PAMELABRIGTIT
"following the Lamb whereverhe goes" (Rev. 14:4).16In the samework,
thereis a striking picture of the young slave,Blandina.
All the while, Blandina,hangingfrom a stake,was exposedas
bait for the wild beastswhich had beenloosedfor the attack. She
seemedto hang there in the form of a cross and continuedto
inspire with great enrhusiasmthose still sruggling in the
combat. In the midst of their anguish,through their sister it
seemedto them that they saw with the eyesof their bodies,him,
who wascrucifiedfor them so that he might convincethosewho
believedin him that all who suffer for Christ'sglory will have
etemalfellowshipwith the living God.
It is interestingto comparethe writer's reflection on the "exodus"of
Blandinawith the exodus/ascent
themein Origen.
As for the blessedBlandina,last of all, like a noble mother [2
Macc. 7:20ffl havingencouragedher childrenand sentthem on
before her in triumph to the King, sheherself set out on the path
of her children'ssuffering, hasteningtowardsthem, rejoicing and
exulting becauseof her own exodusas one being invited to a
bridal feast [Rev. 19:9] ratler than as one being thrown to the
beasts.l7
I 6Kannengiesser
& Bright, Early C hristian Spirituality, 45.
lTKannengiesser
& Bright,Early C hristian Spiritualiry, 48.
oF IVIARTYRDOM
ORIGENIANUNDERSTAIIDING 197
Grantedthe differencesin the purposeand style of the two works,
the Lyon letter speaksof the "exodus"solely in Biblical terms allusive of
Maccabeesand Revelation,while Origen integrateshis own anthropological
viewpoint with that of scripture. It is this systematicintegration of his own
"psychic" anthopologyl8 with the traditionalspiritualityof the churchthat
so distinguishesthe Origenianconceptof marqndom.
MARTYRDOMA}.IDECCLESIOI.OGY
The ecclesiologicalimplications of martyrdomfor the early church
can hardly be exaggerated. The complexity of the issues surrounding
atonementand remissionof sin are all too evident in the literatureof the
North African Church. In fact it may be arguedthat the maxtyr debatewas
instrumentalin the bias towardsecclesiologicalreflection which characteiTed
the North African communities.
The questionof the ecclesiologicaldimensionof Origen'sconceptof
martyrdomcalls for a more elaborateanalysisthan that allowed by the scope
of this paper. Of primary importanceis his insistenceon the conceptof the
"ecclesia"--the"peopleof God" as a priestly people,the holy nation--"the
only people to join the contestfor true religion" (V). From that premisehe
developshis conceptof the priestly dimensionsof martyrdom in relation to
the atoningdeathof Chrisl It is the full citizenshipof the Gospel' (Xtr).
But this aspectof "full citizenship"in martyrdomis relatedto the
vexedquestionof the "gnostic"levels of spirituality in the church. At the
beginning of the Exhortdtion origen insists that the martyrs have advanced
beyond the milk of a "babe in Christ," and have grown in spiritual stature.
18"Why do we hang back and hesitateto put off the perishable
body, the earthly tent that hindersus, weighsdown the thoughtfulmind?"
(Wis.9:15)OGVID.
198 PAMEI.ABRIGTIT ORIGENIANUNDERSTAI.IDINGOFIVIARTYRDOM 199

The distinction in spiritual levels does not stop here. He further insists on tendernesswent andpleadedwith the Fatheron their behalf. They
the different levelswithin the martyr ranks! askedfor life, andHe gaveit to them,and they sharedit with their
neighborwhen they went forth to God in completeniumph.lg
Therefore,one of those already martyred and who possessed
somethingmore than many martyrs in their Christian love of Profoundly in touch with the spiritual vision of the early Christian
learningwill ascendquite swiftly !o thoseheightsCXIV). communitiesin their affirmation of the significanceof martyrdom,Origen, as
exegeteand theologian,probes the meaningof what he terms "this special
The martyrs offer the "cup of salvation" in thanksgivingfor the gift kind of death" (L). The Exhortation revealshim to be in a creativeradition
of "perfection in martyrdom" (XXVIII). This correlation of martyrdom, of scriptural interpretation,in a living Eadition of Christian spirituality, and
perfection and salvation he shareswith the author of the Epistle to the contributing his own geniusof speculativeand systematicthought to a very
Hebrews (Heb.2:10; 5:9;7:28;10:14),andhe int€gratesthis conceptwithin rich areaofChristian experience.
the Alexandrianthemeof Christiangnosis. Following the crucified Lord
who cameto perfectionin suffering,accordingto Hebrews(Heb. 5:8), the
martyrs cross over the thresholdof death and ascendtowards the heavenly
sanctuarywift Christ, the High Priest of Salvation. "Then you will know as
friends of the Father and teacherin heaven" CXIII). There ". . .washedof
every sin, we may pressour existencewith our fellow contestantsnear the
altar in heaven"(XXXD(). Perfectedin the contemplationof the mysteriesof
God (XI[), they are united in the savingpurposeof Christ, crucified and
exalted(L). At one and the sametime, the martyr and "gnostic" ministersat
the heavenlyaltar-at the sametime perfect in contemplationand most active
on behalf of the church. More precisely, such a one is at the heart of the
Church. This conceptof the ecclesialrole of martyrdomis deeplyrooted in
the martyr literature. In the closing commentsof the Irtter of the martyrs of
Lyon weread:

They did not boastover the oneswho hadfallen. On the conEary,

of their riches they gave to those in need,and with motherly
lgKannengiesser& Bright" Early Christian Spirituality, 50.

THE ROLE OF PRAYER IN ORIGEN'S HOMILIES1
Daniel Sheerin
Univenity of Notre Dame
Into God'sWord, asin a palacefair,
Thou leadeston and on, while still beyond
Eachchamber,touchedby holy wisdom'swand,
Anotheropes,morebeautifulandrare;
And thou in eachart lneeling down in prayer...
- from Origen by IsaacWilliams in Lyra Apostolica.
lThis discussionis, to a degree, anticipated by and is to be
supplementedby the sketchof Origen'spreachingby ThomasK. Carroll,
Preachingthe Word,Messageof theFathersof the Church.l1 (Wilmington:
Michael Glazier, 1984), 42-62, esp. 43-47, "The Liturgical Dimension."
Referencesto Origen's homilies'are made simply by the standardLatin
siglum (from the StuttgartVulgate) for the book of Scripture involved,
followed by the number of the homily and of the paragraphwirhin it;
referenceo the GCS editions is madein parentheses.Origen'shomilies on
the Psalmsare cited with ttre siglum Ps followed by the numberof thc psalm
with the numberof the homily and its internaldivision after a slash;reference
toPL 12 is given in parentheses.The Tractatusin Psalmosrecently ascribed
to Origen (seeCPG #1429) are cited as TrPs with the appropriatenumber;
referenceto CCSL 72 is given.in parentheses.Origen'scommenlariesare
cited with the siglum Com prefixed to the siglum for the book of Scripture,
with GCSreferencein parentheses.
THE ROLE OF PRAYER IN ORIGEN'SHOMILIES 201
Origen's homilies, for all the problemsassociatedwith their
transmission,still placeus in the milieu of the living word, the word living
andwe find in the homilies,not only exegesis,however
in the congregation,
learned,however insightful, however devout, but viva voce exegesis
in varying degrees,all threeof the
presentedto the church,encompassing,
nutrimentaspiritus which Origen lists when urging his peopleto frequent
attentionto the word of God in church: divina lectio, orationesassiduae,and
sermodactrinae.2
My topic is the role of prayer in Origen'shomilies. Let me first
makeclear what I will not be addressing.Origenprovidesin his homilies
manycommentson the natureandpracticeof prayer;3and theseobservations
and practical exhortations,as well as Origen'seuchologicalpraxis in the
homilies, supportand supplement,but in somerespectsseemto disagree
with his theoreticaltreatmentof prayerin De oratione! Vtanyof the prayers
2Lv 9.7 @32.5-6):on study, preaching,and prayer as priestly
functions,seeLv 6.6 (369.17-370.11).
3see Appendix, "Origen'sobiter dicta on prayerin the homilies,"
and details of euchologicalpraxis excerptedby V. Saxer," 'Il dtenditles
mains d I'heurede sa Passion': Le thdmede I'oranV-tedansla litt6rature
chrdtiennedes IIe et IIIe sidcles,"Augustinianum20 [f980]) 335-365,re
Origen, 352-357;and by W. Schiitz,Der christliche Gottesdienstbei
Origenes(Stuttgarc Calwer,1984),passim,esp.136-42.
4Any treatmentof Origen on prayer which focuseson the De
orationeto the virtual exclusionof the homiliesis boundto providea point
of view distortedin somerespects,just as theDe oratione itself gives a
distortedview. Note, e.g.,aproposof the subordinationism perceivedin the
De oratione, the remarksof A. Ilamman (Early Christian Prayers, tr.W.
Mitchell [Chicago: H. Regnery,t96tf,43, n. 1), of C. Riggi ("Tipi di preci
liturgiche e strutturaeucologicanel trattatelloorigenianoiSula pieghiera',"
Ephemeridesliturgicae88 U9741370),andof A. Bouley(From Friedom to
Formula: TheEvolutionof theEucharisticPrayerfrom Oral Improvisation
to WrittenTexrs[Washing[on:CatholicUniversityof AmericaPress,1981],
138,n. 217) on prayeraddressed to Christin the homilies.
202 DANIELSHEERIN
which concludethe homilies, in particular the collect-like prayers,have
drawn the attentionof liturgical historians,and somehavebeenincludedin
the collectionsof Cabrol and Leclercq,of Hamman,and of Lodi,s though
tlese concludingprayershavebeenonly partiallystudiedin detail.6 Someof
the phenomenawhich I will be describingand illustrating occur in Origen's
commentariesas well,7 but I havechosento focuson Origen'shomilies,to
seethe archetypalexegeteat work aspreacher,in rudio ecclesiae,presenting
the Scriptureto a popular audience,and I wish to considertwo principal
aspecsof the role of prayerin Origen'shomilies:
L the role of prayerin the homiletic encounterwith Scripture,
and,relatedto this,
n the paradigmaticrole of prayerin the homilies.
Origen the homilist describesa numberof considerableproblemsin
his ministry, problemsadditionalto thosefacedby a learnedcommentator
who is drawn to rise abovethe letter in his exegesis.Origen finds himself
working in a scopeat once more narow and more broad than that of the
commentator.He hasonly the limited time8 of the homilist, notthe otium
5F. Cabrol and H. Leclercq,MonumentaEcclesiaeLiturgica, l.l,
(Paris: Firmin Didot, 1895-1902),114-30;A. Hamman,Early Christian
Prayers, 40-43;E. Irdi, Enchir idion euchologicumfo ntium litur gicorum
(Roma:Edizioneliturgiche,1979),151-54.
6see H. Crouzel,"Les doxologiesfinales des homdliesd'Orig0ne
selon le texte grec et les versionslatines,"Augustinianum20 (f980), 95-
r07.
TForexample,ComMt 16.9(503.5-3),16.29(574.28-33);Comlo
r.r5 (19.32-34),20.r (327.2-rr), 28.1 (389.20-390.3),32.r (425.5-6);
ComRmpr (PL f 14.833AB);compareContraCe\sum1.71,2.79,4.99,5.I,
6.8I,7.L,8.1, 8.76,Peri archon1.4.2;De oratione2.6.
8Fo, someof Origen'sremarksaboutconstraintsdue to time, seeEx
1.1(145.20-146.5),Ex 2.4 (159.26-28),Nm 6.1 (31.4-10),Nm 27.2(258.5-
7,19-21.,)TrPs89 (26-30),Ez ll.5 (431.19-27).
THE ROLE OF PRAYER IN ORIGEN'SHOMILIES 203
scribentis.9He is not writing for the motivatedand diligent,l0 but speaking
to that net cast into the sea,a congregationin church, and must take their
impatience and relative lack of capacity into account:
". . . sincethereis not time enoughto discussall aspectsindividually--for
the listenersin church value brevity--nonetheless,either discussinga few of
the text's main points, or gatheringblossomsfrom it here and there,we will
attemptto provide someconsolationfor the listeners,"etc. (Idc6.1 t498.21-
zq).LL Moreover, Origen seemsto expressgenuinereservationsabout
baring the mysteriesof Scripturebefore the unsophisticated.l2But *re
edification and consolationl3of his audienceare Origen'sgoals,and he is
preparedto be selective,l4and to run the risk of divulging things perhaps
9Work of homiliist contrastedto that of commentator: Lv 1.1
(281.23-26),Nm 14.1 (120.1-10),Idc 8.3 (5I0.2a-27);seealso Rufinus'
contrast of the two genresin the preface to his translation of Origen's
Homilieson Numbers(in GCS edl.2l-2.2).
l0origen compliainsof the difficulty of motivating his hearers,even
the youngamongthem,to the studyof ScriptureinEz 13.3(448,18-21).
1lon this point seealsoGn 2.6 (38.26-27),Ex l.l (146.4-5),Nm
27.4 (261.24-262.3),TrPs 7 (4143), Ez lI.5 (431.19-27): for a more
detailedaccountseeSchiitz 107-114.
12S"",e.g.,Nm 22.2(2M.21-?t4),Ez1.3(325.2-16),
Ir 35 (201.4-
6).
13seeNm 5.3 Nm 24.r (224.18-23),
Ios 20.1(415.7-
Q8.29-29.2),
t2).
r4cn 2.6 (38.23-27),Ex 1.1 (146.3-5),Ex 2.4 (159.29),Nm 6.1
(31.4-10),Idc 6.I (498.23-2q,Idc 8.3 (510.24-n).
2M DANIELSTIEERIN
betterleft hiddenl5(thougha decentobscuritymustbe maintained),16
in the
hopeof achievingtlem.
For his own effectivenessin undersiandingthe word of God and
presentinghis understandings
prudently and effectively to his audience,
Origen must rely on divine help, and he must have recourseto prayer to
obtain it. Compact allusions to his reliance on God's help occur, too
frequentlyto cite, in parentheticalabsoluteconstructions(revelanteDeo,
airoi 666yrog ro0 triyov, etc.), in conditionalconstructions(Si gratia
Domini nos visitare dignetur,tdv 6 1eits 8t&{.,etc.),and in limiting and
relative constructionsQtroutdominusdederit,ff tSurev 6 tr6yog). That
this aid is associatedwith prayer is madeclear by Origen's allusions to the
necessityof his prayer for his own illumination at importantjuncturesin the
viva voce delivery of his homilies, in prologues,and at fiansitions, e.g.:
"For I truly considermyself unequalto explainingthe mysterieswhich this
book of Numberscontains,and far below explainingthoseenclosedin the
book of Deuteronomy. And thereforewe hastento come to Joshua{esus,
not the sonof Nave,but to JesusChrist." (Nm 1.31727.20-3.111.t7
Origen alsoacknowledgesttrenecessityof divine help, andof prayer
to obtain it, for his congregation. It shouldbe noted parentheticallythat
discernmentof referenceto preacherfrom referenceto congregationin such
passagesis complicatedby Origen'sfrequentuseof the first personplural to
refer both to himself and to his audience.The ambiguityarising from this
15Nm 5.3 (28.29
-zg.2),Nm 22.2(zo6.2t-z/+,Ez r.3 (325.24).
16Nm4.3(23.r-6),Ezr.3 (32s.2-t6).
l7SeealsoGn2.3(30.4-7),Gn4.6(56.17-Ig),Ex
3.2(19.23-25),
Lv 5.5(343.15-18), Lv 5.8(348.5-8),
Lv 6.1(359.10-14),
Nm 13.4(112.8-
l1), Ex II.I (42/t.13-16).
THE ROLE OF PRAYER IN ORICENS HOMILIES 205
hindersthe consfructionof a nice taxonomy,but must have had the happy
effect, from a rhetorical and pedagogicalpoint of view, of including the
congregationin their teacher'squest for meaning in Scripture and of
inculcatingthe correct,God-wardattitudeof the devoutreader. Homily is,
after all, in Origen'sview, the commonendeavorof preacherand people,
whetherit be porrayed asa commonenquiry,or asa commonendeavorwith
preacherand people fulfilling their various roles in liturgico-homiletic
activity.l8 But I think we can seeOrigen teachingthe people the necessity
of prayer for divine aid in their encounterwith Scripture in the following
examples: "From this it is clear that we must not only bring study to bear
on the learningof Scripture,but we must alsopray andbeseechthe Lord day
and night, that the Lamb from the tribe of Judamay come,and deign to take
up thebook that hasbeensealedandopenit." (Ex 12.41266.20-231),
or "We
must pray to the Lord, we must pray to the Holy Spirit, that He may deign
to takeawayeverycloud,everydarkness,"etc. (Lv 1.1[281.18-20]),or ". . .
but let us be turned to the Lord, that He may take away the veil of the letter
for us, that ttrecountenance
of Mosesmay appearto us not misshapen,but
gloriousandbeautiful"(Nm 7.2 140.27-2gl).19
Origen repeatedlylinks the receipt of divine aid for his effective
preachingand his audience'sfecundreceptionof the word to the people's
prayers;he acknowledges
the contributionoftheir prayerasa necessary
pre-
l8Commonenquiry,Ios 7.3 (330.12-16),
andseeCarrollp. 43; for
rolesof priestandpeopleseeTrPs9 (1-6).
l9See also Gn 6.1 (66.12-18),Gn 12.1 (106.20-25),
Nm 27.1
(258.2-5),Is 5.2 (2&5 -r2).
2M DA}IIELSIIEERIN
to the homilist'sundersandingof Scripnre and
conditionand accompaniment
ftuidul preachingof it.2o
It should come,then, as no surprisethat we find Origen requesting
the prayersof the people,both for hiSown work, e.g.: "And so, while sheis
still speaking,the Bridegroom comes. She poins Him out with her finger,
and says: 'BeholdHe comes,leapingupon the mountains.'. . . Pray that I
'Behold He comes.' For if I am able to explain the
too may be able to say
'Behold He comes.'" (Ct 2.10
word of God, in a certain way I too say
,2L andfor preacherandpeopletogether,e.g.: "And now one
t55.28-56.61)
pericopeis completed;let us begin the second. And indeed, from the very
beginning it containsextraordinarymatters,and as we approachthe text, let
us askJesusto come,andurgehim to comequitemanifestlyandclearly,that
comingHe may teachall of us. . . ." (Ier lg.l5 t173.3-7D.22
The secondaspectof therole of prayerin Origen'shomilieswhich I
wish to discussis the paradigmaticcharacterof prayer. We have seenthat
Origenteachesby insruction, example,and exhortationthe prayerful animde
2hnis acknowledgement canbe foundin prologues,Gn 3.1 (39.13-
19), Gn 9.r (86.25-27),Ex 9.2 (237.20),Lv 5.2 (335.17-20),Lv 6.1
(359.10-14), Nm 20.1 (185.14-15),Nm 26.3Q49.r4-16),Ios8.3 (338.4-7),
TrPs 9 (l-6), Ct l.I (28.19-20);at crucesin the scriptural text, Gn 3.5
(44.15-23),Lv 12.4 (460.8-11),Lv 14.4 (484.10-11),Ios 26.2 (458.24-
459.6),Ez 4.3 (363.29-364.2),Ez 7.9 (399.29-400.6),and in Origen's
work in Ps 3614.3(1357A8).
portrayalof thepreacher's
2lOth". examplesof requestsfor people'sprayer for preacher,in
prologueNm 19.1(176.23-26),ls5.1 (263.23-26), Is 7.1 (279.r3-I7),Is 9.1
(288.11-13),I-c,32 (182.3-16),in transition,Nm 26.3 (248.26-249.1), in
Ps 3614.4(1358B),Ez 2.5 (347.19-23).
excursus,
22seealso,in prologue,Gn 7.1 (70.I2-I4), Lv 13.1(468.4-7),Is
5.2 (2&.5-12\,Lc 35 (196.3-11), I* fre I25 (278.4-6);in transition,Lv 6.4
(365.28-366.4),Lvr3.2 (468.20-23),Nm r2.4 (rM.24), Nm 26.3 (248.26-
249.I,2/+9.14-19);at crux, I Rg 1.3(5.8-15);in excursus, Is 6.3 (274.4-6):
in concl.Lv 6.6 (370.4-11).
THE ROIE OF PRAYER IN ORICEN'S HOMILIES 207
with which one shouldapproachthe word of God. He also provides,through
exhortation and example,instruction, both as to pattern and content, in the
appropriate,prayerful responseto the word of God in general,and in quite
specific situations.
This is, in a sense, an integral part of Origen's homiletic
insfruction,for in his teaching,meditationon the Law of the Lord andprayer
are inextricably 1inked,23prayer being the necessaryprelude, as we have
seen,and the necessaryresponseto the reading/hearingof Scriptureas well.
He teachesthis by examplein the prayerful conclusionsof many of the
homilies,expeciallythoseof the surgentestype: "And so, rising up, let us
pray that we may frnd always ready this sword of the spirit by which to
destroy the seedsand the very seedbedsof sin, and that God may be
propitious to us through the true Phineas,Himself our Lord JesusChrisr to
Him be glory and dominionunto the ages.ofages. Amen." (Nm 20.5
Il98.2l-25D.24 Indeed, in Homily 11 on Numbers, Origen portrays
immediate, intense,prayer as the necessaryfruit of an effective encounter
with Scripture:
For evennow God'sangels,the cultivatorsand farmersof our hearts
standin attendance,and they are trying to find if in any of us there
is a soul so concerned,so attentive,that it hasreceivedthe divine
seedwith all eagerness,
and if it showsfruit immediately,whenwe
rise to pray, that is, if it prays to God with its thoughtscollected
23For the generalassociationof Scriptureand prayer, seeLv 9.7
(432.5-6),Ps 362.1 (l330CD),Ios 1.7(295.I 8-19),Ios 16.5(400.2-3,8-9).
24Seealso Ct2.l3 (60.19-21),
Is 1.5 (248.6-10),
Is 3.3 (257.t5-
Lc 15 (94.23-28),Lc38 (216.12-23),Lc39 (222.10-
20),Lc t2 (76.16-20),
13).
208 DANIELSTIEERIN
and gatheredwithin it, if it doesnot wanderaboutin mind and fly
awayin thought.. . Q.{m11.8t92.30-93.41).
In this connectionwe shouldbear in mind that Origen'shomilies
are, amongmany other things,paradigms,for it is clear from a numberof
passagesthat Origen views his homilies as paradigmsfor the individual,
extra-congregationalencounterwith Scripture.2sThat the prayerswithin the
homilies serve,amongothers,a similar paradigmaticfunction is nowhereso
cleady stated,but it seemsa safeinference. The hortatoryprayersare surely
intendedto instruct as well as to exhort to prayer. And we must ask what is
the point of Origen'sown prayersif not to instructand edify. Considerthis
commentfrom Homily 10 on Numbers:
But there are two altars, that is, an inner one and an outer one.
Since an altar is a sign of prayer, I think that it meanswhat the
Apostle says: 'I shall pray in spirit, I'shall pray in my mind.' For
when I pray in my heart,I go in to the inner altar. . . . But when
someonepoursout his prayerto God in a clear voice and with words
producedwith sound,as if to edify his healers,he praysin spirit,
and seemsto offer his victim on the altar which was set up outside
for the holocaustsof ttrepeople (Nm 10.3[73.2L-74.2]).
This is not !o deprivetheseprayersof their stahrsasprayers,nor yet
as componentsof Origen'sexegesis,for many of them do contain clear and
25SeeGn 10.5(100.10-17), Gn 12.5(ll2.l5-2r) Gn 13.4(119.1-
7),Lv 8.1 (393.18-394.19),
Nm 5.3 (30.20-23),Nm 11.2 (79.21-23),Nm
27.13 (280.5-18),Ios 20.1 (415.12-16),Ios 20.2 (420.3-15),Ps 3615.1
(1360A8), TrPs95 (34-37),TrPs 131 Q5-28);seealsoRufinus'observation
cited suprain n. 9.
THE ROLE OF PRAYER IN ORIGEN'SHOMILIES 209
effective exegeticalfeatures. I merely wish to focus on their instructional,
paradigmaticrole.
What I want to call paradigmatic prayers can be seenin various
forms, in a variety of locationswithin the homilies, in a variety of responses
to Scriptureand its explanation.Origenintemrptshimselfin mid-homily to
bid the prayersof thepeoplein responseto whathasbeensaid,e.g.,to takea
prayer with particular applicationto the troubled times of the church in
which Origenwas living: respondingto Judges6.1 ("But the sonsof Israel
did evil in the sight of the Lord who gavethem over into the handof Madian
for sevenyears"),and amplifying it throughrecombinationwith a prayer text
from Psalm73.19 ("Do not give over to the beaststhe soul which confesses
to you"), Origen urgeshis congregationto prayerasfollows:
Wherefore,then, brothers,let us beseechthe Lord, confessingour
frailty to Him, that He may not give us over into the hands of
Madian, that He may not give over to the beaststhe soul confessing
to Him, that He may not give us over into the power of thosewho
say \ilhen will the time comewhen we will be given power against
the Christians? When will thosemen who say that they have and
know God be given over into our hands?' But if we are given over,
and they receivepower over us, let us pray that we may be ableto
endure,that our faith may be even brighter in persecutionsand
tribulations, that we may overcome their wantonnessby our
patience,and, as the Lord said, we may win our souls by our
patience.. . (Idc 7.2 t506.22-507.211.2e
26someother examplesof Origen'spausingin mid-homily
to bid
prayersin responseto Scripture:Ios 6.4 (326.13-t9),Ios t2.2 (369.6-9),Idc
I.I (467.13-16),
I Rg r.I (r.9-r2),Ps36/4.2(1352C),Trps 95 (r75-179),
TrPs 103(136-137),TrPs 106(118-121),TrPs 119(49-52),Trps127(225-
2r0 DANtsLSTIEERIN
Origen sometimesincorporatesinto his exegesisan exhortationto
pray in the words of Scripture,especiallyin the homilies on the Canticle of
Canticles,in his remarkson prayerswithin the biblical texts, and in his
paraphrasesof the prayersof ttreprophetsand the Psalmist. For example,at
the conclusionof the secondhomily of Psalm 37, he incorporatesPsalm
37.23asfollows:
Unhappythe manfrom whom God haswithdrawn,but blessedis he
with whom God abides. 'Look to my aid, O Lord, God of my
salvation!' So let us also pray and say: Look to my aid, for the
struggle is great and mighty are my adversaries. The enemy is
dangerous,the unseenenemy makes his attacks through these
visible ones. Look, then,to our aid, and help us throughyour holy
Son, our Lord JesusChrist, throughwhom you haveredeemedus
all, through Him is glory and power yours unto ages of ages.
Amen. @s37/2.8 tl388BCl).27
The exhortationsto prayer which concludemany of the homilies
respondto Scripturein variousways: a) most respondto the text takenup in
the latter part of the homily; b) a few are generalrecapitulationsof the entire
233),!s 5.2 Q&.5-12,265.14-22), Is 5.3 (267.8-9),ts6.3 (274.4-6),rer
II.12(300.9-15),
Ier 5.7(47.7-g),EzI3.r (M2.22-2r,Lc 13 (81.10-rfl.
27Seealso, e.g.,Cr 2.4 (49.9-t4),Ct z.tZ (58.4-7,12-16),ps
37lr.6 (13808C), Ps 3712.8(1388BC),Ps 38/2.10(t409AB), Trps 6 (172-
74), TrPs 89 (51-57);seecommentson the OT canriclesin Ct l.l (27.15-
28.18),discussionof the Cantieleof Hannahin I Rg 1.8-19;seealso ps
3615.1(1360AB) wherevocal prayer,in part in the words of Scripture,serves
asameditatiosapientiaefor theunlearned.
THE ROLE OF PRAYER IN ORIGEN'SHOMILIES 2tl
homily; c) somerespondto a specific text from outsidethe pericopebrought
in to explain, amplify, or apply the reading; d) some prayers relate to a
concluding moral reflection; and e) some are prayers for divine aid in the
growing understandingof Scripnre.28
Origen goes beyond exhortationto prayer and himself delivers
prayersin the place of ttre people,invoking God directly, e.g. " 'And the
sons of Israel did evil before God (Judges2.lI); O Almighty God the
Sovereign,gant that it may neverhappento us that JesusChrist, after He
has risen from the dead,dies again in us." (Idc 2.2 [473.16-18]),and
indirectly,e.g. "But may theLord grantus to be sonsof Abrahamand Isaac
and Jacob,heirs accordingto the promise,and raise us up from the stonesto
be sons of Abraham, by Christ Jesus our Lord, etc." (Ios 22.6
1438.r8.2\).ze
We must closewith a glanceat Origen'sprayersin propria persona,
which manifest his personalreaction to Scripture and his own spiritual
longings. Some of theseperlain to his role as homilist,30 and are not
28E.g.,of type a: Gn 14.4(126.23-32),Nm 20.5 (198.2I-25),Ios
9.9 (357.8-15),Ios 20.6 (427.7-9),Ios21.2 (432.4-10),Idc9.2 (522.6-10),
Ps 3712.8(1388BC)TrPs 5 (256-2ffi),TrPs89 Q26-241),TrPs 149(133-
144),Ct 2.13 (60.19-21),Is 3.3 (257.15-20), Ez 10.4 (423.8-19),Ez ll.5
(432.12-21),EzI2.5 (439.18-22),Lc6 (40.9-17),Lc27 (l60.ll-22),Lc 30
(174.22-25),Lc37 (2I2.22-25),Lc38 (2L6.8-23); of typsb: Gn 2.6 (38.27-
39.3),TrPs 89 Q26-241),TrPs 106 (175-178),Lc 15 (94.23-28),Lc 18
(Il3.l3-22); of type c: Ex 2.4 (161.12-15), Is 1.5 (248.6-10),Ez 2.5
(348.14-17),I* 12 (76.16-20),1-c,26(156.13-17);typed: Ex 4.8 (183.3-8),
Lv 15.3(49r.16-21),Ios17.3(405.19-2,4), TrPs91 (259-263);type e: Ex
rO.4(252.7-10), Lv 6.6 (370.4-11),
Nm 16.9(153.1-8), Ier 6.3 (51.6-12).
29see also Gn 3.7 (50.11-15),Lv 5.12 (358.12-17),Ios 12.2
(368.19-2/4),Ios
22.6(438.18-21), TrPs 1 (279-284),TrPs89 (51-57),TrPs
lI9 (279-282),TrPs r32 (69-71),TrPs 147(170-r72),Ez6.10(388.19-20),
Ez 6.rr (391.1-3).
30SeeEx l3.L (270.2-6),Ios 8.7 (343.18-23), Idc 8.5 (5t4.24-
515.23),TrPs111(94-97),1s6.3(273.2-4),Ier19(18).4(170.8-9).
2r2 DA}.IIELSTIEERIN
necessarilyparadigmatic,savefor other preachersand pastors,and they are
paralleledby the prayerswhich are found in the prefacesof variousbooksof
Origen'scommentariesand treatises.31ldany areprayersor heartfeltwishes
on behalf of the congtegation;32many seemto includeboth the congregation
and Origen himself.33
But perhapsthe most striking and most instructive, if the least
numerousof Origen'sprayersare thosewhich porray his personalresponse
to Scripture. As with other of his prayers,someare direct invocations,
othersare indirect prayers,or expressionsoflonging. The best we can do
hereis to offer a few abbreviatedexamples:"Would that the Lord would give
his blessingto me too, that I might deserveto dwell at 'the well of vision' "
(Gn ll.3 [105.3-al); "Lord Jesus,grant to me to have somememorial in
your tabernacle. I would have liked, were it possible, that there be
somethingof mine in that gold from which the mercy-seatis made," etc.
@x 13.3 1273.22-274.51);
"Thereis a ceriainspiritualembrace,and would
that it might come to passthat a closerembraceof the Bridegroomwould
enclosemy bride as well, that I too could say what is written in this same
book 'His left hand is under my head,and His right hand embracesme.' "
(Ctl.z t3l.l9-221). "I pray that the Seraphbe sentro me as well, and taking
a coal wittr tongsmay cleansemy lips. . . . But I fear that by runningafter
evil I havesoiled my feet. . . . Who then cleansesme? Who washesmy
3lsee supranote7.
32SeeNm 27.13(280.12-18), Ios 11.6(366.15-20),Lc 32 (Ig4.t7-
23); for priests,1 Rg 1.7(13.5-9).
33seecn | 5.7 (135.24-
I 36.3), Ios 12.2(368.19-369.r2),ps 37l2.l
(1382B).
THE ROLE OF PRAYER IN ORIGEN'SHOMILIES 2r3
feet? O Jesus,come,I havesoiledfeet. Becomea slaveon my account,put
your waterin a basin,come,washmy feet." (Is 5.2 Pg.1f-27D.34
Against gteat odds,a large portion of Origen'shomiletic corpushas
comedown to us. Thesehomiliesare,to be sure,preciousas monumentsof
exegesis.But may I ventureto saythat they areof evengreaterand enduring
value as examplesof a techniquefor the community'sand the individual's
encounterwith the word of God? Spatiisiniquis exclusus,Ihavebeenable
to give only a brief accountof the important role of prayerin thesehomilies
and a sketchycatalogueof the kinds of prayers. Detailed study of these
phenomena,both in their broaderramifications (relationshipof theory of De
oratione to practiceof homilies,sacerdotalrole of preacher,role of prayerin
hermeneutics),and in the interactionswithin the homilies of prayersand
calls-to-prayerwhich have,in somecase,beenartifically sunderedfrom one
anotherin this treatmentfor the sakeof classification, remainsto be done,
but it is hopedthat this sketchmay provide a first stepin thesedirections.
Appendix
Origen'sobiterdicta on prayerin thehomilies:
only Christiansable to invoke angels,God, Christ, Nm 13.5 (114.23-
115.8);
prayerthroughthe Spirit,Ex 5.4 (189.1f-20), Ios 9.2 (347.29-348.7):
34seealsoNm 18.4(174.25-175.4), Nm 22.4 (209.27-210.9),Ios
123 (370.9-16),Ios 13.3(373.6-13),Ios 18.3(410.8-r1),Idc 8.5 (514.U-
5I5.23),TrPs 66 (160-162),TrPs 95 (16-28),TrPs 147 (40-43,134-138),
TrPs 149 (95-99:NB, cannotbe Origen'sin currentform), ls 1.4 (247.7-8),
16 (99.26-31).
Jer 17.5(149.3-17),Lc,
2r4 DANIELS}IEERIN

prayer,Nm 23.3 (214.22-27),

unceasing I Rg 1.9(15.10-16.5),
Ios 16.5
(400.8);
intense prayer the necessaryfruit of encounterwith Scripture,Nm ll.8
(92.33-94.4);
liturgical rituals,Nm 5.1 Q6.la-27.3);
LOOKING ON THE LIGHT: SOME REMARKS ON
in psalms,hymns,canticlesasmcditatiosapientiae,seen.27;
THE IMAGERY OF LIGHT
in personaof biblical figures, *nn.27;
IN THE FIRST CHAPTER OF THE PERI ARCHON
prayerandmeditationon Scriptureasarmt spiritalia,Ios 16.5(399.18400.3,
7-r2);
John Dillon
prayerofferedby angelto Christthe High-Priest,Nm 11.8(93.a-10); Trinity College,Dublin
purity in prayer,Lv 13.5(475.2/t-476.9),Ps
3712.3(1384AB),Ier frg 68
(230-231>,
Ier r4.I4 (119.10-26);
tean in prayerof repentance,Ps 3812.10(1a09AB); This essay is an attempt to addressa general question, that of
posturefor prayer, arms extended,Ex 3.3 (I7O.lg-25), Ex 11.4 (255.16- Origen's relation to the Greek philosophical tradition, by concentratingon
256.19),1Rg 1.9(16.2-6),bodybowedNm 11.8(93.3); oneparticularissue,which I hopewill prove adequatelyillustrative.
silent and vocal prayer,Nm 10.3(73.21-74.2),Nm 11.8 (92.26-30),silent As we all know, the battle has long raged betweenpartisansof
prayer,Ex 5.4(189.11-20); Origen the systematicphilosopher,such as Adolf von Harrlack, Eugdnede
g)wer of prayer,Nm 25.2Q!1.15-17); Faye, IIal Koch and Hans Jonas,and those who see him as essentiallyan
sin asobstacleto prayer,Ps36l2.t (1330D-1331
A),ps3712.3(1384AB),Ier exeget€of scriptureandChristianapologrsgsuchasWalther V0lker, Henri de
10.10(164.9-27); Lubac, Henri Crouzel,or MargueriteHarl. To a certainextent onetsattitude
inconectprayer,Ier L?.6(150.9-13),
Fl27.4(3g4.15-ZZ). is conditionedby how far one concentrateson a text suchas thePeri Archon,
or rather on the Homilies and suchworks as the Exhortation to Martyrdom
and the treatiseOn Prayer, but these emphasesare themselvesplainly
conditionedby the overt or covert prejudicesof the authoritiesconcerned,in
their anxiety o maintain either the originality and philosophicalstandingof
Origen or alternatively, if not his orthodoxy, at least his essential
christianity. Part of the problem, I think, has been that the alternativesare
statedtoo starkly. Either origen is presentedas a Platonistwith a superficial
216 JOHNDILI'N
veneerof Christianity,or he is not to be a systematicphilosopherat all. The
truth may ratherbe that he is indeeda philosopher,but one who, rather than
adoptingPlatonismor the doctrineof any other Hellenic school,hasforged a
systemof his own out of ttreChristianscripturesand tadition, to which he
lays Platonismtribute for conceptsand formulationswhich he finds useful,
without surrenderingto the Greeksany principle whatever.l I would suggest
that Origen'srelation to primitive Christianity is somewhatanalogousto that
of Plotinus to Plato and earlier Platonism. He drawshis inspiration from the
tradition, and genuinelyaspiresto be faithful to it, but his geniusdrives him
to the creationof a new system,built uponwhat he hasinherited. In a word,
Origenonly wishesto be a Christian,as doesPlotinusto be a Platonist,but
if we persist in calling Plotinus,in recognitionof his achievement,a
Neoplatonist,thenwe mustdenominate
Origena'Neochristian'.
What I want to do in this paperis to considerone dominantimage
of which Origenmakesmuchusein his discussionof the natureof God in
lwe may recall that,as he tells it himself(ap. Eusebiusl/E VI.19,
12-13), Origen only began to attend the lectures of "the teacher of
philosophy" (sc. Ammonius Saccas)when he himself was already an
established,if precocious,teacher of Christian doctrine. He went to
Ammonius,not to be convefiedto Platonism,but rather to pick up useful
technical information, to aid in his apostolate to the Alexandrian
intelligentsia,a numberof whom, suchas Heraclasand his brotherPlutarch,
he actually lured away from Ammonius. This he could not have done, I
submit,without a systemto offer. The systemneednot be worked out in
everydetail, nor evenfree of contradictions,but onecannotreasonablydeny,I
think, that it is there. Without going into details, I see it as involving,
aboveall, the conceptof a cosmicprocessof procession(or 'fall') andreturn,
involving the pre-existenceof souls and, inevitably, some form of
reincarnationand sequenceof worlds (thoughI doubt that Origen ever quite
madeup his mind on thesequestions). All other aspectsof his thoughtseem
to me to be conditionedby this grand conception,which is itself the product
of his concernwith the problem of God's providenceand our free will. To
that extent I remain sympatheticto Hal Koch, in Pronoia und Paideusis
(Berlin andLeipzig,1932), andeven!o HansJonas.
LOOKINGONTHBLIGFN 2r7
thePeri Archon, and seehow his useof Platonicimageryand doctrinemay
be seento supportmy thesis.2
On the vexedquestionof the natureof thePeri Archon, on which
much hasbeenwritten in recentyears,3I must say that I am inclined to view
2Origen's use of light imagery in general is comprehensively
examinedin a thesisby M. Martinez-Pastor, Teologiade la luz en Origlnes
(Comillas, 1962),but Martinez doesnot addresshimself to the particular
problem that concerns me here. See also H. Crouzel, Origine et la
'Connaissance
mystique'(Paris/Bruges, 1961),pp. 130-154,for a good
accountof the usesto which Origenputsthe imageryof light.
3Cf. g. Steidle,"NeueUntersuchungen zu Origenes"rept Apy6v',
ZNW 40 (1942),236-243;M. Harl, "Recherchessur le rept ApXdTv'
d'Origbneen vue d'une nouvelle6dition: la division en chapitres,"Studia
Patristica 3 (= TU 78; Berlin, 1961),pp. 57-67;H. Crouzel,Inrro. to
Origine Traitd des Principes,Tome I (SC 252), pp. 15-22. The precise
meaningof dpXal intendedby Origen in this context hasbeenthe object of
someuncertainty(Cf. Crouzel'sdiscussionop. cit. pp. 12-15,and "eu'a
voulu faire Origdneen composantle Trait6 desPrincipes?,"BLE 76 (1975),
pp. 161-186,and.24l-260). It seemsprobableto me tharhe seeshimselfas
meaning what any Platonic philosopherwould mean by this, viz. a
discussionof the threeacknowledged "first principles",God, Idea(s),Matler,
logetherwith topics arising out of those,and that is the subject-matterof the
first sectionof ttrework (to II.3), mutatismutandis(e.g.foi"Ideas',, we have
"rationalbeings",for Matter, the World). How welfthe title fits the other
portions of the work is more problematic(a referenceback to the discussion
of free will in III.I in theComm. in Rom. (VII.15, pG XIV 11454) as a
separatelibellus would seemto indicate that origen thought of the work
ratherasa collectionof essays).
- Somelight may be thrown on what particularconnotationOrigen
attachesto the term dpXat by his remarksat Comm.in Joh. ItlIl.46, {02,
where he presents the dplat of any scienceor art as what the first
discoverer,or "sower", lays down, to be developedfurther and broughtto
completion (1ilog1by
later generations("reapers")--allthis by 'a wly of
exegesisof John 4:36. This "dynamic"conceptbf the dpxat of science
imports anotherdimension,I think, into the raditionally staiic philosophical
m_eanings of the term, as immutablebasicprinciples,or ultimite principles
of reality. certainly origen is to someexient "transposing"the traditional
Platonic meaning of the term, as crouzel suggests;ihe connotation
"principles of the chrislq fu14" is superimposedon the basic meaning
"first.principlesof reality." Cf. also De Princ. 4,I.7, wheredpXfi i"s
significantlyglossedby orotXetaots.
2L8 JOHNDILIJON
the work as an attemptby Origen to state a reasonedChristian position on
the topic of dpyal, or'first principles',arising out of his attendanceat the
lecfiires of Ammonius Saccas. I am led to this view, not just by a
considerationof the subjectmatter;but by looking at the very way in which
the work startsouL Origen beginsabruptly, not with a positive statementof
God's nature,4but with an answerEoan accusation,plainly from a Platonic
source, that Christians regard God as having a corporeal nature.s In
combating this accusationhe has to face a seriesof passagesof Scripnre
which seemto attributeto God materialsubstanceor characteristics.6
For instance,Mosessaysat Deat.4:V4: "Our God is a consuming
fire",1 and Jesussaysto the Samaritanwomanat John4:24.: "God is spirit
Qrueipta),and thosewho worshiphim must worshipin spirit and in tuth".
Now Origen'sgeneralline of defenseis plainly that such passagesmust be
taken figuratively, but that is not the first point that he makes. This first
4As one would expectin a statementof First Principles. On the
immaterialityof God, Cf. Aetius, Placita I.7,31(p. 304 Diels, Dox.Gr.),
Apuleius,De Plat.I.5, 190-l; Numenius,Fr. 3 desPlaces. (Albinus n Did.
ch. l0 asserts,cerlainly, God's immateriality, but only at the ezd of his
discussion).
5In the Preface,also,he begins,ratherdefensively,by identifying
himself with Moses, who preferred,in the words of the author of Hebrews
(ll:24-26), "the abusedstats(6ve6rc1tds) of Christ !o the treasure-houses
of
the Egyptians", these latter being the much-vaunteddoctrines of
contemporaryphilosophy.
6Thesepassagesmay well have been adducedby anti-Christian
polemicists,(and evenby Ammonius,whom Porphyry,at least,maintained
to have strrted as a Christianhimself), thoughhere Origen only saysthat
theymight do so (sclo qrnniam conabuntur).
7He also describeshim there as "a jealous God", but Origen leaves
that asidein the presentcontexL
LOOKINGONTHELIGIIT 2r9
point I find rather interesting,and it is that which I wish to start from, sinceI
think that it servesas a good instanceof Origen's complex relationship to
contemporaryHellenic8philosophy.
"Thesemen," saysOrigen, "will haveit that fire and spirit are body
and nothing else. But I would ask them what ftey have to say about this
passageof Scripture: 'God is light,' as Johnsaysin his epistle(1 John 1:5),
'andin him is no darkless.'"
The point of adducingthis passageabout light is presumablythat,
in later Platonism, light is agreedto be incorporeal. But this is, shangely
enough,not a point which Origen caresto makeexplicitly. Instead,he goes
on:
He is that light, surely, which lightens the whole understandingof
those who are capable of receiving Futh, as it is written in the
Thirty-fifth Psalm,'In tlty light shall we seelight.' For what other
light of God can we speakof in which a man seeslight, except
God s spiritual power (Stvapts) which when it lightens a man
causeshim either to see clearly the truth of all things or to know
God himself, who is calledthe truth? (trans.Butt€rworth).
Origen here has slipped unobtrusively from making one point to
making another. The original puryoseof inroducing the exampleof light, to
counterthe referencesto fre andto wefipa, hasbeenpassedover in favour
of an argumentwhich appliesto all threeepithes equally, that they are not to
be takenliterally but metaphorically.
8I use "Hellenic" hereinsteadof the commonly-used
term "pagan,"
which I find objectionable.
220 JOHNDILI,ON
Why shouldOrigenmakesuchan apparentlyinconsequential
move?
I wish to proposetwo reasons,both of which illustrate his complex
relationshipto contemporaryPlatonism. The first is that,while he waswell
awareof contemporuyPlatonicdoctrineon the incorporealityof light, he did
not necessarilyacceptit himself;the secondis that he also hasvery muchin
mind the Sun Simile of Republic VI (507a-509c),which certainlysince
Alexanderof Aphrodisiashadbeenbroughtinto conjunctionwith Arisbtle's
doctrinesof the Active Intellect in De Aninta III.5 and of the Unmoved
Mover in MetaphysicsXII, and had thus beenincorporatedin a coordinated
Peripateticand Platonistdoctrine of God as Pure Activity (tvfuyeta) and as
the noetic analogueof the Sun,bestowingboth intelligibility and existence
on all things,as well aslnowledgeon rationalsouls.
Let us explore each of these points in turn. First of all, the
incorporeality of light. This is not a Platonic doctrine--neitherin the
Republicnor in the Timaeusis light presentedas somethingincorporeal--but
it is at leastderivablefrom Aristotle,who, in De Anima II.7, declareslight
to be "the actualityof the transparentqua transparent."9Aristotle simply
wants to make the point that light is not a substanceof any kind, but a
conditionof a substance(counteringthe doctrineof Empedocles),but for later
Aristoteliansand Platoniststhis incorporealityof light becamesomething
rather special,being connectedwittr its preeminentrole in the operation of
the senseof sight, the most 'honourable'of tle senses(cf. plato, Tim.45B-
D), and then being used as an analogy for the role of the Good (or in
Alexander'stheory, Nous'l in the activationof tlte human intellect in its
cognisingof True Being.
gt+gtg-to:
Oas 6t €onv fi rotrov tv(pyeta, ro0 &aSavoS
fi &aQavts.
LOOKINGONTHELIGHT 221
Thus it is that in Alexander'sDe Aninn we find, first, at pp.42,19-
of Ar. De An.III.7, but then,at
43, Ll Bruns,a sraightforwardparaphrase
88, 26-89, 6, the use of the analogyof light to illustratethe principle that
"whateveris eminently somekind of being imparts this kind of being to
everythingwhich is lesseminentlythe samekind of being," to quotePhilip
Merlan's formulation.l0 The Active Intellect, being preeminently
intelligible, imparts intelligibility to the "material" intellect (that is, the
immanenthumanintellect),which becomesintelligible by intelligising the
proper objects of intellect, the forms in matter. Similarly, light, being
preeminentlyvisible, is the causeof ttre visibility of everythingvisible, as
well asof the seeingability of the eyes.
This comparisonof Alexander'splainly owes much to the Sun
Simile of theRepublic, andit in turn can be seento havehad considerable
influenceon Plotinus'view of the statusof light in suchpassagesas Enn.
IV.5, 6-7, II.lJ andI.6,3.11 The evidenceof Origenwould seemto indicate
that this identification of light as doalparoz, against the indications of
Plato's doctrine in the Timaet.s,goesback to Middle Platonism,perhapsto
Numenius,or at leastto AmmoniusSaccas.
For a Platonist,Aristotle'sdoctrineas presentedin De An. ll.7 is
not satisfactory,sinceAristotle declareslight not to be a body, not for the
purposeof exaltingit, but simply to depriveit of any independent
existence.
Quitea differentconnotationcanbe put uponthis bodilessness
of light if one
L0ln Monopsychism, Mysticism, M etaconsciousness
(The Hague,
1.9i6gz),p.39.
rlsee A. H. Armstrong,The Architecture of the Intetligible
Universein the Philosophyof Plotlnus (Cambridge,1940;repr. Ilakkert,
1967), pp. 54-57; F. M. Schroeder,"Light and the Active Intellect in
AlexanderandPlotinus,"Hermcs112(1984),pp.239-245.
 222 JOHNDIL[,C}N
choosesto takethis, as doesAlexander,and laterPlotinus,asindicatingthat
light is pure Fonn without an admixtureof matter. In Alexander this is
actually only implied in the comparisonof light with the Active Intellect,
but in Plotinusit is quite explicill2 For Plotinus,ordinary,physicallight
is, by reasonof its freedomfrom admixturewith body, the noblestelementin
the materialuniverse.
Now as I say, Origen seemsto recognizethe existenceof this
doctrine of light, but he is not preparedto approveit. When it comesto
employingthe similiesof the Sunand the Caveof theRepublic,however,he
has no such hesitation,althoughhe employsthem in a suitably disguised
form. At De Princ,I. 1.5,we find thefollowing:l3
Having then refuted, to the best of our ability, every interpretation
which suggeststhat we should attribute to God any material
characteristics,
we assertthat he is in truth incomprehensible
and
immeasurable.l4 For whatevermay be the knowledgewhich we
have been able to obtain about God, whether by perceptionor
reflection, we must of necessitybelieve that he is far and away
better than our thoughtsabout him. For if we seea man who can
scarcelylook at a glimmer or the light of the smallestlamp, and if
we wish to teachsucha one, whoseeyesightis not strongenough
lzB.g. Enn. I 6, 7, l7-t8: light is doalparov
xai trlyos xai
A6oc.
13IuseButterworth'stranslation,unlessotherwisenoted.
L4Incomprehensibilisheretranslate
s drardAqrpog, inaestimabilis
may-r9nd9rdreplperpos, an epiihet, which, though Greek,is only found in
Apuleius' De Plat. ch. 5, but d\rcffpvros or dreptiptoros are also
possibilities.
LOOKINGONTHELIGTIT 223
to receive more light than we have said, about the brightnessand
splendour of the sun, shall we not have to tell him that the
splendourof the sun is unspeakablyand immeasurablybetterand
more glorious than all this light he can see?
Here,and in what follows, the influenceof the Simile of the Caveis
palpableenough,I think,ls but thereis anotherelementherealso,which is
not presentin Plato'simage. Plato stressesthe shock and discomfortof
being brought from one'scomfortableviewing of the shadowson the wall
cast by the fire, first to the realization that the fue is only a fire, and the
figures only cardboardcutouts,and then to a view of the outsideworld
dominatedby the sun,but the end resultis that one can view the sun,one
does attatnto a knowledgeof the Good. For Origen, God is of such a
natureas "the humanmind, howeverpure or clear to the very utmostthat
mind maybe, cannotgazeat or behold"(ibid-).
Now this is very much a part of the Christian doctrine of the
"invisibility" of God, but it finds an echoalso in a passageof Numenius'
dialogueOn the Good @r.2, desPlaces),a work which Origen certainly
to the effectthat we
knew (sincehe quotesfrom it rnthe Contra Celsum),16
can gain the notion of anythingbodily from comparisonwith things of a
similar nature,but in the caseof the Good,"no objectpresentto us nor any
lsThough long since formalizedin Middle Platonic tradition, the
SunSimile is given by Albinus in Did. ch. 10 asprime exampleof the "way
of analogy",while of tle "way of dvayoyrf" (via eminentiae),of.which the
Cave is certainly an instance,he actually gives Diotima's speechin the
Symposiumas the example. Origen usesthe comparisonof the light of a
lamp with the light of the sun elsewhere,at Comm.in Joh.II.I20-I2I and,
C.Cels.Y JI.
16I.t5;IV.51.
22/+ JOHNDILT,ON
sensibleobject similar to it gives us any meansof graspingits nature."
However,Numenius is actually leading up here to his lively descriptionof
the mystical vision of the Good,which he compareswith a little fishing-
boat which by close attentionone can just pick out bobbing betweenthe
waves. Origengivesno suchpromiseof a mysticalvision in this life. The
important thing is, though, that Numenius seemshere to be giving an
interpretation of the negativeaspectof the Sun Simile-after all, Socrates
doesemphasizeatthe outset,in 506 C-E, that he cannotgrve an accountof
the Gooditself, but only a seriesof images.
In the very next section(I.1.6),Origenseemsto makefurtheruseof
the cave Simile, thoughsufficiently alteredas to makeidentificationless
thanobvious:
But it will not appearout of placeif to makethe matterclearerstill
we use yet anotherillustration. Sometimesour eyescannotlook
upon the light itself, that is, the actual sun, but when we seethe
brightnessand rays of the sun as they pour into our windows,for
example,or inlo any small openingsfor light, we are able to infer
from tlese how greatis the sourceand the foundationof physical
light.
This seemsto owe somethingto Rep. vll.5l5e-516b, where the prisoner,
newly freed from the Cave, cannot yet look upon the sun or bear the
sunlight "he would find it painful to be thusdraggedout, and would chafe
at it, and when he cameout into the light, his eyeswould be filled with its
beamso that he would not be able to se6evenone of the thingswhich we
call real," anda gradualprocessof habituationis required. The difference,of
course'is, onceagain,that in Platoone doescomeeventuallyto a vision of
LOOKING ONTHELIGTIT 225
the Good, whereasin Origen one doesnot, at leastin this life.17 In fact,
Origen hashere subtly blendedthe imageryof the Cave with the later Stoic
argumentfor the existenceof God from the contemplationof his works (cf.
SextusEmpiricus,AdversusMathematicosIX.75-87),which suits him
ratherbetter,especiallyas St. Paul himself hadreferredto it at Rom. l:20:
"Eversincethe creationof the world his invisiblenature,namely,his etemal
power and deity, has been clearly perceivedin the things that have been
made." But for Origen t}te force of this argument,in relation to the Cave
Simile, is that we can get no further than inference from God's
manifestationsand effectsto His nature;we cannotknow Him asHe is.
Origencertainlyapprovesof the centralimagesof theRepublic,as
we can seefrom Contra CelsurnVII.45-6, where he first quotesCelsus
making use of the Sun and the Line, and then says,"'We are careful not to
raiseobjectionsto good teachings,evenif the authorsare outsidethe faith,"
but he is not committedto the full implicationsof the doctrinebehindthem,
nor doeshe feel consEainedfrom modifying them with otherdoctrinesof his
own. For instance,in the next chapterof Book I (2,7) dealingwith the Son
or Logos, he identifiesthe processof habitation(owfi1en) mentionedin
Rep. VII.516 a with the activity of theLogos (who is, after all, "light from
light"l;18
. . . for it is through his brightnessthat the natureof the light itself
is known and experienced.This brightnessfalls softly and gently on
lTThere seemsalmostan explicit contradictionof Rep. VIL516B,
a0r6v rca1' atrdv tv rrt alroi Xripq 6tvatr' dv xart6e?,vin I.1,6:
mensnostraipsumper se ipsumdeumsicut estnonpotestintueri.
rSsplendor ex luce (presumablytranslating dratyaopa lr
6ardd a phraseinspiredby Wisdomof Solomon7:26 and,Hebrews1:3.
 226 JOHNDILI,ON
the tenderand weak eyesof mortal man and little by little nains and
accustoms(adsuescens)
them to bearthe light in its clearness;and
when it hasremovedfrom them all that darkensand obstructstheir
vision, . . . it rendersthem capableof enduringthe glory of the
light, becomingin this respectevena kind of mediator(1teotr4s,I
Tim. 2:5) betweenmenandthe light.
Here, indeed,it seemsas if, throughChrist, we are enabledto seethe Father,
which would be fully in the spirit of the imageryof the Cave,but in fact
Origen is allowing himself to be carriedaway slightly. This impressionis
severelyqualifredin what follows (sects.8-10),particularlyby the srriking
image of tle immensestatue,which is too big for us to view, and the
miniature statuewhich is its faithful copy, which we can see,and which
gives us a true image (elvriv,similitudo), but still only an image,of what
we cannotsee.19
In all this we cannot,unfortunately,be sure that Rufinus is not
indulging in a certaindegreeof censorshipand "laundering"of the text (ashe
certainly is seento be doing in the few placeswherethe original is available
to us), but Origen seemsto be strugglingwith the problem of how far God is
knowableor unknowable,and to what extent christ is the meansto that
knowledge,and Platonicimageryis both a help and a hindranceto him in
this.
This is not quite the whole story, however. Origen gives ample
indication,in ch. I of thePeri Archon, that he is awareof the considerable
developmentthat had aken placeover the previouscenturiesin the platonic
l9This is very much in the spirit of Origen'sview
of Christ as the
"imageof the invisible God" (Col. 1:15)-oneof Origen'sfavoritetexts(119
citationslistet, n Biblia Patristica 3\.
LOOKINGONTHELIG}IT 227
doctrine of the natureand the knowability of God. He is influencednot only
by his knowledgeof the speculations Platonistsas
of suchPythagoreanising
Moderatus and Numenius, and also possibly of the more "main-line"
with the works of Philo, who
PlatonistAlbinus,but alsoby his acquaintance
was himself influencedby contemporaryPlatonism. The consensusthat
appearsto have been reachedby 200 A.D. or so was that God was both
absoluteUnity Qrcvdg, ets, €v) but also an Intellect--anIntellect, however,
which is to be distinguishedfrom a second,active, demiurgicintellect or
)l6yos (Moderatus,Numeniusand Albinus favour a secondvo05l,Philo,
Plutarchand Anicus a L6yos),by being "slatic" (Num. Fr. 15 desPlaces)as
opposedto "in motion", a fount and flrst principle of voig:, or, more vaguely
"somethinghigher" (dvatr€pu)thanrcis (Albinus,Didaskalikos,ch. l0).
Suchan entity can be known, if at all, only in someratherspecial
way. Plato's famous dictum at Timaeus 28c about the difficulty of
discoveringthe natureof God and the impossibilityof communicatingit to
the generalpublic gave much stimulusto negativetheology of variouskinds
in later times, but it was not until the secondpart of the Parmenides was
given a metaphysicalinterpretation,from the lst centuryA.D. on, that the
problemof how ttreFirst Principlecould be cognisedbecamean acuteone for
Platonists. At the end of the first hypothesis (142A), we reach the
conclusionaboutthe One that "it cannothavea nameor be spokenof, nor
can thereby any knowledgeor perceptionor opinion of it. It is not namedor
spokenof, not an object of opinion or knowledge,not perceivedby any
creature."
If it is to be cognisedat all, then, it cannot be by any 'normal'
cognitiveprocess,suchas ato0nor.s, 66{a,or truozfpq. It will requirea
distinct supra-noeticfaculty, termedpoeticallyby the ChaldaeanOracles@r.
I.IDP) "the flower of the mind" (dv&os vofl,rccognizedby Plotinusas the
 228 JOHNDILI,ON LOOKING ONTHEIIGTTT 229

vofig in a stateof soberintoxication(Enn.II 5,9; VI 7,35), and also t}tehumansoulor mind, while still in ttrebody,couldachievethe equivalent,
perhapsby Numeniusin his eloquentdescriptionof the vision of the Good in in Platonic terms,of looking directly at the sun.
Fr. 2 (mentionedabove).
Origen,however,doesnot seemto havearrived at a formula for this
specialfaculty.In his exhaustivestudyof origen's terminologyand doctrine
This hasbeen,I feat, a rathersuperficialstudy,basedonly on one
of the modes and levels of knowledge(OrigAne et la 'connaissance
in onework (thougha major one),of a
particularseriesof connectedpassages
mystique'),20
despitethe promisingtitle (which he does,admittedly,enclose
very prolific and many-sidedthinker, but, suchas it is, it servesto bear out
in invertedcommas),Henri crouzel cannotcomeup with any clear reference
of Origenas a "transformer"of Platonism,rather
Crouzel'scharacterization
to a directvision of God himselfin this life. \\e term which bestexpresses
thana crypto-Platonistof any sort. One could,obviously,pursuethis theme
the sort of direct intellectualcontactenvisagedby origen for the beatific
much further, in variousdirections. One directionthat occursto me is the
vision to be enjoyed by the saints after death is npooBoArf,21 but the
paradoxicalpresentationof God as "darkness"(o16ro9) inthe Commentary
significantthing hereis that this sameterm is usedby plotinus, along with
on John (II.l72), arisingout of theexegesisof John1:5,wherepreciselyGod
tntBdtfi andtrraQfi, for the sort of supranoeticcontactwhich is attainable
is, after all, declaredto be "light shiningin darkness".By way of going one
by the vois while still in the body.22 This is not ro deny that Origen had
better,it would almost seem,than the traditionalPlatonicimageof God as
mystical experience(crouzel makesan eloquentcasefor his having had
light and standing it on its head, but also in order to explain certain
some, quoting in particular his first Homily on the Song of Songs(sec.
troublesomepassagesof the Old Testament,suchas Exodus 19:9, 16, and
l),23 butthe fact remains,I think, that for theologicalreasonshe deniedthat
20:2I, where God is describedas envelopedin a thick cloud, and Psalm
18:11: "He madedarknesshis coveringaroundhim, his canopythick clouds
2harispruges, 1.963,pp. 496-508.
which, it seems,Gnosticssuchas Marcion had
dark with water" (passages
2l1nt-elestingpassages
areFragm-In Joh. XIII (GCS,IV p.495), fastenedon to supporttheir argumentthat Jahwehwas an evil Demiurge),
.
rar' rpooBdtqv vofoeog:,Exh.ad Marf.. XI[, wherethe "friendsof God';
Origen presentsthis "darkness"and "cloudiness"as a symbol of God's
ryill enjoy direct knowledgefu etd..t., rpooBdMomes rfi niv vorynlv
Qioet, ,xai rr{ rfrs dAryilelas rcdMet; p. nuch. X:*V, Z 6 voas unknowability to the human intellect; in himself, of course,he remains
npoopdMet roTs' vonroTs:.
Ligh1.24
22n.G.Enn.ITt.8,I0,33 npooBd[rf:yI.1,35,2I
tnpoAi; v.3,
r0,42trahrt. But this is just by way of coda to my main theme. It seems
suitablethat a discussionof Origen'suse of light imagery shouldend,
23Orig.ene,pp.162-4. Even here,though, patricia
as Cox points
out to me, origen may after all only be talking about the frusrating paradoxically,with a discussionof God as darkness.My main purposehas
experienceof having at one momenta vision of the spiritual meaningof i
certaintext, only to lose it againon further reflection.
230 JOHNDILLON

been to suggestthat Origen, while making extensiveuse of platonic images

and formulations,is neverenslavedby these,but subordinalesthem alwaysto
his own independentpurposes. In view of that I would like to substitutefor
the misleading notion of origen the Neoplatonist what I hope is the more DIVINE TRINITY AND THE
accuratepictureof Origenas "Neochristian".
STRUCTURE OF PERI ARCHON
CharlesKannengiesser
University of NoEe Dame

The purposeof this paperis to inquire about the possibility of a

systematicmotivation lying behind the literary featuresof Origen'swork On
First Principles. Two main redactionalscenariosseemto be the most likely,
if one tries to justify the actual context of the work. Either the author
composedPeri Archon as a consistentunit, framedby an appropriatepreface
and a final conclusion;or the author was compelledto a more modest
procedure,in adding complementaryparts to an initial section, the whole
work being given the appearancesof a unified project by some literary
devices. In both cases,the questionremains: Is there a key notion in
Origen'smind for his arrangingthe various themes,as he knotted them
togetlrerin oneway or anotherrn Peri Archon?

1. The literary division of Peri Archon

The four "books" of the work were probably a division going back
to Origen himself.l They reflectededitorial techniquesof late Antiquity,2 as

lorigenes. Vier Biicher von den Prinzipien, ed. Herwig

Gdrgemannsand Heimich Karpp, Textezur Forschung,24 (Darmstadt,1976)
p. 16. Arigine. Traitd des Principes, I, ed. Henri Crouzel and lvlanlio
Simonetri,5C252 @aris,1978)p. 15-16.
232 CHARLESKANNENGIESSER
ofmain focuses,eachofthe "books"concentrating
well asa sequence on one
centralissue,respectivelyGod, the World, Freedom,Biblical Revelation.3
Thus peoplehavebeenusedfor a long time to justify the four books as a
division defacto of Peri Archon from a doctrinalviewpoint. The thematic
analysis of their contents seemedto securefor each book a clear and
consistentview of their inner coherencyand of their logical links to each
other. Adolf von Harnackillustrated such a view in the editions of his
ftom 1885on through1909.4In 1913,theeditorof Peri
Dogmengeschichte
Archon in the corpusof the Academyof Berlin, Paul Koetschau,limited his
remarkson the structureof the work to consideringthe antiquity of its
division into four books and of their subdivisioninto nineteenchapters.s
These"chapters"hadbeenwitnessedby Photiusin the 9th century6as well
asby theextractsfrom "bookIV" collectedinthe Philocaliabeforetheendof
the 4th centuy.T As a matterof fact, one mustadmita distinctionin the
2"An ersterStellebuchtechnisch bedingt." Karpp, Origenes. Vier
Biicher von den Prinzipien, p. 16; the division in four books "est d'ordre
6ditorial. Un tome c'est la quantitd de texte que contient un rouleau de
papyrus",Crouzel,Origine. Trqitd des Principes,I, p. 16. On booksin
classical and Christian Antiquity, Tdnnes Kleberg, Buchhandel and
Verlagswesen in der Antike (Darmstadt,1969).
3In his Introduction,H. Karpp insistsrightly on this thematic
sequence,
Origenes.VierBiichervondenPrinzipien,p. 10-15.
4In theedirionof 1909,repr.Darmsradttg&, p. 662463,no.2.
5GCSZZ: OrigenesWerke Y, De Principiis(Leipzig, 1913)p.
CXVM-CLII.
6Bibliotheca or Myriobiblos, Codex 8.
7In J. A. Robinson's edition of The philocalia
of Origen
(Cambridge, 1893), seep. xiiiff.
DTVINETRIMTY 233
style and in the dogmaticfocus proper to eachof thefour books of Peri
Archon, even if more recentresearchhas establishedthe overlappingof
certainthemesfrom onebook to another.Thusbook IV hasobviouslybeen
addedto the other three as a complementaryintroductioninto Origenian
hermeneutics.Book III offerssix essayson theologicalanthropology,which
seemto build up a body of doctrinewritten out in its own right, properly
speakinga otyypappa elaboratedfor itself, but harmoniouslyadjustedto
booksI and II. Even thesefirst two booksof Peri Archon differ from each
other, in so far asbook I presentsa more syntheticand metaphysicalteaching
on God, whereasbook II becomes,at least from chapter4 on, more
polemicaland engagesthereaderin a plurality of openquestions.
But beyondthe distinction of the featuresproperto eachof the four
books,anotherstructureof Peri Archonhasincreasinglyappealed!o scholars
in the recent past. A broad consensusindeedamong Origen students
welcomestoday the suggestionsmade in 1941 by Basilius Steidle, a
Benedictinemonk of Beuron, who claimed in the Zeitschrift ftir die
neutestamentli che Wi ssenschaft,8that the divisionof thefo ur booksof Perl
Archon was merely a materialeditorialnecessityimposedin third century
Alexandria,and that their contentrepresentedactually a threefoldbulk of
teachings:"drei Stoffmassen."Thereone finds a first expositionincluding
book I and the first threechaptersof book II. Then comesa "second"and
longer "exposition,"runningfrom book II, chapter4, to book IV at the end
of chapter3. Thirdly, in book IV, chapter4 one finds a last independent
sectionwhich recapitulatesthe whole work. The benefit of Steidle's
8"Neue Untersuchungen zu Origenes' Peri Archon": ZNW 40
(1941): 236-243. For a critical evaluation of Steidle's article, see M.
Simonetti, "Osservazioni sulla struttura del De principiis di Origene," Rivista
difilologia e d'istruzione classica n.s., 40 (1962): 273-290,372-393.
234 CHARLESKANNENGIESSER
observationswas not so much,shouldI say,to reducethe division of Peri
Archon from four to three. Certainlymoreimportantwas the reasongiven
by Steidle for imposing a threefold structure,namely that it was fitting
Origen'steachingposition.
In fact, Steidlehad discoveredwhat he calls "surprisingparallels
betweenPeri Archon and the contemporaryteachingof philosophy"in his
readingof Hal Koch'smagisterialsrrveyPronoiu und Paideusis,publishedin
T932,in the "Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte,"a seriesediled in particularby
Hans Lietzmann. Koch, a Danish scholar from the University of
Copenhagen,had dedicatedttre longestchapterby far of his "Studien"to
"Origen and the contemporaryteaching of philosophy".g He had, for
instance,underscoredthe structuralaffinities of Peri Archon with chapter8,
on theology and first principles,in Albinus' Didaskalikos, better known
underthe ntteEpitomeof Plato'sDoctrines,a middle-Platonicschoolbookof
the secondcentury C.E. Thanks to Koch's illuminating data, Steidle
succeededin shifting the critical considerationof Peri Archon's inner
divisionsfrom a theologicalviewpointto a moresecularand hisorical one.
Henceforththe cultural settingof Origen'swork openeda new accessto its
interpretation. Unfortunately, in a rather speculativeand unconvincingway
Steidleimaginedthat the threefolddivision of Peri Archon resultedfrom three
coursesin which Origen would have treatedthe samebasic questionson
different levelsandfor differentaudrences.But despitethis blunderhe opened
a bright future. In the sixtiesandthe seventiesItalian andFrenchcritics, like
Manlio Simonetti, Marguerite Harl and Gilles Dorival, adopted his
conclusionsand refined them. Finally, the threefold structuringof Peri
9Proraia undPaideusis.Studieniiber Origenesund seinVerhdltnis
zum Platonismrs,Arbeitenzur Kirchengeschichte 22 (Berlin and Leipzig,
1932),pp. 225-3M.
DIVINETRINITY 235
Archon was reproducedby Henri Crouzel and Manlio Simonetti in the
SourcesChr6tiennesedition.lO In this edition,two of the threemain
divisions of Pei Archon wererespectivelyentitled "Premiercycle de traitds"
and "Secondcycle de traitds,"the third of Steidle'sdivisionsbeing simply
called "R6capitulation." This editorial structure reflects the greater
importancegiven since Steidle to the subdivisionof Peri Archon into a
continuousseriesof smaller"treatises",aswitnessedalreadyby Photius.ll
In responseto all the fruitful inquiriescompletedduring the past
threedecadeson tle literary structureof Peri Archon, many observations
could be madefrom a literary, critical, and historicalpoint of view.l2 But
for now, I would like to raise only one question concerning the
methodologicalpresuppositionsimplied in thesestudies. They seemto
admit that the innerlogic commandingthe compositionof Peri Archon frnds
itself articulatedwith enoughcritical awareness,when discussedfrom an
"external" standpoint. Dorival evaluateshis own contribution in terms
highly significantof that admission.I quotehim in translation: "One sees
the limits of our study; far from trying to catchthe original value of Peri
Archon,it belongsto a point of view which onemay specifyas external."13
10M. Harl, "Structureet cohdrencede Peri Archon," Origeniana
Quadernidi "Vetera Christianorum"(Bari ,1975) p. ll-32. G. Dorival,
"Remarques sur la forme da Peri Archon," Ibid., pp. 3345. The SC edition
includesa first volume (no. 252) quotedabovenote 1, and vol. II, no.253
(1978).III, no.268(1980).IV, no. 269(1980).V, no.312(1984).
llP. Kubel, "Zum Aufbauvon Origenes'DePrincipiis'": VC 25
(1971):31-39.
12Thediscussionon this issueis still going on, as witnessedby G.
Dorival'spaper,"La r6capitulationduTraitCdesPrincipesd'Origdne,"at the
Tenth InternationalConferenceon PatristicStudies,Oxford, 24-29 August
1987.
l3'Remarques
surla formedu Peri Archon,"p. 33.
236 CHARLESKANNENGIESSER
2. The doctrinal motive for the distinction between
the two expositions in Peri Archon
The question of method imposed on the student of Origen by
Dorival's restrictive self-appraisalmay be following: How far can we
actually go in the study of the logical articulationsand of the literary
divisionsn Peri Archonwithout takinginto accountits original motivation?
In other words, would it be mistaken to ask for a clearer understandingof
Origen'stheologicaloriginality in the light of this fresh approachto his
work which claimsto be only an "external"one? Or shouldthe exclusively
contextualviewpoint,on which sucha claim rests,alienateus from Origen's
original creativityand from what is properto his doctrinalmessage?As a
matter of fact, from a more "internal" and systematicviewpoint, a whole
range of fundamentalquestionsseemto be waiting for their answersin tle
wave of the recentinvestigationsconcerningthe literary structureof Peri
Archon. Let us only look, for inscance,at the distinctionoriginatingfrom
Steidleandnow currentlymadebetweena "first" anda "secondexposition."
The "first exposition,"from 1:1to the endof 2:3, developsOrigen's
theoryof what he calls in his Preface"mattersbriefly discussedin order"l4
andwhich he considersas "questionsthataregeat andimportant,"l5namely
"on the natureof God or of the Lord JesusChrist or of the Holy Spirit, and
in additionon the natureof thosecreatedbeings,the dominionsandthe holy
L44:I,p.95. For thequotations
from Peri Archonin Engtsh,I am
referring to G.W. Butterworth,Origen. On First Principles. New York,
1,966.
1 5 l : 2 ,p . 1 .
DIVINETRIMTY 237
powers."16 In the samefirst part of the prefaceof Peri Archon, Origen
announces
also the axiomaticcharacterof his "first exposition." In his own
words he intends,"to lay down a definite line and unmistrkablerule in regard
to each of these[questions],"17a rule which would securefor them "the
truth," which is "the doctrineof Chrisl" And he makesit quite clearthat in
his presentexposition "the truth . . . in no way conflicts with the tradition of
the churchandthe ?postlss."l8
Not the slightestdoubt seemsallowed here on the dogmaticand
properly ecclesiasticalnatureof the "matters"included by Origen in the
pro$am of his "frst" exposition.It would be misleadingto opposethem,as
it happenssometimes,to the docrines discussrilin the "secondexposidon",
for being more philosophicaland lessconcernedby the apostolicnadition.
And probably it would be rather inaccurateto qualify them like mere
generalitiesor preliminaries,beforethe "secondexposition"startsin 2:4. In
fact, what is at stakein the so-called"first exposition"of Peri Archon is no
less a task than what may be seenas Origen'sgreatestachievementas a
theologian. Here he builds up the centralnotion of his theology,which is
the notion of a Christian,TrinitarianGod, and in doing so he completesthe
unfinishedapologeticalprogmmof his teacherandpredecessorClement. By
the sameway he justifies the title Peri Archon given to the four "books"of
his work, but which fits, properly speaking,only the so-called"first
exposition", from book I to book II, chapter Three, and its final
"recapitulation". For it is Origen'sepoch-makinginitiative as a Christian
theologian to have integrated the middle-Platonic traditions on divine
l6bio.
17t:2, p.z.
18lbid.
238 CHARLESKA}.INENGIESSER
principles (dpXa() into his notion of a Trinitarian godhead. Before
discussingthis initiative againstits broaderphilosophicalbackground,letme
explore very briefly the relation of Origen to Clement on this matter, my
guessbeing that by his initiative about the first principles Origen filled
precisely a metaphysicalgap never bridged by Clement as a Christian
theologian.
3. Clement of Alexandria on First Principles
Clementflourishedin Alexandriaduring the last two decadesof the
secondcentury. He was a contemporaryof Celsusin that sametown. He
belongedto a generationof Christian apologistsamong which we find
Irenaeus,Athenagoras,Melito and Tertultan. He left Alexandria during the
persecutionof SeptimusSeverusprobably in 2A-203, and continuedhis
intellectualactivity in the churchof Jerusalemfor anothercoupleof decades.
Thesebiographicaldataservehereone purposeonly. They highlight the fact
that oday's hisorians generallyagreethat Clement,freedfrom manypastoral
dutiesin Jerusalemunderthe protectionofbishop Alexandercould elaborate
theremore at easethe 6th and the 7th Stromatesas well as the treatiseQuis
divessalveturand the doxographicalcompilationof theHypothyposeis.r9
l9JohannesMunck, (Jntersuchungen iiber Klemensvon Alexandria,
Forschungen zur Kirchen-undGeistesgeschichte,2 (Stungart,l!33) pp. 8a-
109: Kap. III. Die Fortsetzungder Stromateis.Andr6 Mdhat. Etude sur les
'Stromates'
de Cl4nunt d'Alemndrie, PatristicaSorbonensia,T @aris, 1966)
pp. 148-175:Chap.VI. Leprogramme.des Stromates.PierreNautin,"La
fin des Stromateset les Hypotyposesde Cldmentd'Alexandrie," VC 30
(1976):268-302.
DIVINETRINITY 239
Now, in ttrefirst chapterof the first StromatesClementannounces
the main topics on which he would commentin this seriesof, as he called
them, philosophical"Tapestries,"or "Miscellanies."20
After a treatise on ethics, there would follow his "theory on
physics" (QuotxtT 1eupta) [1:15.2]. In the third Stromatesthe bias of the
still announcedphysics is unmistakablyanti-Marcionite. I quote: "But
againstttrosepeople[the Marcionites]we shall argueaspointedly aspossible
whenwe graspthe treatiseOn Principles."2l 41d, I quoteagain;"Whenwe
tr.eatOn Principles, then we will examinethoseobjectionsinventedby the
philosophersand believed by the Marcionites (tredav 8i rcpi r6v
dp76v &,aAappdvalt€v. . ).22 A few yearslater, at the start of the fourilr
Stromates,he repeatsoncemorea similar announcement:"Then,lateron, .
. . we must exposethe theory on physics aboutprinciples (rri rcpt. dpy6v
Quotd,op1tvra) proper to the Greek and to the other Barbarians,when
opinionshavecomedown to us, and we must discussthe main doctrinesof
the philosophers"(rai ryis ra rcvpu,lrara r6v rott Qt)too6fiots
tnvevo4ytvav tyyetp4r(o\.z3 Th's discussion,Clementadds,would
include "the summary of the theory on God (n)z €n.\po1tr7v rnc
1edtoy(,ag). . . When we will have completedour whole project in the
books which, accordingto the Spirit, we haveto dedicateto that urgentneed
(namely: refuting all sortsof heresies). . . , then we will go over to the
2OOttoStlhlin ed., G.C.S. 15 (Leipzig, 1906); I am quoting
actually L. Friichtel, ed., Clemens Alexandrinzs II: Stromata I, 3d ed.
@erlin,1960)15.1:p. 11,1.16-17.
2lStr'omataIII. 13. 1: p.201, l.12-13. Translation
mine.
2221.2;p. 205,l. 11-13.
23stromatalV.I. 2.1:p. 248,1.f5-19.
2,40 CHARLESKA}.INENGIESSER DIVINETRINITY 241

truly gnostic theory on physics (rnv rQ 6mt. ywwrtrcqv QvotoAoytav is easierfor a camelto passthrougha needles eye" the authorremarks: "The
ptnpev). . . For the theory on physicsruled by the truth of the gnostic 'higher meaning' of the 'camel' leading tle 'rich' along the narrow and
fiadition, or better the highestgradeof initiation, startswith the teachingon restricted way may be found in the exposition 'On Principles and
cosmogonyand climbs up from there to the theological pattern" (II yoiv
Theology."'27
rard, rov rfis iltq1elas rcavdva yvanrucfis rapa\doeug In short,Clementadvertisingfor a lifetime his forthcomingwork
$uotdtoyta pdMov d; €rorrela, €r r6u repi xooltoyov(,ag On Pinciples preparesus to welcomeOrigen'sachievement.Therewould be
flpr4rat A6yov, tv04v6e dvaBatvovoa ttri rit koAoytxov Er.6os). a discussionon theoreticalphysics,including their theological foundations.
Clementconcludeshis outline of the plannedessayon first principlesin The work would justify Christian apologeticsmainly aimed against the
announcingthat the staftof the "truly gnosticphysics"would be givenin the lvlarcionitesand the philosophersat large. It would rest on the evidenceof
form of a commentaryon Genesis1.24 doxographical data and on an exegesisof Genesis. Probably less than a
In ttre midst of a lively discussionbasedon the presumptionthat the decadeafter his old masterhad passedaway, Origen wrote his Peri Archon.
Greekphilosophershavestolentheir doctrinesfrom Mosesand the prophets, He mentionsin it that he was already engagedfrom an earlier time on in a
the author of the fifth Stromates,still writing in Alexandria,claims that commentaryon Genesis. His main adversariesthrough the whole work are
more argumentswould be added,"when we shall collect the opinionson first the Marcionites. And he discussesthoroughly a whole set of questions
principles circulating among the Greeks" (6r4vtra dv ras rcpi dpgdv illustratinghis theory on physics. But now it shouldbe the more obvious,
66€as rds rap' EM4ot Qepoptvas dvdteyolpe*a).25 In the sixth at the end of our comparisonwith Clement,that Origen'soutline of a treatise
Stromate,probably composedafter his move to Jerusalem,Clementstill On First Principles e*apdcompletely ttre frame of the Clementineproject.
makesanticipatoryremarksof the samesort, like this one, about what more There,in Clement'sStromatescomposedthroughat leasttwo decades,the
should be said concerningthe "mysteries"alluded to in the symbolic authorwas engagedin a doxographicrefieving of classicaldoctrineson first
languageof the Greeks: "I havepostponedmakinga clear statementon it, principles. Clement'sexpressedpurposewas to show that the partial truth
until we haverefuted the opinionsof the Greekson first principle5."26 containedin suchdoctrineshadbeenstolenby the oldestGreekphilosophers
Finally, we comevery closeto the promisedrefutation,when we from Genesis and from tlte Biblical tradition. There also, Christian
reada referenceto it in Quis divessalvetur,chapter26, an essayfrom the last apologeticsculminatedin identifying consequently"the principle of all
periodof Clement'sprolific writings. About the exegesisof Mark 10:25,"\t things" (fi r6v Otuv dpXtf),also called "the first and oldestprinciple" (f
2aZ.Z:p. 248,l. 19-20,and 3.1-2:p. 249,l. 4-13. ryalr4 xai rpeoBvrdny dpXril,28 with God Almighty in the Jewish

25StromataV. XIV. 140,3: p. +20,l. 2t1-25. 2726.8CGS 17, ClemensAlexandrinusIII, ed. O. Stiihlin,p.177,
1.25-26.
26stromataYI.II.4.2: p. 424,1. 4-5.
2Sstromata
V. XII. 81.4:p. 380,1.16.
U:2 CI{ARLES KA}.INENGIBSSER
scriptures.And therethe Logos, Son of God, was called a divine dppf in
his own ight (Strom.5:38.7,6:141.7,7:2.2,931.29
4. Trinity and First Principles in Peri Arcfton's First
Exposition
With Origen we moveover into a pre-established
docnineon Trinity
which ovemrlesthe raditional notion of first principles. In Peri Archon
chapter 1 of book I, God is introducedat once as Father and Son and Holy
Spirit, the latter being preciselycalled "an intellectual existence,with a
subsistenceand being of its own" (ed. Butterworth, p. 9). The Three
altogetherare one and the samespiritual reality of a transcendentsimplicity,
which Origencalls a Monas, or "IJnity," anda Henas or "Oneness,"in any
case"the mind and fount from which originatesall intellectual existenceor
mind" (p. 10). This triuneGod as suchis repeatedlycalledFather,Son and
Holy Spirit in the frst chapter af.Peri Archon, for the reasonthat "the
relationsbetween[them] are suchas periain to the natureof deity. . . ."30
There is much more said about the Son and the Spirit in relation to the
Father,than aboutthe FatherHimself, in the initial chapterof Peri Archon.
Thus the cat€goryof an ultimatecauseand first principle of all things usedin
this chapterin regardto the Fatheris applied to him as to one of the Trinity.
Thusorigen'sbasicnotionof the christian godheadexplicitatesits potential
29StromataV. VI. 38.7:p. 353,l.
32; YI.I.2.2: p. 4,1.6; II. 9.3:p. 8, l. 17.
308d. Butterworth,p. 13. GCS 22, 26.5 quod vero ad naturam
pertinetdeitatis.
DTVINETRINITY 24:3
rationality from the starton asa trinitarian categoryestablishedwith the help
of a middle-Platonicnotionof first principles.
Before having a closer look at this middle-Platonic notion as
assimilatedby Origen in his theory on God, let us secureall the needed
evidencein order 0olocatecorrectly the Origenianteachingon Trinity in the
so-called "first exposition" of Peri Archon In chapter2 of book I the
Christologicaltides, mainly thoseof Wisdom, Logos and Eikon, given to
the Son of God, serve to distinguishdiverse modesof divine causality:
efficient, exemplaristic,final, etc. This diversityof causalmodesof acting
revealswhat Origen calls God's "original goodnessitself' (p. 27), whose
Trinitarian naturehe underscoresinstantly: "the original goodnessmust be
believed to reside in God the Father, and from him both the Son and Holy
Spirit undoubtedlydraw into themselvesthe natureof that goodnessexisting
in the fount from which t}reone is born and the other proceeds"(p. 25). The
very condensedphrasingof this conclusionsignalsat leastclearly enough
that the secondchapter of Peri Archon, like the first, focusseson the
Trinitarian natureof the godhead, The sameconclusionis true of chapbr 3,
on tlte "Holy Spirit," whosepeculiar efficiency is shown as exercised,I
quote,"with the authorityof the whole mostexcellentTrinity, that is by the
namingof Father,Son,and Holy Spirit" (p. 30). For, as Origeninsists,"he
who is born againthroughGod (I Peter 1:3) to salvationhas needof both
Father and Son and Holy spirit and will not obtain salvationapart from the
entire Trinity' (p. 33). Thereforeorigen coversthe largestsectionofchapter
3 in discussing"the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (p. 38), his
purposebeing to celebrate"the ceaselesswork on our behalf of the Father,
the Son and the Holy Spirit, . . .as ever our heartsgtow in fervour and
eagemessto receiveand hold fast the Father,the Sonand the Holy Spirit" (p.
39). In chapter4 origen engagesthe considerationof the rational naturesby
244 CHARLESKANNENGIESSER DIVINETRINITY 245

discussingtheir original fall, but his goal remainsadamantly"to explainthe intelligence"(p. 316). "Havingbriefly repeatedthesepointsconcerningthe

divine blessingswhich arebestoweduponus by the Father,the Sonand the doctrineof the Trinity," as Origenobservesit at the beginningof paragraph

Holy Spirit, that Trinity which is the fount of all holiness"(p. 41). In 3, therefollows a shortnoteon "the mysteryof the Trinity in the creationof

chapter5, tle loss of Lucifer and of his angelsmakessenseonly, as an the universe"(p. 317), and a longer one on the incarnationof the Logos,

that "to
apostasyof opposingand fugitive powers,whenone acknowledges entirely consideredfrom above,namely from a Trinitarian viewpoint. In

be stainlessis a quality which belongsessentiallyto noneexceptthe Father, paragraph5, the recapitulatingremarkson the salvationof human souls

Son and Holy Spirit" (p. 50). In chapter6, the consummationand ultimate focuson their ability "to receivea shareof the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit

restorationof all thingsmeansthat they would be "restored,throughGod's of the Father and the Son, since the nature of the Trinity is one and

goodness,throughtheir subjectionto Christ and their unity with the Holy incorporeal"(p. 320). The vision is enlargedto the noetic world as such:

Spirit" (p. 53). This mysteriousprocesswill tend to a sort of bodiless "for every rationalnatureneedsto participatein the Trinity" (ibid). Again

existenceof all thingsin analogy"to the natureof God, tlrat is of theFather, the summaryon the materialuniverseleadsto a similar affirmation of divine

the Sonand the Holy Spirit. . . . But exactlyhow it will be is known to God Trinity: "thereis nothingthat wasnot madeexceptthe natureof the Father,

alone,andto thosewho throughChristandthe Holy Spirit arethe 'friends'of the Son and the Holy Spirit" (p.323). At last,the sameTrinity playsa key

God" (p. 58). This is Origen'slast word on Trinity in the "first exposition" role in the final paragraphs in paragraph9, "sincethe
of the "Recapitulation":

of Peri Archon. He restson it in the following chapterson the material nature of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, to whom alone belongs the

cosmos,for instancein repeatingat the startof book II chapter2 that only intellectuallight in which the universalcreationhasa share,is incorruptible

"the Father,Son and Holy Spirit" arebodilessand "that life without a body and eternal. . ." (p. 326); in paragraph10: "God the Father,with his only-

is foundin the Trinity alone"(p. 81). begottenSon and the Holy Spirit, standalone in his knowledge. ." (p.

Enoughimmediateevidencehasthusbeengiven,I hope,aboutthe 327).

absoiutepriority of Trinity as a ruling category in Origen's vision, as What comesout of this long analysismay be formulatedin two

deployedthroughoutthe first expositionof Peri Archon. What is strikingin thesis:

this regardis that the "Recapitulation" 1. Origen's "first exposition" and final "recapitulation"in Peri
of Peri Archon,in book IV, chapter4,
parallelsexactly the Trinitarian characteristicsof the first exposition. Origen Archonoffer an accessto his systematictheologyon Trinity. Origenentitled

startsby statingthat nothingbodily canbe conceivedin *re Father,the Son his presentation
of sucha theologyby a phrase,takenover from the middle-

and the Holy Spirit. He insistson their eternity: "the statementswe make Platonicschool,namely"On First Principles."

about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit must be understoodas 2. Trinity assumesthe function of "first principles" in Origen's

transcending
all time andall agesand all etemity. For it is this Trinity alone theology,so that the very notion of 'first principles" becomesanalogicalin

which exceedsall comprehension,

not only of temporalbut evenof eternal its Origenianstatus. For the ChristiantheologianOrigendeity and universe
246 CHARLESKANNENGIESSER
are both to be consideredexclusively in regard to the mystery of our
salvation,in which both play a decisiverole. Thus there are tlree first
principlesin one Godhead,accordingto Origen,the Holy Spirit beingalsoa
first principleof salvation,like theFatherandthe Son.
5. The background of Peri Archon
If I am right, my npo *resismay allow a few new insightsinto the
significanceof Peri Archon. I wonderedaboutthe possiblity of uncoveringa
doctrinal ground on which the inner division of Peri Archon would rest.
Now thereis no surpriseif, divine Trinity seemingto offer sucha gound,
one hasto position Origen'swork againstthe two major cultural figuresin
its immediatebackground.
First and foremosl in regardto Clement,the distinction betweenthe
two expositions in Peri Archon, with the first one resulting from a
Trinitarian articulationof the author'sthought,illuminatesremarkablythe
proper motivation of Origen. He wantedto have the numerousquestions
debatedin the secondexpositionframedby a substantialdogmaticstatement
on divine Trinity, a Trinity consideredin itself and in view of a universal
salvation. The first expositionand the correspondingrecapitulationserve
such a purpose. In other words, by such an anangementof his rather
complexwork On First Principles,the still youngtheologicalauthorshows
up with a centralmotive of his own. He doesnot just implementa promise
of his predecessor,
which would meanaddressing
a christian responseto the
Hellenic notion of first principles. Far from doing so, Origen lets first
principlesplay a key-role in the logical framing of his work. However,as
Mozart was eager to absorb musical motives of his contemporariesin
carefullytransposingtheminto a Mozartiancomposition,so did Origen. He
DIVINETRINITY 247
transferredthe middle-Platonictheory of first principlesinto the properly
Origeniannotion of Trinity. The work which he himself may haveentitled
Peri Archon3l was first of all in his mind a theologicalsynthesisPerf
Trindos.
Secondly,in regard to the broaderphilosophicalcontext of the
Middle-Platonists,Origen structuredPeri Archon as he did by witnessing
even more his true identity as a Christian theological thinker. For Robert
M. Berchman,Front Philo to Origen. Middle Platonismin Transition,32
of Middle Platonicthought"
the consummation
"Origens'thoughtrepresents
(p. 100), "the final chapterin the history of Middle Platonic thought" (p.
105). And when Berchmanundertakesto interpret the meaningof first
principlesrnPeri Archon,he declaresboldly: "We want to showhow Origen
formally arguedhis first principles,and demonstrateda Middle Platonic
theoretic and epistemologyfrom the premisesof this sacredscripture. The
purposeof sucha studyis to illusEatethe strategyof philosophicaldebatein
the Middle Academy,and to gain an insight inm the situationout of which
philosophicalpostulateswere formed. This permitsus to more accurately
reconstructthe intellectualworld of Middle Platonism"(p. 251).
The announcedpurposeimplies a perplexingnotion of Origen's
positionin regard!o the Academyof his time. He neverconsideredhimself
asbelongingto the Middle Academy. Nor did he everintendto articulatea
properargumentaboutfirst principles. In reality, Berchman'sOrigenlooks
like a Middle Platonic travesty, more precisely like a hypothetical
philosopher,strippedof his theologicalidentity, or like a mebphysician
31In Eusebius, ChurchHistory YI.24 (rcai ra rcpi dpX6v . .
y$Qet), the title is enumerated
amongothersin a conventionalway.
32BrownJudaicStudies,69 (Chico,Ca.,1984).
248 CHARLESKANNENGIESSER
gone lost in the very contradictionswhich the true Origen firmly and
expressedlyavoided.33Even in his graspof the traditionalnotion of first
principles,the ghostly Origen depictedby Berchmanwould haverun into
first principle
somehelplesscontradictions:"the Fatheris . . . the necessary
of all things" (p. 118),but thereare "two Ones": "The first "One" is a
nonas andhenss.Tt,esecond'One'isamonadaandhenada(rlc,
ftanscendent
p. 118);the Holy Spirit wasby no meansa first principle,but nevertheless:
"As such,the Father,Son and Holy Spirit are theprotai ousiai or the non-
materiatprimary forms of the universe. . . They arc theprotai ousiai and the
archai of all thingsin the universe"@. 153).
If Berchman'sapproachto Origen shouldyield any help at all for
further studies,it would probably,I think, addressa challengingcall to the
historiansof Christian thought. For Berchmanshowshow urgent indeed
appearsthe taskof reevaluatingOrigen'soriginalspeculationin the line of a
more carefullyexploredphilosophicalsetting.But he attestsalso,be it in a
negativeand contradictoryway, how the taskof interpretingOrigenendsin
serioustrouble if the interpreterignoreswhat historicaltheologymeansin
this case. Only as a Christiantheologian,boundto his own theological
33ThusBerchmanstatesthat accordingto Origen: "The Logos
subsistslike the Father. . . but doesnot exist like the Father,. . . the Logos
existscontingently"(p. 127),"The Son . . . is the first of createdbeings. . .
. The Son is created. The Fatheris eternal"(p. 128), "Like the Son, the
Holy Spirit is somethingcreatedor begotten"G. 128). But Origen clearly
states: "The Holy Spirit is an intellectualexistence,with a subsistence and
beingof its own" (1.1.3)."GodwasalwaysFatherof his only-begotten Son.
. . . This is an eternalandeverlastingbegetting.. . . For he doesnot become
Son in an externalway throughthe adoptionof the Spirit, but is Son by
nature"(1.2.4). "The Son'sexistencespringsfrom the Fatherhimself,yet
not in time, nor from any otherbeginningexcept,aswe havesaid,from God
himself' (l.2.II). "Thereis absolutelyno dissimilaritybetweenthe Sonand
the Father"(1.2.12). "We havebeen.ableto find no passagein the holy
scriptureswhich would warrantus in sayingthat the Spirit wasa beingmade
orcreated"(1.3.3).
DTVINETRIMTY 249
tradition, and passionatelyseminal for the theological future of the
Alexandrian Christianity, is Origen asking for his critical appraisal,in
particularin his understanding principles.Berchmanreduces
of metaphysical
him exclusively to a final figure of a dying Middle Academy,where he
should at least have given some weight to Origen's foundational and
paradigmaticachievement
in the line of his own Christianftadition. Origen
was, so to speak,indebtedby a double allegience,to both cultural and
religiousfrends,the one linked with the Academy,the other ecclesial. For
that reasonhis apropriationof the philosophicalnotion of flust principles, in
the line of Clement'sintuitions, resultedin a cenftal categoryof his own
"physics". Thus he securedfor the appropriatednotion a new and quite
paradoxicalTrinitarian understanding.The samesort of subversion,or of
sublimationif someoneprefers,wasbeingpracticedby Origenin his useof
the classical"allegory". A literary and philosophicaldevice,basic in the
Hellenistic culture, became in his mind a Christological procedureof
hermeneuticsapplied to Scripture. With the Greek philosophers,Origen
would refer to "first principles"accordingto the commonuseof the phrase,
but as a Christiantheologianhe would identify them with a divine Trinity,
sourceand causeof tle universe,34
but evenmoreso in the singularand in
theplural,sourceandcause,ofuniversalsalvation.
34"But God, who is the beginningof all things, . . . the first
principlehimself' (I.1.6;ed. Butterworth,p. 11,GCS 22,22.4 Deumvero,
qui omniuminitium est . . .). Rufinus'"initium" may easily translatedpgf,
with its allusionto Prov. 8:22. Cp.Peri ArchonI. 2.5: Sapientiamvero
dei . . subsistentiamhabentemnon alibi nisi in eo, qui est initium
omnium"(CGS22, 34.4-5).

SACRIFICE IN ORIGEN
IN THE LIGHT OF PHILONIC MODELS
JeanLaporte
University of Notre Dame
Philo of Alexandriahas long beenrecognizedas a predecessor
of
Origen as an allegorist,with a similar tendencyto spiritualize scripture.
However,Origen inherits from Philo more tlnn a methodof exegesis.More
important theologically are the models provided by Philo which inspire
Origen'snotion of sacrifice.
Recentscholarshipon sacrificein Origen includesthe following
studies:
R. J. Daly wrote Christian Sacriftceas preparationfor a study of
sacrificein Origen. He gives an up-to-dateanalysisof the data found in
scriptureand the early Christian tradition, and has an important sectionon
Philo, but the promisedstudyon Origenis not yet published.l
rR. J. Daly, Christian Sacriftce:TheJudeo-ChristianBackground
BeforeOrigen,Studiesin ChristianAntiquity 18(Washington,1978).
SACRIFICEIN ORIGEN 251
V. Nikiprowetsky treats the spiritualization of sacrifices and
worship in Philo, but he is not interestedin the sacrificialsystemof Philo,
and doesnot deal with the Christiantradition.2
L. Lies, in his Wort und Eucharistiebei Origenes,similarly deals
with the spiritualization of the Eucharistin the early Christian tradition and
in Origen. He has a large section on Philo, but does not consider the
Philonic modelsin his sophisticatedanalysisof the OrigenianEucharisl3
F. M. Young, in The Use of Sacrificial ldeas in Greek Clvistian
Writers from the New Testament to lohn Chrysostorn,4 shows a
commendableinterestin methodologybut, in my opinion, this study suffers
from the fact that the models used for the analysis of the biblical and
Christiantradition, chiefly focussedon Origen,are borrowedftom the Greek
religion. The use of biblical and Philonic models, those which Origen
himself follows, would have led to many different positions,particulady
concerningthe notionof propitiation.
I find that theseauthors,and generallythe respectedscholarshipof
the beginning of this century, have been too negativeregardingPhilo's
faithfulness to the actual practice of the Law, particularly in liturgical
matters. Too often scholarstendedto considerOrigen and Philo as twisted
minds trying to teachGreekphilosophyunderthe coverof scripture,andthey
simply usedtheir writings as sourcesfor the knowledgeof Greekphilosophy.
2y. Nikiprowetsky, "La spiritualisationdes sacrificeset le culte
sacrificielau templede JerusalemchezPhilond'Alexandrie."SemiticaXYl[
(1967),pp. 96-110.
3L. Lies, Wort und. Eucharistie bei Origenes. Zur
Spiritwlier ungstendenzdesEuclurl stieverstandnis
ses(Munich, 1978).
4F. Vt. Young, The Use of Sarificial ldeas in Greek Christian
Writersfrom theNew Testamentto lohn Chrysostom@hiladelphia,1978).
252 JEANLAPORTE
We mustfirst admit the fact that, togetherwith the New Testament,
Philo is the chief sourceof Origen'steachingon sacrificeas on many other
things. Philo providestle basisof Origen'sdoctrinesof the Eucharistandof
forgiveness,
whicharecloselyrelatedto sacrifice.5We mustalsounderstand
thatOrigendoesnot only makean occasional
useof Philo,but relieson the
Philonicmodelsfor his explanationof the Eucharistand of forgiveness,
tlerefore, of sacrifice.
Moreover,we mustgo beyondthe disgustof the uninitiatedfor the
Philonic allegory. Many scholarshavebeen,as it were, dazzled,
by Philo's
spiritual exegesis. However,a long acquaintancewith Philo showsthat,
throughallegory,Philo doesnot actuallyemptythe precepr,but extendsit to
the realitieswhich areproperto the soul. Philo thinksthat theLaw provides
the right conceptand reasoningfor thc treatrnentof thesemattersas well.
For Philo,it is still theLaw of Moses,rhewill of God,which rulesthe life
of thesoul.
Therefore,thePhilonicallegorydoesnot proposeto reducetheLaw
and its ritual to a pretext[o extol Truth and Love and otherPlatonicForms
as Augustinedoes. It provides,on the contrary,a way to remainfaithfulto
the Law, to becomemore faithful to the Law, to resist assimilationof
Hellenism.Throughmcdilationon lhe Law and its pracrice,the philonic
allegoryaimed,in a world impregnatcd
with theHellenistic"psychologism,"
at puttingtheLaw andils observation
into people's
faith andlife.
5J.Laporte,"PhilonicModelsin Origen'sDoctrineof Forgiveness,"
paperpresenredat tlle North AmericanAcademyof Liturgy (January,1986);
"Sacrificeand Forgiveness in Philo of Alexandria,"paperpresented
at the
Oxford PatristicsConferencc(September,1983);Eucharistiain Philo of
Alexandria (New York, 1983);"PhilonicModelsof Eucharisriain the
Eucharistof Origen,"Laval th1ologiqueet philosophique,42,I (fevrier,
1986),pp. 7l-91.
SACRIFICEINORIGEN 253
The sameremark can be made about Origen's exegesis. First,
Origen inherited the Philonic teaching. Secondly,he refusedto see the
Christianunderstandingof scripture,of God, of Christ, of baptism,of the
Eucharist, of forgiveness, etc., mutilated by a kind of Christian
emptyingChristianexegesisof the theologyattestedin the
fundamentalism
Gospelsandin Paul.
We do not needto foragein the variousfields coveredby the History
of Religions,nof even Greece,in order to define our Philonic modelsof
sacrifice. We just have to open the book of Leviticus. Therewe find the
three principal forms of sacrifice in which Philo is interested:whole-bumt
offerings, sacrificesof salvation,and sacrificesfor sin. Theseare the models
to be consideredherein bot} Philo andOrigen.
First, we deal with the first-fruits, which were brought to the altar,
and were represenledin most sacrificesby the vegetableoffering. Then, we
dealwith holocaust,sacrificeof salvation,and sacrificefor sin, particularly at
Yom-Kippur. We add to the sectionon sacrificeof salvationa discussionof
the JewishPassoverand of the Last Supper,and makesomeremarkson the
relevanceof the covenantsacrifice as a regular model of sacrifice. And we
completethe sectionon sacrificefor sin with a discussionof the meaningof
the incense-offering at Yom-Kippur and with remarks on sacrificial
purifications.
Threecomponentsof sacrificerequire our attention: the victim, the
priest, and the altar. They can be considered literally, with moral
implications,and allegorically. In the allegorical interpretation,the sacrifice
is internalized: the soul is the altar, or temple,as well as the priest, and the
victim.
 254 JEA}{LAPORTE
First Fruits
The first fruits, by extensionbut properry,can be consideredas
sacrificesbecausethey are brought to the templeand given to God. Suchis
the opinion of Philo who, significantly,usestrreterm dnappf ,not only for
the ordinary gift of first fruits to the temple,but also for the vegetable
offeringsbroughtto the altar andconsideredaspart ofa sacrifice.
vegetableofferingsarefound in a holocaust,a sacrificeof salvation,
a sacrifice for sin. For philo the show-breadand other offerings of
unleavenedbread,the loavesofferedat pentecost,the sheaf,the basket--a]lare
dtrappf.6 we readin spec.Les.r, r52, thatthefirst fruits are first brought
to the temple as thank-offering QyaptonTptovg dvdyeu dnapxds), and
thenreceivedby ttrepriestsasbestowedby God.
For Philo the laws concerningfirst fruits havemoral implications.T
More particularly, the best inclinations of our soul are frst fruits, not, philo
says,becausethey are earlierin time, but becausethey are frst in value.g
Philo completesthis moral interpretationwith an allegorical development.g
Commentingon Lev. 2:14, the offering of wheate,arsv(a, re|ptyteva,
Xt6pa tpucrd, Philo explainsthat, 1) zCa figures "new, fresh, blessed
thoughtsfrom the ever agelessGod;" 2) resptiypeva (',roasted,,)
means
"testedby the might of reason,as gold is testedby the furnace;,,
3) yt6pa
("sliced") refers to the division of theeLyaptorla into proper
is sections;
6l,aporte,Eucharistia,pp.
77-gg.
7Ex. 23:t9 34:26:Lev.
19:2,1;23:9-n, I 5-17; Num. I g:12;2g:2.
8philo, Sacr., 73-76:106-ll4i
Sp.Leg. I. 117_t6l; Lapone,
Eucharistia, pp.70-72.
9philo,Sacr.,76-g4.
SACRIFICEINORIGEN 255
4) tprcrd ("pounded")is the result of "lingering over the thoughtspresented
to our mind."
On a more humble level of intellectual sophistication,the first
fruits are also the offering of ordinary people consisting in the virtues and
good deedsof commonlife andactivity, for instancethe exerciseof a craft.l0
Origen'steachingon the first fruits follows Philo very closely. For
Origen the Christiansmust certainly offer the first fruits of their labor in the
material sense.ll Origen repeatsPhilo on the vegetableofferings connected
with sacrifices,show bread,etc., when he commentson the sametexts.l2
For instance,for Origen as for Philo the fine-flour offered by the poor is the
offering of their daily life: agriculture,sailing, a craft, etc.l3 Like Philo,
Origen interpretsthe feast of Pentecostas the feast of First-Fruits. But,
becauseof Acts of Apostlesch. 2, he lays the emphasison the "fruits of the
Holy Spirit," which are joy and love.l4 Origen also refers to Christ, the
Apostles,the Christian martyrs,even the Gospelof John amongother books
of the New Testament,as ftst-fruits.ls Here we find a Christological
interpretation.
lolbid., lr2-r17.
11L. Vischer,Tithingin the Early Church (Philadelphia,1966);
Origen,H om. on Num. XI, 2, SC 29, pp. 207-209,PG XII, 644.
Lz}ngen, Hom. on Lev.I,II, passimSC 286, pp. 68J18.
l3origen, Hom. on Lev.II, SC 286,p.96.
l4Origen, Hom. on Lev. II, 2, SC 286,p.98. Hom. on Num. XI,
8, SC 29, pp.227-233,
PG XII,654.
lsorigen, Hom. on Num. X1,3, SC 29, pp.2tO-220, pG XII,
&5-647; First PrinciplesI.3, SC 252,pp. 148-154;
Comm.on JohnI, 12-
23, SC 120,pp. &-7A.
 256 JEA}II-APORTE
The developmentsof Origen on the mannaas the breadof the word
of God, and on the Christologicalinterpretationof this bread,which are
relatedto the vegetableoffering, are typical of the way origen repeatsphilo,
and then completeshis teaching with a christological interpretation. The
breadis carnern verbi, the flesh of the word, and the wine is the redeeming
blood of Chrisrl6
This is dre patternof reasoningin Origen. Origen generallyrepeats
Philo in his interpretation of the literal meaning and of irs moral
implications, with or without the help of allegory. with the allegorical
method,he dealswith the life of the soul, which as well ought to be ruled
according to the Law. such developmentsare the consequenceof the
Hellenistic interest in psychology. But origen adds the christian
componenu a christological interpretation,and its implication in christian
life.
Holocausts
Philo interpretsthe whole-burnt offering as eLXaprcrla in the
senseof praiseand confessionof God'sgifts. It is not bare thanks. auoh
is the proper term for sacrifice,and remainsthe basic term for the holocaust
togetherwith the more specificterm LAorca{rupa,"whole-bumtoffering."
In Philo, the altar of whole-burntofferings (|votaoriprcv) suggests
etXaprcrta for the productsof tle earth,and allegoricallyfor the body.l7
The flame on the alar is seenby Philo as consecrating(xafuepoAma) and
l6Origen, Hom. on Gen.X, .3,SC Z bis, pp. 262-?-64;
Hom. on
Num. XXIII,8, SC 29, pp.448-449,pG XII, 752: Comm.on Mat 26:26-
30, Comm.Ser.84, GCS XI, p. 197.
l7philo, Sp.Leg.I. 169-t7t:
e.E. 11,100-102.
SACRIFICEIN ORIGEN 257
The accompanying
uniting all sacrifices into the sameeiyaprcrta.
vegetableoffering is eucharisticas seenabove.l8
The moral implications of the holocaust are best seen in the
Philonic symbolismof the division of the holocaust,which reflectsa well-
structued Eucharisticprayer for the gifts of creation. After a recognitionof
God's existence,thanksare given for the Cosmos,then for the individual
person,body and soulandall theirpafts.l9
We find nothing in Philo about an atoning use of the daily
holocaust.
The figure of the high-priest,who is the Priest par excellence,is
deeply connected with the sacrifice of praise and gratitude. Philo
distinguishes:l) the high-priestministeringin the templeof Jerusalem,2)
the high-priestLogos involved in the creationof the universeand giving
thanksfor it togetherwith ttre heavensand the humanmind. This second
symbolism is representedby the high priest wearing the so-called
"cosmic"robe.20Anotherversionof this samecosmicel2gaptartais given
in the story of the Muses and their mother Mnemosyne,"Memory," the
memoryof the works of God.21 3) The high-priestenteringthe templein
his linen tunic only, without his solemnrobe, figuresthe spiritual sacrifice
of the Logos pouring himself as a libation before God.22 4) The double
l8Philo, Sp. Leg. I, 172-L76, 286; Il 161, cf.; Laporte,
Euchaistia,pp.65-88.
l9Philo, Sp.Leg. I, 208-211.
20Philo,Mos. 11,109-130;
Q.E.II, lO7.
2lPhilo,Plant., 126-131.
22Philo,Som.II 108-183,249.
 258 JEANLAPORTE SACRINCEIN ORIGEN 259

appearance
of the high-priestwith his cosmicrobe,or with his simpletunic, sinsof mankind. His sacrificereachedbeyondthe veil of ttreflesh unto the
respectivelyfigures our commonhumaneLxaporta under the form
of both heavenlyaltar,ttrerebypurifyingboth thoseon earthandthosein heaven.26
a cosmicpraise and underthe form of the spiritual sacrifice. The dismemberingof the holocaustin Origencannotsimply, as in
In this spiritual sacrifice the intermediaryof the high-priest Logos Philo, figure a eucharisticprayer for the parts of the cosmos and the
may no ronger be needed. we are put "in place of the Logos.,'
As an anthropos. It becomesthe symbol of the various mannersof touching
intermediary--aminister only--the divine Logos seemsto vanish,
and the christ. The canaanite woman touchedhis garments;lvfugdalenwashedhis
humanA6yog,our reason,becomesthe high-priestand performs
the offering feet with her tearsandthen sheanointedhis headwith perfumes;Johnleaned
of the self.23
on his breast.27
Eiyapt,or(a as praise of God is also expressedby et),oyeev, Just as there is a progresstowards intimacy with christ in the
rtpe?v, hpve?v, alvetv, lyopoAoyetoilat, paxapt(etv, which
are not mannerof touching him, thereis a progressin the type of spiritual food we
sacrificial terms, althoughsomehowthey may by extension
sharein the can assimilate. The word of God is given, accordingto our capacity,as
connotationof sacrificein the way prayercanbe understoodas
sacrifice.z milk, vegetable,or solid food.28 This progressatteststlat we are aiming
origen repeatsthe terminology and teachingof philo about
the toward a spiritual perceptionof christ beyondthe flesh, to a communication
whole-burnt offering: the altar, the flame, the victim,
the priest are with Christ as the divine Logos in the mannerof the prophets.29
eucharistic.25
The idea of communicatingwith christ on a higher level of faith
But origen alwaysrefersto christ when he dealswith sacrifice.
For leads to the considerationof a mediation of christ as the divine Logos
instance,the bull of the horocaustin Lev. I is christ,
thesaginatusvitulas. similar to the eucharisticmediationof the divine Logos in philo.30 For
Like the he-goatof the sacrificefor sin, christ perished
outsidethe camp.He origen, christ is not simply mediator as man, but also as the divine
was chosena "blamelessmale",i.e., a virtuousman who, rike
the suffering-
servantof Isaiah53, died for the remissionof our sins,not
becauseof sins
of his own. Annasand caiphaslaid their handon him, charging 26Origen,Hom. on Lev.1,2--t,
on him the SC 2g6,pp. 73-7g.
27F.Bertrand,Mystique
de JesuschezOrigAne@aris,1951).
28Origen,Hom. on Ex. VII,g,
SC 16,pp. I77-1g1.
23phito,
e.E. rI 3740;Conf. 58-63;145_t4g. 2^l_Origen,
Hom. on Lev. 1,4, SC Zg6,pp.g0-g4;Comm.on John
24laprte, Eucharistia, pp. II, l-ll, SC 120,pp.208-215.
26-47.
30otigen, ContyaCelsumVIII,
2g, SC 105,p. 232; 67, pp. 32g-
]5O1g^en,Hom. on Lev. lV, 6-10,5C286, pp. l0g_200;Hom. on 330; La,porte,"Philonic Modelsof Eucharistiain the Eucharistoi blig"n,"
Lev.II, 2, p.78. pp. 8l-85.
 260 JEA}.ILAPORTE
Logos.3l For this reason,more than once,Origen insistson the necessity
of making the Eucharisticprayer not to the Son only, but to the Father
through the Son, or to the Father and to the Son who will carry it to the
Father. The most striking of thesetexts is found in origen's Eeatiseon
Prayer l5-I8.32
Origen'sdependance
on rhe epistleto the Hebrews(5:1-11)for the
notion of Christ, "mediator as man", i.e., as the victim and priest of a
sacrificefor sin, doesnot preventhim from considering,togetherwith philo,
the divine Logos as the high-priestof eixaprcrta. origen differs from
Philo in that for him the Logos, christ, is a person properly speaking.
Therefore,the mediationof the Iogos betweenus and God can nevervanish
as it does in Philo. Although Philo paved the way to the christian Logos
and rrinity, his theory of the divine powers does not imply for them the
possession
of an individualexistence.
Sacrifice of Salvation
Leviticus 3 dealswith the communionsacrifice,which philo calls
"sacrificeof salvation",Auolav fiv tlvQtaoe aanfprcv,33 This kind of
sacrificegivesthanksfor the gifts of God,first of all, when we areenjoying
materialand moral prosperity. If we benefit of sucha prosperity,we offer a
,_lqyigey, Contra CelsumVIII, 26, SC 150,p.
_ 232; 67, pp. 328;
Laporte,"Philonic Models of Eucharistiain the Eucharistof origen," pp.
81-85.
_,_?-Onggn, On prayer, t5-l6, ACW 19, pp. 57-62; cf. Contra
CelsumVIII, 26, SC 150,p. 132 66-67,pp. 326-330.
33Philo,Sp.Leg.I t96;212-225.
SACRIFICEINORIGEN 26r
specialsacrificeof salvationwhich is called the "praise-offering", fi 0uota f1
)teyo1.r€v4rfis alvtfoeus, the biblical todah.34
Philo enlarges on the symbolism of the victims accepted in
sacrificesof salvation,on the meaningof the limitation of time imposedfor
eating the victim, and on the symbolism of the portion of the priesu the
shoulder and the breast, in whose removal Philo sees a symbol of
drd0em.35 We may add to the list of sacrificesof thanksgivingin Philo
the referencesto Xaptorrf ptov,to eiyaprcr(at (in the plural), to
dvdilepa, etc.36
Most interestingis Philo's understandingof the communion
sacrificeas a commonmeal in which God is the host, and where he treatsus
as his guestswith the flesh of the victim.37 The bestillusfiation in Philo is
probably the referenceto the "ancient sacrificeswith their banquets",where
the ancientSages-Philoprobablymeansthe ancientIsraelites,or perhapsthe
ancientGreekmenmentionedby Aristotle-+njoyed thepleasureof friendship
after a sacrifice, and sang hymns to God in the warmth of a "sober
drunkenness."38
At frst sight, Origen doesnot havemuch to say about sacrificesof
salvation,at least from what appearsin his commentaryon Leviticus 3
where he repeatsPhilo.39 ElsewhereOrigen makesuseof the categoryof
34leviticus3;7:ll-2L; Philo,Sp.Leg.1,251-252.
35Philo,Leg. At.lil, It4-t50.
36laporte, Eucharistia, pp. 36-47.
37Philo, Sp.Leg. 1, 231.
38Philo,Plant.16l-163;Aristotle,Nic. EthicsVIII, 11, 25-30.
39Origen,Hom. on Lev.I, SC, 286, pp.232-246;Hom. on Lev.
II, 2, SC 286,p.96.
 262 JEAI{LAPORTE
the sacrificeof communionin relation to the Eucharist.In origen's opinion,
the most interestingof all sacrificesof salvationcelebratedwith a banquet
andhymnsis certainlytheLast Supper.
Beforedealingwith the Last Supperin Origen,we must say a few
words about the Paschalsacrificein Philo, which is a foundationfor the
teachingof Origen on the Last Supper.
The Paschis an interestingkind of sacrificein philo, who interprets
it literally asa spontaneous
sacrificeofferedby ttrepeopleof Israelin order to
give thanksfor the liberation of their from the bondageof pharaohin Egypt
and for their establishment
in the land of canaan. This piousgesturetumed
Israelinto a priestly nationin which everyoneis basicallya priest,although
an institutional priesthoodwas establishedlater on for the serviceof the altar
andof ttretabemacle.40
As a moral implication, Philo sees in the pasch a passage,
&apanfpa ' 6dpao6 from the bondageof the body and the passionsto
theacquisitionof self-mastery
andtheothervirtues.4l
origen repeatsthis last teachingof philo on the symbolismof the
Passoveras a pilgrimage from sin toward perfection. The bestillustration of
this themeis the twenty-seventhhomily on Numberswhich commennon
the spiritualmeaningof eachstationin the desert.42
Origen also repeatsthe philonic theme of the priesthoodof the
faithful. First, like Philo, origen showsthat all the faithful are priestsof
40Philo,Sp.Leg.II,145-149;
e.E. I. tO.
_ -_4rPhilo,Sp. Leg. II,l47; e.E. I, t3-I9; Leg. Al. lil, 165, I72:
Sacr.,63.
42origen,Hom. on Nutm.XXVil, passim,Sc
29, pp. 5ll-557,pG
xll,780-801.
SACRIFICEIN ORIGEN 263
their own sacrifices,whethersacrificesof thanksgiving,or sacrificesfor
sin.43 He invites the fathers present in the congregationto be, like
Abraham,readyto offer up to God the sacrificeof their child. This makes
sensewhen we rememberthat infant mortality affectedeveryfamily in the
pasL44
In addition, like the apostles,the martyrs, and the priests of the
Church, the Christians share in the priesthood of Christ. Origen
acknowledgesthe value of their modestsacrificeaspraiseor atonement,and
the quasi-priesttyministry of good Christianswho care for their weaker
brethrenand do not hesitateto warn sinners.45
The most importantaspectof the Pasch,as usual with Origen, is
Christological. Origen likes to repeatthe statementof Paul, "Christ, our
Pasch,hasbeensacrificed"(1 Cor. 5:7) and that ofJohn the Baptist in the
JohannineGospel,"Behold,theLamb of God, who takesawaythe sin of the
world" (1:39). Origen also refers to similar statementsin Jeremiah(Jer.
11:19),and in the poem of the SufferingServant,concerningthe lamb of
God innocentbut slaughteredbecauseof our sins.46 In addition,Origen
interpretsthe Last Supperas following and fulfilling fte prophecyof the
meal of the JewishPassover.Many referencescould be broughtforth. The
besttextsarethe Commentaryon Matthew26:17-30on the Last Supper,and
43Origen,Hom. on Lev.II, 4, SC 286,pp. 110-l 12;Hom. on Ex.
n,4, SC 16,pp. 213-220;PG XII, 366-369.
44origen, Hom. on Gen. VIil, 7, SC 7 bis, pp.224-226.
45origen,Hom. on Num.X,2, SC 29,pp. 193-196,PG XII, 638-
40: Hom. on Lev. V, 4, SC 286,p.2V4.
46origen,Hom. on Num. XXtil, 6-7, SC 29, pp.448-450,PG
XII, 752-753iContra CelsumVIII 43, SC 150,p. 268: Hom. on Jer. X, 1,
SC 232,p. 398.
2& JEAI{LAPORTE
becausethe section of. the Commentaryon John 6 is missing,a seriesof
passages
dealingwith the Breadof Life.47
Origen doesnot seemto be troubledby the twofold definition of the
sacrificeof Christ, the one basedon the feast of Passoverin lvlarch,the
secondon the feast of Yom-Kippur in September.Origen favors a diversity
of approachto the mystery of Christ, and seesin such diversity a way
provided by Scripture to completeour understandingof it. Moreover, the
Last Supperand the Epistle to the Hebrews-whichdevelopsthe themeof
Yom-Kippur--havein commontwo basicaffirmationswhich characterizethe
sacrificeof Chrisc the blood of Christ is pouredout l) for the remissionof
our sins,and2) for the conclusionof theNew Covenantwith God.
More than once, Origen refers to tlte covenantin the blood of
Christ.48 He is invited to do so by the clauseof the Last Supper:"the New
Covenantin my blood," and by the emphasisof the epistleto the Hebrews
on Christ as the mediatorof a new and perfect covenant. Christ is both the
priest and victim of the sacrificelying at the foundationof this Covenant
Philo enlargeson the sacrificeof the covenantwith Abraham,from
which he derives allegorical teachingson the duty of elXapwrh,49 but he
doesnot provide origen with a model of covenantsacrifice becausesuch a
sacrifice, in principle, is unique,and doesnot figue :rmongthe regular and
usualformsof sacrificein Leviticus.
47origen,On Mat.: GCSXI, Comm. Ser.79-86,pp.189-200;cf.
Hom. on Lev. VII.5, SC 286,pp. 336-338;Hom.on Gen.X,3, SC 7 bis,
pp. 262-264i Comm.on Mat. X, 2,4-25,XI, l-7, pp. 258-302iComm. on
JohnX, SC 157,pp.438449.
48origen,Comm.on Rom. 4:23-25,J.Scherer, Le Commentaire
d'Origine sur RomainsIII; 5 - V:7 (Curo,1957),p.222; Hom. on Gen.III,
7, SC 7 bis, pp. L40-142.
49Philo,
e.G. rrr 3-7,Her., t21-r37.
SACRIFICEINORIGEN 265
The Sacrifice for Sin
We may retain as the chief termspertaining!o the "sacrificefor sin"
namefi 1wta repi dpaprtag, or
in Philo--ttresameas in Septuagint--the
nepi n)tqpltdletas, and ttre verb lAdoxeo1ar ("to wash off," "to cover," in
the senseof forgiveness),togetherwith connectedterms:Llaos (proPitious),
Dtaonfptov (the mercy-seat,the kapporeth),and Dtao1.t6g(expiation,
propitiation). The Latin parallelsare "to makeGod propitius,propitiatio,
repropitiatio,placare,oxpiars."50
Philo deals both with ordinary sacrificesfor sin and with the lost
solemnsacrificefor sin in the ritual of propitiationby the high-priestat
Yom-Kippur. A sacrificefor sin regularly includeda ritual of propitiation by
blood, and was consideredas a holy sacrifice,sincethe priests,eatingtheir
portion of the victim, attestedthat it was offered by a repentingand thereby
forgivensinner.5l
For Philo, repentancewas the most necessarycomponentof a
sacrifice for sin, and required a confessionof sin before God and, to some
extent, before the priest. It also eventually supposedthe reparationof
damagecausedto neighbor,andrestitution.s2
The sacrifice of the he-goatat Yom-Kippur with the pouring of
blood on the mercy-seatandthe ritual of incenseat the sameplace,beyond
50K. Grayston,"Hilaskesthai andrelatedwords in LXXj New
TestamentStudies27 (1980-1981),
pp. 640-656;Sp.Leg.I 194,226-246(ft
1uota nepi dpaprlas rcpi trtr4pltdtetas).
5lPhilo, Sp.Leg.1,242-243.
52rbia.,236-237.
266 JEANLAPORTE SACRIFICEINORICEN 267

the veil of the Holy of Holies, was a magnified form of the sacrifice for sin. and lamb figure remedy to anger; the dove figures the remission obtained

Philo enlargeson the solemnityof the Fast and on the willingnesson that through meditation on Scriptue (probably when we convert a sinner); the

day of all Jews, even the least zealousof them, to fast and to humble pair of turtle-dovesfigure charity (as do also the fine flour bakedin oil, and

themselves,to confesstheir sins, to engagea moral conversion,and thus the the dove'slittle ones).

obtain, through the propitiationmadeby the high-priest,the remissionof The seventl and last remissionis the hard way of penance,which

their sins,both volunrary and involuntary.s3 includesconfessionto the priest, repentancewith tears,mortification of the

An ordinary sacrificefor sin includedall theseelementsin a reduced flesh, eventually public confessionin order to obtain the intercessionof the

form, particularly repentanceandconfessionof sin. Theseelementsreappear communityor, at least,in order to makeit clear that we are our own accuser,

elsewherein Philo without the contextof a sacrificefor sin, and they seemto and ttratwe acceptshamenow in orderto escapethecondemnationandshame

be sufficient by themselvesfor obtaining forgivenessfrom God.54 this of the tribunalof God at theLastJudgment.56

observationsimply atteststhat the sacrificefor sin purified the conscience We can considertheseremissionsas moral implications of the

from moral sins and not simply from "levitical" sins,or impurities. Since sacrifice for sin in the manner of Philo. They also representclassical

the emphasiswas laid on moral sins,it wasproper to considerthe possibility remissionsknown in Philo, in PalestinianJudaism,and in early Christian

of their "atonement"throughmoralmeans. writers. Just as in Philo, they preservein Origen a link with the actual

Origen is very interestedin the sacrificefor sin generallyand in its sacrificefor sin. For Origen, of course,this link is with the sacrificeof
magnifiedform at Yom-Kippur, which had alreadybeen exploitedby the Christ.

epistle to the Hebrews in a Christological sense. In regard to this The connectionbetweenthe $acrificeof Christandthe remissionof

Christologicalmeaning,I selecttwo instancesamongmany. sins is the object of Homity 9 on Leviticus and parallels,sTwhere Origen
In Homily 2 on Leviticus4,55 Origen answersthe objectionthat, exploits the image of the ritual of propitiationby the high-priestat Yom-
after baptism,the Christianshave no recourseto the sacrifice for sin as did Kippur. This theme had already been developedby the epistle to the

the ancient Israelites. Origen answersthat there are seven remissions Hebrews. Origen follows Hebrews. At the sametime, he also reflects

available to the Christians,eachcorrespondingto one of the victims of the Philo'scommenton the ritual of Yom-Kippur.

biblical sacrifice for sin. The young bull figures baptism; the he-goat Origenclearlydefinesthe deathof Christas a sacrificefor sin. He
martyrdom; the young goatsfigure forgivenessgtrantedto others; the sheep interpretsII Cor. 5:21, "Christ hasbeenmadesin for us" in the senseof a

53lbid.,lgg-193;II 196.

54Philo,Som. I, 87 -91:fi , 289. 56origen,Hom.II in Ps.37, PG XII, 1381.

55sc 286, pp. 106-1t2. 57origen,Hom. on Lev.IX, SC 287, pp.7O-126.

 268 JEA}TI.APORTE SACRIFICEINORIGEN 269

sacrifice for sin.58 The applicationof the remissionresulting from this The answeris the samein Philo and Origen, and relies on the
sacrifice is clear in baptism. In the caseof sins committed after baptism, interpretationof the notion of involuntary sin. According to Philo, if sucha
the remission is no longer the simple and joyful gift of forgivenessto an sinner:
alreadywell disposedcatechumen,S9 but requiresproperrepentance:that is,
the hard way of penancewith tears, fasting, confessionbefore God, and . . . after having apparentlyescapedconviction by his accusers,but
eventually the shameof a public confessionbefore the community. The now, convicted inwardly by his conscience,becomeshis own
term "mortification" adequatelyexpliainsthe link betweenpenanceand the accuser,reproacheshimselffor his disavowalsandperjuries,makesa
deathof christ.50 Paul, origen notes,gave this interpretationof penance plain confessionof ttrewrong he hascommittedandasksfor pardon,
when he spokeof "being crucified togetherwirh christ," and of "putting to
the lawgiver ordersthat forgivenessbe extendedto sucha personon
deaththe old man in ourselvesin order to becomea new manin chrisl" It is
condition that he verifies his repentancenot by a merepromisebut
not that christ is crucified again for a fallen christian, but that repentance
by his actions,i.e., by restoringthe depositor the propertywhich
and hardpenancefor purposesof forgivenessare an assimilationto the death
he hasseizedor found or in any way usurpedfrom his neighbor,and
of Christ.6l
by paying an additional fifth as a solatium for the offence. And
Both Philo and origen seein the processof forgivenessfor grievous
when he hasthus propitiated (hilasetai)ttre injured person,he must
sins the necessityof mastering("mortifying") the flesh, or of moral
follow it up, saysthe lawgiver,by proceedingto the templeto ask
conversion. Both Philo and origen resolve the problem of the quasi-
for remission of his sins, and the sacrifice prescribedfor him is a
impossibility, accordingto the teachingof Leviticus, for a grievoussin to be
ram, asalso for the offenderin sacredmat!ers.52
forgiven. Accordingto Leviticus4:2;5:15-l6,only involuntarysinscan be
forgiven.How is it then possibleto obtain the remissionof voluntarysins
Origen gives the sameinterpretationof ttre voluntary sin (I-ev. 5:4-
by way of sacrifice,evenat Yom-Kippur, asit wasthengenerallyassumed?
5). When a grievous sin becomesthe object of awarenessat the tribunal of
the moral conscience,and thus the object of repentance,reparationand
forgiveness,in someregardthis sin entersthe classof sin by inadvertance,or
58origen,Hom. on Lev. \il, I SC 2g7,p. I2I.
, involuntarysin.63
59origen,Contra CeIsumlIITB-7I,SC 136,pp.
176-12g.
60O11S"n,Hom. on Lev. N,3, SC 287,p.g2; Hom. on Lev. X,
2, ilid., p. 138; Hom. on Lev. Xl, 2, ibid,.,pp. iSO-tSSi Hom. on Lev. 62Philo, Sp.Les. r, 235-238.
XN,4, ibid., p. 242: Hom. on Jer. XIil-XWi, SC Z:S, pp. 52-214.
63origen, Hom. on Jer. XIil - XVIil, SC 286, pp. 52-214;Hom.
61Heb.9:26-28; to:26.
on Lev.IX, 8, SC 287,p. ll2.
270 JEANLAPORTE
Origendeclaresthat,if we becomeour own accuser,the devil hasno
caseto makeagainstus at the last judgment,and that, accordingto David
(Ps. 31:5), "to confessone's sins is to deserveforgiveness."64In his
Homily on Psalm37, Oigen enlargeson theremissionof grievoussins,the
advantageof confession,and the processof public penance.65It is
noteworthythat Origennot only speculates
on the free-will in the mannerof
the Greeks,but, like Philo, discussesthe problem of the remissionof
grievoussins,i.e., voluntarysins,in the light of the rules for the sacrifice
for sin.
For Philo, the high-priestLogos, who is essentiallya mediatorof
thanksgiving,doesnot becomepriestor victim of a sacrificefor sin as does
Christ in Origen.
Following the epistle to the Hebrews,Origen affirms the mediation
of Christasmanfor theremissionof sinsbecausea manis expectedto suffer
anddie.66
Thereis in Philo a kind of adjustmentof God to the weaknessand
sin of men which is comparableto the Incarnation. It is philo's theory of
the powersand his interpretationof the biblical anthropomorphisms.6T
But
the Philonic Powers are physicians,pedagogues,
even judges: neither
intercessors
nor victims. And biblical anthropomorphisms
aresimplya form
64origen,Hom. on Lev. lil, 4, SC 286, pp. t40-142,cf. Lev.
5:5-
6.
65origen,Hom. on Ps. 87,l-2,PG XIl, 1367-81;Hom. on Lev.
XI andXIV, SC 287,pp. 150-159,226-248.
66origen,Hom. on Ex. N,1, SC 16,p.206; Hom. on Lev. II,
3-
4, SC 286,pp. 102-106;Hom. on Lev.Lil,1, ibid.,p. 120.
67Philo,Fzg., 100-106:
e.G.IV, 5t; e.E. It,2t, Som.I, 235-
236.
SACRIFICEIN ORIGEN 27r
or to the hardnessof
of divine languageadjustedto our carnalunderstanding
our heart,for instancewhentheyspeakof divine wrathandrevenge.6SThey
invite us to answer with the languageof expiation. But they deal with
correction,not sacrifice.
The languageof sacrificereappearsin the allegoricalrepresentation
of ttre internal sacrifice of the soul. We have seenabovethat we are invited
by both Philo and Origen to offer the sacrificeof prayerand the first fruits of
our goodthoughts,of virtue andself. Similarly we mustoffer on the altarof
our soul the sacrificefor sin. Origeninsistson this latter aspectmore than
Philo.
For instance,in Homily 5 on Leviticas, Origen reminds us that
tlere are in our soul spiritual bulls, sheep,goats,birds readyfor sacrifice. In
the temple of our soul we must offer both whole-burnt offerings and
sacrificesfor sin. We offer sacrificesfor sin when we offer up to God a
contrite heart,a broken spirit in a holy place,and the soul of a repenting
sinner is a holy place. We offer this sacrificebefore the Lord, i.e., in a
sincereconfession.69
But Origen soon passesto a Christologicalinterpretation. The
victim offeredfor sin, andvery holy, is the only SonofGod, our Lord Jesus
Christ, who alone is "victim for sin."70 The priest also is Christ, who
offeredhimself to God, and now, like the priesteatingthe sin (victim) of a
repentingsinner,"eatsthe sins of the people."Following Christ the high-
priest,his sons,the priestsof the Church,also "eat the sins of the people"
68Philo,Deus, 59-69;
Q.G.II,54i Conta CelsumIV, 71-72,SC
136,pp. 359-365.
69origen,Hom. on Lev. V,2, SC 286,pp. 21O-2I4.
Toorigen,ibid., 3, pp.214-216.
 272 JEA}ILAPORTE
when they purify from their sinsthe heartsof their listeners.The priess of
the Church offer the propitiation for sinnerswhen they take them apart,
warn,exhort,teach,andbring themto repentance.Tl
fncense-offering, Purifications
Under the headingof sacrifice,we also find incense-offeringand
purifications. A few remarkswill be enough.
Incense-offering
is connectedwith ttrevegetable-offering
generally
accompanying
sacrifices.It is placedon the incensealtarin the templeevery
morning and evening,and on eachsabbathday on the table of the show-
bread. Relying on the cosmic symbolismof the compositionof incense,
Philo interpretsthe incense-offeringin the senseof praise and erxaptorta.
The incense-altar
is alsothe symbolof ttreofferingof virtueand self.72
Origen seemsto innovateonly in that he interpretsthe incense_
offeringasa symbolof prayeraccordingto ps. l4l:2:
Let my prayerrise like incensebeforeyou,
The lifting up of my handslike the eveningsacrifice.T3
More significantfor the parallel betweenphilo and origen is the
role of incensein the ritual of propitiation at yom-Kippur. we read in
Leviticus l0 that the smokeof incense,like a cloud, preventsthe deathof the
high-priesr Although propitiationproperlyspeakingconsistsin atonement
7lorigen, ibid., 3, SC 286,
W. Zlg-220.
72Phito.Congr., ll4; Her., lgg, 226.
73origen, Hom. IX on Lev. d, SC 287, pp.
106-112.
SACRIFICEINORIGEN 273
with blood on the mercy seat,in speakingof the incense-offeringin the ritual
of Yom-Kippur Philo and Origen both make use of the vocabulary of
propitiation.T4 Incenserefers to the gestureof intercessionof Aaron
standingwith his censerbetweenthe living and the deadin order to sop the
plague(Ex. 30:11-16). At Yom-Kippuralso the high-priestseemsto stand
in the midst of the peopleof Israelasa mediatorand an intercessorin order to
appeasethe wrath of thejustice of God and to obtain reconciliation. Origen
and Philo retain this idea,and Origen recognizesChrist as the intercessorpar
excellence.T5
Since by themselvespurifications are not sacrifices, they only
belong to our presenttopic in so far as they representa preparation,a
requirementfor sacrifice. I have dealt elsewherewith purifications in
philo.76 In Origen, the topic deservesa specialinqury. Probably here
again such an inquiry would show that, to a large extent,Origen follows
Philo in his literal and moral interpretationof the laws on purifications in so
far asthey do not meana return to the practiceof ancientsacrifices.
Early Christian literature revealsthe permanenceof many levitical
purificationsin the Christianpractice,for instance,a washingof handsbefore
prayer,to say nothing of the customof fastingon certaindays. Thereare
also specificallychristian purificationssuchas the sign of the cross. All
thesepurificationsareloadedwith moralimplications.TT
74oigen, Hom.IX on Lev.,g-10,SC 287,pp. ll2-122.
75Origen,Hom. on Num.IX,2-j, SC 29,pp.168-176,pG
XII,
6t2-6t7.
in philo of Alexandria,,,
. ^ l6t-qorte, "sacrificeandForgiveness paper
at the OxfordPatristicConference,1983.
77origen,Contra CelsumI.6, SC 132,pp. g0-g2,V.49,
SC 147,
pp. 140-142:,
VII.4, SC 150,pp. 20-22:Hom. on Gen X, /, SC 7 bis, p.
274 JEANLAPORTE
The most interestingof thesepurifications,becauseit is directly
connected with the celebration of the Christian Eucharist, is the
to abstainfrom intercoursethe night beforesharingin the
recommendation
sacrifice.T8 Origen even goes so far as to suggestreservinga room for
prayerin order not to pray in the bedroomand thusoffend the Holy Spirit.79
We must acknowledgethat this restriction is never presentedas
imporiant,and communionor prayer in that situationas a fault deserving
condemnation.Purification with water,evenwith the moistureof the breath,
is enoughto removethe impurity, and is not obligatory.8oThis observation
confirms that the Levitical forms of sacrifice, and certain forms of
pwification of the samekind, really servedas models for the Christian
undersandingandpracticeof sacrifice.
Conclusion
For the explanation of Origen's doctrine of sacrifice the best
methodologyis to recognizehis real modelsin his sources,i.e., Leviticusas
interpretedby Philo. OrigenrepeatsPhilo's teachingson sacrificewithout
much alteration. He completesthem with a Christiandevelopmentalready
254-258;Hom. on Ex. XI, 7, pp.243-244,PG XII, 381;Hom. on Lev. VII,
4-5, SC 286, pp. 326-334.
78origen,Hom.XI onEx., Z, SC 16, pp.V42-244.pG XlI,38l;
Hom. on Num. Vl,3, SC 29, pp. 129-130,PG XII, 6L0;Hom. on Num.
XXIII,3, ibid.,p.442, PG XII, 740.
79origen,On Prayer,3l,4, ACW 19,p. 133.
S0Didascalia,Connolly, pp. 242-254;Origen, Hom. on Num.
XXIII, 3, SC 29, pp. 439-442,PG XII, 749; The Apostolic Tradition of
Hippolytus,ed. G. Dix andH. Chadwick(London,1968),p. 66.
SACRIFICEIN ORIGEN 275
preparedby Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Thereby Origen offers a
Christiantheologyof sacrifice,in which the sacrificeof Christ is given its
capital importancein the mysteryof our redemption. Yet our own sacrifice--
martyrdom,forgiveness,almsgiving, or whatever--isnot emptied by the
power of the sacrificeof Christ. It remainsvalid as interpretedby Philo and
Origen accordingto biblical models,and by its associationwith the sacrifice
of Christ.
SinceOrigen was amongthe first exegeteswho wrote continuous
commentarieson biblical books, he is also the best interpreter of the
Christiandoctrineof sacrificewhich thereflectionof Christianfaith discovers
in thesebooks. All other statements
found in the Christiantraditionbefore
Origen are occasionaland deal with particularaspectsas, for instance,the
deliverancefrom the devil, or the ransom. They do not directly dealwith the
levitical notion of sacrifice which is the basis of the Christian notion.
FurthermoresinceOrigen'smodelsof sacrificearebiblical,we mustbe very
critical of the use of other models,such as thoseelaboratedmore or less
artificially by the History of Religions school,when appliedfrom the outside
to Origen'snotionof sacrifice.
This study of Origen'stheologyof sacrificeis of greatimportance
for liturgical theology, since it casts new light on the sacramentof the
Eucharist and, complementedby his notion of forgiveness,8lon the
sacrament
ofpenance.
This leads me to suggesta last remark concerningthe way the
Middle Agesand moderntheologyhaveapproached
the questionof the real
presenceof Christ in the sacramentof the Eucharist.Out of the desireto
stick to a literal interpretationof the words of consecrationand to give them
Sllaporte, "Philonic Models in Origen's Doctrine of Forgiveness."
276 JEAI{LAPORTE

their full meaning,as if other considerationsmight endangertheir awesome

character,Christian theology came to adopt a kind of Eucharistic
fundamentalism,a short-sightedview of the real presence,which can and
mustbe completedwith the considerationof a biblical theologyof sacrifice.
The gift of the body andblood of Christis not the mereconveyance
of the real presenceof Christ to the believer,for Christ is believedto be ORIGEN'S ECCLESIOLOGY AND THE
presentin the hearts of the believersbefore the communion. But it is BIBLICAL METAPHOR OF THE CHURCH
properly and directly sharingin christ's sacrificeaccordingto the biblical rule AS THE BODY OF CHRIST
of sacrifice, which prescribeseating our own portion of the victim. Christ's
interpretationof the breadand wine as his body and blood madeit clear that Verlyn D. Verbrugge
University of Notre Dame
we sharein the victim offered for our redemptionand in the blood pouredout
in propitiation for our sins. Therefore,whateverbe the advantageand
relevanceof the painstakingproof for the real presencein classicaltheology,
on theology,Peri Archon, Origen discussesthe
In his masterpiece
a good understandingof the biblical notion of sacrificeprovidesboth a more
vital topics of his intellectualand philosophicalage: for example,the nature
simpleand morecompleteunderstandingof the ChristianEucharist.
of God, the rational soul, the creationof the world, free will, and the end of
It also reminds us that the Eucharisticblood is sharing in the
all things. In contrastto later theological treatises,he undertookno formal
propitiationmadeby christ for our sins. For, as origen points out in his
discussionof the doctrineof the Church. What Origen thoughtaboutthe
homily on Matthew 26, the breadrefers to christ as spiritual food, whereas
Churchwe can only gleanfrom incidentalreferencesthroughouthis writings.
the wine refers to the blood poued out for the remissionof our sins.82 The
It is not as if he had little to say aboutthe Church. In 1974,Josef
"blood of propitiation,"combinesthe blood of the rambor of the suffering
Vogt published an in-depth analysis of Origen's ecclesiology,Das
servant in the narrativeof the Last Supperwith the blood pouredby christ
Kirchenverstdndnis
des Origenes,l This wasno easytasksince,asEric Jay
the Priest on the altar in heaven,accordingto the interpretationof the ritual
indica0es,with no systematictreatment,"Origen's docfine of the Church is
of Yom-Kippur in the epistle to the Hebrews.we joyfully celebratethe
. . . difficult to interpret."2JosephTrigg warnsagainst"drawing too many
memoryof Christ, and give thanksfor thesedivine gifts.

lJosef Vogt, Das Kirchenverstdndnis

des Origenes(K0ln: Bohlau-
Yerlag,1974).
zBric lay, The Church: Its Changing Image through Twenty
82origen,On Mat.26: 26-30;Com. Ser.8j, GCS XI, pp.196-199. Centuries(Atlanta: JohnKnox Press,1978),p. 64.
278 VERLYNVERBRUGGE
conclusionsfrom [Origen's]understandingof the church'sleadership,the
sacraments,and ecclesiasticaldiscipline." After all, he goes on to say,
"ecclesiology . . . was not a major issue for theologiansin the Greek
Christian tradition, least of all for Origen."3 Severaldecadesago, Emile
Merschpublisheda book on the historicaldevelopment
of the doctrineof the
Mystical Body; he too assertedthat the expositionof Clementand Origen on
this doctrinewasnot easy:
The difficulty lies in bringing the different texts [of Origen] on the
Mystical Body into one singleplan. For our part, we confessour
failure to discoveranykey to a synthesisof the whole.4
With this in mind, I haveno intentionof attemptingto systematize
the teachingof Origenon the Church. What I proposeto do in this articleis
simply to takeone specificmetaphorthat the Bible usesfor the Church-that
of the Churchas the "body of Christ" as foundin Rom. 12:4-5:I Cor. 10:17;
l2:I2-27; Eph. l:22-23: 4:4; 5:30; and Col. l:I8--and examineall the
known passages
in which Origendrawsupon ttrisimageryin his discussions
of variousissues.5Two specificquestionswill be addressed:1) What does
3JosephTrigg, Origen: The Bible and Philosophyin the Third
CenturyChurch(Atlanta: JohnKnox Press,1983),p. 199.
4EmileMersch,TheWholeChrist: TheHistorical Developmentof
theDoctine of the MysticalBody in Suipture and Tradition,trans.JohnR.
Kelley (Milwaukee: The BrucePublishingCo., 1938),p.U,9.
5For the passagesthat I deal with in this analysis I
_haveused
Volume III of Biblia Patistica, ed. Allenbach,et al. (Paris: Editions du
Centreda la RechercheScientifique,1983). All referencesto the Bible will,
for the sakeofconsistency,be to standardEnglishchaptersandverses,rather
thanto the Septuagint,Vulgate,or Biblia Hebraica.
ORIGENSECCLESIOI,OGY 279
Origen teach aboutthe Churchas the Body of Christ? 2) How doeshe use
the abovepassages
to bring importantmessages
to his hearers/readers?
1. The Teaching of Origen on the Church as the Body of
Christ
When Origen reflects on the metaphorof the Church as the body of
Christ, he stressestwo separate,though related,ideas: a strong senseof
unity betweenChrist as the headand Christiansas membersof his body, and
an equallysrong senseof unity that the membersof the body of Christhave
witi one another.
With respectto tle former,when Origen discussesJesus'teaching
on divorcein Matt. 19:3-10,he interpretsthepassage
to be speaking,among
other things, of Christ and the Church. Christ left his Fatherin heavento be
joined to his wife, the Church,and the two have becomepta odpf. He
this by pointing ta I Cor. 12:27:
substantiates
"you arethebody of Christandmembersin particular." . . .Godhas
joined theseogether,not becomingtwo but becomingoneflesh [cf.
Eph. 5:31-321,commandingthat no man fiater,no principalityor
powerl shouldput asundertheChurchfrom theLord.6
Likewise, as Origencommentson the frequentuse of fz in John 17, he
insistsuponthe unity betweenthetv otlpaof.I Cor. 12:13andEph.4:4
6Commentary GCS LO,p.326.
on Matthew,14.47;
280 VERLYNVERBRUC'GE ORIGENS ECCLESIOT,OGY 281

and the head,christ (col. 1:18).7 The sameemphasisoccursin confta differentiatedfrom andbetterthan the rest of believers,may be consideredthe

CelswnVI.79.8 soul of Christ.l2

In anothersectionof Contra Celsum (VI.48),9 Origen usesthe Emile Merschis rathercritical of Origen'sidea of the Mystical Body

analogy of the humanbody and soril to describethe integral relationshipof becauseof a "lack of realism":l3 "this union seemsto be a participationin

Christ and the Church:just as the soul gives life to and movesthe human Christ'sdivinity ratherthan an incorporationin His humanity."l4 He does

body, so *te Logos, the Son of God, animatesthe body of Christ, the acknowledge,however, that to interpret Origen properly, one must

church. In the seventhhomily on Leviticus, origen stressesthat christ "presupposethat the unity betweenChristand Christians,betweenthe Head

wills to dwell in his body the church as a soul.l0 In a similar vein, as and the members,is so closethat the Scripturescan attributeto the one tlat

Origenformally discussesEph.l:22-23, he probesthe relationshipbetween which is strictly true only of t}reotler."l5

Christ as headand the Churchas his body. After proposingtwo options-is Secondly,Origen stressesthe unity that the membersof the body of

the body a mere instrument for the head or is it analogousto the human Christ havewith one another. In his discussionof Eph. 4:3,he pointsout

body, with the Churchbeing animatedQ/tuXoptrcu)by his divinity and filled that this unity among fellow believersis assuredwhen love binds them

by his Spirit?--Origenchoosesthe latter.ll InPeri Archon ll.vii.5, this together and gathers them into one body of Christ.16 Origen makes

unity betweenChrist and his Church is expressed,in a more limited way, in allusionsto the samethemein a fragmentof a commentaryon Ps. 122:3:

reverseform. In referring to Matt. 26:38, "My soul is sorrowful even unto wheneverthe rap\ta and$ty4 of believersare one (cf. Acts 4:32) and the

death," Origen suggests,via I Cor. 12:27, that the apostles as a unit, membersexpressthe samecare for one another(I Cor. L2:25), they are
Jerusalemwhose communion (perdxil is together.lT Thereis, in other

12sc2s2,p.330.
7Fragmcntof Commentaryon John,GCS4, p- 574.
l3Mersch,TheWholeChrist,pp. 253,255.
8sc 142,p. 378.
14bid.,p.248.
9lbid.,p. 3oo.
l5Ibld., p. 26I (italics mine). Mersch'sown emphasisis on our
l0 Homilies on Leviticus 7.2; GCS 6, p. 379. Procopiusattributes union with eachother as it takesplace in Christ. He doesnot seemto be
tle samethoughtto Origen while commentingon the Songof Songs1:16; awareof the many passagesin Origen that stressthis relationship(cf. the
seeGCS8, p. 175. next sectionof this article).

1lSee,IIS 3 (1903): 401. We oughtto cakenoteof the role of the r6ns 3 g9o2):4r2.
Spirit here. Commentingon Rom. 12:6,Origensaysthat thosewho do not rTpC n.rc32D-1633A. Thoughthe word o6pa is nor used,rhis
hive the gratia (gift, grace)of the Spirit cannotbe membersof the body of
Christ; seePG l4.I2l5B. passage
quotssI Cor. 12:25.
282 VERLYNVERBRUCGE
words,a loving unity amongthe membersof the body of Christ. This unity
is similarly alluded to in the healing of the righteousman in Ps. 30:2:
thosewho believe are one body in Christ, and membersof a member.l8
Thus, if one membersuffers,all the membersdo and the whole body of
Christneedshealing.lg
The abovereferenceto one heartand soul is repeatedin Origen's
ninth homily on Ezekiel. Here Origen alludesto the Platonic axiom that
unity is betterthandiversity. God, accordingto Plalo,20is rd Tn lnded,
in Peri Archon I.i.6, Origen himself statesclearly that God is Unity and
OnenessQlovag and,Eas).21To Plato and his followers,this teachinghad
ethicalimplications. In the Republic 4,445c, Plato saysttratvirtue is of a
simplepiecewhereasvice is multitudinous;similar thoughtscanbe found in
Plutarch(De virtute morali 4448) andPlotinus(EnneadsVI. ix.34). Even
formulain StromataIV.15l.3 that
Clementof Alexandriacitesa Pythagorean
the man who wishesto becomeone must suppressthe passions.22As an
heir to this Platonicthinking, therefore,Origen assertsin the ninth homily
l8The text readsfr ptAow here,ratler thandr ptpous. This has
probably been alteredin copying to correspondto the Westernlext reading,
sinceelsewhere(e.g.,GCS4, p. 209 and 574),thetext readstrc p(pow. ln
Leviticus Homily 7, 2, Origen gives a unique explanation of what is
undoubtedlytrc p€povs,expartecf. below.
l9pc tz.tz92D-L293A. Cf. Commentaryon Matthew 24:21
that one person's
(GCS 11, p.92), whereOrigen likewiseacknowledges
sufferingor sin affectsthe other members.
20Cf. John Dillon, The Middle Platonists (Ithaca: Cornell
UniversityPress,1977),pp. 34.
2rsczsz,p.1oo.
22Theselast four referencesare cited in M. Harl's commentson
Philocalia,Chapter8 (SC302,pp. 347-48).
ORIGENS ECCLESIOI,OGY 283
on Ezekiel: "where there are sins, there is multitude, there are divisions,
heresies,dissensions;however,where there is virtue, there is singularity,
unity, out of which there is one heart and soul for all believers."23 He
correlatesthis unity of principlewith I Cor. 1:10("that we may be perfectly
joined togetherin the samemind and in the samejudgment")and with Eph.
4:4, ("that we may be one body and one spirit").24 The notion of the
spiritual and ethical unity of membersof the body is prominenthere.
The unity Origen seesin the Church extendsto both "time" and
"space". Spatially,the saintswho have alreadydepartedretain thefuunity
with thebody of Christon earth. In De oratione11.2,Origenacknowledges
the value of intercessoryprayer "by someonewho has some greater
boldness."Thosewho pray for us neednot be living Christiansbut may also
be saintswho have fallen asleep--infact, the latter have a more perfect love
for us than thosewho still strugglein this life. To them also Origen applies
the body of Christ imageryof I Cor. 12',26:"if one membersuffers,all the
memberssuffer togetherand if one memberis honored,all the members
rejoice together."2s Like Paul in II Cor. II:28-29, they have anxiety
Qt€ptpuacf. peptpvaotv in I Cor. 12:25)for all the churches.
Temporally, Origen relatesthe conceptof the body of Christ to the
Churchfrom the time of Israelto the end of hislory. Inhis Commentaryon
John2:18-19,Origeninterpretsboth the utemple"andthe "body" as rtrot of
23ccs 8, p.406.
24Ut Harl, in SC 302, p. 346, briefly discussesthis Ezekiel
homily and correlatesit with a similar treatmentby Origenin a homily on I
Kings 1:1(GCS8, pp. 5-6).
25GCS2, p. 322. Significantly,when Origen goes on ro talk of
the ministry of angelson our behalf(11.3-5),he makesno suchreferenceto
the "body" metaphor;only departedsaintsmay properly be called "fellow-
membersof thebody of ChrisL"
284 VERLYNVERBRUCCE
the Church. The resurrectionon tle third day, recordedin this passage,refers
to the new heavenand the new earthwhen thesebones,the whole houseof
Israel(cf. Ezekiel37), will be raisedon tlre geat day of the Lord. This will
be *re day of the resurrectionof ro0 rdwos: Xptoro| otfinrog.26 Afew
lines later Origen reiteratesthis by suggestingthat when the resurrectionof
the true and more perfect body of Christ occurs, then finally the many
memberswill be the one body of Christ.27 Similarly, when Origen
discussesthe awaited"redemptionof our body" in Rom. 8:23,he doesnot
view this individually but, via I Cor. 12:27, as thecorpus totiusEcclesiae.ZS
That is, the Apostle is not looking forward here to a time when perfection
will be given to individual members,but to the universumcorpusin unum
. . . congregatum.Finally, in tlte seventhhomily on Leviticus,Origen
once again unites the idea of perfection (hereespeciallyas recordedin Heb.
11:39),the vision of Ezekielon thebonesof Israel,the final day of days,and
the body of Christ. "Thereis one body that is said to rise in judgment.. . .
Thentherewill be full joy whenyou lack no memberof thebody."29
It would be incorrect to say, however,that Origen seesonly the
unity in the body--withChristand with one another. lnhis Commentaryon
Rom. 12:3-5, for example,Origen acknowledgesthe diversity of the
membersof the body with respectto function. God divides to eachperson
accordingto the measureof faith--Origensuggeststhat someof his gifts are
"the work of love, the act of visiting, mercy to the poor, care of the weak,
26Commentary
on John t0.223:GCS4, p.209.
27rbid..,10.236-67;
Gcs 4, pp. 210-11.
2SCommentary
on Romans7.5.;PG 14.1116D-1117A.
29Homilieson Leviticus7.2; GCS6,pp.378-79.
ORICENS ECCLESIOI.OGY 285
works for widows and the defenseof orphans,and hospitality." These(and
many others)all occur in the body of Christ, and eachone useshis gratia for
all the others,and all the othersusetheir individual gifts for him. Drawing
heavily on I Cor. l2.,22-M, Origen insists upon the inappropriateness
of
speculatingwhethersomemembersare moreor lesshonorable;every gift,
accordingto the will of God,is imporrant.30
2. The Use of Origen Makes of the Church As the Body of
Christ
We turn now to the secondsectionof our analysis,inquiring into
how Origentakesthis metaphorof theChurchasthe body of Christanduses
it for parenesis
andfor exegesis.
In a pareneticmanner,Origen exhortshis readersto mutual love and
carein the church. In his commentson Matt. 18:19,concerningtwo or three
agreeingon anythingthey shallask,Origenencourages
suchharmonywhen
he writes:
If we are the body of Christand God hasset members,eachone of
them, in the body so that they havethe samecarefor one another
and harmonizewith one another. ., we ought to practice that
harmony (ovpSavta) that springsfrom the divine music in order
that when we gathertogetherin tle nameof Christ, Christ may be
in our midst.3l
3ocommentary
on Romans9.2-3;PG 14.1211A-I2l3C.
3lcommcntaryon MatthewI4.l: GCS 10,p.277.
286 VERLYNVERBRUGGE
In a similar vein, in the homily on the Passover@xodus 12),
Origen, after alluding to I Cor. 12:20-2Land 10:17,exhortshis hearers0o
"guard the harmony(dppovta) of the memberslest we be accusedof tearing
asunderthe body of Christ."32The sameideacomesacrossin a commenton
Ps. 119:105, "Thy Word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path."
Origen relates this to "the lamp of the body is the eye" in Matt. 6:22,
suggestingthat the eye of the body, the church, is that man endowedwith a
spirinral view and possessingthe Logos. But, he goeson to wan, such an
important memberof the body may still not say of the other members(e.g.,
'I
the hand) "What will it do? nor may the hand say to the eye, have no need
of you.' "33 Origen drawson the sametext (I Cor. 12:21-25)to pleadfor
concordbetweenthe perfectand the imperfectin the Church,the body, when
explainingthe instructionof Paul in Rom. 14:34, that Christiansought not
to judge one another.34
In a rather strange twist, however, Origen reversesthe above
exhortationto mutual love and concemto allow for different degreesof love
for differentpeople. In Book III of the Commentaryon Songof Songs,he
first acknowledgesthroughEph. 4:3 that we ought to have a similar and
equallove for all. But seeingthat Paul speaksin I Corinthians12 of more
honorableand important membersand less honorableand inferior ones,
Origen goeson to say, "I think that ttre modeof love ought to be adjustedto
the merit and honor of the members." He continuesby suggestingthat
32surla Pdque1.32,ed.andtrans.O. Gu6raudandP. Nautin(Paris:
1979),p. 216.
Beauchesne,
33SC t89, p. 360; cf. fragmentof a commentaryon Luke 11:33,
cCS 9, p. 306.
34commentary
on Romnns9.36;PG 14.1236B-C.
ORICENSECCLESIOI,OGY 287
someonewho labors in the Word of God and instructsour soulsis much
more worthy of being loved than someonewho doesnot.35 Origendrops
this issuehereand, to my tnowledge, doesnot take it up elsewhere.
As a corollary of mutual careand concern,Origen usesthe "body of
Christ" metaphorto call the membersto mutualdiscipline. In dealingwith
the Achan episodein Joshua7, he points out how one sinnerpolluted the
entire people. "Therefore,let uS mutually obServeourselvesand let each
one'smannerof life be noted,"especiallyby churchleaders. After all, we are
the body of christ, and no part of the body can be indifferent to the sickness
or suffering of another.36In his Commentaryon Matthew, Origen also
applies I Corinthians 12 to the matter of discipline, but this time with a
significantlydifferent thrust. In discussingMatt. 18:18-19(note the useof
"hand,""foot" and "eye" here,as in I Cor. 12:15-16)and after assertingthat
the eye shouldnot say to the hand,"I haveno needof you," he goeson to
insist that if anyonein the whole o61ta of the congregationof the txrtr4ota
'I
becomesa stumblingblock, then "let the eye sayto sucha hand, haveno
needof you' and cut it off andcastit from himself."37 This is not the time
andplaceto delveinto Origen'sview of churchdiscipline.38Sufficeit to say
that, in his commentson John2:18'19, he ultimatelyleavesit in the hands
of God to makejudgmentof the members.39Vogt sayson this passage,
35ccs8,p. 187.
36ccs7,p.333.
3TCommentary
on Matthew13.34;GCS 10 p.245.
38An excellent analysis of Origen's attitude to sinners and
repentanceis K. Rahner's"La d@trinedOrigEnesurla p6nitence,"Reclarches
de sciencereligieuse37 (1950): 47-97, 252-86,422-56.
39Commentary
on lohn 10.237:GCS4, p.2Il.
288 VERLYNVERBRUGGE
Die AuferstehungdiesesLeibes Geschiehtdurch das Gericht
hindurch, das nur Gott selbstvornehmenwird, wenn er scheidet
zwischendenedlerenund unedlerenTeilen. Wer keine Harmoniezu
den anderenGliedernaufweist, der wird nicht eingehenin den Leib
desVollalters und derReife.40
Secondly,Origen consistentlydraws upon this metaphorof the
churchasthe body of Christasan exegeticaltool. For example,he askshow
it is possiblein Matt. 24:36 for Jesus,the Son of God, to say he doesnot
know the day or the hour of his return. Later theological interpretationsof
this text haveoften madereferenceto the humanityof Christ--asman,Jesus
did not know everything. But Origen draws on the unity of the body of
Christ with her Lord: "For as long as the church, which is the body of
Christ,doesnot know the day or the hour, so the Sonhimself is saidnot to
know, so that he will be understoodto know at the time when all of his
membersalsoknow."4l
Immediately precedingthe above quotation is a referenceto I Cor.
15:28,a text that speaksof the Son'sfuture subjectionto the Father. Origen
quot€sthis sectionof I Corinthiansapproximatelyfifty times in his works,
sinceit is so importantin his eschatology.42But Origen notesa problem
here: how can Paul say the Son is not yet subject to the Father? He
att€mptsto explainthis in his seventhhomily on Leviticus: wheneverI sin,
40Vogt,D as Kirc henverstdndnis,p. 242.
4lccs 11,pp. t26-27.
42Seethe article on this.by Henri Crouzel,"Quandle Fils transmet
le Royaumeb Dieu sonPdre,"StudiaMissionalia33 (1984):359-384.
ORIGENSECCLESIOIOGY 289
I am not subject to the Father. We read in Scripture, "We are the body of
Christ and membersin particular." Therefore,thoughin himself (ipse) the
Son is subjectto the Father,"in me in whom he has not yet consummated
his work, he is said not to be subjes1."43Christ will be totally subjectto
the Father,in otherwords,when all his membersare healthyand subjectto
God--thatis, when we obey God in all things.44 In the samevein, Origen
draws on I Cor. 12:27to explain how Jesuscan say in Matt. 25:42'46, "I
was hungryand you gaveme to eal" Justas a soul dwelling in a body can
be said to be hungry when the body is hungry,"so the Savior sufferswhen
his body,the Church,suffers."45
In interpretingI Cor. 9:24, Origenagainemploysthe conceptof the
unity of the body. He askswhetherPaul meansthat we all run bul only one
receivesthe prize and the rest are lost. No, this is not Paul's meaning,
accordingto Origen. Since"all thosewho are savedare one [Gal. 3:28] and
onebody [Eph.4:4], andsince"we all areonebreadandpartakeof the same
bread, [I Cor. 10:17] and all of you are the body of Christ [I Cor. 12:27],
thereforeall thosewho are savedare the one (eis) wtro receivesthepizs."46
43Homilies on Leviticus7.2; GCS 6, p. 376. In this homily,
Origengives a uniqueexplanationof ex parte (tr p€pors) inlCor. 12:27.
He suggeststhat as long as one has to struggleagainstthe flesh he is subject
to God only partially, ex parte, Hence, "we are the body of Christ and
memberspartially." Later in the homily, he relatesthis to I Cor. 13:9,"now
we know in part andprophesyin part" (exparte,Greek,€r pfuow).
40t'rgengives ttre sameinterpretationin a homiletical commenton
Ps.37:7;PG 12.13308.
45ccs tr, p. r72.
a6ns 9 (1908): 514. The unusualchangesof personcome
becauseof the quotationsfrom Scripture.
290 VERLYNVERBRUCCE
Therestwho run theraceandwho do not receivetheprizeareJewsandthose
who follow heresiesand the teachingsof the Greeks.
Not unlike this is Origen'sinsistencethat in Ezekiel l4:I4-20, we
become"a child of Noah, Daniel,Job and Abraham[all seenas one] to the
adoptionof God," presumablyif we follow in their patternof a virtuous life.
His basisfor this peculiarinterpretationis, asonemight expect,I Cor. 12:27
(as well as the Savior seekingand saving the one sheepwho was lost cf.
Luke 15:45, l9:IA).47 In a homily on Jer. 50:17,Origenalso refersto the
Parable of the Lost Sheep.48 In this fragment,Jeremiahseemsto be
struggling with why the sheepof Israel are destroyedhere, whereasin the
parable,the wanderingsheepis broughtback. The key seemsto be in the
conceptof unity--we are a7l?v odpa and€v rpdBarov. God hasunited us
all togetherby his own Word. We areall onebody andonebreadandpartake
of one spirit (I Cor. 10:17, 12:13). But if we defy this unity by
disobedience,
we no longercanexpecttheprotectionof the Lord; we become
food for the lions (Jer.50:17;thatis, the devil, cf. I Peter5:8).
This conceptof unity Origen usesto solve even textualproblems.
Inthe Philocalia, he questionswhy thereis a switchfrom the plural to the
singularin (the Septuagintversionof) Hoseal2:4: "theycried andprayedto
me and found me in the Houseof God andthereI spokewith him." Should
we not read,Origenasks,"thereI spokewith them"? No, he answers:when
"they"criedandprayedto God,theyareindividuals;whentheyfind God,they
becomeone:
47Homilieson Ezekiel4.6;GCS.8,p. 367.
48ccs 3, pp.2t2-13.
ORIGENS ECCLESIOI,OGY 29r
for tle many havebecomeone in finding God and in hearinghis
Word. For the one is multiple when he sins. . . ., but the many
becomeone when they keep the commandmentsof God, as also the
apostlebearswitnesswhen he says,"We who are many are one
breadandonebody" I Cor. 10:17];andagain,"Thereis oneGodand
one Christ and one faith and one baptism" [Eph. 4:5-6]; and in
anotier place, "We are all one in Christ" [Rom. 12:5, Gal. 3:28];
and again, "I have espousedall of you to presentyou as a holy
virgin to one husband,the lnrd" [I Cor. ll:21.49
Finally, Origen draws upon the imagery of the body of Christ in
severalof his allegorical interpretationsof the Old Testament. For example,
Origen speculatesregarding"horses"in Songof Songs1:9. He eventually
turnsto Rev. 19:11-14wheretheWord of God sitsupona white horse. This
white horseis the Churchwhich is his body (Col. 1:Z), whom he has
sanctifiedfor himself without spot or wrinkle (Eph. 5:25-27, 30).50 He
carriesthis further in Songof Songs1:10,wherehe notesthe cheeksof the
Bride havebecomelovely becausethe kissesof the Bridegoom havecleansed
her @ph. 5:25-27)-thesecheekssymbolizethosemembersof the Body that
49Philocatia 8.1 and 3; SC 302, pp. 336, 338, 340. It is
interestingto note that both Biblia Hebraicaand the Septuaginthavetextual
variantswith the plural that Origen is eitherunawareof or ignores. In the
samesectionof Philocalic, Origen usesthe sameargumentfor a textual
problemin Gen.2:16-17.
50CCS8, p. 152. In the Commentaryon Romans,Origen uses
this samedescriptionof Christ as the Headof the Church,his body, whom
he cleansedto be without spot and wrinkle. This is the body of the new
man, in contrastto the "body of sin" (Rom. 6:6) that must be destroyed,or
which the devil is the head(Commentaryon Romans5, 9; PG 14.1045D-
1046A).
 292 VERLYNVERBRUGGE
exercise chastity, modesty, and virginity. There :ue, of course, other
membersof the Church: eyes(thosewho havethe fight of understandingand
knowledge),ean (thosewho hearthe word of teaching),andhands(thosewho
do goodworks).5l
In his allegorizingofLev. 1:4, that the priest shall put his handon
the head of the burnt offering "as a symbol of the placing of sins on the
animals," Origen interpretsthis as Christ placing the sins of the humanrace
on his own body, "for he himself is the headof his body, the Church."52
Here the body of Christ metaphorof Eph. l:22-23 becomescrucial for his
christologicalunderstandingof this Old Testamentlaw. Likewise, in an
allegoryof the Parableof the Good Samaritan(Luke 10:30-37)thatCramer
attributesto Origen, Origen understandsthe beaston which the wounded
travelleris placed!o be Christ'sbody. He elucidatesthis further by saying,
"For he caniesus tv tawQ becausewe aremembersof his body."53
Conclusions
What conclusionscan we draw from this analysis of Origen's
teachingand useof the metaphorof the church as the body of christ? First
and most obvious,let us observethe rich and variegatedwaysin which this
Alexandrian church Father employs this image--from a philosophical
51CCS8, pp. 154-55. Ono other brief reference
to the Churchas
th_e
body of Christ is in the commentaryon Songof Songs1:7 (GCS g, p.
r35).
52Homilieson Leviticus1.3;GCS6, p.284.
53catanae GraecorumPatrum in Novum Testamentum, ed. J.A.
Cramer (Oxford, 1841),Yol. 2, p. 88. Note the consistencyin these
allegories: the Church, Christ'sbody, is the white horse in Rev. 19, the
sacrificialanimalin Lev. l, the beastin Luke 10.
ORIGENSECCLESIOI.OGY 293
emphasison unity to a moral exhortationto holy living, from an answerto
the pagancritic Celsusto homilies deliveredto membersof Christ'sbody.
Taking just this one biblical metaphor,however,we notedseveral
inconsistenciesand evenoutright contradictionsin the way Origen explicates
this image;for example,1) a greaterlove for more important membersof the
body versusa refusal to speculatewho is moreimportantandan insistenceon
or the inappropriateness
equallove for all; 2) the appropriateness of sayingto
a particularmember,"I haveno needof you"; 3) the Churchdefinedas the
body of Christ animatedby Christ as the soul versusthe suggestionthat the
apostlesmay be defined as the soul of Christ. If this is true for Origen's
reflectionson just this oneimage,we canreadilyunderstandwhy the taskof
a logical systematizationof all that Origen saysabout the Church is well
nigh impossible.
On the other hand, however,generalpattems have emergedin our
analysis. First, in assertingthe mystical union between Christ and the
Church,Origen seesthis union is so intimate that what is ascribedto the
Church can also be ascribedto Christ For example,lack of perfection(as in
the seventhhomily on Leviticus)or lack of knowledge(as in his comments
on Matt. 23:36). Conversely,that which describesChrist can be said to be
descriptiveof his body,the Church: for example,Christ'svisiblebody nailed
to the cross is the whole body of Christ's saintsnailed to the cross;54or
again,Christ'sdivine rebirth throughdeathand resurrectionis the rebirth of
believers.55From the standpointof the textswe havebeendiscussing,what
servesas the intermediarybetweenGod and believersis Christ as body. A
two-way communicationbetweenGod and man takes place not through
54SeeCommentary
on John 10.230;GCS4, p.2lO.
55seecomment
on John17:11;GCS4, p.574.
294 VERLYNVEF.BRUGGE

Christas a God-manmediaior,but throughthe intimateunion that believers

havewith Christ'sbody,Christhimselfbeingthe head. In this regardit may
be saidthat Origen is paving the way for nulla salusex ecclesia.
Secondly,believers--members
of the Church,the body of Christ--
maintaina mysticalunion with one another. This unity beginswi*r the Old THE PLACE OF SAINTS AND SINNERS AFTER
Tescament
saintsandextendsuntil the eschaton.No believerwill experience
DEATH
perfecta beautitudino andplena laetitia as long as there are members
sruggling againstsin in this life.56 This senseof an intimateunion among LawrenceR. Hennessey
WashingtonTheologicalUnion
Christiansinspires Origen, as we have noted, to draw numerousethical
implicationson how believersought to conducttheir lives: he encourages
Christians everywhereto love one another,to support one anotler, to help
Origen'sideasaboutttreplaceof the saintsandthe sinnersafter deattt
one anotheruntil that day whenGod shallbe all in all (cf. I Cor. 15:28).
can be convenientlyarrangedaroundthreeheadings. The first, which can
In sum, therefore,Origen'steachingregardingthe body of Christ is
serve as a prelude to the whole of this presentdrscussion,concernsthe
living and dynamic. It flows with the biblical data,and the ambiguitiesin
descentof Christ into Hades,which is understoodas the abodeof all the
his explication are the ambiguitiesof the Scriptures. We must certainly
saintsand repen[antsinnerswho died before the time of Christ's death and
endorsethe conclusionof GustaveBardy:
resurrection.OrigencarefullydistinguishesHadesfrom Gehenna,which is
the abodeof the Devil, his demonsand all hardened,unrepentantsinners.
le catholicisme d'Origbne n'est pas celui d'un intellectual, qui
Christ descendsinto Hades,not into Gehenna,and liberatesall the souls
s'efforcede penserles enseignements
de lEglise et de les exprimeren
confined there; henceforth,Hadesis closedas a place where souls might go
termesd'ecole;c'estcelui d'une6mereligieusequi ne cessepas de
afterdeath.
chercherDieu pour s'unirtoujoursplus intinementi Lui.57
The secondheadingof this discussionconcernsthe purifying fre
throughwhich the soul passes,and also the dwelling of the blessed.Origen
observes that everyone must pass through the eschatological fire of
purification. This fire is equatedwith God Himself, and is applied primarily
to all of thosedestinedfor Paradise--thesaintsand repentrntsinners,who

56SeeHomilieson Leviticus72i GCS6, p. 378. passinto blessedness.This passagebrings the personfirst to the schola
dnimarum,the schoolfor souls,wherethe personbeginsto learn all about
5TGustaveBardy, Ls vie spirituelle d'apris les p\res des trois
premierssiCcles,rev. by A. Haman(Tournai: Descldeet Cie, 1968),p. 65. the things God hasdoneand the reasonsfor them. Then Christ leadsthe soul
296 LAWRENCEHENNESSEY
on a gradual ascensioninto the heavensand to the contemplationof the
Fatherfaceto face.
The third heading,Gehennaand the punishmentof the damned,
concernsthe very different fate that awaitsthe wicked, hardenedsinner. Such
a one is castinto the etemalfire of Gehenna,asOrigen understoodit, there!o
suffereternalpunishmentand torment. It remainsan openquestionwhether
or not Origen teachesthe eternity of Gehenna. Sometexts reflect a final
restorationof everyone;somedo not; othersareunsnre.
One importantpresuppositionshouldbe statedat the outset. Origen
understoodthe condition of the soul after death sometimesas in an
incorporealstate,and sometimesas clothedwith a corporeal6Xr7pa,i,e,, a
corporealvehiclecomposedof a light, fine invisible matter. This vehicleis
luminousfor the just and the repentant,but dark and murky for sinners. A
full expositionof Origen'sideasaboutthis corporealvehicle is beyondthe
scope of the presentstudy; however, the use of the term "soul" in this
discussionpresupposesOrigen's secondsense,the soul clothed with a
corporealvehicle.l
I. Prelude: the Descent of Christ into Hades
In developinghis own understandingof the Christiantheologyof
theresurrectedbody, Origenopposedcertainideasof Jewishandpaganorigin,
lFor a full discussionof the corporealor incorporealconditionof
the soul after death and of Origen's use of the "corporeal vehicle" see: M.
Simonetti,"Alcuneosservazionisull' interpretazione origenianadi Genesi2,
7 e 3,21," Aevum 36 (1962): 370-381and H. Crouzel, "Le thbme
plaloniciendu 'vdhiculede I' nme'chezOrigbne,"Didaskalia7 (197j):225-
238.
THEPLACEOFSAINTSANDSINNERS 297
still prevailedzrmongmanyChristiansof his own day.2
which nevertheless,
Onenotableexampleis foundin theDialoguewith Heraclides,in thecontext
who identified the soul with the
of the disputewith the Thnetopsychites,
blood andmaintainedthat the soul thus stayedin the tomb after death. This
idea is rooted in a Semitic anthropology.3 As a result of this view, the
Christianbishopswho held it expressedsurprisethat Origenactuallytaught
that the soul was immortal.4 OtherChristiansbelievedthat the soulsof the
deadcontinued!o hover aroundtheir tombs,an idea explicity expressedlong
before in Plato's"ghost-story"in the Phaedo (81d). This idea persistsfor
centuriesafter Origen, and even receivesofficial sanction: the Spanish
Council of Elvira (c. 306) in its thirty-fourth canonforbids the lighting of
candlesin cemeteriesduring the day for fear of "disturbing the spirits of the
that the soulsof the deadarehovering
saints"--which,of course,presupposes
refusalto complywasto be punishedby excommunication.5
nearby--and
An even more pervasiveand persistentidea among Christiansof
Origen'stime is that the soulindeedsurvivesbetweendeathandresurrection,
but in a sort.of Sheol, like the one in the Old Testament. The common
Greekword for this placeis Hades. The only exceptionto this rule wasmade
for the martyrs: they aloneareadmittedto Paradiseimmediatelyupon their
2H. Crouzel,"Mort et immortalitdselonOriglne," BLE 79 (1978):
188-89.(Hereaftercitedas"Mort").
3Dial.Herac.10, 16: SC 67,76; F. Refoul6,"Seelenschlaf,"
LThK
9 Q9e):575-76.
4Dial. Herac.2,1,19 SC 67, 102.
5F. Lauchert, Die Kanonender wichtigstenaltkirchlichenConcilien
(Freiburgi. B. andI*ipzig: Mohr, 1896),19.
298 LAWRENCEHENNESSEY
deaths;the rest of the just wait for the final resurrectionin Sheol,/Ilades.6
After Clementof Alexandria, Origen seemsto have been the first Christian
thinker to openup Paradiseto all the saints-not just martyrs--beforethe final
resurrection.TThis differenceof opinion foomthe previousunderstandingof
this point was grounded,in part, on the way Origen perceived the role of
SheoUlladesin the Christiantradition.
First of all, Origen carefully distinguishesHades/Sheolfrom
Gehenna:Hades(Greek,"At6r6 Latsn,inferus,irfernus, inferrun) directly
to ttreOld TestamentHebrew,Sheol;heusesthe Hebrewword
corresponds
only in quoting Scripture, otherwise he adheressrictly to Attic usageby
employingthe word only in the genitive caseto designatethe place of the
dead.8 llades is constantly referred to as a place: the place Qaptod of
souls,9or the region(xdpal of the dead.lO It is situatedat the heartof the
earth,and it is the placeto which one descends.ll Hadesis also the place
wherethe "saints"of the Old Testamentwere sentprior to Christ'spassion
and descentthere: This includes the patriarchsand prophets,Abraham and
6Tertullian,De anima,VII,4; LY,24; LVI[, 1: CCSL II,790;
862-863:867-868. De resurrectione,XYll,2; XLVII, 4: CCSL II, 941,
978-979.
7H. Crouzel,"L'Hadbset la G6henneselonOrigdne,"Gregorianum
59 (1978):330@nglishsummary).Hereaftercitedas"L'IIadbs").
8lbid., 294: e.g.,tv (iov; ets d6ou; t€ dSov; yaptov (6ov.
In classicalusage,theseexpressionsreferredto the place of the underwodd
god,Hades.
9Co^*.,Ir. XXVII, 6 (5), 43: GCS IV, 395,32;Frag. Jn.79;
GCSIV,546, 10.
L0Co^m.,In.XXVil, 7 (O,5a: GCSIV, 397,L7.
1lCrouzel,"L' Hadds,"304.
THEPLACEOFSAINTSANDSINNERS 299
Lazarusin his bosom (cf. Lk. 16:23),Samuel,who was called up by the
wirch of Endor(1 Sm.28),lazarus beforeJesusraisedhim (Jn. 11),andeven
John the Baptist.l2 The reasonthat all thesepeoplewent to l{adeswas the
first, or the "original" sin, which hadclosedttregatesto Paradise.
Becauseof the effecs of this sin, the descentof Christ into l{ades
holds an important place in Origen's understandingof the redemption. By
His descent,Christ desfoys the Devil's dominionover capturedhumanity;
humanity, in a completereversalof its previouscondition, now becomes
Christ'sown "spoilsof salvation":
After having vanquishedthe demons,His enemies,Christ led the
people,who wereundertheir sway,:ls if thesepeoplewere the booty
of victory and the spoils of salvation. So it was written about Him
elsewhere:Ascendingon high, He led captivitycaptive@ph. 4:8).
This was the captivity of the humanrace, which the Devil had
captured for its destruction. Christ led it into captivity in an
oppositesense:He recalledhumanityfrom deathnlife (Hom. Nb.
xvIII,4).13
This descentis really accomplishedby Christ, it is not somethingpurely
allegorical;l4 it opensup for the Old Testamentsaintsthe road to Paradise,
which, until then, had beenclosed. Henceforth,the just oneswho now die
l2lbid., 295;Hom. I Rg.(1 Sm) 28: GCS III,2g3-2g4; Frag.
1n.78: GCSIV, 545,9;Hom.Lc.IV,5: GCS172,27,20;SC 87,134.
L3Hom.Nrm. XV[I,4: GCS V]|r,174,25.
L4Comm. XXX[, 32(19),394-400:cCS IV, 479,28.
"rn.
3OO LAWRENCEHENNESSEY
after Christ's suffering, death,descent"and resurrection,will no longer go to
I{ades,but to Paradisewith Christ andGod:
We too will pass through the flaming sword, and we will not
descendinto the regionof thosewho fell asleepbeforethe coming of
Christ, awaitingHis arrival (Hom. I Rg.(1 Smj 28, tOyl5
And so,by Christ'sdescent,Hadesasa placeis now closed.
n. The Purifying Fire and the Dwelling of the Blessed
The "flaming sword" in the text just cited--"We too will pass
through the flaming sword"--is the fire of judgment, the purifying fire
through which every soul must,pass,even the just. Origen discussesthis
idea primarily in his exegesisof 1 Cor.3:11-15.16 This docrine of
purification is closely allied to the doctrine of the "first" and "second"
LSHom.I Rg.(1 Sm.)28,10: GCS lll,294,II.
16seeH. Crouzel,"L'ex6gdseorig6niennede I Cor. 3, 1l-15 et la
purification eschatologique,"in Epektasis. Mdlangespatistiques offerts au
Cardinal JeanDani€lou (Paris: Beauchesne, 1972):273-283.Hereaftercited
as "L'ex6gdse."
ANDSINNERS
THEPLACEOFSAINTS 301
resurrections;l7euenthougheveryonepassesthroughthe fire,l8 only those
stainedby sin-those who have built on "wood, sFaw, or stubble"(1 Cor.
3:l2)--will be touchedby igl9 This fire is alsocalledthe "baptismof fire"
and the one who will undergoit, is the one who has needof the "second"
resurrection:
now I have found the
On accountof this, Jesusbaptizes--perhaps
reason--intheHoly Spirit and infire Q-k.3:16). It is not that He
baptizesthe sameman iz the Holy Spirit and in fire: the saint He
baptizesin the Holy Spirir, while the other man, after believing and
being judged worthy of the Holy Spirit, sins again--thisone He
bathesinfire. And so, it is not the samemanthat Jesusbaptizesdn
theHoly Spirit and infire.
Blessedis he who is baptizedin the Holy Spirit, and who
hasno needof the baptismof fire. And thrice unhappyis the other
manwho needsto be baptizedinfire. . . .
lTorigen equatesthe "first" resurrectionwith the gpaceof Baptism,
which if kept unstainedduring life, allows a person to pass painlessly
through the purifying fire. A repencantsinner will experiencea painful
passagethrough the fire as the drossof his/her sin is burned away. Origen
calls the completion of the purifying experienceof the repentantsinner the
"second"resurrection. For a fuller discussionof this theme,seeH. Crouzel,
"La'premidre' et la 'seconde'rdsurrectiondes hommesd' aprdsOrigbne,"
Didaslenlia3 (1973):3-19. Hereaftercitedas"La'premibre'."
18E.g.,the apostles,Peterand Paul: Hom. Ps.36,III, 1: PG 12,
13378,an ambiguoustext.
19E.g.,an apostatein time of persecution:Exhor. ad Mart.36:
GCS I, 33,20. The imagesof wood, straw,and stubblerefer to all kinds of
sins: seeCrouzel,"L'exdgdse,"276 f.
 LAWRENCEHENNESSEY
302
And blessedishe who hasa sharein thefirst resurrection
@ev. 20:6), the one who haskept the baptismof the Holy Spirit.
Who is it that is to be savedin the secondresurrection?It is the one
who needsthe baptismof fire: when he comesto this fire, the fire
will try him (cf. 1 Cor. 3:13), and this fire will find wood, straw,
andstubble(1 Cor. 3:12) tobwn (Hom.Ier.Il,3).20
Everyone,saintand sinner,will passthroughthe fre, becausethe
fire is God Himself,2l or elseit is relatedto Christ.22 Nevertheless,only
thosein needof purification will feel anything painful. Theselatter are the
dead,that is, the deadin Chrisc they are sinnerswho have lost life, but
having repentedin this world or the next, they only receivetotal purification
and salvation in the secondresurrection,which is accompaniedby this
baptism of fire.23 The living, those who passthrough the baptism of fire
unscathed,are converselythosewho died to sin and rose with Christ in the
ZoHom.Jer. ll,3: GCS 11I,29,9;5C232,244.
ZlHom. Jos. IV, 3: GCS VII, 3f l, 22: SC 71, 154: "Remember
what is written: Thosewho draw closeto me, draw closeto fire." This is an
agraphon, a word atributed to Christ, but not found in the text of the
canonicalscripture. It is also found, in a different form, in Didymus the
Blind, Expos.in Ps.88,8: PG 39, 1488D: "He who is closeto me is
close to fire; he who is far from me is far from the Kingdom." This same
form is found in the Nag Hammadi Gospel of Thomas,logion 82: J.-8.
Mdnard, L' Evangile selon Thomas (Nig HammadiStudiesV: Leiden:
Brill, 1975): 70, 15; 182-184. See A. Jaubert,Origdne: Homdlies sur
Iosud (SC 71: Paris, 1960), 154, n. 1, and M. Simonetti,"Note sull'
interpretazionepatristicadi Deuteronomia4, /[," Vetera christianorum 5
(1968):131-36.
22Hom.Ez. I,3: GCS VI[, 324,20 i proposLk.12:49.
23Croiuzel,
"La'premibre',"18-19.
ANDSINNERS
TI{EPLACEOFSAINTS 303
frst resurrection-their sacramentalbaptismin the Holy Spirit-and kept the
baptismalgracepure andintact.
Generally in Origen'sdiscussions,the eschaological purification is
spokenof as in the future. Sometimes,however,in connectionwith the life
of a faithful Christian, it is spokenof in the presenr God, who is fire,
consumesevil thoughts,shamefulactions,and the desiresof sin,
when He insertsHimself into the mindsof believers,and when He
indwells, along with His Son, in thosesoulsthat havebeen made
capableof receivingHis Word and His Wisdom (De Princ.l,l,
21'2t
It does not seem, however, that the eschatologicalpurification
shouldbe distinguishedfrom the final judgmenr In Origen's writings there
is no differencebetweentheparticularjudgmentandthe generaljudgment"nor
is there any speculationabout the intermediateperiod betweentime and
eternity,which would extendfrom the deathof the individual until the general
resurrection. This will be the preoccupationof later theology.25 Rather,
af[er death, each person passesthrough the processof purification, the
baptismof fire: the saintsandrepencantsinners--theformer unscathedandthe
latter painfully purified--passon afterwardsto heaven,while the hardened,
unrepentantsinnersare sentto the "eternalfne" of Gehenna.
While a soul is undergoingthis processof purification,it is also a
time of instruction. Origen gives two opinions on where this might
24Croazel,
"L'ex6gbse,"278. De princ. 1,1,2: GCSY,17,26i
sc 252,92,33.
zsraia.,
z8z.
304 LAWRENCEHENNESSEY
occur:26 in the flust, the saintswill dwell in the air betweenheavenand
earth;in the second,they will dwell in a specialplaceon earthidentified with
the earthly Paradise(Gn. 2:8:LXX).27 In both places,they do tle same
thing: theygain full knowledgeof the thingstheyhaveseen,andthereasons
why things are so. The secondopinion--thedwelling place somewhereon
earth--ismore developed;the place is called a scholaanimtrum, a schoolfor
souls. In this placeof instruction,the well-trainedandalert soul will quickly
passfrom thereinto the air, and from the air into the heavens.The heavens
have many stagesthroughwhich the soul passes--the"many mansions"of
ln. I4:2--andit stopsand observeseachoneand leamsthe reasonsfor what
goes on there. The soul learnsall about the stars;and most specially,it
learnsaboutthe "invisible"things(cf.2 Cor.4:18) it neverknewbefore.
The presenceof Christpervadeseverywhere,sinceHe is not confinedto His
corporealbody. When the soul attainsthe perfectionof this knowledge,it is
theFather"faceto face"(cf. I Cor. 13:12).
led by Christto contemplate
This secondopinion, then, involvesascensionthroughthe air, the
realm of the planetaryspheres,28to which, following ancientastronomy,
Origen attachesthe seven"wanderingstars" or planets,i.e., the Sun, the
Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter,Venus,and Saturn. The planetaryspheres
explainthe movementsof thesesevenplanets.To the sevenspheresis added
an eighth,the sphereof the stars,which,when seenfrom earth,is apparently
26Deprinc.ll,ll,6-7: GCSV, 189,9; 5C252,406,186.
2TOrigenhabituallyallegorizesParadiseas the original place of
rational creatures,and the future place of the blessed,which, accordingto
sometexts, is more than a determinedplace;it is the stateof supernatural
joy: Hom. Lv. XVI, 15; Hom. Nb. XII, 3; Hom. I RS.(1 Sm.) I, l;
Comm. Ct.I. See H. Crouzeland M. Simonetti,Origine: Traitd des
principes (SC253:Paris,1978),250,n.43.
28Deprinc.II, 11,6: GCSV, 190,9;SC 252,408,224.
THE PLACE OF SAINTS AND SINNERS 305
unmoving,with its starsplacedtogether. It is beyondtheseeight spheres
that Origenaddsa ninth,an additionalsphere,whichrecallsthe oneimagined
Hipparchus(190B.C.E.),to explainthe phenomenon
by the asEonomer, of
il the "precessionof equinoxes."29In this ninth sphereis setthe "goodland,"
il
'{
the dwelling of the blessed,where they will passto the "heritageof the
,t
fiI heavenlykingdom."3o
ilI. Gehenna and the Punishment of the Damned
When the soulspassthroughthe eschatologicalbaptismof fire, a
cleardistinctionis madebetweentherepentantsinners,whosefaultsandsins
God will consume,and the hardenedsinnerwho will be swallowedup by
death:31
But God, the Fire, consumeshumansins;He crushes,devours,and
purifiestlem, just as He sayselsewhere:I will reftneyou withfire,
until you are pure (Is. 1:25). This is how He eatsthe sin of the one
who offers sacrificefor sin. He Himself hastakenon our sins (cf.
Mt. 8:17),and within Himself, in so far as He is fire, He eatsthem
and destroysthem. And so, on the contrary,thosewho remainin
their sins are said to be swallowedup by death,as it, was written:
29Crouzel, "Mort," The precessionwas Hipparchus'greatest
discovery;seeG. J. Toomer,"Hipparchus,"Oxford ClassicalDictionary
(1970):516-17.
30Deprinc. II, 3, 7: GCSV, 125,12:SC 252,272, 337.
3lCrouzel,"L' ex6gbse,"
280.
306 LAWRENCEHENNESSEY TTTEPLACEOFSAINTSAND SINNERS 307

Deathprevails over thetnand will swallowthemup (Ps.48 (49):15. The "premier" demonin Gehennais, of course,the Devil. When

H o m .L v . V , 3 ) . 3 2 Origen personifiesdeathin his writings, it is identified with either sin or the

devil. In other words, it is the evil death becauseof sin that is Deathpar

If the saintsand repeniantsinnerseventuallydwell in the heavens, the Devil is thepersonificationof this death.37
excellence,and

above the eight planetary and stellar spheres,the wicked--unrepentantand While the "eternalfire" of Gehennais of0enthought of as the abyss

hardenedsinners--aredamnedto Gehenna,the placeof fire. This is not the into which ttrewicked demonsand the damnedarecast,Origenalso interprets

"devouringfire" (cf. Dt. 4:24) which is equatedwith God, but the "eternal this fire in a psychologicalor spiritual sense,as somethingkindled within

fire" (Mt 3:12;Lk. 3:17;

fire" (ML 18:8;25:41;Jude7), the "unquenchable the individual andfed by his/herown sins:

Mk. 9:43), and finally, the "exterior darkness"(Mt.22:13;25:301.33 this

eternalfire is different from materialfire, simply becausea materialfire goes If, then, suchis the quality of the body that will rise from the dead,

out, but eternalfre doesnot. It is invisible and burns invisible realities. let us now see what is meant by the threat of eternal fire (cf. Mt.

Nevertheless,there is an analogybetweenthe two kinds of fire: the terrible 25:.4L).And we find in the prophetIsaiahthat it is attestedthat each

suffering of a personwho dies in a fire gives some idea of what can be personis punishedby his own fire, for he says: Walk in the light

sufferedin ttreetemalfire.34 of your own fire and in the flame which you all enkindle in

When Gehennais called tlte "exterior darkness,"it signifies at least yourselves(Is. 50:11). By thesewords,it seemso be indicatedthat

two things: profound ignoranceof God and His saving knowledge,and the eachsinnerkindles himself with his own fire, and is not immersed

murky dark bodiesof the damnedthat are outwardsignsof this ignorance.3s in anotherfire, which was previouslykindled by someoneelse,or

It is also the dwelling of demons,the "abyss"to which they return upon ttreir which pre-existed. The food for and the materialof this fire are our
exorcismby Jesus(cf. Lk. 8:3t1.36 sins, which the apostlePaul calls wood, straw, and stubble(cf. I
Cor. 3:12). And I think that just as in the body an excessof
nourishment,and the unrestrainedquality or quantity of food

32Hom.Lv.Y,3: GCSVI,338,36. producesfevers--of diversekinds and frequencies,accordingto tlte

measurein which the cumulativeintemperancehas amassedthe
33Hom..Ir.XII,5; XIX (XVIID, 15: GCS III,V2,30; 176,1; SC
238,28,47; ?t16,Il9. Hom. ,Ias.IX, 7: GCSVII,352,7; SC 71,256. mat€.rialsand stimulatedthe fever (which quality of materialamassed

34Crouzel,"L'Iladbs," 3I7. Ser.Mt 72: GCSXI, 171,25.

378.g., Comm. Rm. YI, 6:, PG 14, 1067D-1068B- the Devil;
35Deprinc.Il, 10,8: GCS,V, 182,3;SC 252, 392,265. Hom. Jr. XVII, 3: GCSIII, 146;SC 238,166,37 - Sin; Com.Mt. XII, 33:
GCS X, 143,27 - Sin;Hom. Zv. IX, 11: GCS VI, 439,19 - the Devil;
36Hom.,/os.
XV,6: GCSVIII, 390,23;SC 71,350. Hom. fos. VIII, 4: GCSVII, 340,14:SC 71, 228 - the Devil.
308 LAWRENCEHENNESSEY ANDSINNERS
THEPLACEOFSAINTS 309

from all kinds of intemperance,is tlte causeof more seriousor tradition, the passionsare constantlycomparedwith a burning fever.40

longer illnesses)--sotoo the soul, when it has amassedin itself a Accordingto Galen(c. 129-199C.E.),Chrysippususedthis imageto explain

large numberof evil works and an excessof sins. At a suitable the mental illness of passions: this illness correspondsto the body's

time, tlis wholemassof evils fermentsinto punishmentandkindles dispositionfor the fever of passion.4l Chrysippus,in line with his general

into torments. Moreover, when the mind of the conscience,by intellectualism, interpreted Zeno's primitive definition of passion--"an

divine power, recalls all the actions,whosevarious imprints and irrational movementof the soul, which is againstrnlrur:e(napa Qtotv)," and

forms were impressedon it when it was sinning, will seeset out "an exaggeratedimpulse"--asa movement of the soul, consisting of a

before its eyesa kind of snry (historiam) of.every single evil deed, disorderedjudgementof reason:42

of everyfoul, disgracefulor impiousact that it hasdone. Thenthe

conscienceis agitatedand pricked by its own stings,and becomes A passionis an exaggerated
impulse,which is also disobedientto

the accuserand witnessagainstitself. And I think that the apostle the controllingreason(l6yrp) or an irrationalmovementof the soul

Paul thoughtlikewisewhen he says: Among themselves,their against nature (rapd Siotv) (for all passionsbelong to the
thoughtwill accuseor defendthem on the day on which God, authoritativepwt (rfyepovtx6v) of the soul)(Stobaeus,
Eclogai,Il,

accordingto my Gospel,will judge thesecretsof menthroughJesus 88, 6.W.).43

Christ (Rm. 2:15-16). From this, it is understoodthat in what

concernsthe very substanceof the soul, the noxious passions The pivot of Chrysippus'theoryis the interpretationof the passions

(affectibus)of sinnersgeneratecertaintorments(De princ.lI, 10, as a negativedisposition(vay{ta), and,therefore,zlsa stateof soul,i.e., as

4)'38 a way of existing in which the individual can only act in a delirious or
passionatemanner.44When the traditionaldefinition of fever is compared

This spiritual interpretationof the "eternalfire" is apparentlyan with this definitionof passion,an essentialaffinity canbe ascercained:

zdaptationon Origen'spart of someStoic ideas,especiallyof Chrysippus'(c.

280--207B.C.E.) doctrineof "affections"or "passions."39In the Stoic 4oHorn,"Ignis aeternis,"80.

4lcalen, De Hippocratiset Platonisplacitis,V,2: SVF III,465,

p.116.
38Deprinc.II, 10,4: GCSV, 177,1:5C252,382,22.
42Hom,"Ignis aeternis,"80.
399.-J. Horn, "Ignis aeternis: une interprdtationmorale du feu
43stobaeus,
Eclogai,Il, 8, 6.W: SVF III, 378,p. 92.
dternelchezOrigbne,"Revuedeshtudesgrecques82 (1969):79. Ct. C. Cels.
I , 6 4 ; V I I I , 5 1 : G C SI , 1 1 7 , 1 5 ;S C 1 3 2 , 2 5 4 , 2 2G
: C SI I , 2 6 6 , 1 8 ; S C 4Horn, "Ignisaeternis,"81.
150,286,19.
310 LAWRENCEHENNESSEY
Fever was definedin different ways; but Empedoclesand Zeno and
most of the Hippocraticshavedescribedit as an unnaturalwarming
(mN iltotv kgnotaz), leaving the heart and spreadingby the
arteries and veins throughout the whole body, and harmful, in an
obvious way, to the natural energies(Alexanderof Aphrodisias (fl.
early3rd c. C.E.)Defebribus2).45
The analogybetweenthe definitionsis in the genericpart, the expression
rapa Qtotv, unnatural,appearsin both, and in both, refers to excess.
Furthermore,the "passion"is a movementof the soul;in the descriptionof a
fever as a 1eppaola, a warming, movementis also implied. However,
these two points are not the whole comparison. Chrysippus'ethics are
primarily intellectualisfi if virtue has the characterof a knowledgeof the
good,its contraryis ignorance.Sinceevery humanbeing hasa naturaland
to be good,the Socraticideathat
unlimiteddesireto know, andconsequently
"No one doesevil deliberately,"is true. However,mostpeopleact, at least
in part, out of involuntaryignorance.(Origen,for his part, doesnot accept
that absoluteidentificationof sirVevilwith ignorance.)46
The comparison,of course,is partly metaphorical.However,the
physiciansof the Corpus Hippocraticum did not distinguish precisely
between feverish delirium and mental illness. It seems,then, that the
ancientsconsideredthe comparisonto be partly literal, without, however,
havinga clearanddistinctideaof how this couldbe explained.In any event,
45Alexanderof Aphrodisias,De
febribus,2; Greek text in Horn,
"Ignis aeternis,"82, n. 23.
46Horn, "Ignis aeternis,"82-83,and n. 29; Comm.Jn. XX, 40:
GCSIV,392,35.
THEPLACE OFSAINTS AND SINNERS 311
the ancientphysicianunderstoodthe essenceof healthto be a measurable
harmonyfor both the body andthe soul. The dissolutionof this harmonyby
fever in the body, or passionin the soul, puts the being of the personin
danger.q
Theseideasare exactly suitedo origen's purpose: the evil passions
and sins of the soul causea dissolutionof t}te soul'sharmony,in effect, a
decompositionof its being. A loss of spiritual being is, in fact,
estrangementfrom God. A hardenedsinner is one who, by definition, is
estrangedfrom God. Thus, it is this decompositionof the soul, its loss of
being, which constitutesfor Origen the real punishmentfor sin. The
punishmentis hardestfor the ignoranfi the ignoranceof the sinner is not
lack of instruction,but a consciousrefusal of the truth, which consistsin
self-knowledge.Whoeveris not readyto know oneselfwill not seein oneself
a participationin the imageof God.48
one final point. In elaboratingthe natureof the punishmentsfor
sins, origen was sensitiveto the (primarily Gnostic) chargethat God,
especiallyin the Old Testament,wascruel andvindictive.49This sensitivity
is, in part,responsiblefor the ambiguityhis work displayson the questionof
the eternityor non-eternityof punishment.One thing seemsclear: Origen
presentshis doctrineof lhe dtrotcardqraotg, the restorationof all thingsin
christ (cf. 1 cor. 15:23-28),not as a dogma,but as a profoundand secret
hope;he hasdefinitedoubtsandhesitations.S0 Sometimesit seemseventhe
47lbid.,83-86.
a8mid., 86-83. Seealso,H. Crouzel,Origdneet la philosophie
(Paris: Aubier, 1962),72.
49F,.g.,
Hom. Lv.XI,2: GCSvr450,26.
50P. Nemeshegyi,La psternit{ de Dieu chezOrigine (Toumai:
Descl6e,1960),214.
3I2 LAWRENCEHENNESSEY

Devil will be restored to grace;sl other times it seemsthat ttre fate of the
hardenedsinner is more or less definitive;S2 andsometimesOrigen doesn't
seem to know, although he inclines in the direction of repentanceand
restoration.53
MOSES AND JESUSIN CONTRA CELSAM 7.l-252
ETHICS, HISTORY AND JEWISH.CHRISTIAN
EIRENICS IN ORIGEN'S THEOLOGY

PeterJ.Gorday
Atlanta, Ga.

The gospel, then, does not lay down laws in conradiction to the
God of the law, not even if we interpret literally the saying ahut a
blow in the jaw. And neither Moses nor Jesusis wrong. Nor did
the Father forget when he sent Jesusthe commandswhich he had
given to Moses. Nor did He condemnHis own laws, and change
His mind, and sendHis messengerfc the oppositepurpose.l

Origen hasbeendescribedas anttstic for whom the lifetime process

of the ascentof the soul to God begins with ethical purification but then,
quickly ranscendingethicalconcerns,passesto inward contemplationand ttre
vision of God.2 Origen has also been labeled an allegorist for whom the

1All citations of the Contra Celsumare from the Oigen: Contra

sLDeprinc.Ill,6, 5: GCSV,286, 10;SC 268,2A4,134. Celsum, translatedwith an introduction and notes by Hemy Chadwick
(Cambridge: CambridgeUniversiry hess, 1953). The pagenuhbers given
S2ilom.Jr. XYIIir. l: GCS III, 151,7; SC 238, 176,14. Comm. with referencqto Contra Celsumae basedon this fanslation.
Jn.XJX, f4 (3),88: GCSIV,.314,8.
2So, for example, Andrew Louth, The Origins of the Christian
,-^
)sFrag. Eph.26
@ph.5:14): ,IfS 3 (1902):563. Mystical Tradition: Frorn Plato to Denys (Oxford: Clarendonpress, 1983
314 PETERJ.GORDAY
particularitiesand concreteness
of real historicaleventsin Scriptureare of
little import except,as jumping-off placesin various ways to timeless
spiritualinsight and experience.3Bottt picnres, that of Origenas an atllete
of the inner rather than the outer life, and that of Origen as a spiritual
interpreterof Scriptureconcernedwith the meaningof the text only for the
present,draw upon what is seenas the fundamentalPlatonismof his world-
view, even, it is sometimessuggested,the gnosticismof his spirituality.4
One implicationof thesepicturesof Origenis that he may cometo be seen
as anti-Jewish,in the sensethat as a mystic he thoroughlyrejects the
earthbound"typesand shadows"of Judaismfor a higherrealm,while as an
allegoristhe rejectsthe "letter,"includingthereinthe historicaland material
world, the world of merecontingencies,
to which Judaismand its institutions
pb), p. 59, who is generallydependenton Henri Crouzel, Origine et la
"connaissance mystique"(Toulouse:Descl6eet Brouwer,1961),p. 65, and
MargueriteHarl, Origine et la fonction rdvdlatricedu VerbeIncarnd (Paris:
Editionsdu Seuil,1958),p. 321.
3Typical is R.P.C.Hanson,Allegoryand Event: A Studyof the
Sourcesand Significanceof Origen'sInterpretationof Scripture (London:
SCM Press,1959).
4Theclassictreatmentis Hal Koch,PronoiaundPaideusis:Stu.dien
iiber Origenesund sein VerhriltniszumPlatonismzs(Berlin andI-eipzig: De
Gruyter, 1932),who argued(p. 278) tharOrigenis a middle Platonistin his
biblical hermeneutic,and thusintellectualisr(p. 84) and Platonic(ct. p. 2na)
in his view of mystical ascent. The view that Origen is fundamentally
gnosticin his theologyis bestknown from the hisrory of dogmatradition,
represented pre-eminentlyby Adolf von Harnack,but alsoin the morerecent
work of HansJonasand,to someextent,Endrevon Ivanka.
MOSESANDJESUSIN COMRACEISUM 315
belong.s The final upshotfor many is that Origen cannot be viewed as
maintaining a real theology of the Incarnation,since incarnationwould
require in him a fundamentalaffirmation of flesh and materiality, not only as
a dimensionin which God works for the salvationof finite spirits,but also
asan essentialdimensionof thedivine beingitself.6
The perspectiveon Origen thusarticulatedemergesin different ways
both in the work of thosewho seehim as a systematicthinker, as in the
tradition of Hamack, de Faye,Koch and Harl, and in tle work of thosewho
seehim not as systematicbut as "coherent"in his teachingabout the soul
andperfectionin Christ,suchas Vdlker andCrouzel.T Both stancestendto
be highly synthetic,drawingfor their presentations
uponthewholeOrigenian
corpus,so to speak,rather tian as a rule offering exhaustiveanalysisof
individual texts. As somethingof a methodologicalshift, therefore,I would
like to offer an examinationof onepassagein Origenwhich containswithin
a brief compassseveralof his major themes,in order to seeif the standard
5Thelateststudyof OrigenandJudaism,GuiseppeSgheni,Chiesae
Sinagoganelle operedi Origene,StudiaPatristicaMediolanensia13 (Milan:
Vita e Pensiero,1982),highlightsthe antitheticaland structurallyparallel
relationshipof churchandsynagogue in Origen'secclesiology.Theemphasis
on the themeof "churchandsynagogue"necessarily prejudicesany view that
might emergein sucha studyof Origen'sstancetowardJudaismin a negative
direction.
6Cf. Louth, The Origins of the ChristianMystical Tradition,p.70,
asan example.
TSeethe works cited in nn. 2 and 4, and Walther V6lker, Die
Vollkommenheitsideal desOrigenes:Eine Untersuchung zur Geschichteder
Frdmmigkeit und zu den Anfringen christlicher Mystik, Beitriige zur
historishcenTheologie7 (Ttibingen:J.C.B.Mohr, l93l). Includedherealso
mustbe tlrework of Adolf von Hamack,History of Dogma,vols. 2 and 3, tr.
Neil Buchanan(Boston:Little, Brown & Co., 1899),and Eugdnede Faye,
Origine, ss vie, son oeuvre,sapensde,3vols. @aris: ErnstLeroux,1923,
t927, r9Z8).
 316 PETERJ.GORDAY MOSESAND JESUSIN COI{IRACEI:UM 3I7

picture sketchedabove needssomemodification. Such a text is Contra

Finally, moral reformation as the central purposeof God's providential
Celsum7. I-25, whereethics,history, the Jew-Christianrelationshipand the
activity hasbeenfulfilled first for the Jewsin the teachingof Mosesandthe
Incarnationare all addressed,and in a way which suggestsa complex set of
prophets,thenfor atl in the saviorJesus(4.4,p. 186f).
relationshipsamongall four. I would like o reflect upon theseconnections
In Book VII, however,Origenagainiakesup the subjectof Jewish
and draw out some implications particularly for the relationship between
prophecy,but this time to defend it againstwhat seemsto be a positive
Christianity andJudaism.
argumentby Celsuson behalfof the truth ofpagan oracles. Celsusappeam
to havecontendedthatttrechristianapologeticfor the onenessof God,a God
I.
both just and good, basedon the fulfillment of Jewishprophecyin christ,
must logically entail the conclusionthat all prophecywhich has been
The discussion in Contra Celsum 7.t-25 opens with a fresh
fulfilled in later eventsis ipsafacto ttue. The examplegiven by Celsusis
considerationby Origen of the truth of the Old Testamentprophecy.
that of the Pythianat Delphi, who foretold the successfulestablishmentof
Treatrnentsof the natureand truth of prophecyin the eadierparts of the work
coloniesby the Greekcity-states(7.2-3,pp. 3950. Celsushasthustakenup
establish important points: the laws of Moses enable the moral
a kind of all-or-nothingapproachto the truth of prophecyin general,basedon
transfonnationof their hearersby their outward form (this for the multitude)
ftls particularview of what constituteshistoricalfulfillmenf namely,that
andby their inner spirit (this for thosewith understanding)unlike the work of
later events confirm what has been foretold. Origen counters with a
paganphilosopherswhich has been meaningfulonly for a few (1.18, pp.
vindication of specificallyJewishprophecyby his own historical criteria,
19f). The function of the prophets has been to keep the Jews obedient to
which are ethical and hermeneutical,the former involving the fitness of
their law, and consequentlythe prophets were basically not diviners who
prophecy for the at[ainmentof virtue, the latter dealing with the correct
foretold the future (1.36, p. 35); prophetic inspiration was by the Logos so
literary analysisof prophetictexts.
that the prophetssaw and recordedheavenlythingsjust as did Jesus(1.4g, p.
Origen openswith the view that true prophecymust inducevirtue
44). Jesus'actual ministry confirmed the divine inspiration of the prophets
and piety in its hearers,which the Pythian had failed to do becauseof the
by functioning as its miraculous "proof," so that the ultimate fulfillment of
vulgar natureof her meansof inspirationand by the ecstasyand irrational
prophecyby Jesusin his miraclesis a kind of warrantfor its moral authority
(7.3,pp. 395'397). He
her statcof divinepossession
frenzylhat characterize
and its pointingforwardto him as the Christ(1.45,p. 4I;1.49-56,pp. 46_
takesthe positionthat her inspirationis demonic(this reflectinghis view
52). christian initiation musr always be a processof studying the law and
that the gods of the nationsare demons)becauseof the crudenessand
the prophets(2.4,6: pp. 69, 71). The continuingexistenceof the Jewish
localizationof theDelphiccult (7.5-6,pp. 398-400).Prophecy
geographical
nation is taken as a sign that their prophets have spoken truth when they
from God,on the otherhand,comcsthroughwise and virtuouspersonssuch
havecriticized the godsand oraclesof the Gentilesas false (3.2, pp. l29f).
as the Jewishprophets,whosetcaching,as a foretellingof Christ,is credible
 318 pETERJ.coRDAy
preciselybecausethe prophetsreally lived (unlike the cynic philosophers,cf.
3.5ff.,pp. 13lff.) the virrueof which rheyspoke(7.7,p.400f.).
We may recallOrigen'searlierargument(5.4144,pp.296_299)that
the high ethicalstandadof the Jewishlaw, a standardwhich in its rejection
of idolatry was far superiorto the wisdom of the philosophers,justified their
claim to be God's "elect portion." This teachingturned the Jews to the
reality of God as spirit and did not permit them to confusethe shadowwith
the reality (4.31, pp. 206-208\. origen menrions specifically Moses,
Jeremiah,Isaiah,Daniel, Noah and
. . . countlessotlers [who] prophesiedunto God and foretold the
story of Jesuschrist. That is the reasonwe reckonof no accounr
the predictions uttered by the pythian priestess . . . whereaswe
admire tlose of the prophets of Judaea,seeing that their s*ong,
courageous,and holy life was worthy of God's Spirit, whose
prophecywas impartedin a new way which had nothing in common
with the divination inspiredby demons(7.7, p. 40I\.
origen then moveson to the questionof the contentof prophecyin
order to respondto celsus' chargethat much contemporaryprophecy is
nonsensicaland unintelligible, both becauseof the grandioseclaim
to
divinity on the part of the prophet and becauseanyonecan interpret
the
prophet'swords in the desirbdfashion (2.9, pp. 402t.). origen argues
that the
letter of the teaching of the Hebrew prophetswas always immediately
understandable
to its hearersand wasconduciveto moral reformation,but that
the deepermeaning--andhere origen appealsto a favorite proof-text in his
hermeneuticalfr*ry, Proverbs1.6--tookihe form cf riddles, allegories,dark
sayingsandparablesor proverbs(2.r0, p. 403). origen referenceshis own
CEI'SUM
MOSESANDJESUSIN COIVTRA 319
commentarieson Isaiah, Ezekiel and the minor prophetsas attempis to
elucidatethe deepermeaningof propheciesand makesa clear distinction
(7.11,p.404).
betweenobscurityandmeaninglessness
Since Celsus does not cite specific passagesfrom the Jewish
prophets in order to focus his charges,Origen deals with the general
contention that prophecieswhich point to the sufferings of Christ are
blasphemousor nonsensicalbecauseGod cannotsuffer (7.13-15'pp- 405-
407). Origen respondsto this chargewith the view that the prophecieswhich
describethe Messiah'ssufferingpertainonly to his humanaspect(7.16' pp.
407f.),as simple Christianswould immediatelyknow, and that thesesame
propheciestell us that:
he enduredasa wiseandperfectmanwhat mustneedsbe enduredby
a man who doesall in his power on behalf of the entire race of men
and of material beings as well. There is nothing objectionablein
the fact that a man dies, and that in his deathshouldnot only be
given as an exampleof the way to die for the sakeof religion, but
also shouldeffect a beginningandan advancein ttreoverthrowof the
evil one,the devil, who dominatedthe whole eanhQ.17,p. a08).
We areremindedof Origen'searliercontention(2.4042, pp. 98f.) thatJesus'
his causeamongttrosewilling to considercourage
deattractually strengthened
as a virtue.
At this point in the seventhbook of theContra CelsumOrigenhas
in effect mergedan argumentfrom hermeneutics(only the letter of prophecy
deals with Jesus'suffering), from ethics (the suffering of Jesusand the
prophetswas consistentwith their messageabout virtue) and from historical
apologetics(their virtue was actually lived on this earth) into a unity which
 320 PETERJ.GORDAY
focuseson the real humanityof the incarnateLogos as the instrumentof
redemption. This kind of convergenceis a remarkablefeatureof this portion
of Contra Celsum and leads to the final section of the passageunder
discussion,whereOrigendealsfrom 7.18 to 7.25 with Celsus'view that the
teachingsof MosesandJesuson right living (their "laws") arecontradictory.
Origen must show that the contradictionsalluded to by Celsusare only
apparent,that in fact a deeperunity of MosesandJesusreally exists.
Celsuspoints out that Moses taught the importanceof becoming
rich andpowerful, that God'speopleshouldfill the earth,and ttratthey should
slaughtertheir enemies,all of this the antithesisto Jesus'teaching that
wealth andpower are to be rejected,that materialgoodsare not to b desired
and that turning the other cheekis obligatory for one who has alreadybeen
struck once. origen immediatelycounterswith the chargethat celsus has
fallen into a fundamentalerror of hemreneuticsby interpretingthe law and the
prophetsliterally, a mistakehe could haveavoidedby recalling what origen
hasalreadynot€d--thatin fact the prophetslived in extremepoverty--andhe
cites Ps. 33.10, "many are the afflictions of the righteous." Clearly the
teaching of the prophets is not to be understoodliterally, and, further, the
Jews themselvesknow that someteachingsare not to be takenat face value.
origen citesasexamplesDr. 15.6 and28.l2,which statethat righteousJews
shall be the lendersof moneyto manynations;it would be absurdto imagine
that Judaismwould ever possessso much wealth. The Jews would never
haveremainedloyal to, or fought for, suchnonsensicalteaching,nor would
they have experiencedrepenianceso often after they had sinnedagainstthe
law, if that samelaw werenot true(7.18,pp. 409f).
Origen goes on to show that each of the prophetic passages
referencedby celsus on Moses'ethicaldoctrineis to be understoodin some
other sensethanits obviousone,and he employsseverallines of argument:
MOSESANDJESUSIN COMRACEI"SUM 321
in one other case,he recallsthe fact that Jewishinterpretersdo not take a
verseat its face meaning(7.19,p. 410); he showsthat the fulfillment of
anotherprophecycameonly in a paradoxipalfashion(7.19,pp.410-11);
anotherverseis so inconsistentwith plain reasonthat it requiresthe readerto
discernthe real wordsand intentionsof the speakerin order to discoverthe
deepersense(?.19,pp.410-11).Textsfrom EzekielandPaularemarshalled
to show that the law hasa spiritual interpretationwhich is life-giving even
whentheletteris "dead"(viz.,nonsensical Q.24,p. al l).
or contradictory)
The conclusionis that riches and power and filling the earth and
slaughteringone'senemiesall refer to spiritualrealitiesthat involve the
purficationof the soul which hungersfor God (7.21'25,pp' 411-415),and
Origen devisesan exegesisof each prophecythat relatesit to individual
asceticdisciplineand thusto Jesus'teachingaboutself-denialand leavingall
for the sake of the Kingdom. In this way Origen is able to announce
triumphantlyin 7.25 that neitherMoscsnor Jesusis wrong: both are saying
essentiallythe samething and God is shownto be consistentas He has
inspiredboth menwith genuineprophecy.
Elsewherein theContraCelsumOrigenof coursemakesit clearthat
as a believer in JesusChrist he is obliged to disagreewith the Jewish
of Mosesandttreprophecies(e.g.,2.4,p. 69f.). He subscribes
understanding
to a christologicalscriptural hermeneutic--andso he can refer to Jewish
rejectionof Christ (e.g., 2.8, pp, 7l-73, and passim) and to Jewish
"mythologies"(2.6, p. 71) and to the disbelief of Judaismas present
throughoutthe Old Testamentnarrative,pa$icularly in their rejection of
Moseshimselfwhenhe gaveLhefirst law (2.74-75,pp.122D.On the other
hand, he can use as a warrant for the more philosophical,less literal,
of "the wisemen
of an Old Testamentnarrativethe stalements
underslanding
amongthc Hebrcws"who know,ashc does,thata Mostticpassage
cannotbe
322 PETERJ.GORDAY
pointlesswhen Moseshimselfwantedthe peopleto believein what he had
given them.
Indeed,in this connection,it is evident in numerouspassagesof
Contra Celsumand particularly in the seventhbook that Origen makesthe
hermeneuticalleap from a literal understandingof a prophetic passageto its
New Testamentre-interpretationvia the useof passages
from the wisdom-
literature, particularly the book of Proverbs. In Contra Celsum 7.1-25
Wisdom of Solomonis cited twice, Psalmsfour times, and Proverbsfour
times in key settings where it is the Jewish scripturesthemselvesthat
suggestthe needfor a more "spiritual" interpretationof the very pentateuchal
passages
in question. When Mosesin Genesisor Exodusor Deuteronomy
calls for an emphasison wealth or power or the massacreof enemies,it is
evident from the hermeneuticalkey provided in hoverbs or psalmsor other
Solomonictexts that what he really means,i.e., the spiritual interpretation,
is more ethically elevatedthan first appearsand consequentlymore in line
witl Jesus'teachingin thegospels.It would be fair to say,I believe,that,in
Origen'sview of MosesandJesus,JewinterpretsJewin orderto bring Moses
to a position of harmonywith Jesus,all of this being done to counterthe
commonfoe, the paganCelsus,with his outrageousviews on prophecyand
the natureof divine truth.
II.
The first implicationof the foregoinganalysisconcemsthe s[atus
and role of ethical teachingin origen's total exegeticaland theological
program as it comes to expressionin his debatewith celsus about the
ilt11qg A6yos, the fundamentaltruth about God, the world and human
exislence.
MOSES AND JESUSIN COIV?NACEI,SUM 323
ln Contra Celsum7.4 Origen arguedthat the divine inspiration of
the Hebrew prophetsis assuredbecauseof their virtuc, becauseof how they
lived; and in 7.7 he describedin specific lerms the hardshipsand sufferings
which they endured,far more indeedthan the paganphilosophershave ever
faced. In 7.10 we learn that the thrust of their teachingwas toward the
planting of virnre in their hearersand readers. Suchsentiments,as noted,are
virtual commonplacesin Contra Celsum,not leastwhen they are constantly
appliedto Jesushimself, who is declaredthe most virtuous of all men, as
well as the sourceand origin of all virtue (1.57,p.52). The ability of
Christian teachingto producein fact real moral convenion in ig adherentsis
an essentialcriterion of its ruthfulness (1.64,pp. 59f.; 2.45-46,pp. 101f.)
even if the content of that moral teachingis largely a reflection of what all
virtuous people have come to know (1.4, pp. 8f.) and practice.8 Jesus'
sufferings,the object of so much scornfrom Celsus,are declaredto be not a
compromiseof the truth of his teaching,but an actual vindication for those
who know that courageis a virtue (2.42,p.99). "Undertakingthe life which
Jesustaught," which produces"friendship with God and fellowship with
Jesus,"is claimed to be the right way to experiencethe truttr of the assertion
that he is simultaneouslyhumanand divine and that in him God intendsfor
humannatureto be divinized(3.28,pp. 145f.).
This line of thought then merges by degrees with the more
comprehensiveargumentfor the natureof God as infinite moral goodnessand
8Cf. Cart JoachimClassen,"Der platonisch-stoischeKanon der
Kardinaltugendenbei Philo, ClemensAlexandrinusund Origenes,"Kerygtru
und Logos: Beitrdge zu den geistesgeschichtlichen Beziehungenzwishen
Antike und Christentum:Festschriftfiir Carl Andresenzum 70. Gebuttstag,
editedby Adolf Martin Ritrer (G0ttingen: Vandenhoeckund Ruprecht,1979),
p. 68-88,for the view that Origen'sclassificationand orderingof ttrevirnres
is largelyraditional.
 324 PETERJ. GORDAY
for a world order,manifestingilself universallyin all racesandparticularly in
the prophetsand Jesus,asbenignlyprovidential,movingall personsthrough
punishmentand reward into a deeperapprehensionof virtue and its
fundamentalrationality. As in Stoic docEine(cf. Conta Celsum4.29, pp.
204t.; 6.48, p. 365),9 the virtue to be soughrafrer and enjoyedby human
beingsis preciselythat which God himself practicessincethe Logos is the
essentialfactor sharedby both creaturesandCreator.
That this emphasison virtue in his theology and spirituality is
derivedultimatelyfrom Stoicsources,both directlyandas mediatedthrough
middle-Platonistadaptations,
is generallyagreedupon.l0 What is lessclear
and more disputableis the role playedby his ethicalreflection in Origen's
view of the processof spiritualmaturing.ll A passagewhich hasbecomea
locus classicus in the discussionis found in the prologueto Origen's
Commentaryon the Songof Songs,where he makesethical study the first
step in the ascentto God, for it is by ethical study,associatedin that text
with the book of Proverbsas the first of wise solomon'sbooks,that the soul
acquires"a seemlymannerof life" and gains "a groundingin habits that
incline to virtue." Then follows the study of physics,that is, the natural
9PierreNautin, Origine: Sa vie et sonoeuvre
@aris: Beauchesne,
1977),p. 192,n. 15.
10Asin the workscitedof Koch,Chadwick(nextnote)and
Classen.
llThe opposingpbsidonswould be those
of Henry Chadwick,
"Origen,Celsusand the Stoa,",/IS 48 (1941),pp.34-49,who concludes
with referenceto clement and origen: "To bothb} them christianity is not
a philosophicalschoolor point of view; it is primarily a tiving ieligion
demandingright conduct";and Henri crouzel, origine it ra "connaissance
yt2ltiOugi' andOrigine et la philosophie(puis: Aubier, L962),p.35,n.
1?3, who complains in his evaluation of Origen and Stoiciim that
chadwick's articlejust mentionedis confinedto a considerationof contra
Celsum onlv.
MOSESAND JESUSIN COTV"RA
CEISUM 325
and finally
endsfor which all thingsexist,linked to the book of Ecclesiastes,
enoptics,that is, the contemplationof God, as taught in the Song of
Songs.l2 The frequentconclusion,as noted,is that ethical studyis strictly
propaedeuticin Origen'sscheme,since he is preeminentlyfocusedon the
mysticalvision of God,locatedbeyondtheworld of senseandtime'
Our brief analysisof Contra Celsum7.1-25 ought to caution us
againsttoo one-sidedan inlerpretationof the Commentaryon the Songof
Songspassageand its cognates,however.l3 We haveseenthat an essential
criterion of truth for Origen is that it is virtue lived in the world of spaceand
time; otherwise,what passesas truth hasno further claim to consideration'
His debatewith Celsusis in part not so much aboutthe natureof virtue as
about who does it, when the talking is over. Consequently,virtue in the
broadestsense(especiallyif we include piety within its compass)l4must
belong to the whole of Christian maturing, not simply to an early or
preliminary phase.
It has been shown by Walther Vdlker that Origen's whole
conceptionof perfectionis permeatedby an idealof ethicalpurity groundedin
an experiencewhich
love for God that is essentialto the mysticalexperience,
Vdlker claimsto be basicallydifferentfrom the Stoic concernfor dtd1eta,
but which, I would contend,is by its very centrality to Origen'sthought
lzorigen, The Songof Songs,Commentary and Homilies,tr. R.P.
Lawson, Ancient ChristianWriters 26 (New York and Ramsey,N. J.:
NewmanPress,1956),prologue,sec.3 (pp. 39ff.).
l3Principally,Hom. in Gen.13 and 14, andHom. in Num. 12,
by Crouzel,Oiglne et la philosophie,p.22-24.
discussed
14Cf.Classen,"Der platonisch-stoische
Kanon,p. 84.
 r
326 PETERJ.GORDAY
revealingof the influenceof the Stoic theologicalenvironment.l5While
Vdlker puts specialemphasison Origen'sconcernwith martyrdomas the
highestform of the imitatio Christi, and thereforean act of mystical
union,l6 I would suggestthat Origen'smaturefocus was simply on the
possessionof virtue as itself the life of the Kingdom of God;17and if we
keepin mind the broadestpossibleconceptionof virtue, which includesfor
Origenthe practiceof a piety which is empoweredby divine grace,thenthe
whole rangeof Christianexperiencewould seem!o be comprehended.
To returnto the terminologyof the prologueto theCommcntctry
on
the Songof Songs,enopticsmustincludeethicsasa co-terminousdimension
of itself, must indeedseeitself as ethicallyconditionedand determinedin a
l5vdlker, Die Votlkommenheitsideal des Origenes,pp. 146ff. But
this tendencyto look for a fundamentaldifferencebetweenOrigen and the
stoics basedon the christologicallyempoweredcharacterof christian virtue
and by the ultimatechristian concernwith imitatio christi ratherthanpure
drd1eta mustbe balancedby Chadwick,"Origen,Ceslusand the Stoa,"p.
48. Seealsonow MarciaL. Colish,The StoicTraditionfrom Antiquityio
the Early Middle Ages,vol.I: Studiesin Classicall,atin Literature(Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 1985),who, in a generalchuacterrzationof the early and middle
Stoa, makes the point: "Apatheia is not virtue but is a necessary
preconditionfor it. It doesnot denotea stateof passivitybut the detachment
from things evil and indifferent which gives the sagethe moral liberty to
judgeandto act rightly" (p. 44.). Origenwouldhaveagreed.
l6vtilker, Die Voltkommenheitsideal
desOrigenes,pp. l76ff.
17Cf.Comm.in Mau.12.14,where,in commenting on Mt. 16:
13-19and Christ'sbestowalof the keys of the Kingdomon peter,Origen
says, "I think that, as a reward for every virtue of knowledge,certain
mysteriesof wisdom,correspondingto the kind of vfutue,are openedup to
the one who lives virtuously, sincethe Savoir bestowson thosewho have
not been subduedby the gatesof hell as many keys as there are virtues.
Thesekeys, in turn, openan equalnumberof gates,correspondingto each
virtue accordingto the revelationof the mysteries.Perhapstoo everyvirtue
is a kingdomof heaven,suchthat whoeverlives by the virtuesis alreadyin
the kingdomof heaven. . . " (GCS- OrigenesWerke t0.96.33-97.17).
MOSESAND JESUSIN COIVT'RA
CEISUM 327
way which bringsthis pafiiculartripartitedivisionof the processof mystical
ascentmore into line with the conventionalStoic division of studiesin
which ethicsis the highestand last category.l8 It is not that the pursuitof
enopticsquickly leavesethics behind,rather it is that enopticscontainsa
gathering up and focusing of ethics within itself so that Gregory
Thaumaturgus' description of Origen's course of studies as
with the analysisof virtue as the higheststage,may be
logic/physics/ethics,
taken as substantiallytrue and an indication that we are not to take the
prologueto theCommentaryon the Songof Songstoo literally here.
III.
A secondissueraisedby Contra CelsumT.I-25,which is closely
related to the questionof the relative import of ethics for Origen, is the
as it comesto expressionin his biblical
matterof his "this-worldliness"
hermeneutics.It is easyto draw the conclusionthat not only doesOrigen
give the lowestplacein the schemeof mysticalascentto ethics.but alsothat
preciselyfor this reasonhe haslittle or no concemfor an affirmationof, and
fundamentalcommitmentto, the historical actuality of t}te charactersand
eventsof thebiblical narratives.Again, however,my readingof the seventh
18Onthe Stoicorderof studies,seeColish,The StoicTradition,p.
23. Alreadyfor Zeno of Citium, the order logic-physics-ethicsis in effect,
HansF. A. von Arnim, Stoicorumveterumfragmenta,4 vols. (Leipzig,
1903-24;reprint Stuttgarr Teubner,l9g),1,46, as reportedby Diogenes
Laertius. Cf. GregoryThaumaturgus, The ThanksgivingDiscozrse,esp.IX,
115ff., where Gregory describesethical teachingas the goal of Origen's
educational programme,Grigoire le Thaumnturge, Remcrciernent d OrigCne*
suivi de laLette d'OrigAnedGrigoire, textegrec.Introduction,traductionet
notes,Henri Crouzel,s.j., SC 148 @aris,Editionsdu Cerf, 1969). Pdre
Crouzel,pp. 87ff., agreeswith W. V6lker that Gregory over-hellenizes
Origen'scourseof study,makingit moreStoicthanin fact it,was.
328 PE-TERJ.
GORDAY
book of the Contra Celsumought to createhesitationin acceptingsuch a
view.
Origen,as I haveindicated,was anxious,from the beginningof his
argumenton behalfof the truth of Jewishprophecy,to establishthe fact that
theseprophecieswereactuallyutteredat certaintimesin certainplaces(7.8).
Likewise,theprophesweremenwho really lived,andasa result,their virtue
wasreal (7.7). MosesandJesusarehistoricalfigures,we learnelsewherein
ContraCelsum (c.f. the wholeargumentof l42-71, pp. 39-65),the events
of whoselives are to be adjudgedas actualbecauseof the moral powerwith
which they infuse humanlives in the present.That the virgin birttr of Jesus
andthemiracleshe workedin fact did occuris partof Origen'sdemonstration
of the veracity of prophecy. Further,we know from at least one passage
(3.42,pp.156f.) that Origentook the Stoic positionthat bodily natureis in
itself morally neutral,the implicationbeing that it is no shamefulthing for
Jesusas the Sonof God to havebeenreal flesh. The sufferingof Jesusis in
similar fashionnot to be seenas disgraceful,for althoughit was enduredby
the humannatureof Jesusonly, the assumptionon Origen'spafi is that the
sufferingreally occurredaspart of the virtue thatJesusin fact summedup in
his historicalperson(7.13-17).
Theseconcernsfor historicalactualitycanbe paralleledfrom otherof
Origen's late writings, particularly the commentarieson Matthew and
Romans,but the basic point here is simply that Origen's apologetic in
Contra Celsumis fundamentallyhistoricalin its orientation--i.e.,contingent
eventsand personsare the vehiclesfor eternaltruth preciselybecausethey are
actual. Sucha contentiontakesOrigenbeyondanythingthat canbe claimed
by the allegorizingmiddle-Platonists
in their approachto the poetic textsor
evenby Celsus.
MOSESANDJESUSIN COATRA
CEISUM 329
As Carl Andresenshowed,l9Celsusworkedout a conceptof history
in which the Platonicl-ogos,thatbody of ancientandmysterioustruth about
the essentialnatureof things, has been revealedto the wise from the
and thenre-instatedin
beginning,only in the courseof time to be submerged
the folk lnowledge andcustompracticedin manyculturesandrearticulatedby
new wise men. For Celsusit is "antiquity,"the naAaig )tdyog,that is the
heartof d\nens A6yos. Andresenwas wrong,however,in following Hal
Koch too closely and assumingon the basis of the fourth book of D e
Principiis that Origen is only anothernon-historicalmiddle-Platonist,
allegorizingthe narrativetextsof Scriptureandreducingthem,in Plutarchian
fashion,to moral and fundamentallytimelessexemplawhich can then be
refined into spiritual verities.20 Whatevermay be the casewith Origen's
in theDe Principiis, by the time of theContra Celsumhe had
hermeneutics
movedon to a deeperappreciationof the placeof contingenteventin the very
being of the Logos. Indeed,as H. Corn6lis has argued,2l for Origen the
moral situationof humanbeingsis basicallya reflection of their physical
l9carl Andresen,LogosundNomos: Die PolemikdesKelsoswidcr
dasChristentum(Berlin:-De Gruyter,1955).
20biO., pp.292-301,for Andresen'ssummarycomparisonof the
historicalconsciousnessof Celsuswith that of Plutarch,who is takenas the
middlePlatonist.For Andresen's
quintessential relianceon Hal Koch'swork,
in which Origen is seenas a middle Platonistwith no senseof history, cf.
pp. 373ff.
21H. Corn6lis,"Les fondementscosmologiques de I'eschatologie
d'Origbne," RSPhTh 43 (1959),pp. 32-80, 2Ol-247, especiallythe
conclusions,pp.246t. The logic of Corndlis'presentation is that in some
senseOrigen'sespousalof the Stoicdoctrineof providencemustentaila form
of materialismin metaphysics.Origenbelievesthat the cosmosis immanent
to God evenif God is not immanentin the cosmos. Consequently, souls
must havebodiesif they areto rcahzetheir providential,i.e., eschatological,
destiny.
 330 PETERJ.GORDAY
situation,since in his epistemologythe intelligible world, the roopog
vorlrdg, can be known and can come to realizationonly through the
mediationof concrete,physicalentities. The moral quality of these,i.e.,
their historicalvirtue, will be tie channelby which all personscanprogress
in the cosmic movementtoward eschatologicalperfection. In this view
corporealityis indispensable
to the beingof the Logosin a kind of Hegelian
embodiment,so to speak,which fuelsall historicalmovement.
Origen's hermeneuticsmay indeed be called a hermeneuticsof
historicalcontingence,as Henri de Lubac suggested
in his work Histoire et
esprit,22but one must not statetJlecasein too metaphysicala fashionsince
so muchof what origen doesis textualand literaryin the mannerdisplayed
in the seventhbook of contra celsum. Jewishhistoryandchristian history,
MosesandJesus,are the same,i,e., havethe sameinner meaning,but one's
ability to see that fact dependson the use made of the latter history to
interpretthe former. The key to the commonelement--thesharedsubstance,
so to speak--whichunitesthe two historiesis providedby the use of texts
from the Jewish wisdom-literature,particulady,as I have indicated,texts
from Proverbs.23 Here the literary categorizationscontainedin 1.6 are
essentialto Origen'shermeneutics,
as H.-J. Vogt has shown,24and the use
!n,Aelubac, Hisyqireet esprit: I'intelligencede l,Euiture d,apris
Arigdne@aris:Aubier,1950),pp.117f.
23Ct W. V6lker, "Die Verwertungder Weisheits-Literature
bei den
christlichenAlexandrinern,"zKG @ (19s2-53).pp. l-33, especially23ff.
24H.-J.Vogt, Introductionto Origenes,
Der Kommentarzum
Fvangelium nach Matthaas, Bibliothek der griechischenLiteratur lg
(Stuttgart:AntonHiersemann,1983),pp. 38f.
MOSESAND JESUSIN COMIRACEISUM 331
generallyis omnipresentin Origen'sstrategiesfor dealing
of Proverbs-texts
with a numberof passages,
especiallyin the Old Testamenthomilies.25
It is especiallynoteworthythat the books of the Jewish wisdom-
literatureare cited tn Contra Celsum,apartfrom massiveuseof the Psalms,
primarily in the form of citationsfrom Proverbs,with hardly any useof the
Songof Songs. This fact is not surprisingin light of the descriptionin the
prologueto the Commentaryon the Song of Songs.in which an essential
dimensionof ethical study,that providedby logic or "rational science,"is
precisely hermeneutics.The very nameProverbssuggeststhat this book
containsthe cluesfor distinguishingbetweenwhat a word openly saysand
what is inwardly meant,as well as the meansfor disceming"the meanings
andpropersignificancesandtheir opposites,the classesandkind of wordsand
their expressions."26So it is ttratmoral scienceand hermeneutics,
and thus
thedetermination
of whatis porperlyhistoricalin Scripture,go hand-in-hand.
Contra CelsumT.lS-19showsthat the actualmeaningof certain
propheticteachingsis to be clarihedwith reference!o the actualsituationsof
the prophets themselvesq.nd to what Jewish interpretersmake of these
passages,not with regard to what the passagesseemto mean, i.e., their
letter, which upon examinationturns out to be historically nonsensical.A
proper procedureof interpretationin which the exegeteknows how to
penetratesurface obscurity (7.10-1D27by meansof his faith (he is in
25Cf. Aiblia Patristica: Index des citationset allusions
bibliaues
dans la litt4raturepatristique,vol. III: Origine @aris: tiditions du Cehtre
Nationalde la RechercheScientifique,1980),p.2ol, for a convenientlisting
of theplaceswhereOrigenusesProv. 1.6.
Z6Commentary on the Songof Songs,Ancient ChristianWriters
2 6 , p r o l . 3 n, . 1 1 ,p . 4 i .
27Cf. Uarguerite Harl, "Origdneet les interpretationspartistiques
grecques biblique,"VC 36 (1982),pp.334-37t,especially
de l"obscurit6' the
remarkson 354f.
332 PE'TERJ.
GORDAY
Chris|, his discemment(he comparesspiritualthingswith spiritual)and his
knowledgeof literary technique(he comparespassagesfor the common
significationsof wordsand phrases)will yield, as part of the exegete'sown
spiritualascent,the truemeaning.
Again, we are warnedagainstan interpretationof Origen'smystical
ascentwhich would involve too hasty a dismissalof ethics and history as
fundamental and enduring in the Christian's journey towards God.
Fudhermore,this portion of Contra Celsumshouldsteerus away from too
precipitatelyclaiming that Origen does not have a real doctrineof the
Incarnation.While by the termsandstandards
of laterAthanasianorthodoxy
sucha claim may be justified, Origen'sown argumentwould seemto make
no sensewithout a historicalJesuswho is at the sametime tlte fullnessof
the Logos embodiedperfectly.28
28Thesummarycommentsof EkkehardMiihlenberg,"Apollinaris
von Laodiceaund die origenistische Tradition,"ZNW 76 (1985),pp.270-
283,are,I believe,accurateandhelpful. He describes thefunctionandnature
of the Incarnationin Origen'stheologyin theseterms(p. 280): "Bei der
Gleichgestaltung mit der kdrperhaftoffenbarenseele Jesu beginnt der
Aufstieg zur Gottesschau,also von ARETE in Angleichungan Jesusund
sein Handelnbis hin zur noetischenGotteserkenntnis.Die krirperhaft
anschauliche Manifestationderlogosgestaltigen
Seeleist der notwendigeund
uniiberbietbare Ankniipfungspunkt.Dennnur in dieserGebrochenheit
auf der
Seinsebene desMenschenist den siindigenMenschenARETE zugAnglich."
Miihlenberg'sargumentis that the pre-existent.union of the Logoi with
Jesus'human soul in origen's christologyis a real anticipationof the
communityof being which Athanasiuswas to insist upon in hls christology
as the presuppositionof the saving union of human and divine in t[-e
Incamation.origen'schristologytakesauthentichumanityseriouslybecause
it insiststhat salvationhavea noeticdimensionin which virtue is liarnedby
the Savior,evenif his humansoul is by naturedrawn!o that virtue.
MOSESANDJESUS IN COM'R,I CELSUM 333
IV.
The upshotof this examinationof theplaceof ethicsand historyin
the seventhbook of Contra Celsumis that Origen emergesas a Christian
of Scriptureandits interpretation
thinkerdeeplyengagedwith theJewishness
and,therefore,inclinedto be eirenicin his view of Judaism.The logic of his
view of truth makes him so, requiring the assertionagainst Celsus that
neitherMosesnor Jesusis wrong, that both are right with eachneedingthe
otherto be understood.To statethe matterin the simplestpossibleway, for
Origentherewould be without Moses(i.e.,Judaism,the Old Testament,the
letterof Scripture,historyandethics)nothing[o be understood--no
revelation
of God worthy of thenameby Celsus'criterionof antiquity--andthusno need
for a hermeneutic;but without Jesus,historicaland incarnateas fully
no key to
embodiedvirtue,therewouldbe nothingwith which to understand,
the Scripturesthat could unlocktheir ftue meaning.MosesandJesusexist in
a truedialectic,eachabsolutely,by his very nature,needingtheotherin order
to be himselfand to fulfill his properrevelatoryfunction. Further,as I have
relationshipcomesto expressionmostclearlywhen
argued,this Moses-Jesus
Origen wrestleswith history and ethics in his spirituality. The resultsof
such a structurein his thinking are various for his view of the relations
betweenChristiansandJewsin his own day,but all point to a profoundand
genuine,not a posedandcondescending,
"eirenicism"towardJudaismon t}te
part of the Church.29
29The best general treatment now is N. R. M. de Lange, Origen and
the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in Third-Century Palestine,
University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 25 (Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp. 63-85.
334 PETERJ.
GORDAY
A). Without a clearlydefensiblelinkageto Mosesand the prophets
Jesus'statuswould becomeambiguousbecausehis teachingwould be a
novelty, unworthy of being consideredas real wisdom. Origen cannot
proceedsimply to "spiritualize"the teachingof Mosesin orderto conformit
to Jesus'statementswithout seekinga warrantwithin the JewishScriptures
and their own proceduresof self-interpretation,
a warrantwherebythe Jews
themselvespoint to a revelationthat transcendstheir particularhistory and
their particularScriptures.In this way the bearersof antiquity are madeto
tesrify to their having beensupplantedby a revelationthat will go beyond
their particularismwhile, simultaneously,
not leavingit behind. It is at this
point thatthe wisdomliteratureplaystherole of intermediary,conveyingin a
morespiritual,and,in my argument,moretimelesslyethicalre-interpretation
of Moses. In addition, rabbinic interpretationof Mosesis sequestered
by
Origenfor the samerole, aswe seein ContraCelsum7.18-19,whereJewish
expositorsare claimed to have arguedfor non-literal exegesisof ethical
teachingthat cannotbe takenat face-value.
B). The consistency
which existsbetweenMosesand Jesusis at
bottom the consistencyof God'sactivity (and,therefore,an identify), as we
leam in Contra Celsum7.25, and,as such,exhibits the characterof a
temporalmanifestationof the eternal,whoserevealedcontentcan only be
expoundedfrom oneageto the next, neverdefinitively and finally articulated.
This fact arises from the characterof biblical languageitself with its
polyvalenceandobscurityandmulti-layeredsignifications,but it comesalso
from the fact that the very act of exposition is always to some extent
contaminatedby the imperfectionof the expositorwho is not yet without
sin.
The antidoteto this contaminationmustbe an interpretativesetting
in which therespectivecustodians
of MosesandJesus,the synagogue
andthe
MOSESAND JESUSIN COMIRACEISUM 335
Church,debatetheir differing views and in which the Church,the younger
partnerwho claimsto be in the right, is alwaysin the humiliatingpostureof
havingto seekinsightfrom the olderpartnerwho is seento be ultimatelyin
the wrongbecauseof the denialof Jesus'messiahship.This denialdoesnot,
however,rule out a moreproximatekind of insightwhich the Christianmust
have from the Jew. In the allegory of Pharoah'sdaughterand the infant
Moses in the secondchapterof Exodus,the daughter,who representsthe
churchof the Gentiles,canneverceaseto takeMosesin her armsandto leam
from him that the rejectionof idolatry is the beginningof righteousness.30
The Church thus owes a debt in perpetuity to the synagogueand must
incessantlylisten to it in orderto relearncertainbasictruthson the one hand
andon theotherto avid its errorsandtheblindnessthathasresulted.
C). Origendoesnot hesitateto staterepeatedlyhis chargesagainst
the Jewseven when he cannotstop from appropriatingttreir treritage. There
is no questionhere of a philosemitismor of a softeningof Christian
argumentsagainstJewishprerogativesand exclusivism. Rather,tlere is a
senseof kinship, necessary,divinely ordained,and functional within a
dynamicof salvationfor both Jewsand Gentiles,in which neitherparty as a
whole is to give up its claims until the right time. Consequently,Origen
canboth affirm andcontradictJudaism,almostin the samebreathandwith a
seeminglygrand inconsistency,a fact which cannot be reducedto mere
30Hom.in 8x.2.4 (Origine, Homilies sur l'Exode,Texte Latin.
Introduction,traduction,et notespar Marcel Borret, sj., SC 321 lParis:
Editions du Cerf, 19851,p. 82). Suchar any rate is the implication of the
transactionthat takesplacebetweenPharoah'sdaughterand the Hebrewnurse
to whom the infant Mosesis entrustedafter being found in t}te river. The
paymentwhich is promisedto the nurseis that the Gentileswill abandon
idolatry,now that they havereceivedthe Law in the personof Moses. The
Jewsin returnwill be movedby jealousyof the GentileChurchandits virtue
to a purifiedrejectionof idols on theirown part (p. 86).
336 PETERJ.GORDAY

apologetics--adevice, so to speak,for defendingChristianity againstCelsus

or againstGnosticdetractorsof the Old Testament.The ethical and hisorical
dimensionsof revelationform an adamantinebondbetweenJew andchristian
in which there must be a refusal to dissolve the ascentof souls into an
ahistorical spiritualism or an otherworldly mysticism. Ethics and concrete
history combine in the seventhbook of Contra Celsumfor an approachio
prophecy that in turn provides the logic for a true Jewish-Christian ORIGEN AND EARLY CHRISTIAN PLURALISM:
eirenicism. THE CONTEXT OF HIS ESCHATOLOGY

Jon F. Dechow
Portola Valley, Ca.

Origen (185-254C.E.), foundationalChristiantheologianof ancient

Alexandriaand Caesarea,was not neutralon what we call oday the varieties
of early Christianity or early Christian pluralism, nor on that oward which
Christian faittr points, the resurrection. He did not think one type of belief
wasjust as good as another. Researchin the modernperiod tries to respect
the self-definitionsof religious gtoupsin antiquity, including early Christian
groups later deemedorthodox or heretical, but Origen did not share this
mentality. Here we shall look at someof the ways he distinguishedhimself
from other early Christians, especially on the subject of resurrection, and
offer a positive slatementof his enduringimportanceand value as Christian
theologianand religious thinker.1

1An earlier versionof this paperwaspresentedMarch 20, 1986,in a

Christian Theology sessionof the American Academy of Religion/Western
Region annual meeting (March 20-22), University of Santa Clara, Santa
Clara, Califomia.
338 JONDECHOW
1. Early Christian Pluralism
Near the start of his careeras a Christianscholar,Origen chosea
middle way betweenthosehe called"the hard-hearted
andignorantmembersof
the circumcision"(someJews),"hereticalsects"(mostly gnostics),and "the
simpler [believers]2of the church."3 From historical study he knew that
scripturesometimessaysthingsthat "did not happen,. . . could not happen,
but in fact did not."4 And "the reasonwhy all"
and . . . might havehappened
three of t}te error-pronegroups"hold false opinionsand make impious or
ignorant assertionsabout God appearsto be this, that scripture is not
understoodin its spiritual sense,but is interpretedaccordingto the bare
letter."5
In the interpretiveprocess,Origen had no qualms about calling
wrong thosehe consideredwrong. He believed"the wisestChristianknows
the JewishandChristianheresies."6Somegnosticheretics,like Ophitesand
Cainites,he consideredcompletelyoutsidethe paleof Christianity.TUnlike
modernscholarswho hestitaleto call Marciona gnostic,Origenthoughthim
2sigla translatedancienttexts):
1in
( ) enclose1) words from the original texts or 2) addedBiblical
references
t I enclose1) addedwords for *re sakeof translation,2)editorial
interpolations,or 3) parentheticalmatteralreadywithin parentheses
< > encloseedilorialemendations to theoriginaltexts.
3Princ.4.2.L.
4Princ.4.2.9:,see4.3.1.
5Princ.4.2.2.
6cets.3.tz-t3.
7cels. 3.r3.
ORIGEN AND EARLY CHRISTIAN PLURALISM 339
oneof the "dealersin knowledge(yvtnts) falselyso-called(Seu6tlvryos)'(I
Tim 6.20)."8 The Alexandrianopposed"the schoolsof Marcion,Valentinus,
and Basilides"on the goodnessof God and the predestinationof rational
beings.g The Valentinian Heracleonwas a major opponentin the
Commentaryon fohn. Origen opposedBasilides'"nihilistic" view of the
Son of God'sorigin,10which emergedlater in different form in Arianism.
Anti-Valentinianviews aboutresurrectionwere also expressedin ttre (lost)
Dialogue wilh Candidus.
In popularChristianity(seeCrouzel 1978,37-38),Origenopposed
Montanistecstaticprophecyll and,within the moreregularizedmainstream,
anthropomorphic(e.g., Tertullian), chiliastic/materialistic
(e.g., Papias,
Justin, Irenaeus,Athenagoras),and literalistic Christianity (especiallythe
"simpler" believers, sometimestaken to mean popular, "insf,itutional"
Christianity in general).
Yet Origen was usually irenic in statinghis differenceswith others,
seeming to enjoy the interplay of ideas toward the best evidence,
interpretation,and argument. He did not useinstitutional authority to coerce
agreement,but the living Word and wordswerehis stockin trade. In contrast
to relying on secretbooksthat gnosticspossessed,
he believedJesus'words
aboutJewishlawyershaving tle "key of knowledge"(Luke 11.52)pointed
towardtraditionalcanonasbasic.l2 Suchscripturecouldonly be understood
8Jo.5.4.
9Princ.2.9.5.;
see3.1.8;alsoCets.5.6t.
L0Princ. 4.4.1. SeeHipp.H aer.7.8-10.
LrPrinc.2.7.3.
r2Princ.4.2.3.
 JONDECHOW
340
correctlyby thosewho have"the mind of Christ"(1 Cor 2.12-13,16),who
would interpretit "threefold(rptoodg)" (Prov 22.20LXX), i.e., according
an elaborationof the "spirit" over "letter"
to its "body,soul,and spiri1",13
principleof theapostlePaul(2 Cor 3.6;seeRom2.Zq.ta
He often drew on cultural resourcesto illuminate sacredtradition,
usingthe principleof correlationlong beforePaulTillich and in the process
sheddinglight on the perennialproblem of corporealityin the history of
philosophy and science. Thus he associatedthe "incorporeal"of
philosophicaltradition with the "invisible" of Biblical tradition.l5 In
methodtypicalof intellectualAlexandrianChristianityincludingClement,he
was closerto Plato than Arisotle, but consideredhimselfeclectic,opposing
Aristotle on the existenceof a fifth element and holding to more
"mainstream"cosmologicalprinciplesof his time that had analogywith or
inferencefrom scripture.16lf Tcumgrano salis)we would makecomparisons
to moderns,we might considerhim culturallylessJungianthanKuhnian,and
as a theologianlessof Teilhardthanof Rahner,with someMertonthrownin.
2. TheResurrection
On the subject of afterlife and resurrectionhis views were
controversialwithin the churchearlyon, but he believedthey werefaithful to
Christiantraditionand posedappropriateoptionson mattersnot yet cleady
13Princ.4.2.4.
l4Princ.1.1.2;
see1. Pref.8, 4.2.5,4.3.6-7.
15Princ.4.3.15;
see1 . 1 . 7 - 8 .
16Princ.3.6.6.
ORIGENANDEARLYCHRISTIANPLURALISM 34I
decided. Ancient Judaismalso had its variationsof resurrectiontradition
(Nickelsburg1972:198I, esp.599-600),and complicatingmatterson the
tensionbetweenthe Jewishemphasison re-
whole was the second-century
creation of substanceand the Hellenistic emphasison the persistenceof
(O'Hagan1968). Late in his careerhe affirmed,too, that
identicalsubstance
the resurrectionwas disputed even in the Pauline letters and that from the
beginningbelieversdiffered on its interpretation.lT
His eschatology,well articulatedin his Oz the Resurrection,
Cqmryqtlqtl o,n Lsalm 1, and Patchwork (Stomateis), was framed in
oppositionto Marcion,the MarcioniteApelles,Valentinus,and Mani, but in
its distinction from popular Christian literalism ran into the most
difficulty.lS The distinctionfrom the gnostictypesseemsclearlybecauseof
Origen'spositionin the classicalandChristianmainstream,for his view had
a strongerphilosophicalcomponentthan thoseof the otherthinkersand was
really in the best tradition of intellectualAlexandrianChristianity.
While most of his controversialwritings on resurrectionwerelost or
destroyed,the heartof his view still remainsonhis Comrnentaryon Psalm
.1,quotedin rebuttalin Methodius'On the Resurrection(c. 300-307)and
Epiphanius' Panarion 64 (376). In the following excerpt from the
commentaryOrigen atlemptsto interpretthe apostlePaul'sexplanationof the
mysteriousprocessinvolvedin thebody'sresurrection:
Becauseeach body is held togetherby [virtue ofl a nature that
assimilatesinto itself from without certainthings for nourishment
and,correspondingto the things added,excretesother thingslike the
r7cels.3.to.
18Jer.C.Ioan.25 @L 23:392A8).
342 JONDECHO\Y
of plantsandanimals,the material(ilVx6v) substrarum
[ingredientsJ
(hrotcetpevov)is never the same. For this reason,river is not a bad
name for the body since, strictly speaking,the initial erp6rov)
substratum(hroxetpevoz) in our bodiesis perhapsnot the samefor
eventwo days.
Yet the real (ye) Paul or Peter,so to speak,is alwaysthe
same--[and]not merely in [the] soul, whose substance(ohota)
neither flows throughus nor hasanythingever added[to it]--even if
the nature(Q,totd of the body is in a stateof flux, becausethe form
(cl6o9) characterizing (lapaxr4pt{ov) thebody is the same,just as
the features(r{nous) constitutingQraprcrdvowas) the corporeal
quality Qrodr4ra) of Peterand Paulremainthe same. According
to this quality,not only scarsfrom childhoodremainon the bodies,
but also certain other peculiarities (t&alpara) <like> skin
blemishesand similar things.
This form (d6o9) accordingto which peter and paul are
enduedwith form (el6onoteerar),the (to) corporeal(ouparrchv)
[form], when it makes a rransition (perapdAAoz) to the higher
lstatel--lbutJ definitely not the presenf (rd6e) subsrratum
(inore(pevoz) provided (trcrerayp(vov) for the [soul at] first
Qrpoirnv)--fiswhatl is put around(treptrtilerar) the soul againin
the resurrection. Just as the form (r?6os) is <the same>from
infancyto old age,evenif the characteristics
(Xaparrfipr-g)seemto
undergoconsiderablechange,so also the (to) present(d?r{ ro0
rrap6urog)form (rf6og) must be understoodto be the samein the
future,whenthe transitionQrcrapoAfis)to the higherlstate]will be
asgreataspossible.
ORIGEN AND EARLY CIIRISTIAN PLURALISM 343
ttratthe soul,whenit is in corporeal
In fact, it is necessary
places,usebodiesappropriateto the places. And just as we would
certainly need to have gills and the other endowment[s]
that we live underwaterin
(xardraotv) of fish if it were necessary
the sea,so thosewho are going to inherit [the] kingdom of heaven
and be in the superior places must have spiritual bodies. The
previous form (el6os) does not disappear,even if its transition
(trope) to the more glorious [state] occurs(ytvqrat), just as the
form (el8os) of Jesus,Moses,andElijah in the Transfigurationwas
not [a] different [one] thanwhat it hadbeen.l9
Using the seedanalogydrawnby the apostlePaul,Origencontinues:
Moreover, lit is] worthy of note that what is sown in one way is
raised in another, "for it is sown a psychic body, it is raised a
spiritualbody" (1 Cor 15.214). that,
The apostlealsoadds--teaching
althoughthe form (e?0os)is saved,we are going to put away nearly
this I
<every> earthlyquality (trotorr\ra) in the resurrection--"And
say,brothers,that flesh and blood cannotinherit [the] kingdom of
God, nor corruption incorruption."(1 Cor 15.50). Similarly, for
(repl) the sainttherewill indeedbe a <a bodp preservedby him
who onceenduedthe flesh with form (el6onoto0rros), but [there
willl no longer[be] flesh; yet that very thing which was oncebeing
characterized(lXaparr4pt{ero) in the flesh will be characterized
(yapaxr4prc0fioerat")in the spiritualbody.2o
19Sel.in Ps. 1.5(Meth.Res.1.22.2-5
tEpiph.Hqer. &.14.2-91);
paragraphing
added.
20sel.in Ps. 1.5(Meth.Res.1.23.2-3
tEpiph.Haer.64.15.24l).
344 JONDECHOW
Shortly after, Epiphanius'excerptfrom the commentaryconcludes
when Origen explainshow ttre generative(spermatikos)principle or Word
(Logos) transformstle very essenceof matter by changing the diverse
qualities of the materialelementsinto the future gloriousquality of God's
own creation:
Ie.rc.sl Despite the fact that the body is mortal and does not
partakeof the true life, the [passage]from the apostle,"He will also
give life to your mortal bodies" @om 8.ll), can prove that the
corporeal form (e/dos) about which we have spoken,although
mortal by nature--"whenChrist, our life, appears" (Col 3.4) and
changes(perapdMet) it from beinga "bodyof death"@om 7.U)--
is madealive ((uoroq1€v) throaghthe life-giving Spirit [and],out
of the <fleshly>,becomeslyey6vos) spiritual.
l&.16.61In addition,the [passage], "But somewill say,
'How arethe
deadraised,and with what [qualityofl (rrotq) body do
they come?"' (l Cor l53r2l clearly proves that the initial
Qrpdrov) substratum(|noxe tpevov) will not rise. te.rc.1l
Indeed, if we have understood the illustration correctly, the
observationmust be made that the generative(onepparnds)
principle (I6yos) in the seedof the grain,after it hastakenhold of
(8pa{dpevos) the available(traparcetp(vqs) matter(tiltnfl and.
permeatedQupfioag) it throughout,<and>after it hastakenhold of
Qrepdpa€dpevog) the very form (ef6os) of the lthe marter],
imposesits own powerson t}te previousearth,water,air, and fire;
21Thusimplying a new qualirycrearedby God.
ORIGEN AND EARLY CHRISTIAN PLURALISM 345
and it subduesand transforms(peraBdlla) their qualities
(not.drnras) into that [future quality] of which it is itself [the]
creator (Sqptovpyds). And so the ear of corn becomesfull,
exceedingly superior to the original seed in size, appearance
(o2pfpar ),and adornment.22
The detailedinterpretationof theseexcerptsI havegiven elsewhere
(1975,344-351;1986,373-380). Here we may considerthe pluralistic
contextin t}teancientclassicalandChristianworlds.
Origen's doctrine is analogousto gnostic speculationabout the
soul'ssuccessivematerialenvelopesin the ascentand descentthroughthe
heavens.23 Popular Christianity in this period also retainedwidespread
notions from Jewish apocalypticabout the passageof the soul upward
throughthe heavensto God.24 But in intellectualAlexandrianChrisitianity,
Clement had already taught the resurrectionof a transformedflesh in
oppositionto gnosticdoctrine. The way Clementrefersto the resurection
body as flesh25could easilybe understoodby an anti-Origenistas denying
the presentflesh'sperpetuation26andas urging,not simply the correction,
22sel.in Ps. 1.5 (Merh. Res.1.24.4-5tEpiph.Haer. 64.16.5-71);
paragraphing
added.
23Just.Dial.80.4;Iren. Haer. 1.7.I, 5 (Harvey1:59.1-2,9-10);
Clem.Exc. Thdot.27.3,&.
24see.e.g.,the many examplesof the "mythologicalgeographyof
Jewishapocalyptic"in JewishChristianspeculationaboutthe cosmicladder
(Danidloul9&, 173-81).
25Paed. 2.100.3, 3.2.3(GCS 12:217
.19, 237.7 -8).
26Paed.1.36.6-1.37.1(GCS
12:I12.2-11).
346 JONDECHOW
but the permanentend of its "affections(rd*q)." 27 B* Clement'sview,
while framed against the backgroundof Valentinian speculationabout
carefullyfrom gnosticism.
Christ'sheavenlyflesh,28is really distinguished
Typical of the tradition of Alexandrian Christian Platonism,
Clementdescribedthe purifying of Christ's heavenlyflesh29and the putting
of "immortalityon the pureflesh itself." 30 His view seemsformulatedwith
of Biblical idea-usage.lnhis Outlines(Trorwrdaelg) he gave
awareness
"conciseexplanationsof all the canonicalscriptures."3l In so doing,
accordingto Photius,he assertedthat the doctrineof forms (ideas)is taught
by certain passagesof (Greek) scripture.32 Photius does not say what
passagesare involved, but susceptible to such an interpretation are
Genesis5.3, 32.30-31;Exodus24.10, 17; Numbers 12.8; Judges13.6;
Ezekiel 1.26;and2 Corinthians5.7. In Clement'sknown writings,however,
we do not find the unique combinationof elements,especiallythe eidos
explanation,that we find in Origen'sCommcntaryon Psalml.
In the cultural word outsideChristiainity, Origen'seidos may be
associatedwith both the Platonic eidoslidea and the Aristotelian eidos
(essen:al form) but is not completelyidentifiablewith either(Crouzel1972,
27Paed. 1.43.1 (GCS 12:115.25-29);
see also 1.47.1 (GCS
12:118.9-10).
28Formoreon the Valentinanview, seeSchoeps1951,1-8.
2ePaed. 1.46.3(cCS l2:ll7 .28-118.2).
3oPaed.2.100.3(GCS12:217.9).
3lEus.H.e.6.14.1.
32cod.109(Henry1959-65,
2:80).
ORIGEN AND EARLY CHRISTIAN PLURALISM 347
691; 1980,255;seeDechow 1975,352-53;1986,380-82). Accordingro
Crouzel:
One may . . . define the word eidos n this passagelComrnentary
on Psalm 1 (1.5)l as the principle of unity, of development,of
existence,and of personalizationof the body. . . . The eidos . . .
constitutesthe body'sessential[nature].. . . It is associatedwith the
perhapsbetter,its dynamism. It is, then,
/agos, which expresses,
that which will rise and will ensurethe substantialidentity between
the earthlybody andttregloriousbody.
Also, Origen'sspeculationaboutresurrectionwas typicat of many
philosophicalefforts in his time to explain the natureof corporeality. In
second-and third-century eclectic Platonism,the notion of an "astral body"
was common. The NeoplatonistProclus(c. 410-485C.E.) reflectsearlier
assumptions
whenhe writesin his Elementsof Theology(Dodds 1963,L82-
{:. 83):
,.Ti
,tr
ff The vehicle(6mpa) of everyparticularsouldescendsby rheaddition
of vesturesincreasinglymaterial; and ascendsin companywittr the
soul through divestment of all that is material and recovery
(dva6po1tfig) of (c/s; or "into") its proper (rti otxetov) form
lcldos).
In explaining a related passage,that "every er6v) intellectual
(voqp6v)Form (cl6o9) is constitutiveQlrooranrchz) of things perpetual
(dt&ov)" (f56-57), Doddswrites(293):
 ]I
tl
348 JONDECHOV/
[Proclus']generalview is that thereare Formsonly of species,not
of individuals: even human souls, which are imperishable
individuals, are derived not severally from separateForms, but
collectively from the Forms of the variousdivine soulsunderwhich
they are grouped(cf. prop. 204 lpp.178-791). By an exceprion!o
the generalprinciple, thesedivine souls have each a Form of its
own, as have also the heavenlybodies. There are no Forms of
things which exist only as parts,e.g. eyesor fingers; of accidental
attributes like colour; of artifacts (despite lPlato] Rep X); of
practical rtyvat like weaving;or of thingsevil. This part of the
matter goes back in part to Middle Platonist tradition (Albin.
[Albinus, mid-2ndcenturyC.E.] Didasc.c. ix), and doesnot differ
substantially from that given by Plotinus, save in its greater
precision.
Dodds(19632,315n. 1) drawingon e.9.,Bidez(t9I4,88-97) and
Kissling (1922),sketchesthe origin of ttretheoryof the astralbody prior to
Plotinus(205-270C.E.) and porphyry (t9632,38-2L;
the Neoplatonists
seeChadwick
1953,II2n.5; Tripolitis1971,58c.n.168). Ishalltryto
add clarity !o the evidencehe cites. He believesthe theorywas well known
by the beginningof the rhird centuryc.E. and mentionstestimoniesto its
earlierexistence,e.g.:
- Sourcesof latei appeal(discounted)are plaro'sphaedo (113D),
which refersto boatscarryingthe soulsof the dead,and his Timaeus(41E,,
448,69C),wherethe soul's"chariot"is not clearlydesignated
asa body other
thanan ordinarymortalone. But in theLaws (898Ef.), plato discusses
how
the stars are "guided by their souls aid suggestsas one possibility the
ORIGEN AND EARLY CI{RISTIA}I PLURALISM 349
interpositionof a fiery or aerialbody asa tertium quid l'thtrd entity'1"(Dodds,
3r5).
- Later appeal is also made to Aristotle's pfteuma, which is
'analogousto that
comparableto the Platonist|Sgqpa ('vehicle") and "is
elementof which the starsare made',i.e., to the repnrov lfifthl oripa
lbody or elementl" (On the Generationof Anirnnls736b 27tt.). But "the
'astralbody'; it is an elementin
Aristotelian pneumais still far from being an
the body as we know it, is commonto all animals,and is transmittedin the
actof procreation"(Dodds,315-16).
- " 'The schoolof Eratosthenes
[possiblyc.275-194 B.C.E.;see
Dodds, 318, 3481and Ptolemythe Platonist[if PtolemaeusChennosof
Alexandria,fl. c. 100C.E.l andothers'isappealedto by Iamblichus(c. 250-
c. 325 C.E.) for the opinion that the soul is permanentlyembodiedand
passesinto the earthly body from others 'of finer stuff (Aenrdrepa)"
(Dodds,317).
- The views of Poseidonius
(c. 135-50B.C.E.)seemto be echoedin
theHermeticliterature(mid-lst to endof 3rd centuryC.E.),which speaksot
- "certain 'mists' (dCpss) which are the incorporeal envelope
(trep$6Aatoz) of the soul" (in John Stobaeus[5th century C.E.]
1:410.18ff[988I{); and
- "the nve1pa as the soul'srepBoAfi (or tneptr4), in which it
6Xitrat" (Corp.Herm.10.13,17;Dodds,317).
- The Chaldean Oracles (2nd century C.E.) speakof a $vXfg
Aerrdv oripa ("fine [it., 'of fine husk'] body of [the] soul,") which is
identified with ro alyoedtg f11ttffuotipa ("our luminous body") in
478b (5thcenturyC.E.;Dodds,347-48).
Hierocles'On tlu GoldenVerses

350 JONDECHOV/
- Ps-Plutarch(perhaps2nd century),in On the Life and poetry of
Homer, c. 128,"affirms on the authorityof 'PlatoandAristotle' that the soul
at deathtakeswith it rd rvevpartriv which actsas its 6p7pa" (Dodds,
317).
- Alexanderof Aphrodisias(Aristotelian; fl. early 3rd centuryC.E.)
objectedto the doctrine of the dXnpo, but is refuted by Simplicius, 6th
centuryAristotelian,in thelatter'sOn Physics964.lgff (dodds,317.
- ldacrobius(late 4thlearly5th century),in his On Cicero's ,Sleep
of Scipio'(1.11.12-13),
"whichalmostcertainlygoesbackto Numenius[2nd
century C.E.l," tells how "the soul acquiresa sidereum (dorpoeAtg
[starlight-formed])or I uminosum (a0yoet Ois [sunlight-formed]) corpus rn
the courseofits descentthroughttreplanetaryspheres"(Dodds,347).
Origen, as Dodds mentions,uses the expressionaiyoet.iis
("luminous" or "sunlight-formed")oripa ("body"133 to explain ,'the
possibilityof apparitionsof the dead"(317). Furtherorigenist development,
as I haveshownelsewhere(1986,320-23,363,36i-68),occurredamongthe
origenistsrefutedby Methodiusand Eustathius,in ttreMacarian Homilies
1.6-7,and in the writingsof Evagrius,who refersto a distinctbodily "organ',
(dpyavov)of the soul.34
As far asOrigen'sown theologyis concerned,
all that.thesecitations
illustrate is the linguistic and cosmologicalmatrix of contemporary
discussion.Justas thereis affinity betweenhis "doctrineof the Trinity and
some later Neoplatonic thdories" (Dillon r97B), so there is relationship
33cek.2.60. For additionalusesof theochema
conceptin Origen's
writings (not mentionedby Dodds),esp.the commentaryon-Matthew and
(p-ossibly)
on theResurrectionandthe commentaryon GZnesis,see
crouzel
1977.
34K.s.l.62 (po 28.r:49).
*
J
t ORIGENANDEARLYCHRISTIANPLURALISM 351
$
tt; betweenhis eschatologyand some views of corporealityheld by his
ti philosophicaland gnosticcontemporaries.But affinity is not identity.
f
; Dodds'followup to the Proclusstudy,a masterlyoverviewof cosmological
'i
assumptionsin this "paganand Christian"environmentthat Origen shared
(1965, 1-101,esp.5-36),unfortunatelyoverstatesthe Alexandrian'sview of
of the Gnostrcview"
rationalbeings(Aoyrcot)as "maintainingthe substance
(17). Rather,in the Alexandrian'sworld the astral-bodytheory and both
"leamed"andpopularspeculationaboutthecosmoswerecommonplace,
But Origen was interpreting Biblical, especially Pauline,
eschatologyand trying to make senseof tle scripture'scosmologicaland
eschatologicalreferences. Customarily,as an informed eclecticPlatonist
Christian,he was usingthe regularlanguageof philosophicaldiscourse,but
for the sake of making intelligible the Biblical meaning. Yet given the
commonpadanceon which he drew,he intentionallywentbeyondthe views
of his philosophicaland Christiancontemporaries to formulatea uniquely
complex view that illuminated the Bible and, to him, was "superior"to a
5
strictly Platonicinterpretation.3
Attention to his philosophicalsourcesneedsto be temperedwith the
awarenessthat, not simply thesesources,but an understandingof them by
way of a Biblically-orientedHelleniSticJudaismshapedhis thinking. "I do
not doubtthatPlatolearnedthe wordsof thePhaedrzsfrom someHebrews,"
Origen wrote.36 Following the precedentset by Aristobulus (early 2nd
centuryB.C.e.137andPhilo (c. 20 B.C.E.-c.50 C.E.),he believedthebest
35ce1s.4.40.
SeeDechow1986,318,322,327-329.
36cets.6.tg.
37C"lt.4.51.See2 Macc 1.10;Clem.Al. Srr. 5.97.7;Eus.H.e.
P.e.8.10,13.12.
6.13.7,7.32.16-17,
 352 JONDECHOW
in Greek thinking had precedentin Jewishscriptures. To Origen, in fact,
Philo'sOn Dreams,interpretingJacob'sladderto heaven(Gen28.10-22),"is
worthy of intelligentand wise studyby tiose who wish to find the truth."38
Origen'seschatology,in its own setting,is thenan att€mptat clear
affirmation andarticulationof the resurrectionagainstthe wide backgroundof
late Hellenistic thought. Featuring a sophisticatedconception of the
corporealform in the light of ancientphilosophyand science,it offered a
plausibleoptionto manyttrird-andfourth-centurychristiansfor stressingthe
mannerof the whole body'sresurrection--and
of the whole flesh properly
understood. Analogousto Platonic,Aristotelian,and gnostic views of
corporeality,origen's belief was nevertheless
basicallya way of professing
traditionalPaulineA.{ew
Testamentresurrectiondoctrinein the contemporary
termsof intellectualAlexandrianChristianitv.
3. The Ambiguity of Origen
Like the Christ whom he worshiped(o4petov dvr)teyhpevov,
Luke 2.34), Origen was a "sign of contradiction"(euasten 1950-60,2:40).
He was the greatestchristian theologianbetweenparil and Augustine,yet
sociologically--i.e.,
in termsof thechristian institutionand the anathemas
of
its conciliar tradition--ahereric(seeDechow 1975, 79 -r12, 201-2,3g0-g5,
432-39: 1985a;I 985b; 1986,93-124, 244, 405-9, 449-5g).
It shouldbe clear,however,that, as he "proclaimedthe conformity
of ancientlearning,especiallyAlexandrianscience,with the christian faith',
(DampierL9484,$-6/),his expressionof christian doctrinewasnot for the
sakeof philosophicalexposition,but vice-versa: he usedphilosophical
38cets.6.2t;see4.5t.
ORIGENANDEARLYCHRISTIANPLURALISM 353
language,the languagethat he knew, to clarify Christianteaching. In the
face of the cultural and Christianpluralism of his time, he was often less
than subtleabout thosewith whom he took issue. This approachproved
most damagingin the fourth centurywhenhis theologywas lessunderslood
andbits of it weretakenout of contextand usedin new situationsof fourth-
century controversy. Thus his references[o "simpler" believers,removed
from the matrix of critical discourse,were perceived, e.g', by the
heresiologistEpiphanius,as elitist, pejorativeand eveninsulting. "You . . .
stigmatizegood [people]as your so-calledsimpler [believers],"Epiphanius
of thetruth [is] simple,"for
accusedhim, anddo not realizethat "the message
"to the mostsimplebelongsthe kingdomof the heavens'(Matt 19.14)."39
If we want to understandOrigen, to achievedas Verstehendes
Origenes, we need to strip away the veneersof Christendom'scrisis of
modernity, the struggle of Reformation and Counter-Reformation,the
medievalenduranceof Christianity,the declineof Rome and the political
triumph of Christianity,and go back to whenChristianitywas not yet legal
and its prospectswere unceftainexceptby faith, when time itself was still
countedby the onwardmarchof the Romanstateand respectablethinking
wasmezsuredin termsof Greekheritageand Alexandrianrenaissance.Then,
of knowledgefaithful to the Jewishand
for a personto offer an exuberance
Christian Biblicat past and credible in terms of the best philosophy and
remarkableindeed. Evenin fie late
scienceof the day,wasan achievement
twentiethcentury when both philosophyand religion are often reducedto
mereimaginationunmirroredin the naturalworld outsidethe humanmind,
theeffort remainsimpressive.
39Haer.&.67.I,3.
 354 JONDECHOW ORIGENA}.IDEARLYCHRISTIANPI.URALISM 355

MODERN WORKS CITED University of Pennsylvania. 1975.Rev. ed., with prefacc by Henri
Crouzel. Cambridge,MA: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation,
fortlrcoming tlate1986?l.
Bidez,Joseph 1985a "The HeresyChargesagainstOrigen." 4. Internationales
l9I3 Vie de Porphyre, le philosophe neo-platonicien.Gand: van Origeneskolloquium, University of Innsbruck. September2-7,
Goethemfl-eipzig:Teubner. r985.
Chadwick,Henry (ed") 1985b "Origen's'Heresy':From Eustathiuso Epiphanius." Die
1953, repr. 1965, 1980 Origen, Contra Celsum. Cambridge: Referatedes4. internationakn Oigeneskongresses(Innsbruck,2-6
University. September1985),pp. 405-409. Editedby Lothar Lies. Innsbruck
Crouzel,Henri andVienna: Tfrrolia-Verlag.
1972 "r-escritiquesadressdes
par M6thodeet sescontemporainsi la Dillon, John
docrine origdniennedu corpsressuscit6."Gregorianurn53:679-716. 1978 "Origen'sDoctrine of the Trinity and SomeLater Neoplaonic
1977 "r-e thdmeplatonicien du 'v6,hiculede l'nme' chez origlne." Theories." In Dominic J. O'Meara (e'd.),Neoplatonism and
Didaslcalia7 (t97 7) 225-38. Christian Tlwught. Albany: StateUniversity of New York Press,
1978 Inroducrion to origcne, Traitc desprincipes (Livres I et rI). 1982.
SC 252:33-52.paris: Cerf. Dodds,Eric R.
1980 "La doctrine origdniennedu corpsressuscit6." BLE gl.3_ 9$2 @d.\Proclus,TheElementsof Theology.Ilndon: Oxford.
4:175-2,N,244-26f. 1965 Pagan and Christian in an Age of Awiety. Cambridge:
Dampier,William C. University.
19484A History of scienceand lts Rerations
with philosoprryand Kissling, Robert C.
Religion. Cambridge: University. 1922 "The ochema-pneumaof the Neoplatonistsand the D e
Danidlou,Jean insomnissof Synesiusof Cyrene." AmericanJournal of Philology
L9& TheDevelopnientof crvistian Doctrine before thc cowcit of 43:318-30.
Nicaea, 1: The Theology of Jewish Christianity. Chicago: Nickelsburg,GeorgeW. E., Jr.
Regnery. 1972 Resurrection, Immortality, dnd Eternal Life in
Dechow,JonF. Intertestamentalludaism. IIIS 16. Cambridge:Harvard.
1975, 1986 Dogma and Mysiicism in Early Christianity: 1981 "Enoch, Icvi, and Peter: Recipientsof Revelationin Upper
Epiphaniusof Cyprusand theLegacyof Origen. ph.D. disseration. Galilee." Jownal of Biblical Literatwe 100.4: 575600.
356 JONDECHOW

O'IIagan,AngeloP.
1968 Materiar Re-creation in the Apostoric Fathers.TU r00.
Berlin: Akademie.
Quasten,Johannes.
1950-60Paftology. 3 vols.Urecht-Antrverp: Spectrum.
Schoeps,Ilans J. rHEANrHR'":.T PoNrrcus
1951 Vom himmlischen Fleisch Christi: erne
fit"J":rltiRrus
dogrnengeschichtliche
(Jntersuchrng.Tiibingen: Mohr.
Tripolitis, Antonia Michael Olaughlin
I{arvard Divinity School
L97l "The Doctrine of the soul in the Thought of plotinus and
origen." Ph.D- dissertation. university of pennsylvania. part
published 1979,"Rehrn Eothe Divine: salvation in ttre Thought
of
The point of departurefor this paper is an rticle by Henri Crouzel
Plotinusand origen." In Don F. v/inslow (ed.), Disciplina Nostra:
inthe Bulletin de Literature Ecclesiastiquefor 196l entitled "Recherchessur
Esscysin Memory of Robert F. Evans@aristic Monograph Series
Origene et son influence."l In this article Crouzel notesone surprising and
6; Cambridge,ldA: philadelphiapatristic Foundarion, lgTg) l7l_
importantdifrererrcebetweenthe concepnralityof Origenand thatof Evagrius
78.
Ponticus, the 4th-century archdeacon of Gregory Nazianzus at
Constantinople. While both figures share many spiritual and theological
doctrines,their anthropologiesare strikingly different. The anthropologyof
Origen is a hierarchy of the o6pa or odpf, then the $vXtf , of which the
voQs is the higher part, and, finally, the nrcApa. Evagrius,by contrast, has
a strict oripa-t/tvyrf'vo0s anthropology.2 This difference has important
consequences.

lH. Crouzel, "Recherchessur Orig0neet son influence,"BLE 62

(1961):3-15,105-113.

2Crouzel also notes a role for the )tdyos in the Evagrian system.
However, here he has beenbetrayedby a remark in the l{ausherr book, Zes
Legons d'un contemplatif @aris: Beauchesne,1960), 17, which is his
principle sourceon Evagrius.In fact, there is no appreciablerole in the
anttnopologyof Evagriusfor the A6yos.

*t
 358 MICHAELOT-AUCHLIN
As you may know, Evagrius'scareerin Constantinoplelastedonly
slightlylongerthanthatof his bishopGregory--twoyearslaterhe hadentered
the Egyptiandesertand becomea monk. He lived the rest of his life among
the famousdesertfathersof the Natron valley. There he produceda large
corpusof spiritualwritings and took part in a brief flourishingof origenist
intellectualsamongthe earlymonks.3His treatiseswould becomeextremely
influential in the subsequenthistory of both monasticismand origenism.
Indeed, Antoine Guillaumont has shown that when that doctrine was
condemnedin 553, tre condemnationwas focusednot so muchon origen's
writingsas on thoseof Evagrius.4
In the following pagesI would like to presentthesetwo contrasting
anthropologies,
especiallythatofEvagrius,sincehe is the moreobscure,and
then offer some ideas concerningthe sourcesand ramifications of the
Evagrian system.In considerationof the small scopeof this paper, only
passingreferenceswill be madeto "anthropology"in the largersenseof the
word, i.e., the origin, natureand destinyof humanity.In this, the larger
schematizationof humanidentity and destiny,Evagriusrevealsa definite
dependenceon origen and the origenism of his dhe.5 Let us however
. ---^ ..rpl this-phenomenon, seeH. Evelyn-White,The Monasteriesof
the wddi 'n Natrfrn,Par.tTwo: TheHistory of theMonastertesof Nitria and
of scetis(New York:
I)??),8!tj: lf5: tvtetrgolitanMuieum of Art Egypri- r*j"oition,
ponriqueet les deuxUiiaire," tri'nitan
Q_Bunge, "Evagre li 56
(1983):215-227and323S6l,especially:50ff.
4A. Guillaumont,Les ,Kdphalaia
gnostica,d'Evagrele p,ontiqueet
l:His.loilg I'origdnismechezresgrecset ihe, tessyriens
!: baris: gaitons ou
Seuil, 1962).
5As *as noted by,L_X.._Murphy
in his paper at the Origen
conferencein Manchester in 1981,"Theretanbe no oouuithatEvagriusused
the cosmologicalspeculationsof origen regardingthe twofold creltion ano
the-apocatastasis
by way of backgroundfoi tris extravagantanthropology."
F X. Murphy, "Evagriosponrikosind origenism,"origeiia""ilii, rop"u
TTIEANTHROPOT,OGYOFEVACRIUS 359
examinethat part of anthropologywhich concemsthe makeupof the human
person.Herethe disciplehasevidentlyabandonedthe master.
For Crouzel and the many scholarswho have beeninfluencedby
him, the anthropologyof Origenis centeredaroundthevo0s which becomes
a soul as it distancesitself from God and cools.This soul is thenthe gtound
of the humanperson,the centerof the personalityandof free will. The zoOs
elementwithin the soul and forms the higherpart
remainsa disringuishable
of it.6 As such,it can also be called Adyos or f1yepovtr6v.7 This voAs
functionsas ttle "eye" of the soul, and is that part of the personcapableof
mystical contemplation.8The other two elementsmaking up the human
person--thespirit and the flesh,or body--bothrepresentlargerrealities,the
celestial world and the terrestrialworld, respectively.Although they are
intrinsicto the humanperson,theyarenot centralto it.
The spirit and the flesh impose on or influence the core of the
humanperson,the soul.T\e nteApa attemptsto guidethe soul towardsGod
and away from the distractionsof materiality.The entire celestialsphere,
including Christ, joins in this effort to influence the human soul for the
good. An oppositeinfluencecomesfrom the body and materiality,which
connectto the soul throughits lower half. The lower part of the humansoul
of the Third InternationalColloquiumfor OrigenStudies,Manchester,1981
@ome: Dell'Ateneo,1985),256.
6H. Crouzel,Th1otogiede l'inage de Dieu chezOrigine (Aubier:
Montaigne,1956).
TFor a history of theseterms and suggestionson how Origen
understoodthem, see Endre von Ivdnka,Plato Christianus (Eisiedeln:
19&), 32Zff.
Johannes,
8Fragment53 on Luke (GCS 9,258,15-6),see H. Crouzel,
"L'Antlropologie d'Origbnedansla perspectivedu combatspirituel,"Revue
d'Ascitiqueet deMystique3L (1955):373.
360 MICHAELOT-AUGHLIN
is that part which is subjectto deceptiveimaginationsand passions.Origen
thus seestle humansoul to be in a stateof continualspiritual struggleto
choosealwaysthe way of Christ and the rrueApa,and rejectthe way of the
passions,the Devil and materiality.The cent€rof the humanpersonis here
becauseit is the soul which has the power of choice,and this determines
one'sspiritualstateanddestiny.g
The nveipa is sentby God to guidethe soul. Origenis carefulto
distinguishbetweenthis guardianspirit in the personand the Holy Spirit.
They are two separaterealities.lOWhereasthe rveltrta is a supematural
presencewithin the person,and,in an exreme case,suchas that of a person
damnedto hell, can be removedby God, leaving the human person
fragmented,ll the body is a necessary
component--allbeings,eventhe pre-
exist€ntcelestialvoOg,areclothedin somesortof body.l2
I characterizeOrigen'score antlropology as a dichotomy, one made
up of body and soul with the rrueApa actingas a tangentaldivine element
functioningin oppositionto the body. crouzel would call this sameschema
a trichotomy, and would include the rveipa in the basic hierarchy;it
certainly is a trichotomy in many ways--evenorigen rifers to thethree pms
9Crouzelciles manytextsin supportof this, his main thesis.
Chief
alnongthem are: In Rom. 1: 18 PGl4, 866Cff. "ponemusesse aliquod
domicilium, in quo cum corpore et spiritu velut cum duobus consiliariis
lglitet anima..." (8678) andDe Principiis3.4.SeeThiologie,l33 and
"L'Anthropologie,"366,370ff.
t\O-tgloguewith Heraclides6 (SC 67, ed. Scherer,
- 71); Origen
drawson Biblical sourcesto clarify this distinction,especiallyI cor. 2:ll,
see,On Matthew13,2(GCS10,p. 180,lTff).
llDe Principiis 2,10,7;seealso,H. Crouzel,"L'Anthropologie,,'
367.
l2De Principiis 2,2,2; c.f. however 1,7.
TTIE ANTHROPOI,OGYOFEVAGRIUS 361
of a humanbeing,l3 but, to avoid confusingOrigen'sschemawith other
systemswhich hold that the vo1g is separatefrom the soul, I shall call it a
dichotomy.
Spiritual strugglebetweendifferent parts of the soul is a theme
developedalreadyin Plato'sPhaedrus,wherethe soul is likenedto a chariot
pulled by two horsesof oppositedispositions--one
representingthe higher
impulsesof the soul,the otherthe passionsand unruly elements.l4 Indeed,
the anthropologyof Origen is not unique to him, but is largely presentin
kenaeus,who recognizesa ofipr$uSgf dichotomyin the humanpersonwith
the volg and the heavenlyrveApa functioningas activitiesof the soul.ls
The differencebetweenOrigen and Ireneausis the importancewhich Origen
assignsto the soul.Ireneaus,asOrbetells us, heldthat,
The soul, far from constitutingthe humanspecies,as Platonistsor
Origenistsmight teach,practicallyspeakingdoesnot evenreachthe
level of substantive
existence.l6
I believethat ttrerewerein fact two basicanthropologicalschemas
in competitionwith eachotherin this era,a dichotomousone,which divided
l3E.g., Commentaryon Romans,2,g (PG 14, col. 893D);see
also,H. Crouzel,"L'Antlropologie," 367.
l4Phto, Phaedrus 2468,253Dtt: Seealso the commentsof A.M.
Festugidre,"La Trichotomiede I Thess.5:23 et la philosophiegrecque,"
RSn 20 (1930):390.
lslrenaeus,AdversusHaereses3.29.3;seefurther,M. Spanneut,
Le
desplres de I'dglise@aris:Editionsdu Seuil, 1957),149.
Sto'icisme
16A. Orbe,Antropologiade san lreneo (Bibliotecade autores
christianus;Madrid:La EditorialCat6lica,1969),73.
 362 MICHAELOT-AUGHLIN
soul and spirit, and a trichotomousone, which saw both the soul and the
body as part of worldly being, in contrastto the heavenlyelementof r,rcfgor
rveApa.lT Origen and Irenaeushave elementsof both thesesystems.I
believe they are closerto the dichotomousmodel, however,becausethey
place the humansoul in the middle of the personalityand the basic division
of the humanpersonbetweenthe soul and the body.
Didymusthe Blind, a contemporaryof Evagriuswhom Athanasius
hadappointedheadof the catecheticalschoolin AlexandrialSprovidesa good
exampleof the dichotomousanthropologyat the time of Evagrius.Like
Origen, he also saw humanbeingsas a union of soul and body, with the
zo09forming the higher part of the soul. He evenholds that thereis a special
divine elementin humanbeings,the samenotion of nve1po as Origen.l9
Adolphe Gesch6found that Didymus uses this presumablyOrigenist
anthropologyof body and soul in the Commentaryon the Psalmswhen he
wishesto be preciseand scientific.20 But he also employsa trichotomous
17H. Conzelmann,I Corinthians (Hermeneia; philadelphia:
Fortress, 1975), 67-8: Excursus: {uXi, "Soul"; Manuel Guerra,
Antropologiasy teologia@amplona:
UniversidaddeNavarra,1976),ll7.
18seeG. Bardy, "Pour l'histoire de l'dcoled'Alexandrie Vivre
,,, et
Penser (= RB) 2 Q9 \: 80-109, for the uncertaincontinuity of this
institution.
l9The clearesttext is in theCommentaryon Zachariaft
12. l-3, SC
IlI323, lI-29 G,.892-4).SeeS. Reynolds,Man, Incarnationand Trinity in
the Commentaryon Zachariahof DidymustheBlind of Alexandria,(Th.D.
diss., HarvardUniversiry, 1966),8-25; andMApKOf A. OpeANOf, H
VTXT /O4I 70 .XZMA 7Ar ANEFr?]rOr ANAAEKTA BMTAAAN2I:
Thessaloniki:PanayorisChrisrou,1974),esp.42-74.
20AdolpheGesch6,La christologiedu <Commentaire
sur les
Psaurnes> dToura (Gembloux:
ddcouvert J. Duculot,1962),l3O.
OFEVACRruS
THEANTIIROPOI,OGY 363
anthropologyin which the rroOsis separateand canbe called by severalother
names,oneof which is we0pa.
Didymus slips into this older2l framework when speakingless
precisely.I believethis indicatesthat the richotomy was a more common,
division is found in
This widely-accepted
lesstechnical conceptualization.
l
Plato, of course,22and it is also presentin Philo,23in Justin lv1artyr,24
in
rir
Plutarch,25and in Marcus Aurelius.26After Philo it is found next in the
Alexandriantradition in Clementof Alexandri*1 andPlotinus.28It was also
popular among Gnostics; the Valentinians even divided humanity into
spiritual, psychic and matter-orientedpeople.29Its wide popularity and
ancientroots are one explanationfor its use by Didymus even though he
21AsConzelmannshows(fn. 17),dichotomousanthropologiesare
actuallyoldest.Trichotomousmodelsresultfrom a devaluationof "soul."
22Plato, Timaeus 308; The Laws 96lD-E; Phaedrus 247Cff.
(Aoytopdslvotg, ./tux71,o6pa).
23Philo,Legum Allegoria 1.32, ed' Wendland,1,69,6ff(voAt,
$uXfi, odpa).
24JustinMartyr, SecondApology l0 Qt6yos, t/tuyfi, otfipa).
25Pluuarch,Moralia, De facie in orbe lunae 943A (voAs, tuxrf,
orfrpa).
26MarcusAurelius,M editationes2,2,1i 3,16,1;7,16:l-4: 8,56,1;
l2,3,Ii 12,3,1;I2,14A-5(vois, *uXf, odpa).
2TClementof Alexandria,Stromata 3,68,5 PG 8, 1113Bff
(voAs/rve0paliyepourc6v, {uXt, odpj; SeeM. Spanneut,op. cit., 167
for the variationin the first element.
28Plotinus,Whatis Man?, Enneades1,I,4, (votg:, t/tuXr\,odpa).
29H.Jonas,TheGnosticReligion(2nd.ed.;Boston:Beacon,1963),
44:On theValentinians,seelrenaeus,AdversusHaeresesl.'1.
3& MCHAELOI-AUGHLIN
preferredthe dichotomoussystem.His waveringbetweentwo modelsalso
indicatesthat ambiguitybetweendichotomyand trichotomywasacceptedand
wasperhapstypical of the anthropologiesof the age.
The Evagrian anthropological model begins, not with the
dichotomoussystem of Origen, but with the more broadly-accepted
Eichotomy. Evagrius,unlike Didymus, eschewsambiguity. Following a
tendencyalreadyvisible in ldarcus Aurelius, Plutarch,and the Gnostics,the
voig is presentedclearly by Evagriusas independentof the soul and the true
center-pointof the humanperson.As Hausherrputsit,
The voAs is not just a faculty of the soul, but the essenceitself of
the person,ofwhich the body and the soul do not representanything
morethan lower gradations.3o
Whereas the voAs in its original unfallen state is clothed by a
heavenlybody in Origen,3l in Evagriusit is pure spirit, one of the many
rational beingswhich are gatheredaroundGod. When the vob falls from its
original position in Origen it becomescold and heavy,32in Evagriusit
becomesthick.33Even in its thicknessthercAs remainsa spiritualreality,
infinite and comprehensible
only to God.34When this zoOsdescendsfully
30I. Haushen,"Nouveauxfragments,"73.
3| D e P rincipiis,2,2,2.
3?rbid,2,g,3.
33KephataiaGnostica4,6
eq 28,1,ed. Guillaumont);pseudo-
Basilius, Epistula 8, Saint Basil, The Letters (4 vols.; Loeb Classical
Library; ed. Deferrari) 1,73).
34Practicus
47 (SC 170,1,ed.Guillaumont).
THEANTI{ROPOI,OGYOFEVAGRruS 365
to the level of practicalexistence,it expandsto include soul. However,in
expanding,the voAsis not encasedwithin the soulas in Origen.The soul is
ratheran outgrowthor additionto lhe voAs:separatefrom it.35 The soul is
subjectto sickness,to passionsand feeling.Yet it alsoremainsimmaterial36
capacityfor growth and progress.The soul remainswith the
and possesses
vois: evenwhenthe voOsreturnsto God.37
The soul in Evagriusis divided into threeparts, the rational, the
irrascible and the concupiscible,as in Origen and most of the Platonic
tradition.3S Togetherthe irrascible and the concupiscibleelementsmakeup
half of the soul.In this spherepassionsand delusionsand vice
the passionate
can hold sway,but the partsof the soul themselves
arenot evil. As Evagrius
puts it,
If all evil indeed arisesout of the rational, the irrascible or the
concupisciblespheres,and it is throughthesepowersthat we are
3sKephataia Gnostics 3,28: -The soul is the voAg which, due to
negligence,hasfallen from Unity andwhich,dueto its lack of vigilance,has
descended to the level of "nparcrwfi." (Cf. Ad Melaniam,ed., Frankenberg,
Euagrios Ponticus (Abhandlungender K0niglichen Gesellshaftder
Wissenschaften zu G0ttingen,Philol.-hist.Kl., neueFolge,Band 13, no. 2,
Berlin, 1912),618, 2-3. Herc Evagriusis more concernedto indicate the
sonrceof the soul thanits relationshipto the voAgwithin the humanperson.
36K ephalaia Gno stica 1,45.
37lbid, 2,29.The eschatological
aspectof this anthropologywill be
dealt with furttrerbelow.
3SPracticus 89. He also notes that in angelsthe yo0s is
predominant,in humanbeingsthe tm1vpta is predominant,and in demons
it is ttre 1Aposwhich is dominant--Kephalaia Gnostica1,68. This means
that angelshave souls,as in Origen--De Principiis 2,8,1. Indeed,the
demonshavebothsoulsandbodies- KeplwlaiaGnostica124.
 t
f
36 MCHAELOT.AUGHLIN TI{E ANTT{ROPOI'GYOFEVAGRruS 367
f
il
:'l
able to act well or badly, clearly it is the result of our usageof these grateful for it.42The higher, intelligible body appearsto function as a bridge
\i

parts that evils befall us; and if this is the case,for nothing which
God hasmadeis evil.39
t betweenthe soul and the lower body. The type of visible body which is
i
l"i
I
Nonetheless,
the soul is a handicapanda dangerfor the rzoOs
which
is anachedto it. The voAgcanbe distractedfrom God by the forcesat play in
$
thesoul.So we readnthe KephalaiaGnostica:
,i
The vo0s, if it advancesalong its own path, is reunitedwith the
holy powers,but if it follows that of the organ of the soul, it falls
amongthe demons.40
The body, for Evagrius,is of a entirely different order than the vofis:
and the soul. While the vo0g and its appendage,tle soul, can be said to
belongentirelyto God'sfirst creation(in Evagrianterms,thefrst nsture) or
to be dependenton it, the body has two parts,two natures,and the lower,
visible natureis part of a separatesecondcreation.4l It and the material
world of which it is part were createdby God aftei the fall to be a resting
place'andladderthroughwhich the fallen volg might refocusitself on God
and recover its spiritual stature.Thus the visible body, like the soul, is
providentialratherthan evil; it is a tool providedby God, and one must be
"joined" to the soul createseithera humanperson,an angelor a demon,so
being truly human meansnothing more than being joined to a human
body.43 As in Origen, there is a gradationof bodies in Evagrius, according
to the degreeof "negligenceJ44Yet the entranceof the r-o0sinto the realm
of corporeality is seen overall as a divine intervention and part of the
Heilsgeschichte,unlke Origen,who specificallysaysit is a punishment.45
Wilhout the body, the soul hasno way of functioningand has no locus for
existence.46
To fully understandEvagrius'santhropology,we must ask how he
cameby it. Sinceit is not inspiredby Origenor sharedwith Didymus,let us
consider the influence of Evagrius's teacher and bishop, Gregory of
Nazianzus.4TEvagriusclearly statesthat his division of the soul in0othree
partswas learnedfrom Gregory,48andit is possiblethat his indebtedness
to
him in the realm of anthropologywas greaterstill.
42K ep halaia Gno stica 3,53i4,60,62, 76; 6,75i Pr acticus 29.
43KephalaiaGnostica1,4, 11,58, 63, etc.;seeGuillaumont,op.
cit., 110-1,n. 135. On the body as a hallmarkof humanexistence,see,
KephalaiaGnostica3,29.As notedabove(fn. 38),demonsalsohavebodies.
M D e Pri ncipiis, 1,7,1-4; KephalaiaGnos tica 2,68,72, 76, 7g.

45De Principiis,1,8,1.
39K ephataiaGnostica 3,59.
46K ephalaia Gnostica, I,47, 48.
40KephalaiaGno stica2,48.
47Forthe strongrelationshipbenveenEvagriusand Gregory, seeA.
4rAd Metaniam,Textin G. Vitestam,"secondepartie
du trait6,qui Guillaumont,Evagrele-Pontique,TraitCpratique6u Le Moine (Z rlof.; SC
passesous le nom de <<Lagrdnde lettre d'Evagrele pontique i Mdlanie 170,1;Paris:Editionsdu Cerf; l97l),1.22t.
I'Ancienne>,"(Scripta minora 3l; Lund: Regiaesocietatishumaniorum
litterarumlundensis,196,4),ll-14. 48Practicus,89.
368 MICHAELO'LAUGHLIN
In Gregoryof Nazianzus,Lhepneuma-sarx
dichotomyis forcefully
presented.
For Gregory,thereare Lhreeseparatespheresof being:God, spirit
and matter,andhumanityspansboth of the latter.49yet the anthropologyof
Gregory is trichotomous,S0
or quintachotomous,
as Epistle l0l shows,
wherehe savs:
As to intclligibleand incorporealelemenrs,
considerthat I myself
conhin a soulanda A6yogancla voCs'
andtheHoly Spirit.5l
In Gregorythe voAs is scparatcfrom the soul as in Evagrius.It
rulesthe soul and body andcan be calledthe strongpointand centerof the
personality.s2 Gregory'stendency,as we seefrom the quotation,is to
expandthe basic Lhreeelementsto include a fourth, the idZos, and,
occasionally,he also includesthe spirit, which he calls the Holy Spirit.
However,rveipa in Gregoryis an aspectof the humanpersonwhich cannot
be considereda basicconstitutiveelementon thelevel of.vokl soul or body.
I am inclined to see the systematizationof Gregory as the basic
sourcefor that of Evagrius.If this is allowed,it appearsthat Evagriushas
movedfrom a looseanthropologywhich couldbe expandedlo include A6yos
andwe1pa or aseasilyreducedto a soul-bodydichotomyto a morerigid and
inflexiblemodel.In Evagriuswe do not,evenseea variationin terminology,
49Oratio7:23;A. Ellverson,TheDual Nature
of Man, A Studyin
the TheologicalAnthropologyof Gregoryof Nazianzus(StudiaDoctrinae
Christianae
Upsaliensia21; Uppsala,1981),13.
5oOratio32,9.
5LEpistuta101,38;texl.from ed.
Gallay,SC 20g,52.
szEpistulaI0I,43.
TTIEANTTIROPOI,OGY
OFEVAGRruS 369
let alone in the number of possible elements.This is in keeping with
Evagrius'sgeneralcharacterand outlook, first recognizedby von Balthasar,
who wrote of him,
Bvagriusl hasbrought the loose flowing and changingsystemof
Origento a final, mathematicallyexactprecision.In doing this, he
has sacrificed Origen's versatile thought to an iron-clad systemto
which he holdsfast,comewhat may,to its final consequences.53
Besidesremoving the ambiguitiesof the Origenist or Gregorian
conceptionof the humanperson,Evagriusis alsoreturning to older traditions
going back to Plato. Here we see a manifestation of his tendency to seek
answersin earlier figures, which was what led him to becomea studentof
Origen's writings in the first place.54It is also possiblethat the rigid,
tripartite division he espousesreflectsa gnosticizingconceptualitypopularin
the Egyptian desert.55 Evagriusmade severaltrips into remote areasto
questionthe great ascetics.We have an accountof his trip to seeJohn of
53H. von Balthasar,"The Metaphysicsand Mystical Theology of
Evagrius,"trans.MonasticStudies3 (1965):l8a.
54Evagrius'sadheranceto earlier monasticfiadition is avowedin
Practicus 91. This doesnot meanthat Evagriuswas not an innovator.As
Bouyersaysof him, "[He was] one of thosethat not only markeda decisive
turning-point, but called forth a real spiritual mutation." The Spirituality of
the New Testanvnt and the Fathers (History of Christian Spirinrality I; New
York Seabury,1963),381.
55Onthe popularityof the trichotomyamongthe Gnostics,seeM.
Spanneut,op. cit, 150, 176.On the conneciionbetweenGnosticismand the
monks,seeFrederikWisse,"Gnosticismand Eady Monasticismin Egypt,"
in B. Aland, ed.,Gnosis@estschriftfor HansJonas;Gtittingen,1978):431-
40.
 370 MICHAELOI-AUGHLIN TTIEANTTIROPOLOCY
OFEVAGRruS 37r

Lycopolis. He tells us he quesrionedJohn about the right

seen in vot:, and the noetic creationit sharesin, are the body of God-Father, Son
contemplativeascent--wasitthe vols itself which emittedthis glow?56
such and Spirit.6l Likewise, thereis a divine soul in heaven;it is composile,
a questionis only intelligible if "voig" was a sufficiently common
made up of the Son, or Word, and the Spiril62 The divine yoOs is the
anthropologicalconceptionamongthe monksof the desert.57
Father.63 Thus the humanbeing is a microcosmof the divine. perhapsthis
crouzel was disappointedto find that in the Evagrian anthropology
speculationis anotherwitnessto the enormousimportanceof Genesisl:26--
there was no role for the spirit, and hence,a different understanding
of "Let us make man in our image," for desertmonastics.The interpretationof
spiritualcombat.58In fact, the elementof spiritualcombatis present
in both this verse was central to the origenist crisis,64 which Guillaumont
Gregory59andEvagrius.But, as the previousquotationfrom the Kepharaia
speculatesmay have been causedin part by the publication of Evagrius's
Gnosticaindicates,the soul in Evagriusis a hinderanceand a danger
to the work,De Oratione.65
vois in this inner struggle.In the best of cases,the
sour becomes There is one aspectof Evagrius'selaborateeschatologywhich also
submissiveand obedient to the voAs. While getting to this point
is a seemsto be basedon this speculation:Evagriussaw the voAs asbeing freed
contestof strengthfor the opposingelementsin the humancharacter,60
the and naked in the end, while in somesenseit also remainedtied to the soul
soul is far from being the sole or central area of spiritual combat.
Thus and possibly to a purified body. one model for the final relationshipof these
Evagriusonly partially preservesthe insightsof Origen.
pars is absorptionof the body and soul into the zoCg
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this question is
the
speculationwhich Evagriuswas able to engagein basedon the
trichotomous A time will come when the namesand numberswill be removed
anthropology.In his retter,Ad Meraniamwe find evidence,which, pieced
from betweenthe body and the soul and thevoisbq,ause they will
togetrer, shows that Evagrius believed that the ttrree parts
of humanity enler the realm of theypts.66
correspondedto three metaphysicalrevelsof God and noetic
reality. The

S6Antirrheticzs, 6lAd Metamarz,Frankenberg614,31-2 (Spirit

Acedia16 @rankenberg524,7_14). and Word), 34-5
(Father);616,17-8(Sonand Spirit),23 (Father).

.57Ananthropogicalstudyof the sayingsof the desertfatherswourd 62rbid, 616,t6-7.

be a fruitful area of-frith". rtudy. rtt" ;;ii;;. are
being oo*
LucienRegnaulr,res sentences dis pcresdi d6"sert(soremie.sialu#
"oii"i:Lv suin,
Pierrede Solemnes,1966andcontinuingj. 63rbid,6t4,33.

58H.Ctou"el,"Recherches,,, 64Asis seenin Cassian,Conlatio 10,2-4

IIl. and Socrates,Historia
Ecclesiastics
6,7.
sgcregory,
Oratio2,9I. 654,.Guillaumont,Les K1phalaia,61.
6oAdM etaniam,V itlstam -21.
13 66AdMelanian, Frankenberg616,2O-1.
 372 MICHAELOI-AUGHLIN
In fact, the overall model which Evagrius seemsto presupposeis a melding
of the humanpersoninto the Trinity. The yoOl is attractedto the Father,the
Soul and its dependentbody (now purified of its lower nature)is joined !o the
Sonand Spirit:
Rather,as the nahrreof the yoOsis joined to tle natureof the Father
by being his body, thus the names "soul" and "body', will be
swallowedup by the hypostases
of the Sonand the Spiri1.67
Evagriusclaimsthat his doctrinesare basedon insightswhich had
occurredto him.68 It is interestingto nole theindirectparallelswith Middle
and Neoplatonistideas.69That the highestprincipleor "father"is a',voig:,,
is an ideafound alsoin Numinius,ldaximusof Tyre andthe paganOrigen.70
That the lower realm is "soul" is even more widely attested. plotinus of
coursetaught that the inner realm of fte humanpersoncorrespondedto the
hierarchyof the universe,Tland that humanityis situatedon the third and
67lbid,616,z5-7.
58lbid, 616,3;note the emendationof this passage
suggested
in A.
Guillaumont,
Les KCphalaia,I2In. I74.
69For a Platonist interpretationof Evagrius,
see, StephanOtto,
"Esoterikund individualistischeGnosis:Der mdnchischeplatonismusdes
E_ryrgrio.s
Pontikos," in, idem, Die Antike im Umbruch (Munich: List,
1974),65-81.
f0Numinius, Frag. 17 and 22; Maxjmusof Tyre,
Diss.9, g-12:
Origen,In Plat. theol.2,4;seefurther,p.W. Van Der Horit andJ. Mansfield,
An AlexandrianPlatonistAgainstDualisme.eider,:Brill, 1974),11ff.
7lP. Hadot, Plotin ou la simplicit€
du regard (paris: Etudes
Augustiniennes, 1973), 28.
OFEVAGRruS
THEANTHROPOI,OGY J/J
lowestlevel of the divine.72lohn Rist hasrecentlyestablishedthat the two
Cappadocianteachersof Evagrius,Gregory and Basil, becamesomewhat
interestedin Plotinus in the later parts of their lives, exactly the time when
Evagriuswas with them.73 We are alsotold by theHistoria Monachorum
that Evagriusfrequently found himself in debateswith paganphilosophersin
Alexandria.T4Thus Middle or Neoplatonistinfluenceis not impossible.
Alexander of Lycopolis is a good example of an Alexandrian
Neoplatonicphilosopher,albeit a century eatlier, with whom Evagriusmight
have felt someaffinity. For Alexanderas well as for Evagrius,the highest
principle was a celestialvoAg,matterwasproducedby that yo09 and hence
was not evil, and Christ himself was a voIs: come into the world,75 the
docrine for which Evagriuswasspecificallycondemnedin 553.76
T2Plotinus,What Is Man?, Enneades1,1,8; see also A.H.
Armstrong, The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval
P hilosophy(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity,1967),223.
73J.Rist, "Basil's 'Neoplatonism':Its Backgroundand Nature,' in
P. Fedwick, e/'., Basil of Caesaria,Christian, Humanist,Ascetic (2 vols.,
Toronto:PontificalInstituteof MedievalStudies,1981),l. 21620.
74Historia M onachorum20,15.
TsAlexanderof Lycopolis,Critiqueof theDoctrinesof Maniclweus
(ed.Van der HorstandMansfield,op. cit.), 60,68ff, 91ff.
76A. Guillaumont,ler Ktphalaia, 147-56,